RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/M/27 
12 September 2005 
 
 (05-3953) 
Committee on Safeguards  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 4 APRIL 2005 
 
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 4 April 2005. 
2. The following agenda was adopted: 
Page
 
A. NATIONAL  LEGISLATION.....................................................................................................2  
1. Barbados – Review of New Legislative Notification ..............................................................2  
2. Canada – Review of New Legislative Notification .................................................................3  
3. China – Review of New Legislative Notification ....................................................................3  
4. Croatia – Review of New Legislative Notification..................................................................3  
5. European Communities – Review of New Legislative Notification ......................................3  
6. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Review of New Legislative Notification ........3  
7. Jordan – Review of New Legislative Notification ..................................................................3  
8. Peru – Review of New Legislative Notification ......................................................................4  
9. South Africa – Review of New Legislative Notification.........................................................5  
10. China – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative Notification ....................5  
11. Jamaica – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative Notification ................5  
12. Turkey – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative Notification..................5  
B. NOTIFICATIONS  OF ACTIONS  RELATED  TO SAFEGUARD  MEASURES ......................7  
1. Brazil - Desiccated Peeled Coconut .........................................................................................7  
2. Canada – Bicycles .............................................................................................................. .......7  
3. Chile – Wheat Flour............................................................................................................ ......7  
4. European Communities – Salmon...........................................................................................7  
5. India – Starches............................................................................................................... ..........9  
6. Indonesia – Cerami c Tableware ..............................................................................................9  
7. Jordan -- Insecticides......................................................................................................... .......9  
8. Moldova – Cosmetics and Perfumery Products ...................................................................10  
9. Morocco – Cera mic Tiles........................................................................................................ 10 
10. Peru – Certain Made-Up Textile Articles.............................................................................11  G/SG/M/27 
Page 2  
 
 11.
 Philippines – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles.........................................................................11  
12. Turkey – Certain Glassware..................................................................................................11  
C. APPLICATION  OF ARTICLE  9.1...........................................................................................11  
D. OTHER  BUSINESS .................................................................................................................16  
1. Brazil – Toys.................................................................................................................. ..........17  
2. Report on the Consultations on the Implications of the Harmonized Rules of Origin.....18  
E. DATE  OF NEXT  REGULAR  MEETING ................................................................................18  
F. ELECTION  OF OFFICERS......................................................................................................18  
 
 
 
A. NATIONAL  LEGISLATION 
3. The Chairman  stated that the first item on the Committee's agenda was the review of 
notifications of national safeguard  legislation and/or regulations, in accordance with the procedures 
adopted by the Committee at its special meeting in  April 1996.  The Chairman mentioned that as it 
had been indicated in the airgram convening this  meeting, the Committee had received legislative 
notifications from 9 Members.  As indicated in th e annotated draft agenda dated 25 February 2005, 
questions regarding these legislative notifications  were to have been submitted to the Member 
concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 14 March 2005. 
4. Concerning the procedure for this meeting, the Ch airman stated that he would first give the 
floor to the Member whose legislation was being revi ewed, to make any introductory statement that it 
wished.  He would then invite that Member to  present its answers to any written questions.  The 
Chairman reminded Members of the Committee that  in accordance with the procedures adopted by 
the Committee, a written version of those answers al so had to be provided after the meeting.  The 
Chairman also reminded Members that follow-up ques tions could be asked at this meeting.  Other 
delegations would also be given an opportunity to pr esent questions orally at this meeting.  After the 
meeting, there would be a period for the submi ssion of written questions concerning any of the 
legislations reviewed in the meeting. 
5. The Chairman mentioned that if Members wished  to have written answers to questions, they 
had to ensure that all questions were presented in writing to the Member whose legislation was 
concerned, and to the Secretariat, no later than th ree weeks after the meeting, i.e., no later than 
25 April  2005.  Written answers to all questions su bmitted in writing by that deadline should be 
submitted to the Secretariat no later than three weeks later, i.e., no later than 17 May 2005. 
1. Barbados – Review of New Legislative Notification 
6. The Chairman  noted that the first legislative notific ation on the agenda was Barbados' nil 
notification contained in document G/SG/N/1/BRB/1.  
7. The representative of Barbados  briefly stated that the Government of Barbados did not 
currently have any safeguard legislations.  
8. No other delegation took the floor for comment or question.  G/SG/M/27 
 Page 3 
 
 
 2. Canada – Review of New Legislative Notification 
9. The Chairman  noted that Canada's legislative no tification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/CAN/3.   
10. The representative of Canada  stated that changes were ma de to implement the Free Trade 
Agreements concluded with Israel and Chile, as well as to restructure Canada's customs tariff.  He 
explained that the notification also included the te xt of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal 
Regulations which defined key c oncepts and provided guidelines to the Tribunal in relation to 
safeguard enquiries.  
11. No other delegation took the floor for comment or question. 
3. China – Review of New Legislative Notification 
12. The Chairman  noted that China's legislative notifi cations were contained in documents 
G/SG/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.3 and Suppl.4.   
13. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
4. Croatia – Review of New Legislative Notification 
14. The Chairman  noted that Croatia's legislative no tification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/HRV/2/Add.1. 
15. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
5. European Communities – Review of New Legislative Notification 
16. The Chairman  noted that the European Communities' legislative notification was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/EEC/1/Suppl.2.   
17. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
6. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Review of New Legislative Notification 
18. The Chairman  noted that the legislative notificati on of the Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia was contained in document G/SG/N/1/MKD/1.   
19. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
7. Jordan – Review of New Legislative Notification 
20. The Chairman  noted that Jordan's corrigendum notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/JOR/2/Corr.2.   
21. The representative of Jordan  stated that as was mentioned in the last meeting, the law was 
notified before finalising the internal legal pr ocedures, and so the words "Temporary National 
Production Protection Law" were added to the title.  He  stated that after having finalized the internal 
legal procedures, a new notification was sent to the Secretariat and was issued as document 
G/SG/N/1/JOR/3. He stated that it would be on the agenda of the next meeting. G/SG/M/27 
Page 4  
 
 8. Peru – Review of New Legislative Notification 
22. The Chairman
 noted that Peru's legislative notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/PER/2/Suppl.2.  He also stated that Boliv ia had submitted a questi on on this notification, 
contained in document G/SG/Q1/PER/3.  
23. The representative of Peru  stated that in the interest of time, she would sum up the oral 
response, as the written response had already been  submitted to the Secretariat for circulation1. 
Concerning the first question, she stated that paragraph 2 of the Supreme Decree on Safeguards 
No. 017-2004 of the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Tourism did refer to the products contained in 
Annex 1 of the Agriculture Agreement.  The paragr aph stated that "it will refer to the Safeguards 
Measures concerning products in the Annex 1 of th e Agriculture Agreement".  The second part of the 
question was why this measure was stipulated wh en special safeguard for similar products was 
provided for in Article 5 of the Agreement on Ag riculture.  She responded that for agricultural 
products contained in Annex 1 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Members could also have recourse 
to the general safeguards.  Therefore, these were choices which could legitimately be made.  Only a 
group of countries, not including Peru, which ma de certain commitments in the Uruguay Round could 
avail themselves of the special safeguard.  
24. On the second question, she stated that accordi ng to Article 6 of the Safeguards Agreement 
the investigating authority should make a prelimin ary determination on serious injury, and so the 
preliminary technical report had to assess the incr ease of imports of the product in absolute and 
relative terms, the share of the domestic market taken by increased imports, changes in the level of 
sales, production, productivity, capacity utilization,  profits and losses and employment.  All these 
were covered by Article 31 of the Su preme Decree  No. 017-2004–MINCETUR. 
25. On the third question, she stated that Artic le 45 of Supreme Decree 020-98-ITINCI provided 
that in order to the extend a safeguard measure, the Multisectoral Commission had to base its decision 
on the technical report of the investigating authorit y and on the finding that its application would 
continue to be necessary to prevent or remedy ser ious injury and that th ere was evidence that the 
industry was adjusting, and provided that the provi sions of the WTO Agreements on consultations and 
notifications were observed. 
26. On the fourth question, she st ated as follows: Supreme Decree  020-98-ITINCI was issued in 
1998, when the products of the textile sector were still being integrated.  Peru now considered it 
necessary to apply safeguard measures to the produc ts in the textile and garment sector.  The 
investigation should be carried out under th e provisions of the Safeguards Agreement. 
27. On question five, she stated as follows: Article  31 of the Supreme Decree referred to the 
contents of the standard for approving a safeguard measure.  All the elements indicated by Bolivia had 
to be contained in a technical report by the investig ating authority, and that would be the basis for the 
decision of the Multisectoral Commission.  All these elements were contained in Article 20 of the Supreme Decree. 
28. On question six, she stated as follows:  The Safeguards Agreement provided for a period of 
up to 8 years, but Peru thought it appropriate that  the total duration including a provisional measure 
should not exceed six years.  That did not contravene the multilateral rule.   
29. On question seven, she stated th at while the last part of paragraph 4 of Article 7 of the 
Safeguards Agreement referred to measures whose durati on exceeded 4 years, Peru's rule in Article 39 
                                                     
 
1 Subsequently circulated as document G/SG/Q1/PER/4.  G/SG/M/27 
 Page 5 
 
 
 established that the duration of the safeguard measu re should not exceed 3 years, and so it was not 
applicable. 
30. Finally, she pointed out that if an issue was not explicitly mentioned in national rules, the 
Safeguards Agreement had to be applied both by th e investigating authority and by the Multisectoral 
Commissioner. 
31. The representative of Bolivia  thanked the delegation of Peru for the responses and reserved 
the right to pose further questions. 
9. South Africa – Review of New Legislative Notification 
32. The Chairman  noted that South Africa's legislative notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/ZAF/2.   
33. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
10. China – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative Notification 
34. The Chairman  recalled that this agenda related to  a legislative notification from China 
previously considered in the Committee (see docum ents G/SG/N/1/CHN/2 and Suppl.1 and Suppl.2).  
The Chairman noted that written questions concer ning this notification had been received from 
Mexico in document G/SG/Q1/CHN/20 as well as  from the European Communities in document 
G/SG/Q1/CHN/21, and stated that China had recen tly submitted its responses  to both documents in 
G/SG/Q1/CHN/22.   
35. The representative of Mexico  thanked China for the reply a nd reserved the right to submit 
additional questions in the future.  
36. The representative of the European Communities  thanked China for the reply and stated that 
they particularly appreciated the promise by China to  apply Article 31 in conformity with WTO rules.  
He further stated that the language of this provisi on remained a matter of concern for the EC, because 
they saw a link between these provisions and Article 7 of the Foreign and Trade Law, which they regarded as a parallel provision referring to the possibility of China adopting countermeasures if 
China considered that there were discriminatory pr ohibitions by third countries on Chinese exports.  
The EC reserved the right to pose fu rther questions on this issue.  
11. Jamaica – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative Notification 
37. The Chairman
 recalled that this agenda related to a legislative notification from Jamaica 
previously considered in the Committee (see documen t G/SG/N/1/JAM/2).  The Chairman noted that  
written questions concerning this no tification had been received from the United States in document 
G/SG/Q1/JAM/1 and that Jamaica had provided its responses in document G/SG/Q1/JAM/2.   
38. The representative of the United States  thanked Jamaica for the reply and reserved the right to 
submit further questions.  
12. Turkey – Continuing Review of Previous ly Reviewed Legislative Notification 
39. The Chairman  recalled that this agenda related to  a notification from Turkey previously 
considered in the Committee (see document G/SG/N /1/TUR/3).  The Chairman noted  that written 
questions concerning this notification had b een received from Chinese Taipei in document G/SG/M/27 
Page 6  
 
 G/SG/Q1/TUR/2 and from the United States in docu ment G/SG/Q1/TUR/3, and that Turkey had 
submitted its responses to both documents  in document G/SG/Q1/TUR/4.   
40. The representative of the United States
 thanked Turkey for the response and reserved the right 
to pose further questions.  The Representative of Chinese Taipei thanked Turkey for the response and 
stated that he had no further questions. 
41. The Chairman  stated that the legislative review process was, as always, of benefit to the 
Committee.  He reminded Members that the d eadline for any written questions concerning the 
legislations reviewed at this meeting was 25 Ap ril 2005.  The deadline for written answers to all 
questions asked in writing was 17 May 2005. 
42. Concerning these deadlines, he reminded the Committee of the importance of providing 
written answers to written questions posed.  Such exchanges constituted the Committee's only record 
of the review of legislations.  Thus, the Committ ee's records were left incomplete when written 
questions were not answered, or only answered long  after the meeting where the review took place.  
In this context, he urged all Members to abide by the deadlines set by th e Committee for the provision 
of written replies to written questions. 
43. Before proceeding to the next agenda item, th e Chairman informed th e Committee that there 
were still 30 Members that had not yet made a legi slative notification:  Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, 
Belize, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Centra l African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic 
of the Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, the Gambia, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Kuwait, Mali, 
Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Papua  New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, 
Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Sierra Leone, So lomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania and Togo. 
44. The Chairman noted that the notifications fro m Barbados and the Former Yugoslav Republic 
were their first legislative notifications.  He al so noted that Albania had recently submitted a nil 
notification but Albania's notification was submitted too recently to be taken up at this meeting, and 
that it would be taken up at the next meeting.   He congratulated these three Members on their 
notifications, and encourage those who still had no t made any notifications to follow their good 
examples.  The Chairman regretted that the number of Members that had failed to make any 
legislative notification remained high.  He urged these Members to make the required notification, 
and reminded that in cases where no legislation exis ted, only a very simple "nil" notification was 
required.  
45. The representative of the United States  stated that he was in complete agreement with the 
Chairman on the need for all Members to participate in  the legislative notification exercise.  He stated 
that the United States attached considerable importan ce to these items as a systemic issue and that the 
United States had always tried to review the notific ations as carefully as possible.  He further stated 
that the United States noted that Morocco had be en applying safeguard measures while the only 
notification from Morocco was a "nil" notification in  1995. He suggested that Morocco be added to 
the list of countries that had not notified their legislation.  
46. The representative of Morocco  confirmed that Morocco had submitted a notification in 1995 
indicating that they had no legislation on safeguards.   He explained that the application of safeguard 
measures by Morocco was due to the fact that the Safeguards Agreement was incorporated into 
domestic legislation according to their constitution that provided that any international agreement 
became domestic legislation, and therefore, it was legitimate to apply safeguard measures on the basis 
of an international agreement. 
47. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/SG/M/27 
 Page 7 
 
 
 B. NOTIFICATIONS  OF ACTIONS  RELATED  TO SAFEGUARD  MEASURES   
48. The Chairman  noted that various notifications of ac tions related to safeguard measures had 
been received since the last meeting.  In order to  ensure that all of these notifications could be 
reviewed in the limited time available, he sugg ested that the Committee address relevant safeguard 
investigations as separate agenda items, and review all of the notifications pertaining to each separate 
investigation at the same time.   
1. Brazil - Desiccated Peeled Coconut 
49. The Chairman  noted that Brazil had made a notifica tion regarding investigation on desiccated 
peeled coconut in document G/SG/N/13/BRA/3.   
50. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
2. Canada – Bicycles 
51. The Chairman  noted that Canada had made a notifi cation regarding the initiation of an 
investigation on bicycles in document G/SG/N/6/CAN/2.  
52. The representative of Chinese Taipei  pointed out that the produc ts under investigation seemed 
to be bicycles and their frames, while the title of th e notification was "bicycles".  He also stated that 
according to their knowledge, there was another commi tment of investigation.  He stated that 
Chinese Taipei was trying to clarify these issues with  Canada bilaterally and that they would raise 
their concerns in the future if necessary. 
3. Chile – Wheat Flour  
53. The Chairman  noted that Chile had made several notif ications regarding its investigation on 
wheat flour in documents G/SG/N/6/CHL/10, G/SG/N/7/CHL/7;  its supplement 1;  
G/SG/N/10/CHL/6, G/SG/N/11/CHL/5, G/SG/N /8/CHL/3;  and G/SG/N/10/CHL/6/Suppl.1 
G/SG/N/11/CHL/5/Suppl.1.  He also noted that Ch ile had submitted very recently another document 
G/SG/N/10/CHL/6/Suppl.2.   
54. The representative of the United States  requested that this agenda item be put on the agenda 
for the next meeting, since the English translati on of the document was circulated quite recently and 
they did not have the opportunity to review it. 
4. European Communities – Salmon  
55. The Chairman  noted that the European Communities had made several notifications 
regarding its investigation on salmon in doc uments G/SG/N/8/EEC/3, G/SG/N/10/EEC/3, 
G/SG/N/11/EEC/3/Suppl.1;  and G/SG/N/8/ EEC/3/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/10/EEC/3/Suppl.1, 
G/SG/N/11/EEC/3/Suppl.2. 
56. The representative of the European Communities  stated that these two notifications referred 
to the final findings and the adoption of definitive measure on salm on.  The finding was that  imports 
had increased sharply and were the cause of serious injury to the European salmon producers.  He 
explained about the developmen ts which had occurred since th e adoption of these measures as 
follows:  On the domestic front, the decision to impo se the measure had been referred to the European 
Council for review, and the Council was currently re viewing these measures whether to confirm them, 
to modify them or to let them lapse.  This decision was due to be taken by the end of May 
approximately.  On the WTO front, Chile and Norway  had requested dispute settlement consultations G/SG/M/27 
Page 8  
 
 on these measures, and the consultations took place th e week before.  The EC was waiting for further 
developments.   
57. The representative of Norway
 stated that he wished to take this opportunity to explain the 
inconsistencies of the EC's safeguard measure vis a vis  GATT Article XIX and the Safeguards 
Agreement and that he wished to inform Members of  the latest developments of the case.  He recalled 
that Norway had explained earlier before this  Committee the serious consequences of imposing 
safeguard measures on imports of farmed salmon.  He stated that this safeguard measure added significant burden on approximately 1 billion Euro s worth of farmed salmon exported from Norway 
to the EU. For nearly 15 years ther e had been some form of restriction or threats over restrictions on 
the free flow of Norwegian salmon into the EU ma rket.  Following a sunset review, the restrictive 
measures ended in May 2003.  But only 9 months later, the Commission initiated this safeguard 
investigation at the request of a minority of commun ity producers of farm salmon.  He further stated 
that Norway was surprised to see that during the safeguard investigation, this small minority of 
community producers also petitioned the Commission for an anti-dumping relief, and that process 
continued as of this meeting day.  Based on the statements in the final Commission regulation 206-
2005 of 4 February 2005, and based on the investig ative record, Norway firmly believed that the EC 
safeguard measure was inconsistent with GATT 1994 and the Safeguards Agreement.  The 
representative of Norway stated that a detailed explanation could be found in the request for 
consultations circulated to Members as WT/DS328/1.   By way of example, he stated that the 
Commission had failed to demonstrate that the increased imports of farmed salmon were the result of unforeseen developments, failed to demonstrate th at the EC's salmon farming industry suffered 
serious injury, failed to demonstrate that any ser ious injury was caused by increased imports of 
farmed salmon, and failed to demonstrate that othe r factors affecting the domestic industry were not 
simultaneously causing injury.  He further stated  that for each of these items, the Commission had 
failed to provide reasoned and adequa te explanation.  On the most key factual issues, the Commission 
relied on assumptions and assertions that did not meet the standards required by the Appellate Body.  
He pointed out that in the Commission regulation of 4 February there was not a single footnote 
referencing a factual source.  There were only a handful of references to specific identifiable 
documents in the record supporting the conclusions of findings and facts.  He stated that it was difficult to find the precise factual basis for the Commi ssion's conclusions anywhere.  In view of the 
absence of explicit factual references, citations and footnotes in the final regulation, Norway was left 
to wonder why a safeguard measure had been applie d.  He stated that Norway provided detailed 
factual questions to the Commission, both before a nd within the context of the DSU consultations, but 
the questions had been largely left unanswered. 
58. The representative of Norway further explained as follows:  As regards unforeseen 
developments, the Commission relied on the series of  events that were largely related to the 
Norwegian market.  Some of the factual assertions  that the Commission made about development in 
the Norwegian market were wrong.  In addition, th e Commission failed to provide the key facts that 
supported its assessment of devel opments in Norway, and EC's reasoning was largely based on 
assertions.  This alone was, in the view of No rway, enough to render the EC regulation WTO-
inconsistent.  The Commission also concluded th at domestic industry was seriously injured.  
However, the explanation of many injury factors le ft Norway with more questions than answers.  
When the data were examined objectively, d oubts emerged about the Commission's conclusions, and 
in the view of Norway, those doubts were enough to render the regulation WTO-inconsistent.  In the 
words of the Appellate Body, Panels must not be  left to wonder why a conclusion was reached.  
Another unusual feature of the regulation was that it was based on data from 2003 at the latest.  Yet, 
the decision was taken in February 2005. This coul d be acceptable if there were no data for 2004, but 
such data were available.  The Commission had acce ss to almost a year's worth of data that it 
could have used. Norway had, in fact, provi ded some of this data on a weekly basis 
throughout 2004.  Moreover, the Commission had a dopted the remedy that relied on minimum import 
prices instead of quotas or tariffs.  One of the major achievements of the Safeguards Agreement was  G/SG/M/27 
 Page 9 
 
 
 to prohibit so-called grey measures.  Through mi nimum prices, the Commission had been trying to 
impose order on a market place and to insulate  domestic producers from international price 
competition.  Arrangements like these that aim at the orderly marketing of impor ts were prohibited.  
Therefore, in light of what appeared to be num erous violations of the Safeguards Agreement and 
Article XIX of GATT 1994, Norway had no choice but to initiate dispute settlement proceedings and 
request consultations under Article 4 of the DSU.  The representative of Norway continued to explain 
that these consultations were held on 30 Marc h 2005 in Geneva, jointly with Chile.  Norway 
regrettably had to inform the Committee that consul tations so far had failed to solve the matter.  He 
stated that Norway would continue to pur sue the matter in accordance with the DSU. 
59. The representative of Chile  stated that in the interest of transparency, she wanted to inform 
the Committee of the consultations which had alre ady been touched upon by the EC and Norway.  
After the consultations, parties could not reach a satisfactory conclusion, and Chile would therefore 
continue with the dispute settlement procedure.   
60. The representative of the United States  stated that they had been looking at the EC 
notification with respect to Article 9.1.  He stated that the US was perplexed by some of the countries 
that had been excluded from the safeguard measur e.  It was their understanding that Article 9.1 
provided for an exclusion of developing country WTO Members with less than 3 per cent import share.  He stated that nonetheless, it seemed as though many of the countries that were excluded, 
according to the notification, were not in fact WT O Members. He asked if the EC could explain on 
what basis these non-Members had been excluded.   
61. The representative of the European Communities
 stated that in reply to the comments made 
by Norway and Chile, the EC would simply maintain their position that the measures on salmon were 
WTO compatible, and that they disagreed with Norway  and Chile in their assessment.  He stated that 
most of the points raised by Norway had been discussed already in the context of the dispute 
settlement consultations.  He did not see the need to come back to these discussions, and would leave 
them within the dispute settlement route.  As regard s the point raised by the United States, he stated 
that he was not prepared to respond comprehensivel y to the question.  He stated that the list of 
developing countries notified to WTO was a list which included non-WTO Members because the measures taken on salmon were otherwise applicab le to all importers, WTO Members and non-WTO 
Members.  He stated that the EC  defined developing countries by their GSP list, but that it may not 
have been necessary to include non-WTO Members in the notification. 
5. India – Starches  
62. The Chairman
 noted that India had made several notifications regarding its investigation on 
starches in documents G/SG/N/6/IND/16/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/8/IND/14. 
63. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
6. Indonesia – Ceramic Tableware 
64. The Chairman  noted that Indonesia had made a notif ication regarding the initiation of an 
investigation on ceramic tableware in document G/SG/N/6/IDN/1.   
65. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
7. Jordan – Insecticides 
66. The Chairman  noted that Jordan had made a notification regarding the initiation of an 
investigation on insecticides in document G/SG/N/6/JOR/10.   G/SG/M/27 
Page 10  
 
 67. The representative of the European Communities
 stated that there was very little information 
in Jordan's notification that justified the initiation of  an investigation.  He stated that the EC was 
aware that the Safeguards Agreement was not very pr ecise in identifying the element that must be at 
the disposal of the authorities when making a decisi on to initiate an investigation, and that there was 
also no provision in the Safeguards Agreement th at mandated notification of such evidence.  
However, the EC was of the view that as a matter of good practice, notification of initiation of an 
investigation should contain, even if very rough,  preliminary evidence corroborated by data.  He 
stated that that was not the case here.  He also stated that the EC wanted to register its interest in this 
proceeding and hoped that Jordan would notify it s finding and consult the EC before taking a 
measure. 
68. The representative of Jordan  thanked the EC for their interest  and stated that he would convey 
EC's comment to the competent aut horities in Jordan.  He also stat ed that Jordan welcomed EC's 
interest and would consult w ith them as appropriate.  
8. Moldova – Cosmetics and Perfumery Products 
69. The Chairman  noted that  Moldova had made a notif ication regarding its investigation on 
cosmetics and perfumery products in docume nt G/SG/N/7/MDA/1, G/SG/N/11/MDA/2.  
70. The representative of th e European Communities  stated that they noted that the notification 
contained some evidence and some elements of proof  to justify the imposition of measures, but there 
were two requirements of the Safeguards Agreement that were not addressed, or not sufficiently addressed, in this notification.  The first was that the basis for determining the existence of critical 
circumstances was very general, not  backed by any evidence.  The sec ond was the lack of analysis of 
the unforeseen developments.  He explained that it was not clear whether the increasing imports 
reported in the notification was the result of an unf oreseen development.  He asked Moldova to clarify 
these two points.  He registered EC's interest in this case and stated that the EC would be very 
interested in the notification and consultations prior to the adoption of definitive measures. 
71. The representative of the United States
 noted that the proposed provisional measure was 
approved by the government of Moldova in December of 2004 and transferred to the Parliament for 
adoption.  He asked if Moldova could provide an u pdate as to whether or not the measure was actually 
imposed, and if so when it entered into force. 
72. On the point raised by the European Co mmunities, the representative of Moldova  stated that 
they were ready to have consultations with the Eu ropean Communities.  On the point raised by the 
United States, she stated that the draft had been submitted to Parliament now. 
73. The representative of the United States  clarified whether the response meant that there was 
currently no provisional safeguard measure in force.  
74. The representative of Moldova  replied that there was currently no safeguard measure in place 
regarding this issue. 
9. Morocco – Ceramic Tiles  
75. The Chairman  noted that Morocco had made a notification regarding the initiation of an 
investigation on ceramic tiles in document G/SG/N/6/MAR/3.  
76. The representative of the European Communities  expressed their concern on this case.  He 
stated that the EC had a very important trade inte rest in this case and that they would follow the 
development of the Moroccan investigation with great  concern.  He stated that they were also  G/SG/M/27 
 Page 11 
 
 
 concerned that the information available so far did no t support a finding of injury.  He stated that the 
data on production and cons umption in Morocco were showing substantial increases, and so they had 
strong doubt whether Morocco would be in a positio n to adopt a WTO-compatible safeguard measure 
at the end of this procedure. He requested Moro cco to provide the EC with full opportunity for 
consultations and prior notif ication of their findings. 
77. The representative of Morocco  stated that the investigation was in process and at the moment 
no measure had been applied.  He stated that  the investigation was still open and communication 
would be sent out later.  He stated that the EC woul d be able to follow this investigation very closely 
with the Moroccan authorities, and that Morocco wa s ready to provide any information on the results 
of the investigation and otherwi se hold consultations with the EC. 
10. Peru – Certain Made-Up Textile Articles   
78. The Chairman  noted that Peru had made several notif ications regarding its investigation on 
certain made-up textile articles in documents  G/SG/N/7/PER/1 and its supplement 1 and 
supplement 2.   
79. The representative of th e European Communities  requested an update on the state-of-play of 
this case.  He stated that they knew that the proce dure was closed, and they wished to have an idea of 
when a final decision would be made. 
80. The representative of Peru  recalled that in the previous m eeting of the Committee the EC had 
made some comments on Peru's provisional measures.  She stated that all of the concerns expressed 
by the EC were covered in bilatera l consultations.  With regard to the question raised by the EC, he 
stated that the investigation was still ongoing, and next week, or within 10 days at the latest, the 
Sectoral Commission would finish its investigation.  She stated that probably in two weeks the Multi-
Sectoral Commission would take a decision on whether or not to apply safeguard measures. 
11. Philippines – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles  
81. The Chairman  noted that the Philippines made a notif ication regarding its safeguard measure 
on ceramic floor and wall tiles in document G/SG/N/14/PHL/1. 
82. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
12. Turkey – Certain Glassware 
83. The Chairman  noted that Turkey made a notification regarding the termination of an 
investigation on certain glassware in document G/SG/N/9/TUR/1.  
84. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
85. Finally, the Chairman  reminded Members that any questions concerning the notifications of 
actions taken for which written responses were re quested had to be submitted to the Member 
concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 25 Ap ril 2005.  Written answers had to be submitted to 
the Secretariat no later than 17 May 2005. 
C. APPLICATION  OF ARTICLE  9.1 
86. The Chairman  stated that this item had been included in  the agenda at the request of Malaysia. 
He stated that Malaysia submitted a document on this issue numbered JOB(05)/51 circulated on 
29 March.  G/SG/M/27 
Page 12  
 
 87. The representative of Malaysia
 stated that the submitted paper was a follow-up to Malaysia's 
proposal at the October 2004 Committee meeting on the i ssues of:  (1)  use of representative period in 
safeguard investigations and what  would constitute an appropriate representative period;  (2)  
applicability of this period to the de minimis  criteria in the implementation of Article 9.1 and the issue 
of re-determination/post-imposition;  (3) appli cation of Article 9.1 to developing countries. 
88. She stated that their aim was to provide ex amples of Members' practices, taken from the 
notifications. She stated that th ree aspects were examined:  (1) the time period or reference period 
used in a safeguard investigation;  (2) the time-period used in determining the de minimis  margin and 
if this matched with the reference period used in  the investigation;  and (3) implementation of 
Article 9.1 – how notifications on the non-applica tion of safeguard measures to developing countries 
were made.  
89. The representative of Malaysia explained as follo ws:  While Malaysia would have wished to 
list examples from all safeguard notifications, due to resource and time constraint, they had limited 
this examination to notifications of definitive measu res.  The main body of the paper was observations 
based on the examination of these notifications, wh ile the Annex to the paper listed more precise 
information on each of the notification.  Althou gh Malaysia tried to be as accurate as possible 
concerning the information in the Annex, some omi ssions were possible, and Malaysia welcomed any 
comments from Members.  She pointed out that in paragraph 13 and 15 (iv) of the paper, "market 
shares" should read "import shares".  She stressed th at these minor omissions and errors did not affect 
substantively the observation made in the main body of the paper.   
90. She then turned to the substan ce of the paper and explained as follows:  First, on the period of 
data collection or investigation. This period vari ed between 3 and 6 years.  Reviews were shorter 
covering only 1 to 2 years.  Second, on the period used as the basis for determining de minimis.  
Although information was lacking on the length of pe riod used, based on the available information, 
the practice of some Members were:  (a) use of the preceding twelve months where latest import 
figures were available;  (b) use of preceding 24 mont hs without indication if average was used;  or (c) 
use of 3-year data without indication if average was used.  From the information provided in the 
notifications, there was indication that there were a few Members that practiced post-imposition re-determination.  Some Members provided a prior notice of such intention in the notification itself, yet 
others simply provided a separate notification stating that a certain country was now ineligible for the 
de minimis  exemption.  A number of countries undertook post-imposition re-determination during the 
annual review, some during the mid-term review and ot hers on an ad hoc basis.  On the application of 
the de minimis  to developing countries, the majority of notifications provided a list of developing 
countries exempted from the measure.  For those de veloping countries not on the list, it was unclear 
whether this meant that these developing countries were not exempted from the application of the 
measure.  This was because some Members' lists c ould be very long while ot hers listed only one.  Yet 
others provided a list of developing countries w ith a notation of countries excluded.  With these 
different practices, for those that had only a few countries on their list, it was not clear if those not 
listed were exempted or not.  Many notifications we re also unclear about how they treated developing 
countries that were not on the exemption list but wh ose import shares were less than 3 per cent. Very 
rarely were import shares indicated to  show the basis for the exclusion. 
91. She further explained that Malaysia could t hus observe that in the implementation of 
Article 9.1, practices differed from Member to Memb er.  The implications were as follows:  Firstly, 
lack of uniform investigation period.  Safeguard  measures were defined as emergency actions with 
respect to increased imports of particular products when such imports had caused or threatened to 
cause serious injury to the importing Member's domes tic industry.  Therefore, the use of an uneven 
investigation period ranging from 3 years to more th an 5 years raised the question if such safeguard 
measures constituted emergency actions to address unforeseen developments.  It also raised the 
question if an appropriate reference period for inves tigations would be useful.  Secondly, need for a  G/SG/M/27 
 Page 13 
 
 
 match between the investigation period and the de minimis  period.  The basis for imposing a 
safeguard measure was the finding of serious injury and a causal link between this injury and a surge 
in imports during a certain period.  It th erefore followed that in determining the de minimis,  the same 
period where injury or causal link was found had to be used to determine inclusion or exclusion of the 
developing country Member.  This would also be the argument for not engaging in post-imposition re-
determination.  Thirdly, the rights of developing countries to S&D treatment under Article 9.1.  The 
Safeguards Agreement was one of the Uruguay Agre ements where S&D was granted to developing 
countries.  Its application would be more effective if the basis for determining the de minimis  criteria 
was more comprehensive.  Finally, the use of an arbitrary list, including a list of GSP beneficiaries, denied developing countries their rights negotiated under the Uruguay Round.  Recently, more and 
more developing countries were being excluded from GSP schemes, if not on an overall basis, on a 
product category basis.  This meant that there was an unilateral exclusion of countries from S&D treatment provided for in Article 9.1.  Malaysia wa s concerned about the denial of such right, as the 
multilateral trading system was based on adherence to negotiated rules.   
92. She stated that Malaysia looked forward to hearing Members' views on the paper, especially 
on paragraph 15. 
93. The representative of  Cuba
 stated that they attached great importance to this matter and that 
they fully supported the document submitted by Malays ia.  She agreed with Malaysia that the lack of 
clarity on some issues under Article 9.1 had given rise to discriminatory and arbitrary practices against developing countries. Cuba agreed with the criteria set out by Malaysia .  She stated that such 
criteria would guarantee security to the parties, as  they could know beforehand whether or not they 
would be included in the safeguard measure.  Cuba  also agreed that a re-determination would be 
against the interests of developing countries.  In addition, she stated that a measure should only be 
applied after public announcement of the investig ation, allowing parties an opportunity to defend 
themselves at various points in the investigation.  
94. The representative of Australia
 thanked Malaysia for the thought-provoking communication 
and stated that their preliminary thinking was that the de minimis  provisions of Article 9.1 logically 
required some relationship to the investigation period  and the injury period, which could be different.  
Australia agreed that there was a lack of clarity  on these issues, including on whether the application 
of safeguard measures referred to in Article 9.1 re lated to the investigation or to the imposition of 
measures.  She stated that the period specified under Article 5.1 for the a pplication of safeguard 
measures could be relevant where the meaning of Ar ticle 9.1 was taken to refer to the imposition of 
measures following a safeguard investigation.  Aust ralia agreed that the scope of Article 9.1 and 
where the de minimis  provisions were relevant needed clarification. Australia noted that the analysis 
Malaysia provided on Members applications of saf eguard measures did not specifically show that 
different time periods were used for Articles 5. 1 and 9.1, and Malaysia only stated that the 
information was unclear and vague.  This reinfor ced Australia's view that there was merit in 
examining the different practices of Members.  In relation to the uncertainties on the representative 
period for injury purposes, Australia al so agreed that there was a lack of clarity, and it considered that 
the three-year "rule of thumb" in Article 5.1 may pr ovide appropriate context.  In Australia, the period 
of investigation used was a three-year period prior to  the investigation, and the injury period broadly 
reflected the same timeframe.  Australia examined  data over a three-year period but concluded the 
injury analysis on the basis of the twelve-month peri od.  Australia considered this to be a reasonable 
approach.  She explained that this was also supported by WTO jurisprudence which noted the absence 
of specific timeframes in the Safeguards Agreement.  Australia did not see the issue of re-determination as a priority issue, and preferred to focus on the discussion on Members' practices in relation to timeframes, particularly given Mala ysia's findings that re-determination was not a 
widespread problem.  She stated th at the words "as long as" in Article 9.1 should be given meaning.   G/SG/M/27 
Page 14  
 
 95. The representative of Brazil
 stated that, without repeating most of the comments made by 
Australia on this issue, they also believed that those provisions of the Safeguards Agreement should 
be clarified and harmonized in order to ensure more  predictability.  He observed that there seemed to 
be quite a convergent view that Article 9.1 lacked  clarity regarding the issues of period of data 
collection, determination of de minimis  and re-determination. But on the other hand, he thought that 
Members should discuss how to move forward as th e issue was how to solve these problems.  He 
stated that Brazil was ready to discuss any possibility including an elaboration of a recommendation 
on this regard as Members had been doing in the Co mmittee on Anti-Dumping.  He stated that it was 
important to move from the identification stage to the stage of discussing how to solve the problems. 
He stated that this may have a bearing on the discussion on the implementation issues. 
96. The representative of India  appreciated Malaysia's effort, pa rticularly the effort to look at 
actual safeguard cases and draw conclusions from them. He stated it was quite clear from the 
examples that there were differing practices in terms of the list of developing countries excluded. He stated that it would be beneficial to further di scuss Members' practices, and if possible, ultimately 
agree on a uniform treatment. 
97. The representative of the European Communities
 stated that their comments were very much 
in line with the comments made by the other delegati ons, in particular Australia and Brazil.  The EC 
was supportive of any efforts to improve transpar ency and predictability, and they were looking 
particularly at the issue of the definition of the period of data collection and the period used to determine de minimis .  He also stated that they supported the idea by Brazil to consider the way 
forward. 
98. The representative of Chile
 agreed with Malaysia that there was lack of uniformity in the 
investigation period and in the application of de minimis , and stated that it would be beneficial to 
discuss the matter further.  
99. The representative of the United States  stated that it was not clear whether a "one-size fits all" 
timeframe for the period of investigation would be desirable. He stated that ideally, the period of 
investigation should cover the peri od before and up to the initiation of  the investigation in order to 
understand the serious injury that was allegedly being caused by increased imports.  He stated that  
this period could vary depending upon the dynamics of the industry and the market, so they were not 
convinced in an Article 9.1 context whether or not there should be a fixed timeframe for the period of 
investigation.  Moreover, it was not clear to Unite d States if it was desirable to have an automatic 
relation between the period for investigating injury a nd the period of the Article 9.1 analysis since the 
two provisions addressed different problems. He noted  that Australia implicitly alluded to this during 
its intervention.  The investigation period attemp ted to identify data for determining whether 
increased imports were causing serious injury.  Ar ticle 9.1 addressed a narrower question – what set 
of data was necessary to determine whether impor ts from developing countries exceeded pertinent 
thresholds?  Whether or not the re levant developing country imports caused injury was irrelevant to 
that analysis. And so it was questionable that the pe riod chosen for investigating injury was especially 
relevant. He stated that the analysis under Article 9. 1 had to take into consideration that the exclusion 
applied only as long as imports were below the threshold. 
100. With respect to the re-determination after the im position of a safeguard measure, he noted that 
Article 9.1 specifically provided that the measure sh all not be applied against the product originating 
in a developing country Member as long as its sh are of imports did not exceed 3 per cent.  The 
language of this clause provided strong support for the view that this non-application no longer 
applied once a developing country went over the 3 per cent threshold, regardless of whether that took 
place before or after imposition of the measure.  In this context, he noted that there was a strong 
economic underpinning for such treat ment. He recalled that safeguard measures could be applied even 
to fairly traded imports.  Thus, it would not be equitable for a developing country Member who was  G/SG/M/27 
 Page 15 
 
 
 not excluded by virtue of Article 9.1 because its  import share exceeded 3 per cent to end up, for 
example, losing its market share after the imposition of the measure because of another Member seizing the market share, and still be subject to the measure.  He stated that that would result in a 
longer-term distortion that could potentially extend beyond the safeguard measure itself.   
101. The representative of China
 stated that it was very important and useful to discuss these issues 
and that they supported the continued discussion of this issue, as proposed by Malaysia in 
paragraph 15 of the document.  
102. The representative of Hong Kong, China  noted that practices lacked uniformity and this 
opened the way for potential arbitrariness in the app lication of safeguard measures.  He stated that 
Hong Kong, China shared the concer ns raised in the paper.  She stated that Hong Kong, China 
welcomed moving from problem identification mode to  a problem solving mode.  In this regard, she 
also noted the issue raised under the outstanding im plementation issues in Tiret 84, as mentioned by 
Malaysia and others. Hong Kong, China was open to  the appropriate form and venue to tackle the 
issues identified. 
103. The representative of Canada  stated as follows: First, on the issue of the period for 
determining de minimis  Canada's view was that it could be di fficult to provide for a uniform guideline 
on what constituted an appropriate representative pe riod because what was representative could vary 
from case to case depending on the circumstances.  Regarding the issue of re-determination, Canada agreed with others that the wording "as long as" in Article 9.1 allowed for the ongoing monitoring of 
the conditions in Article 9.1. On the other hand,  Canada thought that developing country Members 
should not be denied an opportunity to defend their in terests in this regard.  Regarding the issue of 
transparency, Canada agreed that improved transp arency on Members' practices was a worthwhile 
objective, and was interested in discu ssing how to build upon this exercise. 
104. The representative of Japan
 stated that he agreed with Brazil and others that it was important 
to start discussing how to solve this problem. In this  regard, he stated that there were many elements 
in this paper which had a bearing on the application of other provisions in the Safeguards Agreement.  
For example, he noted that the idea of having a uni form representative period related to other aspects 
of the Safeguards Agreement. He stated that in orde r to structure the discussion, it would be useful to 
proceed step by step. As the qu estion began from the fact that th e period for the application of 
Article 9.1 and the period of inv estigation were different in some Members' practices, it would be 
useful not to jump immediately to the idea of a uniform representative period but first address the 
issue of what was the difference between the period  of application of Article 9.1 and the period of 
investigations in general, and whether a difference,  if any, was a problem. Members could then move 
on to the issue of re-determina tion.  On the issue of whether there could be an agreed upon 
standardized list of developing countries, he want ed to hear the views of other Members whether it 
would be possible to agree on such a list.  
105. The representative of Malaysia  stated that it was very useful that Members had recognized 
that the issues raised could form the basis of the discussion in the Committee.  In particular, she noted 
the suggestions from Brazil and Japan and stated that  one of the main issues was how to proceed with 
a more structured discussion on the issues raised in paragraph 15 of  the paper.  The first was the 
uniform representative period. She noted that Au stralia and the United States had made some 
comments regarding this issue, and that Australia had specifically suggested that there could be a 
difference between the investigation period and the pe riod used in injury determination. She stated 
that this would be a useful area that could be fu rther discussed at the next meeting.  The discussion 
would inevitably touch on whether there could be  a match between these periods and whether this 
uniform period would then be the same for an Article  9.1 determination.  She then stated on the issue 
of transparency – names of developing countries in the exemption list – how should this be notified, 
and whether this should be an exhaustive list or just  those countries that were trading partners.  She G/SG/M/27 
Page 16  
 
 stated that these issues could be di scussed issue by issue.  She furt her noted that several countries had 
raised the issue of the extended list for developing c ountries. Malaysia was of the view that such a list 
would help overcome the problem of using unilateral lists that denied the rights of many developing 
countries from the S&D treatment provided for in Ar ticle 9.1.  She further stated that although 
Malaysia had done some work in identifying the practices of Members, they would appreciate if a 
more detailed analysis could be undertaken by the S ecretariat.  She stated that the Secretariat's help 
would allow Members to have a more detailed discussi on based on more facts.  Once such an analysis 
by the Secretariat was available, Members could then proceed to a more structured discussion.  
106. The representative of Japan
 took the floor to clarify his earlier comments on the standard list 
of developing countries.  He was concerned that he might have been misunderst ood.  He clarified that 
his earlier comments were made from the standpoint th at it would be actually very, very difficult to 
come up with such a standard list.  
107. The Chairman  thanked Members for the discussion. He noted that several delegations had 
expressed interest in dealing with this matter. He then asked Malaysia to clarify exactly what it 
wanted the Secretariat to do in terms of the Annex that it submitted. 
108. The representative of Malaysia  stated that they had looked at some of the notifications of 
definitive duties, in particular the date of initiation,  the reference period used in the investigation, the 
date the measure was implemented and the duration of the measure.  They also considered how 
Article 9.1 was implemented and whether there was an y re-imposition.  She stated that they wanted 
the Secretariat to follow along the same lines, but  with a more comprehensive look at all the 
notifications that had been submitted.  
109. The representative of the United States  stated that he appreciated Malaysia's preparation of 
the Annex which they had read with considerable inte rest.  He stated that it might be useful, before 
asking the Secretariat to undertake the task of prep aring a more expansive Annex, that the Chairman 
consult with Members with respect to what such an Annex should look like.  He explained that the 
reason he was stating this was not because the Un ited States had any particular problem with the 
Annex prepared by Malaysia, but because they want ed the end-product to be as useful as possible.  
For example, Malaysia's Annex referred to defin itive duties but there was nothing with respect to 
provisional duties. Further, some of the columns s eemed to provide information that might not be 
particularly relevant to the future work.  Thus, he  suggested that the Chairm an consult with Members 
before tasking the Secretariat to embark on the work. 
110. The representative of Malaysia  stated that they had no problem with the suggestion of the 
United States.   
111. The Chairman  stated that given the interest shown by Members, he suggested that the 
Committee take up this issue again at the next regul ar meeting in autumn, based on a paper prepared 
by the Secretariat. He further stated that the form at of the work would be established after holding the 
consultations requested by the United States.  He stated that he would transmit this request for 
consultations to the incoming Chair.  
112. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
D. OTHER  BUSINESS 
113. The Chairman  noted that the United States and the Eu ropean Communities had asked an issue 
to be included under this agenda item.  G/SG/M/27 
 Page 17 
 
 
 1. Brazil – Toys 
114. The representative of the United States  stated that they had received information that Brazil 
had extended its safeguard measure on toys for an additional 18 months through June 2006, the 
maximum period permitted to a developing country Me mber under Article 9.2.  He noted that they 
had seen no notification from Brazil as to this add itional extension, nor any information that Brazil's 
authority had made the requisite de terminations under Article 7.2 to ju stify a further extension of the 
measure, or indeed any further investigation by  the authority beyond that conducted prior to the 
December 2003 one-year extension.  He asked for an update on the status of the measure.  He further 
requested Brazil to notify the December 2003 one -year extension as well as any further extension 
granted in 2004, and to provide an explanation as to why such notifications had not been made to 
date.  If there was an extens ion in December 2004, he asked whether Brazil complied with the 
requirements of Article 7, and in particular wh ether its authority made the necessary requisite 
determinations under Article 7.2 in conformity with  the procedural requirements of Article 2.2.5 as 
referenced in Article 7.2. 
115. The representative of th e European Communities  stated that their comments were along the 
lines of those of the United States.  
116. The representative of Brazil  explained as follows: In 2003 Brazil notified the Committee of 
the extension of the safeguard measure on toys for two and a half years.  There was a proper investigation on this issue and a proper notification.   At the end of 2004, the Chamber of Foreign 
Trade actually decided to extend the original measur e for a year and half in order to reassess the 
necessity to continue the measure. Subsequen tly, on 13 December 2004, the Chamber of Foreign 
Trade enacted Resolution No. 35, deciding that it was not possible to lift the measure.  Therefore, the 
safeguard measure would be in force up to mid-2006.   He further explained that there was no new 
extension granted in the end of 2004.  He stated th at, as mentioned in the two previous meetings of the 
Committee, Brazil would notify the Committee should  there be any decision not to utilize the full 
period. This was the reason why there was only one notification. 
117. The representative of the European Communities
 stated that they still had a concern in the 
way Brazil decided to handle this matter. He stated that the EC believed that whenever a country took safeguard actions, it should ensure two key principl es – transparency and predictability – and stated 
that the choice made by Brazil did not ensure sufficien t transparency and predictability.  He stated that 
the EC appreciated that Brazil notified in December  2003 the decision to extend the measure for two 
and half years.  However, there was subsequent ly no notification to confirm what measure was 
eventually adopted, and indeed the duration of the in itial measure was only up to one year.  He stated 
that the EC was concerned because this practice coul d be abused.  The economic effect of the measure 
was not identical if the measure lasted for a year or if it lasted for two and a half years.  A decision on whether a certain measure should be challenged or pursued in any other wa y may vary, depending on 
whether the measure lasted for a year or for two years and a half.  The EC believed that each time a 
measure was decided, it should be made clear why the measure had been adopted for a certain period 
and should also be made clear if, at a later point , the measure would be extended.  The EC was open 
to discussions on whether an alternative procedure could be envisaged for certain specific cases like 
the one at hand.  He stated that the EC was still ve ry concerned that Brazil's decision not to notify the 
further extension at the end of 2004 might be WTO-inconsistent. 
118. The representative of Brazil
 stated that to Brazil's mind, all obligations were fully observed 
regarding the investigation and the notification.  The fact that for the last 3 Committee meetings 
Brazil had provided the latest information on the stat us of the measure was proof of transparency.  
Regarding predictability, he pointed out that perh aps the fact that there was a possibility for the 
government to reassess the need to maintain a meas ure by an internal administrative procedure was 
the source of unpredictability.  Bu t the alternative would mean that  Brazil could only use the full two G/SG/M/27 
Page 18  
 
 and a half years without the possibility of reassessing the need of the measure.  He stated that Brazil 
thus understood that the current way to proceed was a healthy internal decision. 
119. The representative of the United States
 endorsed the comments made earlier by the European 
Communities and stated that they appr eciated the response given by Brazil. 
2. Report on the Consultations on the Implicat ions of the Harmonized Rules of Origin 
120. The Chairman  stated that he wished to present a brief report on the consultations on the 
implications of the harmonized rules of origin held  in response to the request made by the Chair of the 
General Council on 15 February 2005.  He stated that the Committees on Safeguards, Anti-Dumping and Subsidies were asked to cons ider two questions on which to date Members had been unable to 
come to a consensus in the negotiations on the ha rmonized rules of origin, which had been underway 
in the Committee on Rules of Origin.  The first qu estion was whether harmonized rules of origin 
should be applied to the Anti-Dumping, Subsid ies and Safeguards Agreements.  The second was 
whether the harmonized rules of origin should be a pplied to the problem of circumvention of trade 
remedy measures. The Chairman stated that join t consultations of the Committees of Safeguards, 
Anti-Dumping and Subsidies were held on 1 April 2005.  There would be a second round of 
consultations on 6 April.  As his tenure as the Chairm an would end at this current meeting, he stated 
that the new Chairman would co-chair the 6 Apr il meeting.  The Chairs of the three Committees 
would report to the Chair of the General Council on the matter once the discussions had been taken to 
the furthest extent possible.   
121. The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
E. DATE  OF NEXT  REGULAR  MEETING 
122. The Chairman recalled that the regular meetings  normally would be held in conjunction with 
the regular meetings of the Anti-Dumping Committee and the Subsides Committee.  Accordingly, he 
suggested that the Committee meet on Thursday, 3 November 2005.   
123. The Committee so agreed . 
F. ELECTION  OF OFFICERS 
124. The Chairman stated that the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods had carried out 
informal consultations on the nomination of Chai rpersons for the different bodies operating under the 
auspices of the Council for Trade in Goods.  The proposed nominations were taken note of by the 
Council for Trade in Goods.  He stated that as con cerns this Committee, the Chairman of the Council 
for Trade in Goods proposed the nomination of Ms. Ana Novik of Chile.  He therefore proposed that 
the Committee elect Ms. Ana Novik as Chairperson.  
125. The Committee so agreed . 
126. Regarding the position of Vice Chair of the Co mmittee, the Chairman stated that he had 
conducted consultations with a number of Members w ith the help of the Vice-Chair and on the basis 
of those consultations, he proposed that the Co mmittee elect Mr. Mirko Zambelli of Switzerland as 
Vice-Chair of the Committee. 
127. The Committee so agreed . 
 
__________