RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/M/38 
22 December 2010 
 (10-6883) 
Committee on Safeguards  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 25 OCTOBER 2010  
 
Chairperson:  Mr. Tobias Lorentzson  
 
 
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 25 October 2010. 
2. Regarding "Other Business", no Member took th e floor.  The Chairperson stated that he 
wished to make two statements under "Other Bu siness" – first concerning notifications, and second 
concerning exchange of letters with the Chairman  of the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of 
Technology.  The Chairperson also clarified that he intended to start the discussion on item C ("Time-
Frame to be Considered for the Purposes of Article 9.1") in informal mode.  
3. With this, the following agenda was adopted: 
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION .............................................................................................................2  
1. Guyana – Review of New Legislative Notification .................................................................2  
2. Bahrain – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications ..................................3  
3. Thailand – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications.................................3  
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES ............................................4  
1. Brazil – Desiccated Coconut .................................................................................................... 4 
2. Dominican Republic – Certain Sports and Other Socks .......................................................4  
3. Dominican Republic – Toilet Paper ........................................................................................4  
4. Dominican Republic –  Tubular Fa bric and Polypropylene Bags........................................4  
5. Ecuador – Windshields.......................................................................................................... ...6 
6. European Union – Wireless Wi de Area Networking.............................................................6  
7. India - Caustic Soda Lye ....................................................................................................... ...7 
8. Indonesia - Stranded Wire, Ropes and Cables, Excluding Locked Coils Etc......................7  
9. Indonesia - Cotton Yarn other than Sewing Thread .............................................................7  
10. Indonesia - Woven Fabrics of Cotton......................................................................................7  
11. Indonesia - Aluminium Foil Food Container/Aluminium Tray and Plain Lid ...................7  
12. Israel – Steel  Rebars .......................................................................................................... .......8  
13. Jordan – Ceramic Tiles ......................................................................................................... ...8 
14. Jordan – Clinker ............................................................................................................... ........8  
15. Kyrgyz Republic – Wheat Flour..............................................................................................8  G/SG/M/38 
Page 2  
 
  16.
 Morocco – Machine-Made Carpets.........................................................................................9  
17. Morocco – Cera mic Tiles........................................................................................................ ..9 
18. Morocco – Polyvinyl Chloride .................................................................................................9  
19. Mexico – Spiral-Welded St eel Pipes and Tubes .....................................................................9  
20. Philippines – Steel Angle Bars ...............................................................................................10  
21. Philippines – Gl ass Mirrors ...................................................................................................1 0 
22. Philippines – Testliner Board ................................................................................................10  
23. Philippines – Figured Glass.................................................................................................... 11 
24. Philippines – Float Glass ...................................................................................................... ..11 
25. Ukraine – Cooling and Refrigerating Equipment................................................................11  
26. Ukraine – Sheet Glass.......................................................................................................... ...12 
C. TIME -PERIOD TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE CALCULATION OF IMPORT SHARE FOR 
PURPOSES OF ARTICLE  9.1.........................................................................................................13  
D. OTHER BUSINESS .......................................................................................................................13  
1. Statement by the Chairperso n on Notifications ...................................................................13  
2. Statement by the Chairperson on Technology Transfer .....................................................14  
E. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS .........................................................15  
F. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ............................................................................................15  
 
 A. 
NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
4. The Chairperson  stated that the first item on the Co mmittee's agenda was the review of 
notifications of national safeguards legislation and/or regulations, in accordance with the procedures 
adopted by the Committee at its special meeting in April 1996. 
5. Concerning the procedure for this meeting, the Ch airperson 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.  Members would then be gi ven an opportunity to present questi ons orally.  After the meeting, 
there would be a period for the submission of a dditional written questions concerning any of the 
legislative notifications reviewed at this meeting. 
6. The Chairperson stated that if Members wished to have written answers to questions, they had 
to ensure that all questions were presented in writi ng to the Member concerned, and to the Secretariat, 
no later than 15 November 2010.  He stated that wr itten answers to all questions submitted in writing 
by that deadline should be submitted to th e Secretariat no later than 6 December 2010. 
1. Guyana – Review of New Legislative Notification  
7. The Chairperson  noted that a nil legislative notification from Guyana was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/GUY/1.  He noted that no wr itten questions concerning this notification had 
been received. 
8. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  G/SG/M/38 
 Page 3 
 
 
  2. Bahrain – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
9. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from the Bahrain was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/BHR/2, which was taken up at the last Committee meeting.  He noted that 
written questions concerning this no tification had been received from the United States in document 
G/SG/Q1/BHR/3, and that the Bahrain had s ubmitted replies to the questions in document 
G/SG/Q1/BHR/4. 
10. The representative of the United States  asked Bahrain to clarify the status of the Gulf 
Cooperation Council trade remedy law and regula tion, dating from 2003 and 2004, respectively. 
Specifically, she stated that the United States wished to know whether these laws and regulations 
were in the process of being translated, or whether they were currently unde r review for consistency 
with the relevant WTO agreements, as indicated  in a notification from Oman circulated on 
6 October 2010.  In addition, she stated that as noted in the April 2010 meeting of the Committee, the 
United States understood that the Gulf Cooperati on Council initiated two safe guard investigations on 
27 November 2009 – one on uncoated paper and paper board, and the other on steel angles, channels 
and beams.  The United States noted that neither of  these investigations had been notified and asked 
that one of the six members of the GCC provide a status report on these investigations.    
11. The representative of Bahrain  stated that he would refer the questions to his capital. 
3. Thailand – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
12. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Thailand was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/THA/3, which was taken up at the last Committee meeting.  He noted that 
written questions concerning this no tification had been received from the United States in document 
G/SG/Q1/THA/3, and that Thailand had subm itted replies to the questions in document 
G/SG/Q1/THA/4. 
13. There were no further questions or comments regarding this notification. 
14. The Chairperson  stated that this concluded the ag enda items related to legislative 
notifications, and reminded Members that th e deadline for written questions concerning any 
legislation reviewed at this meeting was 15 Nove mber 2010.  The deadline for written answers to all 
written questions, including questions submitte d in writing prior to this meeting, was 
6 December 2010.  Concerning these deadlines, he  reminded the Committee of the importance of 
providing written answers to written questions posed.  The exchange of written questions and answers 
constituted the Committee's only record of the review  of legislation.  Thus, the Committee's records 
were left incomplete when written questions were  not answered, or only answered long after the 
meeting where the review took place.  He stated th at, in order to help Members keep track of the 
questions posed and the responses submitted, any ques tions left unanswered would be indicated in the 
draft annotated agenda of the next Committee meeting. 
15. Before proceeding to the next agenda item, the Chairperson informed the Committee that 
there were still 29 Members that had not yet made a legislative notification.1  He stated that he would 
not read out the names of those Members, but regre tted that the number of Members that had failed to 
make any legislative notification remained high.  While he understood that many of these Members 
were not represented at the meeting, in the interest  of transparency, he urged these Members to make 
                                                      
1 These Members were: Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Belize, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African 
Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dj ibouti, Gabon, the Gambia, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, 
Kuwait, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Pa pua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint 
Vincent & Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, and Tonga. G/SG/M/38 
Page 4  
 
  the required notification.  He recalled that in cases  where no legislation existed, only a very simple 
"nil" notification was required.  If delegations  had any questions regarding the procedures for 
notifications they should feel free to cont act the Secretariat or the Chairperson. 
16. Finally, the Chairperson commended the delega tion of Guyana for having made its first 
legislative notification. He also commended th e delegation of Gabon for having made its first 
legislative notification, and indicated that it w ould be taken up at the spring 2011 meeting.  
17. The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
18. The Chairperson  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, the Chairp erson suggested 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 Coconut  
19. The Chairperson  noted that Brazil had made a notifi cation regarding an investigation on 
desiccated coconut in document G/SG/N/14/BRA/3. 
20. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
2. Dominican Republic – Certain Sports and Other Socks 
21. The Chairperson  noted that the Dominican Republic had made a notification regarding an 
investigation on certain sports and other sock s in document G/SG/N/7/DOM/2-G/SG/N/8/DOM/2-
G/SG/N/11/DOM/2, and that Colombia had posed questions on this notification in document 
G/SG/Q2/DOM/1. 
22. The representative of the Dominican Republic  stated that transparency had been ensured in 
the process.  He also stated th at the responses to the questions were sent to the delegation of 
Colombia, and that he intended to submit the same responses to the Committee as well.  
23. The representative of Colombia  stated that as the responses were received recently, Colombia 
did not have comments for now.  
3. Dominican Republic – Toilet Paper 
24. The Chairperson  noted that the Dominican Republic had made two notifications regarding an 
investigation on toilet paper in documents G/SG/N /6/DOM/4/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/9/DOM/3.  He also 
noted that Colombia had posed questions on this notification in document G/SG/Q2/DOM/1, the same 
document as the one discussed at the previous item. 
25. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
4. Dominican Republic –  Tubular Fabric and Polypropylene Bags 
26. The Chairperson  noted that the Dominican Republic had made a notification regarding an 
investigation on tubular fabric and polypropyle ne bags in document G/SG/N/8/DOM/1/Suppl.2 -  G/SG/M/38 
 Page 5 
 
 
  G/SG/N/10/DOM/1 - G/SG/N/11/DOM/1/Suppl.1.  He also noted that Colombia had posed questions 
on this notification in document G/SG/Q2/DOM/1. 
27. The representative of the Dominican Republic  stated that it had sent its replies to the 
delegation of Colombia, and that the replies would al so be submitted to the Secretariat for circulation. 
28. The representative of Guatemala  stated that Guatemala recognized the legitimate right of a 
WTO Member to apply safeguard measures as long as that Member proceeded in conformity with its 
various obligations under the Safegua rds Agreement.  However, in Guatemala's views, that did not 
seem to be the case as regards the preliminary and definitive safeguard measures applied by the 
Dominican Republic.  He explained that together  with other delegations, Guatemala would hold 
consultations with the Dominican Republic on this matter under the Dispute Settlement 
Understanding ("DSU").  He also stated that it was noted that Dominican Republic withdrew its 
original notification and presented another notification, and request ed clarification on this point. 
29. The representative of Costa Rica  expressed its concern on the very broad use of safeguard 
measures by the Dominican Republic.  He stated that a safeguard measure was an exceptional 
instrument which should be used strictly in acco rdance with the disciplines of Article XIX of GATT 
and the provisions of the Safeguards Agreement.  He also stated that on 15 October 2010 Costa Rica, 
together with some other Members, requested consultations under the DSU with the Dominican 
Republic.  He expressed concern on a number of defi ciencies in the investigation, and stated that 
Costa Rica hoped to reach a mutually satisfactory so lution in the process of consultations.  Finally, the 
representative joined Guatemala in seeking clarifica tion on the fact that an earlier notification was 
withdrawn.  
30. The representative of El Salvador  recalled that during the Committee meeting in April 2010 
El Salvador had expressed its concerns, which they  found still valid.  He noted that this issue had 
developed to the point where a de finitive safeguard was imposed, and therefore he expressed interest 
in hearing the replies from the Dominican Republic to the clarification concerning the issue raised 
earlier by Guatemala and Costa Rica, namely, the issue of withdrawal by the Dominican Republic of 
an earlier notification.  He repeated El Salvador's concern and interest whether this type of measure 
could be applied in accordance with the provisions of  the relevant WTO agreements. He also stated 
that El Salvador, due to the concerns raised toge ther with other Central American countries, would 
hold consultations under the DSU with the Dominica n Republic with a view to finding a solution to 
this issue. 
31. The representative of Honduras  noted that it joined other delegations in requesting 
consultations in relation to this measure.  He st ated that the procedures followed by the Dominican 
Republic suffered several deficiencies, and request ed that the Dominican Republic withdraw the 
measure.  The representative joined previous sp eakers in seeking clarification on the fact that an 
earlier notification was withdrawn.  
32. The Chairperson  asked the Secretariat to provide background concerning the procedural 
questions raised about the withdrawal of the original  notification, before giving the floor back to the 
Dominican Republic.  
33. The Secretariat  explained that on 13 October 2010 the original notification concerning the 
imposition of the final measure by the Dominica n Republic was circulated.  Subsequently, the 
Dominican Republic submitted certain corrections to th is original notification, including a correction 
of one figure and an addition of one table.  He stated that in line with internal documentation 
procedures, it was considered easier to cancel the original notification and issue a new one, 
incorporating these additions and corrections.  He  added that this cancellation happened only in the 
original Spanish version, and not in relation to the Eng lish and French translations of this notification.   G/SG/M/38 
Page 6  
 
  34. The representative of the Dominican Republic
 stated that he had nothing to add to the 
explanation of the Secretariat with regards the tec hnical aspects of the circulation of the notifications. 
With regard to the other comments made by the delegations that spoke, he hoped that the 
consultations would lead to a mutually satisfactory solution. 
5. Ecuador – Windshields 
35. The Chairperson  noted that Ecuador had made a notifi cation regarding an investigation on 
windshields in document G/SG/N/6/ECU/8.  He also noted that Colombia had posed questions on this 
notification in document G/SG/Q2/ECU/12. 
36. After briefly explaining the notification, the representative of Ecuador  stated that as regards 
the questions from Columbia, written replies to these questions would be prov ided in due course.  
6. European Union – Wireless Wide Area Networking 
37. The Chairperson  noted that the European Union had made a notification regarding an 
investigation on wireless wide area networking in document G/SG/N/6/EEC/5.  He also noted that China had posed questions on this no tification in document G/SG/Q2/EEC/3. 
38. The representative of the European Union
 explained that there was sufficient prima facie 
evidence to launch this safeguard investigation.  In other words, it was clear from this analysis that 
there was a sharp and recent increase of imports wh ich had caused serious injury to domestic industry 
of the European Union.  He noted that the ex ceptional circumstances justified the use of the 
exceptional remedy instrument of the safeguard measur e.  He also explained that in addition to the 
investigation on safeguards, investigations on  anti-dumping and countervailing were also ongoing 
with regards the same product.  This, he explai ned, was because the Commission had received three 
applications, for each trade remedy instrument, and all conditions pertaining to these applications had 
been met.  According to the Communities laws , the Commission was required to open all three 
investigations.  As regards the possible conse quences of having these three investigations, the 
representative of the European Union pointed out th at it was too early to speak about the possible 
consequences, since the results of the investigations were not yet available.  He also emphasized that 
injury, if found, would be remedied only once.  In  that respect, he referred to Council Regulation EC 
452/2003 on measures that the Community may take in relation to the combined effects of anti-dumping and countervailing measures on the one hand, and safeguard measures on the other.  With 
regards other questions from China he stated that the European Union would get back to these issues 
as soon as the results of the investigations were available. 
39. The representative of China
 stated that the complainants had outsourced all its production 
mainly to China, and thus the complainants di d not qualify as domestic industry according to the 
Safeguards Agreement. 
40. The representative of the European Union  stated that there was still genuine production of the 
subject product in the Union. 
41. The representative of Canada  noted that it had a number of questions on how one would 
conduct a safeguard investigation while there were  AD and CVD investigations ongoing at the same 
time, and that it looked forward to reviewing the written responses from the European Union on China's questions.  G/SG/M/38 
 Page 7 
 
 
  7. India - Caustic Soda Lye 
42. The Chairperson  noted that India had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
caustic soda lye in document G/SG/N/8/I ND/20-G/SG/N/10/IND/11-G/SG/N/11/IND/6.  
43. The representative of India  stated that, as notified, the measure was taken from 
December 2009 and March 2010, and had now expired.    
44. The representative of the United States  asked why a measure was taken when it was necessary 
only for 3 months.  The United States urged India to closely examine whether safeguards for such a 
limited time were warranted or whether they ju st contributed to further market uncertainty. 
45. The representative of India  stated that this was in conformity with the rules.  
8. Indonesia - Stranded Wire, Ropes and Ca bles, Excluding Locked Coils Etc.  
46. The Chairperson  noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
stranded wire, ropes and cables, excluding lo cked coils in document G/SG/N/6/IDN/10.  
47. The representative of the European Union , while clarifying that his statement was aimed at  
all the notifications made by Indonesia at this mee ting, stated that the European Union was concerned 
about the numerous investigations initiated by I ndonesia, as well as the manner the investigations 
were conducted.  The European Union requested Indo nesia to further scrutinize its investigations.   
48. The representative of the United States  shared the concerns of the European Union about the 
numerous investigations initiated by Indonesia, and requested that Indonesia carefully handle these 
investigations. 
49. The representative of Indonesia  assured Members that all the investigations would proceed in 
a manner consistent with th e Safeguards Agreement.   
9. Indonesia - Cotton Yarn other than Sewing Thread 
50. The Chairperson  noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
cotton yarn other than sewing thread in document G/SG/N/6/IDN/11.  
51. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
10. Indonesia - Woven Fabrics of Cotton 
52. The Chairperson  noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
woven fabrics of cotton in document G/SG/N/6/IDN/12.  
53. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
11. Indonesia - Aluminium Foil Food Container/Aluminium Tray and Plain Lid 
54. The Chairperson  noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
aluminium foil food container/aluminium tray and plain lid in document G/SG/N/9/IDN/3. 
55. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. G/SG/M/38 
Page 8  
 
  12. Israel – Steel Rebars  
56. The Chairperson
 noted that written questions from the European Union, contained in 
document G/SG/Q2/ISR/1, concerning the inves tigation by Israel on steel rebars had been 
outstanding, and that Israel submitted replies to  those questions in document G/SG/Q2/ISR/2. 
57. The representative of Israel  confirmed that the investigation was terminated on 
17 August 2009, and that no final measure was applied.  
13. Jordan – Ceramic Tiles 
58. The Chairperson  noted that Jordan had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
ceramic tiles in document G/SG/N/10/JOR/7/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/11/JOR/3/Suppl.2. 
59. The representative of Egypt  stated that Egypt had serious concern on this measure.  In 
particular, he noted that the current notificati on was already the third notification on the same 
investigation – the first one in July 2009, and the second one in March 2 010.  In his view, the 
significant period of time that lapsed between in itiation of the investigation and imposition of the 
measure was not in line with the terms of the Sa feguards Agreement.  In light of the significant 
amount of Egyptian exports of ceramic tiles to Jordan, Egypt had actively cooperated with the 
Jordanian investigating authorities, and in its  numerous submissions Egypt asserted that the 
imposition of safeguard measure was unwarranted. This was due to the fact that the increase in the 
volume of imports was not recent, sudden, sharp and significant enough, that the volume of imports of 
the product under investigation was not properly determined, and that it had not been established that 
the increase was the result of an unforeseeable deve lopment within the meaning of Article XIX of 
GATT 1994; and neither was there a causal link betw een the increase of imports and the alleged 
serious injury.  In addition, he questioned the leve l of the safeguard measure – the level of duty was 
three times of that proposed by the National Production Protection Directorate in its final report of July 2009.  He further stated that despite its requests, Egypt had not been provided with the 
pertinent information relied upon in imposing the safe guard measure.  Egypt was of the view that 
Jordan had not complied with its oblig ations under the Safeguards Agreement. 
60. The representative of Jordan
 stated that the measure was imposed in accordance with the 
Safeguards Agreement, and all actions taken in this  regard had been duly notified to the Committee. 
He explained that the National Production Protectio n Directorate correctly found that the domestic 
industry suffered serious injury due to the increase of  imports.  He also noted  that public hearings and 
consultations were held with the parties concerne d, including Egypt, and that the final measure took 
into consideration the concerns of all interested pa rties, and that this was the reason for the length of 
time it took before the final decision was taken.  He also pointed out that the measure would be 
reviewed after six months of its implementation in  light of the commitment of the domestic industry 
to put in place an integrated plan to address its problems.   
14. Jordan – Clinker 
61. The Chairperson  noted that Jordan had made two notifi cations regarding an investigation on 
clinker in documents G/SG/N/6 /JOR/15 and G/SG/N/9/JOR/9.  
62. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
15. Kyrgyz Republic – Wheat Flour 
63. The Chairperson  noted that the Kyrgyz Republic had made a notification regarding an 
investigation on wheat flour in document G/SG/N/8/KGZ/1/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/10/KGZ/1/Suppl.1  G/SG/M/38 
 Page 9 
 
 
  64. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
16. Morocco – Machine-Made Carpets 
65. The Chairperson  noted that Morocco had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
machine-made carpets in document G/SG/N/6/MAR/6. 
66. The representative of the European Union  expressed his regret about the fact that Morocco 
notified the initiation of investigation with a dela y of one month, and underlined the importance of 
timely notification.  He also stated  that in this situation it would have been more appropriate to 
initiate,  for instance, an anti-dumping investigati ng targeting specifically the imports that were 
causing the problems.  He noted that the safeguard  instrument should be used only in exceptional 
circumstances since it was the most trade distorti ng instrument and could prohibit market access for 
imports which were really not the source of the pr oblem.  Finally, he recalled that Article 12.3 of the 
Safeguards Agreement provided for consultations be fore imposition of measures in order to find a 
satisfactory solution, and requested Morocco  to fully comply with this provision. 
67. The representative of Egypt  stated that Egypt agreed with  the comments of the European 
Union, particularly the second point that Morocco should target more specifically the imports that 
were causing the problem.  He urged Morocco to reconsider the decision. 
68. The representative of Morocco  stated that the investigation was initiated after the request of 
the domestic industry in view of the surge of imports.  According to their statistics, the imports of machine made carpets indeed increased substa ntially between 2006 and 2008, and between 2009 and 
2010.  She stated that while she had noted the concer ns raised by the European Union and Egypt, the 
investigation was still under way, and stated that Mo rocco was still not in a pos ition to decide whether 
or not to apply a safeguard measure. 
17. Morocco – Ceramic Tiles 
69. The Chairperson
 noted that Morocco had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
ceramic tiles in document G/SG/N/8/MAR/2/Suppl.3-G/SG/N/10/MAR/2/Suppl.3-G/SG/N/11/MAR/1/Suppl.3. 
70. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
18. Morocco – Polyvinyl Chloride 
71. The Chairperson
 noted that Morocco had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
polyvinyl chloride in document G/SG/N/9/MAR/2. 
72. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
19. Mexico – Spiral-Welded Steel Pipes and Tubes 
73. The Chairperson  noted that Mexico had made a notifi cation regarding an investigation on 
spiral-welded steel pipes and tubes in document G/SG/N/6/MEX/2.  
74. The representative of Mexico  informed that some comme nts were received from the 
interested parties including a request to extend the deadline by which to provid e replies, and that the 
authorities had extended the deadline by 15 days. This extended deadline expired on 
1 September 2010.  Subsequent to th at date, the investigating author ities requested further information G/SG/M/38 
Page 10  
 
  from the interested parties.  He stated that the next step was a public hearing scheduled for 
January 2011, and that the final finding woul d be published by June 2011 at the latest. 
75. The representative of Japan
 welcomed the fact that the notification from Mexico indicated the 
names of the major exports of the product as well as th e next steps of the investigation, both of which 
were sometimes missing in Members' notifications.  She strongly encouraged Members in general to 
include such useful information in the initiation notifi cation.  Japan was of the view that indicating the 
names of the major exports was also in the interest  of developing countries since they could figure out 
at an early stage whether they were likely to be excluded from the measure.  With regards the future 
steps, she stated that in this particular case,  Japan had doubts as to when to start counting the 
"28 days", originally indicated in the notification.   While she took note of the statement of Mexico 
that  the deadline was extended, sh e wished to confirm that with he r capital.  Finally, she reiterated 
that safeguard was an exceptional instrument, and that Members needed to strictly abide by the 
Safeguards Agreement, including  ensuring of transparency. 
76. The representative of Mexico  clarified that the investigati on authorities agreed to provide 
additional 15 working days to reply to the questionnaire, and so the final deadline was 
1 September 2010. 
20. Philippines – Steel Angle Bars 
77. The Chairperson  noted that Philippines had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
steel angle bars in document G/SG/N/8/PHL/7/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/10/PHL/6/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/PHL/7/Suppl.2. 
78. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
21. Philippines – Glass Mirrors 
79. The Chairperson
 noted that the Philippines had made a notification regarding an investigation 
on glass mirrors in document G/SG/N/14/PHL/4/Suppl.4. 
80. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
22. Philippines – Testliner Board 
81. The Chairperson  noted that Philippines had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
testliner board in document G/SG/N/7/PHL/8-G/SG/N/8/PHL/8-G/SG/N/11/PHL/9. 
82. The representative of the European Union  stated that he noted and appreciated the fact that 
the Philippines provided the European Union with an  opportunity to participate in a public hearing. 
Nevertheless, he reiterated that in the view of the European Union serious injury did not exist.  Most 
of the indicators followed positive trends during th e investigation period, i.e. 2004-2008.  With 
regards the causal link, he noted that the alleged injury was not caused by increased imports but rather 
by other factors such as inefficiency and lack of competitiveness of the domestic industry.  Lastly, he 
noted that there was no detailed analysis of economic and financial factors in the context of injury and 
causal link examination.  The European Union was convinced that factors other than imports fully 
explained the negative developments in the domestic industry, to the extent there were any.  In the 
views of the European Union, definitive measures were not warranted in this case. 
83. The representative of the Philippines  requested that the European Union provide questions in 
writing.  G/SG/M/38 
 Page 11 
 
 
  23. Philippines – Figured Glass 
84. The Chairperson  noted that two documents had b een submitted concerning Philippines' 
investigation on figured glass – questions from Th ailand contained in doc ument G/SG/Q2/PHL/10, 
and responses by Philippines contai ned in document G/SG/Q2/PHL/12. 
85. The representative of Thailand  clarified that the Philippines' replies contained in document 
G/SG/Q2/PHL/12 were replies to Thailand's questio ns contained in the document G/SG/Q2/PHL/8, 
and that the questions posed in document  G/SG/Q2/PHL/10 were left unanswered.  
86. The representative of the Philippines  took the floor to respond to the questions posed in 
document G/SG/Q2/PHL/10.  First, he stated that the Philippines Tariff Commission had completed its monitoring review, and the Department of Industr y was expected to issue the order before the end 
of 2010.  On Thailand's request to provide example calculation for what the applicable duty would be 
if the suspension was lifted in 2011, he stated that  the safeguard duty would be equal to the amount 
which would have been applied according to the sch edule of progressive liberalization each year, at a 
linear rate of 5 per cent reduction.  The last order of 2006 provided that liberalization of the imposed 
duty would result in 2274.3 Philippines pesos per metric ton.  Following the 5 per cent linear 
reduction per year, the duty in 2011 would be 1759.9 Philippines pesos per metric ton.  With regards 
Thailand's question as to how the measure could be  further liberalized apart from terminating it 
altogether, the representative explained that th e domestic industry had been undertaking serious 
efforts to comply with the adjustment plan, and th at there was evidence that it was adjusting positively 
to meet the competition.  He stated that factors beyond the control of the industry negated the gains 
resulting from the adjusting plan, and therefore, the extension of the measure should allow the 
industry to fully adjust to import competition. 
87. The representative of Thailand
 asked that the responses from the Philippines be submitted in 
writing. 
24. Philippines – Float Glass 
88. The Chairperson  noted that two documents had been  submitted concerning the Philippines' 
investigation on float glass – questions from Thai land contained in document G/SG/Q2/PHL/11, and 
responses by the Philippines contained in document G/SG/Q2/PHL/12. 
89. The representative of Thailand  clarified that the Philippines' replies contained in document 
G/SG/Q2/PHL/12 were replies to Thailand's questio ns contained in the document G/SG/Q2/PHL/8, 
and that the questions posed in the documen t G/SG/Q2/PHL/11 were left unanswered.  
90. The representative of the Philippines  took the floor to respond to the questions posed in 
document G/SG/Q2/PHL/11.  First, he stated that despite the imposition of the measure, low-priced 
imports continued.  In order to compete in the ma rket, the domestic industry had to sell at prices 
below cost, which resulted in serious impairment of its  financial position.  He stated that at the same 
time, the domestic industry continued to put serious efforts into complying with the adjustment plans. On the question whether there was sudden and sharp increase in imports, he stated that information 
was currently being prepared, and would be provi ded to Thailand and to the Committee as soon as 
possible. 
25. Ukraine – Cooling and Refrigerating Equipment 
91. The Chairperson
 noted that Ukraine had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
cooling and refrigerating equipment in document G/SG/N/6/UKR/7.  G/SG/M/38 
Page 12  
 
  92. The representative of the European Union
 stated that he wished to  raise two sets of issues – 
one was of a general nature releva nt to various investigations including the present one, and the other 
was specific to this investigation.  In terms of the general issue, he stated that the European Union had 
serious concerns about Ukraine's frequent use of th e safeguard instrument over the last year, and the 
insufficient justification in the majority of these investigations.  In three most recent safeguard 
investigations, Ukraine had disclosed the relevant figures for only one or two years.  Such a short 
period was not representative to demonstrate any trend.  As regards the issues sp ecific to this case, the 
representative of the European Union pointed out that  there were two problems with the investigation 
– the development of imports and the causal link.  In relation to the development of imports, he 
underlined that according to the WTO case law, a surge of imports must be recent, sharp and 
significant enough.  In a non-confidential summary, Ukraine claimed that the imports in the second 
half of 2009 increased as compared to the first half  of 2009.  A comparison of only two semesters was 
clearly insufficient to demonstrate any reliable tre nd in the safeguard proceedings.  This was all the 
more so when it was evident from publicly availa ble information that overall imports in 2009 were 
lower than that in 2008.  In addition, the alleged increase could not be considered as significant.  He 
also stated that the investigating authority should take into account the impact of the so-called "anti-
crisis duty" of 13 per cent introduced earlier.  The European Union believed that this duty had had an 
impact on the development of imports in 2008 and 2009.  The existence and the subsequent 
abolishment of this "anti-crisis" dut y explained the difference in imports  in the two halves of the year.  
The representative noted that the safeguard measure should not serve as a continuation of any "anti-
crisis" measure.  With respect to causal link, he noted  that the causal link did not exist.  From the data 
provided to the parties, it was clear that the Ukra inian industry had suffered injury already in the 
period prior to that in which the import figures were provided.  The situation of the Ukrainian industry 
continued to deteriorate in the first half of 2009,  which was a period of low imports.  Paradoxically, 
the situation of the Ukrainian industry started to  improve at the same time when imports had 
increased: the second part of 2009.  It was clear from th is development that the alleged injury was not 
caused by imports but due to global economic crisis.  In the views of the European Union, after the 
end of the crisis, the industry in Ukraine did not have enough time to renew its  domestic production in 
order to serve the rapidly growing domestic market in the second half of 2009.  However, shortage 
was only a temporary situation, and in this respect the European Union recalled that the effects other 
than the imports should be separated and not attri buted to imports.  In conclusion, the representative 
of the European Union urged Ukraine to remedy th e lack of transparency in this and other ongoing 
cases by disclosing essential data for at least three c onsecutive years, and to ensure that the rights for 
defence of all parties concerned were fully respected. 
93. The representative of Ukraine  asked the European Union to submit its questions in writing. 
26. Ukraine – Sheet Glass 
94. The Chairperson  noted that Ukraine had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
sheet glass in document G/SG/N/6/UKR/4/Suppl.1 
95. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
96. Before moving on to the next agenda, the representative of Canada  made a general comment 
regarding all of the safeguards investigations on the agenda.  Canada expressed its concern over the 
continued high level of safeguard s investigations.  Safeguard measures were unique amongst trade 
remedy measures, in that they targeted fairly  traded imports, and as such, Canada encouraged 
Members to be especially diligent in following the rules.   
97. The Chairperson  thanked all delegations for their statements, questions and answers 
concerning the various notifications of actions related to safeguard measures.  He reminded 
delegations once again that any questions for which written responses were requested should be  G/SG/M/38 
 Page 13 
 
 
  submitted to the Member concerned and to the Se cretariat no later than 15 November 2010.  He 
reminded delegations once again that written respon ses to questions, including questions submitted in 
writing prior to this meeting, should be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 6 December 2010. 
As with the legislative notifications, the draft a nnotated agenda of the next Committee meeting would 
indicate if there were any questions left unanswered. He  also stated that in order to assist Members, he 
would get in contact with delegations as necessar y if responses were not submitted by the latter 
deadline.   
98. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
C. TIME -PERIOD TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE CALCULATION OF IMPORT SHARE FOR PURPOSES OF 
ARTICLE  9.1  
99. The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had been  discussing a proposal from Chinese 
Taipei for some time.  Putting aside a similar but  general discussion that took place in 2009, Chinese 
Taipei first tabled its concrete proposal at the in formal meeting held in January 2010.  The same 
matter was discussed at the spring 2010 regular meeti ng held in April 2010.  These two meetings were 
held under the former Chair, Ms Mohun.  Ha ving inherited the matter from Ms Mohun, the 
Chairperson recalled that he himself held an inform al meeting in July 2010, and then, most recently 
on 14 October.  He noted that the Committee had been discussing very similar drafts since January 2010, and in fact the drafts discussed at the July  2010 and September 2010 meetings were identical, 
and the only substantive comments made at the Sept ember meeting was editorial.  He explained that 
he had tried to accommodate the editorial matter rai sed at the 14 October informal meeting in a draft 
faxed to Members on 20 October.  Having made these  points, the Chairperson stated that he would 
invite Members' comments in informal mode. 
100. After hearing the views of Members in informal mode, the Chairperson
 stated that he noted 
that three Members stated that they  still needed time to consider this  matter, and so he understood that 
further consultations were necessary.  He stated that he would let Members know in due course how 
exactly to proceed. 
101. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
D. OTHER BUSINESS  
1. Statement by the Chairperson on Notifications  
102. The Chairperson  stated that he wished to make a statement regarding notifications.  At the 
outset, he stated that he was happy to report that  Members were generally making good use of the new 
notification format adopted at the autumn 2009 meeting, contained in document G/SG/1/Rev.1–
G/SG/N/6/Rev.1–G/SG/89.  
103. First, he recalled that the new format encour aged Members to submit, together with its 
notification, an electronic version of the publicly av ailable document containing the relevant decisions 
made by the competent authority.  Such document ne ed not be in the official languages of the WTO. 
Such document would neither be circulated nor tr anslated, but kept in the Secretariat and made 
available to those Members th at requested it.  This met hod allowed achieving two goals 
simultaneously. On the one hand, it allowed timely  circulation of notifications by avoiding a 
translation of long documents.  On the other hand, this method avoided any compromises in providing 
detailed information, since interested Members coul d take a look at the detailed underlying official 
document.  As the second point, the Chairperson reca lled that in the new format, Members agreed that 
notifications regarding cessation of measures were encouraged.  The Chairperson stated that such 
notifications were often helpful in clarifying the stat us of measures.  Third, the Chairperson wished to G/SG/M/38 
Page 14  
 
  draw the attention of Members to one type of no tification which the Committee agreed to provide in 
1996.  This was a notification to make when an inv estigation resulted in a finding that no measure – 
provisional or final – was necessary.  He recalled that this format was included in a separate document than the rest of the formats, in document G/SG/2.  He explained that as Members would see in the 
discussion of Annex 3 of the annual report, status of investigations would often become unclear 
without these notifications.  Finally, the Chairperson wished to provide an information concerning 
submission of electronic versions of notifications.  Unlike some other Committees, it was not an obligation to submit notifications in electronic form  in this Committee.  But as was explained by his 
predecessors, electronic versions were very helpfu l for the timely circulation of notifications. 
Specifically, if only a paper version was submitted, the Secretariat had to retype all the text.  In this 
regard, he understood that some Members still pref erred sending the notification in paper form, since 
they could get the confirmation – a receipt stamp – that the notification was received by the Central 
Registry of Notifications (CRN).  He explained that the CRN now had a new system in place whereby it sent an automated reply confirming receipt indicating the original title of the e-mail.  He hoped that 
this would assist those Members that hesitated to  send electronic versions due to the confirmation 
issue.  
2. Statement by the Chairperson on Technology Transfer  
104.  The Chairperson
 stated that he had received a letter from Ambassador Hisham Badr, 
Chairman of the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology, dated 13 August 2010.  In that 
letter, Ambassador Badr indicated that the Wo rking Group was updating its review, last made in 
2002, concerning the relationship between trade a nd transfer of technology. In this context, 
Ambassador Badr requested to be informed of an y discussion, submissions and/or other developments 
relating to trade and technology transfer that mi ght have taken place in the Committee after 2002.  
The Chairperson stated that in response to this re quest, he informed Ambassador Badr that there had 
been no discussions, submissions, or other develo pments in the Committee relating to trade and 
technology transfer since 2002.  He stated that copi es of the two letters were made available in the 
room.  
105. The representative of Egypt  took the floor and asked whether the points made by China in 
document G/SG/Q2/EEC/3 concerning the investiga tion by the European Union regarding wireless 
wide area networking was not something that merited informing the Working Group.  
106.  The representative of the European Union  stated that it did not understand that that 
information related to the information sought .  The representatives of the United States  and Canada  
stated that they agreed w ith the European Union.  
107. The representative of the China  stated that he wished to remind that the European Union 
initiated an anti-dumping investigation and a counterva iling investigation as well on this product.    
108. The Chairperson  stated that he noted the diverging views on this matter, and stated that he 
would inform his decision on this matter in due course.2   
109. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
                                                      
2  Subsequently, in a fax dated 11 November 2010, the Chairperson informed Members that he did not 
deem the specific document to relate to the information sought, and so he saw no need to inform the Working 
Group of this document.    G/SG/M/38 
 Page 15 
 
 
  E. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
110. 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 the Council for Trade in Goods. 
111. Concerning the preparation and adoption of the Committee's annual report, at its meeting of 
24 February 1995 the Committee decided to follow  the same procedure as in the Tokyo Round 
Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices and Subsidi es and Countervailing Measures.  In accordance 
with this procedure, a draft of the report in the form of a factual summary of the Committee's 
activities during 2010 had been prepared by the Secret ariat.  A preliminary draft of this report was 
made available to Members by fax on 20 October 2010. 
112. The Chairperson suggested that the Committe e consider the draft report paragraph by 
paragraph and then review the Anne xes.  He further suggested that the Committee proceed with this 
work in informal mode. 
113. After adjusting several factua l matters, the Committee adopted  its annual report to the 
Council for Trade in Goods for 2010 (see document G/L/936). 
F. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
114. The Chairperson  suggested that the Committee meet in the week of 2 May 2011.  He stated 
that the exact date would be confirmed later. 
115. The Committee so agreed . 
__________