RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/M/32 
19 March 2008 
 (08-1240) 
Committee on Safeguards  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 24 OCTOBER 2007 
 
Chairperson:  Mrs. Jo McKeagg (New Zealand) 
  
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the  "Committee") held a regular meeting on 24 October 2007. 
2. The following agenda was adopted: 
A.
 NATIONAL LEGISLATION .............................................................................................................1  
1. Albania – Review Of New Legislative Notification ................................................................2  
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES ............................................2  
1. Argentina – Compact Disks Recordable.................................................................................2  
2. Jordan – Ceramic Tiles ......................................................................................................... ...3 
3. Moldova – Cane or Beet Sugar................................................................................................3  
4. Panama – Printed Film in Rolls...............................................................................................4  
5. South Africa – Lysine .......................................................................................................... .....5 
6. Turkey – Travel Goods.......................................................................................................... ...6 
C. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF 
THE PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION ................................7  
D. OTHER BUSINESS .........................................................................................................................7  
E. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL ON TRADE IN GOODS ............................................................7  
F. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING ......................................................................................8  
 
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
3. The Chairperson  stated that the first item on the Committee's agenda was the review of 
notifications of national safeguard legislations and/or regulations, in accordance with the procedures 
adopted by the Committee at its special meeting in  April 1996.  The Chairperson mentioned that, as 
had been indicated in the airgram convening th e meeting, the Committee had received legislative 
notifications from one Member.  As indicated in the annotated draft agenda dated 19 September 2007, 
questions regarding this notificati on were to have been submitted to the Member concerned and to the 
Secretariat no later than 3 October 2007. 
4. Concerning the procedure for this meeting, the Chairperson stated that she would first give 
the floor to the Member whose legislation was be ing reviewed to make any introductory statement 
that it wished.  She would then i nvite that Member to present its answers to any written questions.  
The Chairperson reminded Members of the Comm ittee that in accordance with the procedures G/SG/M/32 
Page 2 
 
 
  adopted by the Committee, a written version of th ose answers also had to be provided after the 
meeting.  The Chairperson also reminded Members that follow-up questions could be asked at this 
meeting.  Other delegations would also be given an opportunity to present questions orally at this 
meeting.  After the meeting there would be a period for the submission of written questions 
concerning any of the legislations reviewed in the meeting. 
5. The Chairperson mentioned that if Members wi shed to have written answers to questions, 
they had to ensure that all questions were 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 
14 November 2007.  Written answers to all questions submitted in writing by that deadline had to be 
submitted to the Secretariat no later than three weeks later, i.e., no later than 5 December 2007. 
1. Albania – Review Of New Legislative Notification  
6. The Chairperson  noted that Albania's legislative notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/ALB/1/Suppl.1.  
7. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.   
8. Before proceeding to the next agenda item, the Chairperson inform ed the Committee that 
there were still 33 Members that had not yet made a legislative notification.1  The Chairperson stated 
that she regretted that the number of Members that  had failed to make any legislative notification 
remained high.  She urged these Members to make the required notification and reminded that in 
cases where no legislation existed, a simple  notification indicating "nil" was required. 
9. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
10. The Chairperson  noted that various notifications had been  received since the last meeting.  In 
order to ensure that all of these could be review ed in the limited time available, the Chairperson 
suggested that the Committee address the relevant safeguard investigations as separate agenda items, 
and review all of the notifications pertaining to each separate investigation at the same time.   
1. Argentina – Compact Disks Recordable  
11. The Chairperson  noted that Argentina had made notifications regarding the investigation on 
compact disks recordable ("CDRs"), in documents G/SG/N/8/ARG/5/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/ARG/5/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/ARG/5/S uppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/ARG/5 - G/SG/N/10/ARG/5 
- G/SG/N/11/ARG/5. 
12. The representative of the Separate Customs Te rritory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 
("Chinese Taipei" hereafter) expressed his concern about the measures applied to imported CDRs.  
Emphasizing that Chinese Taipei continued to monito r all developments in that matter, and that it 
reserved its rights to take steps necessary to ensure  that the rights and interests of its industry were 
protected under WTO rules and regulations, he reite rated what the major concerns of Chinese Taipei 
were:  firstly, recalling that Article 12.3 of th e Agreement on Safeguards ("Agreement") required 
Members to provide an adequate opportunity for prio r consultations, he pointed out that Argentina did 
                                                      
1  These Members were: Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Belize, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, 
Central 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, Saud i Arabia, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, 
Tanzania, Togo, Tonga and Vietnam.  G/SG/M/32 
 Page 3 
 
 
  not provide such an opportunity to Chinese Taip ei.  Secondly, he expressed doubts as to whether 
unforeseen developments in the CDR market actually ex isted.  Thirdly, he stated that Argentina's 
price assessment was unsubstantiated because, on the one hand, the information contained in 
Argentina's notifications of 24 April 2007 suggested  that the average FOB prices of imported CDRs 
were continuously decreasing, while, on the other ha nd, the import statistics provided by Argentina on 
16 October 2007 showed that the average FOB prices were slightly increasing.  Fourthly, contrary to 
the requirements of Article 5.1 of the Agreemen t, in its concession analysis, Argentina did not 
consider such factors as salary adjustments, infl ation, operation performance, or dead costs, and 
attributed the injury exclusively to imported CDRs .  Fifthly, the effects achieved by Argentina's 
safeguard measures appeared to have exceeded th e effects of the alleged injury, as Argentina's 
domestic CDR production could not full y satisfy domestic demand.   
13. The representative of Argentina  stated that he had noted the statement of Chinese Taipei, and 
that his country would follow the points raised, especially the second and fifth points, with special 
attention.  He stressed that Argentina offered all Members that could be affected by the measure the 
opportunity to consult, in accordance with Article 12.3 of the Agreement.  He also stated that 
Argentina had held two rounds of consultations w ith Chinese Taipei, one in Buenos Aires and the 
other in Geneva. 
2. Jordan – Ceramic Tiles  
14. The Chairperson  noted that Jordan had made a notification regarding termination of an 
investigation on ceramic tiles, contai ned in document (G/SG/N/9/JOR/7). 
15. The representative of the European Communities  welcomed Jordan's termination of the 
safeguard investigation, but expressed concerns regarding the unclear circumstances surrounding the 
termination.  He stated that an agreement seeme d to have been reached between the producers and 
importers of ceramic tiles in Jordan, through ne gotiations held under the auspices of the Amman 
Chamber of Commerce.  That agreement seemed to sti pulate that a so-called statistical fee was to be 
paid for imports of ceramic tiles, a nd that the fee of approximately half  a euro per square metre was to 
be paid to the local industry.  The representative of the European Communitie s also noted that that 
agreement had apparently even been brought to a c ourt by one of the Jordan importers who did not 
want to pay the fee.  The representative of the European Communities noted  that Jordan provided 
reassurances that it was not involve d in that agreement and that such payment of fee was purely 
voluntary.  He nevertheless expressed concerns sinc e such agreement unduly restricted access to the 
Jordanian market.  He stated th at the European Communities encour aged Jordan to take necessary 
steps to solve the issue,  to remove the agreement, and to  look critically into the matter. 
16. The representative of Jordan  stated that the Jordanian Government had no involvement in 
such an agreement, and that if there was any su ch agreement the government would take the necessary 
steps. 
3. Moldova – Cane or Beet Sugar  
17. The Chairperson  noted that Moldova had made a notif ication regarding the investigation on 
cane or beet sugar in document G/SG/N/6/MDA/3. 
18. The representative of Moldova  stated that Moldova sought to extend the period of application 
of the existing safeguard measures prompted by th e fact that the existing safeguard measure had a 
positive effect on the domestic sugar industry but that not all the expected results were achieved.  In 
order to consolidate the position of the domestic i ndustry and to enable it to compete with other 
industries and countries, Moldova was yet to rea lize and implement the development programme for 
modernization of the sugar industry.  The repr esentative of Moldova stated that the Moldovan G/SG/M/32 
Page 4 
 
 
  authority concluded, after a review, that the ap plication of the safeguard measures in force was 
effective and  necessary, and that the pace of liber alization of the measures should not be changed. 
19. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
4. Panama – Printed Film in Rolls 
20. The Chairperson  noted that the next item was Pa nama's notification regarding the 
investigation on printed film in rolls ("PVC films") contained in documents 
G/SG/N/7/PAN/1/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/PAN/1/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/PAN/1-G/SG/N/10/PAN/1. 
21. The representative of Panama , after a brief explanation of the chronology of the investigation, 
explained that the investigation focussed on several products in the plastic sector, such as plastic films 
in rolls for packaging machines, made of polypropylene.  He highlighted some of the important 
factors related to the investigation.  He firs t noted that the investigation was initiated on 
11 September 2006, which was notified to all inter ested parties and foreign governments as described 
in document G/SG/N/6/PAN/1.  He explained that Panama subsequently provided every opportunity, 
including extensions of submission deadlines, for th e interested parties to defend their rights.  He 
explained that the Cabinet Counsel had accepte d the decision handed down, after a detailed 
investigation, by the competent authority to apply provisional safeguard measures.  
22. He further explained that, after exhausting all th e stages of the investigation, the investigating 
authority of Panama proceeded to recommended that  the Cabinet Counsel impose definitive measures. 
He explained that the recommended measure w ould not necessarily displace exporters from the 
Panamanian market because if one compared the im port price to the domestic price, the measure did 
not grant any greater competitiveness to national pr oducts.  He further explained that Panama had 
duly offered, in its notification circulated in June2, the opportunity for exporting countries which had a 
substantive interest to hold consultations on th e recommendations to impose safeguard measures.  
23. He stated that Colombia was the only country that requested such consultations, and that 
consultations with Colombia were  held in Panama on 14 August 2007.  He explained that no 
agreement was reached in these c onsultations, and that on 8 Oct ober 2007, the Cabinet Counsel 
approved the implementation of definitive measure.  He stated that this was notified in document 
G/SG/N/8/PAN/1/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/10/PAN/1/Suppl.1,  which was circulated very recently.  He 
further explained that certain regulation was set up to ensure that the routine procedure would be 
applied to products which, although classified unde r the same headings, were not subject to the 
measure.  
24. He went on to explain in detail what the investigating authority found in terms of the notion 
of "representativeness", the increase in  import, and injury.  He concl uded the statement by reiterating 
that due process was followed in th e investigation and that all interested parties were given full 
opportunities throughout the investigation to put forward their opinions.  
25. The representative of Colombia  recalled that Colombia had expressed concerns on different 
occasions to Panama about the inconsistencies of the investigation with the Agreement as well as 
Article XIX of GATT 1994.  In light of the recommendation put forward by the Panamanian 
investigating authorities on the adoption of the defi nitive measure, Colombia held consultations with 
Panama on 14 August 2007 with a view to coming to an agreement on compensation.  The representative of Colombia stated that while Co lombia submitted a proposal for compensation, 
Panama rejected that proposal explaining that the impact of the definitive safeguard measures did not 
represent a threat to the growth and development of  bilateral trade between Colombia and Panama.  
                                                     
 
2  G/SG/N/8/PAN/1-G/SG/N/10/PAN/1.  G/SG/M/32 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Consequently, although the two governments did not  agree on any trade compensation, Panama 
imposed the definitive measure.  The representativ e of Colombia reiterated that Colombia was 
affected by Panama's safeguard measure, and that the procedures followed by Panama were incompatible with several WTO provisions:  Articl es 2.1, 4.1(a) and 4.1(c) of the Agreement;  
paragraph 1(a) of Article XIX of GATT 1994; and Ar ticle 8.1 of the Agreement.  The representative 
of Colombia stated that Colombia would pursue its dialogue with Panama in order to solve the 
problem, while keeping all options open. 
26. The representative of Peru
 stated that she regretted the decision taken by Panama to adopt a 
definitive safeguard measure because the measure in question had a serious impact on Peruvian 
exports, and because the imposition of such a measur e was inconsistent with the provisions of the 
Agreement.  Peru hoped to hear from Panama what  compensation measures were under consideration. 
Finally, she requested that the latest notification be included in the agenda of the next meeting, since 
this notification was submitted very recently.  
27. The representative of Panama  stated that both Colombia and Peru were in contact with the 
investigating authority from the outset of the inves tigation, and that Panama had met with these two 
Members in Geneva and in Panama, and that they we re fully informed of the different stages of the 
investigation.  The representative of Panama clarif ied that the notification of the imposition of the 
final measure was actually not part of the agenda of  this meeting because, despite best efforts to get it 
included, that notification was submitted only on th e day when the airgram for this meeting was 
issued.  He stated that Panama, nonetheless, made th at notification available to the Members at this 
meeting.  He further stated that the same documen t was provided informally to both delegations the 
previous week and that Panama ha d held bilateral meetings with th e two delegations in Geneva.  The 
representative of Panama also stated that if there was an interest in including the latest notification in 
the agenda of the next meeting, Panama would certainly accept that.  
28. The second representative of Panama confirmed that Panama was ready to hold consultations 
on the basis of Article 12.3 of the Agreement.  He reiterated that to date, onl y Colombia had formally 
requested such consultations.  He stated that Panama  would be delighted to coordinate dates to start 
the formal procedure with Peru.  Concerning consul tations with Colombia, he reconfirmed that two 
meetings took place: one concerning the provisional  safeguard measure held in May 2007, and the 
other concerning the definitive safeguard measure held  in August 2007.  He stated that no agreement 
was reached thus far, and that Panama had decide d to continue discussing the other possible measures. 
29. The representative of the United States  agreed with Peru that the latest notification should be 
placed on the agenda for the next meeting.  He also st ated that it would be useful if Panama revised its 
Article 9.1 notification to bring it into conformity  with the formatting requirements of the Committee, 
which utilizes a positive list approach as opposed to a negative list approach, so that potential sources 
of this product could be identified. 
30. The Chairperson  stated that the latest notification was indeed received on the day the airgram 
for this meeting was circulated, and thus could not be included in the agenda for this meeting.  She 
confirmed that the notification would appear on the agenda of the meeting in April 2008.   
5. South Africa – Lysine 
31. The Chairperson  noted that South Africa had made notifi cations regarding an investigation on 
lysine in documents G/SG/N/6/ZAF/1-G/SG/N/7/ZAF/1-G/SG/N/8/ZAF/1-G/SG/N/11/ZAF/1 and 
G/SG/N/8/ZAF/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/ZAF/1–G/SG/N/11/ZAF/1/Suppl.1. 
32. The representative of the European Communities  stated that he had several problems with 
South Africa's measure.  He noted that the provisional measure amounted to an ad valorem  duty of G/SG/M/32 
Page 6 
 
 
  160 per cent and that the provisional measure of such a level simply closed the market to any imports.  
He stated that such level was not legally warranted .  Although the proposed level of the final  measure 
was significantly lower, the European Communities still considered that the safeguard measure was 
not justified for three reasons: first, the European  Communities did not agree with the interpretation 
adopted by South Africa for the notion of unforesee n developments.  South Africa interpreted that 
developments would be unforeseen if they could no t be anticipated at the conclusion of the Uruguay 
Round or at China's accession to the WTO.  This, in  view of the European Communities, would make 
virtually every case as an unforeseen development t oday.  Secondly, the Eu ropean Communities was 
concerned with South Africa's injury analysis  because factors such as capacity utilization, 
employment, and productivity had not been analysed.  Thirdly, concerning South Africa's causal link 
analysis, he stated that there was no explanation as  to which "other factors" had been taken into 
account and how those "other factors" had been  taken into account.  Moreover, the European 
Communities recalled that prior to imposition of the safeguard measures in question, the South 
African industry had already benefited from an ti-dumping measures against imports from Indonesia 
and from the United States.  Although those measures expired in the meantime, the productivity of the 
South African industry was decreasing.  The represen tative of the European Communities stated that 
this demonstrated that the alleged injury had been wrongly attributed to imports, and he requested that 
South Africa address those matters. 
33. The representative of South Africa  stated that there was still opportunity for consultations 
until the end of October 2007.  She stated that So uth Africa had already held consultations with 
Brazil. 
6. Turkey – Travel Goods  
34. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding the initiation of an 
investigation on travel goods contai ned in document G/SG/N/6/TUR/12. 
35. The representative of the European Communities  raised several points on this notification. 
First, he stated that the European Communiti es welcomed the decreasing trend of initiation of 
safeguard investigations by Turkey.  Up to the date  of the meeting, two safeguard investigations were 
initiated during the year 2007, as opposed to five in 2006.  Having said that, he stated that the European Communities remained concerned over the extensive use of safeguard measures by Turkey. 
Secondly, concerning the notion of unforeseen devel opment, the European Communities recalled that 
safeguard measures should only be used in exceptio nal circumstances and provided that there were 
unforeseen developments.  In the view of the Eu ropean Communities, circumstances which were 
characterised as unforeseen developments by the Turk ish investigating authorities, i.e. the increase of 
production costs of the domestic industry, or the accession of specific countries to the WTO, did not qualify as unforeseen developments under the terms of th e Agreement.  Finally, the product scope in 
the investigation in question was too broad, because it covered 25 CN codes ranging from simple 
wallets to travel bags and luggage.  The representa tive of the European Commu nities considered that 
either a separate analysis had to be carried out fo r those various groups of products, or some products 
had to be excluded from the scope of the investigation. 
36. The representative of Turkey
 stated that the initiations of saf eguard investigations as well as 
their procedures were rules-based.  He stated that these initiations could not have been avoided given 
that the domestic industry in Turkey had made a pe tition to the authorities, and the authorities were 
under an obligation to initiate the procedure as necessary. 
37. Before proceeding to the next agenda item, the Chairperson  recalled that any questions 
concerning the notifications of actions taken for which written responses were requested had to be 
sent to the Member concerned and to the Secr etariat no later than 14 November 2007.  Written 
answers must be submitted to the Secr etariat no later than 5 December 2007.  G/SG/M/32 
 Page 7 
 
 
  38. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
C. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE 
PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
39. The Chairperson  noted that Paragraph 18 of China's Protocol of Accession provided that all 
subsidiary bodies, including the Safeguards Comm ittee, "which have a mandate covering China's 
commitments under the WTO Agreement or [the] Prot ocol shall, within one year after accession, 
review, as appropriate to their mandate, the implem entation by China of the WTO Agreement and of 
the related provisions of [the] Protocol."  China was to provide relevant information in advance of the 
review, including information specified in Annex 1A to the Protocol.  China could also raise issues 
relating to any reservations under S ection 17 or to any other speci fic commitments made by other 
Members in the Protocol, in subsidiary  bodies which have a relevant mandate.  
40. The Chairperson stated that th e Committee must report the results of the review promptly to 
the Council for Trade in Goods.  Review was to take  place after accession in each year for eight years, 
with a final review in year 10 or at an earlier da te decided by the General Council.  She added that 
there were no procedures set out for the conduct of th e transitional review in the Protocol, except that 
China was to provide relevant information in adva nce of the review.  In accordance with section IV.6 
of Annex 1A to the Protocol, China was required to  notify the Committee of its implementation of its 
Regulation on Safeguards.  She stated that in this context, China submitted a notification on 
15 October as document G/SG/W/206. 
41. No Member took the floor on this notification.  
42. The Chairperson  noted that China's Protocol of Accession contained no guidelines for 
reporting to the Council for Trade in Goods on the Committee's transitional review of China's 
implementation of the Agreement.  She proposed  that the Committee follow the same reporting 
procedure as last year, whereby the Chairperson,  acting on his own responsibility, would prepare a 
brief, factual report, with references to the docum ents concerned, and attaching the portion of the 
minutes of the meeting which relate to the transition review. 
43. The Committee agreed  that the Chairperson should prepare th e same type of report in respect 
of this year's review. 
D. OTHER BUSINESS  
44. There were no issues raised under this agenda item. 
E. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL ON TRADE IN GOODS  
45. 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. 
46. 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 Subsidies 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 2007 had been prepared by the Secret ariat.  A preliminary draft of this report was 
made available to Members by fax on 18 October 2007. G/SG/M/32 
Page 8 
 
 
  47. The Chairperson suggested that the Committe e consider the draft report paragraph by 
paragraph and then review the Anne xes.  She further suggested that the Committee proceed with this 
work in informal mode. 
48. After adjusting several factual matters3, the Committee adopted  its annual report to the 
Council for Trade in Goods for 2007 (see document G/L/832). 
F. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
49. The Chairperson  recalled that regular meetings would nor mally be held in April and October, 
in conjunction with the regular meetings of th e Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices and Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures.  Accordingly, she su ggested that the Committee meet in the week of 
28 April 2008.  She stated that the exact date would be confirmed later. 
50. The Committee so agreed .  
__________ 
 
 
                                                      
3  Such adjustments included clarification by certa in Member on the status of past measures. (See 
footnote 17 of the annual report (document G/L/832).)