. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/Q2/TUR/2 
5 December 2006 
 (06-5834) 
Committee on Safeguards Original:   English 
  
 
NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 12.1(B) OF THE AGREEMENT 
ON SAFEGUARDS ON FINDING A SERIOUS INJURY OR THREAT 
THEREOF CAUSED BY INCREASED IMPORTS 
 
NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 12.1(C) 
OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS 
 
NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 9, FOOTNOTE 2 
OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS 
 
Replies to Questions Posed by the EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
1 
Regarding the Notifications of TURKEY2 
  
 The following communication, dated 4 December 2006, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of Turkey. 
_______________ 
 
 
Q. Could Turkey explain why the duty calculation only reflected the price of certain 
imports to the exclusion of other ones?  Coul d Turkey confirm that, if the above-mentioned 
calculation had been based on the prices of all
 imports of steam irons, the price difference 
between domestic and import price would have b een lower?  Could Turkey indicate what the 
price difference would have been if the calculatio n had been based on all imports?  In addition, 
could Turkey explain whether and how a duty that is fixed at a level reflecting exclusively low priced imports is in accordance with the WTO Ag reement on Safeguards, in particular Article 5 
thereof  as interpreted by the Appellate  Body (see Appellate Body Report in United States - line 
pipe from Korea,  WT/DS202/AB/R, paras. 223-262), which pr ovides that measures must be set at 
a level which is strictly necessary to offset the injury caused by the increased imports? 
 
Reply
 
 
 It was determined, in the investigation, that the increase in total imports, rather than only low-
priced imports, of steam irons into Turkey had cau sed serious injury to the domestic producers of the 
like product.  Also, price of the imported products was found to be one of the factors that affects the competitiveness of that product in the market.  Therefore, bearing in mind that there is no methodology mentioned in the Agreement on Safegua rds for the calculation of a safeguard measure 
apart from a quantitative restriction, a type of measure that has a proportionally greater effect on the 
low-priced products was selected.  
                                                     
 
1 G/SG/Q2/TUR/1 
2 G/SG/N/8/TUR/4-G/SG/N/10 /TUR/4-G/SG/N/11/TUR/4 G/SG/Q2/TUR/2 
Page 2  
 
   Since there was no price undercutting by total imports in the period under examination, it 
would not have been appropriate to calculate a sp ecific duty that is based on the difference between 
the average prices of all imported products and the like product.   It is stated in the Appellate Body Report in United States – Line Pipe from Korea  that "Thus, 
our findings in Korea – Dairy  establish that Article 5.1 imposes  a general substantive obligation, 
namely, to apply safeguard measures only to the permissible extent, and also a particular procedural 
obligation, namely, to provide a clear justifica tion in the specific case of quantitative restrictions 
reducing the volume of imports below the average of imports in the last three representative years.  
Article 5.1 does not establish a general procedur al obligation to demonstrate compliance with 
Article 5.1, first sentence, at the time a measure is applied." 
  Regarding the procedural obligation, Turkey  provided a justification for the procedure 
followed in the calculation of the measure although it did not have to do.  Concerning the substantive 
obligation, since it was determined in the investiga tion that the increase in total imports, rather than 
only a portion of imports, had caused serious injury, it  would be fair to say that applying the measure 
against all imports is in line with the spirit of the Agreement of Safeguards.  In other words, the fact 
that the price of low-priced imports was used in cal culating the amount of duty does not mean that the 
serious injury suffered by the domestic producers was caused by only low-priced imports.  
__________