RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/M/30 
27 March 2007 
 (07-1279) 
Committee on Safeguards  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 23 OCTOBER 2006   
 
Chairman:  Mr. Seung-ho Kim (Korea) 
 
 
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 23 October 2006. 
2. Malaysia
 stated that it wished to make a statement relating to Article 9.1 under "Other 
Business", and  the following agenda was adopted. 
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION .............................................................................................................2  
1. Mexico – Review of New Legislative Notification ..................................................................2  
2. China – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative Notification ....................2  
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES ..........................................3  
1. Argentina – Compact Disks Recordable.................................................................................3  
2. Brazil – Coconuts .............................................................................................................. ........3  
3. Canada – Bicycles .............................................................................................................. .......4  
4. Chile – Powdered Milk, Liquid Milk and Gouda Cheese .....................................................4  
5. Indonesia – Cast Glass and Rolled Glass................................................................................4  
6. Jordan – Footwear .............................................................................................................. ......5  
7. Panama – Printed Film in Rolls...............................................................................................5  
8. Philippines – Float Glass ...................................................................................................... ....5 
9. Philippines – Figured Glass.................................................................................................... ..6 
10. Philippines – Gl ass Mirrors .................................................................................................... .6 
11. Philippines – Sodium Tripolyphosphates ...............................................................................7  
12. Tunisia – Bottles and Glassware..............................................................................................7  
13. Tunisia – Taps, Locks and Fittings .........................................................................................7  
14. Turkey – Vacuum Cleaners .....................................................................................................8  
15. Turkey – Steam Smoothing Irons............................................................................................8  
16. Turkey – Salt .................................................................................................................. ...........8  
17. Turkey – Footwear.............................................................................................................. ......8  
18. Turkey – Motorcycles........................................................................................................... ....9 G/SG/M/30 
Page 2  
 
  C.
 TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF 
THE PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION .............................9  
D. OTHER BUSINESS ......................................................................................................................10  
E. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL ON TRADE IN GOODS ........................................................11  
F. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING ..................................................................................11  
 
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
3. The Chairman  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 Chairman mentioned that, as had 
been indicated in the airgram convening the me eting, the Committee had received legislative 
notifications from one Member.  As indicated in the annotated draft agenda dated 14 September 2006, 
questions regarding these legislative notifications  were to have been submitted to the Member 
concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 2 October 2006. 
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 submis sion 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 
13 November 2006.  Written answers to all questions submitted in writing by that deadline had to be 
submitted to the Secretariat no later than three w eeks later, i.e., no later than 4 December 2006. 
1. Mexico – Review of New Legislative Notification  
6. The Chairman  noted that Mexico's legislative notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.2.   
7. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.   
2. China – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative Notification  
8. The Chairman  recalled that this agenda item related to  notifications of legislation from China 
previously considered in the Committee.  He  noted that written questions concerning these 
notifications had been received from Japan in doc ument G/SG/Q1/CHN/29, and that written responses 
have been received from China in document G/SG/Q 1/CHN/30.  The Chairman asked Japan whether 
it had follow-up questions. 
9. The representative of Japan  stated, after clarifying that it did not have any follow-up 
questions, that his government was satisfied with China's reconfirmed commit ment to the WTO rules 
and that it would welcome it if China would consider  Japan's request relating to Article 8.3 of the 
Safeguard Agreement in the course of future amendments to China's domestic regulations.  G/SG/M/30 
 Page 3 
 
 
  10. The representative of China  thanked Japan for its questi ons and concerns over China's 
safeguard regulation.  The Representative of China st ated that as the answers it provided in the written 
response was clear, he would not repeat them.  He reiterated China's commitments to comply with all WTO rules in implementing the Safeguards Agreement and stated that, thus far, it had applied only 
one safeguard measure – on steel products – in the context of which it had fully applied the 
Safeguards Agreement.  Finally, he confirmed that China would continue to discuss these matters 
with Japan and other Members if they had any follow-up questions. 
11. 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 13 Nove mber 2007.  The deadline for written answers to all 
questions posed in writing was 4 December 2007. 
12. Concerning these deadlines, he reminded the Committee of the importance of providing 
written answers to written questions.  Such excha nge constituted the Committee's only record of the 
review of legislations.  Thus, the Committee's reco rds were left incomplete when written questions 
were not answered, or were only answered long after the meeting at which the review took place.  In 
this context, the Chairman urged all Members to abide by the deadlines set by the Committee for the 
provision of written replies to written questions. 
13. Before proceeding to the next agenda item the Chairman informed the Committee that there 
were still 31 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 Ne w Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint 
Vincent & Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone , Solomon Islands, Swazila nd, Tanzania and Togo. 
14. The Chairman stated that he regretted that the number of Members that had failed to make 
any legislative notification remained so high.  He urged these Members to make the required 
notification and reminded them that in cases where no legislation existed, a simple notification 
indicating "nil" was required. 
15. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
16. The Chairman  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 Chairman 
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  
17. The Chairman  noted that Argentina had made notifi cations regarding the initiation of an 
investigation on compact disks recordable, contained in document G/SG/N/6/ARG/6. 
18. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
2. Brazil – Coconuts  
19. The Chairman  noted that Brazil had made a notifica tion regarding a review of an existing 
measure, contained in documents G/SG/N/6 /BRA/2/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/10/BRA/3/Suppl.4-
G/SG/N/14/BRA/2. G/SG/M/30 
Page 4  
 
  20. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.  
3. Canada – Bicycles 
21. The Chairman
 noted that Canada had made a notifi cation regarding the termination of its 
investigation on bicycles contained in document G/SG/N/9/CAN/3. 
22. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.  
4. Chile – Powdered Milk, Liquid Milk and Gouda Cheese   
23. The Chairman  noted that Chile had made a notification regarding the initiation of an 
investigation on powdered milk, liquid milk  and Gouda cheese contained in document 
G/SG/N/6/CHL/11. 
24. The representative of Chile  stated that Chile proceeded to apply provisional safeguard 
measures at the end of last week, and that notification has not yet been circulated.  He expected it to 
be considered at the next meeting. 
25. The representative of the European Communities  sought clarification from Chile on two 
issues.  The first related to the product defin ition.  The European Communities learned from the 
notification that Chile considered milk and Gouda  cheese to be two directly competitive products.  
The explanation provided was that the industrial pr oducers in Chile had the choice to either produce 
Gouda cheese with imported milk, or to import G ouda cheese directly.  Th e European Communities 
interpreted the notion of direct competition as meaning whether the two products were interchangeable on the market.  However, the Eur opean Communities considered  that the explanation 
provided by Chile related to the question of ch eese-producers' choice.  The European Communities 
thus asked Chile to clarify its interpretation of th e notion of direct competition and how it was applied 
in the case at hand.  Secondly, the European Co mmunities sought clarification on the notion of 
"domestic industry".  The European Communities understood that Chile had excluded the domestic 
producers of milk from the scope of the investiga tion on the grounds that such producers themselves 
imported substantial quantities of milk.  The Eu ropean Communities was of the view that the 
language in the Safeguards Agreement would not allow such exclusion to be made, and asked Chile to 
share its views on this matter. 
26. The representative of Brazil
 stated that Brazil had an interest in this matter and were looking 
forward to participating in the consultations announced in their notification on 7 November. 
27. The representative of Argentina  stated that Argentina wished to be included in any 
consultations that would be undertaken on this issue. 
28. The representative of Chile  stated that he does not have any additional details for the 
European Communities and stated that he noted their observations and would refer them to the 
capital.   
5. Indonesia – Cast Glass and Rolled Glass  
29. The Chairman  noted that Indonesia had made a notifi cation regarding the termination of its 
investigation on cast glass and rolled glass contained in document G/SG/N/9/IDN/2. 
30. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.   G/SG/M/30 
 Page 5 
 
 
  6. Jordan – Footwear  
31. The Chairman  noted that Jordan had made a notification regarding the initiation of an 
investigation on footwear contained in document G/SG/N/6/JOR/11. 
32. The representative of the European Communities  stated that the content of the notification 
was rather limited.  For example, it would have been useful to have details of the competent 
authorities and some indication on the procedure an d the deadline to submit comments.  That would 
help interested parties to exercise th eir right of defence in this case.  
33. The representative of Jordan  asked the European Communities to submit the question in 
written form. 
7. Panama – Printed Film in Rolls 
34. The Chairman  noted that the next item was Panama's  notification regarding the initiation of 
an investigation on printed film in rolls contained in documents G/SG/N/6/PAN/1.  The Chairman also noted that Peru posed questions on this notification in document G/SG/Q2/PAN/1. 
35. Regarding the first question, the representative of Panama
 explained that Panama considered 
a notification made four days after the publication w as made in an "immediate" fashion, as set forth in 
the Safeguards Agreement of the WTO.  For ques tion two, she explained that the 30 days-period 
would expire on 11 November 2006, and that Panama considered that this period fully guaranteed the 
right of defence to the Peruvian exporters.  For ques tion three, she explained that Panama verified the 
legitimacy of the requesting company with regard  to the three products, as provided for in the 
Safeguards Agreement and in the respective national le gislation.  She further explained that the three 
products in question belonged to the sub-sector of pl astic bags, within the category of "plastic bags 
and containers".  For question four, she explained that the technical evaluation assessment was 
embodied in Resolution No. 1 of 11 September, 200 6, which was published in the Official Gazette 
No. 25,641 of 29 September 2006. 
36. The representative of Peru  thanked Panama for the responses and stated that Peru was holding 
bilateral consultati ons with Panama. 
37. The representative of the European Communities  stated that he shared the concern of Peru 
regarding the time that had lapsed between the initiati on and the notification.  He recalled that Panama 
explained that the deadline for submitted comments expired on 11 November 2006, but he understood 
that the deadline for submitting comments was 30 days from the date of initiation of the investigation.  
He asked whether the initial deadline had been extended. 
38. The representative of Panama  responded that the notification was published officially on 
24 September and four days after it was notified to the WTO.     
8. Philippines – Float Glass  
39. The Chairman  noted that the next item was notification from Philippines regarding its 
investigation on float glass contained in documents G/SG/N/6/PHL/3/Suppl.1 and 
G/SG/N/8/PHL/5/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/10/PHL/3/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/PHL/5/Suppl.2. 
40. The representative of Thailand  stated that Thailand understood that in early October the 
Philippines Tariff Commission recommended that safeguard measures on float glass products be extended for approximately three years.  He asked  the Philippines to specify when the DTI's final 
decision would be taken and when the results woul d be published.  Thailand was concerned about the G/SG/M/30 
Page 6  
 
  lack of sufficient evidence of serious injury to the Philippines' float glass industry.  Thailand noted 
that the Philippines had only one manufacturer of float glass, and that that manufacturer represented 
90 per cent of domestic consumption.  Under such circumstances, Thailand failed to see the existence 
of conditions which would cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury to the Philippines domestic 
industry.  Therefore, it asked the Philippines to provi de clarification on this issue.  The representative 
of Thailand further stated that if the Philippines u ltimately decide to extend the safeguard for float 
glass products, Thailand should qualify for an exem ption under Article 9 based on a preliminary 
assessment of the figures in the Tariff Commission report.  In any case, Thailand would appreciate it 
if the Philippines could verify each relevant devel oping country Members' import share of float glass 
products in the Philippines and whether they woul d qualify for an exemption under Article 9.  The 
representative of Thailand noted that the Ministry of  Commerce of Thailand had, in the past, raised 
these issued with the Philippines several  times and was still awaiting response. 
41. The representative of the Philippines
 confirmed that on October 5 the Tariff Commission had 
submitted a recommendation for the extension of th e measure to the Department of Trade and 
Industry.  The recommendation was sent to certain  Members, inviting them to consult on the matter 
under Article 12 of the Agreement.  After stating that he was not in a position to comment on the 
alleged claim of "lack of sufficient evidence" ove r serious injury, the representative of Philippines 
mentioned that he failed to see the connection betwee n lack of evidence for serious injury and the fact 
that there was a single producer in the market. 
42. The representative of the Separate Customs Te rritory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 
("Chinese Taipei" hereafter) sought clarification on th e review of the exemptions; i.e. whether the 
authorities only looked at those developing countries' imports which are more than 3 per cent after the 
imposition of the measures.  To elucidate its ques tion, the representative of Chinese Taipei made a 
hypothetical reference where a country had 2 per cen t in the original measures which their export had 
been exempt, but during the review the import grew to  be more than 3 per cent.  In that situation it 
seemed to Chinese Taipei that such import should not be exempt.  He also stated that Chinese Taipei 
wondered what would happen to those developing countries whose market share was above 3 per cent 
before the measure but fell below 3 pe r cent during that period of review. 
43. The representative of Thailand  echoed the questions from Chinese Taipei.  The representative 
of Thailand stated that Thailand still had not recei ved an official communication from the Philippines 
regarding the possibility of consultation and that it was looking forward to receiving it in due course. 
44. The representative of the Philippines  stated that their views and practices with respect to 
Articles 9.1 were well known.  He recalled that th e Philippines consistently notified the amended list 
of developing countries that would be exempted, de pending on the evolution in the import market.   
9. Philippines – Figured Glass  
45. The Chairman  noted that the next item was another notification from Philippines, contained in 
document G/SG/N/6/PHL/4/Suppl.1 regarding its init iation of an investigation on figured glass.  
46. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
10. Philippines – Glass Mirrors 
47. The Chairman  noted that the next item was another notification from the Philippines, 
contained in document G/SG/N/6/PHL/5/Suppl.1 regard ing its initiation of an investigation on glass 
mirrors.  
48. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.   G/SG/M/30 
 Page 7 
 
 
  11. Philippines – Sodium Tripolyphosphates  
49. The Chairman  noted that the next item was another notification from the Philippines 
regarding its investigation on s odium tripolyphosphates, containe d in documents G/SG/N/7/PHL/6-
G/SG/N/8/PHL/6 and G/SG/N/7/PHL/6/Add.1- G/SG/N/8/PHL/6/Add.1-G/SG/N/11/PHL/6.  
50. The representative of th e European Communities  asked the Philippines if they could clarify 
how they calculated the amount of the duty.   
51. The representative of Philippines  requested that the European Communities submit the 
question in writing.  
12. Tunisia – Bottles and Glassware 
52. The Chairman  noted that the next item was a notific ation from Tunisia regarding the initiation 
of an investigation on its investigation on bottles and glassware contained in document 
G/SG/N/6/TUN/1. 
53. The representative of Egypt  stated that its competent author ity had informed Tunisia of their 
intention to be consulted in this investigation as we ll as in the investigation concerning taps, locks and 
fittings, but had not yet been contacted.  He asked Tunisia to confirm that all interested parties – 
including the authorities of exporting Members – be contacted, and that their views be taken into 
consideration.  He also asked Tunisia to provide fu rther details regarding the serious injury and threat 
of serious injury. 
54. The representative of Tunisia  confirmed that there would be a public hearing, and that all 
those who expressed an interest w ould be invited to attend it.  
13. Tunisia – Taps, Locks and Fittings 
55. The Chairman  noted that the next item was another notification from Tunisia regarding its 
investigation on taps, locks and fittings contained in document G/SG/N/6/TUN/2. 
56. The representative of Egypt  noted that in section 2 of the no tification, reference was made to 
the source of supply from Egypt.  In this light, he asked Tunisia to confirm that any resulting measure 
would be imposed regardless of its source.  
57. The representative of Tunisia  asked that the question be submitted in writing. 
58. The representative of the European Communities , referring to the two notifications from 
Tunisia, regretted that the notifications were made  one month after the investigations were initiated, 
and reminded that the Safeguards Agreement provided fo r an immediate notification.  He stated that a 
month of delay would work against the ability of interested parties to make them known and defend 
their rights.  This was particularly pertinent in the case at hand since the d eadline for the interested 
parties to come forward was 30 days, and that period expired two days after the date of the 
notification.  In this context, the European Co mmunities asked to receive assurance from Tunisia that 
any further notifications in those two cases would be done in a timely manner.  He further stated that 
the European Communities shared the concerns of Egypt regarding the absence of any meaningful 
information from Tunisia on the case.  The Europ ean Communities believed that communication of 
such information was urgent.  In order to make  a hearing meaningful, the European Communities 
needed access to the non-confiden tial summary of the complaint. G/SG/M/30 
Page 8  
 
  59. The representative of Tunisia
 stated that Tunisia would seek to accommodate the concerns.  
He asked the representative of the European Co mmunities to make their requests in writing. 
14. Turkey – Vacuum Cleaners 
60. The Chairman  noted that the next item was Turkey's notification, contained in document 
G/SG/N/8/TUR/3-G/SG/N/10/TUR/3-G/SG/N/11/TUR/ 3, regarding its investigation on vacuum 
cleaners.  
61. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
15. Turkey – Steam Smoothing Irons 
62. The Chairman  noted that the next item was another notification from Turkey, contained in 
document G/SG/N/8/TUR/4-G/SG/N/10/TUR/4-G/SG/N /11/TUR/4, regarding its investigation on 
steam smoothing irons  
63. The representative of the European Communities  stated that the European Communities had 
followed this case very carefully and had already ma de its comments known to Turkey.  In particular, 
the European Communities had serious doubts concerni ng the methodology that was used to calculate 
the duty imposed in this case.  The duty was imposed  in the form of a fixed amount per unit of steam 
irons.  The European Communities understood that to calculate the amount, Turkey calculated an 
under-cutting margin that only reflected imports made  at prices below the Turkish industry prices, 
which necessarily meant that other imports made at  prices above the Turkish domestic prices were not 
taken into account.  The representative of the Eur opean Communities recalled that Article 5 of the 
Agreement provided that the measure should be set at a level which is strictly necessary to offset the 
injury.  
64. The representative of Turkey  requested that the question be posed in writing. 
16. Turkey – Salt 
65. The Chairman  noted that the next item was another notification from Turkey, contained in 
document G/SG/N/8/TUR/5-G/SG/N/10/TUR/5-G/SG/N /11/TUR/5, regarding its investigation on 
salt.  
66. The representative of Egypt  stated that after the imposition of the safeguard measures, Egypt 
requested consultations with the Turkish authorities at the beginning of September.  He stated that the 
form of the measure adopted by Turkey – th e imposition of a variable duty amounting to the 
difference between the c.i.f. price and a referen ce price of US$35 per tonne – was more restrictive 
than necessary within the meaning of Article 5 of the Safeguards Agreement.  In order to ensure that 
all exporting Members continue to have access to the Turkish market at equitable conditions, Egypt 
invited Turkey to consider alternative measures including quantitative restrictions. 
67. The representative of Turkey  requested that the question be posed in writing. 
17. Turkey – Footwear 
68. The Chairman  noted that the next item was Turkey's notification, contained in document 
G/SG/N/8/TUR/6-G/SG/N/10/TUR/6-G/SG/N/11/TUR/6,  regarding its investigation on footwear.  
69.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.   G/SG/M/30 
 Page 9 
 
 
  18. Turkey – Motorcycles 
70. The Chairman  noted that the next item was Turkey's notification, contained in document 
G/SG/N/6/TUR/10-G/SG/N/7/TUR/1-G/SG/N/11/TUR/7, regarding its investigation on motorcycles.  
71. The representative of the European Communities  stated that this was the fifth safeguard 
investigation initiated by Turkey in 2006.  The Eu ropean Communities consider ed such a trend to be 
worrying and recalled that it had already stated at the last meeting that the safeguards instrument 
should only be used in exceptional circumstances, a nd in the face of unforeseen developments.  In the 
light of this, the European Communities wondered wh ether five cases in one year would meet that 
criterion.  The representative of the European Comm unities also stated that in this case Turkey 
proceeded directly with the imposition of provisional  measures, which again took the form of a fixed 
amount per unit.  He pointed out that there was no explanation in the notification on the manner in 
which that amount was calculated.  He asked Turkey to provide an explanation on this point and to clarify which methodology it followed in making its calculations.  
72. The representative of Bulgaria
 shared the concern of other Members that the Turkish 
authorities had resorted so often to the safeguard instrument in 2006.  In particular, Bulgaria was 
concerned that the definitive safe guard measure imposed on salt aff ected, unfavourably, bilateral trade 
with Turkey.  The representative of Bulgaria stat ed that Bulgaria would continue to follow very 
closely the developments on all recent cases. 
73. The representative of the United States  took the floor to comment on the last two 
interventions by the European Communities.  He understood the European Co mmunities to mean that 
the use of a fixed duty per product was not appropriate, and that the European Communities was 
implicitly suggesting that a discipline similar to wh at is found in Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement existed.  In this context, the representa tive of the United States stated that there were 
advantages to Turkey's approach in that a fixed amount per unit provided clarity and predictability to 
exports.   
74. The representative of th e European Communities  asked whether the United States would find 
it more appropriate to submit their question in writing,  to which they would also respond in writing.   
Reacting on a preliminary basis, he noted that the United States referred to Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and asked whether the United Stat es was referring to the practice of zeroing that 
could be applied in safeguard investigations.  He  explained that the reason why he did not mention 
zeroing was because he did not think that the zero ing practice belonged in the safeguards domain.   
Indeed, the European Communities confirmed that Turkey's methodology to calculate the fixed duty 
amounts in that case resembled very much the zeroing practice.  If that analogy was correct, then, the 
European Communities submitted that the methodology was not appropriate.   
75. Finally, the Chairman
 recalled that any questions concerni ng the notifications of actions taken 
for which written responses were requested had to be sent to the Member concerned and to the 
Secretariat no later than 13 November 2006.  Written answers must be submitted to the Secretariat no 
later than 4 December 2006. 
76. 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  
77. The Chairman  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, G/SG/M/30 
Page 10  
 
  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 Section 17 or to  any other specific commitments made by other 
Members in the Protocol, in subsidiary  bodies which have a relevant mandate. 
78. The Chairman stated that the Committee must repor t 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.  He 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 advan ce 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.  The Chairman info rmed the Committee that China had submitted the 
information that morning.
1   
79. The representative of China  explained that the late timing of the submission of the 
information was largely due to the heavy workload in preparing for th e transitional review in various 
Committees.  He added that the situation was, nonethel ess, fairly clear in the area of safeguards – that 
is, since the last review, China had neither taken an y safeguard measure nor enacted any legislation in 
this regard. 
80. There was no other comment from the floor on the information submitted.   
81. The Chairman  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.  He proposed that the Committe e follow the same reporting procedure as last year, 
whereby the Chairman, acting on his own responsibility,  would prepare a brief, factual report, with 
references to the documents concerned, and attach ing the portion of the minutes of the meeting which 
relate to the transition review. 
82. The Committee agreed  that the Chairman should prepare the same type of report in respect of 
this year's review. 
D. OTHER BUSINESS  
83. The Chairman  recalled that Malaysia asked to make a statement relating to Article 9.1 under 
"Other Business".  He noted that Malaysia had circ ulated a document relating to its statement as room 
document.2 
84. The representative of Malaysia  apologised for the late circul ation of its document, which was 
a follow-up to a discussion at the previous Comm ittee meeting held on 13 March 2006.  She stated 
that the paper's aim was to have a more focu ssed discussion on the issue.  She appreciated the 
Secretariat's preparation of a compilation of Members' notifications in relation to Article 9.1 and recalled that, at the previous meeting, Malaysia had prepared questions based on the Secretariat's 
compilation.  Malaysia noted that the compilation had indicated lack of consistency in the practices.  
For instance, the period of data collection varied, ra nging between 3 to 6 years.  The representative of 
Malaysia also pointed out that in certain instan ces information on the trade volume and/or data on 
import shares was missing, and that there was no indi cation on the review period and/or period of data 
collection for review.  Given that additional inform ation was required to ensure a more consistent 
approach, Malaysia proposed to: (a) add a column  on "trade data" which would indicate the import 
                                                     
 
1  The document was subsequently circulated as document G/SG/W/205. 
2 The document was subsequently circulated as JOB (06)/249.  G/SG/M/30 
 Page 11 
 
 
  volume (b) add a column on countries exempted under Article 9.1 and year exempted, (c) change the 
heading "period of data collection" to "period of determining injury" (d) add columns for "date of review", "data collection for review", and "re-de termination of countries exempted".  Malaysia 
proposed to include the review stage and re-d etermination of countries exempted because some 
Members carried out post-imposition reviews on an ad -hoc basis.  Because of the divergence in 
Members' practices, the timeframe for the review period was unclear.  Malaysia was of the view that 
the data collection for the review period should not be very long. 
85. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 stated that Chinese Taipei supported Malaysia in its 
efforts to seek to clarify this provision.  He pointed  out, however, that in reading Malaysia's document 
it was unclear whether it was intended to apply to ot her provisions of the Safeguards Agreement.  For 
example, Chinese Taipei noted that paragraph 5 of Malaysia's document referred to trade data, which 
seemed to be related to other provisions.  He st ated that, at any rate, Chinese Taipei supported 
Malaysia's leadership on this issue.  
E. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL ON TRADE IN GOODS  
86. The Chairman  noted that pursuant to Article 13.1(a) of the Agreement, the Committee was to 
monitor the general implementation of the Agr eement and report on this annually, making any 
recommendations towards its improvement  to the Council for Trade in Goods. 
87. 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 2006 had been prepared by the Secret ariat.  A preliminary draft of this report was 
made available to Members by fax on 25 October. 
88. The Chairman suggested that the Committee cons ider the draft report paragraph by paragraph 
and then review the Annexes.  He further suggest ed that the Committee proc eed with this work in 
informal mode. 
89. After correcting several technical  matters, the Committee adopted  its annual report to the 
Council for Trade in Goods for 2005 (see document G/L/795). 
F. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
90. The Chairman  recalled that regular meetings would norm ally be held in April and October, in 
conjunction with the regular meetings of the Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices and Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures.  Accordingly, he sugge sted that the Safeguard s Committee meet in the 
week of 23 April 2007.  He stated that the exact date would be confirmed later. 
91. The Committee so agreed .  
__________