. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/Q2/PHL/8 
23 November 2009 
 (09-5824) 
Committee on Safeguards Original:   English 
  
 
NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 12.1(A) OF THE 
AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS ON INITIATION OF 
AN INVESTIGATION AND THE REASONS FOR IT 
 
Questions Posed by THAILAND
 
Regarding the Notification of the PHILIPPINES  
 
(Float Glass and Figured Glass ) 
  
 The following communication, dated 11 November 2009, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of Thailand.    
_______________ 
 
 
 Thailand would like to pose the below comment s and questions to the Philippines regarding 
its notification under Article 12.1(a) of the Agreem ent on Safeguards On Initiation of an Investigation 
and the Reasons for it (Float Glass and Figur ed Glass) in document G/SG/N/6/PHL/4/Suppl.2-
G/SG/N/6/PHL/5/Suppl.2 dated 29 September 2009.  These comments and questions were addressed 
to the Philippines during the 19 October 2009 Committee on Safeguards meeting under agenda 
items 2B:  Notifications of Actions Related to Sa feguard Measures:  (xxv) Philippines – Figured Glass 
and (xxvi) Philippines – Float Glass.   
 
 Before turning to our questions, we first note our disappointment that the Philippines is 
contemplating another extension of the measures on Figured Glass and Float Glass.    Figured Glass
 
  The Philippines has suspended its measure on Figured Glass since December 2007.  This 
effectively means that the domestic industry has b een able to compete with imports under regular 
conditions for almost two years.  We do not understand why extending the measure is necessary at 
this time and strongly urge the Philippines to te rminate the measure completely and as soon as 
possible.    
• As the domestic industry has been able to co mpete with imports under regular conditions for 
almost two years, could the Philippines please justify how an extension of the measure would be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury in  light of the provisions of Article 7.2 of the 
Safeguards Agreement?   
  In addition, should the Philippines decide to extend this suspended measure, we note that 
Article 7.4 of the Safeguards Agreement requires th at an extended measure not be more restrictive 
than at the end of its initial period, and that it should continue to be liberalized.    
• If the Philippines extends the measure on Figu red Glass, how would it comply with the 
requirements set out in Article 7.4 regarding liberalization?   G/SG/Q2/PHL/8 
Page 2  
 
  • How does the Philippines envisage further lib eralizing a measure which is currently 
suspended, apart from terminating the measure altogether?   
 
• Will the Philippines' authority be providing – if  it has not done so already – an opportunity for 
consultations with WTO Members having a substa ntial export interest as per Article 12.3 of 
the Safeguards Agreement?  If so, please indicate when.   
 
Float Glass
 
  We note that there are two sub-categories of Float Glass subject to the Philippines' current 
measures: Tinted Float Glass and Clear Float Gla ss.  Thailand is currently exempted from the 
Philippines' measure on Tinted Float Glass.  We th erefore urge the Philippines to continue this 
exemption if this measure is extended.     We understand that domestic prices for Float Gl ass in the Philippines are currently well above 
prevailing prices in ASEAN.  We also understand that  the Philippines' domestic industry continues to 
ship substantive volumes of Float Glass to Thailand,  which indicates that the domestic industry is not 
injured.    
• In light of the above, could the Philippines please clarify how an extension of the measure 
would be necessary to prevent or remedy serious  injury in accordance w ith the provisions of 
Article 7.2 of the Safeguards Agreement?   
  On Clear Float Glass, we observe that th e duty imposed under the measure has been 
decreased in annual tranches by th e Philippines as set out most recently in G/SG/N/11/PHL/5/Suppl.5 
dated 20 January 2009.  If the Philippines extends its measure on Clear Float Glass, we urge it to 
continue to decrease the duty from the most recent rate under the current measure and not to backtrack 
to a higher rate of duty, which in our view would be contrary to the Philippines' obligations relating to 
extension of a measure set forth in Artic le 7.4 of the Safeguards Agreement.   
 
• In addition, will the Philippines' authority be pr oviding – if it has not done so already – an 
opportunity for consultations with WTO Member s having a substantial export interest as per 
Article 12.3 of the Safeguards Agreement?  If so, please indicate when such consultations will 
take place.   
 
 
 
__________