. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/Q1/ZAF/1 
25 April 2005 
 (05-1678) 
Committee on Safeguards Original:   English 
  
 
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLE 12.6 OF THE AGREEMENT 
 
Questions Posed by the EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
 
Regarding the Notification of SOUTH AFRICA1 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 21 April 2005, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of the European Communities.  
_______________ 
  
1. The Preamble (point (d)) provides that “ safeguard measures are normally
 applied to imports 
from all countries even if the imports, which cause serious harm, originate mainly or only from one 
country ” (emphasis added).  Could South Africa descri be the circumstances in which departure from 
the erga omnes  character of safeguard measures is allowed under its legislation?  If such 
circumstances go beyond the special and differential treatment in favour of developing countries as 
provided in Article 9 of the Agreement on Safeguard s, could you please explain how you consider this 
to be consistent with Article  2.2 of the same Agreement? 
 
2. Article 2 introduces the notion of “related parti es”.  Could you please explain the relevance of 
the concept of “related parties” in th e context of safeguards investigations? 
 3. Article 2 contemplates the possibility of excluding from the definition of the domestic 
industry (SACU industry) domestic producers that ar e (a) related to the importer, exporter or the 
foreign producer;  or (b) themselves importers of the products under investigation.  Unlike the AD or 
CVD Agreements, there is no basis in the WTO Sa feguards Agreement that would allow to proceed 
with such exclusion – Article 4.1(c) of the Safe guards Agreement defines “domestic industry” as the 
producers as a whole of the like or directly compe titive or those whose collective output constitutes a 
major proportion of the total domestic production, w ithout exception.  Please explain how Article 2 is 
considered to be compatible with Artic le 4.1(c) of the Safeguards Agreement. 
 
4. Article 8.5 provides that the examination of the injury factors will be considered for the like 
and directly competitive products only or, where such analysis is not possible, for the narrowest group 
of products for which such analysis can be made .  Article 4 of the WTO Safeguards Agreement does 
not provide for the possibility to make injury dete rminations on the basis of  another product definition 
than the like product or directly competitive product.   Please explain how injury determinations that 
would be based on the “narrowest group of products” would be compatible with Article 4 of the WTO 
Safeguards Agreement.  5. Article 10 (causality) provides that the Commission shall consider all relevant factors 
including factors other than the imports of the pr oduct concerned that may have contributed to the 
                                                     
 
1 G/SG/N/1/ZAF/2, dated 27 September 2004.  G/SG/Q1/ZAF/1 
Page 2  
 
 SACU industry’s injury, provided that a particip ating interested party has submitted, or the 
Commission otherwise has, information on such factor or factors .  Please explain the process that will 
be followed by the Commission to obtain info rmation on other potential factors of injury. 
 6. Article 21.14 provides that the Commission may de part from a proportionate allocation of the 
quotas among the suppliers having a substantial inte rest in supplying the product under investigation 
if “the suppliers failed to cooperate in the investigation ”.  Please clarify the notion of “suppliers”.  In 
any event, the WTO Safeguards Agr eement, in particular Article 5.2 thereof, does not allow Members 
to depart from the allocation rules provided in Ar ticle 5.2(a) in case of alleged “non-cooperation” 
from the suppliers.  Please explain how Article 21.4 is considered to be compatible with Article 5.2 of 
the Safeguards Agreement. 
 
__________