RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/M/35 
25 September 2009 
 (09-4487) 
Committee on Safeguards  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 6 MAY 2009  
 
Chairperson:  Mr. Robert Kasper (United States) 
 
 
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee" ) held a regular meeting on 6 May 2009. 
2. Regarding "Other Business", several Memb ers took the floor. The representative of Chile
 and 
Costa Rica  stated that they wished to make statemen ts on a notification from the Dominican Republic 
regarding an investigation on glass bottles.  The re presentative of the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  ("Chinese Taipei") stated that he  wished to make a statement on 
its proposal to discuss in future meetings an issue pertaining to the implementation of Article 9.1.   
The representative of the European Communities  stated that he wished to make a statement on several 
notifications recently submitted by India.   
3. With this, the following agenda was adopted: 
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION ............................................................................................................2  
1. Dominican Republic – Review of New Legislative Notification............................................3  
2. Honduras – Review of New Legislative Notification..............................................................3  
3. Israel – Review of New Le gislative Notification.....................................................................3  
4. Panama – Review of New Legislative Notification.................................................................3  
5. Saudi Arabia – Review of New Legislative Notification........................................................3  
6. Albania – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications...................................3  
7. El Salvador – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications ............................4  
8. Ukraine – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications ..................................4  
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES ..........................................5  
1. Argentina – Compact Discs–Recordable ................................................................................5  
2. India – Phthalic Anhydride..................................................................................................... .5 
3. India – Dimethoate Technical..................................................................................................6  
4. India – Linear Alkyl Benzene ..................................................................................................6  
5. India – Oxo Alcohols........................................................................................................... ......6  
6. Indonesia – Wire Nail and Wire ..............................................................................................7  
7. Indonesia – Cerami c Tableware ..............................................................................................7  
8. Israel – Steel  Rebar........................................................................................................... ........7  G/SG/M/35 
Page 2  
 
  9.
 Jordan – White Cement.......................................................................................................... ..8 
10. Jordan – Ceramic Tiles ......................................................................................................... ...8 
11. Kyrgyz Republic – White Sugar..............................................................................................8  
12. Morocco – Cera mic Tiles........................................................................................................ ..9 
13. Panama – PVC Films............................................................................................................. ...9 
14. Peru – Cotton Yarn............................................................................................................. ......9  
15. Philippines – Steel Angle Bars ................................................................................................. 9 
16. Philippines – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles...........................................................................9  
17. Philippines – Float Glass ...................................................................................................... ..10 
18. Philippines – Gl ass Mirrors ...................................................................................................1 0 
19. Ukraine – Matches .............................................................................................................. ....11  
20. Ukraine – Liquid Chlorine.....................................................................................................1 1 
C. NOTIFICATION FORMATS CONCERNING EXTENSION OF MEASURES AND 
TERMINATION /LAPSE OF MEASURES ........................................................................................11  
D. WAYS TO IMPROVE THE TIMELINESS AND COMPLETENESS OF NOTIFICATIONS AND 
OTHER INFORMATION FLOWS ...................................................................................................11  
E. OTHER BUSINESS ......................................................................................................................12  
1. Notification from the Dominican Republic...........................................................................12  
2. Proposal by Chinese Taipei....................................................................................................1 2 
3. Notifications from India ....................................................................................................... ..13 
F. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING .........................................................................................13  
G. ELECTION OF OFFICERS ............................................................................................................13  
 
 A. N
ATIONAL LEGISLATION  
4. The Chairperson  stated that the first item on the Co mmittee's agenda was the review of 
notifications of national safeguards legislation and/or regulations, in accordance with the procedures 
adopted by the Committee at its special meeting in April 1996.   
5. Concerning the procedure for this meeting, the Ch airperson 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 
Chairperson 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 
Chairperson also reminded Members that follow-up qu estions could be asked at this meeting.  Other 
delegations would also be given an  opportunity to present questions orally at this meeting.   
6. The Chairperson stated that if Members wished to have written answers to questions, they had 
to ensure that all questions were presented in writi ng to the Member concerned, and to the Secretariat, 
no later than 27 May 2009.  Written answers to a ll questions submitted in writing by that deadline 
should be submitted to the Secret ariat no later than 17 June 2009.  G/SG/M/35 
 Page 3 
 
 
  1. Dominican Republic – Review of New Legislative Notification  
7. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from the Dominican Republic was 
contained in document G/SG/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.1 a nd Corr.1.  He noted that no written questions 
concerning this notification had been received.   
8. The representative of the United States  stated that they had only recently received the English 
translation of the responses to questions, and woul d like to reserve the right to pose questions.   
2. Honduras – Review of New Legislative Notification 
9. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Honduras was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/HND/3.  He noted that no wr itten questions concerning this notification had 
been received.   
10. The representative of the United States  stated that they did not have any questions at this time, 
but with the late circulation of the English transl ation, the United States would like to the reserve the 
right to pose questions.     
3. Israel – Review of New Legislative Notification 
11. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Israel was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/ISR/2/Suppl.1 and Corr.1.  He noted that  written questions concerning this notification had 
been received from the United States in document G/ SG/Q1/ISR/1, and that Israel had submitted its 
replies in document G/SG/Q1/ISR/2.   
12. The representative of Israel  stated that it had indeed sent its  written answers to the Secretariat 
for circulation.  He stated that they stood ready to elaborate on its answers.  
13. The representative of the United States  stated that they had not had enough time to review 
Israel's responses, and would like to reserve  the right to pose follow-up questions.   
4. Panama – Review of New Legislative Notification 
14. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Panama was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/PAN/2/Suppl.1.  He noted that  no written questions concerning this notification 
had been received.   
15. The representative of the United States  indicated that, due to the late circulation of the 
English version of the legi slation, they would like to reserve the right to pose follow-up questions.   
5. Saudi Arabia – Review of New Legislative Notification 
16. The Chairperson  noted that the "nil" notification from Saudi Arabia was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/SAU/1.  He noted that no written questions concerning this notification had been 
received.   
17. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
6. Albania – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
18. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Albania was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/ALB/2, which was already review ed at the last Committee meeting.  He noted G/SG/M/35 
Page 4  
 
  that written questions concerning this notifica tion had been received from the United States in 
document G/SG/Q1/ALB/5, and that Albania had s ubmitted supplementary responses to the questions 
from the United States in document G/SG/Q1/ALB/6/Suppl.1  
19. The Chairperson
 noted that written questions concerni ng this notification had also been 
received from Indonesia in document G/SG/Q1/ALB/ 7, and that written answers had been received 
from Albania in document G/SG/Q1/ALB/8. 
20. The representative of Indonesia  stated that they had not had enough time to review Albania's 
replies and did not have any follow-up questions at this time.    
7. El Salvador – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
21. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from El Salvador was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/SLV/3, which was taken up at the last Committee meeting.  He noted that 
written questions concerning this no tification had been received from the United States in document 
G/SG/Q1/SLV/5.   
22. The representative of El Salvador  read out the replies that El Salvador had recently provided 
to the United States and the Secretariat, but whic h was still in the process of being circulated to 
Members.1   
23. The representative of the United States  indicated that they had no follow-up questions at this 
time.  
8. Ukraine – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
24. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Ukraine was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/UKR/1, which was taken up at the last Committee meeting.  He noted that 
written questions concerning this no tification had been received from the United States in document 
G/SG/Q1/UKR/4, and that Ukraine had submitted its replies to the questions from the United States in 
document G/SG/Q1/UKR/5. 
25. The representative of the United States  noted that sub-parts (a) through (d) of Question 2 
regarding the regional application of a safeguard measure were not answered, and requested that 
Ukraine reply to these questions as soon as possible in writing.  
26. The representative of Ukraine  indicated that it was attempti ng to provide a more detailed 
answer to Question 2, but mentioned that the Ukra ine did not have any practice in such cases, making 
it difficult to answer in detail.  He reiterated that Ukraine was working on its response, and would 
provide the United States with the answer.   
27. The Chairperson  noted that written questions had also been received from Indonesia in 
document G/SG/Q1/UKR/3.   
28. The representative of Ukraine  read out the replies that it had recently provided to the 
Secretariat, but which was still in the process of being circulated to Members.2   
29. The representative of Indonesia  indicated that she did not have any questions at this time.  
                                                      
1 Subsequently circulated as document G/SG/Q1/SLV/6.   
2 Subsequently circulated as document G/SG/Q1/UKR/6.  G/SG/M/35 
 Page 5 
 
 
  30. The Chairperson  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 27 May 2009.  The deadline for written answers to all 
questions posed in writing was 17 June 2009.  Concerning these deadlines, he reminded the 
Committee of the importance of providing written an swers to written questions.  Such exchange 
constituted the Committee's only record of the review  of legislations.  Thus, the Committee's records 
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 cont ext, in order to help Members keep track of the 
questions posed and the responses submitted, the Chai rperson stated that he had asked the Committee 
Secretary to indicate in the draft annotated agenda of the subsequent Committee meeting if there were 
any questions left unanswered.  
31. Before proceeding to the next agenda item, the Chairperson  informed the Committee that 
there were still 33 Members that had not yet made a legislative notification.3 He noted that this was 
one of the important obligations of this Agreement, and that Members that did not yet have any 
legislation need only submit a simple "nil" notification. He commended the delegation of 
Saudi Arabia for sending the Committee its "nil" notification in time for this meeting.   
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
32. The Chairperson  noted that various notifications of ac tions related to safeguard measures had 
been received since the last meeting.  In order to  ensure that all of these notifications could be 
reviewed in the limited time available, the Chairp erson suggested that the Committee address 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 Discs–Recordable  
33. The Chairperson  noted that Argentina had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
compact discs-recordable in document G/ SG/N/8/ARG/5/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/10/ARG/5/Suppl.2-
G/SG/N/11/ARG/5/Suppl.2. 
34. The representative of Argentina  informed the Committee that Argentina had recently made 
another notification relating to this measure.4   
2. India – Phthalic Anhydride  
35. The Chairperson  noted that India had made notifications regarding an investigation on 
Phthalic Anhydride in documents G/SG /N/6/IND/17 and G/SG/N/6/IND/17/Rev.1 and 
G/SG/N/7/IND/1-G/SG/N/8/IND/15 and G/SG/N/7/IND/1/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/IND/2 and 
G/SG/N/7/IND/1/Suppl.2.   
36. The representative of Turkey  indicated that there was an e rror in G/SG/N/6/IND/17/Rev.1, on 
the second page.  
37. The representative of India  indicated that he would discuss the matter bilaterally with the 
representative of Turkey.  
                                                      
3 These Members were: Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Belize, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, 
Cape Verde, 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 & Gr enadines, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, 
Tanzania, Togo, Tonga and Viet Nam. 
4 Subsequently circulated as document G/SG/N/11/ARG/5/Suppl.3. G/SG/M/35 
Page 6  
 
  3. India – Dimethoate Technical  
38. The Chairperson
 noted that India had made notifications regarding an investigation on 
Dimethoate Technical in documents G/SG/N/6 /IND/19 and G/SG/N/7/IND/2-G/SG/N/8/IND/16-
G/SG/N/11/IND/3 and G/SG/N/7/IND/2/Suppl.1.  
39. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
4. India – Linear Alkyl Benzene  
40. The Chairperson  noted that India had made a notificati on regarding an investigation on Linear 
Alkyl Benin in document G/SG/N/6/IND/18. 
41. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
5. India – Oxo Alcohols  
42. The Chairperson  noted that India had made a notifica tion regarding an investigation on Oxo 
Alcohols in document G/SG/N/6/IND/20. 
43. The representative of the United States  noted that imports from the United States account for 
nearly one third of India's market for this produc t.  She noted that a safeguards investigation was 
initiated in January 2009, and asked if India could in form the Committee of the current status of that 
investigation, and whether the Indian authorities had yet made a determina tion on the imposition of a 
provisional measure.  If not, when could such a decision be expected, and if it had in fact made such a decision, whether India made an Article 12. 4 notification and provided an opportunity for 
consultations on the measure.  
44. The representative of the European Communities
 stated that the European Communities 
associated itself with the questions raised by th e United States, but that it also had some more 
fundamental comments to be made in regard to this  investigation.   After analysis of information 
available, it seemed clear to the European Commun ities that in this case the conditions for taking 
safeguards actions were not met and therefore no meas ure should be imposed.  In fact, the case should 
never have been opened.  First, there was, in the view of the European Communities, no serious 
injury.  The production volume and the capacity of the Indian producer largely remained stable over 
the period analysed, and the industry had been working at full capacity in the last year.  The loss of 
market share was only due to a significant incr ease in domestic consumption which the Indian 
industry could not take advantage of, because it simp ly did not have the necessary capacity.  Also, the 
Indian industry was making profits throughout the period up until October 2008.  The only negative 
effect the European Communities saw in the informa tion was the closure of the plant of the Indian 
producer in November 2008, but the plant resumed operations already in January 2009, which clearly 
refuted the existence of any serious injury.  Second ly, there was, in the Eu ropean Communities' view, 
no surge of imports.  The increase in imports was necessary to satisfy an increase in demand, which 
the Indian producer could not meet.  It seemed th at the Indian producer did not have the necessary 
product types that the domestic market required.  There was no recent, sharp and sudden increase of 
imports, which is a requirement in order to have safeguard measures according to Article 2.1.  It 
appeared that the problems experienced by the Indian producer were linked to other factors and not to 
imports.  In fact, the Indian producer seemed to have  experienced an increased cost of production, but 
this increase in cost of production was simply the result of a wrong sourcing decision in relation to 
raw materials.  Furthermore, the Indian producer had made huge investments which were not yet on 
stream.  These two points had nothing to do with imports, so if there was injury of the domestic 
producer, which the European Communities disputed, this  injury was certainly not due to the imports.   G/SG/M/35 
 Page 7 
 
 
  On the basis of all of this, there was no other alte rnative than to terminate the investigation without 
the imposition of any measures.  
45. In response to the questions from the United States, the representative of India  indicated that 
no final/further decision had been taken, and that as and when something was decided the 
United States would be notified.  He then requ ested that the European Communities provide its 
comments in writing, so that those comments coul d be fed into the process. If the European 
Communities had already been in touch with the in vestigating authority, such arguments would be 
taken on board before any final decision was taken.   
46. The representative of the United States  raised several points regarding recent safeguard 
actions by India.  The United States understood that India had recently initiated at last three safeguard 
actions: one on coated paper, one on uncoated fr ee sheet, and one on particle board.  The 
United States requested that India confirm this, as the United States had not yet seen any notifications and would appreciate an update on the status of each of these proceedings.   
47. The representative of India
 indicated that he had no official confirmation of the safeguard 
actions or investigations that the United States mentioned.  He indicated that when there was 
something to notify, India would certainly notify it.    
6. Indonesia – Wire Nail and Wire   
48. The Chairperson  noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding its investigation on 
wire nail and wire in document G/SG/N/6/IDN/5. 
49. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
7. Indonesia – Ceramic Tableware  
50. The Chairperson  noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding its investigation on 
ceramic tableware in documents G/SG/N/14/IDN/1 and Corr.1 and G/SG/N/14/IDN/1/Suppl.1.  He 
noted that document G/SG/N/14/IDN/1/Suppl.1 was a notification made for increased transparency, 
and commended the delegation of Indonesia for this very useful notification. 
51. The representative of the United States  expressed their appreciation to Indonesia for making 
the supplemental notification, which contained the actual dates of implementation of the extension. 
She indicated that the United States was also very  pleased to see that Indonesia had included with its 
notification the underlying original document.  However, neither the notification itself nor the supplemental document described the actual measure  that would be applied from 4 January 2009 
through 12 January 2012.  She noted in this c ontext that extended measures shall not be more 
restrictive than the measure in the initial period, and shall continue to be  liberalized.  She asked 
Indonesia to clarify what was the measure that  would be applied over this time period.  
52. The representative of Indonesia
 indicated that there would be progressive liberalization. He 
indicated that the measure would be applied at a ra te of 1200 IDR per kilogram for the first year, 1150 
IDR per kilogram for the second year, and 1100 IDR per kilogram for the last year.   
8. Israel – Steel Rebar  
53. The Chairperson  noted that Israel had made a notifica tion regarding its investigation on steel 
rebar in document G/SG/N/6/ISR/1. G/SG/M/35 
Page 8  
 
  54. The representative of the European Communities
 stated that there were two problems in this 
investigation.  The first problem was linked to the use of confidentiality rules.  The 
European Communities thought that these confidentia lity rules had been wrongly applied.  Certain 
information had been blanked out, instead of gi ving a non-confidential summary, and this created 
problems in understanding the reasoning and logic behind the case.  This put the transparency 
requirement into question.  The second point w as that the European Communities did not see the 
requirement that there should be a recent and sharp increase in imports was met.  As a result of the 
first problem regarding confidentiality, the Eu ropean Communities was unable to make a proper 
assessment of whether or not there was injury.   
55. The representative of Israel  requested that the European Communities provide its comments 
in writing.  
9. Jordan – White Cement    
56. The Chairperson  noted that Jordan had made a notification regarding its investigation on 
white cement in document G/SG/N/6/JOR/13.   
57. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
10. Jordan – Ceramic Tiles   
58. The Chairperson  noted that Jordan had made a notification regarding its investigation on 
ceramic tiles in document G/SG/N/6/JOR/14.   
59. The representative of th e European Communities  stated that this was the third investigation 
on this product within six years.  The first was terminated because there was no causal link.  The 
second was terminated following an agreement which w as subsequently declared as not in line with 
Jordanian law.  Now there was anothe r investigation.  This as such was already regrettable.  As far as 
the substance of the case was concerned, the European Communities thought that the legal 
requirements for taking any measure were simply not met.  First, there was no unforeseen development, and there was no existence of a sh arp and sudden increase of imports.  Second, there 
was no causal link, and any injury to the domestic industry was the result of other factors such as 
substantial increase of production costs, the use of ou tdated technology, and so forth.  Finally, there 
was the wrong application of the rules of c onfidentiality which again do not allow a proper 
assessment of the case because information was blanked out and no summary or index had been provided. Under these circumstances, the European  Communities urged Jordan to terminate this 
investigation without taking any measures.  
60. The representative of Jordan
 stated that the investigation had been initiated in accordance 
with Jordanian law following receipt of a petiti on from the industry, and requested that the 
European Communities provide their comments in writing so that they could be taken into account in 
the investigation process.  
11. Kyrgyz Republic – White Sugar  
61. The Chairperson  noted that the Kyrgyz Republic ha d made a notification regarding its 
investigation on white sugar in document G/SG/N/6/KGZ/1.   
62. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.   G/SG/M/35 
 Page 9 
 
 
  12. Morocco – Ceramic Tiles  
63. The Chairperson  noted that Morocco had made a notification regarding its investigation on 
ceramic tiles in document G/SG/N/6/MAR/4.    
64. The representative of th e European Communities  stated that Morocco had apparently already 
extended the measure, and this exte nsion had taken place without an i nvestigation or determination.  
This was not in line with the Agreement.  Morocco seemed to justify this ex tension with Article 6, 
which related to provisional measures.  The Eur opean Communities was of the view that Article 6 
could not be invoked where safeguard measures had alr eady been in place.  In addition, the standards 
of Article 6 were extremely high.  They refer to "critical circumstances" and would certainly not be 
met in this situation.  Therefore, the European Communities saw no other alternative than terminating 
this investigation and repealing the measure.   
65. The representative of Morocco  explained that Morocco had initiated an investigation to 
determine whether or not to extend the safeguard  measure originally applicable until end of 
November 2008.  Morocco had not intended to extend this measure, but it had been approached by the 
ceramic tile industry very late in time.  This was because of a particular international economic 
situation.  At the end of 2008, with the internationa l financial crisis which hit the real estate sector 
markedly in many European countries and the Unite d States, the demand for ceramic tiles, which was 
clearly linked to the real estate sector, dropped drastically.  This was a very critical situation which pushed the Moroccan authorities to start an investiga tion very late, and it was compelled to maintain 
the measure on a temporary basis.  The representati ve explained that the additional duty which was 
imposed was taken as a guarantee, a nd would be paid back if the investigation did not lead to a 
decision to extend the measure.   
13. Panama – PVC Films  
66. The Chairperson
 noted that Panama had made a notification regarding its investigation on 
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) films in document G/SG/N/8/PAN/1/Suppl.3-G/SG/N/10/PAN/1/Suppl.3.   
67. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
14. Peru – Cotton Yarn  
68. The Chairperson  noted that Peru had made a notificati on regarding its investigation on cotton 
yarn in document G/SG/N/6/PER/2.  
69. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
15. Philippines – Steel Angle Bars 
70. The Chairperson  noted that the Philippines had made a notification regarding an investigation 
on steel angle bars in documents G/SG/N/6/PHL /7/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/7/PHL/7-G/SG/N/8/PHL/7-
G/SG/N/11/PHL/7. 
71. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
16. Philippines – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles  
72. The Chairperson  noted that the Philippines had made a notification regarding an investigation 
on ceramic floor and wall tiles in document G/SG/N /11/PHL/1/Suppl.3-G/SG/N/14/PHL/1/Suppl.3.   G/SG/M/35 
Page 10  
 
  73. The representative of the United Arab Emirates
 stated that it had made several requests since 
2008 to the Philippines Ministry of Trade and I ndustry that the UAE should be included among the 
developing countries exempted from the procedure, as its share was less than 3% of total Philippines import of the product concerned.  However, in the last notification, the UAE was still not included in 
the list of developing countries excluded from the extended definitive safeguard measures.  He 
requested clarification on this issue.   
74. The representative of the Philippines
 requested that the comments be submitted in writing.   
17. Philippines – Float Glass 
75. The Chairperson  noted that the Philippines had made a notification regarding an investigation 
on float glass in document G/SG/N/11/PHL/5/ Suppl.5-G/SG/N/14/PHL/2/Suppl.2 and its 
Corrigendum.    
76. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
18. Philippines – Glass Mirrors 
77. The Chairperson  noted that the Philippines had made a notification regarding an investigation 
on glass mirrors in document G/SG/N/14/PHL/4/Suppl.2.   He noted that written questions concerning 
this notification had been received from Thaila nd in document  G/SG/Q2/PHL/4, and that the 
Philippines had circulated its repli es in document G/SG/Q2/PHL/5.   
78. The representative of the Philippines  read out the replies that it had provided in document 
G/SG/Q1/PHL/5. 
79. The representative of Thailand  noted that the Philippines' responses had only recently been 
circulated, that Thailand had only a preliminary reacti on at this time, and therefore requested that this 
agenda item be retained for the next meeting.  She recalled that this agenda item concerned the 
temporary suspension of the measure by the Philippin es.  She stressed that although the suspension of 
the measure might have the effect of providing some  temporary relief to exporters, its uncertainty still 
posed a possible disruption to trade.  In addition,  the suspension of the duty indicated that the 
domestic industry was no longer seriously injured by  imports, and the measure no longer necessary.  
Therefore, Thailand continued to urge the Philippin es to terminate the underlying measure altogether.  
Turning to the Philippines' answers on the details of  the suspension, she had the following comments.  
Regarding the Philippines' answer to Question 1, she asked if the Philippines could clarify whether 
guarantees were required during the suspension, as that part of the question was not answered.  Regarding the Philippines' answer to Question 2,  she asked whether this meant that both the 
suspension and the underlying measure would be terminated once and if the domestic producer 
resumed normal operations, and how the Philippines de fined the term "normal operations".  She noted 
that this term was also used in the Philippines' answer to Question 3, and asked whether the term 
"normal operations" was used in the same way in the responses to Questions 2 and 3.   Regarding the 
Philippines' answer to Question 4, she hoped that any procedures adopted by the Philippines were 
transparent, and notified in a timely manner. Regard ing the Philippines' answer to Question 5, she 
stated that, if the Philippines did extend the measur e, she hoped that the Philippines would notify this 
to the WTO under the guidelines that might ultimat ely finalized by the Committee.  She also 
reiterated Thailand's request that th e Philippines' circulate a copy of the 1 November 2008 order, upon 
which the suspension was based, to the Committee for transpar ency purposes.   She noted that in the 
past, the Philippines had notified a copy of a si milar order, in document G/SG/N/14/PHL/3/Supp.1, 
dated 8 January 2008.    G/SG/M/35 
 Page 11 
 
 
  80. The representative of the Philippines  stated that they looked forward to receiving the 
comments in writing.  
19. Ukraine – Matches 
81. The Chairperson  noted that Ukraine had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
matches in document G/SG/N/6/UKR/2.   
82. The representative of Ukraine  stated that the investigation was being conducted in accordance 
with its legislation and the regulations of the WTO.    
20. Ukraine – Liquid Chlorine  
83. The Chairperson  noted that Ukraine had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
Liquid Chlorine in document G/SG/N/6/UKR/3.   
84. The representative of Ukraine  stated that regarding this inv estigation, Ukraine had finished 
the registration of interested parties and w ould be circulating questionnaires shortly.   
85. Before proceeding to the next agenda item, the Chairperson  recalled that any questions 
concerning the notifications of actions taken fo r which written responses were requested should be 
submitted to the Member concerned, and to the Secretariat, no later than 27 May 2009.  Written 
responses, including those to questions submitted in wr iting prior to this meeting, should be submitted 
to the Secretariat no later than 17 June 2009.  As w ith the legislative notifications, the draft annotated 
agenda of the next Committee meeting would indicate if  there were any questions left unanswered.     
86. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
C. NOTIFICATION FORMATS CONCERNING EXTENSION OF MEASURES AND TERMINATION /LAPSE 
OF MEASURES  
D. WAYS TO IMPROVE THE TIMELINESS AND COMPLETENESS OF NOTIFICATIONS AND OTHER 
INFORMATION FLOWS  
87. The Chairperson  stated that he would take up agenda items C and D together. He stated that 
all the proposals currently on the table related, in one  way or the other, to both of the agenda items, 
and so whether a certain proposal related to item C or item D did not affect the substance of the 
discussion.  
88. He recalled that at the regular Committee held in October 2008, he proposed that the 
Committee discuss certain issues con cerning possible improvements to notifications. At that meeting, 
Members expressed their views that they wished to  continue the discussion, and that informal 
meetings should be convened on this issue.  In  this light, the Committee held three informal 
consultations since that time – on 15 January 2009,  on 24 March 2009, and on 22 April 2009.  In the 
meantime, the request made by the Chairperson of the General Council coincided nicely with what the 
Committee was discussing, and in f act, the Committee took up this matter in the informal meetings 
held on 24 March 2009 and on 22 April 2009.  He recalled that he reported to the chairperson of the 
TPRB, by a letter dated 14 April 2009, about those c onsultations.  He further recalled that the issues 
discussed in those informal consultations were : (i) notifying certain information concerning 
extensions of measures, (ii) notifying certain information concerning termination or lapse of 
measures, (iii) modifying certain existing notificat ion formats and (iv) other issues. Finally, he 
announced that at the request of a Member, he had asked the Secretariat to compile all the existing G/SG/M/35 
Page 12  
 
  notification formats into a single document, and that  the compilation was placed at the back of the 
room.  
89. Having made these comments, the Chairpers on proposed that the Committee discuss in 
informal mode the drafts sent to Members by fax on 1 May 2009.    
90. The Chairperson
 wrapped up the informal discussion by stating that Members had a good 
discussion on all of the drafts, and noted that while  Members still requested some more adjustments, it 
was his view that the Comm ittee was close to agreemen t. He stated that he took good note of all the 
comments made, and proposed that the Committee  continue to discuss these issues under the 
incoming new Chairperson.  
91. The representatives of Japan , Chile,  Chinese Taipei  and Korea  took the floor formally to 
thank the Chairperson for his efforts on this ma tter, and reiterated the importance of the work 
particularly in the context of the current difficult economic situation.  
92. The Committee took note  of the statements made.   
E. OTHER BUSINESS  
1. Notification from the Dominican Republic 
93. The representative of Chile  referred to a notification recently submitted from the Dominican 
Republic regarding an investigation on glass bottles.5 Concerning this notification, he asked: (i) when 
the initiation was publicized, and (ii)  when the "15 days" – the timeframe for interested parties to 
notify their interest in participating in the investig ation – would begin, and also pointed out that it was 
unclear who were the major exporte rs of this product.     
94. The representative of Costa Rica  voiced the same concerns as Chile.   
95. The representative of the Dominican Republic  stated that the initiation was publicized on 
20 April 2009, and further stated that for the rema ining questions, he would respond in writing.   
2. Proposal by Chinese Taipei 
96. The representative of Chinese Taipei  stated that in light of the fact that Members were 
discussing amendments and improvements of various formats, Chinese Taipei proposed that Members 
also discuss the timeframe by which to calculate the "import share" referred to in Article 9.1. He 
explained that Members could make use of a document addressing a similar issue in the context of anti-dumping – document G/ADP/10 dated 29 November  2002. He wished that Members would agree 
to his proposal.   
97. The representative of Egypt
 stated that while Egypt was read y to consider the issue, he was 
unsure of the rationale of the proposal.  
98. The Chairperson  stated that he took note of the proposal, and would ask the incoming 
chairperson to deal with the matter.   
                                                      
5  See G/SG/N/6/DOM/1. This notification was submitted too late to be taken up at this meeting.   G/SG/M/35 
 Page 13 
 
 
  3. Notifications from India 
99. The representative of th e European Communities  stated that it was the understanding of the 
European Communities that as of April, India had initiated 5 investigations in 2009 – hot-rolled coil, 
uncoated paper, coated paper, acrylic fibre, a nd particle boards.  The European Communities was 
extremely concerned with the development.  It also  failed to see how this was compatible with India's 
commitment taken vis-à-vis  the G-20. Evidence used in those i nvestigations were also far from 
convincing. Nor had India made notifications in li ne with Article 12 yet. This was all the more 
worrying since, in the EC's understanding, provisi onal measures had already been recommended in 
three cases. Four of the five investigations were initiated in early April, and it was now already May. 
The European Communities requested  information on the status of those investigation. It also 
requested India to exercise restra int in using this instrument.  
100. The representative of India  requested that the comments be submitted in writing.  
101. The Committee took note  of the statements made.   
F. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
102. The Chairperson  recalled that regular meetings would normally be held in conjunction with 
the regular meetings of the Committees on Anti- Dumping Practices and Subsides and Countervailing 
Measures.  Accordingly, he suggested that th e Safeguards Committee meet in the week of 
2 November 2009.6 He stated that the exact date would be confirmed later.  
103. The Committee so agreed . 
G. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
104. The Chairperson  stated that the chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods had carried out 
informal consultations on the nomination of chai rpersons for the different bodies operating under the 
auspices of the Council for Trade in Goods.  The proposed nominations were taken note of by the 
Council for Trade in Goods.  He stated that concer ning this Committee, the chairperson of the Council 
for Trade in Goods proposed the nomination of Ms . Dineswaree Mohun from Mauritius.  He therefore 
proposed that the Committee elect Ms. Dineswaree Mohun as Chairperson.  
105. The Committee so agreed . 
106. Regarding the position of Vice-Chairperson of th e Committee, the Chairperson stated that he 
had conducted consultations with a number of Members, and on the basis of those consultations he 
proposed that the Committee elect Mr. Ben Czapnik of  Australia as Vice-Chair of the Committee.  
107. The Committee so agreed . 
__________  
 
                                                      
6  This timing was subsequently changed to the week of 19 October 2009.  (See fax sent to all Members 
on 9 July 2009.)