. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/L/957 
G/SG/93 
10 May 2011 
 
 (11-2389) 
Council for Trade in Goods Committee on Safeguards Original:   Spanish 
 
 
 
REQUEST UNDER ARTICLE 13.1(B) OF THE 
SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT 
 
Request from Colombia Concerning an Alleged Violation of
 
Article 12 by Ecuador  
  
 The following communication, dated 3 May 2011, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Colombia.  
_______________ 
 
  Pursuant to Article 13.1(b) of the Agreemen t on Safeguards (SA), the Republic of Colombia 
(Colombia) requests that the Committee on Safeguards (the Committee) analyse and rule on the 
non-compliance by the Republic of Ecuador (Ecuador) with the procedural requirements set forth in 
Article 12 of the SA and report its findings to  the Council for Trade in Goods.  Ecuador's 
non-compliance specifically concerns its failure to hold prior consultations as part of the process of 
establishing the definitive safeguard (the safegua rd) for the goods classified under NANDINA tariff 
subheading 7007.21.00.00 (glass windshields), wh ich was imposed on 11 October 2010 and notified 
to the World Trade Organization (WTO) on 15 October 2010, as set out in document 
G/SG/N/8/ECU/3  - G/SG/N/10/ECU/4 of 21 October 2010. 
 
 The basis for this request is as follows: 
 I. FACTS 
1. On 22 April 2010, Ecuador notified Reso lution No. 10061 of 8 March 2010 of the 
Under-Secretariat for Trade and Investment of th e Ministry of Industry and Productivity, which 
related to the initiation of an investigation pr ocedure concerning imports of goods classified under 
NANDINA subheading 7007.21.00 ("Of size and shape su itable for incorporation in vehicles, aircraft, 
spacecraft or vessels") to determine whether such im ports had caused or threatened to cause serious 
injury to the domestic industry producing like or di rectly competitive products.  This was done with a 
view to establishing the legal basis for the imposition of a safeguard. 
2. Ecuador did not initiate consultations with  Colombia on the process pertaining to the 
imposition of this safeguard. 
3. On 11 October 2010, Ecuador, through Forei gn Trade and Investment Council (COMEXI) 
Resolution No. 587, published in Official Journal No. 297, ordered the application of a definitive 
safeguard measure for a period of three calendar y ears, consisting of "an additional specific duty of G/L/957 
G/SG/93 Page 2 
 
 
  US$12.72 on imports of windshields classified under NANDINA national import tariff 
subheading 7007.21.00.00". 
4. On 15 October 2010, following the imposition of this safeguard, Ecuador notified the WTO 
of its finding of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports.  This notification is set 
forth in document G/SG/N/8/ECU/3 - G/SG/N/10/ECU/4. 
5. On 25 October 2010, Ecuador held consultations  with Colombia to discuss the definitive 
safeguard imposed on 11 October.  On 23 November of the same year, additional consultations were 
held. 
6. The consultations with Colombia were held after the imposition of the safeguard, which is 
inconsistent with Article 12 of the SA. 
II. COMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 
 Colombia considers Ecuador's failure to hold c onsultations prior to imposing the safeguard to 
be a violation of the procedure established in Ar ticle 12 of the SA.  As  noted by the Panel in Korea – 
Dairy , consultations must take place before a safeguard measure is applied, i.e. when it is still simply 
a proposal.
1  By holding its consultations with Colo mbia after the imposition of the definitive 
safeguard, Ecuador did not follow the procedure established in the SA;  nor did it meet its obligations 
under the GATT 1994 or the aforementioned covered agre ement.  Moreover, as a result of Ecuador's 
actions, the rights of Colombia's producers and e xporters in this process have been affected. 
  Ecuador also failed to provide "adequate opportunity" for prior c onsultations in so far as the 
information on the finding of the existence of seri ous injury or threat thereof caused by increased 
imports was provided on 15 October 2010, i.e. afte r the imposition of the definitive safeguard, which 
is inconsistent with Article  12.2 and 12.3 of the SA. 
 
 In fact, as noted in the Report of the Appellate Body in US – Wheat Gluten
2, the information 
referred to in Article 12.2 of the SA, i.e. the evid ence of serious injury, should have been provided 
prior to holding consultations a nd, in any case, before the imposition of the definitive safeguard, 
which did not happen, thus furthe r affecting Colombia's rights. 
 
III. REQUEST 
 Pursuant to the mandate established in Article  13.1(b) of the SA, Colombia requests that the 
Committee on Safeguards rule on whether the procedural  requirements set forth in the SA were met in 
the investigation that led to the imposition of the de finitive safeguard measure in question.  Colombia 
also requests that the Committee report its findings to the Council for Trade in Goods.  
__________ 
                                                     
 
1 Report of the Panel in Korea – Dairy (DS98), paragraph 7.147. 
2 Report of the Appellate Body in US – Wheat Gluten  (DS166), paragraph 133.