WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/SG/W/225 
8 June 2012 
 (12-3042) 
Committee on Safeguards Original: Spanish 
  
 
STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF COLOMBIA 
 
(Regarding the Request under Article 13.1(b) 
of the Agreement on Safeguards) 
 
 
 The following statement, made by the delega tion of Colombia at the regular meeting held 
on 27 April 2012 under agenda item C - Request  under Article 13.1(b) of the Agreement on 
Safeguards (Request from Colombia), is bei ng circulated at this delegation's request. 
 
_______________ 
 
  Colombia welcomes the actions taken in regard  to its request of 3 May 2011 when, pursuant 
to Article 13.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguard s, it asked that the Committee find whether the 
procedural requirements of the Agreement had been  met in connection with the definitive safeguard 
measure applied by Ecuador on 11 October 2011 to goods classified under tariff subheading 
7007.21.00.00 (glass windshields), and that it report its findings to  the Council for Trade in Goods. 
  It also welcomes the informal consultations  and the Chairperson's Report.  However, 
Colombia wishes to place on record that the report do es not fully meet its request, which was to fulfil 
the mandate established in Article 13.1(b) and consequently to " find whether or not the procedural 
requirements have been complied with ". 
  Although the report reflects the positions of the parties in this case, it fails to make any 
finding as stipulated in the Agreement on Safe guards.  Colombia emphasizes that both parties 
provided enough factual elements, such as official documents and other evidence, to make it possible 
to establish Ecuador's flagrant violation of the pro cedure laid down in Article 12 of the Agreement on 
Safeguards.   Colombia wishes to re-empha size that throughout the course of this procedure it has 
demonstrated that: 
 
 Ecuador imposed a safeguard measure without holding prior consultations:  it 
imposed the measure on 23 September, which entered into effect on 11 October, and 
held the consultations on 25 October, in breach of the procedure set forth in 
Article 12. 
 
 There is an obvious inconsistency between  the resolution establishing the measure 
and Ecuador's notification to the WTO.  Indeed, Foreign Trade and Investment 
Council (COMEXI) Resolution No. 587 of 23 September 2010, published in 
Official Journal No. 297 of 11 October 2010, provides for the measure to enter into force upon its publication, that is, on 11 Oc tober, whereas, inconsistently, Ecuador 
notified the WTO in document G/SG/N/8/E CU/3-G/SG/N/10/ECU/4 that the measure 
was to enter into effect on 1 November. G/SG/W/225 
Page 2  
 
   
 Ecuador's customs authorities applied th e safeguard measure upon its publication, 
levying the duty in question on impor ts of windshields from Colombia 
on 19 October 2010.  Ecuador  acknowledged the fact at the Committee's informal 
consultations on 16 April, stating that the Ecuadorian customs authorities had been 
collecting these duties since 11 October. 
 
 Ecuadorian legislation in force at the time of the investigation and the adoption of the 
safeguard measure stipulated, in Article 328 of the Executive Decree of 14 January 2003, that "… Consultations must be held before imposing or extending a 
definitive safeguard measure, the investi gating authority sha ll provide adequate 
opportunity for consultations to be held  between the interested parties.  Such 
consultations shall be, inter alia , to examine the information supplied in notifications 
to the Committee on Safeguards, to exchange  views on the measure and to reach an 
understanding on how to achieve the objecti ve of maintaining the level of Ecuador's 
concessions and other obligations under GATT 1994 ".  Ecuador did not, however, 
apply this procedure and adopted the defi nitive measure without providing adequate 
opportunities for prior consultations, thus  violating not only Executive Decree 
No. 328 of 2003 but also Article 12.3 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards. 
 
 At neither of the two meetings, which, we  repeat, were held after the measure was 
imposed, did Ecuador seek to review the pertinent information, such as, inter alia , 
evidence of serious injury or threat th ereof caused by increased imports, the precise 
description of the product involved and the proposed measure, its duration and the 
timetable for progressive liberalization, in accordance with Article 12.3 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards. 
  Furthermore, Colombia wishes to place on record  that the report does not reflect the important 
conclusions outlined during the informal consultatio ns held on 3 February and 16 April, such as: 
 
1. It is important that notifications should accurately reflect the legal measures put into 
effect.  We cannot set a negative preceden t in the WTO of a notification modifying 
the date of a measure's entry into force a nd containing information contrary to that 
established in the measure itself, in order to  remedy shortcomings in the adoption of 
the latter.  In this particular case, we no te that the documents annexed to Ecuador's 
notification stated that the measure would enter into force on 11 October, but Ecuador 
changed that date to 1 November in its notif ication to the WTO.  This type of action 
undermines the principle of transparency that should govern this Organization and is one that should not be overlooked. 
 
2. The report fails to mention the acknowle dgment made by Ecuador at the Committee's 
informal consultations on 16 April in agreeing that Customs had actually begun to 
levy the safeguard duty as of 11 October, as Colombia had demonstrated by means of a customs document presented at the Co mmittee's informal consultations on 
3 February. 
 
3. Most of the Members that took the floor at the Committee's informal consultations 
on 3 February stated that, according to the documents Colombia had supplied, the measure had entered into effect on 11 October, and that consequently the 
consultations had been held afterwar ds and Ecuador had acted in a manner 
inconsistent with the Agreement. 
  G/SG/W/225 
 Page 3 
 
 
  4. At the Committee's informal consultati ons on 3 February, one Member recommended 
that resolutions should henceforth always specify the definitive date of entry into force and recalled that this was a transparency measure. 
 
5. During those same consultations, another Me mber affirmed categorically that in the 
absence of an administrative act setting a date other than that of publication, the 
applicable date was 11 October. 
  Lastly, we would remind the Committee that, for the first time in this Committee's history, 
Colombia has invoked use of this function, consider ing it most useful and important to the monitoring 
task that falls to all Members and in the endeavour to achieve full a dherence to the rules established in 
the Agreement on Safeguards.   When Colombia's request was submitted a year ago, it had two principal objectives:  
1. A systemic objective , namely to make  use of the mechanisms established in the 
Agreement to ensure compliance with its provisions through a monitoring process that 
is the responsibility of all Members.  This systemic interest is not confined to a 
specific case, and it is for the Membership as a whole to monitor compliance with the 
Agreement and perform this important monitoring function assigned to the Committee on Safeguards under Article 13.1(b). 
 
2. A trade objective.   Our industry is continuing to press urgently for the withdrawal of 
this measure, which was imposed without fo llowing the procedure set forth in the 
Agreement on Safeguards.  The measure has significantly affected our industry and a 
sector of major importance for the country 's economic growth and development.  
Continued application of this measure woul d drive us out of the market because our 
producers would have to co mpete under unequal conditions. 
  Today, we are by no means certain that these objectives have been met.  In our view, the scope of the mechanism provided for Members under Article 13.1(b) to monitor adherence to the 
WTO rules has been disregarded.  Turning to our second area of interest, we are disappointed not to 
be able to give our industry any po sitive news and that despite the procedural violation in question the 
measure remains in effect, causing considerab le harm to Colombia's domestic industry. 
 
__________