. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/Q1/CHN/25/Rev.1 
21 March 2006 
 (06-1263) 
Committee on Safeguards Original:   English 
  
 
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLE 12.6 OF THE AGREEMENT 
 
Questions Posed by JAPAN Regarding the Notification of the 
 
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA1 
 
Revision  
  
 The following communication, dated 16 March 2006, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Japan. 
 
_______________ 
 
 Preliminary Notice:  
 We acknowledge that People's Republic of Chin a (PRC) has steadily advanced its efforts to 
make Regulations of PRC on Sa feguards consistent with WTO Agreement on Safeguards through 
TRM and other meetings.   Now we again present several pending questi ons about Regulations of PRC on Safeguards 
and related laws and rules from the perspectiv e of their consistency with WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards and other international trade rules.  We hope that the PRC will reply to the following 
requests and questions.  
1. The Consistency of Article 31 of Regulati ons of PRC on Safeguards with GATT and 
 WTO-SG Agreement  
 Following the comments by PRC at the previous TRM meeting, measures under Article 31 of Regulations of PRC on Safeguards “are different from rebalancing measures.”  Please specify on 
which provisions of GATT, WTO-SG Agreement a nd/or Dispute Settlement Understanding the above 
measures based.  
2. Lack of Explicit Provisions in Domestic Acts 
 
 The Acts and regulations on safeguards of PRC do not have specific provisions regarding 
some rules provided under GATT and WTO-SG Agreem ent.  Although PRC stated that some of them, 
such as considerations of “unforeseen developments,”  were assured at its investigation procedures, 
GOJ requests PRC to provide those rules explic itly in the relevant laws and regulations. 
  
• Regulations of PRC on Safeguards do not stip ulate as one of the conditions for taking 
Safeguard measure “unforeseen developments”, prescribed in GATT Article XIX: 1(a).  
In the previous TRM meeting, PRC stated that  it had made investiga tions in consistent 
                                                     
 
1 G/SG/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.3 G/SG/Q1/CHN/25/Rev.1 
Page 2  
 
  with WTO-SG Agreement, even though without any specific provisions.  In order to 
assure the consistency with the WTO-SG Ag reement, GOJ requests PRC to provide the 
above-mentioned rule clearly in  its laws and regulations. 
 
• Article 3.1 of WTO-SG Agreement stipulates that “the opportunity to respond to the 
presentations of other parties and to submit th eir views, inter alia, as to whether or not 
the application of a safeguard measure would be in the public  interest” shall be given.  
However, Article 19 of Regulations of PRC on Safeguards only provides, “[t]he 
application of safeguard measures shall be in th e public interest.”  From the point of view 
of the clarity and  the consistency with  WTO-SG Agreement, GOJ requests PRC to 
stipulate explicitly “the opportunity to respond to the presentations of other parties and to 
submit their views” in the laws and regulations. 
 
• Regarding compensation measures (Artic le 8.1 of WTO-SG Agreement), PRC 
commented in the 2004TRM meeting, “[c]ons ultations under Article 24 of Regulations 
of PRC on Safeguards respond to the matter of the relevant provisions of WTO Agreement on Safeguards and the article includes compensation measures.”  However, 
the article only requires making available “ad equate opportunities for consultations,” and 
does not mention any compensation measures.  GOJ request PRC to include a provision about compensation measures in the relevant regulations, making it fully consistent with 
WTO Agreement on Safeguards. 
 
3. Disclosure of Data for Investigations 
 
 With regard to the definition of “domestic industry,” PRC commented at the 2004 TRM meeting that it was specified in Article 10 of Regulations of PRC on Safeguards, and PRC had 
conducted investigations based on th e article.  But, in the case of the steel safeguard, PRC limited the 
scope of its investigation to eight domestic stee l manufacturers, and deemed the sum of the above 
eight manufacturers’ productions as the total producti on of domestic industry, because of the reason 
that their outputs accounted for a major part of the total production in PRC.  However, investigation authority of PRC did not disclose any specific data on output quantities in its findings.  GOJ request PRC to make the relevant data public along with  its findings in its future investigation. 
 
 Article 3.1 of WTO-SG Agreement stipulat es that the competent authorities shall publish 
report setting forth their findings and reasoned conclusions reached on all pertinent issues and we 
have a question how this requirement is ensured in the Regulations and why relevant data on the 
above calculation is not made publicly available.  
__________