RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/M/34 
21 April 2009 
 (09-1879) 
Committee on Safeguards  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 28 OCTOBER 2008 
 
Chairperson:  Mr. Robert Kasper (United States) 
  
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the  "Committee") held a regular meeting on 28 October 2008. 
2. The following agenda was adopted: 
A.
 NATIONAL LEGISLATION .............................................................................................................2  
1. Albania – Review of New Legislative Notification .................................................................2  
2. Egypt – Review of New Legislative Notification ....................................................................3  
3. El Salvador – Review of New Legislative Notification...........................................................3  
4. Ukraine – Review of New Legislative Notification.................................................................4  
5. Costa Rica – Continuing Review of Previo usly Reviewed Legislative Notification ............6  
6. Malaysia – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative Notification ...............6  
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES ............................................7  
1. Brazil – CD-R and DVD-R.......................................................................................................8  
2. Egypt – Blankets ............................................................................................................... ........8  
3. Indonesia – Cerami c Tableware ..............................................................................................9  
4. Indonesia – Dextrose Monohydrate ........................................................................................9  
5. Panama – Printed Film in Rolls...............................................................................................9  
6. Philippines – Steel Angle Bars ...............................................................................................10  
7. Philippines – Gl ass Mirrors ...................................................................................................1 1 
8. South Africa – Lysine .......................................................................................................... ...11 
9. Turkey - Certain Electrical Appliances ................................................................................12  
10. Turkey – Cotton Yarn ........................................................................................................... .13 
11. Ukraine – Casing and Pump-Compressor Seamless Steel Pipes ........................................13  
12. Ukraine - PVC Sections for Windows and Doors ................................................................13  
C. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF 
THE PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION ...........................14  
D. POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO NOTIFICATIONS .........................................................................14  
E. OTHER BUSINESS .......................................................................................................................19  G/SG/M/34 
Page 2 
 
 
  F. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL ON TRADE IN GOODS ..........................................................19  
G. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING ....................................................................................19  
 
 
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
3. The Chairperson  stated that the first item on the Committee's agenda was the review of 
notifications of national safeguard legislations and/or regulations, in accordance with the procedures 
adopted by the Committee at its special meeting in  April 1996.  The Chairperson mentioned that, as 
had been indicated in the airgram convening th e meeting, the Committee had received legislative 
notifications from one Member.  As indicated in the annotated draft agenda dated 19 September 2008, 
questions regarding this notificati on were to have been submitted to the Member concerned and to the 
Secretariat no later than 6 October 2008. 
4. 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 pr esent questions orally at this meeting.  After the 
meeting there would be a period for the submis sion of written questions concerning any of the 
legislations reviewed in the meeting. 
5. The Chairperson mentioned that if Members wi shed to have written answers to questions, 
they had to ensure that all questions were presented in writing to the Member whose legislation was concerned, and to the Secretariat, no later than th ree weeks after the meeti ng, i.e., no later than 
18 November 2008.  Written answers to all questions submitted in writing by that deadline had to be 
submitted to the Secretariat no later than three weeks later, i.e., no later than 9 December 2008. 
1. Albania – Review of New Legislative Notification  
6. The Chairperson
 noted that Albania's legislative notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/ALB/2 and G/SG/N/1/ALB/2/Rev.1.  He further noted that written questions concerning 
this notification had been received from the Unite d States in document G/SG/Q1/ALB/5, and that 
Albania had submitted its responses in document G/SG/Q1/ALB/6.  
7. The representative of Albania  confirmed that that it had duly responded to the questions from 
the United States in document G/SG/Q1/ALB/6. 
8. The representative of the United States  stated the explanation provided by Albania on the 
WTO-consistency of Article 11 of Albania's legislat ion was unsatisfactory, and requested Albania to 
provide a more complete response to this question. 
9. The representative of Albania  stated that  Albania would follow-up in writing.1  
10. The representative of Indonesia  stated that it had several questions on the notification.  The 
first question was in relation to Article 7 of the re gulations, which identified certain relevant factors 
that the competent authorities had to  examine in making the determination of injury.  In particular, 
Indonesia inquired how Albania's competent authorities would ensure that " all relevant factors of an 
                                                      
1  See document G/SG/Q1/ALB/6/Suppl.1.  G/SG/M/34 
 Page 3 
 
 
  objective and quantifiable nature having a bearing on the situation of [the] industry" were evaluated, 
as required by Article 4.2(a) of the Safeguards Ag reement.  Indonesia's second question concerned the 
wording of Article 7, namely that the authorities shall evaluate "price of imports, whether there has 
been or not any considerable price reduction, in abso lute or relative terms, compared to the price of a 
similar product in the Republic of Albania".  Indone sia asked Albania to provide further explanation 
of the meaning of this provision.  Finally, Indon esia asked Albania to explain how it would implement 
Article 14 of the regulations regarding the treatment of confidential information and the provision of 
non-confidential summaries.  In particular, Indonesia i nquired about the criterion to be used as a basis 
for classifying information as business secret.2 
11. The representative of Albania  stated that  Albania would respond in writing.3 
2. Egypt – Review of New Legislative Notification  
12. The Chairperson  noted that Egypt's legislative notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/EGY/2/Suppl.1.  He further noted that written questions concerning this notification had 
been received from the United States in document G/SG/Q1/EGY/3. 
13. The representative of Egypt  stated that its replies to th ese questions would be submitted in 
writing shortly, but he would respond briefly for the time.  Concerning the first question of the 
United States, he stated that if the investig ating authority was provided with evidence that 
circumvention of an existing measure was taking place, and that remedial effects of the measures 
were being undermined, it shall initia te an anti-circumvention investig ation.  Moreover, he underlined 
that during an anti-circumvention investigation, a ll interested parties shall be provided with ample 
opportunity to present evidence and arguments which th ey considered relevant.  Turning to the second 
question concerning Article 92, the representative Egyp t stated that all interested parties would be 
notified of the initiation of an investigation provi ded that they cooperate with the investigating 
authority.  He confirmed that all interested parties would be kept informed of  the investigative process 
and would have the opportunity to present evid ence and arguments.  Concerning the question on 
Article 17, he noted that the investigating author ity and the advisory committee shall be subject to 
internal indicative deadlines in considering an application and in making recommendations to the 
Minister of Trade and Industry regarding the possible initiation of an investigati on.  In relation to the 
question concerning Article 31, he explained that the situation was similar to Article 17, that is, the 
investigating authority was subject to internal indi cative deadlines to complete its report and issue its 
findings. 
14. The representative of the United States  stated that it was looking forward to receiving the 
responses in writing. 
3. El Salvador – Review of New Legislative Notification  
15. The Chairperson  noted that El Salvador's legislativ e notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/SLV/3.  He further noted that written questions concerning this notification had been 
received from the United States in document G/SG/Q1/SLV/3. 
16. The representative of El Salvador  thanked the United States for the questions and stated that 
the questions would allow the Committee to look at  the operative aspects of this instrument, which 
was part of the internal domestic legislation as we ll as the Central American Integration System.  He 
stated that El Salvador intended to  provide complete answers in writing4, and explained that for the 
                                                      
2  The written version of the questions was subseq uently submitted as document G/SG/Q1/ALB/7.  
3  Subsequently submitted as document G/SG/Q1/ALB/8. 
4 Subsequently submitted as document G/SG/Q1/SLV/4. G/SG/M/34 
Page 4 
 
 
  time, he would address only some of the general concerns expressed by the United States.  He 
explained that if there were a conflict between  the WTO Safeguards Agreement and the Central 
American Regulation on Safeguards, the WTO Agreement would prevail.  In this context, El Salvador 
referred to Article 4 of the Regulation which stat ed that all substantive aspects relating to the 
safeguard measures and procedural aspects which we re not dealt with in the Regulation would be 
determined by the provisions contained in the instru ments referred to in Article 12 of the Regulation, 
that is, the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, Article XIX of the GATT 1994, as well as provisions 
contained in the Guatemala Protocol and the Convention on Tariff System and Customs System of Central America.  He also clarified that the investig ating authority in El Salvador was the Direction of 
Administration of Trade Agreements of the Ministry of Economy.  As to the Secretariat of the 
SIECA, its role was an organizer of the meetings of  the Council of the Ministries of Central American 
Economic Integration which recogni zed and approved, as provided in Article 35 of the Regulation, 
the resolutions which the investigating authorities of  each country made.  As to the circumstances in 
which the investigating authority may carry out verification visits, the representative of El Salvador 
referred the Members to text of Article 23 of the Re gulation, i.e. that such verifications shall take 
place in circumstances where the i nvestigating authority was in doubt about the information provided 
by the interested parties during the investigation, making it impossible to carry out a full evaluation of 
the case.  He emphasised that in order to carry out the verification visit, the agreement of the company 
to be visited as well as of that government were re quired.  As regards the duration of the measures 
adopted pursuant to the Regulation, he explaine d that Article 7.4 of the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards required progressive liberalization of the me asure.  In this context, he explained that 
where certain procedural aspects were not establish ed in the Regulation, actions were taken in 
accordance with the WTO Safeguards Agreement.  In  relation to the review process of the measures 
adopted, he stated that Article 37 of the Regulati on made a specific reference to a provision in the 
WTO Safeguards Agreement relating to the duration a nd the review of the measures.  In addition, 
El Salvador presented detailed information about publi cation of resolutions rela ting to the initiation of 
safeguard investigations and the imposition of provisional and definitive measures.   
17. The representative of the United States
 stated that she looked forward to receiving the 
responses in writing. 
4. Ukraine – Review of New Legislative Notification  
18. The Chairperson  noted that Ukraine's legislative notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/UKR/1.  He commended Ukraine for its prom pt legislative notification.  He further noted 
that written questions concerning this notifica tion had been received from the United States in 
document G/SG/Q1/UKR/1. 
19. The representative of Ukraine  reminded the Committee, in relation to question 1 from the 
United States, that Ukraine acceded  to the WTO in accordance with  the Protocol for Ukraine's 
Accession to the WTO.  Pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article XVI, Ukraine brought its legislation, more 
specifically its Law into conformity with the obligations provided for under the WTO Agreements.  
As such, if an international agreement to which Uk raine was a party set forth rules other than those 
envisaged in the relevant legislative act of Ukrain e, the rules of the international agreement shall 
prevail.  Concerning question 2, she stated that pursuant to Article 12 of the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards, Ukraine submitted all notifications c oncerning safeguards to the WTO Secretariat.  
Furthermore, Ukraine noted that notifications of  safeguard investigati ons and measures were 
published in the Official Gazette of Ukraine's governme nt executive branch, i.e. "Uriadovy Kurier", as 
well as in the "Foreign economic activity" sec tion of the Ministry of Economy's web site 
(http://me.kmu.gov.ua ).  In relation to Question 3, she stated that the definition of the term "interested 
party" did not contradict the WTO Agreement on Safe guards.  Paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the Law not 
only contained a clear definition, but also listed partie s that could act as interested parties in a special 
investigation.  In addition, she recalled that bot h Article 3 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards and  G/SG/M/34 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Article 9 of the Law provided for a possibility of holding hearings or other procedural steps enabling 
interested parties to present evidence and comments concerning a given investigation.  As regards 
participation in a special investigation by parties th at have not registered as interested parties, the 
representative of Ukraine referred Members to Article 9 of the Law, which provided that other parties 
may, within the period specified in the notice of initiation of a special investigation, present their 
opinions and provide the Ministry with information u seful for the special inves tigation.  At the same 
time, the Ministry published information about the facts established in the course of the special 
investigation, as well as conclusions concerning all f actual and legal aspects thereof, in the official 
gazette.  Turning to question 4, she explained that paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law did not provide 
for a possibility of conducting hearings within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards.  Instead, Article 7 of the Law de fined the principles for Committee's conducting its 
sittings with a view of adopting decisions concerni ng safeguard investigati ons or application of 
safeguard measures.  She stated that the question may have been triggered due to inaccurate English 
translation.  To the second part of the question, she responded that all notifications of relevant 
decisions passed by the Committee were published in  the official newspaper and were displayed on 
the Ministry of Economy's web page.  
20. In relation to question 5, she explained that Artic le 8 of the Law was not inconsistent with the 
WTO Agreement on Safeguards.  For purposes of dete rmination of the surge in imports and of the 
injury caused to national producers, the same period sh all be used.  She also stated that paragraph 12 
of Article 1 of the Law provided that the period of  investigation was a period for which the Ministry 
examined the dynamics of the growth of the volume of imports of the subject product, as well as the 
state of production, trade and fina ncial positions of domestic producer s.  In practice, Ukraine followed 
the rule of establishing a three-year period of investig ation.  As regards question 6, she explained that 
paragraph 1 of section 6 of Article 11 provided fo r a possibility of refunding to the importer the 
amounts of the special duty paid.  Other provisi ons of section 6 of Article 11 concerned the 
mechanism for refunding the specified amounts.  As re gards question 7, she explained that Articles 14 
and 15 of the Law in no way contradicted Article ХІХ GATT 1994 or the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards.  She stated that regimes of supervis ion, including regional supervision, over imports to 
Ukraine did not constitute any kind of restric tive measures, but only a mechanism adopted for 
purposes of investigation, which helped in examining the situa tion concerning im ports, both in the 
entire territory of Ukraine and in its particular re gions.  As regards question 8, she explained that 
Article 16 of the Law was consistent with requi rements of the WTO Agreement on Safeguard.  In 
particular, Article 16 allowed application of special  measures depending on the results of the special 
investigation by way of the introduction of an impor t quota regime.  The level of the quota may not be 
lower than the average arithmetic value of th e import of the product subject to the special 
investigation, carried out in the last three representati ve years for which statistics were available.  If a 
quota was allocated among exporting countries, such an allocation may be coordinated with them.  If no such coordination took place, the quota shall be allocated among the exporting countries in 
proportion to their shares of imports in the prev ious representative period.  On question 9, she 
explained that Article 16 of the Law provided for a possibility of application of safeguards in specific 
regions of Ukraine where clearly specified cond itions were met.  She recalled that the WTO 
Agreement on Safeguards did not contain prohibitions of  a regional application of safeguards within a 
given country.  As regards question 10, she stated that the procedure for a repeated application of 
safeguard measures specified in Article 20 of th e Law conformed to the procedure specified in 
Article 7 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards.  She added that the Law of Ukraine limited the 
period of repeated application to 180 days.
5 
21. The representative of the United States  commended Ukraine for the prompt notification of its 
legislation and thanked it for the detailed responses.  She stated that since she had just received those 
responses, the United States wished to reser ve its right to pose follow-up questions. 
                                                      
5  Written version of the responses was subseque ntly submitted as document G/SG/Q1/UKR/2.  G/SG/M/34 
Page 6 
 
 
  22. The representative of Indonesia  stated that Indonesia had two questions on this notification. 
The first question was: under what circumstanc es Ukraine's competent authorities may initiate an 
investigation on its own initiative under Chapter II Ar ticle 5 and Chapter III Article 9 of the notified 
regulations?  The second question c oncerned Article 13.3 (2), which concerned the establishment of 
existence of serious injury or threat thereof.  This  Article provided that one of the factors the Ministry 
evaluates to determine the "possibility of causing injury" was the "future or already existing export 
potential of a country of origin or exporting c ountry, as well as probability of utilization of such 
potential for the export of such product to Ukraine" .  Indonesia wished to know what was meant by 
"possibility" in referring to continuation of export in creases, and how this term could be distinguished 
from "allegation, conjecture or remote possibilit y" in Article 4.1(b) of the WTO Safeguards 
Agreement.  Indonesia wished to know how this pr ovision was consistent with the requirement in 
Article 2.1 of the WTO Safeguards Agreement.  For example, Indonesia wished to know whether an 
increase in foreign capacity alone provided a basis for determining that the domestic industry was 
threatened with serious injury. 
23. The representative of Ukraine  asked Indonesia to submit the questions in writing.6  
5. Costa Rica – Continuing Review of Previo usly Reviewed Legislative Notification  
24. The Chairperson  noted that Costa Rica's legislative notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/CRI/4, which was taken up once at the l ast Committee meeting.  He further noted that 
written questions concerning this notification had b een received from the Unit ed States in document 
G/SG/Q1/CRI/7 and that Costa Rica had submitte d its response in document G/SG/Q1/CRI/8.  
25. The representative of the United States  stated that she did not have questions for the time, but 
that the United States wished to reserve its right to  ask follow-up questions.  She requested that this 
item be put on the agenda for the spring 2009 meeting. 
26. The representative of Costa Rica  stated that Costa Rica did not have any difficulty with the 
item being put on the agenda for the spring 2009 mee ting, but clarified that Costa Rica submitted the 
responses on time.  Costa Rica was, nonetheless, wil ling to reply to any further follow-up questions 
from the United States. 
27. The Chairperson  stated that this agenda would be placed on the agenda for the spring 2009 
meeting.  
6. Malaysia – Continuing Review of Previous ly Reviewed Legislative Notification  
28. The Chairperson  noted that Malaysia's legislative notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/MYS/2, which was taken up once at the last  Committee meeting.  He further noted that a 
question concerning this notification had been receiv ed in writing from the United States in document 
G/SG/Q1/MYS/7.   
29. Responding to the question from the United States, the representative of Malaysia  stated that 
there was no requirement for the notice of public hearing to be published by the Government of 
Malaysia in the Official Gazette.  Pursuant to  sub-regulation 21(3) and 21(5) of the Safeguards 
Regulation 2007, the Government of Malaysia was onl y required to notify the participating interested 
parties of its decision to conduct a public hearing af ter the receipt of the written application or on its 
own initiative. 
                                                      
6  Written version of the questions was subseque ntly submitted as document G/SG/Q1/UKR/3.  G/SG/M/34 
 Page 7 
 
 
  30. The representative of the United States  stated that she looked forward to receiving the 
responses in writing and that the United States r eserved its right to pose follow-up questions.  
31. 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 18 Nove mber 2008.  The deadline for written answers to all 
questions posed in writing was 9 December 2008.   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.  
32. The representative of Chile  stated that while assuring transpar ency was an important aspect of 
the Committee's process, it was also important to assure a smooth and interac tive dialogue to conclude 
the relevant agenda item.  In this regard, he stated  that if a Member had responded to the questions in 
the relevant timeframe, matters should stop there, ap art from the possibility that there could be follow-
up questions.  In this connection, he observed th at one Member did not want to conclude the 
discussion on one notification, even though that Me mber had actually submitted questions within the 
relevant timeframe.  He saw this as a disincentive to submit replies.  
33. The Chairperson  stated that, in his views, there were tw o separate issues.  The first related to 
the notifications themselves to be made and th e opportunity for Members to pose comments and 
submit responses within a set deadline.  On the other hand, he unde rstood Chile's comments 
concerned a situation where the responses to questi ons were submitted in the time, and whether in 
such a situation a Member was encouraged to refra in from asking that the same item be put on the 
agenda of the subsequent meeting.  The Chairperso n noted that most Members exercised restraint in 
trying to put items onto the agenda for the following m eeting.  He also stated that by the same token, 
it was up to the Members to decide whether or not they felt they needed to pose follow-up questions.  
34. Before proceeding to the next agenda item, the Chairperson inform ed the Committee that 
there were still 34 Members that had not yet made a legislative notification.7  The Chairperson stated 
that he regretted that the number of Members that  had failed to make any legislative notification 
remained high.  He urged these Members to make the required notification and reminded that in cases 
where no legislation existed, a simple no tification indicating "nil" was required. 
35. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
36. The Chairperson  noted that various notifications had been received since the last meeting.  In 
order to ensure that all of these could be reviewed in  the limited time available, he suggested that the 
Committee address the relevant safeguard investigati ons as separate agenda ite ms, and review all of 
the notifications pertaining to each separate investigation at the same time.   
                                                      
7 These Members were: Angola, Antigua & Barbud a, 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 & Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Solomon 
Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga and Vietnam. G/SG/M/34 
Page 8 
 
 
  1. Brazil – CD-R and DVD-R   
37. The Chairperson  noted that Brazil had made notifica tions regarding the investigation on 
CD-R and DVD-R in document G/SG/N/6/BRA/3. 
38. The representative of the United States  expressed concern about the general lack of 
transparency in Brazil's initiation notification, an d urged Brazil to provide additional information to 
allow a reasonable understanding of this investiga tion, for example, the dates corresponding to the 
reference periods simply indicated as "P1", "P2", "P3" and "P4" in the notification.  She also urged 
Brazil to provide more information to illustr ate the injury to its domestic industry. 
39. The representative Brazil  asked the United States to submit the questions in writing.  
2. Egypt – Blankets  
40. The Chairperson  noted that Egypt had made notifica tions regarding the investigation on 
Blankets in document G/SG/N/8/EGY/ 5–G/SG/N/10/EGY/5–G/SG/N/11/EGY/1. 
41. The representative of the United States  pointed out that Egypt in itiated the investigation on 
10 February 2008 and proposed provisional duties on 12 February 2008, but that Egypt notified the Committee only on 15 February, after it had proposed provisional measures.  In this connection, the 
United States first asked Egypt to clarify whet her its proposed provisional measures were actually 
imposed and, if so, to provide the date of impositi on.  Secondly, the United States  requested Egypt to 
explain what provisions were made for interested  parties to express their position and defend their 
interests between the date of the initiation of the safeguard proceeding and th e date of imposition of 
provisional measure. 
42. The representative of Egypt
 noted that while he did not have a copy of the notice of initiation 
at hand, he believed that the notification to the WTO Secretariat was made before the imposition of 
the provisional measure, which was imposed on 12 Fe bruary.  Egypt assured the United States that it 
would check and revert back with further informa tion.  Turning to the second question relating to the 
rights of interested parties during the investigati on, Egypt recalled that a notice of initiation of the 
investigation published in the Egyptian Official Ga zette invited all interested parties to make 
themselves known.  Egypt informed the Members of the Committee that there were a number of 
interested parties within, as well as outside Egypt, that made submissions and requested meeting with 
the investigating authority.  Therefore, Egypt cons idered that the rights of interested parties were 
guaranteed throughout the investigation given that the interested parties were informed of the findings 
of the investigating authority and were provided with the opportunity of making comments on these findings. 
43. After consulting the relevant documents,  the representative of Egypt  explained that the 
relevant notification was contained in document G/SG/N/6/EGY/4–G/SG/N/7/EGY/3.  He stated that 
as indicated in that notification, the Ministerial Decision to initiate an investigation and to impose 
provisional measures was adopted on 10 February 2008.  The Committee was notified on 
11 February 2008, the following day, and on 12 February 2008 the publication of a Notice of 
Initiation of an investigation and of a notice of  imposition of provisional measures was published in 
the Official Gazette in Egypt. 
44. The representative of the United States
 stated that she had no follow-up questions at the time.  G/SG/M/34 
 Page 9 
 
 
  3. Indonesia – Ceramic Tableware 
45. The Chairperson  noted that Indonesia had made notifi cations regarding the investigation on 
ceramic tableware in document G/SG/N/6/IDN/1/Suppl.1. 
46. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
4. Indonesia – Dextrose Monohydrate 
47. The Chairperson  noted that the next item was another notification from Indonesia regarding 
the investigation on dextrose monohydrate, cont ained in document G/SG/N/6/IDN/4 and Corr.1. 
48. The representative of the European Communities  stated that the European Communities had 
already examined the preliminary disclosure, and it saw two problems: first, in relation to the product 
scope and, second, to the level of measures.  As far as the product scope was concerned, the European 
Communities fully supported the conclusion that some product types should be excluded from the 
investigation.  In this context the European Communities noted that Indonesia excluded maltodextrin 
and glucose syrup.  In the views of the Eu ropean Communities, the product scope remained 
problematic.  That is, pharmaceutical grade produc t should have also been excluded from the product 
scope.  The European Communities noted that the Indonesian industry stopped producing the 
pharmaceutical grade product in August 2004, as confirmed by the preliminary disclosure by the 
Indonesian investigating authority, and it was surprised that Indonesia did not exclude the pharmaceutical grade from the scope of the proposed  measures.  The representative of the European 
Communities stated that the purpose of a safeguard me asure was to remove inju ry caused by the surge 
of imports, and in the absence of any domestic pr oduction there can be no injury to be removed and 
imposition of any measures in this respect would not be  justified.  This position was further reinforced 
by the fact that the pharmaceutical grade and the food grades had completely different applications 
and were not substitutable.  In lig ht of the above considerations, the European Communities requested 
that the pharmaceutical grade should be excluded from the scope of the measure.  The second point 
with which the European Communities took issue con cerned the level of the measures.  The European 
Communities recalled that the WTO rulings clearly established that the measures should be imposed 
at the level necessary to remove only the injury  caused by the surge of imports.  Since the 
complaining Indonesian industry made significant losses in 2004, i.e. before the surge of imports, at 
least part of the injury was due to other factors a nd could not be attributed to the surge in imports.  
Therefore, the European Communities considered th at the level of measures, which it understood to 
be based on lost profits, to be excessive and shoul d be revised downwards in order to reflect the 
alleged negative impact of imports only, and not to reflect the impact of any other factors which may 
have caused injury to the Indonesian industry as well. 
49. The representative Indonesia
 asked the European Communiti es to submit the questions in 
writing.  
5. Panama – Printed Film in Rolls 
50. The Chairperson  noted that the next item was Pa nama's notification regarding the 
investigation on printed film in rolls ("PVC films") contained in documents 
G/SG/N/7/PAN/1/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/PAN/1/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/PAN/1-G/SG/N/10/PAN/1 and 
G/SG/N/8/PAN/1/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/10/PAN/1/Suppl.2.   He recalled that the Committee discussed 
some of these notifications at the last meeting, and noted that the same notifications were taken up 
again at the request of Peru.  In addition, he noted that Panama had s ubsequently made a new 
notification as well, and that Peru had posed questions, in document G/SG/Q2/PAN/4, on these 
notifications. G/SG/M/34 
Page 10 
 
 
  51. The representative Panama  stated that by a Decree 24 of 8 October 2007, the Cabinet of the 
Council imposed definitive safeguard measures on polypr opylene printed film of the type BOPP for a 
period of one year.  The Order imposed 48.4 per cent  of additional tariffs to the 6 per cent applied 
rate.  On 10 April 2008 the company Celloprint S.A. relying on Article 58 of Law 7 of 2006 and 
Article 7.2 of the WTO Safeguards Agreement requested  the investigating authority of the Ministry of 
Trade to extend the measure.  On 11 April the i nvestigating authority issued Resolution 01 admitting 
this request and initiated an investigation.  Th e Ministry requested the Cabinet to establish a 
reasonable period of validity of the safeguard meas ure.  In accordance with national legislation and 
international commitments, the authority sought to  determine whether the measure continued to be 
necessary, and whether there was proof that adjustme nt was taking place in that particular sector of 
the industry.  With the Decree 9 of 19 May 2008, th e investigating authority was granted 15 days to 
complete the investigation requested by Celloprin t.  The report was sent to the Cabinet Council on 
13 June 2008, which resulted in Resolution 02 of the National Directorate of Treaty Administration 
recommending that the Cabinet should not grant the request for extension requested by Celloprint 
because it did not comply with the requirements established in the national legislation of Panama.  
The representative of Panama further explained that  the authority had concluded that despite the 
safeguard measure, there had been no clear recuperati on or improvement of the situation.  Moreover, 
the authority found a continuing increase in the inventory levels.  The authority concluded that 
Celloprint did not provide sufficient evidence to suppor t its claim.  In particular, Panama considered 
the in-store capacity data to be important.  Havi ng considered the data over a period of time longer 
than the period of validity of the measure, the author ity found that there was lack of consistency in the 
data.  The authority found that the informati on provided did not demonstrate that the measure 
continued to be necessary.  In relation to adjust ment, the company indicated that it could provide 
adjustment figures only if the government would grant an extension of the measure as requested, since 
the original measure was very short.  In addition, da ta showed that production had in fact recovered.  
It was determined that the presen tation of an adjustment plan per se  did not constitute a proof that the 
particular sector was in fact adjusting.  For these re asons, the investigating authority of the Ministry of 
Trade decided that the sector of the industry was not in the process of adjustment.  With the Decree of 
the Cabinet No. 14 dated 18 June 2008, published in the Official Ga zette 26,066 of 20 June 2008, the 
Cabinet of the Council of the Republic of Panama decided not to grant the extension of safeguard 
measure.  
52. The representative of Peru  thanked the delegation of Panama for the information and for the 
decision taken by the Government of Panama.  She stated that Peru believed that this matter was 
closed. 
53. The representative of Colombia  thanked the delegation of Pana ma and congratulated the rigor 
with which Panama had worked on this issue, in compliance with the provisions of the WTO 
Safeguards Agreement. 
6. Philippines – Steel Angle Bars  
54. The Chairperson  noted that the next item was a notification from the Philippines regarding the 
investigation on steel angle bars contained in document G/SG/N/6/PHL/7. 
55. The representative of the European Communities  expressed its concerns with regard to this 
notification.  He stated that the reasons for the initiation of the investigation amounted only to 7 lines. 
He observed that the notification only stated that  imports had gone up and domestic sales had gone 
down, but nothing else regarding the factors which were listed in Article 4.2 of the WTO Safeguards 
Agreement.  The European Communi ties considered that to be deplorable, and preferred a more 
detailed explanation.    G/SG/M/34 
 Page 11 
 
 
  56. The representative of the Philippines  requested that the European Communities provide its 
comments in writing.  He stated that it may be a good idea to submit the full decision of the 
Department of Trade and Industry initiating this investigation as a supplemental notification.  He 
assured the European Communities that  there was much more information in the original decision. 
7. Philippines – Glass Mirrors  
57. The Chairperson  noted that the next item was another notification from the Philippines 
regarding the investigation on glass mirrors c ontained in document G/SG/N/14/PHL/4/Suppl.2. 
58. The representative of Thailand  stated that while it welcomed this temporary relief to some 
extent, Thailand was concerned about the uncertain ty of the situation.  Like the European 
Communities in the previous agenda item, she c ounted the number of lines in the notification and 
noted that there were only 3 lines, providing no information on how the suspension would operate, 
thereby raising substantive and pro cedural questions.  Thailand requested the Philippines to clarify the 
following questions.  What is the effect of th e suspension?; Is there any requirement to post a 
guarantee for the duty while the measure is suspende d?;  Will the suspension last for the duration of 
the measure and if not, until when would the suspen sion last?; Under what conditions, if any, can the 
suspension be revoked and the duty reinstated?; If th e duty was to be reinstated, what procedures 
would be involved, for example, would interested  parties be notified in advance and have the 
opportunity to comment?; Has the Philippines initiated or envisaged the initiation of procedures for 
the extension of the original measure?  Noting that  the suspension of the duty indicated that the 
domestic industry was no longer seriously injured by  imports, Thailand strongly urged the Philippines 
to terminate the measure altogether.  In Thailand' s view a suspension of the measure did not amount 
to a termination of the measure.  The represen tative of Thailand also observed that while the 
notification stated that the duty "has been suspende d on the basis of an Order by the Secretary of 
Trade and Industry dated 1 September 2008", that Or der was not attached to the notification.  
Thailand urged the Philippines to circulate a copy  of the Order to the Committee transparency 
purposes.  Thailand noted that in the past the Philip pines notified a copy of a similar Order to the 
Committee, namely the notification of a "suspens ion" of its duty on fi gured glass in document 
G/SG/N/14/PHL/3/Suppl.1, dated 8 January 2008.  Fi nally, she stated that Thailand would circulate 
its questions to the Philippines in writing8 and looked forward to receiving the responses. 
59. The representative of China  stated it was very important for the authorities to provide 
necessary information to all interested parties in or der to ensure predictability and transparency.  He 
stated that a suspension of a safeguard duty was a s ource of uncertainty to the free flow of trade since 
Members did not know when and under what conditions the duty would be re-introduced.  He 
requested the Philippines to provide more informa tion regarding the suspension Order, indicating in 
particular the multilateral legal basis that the suspension order was based upon. 
60. The representative of the Philippines  requested that the questions from Thailand and China be 
provided in writing.  He also stated that the Phili ppines would consider circulating the actual order as 
an additional notification. 
8. South Africa – Lysine 
61. The Chairperson  noted that the next item was a notification from South Africa regarding an 
investigation on lysine contained in document G/SG /N/11/ZAF/1/Suppl.3.  He also noted that Brazil 
had posed questions on this investigation in do cument G/SG/Q2/ZAF/1 and that South Africa had 
provided responses in document G/SG/Q2/ZAF/2.   
                                                      
8  Subsequently submitted as document G/SG/Q2/PHL/4. G/SG/M/34 
Page 12 
 
 
  62. The representative of South Africa  stated that he had nothing to add to the written responses 
but that South Africa was available for further discussion. 
63. The representative of Brazil  thanked the delegation of Sout h Africa for its written responses 
and stated that Brazil would accept fu rther discussion whenever possible. 
9. Turkey - Certain Electrical Appliances 
64. The Chairperson  noted that the next item was a notification from Turkey regarding an 
investigation on certain electrical applian ces contained in document G/SG/N/8/TUR/10–
G/SG/N/9/TUR/4–G/SG/N/10/TUR/10–G/SG/N/11/TUR/11. 
65. The representative of the United States  asked Turkey to inform  the Members when the 
Council of Ministers was expected to vote on the final measure, and asked Turkey to explain the 
process by which the Council of Ministers' decision would be publicized and notified to the Committee. 
66. The representative of the European Communities
 reminded the Committee that he had 
expressed concerns on this investigation in the l ast Committee meeting, and expressed his regret that 
the investigation was initiated to begin with.  Th e European Communities was of the view that the 
initiation of the investigation clearly lacked transp arency, that the product scope was much too broad, 
and that many figures in the initiation notification we re indexed, even though the domestic industry 
consisted of many producers.  The European Commun ities considered that this lack of transparency 
had been remedied in the meantime because  the European Communities received additional 
information and considerable improvements in te rms of the facts presented were achieved.  The 
representative of the European Communities express ed his appreciation of these improvements and 
encouraged Turkey to maintain this revised standard in the future.  He further stated that now that the 
case was reaching its final stage, the European Communities was looking forward to hearing something more about the timeline of the decisi on-making process.  The European Communities had 
concerns about excessive and unjustified level of th e measures.  Noting that the proposed measures 
consisted of a combination of a specific duty and a minimum import price threshold, he stated that the 
crux of the problem was in the level of the threshold price, which was set at a level which was double 
or even triple of the average domestic Turkish price.  The European Communities failed to see how 
this level could be justified.  In view of the Eu ropean Communities, the thr eshold price should be set 
at a level where imports would no longer have an  injurious impact.  According to generally accepted 
principles, that level was a sum of the cost of th e domestic producers and a reasonable level of profit.  
With this in mind the European Communities observe d that the level of profits which the Turkish 
industry was presently achieving was comfortable enough,  amounting to 7-9 per cent.  That level, in 
view of the European Communities, did not underpin the price proposed so far, especially in light of 
the fact that the Turkish industry was not able  to meet the domestic demand.  The European 
Communities strongly urged Turkey to review the content of the final findings. 
67. The representative of Turkey
 stated that as regards the time-line of the decision-making 
process, the imposition of the measure was still awaiting the approval of the Council of Ministers, 
which in turn depends on the agenda of the Counc il of Ministers.  Concerning the comments of the 
European Communities, Turkey observed that it foll owed a proper procedure in terms of notification 
and investigation as well as in reaching the result of th e investigation.  Turkey stated that besides the 
WTO notification, it also had supplementary inform ation published in the Turkish Official Gazette.  
In closing, Turkey asked th e European Communities to provide the questions in writing.  G/SG/M/34 
 Page 13 
 
 
  10. Turkey – Cotton Yarn 
68. The Chairperson  noted that the next item was another notification from Turkey regarding an 
investigation on cotton yarn contained in documents G/SG/N/6/TUR/14–G/SG/N/7/TUR/2–G/SG/N/11/TUR/10 and G/SG/N/8/TUR /11–G/SG/N/9/TUR/5–G/SG/N/10/TUR/11–
G/SG/N/11/TUR/12. 
69. The representative of the European Communities
 expressed strong concerns with regard to 
this investigation.  The European Communities under stood this case to be part of a wave of safeguard 
cases initiated by Turkey.  The initiation and adopti on of measures were, in view of the European 
Communities, certainly not in line with the spirit of the Safeguard Agreement, nor with its object and 
purpose.  According to the provisions of the Agr eement, the use of safeguard measures should be 
limited to exceptional circumstances only, since safe guard measures applied equally to fairly traded 
imports as well as unfairly traded imports.  Safeguard measures targeted all imports irrespective of the 
source, and irrespective of whether imports from an individual country were causing any injury to the 
domestic industry.  Therefore, the European Commun ities urged Turkey to review the application of 
safeguard measures in question.  In view of th e European Communities, ot her instruments like the 
anti-dumping instrument would have been better su ited to address the problem encountered by the 
Turkish industry. 
70. The representative of the United States  asked Turkey to explain what provisions were 
followed to give sufficient opportunities for all parti es to express their views and defend their interests 
in this proceeding, in light of the short time be tween the initiation of the investigation and the 
proposal of the final measures. 
71. The representative of Turkey  pointed out that in reaching its outcome, the investigation 
followed the WTO Safeguards Agreement.  Turkey a ssured Members that it was aware of the fact that 
safeguard measures were trade remedies to be app lied in critical and exceptional circumstances.  To 
this end, the investigation had taken into account , pursuant to the WTO rules, all of the essential 
elements, namely analysis of the unforeseen deve lopments, increased imports, injury and causation. 
He asked the European Communities to provide their comments and questions in writing.  Referring 
to the question from the United States, he explained that in the course of investigation, interested 
parties were given sufficient time to submit their vi ews and questions concerning the investigation, as 
well as to participate in public hear ing held during the investigation. 
11. Ukraine – Casing and Pump-Compressor Seamless Steel Pipes  
72. The Chairperson  noted that the next item was a no tification from Ukraine regarding an 
investigation on casing and pump-compressor seamless steel pipes contained in document 
G/SG/N/6/UKR/1–G/SG/N/8/UKR/1–G/SG/N/10/UKR/1.  
73. The representative of the United States  asked Ukraine to clarify whether provisional measures 
were recommended or imposed on this product and if provisional measures were imposed, when was 
the effective date of those measures. 
74. The representative of Ukraine  asked the United States to pr ovide the questions in writing. 
12. Ukraine - PVC Sections for Windows and Doors 
75. The Chairperson  noted that the next item was another notification from Ukraine regarding an 
investigation on PVC sections for windows and doors contained in document G/SG/N/9/UKR/1. 
76. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  G/SG/M/34 
Page 14 
 
 
  77. Before proceeding to the next agenda item, the Chairperson  recalled that any questions 
concerning the notifications of actions taken for which written responses were requested had to be 
sent to the Member concerned and to the Secr etariat no later than 18 November 2008.  Written 
answers must be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 9 December 2008.  Concerning these 
deadlines, he reminded the Committee of the importance of providing written answers to written 
questions posed.  In order to help Members keep  track of the questions posed and the responses 
submitted, he stated that he had asked the Comm ittee Secretary to indicate in the draft annotated 
agenda of the subsequent Committee meeting if th ere were any questions left unanswered.     
78. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
C. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE 
PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
79. The Chairperson  noted that Paragraph 18 of China's Protocol of Accession provided that all 
subsidiary bodies, including the Safeguards Comm ittee, "which have a mandate covering China's 
commitments under the WTO Agreement or [the] Prot ocol shall, within one year after accession, 
review, as appropriate to their mandate, the implem entation by China of the WTO Agreement and of 
the related provisions of [the] Protocol."  China was to provide relevant information in advance of the 
review, including information specified in Annex 1A to the Protocol.  China could also raise issues 
relating to any reservations under S ection 17 or to any other speci fic commitments made by other 
Members in the Protocol, in subsidiary  bodies which have a relevant mandate. 
80. The Chairperson stated that th e Committee must report the results of the review promptly to 
the Council for Trade in Goods.  Review was to take  place after accession in each year for eight years, 
with a final review in year 10 or at an earlier da te decided by the General Council.  He added that 
there were no procedures set out for the conduct of th e transitional review in the Protocol, except that 
China was to provide relevant information in adva nce of the review.  In accordance with section IV.6 
of Annex 1A to the Protocol, China was required to  notify the Committee of its implementation of its 
Regulation on Safeguards.  The Chairperson info rmed the Committee that China had submitted the 
information on 15 October 2008, and was circulated as document G/SG/W/209. 
81. There was no Member that took the floor on the information submitted.   
82. The Chairperson  noted that China's Protocol of Accession contained no guidelines for 
reporting to the Council for Trade in Goods on the Committee's transitional review of China's 
implementation of the Agreement.  He proposed  that the Committee foll ow the same reporting 
procedure as last year, whereby the Chairperson,  acting on his own responsibility, would prepare a 
brief, factual report, with references to the docum ents concerned, and attaching the portion of the 
minutes of the meeting which relate to the transitional review. 
83. The Committee agreed  that the Chairperson should prepare th e same type of report in respect 
of this year's review. 
D. POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO NOTIFICATIONS  
84. The Chairperson  first explained the background of why he was proposing that the Committee 
take up this issue.  He stated th at transparency was one of the most crucial elements at the WTO, and 
that applied to this Committee as well.  Notificati ons were made precisely for that purpose, and for 
example, the annual report was one of the means to en sure transparency.  In this context, he recalled 
that the Committee often had to seek clarification on th e status of certain investigations or measures in 
order to ensure that its annual report was factually accurate.  In this light, the Chairperson thought it 
useful to discuss means to enhan ce transparency and accuracy through notification practices.  It  G/SG/M/34 
 Page 15 
 
 
  seemed to him that the Committee could improve the effectiveness of the notification process without 
engaging in a major change to the current process.        
85. The Chairperson proceeded to explain the pr oposed topics sent to Members by fax on 
19 September 2008.  The first part of the list con cerned format.  He recalled that in preparing the 
annual reports, it was sometimes difficult to determin e the status of a specific investigation and /or 
measure. That is, whether a certain investigation was still ongoing, or whether a certain measure was 
still in place.  In order to maintain an up-to-date list of measures in force, he proposed that Members 
discuss the means to further clarify the status of meas ures.  Item A1 concerned extensions.  In relation 
to extensions, some Members simply notified the fact that a measure was extended, while other 
Members notified the fact that a process was in itiated to determine whether an extension was 
necessary, and then notify the fact th at the measure was extended, if th is was the case.  In the light of 
this mixed situation, the Chairperson proposed th at the Committee discuss whether it found useful to 
receive notifications concerning initiation of a pr ocess to determine whether or not to extend a 
measure.  Item A2 concerned terminations.  In concrete, the question was what would happen if a 
provisional measure or a final measure was terminat ed.  He asked whether Members found it useful to 
receive notifications of the lapse or termination of provisional and final safeguards measures.  He 
recalled that some Members had reported orally at past meetings in the context of producing the 
annual report that certain measures had lapsed or ha d been terminated, and thus had to be removed 
from the annex of the annual report.  To simplify th e process, it could be better if there were written 
notifications to that effect.  It would save dele gations considerable amount of time preparing for a 
meeting if they knew in advance that a measure was no longer in place.   
86. The second part of the list related to the content of the notification.  Item B1 was a catch-all 
item.  The Chairperson explained that he did not have anything specific in mind here, but simply 
wanted to ask whether Members had any ideas or s uggestions to further improve the clarity of the 
notifications.  Item B2 related to notification concer ning Article 9.1 – that is, exemptions of certain 
developing country Members from a measure.  The Chairperson reminded the Committee that there 
already existed a format for notifications under Articl e 9.1, agreed back in 1996.  In addition, there 
had been considerable discussion in  the Committee in the past concerning the operation of Article 9.1, 
including the better transparency with respect to ex clusion of developing country Members.  He asked 
whether Members were generally satisfied with th e clarity provided by the notifications under this 
provision, and, if not, if there were any suggestions for improvements. 
87. Finally, he explained how he wanted to proceed.  Since it was the first time that this issue was 
on the table, he suspected that Members would not  be in a position to make any definitive comments 
that day.  He understood this, and explained that  this meeting was a so-to-say, kick-off of the 
discussion, and thus he would invite general comments. 
88. The representative of Japan  welcomed the initiative to improve notifications.  Since 1995, the 
Committee had not addressed the issue, and Japan c onsidered this to be a good opportunity to 
examine Members' notifications under the Agreem ent on Safeguards with a view to improving 
transparency.  The delegation of Japan considered that all four items proposed by the Chairperson 
were worth exploring in this Committee, and supporte d the Chairperson to start consultations on this 
matter. 
89. The representative of Chile  pointed out that ensuring clarity in notifications was an important 
matter, and appreciated the Chairperson's efforts.  Ch ile stated that it agreed with Japan that all four 
items proposed by the Chairperson were worth explor ing in this Committee.  Concerning the first item 
(i.e. extensions), Chile agreed that it would greatly improve notifications if Members could receive information about the initiations of extensions of measures.  On the other hand, Chile questioned the 
use of the word "obligatory".  Chile emphasised the need to be consistent in the language, since the 
term "recommend[ed]" was used in the second item (i.e. termination).  Chile considered that G/SG/M/34 
Page 16 
 
 
  additional clarity was required as to whether th e proposed action was something obligatory or 
something recommended.   
90. Turning to the second item (i.e. termination), Chile agreed that transparency would be 
improved if Members were to notify the termination of measures.  Bearing in mind that there were 
provisional measures and final measures, Chile consider ed it useful if terminations made earlier than 
planned were clearly notified – whatever the reason of the termination was.  
91. On the third item (i.e. general satisfaction)  Chile was willing to discuss possibilities of 
improving notifications.  On the fourth item (i.e. Ar ticle 9.1), Chile stated that this item required 
careful consideration.  The representative of Chile  considered that there was a risk that Members 
would start discussing substance rather than format.   
92. The Chairperson  noted Chile's point about the use of the word "obligatory" in paragraph 1(a), 
and clarified that he was not thinking of a legal obligation.   
93. The representative of the United States  expressed its support for the initiative and stated that 
this was a very important issue.  The United St ates supported the notion that Members should be 
required to notify the initiation of an investigati on to decide whether or not to extend a safeguard 
measure.  The United States did not feel that this would present undue or burdensome reporting 
requirements on Members.  With regard to termin ation, in order to promote transparency, the 
United States supported notification of both when  a provisional measure was applied or proposed, and 
when an investigation or measure was terminated .  The United States also suggested that Members 
notify any action or change in the status of a safe guard investigation or measure, for example, when a 
safeguard investigation or measure has been suspende d, or when an investigation or measure has been 
terminated or extended.  
94. With regard to the second part of the Chairper son's proposal (i.e. content), the United States 
expressed its concern about the lack of transparency in some of the notifications being made to this 
Committee, and stated that there was a growing trend of providing pro forma  notifications that did not 
provide sufficient explanation or supporting facts for the basis of the determination.  There seemed to 
be greater use of indices and other data masking t ools that did not allow for the reasonable evaluation 
of the facts.  Thus, the United States supporte d an initiative to review the existing reporting 
requirements and identify transparency changes n eeded to reflect the changing application of 
safeguard measures by Members. 
95. Finally, with regard to the Article 9.1 notif ications, the United States noted that certain 
Members have notified when a developing country  was to be moved from the non-application of 
safeguard measure category to application of saf eguard measure category, and the United States 
supported the efforts of those imposing Members that specifically identified Members that did not fall 
into the rubric of the safeguard investigation or measure.   
96. The representative of Colombia  stated that it did not have specific comments on the 
Chairperson's proposals for the time, but stated th at it welcomed the Chairperson's initiative to 
improve the system of notifications.  Columbia be lieved that the WTO should have a full up-to-date 
picture of the safeguard measures in force, and improvements to the system of notifications would 
help achieve this goal.  
97. The representative of Canada  pointed out that seemingly the Agreement on Safeguards did 
not require Members to provide notification on the in itiation of an investigation to determine whether 
or not to extend a safeguard measure.  Rather, Canada believed that the Agreement on Safeguards 
appeared to require notification with respect to d ecisions to apply or exte nd a safeguard measure.  
Similarly, in Canada's view, the Agreement on Sa feguards did not require the notification of the  G/SG/M/34 
 Page 17 
 
 
  termination of a measure after it was imposed.  Ho wever, in the interests of transparency and 
consistency, Canada stated that  it would not oppose to additional notifications with respect to 
terminations and extensions. 
98. Turning to content, Canada noted that to da te the notifications of certain Members have 
contained little in the way of explanation as to wh y increased volumes of imports have caused serious 
injury.  For that reason, it was Canada's view that providing the reasoning underlying a decision, 
along with the notification, would promote of transparency. 
99. The Chairperson  stated that Canada made an importa nt point regarding the legal obligation 
with respect to some of the items proposed.  He expl ained that these items were raised as elements for 
transparency, and were not intende d to be added as notification re quirements under the Agreement on 
Safeguards.  
100. The representative of th e European Communities  stated that it shared the view expressed by 
other delegations, and found the initia tive to improve notifications to be very positive and timely.  The 
European Communities considered it beneficial to have a fresh look at this matter and to have a 
chance to agree on something in the interest of transparency. 
101. The representative of Singapore  thanked the Chairperson for bringing to the Committee's 
attention the topics relating to possible improvements to notifications.  Singapore stated that it was 
generally supportive of improved transparency.  If the Committee, in preparing its annual report, 
sometimes had difficulty determining the status of the measures in force, it should be all the more 
difficult for business to understand the status of th e measures.  Singapore stated that Members have 
learned from experiences that improved transparency  could go a long way, and modest improvements 
were often all that was necessary.  Finally, Singa pore recognized that additional thoughts might be 
required in terms of the relationship between the cu rrent legal obligations and the proposals at hand, 
as pointed out by Canada and Chile. 
102. The representative of India  stated that it welcomed the Chairperson's initiative as long as it 
did not intrude into the substance of the Safe guards Agreement, and as long as it did not alter 
Member's legal obligations.  The delegate stated th at he would send the documents back to capital for 
more detailed comments.  The delegate stated that  Members should also be cautious about increased 
costs, since improved transparency would have certa in cost, and about the risk of intruding into 
substance. 
103. The representative of Australia  welcomed the initiative.  With respect to the initiation of an 
investigation to extend a measure, Australia consid ered that the Agreement may actually contain an 
obligation.  In this context, Australia pointed out  that Article 12.3 required the Member proposing to 
apply or extend a safeguard measure to provide ad equate opportunity for pr ior consultations with 
those Members having a substantial interest.  Au stralia also expressed support for discussion on the 
second item (i.e. terminations).  Australia's prelim inary thought was that all such terminations – 
terminations of provisional measures or early term inations of final measure s – should be notified. 
Finally, in terms of the content of notifications, Aust ralia pointed out that there were obligations in the 
Agreement, for example in Article 12.2, pertaining to what sort of information should be provided.  In 
addition, Australia recalled that there were certain jurisprudence on this issue, and the Appellate Body 
had found that the requirements in Article 12.2 re presented the minimum notification requirement and 
that the factors mentioned in Article 4.2 should also be included. 
104. The Chairperson,  thanking Australia for reminding th e Committee of the legal obligations, 
noted that the Committee itself had developed fo rmats in the past relating to most of these 
notifications, and asked delegations to refer to the notification requirements that already existed in the 
already agreed formats. G/SG/M/34 
Page 18 
 
 
  105. The representative of Egypt  welcomed the initiative.  Egypt r ecalled that it proposed, at the 
Committee meeting of autumn 2000, that Members c onsider a forum to exchange views on various 
issues relating to the implementation of the Agreem ent on Safeguards.  Consultations were held by 
the then Chairperson, and discussions were held again in the Committee meeting in spring of 2001.  
While the Committee could not agree to establish a s ubsidiary body, Egypt c ontinued to be of the 
view that it was useful to have a framework w ithin which Members could exchange views on the 
implementation on the Agreement on Safeguards.  Egypt considered that the Chairperson's initiative 
went in this direction, but in addition to the ques tion of notifications, Egypt was of the view that other 
issues relating to the implementation of the Ag reement on Safeguards should be discussed as well. 
After explaining that its comments on the specific topi cs proposed were only preliminary at this stage, 
Egypt made the following comments.  On the issue of extension, Egypt was unsure what the issue was, and felt that further discussion was necessary, bearing in mind, as mentioned by Canada, Chile 
and others, the obligations currently contained in  the Safeguards Agreement.  On the issue of 
termination, Egypt noted that in the notificati on format set forth in document G/SG/1, Members 
taking a decision to apply or extend a safeguard me asure must notify the expected duration of the 
measure under point 6.  Therefore, when safeguard me asures were terminated at the date set forth in 
the original notification, Egypt considered that a new notification was not necessary.  If a safeguard 
measure was terminated prior to the date set forth in the original notification made under 
Article 12.1(c), then, in view of Egypt, it would be recommended that the Member inform the 
Committee of the early termination.  Egypt also noted that resource constraints of Members, as 
pointed out by India, should be considered, and the Committee should avoid creating confusion by 
agreeing to obligations overlapping with existing ob ligations.  Thus, when looking at possible new 
notification formats or requirements, Members should first look at existing ones.  Egypt further opined that emphasis should be placed on complian ce with the notification format that existed 
already, as set forth in document G/SG/1 and G/SG/2, before introducing new notification 
requirements.  Turning to item 3 (i.e. content of notifications), while Egypt was generally satisfied 
with the notification format, it was not necessarily satis fied with the contents of some notifications.  
On the other hand, Egypt felt that before changing the rules, Members needed  to see how to ensure 
compliance with the existing rules an d the existing formats.  This point related to the perspective of a 
developing country with limited capabilities and res ources.  On the last point (i.e. Article 9.1 
notifications), Egypt recalled that this issue had b een discussed at length in the Committee, and stated 
that Members had to be very careful when di scussing this issue anew.  Egypt had previously 
expressed the view that before considering questions  relating to notifications made under Article 9.1, 
the concept of "developing country Member" under this  Article should be defined, so as to ensure a 
uniform application of this provision.  
106. The Chairperson
 noted Egypt's interest in having a framework to discuss the implementation 
of the Safeguards Agreement.  He stated that wh ile it was for the Members to decide what kind of 
work to undertake, his proposal itself was limited to the issue of notification.  If any Member wished 
to make a specific proposal, that was welcome.  On  the issue of the concept of "developing countries" 
in the context of Article 9.1, th e Chairperson observed that this was very much a matter on substance 
as opposed to the issue of improved transparency of notifications.  Noting the horizontal nature of the 
issue raised by Egypt, the Chairperson stated that  it was open for Members to make a proposal or a 
statement at a meeting on this issue. 
107. The representative of New Zealand  stated that it supported the works to increase 
transparency.  In the views of New Zealand, some of the notifications did not fully comply with the 
relevant provisions in the Safe guards Agreement, and thus, the Ch airperson's initiative was all the 
more important.  New Zealand was prepared to work  with the Chairperson and the other Members to 
complete the task at hand. 
108. The representative of Switzerland  stated that it did not have any specific comments on the 
proposal for the time, but Switzerland considered that increasing transparency was important.    G/SG/M/34 
 Page 19 
 
 
  109. The representative of Korea  expressed support for the efforts of the Chairperson and looked 
forward to engaging in any further discussion. 
110. The representative of Brazil  welcomed the Chairperson's initia tive, but stated that it needed 
more time to reflect on the issues.  He also cauti oned against introducing new obligations or touching 
on substance in the discussion.  As observed by Ch ile, for instance, the discussion on the issue of 
Article 9.1 notification could raise points con cerning the concept of "developing countries".   
111. The representative of the Separate Customs Te rritory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
welcomed the efforts of the Chairperson, and stat ed that for the time it did not have any specific 
comments.  
112. The Chairperson  stated that he noted many Members expressing the wish to continue the 
discussion, and proposed that an informal consultati on be held on this issue.  As no objection was 
raised, he stated that he would inform the Comm ittee of the date of the informal meeting in due 
course. 
E. OTHER BUSINESS  
113. There were no issues raised under this agenda item. 
F. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL ON TRADE IN GOODS  
114. The Chairperson  noted that pursuant to Article 13.1(a)  of the Agreement, the Committee was 
to monitor the general implementation of the Ag reement and report on this annually, making any 
recommendations towards its improvement  to the Council for Trade in Goods. 
115. Concerning the preparation and adoption of the Committee's annual report, at its meeting of 
24 February 1995 the Committee decided to follow  the same procedure as in the Tokyo Round 
Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  In accordance 
with this procedure, a draft of the report in the form of a factual summary of the Committee's 
activities during 2008 had been prepared by the Secret ariat.  A preliminary draft of this report was 
made available to Members by fax on 24 October 2008. 
116. The Chairperson suggested that the Committe e consider the draft report paragraph by 
paragraph and then review the Anne xes.  He further suggested that the Committee proceed with this 
work in informal mode. 
117. After adjusting several factual matters, the Committee adopted  its annual report to the 
Council for Trade in Goods for 2008 (see document G/L/862). 
G. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
118. The Chairperson  suggested that the Committee meet in the week of 4 May 2009.  He stated 
that the exact date would be confirmed later. 
119. The Committee so agreed .  
__________