 
  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/Q1/CHN/14 
9 March 2004 
 (04-1030) 
Committee on Safeguards Original:   English 
  
 
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLE 12.6 OF THE AGREEMENT 
 
Questions Posed by ARGENTINA Regarding the Notification of the 
 
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA1 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 8 March 2004, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Argentina.  
_______________ 
  
 I have the pleasure to send you enclosed a lis t of questions from the Republic of Argentina 
regarding the notification of legislation in  Safeguards of China contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.2, which will be discussed dur ing the next regular meeting of the Safeguards 
Committee of 19 April 2004. 
                                                     
 
1 G/SG/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.2 G/SG/Q1/CHN/14 
Page 2  
 
  Rules on Investigations and Determ inations of Injury for Safeguards 
 
1. Article 12  
 
 Pursuant to Article 12 it would seem that the an alysis of public interest is mandatory for the 
investigating authority.  In that respect, and in  connection with the answer given by the People's 
Republic of China to the question posed by the United States in document G/SG/Q1/CHN/13, "Could 
the People's Republic of China indicate in which mome nt of the investigation interested parties are 
given an opportunity to comment about public interest?"  2. Article 14  
 
 Pursuant to Article 14 an applicant shall su bmit the application for safeguard investigation 
three days following the issue date of the public notice on initiating the safeguard investigation.  
Could the People's Republic of China clarify whether this Article is also a pplicable to an initiation 
ex officio ?  In this case, which are the elements taken into account by the investigating authority to 
initiate  ex officio  an investigation if it does not have any  information provided by the applicants?  
Could the People's Republic of China clarify if the investigation is continued in cases where there is 
no application within three days from  the issuance of the public notice? 
 
3. Article 16  
 
 Could the People's Republic of China clarify wh ether after the elapse of the 20 day period 
following the issue date of the public notice on in itiating the safeguards investigation "interested 
parties" can still join the investiga tion?  If so, doesn't the People's Republic of China consider that the 
relatively short deadline could prove not to be  enough for foreign producers to submit their 
applications, given the time needed for the coll ection of information and submission of supporting 
material with the translation required by the Rules?  
4. Article 19  
 
 Could the People's Republic of China indicate if  there is any difference between Article 17 
and Article 19 and the reasons for listing different "i nterested parties" in two different provisions? 
 
5. Article 27  
 
 In the case of information submitted on an inter ested party's own initiative, is there any kind 
of restriction concerning the nature of the information or the timeframe for submission of written 
information referred to under this Article?  6. Could the People's Republic of China clarify whether the information submitted at the request 
of the investigating authority and the inform ation submitted under own initiative are verified? 
 Rules on Public Hearings  
 
7. In connection with the Rules on Public Heari ngs, and specifically Article 11, Argentina would 
be grateful if the People's Republic of China could indicate if the hearing officers are members of the 
agency that conducts the investigation.  If so, are those hearings officers chosen among officials of a 
given rank?  If the hearing officers are not members of  the agency that conducts the investigation:  
(i) Is there any kind of public registry containing the list of possible hearing officers?;  (ii) Are they all 
public officials?   G/SG/Q1/CHN/14 
 Page 3 
 
 
 8. Article 12  
 
 Could the People's Republic of China indicate if:  (i) the list of circumstances in which any interested party is entitled to require the withdraw al of a hearing officer is exhaustive or other 
circumstance may exist;  (ii) the referred circumstances can be invoked in order to request the 
withdrawal of SETC officials with respect to a particular investigation? 
 
9. Articles 19 and 20  
 
 With reference to Articles 19 and 20 of the Rules on Public Hearings, could the People's 
Republic of China clarify if a party that refuses to si gn or seal the transcript mentioned in Article 19 is 
still entitled to submit the written version of its oral statement (Article 20)?  If so, is this submission 
taken into account by the authorities?  
__________ 
 
 