. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SG/Q2/CHL/9
3 May 2001
(01-2264)
Committee on Safeguards Original:  English
NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 12.1(C)
OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS
NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 9, FOOTNOTE 2
OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS
NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 12.1(a) OF THE AGREEMENT
ON SAFEGUARDS ON INITIATION OF AN INVESTIGATION
(EXTENSION OF EXISTING MEASURE)
AND THE REASONS FOR IT
Questions Posed by the UNITED STATES
Regarding the Notifications of CHILE1
The following communication, dated 1 May 2001, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of the United States.
_______________
1. Does Chile consider that this notification establishes that it met the requirements under
Article 7.2 SGA for extension of a safeguard meas ure and under Article 12.2 SGA for notification of
the measure?
2. Does Chile consider that the response to item 1 contains evidence that continuation of the
measure is necessary?
3. For each product, item 1 states that the Commission considered that removal of duties would
lead to an increase in imports.  Is this statement by itself evidence that continuation of the measure is
necessary?  Did the Commission base this conclusion on evidence?  If so, what was the evidence and
why was it not included in the notification or submitted in a supplement?
4. The Commission found that imports of wheat flour had a “low volume” and “show an erratic
pattern of increases and decreases.”  It then noted that restrictions on wheat flour were necessary if
wheat imports were subject to a higher tariff, as is the case under the existing safeguard measure.
Does this indicate that Chile applied the safeguard measure to wheat flour to avoid circumvention ofthe safeguard measure on wheat?  Does Chile agree that safeguard measures may be applied in a
manner that would discourage circumvention?  Was there any finding, or evidence, that imports of
wheat flour by themselves would satisfy the requirements of Article 7.2?
                                                     
1 G/SG/N/10/CHL/1/Suppl.2 & Corr.1, G/SG/N/11/CHL/2, G/SG/N/14/CHL/1.G/SG/Q2/CHL/9
Page 2
5. Article 7.2 requires that, for extension of a measure, the notification shall provide “evidence
that the industry concerned is adjusting.”  The only information that Chile provides in this regard is
the statement that the productivity of each domestic industry increased.  Does Chile consider that
productivity growth alone establishes that an industry is adjusting?  Did Chile evaluate whether
productivity growth was merely fortuitous or the resu lt of efforts by the industry to adjust to import
competition?  Is there any other evidence that the industry is adjusting?
__________