./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SG/Q1/LVA/2
20 October 1999
(99-4509)
Committee on Safeguards Original:  English
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLE 12.6 OF THE AGREEMENT
Replies to Questions Posed by the UNITED STATES1
Regarding the Notification of LATVIA2
The following communication, dated 18 October 1999, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Latvia.
_______________
Question 1
In Article 19.2 of the Latvian law, why does the standard for extending a safeguard
measure differ from the standard in  Article 7.2 of the Safeguards Agreement?
Answer
Article 7.2 of the Agreement stipulates that the application of safeguard measures can be
extended if the competent authorities have determin ed, in conformity with the procedures set out in
Articles 2,3,4,5,8 and 12, that the safeguard measures continue to be necessary.
Thus, the Agreement provides that any extension of safeguard measures is based on revision
of the case that, in fact, is a completely new examination of the particular case (because
Articles 2,3,4,5,8 and 12 stipulate the whole procedure of initiation of investigation and application of
measures). So it is stated in our Law.
This new investigation considers also whether the industry is adjusting.  If this is not the case
and situation has not improved, it is clear, that the import has not caused losses.  In addition, then
there is no causal link between import and losses and,  respectively, also substantiation for extension
of safeguard measures.
Question 2
In paragraph 26 of the Latvian regulations, why is the reference not to the three last
“representative” years as in Article 5.1 of the Safeguard Agreement?
                                                     
1 G/SG/Q1/LVA/1
2 G/SG/N/1/LVA/Suppl.1G/SG/Q1/LVA/2
Page 2
Answer
The Latvian version contains exactly the same wording as set out in the Article 5.1 of the
Agreement. The question have been raised due to incorrectness in English translation.
__________