 RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/59  
21 February 2022 
(22-1738) Page: 1/18 
Committee on Safeguards   
 
  
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 25 OCTOBER  2021  
CHAIRPERSON : MS MARY LISA MADELL  
(THE UNITED KINGDOM)  
1.  The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 25 October  2021. 
2.  As the meeting was held in person as well as virtually via Interprefy, the Chair reminded Members 
of the different technical arrangements for participating remotely as  reflected in the "Technical 
Guide", a link to which had also been included in the airgram convening the meeting.  
3.  The Chair reiterated her request to delegations to provide their up -to-date contact details by 
email to the Secretariat, so that it can update  its contact details list, currently contained in document 
RD/SG/3/Rev.16 . 
4.  The draft agenda was contained in document WTO/AIR/SG/1 3. The Chair stated that she wished 
to make an announcement under Other Business regarding a notification seminar.  
5.  The Committ ee adopted  the following agenda:  
 
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION  ................................ ................................ .............................  4 
1.1  Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations Not 
Previously Reviewed by the Committee (Including Supplemental Notifications of 
Existing Provisions Not Previously Reviewed)  ................................ ................................ . 4 
1.1.1  India (G/SG/N/1/IND/3/Suppl.2)  ................................ ................................ ...............  4 
1.1.2  Mongolia (G/SG/N/1/MNG/2)  ................................ ................................ .....................  4 
1.1.3  United Kingdom (G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.11)  ................................ ..............................  4 
1.2  Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations with 
Outstanding Written Questions  ................................ ................................ ........................  5 
1.2.1  Cameroon (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 ‒ G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 5 
1.2.2  Liberia (G/SG/N/1/LBR/1 and G/SG/N/1/LBR/1/C orr.1) ................................ .................  5 
2  CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY 
REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  ................................ ................................ .......................  5 
2.1  Ghana (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 ‒ G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 ‒ G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  ................................  5 
2.2  Kenya (G/ADP/N/1/KEN/3  ‒ G/SCM/N/1/KEN/3 ‒ G/SG/N/1/KEN/2)  ................................ . 5 
2.3  Zimbabwe (G/SG/N/1/ZWE/1)  ................................ ................................ .....................  6 
3  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  ............................  6 
3.1  Costa Rica ‒ Refined White Sugar  
 G/L/1399 – G/SG/264  (results of consultations)   
 G/L/1400 – G/SG/265  (compensation)  ................................ ................................ ............  7 G/SG/M/59  
- 2 - 
  3.2  European Union – Certain Steel Products  
 G/SG/N/8/EU/1/Suppl.2 ‒ G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.11  ‒ G/SG/N/11/EU/1/Supp l.8 
 G/SG/N/8/EU/1/Suppl.2/Corr.1  ‒ G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.11/Corr.1  ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/EU/1/Suppl.8/Corr.1  
 G/L/1304/Suppl.1 ‒ G/SG/N/12/RUS/3/Suppl.1 (proposed suspension of 
concessions)  
 G/L/1359/Rev.2 ‒ G/SG/N/12/TUR/9/Rev.2 (proposed suspension of concessions)  
 G/L/1396 ‒ G/SG/N/12/IND/2 (proposed suspension of concessions)  
 G/L/1397 ‒ G/SG/262 (results of the consultations)  
 G/SG/261 (request for consultations)  
 G/SG/260 (request for co nsultations)  
 G/SG/259  (request for consultations)  
 G/SG/258  (request for consultations)  
 G/SG/Q2/ARE/6 ‒ G/SG/Q2/BHR/5 ‒ G/SG/Q2/KWT/5 ‒ G/SG/Q2/OMN/5 ‒ 
G/SG/Q2/QAT/5 ‒ G/SG/Q2/SAU/5 - Replies to the United States  ................................ ............  7 
3.3  Member Countries of the GCC – Certain Steel Products  
 G/SG/N/8/ARE/3/Suppl.1 ‒ G/SG/N/10/ARE/3 ‒ G/SG/N/11/ARE/4  
 G/SG/N/9/ARE/1 ‒ G/SG/N/9/BHR/1 ‒ G/SG/N/9/KWT/1 ‒ G/SG/N/9/OMN/1 - 
 G/SG/N/9/QAT/1 ‒ G/SG/N/9/SAU/1  
 G/SG/256  (request for consultations)  ................................ ................................ ..............  8 
3.4  India – Solar Cells Whether or Not Assembled in Modules or Panels 
 G/SG/N/ 10/IND/22/Suppl.4  ................................ ................................ ...........................  8 
3.5  Indonesia – Fabrics (G/SG/N/11/IDN/18/Suppl.3)  ................................ ........................  8 
3.6  Indonesia – Ceramic Flags and Paving, Hearth or Wall Tiles  
 G/SG/N/6/IDN/28/Suppl.1   
 G/SG/N/8/IDN/20/Suppl.1  ‒ G/SG/N/10/IDN/20/Suppl.2  ................................ ..................  9 
3.7  Madagascar – Detergent Powder (G/L/1401 ‒ G/SG/N/13/MDG/1)  ................................  9 
3.8  Madagascar – Blankets and Travelling Rugs (G/L/1402 ‒ G/SG/N/13/MDG/2)  ...............  9 
3.9  Morocco – Hot Rolled Sheets (G/SG/N/11/MAR/7/suppl.4)  ................................ ............  9 
3.10  Morocco – Wire Rods and Reinforcing Bars  
 G/SG/N/6/MAR/7/Suppl.2 ‒ G/SG/N/14/MAR/1/Suppl.4  ................................ ....................  9 
3.11  Morocco – Cold-Rolled Sheets  
 G/SG/N/6/MAR/8/Suppl.2 – G/SG/N/14/MAR/2/Suppl.1  ................................ ....................  9 
3.12  Morocco – Lighting Columns  
 G/SG/N/6/MAR/13  
 G/SG/N/6/MAR/13/corr.1  
 G/SG/N/7/MAR/6 and G/SG/N/11/MAR/9)  ................................ ................................ ....... 9 
3.13  Philippines – Motor Vehicles (G/SG/N/7/PHL/12/Suppl.1)  ................................ .........  10 
3.14  Philippines – Aluminum Zinc (GL) Sheets and Coils (G/SG/N/9/PHL/5)  ....................  10 
3.15  Philippines – Prepainted Galvanized Iron and Prepainted Aluminum Zinc 
(G/SG/N/9/PHL/6)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  10 
3.16  Philippines – Galvanized Iron Sheets, Coils and Strips (G/SG/N/9/PHL/7)  ...............  10 
3.17  Philippines – High Density Polyethylene and Linear Low -Density 
Polyethylene Pellets and Granules  
 G/SG/N/6/PHL/19/Suppl.1 ‒ G/SG/N/8/PHL/14  ................................ ..............................  10 
3.18  South Africa - Other Screws Fully Threaded with Hexagon Heads Made of 
Steel  
 G/SG/N/8/ZAF/5/Suppl.2 ‒ G/SG/ N/10/ZAF/4/Suppl.2  
 G/SG/N/8/ZAF/5/Suppl.3  
 G/SG/N/10/ZAF/4/Suppl.3  ................................ ................................ ...........................  10 
3.19  South Africa – U, I, H, L and T Sections of Iron or No n-Alloy Steel 
(G/SG/N/9/ZAF/3)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  10 G/SG/M/59  
- 3 - 
  3.20  Thailand – Aluminium Foil (G/SG/N/9/THA/2) ................................ ..........................  10 
3.21  Tunisia – Minibus  (G/SG/N/6/TUN/6)  ................................ ................................ ....... 10 
3.22  Turkey – Wallpaper and Similar Wallcoverings  
 G/SG/N/10/TUR/15/suppl.2 – G/SG/N/11/TUR/20/Suppl.2  ................................ ..............  11 
3.23  Turkey – Polyester Staple Fibre  
 G/SG/N/8/TUR/19 – G/SG/N/10/TUR/19 – G/SG/N/11/TUR/26  ................................ ........  11 
3.24  Turkey – Grinding Balls and Similar Articles for Mills (G/SG/N/6/TUR/28)  ...............  11 
3.25  Ukraine – Fresh Cut Roses  
 G/SG/N/10/UKR/10/Suppl.1 ‒ G/SG/N/11/UKR/8/Suppl.1  
 G/L/1395 ‒ G/SG/N/12/ECU/1  (proposed suspension of concessions ) 
 G/SG/Q2/UKR/7 - questions from Ecuador  
 G/SG/Q2/UKR/8 ‒ G/SG/Q2/UKR/9 - replies to Ecuador  ................................ .................  11 
3.26  Ukraine – Ceramic Tiles  
 G/SG/N/6/UKR/20,  
 G/SG/N/9/UKR/9  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  12 
3.27  Ukraine – Sodium Hypochlorite (G/SG/N/6/UKR/21)  ................................ ................  12 
3.28  Ukraine – PVC Profile (G/SG/N/6/UKR/22)  ................................ ...............................  12 
3.29  Ukraine – Sulfuric Acid and Oleum  
 G/SG/N/6/UKR/12/Suppl.1  
 G/SG/N/8/UKR/6/Suppl.2 ‒ G/SG/N/10/UKR/6/Suppl.2  
 G/SG/N/8/UKR/6/Suppl.3 ‒ G/SG/N/10/UKR/6/Suppl.3  ................................ ...................  12 
3.30  Ukraine – Wires  (G/SG/N/8/UKR/11/Suppl.1 ‒ G/SG/N/10/UKR/11/Suppl.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/UKR/9/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ...............................  12 
3.31  United Kingdom – Certain Steel Products  
 G/SG/N/8/GBR/1  
 G/SG/N/8/GBR/1/Suppl.1  ‒ G/SG/N/10/GBR/1  ‒ G/SG/N/11/GBR/1  
 G/SG/N/8/GBR/1/Suppl.3  ‒ G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/Suppl.1  ‒ G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/Suppl.1  
 G/SG/N/6/GBR/1/Suppl.1  ‒ G/SG/N/8/GBR/1/Suppl.4  ‒ 
G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/Suppl.2  ‒ G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/Suppl.2  
 G/L/1398 ‒ G/SG/26 3 (results of the consultations)   
 G/SG/257  (request for consultations)    
 G/SG/257/Suppl.1 (request for consultations)  
 G/L/1304/Suppl.2 ‒ G/L/1387 ‒ G/SG/N/12/RUS/3/Suppl.2  ‒ G/SG/N/12/RUS/4  
(proposed suspension of concessions)   
 G/L/1306/Suppl.1  ‒ G/SG/ N/12/KOR/4/Suppl.1 and  
 G/L/1306/Suppl.1/A dd.1 ‒ G/SG/N/12/KOR/4/Suppl.1/A dd.1 (proposed suspension 
of concessions)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  12 
3.32  United States – Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells  
 G/SG/N/6/USA/11/Suppl.2  
 G/SG/N/6/USA/11/Suppl.3  
 G/SG/N/6/USA/11/S uppl.4) ................................ ................................ .........................  14 
4  OBSERVATIONS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ...............................  14 
4.1  Ukraine ‒ Wires And Cables  ................................ ................................ ........................  14 
4.2  Indonesia ‒ Articles Of Apparel And Clothing Accessories  ................................ .................  14 
4.3  Indonesia – Cigarette Paper  ................................ ................................ ........................  14 
5  EUROPEAN UNION'S REQUEST UNDER ARTICLE  13.1 (E) OF THE AGREEMENT 
(G/L/1360  – G/SG/246 and RD/SG/49)  ................................ ................................ ...............  15 
6  ECUADOR'S REQUEST UNDER ARTICLE  13.1 (B) OF THE AGREEMENT 
(G/L/1388  ‒ G/SG/255)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 15 
7  POSSIBLE REVISION TO THE NOTIFICATION FORMAT (RD/SG/48/R EV.1) ...............  16 
8  OTHER BUSINESS: STATEMENT BY THE CHAIR  ................................ ...........................  17 G/SG/M/59  
- 4 - 
  9  DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  ................................ ................................ ...... 18 
10  ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN 
GOODS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  18 
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION1 
1.1  Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations Not Previously 
Reviewed by the Committee (Including Supplemental Notifications of Existing Provisions 
Not Previously Reviewed)  
1.1.1   India – Review of New Legislative Notification ( G/SG/N/1/IND/3/Suppl.2 ) 
6.  Canada  stated that it had recently submitted question s on this notification.  
7.  India briefly explained its notification and stated that it would look into Canada's questions.  
1.1.2   Mongolia – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/MNG/2)  
8.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
1.1.3   United Kingdom – Review of New Legislative Notification 
(G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.1 1) 
9.  Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document:  
• G/SG/Q1/GBR/7 ‒ Submitted by Japan  
10.  The United Kingdom  explained that the purpose of these regulations was to allow for tariff rate 
quota s imposed on certain steel pro ducts  to continue for a certain period of time . The Trade 
Remedies Authority ( "TRA") could conduct a "reconsideration " during such period . The TRA had in 
fact announced on 7 September  2021 that it had initiated a reconsideration at the request of certain 
UK industries . The TRA was currently conducting the reconsideration for 14 product categories, some 
of which were subject to tariff rate quotas . The UK stated that it would submit written responses to 
the questions from Japan in due course.  
11.  Japan  explained its  questions and stated that it looked forward to the responses.  
12.  Switzerland  stated that its queries were similar as those of Japan . It particularly wished to know 
why these regulations singled out steel products.  
13.  The Republic of Korea  ("Korea") had two questions . First, in relation to the extension itself, 
Korea wished to know whether all the elements referred to in Articles 7.1 and 7.2 of the Agreement 
on Safeguards ("Agreement") were taken into consideration . Second, Korea wished to know what 
exactly the authority of the Secretary of State for International Trade was. That is, whether this 
authority was time -bound, and whether it had the authority to amend the measure at any time.  
14.  The UK promised to respond in  writing . But meanwhile, it provided the following background . 
On 30 June 2021, the Secretary of State accepted the TRA's recommendation to extend the measure 
with respect to ten product categories for three years, and decided to extend the measure with 
respect to fi ve additional product categories for one year . In relation to the decision to extend the 
measure, the domestic industry was provided an opportunity to seek a "reconsideration" of the TRA's 
recommendation so that new evidence could be considered . The TRA wa s currently reconsidering 
the recommendation.  
 
1 Relevant deadlines for written questions and written answers regarding the notifications of legislation 
can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/508 - G/SCM/W/584 - G/SG/W/254.  G/SG/M/59  
- 5 - 
  1.2  Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations with 
Outstanding Written Questions  
1.2.1   Cameroon – Review of New Legislative Notification ( G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 ‒ 
G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 ‒ G/S G/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1)  
15.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/CMR/3 ‒ G/SCM/Q1/CMR/3 ‒ G/SG/Q1/CMR/3 ‒ submitted by the 
United  States  
16.  The delegation of Cameroon was not present at the time. 
1.2.2   Liberia  – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/LBR/1 and 
G/SG/N/1/LBR/1/C orr.1) 
17.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted and can be found in document:  
• G/SG/Q1/LBR/1 – submitted by the United States  
18.  The delegation o f Liberia was not present at the time.  
2  CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY 
THE COMMITTEE2 
2.1  Ghana –Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 
‒ G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 ‒ G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  
19.  Written follow -up questions regarding this notification had been submitted and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GHA/3 ‒ G/SCM/Q1/GHA/3 ‒ G/SG/Q1/GHA/3  - submitted by the United  States  
20.  The Chair explained that the United State s had asked that the review of the follow up questions 
be conducted in the Anti -Dumping Committee.  
2.2  Kenya – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/ADP/N/1/KEN/3  ‒ G/SCM/N/1/KEN/3 ‒ G/SG/N/1/KEN/2)  
21.  Written follow -up questions regarding this notific ation had been submitted and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/KEN/6 - G/SCM/Q1/KEN/6 - G/SG/Q1/KEN/5 ; and 
• G/ADP/Q1/KEN/6/Corr.1 ‒ G/SCM/Q1/KEN/6/Corr.1 ‒ G/SG/Q1/KEN/5/Corr.1  ‒ 
submitted by the United States  
22.  Written answers were provided and can be found  in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/KEN/7 - G/SCM/Q1/KEN/7 - G/SG/Q1/KEN/6  - replies to the United States  
23.  The Chair explained that the United States had asked that the review of the follow -up questions 
be conducted in the Anti -Dumping Committee.  
 
2 Relevant deadlines for written questions and written answers regarding the notifications of legislation 
can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/508 - G/SCM/W/584 - G/SG/W/254.  G/SG/M/59  
- 6 - 
  2.3  Zimbabwe – Continuing R eview of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/ZWE/1 ) 
24.  Written follow -up questions regarding this notification had been submitted and can be found in 
document:  
• G/SG/Q1/ZWE/3 ‒ submitted by the United States  
25.  No delegation took the floor.  
26.  The Chair informed the Committee that 1 8 Members had not yet made a legislative notification .3 
This notification was one of the important obligations of the Agreement . Members that did not yet 
have any legislation need only submit a simple "nil" notification.  
27.  The United States  noted that while an increasing number of Members had notified their 
legislation, there still remained many Members which had not yet done so, as indicated in footnote  3 
of the minutes from the April 2021 meeting . For nearly all of those who h ad not made a notification, 
their Trade Policy Review reports indicated whether they did or did not have any SG  legislation . The 
United States  continued to encourage all of the outstanding Members who have yet to make their 
respective notifications to revi ew their individual situations and make the applicable notification . 
Timely and proper submission of notifications continued to impact the efficient functioning of this 
Committee and the WTO more broadly . The United States  explained that a proposal on Proc edures 
to Enhance Transparency and Improve Compliance with Notification Requirements was currently 
considered at the Council for Trade in Goods ("CTG"), and that its contents have evolved 
considerably since it was introduced several years ago . There have b een ongoing consultations with 
Members to understand the resource, time , and capacity challenges that prevent Members from 
making good faith attempts to meet their notification obligations . The recommendations would bring 
transformative change to the organ ization, strengthen the WTO 's negotiating arm, and enable the 
WTO to make progress in negotiating new rules . Support for this proposal would be welcome as 
Members advanced toward the upcoming Ministerial Conference.  
28.  The Committee took note  of the notifications  and statements, as well as questions and answers  
provided . 
3  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
29.  Japan  stated that recently, trade restrictive measures had been increasing . The number of 
safeguard measures imposed las t year was one of the highest levels ever . Applying trade restrictive 
measures that were inconsistent with the WTO Agreements would invoke retaliatory trade restrictive 
measures by other countries, and would ultimately depress world trade . Members needed t o confirm 
all the prerequisites under the WTO Agreements before imposing any safeguard measure . The 
Committee should closely monitor safeguard investigations.  
30.  China  expressed its concerns regarding the increase in the initiation and application of safeguar d 
measures . In addition , measures were being applied for an increasingly longer period of time . Some 
safeguards measures were applied concurrently with anti -dumping and countervailing measures on 
the same products . These practices have affected industries and distorted the international trade 
order . China believed that it was necessary to further clarify and improve the WTO safeguards rules 
to prevent their frequent and inappropriate use . The Committee should continue to enhance the 
monitoring functions, ma ke necessary recommendations, and guide Members to achieve best 
practice . China encouraged Members to resolve trade dispute through dialogue.  
31.  Australia  expressed concerns over the frequency of recourse to safeguard measures . Safeguards 
were emergency actio ns subject to strict conditions since  this instrument related to imports of 
otherwise fairly traded goods . While t he Agreement requires that notification be made immediately 
to the Committee , Australia observed that over the past six months, such requireme nt for immediate 
notification had not always been met.  Australia also welcomed those Members who had notified 
 
3 These Me mbers were: Antigua and Barbuda,  Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, 
Democratic  Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eswatini, Grenada, Guinea -Bissau, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, 
Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan , Tanzania,  and Yemen.  G/SG/M/59  
- 7 - 
  termination of measures . Such notifications were helpful in keeping Members apprised of current 
import regimes where safeguard measures had previously applied.  
3.1  Costa Rica ‒  Refined White Sugar  (G/L/1399 – G/SG/264 , G/L/1400 – G/SG/265)  
32.  Brazil  expressed its disappointment with this investigation, and stated that it was not based on 
sound analysis . Brazil recalled that the investigating authorit y recommended the non -application of 
duties, as it found no injury to the domestic industry . That recommendation, however, was not 
accepted by the decision -making authority, which decided to apply the measure based on a supposed 
threat of injury . Besides t he lack of injury, the investigation did not find unforeseen developments 
or effect of the obligations incurred by the importing country . Furthermore, the supposed surge was 
not sudden, sharp or significant enough . Given these circumstances, Brazil had no choice but to 
propose suspension of concessions . Brazil had exercised restraint in determining the amount of 
suspension . Although this demonstrated Brazil 's willingness to reach an agreement on 
compensations, the negotiations had not succeeded, and so Braz il was now considering how to move 
forward.  
33.  Costa Rica  took note of Brazil's statement and also asked Brazil to take into account, if and 
when it would exercise its right to suspend concessions, the fact that Costa Rica's measure was 
imposed based on an absolute increase of imports.  
3.2  European Union – Certain Steel Products  (G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.11, 
G/L/1304/Suppl.1 ‒ G/SG/N/12/RUS/3/Suppl.1, G/L/1359/Rev.2 ‒ 
G/SG/N/12/TUR/9/Rev.2, G/L/1396 ‒ G/SG/N/12/IND/2, G/L/1397 ‒ G/SG/262, 
G/SG/261, G/SG/260, G/SG/259 , G/SG/258)4 
34.  The European Union  stated that it had made a decision to prolong the safeguard measure . The 
European Union was engaging in consultations with those Members that so requested.  
35.  China  expressed its strong opposition to the extension of the measur e. It stated that the decision 
to extend the measure lacked factual and legal basis and the problems that existed in the original 
investigation had not been corrected . Since the original safeguard measure was flawed, there should 
be no extension of the mea sure. Moreover, this measure was not appropriate nor necessary . The 
deterioration of the European Union's steel industry was due to the impact of the COVID pandemic , 
and the decline of domestic demand should not be remedied by a safeguard measure . China 
encouraged Members to show collective leadership and ensure that the market remained open in 
order to promote inclusive and balance d growth . China hoped that the European Union would correct 
the flaws as soon as possible.  
36.  Japan  regretted the European Union's  decision to extend the measure . A safeguard measure 
was supposed to be progressively liberalized, and reviewed in order to, "if appropriate, withdraw it 
or increase the pace of liberalization ", according to the Agreement . Adopting trade -restrictive 
measur es in response to other trade restrictive measures would depress global trade and harm both 
exporters and importers . Japan requested that the European Union terminate the measure as soon 
as practicable.  
37.  The Russian Federation  ("Russia") expressed its deep concerns over the decision of the 
European Union to extend the measure . It believed that the European Union had no grounds for 
continuing the application of the measure . To begin with, the request of the European Union's 
Member States had not contained the necessary elements for initiating the review . As another 
illustration, decline in production and sales coincided with comparable declines of consumption . This 
showed that the deterioration of the state of the European Union 's industry, if any , stemmed from 
developments other than increased imports . Russia did not understand that the measure continued 
to be necessary . It urged the European Union to withdraw the measure.  
38.  Brazil  was disappointed with the European Union 's decision to extend the me asure . The 
investigation was inconsistent with the Agreement, and Brazil had been pointing that out from the 
beginning . These flaws should have led to the termination of the measure . Brazil recalled that this 
 
4 For the full symbol of all the documents , see the adopted agenda indicated at the beginning of this 
document .  G/SG/M/59  
- 8 - 
  measure was currently under a dispute, to which  Brazil was a third party . Brazil recalled that the 
European Union determined that global steel overcapacity constituted  "unforeseen developments" . 
However, steel overcapacity had been a global problem since the 1970s . The European Union also 
did not prope rly find the causal link . Moreover, the original investigation was initiated on the basis 
of the possibility that US section 232 measures could lead to trade diversion into the European  Union . 
However, the import surge must be actual, and not a possibility . The Agreement did not allow for 
"preventive " safeguard measures . In addition, the alleged import surge was not sudden, sharp, 
significant and recent enough . There was no injury or threat thereof . Furthermore, the 
European  Union did not properly explain h ow the surge happened as an effect of its obligations 
incurred . Finally, the European Union did not provide adequate and proportionate compensation to 
the adverse effects caused by the measure . Therefore, any suspension of concession by Brazil would 
be leg itimate.  
39.  India stated that it had notified in August  2021 its proposed suspension of concessions against 
the European Union's measure . India reserved its right to modify this notification at a later stage . 
On the other hand, India was requesting the Europe an Union to consider India 's demands made 
during the consultations . The European Union had divided the specific tariff rate quotas applicable 
to India in 26 product categories . The subdivision of product category 4 into two, regarding tariff 
rate quotas, s everely affected India 's trade . The tariff rate quota of subcategory 4A w as exhausted 
very quickly while subcategory 4B was largely unutilized . India asked that this subdivision be 
removed . If the European Union did not remove this subcategory, India will be forced to impose 
retaliatory duties.  
40.  Switzerland  continued to be negatively affected by the European Union's measure, as the 
measure continued to restrict traditional bilateral trade flows of certain steel products . Switzerland 
regretted that the E uropean Union decided to extend the safeguard measure . Safeguard measures 
are emergency measures that adversely affect fair trade . Safeguard measures must therefore not 
be extended beyond the time necessary . Switzerland called on the European Union to revi ew and 
put an end to this measure as soon as possible, and in the meantime, to increase the pace of 
liberalisation.  
41.  The European Union  stated that it would take the comments into consideration.  
3.3  Member Countries  of the GCC – Certain Steel Products  (G/SG/N/8 /ARE/3/Suppl.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/10/ARE/3 ‒ G/SG/N/11/ARE/4, G/SG/N/9/ARE/1 ‒ G/SG/N/9/BHR/1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/9/KWT/1 ‒ G/SG/N/9/OMN/1 - G/SG/N/9/QAT/1 ‒ G/SG/N/9/SAU/1 
G/SG/256  
42.  Japan  welcomed decision of the Gulf Cooperation Council  ("GCC") to terminate the investigation.  
43.  The United States  thanked the GCC for its reply to its questions . It had no follow up questions.  
44.  Switzerland  stated that it was pleased that the investigation was terminated without imposing 
any measure.  
3.4  India – Solar  Cells Whether or Not Assembled in Modules or Panels  
(G/SG/N/10/IND/22/Suppl .4) 
45.  India stated that the safeguard measure was applicable until 29 July 2021 , and had not been 
extended any further. India had notified the same to the WTO.  
46.  Japan  welcomed the termination of the SG measure . However, Japan regretted that India did 
not notify its decision immediately, contrary to Article 12 of the Agreement . Japan recalled that 
India's decision was made in July 2021, while the notification was made in 2 7 September  2021. 
3.5  Indonesia  – Fabrics  (G/SG/N/11/IDN/18/Suppl.3)  
47.  Japan  wished to take this opportunity to comment on Indonesia's various safeguard measures, 
on which Japan had concerns . First, Indonesia applied a safeguard measure on carpet products in 
February  2021. This measure applied extremely high -level tariffs . Japan noted that Indonesia 
determined the increase of imports notwithstanding the actual sharp decrease of imports . The G/SG/M/59  
- 9 - 
  second related to the proposed safeguard measure on articles of apparel and clothing accessories . 
Japan asked Indonesia to immediately decide not to impose the measure, or to exclude imported 
products which did not compete with Ind onesia 's domestic products.  
48.  Indonesia  took note of the statement by Japan.  
3.6  Indonesia  – Ceramic Flags and Paving, Hearth or Wall Tiles  
(G/SG/N/6/IDN/28/S uppl.1, G/SG/N/8/IDN/20/Suppl.1  ‒ 
G/SG/N/10/IDN/20/Suppl.2)  
49.  There were no questions or comments raised a t this meeting.  
3.7  Madagascar  – Detergent Powder  (G/L/1401 ‒ G/SG/N/13/MDG/1)  
50.  There were no questions or comments raised at this meeting.  
3.8  Madagascar  – Blankets and Travelling Rugs  (G/L/1402 ‒ G/SG/N/13/MDG/2)  
51.  There were no questions or comments raised at this meeting.  
3.9  Morocco – Hot Rolled Sheets  (G/SG/N/11/MAR/7/suppl.4)  
52.  There were no comments or questions raised at this meeting.  
3.10  Morocco  – Wire Rods and Reinforcing Bars  (G/SG/N/6/MAR/7/Suppl.2 ‒ 
G/SG/N/14/MAR/1/Suppl.4)  
53.  The European Union  had concerns with  Morocco's continued use of safeguard measures. It 
recalled that safeguard measures were intended for exceptional circumstances only. Morocco had 
extended some of its measures for the second or third time. In relation to the extensions, the 
imposing Member  must provide evidence that the domestic industry was adjusting. After several 
years of the measures being in force, it appeared that the domestic industry was unable to adjust, 
and that the safeguards measures were not solving the domestic industry's prob lems. Under th ese 
circumstance s, the European Union believed that the prolongation of the measures was not 
warranted.  
54.  Morocco  pointed out that the safeguard measures referred to by the European Union were all 
measures applied to steel products . The steel industry was in a very peculiar situation . Morocco 
noted that the European Union also applied measures to steel products . All of these can be ascribed 
to the global oversupply of steel products . This was a general systemic situation that prevailed in 
the steel industry around the world.  
3.11  Morocco  – Cold-Rolled Sheets  (G/SG/N/6/MAR/8/S uppl.2 – 
G/SG/N/14/MAR/2/S uppl.1) 
55.  There were no comments or questions raised under this item.  
3.12  Morocco  – Lighting Columns  (G/SG/N/6/ MAR/13, G/SG/N/6/ MAR/13/corr.1, 
G/SG/N/7/MAR/6 and G/SG/N/11/MAR/9)  
56.  The European Union  stated that it was unsure how Morocco calculated the duty rate.5 
57.  Turkey  had serious concerns with this investigation . First, Morocco deducted a significant 
volume of subject merchandise imports from 2 017 figures, citing the reason that important 
infrastructure projects that took place in 2017 made exceptional imports necessary . This course of 
action was inconsistent with the Agreement . Second, taking into account the significant positive 
figures of the  petitioners ' economic indicators, it was surprising that the investigating authority 
concluded that the domestic industry was injured . Third, there w ere no convincing unforeseen 
 
5 This statement was originally made together with the statement under item 3.10.  G/SG/M/59  
- 10 - 
  developments . Turkey requested Morocco to terminate the investigation without  imposing any 
measure.  
3.13  Philippines  – Motor Vehicles  (G/SG/N/7/PHL/12/Suppl.1)  
58.  Japan  welcomed the termination of the provisional measure and the investigation . Japan pointed 
out that the provisional duties collected should be promptly refunded . Japan observ ed that, to begin 
with, the investigation was initiated without confirming the necessary prerequisites.  
59.  Philippines  stated that all cash bond s would be returned.  
3.14  Philippines  – Aluminum Zinc (GL) Sheets and Coils  (G/SG/N/9/PHL/5)  
60.  Japan  welcomed the decision to terminate the investigation without any measure.  
3.15  Philippines  – Prepainted Galvanized Iron and Prepainted Aluminum Zinc  
(G/SG/N/9/PHL/6)  
61.  Japan  welcomed the decision to terminate the investigation without any measure.  
3.16  Philippines  – Galvanized Iron Sheets, Coils and Strips  (G/SG/N/9/PHL/7)  
62.  Japan  welcomed the decision to terminate the investigation without any measure.  
3.17  Philippines  – High Density Polyethylene and Linear Low -Density Polyethylene Pellets 
and Granules  (G/SG/N/6/PHL/19/Supp l.1 ‒ G/SG/N/8/PHL/14)  
63.  Brazil  explained that it had initially requested to participate in the investigation as an interested 
party, but the request was refused . Then, in the subsequent preliminary report, it was explained 
that Brazilian exports fell within  the de minimis  as provided under Article 9.1 of the Agreement . 
Brazil wished to confirm that its exports would be excluded from the final measure . This issue was 
related to the point Brazil would explain under item 7.  
64.  Philippines  stated that it would conv ey Brazil's comments to its capital.  
3.18  South Africa  - Other Screws Fully Threaded with Hexagon Heads Made of Steel  
(G/SG/N/8/ZAF/5/Suppl.2 ‒ G/SG/N/10/ZAF/4/Suppl.2, G/SG/N/8/ZAF/5/Suppl.3 , 
G/SG/N/10/ZAF/4/Suppl.3)  
65.  The European Union  expressed its disappoint ment on the extension of this measure . In cases 
like this, the use of anti -dumping instrument would have been more suitable because the 
predominant share of imports during the investigation period was from one country . The extension 
of this measure would continue to cause unnecessary collateral damage to exporters who may not 
have caused any injury to the domestic industry . Furthermore, after the measure was imposed, 
import reduced dramatically . Injury, if any, seemed to be linked to other factors . Under these 
circumstances, the extension of the measure was not justified.  
3.19  South Africa – U, I, H, L and T Sections of Iron or Non -Alloy Steel  (G/SG/N/9/ZAF/3)  
66.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.20  Thailand  – Aluminium Foil  (G/SG/N/9/TH A/2)  
67.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.21  Tunisia  – Minibus  (G/SG/N/6/TUN/6)  
68.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  G/SG/M/59  
- 11 - 
  3.22  Turkey – Wallpaper and Similar Wallcoverings  (G/SG/N/10/TUR/15/ suppl .2 – 
G/SG/N/11/TUR/20/S uppl.2) 
69.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.23  Turkey – Polyester Staple Fibre  (G/SG/N/8/TUR/19 – G/SG/N/10/TUR/19 – 
G/SG/N/11/TUR/26)  
70.  The European Union  expressed its disappointment over the imposition of this measure . In cases 
like this, th e use of anti -dumping instrument would have been more situatable because the 
predominant share of import s during the investigation period came from one or small group of 
countries . Furthermore, the product exported by the European Union was not the same as  those 
exported from other countries.  
71.  Egypt  expressed its concerns about this investigation and explained that it had sent questions 
and comments to Turkey . The fact that Turkey had taken various forms of trade remedy measures 
on the same product over a long period of time went against the principle of fair competition . Egypt 
reminded Turkey that it had not yet received responses to its questions and comments.  
72.  Turkey  stated that the evidence that justified the extension was clear . It also explained that t he 
relevant laws had been amended to ensure that anti -dumping and safeguard measures would not 
be imposed simultaneously.  
3.24  Turkey  – Grinding Balls and Similar Articles for Mills  (G/SG/N/6/TUR/28)  
73.  The European Union  expressed its disappointment over the ini tiation of this investigation . The 
European Union had registered as an interested party, and it was currently preparing its submission . 
The European Union trusted that the Turkish authority would take the comments from the 
European  Union and other interest ed parties into account and would carry out this investigation in 
full compliance with the Agreement.  
74.  Turkey  stated that it took note of the comments and views of the Members and relevant parties , 
and that those comments  would be taken into consideration d uring the investigation.  
3.25  Ukraine – Fresh Cut Roses  (G/SG/N/10/UKR/10/Suppl.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/UKR/8/Suppl.1, G/L/1395 ‒ G/SG/N/12/ECU/1 , G/SG/Q2/UKR/7, 
G/SG/Q2/UKR/8 ‒ G/SG/Q2/UKR/9 ) 
75.  After briefly recapping the history of this investigation, Ukraine  explained that it had provided 
the interested parties opportunity to provide evidence, to participate in hearings, and oppo rtunities 
for prior consultations, and it took the comments into a ccount. For example, the duty rate was 
significantly reduced from the initially calculated level.  
76.  Ecuador  stated that Ukraine's official announcement to impose the safeguard measure took 
Ecuador by surprise . At that time, Ecuador had not yet received answers to the questions it submitted 
in October  2020. In the absence of responses from Ukraine, Ecuador submi tted additional questions 
at the Committee's meeting of 2 6 April 2021. Ukraine's replies to Ecuador's questions were received 
only on 2 6 May 2021. Ecuador expressed three concerns . First, Ecuador still did not see how Ukraine 
calculated the tariff level, o r how such a surcharge would not result in overprotection of the domestic 
industry . Second, the investigation had not established a causal link . Finally, lack of timely response 
to the questions submitted was evidence that Ukraine did not take into account  the views of Ecuador 
and possibly other Members . The measure badly hit the Ecuadorian producers of fresh cut roses . For 
all these reasons, on 1 0 August  2021, by document G/L/1395  - G/SG/N/12/ECU/1, Ecuador notified 
its decision to reserve its right to sus pend against Ukraine the application of concessions or other 
obligations substantially equivalent to the impact of the safeguard measure.  
77.  Ukraine  stated that the notification contained all pertinent information relating to the proposed 
safeguard measure in  accordance with the Agreement, and that it had offered an opportunity for 
prior consultations . Ukraine did not receive a request for consultations from Ecuador within the 
stipulated deadline . Ukraine stated that it had conducted its investigation in accor dance with the 
Agreement.  G/SG/M/59  
- 12 - 
  78.  Colombia  took the floor to support the statement of Ecuador . Colombia also requested the 
Committee to find that the procedural requirements of the Agreement had not been complied with 
in connection with this measure . Colombia was of the view that there were numerous procedural 
errors in Ukraine's decision to impose the measure . The Ukrainian authority failed to fulfil procedural 
requirements as it did not indicate deadlines clearly, did not provide non ‐confidential summaries, 
and did not offer meaningful consultations or compensation . In addition to these procedural errors, 
there were substantive errors . For example, Ukraine changed the period of investigation from 2016 
to 2017 without informing interested parties  in a timely manner ; it failed to adjust the baseline 
information submitted by the domestic industry ; no unforeseen developments were identified ; the 
causation analysis was not sufficient ; and the safeguard duty exceeded what was necessary . In sum, 
Colombia d oubted the legality of both the procedure and the substan ce of this measure . Colombia 
also wished to communicate to the Committee its decision to reserve the right of suspension of 
concessions or other obligations.  
79.  Ukraine  was disappointed by Colombia's de cision . Ukraine explained that Colombia did not 
register as an interested party during the investigation.  
3.26  Ukraine  – Ceramic Tiles  (G/SG/N/6/UKR/20, G/SG/N/9/UKR/9)  
80.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.27  Ukraine  – Sodium Hypochlorite  (G/SG/N/6/UKR/21)  
81.  The European Union  stated that the majority of imports of the subject product seemed to have 
come from four or five countries . In such a situation, an anti -dumping measure was more suitable . 
Furthermore, the domestic industry did not seem to  have suffered from serious injury . Profitability 
and consumption had increased . This showed that the increase in import was due to the need to 
fulfil a growing demand.  
82.  Ukraine  stated that it would take the comments into account.  
3.28  Ukraine  – PVC Profil e (G/SG/N/6/UKR/22)  
83.  The European Union  asked Ukraine to protect the rights of defense of the interested parties . For 
example, the European Union noted that non -confidential summary was not provided . In addition, 
there seemed to be no serious injury to the domestic industry.  
84.  Ukraine  stated that this was an ongoing investigation, and it would await the European Union's 
comments in that context.  
3.29  Ukraine  – Sulfuric Acid and Oleum  (G/SG/N/6/UKR/12/Suppl.1, 
G/SG/N/8/UKR/6/Suppl.2 ‒ G/SG/N/10/UKR/6/Suppl.2 , G/SG/N /8/UKR/6/Suppl.3 ‒ 
G/SG/N/10/UKR/6/Suppl.3)  
85.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.30  Ukraine  – Wires  (G/SG/N/8/UKR/11/Suppl.1 ‒ G/SG/N/10/UKR/11/Suppl.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/UKR/9/Suppl.1)  
86.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.31  United Kingdom – Certain Steel Products  (G/SG/N/8/GBR/1, G/SG/N/10/GBR/1, 
G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/6/GBR/1/Suppl.1, G/L/1398, G/SG/257, 
G/SG/257/Suppl.1, G/L/1304/Suppl.2,  G/L/1306/S uppl.1 and 
G/L/1306/S uppl.1/Add.1)6 
87.  The United Kingdom  explained the sequence of events as well as its notifications made since 
October 2020, and stated that it submitted a notification on 1 July 2021 that the measure was 
 
6 For the full symbol of all the documents, see the adopted agenda indicated at the beginning of this 
document.  G/SG/M/59  
- 13 - 
  extended.  It further explained that when the measure was extended, the domestic industry  was 
granted a right for reconsideration so that new evidence could be considered. The United Kingdom 
notified in September 2021 the initiation of the reconsideration.   
88.  China  raised concerns about the extension of the measure . China believed that the 
United Kingdom's approach was not consistent with the relevant WTO rules, and as such, this 
measure affected the legitimate interests of the relevant parties . The United Kingdom's maintenance 
of the safeguard measure after Brexit was inconsistent with the WTO rules. The United Kingdom was 
neither the original investigator nor the successor of the European Union, therefore, the 
United  Kingdom was not entitled to maintain and extend the European Union's safeguard measure . 
Only the original investigator could exte nd the measure . The transition review was not an 
investigation procedure recognized by the Agreement . It was an investigation procedure invented 
by the United Kingdom outside the WTO rule . China urged the United Kingdom to immediately stop 
the implementati on of the measure.  
89.  Japan  stated that the measure was originally supposed to last for only half a year, and so it was 
regrettable that the United Kingdom extended the measure . Furthermore, some products which were 
not covered by the finding of the investiga ting authority were now subject to the extended measure . 
Japan found no adequate explanation why the measure continued to be necessary . Japan also did 
not understand that the necessary prerequisites such as increase in imports and serious injury were 
exami ned with respect to the products newly subject to the extended measure . In addition, as 
explained earlier in the present meeting, Japan had concerns about the WTO -consistency of the 
United  Kingdom's regulation . Japan urged the United Kingdom to terminate the measure as soon as 
possible.  
90.  Turkey  believed that the measure should have been terminated after 3 1 December  2020, since 
the criteria to impose a safeguard measure did not exist . In fact, the United Kingdom subsequently 
proceeded to extend the  measure and decided to add back categories to the measure while the 
investigating authority had recommended to revoke the measure on those categories . As such, these 
extensions were not compatible with the Article 7.1 of the Agreement . Furthermore, the 
United Kingdom initiated a reconsideration process . Turkey pointed out that the measure could not 
be reimposed for categories where the measure was already terminated.  
91.  Russia  stated that the application of the measure following the transitional review raised  serious 
doubts regarding its WTO -consistency . As shown from the results of the review, for most product 
categories, the criteria for the application of the measure have not been met . Russia was also puzzled 
by the decision of the United Kingdom to initiat e a reconsideration . This procedure made the already 
highly questionable measure even more unclear . First, following the transitional review, the 
Secretary of State decided to extend the measure on certain product categories for which 
termination of the me asure was recommended . It questioned how the extension of the measure in 
this respect complied with Article 7.2 of the Agreement . Second, the notice of initiation listed certain 
product categories which were out of the scope of the extended measure . If the measure were to 
be imposed on those categories, Russia questioned what the grounds were . Third, it questioned the 
timeline of the reconsideration procedure . Russia urged the United Kingdom to withdraw the 
measure.  
92.  Brazil  expressed its concern about the co urse of action . First, for certain categories, no injury 
was found . Second, "reconsideration" had no place within the Agreement . Third, the procedural 
requirement under Article 12.3 was not respected, since the United Kingdom extended the measure 
before holding consultations with interested Members . Finally, Brazil expressed concern regarding 
the consistency of the extension with Article 7.4 of the Agreement . Changes made in the extension 
could only make the measure less restrictive . Brazil was not  initially subject to category 7, but it 
was now included . This was a violation of the Agreement . Brazil remained hopeful that the 
United  Kingdom 's would offer compensations in line with the Agreement.  
93.  Switzerland  continued to have serious concerns regardi ng this measure . First, the extended 
measure applied to certain product categories for which no increase of imports was found . Second, 
the extension was notified to the Committee after the extension had been implemented . Hence, no 
opportunity for prior con sultations was provided. Third, Switzerland noted that certain product 
categories for which the measure had not been extended were subject to reconsideration . 
Switzerland requested clarification on this process, in particular, whether the TRA could decide to 
reimpose measure on those product categories . To begin with, Switzerland was of the view that the G/SG/M/59  
- 14 - 
  "transitioning " of the original European Union's measure was supposed to be subject to the material 
and procedural requirements applicable to a new measure , pursuant to the Agreement.  
94.  The United Kingdom  took note of all the statements , and stated its openness to bilateral 
consultations . With respect to the reconsideration process, as the process was currently ongoing, 
the outcome was not predictable but furt her notifications would be made to the Committee as 
relevant.  
3.32  United States – Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells  (G/SG/N/6/USA/11/Suppl.2, 
G/SG/N/6/USA/11/Suppl.3, G/SG/N/6/USA/11/S uppl.4) 
95.  Japan  referred to the panel report in DS562, which was recently  circulated . As a third party in 
that panel process, Japan took note of the panel's finding that the measure was found to be 
consistent with the Agreement . On the other hand, a safeguard measure was supposed to be 
"progressively liberalized", and may be ex tended only when it "continue[d] to be necessary".  
96.  The United States  encouraged Japan to convey its views to the investigating authority.  
97.  The Chair reminded delegations that any questions concerning the notifications of actions taken, 
for which written responses were requested, should be submitted to the Member concerned and to 
the Secretariat no later than 1 5 November  2021. Written answers were to  be submitted to the 
Secretariat no later than 6 December  2021. The latter included Members, if any, who have not yet 
submitted written responses to the questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting . As with the 
legislative not ifications, the Chair asked the Committee Secretary to indicate in the draft annotated 
agenda of the subsequent Committee meeting if there were any questions left unanswered.  
98.  The Committee took note  of the notifications  and statements, as well as questions  and answers 
provided.  
4  OBSERVATIONS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
4.1  Ukraine ‒ Wires and Cables  
99.  The European Union  welcomed Ukraine's decision to terminate the investigation . There was no 
increase of imports, no injury to the domestic industry, and no causal link . Therefore, the imposition 
of this measure would not have been warranted . Furthermore, such measure would not have been 
in the public interest of Ukraine.  
4.2  Indonesia ‒ Articles of Apparel and Clothing  Accessories  
4.3  Indonesia  – Cigarette Paper  
100.  The European Union  expressed its concerns regarding the two investigations by Indonesia : 
one on articles of apparel and clothing accessories and the other on cigarette paper . The European 
Union was concerned over the proliferation of safeguards investigations by Indonesia . The European 
Union was of the view that those investigations often did not fully comply with the Agreement . 
Indonesia tended to use the safeguards instrument rather than the anti-dumping or anti -subsidies 
instrument when addressing increase of imports predo minantly from one single country . In both of 
these investigations, the European Union was not convinced that the safeguard was the most 
appropriate instrument . In addition, Indonesia failed to conclude the investigations within the 
deadline provided in its Regulation . Over 4 months behind deadline, the investigations were still not 
concluded . The situation created legal uncertainty and put in question the legality of the practice of 
the Indonesian authorit ies. The European Union called upon I ndonesia to terminate the 
investigations without imposing any measure.  
101.  Indonesia  disagreed with the European Union . Indonesia had been conducting its investigations 
in compliance with the Agreement . As long as the investigation and the imposition were made  
consistently with the requirements of the Agreement, Members were entitled to apply safeguard 
measures . Indonesia offered a detailed recap of the sequence of the two investigations.  G/SG/M/59  
- 15 - 
  102.  Japan  echoed the concerns of the European Union regarding the repetitive use of the 
safeguards instrument by Indonesia . Even when there were increased imports from only one 
country, the measure would be applied to Japanese products which were not competing with 
Indonesian products.  Japan  requested that Indonesia conduct its inv estigation carefully, in line with 
the Agreement . Japan also requested that if Indonesia were to impose the measure, it exclude 
imported products which did not compete with Indonesia 's domestic products.  
103.  The Committee took note  of the statements.  
5  EUROPEAN UNION'S REQUEST UNDER ARTI CLE 13.1 (E) OF THE AGREEMENT  
(G/L/1360  – G/SG/246 and RD/SG/49)  
104.  The Chair recalled that this issue was discussed in the informal meeting s held on  27 July 2020, 
29 September  2020, and 1 4 December  2020. She further recalled that ne ither the European Union 
nor Turkey wished to take up this issue at the spring 2021 regular meeting, held in April 2021. She 
sent to the Members on 2 0 October  2021 document RD/SG/55 that reflected the discussions so far . 
Unless the European Union decides to no longer pursue this matter, some kind of document would 
be submitted to the CTG . She wished to ask, among other issues, which of the following two choices 
Members preferred . The first option was to issue the document a s a report of the Committee . The 
second option was to issue the document as a factual report to be submitted to the CTG under her 
own responsibility as the Chair.  
105.  The European Union  stated that it had agreed with Turkey on the content of the factual aspect s 
that should be included in the document . On the other hand, Article 13.1 of the Agreement clearly 
stated that the document would be the Committee's report . In view of this, the European Union 
requested that the Committee adopt the document in line with t he Agreement.  
106.  Turkey  maintained its view that the document should be the Chair's report.  
107.  Australia  stated that the requests made under Article 13 should be handled on a case -by-case 
basis. Thus, the report should clarify that its form does not prejudice fu ture requests . If the 
Committee could not agree to the document by consensus, then the Committee could ask the Chair 
to circulate it as her personal report . Australia could support either approach.  
108.  The United States  stated that it was flexible as to whethe r the document should become the 
Committee's report or the Chair's personal report.  
109.  The Committee took note  of the statements.  
6  ECUADOR'S REQUEST UNDER ARTI CLE 13.1 (B) OF THE AGREEMENT  (G/L/1388 ‒ 
G/SG/255)  
110.  The Chair explained that Ecuador made this reques t on 1 9 May 2021. She recalled that she 
held an informal meeting on 6 October  to prepare for today's meeting . She had taken good note of 
the comments expressed then . She had prepared a draft and made it available to the Members on 
20 October  in document RD /SG/56 . This text was to eventually become the first part of the report . 
She tried to indicate only those facts that should be non -controversial.  
111.  Ecuador  appreciated the presentation of the chronology contained in document RD/SG/56 , 
which adequately reflected Ecuador's actions. This chronology of events showed Ecuador's constant 
eagerness to provide information and discuss with Ukraine, including through the presentation of 
questions. Ecuador had only received responses to its questio ns 30 days after the measure was 
adopted by its authorities . This showed Ukraine's failure to comply with the relevant procedures. 
Ecuador further explained that Ecuador's specialized authorities bilaterally made submissions to the 
Ukrainian  authorities . Ecuador also did not receive a response to those comments and observations. 
Its requests to the Ukrainian authorities, through diplomatic notes, to hold technical talks by 
videoconference were also not responded to. For these reasons, Ecuador reiterated the  request that 
the Committee find whether or not the procedural requirements of the Agreement had been complied 
with in relation to Ukraine's measure, and send the result to the CTG as an official report of the 
Committee.  G/SG/M/59  
- 16 - 
  112.  Ukraine  stated that it s investigati on was in line with the relevant WTO rules . Regarding the 
questions from Ecuador, Ukraine addressed them at the Committee meeting that took place on 
26 October  2020. Ukraine recalled that Ecuador had an opportunity to defend itself during the 
investigation  as an interested party . Ecuador's position was taken into account when making relevant 
decisions . Regarding the report, Ukraine understood that the Committee had not adopted any rules 
regarding the procedures related to requests made pursuant to Article 1 3.1 of the Agreement . 
Therefore, Ukraine was not in a position to state its position regarding how the report could be 
provided to the CTG . Ukraine believed that the Chair should not rush into providing the factual report 
to the CTG.  
113.  Australia  stated that an outline of the facts on both sides, including, for example, a chronology 
of events and the procedural steps taken, would greatly facilitate the consideration and preparation 
of a report by the Committee. It  was incumbent on both parties to reflect their  views in order to 
provide a complete picture . In terms of process, Australia was open to either having the document 
as the Committee's report, or as the Chair's report.  
114.  Colombia  stated that Article 13.1(b) made it clear that the report should be the Commi ttee's 
report . Colombia asked that the Chair to present the report as quickly as possible.  
115.  Ukraine  was disappointed by Colombia's decision to submit its request . Ukraine clarified that 
Colombia was registered as an interested party, but it did not exercise  its rights for consultations . 
Its comments were taken into account by the authorit ies. 
116.  The Chair stated that she had taken good note of all the points made and that she would inform 
the Members in due course how to proceed.  
117.  The Committee took note  of the statements.  
7  POSSIBLE REVISION TO THE NOTIFICATION FORMAT  (RD/SG/48/REV.1)  
118.  Brazil  stated that it had accommodate d certain comments received at the last informal 
meeting, regarding part B (notification under Article 9) of the format . For clarity, it reintroduced the 
term "developing ", and it also made explicit that the information on to tal imported volume referred 
to the product under investigat ion. Indicating the total volume of imported goods subject of the 
investigation, disaggregated by origin, was crucial for developing Members to see whether they fell 
under the de minimis  category as provided for under Article 9.1 . The proposed changes would help 
developing Members to exercise their rights fully . Those Members would be able to anticipate and 
plan whether the investigation would affect their exports . The predictability was particular ly relevant 
because the mere expectation of the imposition of a safeguard measure caused significant impacts 
in the market . Certain Members referred to the consultations provided for under Article 12.3 of the 
Agreement . Brazil understood that these consult ations were to be held before the application of the 
measure, but after the notification under Article 12.1(c) . Therefore, these consultations were held 
at a much later time than the notification of initiation . In addition, Article 12.3 stated that 
consult ations should be held with Members having a substantial interest as exporters of the product 
concerned . Developing country Members falling within the de minimis  provision would hardly 
constitute Members with substantial exporting interest . Regarding confid entiality, Brazil reconfirmed 
that Article 12.11 of the Agreement protects confidential information.  
119.  The United States  stated that it continued to not support Brazil 's proposal . First, the scope of 
a safeguard investigation rarely matched up perfectly with  the Harmonized System  ("HS") 
classification , so the data would have to be developed in the context of the investigation . Therefore, 
it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for a Member  to provide this information shortly after 
initiation of the investigation . Second, information which Brazil suggests to be provided in the 
Article  9.1 notification may be confidential for many competent authorities, either under the 
Member 's law generally , or due to there being few suppliers to the market under the scope of the 
product in the investigation . Therefore, it would often not be possible to disclose such information 
in a public notification . Third, the edits proposed by Brazil went beyond what w as required under 
Article 9.1 . Finally, if a Member wants to discuss the Article 9.1 issue with an investigating Member, 
the Agreement already provided for an opportunity to do so . Consultations under Article 12.3 were 
different than those used in a disput e context, as there was no potential for litigation at that point. 
The United States strongly encouraged Brazil to consider utilizing the existing consultation G/SG/M/59  
- 17 - 
  mechanisms under the Agreement rather than trying to alter the notification process through this  
exercise.  
120.  The United Kingdom  stated that regarding proposal on format A (notification under 
Article  12.1(a)), it would not be able to provide such information . Regarding proposal on format B 
(notification under footnote 2 of Article 9), the United Kingdom  was willing to provide this information 
in the interest of transparency.  
121.  India stated that including the proposed information in notifications of initiation would increase 
the burden . In addition, some products did not have a dedicated HS code, and inputs  from the 
interested parties were needed . Therefore, providing the list of developing countries based on import 
volume at the time of initiation may not be accurate in certain cases . Moreover, there may also be 
the issue of transhipment which would be anal ysed in the course of investigation.  
122.  Indonesia  stated that regarding the proposal to add disaggregated import volume by exporting 
countries in the Article 12.1(a) notification, accurate import volume data could only be collected in 
the course of the invest igation . Thus, such data could not be provided at the beginning of the 
investigation . In addition, requiring this information to be notified would create additional burden . 
Regarding the proposed edit to the Article 9 notification format, Indonesia was of the view that 
provision of such additional data would create unnecessary burden on the notifying Members.  
123.  Canada  stated that the volume of imports disaggregated by country may not always be 
available at the time of the initiation.  
124.  Russia  stated that inform ation on the volume of imports disaggregated by country of export 
may not be at the disposal of the investigating authority at the initiation stage . Detailed and full 
statistics on imports would be collected during the investigation itself . For that reason , Russia could 
not agree to the proposal.  
125.  Australia  first referred to Brazil's proposal regarding the format of initiation notifications. 
Australia saw practical difficulties in providing disaggregated data at this point in the investigation. 
In addition, there could be issues relating to confidentiality, as well as the fact that the product 
under investigation may not align with HS classifications. Australia was aware that data on the major 
sources of imports may be available at the initiation stage. However, Article 9.1 of the Agreement 
was about imposition rather than initiation, and so it would kick in at a later stage.  
126.  China  stated that it was the surge of total imports that should be considered when imposing 
safeguards measures . Notification of individual import volume at the initiation stage was not feasible.  
127.  The Chair stated that it was her sense that Members needed more time to think about this 
proposal.  
128.  The Committee took note  of the statements.  
8  OTHER BUSINESS  
8.1  Statement by the Chair  
129.  The Chair stated that she intended to hold a notification seminar back -to-back with the 
spring  2022 meeting . The last notification seminar was he ld back -to-back with the 201 4 October  
meeting of the Committee . As several Members pointed out earlier in the meeting, the number of 
safeguard actions had increased recently . On the other hand, it was her impression that the 
timeliness and clarity of the n otifications had generally improved . Such improvement was mainly 
due to the efforts of the Members, but in addition, the fact that the Committee had been discussing 
notification formats must have contributed as well . Having a notification seminar could hel p Members 
to exchange views on practical matters in relation to preparing and submitting notifications, and 
would be another good opportunity to improve the quality of notifications . She was open to holding 
an informal meeting on this issue if that seemed to be necessary or useful.  
130.  The Committee took note  of the Chair's statement.  G/SG/M/59  
- 18 - 
  9  DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
131.  The next regular meeting of the Committee  would be held in the week of 2 5 April 2022. 
10  ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN G OODS  
132.  The Committee adopted  its 2021 Annual Report to the CTG.  
 
__________  