12. The Chair informed the Committee that the US had requested that the responses to its questions and any related discussions be taken up at the Anti-dumping Committee since the questions mainly dealt with anti-dumping. There were no other comments or questions.

13. The Chair recalled that the deadline for written questions concerning any legislation reviewed at this meeting was 19 May 2014. The deadline for written answers to all written questions, including questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, was 10 June 2014.

14. The Chair informed the Committee that 22 Members had not yet made a legislative notification.^{^[3]} This notification was one of the important obligations of the Safeguards Agreement ("Agreement"). Members that did not yet have legislation need only submit a simple "nil" notification. The US thanked the Chair for his efforts to encourage those Members that had not yet made a legislative notification to make the necessary notification. However, there were still Members that had not yet made any legislative notification. Many of those countries had informed the WTO through the Trade Policy Review process that they did not have safeguard legislation and the US encouraged outstanding Members to review their individual situations regarding the applicable notification.

15. Canada voiced its concerns about the recent high number of safeguard actions. While many of those actions were taken by a limited number of frequent users, first-time users were also gradually increasing. Canada hoped that this increase in safeguard actions was not a long-term trend, and requested that imposing Members act cautiously with regards to this instrument that was to be used only in special circumstances.

16. The Committee took note of the statements made.

2 NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES

2.1 Australia – Canned tomatoes (G/SG/N/9/AUS/3)

17. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.

2.2 Australia – Certain processed fruit products (G/SG/N/9/AUS/4)

18. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.

2.3 Chile – Frozen pork (G/SG/N/9/CHL/8)

19. Brazil welcomed the fact that the investigation was the terminated without a measure.

2.4 Colombia - Steel Wire Rod (G/SG/N/7/COL/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/COL/1/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/7/COL/1/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/11/COL/1/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/8/COL/1)

2.5 Colombia - Bars and Rods (G/SG/N/7/COL/2/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/COL/2/Suppl.1)

20. Colombia made a statement regarding four investigations, namely, investigations on steel wire rod and on bars and rods, which were on the agenda, as well as investigations on steel angles and on angles, shapes and sections of iron or non-alloy steel. Regarding bars and rods, Colombia decided not to impose a final measure although it had imposed a provisional measure. Regarding steel angles and regarding angles, shapes and sections of iron or non-alloy steel, the investigations were terminated without any measure. Regarding steel wire rod, a final measure was imposed. All of these notifications were filed recently.^{^[4]}

21. Turkey welcomed the decisions by Colombia regarding bars and rods, steel angles and angles, shapes and sections of iron or non-alloy steel. However, Turkey had doubts regarding the decision on steel wire rod. Turkey recalled that it requested in August 2013 to be excluded from any possible measure by virtue of Article 9.1 of the Agreement. It also recalled that Turkey was not excluded from the provisional measure imposed earlier. Turkey asked that Colombia clarify the situation.

22. Mexico also had doubts regarding the decision on steel wire rod. In Mexico's view, there were several problems regarding transparency and due process. First, the time to react to the invitation for consultation was too short. There were also problems regarding identification of the product under investigation, analysis of competition between imported product and domestic product, analysis of unforeseen developments, of injury and of other factors.

23. Japan also voiced concern regarding the decision on steel wire rod. It reiterated the exceptional nature of the safeguard instrument and asked Colombia to be careful in investigations. It specifically pointed out the fact that some of Colombia's notifications had a time lag of as long as one month after the relevant fact.

24. Costa Rica had been following the investigation regarding steel wire rod very closely, and requested that it be expressly excluded from the measure.

25. Colombia stated that it would refer the comments to the capital. Meanwhile it reiterated that it had complied with the relevant procedures, and had also consulted interested parties. Colombia explained that the responses to some of the points raised could be found in the notification submitted several days before the meeting.^{^[5]}

2.6 Costa Rica – Pounded Rice (1) (G/SG/N/9/CRI/1)

26. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.

2.7 Costa Rica – Pounded Rice (2) (G/SG/N/6/CRI/3)

27. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.

2.8 Dominican Republic - Certain Sports and Other Socks (G/SG/N/10/DOM/2/Suppl.3)

28. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.

2.9 Egypt - Steel Rebar (G/SG/N/7/EGY/8/Suppl.1)

29. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.

2.10 India – Sodium Citrate (G/SG/N/6/IND/36)

30. The EU recalled that it had already expressed concerns in the past regarding the frequent use of safeguards by India. In the view of the EU, India was continuing to do so. The EU found many shortcomings with India's investigations. Given that the mere initiation of an investigation would affect trade in a negative manner, the EU asked India to reconsider its use of the SG instrument.

31. The US also raised concerns with the number of SG investigations initiated by India. India had initiated the most safeguard investigations of any Member. The US had various concerns with India's investigations such as initiations after a low-quality petition, hasty imposition of provisional measures, and lack of solid rationale for the imposition of final measures, and urged India to review its methods and procedures.

32. India stated that its investigation process was thorough, and there were many in-built checks. For example, an inter-ministerial board carefully examined the recommendations of the investigating authority.

2.11 India – Sodium Nitrate (G/SG/N/8/IND/24–G/SG/N/10/IND/15–G/SG/N/11/IND/10 and G/SG/N/10/IND/15/Suppl.1)

33. The US noted that while the final findings had been published in September 2013, the notification was made only in January 2014 and asked why this was so. Referring to another investigation, the US understood that an investigation on non-alloyed ingots of unwrought aluminium was recently initiated and asked when that would be notified.

34. On the first query, India regretted the delay and explained that it was due to internal change of officials. On the second query, India explained that the notification would be made very soon.^{^[6]}

2.12 India - Bare Elastomeric Filament Yarn (G/SG/N/6/IND/35)

35. Japan stated that a safeguard measure on this product, if imposed, would have a negative impact not only for Japan but also for India itself. It stressed that safeguard was an instrument to be used only in exceptional circumstances, and asked India to keep this in mind.

36. Chinese Taipei shared the concerns expressed by other Members about the frequent use of safeguard measures by India. In particular, Chinese Taipei was concerned that the procedures followed by India in the investigations were not satisfactory. On this particular investigation, Chinese Taipei asked India to take into careful consideration all the relevant facts.

2.13 India - Saturated Fatty Alcohols (G/SG/N/6/IND/34)

37. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.

2.14 India – Seamless Pipe (G/SG/Q2/IND/14, G/SG/Q2/IND/15 and G/SG/Q2/IND/16)

38. Russia regretted that India's authority had recommended the imposition of a measure notwithstanding the fact that Russia had registered its concerns with India's authority. In Russia's view, the investigation did not undertake appropriate analysis on increase of imports, on the injury incurred by the domestic industry and on non-attribution. In short, Russia believed that there was no basis to impose a measure. Russia asked India to clarify the situation by responding to the questions it had submitted. It also wished to know when the final decision would be taken.

39. Japan also had concerns with this investigation. First of all, Japan understood that its exports were not in competition with India's domestic product. In addition, in Japan's view, the investigation did not undertake appropriate analysis on unforeseen developments, on increase of imports, and on injury. It asked India to respond to its questions. It also wished to know what the timeline of the next steps was.

40. The EU asked India to clarify the situation by responding to the questions it had submitted.

41. India stated that while it was analysing the questions, the latest findings had been notified very recently.^{^[7]} India explained that it was still a recommendation by the investigating authority, and the measure was not yet imposed.

2.15 Indonesia – Cotton yarn other than sewing thread (G/SG/N/6/IDN/11/Suppl.1 AND G/SG/N/6/IDN/11/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/4/Suppl.3–G/SG/N/10/IDN/4/Suppl.3)

42. The US noted that Indonesia was the second largest user of the SG instrument, and in fact, there were six notifications from Indonesia that were on the agenda of this meeting. The US had serious concerns with Indonesia's investigations in general and encouraged Indonesia to review its methods and procedures and make any necessary reforms to address these concerns. There were problems with procedures as well as with transparency.

43. The EU reiterated the high number of instances where Indonesia had been resorting to safeguards. The justifications of the use of the measure were often questionable. The EU was also worried about the choice of instruments. Many safeguard investigations were initiated after allegations about unfair trade from one single exporter. If that was the case, anti-dumping was the more appropriate instrument to use. The EU welcomed the fact that Indonesia had notified three terminations. However, it urged Indonesia not resort to safeguards if there was a more appropriate instrument.

44. Indonesia stated that it was proceeding in line with the Agreement.

2.16 Indonesia - I and H sections of other alloy steel (G/SG/N/6/IDN/25 and G/SG/N/6/IDN/25/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/6/IDN/25/Suppl.1)

45. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.

2.17 Indonesia - Bars and rods, hot-rolled, in irregularity wound coils (G/SG/N/6/IDN/24 and G/SG/N/6/IDN/24/Suppl.1)

46. Japan shared the concerns of other Members regarding Indonesia's frequent use of safeguards as well as lack of transparency of the process. Regarding this specific investigation, Japan was of the view that products exported from Japan were not in competition with the product produced by the domestic industry. In Japan's view, if a measure was imposed, it would not only hurt Japanese exporters but also hurt users in Indonesia. Japan asked Indonesia to take fully into account its views expressed in the hearing.

47. Chinese Taipei, as a major exporter to Indonesia, shared the concerns of other Members regarding Indonesia's frequent use of safeguards and asked Indonesia to strictly abide by the procedures provide for in the Agreement.

2.18 Indonesia – Kilowatt Hour Meters (G/SG/N/9/IDN/9)

48. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.

2.19 Indonesia – Mackerel (G/SG/N/9/IDN/7)

49. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.

2.20 Indonesia – Sheath Contraceptive (G/SG/N/9/IDN/8)

50. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.

2.21 Israel – Glass Wool and Rock Wool (G/SG/N/8/ISR/1/Rev.1–G/SG/N/11/ISR/2/Rev.1 and G/SG/N/9/ISR/1)

51. The EU noted that there was a notification made on 23 December 2013, and asked Israel to clarify.

52. Israel stated that it would check and inform the EU later.

2.22 Kyrgyz Republic – Wheat Flour (G/SG/N/10/KGZ/2)

53. The US noted that while this notification explained that a "temporary safeguard" was brought into effect and was extended until February 2014, the notification did not describe the measures themselves, and the US asked for a clarification.

54. In the absence of the delegation of the Kyrgyz Republic in the room, the Chair stated that the question would be conveyed to the Kyrgyz Republic.

2.23 MOROCCO - WIRE RODS AND REINFORCING BARS (G/SG/N/8/MAR/3/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/MAR/3–G/SG/N/11/MAR/2/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/MAR/3/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/10/MAR/3/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/MAR/2/Suppl.2)

55. The EU expressed strong doubts whether the proposed measure was justifiable, and stated that it would monitor the situation closely. It also stated that at any rate, applying the measure beyond end of 2014 was unacceptable.

56. Morocco stated that it was available to consult with the EU, and asked the EU to submit the comments in writing.

2.24 Philippines – Newsprint (G/SG/N/6/PHL/9/Suppl.1)

57. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.

2.25 Philippines – Galvanized Iron and Pre-Painted Sheets and Coils (G/SG/N/6/PHL/10/Suppl.1)

58. Australia understood that the problem was with imports from only one country, and that the imports were apparently below cost, and raised doubts about the use of the safeguard instrument in this situation. In Australia's view, the domestic industry has inappropriately attributed injury caused by the implementation of various free trade agreements to imports. In addition, Australia sought an update on the timeframes for the investigation.

59. The Philippines stated that it would advise bilaterally.

2.26 Philippines – Testliner Board (G/SG/N/8/PHL/8/Suppl.3–G/SG/N/10/PHL/7/Suppl.2 – G/SG/N/11/PHL/9/Suppl.3)

60. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.

2.27 Russian Federation - Harvesters (G/SG/N/8/RUS/1/Suppl.4–G/SG/N/10/RUS/1/Suppl.3–G/SG/N/11/RUS/1/Suppl.5)

61. The EU had many doubts about this measure, but limited its comments to the issue of the quota. It noted that the quota for 2014 was 774 pieces. The EU saw no good basis for this figure. The EU also had doubts about the implementation of this quota. The EU understood that of the quota of 774 pieces, only 44 pieces were allocated. The EU asked why this was so.

62. Russia explained that in fact it was surprised when it found out that the traditional suppliers did not apply for the first allocation of the quota. This was the reason why the quota was not fully allocated. For the 2015 quota, traditional suppliers would be allocated at the first stage.

2.28 South Africa – Frozen Potato Chips (G/SG/N/8/ZAF/2–G/SG/N/10/ZAF/2–G/SG/N/11/ZAF/2/Suppl.2)

63. The EU had concerns with this investigation, and was monitoring developments closely. It particularly had doubts about the level of the duty proposed. While it welcomed the fact that the provisional measure had expired, it expected that South Africa would decide not to impose a final measure.

64. South Africa stated that it had fully complied with the requirements of the Agreement. It would refer the EU's questions to the capital.

2.29 Chinese Taipei - High Density Polyethylene and Linear Low Density Polyethylene (G/SG/N/6/TPKM/1)

65. Chinese Taipei explained that the investigation had been terminated, and that the notification to that effect would be submitted shortly.^{^[8]}

2.30 Thailand - Non Alloy Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products (G/SG/N/6/THA/4)

66. Turkey stated that the investigation should be terminated since the necessary conditions were not met.

67. Chinese Taipei asked Thailand to carry out the investigation carefully.

68. Japan pointed out that the safeguard instrument was to be used only in exceptional circumstances, and asked Thailand to take its comments into full consideration in the investigation.

69. Australia was following the investigation closely. It understood that the petitioners had asked that a provisional measure be imposed. Australia asked Thailand to clarify the relevant timelines.

70. Thailand asked that the questions be submitted in writing.

2.31 Turkey - Spectacle frames (G/SG/N/6/TUR/11/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/6/TUR/11/Suppl.1/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/10/TUR/8/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/11/TUR/8/Suppl.2)

71. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.

2.32 Turkey - Travel goods (G/SG/N/6/TUR/12/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/TUR/9/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/10/TUR/9/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/11/TUR/9/Suppl.2)

72. The EU was concerned that Turkey usually extended safeguard measures. In fact, Turkey sometimes extended measures twice. Given that the purpose of safeguard measures was to help the industry adjust, it was not reasonable that a measure lasted, for example, 8 years. The EU asked Turkey to reconsider such practice.

73. Turkey explained that it was not imposing as many measures in recent years in earlier years, and provided an overview of the 16 measures it had imposed since 2006.

2.33 TURKEY - CERTAIN ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES (G/SG/N/8/TUR/10/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/TUR/10/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/TUR/11/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/8/TUR/10/Suppl.1/Corr.1–G/SG/N/10/TUR/10/Suppl.1/Corr.1–G/SG/N/11/TUR/11/Suppl.2/Corr.1)

74. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.

2.34 Ukraine – Tableware and Kitchenware of Porcelain (G/SG/N/8/UKR/4-G/SG/N/10/UKR/4)

75. Ukraine explained that the authority had decided to impose the final measure, and that the notification to that effect was circulated very recently.^{^[9]}

76. Turkey stated that exports from Turkey accounted for less than 3% of the total imports, and so Turkey should be exempted from the measure in light of Article 9.1 of the Agreement.

77. The EU stated that this case illustrated perfectly the problem of the use of the safeguard instrument when imports from one specific source were the cause of the injury. The EU understood that one particular country accounted for more than 94% of total imports, and the average import price of that exporting country was substantially lower than the average import price of other exporting countries. The measure would disproportionally affect exports from countries that had an import price much higher than the average import price. The EU urged Ukraine to reconsider its position. It also asked that the pace of liberalization be accelerated.

78. Ukraine took note of the comments.

2.35 Ukraine – Motor Cars (G/SG/N/8/UKR/3/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/10/UKR/3/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/11/UKR/1/Suppl.1)

79. Ukraine explained that the measure had been liberalized. It then referred to the suspension of concessions taken by Turkey, stated that this suspension was not consistent with the Agreement, and asked Turkey to discontinue the suspension.

80. Turkey welcomed the liberalization and stated that it was considering the next step.

81. Japan welcomed the liberalization as the first step to the right direction, although it came much later than it should have. Japan reiterated its view that the measure was inconsistent with the Agreement, and reminded Ukraine that a panel proceeding was in place.

82. Korea continued to be concerned with the measure. It recalled that there was insufficient evidence to justify the measure, that no adequate consultation was held and that the measure was notified one year after the decision. Korea noted that it was a third party to the ongoing dispute against Ukraine regarding this measure and asked that the measure be withdrawn.

83. Russia was also concerned with the measure, which in its view was inconsistent with the Agreement. Russia asked that the measure be withdrawn.

84. The Committee took note of the statements made.

3 NOTIFICATION OF SAFEGUARD MEASURES BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

85. The Chair explained that this item was put on the agenda at the request of the US, the EU and Chinese Taipei.

86. The US recalled that at the autumn 2013 meeting, it pointed out the lack of notification from Russia regarding one investigation and one measure. No notification had yet been made. Since then, there were five additional investigations and measures all of which had not been notified. The products involved were flatware of stainless steel, certain fasteners, activated carbon, caramel and graphite electrodes. The US was of the view that those investigations and measures should be notified, and asked Russia to clarify the situation. It reserved the right under Article 12.8 of the Agreement to notify those measures.

87. Chinese Taipei noted that notifications were often the only way for exporters to learn about safeguard actions. In this light, it encouraged Russia to provide full notifications of all measures in line with its obligations.

88. The EU agreed with the previous speakers and requested Russia to notify the existing measures that had not been notified.

89. Canada, Japan and Ukraine agreed with the previous speakers.

90. Australia recalled that Russia had explained before its accession how it would ensure compliance with the obligations in the Agreement, and that it would notify all investigations launched before accession as well as all measures resulting from those proceedings. Australia asked Russia to fully abide by its transparency obligations.

91. Russia stated that there was no obligation in the Agreement or in its accession protocol regarding notifications of reviews that did not relate to findings of serious injury or of decisions not to apply a measure or not to extend a measure. Russia was not violating any obligations.

4 Discussion Group regarding Safeguard Proceedings

92. The Chair explained that this item was placed on the agenda at the request of the delegations of Australia; Canada; the EU; Japan; Korea; New Zealand; Norway; Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Singapore; and the US.

93. The EU reminded Members that the informal discussion group meeting would take place after the present meeting. The discussion was open to all Members. The EU recalled that this discussion group evolved from a paper submitted to the Committee in October 2012.^{^[10]} The first discussion group was held in April 2013. Many Members had urged a continuation of the discussion so that the paper would not be just a one-time exercise. The idea behind this discussion group was to provide a broader perspective than the one in normal Committee meetings, taking a distance from discussions of individual cases, and to focus more on each other's experiences and to learn from each other. The topic for that day's discussion was to include: structure of an investigation, establishment of timelines for the various phases of an investigation, comparison of investigatory structure with other phases related to a measure, and how to make the required WTO notifications.

94. The US noted that the informal discussion group had now achieved some regularity, and on that basis, it suggested that some topics discussed in the informal discussions could be discussed in the framework of the Committee. It recalled that there was a process in the Anti-dumping Committee whereby Members submitted papers on selected topics and suggested considering that a similar process be adopted here. The US asked the Chair to hold consultations to pursue such a possibility, and if the Members were amenable to the idea, to consult about the possible first topics.

95. Canada, Chinese Taipei and New Zealand supported the US suggestion that the Chair hold consultations.

96. Ecuador and India each stated that it wished to see the proposal in written form so that Members could consider it well. Ecuador considered that having the proposal in writing was useful, since in a Member-driven process, it was important that Members were well informed of the content of the proposals under consideration.

97. The US stated that rather than submitting the proposal in paper, it preferred that the Chair first hold consultations.

98. The Chair stated that he had noted the US request. Since this was the last Committee meeting he would chair, he asked the incoming chair to hold informal consultations on this matter.

99. The Committee took note of the statements.

5 Other Business

5.1 Statement on an investigation by Indonesia (Wheat Flour) – Item requested by Australia, Turkey and Sri Lanka

100. Australia made a statement regarding Indonesia's investigation regarding wheat flour that was notified in June 2013.^{^[11]} Australia had participated in the proceeding, and continued to be of the view that imposition of a measure was not warranted. It understood that Indonesia was planning to impose a quota, and apparently also limit the ports of entry. Australia observed that ten months had passed since the proposal was made by the investigation authority, and that Indonesia's internal time-limit to take a decision had apparently passed. Australia asked Indonesia not to impose the measure.

101. Turkey explained that it was a major exporter of the investigated product and that it had, like Australia, actively participated in the proceeding. Turkey continued to be of the view that the situation did not warrant the imposition of a safeguard measure. It asked Indonesia not to impose the measure.

102. Sri Lanka did not see any causal relation between imports and injury. In fact, imports have declined toward the end of the investigation period. Sri Lanka regretted the fact that a provisional measure was imposed and that it continued to be in place for more than 200 days. It asked Indonesia to terminate the investigation without any final measure.

103. Ukraine shared the concerns of the previous speakers.

104. Indonesia asked that the questions be submitted in writing.

5.2 Statement regarding notification of a law by Bahrain – Item requested by the US

105. The US noted that the Trade Policy Review report for Bahrain issued recently explained that Bahrain adopted in 2011 a new GCC Common Law on anti-dumping, countervailing measures and safeguards. This law had not yet been notified to the Committee. The US asked Bahrain to make the notification as soon as possible.

106. In the absence of the delegate of Bahrain in the room, the Chair stated that he would convey the US request to Bahrain.

5.3 Statement on an investigation by Thailand (Hot-rolled Steel Flat Products) – Item requested by Korea

107. Korea had concerns regarding Thailand's safeguard measure on hot-rolled steel flat products.^{^[12]} Korea was of the view that the measure was inconsistent with the Agreement. Notably, the product subject to the measure was not the same as the product covered in the investigation. Specifically, steel used in the automobile industry was excluded from the measure. Korea did not find this to be reasonable. Korea also found the lack of non-attribution analysis to be problematic. Korea asked Thailand to terminate the measure.

108. Thailand asked that the question be submitted in writing.

5.4 Statement on an investigation by Indonesia (Flat-rolled Product) – Item requested by Viet Nam

109. Viet Nam made a statement regarding Indonesia's investigation on flat-rolled product of iron or non-alloy steel that was initiated in December 2012.^{^[13]} Viet Nam had submitted comments on this notification, but had not yet heard any reaction. Viet Nam asked Indonesia to clarify the situation.

110. Indonesia asked that the question be submitted in writing.

5.5 Proposal to Hold a Seminar on Notifications – Item requested by New Zealand

111. New Zealand stated that Members have often noted that the nature and extent of details contained in notifications from Members varied. Against this background, New Zealand proposed that the Chair consult with the Secretariat regarding the possibility of holding a seminar regarding notifications in order to improve the quality of notifications. New Zealand further suggested that such seminar could be recorded so that Members could refer to it later as well.

112. The US, Colombia, Canada, Japan, Chinese Taipei, Australia and the Dominican Republic welcomed the idea and supported the proposal put forward by New Zealand. Australia supported a safeguards-specific seminar.

113. The Chair stated that since this was the last Committee meeting he would chair, he would ask the incoming Chair to hold an informal consultation on this matter.

114. The Committee took note of all the statements made under Other Business.

6 DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING

115. The Chair suggested that the Committee meet in the week of 27 October 2014. The exact date would be confirmed in due course.

116. The Committee so decided.

7 Election of Officers

117. The Chair stated that the chair of the Council for Trade in Goods had carried out informal consultations on the nomination of chairs for the different bodies operating under the auspices of the Council for Trade in Goods. The proposed nominations were taken note of by the Council for Trade in Goods. Concerning this Committee, the chair of the Council for Trade in Goods proposed the nomination of Ms Kim Kampel of South Africa. He therefore proposed that the Committee elect Ms Kim Kampel as Chair.

118. The Committee so decided.

119. Regarding the position of Vice-Chair of the Committee, the Chair stated that he had conducted consultations with a number of Members, and on the basis of those consultations he proposed that the Committee elect Mr Mitsuhiro Fukuyama of Japan as Vice-Chair of the Committee.

120. The Committee so decided.

__________

^{^[1]} See G/SG/Q1/MNE/2.

^{^[2]} See G/SG/Q1/TPKM/8.

^{^[3]} These Members were: Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tonga and Vanuatu.

^{^[4]} See documents G/SG/N/7/COL/2/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/11/COL/2/Suppl.2 (bars and rods), G/SG/N/9/COL/5 (steel angles), G/SG/N/9/COL/4 (angles, shapes and sections of iron or non-alloy steel), and G/SG/N/8/COL/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/COL/1–G/SG/N/11/COL/1/Suppl.3 (steel wire rod).

^{^[5]} See document G/SG/N/8/COL/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/COL/1–G/SG/N/11/COL/1/Suppl.3.

^{^[6]} Subsequently notified in document G/SG/N/6/IND/37.

^{^[7]} See document G/SG/N/8/IND/25–G/SG/N/10/IND/16–G/SG/N/11/IND/11.

^{^[8]} Subsequently circulated in document G/SG/N/9/TPKM/1.

^{^[9]} See document G/SG/N/8/UKR/4/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/UKR/4/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/UKR/2.

^{^[10]} See document G/SG/W/226.

^{^[11]} See document G/SG/N/8/IDN/15–G/SG/N/10/IDN/15.

^{^[12]} See document G/SG/N/8/THA/2/Suppl.3–G/SG/N/10/THA/2–G/SG/N/11/THA/2/Suppl.2.

^{^[13]} See document G/SG/N/6/IDN/22.

Committee on Safeguards - Minutes of the regular meeting held on 28 April 2014

1.2 The Gambia - review of new legislative notification (G/SG/N/1/GMB/1)

1.10 Russia – Continuing review of previously reviewed notification (G/SG/N/1/RUS/1)

2.11 India – Sodium Nitrate (G/SG/N/8/IND/24–G/SG/N/10/IND/15–G/SG/N/11/IND/10 and G/SG/N/10/IND/15/Suppl.1)

2.16 Indonesia - I and H sections of other alloy steel (G/SG/N/6/IDN/25 and G/SG/N/6/IDN/25/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/6/IDN/25/Suppl.1)

2.32 Turkey - Travel goods (G/SG/N/6/TUR/12/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/TUR/9/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/10/TUR/9/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/11/TUR/9/Suppl.2)

2.34 Ukraine – Tableware and Kitchenware of Porcelain (G/SG/N/8/UKR/4-G/SG/N/10/UKR/4)

5.2 Statement regarding notification of a law by Bahrain – Item requested by the US

聯絡我們

中心簡介

WTO/RTA

資料庫

研究評析

電子報

影音/活動