7. The US clarified that since this was a multi-symbolled document, and the question related to anti-dumping, it preferred that the discussion take place in the Committee on Anti-dumping Practices.

1.5 Montenegro – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/MNE/1/Suppl.1)

8. The Chair stated that written questions concerning this notification had been received from the United States in document G/SG/Q1/MNE/3, and Montenegro had submitted responses to the questions in document G/SG/Q1/MNE/4.

9. Montenegro explained its responses.^{^[1]}

10. The US thanked Montenegro for the transparency and confirmed that it had no more questions.

11. The Chair recalled that the deadline for written questions concerning any legislation reviewed at this meeting was 17 November 2014. The deadline for written answers to all written questions, including questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, was 8 December 2014.

12. The Chair informed the Committee that 22 Members had not yet made a legislative notification.^{^[2]} 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.

13. The US thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for the efforts to facilitate legislative notifications and encouraged those Members who had not yet made a legislative notification to make the necessary notification relevant to their individual situations.

14. The Committee took note of the statements made.

2 NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES

15. Canada stated that it continued to be concerned with the high number of safeguard measures imposed, and requested imposing Members to strictly observe the relevant obligations since safeguard measures affected otherwise legitimate trade.

16. The US observed that there were 36 safeguard actions reviewed at the meeting which was the most numerous since 2010, and the 3^rd most numerous since 1995. The US wondered whether all of those investigations could qualify as emergency measures, and requested Members to be careful in initiating and conducting investigations.

17. Australia agreed with the previous speakers. Australia noted it was often the case that the choice of trade remedy through the use of safeguard measures was not appropriate in the circumstances. Australia highlighted the frequent delays in notifications of initiations as well as between the findings of an investigation and the decision to impose a safeguard measure. This called into question the justification of such actions.

18. The EU asked that Members explore whether a problem could be solved by the more focused instruments of anti-dumping and countervailing duties before initiating SG investigations.

19. Japan and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ("Chinese Taipei") agreed with the previous speakers.

2.1 Colombia - Steel wire rod (G/SG/N/8/COL/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/COL/1–G/SG/N/11/COL/1/Suppl.3 and G/SG/N/8/COL/1/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/8/COL/1/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/10/COL/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/COL/1/Suppl.4)

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

2.2 Colombia – Bars of iron or non-alloy steel and wire rods of iron or non-alloy steel (G/Sg/N/7/Col/2/Suppl.2–G/Sg/N/11/Col/2/Suppl.2)

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

2.3 Colombia - Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel (G/Sg/N/9/Col/4)

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

2.4 Colombia - Steel angles (G/SG/N/9/COL/5)

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

2.5 Ecuador - Wood and Bamboo Flooring and Accessories Thereof (G/SG/N/6/ECU/9 and G/SG/N/6/ECU/9/Corr.1)

24. Peru raised concerns regarding this investigation. It stated that there was insufficient analysis made in the investigation, for example, regarding increase of imports, injury and causal relationship.

25. Ecuador explained that in relation to transparency and due process, it had made timely notification, had invited participation of interested parties, and would conduct necessary consultations and hearings. Ecuador took this opportunity to ask how the dates indicated in the circulated version of notifications were determined in general.

26. At the request of the Chair, the Secretariat explained that the date that appeared at the top right corner of the notification indicated the date when the document was posted on the WTO's electronic system to be made available to all the Members. The date in the introductory part of the notification, just below the title, was the date when the notifying Member submitted the notification to the Secretariat. He added that depending on how busy the relevant Secretariat staff was, and on how long/complicated the notification was, the two dates could differ by several days.

2.6 Egypt – Steel Rebar (G/SG/N/6/EGY/10-G/SG/N/7/EGY/9-G/SG/N/11/EGY/8)

27. The US recalled that Egypt had earlier initiated an investigation on the same product. After imposing a provisional measure, Egypt notified in December 2013 that the investigation had been terminated since the threat of serious injury was not attributable to imports. The US first asked what had changed since that conclusion was made. Second, referring to Article 7.5 of the Agreement, the US asked how Egypt could now impose a provisional measure in light of the fact that a provisional measure was imposed during the last investigation.

28. Turkey explained that it had substantial interest in this investigation as an exporter. It reiterated that SG was an emergency measure and thus Members needed to abide by stringent requirements. In addition, Turkey recalled that Egypt initiated an anti-dumping investigation on the same product in October 2010, while terminating it in July 2011. Egypt then initiated a SG investigation on the same product in November 2012, subsequently imposing a provisional measure, and then terminating the investigation. While none of these investigations had resulted in a final measure, they had deterrent effects. Turkey reserved all its rights under the WTO Agreements, and asked Egypt to terminate this investigation.

29. Ukraine stated that it was one of the main exporters of this product. Ukraine saw many deficiencies in this investigation – for example, regarding determination of trends of imports, injury, causal link, unforeseen development, and level of SG duty. Ukraine asked Egypt to terminate this investigation.

30. Responding to the first query of the US, Egypt explained that the new investigation was based on new data from a new investigation period, and so was not inconsistent with the decision to terminate the first investigation. Regarding the second query of the US, Egypt reiterated that the measure taken in the first investigation was a 200-day provisional measure, and that more than one year had passed since the provisional measure in the first investigation was terminated.

2.7 India - Seamless Pipes, Tubes and Hollow Profiles of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/8/IND/25–G/SG/N/10/IND/16–G/SG/N/11/IND/11 and G/SG/N/8/IND/25/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/IND/16/Suppl.1G/SG/N/11/IND/11/Suppl.1)

31. The Chair explained that questions from Japan, European Union and Russia regarding this investigation were left unanswered.

32. Japan noted that India was the most frequent user of the SG instrument. On this particular investigation, Japan had raised concerns at past Committee meetings as well as in the hearing. In particular, Japan had several concerns with the final report published in March 2014, such as the lack of an adequate finding on unforeseen developments, on increased imports and on serious injury. Japan was waiting for India's responses to its questions.

33. The Russian Federation stated that it was currently in bilateral discussions with India.

34. Noting that India was the largest user of the SG measure, Chinese Taipei expressed its concerns regarding India's procedures, including due process.

35. The EU noted that India was the largest user of the SG instrument, and that its use of this instrument was increasing. The EU was of the view that the investigations were generally initiated on weak grounds, and the quality of the analysis made in the course of the investigations was not of the required standard. In addition, it asked that a country-specific instrument be used when the source of the problem was an increase of exports from only one country. Moving to the particular investigation at hand, the EU noted that the determination of increased imports was not proper, as in fact imports had declined. The injury determination was not adequate as well. The EU asked that this measure be repealed.

36. The US noted that India was by far the largest user of SG investigations. Eight investigations by India were included in the agenda of this meeting. The US was alarmed at the rate at which investigations were brought and asked India to strictly abide by the rules. The US also regretted the ambiguity and untimeliness of the notifications. The US asked India to clarify these matters.

37. India explained that the findings of its DG Safeguards were recommendatory in nature. Its recommendations were tabled before an inter-ministry board, which would send its recommendation to the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance would then notify the conclusion. SG measures would not become applicable until such notifications were made. India further explained that of the 8 investigations that were included in the agenda of this meeting, 3 were terminated. India stressed that it was following relevant disciplines of the Agreement, including making notifications. As for the questions from Japan, EU and Russia, responses were currently being prepared.

2.8 India - Saturated Fatty Alcohols (G/SG/N/8/IND/26–G/SG/N/10/IND/17–G/SG/N/11/IND/12)

38. Indonesia noted that this notification was a recommendation to impose a provisional measure. Indonesia had several concerns, in particular with the injury analysis. Indonesia had already made this point at the hearing. Indonesia asked India not to impose a final measure.

39. Malaysia supported Indonesia's statement.

2.9 India - Sodium Di-Chromate (G/SG/N/6/IND/39)

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

2.10 India - Flexible Slabstock Polyol of Molecular Weight 3000 to 4000 (G/SG/N/6/IND/38)

41. Japan raised concerns about this investigation, and asked that India strictly abide by the Agreement in conducting the investigation.

2.11 India - PX-13 (G/SG/N/8/IND/21/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/10/IND/12/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/11/IND/7/Suppl.2)

42. Chile asked India to clarify the status of this investigation.

43. India clarified that the investigation had been terminated, and no final measure was imposed.

2.12 India - Not-Alloyed Ingots of Unwrought Aluminium (G/SG/N/6/IND/37 and G/SG/N/9/IND/12)

44. Australia was concerned with the frequency with which India was initiating SG investigations, particularly since the basis of many initiations was unclear and the choice of safeguards as the appropriate remedy was unclear. Australia was also concerned with the significant delays in notifications, often beyond the deadlines for exporters' views. This affected the exporters' ability to defend themselves. Concerning the particular investigation, in Australia's view, the imported products and the products produced by the domestic industry were not like products and there was no evidence of serious injury or causation. The determinations regarding unforeseen developments and critical circumstances also were not adequate.

45. India explained that the investigation had been terminated.

2.13 India – Bare Elastomeric Filament Yarn (G/SG/N/9/IND/11)

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

2.14 India – Sodium Citrate (G/SG/N/8/IND/27–G/SG/N/10/IND/18–G/SG/N/11/IND/13)

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

2.15 Indonesia - Coated Paper and Paperboard, not Including Banknotes Paper (G/SG/N/6/IDN/26 AND G/SG/N/6/IDN/26/Suppl.1)

48. The EU urged Indonesia not to initiate SG investigations if the increase of imports was from one country only. Initiation of SG investigations would negatively affect all importers due to the uncertainty of the outcome. The EU also asked Indonesia to closely follow the disciplines of the Agreement in conducting its investigations, and in particular, in conducting the investigations initiated in the course of 2014.

49. Noting that Indonesia often resorted to SG, Japan reiterated that SG was an instrument to be used only in exceptional circumstances. Japan asked Indonesia to abide by the disciplines of the Agreement and to fully take into account the comments Japan had conveyed to Indonesia.

50. Chinese Taipei was also concerned with Indonesia's frequent use of the SG instrument. It asked Indonesia to ensure that all SG actions were based on solid evidence.

51. Indonesia explained that it had initiated the investigation based on solid evidence. Indonesia was abiding by the Agreement, including by holding hearings. It noted that Japan, EU and Korea had participated in the hearing.

2.16 Indonesia - Cotton Yarn Other Than Sewing Thread (G/SG/N/8/IDN/4/Suppl.4–G/SG/N/10/IDN/4/Suppl.4)

52. India was concerned with this investigation. While India had problems with the original measure, it noted that the measure had now been extended to last more than three years in total. India had particular doubts about the determination regarding unforeseen developments.

53. Indonesia explained that the investigation was conducted in line with the Agreement.

2.17 Indonesia – Wheat Flour (G/SG/N/8/IDN/15/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/IDN/15/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/IDN/13)

54. Australia was of the view that this investigation should not have been initiated to begin with. Indonesia should have resorted to other instruments. Australia was also concerned over considerable delays between completion of the investigation and the decision to apply a measure. In Australia's view, this delay only showed that the situation did not warrant an emergency measure to be taken.

55. Indonesia confirmed that the final measure was imposed on 4 May 2014.

2.18 Indonesia - Flat-Rolled Product of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/8/IDN/16–G/SG/N/10/IDN/16 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/16/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/IDN/16/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/IDN/14)

56. Viet Nam was concerned with the outcome of the investigation. In its view, there were problems regarding how Indonesia determined unforeseen developments, serious injury, and causal link.

57. Indonesia stated that the investigation had been conducted in accordance with the Agreement. It had held hearings, and had consulted with Viet Nam in October 2014.

2.19 Indonesia – I and H Sections of Other Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/8/IDN/17-G/SG/N/10/IDN/17)

58. China stated that its comments relate not only to this specific item, but also to Indonesia's investigation on bars and rods, which was ongoing, but not part of the agenda for the meeting. Chinese exporters had fully cooperated in these two investigations. In China's view there was no injury or causal relationship in these two cases. These SG measures would only go against public interest of Indonesia. In addition, Indonesia had imposed import licensing restrictions on these two products. An anti-dumping duty had also been imposed in the case of I and H sections of other alloy steel. In China's view, imposing SG duties in addition to all these measures was simply an over-protection. China asked Indonesia to strictly abide by the Agreement.

59. Indonesia explained with regards I and H sections of other alloy steel that it had found serious injury and causal relationship. Indonesia was prepared to consult with China.

2.20 Jordan - Writing and Printing Papers Size A4 (G/SG/N/6/JOR/17)

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

2.21 Jordan – Bars and Rods (G/SG/N/11/JOR/4/Suppl.2)

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

2.22 Kyrgyz Republic – Wheat Flour (G/SG/N/8/KGZ/2-G/SG/N/10/KGZ/2/Suppl.1)

62. The US pointed out that the notification simply stated that the measure "shall be applied in the form of special customs duties", and its exact form, such as the duty rate, was not clarified.

63. Kyrgyz Republic stated that it would look into the matter.

2.23 Malaysia - Hot-Rolled Steel Plate (G/SG/N/6/MYS/2)

64. Japan had concerns with this investigation. In Japan's view, there were no exceptional circumstances. Japan asked Malaysia to abide by the disciplines of the Agreement and to fully take into account the comments Japan had conveyed to Malaysia.

65. Malaysia explained that the investigation was ongoing, and that Malaysia would abide by the disciplines of the Agreement.

66. EU pointed out that SG measures were the most restrictive of the three trade remedy instruments, and should be taken only in exceptional circumstances.

2.24 Morocco - Cold-Rolled Sheets and Plated or Coated Sheets (G/SG/N/6/MAR/8)

67. The EU was concerned with Morocco's increased use of SG. SG measures were normally not the cure of the fundamental problem, but were transitional measures to facilitate adjustment of the domestic industry. More specifically, EU noted that there were two SG investigations by Morocco on the agenda of this meeting, and both of these investigations were in the steel sector with the same producer. EU did not find any rational basis for initiating this investigation. The EU was also paying close attention to how Morocco's analysis would treat imports brought into its free trade zone.

68. Morocco clarified that it had initiated only one investigation in 2012 and another in 2014. Morocco would take all relevant data into account when conducting this investigation. As for imports from the free trade zone, Morocco was currently considering the way forward.

2.25 Morocco - Wire Rods and Reinforcing Bars (G/SG/N/8/MAR/3/Suppl.1/Corr.1–G/SG/N/10/MAR/3/Corr.1–G/SG/N/11/MAR/2/Suppl.1/Corr.1)

69. Turkey stated that it was originally exempted from this measure by virtue of Article 9.1 of the Agreement. However, with this notified revision, Turkey was re-included in the measure. Turkey deemed this action to violate the Agreement, and asked Morocco to rectify the situation.

70. Morocco confirmed that Turkey was initially exempted from the measure but was now re-included in the measure because imports from Turkey had increased. Morocco was of the view that this action did not contradict the Agreement.

2.26 Philippines – Newsprint (G/SG/N/6/PHL/9/Suppl.2)

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

2.27 South Africa – Frozen Potato Chips (G/SG/N/8/ZAF/2/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/ZAF/2/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/ZAF/2/Suppl.3)

72. The EU was disappointed with this investigation since it saw several substantive and procedural problems. First, the domestic industry had a market share of 98%, and there was no injury. Second, the duty rate was prohibitive and unnecessary. Third, South Africa was imposing a safeguard measure in addition to an anti-dumping measure. Finally, South Africa imposed a final measure after the provisional measure had expired.

73. South Africa asked that any questions and comments be submitted in writing.

2.28 Chinese Taipei - High Density Polyethylene and Linear Low Density Polyethylene (G/SG/N/9/TPKM/1)

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

2.29 Thailand - Non-Alloy Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products (G/SG/N/7/THA/3–G/SG/N/11/THA/3 and G/SG/N/7/THA/3/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/THA/3/Suppl.1)

75. Turkey explained that it had been consulting with Thailand regarding this investigation. In Turkey's view, the conditions necessary to impose a measure did not exist. In particular, the determination regarding unforeseen developments, injury and causal relationship were problematic. Turkey reserved all its rights under the relevant WTO Agreements.

76. Japan had concerns with this investigation. In Japan's view, there were no exceptional circumstances. Japan asked Thailand to abide by the disciplines of the Agreement and to fully take into account the comments Japan had conveyed to Thailand.

77. Chinese Taipei pointed out that the provisional measure came into force on 6 June 2014, while the notification of the decision was made in September 2014. Chinese Taipei was concerned with the delay.

78. Australia was concerned about the decision to impose a provisional measure and the delay in notification of that decision. Australia recalled that it had made this point at the hearing as well. Australia asked for an update on consideration of a final measure.

79. Korea, Republic of was also concerned with this investigation. In particular, Korea saw no causal link between the imports and the alleged injury.

80. Thailand asked that any questions and comments be submitted in writing.

2.30 Tunisia – Fibreboard of Wood (G/SG/N/6/TUN/3)

2.31 Tunisia – Glass Bottles (G/SG/N/6/TUN/4)

81. The EU commented on both investigations – regarding fibreboard of wood and glass bottles. The EU was concerned with the delay of both notifications. It asked Tunisia to carefully follow the obligations in the Agreement. The EU also asked Tunisia to provide non-confidential summaries of relevant documents.

82. Tunisia took note of The EU's comments.

2.32 Turkey - Polyethylene Terephthalate (G/SG/N/10/TUR/13/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/14/TUR/10 and G/SG/N/8/TUR/13/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/TUR/13/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/11/TUR/16/Suppl.1)

83. The EU observed that Turkey almost systematically extended all its safeguard measures. In EU's view, this was often done on a weak basis. The EU urged Turkey to reconsider this practice. Regarding this particular investigation, EU was of the view that extension of the measure was not warranted because the share of imports had decreased and production of the domestic industry had increased. The EU reminded that safeguards should not be used as an industrial policy tool.

84. Turkey explained that its investigations whether or not to extend the measure were carried out in a manner consistent with the Agreement. Turkey asked that any questions and comments be submitted in writing.

2.33 Turkey - Printing, Writing and Copying Paper (G/SG/N/6/TUR/18)

85. The EU had several concerns with this investigation. First, the increase in imports was not recent, sudden or sharp enough to justify a measure, and in fact the share of imports merely went back to its original ratio. Second, there was no serious injury. Third, the conditions of imports such as price trends did not warrant a measure. The EU asked Turkey to carefully abide by the Agreement.

86. Turkey indicated that the investigation would be conducted in accordance with the Agreement.

2.34 Turkey – Terephthalic Acid (G/Sg/N/8/Tur/14–G/Sg/N/10/Tur/14–G/Sg/N/11/Tur/19)

87. The EU was disappointed that Turkey had decided to impose the measure notwithstanding the weak evidence. The EU expected that Turkey would not extend this measure.

88. Turkey took note of the statement.

2.35 Ukraine - Tableware and Kitchenware of Porcelain (G/SG/N/8/UKR/4/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/UKR/4/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/UKR/2)

89. Egypt stated that although it did not export the subject product to Ukraine during the relevant period, Egypt was not included in the list of developing countries exempted from the measure by virtue of Article 9.1 of the Agreement. Egypt asked that it be exempted from the measure and added to the list.

90. Ukraine took note of Egypt's statement.

2.36 Ukraine - Casing and Pump-Compressor Seamless Steel Pipes (G/SG/N/8/UKR/1/Suppl.3-G/SG/N/14/UKR/1/Suppl.2)

91. The Russian Federation expressed concerns regarding Ukraine's decision to extend the existing measure. First, Ukraine did not conduct an investigation before it decided to extend the measure. In particular, Ukraine did not find increased imports or injury. Second, Ukraine did not allocate the import quota adequately. Third, Ukraine did not take any action to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions. Finally, if Ukraine's position was that this was a new measure, it was in breach of Article 7.5 of the Agreement.

92. Ukraine explained that interested parties could submit comments until 14 November 2014.

93. The Chair reminded delegations that any questions for which written responses were requested should be submitted to the Member concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 17 November 2014. Written responses to questions, including questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, should be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 8 December 2014. As with legislative notifications, any unanswered questions would be indicated in the draft annotated agenda of the next meeting.

94. The Committee took note of the statements made.

3 Continued Non-Notification Of Safeguard Measures By The Russian Federation (item requested by the US)

95. The US recalled that it had pointed out at the October 2013 meeting that Russia had initiated an investigation and imposed a measure on corrosion resistant pipe and tubes, but no notification had been made. After October 2013, the US learned of five more investigations and measures which had not been notified. The products involved were flatware of stainless steel, certain fasteners, activated carbon, caramel and graphite electrodes. Russia acceded to the WTO in August 2012, and the US understood that all of these measures were in effect at the time. The US noted that Russia did not understand that Article 12.7 of the Agreement or paragraph 620 of the Working Party Report would apply to this situation. The US provided several reasons why it did not agree with this understanding. The US continued to request that the Russian Federation notify those measures to the Committee.

96. Australia, the EU, Japan, Chinese Taipei, Canada and Norway shared the concerns and supported the views of the US.

97. The Russian Federation recalled that it had provided explanations on several occasions including in the General Council and the Council for Trade in Goods, as well as at relevant bilateral consultations. Russia understood that there were six measures at issue: flatware of stainless steel, certain fasteners, activated carbon, caramel, graphite electrodes and flatware of stainless steel. Russia provided several reasons why Article 12.7 of the Agreement was not applicable to those measures. Russia then provided a brief history of each of those investigations including the fact that the measure on flatware of stainless steel had expired on 26 December 2012, the measure on certain fasteners had expired on 17 March 2014, the measure on activated carbon had expired on 7 September 2014, the measure on caramel had expired on 7 July 2014, the measure on graphite electrodes had expired on 30 August 2012, and the measure on flatware of stainless steel was expected to expire on 1 November 2014. Russia had not acted contrary to any of the obligations of the Agreement, and so Russia doubted whether any Member had to right to make notifications under Article 12.8 of the Agreement.

4 Non-Notification Of Legislation By The Kingdom Of Bahrain

98. The US stated that the Trade Policy Report of Bahrain indicated that Bahrain had adopted the new Gulf Cooperation Council ("GCC") Common Law on Anti-dumping, Countervailing Measures and Safeguards. The US noted that that law had not yet been notified to the Committee, and urged Bahrain to make the relevant notification.

99. Bahrain, Kingdom of explained that the law the US was referring to needed to be notified collectively by the GCC countries. Bahrain would keep the US and the Committee updated on any new developments.

100. US stated that it understood that making SG notifications was something to be done by each country.

5 Other Business

5.1 Statement on an investigation by India (cold rolled flat products of stainless steel) – Item requested by Japan

101. Japan referred to a notification by India made very recently and that could not be included in the agenda of the meeting. It was a notification regarding initiation of an investigation on cold rolled flat products of stainless steel.^{^[3]} Japan noted that the investigation was initiated on 19 September 2014, but the notification was made only on 20 October 2014.

102. India stated that it was doing its best to make notifications in a timely manner.

103. Japan stressed that timely notification was very important, not only for India but for all investigating Members. In that context Japan asked the Secretariat to produce a compilation of the timelines of Members' notifications. Japan clarified that it had in mind a compilation of the timing when investigating Members initiated the investigation and when it was notified to the Committee.

104. Australia asked whether Japan had in mind a compilation indicating individual Members.

105. The EU stated that it saw no harm in such compilation as long as the compilation covered the notifying Members in a non-discriminatory manner.

106. The Chair took note of Japan's proposal. Further clarity would be sought from Japan.

5.2 Statement regarding an investigation by the Philippines (galvanized iron and pre-painted sheets and coils) – Item requested by Australia

107. Australia referred to a notification made by the Philippines regarding an investigation on galvanized iron and pre-painted sheets and coils, which was discussed at the spring 2014 meeting.^{^[4]} Australia wished to know the latest situation regarding this investigation.

108. The Philippines responded that it would check.

5.3 Chair's statements

109. First, in the interests of full transparency, the Chair wished to report on the informal consultation held on 16 July 2014 regarding two issues. She reminded Members that at the spring 2014 regular meeting, two proposals were tabled by Members, and at the suggestion of the outgoing chair, she had convened the open-ended informal consultations in July to allow for further discussion. She recalled that she had initially reported the results of this informal consultation to all the Members in a fax dated 28 July 2014. The first issue related to the idea put forward by the US regarding the so-called "discussion group regarding safeguard proceedings". As these discussions, which had been held after each Committee meeting since 2013, had now achieved some regularity, the US had suggested that some of the topics could now be discussed in the framework of the Committee. The proponents had explained that they envisaged the identification of topics on which Members could volunteer to submit papers to form the basis of informal discussions. While some Members had supported the idea, others still had concerns or needed more clarification. The Chair recalled that, at the conclusion of the informal consultations, she had suggested that Members continue to discuss among themselves and reflect further on this issue. She had also emphasised that any further action on this issue, would be on the basis of a Member-driven process and she would await further guidance from Members, should they wish the issue to be taken forward. As at the date of the current meeting, no further feedback had been received from Members on this issue. The second issue concerned a proposal by New Zealand regarding a seminar on Safeguard notifications, with a view to improve the quality of notifications. Broad support had been expressed for this idea in the informal consultation. She recalled that she had communicated with the Members on this issue on 5 September 2014, and again on 30 September 2014. She reminded Members that this very seminar would take place immediately after the meeting and she invited full participation. The slides and the audio recordings of the seminar would subsequently be posted on the "Members' website" of the WTO.

110. Second, the Chair drew the attention of the Members to the importance of keeping the e‑mail addresses of delegations updated. Delegates that were new to the Safeguards Committee were reminded to inform the Secretariat.

6 Annual Report to the Council for Trade in Goods

111. The Committee adopted its annual report (see document G/L/1087).

7 DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING

112. The Chair suggested that the Committee meet in the week of 27 April 2015. The exact date would be confirmed in due course.

113. The Committee so decided.

__________

^{^[1]} See document G/SG/Q1/MNE/4 for details.

^{^[2]} These Members were: Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Belize, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, the Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Montenegro, Mozambique, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga and Vanuatu.

^{^[3]} See G/SG/N/6/IND/40.

^{^[4]} See G/SG/N/6/PHL/10.

Committee on Safeguards - Minutes of the regular meeting held on 27 October 2014

1.1 Cameroon – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1)

2.11 India - PX-13 (G/SG/N/8/IND/21/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/10/IND/12/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/11/IND/7/Suppl.2)

2.18 Indonesia - Flat-Rolled Product of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/8/IDN/16–G/SG/N/10/IDN/16 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/16/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/IDN/16/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/IDN/14)

2.26 Philippines – Newsprint (G/SG/N/6/PHL/9/Suppl.2)

2.28 Chinese Taipei - High Density Polyethylene and Linear Low Density Polyethylene (G/SG/N/9/TPKM/1)

2.33 Turkey - Printing, Writing and Copying Paper (G/SG/N/6/TUR/18)

5.1 Statement on an investigation by India (cold rolled flat products of stainless steel) – Item requested by Japan

聯絡我們

中心簡介

WTO/RTA

資料庫

研究評析

電子報

影音/活動