1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION

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  Bolivia – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/ADP/N/1/BOL/3 ‑ G/SCM/N/1/BOL/3 ‑ G/SG/N/1/BOL/2)

5.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted by the United States and can be found in document:

·              G/ADP/Q1/BOL/4 ‑ G/SCM/Q1/BOL/4 ‑ G/SG/Q1/BOL/1

6.  Bolivia took the floor to explain the notification, and stated that it was analysing the US questions and that the answers would be notified as soon as possible.

7.  The United States stated that it was looking forward to receiving the responses.

8.  No written answers had been received to date.

1.1.2  Costa Rica – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/ADP/N/1/CRI/3/SUPPL.1 – G/SCM/N/1/CRI/4/SUPPL.1 – G/SG/N/1/CRI/4/SUPPL.1)

9.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted by the United States and can be found in document:

·              G/ADP/Q1/CRI/15 ‑ G/SCM/Q1/CRI/15 ‑ G/SG/Q1/CRI/9

10.  Costa Rica stated that it was working on the questions and would provide the responses as soon as possible. (The responses were subsequently submitted in document G/ADP/Q1/CRI/15 ‑ G/SCM/Q1/CRI/15 ‑ G/SG/Q1/CRI/9.)

1.1.3  Ghana – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 – G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 – G/SG/N/1/GHA/2

11.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted by the United States and can be found in document:

·              G/ADP/Q1/GHA/1 – G/SCM/Q1/GHA/1 – G/SG/Q1/GHA/1

12.  Responses were subsequently submitted in document G/ADP/Q1/GHA/2 – G/SCM/Q1/GHA/2 – G/SG/Q1/GHA/2.

1.1.4  India – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.3)

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

1.1.5  Lao – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/LAO/2)

14.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted by the United States and can be found in document:

·              G/ADP/Q1/LAO/1 ‑ G/SCM/Q1/LAO/1 ‑ G/SG/Q1/LAO/1

15.  Lao stated that its capital was considering the US questions. (The responses were subsequently submitted in document G/ADP/Q1/LAO/2 ‑ G/SCM/Q1/LAO/2 ‑ G/SG/Q1/LAO/2.)

1.1.6  Tonga – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/TON/1)

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

1.1.7  United Kingdom – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1 – G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1 – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1, G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.1 – G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.2, G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.3 – G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.3 – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.3, G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4 –G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4 – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4, G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.5 – G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.5 – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.5, G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.6 –G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.6 – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.6, G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.7, G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.9 – G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.9 – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.8, G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.10 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.10 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.9, G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.11 -G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.11 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.10)

17.  Written questions regarding these notifications had been submitted by the United States and can be found in documents:

·              G/ADP/Q1/GBR/1 ‑ G/SCM/Q1/GBR/1 ‑ G/SG/Q1/GBR/1

·              G/ADP/Q1/GBR/3 ‑ G/SCM/Q1/GBR/3 ‑ G/SG/Q1/GBR/2

·              G/SG/Q1/GBR/3

18.  The United Kingdom explained that following its withdrawal from the European Union, it put in place a domestic trade remedies system that would provide the UK industry with the ability to compete on a level playing field. During the "UK‑EU transition period", which would end on 31 December 2020, EU law, with a few limited exceptions, continued to be applicable to and in the United Kingdom. In preparation for the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, the United Kingdom commenced in March 2019 elements of the legislation putting in place its trade remedies system, including safeguards legislation. The notifications listed on the agenda concerned the primary and secondary legislation passed by the UK Parliament to date. The trade remedies system was built on 4 principles: impartiality, proportionality, efficiency and transparency. While the UK Government was clear that the system would be delivered by an independent body – the Trade Remedies Authority – the legal creation of this body required primary legislation to be passed by the UK Parliament. This legislation was currently undergoing its final stages of parliamentary scrutiny. Until the legislation passes, the Government temporarily set up the Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate within the Department for International Trade, which would carry out investigations. Once the Trade Remedies Authority is established as an independent body, the United Kingdom would notify Members. In order to provide continuity to industry following its departure from the European Union, the UK Government had committed to maintain those definitive trade remedy measures applied before the end of the UK‑EU transition period, where there was UK producer interest. These measures were established on the basis of investigations covering the whole territory of the European Union, including the United Kingdom. That was why those measures would be continued in respect of the territory of the United Kingdom from the end of the transition period. The measures would each undergo a transition review to ensure they continue to reflect the circumstances of the market of the United Kingdom. This could lead to a measure being amended or terminated. Exporters and foreign governments would be able to engage in the review process, for example by making submissions and requesting hearings. The investigating body would send questionnaires to foreign exporters in the early stage of a review period to gather data and evidence. Finally, the United Kingdom reminded Members that it has organized an information session that afternoon.

19.  The United States stated that it looked forward to seeing the responses to its questions in writing.

20.  No written answers had been received to date.

1.1.8  Viet Nam – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/ADP/N/1/VNM/3 ‑ G/SCM/N/1/VNM/2 ‑ G/SG/N/1/VNM/3)

21.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted by the United States and can be found in document:

·              G/ADP/Q1/VNM/9 ‑ G/SCM/Q1/VNM/9 ‑ G/SG/Q1/VNM/9

22.  The chair stated that written answers to the United States' questions were provided recently. The document was subsequently circulated in document:

·              G/ADP/Q1/VNM/10 ‑ G/SCM/Q1/VNM/10 ‑ G/SG/Q1/VNM/10

23.  No delegation took the floor for additional comments.

1.1.9  Zimbabwe – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/ZWE/3)

24.  The Chair stated that written questions had been received from the United States in document G/SG/Q1/ZWE/1.

25.  The delegation of Zimbabwe was not present at the time.

26.  No written answers had been received to date.

1.2  Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations with Outstanding Written Questions

1.2.1  Afghanistan – Review of New Legislation Notification with Written Questions (G/SG/N/1/AFG/1)

27.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted by the United States and can be found in document:

·              G/SG/Q1/AFG/1

28.  Written answers to the United States' questions were provided in document:

·              G/SG/Q1/AFG/2

29.  The United States stated that it had no follow‑up questions.

1.2.2  Cameroon – Review of New Legislation Notifications with Written Questions (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/SUPPL.1 – G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/SUPPL.1 – G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/SUPPL.1)

30.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted by the United States and can be found in document:

·              G/ADP/Q1/CMR/3 ‑ G/SCM/Q1/CMR/3 ‑ G/SG/Q1/CMR/3

31.  The Chair noted that these questions have been pending since the Committee meeting of October 2014.

32.  The delegation of Cameroon was not present at the time.

33.  No written answers had been received to date.

1.2.3  Liberia – Review of New or Amended Legislation Notifications with Written Questions (G/SG/N/1/LBR/1)

34.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted by the United States and can be found in document:

·              G/SG/Q1/LBR/1

35.  The delegation of Liberia was not present at the time.

36.  No written answers had been received to date.

37.  The Committee took note of the notifications, statements, questions and answers.

2  CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE

2.1  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)

38.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted by the United States and can be found in document:

·              G/ADP/Q1/KEN/6 ‑ G/SCM/Q1/KEN/6 ‑ G/SG/Q1/KEN/5

39.  The delegation of Kenya was not present at the time.

40.  No written answers had been received to date.

2.2  United Arab Emirates – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications (G/ADP/N/1/ARE/2/SUPPL.1 ‑ G/SCM/N/1/ARE/2/SUPPL.1 ‑ G/SG/N/1/ARE/2/SUPPL.1)

41.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted by the United States and can be found in document:

·              G/ADP/Q1/ARE/5 ‑ G/SCM/Q1/ARE/5 – G/SG/Q1/ARE/5

42.  Written answers to the United States' questions were provided and can be found in document:

·              G/ADP/Q1/ARE/6 ‑ G/SCM/Q1/ARE/6 ‑ G/SG/Q1/ARE/6

43.  No delegation took the floor for additional comments.

44.  The Chair recalled that the deadline for written questions concerning any new legislation reviewed at this meeting was 16 November 2020. The deadline for written answers to all written questions, including questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, was 7 December 2020.

45.  The Chair informed the Committee that 19 Members had not yet made a legislative notification.^[2] This notification was one of the important obligations of the Agreement on Safeguards ("Agreement"). Members that did not yet have any legislation need only submit a simple "nil" notification. The Chair noted that Tonga had submitted its nil notification and commended its efforts.

46.  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 1 of the minutes of the November 2019 meeting. For nearly all of those who had not made a notification, their Trade Policy Review reports indicated whether they did or did not have any SG legislation. The United States reiterated that the notification was simple if there was no legislation and encouraged Members who had not yet made their legislative notifications to review their situations and to make the applicable notification. The United States encouraged Members to think creatively how to improve compliance with notification requirements. It noted that the Council for Trade in Goods ("CTG") continued to consider a proposal regarding enhancing transparency and strengthening notification requirements.^[3] A revised version of the proposal was introduced at the June CTG meeting which now exempts least developed countries from administrative measures, provided they request technical assistance to meet their notification obligations. What was revised included clarifications on how charges for late notifications would be calculated, and elimination of special treatment for the notification referred to as "DS:1" in the Committee on Agriculture's Notification Requirements and Formats. The co‑sponsors continued outreach efforts, and the United States was willing to discuss this proposal bilaterally.

47.  The Committee took note of the notifications, statements, questions and answers.

3  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES

48.  China expressed deep concerns regarding the frequent use of safeguards as a protectionist tool. Safeguards were emergency measures subject to strict conditions under the Agreement, and such conditions must be strictly abided. However, improper use of measures appeared frequently. China urged all Members to avoid resorting to safeguard measures unless the conditions under the WTO agreement were truly met. It was necessary to further clarify and improve the relevant rules on safeguards. To this end, China proposed that the Committee continue to enhance the monitoring functions, make necessary recommendations, and guide Members to achieve best practice.

49.  Japan noted that trade restrictive measures such as safeguards have recently been increasing. Due partly to the outbreak of the COVID‑19 pandemic, Members have been applying such measures. However, trade restrictive measures inconsistent with the WTO Agreements would only invoke retaliatory trade restrictive measures by other Members, and then would depress world trade. Such developments would harm both exporters and importers. Members should avoid resorting to safeguard measures unless the relevant prerequisites under the WTO Agreements were met. The Committee needed to closely monitor the general implementation of this Agreement. In particular, Japan was concerned about some countries' recent failure to notify their measures or decisions to the WTO, which must be done "immediately".

50.  The Republic of Korea ("Korea") indicated concerns about the sharp increase in safeguard measures particularly in the steel sector. Korea noted that Members were reacting to safeguard measures taken by other countries, and as a result the number of countries taking such measures had grown rapidly. Many of the measures failed to meet the stringent procedural and substantive requirements set out in the Agreement. Given that steel was a vital input in the supply chain of various industries, such measures in the steel industry would significantly impact downstream producers. Korea requested Members to withdraw improper safeguard measures and to exercise restraint in applying safeguard measures.

51.  Australia expressed concerns regarding the increased recourse to safeguard measures by Members. Safeguards were emergency actions subject to strict conditions. These actions related to imports of fairly traded goods, and so disrupted trade and decreased market access. It welcomed those Members who notified termination of measures. Such notifications were particularly helpful and a transparent way to keep Members apprised of the current situation of safeguard measures previously applied.

52.  The Committee took note of the statements made.

3.1  Colombia – Sheets of Paperboard and Polyethylene (G/SG/N/9/COL/6)

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

3.2  Costa Rica – Refined White Sugar (G/SG/N/8/CRI/2/Rev.1 ‑ G/SG/N/10/CRI/2/Rev.1 – G/SG/N/11/CRI/2/Rev.1)

54.  Brazil raised concerns regarding this investigation. In Brazil's understanding there was no evidence of unforeseen developments. Besides, the surge in imports did not seem to be significant enough. In addition, the investigating authority itself concluded that there was no serious injury. The decision‑making authority, however, chose to impose a measure on the basis of an alleged threat of serious injury, though such threat was not demonstrated. Protectionist interests seemed to have prevailed over technical and objective assessments. Brazil held consultations with Costa Rica for the purpose of negotiating compensation pursuant to Article 8 of the Agreement. But such negotiation did not achieve a satisfactory outcome. Brazil therefore made a notification under Article 12.5 of the Agreement to reserve its right to suspend substantially equivalent concessions to the trade of Costa Rica. Brazil remained open to seeking a negotiated solution on this case.

55.  Costa Rica took note of the notification made by Brazil to the CTG regarding the suspension of concessions proposed under Article 8.2 of the Agreement. In this regard, and taking into consideration that the safeguard measure was imposed as a result of an absolute increase of imports, Costa Rica reminded Brazil to take this aspect into consideration and exercise its right to suspend concessions in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in Article 8.3 of the Agreement.

3.3  Costa Rica – Bars and Rods of Steel for Concrete Reinforcement (G/SG/N/9/CRI/2)

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

3.4  Ecuador – Smooth Ceramics (G/SG/N/6/ECU/10 and G/SG/N/9/ECU/3)

57.  Ecuador explained that it decided not to apply a safeguard measure. During the last few months, trade regarding smooth ceramics changed significantly due to the COVID‑19 pandemic. There were significant reductions in the volume of imports. Had Ecuador imposed the measure, it would have been counterproductive particularly for the construction sector which was already suffering.

3.5  Egypt – Raw Aluminium (G/SG/N/6/EGY/15)

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

3.6  Egypt – Semi‑finished Products of Iron or Non‑Alloy Steel and Steel Rebar (G/L/1353 ‑ G/SG/N/12/UKR/1)

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

3.7  Member States of the Eurasian Economic Union – Welded Tubes of Stainless Steel (G/SG/N/9/ARM/2 – G/SG/N/9/KGZ/2 – G/SG/N/9/KAZ/2 – G/SG/N/9/RUS/2)

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

3.8  European Union – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.8/Rev.1 – G/SG/N/11/EU/1/Suppl.5/Rev.1)

61.  Japan recognized that the second review, which came into effect on 1 July 2020, did not result in the reduction of tariff‑rate quotas ("TRQs") which was requested by the industry of the European Union. Adopting trade‑restrictive measures in response to other trade restrictive measures would depress global trade and harm both the exporters and importers. Japan requested that the European Union terminate the safeguard measure as soon as practicable.

62.  Korea expressed disappointment at the decision of the European Union to reduce the rate of liberalization from 5% to 3%. However, it welcomed the decision by the European Union to maintain the current rate, rejecting demands from the industry for further reduction. Korea looked forward to the European Union terminating this measure in June 2021 as scheduled. Korea also inquired about the effect of Brexit on the measure during the remainder of the period. Korea emphasised that the only possible modification of safeguard measures was to reduce their restrictiveness. The European Union should not revise downwards the level of TRQs. If the European Union decided to extend the scope of the steel safeguard measure to imports from the United Kingdom, that decision should not negatively impact third countries. Lastly, Korea appreciated the cooperation of the relevant EU authorities regarding the issue of discrepancies between the exporting country's statistics and the import statistics of the European Union.

63.  Switzerland indicated continued concerns about the safeguard measure of the European Union. An escalation of safeguards and other trade defence measures in the steel sector as well as other sectors should be avoided. Problems in the steel sector should be addressed multilaterally, for example, at the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity. Switzerland noted with satisfaction that the safeguard measure of the European Union would be terminated by the end of June 2021 and hoped it would not be extended.

64.  China reminded that according to Article 8.1 of the Agreement, the European Union needed to endeavour to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations between it and the exporting Members, and that the Members concerned may agree on trade compensation. China asked the European Union to terminate the steel safeguard measure on 30 June 2021, and not seek any extensions.

65.  The Russian Federation ("Russia") expressed its concerns regarding the safeguard measure of the European Union. In November 2019 Russia drew the attention of the Committee to the decreased liberalization rate following the first review and the failure of the European Union to effectively administer the measure, which exacerbated its restrictive effects. It was regrettable that there was no subsequent effort from the European Union to decrease the trade‑restrictiveness of the measure. Despite numerous requests from Russian producers, the problems with administration of the measure were not eliminated. All quotas were administered on a quarterly basis, thus limiting the abilities of the exporters to timely satisfy the demand of their clients in the European Union. Access to residual quota volumes in the fourth quarter was limited, and even denied for some product categories. As it was clarified by the panel in Argentina – Footwear, "the only modifications of safeguard measures that Article 7.4 contemplates are those that reduce its restrictiveness." In Russia's understanding, the modifications introduced by the European Union do exactly the opposite. Therefore, Russia called on the European Union to adhere to the WTO rules and to eliminate the elements of the measure that exacerbated its trade‑restrictiveness. Russia also hoped that the European Union would not extend the application of the measure beyond 30 June 2021.

66.  Regarding Brexit, the European Union explained that it had not yet taken any formal position on this matter.

3.9  Member Countries of the GCC^[4] – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/8/ARE/3 - G/SG/N/8/BHR/3 - G/SG/N/8/KWT/3 - G/SG/N/8/OMN/3 - G/SG/N/8/QAT/3 - G/SG/N/8/SAU/3)

67.  Japan stated that it was paying close attention to this investigation and requested the GCC Member States to conduct the investigation in a WTO‑consistent manner.

68.  Switzerland recalled that at the Committee meeting of November 2019, it raised questions regarding the initiation of this investigation. Switzerland was still waiting for answers to its questions which were sent bilaterally last December to the GCC. Switzerland would follow closely the developments in this matter and expected that all decisions taken by the GCC would be consistent with the disciplines.

69.  Korea requested the GCC Member States to terminate this investigation. The preliminary finding of the GCC's investigating authority had several problems. First, increase in global production of steel as well as protectionist trade restrictive measures did not constitute unforeseen developments. Second, the investigating authority had not fully established a genuine and substantial causal link between increase in steel imports and injury.

70.  Ukraine raised concerns about this investigation. This preliminary determination lacked objectivity as well as sufficient evidence. In particular, the investigating authority did not present sufficient information pertaining to each product under investigation. Injury and causal link should be analysed separately for each of the products concerned. Ukraine sought clarification as to whether sufficient analysis was conducted regarding each of the products and asked the GCC members to provide such information to the interested parties. Ukraine also considered that the conclusions regarding recent, sudden, sharp and significant increase of imports were biased. In fact, there was a decrease in imports of the steel products. The preliminary determination was inconsistent with the Agreement. Ukraine urged the GCC member states to terminate this investigation.

3.10  Guatemala – Flat‑Rolled Products of Other Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/9/GTM/1)

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

3.11  India – Solar Cells (G/SG/N/8/IND/31/Suppl.4 – G/SG/N/10/IND/22/Suppl.3 – G/SG/N/11/IND/17/Suppl.4)

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

3.12  India – Phenol (G/SG/N/9/IND/17)

73.  Japan stated that it welcomed India's decision to terminate the investigation without imposing any measure.

3.13  India – Single Mode Optical Fibre (G/SG/N/8/IND/32 – G/SG/N/10/IND/23 – G/SG/N/11/IND/18)

74.  India explained that this investigation was initiated in September 2019. The investigating authority proposed the imposition of a provisional measure, but it was not imposed. The investigating authority issued its final findings on 21 August 2020. The requirements for imposing a safeguard measure were met. First, the effects of unforeseen developments had been duly established. Second, the volume of imports of the product under consideration increased significantly during the period of investigation. Lastly, the domestic industry market share had declined whereas the market share of imports had increased. India was of the view that there was a significant price underselling and price suppression due to imports of the product under consideration. Overall, the domestic industry had suffered serious injury during the period under investigation due to increased imports. The measure would become applicable only after the issuance of the customs notification by the government of India.

75.  Japan regretted the finding of serious injury. Japan pointed out India's belated notification after 3 weeks from the final findings. India had not notified the decision, so Japan was unsure when the measure would be imposed. Adopting import‑restrictive measures in response to other trade restrictive measures would depress the global trade and harm both exporters and importers. Japan requested India to terminate the safeguard measure as soon as practicable.

3.14  India – Isopropyl Alcohol (G/SG/N/6/IND/47)

76.  India stated that the investigation was still ongoing.

3.15  Indonesia – Ceramic Flags and Paving, Hearth or Wall Tiles (G/SG/N/11/IDN/17/Suppl.1)

77.  There were no questions or comments raised at this meeting.

3.16  Indonesia – Fabrics (G/SG/N/8/IDN/23 – G/SG/N/10/IDN/23)

78.  There were no questions or comments raised at this meeting.

3.17  Indonesia – Curtains (G/SG/N/10/IDN/24/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/11/IDN/20/Suppl.2)

79.  There were no comments or questions raised at this meeting.

3.18  Indonesia – Yarn (G/SG/N/10/IDN/25/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/11/IDN/19/Suppl.2)

80.  There were no questions or comments raised at this meeting.

3.19  Indonesia – Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings (G/SG/N/8/IDN/27 ‑ G/SG/N/10/27, G/SG/N/8/IDN/27/Corr.1 – G/SG/N/10/IDN/27/Corr.1, G/SG/250)

81.  Japan regretted the finding of serious injury and the proposed safeguard measure. According to the most recent notification, the additional safeguard duty would amount to more than 150% ad valorem, per unit price (Rp/m²). Japan requested consultations for compensation with Indonesia pursuant to Article 12.3 of the Agreement. Japan asked Indonesia to proceed cautiously observing the Agreement.

82.  Indonesia confirmed that it received the request for consultations from Japan, but that request arrived past the deadline. Indonesia would take into account Japan concerns, nonetheless.

83.  Japan looked forward to the response to its request. Japan pointed out that Indonesia submitted a second notification correcting the safeguard duty. In this context, Japan believed that its notification was early enough.

84.  Indonesia took note of Japan's comments.

3.20  Indonesia – Evaporators (G/SG/N/10/IDN/22/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/11/IDN/22)

85.  There were no comments or questions raised in the meeting.

3.21  Indonesia – Fructose Syrop (G/SG/N/8/IDN/26 – G/SG/N/10/IDN/26

86.  There were no comments or questions raised in the meeting

3.22  Indonesia – Articles of Apparel and Clothing Accessories (G/SG/N/6/IDN/36)

87.  The European Union recalled that a safeguard measure is the most restrictive trade remedy, and thus should be used only in exceptional circumstances. In the present case, Indonesia was using safeguards to address a situation stemming from imports originating from one or two countries. Other instruments would have been more appropriate.

88.  Indonesia took note of the concerns of the European Union.

3.23  Jordan – Potato Chips (G/SG/N/9/JOR/10)

89.  There were no comments or questions raised in the meeting.

3.24  Madagascar – Lubricating Oils (G/SG/N/10/MDG/6 – G/SG/N/11/MDG/6/Suppl.2, G/SG/249)

90.  Responding to the request for consultation by Egypt, Madagascar stated that the consultation would be held on 10 November 2020 via videoconference. Madagascar understood that that consultation would also cover soap.

3.25  Madagascar – Soap (G/SG/N/8/MDG/6)

91.  There were no comments or questions raised in the meeting.

3.26  Madagascar – Edible Vegetable Oils and Margarines (G/SG/N/10/MDG/5 – G/SG/N/11/MDG/7/Suppl.2, G/SG/248)

92.  Responding to the request for consultation by Egypt, Madagascar stated that the consultation would be held on 9 November 2020 via videoconference. Madagascar took this opportunity to explain that Indonesia had also requested consultation regarding certain investigations, and that Madagascar agreed to hold these consultations on 10 November 2020.

3.27  Madagascar – Pasta (2) (G/SG/N/8/MDG/4 ‒ G/SG/N/10/MDG/4 ‒ G/SG/N/11/MDG/4/Suppl.1)

93.  The Chair noted that Mauritius had submitted written questions relating to this agenda item. Those questions were contained in document G/SG/Q2/MDG/3 and G/SG/Q2/MDG/4.

94.  Mauritius stated that on 23 October 2020 it received responses to the questions, and that it was reviewing the responses. Mauritius reiterated some of its concerns raised during the Committee meetings held in April and October 2019. The first related to the need for any safeguard measure or action to be taken in strict compliance with established procedures and in accordance with WTO Agreements. The second related to the crucial importance of transparency and timely notification. The rationale for imposing the duty and the method used to calculate the quota, as well as the determination of serious injury, causal link and unforeseen development remained unclear. While Mauritius understood that Madagascar's local industry may had been impacted, Mauritius' local industry had also been disproportionately affected by the safeguard measure. Mauritius was pleased to note that Madagascar had agreed to hold a bilateral meeting on 6 November 2020. Mauritius hoped to reach a balance outcome for both countries during the meeting.

95.  Madagascar explained it had recently submitted responses to the questions posed by Mauritius.^[5] Madagascar believed that the responses were clear. The decision in question was taken after consultations which took place in Madagascar in the presence of the Ambassador of Mauritius to Madagascar as well as other Ministers. Madagascar sufficiently discussed the matter. Further bilateral consultations with Mauritius would take place on 6 November 2020. Madagascar was willing to continue discussions to find a solution.

3.28  Malaysia – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles (G/SG/N/6/MYS/6)

96.  Japan indicated that it was paying close attention to this investigation, and that it submitted an opinion letter to the Malaysian Minister. Japan requested Malaysia to conduct the investigation carefully.

97.  Malaysia stated that the imports caused serious injury to the domestic industry. Malaysia was still considering the feedback from the interested parties. The deadline for submission of views by interested parties was 13 October 2020 but due to COVID‑19, it was extended to 23 October 2020. Malaysia had also received several requests from exporting countries invoking Article 9 of the Agreement. Malaysia intended to make a preliminary determination by 11 January 2021 and then make a final determination by 30 July 2021. Malaysia assured the investigation would be conducted in accordance with the Agreement.

3.29  Morocco – Welded Tubes and Pipes of Iron or Steel (G/SG/N/8/MAR/8 ‑ G/SG/N/10/MAR/8 ‑ G/SG/N/11/MAR/8/Suppl.1)

98.  The European Union regretted that Morocco chose to impose the measure. Increase of imports did not satisfy the conditions required by the Agreement, domestic industry was not seriously injured by the imports, and there was no causal link. The measure was not justified. Even if a measure was warranted, TRQs imposed on imports beyond traditional trade flow would have been more adequate.

3.30  Morocco – Hot Rolled Sheets (G/SG/N/8/MAR/7 – G/SG/N/10/MAR/7 ‑ G/SG/N/11/MAR/7/Suppl.1)

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

3.31  Morocco – Wire Rods and Reinforcing Bars (G/SG/Q2/MAR/3)

100.  The Chair noted that Ukraine had submitted written questions relating to this investigation.

101.  Morocco did not take the floor.

3.32  Morocco – Cold‑Rolled Sheets in Coils or Cut, and Plated or Coated Sheets (G/SG/N/11/MAR/4/Suppl.4, G/SG/Q2/MAR/3)

102.  The Chair noted that Ukraine had submitted written questions relating to this investigation.

103.  Morocco did not take the floor.

3.33  Panama – Meat of Swine (G/SG/N/9/PAN/1)

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

3.34  Philippines – Float Glass (G/SG/N/7/PHL/11/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/8/PHL/12/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/PHL/13/Suppl.1)

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

3.35  Philippines – Galvanized Iron Sheets, Coils and Strips (G/SG/N/6/PHL/18)

106.  Japan commented on the investigations taken up in this agenda item and in item 3.37. Japan paid close attention to these investigations, and it requested the Philippines to ensure that these investigations were conducted consistently with the Agreement.

107.  The Philippines took note of the comments.

3.36  Philippines – Prepainted Galvanized Iron and Prepainted Aluminum Zinc (G/SG/N/6/PHL/17)

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

3.37  Philippines – Aluminum Zinc (GL) Sheets, Coils and Strip (G/SG/N/6/PHL/16)

109.  There were no comments or questions raised under this agenda item.

3.38  Philippines – Cement (G/L/1347 – G/SG/227)

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

3.39  Philippines – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles (G/SG/N/9/PHL/4)

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

3.40  Philippines – Motor Vehicles (G/SG/N/6/PHL/15)

112.  Japan indicated that it was paying close attention to this investigation, and requested the Philippines to ensure that the investigation was conducted consistently with the Agreement.

113.  The Philippines stated that it would convey the message to its capital.

3.41  Philippines – High‑Density Polyethylene and Linear Low‑Density Polyethylene Pellets and Granules (G/SG/N/6/PHL/19)

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

3.42  South Africa – Certain Flat‑Rolled Products of Iron, Non‑Alloy Steel or Other Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/4/Suppl.1)

115.  Japan stated that after the notification of extension investigation on 31 July 2020, South Africa announced, only domestically, to extend the safeguard measure for one year until 10 August 2021, without any explanation. South Africa did not provide adequate opportunity for prior consultations with exporting Members and there was no notification of the decision to extend the measure until now. Japan understood that the investigating authority had not yet made its final determination. Japan requested South Africa to explain how to justify the situation. There were no provisions regarding provisional extension of the measure in the Agreement. South Africa seemingly violated the Agreement. Japan also asked South Africa to exclude imported products which do not compete with South African domestic products due to the difference in price and usage.

116.  The European Union noted that the domestic industry had asked for a further protection of 6 years. If the authorities agreed, that would mean that this measure would be in place for the maximum period allowed for developing countries. Extension of safeguard measures should be assessed carefully, making sure that the time period was not abused, and that the liberalisation scheme was fully respected.

117.  The delegation of South Africa did not take the floor.

3.43  South Africa – U, I, H, L and T Sections of Iron or Non‑Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/9)

118.  Korea requested South Africa to terminate the investigation since the requirements in the Agreement were not met. Korea requested South Africa to fully abide by the Agreement.

119.  The delegation of South Africa did not take the floor.

3.44  South Africa – Bolts with Hexagon Heads of Iron or Steel (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/8, G/SG/N/7/ZAF/5 ‑ G/SG/N/11/ZAF/7, G/SG/N/7/ZAF/5/Corr.1 – G/SG/N/11/ZAF/7Corr.1)

120.  Chinese Taipei pointed out that South Africa initiated this investigation on 15 May 2020 and asked interested parties to submit comments. Chinese Taipei had expressed concerns. According to South Africa's Safeguards Regulations, the International Trade Administration Commission ("ITAC") shall notify and provide non‑confidential application documents to the representative offices of the affected exporting country within 7 days after the initiation of the investigation. Chinese Taipei's office in South Africa, however, did not receive the relevant information within 7 days. It was only after receiving the WTO notification on the 25 May 2020 ‑ 10 days after the investigation had been initiated ‑ that Chinese Taipei became aware of the investigation case. As a consequence, Chinese Taipei's rights and ability to prepare written opinions within the allotted timescale were seriously affected. Chinese Taipei's office in South Africa proceeded to apply for an extension of the deadline for written submissions, which was rejected by the ITAC. Chinese Taipei did not understand how this notification procedure was consistent with Article 3.1 of the Agreement. Finally, Chinese Taipei noted that in document G/SG/N/6/ZAF/8, the period of investigation for injury was indicated as from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2019. However, in the Department of Trade and Industry's Notice, the investigation was from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2019. Chinese Taipei asked for clarification.

121.  The delegation of South Africa did not take the floor.

3.45  South Africa – Threaded Fasteners of Iron or Steel (G/SG/N/8/ZAF/6/Suppl.1 ‑ G/SG/N/10/ZAF/5/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/11/ZAF/5/Suppl.2, G/SG/N/8/ZAF/6 – G/SG/N/10/ZAF/5 – G/SG/N/11/ZAF/5/Suppl.1)

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

3.46  Thailand – Aluminium Foil (G/SG/N/6/THA/6)

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

3.47  Thailand – Non‑Alloy Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products in Coils and not in Coils (G/SG/N/6/THA/4/Suppl.4 – G/SG/N/14/THA/3/Suppl.3, G/SG/N/6/THA/4/Suppl.3 – G/SG/N/14/THA/3/Suppl.2, G/SG/N/6/THA/4/Suppl.2 – G/SG/N/14/THA/3/Suppl.1)

124.  Japan recalled that it had repeatedly raised concerns regarding the negative impact of the measure not only on exporters but also on Thailand's domestic steel users. Japan welcomed Thailand's decision to terminate this measure with no extension.

3.48  Turkey – Polyethylene Terephthalate Chips (G/SG/N/6/TUR/27)

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

3.49  Turkey – Toothbrushes (G/SG/N/6/TUR/23/Suppl.1 ‑ G/SG/N/14/TUR/11)

126.  The European Union stated that it had submitted comments on this matter on several occasions. The Turkish domestic industry had clearly benefited from the imposition of the safeguard measure, as shown by the positive development of several economic indicators. The measure had been effective, and the domestic industry had recovered. There was no need to extend the measure. Toothbrushes were products used in everyday use. If the measure were to be extended, consumers would continue to pay higher prices. In particular, premium toothbrushes were not produced by the Turkish industry, and thus did not cause any injury. The European Union was of the view that premium toothbrushes should be excluded from the product scope.

127.  Turkey explained that the review investigation was still ongoing.

3.50  Turkey – Staple Fibres of Polyesters, not Carded, Combed or otherwise Processed (G/SG/N/6/TUR/26)

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

3.51  Turkey – Yarns of Nylon or other Polyamides (G/L/1351 – G/SG/229)

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

3.52  Ukraine – Certain Nitrogen Fertilizers (G/SG/N/8/UKR/8/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/10/UKR/8/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/11/UKR/6/Suppl.1; G/SG/N/8/UKR/8 – G/SG/N/10/UKR/8 – G/SG/N/11/UKR/6, G/SG/241, G/SG/239)

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

3.53  Ukraine – Complex Fertilizers (G/SG/N/8/UKR/7/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/10/UKR/7/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/11/UKR/5/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/8/UKR/7 - G/SG/N/10/UKR/7 – G/SG/N/11/UKR/5, G/SG/240, G/SG/238)

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

3.54  Ukraine – Fresh Cut Roses (G/SG/N/6/UKR/18, G/SG/Q2/UKR/6, G/SG/Q2/UKR/6/Corr.1)

132.  The Chair noted that Ecuador had submitted written questions relating to this investigation. The questions were contained in document G/SG/Q2/UKR/6 and its corrigendum.

133.  Ecuador stated that fresh cut roses were very important export products for Ecuador, and so it hoped to receive the replies to its questions, contained in document G/Q2/UKR/6, as soon as possible.

134.  Ukraine explained that the investigation was initiated pursuant to the petition of the domestic industry, and the petition contained all necessary elements to initiate the investigation. Ukraine already provided an opportunity for exporters, importers and foreign governments to register as interested parties. All interested parties had access to the non‑confidential petition of the domestic industry. Furthermore, Ukraine was planning to hold a public hearing. Unfortunately, due to the restrictions related to the pandemic, this hearing could take place only in written form. Ukraine stated that it remained unbiased and objective during the examination of all relevant factors, and that the investigation was being conducted in full compliance with the Agreement. Ukraine would provide written answers to Ecuador in due course.

135.  Ecuador asked when the public hearing would take place.

136.  Ukraine stated that it would inform all interested parties of the date of the public hearing.

3.55  Ukraine – Polymeric Materials (G/SG/N/7/UKR/2 – G/SG/N/11/UKR/7, G/SG/N/6/UKR/17)

137.  The European Union welcomed the fact that several safeguards investigations initiated by Ukraine had been terminated without imposition of measures. Regarding this investigation, the European Union regretted that Ukraine did not take into account the arguments presented and decided to impose an unwarranted measure. The European Union was of the view that there was no sharp or significant increase of imports. Moreover, the domestic industry was not facing a threat of serious injury or suffering serious injury. If there was any injury it was due to other factors such as overinvestment and increased costs related to wages and employment. Additionally, there was no causal link. The European Union noted that Ukrainian authorities had narrowed the product scope of the investigation. However, the European Union remained concerned about the measure.

138.  Ukraine explained that it imposed the provisional safeguard measure due to the critical circumstances where delay would cause damage which would be difficult to repair, as defined by the Agreement. The Ukrainian authority determined that the imports caused serious injury to the domestic industry. Ukraine would take a final decision in full compliance with WTO rules.

139.  The European Union stated that it was difficult to hear the statement made by Ukraine through Interprefy.

3.56  Ukraine – Caustic Soda (G/SG/N/6/UKR/16, G/SG/9/UKR/8)

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

3.57  Ukraine – Syringes (G/SG/N/6/UKR/15, G/SG/N/9/UKR/7)

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

3.58  Ukraine – Sulfuric Acid and Oleum (G/SG/N/8/UKR/6/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/10/UKR/6/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/11/UKR/4/Suppl.1)

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

3.59  Ukraine – Wires (G/SG/N/6/UKR/19, G/SG/N/6/UKR/19/Corr.1)

143.  The European Union regretted the fact that Ukraine initiated this investigation. The petition did not seem to demonstrate surge in imports. Moreover, the petitioner did not seem to have suffered serious injury caused by the surge in imports. Any difficulties experienced by the domestic industry were most likely caused by other factors and thus the causation criterion was not fulfilled. The European Union trusted that no unwarranted safeguard measure would be imposed.

144.  Ukraine stated that all interested parties had an opportunity to present relevant evidence, to participate in a public hearing, to submit comments and to respond to the presentation of other parties. The petition of interested parties would be taken into account in making a final decision. Ukraine believed that it was acting in full compliance with WTO rules.

145.  Switzerland stated that it had difficulty hearing Ukraine's statement, which may be due to internet connection problems. Switzerland asked Ukraine to provide its statement in writing.

3.60  United Kingdom – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/6/GBR/1)

146.  Japan pointed out that WTO agreements did not have rules on how to treat trade remedy measures of a Member leaving a customs union. Japan regretted the initiation of the review without close examination of serious injury to the UK domestic industry. Japan requested the United Kingdom to terminate the measure as soon as practicable.

147.  Russia expressed its concerns regarding the decision of the United Kingdom to initiate the transition review. The procedure of this review raised a number of questions, and the possible application of the measure in the United Kingdom raised serious doubts regarding its WTO‑consistency. First, Russia failed to see where the UK authorities found evidence of increased imports of the subject product to the United Kingdom. Russia did not find any separate analysis of imports into the United Kingdom in the relevant regulations of the European Union. Neither did Russia find such analysis regarding serious injury to the industry of the United Kingdom. Besides, Russia did not understand how the United Kingdom calculated the quarterly volume of TRQs. Second, the notification stated that the transition review was initiated on 1 October 2020 and would be completed by 30 June 2021. The latter date was the date when the safeguard measure of the European Union on steel products was expected to expire. Russia was unaware of any plans of the European Union to extend it. It should also be noted that there were no consultations with the United Kingdom under Article 12.3 of the Agreement, and the ways to achieve the objective set out in Article 8.1 of the Agreement had not been discussed. Russia asked whether the United Kingdom intended to hold such consultations. Furthermore, in case the measure is applied in the United Kingdom after 30 June 2021, Members would not be bound by the requirement of Article 8.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards to abstain from suspension of concessions or other obligations, since by that time three years of application of the measure in the United Kingdom would have passed. Russia asked the United Kingdom to abstain from applying the measure.

148.  Turkey recalled that the United Kingdom was imposing a safeguard measure since 2019 as a Member of the European Union. Turkey understood that the United Kingdom would now continue to apply the measure even after 31 December 2020. However, the United Kingdom did not individually examine the relevant criteria pertinent to the United Kingdom. Continuation of the measure after Brexit would not be compatible with WTO obligations. Turkey stated that this measure should be terminated after 31 December 2020.

149.  Switzerland took note of the initiation of the transition review. The United Kingdom made this notification on 8 October 2020. Separately, the United Kingdom published on 30 September 2020 a notice of determination indicating that it would continue to apply or "transition" the measure from 1 January 2021. Switzerland understood that the United Kingdom had not yet notified the application of that measure. That was the reason why Switzerland requested item 5, to be discussed later. In Switzerland's view, such "transitioning" ‑ that is, the application of the safeguard measure by the United Kingdom from 1 January 2021 ‑ was subject to the substantive and procedural requirements that were applicable to new safeguard measures pursuant to the Agreement. Regarding the initiation of a "transition review process", Switzerland noted that the notification clarified that the investigation period would be the same as the period considered by the European Union, and that the investigating authority would investigate whether imports in increased quantities, and serious injury, would recur if the safeguard measure was removed. Thus, Switzerland's understanding was that the transition review would focus on the impact of a removal of the safeguard measure rather than on the material requirements for the imposition of a safeguard measure. Switzerland requested the United Kingdom to provide certain clarifications: (1) In the notification, the United Kingdom stated that the investigating authority was expected to conclude the review by 30 June 2021. How was this timeline linked to the fact that the end of the safeguard measure of the European Union was end of June 2021? (2) What was the relation between the period of investigation (2013 – 2017) and the most recent period (2018 to June 2020)? How can data concerning the most recent period inform the safeguard measure already imposed based on the imports of 2015 – 2017? (3) When did the United Kingdom plan to inform the interested parties about the conclusions of the review, and when would the United Kingdom notify its decision to the WTO? and (4) How can the application of a safeguarding amount instead of a TRQ be understood? Switzerland would continue to monitor this measure closely and looked forward to the United Kingdom providing the requested information.

150.  Korea asked the United Kingdom to clarify the legal basis in the WTO Agreements on which the United Kingdom relied to maintain the steel safeguard measure of the European Union after 1 January 2021, especially in the absence of any investigation regarding imports into the United Kingdom and the situation of the industry of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom could not maintain the steel safeguard measure of the European Union without first conducting an investigation to determine that the criteria to impose a safeguard measure were met for the United Kingdom. Decision by the United Kingdom to maintain the steel safeguard measure without conducting its own investigation would violate the Agreement and the GATT 1994. Korea also asked the United Kingdom to clarify the legal basis of the notified review. The review constituted an initial safeguards investigation for the United Kingdom, and thus the relevant criteria must be determined in this review. Additionally, if the United Kingdom wished to maintain the measure, it was necessary to conclude the transition review before the end of 2020. If the position of the United Kingdom was that its measure was a continuation of the measure of the European Union, Korea considered that the suspension of substantially equivalent concession to the trade of the European Union which Korea notified in document G/L/1306 – G/SG/N/12/KOR/4 should also be applied to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom was not justified to maintain the steel safeguard measure after the end of the transition period without first conducting its own safeguard investigation.

151.  China stated that in accordance with the Agreement, the investigating authority should carry out the investigation to determine whether the increased quantities of the imports had caused or threatened to cause serious injury to its domestic industries. Safeguard measures can only be implemented when the investigation has made positive findings. And in such case, the safeguard measures still shall not exceed the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment. However, up to this point, the United Kingdom had not initiated nor completed any investigation to determine whether the increased imports had caused or threatened to cause serious injury to its domestic steel industry. Nor did it evaluate whether applying the existing safeguard measure of the European Union in the United Kingdom would meet other requirements. It seemed unlikely that such investigation required by the Agreement could be completed before the transition period. Therefore, the continued application of the safeguard measure of the European Union after the transition period would be inconsistent with the Agreement. When the transition period ends, the United Kingdom should immediately stop applying the steel safeguard measure of the European Union in the market of the United Kingdom.

152.  The United Kingdom explained that it was committed to ensuring continuity before and after its withdrawal from the European Union. That was why the United Kingdom would transition the relevant trade remedy measures, including this safeguard measure. Specifically, the safeguard measure on 19 of the 26 product categories would be transitioned. In order to ensure that the transitioned safeguard measure was specific for the market of the United Kingdom, the Department for International Trade calculated the UK‑specific TRQs. These were calculated using the same methodology that was used in the initial calculation of the measure of the European Union, based on historic trade flow data specific to the UK market of the United Kingdom. The UK‑specific TRQs would come into effect on 31 December 2020. On 1 October 2020, the United Kingdom initiated a transition review to ensure that the TRQs fully reflected the market situation of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom would examine whether the TRQs should be varied, extended or revoked. Exporters and foreign governments would be provided an opportunity to engage in the review process. Regarding Russia's question about consultations, if the transition review determined that the measure should be extended, then Article 12.3 negotiations would be required. Regarding Switzerland's point about the notice of the continuation or extension of the measure, the Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate intended to publish its final determination in May 2021 to allow Ministers enough time to make a final decision. The United Kingdom noted that there was a separate agenda item on this issue.

3.61  United States – Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (G/SG/N/10/USA/7/Suppl.11, G/SG/N/10/USA/7/Suppl.10, G/SG/N/10/USA/7/Suppl.9, G/SG/N/10/USA/7/Suppl.8, G/SG/N/10/USA/7/Suppl.7)

153.  China recalled that it had repeatedly stated that the US measure was inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the Agreement and the GATT 1994. China still maintained the right to suspend substantially equivalent concessions or other obligations pursuant to relevant provisions of the WTO Agreements. China noted that the Presidential Proclamation dated 10 October 2020 indicated that the United States would adjust the duty rate of the safeguard tariff for the fourth year to 18%, while in the original determination the rate was to be lowered to 15%. The Proclamation also referred to the terminating of exclusion of bifacial panels from the measure. China wished to make two points: (1) Since June 2019, the United States reversed six times its determination regarding the exclusion of bifacial panels. Such development never happened in the history of safeguard measures imposed by WTO Members. Such frequent reversal would impair international trade order and reasonable expectation. (2) Can the US clarify whether it was necessary to raise the overall duty rate of the safeguard measure when only the imports of bifacial panels increased?

154.  The United States stated that the matter of exclusion of bifacial solar panels was currently subject to domestic litigation, and therefore any other comment on this issue would be inappropriate.

3.62  United States – Fresh, Chilled, or Frozen Blueberries (G/SG/N/6/USA/13)

155.  Chile expressed concerns regarding the initiation of this investigation. This investigation affected 1,400 Chilean blueberry growers. Chile also noted that the investigation was self‑initiated by USTR, and not by the US industry. Chile's harvest seasons were exactly the opposite to those in the United States. Chile's blueberries helped assure a year‑round supply to the US consumers. In Chile's view, the notification lacked information to justify an initiation of the investigation. There was no indication of unforeseen developments. Moreover, there was no evidence of serious injury. The initiation was not based on critical circumstances. Unlike antidumping or countervailing duty investigations, safeguard was an instrument to be used only in emergency situations. Chile asked the United States to proceed with special care and to abide strictly by WTO rules.

156.  After emphasising the importance of strategic partnership with the United States, Peru stated that it was concerned about this investigation. Blueberries were one of the main export products of Peru, which generated substantive amount of employment in Peru particularly for women, and also contributed to improving the standards of living of the disadvantaged rural population. Peru trusted that the investigation would be carried out in strict compliance with the multilateral framework.

157.  The United States explained that the investigation had just begun, and encouraged Members to submit their questions and comments to the U.S. International Trade Commission.

3.63  Viet Nam – Certain Semi‑Finished and Finished Products of Alloy and Non‑Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/8/VNM/3/Suppl.3 ‑ G/SG/N/10/VNM/2/Suppl.2 ‑ G/SG/N/11/VNM/4/Suppl.3)

158.  Japan stated that this was an anti‑circumvention measure. It was unclear on what grounds the measure had been applied. Although there was no direct textual basis in the WTO Agreement for anti‑circumvention, it had been discussed in the field of antidumping. Circumvention was generally considered to be a business behavior to escape from the antidumping duties. Accordingly, a new safeguard investigation or review of the product scope of the original safeguard investigation should be conducted, to cover the products out of the scope of the original safeguard measure.

159.  Viet Nam believed that the measure was consistent with WTO rules. However, Viet Nam took note of the statement made by Japan and stated that it would convey the message to the capital for further consideration.

3.64  Viet Nam – Certain Fertilizers or Diammonium Phosphate and Monoammonium Phosphate (Mineral or Chemical Fertilizers) (G/SG/N/8/VNM/6/Suppl.2 – G/SG/N/10/VNM/5/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/11/VNM/7/Suppl.2)

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

161.  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 16 November 2020. Written answers must be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 7 December 2020. The latter includes Members, if any, who have not yet submitted written responses to the questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting. As with the legislative notifications, 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.

162.  The Committee took note of the notifications, statements, questions and answers.

4  US MEASURES ON STEEL AND ALUMINUM (ITEM REQUESTED BY INDIA, JAPAN, THE EUROPEAN UNION AND TURKEY)

163.  India referred to the US Presidential Proclamation of 24 January 2020 stating that steel and aluminum derivatives would be subject to tariff increase. India considered that such tariff increase was an extension of the earlier safeguard measure imposed by the United States in 2018. Therefore, on 3 April 2020, India sought to exercise its rights to consult with the United States in accordance with Article 12.3 and Article 8.1 of the Agreement. However, India did not receive any reply from the United States. India was of the view that these were safeguard measures. Accordingly, by not holding consultations, the United States was violating the Agreement.

164.  China echoed the concerns expressed by India and agreed that the US measures were safeguard measures. These measures had to be consistent with the Agreement. China urged the United States to terminate the measures as soon as possible. Furthermore, China took this opportunity to express concern about the fact that the United States increasingly adopted various kinds of unilateral trade restricting measures, which were not consistent with the WTO rules, as leverages for its negotiations with other countries. China encouraged the United States to respect the multilateral trading rules, as it often required other Members to do.

165.  Russia stated that it was also concerned about the US measures. The additional duties were in essence safeguard measures, and they violated certain provisions of the Agreement and Article XIX of the GATT. The expansion of the scope of the measures to certain derivatives of steel and aluminium products exacerbated the WTO‑inconsistency of the measures. No investigation was conducted, and there was no determination of increased imports, serious injury or causal link. Russia saw no grounds in the Agreement and Article XIX of the GATT for applying the measures. Russia called on the United States to withdraw the measures.

166.  The United States did not agree with the characterization of the actions taken. The President issued the Proclamation pursuant to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 after determining that the measure was necessary to remove the threatened impairment of the national security. The United States did not impose a safeguard measure, and there was no basis for another WTO Member to justify its retaliation under the Agreement. As evidenced by its notifications with respect to solar products and large residential washers, the United States was aware of what constituted a safeguard and what its notification obligations were under the Agreement.

167.  The Committee took note of the statements made.

5  UNITED KINGDOM – SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS (ITEM REQUESTED BY SWITZERLAND)

168.  Switzerland stated that it had requested this item because of the important systemic and economic implications of the measures of the United Kingdom. The situation where a country leaves a customs union was unique, and its impact on existing safeguard measures raised challenges. As discussed under item 3.60, the United Kingdom notified in October 2020 the initiation of a review process of a safeguard measure on certain steel products applied by the European Union. At the same time, it published on 30 September 2020 a notice of determination indicating that it would "transition" the safeguard measure as of 1 January 2021. The United Kingdom had not yet notified the application of that measure to this Committee. In Switzerland's view, such "transitioning", that is, the application of the safeguard measures of the European Union by the United Kingdom as of 1 January 2021, was subject to the material and procedural requirements that are applicable to new safeguard measures pursuant to the Agreement. Switzerland failed to see how a measure based on similar data and similar methodologies as that applied by the European Union could be considered as a same measure, and not amount to a new measure. Switzerland expected the United Kingdom to notify the application of the measure prior to its actual application. Switzerland also expected the United Kingdom to provide all pertinent information as required by the Agreement. In particular, Switzerland wished to understand on which basis the United Kingdom had calculated and designed the TRQs in Annex 2 of the Notice of Determination.

169.  In response to Switzerland, the United Kingdom made reference to its earlier statement. The steel safeguard of the European Union was established on the basis of an investigation covering the whole territory of the European Union, including the United Kingdom. That was why the measure was continued in respect to the territory of the United Kingdom from the end of the transition period. The United Kingdom had not notified it as a new measure because it was a continuation of an existing measure which the United Kingdom already applied at its borders. However, in order to make sure that the transitioned measure was specific to the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom would review the measure. The United Kingdom explained that the review could result in the measure being terminated or extended.

170.  The Committee took note of the statements made.

6  MEMBERS' PROCEDURES DURING COVID‑19 (ITEM REQUESTED BY AUSTRALIA AND THE UNITED STATES)

171.  Australia explained that it requested this item to allow Members to share their responses to the COVID‑19 pandemic. What triggered this request was the fact that there were some cases where changes in procedure, including temporary suspension of international onsite verification in antidumping and countervailing duties investigations, were announced. Australia had no safeguard investigations or measures in place, but this issue was relevant to Australia.

172.  The United States asked for this item to get a sense from Members as to whether competent authorities had made any adjustments to their laws, practices or procedures as Members continued to operate under the current environment. For example, some Members had suspended in‑person filings and in‑person hearings. But others simply changed the practice as part of their day‑to‑day operations. This agenda item was not meant to call anyone out on anything they had or had not done, but simply to have a discussion of what Members were going through. If nothing had changed, Members could explain what they had considered doing, but because of the specific conditions decided not to proceed. The United States believed this was a good opportunity for Members to share their experiences and help others who were still considering what to do.

173.  Members exchanged views in informal mode.

174.  The Committee took note of the statements made.

7  NON‑IMPOSITION OF A SAFEGUARD MEASURE: IMPORTANCE OF NOTIFYING IT TO THE COMMITTEE - ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL (G/SG/2)

175.  Brazil explained that it requested this item to remind Members of the importance of submitting notifications when safeguard investigations were terminated without the imposition of a safeguard measure. If notifications of decisions not to impose a safeguard measure were not made, it was difficult for Members to monitor third party's investigation. Brazil invited all Members to observe the Committee's decision of 1995, and called the attention of Members to the format contained in document G/SG/2 entitled "Information to be Notified to the Committee Where a Safeguard Investigation is Terminated With No Safeguard Measure Imposed".

176.  Australia recalled that the 1995 decision of this Committee, which was about notification of the non‑imposition of a safeguard measure, was intended to include different scenarios such as where the petition was withdrawn or there was a negative determination of serious injury or causal link. Australia clarified that this was distinct from the notification under Section G of the current notification formats, contained in document G/SG/1/Rev.1, relating to the cessation of a safeguard measure. Australia welcomed further discussions. It was of the view that in order to improve the overall transparency of notifications, the obligations should extend to a situation when investigations were terminated without imposition of any measure, when measures have expired within the timeframe advised at the time of the imposition of the measure, and when provisional measures have ceased and no definitive measures have been imposed.

177.  The Committee took note of the statements made.

8  REQUEST UNDER ARTICLE 13.1 (E) OF THE AGREEMENT (G/L/1360 – G/SG/246)

178.  The Chair recalled that the European Union made a request pursuant to Article 13.1 (e) of the Agreement, circulated in document G/L/1360‑G/SG/246, dated 23 June 2020. With the former Chair Ms Dellar presiding, the Committee met twice in informal mode to discuss this issue. Those informal meetings took place on 27 July 2020 and 29 September 2020. Ms Dellar tabled a draft partial report^[6], which the Committee discussed at its informal meeting of 29 September. The Chair was of the view that the Committee probably needed to meet several more times to finalize this draft. The Chair recalled that he came from the delegation of Turkey and that the subject of the request of the European Union was certain actions by Turkey. Thus, he would limit his intervention under this agenda item to the brief factual recap that he had just made. He informed Members that he would recuse himself from presiding over the Committee's work on this matter. He would ask the incoming Vice‑Chair to handle this matter in his stead.

179.  The Committee took note of the statements made.

9  NOTIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPOSE A MEASURE (RD/SG/39)

180.  The Chair recalled that the discussion on this issue was initiated in 2018, and that most recently the former Chair, Ms Dellar, presented her latest draft of the revised format^[7] at an informal meeting held on 29 September 2020. There was no objection raised on the draft at that informal meeting, and Ms Dellar announced then that at the regular meeting of 26 October, which is this meeting, the Committee would officially agree to the draft.

181.  The United Kingdom stressed the importance of transparency. It welcomed the amendments and supported the proposed text.

182.  Brazil supported the changes made. Taking this opportunity, Brazil stated that it would ask the Secretariat to circulate the proposals that Brazil had foreshadowed at the last informal meeting.^[8] Brazil clarified that its proposals aimed to ensure greater transparency and predictability in the application of Article 9.1 of the Agreement and to assist developing countries to fully exercise their rights.

183.  Singapore supported the proposed text.

184.  India asked Members to carefully consider what India stated at the informal meeting of 29 September 2020.

185.  Referring to Brazil's statement, the Chair suggested that the Committee first adopt the latest draft, and then proceed to consider Brazil's proposal. Hearing no objection, the Committee took note of the statements and approved the revised format.^[9]

10  OTHER BUSINESS

186.  There were no issues raised under this agenda item.

11  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING

187.  The Chair suggested that the Committee meet in the week of 26 April 2021. The exact date would be confirmed later.

188.  The Committee so decided.

12  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS

189.  The Committee adopted its annual report (see document G/L/1367 ‑ G/SG/251).

13  ELECTION OF OFFICERS

190.  The Chair recalled Rule 12 of the Committee's Rules of Procedure which provides that the election of the new Chair shall take place at the first regular meeting of the year and that the election shall take effect at the end of that meeting. The first regular meeting of the year was supposed to be held in April 2020, but due to the COVID‑19 pandemic, it never took place such that the meeting in October 2020 became the first regular meeting of 2020. Accordingly, the election of the new Chair, and subsequently the new Vice‑Chair took place under this agenda item.

191.  The Committee elected Mr Mustafa Tuzcu (Turkey) as Chair and Ms Noriko Teranishi (Japan) as Vice‑Chair to hold office until the end of the Committee's first regular meeting of 2021.

__________