RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SG/M/22
11 July 2003
(03-3745)
Committee on Safeguards
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON 28 APRIL 2003
Chairman:  Mr. Gustavo Lunazzi (Argentina)
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 28 April 2003.
2. The following agenda was adopted:
A. NATIONAL LEG ISLATI ON.....................................................................................................2
1. China - Review of New Legislative Notification....................................................................2
2. Costa Rica – Review of New Legislative Notification ...........................................................43. Croatia– Review of New Le gislative Notification..................................................................4
4. Japan– Review of New Le gislative Noti ficati on ....................................................................4
5. Latvia– Review of New Legislative Notification....................................................................5
6. Malawi– Review of New Legislative Notification..................................................................5
7. Chinese Taipei – Review of New Legislative Notification ....................................................5
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS R ELATED TO SAFEGUAR D MEASURES .....................6
1. Brazil – Coconuts............................................................................................................ .........6
2. Bulgaria – Crown Corks ....................................................................................................... ..6
3. Bulgaria – Ammonium Nitrate...............................................................................................6
4. Bulgaria – Urea .............................................................................................................. ..........7
5. Chile – Fructose ............................................................................................................. ..........7
6. China – Certain Steel Products ..............................................................................................7
7. Czech Republic – Sugar ....................................................................................................... ...9
8. Czech Republic – Ammonium Nitrate ...................................................................................9
9. Czech Republic – Wire, Ropes and Cables............................................................................9
10. Czech Republic – Tubes and Pipes.........................................................................................911. Czech Republic – Citric Acid................................................................................................ ..9
12. Ecuador – Fibreboard ........................................................................................................ .....9
13. European Communities – Certain Steel Products ..............................................................10
14. Hungary - Ammonium Nitrate .............................................................................................11
15. Hungary - Certain Steel Products ........................................................................................1116. India – Bisphenol A......................................................................................................... .......11
17. India - Epichlorohydrin..................................................................................................... ....11
18. India - Edible Vegetable Oils ............................................................................................... .11
19. Jordan - Sanitary Ware Products.........................................................................................11
20. Jordan - Pasta.............................................................................................................. ...........12
21. Jordan – Ceramic Tiles ...................................................................................................... ...12
22. Jordan - Electric Accumulators............................................................................................13
23. Jordan  – Cooking Appliances ..............................................................................................13
24. Jordan – Aerated Water...................................................................................................... ..13G/SG/M/22
Page 2
25. Latvia – Swine Meat ......................................................................................................... .....13
26. Slovak Republic – Ammonium Nitrate ................................................................................13
27. United States – Steel Wire Rod.............................................................................................1 3
28. United States – Line Pipe ................................................................................................... ...14
29. Venezuela – Iron/Steel U Sections ........................................................................................1430. Venezuela – Footwear........................................................................................................ ....14
C. APPLICATION OF  ARTICLE 9.1 .........................................................................................14
D. OTHER BU SINESS ............................................................................................................... .15
1. Definition of Developing Countries ......................................................................................15
2. EC/Argentina Anderson Commitment ................................................................................16
3. Brazil - Toys ................................................................................................................ ...........17
E. DATE OF NEXT RE GULAR MEETING ..............................................................................17
F. ELECTION OF OFFICERS ....................................................................................................17
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION
3. The Chairman stated that the first seven items on the agenda concerned the review of
notifications of national safeguard legislation and/or regulations, in accordance with the procedures
adopted by this Committee at its special meeting in April 1996.  The Committee had received
legislative notifications from seven Members.  The Chairman recalled that as indicated in the
annotated draft agenda circulated in March 2003, questions regarding these legislative notifications
were to have been submitted to the Member concerned and to the Secretariat no later than
14 April 2003.
4. Concerning the procedure for this meeting, the Chairman stated that he would first give the
floor to the Member whose legislation was being reviewed, to make any introductory statement that it
could wish.  He would then invite that Member to present its answers to any written questions.  In
accordance with the procedures adopted by the Committee, a written version of those answers was
also to be provided after the meeting.  The Ch airman reminded the Members that follow-up questions
could be asked at the meeting.  Other delegations would also be given an opportunity to present
questions orally at the meeting.  After the meeting, there would be a period for the submission ofwritten questions concerning any of the legislations reviewed during the meeting.
5. The Chairman also reminded the Members that if they wished to have written answers to their
questions, they had to ensure that all questions were presented in writing to the Member whose
legislation was concerned, and to the Secretariat, no later than three weeks after the meeting, i.e., no
later than 19 May 2003.  Written answers to all questions submitted in writing by that deadline werealso to be submitted to the Secretariat no later th an three weeks later, i.e., no later than 9 June 2003.
1. China - Review of New Legislative Notification
6. The Chairman noted that the first legislative notification in the agenda was that of China,
submitted in document G/SG/N/1/CHN/2 and Suppl.1.
7. The Chairman stated that written questions concerning these notifications had been received
from the United States (document G/SG/Q1/CHN/ 1); from the European Communities (document
G/SG/Q1/CHN/2);  from Japan (d ocument G/SG/Q1/CHN/3);  from the Separate Customs TerritoryG/SG/M/22
Page 3
of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (documen t G/SG/Q1/CHN/4); from Argentina (document
G/SG/Q1/CHN/5);  and from Turk ey (document G/SG/Q1/CHN/6).  The Chairman also noted that,
with the exception of the questions from Argentina, China had replied to these questions orally under
agenda item C, entitled "Transitional Review Mechanism" ("TRM"), at the previous regular meeting
of the Committee.  The Chairman therefore suggested that China need only reply to the questionsfrom Argentina at this stage.
8. The representative of China stated that all the questions referred to by the Chairman were
questions raised during the TRM which was held in 2002.  The representative of China stated that it
was his understanding that  most or probably all of the questions, including those of Argentina, might
have been responded to by China during that TRM meeting held in 2002.  The representative of China
also mentioned that if the questions raised by Argentina had not been responded to by China he would
refer them back to their capital and advise officials in capital to respond to Argentina as soon aspossible.  The representative of China expressed the view that given that this meeting concerned the
review of the latest legislative notification of China, it was not certain whether the questions raised by
Argentina during the TRM, which had been held in 2002, were still relevant.
9. The representative of Argentina stated that his delegation had asked written questions, as had
been mentioned in document G/SG/Q1/CHN/5,  to be discussed as part of the legislative review
process in this meeting, and not as part of the TRM at the last regular meeting.  The representative of
Argentina stated that when responding to other delegations' questions China had also answered
Argentina's questions except question number 4.  The representative of Argentina therefore stated that
his delegation would like to have a reply or a clarification on question 4, contained in document
G/SG/Q1/CHN/5.
10. The representative of China stated that since question 4 was of a technical nature, they had to
refer it to their capital and that as soon as they received an answer they would convey it to the
Argentine delegation, as well as to the Secretariat and to the Chairman.
11. The representative of the United States stated that in September 2002 they had submitted
questions as contained in document G/SG/Q1/CHN/1with respect to China’s legislative notification
contained in document G/SG/N/1/CHN/2.  The represen tative of the United States also mentioned that
at the meeting of the Committee in October 2002, they had indicated that the United States needed
written responses to those questions.  The representative of the United States therefore urged China to
provide written responses to those questions, in accordance with the procedures for all Members.
12. The representative of China stated that, as far as the questions raised within the framework of
the TRM were concerned, their belief was that China was not obliged to give written responses.
According to the representative of China, their responsibility to provide written answers was limitedto questions asked in the context of the regular review of legislative notifications by the Committee.
13. The representative of the European Communities stated that they too had asked questions
about China's legislation in the October 2002 meeting, and that they too were expecting China to
provide written answers to questions 1 and 4 contained in document G/SG/Q1/CHN/2.  The
representative of the EC therefore invited China to do so in the shortest delay.
14. The representative of China stated that their response to the EC's question was same as to the
US.
15. The Chairman stated that although some Members had presented written questions in the
context of the transitional review mechanism at the previous regular meeting of the Committee, those
questions had referred to the notification the Committee was reviewing at the present meeting.  It wasthe Chairman's understanding that it could be unproductive to require those Members who had askedG/SG/M/22
Page 4
questions in the context of the TRM to repeat them in the context of a regular review of legislative
notifications.  The Chairman therefore encouraged China to answer in writing all questions raised
regarding China's legislative notification.
16. The representative of China stated that they had no comment on Chairman's remarks.
2. Costa Rica – Review of New Legislative Notification
17. No written questions were received concerni ng the legislative notification of Costa Rica
contained in document G/SG/N/1/CRI/3.
18. The representative of Costa Rica stated that in accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 12 of
the Safeguards Agreement they had notified the decree of the Ministry of Economy, Industry and
Trade of Costa Rica which determined the Office of Fair Trade Practices as the competent authority to
deal with all administrative procedures, in particular anything concerning safeguards.
3. Croatia– Review of New Legislative Notification
19. A written question concerning Croatia's legislative notification (contained in document
G/SG/N/1/HRV/2) had been received from the Eu ropean Communities, as set forth in document
G/SG/Q1/HRV/1.
20. Regarding the question posed in G/SG/Q1/HRV/1, the representative of Croatia stated that the
Republic of Croatia would respect the obligation of  Article 3.2 of the WTO Safeguards Agreement
and that the information provided by interested parties would not be disclosed without the permission
of the party.  The representative of Croatia also mentioned that they would circulate their answer in
written form after the meeting.
21. The representative of the European Communities asked Croatia to provide a written version
of its answer as soon as possible.
22. The representative of the United States stated that they had one question for Croatia that they
had not submitted in writing yet.  The representative of the United States asked whether, to the extent
that Croatia had free trade agreements with other Members, there was any provision in its safeguards
laws for exclusion of such preferential partners under these free trade agreements from any safeguard
measures that Croatia could impose.
23. The representative of Croatia requested that the representative of the United States submit the
question in written form so that the appropriate authorities could study it more carefully and give a
timely and satisfactory answer.
24. The representative of the European Communities asked whether the fact that Croatia would
respect the provisions of Article 3.2 of the Safeguards Agreement, was reflected anywhere in Croatia's
safeguard legislation, or in any other legislation applicable in Croatia.
25. The representative of Croatia asked the European Communities to submit its question in
written form, so that it could be sent to capital.
4. Japan– Review of New Legislative Notification
26. The Chairman noted that no written questions had been received concerning Japan's
notification contained in document G/SG/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.1.G/SG/M/22
Page 5
27. The representative of Japan stated that Japan’s notification contained the cabinet order and
regulations that contained more detailed procedures concerning safeguards investigations and that
they did not have anything to add.
5. Latvia– Review of New Legislative Notification
28. There were no questions or comments concerning Latvia's notification contained in document
G/SG/N/1/LVA/1/Suppl. 3.
6. Malawi– Review of New Legislative Notification
29. There were no questions or comments regarding the "nil" notification submitted by Malawi in
document G/SG/N/1/MWI/1.
7. Chinese Taipei – Review of New Legislative Notification
30. The Chairman noted that the European Communities had submitted written questions
concerning Chinese Taipei's legislative notification contained in document G/SG/N/1/TPKM/2, which
could be found in document G/SG/Q1/TPKM/3.
31. The representative of Chinese Taipei stated that this notification contained the amended
version of the legislation already notified in document G/SG/N/1/TPKM/1 in May 2002.
32. For questions 1-4 from the European Communities, the representative of Chinese Taipei
referred to the replies to earlier questions from the European Communities set forth in documentG/SG/Q1/TPKM/2.  Concerning question 5, the representative of Chinese Taipei pointed out that their
notification stated that Article 27 of the rules for handling import relief cases had been deleted.
Regarding the question how Chinese Taipei could comply with Articles 7.5 and 7.6 of the Agreement
on Safeguards, the representative of Chinese Taipei stated that Article 27 of the said rule had been
deleted but reproduced in the Foreign Trade Act, and that the rule was consistent with the Agreement.
33. The representative of the European Communities stated that they had just been handed the
document so they would have to study it, in particul ar as regards question 5, to see if they would have
follow-up questions.  The European Communities reserved the possibility to submit these in writing.
34. The representative of the United States pointed out that they were in the process of reviewing
Chinese Taipei's responses and that if they had any written questions they would be submitting them
in due course.
35. The Chairman stressed the fact that the legislative review process was of benefit to the
Committee.  He reminded Members that the deadline for any written questions concerning the
legislations reviewed in the meeting was 19 May 2003.  The deadline for written answers to all
questions asked in writing was 9 June 2003.
36. Concerning these deadlines, the Chairman reminded the Committee of the importance of
providing written answers to written questions pose d.  The exchange of written questions and answers
constituted the Committee's only record of the review of legislations.  Thus, the Committee's records
were left incomplete when written questions were not answered, or only answered long after the
meeting where the review had taken place.  In this context, the Chairman urged all Members to abide
by the deadlines set by the Committee for the provision of written replies to written questions.
37. The Chairman informed the Committee that there were still 30 Members that had not yet
made a legislative notification:  Albania, Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, BurkinaG/SG/M/22
Page 6
Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti,
Gabon, the Gambia, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Kuwait, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique,
Niger, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Sierra Leone,
Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania and Togo.
38. The Chairman urged these Members to make the required notification.  The Chairman
reminded Members that in cases where no legislation exists only a very simple "nil" notification was
required.
39. The Committee took note of the statements made.
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES
40. The Chairman noted that various notifications of actions related to safeguard measures had
been received since the previous meeting.  In orde r to ensure that all of these notifications could be
reviewed in the limited time available, the Chai rman suggested that the Committee address the
relevant safeguard investigations as separate agenda items, and review all of the notifications
pertaining to each separate investigation at the same time.
1. Brazil – Coconuts
41. The Chairman noted that Brazil had made a number  of notifications regarding its investigation
on coconuts, as set forth in documents G/SG/N/8/BRA/3/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/10/BRA/3/Suppl.1 andG/SG/N/11/BRA/2/Suppl.1.
42. The representative of Indonesia asked for further clarification on the notification under
Article 12.1(b), relating to the period of investig ation.  According to the Indonesian delegation, the
shortness of the period of investigation in this case, i.e., between September – November 2002,
indicated that it did not represent actual imports for a whole calendar year.
43. The representative of Brazil stated that Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards stipulated
that the measures should not be applied against a product originating in a developing country Member
as long as  its share of imports of the product concerned in the importing Member did not exceed
3  per cent  In the case of Indonesia, since its the share of total imports was 59.39 per cent in the
period mentioned in Brazil's notification, it was not excluded from the measure.
2. Bulgaria – Crown Corks
44. The Chairman noted that Bulgaria had made two notifications regarding its investigation on
crown corks as set forth in document s G/SG/N/10/BGR/1 and G/SG/N/11/BGR/1.
45. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.
3. Bulgaria – Ammonium Nitrate
46. The Chairman noted that Bulgaria had made a number of notifications regarding its
investigation on ammonium nitrate as set forth in documents G/SG/N/8/BGR/2, G/SG/N/10/BGR/2and G/SG/N/11/BGR/2.
47. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.G/SG/M/22
Page 7
4. Bulgaria – Urea
48. The Chairman noted that Bulgaria had made a notification regarding its investigation on urea
in document G/SG/N/9/BGR/1.
49. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.
5. Chile – Fructose
50. The Chairman noted that Chile had made a number of notifications regarding its investigation
on fructose, as set forth in documents G/SG/N /7/CHL/6/Suppl. 2, G/SG/N/9 /CHL/6/Suppl. 2 and 3,
and G/SG/N/10/CHL/5/Suppl. 1 and 2.
51. The representative of Chile stated that the relevant measure had already been revoked.
52. There were no further comments or questions regarding these notifications.
6. China – Certain Steel Products
53. The Chairman noted that China had made two notifications regarding its investigation on
certain steel products, as set forth in do cuments G/SG/N/8/CHN/1 and G/SG/N/10/CHN/1.
54. The representative of Japan made a brief statement regarding several safeguard measures
imposed on certain steel products by China, the United States and also by the European Communities
and other countries.  The representative of Japan noted that regarding safeguard measures imposed by
the United States, a WTO panel had already been established in order to settle the dispute regardingthis issue under WTO rules and at that panel Japan, together with other co-complainants, had strongly
claimed that those safeguard measures of the United States were inconsistent with WTO rules and had
requested that those measures be revoked immediately.  Japan had also been struck by the fact that as
a consequence of the imposition of those measures by the US, a number of Member countries had
initiated investigations regarding steel products which had already led in some cases to provisional ordefinitive measures, as had been the case with the European Communities and China.  Japan was
strongly concerned by such a series of chain reactions.  Therefore, in addition to requesting the United
States to terminate its safeguard measures as soon as possible, Japan also urged other Members,
including China, to refrain from taking such measures.
55. The representative of the European Communities stated that the European Communities fully
supported the statement made by Japan.  The European Communities had always expressed in this
Committee its deep concern at the safeguard measures taken by the United States and the subsequent
chain reaction.  The delegate of the European  Communities also pointed out that the European
Communities had repeatedly stated its intention to lift its own measure as soon as the measures
adopted by the United States were lifted and the European Communities expected to be able to do so
as soon as possible after the Appellate Body ruled that the United States’ measures were illegal.  The
European Communities expected all other Members who had applied safeguard measures in responseto the measures taken by the United States to follow the EC example and lift their measure as soon as
the United States measures were lifted.
56. The representative of the European Communities noted that the notification by China which
was on the agenda of the meeting was dated 1 November 2002 and it had been made pursuant to
Articles 12.1(b) and 12.2(c), concerning the finding of serious injury and the intention to applymeasures.  In fact, China had applied a measure after this notification, on 20 November 2002, but it
had not made any further notifications on confirmation of application of these measures.  The delegate
of the European Communities asked China why it had not proceeded with such notifications.  TheG/SG/M/22
Page 8
representative of the European Communities noted that legislation had been adopted in China
regarding the exclusion of certain individual products from the scope of the measures, but there had
been no notification of any exclusions to this Committee.  The representative of the European
Communities asked whether China intended to notify anything in this respect and, whether China
could give any information on the state of play of this exclusion process and when they intended tofinalize it.
57. The representative of Malaysia stated that Malaysia associated itself very strongly with the
comments made by the delegation of Japan.  Malaysia shared the concerns over these chain reactions
and the number of safeguard measures that had been taken after the US action.  Although a
developing country and meeting the requirements of Article 9.1 of the Safeguards Agreement,
Malaysia was still subject to the US safeguard measures. The delegate of Malaysia pointed out that
the implementation of safeguard measures should be consistent with the provisions of the Agreement.Malaysia welcomed the EC's statement that they would lift their own safeguard measures once the
United States lifted theirs.  The representative of Malaysia also stated that they supported the
statement made by the European Communities seeking clarification on the issue of exclusions
regarding Chinese safeguard measures, and that they were looking forward to the reply from the
Chinese delegation.
58. The delegate of the United States stated that the US steel safeguard measure was not on the
agenda for this meeting and if Members wished to raise comments about it the appropriate place
would have been to ask to discuss this item under “other business”.  The United States noted that no
Member had done so.  Further, the United States disputed the contention that other Members might
have imposed safeguard measures as part of a chain reaction to the US measures.  These measures hadto stand on their own, they had to comply on their own with the terms of the Safeguards Agreement,
and any contention that any other measure was justified solely by the existence of the US measures
was unfounded.
59. The representative of  China stated that on 20 May 2002 the former Ministry of Foreign Trade
and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC), which at the time of the meeting was called the Ministry of
Commerce under the new government, had initiated a safeguard investigation concerning imports of
certain steel products.  According to the delegate of China, this was a chain reaction resulting from the
US measure adopted earlier.
60. The delegate of China mentioned that on 21 May, MOFTEC had announced provisional
safeguard measures on imports of certain steel products.  MOFTEC had immediately notified the
WTO upon initiating a safeguard investigation and taking the decision to apply provisional safeguard
measures.  Having received appropriate requests for consultations, China had consulted with SouthKorea, Japan and Mexico consistently with the Agreement on Safeguards.  On 13 November,
MOFTEC had announced the decision to impose three-year definitive safeguard measures on imports
of five categories of steel products.  MOFTEC had immediately notified the WTO upon taking the
decision to apply definitive safeguard measures and consulted also with Japan, South Korea, the EC,
Malaysia and Chinese Taipei consistently with the Agreement on Safeguards.  The delegate of Chinastated that China had applied definitive safeguard measures on imports of certain steel products based
on serious injury caused by increased imports to the domestic steel industry with recourse to China’s
law and regulations which are consistent with the WTO Agreements.  In addition, having considered
the interests of users and importers, China had decided to apply safeguard measures which contained
the existing flow of steel imports and would not limit normal imports of the steel products.G/SG/M/22
Page 9
7. Czech Republic – Sugar
61. The Chairman noted that the Czech Republic had made three notifications regarding its
investigation on sugar, as set forth in do cuments G/SG/N/8/CZE/ 4, G/SG/N/10/CZE/4 and
G/SG/N/11/CZE/5.
62.  There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.
8. Czech Republic – Ammonium Nitrate
63. The Chairman noted that the Czech Republic had made two notifications regarding its
investigation on ammonium nitrate as set forth in documents G/SG/N/7/CZE/4, and
G/SG/N/11/CZE/4.
64. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.
9. Czech Republic – Wire, Ropes and Cables
65. The Chairman noted that the Czech Republic had notified the termination of its investigation
on wire, ropes and cables, as contained in document G/SG/N/9/CZE/3.
66. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.
10. Czech Republic – Tubes and Pipes
67. The Chairman noted that the Czech Republic had made a number of notifications regarding its
investigation on tubes and pipes, as contained in documents G/SG/N/8/C ZE/5, G/SG/N/10/CZE/5,
and G/SG/N/11/CZE/6.
68. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.
11. Czech Republic – Citric Acid
69. The Chairman noted that the Czech Republic had notified the termination of its investigation
on citric acid, as contained in document G/SG/N/9/CZE/2.
70. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.
12. Ecuador– Fibreboard
71. The Chairman noted that Ecuador had made two notifications regarding its investigation on
fibreboard, as set forth in documents G/SG/N/6/ECU/3 and G/SG/N/10/ECU/2.
72. The representative of Mexico asked the delegation of Ecuador if they had had any public
hearings.  The delegate of Mexico also asked the reason why Ecuador had notified the initiation of the
investigation in February 2003, two months after the imposition of a measure.  Finally, the
representative of Mexico asked why the provisional measure had been notified one month after its
imposition.
73. The representative of the European Communities st ated that the initiation of the investigation
had only been notified by Ecuador two months after it had started, and the provisional measure around
45 days after its imposition.  The European Communities expressed concern at this.  Noting thatArticle 12.1 of the Safeguards Agreement was clear th at notification should be done immediately, theG/SG/M/22
Page 10
delegate of the European Communities invited Ecuador to respect this provision in order to enable the
European Communities and other WTO Members to take advantage of their rights under the
safeguard rules.
74. Next, the delegate of the European Communities stated that in the last paragraph of document
G/SG/N/6/ECU/3, it seemed that Ecuador had simply accepted the complainant's assertion of theexistence of critical circumstances.  The representative of the European Communities expressed
concern at this practice of taking a simple complaint as sufficient evidence to justify critical
circumstances.  According to the delegate of  the EC, before making a finding of critical
circumstances, which was a very delicate one, the investigating authorities should at least verify to an
important extent whether the information contained in the complaint was correct and sufficient.
75. The representative of Chile expressed concern about the measure applied by Ecuador to the
imports of fibreboard wood.  The delegate of Chile stated that Chile had sent a series of 13 questions
to the Ecuadorian mission on 24 April.  These questions ranged from the products included all the
way to more fundamental questions such as the basis for the initiation and other questions.
76. The representative of Chile also stated that although the obligation contained in Article 12.4
of the Agreement was to notify before the safeguard measure was adopted, the Ecuadorian measure
had been notified more than a month after its imposition.  The delegate of Chile also expressedconcern on the fact that the notification failed to contain information as to why it had been decided to
initiate the investigation.  The delegate of Chile stated that, as the European Communities had already
pointed out, critical circumstances, which was an essential element to be present for the imposition of
this type of a measure, had not been established.  The delegate of Chile also requested that Ecuador
transmit their concerns and reply in writing to the questions Chile had asked in writing.
77. The delegate of the United States stated th at although document G/SG/N/10/ECU/2 stated
that it was a notification under Article 12.1(c), it appeared to be referring to a provisional measure.
Therefore the delegate of the United States asked whether it should be re-categorized under Article
12.4 for purposes of the year-end report.
78. The Chairman encouraged Ecuador to resubmit its notification.
79. The representative of Ecuador stated that regarding the questions asked by Mexico, they
needed to receive them in writing because they  would transmit these questions to capital for an
appropriate reply.  The delegate of Ecuador also pointed out that their replies to Chile's questions
could also serve as a response to Mexico's questions.
80. Regarding the EC's questions, in particular the one concerning the determination of critical
circumstances that had also been raised by Chile, the representative of Ecuador stated that a reply
would be given as soon as possible.  Regarding Chile's questions on provisional safeguard measuresto imports of fibreboard wood, which the Ecuadorian Mission had received on 24 April, the
representative of Ecuador read out the answer s as set forth in document G/SG/Q2/ECU/5.
13. European Communities – Certain Steel Products
81. The Chairman noted that the European Communities had made a number of notifications
regarding its investigation on certain steel products , as set forth in documen ts G/SG/N/8/EEC/1/Suppl.1,
G/SG/N/10/EEC/1/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/11/EEC/1/Suppl.1.  The Chairman  also noted that Turkey had
made a notification concerning EC's inves tigation on steel (docum ent G/SG/N/12/TUR/1).
82. The delegate of the European Communities stated  that the notifications on the agenda of this
meeting related to the final adoption of the safegu ard measures by the European Communities on steel.G/SG/M/22
Page 11
The measures finally adopted were the same as they  had previously been notified prior to application,
and as discussed at the October 2002 regular meeting of this Committee.  The representative of the
European Communities stated that the discussi on of the previous meeting would probably have
exhausted this matter but that they were ready to reply to any questions Members might raise on these
measures.  The delegate of the European Communities pointed out that there were three products whichhad originally been included in the investigati on launched by the European Communities on which no
decision had been taken as of the date of the Committee's meeting in October 2002.  The representative
of the European Communities stated that for these three products the investigation had continued until
27 January 2003.  The decision had been taken to terminate these investigations so no additional
measures on these products would be adopted by the European Communities.
14. Hungary - Ammonium Nitrate
83. The Chairman noted that Hungary had made a number of notifications regarding its
investigation on ammonium nitrate, as contained in documents G/SG/N/6/HUN/2, G/SG/N/7/HUN/2
plus Add.1, and G/SG/N/11/HUN/2 plus Add.1.
84. The delegate of the United States stated that the most recent notification mentioned that the
competent authority had decided to suspend the application of the safeguard measure from
13 February 2003.  The representative of the United States asked whether the investigation was stillproceeding and what its status was.
85. The delegate of Hungary referred to their notification dated 20 February, which stated that the
Hungarian government had decided to suspend the application of the safeguard measure.  The
investigation would be continued if the suspension were lifted.
15. Hungary - Certain Steel Products
86. The Chairman noted that Hungary had made a number of notifications regarding its
investigation on certain steel products, as set forth in documents G/SG/N/8/HUN/1 and Corr.1,
G/SG/N/10/HUN/1 and Corr.1, G/SG/N/11/HUN/1/Add.1 and Corr.1 and G/SG/N/9/HUN/1.
87. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.
16. India – Bisphenol A
88. The Chairman noted that India had notified the initiation of an investigation on Bisphenol A,
as set forth in document G/SG/N/6/IND/15.
89. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.
17. India - Epichlorohydrin
90. The Chairman noted that India had made a notification on its investigation on
Epichlorohydrin, as set forth in document G/SG/N/10/IND/8.
91. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.
18. India - Edible Vegetable Oils
92. The Chairman noted that India had made a notification on its investigation on edible
vegetable oils, as contained in document G/SG/N/8/IND/12.G/SG/M/22
Page 12
93. The delegate of the European Communities noted that this notification had been made under
Article 12.1(b), but that it contained recommendati ons for termination of the investigation with no
measures.  The European Communities asked whether this case had been terminated.
94. The delegate of India stated that under Indian legislation any recommendation of the safeguard
authority was examined by the central government.  In this case it was still under examination.  As soon
as any other was passed by the central government  it would be notified immediately to the Committee.
19. Jordan - Sanitary Ware Products
95. The Chairman noted that Jordan had made a number of notifications regarding its
investigation on sanitary ware products, as set forth in documents G/SG/N/8/JOR/4, and
G/SG/N/10/JOR/ 4 plus Corr.1.
96. The delegate of Mexico asked how Jordan complied with the provisions of Article 9.1 of the
Agreement on Safeguards in this investigation.  In this respect the delegate of Mexico stated that
Mexico had only exported a small volume of these products to Jordan.  Finally, the representative of
Mexico asked when Jordan would notify the list of countries excluded from the definitive measure to
the WTO in order to comply with footnote 2 of the Safeguards Agreement.
97. The representative of Jordan stated that the conditions for the exclusion of Mexico's imports
had not applied to this case.  The representative of Jordan stated that they would like Mexico to submit
these questions in writing so that the Jordanian delegation could accurately respond.
20. Jordan - Pasta
98. The Chairman noted that Jordan had made a number of notifications regarding its
investigation on pasta, as contained in documents G/SG/N/8/JOR/3 plus Corr. 1, and
G/SG/N/10/JOR/ 3 plus Corr.1 and Corr. 2.
99. The representative of Mexico asked how Jordan  complied with Article 9.1 of the Safeguard
Agreement as well as why Mexico had not been excluded from the application of these safeguard
measures, given that Mexico had not exported products of this sort to Jordan.  The delegate of Mexico
also asked when Jordan would notify the list of c ountries who had been excluded from the scope of the
definitive measure to the WTO in order to comp ly with footnote 2 of the Safeguard Agreement.
100. The representative of Jordan stated that they w ould also like to have the questions in writing in
order to respond.
21. Jordan – Ceramic Tiles
101. The Chairman noted that Jordan had notified the termination of its investigation on ceramic
tiles, as contained in document G/SG/N/9/JOR/2.
The delegate of the European Communities mentione d that in the previous meetings of the Committee
the European Communities had expressed its concerns at the very large number of new safeguard
investigations initiated by Jordan just after having adopted its safeguard legislations.  This time round,
the representative of the European Communities expressed their satisfaction that Jordan had decided
to terminate most of these investigations.  This was certainly a good sign.  The delegate of the
European Communities also stressed the importance of looking at initiation standards which were also
an important issue.  Given that these investigations had in large part been terminated withoutmeasures it would obviously have been preferable that they hadn't been initiated at all, so as to avoidG/SG/M/22
Page 13
disruption and burden on exporters.  This raised the question whether the initiation standards should
not be made more restrictive in order to avoid that these investigations were carried out unduly.
102. The delegate of Jordan stated that the initiation of a safeguards investigation did not mean that
the Jordanian authorities were going to apply safeguards measures.
22. Jordan - Electric Accumulators
103. The Chairman noted that Jordan had notified the termination of its investigation on electric
accumulators, as set forth in document G/SG/N/9/JOR/3.
104. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.
23. Jordan  – Cooking Appliances
105. The Chairman noted that Jordan had notified the termination of its two investigations on
cooking appliances, as contained in documents G/SG/N/9/JOR/4 and G/SG/N/9/JOR/5.
106. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.
24. Jordan – Aerated Water
107. The Chairman noted that Jordan had notified the initiation of an investigation on aerated
water.  This notification was contained in document G/SG/N/6/JOR/9.
108. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.
25. Latvia– Swine Meat
109. The Chairman noted that Latvia had made a notification regarding its investigation on swine
meat.  This notification was contained in document G/SG/N/8/LVA/2.
110. The delegate of the United States stated that they  had an interest in this measure and that they
were working on possible questions to be submitted in writing.  The representative of the United
States asked whether the definitive measure had entered into force as at the time of the meeting.
111. The delegation of Latvia stated that they would transmit the US question to capital and reply
as soon as possible.
26. Slovak Republic – Ammonium Nitrate
112. The Chairman noted that the Slovak Republic had made three notifications regarding its
investigation on ammonium nitrate, as set forth in documents G/SG/N/8/SVK/2, G/SG/N/10/SVK/2
and G/SG/N /11/SVK/2.
113. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.
27. United States – Steel Wire Rod
114. The Chairman noted that the United States had made a notification regarding its investigation
on steel wire rod.  This notification was cont ained in document G/SG/N/10/USA/4/Suppl. 2.
115. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.G/SG/M/22
Page 14
28. United States – Line Pipe
116. The Chairman noted that the United States had made a number of notifications regarding its
investigation on line pipe, as set forth in  documents G/SG/N/10/USA/5/Rev.1/Suppl.1,
G/SG/N/11/USA/4/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/10/ USA/5/Rev.1/Suppl.2 plus Corr.1.
117. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.
29. Venezuela – Iron/Steel U Sections
118. The Chairman noted that Venezuela had made a number of notifications regarding its
investigation on iron/steel U sections as set forth in documents G/SG/N/7/VEN/1 plus Corr.1, and
G/SG/N/11/VEN/1 plus Corr.1.
119. The delegate of the European Communities asked about the status of these investigations.  The
representative of the European Communities mentioned that provisional measures had been imposed
quite recently and that the latest indications we re apparently that the Venezuelan investigating
authorities had recommended the termination of these proceedings with no definitive measures.  The
representative of the European Communities asked the Venezuelan delegate whether the findings of the
investigating authority would be notified under Ar ticle 12.1(b) and when a final decision would be
taken.
120. The representative of Venezuela stated that it was their informal understanding that the central
government had already received a negative reco mmendation.  The Venezuelan delegation would
immediately submit anything which happened in the near future on this case.
30. Venezuela – Footwear
121. The Chairman noted that Venezuela had notified the initiation of an investigation on footwear.
Venezuela's notification was contained in document G/SG/N/6/VEN/6.
122. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.
123. The Committee took note of the statements made.
124. The Chairman reminded Members that any questions concerning the notifications of actions
taken for which written responses were requested, had to be submitted to the Member concerned and
to the Secretariat no later than 19 May 2003.  Written answers had to be submitted to the Secretariatno later than 9 June 2003.
C. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 9.1
125. The Chairman reminded Members that the Committee had agreed at its previous regular
meeting to revert to this item at the present meeting.  Despite a reminder sent by fax last month, no
delegation had submitted any papers regarding issues that they would like to discuss under this agenda
item.
126. The Chairman recalled that among other issues, there had been some discussion on the time-
period to be used for calculation of the de minimis  thresholds, the methodology to be employed for
that calculation, treatment of Article 9.1 in the context of provisional measures, and the method by
which investigating authorities identified developing countries.G/SG/M/22
Page 15
127. The delegate of Colombia underscored the importance they gave to special and differential
treatment in the framework of the Safeguards Agreement.  The representative of Colombia proposed
that the Committee discuss two elements in this context:  the period of time which must be taken into
account in order to apply Article 9, and the methodology for the calculation.
128. Regarding the period of time, the representative of Colombia stated that their interpretation
was that the period used to determine the heavy in crease in imports which justified the imposition of
the measure should coincide fully with the basis for implementation of disciplines under Article 9.1.
The identity of these two periods was essential in order to guarantee the implementation of special
and differential treatment.
129. The delegate of Colombia stated that once it was verified that a developing country was
subject to the treatment established in Article 9.1, this exclusion had to be maintained until the
measure expired, even if excluded developing countries subsequently account for more than 3 per centof total imports.  If the developing countries increased their share in the market of the importing
Member applying a safeguard measure, this would be a positive result of the S & D treatment
provided for in Article 9.1 of the Agreement.
130. Regarding the methodology of calculation, the delegate of Colombia stated that Article 9
should be read in such a way as to group the totality of imports of developing countries.
131. The representative of Malaysia requested that Colombia's statement be made available to
Members in all the languages of the WTO so that Members could respond at the next meeting.  The
representative of Malaysia also requested that these issues remain open under this agenda item in case
Members had the opportunity to make any proposal at the next meeting.
132. The delegate of Brazil stated that the parameter for the exclusion or inclusion of a developing
country under Article 9.1 was the volume of trade.  According to the representative of Brazil, it was
not appropriate to use other parameters such as per capita income.  Brazil stated that this issue should
also be considered by the Committee.
133. The Committee decided to maintain this item on the agenda of the next regular meeting as
requested by Malaysia
134. The Chairman encouraged Members to circulate papers or written contributions on Article 9.1
issues, in order to allow for more fruitful discussions.
D. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Definition of Developing Countries
135. The representative of Mexico asked for more information on Poland's investigation on certain
steel products.  The delegate of Mexico asked why Mexico had not been excluded from the
application of these measures.  The representative of Mexico pointed out that according to the officialinformation submitted by the Government of Poland, Mexico had not exported the subject product to
Poland during the period of investigation (which covered the period 1997-2000).  The representative
of Mexico requested that Mexico be excluded from the application of the measure in conformity with
Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards.
136. Secondly, the delegate of Mexico stated that inconsistently with Article 9.1 of the Agreement
on Safeguard Measures, Mexico had not been excluded from the measure applied by the Government
of Jordan on magnetic tapes.  The delegate of Mexico asked when Jordan would notify to this
Committee the list of countries which had been excluded from the definitive measure.G/SG/M/22
Page 16
137. The representative of Poland stated that under the Safeguards Agreement there was no list of
developing country Members for which Article 9.1 had to be applied.  In order to prepare such a list
Poland had used its GSP list.  In that context, the first condition was that the country concerned be a
non-EU country, and secondly that it be a country which had a GNP per capita lower than Poland's.
That was the criteria used to place the country as a developing country on the list for exclusion underArticle 9.1.  In the case of Mexico, those conditions had not been fulfilled because Mexico had a GNP
per capita higher than Poland's and because it was an OECD country.  The delegate of Poland also
mentioned that as this matter had been raised by several other delegations in a bilateral context,
Poland was ready to hold bilateral consultations on this matter with requesting Members.
138. The representative of Poland also stated that their notification concerning steel products
covered eight groups of steel products.  The investigation had been initiated on 12 groups and
provisional safeguard measures had also been imposed on 10 of those 12 groups.  The representativeof Poland mentioned that for the other four groups of products, the investigation would be terminated
without imposition of a measure.
139. The representative of Mexico stated that they were concerned because they did not agree on
the consistency with the Agreement of the criteria used by Poland on this issue.  The delegate of
Mexico also stated that the fact that Mexico was part of the OECD did not mean either that it lost itsstatus as a developing country.  There were organizations such as the World Bank which had
recognized Mexico as a developing country.  The representative of Mexico pointed out that they
would like to hold bilateral consultations with Poland on this matter.
140. The delegate of Malaysia stated that this was an issue of systemic concern to all Members as
the status of developing countries was usually based on self-declaration.  The delegate of Malaysia
noted that the European Communities had not used th e same criteria for the safeguards initiations and
measures.  The representative of Malaysia asked whether, after its accession to the EC, Poland would
also bring its legislation into conformity with that of the EC.
141. The representative of Poland stated that a country which was treated as a developing country
by the European Communities might not necessarily be a developing country for Poland.  Poland had
a different economic situation than the European Union.  The representative of Poland also stated that
following accession to the European Communities it would be the European Commission who would
carry out safeguard investigations even if they concern Poland.
142. The representative of Brazil stated that this was an illustration of the systemic issues that
Brazil had raised under the previous agenda item.  Brazil shared the concerns that Mexico and
Malaysia had raised in respect to this matter.
2. EC/Argentina Anderson Commitment
143. The delegate of Argentina drew the attention of the Safeguards Committee to the so-called
"Anderson Commitment".  According to Argentina,  this was a 1995 voluntary export restraint
concerning exports of bovine meat to the EC.  The delegate of Argentina stated that this measure
caused serious economic injury to Argentina and to other countries and asked that these arrangements
be eliminated.
144. The delegate of the European Communities took note of Argentina's declaration and stated
that they would provide a reply shortly after this debate.G/SG/M/22
Page 17
3. Brazil - Toys
145. The representative of the United States  stated that they had a continuing interest in the
ongoing safeguard measure by Brazil with respect to toys which had been extended in December 1999
to expire on 31 December 2003.  The representative of the United States expressed their hope that this
measure would in fact expire during those terms if not earlier.
146. The representative of Brazil stated that this was an ongoing measure and that so far they had
no developments about it to report. The representative of Brazil took note of the question and would
convey it to their authorities.
147. The Committee took note of all the statements made.
E. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING
148. The Chairman recalled that regular meetings norma lly would be held in the last week of April
and the last week of October, in conjunction with the regular meetings of the Committees on Anti-
Dumping Practices and Subsides and Countervailing Measures. The Committee on Anti-Dumping
Practices and subsidiary bodies would meet between 21 – 24 October 2003, and the Committee on
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures would meet the week commencing 27 October 2003.
Accordingly, he suggested that the Safeguards Committee meet on Monday, 20 October 2003.
149. The Committee so agreed.
F. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
150. The Chairman stated that the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods had carried out
informal consultations on the nomination of Chairpersons for the different bodies operating under theauspices of the Council for Trade in Goods.  The proposed nominations had been taken note of by the
Council for Trade in Goods.  As concerns this Committee, the Chairman of the Council for Trade in
Goods had proposed the nomination of Mr. Pornchai Danvivathana of Thailand.  The Chairman
therefore proposed that the Committee elect Mr. Pornchai Danvivathana as Chairman.
151. The Committee so agreed.
152. Regarding the position of Vice-Chair of the Committee, the Chairman stated that he had
consulted a number of Members and, on the basis of those consultations, he proposed that the
Committee elect Mr. John Layton of Canada as Vice-Chair of the Committee.
153.  The Committee so agreed.
__________