RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/SG/M/1
24May1995
ORGANIZATION(95-1383)
Committee onSafeguards
MINUTES OFTHE MEETING HELD ON
24FEBRUARY 1995
Chairman: Mr.J.Ruiz(Argentina)
1. TheCommittee onSafeguards heldaspecial meeting on24February 1995. Thefollowing
agenda wasadopted:
Page
A. Membership 2
B. Observers: Governments 2
C. Rules ofprocedure 4
D. Participation inmeetings bycertain Signatories oftheFinal Act
eligible tobecome original Members oftheWTO (WT/L/27) 5
E. Time-limits fornotifications referred toinArticles 11.2and
12.7bycertain Signatories oftheFinal Acteligible tobecome
original Members oftheWTO 6
F. Observers: International organizations 7
G. Coordination regarding notifications (WT/L/29) 8
H. Content ofnotifications 8
I. Legislation (Article 12.6andG/SG/N/1) 8
J. Examination andmonitoring ofmeasures (Article 13.1(d)
andG/SG/N/2, 3and4) 14
K. Procedures fortheannual review 14
L. Presentation anddiscussion ofnotifications 15
M. Assistance tobeprovided bytheCommittee (Articles 13.1(b),
(c)and(e)) 15
N. Dateofthenextregular meeting 16
O. Other business 17G/SG/M/1
Page2
A. Membership
2. TheChairman stated thaton20February 1995 theCouncil forTrade inGoods adopted the
Decision thatallWTO Members would beMembers oftheCommittee onSafeguards, except forthose
WTO Members thatexplicitly indicated their wish nottobeMembers oftheCommittee by
22February 1995. TheSecretariat hadnotreceived anynotification fromWTO Members indicating
thattheydidnotwishtobeMembers oftheCommittee. TheChairman therefore proposed thatthe
Committee takenotethat,byvirtue ofthatDecision, allMembers oftheWTO areMembers ofthis
Committee.
3. TheCommittee tooknoteofthedecision oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods.
B. Observers
4. TheChairman stated thatcertain governments, whowere intheprocess ofacceding tothe
WTO, orwhohadinitiated negotiations todoso,orhaddeclared theirintention todosointhenear
future, hadbeeninvited toattend meetings oftheGeneral Council asObservers. Inaccordance with
paragraph 6oftheGuidelines forObserver Status forGovernments intheWTO, which appears in
Annex 2oftheRules ofProcedure oftheSessions oftheMinisterial Conference andmeetings ofthe
General Council (WT/L/28), thesegovernments "may participate asObservers atmeetings ofWorking
Parties andother subsidiary bodies, oftheGeneral Council asappropriate withtheexception ofthe
Committee onBudget, Finance andAdministration." TheChairman therefore proposed thatsuch
governments bewelcomed toattend meetings ofthethisCommittee iftheysorequest, except ifand
when itisconsidered appropriate toholdaclosed session withtheparticipation ofMembers only.
Hefurther proposed thattheCommittee proceed likewise withanyother governments which, infuture,
maybegranted observer status intheGeneral Council.
5. Therepresentative oftheUnited States supported theChairman 'sproposal. Hesuggested that
totheextent thatnon-WTO Member countries seekObserver status intheCommittee onSafeguards,
itwould beappropriate anduseful iftheyprovided theCommittee withanyinformation thattheObserver
government considered relevant tomatters within thepreview oftheAgreement, including thetext
ofitslawsandregulations regarding safeguards andinformation regarding anysafeguard measures
taken bytheObserver government.
6. TheChairman observed thatthisissue would betaken uplater.
7. TheCommittee adopted theChairman 'sproposal.
8. TheChairman noted thatparagraph 7oftheGuidelines forObserver status ofgovernments
intheWTO (WT/L/28, Annex 2),addressed thequestion ofinformation tobeprovided byObservers,
stating that"during itsperiod ofobservership, anObserver government shallprovide theMembers
oftheWTO withanyadditional information itconsiders relevant concerning thedevelopments inits
economic andtradepolicies." Thislanguage didnotcover thedifferent aspects ofinformation required
tobeprovided byObserver governments incertain WTO Committees, suchastheCommittees on
Anti-Dumping Practices andSubsidies andCountervailing Measures. Theruleadopted bytheWTO
Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices provides "anObserver government shallprovide theCommittee
withanyinformation theObserver government considers relevant tomatters within thepreview of
theagreement, including thetextofitslaws andregulations regarding anti-dumping duties and
information regarding anyanti-dumping measures taken bytheObserver government. Attherequest
ofanymember ortheObserver government, anymatter contained insuchinformation could bebrought
totheattention oftheCommittee aftergovernments havebeenallowed sufficient timetoexamine the
information." TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee consider whether itwasdesirable toadoptG/SG/M/1
Page3
arulesuchasthatadopted bytheWTO Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices, covering theinformation
tobeprovided byObserver governments. Thiswould alsoaddress theconcern expressed bythe
United States.
9. Therepresentative ofPoland observed thatasPoland hadnotyetfinished theprocess of
ratification oftheWTO Agreement, because thePolish authorities decided firsttoreview domestic
tradelegislation inthelightofnewWTO disciplines, itpreferred toaccomplish thisdomestic process
andtoprovide theCommittee withnewdomestic legislation assoonasitwasadapted tothenew
requirements.
10. TheChairman observed thatthereference wasonlytolegislation thatisinforce andnotlaws
thatwerestillintheprocess ofbeing drafted andapproved. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee
adopt thefollowing ruleoninformation tobeprovided byObserver governments:
AnObservergovernmentshallprovidetheCommitteewithanyinformationtheobserver
governmentconsidersrelevanttomatterswithinthepreviewoftheAgreement,including
thetextofitslawsandregulations regarding safeguard measures, andinformation
regarding anysafeguard measures taken bytheObserver government. Attherequest
ofanymember ortheObserver government, anymatter contained insuchinformation
could bebrought totheattention oftheCommittee aftergovernments havebeenallowed
sufficient timetoexamine theinformation.
11. TheCommittee adopted theChairman 'sproposal.
C. Rules ofProcedure
12. TheChairman stated thattheMinisterial Conference andtheGeneral Council hadadopted rules
ofprocedure (WTO/L/28). However, norules ofprocedure existed fortheconduct ofthebusiness
oftheCommittee. Heproposed thattheCommittee decide whether itshould adopt formal rules of
procedure. IftheCommittee conlcuded thatitshould havesuchrulesofprocedure, thentheCommittee
mightalsowanttoconsiderwhethertocoordinateitseffortswithotherCommittees,inordertoformulate
acommon coreofrules ofprocedure together withother committees established bytheMultilateral
Trade Agreements, while recognising ofcourse thatitmight benecessary tohaveadditional ormodified
rules insome areas forthisCommittee.
13. Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated thatrulesofprocedure werenotreally necessary
fortheCommittee orforsubsidiary bodies. Hesuggested thatitmight beuseful todefer adecision
onthisissue, even though theChairman hadsimply proposed consultations ontheissue. Inthe
United States 'view, itwould bewisetodeferanydecision oftheCommittee untilthecertain keyissues,
including thequestion ofdecision making, hadbeenresolved inconsultations inCouncil forTrade
inGoods.
14. Therepresentative ofNewZealand supported theUnited States 'viewthatitwould bewise
nottogetahead ofthemore general process thatwason-going intheCouncil forTrade inGoods,
andtherefore agreed withdeferring thisissue. TheCouncil forTrade inGoods hadalready agreed
thatuntilitsnextmeeting, itwould follow customary GATT practice, which would beacceptable to
NewZealand fortheCommittee aswellifintheinterim there were aneedforsome procedures.
15. ThedelegateoftheEuropeanCommunitiessupportedthepositionexpressedbytheUnitedStates,
butwould notobject totheChairman beginning consultations withdelegations ontheissue.G/SG/M/1
Page4
16. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee authorize himtoenterintoinformal consultations
regarding thequestion ofrules ofprocedure fortheCommittee withallinterested parties. These
consultations would, ofcourse, takeintoaccount thework being done inthisdirection inother
committees, andofthedesirability ofensuring adegree ofconsistency between therulesofprocedure
ofthevarious committees.
17. TheCommittee adopted theChairman 'sproposal.
18. TheChairman noted thequestion raised byNewZealand, ofhowtheCommittee should operate
pending theadoption ofrules ofprocedure? Heproposed thatuntiltheCommittee decided whether
toadopt formal rules ofprocedure, andatleastuntilthenextmeeting oftheCommittee, itconduct
business onthebasis ofcommon sense andcustomary practice oftheTokyo Round Committees.
19. TheCommittee sodecided.
20. TheChairman noted thattheCouncil forTrade inGoods didnotappoint anyVice-Chairman
forthisCommittee. Pastexperience haddemonstrated thatitwould probably beuseful tohaveaVice-
Chairman. Heproposed thattheCommittee authorize himtoraisethesubject ofelection ofaVice-
Chairman, andcandidates forthatposition, withaviewtoelecting aVice-Chairman attheCommittee 's
nextmeeting, inthecontext oftheconsultations already approved bytheCommittee.
21. TheCommittee sodecided.
22. TheChairman noted thatintheother twocommittees under therules area, theCommittees
onAnti-Dumping Practices andSubsidies andCountervailing Measures, itistheCommittees themselves
whoelecttheirofficers. InthecaseofthisCommittee, theChairman hadbeenappointed bytheCouncil
forTrade inGoods. Hesolicited theopinions ofthedelegates astowhether theCommittee should
follow thepractice inother Committees ofelecting itstheirownofficers, orwhether thepractice of
appointment should becontinued.
23. Nodelegation having expressed anyviews, theChairman proposed thattheCommittee decide
toelectitsownofficers, Chairman andVice-Chairman, asofnextyear.
24. TheCommittee sodecided.
D. Participation inmeetings bycertain Signatories oftheFinal Acteligible tobecome Original
Members oftheWTO
25. TheChairmanrecalledthattheGeneralCouncilhaddecidedthatduringaperiodofsevenmonths
following thedateofentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement, signatories oftheFinal Actembodying
theresults oftheUruguay Round thatwereCONTRACTING PARTIES totheGATT 1947 asofthe
3January 1995, andwereeligible tobecome original Members oftheWTO, maybepresent andspeak
atformal andinformal meetings ofthebodies established under theWTO Agreement withtheexception
oftheTextiles Monitoring Body, andshallhaveaccess toalldocuments made available toMembers
oftheWTO forsuchmeetings (WT/L/27). Thatdecision alsoprovided thatsuchsignatories shall
nothavetheright toparticipate inthedecision making process ofthebodies established under the
WTO Agreements. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee takenoteofthisdecision.
26. TheCommittee tooknoteofthedecision oftheGeneral Council.
E. Time-limits fornotifications referred toinArticles 11.2and12.7bycertain Signatories of
theFinal Acteligible tobecome original Members oftheWTOG/SG/M/1
Page5
27. TheChairman recalled thatnotifications under Article 11,paragraph 2andunder Article 12,
paragraph 7oftheAgreement onSafeguards haveatimelimitof60,90or180days, afterentry into
forceoftheWTO Agreement, thatis,after1January 1995. Notifications under Article 12,paragraph 7
oftheAgreement ofSafeguards pertain tomeasures described inArticles 10and11,paragraph 1(b)
oftheAgreement, andmustbenotified by2March 1995. Suggested formats forthese notifications
were previously distributed toMembers indocuments G/SG/N/2 and3,dated 2February 1995.
Notifications under Article 11,paragraph 2concern theexception pursuant toArticle 11,paragraph
2,thatcould beinplace until31December 1999, andthetimetables forphasing outthemeasures
referred toinArticle 11,paragraph 1(b). Thetimelimitforthese notifications was31March 1995
and30June1995, respectively, andsuggested formats forthese notifications were indocuments
G/SG/N/4 andG/SG/N/5, dated 2February 1995 and7February 1995. TheChairman stated that
signatories eligible tobecome Original Members would notbeinaposition tomeetthese timelimits
iftheywaited untiltheybecome Members andthennotified measures subject tothese notification
requirements. Herecalled thattheCommittee hadalready taken noteoftheGeneral Council 'sdecision
toallow suchsignatories toparticipate inmeetings ofWTO bodies.
28. TheChairman therefore proposed thattheinformation required inthenotifications under
Articles 11.2and12.7oftheAgreement beprovided bysignatories thatareeligible tobecome original
Members ofWTO within thesame timelimits asthose which apply toWTO Members. Henoted
thatthisdidnotimply thatthese signatories would undertake anyobligations asaresult ofproviding
suchinformation. Inaddition, thetimetables presented bythesignatories forphasing outorbringing
measures intoconformity would beimplemented bythemonlywhen theybecome Members. However,
thefinaltimelimitspecified inArticle 11.2forphasing outorbringing intoconformity themeasures
referred toinArticle 11.1(b),thatisfouryears afterentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement, and
fiveyears fortheexception, would bethesame forboththesignatories eligible tobecome original
Members andthepresent Members.
29. Thedelegate oftheUnited States asked forclarification thatthedeadlines referred tobythe
Chairman would bethesameforMembers andforthesignatories eligible tobecome original Members,
andwerecalculated fromthedateofentry intoforce oftheAgreement, andnotfromthedateofentry
intoforce withrespect totheparticular Member making thenotification.
30. TheChairman confirmed theUnited States 'understanding.
31. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland stated thattheChairman 'sstatement wasindeed
straightforward, andacceptable toSwitzerland. However, hestated Switzerland 'sunderstanding that
thereisnoobligation onnon-Members, evenifeligible tobecome original Members, tonotify, although
intheinterest oftransparency andtofacilitate thework oftheCommittee, Switzerland would, ofcourse
asaSignatory oftheAgreement, submit itsnotifications within thetimelimits established.
26. TheCommittee adopted theChairman 'sproposal.
F. Observers: International organizations
27. TheChairman recalled thattheGeneral Council wasconsidering, buthadnotyetadopted,
rules regarding theparticipation ofinternational organizations asobservers toWTO bodies. Inthe
interim, Heads ofDelegations hadagreed thattheChairman oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods would
consultregardingwhethertoinvitecertainorganizationstothefirstmeetingsoftheirrespectivesubsidiary
bodies (WT/GC/COMM/2). TheChairman oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods hadstated atthefirst
meeting oftheCouncil thatnoorganization qualified forinvitation tothefirstmeeting oftheCommittee.G/SG/M/1
Page6
TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee takenoteofthediscussion intheGeneral Council and
thedecision oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods andrevert tothismatter atafuture meeting.
32. TheCommittee sodecided.
G. Coordination regarding notifications
33. TheChairman recalled that,inaccordance withtherecommendation ofthePreparatory
Committee, theGeneral Council hadadopted atitsmeeting on31January 1995, adecision onthe
Avoidance ofProcedural andInstitutional Duplication (WT/L/29). Thefirstparagraph ofthatdecision
pertains toavoiding duplication ofsafeguard notifications totheGATT Council andtheCommittee
onSafeguards.
34. TheCommittee tooknoteoftheGeneral Council 'sdecision.
H. Content ofnotifications
35. TheChairman stated that,asMembers wereaware, certain notifications under theAgreement
onSafeguards hadtobeprovided ormayhavetobeprovided relatively quickly. Inorder toassist
members tofocus onthetypeofinformation tobesubmitted inthenotifications andtoobtain similar
responses from different members, formats forcertain notifications were suggested indocuments
G/SG/N/1 to6,which hadalready beendistributed toMembers. Onthebasisofconsultations regarding
theformats fornotifications under theAgreement onSafeguards, theChairman hadprovided the
Members withdocument G/SG/W/1, which suggested formats forthedifferent notifications. The
document wasdistributed on23February 1995. Theformats under categories 1to4inthatdocument
were thesame asthose suggested indocuments G/SG/N/1 to6.TheChairman recalled thatthese
formats hadbeenconsidered bymost oftheinterested Members intheinformal contact group, and
thanked OleLundby forhiswork inchairing thatgroup. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee
adopt these formats.
36. TheCommittee adopted theformats indocument G/SG/W/1.
I. Legislation
37. TheChairman recalled thatdocument G/SG/N/1, dated 2February 1995, invited Members
tomake notifications oftheirlaws, regulations andadministrative procedures relating tosafeguard
measures. Aformat formaking thenotifications wasalsosuggested inthatdocument. Thenotifications
made bytheMembers inresponse tothatrequest would becirculated asaddenda tothatdocument.
TheChairman noted thattheWTO Committees onAnti-Dumping Practices andSubsidies and
Countervailing Measures hadagreed thatthenotified lawsandregulations would beunrestricted. He
therefore proposed thatthisCommittee decide thatthenotifications under Article 12.6would be
distributed asunrestricted documents.
38. TheCommittee sodecided.
39. TheChairman observed thattherequest fornotifications didnotspecify adatebywhich
notifications should bemade, nordiditsuggest aprocedure orschedule forreview ofthesenotifications
bytheCommittee. Theprocessing ofthese notifications bytheSecretariat andtheirtranslation would
beatimeconsuming process, which suggested aneedforearlynotification. Totheextent theCommittee
decided toreview these notifications indetail, itwould needtoholdanumber ofspecial meetings.
Further, delegations would needareasonable period oftimetostudy thenotifications, before themeeting
atwhich theyweretobediscussed, andbypreference havetheopportunity tosubmit written questions.G/SG/M/1
Page7
Finally itwasimportant thatinselecting theorder inwhich notifications aretaken upforexamination,
theCommitteedidnotcreateadisincentiveforthetimelysubmissionofsaidnotifications.TheChairman
asked forcomments from delegations.
40. Thedelegate oftheEuropean Communities suggested thatinviewofthefactthatthissubject
hadbeendiscussed intheCommittee onAnti-Dumping Practices andtheCommittee onSubsidies and
Countervailing Measures, itwould belogical tosetthesame datefornotifications tothisCommittee
ashadbeenestablished inthose Committees, namely 15March. Healsosuggested thatdelegations
which could notsubmit legislation bythisdate,forwhatever reason, should indicate inanotification
tobepresented bythatdate, whytheirlegislation could notbenotified.
41. Thedelegate oftheUnited States stated thathisauthorities hadinstructed himtorequest that
therequirement besetfornotification byMarch 24andthatsubsequent modifications benotified within
30daysofadoption bymembers.
42. Therepresentative ofCanada stated thatCanada 'sunderstanding wasthatthedateof15March
hadbeenchosen asthedeadline intheAnti-Dumping andSubsidies Committees based ontherespective
Agreements, which required Members tohaveinplace anti-dumping andcountervailing regimes in
conformity withtheAgreement onthefirstofJanuary. Thus, iftheregimes wereinplace, itshould
nottakelongtoprepare legislation andregulations forsubmission. However, thesame obligation
didnotappear explicitly intheAgreement onSafeguards. Thus, while heappreciated thelogic of
theEuropean Communities 'position, 15March might notbeaseasyadeadline tomeetinthecase
ofsafeguards legislation.
43. TheChairman noted thatitwould nonetheless bereasonable, onapragmatic basis, toseta
datesimilar tothatestablished intheother twoCommittees. Hesuggested thatperhaps thedatecould
bepostponed somewhat to1or15April instead of15March, withtheunderstanding thatMembers
whodonotprovide notifications bythattimeshould indicate thereason.
44. Thedelegate ofHong Kong stated thatHong Kong didnotbelieve thatdifferent deadlines for
submission oflegislation inthedifferent Committees intheRules areawasdesirable. Inhisview,
itwould bebetter tosticktothedeadline adopted intheother twoCommittees, namely, 15March.
Atthesame time, asproposed, those whocould notcomply withthatdeadline should provide an
explanation.
45. Therepresentative ofJapan noted thatitwould takeaconsiderable timetotranslate theJapanese
textofitslegislation intoanofficial language oftheWTO.
46. Therepresentative ofNewZealand observed thatasageneral rule,prompt notification would
clearly bedesirable. Twospecific dates, 15March and24March, hadbeenproposed. Either would
beacceptable, butitwould notbedesirable toletthedeadline bepostponed untiladateinApril.
NewZealand alsosupported theEuropean Communities 'suggestion foranexplanation ifitwasnot
possible foraMember toprovide thetextsoflegislation ontheagreed date. Regarding Canada 'spoint,
thereisanoverriding obligation intheWTO Agreement toensure conformity oflawsandregulations
withobligations inthecovered Agreement. So,every Member should havetheirlegislation inplace
asof1January, evenifitisnotavailable inanofficial WTO language.
47. Therepresentative ofAustralia expressed support forthe15March deadline, particularly given
thefactthattheCommittee hadalready recognized thatsome countries would forvarious reasons not
beabletomake thatdeadline. Those countries would simply needtoputinanexplanation tothat
effect, evenifnotification could bemade onlyafewdayslater. Australia proposed that,ashadbeen
assumed intheother twoCommittees, those countries thathavenosafeguards legislation would notifyG/SG/M/1
Page8
thatfactbythedeadline. Inaddition, atleastintheSubsidies Committee, itwasagreed thatcountries
thatwereunable tomeetthedeadline, inexplaining theirreasons, would alsogiveanindicative timetable
ofwhen theymight infactbeabletonotify theirlegislation. TheAustralian delegate proposed that
thisCommittee proceed inthesame manner.
48. Thedelegate ofHungary expressed hisunderstanding ofNewZealand 'scomment, thatby
1January 1995, Members should havetheirsafeguards legislation inplace. Hungary agreed that
Members arerequired tobring theirlawsintoconformity withtheAgreements, butdisagreed with
theconclusion. InHungary 'sview, therequirement ofconformity oflegislation didnotmean that
eachcountry must havelegislation inthisfield.
49. Thedelegate ofNewZealand clarified thatalltheAgreement stated wasthat,from1January,
eachcountry shallensure thatitslegislation andregulations wasinconformity withitsobligations.
Whether ornotthatmeant thatthere mustbelegislation inplace wasanother issue, butaMember 's
legislation andregulations mustbeinconformity withitsobligations. Therefore, iftherewaslegislation
withrespect tosafeguard measures, ithadtobeinconformity withtheAgreement.
50. Thedelegate oftheUnited States sought toclarify thatAustralia 'sproposal related tonotification
ofsafeguardslaws,regulations,andadministrativeprocedures,andnotnotificationofsafeguardmeasures
themselves. AstheUnited States understood Australia 'sproposal, ifaMember didnothavesafeguards
legislation, itwould sonotify bythedeadline established bytheCommittee. Onthatbasis, the
United States supported Australia 'sproposal.
51. Therepresentative ofAustralia stated thattheUnited States 'understanding wascorrect.
52. TheChairman proposed thatMembers submit notifications ofavailable laws, regulations, and
administrativeproceduresrelatingtosafeguardsby15March,withtheunderstandingthatsomeMembers
might notify atalaterdate. Hisproposal encompassed theunderstanding that,asofthedeadline, all
Membersshouldhaveeithernotifiedlegislationorhaveclearlyindicatedwhylegislationwasnotnotified,
andgiven atentative dateforactual notification.
53. Thedelegate ofNorway observed thatiftheCommittee established adeadline of15March,
itshould notaccept inadvance thatcertain Members would notify atalaterdate,which would ineffect
introduce twodeadlines. Norway believed there should beonedeadline forall,15March. Withthat
clarification, hesupported theChairman 'sproposal.
54. Thedelegate oftheUnited States supported theintervention ofNorway. Herestated his
authorities 'interest insetting adeadline fornotification ofmodification oflegislation of30daysafter
adoption byMembers. While thiswasnotafront burner issue, ifMembers could agree tothis,or
agree toconsider itfurther, itwould beuseful, asotherwise itmight bequite some timebefore
governments notified latermodifications.
55. TheChairman noted thatthere hadnotbeenanydiscussion onthispoint.
56. Thedelegate ofHong Kong supported theUnited States 'proposal, butwasalsowilling toallow
other delegations more timetoreflect onitandenter intoformal consultations onthisissue.
57. Thedelegate ofHungary suggested thattheCommittee conclude thefirstpartofitsdiscussion
andagree onadeadline forthefirstnotification. Heasked forclarification whether theproposal was
toestablish afirmdeadline of15March, orwhether theproposal wastoallow adegree offlexibility
foroneMember, ortoallow adegree offlexibility forallMembers? Secondly, withregard tothe
United States 'proposal ofnotification ofmodifications within 30days, Hungary didnotobject.G/SG/M/1
Page9
However, heproposed anamendment, sothatthe30dayswould becounted notfromthedateofadoption
ofanymodification, butrather thedateofpublication. Insome countries, amodification tolegislation
maybeadopted, butmayonlyenter intoforce atalater, specified date, which inHungary issome
daysafterpublication.
58. Thedelegate oftheEuropean Communities sought clarification oftheUnited States 'proposal.
Iftheproposal wasthatmodifications subsequent totheinitial notification oflegislation were tobe
notified within 30daysafteradoption, orasproposed bythedelegate ofHungary within 30daysafter
publication, theEuropean Communities could agree. However, ifother delegations hadconcerns,
consultations could beheldtofindasolution.
59. Thedelegate ofJapan alsoexpressed support fortheUnited States 'proposal. However, he
observedthatsomeMembersmighthavedifficultyintranslatinglengthymodificationstotheirlegislation
intimetomeeta30daydeadline.
60. Thedelegate ofColombia sought clarification whether the30dayswereproposed tobecounted
from thedateofentry intoforce ofamodification, orthedateofissuance ofamodification? In
Colombia, forinstance, rules might beissued ononedate, andenter intoforce atalaterdate.
61. ThedelegateofThailandexpressedsupportfortheproposalthattherebeonedeadline,15March,
fornotification ofrelevant laws, regulations andadministrative procedures relating tosafeguards
measures. Ifsome members were unable tonotify theirlawsatthattime, theyshould indicate the
reason, andprovide atentative dateforsubmission. Regarding notification ofmodifications, she
proposed adoption ofadeadline of30daysafterdomestic publication ofanymodifications torelevant
laws, regulations, andadministrative procedures. Again, ifaMember could notnotify atthattime,
itshould indicate thereason andanindicative dateforsubmission. Thiswould takeaccount ofthe
concern expressed bytheJapanese delegate about translation. Finally, sheproposed thatMembers
thatdidnothavesafeguards legislation inplace should soinform theCommittee, toensure acomplete
picture.
62. Thedelegate ofBrazil expressed support forthedeadline of15March forinitial notifications,
andadeadline of30daysafterentry intoforce fornotifications ofmodifications.
63. Thedelegate ofNorway supported the30daydeadline fornotification ofmodifications.
64. TheChairman stated thatthere appeared toaconsensus astoadeadline of15March for
notifications ofrelevant legislation, oriflegislation could notbenotified bythatdate, anindication
ofthereason, andofwhen thenotification would bemade. Members which havenolegislation should
notify theCommittee accordingly, alsoby15March. There appeared tobenoobjection toadeadline
of30days from entry intoforce fornotification ofmodifications tolegislation, again withthe
understanding thatifthedeadline could notbemet,thereason would benotified bythedeadline, with
anindication ofwhen themodification would benotified. Hetherefore proposed thattheCommittee
adopt these deadlines.
65. TheCommittee sodecided.
66. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee holdaspecial meeting inMayinorder toreview
theinitial notifications oflegislation.
67. TheCommittee sodecided.G/SG/M/1
Page10
68. TheChairman stated thatsome Members havenotyetenacted legislation and/or regulations
implementing theAgreement andthatdifferent measures mayberequired toimplement theAgreement
inview ofthedifferences innational legal systems. Hetrusted thatMembers would refrain from
initiating investigations untilanadequate legalbasisexisted forconducting investigations inamanner
consistent withtheAgreement.
J. Examination andmonitoring ofmeasures
69. TheChairmannotedthat,underArticle13.1(d),theCommitteewastoexaminebothpre-existing
ArticleXIXmeasuresandmeasuresprohibitedunderArticle11oftheAgreement,monitorthephase-out
ofsuchmeasures, andreport asappropriate totheCouncil forTrade inGoods. Heproposed that,
inorder toperform thistask, attheendofeachyearMembers could beasked tosubmit areport
regarding theirprogress inphasing outthemeasures.
70. Therepresentative oftheUnited States supported theChairman 'sproposal. Inaddition, he
suggested thateither theSecretariat could draftanoutline forsuchareport tobepresented atthenext
meeting, orMembers could consult onthestructure ofsuchareport.
71. Thedelegate ofHong Kong supported theChairman 'sproposal.
72. TheCommittee adopted theChairman 'sproposal.
K. Procedures fortheannual review
73. TheChairman stated thattheCommittee needed todiscuss procedures foritsannual review
andreport totheCouncil forTrade inGoods. TheCommittee should keepinmindinthesediscussions
thatunder Article 13,paragraph 1(a),itwastomake recommendations toward theimprovement of
theAgreement totheCouncil forTrade inGoods. Hesuggested thatthisreview bedoneonthebasis
ofadraftreport prepared bytheSecretariat. TheCommittee could taketheexample oftheprocedures
usedintheWTO Committees onAnti-Dumping Practices andSubsidies andCountervailing Measures,
thathadagreed tofollow theprocedures usedbytheTokyo Round Committees. FirsttheSecretariat
prepares adraftreport totheCONTRACTING PARTIES andthereport iscirculated tothemembers
oftheCommittee either inadvance ofthesecond regular meeting oftheyearoratthatmeeting and
thentheCommittee reviews thedraftreport attheendofthemeeting andinstructs theSecretariat
regarding anymodifications thatshould bemade, taking intoaccount ofcourse, anyevents thatoccurred
atthemeeting. TheSecretariat finalizes thereport andconveys ittotheCONTRACTING PARTIES.
TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee follow thesame procedure.
74. TheCommittee adopted theChairman 'sproposal.
L. Presentation anddiscussion ofnotifications
75. TheChairman stated that,inview ofthelarge number ofMembers oftheCommittee, the
Committee maywanttoconsider whether therewasaneedtoalterthewayinwhich certain notifications
arepresented totheMembers, andwhether some short cutscould betaken interms ofthediscussion
ofdifferent notifications inthemeeting. Heproposed tosolicit theviews oftheSecretariat onthis
score andtoconsult informally withdelegations, toexplore thismatter further andtoreport backto
theCommittee atafuture meeting. Heasked thatdelegations withsuggestions regarding thismatter
contact himortheSecretariat.
76. Therepresentative ofBrazil sought clarification thattheobjective ofthese consultations was
nottheformat ofnotifications, which theCommittee hadalready approved.G/SG/M/1
Page11
77. TheChairman confirmed thathisintention wasnottodiscuss formats, butrather toconsider
thebestwayfortheCommittee properly todiscuss thelargenumber ofnotifications likely tobemade.
78. TheCommittee adopted theChairman 'sproposal.
M. Assistance tobeprovided bytheCommittee
79. TheChairman stated thattheCommittee maywishtotakeadecision regarding support by
Members fortheprovision oftechnical assistance relating totheimplementation oftheAgreement,
inparticular regarding theprovision ofassistance totheMembers, iftheysorequest, onmatters referred
toinArticles 131(b)(c)and(e).Article 131(b)states thattheCommittee hastofind,upon request
ofanaffected Member, whether ornottheprocedural requirements oftheAgreement hadbeencomplied
withinconnection withasafeguard measure andreport itsfindings totheCouncil forTrade inGoods.
Article 131(c)states thattheCommittee hasto"assist members iftheysorequest intheirconsultations
undertheprovisionsofthisAgreement".Andinparagraph(e),theAgreementstatesthat"theCommittee
hastoreview, attherequest oftheMember taking asafeguard measure, whether proposals tosuspend
concessions orotherobligations are"substantively equivalent", andreport asappropriate totheCouncil
forTrade inGoods". TheChairman requested comments from delegations.
80. Thedelegate oftheUnited States observed thattheUnited States believed that,werearequest
tobemade, theCommittee could review suchcases based oninformation provided bytheparties
involved, andthattheSecretariat could berequested toprovide additional factual material ifneeded.
81. Thedelegate ofCanada queried whether theSecretariat could provide some further detail or
afurther explanation ofthewayinwhich assistance could beoffered.
82. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee asktheSecretariat toindicate howtheCommittee
might provide thisassistance. Inaddition, thesubject could bediscussed intheconsultations tobe
heldonrules ofprocedure.
83. TheCommittee agreed withtheChairman 'sproposal.
N. Dateofthenextregular meeting
84. TheChairman stated thattheCommittee needed tomake adecision onhowmany regular
meetings itshould haveinayearandthedates ofitsregular meetings. Heproposed thatinitially the
Committee haveoneregular meeting peryear, inthelastweek ofNovember eachyear. Ofcourse
should themembers subsequently feelthatanadditional regular meeting would berequired another
decision could accordingly betaken.
85. Thedelegate ofNorway asked whether theregular meeting oftheCommittee could be
coordinated withthemeetings oftheAnti-Dumping andSubsidies Committees.
86. TheChairman stated thatthemeetings oftheCommittees onAnti-Dumping Practices and
Subsidies andCountervailing Measures werescheduled forthelastweek ofOctober. Thus, itwould
beconvenient tohavetheSafeguards Committee meetatthattimeoftheyear.
87. Thedelegate ofMexico supported theChairman 'sproposal. HedrewtheCommittee 'sattention
tothefactthatinconsidering thematter oftheCommittee 'sannual report, ithadbeenstated thatthe
Secretariat would present adraftatthesecond regular meeting, butthattheproposal oftheChairman
wasthatthere beonlyoneregular meeting.G/SG/M/1
Page12
88. Thedelegate ofNewZealand expressed support fortheideaofhaving theregular meeting
oftheCommittee scheduled close tothemeetings oftheAnti-Dumping andSubsidies Committees,
given theneedtohaveexperts from capitals inattendance, andtoavoid theirhaving totravel back
andforth. Secondly, astowhether there should beoneortworegular meetings eachyear, itseemed
alittleearly todecide that. Perhaps thequestion could betaken upduring consultations onrules of
procedure andother issues, togivedelegations anopportunity toreflect ontheissue.
89. Thedelegate oftheEuropean Communities supported thestatements ofthedelegates ofNorway
andNewZealand. Forthetimebeing, theCommittee should schedule asingle regular meeting, as
itcould notyetdetermine whether anadditional regular would benecessary orappropriate.
90. TheChairman stated thatitwasclearly premature todecide whether theCommittee would
needoneortwooranyparticular number ofmeetings peryear. Forthetimebeing therewasnothing
tosuggest thattheCommittee would needmore thanoneregular meeting peryear. Heproposed
that,forthetimebeing, theCommittee schedule aregular meeting, during thefirstweek ofNovember
1995, soastoensure thatthismeeting would beheldasclose aspossible tothemeetings oftheAnti-
Dumping andSubsidies Committees. TheMembers could consult onwhether itwasnecessary tohave
more thanoneregular meeting, andperhaps evenmake adecision during oneofthespecial meetings
thatwere tobeheldtoreview legislation.
91. TheCommittee sodecided.
92. TheChairmanproposedthattheCommitteeauthorizehimtoconvenespecialmeetings,additional
tothatalready proposed forMay, toexamine notifications oflegislation, should heconclude thatsuch
meetings were necessary.
93. TheCommittee sodecided.
O. Other business
94. Noissues were raised under thisitem.