G/ADP/Q2/IND/17  
 
28 March 2017  
(17-1686) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices  Original: English  
 
ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT  
ON IMPLEMENTATION OF  ARTICLE VI OF THE GA TT 1994  
QUESTION S POSED BY UKRAINE  TO INDIA REGARDING  ANTI-DUMPING  
INVESTIGATION CONCER NING IMPORTS OF COLD  ROLLED/COLD  
REDUCED FLAT STEEL P RODUCTS ORIGINATING IN AND/OR  
EXPORTED FRO M INTER ALIA  UKRAINE  
The following communication, dated 22 March 2017 , is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of  Ukraine . 
 
_______________  
 
 
On 19  April 2016, India initiated an anti -dumping investigation concerning imports of Cold 
Rolled/Co ld Reduced Flat Steel Products originating in and/or exported from inter alia  Ukraine.  
 
On 17  August 2016, India imposed provisional measures for  the period of 6 months  at the 
amount  of difference between the landed value of the subject goods and the amoun t indicated as 
USD 594  per MT, provided the landed value is less than the value of USD  594 per MT.1 
 
On 7 February 2017, India amended the resolution imposing provisional anti -dumping measures, 
extending their application from 6 to 8 months .2 
 
Ukraine here by would like to ask India to clarify the following.  
 
Question 1  
 
Article 7.4 of the Antidumping Agreement requires that provisional measures shall be limited to as 
short a period as possible , which in the circumstances of the second sentence, may not exce ed 
six months or, on decision of the authorities concerned, upon request by exporters  representing a 
significant percentage of the trade involved, to a period not exceeding nine months.  
 
Given the above -mentioned provision of the Antidumping Agreement, wo uld India please clarify 
whether the  investigating authority received a request from one or more exporters representing a 
significant percentage of the trade involved asking to prolong the application of the provisional 
measures? Would India please name th at exporter(s)?  
 
Question 2  
 
Article 7.4 of the Antidumping Agreement also stipulates that the periods of application of 
provisional measures may be six and nine months when authorities, in the course of an 
investigation, examine whether a duty lower than  the margin of dumping  would be sufficient to 
remove injury. According to Article 9.3 the amount of the anti -dumping duty shall not exceed the 
margin dumping.  
 
                                                
1 http://www.cbec.gov.in/resources//htdocs -cbec/customs/cs -act/notifications/notfns -2016/cs -
add2016/csadd45 -2016.pdf  
2 http://www.cbec.gov.in/resources//htdocs -cbec/customs/cs -act/notifications/notfns -2017/cs -
add2017/csadd06 -2017.pdf  G/ADP/Q2/IND/17  
 
- 2 - 
 
  While examining underselling the investigating authority did not explain in paragraph s 119 
and 121 of the preliminary determination how the non -injurious price was established. In addition 
in paragraph 126 of the determination, the investigating authority did not explain (whether 
and/or) how the amount of USD 594 per MT corresponds with non -injurious  price.  
 
Given that provisional antidumping duty were imposed by India at the amount of difference 
between the landed value of the subject goods and the amount indicated as USD 594 per MT, 
provided the landed value is less than the value of USD 594 per MT , could India please explain 
how the imposition of this provisional measures complies with Article  9.3 of the Antidumping 
Agreement?  
 
Would India explain how the amount of USD 594 per MT was established and how it corresponds 
to the dumping margin? Would I ndia also clarify which provisions of Indian legislation stipulate the 
methodology for the establishment of the duty using such an approach?  
 
Question 3  
 
The dumping period of investigation (POI) for the present investigation was  determined from 
July to December, 2015, i.e. only 6 months.  For the injury investigation, the following periods 
have been determined Apr '12-Mar'13, Apr '13-Mar'14, Apr '14-Mar'15, Apr '15-Dec'15 (Annualized) 
and the dumping POI.  
 
Would India indicate how it usually establishes the p eriod of investigation for the purposes of the 
dumping  determination and how it complies with the Recommendation of the Committee on Anti -
Dumping Practices of 16 May 2000 ? In addition, what factors were taken into account for the 
determination of the perio ds of investigation for dumping and injury in this particular case ?  
 
Question 4  
 
According to Article 5.8 of the Antidumping Agreement: "There shall be immediate termination in 
cases  where the authorities determine that the margin of dumping is  de minimis , or that the 
volume of dumped imports, actual or potential , or the injury, is negligible ... The volume of dumped 
imports shall normally be regarded as negligible if the volume of dumped imports from a particular 
country is found to account for less than 3  per cent of imports  of the like product in the importing 
Member… ". 
 
According to the International Trade Centre statistical data, the share of imports from Ukraine in 
total imports was 1.87% in POI and 2.73%  in Apr'15-Mar'16. These percentages demonstrate  that 
the volume of imports from Ukraine was negligible.   
 
Could India please explain how the imposition of this provisional measure against Ukrainian 
product complies with Article  5.8 of the Antidumping Agreement?  
 
Question 5  
 
The investigating authority  determined that there were many indicators showing  the dynamic  
development  of companies and the positive state of the overall industry . In particular , the main 
indicators that could be influenced by imports such as sales volumes on the Indian market showe d 
an increase by 13%.  
 
Given that at the same time other factors were injuring the domestic industry, for example, 
competition between the domestic producers, the authorities, pursuant to Article  3.5 of the Anti-
dumping Agreement,  had to examine these oth er factors.  
 
Would India please explain what methodology was used by the investigating authority to consider 
separate and aggregate influence of all other factors on the domestic industry?  
 
Would India also clarify how the conclusions of the investigating  authority on the "other factors " 
established in the Preliminary Findings comply with Article  3.5 of the Anti-dumping Agreement in 
particular with the requirement that injuries caused by these other factors must not be attributed 
to the dumped imports?  
__________