G/ADP/Q1/RUS/1  
G/SCM/Q1/RUS/1  
G/SG/Q1/RUS/1  
 
3 April 2013  
(13-1726)  Page: 1/6  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Committee on Safeguards
 Original: English  
 
 NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLES 18.5, 32.6 AND 12.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS  
QUESTIONS POSED BY THE UNITED STATES 
REGARDING THE NOTIFICATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION1 
The following communication, dated 2 April 2013, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the United States.  
_______________ 
  
The United States thanks the Russian Federation for its notification of its laws and regulations 
pertaining to safeguard, antidumping and counter vailing duty investigations in the form of 
Agreement on the Application of Safeguards, Antidumping and Countervailing Measures against Third Countries (Moscow, 25 January 2008) (hereinafter "2008 Agreement"), the Agreement on 
the Application of Safeguard, Antidumping and Co untervailing Measures in Transitional Period 
(St. Petersburg, 19 November 2010) (hereinafter "2010 Transitional Agreement") as well as other 
decisions and regulations on various topics and poses the following questions: 
 
Question 1  
With regard to the 2008 Agreement , please clarify the relationship between the Eurasian Economic 
Commission (EEC) and the Customs Union Commission (Commission). Please identify the differences in structure, responsibility and deci sion-making capability between the two entities. 
 
Question 2 
 Article 2 of the 2008 Agreement contains a definition of the term "material injury to an industry of 
the States Parties." Articles 13(1), 13(2), 23(1), and 23(2) of the 2008 Agreement  also purport to 
define material injury in the context of anti dumping and countervailing duty proceedings. The 
general definition in Article 2, on the one hand, and the more specific definitions in Articles 13 
and 23, on the other hand, do not fully correspond to each other. Please clarify which definition(s) 
are controlling in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations and what the significance is of the definition in Article 2.  
Question 3 
 Article 2 of the 2008 Agreement contains a definition  of the term "industry of the States Parties. 
Article 2 defines "industry" to include, for the purposes of safeguard investigations, as all the 
producers of the like or directly competitive product "in the States Parties." Please explain how the Commission would conduct an investigation that involves producers in multiple states, including 
whether the Commission would have authority to compel producers in the various states to submit 
information and whether the Commission would seek to verify or otherwise confirm the 
information submitted.   
Article 2 further defines the term "industry" to mean all producers in the States Parties of the like 
or directly competitive product or those whose share of total production "constitutes a significant 
                                               
1 G/ADP/N/1/RUS/1-G/SCM/N/1/RUS/1-G/SG/N/1/RUS/1 (dated 3 October 2012). G/ADP/Q1/RUS/1 • G/SCM/Q1/RUS/1 • G/SG/Q1/RUS/1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  part, but not less than 25 per cent." Please explain how the term "significant part" is consistent 
with the definition of domestic industry in Ar ticle 4.1(c) of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, 
which states that, "in determining injury or threat thereof, a 'domestic industry' shall be understood to mean the producers as a whole of the like or directly competitive products... or 
those whose collective output of the like or directly competitive products constitutes a major 
portion  of the total domestic production of those pr oducts" (emphasis added). Please also explain 
the basis for concluding that producers accounting for as little as 25% of production might 
constitute a "major proportion" of production of the like or directly competitive products and how 
the Commission would consider producers accounting for the remaining 75% of domestic production. Finally, please explain whether this 25%  rule would apply in the case of producers in 
each of the States Parties, and whether a petition would be considered properly filed if it 
accounted for less than 25% of the production of certain States Parties.  
 Question 4 
 
Article 2 of the 2008 Agreement defines the threat of serious injury to mean "the inevitability" of 
serious injury to the domestic industry, while Ar ticle 4.1(b) of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards 
states that the term should be understood to mean "serious injury that is clearly imminent." The 
term "inevitability" is defined to mean an event th at is "impossible to evade or prevent" (Merriam-
Webster Dictionary, accessed at http://www.merriam-webster.com /dictionary/inevitability  on 
14 February 2013), but does not convey the sense of when that event will occur. The term "clearly 
imminent," coupled with the requirement in Arti cle 4.1(b) of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards 
that the finding of threat be based "on facts and not merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility," suggests an event "ready to take plac e" as in "hanging threateningly over one's head" 
(Merriam-Webster Dictionary, accessed at http://www.merriam-webster. com/dictionary/imminent  
on 14 February 2013). Please explain how the use of the term "inevitability" is consistent with 
"clearly imminent" in Article 4.1(b) of the Safeguards Agreement. 
 
Question 5  Article 3.1 of the 2008 Agreement states that an investigation "should be conducted" before the 
introduction of a safeguard measure. The use of the word "should" suggests that an investigation 
would be optional. This is in contrast to Article 4.1 of the 2008 Agreement which indicates that such an investigation would be  a prerequisite to introduction of a safeguard measure. Please 
explain how Article 3.1 of the 2008 Agreement is  consistent with Article 3.1 of the WTO 
Safeguards Agreement, which states: "A Member may apply a safeguard measure only following an investigation by the competent authorities of that Member pursuant to procedures previous 
established and made public in consonance with  Article X of GATT 1994." Please explain whether 
any law notified by the Russian Federation would allow the Commission, in specific instances, to apply a safeguard measure without conducting an investigation (such as a provisional safeguard measure that meets the requirements of Ar ticle 6 of the WTO Safeguards Agreement). 
 
Question 6  
Article 3.6 and Article 40 of the 2008 Agreement  state that in arriving at a final determination the 
investigating authority provides the Commission with a report suggesting the appropriateness of the imposition and application of a safeguard,  antidumping or countervailing measure. The 
Commission then considers these recommendations in light of other factors including public 
interest, the state of competition and state of the domestic industry, all of which raise the following questions:  
 How are the recommendations of the investigating authority taken into account when 
formulating the ultimate decision in the investigation issued by the Commission?  
 Are the decisions of the Commission final or are they subject to approval by the individual 
States Parties? 
 Do the States Parties need to vote or otherwise signal their approval of the decision of the 
Commission before a trade remedy measure can be imposed? 
 What role do the States Parties and interested parties play once the technical 
recommendations of the investigating authority have been submitted to the Commission?  
 What opportunities are provided for interest ed parties to comment and otherwise express 
their views about the report to the Commission prior to its final determination? 
 G/ADP/Q1/RUS/1 • G/SCM/Q1/RUS/1 • G/SG/Q1/RUS/1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Please also explain the process and timeline by which decisions of the Commission are passed to 
individual States Parties. Does each States Part y issue its own notification of an antidumping, 
countervailing duty or safeguard measure? If so, through what means does each States Party issue its notification? 
 
Question 7  
Article 6.1 of the 2008 Agreement refers to a preliminary determination regarding imports of a 
product "under investigation" and to continuati on of the "investigation" after the preliminary 
determination. Please explain the kind and duration  of the investigation that would be undertaken 
in order to make a preliminary determination, and the procedures that would be followed, 
including the extent to which such procedures woul d be of the type described in Article 3.1 of the 
WTO Agreement on Safeguards (e.g. publication of a notice, a public hearing, and opportunity for 
interested parties, including importers and expo rters, to present evidence and their views). 
 
Question 8  
Article 6.1 of the 2008 Agreement also refers to " serious injury ... which would be difficult to 
eliminate later." Please explain how this wording is consistent with Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, which refers to " damage  which it would be difficult to repair"? 
 
Question 9   
 Article 7.1 of the 2008 Agreement states that th e safeguard measure applied would be in the 
amount and "within" the time required for "elimination" of the serious injury or threat of serious 
injury. Please explain how this provision is consistent with the requirement in Article 5.1 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, which requires that  the measure applied be "only to the extent 
necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment" and similar wording in 
Article 7.1 of the WTO Safeguards Agreement. In particular, please explain how the word 
"elimination" (or "eliminate") is consistent with  the WTO Safeguard Agreement term "prevent or 
remedy" serious injury. Please also explain how Russia would "eliminate" a threat of serious injury. 
 
Question 10  
Article 7.2 of the 2008 Agreement states that when  the safeguard measure is in the form of an 
import quota, the quota will not be lower than th e average annual level of imports of the product 
under investigation "during a previous period" except when "necessary" to "eliminate" serious 
injury or the threat of serious injury. Please explain how this wording is consistent with Article 5.1 
of the WTO Safeguards Agreement, which requires that the measure "not reduce the quantity of 
imports below the level of a recent period which shall be the average of imports in the last three 
representative years for which statistics are available , unless clear justification is given...." 
(emphasis added). 
 Question 11 
 
Article 10.6 of the 2008 Agreement states that in th e comparison of export price with normal value 
any required conversion from one currency to anothe r is made using the official exchange rate on 
the date of the sale of the prod uct. Please identify the source of the exchange rate data and 
whether that data is available to the public.   Question 12 
 
Article 16.2 of the 2008 Agreement states that the Commission may decide to impose an antidumping duty at a rate lesser than the rate of the calculated margin of dumping if such rate is 
sufficient to repair the injury to the industry of the Parties. Likewise, Article 26.4 of the 2008 
Agreement states that the Commission may decide to impose a lower CVD rate than the calculated per unit rate of subsidization, if the rate is sufficient to repair the injury to the industry of the 
Parties. Please explain whether the Commission examines whether the application of such lesser 
duty is appropriate in every antidumping and counte rvailing duty investigation. If lesser duty is 
applied, please describe the steps by which the amount of the lesser duty is calculated in each type of investigation. Please also explain the opportunities provided to interested parties to 
evaluate the calculation of the lesser duty and provide comments to the Commission. G/ADP/Q1/RUS/1 • G/SCM/Q1/RUS/1 • G/SG/Q1/RUS/1 
 
- 4 - 
 
   
Question 13  Article 17.2 of the 2008 Agreement states that the duration of the antidumping measure shall not 
exceed 5 years from the date of initiation or co mpletion of review. Likewise, Article 27.2 of the 
2008 Agreement states that the duration of the countervailing measure shall not exceed 5 years from the date of initiation or completion of review. Please clarify: 
 
 In expiry reviews, does any ex tension of the measure for an additional five year period 
begin on the date the review is completed or the date the prior five year period expired?  
 In expiry reviews, in the event the Commissio n determines to extend a measure, does the 
extension apply for a five-year period or does the Commission have discretion to determine the duration of the extension in its review?  
 
Question 14  
Article 17.3 and Article 27.3 of the 2008 Agreement in dicate that in conducting an expiry review, 
the investigating authority will consider "the possibility of renewal of continuation of [dumped or subsidized] imports and injury" to the industry of the States Parties at the termination of the measure. Please explain how the "possibility" standard is consistent with the standards of 
Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 21.3 of the Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures Agreement that "expiry of the duty would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence" of dumping or subsidization, on the one hand, and injury, on the other. 
 
Question 15  
Article 18.3 of the 2008 Agreement states that an application for a circumvention investigation 
must contain, among other things, evidence of dumped imports. Please clarify whether the application for a circumvention investigation must contain new evidence of dumped imports for products currently subject to an anti-dumping duty measure. In addition, please explain the 
relevance of the requirement that there be dump ed imports to the circumvention investigation. 
 Question 16 
 
Article 28-1.3 of the 2008 Agreement discusses how States Parties will collect special antidumping, countervailing duty and safeguard duties. It is not clear from the description provided whether 
States Parties have the ability to change or modify the antidumping, countervailing duty and 
safeguard measures that are put in place, and thei r subsequent collection, refund or distribution. 
Can the Russian Federation please clarify whether or not States Parties will have the ability to modify or alter the measure imposed by the Commission  and, if so, will interested parties have an 
opportunity to comment? 
 Question 17 
 
With regard to Article 29.5 of the 2008 Agreement,  could the Russian Federation confirm whether 
the investigating authority considers employment when determining whether there is evidence of 
serious injury or threat of serious injury caused by imports in the course of a safeguard 
investigation?  Question 18 
 
Article 29.5(3) of the 2008 Agreement describes the information necessary to be included in an application to initiate a CVD investigation. The list includes "the availability and nature of specific 
subsidies or a particular foreign country and, if possible, its volume, evidence of material injury, 
threat of such injury…" among other things. Please  explain whether, for each subsidy alleged, an 
application must contain evidence regarding each element of a countervailable subsidy – financial 
contribution, benefit and specificity and that the investigating authority will review the accuracy 
and adequacy of this evidence to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation.  G/ADP/Q1/RUS/1 • G/SCM/Q1/RUS/1 • G/SG/Q1/RUS/1 
 
- 5 - 
 
  Question 19 
 Article 29.14 of the 2008 Agreement states that th e information in the application "is not subject 
to public disclosure" before the decision is made to initiate an investigation. However, Article 29.9 
requires the applicant to file a non-confidential version of the application if the application contains 
confidential information. Article 3.2 of the WTO Agreement on safeguards generally requires that 
non-confidential information (or non-confidential summaries of confidential information) be 
disclosed. Please explain why the non-confidential version of the application, once formally filed, 
would be withheld from disclosure until the decision to initiate is made. We note in this regard that prompt disclosure of the formally filed applicat ion would provide interested parties, including 
interested importers and exporters and foreign go vernments, with the opportunity to examine the 
application and to advise the investigating authority of possible errors in the application. Any such 
errors so identified might prove helpful to the investigating authority in deciding whether to initiate an investigation, including the appropriate scope of the investigation. 
 
Question 20   
Article 30 of the 2008 Agreement states that during  the course of an investigation, interested 
parties may "familiarize themselves with" non-confidential written submissions of other interested parties and "get acquainted with" other non-confidential information relevant to the investigation. Please explain the meaning of the terms "familiariz e themselves with" and "get acquainted with" in 
the context that they are used in Article 30. Please also explain whether Article 30.9 is consistent 
with Article 6.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreem ent, which requires authorities to provide 
opportunities to interested parties to "see" all relevant non-confidential information and "to 
prepare presentations on the basis of this information." 
 Question 21 
 
Article 30.9, 37, and other provisions of the 2008 Agreement authorize the investigating authority 
to withhold "confidential information" from participants in the investigation. Please explain how the Commission would define confidential information. 
 
Question 22  
Article 30.11 of the 2008 Agreement states that during the course of the investigation all 
interested parties will have the opportunity to defend their interests, including the opportunity to meet in order to be able to provide opposing poin ts of view and to offer rebuttal. Please describe 
the procedures that will be followed, including whether interested parties will have the opportunity 
to file briefs and other documents containing information and arguments.  Question 23 
 
Article 31.3 of the 2008 Agreement states that, before making a decision on the results of an antidumping or countervailing duty investigation, the investigating authority shall send interested 
parties a non-confidential version of the final conclusions and provide an opportunity to comment. 
How many days, on average, before the final determination, will this statement of essential facts be issued? Please identify how much time will be made available to parties to submit comments on 
this report and explain how these comments will be addressed by the investigating authority in the 
final determination.   Question 24 
 
With regard to Article 34.2 of the 2008 Agreement,  please confirm that the Russian Federation will 
inform all interested parties, not only those participating in the investigation, of the time and 
agenda of the hearing. Could the Russian Federation  also confirm that a record of the hearing, as 
well as any non-confidential submissions submitted subsequent to the hearing, will be accessible in the public case file? 
 
Please also indicate whether this article applies to safeguard investigations. If it does, please indicate whether interested foreign producers, im porters, exporters, and foreign governments may 
"petition" for public hearings and whether such petitions for hearings are automatically granted.  
 G/ADP/Q1/RUS/1 • G/SCM/Q1/RUS/1 • G/SG/Q1/RUS/1 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Question 25 
 With regard to Article 35.4 of the 2008 Agreem ent, could the Russian Federation explain how 
experts who are not part of the investigatin g authority will be chosen and the typical 
circumstances when such expertise would be nece ssary? Additionally, please clarify whether such 
experts would be required to submit a non-disclos ure form and describe the sanctions for violation 
of confidentiality. 
 
Question 26  Articles 39.2 – 39.5 of the 2008 Agreement descri be the content of reports published by the 
investigating authority concerning the initiation, preliminary and final determinations of trade 
remedy investigations. Please explain at what point in the investigation each of these reports are typically issued. Please also describe all documentation that is provided to interested parties at the 
time of the preliminary and final determinations. Such items could include, but not be limited to 
the text of the official published notice, detailed calculations, and the underlying analysis and supporting evidence for the Commission's decisions. 
 
Question 27  Article 40.1 of the 2008 Agreement states that a decision of non-application of a safeguard, 
antidumping or countervailing measure may be taken "if such measure could harm the interests of 
States Parties, and revised if the causes that led to its application have changed." Please clarify whether this provision allows the Commission the authority to revisit a previously determined 
anti-dumping or countervailing duty measure and to revise it. If so, under what circumstances 
would the Commission revisit a previously-determined measure, and where does the Agreement outline a formal process for doing so? 
 
Question 28  With respect to the 2010 Transitional Agreement: 
 
 Have all antidumping, countervailing duty and safeguard measures initially imposed by 
individual States Parties been reviewed and determined either to be applicable to the 
entire Customs Union or only to a specific States Party? It is our understanding that 
measures found to be applicable only to a particular States Party will expire at the end of the initial five year period. Is this understanding correct?  
 
 If a measure initially imposed by an individual States Party is found to be applicable to the 
entire Customs Union, please confirm that, absent a review, the measure would also expire five years from the origin al date of imposition. 
 
 Does the Commission have the ability to change  or modify the original terms, rates or 
duties of measures originally imposed by the States Parties? If so, please describe the 
process by which such changes would be made. 
 Question 29 
 
With regard to Decision, 16 May 2012, No. 44, Moscow, On some issues of protection of the 
domestic market , could the Russian Federation clarify that for measures imposed by individual 
States Parties prior to July 2012, whether any future  reviews of the measures will be conducted by 
the relevant State Party or the EEC instead? 
 
__________