G/ADP/Q2/IND/18  
 
20 April  2017 
(17-2165) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices  Original: English  
 
ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT  
ON IMPLEMENTATION OF  ARTICLE VI OF THE GA TT 1994  
REPLIES TO QUESTION S POSED BY UKRAINE1 TO INDIA REGARDING  ANTI-DUMPING  
INVESTIGATION CONCER NING IMPORTS OF COLD  ROLLED/COLD  
REDUCED FLAT STEEL P RODUCTS ORIGINATING IN AND/OR  
EXPORTED FROM INTER ALIA  UKRAINE2  
The following communication, dated 20 April  2017, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of  India. 
 
_______________  
 
 
Question 1  
 
Article 7.4 of the Anti-dumping  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 exceed six  months or, on decision of the authorities concerned, upon 
request by exporters  representing a significant percentage of the trade invol ved, to a 
period not exceeding nine months.  
 
Given the above -mentioned provision of the Anti-dumping  Agreement, would India 
please clarify whether the investigating authority received a request from one or more 
exporters representing a significant percent age of the trade involved asking to prolong 
the application of the provisional measures? Would India please name that exporter(s)?  
 
Reply  
 
India issued provisional anti -dumping duty on imports of cold -rolled flat products of alloy or non -
alloy steel vide Customs Notification No 45/2016 -Customs(ADD) dated 17 August 2016 for a 
period of 6 months. This was extended for further two months vide Customs Notification 
no.06/2016 –Cus (ADD) dated 7 February 2017. .The provisional anti -dumping duty was extended 
by India following the request of producers representing a significant share of the trade involved.  
 
Question 2  
 
Article 7.4 of the Anti-dumping  Agreement also stipulates that the periods of application 
of provisional measures may be six and nine months when a uthorities, 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.  
 
While examining underselling the investigating authorit y did not explain in 
paragraphs  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.  
                                                
1 G/ADP/Q2/IND/17  dated 28 March 2017 . 
2 http://www.cbec.gov.in/resources//htdocs -cbec/customs/cs -act/notifications/notfns -2017/cs -
add2017/csadd06 -2017.pdf  G/ADP/Q2/IND/18  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Given that provisional anti-dumping  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 Anti-dumping  Agreement?  
 
Would India explain how the amount of USD  594 per MT was established and how it 
corresponds to the dumping margin? Would India also clarify which provisions of Indian 
legislation stipulate the methodology for the establishment of the duty using such an 
approach?  
 
Reply  
 
In the Preliminary Findin gs available in the weblink i.e. 
http://www.dgtr.gov.in/sites/default/files/Cold%20Rolled%20PF%20E -%20Gazette.pdf , the tables 
indicated under paragraphs 73 and  74 of the findings shows the dumping margin for the 
cooperating exporters and other exporters respectively. Similarly, the injury margin can be seen 
under the paragraphs 119 and 121 for the cooperating exporters and other exporters respectively. 
The parag raphs 73, 74, 119 and 121 read with paragraph 126 of the provisional findings make it 
amply clear that the provisional anti -dumping duty was recommended on the basis of the injury 
margin , as India follows the lesser duty rule.  Hence, the provisional duty r ecommended in the 
findings did not exceed the margin of dumping and accordingly the Investigating Authorities have 
complied with the provisions of Article 9.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement .  
 
Calculation of the dumping and injury margin can be found in par agraphs 73, 74, 119 and 121 
respectively.  As mentioned in paragraph 4(o) of the preliminary findings, the non -injurious price 
was determined on the basis of the cost of production and cost to make and sell the subject goods 
in India.  
 
The amount of USD 59 4 per MT has been worked out keeping in mind the concept of the lesser 
duty rule followed by India.  Lesser Duty Rule provision has been incorporated in the Customs Tariff 
(Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti -dumping Duty on Dumped Articles an d for 
Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as amended.  It is available in the public domain and can be 
accessed at www.cbec.gov.in .  
 
Question 3  
 
The dumping period of investigation (POI) for the present investigatio n 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 h ow it usually establishes the period 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 periods of investigation for 
dumping and injury in this particular case?  
 
Reply  
 
The period of investigation was determined on the basis of the guidelines set out in the 
Recommendation Concerning the Periods of Data Collection fo r Anti -Dumping Investigations 
adopted on 5 May 2000 by the Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices3 . In this regard, para 17 of 
the Preliminary Findings clearly indicates the application of the said recommendation.  Hence, the 
Period of Investigation of 6 mont hs is within the scope of the above said Recommendation of the 
Committee.   
 
In general, the Investigating Authority in India establishes the period of investigation on the basis 
of the Recommendation of the Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices as well as on  the basis of the 
facts pertaining to the case for the purpose of dumping determination.  
                                                
3 G/ADP/6.  G/ADP/Q2/IND/18  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Question 4  
 
According to Article 5.8 of the Anti-dumping  Agreement: "There shall be immediate 
termination in cases where the authorities determine that the margin of d umping 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 acc ount 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 Anti-dumping  Agreement?  
 
Reply  
 
The Prelimi nary Findings were based on the official imports statistics obtained from the National 
data base i.e.  Indian Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S)  as 
indicated in paragraphs 4(s) and 83 of the Preliminary Findings.  
 
As show n in paragraph 84 of the Preliminary Findings, since the volume of imports from Ukraine is 
above the 3% threshold, the de minimis  provisions set out in Article 5.8 of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement are not applicable in the present investigation.  
 
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 showed 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 Agreemen t, had to examine these other 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 concl usions 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?  
 
Reply 
 
The injury determination has been explained in paragraphs 78 to 106 of the Preliminary Findings 
where the authority examined all the injury parameters. It would also be evident from paragraph 
106, as to how the authority con cluded that the domestic industry has suffered material injury.  
The causal link analysis can be seen in paragraphs 107 to 118.  The authority concluded in 
paragraph 118 that the dumped imports from the subject countries have adversely impacted 
production, s ales and capacity utilization. Market share of the subject imports has significantly 
increased. Performance of the domestic industry has significantly deteriorated in respect of profits, 
cash profits and return on investments. The Authority had provisional ly concluded that the 
domestic industry has suffered injury as a result of dumped imports from the subject countries.  It 
would be evident from the aforesaid paragraphs that other factors, before the Investigating 
Authority, were examined.   
 
__________