G/ADP/Q2/PAK/3  
 
9 June 2016  
(16-3117)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  Original: English  
 
 ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT 
QUESTIONS POSED BY UKRAINE TO PAKISTAN REGARDING THE ANTI-DUMPING 
INVESTIGATION CONCERNING IMPORTS OF CERTAIN COLD-ROLLED 
COILS/SHEETS ORIGINATIN G IN AND/OR EXPORTED 
FROM, INTER ALIA, UKRAINE 
The following communication, dated 8 June 2016, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Ukraine. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
On 16 July 2015, the National Tariff Commission of the Government of Pakistan initiated an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of certain cold-rolled coils/sheets originating in 
China and Ukraine.  
On 13 January 2016 the National Tariff Commission of the Government of Pakistan imposed 
provisional 18.92% to 19.04% anti-dumping duties for Ukrainian companies for a 4-month period. 
Ukraine hereby would like to ask Pakistan to clarify the following: 
Question 1 The investigating authority has cumulated imports of product under investigation originating from 
China and Ukraine. It should be mentioned that volume of imports from China is incomparably 
larger than imports from Ukraine. 
For example, during the period of investigation total imports from China made more than 50% of 
total imports to Pakistan and 25% of total domestic consumption in Pakistan. It is clear that 
cumulative assessment of the effects of imports from China and Ukraine can not be applied in the 
light of the different conditions of competition between Ukrainian and Chinese products (as it is defined by the provisions of Article 3.3 of th e Anti-dumping Agreement). Indeed, imports from 
Ukraine that are only a fraction of those from China and have higher export price cannot compete 
on the market of Pakistan. 
Would Pakistan please explain why imports of cold-rolled coils and sheets originating from Ukraine 
were cumulated with imports from China, taking into consideration the provisions of Article 3.3 of 
the Anti-dumping Agreement? 
Question 2 Import of the product concerned from Ukraine into Pakistan can be treated as negligible as it was 
at the insignificant level both in terms of total import volume (5.2%) and of the market share 
(approximately 2.5%) in Pakistan during the period of investigation. Therefore, there were no sufficient grounds to include Ukraine in the current investigation. 
Would Pakistan please explain how imposition of  provisional measures against Ukrainian product 
complies with the provisions of Articles 3.4 and 7.1 (iii) of the Anti-dumping Agreement, taking 
into the consideration positive dynamic of the Pakistani domestic industry and low import quantities of the product concerned from Ukraine? G/ADP/Q2/PAK/3 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Question 3 
The Pakistani domestic industry indicators, in particular, production volumes, sales, domestic 
market share, capacity utilization, employment, wa ges and productivity, had positive trends during 
the period of investigation. 
Would Pakistan please explain how conclusion of National Tariff Commission (hereinafter – 
the NTC) of the Government of Pakistan on ex istence of material injury complies with the 
provisions of Article 3.4 of the Anti-dumping Agreement?  
Question 4 
According to Article 3.5 of the Anti-dumping Ag reement, the authorities shall also examine any 
known factors other than the dumped imports, which at the same time are injuring the domestic 
industry. The injuries caused by these other factors must not be attributed to the dumped imports.  
Would Pakistan please explain what methodology is used by the NTC while considering separate 
and aggregate influence of all other factors on the domestic industry?  
Would Pakistan also clarify how the conclusions of the NTC on the "other factors" established in 
report on preliminary determination comply with  Article 3.5 of the Anti-dumping Agreement in 
particular with the requirement that injuries caus ed by these other factors must not be attributed 
to the dumped imports? 
 
__________