G/ADP/Q2/EU/1  
 
15 April 2013  
(13-1999)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  Original: English  
 
ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT 
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF AN TI-DUMPING DUTY ACTIONS 
QUESTIONS POSED BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION REGARDING  
THE SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION1 
 
The following communication, dated 12 April 2013, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the Russian Federation. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
The Russian Federation has questions with regard to the final decision of the interim review on 
seamless pipes and tubes produced by the company JSC “TMK”. This case is listed on page 10 of the semi-annual report dated 8 April 2013. The Russian Federation may have subsequent 
questions as it further examines the case. 
 Question 1  
One of the main aims of the authorized authority during an investigation is to determine an 
inappropriate export sales policy of the producer  by performing a fair comparison between the 
export price of the company and the normal va lue of the product concerned in an exporting 
country. Such comparison, with regard to WTO rules, shall be made at the same level of trade, 
normally at the ex-factory level, and in respect of sales made at as nearly as possible the same 
time. 
 
Along with that, in the final decision of the EU
2, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on 
imports of certain seamless steel pipes, of iron or steel, originating, inter alia , in the 
Russian Federation, following a partial interim review, it is stated, that the domestic gas price paid 
by the exporting producers are far below market prices paid in unregulated markets for natural 
gas. Therefore, since the gas costs, in the opinion of the EU's investigating authority, were regulated prices and not reasonably reflected in the exporting producers’ records, they were 
adjusted to an average price of Russian gas sold for export at the German/Czech border, adjusted 
for local distribution costs.   
Taking into consideration, that the investigating authority also performed a comparison between 
the export price of the company and the normal va lue on EXW basis, it should be stated, that 
prices for the product concerned of the Russian origin were compared during an investigation twice – first in respect of gas costs paid for the production and second on the EXW basis. 
 
The Russian Federation asks the EU to explain how the comparison of certain costs paid for production, with its further exchange to data fr om other sources, during an investigation, is 
consistent with Article 2.2.1.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (herein after referred to as the “Agreement”), Article 2.4 of the Agreement and corresponds to the market economy status of the Russian economy within 
the WTO? 
                                               
1 G/ADP/N/237/EU. 
2 Council Implementing Regulation № 1269/2012 from 28.12.2012 (L351/1)  G/ADP/Q2/EU/1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Moreover, the Russian Federation asks the EU to provide evidence which was used by an 
investigating authority to prove the regulatory status of prices for natural gas in the Russian Federation.  
Question 2 
 During an investigation, the authorized body of the EU included some export quantities of the 
Russian producer which do not fall under the scope of the original investigation, namely 
CN Code 7304 59 10. It was stated by the EU's authority that these products are like-products to those covered by the original investigation.  
The Russian Federation asks the EU to provide evidence concerning appropriateness of the 
above-mentioned actions in accordance with Article 2.6 of the Agreement.  
Question 3 
 According to Article 3.5 of the Agreement, the in vestigating authority must demonstrate that the 
dumped imports are, through the effects of dump ing, causing injury and the demonstration of a 
causal relationship between the dumped imports an d the injury to the domestic industry shall be 
based on an examination of all relevant evidence before the authorities.  
How the decision of the EU's investigating author ity to prolong the application of the measure for 
another five-year period in respect of the Russian  producer, taking into consideration that the 
import of the product concerned originating in the Russian Federation to the EU for the last 
five years has decreased to negligible volume of 1% and the financial data of the EU industry 
shows stable profit and increase, is consistent wi th Article 3.5 and Article 5.8 of the Agreement? 
 
 
__________