G/ADP/Q2/USA/7  
 
3 April 2018 
(18-1991) 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  
QUESTIONS FROM  UKRAINE TO THE UNITE D STATES REGARDING A NTI-DUMPING MEASURES  
ON IMPORTS OF CARBON  AND ALLOY STEEL WIRE  ROD ORIGINATING  
IN AND/OR EXPORTED F ROM INTER ALIA  UKRAINE  
The following communication, dated 29  March 2018, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Ukraine . 
 
_______________  
 
 
On 14 March 2018 the US Department of Commerce based on affirmative final determinations by 
the Department of Co mmerce and the International Trade Commission issued antidumping duty 
order on Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod (Wire Rod) originating from inter alia  Ukraine.  
 
Ukraine hereby would like to ask the United States  to clarify the following:  
 
Dumping margin cal culation  
 
On 16 January 2018, the US Department of Commerce (the Commerce) published Affirmative Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value of Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Ukraine.  
 
Accordingly, the Commerce established dumping margin for  Ukraine on facts available. With 
respect to respondents in this investigation, two Ukrainian companies, dumping margin was 
established on the highest level alleged in the petition of 44.03%. Along with this, the Commerce 
established 34.98% all -others rate  on the basis of simple average of the six dumping margins 
calculated for subject merchandise from Ukraine alleged in the petition.  
 
Therefore, the rate of dumping margin for two companies that cooperated and did their best to 
give all necessary informati on within the framework of the investigation is higher than the rate for 
all other importers.  
 
Paragraph 2 of Article VI of GATT "Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties " provides that "In order 
to offset or prevent dumping, a contracting party may levy on any dumped product an anti -
dumping duty not greater in amount than the margin of dumping in respect of such product. For 
the purposes of this Article, the margin of dumping is the price difference determined in 
accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 ." 
 
At the same time, in US — Hot-Rolled Steel , the Panel indicated that "[o]ne of the principal 
elements governing anti -dumping investigations that e merges from the whole of the 
AD Agreement is the goal of ensuring objective decision -making based on facts ".1 
 
Question 1  
 
Would the United States please clarify how the established "facts available " dumping margins for 
particular companies and all others comply with relevant WTO legislation, in particular Paragraph 2 
of Article  VI of GATT, Articles 6.8 and 9. 4 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the 
GATT 1994?  
                                                
1 Panel Report, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, paras. 7.72 and 7.55.  G/ADP/Q2/USA/7  
 
- 2 - 
 
   
Question 2  
 
Would the U nited States  please indicate provisions of the WTO legislation according to which the 
United States imposed two different rates of antidumping duties given that both of them were 
based on facts available dumping margins?  
 
Question 3  
 
Would the United States  please explain what the legal reason was for two different methodology of 
the determination of th e dumping margin based on facts avai lable? How it complies with 
WTO rules and principles?  
 
Question 4  
 
Would the United States  please clarify how established on the highest level dumping margin for 
particular cooperating companies complies with principle o f objectivity?  
 
Injury determination  
 
The antidumping investigation on Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod was initiated regarding 
a number of countries, including Ukraine.  
 
Article 3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 pr ovides that the 
investigating authorities may cumulatively assess the effects of imports.  
 
The International Trade Commission divided countries of the investigation into groups and issued 
two Final Determinations for different countries, including Ukraine,  on 18 January 20182 and 
7 March 20183. 
 
Question 5  
 
Would the United States please explain what was the reason for dividing countries on several 
groups in the investigation for evaluating material injury?  
 
Question 6  
 
Would the United States please clari fy how such a methodology comply with WTO rules and 
principles?  
 
Question 7  
 
Would the United States please explain if grouping imports from different countries for injury 
analysis is used often by the ITC?  
 
Question 8  
 
Would the U nited States  please clarify whether two Final Determinations of the ITC on Wire Rod 
were made with using different methodology and data for injury analysis?  
 
__________  
                                                
2 
https://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/731_ad_701_cvd/investigations/2017/Wire%20Rod%20from%20Belarus
,%20Italy,%20Korea,%20Russia,%20South%20Africa,%20Spain,%20Turkey,%20Ukraine,%20UAE,%20an d%
20UK%20/Final/fr_determination -final-belarus -russia -uab.pdf . 
3 
https://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/731_ad_701_cvd/investigations/2017/Wire%20Rod%20from%20Belarus
,%20Italy,%20Korea,%20Russia,%20South%20Africa,%20Spain,%20Turkey,%20Ukraine,%20UAE,%20and%
20UK%20/Final/fr_notice_final_determination -south_afr ica-ukraine.pdf .