G/ADP/Q2/EGY/1  
 
21 March 2017  
(17-1557) 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  
QUESTIONS OF UKRAINE  TO THE ARAB REPUBLIC  OF EGYPT REGARDING A NTI-DUMPING 
INVESTIGATIONS CONCE RNING IMPORTS OF STEEL REB AR ORIGINATED OR  
IMPORTED FROM INTER ALIA  UKRAINE  
The fo llowing communication, dated 20  March 2017 , is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Ukraine . 
 
_______________  
 
 
On 22  December 2016, the Arab Republic of Egypt initiated an anti -dumping investigation 
concerning imports of steel rebar (bars,  rods and coils) originating from inter alia Ukraine.  
 
Ukraine hereby would like to ask the Arab Republic of Egypt to clarify the following.  
 
Question 1  
 
Article 12.1 of  Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement ) stipulates that when the authorities are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to 
justify the initiation of an anti -dumping investigation pursuant to Article 5, the Member or 
Members the products of which are subject to such investigation and other  interested parties 
known to the investigating authorities to have an interest therein shall be notified and a public 
notice shall be given.  
 
According to the document G/ADP/N/294/EGY1, the investigation was initiated on 
22 December  2016. On 3  January 2017 , the Government of Ukraine received the notification of the 
initiation, which informed that t he relevant notice was published in the Egyptian Official Gazette 
No.288 on 22  December 2016.  A panel has indicated that A rticle 12.1 requires notification "as 
soon as " the authorities are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify initiation.  
 
In light of the above facts, can the Egyptian authorities explain how the notification that was 
received on  3 January 2017 comports with the timing obligation s et forth in Article 12.1 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement ? 
 
Would Egypt also explain how the Ukrainian authorities could get the access to the Egyptian 
Official Gazette? C ould Egypt provide Ukraine with the relevant link or with the copy of the 
Egyptian Offic ial Gazette that was issued on 22 December 2016 ? 
 
Question 2  
 
According to the application of the Egyptian domestic industry on initiation of the antidumping 
investigation on imports of steel rebar originated or exported  from inter alia  Ukraine, normal val ue 
was determined for selected months, different for each country. The determination of normal value 
was based  on the local sales invoices for May, June and August 2015 along with March and 
                                                
1 https://docs.w to.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009 -
DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=234461,234477,234486,234404,234309,234281,234275,234276,2344
28,234278&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=5&FullTextHash=&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&Has
SpanishRecord=False  G/ADP/Q2/EGY/1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  April 2016, i.e. five separate months. No explanation or justifica tion for this selection was provided 
in the application. There is no indication in the non -confidential version of the application that 
information for the other 7 months, within the 12 -month period chosen by the applicant, was not 
reasonably available to it.  
 
Article 5.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement stipulates that the authorities shall examine the 
accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application to determine whether there is 
sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an investigat ion. 
 
According to the Recommendation2 concerning the periods of data collection for anti -dumping 
investigations,  adopted by the Committee on  Anti-dumping Practices  of 16 May 2000, the period of 
data collection for dumping investigations normally should be  twelve months, and in any case no 
less than six months, ending as close to the date of initiation as is practicable.  
 
Panels have repeatedly found that the evidence relied upon for the purposes of initiation must be 
such that an unbiased and objective inv estigating authority could determine that there was 
sufficient evidence of dumping within the meaning of Article 2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement to 
justify initiation of an investigation. Article 2 has strict rules regarding the determination of the 
normal  value which, as panel reports show, also apply to the pre -initiation stage.  
 
In light of the above -described facts and rulings adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body, could 
the authorities of the Arab Republic of Egypt reply to the following questions:  
 
 How does the application, and any determination based thereon, comply with the 
requirement of Article 5.2 (iii) of the Anti -Dumping Agreement with respect to normal 
value?  
 
 Did the applicant argue that normal value information for the other 7 months, within  the 12 -
month period chosen by the applicant, was not reasonably available to it? If so, can the 
authorities of the Arab Republic of Egypt show  
o based on information in the file prior to initiation, that the applicant made such claim? 
and, 
o what steps where undertaken by the authorities to satisfy themselves that the data were 
indeed not reasonably available to the applicant?  
 
 Was the normal value determination made under Article 5.3, for the purposes of computing 
the margin of dumping for Ukraine, based only  on informat ion on domestic sales for the 
5 months contained in the application? If not, please indicate on the basis of which data 
normal value was determined.  
 
 How can a normal value determination based on data corresponding to certain months, 
within the  12-month period chosen by the applicant, comply with the requirements set 
forth in Article 5.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement?  
 
Question 3  
 
Significant part of the product under anti -dumping investigation is also subject to safeguards 
measures that were im posed in order to remedy serious injury to the Egyptian industry .3 
Safeguard measures were introduced in 2015 and will be in force until 10  October 2017.  
 
Given the purpose of safeguard duty (to prevent or remedy serious injury),  following its imposition 
the injurious effects of imports should be eliminated.  
 
Accordingly, would the Egyptian authorities explain what methodology was used for the purposes 
of determining that the application contained enough evidence of the existence of injury to the 
Egyptian  domestic industry taking into account safeguard measures applicable to the same 
product? Would the Egyptian authorities explain  how the initiation of anti -dumping investigation 
                                                
2 Document under symbol G/ADP/6.  
3 https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009 -
DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=230915,228321,225652,225613,135430,131555,131558,129309,1277
79,121190&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=6&FullTextHash=&HasEn glishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&Has
SpanishRecord=True  G/ADP/Q2/EGY/1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  concerning the imports of steel rebar product originated or exported from inter alia Ukraine  
complies with Articles 3, 5.2 and 5.3 of the Antidumping Agreement?  
 
Would Egypt clarify whether the Egyptian legislation allows simultaneous imposition of anti -
dumping and safeguard measures? If yes, would the Egyptian authorities clarify w hich provisions 
of the Egyptian legislation stipulate the methodology that meant to assure that double remedy was 
avoided in case of application safeguard and anti -dumping measures to the same product?  
 
 
 
__________