G/SG/Q2/IND/16  
 
17 April 2014  
(14-2399)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Safeguards  Original: English  
 
NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 12.1(A) OF THE AGREEMENT ON  
SAFEGUARDS ON INITIATION OF AN INVESTIGATION AND  
THE REASONS FOR IT 
QUESTIONS POSED BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
REGARDING THE NOTIFICATION OF INDIA1 
(Seamless pipes, tubes and hollow profiles of iron or non – alloy steel  
(other than cast iron and stainless steel)) 
The following communication, dated 16 April 2014, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the Russian Federation.  
_______________ 
  
The Ministry of Finance of India has published on 11 March 2014 a notification of final findings of 
the safeguard investigation concerning imports of  seamless tubes, pipes and hollow profiles of 
iron, alloy or non-alloy steel into India (hereinafter referred to as "notification"). The Government 
of the Russian Federation and the Russian interest ed producers (namely, "TMK Group") have been 
closely monitoring the investigatory process, participating at the hearings and submitting the relevant comments. But despite the clear statement of concerns by the interested parties regarding doubtful legitimacy within the WTO law of the sought measure the Ministry of Finance of 
India has recommended to impose the safeguard duty. 
 With regard to the above mentioned notification th e Russian Federation would like to ask India to 
clarify the following issues. 
 
1. Please explain whether the "increased imports" of the product under investigation were 
"sudden enough, sharp enough, significant enough an d recent enough" in light of the existing WTO 
precedents. 
2. Please explain whether there are sufficient grounds for qualification of the situation in the 
Indian domestic industry as a "significant overall impairment". 
3. Given the sharp growth of production faciliti es of the domestic industry in the year 
2010-2011, why didn't India assess during the investigation other relevant factors of "serious 
injury" having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry, such as returns on investment or 
ability to raise capital? 
4. The increase of employment in the industry no rmally leads to the increase of wages which, 
in turn, may affect the situation in the industry (specifically, its profits and losses). The domestic 
industry showed an increase of employment over the period of investigation. Why the investigating 
authority did not take into consideration for "serious injury" assessment the factor of wages? 
5. Among other injury factors the investigating authority has examined the exports by the 
domestic industry. It was noted that the fall  of exports in the year 2012-2013 by 38156 MT 
appeared to be one of the factors contributing to the rise in inventories in the year 2012-2013 by 
3888 MT. The decrease of exports of the product under consideration cleared from the rise in 
                                               
1 G/SG/N/6/IND/32. G/SG/Q2/IND/16 
 
- 2 - 
 
  inventories in the year 2012-2013 equals to 34268 MT. In this respect could India clarify whether 
it was appropriate to consider exports as a factor of "serious injury"? Please, also clarify how the 
said decline of exports was considered by India when assessing the existence of "serious injury" caused by "increased imports"? How the factor of decreased exports was taken into consideration 
when other factors relating to production (namely, production, capacity utilization, profits and 
losses, employment and others) were assessed? 
6. It seems that the "unforeseen circumstances"  evaluated by the investigating authority 
related to a broad range of products. What is the product coverage of the chapter devoted to "unforeseen circumstances"? How did India make sure that the "unforeseen circumstances" had 
resulted in increase of imports specifically of the products under consideration and not of other 
products? 
7. In light of the above mentioned growth of pr oduction facilities, increase of employment, 
decrease of exports and unforeseen circumstances could India please elaborate on the issue of 
non-attribution to "serious injury" of factors other than "increased imports"? 
8. When does India intend to notify the fact of finding of serious injury caused by increased 
imports under article 12.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards? 
 
__________