G/ADP/Q2/ARM/1, G/ADP/Q2/KAZ/1  
G/ADP/Q2/KGZ/1, G/ADP/Q2/RUS/2  
 
22 April 2016  
(16-2263)  Page: 1/3  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  Original: English  
 
 ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT 
QUESTIONS OF UKRAINE TO ARMENIA, KAZAKHSTAN, THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC AND THE 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION REGARDING ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATIONS CONCERNING 
IMPORTS OF BARS AND RODS AND FERROSILICOMANGANESE ORIGINATING 
IN UKRAINE TO THE TERRITORY OF  THE EURASIAN ECONOMIC UNION 
The following communication, dated 20 April 2016, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Ukraine. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
On 20 November 2013, the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) initiated an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of bars and rods originating in and/or exported from Ukraine to 
the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).  
On 26 December 2014 the Eurasian Economic Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation 
concerning imports of ferrosilicomanganese originating in and/or exported from Ukraine. 
Ukraine hereby would like to ask Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian 
Federation to clarify the following. 
Question 1 According to the Recommendation of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and the Protocol 
on Application of Safeguard, Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures to Third Countries, Annex 
No. 8 to the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union of 29.05.2014 (hereinafter – the Protocol of 
EAEU) the period of data collection for dumping investigations in EAEU normally should be twelve 
months, and in any case not less than six months. 
Along with this, period for dumping investigation for the case on bars and rods was established 
from 01.01.2013 to 30.09.2013, i.e. 9 months and for the case on ferrosilicomanganese the period 
was from 01.01.2013 to 30.06.2014, i.e. 18 months. 
Would Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation clarify what 
methodology is usually used for establishing the periods for a dumping investigation and how it complies with the Recommendation of the Commi ttee on Anti-Dumping Practices of 16 May 2000? 
In addition, what factors were taken into account within these particular cases when the periods of 
dumping investigations were established?  
Question 2 
Initiation date of the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of bars and rods is 
20 November 2013. 
Taking into consideration provisions of Articl e 5.10 of the Agreement on Implementation of 
Article VI of the GATT 1994 (hereinafter - the Anti dumping Agreement) as well as provisions of 
Article 217.2 of the Protocol of EAEU the final da te of this investigation should be 20 May 2015, 
but the final decision was taken on 29.03.2016. G/ADP/Q2/ARM/1 • G/ADP/Q2/KAZ/1 • G/ADP/Q2/KGZ/1 • G/ADP/Q2/RUS/2 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Pursuant to the Protocol of the EAEU the date of conclusion of the antidumping investigation is the 
date of consideration of the report on the result s of the investigation by the EEC and draft of the 
relevant decision. The final report was considered by the EEC on 29.03.2016, which means that investigation was being conducted during 28 months. 
Would Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation clarify what was the 
legal base for 28-month period of conducting the antidumping investigation on bars and rods? 
Would Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation also explain how 
conclusion of the antidumping investigation on bars and rods on 29.03.2016 complies with 
Article 5.10 of the Antidumping Agreement?  
Question 3 Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement requires, inter alia, that the injury determination "shall 
be based on positive evidence". The conditions for imposing anti-dumping measures, if dumped 
imports are causing injury, have to be present at the time of imposition of the measure, to the extent practically possible. 
The data considered concerning dumping, injury an d the causal link should include, to the extent 
possible, the most recent information, taking into account the inevitable delay caused by the need for an investigation, as well as any practical problems of data collection in any particular case. 
Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice concluded that given the passage of time 
(nearly three-year) between the period of inve stigation and the date of imposition of the 
measures, the information lacks credibility and relia bility, thereby failing to meet the criterion of 
"positive evidence" pursuant to Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
The injury investigation period on bars and rods was established from 1 January 2010 to 
30 September 2013, and by April 2016 there is a 2.5-year gap between the investigation period and imposition of the measure. Therefore, inform ation provided in the report on bars and rods 
lacks credibility and reliability. 
Would Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation clarify how the 
decision to impose antidumping measures on bars  and rods complies with Article 3.1 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement in particular the requirement that the injury determination should be "based 
on positive evidence"? 
Would Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic an d the Russian Federation also explain in what 
way the EEC as the authority responsible for conducting the antidumping investigation ensures 
that injury determination complies with Article 3.1 of the Anti-dumping Agreement in particular the 
requirement that the injury determination sh ould be "based on positive evidence"?  
If there are some particular provisions in the EAEU antidumping legislation stipulating principle of 
"positive evidence" during injury determination within the meaning of its interpretation by WTO 
would Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation please clarify it. 
Question 4 
According to footnote 2 of the Antidumping Agr eement, sales of the like product destined for 
consumption in the domestic market of the exporting country shall normally be considered a sufficient quantity for the determination of the normal value if such sales constitute 5% or more of the sales of the product under consideration to the importing Member. 
In the framework of the case on bars and rods, 5% test was made on the month-by-month basis 
within the established 9-month period for dumping investigation instead of making the calculation for the whole 9-month period. 
Could Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation clarify if there are 
some particular provisions in the EAEU antidumping legislation stipulating principle of making 5% test on month-by-month basis? G/ADP/Q2/ARM/1 • G/ADP/Q2/KAZ/1 • G/ADP/Q2/KGZ/1 • G/ADP/Q2/RUS/2 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Would Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation clarify what 
methodology or which periods are usually used by competent authorities for making 5% test during period for dumping investigation?  
Would Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation also explain how the 
used methodology in bars and rods case complies with Article 2.2 of the Antidumping Agreement 
and in particular with footnote 2 of the Antidumping Agreement?  
Question 5 
According to Article 2.4.2 of the Antidumping Ag reement, the existence of margins of dumping 
during the investigation phase shall normally be established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average of prices of all comparable export 
transactions or by a comparison of normal value and export prices on a transaction-to-transaction 
basis.  
In the framework of the case on bars and rods, dumping margins were calculated on the month-
by-month basis within the established 9-month period for dumping investigation instead of making 
the calculation for the whole 9-month period or on a transaction-to-transaction basis. 
Would Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation clarify what 
methodology in this case was used for making dumping determinations?  
Would Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation also explain how the 
used methodology of dumping margin calculation in bars and rods case complies with Article 2.4.2 of the Antidumping Agreement?  
Question 6 
In bars and rods case as well as in ferrosilicomanganese case it was stipulated in reports that 
there were many indicators showing the dynamic development of companies and the positive state 
of the overall market. In particular, the main indicators that could be influenced by imports such 
as sales volumes on the EAEU market and revenues from sales on the EEU market had positive 
trend.  
Given that at the same time, there also was influence of other factors injuring the domestic 
industry such as competition between the domestic  producers, growth of the production costs, 
imports from other countries and volume of export, the authorities, pursuant to Article 3.5 of the Anti-dumping Agreement, had to examine these other factors. 
Would Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation please explain what 
methodology is used by the EEC to consider sepa rate and aggregate influence of all other factors 
on the domestic industry?  
Would Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation also clarify how the 
conclusions of the EEC on the "other factors" es tablished in reports on both cases comply with 
Article 3.5 of the Anti-dumping Agreement in partic ular with the requirement that injuries caused 
by these other factors must not be attributed to the dumped imports? 
__________