WT/DS530/1  
G/L/1185  
G/ADP/D119/1  
 
21 September 2017  
(17-5008) Page: 1/2 
  Original: English  
 
KAZAKHSTAN – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON STEEL PIPES  
REQUEST FOR CONSULTA TIONS BY UKRAINE  
The following communication, dated 19 September 2017 , from the delegation of Ukraine  to the 
delegation of Kazakhstan  and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in 
accordance with Article  4.4 of the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
 
My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Government of 
Kazakhstan pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of  the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
1994 (GATT 1994) and Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of 
the General Ag reement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  (Anti-Dumping Agreement).  
I. Background   
This request is with respect to anti -dumping measures applied to certain types of steel pipes 
on the customs territory of Kazakhstan. The measures were imposed pursuant to the Decision  of 
the Collegium of the Eurasian Economic Commission No. 48 of 2 June 2016 on imports of certain 
types of steel pipes originating in Ukraine in connection with the sunset review of the anti -dumping 
measures on imports of certain types of steel pipes origi nating in Ukraine and imported on the 
customs territory of the Eu rasian Economic Union ("EAEU").  
II. Measures at issue  
The measures at issue are the following:  
 the Decision of the Collegium of the Eurasian Economic Commission No. 48 of 2 June 2016 
"On prolonga tion of anti -dumping measures on certain types of steel pipes originating in Ukraine 
and imported into the customs territory of the Eurasian Economic Union"1; 
 the findings of the Eurasian Economic Commission in the Report (Notice No. 2016/55/AD1R2 
of 3 Jun e 2016) "On the results of the sunset review of anti -dumping duties on certain types of 
steel pipes originating in Ukraine"2. 
Ukraine considers that the findings of the EAEC in the Report follo wed by the Decision 
No. 48 of 2  June 2016 are erroneous and bas ed on deficient rulings, procedures and provisions 
pertaining  to the Anti -Dumping Agreement.  
In addition, this Request for Consultations also covers in whatever form: any amendments, 
supplements, or extensions to or of the measures referred to in this Sect ion; any measures 
replacing, renewing or implementing the measures referred to in this Section; and, any measures 
related to the measures referred to in this Section.  
                                                
1 https://docs.eaeunion.org/docs/ru -ru/01410363/clcd_03062016_48  
2 http://www.eurasiancommission .org/ru/act/trade /podm /investigations /PublicDocuments /AD1R2_repor
t_final.pdf WT/DS530/1 • G/L/1185 • G/ADP/D119/1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  III. Legal basis for the complaint  
Ukraine considers that the measures referred to in Section II above are inconsistent with 
several of Kazakhstan's WTO obligations, including, but not limited to:  
1. Articles 11.1, 11.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the Eurasian Economic 
Commission 's determination that expiry of the measure is likely to lead t o a continuation of 
dumping and injury was made in violation of the following Articles of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement:  
- Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority when 
conducting examination of likelihood of continuation or  recurrence of dumping and 
injury failed to rely upon information pertaining to a period as close as practicable the 
date of initiation of the investigation as well as to assess positive evidence and provide 
the objective examination with respect to the vo lume of the dumped imports and the 
effect of the dumped imports on prices in the domestic market for like products;  
- Article 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority failed to 
assess relevant economic factors and indices when conducting examination of 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury;  
- Article 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority failed to 
examine other factors which at the same time were injuring domestic industry w hen 
conducting examination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and 
injury;  
2. Articles 5.2 and 5.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority 
failed to examine accuracy and adequacy of the complaint and initiated the sunset review 
on the basis of complaint which was lack of the evidence that the expiry of the duty would 
be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury;  
3. Articles 6.1, 6.2 and 8.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigatin g 
authority failed to grant to certain Ukrainian producers a full opportunity  to defend their 
interests. For instance, the investigating authority failed to provide to exporters the 
reasons for non -acceptance of the undertaking from Ukrainian producers and  to give 
Ukrainian exporters an opportunity to make comments thereon;  
4. Articles 6.1, 6.2, 6.8 and paragraph 3 of Annex II to the Anti -Dumping Agreement because 
the investigating authority failed to take into account the information which was verifiable, 
appropriately submitted by Ukrainian exporters so that it could be used in the investigation 
without undue difficulties and which was supplied in on time;  
5. Articles 6.1, 6.2, 6.8 and paragraph 6 of Annex II to the Anti -Dumping Agreement because 
the investigat ing authority failed to inform Ukrainian producers of the reasons why the 
evidence and information supplied by Ukrainian producers was not accepted and to give 
Ukrainian producers an opportunity to provide further explanations and to provide for 
published determinations of the reasons for the rejection of such evidence or information;  
6. Article 11.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because measures were extended although 
positive evidence of such necessity was not provided;  
7. Article 11.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agree ment because during the review the investigating 
authority failed to prove by the positive evidence and following the objective examination 
that the expiry of the duty would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping 
and injury;  
8. Article 12. 2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority failed to 
give public notice on the affirmative or negative decision to accept an undertaking;  
9. Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of a breach of the Anti -Dumping Agreement 
descri bed above.  
These violations appear to nullify or impair benefits accruing to Ukraine directly or indirectly 
under the cited agreements.  
Ukraine reserves the right to raise additional measures, claims and legal matters during the 
course of the consultations  and in any future request for panel proceedings.  
Ukraine looks forward to receiving Kazakhstan 's reply to this request and to fixing a mutually 
convenient date for consultations.  
__________