G/ADP/Q1/RUS/7  
G/SCM/Q1/RUS/7  
G/SG/Q1/RUS /7 
 
5 October 2016  
(16-5294) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices  
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  
Committee on Safeguards  
 Original: English  
 
 NOTIFICATION OF LAWS  AND REGULATIONS UNDE R 
ARTICLES 18.5, 32.6 AND 12.6 OF THE AGRE EMENTS  
QUESTIONS POSED BY THE UNITED STATES  
REGARDING THE NOTIFI CATION OF THE RUSSIA N FEDERATION1 
The following communication, dated 3 October 2016 , is being circulated at t he request of the 
Delegation of the  United States.   
 
_______________  
 
 
The United States thanks Russia for its notification of (1) Articles 48, 49, 50 of the Treaty on the 
Eurasian Economic Union of 29 May 2014 (hereinafter – "Treaty "), and (2) Annex No. 8 to the 
Treaty on the EAEU (Protocol on Application of Safeguard, Anti -Dumping and Countervailing 
Measures with respect to Third Countries) (hereinafter – Protocol) and poses the following 
questions:2  
 
Question 1  
 
Paragraph 42(3) of the Protocol states t hat the margin of dumping may be determined through a 
comparison of the weighted average normal value of the product with prices of individual export 
transactions provided that prices of the product differ significantly among different purchasers, 
regions,  or time periods. Has the investigating authority applied this methodology in an 
antidumping duty proceeding? If so, please identify the specific proceeding(s).  
 
Question 2  
 
Paragraph 52 of the Protocol states that, "{a}long with the determination of an in dividual margin 
of dumping for each known exporter and (or) producer of the product who has submitted 
necessary information permitting the determination of an individual margin of dumping, the 
investigating authority may determine a single margin of dumpin g for all other exporters and (or) 
producers of the product subject to investigation based on the highest margin of dumping 
determined during the course of the investigation. "  Given this, please explain how the all others 
rate is calculated.  
 
Question 3  
 
Paragraph 59 of the Protocol states that, "Per unit costs of production of the like product plus 
administrative, selling and general costs shall be calculated on the basis of records submitted by 
the exporter or producer of the product, provided that such  records are in accordance with the 
generally accepted accounting principles and rules of the exporting third country and completely  
reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product ". (emphasis added). Please 
explain how this compor ts with Article 2.2.1.1 of the Antidumping Agreement, which states that, 
"costs shall normally be calculated on the basis of records kept by the exporter or producer under 
                                                
1 G/ADP/N/1/RUS/2 -G/SCM/N/1/RUS/2 -G/SG/N/1/RUS/2 (dated  10 May 2016).  
2 For the sake of efficiency, the United States suggests that committee review for these questions be  
conducted in the Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices.  G/ADP/Q1/RUS/7 • G/SCM/Q1/RUS/7 • G/SG/Q1/RUS/7  
 
- 2 - 
 
  investigation, provided that such records are in accordance with the generally accep ted accounting 
principles of the exporting country and reasonably  reflect the costs associated with the production 
and sale of the product under consideration " (emphasis added).   
 
Question 4  
 
The Protocol defines "material injury " without reference to the  volume or impact of subject 
imports, while paragraphs 67 -77 of the Protocol separately discuss an examination of subject 
import volumes and impact.  However, it is unclear how these provisions interact. Please 
explain  (1) the purpose of the definition for  "material injury, " and how it relates to the referenced 
provisions in the Protocol on volume and impact; (2) how this definit ion is consistent with 
Articles  3.1, 3.2, and 3.4 of the Antidumping Agreement and Articles 15.1, 15.2, and 15.4 of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement); and (3) whether the 
definition of "material injury " would preclude a finding of injury in instances where the negative 
effects of subject imports are inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.  
 
Question 5  
 
Paragraph 76 of the Protocol mandates consideration of the following factors in a threat 
determination in antidumping investigations:  
 
a. the rate of increase of the dumped imports indicating the likelihood of further 
increased importation;  
b. sufficie nt freely disposable, or an imminent increase in, capacity of the exporter which 
indicates the likelihood of increased dumped imports of this product, taking into 
account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports of this 
product; 
c. the level of prices for the product subject to investigation, if such level of prices may 
have a depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices for the like product in the 
Member States, and would likely further increase demand for the product s ubject to 
investigation;  
d. the exporter 's inventories of the product subject to investigation.  
 
Similarly, paragraph 139 of the Protocol mandates consideration of the following factors in a threat 
determination in countervailing duty investigations (emphasis  added):  
 
a. nature, the amount of the subsidy or subsidies and the trade effects likely to arise 
therefrom;  
b. the rate of increase of subsidized imports into the domestic market indicating the 
likelihood of substantially  increased importation;  
c. sufficient freel y disposable, or an imminent increase in, capacity of the exporter 
indicating the likelihood of increased subsidized imports of this product, taking into 
account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports;  
d. prices for the prod uct subject of subsidized imports, whether such prices will have 
depressing or suppressing effect on the prices of the like product at the domestic 
market of the Member States, and would likely increase demand for further subsidized 
imports;  
e. the exporter 's inventories of the imported subsidized product.  
 
By contrast, Article 3.7 of the Antidumping Agreement and Article 15.7 of the SCM Agreement 
specify that in a threat analysis an authority should consider whether there is "a significant  rate of 
increase of  dumped impo rts", "substantially  increased importation ", "an imminent, substantial  
increase in, capacity of the exporter indicating the likelihood of substantially  increased dumped 
exports ", and "prices that will have a significant  depressing or suppressin g effect on domestic 
prices " (emphasis added). In only one instance, paragraph 130(2) underlined above, does such 
language appear to be incorporated into the Protocol. Please explain whether para graphs 76 
and 130 of the Protocol are consistent with Article  3.7 of the An tidumping Agreement and 
Article  15.7 of the SCM Agreement, respectively.  
 G/ADP/Q1/RUS/7 • G/SCM/Q1/RUS/7 • G/SG/Q1/RUS/7  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Question 6  
 
Paragraph 78 of the Protocol indicates that the Commission shall impose provisional measures if 
there are preliminary determi nations of dumping and injury. Does the Commission have discretion 
to not impose provisional measures or is it bound by the affirmative preliminary findings of the 
administering authority to impose provisional measures?   
 
Question 7  
 
If the Commission imposes provisional measures, are the duties normally set at the level of 
dumping found in the preliminary determination or at a lesser amount? How does the Commission 
determine at what level to set the provisional duties?  
 
Question 8  
 
When a report is submitted to the Commission by the in vestigating authority that contains 
proposals on the imposition or application of a provisional safeguard, or antidumping or 
countervailing measures, is there a deadline by which the Commission must make a decision? 
Also, please explain whether the Commiss ion is able to modify a proposal from the investigating 
authority, or if it is required to either approve or deny the proposal as presented.  
 
Question 9  
 
Paragraph 109 of the Protocol states that the investigating authority may self -initiate an expiry 
review. Please explain the circumstances under which the investigating authority would self -initiate 
an expiry review when there has been no written application submitted by the domestic industry.  
 
Question 10  
 
Paragraph 186 of the Protocol indicates that the  investigating authority may self -initiate 
antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. Has the investigating authority ever self -
initiated an antidumping or countervailing duty investigation? If so, what were the circumstances 
that led to the decis ion to initiate an investigation without an application from the domestic 
industry? Please explain the information provided to interested parties regarding the basis for the 
authority 's decision to self -initiate an investigation.  
 
Question 11  
 
Paragraph 18 9 of the Protocol describes the industry support required for a written application for 
the initiation of safeguards, antidumping, or countervailing duty investigations.  
 
a. Please confirm whether paragraph 189(1) of the Protocol applies to safeguard 
investig ations alone and establishes a percentage threshold of domestic industry 
support for the initiation of safeguard investigations, which we note is not required 
under the Agreement on Safeguards.  
b. Paragraph 189(1) also states that evidence showing a "major pr oportion " of domestic 
producers supporting an application shall be sufficient to establish support of domestic 
producers. Please define "major proportion. " 
 
Question 12  
 
Paragraph 209 of the Protocol notes "Interested parties shall have the right to state their intention 
to participate in the investigation in writing within the period established by this Protocol. They are 
recognized as participants in the investigation from the date of the registration of their statement 
of intent to participate in the inv estigation  by the investigating authority " (emphasis added). 
However, not all interested parties in an investigation are necessarily parties that will participate in 
an investigation, and may be, for example, industry associations, foreign governments, etc . Please 
clarify whether parties that do not directly participate in an investigation, such as by providing 
questionnaire responses, will still be considered interested parties to the investigation and may 
have access to the public case record.  
 G/ADP/Q1/RUS/7 • G/SCM/Q1/RUS/7 • G/SG/Q1/RUS/7  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Question 1 3 
 
Paragraph 213 of the Protocol notes "… the investigating authority shall provide an opportunity for 
the participants  in the investigation to see other information relevant to the investigation… " 
(emphasis added, 'participants ' is also used in paragraphs  describing notification and access to 
non-confidential case documents). However, this paragraph does not address the access that 
"interested parties " will have to the information relevant to the investigation. Please confirm that 
all interested parties wi ll have access to the information relevant to the investigation, and if there 
is a distinction in access between participants and interested parties. Please also explain how 
access to this information is provided to participants or interested parties, e.g. , by access to case 
file in a reading room, via online case file, etc.  
 
 
 
__________