G/ADP/Q2/DOM/2  
20 April 2015  
(15-2079)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  Original: Spanish  
 
  ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT 
REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONS POSED BY TURKEY1 REGARDING THE 
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC2 
The following communication, dated 15 April 2015, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of the Dominican Republic.  
_______________ 
  Turkey thanks the Dominican Republic for its Notification and poses questions with 
regard to the investigation on "steel rods and bars for concrete reinforcement" 
originating in or exported fr om Turkey. This case is liste d in the semi-annual report of 
the Dominican Republic numbered G/ADP/N/216/DOM and dated 15 September 2011. 
Turkey may have subsequent question s as it further examines the case. 
Country-wide duties 
Facts 
The Commission for the Regulation of Unfair  Trade Practices and Safeguard Measures of 
the Dominican Republic ("Commission") published its final disclosure in the 
anti-dumping investigation on "steel rods  and bars for concrete reinforcement" 
originating in Turkey on 24 May 2011. In pa ragraph 148 of the disclosure, under the 
heading 3.4 "Summary-Dumping", the indi vidual dumping margin calculated for İÇDAŞ 
is indicated as 14% and for KAPTAN as -0.49%. That is, one of the Turkish exporters was found to be dumping whereas the other one doing the opposite, i.e. applying, 
overall, export prices that were hi gher than its normal value figures. 
On 6 June 2011, the Commission published in the Official Gazette of Dominican Republic 
Resolution number CDC-RD-AD-107-2011 ("Re solution") imposing definitive 
anti-dumping duties on imports of the subj ect product from Turkey. In the Resolution, 
the dumping margin calculated for İÇDAŞ and KAPTAN were reported as 14% 
and -0.49%, respectively, as indicated in th e final disclosure. Yet, the investigating 
authorities of the Dominican Republic decide d to impose one country-wide anti-dumping 
duty at the rate of 14% instead of imposing company-specific duties. 
The Resolution attempts to explain the reason for the use of a country-wide duty rate on 
the basis of the following: 
- significant differences between KAPT AN's prices and those of the other 
Turkish exporters; 
- uncertainties regarding the veracity of the information supplied by KAPTAN 
during the investigation, which had b een presented in an incomplete and 
untimely fashion; 
- possible circumvention of the du ty by other Turkish exporters. 
                                               
1 G/ADP/Q2/DOM/1. 
2 G/ADP/N/216/DOM. G/ADP/Q2/DOM/2 
- 2 - 
  Relevant legal provisions 
The chapeau of Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dum ping Agreement ("Agreement") reads in its 
relevant part: 
"The authorities shall, as a rule, determine an individual margin of 
dumping for each known exporter or producer concerned of the product 
under investigation." 
Article 9.2 of the Agreement provides: 
"When an anti-dumping duty is impose d in respect of any product, such 
anti-dumping duty shall be collected in the appropriate amounts in each 
case, on a non-discriminatory basis on  imports of such product from all 
s o u r c e s  f o u n d  t o  b e  d u m p e d  a n d  c a u s i n g  i n j u r y ,  e x c e p t  a s  t o  i m p o r t s  
from those sources from which pric e undertakings under the terms of 
this Agreement have been accepted. The authorities shall name the supplier or suppliers of the produc t concerned. If, however, several 
suppliers from the same country are in volved, and it is impracticable to 
name all these suppliers, the authorities may name the supplying country concerned. If several suppliers from more than one country are involved, 
the authorities may name either all th e suppliers involved, or, if this is 
impracticable, all the supplying countries involved." 
The chapeau of Article 9.3 of the Agreement reads: 
"The amount of the anti-dumping duty shall not exceed the margin of 
dumping as established under Article 2." 
Questions On what basis did the Dominican Republic  consider it appropriate to impose 
country-specific duties in an investigation in  which the authorities calculated individual 
dumping margins only for two Turkish exporters? Specifically, how does this fit with the obligation set forth in Article 9.2 that in principle anti-dumping duties should be 
imposed for individual companies but that  exceptionally, where there are too many 
exporters and it is impracticable to name th em all individually, the relevant country may 
be named? On what basis did the Dominican Re public consider it appropriate to impose 
anti-dumping duty to a cooperating export er (KAPTAN) for which a negative dumping 
margin has been calculated? 
 Reply 
 In response to the concerns expressed by the Turkish delegation, the Dominican Republic wishes to point out that the arguments and technical justifications used to support the imposition of an 
anti-dumping measure of 14% ad valorem  a t  e x - f a c t o r y  l e v e l ,  i n  a d d i t i o n  t o  t h e  
Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) tariff, on steel rods and bars for concrete reinforcement originating in Turkey and imported under tariff subheading s 7214.10.00, 7214.20.00 and 7213.20.90 of the 
Dominican Republic's Customs Tariff are duly set out in Final Resolution No. CDC-RD-AD-107-2011 
of 3 June 2011, which is available for consultation on the Web portal of the Commission for the 
Regulation of Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Measures (CDC)
3, together with the public 
documents concerning the various stages of the investigation procedure. 
 
We reiterate that the period of application of this measure is five (5) years, from 13 June 2011 to 13 June 2016. 
 
It should be noted that the CDC, in its capacity as investigating authority, will conduct a review by December 2015 of the need, or otherwise, for the continued imposition of this anti-dumping duty. 
__________ 
                                               
3 http://cdc.gob.do/es/investigaci ones/investigaciones-sobre-dumpi ng/investigacion-varillas.html