G/ADP/Q2/ARM/3, G/ADP/Q2/KAZ/3  
G/ADP/Q2/KGZ/3, G/ADP/Q2/RUS/4  
 
3 April  2017 
(17-1799) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices  Original: English  
 
ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT  
FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS OF UKRAINE REGARDING THE REPLIE S BY ARMENIA, KAZAKHSTAN,  
THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC AND THE  RUSSIAN FEDERATION  REGARDING ANTI -DUMPING 
INVESTIGATIONS CONCE RNING  IMPORTS OF BARS AND RODS AND  
FERROSILICOMANGANESE  ORIGINATING  IN UKRAINE TO THE  
TERRITORY OF THE EUR ASIAN  ECONOMIC UNION  
The following communication, dated 30  March 2017 , is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Ukraine . 
 
_______________  
 
 
Ukraine thanks Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republi c and the Russian Federation for its 
replies1 to the 22 April 2016 questions regarding anti -dumping investigations concerning imports 
of bars and rods and ferrosilicomanganese originating in Ukraine to the territory of the Eurasian 
Economic Union2, and pos es the following follow -up questions : 
 
Question 1  
 
In the reply to Question 1, the Members of the Eurasian Economic Union stated that when 
establishing periods for a dumping investigation, the Department for Internal Market Defence of 
the Eurasian Economic  Commission (hereinafter – the DMID) takes into account the particular 
circumstances of a given investigation to ensure that a period is appropriate in each case.  
 
Would Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation clarify what speci fic 
circumstances were taken into account in investigations concerning imports of bars and rods and 
ferrosilicomanganese that led to such different periods for a dumping investigation 6 and 18 
months? Please explain how the simultaneous initiation of anti -dumping and anti -subsidy 
investigations affected the determination of period of investigation?  
 
Question 2  
 
In the reply to Question 2, the Members of the Eurasian Economic Union stated that the report on 
the results of the investigation on bars and rods ( hereinafter referred to as "Report") and the 
proposal on the necessity of application of an anti -dumping measure was considered by t he 
Commission on 28 April 2015.  
 
Along with this in the reply to Question 3, the Members of the Eurasian Economic Union stat ed that 
on 14 May 2015 the Report which contained the final results of the anti -dumping investigation on 
bars and rods was published on the official website of the Eurasian Econom ic Commission.  
 
Moreover, it is indicated in the webpage of the Eurasian Econ omic Commission3 that the 
notification on application of the anti -dumping measures on bars and rods originating in Ukraine 
was published on March  31, 2016. In the notification, it is indicated that the decision on the 
imposition of the measures:  
 
                                                
1 G/ADP/Q2/ARM/2 , G/ADP/Q2/ KAZ/2, G/ADP/Q2/ KGZ/2, G/ADP/Q2/ RUS/3. 
2 G/ADP/Q2/ARM/1, G/ADP/Q2/KAZ/1 , G/ADP/Q 2/KGZ/1, G/ADP/Q2/RUS/2.  
3 www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/act/trade/podm/investigations/AD -13/default.aspx  G/ADP/Q2/ARM/3 • G/ADP/Q2/KAZ/3 • G /ADP/Q2/KGZ/3 • G/ADP/Q2/RUS/4  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1) was ad opted on March 29, 2016, and  
2) was based on the report of the DMID dated March 29, 2016.  
 
Therefore, it is not clear how the date 28 April 2015 could be considered the date of conclusion of 
investigation if the Report with final results was p ublished onl y on 29 March 2016?  
 
Is it therefore correct that the definitive anti -dumping measures on bars and rods originating in 
Ukraine:  
 
1) were imposed through the EEC Decision No. 28 of 29 March 2016?  
2) were imposed after considering the evidence, analysis and  recommendations contained in the 
report submitted  by the DMID on March 29, 2016?  
 
Would Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation, please, clarify the 
situation with the Reports and the date of conclusion of investigation, as acc ording to the date of 
the last report, the investigation on bars and rods was conducted during 28 month?  
 
Against the above facts, how can the anti -dumping measures at stake not be in violation of 
Article  5.10 of the WTO Anti -Dumping Agreement, in light of  the interpretation given by the panel 
in Mexico – Olive Oil of Article 11.11 of the Agreement on Subsidi es and Countervailing Measures?  
 
__________