G/ADP/Q2/KGZ/4  
 
26 April 2017  
(17-2295) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices  Original: English  
 
ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT  
REPLIES TO FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS1 OF UKRAINE REGARDING ANTI -DUMPING  
INVESTIGATIONS CONCE RNING IMPORTS OF BARS A ND RODS AND  
FERROSILICOMANGANESE  ORIGINATING IN UKRAI NE TO THE  
TERRITORY OF THE  EURASIAN  ECONOMIC UNION  
The following  communication, dated 26  April 2017, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of the Kyrgyz Republic . 
 
_______________  
 
 
Question 1  
 
In the reply to Question 1, the Members of the Eurasian Economic Union stated that 
when establishing periods fo r 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 specific 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?  
 
Reply  
 
The periods of investigation for dumping are clarified in t he corresponding sections of the reports 
on the results of anti -dumping investigations concerning imports of bars and rods and ferrosilicon 
manganese originating in Ukraine.2 In fact, in the anti -dumping investigation concerning bars and 
rods the period of  investigation for dumping was 9 months and not 6 months, as Ukraine asserts.  
In establishing the period for dumping investigation concerning bars and rods the DIMD took into 
account the necessity to collect data for the period ending as close to the date of initiation as is 
practicable.  
 
Section 1.3 of the Report on the results of the anti -dumping investigation on ferrosilicon 
manganese originating in Ukraine contains clarifications regarding the period of data collection for 
dumping investigation. In esta blishing the period for dumping investigation concerning ferrosilicon 
manganese the DIMD took into account the simultaneous initiation of anti -dumping and 
countervailing duty investigations in order to consider the concurrent impact of subsidised and 
dumpe d imports on the domestic industry, as well as the necessity to collect data for the period 
ending as close to the date of initiation as is practicable.  
 
                                                
1 G/ADP/Q2/ARM/3 - G/ADP/Q2/KAZ/3 - G/ADP/Q2/KGZ/3 - G/ADP/Q2/RUS/4.  
2 Please refer to Section 1.3 of the Report o n the results of the anti -dumping investigation on 
ferrosilicon manganese originating in Ukraine and Section 1.4 of the Report on the results of the anti -dumping 
investigation on bars and rods originating in Ukraine.  G/ADP/Q2/KGZ/4  
 
- 2 - 
 
  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 the Commission on 28 April 2015.  
 
Along with this in the reply to Q uestion 3, the Members of the Eurasian Economic Union 
stated 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 Economic Commission.  
 
Moreover, it is indicated in the webpage of the Eurasian Economic 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) was adopted 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 invest igation if the Report with final results was published only 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 R eports and the date of conclusion of investigation, as 
according 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 Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures?  
 
Reply  
 
The anti -dumping measure on imports of bars and rods originating in Ukraine was imposed 
pursuant to Decision of the Board of the EEC No. 28 dated 29 March 2016 "On imposition of an 
anti-dumping measure in the form of an anti -dumping duty on bars and rods originating in Ukraine 
and imported into the customs t erritory of the Eurasian Economic Union ". 
The EAEU legislation provides that the date of conclusion of an investigation shall be the date on 
which the Commission considers the report pursuant to the investigation and the Commission's 
draft act. The Commiss ion considered the report on the results of the investigation on bars and 
rods and the proposal on necessity of application of an anti -dumping measure on 28 April 2015. 
Accordingly , the anti -dumping investigation on bars and rods originating in Ukraine was  completed 
on 28 April 2015, within the period of 18 months, which is consistent with Article 5.10 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
 
__________  
                                                
3 www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/act/trade/podm/investigations/AD -13/default.aspx .