G/ADP/Q2/USA/8  
 
24 April 2018 
(18-2576) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices  Original: English  
 
ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT  
ON IMPLEMENTATION OF  ARTICLE VI OF THE GA TT 1994  
REPLIES  FROM  THE UNITED STATES TO  THE QUESTIONS  POSED BY  UKRAINE1 REGARDING ANTI -
DUMPING MEASURES  ON IMPORTS OF CARBON  AND ALLOY STEEL WIRE  ROD  
ORIGINATING  IN AND/OR EXPORTED F ROM INTER ALIA  UKRAINE  
The following communication, dated 24 April  2018, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of the United States . 
 
_______________  
 
 
Question 1  
 
Would the United States please clarify how the establish ed "facts available" dumping 
margins for particular companies and all others comply with relevant WTO legislation, in 
particular Paragraph 2 of Article  VI of GATT, Articles 6.8 and 9.4 of the Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994?  
 
Reply 
 
The basis for the U.S. Department of Commerce 's (Commerce) use of facts available is described 
in the published determinations2 and accompanying issues and decisions memorandum3 for this 
proceeding . In particular, we refer Ukraine to pages 3 through 25 and Appendix I of the final 
issues and decision memorandum . That determination is also fully consistent with the 
United  States ' WTO obligations .  
 
Question 2  
 
Would the U nited States  please indicate provisions of the WTO legislation according to 
which t he U nited States  imposed two different rates of antidumping duties given that 
both of them were based on facts available dumping margins?  
 
Reply  
 
Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 
(AD Agreement) address an investigating authority 's obligations in applying facts available . 
Commerce 's determination in this investigation on the basis of facts available complies with the 
United States ' obligations under those provisions and, again, is described in detail on p ages 3 
through 25 and Appendix I of the final issues and decision memorandum . 
 
                                                
1 G/ADP/Q2/USA/7  (dated 29 March 2018).  
2 See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Ukraine:  Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 82 Fed. Reg. 50,375 (Oct. 31, 2017), and Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From 
Ukraine: Affirmative Final Determination of Sales at Le ss Than Fair Value, 83 Fed. Reg. 2135 ( 16 Jan. 2018), 
available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/ukraine/2018 -00571.txt . 
3 Issues and Decision Memorandum for the F inal Affirmative Determination in the Less -Than-Fair-Value 
Investigation of Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Ukraine ( 8 Jan. 2018), available at 
https://enforcement.trad e.gov/frn/summary/ukraine/2018 -00571 -1.pdf. G/ADP/Q2/USA/8  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Question 3  
 
Would the United States  please explain what the legal reason was for two different 
methodology of the determination of the dumping margin based on facts avai lable? How 
it complies with WTO  rules and principles?  
 
Reply  
 
For a complete discussion of the methodology used by Commerce to derive the dumping margins 
in this proceeding, again, we refer Ukraine to the preliminary and final determinations,  and 
pages  3 through 25 and Appendix I of the final issues and decision memorandum . Commerce 's 
analysis of each respondent was dependent on the facts on the administrative record applicable to 
those respondents, as described in those determinations.  
 
Question 4  
 
Would the Unit ed States  please clarify how established on the highest level dumping 
margin for particular cooperating companies complies with principle of objectivity?  
 
Reply  
 
As previously stated, the basis for Commerce 's use of facts available is described in the 
preliminary and final determinations, and in the accompanying issues and decision memorandum . 
We again refer Ukraine to pages 3 through 25, and Appendix I of the final issues and decision 
memorandum . As a matter of clarification to Ukraine 's question, in t his investigation, Commerce 
concluded in its final determination that certain respondents did not cooperate fully and did not 
provide Commerce with certain requested necessary information available to those respondents.  
 
Question 5  
 
Would the United States  please explain what was the reason for dividing countries on 
several groups in the investigation for evaluating material injury?  
 
Reply  
 
The U.S. International Trade Commission ( "USITC ") cumulatively assessed the effects of imports 
of carbon and alloy st eel wire rod ( "wire rod ") from all ten countries simultaneously subject to the 
investigations in evaluating material injury to the domestic wire rod industry.4 
 
Article 3.3 of the AD Agreement states: "[w]here imports of a pro duct from more than one 
country  are simultaneously subject to anti -dumping investigations, the investigating authorities 
may cumulatively assess the effects of such imports ... . " On March 28, 2017, antidumping duty 
and countervailing duty petitions were filed with Commerce and t he USITC regarding the 
importation of wire rod from Belarus, Italy, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, 
the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom. Thus, since petitions were filed on the same 
day, imports from these ten countries we re "simultaneously subject to anti -dumping 
investigations " and eligible to be cumulated .  
 
Article 3.3 sets forth that a cumulative assessment may only be made if certain conditions are 
met, including imports from each country must be more than de minimis  and not negligible, and "a 
cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports is appropriate in light of the conditions of 
competition between the imported products and the conditions of competition between the 
imported products and the like domestic pro duct". The USITC found that cumulating imports from 
the ten subject countries was warranted because the conditions for cumulation were satisfied: the 
imports from the subject countries were not de minimis  or negligible and there was a reasonable 
overlap of  competition between the domestic like product and imports from each of the ten subject 
countries and between the imports from each of the ten subject countries.5 
                                                
4 Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Belarus, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates , Inv. 
Nos. 731-TA-1349, 1352, and 1357 (Final), USITC Pub. 4752 at 18 -44 (January 2018) and Carbon and 
Certain  Alloy St eel Wire Rod from South Africa and Ukraine , Inv. Nos. 731 -TA-1353 and 1356 (Final), USITC 
Pub. 4766 at 3 -5 (March 2018).  
5 USITC Pub. 4752 at 18 -21. G/ADP/Q2/USA/8  
 
- 3 - 
 
  The USITC cumulatively assessed the effects of the imports from all ten countries simultaneou sly 
subject to investigations in determining that the U.S. wire rod industry was materially injured by 
reason of the cumulated subject imports.6 Each country specific final determination based on the 
cumulative assessment of material injury is made by the USITC after it receives Commerce 's final 
affirmative determinations of dumping.  
 
Question 6  
 
Would the United States please clarify how such a methodology comply with WTO rules 
and principles?  
 
Reply  
 
The USITC 's final determinations in the wire rod investigations are consistent with the U.S. 
obligations under the AD Agreement, as discussed above.  
 
Question 7  
 
Would the United States please explain if grouping imports from different countries for 
injury analysis is used often by the ITC?  
 
Reply  
 
The g rouping of imports from different countries for its material injury analysis is based on the 
countries included in the petition and whether the criteria for cumulation are satisfied.  
 
Question 8  
 
Would the U nited States  please clarify whether two Final Det erminations of the ITC on 
Wire Rod were made with using different methodology and data for injury analysis?  
 
Reply  
 
The USITC 's final determinations regarding material injury by reason of dumped imports of wire 
rod was based on the cumulative assessment of  the effects of the imports from the ten subject 
countries using the same methodology and the same data, with the exception that each country 
specific final determination by the USITC took into account the corresponding Commerce country 
specific final dete rminations regarding dumping margins and critical circumstances (if applicable).  
 
 
__________  
                                                
6 USITC Pub. 4752 at 21 -44.