WT/DS494/1/Add.1, G/L/1115/Add.1  
G/ADP/D110/1/Add.1, G/SCM/D107/1/Add.1  
 
6 April 2016  
(16-1875)  Page: 1/5  
  Original: English  
 
 EUROPEAN UNION – COST ADJUSTMENT METHODOLOGIES AND 
CERTAIN ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS FROM RUSSIA 
(SECOND COMPLAINT) 
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
Addendum 
The following communication, dated 29 March 2016, from the delegation of the Russian Federation 
to the delegation of the European Union and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is 
circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.  
_______________ 
 
With reference to the document WT/DS494/1, G/L/1115, G/ADP/D110/1, G/SCM/D107/1 issued on 
19 May 2015, my authorities have instructed me to request further consultations with the 
European Union pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes  (the "DSU"), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade 1994  (the "GATT 1994"), Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VI of the Ge neral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  (the "AD 
Agreement").  
Subsequent to the results of the first round of consultations held with the European Union on 
26 June 2015 the Russian Federation has identified additional aspects with respect to the 
measures at issue. Therefore the Russian Federation respectfully requests further consultations 
with the European Union with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory solution.  
This request supplements and does not replace the request for consultations circulated as 
document WT/DS494/1, G/L/1115, G/ADP/D110/1, G/SCM/D107/1 issued on 19 May 2015. 
This request is with respect to, although not exclusively, the Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) No 999/2014 of 23 September 2014
1 adopted following the expiry review proceeding 
extending the duration of anti-dumping measures on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in 
Russia. This request is also with respect to currently applied anti-dumping measures, which were originally imposed, levied and reviewed, pursuant to: 
• Council Regulation (EC) No 2022/95 of 16 August 1995 imposing a definitive anti-
dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, OJ L 198, 
23.8.1995, p. 1–14; 
• Council Regulation (EC) No 663/98 of 23 March 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 
2022/95 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate 
originating in Russia, OJ L 93, 26.3.1998, p. 1–7; 
                                               
1 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 999/2014 of 23 September 2014 imposing a definitive 
anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originat ing in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to 
Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 280, 24.9.2014, p. 19–51). WT/DS494/1/Add.1 • G/L/1115/Add.1 • G/ADP/D110/1/Add.1 • G/SCM/D107/1/Add.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  • Council Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 of 15 April 2002 imposing a definitive anti-
dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, OJ L 102, 18.4.2002, p. 1–11; 
• Council Regulation (EC) No 993/2004 of 17 May 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 
658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate 
originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively th e provisional duty imposed on imports of 
ammonium nitrate originating in Poland and Ukraine, and terminating the anti-dumping 
proceeding in respect of imports originating in Lithuania, OJ L 182, 19.5.2004, p. 28–33; 
• Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) 
No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate 
originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-
dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia , Ukraine, 
following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 
384/96, OJ L 160, 23.6.2005, p. 1–9; 
• Council Regulation (EC) No 236/2008 of 10 March 2008 concerning terminating the 
partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of the anti-
dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, OJ L 75, 
18.3.2008, p. 1–7; 
• Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 of 8 July 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping 
duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review 
pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of 
Regulation (EC) No 384/96, OJ L 185, 12.7.2008, p. 1–34; 
• Council Regulation (EC) No 989/2009 of 19 October 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 
661/2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate 
originating in Russia, OJ L 278, 23.10.2009, p. 1–2; 
• Commission Decision 2012/629/EU of 10 October 2012 amending Decision 2008/577/EC 
accepting the undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding 
concerning imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, OJ L 277, 11.10.2012, p. 8–10; 
• Commission Implementing Regulation (E U) No 999/2014 of 23 September 2014 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in 
Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, OJ L 280, 24.9.2014, p. 19–51;  
• Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008, Case T-348/05, JSC 
Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat v Counc il of the European Union, [2008] ERC 
II-159; and 
• Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2009, Case T-348/05 
INTP, JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat v Council of the European Union, application for interpretation of the judgmen t of the Court of First Instance of 10 
September 2008 in Case T-48/05, [2009] ERC II-00116. 
In addition, this request concerns any and all notices, disclosures and reports of the European 
Commission, Council of the European Union, the Court of Justice of the European Union and other EU institutions, and any amendments thereof, produced or to be produced in the future, in 
connection with the anti-dumping proceedings relating to imports of ammonium nitrate from the 
Russian Federation, including, but not limited to, all interim reviews, expiry reviews and other proceedings that have taken place to date. 
The Russian Federation considers that the measures at issue  are inconsistent with the obligations 
of the European Union under the AD Agreement and the GATT 1994, including, but not limited to, the following provisions: WT/DS494/1/Add.1 • G/L/1115/Add.1 • G/ADP/D110/1/Add.1 • G/SCM/D107/1/Add.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  a) Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement because the European Union failed to examine whether 
the expiry review request was duly substantiated; 
b) Articles 11.3, 4.1 and 5.4 of the AD Agreement because the European Union initiated the 
expiry review in the absence of a duly substa ntiated request made by or on behalf of the 
properly defined domestic industry;  
c) Articles 1, 2.1, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 5.3, 5.4, 9.1, 9.3, 11.1, 11.3 and 18.1 of the 
AD Agreement because the European Union initiated a single expiry review with regard 
to anti-dumping measures having different  product scopes of application, combined 
within such review the likelihood of recurrence of injury and dumping determinations with regard to products subject to anti-d umping measures having different scopes of 
application and extended the measures app licable to JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky 
Kombinat based on the likelihood of injury and dumping determinations for the product 
other than that which formed the basis for the anti-dumping measures applied on products of this company;  
d) Articles 11.3, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 4.1, 5.3, 5.4, 6.8 and paragraphs 3, 5 and 7 of Annex II 
of the AD Agreement because the European Un ion initiated an expiry review and made 
the recurrence of injury determination based on erroneous and incomplete data provided 
by the domestic industry and because the European Union incorrectly defined the 
domestic industry;  
e) Articles 11.3 and 2.1 of the AD Agreement and Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994 because 
the European Union failed to make a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping 
determination based on a sufficient factual basis allowing it to draw reasoned and 
adequate conclusions concerning such likelihood by failing to examine the impact of the absence of dumping by the largest Russian exporters during the period of review; 
f) Articles 11.3, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4 of the AD Agreement and Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994 
because the European Union in the context of a determination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping relied upon dumping margins that had not been 
determined in conformity with the disciplines of the said provisions of Article 2 of the AD 
Agreement;  
g) Articles 11.3, 2.1 and 2.4 of the AD Ag reement and Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994 
because the European Union failed to perf orm a fair comparison between the export 
price and the normal value when determinin g the likelihood of recurrence of dumping; 
h) Articles 11.3, 2.1, 2.3, 6.8 and paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 7 of Annex II of the AD 
Agreement and Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994 because the European Union, when 
performing the dumping determination, improperly rejected data on export prices 
provided by the Russian exporters and based it s findings on the existence of dumping on 
the facts available;  
i) Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 9.3 and 11.3 of the AD Agreement, Articles I:1, VI:1, VI:2 of the 
GATT 1994 and the second Supplementary Provis ion to Article VI:1 in Annex I to the 
GATT 1994 because the European Union impo sed and continues levying anti-dumping 
duties on imports of ammonium nitrate from the Russian Federation based on a country-
wide dumping margin calculated pursuant to a methodology that did not conform to the 
said provisions of Article 2 of the AD Agreement and of the GATT 1994;   
j) Articles 11.3, 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement because the European Union failed to 
perform proper undercutting and underselling calculations;  
k) Articles 11.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 4.1 of the AD Agreement because the European Union 
based its likelihood of recurrence of injury determination on data relating to a non-
representative sample of the domestic industry and because the European Union made 
the likelihood of injury determination based on the incomplete, non-representative and erroneous data provided by the sampled co mpanies and failed to examine and explain WT/DS494/1/Add.1 • G/L/1115/Add.1 • G/ADP/D110/1/Add.1 • G/SCM/D107/1/Add.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  the significantly divergent economic performance between the sampled and non-
sampled EU producers; 
l) Articles 11.3, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4 of the AD Agreement because the European Union 
erroneously concluded that there were no indications that the non-injurious situation of 
the European Union industry would be sustainable; 
m) Articles 11.3, 3.1 and 3.4 of the AD Agreement because the European Union, in 
determining that the expiry of the measure would be likely to lead to recurrence of 
injury and recurrence or continuation of dump ing, failed to base that determination on 
positive evidence and an objective examination of the relevant factors, including  the level of  production capacities available in Russia and the ability of third country markets to absorb Russian exports;  
n) Articles 1, 2.1, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 5.3, 5.4, 9.1, 9.3, 11.1, 11.3 and 18.1 of the 
AD Agreement and Articles I:1, II:1 (a) and (b), VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 because the European Union initiated an expiry review, made likelihood of recurrence of  
injury and dumping determinations, extended  the anti-dumping measures, levied and 
continues levying anti-dumping duties on imports of stabilized ammonium nitrate for which no anti-dumping investigation was ever conducted and no dumping and material 
injury determinations were ever made;  
o) Articles 6.1.2 and 6.4 of the AD Agr eement because on numerous occasions the 
European Union delayed granting the interested parties access to the non-confidential file of the review; 
p) Articles 6.1.3 and 6.4 of the AD Agreement because the European Union failed to 
provide to the interested parties the full text of the written application received on 28 March 2013, on the basis of which the Euro pean Union initiated the expiry review; 
q) Article 6.5 of the AD Agreement because th e European Union treated as confidential, 
without any good cause shown, information supplied by the domestic industry; 
r) Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement because the European Union failed to require the 
domestic industry to furnish a sufficiently detailed non-confidential summary of the data 
submitted in confidence, including the Europe an Union domestic industry submission of 
12 May 2014, which the European Union relied upon as the basis for determining that dumping and injury were likely to recur;  
s) Article 6.8 and paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 7 of Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
because, despite the cooperation of the Russian exporters and producers under the investigation and their appropriate submission of verifiable information in a timely 
fashion so that it could be used in the investigation without undue difficulties, the 
European Union rejected this information and based its determinations on information from alternative sources;    
t) Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement because the European Union failed to inform the 
interested parties of the essential facts under consideration which formed the basis for the decision to extend the anti-dumping measures;  
u) Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement because the European Union failed to 
provide in sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and 
law considered material by the investigating authority and to explain the reasons which led to the acceptance or rejection of the arguments of the interested parties; 
v) Articles 1, 18.1 and 18.4 of the AD Agreemen t as well as Article VI of the GATT 1994 
because an anti-dumping measure shall be  applied only under the circumstances 
provided for in Article VI of the GATT 1994 an d in accordance with the provisions of the 
AD Agreement, which the European Union did not  observe with regard to the anti-
dumping measures on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in the Russian Federation; and  WT/DS494/1/Add.1 • G/L/1115/Add.1 • G/ADP/D110/1/Add.1 • G/SCM/D107/1/Add.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
  w) Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement because the European Union failed to ensure the 
conformity of the anti-dumping measures on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in the Russian Federation with its obligations as provided in the AD Agreement and GATT 1994. 
The Russian Federation reserves the right to rais e additional factual and legal issues during the 
course of the consultations. 
The Russian Federation looks forward to receiving a reply of the European Union to this Request, 
and is ready to consider with the European Union a mutually convenient date for consultations. 
 
 
__________