G/ADP/Q2/EGY/2  
 
21 April 2017  
(17-2190) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices  Original: English  
 
ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT  
ON IMPLEMENTATION OF  ARTICLE VI OF THE GA TT 1994  
REPLIES TO QUESTIONS1 OF UKRAINE TO THE AR AB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT  REGARDING 
ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATIO NS CONCERNING IMPORT S OF STEEL REBAR  
ORIGINATED OR IMPORT ED FROM INTER ALIA  UKRAINE 
The following communication, dated 20  April 2017, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Egypt . 
 
_______________  
 
 
On 22 December 2016, the Arab Republic of Egypt initiated an anti -dumping investigation 
concerning imports of steel reb ar (bars, rods and coils) originating from inter alia Ukraine.  
 
Ukraine hereby would like to ask the Arab Republic of Egypt to clarify the following.  
 
Question 1  
 
Article 12.1 of  Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (the Anti -
Dumping Agreement) stipulates that when the authorities are satisfied that there is 
sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an anti -dumping investigation pursuant to 
Article 5, the Member or Members the products of which are subject to such 
investigation and other interested parties known to the investigating authorities to have 
an interest therein shall be notified and a public notice shall be given.  
 
According to the document G/ADP/N/294/EGY2, the investigation was initiated on 
22 December  2016. On 3 Jan uary 2017, the Government of Ukraine received the 
notification of the initiation, which informed that t he relevant notice was published in 
the Egyptian Official Gazette No. 288 on 22 December 2016.  A panel has indicated that 
Article 12.1 requires notificati on "as soon as" the authorities are satisfied that there is 
sufficient evidence to justify initiation.  
 
In light of the above facts, can the Egyptian authorities explain how the notification that 
was received on 3 January 2017 comports with the timing obl igation set forth in 
Article  12.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ? 
 
Would Egypt also explain how the Ukrainian authorities could get the access to the 
Egyptian Official Gazette? C ould Egypt provide Ukraine with the relevant link or with the 
copy of the Egypt ian Official Gazette that was issued on 22 December 2016 ? 
 
Reply : 
 
The anti -dumping investigation was initiated on 22 December 2016; the notice of initiation 
published in the Official Gazette dated the same day but only made available on 
                                                
1 G/ADP/Q2/EGY/1 (dated 21 March 2017).  
2 https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009 -
DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=234461,234477,2344 86,234404,234309,234281,234275,234276,2344
28,234278&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=5&FullTextHash=&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&Has
SpanishRecord=False  G/ADP/Q2/EGY/2  
 
- 2 - 
 
  29 December  2016; the Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices notified of the initiation of the 
investigation on 1 January 2017; and interested parties, including the authorities of Ukraine 
provided with the notice of initiation, non -confidential version of the application and anti-dumping 
questionnaire intended for foreign producers and exporters on 1 January 2017 (Due to the fact 
that both 30 December 2016 (Friday) and 31 December 2016 (Saturday) are officially days off in 
Egypt). Egypt had previously notified Ukrainian author ities of the receipt of the application on 
22 October 2016.  
 
The notification of Ukraine, 5 working days after the initiation of the investigation and the notice of 
initiation was made available meets the requirements of Article 12.1 of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement, as interpreted by the Panel in Argentina - Poultry Anti -Dumping Duties. Egypt would 
like to clarify that, Argentina investigating authority sent the public notice published on 
Official  Bulletin on 25 January 1999 and notified some exporters in Bra zil on 1 February 1999 and 
some others on 16 February 1999, for those parties the panel did not consider Argentina has not 
acted inconsistently with Article12.1. The panel interpreted the word "when" as "as soon as" when 
referring to the seven Brazilian ex porters who noted by the public notice on 15 September 1999, 
i.e., 8 months after the date on initiation.  
The Egyptian Gazette is available online at http://www.alamiria.com/ . The notice of initiation that 
was prov ided to Ukrainian authorities on 1 January 2017 is also published on the investigating 
authority's website http://www.tas.gov.eg . 
 
Question 2  
 
According to the application of the Egyptian domestic industry on initiati on of the 
antidumping investigation on imports of steel rebar originated or exported  from 
inter  alia Ukraine, normal value was determined for selected months, different for each 
country. The determination of normal value was based  on the local sales invoic es for 
May, June and August 2015 along with March and April  2016, i.e. five separate months. 
No explanation or justification for this selection was provided in the application. There is 
no indication in the non -confidential version of the application that information for the 
other 7 months, within the 12 -month period chosen by the applicant, was not 
reasonably available to it.  
 
Article 5.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement stipulates that the authorities shall examine 
the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application to determine 
whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation.  
 
According to the Recommendation3 concerning the periods of data collection for anti -
dumping investigations,  adopted by the Committ ee on  Anti-dumping Practices  of 
16 May 2000, the period of data collection for dumping investigations normally should 
be twelve months, and in any case no less than six months, ending as close to the date 
of initiation as is practicable.  
 
Panels have repea tedly found that the evidence relied upon for the purposes of initiation 
must be such that an unbiased and objective investigating authority could determine 
that there was sufficient evidence of dumping within the meaning of Article 2 of the 
Anti-Dumping A greement to justify initiation of an investigation. Article 2 has strict 
rules regarding the determination of the normal value which, as panel reports show, 
also apply to the pre -initiation stage.  
 
In light of the above -described facts and rulings adopted by the 
Dispute  Settlement  Body, could the authorities of the Arab Republic of Egypt reply to the 
following questions:  
 
 How does the application, and any determination based thereon, comply with 
the requirement of Article 5.2 (iii) of the Anti -Dumping Agree ment with respect 
to normal value?  
                                                
3 Document under symbol G/ADP/6.  G/ADP/Q2/EGY/2  
 
- 3 - 
 
   Did the applicant argue that normal value information for the other 7 months, 
within the 12 -month period chosen by the applicant, was not reasonably 
available to it? If so, can the authorities of the Arab Republic of Egyp t show  
o based on information in the file prior to initiation, that the applicant made such 
claim? and,  
o what steps where undertaken by the authorities to satisfy themselves that the 
data were indeed not reasonably available to the applicant?  
 
 Was the normal value determination made under Article 5.3, for the purposes 
of computing the margin of dumping for Ukraine, based only on information on 
domestic sales for the 5  months contained in the application? If not, please 
indicate on the basis of which data norma l value was determined.  
 How can a normal value determination based on data corresponding to certain 
months, within the 12 -month period chosen by the applicant, comply with the 
requirements set forth in Article 5.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement?  
Reply : 
 
The application contains evidence regarding prices at which the product in question is sold when 
destined for consumption in Ukraine and prices at which imports of the product in question 
imported from Ukraine is sold to independent customers in Egypt.  This i s consistent with the 
requirement of Article 5.2(iii) of the Anti -Dumping Agreement which stated that "The application 
shall contain such information as is reasonably available to the applicant".  The applicant's 
submission of normal value of five months ar e fully in comply with the requirement of 
Article  5.2(iii).  
 
In US - Softwood Lumber V, the Panel noted that while Article 2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement 
provides context for the interpretation of Article 5.3, "a clear distinction should be made between 
the determination of a margin of dumping according to the requirements of Article 2.2 for 
purposes of a preliminary or a final determination, and the evaluation of evidence of dumping for 
purposes of determining whether there is sufficient evidence to justi fy initiation of an 
investigation". In line with the findings of previous panels, the Panel considered that "the quantity 
and quality of the evidence  required to meet the threshold of sufficiency of the evidence is of a 
different standard for purposes of i nitiation".  Panels have accepted that evidence sufficient to 
justify the initiation of an investigation be based on a subset of data.  
 
Article 5.2(iii) does not require the provision of exhaustive sales data concerning normal value and 
export price.  The in vestigating authority reviewed the accuracy and consistency of the evidence 
provided by the applicant regarding dumping on imports from Ukraine in line with the 
requirements and found it to be sufficiently representative.  
However, any determination of the normal value during the POI will be fully based on information 
provided by the cooperating producers/exporters.  Egypt draws the attention of Ukraine to the fact 
that even though the Recommendation concerning the periods of data collection for anti -dumping 
investigations only concerns the determination of periods of investigation.  
 
Question 3  
 
Significant part of the product under anti -dumping investigation is also subject to 
safeguards measures that were imposed in order to remedy serious injury to the 
Egyp tian industry.4 Safeguard measures were introduced in 2015 and will be in force 
until 10 October 2017.  
 
Given the purpose of safeguard duty (to prevent or remedy serious injury), following its 
imposition the injurious effects of imports should be eliminat ed.  
 
                                                
4 https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Sear ch/FE_S_S009 -
DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=230915,228321,225652,225613,135430,131555,131558,129309,1277
79,121190&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=6&FullTextHash=&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&Has
SpanishRecord=True  G/ADP/Q2/EGY/2  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Accordingly, would the Egyptian authorities explain what methodology was used for the 
purposes of determining that the application contained enough evidence of the 
existence of injury to the Egyptian domestic industry taking into account safeguard 
measures applicable to the same product? Would the Egyptian authorities explain  how 
the initiation of anti -dumping investigation concerning the imports of steel rebar 
product originated or exported from inter alia Ukraine  complies with Articles 3, 5.2 
and 5.3 of the Antidumping Agreement?  
 
Would Egypt clarify whether the Egyptian legislation allows simultaneous imposition of 
anti-dumping and safeguard measures? If yes, would the Egyptian authorities clarify 
which provisions of the Egyptian legislation stipula te the methodology that meant to 
assure that double remedy was avoided in case of application safeguard and anti -
dumping measures to the same product?  
 
Reply : 
 
As highlighted in the application, the safeguard measure didn't prevent significant increase in 
imports; although the existence of a safeguard duty already being in place for more than two 
years, the dumped imports are still causing material injury, i.e., as a result of the safeguard 
measure, exporters in other countries may have reduced their export  prices in order to absorb the 
safeguard measure and to remain competitive in the Egyptian market especially the safeguard 
duty in the last year (14/10/2016 to 13/10/2017) is less than 10 $per ton.  
Imports from the subject countries have continued to rapid ly increase since the imposition of 
provisional safeguard measure on 14 October 2014.  These were of 369,549 tons in the first half of 
2014; 539,198 tons in the first half of 2015; 756,349 tons in the second half of 2015; and 
1,018,736 tons in the first hal f of 2016 – a 89% surge between the first half of 2015 and the first 
half of 2016 despite the safeguard measure in place.  Between the first half of 2014 and the first 
half of 2016, imports from Ukraine have increased from 187,843 tons to 258,624 tons. As a lso 
evidenced in the application, the state of the Egyptian rebar industry significantly deteriorated 
since the imposition of the safeguard measure with the continued and significant increase in 
imports.  
The application includes evidence regarding all of t he elements listed in Article 5.2 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement and, in particular, information and data regarding the volume of the 
allegedly dumped imports and the effects of these imports on prices in Egypt and the consequent 
impact of these imports on the Egyptian rebar industry, as set forth in Article 3 of the 
Anti-dumping Agreement.  The Egyptian investigating authority, after having reviewed the accuracy 
and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application, concluded that there is sufficient 
evidence to justify the initiation of the investigation as per the requirements of Article 5.3.  
 
WTO Members may initiate an investigation, and eventually impose an Anti -Dumping measure, on 
a product even if there is a safeguard measure in place on that produc t. Safeguard measures on 
the one hand and Anti -Dumping measures on the other address different problems and behaviors. 
The purpose of a safeguard measure is to address sudden, sharp, significant and recent increases 
in imports that are causing or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry 
(Appellate  Body Report, Argentina — Footwear (EC), para. 131). A safeguard measure applies on a 
non-discriminatory basis —that is, to imports from all origins. Safeguard measures apply to "fair" 
rather than " unfair" trade – they may be applied in cases of serious injury without any showing 
that the exporter has engaged in any kind of unfair trade practices.  
In contrast, AD is intended to counteract specific actions by exporters that are deemed to be 
unfair. Th us, the purpose of an anti -dumping duty is to counteract dumping practices of specific 
producers or exporters in the exporting country when they cause or threaten to cause material 
injury to the domestic industry. Each of these measures pursues different o bjectives and 
addresses different trade and business phenomena.  
 
The Egyptian legislation does not prevent the simultaneous imposition of anti -dumping and 
safeguard measures if the conditions warranting the imposition of each type of measure are 
satisfied.  Egypt also notes that neither the Anti -Dumping Agreement nor the Agreement on 
Safeguards prevent the parallel imposition of anti -dumping and safeguard measures. As Egypt has 
not imposed any anti -dumping measures, the question concerning the existence of a  potential 
double remedy is premature at this stage of the proceeding.  
 
__________