WT/DS521/2  
 
15 March 2019  
(19-1676) Page: 1/5 
  Original: English  
 
EUROPEAN UNION – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES O N CERTAIN  
COLD -ROLLED FLAT STE EL PRODUCTS FROM RUS SIA 
REQUEST FOR THE ESTA BLISHMENT OF A PANEL  BY THE RUSSIAN FEDE RATION  
The following communication, dated 13 March 2019, from the delegation of the Russian Federation 
to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
 
On 27 January 2017, the Government of the Russian Federation requested consultations with the 
European Union (EU) pursuant to  Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes ( "DSU"), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade 1994 ( "GATT 1994 ") and Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of 
Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ( "Anti-Dumping Agreement ") with 
respect to the anti -dumping measures imposed by the European Union on imports of certain cold -
rolled flat steel products originating in the Russian Federation ( "measures at issue ") pursuant to the 
following:  
 
(a) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/181 of 10 February 2016 
imposing a provisional anti -dumping duty on imports of certain cold -rolled flat steel 
products originating in the People 's Republic of China and the Russian Federation,1   
 
(b) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1328 of 29 July 2016 imposing 
a definitive anti -dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed 
on imports of certain cold -rolled flat steel products o riginating in the People's Republic 
of China and the Russian Federation,2   
 
(c) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329 of 29 July 2016 levying 
the definitive anti -dumping duty on the registered imports of certain cold -rolled flat 
steel products ori ginating in the People's Republic of China and the Russian 
Federation,3   
 
as well as other related acts4,  and the underlying investigation.  
 
This request covers the measures set out above, as well as any and all amendments, replacements, 
extensions, rela ted and implementing measures and any act of the European Union authorities that 
would affect the measures at issue. This request also concerns any and all notices, disclosures, 
decisions and reports of the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union and 
other European Union institutions, and any amendments thereof, produced or to be produced in the 
                                                
1 OJ L 37, 12.2.2016, p. 1 –39. 
2 OJ L 210, 4.8.2016, p. 1 –26. 
3 OJ L 210, 4.8.2016, p. 27–42. 
4 For instance, Notice of initiation of an anti -dumping proceeding  concerning imports of  certain cold -rolled 
flat steel products  originating in the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation of 14 May 2015 ( OJ 
C 161, 14.5.2015, p. 9 -19); and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU)  2015/2325 of 11 December 2015 
making imports of certain cold -rolled flat steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China and the 
Russian Federation subject to registration (OJ L328, 12.12.2015, p. 1 04-107).  WT/DS521/2  
 
- 2 - 
 
  future, in connection with any of the measures at issue including, but not limited to, all interim 
reviews, expiry reviews and other proceed ings that have taken place to date.  
The Russian Federation held consultations with the European Union on 8 June 2017. These 
consultations failed to settle the dispute.  
The Russian Federation considers that the measures at issue are inconsistent with the European 
Union's obligations under the following provisions of the GATT 1994 and the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement:  
1. Articles 2.1, 2.2, and 2.2.1.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the European 
Union failed to calculate the costs on the basis of the records k ept by Public Joint Stock 
Company "Novolipetsk Steel " ("NLMK "), and by Public Joint Stock Company Severstal 
("Severstal ") (two Russian producers under investigation, the products of which are 
subject to the measures at issue), although these records were i n accordance with the 
generally accepted accounting principles of the Russian Federation and reasonably 
reflected the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under 
consideration.  
 
2. Articles 2.2, 2.2.1 and 2.2.1.1 of the Anti -Dumping Ag reement because the European 
Union treated the majority of domestic sales of the like product of Severstal as not being 
in the ordinary course of trade due to upward adjustments which artificially inflated costs 
actually incurred, and this resulted in disr egarding the majority of domestic sales of the 
like product in the ordinary course of trade for the purpose of determination of the 
normal value.  
 
3. Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the European 
Union failed to determine th e normal value for NLMK on the basis of the data provided 
by that producer on actual sales and prices for the like product in the ordinary course of 
trade when destined for consumption in the exporting country.  
 
4. Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the European 
Union failed to determine the correct normal value for Severstal due to an upward 
adjustment to costs of production and selling, general and administrative ( "SG&A ") 
costs.  
 
5. Articles 2.2 and 2.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Ag reement because the European Union failed 
to use a reasonable amount of SG&A costs for Severstal, and in particular:  
 
- the European Union failed to determine SG&A costs for Severstal based on 
actual data pertaining to production and sales in the ordinary c ourse of trade 
of the like product; and  
- the European Union artificially inflated the SG&A costs for the amount of 
alleged difference in value resulting from the re -evaluation of long -term loans 
in foreign currency, reflected in the records of Severstal as  provisions for 
financial losses in the statutory accounting currency (the Russian Rouble), and 
considering those provisions as part of the SG&A costs.  
 
6. Articles 2.1 and 2.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the European Union failed 
to properly determine the export price for NLMK although the investigating authority of 
the European Union ( "investigating authority ") had all the necessary and reliable data 
on the actual export price of NLMK.  
 
7. Articles 2.3 and 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the European Union failed 
to make a fair comparison between the export price and the normal value for Severstal. 
In particular, the European Union applied an excessive downward adjustment of the 
export price for reasonable SG&A costs and profit of a hypothetical unrelated importer 
to the price at which the intra -group trading company of Severstal located outside the 
European Union sold the product under consideration to unrelated customers in the 
European Union. This resulted in exaggerating the allowance for costs incurred between 
importation and resale, and for profits accruing, and led to an unfair comparison with 
normal value. These violations consequentially led to improper price comparison for WT/DS521/2  
 
- 3 - 
 
  NLMK, since the data used in the price comparison for Severstal were also used in 
relation to NLMK.  
 
8. Articles 6.1, 6.8 and paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Annex II of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement because the European Union failed to give NLMK and Severstal am ple 
opportunity to present all evidence they considered relevant in respect of the 
investigation, and failed to establish properly any of the grounds allowed under these 
provisions in order to apply facts available to NLMK and Severstal when making its 
preliminary and final determinations. In doing so, the European Union:  
 
(a)  failed to take into account all the information which was verifiable, 
appropriately submitted and supplied in a timely fashion;  
 
(b) improperly applied facts available with respect to NLMK and Severstal, among 
other shortcomings, due to:  
 
- failure to give notice to NLMK and Severstal at an appropriate stage of the 
investigation of the information required by the investigating authority and of 
its evolving concerns with regard to the inf ormation provided;  
- failure to inform NLMK of the manner in which the requested information was 
to be provided;  
- failure to conduct unbiased and objective verifications at NLMK 's and 
Severstal 's premises in the Russian Federation;  
- failure to inform NLMK f orthwith of the reasons for not accepting submitted 
evidence after it was informed of new reasons for the application of Article 6.8 
of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by way of the provisional disclosure;  
- failure to properly assess Severstal 's evidence;  
- failure to provide NLMK and Severstal with an opportunity to provide further 
explanations within a reasonable period.  
 
9. Articles 6.1, 6.8 and paragraph 7 of Annex II of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because 
the European Union failed to base its findings with respect to normal value and export 
price for NLMK, and normal value for Severstal on information from a secondary sourc e 
with special circumspection.  
 
10. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because in its determination of 
injury to the EU industry the European Union failed to make an objective examination 
based on positive evidence of the volume of the dumped i mports, of the effect of those 
imports on prices in the domestic market for like products, and of the consequent impact 
of the dumped imports on EU producers of such products. With regard to the volume of 
the dumped imports, the European Union failed to pr operly consider whether there had 
been:  
 
(a) significant increase in dumped imports; and  
 
(b) significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of 
a like domestic product, or whether the effect of such imports was otherwise to 
depre ss prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise 
would have occurred, to a significant degree.  
 
With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices and price undercutting, among 
other shortcomings, the European Union fai led to conduct an objective examination as 
it did not properly take into account in its analysis the free and captive market 
consumption, as well as aggregate market trends.  
 
11. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because in the course of its i njury 
determination the European Union failed to make an objective examination, based on 
positive evidence, of the impact of the dumped imports on the EU industry, and failed to 
make a proper evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a  bearing 
on the state of the EU industry, in particular: market share, capacity and capacity 
utilisation. The European Union 's findings regarding a three -way assessment of the free, 
captive and aggregate markets were not based on an objective examination o f the WT/DS521/2  
 
- 4 - 
 
  evidence on the record. Among other shortcomings, the European Union failed to make 
a proper evaluation of the overall developments, the interaction among the injury factors 
and indices, and the state of the EU industry, taken together.  
 
12. Articles 3.1  and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the European Union's 
determination of a causal relationship between dumped imports and injury did not 
involve an objective examination based on positive evidence before the investigating 
authority, in particul ar the European Union:  
 
(a) failed to examine properly all known factors other than the dumped imports causing 
injury to the domestic industry; and  
 
(b) failed to meet the requirement that injury caused by other known factors should not 
be attributed to the dumped imports.  
 
13. Article 5.2, 5.3 and 5.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the European Union 
failed to examine the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application 
for initiation of the investigation which did not include sufficient evidence of dumping, 
injury or a causal relationship to justify the initiation of the investigation. Among other 
shortcomings, the European Union initiated the investigation without properly 
determining whether the request contained sufficient evidence to justify its initiation, 
and without having properly examined the accuracy and adequacy of the information 
provided in the application which is required under items (i) and (iv) of Article 5.2 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
 
14. Articles 9.2 and 9.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 
because the European Union failed to impose and collect duties in the appropriate 
amounts in each case, and failed to assess them at an amount not exceeding the margin 
of dumping that should have been e stablished in accordance with the requirements of 
Article 2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. The European Union failed to name all 
suppliers involved by failing to name NLMK, when this was not impracticable.  
 
15. Articles 10.6 and 3.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreeme nt because the European Union 's 
cumulative assessment of imports from the Russian Federation and the People 's Republic 
of China for the purposes of imposing duties retroactively was inappropriate in light of 
the conditions of competition between the import ed products and like domestic products.  
 
16. Article 10.6 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because t he European Union levied 
anti-dumping duties on products which were entered f or consumption not more than 
90 days prior to the date of application of provisional measures, even though the 
conditions for levying definitive anti -dumping duties retroactively set out in Article 10.6 
of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, including the condition  in Article 10.6(i) of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement were not met and/or not supported by sufficient evidence, 
either individually or taken together.  
 
17. Article 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because: a) the European Union failed to 
require the applicant to furnish non -confidential summaries of the information submitted 
in confidence; an d b) where such summaries were provided, the European Union did not 
ensure that they were in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the 
substance of the information submitted in confidence.  
 
18. Article 6.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the European Union failed to grant 
NLMK and Severstal a full opportunity to defend their interests throughout the 
investigation, in particular, the European Union:  
 
(a) failed to provide timely opportunities t o NLMK and Severstal to examine the 
information that was relevant to the presentation of their cases, and denied their 
right to submit in time further information for the defence of their interests, including 
such that would be necessary for Severstal to d efend against double -counting of 
certain costs of manufacturing;  
 WT/DS521/2  
 
- 5 - 
 
  (b) failed to disclose the initial reasons for the application of facts available to NLMK in 
full when the producer was still able to defend itself;  
 
(c) made preliminary and final determinations and conducted the investigation in a way 
to disregard any new or additional information from NLMK and Severstal that could 
give them full opportunity to defend themselves;  
 
(d) placed NLMK in a substantial procedural disadvantage vis -à-vis the opportunities 
granted to the complaining EU producers, when it denied NLMK an opportunity to 
hold a follow -up verification visit, and granted such follow -up visits to the parties 
with adver se interests.  
 
19. Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the European Union failed to inform 
all interested parties of the essential facts under consideration which formed the basis 
for the decision to impose definitive anti -dumping measures in res pect of NLMK; in 
particular, the essential facts underlying the determinations of the existence of dumping 
and the calculation of the margins of dumping, and those underlying the rejection of 
NLMK 's data in the final determinations.  
 
20. Article 6.13 of the An ti-Dumping Agreement because the European Union failed to take 
due account of difficulties experienced by NLMK and Severstal in supplying the 
information requested and to provide any practicable assistance prior to, during the on -
spot verification visits a nd thereafter. Failure by the European Union to take due 
consideration of such difficulties had an adverse impact on the investigation and on the 
decision of the investigating authority to apply facts available to NLMK and Severstal.  
 
21. Articles 12.2, 12.2. 1 and 12.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the European 
Union failed to provide in sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all 
issues of fact and law that the investigating authority considered material, as well as all 
relevant in formation on the matters of fact and law and reasons which have led to the 
imposition of provisional and definitive anti -dumping duties.  
 
22. Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994 as 
a consequence of the above -mentio ned inconsistencies with the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement and the GATT 1994.  
The violations stated above with regard to the measures at issue nullify or impair benefits accruing 
to the Russian Federation, directly or indirectly, under the covered agreements.  
Therefore, the Russian Federation respectfully requests, pursuant to A rticle 6 of the DSU and 
Article  17.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, that the Dispute Settlement Body establish a panel to 
examine this matter, with the standard terms of reference as set ou t in Article 7.1 of the DSU.  
The Russian Federation asks that this request be placed on the agenda for the meeting of the Dispute 
Settlement Body to be held on 26 March 2019.  
 
__________