G/ADP/Q2/IND/15  
 
29 April 2013  
(13-2239)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  Original: English  
 
ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT 
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF AN TI-DUMPING DUTY ACTIONS 
REPLIES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION1 REGARDING  
THE SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT FROM INDIA2 
The following communication, dated 23 April 2013, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of India. 
_______________ 
 
1. Di-sodium Carbonate (Soda Ash)  Question 1 
 
Article 6.11 of the Agreement on Implementati on of Article VI of the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (herein after referred to as the “Agreement”) determines an 
exporter of a product subject to investigatio n, government of the exporting member and 
producer of the like product in the importing member as interested parties. During the 
anti-dumping investigation in regard of Soda  Ash, the Ministry of economic development 
of the Russian Federation was re gistered as interested party. 
 According to Article 6.9 “[t]he authorities sh all, before a final determination is made, 
inform all interested parties of the esse ntial facts under cons ideration (…). Such 
disclosure should take place in sufficient ti me for the parties to defend their interests”. 
 The Indian Regulatory Authorities issued di sclosure on essential facts but it had not 
been presented to Russian competent authority.  In this case the Russian Federation was 
deprived from the opportunity to protect its interests during the investigation as 
foreseen by the Agreement. Could India expl ain how this practice is consistent with 
Article 6.11 of the AD Agreement which ob ligates members to inform all interested 
parties of any disclosures issued  by investigating authorities? 
 Reply 
 The Directorate General of Anti-Dumping in India has been notifying the interested parties about the initiation notifications, notices for public hearing, disclosure statements etc. So far as the 
Government of the exporter is concerned, all su ch actions are duly intimated in time to the 
Embassy of the concerned country in India. In the present case, the disclosure statement in the 
anti dumping investigation involving imports of soda ash from Russia was sent to the Embassy of 
the Russian Federation through email on 6 February, 2013 at emb@rusembassy.in  and 
ndconru@gmail.com . India understands that such an action is well within the rights and obligations 
enshrined in the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade 1994.    
 
Question 2  
According to Article 5.8 of the Agreement,  in case the investigating authorities 
determine that the volume of dumped imports, actual or po tential, is negligible, i.e. 
                                               
1 G/ADP/Q2/IND/13.   
2 G/ADP/N/237/IND. G/ADP/Q2/IND/15 
 
- 2 - 
 
  individually account for less than 3 per cent  of imports of the like product in the 
importing Member, unless countries which indi vidually account for less than 3 per cent 
of the imports of the like product in the im porting Member collectively account for more 
than 7 per cent of imports of the like prod uct in the importing Me mber, the investigation 
shall be immediately terminated. Paragraph 55 of the final findings dated 9 February 
20133, illustrates that the share of Russian prod ucers on the Indian market during the 
period of investigation (1 July 2010–30 Sept ember 2011) was at the level of 1.11% and 
the cumulative share of the Russian Federation and Turkey on the Indian market 
accounted to 3.26%. The Russian Federation  asks India to provide comments on how 
actions of Indian Regulatory Authorities are consistent with Article 5.8 of the Agreement? 
 
Reply 
 
In the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Di-sodium Carbonate (Soda Ash) 
originating in or exported from Turkey and Russia, the import figures of Soda Ash from Russia during the POI as reported in the Final Findings are much above the de-minimis level as per the 
Directorate General of Commercial, Intelligence & Statistics (DGCI&S) data, shown in the table in 
paragraph 55 of the disclosure document.   2. Carbon Black used in rubber applications 
 
Question 1  
During the Mid-term review investigat ion, Russian exporter –“Yaroslavskiy 
Technicheskiy Uglerod”– registered as an in terested party in that investigation, has 
provided the filled questionnaire in due ti me. Despite that, the Indian Regulatory 
Authorities in its final findings recommend s to set in respect of all the companies 
concerned, including the Russian exporter, a country-level rate of anti-dumping duty. 
 Article 6.10 of the Agreement stipulates that “[t]he authorities shall, as a rule, 
determine an individual margin of dumpin g for each known exporter or producer 
concerned of the product under investigation (…). In cases where the authorities have 
limited their examination (…) they shall neve rtheless determine an individual margin of 
dumping for any exporter or producer not in itially selected who submits the necessary 
information in time”. The Russian Federation  asks India to give clarifications why 
neither anti-dumping margin nor individual ra te of anti-dumping duty was calculated for 
the Russian exporter and how this practice fu lfills the requirements of Article 6.10 of the 
Agreement?  Reply 
 It would be evident from Para 58 to 66 and 13 0 of the Final Finding Notification No. 15/41/2010-
DGAD dated 28th February, 2013 in respect of the MTR investigation concerning imports of Carbon 
Black used in rubber applications that during the course of investigation, data / information 
furnished by M/s Yaroslavskiy Tekhnicheskiy Uglerod was duly taken into account and verified by the Authority. During the POI, the company ex ported the subject goods to India through M/s 
Trigon Gulf, a trading company at Dubai, through a contract. It was found that the invoices of the 
subject goods claimed to have been exported to  India during the POI and post-POI, showed the 
consignee’s name as ***, Colombo, Sri Lank a. But, the company could not provide any 
satisfactory reason/justification, with documentary support, for such practice, despite being given 
adequate opportunity. 
 Accordingly the Authority did not find the qu estionnaire response of M/s. Yaroslavskiy 
Tekhnicheskiy Uglerod (producer) and M/s Trigon Gulf, FZCO Dubai, UAE (exporter) as reliable and 
beyond reasonable doubt and therefore did not grant individual dumping margin.   
__________  
                                               
3 Nº 14/3/2011-DGAD.