. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/ADP/Q2/DOM/1 
19 October 2011 
 (11-5175) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:   English 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT 
 
Questions Posed by TURKEY Regarding the  
Semi-Annual Report from the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC1 
  
 The following communication, dated 18 October 2011, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of Turkey. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
 Turkey thanks the Dominican Republic for its Notification and poses questions with regard to 
the investigation on "steel rods and bars for conc rete reinforcement" originating in or exported from 
Turkey. This case is listed in the semi-annua l report of the Dominican Republic numbered 
G/ADP/N/216/DOM and dated  15 September 2011. Turkey may have subsequent questions as it 
further examines the case.   Country-wide duties 
 
Facts 
 
 The Commission for the Regulation of Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard Measures of the 
Dominican Republic ("Commission") published its fi nal disclosure in the anti-dumping investigation 
on "steel rods and bars for conc rete reinforcement" originating in Turkey on 24 May 2011. In 
paragraph 148 of the disclosure, under the headi ng 3.4 "Summary-Dumping", the individual dumping 
margin calculated for İÇDAŞ is indicated as 14 % and for KAPTAN as -0.49 %.  That is, one of the 
Turkish exporters was found to be dumping whereas  the other one doing the opposite, i.e. applying, 
overall, export prices that were higher than its normal value figures.   On 6 June 2011, the Commission published in the Official Gazette of Dominican Republic 
Resolution number CDC-RD-AD-107-2011 ("Resolution") imposing definitive anti-dumping duties 
on imports of the subject product from Turkey.  In the Resolution, the dumping margin calculated for 
İÇDAŞ and KAPTAN were reported as 14% and -0.49% , respectively, as indicated in the final 
disclosure. Yet, the investigating authorities of  the Dominican Republic decided to impose one 
country-wide anti-dumping duty at the rate of 14 % instead of imposing company-specific duties.   
 The Resolution attempts to explain the reason for the use of a country-wide duty rate on the 
basis of the following:   - Significant differences between KAPTAN's  prices and those of the other Turkish 
exporters; 
 
                                                      
1 G/ADP/N/216/DOM. G/ADP/Q2/DOM/1 
Page 2  
 
   - Uncertainties regarding the veracity of  the information supplied by KAPTAN during 
the investigation, which had been presented in an incomplete and untimely fashion;  
  - Possible circumvention of the duty by other Turkish exporters.  
Relevant legal provisions 
 
 The chapeau of Article 6.10 of the Anti-Du mping Agreement ("Agreement") reads in its 
relevant part:  
"The authorities shall, as a rule, determ ine an individual margin of dumping for 
each known exporter or producer concerned of the product under investigation."  
 
 Article 9.2 of the Agreement provides:   
"When an anti-dumping duty is imposed in respect of any product, such 
anti-dumping duty shall be collected in the appropriate amounts in each case, on a non-discriminatory basis on imports of such product from all sources found to be dumped and causing injury, except as to imports from those sources from which price undertakings under the terms of th is Agreement have been accepted.  The 
authorities shall name the supplier or s uppliers of the product concerned. If, 
however, several suppliers from the sa me country are involved, and it is 
impracticable to name all these suppliers , the authorities may name the supplying 
country concerned. If several suppliers from more than one  country are involved, the 
authorities may name either all the suppliers involved, or, if this is impracticable, all 
the supplying countries involved." 
 
 The chapeau of Article 9.3 of the Agreement reads:   
"The amount of the anti-dumping duty shall not exceed the margin of dumping as established under Article 2." 
 
Questions 
 
 On what basis did the Dominican Republic consider it appropriate to impose country-specific duties in an investigation in which the authoriti es calculated individual dumping margins only for two 
Turkish exporters? Specifically, how does this fit with  the obligation set forth in Article 9.2 that in 
principle anti-dumping duties should be imposed for individual companies but that exceptionally, 
where there are too many exporters and it is impractic able to name them all individually, the relevant 
country may be named? On what basis did the Domi nican Republic consider it appropriate to impose 
antidumping duty to a cooperating exporter (KAPTAN) for which a negative dumping margin has 
been calculated?  
 
__________