KAZAKHSTAN – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON STEEL PIPES REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY UKRAINE
Document: REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY
Date: 21 September 2017
Document codes: WT/DS530/1; G/L/1185; G/ADP/D119/1
Complainant: Ukraine
Respondent: Kazakhstan
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.8, 8.3, 11.1, 11.3, 12.2, Annex II  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994

KAZAKHSTAN – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON STEEL PIPES
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY UKRAINE
The following communication, dated 19 September 2017 , from the delegation of Ukraine to the
delegation of Kazakhstan and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in
accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.

My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Government of
Kazakhstan pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing
the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXII 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).
I. Background
This request is with respect to anti-dumping measures applied to certain types of steel pipes
on the customs territory of Kazakhstan. The measures were imposed pursuant to the Decision of
the Collegium of the Eurasian Economic Commission No. 48 of 2 June 2016 on imports of certain
types of steel pipes originating in Ukraine in connection with the sunset review of the anti-dumping
measures on imports of certain types of steel pipes origi nating in Ukraine and imported on the
customs territory of the Eurasian Economic Union ("EAEU").
II. Measures at issue
The measures at issue are the following:
 the Decision of the Collegium of the Eurasian Economic Commission No. 48 of 2 June 2016
"On prolongation of anti -dumping measures on certain types of steel pipes originating in Ukraine
and imported into the customs territory of the Eurasian Economic Union"1;
 the findings of the Eurasian Economic Commission in the Report (Notice No. 2016/55/AD1R2
of 3 Jun e 2016) "On the results of the sunset review of anti -dumping duties on certain types of
steel pipes originating in Ukraine"2.
Ukraine considers that the findings of the EAEC in the Report follo wed by the Decision
No. 48 of 2 June 2016 are erroneous and bas ed on deficient rulings, procedures and provisions
pertaining to the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
In addition, this Request for Consultations also covers in whatever form: any amendments,
supplements, or extensions to or of the measures referred to in this Sect ion; any measures
replacing, renewing or implementing the measures referred to in this Section; and, any measures
related to the measures referred to in this Section.

1 https://docs.eaeunion.org/docs/ru-ru/01410363/clcd_03062016_48
2 http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/act/trade/podm/investigations/PublicDocuments/AD1R2_repor
t_final.pdf
WT/DS530/1 • G/L/1185 • G/ADP/D119/1

III. Legal basis for the complaint
Ukraine considers that the measures referred to in Section II above are inconsistent with
several of Kazakhstan's WTO obligations, including, but not limited to:
1. Articles 11.1, 11.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the Eurasian Economic
Commission's determination that expiry of the measure is likely to lead to a continuation of
dumping and injury was made in violation of the following Articles of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement:
- Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority when
conducting examination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and
injury failed to rely upon information pertaining to a period as close as practicable the
date of initiation of the investigation as well as to assess positive evidence and provide
the objective examination with respect to the vo lume of the dumped imports and the
effect of the dumped imports on prices in the domestic market for like products;
- Article 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority failed to
assess relevant economic factors and indices when conducting examination of
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury;
- Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority failed to
examine other factors which at the same time were injuring domestic industry w hen
conducting examination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and
injury;
2. Articles 5.2 and 5.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority
failed to examine accuracy and adequacy of the complaint and initiated the sunset review
on the basis of complaint which was lack of the evidence that the expiry of the duty would
be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury;
3. Articles 6.1, 6.2 and 8.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigatin g
authority failed to grant to certain Ukrainian producers a full opportunity to defend their
interests. For instance, the investigating authority failed to provide to exporters the
reasons for non -acceptance of the undertaking from Ukrainian producers and to give
Ukrainian exporters an opportunity to make comments thereon;
4. Articles 6.1, 6.2, 6.8 and paragraph 3 of Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement because
the investigating authority failed to take into account the information which was verifiable,
appropriately submitted by Ukrainian exporters so that it could be used in the investigation
without undue difficulties and which was supplied in on time;
5. Articles 6.1, 6.2, 6.8 and paragraph 6 of Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement because
the investigat ing authority failed to inform Ukrainian producers of the reasons why the
evidence and information supplied by Ukrainian producers was not accepted and to give
Ukrainian producers an opportunity to provide further explanations and to provide for
published determinations of the reasons for the rejection of such evidence or information;
6. Article 11.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because measures were extended although
positive evidence of such necessity was not provided;
7. Article 11.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because during the review the investigating
authority failed to prove by the positive evidence and following the objective examination
that the expiry of the duty would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping
and injury;
8. Article 12.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority failed to
give public notice on the affirmative or negative decision to accept an undertaking;
9. Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of a breach of the Anti -Dumping Agreement
described above.
These violations appear to nullify or impair benefits accruing to Ukraine directly or indirectly
under the cited agreements.
Ukraine reserves the right to raise additional measures, claims and legal matters during the
course of the consultations and in any future request for panel proceedings.
Ukraine looks forward to receiving Kazakhstan 's reply to this request and to fixing a mutually
convenient date for consultations.