UKRAINE – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON AMMONIUM NITRATE
Document: REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Date: 10 March 2016
Document codes: WT/DS493/2
Complainant: Russia
Respondent: Ukraine
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, China, EU, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Norway, Qatar, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 5.8, 11.2, 11.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5.1, 6.8, Annex II, 6.9, 12.2, 12.2.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.4, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 18.1, 1, 17.4, VI  Anti-dumping

UKRAINE – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON AMMONIUM NITRATE

REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
The following communication, dated 29 February 2016, 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 7 May 2015, the Government of the Russian Fe deration ("the Russian Federation") requested
consultations with the Government of Ukraine ("Ukraine") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Gove rning the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"),
Article XXIII:I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT") and Articles 17.2 and
17.3 of the Agreement on Implemen tation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994 (the "Anti-Dumping Agreement") with respect to Ukraine's measures imposing
anti-dumping duties on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in the Russian Federation in
connection with expiry and interim reviews.
1 These measures are set forth in the Decision of the
Intergovernmental Commission on Internationa l Trade No. AD-315/2014/4421-06 of 1 July 2014
and Notice "On the changes and extension of anti-dumping measures in respect of import to
Ukraine of ammonium nitrate, origin from the Russian Federation", published on 8 July 2014 in
"Uryadoviy Courier", No 120, including any and all annexes, notices, communications and reports
of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine and any amendments thereof.
2
The Russian Federation held consultations with Ukraine on 25 June 2015. These consultations did
not resolve the dispute.
The Russian Federation considers that the measures at issue are inconsistent with Ukraine's
obligations under the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT:

1. Articles 5.8, 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because Ukraine failed to
exclude a certain Russian exporter whose dumping margin was de minimis from the anti-dumping
measures
3 and because Ukraine subjected this exporter to expiry and interim reviews;

1 Request for Consultations by the Russian Federation, 7 May 2015, WT/DS493/1.
2 The definitive anti-dumping measures were imposed through the Decision of the Intergovernmental
Commission on International Trade No. AD-176/2008/143-47 of 21 May 2008 "On the Application of the
Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Import into Ukraine of Ammonium Nitrate Originating in the Russian
Federation", as amended by the Decision No. AD-245/2010/4403-47 of 25 October 2010. The expiry review
was initiated pursuant to the Decision of the Intergovernmental Commission on International Trade No. AD-
294/2013/4423-06 of 24 May 2013. According to this Decision, the anti-dumping duties on import of
ammonium nitrate originating in the Russian Federation were to remain in force pending the outcome of the
review. The interim review was initiated pursuant to the Decision of the Intergovernmental Commission on
International Trade No. AD-296/2013/4423-06 of 2 July 2013. As a result of the simultaneously conducted
expiry and interim reviews, the definitive anti-dumping duty rates on imports of ammonium nitrate from the
Russian Federation, that were initially imposed by the Decision No. AD-176/2008/143-47 of 21 May 2008, were
increased and extended for the duration of five years by the Decision of the Intergovernmental Commission on
International Trade No. AD-315/2014/4421-06 of 1 July 2014, which came into force on 8 July 2014.
3 The following decisions of Ukrainian authorities determined that in the original investigation a dumping
margin of JSC MHK EuroChem was de minimis: the Decision of the District Administrative Court of the City of
Kiev of 6 February 2009 No 5/411, the Decision of the Kiev Appellate Administrative Court of 26 August 2009

2. Articles 6.1, 6.2 and 6.4 of the Anti-Dumpi ng Agreement, because Ukraine failed to grant
Russian exporters and producers a full opportunity to defend their interests and failed to provide
timely opportunities for all interested parties to see all non-confidential information;
3. Article 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because Ukraine failed to require the applicants
providing confidential information to furnish non-confidential summaries thereof and to prepare
such summaries in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the
information submitted in confidence by the applicants;
4. Article 6.8 and Annex II, in particular paragraphs 3, 5 and 6, of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,
because:
(i) Ukraine failed to take into account all information pertaining to the determination of the
dumping margins which was verifiable, supplied in a timely fashion and appropriately
submitted so that it could be used in the investigation without undue difficulties;
(ii) Ukraine failed to inform the Russian ex porters and producers of the reasons why the
supplied information and evidence were not accepted;
(iii) Ukraine failed to give the Russian expo rters and producers an opportunity to provide
further explanations within a reasonable period of time;
5. Articles 6.2 and 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement, because Ukraine failed to adequately
disclose the essential facts under consideration which formed the basis for the decision to apply
anti-dumping measures, including the essential facts underlying the determinations of the
existence of dumping, the calculation of the dumping margins, including relevant data and formula
applied, the determination of injury and causation, including the price comparisons and the
underlying data, information on import and domestic prices used therein.
6. Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because the disclosure of the documents with
results of expiry and interim reviews issued on 25 June 2014 was not made by Ukraine in sufficient
time for the interested parties to defend their interests.
7. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because Ukraine failed to provide in
sufficient detail in the Decision of the Intergovernmental Commission on International Trade No.
AD-315/2014/4421-06 of 1 July 2014, as referred to in Notice "On the changes and extension of
anti-dumping measures in respect of import to Ukraine of ammonium nitrate, origin from the
Russian Federation", and in the Communication of the Ministry of Economic Development and
Trade of Ukraine No. 4421-10/21367-07 of 25 June 2014 the findings and conclusions reached on
all issues of fact and law it considered in making its preliminary and final determinations and failed
to provide all relevant information and reasons, which have led to the imposition of the measure.
Ukraine did not provide the calculations used to determine the dumping margins in the final
determination and the data it relied upon in order to make the calculations.
8. Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agr eement, because Ukraine failed to determine the
dumping margins by comparing the export price of ammonium nitrate exported from the Russian
Federation to Ukraine with the normal value of the like product destined for consumption in the
Russian Federation.
9. Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because Ukraine improperly treated
domestic sales of ammonium nitrate in the Russian Federation as not being in the ordinary course
of trade and disregarded these sales in determining the normal value.
10. Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because Ukraine, in determining the
constructed normal value, failed to calculate costs on the basis of records kept by the Russian
producers and exporters, even though the costs associated with the production and sale of
ammonium nitrate were accurately and reasonably reflected in Russian exporters' and producers'
records that were in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles of the country of
origin and exportation.

No. 2-а-8850/08 and the Decision of the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine of 20 May 2010 No. К-
42562/09 and No. К-42568/09, the Decision of the Intergovernmental Commission on International Trade No.
AD-245/2010/4403-47 of 25 October 2010 “On reversal of Decision of the Intergovernmental Commission on
International Trade No. AD-176/2008/143-47 of 21 May 2008 "On the Application of the Definitive Anti-
Dumping Measures on Import into Ukraine of Ammonium Nitrate Originating in the Russian Federation" in
respect of JSC MHK EuroChem”.

11. Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumpi ng Agreement, because Ukraine replaced and
adjusted the cost of gas actually borne by the Russian producers and exporters for production of
ammonium nitrate with data on the gas prices outside the Russian Federation, in particular at the
border with Germany, that did not reflect the cost of production in the country of origin, and used
such prices subsequently for constructing the normal value.
12. Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Ukraine failed to make a fair comparison
between the export price and the constructed norm al value by improperly calculating constructed
normal value for ammonium nitrate produced in the Russian Federation.
13. Articles 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Ukraine calculated and
relied on dumping margins for ammonium nitrate which were not established in accordance with
Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
14. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Ukraine's determination on injury
was not based on positive evidence and did not involve an objective examination of the volume of
the allegedly dumped imports and the effect of thos e imports on prices in the domestic market for
like products.
15. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Ukraine failed to base findings on
injury on positive evidence and to conduct an objective examination of all relevant factors and
indices having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry.
16. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Ukraine failed to conduct an
objective examination of factors other than the allegedly dumped imports and attributed the
alleged injury to the allegedly dumped imports.
17. Articles 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 of the Anti-Dum ping Agreement because Ukraine determined and
relied on injury which was not established in accordance with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.

18. Article 11.2 and Article 11.3 of the Anti-D umping Agreement because Ukraine initiated the
interim and expiry reviews without duly substantiated information on the need for such reviews.

19. Articles 1, 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT as a consequence
of the breaches of the Anti-Dumping Agreement described above.
The measures at issue appear to nullify or impair benefits accruing to the Russian Federation
directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.
Accordingly, the Russian Federation respectfully requests pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU
and Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, that the Dispute Settlement Body establishes a
panel to examine this matter, with the standard terms of reference as set forth 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 23 March 2016.