Dispute settlement reports 2019. Volume X, Pages 5225-5634 / World Trade Organization.

Format:

Book

Contributor:

World Trade Organization, copyright holder.

Language:

English

Subjects (All):

Foreign trade regulation--Cases.

Foreign trade regulation.

Tariff--Law and legislation--Cases.

Tariff.

Competition, Unfair--Cases.

Competition, Unfair.

Dispute resolution (Law)--Cases.

Dispute resolution (Law).

Physical Description:

1 online resource (pages 5225-5634) : digital, PDF file(s).

Edition:

1st ed.

Place of Publication:

Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2021.

Summary:

These are the WTO's authorized and paginated reports in English. They are an essential addition to the library of all practising trade lawyers and a useful tool for students and academics worldwide working in the field of international economic or trade law. DSR 2019: Volume X contains the panel and Appellate Body reports on 'Ukraine - Anti-Dumping Measures on Ammonium Nitrate' (WT/DS493).

Contents:

Cover

Title page

Half-title

Copyright information

TABLE OF CONTENTS

UKRAINE - ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON AMMONIUM NITRATE

Report of the Appellate Body

LIST OF ANNEXES

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT

PANEL EXHIBITS CITED IN THIS REPORT

CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

2. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS

3. ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS

4. ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL

5. RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

6. ANALYSIS OF THE APPELLATE BODY

6.1 Claims under Articles 6.2, 7.1, and 11 of the DSU Relating to the Original Investigation Phase

6.1.1 Introduction

6.1.2 The Panel's findings

6.1.2.1 The Panel's findings under Article 6.2 of the DSU

6.1.2.2 The Panel's findings under Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

6.1.3 Whether the Panel erred in its analysis under Article 6.2 of the DSU in finding that the 2008 amended decision and the 2010 amendment were identified as specific measures at issue in Russia's panel request

6.1.4 Whether the Panel erred under Articles 7.1 and 11 of the DSU by ruling on Russia's claim under Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to the 2008 amended decision and the 2010 amendment

6.1.5 Whether the Panel erred under Article 11 of the DSU by failing to examine properly the arguments and evidence presented by Ukraine regarding the authority of Ukrainian courts and investigating authorities to calculate dumping margins under Ukrainian law

6.1.6 Conclusion

6.2 Claims under Articles 2.2, 2.2.1, and 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement Relating to MEDT's Determinations of Dumping in the Interim and Expiry Reviews

6.2.1 Introduction

6.2.2 The Panel's findings

6.2.2.1 The Panel's findings under Article 2.2.1.1 ofthe Anti-Dumping Agreement.

6.2.2.2 The Panel's findings under Article 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

6.2.2.3 The Panel's findings under Article 2.2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

6.2.3 Overview of relevant aspects of the legal standard in Articles 2.2, 2.2.1, and 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

6.2.4 Whether the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of the second condition in the first sentence of Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in finding that MEDT did not provide an adequate basis for rejecting the reported gas cost under that condition

6.2.5 Whether the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in finding that, when constructing normal value, MEDT failed to calculate the cost of production "in the country of origin

6.2.6 Conclusion

7. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Claims under Articles 6.2, 7.1, and 11 of the DSU Relating to the Original Investigation Phase

7.2 Claims under Articles 2.2, 2.2.1, and 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement Relating to MEDT's Determinations of Dumping in the Interim and Expiry Reviews

7.3 Recommendation

ANNEX A

ANNEX A-1 UKRAINE'S NOTICE OF APPEAL

ANNEX B

ANNEX B-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF UKRAINE'S APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION

ANNEX B-2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF RUSSIA'S APPELLEE'S SUBMISSION

ANNEX C

ANNEX C-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF ARGENTINA'S THIRD PARTICIPANT'S SUBMISSION

ANNEX C-2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF AUSTRALIA'S THIRD PARTICIPANT'S SUBMISSION

ANNEX C-3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF BRAZIL'S THIRD PARTICIPANT'S SUBMISSION

ANNEX C-4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION'S THIRD PARTICIPANT'S SUBMISSION

ANNEX C-5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF JAPAN'S THIRD PARTICIPANT'S SUBMISSION

ANNEX C-6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE UNITED STATES' THIRD PARTICIPANT'S SUBMISSION

Report of the Panel

LIST OF ANNEXES.

CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT

1.1 Complaint by the Russian Federation

1.2 Panel Establishment and Composition

1.3 Panel Proceedings

1.3.1 General

1.3.2 Additional Working Procedures on Business Confidential Information

1.3.3 Request for a Preliminary Ruling

1.3.4 Communications addressing procedural issues

2. FACTUAL ASPECTS

3. PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

4. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

5. ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES

6. INTERIM REVIEW

7. FINDINGS

7.1 General Principles Regarding Treaty Interpretation, the Standard of Review, and Burden of Proof

7.1.1 Treaty interpretation

7.1.2 Standard of review

7.1.3 Burden of proof

7.2 Substantive and Procedural Rules under Article 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement Applicable to Interim and Expiry Reviews

7.3 Findings on Terms of Reference

7.3.1 Consistency of Russia's panel request with Article 6.2 of the DSU

7.3.1.1 Legal standard

7.3.1.1.1 Specific measures at issue

7.3.1.1.2 Brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint

7.3.1.2 Measures Ukraine alleges were outside the scope of Russia's panel request

7.3.1.3 Claims that Ukraine alleges were not presented in Russia's panel request in conformity with Article 6.2 of the DSU

7.3.1.3.1 Claims presented in item number 1 of Russia's panel request

7.3.1.3.2 Claims presented in item number 4 of Russia's panel request

7.3.1.3.3 Claims presented in item number 17 of Russia's panel request

7.3.1.4 Overall conclusion

7.3.2 Claims that Ukraine alleges were outside the scope of the consultation request

7.3.2.1 Legal standard

7.3.2.2 Whether Russia's "public notice" claims under Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 fall outside our terms of reference in light of its consultation request.

7.3.2.3 Whether Russia's "claims" under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 fall outside our terms of reference in light of its consultation request

7.3.2.4 Overall conclusion

7.4 Dumping and Likelihood-of-Dumping Determinations

7.4.1 Cost adjustment claims under Articles 2.2.1.1 and 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

7.4.1.1 Legal standard

7.4.1.2 MEDT of Ukraine's cost assessments in the underlying reviews

7.4.1.3 Rejection of the reported gas cost

7.4.1.3.1 Ukraine's arguments based on the use of the word "normally

7.4.1.3.2 Rejection of the reported gas cost pursuant to the second condition of Article 2.2.1.1

7.4.1.4 Replacement of reported gas cost with surrogate price of gas

7.4.2 Claims under Articles 2.2.1 and 2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement regarding MEDT of Ukraine's ordinary-course-of-trade test

7.4.2.1 Legal standard

7.4.2.2 Evaluation

7.4.2.2.1 Claim under Article 2.2.1

7.4.2.2.2 Claim under Article 2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

7.4.3 Fair comparison under Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

7.4.4 Claims under Articles 11.1, 11.2, and 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

7.5 Non-Termination of Investigation Against EuroChem

7.5.1 Treatment of EuroChem in the original investigation phase

7.5.2 Legal standard

7.5.3 Evaluation

7.5.3.1 Claim under Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement concerning the determinations in the original investigation phase

7.5.3.2 Claim under Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement concerning the underlying reviews

7.5.3.3 Claims under Articles 11.1, 11.2, and 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement concerning the underlying reviews

7.6 Likelihood-of-Injury Determination

7.6.1 Legal standard

7.6.2 Evaluation

7.6.2.1 Whether MEDT of Ukraine made an injury determination under Article 3 in the underlying reviews.

7.6.2.2 Whether Russia can claim violations under Articles 11.1, 11.2, and 11.3 even if MEDT of Ukraine did not determine injury under Articles 3.1 and 3.4

7.6.2.3 Conclusion

7.7 Facts Available

7.8 Disclosure of Essential Facts

7.8.1 Legal standard

7.8.2 Evaluation

7.8.2.1 Disclosure claims

7.8.2.1.1 Disclosure of essential facts forming thebasis of the likelihood-of-injury determination

7.8.2.1.2 Disclosure of essential facts forming the basis of the dumping determinations

7.8.2.2 Sufficiency of time given to respond to disclosure

7.9 Consequential Claims

8. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

ANNEX A-1 WORKING PROCEDURES OF THE PANEL

ANNEX A-2 ADDITIONAL WORKING PROCEDURES OF THE PANEL CONCERNING BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

ANNEX B-1 FIRST INTEGRATED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OFTHE ARGUMENTS OF RUSSIA

ANNEX B-2 FIRST INTEGRATED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS OF UKRAINE

ANNEX B-3 SECOND INTEGRATED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS OF RUSSIA

ANNEX B-4 SECOND INTEGRATED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS OF UKRAINE

ANNEX C-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS OF ARGENTINA

ANNEX C-2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS OF AUSTRALIA

ANNEX C-3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS OF BRAZIL

ANNEX C-4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS OF CHINA

ANNEX C-5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS OF COLOMBIA

ANNEX C-6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

ANNEX C-7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS OF JAPAN

ANNEX C-8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS OF MEXICO

ANNEX C-9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS OF NORWAY

ANNEX C-10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES

ANNEX D

ANNEX D-1 COMMUNICATION DATED 23 AUGUST 2017 REGARDING DEADLINES SET OUT IN THE TIMETABLE FOR THIS DISPUTE.

ANNEX D-2 COMMUNICATION DATED 23 AUGUST 2017 REGARDING UKRAINE'S FIRST INTEGRATED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

Notes:

Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 09 Apr 2021).

ISBN:

1-108-99888-7

1-108-99281-1

OCLC:

1293260212