European Union — Cost Adjustment Methodologies
and Certain Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports
from Russia (Second complaint)

REPORT of the panel

BCI deleted, as indicated [[***]]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1   Introduction.. 16

1.1   Complaint by the Russian Federation. 16

1.2   Panel establishment and composition. 16

1.3   Panel proceedings. 16

1.3.1   General 16

1.3.2   Additional Working Procedures concerning Business Confidential Information. 17

1.3.3   European Union's request for a preliminary ruling. 17

2   Factual aspects. 17

2.1   The measures at issue. 17

3   Parties' requests for findings and recommendations. 18

4   Arguments of the parties. 21

5   Arguments of the thiRd parties. 21

6   INTERIM REVIEW.. 21

7   Findings. 21

7.1   General principles regarding treaty interpretation, the applicable standard of review, and burden of proof 21

7.1.1   Treaty interpretation. 21

7.1.2   Standard of review. 22

7.1.3   Burden of proof 22

7.2   Russia's claims concerning the Cost Adjustment Methodology. 23

7.2.1   Introduction. 23

7.2.2   Whether Russia has demonstrated the existence of the Cost Adjustment Methodology. 24

7.2.2.1   Main arguments of the parties. 24

7.2.2.2   Legal standard. 27

7.2.2.3   Evaluation by the Panel 27

7.2.3   Russia's request concerning Regulations 2017/2321 and 2018/825. 44

7.2.4   Whether the Cost Adjustment Methodology is inconsistent with Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement by providing for the rejection of the recorded costs. 47

7.2.4.1   Main arguments of the parties. 47

7.2.4.2   Legal standard. 49

7.2.4.3   Evaluation by the Panel 50

7.2.4.4   Conclusion. 53

7.2.5   Whether the Cost Adjustment Methodology is inconsistent with Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement by providing for the use of costs other than "the costs associated
with the production and sale of the product under consideration" 53

7.2.6   Whether the Cost Adjustment Methodology is inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement by providing for the use of costs other than "the cost of
production in the country of origin" 54

7.2.6.1   Main arguments of the parties. 54

7.2.6.2   Legal standard. 56

7.2.6.3   Evaluation by the Panel 57

7.2.6.4   Conclusion. 59

7.3   Russia's claim concerning the first subparagraph of Article 2(3)
of the Basic AD Regulation. 59

7.3.1   Introduction. 59

7.3.2   Whether the first subparagraph of Article 2(3) of the Basic AD Regulation requires
that, in the construction of normal value, only "representative" prices shall be used. 60

7.3.2.1   Text 60

7.3.2.2   Statement by the European Commission. 63

7.3.2.3   Provisions of the Basic AD Regulation. 64

7.3.2.4   Recitals of Regulation 1972/2002 and Regulation 2017/2321. 65

7.3.2.5   Practice of the EU authorities in anti‑dumping proceedings. 67

7.3.2.6   General Court of the European Union judgements. 67

7.3.3   Conclusion. 67

7.4   Russia's claims concerning the second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of the Basic AD Regulation. 68

7.4.1   Introduction. 68

7.4.2   Whether "the particular market situation" within the meaning of Article 2.2 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement refers exclusively to one specific situation which is the circumstance described in the second Ad Note to Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994. 69

7.4.3   Additional arguments connected to the second Ad Note to
Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994. 73

7.4.3.1   Additional arguments independent of the second Ad Note to Article VI:1 of the
GATT 1994. 74

7.4.4   Conclusion. 75

7.5   Russia's claims concerning the final part of the second subparagraph of Article 2(5)
of the Basic AD Regulation. 76

7.5.1   Introduction. 76

7.5.2   Whether Article 2.2 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement requires "the cost of production
in the country of origin" to be based on the costs of other producers or exporters in the same country when the records of the investigated exporter or producer are rejected. 76

7.5.3   Whether Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement requires the cost
of production to be based on the cost "associated with the production" of the product under consideration when the records of the investigated exporter or producer are rejected. 77

7.5.4   Whether the challenged part of the second subparagraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic AD Regulation prevents the European Commission from adapting "information from other representative markets" to arrive at "the cost of production in the country of origin"
in accordance with Article 2.2 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 78

7.5.5   Conclusion. 80

7.6   Russia's claims concerning the anti‑dumping measures on imports of certain welded
tubes and pipes originating in Russia. 80

7.6.1   Introduction. 80

7.6.2   Russia's claims under the first sentence of Article 2.2.1.1. 81

7.6.2.1   Main arguments of the parties. 81

7.6.2.2   The legal standard. 83

7.6.2.3   Evaluation by the Panel 83

7.6.2.4   Conclusion. 87

7.6.3   Russia's claim under Article 2.2.1. 87

7.6.3.1   Main arguments of the parties. 87

7.6.3.2   Legal standard. 87

7.6.3.3   Evaluation by the Panel 88

7.6.3.4   Conclusion. 89

7.6.4   Russia's claim under Article 11.3. 89

7.7   Russia's claims concerning the anti‑dumping measures imposed by the European Union
on imports of ammonium nitrate from Russia and the underlying investigations and reviews. 91

7.7.1   Whether certain claims presented by the Russian Federation should be rejected by the Panel because they concern pre‑WTO determinations. 91

7.7.1.1   Article 18.3 does not apply because it is a transitional provision. 93

7.7.1.2   Article 18.3 only regulates the entry into force of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement for importing Members. 94

7.7.2   Claims with respect to the product scope of the measures. 94

7.7.2.1   Introduction. 94

7.7.2.2   Whether the European Union extended the anti‑dumping measures and levied anti‑dumping duties on imports of stabilized AN and IGAN although no investigation was ever conducted and no dumping and material injury determinations were ever made (claim #1) 95

7.7.2.3   Whether the European Union violated Article 11.3 by initiating the third expiry
review on the basis of a petition which was not duly substantiated (claim #2) 100

7.7.3   Russia's claims with respect to the establishment of the likelihood of recurrence
of injury (claims #5 to #8) 107

7.7.3.1   Introduction. 107

7.7.3.2   Whether certain claims presented by Russia should be disregarded by the Panel
because Regulation 1722/2018 replaced and updated Regulation 999/2014. 108

7.7.3.3   The relevant legal standard for the Panel's examination of Russia's claims relating
to the likelihood of recurrence of injury determination. 110

7.7.3.4   Whether the European Union erred by failing to perform proper undercutting
calculations (claim #5) 112

7.7.3.5   Whether the European Union erred by basing its likelihood of recurrence of injury determination on incorrect or incomplete data (claim #6) 123

7.7.3.6   Whether the European Union violated Article 11.3 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement
by concluding that the non‑injurious situation of the domestic industry was not sustainable (claim #7) 129

7.7.3.7   Whether the European Union's findings with regard to spare capacities and demand
in third country markets violate Article 11.3 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement (claim #8) 135

7.7.4   Claims with respect to the determination of the likelihood of recurrence of dumping (claims #9 and #11) 137

7.7.4.1   Introduction. 137

7.7.4.2   The relevant legal standard for the Panel's examination of Russia's
claims #9 and #11. 139

7.7.4.3   Whether the determination of likelihood of recurrence of dumping in
Regulation 999/2014 relied on a dumping margin calculation. 141

7.7.4.4   Whether the European Union breached Article 11.3 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement
by failing to examine the impact of the alleged absence of dumping by the largest Russian
exporters (claim #9) 144

7.7.4.5   Whether the European Union violated Article 11.3 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement by making the affirmative determination of likelihood of dumping on the basis of alleged "dumping"
to third‑countries without conducting proper dumping margin calculations (claim #11) 148

7.7.4.6   Whether the European Union erred by failing to conduct a separate expiry review
for the imports of Kirovo (claim #3) 149

7.7.4.7   Whether the European Union erred by incorrectly defining the domestic industry
and by making a likelihood of recurrence of injury determination based on
incomplete data (claim #4) 151

7.7.5   Claims with respect to the continuous levying of the anti‑dumping duties
(claims #12 to #15) 154

7.7.5.1   Introduction. 154

7.7.5.2   Analysis. 155

7.7.6   Claims with respect to the conduct of the expiry review leading up to
Regulation 999/2014. 157

7.7.6.1   Russia's claim concerning alleged delays in giving access to the non‑confidential file (claim #16) 157

7.7.6.2   Russia's claim that the European Union failed to provide to the interested
parties the full text of the application received on 28 March 2013 (claim #17) 161

7.7.6.3   Russia's claim that the European Commission granted confidential treatment
without a showing of good cause (claim #18) 162

7.7.6.4   Russia's claim that the European Commission failed to request a meaningful summary (claim #19) 166

7.7.6.5   Russia's claim that the European Commission used facts available in a manner inconsistent with Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement (claim #20) 168

7.7.6.6   Russia's claim that the European Commission failed to disclose essential facts (claim #21) 170

7.7.6.7   Russia's claim that the European Commission failed to explain the reasons
which led to the imposition of the measures (claim #22) 173

7.7.7   Conclusion on Russia's claim concerning the conduct of the third expiry review. 174

8   CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION.. 174