Ukraine: Definitive Safeguard Measures On Certain Passenger Cars. WTO Dispute Settlement System. Report Of The Panel


On 30 October 2013, Japan initiated WTO dispute settlement proceedings over the definitive safeguard measures imposed by Ukraine on imports of certain passenger cars. The Panel report in the case Ukraine – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Certain Passenger Cars (DS468) was circulated on 26 June 2015.

The objective of this review is the analysis of the Panel report in the case DS468 in line with existing WTO jurisprudence related to safeguard measures, as well as identification of important conclusions of the Panel(e.g., concerning the interpretation of 'sudden, sharp, significant increase in imports', qualification of the term 'is being imported' in relation to the date of determination and the date of the application of safeguard measures, unforeseen developments, legal status of ex post facto explanations, liberalization of safeguard measures applied etc.).


On 2 July 2011, Ukraine initiated a safeguard investigation on certain passenger cars. Following the investigation, on 28 April 2012 Ukraine imposed safeguard measures for three years in the form of safeguard duty with the following rates:

  1. 6.46% for passenger cars with an engine volume of 1000cm; and
  2. 12.95% for passenger cars with an engine volume of 1500-2200cm.

However, the Notice on the Imposition of Safeguard Measures was published on 14 March 2013 only, i.e., almost a year after the decision to impose the respective measures had been taken. On 12 February 2014, the safeguard measures were subsequently liberalized.

The safeguard measures were applied based on the following key facts:

  1. the period of investigation: 2008-2010;
  2. imports into Ukraine increased by 37,9% relative to domestic production and 37,1% relative to consumption. However, in absolute terms imports decreased by 71%;
  3. even though imports in absolute terms and consumption on the domestic market of Ukraine decreased, increase in imports relative to production by 37,9% was considered as unforeseen developments;
  4. negative impact of imports on the domestic industry was confirmed by the following factors in 2010 as compared to 2008: production volumes decreased by 78,9%; capacity utilization decreased by 74,86%; sales volumes on the domestic market of Ukraine decreased by 86,33%; profit from operating activity decreased by 89,9%; number of employees decreased by 51,56%; labour efficiency decreased by 46,3%; share on the domestic market of Ukraine decreased by 35%; and
  5. serious injury was caused by increase in imports, but not any other factors. Such factors as global financial and economic crisis, non-competitiveness of national automobile industry were not attributed to serious injury caused.


Ukraine's competent authorities determined that the increase in imports by 38% relative to the domestic industry output and by 37% compared to the domestic consumption of passenger cars in Ukraine over the period of investigation (2008-2010) constitutes reasonable grounds for imposition of safeguard measures, even despite the decrease of import volumes to Ukraine in absolute terms by 71%.

The Panel disagreed with Ukraine's determination of increased imports relying on the fact that the increase in imports was not examined in a proper manner as far as:

  1. In determining an increase in imports, the competent authorities provided only a simple mathematical comparison of data on import volumes over the period of investigation instead of carefully considering all relevant factors ("the intervening trends") that could have an impact on imports during the entire period of investigation, not only in its separate terms (points of time) (end-point-to-end-point comparison);1
  2. A simple mathematical analysis of imports cannot substitute the obligation of competent authorities to thoroughly examine whether an increase in imports over the period of investigation was "sudden enough", "sharp enough" and "significant enough", as these criteria, developed in the WTO case law, constitute the benchmark for determining whether an increase in imports qualifies as an "increase" within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards(the "Agreement");2 and
  3. The safeguard measures in question were imposed on 14 March 2013, two years after the end of the period of investigation (2008-2010). This fact, in the Panel's view, is inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the Agreement obliging the competent authorities to use only the "recent" data in the course of investigation, since safeguard measures are to be applied only in case the product "is being imported" in increased quantities. This means that an increase in imports shall occur in the "recent past", both in relation to the date of initiation of an investigation as well as to the date of application of a safeguard measure.3



The Panel reaffirmed very high standard of injury for the purposes of serious injury in the context of "threat of serious injury" as it was confirmed in numerous cases (i.e.US – Wheat Gluten, US – Lamb4).

At the same time, the Panel shed some light on the Appellate Body's (the "AB") position in the US – Line Pipe that "defining "threat of serious injury" separately from "serious injury" serves the purpose of setting a lower threshold for establishing the right to apply a safeguard measure".5 In the present case, the Panel opined that the above AB's reference demonstrated that even in the absence of any observable serious injury, but in case of threat of the latter, a Member is allowed to apply the safeguard measures to prevent imminent serious injury.6

Therefore, in the Panel's view, a threat of serious injury determination must be grounded in facts, just like a finding of serious injury.7Importantly, a finding of a threat of serious injury is a forward-looking predictive finding based on facts concerning the present state of the domestic industry.8


The Panel reaffirmed the AB conclusions in US – Lamb that "clearly imminent" requires not only an assessment of historical and existing facts, but also making fact-based projections concerning future developments in the domestic industry's condition.9 Moreover, referring to US – Lamb, the Panel stated that data pertaining to the latter part of the period of investigation are of high importance to analyse the likely immediate future developments in the injury factors for an analysis of a threat of serious injury. This notably requires a fact-based assessment of likely developments in the very near future with respect to all the relevant factors.10


The Panel found that it was incorrect to replace analysis of the share of the domestic market taken by increased imports by analysis of the domestic industry's share on the said market. The Panel also highlighted that the Notice of 14 March 2013 (the "Notice") did not contain analysis or projections as to the likely development of the import market share in the near future.11

Moreover, in view of the Panel, decrease of the domestic industry's share on the domestic market, by itself, does not automatically mean that the increased imports put the domestic industry out of the market, especially in cases where not all domestic producers are included in the domestic industry by the competent authorities. It may well be that the domestic industry lost its share in favour of the domestic producers which are not part of the domestic industry.12


The Notice contains only the following information in part of imports analysis: imports decreased by 71% in absolute terms in 2010 as compared to 2008, but increased by 38% relative to the production of the domestic industry. Thus, in view of the Panel, the Ukrainian competent authorities failed to properly evaluate and give a reasoned explanation of the likely development of imports and their effect on the situation of the domestic industry in the very near future.13


The Panel noted that even if the export capacity is not directly indicated in Article 4.2(a) of the Agreement among all relevant factors, the competent authorities are entitled to analyse it, especially in case of threat of serious injury.14

The Panel highlighted the following key issues in respect of export potential:

  1. A mere fact that exporting countries had capacity to produce or export is not sufficient by itself to prove that imports to Ukraine are likely to continue at an increased level or to increase further;15
  2. Increase of shares of certain exporting countries in the total imports into Ukraine shall not automatically mean that the Ukrainian market is attractive for them;16
  3. The Notice lacks analysis of availability or attractiveness of other export markets as compared to the Ukrainian market;17 and

iv. The Notice does not contain substantiation of a high degree of likelihood that an increase in exports to Ukraine will materialize in the very near future as required by US – Lamb.18


The analysis of injury factors in the Notice consists only of a simple end-point-to-end-point comparison of the data for 2008 and 2010. At the same time, the Notice provides no projections as to likely developments in these factors in the very near future nor recognition or discussion of improvements of certain factors in 2009 as compared to 2010 (the end of the period of investigation).19

The Panel reaffirmed the conclusion of the AB in US – Lamb that data from the most recent past has special importance in the context of the future-oriented analysis for establishing the threat of serious injury.20

Moreover, in view of the Panel, in the absence of any analysis of the intervening trends in the Notice, it is not clear whether the position of the domestic industry was improving or deteriorating towards the end of the period of investigation.21

In view of the above, the Panel concluded that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 4.2(a) of the Agreement.


Under Article 4.2 (b) of the Agreement, the competent authorities must demonstrate the existence of the causal link between increased imports of the product concerned and serious injury or threat thereof.

Japan submitted that Ukraine failed to demonstrate the existence of a relationship of cause and effect such that increased imports contribute to 'producing' the serious injury.22 According to Japan, there are two main basis for such claim: (a) the published report does not contain the analysis of the conditions of competition in the domestic market for passenger cars that 'explains the interaction between the imported and domestically produced products'; (b) there is no coincidence in time between the increase in imports and the deterioration of the domestic industry.23 Therefore, the causation analysis was incomplete.


Ukraine determined the existence of a causal link based on the analysis of the following indicators in 2010 as compared to 200824:

  1. Production volume of the domestic industry decreased by 78,9%;
  2. Capacity utilization decreased by 74,86%;
  3. Sales volumes within the domestic market decreased by 86,33%;
  4. Operating profit decreased by 89,9%;
  5. Employment decreased by 51,56%; and
  6. Productivity numbers fell by 46,3%.

Concurrently the volume of imports decreased by 71% in absolute terms, but increased by 38% relative to domestic production in Ukraine. At the same time, the demand for passenger cars in the Ukrainian domestic market decreased by 78,8%, and the share of the domestic production in the domestic market also fell by 35%.25Based on that the competent authorities of Ukraine concluded that the domestic industry was driven out of the domestic market of Ukraine resulting in, inter alia, a threat of serious injury.

The Panel primarily indicated that a coincidence between an increase in imports and deterioration in the position of the national industry does not imply the existence of a causal link per se. The Panel accentuated the fact that the injury factors worsened when there was a relative decrease in imports and began to improve when there was a relative increase in imports, which seem to be counter to findings of causation.26 However, the Notice contains no further explanations of causation. Moreover, no elaboration exists as to how the national industry was driven out of the Ukrainian domestic market and whether there were other reasons of the lost sales unrelated to increase in imports.27

Finally, the Panel concluded that the Notice provides for no forward-looking analysis of the existence of causal link.28In particular, it requires not only an analysis of de facto indicators, but also a fact-based projection that a causal link will exist already in the very near future, when a threat will materialize in an actual serious injury.29


In addition, the Panel acknowledged once again that to comply with requirement of Article 4.2(b) the competent authorities should identify other factors that might have contributed to injurious effects on domestic industry, which shall be reflected in their published report. Japan claimed that Ukrainian competent authorities simply stated that serious injury to the domestic industry had not been caused by other factors without any analysis of even hypothetical injurious effect of such factors.30

According to the Key Findings in the course of investigation, the competent authorities determined three other injury factors that concurrently with increased imports were causing injury to domestic industry of Ukraine. Such factors are the following31:

  1. Global financial and economic crisis;
  2. Non-competitiveness of the domestic automobile production as a possible result of the abolition of the government support, granted to the automotive industry (between 1997 – 2008) or, on the other hand, the commitment to reduce import duties from 25% to 10% upon Ukraine's accession to the WTO; and
  3. Removal of the 13% import surcharge (that was in force over a period of six months in 2009).

Within panel proceedings, Ukraine submitted explanations why the listed factors could not influence the extent of injury, however in Japan's view such 'ex post justifications' are irrelevant for the Panel's analysis.32

The Panel recalled that the competent authorities must identify the nature and extent of the injurious effect of the known factors as well as explain the nature and extent of the injurious effects of those other factors as distinguished from the injurious effect of increased imports.33 Moreover, the competent authorities must explain the particular method and process they use to make a non-attribution analysis as well as how they ensure that injurious effect of other factors are not included in the assessment of the injury prescribed solely to the increased imports.34

Given the lack of clarity of the Notice, the Panel resorted to the materials of the investigation (the Key Findings) to see whether the competent authorities conducted non-attribution analysis in a proper way. Notably, with regard to the abovementioned other factors the Key Findings simply state that the injury caused by these factors cannot be attributed to the injury caused by the increased imports.35However, the competent authorities failed to examine how these factors influenced the position of the domestic automobile manufacturers and why they did not attribute to a threat of serious injury.

Therefore, the Panel concluded that the competent authorities of Ukraine did not undertake a proper analysis of causality acting inconsistently with Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement.


In its report, the Panel acknowledged once again that according to Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT the unforeseen developments are the circumstances, the existence of which must be demonstrated in order to apply a safeguard measure.36

In the course of the investigation, the increase in imports relative to domestic production despite the decreased import volumes in absolute terms was determined as the unforeseen development. Hence, the Panel underlined that under Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT the increased imports shall be a result of unforeseen developments.37 In other words, the increase in imports by itself cannot be regarded as an unforeseen development. In addition, all explanations regarding the unforeseen developments, provided by Ukraine ex post facto were not taken into account by the Panel, since they should be published before the safeguard measures are applied.38


On 20 July 2015, the WTO DSB adopted the report of the Panel in the dispute at hand. Following the Panel's report, Ukraine took a decision to implement the DSB's recommendations and not to appeal the Panel's findings. Finally, on 6 October 2015, Ukraine informed the DSB that the competent authorities adopted the decision to revoke the safeguard measures on imports of passenger cars from 30 September 2015.

In a nutshell, among key findings of the Panel there are the following:

  1. Increased imports: Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 2.1 of the Agreement, because it failed to demonstrate that the increase in imports was recent, sudden, sharp and significant enough;
  2. Threat of serious injury: Ukraine failed to evaluate all relevant factors affecting the domestic industry, notably because it did not properly evaluate the likely development of the injury factors in the very near future and their likely impact on the situation of the domestic industry. Therefore, Ukraine violated Article 4.2(a) of the Agreement;
  3. Causal link: Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement by failing to demonstrate the existence of a causal link and to conduct a proper non-attribution analysis; and
  4. Unforeseen developments: Ukraine violated Article XIX:1(a)of the GATT, because the published report did not contain a demonstration of the unforeseen developments and the effect of GATT obligations; no ex post facto explanations were accepted.


1 Paras 7.124-7.139

2 Paras 7.140-7.148

3 Paras 7.154-7.185

4 Para. 7.223

5 Para. 7.226

6 Para. 7.227

7 Paras 7.228, 7.230

8 Para. 7.230

9 Para. 7.232

10 Paras 7.234-7.235

11 Para. 7.249

12 Para. 7.249

13 Paras 7.253-7.255

14 Para .7.256

15 Para. 7.257

16 Para. 7.259

17 Para. 7.260

18 Para. 7.261

19 Paras 7.266-7.267

20 Paras 7.268-7.269

21 Para. 7.269

22 Para. 7.289


24 Para. 7.300


26 Para. 7.302

27 Para. 7.304

28 Para. 7.305


30 Para. 7.309

31 Para. 7.327

32 Para. 7.315

33 AB Report, US – Line Pipe, para.215; Para. 7.316 of the Panel Report (DS486)

34 AB Report, US – Lamb, paras. 181, 184-185; Para. 7.318 of the Panel Report (DS486)

35 Para. 7.327

36 Para. 7.59

37 Para. 7.83

38 Para. 7.55

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions