Olena Omelchenko, Partner at Ilyashev & Partners, Head of International Trade Practice, PhD in Law

Anti-dumping investigations have become one of Ukraine’s key trade defence instruments, particularly since 2014 and following the full-scale war in 2022. Against the backdrop of disrupted supply chains and heightened economic security challenges, this mechanism provides effective protection for domestic industries against unfair competition and remains the primary practical tool for responding to such threats for Ukrainian manufacturers and international businesses operating in Ukraine.

Legal Framework

During the wartime period, no legislative amendments have been adopted, despite the fact that draft laws aimed at improving investigation procedures in line with international best practices have been pending in Parliament for several years.

As a result, the protection of Ukrainian producers against unfair dumping imports continues to be based on the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of the National Producer against Dumped Imports”, the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement), and the case law of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body.

Note: Ukraine is a WTO member and its anti-dumping procedures are in line with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.

Key Authorities Involved

The key authorities remain the Ministry of Economy, Environment and Agriculture of Ukraine (the Ministry of Economy) and the Interdepartmental Commission on International Trade (the Commission or ICIT).

The composition of the Commission is approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and is currently represented at a higher decision-making level, including heads and deputy heads of key ministries, the State Customs Service of Ukraine, the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, as well as, subject to consent, the Security Service of Ukraine and the Deputy Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine responsible for economic affairs.

Procedure

Initiation

The initiation of an anti-dumping investigation is preceded by a lengthy and often complex preparatory phase, which begins with a preliminary market assessment. Legal advisers analyse import structures, pricing behaviour, product characteristics, the condition of the domestic industry, and the economic indicators of potential applicants.

In cases where the number of producers is significant and they are not united within an industry association, the consolidation of producers itself may become the most time-consuming stage – in some instances taking longer than the collection of evidence or the drafting of the complaint.

Once the producers have reviewed the conclusions of the preliminary assessment, including the associated risks and prospects of the investigation, they decide whether to submit an application to the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine. The preparation of the complaint may take from several weeks to several months, depending on product complexity, the scope of required calculations, and the availability of economic data.

During wartime, the evidence-gathering process is further complicated by additional factors – such as the loss of documentation, changes in logistics, and production disruptions – making the role of legal and economic advisers even more critical.

Investigation

The complaint is submitted to the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, which conducts an initial review and decides whether the application is sufficiently substantiated. Formally, the law provides that an investigation should be initiated within one month. However, during wartime this timeframe has effectively been extended: most cases are opened no earlier than three to six months, while some complaints may remain under review for more than a year.

The Ministry conducts a detailed examination of the submitted materials and frequently requests clarifications, additional documentation, or revised calculations from the applicant. Only where all elements indicating potential dumping and material injury are established does the Ministry submit a proposal to the Interdepartmental Commission on International Trade to initiate an investigation.

The Commission’s decision is published in Uriadovyi Kurier (the Government Gazette), after which all interested parties must register within 30 days and submit their evidence.

Formally, an investigation may last up to 12 months, with the possibility of extension to 18 months. However, in the realities of wartime such timeframes appear excessively long: Ukrainian producers require swift decisions, while a significant portion of the evidence may change or lose relevance in a rapidly evolving environment.

A core element of any anti-dumping investigation remains the demonstration of three mandatory criteria: the existence of dumping, material injury, and a causal link between them. Prior to 2022, the main challenges in establishing causation were largely associated with market fluctuations. Since the outbreak of the war, however, the situation has become fundamentally more complex. The focus has shifted to proving that numerous “other factors” – those unrelated to imports – do not distort the objective picture or neutralise the impact of dumping.

The destruction of production facilities, changes in logistics routes, a sharp decline in domestic demand, energy instability, and the relocation of enterprises all create a complex background that must be carefully separated from the actual impact of imports. The ability to correctly identify and isolate these factors has become a decisive element of the evidentiary standard in wartime investigations.

Against this backdrop, the requirements for both economic modelling and structural market analysis have significantly increased. As a result, the role of legal advisers has expanded well beyond traditional legal argumentation. It now encompasses market scenario modelling, logistics cost analysis, reconstruction of financial data, assessment of war-related factors, and their separation from dumping effects. Without such a comprehensive approach, the successful demonstration of injury in current conditions is virtually impossible.

Imposition of Duties

Ukrainian legislation formally allows for the application of provisional anti-dumping measures no earlier than 60 days from the initiation of an investigation. Such measures are imposed for four months and are intended to rapidly stabilise the market in cases of a significant surge in dumped imports. In practice, however, due to legislative shortcomings and the complexity of demonstrating imminent material injury, provisional measures are applied extremely rarely.

Definitive anti-dumping duties are generally imposed approximately 13 months after the initiation of an investigation. Recent practice, however, has shown that where a robust evidentiary record is available, cooperation with the Ministry of Economy is effective, and there are no procedural delays caused by foreign parties, the timeline may be reduced to nine to ten months.

Definitive duties are imposed for a period of five years and may be extended following a review if the risk of a resumption of dumped imports persists. In today’s volatile environment – characterised by unstable markets and rapidly shifting trade flows – review proceedings have become a critical tool for safeguarding competition and protecting Ukrainian producers.

Judicial Review of Decisions

Decisions may be challenged through court proceedings where procedural violations have occurred. Following the liquidation of the Kyiv District Administrative Court in 2022, all such cases were transferred to the Kyiv Regional Administrative Court, with subsequent redistribution to other regional administrative courts. This restructuring has significantly extended the duration of judicial review proceedings.

Impact of the War

Following the outbreak of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation in February 2022, the Ministry of Economy and the Interdepartmental Commission on International Trade were, for almost a year, largely unable to actively pursue anti-dumping investigations. Complaints submitted during this period were typically returned to applicants, while investigations initiated prior to the war were reviewed with significant delays, although they were ultimately concluded with the imposition of anti-dumping measures.

The first post-war decisions adopted by the Commission were initiated with the involvement of Ilyashev & Partners, which successfully secured the imposition of anti-dumping duties on silicon-manganese steel wire, coated carbon steel flat products, and glass containers.

Market Practice and Landmark Cases

The cases reviewed below illustrate how Ukrainian anti-dumping practice has evolved and which approaches define it today. They also reflect the role of Ilyashev & Partners, which over the past decade has been a recognised market leader in trade defence in Ukraine. Our team has initiated the largest number of successful anti-dumping investigations resulting in the imposition of measures and has established a series of key precedents – ranging from record anti-dumping duty rates to the first anti-circumvention proceedings in Ukraine’s history.

By combining legal, economic, and industry-specific expertise in a fully integrated manner, we consistently deliver successful outcomes in matters with a systemic impact on Ukrainian industry, shaping contemporary practice of the Interdepartmental Commission on International Trade and the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine.

Case 1 – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Radiators from China and Turkey

One of the first truly landmark trade defence decisions adopted after the outbreak of the full-scale war and the effective relaunch of Ukraine’s anti-dumping enforcement mechanism was the decision of the Interdepartmental Commission on International Trade dated 16 April 2025, concerning imports into Ukraine of heating radiators originating from the Republic of Türkiye and the People’s Republic of China.

The Commission confirmed that radiator imports were carried out at dumped prices, causing material injury to Ukrainian producers, and imposed definitive anti-dumping duties, differentiated by country of origin:

  • Chinese producers – duty rates ranging from 34.59% to 74.26%, depending on the exporter;
  • Turkish producers – duty rates ranging from 14.22% to 22.93%, also reflecting individual dumping margins.

The level and differentiation of the duties reflect both the scale of the violation and the divergent market behaviour of individual exporters in Ukraine. For Ukrainian industry, this decision became a critical precedent: for the first time since the start of the war, a significant dumping threat was successfully established, and the state demonstrated its ability and readiness to respond effectively to external pressure undermining the competitiveness of domestic manufacturers.

This case has come to symbolise the revival of Ukraine’s trade defence practice in wartime and has clearly demonstrated the capacity of state authorities to move forward despite unprecedented external challenges.

Case 2 – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Fittings from China and Turkey

Another key outcome of the wartime period was the completion of an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of fittings for water supply and heating systems originating from the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Türkiye. The decision of the Interdepartmental Commission on International Trade dated 7 July 2025 confirmed the systemic nature of dumping and the significant adverse impact of such imports on Ukrainian producers.

The investigation established substantial dumping margins, reflected in the definitive duty rates differentiated by country of origin and individual exporters:

  • People’s Republic of China (PRC) – general duty rates ranging from 87.84% to 166.65%, with certain exporters subject to individually calculated rates significantly exceeding average levels;
  • Republic of Türkiye – definitive duty rates ranging from 15.86% to 34.72%, depending on the manufacturer.

The exceptionally high rates imposed on imports from the PRC evidenced an abnormal level of price pressure and serious market distortions, while the investigation also identified a material, albeit less pronounced, dumping effect in relation to imports from Türkiye.

As a result of these measures, Ukraine succeeded in restoring competitive balance in the fittings market, stabilising prices, and preventing the further displacement of domestic producers by dumped imports. Notably, this case was successfully concluded despite the challenging wartime environment, in which the demonstration of injury and causation, as well as the collection of financial data, was significantly complicated by external factors.

Case 3 – Review and Extension of Anti-Dumping Measures on Cement and Clinker

In 2019, the International Trade Practice team of Ilyashev & Partners successfully protected the interests of Ukrainian cement producers in an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports into Ukraine of cement originating from the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, and the Republic of Moldova.

At its meeting on 21 May 2019, the Interdepartmental Commission on International Trade (ICIT) decided to impose definitive anti-dumping duties for a five-year period on imports of cement into Ukraine, including cement clinker and Portland cement, classified under Ukrainian Customs Tariff (UKT ZED) codes 2523 10 00 00 and 2523 29 00 00.

The definitive anti-dumping duty rates were set as follows:

  • 03% on imports of Portland cement and clinker originating from the Republic of Belarus;
  • 46% on imports of Portland cement and clinker originating from the Republic of Moldova;
  • 95% on imports of Portland cement and clinker originating from the Russian Federation.

The simultaneous imposition of such exceptionally high duty rates on imports from three countries represented an extremely rare outcome in anti-dumping practice and underscored the gravity of the dumping and injury established during the investigation.

In 2022, Ilyashev & Partners further defended the interests of Ukrainian cement producers before the Supreme Court of Ukraine, which brought to a close Case No. 640/11242/19 concerning the legality of the anti-dumping duties imposed by the ICIT in May 2019, thereby upholding the measures in full.

Subsequently, on 21 May 2025, the Interdepartmental Commission on International Trade adopted Decision No. AD-579/2025/441-01, extending the application of the definitive anti-dumping measures on cement imports from the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, and the Republic of Moldova until 2030.

This decision has played a decisive role in restoring fair competition in the Ukrainian cement market, contributing to increased production and sales by domestic manufacturers, job creation, and the preservation and growth of long-term investment in the sector.

Cases 4-6 – Ukraine’s First Anti-Circumvention Investigations

One of the most precedent-setting developments in Ukraine’s trade defence practice in 2025 was the initiation of the first anti-circumvention investigations in the country’s history. In April 2025, the International Trade Practice team of Ilyashev & Partners initiated three separate proceedings aimed at countering the circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed on products of Chinese origin.

The investigations concerned imports from Malaysia that were declared as Malaysian in origin but, based on factual indicators, were in fact products of Chinese origin. The cases covered the following product categories: steel fasteners, steel wire, and coated flat steel products.

These market segments are critically important for Ukraine’s metallurgy and machinery industries, making the identification and documentation of large-scale circumvention schemes strategically vital for preserving a fair competitive environment.

All three investigations were initiated on the basis of complaints prepared by Ilyashev & Partners on behalf of Ukrainian producers. The team conducted a comprehensive evidence-gathering exercise, including analysis of trade flows, identification of abrupt shifts in import geography, verification of Malaysia’s actual production capacities, and economic assessment of the likelihood of re-export of Chinese products under the guise of Malaysian origin.

This approach enabled the team to convincingly establish the existence of circumvention practices in relation to the anti-dumping measures applied by Ukraine to Chinese exporters.

Having reviewed the complaints, the Interdepartmental Commission on International Trade, for the first time in Ukrainian practice, extended the application of the anti-dumping duties imposed on goods originating from the PRC to imports from Malaysia as of the date of initiation of the investigations, rather than upon their conclusion.

As a result, Ukraine introduced – again for the first time – a mechanism of “preventive collection” during the investigation period, an instrument widely used in the European Union but not previously implemented in Ukrainian practice.

These cases represented a breakthrough in Ukraine’s approach to combating duty circumvention, as:

  • Article 27 of Ukraine’s Anti-Dumping Law was applied in a practical and effective manner for the first time;
  • a precedent was established for the use of advance deposits, an enforcement tool that may now be applied in other sectors;
  • Ukrainian producers received real and immediate protection against transit and misclassification schemes commonly used in international trade.

In effect, Ilyashev & Partners initiated a new stage in the development of Ukraine’s anti-dumping policy, aligned with contemporary challenges and the country’s EU integration trajectory. These investigations constitute the first comprehensive Ukrainian cases in which trade defence measures were applied not only against dumping itself, but also against organised circumvention schemes, bringing Ukrainian practice significantly closer to the approaches adopted in the EU and the United States.

Conclusion

Anti-dumping instruments have become an integral element of Ukraine’s economic strategy in wartime. Amid extreme market volatility, the destruction of logistics infrastructure, and aggressive pricing practices by foreign producers, anti-dumping procedures remain a key mechanism for preserving competition and ensuring the viability of strategically important industrial sectors.

The war has significantly complicated the demonstration of material injury and causal link, requiring both applicants and importers to work with broader, more fragmented datasets. Modern investigations demand a substantially higher level of analytical depth from legal advisers, including the reconstruction of financial indicators, market modelling, testing of logistics assumptions, and the separation of war-related factors from the impact of imports.

In this environment, firms representing the interests of both domestic producers and importers must be prepared for far more intensive evidentiary work, in which economic analysis and legal argumentation are inextricably linked.

Despite the extraordinary challenges, Ukraine’s trade defence system has demonstrated its institutional resilience: the Interdepartmental Commission on International Trade and the Ministry of Economy have continued to adopt decisions, initiate new investigations, and impose definitive measures. The emergence of the first anti-circumvention procedures confirms that Ukraine is capable of responding not only to traditional dumping practices, but also to increasingly sophisticated schemes designed to evade trade remedies.

The growing number of cross-border trade disputes and the deep interconnection of global markets are creating new opportunities for international cooperation. The complexity of contemporary cases – from the analysis of global supply chains to the assessment of circumvention risks – naturally opens the door to collaboration with foreign law firms, particularly in the context of global trade disputes and multi-jurisdictional proceedings.

In today’s Ukraine, anti-dumping is not merely a legal tool, but a pillar of economic resilience and strategic security. Its importance will continue to grow in the years ahead, as the effectiveness of trade defence investigations will play a decisive role in industrial recovery, investment development, and the protection of critical sectors of the national economy.

Ilyashev & Partners is a leading Ukrainian law firm in trade defence and anti-dumping law, widely recognised for its expertise in anti-dumping, anti-circumvention and international trade investigations in Ukraine. For more than a decade, the firm has been at the forefront of Ukraine’s trade remedies practice, advising domestic producers and international clients on complex anti-dumping proceedings, WTO-related matters, and cross-border trade disputes involving Ukraine.

The firm’s International Trade Practice provides comprehensive legal and economic support throughout the entire lifecycle of trade defence cases, including market and dumping assessments, preparation and filing of anti-dumping complaints, representation before the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine and the Interdepartmental Commission on International Trade (ICIT), judicial review before Ukrainian courts, and sunset and interim reviews. Ilyashev & Partners has initiated and successfully concluded the largest number of anti-dumping investigations in Ukraine, including record anti-dumping duty cases and the first anti-circumvention investigations in Ukraine’s history.

The team is particularly known for handling high-stakes trade defence matters in a wartime economy, combining legal analysis, economic modelling, and industry-specific expertise to address dumping, injury, causation, and circumvention risks in volatile markets. The firm regularly advises Ukrainian manufacturers, multinational corporations, investors, and international law firms on trade defence strategy, supply chain risks, import regulation, and compliance with Ukrainian, EU, and WTO trade rules.

With deep experience in cross-border trade disputes involving Ukraine, Ilyashev & Partners acts as trusted local counsel in Ukraine for international law firms in complex trade defence and WTO-related disputes.

To learn more about Ukraine’s leading anti-dumping and trade defence law firm, please visit the Ilyashev & Partners website or contact Olena Omelchenko directly.

 

More from Ilyashev & Partners