This article reviews the Appellate Body Report in the Ukraine–Ammonium Nitrate dispute that focused on the impact of Russia's dual pricing in the natural gas market on the ammonium nitrate market. Interpreting the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA), the Appellate Body rejected the possibility to reject input costs, which, though distorted, were duly reported in the company's records, and to replace them with a surrogate price which, for the Ukrainian authorities, was the (adjusted) export price of Russian natural gas at the German border. In this article, (a) we fully review the background of the dispute, showing the connections between natural gas and ammonium nitrate prices, and the impact on Russia's price regulation of the domestic market on them; (b) we then review the ADA and concur with the interpretation of the Appellate Body, essentially for systemic reasons; (c) for completeness, we also investigate whether econometrics could accurately determine the natural gas benchmark price in Russia and conclude in the negative; (d) since dual pricing gives an economic benefit to domestic ammonium nitrate producers, we finally test dual pricing under the WTO subsidy rules. The conclusion is that the current disciplines are not likely to apply to dual pricing and lead us to conclude that important distortions are currently left without regulation in the WTO.

中文翻译：

---

“所有的扭曲都去哪儿了？” 上诉机构报告，乌克兰——硝酸铵

本文回顾了上诉机构的报告乌克兰-硝酸铵争议主要集中在俄罗斯天然气市场双重定价对硝酸铵市场的影响。在解释 WTO 反倾销协议 (ADA) 时，上诉机构拒绝了拒绝投入成本的可能性，尽管投入成本被扭曲，但已在公司记录中正式报告，并以替代价格代替，对于乌克兰当局而言，是俄罗斯天然气在德国边境的（调整后的）出口价格。在本文中，（a）我们全面回顾了争议的背景，展示了天然气和硝酸铵价格之间的联系，以及俄罗斯对国内市场价格监管的影响；(b) 我们随后审查 ADA 并同意上诉机构的解释，主要是出于系统性原因；(c) 为了完整性，我们还调查了计量经济学能否准确确定俄罗斯的天然气基准价格并得出否定的结论；(d) 由于双重定价给国内硝酸铵生产商带来了经济利益，我们最终在 WTO 补贴规则下测试双重定价。结论是，目前的规则不太可能适用于双重定价，并导致我们得出结论，目前在 WTO 没有监管的情况下存在重大扭曲。