Annual Report March 31, 2014 - Chapter III

Chapter III Trade Remedy Inquiries and Reviews

Process

Under SIMA, the CBSA may impose anti-dumping and countervailing duties if Canadian producers are injured by imports of goods into Canada:

  • that have been sold at prices lower than prices in the home market or at prices lower than the cost of production (dumping), or
  • that have benefited from certain types of government grants or other assistance (subsidizing).

The determination of dumping and subsidizing is the responsibility of the CBSA. The Tribunal determines whether such dumping or subsidizing has caused or is threatening to cause material injury to a domestic industry or has caused material retardation to the establishment of a domestic industry.

Preliminary Injury Inquiries

A Canadian producer or an association of Canadian producers begins the process of seeking relief from alleged injurious dumping or subsidizing by making a complaint to the CBSA. If the CBSA initiates a dumping or subsidizing investigation, the Tribunal initiates a preliminary injury inquiry under subsection 34(2) of SIMA. The Tribunal seeks to make all interested parties aware of the inquiry. It issues a notice of commencement of preliminary injury inquiry that is published in the Canada Gazette and notice of the commencement of the preliminary injury inquiry is provided to all known interested parties.

In a preliminary injury inquiry, the Tribunal determines whether the evidence discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping or subsidizing has caused injury or retardation, or is threatening to cause injury. The primary evidence is the information received from the CBSA and submissions from parties. The Tribunal seeks the views of parties on what are the like goods and which Canadian producers comprise the domestic industry. In most cases, it does not issue questionnaires or hold a public hearing at the preliminary injury inquiry stage. The Tribunal completes its inquiry and renders its determination within 60 days.

If the Tribunal finds that there is a reasonable indication that the dumping or subsidizing has caused injury or retardation, or is threatening to cause injury, it makes a determination to that effect, and the CBSA continues the dumping or subsidizing investigation. If there is no reasonable indication that the dumping or subsidizing has caused injury or retardation, or is threatening to cause injury, the Tribunal terminates the inquiry, and the CBSA terminates the dumping or subsidizing investigation. The Tribunal issues reasons for its decision no later than 15 days after its determination.

Preliminary Injury Inquiry Activities

 

PI-2012-006

PI-2013-001

PI-2013-002

PI-2013-003

Product

Unitized wall modules

Silicon metal

Circular copper tube

Hot-rolled carbon steel plate

Type of case/country

Dumping and subsidizing/China

Dumping and subsidizing/China

Dumping and subsidizing/Brazil, Greece, China, Korea and Mexico

Dumping/Brazil, Chinese Taipei, Denmark, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and Korea

Date of determination

May 3, 2013

June 21, 2013

July 22, 2013

November 4, 2013

Determination

Reasonable indication of injury or threat of injury

Reasonable indication of injury or threat of injury

Reasonable indication of injury or threat of injury

Reasonable indication of injury or threat of injury

Participants

13

3

8

11

Pages of official record

3,000

7,500

2,575

1,840

Preliminary Injury Inquiries Completed in Fiscal Year and in Progress at the End of the Fiscal Year

As illustrated in the above table, the Tribunal completed four preliminary injury inquiries in the fiscal year. There were no preliminary injury inquiries in progress at the end of the fiscal year.

Final Injury Inquiries

If the CBSA makes a preliminary determination of dumping or subsidizing, the Tribunal commences a final injury inquiry pursuant to section 42 of SIMA. The CBSA may levy provisional duties on imports from the date of the preliminary determination. The CBSA continues its investigation until it makes a final determination of dumping or subsidizing.

As in a preliminary injury inquiry, the Tribunal seeks to make all interested parties aware of its inquiry. It issues a notice of commencement of inquiry that is published in the Canada Gazette and notice of the commencement of the injury inquiry is forwarded to all known interested parties.

In conducting final injury inquiries, the Tribunal requests information from interested parties, receives representations and holds public hearings. The Tribunal carries out extensive research for each inquiry. The Tribunal sends questionnaires to Canadian producers, importers, purchasers, foreign producers and exporters. Primarily on the basis of questionnaire responses, the Tribunal prepares an investigation report that focuses on the factors that the Tribunal must consider in arriving at its decision on injury or retardation or threat of injury to a domestic industry. The report becomes part of the case record and is made available to counsel and parties.

Parties participating in the proceedings may present their own cases or may be represented by counsel. Confidential or business-sensitive information is protected in accordance with provisions of the CITT Act.

The Special Import Measures Regulations prescribe factors that the Tribunal must consider in its determination of whether the dumping or subsidizing of goods has caused injury or retardation or is threatening to cause injury to a domestic industry. These factors include, among others, the volume of dumped or subsidized goods, the effects of the dumped or subsidized goods on prices and the impact of the dumped or subsidized goods on domestic production, sales, market share, profits, employment and utilization of domestic production capacity.

The Tribunal holds a public hearing about 90 days after the commencement of the inquiry, i.e. after the CBSA has made a final determination of dumping or subsidizing. At the public hearing, Canadian producers attempt to persuade the Tribunal that the dumping or subsidizing of goods has caused injury or retardation or is threatening to cause injury to a domestic industry. Importers, foreign producers and exporters may challenge the Canadian producers’ case. After cross-examination by parties and questioning by the Tribunal, each side has an opportunity to respond to the other’s case and to summarize its own. In some inquiries, the Tribunal calls witnesses who are knowledgeable of the industry and market in question. Parties may also seek the exclusion of certain goods from the scope of a Tribunal finding.

The Tribunal must issue its finding within 120 days from the date of the preliminary determination of dumping or subsidizing issued by the CBSA. It has an additional 15 days to issue reasons supporting the finding. A Tribunal finding of injury or retardation or threat of injury to a domestic industry is required for the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing duties by the CBSA.

Final Injury Inquiry Activities

 

NQ-2013-001

NQ-2013-002

NQ-2013-003

NQ-2013-004

NQ-2013-005

Product

Galvanized steel wire

Unitized wall modules

Silicon metal

Circular copper tube

Hot-rolled carbon steel plate

Type of case/country

Dumping and subsidizing/China, Israel and Spain

Dumping and subsidizing/China

Dumping and subsidizing/China

Dumping and subsidizing/Brazil, Greece, China, Korea and Mexico

Dumping/Brazil, Chinese Taipei, Denmark, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and Korea

Date of finding

August 20, 2013

November 12, 2013

November 19, 2013

December 18, 2013

In progress

Finding

No injury, retardation or threat of injury

Threat of injury

Threat of injury

Injury

 

Questionnaires sent

135

180

335

99

 

Questionnaires received

37

62

23

41

 

Requests for exclusions

1

-

-

-

 

Requests for exclusions granted

-

-

-

-

 

Participants

9

13

5

9

 

Pages of official record

8,150

11,710

7,500

9,387

 

Public hearing days

5

5

5

3

 

Witnesses

14

24

13

8

 

Final Injury Inquiries Completed in the Fiscal Year

As illustrated in the above table, the Tribunal completed four final injury inquiries in the fiscal year. The completed inquiries concerned galvanized steel wire, unitized wall modules, silicon metal and circular copper tube. The following summaries were prepared for general information purposes only.

NQ-2013-001—Galvanized Steel Wire

This inquiry concerned dumped galvanized steel wire imported from China, Israel and Spain and subsidized galvanized steel wire imported from China (the subject wire).

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 6 known Canadian producers, 31 potential importers, 20 potential purchasers and 78 potential foreign producers and exporters of galvanized steel wire. Of the 135 requests sent, the Tribunal received 37 responses, of which 33 were used in the Tribunal’s analysis.

There were 9 participants to the inquiry. During a five-day hearing, 14 witnesses appeared before the Tribunal. The official record contained 8,150 pages.

The Tribunal first determined that galvanized steel wire produced in Canada, defined in the same manner as the subject wire, was like goods in relation to the subject wire and that there was a single class of goods. The Tribunal then determined that four of the domestic producers generally constituted the domestic industry, although it was able to assess certain impacts of the dumped and subsidized goods upon all six domestic producers.

The Tribunal observed that the volume of imports of the subject wire increased significantly during the period of inquiry (POI), both in absolute terms and relative to the production of the like goods and the domestic sales of the like goods. It noted that, although prices of the subject wire undercut those of the like goods in certain market segments, on balance, the prices of the subject wire had not significantly undercut the prices of the like goods during the POI. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the subject wire did not lead to significant price depression or suppression.

The Tribunal observed that the domestic industry increased its sales from domestic production throughout the POI, with the exception of the first quarter of 2013, and this decline in sales was largely attributed to a reduction in demand for zinc-coated chain-link fence wire. The domestic industry’s market share remained flat throughout 2010 and 2011, increased slightly in the first quarter of 2012, and then decreased for the remainder of the POI. The Tribunal was also of the view that, even though the domestic industry’s financial performance was poor throughout the POI, it improved in the latter part of the POI. The Tribunal concluded its injury analysis by determining that any effects that the subject wire had on the domestic industry’s declining productivity was secondary to other factors, such as labour relations and production methods. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the subject wire had no discernible effect on the workforce and that there was little evidence submitted to show any other negative financial impacts experienced by the domestic industry.

The Tribunal noted that slow demand, weak export performance, high costs, underinvestment and a lack of innovation also weighed on the domestic industry. Moreover, other factors such as corporate turmoil, prolonged labour problems and exchange rate fluctuations impacted the domestic industry.

The Tribunal concluded that the domestic industry was affected by the dumping and subsidizing of the subject wire. However, the adverse impact was only experienced for a limited duration and limited extent in terms of production volume, sales, revenue, income statement and market share, particularly in the first quarter of 2013. Therefore, the Tribunal observed that, while the subject wire did have an adverse impact on the domestic industry, it was not sufficient to constitute material injury.

The Tribunal noted that, even if the volumes of the subject wire were to increase significantly, it was unlikely that they would have sudden significant price effects in the following year. Despite a significant margin of dumping and amount of subsidy, at least in the case of China, the subject wire did not significantly undercut, depress or suppress the price of like goods during the POI. The Tribunal saw little or no evidence that this would likely change. The Tribunal was of the view that the subject wire increased its market share without significantly underselling the domestic industry because it did not directly compete across the various product segments. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there were no clearly foreseeable and/or imminent circumstances that the dumping and subsidizing of the subject wire were threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry.

NQ-2013-002—Unitized Wall Modules

This inquiry concerned dumped and subsidized unitized wall modules imported from China (the subject unitized wall modules).

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 35 Canadian producers, 32 potential importers, 38 potential purchasers and 75 potential foreign producers and exporters of unitized wall modules. Of the 180 requests sent, the Tribunal received 62 responses, of which 35 were used in the Tribunal’s analysis.

There were 13 participants to the inquiry. During a five-day hearing, 24 witnesses appeared before the Tribunal. The official record contained 11,710 pages.

The Tribunal first determined that domestically produced stick systems and point-fixing systems were not like goods in relation to the subject unitized wall modules. Next, the Tribunal determined that domestically produced unitized window wall modules and unitized curtain wall modules were like goods in relation to the subject unitized wall modules and that the like goods and the subject unitized wall modules comprised a single class of goods. Finally, the Tribunal determined that, although not all domestic producers provided a questionnaire response, those domestic producers that did submit data collectively accounted for a major proportion of domestic production and constituted the domestic industry.

The Tribunal found that the dumping and subsidizing of the subject unitized wall modules had not caused material injury to the domestic industry. The Tribunal found that the volume of imports of the subject unitized wall modules did have a negative effect on the state of the domestic industry in the form of lost sales and revenue, erosion of gross margins and reduction in net income. The Tribunal concluded, given the limited magnitude of the deterioration in certain price effects and performance indicators, the domestic industry’s ability to maintain an overwhelming share of the domestic market, and the fact that the domestic industry remained largely profitable throughout the POI, that any injury incurred by the domestic industry through the effects of the dumping and subsidizing of the subject unitized wall modules was not material as prescribed by SIMA.

However, the Tribunal concluded that, in the following 12 to 24 months, significant volumes of the subject unitized wall modules were due to arrive in the domestic market, that more freely disposable production capacity was set to come online in China and that purchasers in Canada were likely to become progressively more inclined to switch to low-cost subject unitized wall modules if the risk of the imposition of anti-dumping and/or countervailing duties dissipated. On this basis, the Tribunal found that the dumping and subsidizing of unitized wall modules were threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry.

NQ-2013-003—Silicon Metal

This inquiry concerned dumped and subsidized silicon metal imported from China (the subject silicon metal).

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 1 Canadian producer, 21 potential importers, 11 potential purchasers and 302 potential foreign producers, exporters and trading companies of silicon metal. Of the 335 requests sent, the Tribunal received 23 responses, all of which were used in the Tribunal’s analysis.

There were 5 participants to the inquiry. During a five-day hearing, 13 witnesses appeared before the Tribunal. The official record contained 7,500 pages.

The Tribunal first determined that domestically produced silicon metal constituted like goods in relation to the subject silicon metal and that the like goods and the subject silicon metal comprised a single class of goods. The Tribunal also determined that Québec Silicon Limited Partnership (QSLP) and its affiliates, QSIP Canada ULC (QSIP Canada) and QSIP Sales ULC (QSIP Sales), were integrated into a single corporate group that was responsible for the domestic production and the sales of like goods either on the domestic merchant market or on export markets. Together, these entities were responsible for the production of the like goods and their arm’s-length sales at the first level of distribution in the marketplace. As such, the Tribunal found that QSLP, QSIP Canada and QSIP Sales, considered together, constituted the domestic industry as a whole for the purposes of the inquiry.

The Tribunal found that, while, in absolute terms, the increase in the volume of the subject silicon metal during the POI might not appear to have been substantial, it was significant when considered in light of the size of the Canadian market and the market share that had been gained by imports of the subject silicon metal during the POI. In relative terms, throughout the POI, the ratio of total imports of the subject silicon metal to total domestic production of like goods was significant, and the ratio of total imports of the subject silicon metal to domestic sales of like goods was very high. The Tribunal observed that the subject silicon metal undercut the price of like goods by a significant degree during the POI. However, given the dearth of domestic pricing data on the record, the Tribunal could not conclude that the subject silicon metal had significantly depressed the price of like goods during the POI. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the reported data on the domestic industry’s cost of goods sold were not reliable; therefore, there was an insufficient basis upon which to conclude that the domestic industry suffered significant price suppression during the POI.

The Tribunal found that the volume of domestic industry’s sales of like goods in the domestic market fell dramatically in 2011 and remained substantially lower in 2012 compared to the volume sold in 2010. Moreover, the domestic industry’s market share decreased at a faster rate than that of importers of the subject silicon metal from 2010 to 2012. The Tribunal also found that the domestic industry experienced poor financial results throughout the POI, following reductions in revenues and profit margins. However, the Tribunal concluded its injury analysis by determining that there was little evidence that the subject silicon metal had adversely affected the domestic industry’s productivity, capacity utilization and investment. Overall, the Tribunal found that, to the extent that the subject silicon metal had had an adverse impact on the domestic industry, it was not sufficient to constitute material injury, as prescribed by SIMA.

The Tribunal concluded that the dumping and subsidizing of the subject silicon metal had not caused material injury but were threatening to cause material injury to the domestic industry. The Tribunal determined that the adverse effects sustained by the domestic industry due to the presence of the subject silicon metal during the latter part of the POI were likely to continue and even worsen in the following 12 to 18 months. The Tribunal observed that, while the likely increase in the volume of imports of the subject silicon metal might not be significant, in the context of the relatively small Canadian market and the small market share held by the domestic industry during the POI, even a small increase in volumes of imports would likely have a disruptive effect on the domestic industry in the following 12 to 18 months. In the Tribunal’s view, in the absence of anti-dumping and countervailing duties, the subject silicon metal would result in significant price undercutting or depression and cause material injury to the domestic industry in the form of lost sales, reduced market share and decreased production levels.

NQ-2013-004—Circular Copper Tube

This inquiry concerned dumped circular copper tube imported from Brazil, Greece, China, Korea and Mexico, and subsidized circular copper tube imported from China (the subject tube).

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 1 Canadian producer, 25 potential importers, 32 potential purchasers and 41 potential foreign producers and exporters of circular copper tube. Of the 99 requests sent, the Tribunal received 41 responses, of which 32 were used in the Tribunal’s analysis.

There were nine participants to the inquiry. During a three-day hearing, eight witnesses appeared before the Tribunal. The official record contained 9,387 pages.

The Tribunal first determined that domestically produced circular copper tube constituted like goods in relation to the subject tube and that the like goods and the subject tube comprised a single class of goods. The Tribunal also determined that Great Lakes Copper Inc., the only known domestic producer of like goods, constituted the totality of the domestic industry.

The Tribunal concluded that the volume of imports of the subject tube increased significantly over the POI, both in absolute terms and relative to the production and consumption of the like goods. The Tribunal noted that price was the defining factor in purchasing choices where there was widespread physical and functional interchangeability among the like goods and the subject tube. The Tribunal found that benchmark pricing data showed evidence of price undercutting by benchmark products from China and Korea, but little or no evidence of price undercutting by benchmark products from Brazil, Greece or Mexico. In addition, there was evidence of price undercutting by the subject tube from all countries in average unit pricing, although not throughout each period. The Tribunal also found that the subject tube significantly depressed and suppressed the price of the like goods.

The Tribunal also determined that the presence of the subject tube in the Canadian market had had a significant negative impact on the financial performance of the domestic industry in terms of profitability, return on investment and potential for growth. The Tribunal found that the domestic industry’s productivity was not appreciably impacted during the POI, that capacity utilization rates for the like goods, direct employment and wages remained relatively stable, and that volume of inventories increased after 2011. Finally, the Tribunal noted that relatively low margins of dumping and amount of subsidy had been sufficient to cause significant price effects and resultant material injury to the domestic industry.

The Tribunal concluded that the dumping of circular copper tube imported from Brazil, Greece, China, Korea and Mexico, and the subsidizing of circular copper tube imported from China had caused injury.

Final Injury Inquiries in Progress at the End of the Fiscal Year

There was one final injury inquiry in progress at the end of the fiscal year concerning hot-rolled carbon steel plate.

Public Interest Inquiries

Following a finding of injury, the Tribunal notifies all interested parties that any submissions requesting a public interest inquiry must be filed within 45 days. The Tribunal may initiate, either after a request from an interested person or on its own initiative, a public interest inquiry following a finding of injury or threat of injury caused by dumped or subsidized imports, if it is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to consider that the imposition of all or part of the duties may not be in the public interest. If it is of this view, the Tribunal then conducts a public interest inquiry pursuant to section 45 of SIMA. The result of this inquiry may be a report to the Minister of Finance recommending that the duties be reduced and by how much. Two requests for public interest inquiries concerning circular copper tube were filed with the Tribunal in 2013‑2014. One request was withdrawn during the fiscal year, and the remaining request was under consideration at the close of the fiscal year.

Interim Reviews

The Tribunal may review its findings of injury or threat of injury or orders at any time, on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister of Finance, the CBSA or any other person or government (section 76.01 of SIMA). The Tribunal commences an interim review where one is warranted, and it then determines if the finding or order (or any aspect of it) should be rescinded or continued to its expiry date, with or without amendment.

An interim review may be warranted where there is a reasonable indication that new facts have arisen or that there has been a change in the circumstances that led to the finding or order. For example, since the finding or order, the domestic industry may have ceased production of like goods or foreign subsidies may have been terminated. An interim review may also be warranted where there are facts that, although in existence, were not put into evidence during the related expiry review or inquiry and were not discoverable by the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time.

Interim Review Activities

 

Request for Interim Review No. RD-2011-005

Request for Interim Review No. RD-2011-006

Request for Interim Review No. RD-2012-001

Interim Review No. RD-2013-001

Interim Review No. RD-2013-002

Interim Review No. RD-2013-003

Product

Aluminum extrusions

Aluminum extrusions

Aluminum extrusions

Bicycles

Bicycles

Liquid dielectric transformers

Type of case/country

Dumping and subsidizing/China

Dumping and subsidizing/China

Dumping and subsidizing/China

Dumping/Chinese Taipei and China

Dumping/Chinese Taipei and China

Dumping/Korea

Date of order

September 12, 2013

September 12, 2013

September 12, 2013

September 30, 2013

September 30, 2013

In progress

Order

No review

No review

No review

Order rescinded

Order rescinded

 

Participants

10

10

9

12

12

 

Pages of official record

356

500

400

363

363

 

Requests for Interim Reviews and Interim Reviews Completed in the Fiscal Year

As can be seen in the above table, the Tribunal ruled on two interim reviews that commenced in the current fiscal year (RD-2013-001 and RD-2013-002), and rescinded its order made on December 7, 2012, in Expiry Review No. RR-2011-002 respecting certain bicycles. As well, the Tribunal ruled on three requests for interim review received in the previous fiscal year (RD‑2011‑005, RD‑2011‑006 and RD‑2012‑001) and decided not to conduct an interim review regarding its findings made on March 17, 2009, in Inquiry No. NQ-2008-003 in respect of aluminum extrusions.

Interim review No. RD-2013-003 was in progress as of March 31, 2014.

Expiries

Subsection 76.03(1) of SIMA provides that a finding or order expires after five years, unless an expiry review has been initiated. Not later than 10 months before the expiry date of the order or finding, the Secretary of the Tribunal publishes a notice of expiry in the Canada Gazette. The notice invites persons and governments to submit their views on whether the order or finding should be reviewed and gives direction on the issues that should be addressed in the submissions. If the Tribunal determines that an expiry review is not warranted, it issues an order with reasons for its decision. Otherwise, it initiates an expiry review.

Expiry Activities

 

LE-2012-005

LE-2012-006

LE-2013-001

LE-2013-002

LE-2013-003

Product

Structural tubing

Hot-rolled carbon steel plate and high-strength low-alloy steel plate

Aluminum extrusions

Mattress innerspring units

Certain fasteners

Type of case/country

Dumping/Korea, South Africa and Turkey

Dumping/ Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Romania

Dumping and subsidizing/China

Dumping/China

Dumping and subsidizing/China and Chinese Taipei

Date of order or notice of expiry review

April 10, 2013

April 24, 2013

June 5, 2013

March 12, 2014

In progress

Decision

Expiry review initiated

Expiry review initiated

Expiry review initiated

No expiry review

 

Participants

7

2

12

5

 

Pages of official record

900

400

500

670

 

As illustrated in the above table, the Tribunal decided to commence three expiry reviews in the fiscal year.

On the basis of submissions from interested parties, the Tribunal was of the view that expiry reviews were warranted in respect of Expiry Review No. RR-2013-001 concerning structural tubing, Expiry Review No. RR-2013-002 concerning hot-rolled carbon steel plate and high‑strength low-alloy steel plate, and Expiry Review No. RR-2013-003 concerning aluminum extrusions.

In Expiry No. LE-2013-002 concerning mattress innerspring units, the Tribunal decided not to initiate an expiry review of its finding made on November 24, 2009. The finding will therefore expire on November 23, 2014.

Expiry No. LE-2013-003 concerning fasteners was in progress as of March 31, 2014.

Expiry Reviews

When the Tribunal initiates an expiry review of a finding or an order, it issues a notice of expiry review and notifies the CBSA of its decision. The notice of expiry review is published in the Canada Gazette and notice is provided to all known interested parties.

The purpose of an expiry review is to determine whether anti-dumping or countervailing duties remain necessary. There are two phases in an expiry review. The first phase is the investigation by the CBSA to determine whether there is a likelihood of resumed or continued dumping or subsidizing if the finding or order expires. If the CBSA determines that such likelihood exists with respect to any of the goods, the second phase is the Tribunal’s inquiry into the likelihood of injury or retardation. If the CBSA determines that there is no likelihood of resumed dumping or subsidizing for any of the goods, the Tribunal does not consider those goods in its subsequent determination of the likelihood of injury and issues an order rescinding the order or finding with respect to those goods.

The Tribunal’s procedures in expiry reviews are similar to those in final injury inquiries.

Upon completion of an expiry review, the Tribunal issues an order with reasons, rescinding or continuing a finding or order, with or without amendment. If a finding or order is continued, it remains in force for a further five years, unless an interim review is initiated and the finding or order is rescinded. If the finding or order is rescinded, imports are no longer subject to anti-dumping or countervailing duties.

Expiry Review Activities

 

RR-2012-003

RR-2012-004

RR-2013-001

RR-2013-002

RR-2013-003

Product

Carbon steel welded pipe

Thermoelectric containers

Structural tubing

Hot-rolled carbon steel plate and high-strength low-alloy steel plate

Aluminum extrusions

Type of case/country

Dumping and subsidizing/China

Dumping and subsidizing/China

Dumping/Korea, South Africa and Turkey

Dumping/Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Romania

Dumping and subsidizing/China

Date of order

August 19, 2013

December 9, 2013

December 20, 2013

January 7, 2014

March 17, 2014

Order

Finding continued

Finding continued

Order continued/Korea and Turkey
Order rescinded/South Africa

Order continued

Findings continued

Questionnaires sent1

303

107

80

42

764

Questionnaires received2

21

16

17

16

41

Participants

7

2

5

3

20

Pages of official record

6,659

4,193

4,000

7,000

19,100

Public hearing days

1

2

2

1

4

Witnesses

7

3

8

4

19

1. Requests that expiry review questionnaires be completed are sent to a comprehensive list of known domestic producers and to all potential importers and exporters; the completed questionnaires are for use by the CBSA and the Tribunal.

2. As in the case of final injury inquiries, the Tribunal focuses its questionnaire response follow-up on all known domestic producers and the largest importers, which generally account for 80 percent or more of the subject imports during the period of review.

Expiry Reviews Completed in the Fiscal Year

As illustrated in the above table, the Tribunal completed five expiry reviews during the reporting period.

RR-2012-003—Carbon Steel Welded Pipe

This expiry review concerned the dumping and subsidizing of carbon steel welded pipe, commonly identified as standard pipe, originating in or exported from China (the subject pipe).

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 12 potential Canadian producers, 27 potential importers and 264 potential foreign producers and exporters of carbon steel welded pipe. The Tribunal received 8 replies from Canadian producers, 18 replies from importers, of which 14 indicated that they were not importing the subject pipe and 4 indicated that they did not import carbon steel welded pipe at all during the period of review, and 1 reply from a foreign producer. Of these replies, 21 were used in the Tribunal’s analysis.

There were seven participants in the expiry review, with seven witnesses appearing before the Tribunal during a one-day public hearing. The official record contained 6,659 pages.

The Tribunal was of the view that to allow the expiry of the finding would likely result in a significant increase in the volume of imports of the subject pipe at prices that could be expected to significantly undercut, depress and suppress those of the like goods, thereby causing material injury to the domestic industry. Consequently, on August 19, 2013, the Tribunal continued its findings in respect of the subject pipe.

RR-2012-004—Thermoelectric Containers

This expiry review concerned the dumping and subsidizing of thermoelectric containers originating in or exported from China (the subject thermoelectric containers).

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 2 known Canadian producers, 23 potential importers and 82 potential foreign producers and exporters of thermoelectric containers. The Tribunal received 1 reply from the largest domestic producer and 15 replies from importers, all of which were used in the Tribunal’s analysis. The Tribunal received additional 7 replies from companies indicating that they did not import thermoelectric containers during the period of review and no replies from foreign producers or exporters.

There were two participants to the expiry review, with three witnesses appearing before the Tribunal during a two-day public hearing. The official record contained 4,193 pages.

The Tribunal was of the view that rescinding the finding would likely result in a significant increase in the volume of imports of the subject thermoelectric containers at prices that would undercut, depress and suppress those of the like goods, thereby causing material injury to the domestic industry. Consequently, on December 9, 2013, the Tribunal continued its finding in respect of the subject thermoelectric containers.

RR-2013-001—Structural Tubing

This expiry review concerned the dumping of structural tubing, commonly known as hollow structural sections, originating in or exported from Korea, South Africa and Turkey (the subject tubing).

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 10 potential Canadian producers, 35 potential importers, and 35 potential foreign producers and exporters of structural tubing. The Tribunal received 5 replies from Canadian producers, 11 replies from importers, and 1 reply from the Turkish Steel Exporters’ Association. In addition, 3 companies indicated that they did not produce structural tubing during the period of review, while 10 companies replied that they either did not import structural tubing or would not be providing a response to the questionnaire. Of these replies, 17 were used in the Tribunal’s analysis.

There were five participants in the expiry review, with eight witnesses appearing before the Tribunal during a two-day public hearing. The official record contained 4,000 pages.

The Tribunal was of the view that, if it allowed the expiry of the order with regard to Korea and Turkey, the likely price depression and price undercutting would have a negative impact on the domestic industry’s sales volume and market share, and a significant negative impact on its gross margins, which, in turn, would have a negative effect on the domestic industry’s return on investments, cash flow and employment levels.

Consequently, on December 20, 2013, the Tribunal continued its order in respect of structural tubing from Korea and Turkey. However, the Tribunal rescinded its order in respect of structural tubing from South Africa, as it was of the view that it was unlikely that structural tubing produced in South Africa would be present in the Canadian market in the following 12 to 18 months.

RR-2013-002—Hot-rolled Carbon Steel Plate and High-strength Low-alloy Steel Plate

This expiry review concerned the dumping of hot-rolled carbon steel plate and high-strength low-alloy steel plate originating in or exported from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Romania (the subject plate).

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 3 known Canadian producers, 26 potential importers and 13 potential foreign producers and exporters of hot-rolled carbon steel plate. The Tribunal received 3 replies from Canadian producers, 12 replies from importers, and 1 partial response from an exporter. All of these replies were used in the Tribunal’s analysis.

There were three participants in the expiry review, with four witnesses appearing before the Tribunal during a one-day public hearing. The official record contained 7,000 pages.

The Tribunal was of the view that rescinding the order would likely result in the significant increase of imports of the subject plate at prices that could be expected to undercut, depress and suppress those of the like goods, thereby causing material injury to the domestic industry. Consequently, on January 7, 2014, the Tribunal continued its order in respect of the subject plate.

RR-2013-003—Aluminum Extrusions

This expiry review concerned the dumping and subsidizing of aluminum extrusions originating in or exported from China (the subject aluminum extrusions).

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 13 known Canadian producers, 313 potential importers (the Tribunal sent 305 requests to complete full importer questionnaires and 71 requests to complete short-form importer questionnaires, some of which were sent to the same company if a full questionnaire had not been returned) and 375 potential foreign producers and exporters of aluminum extrusions. The Tribunal received full or partial replies to questionnaires from 12 Canadian producers, 41 importers, 13 of which indicated that that they did not import aluminum extrusions, and 1 foreign producer. Due to inconsistencies in questionnaire replies or statements indicating that the reply included information on products other than aluminum extrusions, 1 full importer questionnaire and portions of 3 additional importer questionnaires were not used in the Tribunal’s analysis.

There were 22 participants in the expiry review, with 19 witnesses appearing before the Tribunal during a four-day public hearing. The official record contained 19,100 pages.

On March 17, 2014, the Tribunal issued an order continuing its findings on the subject aluminum extrusions. Reasons supporting this decision were issued on March 28, 2014.

Expiry Reviews in Progress at the End of the Fiscal Year

There were no expiry reviews in progress at the end of the fiscal year.

Judicial or Panel Reviews of SIMA Decisions

There were no Tribunal decisions remanded by the Federal Court of Appeal during the fiscal year.

The following table lists Tribunal decisions that were before the Federal Court of Appeal under section 76 of SIMA in the fiscal year.

Summary of Judicial or Panel Reviews

Case No.

Product

Country of Origin

Court File No./Status

NQ-2013-003

Silicon metal

China

A—427—13
In progress

RR-2012-004

Thermoelectric containers

China

A—42—14
In progress

Note: The Tribunal has made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information listed is complete. However, since the Tribunal does not ordinarily participate in appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal or the Federal Court, it is unable to confirm that the list contains all appeals or decisions rendered that were before the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.

WTO Dispute Resolutions

There were no Tribunal findings or orders before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body during the fiscal year.

SIMA Findings and Orders in Force

As of December 31, 2013, there were 25 SIMA findings and orders in force, affecting approximately $7.7 billion in shipments, $0.5 billion in investments, 22,000 direct jobs and $1.2 billion in imports, representing about 2.18 percent of Canadian shipments, 1.70 percent of Canadian investments, 1.07 percent of Canadian employment, and 0.32 percent of Canadian imports.

Summary of Findings and Orders in Force as of March 31, 2014

Inquiry No. or Expiry Review No.

Date of Decision

Product

Type of Case/Country

Related Decision No.
and Date

NQ-2009-002

November 24, 2009

Mattress innerspring units

Dumping/China

 

NQ-2009-003

February 2, 2010

Hot-rolled carbon steel plate and high-strength low-alloy plate

Dumping/Ukraine

 

NQ-2009-004

March 23, 2010

Oil country tubular goods

Dumping and subsidizing/China

 

NQ-2010-001

October 9, 2010

Greenhouse bell peppers

Dumping/Netherlands

 

NQ-2010-002

April 19, 2011

Steel grating

Dumping and subsidizing/China

 

NQ-2011-001

April 10, 2012

Pup joints

Dumping and subsidizing/China

 

NQ-2011-002

May 24, 2012

Stainless steel sinks

Dumping and subsidizing/China

 

NQ-2012-001

November 20, 2012

Liquid dielectric transformers

Dumping/Korea

 

NQ-2012-002

November 30, 2012

Steel piling pipe

Dumping and subsidizing/China

 

NQ-2012-003

December 11, 2012

Carbon steel welded pipe

Dumping/Chinese Taipei, India, Oman, Korea, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates
Subsidizing/India

 

NQ-2013-002

November 12, 2013

Unitized wall modules

Dumping and subsidizing/China

 

NQ-2013-003

November 19, 2013

Silicon metal

Dumping and subsidizing/China

 

NQ-2013-004

December 18, 2013

Circular copper tube

Dumping/Brazil, Greece, China, Korea, and Mexico
Subsidizing/China

 

RR-2009-001

January 6, 2010

Carbon steel fasteners

Dumping/China and Chinese Taipei
Subsidizing/China

NQ-2004-005
(January 7, 2005)

RR-2009-002

September 10, 2010

Whole potatoes

Dumping/United States

RR-2004-006
(September 12, 2005)
RR-99-005
(September 13, 2000)
RR-94-007
(September 14, 1995)
RR-89-010
(September 14, 1990)
CIT-16-85
(April 18, 1986)
ADT-4-84
(June 4, 1984)

RR-2009-003

November 1, 2010

Refined sugar

Dumping/Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States
Subsidizing/European Union

RR-2004-007
(November 2, 2005)
RR-99-006
(November 3, 2000)
NQ-95-002
(November 6, 1995)

RR-2010-001

August 15, 2011

Flat hot-rolled carbon and alloy steel sheet and strip

Dumping/Brazil, China, Chinese Taipei, India and Ukraine
Subsidizing/India

RR-2005-002
(August 16, 2006)
NQ-2001-001
(August 17, 2001)

RR-2011-001

February 17, 2012

Copper pipe fittings

Dumping/United States, Korea and China
Subsidizing/China

NQ-2006-002
(February 19, 2007)

RR-2012-001

January 8, 2013

Hot-rolled carbon steel plate

Dumping/China

RR-2007-001
(January 9, 2008)
RR-2001-006
(January 10, 2003)
NQ-97-001
(October 27, 1997)

RR-2012-002

March 11, 2013

Seamless carbon or alloy steel oil and gas well casing

Dumping and subsidizing/China

NQ-2007-001
(March 10, 2008)

RR-2012-003

August 19, 2013

Carbon steel welded pipe

Dumping and subsidizing/China

NQ-2008-001
(August 20, 2008)

RR-2012-004

December 9, 2013

Thermoelectric containers

Dumping and subsidizing/China

NQ-2008-002
(December 11, 2008)

RR-2013-001

December 20, 2013

Structural tubing

Dumping/Korea and Turkey

RR-2008-001
(December 22, 2008)
NQ-2003-001
(December 23, 2003)

RR-2013-002

January 7, 2014

Hot-rolled carbon steel plate and high-strength low-alloy steel plate

Dumping/Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Romania

RR-2008-002
(January 8, 2009)
NQ-2003-002
(January 9, 2004)

RR-2013-003

March 17, 2014

Aluminum extrusions

Dumping and subsidizing/China

NQ-2008-003
(March 17, 2009)

Note: For complete product descriptions, refer to the most recent finding or order available at www.citt-tcce.gc.ca.