Anti-dumping and Countervailing Program

Preliminary Determination - Iodinated Radiographic Contrast Media

OTTAWA, December 31, 1999

File No. 4240-21
Case No. AD/1234

STATEMENT OF REASONS

Concerning the making of a preliminary determination of dumping with respect to

CERTAIN IODINATED CONTRAST MEDIA USED FOR RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGING, ORIGINATING IN OR EXPORTED FROM THE United States of America (INCLUDING THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO)

DECISION

Pursuant to subsection 38(1) of the Special Import Measures Act, the Commissioner of Customs and Revenue, on this date, made a preliminary determination that iodinated contrast media for radiographic imaging, in solutions of osmolality less than 900 mOsm/kg H₂O, originating in or exported from the United States of America (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico), have been dumped and that there is evidence which discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping has caused injury to the Canadian industry.

This Statement of Reasons is also available in French.
Cet énoncé des motifs est également disponible en français.

Summary

On August 20, 1999, a dumping investigation was initiated pursuant to subsection 31(1) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) respecting the alleged injurious dumping into Canada of certain iodinated contrast media used for radiographic imaging, originating in or exported from the United States of America (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico).

The investigation was initiated as a result of a complaint filed on June 30, 1999, by Mallinckrodt Medical Inc. of Pointe-Claire, Quebec. The company has since changed its corporate name to Mallinckrodt Canada Inc. On November 15, 1999, the Commissioner of Customs and Revenue extended the time period for completing the preliminary investigation to 135 days.

As a result of the preliminary investigation, the Commissioner of Customs and Revenue is satisfied that the subject goods have been dumped, that the margin of dumping is not insignificant, that the volume of dumped goods is not negligible, and that there is a reasonable indication that the dumping has caused injury to the Canadian industry. Accordingly, the Commissioner has made a preliminary determination of dumping in accordance with subsection 38(1) of SIMA.

Interested Parties

Complainant

The complainant, Mallinckrodt Canada Inc. (MCI), is the only Canadian producer of iodinated contrast media used for radiographic imaging. The corporate headquarters and manufacturing facilities of the complainant are located at 7500 Trans-Canada Highway, Pointe-Claire, Quebec, H9R 5H8.

Exporters

During the period of investigation from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA), has identified four exporters of subject goods. The names and addresses of these exporters are listed in Appendix 1.

Importers

The CCRA has identified four importers of subject goods during the period of investigation. The names and addresses of these importers are listed in Appendix 2.

Other Interested Parties

There are three other interested parties to these proceedings. Their names and addresses are listed in Appendix 3.

Background

On June 30, 1999, MCI filed a complaint alleging the injurious dumping of certain iodinated contrast media used for radiographic imaging. On July 21, 1999, MCI was informed that its complaint was properly documented and, at the same time, the Government of the United States of America was also notified of the filing of the complaint. A dumping investigation was subsequently initiated on August 20, 1999.

After the investigation was initiated, legal counsel for the Nycomed group of companies requested the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to review whether the initiation of the investigation was justified. On October 18, 1999, the Tribunal ruled that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the initiation of the investigation.

On November 15, 1999, pursuant to paragraph 39(1)(a) of SIMA, the Commissioner of Customs and Revenue extended the time period for completing the preliminary investigation to 135 days. The extension was necessary due to the complexity of issues presented in the investigation.

Product

Product Definition

For the purpose of the preliminary determination the subject goods are defined as:

"Iodinated contrast media used for radiographic imaging, in solutions of osmolality less than 900 mOsm/kg H₂O, originating in or exported from the United States of America (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico)".

Additional Product Information

For clarity, the subject goods include non-ionic monomers and dimers in solutions less than 900 mOsm/kg H₂O. They are commonly referred to in the industry as low osmolality contrast media (LOCM) products. LOCM products sold in Canada must be approved for specific indications (i.e., use) by the Therapeutic Products Programme (formerly the Health Protection Branch) of Health Canada.

Product Description

Medical examination of soft tissues or organs by non-surgical means often requires the introduction of a special diagnostic imaging agent which makes the detection system responsive to detail in the tissue of interest. Agents include those used in magnetic resonance, ultrasound, radionuclide imaging and X-ray technology. Radiopaques for X-ray imaging, commonly referred to as X-ray contrast media, are examples of such diagnostic agents.

The subject goods are all iodine-based compounds. Iodine is a very effective absorber of ionizing radiation and, as such, is particularly effective in enhancing X-ray images of the human body. The classification of the product as contrast media was derived from the fact that when the iodine accumulates in the target area, it creates a contrast in the X-ray image, thereby permitting visual examination of the target organ.

Additional product details and information concerning the production of the subject contrast media were provided in the Statement of Reasons issued for the initiation of the investigation.

The following summarizes the known LOCM products approved for use in Canada:

Sold By	Brand	Structure	Compound
Berlex	Ultravist	Non-ionic monomer	Iopromide
Berlex	Osmovist	Non-ionic dimer	Iotrolan
Bracco	Isovue	Non-ionic monomer	Iopamidol
MCI	Optiray	Non-ionic monomer	Ioversol
MCI	Hexabrix	Ionic dimer	Ioxaglate
Nycomed	Ominipaque	Non-ionic monomer	Iohexol
Nycomed	Visipaque	Non-ionic dimer	Iodixanol

CLASSIFICATION OF IMPORTS

Opacifying preparations for X-ray examinations are properly classified in Schedule I of the Customs Tariff under the Harmonized System classification number 3006.30.00.10.

Canadian Industry

There have been no significant changes in the structure of the Canadian industry since the initiation of this investigation. MCI remains the only Canadian manufacturer of iodinated X-ray contrast media.

The complainant manufactures two products marketed under the brand names HEXABRIX and OPTIRAY. HEXABRIX is an ionic dimer produced from the powder Ioxaglate combined with other chemicals. OPTIRAY is a non-ionic monomer produced from the powder Ioversol combined with other chemicals.

Canadian Market

X-ray contrast media are used primarily in hospitals. The manner of establishing selling prices to the hospitals is generally through invitation to submit bid proposals. Generally, buying groups representing several hospitals or large single hospitals issue requests for bid proposals to the suppliers of the products. The suppliers would then submit price proposals for the supply of the required contrast media. If acceptable, the buying groups/hospitals would sign a supply contract with the suppliers. The term of a supply contract varies and can extend over several years for an accepted bid.

The buying groups/hospitals may accept one or more supply contracts from different suppliers for the contrast media in similar concentrations of iodine and package sizes. Although there is an anticipated quantity expected to be sold, there is no obligation on the part of the hospitals to buy a specific supplier’s products. However, when purchasing, the hospital may buy the contrast media through the supplier’s agent at the specified contract price.

Pricing of contrast media, including the subject goods, flows from published price lists which contain unit selling prices for a variety of product configurations. The list prices tend to be similar between competitors in the Canadian market, and pricing to the market is accomplished by applying percentage discounts to list prices. In addition, there may be additional incentives offered such as educational packages, equipment giveaways, volume discounts, rebate programs, discounts on other product lines and the provision of research and development support.

The subject goods are considered to be part of the pharmaceutical industry. This industry utilizes logistic service providers who distribute the products nationally on behalf of the suppliers. Generally, these companies perform a variety of services including warehousing, stocking, re-stocking, receiving orders from the customers, picking, packing, delivering, billing the customers and receiving the payment from the customer.

Based on information available to the CCRA, the Canadian market for the subject goods during the twelve-month period of investigation from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999, is estimated to be approximately Cdn. $22.5 million. Due to the small numbers of participants in the Canadian market, the percentage share held by each participant cannot be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality.

Results of the Investigation

Investigation Activities

The dumping investigation covered all subject goods from the United States of America, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico), released into Canada during the period of investigation from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999. At the time of the initiation of the investigation, information to determine the normal values and export prices of the subject goods was requested from three companies identified as the exporters of the subject goods: Bracco Diagnostic Inc. (BDI); Mallicnkrodt Inc., the parent company of the complainant; and Nycomed Inc. A Request for Information was also sent to Searle Ltd., a manufacturer of the subject goods, located in Puerto Rico.

Information concerning importations of the subject goods was also requested from three companies identified as the importers: Bracco Diagnostics Canada Inc. (BDCI); MCI who is also the complainant in this investigation; and Nycomed Amersham Canada Limited. Subsequent to the initiation, Requests for Information were also sent to Livingston Inc. and Picker International Canada Inc., who were identified as the service providers in Canada for the Bracco and the Nycomed products, respectively.

Responses to the Requests for Information were received from BDI and Nycomed Inc., two of the three companies identified as exporters. No response was received from Mallinckrodt Inc. The Puerto Rican manufacturer’s submission was received late and was not taken into account for this phase of the investigation. An unsolicited submission was received from Nycomed Imaging AS, the parent company of Nycomed Inc. In this regard, Nycomed Imaging AS, responded as an exporter of the subject goods.

All three companies identified as the importers, BDCI, MCI and Nycomed Amersham Canada Limited, responded to the Requests for Information. Of the two Canadian service providers contacted, Livingston Inc., the service provider for Bracco products, submitted a partial response to the Request for Information. However, Picker International Canada Inc., the service provider for the Nycomed products, elected not to provide a response to the Request for Information, on the grounds that it was not the importer of the subject goods.

For the purposes of the preliminary determination, on-site verification visits were conducted at the premises of BDI and Nycomed Inc. in Princeton, NJ. Verification visits were also made to three companies in Canada: BDCI, MCI and Nycomed Amersham Canada Limited.

Normal Value Considerations

Normal Value

The primary methods for determining normal value under SIMA are on the basis of the exporter’s domestic sales, or in their absence, on the basis of the sum of the cost of producing and selling the goods and an amount for profit. In circumstances where the like goods are sold primarily for export or where they are sold primarily to related parties, the domestic sales of like goods by other vendors may be used for determining the normal values of the subject goods.

Identification of the Exporter

In all dumping investigations, the exporter must be identified as an essential first step in both the determination of normal value and the calculation of export price. In many cases, there is usually only one company involved in the manufacturing, selling and shipping of the goods to Canada, leaving no doubt as to the identity of the exporter.

In this investigation, the identification of the exporters of the products marketed under the Bracco trade name and the products marketed under the Nycomed trade names, was complicated by the number of companies involved in the export sales transactions and the complex manner in which both principals, the Bracco group and the Nycomed group, conduct their international business.

At the time of initiation of the investigation, both BDI and Nycomed Inc. in the United States of America were identified as the exporters of the products marketed under their respective trade names. The Bracco product is marketed under the trade name of Isovue while the Nycomed products are marketed under the trade names of Omnipaque and Visipaque.

On the basis of the information available to the CCRA, the exporter of the Bracco products is Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) in Princeton, NJ, the manufacturer of the subject contrast media who shipped the goods to Canada. In the case of the Nycomed products, the exporter is Searle Ltd. in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, the company who produced the goods and delivered them to the docks in Puerto Rico for direct shipment to Canada. Nycomed Inc., in Princeton, NJ, is the exporter in the case of a single shipment made in late 1998 when the subject goods could not be shipped out of Puerto Rico during a hurricane.

Mallinckrodt Inc. did not provide a response to the Request for Information sent to the company. However, based on the information available to the CCRA, Mallinckrodt is the manufacturer, vendor and exporter of the subject goods shipped to its Canadian subsidiary during the period of investigation.

Export Price Considerations

Export Price

The export price of the goods shipped to Canada is generally the lesser of the exporter's

ex-factory selling price to the importer in Canada or the importer’s purchase price of the goods, less all costs arising from the exportation of the goods. In certain circumstances, where there is no selling price or the sale is between associated parties, the export price may be determined on the basis of the selling price in Canada less an amount to cover the importer’s profit and costs associated with the importation and sale of the goods in Canada.

Identification of the Importer

According to the provisions of SIMA, the importer of the goods must be specified at the time of making a preliminary determination. The importer in Canada is generally held to be the company who purchased the goods and to whom the goods are shipped.

In this investigation, the CCRA had to carefully examine the evidence to determine who in reality, are the importers of the subject contrast media. The identification process was complicated by the complex manner in which the foreign principals conduct their international business, the number of companies involved in the importation and sale of the subject goods, and the use of service providers in the industry.

Based on the evidence available to the CCRA, the importer of the Bracco products is Bracco Diagnostics Canada Inc. during the entire period of investigation from July 1998 to

June 1999. The importer in Canada of the Nycomed products from July to December 1998, is Picker International Canada Inc., and the importer from January to June 1999, is Nycomed Amersham Canada Ltd.

Margin of Dumping Considerations

The margin of dumping is the amount by which the normal value of the goods exceeds the export price.

In this investigation, the exporters BMS and Mallinckrodt Inc., did not respond to the CCRA’s Requests for Information. The other exporter, Nycomed Inc., responded to the Request for Information but did not provide specific information concerning its exports to Canada made in late 1998. The remaining exporter, Searle Ltd., did not submit information in sufficient time to be considered for this phase of the investigation. Consequently, all exports of subject goods to Canada by these companies during the period of investigation were estimated to be dumped by the highest margin of dumping, determined from information provided by one of the vendors of the subject goods in the United States of America and its Canadian affiliate.

The vendor whose information yielded the highest margin of dumping was Nycomed Inc. In this regard, the normal values were estimated using Nycomed Inc.’s weighted average net selling prices of like goods to the end-users in the United States of America during the period of investigation. The weighted average net selling prices were adjusted to reflect a Special Import Measures Regulation 8 adjustment for the average costs incurred in delivering the like goods to the domestic customers.

When the goods enter Canada, they are stored in the service provider’s warehouse until sold to an end-user in Canada. Since there are no exporters’ selling prices of the subject goods at the time that the goods enter Canada, the export prices were estimated on the basis of the weighted average selling prices of Nycomed’s products to the Canadian end-users. From the weighted average selling prices, deductions were made to cover the importer’s profit and costs, including any duties and taxes, associated with the importation and sale of the goods in Canada, and the service providers’ costs for warehousing, selling and distributing the products.

In comparing the normal values with the export prices of the goods as determined above, the highest estimated margin of dumping found was 82%, expressed as a percentage of the normal value.

Results By Exporter

The estimated margins of dumping in the following section are expressed as a percentage of normal value.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, New Jersey

BMS is the manufacturer and exporter of the subject contrast media marketed by the Bracco group under the trade name Isovue. A Request for Information was forwarded to this company by BDI shortly after initiation of the investigation. However, BMS did not provide a response to the Request for Information or respond to subsequent enquiries by the CCRA.

Consequently, the CCRA has estimated the margin of dumping of the subject goods exported by BMS to Canada during the period of investigation to be 82%. This percentage represents the highest estimated margin of dumping determined as described in the section entitled Margin of Dumping Considerations.

Searle Limited, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico

Searle Ltd., Puerto Rico, is the manufacturer and exporter of the subject contrast media marketed by the Nycomed group under the trade names Ominipaque and Visipaque. This company was sent a Request for Information at the initiation of the investigation. However, Searle Ltd. failed to respond to initial enquiries made and did not establish contact with the CCRA until the beginning of October 1999. The company subsequently provided a response to the Request for Information, but it was received too late to be considered for the purposes of the preliminary determination.

Accordingly, the CCRA has estimated the margin of dumping of the subject goods exported by Searle Ltd. to Canada during the period of investigation to be 82%. This percentage represents the highest estimated margin of dumping determined, as described in the section entitled Margin of Dumping Considerations.

Mallinckrodt Inc., St-Louis, MO

Mallinckrodt Inc. is a manufacturer, vendor and exporter of the subject contrast media. This company is also the parent company of the Canadian complainant. Mallinckrodt Inc. did not respond to the Request for Information sent to the company at the initiation of the investigation.

The CCRA has consequently estimated the margin of dumping of the subject goods exported by Mallinckrodt Inc. to Canada during the period of investigation to be 82%. This percentage represents the highest estimated margin of dumping determined, as described in the section entitled Margin of Dumping Considerations.

Nycomed Inc., Princeton, New Jersey

Nycomed Inc. does not normally export the subject goods to Canada. However, during the period of investigation, it did export a quantity of the subject goods to Canada when the Nycomed products could not be shipped out of Puerto Rico due to a hurricane. While

Nycomed Inc., responded to the Request for Information, essential information concerning its specific exports to Canada was not provided.

Consequently, the CCRA has estimated the margin of dumping of the subject goods exported by Nycomed Inc. to Canada during the period of investigation to be 82%. This percentage represents the highest estimated margin of dumping determined, as described in the section entitled Margin of Dumping Considerations.

Summary of Results

In view of the fact that information was not provided or was not provided in sufficient time by the exporters to determine the normal values and export prices of the subject goods shipped to Canada, all of the goods exported to Canada during the period of investigation were estimated to be dumped by a margin of 82%, expressed as a percentage of normal value.

A summary of the estimated margins of dumping for all exporters of subject goods is contained in Appendix 4.

Representations Concerning the Investigation

At the initiation of the investigation, interested parties were invited to file written submissions on the question of the alleged dumping and injury. In response, information and representations were received from each of the legal counsel representing the Bracco and Nycomed groups of companies.

Their representations concerned a number of issues which are explained below.

Termination of Investigation with Respect to Negligible Exports

It was submitted by legal counsel representing the Nycomed group that the investigation should be terminated with respect to Nycomed Inc.’s negligible exports of subject goods during the period of investigation.

Counsel argued that Nycomed Inc. should not be considered to be an exporter in this investigation because it only shipped a very small quantity of subject goods to Canada during the period of investigation, and that Nycomed Inc. has no licence rights to make future exports of subject goods to Canada. Counsel further argued that because the goods exported by Nycomed Inc. were of insignificant volumes, they could not possibly be a cause or threat of injury to Canadian production.

In addressing this issue, the CCRA notes that while there are provisions in SIMA for terminating the investigation with respect to negligible volumes of dumped goods with respect to a country, there are no provisions for terminating the investigation with respect to negligible volumes exported by a company. The fact remains that the company did export subject contrast media to Canada which were dumped and there are reasonable indications that the dumping has caused injury to the Canadian industry.

Puerto Rico and the United States of America are Separate Countries of Export

Counsel for Nycomed Inc. submitted that the United States of America and Puerto Rico are separate countries of export for SIMA purposes and that the determination of normal values by reference to sales of like goods in the United States of America would not be appropriate for goods made in

Puerto Rico. In support of this position, it was argued that the United States of America and Puerto Rico are separate countries, separate markets, separate customs’ entities and that Puerto Rico is not constitutionally part of the United States of America.

In international trade matters, Canada considers Puerto Rico to be part of the United States of America. This is evident from the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in which the word ‘territory’ with respect to the United States includes Puerto Rico. In Article 1902 of the NAFTA, each Party reserved the right to apply its anti-dumping and countervailing duty law to goods imported from the territory of any other Party. In view of this provision, the treatment of goods from Puerto Rico in an anti-dumping investigation must be included as goods from the territory of the United States of America. The CCRA is, therefore, consistent with NAFTA in using the sales in the domestic market of the United States of America for the determination of normal values.

Company to be Considered as the Manufacturer for Constructing Normal Values

It was submitted by counsel for the Nycomed group that in the event that the manufacturer of the subject goods, Searle Ltd., did not provide any information, Nycomed Imaging AS should be considered the manufacturer for the purposes of determining the normal values of the goods using a constructed cost approach. Therefore, the cost data supplied by Nycomed Imaging AS in the manufacturing agreement with Searle Ltd. should be used.

In considering this matter, it is the CCRA’s position that Nycomed Imaging AS is not the manufacturer of the goods and that the cost of production and other manufacturing costs can only be provided by the manufacturer, Searle Ltd. in this case.

Adjustments for Market Differences

Legal counsel representing the Nycomed group submitted that the domestic selling prices of like goods in the United States of America should not be used as a basis for determining normal values, because they would not form a proper basis of comparison in determining whether the goods were dumped or not. In this regard, it was argued that the major difference affecting price comparability in this investigation is that in the United States of America, the sales of like goods are made on the open market, whereas there are price controls in Canada, administered by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board [PMPRB].

As a result, the CCRA examined the mandate of the PMPRB. The PMRPB is a quasi-judicial body established under the Patent Act to protect consumer interests by ensuring that the prices charged by manufacturers of patented medicines are not excessive. The PMPRB reviews the ex-factory prices that patentees charge their customers in Canada, in conjunction with pre-determined maximum non-excessive prices established by the PMPRB. These prices are not binding on the PMPRB or the patentee but are established as guidelines. It is understood that the maximum non-excessive prices for any period are determined on the basis of the weighted average selling prices in the preceding period, adjusted upwards by the rolling three-year average of the Consumer Price Index.

From the information available it has been determined that, in general, the suppliers compete with each other for business in Canada on price and other incentives. On the basis of confidential information provided by certain parties to the proceedings, the CCRA has concluded that the Canadian prices of subject contrast media were essentially determined by market forces and not influenced by the activities of the PMPRB.

In the future, none of the imports of the subject media from the United States of America will be subject to review by the PMPRB. The patent on Bracco’s Isovue (formerly owned by

Bristol-Myers Squibb) expired on January 9, 1996. The patents on Nycomed’s products, the Omnipaque and the Visipaque, expired on October 5, 1999.

Exporter Not Located In the Country of Export

It was submitted by legal counsel for the Nycomed group, that Nycomed Imaging AS, in Norway, is the exporter of the subject goods sold in Canada. In support of this position, counsel stated that the manufacturer, Searle Ltd. produced the goods under a tolling arrangement with Nycomed Imaging AS. It was also pointed out that the CCRA must look to the principals in the export transaction to determine which party is the true exporter. It was argued that tolling operations and manufacturing agents are not true exporters for SIMA purposes.

Representations were also received from legal counsel for the Bracco group who submitted that BDCI is the exporter of the subject goods. BDCI is the importer located in Canada and is the Canadian subsidiary of BDI.

In considering these representations, it is noted that that the term "exporter" is not specifically defined in SIMA. However, the term "country of export" is defined in the Act in part, as "…….the country from which the goods were shipped directly to Canada….". In essence, the legislation directs that when the goods have been traced back to a "place" where they started their direct journey to Canada, the country in which that "place" is located would be the country of export. By extension, the person located in that country who sent the goods on their direct journey to Canada, would normally be the exporter of the goods. As such, it is the CCRA’s position, that the exporter must be the person located in the country of export.

In this investigation, it is a fact that the goods start their direct journey to Canada from the United States of America, which is, therefore, the country of export. Since neither Nycomed Amersham AS nor BDCI is located in the United States of America, the CCRA finds no merit in these representations.

Injury

Before making a preliminary determination of dumping pursuant to subsection 38(1) of SIMA, the Commissioner of Customs and Revenue is required to conclude that there is evidence that discloses a reasonable indication that dumping of the subject goods has caused injury or is threatening to cause injury.

In its complaint, MCI provided details respecting the alleged injury caused by the dumping. This evidence related to injury arising from price erosion, lost sales, reduced margins and loss in market share.

Subsequent to the initiation of the investigation, MCI provided additional information which updated the evidence of injury. MCI presented evidence confirming the on-going presence of imports in the Canadian market at dumped pricing levels as shown in its complaint. The evidence indicated that MCI lost sales to dumped imports on contracts to supply the subject goods into the year 2001.

Based on a review of the injury factors in the case, the Commissioner has concluded that the evidence discloses a reasonable indication that dumping has caused injury to the Canadian industry.

Decision

Pursuant to subsection 38(1) of SIMA, the Commissioner of Customs and Revenue has, on this date, made a preliminary determination of dumping with respect to iodinated contrast media for radiographic imaging, in solutions of osmolality less than 900 mOsm/kg H₂O, originating in or exported from the United States of America (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico).

In making this decision, the Commissioner is satisfied that the subject goods have been dumped, that the margin of dumping is not insignificant and that the volume of dumped goods is not negligible. Furthermore, the Commissioner has determined that there is evidence which discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping has caused injury to the Canadian industry.

Future Action

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (Tribunal) will now hold an inquiry into the question of whether the dumping has caused or is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry. The Tribunal is required to issue its decision on the question of injury with respect to the subject goods no later than 120 days after the receipt of notice of the preliminary determination.

As part of the Tribunal’s inquiry, public hearings are held. If the Tribunal decides that the dumping has not caused injury or is not threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry, then all proceedings will be terminated. If a decision of injury is made, anti-dumping duties will be levied on importations of the subject goods.

The CCRA

While the Tribunal's inquiry is in progress, the CCRA will continue its investigation in order to obtain further information relating to the dumping of the subject goods. Within 90 days of the preliminary determination, a final determination will be made, specifying the margin of dumping on the basis of all information available at that time.

If the margin of dumping is insignificant or the actual or potential volume of dumped goods is negligible, proceedings will be terminated in whole or in part, and any provisional duty paid or security posted will be returned to the importers, as appropriate.

Provisional Duty to Be Imposed

Pursuant to subsection 8(1) of SIMA, the Commissioner considers that the imposition of provisional duty is necessary to prevent injury, in view of the expectation of continuing imports at injurious price levels during the provisional period. Therefore, subject goods released from customs during the period commencing on this day and ending on the earlier of the day the investigation is terminated, the day on which the Tribunal makes an order or finding or the day an undertaking is accepted, are subject to provisional duty.

The importer of the goods subject to provisional duty must pay the duty in cash or by certified cheque or post security equal to the duty payable. Payment of such duty is hereby demanded. The duty to be collected during the provisional period is based on the margins of dumping as previously indicated and is payable on subject goods imported into Canada on or after the date of the preliminary determination.

Retroactive Duty on Massive Importations

Under certain circumstances, anti-dumping duty can be imposed retroactively on subject goods imported into Canada.

When the Tribunal conducts its inquiry on material injury to the Canadian industry, it may consider if dumped goods which were imported close to or after the initiation of the investigation constitute massive importations over a relatively short period of time and have caused injury to the Canadian industry. Should the Tribunal issue a finding that there were recent massive importations of dumped goods which caused injury, importations of subject goods released by Customs during the period of 90 days preceding the day of the preliminary determination could be subject to anti-dumping duty.

Undertakings

The legislation provides that after a preliminary determination of dumping, exporters may submit written undertakings to revise their selling prices to Canada so that the margin of dumping or the injury caused by the dumping is eliminated. Acceptable undertakings must account for all or substantially all of the exports to Canada of the dumped goods. If undertakings are accepted, the required payment of provisional duties on the goods would be suspended.

However, notwithstanding the acceptance of undertakings, the exporters may request that the investigation be completed by the CCRA and that the injury inquiry be completed by the Tribunal.

In accordance with section 57 of the regulations, undertakings should be offered no later than 60 days after this preliminary determination. However, it is preferable that written undertaking proposals be received by the CCRA as early as possible to allow sufficient time for analysis.

Publication

Notice of this preliminary determination is being published in the Canada Gazette pursuant to paragraph 38(3)(a) of SIMA.

Information

This Statement of Reasons has been provided to persons directly interested in these proceedings. A free copy may be obtained upon request. For further information, please write to either Richard Chung or Ronald Medas at the following address:

The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
Anti-dumping and Countervailing Directorate
191 Laurier Avenue West, 19^th Floor,
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L5
Canada

Internet address: www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/menu-eng.html

These officers can also be reached by fax at (613) 954-2510 or at:

Officer	Telephone Number
Richard Chung	(613) 954-7253
Ronald Medas	(613) 954-1664

 

R.A. Séguin
A/Director General
Anti-dumping and Countervailing Directorate

APPENDIX 1

EXPORTERS

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
Route 206 & Provinceline Road
Princeton, NJ
U.S.A. 08540

Mallinckrodt, Inc.
675 McDonnell Blvd.
P.O. Box 5840
St-Louis , MO
U.S.A. 63134

Nycomed Inc.
101 Carnegie Centre
Princeton, NJ
U.S.A. 08540

Searle Ltd.
Route 140 km 64.4
P.O. Box 11247
Barceloneta
Puerto Rico
U.S.A. 00617

APPENDIX 2

IMPORTERS

Bracco Diagnostics Canada Inc.
2600 Skymark Avenue #103, Unit 11
Mississauga, Ontario
L4W 5B2

Malinckrodt Canada, Inc.
7500 Trans-Canada Highway
Pointe Claire, Quebec
H9R 5H8

Nycomed Amersham Canada Ltd.
1166 South Service Road West
Oakville, Ontario
L6L 5T7

Picker International Canada Inc.
7956 Torbram Road, Suite 21
Brampton, Ontario
L6T 5A2

APPENDIX 3

INTERESTED PARTIES

Bracco Diagnostics Inc.
P.O. Box 5225
Princeton, NJ
U.S.A 08543-5225

Nycomed Imaging AS.
C/O Nycomed Inc.
101 Carnegie Centre
Princeton, NJ
U.S.A. 08540

Livingston Inc.
1453 Cornwall Road
Oakville, Ontario
L6J 7T5

APPENDIX 4

ESTIMATED MARGINS OF DUMPING, BY EXPORTER ,
OF CERTAIN X-RAY IODINATED CONTRAST MEDIA FROM
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(INCLUDING THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO)
(July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999)

Exporter	Quantity of Goods Dumped	Margin of Dumping
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.	100%	82%
Mallinckrodt Inc.	100%	82%
Nycomed Inc.	100%	82%
Searle Ltd.	100%	82%

Note

The margin of dumping is estimated to be the highest margin of dumping found during the period of investigation, based on information provided by Nycomed Inc., a vendor of like goods in the United States of America and its Canadian affiliate, Nycomed Amersham Canada Ltd.