Common menu bar links
Anti-dumping and Countervailing Program
Stainless Steel Wire
OTTAWA, December 5, 2003
4258-123
4218-14
AD/1292
CVD/90
STATEMENT OF REASONS
Concerning the initiation on November 21, 2003, of an investigation pursuant to subsection 31(1) of the Special Import Measures Act regarding the dumping of
CERTAIN STAINLESS STEEL WIRE ORIGINATING IN OR EXPORTED FROM CHINESE TAIPEI, THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA, INDIA, SWITZERLAND AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
and the subsidizing of
CERTAIN STAINLESS STEEL WIRE ORIGINATING IN OR EXPORTED FROM INDIA
DECISION
Pursuant to subsection 31(1) of the Special Import Measures Act, the Commissioner of Customs and Revenue initiated an investigation on November 21, 2003, with respect to the alleged injurious dumping of certain stainless steel wire originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, the Republic of Korea, India, Switzerland, and the United States of America and the subsidizing of certain stainless steel wire originating in or exported from India.
Cet énoncé des motifs est également disponible en français.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADDITIONAL PRODUCT INFORMATION
- Increased volume of dumped and/or subsidized imports
- Price erosion and price suppression
- Loss of market share
- Lost Sales
- Deterioration of Financial Performance
- Capacity Underutilization
- Loss of Employment
RETROACTIVE DUTY ON MASSIVE IMPORTATIONS
STATEMENT OF REASONS
SUMMARY
[1] A complaint has been filed by Central Wire Industries Ltd. (Central Wire) of Perth, Ontario, alleging the injurious dumping into Canada of certain stainless steel wire originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, the Republic of Korea, India, Switzerland, and the United States of America and the subsidizing of certain stainless steel wire originating in or exported from India.
[2] The complainant supplied evidence that these products have been dumped and/or subsidized. Furthermore, the evidence discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping and/or subsidizing has caused injury or is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry producing these goods.
[3] As a result, the Commissioner of Customs and Revenue (Commissioner) on November 21, 2003, initiated an investigation pursuant to subsection 31(1) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA).
INTERESTED PARTIES
Complainant
[4] The complainant, Central Wire, is the sole producer of cold-drawn and annealed stainless steel wire in Canada. The company produces these goods at its plants in Perth, and Erin, Ontario. The head office is located at 1 North Street, in Perth, Ontario.
Exporters
[5] The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) has identified 97 possible exporters of subject goods from its review of the complaint and of Customs import documentation.
Importers
[6] The CCRA has identified, from Customs import documentation and the complaint itself, 107 possible importers of the subject goods.
BACKGROUND
[7] Following a number of meetings and consultations with the CCRA over several months, Central Wire submitted a formal dumping and subsidizing complaint on October 2, 2003. On October 22, 2003, the CCRA informed Central Wire that its complaint was properly documented and that a decision whether to initiate an investigation would be made by November 21, 2003. At the same time, the CCRA notified the governments of Chinese Taipei, the Republic of Korea (Korea), India, Switzerland, and the United States of America (United States) that a properly documented complaint had been received.
In the case of India, CCRA provided the government with a copy of the non-confidential version of the subsidy portion of the complaint.
PRODUCT DEFINITION
[8] For the purpose of this investigation, the subject goods are defined as:
Cold drawn and annealed stainless steel round wire, up to and including 0.300 inches (7.62mm), in maximum solid cross-sectional dimension.
ADDITIONAL PRODUCT INFORMATION
[9] Stainless steel is defined as alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements.
[10] Stainless steel wire can be produced in a variety of sizes across a wide range of product grades. The production process is essentially the cold drawing of stainless steel wire rod of appropriate alloy composition through one or more dies. As the wire is drawn to smaller diameters, annealing operations are performed to process it to its finished size and specification. The wire may be treated to provide special surface conditions or appearance, including matte and diamond. In addition, coatings may be applied to serve as lubricants in subsequent processing or manufacturing operations.
[11] Stainless steel wire is packaged according to client specifications and product type. The wire can be shipped on spools, reels, coils, or in barrels. TIG wire, a welding wire, is cut to length and shipped in tubes or in bulk (boxes).
[12] Subject stainless steel wire is commonly produced in sizes of .003 inches (0.08 mm) to .300 inches (7.62 mm). Grades are defined by their chemistries, and generally all grades of stainless steel wire are, or can be, produced in Canada. The predominant grades of stainless steel wire sold in Canada are AISI 304, 304L, 314, 316, 316L, 330, 308, 308L, 308LSi, 309LSi, 316LSi, 302, 302HQ and 430.
[13] Much of the stainless steel wire consumed in Canada is sold for further manufacture and is used in a number of applications. Some common uses are in the fastener and battery industries for the manufacture of cold-headed pins, nails, rivets and battery anodes. Stainless steel wire is also used for the production of racks, grills, hooks, rings and similar formed parts, and continuous wire conveyor belts.
[14] However, stainless steel wire can also be sold in the form of finished products such as welding wire and lashing wire. Welding wire is used to bond parts used in manufacturing equipment and products made from stainless steel plates or tubes. Lashing wire, due to its strength and corrosion resistance, is used throughout the telephone and cable industries to support signal-carrying cables.
CLASSIFICATION OF IMPORTS
[15] The subject stainless steel wire are generally classified under the following Harmonized System classification numbers:
7223.00.11.00 7223.00.19.00 7223.00.20.00
LIKE GOODS
[16] Like goods, in relation to any other goods, are goods that are identical in all respects to the other goods, or in the absence of identical goods, goods for which the uses and other characteristics closely resemble those of the other goods.
[17] Stainless steel wire produced by Central Wire is in direct competition with, has the same uses as, and may be used as substitute products for stainless steel wire made in the named countries. For the like goods and for the allegedly dumped and/or subsidized goods, the CCRA is of the opinion that there are no separate classes of goods based on variances in their ultimate use, their material characteristics, or other factors.
[18] The CCRA has concluded that stainless steel wire produced by the Canadian industry constitutes like goods to the subject goods.
CANADIAN INDUSTRY
[19] As noted above, Central Wire is the sole producer of subject stainless steel wire. The CCRA contacted two other potential producers of like goods in Canada, and confirmed that these companies, which do not have wire-annealing capability, would not be considered part of the Canadian industry. As a result, the complainant, as sole producer of the like goods, meets the standing requirements of subsection 31(2) of SIMA.
[20] Central Wire was founded in 1955 as a specialty wire manufacturer. The company subsequently underwent several changes in ownership, as well as expansion into the United States, where it acquired a plant in Dumas, Arkansas, in 1989 and another in Lancaster, South Carolina in 1998. Approximately 20 years ago, there were over five stainless wire producers in Canada, although by the early 1990s only Central Wire Industries Ltd. and the Greening Donald Corporation remained in operation. January 2003 marked the emergence of a single stainless steel wire producer in Canada when Central Wire purchased the Greening Donald wire plant in Erin, Ontario.
CANADIAN MARKET
[21] Domestically produced stainless steel wire is normally sold either directly to end-users or through Canadian distributors. Stainless steel wire originating from outside Canada is generally imported through a broker or a commissioned agent retained by the exporter, who then sells the goods to distributors or end users.
[22] Central Wire provided an estimate of the size of the Canadian stainless steel wire market for the time period covering the years 2000 to 2002, including the first quarter of 2003. This estimate of the apparent Canadian market was based on the complainant's actual domestic production volumes, as well as on import data obtained from Industry Canada's Strategis website1, which is derived from Statistics Canada information. Central Wire expressed concern that the figures from Strategis did not appear to conform to its own market intelligence.
[23] The CCRA compared the complainant's estimates with actual import data obtained from the CCRAs internal information system and from customs entry documentation. It was found that a considerable volume of imports had been misclassified at the time of their entry into Canada; therefore, the Statistics Canada data did not accurately reflect the volume and value of subject imports. As further described in the "Evidence of Injury" section of this document, significant adjustments to the complainant's market estimates were required.
[24] The value of Canadian production of subject goods is typically about $20 million per year. The CCRA is unable to release detailed market figures for the stainless steel wire industry in Canada as this would result in the release of confidential information provided by the complainant.
EVIDENCE OF DUMPING
[25] The complainant alleges that certain stainless steel wire from Chinese Taipei, Korea, India, Switzerland and the United States is being injuriously dumped into Canada. Dumping occurs when the normal value of the goods exceeds the export price of the goods sold to importers in Canada. Normal values are generally based on the selling price of the goods in the country of export, where competitive market conditions exist, or on the full cost of the goods plus a reasonable amount for profits. The export price of goods sold to importers in Canada is generally the exporter's ex-factory selling price to the importer in Canada.
[26] Estimates of normal value and export price for the named countries are discussed below.
[27] The complainant estimated normal values for imports from the United States using both domestic selling prices and estimated full costs of production in the United States. Domestic selling prices in the United States were estimated using a 2003 price list for stainless steel wire, as provided by Central Wire's own subsidiary in Lancaster, South Carolina, which sells subject goods in the United States domestic market at competitive prices. Full costs of production in the United States were estimated on the basis of actual costs incurred by Central Wire's subsidiary when manufacturing subject goods in the United States.
[28] The complainant was unable to obtain domestic price information for sales of like goods in Chinese Taipei, India, Korea and Switzerland. Therefore, to estimate normal values, the complainant estimated the full costs of production for stainless steel wire in these countries. In constructing these estimates, Central Wire used its own costs for purchasing stainless steel wire rod, since the price of this major input is dictated by world markets. The complainant also referred to its own expenses in determining costs for labour, overhead, selling, and administrative expenses in the subject countries, but made significant adjustments to these based on information obtained from several publicly accessible websites2. No amount for profit was included in the calculations. The CCRA considers this conservative approach for estimating normal values to be reasonable for purposes of the complaint.
[29] To estimate margins of dumping, the CCRA used the complainant's estimates respecting domestic selling prices in the United States, and full costs of production in the other subject countries. The complainant's normal value estimates were deemed acceptable.
[30] Export price is generally the lesser of the importer's purchase price or the exporter's selling price to Canada less all costs, charges, and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.
[31] The complainant estimated export price using the actual prices that have been offered in Canada for subject goods from each of the named countries. From these prices, the complainant then deducted estimates for export charges, ocean freight and inland freight. Central Wire contends that although distributor markups of 5 % are common in the industry, the complainant has not deducted a distributor markup in any of its export price estimates.
[32] The CCRA relied on actual import data from its internal information system and on customs entry documentation to estimate export prices. The estimated export prices were based on the prices declared on the import documents, in accordance with the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, less amounts for export charges where these charges were identified.
[33] Margins of dumping were estimated by the CCRA by comparing the estimated normal values with the export prices from customs entry documentation. All entries of the subject goods originating in and exported from Chinese Taipei, Korea, India and Switzerland during the period of September 1, 2002 to August 31, 2003, were reviewed. Due to the large number of shipments from the United States, a representative selection of import entries (based on identified importers, exporters and quantities) was reviewed during the same time period.
[34] Based on this analysis, 76% of the subject goods reviewed appear to have been dumped. The estimated margins of dumping ranged from 1% to 524%, when expressed as a percentage of the export price. The overall weighted average margin of dumping was 27% when expressed as a percentage of the export price. The estimated margins of dumping for each named country are listed in Appendix 1.
[35] Before making a preliminary determination of dumping, the Commissioner must be satisfied that the actual and potential volumes of dumped goods from each country are not negligible. Subsection 2(1) of SIMA defines negligible as being less than 3%, of the total imports of goods of the same description as the subject goods.
[36] On the basis of the estimated margins of dumping and the actual import data for all countries for the 12-month period of September 1, 2002 to August 31, 2003, the volume of dumped goods from each of the named countries, as indicated in Appendix 1, has been estimated to be greater than the negligibility threshold of 3%.
EVIDENCE OF SUBSIDIZING
[37] In assessing whether a program results in a subsidy under SIMA, the CCRA considers whether:
- there exists a financial contribution by a government of a country other than Canada; and
- there is a benefit conferred to persons engaged in the production, manufacture, growth, processing, purchase, distribution, transportation, sale, export or import of goods.
[38] If a subsidy is found to exist, it may be subject to countervailing duties if it is specific. A subsidy is considered specific when it is limited to a particular enterprise or is a prohibited subsidy. A prohibited subsidy includes an export subsidy, which is contingent on export performance.
[39] Central Wire has alleged that the subject goods from India are eligible for government programs that may constitute subsidies which are subject to countervailing duties under SIMA.
[40] In support of its allegations, Central Wire provided a copy of the Indian Ministry of Commerce's Export and Import Policy, which describes a number of programs alleged to constitute subsidies that are contingent on export performance. In addition, the complainant referred to CCRA's final determination issued on September 27, 2000 with respect to the subsidizing of stainless steel round bars from India, and to a copy of the (Indian) State of Maharashtra's "Package Scheme of Incentives," which outlines several other programs, which may constitute subsidies subject to countervailing duties.
[41] The CCRA examined the material provided in the complaint, together with a comprehensive paper on Indian subsidies titled " Export Incentives in India within WTO framework" prepared by the Indian Council for Research on International economic Relations, as well as other public information on Indian subsidies found on the Internet3 including United States Department of Commerce previous countervailing decisions involving Indian subsidies.4 In particular, the CCRA reviewed its decisions on other past investigations and reinvestigations5 involving Indian subsidy programs. An examination of all of the above information suggests that at least the following governmental programs, from the Government of India and the Government of the State of Maharashtra (GSM), constitute programs that may be subject to countervailing duties.
Government of India (GOI) Programs
- The Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPB)
- Advance Licences
- Special Import Licenses
- Export-Oriented Units
- Special Economic Zones
- The Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme
- Pre-Shipment And Post Shipment Export Financial Assistance
- Loan Guarantees From The Government Of India and
- Tax Exemptions For Export Profits
Government of The State of Maharashtra (GSM) Programs
- Waiver of Stamp Duty and Registration Fees
- Octroi (Municipal Tariff) Refund
- Incentives to Small-Scale Industries
- Exemption from Electricity Duty
- Financing of Capital Incentives and Refunds
- Sales Tax Incentives
[42] The CCRA is of the opinion that there is reasonable evidence that these programs, which are available to steel producers or exporters in India, are subsidies. The CCRA will study these and other programs to determine whether they confer benefits to the producers of the subject goods.
[43] The amount of subsidy conferred on Indian producers of subject goods was estimated by comparing the weighted average export price of the subject goods with their full cost of production. The latter was calculated by the CCRA using the estimated full costs, as provided by the complainant. The average full cost was found to be 28% higher than export price, a result that supports the complainant's allegations that Indian producers benefit from government subsidies.
EVIDENCE OF INJURY
[44] The complainant has alleged that subject goods from Chinese Taipei, Korea, India, Switzerland and the United States have been dumped and/or subsidized into Canada and that the dumping and/or subsidizing has caused or is threatening to cause injury to the industry in Canada. In support of its allegations, the complainant provided evidence of increased volume of dumped and/or subsidized imports, price erosion and price suppression, loss of market share, lost sales, deterioration of financial performance, capacity underutilization, and loss of employment.
Increased volume of dumped and/or subsidized imports
[45] The complainant alleges injury caused by increased volumes of dumped and/or subsidized imports. Data generated by the CCRA, including an analysis of customs entries, support the complainant's claim that the imports of stainless steel wire from subject countries have been increasing over the last three years. In fact, CCRA's information has disclosed larger increases than those indicated in the complaint with respect to import volumes from all subject countries except the United States.
[46] In the case of the United States, the CCRA's analysis of customs entries revealed that a disproportionately large percentage (40%) of the goods that were identified as subject stainless steel wire in Strategis were actually non-subject goods. As a result, the information available respecting import trends from the United States is not definitive at this stage and conclusions cannot be drawn with certainty.
Price erosion and price suppression
[47] Central Wire contends that due to the increasing presence of allegedly dumped and/or subsidized imports in Canada, the company has not only been unable to increase prices to keep up with rising costs since the year 2000. The imports have forced Central Wire to decrease prices during this time.
[48] The complainant provided evidence that shows the average price for wire sold by Canadian producers dropped between 2000 and the first quarter of 2003. The complainant alleges that it has taken place during a period of significant cost increases. Since 2000, the complainant provided evidence of pressure from customers to reduce prices following quotations from importers that did not reflect either changes in stainless steel wire rod pricing or other factors such as increased energy costs. As a result, the complainant has allegedly been able to maintain business only by reducing its prices to levels that produce unacceptably low margins.
[49] The complainant has also described the effect the allegedly dumped and/or subsidized imports have had on the alloy surcharge mechanism in the industry6. Generally, stainless steel wire sold by the complainant is quoted on a pound basis with any alloy surcharges quoted separately. However, the complainant contends that exporters from Chinese Taipei, Korea and India now quote a fixed price regardless of any alloy surcharge. This translates into a greater degree of price suppression since the complainant is unable to adjust its prices to account for the worldwide price fluctuations in the alloy inputs.
[50] The evidence provided by Central Wire indicates a strong downward pressure on the pricing of stainless steel wire in the Canadian industry due to the availability of low-priced imports from the named countries. The evidence is tied to specific instances of price erosion, which have occurred since 2000. The evidence indicates that the price erosion was caused by low-priced stainless steel wire from the named countries.
[51] Central Wire contends that under pressure to lower prices in Canada as a result of the imports, the company turned to the market in the United States where it could command higher prices with the hope of maintaining a profit margin. As a result, the domestic industry lost 7.9% of its market share from 2000 to 2003.
[52] The complainant submitted numerous "Import Activity Reports" (internal statement filed by the Central Wire salespeople regarding market and selling conditions), which provide examples of sales lost to imports from all subject countries. Central Wire contends that it has attempted to maintain commercial viability by relinquishing Canadian sales in favor of more profitable sales in the United States. The complainant notes that even though producers in the United States have also been adversely affected by imports7, prices still remain higher in the United States than in the Canadian domestic market.
Deterioration of Financial Performance
[53] The complainant provided the financial statements of Central Wire Industries Ltd. as well as financial data from the former Greening Donald Co. These documents show that for Central Wire, sales decreased during the period of 2000 to 2002, resulting in a decrease in their operating income from a profit to a loss. The complainant contends that Greening Donald struggled to maintain its sales volume by lowering prices and saw its operating income decline to a loss during the same period.
[54] Central Wire maintains that its production capacity has suffered underutilization due to the dumping and/or subsidizing of the subject goods from the named countries. The complainant stated in the years prior to 2000 the plants operated at or close to full capacity.
[55] The company contends that over the past two years it has struggled to maintain employment, but has nonetheless been forced to decrease staff.
CONCLUSION
[56] Based on information provided by the complainant, obtained from other available sources, or derived from the CCRA's data respecting imports, there is evidence that certain stainless steel wire, originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, Korea, India, Switzerland and the United States has been dumped. The CCRA is also satisfied that there is evidence that the same product originating in or exported from India has been subsidized. In addition, there is a reasonable indication that such dumping and/or subsidizing has caused or is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry.
SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION
[57] The CCRA will conduct an investigation to determine whether the subject goods have been dumped and/or subsidized.
[58] Information relating to the subject goods sold to or imported into Canada during the period of October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003, the selected period of investigation, will be requested from exporters, and importers. The Government of India will be asked to provide information to determine whether or not the stainless steel wire industry in India has benefited from countervailable subsidies. Exporters from India will also be requested to provide information concerning the benefits, if any, conferred by any subsidy program. Sales and costing information will also be requested from exporters to determine margins of dumping.
[59] All parties will be clearly advised of the CCRA's information requirements and the time frames for providing their responses.
FUTURE ACTION
[60] At the same time as the CCRA conducts its investigation, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (Tribunal) will conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine if there is evidence that discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping and/or subsidizing has caused or is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry. The Tribunal must make its decision within 60 days after the date of initiation of the investigation. If the Tribunal concludes that the evidence does not disclose a reasonable indication of injury to the Canadian industry, the investigation will be terminated.
[61] If the CCRA's investigation reveals that imports of the subject goods have not been dumped or subsidized, that the amount of dumping or subsidizing is insignificant, or that the actual or potential volume of the dumped or subsidized goods is negligible, the investigation will be terminated.
[62] If the CCRA's investigation reveals that the goods have been dumped and/or subsidized and the Tribunal finds that there is a reasonable indication that the dumping and/or subsidizing has caused injury or is threatening to cause injury, the Commissioner will make a preliminary determination of dumping and/or subsidizing within 90 days from the date of the initiation of the investigation. Where circumstances warrant, this period may be extended to 135 days.
[63] Imports of subject goods released from Customs' possession on and after the date of a preliminary determination may be subject to provisional duty equal to the estimated margin of dumping, plus in the case of India, the estimated amount of subsidy. In the case of India, the estimated margin of dumping will be reduced by the portion of dumping that would be attributable to an export subsidy.
[64] Should the CCRA make a preliminary determination, the investigation will be continued for the purpose of making a final decision on the question of dumping and/or subsidizing within 90 days of the date of the preliminary determination. However, it should be noted that the investigation or a portion thereof will be terminated at the time if it is found that the goods have not been dumped or subsidized or that the margin of dumping or the amount of subsidy on the goods is insignificant. If a final determination is made, the Tribunal will continue its inquiry and hold public hearings into the question of material injury to the Canadian industry.
[65] Subsequent to the CCRA making a final determination of dumping and/or subsidizing, but no later than 120 days after the notice of a preliminary determination, the Tribunal is required to make an order or finding with respect to the goods to which the final determination applies.
[66] Imports of subject goods released from Customs' possession after the dates of an injury finding by the Tribunal will be subject to anti-dumping duty equal to the applicable margin of dumping and, in the case of India, a countervailing duty in an amount equal to the amount of the actionable subsidy conferred on the imported goods. Should both anti-dumping and countervailing duty be applied to subject goods, the amount of any anti-dumping duty will be reduced by the margin of dumping attributable to any export subsidy.
RETROACTIVE DUTY ON MASSIVE IMPORTATIONS
[67] Under certain circumstances, anti-dumping and countervailing duties can be imposed retroactively on subject goods imported into Canada in the period starting on the day the investigation was initiated and ending on the day prior to the preliminary determination of dumping and/or subsidizing.
[68] When the Tribunal conducts an inquiry on material injury to the Canadian industry, it may consider if subject goods that 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.
[69] Should the Tribunal issue a finding that there were recent massive importations of dumped and/or subsidized goods that caused injury, importations of subject goods released by the CCRA on or after the initiation of this investigation could be subject to an anti-dumping and countervailing duties.
UNDERTAKINGS
[70] 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.
[71] Similarly, after a preliminary determination of subsidizing, foreign governments may submit written undertakings to eliminate the subsidy on the goods exported or to eliminate the injurious effect of the subsidy by limiting the amount of the subsidy or the quantity of goods exported to Canada. Alternatively, exporters with the written consent of their government may undertake to revise their selling prices so that the injurious effect of the subsidy is eliminated.
[72] Interested parties may provide comments regarding the acceptability of undertakings within nine days of the receipt of undertakings by the CCRA. The CCRA will maintain a list of parties who wish to be notified should undertaking proposals be received. Those who are interested in being notified should provide their name, telephone and fax numbers, mailing address and e-mail address, if available, to one of the officers identified in the "Information" section.
[73] If undertakings were accepted, the required payment of provisional duties on the goods would be suspended. However, notwithstanding the acceptance of undertakings, exporters may request that the investigation be completed and that the Tribunal complete its injury inquiry.
PUBLICATION
[74] Notice of the initiation of this investigation is being published in the Canada Gazette pursuant to subparagraph 34(1)(a)(ii) of SIMA.
INFORMATION
[75] Interested persons are invited to file written submissions presenting facts, arguments and evidence that they feel are relevant to the alleged dumping and/subsidizing. Written submissions should be forwarded to the Central Registry, 10th Floor, Sir Richard Scott Building, to the attention of one of the officers identified below. To be given consideration in this phase of the investigation, the written submissions should be received by the CCRA by December 29, 2003.
[76] Any information submitted to the CCRA concerning this investigation is deemed to be public information unless clearly marked confidential. Written submissions marked confidential must be accompanied by a non-confidential version. This non-confidential version will be made available to other parties upon request.
[77] Confidential information submitted to the CCRA will be disclosed on written request to independent counsel for parties to these proceedings, subject to conditions to protect the confidentiality of the information. Confidential information may also be released to the Tribunal, any court in Canada or a World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Panel. If you require additional information respecting the Directorate's policy on the disclosure of information under the SIMA, please contact one of the officers identified below or visit the Directorate's Web site.
[78] This Statement of Reasons has been provided to persons directly interested in these proceedings. It is also posted at the Directorate's Internet Web site at the address below. For further information, please contact Vera Hutzuliak, Libby Campbell, Edith Trottier-Lawson or Beth MacDonald as follows:
Mail
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
Anti-dumping and Countervailing Directorate
Central Registry, 10th Floor, Sir Richard Scott Building
191 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1A 0L5
Telephone
Vera Hutzuliak: (613) 954-0689
Libby Campbell: (613) 954-7380
Edith Trottier-Lawson: (613) 954-7182
Beth MacDonald: (613) 948-7809
Fax
(613) 948-4844
E-mail
Vera.Hutzuliak@ccra-adrc.gc.ca
ElizabethB.Campbell@ccra-adrc.gc.ca
Edith.Trottier-Lawson@ccra-adrc.gc.ca
Beth.MacDonald@ccra-adrc.gc.ca
Web site
http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/menu-eng.html
Suzanne Parent
Director General
Anti-dumping and Countervailing Directorate
APPENDIX 1
ESTIMATED MARGINS OF DUMPING
STAINLESS STEEL WIRE
|
Country |
Estimated Dumped Goods as % of Country Total |
Estimated Dumped Goods as % of Total Imports |
Estimated Margin of Dumping % Export Price |
|
Chinese Taipei India Korea Switzerland United States |
98% 84% 81% 96% 55% |
16% 26% 8% 6% 21% |
138% 28% 34% 12% 9% |
2 Dean P.K. De, " Managing Technological Change: The Case of Iron and Steel Manufacturing In India",
(October 25,2001) , on line <http://www.ibis.sfu.ca/~iamot/paperarchive/132B.pdf>; U.S. International Trade Administration, "Calculation of 2000 Wages Per Hour in US Dollars", on line < http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/00wages/00wages.htm>; and U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics , " Unit Labor Costs in Manufacturing, U.S. dollar Basis, 14 countries or areas, 1950-2001" , on line < http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/prod4.t10.htm>.
3 Rajeev Ahuja, " Export subsidy schemes need to wake up to WTO reality", The Financial Express, (August 03, 2001), on line The Financial Express: Analysis < http://www.financialexpress.com/fe20010803/an1.html>; Rajeev Ahuja, "Consistently Inconsistent Govt" , The Financial Express, (April 5, 2002), on line The Financial Express < http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=6008>; Delhi Exporters Association, " Tax hike will deal a big blow to exports", The Economic Times,( October 16,2003), on line The Economic Times < http:// economictimes.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?xml=0&artid=389>.
4 US Department of Commerce-Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from India ( May 16,2002); Notice of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from India,( July 8, 2003).
5 CCRA investigations and reinvestigations involving Black Granite Memorials, Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Plate, Corrosion Resistant Steel Sheet and Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Sheet.
6 Techalloy Company Inc., Metal Surcharges, on line < http://www.techalloy.com>.
7 Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg,P.A., News Release , " US Announces Section 201 Steel Decision", on line < http://www.strtrade.com/advisory/customs/steel 201 decision htm>.
