Conclusion of administrative review: Piling Pipe (PP 2025 UP1)

Background

At the final determination of the original investigation,^{Footnote 1} the CBSA was of the opinion that the domestic prices of piling pipe in China were being substantially determined by the Government of China (GOC) and the steel pipe sector in China, which includes steel piling pipe, was operating under conditions where the prices were not substantially the same as they would be if they were determined in a competitive market. The conditions of section 20 of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) were found to exist, but sufficient information had not been furnished or was not available to determine normal values as provided for in section 20 of SIMA. Therefore, the normal values for the exporters that provided a complete and reliable submission were determined using an alternate methodology under a dumping ministerial specification, pursuant to subsection 29(1) of SIMA.

The normal values determined were based on the average price of hot-rolled steel for all regions, excluding China, for the 60-day period immediately preceding the date of sale to Canada as reported on Steelbenchmarker, plus added to these hot-rolled steel prices were amounts for the i) conversion costs of the hot-rolled steel into a finished piling pipe product and ii) profit (hereinafter referred to as the Steelbenchmarker methodology).

Period of investigation

For this review, the period of investigation (POI) and the profitability analysis period were from January 1, 2023 to June 30, 2023. For subsidizing, the POI was from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023.

Administrative review process

At the initiation of the review, on January 28, 2025, the CBSA sent requests for information (RFI) to Auriga, the GOC and an importer in order to solicit information on the costs, selling prices of subject goods and like goods, and subsidy programs. The information was requested for purposes of determining normal values, export prices, and an amount of subsidy applicable to subject goods exported to Canada.

On March 6, 2025, Auriga provided responses to the dumping RFI^{Footnote 2} and subsidy RFI.^{Footnote 3} The CBSA sent dumping supplemental requests for information (dumping SRFI) to Auriga to gather additional information and seek clarification.^{Footnote 4} HCLXI Company Limited (HCLXI), the manufacturer, also provided responses to the dumping RFI^{Footnote 5} and subsidy RFI.^{Footnote 6} The CBSA also sent dumping SRFI to HCLXI to gather additional information and seek clarification.^{Footnote 7} The responses to the dumping RFI and dumping SRFI from both Auriga and HCLXI were considered substantially complete for purposes of the review.

The GOC did not provide a response to the government subsidy RFI. On April 10, 2025, the CBSA sent a subsidy deficiency letter to Auriga^{Footnote 8} and HCLXI,^{Footnote 9} notifying the parties that a complete response from the GOC had not been received and underlined that “In cases where either the GOC or exporter in China fail to provide by the deadline complete and accurate submissions enabling the determination of a specific amount of subsidy, countervailing duties may be assessed at the rate of 641.35 Renminbi per metric tonne for subject goods from China in accordance with a ministerial specification pursuant to the Special Import Measures Act.” On April 17, 2025 and April 30, 2025, respectively, representations on the subsidy deficiency letters were submitted by the parties, details are found in Appendix 1.

On May 15, 2025, the administrative record (record) for the review was closed. The CBSA did not receive any case arguments or reply submissions from interested parties with respect to the review.

Normal values, export prices and amounts of subsidy

Auriga is an exporter located in China.

Normal values

Specific normal values for the subject goods have been determined for Auriga in accordance with the dumping ministerial specification pursuant to subsection 29(1) of SIMA. The normal values are based on the Steelbenchmarker methodology.

Export prices

The export prices of subject goods sold to Canada during the POI were determined pursuant to section 24 of SIMA, based on Auriga’s selling price less all costs, charges, and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

Amount of subsidy

As the GOC did not respond to the government subsidy RFI, an amount of subsidy has been determined for Auriga in accordance with the subsidy ministerial specification pursuant to subsection 30.4(2) of SIMA.^{Footnote 10} The amount of subsidy is equal to a countervailing duty of 641.35 Chinese Renminbi per metric tonne.

These normal values and amount of subsidy are effective today, June 17, 2025.

The normal values and amount of subsidy determined as a result of this review may be applied to any requests for re-determination of importations of subject goods that have not been processed prior to the conclusion of the review, regardless of the date that the requests were received.

Importer responsibility

Importers are reminded that it is their responsibility to declare their anti-dumping and countervailing duties liabilities. If importers are using the services of a customs broker to clear importations, the brokerage firm should be advised that the goods are subject to SIMA measures and be provided with sufficient information necessary to clear the shipments. To determine their anti-dumping and countervailing liabilities, importers should contact the exporter(s) to obtain the applicable normal values and amount of subsidy. For further information on this matter, refer to Memorandum D14-1-2: Disclosure of Normal Values, Export Prices, and Amounts of Subsidy Established under the Special Import Measures Act.

The Customs Act applies, with any modifications that the circumstances require, with respect to the accounting and payment of anti-dumping and countervailing duties. As such, failure to pay the SIMA duties within the prescribed time will result in the application of the interest provisions of the Act.

Contact us

Email: simaregistry-depotlmsi@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca

Appendix 1: Representations

Representations were received from counsel on behalf of Auriga (Shanghai) Enterprise Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Auriga”) and HCLXI Company Limited (HCLXI), and the importer during the course of the administrative review (review).^{Footnote 11}

The non-confidential material issues raised by the parties are summarized as follows and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) has provided a response below.

Representations by counsel

Counsel for Auriga and HCLXI submitted that the responses to the subsidy request for information (RFI) were received by the deadline and contained complete and accurate information about any subsidies received by either company. It concluded that this information should be sufficient for the CBSA to be able to calculate the amount of the subsidy, if any, for each of the responding companies and to calculate the appropriate countervailing duty.

Counsel for the importer submitted that both Auriga and HCLXI provided a response to the subsidy RFI. As such, the CBSA has all the information it needs to calculate a “specific amount of subsidy” to the extent any of the benefits received can be characterized as an actionable subsidy that is countervailable. It concluded that none of the benefits received by Auriga and HCLXI are of the type that is actionable and countervailable.

CBSA response

At the initiation of the review, the Government of China (GOC) was sent the government subsidy RFI requesting information concerning the alleged subsidy programs available to the exporter of the subject goods.

For the purposes of the subsidy review, the GOC refers to all levels of government, i.e., federal, central, provincial/state, regional, municipal, city, township, village, local, legislative, administrative or judicial, singular, collective, elected or appointed. It also includes any person, agency, enterprise, or institution acting for, on behalf of, or under the authority of, or under the authority of any law passed by the GOC.

In the embassy letter sent at initiation,^{Footnote 12} the CBSA indicated that the subsidy RFI was to be completed by the GOC. Furthermore, it was indicated that in the event that the information provided by parties subject to this review is insufficient, the amount of subsidy will be determined pursuant to a ministerial specification.

Further, the exporter^{Footnote 13} and manufacturer^{Footnote 14} were also notified that there were deficiencies in determining an amount of subsidy as the GOC did not provide a response to the subsidy RFI by the deadline, and as such, countervailing duties may be assessed at the rate of 641.35 Chinese Renminbi per metric tonne for subject goods from China in accordance with a ministerial specification.

As a result that the GOC did not respond to the subsidy RFI, the amount of subsidy for subject goods exported from China, by Auriga, will be determined in accordance with a ministerial specification pursuant to subsection 30.4(2) of SIMA.^{Footnote 15} The amount of subsidy is equal to a countervailing duty of 641.35 Chinese Renminbi per metric tonne.