Statement of Reasons—Expiry Review Determination: Copper Pipe Fittings 2 (CPF2 2023 ER)

Additional product information^{Footnote 13}

[19] Certain copper pipe fittings are available in a large number of sizes and configurations. Common examples of certain copper pipe fittings include: Tees, Elbows, Bushings, Fitting Reducers, and Adapters.

[20] Certain copper pipe fittings sold in Canada are manufactured to a variety of standards including:

• ASME/ANSI Std. B16.22–2013 (Wrought Copper and Copper Alloy Solder Joint Pressure Fittings)
• ASME/ANSI Std. B16.18–2012 (Cast Copper Alloy Solder Joint Pressure Fittings)
• ASME/ANSI Std. B16.29–2012 (Wrought Copper and Wrought Copper Alloy Solder Joint Drainage Fittings–DWV)
• ASME/ANSI Std. B16.23–2016 (Cast Copper Alloy Solder Joint Drainage Fittings)
• ASME/ANSI Std. B16.24–2016 (Cast Copper Alloy Pipe Flanges, Flanged Fittings, and Valves: Classes 150, 300, 600, 900, 1500, and 2500)
• ASME/ANSI Std. B16.50–2013 (Wrought Copper and Copper Alloy Braze–Joint Pressure Fittings)
• MSS SP-104–2012 (Wrought Copper LW Solder Joint Pressure Fittings)
• MSS SP-106–2012 (Cast Copper Alloy Flanges and Flanged Fittings Class 125, 150, 300)

Product use^{Footnote 14}

[21] Certain copper pipe fittings are used to connect copper pipes, tubes or other certain copper pipe fittings to one another. The methods of joining certain copper pipe fittings include soldering, silver brazing and epoxy or similar gluing techniques. The connection is made by fitting two pieces together and heating the ends of the tubing and fittings, filling the gap between the two with melted solder or brazing material that solidifies while cooling, resulting in a strong leak-proof intermetallic connection. The threaded fittings can also be used to connect copper tubing to other metal systems.

[22] Certain copper pipe fittings that are commonly referred to as “pressure pipe fittings” may be used to convey liquids (e.g. potable water), gases and air under pressure in residential, industrial, commercial and institutional buildings.

[23] Certain copper pipe fittings that are commonly referred to as “drainage, waste and vent fittings (DWV)” are used primarily to convey waste from buildings to sewers and for venting purposes under low-pressure conditions.

[24] In addition, certain copper pipe fittings are also used in a variety of air conditioning and refrigeration (ACR) applications. Certain copper pipe fittings used in air conditioning applications are typically identified by reference to their outside diameters, whereas the same certain copper pipe fittings used in non-ACR applications such as plumbing and heating are typically identified by reference to their inside or “nominal” diameters. Apart from the reference to diameter, a particular certain copper pipe fittings for an ACR application is the same as a certain copper pipe fittings for a non-air conditioning application. It is common practice to label certain copper pipe fittings by reference to both their inside (nominal) and outside diameters.

Parties contending that continued or resumed dumping is likely

[43] Cello made representations through its Canadian Producer ERQ response, additional submitted exhibits^{Footnote 20}, and in its case briefs in support of its position that the dumping of CPF from Vietnam is likely to continue or resume should the CITT’s finding expire. Consequently, Cello argues that the anti-dumping measures should remain in place.

[44] The main arguments made by Cello can be summarized as follows:

• Commodity nature of CPF
• Shifting import patterns from named countries to non-named countries
• Inability of CPF exporters in Vietnam to compete at non-dumped prices
• Excess production capacity of CPF producers in Vietnam
• Weak market conditions and demand forecasts in Vietnam compared to Canada and
• Imposition of anti-dumping measures by the U.S. in respect of similar goods (copper tube)

Parties contending that continued or resumed dumping is unlikely

[66] The submission made by CB did not state a clear position on the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping should the CITT’s finding expire. However, CB made certain representations in their submission that may imply a position that continued or resumed dumping of CPF from Vietnam is unlikely if the CITT’s finding expires.

[67] The main arguments made by CB can be summarized as follows:

• The Canadian producer does not have capacity to meet the Canadian market demand and
• A lack of presence in the Canadian market by Vietnamese exporters

Commodity nature of CPF

[72] Generally speaking, CPF produced either by a Canadian manufacturer or by a foreign manufacturer are physically interchangeable. Consequently, CPF are extremely price-sensitive.

[73] As noted by the CITT in Inquiry No. NQ-2017-004 in its finding for CPF2: “copper pipe fittings are commodity products, making the price quite important, and often determinative, in purchasing decisions”.^{Footnote 44}

[74] The CBSA also notes the widespread availability of detailed CPF price lists to Canadian customers as evidence of the commodity nature of CPF and open price-based competition amongst CPF suppliers.^{Footnote 45}

[75] As a result of the commodity nature of CPF, purchasers will always seek the lowest prices in the market. As such, should the CITT finding expire, the commodity nature of CPF may increase the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping of CPF.

Shifting import patterns from Vietnam to all other countries

[76] During the POR, there has been a shift in imports into Canada from the named country, Vietnam, to imports from all other countries.^{Footnote 46} The market share of CPF imports from all other countries (i.e. all countries other than Vietnam) into Canada has consistently increased year-over-year during the POR, measured in both volume and value.

[77] Despite an increase in imported CPF into Canada, imports of CPF from Vietnam have consistently declined year-over-year to extremely low quantities. Import patterns show that compared to the overall CPF import market, imports of CPF from Vietnam have declined.^{Footnote 47}

[78] Furthermore, the weighted-average price of CPF imports from Vietnam during the entire POR was $22.77 per kg compared to $9.75 per kg for all other countries. The average price of CPF from all other countries was likewise significantly lower than CPF from Vietnam for all individual years of the POR.^{Footnote 48}

[79] Given the price sensitive nature of the subject goods, the CBSA finds that the shift in imports into Canada from Vietnam to imports from all other countries can be reasonably attributed to the competition from lower-priced imports in Canada from all other countries.

[80] As such, should the CITT’s finding expire, the commodity nature of CPF and the market’s strong price competition may lead to the continued or resumed dumping of CPF.

Apparent inability of CPF exporters from Vietnam to sell to Canadian importers at non-dumped prices while the CITT finding was in effect

[81] Imports of subject goods from Vietnam have declined substantially since anti-dumping duties were first imposed. However, low volumes continued to be imported during the POR as shown in Table 1. During the POR, imports of CPF from Vietnam accounted for approximately 0.010% by quantity and 0.022% by value of the imports of CPF from all sources. The share of imports from Vietnam, out of all CPF imports into Canada, showed a continued downward trend from the first year of the POR to the last.

[82] Information on anti-dumping duties collected during the POR is presented in the Enforcement data section. A total of approximately 578 kg of CPF from Vietnam entered the Canadian market during the POR. Importations of CPF from Vietnam have resulted in the assessment of anti-dumping duties of approximately $6,351 during the POR.

[83] The near-disappearance of CPF imports from Vietnam during the POR stands in sharp contrast to the large quantity of CPF imports from Vietnam before the CBSA’s anti-dumping duties were originally imposed. During the original CPF2 investigation’s dumping Period of Investigation (POI), encompassing the period between September 1, 2016 and August 31, 2017, imports of CPF from Vietnam accounted for 33.3% of total import volume into Canada.^{Footnote 49}

[84] The extreme decrease in import volumes from 33.3% to near-zero, occurring within the years shortly following the imposition of anti-dumping duties, may demonstrate an apparent inability for Vietnamese CPF exporters to compete in the Canadian market at non-dumped prices.

[85] As such, should the CITT’s finding expire, an apparent inability for Vietnamese CPF exporters to compete in the Canadian market at non-dumped prices may lead to the continued or resumed exportation of CPF at dumped prices.

Changes in market conditions in Canada

[86] The Canadian economic outlook is not as favourable for 2023 and 2024 in terms of GDP growth compared to the previous years. According to the Bank of Montreal, annual real GDP growth for Canada is projected to be 0.7% for 2023 and 1.3% for 2024, compared to 5.0% for 2021 and 3.6% for 2022.^{Footnote 50}

[87] However, the non-residential construction growth rate in Canada is expected to outperform the general Canadian economy, with forecasted growth of 3.9% in 2023 and 2.0% in 2024.^{Footnote 51} Demand for CPF is largely driven by non-residential construction activity.^{Footnote 52}

[88] TD Economics predicts a similar outperformance of Canadian non-residential construction compared to the general Canadian economy, with growth forecasts in non-residential investment of 3.8% in 2023 and 1.8% in 2024. With regards to the U.S. however, TD Economics expects a decrease in U.S. non-residential investment, with negative growth forecasts of -5.6% in 2023 and -0.1% in 2024.

[89] The forecasted increase in the Canadian non-residential construction sector, being expected to outperform the general Canadian economy and significantly outperform its equivalent sector in the U.S., is likely to make the Canadian market increasingly attractive to global exporters of CPF and may incentivize continued and/or resumed dumping by exporters of CPF from a named country subject to anti-dumping duties, such as Vietnam, should anti-dumping duties be removed.

[90] According to multiple Canadian importers who responded to the CBSA’s Importer ERQ in the 2021 Expiry Review of CPF1, there is also a growing trend of product substitutes which could continue to erode demand for CPF in the Canadian market in the coming years. This includes more cost effective water distribution solutions such as PEX pipe and fittings, and press copper fittings. If this trend continues, exporters from a named country such as Vietnam may be further incentivised to continue or resume dumping in order to acquire and maintain market share in Canada.^{Footnote 53}

[91] As such, should the CITT’s finding expire, the relative strength of the Canadian non-residential construction sector is likely to make the Canadian market increasingly attractive to Vietnamese exporters of CPF and may increase the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping of CPF.

Weak market conditions and demand for CPF in Vietnam

[92] The CBSA reviewed a variety of sources to assess the growth outlook of the Vietnamese construction industry. The result indicates that at minimum, strong downward pressures to future growth in the country’s construction industry are expected.

[93] The industrial and construction sector in Vietnam grew by 7.78% in 2022, roughly in-line with an overall GDP growth of 8.02% in 2022.^{Footnote 54} However, the positive revenue growth in Vietnam’s construction sector is not representative of true current sector conditions. A closer analysis shows that Vietnamese construction companies have been operating on thin profit margins, which are expected to be further reduced in the near-future due to higher construction material costs and issues collecting receivable debts.^{Footnote 55}

[94] An ongoing property debt crisis in Vietnam has plagued the country’s construction sector, with a wide range of companies facing severe difficulties collecting payments from cash-strapped property developers.^{Footnote 56} Vietnam’s property debt crisis continues to worsen and risks triggering a broader crisis for Vietnam’s banking sector and economy.^{Footnote 57}

[95] According to a report by the Vietnam’s Ministry of Construction, the number of enterprises in the construction sector declaring bankruptcy increased by 38.7% in 2022 due to insufficient cash flows and high raw material costs. The report also stated that property developers had difficulty accessing loans, issuing corporate bonds and mobilizing capital from customers, forcing many businesses to delay or suspend projects.^{Footnote 58}

[96] Moreover, tightening monetary policy, rising inflation and the risk of a global recession are expected to dampen the general growth of the Vietnamese economy. According to Standard Chartered Bank, annual GDP growth for Vietnam is projected to be 7.2% for 2023 and 6.7% for 2024; a near-term deceleration of Vietnam’s GDP growth.^{Footnote 59} Slowing general economic activity in Vietnam further decreases the likelihood of a quick recovery for the country’s construction sector.

[97] Overall, the highly uncertain economic outlook in Vietnam demonstrates that demand for CPF in Vietnam is not likely to expand in the near future.

[98] As such, should the CITT’s finding expire, Vietnamese CPF producers may rely heavily on export markets as the domestic market in Vietnam slows down which may increase the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping of CPF.

Excess production capacity of CPF producers in Vietnam

[99] The original CPF2 investigation identified Hailiang (Vietnam) Metal Products Co., Ltd. (“Hailiang Vietnam”) as the sole known exporter in Vietnam of CPF to Canada.^{Footnote 60} Hailiang Vietnam is a subsidiary of Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd. (“Zhejiang Hailiang”), which in turn is a subsidiary of the Hailiang Group (“Hailiang”) based in China.^{Footnote 61} Hailiang Vietnam and its affiliated companies ultimately withdrew their participation in the original CPF2 investigation.^{Footnote 62}

[100] For purposes of this present Expiry Review of CPF2, the CBSA will place a focus on Hailiang Vietnam given its status on the record as the sole known Vietnamese exporter of CPF to Canada, as well as being the largest producer of copper pipe and tube in Vietnam.^{Footnote 63}

[101] While there is limited information on the production capacity and capacity utilization of CPF producers in Vietnam, due to a lack of cooperation of Vietnamese CPF producers, the information available on the record indicates that there is excess CPF production capacity in Vietnam.

[102] During the 2018 expiry review of copper tube, information submitted by Great Lakes Copper Ltd. (GLC), the sole producer of copper tube in Canada, indicates that Hailiang shuttered its Vietnamese plant and started exporting from a newly opened plant in Thailand.^{Footnote 64}

[103] CBSA research including from a company press release in 2023 indicates that Hailiang’s Vietnamese subsidiary remains active,^{Footnote 65} despite the lack of meaningful export activity to Canada. The CBSA also notes that Hailiang Vietnam represents Hailiang’s earliest production plant outside of China and has significant accumulated operational expertise.^{Footnote 66}

[104] The active status of Hailiang Vietnam is corroborated by updated commercial intelligence provided by Cello in the course of this expiry review, indicating that Hailiang Vietnam’s production facilities were temporarily closed following the CITT’s finding but reopened in 2020, and is currently offering and quoting prices for CPF in the U.S.^{Footnote 67}

[105] Furthermore, the commercial intelligence provided by GLC and Cello regarding the underutilization of Vietnamese CPF production capacity is indirectly supported by evidence of excess production capacity in Vietnamese steel production.

[106] A lack of construction demand during 2022 in Vietnam was the primary cause of sharp reductions in steel-making activity, with certain plants believed to be operating at below 50% of their capacity.^{Footnote 68} Given that the sources of demand for CPF and steel overlap to some degree, the identical issue of weak construction demand in Vietnam may have negatively affected capacity utilization rates to both steel and copper product demand.

[107] As such, the capacity underutilization of Vietnamese CPF producers creates an incentive to sell excess production in foreign markets at depressed prices, which may increase the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping of CPF if the CITT’s finding expires.

Ongoing relationships of CPF producers in Vietnam with Canadian importers

[108] Evidence on the record shows that Hailiang Vietnam’s parent company, Hailiang, has maintained ongoing relationships with Canadian importers, as evidenced by imports of CPF from Hailiang Thailand during the POR by Noble.^{Footnote 69} Hailiang’s ongoing relationships with importers in Canada demonstrate a continued interest in the Canadian market.

[109] In addition, Cello contends that the likelihood of Hailiang Vietnam resuming dumping of CPF is compounded by the fact that commercial relationships between Canadian importers and Hailiang Vietnam are already in place.^{Footnote 70}

[110] Public statements made by Hailiang regarding the related copper pipe industry also indicate a continued interest in the Canadian market, with the company stating in 2019 that: “The Americas is an important market for copper pipe consumption, and North America has always been the largest overseas sales market of Zhejiang Hailiang”.^{Footnote 71}

[111] As such, should CITT’s finding expire, the ongoing relationships of Vietnamese CPF exporters with Canadian importers and their apparent continued interest in the Canadian market, may increase the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping of CPF.

Imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing measures by the authorities of a country other than Canada concerning Vietnamese copper pipe and tube

[112] Three Vietnamese producers of seamless refined copper pipe and tube–Hailiang Vietnam, Jintian Copper Industrial (Vietnam) Company Limited. (“Jintian Copper Vietnam”), and Toan Phat Copper Tube Joint Stock Company (brand named as “Ruby Copper”)–were publicly identified in a 2021 investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) to have dumped their products in the U.S.^{Footnote 72}

[113] The same three companies were also the only cooperative producers from Vietnam during a countervailing investigation conducted by the Government of India’s Directorate General of Trade Remedies regarding copper tubes and pipes from Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, which concluded in 2022.^{Footnote 73}

[114] As previously established in the 2021 Expiry Review of CPF1, overlap exists between the producers of copper tube, copper pipe, and CPF. In particular, large producers of copper pipe and tube may also be large producers of CPF, as evidenced by the recurrence of Hailiang in anti-dumping investigations related to copper products.^{Footnote 74}

[115] Two of the three copper pipe and tube producers identified by the USDOC and the Government of India–Hailiang Vietnam, the largest producer in Vietnam of copper tube and pipe,^{Footnote 75} and Jintian Copper Vietnam–are also producers of CPF.

[116] Furthermore, U.S. anti-dumping duties imposed include Vietnamese copper pipe and tube imports with attachments such as CPF.^{Footnote 76} Due to Canada’s close proximity to the US, Vietnamese CPF exports can easily be diverted to Canada. Hence, Canada is exposed to diversion risk for available volumes of Vietnamese CPF.

[117] The CBSA finds that the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing measures by U.S. and Indian authorities demonstrates a propensity by Vietnamese exporters to dump copper products in foreign markets. As such, should the CITT’s finding expire, the propensity by Vietnamese exporters to dump copper goods may increase the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping of CPF.

Shifting import patterns from named countries to non-named countries

[118] Information on the record, including from GLC^{Footnote 77} and producers in the U.S.,^{Footnote 78} indicates that following the imposition of anti-dumping duties on copper tubes from Hailiang Vietnam by the CBSA and USDOC respectively, Hailiang began to substantially increase exports from Thailand, a non-subject country. The aforementioned sources support Cello’s information regarding Hailiang’s opening of a copper tube and CPF manufacturing facility in Thailand following the CITT’s finding for CPF2.^{Footnote 79}

[119] Furthermore, confidential information on the record shows a pattern of price undercutting by imports from Thailand into Canada.^{Footnote 80}

[120] Given all of the above information, the CBSA views the pricing and sales volume of CPF imports during the POR from Thailand, a non-subject country, to be indicative of the likely pricing and sales volume of Vietnamese CPF should the CITT’s finding expire.

[121] As such, should the CITT’s finding expire, CPF from Vietnam would need to compete in Canada with the lower prices of imports from non-subject countries, which may increase the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping of CPF.

Propensity to dump

[122] Information on the record suggests that Hailiang, acting together with Hailiang Vietnam, implemented a deliberate strategy of relocating copper-related manufacturing capacity from countries subject to anti-dumping measures to non-named countries.

[123] Hailiang publicly stated in 2019 that: “When the United States implemented anti-dumping policy on China’s copper tube products in 2009, the Vietnam base was put into operation. Since then, the company’s export orders to the US have all been transferred to the Vietnam factory.”^{Footnote 81} Qian Ziqiang, secretary of the board of Zhejiang Hailiang, further stated in 2019 that: “At this point, anti-dumping, trade barriers and other unfavorable factors will hardly affect the company.”^{Footnote 82} The CBSA notes that the USDOC subsequently made an affirmative determination of dumping with regards to seamless refined copper pipe and tube from Vietnam in 2021.^{Footnote 83}

[124] The clearly stated intentions by Hailiang and Hailiang Vietnam to relocate the source of exports to non-subject countries to avoid anti-dumping duties, as opposed to increasing export prices above their normal values, increases the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping should the CITT’s finding expire.

[125] In addition, both Hailiang Vietnam and Jintian Copper Vietnam share similar characteristics as Vietnamese subsidiaries of a Chinese parent company that also operates manufacturing facilities of like goods in China.^{Footnote 84} Both subsidiaries appear to form part of an integrated international sales network overseen by their respective parent companies, as evidenced by the consolidated nature of their sales marketing^{Footnote 85} and lack of a separate website.

[126] Hailiang Vietnam’s parent company, Hailiang, was found by the CBSA to have dumped its products into Canada in three separate investigations: with respect to certain copper pipe fittings from the U.S., South Korea and China (CPF1),^{Footnote 86} certain copper pipe fittings from Vietnam (CPF2),^{Footnote 87} and certain copper tube from Brazil, China, Greece, Mexico and Korea (CT)^{Footnote 88}. Likewise, exports of CPF and copper tube into Canada from Jintian Copper Vietnam and its parent company in China are both subject to anti-dumping duties. The history of investigations by the CBSA and other international investigating authorities^{Footnote 89} into Hailiang, Jintian Copper, and other Chinese producers of CPF and copper tube, indicates a propensity to dump copper products by Chinese CPF producers and their subsidiaries.

[127] Thus, the propensity of certain Vietnamese CPF producers to dump goods is further magnified by their close relationships with Chinese parent companies that have themselves exhibited a propensity and history of dumping.

[128] As such, should the CITT’s finding expire, the propensity to dump by Vietnamese exporters of CPF may increase the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping of CPF.

Determination regarding likelihood of continued or resumed dumping

[129] Based on the information on the record in respect of the: commodity nature of CPF; shifting import patterns from Vietnam to all other countries; apparent inability of CPF exporters from Vietnam to sell to Canadian importers at non-dumped prices while the CITT finding was in effect; changes in market conditions in Canada; weak market conditions and demand for CPF in Vietnam; excess production capacity of CPF producers in Vietnam; ongoing relationships of CPF producers in Vietnam with Canadian importers; imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing measures by the authorities of a country other than Canada concerning Vietnamese copper pipe and tube; shifting import patterns from named countries to non-named countries; and a propensity to dump, the CBSA has determined that the expiry of the finding is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of CPF from Vietnam.

Parties contending that continued or resumed subsidizing is likely

[130] Cello made representations through its ERQ response and in its case briefs in support of its position that subsidizing from Vietnam is likely to continue or resume in the event the CITT’s finding expires. Consequently, Cello argues that the countervailing measures should remain in place.

[131] The main factor identified by Cello is the continued subsidizing of CPF while the finding was in effect.

Parties contending that continued or resumed subsidizing is unlikely: GOV

[133] The Trade Remedies Authority of Vietnam under the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Vietnam provided a response to the CBSA’s Foreign Government ERQ, but did not state a clear position on the likelihood of continued or resumed subsidizing should the CITT’s finding expire. However, the GOV made certain representations in their submission that may imply a position that continued or resumed subsidizing of CPF from Vietnam is unlikely if the CITT’s finding expires.

[134] The main factors identified by the GOV are the lack of subsidy programs specifically intended for CPF producers or exporters, and the termination of certain subsidy programs.

Parties contending that continued or resumed subsidizing is unlikely: CB

[139] The submission made by CB did not state a clear position on the likelihood of continued or resumed subsidizing should the CITT’s finding expire. However, CB made certain representations in their submission that may imply a position that continued or resumed subsidizing of CPF from Vietnam is unlikely if the CITT’s finding expires.

[140] CB did not present any arguments to support their position.

Continued availability of subsidy programs for CPF producers in Vietnam

[143] In light of the lack of participation from Vietnamese producers and exporters of subject goods in this expiry review, the CBSA relied on information from the original CPF2 investigation, the ERQ response submitted by the Government of Vietnam (GOV), and other pertinent information on the record in assessing the likelihood of continued or resumed subsidization, should the CITT’s finding expire.

[144] In the original subsidy investigation of CPF originating in or exported from Vietnam, 19 potential subsidy programs were investigated and 13 of these subsidy programs were considered to be available to producers or exporters of CPF in Vietnam.^{Footnote 94} The amount of subsidy for all exporters was 30.6%, expressed as a percentage of the export price, as determined according to a Ministerial Specification pursuant to subsection 30.4(2) of SIMA.^{Footnote 95}

[145] The CBSA sent an expiry review questionnaire to the GOV to obtain updated information on the following subsidy programs:^{Footnote 96}

[146] The Trade Remedies Authority of Vietnam under the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Vietnam provided a response to the CBSA’s ERQ regarding any changes to each of the above identified subsidy programs since the final determination of the CPF2 original investigation on April 25, 2018.

[147] For the majority of the subsidy programs examined in this expiry review, the GOV stated in their ERQ response that: “There have not been any changes to this alleged subsidy program since 2018-04-25 that would affect the access of producers of copper pipe fittings or the amount of benefits available under the programs”.^{Footnote 97}

[148] The GOV contends that for at least eight of the subsidy programs identified by the CBSA, these programs are generally available and/or not specifically applicable to CPF producers or exporters.^{Footnote 98} However, the CBSA notes that according to subsection 2(7.2) of SIMA, a subsidy is considered specific when it is limited, in a legislative, regulatory or administrative instrument, or other public document, to a particular enterprise within the jurisdiction of the authority that is granting the subsidy. An “enterprise” is defined as including a group of enterprises, an industry and a group of industries.^{Footnote 99} Hence, an actionable subsidy program under SIMA does not require that the program be applicable solely to CPF producers and exporters, nor solely to a particular industry.

[149] The GOV contends that the following program examined by the CBSA: #5. Export and Import Support in Forms of Preferential Loan, Interest Rate, Guarantee and Factoring is not a subsidy as “[the GOV] and the State Bank of Viet Nam do not intervene in lending decisions nor specifically stipulate interest rates, guarantee and factoring for each bank loans to enterprises.”^{Footnote 100} The GOV also contends that the following subsidy programs examined by the CBSA: #10. Export Promotion; #13. Grants to Firms that Employ More than 50 Employees; and #14. Assistance to Enterprises Facing Difficulties Due to Objective Reasons, have been terminated and were thus not applicable during the POR.^{Footnote 101} Nonetheless, these aforementioned programs were identified as actionable subsidy programs by the CBSA in the 2020 subsidy investigation into upholstered domestic seating from China and Vietnam.^{Footnote 102}

[150] Given the lack of cooperation by Vietnamese CPF producers and exporters, the CBSA does not have sufficient information on the record to: determine the eligibility of each individual CPF producer or exporter to each individual available subsidy program, determine the existence of any new subsidy programs, nor to determine any continuing benefits from terminated programs.

[151] However, sufficient information is available on the record to indicate that current countervailable subsidy programs, whether the same or closely resembling the countervailed programs at the final determination of the CPF2 original investigation, continue to be available to Vietnamese CPF producers and exporters as a whole.

[152] Following the final determination of the CPF2 original investigation, Vietnamese exporters of cold-rolled steel and upholstered domestic seating were also found by the CBSA to have benefitted from countervailable subsidies in 2018^{Footnote 103} and 2020^{Footnote 104} respectively, demonstrating a continued commitment by the GOV to provide subsidies to Vietnamese companies.

[153] Hence, available information on the record, including from the GOV’s ERQ response, would indicate a continued availability of subsidy programs to CPF producers and exporters, along with a continued commitment by the GOV to provide subsidies to Vietnamese companies.

[154] As such, should the CITT’s finding expire, the continued availability of subsidy programs for CPF producers in Vietnam may increase the likelihood of continued or resumed subsidizing of CPF.

Imposition of countervailing measures by an authority of a country other than Canada concerning Vietnamese copper tube and pipe

[155] Three Vietnamese producers of seamless refined copper pipe and tube–Hailiang Vietnam, Jintian Copper Vietnam, and Toan Phat Copper Tube Joint Stock Company (brand named as “Ruby Copper”)–were the only cooperative producers from Vietnam during a countervailing investigation conducted by the Government of India’s Directorate General of Trade Remedies regarding “copper tubes and pipes” from Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, which concluded in 2022.

[156] The countervailing investigation conducted by the Government of India determined a final amount of subsidy, expressed as a percentage of the CIF price,^{Footnote 105} of 2.13%, 2.30%, 6.81% and 14.76% for Jintian Copper Vietnam, Hailiang Vietnam, Toan Phat Copper Tube Joint Stock Company (“Ruby Copper”) and for all other Vietnamese exporters respectively.^{Footnote 106}

[157] The same three companies were also publicly identified in a 2021 investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) to have dumped their products in the U.S.^{Footnote 107}

[158] Overlap exists between the producers of copper tube, copper pipe, and CPF. In particular, large producers of copper pipe and tube may also be large producers of CPF, as evidenced by the recurrence of Hailiang in anti-dumping investigations related to copper products.^{Footnote 108}

[159] Two of the three copper pipe and tube producers identified by the Government of India–Hailiang Vietnam, the largest producer in Vietnam of copper tube and pipe,^{Footnote 109} and Jintian Copper Vietnam–are also producers of CPF.

[160] As copper tube is a main input for the production of CPF,^{Footnote 110} there is also a high likelihood that subsidies received for the production of copper tube would be attributable to CPF products in the form of indirect pass-through subsidies.

[161] Thus, the imposition of countervailing measures by authorities of a country other than Canada concerning Vietnamese copper tube and pipe indicates that it is likely that exporters of CPF from Vietnam will likely benefit from continued or resumed subsidizing if the CITT’s finding expires.

[162] As such, the CBSA finds that should the CITT’s finding expire, the imposition of countervailing measures by authorities of a country other than Canada concerning Vietnamese copper tube and pipe increases the likelihood of continued or resumed subsidizing of CPF.

Determination regarding likelihood of continued or resumed subsidizing

[163] Based on the information on the record in respect of the continued availability of subsidy programs for CPF producers in Vietnam and the imposition of countervailing measures by an authority of a country other than Canada concerning Vietnamese copper tube and pipe, the CBSA has determined that the expiry of the finding is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of subsidizing of CPF from Vietnam.