ARCHIVED - Statement of Reasons

This page has been archived.

OTTAWA, July 23, 2003
4366-13
AD 1006

Concerning a determination under subsection 76.03(7) of the Special Import Measures Act regarding

PREFORMED FIBREGLASS PIPE INSULATION, WITH A VAPOUR BARRIER, ORIGINATING IN OR EXPORTED FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DECISION

On July 8, 2003, pursuant to subsection 76.03(7) of the Special Import Measures Act, the Commissioner of Customs and Revenue determined that the expiry of the order made by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal on November 18, 1998, in Review No. RR-98-001, concerning preformed fibreglass pipe insulation, with a vapour barrier, originating in or exported from the United States of America, is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods.

Cet énoncé des motifs est également disponible en français.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

PRODUCT INFORMATION

CANADIAN INDUSTRY/MARKET

PARTICIPANTS

CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS

• INCIDENCE OF DUMPING WHILE THE FINDINGS WERE IN PLACE
• PERFORMANCE AND LIKELY FUTURE PERFORMANCE OF EXPORTERS
• POTENTIAL TO PRODUCE SUBJECT GOODS IN FACILITIES USED FOR OTHER GOODS
• CHANGES IN MARKET CONDITIONS

REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION - COMPANY AND PRODUCT SPECIFIC

CONCLUSION

FUTURE ACTION

INFORMATION

---

SUMMARY

On March 10, 2003, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (Tribunal), pursuant to subsection 76.03(3) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), initiated an expiry review of its order made on November 18, 1998, in Review No. RR-98-001 (the "Order"). That order continued the Tribunal's finding made on November 19, 1993, in Inquiry No. NQ-93-002 (the "Finding"), concerning preformed fibreglass pipe insulation, with a vapour barrier ("jacketed pipe insulation"), originating in or exported from the United States of America. The purpose of the expiry review is to determine whether the Order should be continued or rescinded. The Order is scheduled to expire on November 17, 2003.

As a result of the Tribunal's decision to initiate a review of the Order, the Commissioner of Customs and Revenue (Commissioner) initiated an investigation on March 11, 2003, to determine whether the expiry of the Order is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods.

On July 8, 2003, the Commissioner determined, pursuant to subsection 76.03(7) of SIMA, that the expiry of the Order is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods.

On July 9, 2003, the Tribunal initiated an inquiry to determine whether the expiry of the Order in respect of the goods is likely to result in injury or retardation to the domestic industry. If the Tribunal determines that the expiry of the Order is likely to result in injury or retardation, the Order will be continued, with or without amendment. If the Tribunal determines that the expiry of the Order is unlikely to result in injury or retardation, the Order will be rescinded.

BACKGROUND

An anti-dumping investigation of jacketed pipe insulation, originating in or exported from the United States of America ("United States"), was initiated on February 4, 1993, in response to a complaint filed by Manson Insulation Inc. (Manson), Brossard, Quebec.

A preliminary determination of dumping was issued, followed by a final determination of dumping on October 20, 1993.¹ The Tribunal issued a finding of injury on November 19, 1993.²

Findings or orders issued by the Tribunal expire if the Tribunal does not initiate an expiry review of the order or finding before the expiration of five years after the date of the order or finding. The Tribunal initiated a review of the jacketed pipe insulation Finding on May 14, 1998. Following public and in-camera hearings, the Tribunal concluded that there was a likelihood of resumed dumping and that such resumed dumping was likely to cause material injury to the domestic industry. On November 19, 1998, the Tribunal issued an order continuing the Finding without amendment.³ The Order is scheduled to expire on November 17, 2003.

On January 17, 2003, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Expiry, informing interested persons and governments of the impending expiry of the Order and inviting representations requesting or opposing the initiation of an expiry review.⁴ On March 10, 2003, the Tribunal initiated an expiry review of the Order and notified the Commissioner, as well as interested persons, of its decision.⁵

On March 11, 2003, the Commissioner initiated an investigation to determine whether the expiry of the Order in respect of the goods is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods. In accordance with the Anti-dumping and Countervailing Directorate's guidelines on the conduct of expiry reviews⁶, interested persons (see Participants section) were requested to provide any information they considered relevant to the Commissioner's investigation.

The period of review (POR) for this expiry review investigation was January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2002.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

Change to the Commissioner's Expiry Review Schedule

In an expiry review investigation, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) sets a date after which no "new" information may be placed on the administrative record. This is referred to as the "closing of the record date". This allows participants time to prepare their case briefs and reply submissions based on the information that is on the administrative record as of the closing of the record date. For this expiry review, the closing of the record date was April 29, 2003.

Normally, the Commissioner will not consider new information submitted by participants subsequent to the closing of the record date. However, in certain exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to permit new information to be submitted. The Commissioner will consider the following factors in deciding whether to accept new information submitted after the closing of the record date:

(a) the availability of the information prior to the closing of the record date;
(b) the emergence of new or unforeseen issues;
(c) the relevancy and materiality of the information;
(d) the opportunity for other participants to respond to the new information; and,
(e) whether the new information can reasonably be taken into consideration by the Commissioner in making the determination.

In this expiry review, two participants filed new information after the closing of the record date, April 29, 2003. On May 1, 2003, Entreprises Pol R Inc. provided its response to the CCRA's Expiry Review Questionnaire (ERQ). On May 23, 2003, Johns Manville provided details of a fire at its production facilities. The Commissioner considered that information submitted by Entreprises Pol R Inc. had not been available prior to the closing of the record date and was relevant to the expiry review. The Commissioner considered that information submitted by Johns Manville pertained to a new and unforeseen issue and was relevant to the expiry review. Accordingly, information received from Entreprises Pol R Inc. and Johns Manville was accepted and considered by the Commissioner.

In order to allow for the consideration of the new information submitted, the CCRA extended the deadline for reply submissions from all parties from May 26, 2003, to June 2, 2003. The revised expiry review schedule was posted on the CCRA Web site.

PRODUCT INFORMATION

Definition

The goods subject to the expiry review investigation are defined as:

"preformed fibreglass pipe insulation, with a vapour barrier, originating in or exported from the United States of America."

Product Description

Preformed fibreglass pipe insulation is produced with and without a vapour barrier. However, only preformed fibreglass pipe insulation, with a vapour barrier, also known as jacketed (faced) pipe insulation, is the subject of this expiry review investigation.

Preformed pipe insulation is produced and sold in size ranges of 0.5 in. to 24.0 in. inside diameter (the pipe size that it is to cover) and 0.5 in. to 4.0 in. wall thickness.⁷

Preformed pipe insulation is made of fine glass fibre insulating wool accurately formed to a predetermined shape and density. There are two production processes used to make fibreglass insulating wool: the flame attenuated process and the rotary process.

The flame attenuated process involves melting glass marbles and blowing the resulting molten glass into fibres which are gathered on a wire mesh conveyor belt to form a batt or sheet to which a thermo-setting resin is applied. The fibreglass sheet is wound into a cylindrical form on mandrels. The semi-finished product is conveyed through an oven where the thermo-setting resin gives it permanent rigidity. The preformed material is then covered with a vapour barrier (jacket), which is typically made of a metallized polyester film which is reinforced with fibreglass yarn and kraft paper.⁸

In the rotary process, the molten glass is held in a bowl that is spinning, and this action forces the glass through holes in the side of the bowl (spinner) where it is cooled by forced air and blown into fibre form.⁹

Use of Subject Goods

Preformed pipe insulation is used to insulate piping systems in commercial and institutional construction projects requiring insulation for process control, energy conservation or personal protection. The vapour barrier provides protection against moisture gaining access to the insulation and piping material.¹⁰

Classification of Imports

The Harmonized System (H.S.) provides the following classification number under which subject jacketed pipe insulation may be classified:

7019.39.90.13. - Glass Fibres: other; insulation products; pipe coverings.

The classification number includes both jacketed pipe insulation and non-jacketed pipe insulation.

CANADIAN INDUSTRY/MARKET

Manson was and continues to be the sole Canadian producer. Manson is a subsidiary of 3176878 Canada Inc.¹¹ In the United States, Manson wholly owns Manson Holdings (USA) Inc. and USA Manson Insulation Corp., both of Wilmington, Delaware.¹² In Canada, the shareholders of Manson hold a 50% interest in two of its customers, Crossroads C&I Distributors Inc. and Multiglass Insulation Inc.¹³ Manson produces pipe insulation, with and without a vapour barrier, and various fibreglass roll and board products.

Information on the total size of the Canadian market cannot be divulged because it could reveal confidential sales data. The table below summarizes the volume of imports of jacketed pipe insulation, expressed in linear feet ("LF") from the United States and the volume of imports of jacketed/non-jacketed pipe insulation from other countries during the POR.

Imports	2000 LF (`000)	2001 LF (`000)	2002 LF (`000)
United States volume and % of Total Imports	13,315 (99.2%)	14,635 (98.1%)	11,604 (92.9%)
Other countries volume and % of Total Imports	102 (0.8%)	286 (1.9%)	881 (7.1%)
Total Imports	13,417 (100%)	14,920 (100%)	12,484 (100%)

Source: CCRA Market Statistics - Apparent Canadian Market - Volume Detail (Exhibit 99).

The Canadian market consists, in part, of jacketed pipe insulation produced by Manson and by three exporters in the United States: Johns Manville International Inc. (Johns Manville), Denver, Colorado; Knauf Fiber Glass Gmbh (Knauf), Shelbyville, Indiana, and Owens Corning, Toledo, Ohio. The Canadian market also includes imports from other countries.

PARTICIPANTS

At the start of the expiry review, the Tribunal distributed a notice of the initiation of the expiry review and an expiry review schedule to interested persons including the Canadian producer, exporters and importers. At the same time, any person or government having an interest in the Commissioner's investigation was invited to provide a submission to the Commissioner containing information that they deemed relevant.

ERQs requesting information necessary to evaluate the factors relevant to this expiry review investigation were sent to the persons identified below. Interested persons were also invited to submit case briefs arguing that dumping is likely or unlikely to continue or resume absent the Order. In addition, persons could submit reply submissions providing their comments in respect of the case briefs submitted by other persons.

Manson, the sole Canadian producer of jacketed pipe insulation, fully participated in this expiry review. Manson responded to the ERQ and submitted a case brief and a reply submission arguing that dumping is likely to continue or resume absent the Order.

Three exporters participated in the expiry review. Johns Manville, Knauf and Owens Corning, responded to the ERQ. A fourth United States producer, Certain-Teed Corp., did not respond to the ERQ as the company is an exporter of non-subject goods.

Counsel for Johns Manville submitted a case brief arguing there is no likelihood of a renewal of dumping of exports to Canada by Johns Manville. The exporter's counsel submitted that dumping by Knauf and Owens Corning is likely to continue or resume absent the Order. In its case brief, Johns Manville requested that the Commissioner restrict the finding to Knauf and to Owens Corning. In the event that the CCRA found that dumping by all three exporters is likely to continue or resume absent the Order, Johns Manville requested that the Commissioner restrict the finding to certain sizes of jacketed pipe insulation. In its reply submission, following the fire at its production facilities, this exporter reaffirmed its request that the Commissioner restrict the finding to certain sizes of jacketed pipe insulation.

Knauf submitted a case brief and a reply submission arguing that dumping is not likely to continue or resume absent the Order. In its reply submission, Knauf requested that the Commissioner restrict the finding to certain sizes of jacketed pipe insulation in the event that the CCRA found that dumping is likely to continue or resume absent the Order.

Glass-Cell Fabricators of Etobicoke, Ontario, submitted a case brief with no firm position taken on the issue of whether dumping of the subject goods is likely to continue or resume absent the Order.

Owens Corning submitted a reply submission arguing that dumping of the subject goods is not likely to continue or resume absent the Order.

Responses to the ERQs were also received from six of fourteen Canadian importers: Burnaby Insulation Supplies Ltd., Burnaby, British Columbia; Steels Industrial Products Ltd., Surrey, British Columbia; Nu-West Construction Products Inc., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Alsip's Industrial Products Ltd. (Alsip's), Winnipeg, Manitoba; Entreprises Pol R Inc., Ancienne-Lorette, Quebec; and Isolation Dispro, Anjou, Quebec¹⁴. None of the importers submitted case briefs or comments on the case briefs submitted by other parties.

Participants are divided into two broad categories, i.e. "parties to the proceeding" and "interested persons". Both groups are allowed to file any information that they feel is pertinent and may file case arguments and reply submissions. The main difference between the two groups is that counsel for "interested persons" may not be given access to confidential or protected information, while counsel for "parties to the proceeding" may be given access to such information provided all the relevant conditions of SIMA are met.

A person is regarded as a "party to the proceeding" if the person has a direct interest in the outcome of the proceeding and actively participates in the proceeding. In an expiry review proceeding, only exporters, importers and Canadian producers may be considered parties to the proceeding.

In this expiry review, all of the identified companies named above with the exception of Glass-Cell Fabricators, were considered parties to the proceeding, as they have a direct interest in the outcome of the proceeding and fully participated in the proceeding. Although Glass-Cell Fabricators has a direct interest in the outcome of the proceeding, the importer is not regarded as a party to the proceeding because it did not fully participate in the proceeding, i.e. the company did not submit a response to the ERQ.

CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS

Subsection 76.03(7) of SIMA requires the Commissioner to determine whether the expiry of a finding or order in respect of goods of a country or countries is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods. Pursuant to subsection 37.2(1) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR), the Commissioner, in making the determination, may consider any factor specifically identified in paragraphs (a) to (i), as well as any other factors relevant in the circumstances.

The following factors were found to be of particular relevance to this expiry review:

• the incidence of dumping while the Order was in place;
• the current performance and likely future performance of exporters;
• the potential for foreign producers to manufacture the subject goods in facilities currently used to produce other goods; and
• the changes in market conditions in Canada and in the United States.

The CCRA recognizes the existence of an unusual circumstance in this investigation, i.e. the fire at Johns Manville's production facilities. In this respect, the CCRA recognizes that Johns Manville's capability to produce subject goods has been reduced.¹⁵ Counsel for the exporter has stated that it is still too early to determine what actions Johns Manville will take to deal with the loss of its production facility in Defiance, Ohio.¹⁶

Counsel for Johns Manville provided information on the implications of the fire for the exporter, for other United States producers and for the markets in the United States and in Canada. The CCRA has taken the information provided by the exporter under consideration and notes that there is no conclusive evidence at this time to demonstrate that market conditions will change significantly in the medium to long term.

Thus, for the purpose of this investigation, the CCRA is of the view that the fire at the Johns Manville production facilities will produce a short-term market disruption and that the market is likely to return to the conditions present before the fire in the medium to long term. It is within this context that an analysis of the relevant factors has been undertaken.

The following is an analysis of each factor considered by the Commissioner. The analysis was based on the information contained in the administrative record, which was considered by the Commissioner and was made available to counsel for all parties to the proceeding.

INCIDENCE OF DUMPING WHILE THE ORDER WAS IN PLACE

The statistics for total imports of subject jacketed pipe insulation from the United States during the POR are summarized as follows:

	TOTAL IMPORTS		IMPORTS FOUND TO BE DUMPED					NON-DUMPED IMPORTS
	VOLUME (2)	EXPORT PRICE (3)	VOLUME (2)	%	EXPORT PRICE	MARGIN OF DUMPING (4)		EXPORT PRICE AS A % OF NORMAL VALUE
YEAR
2000	13,314,735	15,471,428	1,076,223	8%	1,436,468	154,647	11%	109%
2001	14,634,573	17,820,667	643,338	4%	935,571	54,114	6%	112%
2002	11,603,555	14,714,993	1,129,960	10%	1,618,632	68,353	4%	112%
TOTAL	39,552,863	48,007,088	2,849,521	7%	3,990,671	277,114	7%	111%

1. Imports from Johns Manville, Knauf and Owens Corning. Data for individual companies cannot be shown, as it would disclose confidential information.
2. Volume expressed in linear feet.
3. Export price and normal value expressed in Canadian dollars.
4. Margin of dumping is expressed as a percentage of the export price.

Source: Summary of Enforcement Data for the Commissioner's Expiry Review Investigation taken from Administrative Record, Exhibit 83, April 28, 2003, protected.

During the POR, the volume of imports of subject goods dumped ranged from 4% to 10% per year with an overall average of 7%. The margin of dumping ranged from 4% to 11% per year with an overall average of 7%. For non-dumped goods, export prices ranged from 9% to 12% higher than normal values with an overall average of 11%.

Johns Manville is by far the largest exporter of jacketed pipe insulation shipped from the United States to Canada during the POR, followed by Knauf and Owens Corning in that order.

The volume of goods dumped by Johns Manville was less than that found for Knauf and Owens Corning. According to Johns Manville, almost all of the dumping found related to two small orders for hand-wrapped products that were shipped to Canada without pre-existing normal values.¹⁷ In the absence of specific normal values, anti-dumping duty of 89% was automatically assessed on these goods pursuant to a ministerial specification.

Knauf, the second largest exporter of jacketed pipe insulation in the United States, claims that assessments of anti-dumping duties on its exports were largely due to the transition from one set of normal values to another and the technical vagaries that result from exchange rate and freight-cost fluctuations.¹⁸ The company claims it took corrective measures by changing its sales and shipping terms in February 2003.¹⁹

The CCRA identified other countries that export jacketed pipe insulation to Canada. These goods are not subject to the Order. Imports from these countries, although marginal, increased from 102,255 LF in 2000 to 880,606 LF in 2002, or from 0.8% to 7.1% of the total imports of jacketed pipe insulation.²⁰

Counsel for Manson remarked that "[t] here is no clear evidence that pipe covering products from Mexico, People's Republic of China and Chinese Taipei can, or will, achieve market acceptance in Canada. However, in Manson's view, they [the existence of jacketed pipe insulation] would certainly give importers a new and powerful negotiating lever to obtain dumped prices from the massive nearby United States industry if the finding was allowed to expire".²¹

Nu-West indicated that it was prepared to purchase "non-Tribunal-regulated subject goods [jacketed pipe insulation]" ²² in the event that United States-based manufacturers continue to be price regulated to the exclusion of other worldwide sources.²³ Commenting on Nu-West's statements, Manson argued that Knauf would have a strong incentive to address the price and margin demands of its Canadian distributor - to the extent necessary to retain the account. Manson concluded that this would mean a resumption of dumping, occurring promptly following the rescinding of the Order.²⁴

The extent of dumping found during the POR has been claimed by Knauf to be relatively small²⁵ while Johns Manville has stated that virtually no dumping took place.²⁶ The comments by Knauf and Johns Manville suggest that the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping in the absence of the Order is small. However, in its Statement of Reasons for the Order, the Tribunal stated that, although very little dumping had taken place since the Finding, this fact was not necessarily an indicator of future behavior on the part of United States exporters in this case. The Tribunal went on to state that, as indicated by testimony, it made sense for United States exporters to sell at prices at or above normal values and retain the profits rather than sell at dumped prices and pay anti-dumping duties to the Canadian government.²⁷ The position taken by the Tribunal on this matter is shared by the CCRA in this expiry review.

It is evident from the compliance data placed on the administrative record that the three exporters sold various quantities of subject goods to Canada, during the POR, at dumped prices. The continuation of dumping while the Tribunal's Order has been in place is a strong indicator that dumping would not only continue in the absence of the Order but would intensify in light of a number of interrelated factors including decreased demand for jacketed pipe insulation in
North America, principally in the United States. These factors are discussed later in this Statement of Reasons.

PERFORMANCE AND LIKELY FUTURE PERFORMANCE OF EXPORTERS

The CCRA reviewed the performance and likely future performance of the exporters with reference to production, capacity utilization, exports, market share, prices, inventory levels and profitability.

Production/Capacity Utilization

The collective production of United States exporters declined by 6% during the POR.²⁸ During the same period the exporters' total plant capacity increased by 2%.²⁹ Overall capacity utilization dropped from 91% to 84% during the POR. Johns Manville had the largest amount of excess or available capacity followed by Knauf and Owens Corning.

In its review of the Finding in 1998, the Tribunal remarked that the United States industry operated at high rates of capacity utilization between 1995 and 1997 and at near full capacity in the first quarter of 1998.³⁰ Stating that the United States market, in general terms, is roughly 10 to 12 times greater than the Canadian market, the Tribunal expressed the opinion that even a very small percentage of available United States capacity represented a significant percentage of the Canadian market.³¹ The CCRA believes that the observation made by the Tribunal respecting United States producers ability to supply a relatively larger portion of the Canadian market with excess capacity, is true today.

In its review of the Finding in 1998, the Tribunal remarked that a portion of the total utilization of production capacity consisted of plain, or non-jacketed, pipe insulation, that this portion was large in relation to the Canadian market and that the production of plain pipe insulation could easily be switched to the production of more profitable jacketed pipe insulation.³² Evidence submitted to the CCRA in the expiry review reaffirms that a portion of the total utilization of production capacity consists of non-jacketed pipe insulation. Based on responses from the exporters and Manson, the CCRA's analysis of capacity utilization of goods produced on the same equipment used for jacketed pipe insulation revealed that, although the portion is not as large in relation to the Canadian market as determined by the Tribunal, it is still significant.

Cumulative capacity has increased from 66 million pounds in 1997³³ to 70 million pounds in 2002³⁴, an increase of over 6%. However, while production capacity has increased, it has not been offset by actual production. Unused production capacity, recorded at 6% in 1997³⁵, increased significantly to 16% in 2002. Furthermore, that portion of the total utilization of production capacity, consisting of non-jacketed pipe insulation that could easily be switched to the production of more profitable jacketed pipe insulation, is still large in relation to the Canadian market.

Production and capacity utilization performance are significant factors in the likely performance of United States exporters of jacketed pipe insulation. Given the fact that Canada is the largest export market for the exporters in the United States, a large amount of unused production capacity makes Canada a more inviting export market for United States exporters. In the absence of the Order, and given a number of interrelated factors considered in this Statement of Reasons, there is a strong likelihood that exporters will reduce their selling prices in an effort to maintain or increase capacity utilization.

Sales Volumes

The majority of the exporters' sales are made in their domestic market. Based on responses to the ERQs, domestic sales during the POR accounted for approximately 93% of total sales volume. Sales in the United States increased by 8% from 2000 to 2001, but decreased by approximately 3% from 2001 to 2002.

Sales to Canada, the exporters' largest export market, account for approximately 7% of overall sales. Exports to Canada increased by 14% from 2000 to 2001, but decreased by approximately 17% in 2002.

Export sales to countries other than Canada were less than 1% during the POR. There was a marginal increase in sales volume to these other countries during the POR. In its Statement of Reasons concerning its review of the Finding in 1998, the Tribunal stated that the virtual absence of export markets other than Canada was undoubtedly due to the proportionately high cost of shipping jacketed pipe insulation over long distances.³⁶ This is still the case today.

The evidence on the record indicates that United States producers do not have any reasonable export market opportunities for jacketed pipe insulation other than Canada. The increase in capacity mentioned above makes the Canadian market more attractive. In the absence of the Order, there is a strong likelihood that exporters will increase export sales to Canada to offset declining sales in the United States.

Prices

Several Canadian distributors of jacketed pipe insulation from the United States provided evidence that selling prices from exporters were uncompetitive when compared with selling prices of Canadian-made product and jacketed pipe insulation imported from countries outside of the United States.

The importer, Burnaby Insulation Supplies, stated that, because all of its prices are based on normal values, the company is in a non-competitive pricing position vis-à-vis the Manson distributor.³⁷

The importer Isolation Dispro stated that imports from Mexico and Asia are making the market very competitive.³⁸ The importer Nu-West stated that, during the last two to three years, the introduction and availability of jacketed pipe insulation from Mexico, Chinese Taipei and the People's Republic of China have put further pricing pressures on the marketplace.³⁹ In this respect, Manson contends that, if the Order is rescinded, United States exporters will lower prices to prevent their accounts in Canada from sourcing from other suppliers. Manson believes that there is "every reason to expect United States suppliers would back their distributors through thick and thin in 2003-04, just as the Tribunal found they did in 1992-93, to prevent losses of distribution or market share.⁴⁰"

Other importers believe that the Tribunal's Order has introduced price stability into the Canadian marketplace. The importer Alsips states that the market values set, over the years, have leveled out laid-in costs to distributors of various producers, helping to maintain selling prices of this product at better margin levels.⁴¹ Another importer, Enterprises Pol R Inc. described an episode of severe price competition in Quebec by a subsidiary of Glass-Cell Fabricators distributing Johns Manville product. Manson contends that, in the absence of the anti-dumping measures, that episode of very hostile price action would probably have been more serious.⁴²

The exporter Johns Manville has stated that the anti-dumping finding has acted to stabilize prices in the Canadian market.⁴³ During the Tribunal's review of its Finding in 1998, Johns Manville made the comment that it did not oppose a continuation of the Finding since "its prices have been good and the market has been steady".⁴⁴ Manson responded to Johns Manville's comment at that time by stating that the exporter was not a disinterested player in the Canadian market and would continue to do whatever was required to maintain and strengthen its position within the Canadian market, including reducing its prices to increase its market share.⁴⁵

Johns Manville has argued that, because of Owens Corning's involvement in Chapter 11 proceedings in the United States, the company is likely to price aggressively into the Canadian market to gain short-term cash flow and expand market share.⁴⁶ In addition, Johns Manville argued that Owens Corning's financial difficulties today reflect similar difficulties noted during the Tribunal's review of the Finding in 1998. At that time, Owens Corning switched to shipping plain or non-jacketed pipe insulation to Canada because it was unable to compete in the Canadian market for jacketed pipe insulation. Since Owens Corning was prepared to accept lower margins on plain pipe insulation at the time of the Tribunal's review, Johns Manville asserts that Owens Corning would now be prepared to accept lower margins on jacketed pipe insulation in the absence of the Order.⁴⁷

In its review of the Finding in 1998, the Tribunal observed that the market for jacketed pipe insulation had the characteristics of a commodity product, in that the products of different suppliers, for a given size, were fully interchangeable. It noted that the only loyalty that appeared to exist was between the producer and its distributor, as long as the producer supported its distributor with competitive prices. The Tribunal concluded that, without the Finding, United States producers would once again be in a position to support their distributors in Canada and intense price competition would ensue.⁴⁸

Comments made by interested parties during this expiry review confirm that jacketed pipe insulation has the characteristics of a commodity product and there is little or no brand loyalty. This is illustrated by Nu-West's comment that it will have no other choice than to pursue
non-Tribunal-regulated jacketed pipe insulation in order to compete with other distributors in the market that are already doing so.⁴⁹

The increase in capacity of United States producers of jacketed pipe insulation, together with reduced sales volumes and market demand in the United States and the lack of export markets other than Canada, lead to a strong likelihood that, in the absence of the Order, United States exporters would reduce selling prices to Canada.

Inventories

In 2002, United States producers' ending inventories were equal to almost 14 million LF.⁵⁰ Collectively, the volume of United States exporters' period-ending inventories declined by approximately 17% from 2000 to 2001, with a further decline of 5% from 2001 to 2002.

In the Tribunal's review of the Finding in 1998, United States producers' ending inventories in 1997 were equal to almost 11 million LF⁵¹.

Although inventories declined during the POR, in response to anticipated decline in demand, inventory levels of the United States exporters were higher in 2002 than in 1997. With levels of ending inventory in 2002, the exporters were capable of satisfying a great portion of the Canadian market.

Based on a range of economic indicators forecasting weak demand for jacketed pipe insulation in the United States, exporters will have difficulty reducing ending inventories accumulated in 2002. Given the lack of export markets other than Canada, exporters' inventories, in the absence of the Order, would most likely be directed at Canada.

Canadian Market Share

According to the market statistics compiled by the CCRA, the total apparent market for jacketed pipe insulation in Canada, expressed in terms of volume (LF), increased by 9% from 2000 to 2001, but dropped by 4% in 2002.

Sales of subject goods in the Canadian market by United States exporters increased by 10% from 2000 to 2001, but declined by 21% in 2002.

Sales of jacketed and non-jacketed pipe insulation from all other countries, although minimal, increased by 180% from 2000 to 2001, and by a further 208% in 2002.

United States exporters appear to be uncompetitive at selling subject goods at undumped prices in Canada. As a result, United States exporters have lost market share both to Manson and to producers from countries exporting non-subject jacketed pipe insulation to Canada.

As indicated above, jacketed pipe insulation has the characteristics of a commodity product with little or no brand loyalty at the distributor level. Consequently, the drive to increase market share in Canada will necessarily involve lower prices. The absence of the Order would provide
United States exporters with an opportunity to regain market share in Canada by aggressively lowering prices.

United States Market Share

Excluding jacketed pipe insulation imported into the United States from countries other than Canada, the total market in the United States was approximately 157 million LF in 2000. Domestic sales increased to 169 million LF in 2001, but decreased to 165 million LF in 2002⁵². By comparison, the Tribunal noted that sales in the United States were equal to 179 million LF in 1997.⁵³

In its review of the Finding in 1998, the Tribunal looked at the publicly-announced corporate strategy of the exporters. The Tribunal noted comments made in Johns Manville's 1997 Annual Report where it stated, "Our strategy is to continue to grow our business through innovative products, superior customer service and an increasing focus on commercial/industrial insulation markets where we are the industry leaders.... Our strategy is also to target productivity gains and cost reductions to minimize the impact of pricing pressures. However, we will aggressively defend our market share positions."⁵⁴ The Tribunal noted similar comments made by
Owens Corning in its 1997 Annual Report⁵⁵. This information led the Tribunal to conclude that testimony from the exporters indicated a strategy to maintain or re-capture market share positions by supporting their distributors at the regional level.⁵⁶

In its response to the ERQ, Johns Manville provided details of its corporate strategy.⁵⁷ There is no reason to conclude that corporate strategy has changed since the Tribunal's review of the Finding. In 2001, Owens Corning had acquired a 40% share of Vitro-Fibras S.A. (Mexico), a manufacturer of various glass fibre products including jacketed pipe insulation.⁵⁸

The decline in sales in the United States in 2002 is, in part, a result of the downturn in non-residential construction activity in the United States, a fact discussed elsewhere in this Statement of Reasons. Because jacketed pipe insulation has the characteristics of a commodity product, it is likely that, in the absence of the Order, all efforts to re-capture market share in the United States will spill over into Canada.

Exports

Collectively, United States exporters shipped from 97% to 98% of their total volume of exports of jacketed pipe insulation to Canada during the POR.

The absence of exports to other countries is particularly due to the high cost of shipping jacketed pipe insulation over long distances. This means that Canada remains the United States producers' most reasonable export market for the subject goods.

Decreasing sales volumes to Canada in 2002 indicate that United States exporters are unable to compete with the Canadian-produced goods and imports from other countries at current pricing levels. In the presence of declining demand in the United States for jacketed pipe insulation, United States producers are likely to lower selling prices below normal values, to increase exports to Canada in the absence of the Order.

Exporters' Profitability

While all three exporters are earning a positive net income, based on 2002 information, it is evident that the decline in demand and subsequent loss of sales has had an adverse impact on profit. Manson notes that Owens Corning's 10-K Report for the year ended December 31, 2002, refers to price decreases in United States building material sales in 2001 and a decrease in margin attributed to lower prices for building materials.⁵⁹

Business entities place a high priority on maintaining profit margins. These goals are met by reducing variable costs, increasing manufacturing efficiencies and reducing fixed costs through increasing sales volume. In an effort to capture a greater sales volume, and thereby improve profitability, it is probable that United States exporters will lower selling prices to dumped levels in the absence of the Order.

POTENTIAL TO PRODUCE SUBJECT GOODS IN FACILITIES USED FOR OTHER GOODS

A review of submissions from the three exporters in the United States indicated that each company is capable of producing jacketed pipe insulation on equipment used to manufacture other products.

The machinery and equipment used in the production of jacketed pipe insulation by Johns Manville is also used to manufacture filter tubes, filter cartridges and round air duct, as needed.⁶⁰ Knauf stated that the machines capable of producing jacketed pipe insulation are also capable of producing unfaced pipe insulation (non-jacketed pipe insulation),⁶¹ a comment also made by Owens Corning.⁶²

Where the potential exists, United States exporters would likely switch to producing jacketed pipe insulation over plain pipe insulation because it generates a greater profit margin. In an effort to increase profitability, there is a strong likelihood that United States exporters will take such action in the absence of the Order.

CHANGES IN MARKET CONDITIONS

Prior to discussing changes in market conditions, it is useful to address those factors that influence demand and supply for jacketed pipe insulation.

According to Manson, the market demand for jacketed pipe insulation is driven by non-residential construction, more specifically it is driven by commercial, institutional and government construction.⁶³ According to Johns Manville, investment in commercial and institutional facilities controls demand for jacketed pipe insulation.⁶⁴ Owens Corning stated that most demand for jacketed pipe insulation is driven by commercial construction activity.⁶⁵

According to Manson, the demand for pipe covering occurs when approximately 90% of the construction work has been done. The time that elapses between the issuance of a building permit and the demand for pipe covering varies from project to project but generally it averages nearly a year. In broad terms, this year's demand reflects last year's building permits and this year's building permits indicate next year's demand.⁶⁶

Manson asserts that the total demand in North America is dominated by United States demand for reasons that include population, the intensity of non-residential construction and climate.⁶⁷ Manson further states that fibreglass pipe covering in North America is supplied almost entirely from North American production for reasons that include the value-to-bulk ratios of jacketed pipe insulation.⁶⁸ The Tribunal noted, in its Statement of Reasons in 1998, that the virtual absence of export markets other than Canada is undoubtedly due to the proportionally high cost of shipping jacketed pipe insulation over long distances.⁶⁹

Conditions in Canada

Manson remains the only Canadian producer of jacketed pipe insulation. Manson produces jacketed pipe insulation for the Canadian and United States markets. Information on Manson's sales cannot be divulged because of its confidential nature.

The United States is Canada's major source of imports of the subject goods. When the Tribunal reviewed its Finding in 1998, it did not consider imports of jacketed pipe insulation from countries other than the United States. Subsequent to its order continuing the Finding, certain non-traditional exporting countries emerged.

Manson has asserted that a non-residential construction boom commenced approximately six years ago and crested in 2001.⁷⁰ In support of its position, Manson submitted details of gross fixed capital formation (yearly additions to total capital invested) in non-residential buildings in Canada⁷¹ and gave details of building permits issued in Canada for commercial, institutional and government construction.⁷²

With respect to future demand in Canada, Manson believes that the outlook for 2004 is highly uncertain based on the potential weakness of export demand and concerns about the future rate of non-residential construction.⁷³ Johns Manville has noted that the market is not forecasting robust growth.⁷⁴ On the other hand, Knauf states that market demand should be good in 2003 and 2004 within Canada.⁷⁵

Conditions in the United States

According to Johns Manville, demand for jacketed pipe insulation fell during the review period, following the economy in general. The exporter cited a declining stock market, increasing costs for both energy-related products and raw materials and slow economic growth as factors that affect investment in commercial and institutional facilities, which in turn controls demand for jacketed pipe insulation.⁷⁶

According to Knauf, many construction jobs have been delayed or postponed following 9/11.⁷⁷ With respect to future demand, Knauf offered several comments. It stated that trends for domestic sales within the United States for 2003 to 2005 are fuzzy at best. It remarked that the potential for terrorist activities can put a damper upon planned construction. It indicated that the economy is waiting and primed to expand again and many monetary policies have been put into place to assist. However, based on projections currently by construction economists, Knauf believes that the company is looking to flat years in 2003 and 2004.⁷⁸

According to Owens Corning, data on the annual value of construction starts from F.W. Dodge (F.W. Dodge Market Analysis Group, a professional organization specializing in the construction market) indicates that total commercial construction was off 17% from 2001 to 2002.

Owens Corning notes further that this downturn was an exception to the usual pattern of growth for this industry, i.e. from 1993 to 2000, commercial construction grew at a rate of 12% per year in the United States. Owens Corning concludes that, although commercial construction is projected to decline somewhat in 2003 from 2002, a healthy rebound is forecast for 2004 and 2005.⁷⁹

According to Manson, the pace of recovery in the years 1995 to 1998 was substantially stronger in the United States than in Canada. Manson submitted details of the value of construction put in place for non-residential buildings and public buildings in the United States for the years 1995 through 2002,⁸⁰ stating that activity peaked in 2000, or the early months of 2001, and has since been declining.⁸¹ Manson made an analysis of the economic indicators placed on the record by itself and the exporters and concluded that "by virtually every measure, there has been a significant decline in the factors which drive the United States market for jacketed pipe insulation and it is likely to take a number of years for non-residential construction to climb back to the peak achieved in or around 2001".⁸²

Supply and Demand

The CCRA notes a number of changes with respect to supply and demand for jacketed pipe insulation during the POR.

On the supply side, the CCRA has observed that the main producers of jacketed pipe insulation continue to be Johns Manville, Knauf and Owens Corning in the United States, and Manson in Canada. Each of the four producers considers the United States and Canada their most significant markets. At the same time, non-traditional exporting countries have emerged. While imports from these countries have had a certain impact in the Canadian market, the United States remains Canada's main source of supply.

On the demand side, the CCRA has observed that demand for jacketed pipe insulation continues to be strongly related to demand in non-residential construction. Demand for jacketed pipe insulation in the United States, in tandem with the country's pace of economic growth in non-residential construction, has consistently declined during the POR. Projections of future demand, although mixed, are not overly optimistic. In Canada, while the level of demand during the POR appears to have remained stronger, expectations of future demand are also uncertain.

The CCRA believes that, in the absence of the Order, faced with the prospect of continued weak demand in the United States, United States exporters, rather than reducing production, will try to increase sales to Canada by pricing the product more aggressively. Indeed, Knauf has remarked that, with the production of fibreglass products being so energy intensive, "it is difficult to turn off machines".⁸³ There is a strong likelihood that exporters would lower selling prices to dumped levels to increase sales.

REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION - COMPANY AND PRODUCT SPECIFIC

The Commissioner will normally make the determination regarding the likelihood of resumed or continued dumping or subsidizing on the basis of each country named in the finding or order under review. However, where the situation warrants, the Commissioner may make a determination in respect of certain goods or exporters.⁸⁴

It should be noted that exclusions are granted in exceptional circumstances and the case for an exclusion must be adequately demonstrated.

Johns Manville provided arguments that the Order should be maintained but that the CCRA should determine that there is not a likelihood of a renewal of dumping by Johns Manville. In the alternative, Johns Manville requested that the Commissioner restrict his decision to certain sizes of jacketed pipe insulation. Knauf submitted that, for reasons similar to those presented by Johns Manville, the Commissioner should exclude certain sizes of jacketed pipe insulation.

Requests for Exclusion - Company Specific

The exporter Johns Manville put forward arguments to demonstrate that there is not a likelihood that Johns Manville will resume dumping.

Knauf believes that there should not be a separate determination made for Johns Manville,⁸⁵ as does Manson.⁸⁶ Owens Corning made no representations concerning this issue.

Counsel for Johns Manville argued that the margin of dumping determined for Johns Manville at the final determination of dumping was influenced by the manner in which export price was determined, i.e. based on the importer's resale prices in Canada. As a result of this determination, Johns Manville made a decision to sell directly to distributors in Canada.

Johns Manville claims that its selling prices after the Finding were essentially the same prices as before the dumping investigation, subject to some small adjustments for certain models.⁸⁷

In response to Johns Manville's argument, Manson states that regardless of the manner of export price determination, Johns Manville was found to have an average dumping margin of 31%.⁸⁸

Johns Manville provided details of the Tribunal's inquiry in 1993, concerning
Glass-Cell Fabricators' move from supplying Manson product to supplying Johns Manville product, an action that the Tribunal concluded was a causal link between dumping and material injury. Stating that Glass-Cell Fabricators and Johns Manville have maintained their relationship in the ten years since the Finding, without dumping, the exporter argued that "the commercial success enjoyed by both of those companies is surely proof that dumped pricing is not (and, in fact, never was) a factor."⁸⁹

With respect to the exporter's argument that Johns Manville did not sell dumped products to Glass-Cell Fabricators, dumping, albeit minimal dumping, was found for Glass-Cell Fabricators during the POR.

Johns Manville argued that it sold undumped goods at prices above normal values during the POR, notwithstanding the opportunity to price lower.⁹⁰ The company cited exceptional circumstances to explain why dumping was found during the POR (see page 10 of this Statement of Reasons), stating that the amount of dumping was de minimis.⁹¹

While it is a fact that Johns Manville sold undumped goods at prices above normal values during the POR, all three exporters sold goods at prices above normal values during the POR. As indicated earlier in this Statement of Reasons, all three exporters also sold goods at dumped prices.

As stated earlier, the history of dumping must be examined carefully when considering the likelihood of resumed dumping in the absence of a finding or an order. The CCRA concurs with the view expressed by the Tribunal in its review of the Finding in 1998, when it stated that while very little dumping had taken place since the Finding, this fact was not necessarily an indicator of future behavior on the part of the United States exporters.⁹² In fact, on this point, the CCRA has concluded that there is a likelihood of continued or renewed dumping of subject goods in Canada.

Johns Manville states that, in the Tribunal's review of its Finding, RR-98-001, the Canadian complainant itself argued that it had no concern about a likelihood of renewal of dumping with respect to Johns Manville product.⁹³

Such an allegation cannot be verified in the Tribunal's Statement of Reasons. The Tribunal's document, however, does indicate that counsel for Manson submitted that, in the absence of the Finding, the dumping of all jacketed pipe insulation by the three United States producers was likely to resume.⁹⁴ Manson's case brief to the CCRA clearly indicates that the Canadian producer believes there is likelihood of renewed dumping with respect to Johns Manville product in the absence of the Order.

Johns Manville argued that, because Manson relies on Johns Manville for its supply of glass marbles used in the production of jacketed pipe insulation, there is no incentive to put this customer out of business, particularly when Manson's sales are generating margin for Johns Manville.⁹⁵

While Johns Manville may not wish to eliminate Manson as a customer, its knowledge of Manson's cost structure provides the exporter with an ability to set prices at dumped levels without eliminating the producer. Furthermore, while it may not be to Johns Manville's advantage to eliminate Manson at present, other factors discussed in this report, including declining sales in the United States and increased excess capacity, may lead the exporter to take such action. The additional revenue generated from sales to a larger customer base in Canada, following the elimination of Manson, may outweigh the loss of revenue generated from the sale of raw materials made to the Canadian producer.

The CCRA notes that jacketed pipe insulation exported by Johns Manville is readily substitutable for, and competes directly with, goods produced by Manson. Further, Johns Manville sells jacketed pipe insulation into a segment of the market that is served by Manson. In addition, Johns Manville's sales of jacketed pipe insulation represent a significant portion of the subject goods exported to Canada from the United States.

In light of the conclusion that, absent the Order, exports from the United States would likely be dumped, and for the reasons stated above, based on the information contained in the administrative record, in relation to Johns Manville, the Commissioner was not persuaded that the company should be granted an exclusion.

Requests for Exclusion - Product Specific

As stated above, the Commissioner may make a determination in respect of certain goods where the situation warrants. However, these exclusions are granted under exceptional circumstances and the case for an exclusion must be adequately demonstrated.

A request was made by Johns Manville that the Commissioner restrict the finding to certain subject good sizes, in the event that the CCRA should determine that there is a likelihood of continued or resumed dumping in the absence of the Order.

Johns Manville identified two categories of subject good sizes that it believed should be excluded. Identifying a range of products that appeared on its public price list but were absent from the Manson price list, counsel for the exporter stated "[s] ince Manson does not produce these subject goods, there can be no dumping to which a remedy should be applied in the context of the Special Import Measures Act and the WTO [World Trade Organization] Anti-dumping Code."⁹⁶

Identifying other subject good sizes in Manson's price list that did not have an established list price, counsel for Johns Manville stated "[i] f Manson cannot be bothered to establish a price list for such goods, then the volume of sales must be de minimis, and therefore incapable of causing injury to Manson, even if Manson were capable of producing goods in these particular size ranges (which is expressly denied)."⁹⁷

Knauf submitted that, for reasons similar to those presented by Johns Manville, the Commissioner should exclude certain sizes of products of jacketed pipe insulation.⁹⁸

Manson stated that the arguments presented by Johns Manville are not relevant to the determination to be made by the Commissioner as no evidence has been put forward to show that each size or SKU is a separate market. Manson further stated that pipe insulation is purchased in a variety of sizes to insulate entire systems, implying that an exporter may win customers by selling some sizes at dumped prices and the remainder at undumped prices, thereby causing injury to Manson.⁹⁹

Johns Manville and Knauf have not provided details for their request, i.e. the magnitude (volume and value) of domestic sales of these products during the POR. Furthermore, Johns Manville's comment that sales of certain subject good sizes are de minimis is not sufficient grounds for exclusion.

The case for exclusion has not been adequately demonstrated by the exporters. Based on the information contained in the administrative record, the Commissioner was not persuaded that an exclusion should be granted with respect to the subject good sizes identified by the exporters.

CONCLUSION

In its Statement of Reasons in 1998, the Tribunal concluded that there was a likelihood of resumed dumping. This conclusion was based on a number of factors, namely the available capacity of United States producers to increase their exports to Canada, the absence of export markets other than Canada, the strategy of United States producers to maintain or recapture their market share positions and the high price sensitivity of jacketed pipe insulation.¹⁰⁰ The CCRA is of the view that similar circumstances exist today and that these factors are still applicable.

For the purpose of a determination in this expiry review investigation, the CCRA has conducted its analysis within the scope of the factors contained in subsection 37.2(1) of the SIMR. The following conclusions are considered particularly relevant in the Commissioner's determination:

The continuation of dumping by the three exporters while the Tribunal's Order has been in place is a strong indicator that dumping will continue in the absence of the Order. Given the fact that Canada remains their most single important export market and that their Canadian distributors are facing very competitive pricing from Manson and importers of jacketed pipe insulation from other countries, there is a strong likelihood of continued or resumed dumping in the absence of the Order.

United States producers do not have any reasonable export market opportunities for jacketed pipe insulation other than Canada. Given their available production capacity and inventory levels, exporters are likely to reduce their selling prices to dumped levels, in the absence of the Order, to generate additional export sales to Canada in order to offset available production capacity and reduce inventory.

The Canadian distributors for United States exporters will, in all likelihood, encourage lower prices, in the absence of the Order, so that they can remain competitive in the Canadian marketplace.

Jacketed pipe insulation is a commodity product that is highly price-sensitive. United States exporters appear to be unable to compete at undumped prices in Canada. This has led to their loss of market share to the Canadian producer and to exporters from other countries. United States exporters of jacketed pipe insulation have demonstrated that they will take any actions necessary to maintain or re-capture market share, both in the United States and in Canada. The absence of the Order will provide United States exporters with an opportunity to increase and regain their previous market shares in Canada by aggressively lowering prices.

Business entities place a high priority on maintaining profit margins. This goal is met by reducing variable costs, increasing manufacturing efficiencies and reducing fixed costs through increasing sales volume. In an effort to capture a greater sales volume, in order to improve profitability, it is likely that United States exporters will lower selling prices to dumped levels if the Order is allowed to expire.

The above-noted interrelated factors led to the conclusion that the expiry of the Order is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of preformed fibreglass pipe insulation, with a vapour barrier, originating in or exported from the United States of America.

FUTURE ACTION

On July 9, 2003, the Tribunal commenced its inquiry to determine whether the expiry of the Order is likely to result in injury or retardation.

If the Tribunal determines that the expiry of the Order is likely to result in injury or retardation, the Order will be continued, with or without amendment. If this is the case, the CCRA will continue to levy anti-dumping duties on dumped importations of the subject goods.

If the Tribunal determines that the expiry of the Order is unlikely to result in injury or retardation, the Order will be rescinded. Anti-dumping duties would no longer be levied on importations of the subject goods from the date the Order is rescinded.

INFORMATION

For further information, please contact Peter Dupuis at:

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
Anti-dumping and Countervailing Directorate
100 Metcalfe Street, 11^th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L8
Canada

Telephone:
(613) 954-7341

Telefax:
(613) 954-2510

Web site:
www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/

Denis Lefebvre

Assistant Commissioner
Customs Branch

---

1 Exhibit 1, CCRA Statement of Reasons for Final determination of Dumping, non-confidential.

2 Exhibit 2, CITT Statement of Reasons for Finding, non-confidential.

3 Exhibit 3, CITT Order and Statement of Reasons, non-confidential.

4 Exhibit 6, CITT Notice of Expiry of Order, non-confidential.

5 Exhibit 7, CITT Notice of initiation of Expiry Review, non-confidential.

6 CCRA Guidelines on the Conduct of Expiry Review Investigations under the Special Import Measures Act, July 2001.

7 Exhibit 3, Tribunal Order and Statement of Reasons, Product Information, page 6.

8 Exhibit 2, Tribunal Finding and Statement of Reasons, Product Information, page 8.

9 Exhibit 2, Tribunal Finding and Statement of Reasons, Product Information, page 8.

10 Exhibit 1, CCRA Statement of Reasons for Final determination of Dumping, Product Information and Uses,
page 3.

11 Exhibit 61, Manson response to the producer ERQ, Question A3, non-confidential.

12 Exhibit 61, Manson response to the producer ERQ, Question A4, non-confidential.

13 Exhibit 61, Manson response to the producer ERQ, Question A4, non-confidential.

14 The sample was based on a review of imports undertaken by the Tribunal and the CCRA. The selection of the fourteen importers represented a significant percentage of total imports into Canada.

15 Exhibit 120, Johns Manville Reply Submission, paragraph 6, non-confidential.

16 Exhibit 120, Johns Manville Reply Submission, paragraph 5, non-confidential.

17 Exhibit 106, Johns Manville Case Brief, paragraph 25, non-confidential.

18 Exhibit 116, Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH Reply Submission, paragraph 11, non-confidential.

19 Exhibit 116, Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH Reply Submission, paragraph 13, non-confidential.

20 The volume of imports from non-Named Countries includes both jacketed and non-jacketed pipe insulation, entered under classification code 7019.39.90.13.

21 Exhibit 110, Manson Insulation Inc. Case Brief, paragraph 39, non-confidential.

22 Exhibit 74, Nu-West Construction Products Inc. response to the importer ERQ, Question B12(c),
non-confidential.

23 Exhibit 74, Nu-West Construction Products Inc. response to the importer ERQ, Question B12(c),
non-confidential.

24 Exhibit 110, Manson Insulation Inc. Case Brief, paragraph 29, non-confidential.

25 Exhibit 116, Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH Reply Submission, paragraph 6, non-confidential.

26 Exhibit 106, Johns Manville Case Brief, paragraph 24, non-confidential.

27 Exhibit 3, CITT Order and Statement of Reasons, pages 12-13, non-confidential.

28 Exhibit 56, Johns Manville response to the exporter ERQ, Question B12(b) Appendix 5, protected, Exhibit 58, Owens Corning response to the exporter ERQ, Question B12(b) Appendix 5, protected and Exhibit 54, Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH response to the exporter ERQ, Question B12(b) Appendix 5, protected.

29 Exhibit 56, Johns Manville response to the exporter ERQ, Question B12(b) Appendix 5, protected, Exhibit 58, Owens Corning response to the exporter ERQ, Question B12(b) Appendix 5, protected and Exhibit 54, Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH response to the exporter ERQ, Question B12(b) Appendix 5, protected.

30 Exhibit 3, CITT Order and Statement of Reasons, page 14, non-confidential

31 Exhibit 3, CITT Order and Statement of Reasons, page 14, non-confidential.

32 Exhibit 3, CITT Order and Statement of Reasons, page 14, non-confidential.

33 Exhibit 10, CITT Administrative Record, Staff Report from RR-98-001, Table 25-Capacity and Utilization Consolidated - U.S. Producers, page 49, public.

34 Exhibit 56, Johns Manville response to the exporter ERQ, Question B12(b) Appendix 5, protected, Exhibit 58, Owens Corning response to the exporter ERQ, Question B12(b) Appendix 5, protected and Exhibit 54, Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH response to the exporter ERQ, Question B12(b) Appendix 5, protected.

35 Exhibit 10, CITT Administrative Record, Staff Report from RR-98-001, Table 25-Capacity and Utilization Consolidated - U.S. Producers, page 49, public.

36 Exhibit 3, CITT Order and Statement of Reasons, page 14, non-confidential.

37 Exhibit 52, Burnaby Insulation Supplies Ltd. response to the importer ERQ, Question B14(a), non-confidential.

38 Exhibit 97, Isolation Dispro Inc. response to the importer ERQ, Question B14, non-confidential.

39 Exhibit 74, Nu-West Construction Products Inc. response to the importer ERQ, Question A2, non-confidential.

40 Exhibit 110, Manson Insulation Inc. Case Brief, paragraph 30, non-confidential.

41 Exhibit 77, Alsip's Industrial Products Ltd. response to the importer ERQ, Question B16, non-confidential.

42 Exhibit 110, Manson Insulation Inc. Case Brief, paragraph 36, non-confidential.

43 Exhibit 106, Johns Manville Case Brief, paragraph 1, non-confidential.

44 Exhibit 3, CITT Order and Statement of Reasons, page 10, non-confidential.

45 Exhibit 3, CITT Order and Statement of Reasons, page 9, non-confidential.

46 Exhibit 106, Johns Manville Case Brief, paragraph 28, non-confidential.

47 Exhibit 106, Johns Manville Case Brief, paragraph 29, non-confidential.

48 Exhibit 3, CITT Order and Statement of Reasons, page 15-16, non-confidential.

49 Exhibit 74, Nu-West Construction Products Inc. response to the importer ERQ, Question B12(c),
non-confidential.

50 Exhibit 56, Johns Manville response to the exporter ERQ, Question B7(a) Appendix 4, protected, Exhibit 58, Owens Corning response to the exporter ERQ, Question B7(a) Appendix 4, protected and Exhibit 54, Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH response to the exporter ERQ, Question B7(a) Appendix 4, protected.

51 Exhibit 10, CITT Administrative Record, Staff Report from RR-98-001, Sales and Inventories - Consolidated- U.S. Producers, page 47, public.

52 Exhibit 56, Johns Manville response to the exporter ERQ, Question B4, Appendix 2, protected, Exhibit 58, Owens Corning response to the exporter ERQ, Question B4, Appendix 2, protected and Exhibit 54, Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH response to the exporter ERQ, Question B4, Appendix 2, protected.

53 Exhibit 9, CITT Administrative Record, Staff Report from RR-98-001, Table 22, Apparent U.S. Market - Volume, page 46, protected.

54 Exhibit 3, CITT Order and Statement of Reasons, page 16, non-confidential.

55 Exhibit 3, CITT Order and Statement of Reasons, page 16, non-confidential.

56 Exhibit 3, CITT Order and Statement of Reasons, page 16, non-confidential.

57 Exhibit 56, Johns Manville response to the exporter ERQ, Question B21, Attachment B21 entitled "Strategic Plan Forecast and Planning Materials", pages 222-228, protected.

58 Exhibit 110, Manson Insulation Inc. Case Brief, paragraph 24, non-confidential.

59 Exhibit 61, Manson Insulation Inc. response to producer ERQ, Question A25, Appendix 4, non-confidential.

60 Exhibit 57, Johns Manville response to the exporter ERQ, Question B12(c), non-confidential.

61 Exhibit 55, Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH response to the exporter ERQ, Question B12(c), non-confidential.

62 Exhibit 59, Owens Corning response to the exporter ERQ, Question B12(c), non-confidential.

63 Exhibit 61, Manson Insulation Inc. response to producer ERQ, Question A22, non-confidential.

64 Exhibit 57, Johns Manville response to the exporter ERQ, Question B20, non-confidential.

65 Exhibit 59, Owens Corning response to the exporter ERQ, Question B20, non-confidential.

66 Exhibit 61, Manson Insulation Inc. response to producer ERQ, Question A22, non-confidential.

67 Exhibit 110, Manson Insulation Inc. Case Brief, paragraph 7, non-confidential.

68 Exhibit 110, Manson Insulation Inc. Case Brief, paragraph 6, non-confidential.

69 Exhibit 3, CITT Order and Statement of Reasons, page 14, non-confidential.

70 Exhibit 61, Manson Insulation Inc. response to producer ERQ, Question A22, non-confidential.

71 Exhibit 61, Manson Insulation Inc. response to producer ERQ, Question A26, Appendix A.26(1),
non-confidential.

72 Exhibit 60, Manson Insulation Inc. response to producer ERQ, Question A22, Appendix A.22, protected.

73 Exhibit 61, Manson Insulation Inc. response to producer ERQ, Question A23, non-confidential.

74 Exhibit 57, Johns Manville response to the exporter ERQ, Question B19, non-confidential.

75 Exhibit 55, Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH response to the exporter ERQ, Question B19, non-confidential.

76 Exhibit 57, Johns Manville response to the exporter ERQ, Question B20, non-confidential.

77 Exhibit 55, Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH response to the exporter ERQ, Question B20, non-confidential.

78 Exhibit 55, Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH response to the exporter ERQ, Question B21, non-confidential.

79 Exhibit 59, Owens Corning response to the exporter ERQ, Question B20, non-confidential.

80 Exhibit 61, Manson Insulation Inc. response to producer ERQ, Question A24, Appendix A.24 (1),
non-confidential.

81 Exhibit 61, Manson Insulation Inc. response to producer ERQ, Question A24, non-confidential.

82 Exhibit 110, Manson Insulation Inc. Case Brief, paragraph 16, non-confidential.

83 Exhibit 55, Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH response to the exporter ERQ, Question B21, non-confidential.

84 CCRA Guidelines on the Conduct of Expiry Review Investigations under the Special Import Measures Act, July 2001.

85 Exhibit 116, Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH Reply Submission, paragraph 19, non-confidential.

86 Exhibit 119, Manson Insulation Inc. Reply Submission, paragraph 7, non-confidential.

87 Exhibit 106, Johns Manville Case Brief, paragraph 3-5, non-confidential.

88 Exhibit 119, Manson Insulation Inc. Reply Submission, paragraph 4, non-confidential.

89 Exhibit 106, Johns Manville Case Brief, paragraph 10, non-confidential.

90 Exhibit 105, Johns Manville Case Brief, paragraph 23-24, non-confidential.

91 Exhibit 105, Johns Manville Case Brief, paragraph 25, non-confidential.

92 Exhibit 3, CITT Order and Statement of Reasons, page 12, non-confidential.

93 Exhibit 106, Johns Manville Case Brief, paragraph 20, non-confidential.

94 Exhibit 3, CITT Order and Statement of Reasons, page 8, non-confidential.

95 Exhibit 106, Johns Manville Case Brief, paragraph 21-22, non-confidential.

96 Exhibit 106, Johns Manville Case Brief, paragraph 37, non-confidential.

97 Exhibit 106, Johns Manville Case Brief, paragraph 38, non-confidential.

98 Exhibit 116, Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH Reply Submission, paragraphs 31-32, non-confidential.

99 Exhibit 119, Manson Insulation Inc. Reply Submission, paragraphs 2-3, non-confidential.

100 Exhibit 3, CITT Order and Statement of Reasons, page 17, non-confidential.