ARCHIVED - Statement of Reasons

This page has been archived.

Ottawa, April 22, 2004

RR-2003-004
4366-17

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

CERTAIN COLD-ROLLED STEEL SHEET PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN OR EXPORTED FROM BELGIUM, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC AND TURKEY

DECISION

On April 7, 2004, pursuant to paragraph 76.03(7)(a) of the Special Import Measures Act, the President of the Canada Border Services Agency determined that the expiry of the findings made by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal on August 27, 1999, in Inquiry No. NQ-99-001, concerning certain cold-rolled steel sheet products, originating in or exported from Belgium, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic and Turkey was likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods into Canada.

Cet énoncé des motifs est également disponible en français.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
CLASSIFICATION OF IMPORTS
PERIOD OF REVIEW
CANADIAN INDUSTRY

• Algoma
• Dofasco
• Ispat Sidbec
• Stelco

CANADIAN MARKET
ENFORCEMENT OF THE FINDINGS
PARTICIPANTS
INFORMATION USED BY THE PRESIDENT
PROCEDURAL ISSUES TO NOTE
POSITION OF THE PARTIES

• Parties Contending that Resumed or Continued Dumping is Likely
• Positions of the Canadian Producers - General
• Positions of the Canadian Producers - Country Specific
• Parties Contending that Resumed or Continued Dumping is Unlikely
• Belgium
• Russian Federation (Russia)
• Slovak Republic (Slovakia)
• Turkey

CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS

• Production Capacity
• Market Conditions in Canada
• Market Conditions in China
• Belgium
• Russian Federation (Russia)
• Slovak Republic (Slovakia)
• Turkey

CONCLUSION
FUTURE ACTION
INFORMATION

---

SUMMARY

[1] On December 9, 2003, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (Tribunal), pursuant to subsection 76.03(3) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), initiated an expiry review (RR-2003-004) of its findings issued on August 27, 1999, in Inquiry No. NQ-99-001 (Findings), concerning certain cold-rolled steel sheet products, originating in or exported from Belgium, the Russian Federation (Russia), the Slovak Republic (Slovakia) and Turkey (collectively known as "the Named Countries"). The purpose of the expiry review is to determine whether the Findings should be continued or rescinded. The Findings are scheduled to expire on August 26, 2004.

[2] On December 10, 2003, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) initiated an expiry review investigation to determine whether the expiry of the Findings is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods from the Named Countries.

[3] The responsibility for the customs program of the CCRA was transferred to the new Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) on December 12, 2003. All of the responsibilities of the former Commissioner of Customs and Revenue with respect to the administration of the SIMA were transferred to the President of the CBSA (President) on that date.

[4] On April 7, 2004, the President determined, pursuant to paragraph 76.03(7)(a) of the SIMA, that the expiry of the Findings was likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping from each of the Named Countries.

BACKGROUND

[5] An anti-dumping investigation was initiated on January 29, 1999, on certain cold-rolled steel sheet originating in or exported from Argentina, Belgium, New Zealand, Russia, Slovakia, Spain and Turkey. A preliminary determination of dumping concerning the subject goods from these countries was made on April 29, 1999. A final determination of dumping was made on July 28, 1999. On August 27, 1999, the Tribunal issued findings that the dumping of the goods from Belgium, Russia, Slovakia and Turkey was threatening to cause injury to the domestic injury. Imports of the subject goods from these countries have been subject to anti-dumping measures since the Findings have been in place.

[6] There have been two other dumping investigations conducted on certain cold-rolled steel sheet products imported into Canada, one before the Findings and one after. The Tribunal made injury findings on July 29, 1993, respecting cold-rolled steel sheet from France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States of America (U.S.). The Tribunal rescinded these findings on July 28, 1998.

[7] The CCRA initiated an investigation on March 12, 2001, on certain cold-rolled steel sheet products originating in or exported from Brazil, Chinese Taipei, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Italy, Luxembourg, Malaysia, the People's Republic of China (China), the Republic of Korea and South Africa. The CCRA made a final determination of dumping on September 10, 2001. On October 9, 2001, the Tribunal found that the volume of the dumped goods from each of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Italy, Luxembourg and Malaysia was negligible and terminated its inquiry with respect to those four countries. With respect to the other countries, the Tribunal found that the dumping of certain cold-rolled steel sheet products originating in or exported from Brazil, Chinese Taipei, China, the Republic of Korea and the Republic of South Africa had not caused injury or retardation and was not threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry.

[8] The CCRA completed its last re-investigation to update the normal values and export prices of certain cold-rolled steel sheet products from the Named Countries on March 3, 2003. The results of this re-investigation were made public in Customs Notice N-504 on March 31, 2003.¹

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

[9] For purposes of this review, certain cold-rolled steel sheet is defined as:

cold-reduced flat-rolled sheet products of carbon steel (including high-strength low-alloy steel), in coils or cut lengths (not painted, clad, plated or coated), in widths up to and including 80 in. (2,032 mm) and in thicknesses from 0.014 in. to 0.142 in. (0.35 mm to 3.61 mm) inclusive, originating in or exported from Belgium, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, and Turkey.

[10] For purposes of clarity, cold-rolled steel products considered subject to this expiry review include products in coil form and products cut from a coil, including cut-lengths from slit coils, having a square or rectangular shape, regardless of whether the products are referred to as blanks.

[11] Cold-rolled steel sheet is normally produced to an ASTM standard or some other international standard or to a proprietary specification. The following types of cold-rolled steel are illustrative of the types of products that meet the above-noted definition:

• commercial quality steel (ASTM A366/A366M)
• sheet for porcelain enamelling (ASTM A424/A424M, Type 1)
• structural steel (ASTM A611/A611M)
• drawing quality steel (ASTM A620/A620M formerly ASTM A619/A619M and A620/A620M)
• deep drawing steel - special killed (ASTM A963/A963M, formerly A620/A620M)
• extra deep drawing quality sheet/interstitial free (ASTM A969/A969M formerly A620/A620M)
• intermediate temper
• full hard temper
• high-strength low-alloy including:
  • ASTM A606
  • ASTM A607/A607M, Class 1, Type 1 or equivalent
  • ASTM A607/A607M, Class 2, Type 1 or equivalent
  • ASTM A715

[12] Cold-rolled steel strip made to ASTM A109/A109M, A682/A682M and A684/A684M specifications is excluded from the product definition. These specifications cover cold-rolled carbon strip in cut lengths or coils finished to closer tolerances than cold-rolled carbon steel sheets and which have specific temper, edge and finish, a maximum thickness of 0.2499 inches (6 mm) and in widths from ½ inch (12.5 mm) to 23 15/16 inches (600 mm).

CLASSIFICATION OF IMPORTS

[13] Certain cold-rolled steel sheet products are normally imported into Canada under the following Harmonized System classification numbers:²

7209.15.00.10   7209.17.91.30   7209.26.00.10
7209.15.00.20   7209.17.99.10   7209.26.00.20
7209.15.00.30   7209.17.99.20   7209.26.00.30
7209.16.10.10   7209.17.99.30   7209.27.00.10
7209.16.10.20   7209.18.10.10   7209.27.00.20
7209.16.10.30   7209.18.10.20   7209.27.00.30
7209.16.91.10   7209.18.10.30   7209.28.00.10
7209.16.91.20   7209.18.91.10   7209.28.00.20
7209.16.91.30   7209.18.91.20   7209.28.00.30
7209.16.99.10   7209.18.91.30   7209.90.00.90
7209.16.99.20   7209.18.99.10   7211.23.10.00
7209.16.99.30   7209.18.99.20   7211.23.90.00
7209.17.10.10   7209.18.99.30   7211.29.10.00
7209.17.10.20   7209.25.00.10   7211.29.90.00
7209.17.10.30   7209.25.00.20   7211.90.10.00
7209.17.91.10   7209.25.00.30   7211.90.90.90
7209.17.91.20

PERIOD OF REVIEW

[14] The period of review (POR) for this expiry review was January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2003.

CANADIAN INDUSTRY

[15] The Canadian industry for cold-rolled steel sheet production is comprised of the following four companies:

• Algoma Steel Inc. (Algoma) of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
• Dofasco Inc. (Dofasco) of Hamilton, Ontario
• Ispat Sidbec Inc. (Ispat Sidbec) of Montréal, Quebec
• Stelco Inc. (Stelco) of Hamilton, Ontario

Algoma

[16] Algoma, with its subsidiaries, is a vertically integrated primary iron and steel producer having a present capacity to produce approximately 2.7 million metric tonnes³ of raw steel annually. Expressed in terms of finished steel products, the annual capacity is approximately 2.3 million tonnes consisting of carbon steel plate, hot-rolled sheet, cold-rolled sheet and unfinished parts. Algoma operates a major steelworks at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Algoma first produced cold-rolled steel sheet in 1954.⁴

Dofasco

[17] Dofasco's head office, sales, administrative and production facilities are located in Hamilton, Ontario. Dofasco also has a 50 percent ownership in a mini-mill facility, Gallatin Steel Company, located in Gallatin County Kentucky. Products made by Dofasco and its steel related joint ventures include: flat-rolled steels (both hot and cold-rolled); galvanized and Galvalume^® steel; pre-painted steel; tinplate and chromium coated steels and Zyplex^TM; welded tubular products; Extragal^TM for exposed automotive parts; and tailor-welded blanks. Dofasco started production of cold-rolled steel sheet products over 50 years ago⁵.

Ispat Sidbec

[18] Sidbec-Dosco was purchased by Ispat International N.V. in 1994 and is now a wholly owned subsidiary of that company and is known as Ispat Sidbec. This company is split into five different strategic business units: primary operations, flat rolled products, wire rod, bars and shapes and pipe. Ispat Sidbec also owns several subsidiaries.⁶ Flat rolled products (hot-rolled and cold-rolled) were first produced in the late 1960's.

Stelco

[19] The company is an integrated steel company producing flat-rolled steel, bars and rods, as well as wire, wire products and pipes and tubes.

[20] Stelco's cold-rolling facilities are located at in Hamilton, Ontario. The cold-rolling operation consists of two tandem mills: a five-stand mill built in 1948 and a four-stand mill built in 1967 and upgraded from 1997 to 2000. Both mills have been modernized to meet the increasingly stringent requirements of several of Stelco's customer groups, especially the automotive sector.⁷ On January 29, 2004, Stelco received a court order for (bankruptcy) protection against creditors in order to allow the company to initiate restructuring of its financial position.⁸

CANADIAN MARKET

[21] In 2002, the Canadian manufacturers produced and sold approximately 1.4 million tonnes of cold-rolled steel sheet products into the Canadian market. ⁹ The four manufacturers represented about 72 percent of the Canadian market.¹⁰

[22] The apparent Canadian market for cold-rolled steel sheet has declined since the beginning of the POR as indicated in below:

Table 1:

Apparent Canadian Market ¹¹
Cold-rolled Steel Sheet (Tonnes)

Source	2000	2001	2002	Jan-Sept 2003	Projected 2003*
Canadian Producers	1,408,223	1,295,369	1,392,274	1,000,896	1,334,528
Named Countries	10,763	11,902	10,422	5,295
United States	412,340	408,597	411,602	258,854
Other Countries	176,398	111,799	113,775	51,611
Total Market	2,007,724	1,827,667	1,928,073	1,316,656	1,755,541

*Note: Projection for 2003 is based on the 9-month period of January to September 2003.

ENFORCEMENT OF THE FINDINGS

[23] Belgium and Turkey were the only two countries of the Named Countries to have shipped subject goods to Canada during the POR.

[24] In the enforcement of the Findings during the POR, the amount of anti-dumping duty collected on importations of subject goods was approximately $9,000 and represented less than 0.04 percent of the total value for duty for all subject importations.¹² Anti-dumping duty was collected on two importations of goods originating in Belgium and Turkey. The dumped subject goods represented 2.2 percent of the total volume of subject goods imported during the POR.

PARTICIPANTS

[25] At the start of this 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 producers, importers and exporters. At the same time, any person or government having an interest in the CBSA's review was invited to provide a submission containing information that they deemed relevant.

[26] Expiry Review Questionnaires (ERQs) were sent to the Canadian producers of certain cold-rolled steel sheet products, known exporters of the goods originating in or exported from the Named Countries, and known Canadian importers of the goods to request information necessary for the President to consider the factors listed in subsection 37.2(1) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR) to determine the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping. Interested persons were also invited to provide case arguments regarding the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping of the goods if the Findings expired. In addition, persons were provided an opportunity to submit reply submissions providing their comments in respect of the case arguments submitted by other persons.

[27] All four Canadian producers participated in the expiry review and provided a response to the ERQ. With the exception of Algoma, the Canadian producers, through their respective counsel, also provided case arguments and reply submissions stating that the dumping of subject goods would continue or resume should the Findings expire. Algoma did not provide any case arguments or reply submissions.

[28] Five exporters participated in the expiry review and were subsequently deemed parties to the proceeding. The participating exporters were: Sidmar N.V. (Sidmar) of Belgium, JSC Severstal (Severstal) and Novolipetsk Iron and Steel Corporation (NLMK) of Russia, U. S. Steel Ko_ice s.r.o. (USSK) of Slovakia and Borçelik Çelik Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S. (Borçelik) of Turkey. With the exception of Severstal, all of these exporters also participated in the last re-investigation of normal values and export prices, which concluded on March 3, 2003.¹³

[29] All the above participating exporters answered the ERQ, each supporting the notion that the export of the subject goods from their respective countries was not likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping if the Findings expired. With the exception of Severstal and NLMK, the participating exporters submitted both case arguments and reply submissions in support of this position. Severstal submitted case arguments but no reply submissions and NLMK provided neither.

[30] Six complete responses to the ERQ were received from importers in Canada, namely: Imco Ltd., General Motors of Canada Ltd., Daewoo Canada Limited, Toyota Motor Manufacturing of Canada, Intier Automotive Inc. and Arcelor International Canada Inc. These importers were deemed parties to the proceeding.

[31] One other importer submitted some information that did not constitute a complete response and was not deemed a party to the proceeding. Four other importers contacted the CBSA to state that they had not imported the subject goods during the POR and would not provide responses to the ERQ. These importers offered no further participation in the review and were also not deemed parties to the proceeding. None of the remaining 23 importers who were contacted at initiation provided any information.

[32] With the exception of Arcelor International Canada Inc. (AIC), which acted as a co-participant with Sidmar, none of the importers expressed a position as to whether the expiry of the Findings is likely to result in continued or resumed dumping from any of the Named Countries.

INFORMATION USED BY THE PRESIDENT

[33] The information used and considered by the President for purposes of this expiry review proceeding is contained on the administrative record. The administrative record includes the exhibits listed on the CBSA's Exhibit Listing, which is comprised of the Tribunal's administrative record at initiation of the expiry review, CBSA exhibits and information submitted by interested persons, including information which they feel is relevant to the decision as to whether dumping is likely to continue or resume, absent of the Findings. This information consists of responses to the ERQs submitted by Canadian producers, importers and exporters, expert analysts reports, excerpts from trade magazines and newspapers, orders and findings issued by authorities of Canada or of a country other than Canada and documents from international trade organizations such as the World Trade Organization.

[34] For purposes of an expiry review, the CBSA 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". For this expiry review, the administrative record closed on January 28, 2004. This allowed participants time to prepare their case arguments and reply submissions based on the information that was on the administrative record as of the closing of the record date. As discussed below, some information was added after the closing of the record date.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES TO NOTE

[35] Normally, the President will not consider any 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.

[36] The President considers 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 relevance 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 President in making the determination.

[37] Participants wishing to file new information after the closing of the record date, either separately or in case arguments or reply submissions, must identify this information so that the President can decide whether it will be included on the record for purposes of the determination.

Information Placed on the Record after Closing of the Record

[38] On January 29, 2004, the CBSA placed two press releases from Stelco on the record. The releases were dated January 29, 2004, and dealt with the company seeking and obtaining an Order to initiate a Court-supervised restructuring under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.¹⁴ This new information was added to the record because a) it was not available prior to the closing of the record date, b) it resulted from the emergence of new or unforeseen issues, c) it was considered relevant and material information and d) all participants would have an opportunity to respond to this new information through the expiry review process as scheduled.

[39] On February 9, 2004, counsel for Borçelik, submitted a letter to the CBSA in which he noted that certain enforcement information respecting the normal values and export prices of goods under consideration was not made available.¹⁵ Counsel for Borçelik requested that the President be provided with the amount by which the total export price of Borçelik's shipments to Canada exceeded their total normal value during the POR.

[40] The CBSA considered that there were relatively few imports of subject goods during the POR, and that several of the imports were made at prices that were not dumped. Therefore, on February 17, 2004, normal values and export prices for shipments of subject goods to Canada during the POR were placed on the record and all parties to the proceeding were notified.¹⁶ This new information was added to the record because it was considered relevant and material information and all participants would have an opportunity to respond to this new information.

Information not Considered after Closing of the Record

[41] On March 2, 2004, counsel for USSK submitted three letters to the CBSA in which he requested that certain information, pertaining to the reply submissions submitted on behalf of Dofasco,¹⁷ Stelco¹⁸ and Ispat Sidbec,¹⁹ be stricken from the record. The counsel also presented new arguments by refuting information presented by the Canadian producers. His requests and new arguments were presented seven days following the due date for the receipt of reply submissions.

[42] The CBSA advised counsel for USSK on March 3, 2004, that his requests were denied, as there was no ground to remove the information from the record. He was informed that the CBSA's guidelines do not foresee the presentation of new arguments after reply submissions. He was also informed that his letters would not form part of the record for the proceeding and that the President would be disregarding their contents in rendering his decision.²⁰

[43] On March 2, 2004, counsel for Sidmar and AIC submitted a letter on behalf of his clients. Attached to the counsel's letter was a letter from Arcelor FCS Commercial S.A. that contained statements rebutting certain arguments made by Borçelik's counsel in his case arguments submitted on behalf of his client.²¹

[44] The CBSA advised counsel for Sidmar and AIC on March 3, 2004, that the CBSA's guidelines do not foresee the presentation of new arguments after reply submissions. He was also informed that his letter, which contained the letter from Arcelor FCS Commercial S.A., would not form part of the record for the proceeding and that the President would be disregarding its content in rendering his decision.²²

[45] Borçelik's counsel submitted a letter on March 4, 2004, regarding the letter from Sidmar and AIC's counsel.²³ Borçelik's counsel was also advised on March 4, 2004, that his letter would not form part of the record. ²⁴ The CBSA also received a second letter from Borçelik's counsel on March 4, 2004, in which he expressed his support for the position taken by the CBSA in its March 3, 2004 letter with respect to the March 2, 2004 letter from Sidmar and AIC's counsel.²⁵

[46] On March 4, 2004, counsel for Sidmar and AIC submitted a letter to the CBSA in which he requested that the March 2, 2004 letter from Arcelor FCS Commercial S.A. be accepted as new information.²⁶ He also submitted another letter dated March 4, 2004, in which he provided comments on the letters submitted by USSK's counsel on March 2, 2004, with respect to the striking of information on the record.²⁷ The CBSA advised counsel for Sidmar and AIC on March 8, 2004, that his request to have the March 2, 2004 letter treated as new information was denied.²⁸ The March 2, 2004 letter was not considered to be new information as it pertained to a commercial relationship that was in existence prior to the closing of the record.

[47] Counsel for Sidmar and AIC submitted another letter to the CBSA on March 17, 2004, in which he requested again that certain information with respect to Borçelik be corrected and that certain arguments made in the reply submissions presented on behalf of Stelco be removed.²⁹ He was informed on March 17, 2004, that his requests were denied but that any new information presented in arguments or reply submissions would be disregarded for the purpose of the determination.³⁰

[48] On March 18, 2004, counsel for Sidmar and AIC submitted a letter requesting confirmation that the President would not rely on certain arguments in reply submissions that he claimed were unsupported.³¹ Counsel was informed in a letter from the CBSA on March 25, 2004, that in general, the CBSA is under no obligation to inform parties whether their arguments are properly supported by information on the record. With respect to the specific arguments he referred to, counsel was informed that the President would not be disregarding those arguments as they were based on information that was before the President before the closing of the record.³²

[49] On March 26, 2004, USSK's counsel submitted a letter requesting that a News Release dated March 19, 2004, concerning his client USSK be placed on the record as new information.³³ Counsel for USSK was informed on March 29, 2004, that his request was denied, as there would not be sufficient time to allow an opportunity for other participants to respond to the new information and for the President to take the new information into consideration in making his determination.³⁴

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

Parties Contending that Resumed or Continued Dumping is Likely

[50] While all four Canadian producers provided responses to the ERQ for producers, only Dofasco, Ispat Sidbec and Stelco presented arguments and additional evidence that dumping into Canada of certain cold-rolled steel sheet products from the Named Countries would continue or resume in the event of the expiry of the Findings.

Positions of the Canadian Producers - General

[51] The Canadian producers made several common arguments. In their description of the worldwide situation in the steel market, the Canadian producers submitted that the world steel market was plagued by excess capacity and overproduction, leading to increases in disruptive exports. The domestic producers argued that this situation would not be resolved in the short term. They pointed to evidence that several countries are continuing to increase production and to add capacity.

[52] In particular, they submitted that China, while currently somewhat alleviating the overcapacity crisis due to its strong internal demand for steel, would soon be contributing significantly to the crisis as it is expected to convert from being a major importer to being a major steel exporter in the near future. The Canadian producers submitted evidence that China's capacity is increasing at a faster pace than the growth in China's consumption.³⁵ The producers also submitted that all of the Named Countries are substantial exporters to China and that several other countries now rely heavily on the Chinese market to absorb large volumes of their production. The producers argued that such an oversupply situation in China and the rest of the world would force the countries that currently export to China to seek new export markets for cold-rolled steel sheet products.

[53] Dofasco provided evidence of significant new production capacity for cold-rolled steel sheet that will be added in the next three years in other major markets.³⁶ The Canadian producers noted the recognition of the overcapacity and related overproduction problems by Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) members, which have held high-level meetings to try to find solutions to this crisis. The Canadian producers submitted that the massive new capacity being added in the world market for cold-rolled steel sheet will dramatically increase the level of exports in the world market, forcing exporters in all regions of the world, particularly producers in the Named Countries, to look for new markets to export cold-rolled steel sheet.

[54] The Canadian producers further argued that the Named Countries, which all have significant production capacity and are among the largest net steel exporting countries in the world, are dependant on exports to maintain their utilization rates. Dofasco also submitted that the current low utilization rates in certain of the Named Countries are resulting in substantial excess capacity being available to supply the export market. Ispat Sidbec stated that the substantial production capacity underutilization of the mills in the Named Countries is greater than the size of the entire Canadian market for subject goods.³⁷

[55] The producers submitted that the Tribunal's past observations about the "economics of steel production" and the imperative to keep steel mills operating at high capacity to sustain production and recover fixed costs are directly relevant to this review. They further argued that exporters from the Named Countries have the capacity to flood the Canadian market and would resume dumping to rid themselves of surplus products.

[56] Commenting on changes in the international market conditions, Canadian producers submitted evidence of weak or weakening demand for steel in major world markets. The Canadian producers also pointed to continuing major weaknesses in the European Union (EU) steel sheet market. In response to claims that cold-rolled steel sheet prices are increasing in Europe and elsewhere, Stelco argued that recent price increases are related to rising costs (transportation, energy, raw materials) and not the result of improved conditions in Europe and North America.

[57] The Canadian producers claimed that the Named Countries rely on export markets and would likely resume dumping in North America. Stelco pointed to weaknesses in the U.S. cold-rolled steel sheet market. Furthermore, Stelco submitted that there is evidence of renewed import penetration in the U.S. cold-rolled steel sheet market following the removal of the U.S. safeguard measures in December 2003. Stelco claimed that this import pressure and the weaknesses in the domestic U.S. market are reflected by declining cold-rolled steel sheet prices. Dofasco pointed to the potential volatile state of the world market, arguing that the current strength of the Chinese market is not sustainable and that a weakening in Chinese demand is an enormous risk for the world market.³⁸ Dofasco submitted that the record indicated expectations of dropping world export prices in 2004.³⁹

[58] Commenting on the changes in the market conditions domestically, Stelco submitted that the Canadian cold-rolled steel industry is still weak, affected not only by weak North American demand but also by the strong Canadian dollar, which is attracting imports to Canada and depressing domestic spot prices. Stelco submitted that the general economic weakness and reductions in capital spending in other areas in Canada are also affecting steel sales and prices. Stelco submitted that one of the most significant manifestations of the current weakness is its recent restructuring filing under the Companies Creditor's Arrangement Act on January 28, 2004.⁴⁰ Algoma submitted that the Canadian cold-rolled steel sheet market has declined significantly in 2003 and expected a modest recovery in 2004.⁴¹

[59] The Canadian producers submitted that the evidence relating to the numerous dumping actions taken by Canadian authorities and by authorities in other jurisdictions against steel producers from the Named Countries demonstrates a propensity by these producers to dump subject goods and similar products.⁴²

[60] The Canadian producers submitted that, as previously found by the Tribunal, import prices tend to converge at the lowest possible price in the market and that this reflects the price sensitivity of the subject goods as a commodity product.⁴³ Stelco submitted that Canadian prices are continuing to face import pressure. Similarly, Ispat Sidbec submitted that if the Findings were rescinded, imports from the Named Countries would be dumped in order to compete with low-priced imports from non-named countries. Stelco submitted that since the majority of cold-rolled steel sheet imports into Canada are sold to service centres on the spot market, the prices are more predisposed to be at dumped levels.⁴⁴

[61] The Canadian industry submitted that the inability of producers in the Named Countries to export subject goods to Canada in significant volumes and on a regular basis during the POR is strong and compelling evidence that dumping will continue or resume if the Findings are allowed to expire. They noted that the CCRA (and now the CBSA) had found in past expiry reviews that the inability of an exporter to make sales to Canada was a strong indicator that dumping may continue or resume had the Tribunal findings been allowed to expire.

[62] The producers submitted that the known marketing practices of the exporters' agents, brokers and traders increased the likelihood of resumed dumping. In particular, the producers referred to the Canadian importers' destabilizing practice of source switching as importers move from country to country in reaction to anti-dumping findings and orders. Stelco noted that past Tribunal findings confirmed that these enterprises are adept at sourcing and importing steel at bargain prices, often off the dock, seriously eroding domestic prices through these practices.⁴⁵ Ispat Sidbec claimed that these same importers are still active in the Canadian cold-rolled steel sheet market. Dofasco also referred to the strong Canadian distribution network available to producers in the Named Countries as a factor indicating a likelihood of resumed dumping.

[63] The Canadian producers submitted that given the non-participation of several producers of subject goods from the Named Countries in this proceeding, there was not sufficient evidence on the record to support a determination that dumping is not likely to resume.

Positions of the Canadian Producers - Country Specific

Belgium

[64] Dofasco noted that Belgium is the 18^th largest steel producing country in the world and the fourth largest net steel exporter.⁴⁶ The Canadian producers submitted that Belgium's producers were extremely dependant on exports. For example, Dofasco submitted that a substantial proportion of the largest cold-rolled steel producer's (Sidmar) production was exported.⁴⁷ Dofasco also suggested that Sidmar's higher utilization rates were linked to increased exports to non-EU markets.⁴⁸ Furthermore, Dofasco argued that information provided by Sidmar indicated that sales to some of its international markets were clearly made at dumped prices.⁴⁹

[65] Dofasco submitted that while Western Europe used to be a net importer of cold-rolled steel products, European production was now exceeding consumption, a trend that is expected to continue in 2004 because of weak market conditions in Europe. Dofasco noted that exports of steel products from the EU increased by as much as 17.8 percent in the first half of 2003.⁵⁰ Similarly, Dofasco submitted that the EU enlargement will increase competition in the EU market. Since most of Belgium's steel production is generally sold to EU countries, Dofasco claimed that such weakening market conditions and increased competition would force producers in Belgium to export more to other countries. Stelco also submitted that the weak state of the European steel market was of particular relevance to this review.

[66] Ispat Sidbec submitted that producers in Belgium had substantial cold-rolling capacity available for exports and argued that Belgian exports to the U.S. were at very low prices, well below average pricing.⁵¹

[67] Stelco argued that the Belgian producers' capacity to produce flat-rolled products (including cold-rolled steel sheet) is significantly larger than the total Canadian cold-rolled market and noted that the largest portion of Belgian production is geared for exports. Stelco also submitted that Belgian producers expanded their cold-rolling capacity in 2003.

[68] Dofasco submitted that the evidence indicated that producers of subject goods in Belgium are unable to compete in Canada at non-dumped prices. Dofasco argued that producers from Belgium have not been able to maintain a steady volume of shipments to Canada at non-dumped prices.

[69] With respect to price differentials between Europe and North America, Stelco submitted that European cold-rolled steel sheet export prices have been shown to be below both European domestic prices and North American domestic prices in the recent period. Stelco also submitted that Sidmar's claim about rising prices in 2004 are not demand driven but reflects attempts by producers to recover increased costs of energy and raw materials.⁵²

[70] Dofasco also noted that producers whose production accounts for over 40 percent of the production capacity in Belgium did not participate in this proceeding and that, given the country's easy access to ocean freight and its status as the fourth largest net steel exporter in the world, these other producers must also be significant exporters of cold-rolled steel sheet.

Russian Federation (Russia)

[71] Dofasco submitted that Russia was the fourth largest steel producing country in the world and the third largest net steel exporter.⁵³ Canadian producers submitted that the evidence indicates a substantial and growing dependence of Russian producers of the subject goods on exports. Dofasco also suggested that the Russian producers' higher utilization rates were linked to increased exports.⁵⁴ Dofasco submitted that the substantial increase in exports was the only reason why Russian mills could realize higher utilization rates and noted they were obtained prior to the imposition of anti-dumping duty on cold-rolled steel sheet exported to China. In this regard, Dofasco claims that the Russian producers will have to seek out new export markets in order to maintain these higher utilization rates.⁵⁵

[72] Similarly, Ispat Sidbec argued that mills that usually dump are likely to be operating at high utilization levels due to the production imperative under which they operate. The producer further argued that it is not the high level of production that influences whether the mill is likely to dump but rather whether that production is exported and at what prices. Ispat Sidbec then referred to the Russian import trend to the U.S. as an indication of likely dumping, pointing to the high volume and very low pricing level.⁵⁶

[73] Dofasco submitted that industry experts predicted that the rising level of Russian exports of cold-rolled steel would continue in 2004 and 2005.⁵⁷ At the same time, Dofasco noted that a Russian producer indicated that it expected a severe drop in export prices by mid-2004.⁵⁸ Ispat Sidbec also submitted that producers in Russia had substantial cold-rolling capacity available for exports.⁵⁹ Stelco submitted that Russia had extensive unused steel making capacity and that its producers were among the world's largest steel producers. Furthermore, Stelco submitted that Russian producers have been expanding their cold-rolling capacity over the last several years.

[74] Dofasco submitted that the inability of Russian producers to make sales to Canada at non-dumped prices is an indication that dumping may continue or resume if the finding on Russia is allowed to expire. In this regard, Dofasco noted that Russian producers have not exported any subject goods to Canada since January 2000.

[75] The Canadian producers argued that the trade restrictions imposed on exports of cold-rolled steel sheet from Russia are likely to cause diversion to Canada if the finding on Russia is rescinded. Ispat Sidbec submitted that given increased competition, any resulting sale of diverted goods to Canada would have to be at a dumped price. The producers submitted that Russian producers are subject to a number of trade actions (including quota systems), including actions in three of their largest export markets, the U.S., the EU and China.⁶⁰ Stelco also argued that the recent anti-dumping orders in China and Mexico against Russian steel products are indications that the producers have not changed their disruptive marketing practices.

[76] The producers submitted that the risk of diversion is further increased by the recent Chinese trade action. The Canadian producers noted that in January 2004, the Chinese government imposed anti-dumping duty ranging between 7 percent and 29 percent on imports of cold-rolled steel sheet from Russia, which used to ship substantial quantities to China.⁶¹

[77] Similarly, Dofasco submitted that the expansion of the EU in 2004 also increases the likelihood of diversion of Russian goods, particularly in conjunction with the restricted Chinese market. In this regard, Dofasco noted that Russian exports of cold-rolled steel sheet to the EU are subject to a very restrictive quota for 2004.⁶² However, Russia exported approximately 500,000 tonnes of flat-rolled steel to the countries that are to join the EU in 2004.⁶³ Stelco submitted that Russia recently renewed its export efforts to the U.S. since the removal of the U.S. safeguard measures in December 2003.⁶⁴ Ispat Sidbec submitted that public reports suggest that new trade restrictions could be imposed against Russian steel imports into the U.S. once the steel agreement between the U.S. and Russia expires in 2004.⁶⁵

[78] Ispat Sidbec submitted that producers in Russia, which are also subject to a Canadian anti-dumping finding with respect to hot-rolled steel products, have the potential to produce subject cold-rolled steel sheet products in facilities that are currently used to produce hot-rolled steel. In this regard, Ispat Sidbec argued that in the absence of a finding on cold-rolled steel products, producers in Russia could switch from production of hot-rolled to cold-rolled steel products.⁶⁶

[79] Ispat Sidbec also argued that in the recent expiry review of the hot-rolled finding, the CBSA held that Russian hot-rolled steel sheets were likely to be dumped into Canada if the finding was allowed to expire. Ispat Sidbec argued that the facts and the applicable factors are similar in this proceeding.

Slovak Republic (Slovakia)

[80] Dofasco submitted that steel producers in Slovakia are highly dependant on exports. According to Dofasco, while Slovakia is only the 31^st largest steel producing country, it is the 12^th largest net steel exporter.⁶⁷ Dofasco submitted that USSK, the Slovak cold-rolled producer, has a capacity to produce cold-rolled steel sheet far in excess of its domestic consumption with a significant level of exports.⁶⁸ Dofasco submitted that another company in Slovakia announced that it was considering building a new cold-rolling/galvanizing facility in Slovakia with cold-rolling capacity of 800,000 tonnes and galvanizing capacity of 500,000 tonnes.⁶⁹ Stelco claimed that USSK's cold-rolling capacity of 1.9 million tonnes per year is approximately the same size as the total Canadian market and out of proportion for a small country like Slovakia.⁷⁰

[81] Dofasco submitted that USSK is increasing its export sales in an effort to increase its utilization rate.⁷¹ Dofasco further submitted that industry experts expected Slovak production of cold-rolled steel sheet to increase in 2004 and 2005. ⁷² It is Dofasco's contention that the Slovak producer will have to seek out new export markets to realize such increases. Furthermore, Dofasco argued that the Slovak producer will be greatly affected by the continuing weaknesses in the European market. Ispat Sidbec also submitted that producers in Slovakia had substantial cold-rolling capacity available for exports and argued that Slovak exports to the U.S. were at very low prices, well below average pricing.⁷³ Stelco also submitted that the weak state of the European steel market has particular relevance to this review, as Slovak producers, which are highly dependant on exports to Western Europe, will have to seek markets elsewhere.⁷⁴

[82] Dofasco submitted that the inability of Slovak producers to make sales to Canada at non-dumped prices is an indication that dumping may continue or resume if the finding on Slovakia is allowed to expire. In this regard, Dofasco noted that Slovak producers have not exported any subject goods to Canada since January 2000. Dofasco submitted that in light of USSK's growing dependence on exports and its need to find new markets in light of the EU's efforts to restrict its exports to the EU countries, it is clear that the only reason USSK has not exported subject goods to Canada is its inability to sell subject goods into Canada at non-dumped prices.⁷⁵

[83] Ispat Sidbec also submitted that producers in Slovakia that are also subject to a Canadian anti-dumping finding with respect to hot-rolled steel products, have the potential to produce subject cold-rolled steel products in facilities that are currently used to produce hot-rolled steel products. In this regard, Ispat Sidbec argued that in the absence of a finding on cold-rolled steel sheet products, producers in Slovakia could switch from production of hot-rolled to cold-rolled steel products.⁷⁶

[84] Ispat Sidbec also argued that in the recent expiry review of the hot-rolled steel finding, the CBSA held that Slovakian hot-rolled steel sheets were likely to be dumped into Canada if the finding on Slovakia was allowed to expire. Ispat Sidbec argued that the facts and the applicable factors are similar in this proceeding.

[85] Stelco noted that the Slovak producer has increased production well above the limit set by the accession agreement with the EU.⁷⁷

Turkey

[86] Dofasco submitted that Turkey is the 12^th largest steel producing country in the world and the 6^th largest net steel exporter.⁷⁸ Stelco noted that Turkey is roughly equivalent to Canada in terms of steel production, notwithstanding that its economy is a fraction of the size of Canada's. Dofasco submitted that although the dominant producer of cold-rolled steel sheet in Turkey, Erdemir, did not participate in this proceeding, the record clearly indicated that the company was extremely dependant on exports to maintain its utilization rates. Dofasco submitted that this dependency on exports has been increasing and that this dependency would be maintained in the future. Furthermore, Dofasco noted that the vast majority of Erdemir's cold-rolling capacity was produced for sale and not for further processing. Canadian producers submitted that notwithstanding the large amount of steel exports, Turkish producers still have substantial excess production capacity to further increase these exports.

[87] Furthermore, Canadian producers noted Turkish producers' expansion plans for cold-rolled production, including the intentions reported by a producer in Turkey to double its production capacity for cold-rolled steel.⁷⁹ Dofasco submitted that all new production capacity for cold-rolled steel sheet incites producers to secure new markets for their exports thus increasing the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping into Canada. Ispat Sidbec also submitted that producers in Turkey had substantial cold-rolling capacity available for exports and argued that Turkish exports to the U.S. were at very low prices, well below average pricing.⁸⁰

[88] In response to Borçelik's claim that it has little interest in the Canadian market or other markets beyond Europe, Stelco noted that Borçelik reported substantial volume of cold-rolled steel sheet exported to the U.S. Stelco also noted that Borçelik's public corporate material also indicated otherwise, with North American sales amounting to as much as 48 percent of Borçelik's export sales.⁸¹ In this regard, Stelco argued that Canada and the U.S. are significant parts of the exporter's world-wide sales strategy. Ispat Sidbec argued that Turkish export prices to the U.S. have been at prices below the average import pricing for the past five years.⁸²

[89] Dofasco submitted that at recent OECD meetings, several countries, including Turkey, have been fighting attempts to end steel related subsidies. In this regard, Dofasco referred to an article that indicated that a delegate from the Government of Turkey wanted to allow subsidies so that the country could become a bigger exporter of steel products.⁸³ Dofasco also submitted that the record indicated that Turkish steel producers led non-EU members in output increases in the first half of 2003.⁸⁴

[90] Dofasco submitted that the recent inability of Turkish producers to make sales to Canada is an indication that dumping may continue or resume if the finding on Turkey is allowed to expire. Dofasco submitted that this was attributable to the Turkish producers' inability to sell at non-dumped prices, given that these companies have been increasing their exports of cold-rolled steel sheet in light of declining domestic sales.⁸⁵ On the other hand, Stelco submitted that imports from Turkish producers indicate a continued interest in the Canadian market.

Parties Contending that Resumed or Continued Dumping is Unlikely

Belgium

[91] In their joint submission, Sidmar and AIC submitted that the expiry of the finding with respect to Belgium is unlikely to result in the resumption of dumping of cold-rolled steel sheet into Canada. They further submitted that the CBSA must make a separate determination for Belgium and consider only the facts that apply to Belgium. They also contended that the CBSA must not apply the cumulation rule to the issue of the likelihood of resumption of dumping.⁸⁶

[92] Sidmar and AIC noted that the CBSA's enforcement data showed that Sidmar had continued to export subject goods to Canada at non-dumped prices. They noted that the CBSA enforcement statistics showed a very minimal and insignificant amount of dumped product in 2001 and submitted that this product was not exported by Sidmar, nor imported by AIC.⁸⁷

[93] Sidmar and AIC also noted the volumes of cold-rolled steel sheet that AIC continued to import from Sidmar, and contended that the shipments to Canada in 2001 and in 2002 represented a fair and steady commercial tonnage.⁸⁸ They also argued that the low volumes shipped in the year 2000 were caused by having to adjust to the Findings being in place and the notification requirements put in place by the CCRA, which were later revised.⁸⁹

[94] Sidmar and AIC noted that the capacity utilization evidence filed by Sidmar demonstrated that there is no excess capacity available for additional sales of cold-rolled products. They submitted that with Sidmar running at well over 95 percent capacity utilization there is no excess capacity for cold-rolled steel sheet production in Belgium.⁹⁰ Sidmar and AIC further contended that Sidmar's high capacity utilization rate, coupled with a forecast increase in EU domestic market prices in 2004, and a strengthening Euro currency, will result in a more concentrated effort on sales to European markets.⁹¹ They also emphasized that Sidmar has no plans to increase capacity, nor does Sidmar have any facilities currently producing other goods that could be used to produce cold-rolled steel sheet.⁹²

[95] Sidmar and AIC noted that the data provided in Sidmar's ERQ response indicated that Sidmar has not been selling cold-rolled steel sheet products at dumped prices in its export markets, in particular with regard to Canada.⁹³ To further the pricing argument, the two parties submitted that AIC's selling prices in Canada for Belgian, and other European origin, cold-rolled steel sheet are substantially higher than the domestic selling prices provided by one of the Canadian producers.⁹⁴

[96] Sidmar and AIC submitted that Sidmar's commercial strategy of producing higher value-added products has led to an increasing proportion of cold-rolled steel sheet being further processed as corrosion resistant sheet instead of being sold as cold-rolled steel sheet. As evidence they provided figures for Sidmar's internal consumption of cold-rolled steel sheet. Sidmar and AIC also cited Sidmar's increasing selling prices to EU countries and other countries as evidence that Sidmar is concentrating on selling higher-end products. They asserted that this strategy is not to compete on price, but rather to compete on the quality and technical specifications of the products.⁹⁵

[97] Sidmar and AIC noted that other than the finding on Belgium, there are no active anti-dumping findings against Sidmar, and therefore no threat of diversion of goods to Canada. They observed that Sidmar was involved in a U.S. investigation into cold-rolled steel products, but that anti-dumping duties were never imposed due to a no-injury finding.⁹⁶ They further emphasized that despite a no-injury finding, Sidmar still significantly reduced its shipments to the U.S.⁹⁷

[98] Sidmar and AIC submitted that the current situation in the world steel market, and Europe in particular, is much different than the situation at the time of the Findings. They provided evidence of the distinction between the European steel market and the U.S. steel market by citing a December 2003 CRU Report. This report showed cold-rolled steel sheet prices in the U.S. decreasing over the same period in which prices increased substantially in Germany.⁹⁸ The two parties also submitted that there is evidence of potential European price increases for the start of 2004, largely due to European steel producers production restrictions.⁹⁹

[99] Sidmar and AIC also cited an October 2003 Eurofer report, which described the low economic growth and low demand in Western Europe but which indicated that those conditions are likely to improve in 2004. Sidmar and AIC contended that information in Sidmar's submission, showing high capacity utilization and increasing prices over the period described in the Eurofer report as low growth, demonstrated that Sidmar is well positioned to take advantage of the predicted increase in economic growth. Further, Sidmar would have no incentive to increase shipments to Canada with the European market growth and pricing expected to increase.¹⁰⁰

[100] Sidmar and AIC also argued that the circumstances in Asian steel markets have changed drastically since the time of the Findings. They noted evidence of a strong Chinese economy and high business confidence levels in Japan. They argued that there is very little likelihood that Europe will be a diversion point for Asian bound cold-rolled steel sheet. They further noted that there is no evidence on the CBSA record to substantiate the warnings about a future weakening of the Chinese steel market.¹⁰¹

[101] Sidmar and AIC noted that the imports of Belgian products into Canada came solely through AIC, and not through the actions of brokers, agents or steel trading companies. They submitted that AIC does not make sales on the spot market and does not import basic commercial quality cold-rolled steel sheet, which they contend is the most disruptive due to price competitiveness.¹⁰²

[102] Finally, Sidmar and AIC argued that the circumstances which apply to Sidmar and Belgium for cold-rolled steel sheet reflect a very similar basis on which the President found no likelihood of continued or resumed dumping in the expiry review on hot-rolled steel sheet (RR-2003-002) for France. Sidmar and AIC noted that this particular expiry review also involved Arcelor and that Arcelor is one company with a single commercial strategy firmly adopted and managed by all divisions.¹⁰³

Russian Federation (Russia)

[103] Two Russian steel producers participated in this expiry review. Severstal submitted a complete ERQ response and case arguments, while NLMK provided some arguments in their submission only, and did not choose to file any case arguments. Both companies are of the position that the resumption of dumping into Canada of cold-rolled steel sheet from Russia in the absence of the finding on Russia is unlikely.

[104] Severstal argued that the evidence on the record proves that all Russian cold-rolled steel sheet producers are producing at what is effectively full capacity.¹⁰⁴ They further argued that anything beyond 90 percent should be regarded as effectively constituting full capacity.¹⁰⁵

[105] Severstal submitted that given the position that production is at or near full capacity, combined with the projected economic growth in the Russian domestic market, and the suggested surge in demand for cold-rolled steel sheet from Russia, it is highly unlikely that cold-rolled steel sheet would be dumped into Canada. Rather, Severstal argued that it is more likely that current exports would be reduced to help fill the domestic demand in Russia and that their business plans are focused on the domestic market.¹⁰⁶

[106] Severstal also noted that it does not intend to increase cold-rolled steel sheet production in Russia, and that it does not have additional potential to produce cold-rolled steel sheet on facilities currently used to produce other goods.¹⁰⁷

[107] Severstal submitted that in spite of trade disputes (including anti-dumping measures) with other countries, Russian producers maintained their full capacity. Severstal further asserted that the evidence does not support the contention that these other measures will lead to diversion of goods to Canada, as Russian producers still have no available excess product to divert. Severstal also noted that the threat of diversion due to other trade measures has greatly diminished with the abolishment of safeguard measures in the U.S., Europe and China.¹⁰⁸

[108] Severstal argued that many of the anti-dumping measures in place against Russia occurred during the transition of the Russian economy from a state-controlled to a market-based system. The company submitted that there is a dramatic difference in the way Russian producers conduct business now as compared to the old regime of pure state control. Severstal pointed to the producer's movement into specialized grades of steel, the use of wholly-owned trading companies in export sales, and the mandate to produce for orders only. In underscoring this last point, it stated: "in absence of firm orders, goods are simply not produced. The spectre of boat loads of Russian steel roaming the seas in search of a market is clearly a preposterous suggestion."¹⁰⁹

[109] Severstal also noted the ever-growing demand in their domestic automobile industry. The result of this increased demand is that Severstal will be diverting increasing volumes of cold-rolled steel sheet to internal consumption to produce higher value-added cold-rolled steel and coated products for the automobile industry. The company argued that this would lead to even less cold-rolled steel sheet products available for export.¹¹⁰

[110] Severstal contended that their export markets have also changed since the Findings were made. It alleged there has been growing demand in Asian markets, particularly in China and India. The company noted that the strategy of their wholly owned trading companies is to develop stable relationships with purchasers in these markets. Severstal went on to submit that there is currently no incentive to establish such ties with the Canadian market.¹¹¹

[111] With respect to the lack of sales to Canada of subject goods from Russia during the POR, Severstal submitted that it was not due to the fact that Russian producers could not compete at non-dumped prices but rather a direct result of the CBSA's refusal to accept information submitted in accordance with Russian accounting standards. In this regard, Severstal argued that the CBSA's refusal to provide normal values on the basis of the normal provisions of the SIMA pursuant to section 15 or 19 made it impossible for importers in Canada to purchase Russian products.¹¹²

[112] Finally, Severstal noted the conduct of Russian steel producers in the Canadian market after a no-injury finding on corrosion-resistant steel sheet. Despite having continued open access to the Canadian market, Russian producers refrained from selling to Canada. Severstal argued that they preferred domestic opportunities and other export markets, and further contended that this is clear proof of different market conduct by Russian producers than was practiced prior to the Findings.¹¹³

Slovak Republic (Slovakia)

[113] In stating its position in this proceeding, USSK submitted, "the evidence on the record does not demonstrate that there is a likelihood of resumed dumping of subject goods from the Slovak Republic. The little evidence submitted by the Canadian mills is conjecture, allegation or pure speculation."¹¹⁴

[114] Furthermore, USSK asserted that the President's decision in this review "must be based on positive evidence" in respect of the "likelihood" that dumping will resume in absence of the Findings.¹¹⁵

[115] USSK noted that there are no anti-dumping findings against Slovakia for cold-rolled steel sheet products other than the finding from Canada. For other products, USSK identified only two countries, Argentina and Thailand, which had initiated and imposed anti-dumping measures against exports from Slovakia for hot-rolled steel sheet. However, the company emphasized that the Argentinean finding pre-dates the November 24, 2000 acquisition of the company by U.S. Steel.¹¹⁶ Accordingly, USSK asserts, "its philosophy and commercial policies and practices are diametrically opposed to those of the previous operator" (i.e. VSZ Holdings a.s. (VSZ)).¹¹⁷ The measures imposed by Thailand (2002) involved goods that USSK stated were not shipped directly to Thailand from Slovakia but were rather re-sold by a European customer.¹¹⁸

[116] USSK also submitted that steel safeguard remedies imposed by the U.S., China and the EU have all been terminated. The company further argued that safeguard measures currently applied by Poland and Hungary cannot be considered as a decisive factor since they will no longer apply when Slovakia joins the EU on May 1, 2004.¹¹⁹

[117] A major focus of USSK's case arguments was based upon the changes brought about by new ownership since the time of the Findings. On November 24, 2000, U.S. Steel acquired legal ownership of VSZ. USSK therefore submitted that, since it has never been found to be dumping subject goods into Canada, it is not possible to find that they are likely to resume the practice.¹²⁰

[118] The company further submitted that to hold it accountable based on a history created by a previous regime would be inappropriate given the present context of this review. In support of the contention that USSK is philosophically different from VSZ, the company pointed to the temporary shutdown of USSK's operations in 2001. This shutdown extended throughout the holiday season "due to soft market conditions and a weak order book." The company asserted that this "responsible decision clearly demonstrates the new, responsible commercial practices implemented by USSK in action."¹²¹

[119] In keeping with the theme that ownership under U.S. Steel is a major consideration for this proceeding, USSK asserted that it is the most profitable subsidiary of U.S. Steel.¹²² In support of this changed selling strategy, USSK submitted that while 48 percent of the previous company's sales under VSZ were to traders and stockists, nearly all use of traders has since been eliminated.¹²³ Furthermore, USSK identified its sales strategy under U.S. Steel as one that has increased the company's focus on the home and EU markets.¹²⁴

[120] USSK also noted its commitment to increase the amount of base cold-rolled steel sheet produced towards captive production to benefit the returns on higher value products, thereby lessening the amount of cold-rolled steel sheet available to the merchant market.¹²⁵ As evidence, USSK noted that its sales into the merchant market for cold-rolled steel sheet are expected to decline in 2004.¹²⁶

[121] For export markets, USSK also mentioned its relationship with U.S. Steel as a factor that has changed its strategy since the Findings. USSK noted that its commercial strategy is now to focus on supplying and servicing end-users, and to focus on contract sales rather than spot sales. USSK submitted that the U.S. Steel operations in the U.S. would be a more logical source from which the Canadian market would be serviced if required. To this extent, USSK refuted any suggestion that it would dump into the Canadian market in stating that "there is no incentive (indeed, a significant disincentive) for USSK to operate in Canada in a disruptive manner", and further asserted that "USSK and U.S. Steel have a vested interest in stability in all markets in which they participate."¹²⁷

[122] In its reply submission, USSK argued that evidence on the record indicates that China and Europe are experiencing strong steel market conditions. USSK noted numerous articles on the record highlighting price increases in both markets.¹²⁸ USSK submitted that evidence on the record concerning world steel market conditions fails to demonstrate a likelihood of resumed dumping from Slovakia, since there is evidence of improving market conditions.¹²⁹

Turkey

[123] Borçelik submitted that the expiry of the finding with respect to Turkey is unlikely to result in the resumption of dumping of cold-rolled steel sheet into Canada.

[124] To support its position, Borçelik noted that it is currently operating at full capacity and alleged that it will likely continue to run at full capacity for the foreseeable future.¹³⁰ Furthermore, Borçelik submitted that it has been able to exceed the rated production capacity for cold-rolled steel sheet, but noted that full-hard materials, which do not require further processing through the batch annealing furnaces, comprised much of that production. Borçelik also noted that while they are currently adding 350,000 tonnes per year capacity for cold-rolled steel sheet, this new production line will be used exclusively to produce full-hard material for a new galvanizing line.¹³¹

[125] Borçelik argued that ongoing economic recovery in the U.S. and EU, as well as very strong demand for flat-rolled products in China, will continue to govern the world steel market in the future, and will result in a tight supply of cold-rolled steel sheet worldwide. The company further submitted that with the removal of safeguard measures in the U.S., EU and China, there is no threat of steel being diverted to Canada.¹³²

[126] Borçelik noted that the finding from Canada is the only anti-dumping order against Turkish flat-rolled steel products anywhere in the world. They further submitted that, while there have been many other Canadian anti-dumping cases involving other flat-rolled products, such as carbon steel plate, hot-rolled steel sheet, and galvanized steel sheet, none of these numerous other cases have involved any Turkish producers. Borçelik argued that the lack of such findings worldwide against Turkish flat-rolled steel producers was strong evidence against the likelihood of resumed dumping should the finding on Turkey expire.¹³³

[127] Borçelik noted its cooperation and participation with the CBSA investigation process with the aim of obtaining normal values for selling to Canada at non-dumped prices. Borçelik submitted that it has continued to sell subject goods to Canada at prices well above normal values. Borçelik also noted that for the one shipment during the POR that was assessed anti-dumping duty by the CBSA, the total export price for the shipment was well above the total normal value.¹³⁴ Borçelik further submitted that it continued to sell to the Canadian market in similar quantities before and after the Findings were in place. The company argued that since it did not need to dump to continue to sell to Canada, it would seem reasonable to conclude that it will not dump in the future.¹³⁵

[128] Borçelik noted that in the CBSA's recent expiry review on hot-rolled steel sheet (RR-2003-002), France was found to be unlikely to resume dumping. Borçelik submitted that evidence on the record demonstrates that Arcelor is a major shareholder in Borçelik and is actively involved in the management of the company through the Board of Directors. Borçelik noted the CBSA's reasons regarding Arcelor's corporate strategy and argued that Borçelik's relationship with Arcelor can only lead to the same conclusions being drawn for the company.¹³⁶

[129] Borçelik also submitted that their strategy is to seek pricing premiums as a reliable secondary source of supply. The company would therefore maintain a small presence in Canada provided the pricing is attractive. In its ERQ response, Borçelik contended that due to their small capacity it considers itself to be acting as a mini-mill concentrating on its own market". Borçelik further argued that due to strong domestic demand it is not forced to export large amounts of production and that because of its low production capacity and production output figures the company can easily allocate tonnages to its current customers.¹³⁷ Borçelik further noted that its importer in Canada seeks to maintain a "non-disruptive presence in the Canadian market".¹³⁸

CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS

[130] Subsection 76.03(7) of the SIMA requires the President of the CBSA to determine whether the expiry of the order or finding in respect of the goods of a country or countries is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping or subsidizing of the goods. When making this determination, the President may consider the factors set out in subsection 37.2(1) of the SIMR.

[131] Guided by the factors in the aforementioned SIMR and based on the documentation submitted by the various participants and the consideration of the information on the administrative record, the ensuing list represents a summary of the analysis:

• Global production capacity for cold-rolled steel sheet - excess supply and potential excess;
• Present market conditions in Canada;
• Consumption trends for cold-rolled steel sheet in the world and in the Named Countries;
• Exporters' reliance on export markets to maintain production levels;
• The volume of importations of subject goods at non-dumped prices from the Named Countries while the finding has been in place and since the conclusion of the re-investigation;
• The incidence of dumping to Canada of subject goods from the Named Countries while the finding has been in place;
• Exporters' trade practices including pricing at dumped levels;
• Trade measures taken by other countries (i.e. Anti-dumping and Safeguards) in respect of similar goods exported by some of the Named Countries;
• Trends in major export markets.

[132] Before presenting a country-by-country analysis on the issue of the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping, there are certain issues that relate to the subject goods on a broader scale. In particular, the following issues are addressed: production capacity for cold-rolled steel sheet in the world and in the Named Countries, the current market conditions for cold-rolled steel sheet products in Canada and the market conditions in China and in the EU. Following this global analysis, an analysis is given for each of the Named Countries.

Production Capacity

[133] There is evidence on the record that there is presently a world steel-making capacity that exceeds demand by as much as 200 million tonnes.¹³⁹ There is also evidence that in 2003 there were significant increases in cold-rolled steel sheet capacity in the world and that there are significant planned expansions for the years 2004 and 2005.¹⁴⁰ The planned expansions for cold-rolled steel sheet capacity were 8.3 million tonnes for 2003, and are 5.6 million tonnes for 2004 and 4 million tonnes for 2005.¹⁴¹

[134] With respect to the Named Countries, the planned expansions for cold-rolled steel sheet production capacity are as follows:

Belgium - 870,000 tonnes for 2003, ¹⁴²

Russia - 750,000 tonnes for 2003 and 350,000 tonnes for 2004,¹⁴³

Turkey - 350,000 tonnes for 2004.¹⁴⁴

[135] The capacity for the production of cold-rolled steel sheet in the Named Countries totalled over 17 million tonnes in 2002. This capacity is very significant when compared to the total Canadian market for cold-rolled steel sheet, which was estimated to be about 1.9 million tonnes for 2002 and projected to be about 1.7 million tonnes for 2003.

Market Conditions in Canada

[136] Based on data cumulated to September 2003, the CBSA has estimated the total Canadian market to be 1,928,072 tonnes for the year 2002 and projected it to be 1,755,541 tonnes for the year 2003. This shows an estimated decline in the demand of 12 percent from the year 2000 when the apparent market of 2,007,724 tonnes for that year is compared to the projected market for 2003.¹⁴⁵

[137] There is evidence on the record that indicates that the current demand for cold-rolled steel sheet in Canada continues to be weak and suggests that this trend will continue through 2004. A significant influence on the current market conditions is the state of the automotive industry in North America. The automotive industry is a major consumer of cold-rolled steel sheet products. This industrial sector showed considerable decline in 2003 and is said to be facing even more contraction in 2004. General economic weakness and reductions in capital spending have also affected cold-rolled steel sheet sales and prices.¹⁴⁶

[138] Prices for cold-rolled steel products are forecasted to slightly increase in 2004 in the North American market but are expected to remain flat in 2005. This trend is expected to be the same for the Canadian market with domestic shipments not changing dramatically over the course of 2004. ¹⁴⁷

[139] In conclusion, the cold-rolled steel sheet market in Canada appears to be weak with flat demand expected to continue and with prices also expected to be flat in the longer term despite slight price increases in 2004.

Market Conditions in China

[140] Evidence on the record indicates that China has been and will likely continue to be one of the most decisive factors on the supply and demand balance of the global steel industry. As such, any major change in the Chinese market is likely to impact the Canadian market.

[141] There has been significant growth in demand for steel products in China over the past few years with increases of over 20 percent per year since 2001.¹⁴⁸ The International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI) estimated the total demand in China to be as high as 257 million tonnes for year 2003, or 29 percent of world consumption.¹⁴⁹ Furthermore, in a CIBC World Markets report it was estimated that over 80 percent of the growth in the world steel consumption in 2003 is attributable to China.¹⁵⁰

[142] While it is the largest consumer of steel, China is also the largest producer, with an estimated 220.1 million tonnes produced in 2003, which is equal to 22.8 percent of world production, estimated at 926.5 million tonnes in 2003.¹⁵¹ Due to substantial growth in demand over the past few years, China has surpassed the U.S. as the largest steel importer in the world, with total imports in 2003 estimated at 30 million tonnes.¹⁵² Of that amount, imports of cold-rolled steel were equal to over 7 million tonnes.¹⁵³

[143] As a result of these figures, China has had a considerable impact on the world steel market. By taking in such a vast amount of imports, China has alleviated the global over-production crisis. China's strong demand has also driven up world prices. In this regard, world prices have been rising not only because of a strong demand in China but also indirectly because of higher costs. As reported by CRU analysts, Chinese steel mills are bidding up prices for steel-making raw materials because of Chinese demand. Furthermore, Chinese demand for both steel and raw materials is driving up shipping freight rates.¹⁵⁴

[144] For the near future, Chinese demand for steel is expected to remain strong. For example, the IISI has estimated growth of 8 percent in the Chinese GDP for 2004 and of 12.8 percent in steel demand.¹⁵⁵

[145] On the other hand, steel production in China is increasing at an even faster pace and many fear that the supply/demand balance could soon be reversed, with China becoming a net exporter of steel. Such concerns have been expressed by numerous experts and even by Chinese government officials.¹⁵⁶ Such capacity expansion in China poses a major threat to the world steel industry and a significant amount of steel could be diverted to other markets including North America. Some experts expect Chinese capacity to exceed its demand by mid-2004 while others seem to think that this shift in supply/demand balance will occur in 2005 or 2006.

[146] With respect to cold-rolled steel in particular, CRU reported Chinese cold-rolling capacity expansion of 9 million tonnes between 2003 and 2005, plus an additional 1.8 million tonnes in the rest of Asia.¹⁵⁷ This may be sufficient to meet China's need for imported cold-rolled steel products, which was equal to 7 million tonnes in 2003.¹⁵⁸

[147] Therefore, despite China's strong growth in demand for cold-rolled steel sheet products, the even stronger growth in production capacity could mean that China will no longer rely on imports of cold-rolled steel sheet. This would mean that all countries that currently rely on the Chinese market for their cold-rolled steel sheet exports could soon be competing for new export markets in order to replace lost sales to China and to maintain production levels. This could affect all major steel markets in the world including Canada.

Market Conditions in the European Union (Western Europe)

[148] There is evidence on the record that suggests that the European steel market will continue to be weak due to weak demand in the near future,¹⁵⁹ while some evidence forecasts increases in European steel prices.¹⁶⁰ The enlargement of the number of EU members scheduled for May 2004 will also have an impact on the weakness in the steel market and will serve to create even stronger competition in the finished steel products market. With the expansion of the EU members from 15 to 25 states, it is anticipated that the EU will switch from being a net steel importer to being a net steel exporter.¹⁶¹

[149] Consumption of cold-rolled steel sheet products by the current EU members is expected to continue at levels greatly inferior to those experienced prior to 2002. In fact, the forecasted consumption for 2004 is approximately half of the actual consumption levels seen from 1994 to 2000. The forecasted annual consumptions are expected to continue at significantly lower levels until 2008.¹⁶²

[150] One source of evidence suggests that the Western European steel sheet market is the weakest of all steel markets with few signs of improving in the short term and that producing mills may be dependent on export markets for an extended period.¹⁶³

[151] In conclusion, it appears that the European steel market will continue to be weak with little potential for growth for some time.

Analysis by Country

Belgium

[152] Sidmar was the only producer of cold-rolled steel sheet in Belgium to have shipped subject goods during the original period of investigation. Since the original investigation, the company was integrated into the Arcelor S.A. (Arcelor) group of companies with the amalgamation of Usinor, Aceralia and Arbed, the previous parent company of Sidmar.¹⁶⁴ During the year 2002, there were two other producers of cold-rolled steel sheet products in Belgium. One of these companies was Cockerill-Sambre, another Arcelor company, with the other being Duferco.¹⁶⁵ Of these three producers, only Sidmar provided submissions in this review.

[153] Sidmar's corporate affiliation with Arcelor, combined with the recent CBSA decision that France was unlikely to resume dumping hot-rolled steel sheet into Canada, was presented by Sidmar as an argument that it was also unlikely to resume dumping cold-rolled steel sheet into Canada in the absence of the finding on Belgium.¹⁶⁶ The CBSA's determination of no likelihood of continued or resumed dumping for France's hot-rolled steel sheet exports to Canada was based on the case specific facts as they related to that particular country and product and has no bearing on this expiry review. The President's determination was based on the information available to him for that expiry review. The following analysis for Belgium is based on the information and factors relevant to the Belgian cold-rolled steel sheet industry.

[154] The three cold-rolled steel sheet producers in Belgium have a combined capacity of over 6 million tonnes per year.¹⁶⁷ Sidmar accounts for over half of the Belgian cold-rolling capacity. Sidmar has maintained a very high level of capacity utilization for cold-rolled steel sheet in recent years, operating at well over 95 percent utilization.¹⁶⁸ The Cockerill-Sambre mill has a cold-rolled steel sheet production capacity of 2.5 million tonnes.¹⁶⁹ The other Belgian producer, Duferco, has a cold-rolled steel sheet production capacity of 430,000 tonnes.¹⁷⁰ While Sidmar argued that Arcelor had plans to close the Cockerill-Sambre mill,¹⁷¹ evidence on file indicates that the mill may remain open for another five years.¹⁷² Consequently, the CBSA considers production and sales from the Cockerill-Sambre mill to be relevant to this review.

[155] The above analysis of capacity includes cold-rolled steel sheet produced for further internal processing, such as to produce corrosion-resistant steel sheet, which is not all available for sale into the marketplace as cold-rolled steel sheet. Sidmar's internal consumption of cold-rolled steel sheet has increased continuously from 2000 to 2002.¹⁷³ However, despite this use of cold-rolled steel sheet for internal consumption, there remains a large amount of cold-rolled steel sheet available for sale to domestic and export markets. Based on a CRU analysis, the total volume of Belgian cold-rolled steel produced for sale can be estimated at 3.6 million tonnes in 2002.¹⁷⁴ Therefore, while Sidmar allocates a significant portion of its cold-rolled steel sheet production towards further processed goods, the volume of Belgian cold-rolled steel sheet available for sale is still a significant figure, particularly when compared to the size of the apparent Canadian market estimated at 1.9 million tonnes in 2002.

[156] If demand for further processed goods were to decrease there is a strong possibility of an increased volume of cold-rolled steel sheet being available for sale. In this regard, the planned closure of a Ford automobile-manufacturing plant in Belgium, as announced in a Metal Bulletin article, may have an impact on domestic demand not only for cold-rolled steel sheet products but also for further processed galvanized steel sheets.¹⁷⁵ Consequently, Sidmar could be forced to look at other markets to replace lost sales.

[157] Sidmar is dependent on export markets for its sales of cold-rolled steel sheets, with a large proportion of its cold-rolled steel sheet sales being sold to export markets. In light of Belgium's status as the fourth largest steel exporter in the world,¹⁷⁶ the non-cooperating producers must also be large exporters.

[158] Evidence on the record indicates that Belgian producers are particularly dependant on the EU market to sustain their sales and capacity utilization.¹⁷⁷ In light of the importance of sales in Europe, the state of European demand discussed previously is particularly relevant to Belgian steel producers. In view of a stagnant cold-rolled steel sheet demand in Europe for the near future, combined with stiffer competition from new EU members with substantial capacity and even a possible diversion of Asian-bound shipments in the next few years, it is likely that Belgian producers will renew their interest in other export markets, including Canada, to complement their European sales if the finding on Belgium is allowed to expire.

[159] In its case arguments, Sidmar submitted that international market conditions were quite different at the time of the original investigation than they are now. In particular, Sidmar contended that in 1999, the North American market was more attractive than the European market, with higher prices and a capacity to absorb a substantial volume of steel.¹⁷⁸ Sidmar argued that these conditions have now reversed.

[160] An analysis of Sidmar's evidence and response supports the notion that its domestic market and European prices increased in 2003, while prices in the U.S. market decreased significantly in 2003 compared to the previous year. The evidence also demonstrated that the gap in pricing between these two markets was increasing, indicating stronger pricing in Europe. As previously noted, Sidmar was operating at a very high capacity utilization of at least 95 percent. While experiencing such strong product demand, the company still maintained a significant presence in the U.S. cold-rolled steel sheet market despite the fact that the U.S. market was experiencing the lower pricing that Sidmar has alleged makes the North American market unattractive.¹⁷⁹ Information on the record indicated that Sidmar may be selling cold-rolled steel products into the U.S. at dumped prices. In light of the similarities between the Canadian and U.S. markets, it is therefore possible that Sidmar could sell subject goods at dumped prices in Canada if the finding against Belgium were to expire.

[161] While Sidmar argued that the North American market is not as attractive as it used to be due to lower price levels and a strong Euro, any reduction in demand in Europe and/or increased supply competition may force the producer to increase its sales to other markets, including Canada, in order to maintain its high utilization rates. In this regard, the Belgian producers may still find it beneficial to ship their surplus production to North America at low prices, given the capital-intensive nature of steel production. The Tribunal expressed the following remarks in its Statement of Reasons for a recent carbon steel plate expiry review:

...steel producers, when faced with declining demand, have little choice but to maximize production if they are to make a contribution to high fixed costs, even if it means selling at lower prices. Steel mills are capital intensive with high fixed costs. In order to recover fixed expenses, steel mills must run at high levels of production capacity. When home market demand drops, producers will search out foreign markets to maintain capacity utilization to ensure that these fixed costs are recovered. ... Given the excess carbon plate capacity which currently exists and the need to keep plants operating at optimum levels, the Tribunal considers that the foreign producers are likely to continue to be driven by what might be called the "economics" of steel production.¹⁸⁰

[162] The same "economics of steel production" holds for cold-rolled steel sheet products. Low selling prices to the U.S., combined with the 2002 finding by U.S. authorities that Sidmar had dumped cold-rolled steel sheet products in the U.S. market, illustrate this concept. ¹⁸¹ In addition, in order to maintain its competitiveness in the higher-value galvanized market, Sidmar has additional incentives to keep the utilization rate of its cold-rolling mill at an optimal rate to keep unit costs down. This places further pressure on Sidmar to increase sales to other markets, including Canada, even if prices in these markets are lower.

[163] During the POR, there were several importations of Belgian origin cold-rolled steel sheet to Canada. As noted in their case arguments, subsequent to the year 2000, AIC continued to import cold-rolled steel sheet from Sidmar at non-dumped prices.¹⁸² Sidmar argued that these shipments represent fair and steady tonnage and demonstrated Sidmar's ability to compete at non-dumped prices.¹⁸³ The CBSA notes that during the 12-month period of investigation that led to the Findings, 22,083 tonnes of subject goods from Sidmar were imported into Canada.¹⁸⁴ The total tonnage shipped during the 45-month POR equals only a small proportion of what was shipped in a 12-month period prior to the finding against Belgium. Therefore, while Sidmar has demonstrated some ability to compete in Canada at non-dumped prices, overall the company has not been able to maintain its sales level to Canada since the finding against Belgium has been in place.

[164] In its response to the ERQ, Sidmar indicated that it had allocated sales of 5,000 tonnes of subject goods to Canada in its sales forecast for 2004.¹⁸⁵ This indicates that even with an anti-dumping finding in place, Sidmar intends to keep a presence in the Canadian market in the near future, as does the fact that the company still has a selling arm established in Canada.

[165] Prior to the U.S. section 201 steel safeguard measures, the U.S. represented a significant cold-rolled steel sheet export market for Sidmar. Now that the steel safeguard measures in the U.S. no longer restrict the company, the removal of the anti-dumping finding in Canada may be an added incentive for Belgian producers to recapture their share of the North American market.

[166] Based on the evidence contained on the record including: the significance of Belgian production capacity available for sale combined with a reliance on maintaining high utilization rates, a very high dependency on exports combined with weak European demand despite high European prices, a history of dumping cold-rolled steel sheet in North America, Sidmar's inability to maintain sales volume in Canada at non-dumped prices and a clear interest in maintaining a presence in the Canadian market, the President determined that the expiry of the finding is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping into Canada of certain cold-rolled steel sheet originating in or exported from Belgium.

Russian Federation (Russia)

[167] One Russian producer, Severstal, shipped subject goods during the original period of investigation.¹⁸⁶ According to data submitted by Severstal during the expiry review, Severstal and NLMK accounted for the majority of the total cold-rolled steel sheet production in Russia during the period of January to September 2003.¹⁸⁷ In addition to these two producers, a third major producer, Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works (MMK) was also sent an ERQ. MMK did not respond to the ERQ.

[168] Evidence on the record indicates that Russian production of cold-rolled steel sheet far surpasses its domestic consumption. Russian annual cold-rolled steel sheet production is approximately 6.7 million tonnes, an amount more than three times the size of the apparent Canadian market.¹⁸⁸ Russian cold-rolled steel sheet consumption is a much lower figure, leaving a substantial volume available for sale in the export market.¹⁸⁹ This demonstrates that a very strong dependence on exports still characterizes the Russian cold-rolled steel industry.

[169] Based on the information provided by the participating Russian producers, Russian cold-rolling mills are operating at high utilization rates. Severstal argued that since they are operating at full capacity, Russian producers would not be able to meet growing domestic demand.¹⁹⁰ This position is not supported by other statistics provided in Severstal's submission. Data provided does support an assumption of growth in Russian demand for cold-rolled steel sheet products.¹⁹¹ However, the same data also shows an equivalent growth in production of cold-rolled steel sheet, leaving the Russian producers' reliance on export markets at a static level despite increasing domestic demand. Furthermore, a high utilization rate combined with high export levels indicates that a producer is exporting to keep this rate high in order to spread the fixed costs associated with steel making over a larger volume.

[170] A pricing analysis was performed on Severstal's sales and forecasted sales for its domestic and export markets for cold-rolled steel sheet. The analysis would seem to indicate that Severstal is currently making export sales at prices that are dumped, and that there is a likelihood that Severstal will make export sales at increasingly dumped prices over the next three years.

[171] Observing how an exporter behaves in its various export markets is perhaps one of the best indicators of whether the maintenance of high utilization rates is an indication of likely dumping. Russian producers are subject to a multitude of trade actions regarding cold-rolled steel sheet and other similar steel products and new measures are continuing to be added. Russian cold-rolled steel producers are subject to active anti-dumping findings in at least seven countries other than Canada,¹⁹² including the January 2004 ruling by Chinese authorities.¹⁹³

[172] The Chinese market was one of the most important, if not the most important cold-rolled steel sheet market for Russian producers. The Chinese anti-dumping measure was initially held in abeyance during the period when the Chinese safeguard action remained in effect.¹⁹⁴ With the termination of the safeguard measures, the Chinese anti-dumping finding took effect on January 14, 2004.

[173] The Chinese anti-dumping finding has the potential to significantly affect the Russians' export strategy and poses a risk of Russian cold-rolled steel sheet products being diverted to Canada. Metal Bulletin reported that Russian producer MMK built an 800,000 tonne cold-rolling mill in 2002 specifically to supply China.¹⁹⁵ Prior to the Chinese finding, the company was exporting a substantial 60,000 tonnes per month of cold-rolled steel to China (720,000 tonnes per year). Now that the company is subject to an 18 percent anti-dumping duty, the exporter will have to find a new market for this significant tonnage or be forced to close a rolling mill that employs 2,000 people.¹⁹⁶

[174] Other Russian producers were also highly dependant on the Chinese market for their cold-rolled steel sheet exports. Severstal and NLMK reported exporting large volumes of cold-rolled steel sheet to China. Therefore, if the finding against Russia is allowed to expire, it is likely that Russian cold-rolled steel sheet producers would be tempted to resume exporting to Canada in order to keep their mills operating at high utilization rates.

[175] While the Russians are facing new restrictions in China, restrictions in the U.S. market are being eliminated. In this regard, the steel imports safeguard measures were recently terminated and the U.S. Comprehensive Steel Agreement, a quota system that is restricting the volume of imports from Russia, is set to expire in July 2004.

[176] Severstal has demonstrated a willingness and ability to shift its export strategy based on trade restrictions. The U.S. market was one of Severstal's largest export markets prior to the steel imports safeguard measures and the dumping investigation of cold-rolled imports from Russia. After the implementation of the U.S. trade restrictions, Severstal replaced its lost sales to the U.S. in 2002 with new sales to China. The Chinese market then became one of Severstal's largest export markets in 2002 and 2003.

[177] In light of the Chinese finding and the existing quota system restricting their sales to the EU, it is likely that the Russian producers will focus on the U.S. market when the Comprehensive Steel Agreement expires in July 2004. If the Russian producers attempt to recapture market share in the U.S., it is likely that, given Canada's proximity to the U.S. and the integrated nature of the North American steel market, the Russian exporters would also target the Canadian market.

[178] NLMK was the only Russian producer to participate in the normal value re-investigation, which concluded on March 3, 2003. It was determined during the re-investigation that the submitted costs of cold-rolled steel sheet provided by NLMK could not be accepted as reasonably reflecting the costs associated with the production and sale of the subject goods due to accounting practices in the Russian market. ¹⁹⁷ However, in recognition of the amount of information and the extent of cooperation that it provided, NLMK received normal values based on the average normal value of like goods as determined for other exporters in accordance with a Ministerial Specification pursuant to section 29(1) of the SIMA. During the POR, Russian producers did not ship any cold-rolled steel sheet to Canada. Consequently, the Russian producers have demonstrated an inability to sell subject goods in Canada at non-dumped prices.¹⁹⁸

[179] Based on the evidence contained on the record including: the excess Russian capacity and the producers' dependency on exports, demonstrated lower pricing to export markets, the serious risk of diversion due to trade measures on cold-rolled steel sheet from Russia by several countries and in particular the recent measures by China, the likely renewed interest in the North American market, a clear and continued pattern of dumping cold-rolled steel and other steel products in their export markets and an inability to sell in Canada at non-dumped prices, the President determined that the expiry of the finding is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping into Canada of certain cold-rolled steel sheet originating in or exported from the Russian Federation.

Slovak Republic (Slovakia)

[180] USSK is the only producer of cold-rolled steel sheet products in Slovakia. At the time of the Findings, the company was identified as VSZ Holdings, a.s.¹⁹⁹ On December 14, 2000, the company now known as the United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) took ownership of the entity now called USSK. The company has one cold-rolled steel sheet production facility in Slovakia.²⁰⁰ The company participated in both the CCRA's original investigation and the normal value re-investigation that concluded on March 3, 2003.

[181] USSK has substantial production capacity for cold-rolled sheet. The company reported total cold-rolling capacity at approximately 1.7 million tonnes,²⁰¹ an amount approximately equivalent to the projected Canadian market for 2003. However, USSK uses a significant proportion of its cold-rolled steel sheet production to produce goods for further processing and higher-end non-subject products.

[182] Evidence on the record indicates that USSK is a very export-dependant producer. USSK noted itself that it exports steel products to over 80 countries.²⁰² During the POR, USSK's export sales as a percent of total sales for cold-rolled sheet remained export-oriented. USSK is dependent on cold-rolled steel sheet exports to support its production levels and is therefore influenced by the world and European steel dynamics discussed in previous sections. As noted by USSK's parent company, U.S. Steel in its 2002 Annual Report filing to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission:

USSK is affected by the worldwide overcapacity in the steel industry and the cyclical nature of demand for steel products and the sensitivity of that demand to worldwide general economic conditions. In particular, USSK is subject to economic conditions and political factors in Europe, which if changed could negatively affect its results of operations and cash flow.²⁰³

[183] Throughout its submissions, USSK contended that its business philosophy had changed. USSK proposed that it was no longer production driven; that the company was instead commercially driven and was focussing on higher-value added products. USSK also cited its forecast of a reduction in cold-rolled steel sheet sales to the merchant market.²⁰⁴ However, USSK's forecasted sales of cold-rolled steel sheet for 2004, while a notable reduction from 2003, would still represent a sales level approximating levels reached in previous years.

[184] USSK noted that export levels of cold-rolled steel sheet peaked in 2003.²⁰⁵ USSK used their sales data for the first half of 2003 to highlight the importance of higher margin product sales.²⁰⁶ Considering the high levels of production and high levels of export sales for cold-rolled steel sheet that were demonstrated over this same period, it is clear that cold-rolled steel sheet is an integral part of USSK's commercial success. Further, it is demonstrated that export sales of cold-rolled steel sheet, in particular, remain a key factor to the company's success.

[185] The above discussion of USSK's production levels should also be considered in light of the EU mandated sales and production caps for Slovakia as a condition for the country's EU accession. USSK's production cap is on aggregate flat rolled production, based on production levels in 2001, increased by 3 percent annually starting in 2002. The agreement allows for an increasing amount of production to be allocated to non-EU export markets. These limitations are scheduled to expire at the end of 2009.

[186] USSK contended in its submissions that the company is focusing on regional markets within a 600-kilometre radius of the plant in Slovakia.²⁰⁷ However, during its peak export levels in 2003, USSK noted that a driving element was strong demand in China. Considering the high production utilization levels that were being achieved at the time, this demonstrates that, for the most recent period of the POR, USSK was still utilizing distant export markets to maintain production levels.

[187] Despite having normal values in place, USSK did not ship any subject goods to Canada during the POR.²⁰⁸ USSK has stated that its lack of cold-rolled steel sheet shipments to Canada during the POR is attributable to strategic reasons (i.e., focusing on regional markets within a 600-kilometre radius of its plant.) However, in 2003, USSK relied on export volumes of cold-rolled steel sheet to China, thereby demonstrating a reliance on export markets. Therefore, the lack of exports of subject goods to Canada over the POR does not seem to be attributable to strategic reasons. The absence of exports of subject goods to Canada seems to demonstrate an apparent inability to ship subject goods to Canada at non-dumped prices.

[188] Evidence on the record shows that there are currently no countries other than Canada that have anti-dumping findings against Slovakia for cold-rolled steel sheet. Slovakia is, however, subject to anti-dumping measures for hot-rolled steel sheet in three countries: Canada, Argentina and Thailand. The Canadian anti-dumping finding against hot-rolled steel sheet was recently reviewed by the CBSA and Slovakia was found to be likely to resume dumping in the absence of that finding. The Tribunal is now conducting an inquiry to determine if the continued or resumed dumping is likely to result in material injury or retardation. The Argentinean finding dates back to the year 2000 and pre-dates the acquisition of USSK by U.S. Steel. USSK alleged that the measures imposed by Thailand in 2002 were in respect of a re-sale of goods sold by USSK to a European customer. USSK maintains that it has never sold directly to Thailand and has since "instituted a requirement that each customer must identify at the time of purchase, the country of destination for all steel it orders."²⁰⁹

[189] USSK alleged that there is no incentive to dump cold-rolled steel sheet into Canada given that it has no desire to cause disruption in a market that is occupied by its parent company, U.S. Steel. U.S. Steel is a seller of cold-rolled steel sheet to Canada. However, there is no evidence on the record that indicates that USSK would be restricted by its parent company from operating in the Canadian market in any manner it chooses.

[190] Based on the evidence contained on the record including: the producer's heavy export dependence due to insufficient domestic demand, depressed European demand for cold-rolled steel sheet, the producer's reliance on maintaining high cold-rolled steel sheet production levels, evidence of producing cold-rolled steel sheet for distant markets, the demonstrated inability to export cold-rolled steel sheet to Canada at non-dumped prices after having obtained normal values, and recent anti-dumping measures imposed by other countries on similar goods, the President determined that the expiry of the finding is likely to result in the resumption of dumping into Canada of certain cold-rolled steel sheet originating in or exported from the Slovak Republic.

Turkey

[191] Turkey has two producers of cold-rolled steel sheet, Borçelik and Eregli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalari TAŞ (Erdemir). Erdemir is by far the larger of the two companies in terms of cold-rolled steel sheet production capacity. Erdemir has an annual cold-rolled steel sheet capacity of 1,450,000 tonnes,²¹⁰ while Borçelik's listed capacity is 350,000 tonnes annually.²¹¹ Erdemir did not provide the CBSA with any information for the President to consider in making a determination.

[192] Borçelik's corporate affiliation with Arcelor, combined with the recent CBSA decision that France was unlikely to resume dumping hot-rolled steel sheet into Canada, was presented by Borçelik as an argument that it was also unlikely to resume dumping.²¹² The CBSA's determination of no likelihood of continued or resumed dumping for France's hot-rolled steel sheet exports to Canada was based on the case specific facts as they related to that particular country and product and has no bearing on this expiry review. The President's determination was based on the information available to him for that expiry review. The following analysis for Turkey is based on the information and factors relevant to the Turkish cold-rolled steel sheet industry.

[193] Borçelik is adding 350,000 tonnes per year in cold-rolling capacity, with installations expected to be complete by June 2004.²¹³ The new mill is intended to only provide full-hard material as a substrate to a new galvanizing production line and does not have any new batch annealing furnaces required to produce commercial quality or superior grades of cold-rolled steel sheet.²¹⁴ However, the mill will be capable of producing subject goods, even if in a non-annealed form, and its addition is therefore a relevant consideration when assessing Borçelik's production capabilities.

[194] Borçelik's own production catalogue notes that the production capacity for its first cold-rolling mill is 350,000 tonnes per year,²¹⁵ while the listed capacity for its annealing furnaces is 400,000 tonnes per year.²¹⁶ This would seem to indicate that Borçelik would have available capacity on its annealing furnaces beyond the requirements of its first cold-rolling mill. With the addition of a new cold-rolling mill for the purpose of producing full-hard material, it would seem reasonable to conclude that Borçelik will now be capable of diverting additional production to its annealing line to raise its production of commercial quality cold-rolled steel sheet.

[195] Borçelik has been utilizing most of its rolling capacity for cold-rolled steel sheet on its original mill and has been operating at essentially full capacity.²¹⁷ However, the most specific information on the record regarding Erdemir's cold-rolled steel sheet production indicates a substantial under-utilization production capacity, particularly relative to Borçelik's high utilization.²¹⁸

[196] Borçelik provided evidence that it was experiencing strong domestic demand for sales of cold-rolled steel sheet.²¹⁹ An industry report would also seem to indicate that Erdemir is experiencing strong domestic demand, although the reference made is not specific to cold-rolled steel sheet products.²²⁰ Despite the strong domestic demand, export sales remain a large part of Borçelik's sales strategy. An analysis of the information provided by Borçelik demonstrated its strategy of using export markets to maintain high production levels, even while achieving lower average pricing abroad.

[197] Borçelik's traditional export markets are very regionally concentrated. In 2002, 44 percent of Borçelik's export sales were to European countries.²²¹ Considering the outlook for the European and Chinese steel markets discussed in previous sections, and Borçelik's reliance on exports to sustain high production levels, if the finding against Turkey were allowed to expire, Borçelik would find Canada an attractive destination for additional exports of cold-rolled steel sheet.

[198] The finding against Turkey represents the only anti-dumping finding against Turkey for cold-rolled steel sheet in the world. Additionally, Borçelik noted that there were no anti-dumping findings against any other flat-rolled products from Turkey anywhere in the world.²²² Erdemir also produces steel plate and hot-rolled steel sheet, yet has not been found to be dumping those products into Canada or other world markets.

[199] As noted by Borçelik in its case arguments, the company has continued to sell subject goods into Canada at prices well above normal values since the finding against Turkey has been in place.²²³ The sustained shipment volumes to Canada demonstrate that Borçelik was generally able to compete in the Canadian market at non-dumped prices for most of the POR and also demonstrate Borçelik's continued interest in the Canadian market. The other Turkish exporter, Erdemir, did not participate in the CCRA's original investigation,²²⁴ but did participate in the CCRA's normal value review and was issued normal values for future shipments.²²⁵ There have been no importations of subject goods from Turkey since normal values were updated in March 2003.

[200] Based on the evidence contained on the record including: Borçelik's increasing cold-rolled steel sheet production capacity, Erdemir's apparent low utilization of cold-rolled steel sheet production capacity, Borçelik's reliance on export markets to maintain high production levels, the negative outlook for the European and Chinese steel markets making Canada an attractive market, and an inability of both Turkish exporters to ship cold-rolled steel sheet to Canada at non-dumped prices since their normal values were updated in March 2003, the President determined that the expiry of the finding is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping into Canada of certain cold-rolled steel sheet originating in or exported from Turkey.

CONCLUSION

[201] For purpose of making a determination in this expiry review, the CBSA conducted its analysis within the scope of the factors set forth in subsection 37.2(1) of the SIMR. Based on the foregoing consideration of pertinent factors and analysis of evidence on the record, on April 7, 2004, pursuant to paragraph 76.03(7)(a) of SIMA, the President of the Canada Border Services Agency determined that the expiry of the findings by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal made on August 27, 1999, in Inquiry No. NQ-99-001, concerning certain cold-rolled steel sheet products was likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods originating in or exported from Belgium, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic and Turkey.

FUTURE ACTION

[202] On April 8, 2004, the Tribunal commenced its inquiry to determine whether the continued or resumed dumping is likely to result in injury or retardation with respect to goods from the Named Countries if the findings were allowed to expire. The Tribunal will make its decision by August 26, 2004.

[203] If the Tribunal determines that the expiry of the findings with respect to goods from the Named Countries is likely to result in injury or retardation, the findings will be continued in respect of those goods, with or without amendment. If this is the case, the CBSA will continue to levy anti-dumping duty on dumped importations of certain cold-rolled steel sheet products.

[204] If the Tribunal determines that the expiry of the findings with respect to the goods from the Named Countries is unlikely to result in injury or retardation, the findings will be rescinded in respect of those goods. Anti-dumping duty would no longer be levied on importations of certain cold-rolled steel sheet products beginning on the date the findings are rescinded.

INFORMATION

For further information, please contact Michel Leclair at:

Mail

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

Telephone

(613) 954-7232

Telefax

(613) 941-2612 

Web site

www.cbsa.gc.ca/sima

M.R. Jordan

Head
Customs Trade, Anti-dumping and Countervailing and Appeals

---

1 Exhibit 9 of the CBSA's Exhibit Listing (Please see the "Information Used by the President" section of this report.) Customs Notice N-504, March 31, 2003.

2 Exhibit 8. Customs Tariff - Schedule

3 All quantities in this report are expressed in metric tonnes.

4 Exhibit 28. Algoma response to ERQ - Question A2.

5 Exhibit 38. Dofasco response to ERQ - Question A2.

6 Exhibit 45. Ispat Sidbec response to Producer ERQ - Question A2.

7 Exhibit 40. Stelco response to ERQ - Question A2.

8 Exhibit 130. Stelco news releases.

9 Exhibit 129. Apparent Canadian Market Statistics.

10 Exhibit 129. Apparent Canadian Market Statistics.

11 Exhibit 129. Apparent Canadian Market Statistics.

12 Exhibit 127. CCRA - Enforcement information for POR.

13 Exhibit 6. Customs Notice N-504.

14 Exhibit 130. Stelco news releases.

15 Exhibit 148. Letter to CBSA from G. Kubrick.

16 Exhibit 152. Notice from CBSA to all parties.

17 Exhibit 166. Letter to CBSA from P. Clark.

18 Exhibit 167. Letter to CBSA from P. Clark.

19 Exhibit 168. Letter to CBSA from P. Clark.

20 Exhibit 170. Letter to P. Clark from CBSA.

21 Exhibit 169. Letter to CBSA from D. Goodwin.

22 Exhibit 171. Letter to D. Goodwin from CBSA.

23 Exhibit 172. Letter to CBSA from D. Goodwin.

24 Exhibit 173. Letter to D. Goodwin from CBSA.

25 Exhibit 175. Letter to CBSA from G. Kubrick.

26 Exhibit 174. Letter to CBSA from D. Goodwin.

27 Exhibit 176. Letter to CBSA from D. Goodwin.

28 Exhibit 177. Letter to D. Goodwin from CBSA.

29 Exhibit 178. Letter to CBSA from D. Goodwin.

30 Exhibit 179. Memo to file by CBSA.

31 Exhibit 180. Letter to CBSA from D. Goodwin.

32 Exhibit 181. Letter to D. Goodwin from CBSA.

33 Exhibit 182. Letter to CBSA from P. Clark.

34 Exhibit 183. Letter to P. Clark from CBSA.

35 Exhibit 138. Dofasco case arguments, pages 18-21; Exhibit 140. Stelco case arguments, pages 12 and 13.

36 Exhibit 138. Dofasco case arguments, pages 26-28.

37 Exhibit 139. Ispat Sidbec case arguments, page 2.

38 Exhibit 132. Dofasco's revised version of narrative portion of ERQ response to question A22, page 9.

39 Exhibit 138. Dofasco case arguments, page 21.

40 Exhibit 140. Stelco case arguments, page 4.

41 Exhibit 28. Algoma ERQ response to questions A20 and A21.

42 Exhibit 139. Ispat Sidbec case arguments, pages 12-17.

43 Exhibit 140. Stelco case arguments, page 39.

44 Exhibit 140. Stelco case arguments, pages 43 and 46.

45 Exhibit 140. Stelco case arguments, page 33.

46 Exhibit 138. Dofasco case arguments, page 6.

47 Exhibit 137. Dofasco case arguments, page 13.

48 Exhibit 137. Dofasco case arguments, page 13 & Exhibit 157. Dofasco reply submission, page 6.

49 Exhibit 158. Dofasco reply submission, page 7.

50 Exhibit 133. Dofasco's revised version of narrative portion of ERQ response to question A23, page 12.

51 Exhibit 139. Ispat Sidbec case arguments, pages 9 and 10.

52 Exhibit 160. Stelco reply submission, page 24.

53 Exhibit 138. Dofasco case arguments, page 6.

54 Exhibit 137. Dofasco case arguments, paragraph 29, page 11.

55 Exhibit 137. Dofasco case arguments, paragraph 63, page 24.

56 Exhibit 159. Ispat Sidbec reply submission, page 4.

57 Exhibit 138. Dofasco case arguments, paragraph 32, page 12.

58 Exhibit 137. Dofasco case arguments, paragraph 58, page 22.

59 Exhibit 139. Ispat Sidbec case arguments, page 10.

60 Exhibit 139. Ispat Sidbec case arguments, pages 12 to 17.

61 Exhibit 138. Dofasco case arguments, pages 32 and 33.

62 Exhibit 137. Dofasco case arguments, page 32.

63 Exhibit 138. Dofasco case arguments, page 32.

64 Exhibit 140. Stelco case arguments, page 20.

65 Exhibit 159. Ispat Sidbec reply submission, paragraph 18, page 4.

66 Exhibit 139. Ispat Sidbec case arguments, page 12.

67 Exhibit 138. Dofasco case arguments, page 7.

68 Exhibit 137. Dofasco case arguments, paragraph 39, page 14.

69 Exhibit 138. Dofasco case arguments, page 27.

70 Exhibit 160. Stelco reply submission, page 18.

71 Exhibit 137. Dofasco case arguments, paragraph 39, page 14.

72 Exhibit 138. Dofasco case arguments, paragraph 40, page 14.

73 Exhibit 139. Ispat Sidbec case arguments, page 11.

74 Exhibit 140. Stelco case arguments, paragraph 34, page 16.

75 Exhibit 137. Dofasco case arguments, paragraph 82, page 30.

76 Exhibit 139. Ispat Sidbec case arguments, page 12.

77 Exhibit 140. Stelco case arguments, pages 20 and 28.

78 Exhibit 138. Dofasco case arguments, page 7.

79 Exhibit 138. Dofasco case arguments, page 27.

80 Exhibit 139. Ispat Sidbec case arguments, page 11.

81 Exhibit 160. Stelco reply submission, page 11.

82 Exhibit 159. Ispat Sidbec reply submission, page 2.

83 Exhibit 138. Dofasco case arguments, page 16 and Exhibit 121. Dofasco Supp. Exhibit 16.

84 Exhibit 138. Dofasco case arguments, page 17.

85 Exhibit 137. Dofasco case arguments, paragraph 85, page 31.

86 Exhibit 147. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 4.

87 Exhibit 147. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 5.

88 Exhibit 147. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 5.

89 Exhibit 147. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 5.

90 Exhibit 147. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 6.

91 Exhibit 147. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 6.

92 Exhibit 147. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 8.

93 Exhibit 147. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 6.

94 Exhibit 147. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 6.

95 Exhibit 147. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 8.

96 Exhibit 147. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 9.

97 Exhibit 147. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 9.

98 Exhibit 147. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, pages 9 and 10.

99 Exhibit 147. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 10.

100 Exhibit 147. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 10.

101 Exhibit 147. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 11.

102 Exhibit 147. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 11.

103 Exhibit 161. Sidmar reply submission, page 9.

104 Exhibit 136. Severstal case arguments, paragraph 7.

105 Exhibit 136. Severstal case arguments, paragraph 8.

106 Exhibit 136. Severstal case arguments, paragraph 11.

107 Exhibit 136. Severstal case arguments, paragraphs 9 and 30.

108 Exhibit 136. Severstal case arguments, paragraphs 22 and 23.

109 Exhibit 136. Severstal case arguments, paragraphs 28 and 29.

110 Exhibit 136. Severstal case arguments, paragraphs 32-35.

111 Exhibit 136. Severstal case arguments, paragraphs 36-38.

112 Exhibit 136. Severstal case arguments, paragraphs 12-20.

113 Exhibit 136. Severstal case arguments, paragraph 40.

114 Exhibit 144. USSK case arguments, page 2.

115 Exhibit 144. USSK case arguments, pages 7 and 8.

116 Exhibit 47. USSK ERQ response, page 17.

117 Exhibit 47. USSK ERQ response, page 16.

118 Exhibit 47. USSK ERQ response, page 17.

119 Exhibit 144. USSK case arguments, page 6.

120 Exhibit 144. USSK case arguments, page 4.

121 Exhibit 144. USSK case arguments, page 10.

122 Exhibit 144. USSK case arguments, page 11.

123 Exhibit 144. USSK case arguments, page 11.

124 Exhibit 144. USSK case arguments, pages 11 and 12.

125 Exhibit 144. USSK case arguments, pages 10 and 11.

126 Exhibit 163. USSK reply submission, page 14.

127 Exhibit 144. USSK case arguments, page 13.

128 Exhibit 163. USSK reply submission, pages 21-26.

129 Exhibit 163. USSK reply submission, page 26.

130 Exhibit 145. Borcelik case arguments, page 3.

131 Exhibit 145. Borcelik case arguments, page 2.

132 Exhibit 145. Borcelik case arguments, page 2.

133 Exhibit 145. Borcelik case arguments, page 3.

134 Exhibit 145. Borcelik case arguments, page 3.

135 Exhibit 145. Borcelik case arguments, page 5.

136 Exhibit 145. Borcelik case arguments, pages 5 and 6.

137 Exhibit 51. Borcelik ERQ response, page 18.

138 Exhibit 145. Borcelik case arguments, page 4.

139 Exhibit 111. C. Tejada "U.S. steel tariff moved weighed" The Wall Street Journal (8 December 2003).

140 Exhibit 131. CRU Monitor (November 2003) page 4.

141 Exhibit 131. CRU Monitor (November 2003) page 4.

142 Exhibit 131. CRU Monitor (November 2003) page 4.

143 Exhibit 131. CRU Monitor (November 2003) page 4.

144 Exhibit 51. Borcelik ERQ response, page 11.

145 Exhibit 129. Apparent Canadian market statistics.

146 Exhibit 40. Stelco's response to producer's ERQ, answer to A20.

147 Exhibit 40. Stelco's response to producer's ERQ, answer to A21.

148 Exhibit 81. International Iron and Steel Institute - Short Term Outlook and Medium Term Forecast for Steel, October 6, 2003, page 12.

149 Exhibit 81. International Iron and Steel Institute - Short Term Outlook and Medium Term Forecast for Steel, October 6, 2003, page 13.

150 Exhibit 82. CIBC World Markets - Steel Industry Update, January 7, 2004, page 5.

151 Exhibit 114. "One billion tpy beckons as world output grows 7 percent" Metal Bulletin (22 January 2004).

152 Exhibit 106. China's Output of Steel and Iron and Imports of Steel Both Ranked First in the World, Service News Centers of MPIS, published on the Website of the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China, August 15, 2003.

153 Exhibit 103. "China faces boom in flat product expansion" Metal Bulletin (4 December 2003).

154 Exhibit 131. CRU Steel Monitor, November 2003, page 10.

155 Exhibit 81. International Iron and Steel Institute - Short Term Outlook and Medium Term Forecast for Steel, October 6, 2003, pages 2 & 10.

156 For example, the State Development and Reform Commission of the PRC warned of irrational expansion of the Chinese steel industry (Exhibit 121, Dofasco's supplemental exhibit 23; Chinese government warns of overheating in steel industry, Business Daily Update, August 13, 2003); CIBC analysts expect Chinese production to surpass consumption considerably by 2005 (Exhibit 82. CIBC World Markets - Steel Industry Update, January 7, 2004, p. 6 ); World Steel Dynamics warned that the supply/demand balance for the Chinese steel industry could turn negative by next summer (Exhibit 83. World Steel Dynamics - Inside Track # 31, p. 4); Metal Bulletin Research warned that real danger for exporters of steel to the Chinese market is expected for 2005/2006 in light of excess Chinese capacity relative to demand (Exhibit 84. Metal Bulletin Research, Issue 16 - January 2004, December 31, 2003, pp.6-7); LNM's owner - LNM being the second largest steel company in the world - also warned of the mid-term threat posed by China, which is set to become a significant exporter (Exhibit 121. Dofasco's supplemental exhibit 25, Mittal warns of Chinese threat, Financial Times, December 1, 2003).

157 Exhibit 131. CRU Steel Monitor, November 2003, page 3.

158 Exhibit 103. "China faces boom in flat product expansion" Metal Bulletin (4 December 2003).

159 Exhibit 14. Appendix 3 of Dofasco's submission to the Tribunal, Eurofer report, October 2003.

160 Exhibit 84. Metal Bulletin, Emerging Steel Markets Monthly, Issue 15, January 2004.

161 Exhibit 14. Tab 13 of Stelco's submission to the Tribunal, Metal Bulletin article, August 14, 2003.

162 Exhibit 120. Dofasco supplementary information (exhibit 34). CRU report, October 2003.

163 Exhibit 48. Sidmar response to ERQ, Appendix B-17, CRU Monitor report, December 2003.

164 Exhibit 49. Sidmar response to ERQ, page 2.

165 Exhibit 38. Dofasco response to ERQ, page 6.

166 Exhibit 161. Sidmar and AIC reply submission, page 9.

167 Exhibit 48. Sidmar Confidential ERQ response, Appendix 1. Exhibit 138. Dofasco case arguments, page 6.

168 Exhibit 142. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 6.

169 Exhibit 120. Dofasco supplementary exhibits. Supplementary Exhibit No. 36. "Steel Sheet Quarterly October 2003 - Statistical Review' Table S.107 Ref No.: 3014/27 CRU International Ltd. (2003).

170 Exhibit 120. Dofasco supplementary exhibits. Supplementary Exhibit No. 36. "Steel Sheet Quarterly October 2003 - Statistical Review Table S.107. Ref No.: 3014/27. Review' Table S.107 Ref No.: 3014/27 CRU International Ltd. (2003).

171 Exhibit 49. Sidmar ERQ response, Response to question B-11.

172 Exhibit 94. "Arcelor confirms details of plans for Walloon region" Metal Bulletin (22 December 2003).

173 Exhibit 142. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 7.

174 Exhibit 120. Dofasco supplementary exhibits. Supplementary Exhibit No. 36. "Steel Sheet Quarterly October 2003 - Statistical Review' Table S.107 Ref No.: 3014/27 CRU International Ltd. (2003). The figure is estimated by subtracting from the cold-rolled capacity, the reported capacity for coated steel.

175 Exhibit 94. "Ford, UAW reach agreement to shutter plants" Metal Bulletin (2 October 2003).

176 Exhibit 79. "World Steel in Figures 2003" International Iron and Steel Institute (9 December 2003) page 11.

177 Exhibit 161. Sidmar and AIC reply submission, page 6.

178 Exhibit 142. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 9.

179 Exhibit 49. Sidmar ERQ response. Appendix 1 notes that the U.S. was Sidmar's 4th largest export market in the period.

180 CITT Statement of Reasons, RR-98-004, pages 13 and 14.

181 Exhibit 49. Sidmar ERQ response, response to question A-12. Note: Belgian cold-rolled steel sheet imports to the U.S. are not subject to an anti-dumping finding because the dumping of cold-rolled steel sheet into the U.S. was not found to have caused injury to the U.S. industry. However, what is more relevant to this portion of the review is that the U.S. authorities did determine that Sidmar had dumped into the U.S., which demonstrate the company's continued propensity to dump cold-rolled steel sheet products in North America.

182 Exhibit 142. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 5.

183 Exhibit 142. Sidmar and AIC case arguments, page 5.

184 Exhibit 1. CCRA's Statement of Reasons for the Final determination of dumping regarding certain steel sheets products originating in or exported from Argentina, Belgium, New Zealand, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, Spain and Turkey, July 28, 1999, Appendix 7.

185 Exhibit 49. Sidmar ERQ response, response to question B-21.

186 Exhibit 2. CITT finding, August 27, 1999.

187 Exhibit 52. Severstal exporter response to ERQ, Annex B-11 277^th page.

188 Exhibit 120. Dofasco Supplementary Exhibits. Supplementary Exhibit No. 36. "Steel Sheet Quarterly October 2003 - Statistical Review' Table S.107 Ref No.: 3014/27 CRU International Ltd (2003).

189 Exhibit 52. JSC Severstal response to ERQ, Annex B-20; Global Steel Mill Production Matrix, Forecast to 2010, World Steel Dynamics, January 2003.

190 Exhibit 136. JSC Severstal case arguments, paragraph 11.

191 Exhibit 52. JSC Severstal response to ERQ, Annex B-20; Global Steel Mill Production Matrix, Forecast to 2010, World Steel Dynamics, January 2003.

192 Exhibit 52. JSC Severstal response to ERQ, Annex A-12.

193 Exhibit 70. Ministry of Commerce Notice No. 75; 2003, Resumption of anti-dumping duty on certain cold-rolled products (16 January 2004).

194 Exhibit 70. Ministry of Commerce Notice No. 75; 2003, Resumption of anti-dumping duty on certain cold-rolled products (16 January 2004).

195 Exhibit 88. "MMK worst hit by China AD measures" Metal Bulletin (16 January 2004).

196 Exhibit 88. "MMK worst hit by China AD measures" Metal Bulletin (16 January 2004).

197 Exhibit 6. Customs Notice N-504.

198 Severstal cited article 2.2.1.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement which asserts that a member should accept the exporter or producer's costs provided the information submitted is: "in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles of the exporting country and reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under consideration." The concerns of the CBSA are in the second part of this requirement. That is, the CBSA has not been convinced that the costs prepared according to Russian accounting standards "reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under consideration."

199 Exhibit 2. CITT finding, August 27, 1999.

200 Exhibit 47. USSK exporter response to ERQ, page 9 of narrative submission.

201 Exhibit 163. USSK reply submissions, page 15.

202 Exhibit 47. USSK ERQ response, page 8.

203 Exhibit 47. USSK ERQ response, Annex 6, page 6.

204 Exhibit 163. USSK reply submissions, pages 14 and 15.

205 Exhibit 47. USSK ERQ response, page 32.

206 Exhibit 47. USSK ERQ response, page 30 & Annex 30.

207 Exhibit 144. USSK case arguments, pages 11 and 12.

208 Exhibit 144. USSK case arguments, page 4.

209 Exhibit 47. USSK ERQ response, page 17.

210 Exhibit 120. Dofasco Supplementary Exhibits. Supplementary Exhibit No. 36. "Steel Sheet Quarterly October 2003 - Statistical Review' Table S.107 Ref No.: 3014/27 CRU International Ltd (2003).

211 Exhibit 145. Borçelik case arguments, page 2.

212 Exhibit 145. Borçelik case arguments, page 5.

213 Exhibit 51. Borçelik ERQ response, page 11.

214 Exhibit 164. Borçelik reply submission, page 5.

215 Exhibit 51. Borçelik ERQ response, Attachment A2, page 5.

216 Exhibit 51. Borçelik ERQ response, Attachment A2, page 7.

217 Exhibit 145. Borçelik case arguments, page 3.

218 Exhibit 98. Corporate information and financial data regarding Erdemir, published by Gedik Investment Securities Inc., pages 2 and 3.

219 Exhibit 57. Borçelik supplementary information, Appendix 1.

220 Exhibit 114. "Erdemir raises strip prices by $20 per tonne" Metal Bulletin (22 January 2004).

221 Exhibit 51. Borçelik ERQ response, Attachment A1, page 30.

222 Exhibit 145. Borçelik case arguments, page 3.

223 Exhibit 145. Borçelik case arguments, page 3.

224 Exhibit 1. CCRA Statement of Reasons - Final Determination of dumping regarding certain cold-rolled steel sheet products originating in or exported from Argentina, Belgium, New Zealand, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, Spain and Turkey. July 28, 1999.

225 Exhibit 6. CCRA Customs Notice CN-504, regarding the conclusion on March 3, 2003, or a re-investigation of normal values and export prices regarding certain cold-rolled steel sheet originating in or exported from Belgium, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic and Turkey. March 31, 2003.