Common menu bar links
ARCHIVED - Statement of Reasons
This page has been archived.
Archived Content
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
OTTAWA, April 1, 2005
RR-2004-005
4366-23
Concerning a determination under paragraph 76.03(7)(a) of the Special Import Measures Act regarding
CERTAIN DISHWASHERS AND DRYERS ORIGINATING IN OR EXPORTED FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
On March 17, 2005, 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 finding made by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal on August 1, 2000, in Inquiry No. NQ-2000-001, concerning certain dishwashers and dryers originating in or exported from the United States of America and produced by, or on behalf of, White Consolidated Industries, Inc. and Whirlpool Corporation, their respective affiliates, successors and assigns, was unlikely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods into Canada.
This Statement of Reasons is also available in French.
Cet énoncé des motifs est également disponible en français.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INFORMATION USED BY THE PRESIDENT
[1] On November 17, 2004, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (Tribunal), pursuant to subsection 76.03(3) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), initiated an expiry review of its finding made on August 1, 2000, in Inquiry No. NQ-2000-001 (the Finding). The Finding concerns certain dishwashers and dryers originating in or exported from the United States of America (United States) and produced by, or on behalf of, White Consolidated Industries, Inc. and Whirlpool Corporation, their respective affiliates, successors and assigns. The Finding is scheduled to expire on August 1, 2005.
[2] The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) initiated an expiry review investigation on November 18, 2004, to determine whether the expiry of the Finding is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the subject goods.
[3] On March 17, 2005, the President of the CBSA determined pursuant to paragraph 76.03(7)(a) of SIMA, that the expiry of the Finding in respect of certain dishwashers and dryers originating in or exported from the United States and produced by, or on behalf of, White Consolidated Industries, Inc. and Whirlpool Corporation, their respective affiliates, successors and assigns, was unlikely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods.
[4] On November 30, 1999, the Commissioner of Customs and Revenue (now the President of the CBSA) initiated an investigation respecting the alleged injurious dumping into Canada of certain top-mount electric refrigerators, electric household dishwashers, and gas or electric laundry dryers, originating in or exported from the United States of America and produced by, or on behalf of, White Consolidated Industries, Inc. and Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), their respective affiliates, successors and assigns. It should be noted that during the enforcement period, White Consolidated Industries was renamed Electrolux Home Products (EHP) by its parent company Electrolux AB of Sweden.
[5] The investigation was initiated in response to a complaint filed by Camco Inc. (Camco) of Hamilton, Ontario. A preliminary determination of dumping with respect to the subject goods was made on April 3, 2000. A final determination was made on June 30, 2000, and on August 1, 2000, the Tribunal issued an injury finding respecting the dumping of the subject goods.
[6] On December 5, 2002, the Tribunal received a request for an interim review of its Finding made on August 1, 2000. Whirlpool made the request to exclude refrigerators from the Finding, on the grounds that the Canadian industry was no longer producing the subject refrigerators. On March 19, 2003, pursuant to paragraph 76.01(5)(b) of SIMA, the Tribunal amended its Finding to exclude refrigerators.
[7] On September 28, 2004, the Tribunal issued a notice of expiry of the Finding. Based on the available information and the information submitted by the interested parties, the Tribunal decided that an expiry review was warranted and on November 17, 2004, the Tribunal initiated an expiry review of the Finding that is scheduled to expire on August 1, 2005.
[8] On November 18, 2004, the CBSA initiated its expiry review investigation to determine whether the expiry of the Finding is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the subject goods from the United States.
[9] The goods under review are defined as:
Certain electric household dishwashers and gas or electric laundry dryers originating in or exported from the United States of America and produced by, or on behalf of, White Consolidated Industries, Inc. and Whirlpool Corporation, their respective affiliates, successors and assigns."
[10] For greater clarity, the subject dishwashers are electric household dishwashers, built-in or portable, greater than 18 inches in width, excluding counter top models and those containing a stainless steel tub. The subject dryers are gas or electric dryers, including coin-operated and stackable machines, excluding those with controls at the front, removable tops and chassis designed to be stacked on top of washers. Laundry centres, which are combined washer/dryer units, are not subject to the Tribunal's Finding.
[11] The products manufactured by the complainant and by the named exporters are sold under brand names and private label names.
[12] The products manufactured by the complainant, Camco, are sold under the brand names GE, Hotpoint, Moffat, McClary, and Concept II, as well as under private label names including Kenmore, Galaxy and Beaumark.
[13] EHP, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Electrolux Home Products, Division of Electrolux Canada Corp. (EHP Canada), sells subject and non-subject goods in Canada under the brand names Frigidaire, Frigidaire Gallery, White-Westinghouse and Gibson, as well as under private label names, including Kenmore.
[14] Whirlpool, through its wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary, Whirlpool Canada Limited (Whirlpool Canada), sells subject and non-subject goods in Canada under the brand names Whirlpool, Inglis, KitchenAid, Roper, Admiral, Speed Queen and Estate. Whirlpool Canada also supplies Kenmore appliances to Sears Canada.
[15] The subject goods are normally imported into Canada under the following Harmonized System (HS) classification numbers:1
Dishwashers:
8422.11.90.10 |
portable electric dishwashing machines |
8422.11.90.90 |
other |
Dryers:
8451.21.00.11 |
drying machines, gas fired, each of a dry linen capacity not exceeding 10 kg, coin-operated |
8451.21.00.19 |
drying machines, gas fired, each of a dry linen capacity not exceeding 10 kg, other |
8451.21.00.91 |
drying machines, other, each of a dry linen capacity not exceeding 10 kg, coin-operated |
8451.21.00.99 |
drying machines, other, each of a dry linen capacity not exceeding 10 kg, other |
[16] The POR for the expiry review is January 1, 2001 to June 30, 2004.
[17] The complainant, Camco Inc. (Camco) of Hamilton, Ontario, is the only Canadian manufacturer of dishwashers and dryers.
[18] Camco is a publicly traded company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. The company has manufacturing facilities in Montreal, Quebec, which produce dishwashers and dryers. In addition, Camco distributes a complete range of GE products sourced from the United States and Asia. In 2003, the company had sales of $CDN 595 million of which $CDN 374 million was derived from domestic sales.2
[19] It should be noted that Camco has decided not to participate in the CBSA's expiry review process, and as such no additional corporate information is available.3
[20] Detailed information on the size of the Canadian market and the shares held by the parties is confidential due to the limited number of companies involved in the market. Therefore, Canadian market statistics are based on publicly available industry sales data from the Canadian Appliance Manufacturers Association (CAMA).
[21] The table below contains data concerning the apparent Canadian market (quantity) of dryers and dishwashers sold in Canada during the POR. The data shows that during the POR, the Canadian market has expanded steadily at an average annual rate of approximately 7% for dryers and 8% for dishwashers. It should be noted that only portions of these sales involve the subject goods. The remainder of the market is comprised of sales of non-subject goods such as dishwashers with stainless steel interiors and dryers with controls at the front, etc., and sales of like goods produced by the complainant or sourced from other exporters (e.g. Maytag, G.E., etc.) or other countries.
Unit Sales (`000s of units) 4 | |||||
Year | |||||
Product |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 est. |
Dryers |
544 |
570 |
633 |
664 |
707 |
Dishwashers |
469 |
483 |
571 |
592 |
620 |
[22] During the period in which the Finding has been in place, the normal values for the subject goods for the two exporters have been established pursuant to section 15 of SIMA, based on profitable sales in the domestic market, or section 19 of SIMA, based on the cost of production, plus an amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, plus an amount for profits.
[23] Annual normal value and export price reinvestigations have been conducted during the enforcement period in order to update the normal values and to conduct an export price analysis because of the related party status of each importer to its respective exporter.
[24] In May 2002, the CBSA introduced an `interim normal value' (INV) system, whereby the two exporters were provided with a procedure to obtain INVs between reinvestigations for new models. The INVs were determined on a `cost plus' (section 19) approach using specific parameters determined by the CBSA, and issued to each exporter at the conclusion of each reinvestigation. When a normal value was required for a new model, the exporter would make an application to the CBSA, providing details on the model, a production cost sheet, and a calculation of the proposed INV based on the parameters and methodology provided by the CBSA. CBSA then reviewed the application and approved the INV. All of the INVs were subject to verification by the CBSA at the time of the annual reinvestigation of normal value and export price.
[25] Both exporters actively participated in the INV system and obtained specific normal values for all new or custom models. As a result, the CBSA did not apply an export price advance for any new or custom model imported during the enforcement period. In addition, the INV system provided the opportunity for the exporters to set pricing in such a manner as to avoid assessments of anti-dumping duty on subject goods shipped to Canada.
[26] During the period of enforcement, importations were monitored by way of a monthly reporting system, whereby EHP and Whirlpool provided the CBSA with a monthly report of subject and non-subject imports of dryers and dishwashers, as well as a monthly report of resales of the subject goods in the Canadian market. Analyses of these monthly reports were then used to determine whether any dumping had occurred and to determine the amount of any anti-dumping duty payable, if required. The monthly reports were subject to verification by the CBSA and were crosschecked with data from the CBSA's Customs Commercial System.
[27] Specific information regarding the enforcement data cannot be disclosed due to the limited number of parties involved and the confidential nature of the information. A review of the enforcement data reveals that the margin of dumping and the volume of dumped goods have steadily decreased during the POR.
[28] The Tribunal's expiry review notice and Expiry Review Questionnaires (ERQ) were sent to the Canadian producer, importers and exporters. At the time of the initiation of the expiry review investigation, other interested parties were also notified and any person or government having an interest in the CBSA's investigation was invited to provide a submission containing information that they deemed relevant.
[29] The ERQ requested information needed to evaluate the factors, as listed in subsection 37.2(1) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR). Interested persons were also invited to provide case arguments regarding the likelihood of the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods should the Finding be allowed to expire. In addition, persons were provided an opportunity to submit reply submissions providing their comments in respect of the case arguments submitted by other persons.
[30] As noted earlier, Camco chose not to participate in the CBSA's investigation. The CBSA received comprehensive responses from the two exporters, EHP and Whirlpool as well as from their related importers, EHP Canada and Whirlpool Canada.
INFORMATION USED BY THE PRESIDENT
Administrative Record
[31] The information to be 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 believe is relevant to the decision as to whether dumping is likely to continue or resume. This information may consist of expert analysts reports, excerpts from trade magazines and newspapers, orders and findings issued by authorities of Canada or of a country other than Canada, responses to the ERQs and any other information contained on the Exhibit Listing.
[32] 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 6, 2005. This allowed participants time to prepare their case arguments and reply submissions based on the information that was on the administrative record as of January 6, 2005.
Parties Contending that Resumed or Continued Dumping is Unlikely
[33] The CBSA received representations from EHP and Whirlpool that continued or resumed dumping is unlikely.
EHP
[34] EHP stated that the record of enforcement data showing volumes imported, total export price, total normal value, margin of dumping and volume dumped are illustrative of a lack of propensity to dump.5
[35] In its submission, EHP provided comment on production, capacity utilization and market share in the United States and Canada. Further detail regarding this information cannot be discussed in this document due to the confidential nature of the information provided.
[36] EHP also provided information and comment with respect to future performance concerning production, capacity utilization and market share. Further detail regarding this information cannot be discussed in this document due to the confidential nature of the information provided.
[37] EHP noted that there have been no anti-dumping measures put in place by authorities of a country other than Canada involving any appliance produced by EHP, and as such there is no possibility of diversion of dumped goods into Canada from another country.6
[38] Furthermore, EHP indicated that the Canadian dollar has been strengthening vis-à-vis the United States dollar since the Spring of 2003, and as such, there is an added disincentive for EHP to dump product into Canada.7
[39] Finally, EHP argued that as a result of the lack of participation by Camco in these proceedings, the President should conclude that Camco cannot support, in evidence or argument, that there exists a propensity to dump and given that there are no contrary arguments, i.e. against a determination of a lack of propensity to dump the President should conclude continued or resumed dumping in unlikely.8
[40] The CBSA also received a reply submission filed on behalf of EHP. It submitted that the evidence on the record strongly supports a finding of no propensity to dump by EHP (and downstream by EHP Canada). It submitted that there is no contrary evidence that dumping would resume if the Finding were allowed to expire. EHP further submitted that a negative inference must be drawn from the lack of participation by Camco in these proceedings, and that the President should conclude that Camco cannot support, in evidence or argument that there exists a propensity to dump.9
WHIRLPOOL
[41] Whirlpool also made representations that continued or resumed dumping is unlikely and touched on similar topics as those raised in the case brief made by EHP.
[42] Whirlpool noted that Camco did not participate in this proceeding, and while the legislation and regulations do not address this issue, the CBSA should look to the Tribunal's past practices in this area for guidance. It noted that in past cases the Tribunal has decided not to conduct an expiry review when the domestic industry does not participate in the Notice of Expiry phase of expiry review proceedings.10 Whirlpool further submitted that in previous instances in which the domestic industry declined to participate in the injury phase of an original investigation, the inevitable result is a negative injury determination.11 As such, Whirlpool argued that it is appropriate for the President to issue negative determinations, and to make negative inferences against Camco as the circumstances require, with respect to both dryers and dishwashers.12
[43] With respect to whether there has been dumping while the Finding has been in effect, Whirlpool stated that the facts and data on the administrative record clearly demonstrate that dumping will not resume.13 It further stated that during the first nine months of 2004, the dumping margins were insignificant by any measure.14
[44] Whirlpool also made representations concerning its performance and likely future performance in relation to the subject goods. It provided comment and information relating to production, capacity utilization, market share and profitability in Canada and the United States. Specific details on these representations cannot be revealed in this document due to the confidential nature of the information provided.
[45] Whirlpool's submission also stated that authorities in other countries have not imposed anti-dumping measures on the subject dishwashers or dryers or on similar goods. It further remarked that no measures have been taken by authorities of a country other than Canada that are likely to cause a diversion of dumped subject dishwashers or dryers into Canada. Additionally, it noted that Canadian authorities have not imposed anti-dumping measures on any similar goods while the Finding has been in effect and that these factors also support negative determinations of resumed dumping.15
[46] Whirlpool also made representations that the subject goods in this proceeding are not "commodity" products. That the prices of the various subject goods vary throughout the Canadian market and there are significant differences in product attributes. Whirlpool also noted that the subject goods have brand recognition. As such, Whirlpool argued that both the non-commodity and brand recognition aspect of the subject goods is supportive of a negative determination of resumed dumping.16
[47] Both EHP and Whirlpool sell product to related Canadian importers. As a result of the related nature of the exporters and importers, the case briefs that were filed by EHP and Whirlpool were filed on behalf of both the importer and the exporter. As such, the positions of the importers are the same as for the exporters outlined above.
Parties not Expressing an Opinion on the Likelihood of Resumed or Continued Dumping
[48] The CBSA received a response to an importer ERQ from Les Distributions Amiel Ltée. This company did not express an opinion as to the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping. It should be noted that this importer does not import the subject goods; rather it imports dishwashers from Germany and Sweden and dryers from Germany.
[49] As indicated earlier, the Canadian producer, Camco, did not provide the CBSA with any information in this expiry review, as such the position of the Canadian producer with respect to the continuation or resumption of dumping is not known. The CBSA received no other representations from parties contending that continued or resumed dumping is likely.
[50] Subsection 76.03(7) of SIMA requires the President 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. In this case, the President was required to determine whether the expiry of the Finding in respect of dishwashers and dryers from the United States was likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods. When making this determination, the President may consider the factors set out in subsection 37.2(1) of the SIMR.
[51] Guided by the factors in the SIMR and based on the documentation submitted by the various participants and the consideration of the information on the administrative record, the following list represents a summary of the factors analyzed:
· Whether there has been dumping of goods while the Finding has been in effect;
· The performance of the exporters, in respect of production, capacity utilization, costs, sales volumes, prices, inventories, market share, exports and profits;
· The likely future performance of the exporters, in respect of production, capacity utilization, sales volumes, prices, inventories, market share, exports and profits;
· The potential for the foreign producers to produce the goods in facilities that are currently used to produce other goods;
· Evidence of the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing measures by the authorities of a country other than Canada in respect of goods of the same description or in respect of similar goods;
· Any changes in market conditions domestically or internationally, including changes in the supply of and demand for the goods, in sources of imports into Canada, and in prices, market share and inventories; and,
· The imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing measures by authorities of Canada in respect of similar goods while an order or finding in respect of the goods was in effect.
[52] A discussion of the analysis follows.
[53] The enforcement data for the POR reveal that the volume of dumped goods has steadily declined to exceptionally low levels. With respect to the subject dryers, the quantity dumped has declined from 31.4% in 2001, to 3.8% in 2003, to a negligible .01% during the first six months of 2004. A similar trend is evident with the subject dishwashers. The volume of goods dumped decreased from 25.5% in 2001, to 7.4% in 2003, to a negligible 1.5% during the first six months of 2004. In fact, Whirlpool noted that the margins of dumping and volume of dumped goods in this case are even lower than those involving two other cases in which the CBSA determined that continued or resumed dumping was unlikely, those cases being Machine Tufted Carpeting (RR2001-003) and Polyiso Insulation Board (RR2001-002).17
[54] As with the volume of dumped goods, the enforcement data also reveals a steadily decreasing margin of dumping for both dishwashers and dryers. The margin of dumping for dishwashers has decreased from 9.2% in 2001, to 2.0% in 2003, and only 1.6% during the first six months of 2004 (as a percentage of export price). Similarly, the margin of dumping for dryers decreased from 6.2% in 2001, to 1.7% in 2003, to 0.1% during the first six months of 2004 (as a percentage of export price).
[55] The evidence on the record indicates that the margins of dumping for both dishwashers and dryers have decreased steadily to the point of insignificance during the latter portion of the POR.18
[56] The enforcement data also reveals that, with the exception of dryers in 2001, the total export price has been significantly in excess of the total normal value. This evidence indicates that both exporters have enjoyed a substantial price buffer in which they could further reduce prices to customers in Canada without dumping. There is no reason to believe that this will not continue in the near to medium term.
[57] Extensive information and representation was received from both EHP and Whirlpool with respect to production levels, capacity utilization, sales volumes, prices, inventories, market share, exports and profitability. The CBSA is not able to discuss the specific details of the information received or its analysis of this information in this document without disclosing confidential information involving the limited number of parties. However, the CBSA's analysis of these factors reveals no probative evidence leading to a conclusion of continued or resumed dumping. In fact, the analysis reveals that the opposite is the case and there is no indication that this will not continue in the near to medium term.
[58] Another significant influence on the sales of the subject goods to Canada involves the value of the Canadian dollar. The value of the Canadian dollar has increased substantially since the Finding has been in place. In August 2000, the Canadian dollar was valued at approximately $US 0.67. The value of the dollar in mid-December 2004 was approximately $US 0.82.19 This 22% increase in the value of the Canadian dollar has resulted in a substantial increase in the purchasing power of EHP Canada and Whirlpool Canada. This increase has allowed the importers to purchase the subject goods more cost-effectively and also provides a greater price `cushion' above the normal values, thereby further reducing the likelihood of resumed dumping. Most financial observers project that the Canadian dollar will maintain its strength and will range from $0.80 to $0.90 in 2005 and 2006.20, 21
[59] Evidence on the record indicates that, while new competitors such as LG, Samsung and Haier have entered the Canadian market, they have entered in limited, targeted areas generally involving higher-end, higher-priced products that are non-subject goods.22 As such, it can be anticipated that the market for the subject goods in the near to medium term, will remain stable and involve the same major producers as when the Finding was put in place.
[60] Demand for dishwashers and dryers are strongly influenced by the level of economic activity in general, and in particular, developments in the housing sector. The Department of Finance reports that the Canadian economy grew by an average 3.1% per year during the period from 2000 to mid-2004. The Department of Finance's November 2004 Economic and Fiscal Update presents a compilation of the prediction of approximately 20 private sector economic forecasters. The consensus view is that the Canadian economy is expected to grow by 3.0% in 2004, and 3.2% in 2005.23 The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation estimated that housing starts in 2004 will reach their highest level in 17 years. Furthermore, forecasters believe that any downturn in the housing sector in Canada will likely be modest in scope as the outlook for mortgage rates, employment, incomes and consumer confidence all point to continued brisk demand for housing.24 These factors point to a continued steady growth for dishwashers and dryers in the Canadian market.
[61] Similarly, the economy in the United States is also expected to experience steady growth in 2005 and 2006 with 3.5% to 4% annual growth.25 In addition, the housing sector in the United States is also experiencing significant expansion as a result of historically low interest rates. These factors point to an expanding market for dryers and dishwashers in the United States, thereby reducing the likelihood of any potential diversion of overproduction to the Canadian market at dumped prices.
[62] Based on the foregoing, it can be anticipated that the market for the subject goods in Canada and the United States will remain stable in the near to medium term.
[63] Furthermore, there have been no anti-dumping or countervailing measures imposed by any country during the POR involving dishwashers or dryers. In addition, there have been no anti-dumping or countervailing measures imposed by any country involving any of the other major household appliances (refrigerators, ranges, washing machines) during the POR. Similarly, Canada has not imposed any anti-dumping or countervailing measures in respect of any similar goods during the POR.
[64] The analysis of the information on the administrative record reveals that dumping has steadily declined to the point of insignificance. The information on the record also points to a stable North American market for the subject goods. In addition, the appreciation in the value of the Canadian dollar vis-à-vis the United States dollar has resulted in a substantial increase in the purchasing power of the importers, thereby, further reducing the likelihood of resumed dumping. As such, the continuation or resumption of dumping is not likely if the Finding is allowed to expire.
[65] For purposes 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 March 17, 2005, pursuant to paragraph 76.03(7)(a) of SIMA, the President of the CBSA determined that the expiry of the Finding by the Tribunal made on August 1, 2000, in Inquiry No. NQ-2000-001, concerning certain dishwashers and dryers originating in or exported from the United States of America and produced by, or on behalf of, White Consolidated Industries, Inc. and Whirlpool Corporation, their respective affiliates, successors and assigns, was unlikely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods.
[66] In accordance with subsection 76.03(12) of SIMA, the Tribunal shall issue an order rescinding its Finding. The scheduled expiry date of the Finding is August 1, 2005. Until that time, the CBSA will continue to levy anti-dumping duties on importations of the subject goods that are imported into Canada at dumped prices.
For further information, please contact the officer identified below at:
Canada Border Services Agency Anti-dumping and Countervailing Directorate 100 Metcalfe Street, 11th Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L8 Canada | |
Telephone |
Ron McTiernan (613) 954-7271 |
Telefax |
(613) 948-4844 |
Web site |
Pierre Richard
Vice-President
Admissibility Branch
1 Exhibit 7 (NC) Customs Tariff - Schedule.
2 Camco annual report: www.geappliances.ca/corporate/financial/AIFenglish03.pdf
3 Exhibit 20 (NC) Letter to CBSA from Camco.
4 Canadian Appliance Manufacturers Association, Industry Trends & Forecast 2005.
5 Exhibit 35 (NC) - Non-confidential case brief of EHP, page 3.
9 Exhibit 36 (NC) - Non-confidential reply brief of EHP, page 6.
10 Exhibit 33 (NC) - Non-confidential case brief of Whirlpool, page 4.
17 Exhibit 33 (NC) - Whirlpool case brief, pages 6 - 8.
18 Insignificant as defined in section 2 of SIMA is a margin of dumping that is less than 2% of the export price of the goods.
19 Exhibit 17 (NC) - Customs Commercial System US/CDN dollar exchange rates 2000 - 2004.
20 Exhibits 15 & 16 (NC) - Newspaper articles on US/CDN dollar exchange rates.
21 Exhibit 25 (NC) - Whirlpool Canada response to ERQ, Exhibit B13(i), Foreign Exchange Outlook, Scotiabank.
22 Exhibit 35 (NC) - EHP non-confidential case brief, page 9.
23 Exhibit 26 (NC) - Whirlpool Canada non-confidential response to ERQ, Exhibit B11(d).
24 Exhibit 26 (NC) - Whirlpool Canada non-confidential response to ERQ, Exhibit B11(e).
25 Exhibit 22 (NC) - Whirlpool non-confidential response to ERQ, page 19.
