Ottawa, August 3, 2016

Archived - Statement of Reasons

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.

Concerning an expiry review determination under paragraph 76.03(7)(a) of the Special Import Measures Act regarding certain copper pipe fittings originating in or exported from the United States of America, the Republic of Korea and the people’s Republic of China

Decision

On July 20, 2016, pursuant to paragraph 76.03(7)(a) of the Special Import Measures Act, the Canada Border Services Agency determined that the expiry of the orders made by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal on February 17, 2012, in Expiry Review No. RR-2011-001:

i. is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of certain copper pipe fittings originating in or exported from the United States of America;

ii. is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of certain copper pipe fittings originating in or exported from the Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China; and

iii. is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of subsidizing of certain copper pipe fittings originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China.

This document is also available in PDF (5,861 KB) [help with PDF files]

Executive Summary

[1] On March 22, 2016, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT), pursuant to subsection 76.03(3) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), initiated an expiry review of its orders made on February 17, 2012, in Expiry Review No. RR-2011-001, continuing, without amendment, its findings made on February 19, 2007, in Inquiry No. NQ-2006-002, concerning the dumping of certain copper pipe fittings (CPF) originating in or exported from the United States of America (U.S.), the Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China (China) and the subsidizing of certain CPF originating in or exported from China.

[2] For purposes of this document, the “named countries” refers to the U.S., the Republic of Korea and China.

[3] As a result of the CITT’s expiry review, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), on March 23, 2016, initiated an investigation to determine, pursuant to paragraph 76.03(7)(a) of SIMA, whether the expiry of the orders is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping and, in the case of China, subsidizing of the subject goods.

[4] The CBSA received a response to its Expiry Review Questionnaire (ERQ) from Cello Products Inc. (Cello)^{Footnote 1}, the producer of CPF in Canada. The submissions made by Cello also included information supporting its position that the continued or resumed dumping and, in the case of China, subsidizing of CPF from the named countries is likely if the CITT’s orders are rescinded.

[5] The CBSA received responses to its ERQ from Elkhart Products Corporation (Elkhart)^{Footnote 2} and Mueller Industries Inc. (Mueller)^{Footnote 3}, two major exporters of CPF from the U.S. The CBSA also received responses from Elkhart Products Limited (EPL)^{Footnote 4}, a Canadian importer related to Elkhart, from Streamline Copper & Brass Ltd. (“SCB”) and Great Lakes Copper Ltd. (“Great Lakes”)^{Footnote 5}, two importers related to Mueller, from BMI Canada Inc. (BMI)^{Footnote 6}, also a Canadian importer, along with other Canadian importers who are either end-users of CPF or importers of non-subject CPF. The CBSA did not receive a response to its subsidy ERQ from the Government of China (GOC).

[6] Cello provided a case brief^{Footnote 7} to the CBSA in support of its position that continued or resumed dumping and, in the case of China, subsidizing of CPF is likely if the CITT’s orders are rescinded. Mueller and its related importers also provided a case brief^{Footnote 8} to the CBSA contending that continued or resumed dumping is unlikely from the U.S. if the order is rescinded. Both Cello and Mueller (together with its related importers) provided reply submissions^{Footnote 9}.

[7] Analysis of the information on the record indicates that exporters in the U.S. have either stopped or decreased exporting to Canada or have continued to export subject goods to Canada at dumped prices while the order was in place because they were not able to compete at non dumped prices; have excess production capacity; are faced with a shift in imports of CPF into Canada from countries not covered by the CITT’s orders, and; are facing an uncertain future demand for CPF because of fluctuation in the construction market and substitution of other types of pipe fittings.

[8] Analysis of the information on the record indicates that exporters in the Republic of Korea have either stopped or decreased exporting to Canada while the orders were in place because they are unable to compete at non-dumped prices; are faced with a shift in imports of CPF into Canada from countries not covered by the CITT’s orders and; are facing an uncertain future demand for CPF because of continued recession in the domestic construction market.

[9] Analysis of the information on the record indicates that exporters in China continued to export subject goods to Canada at dumped prices while the orders were in place because they are unable to compete at non-dumped prices; have substantial production capacity; are faced with a shift in imports of CPF into Canada from countries not covered by the CITT’s orders and; are trying to cope with the softening of the construction sector in China.

[10] The information on the record also shows the continuing availability and applicability of subsidy programs in China.

[11] For the foregoing reasons, the CBSA, having considered the information on the record, determined on July 20, 2016, pursuant to paragraph 76.03(7)(a) of SIMA that:

i. The expiry of the order in respect of the dumping of certain CPF originating in or exported from the U.S. is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods into Canada;

ii. The expiry of the order in respect of the dumping of certain CPF originating in or exported from the Republic of Korea and China is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods into Canada; and

iii. The expiry of the order in respect of the subsidizing of certain CPF originating in or exported from China is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of subsidizing of the goods exported to Canada.

Background

[12] On June 8, 2006, the CBSA initiated an investigation pursuant to subsection 31(1) of SIMA into whether certain CPF originating in or exported from the U.S., the Republic of Korea and China had been dumped. On the same date, the CBSA initiated an investigation pursuant to subsection 31(1) of SIMA into whether certain CPF originating in or exported from China had been subsidized.

[13] The complaint was made by Cello of Cambridge, Ontario and was supported by the only other known Canadian producer of CPF at the time, Bow Plumbing Group, Inc. (Bow) of Montréal, Quebec.

[14] On January 18, 2007, the CBSA made a final determination of dumping and, in the case of China, of subsidizing in accordance with paragraph 41(1)(a) of SIMA in respect of certain CPF originating in or exported from the U.S., the Republic of Korea and China.

[15] On February 19, 2007, the CITT, found pursuant to subsection 43(1) of SIMA that injury had been caused by the dumping of the goods originating in or exported from the U.S., the Republic of Korea and China, and by the subsidizing of such goods from China. The CITT’s Statement of Reasons for the findings on CPF was issued March 6, 2007^{Footnote 10}.

[16] A previous expiry review was initiated by the CITT on June 1, 2011. On September 29, 2011, the CBSA determined pursuant to paragraph 76.03(7)(a) of SIMA that the expiry of the findings was likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods from the U.S., the Republic of Korea, and China, and also likely to result in the continuation or resumption of subsidizing of the goods from China. On February 17, 2012, the CITT issued orders continuing the findings pursuant to paragraph 76.03(12)(b) of SIMA.

[17] On February 5, 2016, the CBSA concluded a re-investigation to update the normal values, export prices, and amounts of subsidy of certain CPF originating in or exported from the U.S., the Republic of Korea and China. Five exporters [Mueller, Elkhart, Nibco Inc. (Nibco), Jungwoo Metal Ind. Co., Ltd. (Jungwoo) and Zhuji City Howhi Air Conditioners Made Co. (Howhi)] participated in the re-investigation and all received updated normal values. Where sufficient information was not available to determine a specific normal value, normal values for future shipments have been determined by ministerial specification, and are calculated by advancing the export price of the goods by 242%. For all other exporters of subject goods, normal values will be determined by this ministerial specification. The sole cooperative exporter from China received its own rate of subsidy. For all other exporters of subject goods from China, the amount of subsidy will be determined in accordance with a ministerial specification, and is equal to 17.73 Chinese Renminbi per kilogram.

[18] On February 1, 2016, the CITT issued a notice concerning the expiry of its orders, which was scheduled to occur on February 16, 2017. Based on the information filed during the expiry process, the CITT decided that a review of the orders was warranted^{Footnote 11}. On March 22, 2016, pursuant to subsection 76.03(3) of SIMA, the CITT gave notice and initiated an expiry review of its orders made on February 17, 2012^{Footnote 12}.

[19] On March 23, 2016, the CBSA initiated an expiry review investigation to determine whether the expiry of the orders is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods from the U.S., the Republic of Korea and China, and the subsidizing of the goods from China.

Product Description

[20] The goods subject to the orders under review are defined as:

“Solder joint pressure pipe fittings and solder joint drainage, waste and vent pipe fittings, made of cast copper alloy, wrought copper alloy or wrought copper, for use in heating, plumbing, air conditioning and refrigeration applications, restricted to the products enumerated in the CITT’s orders (copper pipe fittings), originating in or exported from the United States of America, the Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China.”

[21] Solder joint CPF are used to connect copper pipes, tubes or other fittings to one another. The connections are made by fitting two pieces together and heating the ends of the tubing and fitting, and filling the gap between the two with melted solder which solidifies on cooling to form a strong, leakproof connection. The fittings can also be used to connect copper tubing to other metal systems by use of threaded fittings. However, at least one end of a fitting is always soldered. Finally, the connection can also be made using epoxy or similar gluing methods.

[22] Solder joint copper pipe pressure fittings may be used in conveying liquids (e.g. potable water), gases and air under pressure in residential, industrial, commercial and institutional buildings. Copper pipe pressure fittings are also used in a variety of air conditioning and refrigeration (ACR) applications. The types of fittings used in air conditioning applications are typically identified by reference to their outside diameters, whereas the same fittings used in non air conditioning applications such as plumbing and heating are typically identified by reference to their inside or “nominal” diameters. Apart from the reference to diameter, a fitting for an air conditioning application is the same as a fitting for a non-air conditioning application.

[23] Solder joint copper pipe drainage, waste and vent (DWV) fittings are used primarily to convey waste from buildings to sewers and for venting purposes under low-pressure conditions.

[24] Female and male adaptors are used to connect a copper tube to an iron pipe or a water heater. Other adapters include ferrules that are used to join a copper tube to a cast iron pipe in older installations. Bushings are used to reduce the diameter of other fittings. Couplings are used to join tubes of either the same size or two different sizes to make longer runs through buildings. Elbows are used to change the direction of a copper tube by either 45° or 90°. Flanges and unions are used to provide a connection that can be either unscrewed or unbolted for maintenance or repairs. Tees are used to allow a copper line to be split into two separate lines. There are pressure tees and drainage tees; TY’s (90°) and Y’s (45°). Traps are used to trap water to prevent sewer gases from coming back into a building. Cleanouts are used to provide access to drainage systems in case of blockage; and caps are removable plugs used to permit inspection and access for the purpose of clearing an obstruction.

[25] Solder joint pipe fittings manufactured in Canada and the U.S. are made to the standards of the ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) / ANSI (American National Standards Institute) and to the standards of the MSS (Manufacturers Standardization Society).

[26] CPF may be either cast brass, produced from copper alloy ingots and recycled cast brass scrap, or wrought copper, produced from extruded copper tube or hollows.

[27] Cast fittings were produced in Canada by Cello using the green-sand casting process. Each fitting has a wooden, plastic or aluminum pattern, which is close to the same size and shape as the finished casting. A sand core for each fitting is made, using an aluminum or steel core box. Sand cores are made from resin-coated sand that is hardened to shape by heating in gas fired core machines. There are other methods of making sand cores, including sand mixed with air cured materials, which form solid sand cores without heat. The sand core forms the inside shape and surface of the fitting when the liquid brass is poured into the mould. A mould is made by filling a form flask with conditioned sand, binder and water to give it strength, and by pressing the pattern into it. This leaves a hollow impression that forms the outside of the casting. The sand core is set into this hollow impression once the pattern is removed and the mould is closed. Molten brass at the proper temperature is then poured into the mould through a hollow sprue that leads to runners and gates and finally into the space between the outside surface of the core and the inside surface of the conditioned sand mould. The metal is allowed to cool and solidify, forming the raw casting. The resultant raw casting is removed from the mould by vibration and is cleaned and conditioned in preparation for machining. 

[28] Castings are machined on special-purpose reaming machines, turret lathes or computer numerical control (“CNC”) lathes. All cast fittings have at least one end reamed to allow a copper tube to be joined to it using one of the joining methods described above. The other end or ends (tees) are either reamed, tapped (internally threaded) or has a male thread cut onto it.

[29] Wrought fittings, the most prevalent types being tees, couplings, elbows and adaptors, are produced in a variety of ways.

[30] Wrought tees are produced from lengths of heat-treated (fully annealed or softened) wrought copper tubing that is cut into short slug lengths. After the tubing is cut, the resulting tee slugs are compressed in a hydraulic press, forming the tee branch. Another machine then decaps the branches and sizes the three ends to make a finished product that is ready for cleaning and packaging.

[31] Straight couplings (e.g. ¾-in. x ¾-in.) are in a finished state after they have been cut from the copper tubing. Reducing couplings and bushings are produced from straight-cut slugs. A specialty machine expands one end of the straight-cut slug to produce a finished fitting. Alternatively, one end is either hit down or spun down to a smaller size to form a reducing coupling or bushing.

[32] Elbows are produced from lengths of heat-treated copper tubing, using special bending equipment that bends the elbows to the proper degree (45º or 90º) and saw cuts the elbows. Another machine then swedges (expands) the ends to create uniform cup dimensions. The ends of the elbows are then “faced” to provide a square soldering cup.

[33] Female and male wrought copper adapters can be made from machining hollow octagons or hexagons on CNC lathes or by hitting heavy wall tubing or solid copper rods on hydraulic presses.

Classification of Imports

[34] Subject CPF are normally classified under the Harmonized System (HS) Heading 74.12, under the following HS Codes:

7412.10.00.11
7412.10.00.19
7412.10.00.90
7412.20.00.11
7412.20.00.12
7412.20.00.19
7412.20.00.90

Period pf Review

[35] The period of review (POR) for the CBSA’s expiry review investigation is January 1, 2013, to January 31, 2016. 

Canadian Industry

[36] The Canadian industry for CPF is currently comprised of Cello. In April 2013, Bow closed its production facility in Dorchester, Ontario. From then on, Cello became the only manufacturer of CPF in Canada^{Footnote 13}.

[37] Cello commenced operations in 1946 in Cambridge, Ontario, as a supplier of cast copper alloy solder joint pipe fittings. Wrought copper and wrought copper alloy solder joint pipe fittings were added to the product line in the 1960s. Cello was incorporated in 1983 and its products are made for pressure and drainage, waste and vent applications. Cello ceased production of cast CPF in 2009 due to increased competition from imports. Domestic production mix for wrought CPF has not changed materially during the period of review^{Footnote 14}.

Canadian Market

[38] The value and volume of Canadian production of CPF is only available from the confidential submissions of the Canadian producer and therefore cannot be disclosed. However, based on the information on the administrative record the apparent Canadian market has decreased in value and volume since 2013^{Footnote 15}.

[39] The CBSA has prepared Table 1 below to show data for CPF imported into Canada during the POR.

Table 1
Imports into Canada^{Footnote 16}

	2013		2014		2015		Jan 2016
	QTY (kg)	Value ($)	QTY (kg)	Value ($)	QTY (kg)	Value ($)	QTY (kg)	Value ($)
U.S.	294,824	4,295,299	115,351	2,611,500	150,775	3,071,549	7,220	208,730
Republic of Korea	230,577	3,545,454	69,542	1,178,911	*	*	*	*
China	281,236	4,279,061	263,678	4,194,594	315,725	5,307,219	22,505	434,374
Total Named Countries	806,637	12,119,813	448,571	7,985,005	*	*	*	*
Other Countries	859,959	11,960,955	1,224,064	14,491,357	830,549	11,000,361	376,023	1,868,875
Total- Imports	1,666,596	24,080,768	1,672,635	22,476,362	*	*	*	*

_{* Data for The Republic of Korea in 2015 and Jan 2016 is protected as there were no more than two exporters with sales to Canada.}

Enforcement Data

[40] In the enforcement of the CITT’s orders during the POR, as detailed in Table 2 below, the total amount of anti-dumping and countervailing duties collected on subject imports from the U.S., the Republic of Korea and China are listed.

Table 2
Enforcement Data – Imports of Subject Goods from the named countries
Quantity, and Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties Collected During the POR^{Footnote 17}

Country Name	Quantity (kg)				SIMA Duties (CAD)
	2013	2014	2015	Jan-16	2013	2014	2015	Jan-16
U.S.	294,824	115,351	150,775	7,220	1,031,129	304,253	2,837,525	84,180
Republic of Korea	230,577	69,542	*	*	1,190,839	162,243	*	*
China	281,236	263,678	315,725	22,505	1,217,437	1,903,126	2,646,428	1,973
Total- Named Countries	806,637	448,571	*	*	3,439,406	2,369,622	*	*

^{* Data for the Republic of Korea in 2015 and Jan 2016 is protected as there were no more than two exporters with sales to Canada.}

Parties to the Proceedings

[41] On March 23, 2016, the CBSA sent a notice concerning the initiation of the expiry review investigation and the ERQs to the known Canadian producer, importers and exporters. The GOC was also sent an ERQ relating to subsidy.

[42] The ERQs requested information needed to consider the expiry review factors, as found in subsection 37.2(1) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR), relevant to this expiry review investigation.

[43] Two U.S. exporters, seven Canadian importers and the Canadian producer participated in the expiry review investigation and responded to the ERQs.

[44] No response to the CBSA’s subsidy ERQ was received from the GOC.

[45] The Canadian producer, Cello provided a case brief to the CBSA in support of its position that continued or resumed dumping and, in the case of China, subsidizing of certain CPF from the named countries is likely if the CITT’s orders are rescinded.

[46] U.S. exporter, Mueller and its related importers, provided a case brief to the CBSA in support of its position that continued or resumed dumping of certain CPF from the U.S. is not likely if the CITT’s order is rescinded.

[47] Both Cello and Mueller (together with its related importers) provided a reply submission to each other’s case briefs.

[48] No other party provided a case brief or reply submission.

Information considered by the CBSA

Administrative Record

[49] The information considered by the CBSA for purposes of this expiry review investigation is contained on the administrative record. The administrative record includes the exhibits listed on the CBSA’s Exhibit Listing, which is comprised of the CITT’s administrative record relating to the 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 and/or subsidizing is likely to continue or resume, if the orders are rescinded. This information may consist of expert analyst reports, excerpts from trade magazines and newspapers, orders and findings issued by authorities of Canada or of a country other than Canada, documents from international trade organizations such as the World Trade Organization and responses to the ERQs submitted by domestic producers, importers, exporters and foreign governments.

[50] For purposes of an expiry review investigation, the CBSA sets a date after which no “new” information submitted by interested parties may be placed on the administrative record or considered as part of the CBSA’s investigation. This is referred to as the “closing of the record date.” This allows participants time to prepare their case briefs and reply submissions based on the information that is on the record as of the date the record closed. For this expiry review investigation, the record closed on May 11, 2016.

Procedural Issues

[51] Normally, the CBSA will not place new information on the administrative record after the closing of the record date. However, on June 23, 2016 the record was reopened in order for the CBSA to submit an amended import and compliance statistics exhibit along with supporting documents. Parties to the proceeding who requested access to exhibits were provided with the opportunity to file additional case briefs and reply submissions only pertaining to the new information on the record, with due dates of June 28 and July 4, respectively. The CBSA received case briefs and reply submissions both from Cello and Mueller (together with its related importers) in regards to the new exhibits.

Position of the parties – Dumping

Parties Contending that Continued or Resumed Dumping is Likely

[52] Cello made representations through its response to the ERQ, its case brief and reply submission in support of its position that dumping from the U.S., the Republic of Korea and China is likely to continue or resume in the event the present orders are rescinded. Consequently, Cello argues that the measures should remain in place.

[53] The main factors identified by Cello can be summarized as follows:

United States

• The inability of U.S. exporters to maintain Canadian market share together with a demonstrated continued interest in the Canadian market;
• Uncertain demand in the U.S. CPF market leading to an increasing reliance on export markets;
• Excess production capacity among U.S. producers;
• The significant value of SIMA duties collected during the POR; and
• The increased pressure from low priced imports from non-subject countries.

The Republic of Korea

• the Republic of Korea producers’ inability to compete in the Canadian market at normal values;
• The weak demand for CPF in the Republic of Korea;
• Long standing relationships with Canadian wholesalers;
• The significant value of SIMA duties collected during the POR; and
• The increased pressure from low priced imports from non-subject countries.

China

• The large number of CPF producers in China represent a tremendous export potential;
• The continued weakening in domestic demand for CPF in China leading to an increasing reliance on export markets;
• The significant value of SIMA duties collected during the POR; and
• The increased pressure from low priced imports from non-subject countries.

United States

The inability of U.S. exporters to maintain Canadian market share together with a demonstrated continued interest in the Canadian market

[54] Cello contended that three major U.S. producers and exporters of CPF (i.e., Elkhart, Mueller and Nibco) participated in all normal value re-investigations conducted by the CBSA. According to Cello, this indicates that they have a continued interest in the Canadian market. In particular, Elkhart and Mueller have well-established relationships with Canadian wholesalers and both maintain an ongoing physical presence in Canada.

[55] Cello pointed out that total SIMA duties collected on subject goods from the U.S. during the POR was far more than the amount collected on U.S. imports during the period of review in the previous expiry review and shows a continued interest in the Canadian market^{Footnote 18}. The imposition of SIMA duties “either from exporters selling below normal value or without specific normal values, demonstrates an apparent inability to compete in the Canadian market at non dumped prices.”^{Footnote 19}

Uncertain demand in the U.S. CPF market leading to an increasing reliance on export markets

[56] While details concerning each of the U.S. exporter‘s export activity to all countries cannot be disclosed for confidentiality reasons, Cello submits that uncertain demand in the U.S. market of CPF will lead to an increasing reliance on export markets.

Excess production capacity among U.S. producers

[57] Cello contends that any excess capacity among U.S. producers^{Footnote 20} would be available to U.S. producers to produce more CPF to sell to Canada. As CBSA has previously indicated, “this additional capacity would be available to the exporters in the event that they wanted to produce additional CPF for sale to Canada.”^{Footnote 21}

The Republic of Korea

The Republic of Korea producers’ inability to compete in the Canadian market at normal values

[58] Cello notes that exports of CPF from the Republic of Korea to Canada dropped dramatically in 2014 and 2015 to the point that their presence in the Canadian market is now negligible. This is a fairly significant shift for an exporter who has previously played a very significant role. Cello further points out that CBSA collected more than a million dollars (CAD) in SIMA duties on the Republic of Korea imports during the POR^{Footnote 22}. Cello submits that this indicates that the Republic of Korea exporters continued their dumping and were not able to compete in the Canadian market at normal values.

The weak demand for CPF in the Republic of Korea

[59] Cello notes that there is continued weakening of domestic demand for CPF in the Republic of Korea due to the weak construction outlook. Cello quotes Bloomberg news which reported that the Central Bank of the Republic of Korea has further cut its GDP forecast for 2016. The Wall Street Journal has also reported that Q1 2016 GDP saw the worst performance in two years and that non-residential fixed investment fell by 5.9%, “the biggest drop since the waning days of the recession.”^{Footnote 23}

Long standing relationships with Canadian wholesalers

[60] Cello points out that Mueller has recently acquired a controlling interest in a CPF manufacturer in the Republic of Korea; Jungwoo Metal Ind. Co., Ltd. (Jungwoo). Cello argues that Jungwoo will now have direct access to Mueller’s long-standing relationships with Canadian wholesalers^{Footnote 24}. Consequently, Cello submits that it is likely that Jungwoo will resume exporting to Canada at dumped prices if the order is rescinded.

China

The large number of CPF producers in China represent a tremendous export potential

[61] Cello submitted information indicating there are numerous CPF manufacturers in China^{Footnote 25} and concludes that this represents a tremendous export potential. In addition, SIMA duties collected on Chinese imports during the POR totaled more than $5.7 million. Cello notes that this demonstrates a practice of continued dumping, even with specific normal values in place, by the Chinese exporters.

The continued weakening in domestic demand for CPF in China leading to an increasing reliance on export markets

[62] Cello quotes information stating that the construction outlook for China is quite negative. It has been reported “construction growth in China, the world’s second largest economy, is forecast to reach historical lows in the short term.”^{Footnote 26} The International Monetary Fund’s most recent China growth forecasts of 6.3% for 2016 and 6.0% for 2017 are down sharply from 6.9% in 2015^{Footnote 27}.

All three countries

The significant value of SIMA duties collected during the POR and the increased pressure from low priced imports from non-subject countries

[63] Cello submits that the significant value of SIMA duties collected in respect of subject goods from all three named countries during the POR indicates that there is continued dumping while the orders are in force. Additionally, there is an increased pressure from low priced imports from non-subject countries. As a result, it is Cello’s position that it is likely that dumping will continue or resume if the current orders are allowed to expire.

[64] In his response to the CITT’s notice of expiry of its orders on CPF, Peter Howell, Cello‘s Vice-President of Sales and Marketing stated “the shift to imports from non subject countries also leads us to believe that if normal values were not in place, subject imports would have to be dumped in order to regain their share of the Canadian market.”^{Footnote 28}

[65] Cello’s statement is corroborated by NDL Industries Inc. (NDL), a Canadian importer of subject goods, which has indicated “Dumping into the Canadian market will continue and get worse if allowed as other countries like Vietnam are already hurting the Canadian market.”^{Footnote 29}

Parties Contending that Continued or Resumed Dumping is Unlikely

[66] Elkhart made representations through their ERQ response that they question whether Cello, the only CPF producer remaining in Canada, can sufficiently supply market demands. As such, this would mitigate the need for U.S. producers to continue or resume dumping.

[67] Mueller and its related companies contended that resumed or continued dumping of subject goods from the U.S. is unlikely if the order is rescinded.

[68] The main factors identified by Mueller can be summarized as follows:

• U.S. producers of CPF have benefitted, and will likely continue to benefit from the robust growth of the U.S. construction market;
• U.S. producers are mainly focused on the domestic U.S. market and are not export oriented;
• To the extent that U.S. producers of CPF make export sales, U.S. producers have benefitted, and will likely continue to benefit from healthy demand in the export markets they currently serve;
• The growth in the Canadian market has been and will likely continue to be relatively underwhelming, meaning that U.S. producers will have little interest in increasing exports to the Canadian market;
• U.S. producers have exercised restraint in capacity, production, and exports during the POR;
• Assertions regarding the effects of the non-subject imports are speculative and are not supported by the record evidence; and,
• U.S. producers are not subject to any other dumping orders in the Canadian or other markets.

[69] Mueller indicates that the U.S. CPF market is healthy and forecasted to continue growing in the near term. The U.S. CPF market is supported by the growth in the total U.S. construction investment^{Footnote 30}. As well, U.S. producers are not export-oriented. Furthermore, Mueller notes that the Canadian CPF market has been stable during the POR and is expected to remain stable in the foreseeable future. In the face of robust and growing U.S. domestic CPF market conditions and non-growth in Canadian market, Mueller submits that U.S. producers have an incentive to focus on their domestic CPF market.

[70] To the extent that U.S. producers export their products, the demand in such export markets is expected to remain strong. Mueller quotes a longer-term study sponsored by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which “forecasts that the volume of construction output will grow by 85% to USD 15.5 trillion worldwide by 2030.”^{Footnote 31} Specifically, the construction sector of Mexico is expected to expand in 2013-2017^{Footnote 32}. The construction sector of the Middle East countries is also expected to grow. It has been reported that the outlook for construction in Middle East markets such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are bright, and the total construction output value is forecasted to rise through 2020, supported by government investment, rapid urbanization, population growth and positive developments in regional economic conditions^{Footnote 33}.

[71] Mueller argues that competition from imports of CPF from the non-subject countries will not drive import prices down in Canada. Using the U.S. market as an example, in 2015, there has been a total of 34.5 million kilograms of imports under the HS codes 7412.10 and 7413.20 into the U.S., almost half of which were from China, the Republic of Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and Brazil.

Consideration and Analysis – Dumping

[72] In making a determination under paragraph 76.03(7)(a) of SIMA as to whether the expiry of the orders is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods, the CBSA may consider the factors identified in subsection 37.2(1) of the SIMR, as well as any other factors relevant under the circumstances.

[73] Before presenting a country-by-country analysis, there is an important issue that relates to the nature of CPF which is as follows:

Commodity nature of copper pipe fittings

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

[75] As noted by the CITT in its Statement of Reasons issued in the last expiry review, “CPF are a commodity product and, as found in the inquiry and supported by the evidence introduced in this proceeding, compete essentially on the basis of price with little or no scope for product differentiation. Moreover, the evidence suggests that other important factors in purchasing decisions, such as product quality and delivery, are consistent among the like goods, the subject goods and non-subject goods.”^{Footnote 34}

[76] Peter Howell, Cello‘s Vice-President of Sales and Marketing has noted, a 2-3% price difference will routinely cause me to lose a sale and customers switch suppliers for pennies.”^{Footnote 35}

[77] Guided by the factors in subsection 37.2(1) of the SIMR and having considered the information on the administrative record, the following list represents a summary of the CBSA’s analysis conducted in this expiry review investigation with respect to the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping:

• Exporters have been unable to compete at non-dumped prices and have either stopped exporting to Canada or have continued to export subject goods to Canada at dumped prices while the orders were in place;
• Exporters have experienced declining sales in their domestic markets, the Canadian market and some other export markets;
• Exporters in the U.S. and China are struggling with excess capacity;
• Exporters are faced with increased imports of CPF from other countries;
• Importers are increasingly turning to foreign sources of supply from countries other than the named countries;
• Exporters are facing an uncertain future domestic demand for CPF because of fluctuation in the construction market and substitution of other types of pipe fittings.

[78] The following country specific analysis begins with the U.S., followed by the Republic of Korea and China.

United States

[79] The CBSA received ERQ responses from two U.S. exporters of CPF: Mueller and Elkhart.

[80] Both of these exporters have participated during the last three CBSA re investigations of normal values and export prices for CPF. Nibco participated in the last three CBSA re investigations but did not participate in the expiry review investigation.

[81] Mueller and Elkhart are two major producers of CPF to the U.S. domestic market. Neither of them import CPF into the U.S.

[82] While details concerning each of the exporter‘s plant capacity, production and capacity utilization cannot be disclosed for confidentiality reasons, based on the information on the administrative record the overall production of U.S. exporters increased between 2013 to 2015 while still maintaining excess capacity.^{Footnote 36} This excess capacity could be utilized to produce additional CPF if the order was rescinded.

[83] While details concerning each of the exporter’s plant capacity for other products cannot be disclosed for confidentiality reasons, additional capacity would be available to the exporters in the event that they wanted to change their product mix and produce additional CPF for sale to Canada^{Footnote 37}.

[84] During the POR, a total of 568,170 kg of CPF from the U.S. entered the Canadian market^{Footnote 38}. SIMA duties totalling about CAN$4.3 million were paid on 267,789 kg representing 47% of CPF imported during the POR.^{Footnote 39} The amount of anti-dumping duty collected was 42% of the export price of U.S. imports^{Footnote 40}. The imposition of SIMA duties of over CAD$4.2 million during the POR demonstrates an apparent inability to compete in the Canadian market at non dumped prices.

[85] The majority of SIMA duties collected was based on the application of the Ministerial specification or 242% of the export price in the absence of a specific normal value. The remaining SIMA duties were collected in respect of imports from the exporters that participated in the CBSA’s three re-investigations during the POR.

[86] The CBSA also found secondary dumping for shipments of CPF from a U.S. exporter during part of the POR which lead to export prices being determined pursuant to section 25 of SIMA^{Footnote 41}.

[87] While details concerning each of the U.S. exporter’s domestic sales cannot be disclosed for confidentiality reasons, based on the information on the administrative record the overall domestic sales had declined between 2013 and 2015. The decrease in domestic sales may prompt U.S. exporters to attempt to increase sales into their export markets, including Canada.

[88] The decline in imports of CPF from the U.S. exporters indicates that they were increasingly unable to compete in the Canadian market at non-dumped prices and that if the order is rescinded, they may resume dumping in order to regain lost market share.

[89] There has been a shift in imports into Canada from the named countries to imports from other countries. Evidence shows that the share of the Canadian market held by imports of CPF from other countries has been increasing from 2013 to 2015. Given the price sensitive nature of CPF, it is reasonable to conclude that importers in Canada are purchasing CPF from these countries because of lower prices. It is a reasonable conclusion given the price sensitivity nature of the subject goods.

[90] According to CBSA import statistics, the pricing of imports of subject goods from the U.S. from 2013 15 ranged from an average annual low of CAD$14.57 per kg in 2013 to a high of CAD$22.64 per kg in 2014 while the pricing of imports from non-named countries from 2013 15 ranged from an average annual low of CAD$11.84 per kg in 2014 to a high of CAD$13.91 per kg in 2013^{Footnote 42}.

[91] Since CPFs are a commodity based product, price is a major factor in the purchasing decision. Evidence on record indicates that the unit purchasing price of CPF from countries not subject to the orders were lower than those from the U.S. As a result, U.S. exporters would have to compete against these low-priced imports into Canada in order to maintain or secure additional market share.

[92] Future demand for CPF is uncertain in the U.S. market. According to U.S. CPF producers, U.S. construction activity is an important indicator of sales trends for CPF^{Footnote 43}. Recent housing market statistics, including construction spending and housing starts, have shown an upward trend^{Footnote 44}. While details concerning domestic sales of CPF cannot be disclosed for confidentiality reasons, based on the information available on the record, there does not appear to be a correlation with construction trends during the POR and domestic sales of CPF^{Footnote 45}.

[93] A growing trend of product substitution^{Footnote 46} for CPF in the U.S. domestic market has occurred in recent years. If this trend continues in the U.S. market, U.S. producers of CPF may look to other countries, such as Canada, to sell additional CPF.

[94] As mentioned, during the POR, SIMA duties totaling CAD$4,257,087 were collected on 47% of the subject goods imported from the U.S. It demonstrates that U.S. producers were not able to compete in the Canadian market at non-dumped prices. In addition, secondary dumping was found for shipments of CPF from an U.S. exporter during part of the POR which lead to export prices being determined pursuant to section 25 of SIMA^{Footnote 47}.

Determination Regarding Likelihood of Continued or Resumed Dumping for United States

[95] Based on the information on the record in respect of the fact that CPF are a commodity product and are sold on the basis of price, and that U.S. exporters: have either stopped or decreased exports to Canada or have continued to export subject goods to Canada at dumped prices while the order was in place because they were not able to compete at non-dumped prices; have excess production capacity; are faced with a shift in imports of CPF into Canada from countries not covered by the CITT’s order, and; are facing an uncertain future demand for CPF because of fluctuation in the construction market and substitution of other types of pipe fittings, the CBSA determined that the expiry of the order in respect of CPF originating in or exported from the U.S. is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods.

The Republic of Korea

[96] The CBSA did not receive any ERQ responses, case briefs or reply submissions from Republic of Korea exporters. 

[97] There are several large CPF producers in the Republic of Korea. Jungwoo, a CPF producer and exporter, has a website that boasts its “mass production system” and highlights the company’s focus on exports^{Footnote 48}. Poongsan Industrial Corporation (Poongsan) is another large Republic of Korea producer of wrought CPF but has not obtained normal values from the CBSA since 2007. When the CBSA initiated its investigation in 2006, it identified 15 producers from the Republic of Korea^{Footnote 49}.

[98] During the POR, Jungwoo participated in all the re-investigations and obtained normal values.

[99] While details concerning Jungwoo’s sales to Canada cannot be disclosed for confidentiality reasons, as shown in Table 2 above, the volume of sales from Republic of Korea exporters dramatically declined from 2013 to 2014. This suggests that exporters might not be able to compete at non-dumped prices.

[100] Jungwoo’s continued participation in the CPF re-investigations suggests that Jungwoo is still interested in the Canadian market. The recent acquisition of controlling interest in Jungwoo by Mueller will also strengthen Jungwoo’s access to Mueller’s long-standing relationships with Canadian wholesalers.

[101] During 2013 and 2014, more than 300,000 kg of CPF from the Republic of Korea entered the Canadian market. SIMA duties of more than CAD$1.35 million were paid during this time. The amount of anti-dumping duty collected was about 28% of the export price of these goods in 2013 and 2014.

[102] The imposition of SIMA duties of over CAD$1.35 million during the POR demonstrates that Republic of Korea exporters were dumping during the POR and indicates a continued interest in the Canadian market.

[103] Evidence shows that the share of the Canadian market held by imports of CPF from other countries increased from 2013 to 2015. Given the price sensitive nature of CPF, it is reasonable to conclude that importers in Canada are purchasing CPF from these countries because of lower prices^{Footnote 50}.

[104] The pricing of imports of subject goods from Korea from 2013-14 ranged from an average annual low of CAD$15.38 per kg in 2013 to a high of CAD$16.95 per kg in 2014 while imports from other countries from 2013-14 ranged from an average annual low of CAD$11.84 per kg in 2014 to a high of CAD$13.91 per kg in 2013^{Footnote 51}.

[105] Since CPF are a commodity based product, price is a major factor in the purchasing decision. As a result, Jungwoo and other Republic of Korea exporters would have to compete against these low-priced imports in Canada from other countries not subject to the orders, in order to regain market share.

[106] Reports indicate that economic growth in the Republic of Korea is slowing, citing a recent decline in construction investment as a contributing factor. According to one report, “the construction sector outlook over the three years to 2018 is expected to move into a downturn”^{Footnote 52} and “non-residential construction order value is projected to decline by over 30% over the two years to 2017.”^{Footnote 53} Against this negative outlook, Republic of Korea exporters may be increasingly export oriented as they face diminishing demand in their domestic market.

Determination Regarding Likelihood of Continued or Resumed Dumping for the Republic of Korea

[107] Based on the information on the record in respect of the fact that CPF are a commodity product and are sold on the basis of price, and that Republic of Korea exporters: have either stopped or decreased exports to Canada while the order was in place because they are unable to compete at non-dumped prices; are faced with a shift in imports of CPF into Canada from countries not covered by the CITT’s orders and; are facing an uncertain future demand in the Republic of Korea market for CPF because of continued recession in the construction market, the CBSA determined that the expiry of the order in respect of CPF originating in or exported from the Republic of Korea is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods.

China

[108] The CBSA did not receive any ERQ responses, case briefs or reply submissions from Chinese exporters.

[109] Chinese exporters accounted for more than 43% of the volume of the import activity of CPF from the named countries in 2013 and 2014^{Footnote 54}.

[110] A total of 883,144 kg of CPF from China entered the Canadian market during the POR^{Footnote 55}. Duties of about CAD$5.77 million were paid on 168,777 kg representing just over 19% of CPF imported from China during the POR. The amount of duty collected was about 43% of the export price of the total imports from China.

[111] The collection of about CAD$5.77 million demonstrates an apparent inability for Chinese exporters to compete in the Canadian market at non-dumped prices.

[112] Zhuji City Howhi Air Conditioners Made Co. (Howhi) cooperated during the last three CBSA re-investigations of normal values and export prices for CPF. However, they did not cooperate in this expiry review investigation.

[113] There are numerous exporters of CPF in China. The Web site, http://www.Made-in-China.com, lists over 1,227 exporters of CPF^{Footnote 56}. Out of the 1,227 exporters of CPF in China, 126 of them have annual revenue of more than USD$100 million^{Footnote 57}. This fact gives an indication of the immense production capacity of exporters of CPF in China.

[114] As noted earlier, there has been a shift in imports into Canada from the named countries to imports from other countries. Evidence shows that the share of the Canadian market held by imports of CPF from other countries have increased from 2013 to 2015. Given the price sensitive nature of CPF, it is reasonable to conclude that importers in Canada are purchasing CPF from these countries because of lower prices. It is a reasonable conclusion given the price sensitivity nature of the subject goods.

[115] The pricing of imports of subject goods from China from 2013-15 ranged from an average annual low of CAD$15.22 per kg in 2013 to a high of CAD$16.81 per kg in 2015 while the pricing of imports from non named countries from 2013-15 ranged from an average annual low of CAD$11.84 per kg in 2014 to a high of CAD$13.91 per kg in 2013^{Footnote 58}.

[116] Since CPF are a commodity based product, price is a major factor in the purchasing decision. As a result, Howhi and other Chinese exporters would have to compete against these low-priced imports in Canada in order to maintain market share. Current normal values indicate that prices necessary to compete against these low-priced imports would be dumped.

[117] The construction outlook for China is quite negative. It has been reported “construction growth in China is forecast to reach historical lows in the short term.”^{Footnote 59} According to the data released on June 12, 2015 by the National Bureau of Statistics of China, the China’s real estate climate index has been on a downward trend. For the index, figures above 100 indicate economic growth while readings below 100 indicate a slowdown in the Chinese real estate industry. The index stood at 92.43 in May 2015. This is a multiyear low for China’s real estate climate index^{Footnote 60}.

[118] Given the softening of the Chinese domestic economy, there is a likelihood that Chinese exporters will have to look to other export markets like Canada to replace lost sales to customers within China.

Determination Regarding Likelihood of Continued or Resumed Dumping for China

[119] Based on the information on the record in respect of the fact that CPF are a commodity product and are sold on the basis of price, and that Chinese exporters: have continued to export subject goods to Canada at dumped prices while the orders were in place because they are unable to compete at non-dumped prices; have substantial production capacity; are faced with a shift in imports of CPF into Canada from countries not covered by the CITT’s order and; are trying to cope with the softening of the construction sector in China, the CBSA determined that the expiry of the order is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping into Canada of certain CPF originating in or exported from China.

Position of the parties – Subsidizing

Parties Contending that Continued or Resumed Subsidizing is Likely

[120] Cello submits that the CBSA identified 90 exporters of subject goods from China in the original investigation. The CBSA found that 91% of subject goods from China were subsidized at a rate of 51%. The fact that the remaining Chinese exporters who accounted for most of the exports to Canada left the Canadian market following the CITT’s finding may indicate that access to subsidies was widespread.

[121] Cello contends that the CBSA has identified various subsidy programs that Chinese exporters of subject goods would be entitled to benefit from. Notwithstanding the GOC’s failure to cooperate in the expiry review investigation, the evidence on the record indicates the continued availability of subsidy programs for exporters of CPF in China.

Parties Contending that Continued or Resumed Subsidizing is Not likely

[122] None of the parties contended that resumed or continued subsidizing of subject goods from China is unlikely if the order is rescinded.

Consideration and analysis – Subsidizing

[123] In making a determination under paragraph 76.03(7)(a) of SIMA as to whether the expiry of the order is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of subsidizing of the goods, the CBSA may consider the factors identified in subsection 37.2(1) of the SIMR, as well as any other factors relevant under the circumstances.

[124] Guided by the aforementioned factors in subsection 37.2(1) of the SIMR, and having considered the information in the administrative record, the following list summarizes the most relevant aspects of the CBSA’s analysis conducted in this expiry review investigation with respect to the likelihood of continued or resumed subsidizing of certain CPF originating in or exported from China:

• Continued availability of subsidy programs for CPF exporters;
• The volume of subsidized goods;
• The performance and likely future performance of Chinese exporters in respect of production capacity and exports; and
• The GOC provision of subsidies to its manufacturers in the metal sector.

[125] There has been a lack of participation from Chinese producers and exporters of subject goods and from the GOC in this expiry review investigation. Additionally, there was a lack of participation from the GOC in the 2011 expiry review investigation and all three re investigations conducted since the 2011 expiry review investigation. As a result, the CBSA relied on information from the original subsidy investigation, the information that was submitted by the GOC in the 2010 re-investigation, and its own research in assessing the likelihood of continued or resumed subsidization should the CITT’s order be rescinded.

[126] In the original subsidy investigation, it was determined (based on the information provided by the cooperative exporters, the GOC and the results of the verification) that the two cooperative exporters did not receive any benefits associated with the alleged subsidy programs during the period of investigation for the subsidy investigation.

[127] At the time of the original subsidy investigation in 2006, the CBSA found 18 GOC programs and practices to be available to all other exporters.

[128] The amount of subsidy determined for all other exporters was determined according to Ministerial specification pursuant to subsection 30.4(2) of SIMA.

[129] It was found that 91% of the goods exported from China were subsidized. The weighted average amount of subsidy, expressed as a percentage of the export price, was 51%. The amount of subsidy for all other exporters was 17.73 Renminbi per kilogram.

[130] Detailed descriptions of the programs and explanations as to why they were regarded as subsidies subject to countervailing duties are contained in the CBSA’s Statement of Reasons issued at the final determination^{Footnote 61}.

[131] Based on the information provided by the GOC in the 2010 re-investigation, 14 of the 18 subsidy programs identified in the original investigation have been terminated. The four remaining subsidy programs conferring financial benefits to CPF exporters are:

• Exemption of tariff and import VAT for the imported technologies and equipment;
• Fund for international market exploration by SMEs;
• Value Added Tax (VAT) exemptions;
• Tariff exemptions on imported materials.

[132] In the 2013 subsidy investigation of copper tube originating in or exported from China, the CBSA found that China Hailiang Group (which produces copper tube and CPF) received benefits from the GOC under 27 subsidy programs^{Footnote 62}. A portion of the period of investigation in the 2013 subsidy investigation overlapped with a portion of this expiry review investigation’s POR. As copper tube is an input for the production of CPF, it is believed that the subsidy would be attributable to the CPF products. Hailiang Group did not participate in the 2014 re investigation of the amounts of subsidy of copper tube. The existence of this other countervailing measure is a further indication that the GOC has provided subsidies to its domestic producers and likely will continue to do so in the future.

[133] Since the conclusion of the original CPF investigation and up to the conclusion of the most recent CPF re investigation, all subject goods originating in or exported from China (excluding subject goods exported to Canada by Zhuji City Howhi Air Conditioners Made Co., Ltd.) have been assessed countervailing duties.

[134] Chinese producers have continued their presence in the Canadian market through direct and indirect shipments while the order was in place.

[135] Also, as noted in the analysis of likelihood of the continued or resumed dumping, information on the record indicates that there are hundreds of CPF manufacturers in China and their capacities for production of CPF exceed the Canadian market many times over^{Footnote 63}. For instance, China Hailiang Group is one of world‘s largest manufacturers of CPF and pipes, with a manufacturing capacity of more than 200,000 tons [400 million pounds] per year^{Footnote 64}.

[136] The number of Canadian countervailing measures presently in place against Chinese industrial goods, namely base metals or articles of base metal, including: concrete reinforcing bar; oil country tubular goods; carbon steel fasteners; steel piling pipe; seamless oil and gas well casing; pup joints; and carbon steel welded pipe, demonstrates the GOC’s continued commitment to providing subsidies to Chinese companies operating in the metal industry.

[137] Finally, there is information on the record that indicates that Chinese CPF producers rely heavily on export markets as the domestic market in China slows down^{Footnote 65}.

Determination Regarding Likelihood of Continued or Resumed Subsidizing

[138] Based on the information on the record in respect of: the continued availability of subsidy programs for CPF exporters in China; the volume of subsidized goods; the performance and likely future performance of Chinese exporters in respect of production capacity and exports; the GOC provision of subsidies to its manufacturers in the metal sector, the CBSA determined that the expiry of the order in respect of goods from China is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of subsidizing of CPF originating in or exported from China. 

Conclusion

[139] For the purpose of making a determination in this expiry review investigation, the CBSA conducted its analysis within the scope of the factors found under subsection 37.2(1) of the SIMR. Based on the foregoing consideration of pertinent factors and an analysis of the evidence on the record, on July 20, 2016, the CBSA make a determination pursuant to paragraph 76.03(7)(a) of SIMA that the expiry of the orders in Expiry Review No. RR-2011-001, made by the CITT on February 17, 2012:

• in respect of CPF originating in or exported from the U.S. is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods;
• in respect of CPF originating in or exported from the Republic of Korea and China is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods;
• in respect of CPF originating in or exported from China is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of subsidizing of the goods.

Future action

[140] On July 21, 2016, the CITT commenced its inquiry to determine whether the expiry of the orders with respect to the dumping of the goods from the U.S., the Republic of Korea and China and the subsidizing of the goods from China is likely to result in injury. The CITT’s Expiry Review schedule indicates that it will make its decision by November 28, 2016.

[141] If the CITT determines that the expiry of the orders with respect to the goods is likely to result in injury, the order 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 and/or countervailing duties on dumped and/or subsidized importations of the subject goods.

[142] If the CITT determines that the expiry of the orders with respect to the goods is not likely to result in injury, the order will be rescinded in respect of those goods. Anti-dumping and/or countervailing duties would then no longer be levied on importations of the subject goods.

[143] For further information, please contact the officer listed below:

Date modified:

2016-08-03