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This page has been archived.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.
File No. 4235-260
Case No. AD/1190
Concerning the review of an undertaking pursuant to subsection 53(1) of the Special Import Measures Act, with respect to
FILTER-TIPPED CIGARETTE TUBES, EXCLUDING THOSE WHICH BEAR THE TRADEMARK OR BRAND NAME OF A FINISHED OR READY-MADE CIGARETTE, ORIGINATING IN OR EXPORTED FROM FRANCE
On April 8, 2004, pursuant to subsection 53(1) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), the President of the Canada Border Services Agency renewed the undertakings originally accepted from the French exporter and German vendor on April 12, 1999, with respect to filter-tipped cigarette tubes, excluding those which bear the trademark or brand name of a finished or ready-made cigarette, originating in or exported from France, having determined that the undertakings continue to serve the purpose for which they were intended and that they do not require termination under section 52 of SIMA.
Cet énoncé des motifs est également disponible en français.
Period of Review
Canadian Industry
Canadian Market
Undertaking
Compliance
Participants in the Review of this Undertaking
Information Used by the President
Position of the Parties
Consideration and Analysis
- Termination
- Likelihood of Continuation or Resumption of Dumping
- Likelihood of Injury to the Domestic Industry
Conclusion
Future Action
Publication
Information
[1] On January 19, 2004, the President of the Canada Border Services Agency (President) issued a notice and initiated a review, pursuant to subsection 53(1) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), of the undertakings involving filter-tipped cigarette tubes, excluding those which bear the trademark or brand name of a finished or ready-made cigarette, originating in or exported from France. The undertakings were scheduled to expire on April 12, 2004.
[2] The review indicated that the complainant would likely face a continuation or resumption of dumping if the undertakings were to expire. In addition, any such continuation or resumption of dumping would likely result in material injury to the Canadian industry.
[3] On April 8, 2004, the President determined pursuant to subsection 53(1) of SIMA that the undertakings continue to serve the purpose for which they were intended, and that the undertakings do not require termination under section 52 of SIMA. Hence, the President has renewed the undertakings for a further period of five years.
[4] On October 19, 1998, the Deputy Minister of National Revenue (now the President of the Canadian Border Services Agency) initiated an investigation respecting the alleged injurious dumping of filter-tipped cigarette tubes, excluding those which bear the trademark or brand name of a finished or ready-made cigarette, originating in or exported from France and the Federal Republic of Germany.
[5] The investigation was initiated in response to a complaint filed by CTC Tube Company of Canada Inc. (CTC Tube) of Montréal-Nord, Quebec.
[6] On January 18, 1999, the Deputy Minister terminated the investigation with respect to the subject goods originating in or exported from the Federal Republic of Germany in accordance with paragraph 35(1)(c) of SIMA as the actual and potential volumes of dumped goods from that country were negligible.
[7] On the same date, the Deputy Minister made a preliminary determination of dumping with respect to the subject goods originating in or exported from France, in accordance with paragraph 38(1) of SIMA and determined that there was evidence that disclosed a reasonable indication that the dumping had caused injury.
[8] On April 12, 1999, the Deputy Minister accepted an undertaking from both the exporter Alpaci S.a.r.l. (Alpaci) of France and the vendor Gizeh Raucherbedart GmbH & Co. KG (Gizeh) of the Federal Republic of Germany (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "undertaking"), and suspended the investigation. Alpaci is the producer of the subject goods and only sells in its domestic market while Gizeh is the vendor and sells Alpaci's product to the Canadian market. Both companies are related and are part of a larger corporation.1
[9] The undertaking covered substantially all of the dumped goods and provided that the prices of the imported goods would increase to a level sufficient to eliminate the injury caused to the complainant by the dumping. The undertaking was accepted pursuant to subsection 49(1) of SIMA and the investigation was suspended in accordance with section 50 of SIMA.
[10] On January 19, 2004, pursuant to subsection 53(1) of SIMA, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) initiated a review of the undertaking.
[11] The goods subject to the undertaking are defined as:
"Filter-tipped cigarette tubes, excluding those which bear the trademark or brand name of a finished or ready-made cigarette, originating in or exported from France."
[12] Cigarette tubes are used by consumers to make finished cigarettes by inserting fine cut tobacco into the tubes, usually with the aid of a small machine or injector. The industry standard in Canada for regular length filter-tipped cigarette tubes is 74 mm, while the standard for king size filter-tipped cigarette tubes is 84 mm.
[13] Filter-tipped cigarette tubes are usually sold in boxes of 200 tubes under various brand names. The boxes are generally packaged for wholesale distribution in cases containing 10,000 tubes in a configuration of 50 boxes of 200 tubes.
[14] The filter consists of a plug of crimped acetate tow and a filter wrap made from paper. The cigarette paper may be treated with a chemical to facilitate either a fast or slow burn rate. The cigarette tubes generally appear white in colour, although the portion covering the filter may be made from paper, which is either white or tan hue (solid or speckled).
Classification of Imports
[15] Filter-tipped cigarette tubes2 are properly classified in Schedule I of the Customs Tariff under tariff item number 4813.10.00.00 of the Harmonized System.
Period of Review
[16] The period of review was January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2003.3
[17] Besides CTC Tube, two other domestic producers are known to the CBSA: Dynasty Tobacco Inc., identified in 1998 from the original complaint and Efka Canada, a former cigarette tube producer for Rothmans, Benson and Hedges, identified by CTC Tube in its response to the undertaking review questionnaire (URQ).4 No response to the CBSA's URQ was received from Dynasty Tobacco Inc. and only minimal information was received from Efka Canada.
[18] The lack of cooperation from exporters, importers and other Canadian producers created difficulties in establishing the size of the Canadian market for filter-tipped cigarette tubes. Furthermore, the Customs tariff item number encompasses filter-tipped cigarette tubes as well as other tobacco paper products, making it difficult to accurately estimate importations of filter-tipped cigarette tubes. The only party to provide any information to the CBSA concerning the Canadian market for filter-tipped cigarette tubes was CTC Tube. Using the information provided by CTC Tube, the Canadian market for filter-tipped cigarette tubes was estimated at approximately $11 million for 2003. Detailed information on the size of the Canadian market and the shares held by the participants cannot be divulged because it could reveal information that is confidential to the parties involved.
[19] Evidence suggests that the Canadian market for filter-tipped cigarette tubes is a mature market with little growth expected in the next year.
[20] As previously mentioned, on April 12, 1999, the Deputy Minister accepted an undertaking from the exporter and vendor, suspending the investigation regarding the subject goods. The undertaking prices agreed upon between the exporter, vendor and the Deputy Minister were set at a level to eliminate the injury caused by the dumping, but not to eliminate the dumping entirely. This undertaking price allowed the exporter to sell subject goods to Canada at a price lower than their respective estimated normal value.
[21] Compliance reviews were conducted by the CBSA on a yearly basis in order to ensure that the exporter/vendor were abiding by the terms and conditions of the undertaking. These compliance reviews found that the exporter/vendor had not violated the undertaking agreement, as the exporter/vendor had continually shipped to Canada at a price above the undertaking price agreed to in 1999.
Participants in the Review of this Undertaking
[22] The CBSA's notice concerning the review and questionnaires were sent to Canadian producers of filter-tipped cigarette tubes, the exporter and vendor of the subject goods, to other potential exporters of subject goods, and importers of filter-tipped cigarette tubes.
[23] Only one Canadian producer, CTC Tube, actively participated in the CBSA's undertaking review and provided a response to the URQ. They also provided case arguments outlining their position to the CBSA and obtained counsel.
[24] No responses to the URQ were received from Alpaci, the French producer, the main Canadian importers of filter-tipped cigarette tubes, or other Canadian producers. A partial response to the URQ was received from Gizeh, the German vendor.
Participants
Canadian Producer:
CTC Tube Company of Canada Inc.
10220 Armand Lavergne
Montréal-Nord, Quebec
H1H 3N5
Vendor:
Gizeh Raucherbedarf GmbH & Co. KG
Breiter Weg 40
D-51690 Bergneustadt
The Federal Republic of Germany
[25] Participants are divided into two broad categories, "parties to the proceedings" and "interested persons". Both groups are allowed to file any information that they feel pertinent and may file case arguments and reply submissions. The main difference between the two groups is that counsel for "interested persons" is not permitted access to confidential or protected information, while counsel for "parties to the proceedings" is.
[26] A person is regarded as a "party to the proceeding" if the person has a direct interest in the outcome of the proceeding and actively participates in the proceeding. In this undertaking review, only CTC Tube was considered to be a party to the proceeding.
Information Used by the President
[27] The information used and considered by the President for purposes of this undertaking 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 CBSA exhibits and information submitted by interested persons, including information which they feel is relevant to the decision.
[28] For purposes of an undertaking 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 undertaking review, the administrative record closed on February 26, 2004. This allows participants time to prepare their case arguments and reply submissions based on the information that is on the administrative record as of the closing of the record date.
[29] Normally, the President will not consider any new information submitted by participants subsequent to the closing of the record date. However, in certain exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to permit new information to be submitted. The President will consider the following factors in deciding whether to accept new information submitted after the closing of the record date:
(a) the availability of the information prior to the closing of the record date;
(b) the emergence of new or unforeseen issues;
(c) the relevance and materiality of the information;
(d) the opportunity for other participants to respond to the new information; and
(e) whether the new information can reasonably be taken into consideration by the President in making the determination.
[30] Participants wishing to file new information after the closing of the record date of February 26, 2004, either separately or as part of case arguments or reply submissions, must identify this information so that the President can decide whether it will be included in the record for purposes of the determination.
Information Received after Closing of the Record
[31] On February 27, 2004, counsel for CTC Tube provided the CBSA with their confidential and non-confidential responses to the CBSA's URQ. The original due date of their submission was February 25, 2004, however, counsel for the complainant was unable to meet this deadline. The information was both relevant and material to the CBSA's review of the undertaking providing insight into the undertaking's effects and the possible ramifications if the undertaking were to expire. It was, therefore, accepted by the President. The exhibit listing was updated to reflect this acceptance.
[32] On March 2, 2004, counsel for CTC Tube provided the CBSA with a revised copy of page 19 of its original response to the CBSA's URQ. The information constituted clarification of an exchange rate conversion provided in the original response. This information was necessary to allow for the complete understanding of certain responses presented by CTC Tube in its original response. It was, therefore, accepted by the President. The exhibit listing was updated to reflect this acceptance.
[33] On March 15, 2004, counsel for CTC Tube provided the CBSA with the complainant's un-audited financial statements for the year ending January 31, 2004. This information was unavailable at the time of the filing of CTC Tube's original response, as the accounting staff had not finished compiling the appropriate information. The estimation of the Canadian market for filter-tipped cigarette tubes would not have been possible without the information provided in these financial statements. It was, therefore, considered to be both relevant and material. Consequently, the information was accepted by the President for the purpose of this review. The exhibit listing was updated to reflect this acceptance.
[34] On March 18, 2004, Efka Canada, another domestic producer, provided the CBSA with its production totals for the past three fiscal years. The President did not consider the information provided by Efka Canada for the purposes of reviewing this undertaking, as this information was not material. Even though the President did not consider this new information received after the closing of the record, the exhibit listing was updated to reflect its receipt.
[35] In each instance where information submitted after the closing of the record was considered, each party was provided the opportunity to comment on the new information.
Position of the Parties
[36] The Canadian producer, CTC Tube, presented arguments in its case brief stating that the undertaking should not only be renewed but the undertaking price should be increased.
[37] CTC Tube submitted that the undertaking has been partially effective in affording them protection under SIMA in that it has not adequately recovered its selling prices to pre-undertaking levels and prices are not at a satisfactory level. CTC Tube argues that it requires the continued protection afforded by the renewal of the undertaking in order to improve its financial performance and competitiveness.5
[38] CTC Tube states that Gizeh has expressed a continuing interest in the Canadian market and that even though Gizeh has continuously raised its prices to its Canadian importers, since the acceptance of the undertaking, these price increases are as a result of short-term exchange rate volatility and they have not resulted in increased retail pricing.
[39] Furthermore, CTC Tube states that while sales volumes of the French product have not increased, the products remain competitively priced at the retail level in Canada.
CTC Tube further alleges that French product at the current undertaking price has resulted in price suppression to CTC Tube, preventing a return of its pricing to pre-injurious levels.
[40] CTC Tube submits that if the undertaking is not renewed as a result of this review, it expects that dumping would immediately resume and that lower prices resulting from competition with dumped imports would quickly occur. Prices would revert to 1998-1999 levels or even lower. CTC Tube based this concern on its experience in competing directly against filter-tipped cigarette tubes from France in the United States and Israeli markets.
[41] The vendor of the subject goods, Gizeh presented arguments that the undertaking should not be renewed. Gizeh stated that worldwide demand for filter-tipped cigarette tubes has risen considerably in the past five years and that all cigarette tube manufacturers are now in a position of not being able to sufficiently supply global requirements. Gizeh stated that their sales and marketing priorities will be to service their home market and other European markets first and, as such, Canada would not be a focus for them, regardless if the undertaking is renewed or allowed to lapse.
[42] As well, Gizeh stated that since 2000 they have continuously raised their selling prices to their Canadian importer and that more increases are underway.
[43] Finally, Gizeh stated that the dollar to euro exchange rate is not favourable to exports from Europe to Canada.
[44] Pursuant to subsection 53(1) of SIMA, the President must review the undertaking before the expiry of five years from the date on which the undertaking was accepted. If, on review, the President is satisfied that the undertaking continues to serve the purpose for which it was intended, and that he is not required to terminate, in accordance with the provisions of section 52 of SIMA, the President is required to renew the undertaking for a further period of not more than five years.
[45] In assessing whether the undertaking continues to serve the purposes for which it was intended, the President must be satisfied that the undertaking continues to protect the complainant from injurious dumping. Therefore, the President must be satisfied that first, there is a likelihood of continuation or resumption of dumping and second, that the continuation or resumption of dumping will cause or threaten to cause injury to the domestic industry.
[46] Subsection 52(1) of SIMA provides that the President shall terminate an undertaking and resume the investigation of dumping, if the President is satisfied that:
- the undertaking has been or is being violated;
- the undertaking would not have been accepted if the information available at any time after accepting the undertaking had been available when the undertaking was accepted; or
- the undertaking would not have been accepted if the circumstances prevailing at any time after accepting the undertaking had prevailed when the undertaking was accepted.
[47] Since 1999, the CBSA has regularly reviewed importations of subject goods and determined that the exporter, Alpaci, and the vendor, Gizeh, have not violated or circumvented the terms and conditions of the undertaking. Additionally, circumstances have not changed and no new information has come to light that would warrant termination of the undertaking pursuant to section 52 of SIMA.
[48] Given that the undertaking need not be terminated pursuant to section 52 of SIMA, the CBSA addressed the issue of whether the undertaking continues to serve the purpose for which it was intended, that is, to eliminate the material injury caused by the dumping.
Likelihood of Continuation or Resumption of Dumping
[49] Gizeh, the vendor, stated in their response to the CBSA's URQ, that since the acceptance of the undertaking, increases in selling prices to Canada have been used to compensate for rising raw material and labour costs.6 Gizeh further stated that the increase in selling prices for the subject goods is also an attempt to increase profitability on sales to the Canadian market. 7
[50] During this undertaking review, Alpaci, the producer, did not provide a response to the CBSA's URQ. Therefore, no information concerning current costs of production or domestic selling prices for the subject goods is available. Consequently, the CBSA was not able to determine current normal values for the subject goods. The only information available to the CBSA pertinent to estimating current normal values is the information provided by the vendor, Gizeh, who stated that the cost of production for the subject goods has risen since the undertaking was accepted in 1999. Using this information, the CBSA estimated normal values for the duration of the undertaking.
[51] Even though the exporter/vendor has continually raised its prices to Canada8, the fact remains that between 1999 and 2001, the exporter/vendor sold to Canada at prices below the original normal values estimated in 1999. The exporter/vendor's selling prices to Canada in 2002 and 2003 were basically equal to the original normal values estimated in 1999, but these normal values are 4 to 5 years out of date and do not take into account the rise in production costs experienced by the exporter since the acceptance of the undertaking.9 If the CBSA uses the estimated normal values that factor in the cost of production increase, it becomes apparent that the exporter/vendor have sold the subject goods to Canada at a price below the estimated normal value for the duration of the undertaking.
[52] The exporter's willingness to ship subject goods to Canada at prices below their estimated normal values for the duration of the undertaking provides a good indication of their likelihood to sell below their estimated normal values if the undertaking was to expire.
[53] In its submission, Gizeh contends that their priority is currently servicing their home market and the European market. They also indicate that the worldwide demand for filter-tipped cigarette tubes has risen considerably which puts all tube manufacturers in a position of not being able to sufficiently supply the global requirements. As a consequence, they have indicated that the Canadian market would not be their focus if the undertaking were to expire.10
[54] Gizeh's contention that Canada would not be their focus if the undertaking expires is unsubstantiated. During this undertaking review, neither Gizeh nor Alpaci provided documentary evidence to that effect, i.e. they did not provide current sales information for their different export markets, nor did they provide detailed capacity utilization figures, even though this information was requested by the CBSA. Furthermore, since the acceptance of the undertaking in 1999, Gizeh has continued to sell subjects goods into the Canadian market, thereby maintaining selling relationships and a market presence.
[55] The continued presence of the exporter's products in Canada, in spite of the undertaking, shows Gizeh's ongoing interest in the Canadian market. Their established customer base provides them with a distribution and marketing network for the subject goods. If the undertaking were to expire, Gizeh would have little difficulty increasing their sales of subject goods to Canada.
[56] In their response to the URQ, Gizeh did not provide any information concerning sales to foreign markets, even though this information was requested by the CBSA. However, CTC Tube provided the CBSA with a sales invoice concerning a sale made by a related company of Alpaci and Gizeh's to an importer in Israel in May 2002. The goods identified on the invoice provided by CTC Tube are identical to the goods subject to the undertaking in Canada.
[57] As both the exporter and vendor failed to provide information concerning their selling prices in foreign markets, the best estimate of these selling prices is the information provided by CTC Tube. CTC Tube competes directly with Alpaci's products in the Israeli market and has a firm knowledge of shipping and insurance rates to Israel and Israeli port charges. This estimated F.O.B. 11 France selling price is below both the agreed upon undertaking price as well as the estimated normal values established in 1999. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that the exporter would not also price aggressively in the Canadian market if the undertaking were to expire. While the CBSA realizes that its contention is based on a sole sales invoice from the exporter, it is the only information on the record as to the exporter/vendor's selling prices in other foreign markets. Having said this, the difference between the estimated F.O.B. selling price to Israel in 2002 and the normal value estimated in 1999 shows a propensity on the part of the exporter to sell filter-tipped cigarette tubes to other jurisdictions at prices below their estimated normal value.
[58] The fact that the exporter/vendor has maintained a presence in the Canadian market at prices below the estimated normal value for the duration of the undertaking, combined with their pricing in a foreign market, indicates to the CBSA that there is a likelihood of a continuation or resumption of dumping by the exporter/vendor, if the undertaking were to expire.
Likelihood of Injury to the Domestic Industry
[59] Once the President is satisfied that there exists a likelihood of a continuation or resumption of dumping if the undertaking were to expire, then the President must address whether such a continuation or resumption of dumping is likely to cause injury to the domestic industry.
[60] Prior to the acceptance of the undertaking in 1999, CTC Tube suffered material injury due to the dumping of the subject goods from France mainly in the form of price erosion and lost sales. Other injury factors mentioned at the time included reduced profitability, reduced capacity utilization, reduced cash flow and a decline in return on investments. The two main injury factors are discussed below.
[61] In its complaint of October 1998, CTC Tube stated that the appearance of dumped subject goods in the Canadian market, forced them to drop its selling prices by approximately 35% in order to compete with the dumped imports. CTC Tube indicated that they had no choice but to reduce its selling prices or risk losing customers.12
[62] In the past five years, CTC Tube has benefited under the protection provided by the undertaking in numerous ways. The undertaking has allowed CTC Tube to increase its selling prices and sales volumes for filter-tipped cigarette tubes in Canada.13 This has translated into increased revenues, which, in turn, has allowed CTC Tube to reinvest in its operations.
[63] The record reflects aggressive price competition demonstrated by the exporter and importer of subject goods in the Canadian market prior to the acceptance of the undertaking, which eroded the prices of CTC Tube's products. Furthermore, CTC Tube is facing similar price competition in the United States market as well, where Gizeh is undercutting its prices.14
[64] As previously discussed, CTC Tube has provided evidence that Alpaci's product is available in the Israeli market at an estimated F.O.B. France selling price well below the undertaking price established by the CBSA for those goods in 1999. The availability of filter-tipped cigarettes from France in a foreign market at a price well below both the undertaking price and estimated normal value for the goods provides an indication that the exporter continues to engage in very aggressive price competition in foreign markets. This would indicate that they also have the ability to reduce their selling prices below their current selling prices to Canada if the undertaking were to expire.
[65] The magnitude of price erosion suffered by the complainant prior to the acceptance of the undertaking and its inability to recover to pre-dumping pricing levels15 indicates that if the undertaking were to expire, CTC Tube would face, in all likelihood, a reoccurrence of price erosion resulting in lower selling prices for its product in the Canadian market. A reduction in the selling price for its goods in the Canadian market would also negatively affect CTC Tube's overall profitability, cash flow position and its return on investment.
[66] CTC Tube cites a number of reasons why its selling prices have not risen to the
pre-dumping levels in Canada, including; the continued presence of subject goods from France in the Canadian market at very competitive prices, competition from other Canadian producers, and a highly price sensitive market.16 Due to the lack of cooperation received during this undertaking review from other domestic producers and the major importers of filter-tipped cigarette tubes, the CBSA was not able to determine the extent to which the above-mentioned factors have impacted Canadian selling prices. Regardless of other factors, the likelihood of resumed dumping of the subject goods is in itself a potential cause of immediate injury to the Canadian industry in the form of reduced prices.
[67] With respect to lost sales, CTC Tube outlined, in its complaint filed in 1998, a number of instances where they had lost sales as a result of direct competition from the dumped goods. 17
[68] CTC Tube stated that since the acceptance of the undertaking in 1999, they do not have any evidence of any lost sales or contracts in the domestic market attributed to subject goods from France.18 However, CTC Tube provided information concerning a sale lost to Gizeh in the United States where they also compete directly with this company.19
[69] The exporter/vendor's established behaviour of price competition prior to the acceptance of the undertaking and their recent aggressive pricing in foreign markets indicate that if the undertaking expires, there is a likelihood that the exporter/vendor would engage in such activities in the Canadian market. Since 1997, the exporter/vendor's sales to Canada have decreased by approximately 50%.20 It is reasonable to assume that the exporter/vendor would try to recapture the part of the Canadian market share that they had prior to the acceptance of the undertaking.
[70] Prior to the acceptance of the undertaking, CTC Tube's policy had been one of matching a competitor's selling price to ensure that they kept the customer and did not lose the sale. 21 Having said this, CTC Tube's policy of matching the competitor's price in order to retain the account did not help them, in some cases, from losing sales or entire accounts. We can, therefore, expect that if the undertaking were to expire, CTC Tube would most probably lose sales. Any lost sales would also contribute to a reduction in sales revenue, profitability, capacity utilization, cash flow, increased per unit costs of production, a decline in return on investments, and reduced employment.
[71] Based upon the above analysis, if the undertaking were to expire, CTC Tube would likely suffer material injury in the form of price erosion, lost sales and reduced profitability caused by the continuation or resumption of dumping of the subject goods from France.
[72] Having reviewed the factors described above, the CBSA believes that there exists a strong likelihood of a continuation or resumption of dumping if the undertaking were to expire, and that this continuation or resumption of dumping would likely cause injury to the Canadian industry for filter-tipped cigarette tubes.
[73] In view of the above, the President is satisfied that the undertaking continues to serve the purpose for which it was intended and that the undertaking does not require termination under section 52 of SIMA. Accordingly, pursuant to subsection 53(1) of SIMA, the President has renewed the undertaking for a further period of five years, that is, until April 7, 2009.
[74] The CBSA now intends to review the undertaking prices to ensure that the undertaking continues to reflect current market conditions. In the meantime, the undertaking prices established in 1999 remain in effect.
[75] The CBSA will continue to monitor imports of the subject goods into Canada in order to verify compliance with the terms and conditions of the undertakings. Unless the undertaking is terminated pursuant to subsection 52 of SIMA, the President will be required to review the undertaking on or before April 7, 2009.
[76] Notice of the renewal of the undertaking by the President is being published in the Canada Gazette pursuant to subsection 53(4) of SIMA.
Information
[77] This Statement of Reasons has been provided to persons directly interested in these proceedings. For additional information, please contact Mr. Blair Hynes, at:
Mail
Canada Border Services Agency
Anti-dumping and Countervailing Directorate
100 Metcalfe Street, 11th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L8
Canada
Telephone
(613) 954-1641
Telefax
(613) 954-2510
Email
Blair.Hynes@ccra-adrc.gc.ca
Web site
http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/menu-eng.html
Suzanne Parent
Director General
Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Directorate
1 Alpaci S.a.r.l's Non-Confidential Response to CBSA Exporter Request for Information during original investigation in 1999 - Response to Question A4 and A9.
2 Reference to the term "filter-tipped cigarette tubes" is understood to mean, "Filter-tipped cigarette tubes, excluding those which bear the trademark or brand name of a finished or ready-made cigarette."
3 Although the period of review was for a period of five years (i.e., January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2003), in some instances the CBSA only requested information for the last 3 years, i.e., from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2003.
4 CTC Tube's Non-Confidential response to Canadian producer URQ, Response to question A2 - page 3.
5 CTC Tube's Non-Confidential Case Argument, paragraph 14 - page 4.
6 Gizeh Non-Confidential Response to Exporter URQ, Response to question 5 - page 2.
9 Ibid., Response to question 10 - page 4.
10 Ibid., Response to question 8 - page 4.
11 F.O.B. stands for Free On Board. Under these terms of sale, the seller quotes the buyer a price that covers all costs up to and including delivery of the goods aboard the shipping transportation.
12 Original CTC Tube Non-Confidential complaint, section 9.5 - page 22.
13 CTC Tube Non-Confidential Response to Canadian Producer URQ, Response to Question C2 - page 11 and CTC Tube's Non-Confidential Case Argument, paragraph 10 - page 3.
14 CTC Tube Non-Confidential Response to Canadian Producer URQ, Response to Question D3 - page 17.
15 Ibid., Response to Question D2 - page 17.
16 Ibid., Response to Question C4 - page 12.
17 Original CTC Tube Non-Confidential Complaint, section 9.5(a) - page 21.
18 .CTC Tube Non-Confidential Response to Canadian Producer URQ, Response to Question C4 - page 12.
19 Ibid., Response to Question D3 - page 19.
20 Gizeh Non-Confidential Response to Exporter URQ, Response to Question 5 - page 1.
21 Original CTC Tube Non-Confidential Complaint, section 9.5(a) - page 21.
