CSWP2 2012 IN
Dumping: AD1396 / 4214-36
Subsidy: CV132 / 4218-34
Certain Carbon Steel Welded Pipe
Statement of Reasons

[1] On May 14, 2012, pursuant to subsection 31(1) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) initiated an investigation respecting the dumping into Canada of certain carbon steel welded pipe (CSWP) originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, the Republic of India (India), the Sultanate of Oman (Oman), the Republic of Korea, the Kingdom of Thailand, the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the subsidizing of certain CSWP from India, Oman and the UAE.

[2] On November 9, 2012, the CBSA made a final determination of dumping with respect to CSWP originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, India, Oman, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, and the UAE. On the same date the CBSA terminated the dumping investigation with respect to certain CSWP originating in or exported from Turkey as the margin of dumping for these goods was insignificant. Similarly, the subsidy investigations with respect to certain CSWP originating in or exported from the UAE and Oman were terminated as the goods from the UAE were not subsidized, and the goods from Oman had been subsidized but the amount of subsidy was insignificant.

[3] On December 11, 2012, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) found that the dumping of certain CSWP originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, India, Oman, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, and the UAE; and the subsidizing of certain CSWP originating in or exported from India was threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry in Canada.

[4] On June 25, 2014, Chinese Taipei requested consultations with Canada at the World Trade Organization (WTO) with respect to anti-dumping measures imposed by Canada on certain CSWP originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei. In its request for consultation, Chinese Taipei claimed that Canada’s imposition of anti-dumping measures appear to be inconsistent with Canada’s international trade obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 and the WTO Anti Dumping Agreement.

[5] On January 22, 2015, Chinese Taipei requested the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the WTO to establish a panel to examine these claims. The DSB established a panel on March 10, 2015.

[6] On December 21, 2016, the panel report in Canada – Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Certain Carbon Steel Welded Pipe from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (DS482) was circulated to Members of the WTO. The panel report found certain aspects of SIMA and the CBSA’s final determination of dumping in respect of certain CSWP from Chinese Taipei and the CBSA’s calculation for the anti-dumping duty rates to be inconsistent with the WTO Anti Dumping Agreement.

[7] On January 26, 2017, Canada and Chinese Taipei informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time to implement the DSB’s recommendations would expire on March 25, 2018. On February 20, 2017, Canada informed the WTO DSB that it intended to implement the DSB’s recommendations within the reasonable period of time.

[8] Regarding the recommendations of the DSB relating to SIMA, on March 22, 2017, the Government of Canada announced that amendments were being made to SIMA in respect of exporters found to have an insignificant margin of dumping in order to bring itself into compliance with its international trade obligations. The amendments allow the termination of an investigation with respect to an exporter where margins of dumping for that exporter are found to be insignificant. On June 22, 2017, these amendments were passed into law as part of the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1.

[9] Regarding the recommendations of the DSB relating to Canada’s measure on certain CSWP from Chinese Taipei, on July 21, 2017, pursuant to paragraph 76.1(1)(a) of SIMA, the Minister of Finance requested the President of the CBSA to review the final determination of dumping in respect of certain CSWP originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei having regard to the DSB recommendations in DS482. At the same time the Minister of Finance requested the CITT to review its threat of injury finding in respect to the same goods.

[10] On July 28, 2017, following the request from the Minister of Finance, the CBSA initiated a review of the final determination of dumping for certain CSWP from Chinese Taipei and the CITT initiated a review of its threat of injury finding in respect to the same goods.

[11] On September 29, 2017, pursuant to paragraph 76.1(2)(b) of SIMA the CBSA continued the final determination of dumping with respect to certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, with the following amendments: the CBSA terminated the dumping investigation regarding certain carbon steel welded pipe exported to Canada by Chung Hung Steel Corporation and Shin Yang Steel Co. Ltd.; and revised the margins of dumping for the same goods originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei determined for all other exporters.

[12] Guided by the parameters set out in the Minister of Finance’s letter of July 21, 2017, the CBSA has undertaken a review of the final determination of dumping in respect of certain CSWP originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei (hereinafter referred to as ‘the review’) having regard to the DSB’s recommendations in DS482. The review is limited to certain CSWP from Chinese Taipei only as the CBSA does not have the authority to review the final determination of dumping with respect to exporters from other countries.

[13] The CBSA did not request or accept any new or supplemental evidence for the purposes of this review. The review examined all information on the CBSA’s administrative record as of November 9, 2012, the date of the final determination of dumping. In addition, the CBSA solicited representations relevant to the review from all parties and took these representations into consideration.

[14] This Statement of Reasons provides a summary of the results of the original final determination of dumping made on November 9, 2012, with respect to certain CSWP from Chinese Taipei along with the results of the present review.

[15] The final determination of dumping made on November 9, 2012, covered subject goods released into Canada during the period of investigation (POI) of January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011. Accordingly, the review has relied on information on the record pertaining to imports released into Canada during that period.

Complainants

[16] The names of the Complainants who accounted for a major proportion of the production of like goods in Canada at the time of the original dumping investigation were as follows:

Novamerican Steel Inc. (Novamerican)
6001 Irwin Street
Montréal, Quebec H8N 1A1

Bolton Steel Tube Co. Ltd. (Bolton)
455A Piercey Road
Bolton, Ontario L7E 5B8

[17] Another major producer of like goods, Quali T Tube of Bromont, Quebec, supported the complaint.

[18] Besides the three major producers of like goods, there were a number of manufacturers of tubular products in Canada whose main business is not carbon steel welded pipe but who produced and sold small quantities of like goods on an irregular basis. These companies were: Atlas Tube (Harrow, Ontario), Evraz Inc. NA, (Calgary, Alberta), Lakeside Steel Inc. (Welland, Ontario), Tenaris (Calgary, Alberta), and Welded Tube of Canada (Concord, Ontario).

[19] For purposes of the current review, the CBSA relied on information on the administrative record at the time of the final determination of dumping. In addition, the CBSA invited domestic producers of the like goods to file written representations pertinent to the final determination of dumping in respect of certain CSWP originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei. The CBSA received representations from Nova Tube Inc. /Nova Steel Inc., Atlas Tube Canada ULC and Welded Tube of Canada, and the Canadian Steel Producers Association.

Importers

[20] At the time of the original investigation, the CBSA identified 112 potential importers of the subject goods from CBSA import documentation. Each of these potential importers was sent an importer Request for Information (RFI) in relation to their imports of CSWP from the named countries, including Chinese Taipei. The CBSA had received responses from seventeen importers.

[21] For purposes of the review, the CBSA relied on information on the administrative record at the time of the final determination. In addition, the CBSA invited importers of the subject goods to file written representations pertinent to the final determination of dumping in respect of certain CSWP originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei. The CBSA did not receive any representations from importers.

Exporters

[22] At the time of the original investigation, the CBSA identified 210 potential exporters of the subject goods from CBSA import documentation and from information submitted in the complaint. The CBSA sent dumping RFIs to each of the potential exporters located in the named countries, including Chinese Taipei.

[23] With respect to Chinese Taipei, the CBSA had received three responses to the Exporter RFI.

[24] For purposes of the review, in addition to relying on information on the administrative record at the time of the final determination, the CBSA invited exporters from Chinese Taipei to file written representations pertinent to the final determination of dumping in respect of certain CSWP originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei. The CBSA received representations from two exporters of CSWP from Chinese Taipei, Shin Yang Steel Co. and Chung Hung Steel. The CBSA also received representations from an exporter of certain CSWP from the UAE, Conares Metal Supply Ltd., and a producer of certain large diameter line pipe from Japan, Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corp.

Government

[25] For purposes of the current review, the CBSA invited the government of Chinese Taipei to file written representations pertinent to the final determination of dumping in respect of certain CSWP. The CBSA received representations from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Canada.

[26] The subject goods are defined as:

carbon steel welded pipe, commonly identified as standard pipe, in the nominal size range from ½ inch up to and including 6 inches (12.7 mm to 168.3 mm in outside diameter) inclusive, in various forms and finishes, usually supplied to meet ASTM A53, ASTM A135, ASTM A252, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, ASTM F1083 or Commercial Quality, or AWWA C200-97 or equivalent specifications, including water well casing, piling pipe, sprinkler pipe and fencing pipe, but excluding oil and gas line pipe made to API specifications exclusively, originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, the Republic of India, the Sultanate of Oman, the Republic of Korea, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates

[27] CSWP, also commonly referred to as standard pipe, covers a wide range of pipe products generally used in plumbing and heating applications for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases. CSWP, or standard pipe, may also be used in air conditioning systems, in sprinkler systems for fire protection, as structural support for fencing, as piling, as well as for a variety of other mechanical and light load-bearing applications.

[28] The size of CSWP is generally specified by two values: a nominal pipe size (NPS) and a schedule. The NPS relates roughly to the inside diameter of the pipe while the schedule relates to the wall thickness. For a given NPS, the wall thickness will increase as the schedule number increases. For example, CSWP with an NPS of 1 inch (NPS 1) and made to ASTM A53, Schedule 40 requirements will have an outside diameter of 1.315 inches and a wall thickness of 0.133 inch while the same pipe meeting the requirements of ASTM A53, Schedule 80 will have an outside diameter of 1.315 inches and a wall thickness of 0.179 inch.

[29] Although CSWP is generally produced to industry standards such as ASTM A53, ASTM A135, ASTM A252, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, ASTM F1083, Commercial Quality and AWWA C200-97, it may also be produced to foreign standards such as BS1387 or to proprietary specifications as is often the case with fencing pipe. While standard pipe may be manufactured to any of the standards mentioned above, the ASTM A53 specification is the most common as it is considered to be the highest quality and is suitable for welding, coiling, bending and flanging.

[30] Standard pipe may be sold with a lacquer finish, or a black finish as it is sometimes referred to in the industry. It may also be sold in a galvanized finish which means it has been treated with zinc. Both types of finish are intended to inhibit rust although the galvanizing process will deliver a superior result. Galvanized pipe will sell at a premium to black standard pipe because of this, and the fact that zinc costs much more than lacquer.

Production Process

[31] CSWP is generally produced in mills using either the electric resistance welding (ERW) process or the continuous welding (CW) process. Both processes begin with coils of flat-rolled steel sheet being slit into strips, the widths of which are equal to the circumferences of the pipe to be manufactured.

[32] In the ERW process, the steel strip is passed through a series of rollers to form a tubular shape. The edges are then heated electrically and welded together under heat and pressure. The ERW welding process produces an internal and external weld flash or bead which is generally trimmed from both sides of the weld.

[33] In the CW process, the steel strip is heated to a welding temperature of approximately 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit in a gas-fired furnace. The hot strip is then passed through a series of rollers to form a tubular shape, with the edges being butted together under pressure to form a weld to which no filler metal is added.

[34] Although not as prevalent as the aforementioned methods, standard pipe may also be produced using a combination of the ERW process and a hot stretch reduction mill. Under this method, pipe shells are first produced using the ERW process. The shells are then heated in a furnace and are passed through a stretch reduction mill. The mill reduces the outside diameter of the pipe and can be used to increase, maintain or reduce the thickness of the pipe walls.

[35] Once the basic pipe is formed using one of the three manufacturing processes explained above, it is cut to length, straightened and tested. The pipe ends may then be further processed, i.e. cropped, faced and reamed, threaded, coupled, rolled and /or cut grooved. Finishes such as lacquer or zinc (galvanizing) may be applied to the surface of the pipe depending on the intended application. Lastly, the pipe is stencilled and bundled prior to shipment.

Classification of Imports

[36] The subject goods are usually classified under the following Customs Tariff Harmonized System (HS) classification numbers:

Prior to January 1, 2012	January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016	As of January 1, 2017
7306.30.10.14 7306.30.10.24 7306.30.10.34 7306.30.90.14 7306.30.90.19 7306.30.90.24 7306.30.90.29 7306.30.90.34 7306.30.90.39	7306.30.00.14 7306.30.00.19 7306.30.00.24 7306.30.00.29 7306.30.00.34 7306.30.00.39	7306.30.00.10 7306.30.00.20 7306.30.00.30

[37] The tariff classification numbers prior to January 1, 2012 were the numbers in effect during the period of investigation of January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011. The Customs Tariff was amended on January 1, 2012, and again on January 1, 2017. The table above shows the Customs Tariff HS classification numbers for the subject goods prior to January 1, 2012 and their equivalents in effect as of January 1, 2012, and as of January 1, 2017.

[38] The listing of HS classification numbers is for convenience of reference only. The HS classification numbers listed may include non-subject goods. Also, subject goods may fall under HS classification numbers that are not listed. Refer to the product definition for authoritative details regarding the subject goods.

[39] At the time of the original investigation, the complainants, Novamerican of Montréal, Québec and Bolton, of Bolton, Ontario, accounted for a major proportion of known domestic production of like goods.

[40] The following table presents the CBSA’s analysis of imports of certain carbon steel welded pipe for purposes of the final determination of dumping.

Import Volumes of Certain Carbon Steel Welded Pipe
January 1, 2011 – December 31, 2011 (POI)

Country	Import Volume as a % of Total Imports
Chinese Taipei	19.0%
India	9.5%
Oman	4.3%
Republic of Korea	7.0%
Thailand	12.8%
Turkey	12.4%
UAE	7.2%
Imports – other Countries	27.8%
Total Imports	100.0%

[41] As requested by the Minister of Finance, the CBSA reviewed the final determination of dumping in respect of certain CSWP originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei having regard for the DSB recommendations in DS482.

[42] In light of the DSB’s recommendations in regards to the failure to immediately terminate the investigation in respect of exporters from Chinese Taipei with insignificant margins of dumping^{Footnote 1} and the amendments made to subsection 41(1) of SIMA that provide for such a termination, the CBSA reviewed the margins of dumping determined for the exporters of certain CSWP from Chinese Taipei.

[43] In light of the DSB’s recommendations in regards to the CBSA’s use of facts available in establishing the margin of dumping for all other exporters^{Footnote 2}, the CBSA reviewed its determination of normal values under subsection 29(1) of SIMA in respect of goods from exporters who did not provide sufficient information to enable the determination of normal values as provided in sections 15 to 23 of SIMA.

[44] For details on the final determination of dumping made on November 9, 2012, please refer to the Statement of Reasons for that decision, which is available on the CBSA’s Web site at www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/menu-eng.html. Details pertaining to the review of the final determination are provided below.

Margins of Dumping - Cooperative Exporters

[45] In the original investigation, the CBSA received substantially complete responses to the Exporter RFI from three exporters in Chinese Taipei and determined margins of dumping for these three exporters as follows:

Chung Hung Steel Corporation

[46] For purposes of the final determination of dumping, it was found that the goods exported by Chung Hung were dumped by a weighted average margin of 0.005% (rounded to 0.0% for reporting purposes), expressed as a percentage of the export price. This margin of dumping is insignificant in accordance with subsection 2(1) of SIMA.

Shin Yang Steel Co., Ltd.

[47] For purposes of the final determination of dumping, it was found that the goods exported by Shin Yang were dumped by a weighted average margin of 0.4%, expressed as a percentage of the export price. This margin of dumping is insignificant in accordance with subsection 2(1) of SIMA.

Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd.

[48] For purposes of the final determination of dumping, it was found that the goods exported by Yieh Phui were dumped by a weighted average margin of 4.7%, expressed as a percentage of the export price. This margin of dumping is not insignificant.

Margins of Dumping - All Other Exporters

[49] At the final determination, for all other exporters of CSWP from Chinese Taipei that did not provide sufficient information to enable the determination of normal value as provided in sections 15 to 23 of SIMA, normal values were determined in accordance with subsection 29(1) of SIMA. In accordance with the ministerial specification, the normal value of the subject goods was determined by advancing the export price of the goods as determined under section 24, 25 or 29 of SIMA by 54.2%. This amount represented the highest amount by which a normal value exceeded an export price found for a cooperative exporter from a named country in the original investigation, excluding anomalies.

[50] For the purposes of the review, and having regard to the DSB’s recommendations, a new methodology for determining normal values was applied by the CBSA in instances where sufficient information was not furnished or was not available to enable the determination of normal values as provided in sections 15 to 23 of SIMA.

[51] In establishing the new methodology for determining normal values under the ministerial specification, the CBSA analyzed all the information on the record, including the complaint filed by the domestic industry and information submitted by exporters from Chinese Taipei, India, Thailand and the UAE. No information was provided by the exporters in the Republic of Korea and Oman.

[52] The CBSA decided that the normal values and export prices determined for the exporters whose submissions were verified for the final determination, rather than the information provided in the complaint, would be used to establish the methodology for determining normal values since it reflects exporters’ trading practices during the POI. As such, information from India, Thailand and UAE was considered, however information from Chinese Taipei was the most appropriate information on which to base the methodology for determining normal values.

[53] Three exporters from Chinese Taipei provided sufficient information. The weighted average margins of dumping determined for two of the exporters were found to be insignificant. The third exporter, Yieh Phui Enterprise Co. Ltd., who was found to be dumping by a margin of 4.7%, represented the highest volume of exports made by a single exporter during the POI. As such, the information provided by Yieh Phui Enterprise Co. Ltd. was the best information on which to base the methodology for determining normal values under the ministerial specification.

[54] The CBSA examined the difference between the normal value and export price of each individual transaction for Yieh Phui Enterprise Co. Ltd. in order to obtain an appropriate amount for the normal value methodology. The transactions were also examined to ensure that no anomalies were considered; such anomalies can include low volume shipments, very low value sales, effects of seasonality or other business or environmental factors. However, no anomalies were identified.

[55] The CBSA considered that the highest amount by which the normal value exceeded the export price found on an individual transaction (expressed as a percentage of the export price), was an appropriate basis for determining normal values for all other exporters. This method of determining normal values is based on information on the record and limits the advantage that an exporter may gain from not providing necessary information requested in a dumping investigation as compared to an exporter that did provide the necessary information.

[56] As a result, the normal values were determined under a ministerial specification pursuant to subsection 29(1) of SIMA, based on the export price as determined under section 24, 25 or 29 of SIMA, plus an amount equal to 29.6% of that export price.

[57] At the final determination, for all other exporters, import pricing information available from the CBSA’s internal information systems was used for the purposes of determining export price. The CBSA did not revise this methodology during the review.

[58] Moreover, as a result of the application of the new methodology to determine normal values, the subject goods exported to Canada by all other exporters of certain CSWP from Chinese Taipei during the POI were found to be dumped by a margin of dumping of 29.6%, expressed as a percentage of export price. These margins of dumping are not insignificant.

Summary of Results

[59] The results of the original investigation and the results of the review of the final determination of dumping in respect of certain CSWP originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei are as follows:

Margins of Dumping
January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011

Exporter	Original Investigation - Margin of Dumping (% of Export Price)	Review of the Final Determination - Margin of Dumping (% of Export Price)
Chung Hung Steel Corporation	0.0%	0.0%
Shin Yang Steel Co. Ltd.	0.4%	0.4%
Yieh Phui Enterprise Co. Ltd.	4.7%	4.7%
All Other Exporters in Chinese Taipei	54.2%	29.6%

[60] Under paragraph 41(1)(a) of SIMA, the CBSA is required to terminate an investigation in respect of the goods of an exporter if it is satisfied that the goods have not been dumped or the margin of dumping of the goods of that exporter is insignificant, meaning a margin of dumping that is less than 2% of the export price of the goods.

[61] The margins of dumping of certain CSWP determined for Chung Hung (0.0%) and Shin Yang (0.4%) are less than 2%. Therefore, the CBSA is required to amend the final determination to terminate the dumping investigation in respect of certain CSWP exported to Canada by Chung Hung and Shin Yang.

[62] Under paragraph 41(1)(b) of SIMA, the CBSA is required to make a final determination of dumping in respect of the subject goods for which the investigation has not been terminated if it is satisfied that those goods have been dumped and that the margin of dumping of those goods in respect of each exporter is not insiginificant.

[63] The remaining goods under investigation were found to have been dumped and the margins of dumping determined for those goods from Yieh Phui (4.7%) and all other exporters (29.6%) are greater than 2% and are therefore not insignificant. As a result, the CBSA is required to continue the final determination of dumping in respect of certain CSWP originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, for which the dumping investigation has not been terminated.

[64] Following the initiation of the CBSA’s review of the final determination of dumping, case arguments were received from counsel representing Nova Tube Inc. /Nova Steel Inc., Atlas Tube Canada ULC and Welded Tube of Canada, the Canadian Steel Producers Association (domestic industry); Shin Yang Steel Co., Chung Hung Steel, Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corp., and Conares Metal Supply Ltd. (exporters/producers) and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Canada. Reply submissions were filed on behalf of Nova Tube Inc. /Nova Steel Inc., the Canadian Steel Producers Association, Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corp., and Conares Metal Supply Ltd.

[65] The issues raised by these parties through their case arguments and reply submissions, as well as the CBSA’s response to these issues, are provided in Appendix 1.

[66] On the basis of the results of the review and pursuant to paragraph 76.1(2)(b) of SIMA, on September 29, 2017, the CBSA continued the final determination of dumping with respect to certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, with the following amendments: the CBSA terminated the dumping investigation regarding certain carbon steel welded pipe exported to Canada by Chung Hung Steel Corporation and Shin Yang Steel Co. Ltd.; and revised the margins of dumping for the same goods originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei by all other exporters.

[67] As a result of the CBSA’s decision on September 29, 2017, to terminate the dumping investigation concerning certain carbon steel welded pipe exported to Canada by Chung Hung Steel Corporation and Shin Yang Steel Co. Ltd., anti-dumping duty will no longer be imposed on imports of subject goods from these companies from that date forward.

[68] As a result of the new methodology used to determine normal values for all other exporters of certain CSWP from Chinese Taipei for purposes of this review, and to address the DSB’s recommendations in regards to the CBSA’s use of facts available in establishing the duty rate for all other exporters,^{Footnote 3} the CBSA also revised its ministerial specification to provide for the same methodology to be applied to future imports of certain CSWP originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei from all other exporters. As such, normal values, as of September 29, 2017, for these exporters will be determined under a ministerial specification pursuant to subsection 29(1) of SIMA, based on the export price as determined under section 24, 25 or 29 of SIMA, plus an amount equal to 29.6% of that export price.

[69] The CBSA also revised its ministerial specification to address the DSB’s recommendations in regards to the CBSA’s use of facts available to determine the anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of new product models from cooperative exporters, where sufficient information was not furnished or is not available to enable the determination of the normal value as provided for in sections 15 to 23 of SIMA.^{Footnote 4} Accordingly, normal values for future shipments of new product models from Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd. will be determined under a ministerial specification pursuant to subsection 29(1) of SIMA, based on the export price as determined under section 24, 25 or 29 of SIMA, plus an amount equal to 4.7% of that export price. This amount is equal to the weighted average margin of dumping determined for this exporter for purposes of the final determination.

[70] On July 28, 2017, the CITT initiated a review of its finding of December 11, 2012, in Inquiry No. NQ-2012-003, that certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei was threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry. By December 8, 2017, the CITT will make a decision either reaffirming its threat of injury finding or replacing it with a negative finding.

[71] If the CITT reaffirms its threat of injury finding, certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in and exported from Chinese Taipei (excluding those goods exported by Chung Hung Steel Corporation and Shin Yang Steel Co. Ltd.) will continue to be subject to anti-dumping duty.

[72] If the CITT replaces its injury finding with a negative finding, all proceedings will be terminated. In such circumstances, imports of certain CSWP from Chinese Taipei will no longer be subject to anti dumping duty.

[73] A notice of this continuation of the final determination of dumping in respect of certain CSWP originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei will be published in the Canada Gazette pursuant to paragraph 41(3)(a) of SIMA.

[74] A notice of the termination of the dumping investigation in respect of certain carbon steel welded pipe exported to Canada by Chung Hung Steel Corporation and Shin Yang Steel Co. Ltd. will be published in the Canada Gazette pursuant to paragraph 41(4)(a) of SIMA.

[75] This Statement of Reasons has been provided to persons directly interested in these proceedings. It is also posted on the CBSA website, in both English and French, at the address below. For further information, please contact the officers identified as follows:

Case arguments and representations were received on behalf of:

• Nova Tube Inc. /Nova Steel Inc., Atlas Tube Canada ULC and Welded Tube of Canada, and Canadian Steel Producers Association (domestic industry);
• Shin Yang Steel Co., Chung Hung Steel, Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corp., and Conares Metal Supply Ltd., (exporters/producers); and
• Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Canada.

Reply submissions were received on behalf of:

• Nova Tube Inc. /Nova Steel Inc., and Canadian Steel Producers Association (domestic industry);
• Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corp. and Conares Metal Supply Ltd. (exporters/producers).

Scope of the CBSA’s review of the final determination

Case Briefs

The representations submitted by the domestic parties i.e. Nova Tube Inc./Nova Steel Inc., Atlas Tube Canada ULC and Welded Tube of Canada, and the Canadian Steel Producers Association are in support of terminating the finding against only Chung Hung Steel Corporation and Shin Yang Steel Co. Ltd.^{Footnote 5} The representations submitted by exporters in Chinese Taipei and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Canada reiterate the conclusions of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) with respect to terminating the finding against Chung Hung Steel Corporation and Shin Yang Steel Co. Ltd.^{Footnote 6}

The counsel for Conares Metal Supply Ltd. submitted that the review of the final determination should be expanded to include the exporters in the United Arab Emirates and the dumping investigation against Conares should be terminated.^{Footnote 7}

The counsel for Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corp. submitted that it cooperated in the CBSA’s investigation in certain large diameter line pipe from China and Japan. As such, the CBSA’ decision following the review of the final determination of carbon steel welded pipe originating in and exported from Chinese Taipei impacts certain large diameter line pipe.^{Footnote 8}

Reply Submissions

Counsels for the domestic parties argued against the applicability of the recommendations of the DSB to the exporters of CSWP from other countries subject to the finding, and the applicability of the DSB recommendations to other findings.^{Footnote 9} The counsel for Conares Metal Supply Ltd. argued that the CBSA should terminate the dumping investigation against the exporter in conformity with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement^{Footnote 10}. The counsel for Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corp. reaffirmed their previous representations.^{Footnote 11}

CBSA’s Response

Pursuant to paragraph 76.1(1)(a) of the Special Import Measures Act, the Minister of Finance requested the CBSA to review the final determination of dumping in respect of certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei. As such, the CBSA’s review is limited to the final determination of dumping in respect of certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei.

Dumping margin for all other exporters

Case Briefs

Counsels for Nova Tube Inc./Nova Steel Inc., Atlas Tube Canada ULC and Welded Tube of Canada, and the Canadian Steel Producers Association submitted that the CBSA should maintain the current “all other exporter” rate applicable to Chinese Taipei exporters while providing an explanation of why the methodology remained appropriate.^{Footnote 12} The representation submitted by the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Canada noted that Canada acted inconsistently with Article 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by establishing the dumping margin for “all other exporters” on the basis of the highest amount by which normal value exceeded the export price on an individual transaction for a cooperative producer from any country subject to the investigation.^{Footnote 13}

Reply Submissions

The counsel for Nova Tube Inc./Nova Steel Inc. argued that the WTO Panel did not find the methodology for calculating the margin of dumping for all others exporters to be WTO inconsistent. Instead the Panel found that the CBSA failed to carry out a comparative evaluation and assessment and did not provide an adequate explanation for why this methodology provided the “best information available” for calculating the margin of dumping for all others exporters.^{Footnote 14}

CBSA’s Response

In consideration of the relevant DSB recommendations in DS482, the CBSA revised its policy on the use of facts available for determining normal values under subsection 29(1) of SIMA. In accordance with this new policy, the CBSA will apply a more comparative approach to the use of facts available. The methodology for determining the normal values of the goods will be based on the export price determined under section 24, 25 or 29 of SIMA plus an amount, which will be expressed as a certain percentage of the export price (“advance over export price”). However, different advances over export price may be prescribed in the ministerial specification to address the specific circumstances of the investigation and the information before the CBSA. The appropriate advance over export price will be based on the best information available in the investigation, taking into consideration whether the advance serves to incentivize cooperation and prevent anti-dumping duty circumvention. The CBSA will examine and evaluate all the relevant information on the record to determine the best information available, including: information obtained from exporters, foreign producers, vendors, domestic producers, and importers; information provided in the complaint; and information from other independent sources (e.g. trade publications, trade statistics).

The application of this new comparative approach to the use of facts available led the CBSA to revise its methodology for determining normal values for all other exporters of certain CSWP originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei during its review. For more information on the new methodology, refer to the “Margins of Dumping – All Other Exporters” section of this Statement of Reasons.

New Product Models

Case Briefs

The representations from Nova Tube Inc./Nova Steel Inc., Atlas Tube Canada ULC and Welded Tube of Canada, and the Canadian Steel Producers Association submitted that with respect to a revised duty rate for new product models from Yieh Phui Enterprise Co. Ltd., the CBSA should establish an exporter-specific new product models rate for Yieh Phui by advancing the export price of any new product model imports by the highest margin of dumping on a single transaction from Yieh Phui over the original period of investigation.^{Footnote 15}

The Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Canada submitted that Canada acted inconsistently with the Anti Dumping Agreement by imposing anti-dumping duties on new product models or types from the cooperative exporters in Chinese Taipei that exceeded their margins of dumping, or used facts available to determine the anti-dumping duty.^{Footnote 16}

The counsel for Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corp. submitted that “the CBSA can assess ADD [Anti-dumping duty] on new models based on normal values determined under paragraph 19(b) of SIMA”.^{Footnote 17}

Reply Submissions

The counsels for Nova Tube Inc./Nova Steel Inc. and the Canadian Steel Producers Association submit that Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corp. did not provide sufficient detail on its suggestion to allow them to comment.^{Footnote 18}

CBSA’s Response

While the review of the final determination of dumping pertains to certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei and imported into Canada during the period of investigation (POI) of January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011, the CBSA also revised the ministerial specification to address the DSB’s recommendations regarding the imposition of anti-dumping duties on new product models from cooperative exporters from Chinese Taipei.

As explained in paragraph 68 of the “Future Action” section of this Statement of Reasons, normal values for future shipments of new product models from Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd. will be determined under a ministerial specification pursuant to subsection 29(1) of SIMA, based on the export price as determined under section 24, 25 or 29 of SIMA, plus an amount equal to 4.7% of that export price. This amount is equal to the weighted average margin of dumping determined for this exporter for purposes of the final determination.