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.

Table Of Contents

• Summary Of Events
• Period Of Investigation
• Interested Parties
  • Complainants
  • Exporters
  • Importers
  • Governments
• Product Definition
  • Additional Product Information
  • Production Process
  • Classification Of Imports
• Like Goods
• Canadian Industry
• Imports Into Canada
• Investigation Process
• Dumping Investigation
  • Normal Values
  • Export Prices
  • Preliminary Results Of The Dumping Investigation
  • Preliminary Dumping Results By Exporter
  • Summary Of Preliminary Results Of Dumping Investigation
• Decision Dumping
• Subsidy Investigation
  • Republic Of India
  • Sultanate Of Oman
  • United Arab Emirates
  • Summary Of The Results - Subsidy
• Decision Subsidy
• Provisional Duty
• Future Action
  • The Canada Border Services Agency
  • The Canadian International Trade Tribunal
• Retroactive Duty On Massive Importations
• Undertakings
• Publication
• Information
• Appendix 1 – Summary Of Estimated Margins Of Dumping, Estimated Amounts Of Subsidy, And Provisional Duty Payable
• Appendix 2 - Summary Of Preliminary Findings For Named Subsidy Programs – Republic Of India
• Appendix 3 - Summary Of Preliminary Findings For Named Subsidy Programs - Sultanate Of Oman
• Appendix 4 - Summary Of Preliminary Findings For Named Subsidy Programs – United Arab Emirates

Summary Of Events

[1] On March 23, 2012, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) received a written complaint from Novamerican Steel Inc. of Montreal, Quebec and Bolton Steel Tube Co. Ltd. of Bolton, Ontario (the Complainants) alleging that imports of certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, the Republic of India (India), the Sultanate of Oman (Oman), the Republic of Korea, Thailand, the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) and the
United Arab Emirates (UAE) are being dumped and that imports of certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in or exported from India, Oman, and the UAE are being subsidized. The complainants alleged that the dumping and subsidizing had caused injury and were threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry producing these goods.

[2] On April 13, 2012, pursuant to paragraph 32(1)(a) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), the CBSA informed the Complainants that the complaint was properly documented. The CBSA also notified the governments of Chinese Taipei, India, Oman, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Turkey and the UAE that a properly documented complaint had been received and provided the governments of India, Oman and the UAE with the non-confidential version of the subsidy portion of the complaint.

[3] Although the governments of India, Oman and the UAE were invited for consultations prior to the initiation of the investigations, pursuant to Article 13.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, none of the governments participated in such consultations.

[4] The Complainants provided evidence to support the allegations that certain carbon steel welded pipe from Chinese Taipei, India, Oman, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Turkey and the UAE had been dumped and that certain carbon steel welded pipe from India, Oman and the UAE had been subsidized. The evidence also disclosed a reasonable indication that the dumping and subsidizing had caused injury and are threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry producing these goods.

[5] On May 14, 2012, pursuant to subsection 31(1) of SIMA, the President of the CBSA (President) initiated investigations respecting the dumping of certain carbon steel welded pipe from Chinese Taipei, India, Oman, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Turkey and the UAE, and the subsidizing of certain carbon steel welded pipe from India, Oman and the UAE.

[6] Upon receiving notice of the initiation of the investigations, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (Tribunal) commenced a preliminary injury inquiry, pursuant to subsection 34(2) of SIMA, into whether the evidence discloses a reasonable indication that the alleged dumping and subsidizing of certain carbon steel welded pipe from the named countries have caused injury or retardation or are threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry producing the goods.

[7] On July 13, 2012, pursuant to subsection 37.1(1) of SIMA, the Tribunal made a preliminary determination that there is evidence that discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping and subsidizing of certain carbon steel welded pipe from the named countries have caused injury or retardation or are threatening to cause injury.

[8] On August 13, 2012, as a result of the CBSA’s preliminary investigations and pursuant to subsection 38(1) of SIMA, the President made preliminary determinations of dumping of certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, India, Oman, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Turkey and the UAE and subsidizing of certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in or exported from India, Oman and the UAE.

Period Of Investigation

[9] The period of investigation (POI) with respect to the dumping and subsidizing of all subject goods released into Canada is January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011.

Interested Parties

Complainants

[10] The Complainants are major producers of carbon steel welded pipe, accounting for a major proportion of the production of like goods in Canada.

[11] The names and addresses of the Complainants are:

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

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

[12] Another major producer of like goods, Quali-T-Tube of Bromont, Quebec, provided a letter to the Complainants indicating its support of the complaint.[1]

[13] Besides the three major producers of like goods, there are a number of manufacturers of tubular products in Canada whose main business is not carbon steel welded pipe but who do produce and sell small quantities of like goods on an irregular basis. These companies are: Atlas Tube, Evraz Inc. NA, Lakeside Steel Inc., Tenaris, and Welded Tube of Canada.

Exporters

[14] At the initiation of the investigations, the CBSA identified 205 potential exporters of the subject goods from CBSA import documentation and from information submitted in the complaint. In addition, as a result of the Importer Request for Information (RFI) responses received, five more additional potential exporters of the goods under investigation were identified and the CBSA sent an Exporter Dumping RFI to each of these newly identified exporters, none of which are located in the countries concerned by the subsidy investigation.

[15] In all, the CBSA received 11 exporter responses to the Exporter Dumping RFI and six exporter responses to the Exporter Subsidy RFI. Of these, nine exporter responses to the Exporter Dumping RFI and two exporter responses to the Exporter Subsidy RFI were considered complete and timely.

Importers

[16] At the initiation of the investigations, the CBSA identified 112 potential importers of the subject goods from CBSA import documentation during the POI of January 1, 2011 to
December 31, 2011.

[17] The CBSA sent an importer RFI to each of these parties and received 17 responses to the Importer RFI, with varying degrees of completeness.

Governments

[18] The subsidy investigation involved three countries, India, Oman and the UAE and the CBSA sent a Government Subsidy RFI to each of these named countries. The CBSA received responses to the Government Subsidy RFI from all three governments but only the response from the Government of India was considered complete and timely.

Product Definition

[19] 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, the
Republic of Turkey and the United Arab Emirates

Additional Product Information

[20] Carbon steel welded pipe (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.

[21] 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.

[22] 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.

[23] 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

[24] Carbon steel welded pipe 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.

[25] 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.

[26] 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.

[27] 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.

[28] 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

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

Prior to January 1, 2012	As of January 1, 2012
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 7306.30.00.24 7306.30.00.34 7306.30.00.14 7306.30.00.19 7306.30.00.24 7306.30.00.29 7306.30.00.34 7306.30.00.39

[30] The Customs Tariff was amended on January 1, 2012. 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. The tariff classification numbers prior to January 1, 2012 are shown as these were the numbers in effect in the period covered by the complaint (i.e. 2009 to 2011).

[31] The listing of HS classification numbers is for convenience of reference only. Refer to the product definition for authoritative details regarding the subject goods.

Like Goods

[32] Subsection 2(1) of SIMA defines “like goods”, in relation to any other goods, as goods that are identical in all respects to the other goods, or in the absence of identical goods, goods for which the uses and other characteristics closely resemble those of the other goods.

[33] CSWP produced by the domestic industry competes directly with, has the same end uses as, and can be substituted for, the subject goods. Therefore, the CBSA has concluded that the CSWP produced by the Canadian industry constitutes like goods to the subject goods.

[34] The CBSA is of the opinion that subject and like goods constitute only one class of goods. The Tribunal has previously recognized CSWP as a single class of goods in
NQ-2008-001.

[35] In the Tribunal’s Determination and Reasons – Preliminary Injury Inquiry
No. PI-2012-003 Carbon Steel Welded Pipe issued July 30, 2012, the Tribunal stated that there is no argument or evidence provided that would warrant taking a different approach. For the purposes of the current preliminary injury inquiry, the Tribunal is satisfied that the subject goods and the like goods constitute one class of goods.

Canadian Industry

[36] As previously stated, the Complainants account for a major proportion of known domestic production of like goods.

Imports Into Canada

[37] During the preliminary phase of the investigations, the CBSA refined the estimated volume of imports based on information from CBSA import entry documentation and other information received from exporters and importers.

[38] The following table presents the CBSA’s analysis of imports of certain carbon steel welded pipe for purposes of the preliminary determinations:

Import Volumes of Certain Carbon Steel Welded Pipe
(January 1, 2011 – December 31, 2011)
as a percentage of total import volumes in metric tonnes

Imports into Canada	% of Total Import Volume
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%

Investigation Process

[39] Regarding the dumping investigation, information was requested from known and potential exporters, vendors and importers, concerning shipments of subject carbon steel welded pipe released into Canada during the POI of January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011.

[40] Regarding the subsidy investigation, information related to potential actionable subsidies was requested from known and potential exporters located in India, Oman and the UAE and the governments of India, Oman and the UAE concerning financial contributions made to exporters or producers of subject carbon steel welded pipe released into Canada during the POI of January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011.

[41] After reviewing the responses to the RFIs, supplemental RFIs were sent to exporters and governments, to clarify or request additional information.

[42] Preliminary determinations are based on the information available to the President at the time of the preliminary determination(s). Any additional information provided in supplemental RFI responses will be taken into consideration during the final phase of the investigations. During the final phase of the investigation additional information will be obtained and selected exporters in the named countries and the government of the UAE will be verified on-site, the results of which will be incorporated into the CBSA's final determinations, which must be made by November 13, 2012.

[43] Several exporters and governments requested an extension to respond to the RFIs.[2] However, the CBSA did not agree to these requests for extension as the reasons identified in the request letters did not constitute unforeseen circumstances or unusual burdens. The CBSA suggested that as complete a response as possible be submitted by the due date for responding to the RFI. The CBSA also noted that for responses received after the RFI response due date, it could not guarantee that late submissions would be taken into consideration for the purposes of the preliminary phases of the investigations.

Dumping Investigation

[44] The CBSA received timely responses to the exporter Dumping RFI from the following companies:

Chinese Taipei
Chung Hung Steel Corporation
Yieh Phui Enterprise Co. Ltd. & Shin Yang Steel Co. Ltd.

Republic of India
Manu International

Sultanate of Oman
exporters provided a response.

Republic of Korea
No exporters provided a response.

Thailand
Pacific Pipe Public Company, Ltd.
Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company

Republic of Turkey
Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.Ş.

United Arab Emirates
Conares Metal Supply Ltd.

Normal Values

[45] The normal value of goods sold to importers in Canada is generally based on the domestic selling prices of like goods in the country of export pursuant to section 15 of SIMA, or on the aggregate of the cost of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits, pursuant to paragraph 19(b) of SIMA.

Export Prices

[46] The export price of goods sold to importers in Canada is generally based on the lesser of the adjusted exporter's sale price for the goods or the adjusted importer's purchase price, pursuant to section 24 of SIMA. These prices are adjusted where necessary by deducting the costs, charges, expenses, duties and taxes resulting from the exportation of the goods, as provided for in subparagraphs 24(a)(i) to 24(a)(iii) of SIMA.

Preliminary Results Of The Dumping Investigation

[47] All subject goods imported into Canada during the POI are included in the estimation of the margin of dumping of goods. The estimated margin of dumping by exporter is equal to the amount by which the total estimated normal value exceeds the total estimated export price of the goods, expressed as a percentage of the total estimated export price. Where the total estimated normal value of the goods does not exceed the total estimated export price of the goods, the margin of dumping is zero.

[48] With respect to the exporters that provided substantially complete responses to the RFI, on or before the identified due date, company-specific information was utilized for the preliminary determination in estimating normal values and export prices for goods shipped to Canada.

[49] For those exporters that did not submit a complete response to the RFI, or that submitted a response past the due date identified in the RFI, the normal value of the goods was estimated by advancing the export price by the highest amount by which the normal value exceeded the export price on an individual transaction for an exporter that provided a substantially complete response to the RFI, excluding anomalies.

[50] In calculating the estimated margin of dumping for each country, the estimated margins of dumping found in respect of each exporter were weighted according to each exporter's volume of subject carbon steel welded pipe exported to Canada during the POI.

Preliminary Dumping Results By Exporter

[51] The margins of dumping were estimated on the basis of unverified information provided by the exporters.

[52] Estimated margin of dumping details relating to each of the exporters that provided a response to the RFI are presented in a summary table in Appendix 1 while estimated margin of dumping details relating to each named country are presented in a summary table at the end of this section.

Chinese Taipei – Chung Hung Steel Corporation (Chung Hung)

[53] Chung Hung Steel Corporation was established in 1983 as a manufacturer of steel products and began producing pipe in 1987. Chung Hung is a producer of hot and cold rolled coil, pickled and oiled coil, skin pass coil, black pipe, rectangular pipe, galvanized pipe, API pipe and PE coated pipe. Chung Hung is an affiliate company of China Steel Corporation.

[54] Chung Hung had domestic sales of carbon steel welded pipe during the POI. Normal values were estimated using the methodology of section 15 of SIMA based on domestic selling prices of like goods. An adjustment was made to the average selling price for delivery discounts pursuant to section 6 of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR). An adjustment was also made to the average selling price for freight costs pursuant to section 8 of SIMR.

[55] For subject goods exported from Chung Hung, export prices were estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the importer’s purchase price and the exporter’s selling price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

[56] The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI from Chung Hung. The estimated margin of dumping for Chung Hung is 0.0%, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

Chinese Taipei - Shin Yang Steel Com. Ltd (Shin Yang)

[57] Shin Yang, established in April 2011, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Yieh Phui Enterprise Co. Ltd. Shin Yang only produces and sells galvanized and black steel pipes.

[58] Shin Yang had domestic sales of carbon steel welded pipe during the POI. Where applicable, normal values were estimated using the methodology of section 15 of SIMA based on domestic selling prices of like goods. In the absence of domestic sales of certain product models or in the instance of a model sold to a single customer, normal values were estimated using the methodology of paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, as the sum of cost of production, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits. The amount for profit was estimated based on the profit earned by Shin Yang on sales of like goods sold in its domestic market.

[59] For subject goods exported from Shin Yang, export prices were estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the importer’s purchase price and the exporter’s selling price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

[60] The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI from Shin Yang. The estimated margin of dumping for Shin Yang is 0.5%, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

Chinese Taipei – Yieh Phui Enterprise Co. Ltd (Yieh Phui)

[61] Yieh Phui, established in 1978, is a public company listed on the Taiwan Stock Exchange. Yieh Phui produces galvanized steel coils, pre-painted steel coils, galvanized and black steel pipes and steel structure construction products.

[62] Yieh Phui had domestic sales of carbon steel welded pipe during the POI. Where applicable, normal values were estimated using the methodology of section 15 of SIMA based on domestic selling prices of like goods. In the absence of domestic sales of certain product models or in the instance of a model sold to a single customer, normal values were estimated using the methodology of paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, as the sum of cost of production, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits. The amount for profit was estimated based on the profit earned by Yieh Phui on sales of like goods sold in its domestic market.

[63] For subject goods exported from Yieh Phui, export prices were estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the importer’s purchase price and the exporter’s selling price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

[64] The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI from Yieh Phui. The estimated margin of dumping for Yieh Phui is 4.4%, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

India – Manu International (Manu)

[65] Manu International is a large, privately held partnership and manufacturer of fencing material and accessories (chain link fence fittings, chain link fabric, colour coated pipes, temporary fence panels, aluminum fence, galvanized/colour coated pipes, wood gate hardware and all types of ornamental fences) in India. Manu purchases galvanized pipe and then cuts the pipes, swages or deburs the ends as required, adds a powder coat and then packs them for shipping.

[66] Manu did not have domestic sales of carbon steel welded pipe during the POI. In the absence of domestic sales, normal values were estimated using the methodology of paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, as the sum of cost of production, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits. The amount for profit was estimated based on the companywide amount for profit from the company’s audited financial statements.

[67] For subject goods exported from Manu, export prices were estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the importer’s purchase price and the exporter’s selling price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

[68] The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI from Manu. The estimated margin of dumping for Manu is 19.3%, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

Thailand – Pacific Pipe Public Company Ltd (Pacific Pipe)

[69] Pacific Pipe was established in 1972 as a private company under the name Tang Mong Seng factory. The company was converted to a public company under the name Pacific Pipe Public Company Ltd. in 2004 and is currently listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand. Pacific Pipe produces carbon steel pipe and tube such as round black steel pipes, round galvanized steel pipes, square pipes and rectangular pipes, of various international standards.

[70] Pacific Pipe had domestic sales of carbon steel welded pipe during the POI. Normal values were estimated using the methodology of section 15 of SIMA based on domestic selling prices of like goods. An adjustment was made to the weighted average selling price for delivery costs included in the selling price in accordance with section 7 of SIMR and for duties borne by like goods that were not borne by the goods sold to the importer in Canada as per section 10 of the SIMR.

[71] For subject goods exported from Pacific Pipe, export prices were estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the importer’s purchase price and the exporter’s selling price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

[72] The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI from Pacific Pipe. The estimated margin of dumping for Pacific Pipe is 6.0%, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

Thailand – Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company (Saha Thai)

[73] Saha Thai was established in 1968 as a private company and was the first steel pipe manufacturer in Thailand. In 2005 Saha Thai was listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand as a public company. Saha Thai produces carbon steel pipe and tube and other products including furniture tube.

[74] Saha Thai had domestic sales of carbon steel welded pipe during the POI. Where applicable, normal values were estimated using the methodology of section 15 of SIMA based on domestic selling prices of like goods. An adjustment was made to the weighted average selling price for delivery costs included in the selling price in accordance with section 7 of SIMR and for duties borne by like goods that were not borne by the goods sold to the importer in Canada as per section 10 of the SIMR. In the absence of domestic sales of certain product models or in the instance of a model sold to a single customer, normal values were estimated using the methodology of paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, as the sum of cost of production, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits. The amount for profit was estimated based on the profit earned by Saha Thai on sales of like goods sold in its domestic market.

[75] For subject goods exported from Saha Thai, export prices were estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the importer’s purchase price and the exporter’s selling price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

[76] The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI from Saha Thai. The estimated margin of dumping for Saha Thai is 9.2%, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

Turkey – Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Borusan)

[77] Borusan is Turkey’s leading steel pipe manufacturer. The company produces various types of pipe products including standard pipe, line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubes, spiral and industrial pipes.

[78] Borusan had domestic sales of carbon steel welded pipe during the POI. Normal values were estimated using the methodology of section 15 of SIMA based on domestic selling prices of like goods. The domestic selling prices were adjusted for discounts and delivery costs in accordance with sections 6 and 7 of SIMR and for duties borne by like goods that were not borne by the goods sold to the importer in Canada as per section 10 of the SIMR.

[79] For subject goods exported from Borusan, export prices were estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the importer’s purchase price and the exporter’s selling price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

[80] The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI from Borusan. The estimated margin of dumping for Borusan is 25.7%, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

Turkey – Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.Ş. (Erbosan)

[81] Erbosan is an integrated pipe manufacturer and exporter located in Kayseri, Turkey. Erbosan buys hot-rolled steel coils, and forms carbon steel pipe and tube, galvanized tubular products and performs threading and coupling. Erbosan was established in 1974, as a joint stock company and is a publicly held company traded on the Istanbul Stock Exchange since 1995.

[82] Erbosan had domestic sales of carbon steel welded pipe during the POI. Where applicable, normal values were estimated using the methodology of section 15 of SIMA based on domestic selling prices of like goods. In estimating the normal values, an adjustment was made to the weighted average selling price for delivery costs included in the selling price in accordance with section 7 of SIMR. In the absence of domestic sales of certain product models or in the instance of a model sold to a single customer, normal values were estimated using the methodology of paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, as the sum of cost of production, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits. The amount for profit was estimated based on the profit earned by Erbosan on sales of like goods sold in its domestic market.

[83] For subject goods exported from Erbosan, export prices were estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the importer’s purchase price and the exporter’s selling price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

[84] The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI from Erbosan. The estimated margin of dumping for Erbosan is 13.0%, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

United Arab Emirates – Conares Metal Supply Ltd. (Conares)

[85] Conares is located in Dubai, UAE. The company is a privately held limited liability company and was established in 2000. Currently, the company runs a pipe facility and a rebar facility and exports products including carbon steel welded pipe and rebar.

[86] Conares had domestic sales of carbon steel welded pipe during the POI. Normal values were estimated using the methodology of section 15 of SIMA based on domestic selling prices of like goods. In estimating the normal values, an adjustment was made to the weighted average selling price for delivery costs included in the selling price in accordance with section 7 of SIMR and for duties borne by like goods that were not borne by the goods sold to the importer in Canada as per section 10 of the SIMR.

[87] For subject goods exported from Conares, export prices were estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the importer’s purchase price and the exporter’s selling price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

[88] The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI from Conares. The estimated margin of dumping for Conares is 5.7%, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

All Other Exporters - Margin of Dumping

[89] For all other exporters, the normal values and related margins of dumping were based on the highest amount by which an estimated normal value exceeded an estimated export price (84.0%), excluding anomalies, on an individual transaction during the POI as estimated for an exporter with a complete submission. Export prices were obtained through customs declarations for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI.

[90] As such, normal values for these other exporters were estimated by advancing the estimated export price by advancing the estimated export price of the goods by 84%.

Summary Of Preliminary Results Of Dumping Investigation

[91] The determination of the volume of dumped goods is calculated by taking into consideration each exporter’s net aggregate dumping results. Where a given exporter has been determined to be dumping on an overall or net basis, the total quantity of exports attributable to that exporter (i.e. 100%) is considered dumped. Similarly, where a given exporter’s net aggregate dumping results are zero, then the total quantity of exports deemed to be dumped by that exporter is zero.

[92] In calculating the weighted average estimated margin of dumping for each named country, the overall estimated margins of dumping found in respect of each exporter are weighted according to each exporter’s volume of subject carbon steel welded pipe exported to Canada during the POI.

[93] The following table summarizes the preliminary results of the dumping investigation respecting all subject goods released into Canada during the POI.

Estimated Margins of Dumping and Volume of Dumped Goods
January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011

Country	Estimated Volume of Dumped Goods as Percentage of Country Imports	Estimated Weighted Average Margin of Dumping	Volume of Country Imports as Percentage of Total Imports	Estimated Volume of Dumped Goods as Percentage of Total Imports
Chinese Taipei	99.7%	11.9%	19.0%	18.9%
India	100.0%	83.6%	9.5%	9.5%
Oman	100.0%	84.0%	4.3%	4.3%
Republic of Korea	100.0%	84.0%	7.0%	7.0%
Thailand	100.0%	11.9%	12.8%	12.8%
Turkey	100.0%	23.9%	12.4%	12.4%
UAE	100.0%	59.8%	7.2%	7.2%

[94] Pursuant to subsection 35(1) of SIMA, the President is required to terminate an investigation prior to the preliminary determination if he is satisfied that the margin of dumping of the goods of a country is insignificant or that the volume of dumped goods of a country is negligible. Pursuant to subsection 2(1) of SIMA, a margin of dumping of less than 2% is defined as insignificant, whereas a volume of dumped goods from a country forming less than 3% of total imports is considered negligible.

[95] The estimated weighted average margin of dumping of certain carbon steel welded pipe from each of the above named countries is above 2% and is, therefore, not insignificant. As well, the volume of dumped goods from each of the above named countries is above 3%, and is, therefore, not negligible.

Decision Dumping

[96] Based on the preliminary results of the investigation, on August 13, 2012, the President of the CBSA made a preliminary determination of dumping respecting certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, the Republic of India, the Sultanate of Oman, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, the Republic of Turkey and the United Arab Emirates pursuant to subsection 38(1) of SIMA. The President also considered that the imposition of provisional duty is necessary to prevent injury from the dumped goods.

Subsidy Investigation

[97] In accordance with section 2 of SIMA, a subsidy exists if there is a financial contribution by a government of a country other than Canada that confers a benefit on persons engaged in the production, manufacture, growth, processing, purchase, distribution, transportation, sale, export or import of goods. A subsidy also exists in respect of any form of income or price support within the meaning of Article XVI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1994, being part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement, that confers a benefit.

[98] Pursuant to subsection 2(1.6) of SIMA, there is a financial contribution by a government of a country other than Canada where:

1. practices of the government involve the direct transfer of funds or liabilities or the contingent transfer of funds or liabilities;
2. amounts that would otherwise be owing and due to the government are exempted or deducted or amounts that are owing and due to the government are forgiven or not collected;
3. the government provides goods or services, other than general governmental infrastructure, or purchases goods; or
4. the government permits or directs a non-governmental body to do anything referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (c) where the right or obligation to do the thing is normally vested in the government and the manner in which the non-governmental body does the thing does not differ in a meaningful way from the manner in which the government would do it.

[99] Where subsidies exist they may be subject to countervailing measures if they are specific in nature. According to subsection 2(7.2) of SIMA a subsidy is considered to be specific when it is limited, in a legislative, regulatory or administrative instrument, or other public document, to a particular enterprise within the jurisdiction of the authority that is granting the subsidy; or is a prohibited subsidy.

[100] A “prohibited subsidy” is either an export subsidy or a subsidy or potion of subsidy that is contingent, in whole or in part, on the use of goods that are produced or that originate in the country of export. An export subsidy is a subsidy or portion of a subsidy contingent, in whole or in part, on export performance. An “enterprise” is defined as including a group of enterprises, an industry and a group of industries. These terms are all defined in section 2 of SIMA.

[101] Notwithstanding that a subsidy is not specific in law, under subsection 2(7.3) of SIMA a subsidy may also be considered specific having regard as to whether:

1. there is exclusive use of the subsidy by a limited number of enterprises;
2. there is predominant use of the subsidy by a particular enterprise;
3. disproportionately large amounts of the subsidy are granted to a limited number of enterprises; and
4. the manner in which discretion is exercised by the granting authority indicates that the subsidy is not generally available.

[102] For purposes of a subsidy investigation, the CBSA refers to a subsidy that has been found to be specific as an “actionable subsidy,” meaning that it is subject to countervailing measures if the persons engaged in the production, manufacture, growth, processing, purchase, distribution, transportation, sale, export or import of goods under investigation have benefited from the subsidy.

[103] Financial contributions provided by a State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) may also be considered to be provided by the government for purposes of this investigation. A SOE may be considered to constitute “government” for the purposes of subjection 2(1.6) of SIMA if it possesses, exercises, or is vested with governmental authority. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the CBSA may consider the following factors as indicative of whether the SOE meets this standard: 1) the SOE is granted or vested with authority by statute; 2) the SOE is performing a government function; 3) the SOE is meaningfully controlled by the government; or some combination thereof.

[104] The following presents the preliminary results of the investigation into the alleged subsidizing of certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in the Republic of India, the Sultanate of Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

Republic Of India

Preliminary Phase of the Subsidy Investigation – India

[105] At the initiation of the investigation, the CBSA sent subsidy RFIs to the Government of India (GOI), as well as to all known exporters/producers and identified vendors of certain carbon steel welded pipe in India. The GOI was also requested to forward the RFIs to all subordinate levels of government that had jurisdiction over the exporters. As well, the exporters were requested to forward a portion of the RFI to their input suppliers, who were asked to respond to questions pertaining to their legal characterization as SOEs.

[106] In conducting its investigation, the CBSA requested information respecting 36 identified programs, as listed in Appendix 2, which were grouped into the following seven categories:

I.	Special Economic Zones (SEZ);
II.	Export Oriented Units (EOU);
III.	Grants;
IV.	Preferential Loan Programs;
V	Relief from Duties and Taxes on Materials and Machinery;
VI.	Goods/Services provided by the Government of India (GOI) at Less Than Fair Market Value; and
VII.	Subsidy Programs Provided by the State Government of Maharashtra (SGOM).

[107] Complete and timely responses to the subsidy RFI were received from the GOI, and from only one exporter, Manu International.

[108] In its response to the CBSA’s Subsidy RFI, the GOI provided general descriptions of the alleged subsidy programs identified by the CBSA and submitted copies of the relevant supporting laws, regulations and policies.

[109] Of the 36 alleged subsidy programs identified at the initiation, the GOI stated that it does not operate or have specific information pertaining to three of the programs, and indicated that a fourth identified program was terminated on October 1, 2011. At the same time, the GOI confirmed the existence of the remaining 32 programs identified at the initiation of the investigation.

[110] During the final phase of the investigation, the CBSA will seek to verify the information provided by the GOI and the co-operative exporter, and further examine the previously identified subsidy programs. For purposes of the final determination, the CBSA may also consider any other potential subsidy programs that have not yet been identified.

[111] A summary of the preliminary results respecting India is included below, whereas an outline of the named subsidy programs can be found in Appendix 2.

Preliminary Results of the Subsidy Investigation - India

Manu International

[112] For the purposes of the preliminary determination, sufficient timely information was provided by Manu International (Manu) to permit the CBSA to estimate a specific amount of subsidy for this exporter. The company reported that it received benefits under the following three identified programs:

Program 23: Focus Product Scheme;

Program 25: Pre-shipment & Post-shipment Export Financing;

Program 29: Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme.

[113] The CBSA has estimated that Manu received an amount of subsidy equal to 3,570 Indian rupees/metric ton. This equates to an estimated amount of subsidy of 4.6%, when expressed as a percentage of the export price.

All other exporters

[114] For all other exporters in India that did not furnish sufficient information or did not furnish information in a timely fashion, the amount of subsidy is estimated based on:

1. the amount of subsidy (Indian rupees/metric ton) estimated for each of the 3 actionable subsidy programs for the co-operative exporter Manu; plus
2. the subsidy amount for the actionable subsidy program in (1) above which had the lowest allocation per metric ton, applied to each of the remaining 33 potentially actionable subsidy programs.

[115] The estimated amount of subsidy for all other exporters in India is thus calculated as equalling 24,591 Indian rupees/metric ton or 54.7%, when expressed as a percentage of the export price.

[116] Following the above methodology, it is estimated that 100% of the subject goods imported from India are subsidized. The estimated overall country weighted average amount of subsidy is equal to 54.1% of the export price of the subject goods.

Sultanate Of Oman

Preliminary Phase of the Subsidy Investigation – Oman

[117] At the initiation of the investigation, the CBSA sent subsidy RFIs to the Government of the Sultanate of Oman (GSO), as well as to the identified exporter of subject goods in Oman. The GSO was also requested to forward the RFIs to all subordinate levels of government that had jurisdiction over the exporter.

[118] In conducting its investigation, the CBSA requested information respecting the following six potential subsidy programs:

Program 1: Tariff exemptions on imported equipment, machinery, raw materials and packaging materials;

Program 2: Land and buildings for less than fair market value;

Program 3: Electricity, water and natural gas for less than fair market value;

Program 4: Soft loans for industrial projects provided by the Oman Development Bank;

Program 5: Post-shipment financing scheme provided by the Export Credit Guarantee Agency;

Program 6: Pre-shipment credit guarantees provided by the Export Credit Guarantee Agency.

[119] A summary of the preliminary results respecting Oman is included below, whereas an outline of the named subsidy programs can be found in Appendix 3.

Preliminary Results of the Subsidy Investigation - Oman

All Exporters

[120] As the exporter from Oman did not furnished timely and complete information to the CBSA that would enable the estimation of a specific amount of subsidy, the CBSA estimated the amount of subsidy conferred on producers in Oman by comparing the weighted average export prices of subject goods with their estimated cost of production. This was the same method as that used at the initiation of the investigation.

[121] Following the above methodology, it is estimated that 100% of the subject goods imported from Oman are subsidized with the estimated overall weighted average amount of subsidy equal to 34.6% of the export price of the subject goods.

United Arab Emirates

Preliminary Phase of the Subsidy Investigation – UAE

[122] At the initiation of the investigation, the CBSA sent subsidy RFIs to the Government of the United Arab Emirates (GUAE) as well as to all identified exporters of certain carbon steel welded pipe in the UAE. The GUAE was also requested to forward the RFIs to all subordinate levels of government that had jurisdiction over the exporters.

[123] In conducting its investigation, the CBSA requested information respecting the following six potential subsidy programs:

Program 1: Income Tax exemptions;

Program 2: Duty exemptions on imports and exports;

Program 3: Electricity for less than fair market value;

Program 4: Water for less than fair market value;

Program 5: Land and/or buildings for less than fair market value;

Program 6: Preferential export lending provided by the Emirates Industrial Bank.

[124] The GUAE submitted a comprehensive response to the CBSA’s Subsidy RFI several weeks past the due date. The CBSA is proceeding with its review of the GUAE’s subsidy response and has issued a supplemental request for information. An analysis of the information submitted will be conducted during the final phase of the investigation.

[125] Conares Metal Supply Ltd. was the only exporter in the UAE to provide a timely and complete response to the CBSA’s Subsidy RFI. Although responses were also received from two other exporters in the UAE, their late submission did not allow sufficient time for the CBSA to conduct a thorough analysis of the information received and to estimate specific amounts of subsidy.

[126] A summary of the preliminary results respecting the UAE is included below, whereas an outline of the named subsidy programs can be found in Appendix 4.

Preliminary Results of the Subsidy Investigation - UAE

Conares Metal Supply Ltd. (Conares)

[127] The CBSA’s analysis of this company’s response revealed that Conares did not receive any benefits from the GUAE which are considered to be actionable subsidies. As such, the estimated amount of subsidy for Conares is 0%, when expressed as a percentage of the export price.

All Other Exporters

[128] For all other exporters in the UAE that did not furnish sufficient information or did not furnish information in a timely fashion, the CBSA estimated the amount of subsidy by comparing the weighted average export prices of subject goods with their estimated cost of production, the same method as that used at the initiation of the investigation. The amount of subsidy for all other exporters in the UAE is thus estimated to be 19.0% when expressed as a percentage of the export price.

[129] Following the above methodology, it is estimated that 69.1% of the subject goods imported from the UAE are subsidized. The estimated overall weighted average amount of subsidy is equal to 12.9% of the export price of the subject goods.

Summary Of The Results - Subsidy

[130] Under section 35 of SIMA, if, at any time before the President makes a preliminary determination, the President is satisfied that the amount of subsidy on the goods of a country is insignificant or the actual and potential volume of subsidized goods of a country is negligible, the President must terminate the investigation with respect to that country. Under subsection 2(1) of SIMA, an amount of subsidy of less than 1% of the export price of the goods is considered insignificant and a volume of subsidized goods of less than 3% of the total imports of goods that are of the same description as the subsidized goods that are released into Canada from all countries is considered negligible, the same threshold for the volume of dumping goods.

[131] However, according to section 41.2 of SIMA, the President is required to take into account Article 27.10 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures when conducting a subsidy investigation. This provision stipulates that a countervailing duty investigation involving a developing country should be terminated as soon as the authorities determine that the overall level of subsidies granted upon the product in question does not exceed 2% of its value calculated on a per unit basis or the volume of subsidized imports represents less than 4% of the total imports of the like product in the importing Member’s market.

[132] SIMA does not define or provide any guidance regarding the determination of a “developing country” for purposes of Article 27.10 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. As an administrative alternative, the CBSA refers to the Development Assistance Committee List of Official Development Assistance Recipients (DAC List of ODA Recipients) for guidance.[3]

[133] The estimated amounts of subsidy and the volumes of the subsidized goods shown in the table below indicate that the amount of subsidy is not insignificant and that the volumes of the subsidized imports are not negligible.

Estimated Amounts of Subsidy and Volume of subsidized goods
January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011

Country	Estimated Subsidized Goods as Percentage of Country Imports	Estimated Weighted Average Amount of Subsidy*	Country Imports as Percentage of Total Imports	Estimated Subsidized Goods as Percentage of Total Imports
India	100.0%	54.1%	9.5%	9.5%
Oman	100.0%	34.6%	4.3%	4.3%
UAE	69.1%	12.9%	7.2%	5.0%

*expressed as a percentage of the export price

Decision Subsidy

[134] Based on the information available to the President, on August 13, 2012, the President made a preliminary determination of subsidizing respecting certain steel carbon steel welded pipe originating in or exported from the Republic of India, the Sultanate of Oman and the United Arab Emirates, pursuant to subsection 38(1) of SIMA. The President also considered that the imposition of provisional duty is necessary to prevent injury from subsidized imports.

Provisional Duty

[135] Pursuant to subsection 8(1) of SIMA, provisional duty, payable by the importer in Canada, will be applied to dumped and subsidized subject carbon steel welded pipe that are released during the period commencing on the day the preliminary determinations are made, and ending on the earlier of the day on which the President causes the investigations to be terminated pursuant to subsection 41(1) or the day on which the Tribunal makes an order or finding. The President considers that the imposition of provisional duty is needed to prevent the injury which, as per the Tribunal’s preliminary determination, was caused by the dumping and subsidizing of subject carbon steel welded pipe.

[136] Provisional duty is based on the estimated margin of dumping, and where applicable, the estimated amount of subsidy, expressed as a percentage of the export price of the goods. Appendix 1 contains the estimated margins of dumping, estimated amounts of subsidy, and the rates of provisional duty, payable on subject goods released from the CBSA on and after

August 13, 2012.

[137] Importers are required to pay provisional duty in cash or by certified cheque. Alternatively, they may post security equal to the amount payable. Importers should contact their CBSA regional customs office if they require further information on the payment of provisional duty or the posting of security. If the importers of such goods do not indicate the required SIMA code or do not correctly describe the goods in the import documents, an administrative monetary penalty could be imposed. The imported goods are also subject to the Customs Act. As a result, failure to pay duties within the specified time will result in the application of the provisions of the Customs Act regarding interest.

Future Action

The Canada Border Services Agency

[138] The CBSA will continue its investigations of the dumping and subsidizing and the President will make final decisions by November 13, 2012.

[139] If the President is satisfied that the goods were dumped and/or subsidized, and that the margin of dumping or amount of subsidy is not insignificant, final determinations will be made. Otherwise, the President will terminate the investigations and any provisional duty paid, or security posted, will be returned to importers.

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal

[140] The Tribunal has begun its inquiry into the question of injury to the Canadian industry. The Tribunal is expected to issue its finding by December 11, 2012.

[141] If the Tribunal finds that the dumping has not caused injury, retardation or is not threatening to cause injury, the proceedings will be terminated and all provisional
duty collected, or security posted, will be returned.

[142] If the Tribunal makes a finding that the dumping has caused injury, retardation or is threatening to cause injury, anti-dumping duty in an amount equal to the margin of dumping will be levied, collected and paid on imports of subject carbon steel welded pipe.

[143] If the Tribunal finds that the subsidizing has not caused injury, retardation or is not threatening to cause injury, the proceedings will be terminated and all provisional duty collected, or security posted, will be returned.

[144] If the Tribunal makes a finding that the subsidizing has caused injury, retardation or is threatening to cause injury, countervailing duties in the amount equal to the amount of subsidy on the imported goods will be levied, collected and paid on imports of subject carbon steel welded pipe.

[145] For purposes of the preliminary determinations of dumping or subsidizing, the CBSA has responsibility for determining whether the actual and potential volume of dumped or subsidized goods is negligible. After preliminary determinations of dumping or subsidizing, the Tribunal assumes this responsibility. In accordance with subsection 42(4.1) of SIMA, the Tribunal is required to terminate its inquiry in respect of any goods if the Tribunal determines that the volume of dumped or subsidized goods from a country is negligible.

Retroactive Duty On Massive Importations

[146] Under certain circumstances, anti-dumping and/or countervailing duty can be imposed retroactively on subject goods imported into Canada. When the Tribunal conducts its inquiry on material injury to the Canadian industry, it may consider if dumped and/or subsidized goods that were imported close to or after the initiation of the investigation constitute massive importations over a relatively short period of time and have caused injury to the Canadian industry. Should the Tribunal issue a finding that there were recent massive importations of dumped and/or subsidized goods that caused injury, imports of subject goods released by the CBSA in the
90 days preceding the day of the preliminary determination could be subject to anti-dumping and/or countervailing duty.

[147] In respect of importations of subsidized goods that have caused injury, this provision is only applicable where the CBSA has determined that the whole or any part of the subsidy on the goods is a prohibited subsidy. In such a case, the amount of countervailing duty applied on a retroactive basis will equal the amount of subsidy on the goods that is a prohibited subsidy. An export subsidy is a prohibited subsidy according to subsection 2(1) of SIMA.

Undertakings

[148] After a preliminary determination of dumping, exporters may give a written undertaking to revise selling prices to Canada so that the margin of dumping or the injury caused by the dumping is eliminated. Similarly, after a preliminary determination of subsidizing, the government of a country may give a written undertaking to eliminate the subsidy on the goods or to eliminate the injurious effect of the subsidy by limiting the amount of the subsidy or the quantity of goods exported to Canada. Exporters, with the consent of their government, may also undertake to revise their selling prices so that the injurious effect of the subsidy is eliminated.

[149] Acceptable undertakings must account for all, or substantially all, of the exports to Canada of the dumped and subsidized goods. In the event that an undertaking is accepted, the required payment of provisional duty on the goods would be suspended.

[150] In view of the time needed for consideration of undertakings, written undertaking proposals should be made as early as possible, and no later than 60 days after the preliminary determinations of dumping and subsidizing. Further details regarding undertakings can be found in the CBSA’s Memorandum D14-1-9, available online at
www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/dm-md/d14/d14-1-9-eng.html.

[151] SIMA allows all interested parties to make representations concerning any undertaking proposals. The CBSA will maintain a list of interested parties and will notify them should an undertaking proposal be received. Persons wishing to be notified must provide their name, address, telephone, fax, or email address, to one of the officers listed below. Interested parties may also consult the CBSA website noted below for information on undertakings offered in this investigation. A notice will be posted on the CBSA website when an undertaking proposal is received. Interested parties have nine days from the date the undertaking offer is received to make representations.

Publication

[152] A notice of these preliminary determinations of dumping and subsidizing will be published in the Canada Gazette pursuant to paragraph 38(3)(a) of SIMA.

Information

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

Caterina Ardito-Toffolo

Acting Director General

Anti-dumping and Countervailing Directorate

Attachments

Appendix 1 – Summary Of Estimated Margins Of Dumping, Estimated Amounts Of Subsidy, And Provisional Duty Payable

Exporter	Estimated Margin of Dumping*	Estimated Amount of Subsidy*	Total Provisional Duty Payable*
Chinese Taipei
Chung Hung Steel Corporation	0%		0%
Shin Yang Steel Co. Ltd.	0.5%		0.5%
Yieh Phui Enterprise Co. Ltd.	4.4%		4.4%
All Other Exporters	84.0%		84.0%
Republic of India
Manu International	19.3%	4.6%	23.9%
All Other Exporters	84.0%	54.7%	138.7%
Sultanate of Oman
All Exporters	84.0%	34.6%	118.6%
Republic of Korea
All Exporters	84.0%		84.0%
Thailand
Pacific Pipe Public Co. Ltd.	6.0%		6.0%
Saha Thai Steel Company Ltd.	9.2%		9.2%
All Other Exporters	84.0%		84.0%
Republic of Turkey
Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.	25.7%		25.7%
Erbosan Erciya Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S.	13.0%		13.0%
All Other Exporters	84.0%		84.0%
United Arab Emirates
Conares Metal Supply Ltd.	5.7%	0%	5.7%
All Other Exporters	84.0%	18.5%	102.5%

*As a percentage of export price.