LP2 2017 IN
Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Line Pipe
Statement of Reasons

[13] The complainant accounts for a major proportion of the domestic production of like goods in Canada, as defined in subsection 2(1) of SIMA. The complainant’s goods are produced at manufacturing facilities at various locations in Canada. The name and address of the complainant is as follows:

[14] Evraz Inc. NA Canada operates carbon and alloy steel line pipe manufacturing facilities in Regina, Saskatchewan and in Red Deer, Alberta. The EVRAZ North America group of companies also owns Canadian National Steel Corporation, which operates carbon and alloy steel line pipe manufacturing facilities in Camrose, Alberta. These facilities manufacture line pipe using the electric resistance weld (ERW) process and the submerged arc weld (SAW) process.^{Footnote 2}

[15] The other supporting manufacturers of like goods in Canada are:

[16] Tenaris Global Services (Canada) Inc., Algoma Tubes Inc., and Prudential Steel Inc. are collectively referred to as “Tenaris Canada”. Tenaris Canada manufactures line pipe in Canada at its Algoma Tubes facility in Sault Ste Marie, Ontario using the seamless process and at its Prudential facility in Calgary, Alberta using the ERW process. Tenaris Global Services Inc. acts as a commercial agent for Tenaris sales in Canada.^{Footnote 3}

[17] Bri Steel Manufacturing produces small and large diameter seamless steel line pipe and processing pipe in Canada through a process called Thermal Pipe Expansion. Specifically, Bri Steel is capable of producing pipe sizes ranging from 16 through 36 inches in outside diameter, and wall thicknesses up to 2.343 inches in CSA, ASTM, ASME, and API specifications.^{Footnote 4}

[18] The CBSA identified 62 potential importers of the subject goods based on both information provided by the complainant and CBSA import entry documentation.

[19] The CBSA sent an Importer Request for Information (RFI) to all potential importers of the goods. The CBSA received six responses to the Importer RFI. Two of the importers, Hyundai Canada Inc. (Hyundai Canada)^{Footnote 5} and Pusan Pipe America (Pusan),^{Footnote 6} have corresponding related exporters who have also provided complete responses to the Dumping RFI. Four other companies, namely ASTCO Canada,^{Footnote 7} Edgen Murray Canada,^{Footnote 8} MRC Global Canada^{Footnote 9} and Sunlake Co. Ltd.^{Footnote 10} also provided responses to the Importer RFI.

[20] The CBSA identified 57 potential exporters/producers of the subject goods from information provided by the complainant and CBSA import entry documentation.

[21] The CBSA sent a Dumping RFI to all potential exporters/producers of the goods. Five exporters provided responses to the Dumping RFI. The five exporters are Husteel Co. Ltd (Husteel),^{Footnote 11} Hyundai Corporation,^{Footnote 12} Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel),^{Footnote 13} Nexteel Co. Ltd (Nexteel)^{Footnote 14} and SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH Steel).^{Footnote 15} Three additional vendors, Hyundai Steel USA,^{Footnote 16} Soon Hong Trading Co. Ltd,^{Footnote 17} and Yieh Corporation Ltd,^{Footnote 18} also provided responses to the Dumping RFI.

[22] Officers conducted on site verifications at the premises of the five exporters, named above, all located in the Republic of Korea.

[23] For the purpose of this investigation, the subject goods are defined as:

Carbon and alloy steel line pipe originating in or exported from the Republic of Korea, welded or seamless, having a nominal outside diameter from 2.375 inches (60.3 mm) up to and including 24 inches (610 mm) (with all dimensions being plus or minus allowable tolerances contained in the applicable standards), including line pipe meeting or supplied to meet any one or several of API 5L, CSA Z245.1, ISO 3183, ASTM A333, ASTM A106, ASTM A53-B or their equivalents, in all grades, whether or not meeting specifications for other end uses (e.g. single-, dual-, or multiple certified, for use in oil and gas or other applications), and regardless of end finish (plain ends, beveled ends, threaded ends, or threaded and coupled ends), surface finish (coated or uncoated), wall thickness, or length, excluding galvanized line pipe and excluding stainless steel line pipe (containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium), and excluding goods covered by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal’s Finding in Inquiry No. NQ 2012 003.

[24] For greater certainty, the product definition includes:

1. unfinished line pipe (including pipe that may or may not already be tested, inspected, and/or certified to line pipe specifications) originating in the Republic of Korea and imported for use in the production or finishing of line pipe meeting final specifications, including outside diameter, grade, wall thickness, length, end finish, or surface finish; and
2. non-prime and secondary pipes (“limited service products”).

[25] Pipe that is being sold for oil and gas transmission purposes or process piping purposes is line pipe. Line pipe is used by the oil and gas industry in pipelines for the gathering and distribution of oil and gas or as process pipe used in steam generation facilities for steam assisted gravity drainage, petrochemical plants, upgraders, gas transmission facilities, and fabrication of modules.

[26] The Canadian market for oil and gas line pipe is governed by two main design codes depending on whether the line pipe is for pipelines or for process piping. Each code specifies the standards and grades of pipe that are acceptable for use. Together, the complainant and supporting producers manufacture or have the capability to manufacture line pipe under both design codes, in all grades. Pipelines must conform or be equivalent to CSA Z662 (oil and gas pipeline systems), and process piping must conform or be equivalent to ASME B31.1. These systems standards cover multiple pipe standards and can cover multiple grades of pipe.

[27] Examples of pipe standards include:

• CSA Z245.1;
• API 5L;
• ISO 3183;
• ASTM A333;
• ASTM A53-B; and
• ASTM A106.

[28] Pipe manufactured to a particular standard may be compatible with the requirements of another standard. This means that a particular pipe may be able to be certified as complying with multiple standards (if all the requirements of each standard/grade are met for that particular pipe). For example, CSA Z245.1 Grade 448 pipe is considered to be equivalent to API 5L Grade X65. The API 5L X grade numbers define the minimum yield strength required of the grade in kilopounds per square inch. Process piping is generally supplied with multiple stencils including API 5L, CSA Z245.1 and ASTM A106.

[29] Equivalent grades of pipe specified under each design code represent products that are equivalent regardless of manufacturing process. As a result, any grade of pipe is considered to be substitutable by a similar grade of pipe designed with a different standard. It is common practice to certify multiple grades of pipe on a mill test report. It is also common practice to substitute grades other than that initially requested by a customer with an equivalent grade. Mill test reports are provided to show that the properties of the supplied pipe meet the requirements of the actual grade supplied.

[30] Line pipe is normally marked or stenciled in paint on the external surface with the API, ASME, or equivalent specifications to which it has been manufactured and tested. The subject goods cover all line pipe meeting or supplied to meet the above specifications, regardless of whether the pipe has been multiple stenciled to indicate that it meets or is supplied to meet additional end use specifications. Line pipe that is manufactured and tested to meet higher API specifications (or equivalent CSA and ISO specifications) is automatically in conformity with lower specifications and may therefore have multiple stencils identifying additional end uses, such as American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and equivalent specifications for end use as standard pipe (for low-pressure conveyance of steam, water, natural gas, air and other liquids in plumbing and heating applications), piling pipe, and other such end uses. Seamless line pipe conforming to API 5L may also be marked as conforming to pressure pipe applications under ASME B31.3. Additionally and for the same reasons, line pipe that is single-stencilled as API 5L may be used in lower specifications absent stencilling identifying that lower specification. All line pipe that is marked as meeting or that is supplied to meet API 5L (or equivalent specifications) for use as oil and gas pipelines or as ASME B31.3 for use as pressure pipe are covered in this complaint as subject goods regardless of whether the pipe is marked as meeting any other end-uses or is supplied to meet any other end-uses.

[31] Line pipe may be manufactured by the seamless or welded process. The typical end finish is a beveled end to allow for welding in the field, although line pipe may also be supplied as plain end (square cut), threaded, and threaded and coupled.

[32] Line pipe is made on the same production equipment as oil country tubular goods (OCTG) and other tubular products such as standard pipe and piling pipe. Production may involve either the seamless or the welded process.

[33] ERW line pipe is produced by slitting flat hot-rolled steel in coil form of a pre determined thickness (called “skelp”) to the proper width required to produce the desired diameter of pipe. The skelp is then sent through a series of forming rolls that bend it into a tubular shape. As the edges of the skelp come together under pressure in the final forming rolls, an electric current is passed between them. The resistance to the current heats the edges of the skelp to the welding temperature, and the weld is formed as the two edges are pressed together.

[34] ERW line pipe can also be produced by the stretch-reduction method, where the key difference is that outside diameter and wall thickness is achieved after the tube is formed. Specifically, a formed tube is heated to approximately 1850 degrees Fahrenheit and passed through a series of stretch reduction roll stands until the final outside diameter and wall thickness is achieved.

[35] Seamless pipe production begins with the formation of a central cavity in a solid steel billet to create a shell. The shell is then rolled on a retained mandrel and reduced in a stretch reduction mill to produce the finished size before cooling on a walking beam cooling bed. Once the hot rolling mill has transformed the billet into a tube and the stretch reduction/sizing mill has produced the final dimensions, the pipe is put into inventory where it waits for the next process, either heat treatment, testing, or finishing.

[36] Tube formed by either the seamless or the ERW methods is then cut to length. The product is sent to the finishing line where it is usually beveled on both ends. Finishing operations also include cooling, straightening, facing, testing, coating, or bundling and could include threading and coupling.

[37] Prior to January 1, 2017, subject goods were normally classified under the following Harmonized System (HS) classification numbers:

• 7304.19.00.11
• 7304.19.00.12
• 7304.19.00.21
• 7304.19.00.22
• 7305.11.00.11
• 7305.11.00.19
• 7305.12.00.11
• 7305.12.00.19
• 7305.19.00.11
• 7305.19.00.19
• 7306.19.00.10
• 7306.19.00.90

[38] Beginning January 1, 2017, under the revised customs tariff schedule, subject goods would normally be imported under the following HS classification numbers:

• 7304.19.00.10
• 7304.19.00.20
• 7305.11.00.10
• 7305.11.00.20
• 7305.12.00.10
• 7305.12.00.30
• 7305.19.00.10
• 7305.19.00.20
• 7306.19.00.10
• 7306.19.00.90

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

[52] Normal values are generally determined based on the domestic selling prices of like goods in the country of export, in accordance with 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, plus a reasonable amount for profits, in accordance with paragraph 19(b) of SIMA.

[53] Where, in the opinion of the CBSA, sufficient information has not been furnished or is not available, normal values are determined pursuant to a Ministerial specification in accordance with subsection 29(1) of SIMA.

[54] The export price of the goods sold to the importers in Canada is generally based on the lesser of the adjusted exporter’s selling price 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.

[55] Where there are sales between associated persons and/or a compensatory agreement exists, the export price may be determined pursuant to section 25 of SIMA, based on the importer’s resale price of the imported goods in Canada to unrelated purchasers, less deductions for all costs incurred in preparing, shipping and exporting the goods to Canada that are additional to those incurred on the sales of like goods for use in the country of export, all costs included in the resale price that are incurred in reselling the goods (including duties and taxes) or associated with the assembly of the goods in Canada and an amount representative of the average industry profit in Canada as provided for in paragraphs 25(1)(c) and 25(1)(d) of SIMA.

[56] Where, in the opinion of the CBSA, sufficient information has not been furnished or is not available, export prices are determined pursuant to a Ministerial specification under subsection 29(1) of SIMA.

[57] The CBSA determined a margin of dumping for each of the exporters by comparing the total normal value with the total export price of the goods. When the total export price was less than the total normal value, the difference was the margin of dumping for that specific exporter.

[58] Details of the results of the investigation by exporter follows. A summary of each exporter’s margin of dumping is provided in the table at the end of this section and in Appendix 1.

Husteel Co. Ltd.

[59] Husteel is a manufacturer and exporter of subject goods located in the Republic of Korea. Husteel was established in 1967 and is listed on the Korean Stock Exchange. All of the subject goods shipped to Canada during the POI were produced at the Dangjin and Daebul plants. Husteel has a third production facility located in the Republic of Korea which produces only stainless steel pipes. The company headquarters is located in Seoul. An on site verification of Husteel was conducted in September 2017.^{Footnote 24}

[60] Husteel provided substantially complete responses to the Dumping RFI^{Footnote 25} and supplementary RFIs.^{Footnote 26} Included in the responses was a database of domestic sales of line pipe; however, there were insufficient sales of goods that were identical or similar to the subject goods exported to Canada. As such, it was not possible to determine normal values pursuant to section 15 of SIMA, using domestic sales of like goods.

[61] Normal values were determined pursuant to paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, as 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. The amount for profits was determined in accordance with subparagraph 11(1)(b)(ii) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR), based on Husteel’s sales of line pipe in their domestic market, during the PAP, within the same general category as the subject goods sold to Canada.

[62] For subject goods exported to Canada by Husteel during the POI, export prices were determined pursuant to section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the exporter’s selling price and the importer’s purchase price, adjusted by deducting therefrom the costs, charges and expenses incurred in preparing the goods for shipment to Canada and resulting from the exportation and shipment of the goods.

[63] The total normal value compared to the total export price results in a margin of dumping of 4.1% for Husteel, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

Hyundai Corporation

[64] Hyundai Corporation is an exporter of subject goods located in the Republic of Korea. Hyundai Corporation is a general trading company that was founded in 1976 and is part of the Hyundai Corporation Group. An on site verification of Hyundai Corporation was conducted in September 2017.^{Footnote 27}

[65] During the POI, Hyundai Corporation purchased all of the subject goods it exported to Canada from an unrelated producer of subject goods located in the Republic of Korea. All of the goods exported to Canada by Hyundai Corporation were sold to a related importer.

[66] Hyundai Corporation provided a substantially complete response to the Dumping RFI.^{Footnote 28} In addition, the company that produced the goods exported to Canada by Hyundai Corporation also provided a response to the Dumping RFI.

[67] Hyundai Corporation did not have any domestic sales of line pipe during the PAP. As such, it was not possible to determine normal values pursuant to section 15 of SIMA, using domestic sales of like goods.

[68] Normal values were determined pursuant to paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, as 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. The amount for profits was determined in accordance with subparagraph 11(1)(b)(iv) of the SIMR, based on sales of line pipe in the domestic market, by producers located in the Republic of Korea, during the PAP, within the same general category as the subject goods sold to Canada. These producers are Husteel and Nexteel.

[69] During the POI, all of the subject goods exported to Canada by Hyundai Corporation were sold to a related importer. Due to the relationship between the two companies, a reliability test was performed to determine whether the section 24 export prices were reliable as envisaged by SIMA. This test was conducted by comparing the section 24 export prices with the section 25 export prices. The amount for profit used for the section 25 calculations was determined in accordance with paragraph 22(a) of the SIMR, based on the profit information relating to vendors that operated at a profit during the POI and are at the same or substantially the same trade level as the importer. The test revealed that the export prices determined in accordance with section 24 of SIMA were unreliable and, therefore, export prices for sales to Hyundai Canada were determined in accordance with section 25 of SIMA.

[70] The total normal value compared to the total export price results in a margin of dumping of 52.5% for Hyundai Corporation, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

Hyundai Steel

[71] Hyundai Steel is a manufacturer and exporter of subject goods located in the Republic of Korea. Hyundai Steel is a member company of the Hyundai Motor Group and is listed on the Korean Stock Exchange. An on-site verification of Hyundai Steel was conducted in September 2017.^{Footnote 29}

[72] Hyundai Steel provided responses to the CBSA’s Dumping RFI^{Footnote 30} and supplementary RFIs.^{Footnote 31} Included in the responses was a database of domestic sales of line pipe. Subsequent to the on-site verification, the CBSA found that Hyundai Steel had omitted certain domestic sales transactions from the domestic sales database. This information was not disclosed by the company and was only provided to the CBSA in response to a specific request in a supplemental RFI. The information was provided to the CBSA well after the deadline for the response to the original RFI and after the CBSA had conducted the on site verification of Hyundai Steel.

[73] Given the lateness of the submission the CBSA was unable to verify the accuracy and/or reliability of the additional domestic sales information. Further, the information that was provided does not contain the cost of production of goods, which is required by the CBSA in order to determine normal values. Specifically, the CBSA requires the cost of production of the goods in order to perform a profitability analysis on Hyundai Steel’s domestic sales database.

[74] As the CBSA did not have the necessary information to conduct the profitability analysis required by SIMA, normal values could not be determined pursuant to section 15 of SIMA based on domestic selling prices of like goods. Furthermore, normal values could not be determined under paragraph 19(b) because a reasonable amount for profits could not be determined under paragraph 11(1)(b) of the SIMR.

[75] Normal values for Hyundai Steel were determined pursuant to subsection 29(1) of SIMA. It was not possible to determine normal values based on the methodology of section 15 of SIMA, as Hyundai Steel had insufficient domestic sales of goods that were identical or similar to the subject goods exported to Canada. Normal values have therefore been based on the methodology of paragraph 19(b) of SIMA. The cost of production of the goods and the amount for administrative, selling and all other costs were calculated using the information provided by Hyundai Steel.

[76] The amount for profits was determined based on the methodology of subparagraph 11(1)(b)(ii) of the SIMR, using domestic sales information provided by Hyundai Steel during the course of the investigation. Where the cost of production of the goods was provided, the CBSA conducted a profitability analysis of Hyundai Steel’s domestic sales transactions as envisaged by SIMA. Where the cost of production of the goods was not provided, the CBSA applied an amount for profit equal to the average of the highest profit amount found for an individual domestic sales transaction by Hyundai Steel, excluding anomalies, during each of six 60 day periods during the PAP. The resulting profit amounts were used to calculate a weighted average amount for profits for Hyundai Steel for the PAP. Based on the facts available, the CBSA considers the above methodology to be a reasonable approach for the purposes of determining an amount for profit for Hyundai Steel.

[77] In calculating the amount for profits used for the purposes of determining normal values for Hyundai Steel, the CBSA used Hyundai Steel’s own information concerning domestic sales of line pipe during the PAP in combination with the calculation for the amount for profits described above. This methodology utilizes information provided to the CBSA by Hyundai Steel but also limits the advantage that an exporter may gain from not providing all necessary information requested in a dumping investigation as compared to an exporter that did provide the necessary information.

[78] For subject goods exported to Canada by Hyundai Steel during the POI, export prices were determined pursuant to section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the exporter’s selling price and the importer’s purchase price, adjusted by deducting the costs, charges and expenses incurred in preparing the goods for shipment to Canada and resulting from the exportation and shipment of the goods.

[79] The total normal value compared to the total export price results in a margin of dumping of 47.8% for Hyundai Steel, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

Nexteel

[80] Nexteel was established in 1990 and is a privately owned manufacturer and exporter of subject goods. The company operates three production facilities in the Republic of Korea and produces various pipe products using the ERW process. All of the subject goods shipped to Canada were produced at the same plant in Pohang. The company headquarters is also located in Pohang. An on-site verification of Nexteel was conducted in September 2017.^{Footnote 32}

[81] Nexteel provided a substantially complete response to the Dumping RFI^{Footnote 33} as well as a supplementary RFI.^{Footnote 34} The responses included a database of domestic sales of line pipe. However, there were insufficient sales of goods that were identical or similar to the subject goods exported to Canada. As such, it was not possible to determine normal values pursuant to section 15 of SIMA, using domestic sales of like goods.

[82] Normal values were determined pursuant to paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, as 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. The amount for profits was determined in accordance with subparagraph 11(1)(b)(ii) of the SIMR, based on Nexteel’s sales of line pipe in their domestic market, during the PAP, within the same general category as the subject goods sold to Canada.

[83] For subject goods exported to Canada by Nexteel during the POI, export prices were determined pursuant to section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the exporter’s selling price and the importer’s purchase price, adjusted by deducting the costs, charges and expenses incurred in preparing the goods for shipment to Canada and resulting from the exportation and shipment of the goods.

[84] The total normal value compared to the total export price results in a margin of dumping of 12.9% for Nexteel, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

SeAH Steel

[85] SeAH Steel is a manufacturer and exporter of subject goods located in the Republic of Korea. SeAH Steel is a member company of the SeAH Steel Group and is listed on the Korean Stock Exchange. All subject goods shipped to Canada during the POI were produced at the same facility, located in Pohang city. The company headquarters is located in Seoul. An on site verification of SeAH Steel was conducted in September 2017.^{Footnote 35}

[86] During the POI SeAH Steel sold subject goods to a related company, Pusan also known as SeAH Steel America, located in the United States who then resold the goods to unrelated customers in Canada. For the majority of sales, Pusan acted as the non-resident importer. For some sales, the unrelated customer in Canada acted as the importer.

[87] SeAH Steel provided a response to the CBSA’s Dumping RFI^{Footnote 36} as well as a supplementary RFI.^{Footnote 37} Included in the responses was a database of domestic sales of line pipe. During the on-site verification, the CBSA found that SeAH Steel had omitted from the domestic sales database sales of goods that were purchased in the domestic market and resold to customers domestically. This information was not disclosed by the company in their responses to the original RFI or the supplementary RFI and the CBSA was unable to verify its accuracy and/or reliability. Further, the information that was provided for these sales does not contain the cost of production of the goods, which is required by the CBSA in order to determine normal values. Specifically, the CBSA requires the cost of production of the goods in order to perform a profitability analysis on SeAH Steel’s domestic sales database.

[88] As the CBSA does not have the necessary information to conduct the profitability analysis required by SIMA, normal values could not be determined pursuant to section 15 of SIMA based on domestic selling prices of like goods. Furthermore, normal values could not be determined under paragraph 19(b) because a reasonable amount for profits could not be determined under paragraph 11(1)(b) of the SIMR.

[89] Normal values for SeAH Steel were determined pursuant to subsection 29(1) of SIMA. It was not possible to determine normal values based on the methodology of section 15 of SIMA, as SeAH Steel had insufficient domestic sales of goods that were identical or similar to the subject goods exported to Canada. Normal values have therefore been based on the methodology of paragraph 19(b) of SIMA. The cost of production of the goods and the amount for administrative, selling and all other costs were calculated using the information provided by SeAH Steel.

[90] The amount for profits was determined based on the methodology of subparagraph 11(1)(b)(ii) of the SIMR, using domestic sales information provided by SeAH Steel during the course of the investigation. Where the cost of production of the goods was provided, the CBSA conducted a profitability analysis of SeAH Steel’s domestic sales transactions as envisaged by SIMA. Where the cost of production of the goods was not provided, the CBSA applied an amount for profit equal to the average of the highest profit amount found for an individual domestic sales transaction by SeAH Steel, excluding anomalies, during each of six 60 day periods during the PAP. The resulting profit amounts were used to calculate a weighted average amount for profits for SeAH Steel for the PAP. Based on the facts available, the CBSA considers the above methodology to be a reasonable approach for the purposes of determining an amount for profits for SeAH Steel.

[91] In calculating the amount for profits used for the purposes of determining normal values for SeAH Steel, the CBSA used SeAH Steel’s own information concerning domestic sales of line pipe during the PAP in combination with the calculation for the amount for profits described above. This methodology utilizes information provided to the CBSA by SeAH Steel but also limits the advantage that an exporter may gain from not providing all necessary information requested in a dumping investigation as compared to an exporter that did provide the necessary information.

[92] During the POI, the majority of SeAH Steel’s exports of subject goods were imported by a related non-resident importer, Pusan. Due to the relationship between SeAH Steel and Pusan, a reliability test was performed on sales where Pusan acted as the importer to determine whether the section 24 export prices were reliable as envisaged by SIMA. This test was conducted by comparing the section 24 export prices with the section 25 export prices. The amount for profit used for the section 25 calculations was determined in accordance with paragraph 22(a) of the SIMR, based on the profit information relating to vendors that operated at a profit during the POI in Canada. The test revealed that the export prices determined in accordance with section 24 of SIMA were unreliable for these sales and, therefore, export prices for sales where Pusan acted as the importer were determined in accordance with section 25 of SIMA.

[93] For the remaining subject goods exported by SeAH Steel which were imported by unrelated customers in Canada during the POI, export prices were determined pursuant to section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the exporter’s selling price and the importer’s purchase price, adjusted by deducting therefrom the costs, charges and expenses incurred in preparing the goods for shipment to Canada and resulting from the exportation and shipment of the goods.

[94] The total normal value compared to the total export price results in a margin of dumping of 27.5% for SeAH Steel, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

All Other Exporters

[95] At the initiation of the investigation, all known and potential exporters were sent a Dumping RFI in order to solicit information required for purposes of determining normal values and export prices of subject goods in accordance with the provisions of SIMA. Exporters who were not the manufacturer of the goods were instructed to forward a copy of the RFI to each of the manufacturers concerned.^{Footnote 38} As such, all exporters and manufacturers were given the opportunity to participate in the investigation. In the RFI, the exporters were notified that failure to submit all required information and documentation, including non-confidential versions, or failure to permit verification of any information, may result in the normal values of the subject goods exported by their company being based on the information available. It was further stated that such a decision may be less favourable to their company than if full and verifiable information were made available.^{Footnote 39}

[96] For all other exporters of subject goods that did not provide a response to the Dumping RFI or did not furnish sufficient information to enable the determination of normal values and export prices under sections 15 to 28 of SIMA, normal values and export prices were determined pursuant to a Ministerial specification under subsection 29(1) of SIMA.

[97] In establishing the methodology for determining normal values and export price under the Ministerial specification, the CBSA analyzed all the information on the administrative record including the complaint filed by the domestic industry, the CBSA’s margin of dumping estimate at the initiation of the investigation and other information submitted by exporters of certain carbon and alloy steel line pipe originating in or exported from the Republic of Korea.

[98] The CBSA decided that the normal values and export prices determined for the exporters whose information was verified and substantially complete for the final determination, rather than the information provided in the complaint or estimated at initiation, would be used to establish the methodology for determining normal values for all other exporters in the Republic of Korea since it reflects exporters’ actual trading practices during the POI.

[99] The CBSA considered that the highest amount by which the normal value exceeded the export price on an individual transaction during the POI, from those exporters, was an appropriate basis for determining normal values. In this case, a transactions from Hyundai Corporation. The transactions were also examined to ensure that no anomalies were considered, however, no such anomalies were identified.

[100] This methodology relies on information related to goods that were exported from and originated in the Republic of Korea and limits the advantage that an exporter may gain from not providing the necessary information requested in a dumping investigation as compared to an exporter that did provide the necessary information.

[101] Therefore, 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 88.1% of that export price.

[102] The CBSA considered that the information submitted on the CBSA customs entry documentation was the best information on which to determine the export price of the goods for all other exporters as it reflects actual import data.

[103] Based on the above methodologies, the subject goods exported to Canada by all other exporters were found to be dumped by a margin of dumping of 88.1%, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

[104] A summary of the margins of dumping by exporter respecting all subject goods released into Canada during the POI are as follows:

[105] Under paragraph 41(1)(a) of SIMA, the CBSA shall terminate the dumping investigation in respect of the goods of an exporter if the CBSA is satisfied that there has been no dumping or the margin of dumping of those goods is insignificant. Pursuant to subsection 2(1) of SIMA, a margin of dumping of less that 2% of the export price of the goods is defined as insignificant.

[106] As can be seen from the above table, the goods under investigation have been dumped and the margins of dumping determined for those goods are greater than the threshold of 2% and are therefore not considered insignificant. As a result, the legislative requirement is satisfied for making a final determination of dumping respecting certain carbon and alloy steel line pipe originating in or exported from the Republic of Korea.