OCTG4 2021 IN: Oil country tubular goods
Statement of Reasons—Initiation of an investigation

Decision

Ottawa, July 22, 2021

Pursuant to subsection 31(1) of the Special Import Measures Act, the Canada Border Services Agency initiated an investigation on July 7, 2021, respecting the alleged injurious dumping of certain oil country tubular goods originating in or exported from Austria.

Summary

[1] On May 17, 2021, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) received a written complaint from Algoma Tubes Inc. (Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario), Prudential Steel ULC (Calgary, Alberta), Tenaris Global Services (Canada) Inc. (Calgary, Alberta) and Hydril Canadian Company LP (Nisku, Alberta), hereinafter “Tenaris Canada” or the Complainant, alleging that imports of certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) originating in or exported from Austria are being dumped. The Complainant also alleged that the dumping has caused injury and is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian producers of OCTG.

[2] On June 7, 2021, pursuant to paragraph 32(1)(a) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), the CBSA informed the Complainant that the complaint was properly documented. The CBSA also notified the Government of Austria that a properly documented complaint had been received.

[3] The Complainant provided evidence to support the allegations that certain OCTG from Austria has been dumped. The evidence also discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping has caused injury and is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry producing like goods.

[4] On July 7, 2021, pursuant to subsection 31(1) of SIMA, the CBSA initiated an investigation respecting the dumping of certain OCTG from Austria.

Interested parties

Product information

Like goods and class of goods

[36] 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 any identical goods, goods the uses and other characteristics of which closely resemble those of the other goods.

[37] In considering the issue of like goods, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) typically looks at a number of factors, including the physical characteristics of the goods, their market characteristics, and whether the domestic goods fulfill the same customer needs as the subject goods.

[38] As noted in the complaint, the CITT has consistently determined that welded and seamless OCTG are like goods, and that OCTG of different grades are not separate classes of goods.^{Footnote 13} Welded and seamless OCTG have similar characteristics and generally compete with one another in the domestic market.

[39] OCTG casing and tubing are made to the same minimum API 5CT specifications and/or to proprietary equivalent/enhanced specifications, and are both used in down hole well applications. Casing and tubing are produced on the same equipment and have the same channels of distribution.

[40] Although the goods produced by the Canadian industry may or may not be considered identical in all respects to the subject goods, the CBSA has concluded that the Canadian goods closely resemble the subject goods. Further, after reviewing the physical characteristics of the goods, the end-uses and all other relevant factors, the CBSA is of the opinion that the subject goods constitute only one class of goods.

The Canadian industry

[41] The domestic industry is comprised of three producers as follows:

[42] Tenaris Canada, which is divided into production facilities: Algoma (Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario) and Hydril (Nisku, Alberta). Prudential was also part of the Tenaris Canada group of companies until it was closed in August 2020.^{Footnote 14}

[43] Evraz Inc. NA Canada (Evraz), which operates ERW OCTG manufacturing facilities in Regina, Saskatchewan; and in Calgary, Camrose and Red Deer, Alberta. The Evraz North America group of companies also owns Canadian National Steel Corporation, which operates an ERW OCTG manufacturing facility in Camrose, Alberta.

[44] Welded Tube of Canada (WTC) operates an ERW OCTG manufacturing facility in Concord, Ontario, as well as a heat-treatment and threading facility in Welland, Ontario and a threading facility in Port Colborne, Ontario. WTC also imports welded green tubes from its production facility in Lackawanna, New York for finishing in Canada.^{Footnote 15}

Canadian market

[48] The Complainant estimated the Canadian domestic market by supplementing their own internal sales information with both public and protected sources for their estimates of domestic sales from domestic production of the other Canadian producers.^{Footnote 16}

[49] The Complainant’s estimated import volumes are based primarily on Statistics Canada import data^{Footnote 17} and refined customs data^{Footnote 18}. Data for the United States involved several sources, in order to estimate the net imports from the United States. This effort was to more accurately reflect the OCTG imports that stay in the Canadian market, given that much of what is imported from the United States is subsequently re-exported to the United States upon finishing.^{Footnote 19}

[50] The CBSA conducted its own independent review of the import data from the CBSA’s customs database for goods imported between January 2018 and March 31, 2021. The CBSA made adjustments to customs import data obtained through FIRM to correct errors and to remove non-subject imports from the database.^{Footnote 20} In addition, the CBSA also reviewed goods description reports generated from the Accelerated Commercial Release Operations Support System (ACROSS) database for goods imported between January 2020 and March 31, 2021.

[51] The table below summarizes the CBSA’s estimate of imports:

[52] Detailed information regarding the volume and value of imports of OCTG and domestic production cannot be divulged for confidentiality reasons. The CBSA, however, has prepared the following table to show the estimated import share of subject goods in Canada as well as the Canadian market as a whole.

[53] The CBSA will continue to gather and analyze information and refine these estimates on the volume of imports during the period of investigation (POI) of May 1, 2020 to April 30, 2021, as part of the preliminary phase of the dumping investigation.

Evidence of dumping

[54] The Complainant alleged that the subject goods from Austria have been injuriously dumped into Canada. Dumping occurs when the normal value of the goods exceeds the export price to importers in Canada.

[55] Normal values are generally based on the domestic selling price of like goods in the source of export where competitive market conditions exist or as the aggregate of the cost of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for general selling and administrative expenses, (GS&A), and other costs and a reasonable amount for profits. .

[56] The export price of goods sold to importers in Canada is generally the lesser of the exporter’s selling price and the importer’s purchase price, less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

[57] Estimates of normal values and export prices by both the Complainant and the CBSA are discussed below.

Evidence of injury

[81] The Complainant alleged that the goods from Austria have been dumped, and that the dumping has caused and is threatening to cause material injury to the domestic industry in Canada.

[82] SIMA refers to material injury caused to the domestic producers of like goods in Canada. The CBSA has concluded that OCTG produced by the domestic industry are like goods to the subject goods from Austria.

[83] The Complainant relied significantly on its internal market intelligence in documenting injury it links to allegedly dumped subject imports. This is in part due to the fact that the other two Canadian producers, Evraz and WTC, declined to express an opinion either in favour of or against the filing of the complaint and as such, did not provide any evidence in respect of the allegations of dumping or injury.

[84] The Complainant alleged that dumped subject goods have gained market share at the expense of Tenaris Canada^{Footnote 39} and have caused price depression, suppression and erosion, which resulted in lost sales and substantial declines in financial performance of the Complainant’s production of like goods in Canada.^{Footnote 40} The Complainant also argued that the impact of the alleged dumped subject goods has been felt in a decline in employment and return on investments.^{Footnote 41}

Major proportion

[85] A condition that must be satisfied prior to initiation of an investigation is that there must be a reasonable indication that the dumping or subsidizing is causing injury to the domestic industry. Domestic industry is defined in subsection 2(1) of SIMA. Part of that definition refers to “domestic producers whose collective production of the like goods constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the like goods...”

[86] Although the term “major proportion” is not defined in either SIMA or the WTO Agreements, the CBSA has, for some time, been equating a “major proportion” with at least a 25 to 30% figure in mind. That is, in practice, it was required that the complaint contain evidence of injury to 25 to 30% of Canadian production. Therefore, the 25% rule required for standing, in most cases, will be satisfied as part of the focus on major proportion.^{Footnote 42}

[87] As per the estimated table of production in Canada below, Tenaris Canada accounts for well over 30% of the production of like goods in Canada. As such, Tenaris Canada alone satisfies the condition of subsection 2(1) of SIMA, as they account for more than enough production to be considered a major proportion of the like goods in Canada.

[88] The Complainant estimated the production of OCTG in Canada as follows:

Domestic and global OCTG market sensitivity

[89] The Complainant cited the sensitivity of OCTG pricing in Canada within the context of domestic and world developments that have affected the oil and gas sector in the last 18 months. This primarily relates to two global events: the pandemic and the oil price crash.^{Footnote 43}

[90] These developments had a devastating ripple effect, which includes the OCTG market in Canada. The CBSA’s estimates indicate a decline of 49% by volume in 2020 over 2019. This follows an already large decline of 33% in 2019 relative to 2018. As such, the cumulative decline in the apparent Canadian OCTG market from 2018 to 2020 was 66%.

[91] The Complainant summarized the issue in stating that the “market downturn has lead [sic] to increased price sensitivity which subject exporters have exploited. Further, in the context of lower total revenue, every lost sale, and lost dollar of profit, counts that much more.”^{Footnote 44}

[92] Expectations for the coming year forecast improvements in both the price of oil and the number of drilled wells, which should increase the demand for OCTG. “For 2021, the Petroleum Services Association of Canada (“PSAC”) expects a total of 3,600 wells to be drilled in Canada, representing a slight increase of 250 wells from its January 2021 forecast.”^{Footnote 45}

[93] The Complainant also identified the 25% tariffs on steel imposed by the United States under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which came into effect on June 1, 2018 as creating a diversionary effect on OCTG that would otherwise be destined for the United States. According to data provided by the Complainant, Austria’s exports of OCTG to the United States have declined dramatically since the imposition of those measures:^{Footnote 46}

[94] The export orientation of Austria with respect to its OCTG sales, the size of the Canadian market (4th largest in the world) and Canada’s proximity to the United States make this development a going concern for the Complainant. The contracted Canadian market demand and economic market downturn results in an exacerbated effect of injury for each lost sale to a dumped import as there are simply fewer sales to be made than there were just two years ago.

Increase in Subject Imports Share of the Market

[95] Subject imports from Austria have in fact declined in terms of absolute volumes during the period of 2018—2020. As such, although the Complainant referred to the “the rising volumes of low priced subject imports,” the Complainant has focused on the increased relative share that subject imports from Austria have had over that period, rather than the absolute volumes.^{Footnote 47}

[96] The Complainant stated that “Subject Goods have been imported in significant, and increasing, volumes relative to domestic production and consumption and more than doubled their market share by volume between 2018 and 2020, all in a shrinking Canadian market for OCTG.”^{Footnote 48}

[97] The CBSA’s Canadian market estimate in Table 2 indicates that while absolute volumes have declined substantially, Austrian subject goods have gained market share, going from 7.8% in 2018 to 8.2% in 2019 and 8.6% in 2020. Over the same period, Tenaris Canada’s market share went from 24.2% in 2018 to 25.8% in 2019 to 38.0% in 2020.

[98] The Complainant alleged that the subject goods gained market share via dumping, and have thus displaced sales that Tenaris Canada could otherwise have made, and as such, they have lost market share to the dumped goods. They further emphasized that with the Canadian market shrinking, these “additional volumes would have been important to offset fixed costs as is so important in Tenaris Canada’s capital-intensive operation.”^{Footnote 49}

[99] The Complainant also noted the shift in product mix for subject goods, particularly from 2018 to the end of 2019, where “a larger proportion of high-end Subject Goods began to enter the Canadian market. This shift towards a larger proportion of high-end products increases the Subject Goods’ export prices on average, masking the increasingly aggressive dumping which is occurring.”^{Footnote 50}

[100] The CBSA’s analysis of imports from Austria confirmed that given the grades and specifications of the goods exported from Austria, it is reasonable to suggest that these exports from Austria directly compete with like goods produced by Tenaris Canada.

[101] Based on the above and the CBSA’s analysis of the evidence contained in the complaint, the CBSA is of the opinion that the evidence reasonably demonstrates that notwithstanding their growth in market share during the period of review, the Complainant’s market share has been suppressed, and thus can, in part, be reasonably linked to the imports of the allegedly dumped subject goods.

Price depression and suppression

[102] The Complainant cited previous statements from the CITT which has “recognized in other cases, small volumes of imports, and even offers of imports, at low prices can cause substantial declines in prices.”^{Footnote 51}

[103] Following this, the Complainant provided evidence and analysis to demonstrate that declining subject goods prices have depressed prices of domestically produced goods.^{Footnote 52} This was illustrated in particular with respect to particular grades and specifications of OCTG. The Complainant also alleged that price depression has a spillover effect from more sophisticated goods to lower-end goods:

[104] The Complainant provided little evidence in regards to price suppression but did provide allegations of large cost increases which they could not raise prices to offset due to the alleged dumped subject goods.^{Footnote 54}

[105] The CBSA noted that while there was a mention of cost increases, no reference was provided to indicate what the source of those increases were nor was any data provided to demonstrate the cost increases they were experiencing. Furthermore, evidence on the record indicates that raw material (billet) costs decreased substantially through most of 2020 relative to 2019.^{Footnote 55}

[106] As such, the dramatic decline in the size of the Canadian market and the decrease in raw material input costs likely had a significant impact on the Complainant’s inability to increase prices during the more recent period of investigation.

[107] The Complainant, in fact, acknowledged that “the downturn in recent Canadian drilling activity has shrunk the demand for OCTG in Canada…This has negatively effected [sic] Canadian domestic producers because available sales volumes have naturally decreased.”^{Footnote 56}

[108] Consequently, while the CBSA agrees that some of the price depression experienced by the Complainant can be reasonably attributed to the competition from allegedly dumped subject goods, the dramatic decline in the size of the Canadian market and corresponding decline in the demand for OCTG in Canada represent significant factors contributing to the downward pressure on domestic OCTG prices as well.

Lost sales, price erosion

[109] The Complainant provided eight account specific allegations to support its allegation that dumped subject goods have eroded their selling prices in Canada and have caused Tenaris Canada to lose sales of like goods in Canada.^{Footnote 57} Due to the confidential nature of account specific allegations, details cannot be disclosed in this public Statement of Reasons.

[110] The Complainant also stated that much of their market intelligence is not reported to them in hard copy or written communication and that “sometimes domestic producers are able to get some verbal information about competitor pricing. Such information might come through a telephone call, coffee meeting or lunch with a friendly customer representative.”^{Footnote 58} This information forms part of the allegations of price erosion and lost sales made by the Complainant.

[111] Tenaris Canada also emphasized that each of the allegations of lost sales relate to goods that would be made in Canada. They further stated that:

[112] Given the decline in the Canadian market in 2020, it is difficult to discern the price impact of the alleged dumping from that of the market decline. However, the information provided by the Complainant is that they were told Austrian products were depressing pricing. Given the prices reported by Tenaris Canada, it appears that competing prices sourced from Austria in 2020 for certain high-volume grades would have had to be dumped, given the CBSA’s estimated normal values and considerations for freight and distributor profit.^{Footnote 60}

[113] The CBSA is of the opinion that while many of the account specific allegations of lost sales and price erosion cannot be directly tied to the same products exported from Austria, the accumulation of the allegations provides reasonable evidence that the Complainant faces price undercutting from subject goods on a range of OCTG grades, such as to have an indirect, eroding effect on Tenaris Canada’s overall OCTG pricing in Canada.

[114] The CBSA is also of the opinion that it is reasonable to believe based on the details provided in the account specific allegations that Tenaris Canada has faced direct price erosion and lost sales specifically on key grades of OCTG known to be exported from Austria.

Negative impact on financial performance

[115] According to the Complainant, the allegedly dumped subject imports have negatively impacted their financial performance. They claimed the domestic industry is facing unsustainable gross margins and profit margins which can be attributed to the Complainant having lowered their prices in order to compete with the allegedly dumped subject imports.^{Footnote 61}

[116] The Complainant stated that the injury intensified as subject imports then forced Tenaris Canada’s selling price down significantly in 2020 compared to 2018, despite the significant increase in cost of goods sold.^{Footnote 62}

[117] The Complainant also acknowledged that their lower volumes of production contribute to their increased costs, which subsequently contributed to their declining gross margins. This is due to the producer’s fixed costs being allocated over a smaller volume of production.^{Footnote 63}

[118] Tenaris Canada argued that in the absence of dumping, this price decline would not have occurred and their estimation is that they would have had a better financial performance.^{Footnote 64}

[119] Based on the above and the CBSA’s analysis of the evidence contained in the complaint, the CBSA is of the opinion that the Complainant’s evidence reasonably demonstrates that the imports of the allegedly dumped subject goods, which have undercut the domestic industries prices, contributing to depression and erosion of those prices and caused the domestic industry to lose sales, have subsequently had a negative impact on the Complainant’s financial results.

Negative impact on employment^{Footnote 65}

[120] The Complainant stated that the negative impacts on financial performance experienced as a result of the importation of allegedly dumped subject goods, addressed in the previous section, have significantly impacted their ability to maintain optimal levels of employment.

[121] The Complainant provided information regarding their losses on employment in the production of OCTG, based on the average number of employees per calendar year.^{Footnote 66}

[122] The Complainant stated that: “Given the decline in the overall market, there would likely have been some decline in employment from 2018 to 2020.”^{Footnote 67} However, the Complainant contended that in absence of dumping, its employment levels would have been higher.

[123] The CBSA notes that Tenaris Canada’s employment decline was not disproportional to what would be expected, when taking the CBSA’s estimated contraction in the apparent Canadian market into consideration. Other mitigating factors including the closure of Prudential and the shortfalls in raw materials at the Canadian production facilities all led to declines in employment as well.^{Footnote 68}

[124] Based on the above and the evidence contained in the complaint, the CBSA is of the opinion that the Complainant’s evidence is inconclusive in terms of the impact the alleged dumped goods have had on employment, in recognition of the significant mitigating factors which include the decline in the Canadian market, moving production at Prudential to Algoma, which resulted in a prolonged shutdown of employment related to the Prudential facility and continued substantial volumes of OCTG Tenaris Canada imported from Mexico, some of which could have been produced in Canada.^{Footnote 69}

Negative impact on the return on investments^{Footnote 70}

[125] The Complainant stated their commitment to make investments in their Canadian operations and alleged dumped subject goods have delayed the return on those investments.

[126] Tenaris Canada stated that these planned investments will cost about $36 million. Tenaris Canada began these projects in July 2019. They cited the alleged dumping of subject goods as a reason the investments did not start earlier, such as in 2018. They stated these investments would have created jobs, injected funds into the community and expanded Tenaris Canada’s production capabilities.^{Footnote 71}

[127] The investments were announced in 2019 in spite of the alleged dumped goods and only as a result of Strategic Innovation Fund contribution from the Federal government. Despite government support, Tenaris Canada expects that returns on its investments in progress will be much lower (or even non-existent) as a result of the alleged injurious dumping of subject goods.^{Footnote 72}

[128] The Complainant also stated that future investment plans are being proposed to replace even more imports for a variety of products by increasing capacity and product scope but are contingent upon fair competition in the Canadian OCTG market.^{Footnote 73}

[129] Based on the above and the evidence contained in the complaint, the CBSA is of the opinion that the evidence reasonably demonstrates that the Complainant’s ability to achieve a reasonable rate of return on investments and make further investments in production capacity and production capabilities has been negatively impacted due to poorer financial performance which is in part due to the imports of the allegedly dumped subject goods.

Threat of injury

[133] The Complainant alleged that the dumped goods threaten to cause further material injury to the domestic producers of OCTG. The Complainant provided the following information to support the allegation.^{Footnote 76}

Likely increase in subject imports

[134] The Complainant cited the export orientation of Voest in Austria, which is likely to continue increasing subject goods volumes destined for Canada given their lower OCTG capacity utilization and demand.^{Footnote 77} The Complainant stated that since the OCTG industry in Austria is operating at unsustainably low levels of capacity utilization, they are actively trying to increase utilization, including the increase of OCTG exports to Canada, one of the largest OCTG markets in the world.^{Footnote 78}

[135] The Complainant added that:

[136] It was also noted that Austria’s share of the Canadian market has been increasing and not insignificant, and with the expected improvement in drilling in Canada in 2021, the Canadian market will be an attractive location for their OCTG.

Continued price sensitivity

[137] The Complainant stated that the trend of reduced demand for OCTG will likely continue “over the short and medium-term due to a slowing global economy. The price sensitivity of OCTG purchasers arising from these and other conditions has favoured and will continue to favour dumped imports as they are the price leader for many products, and allowed Subject Goods to grow in market share.”^{Footnote 81}

[138] The Complainant added that the “uncertainty and volatility regarding oil prices” has also led to caution in purchasing OCTG, and the caution makes the least expensive purchase option more attractive. Although they conceded that OCTG demand is likely to increase, they alleged that the dumping of subject goods threatens to keep prices low and diminish the benefits that Tenaris Canada may receive from a recovery in demand recovery.^{Footnote 82}

Causal link—dumping and injury/threat of injury

[140] The CBSA finds that the Complainant has reasonably linked the injury they have suffered to the alleged dumping of subject goods imported into Canada. The injury includes a substantial increase in subject imports; lost sales and price erosion; as well as negative impacts on financial performance and return on investments.

[141] The CBSA also finds that the Complainant has provided sufficient evidence to support a reasonable indication that the continued alleged dumping of the subject goods threatens to cause further injury in the future.

Conclusion

[142] Based on information provided in the complaint, other available information, and the CBSA’s import documentation, the CBSA is of the opinion that there is evidence that OCTG originating in or exported from Austria have been dumped. Further, there is a reasonable indication that such dumping has caused and is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry. As a result, pursuant to subsection 31(1) of SIMA, a dumping investigation was initiated on July 7, 2021.

Scope of the investigation

[143] The CBSA is conducting an investigation to determine whether the subject goods have been dumped.

[144] The CBSA has requested information from all potential exporters and importers to determine whether or not subject goods imported into Canada during the POI of May 1, 2020 to April 30, 2021, were dumped. The information requested will be used to determine the normal values, export prices and margins of dumping, if any.

[145] All parties have been clearly advised of the CBSA’s information requirements and the time frames for providing their responses.

Future action

[146] The CITT will conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the evidence discloses a reasonable indication that the alleged dumping of the goods has caused or is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry. The CITT must make its decision on or before the 60th day after the date of the initiation of the investigation. If the CITT concludes that the evidence does not disclose a reasonable indication of injury to the Canadian industry, the investigation will be terminated.

[147] If the CITT finds that the evidence discloses a reasonable indication of injury to the Canadian industry and the CBSA’s preliminary investigation reveal that the goods have been dumped, the CBSA will make a preliminary determination of dumping within 90 days after the date of the initiation of the investigation, by October 5, 2021. Where circumstances warrant, this period may be extended to 135 days from the date of the initiation of the investigation.

[148] Under section 35 of SIMA, if, at any time before making a preliminary determination, the CBSA is satisfied that the volume of goods of a country is negligible, the investigation will be terminated with respect to goods of that country.

[149] Imports of subject goods released by the CBSA on and after the date of a preliminary determination of dumping, other than goods of the same description as goods in respect of which a determination was made that the margin of dumping of the goods is insignificant, may be subject to provisional duty in an amount not greater than the estimated margin of dumping on the imported goods.

[150] Should the CBSA make a preliminary determination of dumping, the investigation will be continued for the purpose of making a final decision within 90 days after the date of the preliminary determination.

[151] After the preliminary determination, if, in respect of goods of a particular exporter, the CBSA’s investigation reveal that imports of the subject goods from that exporter have not been dumped, or that the margin of dumping is insignificant, the investigation will be terminated in respect of those goods.

[152] If a final determination of dumping is made, the CITT will continue its inquiry and hold public hearings into the question of material injury to the Canadian industry. The CITT is required to make a finding with respect to the goods to which the final determination of dumping applies, not later than 120 days after the CBSA’s preliminary determination.

[153] In the event of an injury finding by the CITT, imports of subject goods released by the CBSA after that date will be subject to anti-dumping duty equal to the applicable margin of dumping on the imported goods.

Retroactive duty on massive importations

[154] When the CITT conducts an inquiry concerning injury to the Canadian industry, it may consider if dumped goods that were imported close to or after the initiation of an investigation constitute massive importations over a relatively short period of time and have caused injury to the Canadian industry.

[155] Should the CITT issue such a finding, anti-dumping duties may be imposed retroactively on subject goods imported into Canada and released by the CBSA during the period of 90 days preceding the day of the CBSA making a preliminary determination of dumping.

Undertakings

[156] After a preliminary determination of dumping by the CBSA, other than a preliminary determination in which a determination was made that the margin of dumping of the goods is insignificant, an exporter may submit a written undertaking to revise selling prices to Canada so that the margin of dumping or the injury caused by the dumping is eliminated.

[157] An acceptable undertaking must account for all or substantially all of the exports to Canada of the dumped goods. Interested parties may provide comments regarding the acceptability of undertakings within nine days of the receipt of an undertaking by the CBSA. The CBSA will maintain a list of parties who wish to be notified should an undertaking proposal be received. Those who are interested in being notified should provide their name, telephone and fax numbers, mailing address and e-mail address to one of the officers identified in the “Information” section of this document.

[158] If undertakings were to be accepted, the investigation and the collection of provisional duties would be suspended. Notwithstanding the acceptance of an undertaking, an exporter may request that the CBSA’s investigation be completed and that the CITT complete its injury inquiry.

Publication

[159] Notice of the initiation of this investigation is being published in the Canada Gazette pursuant to subparagraph 34(1)(a)(ii) of SIMA.

Information

[160] Interested parties are invited to file written submissions presenting facts, arguments, and evidence that they feel are relevant to the alleged dumping. Written submissions should be forwarded to the attention of the SIMA Registry and Disclosure Unit.

[161] To be given consideration in this investigation, all information should be received by the CBSA by November 10, 2021.

[162] Any information submitted to the CBSA by interested parties concerning this investigation is considered to be public information unless clearly marked “confidential”. Where the submission by an interested party is confidential, a non-confidential version of the submission must be provided at the same time. This non-confidential version will be made available to other interested parties upon request.

[163] Confidential information submitted to the CBSA will be disclosed on written request to independent counsel for parties to these proceedings, subject to conditions to protect the confidentiality of the information. Confidential information may also be released to the CITT, any court in Canada, or a WTO or Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) dispute settlement panel. Additional information respecting the CBSA’s policy on the disclosure of information under SIMA may be obtained by contacting the SIMA Registry and Disclosure Unit or by visiting the CBSA’s website.

[164] The schedule of the investigation and a complete listing of all exhibits and information are available. The exhibit listing will be updated as new exhibits and information are made available.

[165] This Statement of Reasons is available through the CBSA’s website at the address below. For further information, please contact the officers identified as follows:

SIMA Registry and Disclosure Unit
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate
Canada Border Services Agency
11-100 Metcalfe St
Ottawa ON  K1A 0L8

• Telephone:
• Andrew Manera: 343-553-1868
• Andy Fei: 343-553-1866

Email: simaregistry-depotlmsi@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca

Doug Band
Director General
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate