PETR 2017 IN
Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin
Statement of Reasons

[7] The Complainant accounts for all of the production of like goods in Canada.

[8] The contact information of the Complainant is as follows:

Compagnie Selenis Canada
3498 Broadway
Montreal East, Quebec H1B 5B4

[9] The Complainant’s PET resin production facility in Montreal, QC was first built in 2004 by a joint venture of Shell International, B.V. and Societe generate de financement (now Investissement Quebec) as a poly trimethylene terephthalate (PTT) plant.^{Footnote 1} At the time, the company was named PTT Poly Canada. The facility was converted to PET resin production in 2010 by Control PET, S.A. (Control PET), a subsidiary of IMO Group, after this company purchased the company in 2009 and changed the name to Selenis Canada Inc. The facility began producing PET resin in May, 2011, becoming the only virgin PET production facility in Canada. On August 1, 2016, DAK Americas LLC (DAK) completed a transaction with Control PET to acquire a controlling interest in Selenis Canada’s operations. DAK is a wholly owned subsidiary of Alfa S.A.B. of Mexico. With DAK’s acquisition of a controlling interest, the company officially changed its name to Compagnie Selenis Canada.^{Footnote 2}

[10] The CBSA identified 19 potential exporters of the subject goods from CBSA import documentation and from information submitted in the complaint. All of the potential exporters were asked to respond to the CBSA’s Exporter Dumping Request for Information (RFI) and to the CBSA’s Exporter Subsidy RFI.

[11] The CBSA identified 31 potential importers of the subject goods from CBSA import documentation and from information submitted in the complaint. All of the potential importers were asked to respond to the CBSA’s Importer RFI.

[12] Upon initiation of the investigations, the governments of China, India, Oman and Pakistan were sent the CBSA’s Government Subsidy RFI requesting information concerning the alleged subsidy programs available to producers/exporters of subject goods located in each of their respective countries.

[13] For the purposes of these investigations, “Government of China (GOC)”, “Government of India (GOI)”, “Government of Oman (GOO)”, and “Government of Pakistan (GOP)” refer to all levels of government, i.e., federal, central, provincial/state, regional, municipal, city, township, village, local, legislative, administrative or judicial, singular, collective, elected or appointed. It also includes any person, agency, enterprise, or institution acting for, on behalf of, or under the authority of, or under the authority of any law passed by, the government of that country or that provincial, state or municipal or other local or regional government.

[14] For the purpose of these investigations, subject goods are defined as:

Polyethylene terephthalate ("PET") resin having an intrinsic viscosity of at least 0.70 deciliters per gram but not more than 0.88 deciliters per gram, including PET resin that contains various additives introduced in the manufacturing process, as well as blends of virgin PET resin and recycled PET containing 50 percent or more virgin PET resin content by weight, originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of India, the Sultanate of Oman and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

[15] Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is a clear, strong and lightweight plastic belonging to the polyester family. PET is typically called polyester when used for fibers or fabrics and PET or PET resin when used for bottles, jars, containers and packaging applications.

[16] One of the most important characteristics of PET is referred to as intrinsic viscosity (IV). The IV of the material is measured in decilitres per gram (dl/g) and it is a measure of the polymer’s molecular chain length and molecular weight.

[17] PET resin may contain some recycled material, although PET resin for packaging end uses (i.e. meeting the product definition parameters of 0.70 to 0.88 IV) is generally limited to a recycled content of 20%, and in any case, would not exceed a recycled content of 50%, which is a threshold included in the product definition.

[18] The production of PET begins by mixing monoethylene glycol (MEG) and purified terephthalic acid (PTA) at ambient temperatures to form a slurry. PTA is the preferred feedstock for production but dimethyl terephthalate (DMT) can be used in some facilities that use older production technologies. It is more economical to produce most grades of PET polymer from PTA than from DMT. For that reason, DMT is generally not used for production of commodity PET resin.

[19] There are varying qualities of terephthalic acid (TPA) but the preferred one is PTA, which is the one marketed to PET resin producers. PET resin lines can use qualities of TPA other than PTA, but if non purified forms of TPA are used in PET resin manufacturing then the producers must do additional in line chemical processing to accommodate the lower quality raw material.

[20] PTA, TPA and DMT are all produced using paraxylene, a petrochemical. MEG is produced from ethylene, which is also a petrochemical. PET resin is roughly 65% PTA or TPA, 25% MEG and 10% co monomers, basic additives and functional additives.

[21] Typical co monomers are Diethylene Glycol (“DEG”), which is a by product of the MEG monomer during polymerization; Purified Isophthalic Acid (“PIA” or “IPA”); and CycloHexaneDiMethanol (“CHDM”).

[22] Basic additives include catalysts for chemical reaction (Sb, Co, Ti, Ge). Organic toners and/or Cobalt are added to improve color. Thermal stabilizers (phosphoric/phosphorous acid) minimize yellowing during polymerization and re-melting into containers.

[23] Functional additives include infrared (“IR”) absorbers (carbon black or graphite, sequestered antimony), molecular chain extenders and slip and anti blocking agents for friction reduction on preform and bottle surfaces.

[24] The slurry is heated through an esterification process to 290° centigrade and reacts to form a monomer. Additives and catalysts are added to the monomer to provide reheat and color characteristics for the final product. The monomer is then heated under vacuum in a polymerization process, and certain gases are exhausted. The resulting polymer is quenched in water and cut into chips, known as amorphous PET (“AMPET”). AMPET has a short polymer chain length and a low IV, generally 0.50 to 0.65.

[25] The AMPET chips are then subjected to a solid-state polymerization (“SSP”) treatment. To make PET resin, the AMPET chips are baked during the SSP treatment in large cylindrical reaction towers. In the towers, the AMPET chips flow through an oxygen-free, nitrogen-gas atmosphere at above 200°C temperatures for a period of 18 24 hours, known as the crystallization and annealing process. After the baking is completed, the PET resin pellets exit the bottom of the reaction tower and undergo air cooling in a closed circuit heat exchanger prior to storage for transport by rail or truck. The SSP treatment increases the intrinsic viscosity of the AMPET pellet to the level as defined by the scope of this complaint. This process also removes Acetaldehyde.

[26] PET resin must be protected from moisture and contamination during transport. Both imported and exported products are typically shipped offshore in sealed, one metric ton poly bags (super sacks) within large metal shipping containers. Imported products may be removed from the containers and temporarily stored in order to have some local inventory and save on demurrage. Both imported and domestically-produced PET resin may be shipped bulk inland on truck beds or in specially lined railcars in lots of 50,000 or 200,000 pounds.

[27] The subject goods are typically used in the production of plastic beverage bottles, in packaging for food and manufactured products, in containers for household and automotive products, and in industrial strapping. The most common use for PET resin containers is to package carbonated soft drinks and bottled water.

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

• 3907.60.00.10
• 3907.60.00.90

[29] The subject goods are normally imported under the following tariff codes:

• 3907.61.00.00
• 3907.69.00.10
• 3907.69.00.90

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

[34] Subsection 31(2) of SIMA requires that the following conditions for standing be met in order to initiate an investigation:

1. the complaint is supported by domestic producers whose production represents more than 50% of the total production of like goods by those domestic producers who express either support for or opposition to the complaint; and
2. the production of the domestic producers who support the complaint represents 25% or more of the total production of like goods by the domestic industry.

[35] Since the Complainant is the only known producer of certain PET resin in Canada, the CBSA is satisfied that the standing requirements pursuant to subsection 31(2) of SIMA have been met.

[36] As mentioned above, the Complainant is the only Canadian producer of certain PET resin.

[37] The CBSA conducted its analysis of imports of the goods based on actual import documentation and based on commercial intelligence provided in the complaint. The CBSA findings supported the trend detailed by the Complainant.

[38] Detailed information regarding the volume and value of imports of certain PET resin and domestic production cannot be divulged for confidentiality reasons. The CBSA, however, has prepared the following tables to show the import share of certain PET resin in Canada in addition to the share of the Canadian apparent market, as estimated by the CBSA.

Table 1

CBSA’s Estimate of Import Share (Based on Volume)

Country	2014	2015	2016	January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017	April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017 (Period of Investigation)
China	25.0%	13.5%	15.9%	9.4%	11.0%
India	4.9%	4.2%	3.8%	21.2%	7.8%
Oman	8.6%	15.2%	12.1%	3.6%	12.3%
Pakistan	1.5%	7.6%	19.1%	28.0%	25.4%
Turkey	0.2%	3.3%	3.8%	1.9%	2.1%
Total Imports from Named Countries	40.0%	40.5%	50.9%	64.1%	56.5%
United States	56.4%	49.2%	41.1%	32.3%	36.4%
Other Countries	3.5%	6.9%	4.3%	3.6%	5.0%
Total Imports	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

*Some percent totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Table 2

CBSA’s Estimate of the Apparent Canadian Market (Based on Volume)

	2014	2015	2016	January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017	April 2016 to March 2017 (POI)
Domestic Industry	31.6%	29.4%	24.4%	44.0%	29.6%
Imports from Named Countries
China	17.1%	9.5%	12.0%	5.3%	7.8%
India	3.3%	3.0%	2.9%	11.9%	5.5%
Oman	5.9%	10.7%	9.1%	2.0%	8.7%
Pakistan	1.0%	5.4%	14.4%	15.7%	17.9%
Turkey	0.1%	2.3%	2.8%	1.1%	1.5%
Imports – Named Countries	27.4%	30.9%	41.2%	36.0%	41.4%
Imports – the United States	38.6%	34.7%	31.1%	18.1%	25.6%
Imports – Other Countries	2.4%	4.9%	3.2%	2.0%	3.5%
Total Imports – All Countries	41.0%	39.6%	34.3%	20.1%	29.1%
Total Market Volume %	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

*Some percent totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.

[39] The Complainant noted that PET resin is primarily sold in Canada through brokers, who purchase both imported and domestically produced PET resin and re sell this material to end users. These brokers buy on behalf of end users and may or may not hold inventory for distribution. These are allegedly six main PET resin brokers in Canada.^{Footnote 5}

[40] The Complainant alleged that certain PET resin from China, India, Oman, Pakistan and Turkey have been injuriously dumped into Canada. Dumping occurs when the normal value of the goods exceeds the export price to importers in Canada.

[41] Normal values are generally based on the domestic selling price of like goods in the country of export where competitive market conditions exist or 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.

[42] 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.

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

Complainant’s Estimates

China:

[44] In order to estimate normal values based on the domestic selling price of like goods in China, the Complainant provided the published domestic selling prices for PET resin, as reported in PCI Wood Mackenzie.^{Footnote 6} However, the Complainant alleged that the domestic prices available for PET resin in China are not profitable, as suggested by a comparison of the reported prices with the Complainant’s estimated costs of production in China, using the methodology discussed below. As such, the Complainant contends that estimating of normal values based on home market pricing information would not satisfy the profitability test under paragraph 16(2)(b) of SIMA.

[45] Due to the allegation that the domestic prices for PET resin in China were not profitable, the Complainant estimated normal values based on paragraph 19(b) of SIMA. Paragraph 19(b) of SIMA uses a constructed cost method of arriving at normal values based on the aggregate of (i) the cost of production of the goods, (ii) a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and (iii) a reasonable amount for profits.

[46] For estimating the costs of material, the Complainant applied its own rate of consumption of Purified Terephthalic Acid (PTA) and Monoethylene Glycol (MEG) to the annual 2016 import prices of PTA and MEG for China, as published by the UN Comtrade Database^{Footnote 7}. The Complainant’s methodology consisted of multiplying the published unit price of PTA by 0.85 and the unit price of MEG by 0.35, to reflect its own consumption rate per unit of output.^{Footnote 8}

The Complainant submitted that this was a conservative calculation as it only accounted for PTA and MEG and did not include other additives used in the production of PET resin.

[47] The cost of labour was estimated on the basis of the Complainant’s own labour costs, adjusted to reflect the lower costs of labour in China^{Footnote 9}. Given that the International Labour Organization (ILO) did not publish wage information for China, the Complainant used published wage information for Hong Kong.

[48] The Complainant was unable to find information on the factory overhead costs in China, and therefore used their own factory overhead costs for the year 2016.^{Footnote 10}

[49] In order to estimate a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, as well as the amount for profits, the Complainant relied on publicly available financial information for Hengyi Petrochemical Co., Ltd and Far Eastern New Century Corp., two PET resin producers from China.^{Footnote 11}

[50] Although the Complainant estimated normal values for China under the methodology of paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, the Complainant alleged that prices in China for PET resin that domestic prices are substantially determined by the government and that they were not substantially the same as they would be in a competitive market and should therefore be determined under paragraph 20(1)(a) of SIMA. Section 20 is a provision of SIMA that may be applied to determine the normal value of goods in a dumping investigation where certain conditions prevail in the domestic market of the exporting country. In the case of a prescribed country under paragraph 20(1)(a) of SIMA, it is applied where, in the opinion of the CBSA, the government of that country substantially determines domestic prices and there is sufficient reason to believe that the domestic prices are not substantially the same as they would be in a competitive market.^{Footnote 12}

[51] For this reason, the Complainant also estimated normal values for PET resin for China under section 20 of SIMA, on the basis of the estimated normal value that would be applicable if the goods were produced in a surrogate country.^{Footnote 13} The Complainants used Chinese Taipei as the surrogate country. The Complainant estimated normal values based on the aggregate of the estimated cost of production in Chinese Taipei, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits, as per the methodology of subparagraph 20(1)(c)(ii) of SIMA.

[52] Given that the Complainant was unable to find prices of MEG and PTA in Chinese Taipei, the Complainant used its own average direct material costs for 2016. The cost of labour was estimated on the basis of the Complainant’s own labour costs, adjusted to reflect the lower costs of labour in Chinese Taipei^{Footnote 14}. Given that the ILO did not publish wage information for Chinese Taipei, the Complainant used published wage information for Hong Kong. The Complainant was unable to find information on the factory overhead costs in Chinese Taipei, and therefore used their own factory overhead costs for the year 2016 when estimating the cost of production for Chinese Taipei. In order to estimate a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, as well as the amount for profits, the Complainant relied on publicly available financial information for FENC, a PET resin producer from Chinese Taipei.^{Footnote 15}

India:

[53] In order to estimate normal values based on the domestic selling price of like goods in India, the Complainant provided the published domestic selling prices for PET resin, as reported in the ICIS publication.^{Footnote 16} However, the Complainant alleged that the domestic prices available for PET resin in India are not profitable, as suggested by a comparison of the reported prices with the Complainant’s estimated costs of production in India, using the methodology discussed below. As such, the Complainant contends that estimating of normal values based on home market pricing information would not satisfy the profitability test under paragraph 16(2)(b) of SIMA.

[54] Due to the allegation that the domestic prices for PET resin in India were not profitable, the Complainant estimated normal values based on paragraph 19(b) of SIMA. Paragraph 19(b) of SIMA uses a constructed cost method of arriving at normal values based on the aggregate of (i) the cost of production of the goods, (ii) a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and (iii) a reasonable amount for profits.

[55] For estimating the costs of material, the Complainant applied its own rate of consumption of Purified Terephthalic Acid (PTA) and Monoethylene Glycol (MEG) to the annual 2016 import prices of PTA and MEG for India, as published by the UN Comtrade Database. The Complainant’s methodology consisted of multiplying the published unit price of PTA by 0.85 and the unit price of MEG by 0.35, to reflect its own consumption rate per unit of output.^{Footnote 17} The Complainant submitted that this was a conservative calculation as it only accounted for PTA and MEG and did not include other additives used in the production of PET resin.

[56] The cost of labour was estimated on the basis of the Complainant’s own labour costs, adjusted to reflect the lower costs of labour India^{Footnote 18}. These adjustments were based on wage information published by the International Labour Organization (ILO).

[57] The Complainant was unable to find information on the factory overhead costs in India, and therefore used their own factory overhead costs for the year 2016.^{Footnote 19}

[58] In order to estimate a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, as well as the amount for profits, the Complainant relied on publicly available financial information for JBF Industries Limited, a PET resin producer from India.^{Footnote 20}

Oman:

[59] The Complainant was unable to obtain any information regarding domestic selling prices of PET resin in Oman. Accordingly, the Complainant estimated normal values based on paragraph 19(b) of SIMA. Paragraph 19(b) of SIMA uses a constructed cost method of arriving at normal values based on the aggregate of (i) the cost of production of the goods, (ii) a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and (iii) a reasonable amount for profits.

[60] For estimating the costs of material, the Complainant applied its own rate of consumption of Purified Terephthalic Acid (PTA) and Monoethylene Glycol (MEG) to the annual 2016 import prices of PTA and the 2015 import price of MEG for Oman, as published by the UN Comtrade Database.^{Footnote 21} The Complainant’s methodology consisted of multiplying the published unit price of PTA by 0.85 and the unit price of MEG by 0.35, to reflect its own consumption rate per unit of output.^{Footnote 22} The Complainant submitted that this was a conservative calculation as it only accounted for PTA and MEG and did not include other additives used in the production of PET resin.

[61] The cost of labour was estimated on the basis of the Complainant’s own labour costs, adjusted to reflect the lower costs of labour in Oman^{Footnote 23}. These adjustments were based on wage information published by the International Labour Organization (ILO). In light of lack of information on wages available for Oman, the Complainant used published wage information for the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The Complainant believed that the UAE was an adequate proxy as a neighboring country with similar economic development and petrochemical industries.

[62] The Complainant was unable to find information on the factory overhead costs in Oman, and therefore used their own factory overhead costs for the year 2016.^{Footnote 24}

[63] In order to estimate a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, the Complainant relied on publicly available financial information for JBF RAK LLC, a UAE PET producer, because the only PET producer in Oman, Octal, does not publish public financial statements.^{Footnote 25} Given that JBF RAK LLC was not profitable, the amount for profits was estimated on the basis of the 2016 financial data from JBF Industries Limited, a PET resin producer from India.

Pakistan:

[64] The Complainant was unable to obtain any information regarding domestic selling prices of PET resin in Pakistan. Accordingly, the Complainant estimated normal values based on paragraph 19(b) of SIMA. Paragraph 19(b) of SIMA uses a constructed cost method of arriving at normal values based on the aggregate of (i) the cost of production of the goods, (ii) a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and (iii) a reasonable amount for profits.

[65] For estimating the costs of material, the Complainant applied its own rate of consumption of Purified Terephthalic Acid (PTA) and Monoethylene Glycol (MEG) to the annual 2016 import prices of PTA for India^{Footnote 26} and the annual 2015 MEG import price for Pakistan^{Footnote 27}, as published by the UN Comtrade Database. The Complainant’s methodology consisted of multiplying the published unit price of PTA by 0.85 and the unit price of MEG by 0.35, to reflect its own consumption rate per unit of output.^{Footnote 28} The Complainant submitted that this was a conservative calculation as it only accounted for PTA and MEG and did not include other additives used in the production of PET resin.

[66] The cost of labour was estimated on the basis of the Complainant’s own labour costs, adjusted to reflect the lower costs of labour in Pakistan^{Footnote 29}. These adjustments were based on wage information published by the ILO.

[67] The Complainant was unable to find information on the factory overhead costs in Pakistan, and therefore used their own factory overhead costs for the year 2016.^{Footnote 30}

[68] In order to estimate a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, as well as the amount for profits, the Complainant relied on publicly available financial information for Gastron (Industries) Ltd.^{Footnote 31}

Turkey:

[69] In order to estimate normal values based on the domestic selling price of like goods in Turkey, the Complainant provided the published domestic selling prices for PET resin, as reported in the ChemOrbis publication.^{Footnote 32} However, the Complainant alleged that the domestic prices available for PET resin in Turkey are not profitable, as suggested by a comparison of the reported prices with the Complainant’s estimated costs of production in Turkey, using the methodology discussed below. As such, the Complainant contends that estimating of normal values based on home market pricing information would not satisfy the profitability test under paragraph 16(2)(b) of SIMA.

[70] Due to the allegation that the domestic prices for PET resin in Turkey were not profitable, the Complainant estimated normal values based on paragraph 19(b) of SIMA. Paragraph 19(b) of SIMA uses a constructed cost method of arriving at normal values based on the aggregate of (i) the cost of production of the goods, (ii) a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and (iii) a reasonable amount for profits.

[71] For estimating the costs of material, the Complainant applied its own rate of consumption of Purified Terephthalic Acid (PTA) and Monoethylene Glycol (MEG) to the annual 2016 import prices of PTA and MEG for Turkey, as published by the UN Comtrade Database. The Complainant’s methodology consisted of multiplying the published unit price of PTA by 0.85 and the unit price of MEG by 0.35, to reflect its own consumption rate per unit of output.^{Footnote 33} The Complainant submitted that this was a conservative calculation as it only accounted for PTA and MEG and did not include other additives used in the production of PET resin.

[72] The cost of labour was estimated on the basis of the Complainant’s own labour costs, adjusted to reflect the lower costs of labour in Turkey^{Footnote 34}. Given that the ILO did not publish wage information for Turkey, the Complainant used published wage information for Indonesia, which the Complainant described as a reasonable proxy for Turkey, as another major emerging economy with a significant workforce and relatively low costs.

[73] The Complainant was unable to find information on the factory overhead costs in Turkey, and therefore used their own factory overhead costs for the year 2016.^{Footnote 35}

[74] In order to estimate a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, as well as the amount for profits, the Complainant relied on publicly available financial information for Indorama Ventures Limited, a large transnational corporation that operates two PET resin facilities in Turkey.^{Footnote 36}

CBSA’s Estimates:

[75] For the purposes of initiation, the CBSA estimated normal values on a quarterly basis, for the period of April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017, for each of the named countries, in the following manner.

China:

[76] The CBSA found the Complainant’s methodologies for estimating normal values for China on the basis of domestic selling prices to be reasonable. The CBSA also estimated the cost of production and a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, of the subject goods from China, using the methodology described below.

[77] Although the CBSA found the Complainant’s methodology for estimating the costs of production and a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs to be reasonable, the CBSA made adjustments to the Complainant’s estimated costs to encompass additional research and analysis undertaken by the CBSA.

[78] For instance, the CBSA made adjustments to the estimated costs of labour, having estimating that the wage data for Hong Kong (used as a proxy for China) used by the Complainants were monthly, as opposed to annual wages.^{Footnote 37}

[79] For purposes of estimating a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, the CBSA found the Complainant’s methodology to be reasonable, although the CBSA added publically available financial data from other known PET resin producers in China, namely, Sinochem Group (2015 annual report), China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation (2016 annual report) and Indorama Ventures Public Company (2016 annual report) to the data for Hengyi Petrochemical Co., Ltd and Far Eastern New Century Corp, in order to determine an average cost. A comparison of the estimated domestic price and the estimated full costs did not suggest that the domestic selling prices were unprofitable. Accordingly, the normal values for China were estimated on the basis of the estimated domestic prices of like goods in China.

[80] As detailed in the “Section 20 Allegations” section of this Statement of Reasons, the CBSA is of the opinion that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of a section 20 inquiry. For this reason, the CBSA did not estimate normal values for China pursuant to the methodology of section 20 of SIMA.

India:

[81] The CBSA found the Complainant’s methodologies for estimating normal values on the basis of domestic selling prices to be reasonable, but also estimated that these prices were not profitable, using the estimated cost of production and a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, as estimated using the methodology described below.

[82] Accordingly, the CBSA estimated the normal values for India on the basis of the aggregate of the estimated costs of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits, as per the methodology of paragraph 19(b) of SIMA. Although the CBSA found the Complainant’s methodology to be reasonable, the CBSA made adjustments to the Complainant’s estimated costs to encompass additional research and analysis undertaken by the CBSA.

[83] The CBSA made adjustments to the estimated costs of labour in India, having estimating that the wage data used by the Complainants were daily, as opposed to monthly wages, as indicated by the source ILO data.

[84] For purposes of estimating a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits, the CBSA generally found the Complainant’s methodology to be reasonable. However, the CBSA used JBF’s publically available annual report for the year ended March 31, 2017, rather than the quarterly reports used by the Complainant. Furthermore, the CBSA also added and averaged data from other PET resin producers in India, namely Dhuseri Petrochem Limited’s 2017 annual report, Reliance Industry Limited’s 2017 annual report and IVL’s 2016 annual report.

Oman:

[85] In light of the lack of data on domestic pricing in Oman, the CBSA estimated the normal values for Oman on the basis of the aggregate of the estimated costs of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits, as per the methodology of paragraph 19(b) of SIMA. The CBSA found the Complainant’s methodology to be reasonable, although the CBSA’s estimates for a the reasonable amount for profit was based on all available financial data from India, as discussed above for India, and not just the financial information from JBF Industries Limited, of India.

Pakistan:

[86] In light of the lack of data on domestic pricing in Pakistan, the CBSA estimated the normal values for Pakistan on the basis of the aggregate of the estimated costs of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits, as per the methodology of paragraph 19(b) of SIMA. Although the CBSA found the Complainant’s methodology to be reasonable, the CBSA made adjustments to the Complainant’s estimated costs to encompass additional research and analysis undertaken by the CBSA.

[87] For instance, the CBSA made adjustments to the estimated costs of labour, having estimated that the wage data published by the ILO consisted of daily wage, as opposed to monthly wage.^{Footnote 38}

[88] For purposes of estimating a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits, the CBSA generally found the Complainant’s methodology to be reasonable. However, the CBSA used Gastron (Industries) Ltd.’s publically available annual report for the year ended June 30, 2016, rather than the quarterly financial statements used by the Complainant. Further, the CBSA’s estimate for a the reasonable amount for profit was based on all available financial data from India, as discussed above for India, and not just the financial information from JBF Industries Limited, of India. Information from India was used because Gastron (Industries) Ltd., was not profitable, as per its most recently publically available financial data.

Turkey:

[89] The CBSA found the Complainant’s methodologies for estimating normal values on the basis of domestic selling prices to be reasonable, but also estimated that these prices were not profitable, using the estimated cost of production and a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, as estimated using the methodology described below.

[90] Accordingly, the CBSA estimated the normal values for Turkey on the basis of the aggregate of the estimated costs of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits, as per the methodology of paragraph 19(b) of SIMA. Although the CBSA found the Complainant’s methodology to be reasonable, the CBSA made adjustments to the Complainant’s estimated costs of labour in Turkey. In this regards, alleging that data for Turkey was not available, the Complainant used the labour wage in Indonesia, as published by the ILO, as a proxy for Turkey. However, the CBSA did find that the ILO published wage data for Turkey for the year 2014. The CBSA therefore used the published wage for Turkey instead of the Indonesian wage data.

[91] The export price of goods sold to an importer in Canada is generally determined in accordance with section 24 of SIMA as being an amount equal to the lesser of the exporter’s sale price for the goods and the price at which the importer has purchased or agreed to purchase the goods adjusted by deducting all costs, charges, expenses, and duties and taxes resulting from the exportation of the goods.

[92] The export prices estimated by the Complainant are based on publicly available import data obtained from Statistics Canada under HS codes 3907.60.00.10 and 3907.60.00.90 for the period from April 2016 to December 2016, and HS codes 3907.61.00.00, 3907.69.00.10 and 3907.69.00.90 for the period of January 2017 to March 2017. The Complainant estimated an average export price for each named country based on the weighted average declared value for duty per metric tonne for each quarter of the POI.^{Footnote 39}

[93] The CBSA estimated quarterly export prices on a quarterly basis for each named country based on the value for duty as declared on the customs entry documentation and reports generated through the Facility for Information Retrieval Management (FIRM) for each individual shipment imported from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017. The CBSA reviewed customs entry documentation for certain PET resin entering Canada and adjusted the FIRM data to correct any errors respecting the quantity and value for duty.

[94] The CBSA estimated the margins of dumping by comparing the weighted average estimated normal values with the weighted average estimated export prices for each of the named countries. Based on this analysis, it is estimated that certain PET resin imported into Canada from each of the named countries were dumped. The estimated margins of dumping for each country are listed in the table below.

Table 3

Estimated Margin of Dumping

Country	Estimated Margin of Dumping as % Export Price
China	13.8%
India	32.8%
Oman	31.4%
Pakistan	25.6%
Turkey	12.0%

[112] The Complainant identified 167 subsidy programs which may have conferred benefits to the producers/exporters of subject goods in China, and that have in turn resulted in the actionable subsidizing of exports of subject goods to Canada.^{Footnote 44}

[113] As per the Complainant, the United States Department of Commerce (US DOC) determined that 20 of these programs constituted countervailable subsidies in its recent final determination with respect to the subsidizing of certain polyethylene terephthalate resin (PET Resin) from China.^{Footnote 45} For the remaining 147 programs which may allegedly confer a benefit to PET resin producers/exporters in China, the Complainant listed, as evidence, other instances where an authority, usually either the CBSA, the US DOC or the European Union, has countervailed the program^{Footnote 46}. In addition, the Complainant alleged that the GOC plays an active role in China’s PET resin industry, as evidence by its 13th five year plan, introduced in 2016, which focuses on the growth and development of consumer chemical industry.^{Footnote 47}

[114] The CBSA reviewed the documentation submitted in the complaint along with information available through its own research, including China’s latest subsidy notifications to the WTO and the relevant public decision documents for the subsidy investigations referred to by the Complainant (e.g. such as CBSA’s Statement of Reasons (SOR) for final determinations). Generally speaking, the reference material examined by the CBSA provided support for the Complainant’s allegations that the subject goods from China have been subsidized.

[115] On the basis of its analysis, the CBSA found that for a number of programs identified by the Complainant, there was either no evidence that the programs were available to PET resin producers/exporters, or there were multiple names for some of the same programs. As a result, 51 programs listed by the Complainant were not included on the CBSA’s list of programs to be investigated. On the basis of its analysis, the CBSA also added 27 programs to its list of programs to be investigated. Of these 27 programs, one program named by the Complainant was separated into eight programs after reviewing the information available on the programs. For example, a name like “Financial Subsidy” was considered too broad in nature. For the other programs added by the CBSA, seven are additional programs that were found to have been used in two recent investigations not included by the Complainant in its analysis^{Footnote 48}. Further, the CBSA added 12 programs based on its review of China’s Subsidy Notification to the WTO. The CBSA took care of not adding programs that could already be easily included under names already on the list.

[116] Finally, the CBSA also modified the names of some of the programs identified by the Complainant for consolidation purposes, to be more inclusive or for other similar reasons.

[117] Overall, the CBSA identified 143 subsidy programs which may confer a benefit to PET resin producers/exporters in China. The CBSA’s analysis revealed that the alleged subsidy programs constitute a potential financial contribution by the GOC and a benefit thereby conferred onto the recipient in accordance with the definition of “subsidy” in subsection 2(1) of SIMA. In addition, the programs were further examined and were considered to be potentially specific either in law or in fact within the meaning of subsections 2(7.2) and 2(7.3) of SIMA.

[118] Please refer to Appendix 1 for a list of the 143 subsidy programs to be investigated by the CBSA, divided into six categories.

[119] If more information becomes available during the investigation process, and this information indicates that programs not listed may have provided benefits to exporters/producers of subject goods during the POI, the CBSA will pursue the investigation of these programs and request complete information from the GOC and exporters/producers of subject goods.

[120] The Complainant identified 41 subsidy programs which may have conferred benefits to the producers/exporters of subject goods in India, and that have in turn resulted in the actionable subsidizing of exports of subject goods to Canada.^{Footnote 49}

[121] As per the Complainant, the US DOC determined that 25 of these programs constituted countervailable subsidies in its recent final determination with respect to the subsidizing of certain PET Resin from India.^{Footnote 50} In alleging that actionable subsidies were applicable to the subject goods imported from India, the Complainant also relied on information published in previous CBSA subsidy investigations, or by other investigative authorities, such as the US DOC, as well as extensive publications issued by the central and state governments of India, WTO documentation, and public data published by consulting groups.

[122] The CBSA reviewed the documentation submitted in the complaint together with the latest Subsidy Notification submitted to the WTO by India, and also researched the websites of a number of central and state government agencies in order to gather complete and up to date information on certain incentive schemes (e.g. Foreign Trade Policy [1st April, 2015 – 31st March, 2020], published by the GOI’s Department of Commerce; the State Government of Maharashtra’s published documentation on its Package Scheme of Incentives, 2013; the Government of Gujarat’s website). The CBSA also reviewed the relevant public decision documents for the investigations referred to by the Complainant.

[123] Generally speaking, the reference material examined by the CBSA provided support for the Complainant’s allegation that the subject goods from India have been subsidized. On the basis of its analysis, the CBSA is not including seven of the 41 programs identified by the Complainant in its investigation. The CBSA either determined that these programs were already covered by other programs identified, or that there was no evidence that the programs were available to PET resin producers. In addition, the CBSA added four programs based on its research.^{Footnote 51} Some of the programs names identified by the Complainant were also modified by the CBSA.

[124] Overall, the CBSA identified 38 subsidy programs which may confer a benefit to PET resin producers in India. The CBSA’s analysis revealed that the alleged subsidy programs constitute a potential financial contribution by the GOI and a benefit thereby conferred onto the recipient in accordance with the definition of “subsidy” in subsection 2(1) of SIMA. In addition, the programs were further examined and were considered to be potentially specific either in law or in fact within the meaning of subsections 2(7.2) and 2(7.3) of SIMA.

[125] Please refer to Appendix 1 for a list of the 38 subsidy programs to be investigated by the CBSA.

[126] If more information becomes available during the investigation process, and this information indicates that programs not listed may have provided benefits to exporters/producers of subject goods during the POI, the CBSA will pursue the investigation of these programs and request complete information from the GOC and exporters/producers of subject goods.

[127] The Complainant identified nine subsidy programs which may have conferred benefits to the producers/exporters of subject goods in Oman, and that have in turn resulted in the actionable subsidizing of exports of subject goods to Canada.^{Footnote 52}

[128] In alleging that actionable subsidies were applicable to the subject goods imported from Oman, the Complainant relied on information published by the US DOC at the time of its recent final negative determination with respect to the subsidizing of certain PET resin from Oman^{Footnote 53}, and with respect to the final determination in the US DOC’s Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from Oman’s investigation, as well as publications issued by the Omani Government, and public data published by Consulting groups.

[129] On August 14, 2017, consultations were held between the Government of Canada and the Government of Oman via teleconference. During the consultations, the Government of Oman made representations with respect to its views on the evidence presented in the non confidential version of the subsidy portion of the complaint. On August 17, 2017, the Government of Oman provided written representations where it addressed the alleged programs. The CBSA considered the representations made by the Government of Oman in its analysis.

[130] The CBSA also reviewed the documentation submitted in the complaint together with the latest Subsidy Notification submitted to the WTO by Oman^{Footnote 54}. The CBSA also reviewed the relevant public decision documents for the investigations referred to by the Complainant. The reference material examined by the CBSA provided support for the Complainant’s allegation that subsidy programs are available to producers of PET resin in Oman. The US DOC made a negative determination in its PET resin countervailing investigation, having determined that the amount of subsidy was de minimis. The CBSA notes that differences in the subsidy programs’ recipients, in the valuation period (i.e. the POI for the US investigation is not the same as the POI for this investigation) and in valuation methodologies may result in an amount of subsidy that is not insignificant.

[131] The CBSA determined that one of the programs identified by the Complainant has been replaced by another program, already identified by the Complainant.

[132] Overall, the CBSA identified eight subsidy programs which may confer a benefit to PET resin producers in Oman. The CBSA’s analysis revealed that the alleged subsidy programs constitute a potential financial contribution by the GOO and a benefit thereby conferred onto the recipient in accordance with the definition of “subsidy” in subsection 2(1) of SIMA. In addition, the programs were further examined and were considered to be potentially specific either in law or in fact within the meaning of subsections 2(7.2) and 2(7.3) of SIMA.

[133] Please refer to Appendix 1 for a list of the eight subsidy programs from Oman to be investigated by the CBSA.

[134] If more information becomes available during the investigation process, and this information indicates that programs not listed may have provided benefits to exporters/producers of subject goods during the POI, the CBSA will pursue the investigation of these programs and request complete information from the GOC and exporters/producers of subject goods.

[135] The Complainant identified 18 subsidy programs which may have conferred benefits to the producers/exporters of subject goods in Pakistan, and that have in turn resulted in the actionable subsidizing of exports of subject goods to Canada.^{Footnote 55}

[136] In alleging that actionable subsidies were applicable to the subject goods imported from Pakistan, the Complainant relied extensively on information published by the EU on its decision imposing countervailing duties on PET resin originating in Pakistan and the CBSA’s decision regarding Potassium Silicate Solids originating in Pakistan. With references to the Pakistani Department of Commerce’s Strategic Trade Policy Framework 2015-2018, the Complainant also alleged that the Government of Pakistan utilises a preferential monetary, tariff and tax regime to increase the competitiveness of Pakistani exports.^{Footnote 56}

[137] On August 15, 2017, consultations were held between the Government of Canada and the Government of Pakistan in Ottawa. During the consultations, the Government of Pakistan made representations with respect to its views on the evidence presented in the non confidential version of the subsidy portion of the complaint. On August 16, 2017, the Government of Pakistan provided written representations where it addressed each of the alleged programs. The CBSA considered the representations made by the Government of Pakistan in its analysis.

[138] The CBSA also reviewed the documentation submitted in the complaint, along with the relevant public decision documents for the investigations referred to by the Complainant. Generally speaking, the reference material examined by the CBSA provided support for the Complainant’s allegation of subsidies. However, the CBSA determined that for 10 of the 18 listed programs, the Complaint lacked sufficient evidence that the programs were used or are available to PET resin producers/ exporters. For instance, for these programs, the only evidence provided by the Complainant is a reference to a countervailing investigation, in which the authority did not determine that the program was available and countervailable.

[139] Overall, the CBSA identified eight subsidy programs which may confer a benefit to PET resin producers in Pakistan. The CBSA’s analysis revealed that the alleged subsidy programs constitute a potential financial contribution by the GOP and a benefit thereby conferred onto the recipient in accordance with the definition of “subsidy” in subsection 2(1) of SIMA. In addition, the programs were further examined and were considered to be potentially specific either in law or in fact within the meaning of subsections 2(7.2) and 2(7.3) of SIMA.

[140] Please refer to Appendix 1 for a list of the eight subsidy programs from Pakistan to be investigated by the CBSA.

[141] If more information becomes available during the investigation process, and this information indicates that programs not listed may have provided benefits to exporters/producers of subject goods during the POI, the CBSA will pursue the investigation of these programs and request complete information from the GOC and exporters/producers of subject goods.

[142] The Complainant was unable to estimate the amounts of subsidy on a program basis for the subject goods imported from China, India, Oman and Pakistan. However, the Complainant estimated the amounts of subsidy by calculating the difference between the estimated costs of production for the subject goods and their corresponding export prices. The Complainant stated that the difference between the export price and the production cost of the subject goods for each country demonstrates that they are being sold to Canada at prices substantially below their cost of production, indicating a significant amount of subsidy.

[143] The CBSA estimated the amount of subsidy conferred on the producers of the subject goods from China, India, Oman and Pakistan by comparing the estimated full costs of the subject goods with their weighted average export prices, as estimated above in the evidence of dumping section.

[144] The CBSA’s analysis of the information indicates that subject goods imported into Canada during the period of April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017, were subsidized. The estimated amounts of subsidy, as a percentage of the export price, found for each of these countries are summarized in the table below.

Table 4

Estimated Amount of Subsidy

Country	Estimated Amount of Subsidy as a % of Export Price
China	22.8%
India	12.2%
Oman	20.4%
Pakistan	14.6%

[148] The Complainant allege that while the total volume of imports fell slightly in a growing market between 2014 and 2016, the imports from the named countries increased significantly during that period (except in 2015). The Complainant also alleges that imports from the named countries increased significantly in the first quarter of 2017, compared to the first quarter of 2016. The Complainant alleged that these imports are at dumped and subsidized prices.

[149] Table 1 of this Statement of Reasons does support the Complainant’s allegations that the named countries’ collective share of total imports has been growing significantly since 2014. As the data suggests, the named countries’ collective share of total imports increased from 40% in 2014 to 50.9% in 2016, to 64.1% in the first quarter of 2017. However, the trend is not the same for each of the named countries. In particular, imports from China has been in declined, although they remain significant, and imports from Turkey have been very low throughout this period. During the POI, Turkey only represented 2.1% of all imports. The collective increase in imports is mostly attributable to a significant increase in imports of PET resin from Pakistan, which represented only 1.5% of imports in 2014, increasing its share of imports to 19.1% in 2016 and 28% in the first quarter of 2017. India has also increased its share of imports quite significantly in the first quarter of 2017, now representing over 21% of imports, compared to 4.9% in 2014.

[150] In terms of share of the Canadian apparent market, as shown in Table 2 of this Statement of Reasons, the named countries’ collective share of the market increased from 27.4% in 2014 to 41.2% in 2016, while the Canadian industry’s share decreased from 31.6% to 24.4% during that period. In the first quarter of 2017, the Canadian industry recaptured a significant share of the market, as its share jumped to 44%. The collective market share of the named countries decreased slightly to 36% in the first quarter of 2017. As suggested by the data shown in Table 2, the Canadian industry’s significant increase in market share came mostly at the expense of the American, whose share of the market decreased from 38.6% in 2014 to 18.1% in the first quarter of 2017, possibly correlated to DAK’s acquisition of Selenis Canada.

[151] Despite the recent increase in the Canadian producer’s share of the market, the market data on the record suggests that the significant increase in imports from the named countries collectively, combined with their increasing price pressure, support the Complainant’s allegations of injury. However, the CBSA founds that the volume of imports from Turkey to be very low, and insufficiently correlated to the alleged injury to the Canadian industry.

[152] The Complainant submits that dumped and subsidized imports of certain PET resin have captured market share at the expense of the Canadian industry by aggressively undercutting the Canadian producer’s pricing. The Complainant states that even with the consideration for freight expense, the subject imports from the named countries are still priced substantially below the prices offered by the Canadian producer.^{Footnote 57}

[153] The Complainant submitted evidence showing that the average selling prices from China, India, Oman, Pakistan and Turkey, from 2014 to the first quarter of 2017, are substantially lower than those of the Complainant.^{Footnote 58} The Complainant also documented instances of price undercutting and also instances where their prices were lowered in order to retain sales in response to offers from exporters of PET resin from China, India, Oman and Pakistan.^{Footnote 59} With respect to certain PET resin from Turkey, the Complainant did not provide any documented instances of price undercutting or instances where their prices were lowered in order to retain sales.

[154] The Complainant states that certain PET resin from the named countries are price leaders in the Canadian market and that there is a clear and consistent trend of increased price undercutting in each period since 2014. The Complainant submits that the magnitude of the price undercutting by the named countries has caused significant price erosion in the Canadian market and forced the Complainant’s price below the general market trend.^{Footnote 60}

[155] The CBSA finds that there is evidence that the dumped and subsidized imports from China, India, Oman and Pakistan have undercut prices of like goods and led to price erosion.

[156] The Complainant alleged that dumped and subsidized imports of certain PET resin have captured market share at the expense of the Canadian industry by offering PET resin at low prices that are injurious to the domestic industry. The Complainant provided specific examples of sales lost to the subject imports from China, India, Oman and Pakistan between 2013 and the first quarter of 2017.^{Footnote 61} No specific examples were provided in respect of certain PET resin from Turkey.

[157] Based on the evidence, the CBSA finds that the Complainant’s injury allegations with respect to lost sales and market share are well supported and sufficiently linked to allegedly dumped and subsidized imports from China, India, Oman and Pakistan.

[158] The Complainant submits that the injurious impact of the dumped and subsidized goods is demonstrated in its financial results. To support this allegation, the Complainant has provided its financial statements for 2014 through the first quarter of 2017.^{Footnote 62}

[159] The CBSA agrees that the Complainant has had poor financial performance as the named countries collectively have continued to increase their market share and erode prices. Based on the evidence, the CBSA finds that the Complainant’s financial results can be reasonably attributed to the lost sales, price undercutting and price erosion resulting from the dumped and subsidized goods from China, India, Oman and Pakistan.

[160] The Complainant states that competition from unfairly priced imports has led to reductions in industry employment. The complaint included employment data which indicates that they have experienced a reduction in direct employment^{Footnote 63} between 2014 and the first quarter of 2017.^{Footnote 64}

[161] There is a reasonable indication that material injury has occurred to the PET resin industry in Canada. The nature of the injury incurred by the Complainant is well-documented in terms of lost sales, lost market share, price undercutting, price erosion, negative financial results, and reduced employment. The CBSA finds that the injury can be reasonably attributed to the allegedly dumped and subsidized goods from China, India, Oman and Pakistan. With respect to certain PET resin from Turkey, the CBSA is of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient and does not disclose a reasonable indication that the dumping of those goods has caused or is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry.

[164] The Complainant submitted that the market conditions in the named countries are generally weak and characterized by excess capacity. Despite this, the Complainant stated that the named countries are projected to significantly increase production, while maintaining significant excess capacity.^{Footnote 66}

[165] Due to domestic market demand for PET resin in the named countries being generally below production levels, there is a continuing incentive for PET resin producers to rely upon export markets.

[166] Based on the evidence, the CBSA finds that the global market outlook for PET resin is generally weak and is pressured by an increasing supply imbalance occurring in the named countries. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates that current market conditions in the named countries are likely to lead PET resin producers to turn to export markets, thereby threatening injury to the Canadian domestic industry.

Commodity Nature of PET Resin and the Production Imperative

[167] The Complainant argued that PET resin is a commodity product and that the price is the primary factor in purchasing decision.^{Footnote 67} Similarly, the Complainant stated that the PET resin industry is capital intensive and that as such, producers have an incentive to protect their capital investment by maintaining production volume if they can continue producing at their marginal cost of production.^{Footnote 68}

[168] The CBSA recognizes that the commodity nature of the subject goods and the production imperative of the PET resin industry increases the likelihood of continued aggressive competition from low-priced imports, and as such poses a threat of future injury to the Canadian domestic industry.

Effects of Trade Remedy Actions by Other Countries

[169] The Complainant submits that certain producers in the named countries have a propensity to dump and subsidize PET resin in export markets, as evidenced by the anti dumping and countervailing measures imposed by other countries against this product.^{Footnote 69} Specifically, the Complainant states that seven WTO members have initiated or affirmatively concluded investigations into dumping and subsidizing of PET resin from those countries.^{Footnote 70}

[170] The Complainant states that producers in China, India and Turkey have been found to be dumping exports of PET film, sheet and strip by various WTO member countries.^{Footnote 71} India has also been found to be subsidizing these goods.^{Footnote 72} As PET film, sheet and strip share significant inputs, equipment and production process with PET resin, the Complainant submits that these trade measures present a threat that production capacities for producing these goods in China, India and Turkey will be diverted to the production of PET resin for export to Canada.^{Footnote 73}

[171] The Complainant submits that in light of these existing trade measures, producers from the named countries will seek markets without anti-dumping or countervailing measures, such as Canada.^{Footnote 74} The Complainant notes that this threat is especially acute with respect to the finding in the U.S. against China, Oman and India, since these three countries relied on the U.S. market for significant export volumes prior to the anti-dumping and countervailing duties being imposed.^{Footnote 75}

[172] Based on the evidence, the CBSA finds the allegation that the subject goods from China, India, Oman and Pakistan imported into the Canadian market may continue given the diversion caused by trade measures in other countries is supported. With respect to Turkey, considering the low import volume, and the decreasing trend, the CBSA does not find that any risk of diversion caused by the finding on certain PET film imposed by Brazil, threatens, on its own, to cause material injury to the Canadian industry.

[173] The Complainant states that Canada is an attractive market for producers facing difficult market conditions in their domestic markets and ordinary export markets.^{Footnote 76} Consequently, the Complainant submits that the named countries will continue to export significant volumes of dumped and subsidized goods to Canada and that these goods will cause injury to the Canadian industry.^{Footnote 77}

[174] The Complainant states that the subject imports from the named countries increased significantly in 2016, despite a shrinking Canadian market.^{Footnote 78} The Complainant submits that the increase in imports from the named countries in 2016 and the first quarter of 2017 represents a significant rate of increase of dumped and subsidized goods imported into Canada. The Complainant states that imports from the named countries entered Canada at extremely low prices.^{Footnote 79} The Complainant submits that this on-going and aggressive low pricing of imports from the named countries provides a clear indication that the injurious dumping and/or subsidizing of such low-priced imports will continue.^{Footnote 80}

[175] As mentioned above, the CBSA’s data does support that the share of imports from the subject countries has increased significantly between 2014 and 2016, along with a corresponding increase in their share of the Canadian market. The data, however, does not support the allegations that the Canadian market has been shrinking during that time. Considering the past and potential volume from China, India, Oman and Pakistan, their pricing history, and their alleged subsidization, their likely future volume and prices are likely to be consistent with the recent trends. The CBSA did not find sufficient evidence suggesting that the volume of imports of certain PET resin from Turkey is likely to increase in the foreseeable future.

[176] The Complaint contained reasonable evidence the import volume of subject goods from China, India, Oman and Pakistan, is likely to continue to remain significant, if not increasing, considering the market conditions in these countries, the threat of diversion due to trade measures by other countries and the incentive to produce due to the production imperative. Considering the aggressive competition among these countries and the commodity nature of the goods and production imperative, it is likely that these imports will continue to be at dumped and subsidized prices, continuing to substantially undercut domestic pricing. As such, the CBSA is of the opinion that the Complaint contained reasonable evidence that such imports are likely to cause material injury in the foreseeable future. The CBSA did not find sufficient evidence suggesting that imports of certain PET resin from Turkey threatens to cause material in the foreseeable future.