SM2 2017 IN
Certain Silicon Metal
Statement of Reasons

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

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

Québec Silicon Limited Partnership and QSIP Canada ULC
6500 rue Yvon Trudeau
Bécancour, Quebec
G9H 2V8

[8] Québec Silicon Limited Partnership (QSLP) is a producer of silicon metal and QSIP Canada ULC (QSIP Canada) is responsible for sales. QSIP Canada is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ferroglobe PLC (UK) (Ferroglobe). QSLP is 51% owned by QSIP Canada and 49% owned by Dow Corning Corporation.^{Footnote 1}

[9] The CBSA identified 27 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). The CBSA’s Exporter Subsidy RFI was sent to the potential producers and exporters in Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Norway and Thailand.

[10] The CBSA identified 18 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.

[11] Upon initiation of the investigations, the governments of Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Norway and Thailand 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.

[12] For the purposes of these investigations, “Government of Brazil (GOB)”, “Government of Kazakhstan (GOK)”, “Government of Malaysia (GOM)”, “Government of Norway (GON)” and “Government of Thailand (GOT)” 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.

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

Silicon metal containing at least 96.00% but less than 99.99% silicon by weight, and silicon metal containing between 89.00% and 96.00% silicon by weight that contains aluminum greater than 0.20% by weight, of all forms and sizes, originating in or exported from the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Kazakhstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Kingdom of Norway, the Russian Federation and the Kingdom of Thailand.

[14] The subject goods include all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including off specification material such as silicon metal with higher than normal percentages of other elements, such as aluminum, calcium, iron, etc.

[15] Silicon is a chemical element, metallic in appearance, solid in mass, and steel gray in color, that is commonly found in nature in combination with oxygen either as silica or in combination with both oxygen and a metal in silicate minerals. Although commonly referred to as metal, silicon exhibits characteristics of both metals and non-metals. Silicon metal is a polycrystalline material whose crystals have a diamond cubic structure at atmospheric pressure. It is usually sold in lump form typically ranging from 6" x 1⁄2" to 4" x 1⁄4" for the metallurgical industry, 1" by 1" and smaller for the chemical industries and also in crushed powder form.

[16] Silicon metal is produced by combining high purity quartzite (consisting principally of natural crystallized silica (SiO2)) with a carbonaceous reducing agent (such as low-ash coal, petroleum coke, charcoal or coal char) and a bulking agent (such as wood chips) in a submerged arc electric furnace.

[17] In the furnace, the raw materials are smelted at a very high temperature into molten silicon metal. Periodically, the molten silicon metal is tapped from the furnace and poured into large ladles.

[18] Certain impurities, called “slag” – consisting mainly of calcium, aluminum and silicon oxides – are inherent to the production of silicon metal and therefore end up in the ladle with the molten silicon metal. When the molten silicon metal is tapped from the furnace and exposed to oxygen, the slag and molten silicon metal, which have different densities, tend to separate in the ladle. As the slag and molten silicon metal separate, impurities are removed from the silicon metal.

[19] At this point in the process, oxygen can be used to remove additional impurities (aluminum and calcium) from the molten silicon metal, before it is allowed to cool. Oxygen is introduced into the molten silicon metal in gaseous form by means of a porous plug in the base of the ladle.

[20] The molten silicon metal is next poured into molds or onto areas of the plant floor sectioned off using beds of silicon metal fines or sand. Once all of the molten silicon metal has been tapped (drained) from the ladle, the slag is then removed and placed in a slag pot.

[21] After the silicon metal has cooled, it is pre-crushed by lifting and dropping the cooled metal onto the floor using a front-end loader or by using a pre-crushing jack hammer. The purpose of such pre-crushing is to yield pieces suitable for transporting to the silicon metal crushing and sizing equipment, which typically is located in a separate area of the plant. At this point, the silicon metal can be stored.

[22] Silicon metal is used in three main segments: chemical, primary aluminum and secondary aluminum. Silicon metal is principally used by primary and secondary aluminum producers as an alloying agent and by the chemical industry to produce a family of chemicals known as silicones.

[23] In Canada, silicon metal is used mainly in the primary and secondary aluminum industries. There are no large chemical industry users of silicon metal in Canada.^{Footnote 4}

[24] The subject goods are normally classified under the following Harmonized System (HS) classification number:

• 2804.69.00.00

[25] The HS classification number identified is for convenience of reference only. Refer to the product definition for authoritative details regarding the subject goods.

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

• 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
• 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.

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

[41] The Complainant submitted that they were unable to estimate normal values on the basis of domestic prices, using the methodology of section 15 of SIMA, because there is no domestic pricing information available on a country specific basis.^{Footnote 7} Accordingly, for each named country, the Complainant estimated normal values on the basis of the methodology of paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, by estimating the costs of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits.

[42] The Complainant used cost information published by the independent commodity market reporting publication CRU,^{Footnote 8} to estimate production costs for Brazil, Norway and Thailand. The Complainant calculated an average production cost based on 2015 and 2016 annual costs for three producers located in Brazil. Similarly, an average cost was calculated based on 2015 and 2016 annual costs for two producers located in Norway. Respecting Thailand, only 2015 cost information was used based on one producer because the producer did not produce silicon metal in 2016.^{Footnote 9}

[43] The Complainant alleged that the CRU’s published cost information consistently understates costs by a material degree. An average underestimation factor was calculated based on the difference between the CRU reported costs and the actual costs incurred by the Complainant and its affiliates in 2014 and 2015.^{Footnote 10} In their normal value estimates, the Complainant increased the CRU production costs for Brazil, Norway and Thailand by the same factor.

[44] As CRU did not report production cost information for Laos and Malaysia, the Complainant used the estimated production cost for Thailand to estimate the same for Laos and Malaysia due to the geographic proximity of the three countries. Although, the cost of electricity in Thailand is high, this cost is still an accurate representation for Malaysia and Laos, as the electricity costs in both countries are also high.^{Footnote 11}

[45] Similarly, since Russian production costs were not reported in CRU, the Complainant used the estimated production cost for Norway to estimate Russian production costs given the geographic proximity.

[46] The Complainant averaged the estimated production costs of Brazil, Norway and Thailand to estimate the production cost for Kazakhstan. Although according to geographic proximity, Thailand is closest to Kazakhstan, in order to account for the high electricity costs in Thailand, an average of the other reported named countries was used to represent production costs.^{Footnote 12}

[47] The Complainant estimated general, selling and administrative expenses (GS&A), financial expenses and an amount for profits for Brazil based on the publicly available 2015 financial statements of three Brazilian silicon producers, i.e. Ligas do Aluminio, Rima and Minasligas.^{Footnote 13}

[48] The Complainant estimated GS&A, financial expenses and an amount for profits for Kazakhstan based on the 2015 financial statement of Tau-Ken Temir LLP, a silicon producer in Kazakhstan.^{Footnote 14}

[49] The estimated GS&A, financial expenses and an amount for profits for Norway were based on the 2015 financial statement of Elkem, a silicon producer in Norway.^{Footnote 15}

[50] The estimated GS&A, financial expenses and an amount for profits for Russia were based on the 2015 financial statement of UC Rusal, the only silicon producer in Russia.^{Footnote 16}

[51] The estimated GS&A, financial expenses and an amount for profits for Thailand were based on 2015 financial statements of G.S. Energy, a silicon producer in Thailand.^{Footnote 17}

[52] Respecting Laos and Malaysia, the Complainant was unable to find financial information for producers in these two countries. Instead, the Complainant used the same information as for Thailand.^{Footnote 18}

[53] The CBSA estimated normal values for the period of January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016. The CBSA found the Complainant’s approach of using CRU published cost information to estimate production costs to be reasonable in estimating paragraph 19(b) normal values.

[54] For Brazil and Norway, the CBSA used the CRU cost information from 2016 for estimating normal values. As CRU did not publish 2016 production cost information for Thailand, the CBSA used the available 2015 CRU costs. The CBSA did not adjust the reported costs by the Complainant’s underestimation factor, given that there was insufficient evidence to support the increase.

[55] In estimating the production costs for Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, and Russia, similar to the Complainant, the CBSA used the estimated production costs for Thailand to estimate the production costs for Laos and Malaysia, used the estimated production costs for Norway to estimate production costs for Russia, and averaged the estimated production costs for Brazil, Norway and Thailand to estimate the production costs for Kazakhstan.

[56] The CBSA found the Complainant’s estimates of the GS&A, financial expenses and the amounts for profits for Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Norway, Russia and Thailand to be reasonable, and used these amounts in estimating normal values.

[57] Respecting Brazil the CBSA found the Complainant’s estimated GS&A and the amount for profits for Liasa de Aluminio and Minasligas to be much higher than those reported by silicon metal producers in other named countries. A further review of the CRU publication revealed that both producers had extremely low production volume for 2015.^{Footnote 19} In order to provide a more conservative estimate of paragraph 19 (b) normal values, the CBSA did not include Liasa de Aluminio and Minasligas’ financial information and only used Rima’s 2015 financial information to estimate the GS&A, financial expenses and the amount for profits for Brazil.

[58] 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.

[59] The export prices estimated by the Complainant were based on publicly available import data obtained from Statistics Canada under HS code 2804.69.00.00 for the period from November 2015 to October 2016. The Complainant estimated an average export price for each named country based on the weighted average declared value for duty per metric tonne (MT) for the 12 month period.^{Footnote 20}

[60] The CBSA estimated export prices 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 January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016. The CBSA reviewed customs entry documentation for subject goods entering Canada and adjusted the FIRM data to correct any errors respecting the quantity and value for duty.

[61] 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 the subject goods 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.

[71] The Complainant identified 12 subsidy programs or categories of programs which may have conferred benefits to the producers/exporters of subject goods in Brazil, and that have in turn resulted in the actionable subsidizing of exports of subject goods to Canada. As the Complainant had identified multiple sub-programs, and some of the programs identified were not properly named to reflect the nature of the subsidy, the CBSA found that there were a total of 16 subsidy programs identified in the complaint.

[72] The CBSA reviewed the documentation submitted in the complaint along with information available through its own research, including Brazil’s latest subsidy notification to the WTO^{Footnote 21}, and financial reports published by Brazilian development banks and agencies. The CBSA also researched the evidence found in the CBSA’s previous subsidy investigations involving Brazil^{Footnote 22}, as well as previous US Department of Commerce (USDOC) countervailing investigations from Brazil.^{Footnote 23} The reference material examined by the CBSA provided support for the Complainant’s allegations that the subject goods from Brazil have been subsidized.

[73] The CBSA found that the 16 subsidy programs identified were all available to silicon metal producers/exporters in Brazil. The CBSA’s analysis also revealed that the alleged subsidy programs constitute a potential financial contribution by the GOB 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.

[74] As a result, the CBSA will investigate all of the programs identified by the Complainant. Please refer to Appendix 1 for a list of the subsidy programs to be investigated by the CBSA.

[75] The Complainant identified two subsidy programs or categories of programs which may have conferred benefits to the producers/exporters of subject goods in Kazakhstan, and that have in turn resulted in the actionable subsidizing of exports of subject goods to Canada from Kazakhstan.

[76] The CBSA reviewed the documentation submitted in the complaint along with information available through its own research, including Kazakhstan’s latest subsidy notification to the WTO. The reference material examined by the CBSA provided support for the Complainant’s allegations that the subject goods from Kazakhstan have been subsidized.

[77] The CBSA found that the two subsidy programs identified by the Complainant were all available to silicon metal producers/exporters in Kazakhstan. The CBSA’s analysis also revealed that the alleged subsidy programs constitute a potential financial contribution by the GOK 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.

[78] As a result, the CBSA will investigate each of the programs identified by the Complainant. Please refer to Appendix 1 for a list of the subsidy programs to be investigated by the CBSA.

[79] The Complainant identified five subsidy programs or categories of programs which may have conferred benefits to the producers/exporters of subject goods in Malaysia, and that have in turn resulted in the actionable subsidizing of exports of subject goods to Canada.

[80] The CBSA reviewed the documentation submitted in the complaint along with information available through its own research, including previous USDOC countervailing investigations involving Malaysia. The reference material examined by the CBSA provided support for the Complainant’s allegations that the subject goods from Malaysia have been subsidized.

[81] The CBSA found that the five subsidy programs identified by the Complainant were all available to silicon metal producers/exporters in Malaysia. The CBSA’s analysis also revealed that the alleged subsidy programs constitute a potential financial contribution by the GOM 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.

[82] As a result, the CBSA will investigate all of the programs identified by the Complainant. Please refer to Appendix 1 for a list of the subsidy programs to be investigated by the CBSA.

[83] The Complainant identified five subsidy programs or categories of programs which may have conferred benefits to the producers/exporters of subject goods in Norway, and that have in turn resulted in the actionable subsidizing of exports of subject goods to Canada.

[84] The CBSA reviewed the documentation submitted in the complaint along with information available through its own research, including Norway’s latest subsidy notification to the WTO. The reference material examined by the CBSA provided support for the Complainant’s allegations that the subject goods from Norway have been subsidized.

[85] The CBSA found that the five subsidy programs identified by the Complainant were all available to silicon metal producers/exporters in Norway. The CBSA’s analysis also revealed that the alleged subsidy programs constitute a potential financial contribution by the GON 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.

[86] As a result, the CBSA will investigate all of the programs identified by the Complainant. Please refer to Appendix 1 for a list of the subsidy programs to be investigated by the CBSA.

[87] The Complainant identified four subsidy programs or categories of programs which may have conferred benefits to the producers/exporters of subject goods in Thailand, and that have in turn resulted in the actionable subsidizing of exports of subject goods to Canada.

[88] The CBSA reviewed the documentation submitted in the complaint along with information available through its own research, including the CBSA’s previous subsidy investigations involving Thailand, and the USDOC’s previous countervailing investigations from Thailand. The reference material examined by the CBSA provided support for the Complainant’s allegations that the subject goods from Thailand have been subsidized.

[89] The CBSA found that the four subsidy programs identified by the Complainant were all available to silicon metal producers/exporters in Thailand. The CBSA’s analysis also revealed that the alleged subsidy programs constitute a potential financial contribution by the GOT 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.

[90] As a result, the CBSA will investigate all of the programs identified by the Complainant. Please refer to Appendix 1 for a list of the subsidy programs to be investigated by the CBSA.

[91] The Complainant was unable to estimate the amounts of subsidy on a program basis for the subject goods imported from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Norway and Thailand. 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.^{Footnote 24}

[92] The CBSA estimated the amount of subsidy conferred on the producers of the subject goods from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Norway and Thailand 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.

[93] The CBSA’s analysis of the information indicates that subject goods imported into Canada during the period of January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016, were subsidized. The estimated amounts of subsidy found for each of these countries are summarized in the table below:

[97] The Complainant alleged that dumped and subsidized imports of subject goods have captured market share at the expense of the Canadian industry by offering silicon metal at low prices that are injurious to the domestic industry. The Complainant noted that from 2015 to October 2016, imports from named countries increased while domestic sales volume decreased.^{Footnote 25}

[98] The Complainant noted that, based on their estimated apparent Canadian market, the market share of named countries rose while their market share dropped. The Complainant also documented numerous specific examples of lost sales to specific accounts due to low priced subject imports from the named countries.

[99] The CBSA finds that the named countries have increased their market share from 2015 to 2016, and that the increase has been at the expense of the domestic industry. The CBSA finds that the Complainant’s claims of lost sales are supported and linked to the imports of the allegedly dumped and subsidized goods from the named countries. 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 the named countries.

[100] The Complainant stated that the alleged dumped and subsidized goods from the named countries have captured sales and market share by leveraging low pricing and subsequently undercutting the Complainant’s pricing. As a result, the price undercutting by producers in the named countries has caused the domestic industry to discount pricing in order to obtain orders, resulting in substantial lost revenue.

[101] The Complainant submitted evidence showing that the average selling prices from the named countries, during 2016, are substantially lower than those of the Complainant and specific evidence of price undercutting and erosion by producers from the named countries. The Complainant also documented instances where their prices were lowered in order to retain sales in response to imports from the named countries.

[102] Based on the evidence^{Footnote 26}, the CBSA finds that the Complainant’s claims of price undercutting and erosion are well supported and sufficiently linked to allegedly dumped and subsidized imports from the named countries.

[103] The Complainant alleged that the injurious impact of the dumped and subsidized goods is demonstrated in their deteriorating financial performance. The Complainant provided their financial statements to support their allegation.^{Footnote 27}

[104] The CBSA agrees that the Complainant has had poor financial performance as the named countries have continued to increase their market share. 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 allegedly dumped and subsidized goods.

[105] There is a reasonable indication that material injury has occurred to the domestic silicon metal industry. The nature of the injury incurred by the Complainant is well-documented in terms of lost sales and market share, price undercutting and erosion, and negative financial results.

[107] The Complainant submitted that the market conditions in the named countries are generally weak and slowing. Despite this, the Complainant stated that the named countries are projected to increase production, while maintaining significant excess capacity.

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

[109] Based on the evidence, the CBSA finds that the global market outlook for silicon metal is generally weak and is pressured by an increasing supply imbalance occurring in the named countries. Furthermore, the evidence^{Footnote 28} demonstrates that current market conditions in the named countries are likely to lead silicon metal producers to turn to export markets, thereby threatening injury to the Canadian domestic industry.

[110] Canada’s economy is expected to experience slow growth through 2017. Similarly, silicon metal demand in Canada is forecasted to have slow growth over the next few years.^{Footnote 29}

[111] As a commodity product, relative pricing of silicon metal in different international markets is a key factor when considering the likely volume of allegedly dumped and subsidized goods from the named countries. As Canada’s prices for silicon metal are generally higher relative to other regions in the world, the Complainant submitted that silicon metal producers from the named countries are likely to continue to export significant volumes of silicon metal to Canada in the near term.

[112] The volume of imports from the named countries increased significantly from 2015 to 2016. In 2016, named country imports accounted for an estimated 98% of total imports and 55% of the apparent Canadian market.^{Footnote 30} Over the same period, the Complainant’s share of the Canadian market decreased from 55% to 44%.^{Footnote 31}

[113] Based on the evidence, the CBSA finds the allegation that the volume of subject goods imported into the Canadian market will continue to increase is well supported.

[114] During the Period of Investigation (POI), the Complainant managed to maintain production and employment at the expense of the production facility’s margins and profit. However, the Complainant submitted that the facility cannot sustain employment if unfairly traded imports from the named countries continue to penetrate the Canadian market.^{Footnote 32}

[115] Since 2012, the Complainant has heavily invested in its Canadian production facility for improvement, upgrades in furnaces, other machinery and equipment. Investments are also planned through 2018 for annual maintenance, expansion and improvement of the facility. These are mandatory capital expenditures necessary to maintain an efficient production facility. However, the Complainant submits that such expenditures also require the facility to generate profitable sales otherwise it will not be possible to maintain the base level capital expenditures required.^{Footnote 33}

[116] Based on the evidence, the CBSA finds the allegation that the continued importation of subject goods into the Canadian market will have a negative impact on employment and capital investments is well supported.

[117] The Complainant stated that the prices of subject goods from the named countries have, on average, been consistently lower than those of the Complainant. The attractiveness of these prices to Canadian importers is a clear indication that injurious dumping and subsidizing will continue in the absence of measures to prevent it.

[118] The Complainant provided comparative market pricing for silicon metal in different regions in support of their concern for future injury.^{Footnote 34}

[119] Based on the evidence, the CBSA finds the allegation that the price of the subject goods imported into the Canadian market will continue to be consistently lower than those of the Complainant is well supported.

[120] The Complainant submitted that producers from the named countries are seeking markets free of dumping and countervailing measures such as Canada. This threatens injury to domestic producers.

[121] The Complainant provided reference to findings by the United States and the European Union against Russia as evidence that Russia has a propensity to dump silicon metal.^{Footnote 35}

[122] Based on the evidence, the CBSA finds the allegation that the subject goods imported into the Canadian market will continue given the diversion caused by trade measures in other countries is well supported.

[123] According to the Complainant, the impact of the subject goods in the Canadian market has forced them to sell its silicon metal at below cost. The Complainant stated that the trend will impact its 2017 business.^{Footnote 36} The Complainant also documented specific examples of lost sales to specific accounts due to low-priced subject imports from the named countries.

[124] The Complainant submitted that successful penetration of silicon metal imports in Canada from the named countries was caused by price undercutting and provided evidence to support that producers from the named countries are likely to continue to offer for sale subject goods at prices well below the Complainant.

[125] The complaint contained reasonable evidence regarding the threat of injury due to increasing import volumes of subject goods from the named countries. The alleged dumped and subsidized imports, which have substantially undercut domestic pricing, threaten to cause the Canadian producer declines in production, sales, market share, prices, financial performance, employment and to inhibit their ability to make capital investments.