Notice of conclusion of a re-investigation: Carbon steel welded pipe 2 (CSWP2 2023 RI)

Period of investigation

The period of investigation (POI) and the profitability analysis period (PAP) for the re-investigation was from April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023.

Re-investigation process

At the initiation of the re-investigation, the CBSA sent dumping and subsidy requests for information (RFI) to all known importers, exporters, producers and vendors to solicit information on the costs and selling prices of subject goods and like goods. The information was requested for purposes of updating the normal values, export prices, and amounts of subsidy for subject goods imported into Canada. On-site verifications were conducted at the premises of exporters that provided complete information to the CBSA.

As part of the re-investigation, case briefs were provided by counsel representing the complainant and responding exporters. Details of the representations are provided in Appendix 1. Details pertaining to the information submitted by the exporters in response to the RFIs and supplemental RFIs (SRFI), as well as the results of the CBSA’s re-investigation are provided below.

Specific normal values, export prices and amounts of subsidy for future shipments of CSWP have been determined for exporters that submitted a complete response to the dumping RFI, subsidy RFI, SRFIs, deficiency letters, and for whose information was determined reliable as a result of the verification.

Normal values and export prices

Normal value

Normal values are generally determined based on the domestic selling prices of like goods in the country of export, in accordance with section 15 of SIMA, or on the aggregate of the cost of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, plus a reasonable amount for profits, in accordance with paragraph 19(b) of SIMA.

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

Export prices

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

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

India

Goel Pipes

Shri Bajrang Power & Ispat Limited (Goel Pipes) is a producer of CSWP located in India. Goel Pipes provided one data worksheet and did not respond to the CBSA’s dumping RFI.

The CBSA found Goel Pipes’ response to be incomplete and deficient. Normal values and export prices for Goel Pipes were determined pursuant to a ministerial specification in accordance with subsection 29(1) of SIMA.

Manu International

Manu International is a manufacturer and exporter of CSWP located in India.

The submission by Manu International in this proceeding was not taken into consideration due to disclosure-related deficiencies. Normal values and export prices for Manu International were determined pursuant to a ministerial specification in accordance with subsection 29(1) of SIMA.

Oman

Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG

Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG (“Al Jazeera”) is a producer of CSWP located in the Sohar, Oman. Al Jazeera did not export subject goods to Canada during the POI.

Al Jazeera provided substantially complete responses to the CBSA’s dumping RFI and two supplemental RFIs. On-site verification was conducted at the premises of Al Jazeera.

Al Jazeera provided a database of domestic sales of CSWP during the PAP. Where Al Jazeera had sufficient domestic sales that met the requirements of section 15 and 16 of SIMA, normal values were determined pursuant to section 15 of SIMA, based on the company’s weighted average domestic selling prices of CSWP in Oman. Where there were insufficient domestic sales of like goods that met the requirements of section 15 and 16 of SIMA, normal values were determined pursuant to section 19(b) of SIMA, based on the aggregate of the cost of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits. The amount for profits was determined pursuant to paragraph 11(1)(b)(ii) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR).

Thailand

Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Limited

Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Limited (“Saha Thai”) is a producer and exporter of CSWP located in Samutprakarn, Thailand. Saha Thai exported subject goods to Canada during the POI.

Saha Thai provided substantially complete responses to the CBSA’s dumping RFI and two supplemental RFIs. On-site verification was conducted at the premises of Saha Thai.

Saha Thai provided a database of domestic sales of CSWP during the PAP. Where Saha Thai had sufficient domestic sales that met the requirements of section 15 and 16 of SIMA, normal values were determined pursuant to section 15 of SIMA, based on the company’s weighted average domestic selling prices of CSWP in Thailand. Where there were insufficient domestic sales of like goods that met the requirements of section 15 and 16 of SIMA, normal values were determined pursuant to section 19(b) of SIMA, based on the aggregate of the cost of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits. The amount for profits was determined pursuant to paragraph 11(1)(b)(ii) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR).

For the subject goods exported to Canada by Saha Thai during the POI, the export prices were determined pursuant to section 24 of SIMA, based on the exporter’s selling price adjusted by deducting the costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

United Arab Emirates

Ajmal Steel Tubes and Pipes Industries L.L.C.

Ajmal Steel Tubes and Pipes Industries L.L.C. (“Ajmal”) is a producer of CSWP located in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Ajmal did not export subject goods to Canada during the POI.

Ajmal provided substantially complete responses to the CBSA’s dumping RFI and two supplemental RFIs. On-site verification was conducted at the premises of Ajmal.

Ajmal provided a database of domestic sales of CSWP during the PAP. Where Ajmal had sufficient domestic sales that met the requirements of section 15 and 16 of SIMA, normal values were determined pursuant to section 15 of SIMA, based on the company’s weighted average domestic selling prices of CSWP in the United Arab Emirates. Where there were insufficient domestic sales of like goods that met the requirements of section 15 and 16 of SIMA, normal values were determined pursuant to section 19(b) of SIMA, based on the aggregate of the cost of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits. The amount for profits was determined pursuant to paragraph 11(1)(b)(ii) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR).

TSI Metal Industries LLC

TSI Metal Industries L.L.C. (“TSI”) is a producer of CSWP headquartered in Dubai, United Arab Emirates with factories in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. TSI did not export subject goods to Canada during the POI.

TSI provided substantially complete responses to the CBSA’s dumping RFI and three supplemental RFIs. On-site verification was conducted at the premises of TSI.

TSI provided a database of domestic sales of CSWP during the PAP. Where TSI had sufficient domestic sales that met the requirements of section 15 and 16 of SIMA, normal values were determined pursuant to section 15 of SIMA, based on the company’s weighted average domestic selling prices of CSWP in the United Arab Emirates. Where there were insufficient domestic sales of like goods that met the requirements of section 15 and 16 of SIMA, normal values were determined pursuant to section 19(b) of SIMA, based on the aggregate of the cost of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits. The amount for profits was determined pursuant to paragraph 11(1)(b)(ii) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR).

Universal Tube & Plastic Industries Ltd.

Universal Tube & Plastic Industries Ltd. (“UTP”) is a producer and exporter of CSWP located in the Jebel Ali Free Zone, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. UTP exported subject goods to Canada during the POI.

UTP provided substantially complete responses to the CBSA’s dumping RFI and two supplemental RFIs. On-site verification was conducted at the premises of UTP.

UTP provided a database of domestic sales of CSWP during the PAP. Where UTP had sufficient domestic sales that met the requirements of section 15 and 16 of SIMA, normal values were determined pursuant to section 15 of SIMA, based on the company’s weighted average domestic selling prices of CSWP in the United Arab Emirates. Where there were insufficient domestic sales of like goods that met the requirements of section 15 and 16 of SIMA, normal values were determined pursuant to section 19(b) of SIMA, based on the aggregate of the cost of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits. The amount for profits was determined pursuant to paragraph 11(1)(b)(ii) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR).

For the subject goods exported to Canada by UTP during the POI, the export prices were determined pursuant to section 24 of SIMA, based on the exporter’s selling price adjusted by deducting the costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

All Other Exporters in Chinese Taipei, India, Oman, South Korea, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates

For all other exporters of subject goods originating in or exported from India, Oman, South Korea, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates (excluding goods exported from the United Arab Emirates by Conares Metal Supply Ltd.), normal values will be determined by ministerial specification. The normal values for future shipments determined by ministerial specification are calculated by advancing the export price of the goods by 54.2%, pursuant to subsection 29(1) of SIMA. For all other exporters of subject goods originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei (excluding goods exported from Chinese Taipei by Chung Hung Steel Corporation and Shin Yang Steel Co. Ltd) the normal values for future shipments determined by ministerial specification are calculated by advancing the export price of the goods by 29.6%.

Normal values previously in place expire on October 6, 2023.

Amounts of subsidy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India

The Government of India (GOI) responded to the CBSA’s government subsidy RFI.

However, the lack of response from cooperative producers/exporters limited the CBSA’s ability to determine the amount of subsidy in the prescribed manner as required information relating to financial contribution and benefit was not provided.

Due to a lack of response from cooperative producers/exporters, subsidy amounts for all exporters were determined pursuant to subsection 30.4(2) of SIMA, based on a ministerial specification.

Goel Pipes

Shri Bajrang Power & Ispat Limited (Goel Pipes) is a producer of CSWP located in India. Goel Pipes provided one data worksheet and did not respond to the CBSA’s subsidy RFI.

The CBSA found Goel Pipes’ response to be incomplete and deficient. The amount of subsidy for Goel Pipes were determined in accordance with a ministerial specification, and is equal to 23,872 rupees per metric tonne.

Manu International

Manu International is a manufacturer and exporter of CSWP located in India. The submission by Manu International in this proceeding was not taken into consideration due to disclosure-related deficiencies.

The amount of subsidy for Manu International were determined in accordance with a ministerial specification, and is equal to 23,872 rupees per metric tonne.

All other exporters in India

For all other exporters of subject goods from India, the amount of subsidy will be determined in accordance with a ministerial specification, and is equal to 23,872 rupees per metric tonne.

Exporter responsibility

Please note that exporters with normal values are required to promptly inform the CBSA in writing of changes to domestic prices, costs, market conditions or terms of sale associated with the production and sales of the goods. All parties are cautioned that where there are increases in domestic prices, and/or costs as noted above, the export price for sales to Canada should be increased appropriately to ensure that any sale made to Canada is not only above the normal value but at or above selling prices and full costs and profit of the goods in the exporter’s domestic market. Where exporters do not properly notify the CBSA of any such changes, do not adjust export prices appropriately, or do not provide the information required to make any necessary adjustments to normal values and export prices, retroactive assessments of anti-dumping or countervailing duties may be warranted.

Importer responsibility

Importers are reminded that it is their responsibility to calculate and declare their anti-dumping and countervailing duty liability. If importers are using the services of a customs broker to clear importations, the brokerage firm should be advised that the goods are subject to anti-dumping and countervailing measures and be provided with sufficient information necessary to clear the shipments. To determine their liability for anti-dumping and countervailing duty, importers should contact the exporters to obtain the applicable normal values and amounts of subsidy. For further information on this matter, refer to Memorandum D14-1-2, Disclosure of normal values, export prices, and amounts of subsidy established under the Special Import Measures Act.

The Customs Act applies, with any modifications that the circumstances require, with respect to the accounting and payment of anti-dumping and countervailing duties. As such, failure to pay the duties within the prescribed time will result in the application of the interest provisions of the Act.

Should the importer disagree with the determination made on any importation of goods, a request for re-determination may be filed. For more information on how to file a request for re-determination, please refer to the Guide for appealing a duty assessment.

Contact us

• Telephone:
• Ted Chester: 343-553-1888
• Alexander Ferracuti: 343-553-1890

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

Appendix 1: Representations

Representations were received from counsel on behalf of the complainant, Nova Tube Inc. (Nova), during the course of the re-investigation.^{Footnote 1}

Furthermore, following the close of the record on August 30, 2023, case arguments were received on behalf of the following parties:

• Nova Tube Inc.^{Footnote 2}
• Universal Tube and Plastic Industries Ltd.^{Footnote 3}

The CBSA received reply submissions on behalf of:

• Nova Tube Inc.^{Footnote 4}
• Universal Tube and Plastic Industries Ltd.^{Footnote 5}
• Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG^{Footnote 6}

Certain details provided in the case arguments and reply submissions were designated as confidential information by the submitting counsel. This has restricted the ability of the CBSA to discuss all issues raised in these representations. The material issues raised by the parties and the CBSA’s responses are summarized as follows.

Dumping representations

Completeness and reliability of information provided

Representations made during the re-investigation

Counsel for Nova made representations during the re-investigation pertaining to the RFI and Supplemental RFI responses provided by exporters.^{Footnote 7} Counsel submitted that the submissions from various exporters were deficient and incomplete. The specific representations made by counsel will be discussed in greater detail below.

Case briefs

Counsel for Nova submitted case briefs similar to their representations made during the re-investigation. Counsel argued that the submissions from all exporters were deficient and incomplete.^{Footnote 8} Issues raised include: missing financial information, issues regarding the acquisition prices of raw materials, completeness and accuracy of CSWP sales and costing databases, inconsistencies within exporter response, and unreliable costs of production.

Counsel for UTP argued that the information provided is substantially complete, accurate and verified by the CBSA.^{Footnote 9}

Reply submissions

Counsel for Nova reaffirmed that UTP did not provide substantially complete and accurate information.^{Footnote 10}

Counsel for UTP reaffirmed that the information provided is substantially complete, accurate and verified by the CBSA.^{Footnote 11}

Counsel for Al Jazeera reaffirmed that the information provided is substantially complete, accurate and verified by the CBSA.^{Footnote 12}

CBSA response

The CBSA determined that the information provided by UTP, Al Jazeera, Ajmal, TSI, and Saha Thai in response to the RFI, SRFIs and on-site verification was complete and sufficient for the purposes of determining normal values and export prices in this re-investigation. Further, normal values and export prices calculated by the CBSA in this review were determined in accordance with both SIMA and SIMR.

The CBSA found Goel Pipes’ response to be incomplete and deficient. Normal values and export prices for Goel Pipes’ were determined pursuant to a ministerial specification.

The submission by Manu International in this proceeding was not taken into consideration due to disclosure-related deficiencies. Normal values and export prices for Manu International were determined pursuant to a ministerial specification.

Due consideration has been given to submissions on the topics raised in case briefs on a case by case basis and appropriate adjustments were made, as applicable, in accordance with SIMA and SIMR. Additional information on the calculation of normal values is provided to exporters in the confidential exporter conclusion notices.

Determination of normal values for future shipments

Representations made during the re-investigation

Counsel for Nova made representations during the re-investigation pertaining to how the CBSA should issue future normal values for certain exporters.^{Footnote 13} Counsel submitted that future normal values should be issued based on a combination of specification & grade, trade level, and various other factors.

Case briefs

Counsel for Nova submitted similar arguments in their case briefs to the CBSA.^{Footnote 14}

Counsel for UTP submitted that the CBSA should determine normal values for all models that UTP anticipates to export to Canada in the foreseeable future.^{Footnote 15} Similarly, counsel for UTP argued that the CBSA must determine a reasonable amount for profit as per paragraph 11(1)(b) of the SIMR.

Reply submissions

Counsel for Nova asserted that UTP’s response was deficient and therefore should not be issued specific normal values. Additionally, counsel for Nova argued that an amount for profit should be calculated pursuant to section 29(1) of the SIMA for UTP.^{Footnote 16}

Counsel for Al Jazeera argued that specific normal values issued should reflect the domestic prices or domestic costs of the products it produces and sells.^{Footnote 17}

CBSA response

The CBSA considered all of the representations made with regards to the issuance of normal values for future shipments. Normal values and export prices calculated as a result of the re-investigation were determined in accordance with both SIMA and SIMR.

Due consideration has been given to submissions on the topics raised in case briefs on a case by case basis and appropriate adjustments were made, as applicable, in accordance with SIMA and SIMR. Additional information on the calculation of normal values is provided to exporters in the confidential exporter conclusion notices

Missing importer RFI responses

Case briefs

Counsel for the complainant submitted that the importer responses are necessary for the CBSA to issue normal values.^{Footnote 18} Counsel for Nova further submitted that due to the lack of importer responses, the CBSA should not issue normal values to certain exporters.

Reply submission

Counsel for UTP reaffirmed that the information provided is not deficient and is reliable; and that importer submissions are not required to determine specific normal values.^{Footnote 19}

Counsel for Al Jazeera argued that the absence of importer responses poses no issue when it comes to the CBSA issuing exporter specific normal values. Furthermore, counsel submitted that the CBSA has consistently calculated specific normal values for exporters when the unrelated importer did not provide a response. Counsel for Al Jazeera also noted that they did not export during the POI and therefore the lack of importer responses does not apply.^{Footnote 20}

CBSA response

Based on the information on the record and in accordance with SIMA and SIMR, the CBSA issued normal values for future shipments to all exporters with complete, accurate and reliable information, notwithstanding the absence of importer responses.

Company specific MOD

Case briefs

Counsel for UTP submitted that the CBSA must calculate a company-specific margin of dumping for UTP if they are found to be cooperative in this reinvestigation.^{Footnote 21}

Reply submission

Counsel for Nova argued that the CBSA does not determine margins of dumping during a re-investigation or outside an original investigation.^{Footnote 22}

CBSA response

The CBSA does not determine a margin of dumping during a re-investigation. A re-investigation is a review of the normal values and export prices of the subject goods.

Subsidy representations

Completeness of information provided

Representations made during the re-investigation

Counsel for Nova made representations during the re-investigation regarding Manu International’s and Goel Pipes’ responses to the subsidy RFI and the GOI’s response to the government subsidy RFI. Counsel notes that Manu International’s submission was rejected by the CBSA and that Goel Pipe submitted an incomplete response, and thus an amount of subsidy cannot be calculated for either Manu International or Goel Pipes. Counsel also asserts that substantial sections of the GOI’s response are incomplete and notes that the GOI’s RFI response confirms Manu International has received benefits during the POI.^{Footnote 23}

Case briefs

Counsel for Nova submitted similar arguments in their case briefs to the CBSA.^{Footnote 24}

CBSA response

The CBSA found Goel Pipes’ response to be deficient and the submission by Manu International in this proceeding was not taken into consideration by the CBSA due to disclosure-related deficiencies. Due to a lack of response from cooperative producers/exporters in India, subsidy amounts for all exporters in India were determined pursuant to a ministerial specification.