Notice of conclusion of a re-investigation: Heavy Plate (HP 2023 RI)

Period of investigation

The period of investigation (POI) and the profitability analysis period (PAP) for the re-investigation was from October 1, 2022 to September 30, 2023.

Re-investigation process

At the initiation of the re-investigation, the CBSA sent a Request 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 and export prices for subject goods imported into Canada. On-site verifications were conducted at the premises of one exporter located in Chinese Taipei, and one exporter located in Germany.

As part of the re-investigation, case briefs and reply submissions were provided by counsel representing the complainants 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 as well as the results of the CBSA’s re-investigation are provided below.

Specific normal values and export prices for future shipments of heavy plate have been determined for exporters that submitted a complete response to the Dumping RFI, Supplemental RFIs, and for whom the verification was considered reliable.

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.

Where there are sales between associated persons or a compensatory arrangement exists, the export price may be determined based on the importer’s resale price of the imported goods in Canada to non associated purchasers, less deductions for all costs incurred in preparing, shipping and exporting the goods to Canada that are additional to those incurred on the sales of like goods for use in the country of export, all costs that are incurred in reselling the goods (including duties and taxes) or associated with the assembly of the goods in Canada and an amount representative of the average industry profit in Canada, pursuant to paragraphs 25(1)(c) and 25(1)(d) of SIMA. In any cases not provided for under paragraphs 25(1)(c) and 25(1)(d) of SIMA, the export price is determined in such a manner as the Minister specifies, pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(e).

Chinese Taipei

China Steel Corporation

China Steel Corporation (China Steel)

China Steel Corporation is a manufacturer and exporter of subject goods located in Kaohsiung City. All subject goods shipped to Canada during the POI were produced by China Steel at the plate mill located in Hsiao Kang District, Kaohsiung. The company headquarters is located in Qianzhen District, Kaohsiung.

During the course of the re-investigation, China Steel provided responses to the CBSA’s Dumping RFI as well as one Supplemental RFI. An on-site verification of China Steel was conducted in January, 2024.

The exporter had domestic sales of like goods during the POI/PAP and as a result, normal values were determined pursuant to section 15 of SIMA where possible, based on the company’s weighted average domestic selling prices of heavy plate in Chinese Taipei. Where sufficient domestic sales of like goods did not meet the requirements of section 15 and 16 of SIMA, normal values were determined pursuant to paragraph 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 plus a reasonable amount for profits. The amount for profit was determined pursuant to subparagraph 11(1)(b)(ii) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR).

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

All other exporters in Chinese Taipei

For all other exporters of subject goods originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, 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 80.6%, pursuant to subsection 29(1) of SIMA.

Normal values previously in place expire on March 22, 2024.

Germany

Aktien-Gesellschaft der Dillinger Hüttenwerke

Aktien-Gesellschaft der Dillinger Hüttenwerke (Dillinger) is a manufacturer and exporter of subject goods located in Germany. The company has one production facility located in Dillingen/Saar, Germany. All of the subject goods shipped to Canada were produced at this facility. The company headquarters is also located in Dillingen/Saar.

Dillinger provided responses to the CBSA’s RFI and two supplemental RFIs. Dillinger’s related input supplier also provided a response to the CBSA’s RFI and a supplemental RFI. An on-site verification of Dillinger was conducted in January, 2024.

The exporter had domestic sales of like goods during the POI/PAP and as a result, normal values were determined pursuant to section 15 of SIMA where possible, based on the company’s weighted average domestic selling prices of heavy plate in Germany. Where sufficient domestic sales of like goods did not meet the requirements of section 15 and 16 of SIMA, normal values were determined pursuant to paragraph 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 plus a reasonable amount for profits. The amount for profit was determined pursuant to subparagraph 11(1)(b)(ii) of SIMR.

As inputs significant in the production of the goods were acquired from one or more associated suppliers, the cost of the inputs were determined pursuant to subparagraph 11.2(1) of SIMR.

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

All other exporters in Germany

For all other exporters of subject goods originating in or exported from Germany, 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 68.6%, pursuant to subsection 29(1) of SIMA.

Normal values previously in place expire on March 22, 2024.

Exporter responsibility

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 accordingly 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. If exporters did not properly notify the CBSA of any such changes, did not adjust export prices accordingly, or did not provide the information required to make any necessary adjustments to normal values and export prices, retroactive assessments of anti-dumping duties may be warranted. Please refer to the CBSA’s re-investigation and normal value review policy (Memorandum D14-1-8) for details.

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:
• Serena Major: 343-553-2004
• Jean-François Nehmé: 343-573-3144

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

Appendix 1: Representations

During the re-investigation, submissions containing representations were received on behalf of a Canadian producer, Algoma Steel Inc. (Algoma).^{Footnote 1}

Following the closing of the record on February 14, 2024, case arguments were received on behalf of Algoma,^{Footnote 2} Aktien-Gesellschaft der Dillinger Hüttenwerke (Dillinger),^{Footnote 3} and China Steel Corporation (China Steel).^{Footnote 4}

The CBSA received reply submissions on behalf of Algoma,^{Footnote 5} Dillinger,^{Footnote 6} and China Steel.^{Footnote 7}

Certain details provided in case briefs 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 submissions. The material issues raised by the parties through case briefs are summarized as follows:

Retroactive duty assessments

Case briefs

Counsel for the complainants reiterated that in order to ensure that normal values accurately reflect changing market conditions, exporters with normal values are required to inform the CBSA of changes to domestic prices, costs, market conditions or terms of sale associated with the production and sale of heavy plate. Where an exporter fails to properly notify the CBSA of such changes, fails to properly adjust their export prices, or fails to provide the CBSA with the information needed to make the relevant adjustments to normal values, the CBSA is authorized to impose retroactive anti-dumping duties on the subject goods.^{Footnote 8}

Counsel noted that normal values previously in place were determined based on the period of investigation (POI) of the original investigation, March 1, 2019 to February 29, 2020, and further stated that from 2019 to 2023, there was a significant increase in hot-rolled plate pricing in Chinese Taipei. Counsel alleged that China Steel did not report these changes in price, and did not sufficiently increase its export prices to account for changes in market conditions, therefore, the CBSA should assess retroactive duties for imports of subject goods from China Steel, as of the beginning of the POI of this re-investigation (October 1, 2022).^{Footnote 9}

Reply submissions

In their reply submission, counsel for China Steel addressed Algoma's comments concerning retroactivity, arguing that retroactive assessments are not warranted. Counsel alleged that China Steel increased prices to Canada as costs decreased, and further stated that China Steel's sales to Canada were more profitable than sales in their domestic market. Additionally, counsel claimed that retroactive assessments are unlawful under WTO law.^{Footnote 10}

CBSA response

Upon completion of the re-investigation, the CBSA will be conducting an analysis of subject imports from exporters of heavy plate during the POI, to determine whether retroactive assessments are warranted. The analysis will rely on information provided via request for information (RFI) and Supplemental RFI responses received, representations submitted by parties, on-site verifications and any other available relevant information.

Dumping representations

Completeness of information provided and the calculation of normal values and export prices

Representations made during the re-investigation

During the re-investigation, counsel for the complainants discussed various concerns pertaining to the responses to the RFIs and Supplemental RFIs provided by the exporters. Issues raised included: models of normal values, testing requirements, cost of production reporting methodologies and allocations, discounts, rebates and allowances, quantity reporting, sales channels, and other various alleged inconsistencies and deficiencies within the responses.^{Footnote 11}

There were a number of exporter specific issues that were raised by counsel for the complainants as well. In order to respect the confidentiality designations made by interested parties, the CBSA is limited in the information that can be divulged in response to arguments made concerning certain topics.

Case briefs

In their case brief, counsel for Algoma reiterated their concerns with the exporters’ responses, maintaining their position that the responses contain deficiencies. Counsel alleged additional concerns with respect to verification exhibits, information from related entities, and significant input costs.^{Footnote 12}

In their case briefs, counsel for each exporter submitted that they have fully cooperated during the re-investigation, and have provided complete responses which have been verified during on-site verifications. Counsel further submitted that sufficient verified information has been provided to determine normal values. Additionally, counsel for each exporter made representations concerning the models to be provided normal values, as well as proposing model groupings to be considered in determining normal values.^{Footnote 13}

Reply submissions

In their reply submission, counsel for Algoma reiterated their arguments concerning models to be assigned normal values. Additionally, counsel addressed some of the model grouping suggestions provided by counsel for the exporters, stating that the suggestions are not acceptable, and should not be used.^{Footnote 14}

In their reply submissions, counsel for each China Steel and Dillinger addressed the exporter specific topics mentioned by Algoma in their case brief. Counsel for each exporter maintained their positions that the information provided is complete, accurate, and has been verified, therefore should be used to determine normal values.^{Footnote 15}

CBSA response

The CBSA determined that the information provided by China Steel and Dillinger in their RFI and SFRI responses, and on-site verification responses was sufficient for 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 the 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 letters.