On June 8, 2017, the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) issued a Notice of Initiation stating that it has initiated an antidumping case against carbon and alloy steel line pipe from South Korea. This is not the first line pipe case. In 2016, the CBSA initiated an antidumping case against line pipe from China and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal issued a positive determination on March 29, 2016.
The subject goods are carbon and alloy steel line pipe from South Korea. Normally, we look to the complaint for the definition of the subject goods – but te CBSA has not posted it. In the previous line pipe case, the subject goods were defied as follows:
The subject goods are defined as follows:
“Carbon and alloy steel line pipe … welded or seamless, having an outside diameter from 2.375 inches (60.3 mm) up to and including 24 inches (609.6 mm), including line pipe meeting or supplied to meet any one or several of API 5L, CSA Z245.1, ISO 3183, ASTM A333, ASTM A106, ASTM A53-B or their equivalents, in all grades, whether or not meeting specifications for other end uses (e.g. single-, dual-, or multiple-certified, for use in oil and gas, piling pipe, or other applications), and regardless of end finish (plain ends, beveled ends, threaded ends, or threaded and coupled ends), surface finish (coated or uncoated), wall thickness, or length, excluding galvanized line pipe and excluding stainless steel line pipe (containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium), excluding goods covered by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal’s finding in Inquiry No. NQ-2012-002 and goods covered by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal’s order in Expiry Review No. RR-2012-003.
For greater certainty, the product definition includes unfinished line pipe (including pipe that may or may not already be tested, inspected and/or certified to line pipe specifications) originating in the People’s Republic of China and imported for use in the production or finishing of line pipe meeting final specifications, including outside diameter, grade, wall thickness, length, end finish or surface finish, and non-prime and secondary pipes (“limited service products”).”
Prior to January 1, 2017, the goods in question were usually classified under the following Harmonized System classification numbers:
Beginning January 1, 2017, under the revised customs tariff schedule, subject goods would usually be imported under the following tariff codes for line pipe:
It is important to note that in the previous case, the CITT excluded, at the request for Bri-Steel (which is not mentioned to be a supporter of the Complainant in the new AD proceeding) the following goods:
“unfinished seamless carbon or alloy steel line pipe in the form of mother tubes having outside diameters of 184, 197, 210, 235, 260, 286, 328, 350, 368, 377, 394, 402, 419, 426, 450, 475, 480, 500, 521, 530, 560, 585 or 610 mm, in wall thicknesses from 9 mm to 110 mm and in lengths ranging from 7.72 m to 15.24 m, not stenciled as meeting any line pipe product specification, but imported for use in the production, and not solely for finishing, of seamless line pipe made to any one or several of API 5L, CSAZ245.1, ISO 3183, ASTM A333, ASTM A335, ASTM A106, ASTM A53 or their equivalents.”
There are two separate proceedings: 1) The CBSA conduct and antidumping investigation. Within the first 90 days, the CBSA sends Exporter Requests for Information that must be filed on or before the specified deadline. The CBSA may send supplemental requests for information. The Requests for Information permit the CBSA to calculate preliminary dumping margins. It is preferable to obtain a company-specific dumping margin – especially if an exporter has not dumped goods into Canada; and 2) The CITT conducts a Preliminary Injury Inquiry within the first 60 days. See our post on What is a Preliminary Interest Inquiry? In the Preliminary Injury Inquiry, the CITT looks at whether the complaint discloses a reasonable indication of injury. Normally, the CITT will consider issues on (1) scope, (2) classes of goods and (3) evidentiary issues. Since this is a regional case, arguments about test for regional cases and whether this is an appropriate regional case will likely be very relevant. Companies should participate early and raise relevant issues with the CITT. The CBSA conducts a Preliminary Dumping Investigation within the first 90 days (the period overlaps with the CITT Preliminary Injury Inquiry).The CBSA’s timeline of important dates is as follows: July 3, 2017 – CBSA: Importer responses to CBSA Requests for Information are due July 17, 2017 – CBSA: Exporter responses to CBSA Requests for Information are due (no extensions are granted)September 6, 2017 – CBSA issues preliminary dumping determination (unless the CBSA extends by up to 45 days)October 24, 2017 – CBSA: Closing of the Record Date October 31, 2017 – CBSA: Case arguments due from all parties November 7, 2017 – CBSA: Reply submissions are due December 5, 2017 – CBSA issues final determination
We recently posted an article entitled “Exporters Who Receive De Minimis Dumping Margins in Canadian AD Cases Now Being Excluded From Final Orders” in which we highlight the benefits of participating in a Canadian antidumping case. If an exporter can achieve a de minimis dumping margin (less than 2%), the dumping investigation will be terminated against that exporter. This would allow that exporter to continue to sell to importers in Canada.
If you require any assistance, please contact Cyndee Todgham Cherniak at 416-307-4168 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Other articles we have written concerning Canada’s antidumping regime:
Top 10 Mistakes Make By Exporters When Completing Antidumping Requests For Information
Who is the Exporter for Special Import measures Act (SIMA) Purposes?
CBSA Has Revised The D-Memorandum On The Anti-dumping/Countervailing Duty Redetermination Process
CITT Finds Reduction Or Elimination of Rebar AD/CVD Duties Not In Public Interest