4214 -43 
AD/1404  
4218 -40 
CVD/139  
OTTAWA, December 1 8, 2014  
 
STATEMENT OF REASONS  
 
Concerning the preliminary determinations  
with respect to the dumping of  
 
CERTAIN OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS ORIGIN ATING IN OR EXPORT ED  
FROM CHINESE TAIPEI,  THE REPUBLIC OF  INDIA , THE REPUBLIC OF 
INDONESIA, THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE REP UBLIC OF 
KOREA , THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND, THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY, 
UKRAINE AND THE SOCIALIST REPUBL IC OF VIETNAM   
 
and the subsidizing of  
 
CERTAIN OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS ORIGINATING IN OR EX PORTED 
FROM THE REPUBLIC OF  INDIA, THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, T HE 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL IPPINES, THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND, UKRAINE 
AND THE SOCIALIST RE PUBLIC OF VIETNAM  
 
and regarding the termination of the investigation with respect to  
the subsidizing of   
 
CERTAIN OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS ORIGIN ATING IN OR 
EXPORTED FROM THE REP UBLIC OF KOREA AND T HE 
REPUBLIC  OF TURKEY . 
 
DECISION  
 
Pursuant to subsection 38(1) of the Special Import Measures Act  (SIMA) , on December 3, 2014, 
the President of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) made preliminary determinations 
of dumping respecting certain  oil country tubular goods originating in or exported from 
Chines e Taipei, the Republic of India, the Republic of Indonesia, the  Republic of the Philippines, 
the Republic of Korea, the Kingdom of  Thailand, the Republic of Turkey, Ukraine and the 
Socialist Republic of  Vietnam  and preliminary determinations of subsidizing  respecting  such 
goods from the Republic of India, the Republic of Indonesia, the Republic of the Philippines, the 
Kingdom of Thailand, Ukraine and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam . On the same day, 
pursuant to paragraph 35(2) (a) of SIMA , the President of  the CBSA terminated  the subsid y 
investigation with respect to such goods from the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Turkey.  
 
 
Cet Énoncé des motifs  est également disponible en français.  
This Statement of Reasons  is also available in French.  
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS  
 
SUMMARY OF EVENTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  1 
PERIOD OF INVESTIGAT ION ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  3 
PROFIT ABILITY ANALYSIS PER IOD ................................ ................................ ................................  3 
INTERESTED PARTIES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  3 
COMPLAINANTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3 
OTHER PRODUCERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............................  4 
IMPORTERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  4 
EXPORTERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  4 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  5 
PRODUCT INFORMATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  5 
PRODUCT DEFINITION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  5 
ADDITIONAL  PRODUCT INFORMATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 5 
PRODUCTION PROCESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  6 
PRODUCT USE AND CHARACTERISTICS  ................................ ................................ ................................  7 
CLASSIFICATION OF IMPORTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  8 
LIKE  GOODS AND CLASSES OF  GOODS  ................................ ................................ .........................  9 
THE CANADIAN INDUSTR Y ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  9 
IMPORTS INTO CANADA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  9 
REPRESENTATIONS  RECEIVED PRIOR TO IN ITIATION  ................................ ............................  10 
REPRESENTATIONS FROM  THE COMPLAINANTS  ................................ ................................ ..... 10 
INVESTIGATION PROCES S ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  10 
DUMPING INVESTIGATIO N ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  11 
NORMAL VALUES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  11 
EXPORT PRICES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 12 
MARGIN OF DUMPING  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  12 
PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE DUMPING INVESTIGATION  ................................ ...............................  12 
CHINESE TAIPEI  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 13 
INDIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  14 
INDONESIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  15 
PHILIPPINES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  17 
REPUBLIC OF KORE A ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  18 
THAILAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  21 
TURKEY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  22 
UKRAINE  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  24 
VIETNAM  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  26 
OTHER EXPORTERS – ALL COUNTRIES  ................................ ................................ ..............................  27 
SUMMARY RESULTS - DUMPING  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  27 
SUBSIDY INVESTIGATIO N ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  28 
INDIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  30 
INDONESIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  32 
THE PHILIPPINES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  34 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  36 
THAILAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  41 
TURKEY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  43 
UKRAINE  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  45 
VIETNAM  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  46 
SUMMARY RESULTS - SUBSIDY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  47 
DECISIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  49 
PROVISIONAL DUTY  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  49 
FUTURE ACTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  50 THE CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY  ................................ ................................ ........................  50 
THE CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL  ................................ ................................ .........  50 
RETROACTIVE DUTY ON MASSIVE IMPORTATIONS  ................................ ................................  51 
UNDERTAKINGS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  51 
PUBLICATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 52 
INFORMATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 53 
APPENDIX 1 – REPRESENTATIONS FROM  THE GOVERNMENT OF TH E REPUBLIC OF 
KOREA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  54 
APPENDIX 2 – REPRESENT ATIONS FROM THE GOVE RNMENT OF VIETNAM  .....................  56 
APPENDIX 3 – REPRESENTATIONS FROM  THE GOVERNMENT OF TU RKEY  .......................  58 
APPENDIX 4 – REPRESENTATIONS FROM  THE COMPLAINANTS  ................................ ...........  59 
APPENDIX 5 – SUMMARY OF THE ESTIM ATED MARGINS OF DUMP ING, ESTIMATED 
AMOUNTS OF SUBSIDY, AND PROVISIONAL DUTI ES PAYABLE  ................................ ...........  63 
APPENDIX 6 – SUMMARY OF PRELIMINA RY FINDINGS FOR NAME D SUBSIDY 
PROGRAMS - INDIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  64 
APPENDIX 7 – SUMMARY O F PRELIMINARY FINDIN GS FOR NAMED SUBSIDY  
PROGRAMS - INDONESIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  72 
APPENDIX 8 – SUMMARY OF PRELIMINA RY FINDINGS FOR NAME D SUBSIDY 
PROGRAMS - THE PHILIPPINES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 73 
APPENDIX 9 – SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR NAMED SUBSIDY PR OGRAMS - REPUBLIC 
OF KOREA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  74 
APPENDIX 10 – SUMMARY OF PRELIMINA RY FINDINGS FOR NAME D SUBSIDY 
PROGRAMS - THAILAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  83 
APPENDIX 11 – SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR NAMED SUBSIDY PR OGRAMS - TURKEY  84 
APPENDIX 12 – SUMMARY OF PRELIMINA RY FINDINGS FOR NAMED SUBSIDY 
PROGRAMS - UKRAINE ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  91 
APPENDIX 13 – SUMMARY OF PRELIMINA RY FINDINGS FOR NAME D SUBSIDY 
PROGRAMS - VIETNAM  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  92 
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   1 
 
 SUMMARY  OF EVENTS  
 
[1] On June 6, 2014 , Tenaris Canada  of Calgary, Alberta  and Evraz  Inc. NA Canada , of 
Regina, Saskatchewan  (here inafter ‘the Complainant s’) filed a complaint with the Trade and 
Anti-dumping Programs Directorate of the C anada Border Services Agency (CBSA) .  The 
Complainant s allege d that imports into Canada of certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) 
originating in or exported from  Chinese Taipei, the Republic of India (India), the Republic of 
Indonesia (Indonesia), the Republic of the Philippines (the Philippines), the  Republic of 
Korea , the Kingdom of Thailand  (Thailand) , the Republic  of Turkey (Turkey), Ukraine and 
the Socialist Republic  of Vietnam (Vietnam) have been dumped and (with the exception of  
certain OCTG from  Chinese Taipei) subsidized .  These countries will be referred to 
collectively as “ the named countries” throughout this document.  The C omplainants allege d 
that the dumping and subsidizing  have caused injury and are threatening to cause injury to the 
Canadian industry producing  like goods . 
 
[2] On June 20, 2014 , the CBSA informed the Complainant s and the government s of the 
named countries that the  complaint was properly documented .  The governments of India , 
Indonesia, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam  
were also provided with a copy of the non -confidential versi on of the subsidy portion of the 
complaint and were invited for consultations prior to the initiation of the investigations, 
pursuant to Article 13.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures  (ASCM).  
 
[3] On July 15, 2014, the Government  of Can ada received written representations from the 
Government  of the Republic of Korea with respect to its views on the adequacy of the 
evidence presented in the non -confidential version of the subsidy portion of the complaint.  
 
[4] On July 17, 2014, consultations pursuant to Article 13.1 of the ASCM were held 
between the Government  of Canada and the Government  of the Republic of Korea.  On the 
same day, consultations were also held between the Government  of Canada and the 
Government  of Vietnam .  During these consultations, the Government  of the Republic of 
Korea reiterated its written representations with respect to its views on the adequacy of the 
evidence presented in the non -confidential version of the subsidy complaint.  During th e 
consultations with the Government  of Vietnam, the CBSA  also received written 
representations concerning the sufficiency of the non-confidential version of the  subsidy  
complaint . 
 
[5] On July 18, 2014, consultations pursuant to Article 13.1  of the ASCM were h eld 
between the Government  of Canada and the Government  of Turkey.  During these 
consultations, the CBSA also received written representations concerning the adequacy of the 
evidence presented in the non -confidential version of the subsidy portion of the c omplaint.  
 
[6] The CBSA considered the written representations of the governments of Turkey, 
Vietnam and the Republic of Korea , to the extent possible  given the limited time available, in 
its analysis of whether there was sufficient evidence of subsidization t o warrant the initiation 
of a subsidy investigation.   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   2 
 
 [7] On July 21, 2014, pursuant to subsection 31(1) of the Special Import 
Measures  Act (SIMA ), the President of the CBSA (President) initiated investigations 
respecting the dumping and (with the exception of certain OCTG from  Chinese  Taipei) 
subsidizing of certain oil count ry tubular goods originating in or exported from Chinese 
Taipei, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine 
and Vietnam.  
 
[8] Upon receiving notice of the initiation of the investigations, the Canadian International 
Trade Tribunal (Tribunal) commenced a preliminary injury inquiry, pursuant to 
subsection  34(2) of SIMA, into whether the evidence discloses a reasonable indication th at the 
alleged dumping and subsidizing of certain OCTG originating in or exported from the named 
countries has caused injury or retardation or is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian 
industry producing the goods.  
 
[9] On August 22, 2014, the CBSA extend ed by four weeks the time permitted for the 
Government of Ukraine and the exporters Interpipe Ukraine Ltd. and North American 
Interpipe, Inc. to respond to their Requests for Information in consideration of the current  
situation  in Ukraine.  
 
[10] On August 27, 2014, the CBSA extended by two weeks the time permitted for the 
governments of India, Indonesia, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Turkey and 
Vietnam to respond to the Subsidy Request for Information in light of the number of requests 
for extension, as well as the related complexities in respect of the investigations.  
 
[11] On September 19, 2014, pursuant to subsection 37.1(1) of SIMA, the Tribunal made a 
preliminary determination that there is evidence that discloses a reasonable indication tha t the 
alleged dumping and subsidi zing of certain OCTG originating in or exported from the named 
countries have caused injury or are threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry.  
 
[12] On September 19, 2014, pursuant to subsection 39(1) of SIMA, the President extended 
the time period for making the preliminary determinations or terminating all or part of the 
investigations  from 90 days to 135 days. The time was extended  due to the number of persons 
involved and the complexity and novelty of the is sues presented by the investigations.   
 
[13] On December 3, 2014 , pursuant to paragraph 35(2) (a) of SIMA,  the President 
terminated  the subsid y investigation  with respect to certain oil country tubular goods 
originating in or exported from  the Republic of Korea and Turkey.  The subject goods from the 
Republic of Korea and Turkey  have been subsidized, but the amounts of subsidy  were  
insignificant . 
 
[14] On the same day , as a result of the CBSA’s preliminary investigations and pursuant to 
subsection 38(1) of SIMA, the Pr esident made preliminary determinations of dumping 
respecting certain  oil country tubular goods originating in or exported from Chinese  Taipei, 
India, Indonesia, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and 
Vietnam and preliminary determinations of subsidizing respecting  such goods from India, 
Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Ukraine and Vietnam.   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   3 
 
 [15] On December 3, 2014, pursuant to subsection 8(1) of SIMA, provisional duty was 
imposed on imports of dumped and subsidized goods tha t are of the same description as any 
goods to which the preliminary determination s apply, and that are released during the period 
commencing on the day the preliminary determinations were made and ending on the earlier 
of the day on which the President of the CBSA causes the investigation s to be terminated 
pursuant to subsection  41(1) of SIMA or the day the Tribunal makes an order or finding 
pursuant to subsection  43(1) of SIMA.  
 
PERIOD OF INVESTIGAT ION  
 
[16] The Period of Investigation (POI) with respect to dumping and subsidizing covered all 
subject goods released into Canada from January 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014.  
 
PROFITABILITY ANALYS IS PERIOD  
 
[17] The Profitability Analysis Period covered domestic sales and costing information for 
goods sold from October 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014.  
 
INTERESTED PARTIES  
 
Complainant s 
 
[18] The Complainants  are producers of OCTG accounting for a major proportion of the 
production of like goods1 in Canada. The names and addresses of the Complainants are as 
follows:  
 
Tenaris Canada  
Algoma Tubes Inc.  
Prudential Steel Inc.  
Hydril Canadian Company LP  
530 8 Ave SW, Suite 400  
Calgary, Alberta T2P 3S8  
 
Evraz  Inc. NA Canada  
P.O. Box 1670, 100 Armour Road  
Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 3C7  
 
                                                      
 
 
1 Refer to the definition of like goods in the Like Goods section of this document   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   4 
 
 Tenaris Canada (Tenaris) : 
 
[19] The company  manufactures OCTG in Canada at its Algoma Tubes Inc. 
(AlgomaTubes) facility in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario using the seamless process and at its 
Prudential Steel Inc. (Prudential) facility in Calgary, Alberta using the electric resistance 
welded (ERW) production process. Hydr il Canadian Company LP (Tenaris Hydril) located in 
Nisku, Alberta produces specialized premium connection OCTG products as well.  
 
Evraz Inc. NA Canada (Evraz)  : 
 
[20] The company operates ERW OCTG manufacturing facilities in Regina, Saskatchewan; 
Calgary, Alberta; and Red Deer, Alberta. The E vraz North America group of companies also 
owns Canadian National Steel Corporation, which operates an ERW OCTG manufacturing 
facility in Camrose, Alberta.  
 
Other Producers  
 
[21] There are two other significant domestic producers of OCTG in Canada, namely, 
Energe x Tube (Energe x), of Welland, Ontario  and Welded Tube of Canada (Welded Tube ), of 
Concord, Ontario .  Both Energe x and Welded Tub e support ed this c omplaint.2  In 
March  2014, Energex idled the operations of its Welland  plant, citing pressures in the market 
from unfair offshore competition.  However, up until that point in time, the company produced 
like goods throughout the period covered by this complaint. 3 
 
Importers  
 
[22] At the initiation of the investigations, the CBSA identified 61 potential importers of 
the subject goods from information provided by the Complainants and CBSA import entry 
documentation.  
 
[23] The CBSA sent an importer Request for Information (RFI) to all pote ntial importers of 
the goods.  The CBSA received seven  responses to the importer RFI.  
 
Exporters  
 
[24] At the initiation of the investigations, the CBSA identified 196 potential exporters and 
producers  of the subject goods from information provided by the Complainants and CBSA 
import entry documentation.  The CBSA sent exporter dumping RFIs to each of these 
potential exporters . Exporter subsidy RFIs were sent to these same exporters with the 
exception of  exporters located in Chinese Taipei.  Additionally, exporters located in Vietnam 
were sent a n exporter  section 20 RFI.  
 
                                                      
 
 
2 Exhibit 1 (NC) – OCTG Complaint, Exhibit 1 -1, 1-2. 
3 Exhibit  1 (NC) – OCTG Complaint, page 1, paragraphs  3 – 6.  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   5 
 
 [25] The CBSA received 17 responses  to the exporter dumping RFI and 1 2 responses  to the 
exporter subsidy RFI .  A response to the exporter se ction 20 RFI  was received from a n OCTG  
processor in Vietnam .  
 
Foreign Governments  
 
[26] The CBSA sent a government subsidy RFI to the government s of India, Indonesia, the 
Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and Vietnam .  The CBSA 
received responses to the government subsidy RFI from the respective government of each of 
these countries. The response from the governments of India  was considered substantially 
complete for the purposes of the preliminary determination.  The responses from the 
governments of the Republic of Korea and Turkey were also considered substantially 
complete.  The CBSA receive d less than complete response s to the government subsidy RFI 
from the governments of Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine and Vietnam. A late response was 
received from the Government of the Philippines.  
 
[27] The CBSA also sent the Government of Vietnam  a government section 20 RFI.  A less 
than complete response was received from t he Government of Vietnam . 
 
PRODUCT INFORMATION  
 
Product Definition  
 
[28] For the purpose of these investigations, the subject goods  are defined as:  
 
Oil country tubular goods, which are casing, tubing and green tubes made of 
carbon or alloy steel, welded or seamless, heat -treated or not heat -treated, 
regardless of e nd finish, having an outside diameter from 2 ⅜ inches to 13 ⅜ 
inches (60.3 mm to 339.7 mm), meeting or supplied to meet American 
Petroleum Institute  (API)  specification 5CT or equivalent and/or enhanced 
proprietary standards, in all grades, excluding drill  pipe, pup joints, couplings, 
coupling stock and stainless steel casing, tubing or green tubes containing 10.5 
percent or more by weight of chromium, originating in or exported from 
Chinese Taipei, the Republic of India, the Republic of Indonesia, the Repu blic 
of the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, the Kingdom of Thailand, the 
Republic of Turkey, Ukraine and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.  
 
Additional Product Information  
 
[29] The product definition includes “green tubes”.  Green tubes, as they are commonly 
referred to in the  OCTG ind ustry, are intermediate or in -process tubing and casing which 
require additional proc essing, such as threading, heat -treatment or testing, before they can be 
used as fully finished oil and gas well casing or tubing in en d-use applications.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   6 
 
 [30] Pup joints, which are essentially short lengths of OCTG used for spacing in a drill 
string, are excluded where their length is 12 feet  or below (with a three inch tolerance), as 
defined in the API 5CT specification.  
 
[31] The product definition also includes non -prime and secondary OCTG (limited service 
pipes).  
 
Production Process  
 
[32] OCTG may be manufactured by the seamless or electric welded (ERW) process.  
Typical casing and tubing end finishes include: plain end, beveled, external ups et ends, 
threaded, or threaded and coupled (including proprietary premium connections).4 
 
[33] The seamless process begins with the formation of a central cavity in a solid steel billet 
to create a shell.  The shell is then rolled on a retained mandrel and reduced in a stretch 
reduction mill to produce the finished size before cooling on a walking beam cooling bed.5 
 
[34] Algoma Tubes  employs this production process, starting with its purchase of steel bars.  
The steel bar is cut into a billet and then loaded int o the rotary furnace to be heated and ready 
for the Hot -Rolling Mill (HRM).6  Depending on the grade desired, th e next process may 
involve heat -treatment.  Finishing operations may include one or more of : 
 
- Heat -treatment;  
- Threading and coupling;  
- Testing 
 
[35] All OCTG produced by Algoma Tubes  are green tube s before they are finished.  While 
Algoma Tubes  has its own threading, coupling, and he at-treating capability, some of Algoma 
Tubes’  product is threaded and coupled  at the Tenaris Hydril  facility in Alberta with a 
premium connection.  
 
[36] ERW OCTG is produced by slitting  flat hot -rolled steel in coil form in a given  
thickness (skelp) to the proper width required to produce the desired pipe diameter. The skelp 
is then sent through a series of forming rolls that bend the steel  into a tubular shape.  As the 
edges come together under pressure in the final forming rolls, an electric current is passed 
between them.  The resistance to the current heats the edges of the skelp  to the welding 
temperature, and the weld is formed as the two edges are pressed together.  
 
                                                      
 
 
4 Exhibit 1 (NC) – OCTG Complaint, paragraph 11.  
5 Exhibit 1 (NC) – OCTG Complaint, paragraph 18.  
6 In typical industry language, a  billet is a semi -finished round which has been partially worked , but will be  
    further worked to final size.  A ba r is finished material that has been completely rolled to size  
    (www.rolledalloys.ca ).   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   7 
 
 [37] Evraz, Prudential, and Welded Tube  all essentially employ th e ERW  production 
process.   Evraz produces ERW OCTG in Canada at four separate facilities.  
 
[38] Energe x produ ces ERW OCTG by the stretch -reduction method .   In this modified 
process, the  outside diameter and wall thickness is achieved after the tube is formed.  
Specifically, a formed tube is heated to approximately 1850 degrees Fahrenheit  and passed 
through a ser ies of stretch reduction roll stands until the final outside diameter and wall 
thickness is achieved.  
 
[39] Tube formed by either the seamless  or the ERW methods is then cut -to-length.   
Depending on the API specifications required, OCTG may also be heat -treated at this point. 
The product  is then sent to the finishing line where it is beveled and threaded on both ends.  
Tubing undergoes a separate process of upsetting and normalizing prior to threading.  Finally, 
a coupling and coupling protector are appli ed to one end of the pipe and a thread protector is 
applied to the other end before it is ready for shipment.  Finishing operations also include 
cooling, straightening, facing, testing, coating, and/or bundling.7 
 
Product Use and Characteristics  
 
[40] Casing is  used to prevent the walls of the bored hole from collapsing, both during 
drilling and after the well has been completed. Tubing is used to transport oil and gas to the 
surface.  
 
[41] Subject OCTG are supplied to meet API specification 5CT, in all grades includ ing and 
not limited to, H40, J55, K55, M65 , N80, L80, L80 HC, L80 LT, L80  SS, C90, C95, C110, 
P110, P110 HC, P110 LT, T95, T95 HC, and Q125, or proprietary grades manufactured as 
substitutes for, or enhancements to, these specifications.  The grade numbers define the 
minimum yield strength required of the grade in kilopound  per square inch (ksi).  
 
[42] OCTG must be able to withstand outside pressure and internal yield pressures within 
the well.  In addition, they must have sufficient joint strength to hold their own weight and 
must be equipped with threads sufficiently tight to contain the well pressure where lengths are 
joined.  Threading may be performed by the manufacturer or a third party thre ading operation.  
Various factors limit the total amount of open hole that can be drilled at any one time, and it 
may be necessary to set more than one string of OCTG concentrically for certain portions of 
the well depth.  
 
[43] Heat -treated grades are more sop histicated grades of pipes used in horizontal 
applications, deeper wells, and more severe environments such as low temperature services, 
sour service,8 heavy oil recovery, etc.  
 
                                                      
 
 
7  Exhibit 1 (NC) – OCTG Complaint Narrative, paragraphs 16 – 26. 
8 “Sour Service”  refers to a well environment containing  Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), which is naturally associated  
    with acidic conditions.  http://www.vamservices.com/library/files/SOURSERVICE.pdf .   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   8 
 
 [44] These grades are made beginning with the use of a specific chemistry in the st eel 
(either in billet for the seamless process or the steel coil in the ERW process) and are further 
processed with heat -treatment to attain certain combinations of mechanical properties9 and/or 
resistance to corros ion and environmental cracking.  F or exam ple, maximum strength (N80, 
P110, Q125), high -strength with low ductility (normally proprietary enhancemen ts of API 
grades), or high -strength combined with resistance to corrosion and environmental cracking 
(L80, C90, C95, C110, T95  and proprietary enhancements).  
 
[45] Casing and tubing that still require heat -treatment to meet the API 5CT specification 
are referred to in the industry as “green tubes” , as are tubes that require further finishing 
before they can be used down well.  A green  tube for a higher strength grade can have a 
chemistry that meets a lower grade like H40 or  J55 that does not require heat -treatment  and 
could just be tested and threaded to meet the lower grade.  
 
Classification of Imports  
 
[46] The subject goods are normally imported under the following 22 Harmonized System 
(HS) classification c odes for OCTG ( Customs Tariff  – 2014):  
 
7304.29.00.11  
7304.29.00.19  
7304.29.00.21  
7304.29.00.29  
7304.29.00.31  
7304.29.00.39  
7304.29.00.41  
7304.29.00.49  
7304.29.00.51  
7304.29.00.59  
7304.29.00.61  7304.29.00.69  
7304.29.00.71  
7304.29.00.79  
7306.29.00.11  
7306.29.00.19  
7306.29.00.21  
7306.29.00.29  
7306.29.00.31  
7306.29.00.39  
7306.29.00.41  
7306.29.00.49  
 
[47] The subject goods, particularly in the form of green tubes, may also be imported under 
the following 7 HS classification  codes ( Customs Tariff  – 2014):  
 
7304.39.00.10  
7304.59.00.10  
7306.30.00.29  
7306.30.00.39  7306.50.00.90  
7306.90.00.10  
7306.90.00.20  
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
 
9 Mechanical properties are those that describe how an object performs when a load or stress is applied to it . 
    http://www.corpacsteel.com/resource -center/glossary -of-industry -terms/ .   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   9 
 
 LIKE GOODS  AND CLASSES OF GOODS  
 
[48] Subsection 2(1) of SIMA defines “like goods” in relation to any other goods, as goods 
that are identical in all respects to the other goods, or in the absence of identical goods, goods 
the uses and other characteristics of which closely resemble those of the other goods.  
 
[49] OCTG produced by the domestic industry competes directly with, has the same end 
uses as, and can be substituted for, the subject goods.  Therefore, the CBSA has concluded 
that the OCTG produced by the Canadian in dustry constitutes like goods to the subject goods.  
The CBSA is also of the opinion that subject and like goods constitute only one class of 
goods.  
 
[50] In the Tribunal’s Determination and Reasons – Preliminary Injury Inquiry 
No. PI-2014 -002, issued on October  3, 2014, the Tribunal found  “that the evidence does not 
support a conclusion that seamless OCTG and welded OCTG constitute separate classes of 
goods. The Tribunal, therefore, finds that seamless OCTG and welded OCTG comprise a 
single class of goods.”10  
 
THE CANADIAN INDUSTR Y 
 
[51] Tenaris Canada and Evraz Inc. NA Canada (the Complainants) account for a major 
proportion of the domestic production of like goods.  T wo other significant domestic 
producers of OCTG in Canada, namely, Energex Tube, of Welland, Ontari o and Welded Tube 
of Canada, of Concord, Ontario supported this complaint.  
 
IMPORTS INTO CANADA  
 
[52] During the preliminary phase of the investigations, the CBSA refined the estimated 
volume of imports based on information from CBSA import entry documentation and other 
information received from exporters and importers.  
 
[53] The following table presents the CBSA’s analysis of imports of certain OCTG  for 
purposes of the preliminary determinations and the termination of the subsidy investigation 
respecting the Republic of Korea and Turkey : 
 
                                                      
 
 
10 Preliminary Injury  Inquiry No. PI -2014 -002; Oil Country Tubular Goods , issued on October 3, 2014 , 
paragraph 33, Reasons available  online at http://www.citt -tcce.gc.ca/en/node/6925.   
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   10 
 
 Import Volumes of Certain OCTG  
(January 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014)  
 
Imports into Canada  % of Total Import Volume  
Chinese Taipei  2.5%  
India  1.3%  
Indonesia  1.9%  
Republic of Korea  3.1%  
Thailand  1.2%  
Philippines  2.4%  
Turkey  5.4%  
Ukraine  1.1%  
Vietnam  2.7%  
All Other Countries  78.4%  
Total Imports  100.0%  
 
REPRESENTATIONS  RECEIVED PRIOR TO IN ITIATION  
 
[54] On July 15, 2014 , the Government of the Republic of Korea made representations with 
respect to the initiation of the subsidy investigation of certain OCTG .  The Government of 
Korea ’s representations and the CBSA’s response are summarized in Appendix 1. 
 
[55] On July 17, 2014, the Government of Vietnam made representations with respect to 
the initiation of the subsidy investigation of certain OCTG.   The Government of Vietnam ’s 
representations and the CBSA’s response are summarized in Appendix 2. 
 
[56] On July 18, 2014 , the Government of Turkey made representations with respect to the 
initiation of the subsidy investigation of certain OCTG .  The Government of Turkey ’s 
representations and the CBSA’s response are summarized in Appendix 3. 
 
REPRESENTATIONS FROM  THE COMPLAINANTS  
 
[57] Counsel for the Complainants made numerous representations with respect to the 
information submitted by various parties in response to the CBSA’s dumping and subsidy 
RFIs.  The Complainant ’s representations and the CBSA’s response are addressed in 
Appendix 4. 
 
INVESTIGATION PROCES S 
 
[58] Regarding the dumping investigation, information was requested from all known and 
potential exporters, producers, vendors and importers, concerning shipments of certain OCTG  
released into Canada during the dumping POI of January 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014.  
 
[59] Regarding the section 20 inquiry, information was requested from all known and 
potential exporters and producers of OCTG in Vietnam  and from the Government of Vietnam .   
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   11 
 
 [60] Regarding the subsidy investigation, information related to potential actionable 
subsidies was requested from all known and potential exporters in India, Indonesia, the 
Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and Vietnam .  Information  was 
also requested from the respective government of each of these countries , concerning financial 
contributions made to exporters or producers of certain OCTG  released into Canada during the 
subsidy POI of January 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014.  
 
[61] In considera tion of the current situation  in Ukraine , the CBSA extended by four weeks 
the time permitted for the exporters and for the Government to respond to their RFI s. The 
CBSA also extended the time permitted for the governments of India, Indonesia, the 
Philippin es, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam to respond to the subsidy 
RFI in light of the number of requests for extension, as well as the related complexities in 
respect of the investigations.  
 
[62] Several other parties also requested an extension to respond to the ir respective RFIs.  
The CBSA reviewed each request in order to determine whether unforeseen circumstances or 
unusual burdens justified the granting of an extension  and granted an extension  where 
warranted . Where parties requested  an extension but the reasons for making the request  did 
not constitute unforeseen circumstances or unusual burdens , the CBSA did not grant the 
extension and informed the parties  that it could not guarantee that submissions received after 
the due date woul d be taken into consideration for purposes of the preliminary phase of the 
investigations.   
 
[63] After reviewing the responses to the RFIs, Supplemental Requests for Information 
(SRFI) were sent to responding parties to clarify information provided in the submissions and 
request any additional information  needed . 
 
DUMPING INVESTIGATIO N 
 
[64] The CBSA recei ved substantially complete responses to the dumping RFI from 16 
exporters , in addition to one response that was considered less than compete.    
 
Normal Values  
 
[65] Normal values are generally estimated based on the domestic selling prices of like 
goods in the country of export, in accordance with the methodology of 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 accordanc e 
with the methodology of paragraph 19( b) of SIMA.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   12 
 
 [66] In the case of a prescribed country such as Vietnam, if, in the opinion of the President  
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 , the normal values are generally estimated on the basis 
of the methodology set out in section 20 of SIMA using either the selling prices or costs o f 
like goods in a “surrogate” country.  
 
Export Prices  
 
[67] The export price of goods sold to importers in Canada is generally estimated based on 
the lesser of the adjusted exporter’s sale price for the goods or the adjusted importer’s 
purchase price, in accordance with the methodology of section 24 of SIMA.  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.  
 
Margin of Dumping  
 
[68] The estimated margin of dumping by exporter is equal to the amount by which the 
total estimated normal value exceeds the total estimated export price of the goods, expressed 
as a percentage of the total estimated export price.  All subject goods imported into Canada 
during the dumping POI are included in the estimation of the margins of dumping of the 
goods.  Where the total estimated normal value of the goods does not exceed the total 
estimated export price of the goods,  the margin of dumping is zero.  
 
Preliminary Results of the Dumping Investigation  
 
[69] With respect to the exporters that provided substantially complete responses to the 
RFI, to the extent possible, company -specific information was used for the preliminary 
determination  in estimating normal values and export prices for goods shipped to Canada.  
 
[70] For those exporters that did not submit a complete response to the RFI, the normal 
value of the goods was estimated by advancing the export price by the highest amount by 
which the normal value exceeded the export price on an individual transaction for an exporter 
that provided a substantially complete response to the RFI, excluding anomalies.  
 
[71] In calculating the estimated margin of dumping for each country, the estimate d 
margins of dumping found in respect of each exporter were weighted according to each 
exporter’s volume of subject goods exported to Canada during the POI.  
 
[72] Estimated margin of dumping details relating to each of the exporters that provided a 
response to the RFI are presented in a summary table in Appendix 5 while  estimated margin 
of dumping details relating to each named country are presented in a summary table at the end 
of this section.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   13 
 
 Chinese Taipei  
 
Chung Hung Steel Corporation  
 
[73] Chung Hung Steel Corporation (CHS) is a producer and exporter of the subject goods 
from Chinese Taipei.   
 
[74] CHS is a publicly -listed company and its head office is located in Kaohsiung, Chinese 
Taipei. CHS has four manufacturing facilities.  CHS provided a substantially complete 
response to the dumping RFI.  SRFIs were sent to CHS for additional information and 
clarification. The CBSA will continue to collect and analyze CHS’s information during the 
final phase of the investigation.  
 
[75] CHS did not have sufficient domestic sales of like goods to enable the estimation of 
normal values using the methodology of section 15 of SIMA. As a result, normal values were 
estimated using the methodology of paragraph 19( b) of SIMA, as the sum of the cost o f 
production, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a 
reasonable amount for profits.  The amount for profit s was estimated in accordance with 
subparagraph 11(1)( b)(ii) of the Special Import Measures Regulations  (SIMR ) based on the 
weighted average profit made on  CHS’s domestic sales of goods that are of the same general 
category as the subject goods exported to Canada.  
 
[76] For the subject goods exported by CHS to Canada during the POI, export prices were 
estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on the exporter’s selling price 
less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.  
 
[77] The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price 
for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI. For the preliminary determination, 
the estimated margin of dumping for CHS is  2.6%, expressed as a percentage of the total 
estimated export price.  
 
Tension Steel Industries Co., Ltd.  
 
[78] Tension Steel Industries Co.,  Ltd. (Tension Steel) is a producer and exporter of the 
subject goods.   
 
[79] Tension Steel’s head office is located in Taipei, Chinese Taipei and it has two 
manufacturing facilities. Tension Steel provided a substantially complete response to the 
dumping RFI.  SRFI s were sent to Tension Steel for additional information and clarification . 
The CBSA will continue to collect and analyze Tension Steel’s information during the final 
phase of the investigation.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   14 
 
 [80] Tension Steel did not have any domestic sales of like g oods.  Consequently, the 
methodology of section 15 of SIMA was not used to estimate the normal values. As a result, 
the normal values were estimated using the methodology of paragraph 19( b) of SIMA, as the 
sum of the cost of production, a reasonable amount  for administrative, selling and all other 
costs, and a reasonable amount for profits.  The amount for profits was estimated in 
accordance with sub paragraph 11 (1)(b)(ii) of the SIMR  based on the weighted average profit 
made on  Tension Steel’s domestic sales of goods that are of the same general category as the 
subject goods exported to Canada.  
 
[81] For the subject goods exported by Tension Steel to Canada during the POI, export 
prices were  estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on the exporter’s 
selling price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.  
 
[82] The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price 
for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI. For the preliminary determination, 
the estimated margin of dumping for Tension Steel is 3.7%, expressed as a percentage of the 
total estimated export price.   
 
India  
 
GVN Fuels Limited  / Maharashtra Seamless Limited  
 
[83] Maharashtra Seamless Limited (M SL) is the producer of subject goods exported to 
Canada by its related company, GVN Fuels Limited (GVN) , collectively referred to as 
GVN/MSL . MSL’s production facilities are located in Raigad , Maharashtra while MSL’s and 
GVN’s corporate offices are jointly located in Gurgaon, Haryana.   Due to the relationship 
between GVN and MSL, the companies filed a joint response to the CBSA’s RFI , which was 
substantially complete .  
 
[84] An SRFI was sent to the companies seeking additional information and clarification  to 
which GVN/ MSL provided a joint response .  The CBSA will continue to collect and analyze 
GVN/MSL ’s information during the final phase of the investigation.  
 
[85] Based on the information provided, t here were in sufficient domestic sales of like 
goods to enable the estimation of normal values using the methodology of section 15 of 
SIMA.  Instead, normal values were estimated using the methodology set out in 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, and a reasonable amount for profits . The 
amount for profits was estimated  in accordance with the subparagraph 11(1)( b)(ii) of the 
SIMR based on the weighted average profit made on  GVN/ MSL’s domestic sales of goods 
that are of the same general category as the subject goods exported to Canada . 
 
[86] For subject goods exported to Canada by GVN/MSL during the POI , export prices 
were estimated using the methodology set out in section 24 of SIMA, based on the exporter’s 
selling prices less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   15 
 
 [87] The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price  
for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI.  For the preliminary determination, 
the estimated margin of dumping for GVN/MSL  is zero.    
 
Jindal Saw Limited  
 
[88] Jindal Saw Limited (Jindal Saw) is a producer an d exporter of the subject goods . 
 
[89] Jindal Saw’s head office is located in New Delhi, India.  The company provided a 
substantially complete response to the dumping RFI. Two SRFIs were sent to Jindal Saw for 
additional information and clarification.  The CBSA conducted  an on -site verification with 
Jindal Saw in November 2014 and will continue to analyze Jindal Saw’s information during 
the final phase of the investigation.  
 
[90] Jindal Saw did not have sufficient domestic sales of like goods to enable the estimation 
of normal  values using the methodology of section 15 of SIMA. Normal values were 
estimated using the methodology of paragraph 19( b) of SIMA, as the sum of cost of 
production, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a 
reasonable amou nt for profits.  The amount for profits was estimated in accordance with 
subparagraph 11 (1)(b)(ii) of the SIMR based on the weighted average profit made on Jindal 
Saw’s domestic sales of goods that are of the same general category as the subject goods 
exported to Canada.  
 
[91] For subject goods exported by Jindal Saw to Canada during the POI, export prices 
were estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on the exporter’s selling 
price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.   
 
[92] The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price  
for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI.  For the preliminary determination , 
the estimated margin of dumping for Jindal Saw is zero.  
 
Indonesia  
 
P.T. Citra Tubindo Tbk  
 
[93] P.T. Citra Tubindo Tbk (Citra) is a producer and export er of subject goods to Canada.  
 
[94] Citra’s manufacturing facility is located in Kabil, Batam  Island, Indonesia.  The 
company provided a substantially complete response to the dumping RFI.  Three SRFIs were 
sent to Citra for additional information and clarification.  The CBSA conducted  an on -site 
verification with Citra in November 2014 and will c ontinue to analyze Citra’s information 
during the final phase of the investigation.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   16 
 
 [95] Citra did not have sufficient domestic sales of like goods to enable the estimation of 
normal values using the methodology of section 15 of SIMA.  As a result, normal value s were 
estimated using the methodology of paragraph 19( b) of SIMA, as the sum of the cost of 
production, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a 
reasonable amount for profits.  The amount for profits was estimated in acco rdance with 
subparagraph 11(1)( b)(i) of the SIMR based on the weighted  average profit made on Citra’s 
domestic sales of like goods.  
 
[96] For subject goods exported by Citra to Canada during the POI, export prices were 
estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on the exporter’s selling price 
less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from  the exportation of the goods.   
 
[97] The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated expo rt price 
for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI. For the preliminary determination, 
the estimated margin of dumping for Citra is 24.3%, expressed as a percentage of the total 
estimated export price.  
 
Petro Amigos Supply Incorporated  
 
[98] Petro Amigos Supply Incorporated (PASI) is a distributor and exporter of subject 
goods to Canada during the POI. While PASI’s head office is located in Houston, Texas, 
United States of America ( USA ), the goods exported to Canada by PASI during the POI are of 
Indonesian origin.   
 
[99] PASI provided a  substantially complete  response to the dumping RFI.  A SRFI was 
sent to the company for additional information and clarification.  The CBSA will continue to 
analyse  and verify information from PASI and  the Indonesian p roducer  during the final phase 
of the investigation . 
 
[100]  In situations where goods are shipped indirectly to Canada from the country of origin 
through one or more other  countries, other than goods that pass in transit through another 
country, subsection 30(2)  of SIMA applies  and stipulates that the normal value is to be the 
higher of the normal value in the country of export (i.e. in this case, the USA) or in the 
country of origin (i.e. in this case, Indonesia).  
 
[101]  Regarding normal values in the country of origin, the CBSA did not have sufficient  
information in regards to the goods .  However, a preliminary analysis indicated that the 
estimated normal values in the country of export (USA) would be higher than the esti mated 
normal values in the country of origin.   As a result, estimated normal values for PASI were 
based on normal values in the country of export.   The CBSA will  further examine this issue 
during the final phase of the investigation . 
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   17 
 
 [102]  With respect to norma l values in the country of export, PASI did not have sufficient 
domestic sales of like goods to enable the estimation of normal values using the methodology 
of section 15 of SIMA. As a result, normal values were thus estimated using the methodology 
of para graph 19( b) of SIMA, as the sum of cost of production, a reasonable amount for 
administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits.  The amount 
for profits was estimated in accordance with subparagraph 11(1)( b)(ii) of the SIMR based on 
the weighted average profit made on PASI’s domestic sales of goods that are of the same 
general category as the subject goods exported to Canada . 
 
[103]  PASI’s exports of subject goods were  to a related importer.  As the exporter and 
importer were associated, a reliability test was performed to determine whether the estimated 
section 24 export prices were reliable as envisaged by SIMA.  This test was conducted by 
comparing the estimated section 24  export prices with the estimated section 25 “deductive” 
export prices based on the importer’s re -sale price of the imported goods in Canada, less 
deductions for all additional costs incurred in preparing, shipping and exporting the goods to 
Canada, all co sts included in the resale prices that were incurred in reselling the goods in 
Canada (including duties and taxes) and an amount for profit.  This amount for profit was 
estimated  under  paragraph 22(b)  of the SIMR, based on sales of goods of the same genera l 
category,  by vendors in Canada who are at the same or substantially the same trade level as 
the importer in Canada.  
 
[104]  The results of the test suggested  that the export prices estimated  in accordance with 
section 24 of SIMA were reliable . Therefore, export prices were estimated in accordance with  
section 24 of SIMA,  based on the lesser of the importer’s purchase price and the exporter’s 
selling price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.   
 
[105]  The tot al estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price 
for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI. For the preliminary determination, 
the estimated margin of dumping for PASI is 0.8%, expressed as a percentage of the to tal 
estimated export price.  
 
Philippines  
 
HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. Inc.  
 
[106]  HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. Inc. (HLD Clark) is a producer and exporter of subject 
goods to Canada.   
 
[107]  HLD Clark’s head office is located in Angeles City, the Philippines, and it’s a 
subsidiary of Huludao City Steel Pipe Industrial Co. Ltd. of China.  HLD Clark submitted a 
substantially complete response to the dumping RFI.  Two SRFIs were sent to HLD Clark  for 
additional information and clarification .  The CBSA conducted an on -site verification with 
HLD Clark and will continue to analyze HLD Clark’s information during the final phase of 
the investigation.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   18 
 
 [108]  HLD Clark did not have domestic sales of like goods .  Consequently, the methodology 
of section 15 of SIMA was not used to estimate the normal values.   As a result, normal values 
were estimated using the methodology of paragraph 19( b) of SIMA, as the sum of the cost of 
production, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a 
reasonable amount for profits. With respect to the amount for profits, HLD Clark did not have 
domestic sales of OCTG or other pipe products. Given that HLD Clark  is the sole cooperative 
exporter in the Philippines, a survey was sent to other identified steel pipe producers located 
in the Philippines to request information regarding the amount for profits made on their 
domestic sales of steel pipes in the Philippin es. None of the identified pipe producers 
responded to the CBSA’s survey. Accordingly, the amount for profits could not be estimated 
using the methodology of section 11 of the SIMR. T he CBSA estimated the amount for profits 
on the basis of the estimate  used at the initiation of the investigation , which was  the simple 
average of the amounts for profits for the other named countries in Asia . The CBSA will 
continue to collect and analyse information for th is purpose during the final phase of the 
investigation . 
 
[109]  For subject goods exported from HLD Clark to Canada during the POI, export prices 
were estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on exporter’s selling 
prices less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the go ods. 
 
[110]  The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price 
for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI.  For the preliminary 
determination, the estimated margin of dumping for HLD Clark is zero.  
 
Republic of Korea  
 
Hyundai Hysco Co., Ltd.  
 
[111]  Hyundai Hysco Co., Ltd. (H. Hysco) is a producer and exporter of subject goods to 
Canada.   
 
[112]  H. Hysco is a publicly -listed company, with its head office located in Seoul, Republic 
of Korea.  During the POI, all subject goods  exported to Canada were shipped directly from 
H. Hysco’s factory in Ulsan, Republic of Korea.  However, the subject goods were first sold 
to a subsidiary  in the  USA , and then to an unrelated vendor in the USA, MS Global Steel, 
before being ultimately sold  to unrelated importers in Canada. The goods were shipped 
directly from H. Hysco to the unrelated importers in Canada without entering the commerce of 
the USA.  Both H. Hysco and MS Global Steel provided substantially complete responses to 
the dumping RFI.  An SRFI was sent to H. Hysco for additional information and clarification.  
The CBSA conducted  an on -site verification with H. Hysco in November 2014 and will 
continue to analyze H. Hysco’s and MS Global Steel’s information during the final phase of 
the investigation.   
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   19 
 
 [113]  H. Hysco did not have sufficient domestic sales of like goods during the POI  to enable 
the estimation of normal values using the methodology of section 15 of SIMA.  Normal values 
were thus estimated using the methodology of paragraph 19( b) of SIMA, as the sum of the 
cost of production, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a 
reasonable amount for profits.  The amount for profits was estimated in accordance with 
subparagraph 11 (1)(b)(i) of the SIMR based on the weighted average profit  made on  H. 
Hysco’s domestic sales of  like goods.  
 
[114]  For subject goods exported by H. Hysco to Canada, export prices were  estimated using 
the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on H. Hysco’s selling pri ces to its subsidiary 
in the  USA , as they were lower than the importer’s purchase prices from MS Global Steel.  
These prices were then adjusted by deducting the costs, charges and expenses resulting from 
the exportation of the goods.  
 
[115]  The total estimated n ormal value was compared with the total estimated export price 
for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI. For the preliminary determination, 
the estimated margin of dumping for H. Hysco is 5.2%, expressed as a percentage of the total 
estima ted export price.  
 
SeAH Steel Corporation  
 
[116]  SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH) is a producer and exporter of subject goods to 
Canada.   
 
[117]  SeAH is a publicly -listed company and its head office is located in Seoul, Republic of 
Korea. SeAH  provided a substantially complete response to the dumping RFI. The subject 
goods, which were exported directly from the Republic of Korea to Canada, were sold to the 
importer in Canada by Pusan Pipe America Inc. (PPA), a subsidiary of SeAH located in the 
USA. PPA also submitted a substantially complete response to the dumping  RFI.  Two SRFIs 
were also sent to SeAH and PPA for additional information and clarification.  The CBSA 
conducted an on -site verification with SeAH ’s and PPA’s and will continue to analyze 
SeAH’s information during the final phase of the investigation.  
 
[118]  SeAH did not have domestic sales of like goods.  Consequently, the methodology of 
section 15 of SIMA was not used to estimate the normal values.  Normal values were thus 
estimated using the methodology of paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, as the sum of the cost of 
production, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a 
reasonable amount for profits.  The amount for profits was estimated in accordance with 
subparagraph 11 (1)(b)(ii) of the SIMR based on the  weighted average  profit s made on 
SeAH’s domestic sales of goods  that are of the same general category  as the  subject  goods 
exported to Canada . 
 
[119]  For subject goods exported from SeAH to Canada during t he POI, export prices were 
estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of SeAH’s 
selling prices to PPA, and the importer’s purchase price from PPA adjusted by deducting the 
costs, charges and expenses resulting from the expor tation of the goods.   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   20 
 
  
[120]  The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price 
for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI. For the preliminary determination, 
the estimated margin of dumping for SeAH is 2.0%, expres sed as a percentage of the total 
estimated export price.  
 
Pan Meridian Tubular  
 
[121]  Pan Meridian Tubular (PMT) is an exporter of subject goods from the USA. All 
subject goods exported t o Canada by PMT were produced in the Republic of Korea .  Subject 
goods were first shipped to the USA and re -exported to Canada after the goods were further 
processed in the USA.   
 
[122]  PMT is a business division of Pusan Pipe America Inc. and its office is located in 
Houston, Texas.  PMT provided a substantially complete response to the dumping RFI.  One 
SRFI was sent to PMT for additional information and clarification.  The CBSA will continue 
to collect and analyze PMT’s information during the final phase of the investigation.  
 
[123]  In situations where goods are shipp ed indirectly to Canada from the country of origin 
through one or more other countries, other than goods that pass in transit through another 
country, subsection 30(2) of SIMA applies and stipulates that the normal value is to be the 
higher of the normal value in the country of export (i.e. in this case, the USA) or in the 
country of origin (i.e. in this case, the Republic of Korea).  
 
[124]  Regarding normal v alues in the country of origin, the producer  did not have domestic 
sales of like goods.  Consequently, the methodology of section 15 of SIMA was not used to 
estimate the normal values. Normal values were estimated using the methodology of 
paragraph 19( b) of SIMA, as the sum of the cost of production, a reasonable amount for 
administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits.  The amount 
for profits was estimated in accordance with  subparagraph 11 (1)(b)(ii) of the SIMR based on 
the weighted average profit made on the producer’s domestic sales of goods that are of the 
same general category as the goods  exported to Canada . 
 
[125]  With respect to normal values in the country of export, PMT had domestic sales of like 
goods in the USA.  Nor mal values were estimated using the methodology of section 15 of 
SIMA as there were sufficient profitable domestic sales of like goods.  Adjustments were 
made to the domestic selling prices of like goods for delivery costs included in the selling 
price in accordance with section 7 of the SIMR.   
 
[126]  In all cases, the normal values in the country of export were higher than the normal 
values in the country of origin.  As a result, the estimated normal values for the subject goods 
exported by PMT were based on th e normal values in the country of export.  
 
[127]  For subject goods exported from PMT to Canada during the POI,  the export prices 
were estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on exporter’s selling 
prices less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   21 
 
  
[128]  The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price 
for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI. For the preliminary determination, 
the estimated margin of dumping for PMT is zero.  
 
Thailand  
 
Thai Oil Pipe Co., Ltd  
 
[129]  Thai Oil Pipe Co., Ltd. (TOP) is a producer and exporter of the subject goods exported 
to Canada from Thailand.   
 
[130]  TOP is located in Rayong, Thailand.  The company provided a substantially complete 
respon se to the Dumping RFI.  Two SRFI were sent to TOP for additional information and 
clarification.  The CBSA conducted  an on -site verification with TOP in November 2014 and 
will continue to analyze TOP’s information during the final phase of the investigation.  
 
[131]  TOP did not have domestic sales of like goods during the POI.  Consequently, the 
methodology of section 15 of SIMA was not used to estimate the normal values for the 
preliminary determination.   As a result, normal values were estimated using the methodology 
of paragraph 19( b) of SIMA, as the sum of the cost of production, a reasonable amount for 
administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits. With respect to 
the amount for profits, TOP did not have domestic sales of certain OCTG or other pipe 
products during the POI. Given that TOP  is the sole cooperative exporter of subject goods in  
Thailand , a survey was sent to other identified steel pipe producers located in  Thailand  to 
request information regarding the amount for profits made on their domestic sales of steel 
pipes in Thailand . None of the identified pipe producers responded to the CBSA’s survey. 
Accordingly  the amount for profits could not be estimated using  the methodology of section 
11 of the SIMR.   The CBSA estimated the amount for profits on the basis of  the 2013 
financial results of Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited, a welded pipe producer in Thailand.   
The CBSA will continue to collect and analyse information for this purpose during the final 
phase of the investigation.  
 
[132]  For subject goods exported from TOP to Canada during the POI, export prices were  
estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on the exporter’s selling price 
less al l costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.   
 
[133]  The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price 
for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI. For the preliminary determination, 
the estimated margin of dumping for TOP is 15.3%, expressed as a percentage of the total 
estimated export price.  
 
   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   22 
 
 Turkey  
 
Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.  
 
[134]  Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. is a producer of subject goods  
exported to Canada through its related trading arm, Borusan İstikbal Ticaret T.A.Ş. 
(“İstikbal”) , collectively referred to as BMB .   
 
[135]  BMB’s head office is located in Istanbul, Turkey.  The company provided a 
substantially complete response to the dumping RFI.  One SRFI was sent to BMB for 
additional information and clarification.  The CBSA conducted  an on -site verification in 
November 2014 with BMB and will continue to analyze BMB’s information during the final 
phase of the investigation.  
 
[136]  BMB did not have sufficient domestic sales of like goods to enable the estimation of 
normal values using the methodology of section 15 of SIMA.  Normal values were thus 
estimated using the methodology of paragraph 19( b) of SIMA, as the sum of the cost of 
production, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a 
reasonable amount for profits.  The amount for profits was estimated in accordance with 
subparagraph 11(1)( b)(ii) of the SIMR based on the weighted average profit s made o n BMB’s 
domestic sales  of goods that are of the same general category  as the subject goods exported to 
Canada.  
 
[137]  For subject goods exported from BMB to Canada during the POI, export prices were 
estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on the exporter’s selling price 
less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.   
 
[138]  The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated expo rt price 
for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI. For the preliminary determination 
the estimated margin of dumping for BMB is zero.  
 
IMCO International Inc.  
 
[139]  IMCO International Inc ., a national distributor and importer of OCTG headquartered 
in Burlington, Ontario , exported subject goods originating in Turkey to Canada through  its 
related company, IMCO International Steel Trading  Inc., collectively referred to as IMCO .  
Subject goods were first shipped to the USA and re -exported to Canada after the goods were 
further processed in the USA.   
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   23 
 
 [140]  IMCO submitted substantially complete responses to both the importer RFI and 
exporter dumping RFIs.  IMCO also provided responses to two SRFIs.  The CBSA will 
continue to analyze IMCO’s inform ation during the final phase of the investigation.   An on -
site verification to review the company’s submissions is planned in the final phase of the 
investigation . 
 
[141]  In situations where goods are shipped indirectly to Canada from the country of origin 
through one or more other countries, other than goods that pass in transit through another 
country, subsection 30(2) of SIMA applies and stipulates that the normal value is to be the 
higher of the normal value in the country of export (i.e. in this case, the USA) or in the 
country of origin (i.e. in this case, Turkey).  
 
[142]  Regarding normal values in the country of origin, the producer did not have sufficient 
domestic sales o f like goods to enable the estimation of normal values using the methodology 
of section 15 of SIMA.  Normal values were estimated using the methodology of paragraph 
19(b) of SIMA, as the sum of the cost of production, a reasonable amount for administrative , 
selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits.  The amount for profits was 
estimated in accordance with subparagraph 11(1)( b)(ii) of the SIMR based on the weighted 
average profit  made on the producer’s domestic sales  of goods that are of the same general 
category as the goods sold to the importer in Canada . 
 
[143]  With respect to normal values in the country of export,  IMCO did not have sufficient 
profitable domestic sales in the USA  to enable the estimation of normal values using the 
methodo logy of section 15 of SIMA .  In the absence of sufficient domestic sales, normal 
values were estimated under paragraph 19( b) of SIMA, as the sum of cost of production, a 
reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for 
profits.  The amount for administrative, selling and all other costs for IMCO was estimated 
using information from IMCO  International Inc .’s financial statements, together with the 
expenses incurred by IMCO Steel Trading Inc. The amount for profi ts was estimated based on 
sales of goods of the same general category from other producers in the USA in accordance 
with subparagraph 11(1)( b)(iv). The amount for profit was thus estimated on the basis of 
publicly available financial statements of two U .S. steel producers, using the segmented 
reporting for tubular sales .   
 
[144]  In all cases, the normal values in the country of export are higher than the normal 
values in the country of origin.   As a result, normal values estimated for IMCO are based on 
the normal values in the country of export.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   24 
 
 [145]  Export prices for the purposes of the preliminary de cision  are normally estimated using 
the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on the exporter’s selling price less all costs, 
charges and expenses resulting fro m the exportation of the goods.  For subject goods exported 
by IMCO to Canada during the POI, however, export price s could not be calculated under this 
methodology as there were  no actual sale s when the goods were imported by IMCO.  As such, 
export prices were estimated using the methodology  of section 25 of SIMA, based on the 
importer’s re -sale price of the imported goods in Canada, less deductions for all additional 
costs incurred in preparing, shipping and exporting the goods to Canada, all costs include d in 
the resale prices that were incurred in reselling the goods in Canada (including duties and 
taxes) and an amount for profit s. The amount for profit s was estimated using financial 
information from two Canadian distributors of OCTG in Canada during the POI from 
information submitted on the record.  
 
[146]  The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price 
for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI. For the preliminary determination, 
the estimated margin of dumping  for IMCO is 29.4%, expressed as a percentage of the total 
estimated export price.  
 
Ukraine  
 
Interpipe Limited  
 
[147]  Interpipe Limited (Interpipe ) is the manufacturer of subject goods that were 
subsequently exported to Canada by their related company, North American Interpipe, Inc. 
(NAI), located in Houston, Texas.  The s ubject goods , originating in Ukraine,  were first 
shipped to the USA and  subseq uently  re-exported to Canada. NAI incurred additional 
production costs , for some of these goods , where further finishing was required prior to 
shipment to their customer s both in Canada and the USA.  
 
[148]  Both Interpipe  and NAI submitted responses to the Dumping RFIs. The CBSA 
determined that both responses were initially less than complete.  Multiple revisions of the 
costing and sales information were required, before the submissions, as a whole, were 
determined to be substantially complete.  The CBSA will continue to collect and analyze 
Interpipe’s information during the final phase of the investigation.  
 
[149]  In situations where goods are shipped indirectly to Canada from the country of origin 
through one or more other coun tries, other than goods that pass in transit through another 
country, subsection 30(2) of SIMA applies and stipulates that the normal value is to be the 
higher of the normal value in the country of export (i.e. in this case, the USA) or in the 
country of o rigin (i.e. in this case, Ukraine).  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   25 
 
 [150]  As noted previously, multiple revisions were filed by Interpipe and NAI after the 
initial RFI response. The timing of these additional revisions did not allow the CBSA  
sufficient time to analyze and estimate normal val ues in both Ukraine and the USA in order to 
conduct the comparison envisaged by subsection 30(2)  of SIMA .  However, a preliminary 
pricing analysis was conducted which compar ed Interpipe’s  weighted average domestic prices  
with NAI’s weighted average domesti c prices  over the POI for grades with similar dimensions 
as the OCTG products sold to Canada.  The pricing analysis suggested  that in all instances , for 
the products analyzed, the weighted average domestic selling prices charged by NAI in the 
USA were high er than the prices charged by Interpipe in Ukraine.  
 
[151]  Based on that pricing analysis, the CBSA estimated that the normal values for the 
country of export (USA) would be higher than the estimated normal values in the country of 
origin (Ukraine) for the purpo se of the preliminary determination .  As a result, the CBSA 
estimated the normal values on the basis of the normal value s in the country of export. The 
CBSA will continue to collect and analyse information for the purposes of conducting a 
proper comparison, as stipulated in subsection 30(2) of SIMA, during the final phase of the 
investigation.  
 
[152]  For the majority of the products, there were sufficient profitable domestic sales to 
estimate the normal values using the methodology of section 15 of SIMA , based on domestic 
selling prices of like goods.  For the one product where there were insufficient domestic sales, 
the normal value has been estimated using the methodology of paragraph  19(b) of SIMA 
based on the sum of the cost of production of the good , a reasonable amount for 
administrative, selling and all other costs , and a reasonable amount for profits. T he amount for 
profits was estimated in accordance  to subparagraph 11(1)( b)(ii) of the SIMR based on the 
weighted average profit made on  NAI’s domestic sales of goods that are of the same general 
category as the subject goods exported to Canada.  
 
[153]  For subject goods exported by NAI to the importer in Canada, export prices are 
estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the importer’s 
purchase price and the exporter’s selling price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting 
from the exportati on of the goods.  
 
[154]  The total estimated normal value was compared with the total estimated export price 
for the subject goods imported into Canada during the POI. For the preliminary determination, 
the estimated margin of dumping for NAI is 8.7%, expressed a s a percentage of the total 
estimated export price.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   26 
 
 Vietnam  
 
[155]  No exporter in Vietnam provided a response to the dumping RFI. 
 
Section 20 Inquiry  
 
[156]  In the case of a prescribed country such as Vietnam, normal values are to be 
determined under section 20 of SIMA where, in the opinion of the President, 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 mark et. 
 
[157]  In a dumping investigation involving goods from a prescribed country , the CBSA 
proceeds on the presumption that section 20 of SIMA is not applicable to the sector under 
investigation absent sufficient information to the contrary.  The President may form an 
opinion where there is sufficient information that the conditions set forth in paragraph 
20(1)( a) of SIMA exist in the sector under investigation.  
 
[158]  At the initiation of the dumping investigation, the CBSA had sufficient information, 
supplied by the  Complainants and obtained through its own research, to support the initiation 
of a section 20 inquiry to examine the extent that the Government of Vietnam determines the 
price of OCTG in Vietnam.  The CBSA sent Section 20 RFIs to the Government of Vietnam 
and to all known OCTG producers and exporters in that country.   
 
[159]  If, in the opinion of the President of the CBSA, it is determined that 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, the normal values are generally estimated on the basis of the methodology set out in 
paragraph  20(1)(c) of SIMA using either the selling prices or costs of like go ods in a 
“surrogate” country.   
 
[160]  The CBSA received a response to the section 20 RFI from the Government of Vietnam 
and from one processor in that country , Vietubes Corporation Ltd , which were less than 
complete .  An SRFI was sent to the Government of Vietnam seeking additional information 
and clarification of information provided.  No producer or exporter in Vietnam provided a 
response to the section 20 RFI or the dumping RFI.  
 
[161]  During the final phase of the dumpin g investigation, t he CBSA will continue the 
section 20 inquiry and further analyz e all information.  
 
[162]  For the purposes of the preliminary determination , given that no producer or exporter 
submitted a response to the CBSA’s RFI s, the margin of dumping was estimated using the 
highest amount by which an estimated normal value exceeded the estimated export price on an 
individual transaction (53.2%), expressed as a percentage of export price, as determined for an 
exporter that provided a complete response to th e RFI.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   27 
 
 Other Exporters – All Countries  
 
[163]  For exporters that did not provide a response to the CBSA’s RFI, the margin of 
dumping is estimated using the highest amount by which an estimated normal value exceeded 
the estimated export price on an individual transaction (53.2%), expressed as a percentage of 
export price, as determined for an exporter that provided a complete response to the RFI.  
 
Summary Results - Dumping  
 
[164]  A summary of the preliminary results of the dumping investigation respecting all 
subject  goods released into Canada during the POI follows:  
 
Summary of Preliminary Results of the Dumping Investigation  
Period of Investigation – January 1, 2013  to March 31, 2014  
 
Country  Estimated 
Volume of 
Dumped Goods 
as Percentage 
of Country 
Imports  Estimated 
Margin of 
Dumping  Estimated  
Volume of 
Country 
Imports as 
Percentage of 
Total Imports  Estimated 
Volume of 
Dumped Goods 
as Percentage 
of Total 
Imports  
Chinese Taipei  100%  21.4%  2.5%  2.5%  
India  13.1%  7.9%  1.3%  0.2%  
Indonesia  100%  32.3%  1.9%  1.9%  
Republic of Korea  99.7%  24.6%  3.1%  3.1%  
Philippines  9.5%  6.2%  2.4%  0.2%  
Thailand  100%  35.4%  1.2%  1.2%  
Turkey  95.5%  35.0%  5.4%  5.2%  
Ukraine  100%  10.2%  1.1%  1.1%  
Vietnam  100%  53.2%  2.7%  2.7%  
 
[165]  Under subsection 35(1) of SIMA, the President is required to terminate an 
investigation prior to the preliminary determination if he is satisfied that the margin of 
dumping of the goods of a country is insignificant or that the volume of dumped goods of a 
country is negligible.   
 
[166]  Pursuant to subsection 2(1) of SIMA, a margin of dumping of less than 2% of the 
export price is defined as insignificant and a volume of dumped goods is considered negligible 
if it accounts for less than 3% of the total volume of goods that are released in to Canada from 
all countries that are of the same description as the dumped goods, except that where the total 
volume of dumped goods of three or more countries, each of whose exports of dumped goods 
into Canada is less than 3% of the total volume of goods , is more than 7% of the total volume 
of goods, the volume of dumped goods of any of those countries is not negligible . 
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   28 
 
 [167]  The estimated margins of dumping of certain OCTG from Chinese Taipei, India, 
Indonesia, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and Vietnam , 
are above 2% and are, therefore, not insignificant.  
 
[168]  The volumes of dumped imports from the Republic of Korea and Turkey are above 3% 
of the total volume of goods released into Canada from all countries. Based on the  definition 
above, the volume of dumped imports from the Republic of Korea and Turkey are not 
negligible.  
 
[169]  The volumes of dumped imports from Chinese Taipei, India, Indonesia, the 
Philippines, Thailand, Ukraine and Vietnam are each less than 3% of the tot al volume of 
goods.  However, the total volume of dumped imports from these countries equals 9.8% of the 
total volume of goods released into Canada from all countries.  Based on the definition above, 
the volume of dumped imports from each of these countrie s is not negligible.  
 
SUBSIDY INVESTIGATIO N 
 
[170]  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 Orga nization (WTO) 
Agreement, that confers a benefit.  
 
[171]  Pursuant to subsection 2(1.6) of SIMA, there is a financial contribution by a 
government of a country other than Canada where:  
 
(a) practices  of the government involve the direct transfer of funds or liabilities or 
the contingent transfer of funds or liabilities;  
(b) 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;  
(c) the government provides goods or services, other than general governmental 
infrastructure, or purchases goods; or  
(d) 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.  
 
[172]  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 i nstrument, or other 
public document, to a particular enterprise within the jurisdiction of the authority that is 
granting the subsidy; or is a prohibited subsidy.   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   29 
 
  
[173]  A “prohibited subsidy” is either an export subsidy or a subsidy or potion 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 define d as including a group of 
enterprises, an industry and a group of industries.  These terms are all defined in section 2 of 
SIMA.  
 
[174]  Notwithstanding that a subsidy is not specific in law, under subsection 2(7.3) of SIMA 
a subsidy may also be considered specif ic having regard as to whether:  
 
(a) there is exclusive use of the subsidy by a limited number of enterprises;  
(b) there is predominant use of the subsidy by a particular enterprise;  
(c) disproportionately large amounts of the subsidy are granted to a limi ted number 
of enterprises; and  
(d) the manner in which discretion is exercised by the granting authority indicates 
that the subsidy is not generally available.  
 
[175]  For purposes of a subsidy 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 investigati on have 
benefited from the subsidy.  
 
[176]  Financial contributions provided by State -Owned Enterprises (SOEs) may also be 
considered to be provided by the government for purposes of this investigation.  A SOE may 
be considered to constitute “government” for the purposes of subjection 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.  
 
[177]  The following presents the preliminary results of the investigation into the subsidizing 
of certai n OCTG  originating in or exported from  India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, 
Ukraine and the Vietnam , and the results of the investigation into the subsidizing of certain 
OCTG originating in or exported from the Republic of Korea and Turkey .  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   30 
 
 India  
 
[178]  At the initiation of the investigation, the CBSA sent subsidy RFIs to the Government 
of India, as well as to all known exporters/producers of OCTG in India.  Information was 
requested in order to establish whether there had been financial contributions m ade by any 
level of government, including SOEs possessing, exercising or vested with government 
authority, and, if so, to establish if a benefit has been conferred on persons engaged in the 
production, manufacture, growth, processing, purchase, distributio n, transportation, sale, 
export or import of certain OCTG ; and whether any resulting subsidy was specific in nature. 
The G overnment of India  was also requested to forward the RFIs to all subordinate levels of 
government that had jurisdiction over the expor ters. The exporters /producers  were requested 
to forward a portion of the RFI to their input suppliers, who were asked to respond to 
questions pertaining to their legal characterization as SOEs.  
 
[179]  In conducting its investigation, the CBSA requested information respecting 48 
identified programs, as listed in Appendix 6.  
 
[180]  A substantially c omplete response to the subsidy RFI was received from the 
Government of India, as well as from two exporters from  India;  GVN Fuels Limited / 
Maharashtra Seamless Limited and Jindal Saw Limited.  
 
[181]  The CBSA conducted  an on-site verification with the Government of India in 
November 2014 . The CBSA  will continue to analyze the compa nies’  and the government’s 
information du ring the final phase of the investigation.   The CBSA may also consider any 
other potential subsidy programs that have not yet been identified.  
 
GVN Fuels Limited  / Maharashtra Seamless Limited  
 
[182]  Maharashtra Seamless Limited (MSL) is the producer of subject  goods exported to 
Canada by its related company, GVN Fuels Limited (GVN) , collectively referred to as 
GVN/MSL.  MSL’s production facilities are located in Raigad Maharashtra while MSL’s and 
GVN’s corporate offices are jointly located in Gurgaon, Haryana.  Due to the relationship 
between GVN and MSL, the companies filed a joint response to the CBSA’s RFI, which was 
substantially complete .  An SRFI was sent to the companies seeking additional information 
and clarification.  GVN /MSL provided a joint response to the SRFI.  
 
[183]  For the purposes of the preliminary determination, the CBSA estimated, based on its 
analysis of the information provided by GVN /MSL  and by the Government of India , an 
amount of subsidy on the basis of the financial benefits received under the following six 
programs:  
 
Program 20:  Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme  
Program 21:  Duty Exemption/Remission Schemes – Advance Authorization Scheme  
Program 21:  Duty Exempti on/Remission Schemes – Duty Drawback Scheme  
Program 23:  Purchase of Hot -rolled Steel from State -Owned Enterprises for Less Than 
Fair Market Value   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   31 
 
 Program 28:  Exemption from Electricity Duty through  the State Government of 
Maharashtra (SGOM)  
Program 31:  Exemption through  the SGOM from  Sales Tax and Other Levies  
  
[184]  For the purposes of the preliminary determination, all six programs are considered to 
be specific and , therefore , actionable.  Appendix 6  provides descriptions of the programs used 
by the exporter in the current investigation , and a summary of the legislative basis on which 
the programs are considered actionable . 
 
[185]  The CBSA  has estimated that GVN /MSL received  an amount of subsidy equal to 
2.2%, when expressed as a percentage of the total estimated export price.  
 
Jindal Saw Limited (Jindal Saw)  
 
[186]  For the purpose of the preliminary determination, Jindal Saw provided a response to 
the subsidy RFI that was considered to be substantially complete.  Jindal Saw was sent a SRFI 
for additional information and  clarification and Jindal Saw responded with the requested 
information.  The CBSA conducted  on-site verification with Jindal Saw in November 2014 
and will continue to analyze the company’s information during the final phase of the 
investigation.  
 
[187]  For the p urposes of the preliminary determination, the CBSA estimated, based on its 
analysis of the information provided by Jindal Saw and by the Government of India , an 
amount of subsidy on the basis of the financial benefits received under the following seven  
programs:  
 
Program 18:  Focus Product Scheme  
Program 20:  Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme  
Program 21:  Duty Exemption/Remission Schemes – Advance Authorization Program  
Program 21:  Duty Exemption/Remission Schemes – Duty Drawback Program  
Program 28:  Exemption from Electricity Duty through the State Government of 
Maharashtra (SGOM)  
Program 30:  Special Incentives of the SGOM for Mega Projects  
Program 31:  Exemption through the SGOM from Sales Tax and Other Levies  
Program 37:  Reimbursement of Stamp Duty and Transfer Duty Paid for the Purchase  
of Land and Buildings and Obtaining Financial Deeds and Mortgages 
under the SGOAP  IIPP 
 
[188]  For the purposes of the preliminary determination, all seven  programs are considered 
to be specific and therefore actionable.  Appendix 6  provides descriptions of the programs 
used by the exporter in the current investigation , and a summary of the legislative basis on 
which the programs are considered actionable . 
 
[189]  The CBSA  has estimated that Jindal Saw  received  an amount of subsidy equal to 
7.9%, when expressed as a percentage of the total estimated export price.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   32 
 
 All Other Exporters – India  
 
[190]  For all other exporters in India that did not provide sufficient information or did not 
provide information in a timely fashion, the CBSA estimated an amount of subsidy on the 
basis of the following methodology:  
 
1) the amount of subsidy for the nine programs, as found at the preliminary 
determination, for the two exporters that provided a complete response to the RFI 
(Jindal Saw and GVN/ MSL ) located in India, plus;  
 
2) the average of the amount of subsidy for the nine  programs referenced in (1), 
applied  to each of the remaining 39 potentially actionable subsidy programs for 
which sufficient information is not available or has not been provided at the 
preliminary determination.  
 
[191]  Using the above methodology, the estimated amount of subsidy for all other e xporters 
is 40.8%, expressed as a percentage of the total estimated export price.   
 
[192]  It is estimated that 100% of the subject goods imported from India are subsidized.  The 
estimated  overall weighted average amount of subsidy for India is equal to 12.5% of the total 
estimated export price of the subject goods.  
 
Indonesia  
 
[193]  At the initiation of the investigation, the CBSA sent subsidy RFIs to the Government 
of In donesia , as well as to all known exporters/producers of OCTG in Indonesia .  Information 
was requested in order to establish whether there had been financial contributions made by 
any level of government, including SOEs possessing, exercising or vested with govern ment 
authority, and, if so, to establish if a benefit has been conferred on persons engaged in the 
production, manufacture, growth, processing, purchase, distribution, transportation, sale, 
export or import of certain OCTG ; and whether any resulting subsid y was specific in nature.  
The G overnment of Indonesia  was also requested to forward the RFIs to all subordinate levels 
of government that had jurisdiction over the exporters. The exporters /producers  were 
requested to forward a portion of the RFI to their input suppliers, who were asked to respond 
to questions pertaining to their legal characterization as SOEs.    
 
[194]  In conducting its investigation, the CBSA requested information respecting 11 
identified programs, as listed in Appendix  7. 
 
[195]  The Government of Indonesia provided an incomplete response to the Subsidy RFI , 
while one exporter,  P.T. Citra Tubindo Tbk, provided a substantially complete response to the 
subsidy RFI.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   33 
 
 P.T. Citra Tubindo Tbk (Citra)  
 
[196]  For the purpose of the preliminary determination, Citra provided a response to the 
Subsidy RFI that was considered to be substantially complete.  Citra was sent two SRFIs to 
allow an opportunity to provide additional information. The CBSA conduct ed an on -site 
verification with Citra  in November 2014 and will continue to analyze the company’s 
information during the final phase of the investigation.  
 
[197]  Notwithstanding an incomplete response from the Government of Indonesia, in 
consideration of the level of coop eration received from Citra, an individual amount of subsidy 
has been estimated for this exporter based on the information provided by Citra . 
 
[198]  For the purposes of the preliminary determination, the CBSA estimated, based on its 
analysis of the information provided by Citra, an amount of subsidy on the basis of the 
financial benefits received under the following program:  
 
Program 2:  Deferral of Import Income Tax on Imported Capital Goods , Equipment 
and Raw Materials for the Production Destined for Export (Bonded Zone 
Location)  
 
[199]  On the basis of the information provided by the exporter, t he CBSA has estimated that 
Citra  received  an amount of subsidy equal to 1.8%, when expressed as a percentage of the 
total estimated export price.  
 
All Other Exporters – Indonesia  
 
[200]  For all other exporters in Indonesia that did not provide sufficient information or did 
not provide information in a timely fashion, the CBSA estimated an amount of subsidy on the 
basis of the following methodology:  
 
1) the amount of subsidy for the program, as found at the preliminary determination, for 
the sole exporter that provided a substantially complete response to the subsidy RFI 
(Citra) located in Indonesia, plus;  
 
2) the average amount of subsidy for the program re ferenced in (1), applied to each of the 
remaining 10 potentially actionable subsidy programs for which sufficient information 
is not available or has not been provided at the preliminary determination.  
 
[201]  Using the above methodology, the estimated amount of subsidy for all other exporters 
is 17.3%, expressed as a percentage of the total estimated export price.   
 
[202]  It is estimated that 100% of the subject goods imported from In donesia  are subsidized.  
The estimated  overall weighted average amount of s ubsidy for Ind onesia  is equal to 7.6% of 
the total estimated export price of the subject goods.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   34 
 
 The Philippines  
 
[203]  At the initiation of the investigation, the CBSA sent subsidy RFIs to the Government 
of the Philippines, as well as to all known exporters/producers of OCTG in the Philippines.  
Information was requested in order to establish whether there had been financi al contributions 
made by any level of government, including SOEs possessing, exercising or vested with 
government authority, and, if so, to establish if a benefit has been conferred on persons 
engaged in the production, manufacture, growth, processing, pur chase, distribution, 
transportation, sale, export or import of certain OCTG ; and whether any resulting subsidy was 
specific in nature.  The G overnment of the Philippines  was also requested to forward the RFIs 
to all subordinate levels of government that ha d jurisdiction over the exporters. The 
exporters /producers  were requested to forward a portion of the RFI to their input suppliers, 
who were asked to respond to questions pertaining to their legal characterization as SOEs.    
 
[204]  In conducting its investigation, the CBSA requested information respecting 12 
identified programs, as listed in Appendix 8. 
 
[205]  The Government of the Philippines provided a late response to the subsidy RFI.  While 
substantially complete, the response was provided too late to be  used for the purpose of the 
preliminary determination.  Information was also received from two governmental agencies, 
i.e. the Philippine Board of Investments (BOI) and the Clark Devel opment Corporation 
(CDC).  However, the information provided by the BOI and the CDC was considered to be 
incomplete for the purpose of the preliminary determination.  
 
[206]  One exporter,  HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. Inc., provided  a substantially complete 
response to the subsidy RFI.  
 
HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. Inc.(HLD Clark)  
 
[207]  For the purpose of the preliminary determination, HLD Clark provided a response to 
the Subsidy RFI that was considered to be substantially complete.  A SRFI w as subsequently 
sent to this exporter requesting additional information and clarification.  The CBSA has 
conduct ed an on -site verification with HLD Clark in November 2014 and will continue to 
analyze the company’s information during the final phase of the investigation.  
 
[208]  Notwithstanding an incomplete  response from the Government of the Philippines , in 
consideration of the level of cooperation received from HLD Clark , an individual amount of 
subsidy has been estimated for this exporter based on the informati on provided by HLD Clark . 
 
[209]  For the purposes of the preliminary determination, the CBSA estimated, based on its 
analysis of the information provided by HLD Clark , an amount of subsidy on the basis of the 
financial benefits received under the following  four program s: 
 
   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   35 
 
 Program  1: Exemption of Taxes in Special Economic Zones (SEZs)  
Program 3:  Exemptions from VAT in SEZs for Purchases from  Suppliers in the 
Customs Territory  
Program 5:  Exemption in SEZs from Import Taxes and Duties on  Importation of Raw 
Material, Supplies and all other Articles  Including Finished Goods  
Program 6:  Exemption in SEZs from Import Taxes and Duties on Importation of Machinery, 
Equipment, Supplies and all other  Articles including Finished Goods  
 
[210]  On the basis of the information provided by the exporter, t he CBSA has estimated that 
HLD Clark  received  an amount of subsidy equal to 2.3%, when expressed as a percentage of 
the total estimated export price.  
 
All Other Exporters – the Philippines  
 
[211]  For all other exporters in the Philippi nes that did not provide sufficient information or 
did not provide information in a timely fashion, the CBSA estimated an amount of subsidy on 
the basis of the following methodology:  
 
1) the amount of subsidy for the 4 programs, as found at the preliminary 
determination, for the sole exporter that provided a complete response to the 
RFI (i.e. HLD  Clark ) located in the Philippines, plus;  
 
2) the average of the amount of subsidy for the 4 progr ams referenced  in (1), 
applied to each of the remaining 8 potentially actionable subsidy programs for 
which sufficient information is not available or has not been provided at the 
preliminary determination.  
 
[212]  Using the above methodology, the estimated amount of subsidy for all other exporters 
is 5.7%, expressed as a percentage of the total estimated export price.   
 
[213]  It is estimated that 100% of the subject goods imported from the Philippines  are 
subsidized.  The estimated  overall weighted average amount of subsidy for the Philippines  is 
equal to 2.7% of the total estimated export price of the subject goods.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   36 
 
 Republic of Korea  
 
[214]  At the initiation of the investigation, the CBSA sent subsidy RFIs to the Government 
of the Repub lic of Korea, as well as to all known exporters/producers of OCTG in the 
Republic of Korea.  Information was requested in order to establish whether there had been 
financial contributions made by any level of government, including SOEs possessing, 
exercisi ng or vested with government authority, and, if so, to establish if a benefit has been 
conferred on persons engaged in the production, manufacture, growth, processing, purchase, 
distribution, transportation, sale, export or import of certain OCTG ; and whet her any resulting 
subsidy was specific in nature.  The G overnment of the Republic of Korea  was also requested 
to forward the RFIs to all subordinate levels of government that had jurisdiction over the 
exporters. The exporters /producers  were requested to forward a portion of the RFI to their 
input suppliers, who were asked to respond to questions pertaining to their legal 
characterization as SOEs.   
 
[215]  The CBSA conducted an on -site verification with Hyundai Hysco  Co., Ltd. during the 
week of November 10, 2014, and with the Government of the Republic of Korea and SeAH 
Steel Corporation during the week of November 17, 2014 .  
 
[216]  Prior to the verification visits, the CBSA estimated amounts of subsidy for the 
exporters i n the Republic of Korea based on the information available at that time.  The results 
of these preliminary calculations indicated that the amount of subsidy for the Republic of 
Korea was insignificant . Pursuant to subsection 2(1) of SIMA, an amount of subs idy of less 
than 1% of the export price is defined as insignificant.  Information obtained during the on -
site verification with the government and the responding exporters confirmed that the amount 
of subsidy for the Republic of Korea is insignificant.  
 
[217]  Given the proximity of the verification visits to the date by which the President of the 
CBSA was required to make a decision regarding the subsidy investigation with respect to 
certain OCTG from  the Republic of Korea, the CBSA did not recalculate the overa ll weighted 
average amount of subsidy for the Republic of Korea since the recalculation of the overall 
weighted average amount of subsidy for the Republic of Korea would have resulted in an even 
lower amount of subsidy.   Accordingly, the amount reported for the Republic of Korea is 
based on the original estimate and includes certain programs which were found to not be 
actionable following verification.  
 
[218]  In conducting its investigation, the CBSA requested information respecting 29 
identified programs.  During the course of the investigation, nine additional subsidy programs 
were identified.  A full list of the 38 subsidy programs is provided in Appendix 9 . The 
Appendix also provides descriptions of the programs used by the exporter in the current 
investigation , and a summary of the legislative basis on which the programs are considered 
actionable . 
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   37 
 
 [219]  A substantially complete response to the subsidy RFI was re ceived from the 
Government of the Republic of Korea, as well as from four exporters in the Republic of 
Korea :  Hyundai Hysco Co., Ltd., NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. , Daewoo International Co., Ltd., and 
SeAH Steel Corporation.  
 
Hyundai Hysco Co., Ltd. (H. Hysco)  
 
[220]  H. Hysco and its related supplier of input materials, Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd. (H. Steel) 
provided response s to the Subsidy RFI that were considered to be substantially complete. 
Through SRFIs, H. Hysco and H.  Steel provided additional information and clarific ation 
where needed.  The CBSA conduct ed an on -site verification with H. Hysco and met with 
officials from H. Steel and the Government of the Republic of Korea to confirm and 
substantiate the information submitted.  
 
[221]  Prior to the on -site verifications , the CBSA calculated , based on its analysis of the 
information provided by  H. Hysco, H. Steel and the Government of the Republic of Korea , an 
amount of subsidy equal to 0.3%, when expressed as a percentage of the total export price ,on 
the basis of the financial  benefits received under the following  13 program s: 
 
Program 5:  Incentives for Using Natural Gas  
Program 6:  Acquisition Tax Benefits to Companies Located in Industrial Complexes   
Program 10:  Electricity Consumption Adjustment Subsidy Program  
Program 23:  Tax benefit under the  Restriction of Special Taxation Act  (RSTA) , 
Article  26  
Program 24:  Tax Credits for Research and Human Resources Development for  
“New  Growth  Engines”  
Program 30:  Tax Credit for Research and Human Resources Development per 
Article  10(1)(3) of the RSTA  
Program 31:  Property Tax Benefits to Companies Located in Industrial Complexes  
Program 32:  Tax credit for Investment in Facilities for Research and Manpower under  
Article  11 of the RSTA  
Program 33:  Tax credit for Investment in Energy Economizing Facilities  under  
Article  25-2 of the RSTA  
Program 34:  Tax credit for Investment in Facilities for Environmental  Conservation 
Under Article  25-3 of the RSTA  
Program 35:  VAT and Duty Exemption on Imported Equipment  
Program 36:  Korea Import -Export Bank Long-term Preferential Financing  
Program 37:  Preferential Long-term Financing from State -run Resource Companies  
 
[222]  However b ased on information obtained during the on -site verification with the 
Government of the Republic of Korea, H. Hysco, and H. Steel, the CBSA considers only the 
following two programs to be specific and therefore actionable:  
 
Program 6:  Acquisition Tax Benef its to Companies Located in Industrial  Complexes   
Program 31:  Property Tax Benefits to Companies Located in Industrial Complexes  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   38 
 
 [223]  Of the other 11 subsidy programs  listed above , nine were determined not to be specific 
and are therefore not actionable. Programs 36 and 37 did not apply to the subject goods.  
 
[224]  As mentioned above, the results of these preliminary calculations indicated that the 
amount of subsidy for the Republic of Korea was insignificant.  G iven the proximity of the 
verification visits to the date by which the President of the CBSA was required to make a 
decision regarding the subsidy investigation with respect to certain OCTG from the Republic 
of Korea, the CBSA did not recalculate the amount of subsidy for H. Hysco  since the 
recalculation of the amount of subsidy for H. Hysco would have resulted in an even lower 
amount of subsidy.  As such  the following amount of subsidy is overstated.  
  
[225]  The CBSA calculated  that H. Hysco received  an amount of subsidy equal to 0.3%, 
when expressed as a percentage of the total export price.  
 
NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. (NEXTEEL)  
 
[226]  NEXTEEL submitted a substantially complete response to the Subsidy RFI .  The 
company also provided a response to an  SRFI , which was also sent to the company seeking 
additional information and clarification.   
 
[227]  Prior to the on -site verifications , the CBSA calculated , based on its analysis of the 
information provided by  NEXTEEL and the Government of the Republic of Korea , an amount 
of subsidy equal to 0.1%, when expressed as a percentage of the export price,  on the basis of 
the financial benefits received under the following  seven subsidy program s: 
 
Program 6:  Acquisition tax Benefits to Companies Located in Industrial Complex  
Program 19:  Preferential Financing through the Korea Development Bank (KDB)  
Program 21:  Export Insurance through the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation  
(K-Sure)  
Program 22:  Export Credit Guarantees through the K -Sure 
Program 23 : Tax benefit under the  Restriction of Special Taxation Act  (RSTA) , 
Article  26 
Program 31:  Property Tax Benefits to Companies Located in Industrial Complexes  
Program 38:  Promotion of Regional Specialized Industry  
 
[228]  However, b ased on information obtained during the on -site verification with the 
Government of the Republic of Korea, the CBSA considers the following five programs to be 
specific and therefore actionable.  
 
Program 6:  Acquisition tax Benefits to Companies Located in  Industrial Complex  
Program 21:  Export Insurance through the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation  
(K-Sure)  
Program 22:  Export Credit Guarantees through the K -Sure 
Program 31:  Property Tax Benefits to Companies Located in Industrial Complexes  
Program 38:  Promotion of Regional Specialized Industry  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   39 
 
 [229]  Program 19 and Program 23 were found  not to be specific and wer e therefore not 
actionable.  
 
[230]  As mentioned above, the results of these preliminary calculations indicated that the 
amount of subsidy for the Republic of Korea was insignificant.  Given the proximity of the 
verification visits to the date by which the President of the CBSA was required to make a 
decision regarding the subsidy investigation with respect to certain OCTG from the Republic 
of Korea, the CBSA did not recalculate the amount of subsidy for NEXTEEL since the 
recalculation of the amount of subsidy for NEXTEEL would have resulted in an even lower 
amount of subsidy.  Accordingly, the amount reported for the Republic of Korea is based on 
the original estimate and includes certain programs which were found to not be actionable 
following verification. As such  the following amount of su bsidy is overstated.  
 
[231]  The CBSA calculated  that NEXTEEL  received  an amount of subsidy equal to 0.1%, 
when expressed as a percentage of the total export price.  
 
Daewoo International Co., Ltd . (Daewoo)  
 
[232]  Daewoo acted as the exporter of certain subject goods shipped to Canada that were  
manufactured by NEXTEEL .  Daewoo provided a substantially complete response to the 
Subsidy RFI.  
 
[233]   Prior to the on -site verification , the CBSA calculated , based on its analysis of the 
information provided by  Daewoo and the Government of the Republic of Korea , an amount of 
subsidy equal to 0.1%, when expressed as a percentage of the export price , on the basis of the 
financial benefits received directly  by Daewoo under the  following  two program s: 
 
Program 23:  Tax benefit under the  Restriction of Special Taxation Act  (RSTA) , 
Article  26 
Program 30:  Tax Credit for Research and Human Resources Development per 
Article  10(1)(3) of the RSTA  
 
[234]  However, b ased on information obtained during the on -site verification with the 
Government of the Republic of Korea, it was found that these two programs are not specific  
and are therefore not actionable.  
 
[235]  As mentioned above, the results of these preliminary calcul ations indicated that the 
amount of subsidy for the Republic of Korea was insignificant.  Given the proximity of the 
verification visits to the date by which the President of the CBSA was required to make a 
decision regarding the subsidy investigation with  respect to certain OCTG from the Republic 
of Korea, the CBSA did not recalculate the amount of subsidy for Daewoo since the 
recalculation of the amount of subsidy for Daewoo would have resulted in an even lower 
amount of subsidy.  As such  the following am ount of subsidy is overstated.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   40 
 
 [236]  The CBSA calculated  that Daewoo  received an amount of subsidy equal to 0.1 %, 
when expressed as a percentage of the total export price.  
 
SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH)  
 
[237]  SeAH provided a response to the subsidy RFI that was considered to be substantially 
complete.  Two SRFIs were sent to SeAH for additional information and clarification.   The 
CBSA conducted  an on -site verification with SeAH to confirm and substantiate the 
information submitted.  
 
[238]   Prior to  the on -site verifications , the CBSA calculated , based on its analysis of the 
information provided by  SeAH  and the Government of the Republic of Korea , an amount of 
subsidy equal to 0.1%, when expressed as a percentage of the total estimated export price , on 
the basis of the financial benefits received  by SeAH  under the following  five subsidy 
program s: 
 
Program 6:  Acquisition Tax Benefits to Companies Located in Industrial Complex  
Program 10:  Electricity Consumption Adjustment Subsidy Program  
Program 23:  Tax Benefit under the  Restriction of Special Taxation Act  (RSTA) , 
Article 26  
Program 30:  Tax Credit for Research and Human Resources Development per 
Article10(1)(3) of the RSTA  
Program 31:  Property Tax Benefits to Companies Located in Industrial Complexes  
 
[239]  However, b ased on information obtained during the on -site verification with the 
Government of the Republic of Korea and SeAH, it was found that only the following two 
programs are specific and therefore actionable :  
 
Program 6:  Acquisition Tax Benefits t o Companies Located in Industrial Complex  
Program 31:  Property Tax Benefits to Companies Located in Industrial Complexes  
 
[240]  Programs 10, 23 and 30 were found not to be specific and are therefore not actionable.  
 
[241]  As mentioned above, the results of these preliminary calculations indicated that the 
amount of subsidy for the Republic of Korea was insignificant.  Given the proximity of the 
verification visits to the date by which the President of the CBSA was required to make a 
decision regarding the subsidy investigation with respect to certain OCTG from the Republic 
of Korea, the CBSA did not recalculate the amount of subsidy for SeAH  since the 
recalculation of the amount of subsidy for SeAH  would have resulted in an even lower amount 
of subsidy.  As such  the following amount of subsidy is overstated  as it should be nil .  
 
[242]  The CBSA calculated  that SeAH  received an amount of subsidy equal to 0.1 %, when 
expressed as a percentage of the total estimated export price.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   41 
 
 All Other Exporters – Republic of Korea  
 
[243]  For all other exporters in the Republic of Korea that did not provide sufficient 
information or did not provide information in a timely fashion, the CBSA calculated  an 
amount of subsidy on the basis of the following  methodology:  
 
1) the amount of subsidy calculated for the 17 programs pertaining to the 
exporters that provided a complete response to the RFI located in the Republic 
of Korea, plus;  
 
2) the average of the amount of subsidy for the 17 programs referenced in (1), 
applied to each of the remaining 21 potentially actionable subsidy programs for 
which sufficient information is not available or has not been provided.  
 
[244]  Using the above methodology, the amount of subsidy for all other exporters is 0.7%, 
expressed as a percentage of the total export price. As previously explained, the amount of 
subsidy for all other exporters is overstated  and includes certain programs which were found 
to not be actionable following verification.  
 
[245]  It is calculated that 100% of the subject goods imported from the Republic of Korea  
are subsidized.  The calculated  overall weighted average amount of subsidy for the Republic 
of Korea  is equal to 0.3% of the total export price of the subject goods.  However, as 
previously explained, this amount of subsidy is overstated.  
 
Thailand  
 
[246]  At the initiation of the investigation, the CBSA sent subsidy RFIs to the Government 
of the Republic of Thailand, as well as to all known exporters/producers of OCTG in 
Thailand.  Information was requested in order to establish whether there had been financial 
contributions made by any level of government, including SOEs possessing, exercising or 
vested with government authority, and, if so, to establish if a benefit has been confer red on 
persons engaged in the production, manufacture, growth, processing, purchase, distribution, 
transportation, sale, export or import of certain OCTG ; and whether any resulting subsidy was 
specific in nature.  The G overnment of Thailand was also reques ted to forward the RFIs to all 
subordinate levels of government that had jurisdiction over the exporters. The 
exporters /producers  were requested to forward a portion of the RFI to their input suppliers, 
who were asked to respond to questions pertaining to their legal characterization as SOEs.    
 
[247]  In conducting its investigation, the CBSA requested information respecting seven  
identified programs, as listed in Appendix 10. 
 
[248]  The Government of Thailand provided a response to the Subsidy RFI which was less 
than complete.  The Government of Thailand was sent an SRFI for additional information and 
clarification.   The information submitted in the SRFI response requires further clarification 
and analysis and was therefore not used for purposes of the preliminary dete rmination.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   42 
 
 [249]  One exporter from Thailand ; Thai Oil Pipe Co., Ltd. , provided  a substantially 
complete response to the subsidy RFI.  
 
Thai Oil Pipe Co., Ltd.  (TOP)  
 
[250]  For the purpose of the preliminary determination, TOP provided a response to the 
subsidy RFI that was considered to be substantially complete.  TOP was sent a SRFI for 
additional information and clarification and TOP responded with the requested information.  
The CBSA conducted  an on -site verification with TOP in November 2014 and will continu e 
to analyze the company’s information during the final phase of the investigation.  
 
[251]  Notwithstanding the Government of Thailand ’s response , in consideration of the level 
of cooperation received from TOP , an individual amount of subsidy has been estimated for 
this exporter based on the information provided by TOP.  
 
[252]  For the purposes of the preliminary determination, the CBSA estimated, based on its 
analysis of the information provided by  TOP , an amount of subsidy on the basis of the 
financial benefits received  by TOP  under the following  two subsidy program s: 
 
Program 1:  Exemption or Reduction of Duties on Imports of Machinery  
Program 2:  Reduction of Import Duties for Raw or Essential Materials  
 
[253]  On the basis of the information provided by the exporter, t he CBSA has estimated that 
TOP  received  an amount of subsidy equal to 4.1%, when expressed as a percentage of the 
total estimated export price.  
 
Other Exporters – Thailand  
 
[254]  For all other exporters, the CBSA estimated an amount of subsidy on the basis of th e 
following methodology:  
 
1) the amount of subsidy for the two programs, as found at the preliminary determination, 
for the sole exporter (TOP) located in Thailand that provided a substantially complete 
response to the subsidy RFI, plus:  
 
2) the average amount of subsidy for the two programs referenced in (1), applied to each 
of the remaining 5 potentially actionable subsidy programs for which sufficient 
information is not available or has not been provided at the preliminary determination.  
 
[255]  Using the above methodology, the estimated amount of subsidy for all other exporters 
is 13.0%, expressed as a percentage of the total estimated export price.   
 
[256]  It is estimated that 100% of the subject goods imported from Thailand  are subsidized.  
The esti mated  overall weighted average amount of subsidy for Thailand  is equal to 8.8% of 
the total estimated  export price of the subject goods.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   43 
 
 Turkey  
 
[257]  At the initiation of the investigation, the CBSA sent subsidy RFIs to the Government 
of Turkey, as well as to all known exporters/producers of OCTG in Turkey.  Information was 
requested in order to establish whether there had been financial contributions m ade by any 
level of government, including SOEs possessing, exercising or vested with government 
authority, and, if so, to establish if a benefit has been conferred on persons engaged in the 
production, manufacture, growth, processing, purchase, distributio n, transportation, sale, 
export or import of certain OCTG ; and whether any resulting subsidy was specific in nature.  
The G overnment of Turkey  was also requested to forward the RFIs to all subordinate levels of 
government that had jurisdiction over the exp orters. The exporters /producers  were requested 
to forward a portion of the RFI to their input suppliers, who were asked to respond to 
questions pertaining to their legal characterization as SOEs.     
 
[258]  A substantially c omplete response to the subsidy RFI was received from the 
Government of Turkey .  An SRFI was sent to the Government of Turkey to request additional 
information and the government responded with the requested information .  An o n-site 
verification was conducted  with the Government of Turkey  during the month of November to 
confirm and substantiate the information provided . 
 
[259]  A substantially complete response was also submitted by one exporter;  Borusan 
Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.  (BMB).  
 
[260]  In conducting its investigation, the CBSA requested information respecting 51 
identified programs, as listed in Appendix 11.  
 
[261]  However b ased on information reviewed and verified  with the Government of Turkey 
and with BMB , the CBSA determined that the follo wing programs were not in effect during 
the POI:  
 
Program 25:  Regional based Organized Industrial Zone (OIZ) and Free Zone (FZ) 
Energy Support Program  
Program 26:  OIZ and FZ Law 5084 – Withholding of Income Tax on Wages and 
Salaries  
Program 27:  OIZ and  FZ Law 5084 – Incentive for Employers’ Share in Insurance 
Premiums  
Program 28:  OIZ and FZ Law 5084 – Allocation of Free Land  
Program 29:  OIZ and FZ Law 5084 – Provision of Electricity for Less than Adequate 
Remuneration  
Program 31:  OIZ -Waste Water Cha rges 
 
[262]  The CBSA determined that the following two programs were  already included under 
Program 37 and 39 respectively and were thus redundant:  
 
Program 50:  Deduction from Taxable Income for Export Revenue - “Preferential 
Benefits for Turkish OCTG Producers in Located in Free Zones.”   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   44 
 
 Program 51:  VAT and Customs Duties Exemptions on Investment  
 
[263]  The CBSA determined that the following program was generally available:  
 
Program 45:  Social Security Grant Program  
 
Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve  Ticaret A.Ş. (BMB ) 
 
[264]  BMB provided a response to the subsidy RFI that was considered to be substantially 
complete.  BMB was sent a SRFI for additional information and clarification and BMB 
responded with the requested information.  The CBSA conducted an on -site verification with 
BMB during the month of November 2014 to confirm and substantiate the information 
submitted.  
 
[265]  The CBSA determined , based on its analysis of the information provided by  BMB and 
by the Government of Turkey , an amount of subsidy on the basis of the financial benefits 
received  by BMB  under the following  four subsidy program s: 
 
Program 1:  Investment Encouragement Program – Exemption of Customs Duties on 
Imported Machinery and Equipment  
Program 2:  Investment E ncouragement Program – Exemption of Value-added Tax on 
Domestic and Imported Machinery and Equipment  
Program 15:  Turk Eximbank – Short -term Pre-shipment Rediscount Program  
Program 46:  Deduction from Taxable Income for Export Revenue  
 
[266]  These four  program s were  found  to be specific and therefore actionable.  While 
specific, Program 46 did not confer any benefit.  The decision was based on  the analysis of the 
available information.  Appendix 11  provides descriptions of the programs used by the 
exporter in the  current investigation , and a summary of the legislative basis on which the 
programs are considered actionable . 
 
[267]  The CBSA has determined that BMB  received an amount of subsidy equal to 0. 6%, 
when expressed as a percentage of the total export price.  
 
Other  Exporters – Turkey  
 
[268]  For all other exporters in Turkey that did not furnish sufficient information or did not 
furnish information in a timely fashion, the amount of subsidy is based on:  
 
1) the amount of subsidy for the four programs  for the sole exporter that provided a 
complete response to the RFI (BMB ) located in Turkey, plus;  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   45 
 
 2) the average amount of subsidy for the four programs referenced  in (1), applied to each 
of the remaining 39 potentially actionable subsidy programs for which sufficient 
information  is not available or has not been provided.11 
 
[269]  Using the above methodology, the amount of subsidy for all other exporters is 4.7%, 
expressed as a percentage of the total export price.   
 
[270]  On the basis of information obtained during the investigation, as verified and analyzed 
by the CBSA, it is determined that 100% of the subject goods imported from Turkey  are 
subsidized.  The estimated  weighted average amount of subsidy for Turkey  is equal to 1.7% of 
the total export price of the subject goods.  
 
Ukraine  
 
[271]  At the initiation of the investigation, the CBSA sent subsidy RFIs to the Government 
of Ukraine, as well as to all known exporters/producers of OCTG in Ukraine.  Information 
was requested in order to establish whether there had been financial contributions made by 
any level of government, including SOEs possessing, exercising or vested with government 
authority, and, if so, to establish if a benefit has been confer red on persons engaged in the 
production, manufacture, growth, processing, purchase, distribution, transportation, sale, 
export or import of certain OCTG ; and whether any resulting subsidy was specific in nature.  
The G overnment of Ukraine  was also request ed to forward the RFIs to all subordinate levels 
of government that had jurisdiction over the exporters. The exporters /producers  were 
requested to forward a portion of the RFI to their input suppliers, who were asked to respond 
to questions pertaining to t heir legal characterization as SOEs.  
 
[272]  In conducting its investigation, the CBSA requested information respecting nine 
identified programs, as listed in Appendix 12. 
 
[273]  The Government of Ukraine  provided a response to the subsidy RFI which was less 
than complete.  For the purposes of the preliminary determination , the government’s response 
remain ed incomplete.  
 
[274]  One exporter from Ukraine , Interpipe Limited provided a response to the subsidy RFI , 
which was also considered to be incom plete for the purposes of the preliminary determination.   
 
[275]  During the final phase of the investigation, the CBSA will seek to obtain additional 
information from the Government of Ukraine and the co -operative exporter, and further 
examine the previously identified subsidy programs.  The CBSA may also consider any o ther 
potential subsidy programs that have not yet been identified.  
 
                                                      
 
 
11 51 programs were investigated; Programs 25 -29 and 31 were not in effect during the POI.   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   46 
 
 Interpipe Limited (Interpipe)  
 
[276]  Interpipe provide d a response to the subsidy RFI, which was considered to be less than 
complete .  
 
[277]  Given that the responses by the exporter and the Governmen t were incomplete, the 
CBSA estimated an amount of subsidy for Interpipe based on the same methodology used at 
the initiation of the investigation, i.e. by comparing the estimated costs of production of the 
subsidized goods with their weighted average estimated export prices.   
 
[278]  Using this methodology, the estimated amount of subsidy for Interpipe  is 9.9%, 
expressed as a percentage of the total estimated export price.  
 
[279]  The CBSA is currently proceeding with its review of the information received to date 
from Interpipe. Once this review is complete a supplemental subsidy RFI will be sent to 
Interpipe asking for additional information and clarification.  
 
All Other Exporters  – Ukraine  
 
[280]  For all other exporters in Ukraine that did not furnish sufficient information or did not 
furnish information in a timely fashion, the amount of subsidy is estimated based on  the same 
methodology used at the initiation of the investigation, i.e . by comparing the estimated costs 
of production of the subsidized goods with their weighted average  estimated  export prices.   
 
[281]  Using the above methodology, the estimated amount of subsidy for all other exporters 
is 9.9%, expressed as a percentage of the total estimated export price.   
 
[282]  It is estimated that 100% of the subject goods imported from Ukraine  are subsidized.  
The estimated  overall weighted average amount of subsidy for Ukraine  is equal to 9.9% of the 
total estimated export price of the subject goods.  
 
Vietnam  
 
[283]  At the initiation of the investigation, the CBSA sent subsidy RFIs to the Government 
of Vietnam, as well as to all known exporters/producers of OCTG in Vietnam.  Information 
was requested in order to establish whether there had been financial contributions made by 
any level of government, including SOEs possessing, exercising or vested with government 
authority, and, if so, to establish if a benefit has been confer red on persons engaged in the 
production, manufacture, growth, processing, purchase, distribution, transportation, sale, 
export or import of certain OCTG; and whether any resulting subsidy was specific in nature.  
The G overnment of Vietnam  was also request ed to forward the RFIs to all subordinate levels 
of government that had jurisdiction over the exporters. The exporters /producers  were 
requested to forward a portion of the RFI to their input suppliers, who were asked to respond 
to questions pertaining to t heir legal characterization as SOEs.     
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   47 
 
 [284]  In conducting its investigation, the CBSA requested information respecting 18 
identified programs, as listed in Appendix 13. 
 
[285]  The Government of Vietnam provided a response to the subsidy RFI which was less 
than complete.  For the purposes of the preliminary determination , the government’s response 
remain ed incomplete.   No exporter from Vietnam  provided a response to the subsidy RFI.  
 
All Exporters – Vietnam  
 
[286]  No exporter in Vietnam provided a complete response to the subsidy RFI.  Thus, f or 
all exporters in Vietnam that did not furnish sufficient information or did not furnish 
information in a timely fashion, the amount of subsidy is estimated based on  the same  
methodology used at the initiation of the investigation, i.e. by comparing the estimated costs 
of production of the subsidized goods with their weighted average estimated export prices.   
 
[287]  Using the above methodology, the estimated amount of subsidy for all other exporters 
is 19.0%, expressed as a percentage of the total estimated export price.   
 
[288]  It is estimated that 100% of the subject goods imported from Vietnam  are subsidized.  
The estimated  overall weighted average amount of subsidy for Vietnam  is equal to 19.0% of 
the total estimated export price of the subject goods.  
 
Summary Results - Subsidy  
 
[289]  A summary of the preliminary results of the subsidy investigation respecting all 
subject goods r eleased into Canada during the subsidy POI follows.  
 
Summary of Results - Subsidy  
Period of Investigation - January 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014  
 
Country  Estimated 
Subsidized 
Goods as 
Percentage of 
Country 
Imports  Estimated 
Amount of 
Subsidy*  Estimated 
Volume of 
Country 
Imports as 
Percentage of 
Total Imports  Estimated 
Volume of 
Subsidized 
Goods as 
Percentage of 
Total Imports  
India  100%  12.5%  1.3%  1.3%  
Indonesia  100%  7.6%  1.9%  1.9%  
Republic of Korea**  100%  0.3%  3.1%  3.1%  
Thailand  100%  8.8%  1.2%  1.2%  
The Philippines  100%  2.7%  2.4%  2.4%  
Turkey**  100%  1.7%  5.4%  5.4%  
Ukraine  100%  9.9%  1.1%  1.1%  
Vietnam  100%  19.0%  2.7%  2.7%  
* Expressed as a percentage of the export price.  
** For the Republic of Korea and Turkey, the amounts of subsidy are insignificant  and the subsidy investigation 
concerning OCTG from the Republic of Korea and Turkey was terminated.   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   48 
 
 [290]  Under subsection 35(1) of SIMA, if, at any time before the President makes a 
preliminary determination, the President is satisfied that the amount of subsi dy on the goods 
of a country is insignificant or the actual and potential volume of subsidized goods of a 
country is negligible, the President must terminate the investigation with respect to that 
country.   
 
[291]  Pursuant to subsection 2(1) of SIMA, an amount of subsidy  of less than 1% of the 
export price is defined as insignificant and a volume of subsidized  goods is considered 
negligible if it accounts for less than 3% of the total volume of subsidized goods that are 
released into Canada from all countries th at are of the same description as the subsidized  
goods, except that where the total volume of subsidized  goods of three or more countries, each 
of whose exports of subsidized  goods into Canada is less than 3% of the total volume of 
goods, is more than 7% o f the total volume of goods, the volume of subsidized  goods of any 
of those countries is not negligible.  
 
[292]  However, according to section 41.2 of SIMA, the President is required to take into 
account Article 27.10 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  
when conducting a subsidy investigation.  This provision stipulates that a countervailing duty 
investigation involving a product from a developing country should be terminated as soon as 
the authorities determine that the overall le vel of subsidies granted upon the product in 
question does not exceed 2% of its value calculated on a per unit basis or the volume of 
subsidized imports represents less than 4% of the total imports of the like product in the 
importing Member’s market , unle ss subsidized imports from the developing country Members 
whose individual shares of total imports represent less than 4%, collectively account for more 
than 9% of the total imports of the like product in the importing member . 
 
[293]  SIMA does not define or prov ide any guidance regarding the determination of a 
“developing country” for purposes of Article 27.10 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures .  As an administrative alternative, the CBSA refers to the 
Development Assistance Committee L ist of Official Development Assistance Recipients  (DAC 
List of ODA Recipients) for guidance.12  Since India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, 
Turkey, Ukraine and Vietnam  are included in the listing, the CBSA extends developing 
country status to India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and Vietnam  for 
purposes of this investigation.  
 
[294]  The estimated amounts of subsidy for India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, 
Ukraine and Vietnam are above 2% and are therefore, not insignificant.  
 
                                                      
 
 
12 The Organization for Economic Co -operation and Development, DAC List of ODA Recipients from 2011 to 
2013, the document is available at: 
www.oecd.org/dac /stats/DAC%20List%20used%20for%202012%20and%202013%20flows.pdf   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   49 
 
 [295]  The volumes of subsidized imports from India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, 
Ukraine and Vietnam are each less than 4% of the total volume of goods. However, the total 
volume of subsidized imports from these countries equals 10.6% of the total volu me of goods 
released into Canada from all countries.  Based on the definition above, the volume of 
subsidized imports for each of these countries is not negligible.  
 
[296]  In the case of the Republic of Korea and Turkey , the amounts of subsidy were 
considered  insignificant  as the overall level of subsidies granted upon the product in question 
does not exceed 1% of its value calculated on a per unit basis for the Republic of Korea and 
2% of its value calculated on a per unit basis  for Turkey .  
 
DECISIONS  
 
[297]  Pursuant  to paragraph 35(2) (a) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA ), on 
December 3, 2014, the President of the Canada Border Services Agency  (CBSA ) terminated 
the subsid y investigation with respect to certain oil country tubular goods originating in or 
exported from the Republic  of Korea and Turkey.  
 
[298]  On the same day, p ursuant to subsection 38(1) of SIMA , the President of the CBSA 
made preliminary determinations of dumping respecting certain  oil country tubular goods 
originating in or exported from Chinese  Taipei, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, the Republic 
of Korea Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and Vietnam and preliminary determinations of 
subsidizing respecting  such goods from India, Indonesia, the Phil ippines, Thailand, Ukraine 
and Vietnam.  
 
PROVISIONAL DUTY  
 
[299]  Pursuant to subsection 8(1) of SIMA, provisional duty payable by the importer in 
Canada will be applied to dumped and subsidized certain OCTG  that are released during the 
period commencing on the day the preliminary determinations are made and ending on the 
earlier of the day on which the President causes the investigations to be terminated, in 
accordance with subsection 41(1), or the day on wh ich the Tribunal makes an order or finding.  
The President considers that the imposition of provisional duty is needed to prevent injury .  As 
noted in the Tribunal’s preliminary determination , there is evidence that discloses a reasonable 
indication that t he dumping and subsidizing of certain OCTG  have caused injury or are 
threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry.  
 
[300]  Provisional duty is based on the estimated margin of dumping and the estimated 
amount of subsidy, expressed as a percentage of the e xport price of the goods.  Appendix 5 
contains the estimated margins of dumping, estimated amounts of subsidy and the rates of 
provisional duty payable on subject goods released from the CBSA on and after 
December  3, 2014.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   50 
 
 [301]  Importers are required to pay provisional duty in cash or by certified cheque.  
Alternatively, they may post security equal to the amount payable.  Importers should contact 
their CBSA regional office if they require further information on the payment of pr ovisional 
duty or the posting of security.  If the importers of such goods do not indicate the required 
SIMA code or do not correctly describe the goods in the import documents, an administrative 
monetary penalty could be imposed.  The imported goods are a lso subject to the Customs Act .  
As a result, failure to pay duties within the specified time will result in the application of the 
provisions of the Customs Act  regarding interest.  
 
FUTURE ACTION  
 
The Canada Border Services Agency  
 
[302]  The CBSA will continue its investigations of the dumping and subsidizing and the 
President will make final decisions by March 3 , 201 5. 
 
[303]  If the President is satisfied that the goods were dumped and/or subsidized, and that the 
margin of dumping or amount of subsidy is not insignificant, final determinations will be 
made.  Otherwise, the President will terminate the investigations and any provisional duty 
paid or security posted, will be returned to importers.  
 
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal  
 
[304]  The Tribunal has begu n its inquiry into the question of injury to the Canadian industry.  
The Tribunal is expected to issue its finding by April  2, 2015.  
 
[305]  If the Tribunal finds that the dumping has not caused injury, retardation or is not 
threatening to cause injury, the proce edings will be terminated and all provisional duty 
collected or security posted will be returned.  
 
[306]  If the Tribunal makes a finding that the dumping has caused injury, retardation or is 
threatening to cause injury, anti -dumping duty in an amount equal to th e margin of dumping 
will be levied, collected and paid on imports of certain OCTG . 
 
[307]  If the Tribunal finds that the subsidizing has not caused injury, retardation or is not 
threatening to cause injury, the proceedings will be terminated and all provisional duty 
collected or security posted will be returned.  
 
[308]  If the Tribunal makes a finding that the subsidizing has caused injury, retardation or is 
threatening to cause injury, countervailing duties in the amount equal to the amount of subsidy 
on the imported goods will be levied, collected and paid on imports of  certain OCTG . 
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   51 
 
 [309]  For purposes of the preliminary determination of dumping or subsidizing, the CBSA 
has responsibility for determining whether the actual and potential volume of dumped or 
subsidized goods is negligible.  After a preliminary determination of dumping or subsidizing, 
the Tribunal assumes this responsibility.  In accordance with subsection 42(4.1) of SIMA, the 
Tribunal is required to terminate its inquiry in respect of any goods if the Tribunal determines 
that the volume of dumped or subsidized g oods from a country is negligible.  
 
RETROACTIVE DUTY ON MASSIVE IMPORTATIONS  
 
[310]  Under certain circumstances, anti -dumping and/or countervailing duty can be imposed 
retroactively on subject goods imported into Canada.  When the Tribunal conducts its inquiry 
on material injury to the Canadian industry, it may consider if dumped and/or subsidized 
goods that were imported close to or after the initiation of the investigation constitute massive 
importations over a relatively short period of time and have caused i njury to the Canadian 
industry.  Should the Tribunal issue a finding that there were recent massive importations of 
dumped and/or subsidized goods that caused injury, imports of subject goods released by the 
CBSA in the 90 days preceding the day of the pre liminary determination could be subject to 
anti-dumping and/or countervailing duty.  
 
[311]  In respect of importations of subsidized goods that have caused injury, this provision is 
only applicable where the CBSA has determined that the whole or any part of the s ubsidy on 
the goods is a prohibited subsidy.  In such a case, the amount of countervailing duty applied 
on a retroactive basis will equal the amount of subsidy on the goods that is a prohibited 
subsidy.  An export subsidy is a prohibited subsidy according to subsection 2(1) of SIMA.  
 
UNDERTAKINGS  
 
[312]  After a preliminary determination of dumping, exporters may give a written 
undertaking to revise selling prices to Canada so that the margin of dumping or the injury 
caused by the dumping is eliminated.  Similarly , after a preliminary determination of 
subsidizing, the government of a country may give a written undertaking to eliminate the 
subsidy on the goods or to eliminate the injurious effect of the subsidy by limiting the amount 
of the subsidy or the quantity o f goods exported to Canada.  Exporters, with the consent of 
their government, may also undertake to revise their selling prices so that the injurious effect 
of the subsidy is eliminated.  
 
[313]  Acceptable undertakings must account for all or substantially all of  the exports to 
Canada of the dumped and subsidized goods.  In the event that an undertaking is accepted, the 
required payment of provisional duty on the goods would be suspended.  
 
[314]  In view of the time needed for consideration of undertakings, written undertaking 
proposals should be made as early as possible and no later than 60 days after the preliminary 
determinations of dumping and subsidizing.  Further details regarding undertakin gs can be 
found in the CBSA’s Memorandum D14 -1-9, available online at  
www.cbsa -asfc.gc.ca/publications/dm -md/d14/d14 -1-9-eng.html  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   52 
 
 [315]  SIMA allows all interested parties to mak e representations concerning any undertaking 
proposals.  The CBSA will maintain a list of interested parties and will notify them should an 
undertaking proposal be received.  Persons wishing to be notified must provide their name, 
address, telephone, fax, or email address, to one of the officers listed below.  Interested parties 
may also consult the CBSA Web site noted below for information on undertakings offered in 
these investigations.  A notice will be posted on the CBSA Web site when an undertaking 
proposal is received.  Interested parties have nine days from the date the undertaking offer is 
received to make representations.  
 
PUBLICATION  
 
[316]  A notice of these preliminary determinations of dumping and subsidizing will be 
published in the Canada Gazette  pursuant to paragraph 38(3)( a) of SIMA.  
 
[317]  A notice of the termination of the  subsidy  investigation  with respect to the Republic of 
Korea and Turkey  will be published in the Canada Gazette  pursuant to subparagraph 
35(2)( b)(ii) of SIMA.  
 
  INFORMATION 
[318] This Statement of Reasons has been provided to persons directly interested in these 
proceedings. It is also posted on the CBSA's Web site at the address below. For further 
information, please contact the officers identified as follows: 
Mail: 
Telephone: 
Fax: 
E-mail: 
Web site: 
Attachments SIMA Registry and Disclosure Unit 
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate 
Canada Border Services Agency 
100 Metcalfe Street, 11 th floor 
Ottawa, Ontario KIA OL8 
Canada 
Andrew Manera 
Barbara Chouinard 
613-948-4844 613-946-2052 
613-954-7399 
simaregistry@cbsa-asfc. gc.ca 
www.cbsa-asfc. gc.calsima-Imsi 
Brent McRoberts 
Director General 
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate 
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate 53  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   54 
 
 APPENDIX 1 – REPRESENTATIONS FROM  THE GOVERNMENT OF TH E 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA  
 
On July 15, 2014, the Government of the Republic of Korea provided representations with 
regards to several issues.  
 
Insufficient Evidence  
 
The Government of the Republic of Korea  submitted that the World Trade Organization 
(WTO)’s Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) sets out the 
conditions to be met and the procedure to be followed when an authority of a Member State 
initiat es a subsidy investigation.  The Government of the Republic of Korea  stated that the 
application for the initiation of a subsidy investigation must include sufficient evidence of the 
existence of (a) a subsidy and, if possible, its amount, (b) injury withi n the meaning of Article 
VI injury .   
 
The Government of the Republic of Korea  requested that, consistent with the requirements of  
the CVD Agreement, Canadian authorities should review the accuracy and adequacy of the 
evidence provided in the application to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to justify 
the initiation of an investigation.  
 
CBSA Response  
 
The CBSA met the threshold for initiating a subsidy investigation, as required by 
subsection  31(1) of SIMA. The subsidy investigation was initiat ed following receipt of a 
properly documented complaint.  This complaint contained the elements required by the 
definition of the term “properly documented complaint” in subsection 2(1) and the provisions 
of subsection 31(1) of SIMA.  
 
The CBSA determined that the Complainants provided the information about subsidies in the 
Republic of Korea that was reasonably available to them.  The CBSA also undertook its own 
research and determined that there was evidence that certain OCTG from the Republic of 
Korea hav e been subsidized.   
 
Based on information in the complaint , together with supplementary data available to the 
CBSA and CBSA import documentation, the President was of the opinion that there was 
sufficient evidence that certain OCTG from the Republic of Ko rea was being subsidize d. 
Similarly, the President was satisfied that the evidence disclosed a reasonable indication that 
the subsidizing had caused and threatened to cause injury. Therefore, the CBSA initiated a 
subsidy investigation with respect to these  goods.   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   55 
 
 Reasonable Time to R espond  
 
The Government of the Republic of Korea  submitted that the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade 
Organization (“CVD Agreement”) stresses that all interested parties, including exporters, 
producers and importers, have enough  time to respond to the question s raised by the 
investigating authorities.  Specifically, in paragraph 1 of Article 12.1, it states that “Exporters, 
foreign producers or interested Members receiving questionnaires used in a countervailing 
duty investigatio n shall be given at least 30 days for reply.  Due consideration should be given 
to any request for an extension of the 30 -day period and, upon cause shown, such an extension 
should be granted whenever practicable.”   
 
The Government of the Republic of Korea  requested that reasonable time be provided to the 
interested parties to the investigation to prepare the response to the questions or requests of the 
Canadian investigating authority.  
 
CBSA Response  
 
The CBSA’s policy is consistent with the WTO agree ment s. Exporters, producers, and 
governments are sent Requests for Information (RFIs) on the date of initiation and given 
37 days to respond. Furthermore, the CBSA considers extension requests to respond to the 
RFI upon cause  shown , while exercising its di scretion to meet legislated timelines in SIMA. 
In this investigation a number of parties, including the Government of the Republic of Korea, 
were granted an extension to the time permitted for providing a response to the RFI.    
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   56 
 
 APPENDIX 2 – REPRESENTATIONS FROM  THE GOVERNMENT OF VI ETNAM  
 
On July 17 , 2014, the Government of Vietnam provided representations with regards to 
several issues.  
 
Insufficiency of the Public Version  of the Complaint  
 
The Government of Vietnam  submitted that the information in the public version of the 
complaint did not provide sufficient information  concerning the representation of the domestic 
industry and the known foreign producers and exporters.  
 
CBSA Response  
 
The CBSA is of the opinion t hat the non -confidential version of the complaint is in 
accordance with paragraph 85(1)( b) of SIMA  and was in sufficient detail to convey a 
reasonable understanding of the substance of the information . 
 
Declining Volume and Value of Imports from Vietnam  
 
The Government of Vietnam  stated that the volume and value of imports into Canada from 
Vietnam has declined sharply since 2013 and this should be considered by the CBSA in its 
review.  
 
CBSA Response  
 
At the time of the initiation, the CBSA was satisfied that the estimated volume of subsidized 
imports from Vietnam was  not negligible.   
 
Insufficient Evidence  
 
The Government of Vietnam  submitted that the complaint lacked the necessary evidence to 
justify an initiation of an investigation as certain programs do not reflect the current state of 
Vietnam’s economy, including the expiry of several alleged programs.  
 
CBSA Response  
 
The CBSA met the threshold for initiating a subsidy investigation, as required by subsection 
31(1) of SIMA. The subsidy investigation was initiated following receipt of a properly 
documented complaint.  This complaint contained the elements required by the  definition of 
the term “properly documented complaint” in subsection 2(1) and the provisions of subsection 
31(1) of SIMA. The information presented by the Complainants, together with supplementary 
data available to the CBSA and CBSA import documentation, substantiated the Complainants’ 
allegations that certain OCTG from Vietnam have been subsidized.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   57 
 
 The CBSA determined that the Complainants provided the information about subsidies in 
Vietnam that was reasonably available to them.  The CBSA also undertook its own research 
and determined that there was evidence that certain OCTG from Vietnam have been 
subsidized.  Therefore, the CBSA initiated a subsidy investigation with respect to these goods.  
 
 
   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   58 
 
 APPENDIX 3 – REPRESENTATIONS FROM  THE GOVERNMENT OF TU RKEY  
 
On July 1 8, 2014, the Government of Turkey  provided representations with regards to the 
following issue . 
 
Insufficient Evidence  
 
The Government of Turkey  submitted that there is no evidence to support the allegations that 
producers of certain OCTG  in Turkey have benefited from subsidies.  The Government of 
Turkey  further stated  that a number of subsidy programs alleged by the complainants were not 
specific, not used by OCTG exporters, provided de minimis benefits or had expired and are no 
longer in force . Accordingly the Government of Turkey  submitted that a subsidy investigation 
should not be initiated.  
 
CBSA Response  
 
The CBSA met the threshold for initiating a subsidy investigation, as required by 
subsection  31(1) of SIMA. The subsidy investigation was initiated following receipt of a 
properly documented complaint.  This complaint contained the elements required by the  
definition of the term “properly documented complaint” in subsection 2(1) and the provisions 
of subsection 31(1) of SIMA. The information presented by the Complainants, together with 
supplementary data available to the CBSA and CBSA import documentation, substantiated the 
Complainants’ allegations that certain OCTG  from Turkey have been subsidized.  
 
The CBSA determined that the Complainants provided the information about subsidies in 
Turkey that was reasonably available to them.  The CBSA also undertook it s own research 
and determined that there was evidence that certain OCTG  from Turkey have been subsidized.  
Therefore, the CBSA initiated a subsidy investigation with respect to these goods.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   59 
 
 APPENDIX 4 – REPRESENTATIONS FROM  THE COMPLAINANTS  
 
1. Representations Regarding Information Submitted by Respondents to the CBSA’s 
Dumping and Subsidy RFIs  
 
Counsel for the Complainants made numerous representations with respect to the information 
submitted by various parties in response to the CBSA’s dumping  and subsidy RFIs.   
Listed below are the names of the RFI respondents and the dates comments were provided by 
counsel for the Complainants.  
  
Dumping and Subsidy RFI Respondent  Date of Receipt  
 
Chinese Taipei   
Chung Hung Steel Corporation  October 1, 2014  
Tension Steel Industries Co., Ltd.  September 29, 2014  
 
India   
GVN Fuels Limited and  
Maharashtra Seamless Limited (combined)  September 12, 2014  
Jindal Saw Limited  September 29, 2014  
 
Republic of Korea   
Hyundai Hysco Co., Ltd.  September 16, 2014  
SeAH Steel Corporation  September 9, 2014  
 
Philippines   
HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co., Inc.  September 15, 2014  
September 26, 2014  
November 6, 2014  
November 25, 2014  
Thailand   
Boly Pipe Co., Ltd.; Thai Oil Pipe Co., Ltd.  October 7, 2014  
Thai Oil Pipe Co. Ltd and  
Star International Oil Holdings Ltd. (combined)  October 9, 2014  
 
Turkey   
Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret AS  November 24, 2014  
IMCO International Inc . September 12, 2014  
September 19, 2014  
November 24, 2014  
Ukraine   
Interpipe  Ukraine and  
North American Interpipe Inc. (combined)  October 29, 2014  
 
Vietnam   
Vietubes Corporation Ltd.  September 10, 2014   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   60 
 
 CBSA Response  
 
The CBSA has reviewed  all of the company specific comments submitted by counsel for the 
complainants and has taken them into consideration when requesting supplemental 
information or clarification from respondents and during the course of verifications scheduled 
with selected exporters.  
 
2. General Representations Regarding Information Submitted by Respondents to the 
CBSA’s Dumping and Subsidy RFIs  
 
In addition to company specific issues raised by counsel for the Complainants , on 
November  12, 2014, counsel also provided the CBSA comments of a general nature pertaining 
to a larger number of companies.  
 
Non-OCTG Products Should Not be Used to Establish an Amount for Profits for OCTG 
Products When Determining Normal Values  
 
Counsel provided comments and submitted evidence to support its argument that non -OCTG 
products should not be used to establish an a mount for profits for OCTG products when 
determining normal values using the cost plus profit methodology of paragraph 19( b) of 
SIMA.  Counsel argues that OCTG is a highly -specialized, value -added product that 
commands a higher profit level than other tubular products due to the different market it is 
sold in and the different market forces at play in that market.  
 
CBSA Response  
 
The CBSA has, to the extent possible, estimated  the amount for profits based on domestic 
sales of like goods (i.e. OCTG produ cts).  Where this information was not available,  and 
where possible,  the CBSA has estimated the amount for profits based on domestic sales of 
goods of the same general category (i.e. OCTG of varying grades or non -OCTG tubular 
products as the case may be) i n accordance with section 11 of the SIMR. Where the amount 
for profits could not be estimated under section 11 of the SIMR, the amount for profits was 
estimated using the information available.  
 
Major Inputs Supplied by Associated Companies at Market Price s 
 
Counsel also submitted comments encouraging the CBSA to continue pursuing the collection 
of information regarding major inputs supplied by associated companies to ascertain whether 
these inputs are being furnished at market prices.  Counsel encouraged t he CBSA to seek this 
information through supplemental RFIs and, in cases where this information is not supplied, to 
apply a Ministerial Specification.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   61 
 
 CBSA Response  
 
The CBSA has pursued, and will continue to pursue  during the final phase of the 
investiga tion, the collection of cost of production information , as well as any other 
information, required to  establish normal values under SIMA.  
 
Purchases of Hot -rolled Coil from Erdemir for Less Than Fair Market  Value  
 
Counsel provided comments concerning the alleged provision of hot -rolled coil at less than 
fair market value (LTFMV) by the Government of Turkey in respect of sales of hot -rolled 
sheet through steel producer Erdemir to producers of OCTG in Turkey.   
 
CBSA Resp onse  
 
Ordu Yardımlaşma Kurumu  (OYAK) is a private pension fund established by law in 1961 
with the objective of providing retirement benefits to member of the Turkish Armed Forces.  
It was established as a “ Military Personnel Assistance and Pension Fund” a nd as a corporate 
entity with financial and administrative autonomy.  
 
The Erdemir Group of Companies is composed of “Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları T.A.Ş.” 
(Erdemir) and its subsidiaries.  The immediate parent and ultimate controlling party of 
Erdemir  is “ATAER Holding A.Ş.”  ATAER Holding A.Ş., is a wholly owned subsidiary of 
OYAK.  
 
Erdemir is a publically listed company on the Istanbul Stock Exchange; other major 
shareholders include ArcelorMittal one of the world’s largest steel companies.  Erdemir is a 
parent company to Isdemir, a supplier of hot -rolled coil in Turkey.  ATAER Holding A.Ş 
acquired Erdemir in 2006 as part of a state privatization of Erdemir through a public auction.13  
 
A review of the information available on the record and the result s of verification with 
Erdemir, OYAK and the Government of Turkey  indicate that Erdemir appears to operate and 
function according to commercial principles, consistent with the behaviour expected of a 
profit -driven steel company, responsible to its public s hareholders.   
 
OYAK itself operates as a private pension fund, with no operational funding from the 
government established to generate revenue to provide retirement benefits to its members.  
OYAK generates its revenue from member dues and investments.  The  evidence does not 
disclose that OYAK is exercising any government function or directing Erdemir to operate in 
any manner inconsistent with normal commercial operations.   
 
                                                      
 
 
13 CBSA Exhibit 358 (NC), page 6; Exhibit 151 (NC), page 1.   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   62 
 
 In addition to the preceding considerations, the information available does not indicate  that the 
cooperative exporter Borusan received any quantifiable benefit in purchasing hot -rolled coil 
from Erdemir/Isdemir.  That is, the available information  does not provide evidence which 
would demonstrate that Borusan received a preferential pri ce through Erdemir/Isdemir of its 
hot-rolled coil purchases for the production of subject goods during the POI, in comparison to 
any appropriate benchmark.  
 
Insufficient Evidence Regarding the Acquisition of the Assets of Hanbo Steel by 
Hyundai  Hysco and H yundai Steel  
 
Counsel for the Complainants has on several occasions expressed concerns with the quality of 
the information submitted by the Government of the Republic of Korea, by the exporter of 
subject goods, Hyundai Hysco  Co. Ltd., and by the exporter’s related producer of input 
materials, Hyundai Steel Co. Ltd. (together “the Hyundai Consortium”), in respect of the 
alleged sale of state assets at less than fair market value.  The transaction in question was the 
2004 acqui sition by the Hyundai Consortium of Hanbo Steel’s bankrupt cold -rolled steel mill 
from the Korea Asset Management Corporation (KAMCO), a government -owned institution.  
 
CBSA Response  
 
Notwithstanding counsel’s concerns, the CBSA is satisfied that sufficient  information was 
available, including extensive documentation provided by the Hyundai Consortium to confirm 
that the sale process, carried out under the supervision of Korea’s Bankruptcy Court, was done 
through public auction in a fair and objective manner .14  Provided as well were evaluations of 
the fair market value of the assets by both the seller15 and the buyer.16  The documentation 
supplied also indicated that Hyundai Consortium’s bid price for the assets was the highest 
offered,17 and was almost double t hat which was proposed by an investor six months 
previously.  
 
The CBSA has concluded that the above -described sale of state assets was not at less than fair 
market value and did not result in actionable subsidies being provided to the exporter.  
 
 
  
                                                      
 
 
14 Exhibit 145 (pro) – H. Steel  Subsidy RFI response, Exhibit E -Program 1 -4; Exhibit E -Program 1 -9; 
15 Exhibit 145 (pro) – H. Steel Subsidy RFI response, Exhibit E -Program 1 -1;  
16 Exhibit 402 (pro) – H. Hysco Subsidy RFI response, Exhibit E.1 -2(2);  
17 Exhibit 145 (pro) – Hyundai Steel  Subsidy RFI response, Exhibit E -Program 1 -10  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   63 
 
 APPENDIX 5 – SUMMARY OF THE ESTIM ATED MARGINS OF DUMP ING, 
ESTIMATED AMOUNTS OF  SUBSIDY, AND PROVISI ONAL DUTIES PAYABLE  
 
Imports of subject goods released from the CBSA, on or after December 3 , 2014, will be 
subject to provisional duties at the rates specified below.  
 
Exporter  Estimated 
Margin of 
Dumping*  Estimated 
Amount of 
Subsidy*  Total 
Provisional 
Duty Payable*  
Chinese Taipei     
   Chung Hung Steel Co.  2.6%  N/A 2.6%  
   Tension Steel Industries  3.7%  N/A 3.7%  
   All other exporters – Chinese Taipei  53.2%  N/A 53.2%  
India     
   Jindal Saw Ltd.  0.0%  7.9%  7.9%  
   GVN Fuels Ltd.  0.0%  2.2%  2.2%  
   All other exporters - India  53.2%  40.8%  94.0%  
Indonesia     
   P.T. Citra Tubindo Tbk   24.3%  1.8%  26.1%  
   Petro Amigos Supply Inc. (USA)  0.8%  1.4%  2.2%  
   All other exporters - Indonesia  53.2%  17.3%  70.5%  
Republic of Korea **    
   Hyundai Hysco Co. Ltd.  5.2% 0.3%  5.2% ** 
   NEXTEEL Co. Ltd.  53.2% 0.1%  53.2% ** 
   Daewoo International Co.  53.2% 0.1%  53.2% ** 
   SeAH Steel Co.  2.0% 0.1%  2.0% ** 
   Pan Meridian Tubular (USA ) 0.0% 0.1%  0.0% ** 
   All other exporters – Rep. of Korea  53.2% 0.7%  53.2% ** 
Thailand     
   Thai Oil Pipe Co. Ltd.  15.3% 4.1%  19.4%  
   All other exporters – Thailand  53.2% 13.0%  66.2%  
The Philippines     
   HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. Ltd.  0.0% 2.3%  2.3%  
   All other exporters – The Philippines  53.2% 5.7%  58.9%  
Turkey **    
   Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanavi  0.0% 0.5%  0.0% ** 
   IMCO International Inc. (from USA)  29.4% 0.4%  29.4% ** 
   All other exporters – Turkey  53.2% 5.0%  53.2% ** 
Ukraine     
   North American Interpipe (USA)  8.7% 9.9%  18.6%  
   All other exporters – Ukraine  53.2% 9.9%  63.1%  
Vietnam     
   All exporters –Vietnam  53.2% 19.0%  72.2%  
* Expressed as a percentage of the export price.     
** For the Republic of Korea and Turkey, the amounts of subsidy are insignificant and the subsidy investigation 
concerning OCTG from the Republic of Korea and Turkey was terminated.  Therefore, the provisional duty 
for these two countries is based on the estimated margin of dumping only.    
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   64 
 
 APPENDIX 6 – SUMMARY OF PRELIMINA RY FINDINGS FOR NAME D SUBSIDY 
PROGRAMS - INDIA  
 
This appendix consists of a revised listing of 48 potentially actionable subsidy programs that 
were reviewed by the CBSA in the current subsidy investigation.    This is followed by 
descriptions of the programs used by the responding exporters in the current investigation , and 
a summary of the legislativ e basis on which the programs are considered potentially 
actionable .  
 
Program 1.  Duty -Free Importation of Capital Goods and Raw Materials, Components, 
Consumables, Intermediates, Spare Parts and Packing Material in 
Special  Economic  Zones (SEZs)  
Program 2.  Export Income Tax Ex emptions  in SEZs   
Program 3.  Exemption in SEZs from Minimum Alternate Tax  
Program 4.  Exemption in SEZs from Payment of Central Sales Tax on Purchases of Capital 
Goods and Raw Materials, Components, Consumables, Intermediates, Spare 
Parts and Packing  Material  
Program 5.  Exemption in SEZs  from Service Tax  
Program 6.  Discounted Land Fees and Leases in SEZs  
Program 7.  Discounted Electricity Rates in SEZs  
Program 8.  Exemption in SEZs from State Sales Tax and Other Levies as 
Extended  by State  Governments  
Program 9.   Duty -Free Importations for Companies Designated as Export  Oriented  Units 
(EOUs)   
Program 10.  Reimbursement to EOUs of Central Sales Tax  
Program 11.  Duty Drawback for EOUs on Fuel Procured from Domestic Oil Companies  
Program 12.  Credit for Service Tax paid by EOUs  
Program 13.  Exemptions from Income Tax for EOUs   
Program 14.  Assistance to States for Developing Export Infrastructure and Allied Activities  
Program 15.  Market Access Initiative  
Program 16.  Market Development Assistance  
Program 17.  Brand Promotion and Quality  
Program 18.  Focus Product Scheme  
Program 19.  Pre-Shipment, Post -Shipment and Other Preferential Financing  
Program 20.  Export  Promotion Capital Goods Scheme  
Program 21.  Duty Exemption/Remission Schemes  
Program 22.  Purchase of Iron Ore From State -owned Enterprises for Less Than Fair Market 
Value  
Program 23.  Purchase of Hot -rolled Steel and Billets From State -owned Enterprises for Less 
Than Fair Market Value  
Program 24.  80 –IB Income Deduction Program  
Program 25.  80-IA Income Tax Deduction Program  
Program 26.  Steel Development Fund Loans  
Program 27.  Steel Development Fund R&D Grants  
Program 28.  Exemption from Electricity Duty through the State Government of Maharashtra 
(SGOM)   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   65 
 
 Program 29.  Refund from the SGOM of Octroi duty or entr y tax (in lieu of Octroi)  
Program 30.  Special Incentives of the SGOM for Mega Projects  
Program 31.  Exemption through the SGOM from Sales Tax and Other Levies   
Program 32.  Reimbursement of the Cost of Land in Industrial Estates and Development 
Areas under the State Government of Andhra Pra desh Industrial  Investment 
Promotion Policy (SGOAP IIPP)  
Program 33.  Reimbursement of Power Costs under the SGOAP IIPP  
Program 34.  Subsidy for Expenses Incurred for Quality Certification under the SGOAP IIPP  
Program 35.  Subsidy for  Expenses Incurred in Patent Registration under the SGOAP IIPP 
Program 36.  Subsidy for Cleaner Production Measures under the SGOAP IIPP  
Program 37.  Reimbursement of Stamp Duty and Transfer Duty Paid for the Purchase of 
Land and Buildings and Obtaining Financial Deeds and Mortgages under the 
SGOAP  IIPP 
Program 38.  Reimbursement of Value Added Tax, C ST, and State Goods and Services Tax 
under the SGOAP  IIPP 
Program 39.  Provision by the SGOAP IIPP of Infrastructure for Industries Located More 
than 10 Kilometers from Existing Industrial Estates or Development Areas 
at less than Fair Market  Value  
Program 40.  Subsidies from the SGOAP IPP for Mega Projects  
Program 41.  Andhra Pradesh Industrial Investment's Allotment of Land for Less than Fair 
Market Value by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation 
(APIIC)  
Program 42.  APIIC Provision of Deposit Works other than General Governmental 
Infra structure  
Program 43.  State Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Exemptions and Deferrals on Sales Tax 
for Purchases of Goods   
Program 44.  SGOG VAT Remission Scheme  
Program 45.  SGOG Critical Infrastructure Project  
Program 46.  SGOG Scheme for Assistance to Industrial Parks/Industrial Estates Set Up by 
Privat e Institutions  
Program 47.  Reduced VAT Rates for Inputs and Raw Materials from the 
State  Government  of Haryana (SGOH)  
Program 48.  SGOH Preferential Loans for Large Scale Industries Located in Industrial 
Estates  
 
Subsidy Programs Used by the Responding Exporters  
 
Responses to the subsidy RFI were received from the Government of India and from two 
exporters, Jindal Saw Limited and Maharashtra Seamless Ltd.  In its original response to the 
CBSA’s subsidy RFI, the Government of India provided general descriptions of the alleged 
subsid y programs identified by the CBSA and submitted copies of the relevant supporting 
laws, regulations and policies.  The Government of India also confirmed the amounts for 
subsidy provided by the two co -operating exporters.  In a supplemental RFI the Governm ent 
of India was asked to provide  additional information .  While the Government of India 
provided some additional information in response to the supplemental RFI, it also indicated 
that, in a number of cases, centralized information for many programs was n ot available.   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   66 
 
  
The CBSA’s review of the responses provided by the Government of India and by the 
responding exporters has indicated that sufficient information was provided to make a 
preliminary determination and to estimate the amount of subsidy on a prog ram basis.  
 
Program 18:  Focus Product Scheme  
 
This program was established as per Chapter 3.15 of India’s Foreign Trade Policy (2009 -
2014), which was issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in 2010.  The stated 
objective of the program is to encourage the export of products that have high export or 
employment potential, so as to offset any infrastructure inefficiencies and costs associated 
with the marketing of these products.  Under this program, exports of certain notified products 
to all co untries are entitled to a duty credit equivalent to 2% of the FOB value of exports made 
as of August 27, 2009.  
 
Information obtained during the  preliminary phase of the  investigation indicates that the Focus 
Product Scheme is potentially actionable as a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 
2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, in that amounts that would otherwise be owing and due to the government 
are reduced and/or exempted, and would confer a benefit to the recipient equal to the amount 
of the reduction/exemption.  The information available also indicates that it may be  a specific 
subsidy under paragraph 2(7.2)( b) of SIMA as it may be  contingent upon export performance 
and, therefore, may constitute a prohibited subsidy as defined in subsection 2(1) of SIMA.  
This wil l be further analyzed in the final phase of the investigation.  
 
During the POI one of the responding exporters received benefits under this program.  
 
Program 20:  Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme  
 
This scheme was designed for modernization and technolo gical upgrade of the production 
base in the country.  This program is governed under Foreign Trade Policy 2009 -2014.  This 
scheme allows the import of capital goods for pre -production, production and post -production, 
at zero rate or 3% customs duty, subjec t to an export obligation equivalent to 6 times of the 
duty saved on the imported capital goods.  
 
Information obtained during preliminary phase of the  investigation indicates  that the Export 
Promotion Capital Goods Scheme is potentially actionable as a financial contribution pursuant 
to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, in that amounts that would otherwise be owing and due to the 
government are reduced and/or exempted, and would confer a benefit to the recipient equal to 
the amount of the reduction/exemption.  
 
This program could be considered specific under paragraph 2(7.2)( b) of SIMA as available 
information indicates that it may be contingent upon export performance and may therefore be 
a prohibi ted subsidy as defined in subsection 2(1) of SIMA.  This will be f urther analyzed in 
the final phase of the investigation.   
 
Both of the responding exporters received benefits under this program during the POI.   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   67 
 
  
Program 21:  Duty Exemption/Remission Schemes  (Duty Drawback Scheme)  
 
The Duty Drawback Scheme provides rebates  of duties or taxes chargeable on any imported 
or excisable materials and input services used in the manufacture of export ed goods.  This 
includes duty free import of inputs, fuel, energy sources, oil and catalysts required for export 
product under the pro visions of paragraph 4.1.3.of the India Foreign Trade Policy.  Import 
duty exemptions on inputs for exported production are not countervailable so long as the 
exemption extends only to inputs consumed in the production of the exported product, making 
norma l allowances for waste.  However the government must have in place and apply a 
system to confirm which inputs were consumed in the production of the exported products and 
in what amounts.  The Duty Drawback Scheme as explained by the Government of India 
indicated that an all -industry average rate is generally applied to the value -added industry, 
which includes the steel sector.  Information was not provided to support that the Government 
of India has an effective system in place to track rates, confirm that  the actual inputs involved 
are consumed, including normal allowances for waste for the purposes intended.  
 
Information obtained during the preliminary phase of the investigation indicates  that the Duty 
Drawback Program is potentially actionable as a finan cial contribution pursuant to paragraph 
2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, in that amounts that would otherwise be owing and due to the government 
are reduced and/or exempted, and would confer a benefit to the recipient equal to the amount 
of the reduction/exemption.  
 
The information available also indicates that this program could be considered specific under 
paragraph 2(7.2)( b) of SIMA as available information indicates that it may be contingent upon 
export performance and may therefore be a prohibited subsidy as defined  in subsection 2(1) of 
SIMA.  This will be further analyzed in the final phase of the investigation.  
 
During the POI both of the responding exporters received benefits under this program.  
 
Program 21:  Duty Exemption/Remission Schemes  (Advance Authorization Scheme)  
 
Advance Authorization Scheme is a Duty Exemption Scheme that enables the duty -free 
importation of inputs required for the production of goods to be exported or for deemed 
exports.  Inputs must be used in the manufacture of exported products or for  the replenishment 
of inputs used in products that have been already exported.  The scheme is specifically 
addressed under Paragraph 4.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy (“FTP”) 2009 -2014.  Eligibility is 
not strictly contingent upon export performance; it is a vailable for inputs even if the final 
products are not exported, as in the case of deemed exports under Chapter 8 of the Foreign 
Trade Policy.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   68 
 
 The CBSA will continue to examine this subsidy during  the final phase of the investigation .  
For purposes of the preliminary determination, the information available indicates  that the 
Advance Authorization Scheme is potentially actionable as a financial contribution pursuant 
to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, in that amounts that would otherwise be owing and due to the 
government are reduced and/or exempted, and would confer a benefit to the recipient equal to 
the amount of the reduction/exemption.  This program could be considered specific under 
paragraph 2(7.2)( b) of SIMA as available information  indicates that it may be contingent upon 
actual or deemed export performance and may therefore be a prohibited subsidy as defined in 
subsection 2(1) of SIMA.  This will be further analyzed in the final phase of the investigation.  
 
During the POI, both of the responding exporters received benefits under this program.  
 
Program 23:  Purchase of Hot -rolled Steel and Billets From State -owned Enterprises for Less 
Than Fair Market Value  
 
This program relates to the acquisition cost of the input materials from state-owned enterprises 
(SOE).  The information submitted by one of the responding exporters contained a breakdown 
of its input material purchases from Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), an SOE.  SAIL 
did not provide information to the CBSA and, as s uch, the CBSA has treated SAIL as a 
government entity.  
 
The Government of India, in its response to the subsidy RFI, assert ed that steel is a de -
regulated sector in India with selling prices wholly determined by the market dynamics of 
supply and demand.  T he Government of India  further stated that state -owned enterprises are 
commercial ventures whose operations are free from any kind of direct or indirect government 
control.  
 
Notwithstanding the information provided by the Government of India, the CBSA cond ucted 
its own independent analysis of the purchase prices of input materials from an SOE.  In 
absence of sufficient information from other exporters in India to establish an appropriate 
domestic benchmark price for input materials, the CBSA referred to dom estic prices of hot -
rolled steel sheet in India as reported by Metal Bulletin for purposes of establishing the fair 
market value of hot -rolled steel sheet in India.  As such, the CBSA compared the purchase 
prices for input materials reported by one of the two responding exporters to the prices 
reported in Metal Bulletin.  The analysis showed that the responding exporter received prices 
lower than the benchmark prices and, therefore, received a benefit relating to its purchases of 
input materials from an SOE . 
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   69 
 
 Information obtained during the preliminary phase of the investigation indicates that the 
Purchase of Hot -rolled Steel and Billets From State -owned Enterprises for Less Than Fair 
Market Value  is potentially actionable as a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 
2(1.6)( a) of SIMA, in that amounts that would otherwise be owing and due to the government 
are reduced and/or exempted, and would confer a benefit to the recipient equal to the amount 
of the reduction/exemption.  The information avail able also indicates that this program  may be  
a specific subsidy under paragraph 2(7.2)( b) of SIMA as it is available only to purchasers of 
hot-rolled steel and billets and, therefore, potentially  constitutes a prohibited subsidy as 
defined in subsection 2( 1) of SIMA.  
 
During the POI, one of the responding exporters received benefits under this program.  
 
Program 28:  Exemption from Electricity Duty through the State Government of Maharashtra 
(SGOM)  
 
Under paragraph 5.3 of the Mega Project of Maharashtra Package Scheme of Incentives 2007, 
both new and existing companies undertaking expansion/diversification are exempted from 
payment of electricity duty if located in “zones C, D, D+ Talukas and No Industry Districts.”  
This benefit is effectively based on a  5% refund of the Value Added Tax and a refund of 2% 
of the Central Sales Tax.  Both of the responding exporters had production facilities located in 
zone “C”, each company met the stipulated capital investment thresholds, and both received 
an exemption of  electricity duty.  The electricity  duty exemption for eligible companies is for 
a period of 7 years from the date of commencement of commercial production.  
 
The exemption from electricity duty program is part of a Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) 
offere d by the SGOM that provides certain incentives for industries in the state of 
Maharashtra, to encourage dispersal of industries outside the Bombay -Thane -Pune belt and to 
attract industries to the developing and underdeveloped areas of the state.  The schem e is 
amended from time to time with the last amendment occurring in 2013.  Eligibility is not 
contingent upon export performance or the use of domestic over imported goods.  The CBSA 
is continuing to review the details of this package of programs.  
 
For pur poses of the preliminary determination, the information available indicates that the 
exemption from electricity duty is potentially actionable as a financial contribution pursuant to 
paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, in that amounts that would otherwise be owin g and due to the 
government are reduced and/or exempted, and would confer a benefit to the recipient equal to 
the amount of the reduction/exemption.  
 
The exemption of electricity duty would potentially be considered to be a specific subsidy 
under paragraph  2(7.2)( a) of SIMA as it is limited pursuant to an instrument or document to a 
specific enterprise that met the stipulated capital investment thresholds, within the authority of 
the jurisdiction, in this case being located in a specific geographic location  of its jurisdiction.  
 
During the POI, both of the responding exporters received benefits under this program.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   70 
 
 Program 30:  Special Incentives of the State Government of Maharashtra (SGOM) for Mega 
Projects  
 
As explained earlier, the purpose of the Mega Pro ject of Maharashtra Package Scheme of 
Incentives 2007, offered by the SGOM, is to attract industries to the economically backward 
regions in the state of Maharashtra.  One of the two responding exporters, located in one of the 
zones defined under this prog ram, was approved for and received tax benefits during the POI.  
 
For purposes of the preliminary determination, the information available indicates that the tax 
benefits under the Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) is potentially actionable as a financial 
contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, in that amounts that would otherwise 
be owing and due to the government are reduced and/or exempted, and would confer a benefit 
to the recipient equal to the amount of the reduction/exemption.   
 
The Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) would potentially be considered a specific subsidy 
under paragraph 2(7.2)( a) of SIMA as it is limited pursuant to an instrument or document to a 
specific enterprise that met the stipulated capital investment thresholds, w ithin the authority of 
the jurisdiction, in this case being located in a specific geographic location of its jurisdiction.  
 
During the POI, one of the responding exporters received benefits under this program.  
 
Program 31:  Exemption through the SGOM from Sales Tax and Other Levies  
 
This is another program under the State Government of Maharashtra’s Package Scheme of 
Incentives that provides certain incentives for industries in Maharashtra to attract industries to 
the developing and underdeveloped areas of the state.  The exemption from sales tax and other 
levies permits a payment deferral of sales tax.  Under this program, sales tax owing is deferred 
for a period of 10 years. After 10 years, the deferred tax is due and paid to the state 
government.  The ben efit is effectively an interest free loan from the government, and the 
benefit is the interest the company would have had to pay if it had instead borrowed the 
amount from a bank.  This program also allows for the exemption of s tamp duty for the 
registrati on of land leased from the Maharashtra Industrial Corporation.  
 
During the POI, both of the responding exporters had production facilities located in zone 
“C”, each company met the stipulated capital investment thresholds.  Both exporters received 
benefits  under this program.  
 
For purposes of the preliminary determination, the information available indicates that the 
exemption through the SGOM from sales tax under the Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) is 
potentially actionable as a financial contribution p ursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, in 
that amounts that would otherwise be owing and due to the government are reduced and/or 
exempted, and would confer a benefit to the recipient equal to the amount of the 
reduction/exemption.   
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   71 
 
 This program would p otentially be considered a  specific subsidy under paragraph  2(7.2)( a) of 
SIMA as it is limited pursuant to an instrument or document to a specific enterprise that met 
the stipulated capital investment thresholds, within the authority of the jurisdiction, in this 
case being a specific geographic location of its jurisdiction.  
 
During the POI, both of the responding exporters received benefits under this program.  
   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   72 
 
 APPENDIX 7 – SUMMARY OF PRELIMINA RY FINDINGS FOR NAME D SUBSIDY 
PROGRAMS - INDONESIA  
 
As noted in the body of this document, the Government of Indonesia did not submit a 
complete response to the subsidy RFI , which significantly impeded the CBSA’s ability to 
conduct an analysis  of the programs for the preliminary determination . However, in 
recognition of the amount of cooperation and the volume of information provided by the 
responding exporter, the CBSA has estimated an amount of subsidy for the responding 
exporter  based on the information provided in its response to the subsidy RFI.  
 
This a ppendix consists of a listing of 11 potentially actionable subsidy programs which were 
reviewed by the CBSA in the current subsidy investigation.   
 
Potentially Actionable Subsidy Programs Identified by the CBSA  
 
Questions concerning these programs were included in the RFIs sent to the Government of 
Indonesia  and to all known exporters of the subject goods in Indonesia .  Without a complete 
response to the government subsidy RFI from the Government of Indonesia , the CBSA does 
not have detailed descriptions of these programs.  In other words, the CBSA has, to date, not 
determined if any of these programs should be removed from the investigation.  The CBSA 
will continue to investigate these programs in the final phase of the investigation.  
 
Program 1.  Tax Deduction to Labour Intensive Industries in the Upstream Oil and Gas 
Sector  
Program 2.  Deferral of Import Income Tax on Imported Capital Goods, Equipment and 
Raw Materials for Production Destined for Export (Bonded Zone Location)  
Program 3.  Tax Holiday Package for the Large Pioneer Sector Investments  
Program 4.  Reduction of Net Income of 30% of the Investment, Charged for Six Years 
Respectively at 5 Percent Each Year under Regulation No. 144 of 2012 
(Reg.144)  
Program 5.  Accelerated Depreciation Under Reg.144  
Program 6.  Reduction  of Foreign Dividend Income Tax Under Reg.144  
Program 7.  Extension of Loss Carry -forward Allowances Under Reg.144  
Program 8.  Five Percent Income Tax Reduction for Certain Publicly Traded Companies  
Program 9.  Import Duty Exemption for Companies Using Machines With Qualifying Local 
Content  
Program 10.  Coal Provided at Less Than Fair Market Value Through Domestic Market 
Obligation to Industries Such as Steel and Cement Companies  
Program 11.  Electricity Provided at Less Than Fair Market Value Through Domestic Market 
Obligation by State Owned Electricity Company   
 
   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   73 
 
 APPENDIX 8 – SUMMARY OF PRELIMINA RY FINDINGS FOR NAME D SUBSIDY 
PROGRAMS - THE PHILIPPINES  
 
As noted in the body of this document, the Government of the Philippines did not submit a 
complete response to the subsidy RFI , which significantly impeded the CBSA’s ability to 
conduct a n analysis of the programs for the preliminary determination . However, in 
recognition of the amount of cooperation and the volume of information provided by the 
responding exporter, the CBSA has e stimated an amount of subsidy for the responding 
exporter  based on the information provided in its response to the subsidy RFI.  
 
This appendix consists of a listing of 12 potentially actionable subsidy programs which were 
reviewed by the CBSA in the current subsidy investigation.   
 
Potentially Actionable Subsidy Programs Identified by the CBSA  
 
Questions concerning these programs were included in the RFIs sent to the Government of the 
Philippines  and to all known exporters of the subject goods in the Philippines .  Without a 
complete response to the government subsidy RFI from the Government of the Philippines , 
the CBSA does not have detailed descriptions of these progr ams.  In other words, the CBSA 
has, to date, not determined if any of these programs should be removed from the 
investigation.  The CBSA will continue to investigate these programs in the final phase of the 
investigation.  
 
Program 1.  Exemption of Taxes in Special Economic Zones (SEZs)  
Program 2.  Provision of Land for Less than Fai r Market Value in SEZs  
Program 3.  Exemptions  from VAT in SEZs for Purchases from Suppliers in the 
CustomsTerritory  
Program 4. Exemption from Real Property Tax in SEZs  
Program 5.  Exemption in SEZs from Import Taxes and Duties on Importation of Raw 
Material, Supplies and all other Articles Including Finished Goods  
Program 6.  Exemption in SEZs from Import Taxes and Duties on Importation of 
Machinery, Equipment, Supplies and all other  Articles Including Finished 
Goods  
Program 7.  Exemption in SEZs from Branch Profit Remittance Tax of 15%  
Program 8.  Income Tax Holiday  Provided by the Board of Investment (BOI)  
Program 9.  Exemption from Taxes and Duties on Imported Capital Equipment, Spare  Parts 
and Accessories Provided by the BOI  
Program 10.   Exemption from Wharfage Dues and Any Export Tax, Duty, Impost and Fee 
Provided by the BOI  
Program 11.  Tax Credits for BOI Registered Companies  
Program 12.  Tax Deductions for BOI Registered Companies f or Labour Expenses   
 
   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   74 
 
 APPENDIX 9 – SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR NAMED SUBSIDY PR OGRAMS - 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA  
 
At the initiation of the investigation, a total of 29 potentially actionable subsidy programs 
were identified by the CBSA. Complete responses to the subsidy RFI were received from the 
Government of the Republic of Korea and four exporters. Based on the rev iew of the 
responses from the Government of the Republic of Korea  and the responding exporters, nine 
additional subsidy programs were identified. Of the total 38 identified subsidy programs, 17 
subsidy programs were used by the responding exporters during the POI.   
 
This appendix consists of a listing of the 38 subsidy programs that were reviewed by the 
CBSA in the current subsidy investigation.  This is followed by descriptions of the programs 
used by the responding exporters in the current investigation.   Summaries of the legislative 
basis on which the programs are considered actionable or non -actionable are also provided 
below.  
 
As explained in the Subsidy Investigation section of this Statement of Reasons, prior to the 
verification visits, the CBSA estimated amounts of subsidy for the exporters in the Republic 
of Korea based on the information available at that time.  The results of these preliminary 
calculations indicated that the amount of subsidy for the R epublic of Korea was insignificant. 
Pursuant to subsection 2(1) of SIMA, an amount of subsidy of less than 1% of the export price 
is defined as insignificant.  Information obtained during the on -site verification with the 
government and the responding expo rters confirmed that the amount of subsidy for the 
Republic of Korea is insignificant. The information also indicated that some of the programs 
included in the calculations were not actionable.  
 
Given the proximity of the verifications visits to the date b y which the President of the CBSA 
was required to make a decision regarding the subsidy investigation with respect to certain 
OCTG from  the Republic of Korea, the CBSA did not recalculate the overall weighted 
average amount of subsidy for the Republic of K orea since the recalculation of the overall 
weighted average amount of subsidy for the Republic of Korea would have resulted in an even 
lower amount of subsidy.   Accordingly, the amount reported for the Republic of Korea is 
based on the original estimate a nd includes certain programs which were found to not be 
actionable following verification.  
 
Program 1.  Sale of State Assets at less than Fair Market Value  
Program 2.  Relocation Support from Government of North Jeonla Province  
Program 3.  Facilities Investment Support from Government of No rth Jeonla Province  
Program 4.  Training Support from Government of North Jeonla Province  
Program 5.  Incentives for Using Natural Gas  
Program 6.  Acquisition T ax Benefits to Companies Located in Industrial Complexes  
Program 7.  Discounted Land for Plants in Asan Bay  
Program 8.  Grants for Companies in Asan Bay  
Program 9.  Excessive Exemption of Asan Bay Harbour Fee  
Program 10.  Electricity Consumption Adjustment Subsidy Program  
Program 11.  Provision of Discounted Electricity to the Korean Steel Industry   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   75 
 
 Program 12.  Subsidies under the “Towards High -end Steel Products and 
Commercializing  Know -hows of Steel Mill Constructions” Strategy  
Program 13.  Corporate Bond Stabilization Policy  
Program 14.  Subsidies Provided under the Root Industry Promotion Plan  
Program 15.  Subsidies to Exporters through Support of Affiliated Shipping Companies  
Program 16.  Korea Export -Import Bank Short -Term Export Credit  
Program 17.  Korea Export -Import Bank Export Factoring  
Program 18.  Korea Export -Import Bank Export Loan Guarantees  
Program 19.  Preferential Financing through the Korea Development Bank  
Program 20.  Preferential Financing through the Industrial Bank of Korea  
Program 21.  Korea Trade Insurance Corporation Export Insurance  
Program 22.  Korea Trade I nsurance Corporation Export Credit Guarantees  
Program 23.  Tax Benefits under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act Article 26  
Program 24.  Tax Credits for Research and Human Resources Development for 
“New  Growth  Engines”  
Program 25.  Tax Credits for Research and Human Resources Development for 
“Original  Technologies”  
Program 26.  Corporation Tax Exemption on Dividend Income from Investment in 
Overseas  Resource  Development  
Program 27.  Targeted Facilities Subsidies through Korea Finance Corporation  
Program 28.  Government of Korea Green and New Growth Finance Subsidies  
Program 29.  Promotion of Specialized Enterprises for Parts and Materials  
 
Programs Added in the Preliminary Phase of the Investigation:  
 
Program 30:  Tax credit for Research and Human Resources Development per 
Article  10(1)(3) of the RSTA  
Program 31:  Property Tax Benefits to Companies Located in Industrial Complexes  
Program 32:  Tax Credit for Investment in Facilities for Research and Manpower under  
Article 11 of the RSTA  
Program 33:  Tax credit for Investment in Energy Economizing Facilities  under Article  25-2 
of the RSTA  
Progr am 34:  Tax credit for Investment in Facilities for Environmental Conservation under  
Article  25-3 of the RSTA  
Program 35:  VAT and Duty Exemption on Imported Equipment  
Program 36:  Korea Import -Export Bank long -term Preferential Financing  
Program 37:  Preferen tial Long-term Financing from State -run Resource Companies  
Program 38:  Promotion of Regional Specialized  Industry  
 
Subsidy Programs Used by the Responding Exporters  
 
The CBSA’s review of the responses provided by the Government of the Republic of Korea  
and by the responding exporters has indicated that sufficient information was provided to 
calculate the amount of subsidy on a program basis.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   76 
 
 Program 5:  Incentives for Using Natural Gas  
 
This program was administered by the Korea Gas Corporation. The Government of the 
Republic of Korea  provides a monetary benefit for companies that increase their natural gas 
consumption from one year to the next.  The stated purpose of this program, which is provided 
pursuant to Article 20 of the Urban Gas Business Act , is to raise the efficiency of enterprises 
in Korea by encouraging the construction of facilities that use natural gas.  
 
During the POI, one of the responding exporters participated in this program. Verified 
information indicates that this program is gene rally available to any entity that consumes 
natural gas for its business, or that has newly established or expanded facilities that use natural 
gas.  Therefore, this program is not specific pursuant to subsection 2(7.1) of SIMA.  
 
Program 6:  Acquisition Ta x Benefits to Companies Located in Industrial Complexes  
 
The official name of the program is “Developing Industrial Complexes and Maximizing its 
Utilization”.  Its purpose is to promote the development of the under -developed areas in the 
Republic of Korea and pursue the innovation within the industries through the provision of 
industrial sites and appropriate allocation of the industries nationwide.  
 
This program was established in January 1990.  However, the Government of the Republic of 
Korea  indicated th at it began providing benefits under this program only after April 2007.  
The Program is administered under Article 45 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act , as 
well as Article 78 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act  (RSLTA) and its 
Enfor cement Decree. This program is administered by the municipal governments of the 
Industrial Complexes. Pursuant to the RSLTA, acquisition tax are exempted or reduced for 
entities listed in the Appendix 2 of the RSLTA.   
 
During the POI, three of the respond ing exporters received benefits under this program, which 
constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, i.e., amounts that 
would otherwise be owing and due to the government are exempted or deducted , and confer a 
benefit to  the recipient equal to the amount of the exemption /reduction .   
 
Acquisition tax exemptions provided to enterprises located in industrial complex were found 
to be limited, in law, to a group of enterprises, and was considered to be specific pursuant to 
paragraph 2(7.2)( a) of SIMA, i.e. as it is limited, pursuant to a legislative, regulatory, or 
administrative instrument or other public document.  
 
Program 10:  Electricity Consumption Adjustment Subsidy Program  
 
This program was introduced in April 1990 to a ddress emergencies in supplying electricity in 
Korea during summer seasons. This program was administrated by Korea Electric Power 
Corporation (KEPCO).  Under this program, any company who signed contractual agreements 
with KEPCO and reduced electricity co nsumption during the designated period can receive 
electricity discounts based on the terms of their agreements with KEPCO.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   77 
 
 During the POI, two of the responding exporters participated in this program. Under this 
program, electricity discounts are provid ed to all companies who applied and signed 
agreements with KEPCO.  It is not limited to any specific industry or geographical area to 
which the subject goods can be attributed to.  Therefore, this program was determined to be 
not specific pursuant to subsection 2(7.1) of SIMA.  
 
Program 19:  Preferential Financing through the Korea Development Bank  
 
This program was introduced by the Korea Development Bank (KDB).  The purpose of this 
program is to lend money to companies in need of investments in their facili ties and business 
operations.  The program is offered as an operational function of the KDB, but not under any 
specific legislation.  Under this program, long -term loans are provided by the KDB to its 
clients for purposes of enlarging or purchasing manufac turing facilities including land, factory 
facility and machinery, and/or short -term loans are provided to manufacturing enterprises for 
the needs of their business operations.   
 
During the POI, one of the responding exporters participated in this program.   However, it 
was found that the material terms of the loans were determined by market forces and were not 
preferential. Therefore, this program was determined not to be providing benefits to the 
exporters of subject goods.  
 
Program 21:  Korea Trade Insurance Corporation Export Insurance  
 
This program was introduced by the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation (K -Sure).  The 
purpose of this program is to provide insurance coverage to exporters in case of non -payments 
with respect to importer risk, letter of credit (L/C) risk, import country risk, etc.  The program 
is offered as an operational function of the K -Sure, but not under any specific legislation.   
 
During the POI, one of the responding exporters received benefits under this program, which 
constit utes a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( a) of SIMA, i.e. a practice of 
government that involves a direct transfer of funds.  Under this program, export insurance 
provided by the K -Sure was considered to be a prohibited subsidy, pursuant to subsection 2(1) 
of SIMA, as it is contingent, in whole or in part, on export performance.  
 
Program 22:  Korea Trade Insurance Corporation Export Credit Guarantees  
 
This program was introduced by K -Sure.  The purpose of this program is to provide export 
credit guarantees.  In order to be eligible for this program, applying companies must have 
outstanding loans from banks to purchase raw material and to manufacture goods based on 
L/C. The program is offered as an operational function of the K -Sure, but not under any 
specific legislation.   
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   78 
 
 During the POI, one of the responding exporters received benefits under this program, which 
constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( a) of SIMA, i.e. a practice of 
government that involves a direc t transfer of funds.  Under this program, export credit 
guarantees provided by the K -Sure were considered to be a prohibited subsidy, pursuant to 
subsection 2(1) of SIMA, as it is contingent, in whole or in part, on export performance.  
 
Program 23:  Tax Ben efits under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (RSTA)  Article 26  
 
This program was introduced to encourage job creation. Pursuant to Article 26 of the RSTA 
and its Enforcement Decree, a tax deduction is provided to companies that make investments 
in employment creation. This program is administered by the National Tax Se rvice.  
 
During the POI, four of the responding exporters benefited from this program, which 
constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, i.e., amounts that 
would otherwise be owing and due to the government are exempted  or deducted , and confer a 
benefit to the recipient equal to the amount of the exemption /deduction .  
 
Under this program, a tax credit is provided to all companies who incur expenses related to the 
hiring of employees in the tax year.  It is not limited to an y specific industry or geographical 
area to which the subject goods can be attributed.  Therefore, this program was determined not 
to be specific pursuant to subsection 2(7.1) of SIMA . 
 
Program 24:  Tax Credit for Research and Development Expenses for “New Growth 
Engines” per Article 10(1)(1) of the RSTA  
 
Under this program administered by the National Tax Service, a tax credit is provided to 
enterprises in respect of R& D activities that qualify as “New Growth Engines” under RSTA 
Enforcement Decree Article  9.  Companies engaging in such R&D may deduct 20% of their 
expenses (30% for small and medium enterprises) from taxes payable in a given year.   
 
During the POI, one of  the responding exporters benefited from this program.  It constitutes a 
financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, in that amounts that would 
otherwise be owing and due to the government are exempted  or deducted , and confer a benefit 
to the recipient equal to the amount of the exemption /deduction .  
 
Under this program, a tax credit is provided to all companies who incur expenses related to the 
qualifying R& D functions.  It is not limited to any specific industry or geographical area to 
which the subject goods can be attributed.  Therefore, this program was determined not to be 
specific pursuant to subsection 2(7.1) of SIMA . 
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   79 
 
 Program 30:  Tax credit for Resear ch and Human Resources Development per 
 Article  10(1)(3) of the RSTA  
 
This program is also administered by the National Tax Service.  Pursuant to Article 10(1)(3) 
of the RSTA, a tax deduction is provided to companies that make investments in general 
resear ch and human resources development.   The tax deduction is granted in cases where an 
enterprise incurs greater expenses for general research and human resources development  in a 
taxation year than were incurred in the average of the four preceding years.  
 
During the POI, three of the responding exporters received benefits under this program, which 
constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, i.e., amounts that 
would otherwise be owing and due to the government are exempted  or deducted , and confer a 
benefit to the recipient equal to the amount of the exemption /deduction . 
 
Under this program, a tax credit is provided to all companies who incur general research and 
human development expenses in the tax year.  It is not limited to  any specific industry or 
geographical area to which the subject goods can be attributed.  Therefore, this program was 
determined not to be specific pursuant to subsection 2(7.1) of SIMA.  
 
Program 31:  Property Tax Benefits to Companies Located in Industria l Complexes  
 
The official name of the program is “Developing Industrial Complexes and Maximizing its 
Utilization”.  Its purpose is to promote the development of the under -developed areas in the 
Republic of Korea and pursue the innovation within the industr ies through the provision of 
industrial sites and appropriate allocation of the industries nationwide.  
 
This program was established in January 1990.  However, the Government of the Republic of 
Korea  indicated that it began providing benefits under this program only after April 2007.  
The Program is administered under Article 45 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act , as 
well as Article 78 of the RSLTA and its Enforcement Decree. This program is administered 
by the municipal governments of the Industrial Complexes. Pursuant to the RSLTA, property 
tax are exempted or reduced for entities listed in the Appendix 2 of the RSLTA.   
 
During the POI, three of the responding exporters received benefits un der this program, which 
constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, i.e., amounts that 
would otherwise be owing and due to the government are exempted  or deducted , and confer a 
benefit to the recipient equal to the amount of the exemption /deduction .   
 
Property tax exemptions  or deductions  provided to enterprises located in industrial complex 
were found to be limited, in law, to a group of enterprises, and was considered to be specific 
pursuant to paragraph 2(7.2)( a) of SIM A, i.e. as it is limited, pursuant to a legislative, 
regulatory, or administrative instrument or other public document.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   80 
 
 Program 32:  Tax credit for Investment in Facilities for Research and Manpower under 
Article  11 of the RSTA  
 
Through the expansion of r esearch and manpower development, the program aims to improve 
the competitive power of businesses and to create positive growth in the economy.  Pursuant to 
Article 11 of the RSTA and its Enforcement Decree, a tax credit is provided to companies that 
make i nvestments in facilities for research and manpower development or in facilities for the 
commercialization of new technology. This program is administered by the National Tax 
Service.  
 
During the POI, one of the responding exporters benefited from this pro gram, which 
constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, i.e., amounts that 
would otherwise be owing and due to the government are exempted  or deducted , and confer a 
benefit to the recipient equal to the amount of the exemp tion/deduction .   
 
Under this program, a tax credit is provided to all companies who incur expenses related to 
research and manpower development in the tax year.  It is not limited to any specific industry 
or geographical area to which the subject goods ca n be attributed.  Therefore, this program 
was determined to be not specific pursuant to subsection 2(7.1) of SIMA.  
 
Program 33:  Tax credit for Investment in Energy Economizing Facilities under Article  25-2 
of the RSTA  
 
Under this program, corporations or individuals, who invest in the energy -saving facilities that 
are listed under the Enforcement Decree of the RSTA, may deduct 10% of the eligible 
investment from their taxes payable.  This program is administered by the National Tax 
Service.  
 
During the POI , one of the responding exporters benefited from this program, which 
constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, i.e., amounts that 
would otherwise be owing and due to the government are reduced and/or exempted, and 
confer  a benefit to the recipient equal to the amount of the reduction/exemption.   
 
Under this program, a tax credit is provided to all companies who incur energy -saving 
expenses in the tax year.  It is not limited to any specific industry or geographical area to 
which the subject goods can be attributed.  Therefore, this program was determined not to be 
specific pursuant to subsection 2(7.1) of SIMA.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   81 
 
 Program 34:  Tax credit for Investment in Facilities for Environmental Conservation under 
Article  25-3 of the RS TA 
 
This program was introduced to encourage environmental conservation.  Pursuant to Article 
25-3 of the RSTA, a tax credit is provided to companies that make investments in a wide 
range of facilities to prevent or reduce air, noise and water pollution, a s well as in fuel supply 
facilities for non -polluting or low -polluting automobiles.  This program is administered by the 
National Tax Service.   
 
During the POI, one of the responding exporters benefited from this program, which 
constitutes a financial cont ribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, i.e., amounts that 
would otherwise be owing and due to the government are reduced and/or exempted, and 
confer a benefit to the recipient equal to the amount of the reduction/exemption.   
 
Under this program , a tax credit is provided to all companies who incur expenses related to 
environmental conservation in the tax year.  It is not limited to any specific industry or 
geographical area to which the subject goods can be attributed.  Therefore, this program wa s 
determined not to be specific pursuant to subsection 2(7.1) of SIMA.  
 
Program 35:  VAT and Duty Exemption on Imported Equipment  
 
It was confirmed during verification that there is no program in the Republic of Korea 
respecting VAT exemptions on imported equipment.  
 
However, under Article 37 of the Enforcement of Customs Act , exemption from customs 
duties is provided for certain goods for scientific research, as listed in the Article.  
 
During the POI, one of the responding exporters benefited from this program, which 
constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, in that amounts 
that would otherwise be owing and due to the government are reduced and/or exempted, and 
confer a benefit to the recipient equal to the amount of t he reduction/exemption.   
 
Under this program, exemption from customs duties is provided to all companies and 
individuals who import the list equipment.  It is not limited to any specific industry or 
geographical area to which the subject goods can be attr ibuted.  Therefore, this program was 
determined not to be specific pursuant to subsection 2(7.1) of SIMA.  
 
Program 36:  Korea Import -Export Bank Long -term Preferential Financing  
 
Information submitted to the CBSA indicated that the Korea Import -Export Bank provided 
preferential financing to one of the responding exporters during the period of investigation.  
 
However, verification of the material submitted revealed that this financing was offered in 
respect of investments in an activity not related to the pr oduction or sale of subject goods and 
was conducted outside of Republic of Korea.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   82 
 
 The CBSA determined, therefore, that no actionable subsidies were provided to the exporter 
as a result of financing from the Korea Import -Export Bank.  
 
Program 37:  Preferential Long -term Financing from State -run Resource Companies  
 
Similarly, information submitted to the CBSA indicated that a state -run oil company had 
provided preferential financing to one of the responding exporters during the period of 
investigatio n.  
 
Verification of the material submitted revealed that this financing was offered in respect of 
activities unrelated to the subject goods, which were conducted outside of the Republic of 
Korea.  
 
As a result, the CBSA determined that no actionable subsid ies were provided to the exporter 
as a consequence of the financing from the state -run oil company.  
 
Program 38:  Promotion of Regional Specialized Industry  
 
This program was administrated by the Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology 
(KIAT) under a project entitled “Development of High Strength ERW Steel Pipe with Heavy 
wall thickness for Shale Gas Development”.  The purpose of this program is to promote 
regional specialized industry. In order to be eligible for this program, enterprises must have 
businesses in specialized industry sectors in local regions located outside the capital.  
 
During the POI, one of the responding exporters received benefits under this program, which 
constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( a) of SIM A, i.e. a practice of 
government that involves a direct transfer of funds.  Under this program, grants provided to 
enterprises located in local regions were found to be limited to a group of enterprises, pursuant 
to paragraph 2(7.2)( a) of SIMA.  
 
   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   83 
 
 APPENDIX 10 – SUMMARY OF PRELIMINA RY FINDINGS FOR NAME D 
SUBSIDY PROGRAMS - THAILAND  
 
As noted in the body of this document, the Government of Thailand did not submit a complete 
response to the subsidy RFI , which significantly impeded the CBSA’s ability to conduct a n 
analysis of the programs for the preliminary determination . However, in recognition of the 
amount of cooperation and the volume of information provided by the responding exporter, 
the CBSA has e stimated an amount of subsidy for the responding exporter  based on the 
information provided in its response to the subsidy RFI.  
 
This appendix consists of a listing of seven  potentially actionable subsidy programs which 
were reviewed by the CBSA in the cur rent subsidy investigation.   
 
Potentially Actionable Subsidy Programs Identified by the CBSA  
 
Questions concerning these programs were included in the RFIs sent to the Government of 
Thailand  and to all known exporters of the subject goods in Thailand .  Without a complete 
response to the government subsidy RFI from the Government of Thailand , the CBSA does 
not have detailed descriptions of these programs.  In other words, the CBSA has, to date, not 
determined if any of these programs should be removed from the investigation.  The CBSA 
will continue to investigate these programs in the final phase of the investigation.  
 
Program 1.  Exemption or Reduction of Duties on Imports of Machinery  
Program 2.  Reduction of Import Duties for Raw or Essential Materials  
Program 3.  Exemption from Corpor ate Income Tax  
Program 4.  Exemption of Payment of Surcharge under the Industrial Estate Authority of 
Thailand Act on Import Duty 
Program 5.  Exemption of Payment of Surcharge under the Industrial Estate Authority of 
Thailand Act on Value Added tax on Machinery, Equipment, Tools and 
Supplies  
Program 6.  Excess VAT Refund on Export of Goods  
Program 7.  Export Packing Credits  
 
 
   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   84 
 
 APPENDIX 11 – SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR NAMED SUBSIDY PR OGRAMS - 
TURKEY  
 
At the initiation of the investigation, a total of 51 potentially actionable subsidy programs 
were identified by the CBSA.  Complete responses to the subsidy RFI were received from the 
Government of the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) and one exporter.  Based on the review of the 
responses from the Government of Turkey  and the responding exporter, of the total 51 
identified subsidy programs, four subsidy programs were used by the responding exporter 
during the POI.   
 
This appendix consists of a listing of 51 potentially actionable subsidy programs that were 
reviewed by the CBSA in the current subsidy investigation.  This is followed by descriptions 
of the programs used by the responding exporters in the current investigation.  Summaries of 
the legislative basis  on which the programs are considered potentially actionable or non -
actionable is also provided below.  
 
Program 1.  Investment Encouragement Program – Exemption of Customs Duties on 
Imported Machinery and Equipment  
Program 2.  Investment Encouragement Program – Exemption of Value -added Tax on 
Domestic and Imported Machinery and Equipment  
Program 3.  Investment Encouragement Program – Interest Support  
Program 4.  Investment Encouragement Program – Social Security Premium Support  
Program 5.  Investment Encouragement Program – Corporate or Income Tax Reduction  
Program 6.  Investment Encouragement Program – Land Allocation  
Program 7.  Turk Eximbank – Pre-shipment Export Credit Program   
Including Sub -programs:  
a. Priority Development Areas Export Credit Program  
b. Free Trade Zone Pre -shipment Foreign Currency Export Credit Program  
Program 8.  Turk Eximbank  Pre-shipment TL Export Credits  
Program 9.  Turk Eximbank Pre -shipment FX Export Credits  
Program 10.  Turk Eximbank – Foreign Trade Companies Short -term TL Export Credit 
Program  
Program 11.  Turk Eximbank – Foreign Trade Companies Short -term  FX Export Credit 
Program  
Program 12.  Turk Eximbank – Pre-export  TL Credit Program   
Including Sub -program:  
a. Free Trade Zone Pre -export Foreign Currency Export Credit Program  
Program 13.  Turk Eximbank – Pre-export Credit TL & FX Programs for Small and 
Medium -scale Enterprises  
Program 14.  Turk Eximbank  - Post-Shipment Rediscount Credit (PSRC) Program  
(Formerly: Short -term Export Credit Discount Program) 18 
Program 15.  Turk Eximbank – Rediscount (RD) Program  
(Formerly: Short -term Pre -shipment Rediscount Program ) 
                                                      
 
 
18 CBSA Exhibit 210 – Government of Turkey Subsidy RFI r esponse, page 105.   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   85 
 
 Program 16.  Turk Eximbank – Specific Export Credit Program  
Program 17.  Turk Exi mbank – International Transportation Marketing Credit Program  
Program 18.  Turk Eximbank – Credit Program for Participating in Overseas Trade Fairs  
Program 19.  Turk Eximbank – International Islamic Trade Finance Corporation -backed 
Production Finance Credit Program  
Program 20.  Turk Eximbank – Export Finance Intermediation Loan Agreement  
Program 21.  Turk Eximbank – The European Investment Bank Credit Program  
Program 22.  Turk Eximbank – International Loans  
(Formerly: Buyers' Credit and Guarantee  Program)  
Program 23.  Turk Eximbank – Short -term Export Credit Insurance Program  
Program 24.  Turk E ximbank – Medium & Long -term Export Credit Insurance Program  
Program 25.  Regional Based Organized Industrial Zone (OIZ) and Free Zone (FZ) Energy 
Support Program  
Program 26.  OIZ and FZ Law 5084 -  Withholding of Income Tax on Wages and Salaries  
Program 27.  OIZ and FZ Law 5084  – Incentive fo r Employers’ Share in Insurance 
Premiums  
Program 28.  OIZ and FZ Law 5084 – Allocation of Free Land  
Program 29.  OIZ and FZ Law 5084 – Provision of Electricity for Less Than Adequate 
Remuneration  
Program 30.  OIZ – Exemption from Property Tax, and Other Exemptions  
Program 31.  OIZ –Waste Water Charges  
Program 32.  OIZ – Exemptions from Customs Duties, Value -added Tax, and Payments for 
Public Housing Fund  
Program 33.  OIZ – Credits for Research and Development Investments, Environmental 
Investments, Certain Technology Investments  
Program 34.  OIZ – Exemption from Building and Construction Charges  
Program 35.  OIZ – Exemption from Amalgamation and Allotment Transaction Charges  
Program 36.  Free Zones Law – Provision of Buildings and Land Use Rights for Less Than 
Adequate Remuneration  
Program 37.  Free Zones Law – Corporate Income Tax Exemption  
Program 38.  Free Zones Law – Stamp Duties and Fees Exemp tions  
Program 39.  Free Zones Law – Customs Duties Exemptions  
Program 40.  Free Zones Law – Value -added Tax Exemptions  
Program 41.  Goods /Services Provided by the Government of Turkey at Less than Fair 
Market Value - Provision of Natural Gas  
Program 42.  Goods /Services Provided by the Government of Turkey at Less than Fair 
Market Value - Provision of Coal  
Program 43.  Research and Development – Tax Breaks and Other Assistance  
Program 44.  Research and Development – Product Development Support –  Under Secretary 
of Foreign Trade ( UFT )– Now Ministry of Economy  
Program 45.  Social Security Grant P rogram  
Program 46.  Deduction from Taxable Income for Export Revenue  
Program 47.  Inward Processing Certificate Exemption  
Program 48.  National Restructuring Plan & Subsidies to Vertically Integrated & Associated 
OCTG producers Under the National Restructuring Plan  
Program 49.  Provision of Hot -rolled Steel  for Less than Fair Market Value   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   86 
 
 Program 50.  Deduction from Taxable Income for Export Revenue – Preferential Benefits for 
Turkish OCTG Producers Located in Free Zones  
Program 51.  VAT and Customs Duties Exemptions on Investment  
 
Subsidy Programs Used by the Responding Exporter  
 
The responses provided by the G overnment of Turkey  and by the responding exporter 
contained  sufficient information to determine the amount of subsidy on a program basis.  
 
Programs 1 and 2: Investment Encouragement Program – Exemption of Customs Duties on 
Imported Machinery and Equipment; Exemption of Value-added Tax on Domestic and 
Imported Machinery and Equipment under Decree No. 2012/3305  
 
These two Investment Encouragement Programs (IEP) were established and implemented by 
the Ministry of Economy (MoE ) and are currently based on the provisions of the Council of 
Ministers’ Decree No. 2012/3305 which has been in force since June 15, 2012.  
 
The government policy behind IEP is to steer savings into high added value investments, to 
boost production and emp loyment, to encourage regional, large scale and strategic 
investments with high research and development content for increasing international 
competitiveness, to increase foreign direct investments, to reduce regional development 
disparities, to promote in vestments for clustering, environment protection and R&D.  
 
The IEP consists of 4 separate incentive schemes: Regional Investment Incentive Scheme 
(RIIS), Large Scale Investment Incentive Scheme (LSIIS), Strategic Investment Incentive 
Scheme (SIIS) and Gen eral Investment Incentive Scheme (GIIS). The scope of each scheme 
varies with different aspects of support measures, which are listed under Programs 1 to 6.  
 
Annex 4 to the Decree No. 2012/3305 describes the investments which are not supported as 
well as the investments which are supported under certain conditions.  
 Program  Support Measures  General 
Investment 
Incentive 
Scheme  Regional 
Investment 
Incentive 
Scheme   Large 
Scale 
Investment 
Incentive 
Scheme  Strategic 
Investment 
Incentive 
Scheme  
1 Customs Duty Exemption      
2 VAT Exemption      
3 Interest Support      
4 Social Security Premium Support 
(Employer’s Share)      
5 Tax Reduction      
6 Land Allocation       
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   87 
 
 The GIIS is available for all regions when the investment amount exceeds 1 Million TL in 
Region I and II, and 500 ,000 TL in Regions III, IV, V and VI.  Producers of subject 
merchandise (classified under the 7304 and 7306 HS Codes) are only eligible to benefit from 
GIIS  
 
Within this framework, investments may be exempte d from customs duties and taxes on 
domestic and imported machinery and equipment.  
 
During the POI, the benefit received under these programs by the responding exporter 
constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, i.e., amounts that 
would otherwise be owing and due to the government are reduced and/or exempted, and 
confer a benefit to the recipient equal to the amount of the reduction/exemption.  
 
It is determined to be a specific subsidy under paragraph 2(7.3)( d) of SIMA as it is granted in 
a manner in which discretion is exercised by the granting authority indicating that the subsidy 
is not generally available.  
 
The amount of subsidy was calculated in accordance with subsection 27.1(2) of the SIMR, in 
that the financial c ontribution to the exporter, in respect of any amount of duty and taxes owed 
and due to the government that was deducted, was treated as a grant under section 27 of the 
SIMR.  
 
Program 15: Turk Eximbank – Rediscount Program (RP) - Previously Short -Term Pre -
Shipment Rediscount Program  
 
The program has been established at October 12, 1999 , as a pre -shipment financing facility.  
Under RP, funds, which are provided by the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey (CBRT), 
are allocated to exporters, manufacturer -exporters and export – oriented manufacturer at the 
pre- shipment stage.  This program follows from the Turkish Eximbank Law, Principles and 
Articles of Association and “Implementation Principles for Rediscount Program.” 19 
 
During the POI, the benefit receiv ed under this program by the responding exporter 
constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, i.e., amounts that 
would otherwise be owing and due to the government are reduced and/or exempted, and 
confer a benefit to the re cipient equal to the amount of the reduction/exemption.  This 
program is administered by the Export Credit Bank of Turkey, and is a loan provid ed to 
companies for expenses incurred preparing goods for export.   
 
It is determined to be a specific subsidy under paragraph 2(7.2)( b) of SIMA as it is contingent 
upon export performance and therefore constitutes a prohibited subsidy as defined in 
subsection 2(1) of SIMA.  
 
                                                      
 
 
19 CBSA Exhibit 210 – Exhibit 9 of Government of Turkey  Subsidy RFI response.  
  
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   88 
 
 The amount of subsidy was calculated in accordance with section 28 of the SIMR, as the 
amou nt of interest paid on the preferential loans was lower than the interest that would have 
been payable for comparable commercial loans.  
 
Program 46:  Deduction from Taxable Income for Export Revenue  
 
According to Article 40, Clause 1 of Income Tax Law No. 193 dated January 6, 1961, which 
was amended by Law No. 4108  dated June 2, 1995, all taxpayers may have an additional 
deduction of a lump sum amount from their gross income resulting from exports, construction, 
maintenance, assembly and transportation acti vities abroad.  This amount may not exceed 
0.5% of the proceeds they earned in foreign exchange from such activities.  This deduction is 
presumed to cover the expenditures without documentation but incurred from exports, 
construction, maintenance, assembly  and transportation activities abroad.  
 
This program constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, 
i.e., amounts that would otherwise be owing and due to the government are reduced and/or 
exempted, and confer a benefit to th e recipient equal to the amount of the 
reduction/exemption.  This program is contingent upon export and constitutes a prohibited 
subsidy.  Therefore,  this program has been determined to be specific, pursuant to paragraph 
2(7.2)( b) of SIMA.  
 
During the POI , there was no benefit received by the cooperative exporter under this program. 
Although the cooperative exporter did receive this lump sum deduction, there was no benefit 
quantifiable as the exporter had no taxable income and would have had no taxable inc ome 
regardless of whether they claimed this lump sum or not . 
 
Program 47:  Inward Processing Certificate Exemption  
 
This program was established on December 31, 1995 , under Resolution No. 2005/8391 .20 The 
objective of the program is  to give the Turkish industry the access to raw materials at world 
market prices and the chance to compete in the international markets .  The program is 
administered by the Ministry of Economy.  
 
The program allows manufacturers/exporters in Turkey to obtain raw materials and 
intermediate unfinished goods that are used in the production of the exported goods without 
paying customs duty including Value Added Tax and being subject to commercial policy 
measures.  
 
                                                      
 
 
20 CBSA Exhibit 210 – Government of Turkey subsidy RFI response, page 307; Exhibit 56.   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   89 
 
 Regulations 35 and 35.01 of the Special Imp ort Measures Regulations  pertain to the 
determination of the amount of subsidy when the subsidy takes the form of an exemption or 
remission of duties and taxes in excess of that permitted under SIMA.  These provisions relate 
to the definition of “subsidy” found in paragraph 2(1)( a) of SIMA.  This provision provides 
that a subsidy does not include the amount of any duty or internal tax imposed on any goods 
by the government of the country of origin or export which is exempted or relieved because 
the goods ha ve been exported.  
 
A subsidy for this program arises when the exemption or relief is in an amount greater than 
the amount of duty or taxes that would be paid if the goods had been consumed domestically 
rather than being exported.  
 
This program was investig ated and it was determined that the GOT has adequate controls in 
place to ensure all export commitments are met. Therefore, this program was determined to 
not be providing a benefit to the exporters and producers of subject goods.  
 
Investigated Programs no Longer in Effect:  
 
The information provided on the subsidies under investigation was reviewed and it was 
determined that the following programs were not in effect during the POI:  
 
Program 25 .  Regional based Organized Industrial Zone (OIZ) and Free Zone (FZ) Energy 
Program21  
Program 26.   OIZ and FZ Law 5084 – Withholding of Income Tax on Wages and Salaries22 
Program 27.   OIZ and FZ Law 5084 – Incentive for Employers’ Share in Insurance  
Premiums23 
Program 28.   OIZ and FZ Law 5084 – Allocation of Free Land24 
Program 29.   OIZ and FZ Law 5084 – Provision of Electricity for Less than Adequate  
Remuneration  
 
                                                      
 
 
21 CBSA Exhibit 210 – GOT Subsidy RFI response, page 158 and GOT Exhibit 1 9. 
22 CBSA Exhibit 210 – GOT Subsidy RFI response, page 161 and GOT Exhibit 19.  
23 CBSA Exhibit 210 – GOT Subsidy RFI response, page 168 and GOT Exhibit 19.  
24 CBSA Exhibit 210 – GOT Subsidy RFI response, page 179 and GOT Exhibit 19.   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   90 
 
 Investigated Program s Found to not be Subsidy Program s: 
 
The following was found to not be a subsidy program during the verification with the 
Government of Turkey :  
 
Program 31.  OIZ -Waste Water Charges  
 
The following programs were found to be already included under Programs 37 and 39 
respectively and were thus redundant:  
 
Program 50.  Deduction from Taxable Income for Export Revenue - “Preferential Benefits 
forTurkish OCTG Producers in Located in Free Zones.”  
Program 51 . VAT and Customs Duties Exemptions on Investment  
 
Investigated Program Found to be Generally Available:  
 
Program 45.  Social Security Grant Program  
 
The authority for this program was provided as Article 81 Clauses (a) and (ı) of the Law 
No. 5510.25  This program is administered by the Social Security Institution . 
 
This regulation aims to increase employment level throughout Turkey without discrimination 
on sectors and regions by reducing costs of insurance premiums to the employers and intends 
to reduce the unregistered employment. The program effectuates these aims  by providing 
support for employer’s share in insurance premiums. 26 
 
During the POI, the benefit received under this program by the responding exporter 
constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, i.e., amounts that 
would o therwise be owing and due to the government are reduced and/or exempted, and 
confer a benefit to the recipient equal to the amount of the reduction/exemption.  
 
The program does not make any discrimination on sectors and regions.  Accordingly, the 
eligibili ty is not limited to any enterprise or group of enterprises, or to any industry or group 
of industries.27 
 
Accordingly , this program was determined to not be specific pursuant to subsection 2(7.1) of 
SIMA.  
 
 
                                                      
 
 
25 CBSA Exhibit 210 – Exhi bit 53 of Government of Turkey RFI response.  
26 CBSA Exhibit 210 – Government of Turkey subsidy RFI response, page 293  
27 CBSA Exhibit 356 – Government of Turkey supplemental RFI response, Question 6   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   91 
 
 APPENDIX 12 – SUMMARY OF PRELIMINA RY FINDINGS FOR NAMED 
SUBSIDY PROGRAMS - UKRAINE  
 
As noted in the body of this document, the Government of Ukraine did not submit a complete 
response to the subsidy RFI , which significantly impeded the CBSA’s ability to conduct a n 
analysis of the programs for the preliminary determination . Further, the responding exporter 
also submitted incomplete information.  
 
This appendix consists of a listing of nine potentially actionable subsidy programs which were 
reviewed by the CBSA in the current subsidy investigation.   
 
Potentially Actionable Subsidy Programs Identified by the CBSA  
 
Questions concerning these programs were included in the RFIs sent to the Government of 
Ukraine  and to all known exporters of the subject goods in Ukraine .  Without a complete 
response to the  government subsidy RFI from the Government of Ukraine, or from exporters 
from Ukraine , the CBSA does not have detailed descriptions of these programs.  In other 
words, the CBSA has, to date, not determined if any of these programs should be removed 
from t he investigation.  The CBSA will continue to investigate these programs in the final 
phase of the investigation.   
 
Program 1.  Acquisition of State Assets at Less than Fair Market Value  
Program 2.  The 2013 Government of Ukraine Stimulus Plan for US$5 billion  
Program 3.  Limits to Increases in Electricity Tariffs Under the 2013 Rescue Plan for Steel 
and Mining Companies (2013 Rescue Plan)  
Program 4.  Limits to Increases in Transportation Fees Under the 2013 Rescue Plan  
Program 5.  Implementation of Measures to Expand Markets Under the 2013 Rescue Plan  
Program 6.  Provision of State Guarantees for Private Projects Under the 2013 Rescue Plan  
Program 7.  Dniprosteel Rescue Fund  
Program 8.  State Program for Enhancement of Economic Development in 2013 -2014  
Program 9.  Provision of Electricity at Less than Fair Market Value  
  
   
________________________________________________________________________  
Trade and Anti-dumpin g Programs Directorate   92 
 
 APPENDIX 13 – SUMMARY OF PRELIMINA RY FINDINGS FOR NAMED 
SUBSIDY PROGRAMS - VIETNAM  
 
As noted in the body of this document, the Government of Vietnam did not submit a complete 
response to the subsidy RFI , which significantly impeded the CBS A’s ability to conduct an 
analysis of the programs for  the preliminary determination . Further, no exporter in Vietnam 
submitted a response to the subsidy RFI.  
 
This appendix consists of a listing of 18 potentially actionable subsidy programs which were 
reviewed by the CBSA in the  current subsidy investigation . 
 
Potentially Actionable Subsidy Programs Identified by the CBSA  
 
Questions concerning these pr ograms were included in the RFIs  sent to the Government of 
Vietnam  and to all known exporters of the subject goods in Vietnam .  Without a complete 
response to t he government subsidy RFI from the Government of Vietnam, or from exporters 
in Vietnam , the CBSA does not have detailed descriptions of these programs.  In other words, 
the CBSA has, to date, not determined if any of these programs should be removed from t he 
investigation.  The CBSA will continue to investigate these programs in the final phase of the 
investigation  
 
Program 1.  Land -Use Levy Exemptions or Reductions  
Program 2.  Land Rent Exemptions or Reductions  
Program 3.  Tax Exemptions and Reductions for Encouraged Sectors  
Program 4.  Tax Exemptions and Reductions for Investment in Disadvantaged Regions  
Program 5.  Tax Exemptions and Reductions for Investments in Economic Zones or     
High -Tech  Industrial  Parks  
Program 6.  Tax Exemptions and Reductions for Foreign -Invested Enterprises  
Program 7.  Additional Income Tax Preferences for Ex porters  
Program 8.  Accelerated Depreciation of Fixed Assets  
Program 9.  Preferential Provisions for Carry -forward of Losses  
Program 10.  Exemption of Import Tax on Equipment and Machinery Imported to Create 
Fixed Assets  
Program 11.  Export Support Loans at Preferential Rates  
Program 12.  Excessive Duty Exemptions  for Imported Raw Materials for Exported Goods  
Program 13.  Import Duty Exemption on Equipment and Machinery Imported to Create 
Fixed Assets  
Program 14.  Interest Rate Support Program under the State Bank of Vietnam  
Program 15.  Preferential Lending under the Viet  Bank Export Loan Program  
Program 16.  Grant s to Firms that Employ More than 50 Employees  
Program 17.  Assistance to Enterprises Facing Difficulties due to Objective Reasons  
Program 18.  Acquisition of State Assets at Less Than Fair Market Value   
 
4214 -42 AD/1403  
4218 -39 CV/138  
 
OTTAWA, December 23, 201 4 
 
 
STATEMENT OF REASONS  
 
 
Concerning the final determinations  with respect to the dumping  of 
 
CERTAIN CONCRETE REINFORCING BAR ORIGINATING IN OR EXPORTED 
FROM THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND 
THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY   
 
and the subsidizing  of 
 
CERTAIN CONCRETE REINFORCING BAR ORIGINATING IN OR EXPORTED 
FROM THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA  
 
and 
 
the termination s of the investigation with respect to the subsidizing of  
 
CERTAIN CONCRETE REINFORCING BAR ORIGINATING IN OR EXPORTED 
FROM THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY  
 
 
DECISION S 
 
 
Pursuant to paragraph  41(1)(a) of the Special Import Measures Act , on December 10 , 201 4, the 
President of the Can ada Border Services Agency made final determinations  respecting the 
dumping of certain concrete reinforcing bar originating in or exported from the 
People’s  Republic of China , the R epublic of Korea , and the Republic of Turkey  and the 
subsidizing of certain concrete reinforcing bar originating in or exported from the 
People’s  Republic of China . 
 
Pursuant to paragraph  41(1)( b) of the Special Import Measures Act , on December 10 , 201 4, the 
President of the Canada Border Services Agency  terminated the subsidy investigation regarding 
certain concrete reinforcing bar originating in or exported from the Republic of Korea and the 
Republic of Turkey.  
 
 
 
Cet énoncé des motifs est également disp onible en français.  
This Statement of Reasons is also available in French.    
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate    
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS  
 
SUMMARY OF EVENTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  1 
PERIOD OF INVESTIGAT ION ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  3 
PROFIT ABILITY ANALYSIS PER IOD ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3 
INTERESTED PARTIES  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  3 
COMPLAINANTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  3 
IMPORTERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  3 
EXPORTERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  3 
SURROGATE PRODUCERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  4 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  4 
PRODUCT INFORMATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  4 
DEFINITION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  4 
ADDITIONAL PRODUCT INFORMATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4 
PRODUCTION PROCESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............................  6 
CLASSIFICATION OF IMPORTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  6 
CLASS OF GOODS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 7 
LIKE GOODS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  7 
THE CANADIAN INDUSTR Y ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  8 
IMPORTS INTO CANADA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  8 
INVESTIGATION PROCES S ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  8 
DUMPING INVESTIGATIO N ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  9 
NORMAL VALUES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9 
EXPORT PRICES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 10 
RESULTS OF THE DUMPING INVESTIGATION BY COUNTRY  ................................ ................................ ..... 10 
SECTION 20 INQUIRY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  13 
RESULTS OF THE SECTION 20 INQUIRY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 14 
SUMMARY OF RESULTS – DUMPING  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  22 
SUBSIDY INVESTIGATIO N ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  22 
RESULT S OF THE SUBSIDY INVESTIGATION – CHINA  ................................ ................................ ..............  24 
ALL OTHER EXPORTERS - CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  26 
RESULTS OF THE SUBSIDY INVESTIGATION – THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA  ................................ ................  26 
ALL OTHER EXPORTERS – THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA  ................................ ................................ .............  30 
RESULTS OF THE SUBSIDY INVESTIGATION – TURKEY  ................................ ................................ ...........  30 
ALL OTHER EXPORTERS - TURKEY  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  32 
SUMMARY OF RESULTS – SUBSIDY  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  33 
REPRESENTATIONS CONC ERNING THE DUMPING A ND SUBSIDY INVESTIGA TIONS  ..........  34 
DECISIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  34 
FUTURE ACTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 35 
RETROACTIVE DUTY ON MASSIVE IMPORTATIONS  ................................ ................................ ..... 36 
PUBLICATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  36 
INFORMATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  37 
APPENDIX 1 – SUMMARY OF MARGINS O F DUMPING AND AMOUNT S OF SUBSIDY  ............  38 
APPENDIX 2 – SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR NAMED SUBSIDY PR OGRAMS  ..........................  39 
APPENDIX 3 – DUMPING AND SUBSIDY REPRESENTATIONS ................................ ......................  54  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   1 SUMMARY OF EVENTS  
 
[1] On April 24, 2014 , the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) received a written 
complaint from Alta Steel Inc.  (Alta)  of Edmonton, Alberta , Arce lorMittalLCNA (ArcelorMittal) 
of Contrecoeur, Que bec and Gerdau Longsteel North Ameri ca (Gerdau)  of Whitby, Ontario  (the 
Complainants) , alleging that imports of certain concrete reinforcing bar originating in or 
exported from People’s  Republic of China (China), the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of 
Turkey (Turkey)  are being dumped  and subsi dized .  The Complainants alleged that the dumping  
and subsidizing  has caused injury and is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry 
producing these goods.  
 
[2] On May 15, 2014 , pursuant to paragraph 32(1)( a) of the Special Import Measures Act  
(SIMA), the CBSA informed the Complainant s that the complaint was properly documente d.  
The CBSA also notified the Government  of China (GOC), the Government of the Republic of 
Korea (GOK) and the Government of Turkey (GOT) that a properly documented compl aint had 
been received  and provided these governments  with the non -confidential version of the subsidy  
portion of the complaint related to their country . 
 
[3] The governments of the countries under investigation were invited for consultations prior 
to the init iation of the investigations, pursuant to Article 13.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing  Measures  (ASCM) .  Consultations were held with the GOK and  the GOT .  No 
consultations were requested b y the GOC.  
 
[4] The Complainant s provided evidence to support the allegations that certain concrete 
reinforcing bar originating in or exported from China , the Republic of Korea  and Turkey  have 
been dumped and subsidized.  The evidence also disclose d a reasonable indication that the 
dumping and subsidizing have caused injury and are threatening to cause injury to the Canadian 
industry producing these  goods.  
 
[5] On June 5, 2014 , the G overnment of Canada received written representations from the 
GOK with r espect to its views on the adequacy of the evidence presented in the non -confidential 
version of the subsidy portion of the complaint.  On June 11, 2014, consultations pursuant to 
Article 13.1 of the ASCM were held between the G overnment of Canada and the GOK.  During 
these consultations, the GOK  reiterated the written representations with respect to its views on 
the adequacy of the evidence presented in the non -confidential version of the subsidy complaint.  
 
[6]  On June 11, 2014, consultations pursuant to Article 13.1 of the ASCM were held between 
the G overnment of Canada and the GOT.  On the same day, the G overnment of Canada received 
written representations from the GOT with respect to its views on the accuracy and adequacy of 
the evidence presented in th e non -confidential version of the subsidy complaint.   
 
[7] On June 13, 2014 , pursuant to subsection 31(1) of SIMA, the President of  the CBSA 
(President) initiated  investigation s respecting the dumping and subsidizing of certain concrete 
reinforcing bar  from China, the Republic of Korea and Turkey.  
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   2 [8] Upon receiving notice of the initiation of the investigation s, the Canadian International 
Trade Tribunal (Tribunal) commenced a preliminary injury inquiry, pursuant to subsection    
34(2) of SIMA, into whether the evidence disclose d a reasonable indication that the alleged 
dumping and subsidizing of certain concrete reinforcing bar originating in or exported from 
China, the Republic of Korea and Turkey has caused injury or retardation or is threatening to 
cause inju ry to the Canadian industry producing the goods.    
 
[9] On August 12, 2014 , pursuant to subsection 37.1(1) of SIMA, the Tribunal made a 
preliminary determination that there is evidence that discloses a reasonable indication that the 
alleged dumping and subsidi ng of certain concrete reinforcing bar from  China, the Republic of 
Korea and Turkey  has caused injury or is threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry.  
 
[10] On September 11, 2014, as a result of the CBSA’s preliminary investigation s and 
pursuant to s ubsection 38(1 ) of SIMA, the President made preliminary determination s of 
dumping and subsidizing of certain concrete reinforcing bar  originating in or exported from 
China, the Republic of Korea and Turkey  and began imposing provisional duties on imports o f 
the subject goods pursuant to subsection 8(1) of SIMA . 
 
[11] On September 12 , 201 4, the Tribunal initiated a n inquiry pursuant to section 42 of SIMA 
to determine whether the dumping and subsidizing of the above -mentioned goods had caused 
injury or were threat ening to cause injury to the Canadian industry.  
 
[12] The CBSA continued its investigation and, on the basis of the results, the President was 
satisfied that certain concrete reinforcing bar  from China, the Republic of Korea and Turkey  had 
been dumped and that the margins of d umping were not insignificant.  Consequently, on 
December 10 , 2014, the President made a final determination of dumping pursuant to 
paragraph  41(1)( a) of SIMA.  
 
[13] Similarly, the President was satisfied that certain concrete reinforcing bar  from China  had 
been subsidized and that the amount of subsidy was not insignificant.  As a result, on   
December 10 , 201 4, the President also made a final determination of subsidizing pursuant to 
paragraph  41(1)( a) of SIMA.  
 
[14] On the same date , the President was satisfied that the amount of subsidy of certain 
concrete reinforcing bar from the Republic of Korea and Turkey  was insignificant.  As a result, 
on December 10, 2014, the President terminated the investigations into the subsidizing of ce rtain 
concrete reinforcing bar originating in or exported from the Republic of Korea and Turkey 
pursuant to paragraph 41(1)( b) of SIMA.   
 
[15] The Tribunal ’s inquiry into the question of injury to the Canadian industry is continuing , 
and it has announced that it will issue its decision  by January 9 , 201 5.  Provisional duties will 
continue to apply until this date on imports of subject goods from the three named countries.  
However, the provisional duties related to the subsidization of goods from the Repub lic of Korea 
and Turkey will no longer apply, and the provisional duty paid or security posted will be 
returned.    
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   3  
PERIOD OF INVESTIGAT ION  
 
[16] The Period of Investigation (POI) with respect to dumping and subsidizing covered all 
subject goods released into C anada from January 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014 . 
 
PROFITABILITY ANALYS IS PERIOD  
 
[17] The Profitability Analysis Period covered domestic sales and costing information for 
goods sold from January 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014.  
 
INTERESTED PARTIES  
 
Complainant s 
 
[18] The Complainants represent all domestic production of like goods.1 
 
[19] The name s and address es of the three complainant s are: 
 
Alta Steel Inc.     Gerdau Longsteel North America  
9401 34 Street     Hopkins Street South  
Edmonton, AB  T6B 2X6   Whitby, ON L1N 5T1  
 
Arcel orMittal LCNA   
4000 Routes des Acieries  
Contrecoeur, QC J0L 1C0  
 
Importers  
 
[20] At the initiation of the investigations, the CBSA identified 32 potential importers of the 
subject goods fr om information provided by the C omplainant s and CBSA import entry 
documentation ov er the period of January 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014 . 
 
[21] The CBSA sent an importer Request for Information (RFI) to all potential importers of 
the goods.  The CBSA received five responses to the importer RFI .  
 
Exporters  
 
[22] At the initiation of the invest igations, the CBSA identified 137  potential exporters and 
producers of the subject goods from  information provided by the C omplainant s and CBSA 
import entry documentation.  The CBSA sent exporter d umping and exporter subsidy  RFIs to 
each of these potential exporters  and producers and sent an exporter section 20 RFI to producers  
of concrete reinforcing bar  located in China.   
 
                                                 
 
1 Refer to the definition of like goods in the Like Goods section on page 7   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   4 [23] The CBSA received six responses to the exporter dumping RFI, six responses to the 
exporter subsidy RFI  and one response  to the section 20 RFI.    
 
Surrogate Producers  
 
[24] As part of the section 20 inquiry, surrogate country RFIs were sent to all known 
producers of concrete reinforcing bar  in Chinese Taipei and the Kingdom of Thailand  (Thailand) .  
A total of 24 RFIs were sent to these producers requesting domestic selling and costing 
information for certain concrete reinforcing bar  produced at their facilities.  
 
[25] The CBSA did not receive any responses to the surrogate country RFIs.  
 
Foreign Governments  
 
[26] The CBSA sent a government s ubsidy RFI to each of  the GOC, GOK and GOT .  The 
CBSA received responses to the Government Subsidy RFI from the GOK and the GOT and both 
of these responses were considered substantially complete.  The CBSA did not receive a 
response to t he government subsidy RFI from the GOC.  
 
[27] The CBSA also sent the GOC a government section 20 RFI.  The CBSA did not receive a 
response to the government section 20 RFI from the GOC.  
 
PRODUCT INFORMATION  
 
Definition  
 
[28] For the purpose of these investigations, subject goods are defined as:  
 
Hot-rolled deformed steel concrete reinforcing bar in straight lengths or coils, commonly 
identified as rebar, in various diameters up to and including 56.4 millimeters, in various 
finishes, excluding plain round bar and fabr icated rebar products, originating in or 
exported from the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic 
of Turkey.  
 
[29] The subject goods wil l be referred to as “R ebar”  and concrete reinforcing bar, 
interchangeably . 
 
Additional Product Information2 
 
[30] For further clarity, the subject goods include all hot -rolled deformed bar, rolled from 
billet steel, rail steel, axle steel, low alloy -steel and other alloy steel that does not comply with 
the definition of stainless steel.  
 
                                                 
 
2 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) –Complaint – Pages 4 -6  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   5 [31] Uncoated rebar, sometimes referred to as black rebar, is generally used for projects in 
non-corrosive environments where anti -corrosion coatings are not required.  On the other hand, 
anti-corrosion coated rebar is used in concrete projects that are subjected to corrosive 
environments, such as road salt.  Examples of anti -corrosion coated rebar are epoxy or hot -dip 
galvanized rebar.  The subject goods include uncoated rebar and rebar that has a coating or finish 
applied.  
 
[32] Fabricated rebar products are generally engineered u sing computer automated design 
programs, and are made to the customer’s unique project requirements.  The fabricated rebar 
products are normally finished with either a protective or corrosion -resistant coating.  Fabricated 
rebar is not included in the prod uct definition of subject goods.  Rebar that is simply cut -to-
length is not considered to be a fabricated rebar and it is included in the definition of subject 
goods.  
 
[33] Rebar  is produced in Canada in accordance with the National Standard of Canada 
CAN/CSA -G30.18 -M92 for Billet -Steel Bar for Concrete Reinforcement (National Standard) 
prepared by the Standards Association and approved by the Standards Council of Canada.  
 
[34] The following are the most common bar designation numbers for the subject goods  in 
Canada,  with the corresponding diameter in millimet ers in brackets: 10 (11.3), 15 (16.0), 20 
(19.5), 25  (25.2), 30  (29.9), 35 (35.7).  Rebar  sizes are commonly referred to as the bar 
designation number combined with the letter “M”.  Thus, 10M rebar  has a designat ion number of 
10 and a diameter of 11.3 millimet ers.  Other diameters may also be demanded, and other 
measurement systems employed.  For example, Imperial measure #7 bar (approximately 22 mm) 
is a common designation used in the mine roofing industry.  
 
[35] The National Standard identifies two grades of rebar , namely regular or “R” and weldable 
or “W”.  R grades are intended for general applications while W grades are used where welding, 
bending or ductility is of special concern.  Welded rebar  was a premium product for the 
Canadian industry, reflecting the higher cost of alloy steel; however, since all imports have been 
weldable product, Canadian production has shifted to weldable as a standard product.  Weldable 
rebar  is substitutable for regular rebar  in all applications, though the reverse does not hold.  
 
[36] The National Standard also identifies yield strength levels of 300, 400, and 500. This 
number refers to the minimum yield strength and is measured in megapascal (MPa).  The grade 
and yield strength of rebar  is identified by combining yield strength number with grade.  Thus, 
400R is regular rebar  with a yield strength of 400 MPa, and 400W is weldable rebar  with a yield 
strength of 400 MPa.  Yield strength is measured with an extensometer in accordance wi th the 
requirements of section 9 of the National Standard.  
 
[37] The standard lengths for rebar  are 6 metres (20 feet), 12 metres (40 feet) and 
18 metres  (60 feet), although rebar  can be cut and sold in other lengths as specified by 
customers, or sold in coils.  
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   6 Production Process3 
 
[38] Deformed steel concrete reinforcing bar can be produced in an integrated steel production 
facility, or using ferrous scrap metal as the principal raw material.  Scrap metal is melted in an 
electric arc furnace and is further processe d in a ladle arc -refining unit.  The molten steel is then 
continuously cast into rectangular billets of steel that are cut -to-length.  An integrated facility 
would also produce billets from molten steel.  The billets are then rolled into various sizes of 
rebar, which is cut to various lengths depending on the customers’ requirements.    
 
[39] Deformed rebar is rolled with deformations on the bar, which provides gripping power so 
that concrete adheres to the bar and provides reinforcing value.  The deformations mu st conform 
to requirements set out in national standards.  
 
Product Use4 
 
[40] The subject goods are used in a number of applications, the most common of which is 
construction.  
 
[41] Rebar is most commonly used to reinforce concrete and masonry structures.  It enhances 
the compressional and tensional strength of concrete and helps prevent the concrete from 
cracking during curing or following changes in temperature.  
 
[42] Residential markets primarily use rebar  in smaller sizes, while the heavy construction and 
fabric ation markets use most of the larger sizes of rebar . 
 
Classification of Imports  
 
[43] As of 2012, imports of the subject goods  are now usually classified in Section XV of the 
Customs Tariff  under the following Harmonized System ( HS) classification numbers:  
 
7213.10.00.00  Bar and rods, hot -rolled, in irregularly wound coils, of iron or non -
alloy steel. - Containing indentations, ribs, grooves or other 
deformations produced during the rolling process   
 
7214.20.00.0 0   Other bar and rods of iron or non -alloy ste el, not further worked 
than forged, hot -rolled, hot -drawn or hot -extruded, but including 
those twisted after rolling. - Containing indentations, ribs, grooves 
or other deformations produced during the rolling process or 
twisted after rolling  
                                                 
 
3 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) –Complaint – Pages 5 -6 
4 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) –Complaint – Page 6   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   7 [44] In some instan ces, imports of subject goods are also classified under the following HS 
Classification numbers:  
 
7215.90.00.90   Other bars and rods of iron or non -alloy steel. – Other  
 
7227.90.00.90  Bars and rods, hot -rolled, in irregularly wound coils, of other alloy 
steel. – Other  
 
[45] The listing of HS classification numbers is for convenience of reference only.  Refer to 
the product definition for authoritative details regarding the subject goods . 
 
CLASS OF GOODS  
 
[46] The dumping and subsidy investigations were initiated on a  single class of goods.  
However, as a result of the Tribunal’s preliminary injury inquiry5, the Tribunal was of the 
opinion that the question of whether there are multiple classes of goods merited further 
consideration.  As such, the Tribunal requested th e CBSA to collect, in addition to the single 
class of subject goods as defined at initiation, separate information on the dumping and 
subsidizing of  uncoated (or black) rebar; and  coated rebar . 
 
[47] In response to this request, on September 11 , 2014 , the CBSA submitted to the Tribunal 
the information it had available on the potential classes of goods.  
 
[48] On October 27, 2014 , the Tribunal determined that certain concrete reinforcing bar 
constitute s a single class of goods.  The Tribunal informed the CBSA that as a  result of this 
determination, the CBSA would no longer be required to collect information on the dumping and 
subsidizing of uncoated (or black) rebar and coated rebar  separately.  
LIKE GOODS  
 
[49] Subsection 2(1) of SIMA defines “like goods” in relation to any other goods, as goods 
that are identical in all respects to the other goods, or in the absence of identical goods, goods the 
uses and other characteristics of which closely resemble those of the other goods.  
 
[50] Concrete reinforcing bar  produced by the domestic industry competes directly with, has 
the same end uses as, and can be substituted for, the subject goods .  Also, both are made from the 
same input material and are produced in the same general manner.  Therefore, the CBSA has 
conc luded that the rebar  produced by the Canadian industry constitutes like goods to the subject 
goods . 
 
                                                 
 
5 Preliminary Injury Inquiry No. PI -2014 -001 Certain Concrete Reinforcing Bar, issued on August 27, 2014.  
Reasons available online at http://www.citt.gc.ca/en/node/6780 .   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   8 THE CANADIAN INDUSTRY  
 
[51] As previously stated, the Complainants represent the entire domestic production of like 
goods.  
 
IMPORTS INTO CANADA  
 
[52] During the final phase of the investigations, the CBSA refined the estimated volume of 
imports based on information from CBSA  import entry documentation  and other information 
received from exporters and importers.  
 
[53] The following table presents the CBSA’s analysis of imports of certain concrete 
reinforcing  bar for purposes of the final determinations:  
 
Import Volumes of Certain Concrete Reinforcing Bar  
(January 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014)  
Imports into Canada  % of Total Import Volume  
China  11.5%  
Republic of Korea  8.9% 
Turkey  18.3% 
All Other Countries  61.3% 
Total Imports  100.0%  
 
INVESTIGATION PROCESS  
 
[54] Regarding the dumping investigation, information was requested from all known and 
potential exporters, producers, vendors and importers, concerning certain concrete reinforcing 
bar released into Canada during the dumping POI of January 1, 2013 to March  31, 2014.  
 
[55] Regarding the section 20 inquiry, information was requested from all known and 
potential producers and exporters in China and from the GOC.  Information was also requested 
from surrogate producers located in Chinese Taipei and the Kingdom of Thailand.  
 
[56] Regarding the subsidy investigation, information related to potential actionable subsidies 
was requested from all known and potential exporters in China, the Re public of Korea and 
Turkey.  Information was also requested from the GOC, GOK and GOT, concerning financial 
contributions made to exporters or producers of certain concrete reinforcing bar released into 
Canada during the subsidy POI of January 1, 2013 to M arch 31, 2014.    
 
[57] After reviewing the responses to the RFIs, Supplemental Requests for Information ( SRFI) 
were sent to each of the responding parties to clarify information provided in the submissions.   In 
addition, on -site verifications were conducted at the premises of selected exporters  during the 
final phase of the dumping and subsidy investigations.  
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   9 [58] Details pertaining to the information submitted by the exporters in response to the 
exporter dumpi ng RFI as well as the results of the CBSA ’s dumping investigation , including the 
section 20 inquiry with respect to the Chinese steel long products  sector , which includes rebar , 
are provided in the “Dumping Investigation” section of this document .  Details  pertaining to the 
information submitted by the exporters and governments in response to the subsidy RFI as well 
as the results of the CBSA ’s subsidy investigation are provided in the “Subsidy Investigation” 
section of this document . 
 
[59] As part of the final stage of the investigations, case briefs and reply submissions were 
provided by counsel representing the Complainant s, exporters  and the GOT .  Details of all 
representations are provided  in Appendix 3 . 
 
[60] Under Article 15 of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Anti-dumping Agreement , 
developed countries are to give regard to the special situation of developing country members 
when considering the application of anti -dumping measures under the Agreement.  Possible 
constructive remedies provided for under the Agreement are to be explored before applying  anti-
dumping duty where they would affect the essential interests of developing country members.  
As China  and Turkey are listed on the Development Assistance C ommittee  (DAC) List of Official 
Development Assistance  (ODA ) Recipients  maintained by the Organization for Economic  Co-
operation and Development (OECD)6, the President recognizes  China  and Turkey  as developing 
countr ies for purposes of actions taken pursuant to SIMA.  
 
[61] Accordingly, the obligation under Article 15 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement  was 
met by providing the opportunity for exporters to submit price undertakings.  In this particular 
investigation, the CBSA did not receive any undertaking p roposals from exporters in China  and 
Turkey . 
 
DUMPING INVESTIGATIO N 
 
[62] The CBSA received  responses to the dumping RFI from six exporters:  one exporter 
located in China, three  exporters located in the Republic of Korea and two exporters located in 
Turkey . 
 
Normal Values  
 
[63] 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 adm inistrative, selling and all other 
costs, plus a reasonable amount for profits, in accordance with paragraph 19( b) of SIMA.  
 
[64] Normal values  for the three  exporters from the Republic of Korea and one exporter from 
Turkey that  submitted complete responses were determin ed in acco rdance with section 15 of 
SIMA and section 19 of SIMA . 
                                                 
 
6 The Organization for Economic C o-operation and Development, DAC List of ODA Recipients from 2011 to 2013, 
the document is available at: 
www.oecd.org/dac/stats/DAC%20List%20used%20for%20 2012%20and%202013%20flows.pdf   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   10 [65] In situations where the President of the CBSA is of the opinion that section 20 conditions 
apply, normal value cannot be determined on the basis of domestic selling prices or on the full 
cost of goods plus profit . 
 
[66] Normal values for the exporte r from  China that submitted a complete response were 
determined using a surrogate country methodology  pursuant to section 29 of SIMA, based on the 
average of th e normal values from the producers in Turkey and the Republic of Korea that 
provided complete responses to the RFI.  
 
Export Prices  
 
[67] The export price of goods sold to importers in Canada is generally based on the lesser of 
the adjusted exporter’s sale price  for the goods or the adjusted importer’s purchase price, in 
accordance with the methodology of section 24 of SIMA.  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.  
 
Results of the Dumping Investigation  by Country  
 
[68] With respect to each of the exporters that provided a complete response to the exporter 
RFI, the CBSA determined a margin of dumping b y comparing the total normal value with the 
total export price of the goods.  When the total export price was less than the total normal value, 
the difference was the margin of dumping for that specific exporter.  
 
[69] For those exporters that did not submit a response to the exporter RFI, the normal value 
of the goods was determined by advancing the export price by the highest amount by which the 
normal value exceeded the export price on an individual transaction ( 41%) for a n exporter  which 
provided a complete response to the exporter RFI. 
 
[70] The determination of the volume of dumped goods was calculated by taking into 
consideration each exporter ’s net aggregate dumping results.  Where a given exporter was 
determined to be dumping on an overall or net basis, the total quantity of exports attributable to 
that exporter ( i.e., 100%) was considered dumped.  Similarly, where a given exporter ’s net 
aggregate dumping results were  zero, the total quantity of exports considered to be dumped by 
that exporter was zero.  
 
[71] In determining  the margin of dumping for each country, the margins of dumping found in 
respect of each exporter were weighted according to each exporter ’s volume of certain concrete 
reinforcing bar  exported to Canada during the  dumping  POI. 
 
[72] Based on the prece ding, 100% of certain concrete reinforcing bar originating in or 
exported from China, the Republic of Korea and Turkey , and imported into Canada during the 
POI, was dumped.  
 
[73] Details of the results of the investigation by exporter follow, a  summary of each 
exporter’s margin of dumping is provided in Appendix 1  and the overall margin of dumping for 
each country  is provided in the table  at the end of this section .  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   11 The Republic of Korea  
 
Hyundai Steel Company  
 
[74] Hyundai Steel Company is an exporter of subjec t goods from the Rep ublic of Korea 
during the POI.  
 
[75] Hyundai Steel  Company ’s head office is located in Seoul, Republic of Korea .  Their 
respo nse to the d umping RFI was complete.  Hyundai Steel was sent a SRFI to gather additional 
information.  On-site verifications were conducted by CBSA officials at the headquarters of 
Hyundai Steel from October 21 to October 24, 2014 . 
 
[76] Hyundai Steel Company had domestic sales of concrete reinforcing bar  during the POI.  
All normal values wer e determined  pursuant to section 15 of SIMA based on profitable domestic 
selling prices of like goods.   
 
[77] For subject goods exported from Hyundai Steel Company to Canada 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 fro m the exportation of the goods.  
 
[78] The total normal  value compared with the total export price results in a margin of 
dumping of 13.3 %, expressed as a percentage of the export price,  for Hyundai Steel  Comp any. 
 
Hyundai Corporation  
 
[79] Hyundai Corporation is an exporter of subject goods from the Republic of Korea during 
the POI.  All subject goods exported to Canada by Hyundai Corporation during the POI w ere 
produced by Hyundai Steel  Company .  Hyundai Steel Company and Hyundai Corporation are 
not related  parties . 
  
[80] Hyundai Corporation ’s head office is located in Seoul, the Republic of Korea.  Although 
for purposes of the preliminary determination the company’s RFI response was considered 
substantially complete, the CBSA has determined that this company’s submission was not  
complete for purposes of the final determination.   This is due to  the fact that information 
required to determine normal values which was requested by the CBSA in SRFIs was not 
provided by Hyundai Corp oration.  
 
[81] Therefore, the margin of dumping for Hyundai Corporation will be determined pursuant 
to section 29 of SIMA  based on the All Other Exporters ’ margin of dumping methodology 
described below . 
 
G.S Global Corporation (GSG)  
 
[82] GSG is an exporter of subject goods from the Republic of Korea during the POI.  All 
subject goods exported to Canada by GSG during the POI w ere produced by Hyundai Steel 
Company.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   12 [83] GSG’s head office is located in Seoul, the Republic of Korea.  Although for  purposes of 
the preliminary determination the company’s RFI response was considered substantially 
complete, the CBSA has determined t hat this company’s submission was incomplete for 
purposes of the final determination.   This is due to the fact that inform ation required to determine 
normal values which was requested by the CBSA in SRFIs was not provided by GSG.  
 
[84] Therefore, the margin of dumping for GSG  will be determined pursuant to section 29 of 
SIMA  based on the All Other Exporters ’ margin of dumping methodology described below . 
Turkey  
 
Habas  Sınai ve Tıbbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas)  
 
[85] Habas is a n exporter of subject goods from Turkey during the POI. 
 
[86] Habas ’ head office i s located in Istanbul, Turkey.  Their response to the d umping R FI 
was complete.  Habas was sent three SRFIs  to gather additional information.  On-site 
verifications were conducted by CBSA officials at the headquarters of Habas  from October 13 to  
October 17 , 2014 . 
 
[87] Habas had a large amount of  domestic sales of rebar during the POI.   Where applicable, 
normal values were determined pursuant to  section 15 of SIMA based on profitable domestic 
selling prices of like goods . 
 
[88] Where normal values could not be determined under section 15, the normal v alues 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 and a 
reasonable amount for profits.  The amount for profits was d etermined pursuant to subparagraph 
11(1)( b)(ii) of the SIMR, based on Habas’ profitable domestic sales of goods of the same general 
category.  
 
[89] For subject goods exported from Habas to Canada 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.  
 
[90] The total normal value compared with the total export price results in a margin of 
dumping of 3.8%, expressed as a percentage of the export price, for Habas.  
 
Habas Petrol Urunleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Habas Petrol)  
 
[91] Habas Petrol, an associated company of Habas, provided a late response to the dumping 
RFI on October 24, 2014, just prior to the October 27, 2014 close of record.  
 
[92] The late response was reviewed and determined to be incomplete.  As a result of 
receiving the RFI submission late in the investigation , the CBSA was unable  to send SRFIs or 
verify the submitted information.   
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   13 [93] Therefore, the margin of dumping for Habas Petrol was determined pursuant to       
section 29 of SIMA  based on the All Other Exporters ’ margin of dumping methodology 
described below . 
 
China  
 
Section 20 Inquiry  
 
[94] Section 20 of SIMA 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,7 it is applied where, in the 
opinion of the President, domestic prices are substantially determined by the government of that 
country and there is sufficient reason to believe that they are not substantially the same as they 
would be if they were determined i n a competitive market.  Where section 20 is applicable, the 
normal values of goods are not determined using domestic prices or costs in that country.  
 
[95] For purposes of a dumping proceeding, the CBSA proceeds on the presumption that 
section 20 of SIMA is no t applicable to the sector under investigation absent sufficient 
information to the contrary.  The President may only form an opinion where there is sufficient 
information that the conditions set forth in paragraph 20(1)( a) of SIMA exist in the sector unde r 
investigation.  
 
[96] The CBSA is also required to examine the price effect resulting from substantial 
government determination of domestic prices and whether there is sufficient information on the 
record for the President to have reason to believe that the re sulting domestic prices are not 
substantially the same as they would be in a competitive market.  
 
[97] For the purpose of this investigation, the Complainants requested that section 20 be 
applied in the determination of normal values due to the alleged existenc e of the conditions set 
forth in paragraph 20(1)( a) of SIMA.  The Complainants provided information to support these 
allegations concerning the long products steel sector in China, which includes concrete 
reinforcing bar.  
 
[98] At the initiation of the investig ation, the CBSA had sufficient evidence, supplied by the 
Complainants, from its own research and from past investigations, to support the initiation of a 
section 20 inquiry to examine the extent of GOC involvement in pricing in the long products 
steel sect or, which includes concrete reinforcing bar.  The information indicated that prices in 
China in this sector have been influenced by various GOC industrial policies.  Consequently, the 
CBSA sent section 20 RFIs to the GOC and all known long products steel p roducers in China to 
obtain information on the matter.  
 
                                                 
 
7 China  is a prescribed country under section 17.1 of the Spec ial Import Measures Regulations   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   14 Results of the Section 20 Inquiry  
 
[99] The CBSA sent questionnaires to 83 exporters and producers in the long products steel 
sector in China.  One producer8 provided a response and their total production figures account 
for a fraction of the  total production of concrete reinforcing bar  in China.9  The GOC did not 
provide a response to the section 20 RFI.   In the absence of complete information the CBSA’s 
sources of information are constrained.  Accordingly , the CBSA has relied on its own research 
and information that was on the administrative record, notwithstanding its efforts to obtain more 
comprehensive data.  
 
[100]  The following is the CBSA’s analysis of the relevant factors that are present in the 
Chinese st eel industry and which affect the long products steel sector, which includes concrete 
reinforcing bar.  
 
[101]  The GOC classifies the iron and steel industry to be a “fundamental or pillar ” industr y 
and therefore the government maintains a degree of control over the industry, through a 
minimum of 50% equity in the principal enterprises .10 
 
[102]  Information on the record indicates that in 2010 eight of the top ten steel companies in 
China were  state-owned.11  In 2013 it is estimated that the top ten steel companies  accounted for 
45% of the total Chinese crude steel production .12.  The complain ants also provide d supporting 
document ation that demonstrate s that state owned enterprises produce steel billet and/or rebar 
themselves or through their subsidiaries.  This indicates that the GOC exerts control over the 
Chinese steel industry, which encompasses the long products steel sector, including concrete 
reinforcing bar . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
8 Dumping Exhibits 56 (PRO) and 57 (NC) - Response to Section 20 RFI - Shandong Shiheng Special Steel Group 
Co., Ltd.  
9 Dumping Exhi bits  Exhibit 78 (PRO) – Document 41; Exhibit 54 (PRO) - A14 (b).  
10 Dumping Exhibit 147 (PRO) - 2007 -07 Money for Metal - Chinese Steel Industry  
11 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Complaint, Attachment 24, p. 9.  
12 Dumping Exhibit 36 (PRO) – Document 5 - 2013 Top S teelmakers in the World (Top 50); Exhibit 78 (PRO) – 
Document 50 - 2014 -02 MIIT - 2013 Report on the economic operation of the steel industry.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   15 [103]  As cited in previous section 20 inquiries  relating to the steel industry13, the National Steel 
Industry Development Policy (2005 National Steel Policy)14 dated July 8, 2005, outlines the 
GOC future plans for the domestic steel industry in China.  The major objectives of the 2005 
National Steel Policy are:  
 
 the structural adjustment of the domestic steel industry in China;  
 industry consolidations through merger and acquisitions;  
 the regulations of technological upgrading with new standards for the steel industry;  
 measures to reduce material and energy consumption and enhance environmental 
protection;  and 
 government supervision and management in the steel industry.  
 
[104]  On March 20, 2009, the GOC promulgated the Blueprint for the Adjustment and 
Revitalization of the Steel Industry (2009 Steel Revitalization/Rescue Plan)15, issued by the 
General Off ice of the State Council.  This macro -economic policy was the GOC’s response to 
the international financial crisis and is also the action plan for the steel industry for the period 
between 2009 and 2011.  This plan includes the following major tasks:  
 
 main tain the stability of the domestic market and improve the export environment;  
 strictly control the total output of steel and accelerate the process of eliminating what is 
backward (obsolete);  
 enhance enterprise reorganization and improve the industrial con centration level;  
 spend more on technical transformation and promote technical progress;  
 optimize the layout of the steel industry and overall arrangements of its development;  
 adjust the steel product mix and improve the product quality;  
 maintain stable im port of iron ore resources and rectify the market order;  and 
 develop domestic and overseas resources and guarantee the safety of the industry.  
 
[105]  There are common measures between the two GOC policies but, in addition, the 
2009  Steel Revitalization/Rescue Pl an is an acceleration of some major objectives of the 
2005  National Steel Policy, in that there continues to be the strict control of new additions to 
steel production capacity, more stipulated mergers and acquisitions to consolidate the steel 
industry in China into larger conglomerates and also a focus on product quality.  
 
                                                 
 
13 Certain Seamless Steel Casing (2008), Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods (2010), Certain Carbon Steel Welded 
Pipe (2008 & 2011), Certain Pup Joints (2011), Certain Piling Pipe (2012) and Certain Galvanized Steel Wire 
(2013).  
14 Dumping Exhibit 36 (PRO) – Document No. 25 - 2005 -07 NDRC [2005] 35 - Steel Industry Development Policy.  
15 Dumping Exhibit 36 (PRO) – Document No. 55. - 2009 -03 SC [2009] 6 - 2009 Steel Industry Restructuring and 
Revitalization Plan.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   16 [106]  There are also provincial versions to the 2009 Steel Revitalization/Rescue Plan.  An 
example of the provincial version of the national plan is the Shandong Province Iron and Steel 
Industry Restructuring and Revitalization Plan.16  This 2009 provincial plan mirrors the policy 
objectives of the national 2009 Steel Revitalization/Rescue Plan, but is tailored to reflect the 
conditions for the iron and steel industry in Shandong Province.  
 
[107]  Further support that the domestic prices are substantially determined by the GOC and are 
not substantially the same as they would be in a competitive market in the steel industry in China 
can be found in the GOC’s new macro -economic policy entitled, 12th  Five-Year Plan: Iron and 
Steel (2011 -2015  Development Plan for the Steel Industry).17 
 
[108]  The 2011 -2015  Development Plan for the Steel Industry is the most recent five year plan 
for the steel industry that was released by the GOC’s Ministry of Industry and In formation 
Technology on November 7, 2011.  It serves as the guiding document for the development of the 
Chinese steel industry for the 2011 -2015 period and its directives include:  
 
 increased mergers and acquisitions to create larger, more efficient steel c ompanies;  
 GOC restrictions on steel capacity expansion;  
 upgrading of steel industry technology;  
 greater GOC emphasis on high -end steel products;  and 
 GOC directed relocation of iron and steel companies to coastal areas.  
 
[109]  Also included in this plan are minim um requirements for steel production in order to 
eliminate smaller players in the market.  Through this plan, the GOC is continuing its reform and 
restructuring of the Chinese steel industry.  The GOC’s target is that by 2015, China’s top 
10 steel producer s will represent 60% of the country’s total steel output.  According to the 
2005  National Steel Plan, the long -range GOC target for mergers and acquisitions is to have the 
top 10 Chinese steel producers account for 70% of total national steel production by  2020.  This 
plan is the next development stage of GOC directives aimed at achieving this long -range 2020 
target.  
 
[110]  The 2011 -2015  Development Plan for the Steel Industry also addresses ongoing issues in 
the steel industry with the directive to strictly cont rol expansion of steel production capacity, 
accelerate the development of higher value steel products and to continue to advance mergers 
and restructuring.  
 
                                                 
 
16 Dumping Exhibit 36 (PRO) – Document 58 - 2009 -04 Shandong [2009] No. 45 - Shandong Provincial Steel 
Industry Restructuring and Revitalization Plan.  
17 Dumping Exhibit 36 (PRO) – Document 100 - 2011 -11 MIIT [2011] 480 - Steel Industry 12th Five Year 
Development Plan   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   17 [111]  Therefore the main task of the 2011 -2015  Development Plan for the Steel Industry is to 
control tota l volume by eliminating obsolete production and controlling new production capacity.  
The scope of the GOC’s reforms in the steel sector in China is to be obtained by industry 
concentration targets through mergers and acquisitions by the end of 2015.  Thes e GOC 
objectives are likely to conflict with the commercial interests of producers in the long products 
steel sector, which includes concrete reinforcing bar.  These objectives will likely affect 
production volumes, competition and ultimately prices.  
 
[112]  In October 2011, a pilot project was launched by the National Development and Reform 
Commission (NDRC) to restructure the steel industry in Shandong Province.18  The main 
objectives of the restructuring plan is to phase out backward production thereby improvin g 
energy conservation, control new production capacity in order to stop blind investment, improve 
industrial concentration through mergers and plant relocations and increase the production of 
higher value added steel products.   The objective is to establis h one large provincial steel 
company (Shandong Iron and Steel Group) and five regional steel companies (Zibo, Weifang, 
Laiwu, Linyi, Binzhou).19 This would be achieved through the merger of state owned and 
privately owned steel mills through equity swaps or  partnership agreements.20 The GOC 
objective of merging and consolidating the steel industry is  likely to conflict with the commercial 
interests of producers in the long products steel sector, which includes concrete reinforcing bar.  
 
[113]  The GOC has also provided value added tax (VAT) export rebates  on various steel 
products to promote their export . In addition , the GOC has also imposed export taxes on various 
steel products  to curtail their export.  
 
[114]  In general terms, China’s VAT system is  similar to a consumption tax,  with the end 
consume r ultimately paying the tax . A manufacturer in China pays 17% VAT on its purchases of 
raw materials, processes the goods, and then sells the end -products, collecting 17% VAT in the 
process. The manufacture r then remits the difference between the VAT collected and the VAT 
paid on the purchases of the raw materials. In this manner, a manufacturer does not incur any 
VAT related costs on his production materials. However, VAT on export sales is treated 
differen tly. 
 
[115]  With exports, the exporter still pays the same 17% VAT on their purchases of raw 
materials, however, when they export the goods, they only receive a VAT refund of a fixed 
percentage, which is established by the GOC. In addition, the VAT refund cannot  exceed the 
VAT paid on raw materials. Consequently, the VAT refund on exports would offset the VAT 
paid on the raw materials.21 
 
                                                 
 
18 Dumping Exhibit 80 (NC) – Document 23 – Shandong [2012] No. 8 - Implementation of the Restructuring of the 
Steel Industry in Shandong Province.  
19 Dumping Exhibit 80 (NC) – Document 35 – Shandong Province Steel Industry Restructuring to Start.  
20 Dumping Exhibit 80 - (NC) – Document 34 – Shand ong Iron and Steel Industry Restructuring News.  
21 Dumping – Exhibit 78 (PRO) – Document 9 – OECD Steel Trade Policy Measures.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   18 [116]  Since 2 007, China has eliminated VAT export rebates on some, but not all steel products, 
resulting in a shift in production tow ards products that still qualified for this rebate.22 This has 
the effect of promoting certain types of production while at the same time reducing the level of 
exports of other steel products, ultimately affecting pricing of these goods.  
 
[117]  An important effect of these tax changes is that it increases the cost of exports and 
reduces their profitability, which in turn reduces the volume of material that is exported and 
leaves additional capacity to serve the domestic market. While the GOC has stated that m any of 
these policies are intended to address environmental and resource efficiency issues, these 
measures are changing the demand and supply balance in the domestic market and affecting the 
domestic prices of affected products.23 
 
[118]  The GOC does not provide any VAT export rebate for steel billets24 or non -alloy rebar, 
while alloy rebar currently receives a VAT export rebate. Steel billet and non -alloy rebar are 
both subject to an export tax. The absence of a VAT export rebate, coupled with an export tax , 
on st eel billets further demonstrates the GOC’s objective of increasing the domestic supply of 
unfinished steel products by discouraging their export. A higher supply of steel products such as 
billets in the domestic market causes a downward pressure  on domesti c prices of these goods. 
Further since billet comprises a large percentage of the cost of rebar25, the low cost of billet in 
China impacts the price of rebar in China.  
 
Analysis of Domestic Prices in China  
 
[119]  The CBSA requested domestic market pricing of conc rete reinforcing bar from the GOC 
and producers in China.  The GOC did not  provide a response to the RFI, but the CBSA did 
receive information on the domestic market pricing of concrete reinforcing bar from one 
producer  in China .  
 
[120]  The complaint provided information from the Steel Business Briefing (SBB), a global 
independent source of steel pricing information, comparing worldwide concrete reinforcing bar 
prices for the POI.  This information indicated that domestic prices of concre te reinforcing bar in 
China were consistently  lower when compared to pricing in other markets.26 
 
[121]  The CBSA was also able to obtain domestic pricing information from MySteel Weekly27 
for the concrete reinforcing bar market in China for the POI.   The prices re ported in MySteel 
Weekly were in line with what the SBB reported .28 
 
                                                 
 
22 Dumping – Exhibit 78 (PRO) – Document 7 – China’s Value -added Tax System.  
23 Dumping Exhibit 2(NC) - Complaint, para. 126 . 
24 Steel billet is used in the manufacture of long products such as plain bars, rebar, rods, tubes, pipes and wire.  
25 Dumping Exhibit 2(NC) - Complaint, para. 132.  
26 Dumping Exhibit 1(PRO) Complaint, Attachment 29.  
27 MySteel Weekly is an independent observer  of the Chinese steel market.  
28 Dumping Exhibit 67 (PRO) - MySteel Weekly, Issue #, 301, 305, 307, 311, 314, 319, 323, 328, 332, 336, 340, 
344, 349, 353 and 357.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   19 [122]  The CBSA conducted a price analysis on domestic prices of concrete reinforcing bar. 
Although domestic price data for concrete reinforcing bar is not publicly available, since this 
case inv olves multiple countries, the CBSA was able to obtain domestic sales information from 
all three subject countries.  The analysis shows that prices of concrete reinforcing bar during the 
POI were significantly lower in China than in the other two subject co untries.  
 
[123]  Given that concrete reinforcing bar is a commodity product29 freely traded on the world 
market , this price discrepancy further indicates that domestic prices of concrete reinforcing bar in 
China are not the same as they would be if they were determined under competitive market 
conditions.   
 
Relationship between the Long Products Steel Sector and Oth er Steel Sectors in China  
 
[124]  The President of the CBSA has issued opinions in respect of the following steel sectors in 
China that domestic prices are substantially influenced by the GOC and that they are not 
substantially the same as they would be if they w ere determined in a competitive market:  
 
 Wire rod sector - Certain galvanized steel wire (2013)  
 Steel pipe sector - Certain piling pipe (2012)  
 Oil country tubular goods sector - Certain pup joints (2011)  
 Hot-rolled steel plate sector - Certain hot -rolled c arbon steel plate and high strength low -
alloy steel plate (2010)  
 Flat-rolled steel industry sector - Certain flat hot -rolled carbon and alloy steel sheet and 
strip (2010)  
 Welded pipe sector - Certain carbon steel welded pipe (2008 & 2011)  
 Oil country tubul ar goods sector - Certain oil country tubular goods (2010)  
 Oil country tubular goods sector - Certain seamless carbon or alloy steel oil and gas well 
casing (2008)  
 
[125]  These numerous opinions indicate that the GOC exerts control over the Chinese steel 
industry, which encompasses the long products steel sector, including the concrete reinforcing 
bar industry.  
 
                                                 
 
29 Canadian International Trade Tribunal in Inquiry No.  NQ 99 -002, January 12, 2000, concerning certain concrete 
reinforcing bar originating in or exported from the Republic of Cuba, the Republic of Korea and the Republic of 
Turkey. Page 23, Global Economic Factors, “The Tribunal notes that price trends in one part of the world generally 
influence prices in other parts of the world, especially for a commodity -type product such as rebar, and that the 
Canadian  market is not and cannot be insulated from world price pressures”.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   20 Summary of the Results of the Section 20 Inquiry  
 
[126]  The wide range and material nature of the GOC measures have resulted in significant 
influence on  the Chinese steel industry including the long products steel sector, which includes 
concrete reinforcing bar. Based on the preceding, the President is of the opinion that:  
 
 domestic prices are substantially determined by the GOC; and  
 there  is sufficient reason to believe that the domestic prices are not substantially the same 
as they would be in a competitive market.  
 
[127]  Based on the above analysis, for the purposes of the final determination, the President 
affirmed the opinion rendered at the  preliminary determination that the conditions described in 
paragraph 20(1)( a) of SIMA apply in the long products steel sector, which includes concrete 
reinforcing bar.30 
 
Normal Values – Section 20  
 
[128]  Normal values are generally determined on the basis of do mestic selling prices of the 
goods in the country of export, or on the full cost of the goods including administrative, selling 
and all other costs plus a reasonable amount for profits.  
 
[129]  Normal values for Shandong Shiheng Special Steel Group Co., Ltd.  (Shiheng Special 
Steel ) could not be determined  on the basis of domestic selling prices in China or on  the full cost 
of goods plus an amount for profit s, because the President formed the opinion that domestic 
prices in the steel long products sector, which inc ludes concrete reinforcing bar, in China are 
substantially determined by the GOC and there is sufficient reason to believe that the domestic 
prices are not substantially the same as they would be in a competitive market.  
 
[130]  Where domestic prices are substant ially determined by the GOC and there is sufficient 
reason to believe that the domestic prices are not substantially the same as they would be in a 
competitive market, the CBSA may determine normal values using the selling price, or the total 
cost and prof it, of like goods sold by producers in a surrogate country, pursuant to 
paragraph  20(1)( c) of SIMA.   As mentioned previously, the CBSA did not receive any responses 
to the surrogate producer RFI.  As a result, normal values for producers and exporters of s ubject 
goods from China could not be determined pursuant to paragraph  20(1)( c) of SIMA.    
 
[131]  Where normal values cannot be determined as per the methodology under 
paragraph  20(1)( c), SIMA provides an alternative methodology to determine normal values 
under p aragraph  20(1)( d), using re -sales in Canada of like goods imported from a third country.  
The CBSA determined that this provision could also not be used given that the importers did not 
provide sufficient re -sale information, in addition to the lack of inf ormation from producers in 
surrogate countries.  
 
                                                 
 
30 Preliminary Determination Statement of Reasons for Concrete Reinf orcing Bar ; September 26, 2014.  
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   21 [132]  Accordingly, given the absence of information, the CBSA , pursuant to section 29 of 
SIMA,  has used an alternative method to determine normal values using a surrogate country 
methodology based on information f rom exporters  in the Republic of Korea and Turkey who had 
shipped subject goods to Canada during the period of investigation , and had provided complete 
information  in response to the RFI . 
 
Shandong Shiheng Special Steel Group Co., Ltd.  (Shiheng  Special Steel)  
 
[133]  Shiheng Special Steel is an exporter of subject goods from China during the POI.  
 
[134]  Shiheng Special Steel  is located in Feicheng City, Shandong Province, China.  Their 
responses to the dumping RFI and section 20 RFI were considered to be com plete.   Shiheng 
Special Steel also submitted comments to the CBSA regarding the Statement of Reasons  issued 
for the preliminary determination of this investigation.31 
 
[135]  As the conditions described in paragraph 20(1)( a) of SIMA apply , normal values for 
Shiheng Special Steel were determined using the surrogate country methodology mentioned 
above , pursuant to section 29 of SIMA , based on the average of the normal values from the 
producers in the Republic of Korea and Turkey that provided complete responses  to the RFI.  
 
[136]  For subject goods exported from Shiheng Special Steel  to Canada 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 export ation of the goods.  
 
[137]  The total normal value compared with the total export price results in a margin of 
dumping of 17.1% for Shiheng Special Steel . 
 
All Other Exporters – Margin of Dumping  
 
[138]  For all other exporters, the normal values and related margins of dumping were 
determined pursuant to section 29 of SIMA, based on  the highest amount by which a normal 
value exceeded an export price ( 41%), on an individual  transaction during the POI as det ermined  
for an exporter with a complete submission.  Export prices were obtained through CBSA import 
documentation for the subject goods imported into Canada during the dumping POI.  
 
[139]  As such, normal values for all  other exporters were determined  by advanci ng the total 
export price of the goods by 41%, pursuant to section 29 of SIMA . 
 
                                                 
 
31 Dumping Exhibit 143 (NC) – Comments from Shiheng Special Steel, October 23, 2014   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   22 Summary of Results – Dumping  
 
[140]  The following table summarizes the results of the dumping investigation by country, 
respecting all subject goods released into Canada during the P OI. 
 
Margin s of Dumping and Volume of Dumped Goods  
(January 1, 2013  to March 31, 201 4) 
Country  Volume of 
Dumped Goods 
as Percentage 
of Country 
Imports  Margin of 
Dumping * Volume of 
Country 
Imports as 
Percentage of 
Total Imports  Volume of 
Dumped Goods 
as Percentage 
of Total 
Imports  
China  100%  26.6% 11.5%  11.5%  
Republic of Korea  100%  25.1% 8.9%  8.9%  
Turkey  100%  6.5% 18.3%  18.3%  
* as a percentage of export price  
 
[141]  Under paragraph 41(1)( a) of SIMA, the President shall make a final determination of 
dumping when he is satisfied that the goods have been dumped and that the margin of dumping 
of the goods of a country is not insignificant.  Pursuant to subsection 2(1) of SIMA, a margin of 
dumping of less than 2% of the export price of the goods is defined as ins ignificant.  The 
margin s of dumping of concrete reinforcing bar from the above countries  are not less than 2% of 
the export price of the goods and are, therefore, not insignificant.  
 
[142]  For purposes of a preliminary determination of dumping, the President is responsible for 
determining whether the actual and potential volume of dumped goods is negligible.  After a 
preliminary determination of dumping, the Tribunal assumes this responsibility.  In accordance 
with subsection 42(4.1) of SIMA, if the Tribunal dete rmines the volume of dumped goods from a 
country is negligible, the Tribunal is required to terminate its injury inquiry in respect of those 
goods.  
 
SUBSIDY  INVESTIGATION  
 
[143]  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 res pect 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 WTO Agreement that confers a benefit.  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   23 [144]  Pursuant to subsection 2(1.6) of SIMA, there is a f inancial contribution by a government 
of a country other than Canada where:  
 
(a) practices of the government involve the direct transfer of funds or liabilities or the 
contingent transfer of funds or liabilities;  
(b) amounts that would otherwise be owing a nd due to the government are exempted or 
deducted or amounts that are owing and due to the government are forgiven or not 
collected;  
(c) the government provides goods or services, other than general governmental 
infrastructure, or purchases goods; or  
(d) 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 th e thing does not differ in a meaningful way from the manner in wh ich 
the government would do it.  
 
[145]  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 co nsidered 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.  
 
[146]  The following terms are defined in section 2 of SIMA.  A “prohibited subsidy” is either 
an export subsidy or a subsidy or portion of 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.  
 
[147]  Notwithstanding that a subsid y is not specific in law, under subsection 2(7.3) of SIMA a 
subsidy may also be considered specific having regard as to whether:  
 
(a) there is exclusive use of the subsidy by a limited number of enterprises;  
(b) there is predominant use of the subsidy by a  particular enterprise;  
(c) disproportionately large amounts of the subsidy are granted to a limited number of 
enterprises; and/or  
(d) the manner in which discretion is exercised by the granting authority indicates that 
the subsidy is not generally availab le. 
 
[148]  For purposes of a subsidy 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, p rocessing, purchase, distribution, 
transportation, sale, export or import of goods under investigation have benefited from the 
subsidy.  
 
 
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   24 [149]  Finan cial contributions provided by state -owned e nterprises (SOEs) may also be 
considered to be provided by governmen t for purposes of this investigation.   An 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 foregoin g, 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.  
 
[150]  The following presents the results of the i nvestigation into the subsidizing of certain 
concrete reinforcing bar  originating in  or exported from China, the Republic of Korea  and 
Turkey . 
 
Results of the Subsidy Inve stigation  – China   
 
[151]  At the initiation of the subsidy investigation, the CBSA identified 179 potential subsidy 
programs in the following seven categories:  
 
I. Special Economic Zones (SEZ) and other Designated Areas Incentives;  
II. Preferential Loans and Loan Guarantees;  
III. Grants and Grant -equivalents;  
IV. Preferential Income Tax Programs;  
V. Relief from Duties and Taxes on Inputs, Materials and Machinery;  
VI. Goods/Services Provided by the Government at Less than Fair Market Value; and  
VII. Equity Programs.  
 
[152]  Details regarding t hese potential subsidies were provided in the Statement of Reasons  
issued for the initiation and preliminary determination of this investigation.  This document  is 
available through the CBSA Web site at the following address:  www.cbsa -asfc.gc.ca/sima -lmsi. 
 
[153]  A further review during the investigation resulted in two  additional programs  being 
identified.  
 
[154]  In total, 181 programs were investigated for purposes of this investigation.   Information 
concerning these programs is provided in Appendix 2 . 
 
[155]  In conducting its investigation, the CBSA sent a subsidy RFI to the GOC as well as to 
potential exporters of certain concrete reinforcing bar located in China that had been identified 
through CBSA import entry documentation.  Information was requested in order to establish 
whether there had been financial contributions made by any level of government including SOEs 
posse ssing, exercising or vested with government authority, and, if so, to establish if a benefit 
had been conferred on persons engaged in the production, manufacture, growth, processing, 
purchase, distribution, transportation, sale, export or import of concret e reinforcing bar; and 
whether any resulting subsidy was specific in nature.  The GOC was also requested to forward 
the RFIs to all subordinate levels of government that had jurisdiction over the exporters.   The 
exporters were directed to forward a portion  of the RFI to their input suppliers, who were asked 
to respond to questions pertaining to their legal characterization as SOEs.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   25 [156]  One response to the CBSA’s subsidy RFI was submitted by Shiheng Special Steel.   
 
[157]  The GOC did not submit a response to the subs idy RFI, and therefore, did not provide the 
required information relating to financial contribution, benefit and specificity. This significantly 
impeded the CBSA’s investigation as sufficient information has not been furnished to enable the 
determination o f the amount of subsidy in the prescribed manner.  
 
[158]  Due to a lack of government response, subsidy amounts for all exporters were determined 
pursuant to subsection 30.4(2) of SIMA, based on a ministerial specification.  However, in 
consideration of the fact that Shiheng Special Steel provided a complete resp onse to the subsidy 
RFI, an individual amount of subsidy was determined under the ministerial specification for this 
specific exporter based on the information provided in its submission.   
 
Shiheng Special Steel  
 
[159]  Shiheng Special Steel’s response to the CB SA’s subsidy RFI detailed individual amounts 
of subsidy associated with Shiheng Special Steel.  
  
Subsidy Programs Benefitting Shiheng Special Steel  
 
[160]  For purposes of the preliminary determination, the CBSA estimated an amount of subsidy 
equal to 0.6% of the  export price for Shiheng Special Steel, based on the financial benefits 
received from three programs:  
 
 Program 19: Debt Forgiveness  
 Program 46: Financial Subsidy  
 Program 162: Tax policies for the deduction of research and development expenses  
 
[161]  During the final phase of the investigation, the CBSA confirmed that Shiheng Special 
Steel received benefits from the GOC under one of the aforementioned programs  (Program 162)  
and four other programs.  As a result, the amount of subsidy for Shiheng Specia l Steel was based 
on the benefits received under the following five actionable subsidy programs:  
 
 Program 32: Assistance for Tech nology Innovation - R&D Project  
 Program 115: Subsidy  for the Technology Development  
 Program 180: Fund for Urban Public Utilities  
 Program 181: Grants under the Information T echnology programme of Feicheng  
 Program 162: Tax policies for the deduction of res earch and development expenses  
 
[162]  The total amount of subsidy for Shiheng Special Steel is equal to 13.0 Chinese Yuan 
Renminbi ( RMB ) per metric tonne  (MT) , or 0.4%, when expressed as a percentage of the export 
price.   
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   26 All Other Exporters - China  
 
[163]  For all other exporters that did not provide a response to the CBSA’s subsidy RFI, the 
amount of subsidy was determined pursu ant to subsection 30.4(2) of SIMA, based on a 
ministerial specification on the basis of : 
 
(i) the amount of subsidy for the five programs, as found at the final determination, 
for the sole exporter that provided a complete response to the RFI located in 
China,  plus;   
(ii) the average of the amount of subsidy for the five programs referenced in ( i), 
applied to each of the remaining 176  potentially actionable subsidy programs for 
which sufficient information is not available or has not been provided at the final 
determination.  
 
[164]  The subject goods exported to Canada by all other exporters during the POI were found 
to be subsidized by an amount equal to 469 RMB per MT, or 14.7%, when expressed as a 
percentage of the export price.   
 
[165]  Based on the preceding, 100% of certain concrete reinforcing bar originating in or 
exported from China was subsidized.  A summary of the amount of subsidy applicable to 
Shiheng Special Steel is provided in Appendix 1 while the overall amount of subsidy for China 
is provided in the table at the end of this section.  
 
Results of the Subsidy Investigation  – the Republic of Korea  
 
[166]  At the initiation of the subsidy investigation, the CBSA identified 30 potential subsidy 
programs .  Two additional programs were identified during the course of the investigation .  The 
programs are grouped  in the following seven categories:  
 
I. National Excellence in Steel Products Strategy;  
II. Government Owned Banks Providing Subsidies through Various Preferential Export -
Contingent Assistance;  
III. Subsidy Programs Administered  by the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation;  
IV. Targeted Tax Exemptions, Deductions, and Credits;  
V. Government of  Korea Subsidies to Dongbu Steel’s Plants in Asan Bay;  
VI. Other Preferential Loans and Financing Assistance;  and 
VII. Other Korean Subsidies.  
 
[167]  Details rega rding these potential subsidies were provided in the Statement of Reasons  
issued for the initiation and preliminary determination of this investigation.  This document  is 
available through the CBSA Web site at the following address:  www.cbsa -asfc.gc.ca/sima -lmsi. 
 
[168]  As a result of further review during the final phase of the investigation, three subsidy 
programs were determined to have not existed during the POI, and another program was  
determined to have been terminated prior to the POI.  Further review during the final phase of 
the investigation also resulted in two additional programs being identified.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   27 [169]  In total, 32 programs were investigated for purposes of this investigation.   
 
[170]  In conducting its investigation, the CB SA sent a subsidy RFI to the GOK  as well as to 
potential exporters of certain concrete reinforcing bar located in the Republic of Korea  that had 
been identified through CBSA import entry documentation.  Information was r equested in order 
to establish whether there had been financial contributions made by any level of government 
including SOEs possessing, exercising or vested with government authority, and, if so, to 
establish if a benefit had been conferred on persons engaged in the production, manufacture, 
growth, processing, purchase, distribution, transportation, sale, export or import of concrete 
reinforcing bar; and whether any resulting subsidy was specific in nature.  The GO K was also 
requested to forward the RFI s to all subordinate levels of government that had jurisdiction over 
the exporters.   The exporters were directed to forward a portion of the RFI to their input 
suppliers, who were asked to respond to questions pertaining to their legal characterization as 
SOEs.  
 
[171]  Response s to the CBSA’s subsidy RFI were  submitted by  three exporters: Hyundai Steel 
Company, Hyundai Corporation and GSG .   
 
[172]  A complete response to the government subsidy RFI was received from the GOK.  
 
[173]  In its response to the government subsidy RFI , the GOK provided general descriptions of 
the alleged subsidy programs identified by the CBSA and submitted copies of the relevant 
supporting laws, regulations and policies.   Two SRFIs were sent to the GOK to gather additional 
information and on October 2 0, 2014, the CBSA conducted on -site verification meetings with 
various government departments in Seoul, the Republic of Korea.  The GOK  provided the CBSA 
will all requested information.  
 
[174]  As a result of the GOK providing complete information to the CBSA, the amount of 
subsidy for the exporters that provided a complete response was determined pursuant to 
subsection 30.4(1) of SIMA.  
 
[175]  From the analysis of the available information, the CBSA has determined that one of the 
programs that conferred a benefit to a p roducer or exporter of rebar was determined to be 
actionable.  Information concerning all programs  used by exporters of subject goods  is provided 
in Appendix 2 . 
 
Hyundai Steel Company  
 
[176]  Hyundai Steel Company provided a response to the s ubsidy RFI that was considered to 
be complete.  Hyundai Steel Company was sent one SRFI to gather additional information.  
From October 21 to October 24, 2014, the CBSA conducted an on -site verification at the 
premises of Hyundai Steel  Company.  
 
[177]  Hyundai St eel Company ’s response to the CBSA’s subsidy RFI detailed individual 
amounts of subsidy associated with  Hyundai Steel Company . 
   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   28 Subsidy Programs Benefitting Hyundai Steel Company  
 
[178]  For purposes of the preliminary determination, the CBSA estimated an amount  of subsid y 
equal to 0.3 % of the export price for Hyundai Steel Company , based on the financial benefits 
received from the following five programs : 
 
 Program 14:  Research or Human Resource Dev elopment Expense Tax Deductions 
Under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act ( RSTA ) Article 10(1)(3)  
 Program 16:   Tax Credit for Investment in Energy -Saving Facilities Under RSTA  
Article  25-2 
 Program 22:  Targeted Facilities Subsidies through Korea Finance Corporation, Korea 
Development Bank and Industrial Bank of Kore a “New Growth Engine  Industry Fund”  
 Program 24  Subsidies to Korean Rebar producers located within Industrial Complexes  
 Program 31:  Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Program  
 
[179]  During the final phase of the investigation, the CBSA confirmed that Hyundai Steel 
Company received benefits from the GO K under all five programs  listed above and one 
additional program .  However, only one of these programs was determined to be actionable , 
which is further explained in Appendix 2 . As a result, the amount of  subsidy for Hyundai Steel 
Company was based on the benefits received under the following actionable subsidy program : 
 
 Program 32: Customs Duties Exempted.  
 
[180]  The total amount of subsidy for Hyundai Steel Company is equal to 100 Korean Won  
(KRW)  per MT, or 0.0%32, when expressed as a percentage of the export price.   
 
Hyundai Corporation  
 
[181]  Hyundai Corporation provided a response to the s ubsidy RFI that was considered to be 
complete.  Hyundai Corporation was sent one SRFI to gather additional information.  
 
[182]  Hyundai Corporation ’s response to the CBSA’s subsidy RFI detailed individual amounts 
of subsidy associated with  Hyundai Corporation . 
 
Subsidy Programs Benefitting Hyundai Corporation  
 
[183]  For the purposes of the preliminary determination, the CBSA did not have  sufficient 
information on the record to determine a company -specific amount of subsidy.  Therefore , the 
amount of subsidy for Hyundai Corporation was equal to  3.8% of the export price, the same as 
the All Other E xporter s’ amount of subsidy.  
 
                                                 
 
32 The amount of subsidy for Hyundai Steel Company is 0.02%, but has been rounded to  one decimal point.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   29 [184]  During the f inal phase of the investigation, the CBSA confirmed that Hyundai 
Corporation did not benefit from the programs being investigated, or that the programs from 
which they benefited were not specific.  However, since Hyundai Corporation exclusively 
shipped sub ject goods manufactured by Hyundai Steel  Company , and that the two companies 
were considered  to be at arm’s length, a pass -through analysis was conducted  using Hyundai 
Steel Company’s sale prices to other customers,  to determine whether any of the upstream  
subsidies provided to Hyundai Steel flowed through to Hyundai Corporation.  Through this 
analysis, the CBSA concluded that the entire amount of subsidy was passed through to Hyundai 
Corporation.  
 
[185]  Therefore, the total amount of subsidy attributable to the  goods exported by Hyundai 
Corporation is equal to 100 KRW per MT, or 0.0%33, when expressed as a percentage of the 
export price.  
 
G.S. Global  
 
[186]  GSG provided a response to the s ubsidy RFI that was considered to be complete.  GSG 
was sent one SRFI to gather additional information.  
 
[187]  GSG ’s response to the CBSA’s subsidy RFI detailed individual amounts of subsidy 
associated with  GSG . 
 
Subsidy Programs Benefitting GSG  
 
[188]  For the purposes of the preliminary determination, the CBSA did not have sufficient 
information  on the record to determine a company -specific amount of subsidy.  Therefore , the 
amount of subsidy for GSG  was equal to  3.8% of the ex port price, the same as the All Other 
Exporter s’ amount of subsidy . 
 
[189]  During the final phase of the investigation, the CBS A confirmed that GSG did not benefit 
from the programs being investigated, or that the programs from which they benefited were not 
specific.  However, since GSG  exclusively shipped subject goods manufactured by Hyundai 
Steel, and that the two companies wer e considered  to be at arm’s length, a pass -through analysis 
was conducted using Hyundai Steel Company’s sale prices to other customers,  to determine 
whether any of the upstream subsidies provided to Hyundai Steel flowed through to GSG .  
Through this analys is, the CBSA concluded that the entire amount of subsidy was passed 
through to GSG .  
 
[190]  Therefore, the total amount of subsidy attributable to the goods exported by GSG  is equal 
to 100 KRW per MT, or 0.0%34, when expressed as a percentage of the export price.  
 
                                                 
 
33 The amount of subsidy for Hyundai C orporation is 0.02%, but has been rounded to one decimal point.  
34 The amount of subsidy for GSG  is 0.02%, but has been rounded to  one decimal point.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   30 All Other Exporters – the Republic of Korea  
 
[191]  The CBSA determined that there were no other exporters of subject goods during the 
Period of Investigation located in the Republic of Korea. Therefore , the CBSA did not determine 
an All Other Exporter s’ amount  of subsidy.  
 
Results of the Subsidy Investigation  – Turkey  
 
[192]  At the initiation of the subsidy investigation, the CBSA identified 43 potential subsidy 
programs .  Six of these subsidy programs were removed at the preliminary determination  
because the CBSA was satisfied, from the information available , that  those program s were not in 
effect during the POI .  The remaining 37 programs are grouped  in the following s ix categories:  
 
I. Investment Encouragement Program (IEP);  
II. Turk Eximbank Programs;  
III. Regional -based, Organized Industrial Zone (OIZ), and Free Zone Programs;  
IV. Goods/Services provided by the Government of Turkey (GOT) at Less Than Fair Market 
Value;  
V. Research and Development Programs; and  
VI. Other Programs.  
 
[193]  Details regarding these potential su bsidies were provided in the Statement of Reasons  
issued for the initiation and preliminary determination of this investigation.  This document  is 
available through the CBSA Web site at the following address:  www.cbsa -asfc.gc.ca/sima -lmsi. 
 
[194]  In conducting its investigation, the CB SA sent a subsidy RFI to the GOT  as well as to 
potential exporters of certain concrete reinforcing bar located in Turkey that had been identified 
through CBSA import entry documentation.  Information was requested in order to establish 
whether there had been financial contributions made by any level of government including SOEs 
possessing, exercising or vested with governmen t authority, and, if so, to establish if a benefit 
had been conferred on persons engaged in the production, manufacture, growth, processing, 
purchase, distribution, transportation, sale, export or import of concrete reinforcing bar; and 
whether any resulti ng subsidy was specific in nature.  The GO T was also requested to forward 
the RFIs to all subordinate levels of government that had jurisdiction over the exporters.   The 
exporters were directed to forward a portion of the RFI to their input suppliers, who were asked 
to respond to questions pertaining to their legal characterization as SOEs.  
 
[195]  Response s to the CBSA’s subsidy RFI were  submitted by  two exporters: Habas and 
Habas Petrol .   
 
[196]  A complete response to the subsi dy RFI was received from the GOT . 
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   31 [197]  In its response to the subsidy RFI, the GOT  provided general descriptions of the alleged 
subsidy programs identified by the CBSA and submitted copies of the relevant supporting laws, 
regulations and policies.   Three SRFIs were sent to the GOT  to gather add itional information and 
on October 20 and October 21, 2014, the CBSA conducted on -site verification meetings with 
various government departments in Ankara, Turkey.  The GOT provided the CBSA will all 
requested information.  
 
[198]  As a result of the GOT  providing  complete information to the CBSA, the amount of 
subsidy for the exporters that provided a complete response was determined pursuant to 
subsection 30.4(1) of SIMA.  
 
[199]  From the analysis of the available information, the CBSA has determined that one of the 
programs that conferred a benefit to a p roducer or exporter of rebar was determined to be 
actionable.  Information concerning all programs  used by exporters of subject goods  is provided 
in Appendix 2 . 
 
Habas Sınai ve Tıbbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S.  (Habas)  
 
[200]  Habas provided a response to the s ubsidy RFI that was considered to be substantially 
complete.  Habas was sent two SRFIs to gather additional information.  From October 13 to 
October 17, 2014, the CBSA conducted on -site verification at the premises  of Habas . 
 
[201]  Habas ’ response to the CBSA’s subsidy RFI detailed individual amounts of subsidy 
associated with  Habas . 
  
Subsidy Programs Benefitting Habas  
 
[202]  For purposes of the preliminary determination, the CBSA estimated an amount of subsid y 
equal to 2.5 % of the export price for Habas , based on the financial benefits received from the 
following four programs : 
 
 Program 37 : Provision of natural gas at less than fair market value  
 Program 39: Research and Development – Tax breaks and other assistance  
 Program 41: Social Security Grant Program  
 Program 42: Deduction from taxable income for export revenue  
 
[203]  During the final phase of the investigation, the CBSA confirmed that Habas  received 
benefits from the GOT under  six programs.  However, only one of these programs was 
determined to be actionable , which is further explained in Appendix 2 . As a result, the amount 
of subsidy for Habas was based on the benefits received under the following actionable subsidy 
program : 
 
 Prog ram 42: Deduction from taxable income for export revenue   
 
[204]  The total amount of subsidy for Habas  is equal to 1.36 Turkish Lira (TL) per MT, or 
0.1%, when expressed as a percentage of the export price.   
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   32 Habas Petrol Urunleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Habas Petrol)  
 
[205]  Habas Petrol, an associated company of Habas, provided a late response to the subsidy 
RFI on October 27 , 2014, the day of the close of record.  
 
[206]  The late response received was reviewed and determined to be incomplete.  As a result of 
receiving the  RFI submission late in the investigation , the CBSA was unable to  send SRFIs or 
verify the submitted information.   
 
[207]  Therefore, the amount of subsidy  for Habas Petrol was determined pursuant to subsection 
30.4(2) of SIMA  based on the All Other Exporters ’ methodology described below . 
 
All Other Exporters - Turkey  
 
[208]  For all other exporters that did not provide a  complete  response to the CBSA’s subsidy 
RFI, the amount of subsidy was determined pursuant to subsection 30.4(2) of SIMA, based on a 
ministerial speci fication on the basis of : 
 
(i) the amount of subsidy for the one program , as found at the final determination, 
for the sole exporter that provided a complete response to the RFI located in 
Turkey , plus;   
(ii) the amount of subsidy for the program  referenced in ( i), appl ied to the remaining 
two potentially actionable subsidy programs for which sufficient information is 
not available or has not been provided at the final determination.  
 
[209]  The subject goods exported to Canada by all other exporters during the POI were found 
to be subsidized by an amount equal to 4.08 TL  per MT, or 0.1%, when expressed as a 
percentage of the export price.   
 
[210]  Based on the preceding, 100% of certain concrete reinforcing bar originating in or 
exported from Turkey was subsidized.  A summary of the amount of subsidy applicable to Habas 
and Habas Petrol is provided in Appendix 1 while the overall amount of subsidy for Turkey  is 
provided in the table at the end of this section.  
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   33 Summary of Results – Subsidy  
 
[211]  The following table summarizes the results of the subsidy investigation respecting all 
subject goods released into Canada during the POI.  
 
Amount of Subsidy and Volume of Subsidized Goods  
(January 1, 201 3 to March 31 , 201 4) 
Country  Volume of  
Subsidized  
Goods as 
Percentage of  
Country Imports  Amount 
of 
Subsidy*  Volume of 
Country 
Imports as 
Percentage of 
Total Imports  Volume of  
Subsidized 
Goods as 
Percentage of  
Total Imports  
China  100%  6.1% 11.5%  11.5%  
Republic of Korea  100%  0.0%** 8.9%  8.9%  
Turkey  100%  0.1% 18.3%  18.3%  
* expressed as a percentage of export price . 
** the amount of subsidy for the Republic of Korea is 0.02% but has been rounded to one decimal point.  
 
[212]  In making a final determination of subsidizing under paragraph 41(1)( a) of SIMA, the 
President must be satisfied that the subject goods have been subsidized and that the amount of 
subsidy on the goods of a country is not insignificant.  According to subsection 2(1) of SIMA, an 
amount of subsidy that is less than 1% of the export price of the good s is considered 
insignific ant. 
 
[213]  However, according to section 41.2 of SIMA, the President is required to take into 
account Article 27.10 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  when 
conducting a subsidy investigation.  This provision stipulates that a countervailing duty 
investigation involving a product from a developing country should be terminated as soon as the 
authorities determine that the overall level of subsidies grante d upon the product in question does 
not exceed 2% of its value c alculated on a per unit basis.  
 
[214]  SIMA does not define or provide any guidance regarding the determination of a 
“developing country” for purposes of Article 27.10 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidi es and 
Countervailing Measures .  As an administrative alternative, the CBSA refers to the Development 
Assistance Committee  List of Official Development Assistance  Recipients (DAC List of ODA 
Recipients) for guidance.35  As China and Turkey are included in t he listing, the CBSA has 
extend ed developing country status to China and Turkey for purposes of this investigation . 
 
[215]  The amount of subsidy of certain concrete reinforcing bar originating in or exported from 
China is above 2% and is, therefore, not insignif icant.  The amount of subsidy of certain concrete 
reinforcing bar originating in or exported from the Republic of Korea is below 1% and is, 
therefore, insignificant.  The amount of subsidy of certain concrete reinforcing bar originating in 
or exported from  Turkey is below 2% and is, therefore also insignificant.   
                                                 
 
35 The Organization for Economic Co -operation and Development, DAC List of ODA Recipients from 2011 to 
2013,  the document is available at: 
www.oecd.org/dac/stats/DAC%20List%20used%20for%202012%20and%202013%20flows.pdf   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   34 [216]  For purposes of the preliminary determination of subsidizing, the President has 
responsibility for determining whether the actual or potential volume of subsidized goods is 
negligible.  After a pr eliminary determination of subsidizing, the Tribunal assumes this 
responsibility.  In accordance with subsection 42(4.1) of SIMA, the Tribunal is required to 
terminate its inquiry in respect of any goods if the Tribunal determines that the volume of 
subsid ized goods from a country is negligible.  
 
REPRESENTATIONS CONC ERNING THE DUMPING A ND SUBSIDY 
INVESTIGATION S 
 
[217]  Following the close of the record on October 27 , 201 4, case  brief s with respect to the 
dumping and subsidy investigations were received from counsel representing the C omplainant s, 
one exporter in the Republic of Korea, one exporter in Turkey and the GOT .  Reply submissions 
were filed on behalf of the C omplainant s, one exporter in the Republic of Korea, one exporter in 
Turkey and the GOT . 
 
[218]  The i ssues raised by participants through the case brief s and reply submissions  as well as 
the CBSA’s response to these issues are provided in Appendix 3 . 
 
DECISIONS  
 
[219]  On the basis of the results of the dumping investigation, the President is satisfied that 
certain concrete reinforcing bar  originating in or exported from  China, the Republic of Korea and 
Turkey has been dumped and that the margin s of dumping are not insignificant.  Consequently, 
on December 10 , 201 4, the President made a final determination of  dumping pursuant to 
paragraph 41(l)( a) of SIMA.  
 
[220]  On the basis of the results of the subsidy investigation, the President is satisfied that 
certain concrete reinforcing bar originating in or exported from China has been subsidized and 
that the amount of su bsidy is not insignificant.  As a result, on December 10, 2014 , the President 
made a final determination of subsidizing pursuant to paragraph 41(1)( a) of SIMA.  
 
[221]  On the basis of the results of the subsidy investigation, the President is satisfied that 
certa in concrete reinforcing bar originating in or exported from the Republic of Korea and 
Turkey  has been subsidized but that the amount of subsidy is insignificant.   As a result, on 
December 10, 2014 the President terminated the subsidy investigation regardin g certain concrete 
reinforcing bar originating in or exported from the Republic of Korea and Turkey pursuant to 
paragraph 41(1)( b) of SIMA.  
 
[222]  Appendix 1  contains a summary of the margins of dumping and amounts of subsidy 
relating to the final determinations.  
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   35 FUTURE ACTION  
 
[223]  The provisional period began on September 11 , 201 4, and will end on the date the 
Tribunal issues its finding.  The Tribunal is expect ed to issue its decision by  January 9, 2015 .  
Provisional duties will continue to apply until this date on imports of subject goods from China, 
the Republic of Korea and Turkey .  However, the provisional duties related to the subsidization 
of goods origina ting in or exported from the Republic of Korea and Turkey will no longer apply, 
and such provisional duty paid or security posted will be returned .  For further details on the 
application of provisional duties, refer to the Statement of Reasons  issued for the preliminary 
determinations, which is available on the CBSA ’s Web site at www.cbsa -asfc.gc.ca/sima -lmsi. 
 
[224]  If the Tribunal finds that the dumped and subsidized goods have not caused injury and do 
not threaten to cause injury, all proceedings relating to these investigations will be terminated.  
In this situation, all provisional duties paid or security posted by importers will be returned.  
 
[225]  If the Tribunal finds that the dumped and subsidized goods have  caused injury, the 
anti-dumping and/or countervailing duties payable on subject goods released by the CBSA 
during the provisional period will be finalized pursuant to section 55 of SIMA.  Imports released 
by the CBSA after the date of the Tribunal ’s findi ng will be subject to anti -dumping duty equal 
to the margin of dumping and countervailing duty equal to the amount of subsidy.  
 
[226]  The importer in Canada shall pay all applicable duties.  If the importers of such goods do 
not indicate the required SIMA code or do not correctly describe the goods in the customs 
documents, an administrative monetary penalty could be imposed.  The provis ions of the 
Customs  Act36 apply with respect to the payment, collection or refund of any duty collected 
under SIMA.  As a result, failure to pay duty within the prescribed time will result in the 
application of interest.  
 
[227]  In the event of an injury finding b y the Tribunal, normal values and amounts of subsidy 
have been provided to the exporters which provided complete submissions for future shipments 
to Canada and these normal values and amounts of subsidy would come into effect the day after 
an injury findin g.  Information regarding normal values of the subject goods should be obtained 
from the exporter.  
 
[228]  Exporters of subject goods who did not provide sufficient information in the dumping 
investigation will have normal values established by advancing the expo rt price by 41% based on 
a ministerial specification pursuant to subsection 29 (1) of SIMA.  Anti -dumping duty will apply 
based on the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price of the subject goods.  
Similarly, exporters of subject goods from China who did not provide sufficient information in 
the subsidy investigation will be subject to a countervailing duty amount of 469 RMB per  MT, 
based on a ministerial specification pursuant to subsection 30.4(2) of SIMA.  
 
                                                 
 
36 Customs Act  R.S.C. 1985   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   36 RETROACTIVE DUTY ON MASSIVE IMP ORTATIONS  
 
[229]  Under certain circumstances, anti -dumping and/or countervailing duties can be imposed 
retroactively on subject goods imported into Canada.  When the Tribunal conducts its inquiry on 
material injury to the Canadian industry, it may consider if du mped and/or subsidized goods that 
were imported close to or after the initiation of the investigation s constitute massive importations 
over a relatively short period of time and have caused injury to the Canadian industry.  Should 
the Tribunal issue a find ing that there were recent massive importations of dumped and/or 
subsidized goods that caused injury, imports of subject goo ds released by the CBSA in the 
90 days preceding the day of the preliminary determination could be subject to anti -dumping 
and/or co untervailing duty.  
 
[230]  In respect of importations of subsidized goods that have caused injury, this provision is 
only applicable where the CBSA has determined that the whole or any part of the subsidy on the 
goods is a prohibited subsidy.  In such a case, the  amount of countervailing duty applied on a 
retroactive basis will equal the amount of subsidy on the goods that is a prohibited subsidy.  An 
export subsidy is a prohibited subsidy according to subsection 2(1) of SIMA.  
 
PUBLICATION  
 
[231]  A notice of these final determinations of dumping and subsidizing will be published in 
the Canada Gazette  pursuant to paragraph 41(3)( a) of SIMA.  A notice of the termination of the 
investigation in respect of the Republic of Korea and Turkey will be publis hed in the 
Canada  Gazette  pursuant to paragraph 41(4)( a) of SIMA.  
 
  INFORMATION 
[232] This Statement of Reasons has been provided to persons directly interested in these 
proceedings. It is also posted on the CBSA's Web site at the address below. For further 
information, please contact the officers identified as follows: 
Mail: 
Telephone: 
Fax: 
E-mail: 
Web site: 
Attachments SIMA Registry and Disclosure Unit 
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate 
Canada Border Services Agency 
100 Metcalfe Street, 11 th floor 
Ottawa, Ontario KIA OL8 
Canada 
Dean Pollard 
Robert Wright 
613-948-4844 613-954-7410 
613-954-1643 
simaregistrv@cbsa-asfc. gc.ca 
www.cbsa-asfc. gc.calsima-Imsi 
~t/tv~ 
Brent McRoberts 
Director General 
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate 
1. Appendix 1 -Summary of Margins of Dumping and Amounts of Subsidy 
2. Appendix 2 -Summary of Findings for Named Subsidy Programs 
3. Appendix 3 -Dumping and Subsidy Representations 
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate 37  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   38 APPENDIX  1 – SUMMARY OF MARGINS OF  DUMPING AND  
AMOUNTS OF SUBSIDY  
 
Exporter  Margin of 
Dumping*  Amount of  
Subsidy * Amount of 
Subsidy  
China     
Shiheng Special Steel  17.1% 0.4%    13 RMB/MT  
All Other Exporters  41.0%  14.7%   469 RMB/MT  
Republic of Korea     
Hyundai Steel  13.3%    N/A    N/A 
Hyundai Corporation  41.0%    N/A    N/A 
GSG  41.0%    N/A    N/A 
All Other Exporters  41.0%     N/A    N/A 
Turkey     
Habas Sinai    3.8%    N/A    N/A 
Habas Petrol  41.0%    N/A    N/A 
All Other Exporters  41.0%    N/A    N/A 
* expressed a s a percentage  of the export price.  
 
NOTE: The margins of dumping reported in this  table are the margins determined by the CBSA 
for purposes of the final determination of dumping. These margins do not reflect the amount of 
anti-dumping duty to be levied on future importations of dumped goods.  In the event of an injury 
finding by the Tri bunal, normal values and amounts of subsidy for future shipments to Canada 
have been provided to the exporters that provided complete responses to the CBSA RFI . These 
normal values and amounts of subsidy would come into effect the day after an injury findi ng. 
Information regarding normal values of the subject goods and amounts of subsidy should be 
obtained from the exporter s. Imports from exporters that did not provide complete information to 
the CBSA during the dumping investigation will be subject to an anti-dumping duty rate of 41%, 
expressed as a percentage of the export price, in accordance with  a ministerial specification. 
Imports from exporters located in China that did not provide complete information to the CBSA 
during the subsidy investigation will  also be subject to a countervailing duty rate of 469 RMB 
per MT, in accordance with a ministerial specification. Please consult  the SIMA Self -Assessment 
Guide  for more detailed inform ation explaining how to determine the amount of SIMA duties 
owing.  
   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   39 APPENDIX  2 – SUMMARY  OF FINDINGS  FOR  NAMED  SUBSIDY  PROGRAMS  
 
China  
 
As noted in the body of this document, the GOC did not submit a response to the subsidy RFI,  
and therefore did not provide the required information relating to the financial contribution, 
benefit and specificity.  This significantly impeded the CBSA’s investigation as all information 
has not been furnished to enable the determination of the amoun t of subsidy in the prescribed 
manner.  Due to this lack of information, subsidy amounts for all exporters have been determined 
under a ministerial specification pursuant to subsection 30.4(2) of SIMA based on the best 
information available to the CBSA.  I n consideration of the level of coopera tion received from 
the exporter  that provided complete response  to the subsidy RFI, an individual amount  of 
subsidy ha s been determined for th is exporter using information provided in the exporter’s 
submission . 
 
Subsi dy Progr ams Used by Responding Exporter  
 
The CBSA has used the best information available to describe the potentially actionable subsidy 
programs used by the responding exporter  in the investigation.  This includes using information 
obtained from CBSA research on potential subsidy programs in China, information prov ided by 
the responding exporter  and descriptions of programs that the CBSA has previously publicly 
published in recent Statement of Reasons relating to subsidy investigations involving Chi na.  
Since  the GOC did not submit a response to the Subsidy RFI, the information available to 
identify the legal instruments pertaining to the programs is limited and such references may be 
inaccurate or incomplete.  
 
III. Grants and Grant -equivalents  
 
On the basis of the available information, the following programs under grants and grant -
equivalents constitute a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( a) of SIMA; i.e., a 
practice of government that involves a direct transfer of funds. These  grants confer a direct 
benefit to the recipient in the form of a grant and the benefit is equal to the amount of the grant 
provided.  
 
Due to the lack of a response by the GOC and the lack of details provided by the exporter, there 
is not sufficient infor mation on the record to determine whether the following grants and grant -
equivalents are specific pursuant to subsection 2(7.2) or subsection 2(7.3) of SIMA; nor is there 
sufficient information to indicate that the subsidy programs are not specific pursuan t to the 
criteria set out in subsection 2(7.1). On the basis of the available information this program does 
not appear to be generally available to all enterprises in China.  
 
The amount of subsidy respecting each of these programs was calculated under min isterial 
specification pursuant to subsection 30.4(2) of SIMA, by distributing the benefit amount 
received by the exporter over the total quantity of goods to which the benefit was attributable.  
 
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   40 Program 32:  Assistance for Technology Innovation - R&D Proj ect: 
 
During the POI, the  exporter who provided a complete response to the RFI received a grant 
(through its related raw material supplier) for the development of energy saving technology, 
increasing energy use efficiency, encouragement of technology innov ation, and reduction of 
pollutant emissions.  This program was administered by the Financial Bureau of Feicheng . 
 
Program 115: Subsidy for the Technology Development:  
 
During the POI, the exporter who provided a complete response to the RFI received a g rant 
under this program. This program was established in the document titled ‘Document of Feicheng 
Bureau of Finance F.C.Y.Z. [2013] No. 13, 50, 89, 119 - Notice on Disbursement of Science and 
Technology Development Fund for Bureau of Science and Technolog y’. This program was 
administered by the Science and Technology Bureau of Feicheng . 
 
Program 180: Fund for Urban Public Utilities:  
 
During the POI, the exporter who provided a complete response to the RFI received a grant for 
participation in social infrastructure construction.  This program was established in the document 
titled ‘T.C.Q.Z. [2013] No. 62’.  This program was administered by the Financial B ureau of 
Tai’an . 
 
Program 181:   Grants under the Information Technology Program of Feicheng:  
 
During the POI, the exporter who provided a complete response to the RFI received a grant for 
using information technology to develop production efficiency.  This program was administered 
by the Financial Bureau of Feicheng . 
 
IV. Preferential Income Tax Programs  
 
On the b asis of available information, the following program under Preferential Income Tax 
Programs constitute s a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, i.e., 
amounts that would otherwise be owing and due to the government are reduced and/ or exempted, 
and confer a benefit to the recipient equal to the amount of the reduction/exemption.  
  
Due to the lack of a response by the GOC and the lack of details provided by the exporter, there 
is not sufficient information on the record to determine w hether the following preferential 
income tax program is specific pursuant to subsection 2(7.2) or subsection 2(7.3) of SIMA; nor 
is there sufficient information to indicate that the subsidy programs are not specific pursuant to 
the criteria set out in subs ection 2(7.1). On the basis of the available information this program 
does not appear to be generally available to all enterprises in China.  
 
The amount of subsidy respecting this program  was calculated under ministerial specification 
pursuant to subsecti on 30.4(2) of SIMA, by distributing the benefit amount received by the 
exporter over the total quantity of goods to which the benefit was attributable.  
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   41 Program 162:  Tax policies for the deduction of research and development expenses:  
 
During the POI, the exporter who provided a complete response to the RFI received benefit 
under this program. This program was established in Article 30(1) of The Enterprise Income Tax 
Law and Article 95 of the Release of Regulations on the Implementation of Enterprise Incom e 
Tax Law of the People’s Republic of China by the State Council (Decree 512 of the State 
Council, 2007).  
 
Other Potential ly Actionable  Subsidy Programs  
 
The following 1 76 programs were also included in the current investigation.  Questions 
concerning these programs were included in the RFI sent to the GOC and to all known exporters 
of the goods in China .  The exporter  that provided a response  to the RFI reported not using these 
programs during the subsidy POI.  Without a complete response to the subsidy RFI from the 
GOC and all known exporters, the CBSA does not have sufficient information to determine that 
any of these programs do not constitute actionable subsidies.  In o ther words, the CBSA does not 
have sufficient information to determine that any of the following programs should be removed 
from the investigation for purposes of the final determination.  
 
I. Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and Other Designated Areas Incentives  
 
Program 1:  Award for Baotou Rare Earth High and New Technology Industrial Development 
Zone for Excellent Construction Projects  
Program 2:  Fuyang and Hangzhou City Government Grants for Enterprises Operating 
Technology and Research and Development Centers  
Program 3:  Science and Technology Fund - Tianjin Binhai New Area and the Tianjin 
Economic and Technological Development Area  
Program 4:  Corporate Income Tax Exemption and/or Reduction in SEZs and other Designated 
Areas  
Program 5:  Exemption/Reduction of Spec ial Land Tax and Land Use Fees in SEZs and Other 
Designated Areas  
Program 6:  Income Tax Refund where Profits Re -invested in SEZs and other Designated 
Areas  
Program 7:  Preferential Tax Policies for Enterprises with Foreign Investment (FIEs) 
Established in S pecial Economic Zones (excluding Shanghai Pudong Area)  
Program 8:  Preferential Tax Policies for FIEs Established in the Coastal Economic Open 
Areas and in the Economic and Technological Development Zones  
Program 9:  Tariff and Value -added Tax (VAT) Exemptio ns on Imported Materials and 
Equipment in SEZs and other Designated Areas  
Program 10:  Tax concessions for Central and Western regions  
Program 11:  Local Income Tax Exemption and/or Reduction in SEZs and other Designated 
Areas  
Program 12:  Preferential Costs of Services and/or Goods Provided by Government or State -
owned Enterprises (SOEs) in SEZs and Other Designated Areas  
Program 13:  VAT Exemptions for the Central Region  
 
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   42  
II. Preferential Loans and Loan Guarantees  
 
Program 14:  Loan from Local Finance Bureau  
Program 15:  Loans and Interest Subsidies provided under the Northeast Revitalization Program  
Program 16:  Policy Lending to Particular Industries  
Program 17:  Preferential Loans Characterized as a Lease Transaction  
Program 18: Preferential Loans for SOEs   
Program 19:  Debt Forgiveness  
 
III. Grants and Grant Equivalents  
 
Program 20:  Export Seller ’s Credit for High and New  Technology Products by China EMIX 
Bank  
Program 21:  Changzhou Qishuyan District Environmental Protection Fund (Jiangsu)  
Program 22:  Changzhou Technology Plan (Jiangsu)  
Program 23:  Enterprise Innovation Award of Qishuyan District (Jiangsu)  
Program 24:  Enterprise Technology Centers (e.g. Tianjin City and Jinnan District)  
Program 25:  Environment Protection Award (Jiangsu)  
Program 26:  Grant - Jiangsu Province Finance Supporting Fund  
Program 27:  "Large and Excellent" Enterprises Grant  
Program 28:  "Two New" Product Special Funds of Guangdong Province  
Program 29:  Advanced Science/Technology Enterprise Grant  
Program 30:  Allowance to Pay Loan Intere st (Zhongshan City, Guangdong)  
Program 31:  Assistance for Optimizing the Structure of Import/Export of High -Tech Products  
Program 33:  Award for Good Performance in Paying Taxes  
Program 34:  Awards for the Contributions to Local Economy and Industry Developm ent 
Program 35:  Awards to Enterprises Whose Products Qualify for "Well -Known Trademarks of 
China" or "Famous Brands of China"  
Program 36:  Business Bureau 2012 Market Monitoring System of Subsidies  
Program 37:  Business Development Overseas Support Fund (Fos han) 
Program 38:  Circular on Issuance of Management Methods for Foreign Trade Development 
Support Fund (Support Fund)  
Program 39:  Emission Reduction and Energy -saving Award  
Program 40:  Energy Saving Grant 2008  
Program 41:  Energy -saving Technology Renovatio n Fund  
Program 42:  Export Assistance Grant  
Program 43:  Export Brand Development Fund  
Program 44:  Export Credit Subsidy Programs: Export Buyer ’s Credits  
Program 45:  Export Grant 2006, 2007, 2008  
Program 46:  Financial Subsidy  
Program 47:  Five Points, One Li ne Strategy in Liaoning Province  
Program 48:  Foreign Trade Grant 2008  
Program 49:  Fund for SME Bank -Enterprise Cooperation Projects  
Program 50:  Funds for Outward Expansion of Industries in Guangdong Province  
Program 51:  Funds of Guangdong Province to Suppo rt the Adoption of E -Commerce by 
Foreign Trade Enterprises   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   43 Program 52:  Foreign Trade Development Fund Program - Grants  
Program 53:  Government Export Subsidy and Product Innovation Subsidy  
Program 54:  Government of Shijiazhuang City Export Award  
Program 55: Grant - Financial Subsidies from Wei Hai City GaoCun Town Government  
Program 56:  Grant - Large Taxpayer Award  
Program 57:  Grant - Patent Application Assistance  
Program 58:  Grant - Policy on Value -added Tax for Recyclable Resources  
Program 59:  Grant - Provincial Foreign Economy and Trade Development Special Fund  
Program 60:  Grant - Provisional Industry Promotion Special Fund  
Program 61:  Grant - Resources Conservation and Environment Protection Grant  
Program 62:  Grant - Special Fund for Fostering Stable G rowth of Foreign Trade in 2009  
Program 63:  Grant - State Service Industry Development Fund  
Program 64:  Grant - Water Pollution Control Special Fund for Taihu Lake  
Program 65:  Grant for key enterprises in equipment manufacturing industry of Zhongshan  
Progra m 66:  Grants for Encouraging the Establishment of Headquarters and Regional 
Headquarters with Foreign Investment  
Program 67:  Grants for International Certification  
Program 68:  Grants to Privately -Owned Export Enterprises  
Program 69:  Grants Under Regulation s for Export Product Research and Development Fund 
Management  
Program 70:  Grants under the Science and Technology programme of Hebei Province  
Program 71:  Grants under the Science and technology programme of Jiangsu Province  
Program 72:  Guangdong - Hong Kon g Technology Cooperation Funding Scheme  
Program 73:  Guangdong Supporting Fund  
Program 74:  Guaranteed Growth Fund  
Program 75:  Hangzhou City Government Grants Under the Hangzhou Excellent New 
Products/Technology Award  
Program 76:  Implementing Measures on the  Supporting Fund for Foreign Trade & Economic 
Development of Jiangxi Province (Implementing Measures)  
Program 77:  Important Structural Adjustment Program of Jiangsu Province  
Program 78:  Initial Public Offering (IPO) Grants from the Hangzhou Prefecture and the City of 
Fuyang  
Program 79:  Innovative Experimental Enterprise Grant  
Program 80:  Innovative Small and Medium -Sized Enterprise Grants  
Program 81:  Interim Measures of Fund Management of  Allowance for Zhongshan Enterprises 
to Attend Domestic and Overseas Fair (Zhongshan)  
Program 82:  International Market Fund for Small - and Medium -sized Export Companies) 
[Matching Funds for International Market Development for SMEs]  
Program 83:  Jiangxi Pro vincial Bulk Cement Special Fund: Transformation of Bulk Cement 
Facilities and Equipment  
Program 84:  Jiangxi Provincial Environmental Protection Special Fund  
Program 85:  Jiangxi Provincial Wall Material Renovation Special Fund: Special Subsidies for 
New Wa ll Materials  
Program 86:  Liaoning High -Tech Products & Equipment Export Interest Assistance  
Program 87:  Local and Provincial Government Reimbursement Grants on Export Credit 
Insurance Fees  
Program 88:  Miscellaneous Grants   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   44 Program 89:  Modern Service Grant  
Program 90:  Municipal Government - Exhibition Grant  
Program 91:  Municipal Government - Export Grant  
Program 92:  Municipal Government - Insurance Fee Grant  
Program 93:  National Environmental Protection and Resources Saving Program: Grants for the 
Optimizatio n of Energy Systems  
Program 94:  National Innovation Fund for Technology Based Firms  
Program 95:  Outstanding Growth Private Enterprise and Small and Medium -sized Enterprises 
Development in Jiangyin Fund  
Program 96:  Patent award in Guangdong province;  
Progra m 97:  Pension Fund Grants  
Program 98:  Product Quality Grant  
Program 99:  Provincial Fund for Fiscal and Technological Innovation  
Program 100:  Provincial Government - Equipment Grant  
Program 101:  Provincial Loan Discount Special Fund for SMEs  
Program 102:  Provincial Scientific Development Plan Fund  
Program 103:  Refund from Government for Participating in Trade Fair (Foshan)  
Program 104:  Reimbursement of Anti -dumping and/or Countervailing Legal Expenses by the 
Local Governments  
Program 105:  Reimbursement of Foreign Affairs Services Expenses (Foshan)  
Program 106:  Repaying Foreign Currency Loan by Returned VAT  
Program 107:  Research & Development (R&D) Assistance Grant  
Program 108:  Science and Technology Award  
Program 109:  Small and Medium -sized Enterprise Suppo rt Funds  
Program 110:  Special Fund for Significant Science and Technology in Guangdong Province  
Program 111:  Special Support Fund for Non -State -Owned Enterprises  
Program 112:  Special Supporting Fund for Commercialization of Technological Innovation and 
Research Findings  
Program 113:  State Special Fund for Promoting Key Industries and Innovation Technologies  
Program 114:  Subsidy for Promoting Energy -saving Buildings  
Program 116:  Superstar Enterprise Grant  
Program 117:  Support Funds for Construction of Projec t Infrastructure Provided by 
Administration Commission of LETDZ  
Program 118:  Supporting Fund for Non -refundable Export Tax Loss on Mechanical & Electrical 
Product and High -tech Product (Jiangmen City)  
Program 119:  Taxpayer Grant  
Program 120:  Technical Reno vation Loan Interest Discount Fund  
Program 121:  Technology Project Assistance  
Program 122:  Technology to Improve Trade R&D Fund  
Program 123:  The State key technology project fund  
Program 124:  Venture Investment Fund of Hi -Tech Industry  
Program 125:  Water C onservancy Fund Deduction  
Program 126:  Water Fund Refund/Exemption 2008  
Program 127:  Water Saving Enterprise  
Program 128:  Award for Excellent Enterprise  
Program 129:  Export Award  
Program 130:  Financial Assistance for an Overseas Market Survey   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   45 Program 131:  Foreign Trade Promotion Award  
Program 132:  Fund for Supporting Strategic Emerging Industries by Guangdong Governments  
Program 133:  Medium Size and Small Size Enterprises Development Special Fund  
Program 134:  Medium Size and Small Size Trading Enterprises Development Special Fund  
Program 135:  Reduction in Land Use Fees, Land Rental Rates, and Land Purchase Prices  
Program 136:  Special Supporting Fund for Key Projects of "500 Strong Enterprises in 
Contemporary Industries" by Guangdong Governments  
Program 137:  Stamp Tax Exemption on Share Transfers under Non -tradable Share Reform  
Program 138:  Supporting Fund for Becoming Publicly Listed Company  
Program 139:  Supporting Fund for the "Working Capital" Loan Interest  
Program 140:  Supporting Fund for the Development from Guangzhou Local Governments  
Program 141:  Foreign Trade Development Fund Program - VAT Refunds  
 
IV. Preferential Tax Programs  
 
Program 142:  Corporate Income Tax Reduction for New High -Technology Enterprises  
Program 143:  Deed Tax Exemptions For Land Transfe rred through Merger or Restructuring  
Program 144:  Income tax concessions for the enterprises engaged in the comprehensive resource 
utilisation ( ‘special raw materials ’) 
Program 145:  Income Tax Exemption for Investors in Designated Geographical Regions With in 
Liaoning  
Program 146:  Income Tax Refund for Re -investment of FIE Profits by Foreign Investors  
Program 147:  Local income tax exemption and reduction programmes for the productive FIEs  
Program 148:  Municipal Government - Preferential Tax Program  
Program 1 49: PGOG Tax Offset for R&D  
Program 150:  Preferential income tax policies for particular regions  
Program 151:  Preferential Tax Policies for Domestic Enterprises Purchasing Domestically 
Produced Equipment for Technology Upgrading Purpose  
Program 152:  Preferential Tax Policies for FIEs and Foreign Enterprises Which Have 
Establishments or Places in China and are Engaged in Production or Business 
Operations Purchasing Domestically Produced Equipment  
Program 153:  Preferential Tax Policies for FIEs which ar e Technology Intensive and 
Knowledge Intensive  
Program 154:  Preferential Tax Policies for Foreign Invested Export Enterprises  
Program 155:  Preferential Tax Policies for the Research and Development of FIEs  
Program 156:  Preferential Tax Policies in the West ern Regions  
Program 157:  Preferential Tax Programs for Encouraged Industries or Projects  
Program 158:  Accelerated Depreciation on Fixed Assets  
Program 159:  City maintenance and Construction Taxes and education surcharges for Foreign 
Invested Enterprises  
Program 160:  Various local tax discounts (Shandong Province, Chongqing City, Guangxi 
Region Zhuang, Tax privileges to develop central and western regions)  
Program 161:  VAT and Income Tax Exemption/Reduction for Enterprises Adopting Debt -to-
Equity Swaps  
Progr am 163:  Tax Preference Available to Companies that Operate at a Small Profit  
Program 164:  Two free, three half tax exemptions for the productive FIEs  
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   46 V. Relief from Duties and Taxes on Inputs, Materials and Machinery  
 
Program 165:  Exemption of Tariff and Imp ort VAT for the Imported Technologies and 
Equipment  
Program 166:  Relief from Duties and Taxes on Imported Material and Other Manufacturing 
Inputs  
Program 167:  VAT rebates on domestically produced equipment  
Program 168:  VAT refunds to FIEs purchasing domestically produced equipment  
Program 169:  VAT deduction on fixed assets in the Central region  
Program 170:  Income tax credit for the purchase of domestically manufactured production 
equipment  
Program 171:  Import tariff and VAT exemptions for FIEs and ce rtain domestic enterprises using 
imported equipment in encouraged industries  
 
VI. Goods/Services provided by the Government at Less Than Fair Market Value  
 
Program 172:  Acquisition of Government Assets at Less than Fair Market Value  
Program 173:  Export Restric tions on raw materials (e.g. Coke)  
Program 174:  Input Materials Provided by Government at Less than Fair Market Value  
Program 175:  Utilities Provided by Government at Less than Fair Market Value  
 
VII. Equity Programs  
 
Program 176:  Debt -to-Equity Swaps  
Program 1 77: Dividend exemption between qualified resident enterprises  
Program 178:  Equity Infusions  
Program 179:  Unpaid Dividends  
 
Republic of Korea  
 
As a result of the GOK providing complete information to the CBSA, as well as  exporters that 
provided complete responses to the subsidy RFI, individual amounts of subsidy have been 
determined pursuant to subsection 30.4(1) of SIMA , for those exporters where sufficient 
information had been furnished to enable the necessary calculati ons. 
 
Subsidy Programs Used by Exporters and Producers of Subject G oods  
 
The CBSA has used the best information available to describe the subsidy programs used by the 
exporters and producers of subject goods during the POI .  This includes using information  
provided by the GOK, information provided by the responding exporters and descriptions of 
programs provided by the Complainants.  
 
 
 
 
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   47 Program 9:  Korea Development Bank and Industrial Bank of Korea Short -Term Discounted 
Loans for Export Receivables : 
 
Durin g the POI, one  exporter  who provided a response to the RFI participated in this program.  
This program is administered by the  Korea Development Bank and the Industrial Bank of Korea, 
and provides short -term export loans on export receivables.  Based on the  evidence on the 
record, it was determined that this program was not applicable to the subject goods.  Therefore 
this program was not included for purposes of the final determination.  
 
Program 10: Short -Term Export Insurance : 
 
During the POI, one  or more  exporters  who provided a complete response to the RFI participated 
in this program.  This program is administered by the  Korea Trade Insurance Corporation (K -
SURE), and provides short -term export insurance to exporters.  Based on the evidence on the 
record , it was determined that K -SURE provides export insurance at market rates and competes 
with other non -government entities.  Therefore this program was not included for purposes of the 
final determination.  
 
Program 14: Research or Human Resource Development  Expense Tax Deductions Under RSTA 
Article 10(1)(3) : 
  
During the POI, one exporter  who provided a complete response to the RFI benefited from this 
program, which  constitute s a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, 
i.e., amounts t hat would otherwise be owing and due to the government are reduced and/or 
exempted, and confer a benefit to the recipient equal to the amount of the reduction/exemption.  
This program is administered by the National Tax Service , and is a tax credit to all w ho incur 
research and development expenses, as well as human resour ce development in the tax year.  It is 
not limited to any specific industry or geographical area  to which the subject goods can be 
attributed to .  Therefore, this program was determined to be not specific purs uant to           
section 2(7.1) of SIMA, and was not included for purposes of the final determination.  
 
Program 16: Tax Credit for Investment in Energy -Saving Facilities Under RSTA Article 25 -2: 
 
During the POI, one or more exporter s who provided a complete response to the RFI benefited 
from this program, which  constitute s a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of 
SIMA, i.e., amounts that would otherwise be owing and due to the government are reduced 
and/or exempted,  and confer a benefit to the recipient equal to the amount of the 
reduction/exemption.   This program  is administered by the National Tax Service , and is a tax 
credit to all who incur energy -saving expenses in the tax year.  It is not limited to any specifi c 
industry or geographical area  to which the subject goods can be attributed to .  Therefore, this 
program was determined to be not specific purs uant to section 2(7.1) of SIMA, and was not 
included for purposes of the final determination.  
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   48 Program 17: RSTA Article 26 : 
 
During the POI, one or more exporters who provided a complete response to the RFI benefited 
from this program, which  constitute s a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of 
SIMA, i.e., amounts that would otherwise be owing and due to the government are reduced 
and/or exempted, and confer a benefit to the recipient equal to the amount of the 
reduction/exemption.  This program  is administered by the National Tax Service , and is a tax 
credit to all who incur expenses related to the hiring of employees in the tax year.  It is not 
limited to any specific industry or geographical area  to which the subject goods can be attributed 
to.  Therefore, this program was determined to be not specific purs uant to section 2(7.1) of 
SIMA, and was not included for purposes of the final determination.  
 
Program 22: Targeted Facilities Subsidies through Korea Finance Corporation, Korea 
Development Bank and Industrial Bank of Korea “New Growth Engine Industry Fund” : 
 
During the POI, one exporter  who provided a complete response to the RFI participated in this 
program.  This program is administered by the KoFC, the KDB and the IBK, which provide 
loans to companies.  However, it was determined that the material terms of the loans were 
determined by  market forces, and were not preferential.  Therefore, this program was determined 
not to have provided a benefit to the exporters and producers of subject goods during the POI, 
and was not included for purposes of the final determination.  
 
Program 24: Sub sidies to Korean Rebar Producers Located within Industrial Complexes : 
 
During the POI, one or more exporters who provided a complete response to the RFI benefited 
from this program, which constitutes  a financial contributio n pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of 
SIMA, i.e., amounts that would otherwise be owing and due to the government are reduced 
and/or exempted, and confer a benefit to the recipient equal to the amount of the 
reduction/exemption.   This program is administered by the municipal governments  of the 
Industrial Complexe s, and is a property tax and land purchase tax exemption or reduction. 
However, all companies located within the Industrial Complexe s receive the same benefit.  
Therefore, this program was determined to be not specific purs uant to s ection 2(7.1) of SIMA, 
and was not included for purposes of the final determination.  
 
Program 28: Sale of Assets of Hanbo Steel to Hyundai Steel : 
 
One exporter who provided a complete response to the RFI purchased assets from Hanbo  Steel.  
In reviewing the submitted information by both the exporter and the GOK, it was determined that 
the sales of assets of Hanbo Steel was done through a public auction, were sold through a 
transparent bidding process, were sold to the highest bidders  at a price that was above the reserve 
price.  It was also determined that the assets purchased from Hanbo Steel were not used in the 
production of subject goods.  Therefore, this program was determined not to have provided a 
benefit to the exporters and p roducers of subject goods, and was not included for purposes of the 
final determination.  
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   49 Program 30: Provision of Electricity at Less Than Fair Market Value : 
 
During the POI, one or more exporters who provided a complete response to the RFI purchase d 
electricity from KEPCO.  However, based on the information provided by one or more exporters 
and by the GOK, it was determined that the electricity rates are not specific to an industry or 
geographical area, and even allow the customers to choose which plan su its their needs, as 
opposed to a fixed rate determined by KEPCO.  Therefore it was determined that this program 
was not specific pursuant to section 2(7.1) of SIMA , and was not included for purposes of the 
final determination.  
 
Program 31: Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Program : 
 
During the POI, one exporter who  provided a complete response to the RFI benefited from this 
program, which constitutes  a financial contributio n pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( a) of SIMA, 
i.e., practices of the gover nment involve the direct transfer of funds or liabilities or the 
contingent transfer of funds or liabilities, and confers a benefit to the recipient equal to the funds 
or liabilities transferred.  This program is administered by the Ministry of Trade, Indu stry and 
Energy, and provides financial assistance to companies undertaking approved projects.   The 
project for which the exporter received a benefit is not tied to the production o r sale o f the 
subject goods, and deals with research and development concerning a certain bi -product of the 
steel-making process.  D ue to the nature of the project, this amount is not  attribut able to the 
production or sale of the subject goods.  Therefore , this pro gram was not included for purposes 
of the final determination.  
 
Program 32: Exempted Customs Duties : 
 
During the POI, one exporter who  provided a complete response to the RFI benefited from  this 
program, which constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to paragrap h 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, 
i.e., amounts that would otherwise be owing and due to the government are reduced and/or 
exempted, and confer a benefit to the recipient equal to the amount of the reduction/exemption.  
This program is administered under the  Customs Act.  There are no programs that allow the 
customs duties to be exempted for importations of equipment, and the GOK confirmed that they 
are exempted based on a case by case basis.  For this reason, this program has been determined 
to be de facto s pecific pursuant to subsection 2(7.3) of SIMA, for the manner in which the 
granting authority exercises discretion.   
 
Exempted customs duties on equipment imported were apportioned over the average useful life 
of all equipment imported since 2003, and app ortioned to the 15 months of the POI, resulting in 
an amount of subsidy of 100 KRW per MT of production.  This resulted in an amount of subsidy 
of 100 KRW per MT of production.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   50 Turkey  
 
As a result of the GO T providing complete information to the CBSA, as well as  exporters that 
provided complete responses to the subsidy RFI, individual amounts of subsidy have been 
determined pursuant to subsection 30.4(1) of SIMA , for those exporters where sufficient 
informati on had been furnished to enable the necessary calculations.  
 
Subsidy Programs Used by Exporters and Producers of Subject G oods  
 
The CBSA has used the best information available to describe the potentially actionable subsidy 
programs used by the exporters and producers of subject goods during the POI .  This includes 
using information  provided by the GOT, information provided by the responding exporters and 
descriptions of programs provided by the Complainants.  
 
Program 12: Turk Eximbank  – Short -term pre -shipment rediscount program : 
 
During the POI, an exporter who did not provide a response to the RFI benefited from this 
program, which constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, 
i.e., amounts that would otherwise be owing and due to the government are reduced and/or 
exempted, and confer a benefit to the recipient equal to the amount of the reduction/exemption. 
This program is administered by the Export Credit Bank of Tu rkey, and is a loan provid ed to 
companies for expenses incurred preparing goods for export.   
 
SOEs may be considered to constitute “government” if they possess, exercise or are vested with 
government authority, which may be indicated by the following fact ors:  
 
 where a statute or other legal instrument expressly vests government authority in the entity 
concerned;  
 evidence that an entity is, in fact, exercising governmental functions; or  
 evidence that a government exercises meaningful control over an entity . 
 
The following factors are present which indicate that the GOT exercises meaningful control over 
the Export Credit Bank of Turkey : 
 
 Government appointment of directors or chief executives, and/or political influence over 
choice of appointees;  
 The compan y’s ability to transfer ownership rights is restricted or its equity is in some 
other way “locked -in”;  
 The government approves the entity’s business plans or otherwise exercises oversight 
over its functions. 37   
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
37 Subsidy Exhibit 98 (NC) – Response to SRFI#1 – Government of Turkey – Decree  Law Number 233.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   51  
Decree law number 3332 outlines the GOTs regulation of the  Export Credit Bank of Turkey . 38   
 
The Export Credit Bank of Turkey is an SOE that is granted or vested with authority by statute  
and is meaningfully controlled by the GOT.  Therefore, the Export Credit Bank of Turkey  can be 
consider ed government pursuant to subsection 2(1) of SIMA.   
 
This program is contingent upon export  which constitutes a prohibited subsidy .  Therefore, this 
program has been determined to be specific, pursuant to paragraph 2(7.2)( b) of SIMA.  This 
program was not included in the exporter’s amount of subsidy, but was included in the 
determination of the All O ther Exporters’  rate.   
 
Program 37:  Provision of natural gas at less than fair market value : 
 
During the POI, an exporter who provided a complete response to the RFI benefited from this 
program, which  constitute s a financial contributio n pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( c) of SIMA, i.e.,  
the government provides goods or services, other than general gov ernmental infrastructure, or 
purchases goods .  This program  is administered by BOTAS Petroleum Pipeline Corporation 
(BOTAS) , a natural gas provider owned by the GOT, which provides natural gas to companies in 
Turkey.  
 
SOEs may be considered to constitute “ government” if they possess, exercise or are vested with 
government authority, which may be indicated by the following factors:  
 
 where a statute or other legal instrument expressly vests government authority in the entity 
concerned;  
 evidence that an entit y is, in fact, exercising governmental functions; or  
 evidence that a government exercises meaningful control over an entity.  
 
The following factors are present which indicate that the GOT exercises meaningful control over 
BOTAS:  
 
 Government appointment of directors or chief executives, and/or political influence over 
choice of appointees;  
 The company’s ability to transfer ownership rights is restricted or its equity is in some 
other way “locked -in”;  
 The government approves the en tity’s business plans or otherwise exercises oversight 
over its functions.39  
 
Decree law number 4646 outlines the GOTs regulation of the natural gas market in Turkey and 
the business activity of BOTAS. 40   
 
                                                 
 
38 Subsidy Exhibit 61 (NC) – Response to the Subsidy RFI - Government of Turkey – Exhibit 13  
39 Subsidy Exhibit 98 (NC) – Response to SRFI#1 – Government of Turkey  – Decree Law Number 233.  
40 Subsidy Exhibit 61 (NC) – Response to the Subsidy RFI - Government of Turkey – Exhibit 56   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   52 The information provided in the GOT’s response to  an SRFI  indicates that BOTAS is granted or 
vested with authority by statute  and is meaningfully controlled by the GOT.  Therefore, BOTAS 
can be considered government pursuant to subsection 2(1) of SIMA.   
 
BOTAS supplied  77.5% of the natural gas do mestical ly consumed in Turkey in 2013.  No 
sectorial or regional sales information is kept by BOTAS.   
 
Any company which consumes at least 100,000 cubic meters (m3) of natural gas  annually can 
purchase from BOTAS.  BOTAS supplies to organized industrial zones ( OIZs ), distribution 
companies and companies  which produce power .  BOTAS does not deviate from the natural gas 
prices posted on its website.41  There are  three different pricing levels of natural gas offered by 
BOTAS:  companies that consume  less than  300,000  m3, companies that consume 300,000 m3 or 
more , and companies located in OIZs.     
 
The CBSA has determined that  this program is specific , pursuant to paragraph 2(7.2)( a) of 
SIMA, for companies that are located in OIZs  as they are offered a preferential rat e based on 
geographical location .  However, information on the record indicates that no  producers or 
exporters of subject goods in T urkey are located in an OIZ.  
 
For companies located outside of OIZs, t he CBSA is of the opinion that this program is broadly  
available and not limited to any specific industry or geographical area .  The 100,000 m3 
minimum annual purchase requirement is a threshold which only small companies would not 
meet.  Additionally , the prices are publicly listed and available to all custo mers.  Therefore, for 
companies located outside of OIZs, this program was determined to be not specific purs uant to 
section 2(7.1) of SIMA, and was not included for purposes of the Final Determination.   
 
Program 39:  Research and Development – Tax breaks and other assistance : 
 
During the POI, one or more exporters benefited from this program, which constitutes  a financial 
contributio n pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, i.e., amounts that would otherwise be 
owing and due to the government are reduced and/or exempted, and confer a benefit to the 
recipient equal to the amount of the reduction/exemption.   This program is administered by the 
Ministry of Finance and the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey  (Tubitak),  
and allows companies to deduct research and development expenses incurred for approved 
projects.  In order for a company to benefit  for the program,  the application must be approved by 
the Ministry of Finance  and Tubitak.  This program has been determined to be de facto  specific 
pursuant to subsection 2(7.3) of SIMA , for the manner in which the granting authority exercises 
discretion.  However , for the responding exporter that benefitted from this program,  this amount 
cannot be attributed to the production or sale of the sub ject goods , as the project relates to 
another line of business .  Therefore , this program was not included in the exporter’s amount of 
subsidy, but was included in the determination of the All O ther Exporter s’ rate. 
 
                                                 
 
41 Subsidy  Exhibit 202 (NC) – Government of Turkey Verification Exhibits   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   53 Program 41:  Social Security Grant Program : 
 
During the POI, one or more exporters benefited from this program, which constitutes  a financial 
contributio n pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, i.e., amounts that would otherwise be 
owing and due to the government are reduced and/or exempt ed, and confer a benefit to the 
recipient equal to the amount of the reduction/exemption.   This program is administered by the 
Social Security Institution, and is a reduction of social security premiums available to all 
companies in Turkey which pay within  a legislated timeframe.  Therefore, this program was 
determined to be not specific purs uant to section 2(7.1) of SIMA, and was not included for 
purposes of the Final Determination.    
 
Program 42:  Deduction from taxable income for export revenue : 
 
During the POI, one or more exporters benefited from this program, which constitutes  a financial 
contributio n pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)(b ) of SIMA, i.e., amounts that would otherwise be 
owing and due to the government are reduced and/or exempted, and co nfer a benefit to the 
recipient equal to the amount of the reduction/exemption.   This program is administered by the 
Ministry of Finance , and is a tax deduction based on export revenue .  This program is contingent 
upon export  which constitutes a prohibited  subsidy .  Therefore, this program has been 
determined to be specific, pursuant to paragraph 2(7.2)( b) of SIMA.   Therefore , this program 
was included in the exporter’s amount of subsidy and was included in the determination of the 
All Other Exporters’  rate. 
 
Program 43:  Inward processing certificate exemption : 
 
During the POI, one or more exporters benefited from this program,  which  allows 
manufacturers/exporters in Turkey to obtain raw materials and intermediate unfinished goods 
that are used in the production of the exported goods without paying customs duty including 
Value Added Tax and being subject to commercial policy measures.  
 
Sections 35 and 35.01 of SIMR  pertain to the determination of the amount of subsidy when the 
subsidy takes the form of an exemption or remission of duties and taxes in excess of that 
permitted under SIMA.  These provisions relate to the definition of “su bsidy” found in paragraph 
2(1)( a) of SIMA.  This provision provides that a subsidy does not include the amount of any duty 
or internal tax imposed on any goods by the government of the country of origin or export which 
is exempte d or relieved because the g oods have been exported.   
 
A benefit for this program would only arise in the cases when the exemption or relief is in an 
amount greater than the amount of duty  or taxes that would be paid if the goods had been 
consumed domestically rather t han being exported.  Any exempted taxes and duties amount 
greater than the amount of duty or taxes that would be paid if the goods had been consumed 
domestically rather than being exported would constitute an export subsidy.  This program was 
investigated and it was determined that the GOT has adequate controls in place to ensure all 
export commitments are met.   Therefore, this program was determined to not be providing a 
benefit to the exporters and producers of subject goods , and was not included for purp oses of the 
Final Determination . 
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   54 APPENDIX  3 – DUMPING AND SUBSIDY R EPRESENTATIONS  
 
Case brief s were received on behalf of the C omplainant s (ArcelorMittal and Alta)42, the 
Complainant (Gerdau)43, the GOT44 and two exporters, Hyundai Steel Company45 and Habas ,46 
by the November 5, 2014  deadline.   
 
Case briefs were also received from Richard Chung International Trade Consultants which is not 
a party to the investigation.  Case briefs for GSG were received past the deadline on  
November 10, 2014.  For these reason s, the case briefs for both parties were not taken into 
account.  
 
Reply submissions were received on behalf of the C omplainant s (ArcelorMittal and Alta)47, the 
Complainant (Gerdau)48, the GOT49 and two exporters, Hyundai Steel Company50 and Habas51, 
by the November 12, 2014 deadline.  
 
The issues of contention raised by these parties are summarized as follows:  
 
Absence of Importer RFI Responses  
 
Case Brief s 
 
Counsel for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alta) argued that all of  the importers who 
purchase goods  from an exporter must respond to the Importer RFI in order  for specific normal 
values and export prices to be issued to the exporter.  
 
Reply Submissions  
 
Counsel for Habas noted that the requirement of Importer RFI responses to issue specific normal 
values has never been imposed by the CBSA in previous investigations.  Counsel also argued 
that Habas has provided all necessary information to the CBSA and should receive specific 
normal values and export prices.  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
42 Dumping Exhibit 163 & Subsidy Exhibit 214 (NC) – Complainant Cas e Brief (ArcelorMittal and Alta)  
43Dumping Exhibit 168 & Subsidy Exhibit 218 (NC) –  Complainant Case Brief (Gerdau)  
44 Subsidy Exhibit 217 (NC) – Government of Turkey Case Brief  
45Dumping Exhibit 160 (NC) – Hyundai Steel Company Case Brief, Subsidy Exhibit 209 (NC) –  Hyundai Steel 
Company Case Brief  
46 Dumping Exhibit 163 (NC) – Habas Case Brief, Subsidy Exhibit 212 (NC) –  Habas Case Brief  
47 Dumping Exhibit 171 & Subsidy Exhibit 2 21 (NC) – Complainant Reply Brief (ArcelorMittal and Alta)  
48Dumping Exhibit 171 & Subsidy Exhibit 223 (NC) –  Complainant Reply Brief (Gerdau)  
49 Subsidy Exhibit 222 (NC) – Government of Turkey Reply Brief  
50Dumping Exhibit 177 (NC) & Subsidy Exhibit 227 (NC ) – Hyundai Steel Company Reply Brief  
51 Dumping  Exhibit 175 (NC) & Subsidy Exhibit 225 (NC) – Habas Reply Brief    
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   55 CBSA’s Response to Case Brief s and Re ply Submissions  
 
Where exporters provided complete responses to the RFI, and the information was verified, the 
CBSA is satisfied that the information used in determining normal values and export prices is 
accurate.  
 
Like Goods  
 
Case Briefs  
 
Counsel for the  Complainant (Gerdau)  argued that there are no domestic sales of like goods in 
Turkey, since the Canadian Standards and Turkish Standards for rebar are different.  
 
Reply Submission  
 
Counsel for Habas  argued that it’s like good classifications are reasonabl e. 
 
CBSA’s Response to Case Brief s and Reply Submissions  
 
The CBSA used Habas’ like good classifications where appropriate to determine normal values 
pursuant to section 15 of SIMA.  For products for which there were  no domestic sales of like 
goods, normal values were determined pursuant to  paragraph 19(b) of SIMA.  
 
Amount for Profit (Turkey)  
 
Case Brief s 
 
Counsel  for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alta) argue d that in determining an amount for 
profits for producers in Turkey to determine a normal value pursuant to paragraph  19(b) of 
SIMA, where subsections 11 (1)(b)(i) to (vi) of the Special Import Measures Regulations  (SIMR ) 
are not applicable, the CBSA must ap ply the ordinary meaning to “a reasonable amount for 
profits”.   Counsel noted  that the global management consulting firm McKinsey &  Company has 
prepared a report indicating that for long -term sustainability, steel mills require an average 
EBITDA margin of 17%.52  Counsel submitted  that this profit of 17% is reasonable and should 
be used to determine an amount for profit s.  Alternativel y, counsel argued  that the amount f or 
profit s for producers in Turkey should be the average of the three producers in Turkey with 
financial statements on the record.53 
 
Counsel for Habas argued that with the information provided during the final phase of th e 
investigation the CBSA would be able to determine an amount for profit s pursuant to subsections 
11(1)( b)(i) or (ii) of the SIMR.  
 
 
                                                 
 
52 Dumping Exhibit 156 (NC) – Attachment 20  
53 Dumping Exhibit 88 (PRO) – Turkey -  Amount for Profit   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   56 Reply Submission s 
 
Counsel  for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that the amount of profit earned 
by Habas  is not reasonable.  Counsel also argued that the amount for profit s should be 
determined based on the average of the three producers in Turkey with fin ancial statements on 
the record.54 
 
Counsel for Habas argued  that an amount for profit must be determined  using the six -step 
hierarchy described  in subsections 11 (1)(b)(i) to (vi) of the SIMR.  Counsel argued  that H abas 
provided the CBSA with sufficient information to determine a n amount for profi ts using 
subparagraph  11(1)(b)(i) or (ii)  of the SIMR .   
 
CBSA’s Response to Case Brief s and Reply Submissions  
 
Habas’ information was verified and the CBSA is satisfied with the information. An amount f or 
profit s was determined  pursuant to subsection 11 (1)(b)(ii) of  the SIMR for Habas.  Normal 
values for all oth er producers and exporters in Turkey were determined pursuant to section 29 of 
SIMA.  As such, an amount for profit s was not determined.  
 
Amount for Profit (China)  
 
Case Brief s 
 
Counsel  for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alta) argue d that in determining an amount for 
profits for producers in China  to determine a normal value pursuant to paragraph  19(b) of SIMA , 
where subsections 11 (1)(b)(i) to (vi) of the SIMR  are not applicable, the CBSA must apply the 
ordinary meaning to “a reasonab le amount for profits”.   Counsel noted  that the global 
management consulting firm McKinsey & Company has prepared a report indicating that for 
long-term sustainability, steel mills require an average EBITDA margin of 17%.55  Counsel 
submitted  that this prof it of 17% is reasonable and should be used to determine an amount for 
profit s.  Alternatively, counsel argued  that the profit margin for SMIC56, a publicly traded steel 
producer in China should be used to determine an amount for profit s for producers in Chi na. 
 
CBSA’s Response to Case Brief s  
 
Normal values for producers and exporters in China were determined pursuant to secti on 29  of 
SIMA .  As such, an amount for profit s was not determined.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
54 Dumping Exhibit 88 (PRO) – Turkey -  Amount for Profit  
55 Dumping Exhibit 156 (NC) – Attachment 20  
56 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Attachment 14   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   57  
Amount for Profit ( Republic of Korea ) 
 
Case Brief s 
 
Counsel  for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alta) argue d that in determining an amount for 
profits for producers in the Republic of Kore a to determine a normal value pursuant to  paragraph  
19(b) of SIMA, w here subsection s 11(1)(b)(i) to (vi) of the SIMR are not applicable, the CBSA 
must apply the ordinary meaning to “a reasonable amount for profits”.   Counsel noted  that the 
global management consulting firm McKinsey & Company has prepared a report indicating that 
for long -term sustai nability, steel mills require an average EBITDA margin of 17%.57  Counsel 
submitted  that this profit of 17% is reasonable and should be used to determine an amount for 
profit.   Alternatively, counsel argued  that the profit margin for POSCO58, a large steel p roducer 
in the Republic of Korea should be used to determine an amount for profit s for producers in the 
Republic of Korea.  
 
Reply Submissions  
 
Counsel argued  that Hyundai Steel Company  provided the CBSA with sufficient information to 
determine a n amount fo r profi ts using subparagraph 1 1(1)(b)(i) or (ii)  of the SIMR .   
 
CBSA’s Response to Case Brief s and Reply Submissions  
 
Normal values for the exporter in  the Republic of Korea that provided a complete submission 
were determined pursuant to section 15 of SIMA.  Normal values for all other producers and 
exporters in the Republic of Korea were determined pursuant to section 29 of SIMA.  In both 
cases, an amount for profit s was not determined.  
 
General Selling and Adm inistrative Expense for Habas  
 
Case Brief s 
 
Counsel for Habas argued that t he general selling and administrative expense ( GS&A ) used at 
the preliminary determination  was inappropriate as it double -counted ocean freight and other 
direct selling expenses.  Counsel argues that  the revise d GS&A calculation submitted as a result 
of the verification should be used to d etermine amounts of GS&A on the goods.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
57 Dumping  Exhibit 156 (NC) – Attachment 20  
58 Dumping Exhibit 2  (NC) – Attachment 15   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   58 Reply Submissions  
 
Counsel  for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that t he revised GS& A cannot be 
reconciled to the financial statements and should not be used to  determine  normal values.  
 
Counsel  for the Complainant (Gerdau) argued that Habas’ revised GS&A calculation should not 
be used  to determine  normal values , since they do not take i nto account  certain expenses.  
 
CBSA’s Response to Case Brief s and Reply Submissions  
 
Habas’ information was verified and the CBSA is satisfied with the information.  The CB SA has 
determined an amount of GS&A for Habas pursuant to paragraph 11 (1)(c) of the SIMR . 
 
Date of Sale for Habas  
 
Case Briefs  
 
Counsel for Habas argued that the contract date should be considered as the date of sale since all 
terms are agreed upon in the contract with the exception of the sizes of the rebar.  Habas also 
argued that the s izes of the rebar do not alter the contract.  
 
Reply Submissions  
 
Counsel  for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that t he size breakdown is a 
material term of the contract.  As such, counsel argued that the date of sale should be invoice 
date,  not the contract date.  
 
Counsel for the Complainant (Gerdau) argued that t he value and volume of a transaction must be 
determined before a sale can take place.  The date of sale is the date in which bo th of these terms 
have been set.  
 
CBSA’s Response to C ase Briefs  and Reply Submissions  
 
In this case, t he CBSA considers the contract date to be the date of sale as the material terms of 
the sale do not change after that date.  
 
Weight to be used in Determination of the Export Price  
 
Case Briefs  
 
Counsel for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alta) argue d that theoretical weight should be 
used when determining the export price per MT, since that is the weight that is agreed to in the 
contract and the theoretical weight is listed on the customs invoice.  
 
 
 
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   59 Reply Submission s 
 
Counsel for Habas argued  that the actual weight should be used when determining the export 
price per MT.  Counsel noted  that although contracts are negotiated on a theoretical basis, the 
contract takes into account tolerances for weig ht variance.  Counsel also noted  that normal 
values are based on actual weight, since Habas’ costs are reported on actual weight and domestic 
sales are made on actual weight.  Therefore, counsel argued the export price should be 
determined on actual weight to  permit a proper comparison between the normal values and 
export prices.  
 
CBSA Response  to Case Briefs  and Reply Submissions  
 
The CBSA’s position is that using the actual weight accurately reflects the commercial reality of 
the sales, and allows for a prop er comparison or normal values and export prices.  
 
Normal Values for Producers  and Exporters  in China  
 
Case Briefs  
 
Counsel for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alta) argue d that normal values for producers 
and exporte rs in China should be determined  using the price of rebar from China imported into 
the United States of America (US).   Alternatively, counsel argued  that normal values should be 
calculated using a surrogate methodology based on the info of exporters from the Republic of 
Korea only, since  China and the Republic of Korea are geographically proximate countries and 
they have access to similar sources of raw materials.  
 
CBSA Response to Case Briefs  
 
The CBSA did not receive any responses from producers in the surrogate countries.  As such, the  
information received from the exporters in the Republic of Korea  and Turkey represents the best 
information available in determining a normal value using a surrogate country methodology.   
 
Turkey’s designation as a Developing Country  
 
Case Briefs  
 
Counse l for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alta) noted that Canada has graduated Turkey 
from the General  Preferen tial Tariff  (GPT)  regime  as of January 1, 2015.  As a result, counsel 
argued  that Turkey should be treated as a developed country.  
 
Reply Submis sions  
 
Counsel for Habas noted  that developing status has never been determined using GPT eligibility.  
Counsel also noted  that t he CBSA’s current policy is to use the OECD Development Assistance 
Committee list of recipients  to determine whether a country should be g ranted  developing status 
for the purposes of an investigation .  Counsel argued  that Turkey is on this list and should be  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   60 considered a developing country.  Additionally , counsel noted  that Turkey will be withdrawn 
from GPT on January 1, 2015, which is after the POI.  
 
The Government of Turkey argued  that Turkey will be withdrawn from GPT on January 1, 2015, 
which is after the POI, and should therefore be treated as a developing country for these 
investigations.  
 
CBSA  Response  to Case Briefs  and Reply Submissions  
 
As indicated above, SIMA does not define or provide any guidance regarding the determination 
of a “developing country” for purposes of Article 27.10 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measur es.  The CBSA refers to the DAC List of ODA Recipients for guidance.59  
As Turkey is included in the listing, the CBSA has extend ed developing countr y status to Turkey 
for purposes of this investigation . 
 
Normal Values for Shiheng Special Steel  
 
Case Briefs  
 
Counsel for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alta) argued that the submission of Shiheng 
Special Steel is incomplete and unverified.  Counsel also argued that section 20 conditions exist 
in the Chinese rebar industry.  For both reasons, counsel argued  that Shiheng Special Steel 
should not receive specific normal values.  
 
CBSA ’s Response  to Case Briefs  
 
Normal values for producers and exporters in China were determined pursuant to section 29 of 
SIMA using a surrogate country methodology.   
 
Submissions of Habas  
 
Case Briefs  
 
Counsel for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alta) argued that the dumping and subsidy 
submissions of Habas are incomplete and unreliable.  For this  reasons, counsel argued  that Habas 
should not receive specific normal  values or an amount of subsidy.   
 
Reply Submissions  
 
Counsel for Habas argued  that the submission s of Habas are complete and have  been verified by 
the CBSA.  
 
 
                                                 
 
59 The Organization for Economic Co -operation and Development, DAC List  of ODA Recipients from 2011 to 
2013, the document is available at: 
www.oecd.org/dac/stats/DAC%20List%20used%20for%202012%20and%202013%20flows.pdf   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   61 CBSA Response to Case Briefs  and Reply Submissions  
 
The CBSA considers the submissions of Habas  to be complete and verified.  As such, normal 
values were determined for Habas pursuant to section 15 and 19 of SIMA, and an amount of 
subsidy was determined pursuant to subsection 30.4( 1) of SIMA.  
 
Habas’ Normal Value Adjustment for the Inward Processing  Regime  
 
Case Briefs  
 
Counsel for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alta) argued that the adjustment request 
relating to exemption of dut ies and taxes on the importation of inputs by Habas pursuant to 
section 10 of SIMR should be rejected.   
 
Reply Submission  
 
Counsel for Habas  maintained  that it is entitled to this adjustment which has been verified by the 
CBSA . 
 
CBSA Response to Case Briefs  and Reply Submissions  
 
The CBSA  has determined that Habas is not entitled to this adjustment since no duties or taxes 
are borne by the like goods.  
 
Submissions of Habas Petrol  
 
Case Briefs  
 
Counsel for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alta) argued  that the dumping and subsidy 
submissions of Habas Petrol are late and unverified.  Therefore, no company s pecific normal 
values and amount of subsidy should be determined.  
 
Counsel for the Complainant (Gerdau) argued  that the costs incurred by Habas Petrol must be 
accounted for in the cost of production of the goods sold by Habas Petrol.  
 
Counsel for Habas arg ued that Habas Petrol is not the  exporter for SIMA purposes.  L ate 
response s to the dumping and subsidy RFIs were  submitted by Habas Petrol since it did not 
believe it was necessary to provide responses to the RFIs.  
 
Reply Submissions  
 
Counsel for Habas  argued  that Habas is  the exporter for SIMA purposes.  
 
Counsel for the Complainant (Gerdau) argued that Habas Petrol should be considered the 
exporter for SIMA purposes for the goods sold by Habas Petrol and costs incurred by Habas  
Petrol should be accounted for in the cost of production of the goods.  
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   62 CBSA Response to Case Briefs  and Reply Submissions  
 
The CBSA considers Habas Petrol the exporter for SIMA purposes.  The response received by 
Habas Petrol was late and incomplete.  Th erefore, normal values were determined pursuant to 
section 29 of SIMA, and an amount of subsidy was determined pursuant to section 30.4( 2) of 
SIMA.  
 
Submissions of Hyundai Steel Company  
 
Case Briefs  
 
Counsel for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alta) ar gued that the dumping and subsidy 
submissions of Hyundai Steel Company are incomplete and unreliable. For this reason , counsel 
argued  that Hyundai Steel Company should not receive specific normal values or an amount of 
subsidy.   
 
Reply Submissions  
 
Counse l for Hyundai Steel Company argued  that the submission s of Hyundai Steel Company  are 
complete and have  been verified by the CBSA.  
 
CBSA Response to Case Briefs  and Reply Submissions  
 
The CBSA considers the submissions of Hyundai Steel Company to be complete and verified.  
As such, normal values were determined for Hyundai Steel Co mpany pursuant to section 15 of 
SIMA , and an amount of subsidy was determined pursuant to subsection 30.4(1) of SIMA.  
 
Submissions of Hyundai Corporation  
 
Case Briefs  
 
Couns el for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alta) argued that the dumping and subsidy 
submissions of Hyundai Corporation are incomplete and unreliable.  Therefore, no company 
specific normal values and amount of subsidy should be determined.  
 
CBSA  Response to Case Briefs  
 
The CBSA considers the dumping submission of Hyundai Corporation to be incomplete.  As 
such, normal values were determined for Hyundai Corporation  pursuant to section 29 of SIMA.  
Conversely, the CBSA considers the subsidy submission of Hyundai Corporation to be complete 
and verified.  As such, an amount of subsidy was determined pursuant to section 30.4(1) of 
SIMA.  
 
 
 
 
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   63 Submissions of GSG  
 
Case Briefs  
 
Counsel for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alta) argued that the dumping and subsidy 
submissions of GSG are incomplete and unreliable.  Therefore, no company specific normal 
values and amount of subsidy should be determined.  
 
CBSA Response to Case Briefs  
 
The CBSA considers the dumping submission of G SG to be incomplete.  As such, normal values 
were determined for GSG pursuant to section 29 of SIMA.  Conversely, the CBSA considers the 
subsidy submission of G SG to be complete and verified.  As s uch, an amount of subsidy was 
determined pursuant to section 30.4(1) of SIMA.  
 
Designation of the Exporter for Subject Goods from the Republic of Korea  
 
Case Briefs  
 
The counsel of Hyundai Steel Company argued that it is the only exporter for SIMA purposes  of 
subject goods from the Republic of Korea during the POI.  
 
Reply Submissions  
 
The counsel of the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that there is evidence on the 
record indicating that Hyundai Steel Company is not the only exporter for SIMA pu rposes of 
subject goods from the Republic of Korea during the POI.  
 
The counsel of the Complainants (Gerdau) argued that there is evidence on the record indicating 
that Hyundai Steel Company is not the only exporter for SIMA purposes of subject goods from 
the Republic of Korea during the POI.  
 
CBSA Response to Case Briefs  and Reply Submissions  
 
The CBSA  has determined that there are three exporters of subject goods from the Republic of 
Korea during the POI.  
 
Section 20 Conditions  
 
Case Briefs  
 
Counsel for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alta) argued that section 20 conditions exist 
for the rebar industry in China.  
 
Counsel for the Complainant (Gerdau) argued  that section 20 conditions exist for the rebar 
industry in China.  
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   64 CBSA Response to Case Briefs  
 
As mentioned in the section 20 inquiry portion of this report , the CBSA is of the opinion that 
section 20 conditions exist in the Chines e steel long products sector, of  which rebar is a part . 
 
Amount of Subsidy  for Shiheng Spe cial Steel  
 
Case Briefs  
 
Counsel for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alta) argued that the subsidy submission of 
Shiheng Special Steel is unreliable and  unverified.  Counsel also noted  that the GOC did not 
provide a response to the CBSA’s Subsidy RFI.  For both reasons, counsel argued  that Shiheng 
Special Steel should not receive a company -specific amount of subsidy.  
 
CBSA Response to Case Briefs  
 
As mentioned above, due to a lack of go vernment response, subsidy amounts for all exporters  
located in China  were determined pursuant to subsection 30.4(2) of SIMA, based on a ministerial 
specification.  However, in consideration of the fact that Shiheng Special Steel provided a 
complete respon se to the subsidy RFI, an individual amount of subsidy was determined under the 
ministerial specification for this specific exporter based on the information provided in its 
submission.   
 
Submission of the Government of the Republic of Korea  
 
Case Briefs  
 
Counsel for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alta) argued that the submission of the GOK is 
incomplete.  
 
Reply Submissions  
 
Counsel for Hyundai Steel Company argue d that the GOK submitted all requested info rmation 
and was verified by the  CBSA . 
 
CBSA Response to Case Briefs  and Reply Submissions  
 
The CBSA considers the submission of the GOK to be complete and verified.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   65 Subsidy Programs in the Republic of Korea  
 
Case Briefs  
 
The following representations regarding subsidy programs  in the  Republic of Korea have been 
made : 
 
Program 9 – Short -Term Discounted Loans for Export Receivables :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that this program  is 
countervailable and that the benefit is equal to the difference between the discounted interest rate 
and the commercial interest rate.   Counsel also argued  an exporter benefitted from this program 
and did not provide sufficient information regarding interest rate s. 
 
Program 10 – Short -Term Export Insurance :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that this program  is specific as it 
is contingent on export.  
 
Program 14: Research or Human Resource Development Expense Tax Deductions Under the 
Restriction of Special Taxation Act  (RSTA) Article 10(1)(3) :  
 
Counsel for Hyundai Steel Company argued that this program is no t specific.  Counsel notes that 
this determination was made in a United States Court of International Trade (USCIT)  decision.60 
 
Program 16 – Tax Credit for Investment in Energy -Saving Facilities :  
 
Coun sel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that this program  is specific as it 
is only available to certain industries.  
 
Counsel for Hyundai Steel Company argued that this program is a tax credit that is generally 
available to all companies in the Republic of Korea.  Therefore, counsel argued it is not specific . 
 
Program 17 – RSTA Article 26 :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that this  program  is specific as it 
is only available to certain industries.  
 
Program 22 - Targeted Facilities Subsidies through Korea Finance Corporation :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that this  program  is specific as it 
is only available to certain industries.  
 
                                                 
 
60 Subsi dy Exhibit 166 (NC) – Pgs. 8 -9  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   66 Coun sel for Hyundai Steel Company argued that the loans available under this program are 
available to all qualifying companies in the Republic of Korea, regardless of industry.  
Therefore, counsel argued it is not specific.  
 
Program 24 – Subsidies to Korean Rebar producers located within Industrial Complexes :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued  the benefits that Hyundai Steel  
Company  received under this program are attributable to rebar production.  
 
Counsel for Hyundai Steel Company  argued that  the benefits available under this program are 
available to all qualifying companies in the Republic of Korea, regardless of industry.  
Therefore, counsel argued it is not specific . 
 
Program 28 – Sales of Assets of Hanbo Steel to Hyundai Steel :  
 
Counsel for Hyundai Steel Company argued that  the purchase of these assets was made through 
a public auction.  As such, counsel argued that these assets were purchased at fair market value.   
 
Program 30 – Provision of Electricity at Less than Fair Mark et Value :  
 
Counsel for Hyundai Steel Company maintained that it  purchases its e lectricity at fair market 
value.  As such, counsel argued that there is no benefit received . 
 
Program 31 – Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Program :  
 
Counsel for the  Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that this  program  is specific as it 
is only available to certain industries.  
 
Counsel for Hyundai Steel Company  argued that t he grants available under this program are 
available to all qualifying companies in  the Republic of  Korea.  Therefore, counsel argued it is 
not specific.  
 
Reply Submissions  
 
The following representations regarding subsidy programs in the Republic of Korea have been 
made in the reply submissions:  
 
Program 16 – Tax Credit for Investment in  Energy -Saving Facilities :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) maintained that this program is limited to 
certain types of facilities and is therefore specific to certain industries.  
 
Counsel for Hyundai Steel Company  argued that this program is not specific to any industry.  
 
Program 17 – RSTA Article 26 :  
 
Counsel for Hyundai Steel Company  argued that this program is not specific to any industry.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   67 Program 22 - Targeted Facilities Subsidies through Korea Finance Corporation : 
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) maintained  that t his program is specific 
to certain industries identified by the GOK.  
 
Counsel for Hyundai Steel Company  argued that this program is not specific.  
 
Program 24 – Subsidies to Korean Rebar producers located within Industrial Complexes :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that this program is specific to 
companies that are located in industrial complexes.  
 
Counsel for Hyundai Steel Company  argued that this program is not rela ted to rebar production.  
 
Program 31 – Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Program :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that this program is only offered 
to steel companies and universities.  Therefore, it is specific.  
 
Counsel for Hyundai Steel Company  argued  that there is no benefit under this program since 
Hyundai Steel Company provided services for the fee that it received.  
 
CBSA Response to Case Briefs  and Reply Submissions  
 
The CBSA position regarding each subsidy program used by exporters and producers of subject 
goods are explained  in Appendix 2.  
 
Subsidy Period for the Republic of Korea  
 
Case Briefs  
 
In response to Hyundai Steel Company’s statement in its submission that subsidies received in 
the last three months of the POI should be disregarded as no subject goods were produced during 
that time, the Counsel for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alt a) argue d that all subsidies 
received during the POI should be taken into account in determining and amount for subsidy for 
Hyundai Steel Company.  
 
Reply Submissions  
 
The counsel for Hyundai Steel Company argued  that subject goods were produced from 
Novemb er 2012 to December 2013, so only subsidies received during these months should be 
taken into account.  
 
CBSA Response to Case Briefs  and Reply Submissions  
 
The CBSA took all subsidies received during the POI into account in the determination of an 
amount o f subsidy for Hyundai Steel Company.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   68 Monitoring or Subsidy Programs by the Government of the Turkey  
 
Case Briefs  
 
Counsel for the Complainants ( Arcelor Mittal and Alta) argued that the GOT has inadequate 
monitoring for a number of subsidy programs resulting  in unreported benefits.  
 
Reply Submissions  
 
The Government of Turkey noted that information about the subsidy usage of all producer s 
which exported subject goods to Canada was provided.  
 
CBSA Response to Case Briefs  and Reply Submissions  
 
The CBSA is satisfied that the information provided by the GOT is reliable.  
 
Subsidy Programs in Turkey  
 
Case Briefs  
 
The following representations regarding subsidy programs in the Turkey have been made:  
 
Programs 1 -6 – Investment Encouragement Program :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that  there are inconsistencies  in 
the information regarding the availability of these programs.  
 
The GOT noted that  these subsidies are not available to rebar producers as the relevant 
legislation  specifically identifies steel producers as not being eligible.   
 
Programs 7 -21 – Turkish Eximbank Programs : 
 
The GOT argued that o nly one of the 15 programs in this category was used during the POI by a 
producer  or exporter of subject goods .  As such, the GOT argued that t he remainder of the 
programs should be removed from the investigation.  The GOT also argued that Program 21 is 
not actionable as the premiums paid by users cover the cost of the program.  
 
Programs 22 -36 – Regional -based, Organized  Industrial Zone, and Free Zone Programs :  
 
The GOT notes that n o producer or exporter of subject goods is locat ed in an OIZ or a Free zone.  
As such, the GOT argued that these programs should be removed from the investigation.  The 
GOT also argued that Program 27 is not actionable as the premiums  paid by users  cover the cost 
of the program.   
 
 
 
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   69 Program 37 – Provision of Natural Gas at Less Than Fair Market Value :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) notes that a  publicly available report 
states that natural gas in Turkey is provid ed to companies at less than fair market value .61  
Additionally, counsel argued  that BOTAS is an SOE under government control and sells natural 
gas at a price below the import purchase price.  Counsel also notes that t he United States 
Department of Commerce ( USDOC ) found the program specific since a disproportionally large 
amount of the subsidy is used by the power production sector and that Habas received a 
countervailable subsidy.62 
 
Counsel for Habas argued that t here are no specific criteria to be met to purchase natural gas 
from BOTAS, and rates for natural gas are publicly posted on the company’s website .  Counsel 
argued that the subsidy is sufficiently “broadly available ” throughout  the economy as not to 
benefit a limited group of producers or a specific product .  Counsel notes the concept of “broadly 
available” in relation to specificity is supported by USDOC jurisprudence.63  Counsel also 
argued that in determining a benchmark for n atural gas in Turkey, the CBSA should consider the 
price at which natural gas is sold by private companies in Turkey as fair m arket value.   
Alternatively, if  an external benchmark will be used, counsel argued that the CBSA should use 
the gas prices of GTIS  provided on the record.64  Counsel also argued that the benchmark at the 
date the contract is signed should be used for the life of the contract.  
 
The GOT argued that any customers in any industries or sectors regardless of its geographical 
region can purc hase natural gas from BOTAS.  The GOT also argued that BOTAS applies the 
same natural gas tariffs to all of its customers without making any distinction between sectors or 
regions, and that BOTAS’s natural gas prices are publicly available on its website.  Therefore, 
the GOT argued that the program cannot be determined to be specific.  
 
Program 38 – Provision of Coal at less than fair market value :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) noted  that the US DOC has recently 
found that this program is countervailable.65 
 
The GOT argued that  this program is not specific and no producer or exporter of subject goods 
has benefited from this program during the POI.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
61 Subsidy Exhibit 204 (NC) – Attachment 30  
62 Subsidy Exhibit 204 (NC) – Attachment 36  
63 WTO, Report of the Panel, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton, WT/DS267/R  
64 Subsidy Exhibit 189 (NC) – SVE 17 and 19  
65 Subsidy  Exhibit 204 (NC) – Attachment 36  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   70 Program 39 – Research and Development – Tax Breaks and Other Assistance :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that t he information provided by 
the GOT for this program is insufficient to determine specificity.  
 
Counsel for Habas argued that the benefits received under this program are not related to the 
production or sale of rebar.  Counsel also argued that this program is not specific as any 
company can apply to have a project approved  for research and development support .  
Additionally, counsel argued that the benefit for this program should be allocated  using 
production of all steel products  as the denominator . 
 
The GOT argued that the criteria used to approve projects for research and development support 
are publicly available and applicable to all enterprises in Turkey.  Therefore, the GOT argued 
that this program is not specific.  
 
Program 40 – Research and Development - Product Development Support – UFT :  
 
The GOT noted that no application to this program has been accepted since 2010.  
 
Program 41 – Social Security Grant Program :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued  that the information provided by 
the GOT for this program is insufficient to determine specificity.  
 
Counsel for Habas argued that this deduction is available to any company in Turkey and is 
therefore, not specific.  Counsel also argues that t he benefit for this program should be allocated 
using production of all steel products  as the denominator . 
 
The GOT argued that t his discount of social security premiums is available to all compani es in 
Turkey.  Therefore, the GOT argued that this program is not specific.  
 
Program 42 – Deduction from taxable income for export revenues :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that t his program is a prohibited 
subsidy as it is c ontingent on export.  
 
Counsel for Habas argued that t he benefit for this program should be allocated using production 
of all steel products  as the denominator . 
 
Program 43 – Inward Processing Certificate Exemption :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants ( ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that a  benefit would exist for this 
program if there was an excessive relief of duties on the imported inputs.  Counsel also argued  
that Habas has inadequate monitoring of this program.  Additionally, counsel argued  that t his 
program is specific as it is contingent on export.  
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   71 Counsel for Habas argued that t his program is not actionable, since the relief of customs duty 
and VAT does not exceed the amount that would be owed on the goods re -exported.  
 
The GOT noted that a subsi dy for this program arises when the exemption is in an amount 
greater than the amount of duty or taxes that would be paid if the goods had been consumed 
domestically rather than being exported.  The GOT argued that there is  a system in place to 
ensure the program operates in line with the WTO A SCM.  As such, the GOT argued that this 
program does not constitute a subsidy.  
 
Reply Submissions  
 
The following representations regarding subsidy programs in Turkey have been made in the 
reply submissions:  
 
Programs 1-6 – Investment Encouragement Program :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that t he GOT arguments are not 
supported by evidence on the record and should be disregarded.  
 
Programs 7 -21 – Turkish Eximbank Programs : 
 
Counsel for th e Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that the arguments regarding 
Program 21 are not supported by evidence on the record and should be disregarded.  
 
Programs 22 -36 – Regional -based, Organized Industrial Zone, and Free Zone Programs :  
 
Counsel for  the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that t he arguments regarding 
Program 27 are not supported by evidence on the record and should be disregarded.  
 
Program 37 – Provision of Natural Gas at Less Than Fair Market Value :  
 
Counsel for the Compla inants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that Habas sells electricity and 
can be considered a secondary power producer.  Counsel also argued that specificity can relate to 
an industry or group of industries .  Counsel argued that p rimary and secondary power producers  
can be considered a group of industries .  As such, counsel argued that this program is specific .  
Counsel  also argued that in determining a  benchmark for natural gas , the market prices  in Europe 
and Russia  should be used , because the prices  of na tural gas  in Turkey are distorted due to 
BOTAS dominating the market and selling at unprofitable prices.  Additionally, counsel argues 
that the monthly benchmarks  should take into account currency fluctuations as it reflects the 
commercial reality of the p urchases.  
 
Counsel for the Complainant (Gerdau) noted that preferential pricing is available to large 
companies and companies located in OIZs.  Counsel argued that the program is specific as a 
result of the price discrimination.  Counsel also argued that t he natural gas benchmark used by 
the CBSA at the preliminary determination is reasonable as natural gas is a world -wide 
commodity product.  Additionally, counsel argued that Habas is a power producer company 
since it sells the excess power it produces.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   72  
Counsel for Habas  argued  that the report referenced by the Complainants is not based on 
substantive evidence and cannot be used as a benchmark for natural gas prices.  Counsel notes 
that companies can purchase natural gas from privately owned natural gas suppliers in Turkey at 
lower prices than from BOTAS.  Additional ly, counsel argued  that Habas is a steel producer and 
should not be considered part of the power producing industry.   
 
The GOT argued  that this program is not specific to rebar producers.  The GOT also argued  that 
any customer in Turkey can sign a contract with BOTAS regardless of industry.  
 
Program 38 – Provision of coal at less than fair market value : 
 
Counsel for the Complai nants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) maintained that  the USDOC has recently 
determined that this program is specific. 66 
 
Program 39 – Research and Development – Tax Breaks and Other Assistance :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that  although the benefits do not 
relate to rebar, Habas as a whol e, benefitted from this program, including its rebar production. 
Counsel also argued that t he original denominator used is appropriate for the allocation of the 
benefit as billet yield loss does not relate to this program.  
 
Counsel for the Complainant (Ger dau) argued that a lthough this program is not specific to rebar, 
it acts to lower Habas’ overall costs.  Therefore, counsel argued that it is still applicable to rebar.  
 
Program 41 – Social Security Grant Program :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMi ttal and Alta) argued that complete information was not 
provided to determine whether or not this program is specific.  Counsel also argued that t he new 
denominator provided by Habas should not be used to allocate  the benefit.  
 
Program 42 – Deduction from taxable income for export revenues :  
 
Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) argued that the new denominator 
provided by Habas should not be used to allocate  the benefit.  
 
Program 43 – Inward Processing Certificate Exemption :  
 
Counsel for Habas argued  that this program was reviewed by the CBSA and it was determined 
that there was no excessive relief of duties.  
 
The GOT maintained that it strictly inspects to ensure that export commitments are kept by users 
of this program.  This program is in compliance with Annex III of the WTO ASCM . 
 
                                                 
 
66 Subsidy Exhibit 204 (NC) – Attachment 36   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate   73 Counsel for the Complainants (ArcelorMittal and Alta) maintained that Habas received excessive 
relief of duties.  
 
CBSA Response to Case Briefs  and Reply Submissions  
 
The CBSA position regarding each subsidy program used by exporters and producers of subject 
goods can be found in Appendix 2.  
 
All Other Exporter Amount of Subsidy  in Turkey  
 
Case Briefs  
 
The GOT argued that they were fully cooperative in the investigation and provided all requested 
information.  As such, the GOT argued that the CBSA erred when applying the average amount 
of subsidy to al l other programs.  The GOT also argued that some of the programs are clearly 
unrela ted to rebar and should not have been included in the calculation of the all other rate.  
 
Reply Submissions  
 
Counsel for the Complainant (Gerdau) argued that the CBSA cannot assume non -responding 
exporters do not benefit from subsidies.  
 
CBSA Response to C ase Briefs  and Reply Submissions  
 
In determining the All Other Exporters ’ amount of subsidy for Turkey, the CBSA eliminated all 
subsidy programs from which it was satisfied that producers and exporter of subject goods did 
not receive benefits.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OTTAWA, December  19, 201 4 
 
 
 
 
STATEMENT OF REASONS  
 
 
Concerning the initiation of investigation s into the dumping  and subsidizing  of 
 
CERTAIN PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULES AND LAMINATES   
ORIGINATING  IN OR EXPORTED FROM THE PEOPLE ’S REPUBLIC OF C HINA   
 
 
 
 
 
DECISION  
 
 
Pursuant to subsection 31(1) of the Special Import Measures Act , the President of the   
Canada Border Services Agency initiated investigations on December  5, 201 4, respecting the 
alleged injurious dumping and subsidizing of certain photovoltaic modules and laminates  
originat ing in or exported from the People ’s Republic of China . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cet énoncé des motifs est également disponible en français.  
This Statement of Reasons is also available in French.  
    
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   TABLE OF CONTENTS  
 
 
SUMMARY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  3 
INTERESTED PARTIES  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  4 
COMPLAINAN TS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  4 
EXPORTERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  5 
IMPORTERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  5 
GOVERNMENT OF CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  5 
PRODUCT INFORMATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  5 
DEFINITION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  5 
ADDITIONAL PRODUCT  INFORMATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6 
PRODUCTION PROCESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............................  6 
CLASSIFICATION OF IMPORTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  7 
LIKE GOODS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  8 
THE CANADIAN INDUSTR Y ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  8 
STANDING  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  8 
CANADIAN MARKET  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  9 
EVIDENCE OF DUMPING  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  10 
NORMAL VALUE  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 11 
EXPORT PRICE ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  12 
ESTIMATED MARGINS OF DUMPING  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  13 
MARGIN OF DUMPING AN D VOLUME OF DUMPED G OODS  ................................ ........................  13 
SECTION 20 INQUIRY  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  14 
EVIDENCE O F SUBSIDIZING  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  15 
PROGRAMS BEING INVESTIGATED  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  16 
PROGRAMS THAT MAY NOT BE INVESTIGATED  ................................ ................................ .....................  18 
CONCLUSION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  18 
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  18 
AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY AN D VOLUME OF SUBSIDIZ ED GOODS  ................................ ..................  19 
EVIDENCE OF INJURY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  20 
INCREASED VOLUME OF DUMPED AND SUBSIDIZED IMPORTS  ................................ ................................  20 
LOSS OF MARKET SHARE  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  20 
LOSS OF SALES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  21 
PRICE EROSION & PRICE UNDERCUTTING  ................................ ................................ ...............................  22 
REDUCED PRODUCTION & UNDERUTILIZED CAPACITY  ................................ ................................ ..........  22 
REDUCTION IN EMPLOYMENT  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  22 
DECLINING REVENUES , MARGINS AND PROFITS  ................................ ................................ .....................  23 
NUMEROUS RECENT INSOLVENCIES AND CLOSURES OF CANADIAN MANUFACTURERS  ........................  23 
THREAT OF INJURY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  23 
CAUSAL LINK – DUMPING/SUBSIDIZING AND INJURY  ................................ ................................  25 
CONCLUSION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  26 
SCOPE OF THE INVESTI GATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  26 
FUTURE ACTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 26 
RETROACTIVE DUTY ON MASSIVE IMPORTATIONS  ................................ ................................ ..... 27 
UNDERTAKINGS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 28 
PUBLICATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  28 
INFORMATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  28 
APPENDIX 1 - DESCRIPTION OF IDENT IFIED PROGRAMS AND I NCENTIVES  ..........................  30  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   3 SUMMARY  
 
[1] On October 1 , 2014, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) received a written 
complaint from Eclipsall Energy Corporation (Eclipsall) of Toronto, Ontario, Heliene Inc. 
(Heliene) of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Silfab Ontario Inc. (Silfab) of Mississauga, Ontario, and 
Solgate Inc. (Solgate) of Woodbridge, Ontario (hereafter ‘the complainants ’), alleg ing that 
imports of certain photovoltaic modules and laminates  originating in or exported from the 
People ’s Republic of China (China ) are being dumped and subsidized .  The complainant s allege  
that the dumping and subsidizing have caused injury and are thre atening to cause injury to the 
Canadian industry producing these goods.  
 
[2] The complainant s provided evidence to support the allegations that certain photovoltaic 
modules and laminates  from China ha ve been dumped and subsidized.  The evidence also 
discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping and subsidizing have caused injury and are 
threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry producing like goods.  
 
[3] On October 22 , 201 4, pursuant to parag raph 32(1) (a) of the Special  Import Measures Act  
(SIMA), the CBSA informed the complainant s that the complaint was properly documented.  
The CBSA also notified the government of  China  (GOC)  that a properly documented complaint 
had been receive d and provide d the  GOC  with the non-confidential version of the subsidy 
complaint.   The GOC  was invited for  consultations prior to the initiation of the investigations, 
pursuant to Article 13.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  (ASCM) . 
 
[4] On November 20, 2014, consultations pursuant to Article 13.1 of the ASCM were held 
between the Government of Canada and the GOC .  On the same day, the Government of Canada 
received written representations from the GO C with respect to its views on the accur acy and 
adequacy of the evidence presented in the non -confidential version of the subsidy complaint.  
The CBSA considered these written representations in its analysis of whether there was 
sufficient evidence of subsidization to warrant the initiation of a  subsidy investigation.  
 
[5] SIMA provides that, under normal circumstances, the investigations shall be initiated 
within 30 days of the date of the properly documented complaint.  However, on  
November  20, 2014, the President of the CBSA (President)  extend ed this period to 45 days, 
pursuant to subsection 31(6) of SIMA  in order to provide sufficient time to determine whether 
there is compliance with the conditions referred to in subsection 31(2 ) of SIMA.  
 
[6] On December 5 , 2014, pursuant to subsection 31(1) of SIMA, the President initiated 
investigations respecting the dumping  and subsidizing  of certain photovoltaic modules and 
laminates  from China . 
 
[7]  Note:  the term “solar” may be used throughout this document and, for the purposes of 
this Statement of Reasons , is considered to be interchangeable with the term “photovoltaic”.  
 
 
 
 
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   4 INTERESTED PARTIES  
 
Complainant s 
 
[8]  The complainants account for a major proportion of the domestic production of 
photovoltaic modules and laminates in Canada , as defined in subsection 2(1) of SIMA .  The 
complainants ’ goods are produced at manufacturing facilities at various locations in Canada.  
 
[9] The name s and address es of the complainant s are as follows : 
 
Eclipsall Energy Corporation  
5900 Finch Avenue East  
Toronto, Ontario  
M1B 5X7  
 
Heliene Inc.  
520 Allens Side Road  
Sault Ste. Marie , Ontario  
P6A 6K4  
 
Silfab Ontario Inc.  
240 Courtney Park Drive East  
Mississauga, Ontario  
L5T 2Y3  
 
Solgate Inc.  
172 Trowers, Unit 29  
Woodbridge, Ontario  
L4L 8A7  
 
[10] Eclipsall operates in a 165,000 sq. ft. manufacturing  facility located in Toronto, Ontario , 
and was established in 2009 .  Heliene operates a 30,000 sq. ft. facility  based in  
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and has been manufacturing  photovoltaic modules  since 2010.  Silfab 
is headquartered in a 100, 000 sq. ft. facility in  Mississauga, Ontario , and  started  production in 
2011.  Solgate is located in Woodbridge, Ontario, where the company operates in a 28,000 sq. f t. 
facilit y, and has been producing photovoltaic modules since 2005.  
 
   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   5 [11] The other manufact urers of photovoltaic modules and laminates  in Canada are:  
 
Canadian Solar Inc.  
545 Speedvale Avenue West  
Guelph, Ontario ,  
N1K 1E6  Enerdynamic Hybrid Technologies  
1110 Hansler Road,  
Welland, Ontario , 
L3C 7M5  
 
Celestica  Inc. 
844 Don Mills Road,  
Toronto , Ontario ,  
M3C 1V7  
  
Exporters  
 
[12] The CBSA has identified 252 potential exporters of the subject goods from CBSA  import 
documentation and from information submitted in the complaint . 
 
Importers  
 
[13] The CBSA has identified 256 potential importers of the subject goods from CBSA  import 
documentation  and from information submitted in the complaint . 
 
Government of China  
 
[14] For the purpose of these investigations, “ government of China” refers 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 . 
 
PRODUCT INFORMATION  
 
Definition  
 
[15] For the purpose of th ese investigation s, subject goods are defined as:  
  
Photovoltaic modules and laminates consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, 
including laminates shipped or packaged with other components of photovoltaic modules, 
and thin -film photovoltaic products produced fro m amorphous silicon (a -Si), cadmium  
telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS), originating in or exported 
from the People ’s Republic of China, excluding:   
 
modules, laminates or thin -film products with a power output not exceeding 100W; an d 
also excluding modules, laminates or thin -film products incorporated into electrical 
goods where the function of the electrical goods is other than power generation and these 
electrical goods consume the electricity generated by the photovoltaic product.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   6 Additional Product Information  
 
[16] The final assembled product sold to end consumers is referred to as a solar module.  A 
laminate refers to the consolidation of various raw materials, including strung -together solar 
cells, a cover glass and an encapsulant ( such as EVA, or ethylene vinyl acetate) which are 
encapsulated (i.e. consolidated) into a more solid and durable product and most often made into a 
solar module by affixing to it additional solar module components such as a frame and/or a 
junction box.  Th e subject goods include both modules and laminates, whether or not the 
laminate is attached to an electrical junction box or a protective frame or other components, or 
whether or not the laminate is packaged with any such products or components.  
 
[17] For furth er clarity , a laminate included in a package of goods or shipped alongside other 
products serving to create a module (e.g. aluminum extrusions for the frame, and/or an electrical 
junction box, and/or batteries for electrical storage) falls within the defin ition of subject goods.  
 
[18] The production of subject goods is measured in watts (W ) or megawatts (MW ).  One 
megawatt is equivalent to one million watts.  Canadian productio n is also measured in W or 
MW.  Watts are synonymous with peak -watts, which are defined as the direct current (DC ) watts 
output under specified laboratory settings.  
 
[19] As noted above, the definition of subject goods excludes both “modules, laminates or 
thin-film products with a power output not exceeding 100W” and “modul es, laminates or  
thin-film products where the function of the electrical goods is other than power generation, and 
where these electrical goods consume the electricity generated by the photovoltaic product” .  
These exclusions serve to exclude small portab le modules as well as consumer products and 
small appli ances which use solar modules.  For example, items ranging from solar garden lights 
to calculators , to parking meters, as well as portable modules used as camping equipment, would 
be excluded from the product definition by virtue of power output, or by virtue of the fact that 
these goods consume the electricity generated by the product.  
 
Production Process  
 
[20] Photovoltaic modules are produced from ultra -refined polysilicon or other conducting 
materials which capture sunlight.  The term “photovoltaic module” may refer to  
mono -crystalline, multicrystalline (often referred to as poly -crystalline) or thin -film photovoltaic 
modules that can be used to generate electricity from the sun.  The difference  between these 
three forms of modules lies in the purity of the crystallized silicon (c -Si) used, with superior 
alignment of the silicon molecules generating higher conversion of solar energy into electricity.  
 
[21] A typical mono -crystalline or multi -crystalli ne module includes a rectangular matrix of 
either 60 or 72 solar cells (generally arranged in strings of 12 cells, although a module could 
have more or fewer cell strings depending on the intended power output of the module).  Cells 
are produced from slice d polysilicon wafers.  The lamination serves to assist in the transmission 
of solar energy to the cells and protects the cells from damage.  Various types of conductive 
metallic pastes or inks are applied to either side of the cell surface to produce condu ctive fingers, 
grid lines, bus bars, and surface coating.  The frame provides a protective cover for the cells and 
strengthens the overall module.  An e lectrical junction box is generally attached.  Finally, electric  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   7 inverters may be joined to the module in order to convert direct current electricity into 
alternating current.  
 
[22] Mono -crystalline cells are made by slicing silicon wafers into cells.  Wafer production 
begins with pure polysilicon chunks.  These chunks are characterized by ultra -high silicon pur ity 
levels and are refined to an extremely high degre e.  The wafer, which is essentially a single 
continuous silicon crystal, is cut in such a manner to increase efficiency, often in an  
octagonal -like shape.  By cutting a single wafer, the cells have a si ngle crystal lattice, and thus a 
uniform look and colour.  Mono -crystalline modules are generally more expensive as they 
generally yield the highest power output compared to other photovoltaic modules.  
 
[23] Multi -crystalline  cells are very similar to mono -crystalline cells, except that rather than 
resulting from a single wafer, the silicon is melted and formed in a mold, which can then be cut 
into square wafers after the silicon has cooled and crystallized.  Because the crystallization 
process is imperfect, mul ti-crystalline cells have variable crystal lattice patterns, meaning there 
are resulting imperfections and various tones and variations of colour within the same module.  
Photovoltaic module technologies have increased the efficiency of multi -crystalline m odules and 
these now approach the efficiency of their “pure -looking” mono -crystalline counterpart.  
 
[24] Thin -film photovoltaic modules are built by applying a microscopic (thin -film) layer of 
semiconductor photovoltaic material, generally silicon, cadmium tell uride, or copper indium 
gallium selenide, on glass or a sheet of metal.  The thin -film production process , therefore , 
bypasses the use of silicon crystals, and for this reason is often known as “amorphous”.  By 
using less photovoltaic product, thin -film mo dules have a lower cost of production and can be 
made into more flexible shapes, though their efficiency is generally lower than crystalline -based 
modules, as they use significant ly less photovoltaic material.  Like crystalline modules, thin -film 
modules a re laminated, and framed using aluminum extrusions.  
 
[25] Photovoltaic modules are packed and shipped after quality control and testing is 
performed at the production facility.  
 
Classification of Imports  
 
[26] The allegedly dumped and subsidized goods are normally c lassified under the following  
Harmonized System (HS) classification code:  
 
 8541.40.00 .22  Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells 
    whether or not assembled in modules or made up into panels; light  
    emitting diodes ; solar cells assembled into modules or made into  
    panels  
 
[27] The listing of HS classification numbers is for convenience of reference only.  Refer to 
the product definition for authoritative details regarding the subject goods . 
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   8  
 
Like Goods  
 
[28] Subsection 2(1) of SIMA defines “like goods” in relation to any other goods, as goods 
that are identical in all respects to the other goods, or in the absence of identical goods, goods  
the uses and other characteristics  of which  closely resemble those of the other g oods.  
 
[29] Photovoltaic modules and laminates  produced  by the domestic industry in Canada 
compete directly with , have the same end uses as , and can be substituted for,  the subject goods.  
Therefore, the CBSA has concluded that photovoltaic modules and laminate s produced by the 
Canadian industry constitute like goods to the subject goods.  
 
[30] After considering questions of use, physical characteristics and all other relevant factors, 
the CBSA is of the opinion that the subject goods constitute only one class of goods . 
 
THE CANADIAN INDUSTR Y 
 
[31] The complainant s account for a major proportion of known domestic production of like 
goods  in Canada , as defined in subsection 2(1) of SIMA.  
 
Standing  
 
[32] Subsection 31(2) of SIMA requires that the following conditions for stand ing be met in 
order to initiate an investigation:  
 
 the complaint is supported by domestic producers whose production represents more 
than fifty per cent 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 
twenty -five per cent or more of the total production of like goods by the domestic 
industry.  
 
[33] The CBSA has requested information from all known producers of like goods in Canada. 
In addition to the information provided by the complainants and supporting producer, t he CBSA 
has received responses from Celesti ca Inc. and Canadian Solar Inc.  Celestica Inc. has not 
expressed a position regarding the c omplaint  and did not provide information regarding the 
company ’s production of like goods.  Canadian Solar Inc. has expressed a neutral position and 
provided information regarding the company ’s production in Canada a s well as information 
regarding  affiliated companies.  
 
[34] The CBSA has considered the information provided by Canadian Solar Inc., as well as 
information obtained by the CBSA, and determined, pursuant to subsection 2(1) of SIMA, that 
Canadian Solar Inc. does not form part of the domestic i ndustr y as defined in subsection 2(1) of 
SIMA.  
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   9 [35] The CBSA also contacted Flextronics.   The company did not provide a response and 
information available to the CBSA indicates that the company ceased production of the like 
goods in 2014.  
 
[36] The complaint inclu ded a letter of support from Enerdynamic Hybrid Technologies , a 
domestic producer of like goods .1 
 
[37] Based on an analysis of information provided in the complaint, as well as  the information 
gathered by the CBSA, the CBSA is satisfied that the standing requi rements of subsection 31(2) 
of SIMA have been met by the complainant s. 
 
CANADIAN MARKET  
 
[38] Photovoltaic modules are sold primarily to installers, solar system integrators, property 
developers and other value -added resellers, who incorporate photovoltaic modules into on -grid 
integrated solar systems with batteries, inverters, mounting structures and/or wiring systems.  
 
[39] According to the complainants, photovoltaic modules are sold as a commodity -type 
product, and are sold primarily on the basis of price.  Further, according to the complainants, 
both Canadian and Chinese suppliers produce solar modules that meet the specifications of 
Canadian consumers, and domestic and imported solar modules can be used interchangeably in 
the same power -generation systems.  
 
[40] The complainants also note that information about prevailing prices is publicly available 
through industry publications such as the Bloomberg New Energy Finance Solar Spot Survey , 
which surveys suppliers and customers as to the current prevailing price.   The publication of 
price data in widely respected industry publications ensure that price changes are quickly 
communicated throughout the market.  
 
[41] The complainant s, using information  provided by the Canadian Solar Industries 
Association (CANSIA) , estimated  the total volume of imports of subject goods originating from 
all countries f rom 2012 through the first half of 2014.2 
 
[42] The CBSA conducted its own analysis of imports of goods based on actual import data 
from CBSA documentation.  
 
[43] A review of CBSA  import data demonstrated similar trends and volumes with respec t to 
imports of subject good s compared to information provided in the complain t. 
 
  
                                                 
1 Dumping  Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Public Attachment 8.  
2 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Public Attachment 11 .  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   10 [44] Detailed information regarding the volume of imports of subject goods  and domestic 
production cannot be divulged for  confidentiality reasons.  The CBSA , however,  has prepared 
the following table to show the estimated import share  of subject goods  in Canada.  
 
CBSA Estimates of Import Share  
(as % of MW) 
 
Country  2012 2013 Jan. to 
Sept . 2014  Oct. 2013  
to Sept . 
2014 
China  55.5% 72% 84.6% 85.1% 
All Other Countries  44.5% 28% 15.4% 14.9% 
Total Imports  100.0%  100.0%  100.0%  100.0%  
 
 
EVIDENCE OF DUMPING  
 
[45] The complainant s allege  that subject goods from China have been i njuriously dumped 
into Canada.  Dumping occurs when the normal value of the goods exceeds the export price to 
importers in Canada.  
 
[46] Normal values are generally based on the domestic selling price of like goods in the 
country of export where competitive mar ket conditions exist or on the cost of production of the  
goods plus a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, plus a reasonable 
amount for profits.  
 
[47] The complainant s provided information to support the allegation that the solar  sector , 
which includes  photovoltaic modules and laminates , in China may not be operating under 
competitive market conditions and as such, normal values should be determined under section 20 
of SIMA.  
 
[48] If there is sufficient reason to believe that conditions described in section 20 of SIMA 
exist in the sector unde r investigation, normal values will be determined, where such information 
is available, on the basis of the domestic selling price or cost of production of the goods plus a 
reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, plus a reasonabl e amount for 
profit s of the like goods sold by producers in any country designated by the President  and 
adjusted for price comparability;  or on the basis of the selling price in Canada of like goods 
imported from any country designated by the President  and adjusted for price comparability . 
 
[49] 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, expenses , duties 
and taxes  resulting from the expo rtation of the goods.  
 
[50] The CBSA ’s analysis of the alleged dumping i s based on a comparison of the 
complainants ’ estimated normal values, with adjustments, with estimated export prices based on  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   11 the actual declared value for duty during the per iod examined, that is, between October 1, 2013 
and September  30, 2014 . 
 
[51] Estimates of normal value and export price by both the complainant s and the CBSA are 
discussed below.  
 
Normal Value  
 
[52] The complainant s indicated that they do  not have access to the domestic selling prices of 
photovoltaic modules and laminates  in China.   As such, they were  unable to estimate normal 
values using the methodology of section 15 of SIMA . 
 
[53] As a result, the complainant s estimated normal  values for the subject goods using the 
methodology set out in paragraph 19 (b) of SIMA.  Under this methodology normal values are 
determined as the aggregate of the cost of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for 
administrative, selling and other costs, and a reasonable amount for profi ts. 
 
[54] The complainants have provided est imated normal values for three product types :  
multi -crystalline, mono -crystalline and thin -film photovoltaic modules .  The complainants note 
that photovoltaic modules are generally sold on a per watt basis.  As such, they have provided 
normal values for the three product types  on a per watt basis.  The estimated normal values are 
based on information found in monthly Bloom berg New Energy Finance3 reports  for the period 
of January 2014  to July 2014.   
 
[55] The Bloomberg New Energy Finance  reports contain a cost build up, including an amount 
for profit, for multi -crystalline photovoltaic modules.  The reports are issued monthly a nd 
contain information specific to the photovoltaic industry in China.  The estimated normal values 
provided by the complainants are based on the average of the monthly cost build up information 
for the period of January  2014 to July 2014.  
 
[56] The complainant s have also provided estimated normal values for mono -crystalline and 
thin-film photovoltaic modules.  Similar Bloomberg cost information is not available for these 
products.  The complainants estimated a mono -crystalline normal value by adjusting  
multi -crystalline cost information to account for differences in direct material and processing 
costs.  
 
[57] According to the complainants, thin -film photovoltaic modules are primarily produce d by 
one Chinese manufacturer.  Information with respect to the cost of prod uction of thin -film 
photovoltaic modules is not publicly available.  As such,  for the purposes of estimating normal 
values, t he complainants have provided a spot price report issued by PV Energy Trend  which 
includes the average sale price for thin -film pho tovoltaic modules in September 2014.4 
 
                                                 
3 Dumping Exhibit 1 (PRO ) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Attachment s 12, 89, 113, 117, 118, 119, 
120, 125.  
4 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC ) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Public Attachment 121.  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   12 [58] The complainants provided information supporting the initiation of a section 20 inquiry 
respecting the allegedly dumped goods from China  and are of the opinion that domestic selling 
prices in China are substantially i nfluenced by government policies and should not be used in the 
calculation of normal values since the prices are not reflective of competitive market conditions .  
As a result, the complainant s have also estimated normal values for China under the 
methodolo gy of section 20 using surrogate country  information .  The complainants submit that 
the average international  cost, as provided in the Bloomberg publication, is an appropriate 
surrogate methodology to be used for the calculation of normal values.  
 
[59] The surrogate methodology is similar to that described above, with the exception that the 
cost build up information is based on the amalgamated cost data of producers  from various 
countries , excluding  Chinese producers.  These estimates are based on the same Bloomberg New 
Energy Finance  reports for the same time period ( January 2014  to July 2014).  
 
[60] The CBSA found the normal value estimate s provided by the complainants under the 
methodologies of paragraph  19(b) and section 20  of SIMA , to be reasonable and repres entative.  
The amount for profit added to the cost of goods estimate was also found to be  reasonable.  
 
[61] As discussed above, normal values determined pursuant to paragraph  20(1) (c) or 20(1)( d) 
of SIMA will be determined on the basis of the domestic selling p rice or cost of production of 
the goods plus a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, plus a 
reasonable amount for profits of the like goods sold by producers in any country designated by 
the President  and adjusted for price comparability;  or on the basis of the selling price in Canada 
of like goods imported from any country designated by the President  and adjusted for price 
comparability .  However, at this time no such information is available to the C BSA.   
 
[62] As such, although t he CBSA  is of the view  that the use of amalgamated cost data of 
producers from various countries is not consistent with paragraph  20(1) (c) or 20(1)( d) of SIMA, 
the CBSA considers the complainants’ proposed methodology to be reasonable based on the 
information currently available . 
 
[63] The CBSA , therefore , estimated normal values using a cost -based methodology based on 
surrogate country information as set out in section 20 of SIMA.  The CBSA used the average 
international  cost as the basis for estimating normal values.  
 
[64] The CBSA estimated normal values based on information provided in Bloomberg New 
Energy Finance  reports for t he period of December 2013 to July 2014 .  The CBSA used the 
monthly cost build -up information, including th e amount for profit, for purposes of  the estimated 
normal value of the subject goods  for each respective month.  
 
Export Price  
 
[65] 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 adjusting by deducting all costs, charges, expenses, and duties and taxes resulting fro m the 
exportatio n of the goods.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   13 [66] The complainant s estimated export prices using commercial intelligence for China .  
Adjustments were made for ocean freight, importer margin, inland freight and Chinese value 
added tax  (VAT) . 
 
[67] In estimating the  export price, the CBSA relied on actual import data from commercial 
and customs documentation.  Due to the large volume of photovoltaic modules and laminates  
imported into Canada, customs information pertaining to a sample of imports in the period 
October 1, 2013  to September 30, 201 4, was examined.  Actual import data was retrieved and 
refined through a review of CBSA customs entries and consequently, the information used by the 
CBSA for its estimate is more comprehensive than what was available to the c omplainant s. 
 
Estimated Margins of Dumping  
 
[68] The CBSA estimated the margin  of dumping by comparing the estimated normal values 
with the estimated export prices of the corresponding export models where matches  for products  
could be made.   A weighted average margin of dumping was then calculated based on those 
models.   Combined, these provided  a reasonable estimate  of the weighted average margin of 
dumping of all subject goods from China . 
 
[69] Based on this analysis, the subject goods from China were dumped by an estimated 
margin of dumping of  49.4%, expressed as a perce ntage of the total export price.  
 
MARGIN OF DUMPING AN D VOLUME OF DUMPED G OODS  
 
[70] Under section 35 of SIMA, if , at any time before mak ing a preliminary determination the 
Presi dent is satisfied that there is insufficient evidence of dumping to justify proceeding, the 
margin of dumping of the goods of a country is insignificant or the actual and potential volume 
of dumped goods of a country is negligible, the President must termi nate the investigation with 
respect to goods of that country.  
 
[71] Pursuant to subsection  2(1) of SIMA, a margin of dumping of less than 2% of the export 
price is defined as insignificant and a volume of dumped goods is considered negligible if it 
accounts for  less than 3% of the total volume of goods that are released into Canada from all 
countries that are of the same description as the dumped goods.  
 
[72] On th e basis of the estimated margin  of dumping and the estimated volume of dumped 
import s for the period of October  1, 20 13 to September  30, 2014, summarized in the following 
table, the estimated margin of dumping and the estimated volume of dumped goods are greater 
than the thresholds outlined above.  
 
Estimated Margin of Dumping and Volume of Dumped Goods  
(Octo ber 1, 201 3 to September 30, 201 4) 
 
Country  Estimated Share of 
Total Imports by 
Volume  Estimated Dumped 
Goods as % of Total 
Imports  by Volume  Estimated Margin of 
Dumping as % 
Export Price  
China  85.1% 85.1% 49.4%  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   14 SECTION 20 INQUIRY  
 
[73] 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 President, 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 competiti ve market.5 
 
[74] The complainant s alleged that the conditions described in section 20 prevail in the solar 
sector , which includes photovoltaic modules and laminates , in China.  That is, the c omplainant s 
allege that this industry sector in China does not operate under competitive market conditions 
and consequently, prices established in the Chinese domestic market for photovoltaic modules 
and laminates  are not reliable for determining normal values.  
 
[75] The complainant s provided a variety of evidence supporting its claim that the GOC 
substantially determines domestic prices of photovoltaic modules and laminates , such as  
evidence of government influence on the organization and structure of the solar sector , as well 
evidence of government influence on the price of inputs  and the purchase of solar products .  The 
complainant s also cited specific GOC policies such as the 12th Five Year Plan for the Solar 
Photovoltaic Industry , the Renewable Energy Law, and the 12th Five Year Plan on Solar Power 
Development .6 
 
[76] The information currently available to the CBSA indicates that there are numerous GOC 
industrial policies that have been implemented which influence the solar  sector , which includes  
photovoltaic modules and laminates , in China.  In previous section 20 inquiries, the GOC ’s 
industrial p lans have been found to strongly influence the decisions of enterprises in China . 
 
[77] With respect to the solar  sector , which includes  photovoltaic modules and laminates , the 
CBSA h as information which demonstrates that the prices of photovoltaic modules and laminates  
may be significantly affected by the GOC ’s policies and as a result, prices of photovoltaic 
modules and laminates  in China may not be substantially the same as they wou ld be if they were 
determined in a competitive market.  
 
[78] Consequently, on December 5 , 201 4, the CBSA included in its investigation,  a section 20 
inquiry based on the information available in order to determine whether the co nditions set forth 
in paragraph 20(1)( a) of SIMA prevail in the solar  sector , which  includ es photovoltaic modules 
and laminates , in China.  A section 20 inquiry refers to the process whereby the CBSA collects 
information from various sources so that the President may, on the basis of this  information, 
form an opinion regarding the presence of the conditions described under section 20 of SIMA, in 
the sector which includes the goods under investigation.  
 
                                                 
5 China is a prescribed country under section 17.1 of the Special Import Measures Regulations . 
6 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC ) – Solar M odules and Laminates Complaint – Pages 28 -45.  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   15 [79] As part of this section 20 inquiry, the CBSA sent section 20 questionnaires to  all potential  
producers and exporters of photovoltaic modules and laminates  in China, as well as to the GOC 
requesting detailed information related to the solar  sector , which includes  photovoltaic modules 
and laminates , in China.  
 
[80] To enable the determination of normal values , should paragraph 20(1)( a) be applicable, 
the CBSA requested domestic pricing and costing information from  producers in Chinese Taipei , 
Japan, the Republic of Korea  and Malaysia , concerning photovoltaic modules and laminates . 
 
[81] In the event that the President forms the opinion that domestic prices of photovoltaic 
modules and laminates  in China are substantially determined by the GOC and there is sufficient 
reason to believe that the domestic prices are not substantially the sam e as they would be if they 
were determined in a competitive market, the normal values of the goods under investigation will 
be determined,  pursuant to paragraph 20(1)( c), where such information is available, on the basis 
of the domestic selling price or the aggregate of the cost of production of the goods, a reasonable 
amount for administrative, selling and other costs, and a reasonable amount for profit s of the like 
goods sold by producers in any country designated  by the President  and adjusted for price 
comparability;  or, pursuant to paragraph 20(1)( d), on the basis of the selling price in Canada of 
like goods imported from any country designated by the President  and adjusted for price 
comparability . 
 
EVIDENCE OF SUBSIDIZ ING  
 
[82] In accordance with section 2 of SIMA, a subsidy exists where 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, distributi on, 
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 O rganization  (WTO) Agreement  
that confers a benefit.  
 
[83] Pursuant to subsection 2(1.6) of SIMA, a financial contribution exists where:  
 
a) practices of the government involve the direct transfer of funds or liabilities or the 
contingent transfer of funds or liabi lities;  
b) 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;  
c) the government provides goods or services, other than general governmental 
infrastructure, or purchases goods ; or 
d) the government permits or directs a non-governmental body to do anything referred 
to in any of paragraphs (a) to (c) above 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 w hich the government would do it.  
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   16 [84] A state -owned enterprise (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 general ity 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 c ontrolled by the government; or 4) some combination thereof.  
 
[85] If a subsidy is found to exist, it may be subject to countervailing measures if it is specific.  
A subsidy is considered to be specific when it is limited, in law or in fact, to a particular 
enterprise or is a prohibited subsidy.  An “enterprise ” is defined under SIMA as also including a 
“group of enterprises, an industry and a group of industries ”.  Any subsidy which is contingent, 
in whole or in part, on export performance or on the use of good s that are produced or that 
originate in the country of export is considered to be a prohibited subsidy and is, therefore, 
specific according to subsection 2(7.2) of SIMA for the purposes of a subsidy investigation.  
 
[86] In accordance with subsection 2(7.3) of  SIMA, notwithstanding that a subsidy is not 
specific in law, a subsidy may also be considered specific in fact, having regard as to whether:  
 
a) there is exclusive use of the subsidy by a limited number of enterprises;  
b) there is predominant use of the subsidy  by a particular enterprise;  
c) disproportionately large amounts of the subsidy are granted to a limited number of 
enterprises; and  
d) the manner in which discretion is exercised by the granting authority indicates that 
the subsidy is not generally available.  
 
[87] For purposes of a subsidy investigation, the CBSA refers to a subsidy that has been found 
to be spe cific as an “actionable subsidy ”, meaning that it is countervailable.  
 
[88] The complainant s allege that the goods have been subsidized and maintain that exporters 
of the goods in China receive subsidies from various levels of the GOC, which may include the 
governments of the respective province or municipalities in which the exporters are locate d. 
 
Programs Being Investigated  
 
[89] The complainants referred primarily to the CBSA ’s Statement of Reasons  for various 
investigations, with emphasis on Certain Aluminum Extrusions, Certain Piling Pipe, Certain Oil 
Country Tubular Goods,  Certain Steel Grating,  Certain Unitized Wall Modules, Certain 
Stainless Steel Sinks and Certain Laminate Flooring , in identifying the existence of 
countervailable subsidies in China.7  The complainants also referenced a number of recent U.S. 
Department of Commerce decisions and  specifically the countervailing duty order, final 
affirmative countervailing duty determination and final affirmative critical circumstances 
determination on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules 
from China as part of its subsidy allegations.8 
                                                 
7 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Public Attachments 18, 19, 21, 41, 45, 47, 
63 and 79 . 
8 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Public Attachments 43,  44, 50 and 70 .  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   17 [90] The complainants relied also upon industry reports9, government documents10, WTO 
Trade Policy Review11, and general news articles and publications.12 
 
[91] In reviewing the information provided by the complainant s and obtained by the CBSA 
through its own research, the CBSA has developed the following categories of programs and 
incentives that may be provided to manufacturers of the subject goods in China:  
 
1. Special Economic Zones (SEZ) and other Designated Areas  Incentives ; 
2. Preferential Loans and Loan Guarantees;  
3. Grants  and Grant Equivalents ; 
4. Preferential Tax Programs;  
5. Relief from Duties and Taxes on Inputs, Materials and Machinery;  
6. Goods/Services Provided by the Government at Less than Fair Market Value; and  
7. Equity Programs . 
 
[92] A full listing of all programs to be investigated by the CBSA is found in  Appendix  1.  As 
explained in more detail therein, there is sufficient reason to believe that these programs may 
constitute actionable subsidies provided by the GOC and that the exporters and producers of the 
subject goods benefit from these programs.  
 
[93] In the case of programs where an enterprise ’s eligibility or degree of benefit is contingent 
upon export performance or the use of goods that are produced or originate in t he country of 
export, such programs may constitute prohibited subsidies under SIMA.  
 
[94] For those programs where incentives are provided to enterprises operating in Special 
Economic Zones or Other Designated Areas  inside the territory of a granting authority , the 
CBSA considers that these may constitute actionable subsidies for the reason that eligibility is 
limited to enterprises operating in such regions  or is limited to certain enterprises operating 
within those regions . 
 
[95] As well, the CBSA is satisfied that  there is sufficient evidence indicating that the 
exporters of subject goods may receive subsidies in the form of grants, preferential loans, relief 
from duties or taxes, and provision of goods and services, which provide a benefit and that are 
not general ly granted to all companies  in the territory of the granting authority . 
 
[96] The CBSA will investigate whether exporters of subject goods received benefits under 
these programs and whether such programs constitute actionable subsidies.  
 
                                                 
9 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Public Attachments 24 and 46 . 
10 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Public Attachments 30  - 38, 48, 61, 62,  
65 - 69. 
11 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Public Attachments 26, 29, 49, 51, 64, 72 
and 73 . 
12 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Public Attachments 46, 52  - 60, 71, 74  - 78 
and 80 .  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   18 Programs That May Not Be Investigated  
 
[97] The subsidy programs identified by the complainants include certain programs listed 
multiple times.  In addition, certain programs identified by the complainants had expired and 
certain programs were specific to certain geographic locations .  For those programs specific to 
certain geographic locations, the CBSA relied on its address list, as well as CBSA internal 
references to identify those programs which may be available to manufacturers and exporters of 
subject goods.  For the reasons dis cussed above, certain programs identified by the complainants 
were or may be removed from consideration by the CBSA  subject to confirmation in the course 
of the investigation . 
 
[98] If more information becomes available during the investigation process, and thi s 
information indicates that these programs  or other s not listed  may have provided benefits to 
exporters or producers of subject goods during the period under review, the CBSA will request 
complete information from the GOC and the exporters of subject good s to pursue the 
investigation of these programs.  
 
Conclusion  
 
[99] Sufficient evidence is available to support the allegation that the subsidy programs 
outlined in Appendix 1  are available to exporters and producers of the subject goods in China.  
In investigat ing these programs, the CBSA has requested information from the GOC, exporters 
and producers to determine whether exporters of subject goods received benefits under these 
programs and whether these programs are actionable subsidies and, therefore, counterv ailable 
under SIMA.  
 
Estimated Amount of Subsidy  
 
[100]  The complainant s stated that they were  unable to determine the actual amounts of subsidy 
received by the Chinese exporters under each program.  However, the complainant s estimated 
the amounts of subsidy by calculating the difference between the estimated cost s of production  
for subject goods in China and their corresponding export prices.  
 
[101]  For purposes of this initiation, the CBSA estimated the amount of subsidy conferred  to 
exporters of the subject goods  in China  by calculating the difference between  their cost of 
production, as estimated by the CBSA, and the selling prices reported in customs entry 
documents of subject goods sold to importers in Canada.   Since the cited programs are believed 
to significantly lower the cost of production of the subject goods, this calculation is a reasonable 
estimate of the amount of subsidy . 
 
[102]  The CBSA ’s analysis of the information indicates that subject goods imported into 
Canada during t he period of October  1, 201 2 to September 30, 201 4, were subsidized and that 
the estimated amount of subsidy is 15.3% of the export price of the subject goods.  
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   19 AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY AN D VOLUME OF SUBSIDIZ ED GOODS  
 
[103]  Under section 35 of SIMA, if, at any time before mak ing a preliminary determination, the 
President is satisfied that there is insufficient evidence of subsidizing to justify proceeding, the 
amount of subsidy on the goods of a country is insignificant or the actual and potential volume of 
subsidized goods of a country is negligible, the President must terminate the investigation with 
respect to the goods of that country.  Under subsection 2(1) of SIMA, an amount of subsidy of 
less than 1% of the export price  of the goods is defined as  insignificant and a volume of 
subsidized goods is considered negligible if it accounts for less than 3% of the total volume of 
goods  that are released into Ca nada from all countries that are of the same description as the 
subsidized goods , the same threshold for the volume of dumped goods.  
 
[104]  However, according to section 41.2 of SIMA, the President is required to take into 
account Article 27.10 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  when 
conducting a subsidy investigation.  This provision stipulates that a countervailing duty 
investigation involving a developing country should be terminated as soon as the authorities 
determine that th e overall level of subsidies granted upon the product in question does not 
exceed 2% of its value calculated on a per unit basis or the volume of subsidized imports 
represents less than 4% of the total imports of the like product in the importing Member.  
 
[105]  SIMA does not define or provide any guidance regarding the determination of a 
“developing country” for purposes of Article 27.10 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures .  As an administrative alternative, the CBSA refers to the Develo pment 
Assistance Committee List of Official Development Assistance Recipients  for guidance.13  As 
China is included in the listing, the CBSA extend s developing country status to China for 
purposes of this investigation.  
 
[106]  The CBSA used actual import data for  all countries for the period of October 1 , 201 2 to 
September 30, 201 4.  On the basis of this information, the volume of subsidized goods as a 
percentage of the volume of total imports is estimated as follows:  
 
Estimated Amount of Subsidy  and Volume of Sub sidized Goods  
(October 1, 2012  to September 30, 201 4) 
 
Country  Percentage of 
Total Imports  Estimated 
Subsidized Goods 
as % of Total 
Imports  Estimated 
Amount of 
Subsidy as % of 
Export Price  
China  66.97 % 66.97 % 15.3% 
                                                 
13 The Organization for Economic Co -operation a nd Development, DAC List of ODA Recipients from  
2011 to 2013 , the document is available at www.oecd.org/dac/aidstatistics/48858205.pdf .  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   20 [107]  The volume of subsidized goods, estimated to be 66.97 % of total imports from all 
countries, is  greater than the threshold of 4% and is , therefore , not considered negligible.  The 
amount  of subsidy, estimated to be 15.3% of the export price, is greater than  the threshold of 2% 
and is , therefore , not considered insignificant.  
 
EVIDENCE OF INJURY  
 
[108]  The complainant s allege d that the subject goods have been dumped and subsidized and 
that such dumping and subsidizing ha ve caused material injury to the photovoltaic  modules  and 
laminates industry in Canada.  
 
[109]  SIMA refers to material injury caused to  the domestic producers of like goods in Canada.   
The CBSA has accepted that the photovoltaic modules and laminates  produced by the 
complainant s are like goods  to those imp orted from China.  
 
[110]  In support of its allegations, the complainant s have provided evidence  of an increase  in 
the volume of imports of the dumped and subsidized goods, loss of market share, loss of sales, 
price erosion  and price undercutting , reduced product ion and under utilized capacity , reduction in 
employment and declining revenues, margins and profits  as well as n umerous recent insolvencies 
and closures of Canadian manufacturers . 
 
Increased Volume of Dumped and Subsidized Imports  
 
[111]  The import volumes as estimated by the CBSA  are detailed in the “Canadian Market ” 
section  of this Statement of Reasons .  This information shows a continuing trend of rising 
imports from China, which increased  from 72% of total imports in 20 13, to 85.1% in the  
12-month period e nding September 2014.  Overall, imports of subject goods  from China have 
been increasing at a faster pace than imports from all other countries . 
 
Loss of Market Share  
 
[112]  The complainants allege they have lost significant sales in the Canadian market over the  
past 14 months.   The complainants have provi ded a table which contains their sales  of 
photovoltaic modules  in Canada from 2011 through the first half of 2014.   The complainants 
attribute the increase in sales  from 2011 to 2013, to  the recent development o f the Canadian 
photovoltaic module industry, and the domestic content requirements of the Government of 
Ontario ’s Feed -in Tariff  (FIT) program . 
 
[113]  The complainants note that deliveries of solar modules, made under the previous 
domestic content requirements o f the FIT program, will be exhausted in the second half of 2014.  
The complainants submit that at that time they expect imports of subject goods to return to,  or 
exceed 2010 and 2011 levels, during which time Canadian  sales volumes were much lower.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   21 [114]  The CBSA ’s analysis of import trends show that imports of subject goods increased by 
8.2% from 2013 to the 12 -month period ending September 2014.  According to the information 
before the CBSA, d uring this period of increasing imports, the marke t share of like goods 
produced  in Canada has  also increased.  However, the CBSA also notes that the complainants ’ 
market share has remained stagnant from 2013 to the 12 -month period ended  
September 30, 2014.  
 
[115]  The CBSA has not been provided with specific p roduction information from Celestica 
Inc. or Flextronics.   As previously mentioned, the CBSA has relied on information from 
CANSIA reports which include production estimates for producers of photovoltaic modules in 
Canada.  However, CANSIA reports do not i nclude production information for 2014.  In the 
absence of this information, the CBSA has used 2013 data as a projection for 2014 pro duction.  
 
[116]  The CBSA notes certain limitations in assessing the complainants ’ claim of loss of 
market share caused by the use  of 2013 production information.  These limitations include the 
inability to determine any changes in market share, experienced in 2014, by  Celestica Inc. or 
Flextronics .  Further, as these producers account for a significant portion of total production in  
Canada, the use of this data may significantly impact the calculation of domestic market share 
and may mask any loss of market share experienced in 2014.   This is of specific concern as 
information before the CSBA indicates that Flextronics ceased product ion of the like goods in 
2014.  
 
[117]  Without reliable and accurate production information for the most recent period from 
these two large producers, the CBSA cannot properly assess the claim of loss of market share.  
 
Loss of Sales  
 
[118]  The complainant s have  provided several internal reports and emails that illustrate lost 
sales on a customer -specific basis.  These are examples  of lost sales due to lower pricing from 
exporters of  the allegedly dumped and subsidized imports from China.  The complaint contains 
documentation that supports the link between the complainants ’ lost sales to the allegedly 
dumped and subsidized subject goods.14 
 
[119]  Furthermore, the complainant s state that they have lost the business of several major 
accounts.  The complainant s indicate  these lost accounts are directly linked to low -priced imports 
of subject goods .15 
 
[120]  Based on the CBSA ’s analysis of the information contained in the complaint, the CBSA 
finds the claim of loss of sales to be well supported and sufficiently linked to the alleged ly 
dumped and subsidized goods.   
 
                                                 
14 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminate s Complaint  – Pages 119 - 124. 
15 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Pages 119 - 124.  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   22 Price Erosion  & Price Undercutting  
 
[121]  The complainant s state  that the allegedly dumped and subsidized goods have captured 
sales and market share by undercutting the prices of Canadian producers and, as a result, eroded 
the complainant s’ prices .  The complaint contains evidence of price undercutting by  subject 
goods.  It also  contain s documented instances where prices were supp ressed or where the 
complainants were  forced to lower prices or lose sales in response to allegedly dumped and 
subsidized imports .16 
 
[122]  Based on the CBSA ’s analysis of the information contained in the complaint, the CBSA 
finds that the claim of price erosion and price undercutting to be well sup ported and sufficiently 
linked to the allegedly dumped and subsidized goods.  
 
Reduced Production & Underu tilized Capacity  
 
[123]  The complainants state that they have operated and continue to operate with very high 
excess capacity.  The  complainants argue that e xcess capacity contributes to poor financial 
performance by increasing the cost of production per MW.  The complainants have provided 
evidence of this excess capacity in a consolidated production statement.17 
 
[124]  Based on the information provided, the CBSA finds the claim of excess production 
capacity to be reasonable and well supported.  
 
[125]  However, the CBSA finds that the claim of reduced capacity utilization may not be well 
supported, or consistent with the informa tion provided  at this time , and that these injury factors 
may not be sufficiently linked to t he dumped and subsidized goods.  
 
Reduction in Employment  
 
[126]  The complainant s state that the decline in sales in the Canadian market attributable to the 
allegedly dumped and subsidized subject goods has caused a decline in the level of direct and 
indirect employment.  The complaint shows the number of direct and indirect em ployees from 
2011 through the first half of 2014 .  Further, the complainants note that Canadian producer 
Flextronic s closed operations in June 2014, eliminating 400 jobs.18 
 
[127]  The CBSA recognizes that certain  complainants have reduced the number of employees 
from the  first half of 2013 through the first half of 2014.  Further, the CBSA finds that the 
closure the Canadian producer Flextronics represents a significant net loss of employment to the 
domestic industry.  The CBSA also finds that the reductions in employment  can be reasonably 
linked to the presence of the dumped and subsidized goods.  
 
                                                 
16 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Pages 124 - 128. 
17 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Page 129 . 
18 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Pages 129 - 131.  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   23 Declining Revenues, Margins and Profits  
 
[128]  The complainants allege that the injurious impact of the dumped and subsidized goods is 
demonstrated in the companies ’ financ ial results.  To support this allegation the complainants 
have provided consolidated income statements for 2011 through the first half of 2014.19 
 
[129]  The CBSA ’s analysis of the  financial statements provided by the complainants  reveals  
shrinking gross and net margins .  The CBSA finds that the complainants declining financial 
performance is likely due to lost sales, price erosion and price undercutting resulting from 
imports of the allegedly dumped and subsidized goods.  
 
Numerous Recent I nsolvencies and Closures  of Canadian Manufacturers  
 
[130]  The complainants have provided information regarding numerous recent insolvencies and 
closures of Canadian photovoltaic module manufacturers.  Specifically, the complainants note 
that between January 1, 2014 and June 30, 2014, two Canadian producers, Centennial Global 
Technology Inc. and Flextronic s, ceased operations.  Further, the complainants list six additional 
Canadian producers who have declared bankruptcy or ceased operations since 2012.  The 
complainants allege this is due, in significant part, to the presence of dumped and subsidized 
goods.20 
 
[131]  The CBSA recognizes that since 2012 , eight  Canadian producers of photovoltaic modules 
have ceased operations or declared bankruptcy.  The CBSA also notes the recent closure of 
Flextronics and Centennial Global Technology Inc.  However, as the CBSA has not received 
information from these companies, based on the information currently available, the CBSA  
cannot properly assess the claim that these recent insol vencies and closures are linked to the 
dumped and subsidized goods.  
 
THREAT OF INJURY  
 
[132]  The complainant s allege that the dumped and subsidized good s threaten to cause further 
material injury to the domestic producers of photovoltaic modules and laminates.  The 
complainants argue that the trends described in the previous section are not only likely to 
continue, but to increase to the point that imports  of subject goods from China dominate the 
Canadian market.  The complainants allege that this will result in the closure of the remaining 
Canadian producers.  
 
[133]  The complainants provided the following information to support the allegation that 
imports from C hina threaten to cause further injury to the Canadian industry : 
 
                                                 
19 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Attachment 84 . 
20 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Page 131 .  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   24 Nature of the Subsides  
 
[134]  As discussed in the subsidy section of this document, the complainants have provided 
details of subsidy programs allegedly available to Chinese producers of  photovoltaic modules 
and laminates.  The complainants allege that these subsides constitute significant support for the 
Chinese industry.  Further, the complainants submit that these subsides have had, and continue  to 
have, a significant impact on the tra de of Chinese solar modules.  
 
[135]  The CBSA has found that sufficient evidence exists of subsidy programs in China that 
benefit the producers of subject goods and, consequently, that sufficient grounds are present to 
warrant the commencement of a subsidy invest igation.  Further, the CBSA recognizes that the 
subsidization of producers of subject goods could significantly impact the trade of subject goods.  
 
Significant Increase in the Rate of Subject Goods Imports  
 
[136]  The complainants allege that the r apid increase i n the volume  of dumped and subsidized 
subject goods , at prices that undercut domestically produced like goods,  pose a threat of further 
injury to the Canadian industry.  This allegation is supported by import statistics provided by the 
complainants.  The c omplainants submit that the evidence provided with respect to the 
significant volume of lost sales and lost customers supports this allegation.21 
 
[137]  The CBSA ’s analysis of import da ta supports the allegation of an increase in the 
importation of the alleged dumped and subsidized goods.  From 2013 to September 30, 2014 , the 
volume of imported goods from China increased by 8.2 %.  Based on the CBSA ’s analysis of 
import data, the CBSA finds the complainants ’ allegation of threat of injury posed by an increase 
in the rate of subject goods imports to be reasonable and well supported.  
 
Production Capacity in China  
 
[138]  Based on industry publications, the complainants estimate the production capacity of 
Chinese photo voltaic module  and laminate  producers at 49,500 MW.  Further, the complainants 
estimate the excess production capacity  of Chinese photovoltaic module s and laminate s 
producer s at 16,300 MW.  Compared to the annual capacity of Canadian photovoltaic module s 
and laminate s producers of 941  MW, the result demonstrates that a small portion of Chinese 
production could overwhelm the Canadian market.  The complaint includes details of the 
production capacity of individual Chinese producers as well as comparisons to C anadian market 
demand. 22   
 
[139]  The CBSA acknowledges that producers of photovoltaic modules and laminates in China  
have excess capacities and should they seek export markets, such as Canada, to increase their 
capacity utilization, this would lead to further i njury to the Canadian industry.  
 
                                                 
21 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Page  137. 
22 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Pages 138 - 142.  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   25 Market Conditions in China  
 
[140]  The complainants state that producers of photovoltaic modules  and laminates in China  
rely significantly on export sales.  This allegation is supported by sources which include reports 
filed by leading Chinese producers with the United States Securities and Exchange 
Commission.23   
 
[141]  The complainants allege that overcapacity in the photovoltaic market has led to lower 
prices in China and internationally.  The complainants submit  that Chine se producers ’ reliance 
on export markets,  combined with excess capacity and declining international prices,  may lead 
Chinese producers to target export markets with higher prices, such as Canada.24 
 
[142]  The CBSA ’s analysis of the information contained in the complaint revealed market 
conditions which the CBSA recognizes may lead Chinese producers to target certain export 
markets, including Canada.  The CBSA finds the complainants ’ allegations of the threat of injury 
posed by market conditions in China to be re asonable and well supported.  
 
Foreign Trade Remedy Actions  
 
[143]  The complainants provided evidence that photovoltaic module exports from China are 
subject to trade restrictions in the two largest developed markets, the United States of America 
and the European Union.  The complainants submit that these market restrictions will encourage 
Chinese producers to focus on other export markets, such as Canada.25  
 
[144]  The CBSA acknowledges the presence of trade remedy actions in the United States and 
European Union , which may impact the export of photovoltaic modules and laminates from 
China.  Further, the CBSA recognizes that these restrictions may have a significant impact on the 
Canadian market.  The CBSA finds the complainants ’ allegations of the threat of injur y posed by 
foreign trade remedy actions to be reasonable and well supported.  
 
CAUSAL LINK – DUMPING/SUBSIDIZING AND INJURY  
 
[145]  The CBSA  finds that the complainant s have provided sufficient evidence that there is a 
reasonable indication that they have suffered  injury due to the alleged dumping and subsidizing  
of subject goods imported into Canada.  There is a reasonable indication that the injury the 
complainant s have suffered in terms of loss of sales, price erosion  and price undercutting , 
reduction in employm ent and declining revenues, margins and profits  is related to the price 
advantage the alleged dumping and subsidizing has produced between the import ed subject 
goods  and the Canadia n produced goods.  
 
[146]  The C BSA also finds that the complainant s have provided sufficient evidence that the re 
is a reasonable indication that  continued alleged dumping and subsidizing  of subject goods 
imported into Canada threaten to cause injury to the Canadian industry producing these goods . 
                                                 
23 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Pages 142  - 143. 
24 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Pages 142 - 143. 
25 Dumping Exhibit 2 (NC) – Solar Modules and Laminates Complaint – Pages 143 - 147.  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   26 CONCLUSION  
 
[147]  Based on informati on provided in the complaint, other available information, and the 
CBSA ’s import  documentation , the President is of the opinion that  there is evidence that certain 
photovoltaic modules and laminates  originating in or exported from  China have been dumped 
and subsidized, and there is a reasonable indication that such dumping and subsidizing has 
caused and is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry.  As  a result, based on the 
CBSA ’s examination of the evidence and its own analysis,  dumping and subsidy investigat ions 
were initiated on December 5 , 2014. 
 
SCOPE OF THE INVESTI GATION  
 
[148]  The CBSA is conduct ing investigations to determine whether the subject goods have 
been dumped and/or subsidized.  
 
[149]  The CBSA has requested information from all potential exporters and importers to 
determine whether or not subject goods imported into Canada during the POI of October  1, 20 13 
to September 30 , 2014, were dumped .  The information requested will be used to determine  the 
normal values , export p rices and  margins of dumping , if any . 
 
[150]  The CBSA requested information from producers and exporters of photovoltaic modules 
and laminates  in China, as well as the GOC , to determine whether the conditions of section 20 
exist in the sector under investigation.  The CBSA has also requested costing and sales 
information from producers of photovoltaic modules and laminates  in Chinese Taipei , Japan, the 
Republic of Korea and  Malaysia .  Where sufficiently available, this information may be used to 
determine normal values of the goods in the event that the President of the CBSA forms an 
opinion that the evidence in this investigation demonstrates that section 20 conditions appl y in 
the solar  sector , which includes  photovoltaic modules and laminates , in China.  
 
[151]  The CBSA has also requested i nformation from the GOC  and all potential Chinese 
exporters to determine whether or not subject goods imported into Canada during the POI of 
October 1, 2012  to September 30 , 201 4, were subsidized.  The information requested will be 
used to de termine the amounts of subsidy.  
 
[152]  All parties have been clearly advised of the CBSA ’s information requirements and the 
time frames for providing their respo nses, by the due date provided in the Requests for 
Information . 
 
FUTURE ACTION  
 
[153]  The Canadian International Trade Tribunal ( Tribunal ) will conduct a preliminary inquiry 
to determine whether the evidence discloses a reasonable indication that the alleged dumping and 
subsidizing of the goods has caused or is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry.  
The Tribunal must make its  decision on or before the 60th day after the date of the initiation of 
the investigations , by February 3, 201 5.  If the Tribunal concludes that the evidence does not 
disclose a reasonable indication of injury to the Canadian industry, the in vestigations w ill be 
terminated.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   27 [154]  If the Tribunal finds that the evidence discloses a reasonable indication of injury to the 
Canadian industry and the CBSA  determines  in the  preliminary phase of the investigations  that 
the goods have been dumped and/or subsidized, the CB SA will make a preliminary 
determination (s) of dumping and/or subsidizing within 90 days after the date of the initi ation of 
the investigations, by  March 5 , 2015.  Where circumstances warrant, this period may be 
extended to 135 days from the date of the in itiation of the investigations.  
 
[155]  If, in respect of goods of a named country, the CBSA investigation (s) reveal that imports 
of the subject goods have not been dumped and/or subsidized, that the margin of dumping and/or 
amount of subsidy is insignificant or that the actual and potential volume of dumped or 
subsidized goods is negligible, the investigation (s) will be terminated.  
 
[156]  Import s of subject goods released by the CBSA  on and after the date of a preliminary 
determination of dumping and/or subsidizing may  be subject to provisional duty in an amount 
not greater than the estimated margin of dumping or the estimated amount of subsidy on the 
imported goods.  
 
[157]  Should the CBSA make preliminary determination s of dumping and/or subsidizing, the 
investigations will be continued for the purpose of making final determination s within 90 days 
after the date of the preliminary determination s. 
 
[158]  If final determination s of dumping and/or subsidizing are made, the Tribunal will 
continue its inquiry and hold public hearings in to the question of material injury to the Canadian 
industry.  The Tribunal is required to make a finding with respect to the goods to which the final 
determination s of dumping and/or subsidizing appl y, not later than 120  days after the CBSA ’s 
preliminary d etermination s. 
 
[159]  In the event of an injury finding by the Tribunal, imports of subject goods  released by the 
CBSA  after that date will be subject to anti -dumping duty equal to the applicable margin of 
dumping and countervailing duty equal to the amount of s ubsidy on the imported goods.  Should 
both anti -dumping and countervailing duties be applicable to subject goods, the amount of any 
anti-dumping duty may be reduced by the amount that is attributable to an export subsidy.  
 
RETROACTIVE DUTY ON MASSIVE IMPOR TATIONS  
 
[160]  When the Tribunal conducts an inquiry concerning injury to the Canadian industry, it 
may consider if dumped and/or subsidized goods that were imported close to or after the 
initiation of an investigation constitute massive importations over a relatively short period of 
time and have caused injury to the Canadian industry.  
 
[161]  Should the Tribunal issue such a finding, anti -dumping and countervailing duties may be 
imposed retroactively on subject goods import ed into Canada and released by the CBSA  during 
the period of 90 days preceding the day of the CBSA making a preliminary determination of 
dumping and/or subsidizing.   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   28 [162]  In respect of importations of subsidized goods that have caused injury, however, this 
provision is only applicable where the CBSA has determined that the whole or any part of the 
subsidy on the goods is a prohibited subsidy, as exp lained in the previous “Evidence of 
Subsidizing ” section .  In such a case, the amount of countervailing duty applied on a retroactive 
basis will b e equal to the amount of subsidy on the goods that is a prohibited subsidy.  
 
UNDERTAKINGS  
 
[163]  After a preliminary determination of dumping by the CBSA, an exporter may submit a 
written undertaking to revise selling prices to Canada so that the margin of dumpi ng or the injury 
caused by the dumping is eliminated.  An acceptable undertaking must account for all or 
substantially all of the exports to Canada of the dumped goods.  
 
[164]  Similarly, after a preliminary determination of subsidizing by the CBSA, a foreign 
government may submit a written undertaking to eliminate the subsidy on the goods exported or 
to eliminate the injurious effect of the subsidy, by limiting the amount of the subsidy or the 
quantity of goods exported to Canada.  Alternatively, exporters with t he written consent of their 
government may undertake to revise their selling prices so that the amount of the subsidy or the 
injurious effect of the subsidy is eliminated.  
 
[165]  Interested parties may provide comments regarding the acceptability of undertakings  
within nine days of the receipt of an undertaking by the CBSA.  The CBSA will maintain a list of 
parties who wish to be notified should an undertaking proposal be received.  Those who are 
interested in being notified should provide their name, telephone a nd fax numbers, mail ing 
address and e -mail address  to one of the officers identified in the “Informa tion” section of this 
document.  
 
[166]  If an undertaking were to be accepted, the investigations and the collection of provisional 
duty would be suspended.  Notwi thstanding the acceptance of an undertaking, an exporter may 
request that the CBSA ’s investigations be completed and that the Tribunal complete its injury 
inquiry.  
 
PUBLICATION  
 
[167]  Notice of the initiation of these investigations is being published in the Can ada Gazette 
pursuant to subparagraph 34(1)( a)(ii) of SIMA.  
 
INFORMATION  
 
[168]  Interested parties are invited to file written submissions presenting facts, arguments, and 
evidence that they feel are relevant to the alleged dumping and subsidizing.  Written submissions 
should be forwarded to the attention of one of the officers identified below.  
 
[169]  To be given consideration in this phase of these investigations, all information should be 
received by the CBSA by January  12, 201 5. 
 [170] Any information submitted to the CBSA by interested parties concerning these 
investigations is considered to be public information unless clearly marked "confidential." 
Where the submission by an interested party is confidential, a non-confidential version of the 
submission must be provided at the same time. This non-confidential version will be made 
available to other interested parties upon request. 
[171] Confidential information submitted to the President will be disclosed on written request 
to independent counsel for parties to these proceedings, subject to conditions to protect the 
confidentiality of the information. Confidential information may also be released to the 
Tribunal, any court in Canada, or a WTOINAFTA dispute settlement panel. Additional 
information respecting the Directorate's policy on the disclosure of information under SIMA 
may be obtained by contacting one of the officers identified below or by visiting the CBSA's 
Web site. 
[172] The investigation schedules and a complete listing of all exhibits and information are 
available at www.cbsa-asfc. gc.calsima-Imsi /i-e/menu-eng.html. The exhibits listing will be 
updated as new exhibits and information are made available. 
[173] This Statement of Reasons has been provided to persons directly interested in these 
proceedings. It is also posted on the CBSA's Web site at the address below. For further 
information, please contact the officers identified as follows: 
Mail: 
Telephone: 
Fax: 
E-mail: 
Web site: 
Attachment SIMA Registry and Disclosure Unit 
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate 
Canada Border Services Agency 
100 Metcalfe Street, 11 th floor 
Ottawa, Ontario KIA OL8 
Canada 
Walid Ben Tamarzizt 
Shawn Ryan 
613-948-4844 613-954-7183 
613-954-7341 
simaregistry@cbsa-asfc. gc.ca 
www.cbsa-asfc. gc.calsima-Imsi 
Director General 
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate 
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate 29  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   30 APPENDIX 1 - DESCRIPTION OF IDENT IFIED PROGRAMS AND I NCENTIVES  
 
Evidence provided by the complainant suggests that the Government of China  (GOC)  may have 
provided support to manufacturers of subject goods in the following manner.  For purposes of 
this investigation, GOC  refers to all levels of government, i.e. federal, central, provincial/state, 
regional , municipal, city, township, village, local,  legislative, administrative or judicial.  Benefits 
provided by state -owned enterprises, which possess, exercise or have been vested with 
governmental authority may also be considered to be provided by the GOC for purposes of this 
investigation.  
 
I. Special E conomic Zone (SEZ) and Other Designated Areas Incentives  
 
Program 1:  Award for Baotou Rare Earth High and New Technology Industrial Development 
Zone for Excellent Construction Projects  
Program 2:  Fuyang and Hangzhou City Government Grants for Enterprises O perating 
Technology and Research and Development Centers  
Program 3:  Science and Technology Fund - Tianjin Binhai New Area and the Tianjin 
Economic and Technological Development Area  
Program 4:  Corporate Income Tax Exemption and/or Reduction in SEZs and oth er 
Designated Areas  
Program 5:  Exemption/Reduction of Special Land Tax and Land Use Fees in SEZs and Other 
Designated Areas  
Program 6:  Income Tax Refund where Profits Re -invested in SEZs and other Designated 
Areas  
Program 7:  Preferential Tax Policies for E nterprises with Foreign Investment (FIEs) 
Established in Special Economic Zones (excluding Shanghai Pudong Area)  
Program 8:  Preferential Tax Policies for FIEs Established in the Coastal Economic Open 
Areas and in the Economic and Technological Development Zones  
Program 9:  Tariff and Value -added Tax (VAT) Exemptions on Imported Materials and 
Equipment in SEZs and other Designated Areas  
Program 10:  Tax concessions for Central and Western regions  
Program 11:  Local Income Tax Exemption and/or Reduction in SEZs and other Designated 
Areas  
Program 12:  Preferential Costs of Services and/or Goods Provided by Government or State -
owned Enterprises (SOEs) in SEZs and Other Designated Areas  
Program 13:  VAT Exemptions for the Central Region  
 
II. Preferential Loans and Loan Guarantees  
 
Program 14:  Loan from Local Finance Bureau  
Program 15:  Loans and Interest Subsidies provided under the Northeast Revitalization Program  
Program 16:  Policy Lending to Particular Industries  
Program 17:  Preferential Loans Characterized as a Lease Transaction  
Program 18:  Preferential Loans for SOEs  
Program 19:  Debt Forgiveness  
Program 20:  Preferential Loans for FIEs    
Program 21:  Credit Guarantee:  Liaoning (Yingkou) Coastal Industrial Bases   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   31 III. Grants and Grant Equivalents  
 
Program 22:  Export Seller ’s Credit for High - and New -Technology Products by China EMIX 
Bank  
Program 23:  Changzhou Qishuyan District Environmental Protection Fund (Jiangsu)  
Program 24:  Changzhou Technology Plan (Jiangsu)  
Program 25:  Enterprise Innovation Award of Qishuyan District (J iangsu)  
Program 26:  Enterprise Technology Centers (e.g. Tianjin City and Jinnan District)  
Program 27:  Environment Protection Award (Jiangsu)  
Program 28:  Grant - Jiangsu Province Finance Supporting Fund  
Program 29:  “Large and Excellent ” Enterprises Grant  
Program 30:  “Two New ” Product Special Funds of Guangdong Province  
Program 31:  Advanced Science/Technology Enterprise Grant  
Program 32:  Allowance to Pay Loan Interest (Zhongshan City, Guangdong)  
Program 33:  Assistance for Optimizing the Structure of Import/ Export of High -Tech Products  
Program 34:  Assistance for Technology Innovation - R&D Project  
Program 35:  Award for Good Performance in Paying Taxes  
Program 36:  Awards for the Contributions to Local Economy and Industry Development  
Program 37:  Awards to Ente rprises Whose Products Qualify for “Well -Known Trademarks of 
China ” or “Famous Brands of China ” 
Program 38:  Business Bureau 2012 Market Monitoring System of Subsidies  
Program 39:  Business Development Overseas Support Fund (Foshan)  
Program 40:  Circular on I ssuance of Management Methods for Foreign Trade Development 
Support Fund (Support Fund)  
Program 41:  Emission Reduction and Energy -saving Award  
Program 42:  Energy Saving Grant 2008  
Program 43:  Energy -saving Technology Renovation Fund  
Program 44:  Export Assi stance Grant  
Program 45:  Export Brand Development Fund  
Program 46:  Export Credit Subsidy Programs:   Export Buyer ’s Credits  
Program 47:  Export Grant 2006, 2007, 2008  
Program 48:  Financial Subsidy  
Program 49:  Five Points, One Line Strategy in Liaoning Provin ce 
Program 50:  Foreign Trade Grant 2008  
Program 51:  Fund for SME Bank -Enterprise Cooperation Projects  
Program 52:  Funds for Outward Expansion of Industries in Guangdong Province  
Program 53:  Funds of Guangdong Province to Support the Adoption of E -Commerce by 
Foreign Trade Enterprises  
Program 54:  Foreign Trade Development Fund Program - Grants  
Program 55:  Government Export Subsidy and Product Innovation Subsidy  
Program 56:  Government of Shiji azhuang City Export Award  
Program 57:  Grant - Financial Subsidies from Wei Hai City Gao Cun Town Government  
Program 58:  Grant - Large Taxpayer Award  
Program 59:  Grant - Patent Application Assistance  
Program 60:  Grant - Policy on Value -added Tax for Recycla ble Resources  
Program 61:  Grant - Provincial Foreign Economy and Trade Development Special Fund  
Program 62:  Grant - Provisional Industry Promotion Special Fund   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   32 Program 63:  Grant - Resources Conservation and Environment Protection Grant  
Program 64:  Grant - Special Fund for Fostering Stable Growth of Foreign Trade in 2009  
Program 65:  Grant - State Service Industry Development Fund  
Program 66:  Grant - Water Pollution Control Special Fund for Taihu Lake  
Program 67:  Grant for key enterprises in equipment manufac turing industry of Zhongshan  
Program 68:  Grants for Encouraging the Establishment of Headquarters and Regional 
Headquarters with Foreign Investment  
Program 69:  Grants for International Certification  
Program 70:  Grants to Privately -Owned Export Enterprises  
Program 71:  Grants Under Regulations for Export Product Research and Development Fund 
Management  
Program 72:  Grants under the Science and Technology programme of Hebei Province  
Program 73:  Grants under the Science and technology programme of Jiangsu Provin ce 
Program 74:  Guangdong - Hong Kong Technology Cooperation Funding Scheme  
Program 75:  Guangdong Supporting Fund  
Program 76:  Guaranteed Growth Fund  
Program 77:  Hangzhou City Government Grants Under the Hangzhou Excellent New 
Products/Technology Award  
Program 78:  Implementing Measures on the Supporting Fund for Foreign Trade & Economic 
Development of Jiangxi Province (Implementing Measures)  
Program 79:  Important Structural Adjustment Program of Jiangsu Province  
Program 80:  Initial Public Offering (IPO) Grants from the Hangzhou Prefecture and the City of 
Fuyang  
Program 81:  Innovative Experimental Enterprise Grant  
Program 82:  Innovative Small and Medium -Sized Enterprise Grants  
Program 83:  Interim Measures of Fund Management of Allowance for Zhongshan Enter prises 
to Attend Domestic and Overseas Fair (Zhongshan)  
Program 84:  International Market Fund for Small - and Medium -sized Export Companies) 
[Matching Funds for International Market Development for SMEs]  
Program 85:  Jiangxi Provincial Bulk Cement Special Fu nd:  Transformation of Bulk Cement 
Facilities and Equipment  
Program 86:  Jiangxi Provincial Environmental Protection Special Fund  
Program 87:  Jiangxi Provincial Wall Material Renovation Special Fund: Special Subsidies for 
New Wall Materials  
Program 88:  Liaoning High -Tech Products & Equipment Export Interest Assistance  
Program 89:  Local and Provincial Government Reimbursement Grants on Export Credit 
Insurance Fees  
Program 90:  Miscellaneous Grants  
Program 91:  Modern Service Grant  
Program 92:  Municipal Governme nt - Exhibition Grant  
Program 93:  Municipal Government - Export Grant  
Program 94:  Municipal Government - Insurance Fee Grant  
Program 95:  National Environmental Protection and Resources Saving Program:   Grants for 
the Optimization of Energy Systems  
Program 96: National Innovation Fund for Technology Based Firms  
Program 97:  Outstanding Growth Private Enterprise and Small - and Medium -sized Enterprises 
Development in Jiangyin Fund   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   33 Program 98:  Patent award in Guangdong province  
Program 99:  Pension Fund Grants  
Program 100:  Product Quality Grant  
Program 101:  Provincial Fund for Fiscal and Technological Innovation  
Program 102:  Provincial Government - Equipment Grant  
Program 103:  Provincial Loan Discount Special Fund for SMEs  
Program 104:  Provincial Scientific Development Plan Fund  
Program 105:  Refund from Government for Participating in Trade Fair (Foshan)  
Program 106:  Reimbursement of Anti -dumping and/or Countervailing Legal Expenses by the 
Local Governments  
Program 107:  Reimbursement of Foreign Affairs Servic es Expenses (Foshan)  
Program 108:  Repaying Foreign Currency Loan by Returned VAT  
Program 109:  Research & Development (R&D) Assistance Grant  
Program 110:  Science and Technology Award  
Program 111:  Small - and Medium -sized Enterprise Support Funds  
Program 112:  Special Fund for Significant Science and Technology in Guangdong Province  
Program 113:  Special Support Fund for Non -State -Owned Enterprises  
Program 114:  Special Supporting Fund for Commercialization of Technological Innovation and 
Research Findings  
Progra m 115:  State Special Fund for Promoting Key Industries and Innovation Technologies  
Program 116:  Subsidy for Promoting Energy -saving Buildings  
Program 117:  Subsidy for the Technology Development  
Program 118:  Superstar Enterprise Grant  
Program 119:  Support F unds for Construction of Project Infrastructure Provided by 
Administration Commission of LETDZ  
Program 120:  Supporting Fund for Non -refundable Export Tax Loss on Mechanical & Electrical 
Product and High -tech Product (Jiangmen City)  
Program 121:  Taxpayer Gr ant 
Program 122:  Technical Renovation Loan Interest Discount Fund  
Program 123:  Technology Project Assistance  
Program 124:  Technology to Improve Trade R&D Fund  
Program 125:  The State key technology project fund  
Program 126:  Venture Investment Fund of Hi -Tech Industry  
Program 127:  Water Conservancy Fund Deduction  
Program 128:  Water Fund Refund/Exemption 2008  
Program 129:  Water Saving Enterprise  
Program 130:  Award for Excellent Enterprise  
Program 131:  Export Award  
Program 132:  Financial Assistance for an Overseas Market Survey  
Program 133:  Foreign Trade Promotion Award  
Program 134:  Fund for Supporting Strategic Emerging Industries by Guangdong Governments  
Program 135:  Medium Size and Small Size Enterprises Development Special Fund  
Program 136:  Medium Size  and Small Size Trading Enterprises Development Special Fund  
Program 137:  Reduction in Land Use Fees, Land Rental Rates, and Land Purchase Prices  
Program 138:  Special Supporting Fund for Key Projects of “500 Strong Enterprises in 
Contemporary Industries ” by Guangdong Governments  
Program 139:  Stamp Tax Exemption on Share Transfers under Non -tradable Share Reform   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   34 Program 140:  Supporting Fund for Becoming Publicly Listed Company  
Program 141:  Supporting Fund for the “Working Capital ” Loan Interest  
Program 142:  Supporting Fund for the Development from Guangzhou Local Governments  
Program 143:  Foreign Trade Development Fund Program - VAT Refunds  
Program 144:  Golden Sun Demonstration Program  
Program 145:  Special Energy Fund  
Program 146:  Fund for Economic, Scienti fic and Technology Development  
Program 147:  Grants for “International Top 500 Enterprises”  
Program 148:  Foreign Trade Development Fund of Old Industrial Bases of Northeast China  
Program 149:  New Product Award  
Program 150:  Capital Increase Award  
 
IV. Prefer ential Tax Programs  
 
Program 151:  Corporate Income Tax Reduction for New High -Technology Enterprises  
Program 152:  Deed Tax Exemptions For Land Transferred through Merger or Restructuring  
Program 153:  Income tax concessions for the enterprises engaged in the comprehensive resource 
utilisation ( ‘special raw materials ’) 
Program 154:  Income Tax Exemption for Investors in Designated Geographical Regions within 
Liaoning  
Program 155:  Income Tax Refund for Re -investment of FIE Profits by Foreign Investors  
Program  156: Local income tax exemption and reduction programmes for the productive FIEs  
Program 157:  Municipal Government - Preferential Tax Program  
Program 158:  PGOG Tax Offset for R&D  
Program 159:  Preferential income tax policies for particular regions  
Program  160: Preferential Tax Policies for Domestic Enterprises Purchasing Domestically 
Produced Equipment for Technology Upgrading Purpose  
Program 161:  Preferential Tax Policies for FIEs and Foreign Enterprises Which Have 
Establishments or Places in China and ar e Engaged in Production or Business 
Operations Purchasing Domestically Produced Equipment  
Program 162:  Preferential Tax Policies for FIEs which are Technology Intensive and 
Knowledge Intensive  
Program 163:  Preferential Tax Policies for Foreign Invested Exp ort Enterprises  
Program 164:  Preferential Tax Policies for the Research and Development of FIEs  
Program 165:  Preferential Tax Policies in the Western Regions  
Program 166:  Preferential Tax Programs for Encouraged Industries or Projects  
Program 167:  Accelera ted Depreciation on Fixed Assets  
Program 168:  City maintenance and Construction Taxes and education surcharges for Foreign 
Invested Enterprises  
Program 169:  Various local tax discounts (Shandong Province, Chongqing City, Guangxi 
Region Zhuang, Tax privileg es to develop central and western regions)  
Program 170:  VAT and Income Tax Exemption/Reduction for Enterprises Adopting  
Debt -to-Equity Swaps  
Program 171:  Tax policies for the deduction of research and development expenses  
Program 172:  Tax Preference Avail able to Companies that Operate at a Small Profit  
Program 173:  Two free, three half tax exemptions for the productive FIEs  
Program 174:  VAT exemption for products sold by FIEs   
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   35 V.   Relief from Duties and Taxes on Inputs, Materials and Machinery  
 
Program 175: Exemption of Tariff and Import VAT for the Imported Technologies and 
Equipment  
Program 176:  Relief from Duties and Taxes on Imported Material and Other Manufacturing 
Inputs  
Program 177:  VAT rebates on domestically produced equipment  
Program 178:  VAT r efunds to FIEs purchasing domestically produced equipment  
Program 179:  VAT deduction on fixed assets in the Central region  
Program 180:  Income tax credit for the purchase of domestically manufactured production 
equipment  
Program 181:  Import tariff and VAT exemptions for FIEs and certain domestic enterprises using 
imported equipment in encouraged industries  
 
VI. Goods/Services provided by the Government at Less Than Fair Market Value  
 
Program 182:  Acquisition of Government Assets at Less than Fair Market Value  
Program 183:  Export Restrictions on raw materials (e.g. Coke)  
Program 184:  Input Materials Provided by Government at Less than Fair Market Value  
Program 185:  Utilities Provided by Government at Less than Fair Market Value  
 
VII. Equity Programs  
 
Progr am 186:  Debt -to-Equity Swaps  
Program 187:  Dividend exemption between qualified resident enterprises  
Program 188:  Equity Infusions  
Program 189:  Unpaid Dividends  
 
Determinations of Subsidy and Specificity  
 
Available information indicates that the programs identified under ,  SEZ and Other Designated 
Areas Incentives ; Preferential Loans  and Loan Guarantees ; Preferential Tax Programs ; and 
Relief from Duties and Taxes on Inputs, Materials and Machinery , may constitute a financial 
contribution pursuant to paragr aph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA, in that amounts that would otherwise be 
owing and due to the government are reduced or exempted, and would confer a benefit to the 
recipient equal to the amount of the reduction/exemption.  
 
Grants  and Grant Equivalents  may constitute  a financial contribution pursuant to 
paragraph  2(1.6)( a) of SIMA in that they involve the direct transfer of funds or liabilities or the 
contingent transfer of funds or liabilities; and pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( b) of SIMA as 
amounts owing and due to t he government that are forgiven or not collected.  
 
Goods/Services Provided by the Government at Less than Fair Market Value  may constitute a 
financial contribution pursuant to paragraph 2(1.6)( c) of SIMA as they involve the provision of 
goods or services, other than general governmental infrastructure.  
  
  
Trade and Anti-dumping Programs  Directorate   36 Benefits provided to certain types of enterprises or limited to enterprises located in certain areas 
under program categories , SEZ and Other Designated Areas Incentives ; Preferential Loans  and 
Loan Guarantee s; Preferential Tax Programs ; and Relief from Duties and Taxes on Inputs, 
Materials and Machinery , may be considered specific pursuant to paragraph 2(7.2)( a) of SIMA.  
 
As well , Grants  and Grant Equivalents , Equity Programs  and Goods/Services Provided by the 
Government at Less than Fair Market Value  may be considered specific pursuant to  
subsection 2(7.3) of SIMA in that the manner in which discretion is exercised by the granting 
authority indicates that the subsidy may not be generally available.