Canada: AD & CVD investigation of oil country tubular goods pup joints from China
Description
On December 12, 2011 the Canada Border Services Agency made preliminary determinations in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of oil country tubular goods pup joints, made of carbon or alloy steel, we1ded or seamless, heat-treated or not heat-treated, regardless of end finish, having an outside diameter from 23/8 inches to 4 1/2 inches (60.3 mm to 114.3 mm), in all grades, in lengths from 2 feet to 12 feet (61 cm to 366 cm) originating in or exported from China. It found estimated subsidies of 8.8-50.8% and estimated dumping margins of 32.4-169%.
Click here to see the Statement of Reasons posted on December 28, 2011.
The agency had previously published its Statement of Reasons for initiating the investigation, with this agency having determined that "there is a reasonable indication thatsuch dumping and subsidizing has caused or is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry," the Canadian International Trade 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. If the Tribunal finds that the evidence discloses a reasonable indication of injury to the Canadian industry and the ongoing CBSA investigations reveal that the goods have been dumped and/or subsidized, the CBSA will make a preliminary determination of dumping and/orsubsidizing within 90 days after the date of the initiation of the investigations, by December 12, 2011.
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
| Question | Result |
|---|---|
| Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations? | |
| Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered? | |
| Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government? | |
| Was such evidence identified? | |
| Is such evidence publicly available? | |
| Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives? | |
| Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken? | |
| Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory? | |
| Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation? |
Date Discovered:
Implemented: No
Date of inception:
GTA Evaluation: Amber
Source:
See the hyperlinked material in the description.
Government Response:
- 220 reads
