Canada: Initiation of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation on steel grating originating from China
Description
On September 20, 2010 the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) initiated investigations of the alleged injurious dumping and subsidizing of certain metal bar grating of carbon, alloy or stainless steel, consisting of load-bearing pieces and cross pieces, produced as standard grating or heavy-duty grating, in panel form, whether galvanized, painted, coated, clad or plated, originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China.
According to the agency's Statement of Reasons (published October 5, 2010), it had received a written complaint from from Fisher & Ludlow, Ltd., of Burlington, Ontario on August 3, 2010 providing evidence of subsidization and dumping.
CBSA made its final determinations on a company-specific basis on March 21, 2011, with the dumping margins ranging from zero to 85% and the subsidies ranging from 543 to 13,064 renminbi per metric ton. Click here for the statement of reasons. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal is continuing its inquiry into the question of injury to the domestic industry and will make an order or finding by April 19, 2011. Provisional duties will continue to apply until this date.
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: 28/10/2010
Implemented: No
Date of inception: 20 Sep 2010
GTA Evaluation: Amber
Source:
Bown, Chad P. (2010) "Global Antidumping Database,” available at http://econ.worldbank.org/ttbd/gad/
Government Response:
- 322 reads
