Common menu bar links
Anti-dumping and Countervailing Program
Certain Steel Fuel Tanks
OTTAWA, May 18, 2004
4264-621
AD/1298
STATEMENT OF REASONS
Concerning the making of a preliminary determination of dumping pursuant to
CERTAIN STEEL FUEL TANKS ORIGINATING IN OR EXPORTED FROM THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND CHINESE TAIPEI
DECISION
On May 3, 2004, pursuant to subsection 38(1) of the Special Import Measures Act, the President of the Canada Border Services Agency made a preliminary determination of dumping respecting new steel fuel tanks, gasoline or diesel, for passenger cars and light trucks, for the replacement market, originating in or exported from the People's Republic of China and Chinese Taipei.
This Statement of Reasons is also available in French. Please refer to the "Information" section.
Cet énoncé des motifs est également disponible en français. Veuillez vous reporter à la section « Information ».
Margin of Dumping and Volume of Dumped Goods
Representations Concerning the Investigation
Provisional Duty to be Imposed
Retroactive Duty on Massive Importations
[1] On October 31, 2003, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) received a written complaint from Spectra Premium Industries Inc. (SPI), concerning the alleged injurious dumping of certain steel fuel tanks originating in or exported from the People's Republic of China (China) and Chinese Taipei.
[2] On November 21, 2003, pursuant to subsection 32(1) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), the CCRA informed the complainant in writing that its complaint was properly documented. The complainant claimed that the dumped imports have eroded prices, caused lost sales and reduced its profitability.
[3] On December 12, 2003, the responsibility for the customs program of the CCRA, including the administration of SIMA, was transferred to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), which was created on the same date. The President of the CBSA (President) is now responsible for dumping and subsidy investigations.
[4] In response to the complaint submitted by SPI, the President initiated an investigation on December 19, 2003, pursuant to subsection 31(1) of SIMA, into the alleged injurious dumping of certain steel fuel tanks originating in or exported from China and Chinese Taipei.
[5] Upon receiving notice of the investigation, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (Tribunal) started its preliminary injury inquiry. On February 17, 2004, the Tribunal made a preliminary determination that the evidence disclosed a reasonable indication that the alleged dumping of the subject goods has caused injury to the domestic industry.
[6] On March 16, 2004, pursuant to paragraph 39(1)(a) of SIMA, the President made the decision to extend the 90-day period for making a preliminary decision in the investigation to 135 days, due to the complexity of the issues presented by the investigation.
[7] As a result of the CBSA's preliminary investigation, on May 3, 2004, the President made a preliminary determination of dumping respecting certain steel fuel tanks originating in or exported from China and Chinese Taipei pursuant to subsection 38(1) of SIMA.
[8] There was no reason to terminate the investigation according to the provisions of section 35 of SIMA because the aforementioned goods have been dumped and the margins of dumping of these goods are not insignificant. In addition, based on available data, the President is not satisfied that the actual and potential volume of dumped goods is negligible.
[9] The investigation covered all subject goods that were released into Canada during the period of investigation (POI), September 1, 2002 to August 31, 2003.
[10] The complainant, Spectra Premium Industries Inc., is the sole producer of fuel tanks in Canada. The company is located at 1421 Ampère Street, Boucherville, Quebec J4B 5Z5.
[11] At the time of the initiation of the investigation, the CBSA had identified six possible exporters of subject goods. As a result of information obtained subsequent to the initiation, some of the possible exporters were eliminated from further consideration while other companies were identified as exporters. As such, there is now a total of four exporters involved in this investigation. Two of the exporters are located in Chinese Taipei, one exporter in China and one exporter in the United States of America (USA) which exported goods to Canada that originated in Chinese Taipei. Only the exporter in China provided a complete response to the CBSA's Request for Information (RFI).
[12] At the time of the initiation of the investigation, the CBSA had identified 15 possible importers of subject goods. One of the companies initially identified as a possible importer, Monsieur Réservoir of Sherbrooke, Quebec, provided information that confirmed that the company was not an importer of the subject goods. As such, the number of importers has been revised to a total of 14. Of these, responses to the RFI were received from seven importers.
[13] For the purpose of this investigation, the subject goods are defined as:
"New steel fuel tanks, gasoline or diesel, for passenger cars and light trucks, for the replacement market, originating in or exported from the People's Republic of China and Chinese Taipei".
[14] For purposes of this investigation, passenger cars and light trucks include such vehicles as sport utility vehicles, minivans and pick-up trucks.
[15] For purposes of this investigation, "replacement market" excludes fuel tanks for the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) market, which in this case refers to automobile manufacturers.
[16] Fuel tanks for the replacement market and the OEM market are manufactured using different processes and standards. For example, manufacturing steel fuel tanks for OEMs requires QS9000 certification, special welding equipment, and a very low defect rate. Steel fuel tanks made for the replacement market are not subject to those standards.
[17] In addition, OEM fuel tanks are usually manufactured for the current model year. Fuel tanks for the replacement market are made for earlier model years (the average age of replacement for a fuel tank is 10 years) and may not fit and function on the same make and model of car for more current model years.
[18] New steel fuel tanks for the replacement market are used to replace damaged fuel tanks on used vehicles, and are available in many different models. The complainant produces more than 500 models of fuel tanks for the replacement market. Each model of fuel tank is designed to fit inside a specific make and model of passenger car or light truck.
[19] In addition to a steel fuel container, a steel fuel tank usually includes the following components: filler neck, baffle, bowl and vent. For the North American market, the steel used in fuel tanks may have a corrosion-resistant characteristic.
[20] The production of fuel tanks for the replacement market begins with the development of product specifications. For the vast majority of these fuel tanks, the producer does not have the original vehicle manufacturer's specifications. The Canadian producer, SPI, must develop specifications for a replacement fuel tank based on its analysis of the original fuel tank that was installed in a new vehicle.
[21] The steel sheets used in production of fuel tanks for the replacement market are ordered as pre-cut sheets according to the specifications of each model. The manufacturing process begins with the pressing of a half-tank pre-cut sheet (upper and bottom) using specially designed molds for each model in the presser. Holes are then punched in the steel, which permits components to be inserted. The two half-tanks are assembled together using a manual spot welding process, and certain components are soldered to the fuel tanks. Finally, a bending machine is used to give the fuel tanks a final shape. Afterward, each tank is tested, boxed and placed in the warehouse ready for distribution.
[22] The following is the specific 10-digit Harmonized System classification number under which the subject goods are properly classified:
8708.99.93.90
[23] The above classification number includes the subject goods but is not specific to the subject goods (it includes other parts for automobiles). As a result, it is not possible for Statistics Canada to produce electronic data specific to the subject goods. Therefore, no public information is available on imports of subject goods.
[24] In addition to the above classification number, a second classification number appeared in the Statement of Reasons1 for the initiation of the investigation. However, it was determined subsequent to the initiation that the other classification number did not include the subject goods.
[25] Like goods, in relation to any other goods, are goods that are identical in all respects to the other goods, or in the absence of identical goods, goods for which the uses and other characteristics closely resemble those of the like goods.
[26] The subject goods made in China and Chinese Taipei are in direct competition with, have the same use as, and may be used as a substitute product for the fuel tanks made by the complainant in Canada, SPI. The CBSA has concluded that the fuel tanks for the replacement market produced by SPI are like goods to the subject goods as defined in this Statement of Reasons.
[27] There has been no change in the structure of the Canadian industry since the initiation of this investigation. SPI is the only known Canadian producer of new steel fuel tanks, gasoline or diesel, for passenger cars and light trucks, for the replacement market.
[28] With respect to specific market figures for sales of like goods in Canada, the CBSA is unable to release these figures as this would result in the release of confidential information since there is only one Canadian producer. The estimate of the apparent Canadian market is based on this information as well as information from customs records on imports.
[29] In conducting its investigation, the CBSA requested identified exporters and importers to provide sales and cost information necessary to determine the normal values and export price of the subject goods. This request was made in the form of RFI questionnaires. The deadline for receipt of complete responses to the RFI was January 26, 2004.
[30] The dumping investigation involved all of the subject goods released into Canada from customs control during the POI.
[31] As indicated, the CBSA has identified four exporters of the subject goods: two in Chinese Taipei, one in China and one in the USA who exported Chinese Taipei goods.
[32] A response to the RFI was received from Sparkle Developments Limited (Sparkle) on January 26, 2004. Sparkle is a vendor/sales agent of subject goods originating in China.
[33] The response of Sparkle included information of three other companies: Zhongshan Tianyi Auto Parts and Hardware Works (Tianyi), the manufacturer and exporter of the subject goods in China, Mintar International Corporation (Mintar International) of Chinese Taipei, and Mintar Auto Industries Company Limited (Mintar HK) of Hong Kong. Together, Sparkle and the three aforementioned companies, as a group, are hereinafter referred to as the "Mintar Group".
[34] On February 10, 2004, the CBSA informed the Mintar Group that their responses to the RFI were incomplete and provided a list of deficiencies. The outstanding information was subsequently provided. The information of the Mintar Group involved in the production and sale of the subject goods were subject to verification during visits made to Hong Kong and Zhongshan, China, from March 26 to April 1, 2004.
[35] A response to the RFI was received from Jesse Lai Incorporation (Jesse Lai) of Chinese Taipei on March 4, 2004. Jesse Lai is a vendor/sales agent of subject goods originating in Chinese Taipei.
[36] On April 13, 2004, a submission was received from Chyuan Chang Industrial Co., Ltd. (Chyuan Chang) of Chinese Taipei. Chyuan Chang is the producer and exporter of the goods sold by Jesse Lai. Chyuan Chang's submission was not received in time for analysis and verification prior to the preliminary determination. If deemed complete, the exporter's submission will be taken into consideration during the final phase of the investigation.
[37] A limited response to the RFI was received from Golden Legion Automotive Corp. of Chinese Taipei on January 30, 2004. This response was incomplete. In addition, the producer of the goods involved, Lioho Machine Work, Ltd., has declined to provide a detailed response to the RFI. Should these companies subsequently provide complete responses in a timely manner, their information will be taken into consideration during the final phase of the investigation.
[38] The exporter in the USA of subject goods originating in Chinese Taipei, did not respond to the RFI.
[39] Responses to the RFI were also received from seven importers of subject goods, as follows:
- Cancore Industries of Hamilton, Ontario
- Capital & Dominion Radiator of Ottawa, Ontario
- Cross Canada Auto Body Supply of Windsor, Ontario
- Kingdom Auto Parts of Stittsville, Ontario
- MCL Heat Transfer Products Inc. of Milton, Ontario
- Raco Management Co. Ltd. of Truro, Nova Scotia
- Spectra Premium Industries Inc. of Boucherville, Quebec
[40] The information submitted to the CBSA by Tianyi, the only exporter to submit a timely and complete response, was verified and used in calculating the margins of dumping. Margins of dumping were calculated for each separate product shipped to Canada by Tianyi by subtracting its export price from its normal value.
[41] Normal values are generally based on the domestic selling prices of like goods in the country of export or on the total cost of the goods (cost of production, administrative, selling and all other costs) plus an amount for profit.
[42] The export price is generally the lesser of the exporter's ex-factory selling price or the importer's purchase price adjusted for freight charges and all other costs resulting from the exportation of the goods. When the export price is less than the normal value, the difference is the margin of dumping.
[43] The estimated margin of dumping for each of the products exported by Tianyi was determined by subtracting the total export price from the total normal value of all of the sales made to Canada. As such, any sales made at undumped prices reduced the overall margin of dumping found for that particular product.
[44] In respect of Tianyi, the overall margin of dumping of all of the products was calculated by weighting the margins found for each product according to the volume exported to Canada. In making this calculation, the margin of dumping for any product that was not dumped (that had an overall negative margin of dumping) was set to zero.
[45] For an exporter that did not provide a complete response to the RFI, or did not submit its information in a timely manner, the margin of dumping has been estimated to be the highest estimated margin of dumping found for the investigation.
[46] Further details regarding the normal values, export prices and margins of dumping are discussed below.
Zhongshan Tianyi Auto Parts and Hardware Works
[47] All subject goods originating in China were produced at and shipped to Canada from Tianyi's production facility in Zhongshan City, China.
[48] Verification of the cost of production information and other costs submitted by Tianyi was conducted at its manufacturing facilities in Zhongshan City. Verification of information of Sparkle, Mintar International and Mintar HK relating to administrative, selling and other costs that were attributable to the production and sale of the goods was also conducted at the premises of Mintar HK in Hong Kong.
Normal Value
[49] Neither Tianyi or any of the three aforementioned companies had sales of goods for use in the country of export, China. As a result, normal values were estimated as per the method set out in paragraph 19(b) of SIMA as the aggregate of (i) the cost of production of the goods, (ii) a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and (iii) a reasonable amount for profits.
[50] The cost of production was estimated based on cost information submitted by Tianyi and the three aforementioned companies. Adjustments were made by the CBSA where warranted.
[51] Costs incurred by two of the three aforementioned companies, that were not included in the cost of production of the goods but were reasonably attributable to the production and sale of the goods, were included in the amount estimated for administrative, selling and all other costs.
[52] The methodologies for determining a reasonable amount for profit to be used in constructing the normal value under paragraph 19(b) of SIMA is set out in paragraph 11(1)(b) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR). This paragraph sets out a hierarchy of methods based on profits earned by the exporter or other producers on domestic sales of like goods, on domestic sales of goods of the same general category as the like goods, or on domestic sales of goods in the next largest category of goods of the same general category as the like goods (next largest category).
[53] Since Tinayi does not sell any goods in China, and in the absence of domestic sales and profit information in China of other producers of like goods or goods of the same general category as the like goods, the amount for profit was estimated in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph 11(1)(b)(vi) of the SIMR, based on domestic sales of goods in the next largest category by other producers in China.
[54] The profit used in constructing the normal value was the weighted average profit made by five companies involved in the automotive industry in China, using information obtained from the web site of the Shanghai Stock Exchange. These companies are as follows:
- Shanghai Automotive Co., Ltd.
- Guizhou Guihang Automotive Components Co., Ltd.
- Dongfeng Automobile Co., Ltd.
- Chongqing Changan Automobile Company Limited
- Chang-Chun Faw Sihuan Automobile Co., Ltd.
[55] The CBSA divided the total operating profit before income tax for the five companies into the total costs of sales, including cost, charges and expenses attributable to the sales, for the five companies to arrive at the amount of profit to be used in constructing the normal value of the goods.
The amount of profit used was 11.9%.
Export Price
[56] As the goods were sold to unrelated importers in Canada, export prices were estimated using a methodology that is based on paragraph 24(a) of SIMA, on the basis of the exporter's selling prices.
[57] For each sale to Canada, the selling price of the exporter was deemed to be the price of the first sale transaction made by the Mintar Group to the importer in Canada. Amounts for inland freight in China and port charges were deducted from the exporter's selling price, pursuant to subparagraph 24(a)(iii) of SIMA.
Margin of Dumping
[58] All of the goods imported into Canada from China during the POI were reviewed, and 96.1% were estimated to have been dumped. The estimated weighted average margin of dumping was 39.4% expressed as a percentage of the export price. The estimated margins of dumping ranged from 0.3% to 83.4%.
[59] In the absence of complete or timely responses from the exporters of subject goods that originated in Chinese Taipei, the estimated margin of dumping was based on the highest estimated margin of dumping of 83.4% when expressed as a percentage of the export price, found for the only cooperative exporter during the investigation.
[60] Table 1 summarizes the results of the investigation on a country basis.
Table 1
Summary of Margin of Dumping by Country
| Country | Estimated % of goods dumped (by volume) |
Estimated Weighted Average Margin of Dumping2 | Country Imports as a Percentage of Total Imports (By Origin) |
Estimated Dumped Goods as a Percentage of Total Imports (By Origin) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
China |
96.1% |
39.4% |
49.4% |
47.4% |
Chinese Taipei |
100% |
83.4% |
50.6% |
50.6% |
Margin of Dumping and Volume of Dumped Goods
[61] Under section 35 of SIMA, if, at any time before the President makes a preliminary determination, the President is satisfied that 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 terminate the investigation with respect to that country. 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 of less than 3% of total imports is considered negligible.
[62] For this investigation, the estimated volume of dumped goods expressed as a percentage of total imports of like goods for the POI is 47.4% for China and 50.6% for Chinese Taipei.
[63] On the basis of the estimated margins of dumping and the estimated volume of dumped imports, the margin of dumping and volume of dumped goods are estimated to be well above the thresholds outlined above.
Representations Concerning the Investigation
Representations by the Complainant
[64] On February 4, 2004, the CBSA received written representations from counsel representing the complainant. It was submitted that sections 15 to 19 of SIMA cannot be used to determine the normal value of the goods from China due to the lack of prevailing market economy conditions in the industry producing the fuel tanks. It was argued that the normal value for the Chinese goods should be determined in accordance with section 20 of SIMA. Section 20 would have allowed the CBSA to determine normal values by using information from vendors of like goods in a third country.
[65] The complainant also made representations with respect to the submission of the Mintar Group. It submitted arguments that the acquisition cost of Sparkle should not represent the normal value of the goods as proposed by Sparkle. It was also requested that the CBSA scrutinize some specific responses of Sparkle and Tianyi to the RFI. In this regard, the complainant submitted that the CBSA cannot rely on the production, selling, general and administrative costs or profit data provided in Sparkle's response.
[66] In verifying the information of the Mintar Group, the concerns raised by the complainant concerning costing and all other relevant cost issues, were taken into consideration by the CBSA in determining the normal value of the goods.
[67] With respect to the complainant's arguments that section 20 of SIMA should be used for determining normal values for imports from China, the CBSA found no evidence to support the complainant's allegation that the Chinese government substantially determines domestic prices in the industry producing the fuel tanks.
Representations by the Mintar Group
[68] On February 16, 2004, a reply submission was received from counsel representing the Mintar Group. It was argued that the complainant had provided no evidence that the government of China substantially determines domestic prices in the industry producing the fuel tanks. Further, it was submitted that the record did not support the complainant's position with respect to the use of section 20 of SIMA.
[69] It was also submitted that the normal value of the goods should be the price that Sparkle and Mintar HK3 pay when they acquire the manufactured steel fuel tanks from Tianyi. In support of this position, counsel submits that Mintar HK and Sparkle operate at arm's length from Tianyi.
[70] In the alternate, it was further submitted that if the CBSA determines that the acquisition cost was not appropriate to determine the normal value of the goods, then the normal value should be determined under paragraph 19(b) of SIMA. In this regard, it was submitted that the normal value should include the Sparkle/Mintar HK's acquisition cost of the subject goods from Tianyi, a reasonable amount for general, selling and administrative costs and a reasonable amount for profits.
[71] In determining the normal value of the Chinese goods exported by Tianyi, the CBSA finds no justification for determining the normal value on the basis of the acquisition cost of Sparkle and Mintar HK. SIMA provides a hierarchy of methods for determining the normal value of the like goods. Using the acquisition costs of goods as the normal value is not one of the methods provided by SIMA.
[72] The CBSA also determined that it would not be appropriate to use the acquisition cost of Sparkle and Mintar HK in constructing the normal value of the goods pursuant to paragraph 19(b) of SIMA. In this case, the acquisition cost does not reflect the cost of producing the goods.
[73] As previously indicated in responding to the submission of the complainant, the CBSA found no evidence that the Chinese government substantially determines domestic prices in the industry producing fuel tanks.
[74] On May 3, 2004, pursuant to subsection 38(1) of SIMA, the President of the CBSA made a preliminary determination of dumping respecting new steel fuel tanks, gasoline or diesel, for passenger cars and light trucks, for the replacement market, originating in or exported from the People's Republic of China and Chinese Taipei.
Provisional Duty to be Imposed
[75] In light of the preliminary determination of injury made by the Tribunal, the President also considered that the imposition of provisional duties is necessary to prevent any injury from dumped imports.
[76] Therefore, provisional duty will be applied to subject goods imported into Canada from China and Chinese Taipei, on or after May 3, 2004, pursuant to subsection 8(1) of SIMA.
[77] The amount of provisional duty is based on the estimated margins of dumping, expressed as a percentage of the export price of the goods. The following are the provisional duty rates that will be applied to subject goods imported into Canada.
Table 2
Provisional Duty Rates
| Exporters | Provisional Duty |
|---|---|
Zhongshan Tianyi Auto Parts and Hardware Works |
39.4% |
Chyuan Chang Automobile Industrial Co. Ltd |
83.4% |
Golden Legion Automotive Corp. Tao-Yuan Hsien, |
83.4% |
Merchants Auto Parts |
83.4% |
All other exporters of subject goods originating in or exported from the People's Republic of China and Chinese Taipei. |
83.4% |
[78] Provisional duty is payable by the importer and is applied on all subject importations until the day the Tribunal makes its final ruling on injury. However, if the investigation is terminated by the CBSA or there is an undertaking arrangement, provisional duty will no longer be applied to the imported subject goods.
[79] 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 regional customs office if they require further information on the payment of provisional duty or the posting of security.
[80] 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 imported goods are 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 Act regarding interest.
The Canada Border Services Agency
[81] The CBSA will continue its investigation of the dumping and will make a final decision by August 3, 2004. If the President is satisfied that the goods were dumped and that the margin of dumping is not insignificant, he will make his final determination. Otherwise, the President will terminate the investigation and any provisional duty paid or security posted will be returned to the importers.
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal
[82] The Tribunal has begun an injury inquiry and will conduct a public hearing into the question of injury. The Tribunal will issue its final decision no later than August 31, 2004.
[83] If the Tribunal finds that the dumping has not caused injury or is not threatening to cause injury, the proceedings will be terminated and all provisional duties collected will be refunded. If a decision of injury is made, anti-dumping duty will be imposed on imports of the subject goods.
[84] For purposes of the preliminary determination of dumping or subsidizing, the President 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 goods from a country is negligible.
Retroactive Duty on Massive Importations
[85] Under certain circumstances, anti-dumping duty can be imposed retroactively on subject goods imported into Canada. When the Tribunal conducts its inquiry on injury to the Canadian industry, it may consider if dumped goods that were imported close to, or after, the initiation of the investigation constitute massive importations spread over a relatively short period of time and have caused injury to the Canadian industry.
[86] Should the Tribunal issue a finding that there were recent massive importations of dumped goods that caused injury, imports of subject goods released by the CBSA in the 90 days preceding the day of the preliminary determination could be subject to anti-dumping duty.
[87] After a preliminary determination of dumping, the President may accept undertakings that eliminate the margin of dumping of the goods or that eliminate the injury caused by the dumping.
[88] Acceptable undertakings must account for all or substantially all of the exports to Canada of the dumped goods. If undertakings are accepted, the imposition of provisional duty and the investigation will be suspended, unless the exporters wish it to continue.
[89] 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 determination of dumping, namely before July 2, 2004.
[90] The legislation allows all interested parties to make representations concerning any undertaking proposals. The CBSA will maintain an up-to-date list of these parties and will notify them should an undertaking proposal be received. Persons who wish to be notified must provide their name, address, telephone number, fax or email address to the officer whose name appears in the information section.
[91] Interested parties may also consult the Web site noted below for information on undertakings offered in this investigation. A notice will be posted on the Web site when an undertaking proposal is received. Interested parties have nine days from the date the undertaking offer is received to make representations.
[92] A notice of this preliminary determination will be published in the Canada Gazette pursuant to paragraph 38(3)(a) of SIMA.
[93] This Statement of Reasons has been provided to persons directly interested in these proceedings. It is also posted on the Directorate's Web site at the address below. For further information, please contact Mr. Jody Grantham as follows:
Mail: |
Canada Border Services Agency |
|---|---|
Telephone: |
(613) 954-7405 |
Fax: |
(613) 948-4844 |
Email: |
Jody.Grantham@ccra-adrc.gc.ca |
Web Site: |
http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima |
Suzanne Parent
Director General
Anti-dumping and Countervailing Directorate
- Statement of Reasons, Certain Steel Fuel Tanks originating in or exported from the People's Republic of China and Chinese Taipei, January 5, 2004, at para. 15.
- As a percentage of export price.
- Mintar HK is one of the four companies involved in the production and sale of the Chinese goods. The others are Sparkle, Tianyi and Mintar International.
