Anti-dumping and Countervailing Program

OTTAWA, March 17, 2006

4214-11 AD/1353

DECISION

Pursuant to subsection 31(1) of the Special Import Measures Act, the President of the Canada Border Services Agency initiated an investigation on March 3, 2006, respecting the alleged injurious dumping of single or multilayer cross-linked polyethylene tubing in nominal tubing sizes up to and including 1 inch or the metric equivalent, excluding cross-linked polyethylene tubing with an oxygen barrier layer, originating in or exported from the United States of America.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY
INTERESTED PARTIES
PRODUCT INFORMATION
LIKE GOODS
CANADIAN INDUSTRY
STANDING
CANADIAN MARKET
EVIDENCE OF DUMPING
MARGIN OF DUMPING AND VOLUME OF DUMPED GOODS
EVIDENCE OF INJURY
THREAT OF INJURY
CONCLUSION
SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION
FUTURE ACTION
RETOACTIVE DUTY ON MASSIVE IMPORTATIONS
UNDERTAKINGS
PUBLICATION
INFORMATION

STATEMENT OF REASONS

SUMMARY

1. On February 7, 2006, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) received a written complaint from Vanguard Piping Systems (Canada) Inc. (Vanguard) of Mississauga, Ontario, concerning the alleged injurious dumping of certain cross-linked polyethylene tubing (PEX tubing) originating in or exported from the United States of America (United States). On February 13, 2006, pursuant to subsection 32(1) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), the CBSA informed the complainant that the complaint was properly documented. The CBSA also notified the government of the United States that a properly documented complaint had been received.
   
   
2. The complainant provided evidence that these products have been dumped. The evidence also discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping has caused injury or is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry producing these goods.
   
   
3. On March 3, 2006, the President of the CBSA (President) initiated an investigation respecting the dumping of the goods pursuant to subsection 31(1) of SIMA.

INTERESTED PARTIES

Complainant

4. The complainant, Vanguard, is one of the major Canadian producers of certain PEX tubing. The complainant's address is:
   

   Vanguard Piping Systems (Canada) Inc.
   1205 Matheson Blvd. E.
   Mississauga, Ontario
   L4W 1B6
   

Exporters

5. The CBSA has identified nine potential exporters of the subject goods from customs import documentation and from the complaint submitted by Vanguard.

Importers

6. The CBSA has identified nineteen potential importers of the subject goods from customs import documentation and from the complaint submitted by Vanguard.

PRODUCT INFORMATION

Definition

7. For the purpose of this investigation, the subject goods are defined as:

   Single or multilayer cross-linked polyethylene tubing in nominal tubing sizes up to and including 1 inch or the metric equivalent, excluding cross-linked polyethylene tubing with an oxygen barrier layer, originating in or exported from the United States.

Additional Product Information

8. The subject goods are commonly referred to as "PEX tubing" in the industry, PEX being an acronym for cross-linked polyethylene. Cross-linking involves the formation of links between individual polyethylene macromolecules to create a single large molecule of polyethylene. The resulting large molecule is resistant to temperature extremes, chemical attack and creep deformation. As a result of these properties, PEX tubing is used in hot and cold potable water distribution systems; potable water being defined as water that meets applicable water quality standards and is safe to be consumed. PEX tubing is primarily designed and marketed to replace the traditional copper systems commonly used in residential and commercial dwellings. PEX tubing is marketed in the same dimensions as copper tubing and is sold in either straight lengths or coils.
   
   
9. For further clarity, for purposes of the investigation the terms "tubing" and "pipe" can be used interchangeably when referring to PEX tubing.
   
   
10. Multilayer PEX tubing, a recent development, provides the same benefits as single layer PEX tubing, with the extra feature of added ultraviolet protection. Single layer PEX degrades quickly if exposed to ultraviolet light (i.e. sunlight). Through the addition of multiple layers, the multilayer variation of PEX meets the relevant standards for chlorinated, potable water systems after extended UV exposure.
    
    
11. The subject goods exclude PEX tubing with an oxygen barrier layer that resists the passage of oxygen through the wall of the tubing. The oxygen barrier, ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH), is applied to the PEX tubing during the extrusion process. Typically used in hydronic radiant heating piping systems, the additional oxygen barrier layer is added to limit the amount of oxygen that can permeate into the system through the tube. PEX tubing with an oxygen barrier tends to command a significant premium in terms of price, although the relative size of this premium appears to vary depending on the individual manufacturer. It is generally marketed using a very bright red/orange colouring, as opposed to the red, white or blue colouring normally used to market the PEX tubing without an oxygen barrier. In addition, the markings on the excluded tubing are usually distinct from that used on PEX tubing without an oxygen barrier.
    
    
12. PEX tubing is marketed as complying with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards F 876 and F 877, certifying that a given manufacturer's goods have met and/or exceeded performance and toxicological standards, and/or the equivalent NSF, CSA, IAPMO, SBCCI, BOCA, ICBO, IPC, and NSPC¹ standards. Generally, manufacturers market their products in Canada as complying with both the CSA and ASTM standards, as well as having been certified by NSF International.

Production Process

13. PEX tubing is made via one of three processes: the silane method, the irradiation method, or the peroxide procedure method. The finished properties of cross-linked material from all of these production methods are similar and all yield products that are compliant with the appropriate standards. The complainant uses the silane process in manufacturing the goods.
    
    
14. The silane manufacturing process begins with a medium to high-density polyethylene resin. Additives such as colorant and catalysts are mixed with the base resin in exact ratios in a "Hopper". The pre-mixed material is then fed into an extruder, which operates at temperatures of approximately 400 degrees Fahrenheit. Printers are used immediately following extrusion to print all the necessary information on the tubing (such as the trade name and size, date of manufacture, and certifications). Hot extruded pipe is then pulled through a vacuum and cooling tank which brings the tubing to room temperature and finalizes the dimensions of the tubing. A "Haul-Off" is used to 'pull' the tubing through the tanks. Depending on the required final product, a cutter will cut the tubing into straight lengths (20 foot lengths are the most common in the industry) or a coiler will be used to create coils (ranging in length from 100 feet to 1,000 feet). Bundles of lengths are subsequently bagged on a bundle table; coils are taped or strapped in place. Coils or straight length bundles are then ready for the cross-linking process, which involves exposing the tubing to heat and moisture (i.e. steam). In summary, the silane method of cross-linking as utilized by the complainant involves the combination of the substrate material, the polyethylene resin, with additives that react when the extruded tubing is exposed to heat and moisture. The resulting chemical reaction ceases when the cross-linking reaches 70% to 80%.
    
    
15. Apart from the silane method, the irradiation method of cross-linking uses high-energy irradiation directed at the extruded pipe to form the molecular links. The third method of cross-linking, known as the peroxide procedure or, alternatively, as the Engel method, uses heat-activated chemicals that generate free radicals for cross-linking.
    
    
16. Based on the CBSA's own research it appears that PEX tubing manufactured using the peroxide/Engel method has been certified to be used in commercial buildings such as office towers and condominiums, where fire barriers are utilized. PEX tubing manufactured using other production techniques do not appear, as of yet, to have been similarly certified.

CLASSIFICATION OF IMPORTS

17. The subject goods are properly classified under the following Harmonized System classification numbers:

    3917.21.00.10	3917.21.00.30	3917.31.90.10
    3917.21.00.20	3917.21.00.90

LIKE GOODS

18. 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, are goods of which the uses and other characteristics closely resemble those of the other goods.
    
    
19. PEX tubing produced by the domestic industry competes directly with and has the same end uses as the subject goods imported from the United States. The goods produced in Canada and the United States are completely substitutable. Therefore, the CBSA has concluded that PEX tubing produced by the Canadian industry constitute like goods to the subject goods.
    
    
20. While the subject goods definition comprises PEX tubing produced using three different methods, all PEX tubing is produced using the same basic raw material (polyethylene resin), to the same ASTM standards, and is distributed to customers using similar channels of distribution. The CBSA is of the opinion that there are no separate classes of goods based on use, physical characteristics, or other factors.

CANADIAN INDUSTRY

21. Vanguard is one of the major Canadian producers of like PEX tubing. The goods are produced at its manufacturing facilities in Burnaby, British Columbia. Vanguard has its corporate headquarters in Mississauga, Ontario, and sales offices in Quebec and British Columbia.
    
    
22. In order to confirm that Vanguard meets the standing requirements of subsection 31(2) of SIMA, the CBSA contacted the other five identified PEX tubing producers in Canada. These five other producers are Bow Plastics Ltd. of Mont-Royal, Quebec, HeatLink Canada of Calgary, Alberta, IPEX Inc. of Toronto, Ontario, Uponor Canada Inc. of Regina, Saskatchewan, and Watts Industries (Canada) Inc. of Burlington, Ontario.

STANDING

23. SIMA requires that the following conditions be met in order to initiate an investigation:
    
    
    • the complaint is supported by domestic producers whose production represents more than 50% 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 25% or more of the total production of like goods by the domestic industry.
      
      
24. For the consideration of standing under SIMA, domestic industry means the domestic producers as a whole of the like goods except that, if a domestic producer is related to an exporter or importer of allegedly dumped goods, or is an importer of such goods, "domestic industry" may be interpreted as meaning the rest of those domestic producers.



25. Letters supporting the complaint were received from Bow Plastics Ltd., HeatLink Canada, and Watts Industries (Canada) Inc. IPEX Inc. opposed the complaint, while Uponor Canada Inc. neither supported nor opposed the complaint.



26. Based on an analysis of information provided in the complaint, as well as a survey of other Canadian producers, the CBSA is of the view that the complaint is supported by domestic producers representing more than 50% of Canadian production of the like goods. The CBSA is satisfied that the standing requirements of subsection 31(2) of SIMA have been met.

CANADIAN MARKET

27. PEX tubing sold in Canada can be divided into two distinct markets - wholesale and retail (i.e. hardware stores). By far the larger of the two, and the market which Vanguard deals in exclusively, is the wholesale market.
    
    
28. The wholesale market is one in which manufacturers such as the complainant sell to large wholesale distributors. Wholesalers in turn sell to individual contractors, who are the parties that actually install the PEX tubing in residential and commercial buildings. The majority of PEX tubing is used in residential buildings.
    
    
29. PEX is sold utilizing a list pricing system, with the list price typically being the maximum a contractor would expect to pay. When a manufacturer sells to a wholesaler, it does so at a lower price, which can be expressed as given percentage of list price. In addition, periodic rebates based on volume or other criteria are also typically granted to wholesalers. Some manufacturers also attempt to create demand for their product through the provision of incentives.
    
    
30. Both the Canadian manufacturers of like goods and the exporters of subject goods appear to market their goods directly to wholesalers. In addition, the complaint alleges that several of the exporters of subject goods have Canadian subsidiaries that import the subject goods and market them to wholesalers.
    
    
31. Due to the number of contractors and wholesalers, the complainant was unable to provide any formal estimates of the total Canadian market for PEX tubing. The CBSA estimated that imports from the United States accounted for 75% of the volume of total imports and 40% of the value of the total imports in 2005 (full year). This estimate is based on an analysis of the actual import data obtained from its internal information system and from customs entry documentation. The Canadian market for PEX tubing (excluding PEX tubing with an oxygen barrier layer), in 2005, was estimated to be valued at almost $19.7 million. The majority of imports, other than those from the United States, originated in the People's Republic of China during this period.

EVIDENCE OF DUMPING

32. The complainant alleges that PEX tubing from the United States has been injuriously dumped into Canada. Dumping occurs when the normal value of the goods exceeds the export price of the goods sold to importers in Canada. Normal values are generally based on the domestic selling price of the goods in the country of export, or on the full cost of the goods including general, selling and administrative expenses, plus a reasonable amount for profit. The export price of goods sold to importers in Canada is the lesser of the exporter's ex-factory selling price to the importer in Canada and the importer's purchase price.
    
    
33. Estimates of normal value and export price are discussed below.

Normal Value

34. The complainant was able to obtain information on domestic selling prices of the subject goods in the United States from a sample invoice, and used the FOB prices therein as the basis for estimating normal values. The complainant also estimated normal values using a second methodology based on applying the normal rebates and discounts found in the industry to an exporter's domestic price list to arrive at an estimated FOB net price. Estimates of normal values were provided for ½ inch PEX tubing and for ¾ inch PEX tubing, the two most common sizes. In both cases, the normal values estimated through the use of an invoice were lower than the estimates based on the exporter's price list.
    
    
35. The CBSA considers the normal values estimated by the complainant, using the methodologies described above, to be reasonable and acceptable. In its own analysis, the CBSA used the invoice-based normal values, as these were lower and thus more conservative.

Export Price

36. The export price of imported goods is generally determined in accordance with section 24 of SIMA as being the lesser of the importer's purchase price or the exporter's selling price to Canada less all costs, charges, and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.
    
    
37. The complainant estimated export prices of the selected products based on the prices at which the imported goods are resold in Canada. Using the price paid by contractors for the subject goods, Vanguard deducted amounts for wholesaler profits, incentive payments to the contractor, selling agent commissions, the general, selling and administrative expenses and profits for the exporter's subsidiary in Canada, and freight to arrive at an estimated FOB selling price from the exporter's factory.
    
    
38. The CBSA reviewed the complainant's calculation and compared the complainant's estimates of the export prices with its own internal import data. Based on this comparison, the CBSA considers Vanguard's estimates of export prices to be reasonably representative of the exporters' selling prices. However, the CBSA relied on actual import data from its internal information system and on customs entry documentation to estimate export prices.

Estimated Margins of Dumping

39. Margins of dumping were estimated by the CBSA by comparing the complainant's estimated normal values with the export prices obtained from customs entry documentation. Entries of the subject goods originating in or exported from the United States during the period January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005, were reviewed. Owing to the large number of entries, it was deemed acceptable to examine a representative selection of import entries for the period.
    
    
40. Based on this analysis, 96% of the subject goods reviewed appear to have been dumped. Estimated margins of dumping ranged from 2% to 173%. The estimated overall weighted average margin of dumping of the subject goods reviewed, from the actual import documentation, was 75%, expressed as a percentage of export price.

Margin of Dumping and Volume of Dumped Goods

41. 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 the total imports is considered negligible.
    
    
42. On the basis of the estimated margins of dumping and the import data for the 12-month period of January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005, summarized in the table below, the margin of dumping and volume of dumped goods from the United States are estimated to be above the thresholds outlined above.

IMPORTS OF PEX TUBING
January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005

Country	Imports of Potentially Subject Goods(Kgs)	Percentage of Total Imports	Estimated Dumped Goods as % of Country Total	Estimated Dumped Goods as % of Total Imports	Estimated Margin of Dumping as % of Export Price
United States of America	2,960,827	75.45%	96%	72.43%	75%
Non-Subject Countries	963,244	24.55%
Total Imports	3,924,071	100.00%

EVIDENCE OF INJURY

43. The complainant has alleged that subject goods from the United States have been dumped into Canada. The complainant also alleges that the dumping has caused or is threatening to cause material injury to the Canadian industry. In support of its allegations, the complainant has provided evidence of price erosion and price suppression, increasing rebates and incentives, lost sales, unattained market share, reduced profits and profit margins, and capacity underutilization.

Price Erosion and Suppression

44. In its complaint, Vanguard claims that the allegedly dumped goods have, since first making their presence felt in 2003, caused the price of like goods in Canada to fall. Vanguard describes the Canadian market as being very transparent. Customers regularly call their suppliers with competitors' price quotes and use these to attempt to negotiate lower prices.
    
    
45. In support of these allegations, Vanguard provided aggregated gross and net sales data for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and the first three quarters of 2005, showing the reductions in its average selling price. In addition, the complainant also provided specific examples of accounts where it was forced to reduce its net selling price in order to retain customers.

Suppressed Revenues and Volumes Sold

46. The complaint also contends that the allegedly dumped goods have injured Vanguard by suppressing the total volume of like goods sold and the revenues resulting from these sales. To support this contention, Vanguard provided data detailing its sales volumes and revenues for the period January 1, 2002 to September 30, 2005, as well as its budgeted amounts for the same period. Vanguard attributes its poor performance against budget to the presence of the allegedly dumped goods.

Increasing Rebates and Incentives

47. Vanguard has stated that the presence of the allegedly dumped goods in the Canadian marketplace has resulted in the complainant being forced to offer greater rebates and incentives in order to keep its customers. In support of this assertion, Vanguard provided data regarding the total rebates and incentives it provided to customers since 2002, as well as examples relating to specific customers, some of which were supported by documentation highlighting the rebates and incentives made available to the customers.
    
    
48. Vanguard claims that, although the offering of rebates and incentives was practiced within the Canadian industry prior to the allegedly dumped goods entering the marketplace, the United States exporters of the subject goods are much more aggressive in offering the rebates and incentives, thus forcing the complainant to increase its own offerings in order to keep its customers, which negatively impacts the company's competitive position.

Lost Sales and Unattained Market Share

49. Vanguard also alleges it has suffered injury through having lost customers to importers of the subject goods and that these lost sales have ultimately resulted in the complainant not capturing as large a portion of the Canadian market as it would have otherwise. In support of this allegation, the complainant provided examples, supported by documentation, of specific customer accounts it lost to importers of the allegedly dumped goods. It is important to note that the Canadian market for certain PEX tubing has grown and is continuing to grow significantly as the industry makes the transition from copper pipe to PEX tubing, and that for a given manufacturer to maintain its share of the market, sales volumes must match that rate of growth.

Reduced Profits and Profit Margins

50. Vanguard also alleges that the allegedly dumped goods have resulted in reduced profits, both on a per-unit and on a total basis. In support of this allegation, Vanguard provided its audited financial statements for 2002 through 2004, and the company's financial results for the like goods by themselves for the period January 2002 through September 2005, inclusive.
    
    
51. Financial data from the company indicates that profit margins on this product have declined by a significant percentage between 2002 and the first nine months of 2005.

Capacity Underutilization

52. Vanguard has contended that it has a considerable amount of idle production capacity attributable to the allegedly dumped imports of PEX tubing from the United States. Compounding this, in 2005 Vanguard invested in a third production line in anticipation of significant growth within the market, due in part to contractors' continuing to convert from copper to PEX tubing. This anticipated increase in demand has not been fully realized, a fact that Vanguard attributes to the presence of the allegedly dumped goods in the Canadian market.

Other Observations

53. Vanguard has had to deal with significant increases in raw material prices, most particularly since September 2005 when Hurricane Katrina disrupted polyethylene production on the Gulf coast, where most North American polyethylene producers are located. These raw material price increases have not been restricted to the Canadian market but have been experienced throughout North America. Nevertheless, the selling prices of subject goods from the United States have not risen to account for this cost increase.

THREAT OF INJURY

54. The complainant contends that the Canadian PEX industry has experienced increasing injury from the allegedly dumped imports since 2003. The complainant has noted that it has recently invested a significant amount of money to expand its production capacity, in anticipation of sales growth. The increasing presence of the allegedly dumped goods will jeopardise the company's ability to generate an adequate return on this investment. In addition, Vanguard has experienced increased pressure from both rising costs and decreasing market prices, and states that continued deterioration in its financial performance can be expected if the subject goods continue to be dumped into Canada.

CONCLUSION

55. Based on information provided in the complaint, other available information, and the CBSA's internal data on imports, there is evidence that certain PEX tubing originating in or exported from the United States has been dumped, and there is a reasonable indication that such dumping has caused or is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry. As such, an investigation was initiated on March 3, 2006.

SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION

56. The CBSA will conduct an investigation to determine whether the subject goods have been dumped.
    
    
57. With respect to the dumping investigation, the CBSA considered January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005, to be a reasonable period of investigation. This period of investigation captures a large volume of imports of subject goods ensuring that the pricing practices of the exporters are accurately reflected and the use of the full calendar year precludes any undue seasonal factors or aberrations from affecting the investigation.
    
    
58. The CBSA will request information relating to the subject goods imported into Canada from the United States during the period of January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005, the selected period of investigation for dumping, from exporters and importers to ascertain the margins of dumping.
    
    
59. All parties will be clearly advised of the CBSA's information requirements and the time frames for providing their responses.

FUTURE ACTION

60. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (Tribunal) will conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the evidence discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping of the goods has caused or is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry. The Tribunal must make its decision within 60 days after the date of initiation of the investigation. If the Tribunal concludes that the evidence does not disclose a reasonable indication of injury to the Canadian industry, the investigation will be terminated.
    
    
61. If the CBSA's investigation reveals that imports of the subject goods have not been dumped, that the margin of dumping is insignificant, or that the actual or potential volume of dumped goods is negligible, the investigation will be terminated.
    
    
62. If the evidence reveals that the goods have been dumped and the Tribunal finds that there is a reasonable indication that the dumping has caused injury or is threatening to cause injury, the President will make a preliminary determination of dumping within 90 days from the date of the initiation of the investigation, that is, by June 1, 2006. Where circumstances warrant, this period may be extended to 135 days.
    
    
63. Imports of subject goods released from customs' possession on and after the date of a preliminary determination of dumping may be subject to provisional duty in an amount not greater than the estimated margin of dumping of the imported goods.
    
    
64. Should the CBSA make a preliminary determination of dumping, the investigation will be continued for the purpose of making a final determination within 90 days of the date of the preliminary determination. However, it should be noted that the investigation will be terminated if it is found that the goods have not been dumped, or that the margin of dumping is insignificant.
    
    
65. If a final determination of dumping is made, the Tribunal will continue its inquiry and hold public hearings into the question of material injury to the Canadian industry resulting from the dumped imports. The Tribunal is required to make a finding, with respect to the goods to which the final determination of dumping applies, not later than 120 days after the CBSA issues notice of a preliminary determination.
    
    
66. In the event of an injury finding by the Tribunal, imports of subject goods released from customs' possession after that date will be subject to anti-dumping duty equal to the applicable margin of dumping on the imported goods.

RETOACTIVE DUTY ON MASSIVE IMPORTATIONS

67. Under certain circumstances, anti-dumping duty may be imposed retroactively on subject goods imported into Canada that were released during the period of 90 days preceding the day of the preliminary determination of dumping.
    
    
68. When the Tribunal conducts an inquiry concerning material 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 over a relatively short period of time and have caused injury to the Canadian industry.
    
    
69. Should the Tribunal issue a finding that there were recent massive importations of dumped goods that caused injury, importations of subject goods released from customs during the period of 90 days preceding the day of the preliminary determination could be subject to anti-dumping duty.

UNDERTAKINGS

70. After a preliminary determination of dumping, an exporter may submit a written undertaking to revise its selling prices to Canada so that the margin of dumping 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.
    
    
71. 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 and fax numbers, mailing address and e-mail address, if available, to one of the officers identified in the "Information" section.
    
    
72. If an undertaking were to be accepted, the investigation and the collection of provisional duty would be suspended. Notwithstanding the acceptance of an undertaking, an exporter may request that the CBSA's investigation be completed and that the Tribunal complete its injury inquiry.

PUBLICATION

73. Notice of the initiation of this investigation is being published in the Canada Gazette pursuant to subparagraph 34(1)(a)(ii) of SIMA.

INFORMATION

74. Interested parties are invited to file written submissions presenting facts, arguments, and evidence that they feel are relevant to the alleged dumping. Written submissions should be forwarded to the attention of one of the officers identified below.
    
    
75. To be given consideration in this phase of the investigation, all information should be received by the CBSA by April 10, 2006.
    
    
76. Any information submitted to the CBSA by interested parties concerning this investigation is deemed 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.
    
    
77. 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 WTO/NAFTA dispute settlement panel. Additional information respecting the Program's policy on the disclosure of information under SIMA may be obtained by contacting one of the officers identified below or by visiting the Program's Web site.
    
    
78. The investigation schedule and a complete listing of all exhibits and information will be available at www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/i-e/menu-eng.html. The exhibits listing will be updated as new exhibits and information is made available.
    
    
79. This Statement of Reasons has been provided to persons directly interested in these proceedings. It is also posted on the Program's Web site at the address below. For further information, please contact the officers identified as follows:

Mail	Canada Border Services Agency Anti-dumping and Countervailing Program 100 Metcalfe Street, 11th Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L8 Canada
Telephone	Matthew Lerette  (613) 954-7398 Alexander Lawton  (613) 954-7410 Bob Becker  (613) 954-7246
Fax	(613) 948-4844
E-mail	Matthew.Lerette@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca Alexander.Lawton@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca Bob.Becker@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca
Web site	www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima