NewsNow

Canada Investigates Alleged Dumping of Chinese Unitized Curtainwall
The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) has begun an investigation into the alleged injurious dumping and subsidization of certain unitized wall modules originating in or exported from China. The investigation was launched after a complaint was filed by several companies that allege “that the dumping and subsidizing of these goods are harming Canadian production by causing the following: lost sales, price erosion, price suppression, reduced profitability, loss of market share, reduced employment and underutilization of capacity,” according to the CBSA.

The May 24 complaint was filed by Allan Window Technologies of Concord, Ontario; Ferguson Neudorf Glass Inc. of Beamsville, Ontario; Flynn Canada Ltd. of Mississauga, Ontario; Inland Glass & Aluminum Ltd. of Kamloops, British Columbia; Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope of Concord, Ontario; Sota Glazing Inc. of Brampton, Ontario; Starline Architectural Windows Ltd. of Langley, British Columbia; and Toro Aluminum of Concord, Ontario.

The wall modules included in the investigation include those “with or without infill, including fully assembled frames, with or without fasteners, trims, cover caps, window operators, gaskets, load transfer bars, sunshades and anchor assemblies, originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China,” according to information from CBSA.

The complaint lists 62 Chinese unitized wall module manufacturers “who are actual and potential exporters to Canada.”

In addition, four allegedly “known Canadian importers … which account for many of the subject goods imports from China [and] … sell in direction competition with the domestic industry to the same developers, general contractors and construction managers” also are listed. These include Markham, Ontario-based Jangho Canada; Markham, Ontario-based Far East Aluminium Works Canada Corp.; Thornhill, Ontario-based Yuanda Canada Enterprises Ltd.; and Coquitlam, B.C.-based Envision Global Inc.

CBSA defines dumping as the case “when goods are sold to importers in Canada at prices that are less than their selling prices in the exporter’s domestic market or at unprofitable prices.”

The plaintiffs write that “subject goods from China are being sold in Canada at prices significantly below the complainants’ well-founded estimates of normal values in China of the unitized wall modules … ”

According to the CBSA, “subsidizing” occurs when goods imported into Canada benefit from foreign government financial assistance. The plaintiffs allege that “Chinese unitized wall modules producers have access to a broad range of subsidies from all levels of the government of China” and list a number of possible grants and subsidies that various Chinese unitized wall module manufacturers may receive.

“As a result of competition with dumped and subsidized imports of subject goods from China, the domestic industry has suffered considerable losses of sales of like goods on construction projects and as a consequence a reduction in its share of the Canadian market (as well in case of some producers the loss of sales of other goods on the same projects,” write the plaintiffs. “Injury also has occurred in the domestic industry’s inability to recover increased costs through increased prices. ”

Though pricing has been removed from the public copy of the complaint, it also catalogs a number of incidents in which the plaintiff companies allege they lost bids to Chinese suppliers for unitized wall modules based on price.

“If there is no relief from the dumping and subsidy of subject goods unitized wall modules, the domestic industry will continue to suffer the injurious price-suppressive impact of such competition,” write the plaintiffs.

The CBSA will make a preliminary decision as to whether the imports are being dumped and/or subsidized by October 15. Meanwhile, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) will investigate whether the imports are harming Canadian producers; this decision is due September 14.

If the CBSA determines that dumping and/or subsidizing has occurred, the investigations will continue and a final decision will follow after 90 days. If the CBSA’s investigation reveals “that imports of the subject goods have not been dumped or subsidized, that the margin of dumping or amount of subsidy is insignificant or that the actual and potential volume of dumped or subsidized goods is negligible,” the investigation will cease.

USG
© Copyright 2012 Key Communications Inc. All rights reserved.
No reproduction of any type without expressed written permission.