This page has been archived.
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
OTTAWA, December 21, 2001
Concerning a determination pursuant to subsection 76.03(7) of the Special Import Measures Act regarding
MACHINE TUFTED CARPETING ORIGINATING IN OR EXPORTED FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
On December 7, 2001, pursuant to subsection 76.03(7) of the Special Import Measures Act, the Commissioner of Customs and Revenue determined that the expiry of the order of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal made on April 21, 1997, in Inquiry No. NQ-96-004, concerning machine tufted carpeting with pile predominantly of nylon, other polyamide, polyester or polypropylene yarns, excluding automotive carpeting and floor coverings of an area less than five square metres, originating in or exported from the United States of America, is not likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods.
This Statement of Reasons is also available in French.
Cet énoncé des motifs est également disponible en français.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
On August 9, 2001, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (Tribunal), pursuant to subsection 76.03(3) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), initiated an expiry review of its order made on April 21, 1997, in Inquiry No. NQ-96-004, concerning machine tufted carpeting originating in or exported from the United States of America. The purpose of the expiry review is to determine whether the order should be continued or rescinded.
As a result of the Tribunal's decision, the Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (Commissioner) commenced an investigation on August 10, 2001, to determine whether the expiry of the Tribunal's order is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods. On the basis of the information available, the Commissioner determined on December 7, 2001, that the expiry of the order is not likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods.
Given this conclusion regarding the likelihood of dumping, the matter of the likelihood of material injury caused by a resumption of dumping will not be considered by the Tribunal. The scheduled expiry date of the Tribunal's order is April 21, 2002.
On April 21, 1997, the Tribunal found that the dumping into Canada of machine tufted carpeting originating in or exported from the United States of America was likely to continue if the order was rescinded. The Tribunal also determined that the resumption of dumping was likely to cause material injury to the Canadian carpet industry.
Injury findings and orders expire five years from the date of the finding or order unless an expiry review has been initiated. On June 20, 2001, the Tribunal issued a notice of expiry of the order concerning machine tufted carpeting. The notice of expiry invited opinions from persons or governments requesting or opposing the initiation of an expiry review. On August 9, 2001, the Tribunal initiated a review of the above-mentioned order as it was of the opinion that such a review was warranted. Notice of this action was provided to the Commissioner.
On August 10, 2001, the Commissioner initiated an investigation to determine whether the expiry of the order is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods. In accordance with the Anti-dumping and Countervailing Directorate's administrative guidelines on the conduct of expiry review investigations, interested persons including Canadian producers, importers, exporters and foreign governments were invited to provide information they considered relevant to the decision.
The goods subject to the Commissioner's investigation are defined as "machine tufted carpeting with pile predominantly of nylon, other polyamide, polyester, or polypropylene yarns, excluding automotive carpeting and floor coverings of an area less than five square metres, originating in or exported from the United States of America". Greige goods and artificial grass are subject goods. The following types of carpeting are not subject to the finding of the Tribunal:
Machine tufted carpeting is produced in a variety of styles, colours, textures, patterns and weights. The weight is determined by the density of the pile fibres and is usually measured in ounces per square yard. This weight normally varies between 16 and 90 oz./sq. yd. The subject carpeting is produced on tufting machines. These machines are equipped with hundreds of needles and hooks that insert textile carpet yarn into a primary fabric backing to produce greige carpeting. The yarn may be left in loop form or the tip of the loop may be cut, resulting in loop pile greige carpeting or cut pile greige carpeting, respectively.
Three predominant fibres are used in the manufacture of machine tufted carpeting - nylon, polypropylene and polyester. The principal sources of these materials are fibre producers and carpet manufacturers with in-house extrusion facilities. Most nylon is manufactured by major suppliers such as Dupont, AlliedSignal, BASF and Monsanto. Almost all polypropylene fibre is extruded by carpet manufacturers. Polyester fibre is produced by fibre suppliers, such as Wellman, Inc., Hoechst Celanese Corporation, as well as carpet manufacturers with in-house extrusion facilities.
The subject goods are generally classified under the following Harmonized System numbers:
At the onset of the review, the Tribunal distributed a notice of the initiation of the expiry review and an expiry review schedule to importers, exporters, associations, Canadian producers and the Government of the United States of America. Any person or government having an interest in the Commissioner's investigation was invited to provide a submission to the Commissioner containing information that they deemed relevant to the issue. Expiry review questionnaires were sent to all Canadian producers and to those exporters and importers that accounted for over 90% of the imported goods. Other exporters and importers were given the opportunity to respond to a questionnaire upon request. Submissions were received from the following parties:
Canadian Carpet Institute, Ottawa, ON (B, R)
Beaulieu Canada, Acton Vale, QC (Q)
Crossley Carpet Mills, Truro, NS (Q)
Groupe St-Georges, Inc., St-Georges, QC (Q
Interface Flooring Systems, Belleville, ON (Q)
Kraus Carpet Mills, Waterloo, ON (Q)
Matting Technology, Canton-De-Granby, QC (Q)
National Carpet Mills, Mississauga, ON (Q)
Venture Carpets Ltd., Drummondville, QC (Q)
Beaulieu Group LLC, Dalton, GA (Q)
Mannington Industries Inc., Calhoun, GA (Q,B)
Mohawk Industries Inc., Calhoun, GA (Q,B,R)
Shaw Industries Inc., Dalton, GA (Q,B,R)
Atlanta carpet Industries, Mississauga, ON (Q)
Buckwold-Western Ltd., Saskatoon, SK (Q)
Burlington Industries Inc., Greensboro, NC (1) (Q)
GES Exposition Services, Brampton, ON (Q)
Gesco Industries Inc., Brampton, ON (Q)
Home Depot Canada Inc., Atlanta, GA (1) (Q)
Beaulieu Group LLC, Dalton, GA (1) (Q)
M. R. Evans Trading Company, Vancouver, BC (Q)
Mannington Industries Inc., Calhoun, GA(1) (Q,B)
Mohawk Industries Inc., Calhoun, GA (1) (Q)
Shaw Industries Inc., Dalton, GA (1) (Q)
Carpet One, Burlington, ON (S,B,R)
Codes: S = Submission, Q = Questionnaire response, B = Case Brief, R = Reply Brief
(1) = Non-resident importer
During an expiry review investigation, all parties to the proceeding and interested persons submit arguments in writing to the Commissioner regarding the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping if the finding is permitted to expire. As well, all parties to the proceeding and interested persons may make reply submissions in response to case arguments made by parties to the proceeding and interested persons. Arguments and reply submissions must be based on the information that was before the Commissioner on the date the record is closed. In this investigation, the record was closed on October 3, 2001.
Case arguments and reply submissions were received from the following parties:
Canadian Carpet Institute, Ottawa, ON (on behalf of all Canadian Producers)
Mannington Industries Inc., Calhoun, GA
Mohawk Industries Inc., Calhoun, GA
Shaw Industries Inc., Dalton, GA
Carpet One, Burlington, ON
Copies of the confidential versions of case arguments and reply submissions were made available to all persons or parties whose disclosure undertakings had been accepted. Public versions of these documents were made available to any party or person requesting a copy.
Subsection 76.03(7) of the SIMA, requires the Commissioner to determine whether the expiry of a finding in respect of goods of a country or countries is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods. Pursuant to section 37.2 of the Special Import Measures Regulations, the Commissioner, in making the determination, may consider any factor identified in paragraphs (a) to (i) of that regulation as well as any other factors that are relevant in the circumstances. The following factors were considered in this investigation.
The tables below are derived from the detailed monthly reports filed by all U.S. carpet exporters with specific normal values. Exporters with specific normal values account for the majority of imported subject goods of United States origin, i.e. over 97% in 2000.
Volume of all ProductsSQ. YD.
Volume of Dumped ProductsSQ. YD.
|Volume of Dumped Products as % of all Products|
|Period||Export Price of all Products
Export Price of Dumped ProductsUS $
|Export Price of Dumped Products as % of all Products|
The enforcement data for the current investigation disclose a volume of dumped goods ranging from 0.57% to 0.91% of all products. On a value basis, the dumped goods represent from 0.59% to 1.17% of all products. The volume and value of dumped goods in the first six months of 2001, recorded at 0.57% and 0.59% respectively, were at the lowest levels seen during the period of review.
In 1997, the Tribunal considered enforcement data similar to that collected for the current review. That data revealed that the twelve largest exporters dumped 2.6% and 10.6% of their volume of shipments to Canada in 1995 and 1996.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the three largest exporters dumped very little carpet in 1995 and 1996. However, the Tribunal had significant concerns regarding the nine remaining companies. These companies, representing 22.0% and 23.0% of the volume of shipments during 1995 and 1996, dumped 8.0% and 45.3% of their shipments to Canada in the two mentioned years.
In the current investigation the four largest exporters collectively accounted for more than 85% of the volume of subject goods shipped to Canada by exporters with normal values (84% of the volume of subject goods shipped by all exporters). Of their exports to Canada in 2000, these companies dumped 0.2% of the volume and 0.3% of the value of shipments. The results are similar for the first six months of 2001.
When the enforcement data for 2000 for the remaining exporters is isolated, these companies collectively dumped 4.2% of the volume and 3.9% of the value of their shipments. In the first six months of 2001, these companies collectively dumped 2.5% of the volume and 2.1% of the value of their shipments.
A significant volume of goods dumped by a number of small exporters led the Tribunal to conclude, in 1997, that exporters would continue to dump machine tufted carpeting in the absence of the finding. That situation does not exist today. It is clear from the evidence that, since the Tribunal's review, continued enforcement has led all exporters to take steps to not dump machine tufted carpeting into Canada.
The enforcement data for the current investigation disclose margins of dumping as a percentage of normal value of dumped products ranging from 5.1% to 10.1%. The margin of dumping for the first half of 2001, recorded at 5.1%, was at the lowest level seen during the period of review.
In 1997, the Tribunal had significant concerns regarding the margins of dumping of nine of the twelve exporters reviewed. While the Tribunal acknowledged that the three largest exporters dumped very little carpet in 1995 and 1996, the nine remaining companies had dumped their shipments to Canada by average margins of dumping of 15.5% and 10.1% respectively.
In the current investigation, the four largest exporters collectively dumped their shipments to Canada by an average margin of dumping of 4.2%. For the first six months of 2001, these four companies had an average margin of dumping of 2.1%. For other exporters, the margin of dumping as a percentage of normal value of dumped products was 7.5% in 2000 and 6.4% in the first six months of 2001.
Significant margins of dumping on goods shipped by smaller-sized exporters led the Tribunal to conclude, in 1997, that exporters would continue to dump in the absence of the finding. That situation no longer exists. It is clear from the evidence that, since the Tribunal's review, continued enforcement has led to a decline in the margin of dumping for all exporters.
Normal Value of Non-dumped ProductsUS $
Export Price of Non-dumped ProductsUS $
|Export Price as % of Normal Value of Non-dumped Products|
Enforcement data presented to the Tribunal in 1997 disclosed that, in aggregate, export prices ranged from 10% to 15% higher than normal values during the period of review. There was no distinction made between large and small exporters in the Tribunal's analysis. The current enforcement data shows the same range of margin over normal value. There is little difference between the largest four exporters and the remaining exporters.
The significant margin by which the export price exceeds the normal value of the non-dumped products reinforces the conclusion that exporters are not inclined to dump machine tufted carpeting into Canada. Exporters appear to be determined to sell to Canada with the intention of making a profit.
Three of the four largest exporters provided data for the years 1998, 1999, 2000, the first half of 2000 and the first half of 2001. A fourth large exporter submitted incomplete data for 1998 and 1999. The evidence and analysis that follow compare collective data for all four exporters between the years 1999 to 2000 and between the first six months of 2000 and the first six months of 2001. In the absence of certain data for 1999, some of the evidence and analysis cover only the first six months of 2000 and the first six months of 2001.
A comparison of the first six months of 2000 with the first six months of 2001 discloses a decline of 6.1% in production of subject goods from approximately 618 million to 580 million square yards. During the same period, plant capacity declined from approximately 738 million to 709 million square yards, or by 3.9%. The rate of utilization of production capacity declined from 83.8% to 81.9%.
The decline in production experienced by U.S. exporters is a consequence of both consolidation and decreased demand. Consolidation led to certain exporters closing inefficient production lines or, in certain cases, closing a mill and moving its machinery elsewhere. These actions led to a decline in plant capacity within the industry. The marginal decline in utilization of production capacity demonstrates that U.S. exporters took the appropriate steps to minimize the impact of consolidation in the face of lower demand for the product.
In 2000, the total sales volume was 1.162 million square yards with a value of $6.707 million. The exporters provided a breakdown on the basis of domestic sales, sales to Canada and sales to all other countries. Sales in the exporter's domestic market accounted for 95.7% of total volume and 96.3% of total value. Sales to Canada and sales to other export markets are approximately equal.
The exporter's domestic sales volume declined by 3.1% from 1999 to 2000 and by 5.6% between the first six months of 2000 and the first six months of 2001. During this period, there was an increase in sales value of 3.1%, followed by a decline of 5.0%. Exports to Canada reflected a similar trend with the exception that sales volume increased between 1999 and 2000 while exports to other countries declined in volume and value.
The following table captures, for each of the exporter's markets, average selling prices and costs as well as profits expressed as a percentage of cost between the first six months of 2000 and the first six months of 2001:
First Six Months of 2000
Average Selling Price$ U.S./ SQ.YD.
Average Cost$ U.S./ SQ.YD
Profit as a
First Six Months of 2001
Average Selling Price$ U.S./ SQ.YD.
Average Cost$ U.S./ SQ.YD
Profit as a
In the face of declining sales and increasing costs, exporters have been able to maintain profit margins by increasing prices in all of their markets. The evidence with respect to Canada demonstrates that this has been accomplished without dumping and, in fact, at export prices considerably in excess of normal values. Higher average selling prices are also associated with the relatively higher quality of the subject goods sold to Canada while lower average selling prices to other markets are associated with sales of lower quality machine tufted products to those markets.
Statistics relating to the apparent Canadian market for machine tufted carpet are attached as Appendix A.
In 2000, total sales volume was 82 million square yards with a value of C$629 million. Canadian producers accounted for 61% of the total sales volume and 52% of the total sales value. United States exporters accounted for 34% of the total sales volume and 44% of the total sales value.
During the period of review, there was a marginal decline in the apparent Canadian market for machine tufted carpet. However, while the overall market shrunk, United States exporters were able to increase both the volume and value of shipments to Canada. At the same time, the value and volume of Canadian producers' shipments declined.
United States exporters have been able to increase their market penetration in a period of declining demand. This has been accomplished without any significant dumping. This trend indicates that United States exporters are now competing with producers in Canada on a fair basis.
The submissions of Canadian carpet producers include comments on the increase in popularity of "hard" floor coverings and the suggestion that a softening of demand for carpet in the U.S.A. will result in excess carpet production capacity. As evidence of the softening demand, a statement was made regarding rumours of increased layoffs in Dalton, Georgia, the hub of U.S. carpet production. This excess capacity will, it is suggested, lead to dumping into Canada.
One large exporter stated that a decline in U.S. demand for carpet due to consumer preference for hard-surface flooring has resulted in excess capacity and lower capacity utilization.
Beginning inventory in 1999 was approximately 109 million square yards. Ending inventory in 1999 was approximately 130 million square yards. Ending inventory in 2000 was approximately 127 million square yards.
With respect to the suggestion that a softening of demand for carpet in the U.S.A. (due to the growth of other floor coverings) will result in excess carpet production capacity, it is evident that, while there has been a reduction in production, there has also been a reduction in plant capacity.
The rate of utilization of production capacity declined by 2% from 2000 to 2001. This marginal decrease does not support claims that excess capacity will lead to dumping.
U.S. producers are clearly able to control inventory levels. Although 1999 ending inventory levels increased by approximately 19% from 1999 beginning inventory levels, ending inventory in 2000 declined 2.8% from 1999. This ability to control inventory levels should prevent an oversupply of the market.
The international buying group Carpet One claims that its suppliers have become sensitized to anti-dumping rules and have learned to track exchange rates to avoid dumping. Carpet One refers to an exporter's response that indicates that, from early 1998 through the middle of 2001, the value of Canadian currency has fallen against the U.S. dollar by approximately 6%.
One importer suggested that since U.S. producers are able to gain market share in Canada with anti-dumping measures in place, there is no utility in reducing prices in the absence of such measures.
One large exporter stated that a decline in U.S. demand for carpet, due to consumer preference for hard-surface flooring, has resulted in lower carpet prices and reduced profit margins.
The exporters' cost to produce the subject goods sold for domestic consumption declined marginally from 1999 to 2001 in the face of rising material costs. During this period the average price per square yard increased 5.4%. The exporters' cost to produce the subject goods sold to Canada increased by 3% from 1999 to 2001. During this period, the average price per square yard increased by 4.1%. The exporters' cost to produce the subject goods sold to countries other than the United States and Canada increased by 4.4% from 1999 to 2001. During this period the average price per square yard increased by 1.4%.
Exporters have avoided dumping during a period of devaluation of the Canadian dollar and have clearly learned to track exchange rates. This is a good indicator of the exporters' pricing discipline. The fact that the U.S. producers have increased market share while facing anti-dumping measures indicates that it would be illogical to reduce prices in the absence of such measures. In this regard, the resumption of predatory pricing is considered to be quite unlikely.
The above-mentioned exporter's claims regarding U.S. demand for carpet and the resulting reduced profit margins appear inconsistent with the statistics for the U.S. domestic market. As noted above, the average price per square yard increased by 5.4% from 1999 to 2001. These price increases indicate that the exporters are, in fact, maximizing profits and passing on material cost increases to customers regardless of the market in which the goods are sold.
The data concerning costs and pricing in the exporters' various markets indicates that the U.S. producers are capable of adjusting prices to compensate for increased costs.
The submissions of the Canadian carpet producers contain information related to the establishment of new U.S. carpet mills and the suggestion that these new mills will dump into Canada.
No evidence was provided to substantiate these claims and, therefore, no weight has been attributed to them.
The Canadian carpet producers state that there have been a number of changes in the composition of the Canadian industry since 1996. National Fibre-Tech Inc., which purchased the manufacturing assets of Richmond Carpet Mills in 1994 and purchased Harding Carpets in 1995, ceased operations in 1997. The original National plant in Mississauga was subsequently acquired and reactivated by private owners. It has been operating as National Carpet Mills since July 1997.
In 1998, Peerless Carpet Corporation was acquired by an affiliate of the U.S. producer Beaulieu of America. Beaulieu Canada, formed in December 1998, now operates the facilities formerly operated by Peerless and Coronet in Quebec.
In 1999, Crossley Carpet Mills Ltd. was acquired by the U.S. producer Collins & Aikman. This company continues to manufacture in Nova Scotia.
The Canadian carpet producer's submissions include comments on the process of consolidation within the U.S. carpet industry. The other submissions also note that there has been significant consolidation of U.S. shipments into the hands of a few exporters. It is submitted that these exporters are shipping into a stable Canadian market and consolidation in the United States (the market share held by seven producers in 1997 is now held by three producers) has reduced competitive pressure because the consolidated companies are well-managed, sophisticated and responsible in their actions.
Several parties stated that consolidation has slowed with the amalgamation of the U.S. industry into three major players and the increasing involvement of these companies in the hard surface flooring market.
The market share held by U.S. exporters has increased while the apparent Canadian market has marginally decreased in size. Canadian carpet producers acknowledge that the domestic industry has lost market share to imports with the largest gains going to U.S. goods in a ratio of 70:30.
The Canadian market share held by U.S. exporters has increased from approximately 40.6% in 1998 to 44.0% in 2000 and from about 43.7% to 44.8% during the first six months of 2000 and 2001 respectively.
One large importer stated that demand for U.S. carpet has increased as a result of U.S. mills larger economies of scale and a wider selection of carpet styles that cannot be duplicated by Canadian producers. Another importer stated that it would continue to access subject goods from Canada and the U.S.A. This company stated that the principle factors affecting demand for U.S. subject goods are style, choice and cost. Cost is related to economies of scale in the U.S., while style and choice relate to the effects of a larger domestic market in the U.S.A.
The Canadian industry has undergone substantial changes in ownership since the last expiry review. This industry is now largely controlled by U.S. mills that also export subject and/or non-subject goods to Canada.
Substantial change took place in the U.S. market as a wave of consolidation occurred. The process of consolidation has now slowed and further consolidation of the magnitude recently seen is not expected.
The consolidation of the U.S. industry has resulted in a significantly smaller number of producers controlling a larger proportion of market share than at the time of the last Tribunal review. As previously noted, four exporters collectively account for over 80% of the volume of subject goods imported. This has significantly reduced competition and placed it in the hands of much larger producers. It is accepted that these larger producers have economies of scale and a wide selection of carpet styles that are often not duplicated by Canadian producers.
Hard surfaces have become a viable alternative to machine tufted carpet. However, statistics indicate that the Canadian carpet market has shrunk only marginally in total yardage, by 1.5% from 1999 to 2000 and by 1.3% from 2000 to 2001 (first six months). This marginal decrease in the Canadian market indicates that hard surfaces have not yet had a particularly significant impact.
U.S. domestic sales accounted for 96% of the exporters' total sales since 1998. The relatively small volume and value of the exporters' sales to Canada and other export markets does not support an inclination to increase market share in foreign markets at any cost.
It is significant that U.S. exporters have gained market share while facing anti-dumping measures. Sales volumes associated with U.S. exporters have increased from 40.6% of the Canadian market in 1998 to 44% in 2000 and from 43.7% to 44.8% during the first six months of 2000 and 2001. Clearly, the U.S. exporters have no need to dump to maintain and even improve their business results in the Canadian market.
One large exporter noted the drop in the value of Canadian currency against the U.S. dollar from 1998 to 2001, and stated that, given that normal values are stated in U.S. dollars and negligible amounts of AD duty have been collected, prices must have increased to account for exchange rate fluctuations.
Several large exporters asserted that they have not dumped subject goods into Canada or that their dumping was infinitesimal.
It is evident from the statements of a number of exporters, and data provided elsewhere in this report, that export prices to Canada have been increasing. It is noteworthy that exporters in aggregate have consistently maintained a 10% to 15% premium over normal value. The continuing existence of this premium supports the contention that U.S. exporters have no need or inclination to dump into Canada.
Certain information submitted by participants was struck from the record in response to concerns expressed by counsel. In all such situations, the author of the information in question was provided an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised.
Information was struck from the record due to improper non-confidential summaries, the inclusion in reply briefs of argument that was not supported by evidence filed prior to the closing of record and the filing of evidence in chief in a reply brief.
In all instances, counsel for all parties were given the opportunity to comment prior to a decision being made to strike information from the record or to allow it to remain on the record.
In rendering his decision, the Commissioner took into account the marginal amount of dumping of subject goods since the Tribunal's 1997 review of its 1992 finding. Significant margins of dumping associated with a significant volume of goods dumped by smaller-sized exporters led the Tribunal to conclude, in 1997, that exporters would continue to dump in the absence of the finding. That situation does not exist today. It is clear from the evidence that, since the Tribunal's review, continued enforcement has led all exporters to take steps to not dump machine tufted carpeting into Canada.
The Commissioner considered the past, present and likely future activity of U.S. producers in terms of production, capacity utilization, sales volumes, prices, costs and profits, as well as changes in market conditions since the Tribunal's review in 1997. The data revealed that, in general, exporters have increased prices to offset changes in costs, maintained firm controls on inventory levels and adjusted capacity utilization and production levels to avoid an over-supply of carpet in the marketplace. The exporters have also increased exports and market share in Canada without dumping. This has been accomplished during a period of consolidation of the U.S. industry that has resulted in a smaller number of producers controlling a larger portion of market share in the U.S.A. and in Canada.
It is the opinion of the Commissioner that it would be illogical and counterproductive for U.S. exporters to dump when they have consistently demonstrated that they can improve sales and market share in Canada at prices in excess of normal value. As a result, the Commissioner has concluded that the U.S. producers are not likely to dump machine tufted carpet into Canada in the absence of anti-dumping measures.
Having considered the factors described above, the Commissioner has determined that the expiry of the Tribunal's order concerning machine tufted carpeting with pile predominantly of nylon, other polyamide, polyester, or polypropylene yarns, excluding automotive carpeting and floor coverings of an area less than five square metres, originating in or exported from the United States of America, is not likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the goods.
Pursuant to subsection 76.03(3) of SIMA, the Tribunal will issue an order rescinding its order in Inquiry No. NQ-96-004. The scheduled expiry date of the order is April 21, 2002.
Until the Tribunal's order is rescinded, the CCRA will continue to levy anti-dumping duties on importations of subject goods that are dumped into Canada.
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
Anti-dumping and Countervailing Directorate
11th Floor, Urbandale Building
100 Metcalfe Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L8
Ron McTiernan: (613) 954-7271
Rand McNally: (613) 954-1663
Ottawa, December 21, 2001
File No. 4366-6
|Sum of Qty
|Origin||1998||1999||2000||JA - JN 2000||JA - JN 2001|
|Sum of Value ($CDN)||YEAR|
|Origin||1998||1999||2000||JA - JN 2000||JA - JN 2001|
|Other Countries||$3,934,554||0.6%||$4,473,085||0.7%||$5,269,940||0.8%||$ 2,324,779||0.7%||$2,250,181||0.7%|