considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”8
For the reasons discussed below, I find that there is not a reasonable indication that the domestic industry producing CFSP is materially injured by reason of subject imports from China, Indonesia, and Korea.
Volume of Subject Imports
Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”9
The volume of cumulated subject imports increased by *** percent between 2003 and 2005, well above the growth rate in apparent U.S. consumption, which increased by *** percent between 2003 and 2005. The volume of subject imports increased from *** short tons in 2003 to *** short tons in 2005. Subject import volume in interim 2006 was *** percent higher than in interim 2005, while overall apparent U.S. consumption rose by only *** percent. 10
In relative terms, however, the increases in the volume of subject imports were more modest. In 2003, subject imports accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption. In 2005, subject imports accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, an increase of less than *** percentage points. Furthermore, that modest increase came at the expense of other imports. Nonsubject imports accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2005, down from *** percent in 2003. The market share of the domestic like product was, in 2005, essentially unchanged from 2003, *** percent to *** percent. In interim 2006, subject imports were *** percent, up from *** percent in interim 2005. But shipments of the domestic product in interim 2006 still accounted for *** percent of the market, while nonsubject imports accounted for *** percent. 11
The volume data alone present a mixed picture, with absolute increases but rather modest shifts in market share. In addition, the record indicates a notable attenuation of competition between subject imports and the domestic like product. As noted, web rolls account for a significant majority of apparent U.S. consumption. Similarly, domestic production is heavily concentrated on the web roll sector. Subject imports, however, are heavily concentrated in sheets and, to a lesser extent, sheeter rolls. Of the nearly *** short tons of subject CFSP imported between 2003 and 2005, less than *** short tons were web rolls.13 The record does not provide an indication why web rolls did not account for a more significant share of subject imports, as web rolls are produced in each of the subject countries. Respondents claim that shipping difficulties make web rolls an unprofitable and difficult item to ship, but the record indicates that respondents did ship modest volumes of sheeter rolls, which suggests that the shipping of rolls can be done profitably.15 Whatever the reason, subject imports were essentially absent 12 14
19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).
19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).
CR/PR at Table C-1.
CR/PR at Table C-1.
CR at I-24 and Table I-3, PR at I-15 and Table I-3.
CR/PR at Tables I-3 and IV-2.
CR/PR at Tables VII-5, VII-8, and VII-11.
CR/PR at Table I-3.