also increased significantly, and prices received for the domestic like product rose over the POI, despite the presence of underselling subject imports.22
Pricing data gathered for CFSP roll products suggest that subject imports did not influence the price received for domestic web roll products. Sales of domestically produced product 2 to paper merchants rose significantly throughout the POI.23 Sales in the third quarter of 2006 were at the highest level recorded in the POI, up *** percent from the third quarter of 2003. Prices received for the domestically produced web product also peaked in the third quarter of 2006, nearly *** percent higher than prices received in the third quarter of 2003.24 Trends for sales volume and prices for product 2 sales to end users followed similar trends, rising through the POI and peaking in the third quarter of 2006.25
The record suggests that subject imports of some sheet products consistently undersold the domestic like product over the POI and may have contributed to suppressing or depressing the prices received for those products. However, these effects were not noticeable in all sales of sheet products; domestic sales and prices received for product 3 sales to paper merchants rose over the POI, despite underselling by subject imports; no sales of subject imported product 3 to end users were noted, yet prices received for the domestic product stagnated.26 These data suggest that the pricing effects of subject imported sheet products were limited to specific channel/product combinations. Furthermore, subject imports themselves were limited to a minority segment of the market. The pricing data gathered in this investigation do not suggest that subject imports of sheet products had any influence on the prices received for domestic web products. Rather, the web roll pricing data suggest that volume and pricing increased at very similar levels over the POI. In light of these findings and the attenuation of competition, I do not find underselling to be significant, and I do not find that subject imports significantly suppressed or depressed prices received for the domestic like product.
Impact of the Subject Imports27
Section 771(7)(C)(iii) provides that the Commission, in examining the impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on
the state of the industry.”28
These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity utilization, market
share, employment, wages, productivity, profits, cash flow, return on investment, ability to raise capital, research and development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor is dispositive and all
CR/PR at Table V-5.
23 Subject import pricing data for product 2 ***. CR/PR at Table V-3. For that reason I have not relied on the apparent overselling by subject imports, as ***. However, I find the trends for sales and pricing of the domestic product reported in tables V-3 and V-4 to be reasonable indicators for domestic web rolls.
CR/PR at Table V-3.
CR/PR at Table V-4.
CR/PR at Tables V-5 and V-6.
27 In its notice of initiation, Commerce estimated the following dumping margins: China, 99.95 percent; Indonesia, 99.14 percent; and Korea, 71.81 percent. 71 Fed. Reg. 68537 (November 27, 2006).
28 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”) SAA at 885.