Inquiries (Section 42)
BLACK GRANITE MEMORIALS OF ALL SIZES AND SHAPES AND
BLACK GRANITE SLABS IN THICKNESSES EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THREE
INCHES, ORIGINATING IN OR EXPORTED FROM INDIA
Inquiry No.: NQ-93-006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ottawa, Wednesday, July 20, 1994
Inquiry No.: NQ-93-006
IN THE MATTER OF an inquiry under section 42 of the Special
Import Measures Act respecting:
BLACK GRANITE MEMORIALS OF ALL SIZES AND SHAPES AND BLACK
GRANITE SLABS IN THICKNESSES EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THREE INCHES,
ORIGINATING IN OR EXPORTED FROM INDIA
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal, under the provisions
of section 42 of the Special Import Measures Act, has
conducted an inquiry following the issuance by the Deputy Minister
of National Revenue of a preliminary determination of dumping and
subsidizing dated March 22, 1994, and of a final determination of
dumping and subsidizing dated June 17, 1994, respecting the
importation into Canada of black granite memorials of all sizes and
shapes and black granite slabs in thicknesses equal to or greater
than three inches, originating in or exported from India.
Pursuant to subsection 43(1) of the Special Import Measures
Act, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal hereby finds
that the dumping in Canada and subsidizing of the aforementioned
goods, originating in or exported from India, have caused, are
causing and are likely to cause material injury to the production
in Canada of like goods.
Charles A. Gracey
Charles A. Gracey
Michel P. Granger
Michel P. Granger
The statement of reasons will be issued within 15 days.
Ottawa, Thursday, August 4, 1994
Inquiry No.: NQ-93-006
BLACK GRANITE MEMORIALS OF ALL SIZES AND SHAPES AND BLACK
GRANITE SLABS IN THICKNESSES EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THREE INCHES,
ORIGINATING IN OR EXPORTED FROM INDIA
Special Import Measures Act - Whether the dumping and
subsidizing of the above-mentioned goods have caused, are causing
or are likely to cause material injury to the production in Canada
of like goods.
DECISION: The Canadian International Trade Tribunal
hereby finds that the dumping in Canada and subsidizing of black
granite memorials of all sizes and shapes and black granite slabs
in thicknesses equal to or greater than three inches, originating
in or exported from India, have caused, are causing and are likely
to cause material injury to the production in Canada of like
Place of Hearing: Ottawa, Ontario
Dates of Hearing: June 20 to 23, 1994
Date of Finding: July 20, 1994
Date of Reasons: August 4, 1994
Tribunal Members: Charles A. Gracey, Presiding Member
Raynald Guay, Member
Desmond Hallissey, Member
Director of Research: Sandy Greig
Research Managers: Don Shires
Economist: Simon Glance
Statistical Officer: Margaret Saumweber
Counsel for the Tribunal: David M. Attwater
Distribution Officer: Joël Joyal
Participants: James P. McIlroy
for Canadian Granite Association
Stuart E. Hendin, Q.C.
James W. Touhey, Q.C.
for Kilvington Brothers Limited
Taygor Granite Imports Inc.
Government of India
Ontario Monument Builders Association
Mark D. Nordman
for Granite Resources Corp.
Kimberley L.D. Cook
Wyatt S. Holyk
for M S International, Inc.
Monuments India, Division of Granite
(India) Pvt. Ltd.
Oriental Select Granites Pvt. Ltd.
President, Dominion Granite Ltd.
President, Canadian Granite Association
Granite Resources Corp.
President, Rock of Ages Canada Ltd.
Vice-President, Canadian Granite Association
Robert L. Youngs
Kilvington Brothers Limited
Tingley Monuments Limited
Kirkpatrick & O'Brine Ltd.
Branch Service Representative
Remco Memorials Ltd.
Smith Monument Co. Ltd.
Senior Program Officer
Anti-dumping and Countervailing Division
Department of National Revenue
Lepitre Granite Works Ltd.
M S International, Inc.
Garth S. Nelson
The Stone Centre
Taygor Granite Imports Inc.
Address all communications to:
Canadian International Trade Tribunal
Standard Life Centre
333 Laurier Avenue West
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal), under
the provisions of section 42 of the Special Import Measures
Act  (SIMA),
has conducted an inquiry following the issuance by the Deputy
Minister of National Revenue (the Deputy Minister) of a preliminary
determination of dumping and subsidizing  dated March 22, 1994, respecting the
importation into Canada of black granite memorials of all sizes and
shapes and black granite slabs in thicknesses equal to or greater
than three inches, originating in or exported from India (the
subject goods). In the preliminary determination, the Deputy
Minister joined the dumping investigation and the subsidy
investigation pursuant to section 38 of the Special Import
Measures Regulations.  On June 17, 1994, the Deputy Minister made a final
determination of dumping and subsidizing  respecting the subject goods.
On March 28, 1994, the Tribunal issued a notice of commencement
of inquiry.  As
part of the inquiry, the Tribunal sent detailed questionnaires to
Canadian producers, importers and purchasers of the subject goods,
requesting production, financial, import and market information, as
well as other information, covering the period from January 1,
1990, to the end of the first quarter of 1994. From the replies to
the questionnaires and other sources, the Tribunal research staff
prepared public and protected pre-hearing staff reports.
The record of this inquiry consists of all Tribunal exhibits,
including the public and protected replies to questionnaires, all
exhibits filed by the parties at the hearing, as well as the
transcript of all proceedings. All public exhibits were made
available to the parties. Protected exhibits were made available
only to independent counsel who had filed a declaration and
undertaking with the Tribunal.
Public and in camera hearings were held in Ottawa,
Ontario, from June 20 to 23, 1994. The complainant, the Canadian
Granite Association (the CGA), was represented by counsel at the
hearing. Gem Granites (Gem), Monuments India, Division of Granite
(India) Pvt. Ltd. (Monuments India), Enterprising Enterprises,
Granite Resources Corp. (Granite Resources), M S International,
Inc. (M S International), Amman Granites (Amman), Oriental Select
Granites Pvt. Ltd. (Oriental Select) (exporters), Taygor Granite
Imports Inc. (Taygor), Mafer Inc. (Mafer) (importers), Kilvington
Brothers Limited (Kilvington) (retailer), the Ontario Monument
Builders Association (the OMBA) and the Government of India were
also represented by counsel at the hearing.
On July 20, 1994, the Tribunal issued a finding that the dumping
in Canada and subsidizing of black granite memorials of all sizes
and shapes and black granite slabs in thicknesses equal to or
greater than three inches, originating in or exported from India,
have caused, are causing and are likely to cause material injury to
the production in Canada of like goods.
The product that is the subject of this inquiry is described by
the Deputy Minister in the preliminary determination of dumping and
subsidizing as black granite memorials of all sizes and shapes and
black granite slabs in thicknesses equal to or greater than three
inches, originating in or exported from India.
A commercial definition provided by the complainant defines
granite as "a natural hard stone, that can be cut, sawn or
polished, or undergo any combination of these processes, and can
receive any type of finish which modifies the original finish.
The term "memorials" includes "granite tombstones, bases,
slants, upright sloping dies, hickies, tablets, wings, vases,
crosses, grave markers and pieces which, when assembled, can be
utilized as a memorial.  " The subject goods are most commonly referred to
as jet black memorials. Trade names used in the industry include
"Absolute Black," "India Black," "Premium Plus Black," "Premium
Black" and "Star Black." The principal sources of black granite
blocks used in the domestic production of memorials and slabs are
South Africa and Zimbabwe.
The two primary categories of memorials  are upright monuments and flat
markers. Upright monuments are specified by their dimensions,
polish and finish type, and top profile. Dimensions are normally
given as width, thickness and height. Popular sizes include 30 in.
x 6 in. x 24 in. 
and 30 in. x 8 in. x 24 in. A monument has essentially a
rectangular shape and has, therefore, six surfaces. Monuments may
be polished on two, three or five surfaces; hence the terms P2, P3
and P5. A P2 monument would be polished on its two largest
surfaces, front and back. A P3 monument would also have a polished
top, and a P5 monument would have all five exposed surfaces
polished. The unpolished exposed surfaces on monuments are
chiselled to give the surface a natural rock appearance referred to
as "rock pitch." Thus, monuments are described first by the number
of polished surfaces, P2, P3 or P5, and, for those with rock pitch
surfaces, the additional designation of "balance rock pitch" (BRP)
is provided, for example, P2 BRP. The bottom (bed) of all monuments
is sawn to ensure a flat surface.
There are three broad categories of memorial profiles: common,
modified common and special shapes. According to the CGA, roughly
65 percent of the domestic industry's sales of black granite
memorials are common profiles, that is, with a flat or serpentine
top. Approximately 25 percent of sales are modified common profiles
that have some value-adding features, such as shaped corners. The
balance of black granite memorial sales are special shapes, for
example, stacked hearts and the book of life.
Flat markers are generally 3 in. thick and are designated by
their length, width and height. The most common flat marker size is
24 in. x 12 in. x 3 in.
The memorials subject to this inquiry are referred to as
polished blanks. The memorials are finished except for the
engraving or etching and are sold in that form. Engraving is a
service that producers or importers may provide or arrange to have
done for a customer, but it is a separate transaction that is not
included in the wholesale selling price of a memorial. Imported
memorials arrive in Canada as finished blanks and are engraved
Slabs are defined as "rectangular pieces of granite with at
least two sides roughly trimmed, cut, sawn or polished.  " Slabs used in the
production of monuments are cut from blocks into thicknesses
ranging from 3 in. to 12 in. As the most popular monument
thicknesses are 6 in. and 8 in., these are also the most common
Granite product quality is assessed in terms of fineness of
grain, colour, consistency of colour, polish lustre, strength,
durability, density, water absorption and contrast.
Domestic producers and importers sell to retail monument outlets
or cemeteries, which in turn sell to consumers. Prices are set
using published list prices, from which a number of discounts are
The production of black granite memorials begins with the
cutting of large blocks of granite  into slabs. Computer-controlled diamond saws
determine the mix of slab thicknesses that may be obtained from a
single block with the least amount of waste.  The granite slabs are polished on
the front and back surfaces with machines known as "bridge
polishers" which move over the surface of the slab. A few producers
still use stationary polishing machines under which the slabs
The memorial profiles that utilize the maximum amount of the
polished slab are drawn on the surface of the slab, which is
eventually the front of the memorial, and the slab is then split
into the desired sizes with a hydraulic splitter. The next stages
in the process vary depending on the type of finish that the
completed memorial will have and on its intended profile, as
previously explained. At the completion of this stage of the
process, the product is referred to as a polished blank.
The final stage in finishing a granite memorial is the
engraving, which is done by using a full-size, rubber-like stencil
of the artwork and family name(s). The stencil is applied to the
face of the polished blank and the pattern is sandblasted into the
surface. Diamond etching and other custom work may be required
depending upon the customer's specifications.
The same production process applies to the production of flat
markers, except that the back of the slab is not polished, as it
becomes the bottom when it is installed in the cemetery.
Domestic producers can be divided into three main categories:
primary producers, granite processors and secondary producers.
Primary producers are involved in all stages of memorial
production. These producers import blocks of black granite from
which they produce slabs and, ultimately, memorials. Presently,
there are 16 primary producers of memorials in Canada, which
account for approximately 87 percent of the domestic production of
granite memorials and slabs.  They are concentrated in Beebe, Quebec. The
majority of these producers are privately owned companies. The
exception is Rock of Ages Canada Ltd. (Rock of Ages), which is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Rock of Ages Corporation of Barre,
Some primary producers are integrated and operate their own
quarries and retail outlets. Three primary producers that operate
their own retail outlets are Heritage Memorials Limited of Windsor,
Nova Scotia, Nelson Monuments Ltd. (Nelson) of Sussex, New
Brunswick, and Tingley Monuments Limited of Amherst, Nova Scotia. A
fourth primary producer, Imperial Granite Inc. (Imperial), is owned
by a large retailer, Remco Memorials Ltd. (Remco) of Regina,
Three of the primary producers, Rock of Ages, Dominion Granite
Ltd. (Dominion) and Adru Granite Inc. (Adru), import black granite
memorials from India through a wholly owned importer, Memorial
Granite processors saw blocks into slabs that they supply to
memorial producers. There are two granite processors, both located
in Beebe: Granite Center Beebe Inc. and Polishing Center Beebe Inc.
Granite Center Beebe Inc. is the largest producer of slabs in
Canada for sales to third parties.
Secondary producers consist of memorial retailers that generally
take up the production process at the slab-polishing stage and
retail the finished memorials. Secondary producers/retailers are
mainly located in the province of Quebec and the Maritimes.
During the Deputy Minister's investigation, 13 exporters of the
subject goods located in India and 3 exporters located in the
United States were identified. The leading exporters were
represented by counsel at the hearing. The Deputy Minister also
identified 13 importers during the investigation. The leading
importer during the period of investigation was Memorial. Memorial
was established jointly, in 1990, by Rock of Ages, Dominion and
Adru, which are members of the CGA. It was established to import
black granite memorials from India for sale by the three
participating producers to retail customers in the domestic market.
Memorial entered into an exclusive supply arrangement with M S
International, a U.S.-based exporter that secured the subject goods
on behalf of Memorial primarily from three Indian exporters:
Monuments India, Enterprising Enterprises and Oriental Select. In
1994, Memorial ceased operations. Rock of Ages began importing on
its own behalf in the first quarter of 1994. The Deputy Minister
also identified Imperial as an importer of the subject goods.
The following companies are the major independent importers (not
related to any producer): (1) Mafer and Taygor that are the
exclusive Canadian importers from Gem; (2) SITA Associates (SITA)
that deals with a variety of exporters, but imports primarily from
Amman; (3) Marchesi Marblecraft Ltd. that imports from Kwality
Monuments and specializes in flat markers; (4) Cold Spring Granite
(Canada) Ltd. (Cold Spring Canada) that is a non-resident importer
located in Cold Spring, Minnesota, that buys imported product from
its parent company, Cold Spring Granite Company (U.S. Cold Spring),
that it acquires from Granite Resources, a U.S. importer of the
subject goods; 
and (5) Granite Resources that has been an importer since 1990,
taking orders from Canadian customers that it fills with purchases
The balance of the named importers are largely retailers, some
of which have polishing or engraving machinery that enables them to
finish polished blanks for sale in their own retail outlets.
The period of investigation into dumping and subsidizing covered
imports of the subject goods from January 1 to June 30, 1993.
Normal values were determined pursuant to paragraph 19(b) of
SIMA using the aggregate of the cost of production, an amount for
administrative, selling and other costs, and an amount for profit.
 The Deputy
Minister reviewed 99.8 percent of the subject goods shipped to
Canada during the period of investigation. Of the goods reviewed,
34.5 percent were found to have been dumped at a weighted average
margin of dumping of 27.9 percent. For exporters where insufficient
information was provided to the Department of National Revenue
(Revenue Canada) to determine normal values, the amount of
anti-dumping duty will be equal to 48.6 percent  of the export price.
The Deputy Minister determined that 11 subsidy programs were
available to Indian exporters during the period from January 1,
1992, to August 31, 1993, based on information provided by
exporters and the Government of India. Three exporters  provided sufficient
information to calculate an amount of subsidy from each program for
each exporter's shipments to Canada during the period of
investigation. Of the 11 subsidy programs available, only 6 were
utilized by exporters. The weighted average subsidy calculated for
the three exporters that provided complete information was 35.4
percent of the F.O.B. India selling price or $0.207/lb.  Of the 6 subsidy
programs from which the three named exporters received a benefit, 2
programs accounted for over 90 percent of the total subsidy. These
programs were the Import Duty Exemptions Available to Export
Orientated Units (EOUs) and the Income Tax Exemption on Export
Earnings. The amount of subsidy for exporters that did not provide
complete information was determined to be equal to 50.4 percent of
the F.O.B. India selling price or $0.350/lb.18
Counsel for the complainant submitted that the dumping and
subsidizing of the subject goods have caused, are causing and are
likely to cause material injury to the production in Canada of like
goods. The complainant's case centred on three major points: (1)
the actual and potential volumes of the dumped and subsidized
imports into Canada; (2) the effects of the dumped and subsidized
imports on like goods produced and sold in Canada; and (3) the
injurious impact of the dumped and subsidized imports on the
production in Canada of like goods.
Regarding the volume of imports, counsel argued that the actual
volume of imports from India had risen significantly over the
1990-92 period. While Indian imports declined by 30 percent in 1993
over 1992, the level of imports still constituted a level that was
22 percent higher than in 1991. As to the potential volume of
imports from India, counsel argued that there exists a fairly large
and growing number of exporters and importers of the products,
shipping not only directly from India but also through the United
States. In counsel's view, because Indian producers have no home
market for the subject goods, they must find export markets for
these products. This explains why EOUs are such an important
element in this inquiry. Counsel also referred to the plans of
certain exporters, such as Granite Resources, to expand their sales
of memorials in Canada and to the numerous overtures received by
Remco from prospective exporters and agents to form business
ventures in Canada for the purpose of marketing granite memorials
Regarding the price effects of the dumped and subsidized
imports, counsel argued that the evidence at the average and
individual price levels was unequivocal. Quoting from the Public
Pricing Report prepared by the staff of the Tribunal, counsel
noted the large margins of price undercutting by Indian importers
in 1992, 1993 and the first quarter of 1994. Regarding average
prices, counsel referred to the large margins of price undercutting
over the period, noting that imports increased by 75 percent in
1992, the year in which Indian imports undercut domestic prices by
a margin of 39 percent. As specific examples of price undercutting
by Indian importers, counsel referred to price offerings by Taygor
and Granite Resources. Counsel added that firms such as SITA and
others were aggressively undercutting both Taygor's and Mafer's
prices, forcing them to react, thus creating a market in which
highly aggressive price undercutting prevailed. The prices and
offerings of dumped and subsidized goods imported by the various
importers in Canada are, in counsel's view, causing injury to CGA
members. As well, it was argued that the price lists and other
price evidence submitted by the complainant demonstrate that the
subject imports have caused significant price suppression and
Counsel argued that the injury sustained by CGA members on their
production of like goods took the form of a loss of market share,
reduced sales, loss of profits, reduced employment activity and an
inability to finance investments. Regarding market share, counsel
noted that the importation of finished memorials by certain
domestic producers was a short-term strategy to maintain market
share in competition with Indian imports. Nonetheless, this
strategy was only partially successful, as the domestic industry's
sales from imports only partially offset its declining share from
sales of domestically produced black granite memorials and slabs.
Respecting reduced sales, reference was made to examples of lost
volume to Indian suppliers in the questionnaire responses of CGA
members. The adverse impact of the dumped and subsidized goods is
reflected in the financial results of CGA members. As regards
employment activity, counsel argued that person-hours worked were a
good indicator of the impact of Indian imports.
Counsel further argued that the export policy of the Government
of India put CGA members in a double bind. First, it encouraged a
flood of Indian imports into Canada, which were found to be dumped
and subsidized in 1993. Second, Canadian producers were confronted
with policies that discouraged the export of blocks and slabs by
making a very high value-added requirement a condition of getting
the benefits of the EOU.
In his rebuttal argument, counsel submitted that the domestic
market for black granite memorials and slabs was a distinct market
from the broader market for all memorials and slabs, noting the
different demand trends in these two markets. Regarding market
share gains by domestic producers, counsel argued that price
depression was the reason that the domestic industry recaptured
some of the market share lost previously. In addressing the
argument that quality was driving the market, counsel argued that
price was driving the market and that this was evident in the large
market gains achieved by imports in 1992 when prices of such
imports undercut domestic prices by 39 percent. Counsel further
argued that the calculations of reduced subsidies and the impact of
adding the subsidy margin to the price of Indian imports raised by
opposing counsel were based on questionable assumptions and
arithmetic. Finally, regarding producer requests for exclusions,
counsel noted that exporter exclusions are only granted in narrow
circumstances and that the injury claimed is country-specific and
Counsel for the exporters and importers argued that any injury
suffered by the domestic industry was caused by factors unrelated
to the dumping and subsidizing.
M S International, Monuments India, Oriental Select and
Counsel argued that the reason that the subject goods have been
so successful in penetrating the Canadian market is because they
are high-quality products, being offered at very competitive
prices. Counsel submitted that the reason that the price of Indian
imports is lower than the price of domestically produced memorials
is related to an inherent cost advantage enjoyed by Indian
producers. The cost advantage stems from lower material, labour and
overhead costs.  Counsel submitted that, after reducing the cost
advantage by the amount of the subsidy, the remaining net cost
advantage explains why the Indian products are selling at lower
prices in Canada. The subsidy, when looked at in this context, is
completely immaterial. Counsel argued that the subsidy has declined
because the current Indian import duty rates are lower than those
used by Revenue Canada to determine the amount of the subsidy.
Counsel submitted that the reason that the complainant does not
purchase Indian blocks is, by its own evidence, due to its
production equipment being geared to produce memorials from larger
blocks that come from sheet rock quarries. The quarries in India
have a different formation and yield smaller blocks. Counsel argued
that it is not economically viable for the domestic industry to
produce memorials from those small blocks.
Counsel submitted that the evidence does not support a finding
of likelihood of injury. It was submitted that, since 1992, Indian
import duty rates on consumables  for use in producing the subject goods have
declined by approximately 57 percent and that this declining trend
will likely continue. On this basis, counsel argued that the
subsidy level is decreasing dramatically and estimated that it will
decline from a weighted average of 35.4 percent  to 23.5 percent based on
current Indian import duty rates. Furthermore, counsel argued that,
with respect to future benefits from import duty exemptions arising
from imports of machinery, the evidence shows that there is ample
Indian-made production machinery available in India and that future
imports of machinery are speculative.
Counsel also submitted that domestic producers and related
parties that are importers of the subject goods should be excluded
from the domestic industry. Counsel argued that, by virtue of their
high volume of imports, Rock of Ages, Dominion, Adru, Nelson and
Imperial should be excluded by the Tribunal from the domestic
industry whose production is the subject of the Tribunal's injury
Counsel submitted that slabs should be treated as a separate
class of like goods from memorials and contended that there was no
evidence of injury caused by slab imports. In the alternative, it
was submitted that slabs should be excluded from any finding of
material injury, once again, because there was no evidence of
injury caused by slab imports.
Finally, counsel requested an exclusion from any finding of
material injury for M S International, as it supplied the subject
goods only to the domestic industry.
Granite Resources and Amman
Counsel noted the testimony of retailers that Indian black
granite is a superior granite. For that reason, counsel submitted
that the goods produced in Canada are not identical in all respects
to goods produced from Indian black granite.
Counsel also submitted that the class of goods should not be
defined by colour. He argued that black granite memorials compete
with all other colours of memorials, that the same customers are
being sought, that they have the same end use function, that they
fulfil the same need and that they can be substituted one for the
other. He also submitted that producers do not keep separate
records for black memorials, that the production facility is the
same for black memorials, that the same machinery is used to
produce all colours of memorials and that there is no distinction
in their capital investments for black and other coloured
Counsel argued that the evidence did not support a finding of
material injury. He submitted that, over the period of inquiry,
there was an increase in production of black granite memorials, an
increase in sales from domestic production, a slight reduction in
market share, increased employment and a decline in person-hours
worked which, counsel submitted, suggests an increase in
productivity. Counsel submitted that the income statements that
show annual financial losses are unreliable. Counsel also noted
that the members of the CGA identified no specific investments that
were hindered or retarded. Furthermore, counsel argued that the
domestic industry recognized that the demand for black granite
memorials was increasing and started importing to take advantage of
Counsel submitted that, in order to determine the issue of
causation, the Tribunal must look at how the domestic market would
have reacted if the subject goods had been sold at non-dumped and
non-subsidized prices. Counsel contended that, "even at non-dumped
and non-subsidized prices, the domestic market for the like goods
would not have looked any different in the past, and will not react
any differently in the future.  "
It was submitted that Indian producers have a natural cost
advantage and that, even when the subsidy (applicable duty) is
added to the selling price of the subject memorials, they are still
priced lower than the domestic industry's memorials. In an aid to
argument, counsel submitted three price comparisons in support of
On the basis of these price comparisons, counsel argued that it
is the Indian cost advantage and not the subsidy that is the reason
for the lower Indian prices.
Gem, Taygor, Mafer, Kilvington and the OMBA
Counsel contended that importers, Taygor and Mafer, and their
export supplier, Gem, have not injured the domestic industry.
Counsel submitted that the circumstances facing the domestic
industry and its response are explained in a speech by Mr. Kurt
Swenson, President of Rock of Ages Corporation, the parent company
of Rock of Ages.  It was opined that sales of upright granite
monuments in North America would not expand and may decline in
volume and average size due to changes in the marketplace. In these
circumstances, Rock of Ages Corporation entered into a joint
venture, in 1988, with certain Indian suppliers to produce, on its
behalf, red and black finished granite memorials.
Counsel argued that there was an increase in the demand for
Indian black granite memorials that was driven by the superior
quality of the subject goods exported by Gem. They submitted that
the market was looking for price and quality and that Gem was
selling a superior product at an excellent price. Counsel submitted
that the domestic industry decided to participate in supplying some
of that new demand. However, the domestic industry could not
compete using its own production because it was not economical for
it to import Indian black granite blocks for production into
memorials in Canada. Consequently, certain of the larger domestic
memorial producers formed Memorial and entered into an exclusive
supply arrangement with M S International to import Indian black
Counsel argued that others observed the growth in demand and
began to import the subject goods. Consequently, the total volume
of imports increased over the period of inquiry. Counsel contended
that market prices were suppressed by the combined growth in
producers' and other importers' imports and the ensuing competition
between these two groups of importers.
However, counsel argued that while other importers' imports
increased, Taygor's and Mafer's imports from Gem did not expand,
but remained relatively stable over the period of inquiry. They
also argued that 1992 was not a critical year in terms of Gem's
exports, as there was no change in the volume imported.
Furthermore, counsel argued that there was no evidence of price
suppression by Gem products, as the selling prices of Taygor and
Mafer were at the high end of the range of importers'  prices, and that their
selling prices did not decline over the period of inquiry. As well,
it was argued that the prices of Gem's memorials sold by Taygor and
Mafer did not undercut domestic prices. In this regard, counsel
argued that Taygor's and Mafer's average prices were comparable to
Rock of Ages' average prices for sales from imports. Counsel also
noted that Gem's memorials were being imported into Canada by Mafer
long before domestic producers began to import and that Mafer's
prices have remained stable.
Counsel argued that the domestic industry has not lost market
share, but has retained it through aggressive marketing and by
importing from India in accordance with Mr. Swenson's strategy.
Counsel noted that the combined imports of Taygor and Mafer
remained stable because of Gem's export policy, which is to limit
its exports to an amount that does not exceed 5 percent of the
Canadian granite memorial market.
Counsel submitted that Dominion and Rock of Ages have
acknowledged that they were not injured by Gem's exports of the
subject goods and, in support, pointed to the testimonies of
Messrs. Arthur LaPenna and Brian O'Brine.
Respecting the recession, counsel submitted that it was simple
common sense to conclude that the recession had a negative impact
on the domestic industry.
Counsel argued that the countervailing duty will not have any
real effect and will not help Canadian producers. In this regard,
reference was made to the submissions of counsel for M S
Counsel argued that Gem's exports would not be injurious to the
domestic industry in the future by virtue of Gem's commitment to
limit its exports to 5 percent of the Canadian market for black
granite memorials. In this regard, counsel pointed to the testimony
of Mr. R. Veeramani of Gem, in which he offered to give an
undertaking to the Tribunal to limit Gem's exports to the level
Finally, counsel requested that Gem be excluded from any finding
of material injury on two grounds. First, counsel argued that Gem's
black granite memorials are superior to those supplied by other
exporters. Second, counsel argued that an exclusion was justified
in view of Gem's policy of limiting the amount of its exports of
the subject goods and Mr. Veeramani's offer to give an undertaking
to that effect.
The following table summarizes some of the key economic
indicators for this inquiry.
Volume (cu. ft.)
Domestic Production (%)
Total Imports (%)
Market Share Percentage Points Gained or (Lost) Compared to
1990 Market Share
Pre-Tax Income to Net Sales (%)
Average Prices ($/cu. ft.)
Producers' Sales from Production
Direct Hours Worked (000)
Capacity Utilization (Index 1990=100)
The apparent market for black granite memorials and slabs
declined by 4 percent in 1991, then increased annually in 1992 and
1993, rising from 32,851 cu. ft. in 1991 to 39,053 cu. ft. in 1993,
a 19-percent increase over the period.
In 1990, sales from domestic production accounted for 81 percent
of the apparent market. This share declined to 78 percent in 1991
and to 70 percent in 1992, but rose to 78 percent in 1993.
In 1990, sales from imports by firms whose principal business is
production (producers' imports) and sales from imports by firms
whose principal business is importing (importers' imports)
accounted for 19 percent of the apparent market. In 1991, total
imports captured an additional 3 percentage points of market share.
Importers' imports accounted for all of the increase in that year.
By 1992, total imports had captured an additional 11 percentage
points of market share compared to the 1990 level. Of the 11
percentage points of increased market share, importers' imports
accounted for 10 percentage points and producers' imports for 1
percentage point. The market share held by total imports decreased
in 1993, but remained 3 percentage points above the 1990 level.
Importers' imports accounted for all of that increase.
The average price of sales from domestic production fell in
1991, rose in 1992 and then fell again in 1993. The average price
in 1993 was almost the same as that in 1990. The average price of
sales of imports declined in 1991 and 1992. The average price then
rose in 1993 to just above the 1990 level.
In 1991, the importers' average price was 24 percent below the
producers' average price of sales from domestic production. The
difference in prices was greatest in 1992 when the importers'
average price was 39 percent below the producers' average price. In
1993, the difference narrowed to 18 percent below the producers'
average selling price in that year.
The domestic industry's pre-tax income to net sales ratio
gradually worsened in 1991 and 1992.  In 1993, there was a marked deterioration in
this measure of financial performance, with the domestic industry
losing 11 percent on sales.
Comparing 1990 to 1993, direct employment was the same, but
direct hours of work fell by close to 20 percent. Capacity
utilization at the beginning and at the end of the period of
inquiry was at the same level, but was considerably reduced in 1991
Historically, granite memorials have been produced in Canada
from available stone. Canadian onyx was the principal dark granite
available. As international sourcing became economical, the
domestic industry began to import darker, finer-grained black
granite blocks, initially from Europe.  In the early 1980s, European prices
increased and, in response, the domestic industry began importing
black granite blocks from South Africa and India.
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Indian industry
evolved to become a supplier of finished memorials to the Canadian
market. The domestic industry essentially stopped sourcing blocks
from India. Witnesses for the domestic industry testified that,
because of the subsidies available to Indian producers of
value-added granite products in India, the price spread between
imported Indian black granite blocks and finished memorials
narrowed. It narrowed to the point that domestic producers could no
longer compete with Indian finished memorials using Indian blocks
in the production of domestic black granite memorials. In addition,
domestic producers indicated that Indian blocks were smaller and of
more irregular shape than South African or Zimbabwean blocks and
not as suitable for their production equipment, which is designed
for sawing and polishing larger blocks than those which were
available from India. The domestic industry turned to South Africa
as its principal source of black granite. In 1992, high-quality and
lower-priced black granite blocks became available from Zimbabwe,
 and the
domestic industry added that country as a second source of supply.
However, an industry witness explained that domestic producers did
not shift all of their purchases from South Africa to Zimbabwe
because Zimbabwe was a new and untested supplier.
The evolution of the Indian granite industry from an exporter of
blocks to a supplier of finished memorials to the Canadian market
can be explained by a number of factors.
The Government of India provides a number of subsidies  to industries that are
eligible for EOU designation. EOUs are required to export 100
percent of their production and achieve a minimum "value-addition,
 " which in the
case of the granite industry is an average of 45 percent. The
availability of these subsidies encouraged the Indian granite
industry to meet the EOU requirements and, in so doing, to increase
the portion of its output accounted for by the higher value-added
finished memorials. The EOU program will continue until at least
March 31, 1997, as indicated in a publication issued by the
Government of India's Ministry of Commerce entitled "Export and
Import Policy: 1 April 1992 — 31 March 1997."
The evolution of the Indian polished granite industry was aided
by importers such as Mafer and Taygor through their efforts to
develop alternate sources of supply for black granite memorials.
They worked closely with the Indian industry to help it produce a
quality product for the Canadian market.
These developments greatly affected the marketing of memorials
in Canada and the sourcing of memorials by retailers. An industry
witness noted that, in the past, relatively small amounts of
finished granite memorials were imported into Canada by independent
retailers, as it was not economical for them to purchase a full
container. However, as low-priced finished memorials from India
became available, Canadian importers started to purchase containers
of Indian imports which they broke down for distribution to various
Thus, small independent retailers were able to acquire imports by
purchasing portions of containers of finished Indian memorials.
Finally, witnesses for the domestic industry and retailers gave
evidence that, since 1992, a large number of brokers representing
Indian exporters have been approaching retailers to promote Indian
memorial sales at very low prices, some comparable to the prices
that domestic producers had formerly paid for slabs imported from
Section 42 of SIMA requires the Tribunal to determine whether
the dumping or subsidizing of the subject goods, as found by the
Deputy Minister, has caused, is causing or is likely to cause
material injury to the production in Canada of like goods. In
arriving at its decision in the present inquiry, the Tribunal must
first determine which goods constitute like goods to the subject
goods. The Tribunal must then be satisfied that the domestic
industry, which is the subject of this inquiry, constitutes a major
proportion of the total domestic production of like goods. Finally,
it must be determined whether the domestic industry has suffered
from, or is threatened with, material injury and whether there is a
causal link between the material injury suffered and the dumping
and subsidizing of the subject goods. In the event of a finding of
material injury, the Tribunal must then consider requests for
exclusions from the finding.
In determining what constitutes like goods, the Tribunal is
confronted with two issues. First, it must determine which
domestically produced goods are like goods to the subject goods as
defined by the Deputy Minister. Second, the Tribunal must determine
whether memorials and slabs are separate classes of like goods.
Subsection 2(1) of SIMA defines "like goods," in relation to any
other goods, as:
(a) goods that are identical in all respects to the other
(b) in the absence of any goods described in paragraph (a),
goods the uses and other characteristics of which closely resemble
those of the other goods.
With regard to determining what constitutes like goods, counsel
for Granite Resources and Amman submitted that there are no
domestically produced like goods that are identical in all respects
to the subject goods as defined by the Deputy Minister. It was
submitted, however, that the uses and other characteristics of all
colours of domestically produced granite memorials and slabs
closely resemble the subject goods.  Thus, like goods should include all colours
of granite memorials and slabs. In contradiction, counsel for the
CGA argued that there is a unique market for black granite
memorials and slabs that is distinct from that for the other
coloured goods in the broader market. Therefore, domestically
produced like goods should be restricted to black granite memorials
In answering the question of whether goods are like goods in
relation to each other, the Tribunal takes market considerations
into account, as well as a comparison of the physical
characteristics of the goods. In Sarco Canada Limited v. The
Anti-dumping Tribunal,  the Federal Court of Appeal accepted the
Anti-dumping Tribunal's (the ADT) approach to the analysis of like
goods, where the ADT stated that,
the question of whether goods are "like" is to be determined
by market considerations. Do they compete directly with one
another? Are the same consumers being sought? Do they have the same
end-use functionally? Do they fulfill the same need? Can they be
substituted one for the other? 
The ADT also considered the physical characteristics, including
similarities and dissimilarities of the goods, in determining
whether they were like goods to each other.
The ADT focused on the degree of substitutability between the
imported goods and the domestically produced goods. If goods were
seen to be readily substitutable one for the other, there was an
inclination to consider them like goods. However, the ADT
recognized that "in some cases, dissimilarity in the physical
appearance of goods, which are functionally alike, can be such as
to create entirely different markets.  " The Tribunal is of the opinion
that goods that occupy different markets, though there may be some
competition between those goods because of functional similarity,
tend not to be like goods. 
The testimony of several witnesses was to the effect that only
South African and Zimbabwean black granites were of comparable
quality to Indian granite.  Black granites from South Africa and Zimbabwe
are pure black and of a fine grain. These granites are darker in
colour and finer in grain than lighter granites such as Brits Blue
and Canadian onyx. The greater contrast of pure black granite and
the finer grain allow for a wider range of good-quality design and
lettering by sandblasting.  In addition, etching, which is becoming an
increasingly popular way of decorating a memorial, is best
accomplished with pure black granite, which provides greater
contrast.  The
Tribunal also received evidence that Canadian onyx, because it
contains iron, tends to fade over time. 
The Tribunal heard from several witnesses that pure black
granite memorials have historically been some of the most expensive
granite memorials available in the Canadian market.  The strong preference for
black granite memorials is associated with various ethnic groups
 and certain
geographic regions of the country, such as the Maritimes and
Western Canada.  Evidence before the Tribunal indicated that
fairly significant increases in the price of black granite would be
required to overcome these preferences and induce consumers to
switch to the lighter Brits Blue.  This preference among certain consumers for
black granite memorials is evident in the higher prices paid for
such memorials. Testimony from sellers of memorials was that, when
faced with a price that is considered too high, consumers who
prefer black granite were more likely to purchase a smaller black
granite memorial than to switch to a less expensive memorial of a
lighter or different colour of granite. 
Based on the physical and market characteristics of South
African and Zimbabwean black granites, the Tribunal concluded that
memorials and slabs produced from these granites were like goods to
black granite memorials and slabs from India. In addition, the
Tribunal concluded that the physical and market characteristics of
memorials and slabs of lighter or different colours of granite are
sufficiently different from those of the subject goods that they
are not like goods to the subject goods. Therefore, domestically
produced like goods include only memorials and slabs produced from
South African and Zimbabwean black granites.
With regard to the second issue, if black granite memorials and
black granite slabs are not like goods to each other, they would be
considered separate classes of like goods. Under such
circumstances, the Tribunal would inquire into whether the dumping
and subsidizing of each class of goods had caused, were causing or
were likely to cause material injury to the production in Canada of
like goods of that class. 
The evidence before the Tribunal is that a black granite slab is
the principal component from which a black granite memorial is
produced. Black granite slabs are cut to a thickness to facilitate
memorial production and have no other commercial utility. Black
granite slabs also represent a significant portion of the total
cost of producing black granite memorials. As both black granite
memorials and black granite slabs have physical characteristics
that are identical or that closely resemble each other and both
occupy the same stream of commerce, the Tribunal views them as like
goods to each other. The Tribunal notes that it has regularly found
that a finished product and its principal component or input
represent a single class of like goods. 
Subsection 42(3) of SIMA directs the Tribunal to take fully into
account the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the GATT
Anti-Dumping Code  in a dumping case and paragraph 7 of Article 6
of the Code on Subsidies and Countervailing Duties  in a subsidy case. Paragraph
1(i) of Article 4 of the Anti-Dumping Code states:
In determining injury the term "domestic industry" shall be
interpreted as referring to the domestic producers as a whole of
the like products or to those of them whose collective output of
the products constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic
production of those products, except that
(i) when producers are related [footnote omitted] to the
exporters or importers or are themselves importers of the allegedly
dumped product, the industry may be interpreted as referring to the
rest of the producers.
This is repeated at paragraph 5 of Article 6 of the Code on
Subsidies and Countervailing Duties.
Counsel for several exporters argued for the exclusion, from the
domestic industry, of those domestic producers that were importers
of the subject goods. It was submitted that those domestic
producers imported a high percentage of the subject goods and have
contributed to establishing a demand for the subject goods in the
The Tribunal has discretion to exclude certain domestic
producers if they are themselves importers of the subject goods. In
reviewing the evidence on the record, the Tribunal observes that
the domestic producers were not the first to import the subject
goods into Canada. The Tribunal believes that the domestic
producers imported these goods as a defensive response to the
low-priced Indian imports into the domestic market in order to
maintain market share. In addition, these imports represented only
a small proportion of the domestic industry's total sales. As such,
the Tribunal concludes that it would not be appropriate to exclude
those domestic producers that were themselves importers of the
subject goods from the domestic industry for purposes of its injury
In assessing injury, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the
domestic industry, which is the subject of this inquiry,
constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of
like goods. Members of the CGA that are primary producers alone
account for approximately 87 percent of domestic production of all
granite memorials and slabs. For its injury analysis, the Tribunal
has relied on production figures, prices, sales and financial data
from firms representing a significant proportion of the production
of CGA members. As there is no evidence to suggest that the CGA
does not account for a similar proportion of the domestic
production of black granite memorials and slabs, the Tribunal is
satisfied that it has assessed injury against a major proportion of
total domestic production of like goods.
In assessing the effects of dumped and subsidized imports from
India on the production of like goods in Canada, the Tribunal did
not attempt to isolate the separate effects of the dumping and
subsidizing. The Tribunal considers that the domestic industry
responded to imports priced at less than fair value. Whether the
unfairly traded goods resulted from dumping or subsidizing was not
relevant to the response. Indeed, there was no evidence submitted
nor argument advanced that the domestic industry responded
separately and independently to the fact of dumping and to the fact
of subsidizing. To attempt to separate and measure that response
between that portion related to dumping and that portion related to
subsidizing would, in the Tribunal's view, be an arbitrary
In determining whether any injury resulted from the dumping and
subsidizing of the subject goods, the Tribunal reviewed the key
economic indicators over the 1990-93 period and, in some cases, in
the first quarter of 1994. In volume terms, the apparent market for
black granite memorials and slabs decreased by 4 percent in 1991
from 1990, but then grew by 19 percent over the 1992-93 period.
The period of inquiry can be divided into two distinct periods
in order to describe the domestic industry's reaction to the
imported goods. From 1990 to 1992, sales of imports from India
increased by 69 percent, with the major share of this increase
occurring in 1992 (86 percent). As a result, total imports from
India captured 11 percentage points of market share. The Tribunal
notes that the market share held by the domestic industry from
sales from its own imports remained relatively constant over this
period. Thus, the domestic producers' decline in market share from
sales from domestic production was almost exclusively attributable
to the market share gains by importers' imports. In volume terms,
the domestic producers' sales from domestic production decreased by
7 percent between 1990 and 1991, with a significant portion of this
decrease due to its loss of market share. While sales volume from
domestic production remained roughly the same in 1992 as in 1991,
the domestic producers did not participate in the growth of the
market for black granite memorials and slabs. Moreover, the volume
sold from domestic production in 1992 was some 6 percent below the
volume sold in 1990.
During this period, the average selling price of importers'
imports was consistently below that of the domestically produced
like goods. For example, in 1991, the price differential was 24
percent in favour of Indian imports. This differential grew to 39
percent in 1992. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that the
largest market share loss for domestic producers took place in
1992. The Tribunal has no doubt that the major reason for this
rapid expansion in market share gains and sales volume over this
period by Indian imports was their availability in the marketplace
at very low prices.
In 1993, the domestic industry adopted new strategies to arrest
the growth in imports that had taken place in 1991 and 1992. One
such strategy was to maintain prices on the sales of finished
monuments and markers produced from both South African and
Zimbabwean blocks.  Another strategy was to produce and sell
increased amounts of finished memorials from Zimbabwean granite.
This granite is less expensive than South African granite, and
memorials made from Zimbabwean granite sell for less than those
made from South African granite.
The effect of holding prices and selling more of the less
expensive memorials was to reduce the average selling price of
Canadian-made like goods.  At the same time, the average price of the
imported product increased,  and the domestic industry recovered part of the
market share lost over the two previous years. However, at 78
percent, the market share held by domestic production in 1993 was
less than that held by domestic production in 1990 (81
The Tribunal has considered the complainant's argument that the
domestic industry suffered price suppression and erosion because of
the dumped and subsidized imports. In assessing the validity of the
complainant's allegations of price suppression and erosion, the
Tribunal examined the evidence regarding specific and average
pricing and the activity of Indian importers and suppliers in the
The Tribunal examined the specific price information contained
in the pricing report prepared by the Tribunal staff. This report
analyzed the price trends and relative price levels of domestic and
Indian imports of black granite monuments and markers from two
perspectives: (1) a selling price survey forwarded to major
producers and importers of the goods requesting their typical and
best net selling prices for 1992 and 1993; and (2) a purchaser's
questionnaire sent to major retailers of memorials and to
cemeteries requesting information on their purchases of both
domestic and import origin.  The selling price survey showed that prices for
the large majority of producers remained static over the 1992-93
period. In fact, one major producer indicated that its prices
remained static during the entire 1991-93 period. A general price
increase by producers did not take place until the first quarter of
The selling price survey showed that typical and best selling
prices of Indian imports for selected popular monuments and markers
consistently undercut selling prices of domestically produced
equivalent products using the South African raw material in both
1992 and 1993. The price differential, in many cases, was
substantial and ranged from 6 to 49 percent on monuments and from
17 to 96 percent on markers. Prices of Indian imports also
frequently undercut prices of domestically produced monuments and
markers made from the Zimbabwean raw material, but by lesser
margins: from 0 to 37 percent on monuments and from 6 to 42 percent
on markers. Price gaps between the Indian products and the domestic
products produced from the Zimbabwean or South African raw material
were similar in 1992 and 1993.
The purchaser's memorials questionnaire, covering a broader
range of products, showed similar price gaps between domestically
produced goods and imports of Indian origin. An analysis of
relative price levels from a purchasing perspective showed that the
price of Indian imports was very often below the price of domestic
monuments and markers produced from the South African raw material
in 1992, 1993 and the first quarter of 1994, with the difference
varying, where applicable, between 3 and 48 percent. As well, there
was evidence showing that some importers were selling P2, P3 and P5
monuments at the same price levels. Domestic producers testified
that they normally charge price premiums for P3 and P5 monuments
over a P2 monument, reflecting the greater labour input required.
purchaser's memorials questionnaire also showed that prices of
Indian imports frequently undercut normal available domestic prices
of monuments and markers produced from the Zimbabwean raw material
by margins of up to 43 percent. The results of the pricing report
were not contested by any of the parties during the hearing.
The Tribunal considers that the substantial and continuous price
undercutting noted in the pricing report covering very specific
products to specific customers offers a compelling explanation of
the cause of the static prices of domestic goods over the period
In brief, the evidence before the Tribunal is of flat or static
domestic prices. In this regard, the Tribunal has carefully
considered the complainant's argument that the domestic industry
suffered price suppression and erosion because of the dumped and
subsidized imports. The critical question is whether these static
prices represent suppressed prices and/or depressed prices. As for
price suppression, the Tribunal considers that a key indicator is
whether the traditional spread or margin between prices and costs
is being maintained. The information contained in the consolidated
income statement  indicates that this is not the case. The spread
between costs per cubic foot and revenues per cubic foot  is not being
maintained. In fact, the cost of goods sold per cubic foot fell by
4 percent between 1992 and 1993, whereas average revenues per cubic
foot fell by almost 7 percent. The Tribunal concludes that the
margin contraction is indicative of price suppression. For this
reason, the Tribunal concludes that dumped and subsidized imports
from India suppressed the prices of like goods in 1993. In the
absence of compelling evidence that the prices of memorials made
from South African and Zimbabwean black granites were rolled back
or more heavily discounted in 1993, the Tribunal does not conclude
that there has been price erosion in the domestic marketplace.
Finally, in assessing the cause of the price suppression, the
Tribunal examined the market activity of suppliers of Indian goods.
It observed that, since 1990, there has been an ever-increasing
number of importers and agents actively seeking business and
offering very low prices in all major regional markets of Canada.
The Tribunal is convinced that the price suppression suffered by
domestic producers was caused in large measure by the low-priced
imports from India, which were found to have been dumped and
subsidized in 1993. It was the constant fact of sales and offers to
sell by suppliers and exporters' agents of Indian goods which
prevented domestic producers from increasing prices. These players'
prices were all undercutting normal domestic prices by varying
Counsel for the CGA argued that the dumped and subsidized goods
also caused a loss of profits, reduced employment and an inability
to finance investments in plant facilities and equipment.
The Tribunal closely examined the financial performance of the
domestic industry over the period of inquiry. The domestic
industry's consolidated income statement for sales of like goods
shows a pattern of decreasing gross margins and increasing losses
over the 1990-93 period. Gross margins decreased by 2 percentage
points over the 1990-92 period, with net losses before taxes
increasing from 2 to 4 percent of sales. Although the domestic
industry recovered, in 1993, part of the market share losses of the
two previous years, such market share recovery was costly. Indeed,
the inability to increase prices to at least maintain the
traditional margin of prices over costs resulted in an increase of
net losses in 1993. In fact, net losses before taxes increased to
11 percent of sales in 1993. The Tribunal is convinced that
low-priced Indian imports, which were found to have been dumped and
subsidized in 1993, played a major role in suppressing producers'
prices and harming the financial performance of domestic producers
over the period of inquiry.
Domestic producers experienced a reduction of employment in 1991
over 1990, but an increase thereafter. Person-hours dedicated to
the production of black granite memorials and slabs also declined
sharply in 1991 and remained low over the 1991-93 period. Although
domestic producers lost market share to Indian imports over 1991
and 1992, it is difficult to determine exactly what effects on
employment and person-hours worked such losses had. As noted above,
sales from production recovered from 1991 onward, as the market for
black granite memorials and slabs expanded. As well, employment and
person-hours worked are affected by productivity changes.
Therefore, the Tribunal is not convinced that employment and
person-hours worked were strong indicators of injury resulting from
the dumping and subsidizing of the subject goods.
The Tribunal does not find convincing the assertion that the
dumping and subsidizing hindered or retarded the domestic
industry's plans to invest in new equipment and facilities. During
cross-examination, industry witnesses offered little concrete
evidence of an inability to invest in such facilities and equipment
due to the dumped and subsidized imports. The failure, here, was
not, as argued by counsel for the complainant, that reduced profits
had hindered investment, but rather, that the domestic industry
failed to identify any major or necessary expenditures that were
In summing up the effects of the Indian imports, the Tribunal
finds that they had a significant and direct negative impact on the
domestic industry's volume, market share, prices and financial
performance between 1990 and 1993. Furthermore, the Tribunal finds
that the dumped and subsidized imports, in 1993, have caused and
are causing injury to the domestic industry in the form of price
suppression and financial losses.
The Tribunal must "weigh and balance" the injurious effects of
the dumping and subsidizing, as well as the impact of other factors
on the domestic industry, and decide on the importance to be given
to each. 
Having found that the dumping and subsidizing of the subject goods
have caused and are causing injury to the production in Canada of
like goods, the Tribunal considered the evidence concerning other
possible causes unrelated to the dumping and subsidizing. The
injury caused by other factors cannot be attributed to the dumped
and subsidized imports. 
Counsel for the exporters and importers argued that the domestic
industry imported the subject goods because it saw a market
opportunity, could not economically produce the memorials in Canada
and had insufficient capacity to produce the memorials.
Furthermore, counsel argued that the domestic industry injured
itself by importing the subject goods. In considering these
arguments, the Tribunal notes that importers were importing Indian
memorials before the domestic industry began to import the subject
goods. Although it is apparent that the domestic industry displaced
some of its production with its own imports, the evidence persuades
the Tribunal that the domestic industry's action was defensive in
nature, in response to the erosion of its market share and
suppression of its prices by the subject imports. The Tribunal also
notes that, in each of the years 1991 and 1992, the reduced sales
from production compared to 1990 were greater than the increased
sales from producers' imports. The Tribunal notes as well that,
from 1990 to 1993, the domestic producers' average selling price
for their imports was above the importers' average selling price,
and the domestic industry's share of the market from sales of
imports remained stable.  In the Tribunal's view, the domestic industry's
actions were a rational response to the circumstances that it
Counsel for the exporters and importers argued that, even at
non-dumped and non-subsidized prices, the domestic market for like
goods would not have looked any differently in the past nor would
it react any differently in the future. In this regard, counsel
argued that Indian producers enjoyed a natural cost advantage over
domestic producers due to lower labour and material costs and that
any injury suffered by the domestic industry is due to this
advantage. Furthermore, counsel argued that the gap between the
price of the Indian product and the domestically produced product
would not be bridged by the imposition of the applicable duty.
 In comparison
to the effect of the natural cost advantage, the effect of the
dumping and subsidizing is immaterial.
Counsel tendered a cost comparison to show that the subsidy
accounted for some 25 percent of the total cost advantage of Indian
producers. Counsel consequently argued that the addition of the
appropriate duty to the F.O.B. India selling price would not offset
the selling price advantage that results from the natural cost
advantage. The Tribunal notes that the subsidy used in the cost
comparison was that applicable to Enterprising Enterprises, which
is lower than the weighted average subsidy ($0.207/lb.) and the
maximum subisidy ($0.350/lb.).
Counsel also put forward three price comparisons  to show that, after adding the
countervailing duty to the import price, a portion of the original
price differential remained, leaving the import price still lower
than the domestic price used in the examples. In their analysis,
counsel calculated the impact of both the maximum countervailing
duty and the lower weighted average countervailing duty noted
The Tribunal notes that, in the three price comparisons where
the maximum countervailing duty was added, almost the entire price
gap was covered in two of those cases. In the third comparison,
over half of the price gap was covered. In the price comparisons
where the lower countervailing duty was added, about half of the
price gap was covered in two cases and about a third in the other
The Tribunal notes that counsel's examples used domestic prices
for monuments produced only from South African granite.
Furthermore, the Tribunal notes that the price differentials in
counsel's examples are all over 25 percent and as high as 40
percent. However, the evidence indicates that there is a range of
price differentials between domestic and import prices and that
they vary depending on whether the domestic monuments are produced
from South African or Zimbabwean granite. Within the range of price
differentials, there are many examples where the price gap is 18
percent or lower for domestic product made from South African
granite and 15 percent or lower for that made from Zimbabwean
granite. Price gaps of this magnitude will be largely bridged by
the application of even the lower countervailing duty.
In cases where the price gap between the domestic and the
imported product will not be bridged by the applicable duties, the
application of the duties will narrow the price difference between
the two products, reduce the downward pressure on domestic prices
and make the domestic product more attractive in the marketplace.
In the Tribunal's view, the price gap between the domestic and the
Indian goods need not be bridged completely for the domestic
industry to benefit. Furthermore, as stated in LNK Manufacturing
Agencies Inc. v. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal,
[d]espite the "substantial difference" between the price of
the domestic and imported products, it was found as a fact that the
latter exerted downward price pressure on the former; that being so
the mere fact that that difference "exceeds the margin of dumping"
does not support a finding of no injury. 
The Tribunal heard evidence that there was a preference for
Indian black granite memorials because of their superior quality.
Counsel for the exporters and importers argued that it was the
consumers' preference for the Indian black granite memorials that
was driving the events in the domestic marketplace. Counsel for the
complainant argued that it was the availability of low-priced
dumped and subsidized imports from India that was driving the
events in the marketplace.
The quality of a black granite memorial relates to the quality
of the granite, for example, blackness and fineness of grain, and
to memorial designs. The evidence indicates that the quality of
Indian black granite varies from quarry to quarry.  In addition, the physical
exhibits before the Tribunal show that there is a range of
qualities of black granite from India, South Africa and Zimbabwe.
The evidence respecting memorial designs indicates that they are
created by producers, importers and retailers and that they number
in the thousands. Witnesses for two retailers gave evidence of the
extensive range of designs that they offer to the public and of
their ability to do custom work. The evidence indicates that there
are no patents on designs and that the designs of one producer,
importer or retailer are easily copied by another, making them
generally available to the market. The Tribunal agrees that the
quality of black granite and of memorial design are important to
the marketplace. However, the evidence does not convince the
Tribunal that Indian memorials are superior to domestically
produced memorials. The evidence indicates that high-quality
granite and designs are found both in Indian-made and domestically
The evidence and testimony of a number of witnesses emphasized
that consumers have become better informed shoppers and are more
price-conscious when purchasing memorials.  Witnesses for retailers gave
evidence that the selling process has been adjusted to adapt to
consumers' greater emphasis on price. The evidence indicates that
increased price consciousness by consumers, in response to the
recession, led to more marketing and promotion on the basis of
price. Witnesses for the domestic industry explained that they were
obliged to keep their prices static in response to low-priced
In determining the relative importance of factors other than
dumping and subsidizing, the Tribunal notes that, when the price
spread between the subject goods and the domestically produced like
goods narrowed in 1993, the domestic industry recovered much of the
market share that it had lost between 1990 and 1992. In the
Tribunal's view, the recent developments in the Canadian market are
driven by price and not qualitative factors.
It was argued that the recession caused injury to the domestic
industry by reducing the demand for memorials and that the use of
alternatives to traditional interment, such as cremation and
community mausoleums, has shifted the demand away from memorials.
In respect of both of these arguments, the Tribunal notes that the
overall domestic market for black granite memorials has grown over
the period of inquiry.
Finally, in this case, the Tribunal attaches little weight to
fluctuations in currency exchange rates which occurred over the
period of inquiry. Counsel for the exporters and importers did not
argue that exchange rates were a factor that explained the low
import prices over the period of inquiry. As well, there was no
clear relationship between importers' selling prices and the value
of the Indian rupee between 1992 and 1993.
The Tribunal concludes that, save for some impact due to a
natural cost advantage, the factors other than dumping and
subsidizing had an insignificant impact on the domestic
Canadian goods were not price-competitive with the lower-priced
Indian goods over the 1990-92 period and, consequently, domestic
producers lost considerable market share to the subject imports.
Even though they were sustaining annual losses, they were unable to
raise their prices sufficiently to offset these losses. In 1993,
with the availability of lower-priced Zimbabwean blocks, domestic
producers were able to lower their average price by increasing the
proportion of their sales of memorials produced using blocks from
this source. As well, the industry decided not to increase the
price of memorials made from either South African or Zimbabwean
granite. This marketing and pricing strategy enabled the industry
to recover a part of the market share that it had lost to Indian
imports in the previous two years. Had these steps not been taken,
the Tribunal is convinced that the domestic industry would have
continued to lose market share in 1993.
However, the lower average prices resulting from this strategy
still left a considerable price gap between domestically produced
memorials and those imported from India. As a result, the industry
experienced a further deterioration in financial performance in
1993. Net losses before taxes amounted to 11 percent of net sales,
representing a loss of about $800,000.  This contrasts sharply with the
losses of less than $270,000 in each of the previous three years.
The ample evidence and testimony before the Tribunal clearly
demonstrate that the low prices required by the domestic industry
to achieve sales in competition with the dumped and subsidized
imports were a direct cause of the domestic industry's financial
losses in 1993.
The Tribunal is of the view, however, that the dumping and
subsidizing did not account for all of the loss in 1993. Some
portion of that loss was, in the Tribunal's view, accounted for by
the natural cost advantage enjoyed by Indian imports in the
Canadian market. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that Indian
producers had a natural cost advantage over the entire 1990-93
period. In the early part of that period, the domestic industry
sustained losses of 2 percent in 1990 and 3 percent in 1991 of net
sales. In 1992, when subsidy programs were known to be available to
Indian producers, these losses increased to 4 percent of net sales.
In 1993, when dumping and subsidizing were found by Revenue Canada,
the domestic industry's losses increased to 11 percent of net
sales. This represents an incremental loss of some 7 percent of net
sales over the loss in 1992. This 7-percent loss, which is in
addition to the impact of the natural cost advantage enjoyed by
Indian goods and any impact that the subsidies may have had in
1992, is equivalent to a net loss of more than $500,000.
However, a portion of the $500,000 loss was accounted for by an
increase in the domestic industry's general, selling and
administrative expenses and interest expenses per cubic foot in
1993 over 1992. Although it may be reasonable to link some of the
increase in these expenses to the dumping and subsidizing, the
Tribunal concludes that, even if this increase in general, selling
and administrative expenses and interest expenses is fully deducted
from the industry's incremental loss in 1993, the remaining loss is
of a magnitude sufficient to constitute material injury to a
domestic industry with sales from production of some $7 million in
In the Tribunal's view, the application of anti-dumping and
countervailing duties should allow the domestic industry to improve
its competitive position and financial performance. Indeed, if
Indian black granite memorials and slabs had not been dumped and
subsidized, their 1993 wholesale price could have been
The Tribunal is also convinced that the continued dumping and
subsidizing of black granite memorials and slabs from India are
likely to cause material injury to the production in Canada of like
goods, unless anti-dumping and countervailing duties are imposed.
There exists significant export capability for black granite
memorials from India. Given the Government of India's
export-oriented policy which, in the case of the granite industry,
encourages value adding and the virtual absence of a home market
for memorials in that country, there exists a tremendous incentive
to continue exporting large volumes of finished memorials to all
export markets, including Canada. The increasing number of players
in the marketplace vying for a share of the black granite market
and the stated intentions of certain exporters to establish a
greater market presence in Canada offer a clear indication as to
the expected market behaviour in Canada on the part of suppliers of
Indian goods. The Tribunal also finds persuasive the evidence of a
large retailer in Western Canada regarding overtures made by
certain prospective suppliers or their agents of Indian goods to
form business ties with that firm for the purpose of exporting and
selling finished memorials to Western Canada.
Counsel for the exporters argued that there was evidence of
declining Indian customs duties on consumables into that country,
which suggested a decline of the amount of Indian subsidies. The
Tribunal notes that the calculations of the effects of the reduced
tariff rates were based on numbers not established in evidence.
Regardless, the Tribunal observes that, although Indian customs
duties are to be reduced, the new rates are still high. As well,
the subsidy related to duties on imported machinery is but one
component of the subsidy level. Furthermore, this is a case of
dumping and subsidizing; the applicable duty is based on the
greater of the margin of dumping or the amount of subsidy. For many
exporters, to obtain reduced overall duties, both the anti-dumping
duty and the countervailing duty may need to be reduced. Finally,
to the extent that the customs duties change in India, this will be
captured in the Deputy Minister's periodic revisions of the amount
To conclude, all of the factors which gave rise to the domestic
industry's material injury in the past and in the present are
likely to persist, unless anti-dumping and countervailing duties
Counsel for two exporters requested that, in the event of a
finding of material injury, their clients be excluded from the
finding. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that it is within its
discretion to grant such exclusions.  However, the exercise of this discretion must
be based on findings of fact and upon considerations relevant to
In assessing injury, it is the practice of the Tribunal to
consider the cumulative impact of all imports into Canada from a
subject country. Accordingly, the Tribunal's injury determination
in this inquiry was made not on the basis of exports from any
particular exporter, but on the basis of the total imports of the
subject goods into Canada.
Counsel for Gem requested an exclusion for their client on the
basis that black granite memorials exported by Gem supply a niche
market in Canada and that its products are superior in quality and
higher-priced than other Indian memorials. In addition, Gem has
limited its exports to Canada. As such, Gem's exports have not
adversely affected the Canadian market.
The Tribunal notes that only in "exceptional circumstances" or
on "rare occasions" will it grant an exporter an exclusion from a
finding of injury.  As stated in the Venetian Blinds case,
[t]he circumstances in which the Tribunal would exclude one
or more exporters from a finding of material injury must be
adequately demonstrated and would be exceptional. 
An example of such exceptional circumstances would be "when an
exporter is shipping a specific product that is not produced in
Canada.  "
Based on the testimony of several witnesses, the Tribunal is
satisfied that the quality and design features of memorials
supplied by Gem place them in the upper range of such goods
available in Canada. However, these goods are not so unique in
physical characteristics and design as to be otherwise unavailable
in Canada. As stated above, the Tribunal considers memorials
produced from South African and Zimbabwean black granites to be
like goods to the black granite memorials from India, including
those supplied by Gem. The evidence indicates that many suppliers,
including domestic producers, have been offering P5 monuments in
standard and special shapes for sale in the Canadian market and
that designs are not patented and can be copied by any other
producer. The Tribunal notes that the domestic industry did not
support the exclusion request by counsel for Gem. Accordingly, the
Tribunal is not persuaded that an exclusion for Gem is warranted.
As to Gem's commitment to limit its exports to Canada, the Tribunal
does not believe that an exclusion is properly granted on this
Counsel for M S International requested an exclusion for their
client on the basis that all its sales in Canada have been to
domestic producers pursuant to an exclusive supply arrangement. M S
International has three suppliers in India whose exports were only
minimally subsidized, but not dumped in Canada. In addition, M S
International would self-regulate its imports into Canada, as it
has no intention of supplying the entire market. Counsel contended
that there would be no injury to domestic producers if the
exclusion were granted.
As an alternative to treating slabs as a separate class of like
goods, counsel for M S International requested an exclusion for
slabs. Counsel submitted that black granite slabs are being
imported by domestic producers in small volumes to meet the market
for customized work. There is no evidence that imported slabs are
causing injury to the domestic industry.
As stated above, the Tribunal finds that the domestic industry
imported the subject goods as a defensive response to a suppression
of its prices and a loss of market share to low-priced Indian
imports that were found to be dumped and subsidized in 1993. It is
the Tribunal's view that domestic producers would not have entered
into an arrangement with M S International in the absence of
low-priced Indian goods in the Canadian market. It is significant
that the domestic industry does not support the exclusion request
for either M S International or slabs generally. The Tribunal does
not consider the exclusion for M S International or slabs to be
warranted. The Tribunal reiterates that it considered the effect of
Indian imports en masse in a cumulative manner, irrespective
of the specific source of those imports.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal finds that the
dumping in Canada and subsidizing of black granite memorials and
black granite slabs, originating in or exported from India, have
caused, are causing and are likely to cause material injury to the
production in Canada of like goods.
1. R.S.C. 1985, c.
2. Canada Gazette Part
I, Vol. 128, No. 14, April 2, 1994, at 2013-14.
November 22, 1984, Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 118, No. 25 at
4. Supra , note 2, No.
27, July 2, 1994, at 3210.
5. Supra, note 2, No.
15, April 9, 1994, at 2116-17.
6. Department of
National Revenue, Final Determination of Dumping and Subsidizing,
June 17, 1994, Statement of Reasons , Tribunal Exhibit NQ-93-006-4,
Administrative Record, Vol. 1 at 54.8.
7. Ibid. at 54.9.
8. The term
"memorials" is a generic term covering upright monuments, flat
markers and other memorials. The terms "memorials" and "monuments"
are used interchangeably in the industry to mean upright
9. A monument of this
size would have a volume of 2.5 cu. ft.
10. Supra , note 6
11. Blocks are not
12. Wire saws are
also used to cut blocks of granite into slabs, but these are
steadily being replaced by more sophisticated diamond saws.
13. Department of
National Revenue, Preliminary Determination of Dumping and
Subsidizing, March 22, 1994, Statement of Reasons , Tribunal
Exhibit NQ-93-006-1, Administrative Record, Vol. 1 at 12-13.
14. Although U.S.
Cold Spring is identified as a U.S. exporter in the final
determination of dumping and subsidizing, the subject goods that it
sells to Cold Spring Canada remain of Indian origin, as there is no
value added in the United States.
15. There was a
lack of sales to the Indian domestic market due to different
traditional practices in India and because all of the Indian
exporters that responded to the Department of National Revenue's
request for information were designated as export orientated units
that are required to export virtually all of their production.
16. This percentage
is the highest margin of dumping found in the final determination
of dumping and subsidizing expressed as a percentage of the export
India, Gem and Enterprising Enterprises.
18. The weighted
average subsidy of $0.207/lb. is equal to $40.36/cu. ft. based on a
conversion factor of 195 lbs/cu. ft. The maximum subsidy of
$0.350/lb. is equal to $68.25/cu. ft. For a monument of 2.5 cu.
ft., the subsidies would be $100.00 and $170.00, respectively.
Exhibit I-3A (protected), Administrative Record, Vol. 12;
Exporter's Exhibit L-1 (protected) at 13, Administrative Record,
Vol. 12; and Transcript of In Camera Argument , June 23, 1994, at
3-4. Counsel compared the domestic industry's average cost per
cubic foot for material, labour and overhead to that reported by
Enterprising Enterprises to Revenue Canada and determined that
Enterprising Enterprises had a lower unit cost for each input.
Counsel subtracted the countervailing duty applicable to
Enterprising Enterprises from its total cost advantage to determine
the net cost advantage in dollars per cubic foot that Enterprising
Enterprises has over the domestic industry. Counsel converted the
net cost advantage per cubic foot to a dollars-per-monument basis
using a conversion factor of 2.5 cu. ft./monument.
submitted that 67 percent of the total subsidy was attributable to
the import duty exemption on consumables available to EOUs.
21. This rate is
the weighted average subsidy that would apply to Enterprising
Enterprises and Monuments India, as they provided sufficient
information to enable Revenue Canada to determine the amount of
subsidy that they received. M S International and Oriental Select
did not provide sufficient information to Revenue Canada;
therefore, they are subject to the higher weighted average
countervailing duty of 50.4 percent.
22. Revised public
submission of Granite Resources, Exporter's Exhibit H-1A at 15,
Administrative Record, Vol. 11.
Exhibit F-1 (protected), Appendix 1A, Administrative Record, Vol.
25. This income
statement consolidates the returns of five firms representing close
to half of the domestic sales value from production reported in the
Tribunal pre-hearing staff report.
Pre-Hearing Staff Report , May 26, 1994, Tribunal Exhibit
NQ-93-006-6, Administrative Record, Vol. 1 at 65. Historically,
Finland, Norway and Sweden have been suppliers of granite blocks to
Canadian producers of memorials, but have been displaced by more
27. Transcript of
In Camera Hearing , Vol. 1, June 21, 1994, at 126.
28. The Deputy
Minister's final determination of dumping and subsidizing
identified six programs from which Indian exporters of the subject
goods received countervailable benefits. Of these, the import duty
exemptions and the income tax exemption on export earnings
accounted for over 90 percent of the weighted average subsidy
determined by the Deputy Minister.
Exhibit A-1, Appendix 3, Administrative Record, Vol. 9. The value
added equals the F.O.B. value minus the sum of all imported inputs,
the value of all payments made in foreign exchange by way of
commission, royalty, fees or other charges and the value of all
indigenous inputs purchased, that is, raw materials, intermediates,
components, consumables, parts and packing materials.
submission of the CGA, Manufacturer's Exhibit A-1 at 6,
Administrative Record, Vol. 9.
statement of Mr. Arthur LaPenna, Manufacturer's Exhibit A-3 at 2,
Administrative Record, Vol. 9.
32. Reference was
made to Sarco Canada Limited v. The Anti-dumping Tribunal , 
1 F.C. 247.
34. Ibid. at
35. Ibid. at
36. See, for
example, Gasoline Powered Chain Saws, Having an Engine Displacement
of 2.5 Cubic Inches or Less, Manufactured by McCulloch Corporation,
Los Angeles, California, and Beaird-Poulan, A Division of Emerson
Electric Company, Shreveport, Louisiana, United States of America ,
Anti-dumping Tribunal, Inquiry No. ADT-5-76, Finding , August 10,
1976, Statement of Reasons , August 25, 1976, where the ADT
distinguished between competing chain saws with different
displacements, in part, on the basis that they occupied different
37. Transcript of
Public Hearing , Vol. 1, June 20, 1994, at 119, 122 and 130;
Transcript of In Camera Hearing , Vol. 1, June 20 and 21, 1994, at
56; and Transcript of Public Hearing , Vol. 1, June 20, 1994, at
38. Transcript of
Public Hearing , Vol. 2, June 21, 1994, at 312-13.
39. Ibid. at 311
40. Ibid. at 311
41. Transcript of
Public Hearing , Vol. 1, June 20, 1994, at 103-07 and 281-82; and
Protected Pre-Hearing Staff Report , May 26, 1994, Tribunal Exhibit
NQ-93-006-7 (protected), Table 28, Administrative Record, Vol. 2 at
Pre-Hearing Staff Report , May 26, 1994, Tribunal Exhibit
NQ-93-006-7 (protected), Table 28, Administrative Record, Vol. 2 at
43. Transcript of
Public Hearing , Vol. 2, June 21, 1994, at 305.
44. Ibid. at
308-09; and supra , note 42.
45. Transcript of
Public Hearing , Vol. 1, June 20, 1994, at 283; and supra , note
46. See, for
example, Noury Chemical Corporation and Minerals & Chemicals
Ltd. v. Pennwalt of Canada Ltd. ,  2 F.C. 283 (Court of
47. See, for
example, Photo Albums with Self-Adhesive Leaves, Imported Together
or Separately, and Self-Adhesive Leaves, Originating in or Exported
from Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines , Canadian
International Trade Tribunal, Inquiry No. NQ-90-003, Finding ,
January 2, 1991, Statement of Reasons , January 17, 1991; Single
Row Tapered Roller Bearings, Including Cups and Cone Assemblies, in
the Sizes from 1.000 Inch (25.4 mm) up to and Including 6.625
Inches (168.275 mm) Outside Diameter, Originating in or Exported
from Japan , Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Inquiry No.
NQ-91-007, Finding , July 9, 1992, Statement of Reasons, July 24,
1992; and Bicycles and Frames Originating in or Exported from
Taiwan and the People's Republic of China , Canadian International
Trade Tribunal, Inquiry No. NQ-92-002, Finding , December 14, 1992,
Statement of Reasons, December 29, 1992.
48. Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade , signed in Geneva on April 12, 1979.
49. Agreement on
Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI and XXIII of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade , signed in Geneva on April
50. There was also
some evidence of reduced prices and increased discounts filed by
certain domestic producers.
average selling price dropped from $244 in 1992 to $232 in
52. The average
price of importers' imports increased from $148 in 1992 to $191 in
53. Because of the
impact of freight costs on total price, all prices were on a
delivered-to-customer basis. To the extent possible, price
comparisons were made on the basis of equivalent-volume purchases
and netted of all discounts and allowances.
54. Price lists
submitted by the producers, Administrative Record, Vols. 3 and
Pre-Hearing Staff Report , Revised June 14, 1994, Tribunal Exhibit
NQ-93-006-7C (protected), Schedule 4, Administrative Record, Vol. 2
56. Ibid. Costs of
goods sold per cubic foot and revenues per cubic foot are derived
by dividing total costs and total revenues, respectively, found in
the consolidated income statement, by the volume sold in a given
57. See, for
example, Sacilor Aciéries v. The Anti-dumping Tribunal (1985), 9
C.E.R. 210 (Federal Court of Appeal, File No. A-1806-83, June 27,
58. Paragraph 4 of
Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping Code and paragraph 4 of Article 6 of
the Code on Subsidies and Countervailing Duties.
Pre-Hearing Staff Report , Revised June 20, 1994, Tribunal Exhibit
NQ-93-006-7D (protected), Table 6, Administrative Record, Vol. 2 at
60. As provided for
under section 10 of SIMA, where both anti-dumping and
countervailing duties are to be collected on goods imported into
Canada, and the margin of dumping is wholly or partly attributable
to an export subsidy, only that portion of the anti-dumping duty
which exceeds the amount of the export subsidy is payable.
61. The first price
comparison used prices that were reported in the results of the
OMBA survey. The survey compared the average purchase price
reported for domestic monuments produced from South African granite
to the average purchase price for Indian monuments. The second and
third price comparisons used typical and best prices for domestic
P5, 2 ft. 6 in. x 6 in. x 2 ft. monuments produced from South
African granite, taken from the suppliers' selling price survey,
and compared them to Granite Resources' price for Jet Black Indian
P5, 2 ft. 6 in. x 6 in. x 2 ft. monuments taken from Manufacturer's
Exhibit A-2, Appendices 2 and 3, Administrative Record, Vol. 9.
Federal Court of Appeal, File No. A-202-89, September 25, 1990.
63. Ibid. at 3.
64. Transcript of
Public Hearing , Vol. 1, June 20, 1994, at 67 and 69; and
Transcript of Public Hearing , Vol. 3, June 22, 1994, at 523.
65. Transcript of
Public Hearing , Vol. 1, June 20, 1994, at 59 and 60.
Pre-Hearing Staff Report , Revised June 14, 1994, Tribunal Exhibit
NQ-93-006-7C (protected), Schedule 4, Administrative Record, Vol. 2
at 220. This figure and others that follow in this assessment were
derived by "grossing up" the value of the losses reported in the
consolidated income statement. This income statement consolidates
the returns from five firms, representing close to half of the
domestic sales value from production reported in the Tribunal
pre-hearing staff report.
67. See, for
example, Hitachi Limited v. The Anti-dumping Tribunal ,  1
68. See, for
example, Certain Stainless Steel Welded Pipe Originating in or
Exported from Taiwan , Canadian International Trade Tribunal,
Inquiry No. NQ-91-001, Finding , September 5, 1991, Statement of
Reasons , September 20, 1991; and Stainless Steel Plate,
Originating in or Exported from Belgium, the Federal Republic of
Germany, France, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom ,
Anti-dumping Tribunal, Inquiry No. ADT-18-82, Finding , March 29,
1983, Statement of Reasons , April 8, 1983.
69. Aluminum Coil
Stock and Steel Head and Bottom Rails, for Use in the Production of
Horizontal Venetian Blinds, Originating in or Exported from Sweden
, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Inquiry No. NQ-91-004,
Finding , February 7, 1992, Statement of Reasons , February 24,
70. Ibid. Statement
of Reasons at 12.
71. Gypsum Board
Originating in or Exported from the United States of America ,
Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Inquiry No. NQ-92-004,
Finding , January 20, 1993, Statement of Reasons , February 4,
1993, at 18.
[Table of Contents
Initial publication: July 11, 1997