Reviews (Section 76)
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
Review No.: RR-98-006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ottawa, Monday, July 19, 1999
Review No.: RR-98-006
IN THE MATTER OF a review, under subsection 76(2) of the
Special Import Measures Act, of the finding made by the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal on July 20, 1994, in Inquiry
No. NQ-93-006 concerning:
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 subsection 76(2) of the Special Import Measures Act, has
conducted a review of its finding made on July 20, 1994, in Inquiry
Pursuant to subsection 76(4) of the Special Import Measures
Act, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal hereby continues
the above-mentioned finding without amendment.
Patricia M. Close
Patricia M. Close
Peter F. Thalheimer
Peter F. Thalheimer
Michel P. Granger
Michel P. Granger
Special Import Measures Act - Whether to rescind or
continue, with or without amendment, the finding made by the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal on July 20, 1994, in Inquiry
Place of Hearing: Ottawa, Ontario
Dates of Hearing: May 20 and 21, 1999
Date of Order and Reasons: July 19, 1999
Tribunal Members: Patricia M. Close, Presiding Member
Anita Szlazak, Member
Peter F. Thalheimer, Member
Director of Research: Selik Shainfarber
Lead Researcher: John Gibberd
Researcher: Po-Yee Lee
Economist: Ihn Ho Uhm
Statistical Officer: Lise Lacombe
Counsel for the Tribunal: Gilles B. Legault
Distribution Officer: Pierrette Hébert
Participants: James P. McIlroy
for Canadian Granite Association
David M. Attwater
for Government of India
for Gem Granites
Sita Associates Inc.
Gerald B. Pritchett
Cabot Granite Fabricators Inc.
R. Kelly Conn
Dominion Granite Ltd.
Rock of Ages Canada
Granite Resources Corp.
Ministry of Commerce
Government of India
Martel & Sons Inc.
Sita Associates Inc.
Address all communications to:
Canadian International Trade Tribunal
Standard Life Centre
333 Laurier Avenue West
This is a review, under subsection 76(2) of the Special
Import Measures Act  (SIMA), of the finding made by the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) on July 20, 1994, in
Inquiry No. NQ-93-006  concerning 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
Pursuant to subsection 76(2) of SIMA, the Tribunal initiated a
review of the finding and issued a notice of review  on January 8, 1999. This notice
was forwarded to all known interested parties. As part of this
review, the Tribunal sent questionnaires to Canadian producers,
importers and purchasers of black granite memorials and black
granite slabs. The Tribunal also sent a questionnaire to the
Government of India, via the High Commissioner of India in Canada,
requesting information on the black granite memorial and black
granite slab industry in India. From the replies to these
questionnaires and other sources, the Tribunal’s research staff
prepared public and protected pre-hearing staff reports.
The record of this review consists of all relevant documents,
including the finding, the notice of review, public and
confidential replies to the questionnaires, and the public and
protected pre-hearing staff reports. All public exhibits were made
available to interested parties, while protected exhibits were
provided only to independent counsel who had filed a declaration
and undertaking with the Tribunal.
Public and in camera hearings were held in Ottawa,
Ontario, on May 20 and 21, 1999.
The Canadian Granite Association (CGA) made submissions and was
represented by counsel. Evidence was presented by the members of
the CGA, and arguments were made in support of continuing the
The Government of India, Gem Granites (Gem), an exporter, and
Sita Associates Inc. (Sita), an importer, made submissions in
support of rescinding the finding. The Government of India and Gem
were each represented by counsel. An official from the Government
of India provided evidence at the hearing, as did the President of
The goods under review are 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
Granite is defined commercially as a natural hard stone that can
be cut, sawn or polished, or that can undergo any combination of
these processes, and that can receive any type of finish which
modifies the original surface texture.
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”. Historically, the principal sources of black granite
blocks used in the domestic production of memorials and slabs have
been the Republic of South Africa (South Africa) and the Republic
of Zimbabwe (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. × 6 in. × 24 in. and 30 in. × 8 in. × 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 upright memorial profiles:
common, modified common and special shapes. Approximately two
thirds of the domestic industry’s sales of black granite memorials
are common profiles, that is, with a flat or serpentine top. One
quarter of the sales of black granite memorials are modified common
profiles that have some value-added feature, such as shaped
corners. The remainder of the industry’s sales of black granite
memorials are special shapes and would include, 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. × 12 in. × 3 in.
The memorials subject to this review 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 locally.
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.
Black granites come in a range of shades and granular
compositions. The darkest South African and Zimbabwean black
granites, like Indian black granite and black granite from the
People’s Republic of China (China), are deep black and have a fine
grain. These deep black granites are more homogeneous in colour and
finer in grain than granites such as Brits, which also originates
in South Africa, and Canadian onyx, which originates in Quebec.
Canadian onyx also tends to fade and discolour over time because of
its iron content. The darker colour and finer grain in the deep
black granites allow for a greater range of design and lettering by
sandblasting and etching because of the contrast that they
In the 1994 finding, the Tribunal concluded that memorials and
slabs produced by the Canadian industry from South African and
Zimbabwean pure black granites were like goods to the pure black
granite memorials and slabs imported from India. In addition, the
Tribunal concluded that the physical and market characteristics of
memorials and slabs of lighter or different colours of granite were
sufficiently different from those of the subject goods that they
were not like goods to the subject goods.
Since the 1994 finding, domestic production of memorials and
slabs has commenced using a black granite quarried in Newfoundland.
This granite, which was not quarried at the time of the finding, is
known as Newfoundland or Labrador black granite. A significant
proportion of memorials and slabs made from Newfoundland or
Labrador black granite are dark black in colour and, as quarrying
has progressed deeper, the granite has become darker in colour.
The Tribunal noted in 1994, with regard to classes of like
goods, 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. They also represent a significant portion
of the total cost of producing black granite memorials. The
Tribunal, therefore, concluded that black granite memorials and
black granite slabs were like goods to each other and not separate
classes of like goods because both have physical characteristics
that closely resemble each other and both occupy the same stream of
The production of black granite memorials begins with the
cutting of large blocks of granite (blocks are not the subject
goods) into slabs, using diamond circular saws or diamond wire
saws. Some of the diamond circular saws have the capability of
cutting a series of blocks into slabs before any operator
intervention is required. The other diamond circular saws and the
diamond wire saws are generally only capable of cutting one block
into slabs before the operator must remove the sawn slabs and place
another block under the saw.
The granite slabs then are polished on the front and back
surfaces. The polishing process uses abrasive-filled bricks and is
carried out in much the same way as the sanding of a piece of wood,
with coarser bricks being replaced by finer bricks through a number
of stages. The polishing is done using either “bridge polishers” or
“line polishers”. The bridge polisher head that holds the bricks
moves over the surface of a slab and can polish up to 30 slabs at
one time. Once a bridge polisher completes polishing with a given
coarseness of abrasive, the machine must be stopped and the bricks
must be replaced with bricks containing a finer abrasive. In the
case of a line polisher, the slabs move forward under a series of
12 polishing heads. As the slab progresses through the machine, the
abrasive bricks become finer after every second head.
The next stage of production involves the splitting or cutting
of the memorial blanks and edge finishing. The memorial profiles
that utilize the maximum amount of a polished slab are drawn on the
surface of the slab that, eventually, will become the front of the
memorial. If the layout calls for a P5 memorial, the edge of the
slab that will be the bed of the memorial is sawn. If the layout
calls for a P2 or P3 memorial, the slab is split into a memorial
using a hydraulic splitter and then the bottom edge of the memorial
The top edge is then finished. If a memorial is a P3 or P5, the
top edge is contoured to a flat or serpentine profile and then
polished using an edge polisher. If the memorial is a P2, the top
edge is rock pitched using a hammer and chisel.
Finally, the two side edges are finished. If the memorial is a
P2 or a P3, the side edges are rock pitched. If the memorial is a
P5, the edges are sawn and then polished.
At the completion of the edge finishing 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 purchase imported or domestic blocks of
black granite from which they produce slabs and, ultimately,
memorials. Granite processors saw blocks into slabs and/or polish
slabs that they supply to memorial producers. Secondary producers
consist of memorial retailers that generally take up the production
process at the slab-polishing stage. These producers engrave the
finished memorials and sell directly to the consumer.
The CGA, which represents over 75 percent of the domestic
granite industry, currently includes 16 primary producers and 2
The primary producers are concentrated in Beebe, Quebec.
Generally, these producers are privately owned companies.
Both before the 1994 inquiry and since the finding, various
individual Beebe producers have entered into joint ventures with
other Beebe producers. For example, at the time of the inquiry,
three of the primary producers, Rock of Ages, Dominion Granite Ltd.
(Dominion Granite) and Adru Granite Inc., jointly owned a company
called Memorial Imports, which had imported black granite memorials
from India. Since 1995, the name of the company has been changed to
Dimensioned Stone Imports BB Inc., and the company now imports only
granite blocks. Further, three producers located in Beebe, Dominion
Granite, Ogden Granite Ltd. (Ogden) and Granite Center Beebe Inc.
(Granite Center Beebe) have recently formed a company called
Beverly Granite Ltd. whose primary purpose is to polish slabs. This
company has purchased a line polisher to do the polishing.
Since the 1994 inquiry, Adru Granite Inc. has gone bankrupt, and
its assets were purchased by Rock of Ages. In addition, Border
Granite Co. (1977) Ltd. was purchased by Lepitre Granite Works Ltd.
and Les Granits de Saint-Samuel Inc. bought Granite Appalaches. Les
Granits de Saint-Samuel Inc. was then bought by a third firm, and
the combined granite producers now operate under the Appalaches
Also since the 1994 inquiry, a new CGA member, Cabot Granite
Fabricators Inc. (Cabot), has begun operations in Newfoundland.
This company, which is still in the start-up phase of operations,
currently produces memorials and slabs from Newfoundland or
Labrador black granite quarried in Newfoundland. The Newfoundland
or Labrador black granite deposit is proving to be extensive and
appears to comprise a significant potential source of dark-coloured
granite for the Canadian industry.
Primary producers may be integrated further back in operations,
such as Rock of Ages which owns its own quarries or Cabot which
obtains its granite from an affiliated company that owns a quarry,
or they may be integrated further forward in the sector and operate
their own retail outlets, as does Heritage Memorials Limited, of
Windsor, Nova Scotia, Nelson Monuments Ltd., of Sussex, New
Brunswick, and Tingley Monuments Limited, of Amherst, Nova Scotia.
Another primary producer, engaged solely in memorial production,
Imperial Granite Inc., located in Beebe, is owned by a large
retailer, Remco Memorials Ltd., of Regina, Saskatchewan. Yet
another primary producer, Ogden, does substantial tolling work for
some customers such as HGH Granite Inc., i.e. the customer provides
the granite block and Ogden performs the work requested by the
customer for a fee.
The two granite processors that are members of the CGA, namely,
Granite Center Beebe and The Polishing Center, are both located in
Beebe. Granite Center Beebe is the largest producer of slabs for
sales to third parties in Canada.
Secondary producers/retailers are quite dispersed and are
located mainly in Quebec and the Maritimes. According to available
information, these producers are quite small and generally handle
from 200 to 300 memorials per year.
The majority of importers of black granite memorials  from India are
wholesalers/distributors. The exceptions are Ellero Marble &
Granite Mfg. Ltd. and Remco Memorials Ltd., which sell at the
retail level, and Rock of Ages, which is a primary domestic
producer. Another importer/wholesaler/distributor, Taygor Granite
Imports Inc., is affiliated with Creative Memorials Ltd., a
retailer located near Toronto, Ontario.
Importers of Chinese black memorials  include producers, wholesalers and
retailers. Importers of memorials from China include Mafer Inc.,
Martel & Sons Inc., Remco Memorials Ltd. and SuperNova
International, Inc. Two primary producers, namely, Ogden and Nelson
Monuments Ltd., both CGA members, reported imports and sales of
The final determination of dumping in the original inquiry was
issued on June 17, 1994. Normal values in the dumping investigation
were determined according 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.
A cost-based approach was used because there was a lack of sales in
the Indian market, as memorials are generally not used in Indian
The Deputy Minister of National Revenue (the Deputy Minister)
reviewed 99.8 percent of the subject goods shipped to Canada during
the period of investigation from January 1 to June 30, 1993. In
some cases, the Deputy Minister found a margin of dumping of 0
percent. In other cases, including those where exporters did not
co-operate with the Department of National Revenue (Revenue
Canada), dumping was found at weighted average margins that ranged
from 8.7 percent to 32.7 percent.  In total, the Deputy Minister found that 34.5
percent of the goods were dumped at a weighted average margin of
The Deputy Minister also undertook a subsidizing investigation.
The investigation found that six programs instituted by the
Government of India were conferring countervailable benefits. These
programs are as follows:
1. Import Duty Exemptions Available to Export Oriented Units
(EOUs)  ;
2. Income Tax Exemption on Export Earnings;
3. Preferential Pre-shipment Loans;
4. Preferential Post-shipment Loans;
5. Sale of Replenishment Licences; and
6. Sale of Additional Licences.
The Deputy Minister found that 100 percent of the goods shipped
by three exporters, which provided information, were
countervailable and that the total amount of subsidizing, expressed
as a percentage of the total FOB selling price, was a weighted
average of 35.4 percent, or 20.7 cents per pound. The amount of
subsidizing for exporters that provided incomplete or no
information was set by ministerial specification at 35 cents per
On July 20, 1994, the Tribunal found that the dumping in Canada
and subsidizing of black granite memorials and black granite slabs
originating in or exported from India had caused, were causing and
were likely to cause material injury to the production in Canada of
From 1990 to 1992, sales of imports from India increased by 69
percent, and, as a result, total imports from India captured 11
percentage points of market share. The decline in the domestic
producers’ market share of sales from domestic production was
almost exclusively attributable to the market share gains by
imports from India. The average selling price of importers’ goods
was consistently below that of the domestically produced like
goods. The Tribunal had no doubt that the major reason for the
rapid expansion in market share by Indian imports was their
availability in the market at very low prices.
In 1993, in response to the market share gains by Indian
imports, the domestic industry decided to reduce the use of South
African black granite blocks in the production of finished
memorials and increase the use of less expensive Zimbabwean granite
blocks. This resulted in a decrease in the average selling price of
the Canadian made like goods. At the same time, the average price
of the imported memorials from India increased, and the domestic
industry recovered part of the market share lost over the two
previous years. However, the Tribunal was convinced that, over the
inquiry period, low-priced Indian imports played a major role in
suppressing producers’ prices and harming the financial performance
of domestic producers.
The Tribunal considered the evidence concerning other possible
causes of injury. These included imports of the subject goods by
the domestic industry, the natural cost advantage enjoyed by Indian
producers, the quality of Indian black granite memorials, the
recession, the use of alternatives to traditional interment
procedures and currency fluctuations. The Tribunal concluded that,
save for some impact due to a natural Indian cost advantage,
factors other than dumping and subsidizing had an insignificant
impact on the domestic industry.
The Tribunal was convinced that the continued dumping and
subsidizing of black granite memorials and slabs from India were
likely to cause material injury to the production in Canada of like
goods, unless anti-dumping and countervailing duties were imposed.
The Tribunal stated that all the factors which gave rise to the
domestic industry’s material injury in the past and in the present
were likely to persist in the future, unless anti-dumping and
countervailing duties were imposed.
Since the Tribunal’s 1994 injury finding, Revenue Canada has
conducted three dumping and subsidizing re-investigations in its
enforcement of the finding. Each of these re-investigations
resulted in the continued application of countervailing duties.
Revenue Canada’s most recent re-investigation, which set the
countervailing rates of duty effective January 15, 1998, determined
that there were nine subsidy programs that had conferred
countervailable benefits on exporters of black granite memorials
and slabs over the period of investigation.  Those programs, which were used in
different combinations and to different degrees by each exporter,
are as follows:
1. Import Duty Exemption on Consumables;
2. Income Tax Exemptions on Export Earnings;
3. Preshipment Export Financing (Packing Credit Loans);
4. Pre-shipment Packing Credits Loans in Foreign Currency;
5 Post-shipment Export Financing;
6 Long Term Preferential Loans;
7. Import Duty Exemption on Machinery;
8. Central & State Sales Tax Exemptions; and
9. Excise Duty Exemptions.
Revenue Canada found that the first three programs listed above
“contributed the most to the amount of countervailing duty rate
calculated”  . The
countervailing rates of duty established for co-operating exporters
ranged from a low of just over 2 cents per pound to a high of
almost 16 cents per pound. The rate for other exporters remained
fixed at the ministerial specification of 35 cents per pound.
Since the 1994 finding, the amount of countervailing and
anti-dumping duties collected by Revenue Canada has been in the
tens of thousands of dollars on an annual basis. Although the data
provided to the Tribunal by Revenue Canada did not segregate
countervailing duties from anti-dumping duties, in response to an
information request from the Tribunal, Revenue Canada estimated
that about 98 to 99 percent of the total duties collected over the
enforcement period were countervailing duties. Under section 10 of
SIMA, anti-dumping duties only become payable to the extent that
they exceed the amount of countervailing duties payable. As this
was often not the case, only small amounts of anti-dumping duties
were collected. 
Counsel for the CGA submitted that, in the absence of a finding,
dumping and subsidizing are likely to resume and to cause material
injury to the members of the CGA and, therefore, that the finding
should be continued.
Counsel for the CGA noted that the final determination found
significant margins of dumping and subsidizing. Counsel further
indicated that, even though anti-dumping duties may not have been
payable, this does not necessarily mean that dumping has not
occurred. It only means that anti-dumping duties did not exceed
countervailing duties payable. Counsel also argued that, since
Indian exporters’ costs were subsidized, normal values were
Counsel for the CGA went on to argue that there are a number of
reasons that dumping and subsidizing are likely to continue or
resume. Counsel submitted that export subsidy programs have been
extended and expanded in recent years through revisions to the EXIM
1997-2002. Counsel noted the importance that the Government of
India places on exports, especially granite exports, and the
Government of India’s hope for significant growth in exports.
Counsel noted that the Government of India had revised the EXIM
Policy to combat poor export performance caused by currency
devaluations in Southeast Asia and the continued recession in parts
of the world. Counsel argued that subsidy programs are particularly
important for granite memorials, as there is no home market for the
products in India.
Counsel for the CGA argued that the likelihood of dumped or
subsidized imports was demonstrated by the fact that Indian export
activities in the European Union had resulted in 15 new dumping and
subsidizing investigations from 1994 to 1997 and 5 countervailing
cases over the past eight months. Counsel further supported this
argument by noting that there were a number of anti-dumping and
countervailing orders in the United States against Indian exports.
Turning to Canada, counsel indicated that Revenue Canada’s most
recent re-investigation had identified nine countervailable subsidy
programs. Counsel also alleged that correspondence from Indian
exporters to a CGA member was evidence of new exporters taking
advantage of Indian subsidy programs.
Counsel for the CGA noted that, in 1992, Indian exports
accounted for 30 percent of the Canadian market for black granite
memorials and that the prices of Indian imports, on average, were
39 percent below domestic producers’ average prices. Counsel argued
that similar volumes and prices could be expected in the absence of
a finding because subsidy programs have been extended and expanded
and the Indian industry must export to survive, having no domestic
market. Furthermore, India has significant granite reserves and
growing manufacturing capacity, and the granite industry has been
identified as “an export-thrust area” by the Government of
Counsel for the CGA noted that, since the finding, members of
the CGA have made investments, reduced their costs and developed
their export sales, but argued that the domestic granite industry
remains vulnerable to dumped and subsidized imports. Counsel
contended that, if the finding is allowed to expire, dumped and
subsidized Indian imports, once again, will drive down Canadian
prices, which will cause material injury to the Canadian granite
industry. Counsel argued that just because the industry is
profitable today does not mean that it would remain profitable if
the finding were rescinded.
Counsel for the CGA noted that the industry’s growing exports to
the United States were assisted by a record low Canadian dollar and
argued that exports to the United States helped the industry to
maintain prices in the domestic market despite the growth of
low-priced Chinese imports. Counsel, however, stated that there is
no guarantee that the dollar will maintain its record low level.
Counsel claimed that the presence of Chinese memorials in the
market indicates that buyers are price sensitive. According to
counsel, in the absence of a finding, Indian memorials will
re-enter the market, and there will be a reaction from the Chinese,
with the result being significant price competition in the
Counsel for the CGA referred to the consolidation taking place
in the mortuary industry and the growing role of funeral homes and
cemeteries in the selling of memorials. Counsel contended that, if
the finding is not continued, there are now distribution outlets in
Canada that can move a lot of dumped and subsidized imports quickly
and that they can move those imports across the country.
Finally, counsel for the CGA submitted that the finding had
safeguarded several hundred manufacturing and related jobs in
Quebec and the Maritimes, and enabled a granite industry to emerge
in Newfoundland. Counsel argued that a return to unrestrained
dumping and subsidizing will injure not only the members of the CGA
but also the communities in which they are located.
Counsel for Gem submitted that the finding should be rescinded.
Counsel claimed that only a very small percentage of the goods
reviewed by the Deputy Minister in 1994 were dumped. Counsel argued
that, since dumping was not an issue in the 1994 investigation or
at any time later, it is not an issue in the present review.
With respect to subsidy programs, counsel for Gem submitted that
no action can be taken against India under the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade 1994.  Counsel claimed that the prohibition of
subsidies contingent on export performance, as provided under
Article 3 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
(the Agreement on Subsidies), does not apply to India because, as
provided for under Article 27 of the Agreement on Subsidies, it is
a developing country. Notwithstanding this submission, counsel
argued that benefits derived from the subsidy schemes have been
drastically reduced since the 1994 finding. Counsel contended that
this reduction in benefits is based on two factors. One factor is
the correction of alleged mistakes that were made in Revenue
Canada’s determinations. The other factor is the reduction in
various rates and the discontinuance of programs. In this
connection, counsel submitted that the tariff rates on consumables
in Chapters 68 and 82 of India’s Customs Tariff were 85
percent in 1993-94, but had declined to 40 percent and 25 percent
in the relevant tariff categories. Counsel also indicated that the
income tax rate for companies registered under the Companies
Act in India was 57.5 percent in 1993-94, but had declined to
35.0 percent for the assessment year 1999-2000.
Turning to the likelihood of injury, counsel for Gem noted that
exports from China are priced much lower than exports from India.
Counsel argued that, if the finding is rescinded, imports from
India are unlikely to increase, given the rising share of imports
from China. Counsel contended that, if there was injury to the
domestic industry, it could only be attributable to imports from
The Government of India
Counsel for the Government of India submitted that the finding
should be rescinded. Counsel indicated that only small amounts of
anti-dumping duties were paid between 1996 and 1998. Counsel noted
that the Tribunal’s pre-hearing staff report indicated that these
duties were payable, for the most part, where exporters did not
respond to Revenue Canada’s requests for information. Counsel
submitted that, since in most cases no anti-dumping duties were
payable, the Deputy Minister, pursuant to section 10 of SIMA, was
satisfied that the margin of dumping was attributable to the
alleged subsidies. Counsel then argued that the Tribunal must
consider actual dumping and not merely dumping determined on the
basis of whether exporters responded to Revenue Canada’s
questionnaires. Counsel submitted that, in this context, there is
no likelihood of resumed dumping.
Counsel for the Government of India submitted, with regard to
the likelihood of continued subsidizing, that there had been a
dramatic decrease in the countervailing rates of duty since the
final determination in 1994. Counsel argued that these rates will
continue to decrease over time.
Turning to the likelihood of material injury, counsel for the
Government of India noted that, from 1996 to 1998, the industry’s
production, sales, income, prices and total employment increased.
Counsel submitted that imports increased from 7 percent of the
domestic market in 1996 to 23 percent in 1998 and argued that the
data revealed that the imports have not injured the domestic
industry. Counsel noted that, in fact, the industry had its best
financial performance in 1998, when imports held the largest market
share. Counsel stated that the testimony of a witness for the CGA
was that the health of the industry would continue to improve and
that Newfoundland black granite would replace South African black
granite, which would, in turn, lower the domestic cost of
production by 15 percent. Counsel claimed that, by lowering the
cost of production, the net income before taxes for the industry
Counsel for the Government of India referred to the testimony of
industry witnesses that Chinese imports were not injuring the
industry and argued that, if the Chinese are not causing injury
while accounting for 16 percent of the market, Indian imports are
not likely to injure the industry, if the finding is rescinded.
Counsel contended that Chinese imports have captured a significant
market share because they are of good quality and are priced
Counsel for the Government of India argued, noting the testimony
of a CGA member, that the memorial market is price sensitive.
Counsel noted that the price comparisons provided by witnesses for
the Government of India showed that, on an FOB (country of origin)
basis, the prices of Chinese memorials, on average, were between 35
and 38 percent lower than the prices of Indian memorials. Counsel
also referred to testimony that buyers would switch sources given a
10 to 15 percent price difference and, when faced with two
identical memorials, would purchase the lower-priced memorial.
Counsel stated that the testimony of a witness for the Government
of India, to the effect that his Indian supplier would not lower
prices when he shifted his purchases to Chinese memorials,
supported the argument that Indian exporters would not engage in a
price war with Chinese exporters.
Sita’s representative submitted that the finding should be
rescinded. The representative noted that, since the finding, CGA
members and Canadian retailers have been able to establish China as
an alternative and cheaper source for memorials. The representative
contended that the FOB prices of memorials from China, on the basis
of full container loads, were significantly lower than the FOB
prices of memorials from India. The representative argued that, if
the finding is rescinded, it is highly unlikely that imports from
India are going to increase, as there is now a cheaper source of
supply from China.
Counsel for the Government of India argued that the effects of
dumping and subsidizing should be considered separately, as neither
SIMA nor the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements  allow the Tribunal to
“cross-cumulate” these effects when considering the likelihood of
material injury to the domestic industry. In support of his
argument, counsel relied on subsection 2(7) of SIMA, which provides
that, where a provision of that act expressly applies to both
dumped and subsidized goods, the application of the provision,
either to the dumped or subsidized goods, shall not be taken into
account with respect to the other, in the application of any
provision under SIMA.
The Tribunal is not convinced that the arguments raised by
counsel for the Government of India are determinative. It is the
Tribunal’s view that subsection 2(7) of SIMA appears to have been
enacted as a declaratory provision ex abundanti cautela (out
of abundant caution). Generally, provisions of SIMA dealing with
both dumping and subsidizing are interpreted as applying only with
respect to either subsidized goods or dumped goods, as the
particular case dictates. To contend that subsection 2(7) prohibits
the Tribunal from considering together the effects of dumping and
subsidizing when the same goods are being both dumped and
subsidized, or are likely to be both dumped and subsidized, is
unreasonable, given the impossibility of separating the effects of
dumping from the effects of subsidizing those same goods. Had
Parliament intended not to allow the Tribunal to cross-cumulate in
such situations, it would have said so much more clearly and
directly, in plain language.
Finally, and without restricting the generality of the
foregoing, there is another, perhaps more convincing, reason why
subsection 2(7) of SIMA does not apply in this instance. The
concept of cross-cumulation of the effects of dumping and
subsidizing, at issue here, relates to the second of the two
questions that the Tribunal generally addresses in a review under
subsection 76(2) of SIMA,  the likelihood of material injury to the
domestic industry if dumping and subsidizing were to resume.
Although they stem from a long-standing practice based on SIMA and
the relevant trade agreements, these questions are not found in any
provisions under SIMA. In fact, neither subsection 76(2), which
deals with the conduct of the review, nor subsection 76(4), which
deals with the order that the Tribunal must issue at the completion
of the review, uses the words “dumped or subsidized goods”.
Consequently, neither subsection 76(2) nor subsection 76(4) can be
said to apply “by its terms” to both dumped and subsidized goods,
as provided for in subsection 2(7). It follows, therefore, that
this latter provision does not apply.
Moreover, in Inquiry No. NQ-95-002,  the Tribunal, based on the fact
that subsidized and dumped goods from the European Union were, in
fact, one and the same goods, concluded that:
in considering the effect of the goods originating in the
European Union, it is not possible to isolate the effects caused by
the subsidizing from the effects caused by the dumping. 
The Tribunal added:
In other words, the effects of subsidizing and dumping are so
closely intertwined that it is impossible to unravel them so as to
allocate specific or [discrete] portions to the subsidizing and
In the 1994 finding, the Tribunal also stated that it did not
attempt to isolate the separate effects of the dumping and
subsidizing. The Tribunal concluded that the domestic industry
responded to unfairly traded goods and that to undertake to
separate and measure that response between that portion relating to
dumping and that portion relating to subsidizing would be an
arbitrary analytical exercise.  The Tribunal, in this case, is of the same
In the inquiry in 1994, the Tribunal determined, after
consideration of the evidence and analysis of the law, that only
memorials and slabs produced from South African and Zimbabwean
black granites were like goods to the subject goods. However, as a
result of new production of black granite memorials and slabs
started by Cabot of Newfoundland a year or so ago  , the Tribunal informed the
parties to this review, prior to the hearing, that, in terms of
both evidence and arguments, they should address the question of
whether Cabot’s production of black granite memorials and slabs
should be considered to constitute, in whole or in part, domestic
production 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.
In addressing this issue, counsel for the CGA submitted that the
like goods in this case must be determined pursuant to paragraph
2(1)(b) of SIMA, not paragraph 2(1)(a) which deals
with identical goods, since granite is a natural stone, and that
there can be no two identical products when referring to natural
stone. The issue, according to counsel, thus turns on whether
Cabot’s black granite memorials and slabs have uses and
characteristics which clearly resemble those of the other goods,
namely, the memorials and slabs produced from South African and
Zimbabwean black granites. Counsel added that the Tribunal must
consider two things in making that determination, namely, market
considerations and physical characteristics.
With respect to market considerations, counsel for the CGA
relied on the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Sarco Canada
Limited v. The Anti-dumping Tribunal,  where the Federal Court of
Appeal set out certain criteria to evaluate, including whether the
same consumers are being sought, whether the goods have the same
end use and whether the goods fulfil the same need. In counsel’s
view, the answer to all these questions was “yes”. The evidence
showed that Cabot’s black granite memorials and slabs were fully
substitutable for those made from South African and Zimbabwean
As to the physical characteristics of the Cabot black granite
memorials and slabs, counsel for the CGA conceded that the
memorials and slabs produced from granite that was quarried in 1995
and 1996 were not as dark and fine grained as products manufactured
from recent quarrying operations. However, counsel contended that
Cabot’s recent products, as well as those that it is going to put
on the market over the next few years, are like goods in terms of
colour, grain and the ability to achieve the sharp contrasts needed
Counsel for the Government of India noted that Cabot had
identified Exhibits A-14, a dark black granite quarried in 1999,
and A-11, a granite lighter in colour than Exhibit A-14 quarried in
1998, as representing samples of its production. With respect to
Exhibit A-11, counsel argued that it does not constitute “like
goods”, since it is not “jet black”, which is the type of black
that the Tribunal had found to constitute like goods in the 1994
finding. In counsel’s view, Exhibit A-11 does not display the jet
black granite colour that is accepted by wholesalers, and it is not
interchangeable with the subject goods in terms of quality of
granite, density, grain and darkness.
With respect to Exhibit A-14, counsel for the Government of
India argued that this sample was taken from quarrying operations
that were so recent that no memorials or slabs had yet been
produced from this stone. Therefore, it could not constitute “like
goods” today. In counsel’s view, the characteristics of this
granite would qualify it as “like goods” only in the year 2000,
when the memorials and slabs made from it come on the market. Goods
that will qualify as like goods only next year had no role in the
Tribunal’s consideration of injury in this case, according to
Having considered the foregoing arguments, the Tribunal is of
the view that the issue of like goods should take into account not
only the criteria stated in Sarco but also any applicable
conclusions that were made in connection with this issue in the
1994 inquiry. On the basis of the criteria for market
considerations in Sarco, the Tribunal finds that there is
evidence that some of the memorials that are made from the Cabot
black granite, represented by Exhibit A-11, are currently being
offered by certain domestic producers as alternatives to the
subject goods, as well as to goods made from South African and
Zimbabwean black granites and that the same consumers are being
sought,  albeit
not always with the same success.
In terms of physical characteristics, the Tribunal notes that,
in the 1994 inquiry, the Tribunal stressed that black granite
memorials and slabs from South Africa and Zimbabwe were darker in
colour and finer in grain than lighter granites, such as Brits.
After examining Exhibit A-11 and comparing it to other exhibits
representing granite from India, China, South Africa and Zimbabwe,
the Tribunal finds that Exhibit A-11 is not quite as dark in colour
or pure in grain as the deep black granite from these other
sources, but that it is darker than Brits. To meet the test of like
goods, the Newfoundland black granite needs only to be “similar” to
competing products, not identical. In the Tribunal’s view, Exhibit
A-11 is sufficiently similar to the deep black granite from the
aforementioned four sources, both in terms of physical
characteristics and in regard to market considerations, that it
constitutes “like goods” within the meaning of SIMA.
As far as Exhibit A-14 is concerned, there was no disagreement
among counsel that the granite represented by this sample is of a
quality similar to the best pure black granite available in the
world. The Tribunal has examined this sample in comparison with
others and agrees that, from a visual and esthetic standpoint,
there is little to distinguish this granite from the best black
granites available. Moreover, the fact that memorials made from
this granite may not be available until next year (2000) does not
exclude it from the purview of this review, contrary to the
argument of counsel for the Government of India. Changes to the
Canadian market over the period of a review, and the likely effects
of these changes over the next 12 to 18 months, are generally the
focus of a review under section 76 of SIMA. The discovery,
development and future prospects of the Newfoundland granite
deposit is, thus, a relevant consideration in this case.
The Tribunal, therefore, finds that black granite memorials and
slabs produced from the granite represented by Exhibit A-11 and
those to be produced in the near future from the granite
represented by Exhibit A-14 are like goods.
At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the Government of
India questioned the inclusion of Rock of Ages in the domestic
industry for the purpose of this review. As the issue was raised
rather late in the review process, the Tribunal decided that it
should be dealt with by counsel during evidence and arguments,
since the Tribunal was not in a position to rule on this issue at
the outset of the hearing.
In argument, counsel for the Government of India submitted that
parties appearing before the Tribunal, requesting the extraordinary
remedy that is provided by SIMA, should be disqualified from being
part of the domestic industry if they import significant volumes of
the subject goods, as Rock of Ages is doing.
The Tribunal notes that the definition of “domestic industry” in
subsection 2(1) of SIMA provides the Tribunal, among other things,
with discretion to exclude from the domestic industry a domestic
producer who is also an importer of the subject goods. This
discretion was noted by the Tribunal in the 1994 inquiry.  Among the criteria
that the Tribunal considers before excluding a domestic producer
are: (1) whether the exclusion would effectively deny the existence
of a domestic industry;  (2) whether the domestic producer was the first
to import the subject goods into Canada; (3) whether the subject
goods were imported by that producer as a defensive response to
low-priced imports and to maintain market share; and (4) whether
the imports of the subject goods represent more than a small
proportion of the domestic industry’s total sales. 
Insofar as the argument made by counsel for the Government of
India is concerned, only the last criterion noted above is
pertinent, namely, the extent of the subject imports by Rock of
Ages. In this connection, a witness for Rock of Ages testified that
the company imported five containers of the subject goods, from
1996 to 1998 
inclusively, to meet specific requests from retailers in British
Columbia. The imported memorials were limited in style and
represented a small percentage of the company’s sales of black
granite memorials and slabs.  The statistical data collected by the Tribunal
show that the subject imports by Rock of Ages, over the three-year
period reviewed, comprise a very small proportion of the domestic
industry’s total sales over the period.  On the basis of this evidence, the
Tribunal has no difficulty concluding that Rock of Ages should be
included in the domestic industry for the purpose of this
Subsection 76(4) of SIMA provides that, on completion of a
review, the Tribunal shall rescind or continue, with or without
amendment, the order or finding. In making its decision in this
case, the Tribunal considers two fundamental issues. First, is
there a likelihood of subsidizing and/or dumping if the finding is
rescinded? Second, if there is a likelihood of subsidizing and/or
dumping, is such subsidizing and/or dumping likely to cause
material injury to the domestic industry?
Before addressing these issues, the Tribunal notes that, under
the Canadian anti-dumping and countervailing system, it is the
exclusive responsibility of Revenue Canada to establish, in an
inquiry, whether there are any subsidies, in order to determine
whether any such subsidies are actionable under the relevant
Canadian and international laws and, if they are actionable, to
specify the countervailing rates of duty that are applicable to a
specific exporter at any given time. Similarly, Revenue Canada has
the sole jurisdiction to determine the normal values at which
products must be priced by exporters selling to Canada and to
determine the margins of dumping. Furthermore, it is Revenue
Canada’s responsibility to enforce injury findings that are made by
the Tribunal. This includes the periodic re-investigations and
re-determinations of both countervailing rates of duty and normal
values, as it has done on several occasions in this case, the last
being at the beginning of 1998. Once the Deputy Minister has made a
decision with respect to the existence and amount of subsidy, or
with respect to the dumping, the Tribunal must accept that decision
as being authoritative and compliant with both SIMA and Canada’s
international obligations under the WTO.
In short, in exercising its jurisdiction under SIMA in an
inquiry under section 42 or a review under section 76, the Tribunal
has no jurisdiction to entertain arguments about whether certain
subsidy programs are actionable or not, nor can the Tribunal look
behind Revenue Canada’s countervailing duty and/or normal value
calculations to determine whether any errors or oversights have
been made. The Tribunal must take Revenue Canada’s determinations
and re-determinations as they are, at face value.
In addressing the question of whether there is a likelihood of
subsidizing and/or dumping in a review under section 76 of SIMA,
however, the Tribunal must take the historical inquiry and
enforcement data compiled by Revenue Canada with respect to
subsidizing and dumping and consider what is likely to happen in
these areas in the future. Thus, the Tribunal might examine changes
to subsidy programs that Revenue Canada has found to be actionable
to determine if, for example, they are likely to be discontinued or
whether the benefits have been, or are about to be, reduced to the
point where they will have no injurious effect on Canadian
producers. Insofar as dumping is concerned, the Tribunal might
examine changed market conditions in India and/or Canada that might
heighten or lessen the chances that dumping will occur in the
future. It is these types of considerations that are within the
Tribunal’s mandate and on which the following sections focus.
The Tribunal notes that the Government of India has not
indicated any intention to discontinue the export subsidy programs
that are now in place and that, to one degree or another, have been
in place since well before the 1994 finding. Just the opposite. The
Government of India continues to maintain and revise its EXIM
The current version of the EXIM Policy was introduced in 1997
and will be in place until 2002.  In April and August 1998, there were several
revisions made to fine-tune the policy, including, for example,
extending a tax holiday from 5 to 10 years  to Indian EOUs.  Revenue Canada has found this
tax exemption program to be countervailable in this case. A
principal consideration in making the second round of revisions in
August was the poor performance of Indian exports at that time,
which the Government of India believed was being caused by the wave
of currency devaluations that was sweeping Southeast Asia, giving
the devaluing countries an export advantage over India.  In this context, the
objective of the revisions was to facilitate exporters’ ability to
achieve 20 percent growth in exports. 
In April 1999, the Government of India announced further
revisions of its EXIM Policy. Again, in making these revisions, it
pointed to the continued lacklustre performance of Indian exporters
in the face of the ongoing Asian currency crisis and the poor
economic conditions in many export markets. One of the changes
announced in April was that the required level of net foreign
exchange earnings as a percentage of exports (NFEP), which
exporters needed to achieve to be eligible for export subsidies and
programs, would be made uniform at 20 percent for all EOUs and
export processing zones.  Previously, the NFEP applicable to granite EOUs
had been set at 30 percent.  As the Tribunal sees it, this reduction in NFEP
for Indian producers of granite memorials and slabs would, among
other things, appear to allow them to operate at lower levels of
export earnings without compromising their eligibility for export
incentives. In so doing, they would have greater flexibility to
lower prices to meet competition from other sources in export
Although exports continue to be strongly promoted by the
Government of India, the Tribunal notes that, since 1994, the
countervailing duty rates applicable to Indian exports have been
steadily declining.  However, these declines have not occurred
primarily because of cutbacks or restrictions in the subsidy
programs themselves. They have occurred because of changes to other
standard government programs from which the subsidy benefits are
derived.  The
way in which changes to standard government programs have caused
declines in duty rates becomes clear from an examination of two of
the most important Indian subsidy programs that have been found to
be countervailable by Revenue Canada in this case, namely, the
Import Duty Exemption on Consumables and the Income Tax Exemptions
on Export Earnings.
Insofar as the import duty relief program is concerned, Indian
EOUs are exempted from paying import duties or tariffs on certain
consumables that are imported and used in the manufacturing
process. The amount of countervailable benefit is equal to the
amount of the exempted or avoided import tariff. While the
fundamental elements of the subsidy program have not changed over
the past several years, the relevant Indian tariff rates have come
down substantially, as part of India’s WTO commitments. In some
cases, tariffs have gone below committed or “bound” levels. Thus,
as the tariffs have fallen, so has the benefit derived from being
exempted from the tariff under the subsidy program. Similarly,
Indian income tax rates are lower now than they were in previous
years. The benefits derived from not paying income tax, therefore,
have fallen under the Income Tax Exemptions on Export Earnings
Nevertheless, despite the tariff and tax rate declines that have
occurred, Indian import tariffs remain at relatively high levels,
 and the
applicable Indian income tax rate is not insignificant.  As a result, there
continue to be substantial benefits that may be derived by Indian
exporters from using the associated subsidy programs, alone or in
combination with each other. This is evidenced by the fact that,
throughout the period of enforcement of the finding, the amount of
countervailing duties collected by Revenue Canada has been and
continues to be substantial, representing, in 1998, in excess of 10
percent of the landed value of imports of black granite memorials
from India. 
Moreover, the high end of the range of the countervailing duty
rates set by Revenue Canada (i.e. 12 to 16 cents per pound) are
currently applicable to those Indian exporters that, historically,
have been among the largest Indian exporters to Canada. These
countervailing duties comprise about 10 to 20 percent of the
wholesale price of a typical imported Indian memorial, which is not
Looking ahead, there is nothing to indicate that the relevant
Indian tariff rates are scheduled to decline further in the
immediate future. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that the
Uruguay Round of Indian tariff cuts has been completed.  While future
multilateral trade and tariff negotiations might produce further
tariff reductions by WTO countries, the time horizon for any such
developments is uncertain. Furthermore, because not all Indian
tariffs are bound (at least one third of the manufacturing tariffs
are not  ) and
because some of the other tariff rates have come down further than
the bound rate,  the Government of India has the right, as well
as the room, to increase some of its tariff rates in the future. As
a result, subsidy rates could increase.
As far as the future direction of Indian income tax rates is
concerned, the only constraint on raising the rates is the will of
the political party in power. Income tax rates rise and fall at the
discretion of governments. While there is nothing to suggest that
Indian income tax rates are about to rise, the possibility exists,
especially with a new government soon to be elected. 
In sum, it is abundantly clear to the Tribunal from the evidence
presented in this case that the Government of India intends, in the
foreseeable future, to maintain and, if necessary, to enhance the
current array of export incentive programs whose principal purpose
is to encourage Indian exports, including exports of the subject
goods. The record shows that many of these programs have been found
to be countervailable by Revenue Canada. The record also shows that
Indian exporters avail themselves of these export incentive
programs in different combinations and to different degrees from
time to time. The Tribunal finds that, although the benefits
received under these programs are, on average, less today than they
were in 1994, they are still substantial and, in all likelihood,
will continue to be so in the future.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that there is a strong
likelihood that subsidizing will continue.
As noted earlier, Revenue Canada’s 1994 final determination
established that a large percentage of the subject goods shipped to
Canada, over the initial period of the investigation, were dumped
at a significant margin. However, in the period since the finding,
only a very small proportion of the duties collected have been
In considering these historical data, the Tribunal notes that,
merely because small amounts of anti-dumping duties were collected
with respect to certain Indian exports during the enforcement
period, this does not necessarily mean that there was no dumping in
respect of those exports. All that can be concluded, given the fact
that countervailing duties are considered first, is that the amount
of countervailing duties due under SIMA exceeded all or almost all
of the anti-dumping duties that otherwise would have been payable.
 In other
words, there could have been more dumping occurring than is
reflected by the amount of anti-dumping duties actually collected.
Furthermore, the existence of subsidies tends to lower the
calculated level of normal values by lowering costs, which, in
turn, lessens the chances that such normal values will exceed
export values and, thereby, cause dumping. In this way, subsidies
tend to mask potential dumping situations.
In any event, regardless of the extent of the dumping which has
occurred in the past, the key issue before the Tribunal is what is
likely to happen with regard to dumping in the future. In this
connection, the Tribunal notes that the conditions present in the
Canadian black granite memorial market  today are quite different from
those that existed in and before 1994. Specifically, at the time of
the 1994 finding, the subject goods from India were the only
imported black granite memorials available in the Canadian market.
 Since then,
black granite memorials from China have entered the domestic market
and grown rapidly to command a significant share of the market. For
example, in 1996, sales by importers of Chinese black granite
memorials accounted for only 2 percent of the market, while, in
1998, they accounted for 16 percent.  As a result, China has replaced India as the
most significant source of imported black granite memorials in the
The Tribunal notes that the exporters’ selling prices for
Chinese black granite memorials can be considerably less than those
of Indian black granite memorials. For example, information
submitted by one witness showed that, on average, the FOB export
prices of Chinese memorials are 38 percent lower than those of
comparable Indian memorials.  Although another witness submitted evidence
which showed smaller gaps,  the data available to the Tribunal indicate that
black granite memorials from China are consistently lower in price
than those from India, before the application of any anti-dumping
or countervailing duty.
This means that, if the finding is rescinded and if exporters
and importers of the Indian subject goods wish to re-establish or
even just approach their former substantial levels of market share
in Canada, 
they will have to do so not only in competition with the Canadian
industry, as in the past, but now also against growing volumes of
low-priced Chinese products. Although there are other factors to be
considered, such as quality issues, which are discussed in the next
section, the advent of the Chinese competition is bound to exert
downward pressure on Indian prices for the subject goods, to an
extent that the Tribunal believes poses a significant risk of
This risk is even more acute when considered against the
Government of India’s focus on export growth,  especially in light of declines in
important Indian export markets such as Japan; the requirement for
Indian memorial producers to export most of their production, given
the lack of a home market; the vast deposits of granite reserves in
India;  the
surplus capacity within the Indian industry, which is currently
operating at less than 40 percent of its potential production
level;  the
changes to the NFEP, which provide Indian producers with more
flexibility to lower their prices than they have had in the past;
 and the
current practice of price-undercutting among Indian granite
producers, which appears to have led to official discussions
between the European Union and Indian representatives. 
As a result of the foregoing considerations, the Tribunal finds
that there exists a likelihood of dumping of the subject goods from
Having decided that there is a likelihood that dumped and
subsidized goods from India will be exported to Canada, the
Tribunal will now address the issue of the likely effect on the
The first point that the Tribunal examined, in evaluating
potential injury to the domestic industry if the finding is
rescinded, is the likely magnitude of price reductions. As noted in
the section on the likelihood of subsidizing, current
countervailing duty rates, in certain cases, amount to about 10 to
20 percent of the Canadian wholesale prices of Indian memorials.
 It is evident
that, at these rates, elimination of countervailing duties would
give importers considerable scope to lower their prices from
currently prevailing levels. In this connection, the evidence shows
that an important importer of the Indian subject goods deliberately
attempts to position Indian goods at a price point that is
approximately 20 to 25 percent below domestic industry prices.
 Elimination of
the countervailing duty would obviously facilitate this
Moreover, as noted in the section on the likelihood of dumping,
Chinese export prices can be as much as 38 percent below Indian
export prices. As Indian exporters move to narrow this gap, as the
Tribunal believes they will if the finding is rescinded, the
potential drop in Indian prices could be very steep. Having said
that, the Tribunal notes that it is possible that Indian prices may
not fall to Chinese levels because there appear to be some quality,
consistency and reliability problems with some Chinese producers.
 At the same
time, the Tribunal heard evidence that there are Chinese producers
exporting to Canada that are as capable, competent and advanced in
their techniques and workmanship as Indian producers.  Given comparable
quality, and in light of the price margins that now exist between
Indian and Chinese products, the Tribunal is of the view that, as
Indian producers seek to increase their current position in the
Canadian market,  they will have to lower their prices to a range
that makes them more competitive with the Chinese than they
In considering the presence of low Chinese prices in the
Canadian market, the Tribunal notes that they have had relatively
little effect on the domestic industry’s prices. Counsel for the
Government of India has pointed to this as evidence of the
industry’s robust health and lack of vulnerability to competition
from imports. For its part, the industry has stated that it has not
dropped prices in response to Chinese imports largely because the
Chinese are relative newcomers, whose quality of goods and
reputation remain to be established. Moreover, as the President of
the CGA testified, the Chinese situation is being monitored by the
industry for possible future trade action.  Be that as it may, in the
Tribunal’s opinion, while the domestic industry’s prices, so far,
have remained relatively stable despite the recent increase in
Chinese imports, the central issue is whether the current
competitive situation will be altered substantially if Indian
imports are allowed to enter the Canadian market without the
discipline of anti-dumping and countervailing duties. In this
regard, the Tribunal is of the view, for the reasons discussed
above, that the resulting mix of Chinese and Indian imports
competing for market share creates a significant risk that Canadian
prices will be destabilized.
Second, the Tribunal has considered the potential volumes of
Indian imports if the finding is rescinded. In this connection, the
Tribunal notes that the subject goods have been present in the
Canadian market throughout the 1990s and, at their high water mark
in 1992, Indian imports comprised about 30 percent of the Canadian
market for black granite memorials.  However, following the 1994 finding, the
volume of Indian imports fell substantially, so that, over the past
three years, they have comprised about 5 percent of the Canadian
Clearly, if Indian imports were to return to anywhere near the
levels that prevailed in the period prior to the 1994 finding, this
would imply a surge of Indian imports. Indeed, even if Indian
imports go back to only half of their early 1990 levels, their
current volumes would triple.
On the basis of the evidence presented in this case, the
Tribunal has little doubt that, if the finding is rescinded, there
will be a substantial rise in Indian imports. As noted in the
previous sections, the Indian granite industry is governed by an
export imperative which, when combined with large surplus capacity,
creates a powerful incentive to recapture some, or all, of its
pre-1994 position in the Canadian market. Moreover, it is apparent
that the Indian product is of undisputedly high quality and, on
this ground alone, it would be welcomed by Canadian monument
dealers and wholesalers. In this connection, the Tribunal notes
that Indian granite producers have been actively soliciting
customers at North American trade shows and through other marketing
Further facilitating the potential future flow of Indian imports
are the long-standing and ongoing business relations between
significant Indian producers and companies importing the subject
goods into Canada.  For example, Sita, one of the largest importers
of the subject goods in the pre-1994 period, imports granite
memorials exclusively from India because of its network of supplier
contacts in that country. Since the 1994 finding, Sita has
continued to import and sell Indian granite memorials of different
colours, including the subject goods, albeit with the subject black
granite at a significantly reduced volume following the imposition
of anti-dumping and/or countervailing duties.  If unrestrained by the finding,
there seems little doubt that Sita and other companies with
connections to Indian suppliers would seek to return to their
former levels of imports and perhaps even seek to increase the
volume of black granite memorials that it used to import, in light
of the increasing demand for black granite memorials in the
Canadian market. 
Having decided that Indian import volumes are likely to rise and
Indian prices are likely to fall if the finding is rescinded, the
Tribunal will now analyze the likely effect of such developments on
the domestic industry. This analysis looks at the new domestic
producer, Cabot, separately from the rest of the domestic
According to the evidence, shortly after the 1994 finding, the
decision was made to begin quarrying black granite in Newfoundland.
In fact, the President of Cabot indicated that, without the
finding, it would not have been feasible to go forward and make the
required investments.  Over the past four years or so, over $12 million
have been invested in the quarrying, manufacturing and marketing
operations. All told, some 60 full-time jobs have been created to
date, with more on the horizon, making the project an important
source of employment in an area of chronic high unemployment. In
addition, the potential size of the deposit is vast, and the
production of memorials and slabs from the quarried blocks is
increasing dramatically. Moreover, as quarrying operations go
deeper into the deposit, the quality of the rock improves to the
point where, after examining a sample submitted as a physical
exhibit, all parties generally agreed that the rock currently being
extracted is quite similar to the best black granite available on
The Tribunal considers the discovery and development of the
Newfoundland deposit to be an important consideration that was not
present in the original inquiry and that holds the potential to
alter significantly the complexion of the Canadian industry. Prior
to the 1994 finding, and up until recently, the Canadian industry
has been totally dependent on imported black granite blocks and
slabs for the production of black granite memorials, as there was
no Canadian source for this rock that was of the quality required
by memorial and slab manufacturers. The primary foreign sources
used by the domestic industry have been South Africa and Zimbabwe,
exposing the industry to significant transportation and exchange
rate costs. The advent of the Newfoundland deposit, if its
development and growth are sustained, thus holds the promise of a
Canadian source of black granite with potential transportation and
other advantages over imported granite. Indeed, an industry witness
estimated that memorials produced from Newfoundland black granite
currently have a 15 to 20 percent cost advantage over memorials
manufactured from Zimbabwean stone. 
Against this background, the evidence shows that, in 1998,
several of the largest Canadian producers made significant
purchases of Newfoundland finished memorials and slabs from Cabot.
 The evidence
also shows that these producers plan to continue to make
significant purchases in 1999, as Cabot expands its production.
 At the present
time, Cabot’s production is insufficient to meet all the requests
for its product from other Canadian producers. However, the
President of Cabot testified that it was his intention to reach a
production level, over the next few years, that would allow the
company to supply as many domestic producers as possible. 
In the Tribunal’s view, given time, the availability of
Newfoundland black granite to the Canadian industry should lower
its cost structure and enhance its ability to compete with imported
memorials from any source, including India. However, for this to
happen, the Newfoundland operation must be given the chance to
establish itself from both a financial and a marketing perspective.
In terms of its financial status, Cabot’s first-ever financial
operating statement was under preparation, but not yet available,
at the time of the hearing in this case. With respect to marketing,
it is clear that the Newfoundland product is still relatively
unknown in the Canadian market.  Moreover, in some cases, opinions in the
marketplace appear to be based on initial quarrying of
lower-quality stone, rather than the higher-quality stone more
recently quarried. 
In short, in the Tribunal’s opinion, from both a financial and a
marketing perspective, the Newfoundland operation is currently at a
highly vulnerable stage of its development. This vulnerability is
made even more acute by the fact that, unlike other Canadian
producers that manufacture and sell memorials in a variety of
different colours, the Cabot operation is entirely dependent on the
production of black granite memorials, including the deep black
granite which is the subject of this review. In this regard,
Cabot’s “eggs are all in one basket” and, if market conditions for
black granite memorials deteriorate following a rescission of the
finding, Cabot’s promising potential could be short-lived.
Turning to the rest of the domestic industry, the Tribunal notes
that counsel for the Government of India has submitted that the
industry is currently profitable, that its performance indicators
are generally pointing upward and that it is, therefore, not
vulnerable to competition from imports. In considering this issue,
the Tribunal first observes that, while the industry  , on a combined basis,
experienced an upward trend in profitability from 1996 to 1998, the
actual net income achieved was rather modest, comprising between 3
and 7 percent of total net sales. Moreover, the combined data belie
a much more uneven industry performance when it is examined on an
individual company basis. In particular, two of the four companies
from whom comparable financial data were available actually
experienced declining profitability in 1998 compared to 1997, and
their net income in the most recent period was only marginally
Furthermore, the industry’s domestic financial performance over
the past two years or so has been bolstered by higher volumes of
exports to the United States. These exports have allowed the
industry to spread its costs over a larger production base and,
accordingly, to achieve lower unit costs on domestic sales.
according to the industry, these export sales are largely
attributable to the record low values of the Canadian dollar. If
the Canadian dollar were to return to its previous levels, these
export sales and the benefits derived from them could diminish.
It is apparent that the industry, as a whole, is operating at
reasonable levels under the protection of the finding. However, the
Tribunal does not find its performance to be so robust as to make
it immune to injury from unfairly priced imports. On the contrary,
it is clear that relatively small declines in the industry’s
domestic sales volumes and prices could turn the industry’s
financial performance from positive to negative. As already noted,
if the finding is rescinded, the potential increase in the volume
of imports from India is large and the potential decrease in prices
is substantial. Therefore, the likelihood of a significant reversal
in the industry’s performance is high.
Finally, there are two other factors that could exacerbate the
injurious effect of dumped and subsidized Indian imports if the
finding is rescinded. First, there is the current and projected
rise in the use of cremation as an alternative to traditional
burial. This could soften demand and prices for memorials, such as
upright monuments, that are the mainstay of the memorial industry.
demand for black granite memorials has been strong in recent years,
this appears to be because of gains made at the expense of other
colours, including Brits.  Nevertheless, alternative interment practices
remain a risk factor for industry demand, which could increase the
industry’s vulnerability to dumped and subsidized Indian
Second, the past few years have seen a move towards
consolidation in the mortuary business. More specifically, funeral
homes are extending their operations in monument retailing.
Similarly, cemeteries are increasingly selling monuments to the
bereaved. Further, in a number of cases, large, well-capitalized
companies have combined funeral homes, cemeteries and monument
retailing into vertically integrated operations.  These conglomerates are
national and multinational in scope and can exercise substantial
purchasing power, unlike the small, independent, family-run
operations that they have acquired. Their resources and warehousing
capabilities would allow them to seek out low-priced imports around
the globe, to import them in significant quantities and to stock
them for resale in the Canadian market. Although not all these
conglomerates may prove to be successful, the trend away from
small, independent operations is changing the environment for the
domestic industry and could well threaten to undermine the
profitability and financial health of the domestic industry,
particularly if combined with the availability of dumped and
subsidized Indian imports.
For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal finds that there is a
likelihood of continued subsidizing and a likelihood of continued
dumping 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 and that such
subsidizing and dumping are likely to cause material injury to the
domestic industry. Therefore, the Tribunal hereby continues the
finding without amendment.
1. R.S.C. 1985, c.
S-15, as amended by S.C. 1994, c. 47.
2. Finding, July 20,
1994, Statement of Reasons, August 4, 1994.
3. Canada Gazette Part
I, Vol. 133, No. 3 at 113.
4. Virtually all the
subject imports reported by importers in this review, as well as at
the time of the inquiry, were comprised of memorials. Slabs appear
to have been included by the Department of National Revenue in the
definition of the subject goods because they constitute a
significant proportion of the value of the finished memorials and,
as such, to exclude them would have left open the possibility of
circumvention of the finding.
5. As with Indian
imports, almost all Chinese imports reported by importers in this
review were comprised of memorials.
6. The margin of
dumping of 32.7 percent was the highest margin of dumping found by
Revenue Canada, and it was assigned, through a ministerial
specification, to those exporters that did not co-operate in
providing complete information to Revenue Canada.
7. An EOU is an Indian
company which is provided with various government incentives, such
as income tax and tariff exemptions, as long as it exports most of
8. Tribunal Exhibit
RR-98-006-4 (protected), Administrative Record, Vol. 2 at 17.
Exhibit RR-98-006-3C, Administrative Record, Vol. 1 at 142.
12. Signed at
Marrakesh on April 15, 1994.
14. Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade 1994, signed at Marrakesh on April 15, 1994, and the
Agreement on Subsidies.
15. The first
question that the Tribunal generally addresses is whether there is
a likelihood of subsidizing and/or dumping if the finding is
16. The Dumping in
Canada of Refined Sugar Originating in or Exported from the United
States of America, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the
Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the Republic of Korea, and the
Subsidizing of Refined Sugar Originating in or Exported from the
European Union, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Inquiry No.
NQ-95-002, Findings, November 6, 1995, Statement of Reasons,
November 21, 1995.
17. Ibid. at
19. Supra note 2,
Statement of Reasons at 19.
20. Transcript of
Public Hearing, Vol. 1, May 20, 1999, at 98.
Exhibit RR-98-006-50, Administrative Record, Vol. 1 at 188.
22. [ 1979 ] 1 F.C.
23. Transcript of
Public Hearing, Vol. 1, May 20, 1999, at 57 and 58.
24. Supra note 2,
Statement of Reasons at 19.
25. See, for
example, Certain Solder Joint Pressure Pipe Fittings and Solder
Joint Drainage, Waste and Vent Pipe Fittings, Made of Cast Copper
Alloy, Wrought Copper Alloy or Wrought Copper, Originating in or
Exported from the United States of America and Produced by or on
Behalf of Elkhart Products Corporation, Elkhart, Indiana, Nibco
Inc., Elkhart, Indiana, and Mueller Industries, Inc., Wichita,
Kansas, their Successors and Assigns, Canadian International Trade
Tribunal, Inquiry No. NQ-93-001, Finding and Statement of Reasons,
October 18, 1993, at 14.
26. Supra note 2,
Statement of Reasons at 19.
27. Two containers
were imported in 1996, one in 1997 and two in 1998. Transcript of
Public Hearing, Vol. 1, May 20, 1999, at 27-28.
28. Transcript of
Public Hearing, Vol. 1, May 20, 1999, at 162-68.
Pre-hearing Staff Report, April 8, 1999, Tribunal Exhibit
RR-98-006-6 (protected), Administrative Record, Vol. 2 at 59 and
Exhibit A-1, Tab 1, Appendix 1-1, Administrative Record, Vol.
Exhibit A-1, Tab 2, Appendix 2-2, Administrative Record, Vol.
32. The program is
available to Indian exporters in other industries as well.
Exhibit A-1, Tab 2, Appendix 2-1, Administrative Record, Vol.
Exhibit A-1, Tab 2, Appendix 2-2, Administrative Record, Vol.
Exhibit A-1, Tab 4, Appendix 4-2, Administrative Record, Vol.
Exhibit A-1, Tab 1, Appendix 1-17, Administrative Record, Vol.
37. As noted
earlier, for exporters that co-operated with Revenue Canada in its
most recent re-investigation, countervailing duty rates currently
range from about 2 to 16 cents per pound, down from about 14 to 35
cents per pound in 1994.
38. As well,
exporters that had previously not co-operated with Revenue Canada
and that were, therefore, assigned the maximum rate of 35 cents per
pound by ministerial specification decided to co-operate with
Revenue Canada so that a precise rate could be calculated for
39. According to
Revenue Canada, the rates on consumables and capital goods
decreased from about 80 percent, at the time that Revenue Canada
conducted its investigation in 1995, to 40 percent, at the time
that Revenue Canada conducted its most recent investigation.
Tribunal Exhibit RR-98-006-4 (protected), Administrative Record,
Vol. 2 at 17. Gem's submission also indicates that the tariff rates
on consumables in Chapters 68 and 82 of India's Customs Tariff in
1993-94 were about 85 percent and that the rates have been reduced
to 40 percent and 25 percent. Importer's Exhibit C-1,
Administrative Record, Vol. 13.
submission indicates that the income tax rate for companies
registered under the Companies Act in India was 57.5 percent in
1993-94 and has been reduced to 35.0 percent for the assessment
year 1999-2000. Importer's Exhibit C-1, Administrative Record, Vol.
41. According to
Revenue Canada, 99 percent of SIMA duties collected in 1998 were
countervailing duties. Tribunal Exhibit RR- 98-006-3C,
Administrative Record, Vol. 1 at 142 ; and supra note 4.
42. Transcript of
Public Hearing, Vol. 2, May 21, 1999 at 299-300.
43. Transcript of
Public Hearing, Vol. 2, May 21, 1999, at 337-38.
44. Transcript of
Public Hearing Vol. 2, May 21, 1999, at 337 and 340-41.
45. The President
of India dissolved Parliament in April 1999 and the country is
anticipating a general election later this year.
46. Section 10 of
47. As noted
earlier, there were virtually no sales of slabs by importers. With
the foregoing in mind, the focus of the analysis which follows is
Pre-hearing Staff Report, revised June 14, 1994, Tribunal Exhibit
RR-98-006-8C, Administrative Record, Vol. 1.1 at 206. South Africa
and Zimbabwe were the sources of imported black granite blocks, but
these were non-subject goods.
Pre-hearing Staff Report, April 8, 1999, Tribunal Exhibit
RR-98-006-5, Administrative Record, Vol. 1A at 38.
Exhibit B-5 (protected), Tab 4, Administrative Record, Vol. 14.
Exhibit D-1 at 1-2, Administrative Record, Vol. 13. The prices
cited by this witness pertained to smaller volumes of imports.
52. As discussed
further in the next section on injury, in 1992, the subject goods
held a 30 percent share of the Canadian market.
Exhibit A-1, Appendices 1 to 5, Administrative Record, Vol. 11.
Exhibit A-1, Tab 6, Appendix 6-8, Administrative Record, Vol.
Exhibit RR-98-006-25, Administrative Record, Vol. 5.3 at 18.
Exhibit A-1, Tab 4, Appendix 4-2, and Tab 1, Appendix 1-17,
Administrative Record, Vol. 11.
Exhibit A-5, Appendix 3, Administrative Record, Vol. 11; and
Transcript of Public Hearing, Vol. 2, May 21, 1999, at 323.
58. Transcript of
In Camera Hearing, Vol. 2, May 21, 1999, at 64; and Importer's
Exhibit B-1, Tab 2, Administrative Record, Vol. 13.
Exhibit RR-98-006-21.8 (protected), Administrative Record, Vol. 6.1
at 34; and Transcript of In Camera Hearing, Vol. 2, May 21, 1999,
60. Transcript of
Public Hearing, Vol. 1, May 20, 1999, at 216.
61. Transcript of
Public Hearing, Vol. 1, May 20, 1999, at 245-46 and 280-81.
62. Imports of
Indian memorials accounted for approximately 5 percent of the
Canadian market in 1998. Protected Pre-hearing Staff Report, April
8, 1999, Tribunal Exhibit RR-98-006-6 (protected), Administrative
Record, Vol. 2 at 61.
63. Transcript of
Public Hearing, Vol. 1, May 20, 1999, at 36-37.
64. A certain
proportion of these Indian imports were brought in by Canadian
Pre-hearing Staff Report, April 8, 1999, Tribunal Exhibit
RR-98-006-6 (protected), Administrative Record, Vol. 2 at 61.
Exhibit A-3, para. 19, Administrative Record, Vol. 11; Transcript
of Public Hearing, Vol. 1, May 20, 1999, at 72-73 and 239; and
Manufacturer's Exhibit A-2, para. 22, 23 and 25, and Appendices 1
and 2, Administrative Record, Vol. 11.
67. Transcript of
Public Hearing, Vol. 2, May 21, 1999, at 417 and 424-25; and
Transcript of In Camera Hearing, Vol. 2, May 21, 1999 at 64-66.
Pre-hearing Staff Report, revised June 14, 1994, Tribunal Exhibit
RR-98-006-9C (protected), Administrative Record, Vol. 2.1 at 170;
and Protected Pre-hearing Staff Report, April 8, 1999, Tribunal
Exhibit RR-98-006-6 (protected), Administrative Record, Vol. 2 at
Pre-hearing Staff Report, April 8, 1999, Tribunal Exhibit
RR-98-006-5, Administrative Record, Vol. 1A at 36-37; and
Transcript of Public Hearing, Vol. 1, May 20, 1999, at 185.
Exhibit A-4, para. 14-15, Administrative Record, Vol. 11.
71. Transcript of
Public Hearing, Vol. 1, May 20, 1999, at 181 and 223.
72. Cabot began
selling Newfoundland black granite memorials and slabs to domestic
producers in 1998. International Granite Corp., which is affiliated
with Cabot and supplies Cabot with blocks of Newfoundland black
granite, started supplying blocks of Newfoundland black granite to
domestic producers in 1995. These blocks were, however, not
accepted at the time by the domestic producers because of
impurities in the blocks and the small size of the blocks. Tribunal
Exhibit RR-98-006-46B (protected), Administrative Record Vol. 2 at
192-93; Manufacturer's Exhibit A-4, para. 6, Administrative Record,
Vol. 11; Transcript of Public Hearing, Vol. 1, May 20, 1999, at 96;
and Tribunal Exhibit RR-98-006-46B (protected), Vol. 2 at 194, 195
Exhibit RR-98-006-46B (protected), Vol. 2 at 163, 166 and 172.
Exhibit RR-98-006-46B (protected), Administrative Record, Vol. 2 at
75. Transcript of
Public Hearing, Vol. 2, May 21, 1999, at 370.
76. For example,
see Tribunal Exhibit RR-98-006-46B (protected), Administrative
Record, Vol. 2 at 189.
consolidated income statement for the industry covered the domestic
sales from domestic production for four primary producers, Rock of
Ages, Dominion Granite, Imperial Granite Inc. and Granite Center
Beebe, whose combined production averaged 53 percent of total
reported domestic production over the years from 1996 to 1998.
Public Pre-hearing Staff Report, April 8, 1999, Tribunal Exhibit
RR-98-006-5, Administrative Record, Vol. 1A at 51-52.
Pre-hearing Staff Report, April 8, 1999, Tribunal Exhibit
RR-98-006-6 (protected), Administrative Record, Vol. 2 at 118 and
79. Transcript of
Public Hearing, Vol. 1, May 20, 1999, at 221.
80. Transcript of
Public Hearing, Vol. 1, May 20, 1999, at 206.
Pre-hearing Staff Report, April 8, 1999, Tribunal Exhibit
RR-98-006-5, Administrative Record, Vol. 1A at 23-25; and
Transcript of Public Hearing, Vol. 1, May 20, 1999, at 187-89 and
82. Transcript of
Public Hearing, Vol. 1, May 20, 1999, at 185-87.
Exhibit A-3, para. 21-23, Administrative Record, Vol. 11; and
Transcript of Public Hearing, Vol. 1, May 20, 1999, at 196-201.
[Table of Contents
Initial publication: July 19, 1999