Certain Calcium Aluminate Cement and Cement Clinker from France, Inv. No. 731-TA-645(Final)

Certain Calcium Alu·minate Cement and Cement Clinker From France Investigation No. 731-TA-645 (Final) Publication 2772 May 1994 U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 U.S. Inter11atio11al Trade Co1n1nissio11 COMMISSIONERS Don E. Newquist, Chairman Peter S. Watson, Vice Chairman David B. Rohr Carol T. Crawford Janet A. Nuzum Lynn M. Bragg Robert A. Rogowsky Director of Operations Staff assigned: Debra Baker, Investigator Linda White, Commodity-Industy Analyst Linda I .inkins, Ecomomist Chand Mehta, Accountant/Auditor Robin Twner, Attorney Geo'ge Deyman, Supervisory Investigator Address all communications to Secretary to the Commission United States International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 U.S. International Trade Commission Washingron. OC 20436 Certain Calcium Aluminate Cement and Cement Clinker From France Publication 2772 May 1994 ., CONTENTS Page Part I: Determination and views of the Commission........................ 1-1 I>eterrnination . • . • . . . . • • . . . . • . . • . • . . • • • . . . • • . . . . . . . • • . • • • . . . . . . . • • • • • • • . • . • • • • . . • • • . . 1-3 Views of the Commission . . . . . • • . . • . . . . . • . . • • • • • • . . • • • • • • . . . • • . . . • • . • • • . . • • . . . • • • . • • • . . 1-5 Part II: Information obtained in the investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1 Introduction • . • . • • • • • • • • • . • . • . . . • • . • . . . . . • • . • • . . . • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • . • • • . • • . • • . II-3 Background • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . • . . • . . . . . • . . • • . . • • • . • • • • . • • • . . • • . . . • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • . . • II-3 Previous Commission investigations concerning cement........................ . • . . • • . • • • • • • . II-3 The products . . • • . • • . . • . • • • • • . . . • . • • • • • • . . • . . • . . • . . • • . • • . • . • . . . . • . . • • . • • • • • • . . • • . • . . • II-4 I>escription and uses . • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • . . . • • . . . . . . • . . • • . . . • . . . • . • . • • • . • . . . • . • • . • II-4 Ordinary CA cement . • . . . • . . . . . • . • • . . . . . • • • . . • • • . . . . • • • . • • • • • • • • • . • • • • . . . . • . • . . • II-4 White CA cement . . • . . . • . • • . • . . • • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • • . . . . . • • . . • . . . . . . • . . . II-4 Ordinary CAC clinker and CA flux . • • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . • • . . • • . . . . . . . • • • . . II-5 Production process . . • • . • . . . . . • • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . II-5 Ordinary CAC clinker and CA flux . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • • . . . • . . . . . • • • . . • • • . . • . . . . . . . . . II-5 Ordinary CA cement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • • . . . • . • . . • . • . . . . • • . . . . . . • . . . • II-6 White CAC clinker and white CA cement . . • . . • • . . • . . . • • . • • . . • . . • • • • . . • . . . . . . . . • . . • • II-6 Like product issues . • • • • . . . . . • • . . . . . . • • . . • • • • . . • . • • . • . • • • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . • . . . • • II-6 U.S. tariff tteatment • . . . . . • . . • • • . . • • . • . • . • . • • . . . • • • • • • . . • • • . • • . . • • • . . • . • . • • . . • • . • • • II- 7 The nature and extent of sales at L1FV • • • . . . . • . • . • • • • . • . • • • • . . • • • • • • . • • • • • . • . • • • • • • • . . . • • II-7 The U.S. market • . . . • • • . . . . • . . . . • . • • . • . . . • . . . • • . . . • • • • • • . . . • • • • . . • • • • . • • . . • • • . • • • . . . . II-8 Apparent U.S. consumption of ordinary CA cement and ordinary CAC clinker • • • . . • • • . • • • . • • • II-8 U.S. producers of CA cement products • • . . • • . . • • . • . . . . . • • . . • . . . • . . • • • • . . . . . • • • . . • • . . • • II-8 U.S. importers of CA cement products . . . • • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • • • • . . • . • . • . • • . . • . • . . • • • • • • II-9 Channels of disttibution of CA cement products . . . . . . • . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . II-9 Consideration of the question of material injury to an industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • II-10 U.S. producers' capacity, capacity utilization, production, and shi~ments of o~ .~A ~ement products • • . . . • • . . • • . . • • • • • . . • • • . . . . . • . • • . • • • . . . . II-10 Capacity and capacity utllizatton . . • • . . . . . . . • • . . . • • • . • • . . • • . . . • • . • . . . • . . . • • . . • • • . . . . ll-11 Production and shipments of ordinary CA cement . • • • • . • • • . • • . . . • • • • • . • • • . . • • • . . • . . . . • ll-11 Production and shipments ofordinary CAC clinker • . • . . • • . . • • • . . . . • • • . . . • . . . . . . • . . • • . . ll-11 U.S. producers' inventories of ordinary CA cement products • . • • • • • . • . • • • . . . • . . . . . . . • • . . • • ll-12 U.S. producers' employment for ordinary CA cement products . . • • . . . . . . • . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . • II-12 Financial experience of U.S. producers . . . . . . . • • • • • . . • . • • . . . . • . . • . . • . . . . . • . . • • • . . . . . . . . ll-12 Operations on ordinary CA cement and ordinary CAC clinker . . • • . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll-12 Lehigh PortJand Cement Co . . • . . . . . . . . . • • . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll-12 Lafarge CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . ll-13 Lehigh and Lafarge CA combined . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . II-14 Investment in productive facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll-14 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . • . • • . . . . • . . • . • . . . • . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-14 Research and development-expenses for market development and technical assistance . . . . . • . 11-14 Capital and investment . . . . . . . • . • . . • . . . • . . • • • . • • • • . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • 11-14 Consideration of the question of threat of material injury . . . . . • . . . . • . . . • . . . • . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-15 Ability of foreign producers to generate exports of subject products and the availability of expon markets other than the United States .....................••.....................• 1... . . . . . . . . . . . . II-16 iii CONTENTS-Continued Part Il: Information obtained in the investigation-Continued The industty in France • • • • • • • • . • • • • • . • • • • • • • . • • • • . • • . • • • • . . • • • . • • • • • . • • • . . . • • • • . . Ordinary CA cement manufacturing operations ..••..•••••••..••••••••••...••.•..... Ordinary CAC clinker manufacturing openuions .••...•.••••..•.••..••.....••••••••. The wodd marlcet . • • . • • . • • • • • • • . • • • • • . . . • • • . . • . . • • . . • • • . . • . • . . . • • • • . • • • • . • • • . • . U.S. importers' inventories of ordinary CA cement products .••.•..••..••.•.•..••.••••.•••• Consideration of the causal relationship between importS of the subject merchandise and the alleged material injmy ..•...•..••...••.••••.•.•.••..••.•.• U.S. imports of ordinary CA cement products .••••.••••••••.••.••.•..•...•.•.•..•.••••• U.S. marlcet shares of ordinary CA cement products .•••.•.•.••.•••.•••••••••••.••••••.•• Shares for the overall U.S. market ..••.•••••..•••.•••.•.••••.••••••••.•.••••••.•• Shares for the refractory and non-refractory market segments ••••••••••••••••••••••••.• Shares for "existing" and "new" applications . • . • • • • • . • • . • • • . • • . . • . . . • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • Data -·" ~ .....-:....:- .. and.. .. •:--.:o.,.....,• ..,...IOI' ~uug neW &pp1A4U ns • • • • • • . • • . • • • .• • • • • • ..• • • • • • • • • I>esaiption of "new" applications . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • . . • • • • • • • . . • . • • . • . . . • • . • • Methodology used to cJassify applications as ..new" .....••.•••••••.••.•.•....•...• Verification of data submitted on "new" applications ••.••••...•.••.•••••.••.••....• Pricing and marlceting considerations . • . . . • • . . • • • . . • . . • • • . . • . . . • . . . • . . . . • . . . . • . • • • • • • • Purchase considerations • • • • • . . • • • . • • . • • . . . . • • • • • • . . • • . . . . . • • • • • • • . . • • • • . • • . . . . • Comparison of suppliers . • • . . • • • . . . • • . . . • . . . • • . . • . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . . . • • • • . . . • . . • • Pricing strategies and other considerations . • • • • . • • . • • • . • • • • • • • . . • • • . • • • . • • • • • • • . . • . Producer and importer value and quantity trends for CA cement .••.••••••..•••••••••..• Average unit value trends for packaged sales of mdinary CA cement •••••••••••••••••• Average unit value trends for bulk sales of mdinary CA cement •••••.•••..•.••••••••• Purchaser price trends . . • . • . • • • • . . • • . • • • • . . • • • . • • . . • • • • . . . . . • . . . . • . • • • . • • • • • • • • Lost sales and lost revenues . • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • . • . • • • • • • • . . • • . • • • . . • . . . • • • . . . . . • • • • • • • Exchange rates • • . • . . • • . . • . • • • . • • • • . • • • . • • • • • • • • . • • • • . . • . • . . • • • • . • . • • . . . • • . • • • • • • . Appendixes ll-16 ll-16 ll-16 ll-17 ll-17 ll-17 ll-17 ll-17 ll-17 ll-17 ll-18 ll-18 ll-19 ll-19 ll-20 ll-20 ll-21 ll-23 ll-23 ll-24 ll-25 ll-25 ll-26 ll-26 ll-27 A. Federal Register notices • • • . . • • • . . • • • • • . . • • • . • . • • • • • • . . . • . . • . • . . . . . . • . . . • . • . . . • • . • . A-1 B. List of witnesses appearing at the Commission's hearing . . • . . . • • . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . B-1 C. Summary data concerning the U.S. marlcet for ordinary CA cement products and for white CA cement . • • • • . • • • • • • • . . • . . . . • . . . . . . • • . . . . • . . . • . . . • • • . . . C-1 D. Additional data on U.S. shipments of ordinary CA cement by brands of cement and by end-use applications • • . • • • . • • • • . • • . . • • . • • . . . . • . • • • • . • . • • . . • . . • • . D-1 E. Additional data on financial operations of CA cement products • • . . . . • • • . . • . • . . • • . • . . • . • . • . E-1 F. Effects of imports on producers' existing development and production efforts, growth, investment. and ability to raise capital . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . • • • . • • . . • • • • . • . • . . • • . • • . . • • . . . . . . • • . . . . • • • . • • . . . • . • . • . F-1 G. Average unit value trends for white CA cement . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . • . . . . . G-1 H. Regional analysis of average unit value trends for ordinary CA cement . . • • . . . • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . H-1 I. Average unit value differentials for ordinary CA cement • • • • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . • . . 1-1 J. Purchasers' average unit value and quantity data for ordinary CA cement . . . . • . . • . • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . • • • • • • . . . . . . • . . . . . • • . • • . . . • . . . . • . • • . • • . • . J-1 K. Summary oflost sales and lost revenues infonnation • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . • K-1 Note.~nformation that would reveal confidential operations of individual concems may not be published and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks. 1 iv PART I DETERMINATIONS AND VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION 1-1 UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Investigation No. 731-TA-645 (Final) Calcium Aluminate Cement and Cement Clinker From France Determination On the basis of the recud1 developed in the subject investigatim. the Commislion UDIDimously detmmines.2 pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 u.s.c. § 1673d(b)) (the Act). that Ill industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injmy, and the establishment of m industry in the United States is not materially retarded. by reason al impcrts from France of calcium aJnminate cement and cement clinka', provided fer in subheadings 2523.30.00 and 2523.10.00, respectively, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce to be sold in the United States at Jess than fair value (Il'FV). 1 The record is defined in sec. 2C11.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CPR§ 2C11.2(f)). 2 CommiS!Jioner Lynn Bragg did not participate. Background The Commission imtituted this investigation effective November 1. 1993, following a peliminary determination by the Department al Commerce that impcrts al calcium alnminate c:ement and cement clinker from France were being soJd at ll'FV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)). Notice al the institution of the Crmmislioo.'s investigation and of a public hearing to be held in cc:xmectioo. therewith was given by posting copies of notices in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Int.emational Trade Commiq1CJD. Washingtm. DC. and by publishing notices in the Fe<Ural Register of December 22. 1993 (58 FR 678()1)) and the Fe<Ural Register of March 9. 1994 (59 FR 11088). The hearing was held in Wasbington. DC. on Mucll 31, 1994, and all persoos who requesled the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by coumel. 1-3 ., VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION Based on the record In this final Investigation,1 we detennlne2 that an Industry In the United States Is neither materially Injured nor threatened with material Injury by reason of Imports of calcium aluminate ("CA1 cement and cement clinker ("CAC clinkef) from France that the U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commercei has detennined are being sold in the United States at less than fair value rLTFV").3 I. Like Product A. In General In determining whether an Industry In the United States Is materially Injured or Is threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports, the Commission· must first define the ,Ike product" and the ,ndustry.• Section n1 (4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (itle Act") defines the relevant Industry as the •domestic producers as a whole of a like product. or those producers whose collective output of the like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that product ••••~ In tum, the Act. defines •11ke product" as •a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar In characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an Investigation ••••-s The Department of Commerce ("Commercei has defined the scope of this Investigation as: two classes or kinds of merchandise:- (1) CA [calcium alumlnate] cement and cement cUnker, and (2) CA flux. The produds covered by these Investigations Include CA cement, cement clinker and flux, other than white, high purity CA cement, cement clinker and flux. These products I Peailimm's ieqaest ID ll:rib Iba 1ell:i111011y of respandenl'1 wilnell. Alain Bucaille, flam the recmdindUsinveadgadonildmied. Neidmdlerulesnorcamiderlliomofdue givea the rigbllDCIOll-eumine wiw 8tCommiMion litle Wbearinp. Sa 19 C~l.l~a.w:o TmUtal.r,/111:.v.UllitMStarcr,477P.Supp.201(Cult.Ct.1979).#d634P.2d610(C.C.P.A.1980). 2 Commil--Bna did not paticipm in .... cletmninalian. 3 19U.S.C.f 1673d(b). WhetberlbeemblisbrnentofaiaduslryinlbeUnileclSwilmatmillly .... ii not ID. illue in dUs invelliplion. 4 19 U.S.C. f 1677(4XA). 5 19 U.S.C. f 1677(10). In-~ lib poduct isma. lbe Commi11ian pnenlly comidln a Dlllllblroffld.Onincluding: (l)piylk:al~andusa.(2)inracbmge8bilil,(3)c:blnnellof clillribulian,(4)CUllDlllllrnlproclucerpen:ep(S)themeofcommannualuf8Clmingfcililieanl ~empioyea.and(6)whmeappropnm.price. Colabri4nCorp. v. UnblulSlalu., 794P.Supp. 77l382JIA (Ct. lill1 Tnde 1992). No ling1e fctor ii dispolidve, and Iha Cmnmiuion maycamider ok fllCtOn relevm ID a puticuJar inYestiga&ion. The Commission loob for clea- dividing Im. amongpoaiblelibproducts. anddisregmla minorvaillions.S•. e.g.. S. Rep. No. 249. 96tbCo.ng. 1stSea. 90-91 (1979); Torrington Co. 11. UniltltlS1111a. 747 P. Supp. 744. 748-49(Ct.lnt'lTrllde1990). aJr d. 938 F.2d 1278 (Feel. Cir. 1991); A.rociacion Colombiana u EzponMINa u Flav v. Uniltltl S-1111a.693P.Supp.116S.1169(Ct.lnt'l'l'nde1988)(•~tilup1D[t'-Commiaion]ID determine objectively what ii a minor difference. j. ~ 1-S I-6 contain by weight more than 32 percent but less than 65 percent alumina and more than one percent each of Iron and silica.• The Imported product subject to Investigation In this portlon7 of the Commission's investigation is calcium alumlnate (CA) cement and cement clinker (herein •ordinary CA cement and CAC clinker"), other than white, high purity CA cement and cement clinker from France. Ordinary CA cement Is a specialty hydraulic, rionportland cement that has a high alumina content Alumina Imparts such beneficial qualities as resistance to extreme temperatures and chemical corrosion, and fast compressive strength and hardening characterlstlcs.8 Ordinary CA cement Is used primarily as a binding agent in makini special concretes for refractory and specialized construction applications. Ordinary CA cement clinker serves two functions: (1) as an intermediate material (CAC clinker) for producing ordinary CA cement and (21 as a fluxing agent (CA flux) to remove undesirable sulfur from steel. o The raw material mixture for ordinary CA cement/CAC clinker consists of various amounts of crude, uncalcined bauxite (as a source of alumina, Iron, and silica oxides) and limestone (as a source of calcium oxides).11 Domestically-produced and Imported ordinary CA cement can be physically lnterchan~eable, but the degree of Interchangeability depends upon the application. 2 6 Su S9 Fed. Reg.14136 (Much 2S.1994). SuConfide.nlial Repnt("Clt") •A·7. Public Report \PR") • A-6. Cammmce also indicated tbll: ••• CAflmba adlemicalcomposiliondiatinctfnlm CA cement clink•. CAcemen1clinbr contains tbebydnulic:mimnlmono-c:alcimn almninete, whichgivea itamobrraliooflime to alumina of approximately 1:1. ID caalmt. CA clinks 10ld u aflm does notccmlain IDOllO-Caldum aluminate; it containa the c:ompla mm.al C12A7 (12.CIO • 7A1202). which giv• it a mom nllio of lime ID aluminaofapproximarely2:l. Thilhigbe:rlime1DaluminanliopveatbeCAclinbnoldua flllllaloWa'mellingp>inllhmCAcement. adalmnssulllmex1ralimewhichcanbond wilh la1fur ml Olber impuriliea mmohm steel Although CA clinbr sold u Om bu ICllDe hydnulic popediea. it bydrata too quickly ID be ued for those propertiel. 'l'helepmducts11ecmrendyclmifilbleundertbefollowingHmnoaizedTariffSc:heduleof the United Starea (HI'S) subbeadinp: 2S23.30.0000 (fer aluminom cement) ad 2S23.10.0000(fercemcntclinbrand0ux). AhhoughtbeHI'SUSpibheadinp11epovided for convenience llld customa purposes, the wriuen dacriplian of the scope of tbae mvesligaliana remains diapomve. Id. 7 There 11e two porlicm ID this inveatigalian which are on diffenmt sehedul• before the Omnni11ian became Commerce mlde a preliminuy 11111gllive detennination but a fin.al affinmlive detenninarionnglrdingCAOm.Punuanttol9U.S.C.f1673d(b)(3).tbeCommiaionisdirectecllD maim its final determinarionODCA flux widUn 7S days aftertbedate ofOmnnerce'a fmal aftirnwive detenninarion, rllher Ihm lhe 4S days whK:h applies to CA cement ad CAC clinker. The Omnni11ian'• final determination OD CA flllll is due OD June 6, 1994. IS• CR • 1-6 • 1-9. PR • ll-4. 9 CR • I-6ad1-8, PR • ll-4. ID the nfnctory industry, onlinary CA cement is used to produce cutablea(drymixea). whichwithlhelddilianofwater11emoldedintospecialsballes•lbeinstallalian lire.andgmmingmixea. whichgenenllyareblownonrosurfacea1Dmakenpain. kefm:torieaareused to line high-temperature fumKea and racton tUt poduce metals. generate power. ad refine petrochcmicalaandoiL/d. TheCOllllruc:tioninduslryuaeaordimryCAcemenllDmakecancretemix• for fire iesistmll applications (coatings fer fireplace hearth llld 11rUCtural units. ml muomy for indulll'ial ii.eta and chimneys). for corrosion reaistanl applicalions (Oocr sections and co.mp to wichstand chemicala m daily plants, breweries, slaughlerhouses. ml sugu poceuing plmls). for temperature resistant applicaliona (ftocr secticm llld collinp to withstand tbe heal · fmm ~ furmce-firedmarerials ormoltcnapills). and for acid-resistant pipe linings. CR~ PR.• lOCR •l-10. PR atll-S. Thequeationofmarerial injury byreucn of imported CA flux will be lddreaecl in tbe Ccmmission detamination OD CA Om. 11CR.i1-10. PR• ll-S. 12CR•l-8andl-9,PR.atll-4. Incon1rattograypordandcemen1,lher9areno4mericmSociety for Testing and Materials \ ASTM") atandmla fer CA cemenL CR .i I-7. PR. at lf-4. B. Like Prodact Issues aruI the Commission~ Preliminary Determination In the pre&minary investigation, the Commission considered three like product issues13 and determined that: (1) CA clinker manufactured for use as flux is a like product separate from CAC clinker; 14 (2) CAC clnker and CA cement constitute one like product; 1s and (3) white, high purity CA cement and cftnker are not tike CA cement and cftnker con1aining less than 65 percent alumina (ordinary CA cement and clinker). 18 There are no arguments or new evidence in the final investigation that would suggest a different conclusion, and we reaffirm our pre&minary findngs that CA flux is a like product separate from CAC clinker and that CAC clinker and CA cement constitute one like product. The Comnission expressed its intention to revisit the question of whether white, high purity CA cement and clinker are like ordnary CA cement and CAC clnker in this final investigation. C. Whether white, high purity CA cement and clinker should be included in the like product White, high purity CA cement and cement clinker are specifically excluded from the scope of investigation.17 However, the Commission may define the Hke product to be broader than the class or kind of imported articles identified by Commerce, if the Commission determines that there is no clear dviding &ne between the ordinary and white CA cements and clinkers.18 13'Jbe Commission ccmidered a fourth issue. whether domestic noa-clinbr flux is like imported CA flux. which is not under c:onsideration in this . of the . . . . Cenam Calciwn Al..mateCementandCementClinkerjiomFT011Ce.r:=. 731-T~). usrI'CPub. 2637 at9-ll (May 1993). 14 Certain CalciumAllllflintM Cement and Cement Clinarfrom France. USlTC Pub. 2637 at 8 (May 1993). 1be Commission baaed its 1m1nimous detenninatioo on the fact that. deapim the same pbJSical appearllJCC ml prochx:tioa proccaes ml fw:ilitics. these products have different cMmical compositions. diffelenteDd-useswithnointen:baqeabili. differelitcbannelsofdistribution. mlue pen:eived u different products by customen ml. to a varying degree. by tbe parties themselves. Id. 15Jd.atll. NotingthatinputinvestiptioastbeCommissionhufoundcementandcementclinker to be a single like product. tbe Comm•aioa found no evidence in the recont in the preliminary investiptionofanysignificaatdifferencebetweentheproductiooandgrindin&procesmofCAcement and~ cement that would suggest a differut conclusion. Id. 6 1d.atl2-1S. 'lbeCommissimdeterminedthattbelewasnotsuf6cientevidenceofacontinuum of grades of CA cement and found that tbediffelentlevels «alumina in°'==purity CA c:emmtappearecltobeimportaotintennsofdifferen=' end-um.in · and price. 1be Commission aJso found that these products had · physicalcharacteristics and no common manuflcturing facilit:iea. Producer and customerpen:eptions were the subject of dispute between the parties. The Commission indicated it would misit this issue. particularly the intercbangeabil between tbe various CA cements. in any final in'ICltiption. . 111n die gray portland cement cases, white. nomtainiJI&. portland cement was excluded from the scopeofinvestigationandnotconsideredbydle('.ommission u apartoftbelibproduct. However.the Commissim never addressed tbeissueofinclusiollof whiteportlandcementin thoaecases, apparently because inclusi.cn never was raised u 111 issm. 11 See. e.g •• Certain Electric FOll8/rom IM Peopk'1 Republic of China. Inv. No. 731-TA-473 (Pinal).USITCPub.246lat8(Dec.199l)(''Bveniftbmisacfanesticproductidmticaltotheimports subject to investigation. the ('.ommissicm may find the lib product to be broader than that ictmical product." (footnoteomitted)).#d,HolmuProdut:l1Corp. 11. UniledS1aM1. l6aI' •Slip Op. 9'2-230 {Dec. 30.199'2); aee aha, Profe11ional Electric Cuaing_ aNISanding/Grinding Tooll/minlapan.Inv. No. 731-TA-571 (Pinal). ustrc Pub. 2658 at 51-63 (July 1993). Comptn NepMI~ S.,enile f'!"" Canada. Inv. No. 731-TA-525 (F"mal). US1TC Pub. 2502 at 10 (Apr. 199'2). Cf. Tomngton 11. Unued Statu. 747 F. Supp. 744 (Ctlnt'I Tnde 1990) ttrd938F.2d1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (CGmmission'slib product detennination need not be coextensive with Commerce's class or kind ctetennination.). I-7 1-8 In our preliminary determination, we noted that ordinary CA cement and clinker and white, high purity CA cement and clinker have different physical characteristics and chemical compositions, end uses, and manufacturing facllltles.19 We noted, however, that there was disagreement among the parties as to whether producers and purchasers perceived the products as different.20 We also noted that there were some questions about the degree of Interchangeability between the two CA cements. In the final Investigation, virtually all of the purchasers responding to the Commission's questionnaire reported that ordinary CA cement could not be used In applications typically formulated with white CA cement due to differences In chemical composition and performance.21 Moreover, white CA cement producer ••• stated In the final Investigation that •••.22 Therefore, while It Is technically possible to use white CA cement for ordinary CA cement In some product formulations, questionnaire respondents generally Indicated that the higher cost of white CA cement would preclude them from doing so.23 In view of this additional evidence, and given the position of the parties In this final Investigation on this particular Issue, we find that domestically produced white, high purity CA cement and clinker are not like the ordinary CA cement and clinker subject to investigation. Il. Domestic Industry and Related Parties A. Domestic Producers In light of our like product determination, we find that there Is a single domestic Industry comprised of the domestic producers of ordinary CA cement and CAC clinker. In the preliminary Investigation, the Commission determined that Lafarge Fondu's U.S. subsldiary24 was a domestic producer of CA cement and CAC clinker, based specifically on Its substantial capital investment In 19 Certain Caldtun A"'1ninolc Conent aM c.,,.,,, CUnk,., from FrOllCe. usrrc Pub. 2637 ll 12-15 (May 1993). 20 In the final investigation. petitioner, Lehigh Portland Cement Company \Lehighj unreel the Commilaion to follow ill preliminary derenninalions regardm& the lib JJn)duct. Petiiim.•a PrebaringBriefll6. R~UfargeFcmdulntmn•ricmalmdl.afargeCafciumAJunrin•ta,Inc. (hen:in •Lafqefondu" and •LafqeCAj agreed th8tordimryCAcemen&andCAC clinkerueone libproduct.andfurtherinclicaledth8titmccepredtheCommiuim'a~detemUnationth8tdlia lib~ does not include while. high purity CA ceme:nl and clinker. Tr. at 197 and 198. CR at 1-91, PR ll ll-21. 22CR ul-10, PR llll-5. 23 CR ll 1-91, PR ll Il-21. S« &plwrical Op""'411nMc_opJ__LMru fro!n Japan. Inv. No. 731-TA-518 (Prelimimry). USrrc Pub. 2396 ll 11 (June 1991)\We have m the put given mme weight to actual, ra&herthlnmaelyporential. inlachangeability in considering whedierto expand the lib ~ be)'ODCl those articles described u subject to investigation.;. Lafarge Fondu'a U.S. subsidiary, Lafarge CA, does not poduce ordinary CAC clinker, but accoun&s for all of respondent'• imports of CAC clinker to the United Stares and grinds the imported clinker to ~ ordinary CA cemenL Table 4, CR at 1-21 and 1-22. PR at B-8. Bued on our detaminabon not to include white, high JJUril,f CA cement and clinker in the like product. we do N:Jt consider Lafarge CKa U.S. production of white, high purity CA cement llld cliz+=r in determining whether it is a domelQc JKOducer of the like product. ' the United States and the value added by the grinding operatlon.25 The evidence regarding Lafarge CNs domestic ordinary CA cement operation In this final Investigation does not lead to a different conclusion. In considering whether a firm Is a domestic producer. the Commission has looked to the overall nature of Its production-related activities In the United States.2& Lafarge CA's capital Investment In Its U.S. facility for ordinary CA cement continues to be substantial. 27 The value added In grinding CAC clinker Into ordinary CA cement Is slgnlflcant.28 While Lafarge CNs U.S. employment levels for production of CA cement have declined. this figure accounts for a*** percentage of total U.S. employment In the production of ordinary CAC clinker and CA cement.29 Based on the foregoing discussion. speclflcally the substantial capital Investment In the United States and the significant value added, we reaffirm our preliminary determination and consider respondenfs U.S. subsidiary to be a domestic producer. B. Related Parties In the preliminary determination. the Commission concluded that respondent's U.S. subsidiary Lafarge CA was a related party and that appropriate circumstances existed to exclude It from the domestic Industry producing CAC clinker and CA cement.30 2'Cl!f'tainCald11111AllllllintUC011111flNlC.,,.,,,ClinkerfromFrance,USITCPub.2631at18 (May 1993). The Cmuniuioa noted tlw. in previous inveatipliona of c:ement and c:ement clinker imporll.theCommiuionhasconsidered~-onlyoperllionstobedomeaticproductian.S•GrOJ Ponlond COMnl""" Conenl Clinker fromMau:o. Inv. No. 731-TA4S 1 (Prelimimry). usrrc Pub. 223S at 17 ad 18 (Nov. 1989) ('"if the lib poduct includes cement. the grindi.ng and blending of clinbr to ~ cement ccnstilUtea domestic productionj; GrOJ Ponlond Canenl and COMlll Clinker from Japan. Inv. No. 731-TA-461 (Fmal). USll'C Pub. 2376 (AJr. 1991): GrOJ Ponlond Conent and Cems11Clinkerfrom Venerae/a. Inv. No. 731-TA-Sl9 (Preliminary). USITC Pub. 2400 at 12. n. 32 (July 1991). 26 Specjficall • in11110lving dwiuue. tbeCommissionhasexuninedsixfacton: (1) the extent ad source o?thefinn ~ capitllinvestmen1. (2) the technical aper1ise involved in U.S. production IClivity. (3) the value ldded to the product in the UnitedStara. (4) employment levels. (5) the quantities and types of pats soun:ed in die United Stares. Ind (6) any other cosll and 8Clivities in the United Statea l~ to poductioa of the lib pmduct. including where production decisions me made. No single f1C1Dr11detcrminativeandtheCommilaionmaycomidermyotherflctonildeansrelevantinlighlof thespecificfllCtSofmyinvatigation. Su,e.g.,CDtainCO#dPencilsfromlMP«Jpk'sRepublicof China flNlTllailand. Inv. N01.'73l-TA-669-670(Prelimbmy). USITC Pub. 2713 atl-8. n. 27 (DeC. 1993): Silicon CarbU.from the Peopk's Republic o/China. Inv. No. 731-TA-651 (Preliminary). USITC Pub. 2668 (Aug. 1993): GrOJ Ponlond Canen1 and Cems11 Clinker from Mizico. Inv. No. 731-TA-451 (Preliminary). USITC Pub. 223S (Nov. 1989). 27Thetotalassecsfor1.afarge•su.S.subsidiuywaevaluedat***dollninl993. Tablel6.CRat 1-S9. PR atll-14. During the preliminary investigation. Lafqeieported that"[a)pproxinlllely •••is attributable to the grinding ad pecking of Lafqe•s lower llumina grades." Respondenl•s Post.conference Brief. Appendix 2 at 9. Moreover. respondent indic:ared that about ••• of the equipmau used in ils U.S. subsidiary•s CA c:ernenl producllonoperllions is sourced within the United States. Id. at 12. 21 n. cost of grinding CAC clinbr into ordinary CA cement is between ••• of the total cost of poducing the fmished cement. CR at 1-54, PR at D-14. Moreover. value-edded by Lafarge CA to mate:rialcos11u anlioof costof goods sold(i.... withoutSG&Aexpenses)wu •••. Table 14. CR at I-SS. PR llD-13. 29 Lafarge CJ:s emplo~ for production of CA cement wrie •••. or about••• of rotal U.S. employmeni in the production of ordinuy CAC clinker and CA cement. Table 10, CR at 1-41, PR at D-12. 30CutlJinCalcilunAllllninaleCems11andCemen1ClinkerfromFrance, USITQPub.2637at19 and 21 (May 1993). ' . I-9 1-10 If a company Is a related party under section n1 (4)(8),31 the Commission detennlnes whether "appropriate circumstances• exist for excluding the producer In question from the domestic Industry.32 The rationale for excluding related parties Is the concem that the overall Industry data may be skewed by Inclusion of related parties who are shielded from any Injury that might be caused by the subject Imports.33 In this Investigation, respondent's U.S. subsidiary, Lafarge CA In Chesapeake, Virginia Is ... percent owned by respondent, Lafarge Fondu lntematlonal. Furthennore, Lafarge CA Imports virtually all of the subject Imports.34 Therefore, respondenrs U.S. subsidiary quallfles as a related party, and we considered whether appropriate circumstances exist for excluding It from the definition of the domestic Industry. During the period of Investigation. Lafarge CA accounted for••• percent by quantity of U.S. ordinary CA cement productlon.35 All of Lafarge CA's production of ordinary CA cement was from Imported CAC clinker manufactured by respondent.3& Moreover. Lafarge Cl:s U.S. production of ordinary CA cement does not compete with any imports since its parent. Lafarge Fondu, only e~ ordinary CAC clinker and not ordinary CA cement to the United States.37 This fact suggests that the related party's U.S. production Is shielded from competition with ordinary CA cement Imports by its parent company's decision to export only clinker. In addition, Lafarge CJ-:s production of ordinary CA cement from imported LTFV clinker 31 Under section 771(4)(B), poducas who .. nlated ta expnted or imponm. ar who .. themlelv• ~ of allegedly dmnped ar subsidized men:hllldile. may be excluded from the domesticindualryforlhepurposesofminjuryc:letemUmtioninappropriarec:in:umltlnca. 19 U.S.C. f 1677C4)(B). 32 The plimlly flClml the Commillicm .... gmnjnecl in drilina whether appopriare circ:mmlmaa --ta aclude lbe nlated,.... include: (1) the pllClllll&e of daamlic pmcluc:lim 1111ributabJe ID nlated pa>elaom; (2)therwaawhy~qpudacmcboole1Dim)Xlltlbelrlideamderinvada8lion-1D benefitfmmthemfaarllldepneliceartaembletbemtacmlhmeproducdonmdcmnpetein the domeadc mllbl; md (3) the poliliaa of the nlated proclucm vil+via Iba nit of the indualry, i.e.. wbek inclusion or aclmim of Iba reJaled party will lbw Iba data for the nat of lbe induslry. S.. e.g•• Torringloft v. Ullillltl Sldlu. 790 P. Supp. 1161, 1168 (Ct. lnt'l Tnde 1992) a/I'tl wit11out apinioll 991 P.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993XCourt ........Lt Iba Comnrimm'• pnclice of u1111ining lbae flClml in ~ dllt ~dR:mmtlncea did not aist ID aclude nlated paty); Empn PlawCo. v. UnilillStiJla, 675 P. Supp. 1348. 1353 (Ct. lnl1 Tnde1987). TheCamnimmbasmocxmaidaedwhelberuchc:ompany'1boob ..~ sepmtelyfmmita-relldmll"llldwbelblrtbapriamyinterealsoflberelareclproclucmliem domeadcpuduclianarmimpad8liaa.S.•4•• Polydlry,.,,.T~FU..S1-t.Ollll SlripfromJapt111tlllll1MRqublit:o/Kona.Im. ttoa. '131-TA~ and459 (Pinal). usrrc Pub. 2383 • 17-18 (May 1991); Ra Salt"°"' Ctlllllfla. Im. No. 731-TA-239 (Pina1), usrrc Pub. 1798 • 12 CJm. 1986). »s•Torringloftv.UllillltlStata.190P.Supp.•116B;~ABv.U"*4Sta1a.121P.Supp. 1322. 1331 (Ct. lnt1 'rtD 1989)(relared party appemecl ID benefit fmm dumped imports. a well a a,P,J1f1Sr apr.sed to direc:tapo11uo a not ta~ widl ill nlated U.S. importer/plocblcer). qi"tl willloul aplllion., 904 F.2d 46 (Fed. C"1r. 1990); Einpn Plaw Co. v. UllW Sta1a. 675 P. Supp. • 1353-54(.Ananalyailoflb]enefill.ccnedfromlbemlaliomhip"11amajorf1C1mindecidingwherher to acludearellledpartyheld ta bea"'reasonable &llPl'OllChinlighlof the legialalivehistmy •••• j. Su. e.g., S. Rep. No. 2A9. 961h Ccng.. lat Saa. 83 (f!179). "'Table 3. CR ai 1-20. PR • Jl-8; Table 5, CR ai 1-26, PR ai JI-9. 35 Table 7. CR ail-31, PR ai D-10. Ufae CA"• U.S. ordimrv CA cement produclion wu ••• ~ofIDtal domestic procluctianin 1990. ••• percenlin 1991~ •••percentin 1992 md ••• pen:ent ID 1993. /tl. 36 CR ai 1-22. PR • Jl-8. ) '¥1 CR .c 1-26. PR ai D-9; Tr. ai 2<T1 md 208. • benefits from the dumping. Finally, Lafarge CA Is In ••• and Inclusion of Lafarge CP:s financial Information would skew the data for the rest of the domestic Industry.38 In view of the above, we determine that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude Lafarge CA from the domestic Industry as a related party. ill. Condition of the Domestic Industry In assessing whether the domestic Industry Is materially Injured by reason of the LTFV Imports, the Commission considers all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the Industry In the United States. These factors Include output, sales, Inventories, capacity utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, profits, cash flow, retum on Investment, ability to raise capital, and research and development. No single factor Is determinative, and we consider all relevant factors -Within the context of the bu.slness cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected Industry...39 In evaluating the condition of the domestic industry, we look at the domestic industry as a whole.40 An important condition of competition In this Industry Is the presence of two largely distinct categories of end-users of ordinary CA cement (1) manufacturers of refractory products; and (2) firms that produce a variety of specialty building products and/or use the product in applications In the construction lndustry.41 The two market sectors are of••• slze.42 Users within these sectors select particular brands of cement on the basis of different performance characteristics. 43 The demand for ordinary CA cement Is subject to change based on overall macroeconomic conditions that affect the demand for refractories and various types of specialty building products. In addition, technological changes In the refractory sector and the development of new construction-related applications for different types of CA cement have affected overall demand for these products. Over the period of Investigation, demand for CA cement In the refractories sector was adversely affected by the Impact of the economic recession on the traditional users of refractory products, such as the steel 31Table 11, CR 11d4S, Table 13, CR11d-S2.mdTable lS,CR11d-S7,PRadl-13,B-13,llDdil-14. 3919 u.s.c. f 1677(7)(C)(iil). •su, e.g., WcldcdStalPipcframMalay.ria.Jnv. No. 731-TA-644 (Preliminllry), USITC Pub. 2620 at 19-20 md n. 79 (Apr. 1993) \l'he Commission may fib into account the departurea &om m industry or the unique circumstances of individulll ccimpmies, butullimlltelymust meu the condition oftheindustryuawbole,mdnotonacampany-by-c:ompllll)'basis."),citingMctallwrkoaNeduland B.V. v. UniWJ Stata, 728 F. Supp. 730, 13S (Ct. lnl'l Tnde 1989). 41 For Chairmm Newquisl, the emtcnce of ..distinct categoria" of end usen of ordinary CA cemmt ii not m impmtanl condition of competition. Sce footnote 71 infra. 4211Jequanlityofappmen1c:onsumptionofmdimryCAcementin lhetefnctolymutetsectorwa •••. Similarly, theappmmlc:cmumptionin thenon-nfrllCtarymuketsectorwu •••. CRatl-74,PRat D-18. 43ForrefnctorypoduclsmadewithCAcement, whichlll'el1Sed1Dlinehigh-temperaturefmnllcea tbatproducemetals.suchusteel. lhemeltingpoinl,llndlhelevelofimpuritiesconlllinedinlhecemen1, are impartantcriteria mdmay limit the use ofcertain !rinds ofcement. lnnon-refrllCtDr)' appliclllions. theinililll mdfinlll set limes, earira>mpn:ssive saengths, flow, llJld worbbilityofthecement, are cited u importmuc:rireria in the selection process. F.conomicManormdum. EC-R-044 lllf, dared Apil 19, 1994 (herein "EC-R-044j. · 1-11 1-12 and aluminum lndusb'les.'" Moreover, new product development In the refractories market has focused on products containing Increasingly lower levels of ordinary CA cement.45 Much of the recent (as well as projected) growth in the consumption of refractories has centered on these newer products.48 These factors have contributed to the decline In U.S. consumption of ordinary CA cement In the refractory sector. The development of a llmlted number of new non-refractory uses for CA cement and the recent upturn In overall construction activity have contributed to an Increase In consumption In the non-refractory sector.47 Many of these firms use relatively small quantities of CA cement for a llmlted range of applications, In comparison to the refractory manufacturers.48 Nonetheless, Increased consumption In this sector has at least partially offset the decline In consumption of ordinary CA cement for use In refractory appllcatlons.49 The domestic CA cement and CAC clinker Industry Involves both the production of CAC clinker and the grinding of that clinker Into finished CA cement In assessing the condition of the domestic Industry, It Is necessary to discuss some data.separately for these production stages.so Apparent U.S. consumption of CA cement by quantity declined from-· short tons In 1990 to ·- short tons In 1991, and remained relatively constant at - short tons In 1992, followed by a ... Increase In 1993 to ... short tons.s1 The overall decline was ·- percent from 1990 to 1993. Consumption by value Increased ... by ... percent. from 1990 to 1993. Consumption In the refractory market segment declined steadUy from ... short tons In 1990 to ... short tons In 1993, or by••• percent52 In contrast. apparent U.S. consumption of CA cement In the non-refractory market segment Increased by ... percent from ·- short tons In 1990 to ••• short tons In 1993.53 Domestic production of CA cement declined from 1990 to 1993, with a ••• dedlne from 1990 to 1991 and a-· decline from 1991 to 1993.54 capacity to produce CA cement remained constant from 1990 to 1993. Therefore, capacity utilization rates for CA cement. which were relatively low at the start of the period, declined as production declined through the period. 44CR atl-ln.11. PR atD-4n.11; PC-R-044 at41 n.Sl; Tr. at28 acl65. 45fortbeDIDl&Jllrt. dmenewerpmducll menotonly~ 1-CAcementovw.U. but allO me -,.while CA cement nlher lhan Oldinary CA c:emenL CR at 1-87. PR at D-21. CR atl-87. PR atll-21. ~CR at 1-87. PR a D-21. 41 CR at 1-87 llld 1-88. PR at D-21. •CR lll-17. PR a D-21. !0Wediacau1pp11•~wlU.S.&bipnenlsonlyfordlefiniabeclCAcementsegment aincelbemd-Ulemasbtia ~c:emed. DUCaaing pmluctimclalaforbolhCAcemmtml CAC clinbr would Nmlt in daubJe lllDlllllDur of ane d...: llld would not reflect 1he inrerdependenl na1me llld die diffennt~ ~die CAC c:linbr pmcluction mdCA cement grinding proceaes. Accontingly. we ctisc:ua paduclioa. ClpCity. caplCity udlizedon. md invenrmy dara aeparately far the c:linbr md finished cement atagea of poductian. Finally. other dara. i.e•• empJoymcnt,, wegea. md finmc:Wpafcmnw:e indalan. aredilculled fordledomeslicCAcement ad CAC clinbr induslry u a whole. 51 Dara refancl ID in tbi1pmagrapbme1111111D1rized in Table 2. CR at 1-19. Pit at D-8. 52 Tlble D-1. CR at D-3. PR al D-2. 53 Tlble D-2. CR al D-4. PR at D-2. 54 Dara referred ID in this .,....rapb 1re IUl1UMri7.ecl in Table 7. CR al 1-31. PR al D-10. The domeadcinduslr)''sproduc:tionofCAcementwu •••. Theinduslr)''1capacityu~ratesforCA cement wen •••. ltl. ' The domestic Industry's U.S. shipments of CA cement by quantltv declined ... from 1990 to 1992. and then increased from 1992 to 1993.SS U.S. shipments of CA cement by value followed a similar pattem.58 The domestic Industry reported a ••• decline In year-end Inventories of CA cement for the 1990-1992 period, and a ... decline from 1992 to 1993.57 Inventories as a share of U.S. shipments Increased ••• from 1990 to 1992, but declined••• from 1992 to 1993.58 Domestic production of CAC clinker declined from 1990 to 1993, with a ••• decline from 1990 to 1991.59 Capacity to produce CAC clinker remained constant throughout the period of Investigation. Therefore. as production declined. so did capacity utlllzatlon. The domestic Industry's year-end Inventories of CAC clinker fluctuated between years with a -· overall Increase from 1991 to 1993.eo . Employment in the domestic CA cement and CAC clinker Industry declined overall during the period of Investigation. despite an Increase from 1992 to 1993.61 Hours worked followed a similar trend over the period of Investigation. From 1990 to 1993, total compensation fluctuated. but declined overall, while hourly total compensation Increased ••• from 1990 to 1992 and declined ••• In 1993. The financial perfonnance Indicators for the domestic CA cement and CAC clinker Industry generally declined overall during the period of Investigation. There were ... declines In most Indicators In the period 1990-1992, with some Indicators showing Increases from 1992 to 1993. From 1990 to 1992, the domestic Industry experienced declines In net sales by quantity and by value.82 Net sales Increased by both quantity and value from 1992 to 1993. Gross profit were ..., but ••• over the period of Investigation. Operating income, which was •••, improved ••• from 1990 to 1991, but then declined••• from 1991 to 1993. The operating••• margin (ratio of operating ••• to net sales) also increased from 1990 to 1991, and then fell from 1991 to 1993. The domestic industry's cost of aoods sold declined from 1990 to 1992 but Increased from 1992 to 1993.8'3 As a share of net sales, the cost of goods sold declined from 1990 to 199·1, but Increased from 1991 to 1993. Unit cost of goods sold Increased ••• over the period of Investigation. Selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses for the Industry fluctuated between years, but remained somewhat constant from 1990 to 1993. 55Table 7. CR lll-31. PR •D-10. The domestic incluslry01 U.S. shipments of CA cement by ~were•... /fl. .56TabJe 7, CRlll-31. PR llD-10. '7Table9, CRlll-39, PRatD-12. Tbedomellicindaatay 01yar-endinvenlorieaofCAc:ement•••. ~ . 51 Table C-la. CR ll C-3. PR at C-2. The domeadc industry•• invenlDriea u a dun of U.S. ~of CAc:ement •••. ltl. . 59 Daaa refemd ID in dUa paagraph ms 1111D1Dmized in Table S. CR ll l-33, PR ll D-11. 80 Table 9. CR ll l-39, PR ll D-12. 61 Daaa refemd ID in this PIR&l'IPb ue lllllllUrized in Tlble 10. CR ll l-41, PR ll D-12. ~in die domeatic: induauj declined fJom •••. Id. 62 DaaarefemdlD inthil ~nl1Dllllmif.eclinTable 11,CR atl-45.PR atD-13. Netaalel by ~ty for the domestic induauy were•••. Net sales by value were .... •••. Id. 63 Dita refmed to in this paragraph me llllllllmi7.ed in Table n. CR at l-45. PR • D-13. The domeatic: indua11y'1 coat of goods sold were•••. Coat of goods sold u a ahme of llll!J ulea were •••. SG&:A expenses for the induslly were •••. Itl. · 1-13 1-14 Finally, the domestic Industry's capital exp_EJndltures declined *** from 1990 to 1992, and then Increased *** In 1993.M 65 IV. No Material Injury by Reason Of LTFV Imports In determining whether a domestic Industry Is materially Injured by reason of the Imports that Commerce has determined are sold at LTFV, the statute directs the Commission to consider the volume of Imports, their effect on prices for the like product. and their Impact on domestic producers of the like product. 66 Although the Commission may consider causes of Injury other than the LTFV Imports, it is not to weigh causes. fiT 68 69 For the reasons discussed below, we find that the domestic CA cement and cement clinker Industry Is not materially injured by reason of LTFV Imports from France.70 71 64 C1l u I-S6, PR u ll-14. The domadc induslry'1 capital expendibns were •••. Id. 65 Bued on the fen • Chairmm Newquist md Commiuione:r Rohr conclude tbU the domatir CA cement lll1d ~clinker indually ia experiencing malaial injury. 6619u.s.c. f 1677(7)(BXi). TheCommiaionallomayconaider'"luchodlereconomic:factona ae relevllll to the deramimlion." Id. 67 S., e.g., CilrwllCO Palisla. S.A. v. Unil«l Stala, 704 P. Supp. 10'7S, 1101 (Ct. Jnt1 Trade 1988). Chairman Newquist, Commiuioner Rohr and Commiaioner Nuzmn further note tbU the Commiaion need not determine tbU · ae "Iba princip8l. a aubltamialor aailnificmtcame of materialinjmy."S.Rep.No.249uS7:Wadwr,afindin.ltbuimportsaeacameolmalaialinjmyia auftic:imt.-SU,e.g.,M~edalantlB.V. v. UniWIStata, 728F.Supp. 730, 741 (Ct.lnt'lTcade 1989l: Cilrrmlco Plllllista. S.A. v. Unil«J Stalu., 704 P. Supp. u 1101. "Va CJWnmn W111onnorea tbu dlecouns have inrerpnted die lltllUfm)' requirement tbU die Commiaian conaiderwhelh«tbereialmlerialinjmy'"byreucmof"theaubject1mpor11 inanumberof diffenmt ways. CCllnptll'e Unil«l Stata Engiwr=Clr'l!'\J v. Unilltl Stata, 779 ~S, 1391(Ct.Jnt1Tnde1991)\[l]tmuatdetcmrinew unfairlylndedimportaae • ID m:hinjmylD thedcmeslicinduauy ••• Suchimpom, tberefore.neeclnotbedleonlycameofhmnlD the domalicindmbyj(ciradonlomined)witl&JfdalhwkaNedalantlB.V.v.UnilldStatu., 728P.Supp. u 741 (Ufinnin& a detamimtion by two Cmmniaioners tbU "Iba imports were a came of material injury") tl1lll USX Corp. v. Unil«l Sta1u., 682 P. Supp. 67, 69 (Ct. Jnt1 Trade 1988) ("my camldian malysilmutbave•illc:cretheiaueofwhediertheunports•iauec:aue.inanonaminimi.rmmmcr, the lmlerial injury to the induslry"). Acccm:lingly, Va Chainnm Wlllon Im detenninecl to ldhere ID die 1tandad C1iculared by Coqrea.intbelegillalivehistmyofthepeninmlprovisions, which1rate1tbU"'theComnUssianmust A&isfy itaelf tbat, in light of all the infomllbon presenred, then is a au1ficienl causal link between the leu-lhm-flir-value impClr1s md the requisite injmy." S. Rep. No. 249 • 275. "CommiaU.CnwfordnoreatbUthestalUterequireatbaltheCommiaionderenninewhethera domestic induall)' is "'nwaially injured by teuoD of' the ll'FV imports. She finds tbal the clelr meanin of the ltalUfe is to requim a detmninetjon on whether the domestic induall)' is malaially iJVmed t; reuan of ll'FV impoJ1I, not by reucm of LTFV impons miong other tlJiJlo. Many, if not lllOlt, domalic indmlriel se llUbject ID injury from more than one economic flCIDr. Of tbele r.cton. there may be mare tbm one tbllindependendy is causing lmlerial injury to the domestic indusuy. his lllUllled in the legislalivehistmy tbU the 11 II'C will consider infonnalian which indicatel tbalharm is caused by flldOn odler Ihm leu-lhm-fair- value impons." S. Ri. No. 249 u 7S. However, the legislalive histmy maka ii: clear tbU the Commission is not ID we· or • · · the flCton tbU are independently c:amingmalaialinjmy. /d. at74;H.R. Rep.No.317, 6th~Sea.46-47 (1979). TheCommiaionisnottodetennine iftheLTFV imparlsiire'"theprincipal. aaubatantialoraaignificmt causeofmalaialinjmy." S.Rep.No.249u74. Radier,itislDdelmninewhethermyinJury ..byreascn of" the ll'FV imports is material. Thlt is, lhe Commission must detennine if IM lllbj«t import8 are causing malaial in· to the domestic industry. "When determining the effect of imports on the domellic induauy, :cl:ommislion must consider all relevmt f1eton that cm demonstrate if lllfairlJ tradlll importstll'uraterially injuring thed.omati.c indlutry.• S. Rep.No. 71, lOOthCong., btSea. 116 g987) (emphais 8dded). lnmaking ourdetenninllion, weconsidertheimpactofthe imports on lheindustry11u a whoJe." See. e.g•• Unilld &,•g & Forging v. Unil«l Slalu., 779 P. Supp. 137S, 1391 (Ct. Jnt'l Tnde 1991). However,weuenot~enteclfromfocusinganappropri1temubt~~1s.SedwatnEllc.Co.v. UnilldStatu, 1S8 F. Supp.1S06, 1S11 n.7 (Ct.Irit1Trade1991); GiJford·HillCanat1Co. v. Unit«l Statu, 61S F. Supp.S77,S82.84 (Ct.lnt'lTcade l98S);ueal.loCopprNeldCcrp. "· UniudStata, 682 P. S':W,. SS2. S66 (Ct. lnt'l Trade 1988). Chairman Newquist norea thal the market segment discusaion below isjnelevlllll to his determination. Inhiaview,lhequestionposedbythestatuteiswhetherthesubjectidljJorls1reor1renot A. Volume ofImports While there are no subject Imports of CA cement. there are LTFV Imports of CAC clinker, which are ground Into CA cement by respondenfs U.S. subsidiary, Lafarge CA. 72 Imports of CAC clinker fluctuated considerably from year to vear, but Increased overall by quantity and by value from 1990 to 1993.73 However, we do not view this Increase In Imports as significant In light of Lafarge's historically substantial market presence.74 Another factor which reduces the significance of trends In CAC clinker Imports Is the fact that ••• yearly production and shipments of the finished CA cement by Lafarge CA, and therefore are not a reliable Indicator of the level of Imports entering the market place.75 7& A better Indicator Is the market share held by, and U.S. shipments of, CA cement produced by Lafarge CA from the LFTV Imports of CAC clinker. The overall market share of ordinary CA cement produced by Lafarge CA Increased from 1990 to 1992 and declined ••• 1n 1993.77 As discussed above, however, this market has two broad categories of end-users: the refractorv sector, and the specialty building products or non-refractory sector.7" Lafarge Cfl:s increasing market share resulted largely from ..., which It domlnates,79 where apparent consumption In tenns of quantity Increased by ••• from 1990 to 1993.eo In contrast, Lehigh's decline In overall market share Is a result of falling sales In •••, the refractory sector where the quantity of consumption fell by •••.11 71-Continllaf aem1eof.....ul in" ID dledammticindus11y111Qdudna dlelibpoduct. Thelibpacluctwbida tmConnniuionhMC.uCAc:emmtandcemmitclinbr."nie...11111111oftbecauullinkbetwela • and die indullry pn>ducina die lib paduct nquinl llWylil of tbe in:l1lllly • a whole. not ~lmllldarmdnyofpmticullraegmen&1at'dleindusi17ormlrket. Thua,bisnepdvedetenninaliaa ia :.an tm buis Of UIPlining ~•ab! lrmda m CiUiiiWilpliaa. market shire. pieing. etc. .Accantingly, Chahman Newquistdoel notJ;bl tlmpmtiomof die following discussioD whichmly ~ IUCh IDllbt legmml.....,..'72TJme1revirluallynookimpmllofCACclinbrarCAc:emmL TabJe 19,CR.lll-70.Plht D-29. T.ITabJe 19, CR. lll-70, PR. •D-17. LafargeCAnparted tblt dlefluc:sn•don inllllOUlllofimpom of CAC c:Jinbr ID die Uni.led Stllel wa lmgely due to •••. CR. ll 1-68. PR. ll D-16. 74ffia1Dric:1Uy,tbeardilllryCAc:emm1andCACclinbrmmbthMhadonlydleletwompplien. Lebi1fi and Lafmge. Tr. ll 12. 28 and 29. . Due ID tbe lllaa1l nmnber of lhipmenll of CAC clinbrper yes. impmll ae invenlDried UDli1 needed. CR.111-69, n.82. PR llD-16. n.82. 76CommiaionerC:rawfmdhaafullycomidaeddleavUbJedllaindUinvMMalianinllllking Im ""mnin•tian. However. a cloea not join in dlil clilc:ulliaa~ ~ in lmlds of ~and other ll8lisdc:I u she doel mt mly m my mch lllllysia of lmlds. 77 Tlble 20, CR.•1-73, PR.•D-17. LICGleCA'amaibtablre forCAc:emmtwu "*pen:entin 1990 ••• percenl in 1991, ... pen:enl in 1992. and ••• percenl in 1993. Id. 1a Commilliml« Rahr notel 1hll. in his lllllyaia. CIUllliOD aJlla to die domestic: induslry U a wbolendmtban ID my1egmentorporlianoftbe indullryrepreaenredbypadc:ul1rmmbtsegmenL Nevenhelea. m malylil of market aegmenll may have some apllnatory nower which mills in making findinp u ID tbe indullly u a wlmle. He joins in bis colleaguea' dbCUsSion of die mmbt aegmenll indUindua11ybec:ausehe believes lhilia acmeinwhic:haconsidenlionoflherefraclory and nonrefnclDly aegmem of the imrbtdoel have some upllllalDry power for his considenlion of tbe ~-·whole.79CR. lll-7S, TlbleD-1 and D-2. CR. llD-3 andD-4; PR llD-18 andD-2. LafugeCA"ulme by qumuity of tbe non-refrlCfOriea leclOr WM *** percent in 1990, *** pen:ent in 1991, ... percent in 1992. and ••• percent in 1993. Id. IO CR. ll 1-7S, PR • D-18. By comparison. Llfqe C~1 total U.S. shipments of cmlinlly CA cement increued by••• pen:ent fJOm 1990 ID 1993. Lafuge CA'a U.S. shipments in the refraclory aectcr ••• fJOm 1990 to 1993, mcl in dlenon-refnc:tmy sectm ••• fJOm 1990 to 1993. Tlble D-1 and D-2. CR ll D-3 and D-4; PR ll D-2. 11 ci.•I-7S.TablaD-1mclD-2.CR.llD-3mdD-4;PRllD-18mclD-2. ~·1mmtetalme of the refnc:IDry leclOr WU *** percent in 1990, *** pen:enl in 1991. *** percena;D 1992. md *** pen:ent in 1993. Id. , , 1-15 I-16 The data for U.S. shipments for existing refractory applications are not consistent with petitioner's claim that virtualJl every shipment lost by Lehigh was a shipment gained by Lafarge CA. Rather, despite declining demand in the refractory sector of the market. where Lehigh is the dominant supplier, shipments of Lafarge CNs product •••.83 Moreover, since purchasers reported litUe, if any, shifting between SUP-Pliers, it does not appear that Lafarge CNs ... were at Lehigh's expense.A Due to the relatively high costs associated with the development and/or reformulation of many of the products that contain ordinary CA cement. the majority of purchasers In both the refractories and the non-refractories sectors indicated that they generally are reluctant to switch from one supplier or brand to another. 85 Purchasers reported that decisions to change types or brands of CA cement generally are made by assessing the requisite research and development costs associated with their product development, testing, and qualfficatlon processes versus the expected benefits (improved quality or end-product perfonnance and lower production costs). 88 More importantly, during the period of investigation there were very few reports of actual switching; these chanaes were made because of quality or technical problems as well as cost.er In the non-refractory market sector, where Lafarge CA historically has been the dominant supplier, consumption increased in part due to new applications for CA cement. 88 New applications were defined In the Commission's questionnaire as "product being used for the first time in a manner which is •new' to THAT customer:89 Both suppliers reported that their aJstomers used a variety of products such as portland cement or refractory bricks before tumlng to CA cement or that CA cement was used in entirely new products.90 The record conflnns that overall the new applications have expanded demand in the non-refractory sector.91 While shipments by quantity for existing applications In the non-refractory market Increased by less than *** from 1990 to 1993,92 shipments for new a Pelilioas'1~Brief1133; Th at 67; 1ibJe ~.CR• D-6. PR 11 D-2. Por aample, Lehigh'• Wpmenra for aisling zefnctary IJIPlicltiom •••. By comparison. •••. Similldy, for 1be odmyem.tbemilnoconapondencebelweenc:hmgeainLebigb'1andLlfmgeC~11bipmdainlbe 1ectcr when •••. Monuver, .... Jtl. a LafqeCA'a abipnmls in die refrslDly aectm ... and fnlm 1992 ro 1993. Table D-1, CR 11 D-3, PR at D-2. M CR a 1-93, PR at D-23. While 60 pmdlllea apurred no c:hmgea in mpplier during 1be 1991-1993 period. faur plldlum npunecl shifting IOllle or Ill of lbeir pmdmeil fram Lehi&b fO e CA and eisbtpurcllllm apurred lbifting 1C11M or Ill of lbeir pun:hllea fram Lafqe CA ro /ti. Quealiomulbampunw ~by 61 peramloflbefinna in lberefnlcfOriea aec:tarindiclled tbll mbllitulion between IClllle Leljigb and Lafqe CA bnndl was poaible. but not without IUllle testing and refommllliua. A lipi&mdy amallerpultion of the 6mia in lbe non-refrldmiel sector ~ lhll IUbditulion wu poaible. CR at 1-92. PR a D-23. 16 CRatl-89, PR.aD-21. Since~rendrouepllticularbnndaofCAcementfurspecific =linel. chmgel indamnd fer apeci6cpnxluctlina affect the volumepm:hued ofpatimlar of CA cement fram one yar ro motber. EC-R-044 1t 38. rt CR al 1-93, PR ll D-23. a Table J>.4. CR al D-6. PR at D-2. "CR 111-79, n.93, PR atD-19, n.93 (emphuis in original). 90CR111-78,PR1tD-19. Newpuduc:rsinwhichCAcementwuru:stusedinclude•••. CR1t 1-79. PR •D-19. 91 Table J>.4. CR at D-6. PR at D-2. 92•••. •••. Simii.rtulberefncroryaec:tar,however, lhereisnocozrespondencebetwemchmga inahipmm11betweenLebighandLafqeCA.Foreumple.fnlm1992tu1993,Lehigh'1ahipmen11by · furexisting8l'J>lk:atiomintbenon-refnctmysec:tcr ..•. Momover,theunitvalueforLafqe ~pmmll forelUSling epplicatiom in lbenon-refrlctary aecrurin 1993 wu ••• tJim thatrepurted for Lehigh. Table D-4, CR at D-6, PR ll D-2. ' applications In this sector ....93 Lehigh's shipments by quantity for existing applications In the non-refractory sector *** from 1990 to 1993, but Its shipments for new applications *** for the same period.94 ... Lafarge C~s shipments by quantity for new applications in this sector Increased by ... percent, while its shipments for existing applications In the non-refractory sector Increased by •••.95 The evidence of record therefore Is Insufficient to support the conclusion that Lehigh's decline In market share for sales to both refractory and non-refractory applications was by reason of LTFV Imports. Rather, the record suggests that Lehigh's ••• In market share was due to a *** in demand for Lehigh's product In refractory applications. There is nothing Inherently different between certain of the CA cement products,98 and most of the CA cement products are used in both sectors.97 Rather, the dominance of the suppliers in different sectors reflects differences in their marketing approaches. Lafarge CA has aggressively marketed Its products to both sectors of the market and, in particular, has made a significant commitment to providing technical assistance to customers using CA cement for the first time In non-refractory applications.98 Although Lehigh has stepped up Its technical support efforts In non-refractory applications, particularly toward the end of the period of Investigation, customers continue to view Lafarge CA's service and support as superior, and Lehigh has continued to rely primarily on Its traditional customers In the refractory sector.99100 DTabJe ~CR al J>.6, PR al D-2. MTabJe ~ CR al J>.6, PR al D-2. "Table~ CR al J>.6, PR al D-2. •Seventy-twopercentofthemmuflclmenofmfnctcriesrespondedin lhequeslionnaire rhatthe LebigbandLafargeCApnxluctlc:ouJdbeemployeclinthe1mnenngeofum,and42percenthuHc1red tbltcfiffemitbnads wereinlm:hangeableinar;:raa. Howev•,only38pereentofthefinm in thenan-refncllariel leCIDr !8pOlfed lbattbe • ml LafmgeCA pmducts were employed in the ume nnge of .. llld 26 pereent NpOdlld tbal the praclucll were ~ in a givm lplllicadml. P.C-R-044 al 34. 97CRall-75,PRalD-18. Foreumple.Laf11pCA'1Secar41hasbeennmbteclto,nlismed •••bf both thetefnctory mlnan-refnClory leCfOn; Lafarge CA'• Secar41 wu Uled •••percent by ~foriehctary1pplicalionsml•••pen:enlbyquanlilyfornon-relnclmyapplicllliominl993. LlfqeCA'1Sec11'5l followedalimibrplltmlofuse-inbothleCIDn. ;,.., ... ~byquanlilyfor 11-e&....llCtor!-y applicllliomnl •••pereentbJ~fomon-nfrac1myapplicaliominl~. lnc:adnst, Lehigh'1Lwnnife,whicbilcompenbletol.allrpCA'.Secar41,wuusecl•••pen:entbyqumlityfor retilCfply appliClliomand ••• pen:mtbyqumlityfornon-refnctory 1pplicalions in 1993. Moreover, the ratio for Lehigh'• Refcon. which ii coJnplrable to Lafmge CA'1 Secar 51, wu ••• percent for ~ 1pplicali0111 llld •••percent for nm-tefnctory applicalions. CR al 1-75, PR al D-18. •ca 11I-60mll-6l,PR llD-14. Accmding toResponden&. " ••• CAcementisnoteuytome. A custcmerneedstoleamhowtouseit,needltodeveloptailoredfonnulll ••• thecore~bebind Lafarge'• mmbt •lralell llll been to get out thin, to c:n11e demllld, to identify oppmtUnities, wort withc:ustmnenso they will usecalcimnUundmlecemadlwbmetbeyotherwisewoWdnoL" Tr.11182 ml 183. 99 CR 111-94ml1-95, PR 11 D-23; Lafmge'1 Prehearing Brief 1119-20. Few differences were reported by Pllldlwrs between the two supplien except widl respect to uJes service and technical lllistance. llowever, Lafarge CA WU cuea by ••• percent of die purchuen for having superior technical usistmce and by ... percent for bell.Ir u1a service, while Lehigh•••. CR 11 r,:94. PR 11 D-23. 100 Conuniuiomr Crawford nora lbat this evidence IUppOltl a nlalively low eluticity of substi111tion belween subject imports llld domestic produet. >.. noted above, the ••• of pun:huen considers non-pdce fu:torJ to be mme impananL The relatively high 1rens1Ctions costs involved in switching brands diminishes the incentive to change products in nspome to relative price changes. Moreover, the fact thatLafarge endl.ebigheech sell a••• oftheirproducts to differemsegmen11 of the market.each withdifferentgrowthrates, rendstoreducetheimportanceofrellliveprices. Lafargellll further cliffaentilted its ~t by PJOYidin& whit customers report to be superior supp>rt services. Tbil and other evidence m the record supests a low elulicity of subslitulion in the rmge of 1.5 to 3. Whmthereilalowelulicityofsubalitulion,pmdmendonotnspcmduradilyto¥msesinrelative prices. , . I-17 1-18 While the volume of LTFV Imports and the market share held by CA cement produced from those LTFV Imports Is significant, the level of Imports and market share Is consistent with historical levels. For the reasons discussed above, we also find that any Increases In the volume of Imports or market share were not significant, and that the decline In Lehigh's market share was not by reason of the subject Imports. B. Price Effects ofImportslOl Lafarge CA and Lehigh 'each manufacture a range of ordinary CA cement products that differ In terms of their specific chemical characteristics, melting oolnts, color, lnltlal and final set times, and compressive strengths. 102 Purchasers determine which type and brand of CA cement to use In a product during the process of product development and testlng.103 Firms make decisions regarding CA cement on the basis of quality and particular performance attributes that are required for the final product.104 1os The cost of the ordinary CA cement may also be a factor, :':Je:~:~.11Jf purchasers Indicated that It was, at most, a secondary Moreover, transportation costs can account for a varlable but significant percentage of the total cost of CA cement for purchasers.101 In addition to variations due to distance, there Is a significant difference In cost ·for shipping less-than-truckload (LTL) quantities. Therefore, some firms chose to purchase ordinary CA cement from Lafarge CA, because It offered a wider range of cement products (ordinary CA and white CA), allowing firms to combine shlPrnents and reduce their shipping costs by achieving truckload quantities.1oa 101 GiYc the 1-*of 1117~mmbt~ dllaforeik dcmmtic or subject imported CAC c1inbr. and the 1-*of my mbjec:timparll of"fiiiilbed"CA cemlill (and hence my~ daafor auc:himparll),dleCommiuicmmaymlyanwhalaftr..__..,,.dlsamaymlblyoffergujdame an Iba e8'el:ll ofthe IJllbject ~an~ for Iba domadc libpadud. o/-lwall8 Elilc. Co. v. Urlill4Stllta, 758 P. Supp.1S06(CL.lnl1'lnde1991)(1TC lllUllmcaulllianevmintheface of diftimlliel in mldna ~ ' ); Albo1a Pon hotltlun' Mart.lini Btl. v. United Cr. 669 P. Supp. 645,460 (CL~t"'.:i:s7) ('°DDdlingindle1&atUreorreplaliaas&;,,,cnts the Omnniaicnt flvm using infonnetion ok dum qwlionnaire respanw wlim die ~ iuicn detennhwlhatthe~dono&~mldecauatebuis~ilsdetmninalicm.").Suabo c,,,,,,, Ling Co. Y. Uirilltl Stoia, 16 err •805 Y.' Supp. 45. 54 (1 Mill ii c:ridcl1 to Wr price c:omplrilalll lbat they be ma •die hlYel ofICIUllcompelilion in die .s. lllllbt."> 1n tbiacae. t11e Jllll'bc ' . of Ld e CA'1 U.S.-finilbed CA cemenl oduced Cram dumped mbject CA :C: pmvS::: beat d;: available on pricing of the ~ nocwithst.nding dial the '"finisW"CAcemmtilaU.S.produclbyvirlueofl.lfargeCA'1U.S.grindingofthefinisbedciemmt fmm ~ impJlted clinker. 102 Table 1, CR at 1-7. PR It ll-4. 103 CR at 1-89, PR at ll-21. The telling. piOduction. and field lriala mocilled with poduct deveJomnenl CID range from 11Yenl weeb to up ID cm )'elr. EC-R-044 • 8 llld 9. IOC The ma' 'ty of pmdmm Mlenri6ecl quality • lhe most impartllll flCt.ar influencing their pmdlaling .J!i!.. wilb teclmical difflnl!Cll and perfcmnm lllo reported u impartllll COlllidenliom. Some finlll alao ~19lyins on ln«tidnnal mppliers of CA cement. CR atl-89. Tlble 22. CR at 1-90. PR. at ll-21 and D-22. 105 Jn Cb.uman Newquist'• Yiew. "quality" in du. conrext nfen to ... pedanmnce aari.bules unique to achof the vaiam pn>ductsotlered by both Petitioner and Reapondmt. However. sinc:e the CommillionhudefinedonelitepnxluclofardinaryCAcementmdcementclinter.radterthm1eYenl litepn>ductsccmespondingtoproducllinel.funberCODlidenlionof"quality"immilnotneceumy nor ~~~:89, Table 22. CR at I-90, PR at ll-21 Ind D-22. Moreov•. the cost of CA cement ii imipiflCUll rellliYe ro the overall COil of m industrial or comlnJCtion project. Tr. at 29. 107 Purchuen responded in the questionnaire lbat lhiJJPin.I COlll ed from approximarely 2 ~ ro 27 pacent of the total COil of the final poduct.- CR-at I-96':f1-97, pt at D-24. IOI CR at I-96 and I-97, PR at D-24. . There are extensive pricing data In the recorcJ.109 Two general conclusions can be drawn from these data. First. both Lehigh's and Lafarge's averaae unit values on all products combined ••• over the period of lnvestlgatlon~10 Second, to the extent that underselling comparisons can be made between Lehigh and Lafarge C~s products, the data are mlxed.111 Moreover. the average unit values reported by purchasers varied somewhat from comparable values reported by Lehigh and Lafarge CA.112 For example. the average unit values reported by producers for packaged sales were substantially different than the purchasers· responses; Lehigh's Lumnlte was ••• Driced In producers responses than Lafarge C~s comparable Secar 41, 113 whereas the average unit values reported by purchasers for packaged sales of Lehigh's Lumnlte were generally ••• than those reported for Lafarge C~s product, Secar 41 and, generallv ••• than those reported for another comparable Lafarge product. Fondu.114 · However. this pricing lnfonnatlon Is not easily compared due to product differentiation, transportation costs.11s technical services, and the fact that Imports enter as CAC clinker and. thus. are not at the same level of actual competltlon.11& We. therefore. found the collected pricing data to be of limited value In making our detennlnatlon. In any event. the evidence In the record shows that end-users make their purchasing decisions based largely on non-price factors. 111 111 Moreover. as discussed above, the evidence Indicates that purchasers rarely switch products or suppliers and that, when switching occurs, price is a secondary conslderatlon.119 ••CR at 1-109, PR Ill D-26. ll0Table7,CRllll-32.PR•D-10. Mareover. •••~inbotbsectcnnportedtbepric:eof CAc:emeal procluclsc:hlngedin&equendy(ornotatlll)during tbeperiodofinvesligalicm. EC-R-044 •19. lllCommissionerCnwforddoesnotpllCepeltweighlon tbeundmellingpiceeomparisomin detennining the implCloftbe subjec:l imports on thedomealic like ~where these compsisoDI lhow peniltml and consistenl mmgins of ovenelling ar underselling. Jn these instances, the pica beingcampmdmigblwellreftectqualityarotbernonpdceditfenmcel,makingthesec:mnpllilcmJm uaeful in meaing pice effec:ls. 112 Time vlrialiaaa llml. ID m degne. fmm die differmcm between the number of lllell reported bythe&woCAceme:nt=andtbenumberof~tbllnporteddllainafmm 1hat WU~ sampled by tbeiaion. CR. 1-106. PR •D-26. 113 Figma 2. CR llll-102, PR lllD-25. . 114fiaure4.CR•l-107,PRatD-26. Thedaralhowthatthere ....•bulk1alesofLafugeCA'1 Secs 41. 1'be bulklllell JDllbt ICCGUllll for a••• amoun1ofLebigh'1 sales ofLumnire. In addidan. avenge unit v.iu. IWpCll'flld by producen for bulk sales of~·· Lumnite were ••• Ihm thole repc>nedfaranorhsc:ampmbleLafargeCApoduct.Fonda.Figum3,CRatl-105,PR11D-26.Figum 5,CRllll-108.PRllD-26. Pmducenandpadwennportedavengeunitvlluaforpcbgedsaleaof Lehigh's Refcon that were••• Ihm those reported far~ CA'a comparable pmduct. Seca 51. Figme2. CRatl-102,PRatD-25, figme4.CRatl-107, PRatD-26. Nonetheleu.~'1 Refccn ICCOUlltedfor•••buJk1alesafterl990zelaliw1DLafargeCA'1bulknlaofSecarSl. Table2A.CRat 1-104.PRllil-26. TheavengeunitY1luesrepmtedbypurc:buasfarbulksaleaofLafuge'1Sec:uSl •••; •••, values for Secar S1 were ... Ihm those IWpCll'flld for purchues of Lehigh's c:ompll'able ~ Refcon. Figum S, CR at 1-108, PR • D-26. lU The avenge unit v.iu. me Ill tbe 111118 1eYel of tr.to. since dlele dlla me poYilled on a weighted-av~e f.o.bplmt buis. However. lhedectofthe vlriatiolll in lrmlpntalioncosu cm the ~ decisions of tbe cmrmnen is not wily compG'able. 116s•.•.,..Nquh~fromCllNlda.ID'l.No. 731-TA-525 (Finll), USll'CPuh.2S02ai23 (~ 1992), QJ1'tl, Fe"'8por v. Uilikd Slllla. Slip Op. 93-116 (Ct. ln11Tnde.June23, 1993). 117 Sa discuaian 8fl/ll'tL lllCommiuionerCnwfordnotathattheevidencesupportsarelatiYelylowelasticityofdemllKL TheeluticityofdemandmeuurestheiesponsivenessoftheovenllquantitydemandedofontimryCA cement to achange in the U.S. mmtetprice ofordinary CA cement. In this invesligllion. mdinuy CA cement represents only a moderate sbme of die c:ost of produclion for the majority of users. See EC-R-044 at 41. Moreover, time is a lldt of reuonable substitutes for many users of ordinary CA c:emenL The evidence in therec:onl suggests a low elutic:ity of demand in the range of O.S to 1. When there is a low eluticity of demand. pun:huers do not respond u radily to chmAJ in price. 119 CR at 1-93. PR ai ll-23. . . 1-19 1-20 The evidence In the record does not substantiate any of the allegations of either lost sales on the basis of price or lost revenues.120 121 In fact, a review of the lnfonnatlon compiled to verify the lost sales and lost revenue allegations conflnns that flnns' rare decisions to purchase a different type or brand were made principally on the basis of non-price reasons rather than prlce.122 . The evidence of record therefore does not support the conclusion that subject imports have significantly undersold the domestic products or that . the prices of the subject Imports have ·had a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the prices of the domestic CA cement products. C. Impact of Imports on the Domestic Industry We also have considered the Impact of imports on the domestic Industry producing CA cement and CAC clinker. In this case we find that the volume of Imports of CAC clinker and the market share of the shipments of CA cement processed from the Imported CAC clinker have not had an adverse Impact on the domestic Industry. The domestic supplier, Lehigh, and the foreign supplier, Lafarge, each dominate a different sector of the market The non-refractory sector dominated by Lafarge has shown Increased consumption for CA cement during the period of Investigation. In contrast. the refractories sector dominated by Lehigh has shown declining demand for CA cement due to the use of less CA cement In end-products and the effects of the economic recession on major end-users, such as the steel industry. 123 While the condition of the domestic industry Is poor, the evidence fails to establish a causal connection between Its condition and the dumped Imports. We therefore detennlne that the U.S. Industry producing CA cement and CAC clinker Is not materially Injured by reason of the Imports of CA cement and CAC clinker from France. V. No Threat of Material Injury by Reason of the Subject Imports Section n1 (7)(F) of the Act directs the Commission to consider whether a U.S. Industry Is threatened with material Injury by reason of the 12DCR atl-110md111, Appendix IC. PR 11 ll-26 mdll-27, Appendix K. 121 Commissioner Crawfard does not rely on anecdotal evidence of lost ulea and mvenues showingdlltcompetitionfrom.thesubjectimportscauseddomaticproducerstoJosepaticula'uleaor forced them to reduce their prices on other sa1ea in reaching her dete:nninllion. 122Commisai0Da'Crawfardnotadllttheeviclenminthisinvelligalionsupponsarelalivelyhigh elasticity of domeslic supply. In this inveatigllion, the elulicity of domestic supply is defined • a meuureoftheextcnttowhichU.S.pmducenarelikclytohave~toachlngeindemnlfortbe domestic product • a result of the dwnping. The eluticity is estimated to be between 4 md 8. Thia Rflecta the domestic indus1ry'1relalively lowc~tyutilizllicrn, ••• inventory levels, a••• of export marbll IDd the ••• namre of production flCilitiea. See EC-R.-044 ll 26 to 28. 123CommiuionerCrawfordnotadlltthereladvelybi=eluticityofsupplysupestatbatthereare no signjficmlprice effecta from clumped imponL A high · · rmkea it mare likely that domestic industry would inaeue oulpUt rllher than raise prica. However, the relllively low dwnping margin. the low sublti&utability between domatic procluct md thedumpedproductl. IDd the c:oncenlralion of growth in the nuirbt sector in which Lafqe ii the majority supplier suggest there se no significant effecllfrom.dumpedimporllonthevolumeofdomeaticproducuold. Evenifimpnuweresoldatfair pricea,itilliblydllttherewouldconlinuebeasubstmlilllevelofimportssoldinthedomesticnmbt. The low subltimtability makes it unlikely that pun:huen would switch to domestic products in 1ignificmtquanlities uareaultofanyrelalivepricec:hanges from theeliminalionofdumping. Al such, Commissioner Crawford does not find that the domestic indusay's output ml~ would have increased mlllerially if impons were fairly priced. ' subject Imports •on the basis of evidence that the threat of material Injury Is real and that actual Injury is Imminent.•124 The Commission Is not to make such a detennlnatlon "on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition. •125 We have considered all the statutory factors 12s that are relevant to these lnvestigations.121 In assessing whether the domestic Industry Is threatened with material Injury by reason of LTFV Imports, It Is relevant to discuss some data separately for Imports of CAC clinker and CA cement. 128 We do not find that there Is any Increase In production capacity or unused capacity In France likely to result In a significant Increase In Imports of CAC clinker to the United States. Capacity utilization levels of the French producer were ••• throughout the period of lnvestigation.129 The record does not suggest that there will be any rapid Increase In United States market penetration of CAC clinker from France, nor Is there a likelihood that the penetration will Increase to an Injurious level. Although the volume of CAC clinker Imports Into the United States has been relatively large and Irregular, 130 there has not been a rapid Increase In market penetration, measured In terms of share of CA cement . consumption, over the period of Investigation. Respondent acknowledged that CAC clinker exports to the United States would ••• In 1994, but asserted that they would ••• In 1995.131 According to Lafarge, the -· In exports of CAC clinker to the United States projected for the future Is, as has been the case In the past, largely due to the shipping schedule of the product. 132 Lafarge Fondu's exports of CAC clinker to the U.S. market account for a••• share of Its total shipments of CAC clinker, ranging from ••• percent to ••• percent during the period of lnvestlgatlon.133 Home market 12' 19 u.s.c. ff 1673d(b) llld 1677('7)(F)(ii). 12519U.S.C. f 1677(7)(F)(ii). An affirmative threatdetenninalionmustbe based upon "positive evidence tending to show mintcnlion to inc:reue Ibo levels ofimportalion." MdallverkenNeduland B.V. v. U.S., 744P.Supp. 281, 287(CLlnl'ITnde1990),citingAmaicanSpril'IE Ww, 8CITat28,S90 F.Supp. ll 1280. see ilbo Calabrian Corp. v. Uniletl Statu, 794 F. s~ 377, 387 llld 388(Ct. ln1'1 Tnde 1992)(citinf, H.R.Rep.No.1156. 981hCong.. 2dSaa.174(1984), Conpeu ICknowledgedlbll ..adeterminalionofduellwill~acarefulusessmentofidmtifiablecmremlrendsandcompetitive conditiona in lhe m.mt pbce./ Id. at 24. 126 19 u.s.c. f 1677(7)(F)(i). tu amended,,, 1988 Act sections 1326(b). 1329. J.n.tdition. lheCommislionmustconsidcrwhelherdumping findings or lllllidumpingtemedia in marbls offcnigncountriea 11gainst the same class or kind ofmerchandise suggest a threat of material injury to thedomaticindusby. Su 19 U.S.C. section 1677(7)(F)(iii). aOllll:t&flld bJ 1988 Actsection 1329. 1%7 Several of the stlbJtoly threat fldOrl have no mlevance to dUs investigation llld need not be dileuned. Became there me no subsidy =ations, flder I is not applic:able. Moreover, fstor lX reg~ raw llUl poc:essed lpiculture ucts also is not applicable to this case. 121 Su discussion $11/1FO. Section m.. Condition of the Domestic Industry. 129Table 18, CR atl-67, PR llil-16. Llfmge ••• 11U1itsc1pacityutilizationlevels for CA cement me ***thanforCACc:linket. Table 17,CR atl-65, PR.atll-16. Lafargeindiclledlhatthis***. CRat 1-64, PR atil-16. AdditionalproductionofCAcementisrestrainedby the•••. Moreover, Lafarge'• expona to the United States historically have been of CAC c:linket ralher than CA cement due to problems wilh ocean shipping ofccmmt. Thaeisnoevidcnce to suggest lbll the••• is libly to result inuponaofCAcementtothe UnitedStates. conlrlr)'to thehistmicalpaaan. Su S.R.ep.No. 249, 96rh Cong., btSeu. 88-89(1979);CitrmucoPGMlirlav. UnilblS111ta, 104F. Supp.107S, 109S(CLln1'1 Tnde 1988) (Commission's detaminalion may not be based on mere conjeclure or supposition.) 130Table 18, CR at 1-67, PR ll Il-16. 131 Table 18, CR ll 1-67 llUl 1-68, PR ll Il-16. Respondent's Posthearing Brief 1112. 132CRatl-68, PR atil-16. As noted above. Ille irregulmitiea in thevolmneofCAC clinbrimpons hu been Ille result of shipping adiedulea. According to Lafarge. due to ••• is planning to •••,which will enable Ille firm to••• in Ille future. CR at l-69, n.82. PR 11 Il-16, n.82. 1 133 Table 18, CR at 1-67, PR at Il-16. ' I-21 I-22 shipments account for the *** share of Lafarge Fondu's shipments of CAC clinker, with a*** share of shipments exported to third countrles.134135 The market share held by U.S. shipments of CA cement produced from CAC clinker Increased largely as a result of Lafarge's continued dominance In the non-refractories sector where apparent consumption Increased by *** percent from 1990 to 1993.138 As discussed above, the record does not Indicate that Lehigh's decline In market share was a result of LTFV Imports, but was a result of the decrease In consumption within the refractories sector of the market, where Lehigh Is the dominant supplier. Moreover, there Is no evidence to suggest an Imminent change In these trends. The record does not support a finding that the Inventories In the United States will have an Injurious effect .on the U.S. lndustrv. The Import Inventories have fluctuated over the period of ·investigation.137 Lafarge CA has projected that It will *** Inventory. However, since the Inventory level In 1993 was ***.138 Moreover, Lafarge C~s ability to Increase shipments of CA cement Is limited by Its capacity to grind CA cement from Imported CAC clinker. There Is no Indication In the record to suggest any likely Increase In Lafarge CA's grinding capacity. Its grinding capacity Is currently utilized at *** levels. 139 We do not find that Imports will enter the United States at prices thatwlll have a depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prtces.140 As discussed above, we found comparative prices to be of limited value In our determination due to product dlfferentlatton, transportation costs and the different stages of production represented by Imports and market sales. Moreover, we found that firms made purchasing decisions most often on the basis of non-price factors. There Is no Indication that future Imports would be any more likely to affect prices adversely In the near future than they have during the period of lnvestlgation.141 There are no •other demonstrable adverse trends• that Indicate that Imports will be the cause of actual Injury, nor are there •actual and potential negative effects on existing development and production efforts of the domestic lndustry:142 We therefore find that the domestic Industry producing CA cement and CAC clinker Is not threatened with material Injury by reason of the LTFV Imports from France. 134Table18.Cllall-67.PR.a&D-16. Homemarlretahhlmmla •albareoflafaaeFondu'atotal abipmeala of CAC cJinbr ICCOUDt.ed fm •••. While dlild coun11y sbipnenll u a slime of Lafmp fondu•a total~ ofCAC c1inbr ... fmm •••~in 1990to •••percmt in 1993.home marlretlhipmenli •••. LafmpF.subllpocalld dlilCACc:linbrinlDCAcemmtllldaporteda •••)XJltianoftbeCAcememtolbildc:oun11ymarbll. Table 17. Cllad-65.PR.adl-16. LafmpFondu ~ to be lbifling ill tbiJd coumry abipnenll to •••. l35QwinnmNewquistnora tbatsignificantbame llld tbildmllket~oftm "11&•11 that tha1I ii a ccmidenhle amount of pocluct which may be diNCled to Iha United Staaea. POi dUa investiallion. b>wev•. Chainmn Newquist does not find mc:h divenian to be imminenL l3CfCJl a11-74. Table J>.l llld J>.2. Cll 1&J>.3 ml J>.4; PR llD-18 mlD-2. By mmpuilon. I..af1rRe•1 total U.S.lhipmcnlaofan:limryCA cementincreuedby ••• pen:entfnm 1990to1993. /d. .. lf7CJl1&l-68.PR1&D-l6. U.S.end-of-periodinvenrori.esofordimryCACclinbrbyl..afapCA wens•••. Id. 131 Cll a&l-68. PR.1&D-l6. 13'Table7.Clla&l-31,PR.lll-10. LafargeCA"1capicilyud1izadmrarefm~CAcement WU •••peram&in 1993. Thia level iaaignifk:andy •••than dwreported by LafqeFcindu md ••• than dw reported by Lehigh for CA cemenr. l40CJl 1&1-100-l-109. PR llD-25 -D-26. 141 Sec 19 U.S.C. f 1677(7)(F)(i)(IV). 1'2Sec 19 U.S.C. ff 1677(7XF)(i)(VD) and (X). Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, we find that the domestic Industry producing ordinary CA cement and clinker Is neither materially Injured nor threatened with material Injury by reason of LTFV lmpor1s from France. ) I-23 .., PART II INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE INVESTIGATION D-1 Introduction Following a peliminary derermination by the U.S. Depanment of Commerce (Comlllelee) that impmU of certain calcium aluminare cement and cement clinker from Fmnce are being. er are likely to be, sold in the Uniled Star.es al less than fair value (L1FV) (58 FR 58683. Nov. 3. 1993).1 the U.S. lntematimal nado Commission. effective November 1. 1993. instilUred investigalion No. 731-TA-645 (Final) under scctim 735(b) of the 'Dniff Act of 1930 (the Act) (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) to determine whether an induslry in the United Star.es is materially injmed er tbreatened with mareria1 injury, er the establishment of an indus1ry in the United Star.es is materially relll'ded. by leatOll of imports of such macbandiso. Notice of the inslillltion of the Commi•on's investigation and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was posted in the Office of the Secietary. U.S. Intemational 1\'ade Commission. Washington. DC. and published in the F.Ural Register on December 22, 1993 (58 F.R. 67809).2 The be@rina was held in Washington, DC. on MalCh 31. 1994.3 Commerce nodfied die Commission of its final L1FV determinations widl mspect ID (1) ordinary CA cement and ontinary CAC clinker and (2) CA tlux on MalCh 23. 1994. and publisbed its notice of final L1FV determinations in the FeMral Register (59 FR 14136. MalCh 2S. 1994). Commerc:e detmnined that imports from France of (1) mdinaly CA cement and ordinary CAC clinker and (2) CA flux are beint er are likely ID be. sold in the United Star.es al L'IFV. 1be applicable I M defined by Commeace in ill "scope of investigalion" ltlfmlent. the poducts COYeml by tbia investigalion comiat of c.lc::ium lluminlte c:emmr. cemmt clinker. IDd flu. odlll' tbln white, high purity ealcium aJumjmte c:emmr. cemml clinker. IDd flUx. The covered producu cant8in by weigbl mme Ihm 32 pen:ent but Jess tbln 65 pen:elll llumina IDd mme Ihm 1 pen:elll ea of iJon ml lilic:a (ad me Jefened ID in this report a "Oldimry" pie). la ill pielimimry invelligadon. Commerce found that the produe1s comtilute two sepuale c1aaea ar kinda of madlandise: (1) cak:ium llumilllte cement (Oldimry CA c:ement) md c.lc::ium lluminlte cement clinker (ordimry CAC clinker) and (2) c.lc::ium ahuninale nux (CA flux). Ordinary CA cemenl ia ided for in aubbedng 2523.30.00 of tbe ~ariff Schedule of the United Starea (HTS). OrdUmy CAC clinbr ad CA flux me lllDYided for in ~ 2523.10.00 of the HTS. ~of~ F.Wal R•1i.rta noticea me 3 n. li.vJ'ld!cipaall in the Commi•lim'• baring ia p_amled in 1pp. B. 4 la ill fim1 determinadom (59 P.R. 14136, Mar. 25, 1994). Commerce clarified ill definitiom of CA cement/cement clinker llld CA flux. Conunace atared thal: "CA cement/cement clinker nl CA flux have ·~ diffennt physical chara:teriata ad end uses. CA cemmt ia a apecialty hydraulic nonpJrtlmd cement Uled for c:omlnledon purposes. CA cement clinker ia the primary material Uled • a binding agent in the production of CA cement. CA flux ia Uled primarily II a deaulfuriDr and/or cleaning &gent in the 1teel-mlll1lf.c1Uring poc:eu. CA clinbr pmduced for sllle SlatUle din=cts tbal the Commission mate its final injmy de1el'IDination before 45 days after an affirmative final determination by Commerce on oldinary CA cement and ordinary CAC clinker.5 Background This investigation results from a petition filed by Lehigh Portland Cement Co. (Lehigh) on March 31, 1993. alleging tbal an induslry in the United Star.es is materially injured er dueatened with maferial injmy by reason of LTFV imports of certain calcium aluminare . cement products (including CA tlux) from France. In response ID dlat petition lbe Commission insmured investiption No. 731-TA-645 (Preliminary) under seclion 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) and. on May 17. 1993, determined that there was a reasonable indication of such malaial injury by reason of allegedly L1FV imports. Previous Commission Investigations Concerning Cement Althougb there have been earlier Commission investigations conceming cement dating back ID 1960. nme involved CA cement. All but one of the earlier inves1igations covered partJand cement. other than while. DOJISblining partJand cement; sevaal investigations inYOlved cement clinker as well Of the 14 complered inveaigations, all but 1 fm 1986) were derermined on the basis of a iegiona1. ralber than a natimal, industty. 1be piesent investigation concems a natiOGal industry. 4--Corttinutl • nux CllDIDt be used to JXOCluce CA c:emmr. and CA clinker Uled ID produce CA cemml ClllllDt be uaed •• nm in the ~ of sfllel. CA flux 1111 a c:hemiW "lion dislim:t &om CA cemcnl clinbr. CA cemen1 ~conWm the hJdrmlk: mimn1 llKlllD-cakium llumilllte. which giva it a molar ratio of lime ID llumina of approximar.ely 1:1. In COllll'Ut. CA clinker IOld • a nm does not cantlin mono-calcium llUlllimte; it conllina the complu minenl C1.JA1 (12Ca0 • 7Ah<>2). which ·va it a molar ratio of lime to alumina ol ~Y f 1. Thia ·bigblr lime to alumina ratio giva the CA clinbr IOkl •• flux • lower meltina point Ihm CA cemenr. and llllO nsulll in em& lime which CID band wirh sulfur IDd odm impurities in molten sfllel. Akbough CA clinbr sold a nm hal some hydraulic pvperties. it hydrJtes IDO ~ to be Uled for dlOle poperlia." S Became Commerce Olide a negative Jn)imimry determinadan with respect to CA ftm (SS P.R. 58683, Nov. 3, 1993). the Canuniuion ia directed by ltllUf8 to mlb ill final determinalion on CA flux befOre 75 days after the dale of Commerce's fmal lffinmlive detenninalion. Accontingly, the Commiuion wm mike ill detmminalion with iespect to CA nm by June 6, 1994. Thia staff report includes only that inforrnalion on CA nm which ia relevmt to 1l1e Commission'• lib product analysis with respect to ordinary CAC clinker. D-3 The Products Description and Uses 1be materials ccmncl wilbin the scope of this in~lion are Clldinary CA cement and ontinary CAC cllnm' White. high-purity CA cement and clinker are specifically excluded from the scope of inwsdgation, but are discussed so that die Commission may cmsida' Reiher to include ahem in the lib product. Where necessary, ontinary CA cement (and clinker) and white CA cement (and clinbr), and CA tlm are referred to in die aggregate in this repart u '"CA cement producls." Ordinary CA Cement Ordinary CA cement is a specialty hYdr!ulic, nonpmtland cement that, unlike ponland cement,7 bas a high alumina conlmt (see table 1 fer a comparison of the r.bemical c:omposilim and melling points of difl'elellt CA cemen11 and ponland cement). Ordinary CA cement bas a compressive strength that, after the first 24 boars, exceeds die Wgtb of tpay ponland cement after 28 days. 1be high alumina content of CA cement (bodl ordinary and white) nmdm it resistant to extreme t.emperalllleS and to r.bemical caaosion. Ordinary CA cement bas an effective binding strength at emane temperalmeS of 2,SOO degrees Fahrenheit (F) to 2,900 deFa F (3,000 degrees F under q>timal Jab conditions).I It JeSiSIS corrosion from salt or sulfare waras or from weak solutions of minclal acids. 1be working tilne9 for ordinary CA cement is longer than that fer white high- · CA cement, typically setling in fiG.90 minutes.~Ordinary CA cement is tan, gray, or bJact in color. Table 1 Comparison of cements: Ranges of chamlcal composition and meltlng points • • • • • • • ' >.- stated arlier. CA flwt is mo subject to investigalion. but will be specifically lddreaed in • 1Ub'~lb:1U.i.'B'"useau of Mines eahn•tea lbal portllad c:emllll 8lom eccoma far about 95 pm:en1 of U.S. c:emllll pocluaioa; tba9 ia no public infannalion an what portion of the ft!INinder is -=counted far by ordinuy CA c:emenL ....9 wodana lime meuures the lime in which a cement can. be manipuleted lfter ila mix1me with aggreprea llld w.ie:r; it is a determinant for evalualing a c:ement'1 ~ far dilfaenl kinda of mpplic:aliona. 10 Pedliomr'1 __,_ brief. p. 18. Aceording to ...• Peliliomrr.p;--~brief. ambit 1 (citing gtatemenf by •••). ll-4 Ordinary CA cement is primarily used u a binding agent in odla' mixtures. When blended wilb different kinds of agrepres and with wala', ordinary CA cement impans unique chemical and physical properUes to c:onc:rese mixes used in SJX'Cialiw refmctoryll and conslntdim applicalions. Producas of refm:tory products purchase ordinary CA ccmmt fm use in producing castables and gunning miles, which are then sold to manufacturing facilities fm use in high-heal applications. C&ables are usually dry mixes that are designed (after die addition of wasm) to be molded into special shapes at the inSlall•lion site. Gunning mixes (which are genaally used for lql&in) are blown onto surfaces and will adbae to ahem. In the consuuction induslry, ordinary CA cement is used to make a variety of c:onc:rete mixes for IP'Cialt)' applicalions, including fire-iesistant c:oatinp for Sll1IC1lml uni1S, acid-n:sistant pipe linings, masonry for indusuial Sfacb and chimneys, and fireplace beanb units. 'JYpical corrosion-resistant applicalions include intcrspelSed floor sections ol- ordinary CA c:ement-bonded concrera and COiiings over portland conaere floors in facililies such as dairy plants, breweries, slaugbr.erbouses, boaling plants, laDDeries, and sugar-processing plants that use chemicals In typical temperalUle-resistant applicalions, ordinary CA cement bonded concretes are used as floor sections or . c:oadngs to wilbstand the beat impact from chopped fumace-fued marerials or molten spills. Bodi domeslically-pmduc:ed and imported CJldinary CA cement can be physically inlmChangeable, but die interchangeability depends upon the applicalion. Clemislries and product perfannances ditJer, bodl between U.S. sourced and imponed product and among different fonnulalions offered by individual suppliers, as shown in table 1.12 White CA Cement White CA cement has a higher alumina content and a lower calcium content lhan ordinary CA cement. It is produced from a high-purity lime (i.e., the source of 11 Refnctmiea me mareria1a Iha& have the Uilily to mamtainb~yskal lhape llld c:bemica1 idenli1y lfter being 111 • to temperalUn!I lbove 1,000 degrees F. Usually, rerr.ctmy maferil1I me .i.o zailtlnl to c:maaiDn. Refnclmi• .. used in industry to line high-tmlperalUre fumlC8I ml ractDn Iha& pmduce metaJa. .... JDWG', llld refine petrachanbla llld oil They .. mlde in • vut vlriely of lbapea llld fcnna. which include nfnclmy brick llld apeciaky poclucu. Onlimry CA c:ement is om of the IUlerilla 1lled in specially refnclmy 1n.n.-. 12 In i1a questionnaire response in die ~an·1 final invesligalion. ••• ltalel ..in product fommladcm. ngmdlm of the appJjcllion. no ~ would subsd111111 a nw maraia1 auda-• cemen1 without tealing ml mKing 101De mW1 ldjusllllelllS. The degree of ldjuslmml depends on the applicalian and lhe fonnu1alion." ••• leapcmded in the aff"umative to m item in the queationnaUe which uked whether or not '"1be U.S. ~=~ J119duct1 gener8lly can. be used calcium) and from cak:h>ed m hydrated alumina.13 14 In cootrast to ordinary CA cement. both input materials for white CA cement are obtained by a chemical aJJd/or heat-treatment process to reduce limestCloe and bauxite to a mOl"e purifJed state of. lime and alumina. White CA cement is low in iron and silica and is always white in cob. It is the mly CA cement that can be used in the manufacture of. certain precious alloy metals and in catalyst support systems requiring a stable swface area;ls use of. ordinary CA cement, with higher iron and silica impurities, would cause contamination. Primarily due to the higher alumina content, white CA cement is also the mly CA cement that can be used in Reelmaking operatioos, where refractories are required to withstand ~ ranging from 3,200 degrees F to 3,300 degrees F.16 Ordinary CA cement fails at these ranges. Reportedly. because the amount of. alumina is increased and calcium is decreued. the hydraulic strength of. white CA cement is weaker than that of ordinary CA. cement 17 White CA cement particles are finer in size and mOl"e diffuse than particles of. ordinary CA cement: this fm:ur amtributes to the shorter w<ll'king time fm white CA cement 18 Jn its respcme to the CommiMicm 's questimmaire in the final investigation, *** stated that ..***." Ordinary CAC Clinker and CA Flux Ordinary CA clinker products serve two functicm: (1) as an intamediate material fm irOOucing ordinary CA cement (ordinary CAC clinker) and (2) as a fluxing agent to remove undesirable sulfur from steel (CA flux). A similar raw material mixture, consisting of crude, uncalcined bauxite (the soun:e c:L aJmnjna inn, and silica oxides) and limest.ooe (the somce of. calcium oxide), is used to p-ochx:e both iype... The resulting product appears as tan. gray, m black pellets, with cobatim deter:m.iDed by the amount c:L oxygm in the kiln during the burning stage and by the irm amtent of. the bauxite. Although CA flux and ordinary CAC clinker are CCDlposed of. the same raw materials, they cliffs in the ratio of. calcium to alumina. and. as a result, have different chemical and physical 13 In their responses to Commission questionnaires in the final investigatioo, ••• reported that they produced ordinary CA cement/CAC clinker from bauxite, whereas ••• stated that it produced white CA cement/CAC clinker from owe alumina. l.fWhite CAC clinker is the inttnnediate. White CAC clinker bas no other known uses othu than the production of white CA cement. IS Petitionu's postconference brief, p. 9. 16 Petitionu's prehearing brief, p. 10 17 Staff visit to Lehigh's manufacturing facility, Jan. 6, 1994. 18 Petitionu's prehearing brief, exhibit 1 (citing statement by •••). cbaracteristics.19 The following tabulatioo com.pares the two pWuct5: 20 CA ftux CAC cllnkar C81cium oxide content C81cium oxide content fN9r 41% by weight less than 41% by weight. Molar ratio of lime to Molar ratio of lime to alunina approximately alunina approximately 2:1, which results in 1:1, which resuHs in a doninant C0111)1ex some C1~1 and a doninant nineral of C 1 ~1 and CCJl1l)lex mineral of calcium no calciun aluninate. aluminate. SpecificaJJy, it is the existence of calcium aJ1nninate. due to the 1:1 calcium to ahimina ratio, that distinguishes ordinary CAC clinker and CA cement from CA flux and from portland cement. Because of the difference in its chemical CCDlposition. ordinary CA flux cannot be used to produce crdinary CA cement21 and the clinker used to moduce ordinary CA cement cannot be used fm flux. n ----- Production Process Ordinary CAC Clinker and CA Flux Because the difference between clinker used fm CA cement and that used fm CA flux is the ratio of. calcium (fmn limestone) to alumina (fmn bauxite). the first step in the productim process is to detamine which clinker will be p-ochx:ed so that the necessary ratio of. raw JJl8leria1s may be determined. That decisim made. there are two staDdardiml processes used to blend the raw materials for both CA flux and ordinary CAC clinker-sintering.23 cuneotly used in 19 Johnny Love, manager of Technical Assistance, Lafme CA. conference transcript, p. rFJ. llrPetitioner's and respondent's postcanference briefs. 21 CA flux bas a lower melting point than ordinary CAC clinker. Its hydraulic properties are so strong (or quick) that it cannot be easily "worked." (''Hydraulic" refeis to the capacity to harden under water.) Johnny Lav~ cooference transcript, p. fFJ. u. When CA flux is mixed with molten steel, its higher calcium content allows sulfur impurities from the steel to unite chemically with the flux. formiJJg a slag which separates to the top of the steel batch and can be removed. The calcium ingredient of CA flux also suves to lowu the melt temperature of a steel batch, reducing the quantity of fuel required in the steel production process. R.K. Sinha, Industrial Minerals, second ed., (Rotwdam: A.A. Balkema, 198!;,tr241. 23 The sintering process is · · to that used for making gray portland cement clinker, except the prcheater and kiln are smaller and specially designed for ordinary CAC clinker. For example, daily kiln productioo capacity for ordinary CAC clinker is about ••• short tons compared with 2,000-5,000 short tons for gray portland cement clinker. The size difference in production equipment reflects lower ~t demand for ordinary CA cement and more rigid chemistry control requirements. Il-5 the United Swes (figure 1),24 and fusion,25 cmrcntly used to produce the imported subject products. While the primary raw materials me the same fOI' both processes, fusion takes raw materials to die melting point and sintering srops jmt sbon of melting. The differences between the two processes for making CA flux and ontinary CAC clinker are procedural; there are no resulting differences in chemical <II' physical characteristics between the end poducts for either process. In both pocases, production of the clintt.r takes place on a continuous basis, with allowances for maintenance downtime. Figure 1 Lehigh's production process • • • • • • • Ordinary CA Cement All ordinary CAC clinker is finished into ordinary CA cement by dry grinding the clintt.r in a ball mill to the desiml consistency, usually of powder fineness. Unlike gray pordand cement, where gypsmn is added during the grinding process. ordinary CAC clinbr is typically ground without the use· of additives, which change the cbemical p1upcnies and physical characteristics of the product. 1bc grinding process reportedly accounts fOI' a small percentage of the ovenll production cost fOI' ordinary CA cement. D-conlinued In the linfllrina poce11. raw maleri.lla 1111 dryc:rusbed md blended to the desired alumina co.n1e111, ...• A cenlnliad computer ~ provides continuous monitoring llld ncarding of the ICtUal production. proceu agmnat atablished nonm. Thia allows con1n>l of product ~ al ach stage of lbe production proce11 by pinpomling neceuay material mix md equipnent ldjuslmenra on a timely buia. Staff Yilit to Lehigh. 111L 6. 1994. 24 •••. Staff visit to Lehigh. Im. 6, 1994. 25 The fusion procell ii ::C'!l conducted in - open-heath furnace with a v • met in which lbe mixlUre of raw mareriall ii cbmged. Pulveri7.ed coal. used to beat the furnace, JXOCluca a blut of bot air md gasses that pus through the cbupd material, cmying off water md cmrbon dioxide. Fusion occun when the clmged marerial drops &an the vertical a.ck onto lbe hearth al temperaturea of lbout 2.600 to 2.730 degrees F. The fused. molten liquid rum out of lbe furnace on a continUCJUI bail inro steel pm11 on a conveyor belt l)'ltem. whens it cools llld solidifies. Fusion cm also be conducted in electric an:: funwlea and in specially designed rotay kilns fitted with a tap bole from which moltm liq1Jid ii drawn inrenniumd • Enqclopedi.a cf Clwnical Technolo11. 3d ed.. vol '/'(New York: John Wiley & Som. Inc.. 1979), p. 187. 11-6 White CAC Clinker and White CA Cement White, higb-pmity CA cements are gcnmlly produced using the sintaing process; sintering must be employed for white CA cement, which bas an alumina content of 80 percent.26 Respondent bas reponed instanc.es of production by fusion in an cJectric arc furnace in Japan and Brazil, which may employ a variation of die fusion process described above.rt Because of the differences in the chemical and physical characteristics of white CA cement and ordinary CA cement. it is not possible to produce both products at the same time on production systemS currendy in operation. Further, it is not possi"blc to produce both products on the same system without tborougbly puqing the production system to awid contaminaling the white, high-purity marerial.21 Even then, the feasibility m producing both ordinary and white CA cement materials at the same facility aud/OI' on the same production system is contingent on quality control and plant cfliclency. 1bc si7.e of the kilns cmrcntly used to produce ordinary and white CAC clinker in the United Swes differ. Lehigh's kiln capacity to poduce ordinary CAC clinker is *** short tons annually; in conll'mt, the capacity of the kiln used by LafaJp CA to produce white CAC clinker is •••.29 Like Product Issues Dming its preliminary investigation lhc Commission examined scvt.ral lite poduct ismes, notably (1) whether CA cement clinker manufaclmed fer sale as flux (CA flux) constitutes a separate lib product from CA cement clintt.r manufaclmed fer grinding into CA cement (CAC clinker); (2) whether other non-clinbr flux agents are like CA ftux; (3) whether CAC clinker and CA cement constitute one lite product; and (4) whether white CA cement and CAC clintt.r are lib ordinary CA cement and CAC clinker so as to be included in any CA cement lib product.30 The Commission found that CA cement clinker manufactmed for use as flux is a like product separate from CAC clinker.31 It further dettnnined not to include non-clinker flux agents in the CA ftux lite pmcluct.32 CAC clintt.r and CA cement were found to 26 Pelilioner'1 prehelring brief. exhibit 2. p. 4 (***). 'ZI R.eapondent'1 postconfe:rence brief, exhibit 2. IUKhmenl 1. 21 Pelilioner'1 prehelring mief. exhibit 1 (citing llltemenl by •••). 29 Lehigh llllel in ill pehearing bief In. 15) dull "the smaller kiln me used in poducjng whfre CA clinbr enhlncea the lbility to COlllrol phase c:hernistty developnent, which ii important in the producticn of high purl CA clinker." ~ See USITC, Certain Ca/cillln Alwninate C.,,,.. and Cmw11 Clinlra from France, USITC publication No. 2637l May 1993, p. 6. 3 Ibid., p. 8. ) 32 Jbicl., p. 11. constitute one like product.33 Last. it cmcluded that white CA cement and white CAC clinker were not like ordinary CA cement and CAC clinker.34 Data far films' manufacturing and importing operatioos of mtinary CA cement and ordinary CAC cliDker (the subject products) are presented in the body of this report. To permit the numerical ~al ordinary CAC clinker and CA flux (which is desirable when measuring sudl inc:Hcatms af industry performance as capacity utilizatiCJll), SCIDe data m CA flux are also pesented in the main sectim of the report. Complete data m CA flux and m white CA cement and white CAC clinker are available in summary tables in appendix C. U.S. Tariff Treatment U.S. imports of ardinary CA cement from comuries emided to the ccimnn 1-general (most-favored-natim) duty rate. including France. enter free of duty UDder subheading 2523.30.00 af the HfS.3s U.S. imports of ordinary CAC clinker from comuries emided to the column 1-paeral dut! rate enter free of duty UDder subheWng 2523.10.00.36 The Nature and Extent of Sales at LTFV The following tabulaliClll puvides the ll'FV mmgins as determined by Conunerce for CA cement and CAC clinker from France (in percent): Finn Lafarge FOndu ............ . All Olflers ................ . WalghtecHvelage lllBl'gln 18.91 18.91 In mler to obtain the estimaaed dumping nwgins of product imported from France, Commerce compmed the U.S. price (USP) al CA cement and CAC cliaka37 with its fmeign market value (FMV) 33 Ibid., pp. 11-12. 34 The Commission noted that this finding was hued OD the information before it in the preliminary record 8lld that it would seek more information on the issue of intercbangeabilty between the various CA cements in the final investigation. Ibid., p. 15. 35 'Ibis subheading includes the subject ordinary CA cement u well u other nonsubject "aluminous cement." 36 'Ibis subheeding coven all cement clinken incb1ding the subject ordinary CAC clinbr, CA flux. white CAC clinbr, 8lld '111Y 8lld while portland cement clinbr. 37 Commerce found that CA cement and CAC clinbr comprise two "such or similar" ~ of men:bandise: CA cement and CAC clinbr. Had 1t not made that finding, Commerce would have used a difference-in-meichandise adjustment to make fair value comparisons between home market sales of CA cement and U.S. sales of clinker. during the period al investigatiClll (POI). October 1. 191)2 through Ml1d131. 1993. Calculation of USP.--Since all of Lafmge's U.S. sales to the first ume1ated pmd1aser oc:cured after impmtatim in to the United States. Comnen:e based USP m exporter's sales prices (BP) of cement USP was cak:uJated from packed er bulk. ex-U.S. warehouse er delivered prices to umelated U.S. custcmers (with app-opriate deductions fer transpcrtation costs and selling expenses). Comrnen=e also adjmted inventcry cmying costs to Jeflect the period between productim of the clinker in France and shipmmt of the '1inished" cement to the U.S. customer and deducted all value added in the United States by the arinding of the clinker. inr:Jnding the pdit attributable to that value. Calculation of FMv.-Because Lafuge Fondu only exported clinker (and not cement) to the United States and because there were no lone marllet sales of clinker er sales to unrelated customers in third coDmries during the POL Commerce based FMV cm the coastructed value (CV) of clinm. It calcuJated CV as the sum of Lafaqe's cost of materials. fabricaDm. general expenses. U.S. packing costs. and profit. In ft'-SpODse to a request from Cmunissim staff. Commerce pmvided the folJowiDg infmnatim (m a Jetter dated April 1, 1994) far its antidumping duty investigatim m ordinary CA cemeatkJinbr: 1. The quantity and valueaf total U.S. saJes af the mm:baDdise from Framz during the POI: *** shcrt tons. $***;I 2. The quantity and value of sales examined: *** short tais. S*** (gross). S*** (net);2 3. Of the sales examirwl. the quantity and value found to be atL'IFV: *** shcrt tons. and $***: 2 and 4. The range of affimlative nwgins found: ***to***. 1 These figures include the quantity and value of certain unreported U.S. cement sales wtich Commerce included in its final analysis using best information available (BIA). The verified quantity and value relevant to these unreported sales •e ·- short tons and S*". 2 These figures exclude the BIA quantity and value of unreported cement sales facllDred into ils final margin c:ala.llations. .? 11-7 The U.S. Market38 Apparent U.S. Consumption of Ordinary CA Cement and Ordinary CAC Clinker Table 2 presents apparent U.S. cmsumption of miilwy CA cement and mfuwy CAC clinker.39 Table2 Orclnary CA cement and ordinary CAC cllnker: U.S. shipments al domesllc product, U.S. shipments al Imports, by sources, and apparent U.S. consumption, by products, 1990-93 * * * * * * * As stated earlier, data m CA flux and white CA cement products are presented in appendix C. The data in table 2 show that the quantity of apparent U.S. cmsumptioa of mdinary CA cement declined irregularly by *** pen:eat between 1990 and 1993. There was a CCllllparable decline of *** pemmt in the 38 The data for the followina section on the U.S. IDl1"ket (and for the other aections of this report) are based primarily on the respcnses al industry participants to Commission auestiMnaires. Producers' questiomWres were 8Cllt to (and completed by) the two U.S. producers of ordinary CA cement and U.S. producers of white CA cement. Two other firms. which produced ••• unounts of ordinary CAC clinker and/or flux, provided shipment data on their producing operations. A total of 27 impartms' questionnaires were sent to producing firms and to thoee firms that apparently had more than insignificant imports into the United States from all sources under the HI'S classifications that include ordinary and white CA cement products (inclncting CA flux). All firms, exctpt three which imparted nonsubject clinker products. responded to the Commission's questionnaires. Importing firms are identified in the section of this report on U.S. impartms. The remaining firms indicated that they did not import CA cement products from any country dwing the period of mvestigation. Summary data on the U.S. market are presented in tabular form in app. C. 39 The March 31, 1993 petition and June 29, 1993 amendment filed by Lehigh include CA flux which contains by weight more than 32 percent but less than 65 percent alumina and more than 1 percent each of iron and silica (i.e., which meets the standard for "ordinary" product). Petitioner believed itself to be the only producer of CA flux and stated in its June 29. 1993 amendment (p. 2) that "calcium aluminate clinker produced for sale as calcium aluminate flux ... falls within these specifications for ordinary CA cement and clinker." There is, however. a second U.S. producer of CA flux which manufactured ••• amounts of the product which •••. "CA flux" is not defined to be limited to ordinary ~ specifications and data for all CA flux products are included in data compilations in this report. Il-8 quantity of CAC clinker cnnsnmed intemally in the production of CA rement The U.S. market is comprised d two key sectors which reflect the two major end uses of the product; namely, refractaies and specialty building products (c:r noo.-refr&Ctaies). Data m coasumptim within each of these markets are presented in table D-1 and table D-2. Market dynamia are discussed in the sectiClDS of this report entitled "Shares fc:r the Refractmy and Non-Refractory Market Segments" aod "Pricing and Marketing Coasideratioas... U.S. Producers of CA Cement Products Firms that produce CA cemmt produces are identified in table 3; the quantity of their U.S. production is provided in table 4. Table3 CA cement products: U.S. producers, plant loClltlons, positions on the petition, and products Imported * * * * .. * * Table4 CA cement products: U.S. producers' production and share of U.S. production, by ftnns, 1993 * * * * * * * Lehigh. the petiticmer in this investigatim. is the mly currem dmnestic producer of the subjecfclinlcer. Two firms-Lehigh and Lafarge CA-grind Ordinary CAC clinker into ordinary CA rement AlfCi the clinker that is ground by l.ebigh is produced at its plant in Gary, JN.40 The clinker mmnd by Lafarge CA in its Cllesapeake. VA. facility4i iS Dumuf.:tured by and impmted from its pan:ot ccmpany in France. In the preliminary investigatim. petiticmer argued that Lafqe CA is not a member of the domestic industry because it pezfomas mly an allegedly minor finishing operatim (grinding) in the United States and is a related party within the meaning of the law.42 Lafqe CA states that it is a "majc:r producer in the United States with a substantial payroll and a total capital investment that [it] believes is many times that of the petiticmer in this case. ·~3 In its preliminary determination (citing. specifically. the substantial 40 Lehigh also produces gray portland cement and cement clinker, but in production facilities at other locations. No other producis are made at the Gary facili~. 41 •••. Response by Lafarge CA to importets' questionnaire. Lehigh does not manufacture a product that dllectly competes with Fondag. 42 PetitJon, p. 6. . . 1 43 Conference transcript, p. 54. capital investmmt and the value added in the United States). the Qwnmissim found that Lafuge CA is a domestic proch:ar of the subject CA c:eiDeDt and cemmt clinker like product. However. the CcwnmiMion also found that Lafuge CA was a related party and that appropriate cilcumstaDces existed to exclude it from the domestic industry producing CA cement and cement ~44 Lafuge CA also produces DQllSUbject white CA cemmt and while CAC clinker at its facility in Chesapeake. VA The firm aiped in the infiminary investigatim that it could produce cxdinary CAC clinker using the kiln that is used to manufacture white CAC cliDbr. However. *** •45 it has never actually done so46 and the griDdjDg equipment used to produce ordinary CA c:ement is separate from that used for white CA cement 47 The productim and related workas (PRWs) at Lafaige CA manufach.D:e both products. Lehigh stales that it could only produce white CA cement in a facility that is separa1e from its cmrent ordinary CA cement mmmfacturing operations. It claims that a new fm:ility would be necessary to avaid cmtaminating the raw mamials used to make the white CA cemeot48 and would requile a capital imestment of *** .49 Lehigh produces CA flux in its Gary. IN facility. Lafuge CA imports CA flux mll11Dfactrtml by its paient. Lafaige Fondu. in France.so ***.51 ID addition to Lehigh and Lafuge CA. a thini firm (Refractory Malerial$. Inc. er RMI) produced CA cement products for the U.S. market ~ the 1990-93 period. •••.52 ***·" ***.54 ***.55 ***.56 44 usrrc. Cenain Calcium Aluminate Cement and Cement ClinkN from Frona, usrrc publication No. 263'h May 1993, pp. 18-21. ~ by Lafqe CA to producers' quest:ionn11re in the final iovestipti.m. 46 Conference trusc:ript. p. 111. Lafuge CA contends that ••• (l)OStCOnferenc brief, exhibit 2, p. 2). Lafuge Fondu iodicltea tblt it bas ••• (poslconfereace brief. exhibit 2. pp. 3-5). 47 Conference ~· p. 100, llld Lafarge CKs ~ to questionnaire m the final investiption. 48 Any cootvnination by extraneous substances iocreues the level of impurities in the finished product White CA cement is purchased for its higher alumina content JDd because it contains a lesaec llDOUDt of such impurities as iron. See table 1 for data on the chemical composition of ordinary CA cement llld white CA cemenL 49 Response by *** ID producers' questionnaire in the final ~ation. so •••. (Response by Lafaige CA to producers' questionnaire.) ••• value is added by these operations. s1 Response by Lerugh to producers' questionnaire and by Lafarge Foruhl ID foreign producer questionnaire. ~ states •••. Staff visit to Lehigh. Jm. 6. 1994. Total capital expenditures (including •••, but excl~ •••) were $*••.53 ••• 54••*55 .... 56 Resi>onse by ••• to producers' questionnaire and telephone convenation with •••. U.S. Importers of CA Cement Products Firms that im.pcrt CA cemeat products are listed in table 5. i...s CA cement products: U.S. Imports, by firms, 1913 * * * * * * * As shown. LafBrF CA is the only impcrter of the subject product from Fraoce.57 All of its subject impmts are in the form of clinker; DO ordinary CA c:ement is impcxled. Lafarge CA also imports CA flux and white CA cement in finisJwi fmn.. Small amounts of~ CAC clinker were impend fran *** (by •••>5 8 and sane ordinary CA c:ement was also entered from ••• through ***. Channels of Distribution of CA Cement Products CA cement products are distributed by industry SOUices dumghmt the United Stales. Bodi Lehigh and Lafmge CA sell ordinary CA cement into a natioul llUllket from their ~e plants and from affi1iated warehouses or 1erminals.59 Table 6 presems data m the channels m dislributim of U.S. shipments of CA c:ement poducts. *** cxdinary CA cement (and white CA cement) pmduced in the United Stales is sold ctirectly to end wien. In comrast. 111CJ1t CA flux is sold through distributas.llO Lehigh pinds all mits DOll•flm clinker into cement: it does not sell it to other firms fer grinding. Similarly. ••• the ordinary CAC clinker imported from France is around into cement by LaflrF CA. 57 The petitioner confirms that Lafarge CA is the only importer of ordinary CA cement aa.J/« Ordinary CAC clinker from France and that France is virtually the only foreign 10WCe of such cement Petition, PJ>· 1 and 4. In response ID the Commission's que.sDonn1ire. a aecond firm, •••. reported importing ••• short tons of "ordinary CA cemeDt" from France in 1991. The cement was produced in France by a compmy mmecl •••. However. the firm provided furthel information that its product is a ready-to-use pute, contlioing aggregate, which does not meet the definition of ordinary CA cement. Staff conversatiClll with •••. 51 ••• 9 Durlna the Commission's preliminary investigation, it gathered data on the form in which the products were plCbged. From 1990 ID March 1993, approximately*** of ordinary CA cement was sold in packaged form; the mnainder was sold in bulk form from trucks or from rail transport. Qrdioary CA cement is typically pllCbged in hap each filled big weighing 94 pounds. •••. a, Lebi&h sells ••• of its CA flux to an unrelated distributar.1fatiooal Reca\'erY Systema (NRS), in East OJicago, IN, •••. ***. . 11-9 Table& CA cement products: Channels of distribution of U.S. shipments, by products and by firms, 1992 • • • • • • • Consideration of the Question of Material .Injury to an Industry in the United States Section 'n1(7)(B) of die Act (19 U.S.C. I 16'n(7)(B)) provides tbal in mating ils dela'IDinalion in these invesdplions the Commission- Sball consider (I) the volume of imports of the mercbandiae which is die subject of the inwsdpdon, (Il) the effect of impolts of tbal macbandise on prices in die United Slalesforlibproducts.and(ID)theimpact of imports of such madlandise OD domesdc producers of lite products. but only in the comm of production opelBlions widlin the Uniled Stares; and May consider such other economic factms u are ldeftDt to the detmminalion regmdjng whether lhere is material injury by reuon of impons. Secdon 'nl(7)(C) d die Act (19 U.S.C. f 1677(7)(C)) fmther provides lhat- ll-10 In evaluadng the volmne of imparrs of merchandise, the Cammission shall consider wbetbs die wlume of imports of the madJandise. or any increase in that volume. either in absolute tamsorrelaDve topnxluctionorconsumpdonintheUniled Slales is significant. In evaluating die effect of imports of such merchandise on prices. die Commission shall consider wbelher (I) there bu been significant price underselling by the imparted merchandise u compared with the price d like producls d the Uniled States, and (D) tbeeft'ectd impons ofsuch merchandise otherwise depiesses prices to a significant degree or prevems price increases. which otherwise would have occurred. to a significant degree. In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph (B)(iii), the Commmion shall evaluate (within the context of the business cycle and oondirions of competilion that are dislinctive to the aft'ecled induslry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing OD the Slate of the induslly in the United Slales. including, but notlimilecl to, (I) actual and potential decline in OUlplt. sales, market share, profits. productivity, return on invesanents. and utilization of capacity. (D) factors affecting domestic prices. (ID) aclUal and potmtial negative effects on cash now, inventories. employment. wages, growth, ability ID raise capilal. and invesanent. and (IV) aclUal and potential negative effects on the existing devdopment and poduction eft'orL1 of the domestic industry, including eft'orL1 to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the lite product. Since CAC clinker is an intennediate mataial used in the production of finished CA cement. dala on c:onsmnpdon. production, capacity, and capacity utilizaliOD must be evaluared sepamtely for CAC clinker and finisbed CA cement to avoid double counting or other abemlicm. As D01ecl earlier, data fer clinbr product sold u CA flux are preaealed sepamtely. Data for Lehigh and Lafaqe CA me presented sepmately in tables to permit ID UW"Dmt of a U.S. induslry lbat is defined ID Cllelude die opentions of Lafmge CA u a reJar.ecl party. U.S. Producers' Capacity, Capacity Utilization, Production, and Shipments of Ordinary CA Cement Products 'Dlbles 7 and 8 present data on the capacity to pmc1uce6l and actual pmductian of subject pmducls (plus CA flux). Detailed data on sbipmems are also provided. Table7 Ordinary CA cement: U.S. capacity, production, capacity utlllzatlon, and shipments of U.S. producers, by firms, 1990-93 • • • •• • • • 61 Pnc&icU caplCity WU defined U 1be pealell level of output a plant Clll achieve within the fnrilewodt of a zealiluc went pmem. Producers were ISbd ID c:omider. anong other facmn. a nonml product mix ml 111 apmsion of opaalions dw could be reucnably auained in their industry ml Jocalif;y in selling c:apecity in tam1 of lhe nmnber of shifts ml houn of pllllt operlliom. Table a Ordnary CAC cllnker and CA flux: U.S. ca=, production, capacity uUllzatlon, and sh pments of U.S. producers, by products and by flnns, 1990-93 * * * * * * * Capacity and Capacity Utilization Lehigh's capacity to produce subject }XOducts (plus CA flux) remainM coastant during the last four years. The firm has *** capacity in place to grind cement (*** short tons. as reported in table 7) than it does to produce the clinker input (*** short tons. as iepm1.ed in table 8). (Capacity utilimioo at both production stages. however. is low and reflects the decrease in production by the firm. Lehigh's capacity utilizatioo for grinding ordinary CA cement declined from *** percent in 1990 to *** percent in 1993 (table 7): ordinary CAC clinker capacity utilizatioo decliDed from *** percent in 1990 to *** percent in 1993 (table 8).62 63 In its iespmse to the Commission's producers' questimoaire, Lafarge CA did not provide data identifying any capacity to produce cxdinary CAC clinket. (As stated earlier. all of the ordinary CA cement produced by Lafarge CA is ground from imported clinker.) However, the firm currently produces white CAC clinker using a kiln in which it argues the ordiDary grade could be poduced. The kiln has a capacity of *** short tons. *** of its capacity is cmrendy devoted to the productioo of the white, high-purity product. Uti1iution m Lafarge CJ;s capacity to grind ordinary CAC clinker was somewhat *** than that iepCll1ed by Lehigh. averaging about *** percent during 1990-93 (table 7). Production and Shipments of Ordinary CA Cement As shown in table 7. Lehigh's production of ordinary CA cement decieased *** from 1990 to 1993, declining by *** shat tons or by *** pen:ent. The quantity of domestic shipments of ordinary CA cement by Lehigh decreased *** by *** percent from 1990 to 1993, although the trend changed for 1993 with a *** 62 ••• 6.1 Lehigh produces CA flux using the same sys1ems and kiln in which it manufactures the clinker that is ground into cement If the production time allocated to CA flux is factored in, capacity utilization at Lehigh is still low, declining from ••• percent in 1990 to *** percent in 1993 (table 8). As shown in table 8, production of CA flux declined*** in 1993, as a result of deaeased shipments to ***. Domestic shipments to *** deaeased ••• from 1990 to 1991, decreased by ••• percent from 1991 to 1992, then *** by*** percent from 1992 to 1993 (table 8). *** reported to the Commission that its purchases from Lehigh have ••• due to ••• .. percent annual increase. Export shipments deaeased *** by *** percent during the same period.64 In cmttast. Lafarge CA shipped more cement than it ground from impOl'1ed clinker to U.S. customers in 1993 than it did in 1990. However, Lafarge CA reported a net decrease in such shipments from 1992 to 1993 and reported an mecall decrease in exports during the last four years. The unit value of domestic shipments by *** *** from 1990 to 1993. Lehigh prOduces two brands of crdinaiy CA cement (Lumnite and Refcoo) and Lafarge CA produces four (Secar 41. Secar 51, F<mdu. and Fondu XR.). Lafarge CA also produces Foodag, a premixed coaaete which is a blend coosisting of ***. Shipments of ordiDary CA cement, by brand. are presented in table D-3 in appendix D of this ieport. Petitioner reports that Lumnite (with an average unit value m$***per short toll in 1993) competes most direcdy for sale with Fcmdu (with a 1993 average unit value of $***). Foodu XR. (with a 1993 average unit value of$***), and Secar 41 (with a 1993 average unit value of S***).6S 66 Refcon (with an average unit value of $*** pee short toll in 1993) competes most directly with Secar 51 (with a 1993 average unit value of S***).67 F<lldag does not compete direcdy with any CA cement products offered by sale by Lehigh.68 As shown in table D-3, the merall decline in sales b T ...a.;~a. • primaril' due *** ***Y~IS y to . . Production and Shipments of Ordinary CAC Clinker Trends for the productim and use of ordinary CAC clinker by Lehigh mimnd those for the finished product. (Lehigh does not sell CAC clinker to other firms. but uses all m the product in its internal productim of ordinary CA cement ) Productim declined by *** perc:e.nt during the 1990-93 period; U.S. shqnents declined by *** perceat during the period. ***.69 ***.70 64 'Ibe combination of a decrease in 1993 production and a (***) increase in total shipments is paired with a decline in 1993 yearend inventories. Data on inventories are preaenled in the section of this repart entitled "U.S. Producers' Inventories. of Ordinary CA Cement Products." 65 However, petitioner further comments that "the two cl';:rct matches in tenns of chemical composition, ph · charactaistics, and end use are (1) Lafarge's Secar 41 vs. Lehigh's Lumnite and (2) Lafarge's Secar 51 vs. Lehigh's RefcOn." Hearing transcript, p. 54, and petitioner's postbearing brief, p. 5. 66 In its questionnaire response, Lafarge CA discusses ~ct competition separately by market ***. 67 Respondent agrees that the two generally compete, but adds that Secar 51 (BTF) has an advantage where its shorter setting time and earlier compressive strength is impqrtant 8 However, petitioner states that •••. 69 Telephone conversation with counsel for Lehigh, Feb. 16, 1994. 70 Petitioner argues that "the most telling evidence of underselling 'at the level of actual competition' is a direct comparison of Lehigh's p*1uction cost for ordinary CA clinker in the United States and Lafarge CA's acqwsition Il-11 U.S. Producers' Inventories of Ordinary CA Cement Products U.S. producers' inventories of ordinary CA c:emeot products are presented in table 9. Table9 Orclnary CA cement, ordinary CAC cllnlc8r, and CA flux: End-of-period lnventortes of U.S. producers, by products and by firms, 1990-93 • • • • • • • The quantity of end-of-period inveatmies of cirdinary CA c:emeot held by Lehigh was somewhat lower at yean:nd 1993 canpued to the quantity held during previous years.71 However, the firm maintained approximalely the same amount of inveatmies if exninecl as a share of total productiOll. Lehigh's invenmries •••. U.S. Producers' Employment for Ordinary CA Cement Products The number of poductioo and related w<Ders (PRWs) and hours wmked by such wodcers at Lehigh producina ordinary CA cement and CAC clinker deaeased by ••• percent and *** ~ respectively. from 1990 to 1993 (tabJe 10). •••.71 •••70-Continued cost of dumped ordinary CA clinker from France." Prebearing brief, p. 47. However. Lafarge Pondu uses a fusion, rather than a sinterin&. process to manufacture clinker in France. There the input raw materials arc melted and do not &O through a pelletizing pbaae. As a result.•••. Thue is no precise data on the record as to how differinJ production methods affect the overall cost of production. Based upon its general knowledge of the two production proc:esaes. Lehigh "believes that fuel consumption is greater for the melt or fusion process than for the sintering process, because the melt process requires higher temperatures to melt the raw materials in the furnance. On the other hand. the raw materials and the preparation of the raw materials for introduction into the kilii in a sintering proeess are believed to be more expensive than the raw materials and the preparation of the raw materials for introductim into the furnace in a melt process. Petitioner's posthearing brief. exhibit A. p. 15. 71 ••• 72 .... ll-12 Table 10 AV81'11ge number of production and related worlc8rs producing ordinary CA cement, ordinary CAC cllnlc8r, and CA flux, hours wortmd, •ges and total compensation paid to such employees, and hourty •ges, productivity, and unit labor costs, by products and by flnns, 1990-93 • • • * * • Financial Experience of U.S. Producers • 'IWo firms-Lehigh and Lafqe CA-accountiDg fer virtually all U.S. productim of mlinary CA cement and ordinary CAC clinker. supplied iDccme-and-loss data m their operations m these products. Temgh, the only domestic producer of CA flux. also provided incCIDe-and-loss data m its operations m CA flux. Lafarge and Alcoa. !MX'Omting fer ••• U.S. production of white CA cement and white CAC clinker. supplied incCIDe-and-loss data on their operatioos m these products. Lehigh JKOduced ordinary CAC clinker fer intema1 use in the productim of ordinary CA cement, whereas Lafarge CA imported ordinary CAC clinker from France and ground it to make ordinary CA cement during the period fer which data were collected in the investigatiOll. Data fer Lehigh and Lafarge CA on their operations m ordinary CA cement and ordinary CAC clinker are piesented separately as well as cmnbinecf in this section fl the repcrt. ~data m operatims on (1) CA flux. (2) white CA cement and while CAC clinker, (3) combined data on m6nary CA cement and Oldinary CAC clinker plus CA flux. and (4) cmnbinecf data on Oldinary CA cement and mfulary CAC clinker plus white CA cement and while CAC clinker are presented in appendix E. Operations on Ordinary CA Cement and Ordinary CAC Clinker Lehigh Portland Cement Co. Income-and-loss data fer Lehigh are shown in table 11. Lehigh bad no trade sales of ordinary CAC clinker and no canpany transfers of either ordinary CA cement er mliDary CAC clinker. Ordinary CA cement net sales accounted fer an average of *** pm;.ent of the total net sales of Lehigh's overall establishment operations during 1990-92. and *** pen:ent in 1993. l.ehigh eamed ••••73 73 Telephone conversllim with Joseph W. Dom, counael for Lehigh, Apr.'23, 1993. Table 11 lncome-an~loss expertence of Lehigh on Its operations producing ordinary CA cement and CAC clinker, calendar years 1990-93 * * * * * * * Lehigh's net sales of ordinary CA cement declined by *** percent fran $*** in 1990 to$*** in 1992. and then rose by *** percent in 1993. Total net sales in short tans showed a similar t:reDd. dropping by *** percent from 1990 to 1992 and then increasing by *** percent in 1993. Lehigh earned a gross profit of S***. er *** percent c1 net sales, in 1991 compared with $***, er *** percent of net sales, in 1990 as ***. The gross profit *** to $***. er *** percent of net sales, in 1992 and to $***, er *** percent of net sales, in 1993. Lehigh reported ***. ***. Data of Lehigh's Buffington Statim plant were verified by the Commis.UOD. There were *** in data reported. Key data were Jl"«IOCiJed with the audited financial staum>ents of Lehigh fer all the periods covered under ***. net sales c1 the Buffingtoo Statim establishment operations accamted fer *** percent of the company's total net sales. * * * * * * * Incom.e-and-loss data m a per-short-tm basis are also shown in table 11. Lehigh sells only two brands. Lumnite and Refi:Clll. in the danestic market. ***. The average per-shcrt-too sales value of ordinary CA cement *** by about *** percent fran 1990 to 1991, *** at about$*** in 1992. and then *** to$*** in 1993. The average cost of goods sold*** than the average net sales value, ***, by *** percent from 1990 to 1993. This resulted in a *** in gross profit per short too of *** percent from 1990 to 1993. Average selling. general, and administtative expenses per short too *** during 1990-93. During the same period. ***. Lehigh utili7.es the same equipment and mmnery to manufacture both ordinary CAC clinker and CA flux. The grinding facilities are used only to produce ordinary CA cement from ordinary CAC clinker. Another product produced in the same establishment is ***. Heoce. key total establishment income-and-loss data are presented in the following tabulatim: • • • * * * * The value added, with and without SG&A expenses, to material cost is presented in table 12. ***. Table12 Ordinary CA cement and orclnary CAC clinker: value added by Lehigh to matertal costs, with and without selling, general, and admlnlSlndlve expenses, calendar years 1990-93 * * • • * * * The Commissim requested variable and fixed costs per too c1 ordinary CA cement and ordinary CAC clinker, and also productim er purcbasiDg costs of ordinary CAC clinker and the costs of griodiDg ordiDary CAC clinker into crdiDary CA cement These data fer Lehigh are presented in the following tabulatim (per too): * * * • * * * Lafarge CA IDcame-and-loss data fer Lafmge CA are shown in table 13. Table13 Income a~oss experience of Lafarge CA on opandlons producing ordinary CA cement and CAC cllnker, calendar years 1990-93 • * • * • • * There were no trade sales <r ccmpany transfers of ordiDary CAC clinker during the periods examined Net sales of mdinary CA cement accamted fer an average of *** percent of total net sales of Lafmge CA's overall U.S. establishment operatiODS during the period covered by the investigatiOD. ***. • • • * • • * IDcame-and-loss data m a per-short-too basis are also shown in table 13. Lafmge CA sells five majOJ' brands of mdinary CA cement-Fondu. Fmdu XR. Secar 51, Secar 41, and Fondag-in the domestic ouuket. ***. * * * * * * * The value added. with and without SG&A expenses. to material costs are presented in table 14. *** Table14 Ordinary CA cement and ordinary CAC clinker: value added by Lafarge CA to material costs, with and without selllng, general, and administrative expenses, calendar years 1990-93 * * * • * * * The presented maj~ ccmponeots of cost of goods sold for Lehigh and Lafarge CA are not ccmparable II-13 because Lehigh is an integrated producer of ordinary CA cement wbaeas Lafuge CA is a grinder of ordinary CAC clinker. Bence. such data of bodl firms CCllllbined are not sbawn in the section below entitled "l.ebigh and Lafmge CA combined." The Commislion requested vmiable and fixed costs per ton of ordinary CA cement and ordinary CAC clinlmr. and also productiOD or pmchasiDg costs of ordinary CAC clinker and costs of grinding ordinary CAC clinker into ordinary CA ament Lafqe CA did not produce but imported ordinary CAC clinker. These data of Lafqe CA are presented in the following tabulatiOD (per toll): · * * * * * * * Lehigh and Lafarge CA combined Income-and-loss data for bodl firms combined are sbawn in table 15. Tllble 15 Income encl-loas experience of Lehigh end Ulllrge CA combined on their operations producing onlnary CA cement, Clll•dm' years 1990-93 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tbae wae no trade sales or company tmasfer of ordinary CAC clinker during the period for which data were coUecmcl in the investigation. Net sales value of ordinary CA cement *** by *** percent from S*** in 1990 to S*** in 1991. bot then*** by*** pen:ent to S*** in 1993. Total net saJes in short tons *** by ••• perc:ent from 1990 to 1991 and then ••• by *** perc:ent in 1993. * * * * * * * Investment in Productive Facilities Investment in property. plant. and equipment and return OD investment. by firm. are shown in table 16. The operating return and net ietum OD assm followed the same trend as did the ratio of operatiDg and net income to net sales for each firm and oombined during the reporting periods. Table18 Orclnary CA cement and ordinary CAC dlnlcar: Value of assets and return an assets, by firms, calendar years 1990-93 * * * * * * * 11-14 Capital Expenditures The capital expenditures for ordinary CA cement and ordinary CAC clinker incurred by each firm are shown in the following tabulatiOD (in thousands of dollars): * * * * * * * Research and Development Expenses for Market Development and Thchnical Assistance Lafmge CA reported expenses iDamed in its 'TerJmical Assistance Department" IS the mean:h and development expenses. The majcr categories of these expenses are presented in the following tabulation (in dlaupnds of dollars):· * * * * * * * The ccmpmy staled that about *** perc:eat of these expenses were incurred fer assistina in the use of its products in the various end products of its custaners and about *** pm::ent have been to develop new downstleam. products. In the CJriaina1 questionnaire respome. Lehigh repmted that Us accoumiDg records do not capcme resemch and development expeadituies. if any. for its establishment during 1990-92 and estimated that its "Lebip Reseudl Center," whidl was started in 1993. incurred S*** in iesearch and dew1opmem expenses m1a1iDg to ordinary CA cement in 1993. However. after the Commissim's bearing. Lehigh provided nuntceting ml teclmical suppCll'l expenses incurred in U. establishment and staled that *** wae related to ordinary CA cement ml ordinary CAC clinker. Such expenses are shown in the following tabalatiOD (in thousands of dollars): * * * * * * * Ubiah stated lbat .... During the 1990-93 period. Lafqe CA allocated S*** for market developmeat and tecbnical assistance and l.ebigb reported S*** in such expenses. Capital and Investment The Ccxnmission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual or poteatial negative effects of impms ci ordinary CA cement, ordinary CAC clinker. md/CJI' CA flux from Ftance OD their firm's growth. investment. ability to raise capital. or emtina ' development and production efforts (mcluding e1forts to develop a derivative or men advanced version of these products). Tho producers' iespoases are presented in appendix 'R Consideration of the Question of Threat of Material Injury Section 771(7)(F)(i) d. the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)) provides that- In det.ermining whether an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by rellSOll of imports (Cll" sales fm impartation) of the merchandise. the CommissiOD shall consider, amcmg other relevant economic factU"S 74- (I) If a subsidy is involved. such infmnatioo as may be presented to it by the administe.ring authority as to the nature of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the subsidy is an export subsidy inconsistent with the Agreement). (Il) any increase in productiOD capacity m existing unused capacity in the exporting country likely to result in a significant increase in imports of the merchandise to the United Sta1es. (DI) any rapid increase in United States m8lbt penelratiOD and the likelihood that the penelratiOD will increase to an injurious level. (IV) the probability that imports of the merchandise will en1er the United States at prices that will have a depressing m suppressing effect OD dmnestic prices of the merchandise. (V) any substantial increase in inventmies of the merchandise in the United States. (VI) the presmce of underutilimd capacity fm producing the merchandise in the exporting COUDlry. (VD) any other demoostrabJe adverse trends that indicate the probability that the impo:tation (m sale fm importatiOD) of the merchandise (whether m not it is actually being impmted at the time) will be the cause of actual injury. 74 Section 771(7)(F)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii)) providm that "Any determination by the Commission under this title that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury shall be made on the basis of evidence that the threat of material injury is real and that actual injury is imminent. Such a determination may not be made on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition." (VIIl) the potential for product-shifting if productim facilities OWDed m controlled by the foreign manufacturers. which can be used to produce products subject to investigatiOD(s) under section 701 m 731 or to final orders under sectim 706 m 736. are also used to poduce the merchandise under investigatioo. (IX) in any investigatim under this title which involves imports of both a raw agricultural product (within the meaning d. paragraph (4)(E)(iv))andanyproductprocessedfrom such raw agricultural product. the Jjkelihood that there will be increased imports. by reasOD of in>duct shifting. if there is an affirmative detennin•tiOD by the CommissiOD under sectiOD 705(b)(l) <X' 735(b)(l) with respect to either the raw agricultural product er the processed agricultural product (but not both). and (X) the actual and potential nepuve effects OD the existing developmeat and producti.OD efforts d. the domestic industry. including efforts to develop a derivative <r more advanced versim d. the like product.1s Subsidies (item (I)) and agricultural products (item (IX)) are not issues in this investigatica; infomiation m the volume. U.S. m8lbt penelratioo. and pieing of imports of the subject merchandise (items (DI) and (IV) above) is piesented in tbe sectim entitled "Cclasideratim of the Causal Relaticmhip between Imports of the Subject Metdiandise and the Alleged Material Injury;" and informatim m the effects of imports of the subject merchandise m U.S. producers' existing development and productim effms ("11em. (X)) is presented in the sectiOD entit1ed "Consideration of the Questim of Material Injury to an Industry in the United States." AvailabJe iDfmmatim m U.S. inveotmes of the subject poducts (item (V)); foreign producers' operatiODS. including the potential for ''product-shifting" (items (Il). (VI). and (VDI) above); any other threat jndicatms. if applicabJe (item (VD) above); and my dumping in third-country markets. follows. 75 Section 771(7)(F)(ili) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ili)) further provides that. in antidumping investigations, ". . . the Commission shall consider whether dumping in the Dllll'kets of foreign countries (as evidcna.d by dumping findings or antidumping ranedies in other GAIT member markets against the same class or kind of merchandise manufactured or exported by the same party as undu invea9gation) suggests a threat of material injury to the domestic industry." ll-15 Ability of Foreign Producers to Generate Exports of Subject Products and the Availability of Export Markpts Other Than the United States The Industry in France AaDdiDg to petitioner and coume1 fm Lafmge CA and Lafaap Fm.tu. Lafmge Foado is the only producer of ~ CA c:emmt and m:dinary CAC clinker in Frm.76 Lafqe Foado manufacttires the subject product at its Dunkerque and Fos plants. (***.) Counsel fm Lafaap Foado submitted data oa its climt's manufacturing opentioas in Frma.77 Ordinary CA cement manufacturing operations The data provided show that Lafaap Faldu's utilizaticm of its capacity to produce m:dinary CA cement ••• (table 17). ***· (As sbowD by a comparisicm of tables 17 and 18. UDti1 •••• •••.) •••. T•ble17 Onlmry CA cement: flencll cmpaclty, producllon, lnventartes. Cllpeclly utlll•ll•, Md shlplmnts, 1.,.. Md pro)eclecl 1•4 85 • • • • • • • The~ of Lafqe Foadu's total shipments of Cll'diDary CA cement weie •••. •••. No finished Cll'diDary CA cement is exponed to the United States. Ordinary CAC clinker manufacturing operations Data cm the manufacture of m:dinary CAC clinker by Lafqe Fmdu are pmented in table 18. Because of the gream capital investment ~ fm clinker operations. Lafaap Fondu's mpcnd capacity to produce cement in clinker fmn may be a better measure of overall pmducticm capability than its capacity to grind the product. Capacity to produce 76 'Ibis information was confirmed by the U.S. Embassy in Paris (U.S. Deparlment of Stam. telegram No. 10166, Apr. 1993). 77 Sales of CA cement p~uc:ts (including CA flux) !'=Pre&ent.ed ... percent of Lafarge Fondu's total sales in its most recent fiscal year. Il-16 clinker pochJcts (including CA flux) ***. •••.79 •••78 18ble18 Ordinary CAC cllnkar: French mPllCftY, pnxlucllon, Inventories, c.paclty utllzatlon, ... shipments, 119N3 •nd pro)eclecl 1114-95 • • • • • • • ••• of the clinker produced by Lafmge Foadu is used by that firm to produce finished rnnent; apprmimalely ••• of its productim is exported in clinker fmn *** to Lafmge CA in the United States. • &pclllS of m:dinary CAC clinker to the United States are expected to ••• by ••• percent in 1994. then ••• by ••• perceat in 1995. Lafaap CA ieports that ••• in the 8lllOUDIS of expm1S are lqely due to •••. ....so 81 •••. As Shown in the following tabulation. exports of ordinary CAC clinker by Lafqe Foadu to the Uniled States ••• )'ell'ly production of the finighr.d mnent by Lafaap ·CA. The following data are pmselded in short tons: • • • • • • • As shown. ammal production and domestic sbipmmts of the finished product by Laf8lp CA in the United States are *** than exports of the clinker input and end-of-period invenaa:ies of clinker. which show *** md whole trends are. dms. •••. Laf8lp CA estimates lbat it will produce *** sbcJrt DIS of~ CA mnent in 1994 and*** slat DIS in 1995.82 71 Petitioner stales that •••. Petitioaer's prebearing brief, exlUbit 1. By way of ccmpll'iaoa, capacity nriljuticJn of U.S. producen of J>Ott)and cement and cement clinker in the Stale of California varied from a low « 85.9 percent to a bi&b of 101.4 percent duriq the 1986-90 period. See USl'I'C, Qray~Poitland Cement and Cement CUnar frrJlll Japan, USlTC publicaticn 2376, Apr. 1991, p. A-24. "~ stales that "Lafarge's capacity ntiJjntion *** ." Postbeaing brief, p. 13. ao •••. Petitioner argues that ''in messing import trends, the Commissjon should consider the Janutry 1994 entry to have been eot.ered in lale 1993... Postbeaing brief, p. 3. Pespondent comments that clinker shipped in 1994 bas DO effect OD the amou,nt of 1993 shipments of finished cement. Postbeaing brief, p. 8, n. 8. 11 Lafarge CA listed the qumtitv and value of each sbiplOld of ordinary CA c:linlier arrlving in the United Stale& from 1990 to dlte in exhibit B « the its ~brief. 12 The 1994 aadfi!~rojections total to *** short tons, ID llllOUl1t of . cement which is *** than the ... short tons of clinker that Lafarge CA projects it will ship into the United Stam& during that period. (Normally Lafmge CA produces ••• than one short ton of cement for every short too of input clinbr; the diffelence is due to •••.) Althougb it is difficult to meanin&fully discuss awnges over a period of time as short as~ yars, Lafmge CA indicales that there will be an ... in imports of cxdinlrY CAC clinker in 1994 and 1995 compared with 1993. Due to ... it is planning to •••. which may enable the firm to ••• in the future. Stiff CCJOVenations with COUllllel fer Lafmge «A. Feb. 15, 1994. and Mar. 10, 1994. . The World Market *** and *** report no new world markets fer CA cement products: in cmtrast. *** indicates that there is growing demand (Table 17 · shows *** .) There are apparently few new producers d the product. China has begun producing mliDary CA cement, as did a South African company in 1990. CA cement from France was the sub~t of a 1988 Korean antidumping invemgatioa. ***· U.S. Importers' Inventories of Ordinary CA Cement As stmed above, Lafuge CA was the <Illy impcrter of CA cement clinker from France during the period of investigatim. The following tabulati.m presents data m Lafuge CA's end-of-period inventmies « product imported from France: * * * * * * * Consideration of the Causal Relationship Between Imports of the Subject Merchandise and the Alleged Material Injury U.S. Imports of Ordinary CA Cement Products Data on U.S. im.pms are shown in table 19. Table 19 Ordmry CA cement and ordinary CAC cllnker: U.S. Imports, by products and by sources, 1990-93 • * * * • * * Almost no mliDary CA cement product enters the United States in finishM form. 84 Instead. the product is imported as clinker *** by Lafarge CA. which grinds it into the finishfd product. As shown in table 19, the quantity d Lafarge CA's im.pms of subject clinker have declined *** during the last 2 )'e8l'S, 83 June 23, 1993 letter submitted with petil:iont.r's questionnaire response and staff conversation with counsel for ~ndent. Mar. 4, 1994. 84 The imported ordinary CA cement shown in table 19 was imported from ••• by•••. A representative of ••• stated that the firm is "not really in the market since it is too price competitive." Telephone conversation with ••• decreasing by *** percent from 1991 to 1993.ss However, this decline followed a ***-percent increase in 1991 and 1993 im.pcrts were at a level higher (by *** percent. in tams of quantity) than that reported for 1990. The im.pcrts shown from other sources were im.pcrted by *** from ***. (Informatioo on these im.pms was presented in the sectim of this report e.otitJed '11.S. Im.porters of CA Cement Products.'') U.S. Market Shares of Ordinary CA Cement Products Shares for the Overall U.S. Market Data m pmmtim by im.pms d the U.S. markets fer ordinary CA cement products are shown in table 20. Trends fer finished cement company-specific marlmt shares are *** as the tteDds of imported mlinary CAC clinker entering the United States. Specifically, Lafarge's share of the U.S. market increased by *** pen:entage points from 1990 to 1992, then declined by *** pen:entage points in 1993. However, as with im.pcrts of the input clinke.r. Lafarge CA commands a laqp:r share of the U.S. market foc mlinary CA cement in 1993 (***percent) than it did in 1990 (***percent). Table20 Ordinary CA cement and onlnary CAC cllnker: Market shares or u.s. shipments or domesllc product and u.s. shipments or Imports, by products and by sources, 1990-93 * * * * * • * Shares for the Refractory and Non-Refractory Market Segments The respoadeot C-<JDtends that the Ccmmissioo sbould examine marlmt penetration separately by mmket segment Specitically, Lafarge CA testified at the cmference held during the Comminion's preliminary investigation that the U.S. cement industry sbould be grouped into two broad categories: (1) the traditional refractmies marlmt and. (2) the other marlmts fer specialty building products, which include new markets where ordinary CA cement is used as a clxmdcal ingredient in ccmbination with other materials to prodUce material for the construction industry.86 85 Because there are••• made by only one importer, it is difficult lo evaluate trt.nds for the imports of the sub~ product in clinker form for relatively short time periods. The problems with doing so were addressed earlier when discussing Lafarge Fondu's exports to the United States. 86 Conference transcript. p. 83, and respondent's postconft.rence brief, pp. 32-36. The Commission stated in its opinion for the preliminary investi~n that it would seek consumption information which provides a breakdown by enduse. USITC, Cenain Calcium Aluminate Cement and Cellll!nt Clinker from France, USITC publication No. 2637, May 1993, p. 22. 11-17 The following tabulation (which is drawn from dala presented in tables D-1 and D-2 in appendix D) presents die quantity of appu:ent consumption in bolb die relm:t.ory and lbe non-refm:IDI')' marbt segments (in short tons):17 • • • • • • • As shown. tolal consmnplion in lbe refndlly market declined from 1990 to 1993 (by ••• percent), while consumplion inaeased (by ••• percent) for non-refnK:t.ory applications. Lafalp CA cbaradai7.es the reflactory market as a relalive1y ID8lme ane which bas been experiencing a deClease in demand due to the recession in lbe steel induslry. Pun:hasers (in telephone cmvenadon with Slaff) Slate 1bat the lefractaries induslry is now emaging from the ncession. The market. for non-refractory applic:adons is tied into the emeiging specialty building pmducts industry. ll is in this market 1bat "new. applicadons for CA cement are found; Ibis nhmmnenon is discussed in grearer detail below. ***Oi-J..ebilh•s shinmenls are into die refractmy market (lablc D-1); .-.-.r--Of-sbipnents by Lafarge CA are to lbe non-mfractory segment (lablc D-2). However, while the two firms dominafc different mmtet segments, one of which (refm:IDI')' applicalions) shows decreasing consum~ while the Olher (non-retia:tory applicaaons) shows inmasing demand, die market penetralion bmds of Lehigh and Lafalp ... . That is. the llend of the share of lbe quantity of U.S. consumplion accounted for by each market ~ipant is ...• As shown in lablc D-1, Lafarp ~· share of the iefraclmy market •••. Lehigh's shipments wae neceSS81'.ily a convene to dlose of Lafarp CA. •••. ••• (table D-2). The following labulalion shows the share of U.S. sbipmcots of each bnnd that is sold into lbe two marbt sepnents ('m pea:ent of quanlity): • • • • • • • Allbougb the relative parlions dift'er somewhat {especially for "*), all types of cement (with die exc:epdon of •••) have been sold into bodl marbt segments. (As shown in lablc D-3, ••• c:ompise a relalively small share of tolal shipments.) Comments by Lehigh and Latiqe CA mganting competition among brands were included in die section of Ibis report entitled "Production and Shipments of Ordinary CA Cement.• Shares for the "Existing" and "New" Applications Data reported for "existing" and "new" applications Tuble D-4 presents a further analysis of shipment dala by mmtet segment; in that table, data am rn-. D-18 presented separately for ..existing" and -new" applications within the refractory and non-mfractory mmtets.11 As shown. supplims of ordinary CA cement indicate 1bat there are ••• "new• applications fm mfractorics. ••• "new• appJicalions am for building proclUcts (labeled here as "'non-refract.ory• applicalions). Both Lehigh and Lafarge CA report such shipments. •••: ••• percent of all U.S. shipments by Lehigh during the 4-year pt.riod euminecl were far "new• applications. as were ••• pm:ent of all U.S. sbipmenll by Lafaip CA. Sbipmenll were c:ategOriml as otnew• applicadons according to a definition deveJoped by Commission Slaff. ('Ibis definition is fmtber discussed below.) The definilion WIS c:onsuuctecl ID that dala reported. in tbemy, can be examined far ttends.19 However, many of 1he customen purchasing ordinary CA cement far "'neW- applicalions are doing so on a on.time basis (e.g., to mpair flocn) and do not continue to pun:base die produc:l annually.90 1be dala presented in 1able D-4 in this final Slaff report dift'er from those included in the prehearing Slaff report and. consequently, from dlose discussed in briefs submiaed by the parties and a& lbe Commission's bearing. Lehigh first provided data as part of ils Maleh 2S, 1994 pos1hearing brief far the ponion of its sbipmenas 1bat meets die staff definition of -.W- applications.91 Lafaip CA submitted sewnl revisions to 1he dala included in its original questionnaire response. As shown by a camparison ol lablc JM in Ibis report and 1he c:onesponding table in die prehearing repmt (labJe C-4), Lafmp CJ:s revisions •During .... Commimn'• petiminmy iavlllipdon. napondent alleged lhll ila inczelse in marDl sham WU Jargely due to new marb11 which il Cllllted for CA c:emmt rak dlln to compelilim wilb pelidomr in pelidomt'• marbll. The Commission stalled in ill delerminalim lhll tbaa WU imuflicimt mdence cm lbe ncord in ill pl8)imimry iav•tiplion ID mpport dUa degllion IDd lhll il would plber ectdjdonaJ dala CID die quadon in any final iavaligllion. USITC. C.naia Calcilon ~ C.,,.,. tl1lll C.,,,.,,, ClinUr ,,_ Frt11112. usrrc public:81ian No. 2637. May 1993, p. 21. RllpCllldenl reported lhll ill growth in ules WU due to ill tedmice1 innoftliom llld odllr support povided to customen. Respondml'a postconference brief, p. 36. 19 Speciljcally, nspondmls wae imlrucled to c:mtjnge ID lisl U.S. sbipmellls ma after the moment in which the MW ~ WU first reported in the '°new" category, 90 I.a shown in table 04. the lrends of "new" mpplicalion shipments me imgu1lr far both U.S. mpplien. Lehigh iepartecl the lmgest mnounl c••• sbart tons) of sbipmenls for "new" applicaliom in ...• In COlllnlt. the amount of product shipped by Llfmge CA in 1993 (••• short tons) repiesenu a decmue of ... pen:ent flOln lhll sbiDDed in 1992. ·01 Lehigh stared at the CclmnUaim's heiring lhll "While we take issue wilh the definition of new mpplications in the questionnaire. we have revised our response to c:omply with dpl definition... Tnnsc:ript. p. 32. somewbal ... the amount of shipments it labelled as "rw:w,.. especially in 1993. Notwithstanding die &bow qnalificalion that 1rellds for "'new" applications may not be meaningful. it should be pointed out that the revised data show a ••• increase in such sbipnents by Lafarge CA over the 4-year period examined. As .shown in table D-4, Lafarge CKs "new" applications shipmentS increased by ••• short tons or by ••• pereent from 1990 to 1993, ID ·increase of••• dum the ••• increase sboWn in table C4 of the prdlearing report. In addirion to the inc:rease in its shipments for "rw:w" applications. Lafarge CA also ieported shipping ••• more short tms of ordinary CA cement for existing non-refractory applicalions in 1993 dum in 1990 (a rise of ••• percent). By way of comparison. Lafarge CKs U.S. shipmentS to all market segments increased by ••• short tms (table 7). Lafarge CKs growth within the non-refractory or c:onstruction market segment was •••. As shown in table D4, the unit value of ordinary CA cement shipped by Lafarge CA for use in "new" app1icalions is ••• than the unit value of product shipped for use in ..existing"' applications (including those within the non-refractory market). •••. Description of "new" applications Lehigh and Lafarge CA reporred that their customers used a variety of products befme 1U1'lling to ontinary CA cement. Most of the ordinary CA cement used in "new" applicaticm replaced pmtland cement or refractory ~ or was used in emirely new pmducts. Customers swilched to die subject product from refractory brick in on:ler to, among other items. •••. For pordand cement. floor repair was the applicarion most hquendy cifed.91 (However, the single lmgest swifcb (from pordand cement to Lafarge CA's ordinary CA cement) was by ••• for its •••). New products in which ordinary CA cement was first used included •••. Other products replaced by ordinary CA cement included •••. •••. As discussed earlier in tbis report. Lehigh docs not offer a product that dim:dy competes for sale with Fondag. 91 Tba me of ontinay CA c:emall to Rplir flocn (often Poldmd CClllml flocn in indul1rial • ) ii • major..._., ~llicm cited by l..lfmKe ~ ID usinJ ordinary cement. floon could have been repaired with portland c:emall or ~ brick or. in IOJD8 illllaneel. with an epollJ. In am illltmces for which I.Ump CA pmvided di&-. the floor wu being repaired for the fint time or w• a totally new floor. Lafarge CA praenas the issue of whether or not ID use portland ar CA cement in the CClldat of t:lroia. A comp_any represe:nlalive stated lhal while dime ae signiracant diffennca in the price of. far example., portJand c:eauml llld ordinary CA cement. a film nμght choose ID Ule the subject product because of ill much farer seuing time llld dw consequcntly abort.er time needed to allutdown production. Slaff convcnation with •••, LUarge CA, Apr. 6. 1994. Methodology used to classify applications as "new" A definition of "rw:w" applications was developed by Commission staff as part of the quesdonnaires the Commission issued; such definition formed .the parameter for wbetber shipments could be classified as "'new."9'J In its questionnahe response. Lehigh stata that "the distinction between 'existing' and •new• applications, as 'new• applications n broadly defined in the questionNire. bas DO relmmce in assessing whether imports have advenely affected Lehigh's mmtct share, output. and price... Lehigh also addreaed this isme extensively in its briefs and at the Commimon's hearing. mguing that only applicaticm new to the marketplace would increase ovaall demand for mdinary CA cemenL94 Staff did not lltmlpt to use a definition following Lehigh's concept. Rather it followed a line of reasoning with which. based upon their testimony during the Commission's bearing, n:spondents appear to concur.95 It is difficult to discuss tbis product and Ibis market using broad 9S Tbe illllluctiom in the questionnUe were • follows: "New ~llicms" ae defined u poduct beiq used for the fint lime in a manner which ia "'new" ID THAT cutamer. To be dmi6ecl u .._.,.. uiprnmta to tbe c:utmnm' far ""11 "PP.li.t:tllioa must have begun on ar after JlllllllJ 1, 1990. (Continue ID lilt U.S. alripnenta mlde after ibe time period in which the new applicalion w. fint NpOrted in the ""new" ClfelOIY.) To caregmim U.S. lhipmmts • "new," it ia Nor necamy lhal the mstonm m:eiving diem be a "new" caw-in odm wwdl, the c:uaimn. may be an mtidin• one who hu been previaul1y pun:lming poduct for-U..--=. lrddonal wJica1io111. Also, to CMegorize the U.S. Uipnmt • "mw," it ii NOT neceasy lhal no otb« fimi ev• llUl'Cbued the 1llOduct for dw plllicullr applic11ian (eidls BER>RE ar U. 1990). It ia fJnlJ ,_a;;;""11 IM t.pplicoliora l¥ •Milli' aint¥ 1t1111111T1 l, 19IIO to THAT ~. Tbe only exceplicm to the above illllrUCliona ae end-uscn who were llOl in bUlinal pier ta 1990 who pm:hue pmduct far otherwise ll'ldilioml -. Akbough "'- tedmicllly • the pmcluct ~ ~ m IPPlicelion ~~ °bew" IO =lheir pmdmaor..:ma-be NpOrted in the "existing" ;:::icllion Cllegmy. 11Emting" eppJic:ldom .. lbi.pnelua Ill - otb« dim "new" epplic:atiom. 94 Preharing brief, p. 38. Tba •raff prebariq mport (pp. 75-76) stared tblt while llllllY of Lehiab'• poiDll ae, in theory. vl1kl, they .. llOl neceaerily refevllll ID this induscry. Slaff conducted further dilClmiona wilh Lehigh an thia ilme (Apr. 4. 1994) ml does not herein JeYile the - paentec1 in mpebelring l'epo!! • a r.m of 1hese dilcuaiom. Further, llthough the definition wu not specificl11y slnletUred ID do so, 11aff IWSllllml ii thl& employina il would, in moat illltlneel, meuure li&u11iona ICliulfy Rsulting in al OYenll increlSe in uJes of ~ CA cement in the U.S. Dlll'bL 95 Specificllly, Mr. Fmlayscm. c:ounsel for 1.Uarge, stated tblt "Lehigh's oommen11 on this issue, it a.ms to me lhal they miss a blsic point. end lhal ii that CA cement ia not eay ID use. A custcmer needs to lean how ID use it. needs ID develop lli1ored fmmul& So the fad dw some odm c:ustomer somewhere else in the COUlllry may have used CA czmenl for a 1imim pmpOl8 does not help dw new eullOJller figme out how IO do IO itself." Hearing tnnsc::ript. p. 182. D-19 concepts of demand. What appears ID be clear from the reccxd is that there arc not new ordinary CA cement products which. once introduced. stimulare and expand overall demand.96 Radler there arc a series of new applications where each specific use is somewhat idiosyncnllic, the product of sometimes intensiw development effort on the Jlll'l of the user and teclmical assisrance on the Jlll'l of the supplier. The Slaff definition was designed ID measure a shift by a mer ID ordinary CA cement from a substitute non-oidinary CA cement product (or. alternatively. the development of a completely new end-use product).97 Verification of data submitted on "new" applications In mder to vaify the accuracy of their responses. all firms responding to Commission questionnaires wae requested to provide the following infmmation for each shipment recorded as a "new" application in 1992: customer name. conaact penon. and telephone number; quantity of U.S. sbipmems ID customer for the "new applicadon" in 1992; description of the new application; and product which was used before ordinary CAcemenL Table 21 pn:sents infonnalion obtained from a selecled number of customers alleged ID haw purchased cxdinary CA cement for use in "new" applications by Lafarge CA.91 As shown. Slaff determined in some instances 1bat the application cited by Lafarge CA either did not fulfill the staff definition or. perhaps. ·the intent of lhat definition. However. such discrcpancics do not appear to be because of any misrepmting or misrepresentation by Lafarge CA. In some cases (e.g.....). the application was new to the customer•. but not new to the end user. or "new" only because it bad never before been necessary to do the application (i.e.. repair the floor as in the case of •••).99 In other instances (e.g•• •••. •••). the 96 ~ may be IOIMWbal Of Ill acepcion to dJis statement. • • of the ulea of Fcmdlg .. claimed by respgidcni • for "new" appticlliom. '11 Staff no&ea. however. that die apondic nllUnl of some of die "new" ~licltiona (e.g.. floor repairs) may mW the concept of lhif1I." lib trmdl. somewbal pobJemadc. A c:ement floor may lat for dee.tea before needing to be repliled or repllCed. 91 Slaff ma no lllempt to verify d.ia for Lehigh since the issue wu one raised by Lal•ge CA. 99 Lehigh raised the point ol not considering "previously-done-new- applications" refening to any previous use within the entire nwkelpllce. Slaff believed the point gennane if the frame of reference wu not to the marlcelpltce. but rather to a specijic end user (••• in the example of •••). However. what ii more poblenwic are instancea where the application ii "new" primuily because a replir (for mtample) hid nev1r before needed to be done (see the mtample for•••). II-20 application may haw only been done once and staff was not confident that the finn was not simply fmgetling they purchased and used it. too In ocher examples (e.g., •••. •••, •••), staff did not label the application as "new" because the application was apparcndy developed by that finn before 1990.101 A review of the footnotes in table 21 provides an indication of the complexity of this issue. In general, firms with which Commission Slaff spoke often ciled Lafarge CA's tecbnical support (e.g.. •••, •••, •••, •••, •••). This statcment should. however, be placed in the context that the review was of Lafarge CA's customers, not of fmns that arc mesumably satisfied with and buy from Lebigb.10'! --Mm complete information on the extent to which suppliers provided technical support (and its importanee reladve to price) was derived from a survey of a larger number of purchasers and is discussed in the section of this report entitled '"Pricing and Marketing Considerations... Table21 surv-, of u.s. shipments to customers for •new appllcatlons clalmed by Lafarge CA • • • • • Pricing and Marketing Considerations • • As discussed earlier, the malket for CA cement consists primarily of two largely distinct sectors: llllllllfactwms of products for the consttuction indusay and manufa:bilas of refracto:ies. Fmns within both of lhese industry groups use ordinary CA cemeaL White CA cement is used more often by manufa:turen of refractories than by firms in the non-refrm:tories secaor. CA flux. by itself or in a blended form, is used almost entirely by the steel industry. Factors affecting the demand for the various types of CA cement and CA flux include macroeconomic conditions and specific changes in the demand for the various types of end products that contain CA cement and CA flux. In addition, tccbnological changes in the 100 Slaff request.eel the mmea of the pmon1 Lafmrge CA IClUally deak with llld made every ctl'ort to contact dlOle penona. Howev1r, lbis wu not always possible due to their 1111&V1ilabili1¥ due to tmrel or relin:ment. Allo, • emphasized lboYe. many of these pmchasea do not npnmlt ID on-going commilmmt by the 6Jm ID 1118 ordimry CA cement. They m. nlher. a one-time use of the product by a fmn which ii not otherwise flnliliu with the ~ Although it did not specifically do so. Lafarge CA might make the same request. mmely. that the Commission consider the im of applicaliom develooed prior to 1990 on 1= shipme:nl data. lot Arepresenlalive of one firm. •••, comment.eel dull both Lehigh and Lafuge CA aumd indusll')' meetinp held by the Inrernalional PICkaged Concrete MumflClUnn Auociation where they present papen on and olhll'wise encourage dJe develoment of new products using ordinmy CA cement. (•••.) refractory sector and, in limited instances. the development of new non-refnlcuries applicadons for different typeS of CA cement have affected overall demand for these products. In the refractories sector, industry officials reported that recent research hml focused on the development of products containing inaeasingly lower levels of CA cemenL Much of the recent (as well as projected) growth in the refractories market bas centered on these newer products. For tbe most pan. these products require white rather than ordinary CA c:emenL This shift to low and ulba-low CA cement products bas contributed, to some extent, to the decline in U.S. consmnption of white CA cement and ordinary CA cement in the refractories sector, as shown in tables C-Sb and D-1. The development of some new uses for CA cement by finns manufacturing products od1er than refractories and, mme imponandy, the recent uptum in overall consttuction activity have at least partially offset the decline in consmnption of ordinary CA cement for refractories. However, many of these firms use relatively small quantities of the various typeS and brands of the product for a limited range of applications. Their patterns of use and technical requirements differ somewhat from those of refractories manufacturen. These differences are discussed below. The Commission sent questionnain:s to 158 purchasen of CA cement and CA flux. Purchasm of CA cement that were surveyed include manufacturers of refractory products. consttuction firms, 103 manufacturm of products such as gas fireplace logs and fireproof safes, and consttuction supply distribulors. Purchasers of CA flux include companies that distribute some of the product directly and further procea some of. the product by grinding, sizing, and/or blending it with synthetic slags and other materials. These finns then sell the flux or ftux products to steel manufacamm for use as a desulfurizing agent in the steel production procea.104 The Commis.U>n received 108 questionnaire responses.105 In quantity terms, the purchases of these finns accounted for approximately 70, 61, and 93 pen:ent of the U.S. market for ordinary CA cement, white CA cement, and CA flux, respectively, in 1993. Information presented in the following sections is derived, in part, from the review of these responses. These sections discuss pricing and marketing trends in terms of overall U.S. demand for CA cement and CA flux, as well as by end-use groups, as appropriate. 103 Within the construction (building chemistry) market. rums use CA cement for its heal-resistant qualitiea (Dooring in certain types of production flCililies) and its quick-selling and wataproofing lllribulea (flooring. gn>UL Wiler sealanrs, airport runways, etc.). 104 In llddition, a limited number of steel manufllCtUlen purc:hue the poduct •••. 105 An additional IS firms reported no purchases of the subject poducts durinf the period for which data were requested in the investigaliOD. Purchase Considerations In interviews with staff and in response to the Commission's questionnaire, the majority of purchasers identified quality as the most imponant factor influencing their purchasing decisions. Pmcbasers also report.eel that technical differences and performance were imponant c:onsidenlions. Some firms reported relying on traditional suppliers of CA cemeDL The isice or overall cost of the products was cited as the second or third most important consideration by most purchasers. Other factm ftequently cited include availability and c:onsistency.106 'Dlble 22 lists the facton influencing purchasing decisions identified by respondents to the pmcbascr questionnaire. For the most pan, purchasen indicated dial their firms determine which type and brand mCA cement to use in a product during the procea of product development and testing. Once the product is developed, changes in CA cement (either with respect to types or brands) require additional teaing and ftequently require some reformulation of the end producL Purchaser responses indicate that the lime and cost associaled with this process varies across industry sectors and the firms within these sectors. Purchasm reported that decisions to change typeS or brands of. CA cement are generally made by assessing the requisite research and development costs associared with their product development, testing, and qualification processes versus the expected benefits (improved quality or end-product performance and lower production costs). Purchasers were asked to discuss the extent to which ordinaly CA cement and white CA cement could be substi.UJted in their products. Virtually all of the firms that responded to this question reported that ordinaly CA cement could not be used in applicatioos typically formulated with white CA cement because of differences in composition and performance between the two types of CA cemenL Although it is tecbnically possible to substiblte white CA cement for ordinary CA cement in some product formulations, questionnaire respondents generally indicared that the higher cost of white CA cement would preclude them from doing so. The Commission asked purchasers various questions regarding the extent to which the various brands of Lehigh- and Lafarge CA-produced ordinary CA cement were inten:hangeable, based on their actual use of the producL Purchasers were asked whether or not these products could be used in the same range of uses and whether the various brands were interchangeable with each odler in a given applicaDon. The fmns were also asked whether there was a significant difference between the products purchased 106 In addition. purc:halps cited flCtOrS such u rmge of product line and color. 11-21 Table22 Factors affecting purchases of CA cement and CA flux, by types of purchaser, levels of Importance, and frequency of responses (In percent, except as noted) Factor ~-······················································Technical cifferenceafperfonnan .............................. . Traditional suppli• ................. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ~~-::: :: :: :::::::::: :::: ::: ::: :::::::::: :::: ::: ::: :::: Total .................................................... . No. of responses ............................................. . ~1 •••••••••••••.•••••••••••••.•••••.••••••••••••••••. Quality •••••••.••..•.••.•.•.•••••...•.•.•.••..•••.•••..••••••• Availability . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . ........ . Consistericy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . Technical assistanc&'service .....................•........••.... Other ..............................•...•............•........ Total ...•................................................• No. of responses ............................................. . ~-::::: :: ::: ::::::::::: ::: ::: ::: ::::::: :::::::::: :::: Technical a&Sistancel&erv ........ · ........ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Other .•..............•..........•..•...•..................... Total ....•.......•........ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1 Includes faclors such as credit terms. Note.-BecaUl8 of rounding, tolals may not equal 100. 69 17 6 6 3 100 36 39 17 14 14 6 11 100 36 40 37 9 14 100 35 ConS1ruCtlon Most important 54 10 17 8 10 100 48 Second-most important 34 17 12 0 17 20 100 41 Third-most important 35 46 8 11 100 37 Source: Con1>ifed from data submitted in reaponse ID questionnaires of 1he U.S. International Trade Commission. from the various suppliers d. mdinary CA cen>ent Finally, the C.QIDmissim requested purchasers· to describe the costs and processes associated with changing from cme type er brand of mdinary CA cement to another. Approximately 38 peicent of the firms in the non-refractories sector reported that the l.ehigb and Lafmge CA products were employed in the same range of uses; however, Ollly 26 percent reputed that the products were intedangeabJe in a givm application.107 Approximately 40 percent d. the firms 101 Fourteen percent of the firms in the non-refractories sector indicated that the various products were not employed in the same range of uses. In additioo, 24 percent of the non-refractories firms reported that the products were not interchangeable. The remaining firms in this sector indicated that this information was unknown or did not respond to the questions. Il-22 indicated that they mly had experience with cme manufacturer and therefore couJd not determine whether there were significant differences in the products of the various CA cement suppliers; 26 percent ieported that tbeie were significant differences; and 34 percent ieported no significant differences. Whm asked about the costs and processes associated with product substitution, approximately 78 percent of these purchasers iDdicaled that eitbez the products were not substitutable er that their firms have no experience with altemative brands of ordinary CA cement Twenty-two percent reported that it is possible to substitute producis, although a DUID.ber of these firms qualified their responses to varying degrees. In CCllltrast, 72 pe.rcent of the manufacturers of refract:ories· that responded to the Qxnmission's questioonaire iepmted. diat the l.ehigb and Lafarge ordinary CA cement prOducts could be employed in the same range of uses. and 42 pen:ent indic:aled that different brands were intacbangeable in a given applicalion.108 Approximar.ely SO percent of the firms in the refractories sector reported that there were significant differences in the poducts supplied by different CA cement supplieis; 33 percent reported no significant differences; and only 17 percent were unable to address Ibis question. When asked to describe die JllOCCSS of brand substilution, roughly 61 pm:ent of the refnlctmy manufactmen reported. ID varying degrees. that some Lafarge and Lehigh brands were suhstitatable in some of lbeir products. but irenenlly not without testing and some reformulalion. u,r-n; requisite ewluatim and changeover periods reported varied from 2 weeks ID l-to-2 years. These firms indicated that factors such as product consistency, the performance of their final products. requirements of their cusaomers. and the overall deliwied cos& (including inventory management costs) detamined wbedler such a substilulion would be made. 110 The nuQ<Jrity of bodl types of pmcbasen reported actually swilebing from one supplier ID another infiequendy, if at all OvemU. the firms reported four instances of shifting some or all of their purchases from Lehigh ID Lafarge and eight instances of shifting some or all of lbeir purchases from Lafarge ID Lehigh. Two pmcbasen reported switching from Lebigb ID Lafarge and then back ID Lehigh. Pmchasen genenlly indicated dlat these changes bad been made because of quality or technic:al problems and cost.111 112 Comparison of Suppliers The majority of the firms in the non-refmctories sector lbat responded to the Commission's questiomuUre reported no difference between the French and U.S. ~· Jllll'keling effCJrts or did not provide a response.113 A larger pen:emage of the refractory producers were able ID compare the lll8lbting efforts of die cement manufactmas. 1• Six pen:cnl iepartecl that the producls could not be employed in die ·-nnge of usu llKI 36 pen:enl ~ lhlt the pmducls wen not intcn:hmgeable. TWenly-two percent wen umble ID rupmd to these ~tiom. 109 Some of die firms indicated lhlt mbltitudon of mdinay cemenll w• limired ID speci6c bnnds (e.g.. Secs 41 for Lunmire. llKI Secv ~1 rm Refcon). In ldditicm. 28 pen:en& of the iefrlCIDriea DllllUfactunn indicafed tbal substianion WU not pouible. 110 The responses from zefnctories lllll1Uficluren differed considenbly. Far eump1e. •••• Ill Far eumple. ... begm bufing some of its mdinay CA cement from Lmrge m order to avoid paying higher shipping c:o111 for shipnen.. of ..J.eu-lhlll-lrUCklold" quantities of Secll' 71. 112 Sixty pmehuen reported no changes in supplien clurill2 the 1991-93 period. --1n The majority of these firms wen not Ible ID mate c:omplliscm becmse Ibey hid dealt with only one compmy. OvemU. Lehigh and Lafarge were ranked equally by 43 pen:ent of purcbasen with respect to tams of sale; 37 percent with respect to re1mD provisions; 31 pmcent for sales service; and 30 percent for teclmical assisrance. Lafarge was cited by ••• percent of the purchasers for having superior technical assistanm; ••• percent for better sales service; ••• percent for tams of sale; and ••• percenl for retum povisions. Lebigb was identified by ••• percent of purcbasen for having better tams of sale. • ••• Pmchasen also weie asbd ID nrc bow closely domestic and French mdinary CA cement compare oo die basis of factors such as availability, reliability of supply, quality and price. The combined respomes (in tams of prefenmces) of all purcbasen are repomd In 1be tabuJalion at the top of die next pap (in pmcent).114 Pricing Strategies and Other Considerations Both ordinary and white CA cement are priced. to some extent. Clll the basis of the aJumim content conl8incd in die c:ement. 11' Ordinary CA cement is soJd directly from the plant and from regional warehouses on a spot and CODu.:t basis. ••• repoded sellilur CA cement on a ••• povided for YOlume .:n6 ••• publishes price lis1s for its procluc1s. The SlaDdanl minimum shipment for ••• and payment tams are ....117 In conttast. *"· ••••s Slandanl minimum shipment is •••. ... pen:ent of ••••s sales are covaecl by comracts and ••• pm:ent are quoted oo a delivered pJant basis. The Commission also requesred pmcbuen ID describe the types of conlnlCtllal and pricing aareements common to Ibis industry as well as any differences between the suppliers. Most purcbascn reported that lheir firms did not discuss die bids of competing supplien in Older ID induce a particular supplier ID lower its prices. However, appmximately 44 penmt of the refnlclOries manufaCluren and 29 percent of die firms in lhc non-refnlctmies sector 114 Bued on respomes of rt refractmy llllllU&ctunn llKI 23 non-Jefncrmies finm. N"me Jefnc1Dries Jllll1Uflctmas ml rt non-refntclDries 6nns wen unable ID (or c:hme not to) respond ID dUs question. us Accmding to da&a subnilted by Lafnn CA ml Lebigb. bmxD. the I01llee of alumina in criTD.ry CA ommmt. gemnlly ICCIOUldl for pella' IMn ••• percent of die c:cst of raw Jllllerials used ID mab die vlrious bnnds of arctinmy CA clinker. In terms of ov...U producdon COl1I, the portion llCClOUllled rm by the bamite vuia smnewblt depending on the 1rlDll ml the IDllDlflclunr. Far aunple.- in 199"3, bauxite aa:ounted rm •••..... and ••• percent of the total cost of Fondu. Secs 41, and Secs SI, mspec:dvely. Bauxite ccounted for ... and ••• percent of the IDtal c:cst of poduction rm Lunmne and Refcon. nspectively. However, although bamite is a ••• compo11ent in these producls. thae are many odm flldon tbal can affect the pieing of these poducts. 116 ••• 117 Pmd..sen inc:liclt.efl smne degree of v.rimon in die payment terms offered' by these complDia. 11-23 U.S. AvaJI~ ••••••••.••••••••••••. 4 Rel!abiJilY of supply ••••••••••••• 4 0.Uvery time ••••••••••••.••••••• 8 O.Uvery terms •••••••••••••••••• 6 Lowest price •••••••••••••••••••• 24 Qu~ ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6 Servic:ie •••••••••••••••••••••••• 2 reponed tbal pmcbasing terms wen at least aomewhat negotiable. Allbougb die majarity of refracrories manufaclmaS repxted tbat lhe price of die CA cement products chanpd infnquendy (or not at all during the period of investiption), approximalely ••• percent of the finns in die DQD·refracrories sector reported annual (or biannual) price changes. rums in die non-iefiactories sector also pnaally ieported ••• discomus · from •••. Refmcrmies manufactunn reported a mater range in payment tams from tbc8e supplias.111 'lnnsponation costs can account for a YUiable but significam pen:enllp of die IDlll cost of CA c:cmenL In addilion IO varying in terms of dislanc:e, allele is a significant difference in die cost ID ship less-lhan-lruekload quanlities. As a result. some purchasers indicar.ed lbat their firms pmcbased CA cement from either Lafaqe or Alcoa because the companies offaed a wider range of plOducts. 1bis allowed them ID cambine shipments ID achiew ttucldoad quantities and lbeleby leduce their ownll shipping costs. The pen:ftUp of Ibo toral cost of die final product acc:ounrecl for by shipping CCJSIS Jeported by purchasers responding to the Q)mmission's queslionnaire varied significandy, mnging from estimates of less dm 2 pen:ent ID 'r1 pen:enL 111 Some firms reported nceiYiq .... Brand Ho France Equal reapon• Total 6 12 8 16 20 22 46 84 6 100 78 6 100 78 8 100 70 8 100 44 12 100 68 8 100 48 4 100 Producer and Importer. Value and Quantity 1rends for CA Cement 1be Commission nqumted quarterly value and quanlity dala from U.S. suppliers for their sales of oalinary and white CA cement to selecrecl marbt areas during 1990-93. 1be martet meas included- • Bureau of Mines' Easla1I Pennsylvania dislric~ • Bmeau of Mines' Soulbern Califomia ~ • Bureau of Mines' Northern 'laas dislric~ • the Slate of Missouri; and • die Stare of Ohio. The firms were iequested ID further disagrepfe their quarterly sales OD the basis of whether die lnnSaelioos wen (1) for produclS ao1d in bulk or bagged form; (2) sbippecl directly from the. plant or from regional warehouses; and (3) made OD I delivmd or f.o.b. basis. 1bis level of disaggregalion WIS requUed in Older IO tab into account pricing differences mociamd with shipping and storage costs. 1be Commission requested value and quantity dala for die following brands of CA cement Mmut.cturer Lumnlte .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • Ordinary Refmn . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ordinary Secar 41 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Ordinary Fondu • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Ordinary Fondu XR • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Ordinary Secar 51 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Ordinary Secar 71 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • White CA 14 •••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• White leh0 h Leh~h Lafarge Lafarge =Lafarge Alcoa ll-24 The ('oounission asked the firms to separate their data by brand because each of the brands differs in terms of chemical composition and other attributes that poleDtially affect the products' cost and ~. lehigh, Alcoa. and Lafarge CA submitted usable value and quantity data. 119 The reported quantity data from Lehigh and Lafarge CA for the brands listed above accounted for approximately *** and ·*** percent of their domestic shipments of ordinary CA cement. respectively: the quantity data repcxted by Alcoa accounted for *** percent of its domestic shipments of white CA cement in 1993. 120 A discussion of treads in average unit values and quantities for white CA cement is included in appendix G. The following sectims discuss treads in average unit values and quantities fur mdinary CA cement The data represent weighted-average f.o.b. plant values for sales made on a delivered and f.o.b. basis for products shipped from the plant and the warehouse.121 The data are grouped by the 1nDds that compete most directly with each other on the basis of alumina caitent and other poperties. In geaenl. both Lehigh and Lafmge reported that Lumnite (Lehigh) competes most directly with Secar 41. Fcmdu. and Faidu XR (Lafarge).122 As shown in tab.le 1. ***. Refcon (Lehigh) cooipetes most dimctly with Secar 51 (Lafarge). These products also differ with respect to chemical composition (including abunina) and melting points.123 The following section discusses treads for sales reported for the five regional market areas combined. At the regional level. ~ offered by Lafmge and Lehigh exhibit a greater variance than when the sales data are aggregated as below. To SCJDe extent. such variances are a function of factms such as warehousing IUTIUJgeDlellts, shipping costs, and credit terms, as well as the other factors discussed above. Appendix H C<Jlltains a mere detailed review of regional market treads. 119 The other U.S. producer (***) provided quarterly sales data for its shipments of ••• during the period. The data provided are for ••• and are not in a form that corresponds to the breakouts requested by the Commission. 120 Lafarge reported ••• to these market areas. 121 The firms reported shipping eosts associated with their sales made on a delivered basis as well as the shipping costs (from the plant to the warehouse) mociated with their sales made on an f.o.b. warehouse basis. This allowed Commission staff to calculate the wei2hted-average f.o.b. plant values reported herein. 122 ••• 123 There is ••• in chemical composition between the white CA cmient produced by Alcoa (CA 14) and the comparable product manufactured by Lafarge (Secar 71). Average unit value trends for packaged sales of ordinary CA cement Tab.le 23 shows average unit value and quantity trends for padaged ordinary CA cement sold in all five market areas during 1990-93. These unit value trends are also shown in figure 2: the data are grouped according to 1nDds that are the most comparable in terms of their respective chemical composition. The average unit values reported fur Lumnite (Lehigh) were *** than those reported for Secar 41 (Lafarge) and *** than those reported for Fcmdu (Lafmge) and Fondu XR (Lafmge). The average unit values reported for Refccm (Lehigh) were *** than those reported for Secar 51 (Lafarge). Com.paring the first quarter 1990 average unit values to those reparted in the fourth quarter of 1993. repcxted average unit values *** for *** except ***, which *** by *** pen:ent. 124 The average unit value diffetentials that are reflected in figure 2 are presented in appendix L Table23 Ordinary CA cement: U.S. producer's and Importer's average unit values (f.o.b. plant) and quantities of peclcllgecl sales to eastern Pennsylvania, Southern Callfomla, Northern Texas, Missouri, and Ohio, by brands and by quarters, Jan.1S.Dec.1993 * * * * * * * Figure 2 Average unit values of packaged ordinary CA cement, 199G-93 * * * * * * * 1n terms m quantity. reported sales of both of l.ebigh's products *** (on an annual basis). Sales of ***. ***. Com.paring total~ sales for 1990 versus these fer 1993. ***. •••.125 Average unit value trends for bulk sales of ordinary CA cement Table 24 shows average unit value and quantity trends fur bulk mdinary CA cement sold in all five madcet areas during 1990-93. These unit value trends are also shown in figure 3. Overall treads in bulk sales of mdinary CA cement *** these reported for packaged sales. Lafarge reported *** bulk sales m*** during***. CClnparing the first quarter of 1990 to the fourth quarter ·of 1993. the reported average unit 124 ••• 125 In i990, ***'s total sales of ordinary CA cement accounted for ••• percent of the total share of these market areas. In 1993, tho finn's sales accounted for ••• percent ll-25 value for ***. and that for ***. The average unit value differentials that Ile reflected in figme 3 lie ieported in appendix l Tllble24 Orclmry CA celMllt: U.S. praducer's and Importer's aven1ge unit values (f.o.b. plant) and quantities of bulk •les to Eastem Pennsylvania, Southem ClllHoml-, Northern Teas, •SllCUI, end Ohio, bf brmlds and by quarters, JM. 1110-0ec. 1m * * * * * * Flglft3 Average unit values al bulk ordinary CA cement, 1990-13 * * * * * * * * In cerms of quantity.***· ***· In I990. Lafmp's sales ICCOC'"t.ed for *** percent of bulk sales. By I993. the film's share of the five market areas had*** to *** percent. Purchaser Price Trends . The Comminion requested purchasers of ordinary and white CA cement to provide quartmiy value and quantity data in esSf!Drially the same form that was requested for U.S. suppliers of the poduCls during I99I-93. In addition to the five desian""" market areas. tbe films were requested to provide quarlmly data for their U.S. pmcbases that occurred outside of tbeae resicm. Pmcbasen were asked to report quarterly data Oil the basis of bnDd. peckagjna. and whether tbe shqnents mgin•ted from tbe plant or a iqional warehouse. In addition. purc:basen wem requested to mport values on a deliveled and f.o.b. basis. jf possible. The following discussion focuses on tteads in qlJIDriries and avenae unit Values for buJk and packaged pmcbases of ordinary CA cement that wem shipped dilectly from tbe plant and repoml Oil ID f.o.b. basis. Ju with the producer and impcnll' sales data ieported ab<M=. tbe data wem aaiepted acmss geographic ~ClllS. Ju shown in figmes 4 and s. tbe average unit values iepmted by purc:basen varied smiewbat from ccmparable values :reputed by Lebigh and I..afarge.126 To sane extent. it is likely that tbeae diffmeDces stem from the diffaaa between the number of sales :reputed by the two ordinary CA cement suppliers and 126 App. J contains the average unit value and quantity dita reported by purcliaaers. In addition, the appendix contains tables showing the total quantities of all purchues of ordinary CA cement disaggreaated by the fypes of purcbaaen. 11-26 the number of purchasers samp]ed by the Cnmminion In addition. any regional diffaences in pricing not ercnmted for by shipping CCJS1S would be reflected in the purcbuer data. Flgunt4 Average unit alues of peclcaged purch.... of ordinary CA cement, 119'1·13 * •. * * * * Flgunt5 Average unit alues al bulk purch811s al ordln8ry CA cement, 1111·13 * * * * * * • * With n:spect to packaged sales. averaae unit values mpaned for Lumnite were generally *** those repClded for Foadu.. . However. ***. purc:basen mpaned values for Lumnjte that were geaenlly *** than tboe :reputed for Seem' 41 and *** than those repClded for Fam XR. 1be values for Refcm and Secar SI were *** with sales data ieporled by Lafaqe and lcbigb. The data for balk pmcbases also diffaed from the sales data ieporflld by the two suppliers. Avenge unit values ieporled for Lnmnim generally were *** than dae repClded for Seem' 4I and *** than tbOlle mpoded for Fmdu. The average unit values ieporled fer Seem' SI ***: ***. values fer Secar SI were *** than those ieported for pmcbases of Refcon. Lost Sales and Lost Revenues The C-ommission mceived allegations al lost sales and reveaues ***· In its questionnaire respcmse. Ubigh reported *** that amounted to approximately *** allqedly pmchued from tbe French supplier during I990-93. The canp&Dy also mpcll1ed *** amoanting to approximately *** during 1989. In addition. Lehigh nOCied that it had *** of CA flux ***. ***·*** reported that in I99I and 1992 it could *** 1bat was similar to *** because the price of *** was so low•• ~ CQlll~y did not ~ any value '!' qulllti.ty informmon or ckx:1111wmtati011 to support this allegation Ubigh also :reponed *** lost revenue allegaticm · 1bat llDOlllded to *** of ordinary CA cement The allegations geaerally eaccmpass *** tbe period of investigation. Lehigh also alleged 1bat it bad lost revenues associaled with its sales of CA flux. However. the company *** :related to tbis allegation. Iaslead. •••. *** also :reputed *** lost :revmue allegatjon that took pm during the period of investigation. However. it is not clear from the infmmation reported whether a sales transaction m:mally occ:mred. The Cnmmission ~ted all of the films cited in ••••s lost sales and lost' revenues allegations iegardiDg ordinary CA cement. All but one of the firms received and responded to the Commission's purchaser questiOIJD8ire.127 In general it was difficult to verify Lehigh's allegations because the allegations covered periods as early as 1986 and with a few exceptions spanned a multiyear period that began prior to 1991. Dala requested from purcbuen were limited to 1991-93. The quantities cited in most of the allegations represent the total quantity Lehigh estimated that the firms purchased during the entire period cited. Because most of these firms' sales were advcndy affected by the recession in the early 1990s and because many of the firms haw shifted some of their purchases to white CA cement. the alleged quantities of lost sales do not neceaarily represent what the firms' purchases would haw been bad they purchased 100 percent of their ordinary CA cement from Lehigh. Howevs, it is imponant to note that the dala conlained in the Commission's pmcbaser questionnaires may underslat.e the quantities of specific brands purchased by some of these firms. Purchasers widl multi-plant opemdons were only asked to provide quarterly pmcbasing dala · for the manufacturing facility that purchased the largest quantity of a particular brand of cement. 127 The infomwian provided below and in K wu drawn &om lbe questionnaire responses of :tr'of the firms lilted except .... Figure& The individuals who were contacted by the Commission generally bad a difficult time verifying (or refuting) the allegations because of the time periods involved.121 Company records were difficult to obtain and. in some instances, the individuals who were involved with purchasing no longer were employed by the companies. In addition. •••. In general. the allegations are, at best. only partially substantiated. Appendix K provides a company-by-company review of all of •••'s lost sales and lost rewnues allegations. Exchange Rates Quartaly data repmted by the International Monetary Fund indicate that during January-March 1990 through October-December 1993 the nominal value of the French franc fluctuated, depreciating only 1.7 percent overall relative to the U.S. dollar (figure 6). Adjusted for movements in producer price indices in lbe United States and France, the real value of the French cunency showed an overall depreciation of 11.1 percent for the period January-March 1990 through July-September 1993, the most recent period fer which official price dala are available. 121 •••. lnaexes of nominal and real exchange rates of the French franc relative to the U.S. dollar, by quaners, Jan. 1990-Dec. 1993 120.,..------------------------------------------------ 115 110 8..- u 105 0en en :.)( 100 •"CJ .s 95 90 85 ~990 1991 1992 1993 f -e- Nominal --- Real Source: International Monetary Fund, lntemationa/ Financ/a/ Statistics, Feb. 1994. 11-27 Appendix A Federal Regi,ster Notices II' lifll.1·~19·11··111'!=111 r1 r1 ie J'I>. ,11tt1: l l ~~~1· I t I' I .. -ur ~ri~I- ..i-c1=n~id~ 'I .i. I -I ., f • If ]· .l J I s:o • 1.l n~ }I !- - • - 1 11 f r11'i';1·1rrn 11!ff'ii11np1;11.. 11·rnnu1f li'e;1 ~IH'JJiHn ii.. f Jr l~ I ti ~l Jn; l,J .. P r•Jij· !I J f I ''I~ .-l ~f tf IlgI f • fl i . I ' .. I. I' I' f ~. I 87110 F811anl ..... I VoL 58. No. 244 I Wedmlday. December Z2. 1993 I Notices twna pGldlMrilaa brilfa ii April. 1. 111M: wttw 'Ntimcm71DU1t ._awDO lat8r Iba tine (S) daJI..,... tbe beutaa. In MdltUm. a)',.._ wbo .... aat .....S 111 appeuam •• put)' to tbe baftltiptkm a;;r;..'1::!• .writbm ltatalat of peztineDt to tbe tubtc of tbe iD~ptiDD cm or t.lare Apdl 1, 11M. All wrttta stabmlatcma ID\llt c:allfarm with the prorillcma of 1201.a of tbe 0-•'•'•'• nalea: 11111 tut.nlataa1 that c:antaia 8PJ mmt allD c:aDfDna with tbe ~of IS 201.1. 207.3. ad Z07.7 of tbe Onn•latcm'1 na1ea. In aa:mdaDm witb IS 201.tl(c) ad 207.3 of tbe rui.. w:h doc:ummt llecl by a put)' to the ID'Nllipticm mmt t. amwd aa Ill atbn puti• to tbe iDwatiptiaa (u idmtlled byeltlm tbe public or BPI .mm liltJ, llUI a Clftilcate of ..tm mmt t. Umely llled. '1119 SeclwtarJ will DClt aa:apt. dacumeat far llilla without • Clltl8cllte . of.me.. Art ltJ. 'ftda ............ la ..... c-ducted _... autlai., of 11111 T.ur Act ol 1UO. lltle VD. 'ftda ...... pvblllbed ,_1to-J07.20ollilll Connn•Ndaa'anala a,..-o111111c ,... lau9d: D- w 17, 1913. ....... g t .. S.CulWJ. fFR Doc. IM1232Pu.ct12-21-93:1:45 uaJ mu.._,..... A·J A-4 .. trl •91' I I Vol; 11. No. 48 I W......,. Mach a•. tlM I Notiml INTERNATIONAL TRADE COP•l&SION pn............. 731-TA-MI FlnllJ Cemln c.11:111111-.......c-.t .... c.nmt Cllnlr.-Fram Fl'mllOe; ............................-........ . AG8C'I: thdt.t lm.1ntmpet1gn1l Tml9r.c..•w1ma. ACllOll: ..... ICbmd.... fartbe .....,_ . illtldlpttaa. UF&mWIDAtl:FllbnauJZt.1191. .... PUlllHIRmm111A1DICDlrAC:r: Dlbn Blbr (2DZ-2DM1IO). O!lim of . Jntldlptiam, U.S. Jntwnettcmel Tnde C".cnm''lim•.sao E Sll9lt sw.. WaJaia&taa.DC20GL llwlDt- · impml'lcl p11m CID obtaiD illfmmallcia cm·dds ........, mntaetmg tbe c.mmn•n1on•1TDD·1emmeJcm202- 205-1110. ....... wlthmablllty impel..... wllo will .... lplJCial .........tni..... talbe Cmun•'lim abauld camaa tbe Ofllm · of tbe Sec:l9llrJ at zaz...a-zaao lllP""EWl'MY..alml'lm:Jmldi• NDNlllbar 1. 1113. die Cmnm..._, · - >.VI -=· ·ti~ a1~1~ tJ1111.~!~1;r11;.~i= ~1 ~iltil:i= ~ rs:_a.¥•· ,. · 1! · . . · 10 i~l>lflJ J~ 1 ,,i 11 ~ (! J'J.:1· ;i ·'lil'~f.il'r 11llllf - . . [t .,.. &,l.. ·; i I i 11 f &" II' : ~i'( ~ .l l .;. -.. .. tJI . f a-..; j ffO i -f 1· ...~ = ~ Uiitfitl HiiitliUU.HIUU i1 •1 1111 1P~~l;I, •~ fl ~Hile ti a - 11 rfrsr rtJ . J :c: i (r!ttUH 11J~. n1iI[ill f~J1'il11 ltJlilil'P''1!if 1.1 :::i:r::u !'!~r I~"'' r!r~ &!f h~h'I 11' !I &!I· i ,. ,.'I l a. h.'&! 1 &!It ,t H r~~ ~~· ~ o s~r l fl f - fr1 ... e = I f.... t J J r: -:! t f~ i.... I lii. t!JHlUJU=ftiHii'1·Jl1U·1:n;. •,li~Hl1illJllD'11u . tt, rP'!iitil I lfi(f"h,1!l1''ll.hJ irlf!~rr rfiirsf .1 1 ( 11~ i!J · tiff f.! ~t J; !irlf ~ J ~ a_ iJI ~· I •· R~l f a • fr - . r~!rili ilff~f('~~itEflf.il lftl~t!tf!llilflilt!liJliff~l 1 ·!I toll_P;. D ~11 r1:r.rr ... f tf § =g•1~ll 1 i: &'lff fl" =--;w: llt· I . 1· ,. ~,~'•I ii ;-1.1 - ·-··· - 15..ti . . . II fJl ~ •'1!i18 '~~i1UJIHf 1Utl:!lt1·1··;1i~tr1 11-1it . lf~lfSUfi1~1L·iu[·l.il!'r~~ 11= 'l ; . -g:-re- ·11 t I ~ •. i fa. rr •I; '~ . ·lrE- tiIt i e. . I . . .&: u . . )C ...., . B~~tl·i[J if~i[Jf t~il~llii! l!.lllilltl tJRll~ltf 111;1i~lt lli?_l l~flf ii .v"! tUi! SI ~R; li!HHUIUII lHri Hif IHttliiflftiniuu:ff ?!inn II: l I -~~15~,~ • --·- Ill !fl ·w~~ If . s -r • 11 r 1 1 a.' '- '· .Jl • ' -sflo · 1-a.1r1r. Ill. • · · · .. . . llU · 1 I' 1 t- ti if l iiir 1~· :r ·1 ii i• 1· t 11~ li'i :~1rr-1 .. , ii. 1 '"- · lit· rnf 1··11r-11111iffil 1•ii'1'i1' llliUHlil1'1!llll'1 '1·U11111•1· 1u»•1iii1[11·H•1'f~! I' : ! Ji r f::a . . . .. 11r fa. ,,, ' ,,~ J ;J f •.' ~ 1 1 1 t (, I. · IfEf> ' I j :! . .. ~ . t I= f a. " . r r ~ ~ . -r i ='f iE:ifl! ifrl!I ~l[if fftnlf i- l Ulli 1 ~·1!~i1·.1111~1 1 !Ii •l' 1rtl l:l ~.· [•l ·· 1.1•.J ~ al ra.1 J.... r s t ..-II ( . t • . a. .· . . = I ii ~alifilUlllllii;UiiHUJ.lfliJIUlf~ •g !Ui f ti~U-iH'.HfUh ; f;! ( r1r r-1 t ;.~1i1r~~r 1 •1·1..- 11 r 1· ... K 1 '1i• n1[· llf"'ie. ·=1-t.e1~ 11~. r B t l . f · [ ... · f 1r ii'"crf i ~1nu1nunutU!HUiHl!ll! liHiitUliHUUiUUilUH Jr_ - i- . :;t• s:- a-&- ,-la ;.1 !j .l ~ i sf~ jll i i 'r(-lllLE-lll a. tfil '-(.-t (f· r· ~, f f i • .. · . f Ji. t Ii I. f . ~ ( . e.-~I!·~( !I~ ,.,,,~if llL!:I i' 1• •·pi t'IJa~•t ·•~It li8 ~!•l le. • =- 1 .f 1 a liit _.. •• r . .... II ., . ~ "~ a HU~itr •n 1:~ 1iJ1i1i1 1~111•nr1 111aJH1!t·1~f n•1 -iUl~t'i!ifl~t!!ff (~iUi iilfsr~[r,r r ,~· - I fl .fJr ~ l~~ 111 ; Ir[ rl ~ r~ ~11 ! l . .. Padtaul &sl.tee J as Slipido. .51 / March 25. 1994 / Notices 1411 1 verification, in acceedancm with al CFR 353 31(x1(1), it did net contain sufficient data for perpom of dumping andysis. Therefore. bemuse we did not hove complete sales information-on the record to properly analyze these sales, we and BLA. Howeres, we do not dank that use of the petition me as BIA kr these miss. as suggested by pentioner, ismaansed. In this me, we are using paatW BIA beams Lange has provided respames to our questionnaires. Mini-we resort to pada' MA: it is our practice to use the highest nonoberrationel an based on zespoecient's mooned mist Ibis is • an adverse liguie. yetis based on the eespondent's calaileted angina. Therefore. we hem wed as MA for • these amiss the highest. nowebstrationsi margin calculated for any of respondent's reported 11S. sales of cement. Comment 2 Petitioner contends that certain reported U.S. mom saissolleged to Law been mode under anosecissive supply contract dated amtside the POI should be included in the Deportment's analysis. Patitiemor that the • Department was unable to verify that these sales were in fact undo manont to a Mamas Agreement that Lafarge claims wines seclusive supply contract. Accordingly. petitioner maintains that respondent filed verification with moped hrthese sales. Furthermore, petitioner contends Mt. even tithe Dammam bed been shies° verify these miss. vespontim never had an exclusive supply comma with this particular anteater. Manner asserts that the Master Agreement is mitber 7e:elusive" nor a "CODMICL". Therefore. petitioner argues that the . Department should deterudne that the appropriate date of sale her these particular sales is the date of invoice. vihkth Iasr1ILia the POL and the Department should include therspseatimalitsmainteitmlins singztrieetion. Deportment should consider the date of the Master Agreement as the dote of sale for the subject sales. Respondent argues that the blanks pecans orders issued by the customer priests the P01 indicates the customer's conunitment to purchase its requitement: bum the respondent for spedfic products at the specific prices set by the Master Agreement. DOC Position We agree with petitioner. he our deficiencynnestimmeire of December 14. 1493. the Deputises specific:shy asked the reepsedmt los:ippon its amnion regarding the -exclusivity" of the Master Agreement. Respondent. tat itsDeameber 29,1993, sespenre. could neither demonamse that Milliner Agmeninat "Wmcitesios." nor what quanta of the nobjectimachandise die weemposing no& Rather, • aim* stated that the cestamer purchesed all its tMeneeme for main comes vireliese Mod that the "volume comdtment" mentioned in the (Manta' Armament hod been ogreed to hefierehentd. Sines we hem no documentation dentenstint a 'limning oldie minds" hoth quantity and price eccuned beim • the • VOL tvecannot assimes. based an sespeedesith ward; that the Mane Armament Ina requimments amect for puppets of aseehlisieng date of sae. (SeeCtankshafts ham the FRG and Gm Portland Celient from Medan) Accordingly, we have detennined the appropriate date 'feels for them particular saleathiedsesieleof • pun' order. and see have included than in our Beal diumping colculations. Comment! • - Petibienseinguarthetthe Department should mom in vsolinismy deteminetion that CA commt mid CA cement diem emends rain such ex shelter mespnien. Ameadingni peationer.the Depietninere denszoinalem was limed oaths imeerect pressimmthea 41) Citannent isnot like CA cement abeam in the purposes for which used. amdf2lin all =Pinvolvins intennedisteeird roducts the Department hes demonised that there should lie two such or similar categones. Petitioner moods that them is monosodium that CA mem and CA cement diniser constitute ally emends or sandier maim possurma en section 117711011C) el theavemidtmmpmiagstetuts. ihomeg to petitioner. CA cement ciinker is like the CA annent It is mato protium, mad the differencmin-merchandise adjustment that would be Impaled to make far value comparisons between home market ages eifCA cement and U.S. sales °famine would be well below the Depeament's 20 pacent difmer guideline. Petitioner feather apse that bemuse there is no data on the record for home market sales of CA cement to calculate FMV. the Department should use MA to determine a menthi for Infamies saes of both CA cement and CA cement cihsker. Petitioner believes that, as BIA. the Deportment should use 4123 percent, which is the iowest main alleged in the petition. Respondent .dees not believe that there is any meson far the Department to revisit its decisionthat CA cement and CA cement dinker are different - such or shnilai categories et thus late stage in the investigation. Rempondent argues that it would be unfair for the Department to penalise It for failing to report information that the Department decided net request. Furthermore. respondent•ontends that the statute does not allow*. Department to use MA when the information at issue was never requested. DOC Position •• Weww with reapendent: It was dedded early on in these investigations tint CA cement and eminent clinker constituted two mach or similar categories of merchandise in accordance with the definition of similar merdiendim under section m(1sken) and ICKB) efthe Act. which sates that the component _nansendsaed uses chits products must be "likes (See line 1S, 1193. Menmendeen from Richard K. Momiandm Bovines R. Stafford Re Such or Similar and attached Menemendunt from Stafford to Morsiond). In this me, while cement end clinker may be made of similar metexials, they am not mild for 'disowns purpoms.ainker is used to make amment. and cement is ma to bind damp *ether or to aumeanne emenne or toasts. Clinhersequires further proceningto be like amount in the purposes for whidi it is used. For these mesons we have held cement and dinkier to constitute different ands or ▪ nierdiendin categories in this and past cement times. Moreover, contra, to petitioner's assertion. the ;=ntmaterials and uses of within the class orichni of menbendise subject to investiption the determinants in establishing categories of such or similar merchandise: The 20 percent tabus rule is not considered by the • Department in establishing such or similar categories. Comment 4 Respondent maintains that in the preliminary determination the Department inconectiy deducted from the USP man indirect selling expense. inventory tarrying ants (IC) Mad on an inventory period including the time between clinker production hi France and production of the finished cement in the United States. Respondent claims that it -did not sell clinking° an unrelated party in the United States. but rather to its U.S. subsidiary for !anther punning into cement. Therefore. the cliniow in this:zee is work-inirocess • inventcry. and the period between the production of the intermediate clinker A-11 lf1iii!fljfIHf!JHi i iiUtt~!f lii!1f !iJ~iiit !ilfilJ!llJ!il!i!ltf11•' Ht f.· f t'Prlr!lrr. ·. 'li.j f r~~ I Rs: i I. -i ...;11 sl f~ .I . . . i' Ill 11111!ri1n~!1!1 Ii ;111111 ~ rii~lti; llri.illi .· ilf~ii~r! 111n1111! (it ... i!l ll ~• rrr~; !~!i Jliii!l!I tl!~i i -- i!: .~,; 111 1r11 fli!~i fil ~~ •. r. :is· gt ii a f •- -.. --ii• ,-. ~ -~ Cl I - ~ [If~ I i ij i I i I !. r. ~ Qa· r ri~ ~l!il iileirfl i~lilii!i!~~lfi i1;1 flitl!!~~~~rl ~iil:ki~~-- ' j it ir~lr ' • r~.:a 5.Jl"tlSJ·~~~e., a.~ ~;1·;c1u~1i1fl''iii.'1'lt~- ~ s;ti§. •s-Js-•llt.. llf" of Er f ~· 1 .. l"si ! ~i 8°~ sSS ... s- I J:i-. !:i 11 rl f - 1. _Ii M5-l~ ;11 ~ i .. l. 1r~~1~ r t- ~Ii ;a.i Jt ~llt~J. " 1r;:_ JI i: 11 ...11 s r . 11 er I r r - f . lltt w l"j e.f!I"~ qi ~tr•tll!IJ~[lr't~r~· i Al)~ li~f.11[ 11 I-JI l~il!(1t1 r1·1·r~ .. r II ...l t· r I q • • •. r~ I . ' [ s t ~ I -, .. . f s· -=· Ii i fl ti. N l. l • E t; JU!tiil!ii!!~ li~iiiHf ltHriHliiiifi UH 't ltllfHiU~Uil n~ 111 ,-~ 1.1~ 1111 r ;r ~s:.11. • t.11~[ l~i i 1 ~J~ilJii ;;.~_11~a.1•l 11 a.itr-sr. . . N. . . . ~ 1:1 Hg r.J~ l.. n .1 f ~ • u.. J ~I d_~f t e'r rlJt' '11ftt ,tlLrr~la I'Efi s;.•. 1 1~ a-1~ 1f itf ts.h1ui~1f f ~rr.f ~ &: •' a· l"g.e.il !r . 1.-< I f R. ·. g . -l~ f f Er . . Uf!1lif1 UUI i!H',lHJ lJH u. un1tt1rI11!H!UP!'1l!~H fJ!l.1'f nnnfir ... rl(il•'~fl !.'11 r !11rlr::fll.... 1 ~ r~nr1'i1 t--1•1-sll!irii= !:I l I • t:.: r ~•- . ..1 r r:!. .. R.o.. c.1. - - - - It~ . f• ll i• i · >[rJ.s . s-~· T •· ~· I ,. • 1 • tJ[~ -, :.;--- ii fJ J·~f~· '[. ~Ei' ··-· .. - . - ".' II Ii 111 iHn!tt~nntnnnun1iu 1n1!u1;urrraun1unrun rH• ~- I:- l=i:f s :·1 i.1 l l r•1,· • r1 · i f&-s! l.f-lf 11 ;lffa·r;lii·':"'i ;.s .. e. • e.. < ,, .... :I I - . !iiL Er - &: &:- s 0 r • ,. . .. II a a. .. .. .. ... - .,. "' ·tiutHUHi -HHtUHfiUHHHHUHHUitHUUiUiiUUH 5 ' i • • s·~ ii it r 111:"' Jf' fI ;i , .... f~ ['-'t11 fii'. J f fi.i: ~J !fi;U:i [ l:i.1 ~la i< 111.· t1. f e r ,. : • .a . ". f r iJ.:a " e. • • I .- l I Er f.t .' ' I 1= 11 1 11 - 1- a-• a,. I "'.-," ,.. 1.,. 11 .. 11 1 . < r ·y • 1-fI r•f" 31 -- ,,, I "' , rn r J. l r f .- ~ l .. ca. 11 ..... , ~· ..-L .. ra~ ~ -,_ I ! I .. Jn I ~ l I f ~ •. !- ~ ~ tn l &: It - l .r i f -~ .. ! " E ... ,-t~nnnunnr U!IUiiU lHUilUHH .. nnnt nu~ I.,,~. rt•[~ 1 1~r:1 •:If Irr i I§ . ,.li'•1·r-1·-.. . .. ,.. 1.•• i" JlfS.ll f.:9fl.lr . ii "I 111I f f • r~ f . "l . . . Ir I • :a.I[ Ir , 1 ..·''· I . e . f ~ . ·".,ll 11 .. =i[r· ·,''l~s;s:111 .. Ii • ""I .. • ... 1r1 ... -- I... il==-t- .. ,., i111: tit:rt •e.r e a. LI I' s f I ~ If .• f .-r.1· ~ "M141 -1'911inl •• I I Vol.. 58; ·No. 18../- Pdday. Much· 25, tltN I Notices . L*l9 .----- ·Moe.a ........_,,.,.. . .... Lllllg9 ----- Moe.a D'CN-dftcetie .......................·1&11 ·1&11 .......................... la m:ardmm witb .aim 735(dJ of dl9Act. ..11nwaattwa. lat8lmtlaaaJ ,..-a...••• cna at aar .............. Aaaarlllll ........,.. ..a11n111t1-.tberrc wlll ............... dm9 ..... .. .......U, IDlariDlo artm- 11111t8dal latmJ to.~ U.S.........,.wltbila 45.,..lftMD'C ......... tllll......a· IDPllJardmltafmmrialbllmJdo. 11Gtallt.IM~wlll tmldnal8dmdallwmitill ....... • .. a-it oftbe ....,...,,. ofllqaide"• will berefmldlCl ................... lfdl9D'C ......1bltsm:hiDJm7 ......... wdl...... .-1dumpills·dutJ ardlr~ . Cultollllotllmrl.to ..... a· · llltldumpina duty cm CA CWW11t. cmnmt dlllbr aad flux fnma Fnam ........S arwitbdmna flam .............. larc:amumptima ............. of llllp8Dlicm of Uquidlt.tan. N14f& ....... 2 .......... 'ftlia aatiat m'ftl .... cmlJ JWIDigdw to pudel mbilct to edm•n•antin prolKtin am. (APO) la dm9 hmltipti.. of their NlpODwiN)ity CDftlin8 tbe Nblm ar d..arudicm of proprillaly infanmtian di1Ckmd mut.r APO la accardma with 11O'R353.34(d). FallU19 ID c:mnply Is. Yiolaticm of ... APO. ,,._ dmnnimtiam .. publiab9ct punuaDt to l9dicm 735(d) of ... Act (11 u.s.c. 1173d(d)) and 11 aa.· 353.20(a)(4). A-18 Appendix B List of Witnesses Appearing at the Commission's Hearing B-2 Those listed below appeaml as witnesses at the United Stat.es International Trade Commiaion's hearing: Subject CERTAIN CALCIUM ALUMINATE CEMENT, CEMENT CLINKER, AND FLUX FROM FRANCE Inv. No. 731·TA-845 (Flnal) Date and Time : March 31, 1994 • 9:30 a.m. Sessions were held in connection with the investigadon in the Main Hearing Room 101 of the United States Intemational Trade Commission. SOO E St., SW, Washington. DC. In SUpport of the Imposition of Ant/dumping Duties: ICin cl SJJllding =gt0n,DC On behalfcf Lehigh Portland Cement Company, Allemown. PA Roy J. Bottjer, National Marbling Manapr, Calcium Aluminate Cements & Special Cement Pmduc1s Adam G. Holtaboff, Jr., Manager, Technical Services. Calcimn Aluminale Cements Paul A. Pacbapa, Plant Manapr Bruce P. Malasbevich, President. Econamic Consullin Services, Inc., Washington. OC g Jerrie Mirga. Senior Econamist. Economic Consulling Services, Inc., Washington. OC James J. Kelly, Va President. National ReccMl')' Sysrems. E. Clicago, IN =C~ --OFCOUNSEL In Opposition to tM Imposition of Ant/dumping Dulin: Shearman & Sterling WasbingtOD, oc On behalfof Lafarge Fondu lntemational (LFI) Lafarge Calcimn Aluminales, Inc. (I.CA) Alain Buc:aille, Gencnl DUecur, I.Fl Gary Gauthier, President. LCA Thomas W. Green, Nalional Sales Manager, LCA William J. West, Vice President/Gencml Manager, West Minerals Grant E. F'mlayson -OF COUNSEL Wendy E. Ackerman '} Appendix C Summary Data Concerning the U.S. Market for Ordinary CA Cement Products and for White CA Cement TableC-1a Orclnary CA cement: Summary dllt8 COl'IC8mlng the U.S. marlcat (where Lafarge CA Is not Included as a U.S. producer) • • * • * • * TableC-1b Orclnary CA cement: Summary dllt8 COl'IC8mlng the U.S. marlc8t (where Lafarge CA Is Included as a U.S. producer), 1990-93 * * * • * * * TableC-2 Ordnary CAC cllnkar: Summary dlltll concerning the U.S. marlc8t, 1990-93 • * * * • • * Tablec-3 CA flux: Summary data concerning the U.S. marlcat, 1990-93 • • • * * * * TableC-4 Ordnary CAC cllnkar and CA flux: Summary data concerning the U.S. mar1c8t, 1990-93 * • • * • * • TableC-S. White CA cement~ Summary dllt8 concerning the U.S. market (where Lafarge CA Is not Included as a U.S. producer), 1990-93 * * • * * * * Tablec-sb White CA cement: Summary dllt8 concerning the U.S. market (where Lafarge CA Is Included as a U.S. producer), 1..._93 • * * • * • * Tablec-68 Ordnary and white CA cement: Summary dlltll cancemlng the U.S. market (where Lafarge CA Is not Included as a U.S. producer of ordinary or whtte CA cement), 1990-93 * • • • • * * Tablec-&b Ordinary and white CA cement: Summary dllt8 cancemlng the U.S. market (where Lafarge CA Is Included as a U.S. producer of both onlnary and white CA cement), 1990-93 * * • * • • • Table C-7 Ordinary and white CAC cllnker and CA ftux: Summary data concerning the U.S. marlcat, 19S.93 * * * * * * * '} C-2 Appendix D Additional Data on U.S. Shipments of Ordinary CA Cement By Brands of Cement and by End-Use Applications TableD-1 Onlmry CA cement for relr8ctory appllcatlons: U.S. shipments of damesllc product, U.S. shipments of Imports, by flnns, and appmant U.S. cansumpllon, 1..a • • • • • • • Table 0-2 Onlmry CA cement for non-refnlclory applcatlona: U.S. shipments of domesllc product, U.S. shipments of Imports, by flnns, and apparmt U.S. cansumpllon, 1..a * * * * * * * Table D-3 Onlmry CA cement: U.S. shipments of U.S. producers, by brands of cement, 1990-93 • * • • • • • TablelM Onlmry CA cement: U.S. producers' U.S. shipments, by appllcatlons and by flnns, 1990-93 • * * • • • * 1 D-2 Appendix E Additional Data on Financial Operations of CA Cement Products Table E-1 Income-and-loss experience of Lehigh on Its operations producing CA flux, calendar years 1990-93 * * • • * • * Table E-2 Income-and-loss experience of U.S. Dl'Oducers on their operations producing white CA cement and CAC cllnkar, calendar years 1990-93 * * * • • * • TableE-3 Income-and-loss experience of U.S. producers on their operations producing ordinary CA cement and CA flux, calendar years 1990-93 * • • * • * * Table E-4 Income-and-loss experience of U.S. producers on their operations producing ordinary and white CA cement and CAC cllnkar, calendar years 1990-93 • • • * • * • Table E-5 Value of asaets and return on asaets of U.S. producers' operations producing ordinary and white CA cement and CAC cllnker and CA flux, fl9C8I years 1990-93 * • * * • * * Table E-6 Cepltal expenditures by U.S. producers of orclnary and white CA cement and CAC cllnker and CA flux, by products, fiscal years 1990-93 • * * • • • • Table E-7 Research and development expenses of U.S. producers of ordinary and white CA cement and CAC cllnkar and CA flux, by products, fl9C8I years 1990-93 • * * • * * * E-2 Appendix F Effects of Imports on Producers' Existing Development and Production Efforts, Growth, Investment, and Ability to Raise Capital F-2 EtTects of Imports on Producers' Existing Development and Production EtTorts, Growth, Investment, and Ability to Raise Capital The Commission requested U.S. producas to describe any actual or anticipated negative effects of imports of ordinary CA cement. ordinary CAC clinka. and CA flux from France on their growth. inve.ument. ability to raise capital. or existing development and production efforts. including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced vasion of the product The Commission also asked U.S. producas to report the influence of such imports on their scale of capital inve.umems undc::rtakcn. The responses are as follows: • • * • • • • Appendix G Average Unit Value Trends for White CA Cement TlbleG-1 Average Unit Value Trends for White CA Cement Neither Lafarge nor Alcoa reported ••• of white CA cement to firms •••. Consequently, the following discussion is limited to these firms' sales of the •••. Lafarge reported sales in••• (tables G-l-G-4). Alcoa••• sales to•••. Both firms' reported sales were ••• during the four years and repcxted average unit values fluctuated significantly. Porthe most part, the average unit values reported by Alcoa for CA 14 were••• than those reported by Lafarge for its sales of Secar 71. Lafarge reported ••• of Secar 71 during ••• and reported ••• sales of this product during ••• White CA cemmt: U.S. producer's and Importer's.,,..,. unit values (f.o.b. plant) and quantlUes of peckllged •les to eastern Pennsylvanla, bY brands and by quarters, Jan. 1990-Dec. 1993 • * • • • * • TableG-2 White CA ,...ce1...m11o11e11nnt: U.S. ..-car's and Importer's 8¥81'118 unit values (f.o.b. plant~d quantlUes of packaged Sales to northern Tem, by brands and by quarters, Jin. 1 Dec. 1993 * • • • • * * TllbleQ.3 White CA -ce1-11181-n-t: U.S. producer's and l~'s 8V81'11ge unit values (f.o.b. Dlllnt) and qumtllles of peckllged •les to Mlsaaurl, bJ brands and Df quarters, Jan. 1990-Deo. 1993 * * * * * * * Table CM White CA cemmt: U.S. producer's and Importer's 8V81'1118 unit vmlues (f.o.b. Diani) and quantities of peckllged sales to Ohio, by bi'ands and by qu......, Jan. 1990-Dic. 1913 * * * * * * * ") G-2 Appendix H Regional Analysis of Average Unit Value Trends for. Ordinary CA Cement Eastern Pennsylvania * • • • * * • Table H-1 Orclnary CA cement: U.S. producer's and Importer's average unit values (f.o.b. plant) and quantlUes of packaged sales to eastern Pennsylvanla, by brands and by quarters, Jan. 1990-Dec. 1993 • • * • • • * Figure H-1 Average unit values of padmged ordinary CA cement, Eastern Pennsylvanla, 1990-93 * * • * • * • Table tt-2 Ordinary CA cement: U.S. producer's and Importer's average unit values (f.o.b. plant) and quantlUes of bulk sales to Eastern Pennsylvanla, by brands and by quarters, Jan. 1990-Dec. 1993 • • • • • * * Figure H-2 Average unit values of bulk ordinary CA cement, Eastern Pennsylvanla, 1990-93 • • • • • • • Southern California * * * * • • • TableH-3 Orclnary CA cement: U.S. producer's and lmPGrter's average unit values (f.o.b. plant) and quantlUes of packaged sales to southern caHfomla, by brands and by quarters, Jan. 1990-Dec. 1993 * * * • • • * .Figure H-3 Average unit values of padmged ordinary CA cement, Southern Callfomla, 1990-93 • * • * * * * TabletM Ordinary CA cement: U.S.=cer·s and Importer's average unit values (f.o.b. plant) and quantities of bulk sales to em Callfornla, by brands and by quarters, Jan. 1990-bec. 1993 • • * * • * * FlguretM Average unit values of bulk ordinary CA cement, Southern Callfomla, 1990-93., * * * • * * * H-2 Northern Texas Table H-5 Ordinary CA cement: U.S. producer's and Importer's average unit values (f.o.b. plant) and quantities of packaged sales to northern Texas, by brands and by quarters, Jan. 1990-Dec. 1993 • * * * * • • Figure H-5 Average unit values of packaged ordinary CA cement, Northern Texas, 1990-93 • * * • • • • Mis.wuri • • • • • • * Table H-6 Ordinary CA cement: U.S. prodllcer's and lmPorter's average unit values (f.o.b. plant) and quantities of packaged sales to Missouri, by flrands and by quarters, Jan. 1990-Dec. 1993 • • • * • • • Figure H-6 Average unit values of packaged onlnary CA cement, Missouri, 1990-93 • • • * * • * Table H-7 Ordinary CA cement: U.S. Ccer's and Importer's average unit values (f.o.b. plant) and quantities of bulk sales to ssourt, by brands and by quarters, Jan. 1990-Dec. 1993 * * * • * * * Figure H-7 Average unit values of bulk ordinary CA cement, Missouri, 1990-93 * • • • * * • ) 1 -· H-3 Ohio • • * * * • • Table H-8 Ordnary CA cement: U.S. ~car·s and lm~·s average untt VlllUM.g_..o.b. plant) and quantities of packaged sales to Ohio, by brands •d br quarters, Jan. 1 Dec. 1993 * * * * ~ * * Figure H-8 Average untt values al packaged onlnary CA cement, Ohio, 1990-93 * * * * * * * Table H-9 . Onlnary CA cement: U.S. Dl'Oducar's and lm~·s average untt VlllUM (f.o.b. plant) and quentftles al bulk sales to Ohio, br brands •rid by qUlll'lers, Jlln. 1990-Dec. 1993 • • • * • • • 1 H-4 Appendix I Average Unit Value Differentials for Ordinary CA Cement Table 1-1 Onlnary CA cement: Average unit value clfferentlllls for packaged sales, by quarters, 1990-93 * • * • * * * Table 1-2 Onlnary CA cement: Average unit value clfferentlals for bulk sales, by quarters, 1990-93 * • * • * • • 1-2 Appendix J Purchaser Average Unit Value and Quantity Data for Ordinary CA Cement TableJ-1 Orclnary CA cement: AV81'11ge unit va1... 11nd quantities al padalged purchaes from the plant (f.o..b.), .,, brands •nd by quarters, Jen. 1•1-oec. 1993 • • * * • • * TableJ-2 Orclnary CA cement: AV81'11ge ...11 ,,..... •d ~al bulk purchases from the plant (f.o..b.), .,, bnnds •nd by quertars, ..... 1•1-oec. 1193 • • • • • • • TebleJ.3 Orclna~ cement: Total au8ntllles of purchaes by refr8clorles menufllclurars, by brands end by qm Jen. 1•1-Dec. 1993 . . . . . . ~ 'hbleJ-4 Orclnary CA cement: Total~ al purchaes by non-refractortes menufllclurws, by bnnds end by quarters, Jen. 1•1-Dec. 1993 • • * • • • • '} J-2 Appendix K Summary of Lost Sales and Lost Revenues Information * * * * * * * ') K-2