On March 12, 2012, pursuant to paragraph 41(1)(a) of the Special Import Measures Act, the President of the Canada Border Services Agency made final determinations of dumping and subsidizing respecting oil country tubular goods pup joints, made of carbon or alloy steel, welded or seamless, heat-treated or not heat-treated, regardless of end finish, having an outside diameter from 2 3/8 inches to 4 1/2 inches (60.3 mm to 114.3 mm), in all grades, in lengths from 2 feet to 12 feet (61 cm to 366 cm) originating in or exported from the People's Republic of China.
 On July 22, 2011, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) received a written complaint from Alberta Oil Tool (AOT), a division of Dover Corporation (Canada) Limited of Edmonton, Alberta, (hereafter, "the Complainant") alleging that imports of certain pup joints originating in or exported from the People's Republic of China (China) are being dumped and subsidized and causing injury to the Canadian industry.
 On August 12, 2011, pursuant to paragraph 32(1)(a) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), the CBSA informed the Complainant that the complaint was properly documented. The CBSA also notified the government of China (GOC) that a properly documented complaint had been received and provided the GOC with the non-confidential version of the subsidy portion of the complaint, which excluded sections dealing with normal value, export price and margin of dumping.
 On September 13, 2011, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (Tribunal) commenced a preliminary injury inquiry, pursuant to subsection 34(2) of SIMA, into whether the evidence discloses a reasonable indication that the alleged dumping and subsidizing of certain pup joints from China have caused injury or retardation or are threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry producing the goods. On November 14, 2011, pursuant to subsection 37.1(1) of SIMA, the Tribunal determined that there is evidence that discloses a reasonable indication that the alleged dumping and subsidizing of certain pup joints have caused injury or retardation or are threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry.
 On December 12, 2011, the CBSA made preliminary determinations of dumping and subsidizing with respect to certain pup joints originating in or exported from China pursuant to subsection 38(1) of SIMA, and began imposing provisional duties on imports of the subject goods pursuant to subsection 8(1) of SIMA.
 On December 13, 2011, the Tribunal initiated a full inquiry pursuant to section 42 of SIMA to determine whether the dumping and subsidizing of the above mentioned goods have caused injury or retardation or are threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry.
 The CBSA continued its investigations and, on the basis of the evidence, the President is satisfied that certain pup joints originating in or exported from China have been dumped and subsidized and that the margins of dumping and the amounts of subsidy are not insignificant. Consequently, on March 12, 2012, the President made final determinations of dumping and subsidizing pursuant to paragraph 41(1)(a) of SIMA.
 The Tribunal's inquiry into the question of injury to the Canadian industry is continuing. Provisional duties will continue to be imposed on the subject goods until the Tribunal renders its decision. The Tribunal has announced that it will issue its finding by April 10, 2012.
 Each of the two investigations has its own separate Period of Investigation (POI). The dumping POI includes shipments of subject pup joints released into Canada from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011, while the subsidy POI includes shipments of subject pup joints released into Canada from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011.
 The Complainant accounts for a major proportion of the production of like goods in Canada. The Complainant's goods are produced at manufacturing facilities in Edmonton, Alberta.
 Of the other producers certified to produce the like goods in Canada, only Tenaris Canada (Tenaris), of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, confirmed that they are manufacturing them. Tenaris produces like goods which are premium pup joints in relatively small quantities and provided a letter supporting the complaint.
 The CBSA received two responses, but one company's response was determined to involve only non-subject goods. One exporter, Hengshui Weijia Petroleum Equipment Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Hengshui Weijia), provided responses to the three RFIs (dumping, subsidy and section 20). This exporter also provided additional information to supplement and clarify their responses.
 The CBSA sent an importer RFI to each of these parties and four importers provided substantially complete responses.
 At the initiation of the investigations, the CBSA sent subsidy and section 20 RFIs to the GOC. The GOC provided responses to both RFIs. The CBSA reviewed the responses and while some of the information requested was provided, some of the GOC's responses were limited.
 The GOC provided an incomplete response to the subsidy RFI as information in respect of only the subsidy programs attributable to the sole cooperating exporter, Hengshui Weijia, was provided but was not provided for non-participating exporters that shipped subject goods during the POI.
 The GOC's section 20 RFI response, discussed in greater detail below, was also fundamentally insufficient as they provided limited responses to questions which required more detail. In short, the GOC indicated that their seminal macro-economic policies in respect of the Chinese steel industry, which are most notably the National Steel Policy (NSP) and 2009 Steel Revitalization/Rescue Plan remain unchanged and, as a result, the status quo remains for the Chinese steel industry. Further details regarding the GOC's section 20 submission is provided in the "Section 20 Inquiry" section of this document.
 As part of the section 20 inquiry, RFIs were sent to all known producers of pup joints in other countries (excluding China). This list of certified producers was obtained directly from the American Petroleum Institute (API). Although seven producers indicated their intention to provide a response, no complete response to the Surrogate RFI was ever received.
 Pup joints are oil country tubular goods (OCTG) made from carbon or alloy steel pipes used for the exploration and exploitation of oil and natural gas. These pipes may be made by the electric resistance welded (ERW) or seamless production method, and are supplied to meet API specification 5CT or equivalent standard.
 Testing includes drift testing which is an assessment of the straightness within the hollow part of the tube, to ensure no bends or kinks exist after the pup joint was forged, and hydrostatic testing which assesses the pup joint's ability to withstand internal pressure.
 For further information on the production process of the input tubes, see the CBSA's Initiation Statement of Reasons for Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods (September 8, 2009).
 The only other identified Canadian producer, Tenaris (Canada) Ltd., officially stated their position of fully supporting the complaint in their letter dated September 1, 2011.
 During the final phase of the investigations, the CBSA refined the total volume of imports based on data from its internal information system, CBSA import documentation and other information received from the cooperative exporter and importers.
 In addition, known and possible exporters and producers of pup joints, along with the GOC, were requested to respond to the section 20 RFI for the purposes of the section 20 Inquiry.
 As previously stated, Hengshui Weijia was the lone responding exporter. After reviewing their responses to the RFIs, supplemental RFIs were sent to clarify information submitted by the company. Responses to those supplemental RFIs were provided by Hengshui Weijia in advance of the close of the record. The company's responses were considered sufficient for the purposes of calculating amounts of subsidy on the basis of information provided by the exporter.
 As previously stated, the GOC's section 20 RFI response was found to be fundamentally insufficient for the purposes of the section 20 inquiry. Further details regarding the GOC's section 20 submission is provided in the "Section 20 inquiry" section of this document.
 Similarly, the GOC's subsidy RFI response was also found to be incomplete. The GOC made no further response to the subsidy RFI following the CBSA notification of incompleteness on January 19, 2012.
 Further details regarding the GOC's subsidy response can be found in the "Subsidy Investigation" section of this document.
 In summary, 80 subsidy programs were reviewed and two of the subsidy programs were determined to be conferring benefits to the cooperative exporter during the subsidy POI.
 As part of the final stage of the investigations, case briefs were provided by the legal representatives of the Complainant, Hengshui Weijia and the GOC. Reply submissions were provided by the legal representatives of the Complainant and the GOC. Details of all representations can be found in Appendix 2 to this document.
 Section 20 is a provision under the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) that is applied to determine the normal value of goods in a dumping investigation where certain conditions prevail in the domestic market of the exporting country. In the case of a prescribed country under paragraph 20(1)(a) of SIMA, section 20 is applied where, in the opinion of the President, the government of that country substantially determines domestic prices and there is sufficient reason to believe that the domestic prices are not substantially the same as they would be in a competitive market. Where section 20 is applicable, the normal values of goods are not determined using domestic prices or costs in that country.
 The Complainant requested that section 20 be applied in the determination of normal values due to the alleged existence of the conditions set forth in paragraph 20(1)(a) of SIMA. In their complaint, the Complainant provided information to support these allegations concerning the steel industry in China including the OCTG sector, which includes pup joints.
 At the initiation of the dumping investigation, the CBSA had sufficient information from the Complainant, the CBSA's own research and previous CBSA section 20 opinions to support the initiation of a section 20 inquiry to examine the extent of GOC involvement in pricing in the OCTG sector, which includes pup joints. The information indicated that domestic prices in China have been influenced by various GOC industrial policies concerning the Chinese steel industry including the OCTG sector, which includes pup joints.
 Consequently, the CBSA sent section 20 RFIs to the GOC and all known Chinese OCTG producers/exporters to obtain information on the matter.
 In response to the section 20 RFIs, the CBSA received a substantially complete and timely response from one exporter, Hengshui Weijia.
 In respect of the GOC's section 20 submission, the GOC provided some of the information requested but some of the GOC's responses were limited. As a result, the GOC's submission is considered to be insufficient and incomplete.
 As part of the CBSA's examination of the OCTG sector in China, which includes pup joints, the GOC was requested to provide information concerning the Chinese manufacturers of OCTG by region, the type of products produced (i.e. welded versus seamless) and their respective steel production capacities. In addition, the GOC was requested to indicate the ownership structure of each manufacturer along with information pertaining to OCTG manufacturers that are State-Owned Enterprises (SOE).
 It is the CBSA's understanding from previous verifications conducted with the GOC, that production figures and other statistics are submitted to the GOC through timely monthly submissions to the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics by the producers of OCTG.
 Furthermore, according to recent legislation passed by the GOC, through the Criterion for the Production and Operation of Steel Industry – GY  No. 105, there is an application process that requests this information from producers along with additional detailed information concerning output value, sales revenue, profits etc. At minimum, the GOC has the information available from its SOEs, which comprise a substantial proportion of the top OCTG producers in the sector. This indicates that the information requested by the CBSA is available to the GOC and current information from the GOC regarding the OCTG sector in China, which includes pup joints, would have been useful to the CBSA in its analysis.
 This is the same sector that was examined in the CBSA's investigations of certain Seamless Steel Casing (2008) and certain OCTG (2010). Each of those section 20 inquiries concluded that domestic prices in the OCTG sector in China are substantially determined by the GOC and that there is sufficient reason to believe that the domestic prices are not substantially the same as they would be in a competitive market.
 The following is the CBSA's analysis of the relevant factors that prevail in the Chinese steel industry, which subsequently affect the OCTG sector, which includes pup joints.
 On March 20, 2009, the GOC promulgated the Blueprint for the Adjustment and Revitalization of the Steel Industry issued by the General Office of the State Council (2009 Steel Revitalization/Rescue Plan).
 There are common measures between these two GOC policies, as the 2009 Steel Revitalization/Rescue Plan is an acceleration of the major objectives of the NSP. In the 2009 plan, the GOC asserts its strict control over new or additional steel production capacity, promotes new GOC directed mergers and acquisitions to reform the Chinese steel industry into larger conglomerates, along with an increased emphasis on steel product quality.
 The 2009 Steel Revitalization/Rescue Plan also applies to the OCTG sector in China, which includes pup joints. There is evidence on the record confirming that the GOC specifically directed one of the cooperating exporters in the OCTG (2010) investigation, which was one of the largest SOE producers, and possibly the largest seamless OCTG manufacturer, to reorganize with another company.
 In the CBSA's supplemental section 20 RFI to the GOC, the CBSA requested the GOC to provide the 12th Five-Year Plan: Iron and Steel along with an English translation. The GOC subsequently provided this document.
 The 12th Five-Year Development Plan for the Steel Industry addresses existing issues in the steel industry with the directive to strictly control expansion of steel production capacity, accelerate the development of new material for steel and producer service and to continue to advance mergers and restructuring.
 According to the plan, the more highly concentrated steel industry will reduce overcapacity, decrease pollution and will improve Chinese steel producers' bargaining power when negotiating prices on iron ore imports. In addition, through the 12th Five-Year Development Plan for the Steel Industry, the GOC is progressing with its initiative in the 2009 Steel Revitalization/Rescue Plan to move Chinese steel production facilities to China's coast. By the end of this GOC directed plan in 2015, 40% of China's steel production will be relocated to the coast.
 Together with the GOC's recent legislation: Criterion for the Production and Operation of Steel Industry – GY  No. 105 and Several Observations of the General Office of the State Council on Further Strengthening Energy-saving and Emission Reduction Efforts, as well as the Accelerating of Restructuring of Steel Industry – GBF (1010) No. 34, these plans set out the detailed requirements for existing production and operations of steel enterprises in China. For construction and renovation projects in the steel industry, the GOC's development policies for the steel industry apply (i.e. the 12th Five-Year Plan: Iron and Steel and 2009 Steel Revitalization/Rescue Plan).
 The above GOC statement that the Five-Year Plans are merely instructive and guiding are inconsistent with the reality of the GOC's macro-economic policies/measures that support the GOC's stated objectives. The GOC's measures, notices and observations as addressed in this section 20 inquiry serve to illustrate the fact that the GOC is closely administering the steel industry in China.
 Based on the information on the record, the scope of the GOC's macro-economic policies/measures provide a compelling factual basis that the GOC is influencing the Chinese steel industry including the OCTG sector, which includes the pup joints under investigation.
 One of the factors that indicate section 20 conditions exist is when the government administers control of production capacity of the goods in the specified sector. The CBSA considers a government's regulation or control of production levels in an industry as an influence on the supply of goods that indirectly affects the price of the goods. This factor is indicative that section 20 conditions are present when prices are not substantially the same as they would be if they were determined in a competitive market. The CBSA's section 20 inquiry concerning the OCTG sector in the Seamless Steel Casing investigation confirmed that the GOC's control of new or additional steel production capacity extended to the OCTG sector.
 In its second supplemental section 20 RFI response, the GOC provided the document, Several Observations of the General Office of the State Council on Further Strengthening Energy-saving and emission Reduction Efforts as well as Accelerating of Restructuring of Steel Industry- GBF (2010) No. 34.
 In addition to the GOC's actions to eliminate obsolete steel production and reduce energy-emissions, the GOC has clearly identified its plans for mergers and acquisitions. The GOC calls for provincial, autonomous regional and municipal governments to focus on formulating and reporting 2010-2011 iron and steel enterprise merger and restructuring plans to be organized, upon approval by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. The GOC directs that the implementation/improvement of policies for promoting mergers and restructuring be improved. These are compelling facts that the GOC is in charge of the reform of the Chinese steel industry.
 Information on the record further illustrates that GOC macro-economic policies/measures are compulsory and followed by local governments, with substantive impacts on the commercial decisions of producers of pup joints.
 The "China Steel Pipe Industry 12th Five-Year Plan" was released by the Steel Pipe Branch of the China Steel Construction Society. In its response to the section 20 RFI, the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA) stated that the Steel Pipe Branch is one of its member institutions. The CBSA considers CISA to be "Government" as it is under the administration of SASAC as per its Articles of Association. This plan directs that the output of steel pipe should be controlled at 67-75 million metric tonnes (mmt). The scope of the GOC's reform of the Chinese steel industry thus extends to the Chinese pipe sector, with the industry concentration targets through mergers and acquisitions to be attained by the end of 2015. Additional details of the China Steel Pipe Industry 12th Five-Plan were addressed in the Statement of Reasons for the preliminary determination.
 In respect of the OCTG sector, one of the GOC directives under this plan is to expand the development of OCTG products such as high collapse, anti-corrosion pipe. These GOC objectives are likely to conflict with the commercial interests of OCTG producers, affecting production volumes and ultimately prices.
 Wuxi Forest Petroleum Technology Co., Ltd. (Wuxi Forest) had provided a response to the CBSA's dumping RFI which had Chinese domestic sales of pup joints. Wuxi Forest is a Chinese trading company and is not a manufacturer of pup joints. The company's exports to Canada were subsequently found to be non-subject to the investigation. Wuxi Forest had purchased pup joints in China for re-sale during the POI. The acquisition cost of these pup joints represent actual Chinese domestic sales of pup joints. These Chinese domestic sales are all grade P110 pup joints which is a high-end API 5CT specification. The CBSA used these Chinese domestic selling prices of pup joints for the following analysis.
 Firstly, the CBSA compared the overall average selling price of these P110 goods sold in China, with U.S. selling prices of High Collapse P110 (HCP) as reported by Pipe Logix during the POI. Pipe Logix does not report U.S. domestic selling prices for ordinary P110 grade product, as it is not normally sold in the US domestic market. However, P110 is required for some applications in the Canadian oilfield where there are sour gas environments. HCP pipe is not an equivalent grade but a very comparable specification to the P110. A comparison of the HCP to the P110 grades based on like outside diameters (OD) and nominal weights of 11.6 pounds per foot (lbs/ft) for the Chinese and U.S. products indicates that the selling price of Chinese P110 pup joints was less than the selling prices of standard length HCP casing in the U.S. (likely about a 30 foot length), on a metric tonne basis.
 To put this in perspective, if the Chinese domestic pup joints were all of 10 foot lengths, there would be approximately 19 pup joints in a metric tonne with each end piece finished and tested according to the API 5CT specification.  In contrast, the reported U.S. Pipe Logix selling price, on a metric tonne basis, is comprised of average standard lengths of about 30 feet, meaning each tonne would comprise roughly six 30 foot lengths with finished and tested ends according to the API 5CT specification. With the same OD and 11.6 lbs/ft nominal weight in each example, the Chinese domestic prices do not reflect the additional cost and resulting incremental value in selling price for the additional 13 finished end pieces of pup joints. This is a conservative example in respect of the Chinese selling price. One metric tonne of the Chinese goods could alternatively be comprised of 63 three foot pup joints, each with finished and tested ends according to the API 5CT specification. This would illustrate an even greater cost and a substantial selling price differential.
United States to Canada during the POI. In this comparison, the CBSA did not have sales of P110 in the same OD and lbs/ft as the Chinese goods but both were similar. The OD and nominal weight for the US selling prices were 3.5 inches and 9.3 lbs/ft compared to the Chinese product of 4.5 inches and 11.6 lbs/ft, which are sufficiently similar for comparison purposes. The lengths of the pup joints were the same at six feet. This comparison of selling prices indicates that the Chinese pup joints were 86% below that of the U.S. selling price. Consequently, in this comparison, the Chinese pup joint price is markedly lower than competitive market pricing for the same grade and same length of pup joint.
 In a third comparison, the CBSA compared the overall average domestic Chinese P110 pup joint selling price with the lowest U.S. selling prices of the lowest grade of API 5CT specification, J55, as per the Pipe Logix report over the POI. The Chinese selling price was 34% lower than the U.S. J55 selling price.
 Each of the CBSA's comparisons indicates that Chinese domestic pup joint selling prices are substantially below corresponding competitive market prices. Based on the CBSA's price analysis, the evidence indicates that Chinese domestic OCTG pup joint prices are not substantially the same as they would be if they were determined in a competitive market.
 The wide range and material nature of the GOC measures have resulted in significant influence on the Chinese steel industry including the OCTG sector, which includes pup joints. The conditions described in paragraph 20(1)(a) of SIMA exist in this sector. Domestic prices are substantially determined by the GOC, and there is sufficient reason to believe that the domestic prices of pup joints are not substantially the same as they would be in a competitive market.
 Based on the above analysis, for the purposes of the final determination, the President affirmed the opinion rendered at the preliminary determination that the conditions described in paragraph 20(1)(a)apply in the OCTG sector in China, which includes pup joints.
 For purposes of the preliminary determination, normal values could not be calculated on the basis of domestic selling prices in China or on the full cost of goods plus profit, as the President formed the opinion that the conditions described in section 20 exist in the OCTG sector, which includes pup joints.
 At the preliminary determination, normal values were calculated by advancing the export price of the goods by 32.4%. This was the average margin of dumping estimated from information provided in the complaint filed by AOT.
 Where section 20 conditions exist, the CBSA may determine normal values using the selling price, or the total cost and profit, of like goods sold by producers in a surrogate country designated by the President pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(c) of SIMA. However, sufficient surrogate country data on the necessary domestic pricing and costing information relating to the goods under investigation was not provided to the CBSA.
 Alternatively, normal values may be determined on a deductive basis starting with an examination of the prices of imported goods sold in Canada, from a surrogate country designated by the President, pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(d) of SIMA. However, sufficient information was not submitted by importers in response to the importer RFI to allow for the application of paragraph 20(1)(d).
 Accordingly, the CBSA has used an alternative method to determine normal values for the cooperative exporter for the purposes of the final determination, pursuant to a ministerial specification under subsection 29(1) of SIMA.
 While the CBSA does not have sufficient pricing, costing or import data available relating to a surrogate country, it does have pricing information for pup joints imported into Canada from, and originating in, the United States. This information was acquired from internal import data and from brokers representing the importers of these goods. For the purposes of the final determination, normal values were determined on the basis of these prices.
 The normal values for each subject good exported to Canada by Hengshui Weijia over the period of investigation was based on the price of imported pup joints from the United States which matched the major characteristics used to identify these goods. Where such a match was not possible on a given transaction, the difference between the total normal value and the total export price for all other transactions for which matches were made, expressed as a percentage of this total export price, was used to establish the normal value.
 For purposes of the final determination, export prices for the cooperative exporter were determined using their reported export price of the goods. For all other exporters, import pricing information available from the CBSA's internal information systems and, where applicable, importer RFI responses, were used for the purposes of determining export prices.
 The CBSA determined the margin of dumping for the cooperative exporter by comparing the total normal value with the total export price. When the total export price is less than the total normal value, the difference is the margin of dumping.
 For the exporters that did not respond to the RFI, the normal values were determined under a ministerial specification pursuant to section 29 of SIMA.
 The determination of the volume of dumped goods was calculated by taking into consideration each exporter's net aggregate dumping results. Where a given exporter has been determined to be dumping on an overall or net basis, the total quantity of exports attributable to that exporter (i.e. 100%) is considered dumped. Similarly, where a given exporter's net aggregate dumping results are zero, then the total quantity of exports deemed to be dumped by that exporter is zero.
 Based on the preceding, 100% of the subject goods from China were dumped by a weighted average margin of dumping of 144%, expressed as a percentage of the export price.
 Under paragraph 41(1)(a) of SIMA, the President shall make a final determination of dumping when he is satisfied that the goods have been dumped and that the margin of dumping of the goods of a country is not insignificant. Pursuant to subsection 2(1) of SIMA, a margin of dumping of less than 2% is defined as insignificant. The margin of dumping of certain pup joints from China is not less than 2% and is, therefore, not insignificant.
 The company's response to the exporter and section 20 RFIs were received by the October 19, 2011 deadline. The company also cooperated in responding to several supplemental RFIs.
 Hengshui Weijia was the second largest known exporter of subject goods to Canada during the dumping POI.
 A review of the information submitted by Hengshui Weijia revealed that the company had no domestic sales during the POI. All Hengshui Weijia production is for export and all products are pup joints.
 Normal values for Hengshui Weijia were determined pursuant to a ministerial specification under subsection 29(1) of SIMA. The normal values for each subject good exported to Canada by Hengshui Weijia over the period of investigation was based on the price of imported pup joints from the United States which matched the major characteristics used to identify these goods. Where such a match was not possible on a given transaction, the difference between the total normal value and the total export price for all other transactions for which matches were made, expressed as a percentage of this total export price, was used to establish the normal value.
 Hengshui Weijia exported the subject goods to its related importer in Canada, and consequently the exporter and importer are considered associated persons in accordance with subsection 2(2) of SIMA. As such, a reliability test is conducted in order to determine whether the export price under section 24 (the lesser of the importer's purchase price or exporter's selling price) is reliable within the context of SIMA. This test is conducted by comparing the section 24 export price with the section 25 "deductive" export price based on the importer's resale price of the imported goods in Canada to unrelated purchasers, less deductions for all costs incurred in preparing, shipping and exporting the goods to Canada, all costs incurred in reselling the goods (including duties and taxes), and an amount representative of the average industry profit in Canada.
 The amount for profit used in the reliability test was determined in the manner described in paragraph 22(b) of the SIMR, based on the profit information derived from three submissions on the record.
 The importer provided additional documentation to verify the re-sale prices as reported in their submission.
 The results of the reliability analysis revealed that 96% of Hengshui Weijia's export prices determined pursuant to section 24 of SIMA were reliable. As such, the export prices were determined pursuant to section 24 of SIMA, based on the ex-works price of the goods reported by Hengshui Weijia, which was equal to the price paid by the importer of the goods in Canada.
 The total normal value, as calculated in the manner described above, was compared with the total export price for all subject goods imported into Canada during the dumping POI. It was found that the goods exported by Hengshui Weijia were dumped by a weighted average margin of dumping of 80.2%, expressed as a percentage of the export price.
 For all other exporters, import pricing information available from the CBSA's internal information systems was used for the purposes of calculating the export price. The normal value and related margin of dumping was determined by advancing export prices by the highest amount by which the normal value exceeded the export price on an individual transaction (173.4%) for the cooperating exporter in accordance with the ministerial specification.
 A summary regarding the margins of dumping for this investigation are provided in Appendix 1.
 Following the January 26, 2012 close of the record, a series of case briefs and reply submissions were received from counsel for the Complainant, the exporter Hengshui Weijia and the GOC.
 Issues raised by participants through case arguments and reply submissions pertaining to the dumping investigation and the CBSA's response to these issues are provided in Appendix 2.
 Details regarding these potential subsidies were provided in the Statement of Reasons issued for the initiation of this investigation. Appendix 3 to this Statement of Reasons has been updated to reflect the programs found not to have been used by the cooperative exporter.
 As previously stated, the information submitted by the GOC for the purposes of the subsidy investigation was considered to be incomplete. The GOC did not provide the CBSA with sufficient information to enable a proper analysis of the programs for the final determination.
 Due to the status of the GOC submission, subsidy amounts for all exporters have been determined under a ministerial specification pursuant to subsection 30.4(2) of SIMA. However, amounts of subsidy were calculated for the cooperative exporter, in consideration of the level of cooperation received from them, which enabled the CBSA to perform the necessary calculations.
 With respect to calculations of amounts of subsidy for the non-cooperative exporters, the CBSA has no information, or incomplete information, regarding benefits received by the non-cooperative exporters. Therefore, the CBSA was unable to calculate specific amounts of subsidy for those exporters. As a result, for the non-cooperative exporters, the CBSA has determined an amount of subsidy under a ministerial specification pursuant to subsection 30.4(2) of SIMA, the details of which are described in the following section.
 A further review during the final phase of the investigation resulted in a calculation revision to Program 1: Preferential Tax Policies for Enterprises with Foreign Investment (FIEs) established in Special Economic Zones (SEZ), excluding Shanghai Pudong Area. A further review during the final phase of the investigation also demonstrated that Program 32: Grants for Export Activities, as reported by Hengshui Weijia, did confer benefits to them during the subsidy POI, while the CBSA removed from consideration Program 74: Exemption of VAT on Purchases of Equipment.
 Consequently, on the basis of the available information, Programs 1 and 32 constitute financial contributions pursuant to subsection 2(1.6) of SIMA.
 During the preliminary phase of the investigation, the CBSA reviewed documents submitted for the record and determined that Hengshui Weijia had received benefits under Program 1: Preferential Tax Policies for Enterprises with Foreign Investment (FIEs) Established in Special Economic Zones (excluding Shanghai Pudong Area).
 After the preliminary determination, Hengshui Weijia made a submission contesting that they are not established in any Special Economic Zones (SEZ) and as such are not a recipient of Preferential Tax Policies for Enterprises with Foreign Investment in any SEZ.
 The CBSA acknowledges that the program title used for the purposes of the preliminary determination is not completely accurate. However, the CBSA investigation has determined that Hengshui Weijia is a recipient of preferential tax policies.
 Hengshui Weijia pays income tax at the applicable rate of 25% and its taxable income rate, as evidenced from its income tax forms, is substantially less. Given the range in the manufacturing sector of 5% - 15%, the CBSA sent supplemental RFIs to Hengshui Weijia requesting that they explain why its taxable income rate was a comparatively lower rate. In the absence of a satisfactory answer, the highest taxable income rate of 15% was used to calculate the subsidy benefit.
 The amount of subsidy was calculated under ministerial specification pursuant to subsection 30.4(2) of SIMA by distributing the benefit received by the exporter represented by the exemption in tax payable, over the total quantity of goods to which the benefit was attributable.
 The benefit from this program resulted in an amount of subsidy of 454.2 RMB/MT.
 Hengshui Weijia and the GOC each acknowledged that Hengshui Weijia received benefits from the government in the form of a grant for market promotion and trade development.
 The amounts of subsidy were calculated under ministerial specification pursuant to subsection 30.4(2) of SIMA, by distributing the benefit received by the exporter represented by the grant received, over the total quantity of goods to which the benefit was attributable.
 The benefit from this program resulted in an amount of subsidy of 109.7 RMB/MT.
 As previously stated, the CBSA did not include Program 74: Exemption of VAT on Purchases of Equipment as part of its subsidy calculations for the final determination. In response to the supplemental RFI, the exporter explained that the VAT refund was due to the difference in the input VAT rate of 17% and the export VAT rate of 13%. The VAT tax return form provided by Hengshui Weijia demonstrated that the refund was lower then the amount the company paid for input VAT and thus, the refund did not constitute a benefit. After reviewing the responses provided by Hengshui Weijia to the supplemental RFIs, the CBSA excluded the program from its subsidy calculations.
 Expressed as a percentage of export price, the amounts of subsidy as determined by the CBSA for the cooperative exporter, Hengshui Weijia, is 2.5%. Expressed in RMB per metric tonne, the cooperative exporter's amount of subsidy was determined to be 563.9 RMB/MT.
the subsidy amount per metric tonne for the actionable subsidy program in (1) above which was identified by both the GOC and the cooperative exporter, applied to each of the remaining 78 potentially actionable subsidy programs for which information is not available or has not been provided.
 Using the above methodology, the amount of subsidy calculated for non-cooperative exporters is 9,125.6 RMB/MT. The total amount of subsidy for non-cooperative exporters expressed as a percentage of the export price is 44.7%.
 In summary, 100% of the goods from China are subsidized and the amount of subsidy is 31.4%, as a percentage of the export price.
 A summary regarding the amounts of subsidy for this investigation are provided in Appendix 1.
 Following the January 26, 2012 close of the record, a series of case briefs and reply submissions were also received from counsel for the Complainant, the exporter Hengshui Weijia and the GOC.
 Issues raised by participants through case arguments and reply submissions pertaining to the subsidy investigation and the CBSA's response to these issues are provided in Appendix 2.
 On the basis of the results of the investigation, the President is satisfied that certain pup joints originating in or exported from the People's Republic China, have been dumped and that the margin of dumping is not insignificant. Consequently, on March 12, 2012, the President made a final determination of dumping pursuant to paragraph 41(1)(a) of SIMA respecting the subject goods.
 Similarly, on the basis of the results of the investigation, the President is satisfied that certain pup joints originating in or exported from the People's Republic of China have been subsidized and that the amount of subsidy is not insignificant. As a result, the President also made a final determination of subsidizing pursuant to paragraph 41(1)(a) of SIMA respecting the subject goods on this same date.
 The importer in Canada shall pay all applicable duties. If the importers of such goods do not indicate the required SIMA code or do not correctly describe the goods in the customs documents, an administrative monetary penalty (AMP) could be imposed. The provisions of the Customs Act apply with respect to the payment, collection or refund of any duty collected under SIMA. As a result, failure to pay duty within the prescribed time will result in the application of interest.
 Normal values and the amount of subsidy have been provided to the cooperating exporter for future shipments to Canada in the event of an injury finding by the Tribunal. The normal values and amount of subsidy will come into effect the day after the date of the injury finding, if there is one. Information regarding normal values of the subject goods should be obtained from the exporter.
 Exporters who were not cooperative in the dumping investigation will have normal values established by advancing the export price by 173.4% based on a ministerial specification pursuant to section 29 of SIMA. Anti-dumping duty will apply based on the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price of the subject goods. Similarly, exporters who were not cooperative in the subsidy investigation will be subject to a countervailing duty amount of 9,125.6 Renminbi per metric tonne, based on a ministerial specification pursuant to subsection 30.4(2) of SIMA.
The details of representations made to the CBSA with respect to the dumping and subsidy investigations, including case arguments and reply submissions from Hengshui Weijia, the GOC and the Complainant are listed below. Following the representations on the issues is a response explaining the position of the CBSA. Since there are at times common positions from multiple parties, the CBSA may make specific reference to only one or two parties when documenting the issue raised.
Counsel for the GOC made representations identifying the CBSA's obligations under the WTO's Anti-Dumping Agreement and Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures as it relates to both the procedures and methodologies employed in the respective anti-dumping and countervailing investigations. In identifying these obligations, counsel has alleged a number of CBSA violations of these agreements including, but not limited to, the CBSA's determination that the GOC's response to the subsidy and section 20 RFIs was incomplete.
The CBSA acknowledges its obligations to the WTO Agreements and believes it has met the standards set forth in both the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
With this said, the CBSA's anti-dumping and countervailing investigations were conducted under the authority of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA). The CBSA's responsibility is to administer and follow the relevant Canadian legislation in the form of SIMA. The CBSA believes it has adhered to the standard set forth in SIMA in the conduct of these investigations.
Counsel for the GOC stated that the "CBSA's denial of an extension of the deadline to file RFIs past October 19, 2011 was unreasonable."  Counsel further suggested that "any information deemed as insufficient or limited by the CBSA could have been addressed or cured by providing sufficient time to respond or by issuing supplemental questionnaires." Counsel for the GOC concluded by stating that "Canada's refusal to grant an extension of the deadlines to file RFI responses denied China the opportunity to meaningfully participate in this proceeding.
The CBSA does not believe that its denial of the deadline extension request from the GOC in respect of its RFI responses in any way denied the GOC its right to meaningfully participate in the investigations. The CBSA in fact afforded the GOC the opportunity to provide information right up until the close of the record, which was January 26, 2012, which is far beyond the RFI deadline of October 19, 2011. This is consistent with the CBSA's handling of similar requests in other investigations involving the GOC.
In no way did the CBSA prevent the GOC from participating in the investigation. There was ample time to submit a complete response to the RFI in advance of the close of the record, which was January 26, 2012. Furthermore, the CBSA is confident that the information requested was well within the GOC's ability to provide within the timelines provided and was relevant to the proceeding and that the subsequent response from the GOC fell substantially short of the fulsome response required.
With respect to the issue raised by counsel for the GOC that the CBSA designated certain documents as "Protected," which the GOC alleges prevented them from appropriately commenting on the information cited by the CBSA, the CBSA can find no record of a request from counsel to change any documentation from "Protected" to "Non-Confidential." Each of the documents referenced by counsel for the GOC appears to have been placed on the CBSA's administrative record on the date of initiation, September 12, 2011.
In their case arguments, counsel for the GOC made numerous denials concerning alleged conduct of the GOC as stated in the CBSA's Statement of Reasons at the preliminary determination or in other documents on the record. In general, counsel for the GOC objected to the CBSA's reliance on its own evidence, denied that the GOC's role includes any form of interference in the OCTG market respecting mergers and consolidations, denied that the GOC has an approval process for OCTG producers who wish to make capacity additions, and denied that the GOC has any direct/indirect influence on the "daily operations" of companies for which they are a shareholder (i.e. SOEs).
Counsel for the Complainant also made numerous specific references in case arguments to alleged incomplete responses, contradictory statements and inconsistencies in the GOC's RFI responses, relative to other information on the record, which counsel believes provide the justification for the CBSA to use alternative information and consider the GOC's responses incomplete.
The information on the record does not support the GOC's general position which asserts that detailed information was provided by them and should have been relied upon in place of other information on the record. The GOC has not taken into consideration the CBSA's letter of January 3, 2012 concerning the incomplete items in the GOC's submission. In addition, the GOC did not provide additional information to rectify the incomplete responses by the closing of the record date on January 26, 2012.
The GOC's allegations in its case arguments are not supported by the GOC's macro-economic policies and legislative actions. The evidence on the record demonstrates that the CBSA's determinations have not been based on its own biases and preconceived, unverified assumptions as alleged by the GOC. The GOC's arguments conflict with the information on the record, the latter of which is often sourced from the GOC's own policy and legislation.
12t Five-Year Plan, the CBSA identified the GOC's macro-economic policies along with legislative actions by the names commonly found in the public domain. At no point did the GOC request clarification on the title of the document and provided official translations of the seminal documents as per the CBSA's request. The document referenced is produced by a CISA affiliated body. The GOC was cognizant of the references and the documents referenced. Consequently, the GOC's arguments appear to be without basis in fact.
In their case arguments, counsel for Hengshui Weijia contested the CBSA's assessment of two of the subsidy programs estimated at the preliminary determination to confer actionable benefits upon the exporter.
In regards to Program 74: Exemption of VAT on Purchases of Equipment, for the purposes of the preliminary determination, this program addressed a VAT refund shown in the financial statements of the company. A further review by the CBSA since the preliminary determination revealed that the VAT refund was not related to the purchase of equipment. Rather, it was related to the VAT refunded on the export of the subject goods. As a result, the CBSA excluded the program from Hengshui Weijia's subsidy calculations.
The CBSA considered the Complainant's argument concerning the percentage of VAT paid versus the percentage of VAT refunded and, based on the information provided by the exporter, the CBSA determined that the actual refunded amounts of VAT did not exceed the amounts of VAT paid.
The CBSA does not believe that the request was ludicrous. The reasoning for the rate should be well within the company's ability to respond. As previously stated, in the absence of a satisfactory answer, the highest taxable income rate of 15% was used to calculate the subsidy benefit. The CBSA found that the difference in tax rates between the standard corporate rate and that received by Hengshui Weijia, along with the company's inability to explain the preferential rate to be sufficient in satisfying the CBSA's determination.
It is the position of counsel for the Complainant that the producers in this investigation, of which there is only one respondent, have not so shown this.
Counsel for the GOC also emphasized the "two-fold test" to paragraph 20(1)(a) of SIMA, where domestic prices must be substantially determined by the government and those prices must not be substantially the same as they would be if they were determined in a competitive market in order to satisfy the basis of the President's opinion. To meet each of these requirements, counsel contended that "a modicum of rigor that prices differ from what they would otherwise be in a competitive market" must be used by the CBSA in its analysis.
Counsel for the GOC further cited the CBSA's public section 20 policy as requiring that investigations be initiated under the presumption that the conditions described in section 20 do not exist "unless there is evidence that suggests otherwise." Counsel stated that this presumption entails that any such evidentiary reliance must be "compelling and accurate" as section 20 is to be used only in exceptional circumstances.
Counsel for the Complainant rebutted the allegations from the GOC's counsel that the CBSA's investigation into section 20 was unwarranted. In so doing, counsel referred to two previous CBSA section 20 determinations on the same industry in the Seamless Steel Casing (2008) and Oil Country Tubular Goods (2010) investigations, where the decision in the former was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal.
As part of the preliminary determination of dumping, the President formed the opinion that the conditions of section 20 exist in the Chinese OCTG sector, which includes pup joints.
The CBSA has undertaken extensive research into the GOC's involvement in the steel industry, including the Chinese OCTG sector, which includes pup joints. The CBSA has formed the section 20 opinion on the OCTG sector in China in two previous investigations – Seamless Steel Casing (2008) and Oil Country Tubular Goods (2010). The full details of this research are available on the CBSA's listing of exhibits.
It is important to note that RFI responses from interested parties form only part of the information on the record. The results of the CBSA's analysis in this case are consistent with the evidence on the record and the President's previous section 20 opinions regarding steel industry sectors, including OCTG.
Further explanation of the CBSA's position regarding its section 20 opinion can be found in the "Section 20 Inquiry" portion of this document. In addition, all other relevant evidence used to affirm the section 20 opinion can be found on the CBSA's listing of exhibits.
Counsel for the GOC further objected to the CBSA using a surrogate market such as the United States to establish normal values, alleging that such an effort is an "apples to oranges" comparison. Counsel for the GOC characterized normal values calculated using the United States as one that produces "aberrationally high normal values that cannot be compared to Chinese prices." Counsel further suggested that Brazil would be a more appropriate surrogate given its status as a major OCTG producer and consumer as well as having major oil production and refining capacities.
At the time of the preliminary determination, the President formed the opinion that the conditions of section 20 exist in the OCTG sector, which includes pup joints. Where section 20 conditions exist, the CBSA may determine normal values using the selling price, or the total cost and profit, of like goods sold by producers in a surrogate country designated by the President pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(c) of SIMA or, failing that, paragraph 20(1)(d) of SIMA provides for calculating normal values using re-sales in Canada of goods imported from a third country. The CBSA was unable to obtain sufficient information for either of these two approaches and accordingly used an alternative method to estimate normal values for purposes of the preliminary determination.
In estimating normal values for the preliminary determination, the CBSA used margin of dumping estimates established in the CBSA's complaint analysis for the initiation of the investigation.
For the purposes of the final determination, a more comprehensive analysis using actual imports of goods matching the subject good characteristics from the United States were used as basis for normal values. These normal values were compared with the exported goods from the cooperative exporter. The CBSA considers this to be the best available information, given the lack of pricing information on the record, in spite of the CBSA's efforts to obtain it from other producers of pup joints.
Furthermore, although counsel for the GOC suggested the use of Brazil as a more appropriate surrogate alternative to, for example, domestic selling prices in the United States, the CBSA notes that counsel provided no evidence of such prices for the CBSA's consideration. In fact, all statements made in relation to Brazil in case arguments, regarding its production capability for both oil and OCTG etc. were without any reference to evidence on the record. Had counsel for the GOC or any other interested party submitted documentation to support these statements, the CBSA would have considered it as part of its surrogate country analysis. As such, the CBSA had very little information in regards to domestic selling prices in other countries for OCTG in general, let alone pup joints.
It is also worthy to note that at the initiation of the investigation, the CBSA did contact producers of pup joints in Brazil, requesting that they respond to the RFI provided to them for the purposes of a surrogate country analysis. As stated earlier, no responses to the surrogate RFI were received.
Counsel for the GOC submitted that the State Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) does not carry out or enforce compliance with government mandates, that government mandates are not a priority for State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), and that SASAC does not oversee, administer, or operate day-to-day company activities of SOEs. Consequently, counsel alleged that the CBSA did not satisfy the evidentiary burden for the treatment of SOEs as public bodies as set out by the WTO Appellate Body in DS379.
In order to assess the level of government authority over SOEs, the CBSA asked the GOC several questions on the legal status, ownership, function, and level of control that the government exercises with regard to SOEs. The CBSA also sent questionnaires to exporters that were to be passed on to input suppliers to help assess these same criteria, with the goal of establishing whether the SOEs possess, exercise, or are vested with government authority. The CBSA did not receive responses, or received inadequate responses, to these questions. Regardless, in this case, the CBSA did not assess any actionable subsidies against cooperative exporters stemming from inputs provided by public bodies or SOEs.
Counsel for the GOC submitted that the dual imposition of anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties on goods exported from a non-market economy, where normal values have been established based on surrogate sales or cost data that is not reflective of the effects of domestic subsidization which are reflected in export prices, results in double counting. Counsel argues that this double counting is in violation of international obligations and has the effect of levying excessive duties.
With respect to the double counting issue, the CBSA is in the process of assessing any possible implications of the Appellate Body decision in DS379. Among the factors that we will be considering is how the United States, the subject of this appeal, implements the Appellate Body decision in its system. At this time we are not in a position to make any further comments.
The following programs were also included in the current investigation. Questions concerning these programs were included in the RFI sent to the GOC and to all known exporters of the goods in China. None of the cooperative exporters reported using these programs during the subsidy POI. Without a complete response to the subsidy RFI from the GOC and all known exporters, the CBSA does not have detailed descriptions of these programs; nor does it have sufficient information to determine that any of these programs do not constitute actionable subsidies. In other words, the CBSA does not have sufficient information to determine that any of these programs should be removed from the investigation for the purposes of the final determination.
 Dumping Exhibit 41 (NC). Subsidy Exhibit S7 (NC).
 Dumping Exhibit 67 (PRO). Wuxi Forest Petroleum Technology Co., Ltd. is an exporter and not a manufacturer. The reported goods were Seamless Carbon or Alloy Steel Oil and Gas Well Casing products subject to Tribunal Inquiry No. NQ-2007-001 Finding issued by the Tribunal on March 10, 2008.
 Subsidy Exhibits S59, S64, S68 and S96 (PRO). Dumping Exhibits 90 (PRO), 94 (PRO), 97 (NC) and 110 (PRO).
 Dumping Exhibits 69, 71, 73 and 75 (PRO).
 Initiation Statement of Reasons for Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods, paragraphs 21-27, September 8, 2009.
 Dumping Exhibits 139 (NC), 142 (NC) and 143 (NC).
 Dumping Exhibits 145 (NC) and 146 (NC).
 Dumping Exhibit 82 (NC) – GOC response to Part C 1(a)(b).
 Dumping Exhibit 107 (NC) – GOC supplemental RFI Response.
 Dumping Exhibit 38 (PRO) – Exhibit 3.
 Dumping Exhibit 92 (NC) – Supplemental GOC Response – Exhibit 2.
 Dumping Exhibit 38 (PRO) – Exhibit 14: "Steel industry plan forged," China Daily, Zhang Qi, January 27, 2011.
 Dumping Exhibit 92 (NC) – GOC response to B10(e).
 Dumping Exhibit 92 (NC) - Supplemental GOC Response 12th Five-Year Development Plans for the Steel Industry.
 Dumping Exhibit 107 (NC) - Supplemental GOC Response.
 Final determination Statement of Reasons for Seamless Steel Casing – February 22, 2008.
 Dumping Exhibit 107 (NC) – Supplemental GOC Response.
 Dumping Exhibit 110 (PRO) – Hengshui Weijia Petroleum Equipment Manufacturing Co. Ltd response to 1(a).
 Dumping Exhibit 38 (PRO) – Exhibit 6: China Steel Pipe Industry 12th Five-Year Plan.
 Dumping Exhibit 82 (NC) – CISA response to Question D11.
 Dumping Exhibit 67 (PRO) – Appendix 4A: Cost of Sales.
 Dumping Exhibit 68 (NC) – Response to Question D21(a) Regarding Acquisition Costs.
 Dumping Exhibit 140 (PRO) – Pipe Logix Prices over POI.
 10 ft X 11.6 lbs/ft = 116 lbs. 2,204.6/116 = 19.
 30 ft X 11.6 lbs/ft = 348 lbs. 2,204/348 = 6.3.
Note: using the shortest length of casing permitted under API 5CT (16 feet) would still only yield less than 12 lengths 16 X 11.6 = 186. 2,204/186 = 11.8.
 3 ft X 11.6 lbs/ft = 34.8 lbs. 2,204.6/34.8 = 63.
 Dumping Exhibits 121 and 122 (PRO).
 Preliminary determination Statement of Reasons for Pup Joints; December 28, 2011, paragraphs 87 and 88.
 Dumping Exhibits 77 (PRO) and 79 (PRO).
 Dumping Exhibits 90 (PRO), 94 (PRO) and 97 (NC).
 Dumping Exhibit 1 (PRO) – Complaint; Dumping Exhibit 69 (PRO) – Imex Importer RFI Response; Dumping Exhibit 71 (PRO) – WestCan Oilfield Importer RFI Response.
 Subsidy Exhibit S100 (NC) – Submission from Hengshui Weijia contesting its preliminary determination subsidy results, pages 6-7.
 Subsidy Exhibit S100 (NC) – Submission from Hengshui Weijia contesting its preliminary determination subsidy results, page 9.
 Subsidy Exhibit S100 (NC) – Submission from Hengshui Weijia contesting its preliminary determination subsidy results – Exhibit IV.
 Subsidy Exhibit S96 (PRO) – Supplemental RFI Response from Hengshui Weijia Petroleum Equipment Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 – Case Arguments from GOC, pages 4 and 5.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 – Reply Submissions from GOC, paragraph 15.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 – Reply Submissions from GOC, paragraph 19.
 Subsidy Exhibit S106 – GOC reply submissions, paragraph 39.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraphs 38-42.
 Subsidy Exhibit S105 (NC) – Alberta Oil Tool reply submission, paragraph 20.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraphs 43-44.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraphs 44.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraphs 48 and 55.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraph 49.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraph 50.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraph 51.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraph 37.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraph 54.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraph 55.
 Subsidy Exhibit S105 (NC) – Alberta Oil Tool reply submission, paragraph 12.
 Dumping Exhibit 139 (NC) – Alberta Oil Tool case arguments, paragraphs 5 – 26.
 Dumping Exhibit 82 (NC) – Exhibit 3.
 Dumping Exhibit 82 (NC) – Exhibit 2.
 Dumping Exhibit 92 (NC) – Exhibit 2.
 Dumping Exhibit 92 (NC) – Exhibit 3.
 Dumping Exhibit 82 (NC) – response to Question C8(b).
 Subsidy Exhibit S102 (NC) – Hengshui Weijia case arguments.
 CBSA Seamless Steel Casing final determination Statement of Reasons, paragraph 211, February 22, 2008.
 Subsidy Exhibit S105 (NC) – Alberta Oil Tool case arguments, paragraph 45.
 Subsidy Exhibit S102 (NC) – Hengshui Weijia case arguments, paragraphs 42-43.
 Subsidy Exhibit S105 (NC) – Alberta Oil Tool reply submissions.
 Subsidy Exhibit S96 (PRO) – Hengshui Weijia SRFI response.
 Subsidy Exhibit S97 (NC) – Hengshui Weijia SRFI response.
 Dumping Exhibit 143 (NC) – GOC case arguments, Part III, page 6.
 Dumping Exhibit 143 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraph 18.
 Dumping Exhibit 145 (NC) – Alberta Oil Tool reply submissions, paragraph 14.
 Dumping Exhibit 143 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraph 24.
 Dumping Exhibit 143 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraph 26.
 Dumping Exhibit 143 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraph 28.
 Dumping Exhibit 143 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraph 29.
 Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corporation v. TenarisAlgomaTubes Inc., 2009 FCA 164.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraph 57.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraph 58.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraph 118.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraphs 60-61.
 Dumping Exhibit 1 (PRO) – CBSA Complaint Analysis.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 (NC) – GOC case arguments, page 23-26.
 Dumping Exhibit 82 (NC) – GOC Section 20 RFI Response, Question C4; as cited in Subsidy Exhibit S103 (NC) – GOC case arguments, paragraph 84.
 Subsidy Exhibit S103 (NC) – GOC case arguments, page 27.


The federation issued a statement through its official Twitter account.
We are sad to announce the sudden passing of NFF Executive committee member Alh. Hussaini Modibbo. Our thoughts are with his family.
We expresses its sympathies to the family of Mr. Modibbo.
The Nigeria Football Federation organises domestic and international football in Nigeria. It was formally launched in 1945 and formed the first Nigerian national football team in 1949.


text:
Железнодоро́жная у́лица — одна из старейших центральных улиц города Ртищево. Проходит от Саратовской улицы до улицы имени 8-го Марта.

История
Одна из первых улиц города Ртищево. Начала застраиваться в 1870-х годах на землях, арендованных у крестьян 2-го Ртищевского общества села Ртищево. Впервые упоминается в документах в 1893 году. Носила второе название Большая Железнодорожная. В августе 1929 года улица была разделена на две части: 1-ю Железнодорожную и 2-ю Железнодорожную улицы. Вновь единой улица стала 29 ноября 1957 года. В 1967 году Ртищевский горисполком планировал переименовывать улицу Железнодорожную в улицу 50 лет Октября, однако данное решение принято не было. В 1969 году в состав улицы Железнодорожной вошла улица Саратовский тупик.

Транспорт
По улице проходят все маршруты городского общественного транспорта.

Здания и сооружения
Улица имеет смешанную застройку. На улице расположены следующие здания и сооружения:

по нечётной стороне:
 № 5 — НУЗ Отделенческая больница на станции Ртищево ЮВЖД. Поликлиническое отделение (1981 года постройки)
 № 9 — Дом отдыха локомотивных бригад (построен в конце XIX века)
 № 15 — Александро-Невская церковь (1911 года постройки)
 № 17 — Железнодорожный вокзал (1871 года постройки)
 № 21 — Средняя общеобразовательная школа № 7
 № 23 — Гостиница «Заря»
 № 31/1 — Крытый рынок

по чётной стороне:
 № 12 — Кинотеатр имени М. И. Калинина (1911 года постройки)
 № 72 — Городской культурный центр (ранее Дворец культуры железнодорожников имени В. И. Ленина; 1935 года постройки); Отдел культуры и кино
 № 72а — Плавательный бассейн «Дельфин» (1972 года постройки)
 № 72б — Стадион «Локомотив»
 № 82а — Средняя общеобразовательная школа № 9
 № 84а — Ртищевский городской суд (ранее общежитие Железнодорожного училища № 3)

Галерея

См. также
 Улицы города Ртищево

Литература
 Ртищево. Путеводитель карта и подробная информация о городе. — Ртищево: ООО «Новый Имидж. Ртищево», 2008
 Сдобников А. Из «номерных» в «культурные» или ретий этап переименования ртищевских улиц // Обозреватель. Регион.ru. — 6 декабря 2006
 Сдобников А. Улицы Ртищева: четвёртый этап переименований // Обозреватель. Регион.ru. — 21 февраля 2007

Улицы Ртищево

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
import atexit
import datetime
import json
import os

from bson import json_util
from flask import render_template, request, jsonify, Blueprint
from flask_login import login_required, current_user

from data_access import MagazineDao, ReviewDao, ReviewerDao, RecipeDao, ToolDao, EventDao
from my_exceptions import InvalidData
from my_mongo_client import MyMongoClientWriter
from security_access import SecurityDaoReader, SecurityDaoWriter

bp = Blueprint('admin', __name__, template_folder='templates')

env = "test"
if 'ENV' in os.environ:
    env = os.environ['ENV']

mongo_client_writer = MyMongoClientWriter(env)

def close_mongo():
    mongo_client_writer.close()

atexit.register(close_mongo)

@bp.route('/canardeurs.html')
@login_required
def canardeurs():
    user_id = (current_user.get_id() or None)
    events = event_dao(mongo_client_writer).get_last_events()
    magazines = magazine_dao(mongo_client_writer).get_empty_magazines()
    empty_critics_reviews = review_dao(mongo_client_writer).get_reviews_without_critic()
    return render_template('/admin/canardeurs.html', user_id=user_id, events=list(events), empty_magazines=magazines,
                           empty_critics_reviews=empty_critics_reviews)

@bp.route('/magazines.html')
@login_required
def admin_magazines_html():
    user_id = (current_user.get_id() or None)
    return render_template('/admin/magazines.html', user_id=user_id)

@bp.route('/magazines')
@login_required
def admin_magazines():
    magazines = magazine_dao(mongo_client_writer).get_magazines()
    return json_util.dumps(magazines)

@bp.route('/magazine/save', methods=['POST'])
@login_required
def save_magazine():
    magazine_data = json.loads(request.data)
    oid = magazine_dao(mongo_client_writer).save_magazine(magazine_data)
    review_dao(mongo_client_writer).update_magazine_issue(magazine_data)

    event_dao(mongo_client_writer).save_event({
        'login': current_user.get_id(),
        'collection': 'magazine',
        'timestamp': datetime.datetime.utcnow(),
        'id': magazine_data['issueNumber']
    })
    return jsonify(status="SUCCESS", oid=str(oid))

@bp.route('/reviewers.html')
@login_required
def admin_reviewers_html():
    user_id = (current_user.get_id() or None)
    return render_template('/admin/reviewers.html', user_id=user_id)

@bp.route('/reviewer/save', methods=['POST'])
@login_required
def save_reviewer():
    reviewer_data = json.loads(request.data)
    oid = reviewer_dao(mongo_client_writer).save_reviewer(reviewer_data)
    review_dao(mongo_client_writer).update_reviewer(reviewer_data)
    event_dao(mongo_client_writer).save_event({
        'login': current_user.get_id(),
        'collection': 'testeur',
        'timestamp': datetime.datetime.utcnow(),
        'id': reviewer_data['name']
    })
    return jsonify(status="SUCCESS", oid=str(oid))

@bp.route('/reviews.html')
@login_required
def admin_reviews_html():
    user_id = (current_user.get_id() or None)
    return render_template('/admin/reviews.html', user_id=user_id)

@bp.route('/review/save', methods=['POST'])
@login_required
def save_review():
    json_data = json.loads(request.data)
    try:
        oid = review_dao(mongo_client_writer).save_review(json_data)
        event_dao(mongo_client_writer).save_event({
            'login': current_user.get_id(),
            'collection': 'test',
            'timestamp': datetime.datetime.utcnow(),
            'id': json_data['title']
        })
        return jsonify(status="SUCCESS", oid=str(oid))
    except InvalidData as ex:
        return jsonify(status="FAIL", errors=ex.errors)

@bp.route('/reviews', methods=['GET'])
@login_required
def admin_reviews():
    reviews = review_dao(mongo_client_writer).get_all_reviews()
    return json_util.dumps(reviews)

@bp.route('/users.html')
@login_required
def users_html():
    user_id = (current_user.get_id() or None)
    return render_template('/admin/users.html', user_id=user_id)

@bp.route('/users')
@login_required
def tools():
    users = SecurityDaoReader(mongo_client_writer).get_users()
    return json_util.dumps(users)

@bp.route('/user/save', methods=['POST'])
@login_required
def save_user():
    json_data = json.loads(request.data)
    oid = SecurityDaoWriter(mongo_client_writer).save_user(json_data)
    return jsonify(status="SUCCESS", oid=str(oid))

def review_dao(mongo_client):
    return ReviewDao(mongo_client)

def reviewer_dao(mongo_client):
    return ReviewerDao(mongo_client)

def magazine_dao(mongo_client):
    return MagazineDao(mongo_client)

def recipe_dao(mongo_client):
    return RecipeDao(mongo_client)

def tool_dao(mongo_client):
    return ToolDao(mongo_client)

def event_dao(mongo_client):
    return EventDao(mongo_client)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Allthingsitalianemore.infohas global traffic and website rank of #21,218,944. The website domain is using the .info extension. Its Google Pagerank is calculated as 0/10. Currently it is not listed on DMOZ. There were no threats or malware detected, so it is safe to browse this website. Allthingsitalianemore.info has an estimated value of $ 147 and has an estimated daily income of around N/A.
Post and read the reviews of allthingsitalianemore.info. Before trusting allthingsitalianemore.info, read what people have experienced and commented, whether it is good or bad. You can also check Coupon Codes for allthingsitalianemore.info or post if you have any with expiry date.


text:
Mark Krasovic for The Conversation: Armed poll watchers: New Jersey's cautionary tale ahead of the 2020 presidential election
By Mark Krasovic
In the history of voter suppression in the United States – including attempts to stop Black and Latino people from voting – Republican tactics in the 1981 New Jersey gubernatorial race are worth highlighting.
That November, voters in several cities saw posters at polling places printed in bright red letters. "WARNING," they read. "This area is being patrolled by the National Ballot Security Task Force."
And voters soon encountered the patrols themselves. About 200 were deployed statewide, many of them uniformed and carrying guns.
In Trenton, patrol members asked a Black voter for her registration card and turned her away when she didn't produce it. Latino voters were similarly prevented from voting in Vineland, while in Newark some voters were physically chased from the polls by patrolmen, one of whom warned a poll worker not to stay at her post after dark. Similar scenes played out in at least two other cities, Camden and Atlantic City.
Weeks later, after a recount, Republican Thomas Kean won the election by fewer than 1,800 votes.
Democrats, however, soon won a significant victory. With local civil rights activists, they discovered that the "ballot security" operation was a joint project of the state and national Republican committees. They filed suit in December 1981, charging Republicans with "efforts to intimidate, threaten and coerce duly qualified black and Hispanic voters."
In November 1982, the case was settled when the Republican committees signed a federal consent decree – a court order applicable to activities anywhere in the U.S. – agreeing not to use race in selecting targets for ballot security activities and to refrain from deploying armed poll watchers.
The 2020 presidential election will be the first in nearly 40 years conducted without the protections afforded by that decree, which expired in 2018 after Democrats failed to convince a judge to renew it.
Read full story at The Conversation
Mark Krasovic
Historian Ruth Feldstein's Book-Turned-Documentary to Premiere on PBS
Top SASN Stories of 2020
Behind the Scenes at the National Book Awards with James Goodman and Rigoberto González

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Kickstart Comics
What to Watch At The Movies
Waterfront Film Festival
The Sing Off
Best TV Shows on TV
Eagleheart show
New Book Reviews
Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. – "Who You Really Are" The Best TV Quotes of the Week – Archer, Mindy Project, and More! (March 13)
Parks and Recreation – Our Favorite Episodes and Final Thoughts
By EJ Feddes and Myndi Weinraub On March 12, 2015 · Add Comment
EJ: "Media Blitz" – This was maybe the hardest one to choose. Season Three is only sixteen episodes, but they're almost all perfect. This is the episode where Leslie and Ben go out promoting the Harvest Festival and Ben's background as a teen mayor comes up and derails the whole thing. And I love the Pawnee media. Shauna Malwae-Tweep, Perd Hapley, and (in their first appearance) Crazy Ira and the Douche all get to abuse Ben in their own ways. It's one of Adam Scott's best episodes, and it includes one of my all-time favorite Parks jokes. (The way everybody in Pawnee still uses Alta Vista.) It wraps up with a huge moment in April and Andy's relationship, too. This one is just a delight from start to finish.
MYNDI: "Pawnee Rangers" – Ron's Boy Scout-like Rangers are pitted against the recently invented Pawnee Goddesses, created by Leslie in protest when girls couldn't join the Rangers. Predictably, Leslie's group is ten times more exciting since she dives headfirst into every detail and doesn't ever shy away from competition. While Leslie does everything, from an ethnic food court to a Puppy Party, (frankly, I want to be a Pawnee Goddess!) Ron gives his kids tarp and a box and says there is one activity planned: not getting killed. The boys wants to defect. When Ron admits defeat, Leslie puts an ad out for Swansons, the most intense outdoor club ever, and he gets several takers. Ben's upset about his and Leslie's recent breakup, and Donna and Tom take pity on him (even though they don't know why he's sad), inviting him to their annual Treat Yo Self! (Three words: Fine Leather Goods) Trouble is, he simply can't relax, even while getting a massage. Then, he finds his ultimate splurge: a Batman costume. Ben in a Batman costume is everything, whether it's how he looks when he breaks down crying in it, or how he flicks his cape aside when fixing the wifi for April. A third plot has Chris beginning to date Jerry's daughter Millicent and proceeding to overshare all the details of their new relationship with an uncomfortable Jerry.
Big Brother 15 - Nominations Week 4 "I'm a Speech Therapist, Not a Miracle Worker" (9)
American Idol, Season 11: Top 3 Perform (9)
The Bachelorette: Emily (Premier) (8)
Big Brother 15 Season Premiere! (8)
Best TV Shows on TV - We're Gonna Need a Turd Wig (7)
Home | Contact Us | FTC Guidelines | Privacy Policy | About Us


When Dark Horse started telling stories about the Clone Wars in their ongoing monthly title, there was simply too much story to tell! The answer was a new quarterly title spotlighting a Jedi. Each issue was created by John Ostrander, Jan Duursema, Dan Parsons, and Brad Anderson, and featured Mace Windu, SHaak Ti, Aayla Secura, and Count Dooku.
In Mace Windu, the second most powerful warrior uncovers a sinister plot within the Jedi's own ranks. Meeting a group of dissident Jedi who believe the war is a mistake and are turning against the order, Mace travels to the home of fellow Jedi Sora Bulq on the planet Ruul to discuss their differing philosophies. It is at this meeting that the Sith Apprentice Asajj Ventress strikes! But the assassin did not arrive without help, and her accomplice is one of the very Jedi at the meeting!
In Shaak Ti, the Togruta Jedi Master battles on Brentaal IV in order to free up a Hyperspace lane, and recruits a group of escaped prisoners to take the planet. One of the priosners is Sagoro Autem - a former Senate Guard last seen in the "Blood and Honor" story from Star Wars: Republic. But when the strike force is captured, it comes down to a single Clone Trooper to save the day.
In Aayla Secura, the Twi'lek Jedi Knight leads a team on Devaron to uncover a traitor within the government. But the team does not have long to investigate when the bounty hunter Aurra Sing tracks them down. It all leads to a duel between Aayla and Aurra, and the outcome is not what either expects. Aayla reflects on her past lessons as a padawan throughout this issue, as she deals with some devastating personal news.
In Count Dooku, the Sith Lord is known for his charismatic ways and how he uses his charms to recruit many worlds to the cause of the Separatists. So what happens when he uses his powers of persuasion on a Jedi Master? The answer is one of the most devastating events in the entire comic book series.
A continuing subplot in each tale revolves around fan-favorite character Quinlan Vos. His story is told through various subplots in each issue, as Vos learns the dangers of Vaapad from Mace Windu, is rescued from prison by Shaak Ti and helps lead the strike force. He gives Aayla Secura the news that he has joined the Separatists, but in reality it is all part of a plan to infiltrate Count Dooku's inner circle. Between this series and his appearances over in Star Wars: Republic, it is certain that we have not yet seen the last of Quinlan Vos.
Breaking this pattern is Yoda, where the Jedi Master travels to Thustra in order to bring the planet back into the Republic peacefully. But neither the leader (an old friend of Yoda's), the politicians, the Jedi padawans, or the Clone Army are willing to listen to Yoda's plans. Chaos ensues, and Yoda must face his own lessons in the end.


text:
James Bond Reflections of Death (Hardcover)
Dynamite announces a new original James Bond graphic novel for release in February, incorporating contributions from a cavalcade of writers and artists to celebrate the timelessness of the character and the countless talented creators who have brought him to comics.
James Bond in "Reflections of Death" is a 128 page hardcover of nonstop thrills and intrigue. Several Dynamite Bond veterans return for this tapestry, including Benjamin Percy (Wolverine, X-Force), Andy Diggle (Daredevil, Green Arrow) and Greg Pak (Star Wars, Agents of Atlas) and the writers of the December-launching new ongoing series, Vita Ayala (Morbius, Xena) & Danny Lore (Queen of Bad Dreams). Stars of both Dynamite and comics at large Gail Simone (Deadpool, Wonder Woman) and Mark Russell (Red Sonja, The Flintstones) join the team as well. Artists enlisted for the mission include Luca Casalanguida (Hammerhead, Kill Chain, The Body), Robert Carey (James Bond 007), Jordi Perez (Xena), Dean Kotz (Warlord of Mars Attacks), Eoin Marron (Killer Groove) and Kewber Baal (KISS). All wrapped up in another beautiful noir and pulp flavored cover by Fay Dalton (Casino Royale, Vampirella).
With a framing story Ayala and Lore, over 20 total creators will collaborate to contribute stories that both stand on their own and tie into an overarching narrative. The central figure through the anthology of case files is Moneypenny. She's been kidnapped. and the mystery of her captors and their demands will only be revealed when, or if, 007 is able to complete his missions. While Moneypenny herself may have some surprises up her sleeve.
"We're incredibly fortunate to work with so many talented creators, and of course they all want to write one of the most crucial characters in modern fiction!," said Nick Barrucci, Dynamite CEO and Publisher. "Just in time for the new movie, for fans to enjoy a bounty of Bond too!"
Dynamite asked each writer to distill what they think makes Bond such a timeless character and compelling to write.
Benjamin Percy – "Bond epitomizes cool. He wears the sharpest suits, drives the sleekest cars, owns the wildest gadgets. Men want to be him, women want to be with him. He never shies from danger. He always says the right thing, usually with a confident smile curling the corner of his mouth. He's aspirational. Through him, we can dream of shrugging off our insecurities and making an impact in the world."
"But that veneer of perfection hides a relatable flaw. He is emotionally scarred, numb, cold. This is a person who does horrible things for a greater good. So he drinks liver-deadening amounts of booze and sleeps around and discards those close to him so that he can armor himself against horrors."
Vita Ayala – "To me, what makes James Bond timeless is that he is that he can adapt to any situation, smoothly and with a cool no one can match. What that does, on a meta level, is make him able to be placed in any context, because the core parts of him are his resolve, his suaveness, and his ability to alter himself to the situation at hand – and all of THAT is timeless."
"For me, what makes him so compelling to work with is his complexity. James is a man who has dedicated his life to protecting his country, to SAVING lives, but he does it often by killing. He is a man who uses his charm and sexuality to achieve his goals, but there are tender, very vulnerable parts of him that he exposes to pain to do so. I love spies as a concept, and James is the epitome of Spy."
Danny Lore – "Bond is enduring because he's all about competence and style; even when he's wrong, he does it with such panache that we want him to come out on top. He's the calm in the storm that solves the problems that feel too big for one guy to solve, and does it while barely messing up the hem of his trousers. That kind of ingenuity and class and charm sticks with us as readers and as writers–in part because we know that he's entangled in darkness while still being able to don that classic smirk."
Greg Pak – "I love Bond stories for their glorious combo of sci-fi and spy thriller, their dry humor, their emphasis on a cool professional doing the impossible, and their joy in mind-blowing action set pieces. I love the Odd Job stories I've been able to do for throwing a cocky, passionate improvisor in the mix and seeing him drive Bond out of his mind. I'm hugely excited to get another bite of the apple with this story and hope both Bond and Odd Job fans enjoy reading it as much as we're enjoying making it."
Andy Diggle – "It's all too easy to feel hopeless and helpless against powerfully malevolent forces in our world, but James Bond encapsulates the idea that one man – one person – can make a difference. He endures, he persists, and he prevails. It's clear in Ian Fleming's work that Bond has a strong sense of moral outrage at the villains' disregard for human life. He knows right from wrong, and he's fighting the good fight for "us.""
Gail Simone – "It's an interesting thing, because I read several of the Fleming books before ever seeing a proper Bond film, and I liked that spy. He wasn't incredibly noble, he didn't have a lot of human empathy. But he was the man for the job. He was a human being who had to go to some dark places. That's my favorite Bond. I love the stunts and glamour, I love the locations and gadgets, all of that. But the Bond I most enjoy is the guy who goes where the snakes are, so the rest of us don't have to."
Mark Russell – "The thing I've always found fascinating about James Bond is that he's a killer who pretends to be a rich and sophisticated man in order to get at other rich and sophisticated men who are, in fact, killers. In that sense, he's a great metaphor for modern plutocratic democracy."