of cold pig iron (hereinafter referred to as the cold pig iron industry), and have taken into account the combined impact on such industry of LTFV imports from all four countries collec tively, rather than from each country individually. 1/ Inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the Tariff Commission arises under section 201(a) upon receipt of Treasury's determination of LTFV imports and as such agency has made separate determinations of LTFV sales of pig iron from each of the four countries, an effort is made below to explain why in my opinion the collective impact of such LTFV imports governs in the disposition of the matters before the Commission. Also, explanations are furnished for my view that the cold pig iron industry is the relevant industry in this case and that such industry is being injured by the LTFV imports in question. 1 A more detailed study of the separate impact of the LTFV imports of pig iron from each country, particularly such imports from Czechoslovakia and Romania which are relatively small, might have resulted in a determination of de minimis injury for each country. However, I have not pursued this course of action for the reason that I believe the law contemplates that the Commission consider the combined impact of all LTFV imports of pig iron. Combined impact of LTFV imports governs Section 201(a), as enacted, 1/ included language designed to establish an orderly procedure for identifying the "class or kind" of imports which customs officers were to scrutinize following the issuance of a public finding of dumping by the Secretary. 2/ Although the amendments of the Antidumping Act in 1954 / trans ferring the injury determination to the Tariff Commission introduced new preliminary procedures, they did not alter the foregoing procedure for identifying the "class or kind" of merchandise covered by the Secretary's finding issued in a given case following the respective affirmative determinations made by him and the Tariff Commission. Treasury practice.--It has been the practice of the Treasury from the outset of its jurisdiction in 1921 to limit the class or kind of foreign merchandise by specifying its source. The most after 1/ That whenever the Secretary of the Treasury *** such investigation as he deems necessary, finds that an industry in the United States is being or is likely to be injured, or is prevented from being established, by reason of the importation into the United States of a class or kind of foreign merchandise, and that merchandise of such class or kind is being sold or is likely to be sold in the United States or elsewhere at less than fair value, then he shall make such finding public to the extent he deems necessary, together with a description of the class or kind of merchandise to which it applies in such detail as may be necessary for the guidance of the appraising officers. (Underscoring supplied.) 42 Stat. 11. 2/ P.L. 83-768, 68 Stat. 1136. frequent limitation to the article description has been the specification of the country of origin. I know of no instance of a single finding involving more than one country of origin. On the other hand, it seems that when more than one country was involved the Secretary made simultaneous but separate findings with respect to each such country. See, for example, the 8 separate but simultaneous affirmative findings of dumping with respect to safety matches from 8 countries; 1/ also the 4 separate but simultaneous affirmative findings involving ribbon fly catchers 2/ from 4 countries. In subsequently revoking such findings, the Treasury issued a single T.D. terminating the findings with respect to safety matches from 7 of the countries 3 and a single T.D. revoking several findings involving several classes of Treasury, also, in treating with dumping findings, limited to a specified product from one country, has thereafter rescinded such findings piecemeal on a producer-by-producer basis. 5/ T.D.s 44716 through 44723. T.D. 52370. See T.D.s 54168 and 54199 rescinding in part the Secretary's finding (T.D. 53567) with respect to hardboard from Sweden. Treasury's practice has also included limitations of a dumping finding to products from a political subdivision of a country--such as from one of the provinces of Canada--and also to imports from one or more named foreign producers or sellers in a country. Bearing in mind the nature of the Secretary's operations, and the fact that his dumping findings made prior to 1954 involving multi-country sources for LTFV imports of the same class or kind seem to have been simultaneously issued, I find no warrant in such actions of the Secretary for concluding that he regarded the imports from one country as having to be considered for injury purposes as separate and distinct from the same articles also being dumped by one or more other countries. All things considered, it is my belief that, prior to 1954, the Secretary, in issuing the formal finding(s) of dumping at the conclusion of an investigation with respect to a particular product, was treating with the LTFV imports of that product in a collective sense from whatever source they came, i.e., whether from more than one foreign producer or from more than one country, for the reason that nothing in the statute or its legislative history remotely suggests that injury to an industry is to be condoned when combined sources are involved so long as the LTFV imports from each source when considered alone do not cause injury. It is not logical to treat the Secretary's practice of making a separate finding for each country as anything other than a procedural or administrative convenience or expediency. Tariff Commission practice.--On four occasions since 1954 the Tariff Commission has received from the Treasury Department simultaneous, but separate, determinations covering the same proEach of these investigations duct from different countries. 1/ resulted in unanimous negative determinations by the Commission. The statements of reasons indicated that the products had all been sold at prices equal to or higher than the comparable domestic product. For this reason, it was not necessary to resolve the issue of collective treatment of the dumped imports. The issue has come up, however, in ways which illustrate the procedural difficulties introduced when Treasury staggers its determinations with respect to LTFV imports of the same products from more than one country. This type of problem is illustrated in the wire rod determinations, where Treasury made four separate determinations at different times with respect to such wire rods from Belgium, Luxembourg, Western Germany and France. In these investigations argument was made that each country's exports of LTFV wire rods had to be separately Hardboard from Canada and the Union of South Africa, tissue paper from Finland and Norway; rayon staple fiber from Belgium and France; and rayon staple fiber from Cuba and West Germany. |