1992 Report of the Auditor General of Canada
Exhibit 19.3—Case: Polyphase Induction Motors Over 200 H.P. from Brazil, France, Japan, Sweden, Taiwan, U.K. and U.S.A.
30 September 1988 / The Department initiated investigation and indicated that the complaint was supported by two other domestic producers. Among other effects, the complainant claimed injury in the form of lost sales, loss of market share and price suppression.
2 November 1988 / The Tribunal advised that the evidence supported a reasonable indication of material injury.
29 December 1988 / The Department made a preliminary determination noting that one of the domestic producers could not support the complaint concerning large motors and that the producer had proposed to include in the complaint only motors up to 1,000 H.P. The Department indicated that such a proposal, if accepted, would exclude a significant value of imports that had been found to have been dumped and subsidized, and that were still claimed to be causing injury. With respect to injury, the Department stated that the Tribunal's advice precluded the Deputy Minister from terminating the investigation for insufficient evidence of injury.
28 April 1989 / CITT made a finding of no injury. Among its reasons, the Tribunal noted that a significant portion of the domestic producers' loss of market share in 1987 had been due to imports of motors over 8,000 H.P. from a country not party to the investigation. Their market share had increased in 1988. Consequently, the Tribunal saw no clear evidence of any loss of market share by domestic producers nor a substantial degree of import penetration by any of the subject countries. The Tribunal also found no direct evidence of price suppression, given the customized nature of the motors for each contract and the absence of any meaningful price lists.