PUBLIC VERSION
On May 8, 2019, the domestic industry filed petitions for relief under Title VII of the Tariff Act against imports of QSP from India and Turkey that were being sold at less-than-fair value in the United States and against imports from India and Turkey that were being unfairly subsidized by the Indian and Turkish governments. 13 In its investigations, the Commission determined that“ the volume of cumulated subject imports, and the increase in that volume, are significant in absolute terms and relative to production and consumption in the United States.” 14 The Commission noted that“{ b } ecause the volume of cumulated subject imports rose at a much faster rate than apparent U. S. consumption, cumulated subject imports gained market share rapidly.” 15 With respect to price effects, the Commission found that“ cumulated subject imports pervasively undersold the domestic like product throughout the” period of investigation(“ POI”) and that“ cumulated subject imports undersold the domestic like product in all 129 quarterly price comparisons involving 18.2 million square feet(“ SQF”) of cumulated subject imports at underselling margins that ranged from 11.4 percent to 53.9 percent and averaged 28.9 percent.” 16 Moreover, the Commission explained that the significant underselling by subject imports fueled their significant increase in market share over the POI, particularly in 2019 as QSP imports from China exited the market after the imposition of cash deposits and the AD / CVD orders on QSP
13 Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Certain Quartz Surface
Products from India and the Republic of Turkey, EDIS Doc. No. 675301( May 8, 2019)(“ QSP India & Turkey Petitions”).
14 See Quartz Surface Products from India and Turkey, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-624-625 and 731-TA-1450-
1451( Final), USITC Pub. 5061( June 2020)(“ QSP from India & Turkey Inv Final, USITC Pub. 5061”) at 27.
15 Id. at 26( internal citation omitted).
16 Id. at 28.
7