USITC Staff Report: Quartz Surfaces from India and Turkey staff report USITC | Page 120

Parties disagreed over how the underselling data should be interpreted. Petitioner
argued that the “pervasive” underselling does not reflect any different in the types of designs
offered or the markets served and that any alleged “luxury premium” does not take into
account that ***. 27 Respondents generally viewed the instances of underselling and the
margins of underselling as indicative of market segmentation within the pricing products. 28
Joint respondents noted that there are “luxury” and “mass market” sales in every pricing
product.
29 30
Lost sales and lost revenue
In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the Commission requested that U.S.
producers of quartz surface products report purchasers with which they experienced lost sales
or revenue due to competition from imports of quartz surface products from India or Turkey
during 2017-19. *** U.S. producers submitted lost sales and lost revenue allegations. 31
In the final phase of these investigations, of the eight responding U.S. producers, four
reported that they had to either reduce prices or roll back announced price increases, and five
firms reported that they had lost sales.
27
Petitioner’s responses to the first round of Commissioners’ questions, p. 41.
28
Indian respondents claimed that the “significant volumes” of domestic and subject product in each
of the pricing products is evidence of a lack of head-to-head competition. Indian respondents’ responses
to first round of Commissioners’ questions, p. 13.
29
For example, long-veined and short-veined marble products are captured in products 3 and 4, and
subject imports are *** in long-veined looks. Joint respondents also claimed that Cambria’s marble
designs have a different appearance compared to subject imports’ “plainer and more natural looking”
marble designs. Joint respondents MS International and Arizona Tile’s responses to first round of
Commissioners’ questions, p. 33.
30
In discussing the pricing product comparisons, joint respondents claimed that that subject imports
undersold the domestic industry *** in the “basic products” *** but Cambria was able to ***, indicating
that the “luxury consumer” is willing to pay Cambria’s “extra-high prices.” Joint respondents also argued
that Cambria’s sales of ***, despite the increasing sales of subject imports of the same products. Joint
respondents MS International and Arizona Tile’s responses to first round of Commissioners’ questions,
pp. 28 and 33.
31
The petitioner stated that it sells to distributors and fabricators, which also sell subject product
from India and Turkey, however, it was unable to identify specific purchasers to which it lost sales and
lost revenues by reason of subject imports. Petition, vol. 1, p. 15.
V-23