USITC Staff Report: Quartz Surfaces from India and Turkey staff report USITC | Page 121

Staff contacted 116 purchasers and received responses from 36 purchasers. Responding
purchasers reported purchasing and importing 61.2 million square feet of quartz surface
products during 2017-19 (table V-11). Of the 36 responding purchasers, 6 reported that, since
2017, they had purchased imported quartz surface products from subject countries instead of
U.S.-produced product; four importers reported purchasing Indian product and four reported
purchasing Turkish product instead of domestically-produced product. 32 Four of these
purchasers reported that subject import prices were lower than U.S.-produced product, and
three of these purchasers reported that price was a primary reason for the decision to purchase
imported product rather than U.S.-produced product. 33 All four purchasers that purchased
Indian-produced product instead of domestically produced product reported that the Indian
product was priced lower, and three indicated that price was the primary reason for purchasing
Indian product. 34 Two of the four importers that purchased Turkish-produced product instead
of domestically produced product reported that the Turkish product was priced lower, and one
purchaser reported that the price was a primary reason for purchasing Turkish product. 35
Three purchasers estimated the quantity of quartz surface products from India purchased
instead of domestic product; quantities ranged from *** square feet to *** square feet. One
purchaser estimated it purchased *** square feet of product from Turkey instead of domestic
product (table V-12). Purchasers identified price, product offerings, availability, and design
aesthetic as non-price reasons for purchasing imported rather than U.S.-produced product.
Of the 36 responding purchasers, one firm (***) reported that U.S. producers had
reduced prices in order to compete with lower-priced imports from India and Turkey, 12
reported that U.S. producers had not reduced prices, and 23 reported that they did not know.
The reported estimated price reduction was 7.0 percent for India and Turkey. In
32
*** reported purchasing both Indian and Turkish product instead of U.S.-produced product.
33
Joint respondents noted that two of the purchasers that reported price was a reason for
purchasing imported product instead of domestic product, ***, and they argued that this “contention is
suspect” as *** and that ***. Joint Respondents MS International and Arizona Tile’s responses to the
first round of Commissioners’ questions, p. 19.
34
*** indicated that price was not the primary reason for purchasing product from India.
35
*** reported that price was not the primary reason for buying Turkish product.
V-24