USITC Staff Report: Quartz Surfaces from India and Turkey staff report USITC | Page 125

Table V-12--Continued
Quartz surface products: Purchasers’ responses to purchasing subject imports instead of
domestic product
Subject
imports
purchased
instead of
domestic
(Y/N)
Imports
priced
lower
(Y/N)
If purchased subject imports instead of domestic,
was price a primary reason
If Yes, quantity If No, non-price
Purchaser
Y/N (square feet) reason
*** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** *** ***
Total
Yes--6; No-
-30
Yes--4;
No--3 Yes--3; No--3 263,549
Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
Table V-13
Quartz surface products: Purchasers' responses to purchasing subject instead of domestic, by
country
Count of
purchasers
reporting
subject
instead of
domestic
Count of
purchasers
reported that
imports were
priced lower
Count of
purchasers
reporting that
price was a
primary
reason for
shift
Quantity
subject
purchased
(square feet)
Source
India 4 4 3 ***
Turkey 4 2 1 ***
Any subject source 6 4 3 263,549
Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
Petitioner argued that purchasers’ lost sales responses do not capture those sales that
the domestic industry “should have had the opportunity to compete for” after Chinese product
was placed under AD and CVD orders. 37 Joint respondents, however, stated that purchasers
that switched from Chinese product to subject product is not a lost sale, as a lost sale occurs
“when a customer switches to the imported product” from a domestic product. 38 Indian
37
Petitioner’s responses to the first round of Commissioners’ questions, p. 32.
38
Joint respondents MS International and Arizona Tile’s responses to the second round of
Commissioners’ questions, p. 12.
V-28