Nova Scotia

Port Hawkesbury Paper refutes U.S. Department of Commerce ruling

Port Hawkesbury Paper is contesting a U.S. Department of Commerce preliminary ruling that says the Nova Scotia company is unfairly subsidized.

Port Hawkesbury Paper unfairly subsidized, says U.S. ruling

The U.S. government is one step closer to imposing duties and tariffs on paper imports from J.D. Irving Ltd. of Saint John and Port Hawkesbury Paper of Nova Scotia. (Wendy Martin/CBC)

Port Hawkesbury Paper is contesting a U.S. Department of Commerce preliminary ruling that says the Nova Scotia company is unfairly subsidized.

The investigation sets the way to levy duties on supercalendered paper, glossy paper used for magazines and catalogues.

The ruling says the Port Hawkesbury plant's exports to the U.S. are being subsidized at 20.3 per cent. That rate could be used to determine the level of duties.

Port Hawkesbury Paper says the commerce department miscalculated its electricity costs, and included subsidies given to the previous mill owner.

"This interim ruling is without merit and is unfair to other Canadian mills in addition to ours," Port Hawkesbury Paper's development manager Marc Dube said in a statement.

The U.S. Department of Commerce also assigned countervailing duties to three other Canadian paper makers.

New Brunswick's JD Irving Ltd. and British Columbia-based Catalyst Paper have been hit with an 11.19 per cent levy, while Resolute Forest Products out of Quebec has been knocked for two per cent.

Irving says the Department of Commerce did not investigate it or Catalyst, but simply assigned the two companies an average rate based on Port Hawkesbury and Resolute.

The Nova Scotia plant takes issue with the finding that electricity purchased by PHP from a privately-owned electricity company was a subsidy because it was approved by a public utility commission.

Dube said the plant's legal team is reviewing what he calls a "flawed" and "erroneous" interim decision.

"Port Hawkesbury Paper intends to vigorously defend against the finding of subsidies and the interim duty," he said.

"The other subsidy findings are similarly flawed, such as the finding that money given to the Port Hawkesbury mill's prior owner, NewPage Corporation (now Verso Corporation, one of the petitioners) while it owned the mill qualified as a subsidy to Port Hawkesbury Paper."

Cash deposits to be collected

The preliminary ruling means the paper company must start setting aside millions of dollars now to pay the 20 per cent customs duty, which it will have to pay if a final decision rules government subsidies have harmed American companies.

The U.S. investigation began in February after a complaint by an American industry group, the Coalition for Fair Paper Imports. The complaint was prompted by the Nova Scotia government's 2012 rescue package for a mill in Port Hawkesbury, a $124-million package that included a $40-million provincial government loan guarantee. The Utility and Review Board approved a discount on electricity 

Dube says representatives from the U.S. department plan to visit the Nova Scotia site.

The department's final ruling is due Oct. 13, with the commission's final ruling due Nov. 23. Assuming they uphold Tuesday's decision, duties and tariffs would be ordered in place Nov. 30.

Two other Canadian companies, Resolute Forest Products of Quebec and Catalyst Paper Corporation of Quebec, are also affected. Resolute's subsidy rate was found to be 2.04 per cent and Catalyst's at 11.19 per cent,  the same as Irving.

Comments

To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada's online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted.

By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.