The ITC’s May 22^nd publication in the Federal Register contains wording that leads us to believe that Commerce is attempting, once again, to include materials NOT named or otherwise included or alluded to in their initial April 2, 2001 investigation.

It has been accepted by the Trade (although with extreme reluctance due to the obvious fairness of the situation) that such materials as, but not limited to: over-sized fencing, pre-drilled and or notched studs, and angle end-cut truss components, even though legally classifiable under headings 4418.90.4590 or 4421.90.7040 or 4421.90.9740, which were NOT products or headings specified in Commerce’s "Initial Investigation" – now, per Commerce’s reasoning – fall within the scope of the case. However, it would appear that by the language the ITC uses in this latest publication, they and Customs could allow that if a product provided under sub-headings 4418 or 4421 is NOT specifically excluded BY NAME, it IS included within the scope.

We see this as the same unlawful maneuvering attempted with regard to Commerce’s inclusion of any unassembled pallets or fencing or unassembled trusses that did not meet their misguided and the U.S. Coalitions’ self-serving standards. Jones & Jones was successful in over-turning their decisions to include these materials, partly because they erred in their understanding of the precedented commercially recognized standards of these articles, but also because these products were NOT included in their initial investigation – therefore not allowing the parties impacted the opportunity to legally respond. If it IS Commerce’s intent to include ALL heading 4418 and 4421 materials that are not listed in their publication as excluded by name, they are attempting to accomplish the same thing they tried with regard to the unassembled pallets, unassembled trusses, legitimate fencing and radius end-cut bedframe materials. Inclusion of ALL "builder’s joinery and carpentry of wood" as provided under heading 4418.90.4590, and ALL "other articles of wood" as provided under heading 4421.90.9740, would restrict imports of hundreds of other Canadian manufactured wood products – that have never been included in any previous CVD lumber investigations, Canadian MOU’s or the recent SLA. If this IS their intent, Commerce, in our opinion, is once again disallowing the impacted industry’s and individual’s lawful right to address and petition. Regardless of Commerce’s and Customs’ interpretation having to do with the term "dispositive", the articles impacted were NOT addressed by heading OR name.

We have submitted two petitions to Commerce and Customs with regard to this matter. The first was sent April 15^th (you were all copied in), the second was sent yesterday – inquiring why we had yet to receive a response of any kind. We would advise interested parties to immediately consult with legal counsel. If this attempt, as we have described, IS their intent, the ramifications will be far-reaching and absolutely devastating to the Canadian mills and Remans who have, to date, survived this debacle. We’re trying to do what WE, can, but we need YOUR help.

Sincerely,

Michael D. Jones, President