Canada-U.S. Blog

Trade Lawyers Cyndee Todgham Cherniak and Susan K. Ross

What Should Canadians Listen For While Watching the U.S. Presidential Debate

Posted in Antidumping, Border Security, Buy America, Canada's Federal Government, Cross-border deals, Cross-border trade, Elections, Export Controls & Economic Sanctions, Immigration law, NAFTA, NAFTA Chapter 11, Politics, Softwood Lumber, State Courts, State Governments, Tax, Trade Agreeements, U.S. Federal Government, U.S. Supreme Court, World Trade Organization

Canada-US FlagsTonight is the first U.S. Presidential Debate.  Every 4 years, Canadian bureaucrats and those interested in politics watch the debates looking for clues as to what good and bad may be coming.  I thought it would be useful to make a list, from the perspective of a Canadian trade lawyer, of what Canadians should listen for while watching the U.S. Presidential Debate.

  1. The future of TPP – What are the candidates’ positions on TPP?  Basically, we already know both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are against TPP.  If the TPP is not ratified before the change of power, most likely TPP will be dead.  Will they change their position during the debate?
  2. The future of NAFTA – Both candidates have spoken unfavourably about NAFTA.  What are their plans and how will those plans affect Canada?  Do the candidates plan to end NAFTA or do they plan to open NAFTA for new negotiations?  Will NAFTA evolve?
  3. NAFTA Chapter 11 – Will there be any discussion of NAFTA Chapter 11?  Will either candidate want to clarify the terms of NAFTA Chapter 11 further to further limit arbitrations against the United States government measures?  This has been done in the past and the Investment Chapter of TPP evolves the NAFTA Chapter 11 provisions.
  4. Softwood lumber – Would either candidate negotiate a favourable resolution to the softwood lumber trade war if it commences in October (prior to the election)?
  5. Other Antidumping and Countervailing Duty cases – Will the candidates signal that they would support more antidumping cases and countervailing duty cases to increase duties on goods imported into the United States?  We believe there will be more antidumping duty and countervailing duty cases against Canada, Mexico and other countries.
  6. Buy America – Both candidates speak in protectionist terms.  Will they implement “Buy America” policies and how will Canada be affected by any new “Buy America” initiatives?
  7. WTO – Donald Trump has indicated that he might pull out of the WTO.  If such discussion takes place, the question will be what level of duties will be imposed on foreign goods.
  8. Immigration law – What changes do the candidates propose to immigration laws?  Will the proposed changes negatively impact the ability of business travel and mobility of workers involved in North American industries (goods and services)?  Will it be more difficult for business persons to travel between Canada and the United States?
  9. Border Security – What do the candidates propose to do with respect to enhancing border security and will it slow down the flow of goods and persons between Canada and the United States.  Canadian and U.S. businesses will not benefit from a thickening of the border.
  10. Standards and Regulatory Alignment – Will the candidates speak about the need to align Canada’s and U.S.’ regulations and public standards on goods that are manufactured and sold in both countries?  This would reduce red tape on many manufacturing businesses and assist U.S. manufacturers.  It may require Canadian manufacturers to change the way they do things (e.g., packaging).
  11. Supply management – Will the candidates take aim at Canada’s supply management programs?
  12. Keystone XL Pipeline – Donald Trump is for approving the pipeline and Hillary Clinton is against the pipeline.  Will the Keystone XL pipeline get mentioned during the debate?

There are many other topics that would be of interest to Canadians.  Rather than making a long list, I thought the key trade issues would be a good place to start.  Please feel free to submit comments to list more trade issues.

If you have any questions, please contact Cyndee Todgham Cherniak at 416-307-4168 or email cyndee@lexsage.com.

How To File A “Service Complaint” Against The Canada Revenue Agency

Posted in GST/HST

Info Sign Showing Information Knowledge And Support

In writing this blog post, we are not advocating filing baseless, frivolous, vexatious and retaliatory “service complaints” against Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) auditors, collections officers and other employees of the CRA. However, we have learned from the experience of our clients that some legitimate complaints arise from time-to-time.  It is in the spirit of transparency and openness that we have decided to write about the CRA service complaints process.  Before we give this information to you, we ask one thing – when you write a service complaint, do not do so in anger.  Take your time to be fair.  After you write the service complaint, do not press “send” right away.  Print what you have written and put it in a drawer for 24 hours.  Then read the service complaint again and make any changes that you feel are warranted and appropriate.  If you send a fair service complaint that is factual, rather than emotional, you increase the chances that the reader will address your concerns.  I have been informed that all service complaints are reviewed and taken seriously.

There is a form for “Service Complaints” about CRA employees. You must complete an RC193 “Service Related Complaint” form.  The form asks for your information – service complaints cannot be made anonymously.  The reason why service complaints cannot be anonymous is that the CRA has to review the alleged treatment of a particular taxpayer and conduct an internal review of the contents of the complaint.  However, service complaints may be filed on your behalf by a representative, such as a lawyer, accountant, bookkeeper, consultant, etc.

The form requires the taxpayer filing the service complaint to describe the actions of the CRA employee giving rise to the service complaint and state the action the taxpayer wishes the CRA to take.

There are many legitimate reasons why a taxpayer may file a service complaint against an employee of the CRA.  The first place to start is the “Taxpayer Bill of Rights” and RC17 “Taxpayer Bill of Rights Guide: Understanding your rights as a taxpayer”.  The next document to consider when completing a service complaint is the CRA’s “Service Standards 2016-2017“. The CRA has also prepared a publication on “Complaints and Disputes”.  You may also wish to consult your accountant, lawyer or bookkeeper to assist you with the drafting of the service complaint.

For example, if an auditor is acting in a biased manner towards the taxpayer, the taxpayer should make a statement that they are being treated in a biased manner, present the facts in support of the claim and make a requested action, such as the replacement of the auditor with another auditor.  It is not possible to ask that the taxpayer never be audited.  But it is reasonable to request another auditor.

For example, if the auditor does not seem to understand the legal issues involved in the file and fails to consider the issues, you should ask for a meeting with a Team Leader.  If the auditor refuses to arrange a meeting with his/her Team Leader, you should file a service complaint.  The basis for the complaint would be the lack of knowledge and the refusal to arrange a meeting with a Team Leader.  The concern would be that the auditor is not communicating with others within the CRA and using appropriate resources.  It is not uncommon for new auditors to be “in over their heads” when dealing with new and complex issues.  It can be beneficial to raise these issues in order to keep the audit on track and to minimize the risk of the auditor making incorrect assessments.

After the complaint is written, put it away for a day and make appropriate revisions.  The service complaint may be submitted to the CRA electronically (through My Business Account), by fax or by mail. See the Submissions options.

We have filed service complaints on behalf of our clients.  Normally, we receive a letter within a few weeks acknowledging receipt by the CRA of the complaint.  The complaint is forwarded to the Tax Services Office most closely connected to the service complaint.  In every file in which we filed the service complaint, we have received a telephone call about the service complaint.  In every case, there was a requirement that the CRA employee respond to a supervisor who was looking into the service complaint.  In every file, we received a response from the CRA about the steps to be taken.  In every case, the service complaints were taken seriously. In most cases, the matter was resolved satisfactorily.  This is because we were reasonable in how we discussed the issues and were reasonable in what actions were requested.

For more information, please contact Cyndee Todgham Cherniak at 416-307-4168 or email cyndee@lexsage.com.

How To File A Complaint Against The Canada Border Services Agency

Posted in Canada's Federal Government, Customs Law, Export Controls & Economic Sanctions, Exports, Immigration law, Imports Restrictions, NEXUS

Happy Face Cut OutIn writing this blog post, we are not advocating filing baseless, frivolous, vexatious and retaliatory complaints against Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) officers. However, we have learned from the experience of our clients that some legitimate complaints arise from time-to-time.  It is in the spirit of transparency and openness that we have decided to write about the CBSA complaints process.

Before we give this information to you, we ask one thing – when you write a complaint, do not do so in anger. We talk to many clients who have had a bad experience with the CBSA and they are upset.  Many people call us in a very emotional state.  What we say to everyone is to “press pause”.  Take your time to be fair.  After you write the service complaint, do not press “send” right away.  Print what you have written and put it in a drawer for 24 hours.  Then read the complaint again and make any changes that you feel are warranted and appropriate.  If you send a fair service complaint that is factual, rather than emotional, you increase the chances that the reader will address your concerns.

There is an online form that you can complete to file a complaint.

There is also a better option.  You may write a thoughtful complaint to the Recourse Directorate.

Recourse Directorate
Canada Border Services Agency
Ottawa, ON K1A 0L8

Your letter should include:

  • your name, address, telephone number;
  • a description of what happened including the date, time and port of entry; and
  • where possible, the name and/or badge number of the CBSA officer involved.

Based on our experience, the Recourse Directorate will send the complaint to the relevant port of entry (where the CBSA officer at issue works). The CBSA will conduct an investigation into the complaint.  Our clients have received telephone calls from supervisors seeking more information about the incident in question.  While the Recourse Directorate does not inform what action was taken, they have communicated that action will be taken.

Thousands of complaints have been filed against the CBSA – here is a link to a 2011 article.

For more information, please contact Cyndee Todgham Cherniak at 416-307-4168 or email at cyndee @lexsage.com.

Minister Responsible For The CBSA Does Not Understand How Canada’s Antidumping Law Works

Posted in Anti-Trust/Competition Law, Trade Remedies

Many-QuestionsCanada’s Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (Ralph Goodale) is responsible for the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”).  On September 20, 2016, Minister Goodale was asked about the antidumping case against gypsum board from the United States being imported/consumed/used in Western Canada (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Yukon and Northwest Territories).  Minister Goodale made the following statements in the House of Commons:

Question: Mr. David Yurdiga (Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC) :

“Mr. Speaker, last week, residents who lost their homes in Fort McMurray wildfires were shocked to learn that rebuilding their homes is going to cost a lot more. A recent Liberal decision to put a 276% tax on drywall will raise the cost of a home rebuild in Fort McMurray by thousands of dollars.  When will the Liberals reverse this short-sighted decision and quit punishing Fort McMurray residents, who have already suffered enough?”
Answer (Minister Goodale): “Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the relevant legislation, allegations of dumping and subsidization are investigated based on complaints that are received. When those complaints are received, there is a decision-making period that takes about 90 days. Then if the decision is subject to objection, it can be referred to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.  The law needs to be applied.”

Question:  Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC):

“Mr. Speaker, this surprise tax on drywall into western Canada is a real issue for Canadian businesses. We have been hearing from western Canadian contractors, drywallers, and other small construction businesses that this tax will affect their bottom line and lead to job losses.    With no jobs to spare in western Canada right now, what will the Liberals do to ensure that more jobs are not lost as a result of the decision to tax U.S. drywall?”
Answer (Minister Goodale): “Mr. Speaker, when there has been an allegation of dumping, the decision needs to follow the appropriate process. We will ensure that that process is followed in the most expeditious manner to get a proper decision.  As I say, there is a procedure in place to receive complaints and objections. That is the International Trade Tribunal, which stands ready to receive the matter and to hear all of the competing points of view.”
I am not suggesting in any way that Minister Goodale has mislead Parliament – let me be clear on that point. However, Minister Goodale is misinformed about how Canada’s antidumping laws work.  Minister Goodale is correct that the CBSA receives complaints from the domestic industry.  However, there is no process for objections to complaints to be considered by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“CITT”). The CITT is mandated under law to conduct a preliminary injury inquiry and an injury inquiry. The CITT’s mandate in a preliminary injury inquiry is to determine “whether the evidence discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping or subsidizing of the [subject] goods has caused injury or retardation or is threatening to cause injury.”   The CITT’s mandate in an injury inquiry is to inquire as to whether the dumping or subsidizing of the subject goods has caused injury or retardation or is threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry, which is defined by reference to the domestic production of “like goods”.
The CITT has stated on many occasions that it does not have authority to change the product scope. In the Line Pipe case (PI-2015-002), the CITT stated:
“It is well established that the Tribunal must conduct its preliminary injury inquiry on the basis of the CBSA’s product definition of the dumped or subsidized goods. This means that the Tribunal cannot, on its own initiative, modify or redefine the definition of the subject goods. Accordingly, the allegation that the product definition includes standards or specifications that do not relate to line pipe and should therefore be excluded from the scope of the subject goods is a matter that falls under the CBSA’s exclusive jurisdiction.”
The CITT has also said that it cannot consider product exclusion requests during the preliminary injury inquiry (Gypsum Board (PI-2016-001):
“60. The Tribunal received one request from CBP to exclude products from a preliminary determination of injury or threat of injury. The proposed exclusion request was for shipments of 5,000 square feet or less. The exclusion was opposed by CertainTeed.
61. While SIMA does not expressly authorize the Tribunal to grant exclusions from the scope of an order or finding, this authority is implicit.
62.Exclusions are an extraordinary remedy that may be granted only when the Tribunal is of the view that granting the exclusion will not cause injury or threat of injury to the domestic industry Applying this principle entails determining whether imports of the specific goods for which exclusions are requested have not caused and are not threatening to cause injury, despite the general conclusion that the dumping of the subject goods have caused or threaten to cause injury to the domestic industry.
63. As stated in the notice of commencement of this preliminary injury inquiry, the Tribunal generally does not consider product exclusion requests at this stage. Although it may deviate from this standard practice in “exceptional circumstances” the evidence relating to the product exclusion request made in this preliminary injury inquiry does not disclose exceptional circumstances. For those reasons, the Tribunal will not deal with this exclusion request at this time, as it does not meet the standard required for being adjudicated at this stage of the proceedings and is therefore premature.
64. In light of the above, the Tribunal will entertain product exclusions at the final injury inquiry under section 42 of SIMA only. At that stage, the Tribunal will be in a position to properly assess evidence from any and all interested parties on whether or not granting an exclusion will cause injury or threat of injury to the domestic industry. CBP should file a new exclusion request in the course of the final injury inquiry under section 42 of SIMA using the appropriate form and providing all the information and evidence required for such purposes during a final injury inquiry.”
The domestic industry files submissions in support of an injury finding and the parties opposed file submissions and evidence.  There is no objection phase to the proceeding.  It is very rare for the CITT to terminate proceedings at the preliminary injury inquiry phase – it has only happened in one case.  There is also no expedited procedure for conducting injury inquiries.
For more information, please contact Cyndee Todgham Cherniak at 416-307-4168 or cyndee@lexsage.com.

What Is A “Customs Controlled Area”?

Posted in Border Security, Canada's Federal Government, Corporate Counsel, Cross-border trade, Currency Reporting, Customs Law, Exports, Immigration law, Imports Restrictions, NEXUS, origin, Personal Comments, Proceeds of Crime/Money Laundering, tariff classification, valuation

THESSALONIKI, GREECE - AUGUST 8, 2013: Departures hall at an airport with passengers queuing with their luggage to book in at the airline counters

On April 27, 2016, the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) released Guide BS5156 “What you need to know about Customs Controlled Areas”. In this one page document, the CBSA informs the public that a “customs controlled area” is:

“A designated area where there is a likelihood that domestic employees or domestic origin travellers leaving Canada will come into contract with international travellers and/or international goods that have not been processed or released (as the case may be) by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).  The CBSA has implemented CCAs within some of the designated ports of entry.”

In other words, customs controlled areas are established by the CBSA in airports, rail stations, marine ports, land border crossings, mail facilities, courier facilities, etc. The customs controlled area can relate to inbound activities (such as arriving in Canada after being outside Canada) or outbound activities (e.g., in the U.S. or international departure hall of the airport). Within the customs controlled area, the CBSA may question and examine travellers and/or examine and detain goods.  Within the customs controlled area, individuals must answer all questions asked by the CBSA and follow any direction of the CBSA (unless the law permits a refusal).

The purpose of the customs controlled area is to establish a space where the CBSA can enforce Canadian law with respect to travellers and goods that are moving inbound and outbound.  The CBSA describes the purpose of the customs controlled area as follows:

“CCAs are intended to enhance safety and operational effectiveness at ports of entry by addressing the potential for employees to misuse their positions to engage in criminal activity when in contact with international travellers and/or goods not yet cleared by the CBSA.”

I kid you not – this is what the CBSA has written.  In my opinion, the customs controlled area has more to do with protecting Canada and ensuring import duties are paid. A very minor ancillary role of the customs controlled area is to catch illegal activity of employees operating within the area (such as the CBSA themselves).

Much of Guide BS5156 is written to communicate how employees are affected by the customs controlled area designation.  What is more important (and somewhat lacking) is the expectations of travellers in the customs controlled area.  Some of the responsibilities on travellers are:

  • At the request of a CBSA officer, any traveller within or exiting a CCA is required to identify thenselves.  That is, if a CBSA officer comes up to you and asks for identification, you must provide your identification.
  • At the request of a CBSA officer, any traveller within or exiting a CCA is required to truthfully answer questions asked by the CBSA officer.  If you do not answer a question truthfully, you commit an offence under the Customs Act.  That being said, if you don’t understand a question and answer the question incorrectly, that may not be an untruthful statement.
  • At the request of a CBSA officer, any traveller within or exiting a CCA is required to present goods for examination. This means that the CBSA can search your luggage, any boxes you are importing, and your computers/smartphones, etc.

The most important statement made in Guide BS5156 relates to privacy rights of travellers:

“In accordance with CCA Regulations, heightened privacy requirements are in effect which will help safeguard a person’s rights and freedoms. The grounds for CBSA officers to examine goods and search persons in a CCA need to meet higher thresholds than the grounds for the examination of goods and the search of persons crossing the border.  The presence of CCAs will not interfere with the day-to-day activities of business travellers and employees within these designated areas.”

“Travellers and employees in CCAs are protected under the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As well, all CBSA employees are subject to strict standards of conduct to uphold the CBSA values of integrity, respect and professionalism. Any employee who abuses his/her authority or violates these standards may be subject to disciplinary action.”

These statements are very interesting and confusing.  The CBSA seems to suggest that all persons in the customs controlled area are not treated the same. The CBSA seems to suggest that some people and goods have privacy rights at a higher standard than others.  It is not clear what the difference is between “persons crossing the border” and “persons in the CCA”.  It may be that individuals who are not entering Canada (have entered the customs controlled area from within Canada) will be held to a different standard than individuals who are entering Canada (have been outside Canada prior to entering the customs controlled area). It would be helpful if the CBSA would have made a more clear delineation.

The statement about the expectation on CBSA employees is also very interesting.  The CBSA’s code of conduct is not posted in CCAs.

For more information about the CBSA’s Code of Conduct, please review yesterday’s blog post entitled “Canada Border Services Agency Revised Code of Conduct Is Published Online”.

For more information about Canadian customs law, please contact Cyndee Todgham Cherniak at 416-307-4168 or email cyndee@lexsage.com.  For more Free information, please go to www.lexsage.com.

Canada Border Services Agency Revised Code of Conduct Is Published Online

Posted in Border Security, Canada's Federal Government, Cross-border trade, Currency Reporting, Customs Law, Export Controls & Economic Sanctions, Exports, Immigration law, Imports Restrictions, NEXUS, Personal Comments, Politics, Proceeds of Crime/Money Laundering

Customs StopOn August 16, 2016, the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) posted its revised Code of Conduct, to which all CBSA officers must adhere. The three “values” pillars of the CBSA Code of Conduct are (1) Respect, (2) Integrity and (3) Professionalism.

Respect

The CBSA makes the following statements in the Code of Conduct regarding “Respect”:

  • Respect for Democracy: The system of Canadian parliamentary democracy and its institutions are fundamental to serving the public interest. Public servants recognize that elected officials are accountable to Parliament, and ultimately to the Canadian people, and that a non-partisan public sector is essential to our democratic system.
  • Respect for People: Treating all people with respect, dignity and fairness is fundamental to our relationship with the Canadian public and contributes to a safe and healthy work environment that promotes engagement, openness and transparency. The diversity of our people and the ideas they generate are the source of our innovation.
  • We serve the public interest through non-partisan support of our Minister.
  • We show the utmost appreciation for the dignity, diversity and worth of all people and uphold the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • We develop and sustain mutual trust with our colleagues.
  • We uphold the Canadian parliamentary democracy and its institutions by:
    • aligning our efforts, energy and expertise with the Government of Canada and CBSA‘s priorities;
    • enacting the lawful decisions of leaders and carrying out duties in accordance with the Agency’s policies and directives; and
    • providing impartial, objective and factual information, advice and support in a timely manner to further Agency objectives.
  • We respect human dignity and the value of every person by:
    • providing conscientious and equitable service to all colleagues, clients, partners and stakeholders regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, political belief, religion, family status, physical or mental ability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age or economic and social status;
    • recognizing the talents and contributions of members of our diverse workforce;
    • delivering on our commitments;
    • listening to others, seeking to understand their position and behaving in a just, courteous and reasonable manner; and
    • maintaining collaborative working relationships through honest and positive communications free from harassment and discrimination.

Integrity

The CBSA makes the following statements in the Code of Conduct regarding “Integrity”:

  • Integrity is the cornerstone of good governance and democracy. By upholding the highest ethical standards, public servants conserve and enhance public confidence in the honesty, fairness and impartiality of the federal public sector.
  • We exercise our authority in an honest, open and fair manner.
  • We accept responsibility for our actions in order to build and maintain a reputation of trustworthiness and accountability.
  • We serve the public interest by:
    • making decisions and behaving in ways that maintain public confidence and preserve CBSA‘s reputation in light of its high visibility;
    • refraining from using our official roles, the Agency’s property or assets, and non-publicly accessible information to gain personal advantage or to advantage or disadvantage others;
    • ensuring that our off-duty and private activities and our private financial affairs do not conflict with our official duties; and
    • refraining from making derogatory comments regarding the Agency, its employees (including its managers) or the Government of Canada, especially in public spaces.

Professionalism

The CBSA makes the following statements in the Code of Conduct regarding “Professionalism”:

  • Stewardship: Federal public servants are entrusted to use and care for public resources responsibly, for both the short term and long term.
  • Excellence: Excellence in the design and delivery of public sector policy, programs and services is beneficial to every aspect of Canadian public life. Engagement, collaboration, effective teamwork and professional development are all essential to a high-performing organization.
  • We employ public resources wisely and properly.
  • We provide efficient, competent and excellent service.
  • We set high standards of achievement and accountability both individually and collectively.
  • We use resources responsibly by:
    • ensuring the use of CBSA’s resources is efficient, effective, approved and accounted for;
    • avoiding waste and misuse of the Agency’s money, property and resources; and
    • safeguarding confidential information, sharing knowledge only as appropriate, and making every effort to prevent security risks.
  • We demonstrate professional excellence by:
    • providing quality service that respects Canada’s official languages in accordance with Our Service Commitment;
    • adapting to changing needs and being innovative to improve our programs and services;
    • being reliable and committed to working collaboratively with our colleagues; and
    • addressing inappropriate behaviour with our colleagues where possible, and reporting serious misconduct to management, in order to build and maintain trust and accountability.

The Code of Conduct also contains sections on “Accountability and Professional Conduct”, “Leadership”, “Expected Standards of Conduct”, “Public Comments and Criticisms”, “Electronic Network Access and Uses”, “Care and Use of Government Property and Assets, “Confidentiality and Disclosure of Information”, “Harassment and Discrimination”, “Contact with the Public”, “Contact With the People We Work With”, “Neglect of Duty”, “Safety and Security”, “Use of Personal Electronic Devices at Work” and other areas.

I am reminded of a famous quote by Louis Brandeis – “If the government becomes the law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law.  It invites every man to become a law unto himself”.  The CBSA Code of Conduct is important because Canada’s front line cannot be law-breakers and cannot be perceived to be law-breakers.  It is important to hold the CBSA officers to account – which means they must follow the Code of Conduct.  If they do not, it brings their enforcement actions and discretionary decision-making into question.

For more information about what to do if a CBSA officer breaches the Code of Conduct, please contact Cyndee Todgham Cherniak at 416-307-4168 or email cyndee@lexsage.com.  For more information, please go to the LexSage web-site.

What Should Canadian Businesses Know About Canadian Goods Returned For Warranty Repairs?

Posted in Cross-border trade, Customs Law, origin, tariff classification, valuation

Customs Building (XL)One area of confusion for many small and medium Canadian businesses is the customs treatment of goods manufactured in Canada that are sold outside Canada (and exported), but have to be returned temporarily for warranty repairs. The goods manufactured in Canada may be entirely Canadian input content or may be made partly with foreign inputs.  SMEs want to be in the export market, but get caught by complex customs laws about what to do if goods are returned for one reason or another.

On September 7, 2016, the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) released D-Memo D8-2-27 “Canadian Goods, Originating in Canada or Accounted for, Temporarily Exported and Returned” to provide much needed guidance.  However, the guidance is written for the knowledgeable in customs laws and not SMEs who are trying very hard to figure out what they are supposed to do.

The first thing for Canadian businesses to know is that they have an obligation to report all imported goods – if goods are outside Canada and are entering Canada, they are being imported.  Pursuant to subsection 12(1) of the Customs Act, all goods imported into Canada must be reported to the nearest customs office. Subsection 12(3.1) of the Customs Act specifies that “the return of goods to Canada after they are taken out of Canada is an importation.”

The question to be asked is: Are customs duties and other import charges payable with respect to the specific goods that are being returned.?  The answer to this question will be “Yes”, applicable customs duties, other duties and GST will be payable on the imported good unless a relief provision applies.

There are two relief provisions which may provide customs duty relief to goods exported from Canada and subsequently returned to Canada. There are tariff item Nos. 9813.00.00 and 9814.00.00 of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff.  Goods that meet the requirements of and are classified under either tariff item No. 9813.00.00 or 9814.00.00 may be imported customs duty-free.

What goods can be subject to relief?

Goods that originated in Canada: Tariff item 9813.00.00 covers “goods, including containers or coverings filled or empty, originating in Canada, after having been exported therefrom, if the goods are returned without having been advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other means, or combined with any other article abroad.”

Goods previously imported into Canada and accounted for: Tariff item 9814.00.00 covers “goods, including containers or coverings filled or empty, which have once been released and accounted for under section 32 of the Customs Act and have been exported, if the goods are returned without having been advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other means, or combined with any other article abroad.”

Goods of tariff item No. 9813.00.00 must originate in Canada. The CBSA considers that a good originates in Canada when the good is

(a)  a mineral extracted in Canada;

(b)  a vegetable or other good harvested in Canada;

(c)  a live animal born and raised in Canada;

(d)  a good obtained from hunting, trapping or fishing in Canada;

(e)  fish, shellfish or other marine life taken from the sea by a vessel registered or recorded with Canada and flying a Canadian flag;

(f)   a good produced on board a factory ship from a good referred to in paragraph (e), where the factory ship is registered or recorded in Canada and flies a Canadian flag;

(g)  a good taken by Canada or someone representing Canada from or beneath the seabed outside the territorial waters of Canada, where Canada has the right to exploit that seabed; or

(h)  a good produced in Canada exclusively from a good referred to in any of paragraphs (a) through (g), or from the derivatives of such a good, at any stage of production.

What this means is that any good that is made from any foreign inputs will be within tariff item No 984.00.00.  Goods of tariff item No. 9814.00.00 are those which were previously, wholly or partially, imported into Canada, and were released and accounted for under section 32 of the Customs Act.  It is very important to be able to prove that customs duties were previously paid on the foreign inputs.

It is also critically important to note that if the goods have been advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other means and/or have been combined with any other article while they were outside Canada, these relief provisions are not available.  Other relief provisions must be considered.

What Should Importers of Goods For Warranty Repairs Do?

Canadian businesses who act as the importer of record for Canadian goods returned for warranty repairs or accounted goods for warranty repairs should ensure that their customs brokers properly account for the returned goods and follow the administrative requirements set out in D-Memo D8-2-27.  Failure to account for goods is one of the most common errors made by importers.

That being said, not all the answers are in D-Memo D8-2-27.  SMEs are not provided with simple tips on completing the B3 Customs Coding Form.  For example, SMEs are not informed that if H.S Code 9813 is used, the origin of the goods is “Canada” rather than the place of export.  The description of the goods should be “Canadian goods returned for warranty repairs” rather than the typical description (e.g., bicycle). The GST Code should reflect the “non-taxable importation” status of the goods (such as code “66”).

The issue of value for duty is not addressed. Often, importers incorrectly state that the value for duty is nil or a nominal amount.  However, it may not be correct that the good has no value – the good is still valuable – it merely needs warranty repairs.

The issue of what to do if the goods cannot be repaired (because the goods are too damaged) is not addressed.

For more information, please contact Cyndee Todgham Cherniak at 416-307-4168 or email cyndee@lexsage.com.  For more free customs law information, please go to www.lexsage.com.

Canadian Companies Should Not Be Duped By North Korea, Which Is Subject To Strict Trade Sanctions

Posted in Canada's Federal Government, Export Controls & Economic Sanctions, Exports

Businessman with World Map Globe.

Canadian companies must be careful to not inadvertently breach Canada’s very strict sanctions against North Korea. Most Canadian companies know that almost all dealings with North Korea are either not permitted or that an export permit or ministerial authorization is required.  That is why it comes as quite a shock to learn that not only was a Canadian good listed in the most recent United Nations Panel of Experts Report relating to North Korea, it ended up in an unmanned aerial vehicle (a drone).

In February 22, 2016, the United Nations Security Council released a 294 page report entitled “Letter dated 22 February 2016 from the Panel of Experts established pursuant to resolution 1874 (2009) addressed to the President of the Security Council”.  On page 34 of this document, the panel noted that a flight control computer (automatic control board) of Canadian origin was sold to RedChina Geosystems on July 11, 2011 and ended up in an unmanned aerial vehicle sold to or diverted to North Korea. Footnote 52 indicates that the autopilot is subject to Canadian export controls.  The Panel of Experts monitoring violations of sanctions by North Korea explains how goods ended up in North Korea and provides valuable insight into how North Korea dupes good, law abiding companies.

What is clear is that dealings by Canadian companies with entities and persons in China, Russia, Namibia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (and elsewhere) might inadvertently lead to a diversion to North Korea. It is somewhat easy to abide by a rule to not sell or ship to North Korea.  However, it is more difficult to ensure Canadian goods do not somehow end up in North Korea.  As a result, it is important to understand what are Canada’s trade restrictions relating to North Korea and know what are the rules with respect to diversions and transhipments and re-exports to North Korea.

North Korea has been under UN sanctions for many years.  The North Korean authorities have become very resourceful in obtaining goods that they desire despite the UN sanctions and unilateral sanctions imposed by many countries, including Canada. The most recent provocations by North Korea demonstrate that the risks are now higher than ever.

Canada has implemented UN sanctions against North Korea pursuant to the United Nations Act and the Regulations Implementing the United Nations Resolutions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  The prohibitions are as follows:

  • No person in Canada and no Canadian outside Canada shall knowingly export, sell, supply, transfer or ship, directly or indirectly, any arms and related material (wherever situated) to any person in the DPRK.
  • No person in Canada and no Canadian outside Canada shall knowingly export, sell, supply, transfer or ship, directly or indirectly, any resources contributing to the DPRK’s nuclear program (wherever situated) to any person in the DPRK.
  • No person in Canada and no Canadian outside Canada shall knowingly export, sell, supply, transfer or ship, directly or indirectly, any luxury goods (wherever situated) to any person in the DPRK.
  • No person in Canada and no Canadian outside Canada shall knowingly export, sell, supply, transfer or ship, directly or indirectly, any bulk cash (wherever situated) to any person in the DPRK.
  • No person in Canada and no Canadian outside Canada shall knowingly import or procure any arms and related material from any person in the DPRK or citizen of the DPRK.
  • No person in Canada and no Canadian outside Canada shall knowingly import or procure any resources contributing to the DPRK’s nuclear program (wherever situated) from any person in the DPRK or citizen of the DPRK.
  • No person in Canada and no Canadian outside Canada shall knowingly import or procure bulk cash from any person in the DPRK or citizen of the DPRK.
  • No owners or master of a Canadian vessel shall knowingly carry or cause to be carried arms and related material, resources contributing to the DPRK’s nuclear program, luxury goods or bulk cash (wherever situated) destined for any person in the DPRK.
  • No operator of a Canadian aircraft shall knowingly carry or cause to be carried arms and related material, resources contributing to the DPRK’s nuclear program, luxury goods or bulk cash (wherever situated) destined for any person in the DPRK.
  • No owners or master of a Canadian vessel shall knowingly carry or cause to be carried arms and related material, resources contributing to the DPRK’s nuclear program, luxury goods or bulk cash (wherever situated) from any person in the DPRK or citizen of the DPRK.
  • No operator of a Canadian aircraft shall knowingly carry or cause to be carried arms and related material, resources contributing to the DPRK’s nuclear program, luxury goods or bulk cash (wherever situated) from any person in the DPRK or citizen of the DPRK.
  • No person in Canada and no Canadian outside Canada shall knowingly provide or acquire any financial services to, from or for the benefit of or on the direction or order of the DPRK or any person in the DPRK with respect to certain activities.
  • No person in Canada and no Canadian outside Canada shall knowingly provide a vessel that is registered in the DPRK with goods, materials or services for the vessel’s operation or maintenance if there are reasonable grounds to believe the vessel is carrying arms and related materials, resources contributing to the DPRK’s nuclear program, luxury goods or technical data related thereto.
  • No person in Canada and no Canadian outside Canada shall knowingly provide or transfer to any person in the DPRK technical assistance or any other assistance or services, such as brokering or other intermediary services related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of arms and related materials or resources related to the DPRK’s nuclear program.
  • No person in Canada and no Canadian outside Canada shall knowingly accept the provision or transfer of technical assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of arms and related materials or resources related to the DPRK’s nuclear program from any person in the DPRK or citizen of the DPRK.
  • No person in Canada and no Canadian outside Canada shall knowingly deal directly or indirectly in any property in Canada that is owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a designated person or a person acting on behalf of or at the direction of a designated person.
  • No person in Canada and no Canadian outside Canada shall knowingly enter into or facilitate, directly or indirectly, any financial transaction related to any property in Canada that is owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a designated person or a person acting on behalf of or at the direction of a designated person.
  • No person in Canada and no Canadian outside Canada shall knowingly provide financial or other related service in respect of any property in Canada that is owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a designated person or a person acting on behalf of or at the direction of a designated person.
  • No person in Canada and no Canadian outside Canada shall knowingly make any property or any financial or other related service available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of a designated person.
  • No person in Canada and no Canadian outside Canada shall knowingly do anything that causes, assists or promotes, or is intended to cause, assist or promote any of the above prohibitions.

Canada has also imposed unilateral sanctions pursuant to the Special Economic Measures Act and the Special Economic Measures (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) Regulations.  The prohibitions are as follows:

  • Any person in Canada and any Canadian outside Canada shall not export, sell, supply or ship any goods, wherever situated, to the DPRK or any person in the DPRK or deal in any goods destined for the DPRK or any person in the DPRK.
  • Any person in Canada and any Canadian outside Canada shall not make any investment in any entity in the DPRK that involves a dealing in any property, wherever situated, held by or on behalf of the DPRK, any person in the DPRK, or a national of the DPRK who does not ordinarily reside in Canada.
  • Any person in Canada and any Canadian outside Canada shall not provide or acquire financial services (including those that are intended to facilitate an investment in any entity) too, from or for the benefit of or on the direction or order of the DPRK or any person in the DPRK.
  • Any person in Canada and any Canadian outside Canada shall not transfer, provide or communicate, directly or indirectly, technical data to the DPRK or to any person in the DPRK.
  • It is prohibited for any person to dock in Canada or pass through Canada any ship that is registered in the DPRK unless such docking or passage is necessary to safeguard human life.
  • It is prohibited for any person to land in or fly over Canada an aircraft that is registered in the DPRK unless such docking or passage is necessary to safeguard human life.
  • Any person in Canada and any Canadian outside Canada shall not do anything that causes or assists or promotes or is intended to cause, assist or promote any act or thing that is prohibited in the above list.

North Korea is also on the Area Control List.

Pursuant to subsection 7(1) of the Export and Import Permits Act (“EIPA”), the Minister may issue to any resident of Canada a permit to export to transfer goods or technology to North Korea (which is on the Area Control List).  The Minister will set out what is being exported to North Korea and in what quantities.  The Minister may place any conditions on the export of any goods to North Korea.

If any person exports to North Korea any goods without a permit, they would have breached the prohibition in section 13 of the EIPA.  They would be subject to prosecution.

Pursuant to subsection 15(1) of the EIPA, no person shall knowingly do anything in Canada that causes or assists or is intended to cause or assist any shipment, transhipment, diversion or transfer of any goods or technology on the Export Control List to be made from Canada to North Korea.

Pursuant to subsection 15(2) of the EIPA, no person shall knowingly do anything in Canada that causes or assists or is intended to cause or assist any shipment, transhipment, diversion of any prohibited firearm, prohibited weapon or prohibited device or transfer of component or part designed exclusively for assembly to be made from Canada to North Korea.

It should go without saying that Canadian companies would not want to breach Canada’s strict export controls/economic sanctions/trade restrictions against North Korea.  Care must be taken as the UN attention on North Korea is increasing.  The reputational risk associated with being named in a UN Panel of Exports Report on North Korea could harm any Canadian business.  Now is the time to implement programs to ensure that you are not duped by North Korean officials or friends.  Due diligence is required.

What steps is your company taking to ensure that you do not act contrary to the law? Do you ever ask if you are dealing with a citizen of North Korea? Do you check names against any designated persons lists?  Do you have any form of screening in place? Do you look at the websites of customers in high risk countries, such as China, to see if the entity has dealings or connections with North Korea? Do you look at the publicly available information about websites of new customers?  Do you have any internal procedures to investigate unusual queries for arms and related materials, nuclear materials, etc.?

For more information about Canada’s export controls, economic sanction and trade restrictions, please contact Cyndee Todgham Cherniak at 416-307-4168 or at cyndee@lexsagecom.

What To Do When You Receive An Antidumping DAS From The CBSA

Posted in Antidumping, Cross-border trade, Trade Remedies

Question In Maze Showing Confusion And Puzzled

A Detailed Adjustment Statement (“DAS”) is an assessment of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties, additional GST, and interest.  It is like a tax assessment – only it relates to antidumping and countervailing duties.  Customs duties  and excise taxes can also be imposed on a DAS (with or without antidumping duties).  You would have received an antidumping duty and/or countervailing duty DAS if the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) determined that you imported goods subject to an Order of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“CITT”).

The DAS may have been issued because you did not pay any antidumping and/or countervailing duties at the time of importation of the goods. Some importers do not know about the antidumping and/or countervailing duties and their customs broker failed to tell them.  Sometimes a DAS is issued by the CBSA when the proper SIMA Code was used at the time of importation, but the valuation was incorrect (understated).  The CBSA will issue a DAS when the export price is lower than the normal value they determined for the good (in cases where the exporter cooperated fully with the CBSA in the most recent investigation or reinvestigation).  This type of error occurs when there is a new sales manager or when the foreign exchange rate is fluctuating (normal values are usually determined in the currency of the factory and the importer usually pays in US dollars).

The first thing to do when you receive an antidumping duty and/or countervailing duty DAS from the CBSA is to calm down because normally the amount you have to pay is 4, 5, or 6 figures.  You were not expecting this type of expense.  Antidumping duties at the “All Others” Ministerial Specification rate are prohibitively high because they are intended to protect the Canadian domestic industry of the product and stop imports from the subject country (often China).

The next thing to do is to diarize in your calendar (paper and computer) the 30 day deadline for paying the amount of the DAS at no additional interest. If you pay the amount after the deadline stated in the DAS, there will be added interest.  The amount of the DAS must be paid in full to perfect your appeal (called a request for redetermination).  Diarize the 90 day deadline for filing the appeal because there are no extensions of time allowed under the Special Import Measures Act.  It is also helpful to diarize the 60 day point and the 75 day point to make sure you have a lawyer hired to help you and that you will be ready to file the appeal on time or early.  Remember – if the appeal is filed late, it will be rejected.  If the appeal is filed and the amount of the DAS has not been paid in full, the appeal will be rejected.  You cannot post security and cover the amount of the DAS with a lien on property or other security (such as a bond).

The next thing to do is to determine what form your appeal must take.  The Special Import Measures Act requires that the request for redetermination be in prescribed form and set out prescribed information.  To file an appeal, you must file a B2 – Adjustment Request.  The instructions on where to send the B2 Adjustment Request are on the DAS.  Make sure your customs broker sends the appeal paperwork to the Antidumping and Countervailing Directorate of the CBSA.  Also, it is important to remember that a separate B2 Adjustment Form must be filed for each DASsed transaction.  Look at the top of the DASs for the DAS numbers and for the Transaction Numbers in the DAS. Also, remind your customs broker to file the supporting information for each B2 Adjustment Request rather than one copy as a blanket for each separate appeal.

The appeal must set out the facts, the grounds for the appeal and the evidence that you will be relying on.  The appeal requests the following:

(a) the CBSA determine the correct normal value;

(b) the CBSA determine the correct export price;

(c) the CBSA determine the correct amount of subsidy;

(d) the CBSA determine the correct amount of the export subsidy; or

(e) the CBSA determine whether the goods are of the same description as those described in the order or finding of the Tribunal or in the order of the Governor in Council.

This inforamtion should be in a separate document as there isn’t enough space on the form to cover this inforamtion adequately.

For (a) – (d), the CBSA will send a questionnaire to the exporter and the export must provide information to enable the CBSA to make the calculations. If the exporter does not cooperate with the CBSA, the appeal will fail.  So, it is important to get the exporter onside before you file the appeal.

For (e), you must present facts and arguments to demonstrate the the goods you imported are not caught by the definition of “subject goods” in the relevant CITT Order. We often carefully review the words in the subject goods definition and any additional product information in the CITT Findings to find arguments that the imported goods are not subject to the CITT’s Order.  It also may be that the goods are covered by an exclusion within the subject goods definition or granted by the CITT. There are a number of subjectivity appeals on the CITT web-site and it may be that arguments can be made based on a previous decision of the CITT.

If you must prepare subjectivity arguments, do not delay in seeking the assistance of an antidumping lawyer.  They need time to help you organize the evidence and possibly obtain an expert’s report.  Sometimes your lawyer can take a sample to the CBSA and they might even reverse the DAS if it is a case of misunderstanding what was imported.

For example, we once had a client who imported Hex Head Cap Screws and the original B3 referred only to “screws”.  We were able to present documents to the CBSA to demonstrate that the imported goods were Hex Head Cap Screws.  The CBSA agreed that the imported goods were not subject to the CITT’s Fasteners Order.

In another case, our client imported parts of an aluminum railing and the CBSA issued a DAS because the parts were described individually on the import documentation.  In reality, the railing was assembled prior to importation and was not subject to the CITT’s Aluminum Extrusions Order.

For more information about appealing an antidumping/countervailing duty DAS, please contact Cyndee Todgham Cherniak at 416-307-4168 or email cyndee@lexsage.com.  There is also more Free Information on the LexSsge web-site.

Canada Initiates Antidumping Investigation Against Fabricated Industrial Steel Components from Several Countries

Posted in Antidumping, Trade Remedies

smiley-vector-illustration-puzzled_X1AqT-_LOn September 12, 2016, the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) initiated an antidumping investigation against fabricated industrial steel components originating in or exported from China, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Spain and the United Arab Emirates.  A subsidy investigation was also initiated in respect of China. The complaint was filed by Supermetal Structures Inc. (Lévis, Québec), Supreme Group LP (Edmonton, Alberta) and Waiward Steel LP (Edmonton, Alberta).

When I first saw the description of the case, I wondered what goods, exactly, were being targeted.  The Subject Goods are defined as:

“Certain fabricated steel products such as structural steel and plate-work components of buildings, process equipment, process enclosures, access structures, process structures, and structures for conveyancing and material handling, including steel beams, braces, frames, railings, stairs, trusses, conveyor belt frame structures and galleries, bents, bins, chutes, hoppers, ductwork, process tanks, pipe racks and apron feeders, whether assembled or partially assembled into modules, or unassembled for use is structures for:

(a) oil and gas extraction, conveyance and processing;

(b) mining extraction, conveyance, storage, and processing;

(c) industrial power generation facilities;

(d) petrochemical plants;

(e) cement plants;

(f) fertilizer plants; and

(g) industrial metal smelters.”

This definition seems to be very broad and complicated.  There is more information in the Complaint. However, it is equally complicated.  The Subject Goods are further described as follows:

“…certain fabricated steel components is not a technical term, but a reference to a type of end use.  It is a widely understood term within the structural steel industry.  Goods falling within the product definition are fabricated steel components such as angles, columns, beams, girders, base plates, trusses, kits of fabricated structural shapes and “plate-work” components, such as bins, hoppers, chutes and the like as well as related steel products that have been custom fabricated into articles suitable for erection or assembly into a variety of structures to specific custom plans.”

The Subject Goods are explained as:

“A custom product for use in large industrial developments or projects that may be built over many years and in various phases.  The product is not individual pieces of steel, rather it is a complete set of precisely fabricated steel components that are assembled into a custom designed structure.”

The Subject Goods are classified under the following Harmonized System classification numbers:

  • 7216.99.00.10
  • 7216.99.00.99
  • 7308.40.00.90
  • 7308.90.00.92
  • 8428.31.00.00
  • 8428.39.00.31
  • 8428.39.00.90
  • 7216.99.00.20
  • 7301.20.00.10
  • 7308.90.00.60
  • 7308.90.00.99
  • 8428.32.00.90
  • 8428.39.00.34
  • 7216.99.00.30
  • 7301.20.00.20
  • 7308.90.00.81
  • 7326.90.90.99
  • 8428.33.00.90
  • 8428.39.00.39
  • 7216.99.00.91
  • 7308.40.00.10
  • 7308.90.00.89
  • 8421.99.90.90
  • 8428.39.00.20
  • 8428.39.00.80

The following goods are NOT Subject Goods and are excluded from the Subject Goods definition:

“electrical transmission towers; rolled steel products not further worked; steel beams not further worked; oil pump jacks; solar, wind and tidal power generation structures; power generation facilities with a rated capacity below 100 megawatts; goods classified as “prefabricated buildings” under HS Code 9406.00.90.30; structural steel for use in manufacturing facilities used in applications other than those described above; and products covered by Certain Fasteners (RR-2014-001), Structural Tubing (RR-2013-001), Carbon Steel Plate (III) (RR-2012-001), Carbon Steel Plate (VII) (NQ-2013-005), and Steel Grating (NQ-2010-002).”

The CBSA’s schedule is as follows:

September 12, 2016 Initiation of the CBSA’s dumping and subsidy investigations
September 27, 2016 Statement of Reasons issued regarding the initiation of the investigations
October 3, 2016 Importer responses to CBSA’s Request for Information due
October 19, 2016 Exporter and Government responses to CBSA’s Request for Information due
December 12, 2016 Preliminary Determination or termination of the CBSA’s dumping and subsidy investigations
December 27, 2016 Statement of Reasons issued (Preliminary Determination or termination)
In the event of a Preliminary Determination
December 12, 2016 Exporter and Importer ruling letters available
January 26, 2017, at noon Closing of the Record date
February 2, 2017, by noon Case Arguments due from all parties
February 9, 2017, by noon Reply Submissions due from all parties in respect of Case Arguments
March 13, 2017 Final Determination or termination of the CBSA’s dumping and subsidy investigations
March 13, 2017 Exporter and Importer ruling letters available
March 28, 2017 Statement of Reasons issued (Final Determination or termination)

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal’s (“CITT”) schedule for the preliminary injury inquiry is as follows:

September 13, 2016 – Notice of commencement of preliminary injury inquiry

September 26, 2016 – Notices of participation and representation, declarations and undertakings

October 3, 2016 – Distribution of documents received from the CBSA

October 11, 2016, by noon – Submissions by parties opposed to the complaint

October 18, 2016, by noon – Replies from the complainants and parties in support of the complaint

November 10, 2016 – Determination

November 25, 2016 – Reasons for determination

On first review, the subject goods scope is complicated and may cover many components individually. Companies in China, Spain, the UK, the UAE and South Korea who manufacture hoppers, for example, may run into problems at the border based on the definition as written.  The scope of the subject goods definition and classes of goods are issues that can be raised during the CITT’s preliminary injury inquiry.

If you would like more information about Canada’s antidumping and countervailing duty regimes, please contact cyndee@lexsage.com or call 416-307-4168.  More information may be found at www.lexsage.com.  The following articles may be helpful:

Top 10 Mistakes Made by Foreign Producers and Exporters When Completing CBSA Subsidy RFIs

Top 10 Mistakes Made By Foreign Producers and Exporters When Completing CBSA Antidumping RFIs

Amazing Race: CBSA Edition: Completing CBSA Antidumping RFIs in Less Than 30 Days

Who is the Exporter for Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) Purposes?

What Is A Preliminary Injury Inquiry In The Canadian Anti-Dumping/Countervailing Duty Trade Remedies
Process?