On May 25, 2017, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“CITT”) made an AD Order in respect of fabricated industrial steel components (“FISC”) originating in or exported from China, South Korea and Spain and made a CVD Order in respect of FISC originating in or exported from China. On June 9, 2017, the CITT issued its
Exporters Who Receive De Minimis Dumping Margins in Canadian AD Cases Now Being Excluded From Final Orders
Foreign producers and exporters who receive a de minimis dumping margin (2% or less) in a Canadian antidumping case are now being excluded from final injury orders (that is, final orders for the imposition of antidumping duties). What this means is that any foreign producer or exporter who priced at undumped levels (above domestic selling
The CBSA (as Administrator of Laws) Must Follow CITT Decisions (Subject to Limited Exceptions)
This case is a must-read for all customs and trade lawyers. This case is a must- read by other administrative lawyers who appear before quasi-judicial tribunals. The general administrative law rules for law enforcers and tribunals have been clarified in simple, understandable terms. May there be greater certainty, greater predictability and finality as a result
What Is A CITT Section 18 Reference?
On October 17, 2016, Canada’s Department of Finance announced that the Government of Canada had asked the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“CITT”) to conduct an inquiry (actually, it is a Reference) in respect of the antidumping case involving gypsum board from the United States and imported into Western Canada in order to hear from a
Canada Acknowledges Antidumping Proceedings Hurt Consumers
This has never happened before. This is very important. Trade lawyers outside Canada (and inside Canada) will be shocked by the steps being taken in Canada during an active antidumping proceeding.
On October 16, 2016, the Department of Finance asked the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to commence a section 18 (of the Canadian International Trade
What Did The Supreme Court of Canada Say About Appeals of CITT Tariff Classification Decisions?
On September 29, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“CITT”) as reasonable. In Attorney General of Canada v. Igloo Vikski Inc., the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that imported hockey gloves should be classified as “gloves, mittens and mitts” under tariff
Importers Can Play The Game Too – Preparing Call Reports To Record Communications
In antidumping injury cases in Canada, the domestic industry often include confidential call reports in their submissions to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. The call reports document conversations and meetings with importers/distributors and customers in which the customer or distributor asks for a price reduction or says the price offered is too high. The domestic
BE AWARE: Homeowners and Contractors in Western Canada Will Be Surprised By Antidumping Duties on U.S. Drywall
Many homeowners and contractors in Western Canada will soon be asking “Why do I have to pay antidumping duties on imports of gypsum board or drywall?” This is because there is an antidumping case in Canada on gypsum board imported from the United States into Western provinces.
Starting on September 6, 2016, imports of drywall/gypsum
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Issues Practice Notice On Filing Questionnaire Replies
On June 10, 2016, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“CITT”) issued a Practice Notice entitled “Filing of Questionnaire Replies and Revisions and Issuance of Revised Investigation Report”. In antidumping and countervailing duty injury inquiries, the CITT issues questionnaires to producers, importers, foreign producers and purchasers. The CITT compiles the information and data provided by
Canada Initiates Antidumping Case Against Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Several Countries
On August 19, 2016, the Canada Border Services Agency announced an antidumping investigation against concrete reinforcing bar (also known as rebar) from Republic of Belarus, Chinese Taipei, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, Japan, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Spain. In 2014, provisional antidumping duties were imposed