Annual Report March 31, 2016 - Chapter III

Process

Under SIMA, the CBSA may impose anti-dumping and countervailing duties if Canadian producers are injured by imports of goods into Canada:

• that have been sold at prices lower than prices in the home market or at prices lower than the cost of production (dumping), or
• that have benefited from certain types of government grants or other assistance (subsidizing).

The determination of dumping and subsidizing is the responsibility of the CBSA. The Tribunal determines whether such dumping or subsidizing has caused or is threatening to cause material injury to a domestic industry or has caused material retardation to the establishment of a domestic industry.

Preliminary Injury Inquiries

A Canadian producer or an association of Canadian producers begins the process of seeking relief from alleged injurious dumping or subsidizing by making a complaint to the CBSA. If the CBSA initiates a dumping or subsidizing investigation, the Tribunal initiates a preliminary injury inquiry under subsection 34(2) of SIMA. The Tribunal seeks to make all interested parties aware of the inquiry. It issues a notice of commencement of preliminary injury inquiry that is published in the Canada Gazette and notice of the commencement of the preliminary injury inquiry is provided to all known interested parties.

In a preliminary injury inquiry, the Tribunal determines whether the evidence discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping or subsidizing has caused injury or retardation, or is threatening to cause injury. The primary evidence is the information received from the CBSA and submissions from parties. The Tribunal seeks the views of parties on what are the like goods and which Canadian producers comprise the domestic industry. In most cases, it does not issue questionnaires or hold a public hearing at the preliminary injury inquiry stage. The Tribunal completes its inquiry and renders its determination within 60 days.

If the Tribunal finds that there is a reasonable indication that the dumping or subsidizing has caused injury or retardation, or is threatening to cause injury, it makes a determination to that effect, and the CBSA continues the dumping or subsidizing investigation. If there is no reasonable indication that the dumping or subsidizing has caused injury or retardation, or is threatening to cause injury, the Tribunal terminates the inquiry, and the CBSA terminates the dumping or subsidizing investigation. The Tribunal issues reasons for its decision not later than 15 days after its determination.

Preliminary Injury Inquiry Activities

	PI-2015-001	PI-2015-002	PI-2015-003
Product	Hot-rolled carbon steel plate and high-strength low-alloy steel plate	Carbon and alloy steel line pipe	Large line pipe
Type of case/country	Dumping and subsidizing/India and Russia	Dumping and subsidizing/China	Dumping and subsidizing/China and Japan
Date of determination	August 10, 2015	October 27, 2015	In progress
Determination	Reasonable indication of injury or threat of injury	Reasonable indication of injury or threat of injury
Participants	4	13
Pages of official record	8,495	9,154

Preliminary Injury Inquiries Completed in Fiscal Year and in Progress at the End of the Fiscal Year

As illustrated in the above table, the Tribunal completed two preliminary injury inquiries in the fiscal year and one was in progress at the end of the year.

Final Injury Inquiries

If the CBSA makes a preliminary determination of dumping or subsidizing, the Tribunal commences a final injury inquiry pursuant to section 42 of SIMA. The CBSA may levy provisional duties on imports from the date of the preliminary determination. The CBSA continues its investigation until it makes a final determination of dumping or subsidizing.

As in a preliminary injury inquiry, the Tribunal seeks to make all interested parties aware of its inquiry. It issues a notice of commencement of inquiry that is published in the Canada Gazette and notice of the commencement of the injury inquiry is forwarded to all known interested parties.

In conducting final injury inquiries, the Tribunal requests information from interested parties, receives representations and holds public hearings. Under the direction of the Tribunal, ATSSC staff carries out extensive research for each inquiry. Questionnaires are sent to Canadian producers, importers, purchasers, foreign producers and exporters. Primarily on the basis of questionnaire responses, ATSSC staff prepares an investigation report that focuses on the factors that the Tribunal must consider in arriving at its decision on injury or retardation or threat of injury to a domestic industry. The report becomes part of the case record and is made available to counsel and parties.

Parties participating in the proceedings may present their own cases or may be represented by counsel. Confidential or business-sensitive information is protected in accordance with provisions of the CITT Act.

The Special Import Measures Regulations prescribe factors that the Tribunal must consider in its determination of whether the dumping or subsidizing of goods has caused injury or retardation or is threatening to cause injury to a domestic industry. These factors include, among others, the volume of dumped or subsidized goods, the effects of the dumped or subsidized goods on prices and the impact of the dumped or subsidized goods on domestic production, sales, market share, profits, employment and utilization of domestic production capacity.

The Tribunal holds a public hearing about 90 days after the commencement of the inquiry, i.e. after the CBSA has made a final determination of dumping or subsidizing. At the public hearing, Canadian producers attempt to persuade the Tribunal that the dumping or subsidizing of goods has caused injury or retardation or is threatening to cause injury to a domestic industry. Importers, foreign producers and exporters may challenge the Canadian producers’ case. After cross-examination by parties and questioning by the Tribunal, each side has an opportunity to respond to the other’s case and to summarize its own. In some inquiries, the Tribunal calls witnesses who are knowledgeable of the industry and market in question. Parties may also seek the exclusion of certain goods from the scope of a Tribunal finding.

The Tribunal must issue its finding within 120 days from the date of the preliminary determination of dumping or subsidizing issued by the CBSA. It has an additional 15 days to issue reasons supporting the finding. A Tribunal finding of injury or retardation or threat of injury to a domestic industry is required for the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing duties by the CBSA.

Final Injury Inquiries Completed in the Fiscal Year

As illustrated in the above table, the Tribunal completed four final injury inquiries in the fiscal year. The completed inquiries concerned oil country tubular goods, photovoltaic modules and laminates and hot-rolled carbon steel plate and high-strength low-alloy steel plate. The following summaries were prepared for general information purposes only.

NQ-2014-002—Oil Country Tubular Goods

This inquiry concerned certain dumped oil country tubular goods (OCTG) originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Korea, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and Vietnam, and certain subsidized OCTG originating in or exported from India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Ukraine and Vietnam.

On March 3, 2015, the President of the Canada Border Services Agency determined that the amounts of subsidy in relation to the goods from the Philippines, Thailand and Ukraine were insignificant and, therefore, terminated the subsidizing investigation in respect of those three countries. The Tribunal subsequently found that the volumes of subsidized goods from India, Indonesia and Vietnam were negligible and terminated its inquiry with respect to them.

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 4 Canadian producers, 67 potential importers, 42 potential purchasers and 143 potential foreign producers and exporters of OCTG. Of the 256 requests sent, the Tribunal received 4 replies from Canadian producers, 37 replies from importers, 28 of which were used in the Tribunal’s analysis, 17 replies from purchasers and 9 replies from foreign producers.

There were 15 participants. During a five-day hearing, 22 witnesses appeared before the Tribunal. The official record contained 17,400 pages.

The Tribunal found that the dumped goods had not caused material injury to the domestic industry. The Tribunal found that domestic production did decrease over the period of inquiry but that the dumped imports did not appear to be fully responsible for the decline. The Tribunal observed that there was a decline in domestic sales; however, substantial declines in the total apparent market and intra-industry competition were important factors in the lost sales. In addition, the Tribunal found that, although there were gains in market share for importers and declines in profitability, capacity utilization, wages, productivity and investments, the dumped goods did not, in and of themselves, cause material injury to the domestic industry as prescribed by SIMA. Rather, the deterioration in performance experienced by the domestic industry during the period of inquiry was primarily due to other factors.

However, the Tribunal concluded that, in the following 12 to 18 months, significant volumes of the dumped goods were due to arrive in the domestic market. Due to the export-oriented nature of the subject countries, pressures caused by the decline in oil prices and the attractiveness of Canada as a destination for the dumped goods, the Tribunal found that the dumped goods were threatening to cause material injury to the domestic industry.

The Tribunal received three requests for exclusions from the finding and denied all three.

NQ-2014-003—Photovoltaic Modules and Laminates

This inquiry concerned the dumping and subsidizing of certain photovoltaic modules and laminates (solar modules) originating in or exported from China.

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 28 potential producers of solar modules. Thirteen replies or partial replies were received. Of these 13 responses, 9 replies indicated that they were producers of like goods.

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 45 potential importers of solar modules. The Tribunal received 27 questionnaire replies: 9 of which were from firms indicating that they did not import solar modules, 1 reply was not used and the remaining 17 replies indicated that they were importers of solar modules (13 distributors and 4 end users).

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 43 potential purchasers of solar modules. The Tribunal received 22 replies: 6 replies indicated that they did not purchase solar modules, 2 replies were not usable and the remaining 14 replies indicated that they were purchasers of solar modules.

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 193 potential exporters/foreign producers of solar modules in China. The Tribunal received 15 replies, three of which indicated that the firm was not producing solar modules.

There were 27 participants to the inquiry. During a five-day hearing, 15 witnesses appeared before the Tribunal. The official record contained 16,981 pages.

Heliene, Silfab, Eclipsall, Solgate and EnerDynamic submitted that they, together with Celestica Inc. (Celestica), constituted the domestic industry for the purposes of the Tribunal’s inquiry. They argued that the “domestic industry” should be interpreted as excluding Canadian Solar Solutions Inc. (CSSI) because it was an importer and related to an exporter of the dumped and subsidized goods, with an overarching corporate strategy of supporting affiliated Chinese production facilities.

The parties opposite submitted that CSSI should be included in the “domestic industry”. According to CSSI, the purpose of its relatively limited imports of the dumped and subsidized goods from affiliated Chinese exporters during the period of inquiry was to meet consumer demand and was not aggressive in nature.

The Tribunal found that it was appropriate to exclude CSSI from the “domestic industry”.

The domestic industry did not claim that the dumped and subsidized goods had caused injury, but rather that they were threatening to cause injury.

The Tribunal found that the dumped and subsidized goods had not caused injury but threatened to cause injury to the domestic industry. The evidence established that there was substantial production capacity in China, a significant share of which was freely disposable, and that Chinese producers had a propensity to dump and subsidize solar modules or similar products in other major export markets, including the United States and the European Union. The Tribunal found that the collapse of sales experienced by several of the supporting parties in connection with the Ontario micro-FIT 3 program in 2014 and the market’s behaviour since the imposition of provisional duties in early March 2015 also provided a proxy for what would happen when the domestic industry experienced the full impact of the dumped and subsidized goods, in the absence of any local content requirement in Ontario, by the end of 2015. Overall, given the specific set of projected circumstances created by the Ontario FIT Program, the Tribunal found that the likelihood of increased dumped and subsidized goods was clearly foreseen and imminent.

The Tribunal received a total of six requests to exclude products from its finding. The Tribunal granted one exclusion to which the domestic industry consented.

NQ-2015-001—Hot-rolled Carbon Steel Plate and High-strength Low-alloy Steel Plate

This inquiry concerned the dumping and subsidizing of hot-rolled carbon steel plate and high-strength low-alloy steel plate originating in or exported from India and Russia.

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 3 known domestic mills that produce hot-rolled steel plate, 12 potential service centres that cut plate from hot-rolled coil, 23 importers, 15 purchasers and 31 foreign producers. The Tribunal received responses from all domestic mills, 9 service centres and 15 importers. One service centre indicated that it did not produce hot-rolled steel plate, while three importers replied that they had not imported hot-rolled steel plate during the period of inquiry. The Tribunal received eight responses from purchasers, five of which were complete and used for the investigation report and three of which were from respondents indicating that they had not purchased hot-rolled steel plate during the period of inquiry. The Tribunal received two complete responses from Indian producers, which were included in the investigation report.

There were seven participants to the inquiry. During a four-day hearing, eight witnesses appeared before the Tribunal. The official record contained 12,773 pages.

The Tribunal determined that while the steel plate fell along a continuum of different grades and dimensions, it remained appropriate to treat both discrete plate and cut-to-length plate as comprising a single class of goods. While the service centres generally tended to concentrate on narrower widths and domestic mills tended to concentrate on wider widths, the Tribunal found they together produced a full range of steel plate that competed with the dumped and subsidized goods and could be considered a single domestic industry for the purpose of the inquiry.

The Tribunal found that service centres were an increasingly important part of the domestic industry.

The Tribunal observed that imports decreased from 2012 to 2013 before increasing significantly to their highest point in 2014. Imports increased over 1,000 percent in 2014 before decreasing by 61 percent in the 2015 interim period as compared to the 2014 interim period.

The prices of the dumped and subsidized goods did not significantly undercut the prices of domestically-produced steel plate. Given that prices for both increased from 2013 to 2014, the Tribunal could not conclude that price depression occurred for the domestic industry as a whole. Moreover, while the price of domestic plate decreased in the 2015 interim period, the price of the imports actually increased during that same time. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the dumped and subsidized goods did not cause price depression during the 2015 interim period. Some of the domestic mills may have experienced price suppression in 2014; however, when the domestic industry as a whole was considered, the Tribunal found that the dumped and subsidized goods did not suppress the price of the domestically-produced plate over the period of inquiry.

The imports did not negatively impact the production of the domestic industry as a whole and the decline in the production level of the portion of the domestic industry composed of domestic mills was primarily attributable to other non-related factors rather than to the subject goods themselves. Moreover, the Tribunal found that other factors largely caused the domestic industry to lose sales and market share. With respect to profitability, the Tribunal found that it could not conclude that the dumped and subsidized goods, in and of themselves, negatively impacted the domestic industry’s profitability. Furthermore, it did not appear that the dumped and subsidized goods had any impact on the productivity of the domestic industry. The Tribunal also noted that there was no evidence to support a causal relationship between employment, wages and imports of the dumped and subsidized goods.

The Tribunal observed that, although the imports could have some impact on the domestic industry in the coming 12 to 18 months, any such impact would not be material on the domestic industry as a whole. The domestic service centres had fared well during the period of inquiry and should fare well into the future. As a result, the Tribunal found that the dumped and subsidized goods had not caused and were not threatening to cause material injury to the domestic industry.

Final Injury Inquiries in Progress at the End of the Fiscal Year

There was one final injury inquiry in progress at the end of the fiscal year concerning carbon and alloy steel line pipe.

Public Interest Inquiries

Following a finding of injury, the Tribunal notifies all interested parties that any submissions requesting a public interest inquiry must be filed within 45 days. The Tribunal may initiate, either after a request from an interested person or on its own initiative, a public interest inquiry following a finding of injury or threat of injury caused by dumped or subsidized imports, if it is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to consider that the imposition of all or part of the duties may not be in the public interest. If it is of this view, the Tribunal then conducts a public interest inquiry pursuant to section 45 of SIMA. The result of this inquiry may be a report to the Minister of Finance recommending that the duties be reduced and by how much.

The Tribunal concluded one public interest inquiry during the fiscal year concerning concrete reinforcing bar.

PB-2014-001—Concrete Reinforcing Bar

The public interest inquiry into concrete reinforcing bar centred on an assertion that there was a specific regional interest in the province of British Columbia, specifically with respect to the finding made by the Tribunal in Inquiry No. NQ-2014-001 respecting concrete reinforcing bar originating in or exported from China, Korea and Turkey. As such, the Tribunal’s inquiry centred on activity relating to this specific market.

Information was sought via questionnaires, requests for information and a public hearing. The Tribunal made specific adjustments to questionnaires sent to downstream respondents such as fabricators. These questionnaires were tailored to retrieve a more direct view of the downstream market than would be typical in a final injury inquiry or an expiry review.

In total, the Tribunal sent 16 questionnaire requests to 3 domestic producers, 10 importers and 3 downstream purchasers. The Tribunal received a total of eight questionnaire responses from three domestic producers, three importers and two purchasers. The Tribunal also received one unsolicited response from a foreign producer, whose data provided insight into the foreign pricing model.

The Tribunal held a five-day public hearing in Vancouver, British Columbia, where representatives from the domestic industry, union and business organizations, the Government of British Columbia, fabricators and other downstream industries such as the construction sector, were able to provide oral argument for their respective positions. Many other provinces, municipalities and governments provided submissions during the public inquiry process. The official record contained 7,367 pages.

The Tribunal found no basis to form the opinion that the imposition of the duties in the full amount would not or might not be in the public interest. As such, on December 22, 2015, the Tribunal concluded that the public interest did not warrant a reduction or elimination of the duties on the subject goods imported for use in British Columbia. On the basis of this negative decision, the Tribunal did not provide a report to the Minister of Finance.

Interim Reviews

The Tribunal may review its findings of injury or threat of injury or orders at any time, on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister of Finance, the CBSA or any other person or government (section 76.01 of SIMA). The Tribunal commences an interim review where one is warranted, and it then determines if the finding or order (or any aspect of it) should be rescinded or continued to its expiry date, with or without amendment.

An interim review may be warranted where there is a reasonable indication that new facts have arisen or that there has been a change in the circumstances that led to the finding or order. For example, since the finding or order, the domestic industry may have ceased production of like goods or foreign subsidies may have been terminated. An interim review may also be warranted where there are facts that, although in existence, were not emphasized during the related expiry review or inquiry and were not discoverable by the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time.

Requests for Interim Reviews and Interim Reviews Completed in the Fiscal Year

Interim Review No. RD-2013-003 concerning liquid dielectric transformers, which had been placed in abeyance pending the resolution of related proceedings before the Federal Court of Appeal, was continued and is now in progress.

Expiries

Subsection 76.03(1) of SIMA provides that a finding or order expires after five years, unless an expiry review has been initiated. Not later than 10 months before the expiry date of the order or finding, the Registrar of the Tribunal publishes a notice of expiry in the Canada Gazette. The notice invites persons and governments to submit their views on whether the order or finding should be reviewed and gives direction on the issues that should be addressed in the submissions. If the Tribunal determines that an expiry review is not warranted, it issues an order with reasons for its decision. Otherwise, it initiates an expiry review.

As illustrated in the above table, the Tribunal decided to commence three expiry reviews in the fiscal year.

On the basis of submissions from interested parties, the Tribunal was of the view that expiry reviews were warranted and initiated Expiry Review No. RR-2015-001 concerning steel grating, Expiry Review No. RR-2015-002 concerning flat hot-rolled carbon and alloy steel sheet and strip and Expiry Review No. RR-2015-003 concerning copper pipe fittings.

Expiry Reviews

When the Tribunal initiates an expiry review of a finding or an order, it issues a notice of expiry review and notifies the CBSA of its decision. The notice of expiry review is published in the Canada Gazette and notice is provided to all known interested parties.

The purpose of an expiry review is to determine whether anti-dumping or countervailing duties remain necessary. There are two phases in an expiry review. The first phase is the investigation by the CBSA to determine whether there is a likelihood of resumed or continued dumping or subsidizing if the finding or order expires. If the CBSA determines that such likelihood exists with respect to any of the goods, the second phase is the Tribunal’s inquiry into the likelihood of injury or retardation. If the CBSA determines that there is no likelihood of resumed dumping or subsidizing for any of the goods, the Tribunal does not consider those goods in its subsequent determination of the likelihood of injury and issues an order rescinding the order or finding with respect to those goods.

The Tribunal’s procedures in expiry reviews are similar to those in final injury inquiries.

Upon completion of an expiry review, the Tribunal issues an order with reasons, rescinding or continuing a finding or order, with or without amendment. If a finding or order is continued, it remains in force for a further five years, unless an interim review is initiated and the finding or order is rescinded. If the finding or order is rescinded, imports are no longer subject to anti-dumping or countervailing duties.

Expiry Reviews Completed in the Fiscal Year

As illustrated in the above table, the Tribunal completed three expiry reviews in the fiscal year.

RR-2014-004—Potatoes

This expiry review concerned the dumping of certain whole potatoes exported from the United States, for use or consumption in the province of British Columbia.

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to the B.C. Vegetable Marketing Commission (BCVMC), 6 B.C. agencies, 15 B.C. potato growers, 24 importers and 215 potential foreign producers of potatoes. The Tribunal received a reply from BCVMC, 5 replies from B.C. agencies, and 14 replies from B.C. potato growers. The Tribunal received 14 replies from importers, of which 10 were used in the Tribunal’s analysis. The Tribunal received four replies from foreign producers, of which two were used in the Tribunal’s analysis.

The Tribunal held a three-day public hearing in Vancouver, British Columbia, and heard oral arguments in support of a continuation of the finding from one party who presented five witnesses. Another party opposed the continuation of the finding and presented oral arguments as well as testimony from one witness. One party made five requests for product exclusions. At the hearing, the Tribunal invited two of its own witnesses who were cross-examined by one party. The official record contained 15,500 pages.

The Tribunal was of the view that to allow the expiry of the order would likely result in a significant increase in the volume of imports at prices that could be expected to significantly undercut, depress and suppress those of British Columbia potatoes, thereby causing material injury to the industry in that province. Consequently, on September 25, 2015, the Tribunal continued its order. It granted a request to exclude whole potatoes certified as organic by a recognized certification agency.

RR-2014-005—Greenhouse Bell Peppers

This expiry review concerned the dumping of greenhouse bell peppers originating in or exported from the Netherlands.

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 57 known Canadian growers, 52 potential marketers and agencies, 17 potential importers and 25 potential foreign growers and exporters of greenhouse bell peppers. The Tribunal received replies from 34 domestic growers, 19 replies from marketers and agencies, 11 replies from importers and no replies from foreign growers and exporters of greenhouse bell peppers.

The Tribunal held a one-day hearing. The Tribunal heard oral arguments in support of a continuation of the finding from one party, and testimony from seven witnesses. An additional party supported the continuation of the finding but did not present oral arguments or call any witnesses. The Tribunal also heard from the two witnesses that it called. The official record contained 7,840 pages.

The Tribunal found that the expiry of the finding would not result in the importation of significant volumes of the imports at prices that would undercut and depress the prices of domestically-produced greenhouse bell peppers, and that the impact on the domestic industry’s profitability would be minimal. For these reasons, on October 16, 2015, the Tribunal rescinded its finding in respect of the aforementioned goods.

RR-2014-006—Refined Sugar

This expiry review concerned the dumping of refined sugar, refined from sugar cane or sugar beets, in granulated, liquid and powdered form, originating in or exported from the United States, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and the subsidizing of the aforementioned goods originating in or exported from the European Union.

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to known domestic producers, importers, foreign producers and exporters of refined sugar. The official record contained 16,000 pages. The responses to these questionnaires were used to prepare public and protected investigation reports. The Canadian Sugar Institute, an organization comprised of the two domestic producers, Redpath Sugar Ltd. and Lantic Inc., filed written submissions, witness statements and made arguments in support of a continuation of the orders. The Delegation of the European Union to Canada (EU Delegation) also filed written submissions. The Tribunal received two requests for product exclusions, which were filed by Golda’s Kitchen Inc. and Kellogg Canada Inc.

The Tribunal held a three-day public hearing from September 8 to 10, 2015. The Tribunal heard oral arguments in support of a continuation of the orders from two parties, and testimony from nine witnesses. There were no parties opposed at the hearing; however, the EU Delegation made a closing statement.

Given the circumstances of this expiry review, after having tested separately the effects of dumping and subsidizing, the Tribunal found it appropriate to assess the effect of the dumping of refined sugar from the United States, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom cumulatively with the effect of the subsidizing of refined sugar from the European Union. The Tribunal found that the expiry of the orders would likely cause material injury to the domestic industry. For this reason, on October 30, 2015, the Tribunal continued its orders in respect of the aforementioned goods.

The Tribunal granted one of the two product exclusion requests it received, namely, specialty-coloured decorative sugar crystals in granulated form combined with carnauba wax and food colouring matter, imported in small retail-ready containers not exceeding 16 oz. for use exclusively as a superficial decoration in baked goods (such a pies, cakes, pastries, muffins, cookies, etc.) and other prepared foods.

Expiry Reviews in Progress at the End of the Fiscal Year

There were three expiry reviews in progress at the end of the fiscal year.

Judicial or Panel Reviews of SIMA Decisions

The following table lists Tribunal decisions that were before the Federal Court of Appeal under section 76 of SIMA in the fiscal year.

As illustrated in the table above, there were no Tribunal decisions remanded by the Federal Court of Appeal during the fiscal year. An application for review of the Tribunal’s finding in Inquiry No. NQ-2015-001 was filed with the Federal Court of Appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application for review of the Tribunal’s order in Expiry Review No. RR-2012-004.

WTO Dispute Resolutions

There is currently one Tribunal finding before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), namely, dispute DS482: Canada – Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Certain Carbon Steel Welded Pipe from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. At its meeting on March 10, 2015, the DSB established a panel. China, the European Union, Korea, Norway, the United Arab Emirates and the United States reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, Brazil reserved its third-party rights. Following the agreement of the parties, the panel was composed on May 12, 2015.

There have been no other consultations or formal dispute settlement proceedings initiated regarding the Tribunal’s determinations since March 2015.

SIMA Findings and Orders in Force

As of December 31, 2015, there were 27 SIMA findings and orders in force.