Annual report March 31, 2017- 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 preliminary 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.

Preliminary Injury Inquiry Activities

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 four 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. Questionnaires are sent to Canadian producers, importers, purchasers, foreign producers and exporters. Primarily on the basis of questionnaire responses, an investigation report is prepared, which is put on the case record and 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 (SIMR) 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 of injury or retardation or threat of injury.

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 Inquiry Activities

Final Injury Inquiries Completed in the Fiscal Year

As illustrated in the above table, the Tribunal completed two final injury inquiries in the fiscal year. The completed inquiries concerned welded large diameter carbon and alloy steel line pipe and gypsum board. The following summaries were prepared for general information purposes only.

NQ-2016-001—Welded Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Steel Line Pipe

This inquiry concerned the dumping of welded large diameter carbon and alloy steel line pipe (LDLP) originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China (China) and Japan, and the subsidizing of LDLP originating in or exported from China (the subject goods).

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to one domestic producer, EVRAZ Inc. NA Canada and Canadian National Steel Corporation (EVRAZ), 27 potential importers, 33 potential purchasers and 36 potential foreign producers of LDLP. Of the 97 requests sent, the Tribunal received replies from the one Canadian producer; 19 importers, five of which indicated they had not imported LDLP during the period of inquiry; 27 purchasers, five of which indicated they had not purchased LDLP during the period of inquiry; and seven foreign producers, three which indicated they did not produce LDLP during the period of inquiry. There were 21 participants to the inquiry.

The Tribunal held a hearing in Ottawa, Ontario, for eight days in September 2016; 39 witnesses appeared before the Tribunal. The official record contained 21,150 pages.

On October 20, 2016, the Tribunal issued its finding that the dumping and/or subsidizing of the subject goods caused injury to the domestic industry. Between mid-2014 and 2015, especially, the subject goods entered the domestic market at high volumes in both absolute and relative terms, and at prices which had significant negative price effects. The subject goods caused EVRAZ to experience lost sales and market share, reduced production and declining gross margins. These developments prevented EVRAZ from operating its facility in Camrose, Alberta, and resulted in layoffs of employees at its Regina, Saskatchewan, facilities. The Tribunal found that, absent the injurious effects of the subject goods, EVRAZ would have performed better during the period of inquiry.

The Tribunal received a total of 36 requests to exclude products from its finding and granted four exclusions.

NQ-2016-002—Gypsum Board

This inquiry concerned the dumping of certain gypsum board originating in or exported from the United States of America, imported into Canada for use or consumption in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, as well as the Yukon and Northwest Territories (the subject goods).

Following a reference from His Excellency the Governor General in Council, the Tribunal also had to determine, in Reference No. GC-2016-001, whether the imposition of provisional duties, or duties, applicable to the subject goods, was contrary to Canada’s economic, trade or commercial interests, and specifically whether such an imposition had or would have had the effect of substantially reducing competition in those markets, or causing significant harm to consumers of those goods or to businesses who use them. The Tribunal combined the two inquiries to expedite the process. The Tribunal’s recommendations in GC-2016-001 are discussed separately under the “Economic and Tariff Inquiries” section of this report. Parties who were participants in Inquiry No. NQ-2016-002 were automatically considered to be parties to Reference No. GC-2016-001. Twenty-five parties were participants to both inquiries. One hundred and eight other parties filed notices of participation with the Tribunal in Reference No. GC-2016-001. The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to five Canadian producers and two potential importers of gypsum board. Only one reply, from CertainTeed Gypsum Canada Inc. (CGC), was considered to be from a “domestic producer”, as it was the sole producer of gypsum board in Western Canada. The remaining four replies were from producers considered to be “Eastern Producers” and therefore not part of the domestic industry for the purposes of this inquiry. The Tribunal also received three replies from importers of gypsum board in Western Canada. The Tribunal also sent requests to complete questionnaires to 32 potential purchasers and 25 potential foreign producers of gypsum board. The Tribunal received 22 replies from purchasers, with one indicating that it had not purchased gypsum board during the period of inquiry, and nine replies from foreign producers, three of which indicated that they had not produced gypsum board during the period of inquiry and two of which were incomplete.

The Tribunal held a hearing in Edmonton, Alberta, from November 28, 2016, to December 8, 2016, where participants testified to matters relevant to both Inquiry No. NQ-2016-002 and Reference No. GC-2016-001; 37 witnesses appeared before the Tribunal. The official record contained 21,250 pages.

The Tribunal found that the gypsum board market is price driven. It concluded that the subject goods competed head-to-head with domestically produced goods using lower prices, took sales as a result and limited any price increases in the pricing of gypsum board as reflected in overall market prices during the period of inquiry. In addition to price undercutting, the Tribunal found that the subject goods significantly suppressed the price of like goods; however, it found that the evidence did not demonstrate that price depression occurred. The Tribunal found that the dumping of the subject goods did, in and of itself, cause material injury to the domestic market. This injury included losses in sales and market share, reduced profitability, and a decrease in capacity utilization. While the parties opposed alleged that factors other than dumping caused injury to the domestic market, such as the depreciation of the Canadian dollar during the period of inquiry, poor customer relations and a lack of exports by the domestic producer to the U.S. market, the Tribunal was not persuaded that these negated its conclusions on injury.

In its finding issued on January 4, 2017, the Tribunal found that the dumping of the subject goods caused injury to the domestic industry. On the same date, the Tribunal also reported to the Governor in Council its findings and recommendations in connection with Inquiry No. GC-2016-001.²

The Tribunal received requests for two product exclusions and denied both requests, having concluded that the domestic industry does produce substitutable products and, hence, imports of the goods in question would cause injury to the like goods.

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

There were two final injury inquiries in progress at the end of the fiscal year concerning concrete reinforcing bar and certain fabricated industrial steel components.

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 did not conduct any public interest inquiry during the fiscal year.

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.

Interim Review Activities

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

As illustrated in the table above, the Tribunal completed two interim reviews during the fiscal year, concerning liquid dielectric transformers and certain carbon steel fasteners. There was one interim review in progress at the end of the fiscal year concerning certain fasteners.

RD-2013-003—Liquid Dielectric Transformers

This interim review concerned liquid dielectric transformers originating in or exported from the Republic of Korea. The Tribunal initiated this interim review to determine if its finding in Inquiry No. NQ-2012-001 was impacted by a revised final determination of dumping issued by the President of the CBSA on March 6, 2014.

The revised final determination stemmed from a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal made on December 6, 2016, which set aside the original final determination and referred the matter back to the CBSA for further consideration, and resulted in reduced country- and export-specific margins of dumping compared to the CBSA’s original finding. The Tribunal initiated this interim review to determine if its finding of injury should be continued, with or without amendment, or rescinded in light of the new facts, i.e. the new margins of dumping. Although the Tribunal initiated its interim review on March 14, 2014, it was held in abeyance while the CBSA’s revised final determination was subject to two applications for judicial review. The Tribunal resumed its interim review on September 25, 2015.

There were 4 participants to the interim review. The official record contained 2,695 pages.

In its decision issued on May 31, 2016, the Tribunal found that there was nothing in the CBSA’s revised final determination that warranted a departure from its finding of price undercutting, price depression or price suppression in Inquiry No. NQ-2012-001. It also found that the revised margins of dumping, while reduced, remained well above the 2 to 3 percent price sensitivity threshold cited by purchasers and accepted by the Tribunal in the inquiry. The Tribunal noted that 100 percent of the subject goods imported into Canada were dumped and that even the reduced margins of dumping were substantial enough to have contributed to the domestic industry’s declining performance. In sum, the Tribunal found that there was no reason to depart from its original finding that the dumping of the subject goods caused material injury to the domestic industry.

RD-2016-001—Certain Carbon Steel Fasteners

This interim review concerned certain carbon steel fasteners originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China and Chinese Taipei. The Tribunal initiated this interim review following a request from Canimex Inc. (Canimex), an importer, to exclude certain shoulder bolts from the Tribunal’s order made on January 5, 2015, in Expiry Review No. RR-2014-001, on the basis that the goods were no longer produced by the domestic industry and that granting the exclusion would not injure the domestic industry.

There were 11 participants to the interim review. The official record contained 170 pages.

The Tribunal found that the domestic industry did not produce shoulder bolts and that amending its order to exclude such goods would not result in injury to the domestic industry.

The Tribunal denied Caminex’s request that the exclusion be granted retroactively to the date that anti-dumping duties were imposed, on the basis that Canimex was essentially asking the Tribunal to put it in the same position as if it had successfully challenged the CBSA’s determination that shoulder bolts are subject goods through an appeal pursuant to section 61 of SIMA. The Tribunal found that Canimex’s decision to request an exclusion from the order in Expiry Review No. RR-2014-001, instead of contesting the CBSA’s subjectivity determination, essentially demonstrated its tacit acceptance that shoulder bolts are subject goods. Since it was unclear from the evidence on the record precisely since when there had been no domestic production of shoulder bolts, the Tribunal granted the request retroactively to May 16, 2016, which was the date on which the Tribunal received the last document from Canimex to support its request.

On February 15, 2017, The Tribunal amended its order in Expiry Review No. RR-2014-001 to exclude, effective May 16, 2006, the following goods: shoulder bolts made of steel, grade 5, and zinc-plated, with a hexagonal head, an unthreaded cylindrical shoulder section ranging from 1/4 inch to 3/4 inch in diameter, and a threaded section that is smaller in diameter than the shoulder ranging from 3/8 inch to 7/8 inch in length and between 10-24 and 5/8-11 in common thread sizes.

Expiries

Subsection 76.03(1) of SIMA provides that a finding or order expires after five years, unless an expiry review has been initiated. Prior to an amendment that took effect during the year, the Tribunal was obliged to publish, not later than 10 months before the expiry date of the order or finding, a notice of expiry in the Canada Gazette. Now the Tribunal publishes the notice not later than 2 months before the expiry date. 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.

Expiry Activities

As illustrated in the above table, the Tribunal decided to commence one expiry review in the fiscal year.

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. However, the Tribunal revised its Expiry Review Guidelines during the year, in consultation with stakeholders, to indicate that the Tribunal will explore the possibility of holding a file hearing instead of an oral hearing in appropriate expiry reviews. A file hearing may simplify the proceedings and reduce the parties’ costs. Whereas final injury inquiries are invariably contested, expiry reviews are sometimes unopposed.

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 Activities

Expiry Reviews Completed in the Fiscal Year

As illustrated in the above table, the Tribunal completed three expiry reviews in the fiscal year, concerning steel grating, flat hot-rolled sheet and strip and copper pipe fittings, and there was one expiry review in progress at the end of the fiscal year.

RR-2015-001—Steel Grating

This expiry review concerned the dumping and subsidizing of carbon steel bar grating and alloy steel bar grating consisting of load-bearing pieces and cross pieces, produced as standard grating or heavy-duty grating, in panel form, whether galvanized, painted, coated, clad or plated (steel grating), originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China (the subject goods).

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to two domestic producers (Fisher & Ludlow and Borden Metal Products (Canada) Ltd.), 145 potential importers and 62 potential foreign producers of steel grating. The Tribunal received replies from both domestic producers. It also received seven replies from importers of steel grating and 85 replies from importers indicating that they did not import steel grating during the period of review. The Tribunal received one reply from a foreign producer of steel grating.

The Tribunal held a two-day hearing on March 7 and March 8, 2016, in Ottawa, Ontario. Fisher & Ludlow provided three witnesses and the Tribunal called two witnesses. No other parties participated in the expiry review. The Tribunal did not receive any requests for product exclusions. The official record contained 5,900 pages.

The Tribunal was of the view that, if the finding was rescinded, there would be a significant increase in the volume of imports of the subject goods. The Tribunal also found that the likely outcome of a rescission was that the domestic industry would face significant price undercutting and would either need to significantly lower the price of the like goods (price depression) or risk losing sales and market share. The Tribunal stated that the subject goods would need to undercut the price of the like goods to gain sales and that this market reality would likely have severe negative consequences for the domestic industry, whether that negative impact took the form of lost sales and downward pressure on production and employment, or reduced revenue and margins. The Tribunal found that, either way, the resultant impacts on profits, cash flow, etc., would be material. Consequently, on April 18, 2016, the Tribunal continued its finding, having determined that the impact of the significant volumes and low prices of the subject goods if the finding were rescinded would be materially injurious to the domestic industry.

RR-2015-002—Flat Hot-rolled Steel Sheet and Strip

This expiry review concerned the dumping of flat hot-rolled carbon and alloy steel sheet and strip (hot-rolled steel sheet) originating in or exported from Brazil, The People’s Republic of China (China), Chinese Taipei, India and Ukraine, and the subsidizing of hot-rolled steel sheet originating in or exported from India (the subject goods).

The CBSA determined that the expiry of the Tribunal’s orders was unlikely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping of the subject goods from Chinese Taipei and India, but was likely to result in the resumption or continuation of dumping of the subject goods from Brazil, China and Ukraine, and subsidizing of the subject goods from India. As such, the Tribunal rescinded its order concerning Chinese Taipei.

In this expiry review, the Tribunal was of the view that assessing the effects of subsidized imports from India cumulatively with the effects of dumped imports from the other subject countries would not be appropriate because India was subject only to a subsidizing determination, whereas the other three countries were subject only to dumping investigations. It noted that this was analogous to the situation presented in the WTO’s decision in United States – Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, in which the Appellate Body found that cross-cumulating imports that were subject to a dumping investigation with those subject only to a subsidizing investigation constituted a violation of the Subsidies Agreement. Accordingly, the Tribunal conducted its injury analysis separately for India and cumulatively for China, Brazil and Ukraine (the cumulated countries).

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to four potential domestic producers, 35 potential importers and 78 potential foreign producers of hot-rolled steel sheet. It received four replies from the domestic producers, 22 responses from importers, nine of which imported hot-rolled steel sheet during the period of review, and three foreign producers that produced hot-rolled steel sheet during the period of review. There were six participants to the review.

The Tribunal held a two-day hearing from June 27 to 29, 2016, in Ottawa, Ontario, where it heard from 15 witnesses. The four domestic mills provided witnesses and were represented by counsel who made arguments at the hearing. The Government of India’s representative also made arguments. The Tribunal did not receive any requests for product exclusions. The official record contained 22,310 pages.

On August 12, 2016, the Tribunal determined that, if the order was rescinded with respect to the cumulated countries (China, Brazil and Ukraine), the likely volumes of hot-rolled steel sheet that would be exported to Canada will be significant in relation to the size of the Canadian market. The Tribunal considered it likely that hot-rolled steel sheet from the cumulated countries will be sold at prices that will significantly undercut the Canadian domestic price, resulting in significant price depression. In light of the above, the Tribunal found that the resumption of significant volumes of imports of the dumped subject goods at low prices from the cumulated countries will likely cause material injury to the domestic industry in terms of a reduction in market share, production and capacity utilization, decreased net income and an inability to make necessary investments.

With respect to India, the Tribunal found that producers in India would likely resume exporting significant volumes of hot-rolled steel sheet to Canada if the Tribunal’s order were rescinded. The Tribunal was of the view that, despite the evidence of a relatively high domestic selling price in India, subject goods would likely enter the Canadian market at prices that significantly undercut the Canadian domestic price, resulting in significant price depression. The Tribunal found that the resumption of imports of the subsidized subject goods would, in and of itself, likely cause material injury to the domestic industry in terms of a reduction in market share, production and capacity utilization, decreased net income and an inability to make necessary investments.

RR-2015-003—Copper Pipe Fittings

This expiry review concerned the dumping of copper pipe fittings originating in or exported from the United States of America, The Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China and the subsidizing of copper pipe fittings originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China (the subject goods).

The Tribunal sent requests to compete questionnaires to Cello Products Inc. (Cello), the only remaining domestic producer, Bow Plumbing Group Inc., a producer that ceased operations in 2013, 39 potential importers and 119 potential foreign producers of copper pipe fittings. The Tribunal received a reply to the producer’s questionnaire from Cello. The Tribunal also received 14 replies from importers of copper pipe fittings and 18 replies from firms indicating that they did not import copper pipe fittings during the period of review. The Tribunal received 15 replies from potential foreign producers, of which two had produced copper pipe fittings during the period of review. There were four participants to the review. The official record contained 9,320 pages.

The Tribunal held a two-day public hearing from October 11 to 12, 2016, in Ottawa, Ontario, where it heard from two witnesses from Cello.

The Tribunal received two product exclusion requests from Mueller Industries Inc. (Mueller). Cello consented to one exclusion request in its entirety and consented in part to a second one. The Tribunal excluded copper-iron high-pressure alloy fittings manufactured with UNS C19400 grade copper alloy and with safe working pressure up to 1,740 psi from its orders, as the evidence indicated that doing so would not injure the domestic industry. Mueller’s second exclusion request related to copper pipe fittings included in the product definition and produced by Cello due to the fact that they can only be made as cast fittings, rather than wrought fittings. The parties filed an agreed list of copper pipe fittings corresponding to this description, and Cello consented to the revised request. The evidence confirmed that these particular products could only be made by casting and that Cello did not produce a substitutable wrought alternative. Therefore, the Tribunal granted the exclusion.

On November 28, 2016, the Tribunal found that, if the orders were rescinded, there would likely be a significant increase in the volume of imports of the subject goods in absolute terms, as well as relative to domestic production and domestic consumption of like goods. The Tribunal found that that the domestic industry would likely face significant price undercutting, as the subject goods attempt to regain market share lost to the imports from non-subject countries. The domestic industry would either be forced to significantly lower the price of the like goods, leading to price depression, or risk losing further sales and market share. Cello contended that, and the Tribunal agreed, if the orders were rescinded, the impact of the subject goods could be so severe that Cello would no longer be able to continue to manufacture like goods in Canada. In support of this, Cello noted that, despite having arguably the largest collection of cast patterns and tooling in the world, the price of imported cast fittings or wrought equivalents have made it financially impossible to keep operational its foundry for the production of cast fittings. As such, the Tribunal found that the rescission of the orders would have negative consequences on Cello’s performance, including its production, sales, financial outcomes, employment and capacity utilization, likely resulting in material injury to the domestic industry.

Expiry Reviews in Progress at the End of the Fiscal Year

There was one expiry review in progress at the end of the fiscal year concerning pup joints. Notably, the Tribunal proceeded without an oral hearing in this case for the first time since the Expiry Review Guidelines were revised to contemplate this possibility.

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.

Summary of Judicial or Panel Reviews

As illustrated in the table above, there were no Tribunal decisions remanded by the Federal Court of Appeal during the fiscal year. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application for review of the Tribunal’s order in Expiry Review No. RR-2014-003 on October 25, 2016.

WTO Dispute Resolutions

During the fiscal year, there was 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. The final report was issued on December 21, 2016.

In this dispute, Chinese Taipei challenged Canada’s treatment of imports from Chinese Taipei exporters with final de minimis margins of dumping as “dumped imports” within the meaning of several articles of the Anti-Dumping Agreement for the purpose of the determinations of injury and causation.

The panel upheld Chinese Taipei’s claim. It found that as a result of the requirement to immediately terminate an investigation with respect to exporters with final de minimis margins of dumping, imports from such exporters should not be treated as “dumped” in the analysis and final determinations of injury and causation. Chinese Taipei also brought challenges against certain provisions of Canada’s underlying anti-dumping legislation, SIMA and SIMR. These “as such” claims concern the treatment of exporters with de minimis margins of dumping and mirror the corresponding “as applied” claims relating to the above investigation and inquiry. In particular, the panel rejected Canada’s contention that discretion existed under SIMA to immediately terminate investigations in respect of exporters with de minimis margins of dumping, as required by Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. As a result, Chinese Taipei’s claims were upheld to the extent that they relate to the treatment of exporters with final de minimis margins of dumping, but rejected to the extent that they relate to the treatment of exporters with preliminary de minimis margins of dumping.

On January 26, 2017, Canada and Chinese Taipei informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings would be 14 months. Accordingly, the reasonable period of time is set to expire on March 25, 2018. At the DSB meeting on February 20, 2017, Canada informed the DSB that it intended to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in this dispute within the reasonable period of time.

SIMA Findings and Orders in Force

As of December 31, 2016, there were 29 SIMA findings and orders in force.

Summary of Findings and Orders in Force as of March 31, 2017