Chapter 3 - Dumping and Subsidizing Injury Inquiries and Reviews

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 “injury” or “retardation” or is threatening to cause injury to 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 forwarded to all known interested persons.

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. 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 Inquiries Completed in Fiscal Year and in Progress at the End of the Fiscal Year

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

Final Injury Inquiries

If the CBSA makes a preliminary determination of dumping or subsidizing, the Tribunal commences a final injury inquiry under 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 a final determination of dumping or subsidizing is made.

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 forwarded to all known interested parties.

In conducting final injury inquiries, the Tribunal requests information from interested parties, receives representations and holds public hearings. The Tribunal carries out extensive research for each inquiry. The Tribunal sends requests to complete questionnaires to Canadian producers, importers, purchasers, foreign producers and exporters. Primarily on the basis of questionnaire responses, the Tribunal prepares a 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 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 many 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 and/or subsidizing issued by the CBSA. It has an additional 15 days to issue a statement of 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 five final injury inquiries in the fiscal year. The completed inquiries concerned pup joints, stainless steel sinks, liquid dielectric transformers, steel piling pipe and carbon steel welded pipe. The following summaries were prepared for general information purposes only and are not intended to be of any legal value.

NQ-2011-001—Pup Joints

This inquiry concerned dumped and subsidized pup joints imported from the People’s Republic of China (China) (the subject pup joints).

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 12 potential Canadian producers, 28 potential importers, 21 purchasers and 92 potential foreign producers and exporters of pup joints. Of the 153 requests sent, 27 responses were used in the Tribunal’s analysis. There were 3 participants to the inquiry. During the 3 days of public hearing, 3 witnesses appeared before the Tribunal. The official record contained 3,500 pages.

The Tribunal first determined that both tubing pup joints and casing pup joints were subject to the inquiry and that the subject tubing pup joints and the subject casing pup joints were separate classes of goods. With respect to casing pup joints, the Tribunal noted that, while there was a domestic industry producing casing pup joints, it had not participated fully in the inquiry, nor had it made claims of injury. Further, the CBSA did not consider that casing pup joints were included in the subject pup joints and did not investigate whether they had been dumped or subsidized. The Tribunal, therefore, made a finding of no injury and no threat of injury with respect to the subject casing pup joints.

Next, the Tribunal determined that domestically produced tubing pup joints were like goods in relation to the subject tubing pup joints. It further determined that API 5CT and premium connection pup joints constituted a single class of goods. Finally, the Tribunal found that Alberta Oil Tool was responsible for the major proportion of domestic production of pup joints and, therefore, representative of the domestic industry.

The Tribunal observed that there was a significant increase in the volume of imports of the subject pup joints over the period of inquiry (POI). It observed some price undercutting by the subject tubing pup joints, but noted that it was primarily limited to a purchaser that did not resell the tubing pup joints. The Tribunal found that this price undercutting was not significant and did not lead to significant price depression or suppression. The Tribunal found that the domestic industry increased its sales of domestic production and market share in 2010, but began to feel the impact of imports of the subject tubing pup joints in the latter half of 2011. The Tribunal was also of the view that the domestic industry experienced a decline in financial performance in the latter half of 2011 as a result of these imports. The Tribunal concluded its injury analysis by determining that the domestic industry’s productivity was stable throughout the POI, that wages were not negatively impacted by the subject tubing pup joints and that the evidence did not disclose any other negative financial impacts. Overall, the Tribunal found that the subject tubing pup joints may have negatively impacted the domestic industry in 2011, but that the impact did not constitute material injury, as prescribed by SIMA.

The Tribunal concluded that the dumping and subsidizing of the subject tubing pup joints had not caused injury but were threatening to cause injury. The Tribunal determined that there was a threat that purchasers would begin to import directly, bypassing distributors, and that such activity would result in price depression and suppression for the like goods. The Tribunal was of the view that an increase in imports of the subject pup joints in the following 12 to 18 months would result in injury to the domestic industry in the form of lost sales, a decline in domestic production and capacity utilization, and a decline in revenues and financial performance.

NQ-2011-002—Stainless Steel Sinks

This inquiry concerned dumped and subsidized stainless steel sinks imported from China (the subject sinks).

In its inquiry, the Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 2 Canadian producers, 43 importers, 19 purchasers and 199 potential foreign producers and exporters of stainless steel sinks. The Tribunal received questionnaire responses from the 2 Canadian producers, 31 importers, 14 purchasers and 1 foreign producer. There were 11 participants to the inquiry; however, only the 2 Canadian producers and a foreign producer/exporter that requested a product exclusion attended the hearing. During the 2-day hearing, 5 witnesses appeared before the Tribunal. The official record contained 5,275 pages.

The Tribunal first determined that stainless steel sinks produced in Canada constituted like goods in relation to the subject sinks. Then, the Tribunal determined that stainless steel sinks comprising the like goods and the subject sinks were a single class of goods. Finally, the Tribunal determined that, although the domestic producers imported small volumes of the subject sinks during the POI, they were nonetheless primarily considered domestic producers of like goods, accounted for the domestic production as a whole of the like goods and, thus, constituted the domestic industry.

The Tribunal concluded that the volume of imports of the subject sinks increased significantly over the POI, both in absolute terms and relative to the production and consumption of the like goods. It added that excluding the domestic producers’ imports of the subject sinks from its assessment did not affect this conclusion. The Tribunal found that prices of the subject sinks in the Canadian market at specific trade levels for sales of benchmark products and at common accounts had the effect of significantly undercutting, depressing and suppressing the prices of the like goods during the POI, especially in 2010 and 2011. The Tribunal also determined that the presence of the subject sinks in the Canadian market resulted in a significant negative impact on the domestic industry. It added that the negative impact of imports of the subject sinks on the domestic industry was exacerbated by the magnitude of the margin of dumping and amount of subsidy.

The Tribunal found that the dumping and subsidizing of the subject sinks caused injury to the domestic industry. The Tribunal granted one request for a product exclusion.

NQ-2012-001—Liquid Dielectric Transformers

This inquiry concerned dumped liquid dielectric transformers imported from the Republic of Korea (Korea) (the subject transformers).

In its inquiry, the Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 3 Canadian producers, 25 importers and 40 purchasers of liquid dielectric transformers, and to 2 foreign producers of the subject transformers. The Tribunal received 29 questionnaire replies which it used in its analysis. These included replies from the 3 Canadian producers, 9 importers, 15 purchasers and 2 foreign producers. There were 7 participants to the inquiry, including 2 domestic producers, 2 importers, 2 foreign producers and 1 purchaser. All participants attended the hearing. During the 5-day hearing, 18 witnesses appeared before the Tribunal. The official record contained 14,093 pages.

The Tribunal determined that liquid dielectric transformers produced in Canada were like goods in relation to the subject transformers and constituted a single class of goods. The Tribunal determined that the domestic producers, ABB Inc. (ABB) and CG Power Systems Canada Inc. (CG), constituted the domestic industry.

The Tribunal concluded that the dumping of the subject transformers caused injury to the domestic industry. The Tribunal found that, although non-price factors played a significant role in the purchasing decision, price was still a dominant factor. Moreover, once bidders had been technically prequalified, price acquired even greater prominence in the final purchasing decision. The Tribunal determined that prices of the subject transformers significantly undercut, depressed and suppressed the prices of the like goods during the POI, especially in 2011 and in the interim period of 2012.

The Tribunal also concluded that there was a significant increase in the volume of imports of the subject transformers relative to the production and consumption of the like goods in 2011 and that the presence of these imports in the market had a negative impact on the domestic industry’s production, capacity utilization, financial results, employment and productivity. The Tribunal noted that imports of the subject transformers also negatively impacted the domestic industry’s return on investment and ability to raise capital. It added that the magnitude of the margin of dumping contributed to the deterioration of the state of the domestic industry.

The Tribunal considered other factors, i.e. decreased demand, imports from non-subject countries (in particular, imports by ABB), the domestic industry’s export performance, CG’s pricing strategy, intra industry competition and suppliers’ ability to deliver goods. However, after examining the evidence on the record, the Tribunal concluded that any injurious effects that may have been attributable to the above factors, whether taken individually or as a whole, did not negate its conclusion that the dumping itself had caused material injury to the domestic industry.

The Tribunal received requests to exclude the subject transformers sold to Canadian purchasers prior to the filing of the complaint and which were to be imported following the issuance of the Tribunal’s finding. These requests were moot, given that they were conditional on the Tribunal finding threat of injury. The Tribunal also received one additional product exclusion request which was denied.

NQ-2012-002—Steel Piling Pipe

This inquiry concerned dumped and subsidized steel piling pipe imported from China (the subject pipe).

On July 3, 2012, as part of its preliminary injury determination, the Tribunal found that a subset of the goods described in the CBSA’s notice of initiation of investigations were subject to another Tribunal finding and consequently terminated the preliminary injury inquiry in respect of those goods. The official record contained 7,163 pages.

In its inquiry, the Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 7 potential Canadian producers, 32 importers and 22 purchasers of steel piling pipe, to 8 Canadian producers of other pipe products, and to 166 potential foreign producers and exporters of steel piling pipe. The Tribunal received 18 questionnaire replies. There were 5 participants to the inquiry; however, one withdrew and only three participated at the hearing, including 2 domestic producers and 1 importer. Ten witnesses appeared before the Tribunal during the 4-day hearing.

The Tribunal determined, prior to the hearing, that there was no overlap between the subject pipe in this inquiry and the goods subject to other Tribunal orders or findings. In this regard, the Tribunal determined that the only overlap of product definitions was that which had been identified in the Tribunal’s determination in the preliminary injury inquiry. The Tribunal also determined that the scope of like goods in relation to the subject pipe was confined to those goods that were commonly identified as steel piling pipe. The Tribunal determined that six known producers constituted the domestic industry.

The Tribunal found that the volume of imports of the subject pipe increased significantly over the POI, which contributed to a significant increase in the share of the domestic market held by the subject pipe in 2011. The Tribunal concluded that, despite the significant increase in the volume of imports of the subject pipe in the rapidly expanding market for steel piling pipe over the POI, the domestic industry generally performed well and was able to increase its selling prices and improve financial performance, productivity, employment and wages, in addition to maintaining its sales volume, production, capacity and capacity utilization. The Tribunal further determined that, while the subject pipe had some adverse price effects on the price of the like goods during the POI, the resulting injury to the domestic industry did not attain a level of significance that would render it “material”, within the intended meaning of that term under SIMA.

However, the Tribunal considered that there was a clearly imminent and foreseeable threat of injury. In the Tribunal’s opinion, the expected price competition and volumes of dumped and subsidized pipe would result in price depression, price suppression and loss of sales to the domestic industry which, in turn, would result in reduced domestic production, capacity utilization and negative indices of financial performance.

NQ-2012-003—Carbon Steel Welded Pipe

This inquiry concerned dumped carbon steel welded pipe (CSWP) imported from Chinese Taipei, the Republic of India (India), the Sultanate of Oman (Oman), Korea, Thailand, the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) and the United Arab Emirates (the UAE) and subsidized CSWP from India, Oman and the UAE (the subject CSWP). On November 9, 2012, the CBSA made final determinations and terminated the investigation regarding the dumping of the subject CSWP from Turkey and terminated the investigation regarding the subsidizing of the subject CSWP from Oman and the UAE. The official record contained 8,150 pages.

In its inquiry, the Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 8 Canadian producers, 44 potential importers, 33 potential purchasers and 188 potential foreign producers and exporters of CSWP. The Tribunal received 60 questionnaire replies. There were 21 participants to the inquiry with 12 witnesses appearing before the Tribunal during 3 days of public hearing.

The Tribunal first determined that CSWP produced in Canada was like goods in relation to the subject CSWP and constituted a single class of goods. The Tribunal then determined that five known producers, which accounted for the totality of domestic production of like goods, constituted the domestic industry.

On December 11, 2012, the Tribunal found that the dumping and subsidizing of the subject CSWP had not caused material injury to the domestic industry. The Tribunal concluded that the volume of imports of the subject CSWP increased significantly over the POI, both in absolute terms and relative to the production and consumption of the like goods. In addition, the Tribunal found that prices of the subject CSWP in the Canadian market significantly undercut the prices of like goods and caused limited price depression and price suppression. The Tribunal acknowledged that the domestic industry, as a whole, sustained some injury during certain periods of the POI, but was of the view that the resulting impact was not sufficiently adverse to constitute material injury. However, in the subsequent 12 to 18 months, the Tribunal found that there was an imminent and foreseeable threat of material injury to the domestic industry and that this injury was likely to be directly attributable to the volume and price effects of the subject CSWP.

Regarding requests for exclusions, the Tribunal received seven product exclusion requests, a producer exclusion request, and a country exclusion request from seven requesters. Following a detailed analysis, the Tribunal granted two product exclusion requests.

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

There were no final injury inquiries in progress at the end of the fiscal year.

Public Interest Inquiries Under Section 45 of SIMA

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. It may initiate, either after a request from an interested person or on its own initiative, a public interest inquiry following a finding 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. No requests for public interest inquiries were filed with the Tribunal in 2012-2013.

Interim Reviews

The Tribunal may review its findings 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 put into evidence during the previous 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

As can be seen in the above table, the Tribunal ruled on two interim reviews commenced in the previous fiscal year (RD-2011-001 and RD-2011-003), continuing its findings without amendment. As well, the Tribunal ruled on two requests for interim review received in the current fiscal year (RD-2012-002 and RD-2012-003) and decided not to conduct an interim review regarding its order made on December 7, 2012, in Expiry Review No. RR-2011-002.

Two requests for interim review received in the previous fiscal year (RD-2011-005 and RD-2011-006) and one request for interim review received in the current fiscal year (RD-2012-001) were 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 Secretary 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 four 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-2012-001 respecting hot-rolled carbon steel plate, Expiry Review No. RR-2012-002 respecting seamless carbon or alloy steel oil and gas well casing, Expiry Review No. RR-2012-003 respecting carbon steel welded pipe and Expiry Review No. RR-2012-004 respecting thermoelectric containers.

In Expiry No. LE-2012-002 respecting carbon steel pipe nipples and adaptor fittings, the Tribunal received no request for a review of its order made on July 15, 2008. The order will therefore expire on July 14, 2013.

At the end of the fiscal year, Expiry No. LE-2012-005 respecting structural tubing and Expiry No. LE-2012-006 respecting hot-rolled steel plate were in progress.

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 forwarded 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, during the fiscal year, the Tribunal completed three expiry reviews.

RR-2011-002—Bicycles

This expiry review concerned the dumping of bicycles with an FOB Chinese Taipei or China selling price of CAN$225 or less originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei and China (the subject bicycles).

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 7 known Canadian producers/assemblers, 39 importers and 148 potential foreign producers and exporters of bicycles. The Tribunal received questionnaire replies from 6 known Canadian producers/assemblers, 18 importers, and 15 foreign producers and exporters. There were 15 participants in the expiry review, with 9 witnesses appearing before the Tribunal during the 3-day hearing. The official record contained 18,197 pages.

The Tribunal was persuaded that both Chinese and Chinese Taipei producers and exporters were capable of producing bicycles and exporting them at FOB selling prices of CAN$225 or less for sale in the Canadian market at manufacturer’s suggested retail prices of CAN$400 or less. Accordingly, the Tribunal determined, that, if the order were rescinded, the subject countries would likely export bicycles at dumped prices well below current values and the Canadian producers’ prices. On December 7, 2012, the Tribunal continued its order in respect of bicycles with an FOB Chinese Taipei or China selling price of CAN$225 or less originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei and China.

RR-2012-001—Hot-rolled Carbon Steel Plate

This expiry review concerned the dumping of hot-rolled carbon steel plate originating in or exported from China (the subject plate).

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 24 known Canadian producers, 22 potential importers and 40 potential foreign producers and exporters of hot-rolled carbon steel plate. Furthermore, the Tribunal sent requests to complete a short-form importer’s questionnaire to 17 potential importers. The Tribunal received 4 replies from domestic producers, 18 from importers and 3 from exporters. Of these replies, 16 were used in the Tribunal’s analysis.

There were three participants to the expiry review, with four witnesses appearing before the Tribunal during a single day of public hearing. No parties appeared before the Tribunal or provided submissions in opposition to the continuation of the order. The official record contained 5,500 pages.

The Tribunal was of the view that, if the order were rescinded, the likely continuation or resumption of dumping from China would likely result in injury to the domestic industry. Consequently, on January 8, 2013, the Tribunal continued its order in respect of the subject plate.

RR-2012-002—Seamless Carbon or Alloy Steel Oil and Gas Well Casing

This expiry review concerned the dumping and subsidizing of seamless carbon or alloy steel oil and gas well casing (seamless casing) originating in or exported from China (the subject casing).

The Tribunal sent requests to complete questionnaires to 4 Canadian producers, 29 potential importers and 22 potential foreign producers and exporters of seamless casing. Furthermore, the Tribunal sent requests to complete a short-form importer’s questionnaire to 20 importers. The Tribunal received questionnaire replies from 4 domestic producers, 9 importers and 4 exporters. It also received 10 replies from importers that were requested to respond to the short-form importer’s questionnaire. There were 4 participants to the expiry review, with 5 witnesses appearing before the Tribunal during the 2-day hearing. The official record contained 8,800 pages.

The Tribunal was of the view that, if the finding were rescinded, there was likely to be a significant increase in imports of the subject casing at prices that would cause injury to the domestic industry. Consequently, on March 11, 2013, the Tribunal continued its finding in respect of the subject casing.

Expiry Reviews in Progress at the End of the Fiscal Year

There were two expiry reviews in progress at the end of the fiscal year respecting carbon steel welded pipe and thermoelectric containers.

RR-2012-003

This is an expiry review of the Tribunal’s finding made on August 20, 2008, in Inquiry No. NQ 2008-001 concerning the dumping and subsidizing of carbon steel welded pipe originating in or exported from China.

RR-2012-004

This is an expiry review of the Tribunal’s finding made on December 11, 2008, in Inquiry No. NQ 2008-002 concerning the dumping and subsidizing of thermoelectric containers originating in or exported from China.

Judicial or Panel Reviews of SIMA Decisions

On May 30, 2012, the Federal Court of Appeal remanded the Tribunal’s decision in Expiry Review No. RR-2009-003, which rescinded its order in respect of the dumping of refined sugar originating in or exported from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and the subsidizing of refined sugar originating in or exported form the European Union.

On June 18, 2012, in Expiry Review No. RR-2009-003R, the Tribunal recommenced the expiry review of its order in respect of the dumping of refined sugar originating in or exported from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and the subsidizing of refined sugar originating in or exported from the European Union. On September 28, 2012, the Tribunal, having reconsidered the matter as directed by the Federal Court of Appeal, continued the order.

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

WTO Dispute Resolutions

There were no Tribunal findings or orders before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body during the fiscal year.

SIMA Findings and Orders in Force as of March 31, 2013

During calendar year 2012, there were 24 SIMA findings and orders in force, affecting approximately 0.28 percent of Canadian imports, 2.62 percent of Canadian shipments and 0.81 percent of Canadian employment.