Docket: A-42-14
Citation:
2016 FCA 2
|
CORAM:
|
GAUTHIER J.A.
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
CANADIAN TIRE CORPORATION, LIMITED
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
KOOLATRON
CORPORATION
|
|
Respondent
|
PUBLIC
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NEAR J.A.
I.
Introduction
[1]
Canadian Tire Corporation, Ltd. (Canadian Tire)
seeks judicial review of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal)
decision (Expiry Review No. RR-2012-004) in which it continued a finding
concerning dumping and subsidizing of thermoelectric containers from the
People’s Republic of China (China). Essentially, the applicant requests that
this Court set aside the decision of the Tribunal on the basis that it is not
founded in evidence. For the reasons below, I would dismiss the application.
II.
Background
[2]
The Special Import Measures Act, RSC
1985, c S-15 (SIMA) governs Canada’s anti-dumping and countervailing
duties regime. SIMA is designed to protect Canadian domestic
manufacturers from material injury caused by the dumping and subsidizing of
imported goods by authorizing, under certain conditions, for special
trade-restrictive duties to be imposed. Under section 2(1) of SIMA, a “dumped” good means that the normal value of the good
exceeds the export price thereof, and a “subsidized
good” is a good for which a subsidy is paid by a country other than
Canada, and a good disposed of by a country other than Canada for less than
fair market value.
[3]
The Canada Border Services Agency (the CBSA) and
the Tribunal are jointly responsible for administering SIMA. The CBSA is
responsible for determining whether goods being imported into Canada are dumped
or subsidized, and the Tribunal is responsible for determining whether the
dumping or subsidizing is causing “injury or
retardation” to domestic production of goods of the same description (SIMA,
s 3(1)).
[4]
The products at issue in this application for
judicial review are thermoelectric containers that provide cooling and/or
warming with the use of a passive heat sink and a thermoelectric module,
excluding liquid dispensers, originating in or exported from China. There are four main types of thermoelectric containers: those for travel, whether for
consumer or commercial use, those exclusively for home use, those for retail
display, and those used as wine coolers. These are known as the “subject goods” (Expiry Review at para. 1). On May 15,
2008, following a complaint filed by Koolatron Corporation (Koolatron), the
President of the CBSA initiated investigations into whether the subject goods
had been dumped and subsidized, pursuant to section 31 of SIMA. On
August 13, 2008, the CBSA issued the preliminary determination that the subject
goods had been dumped and subsidized, that the margin of dumping and the amount
of subsidy were not insignificant and that the volumes of dumped and subsidized
goods were not negligible.
[5]
On August 14, 2008, the Tribunal issued a notice
of commencement of inquiry under section 42(1) of SIMA (Inquiry No.
NQ-2008-002) (Inquiry). On December 11, 2008, the Tribunal made a finding
pursuant to SIMA section 43(1) that the dumping and subsidizing of the
subject goods had caused injury to the domestic industry. As a result,
anti-dumping and countervailing duties were imposed.
[6]
Pursuant to section 76.03(10) of SIMA,
the Tribunal is required to conduct an expiry review after five years to
determine whether the expiry of the finding in respect of the subject goods is
likely to result in injury or retardation. The Tribunal makes an order either
rescinding the finding if it determines that its expiry is unlikely to result
in injury, or continuing the finding, with or without amendment, if it
determines that its expiry is likely to result in injury (Expiry Review at para.
11). The Tribunal conducted its expiry review into the subject goods with a
period of review from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2013. In its order and
reasons dated December 9, 2013, the Tribunal continued its finding in respect
of the subject goods pursuant to paragraph 76.03(12)(b) of SIMA.
As a result, the duties remain in place for an additional five years.
[7]
The respondent in this matter is Koolatron, a
Brantford, Ontario-based company which manufactures thermoelectric containers
for travel, home, retail, and wine cooler use. Koolatron is the only major
Canadian manufacturer of thermoelectric containers (like goods), and filed the
original complaint in 2008. Canadian Tire is the dominant market player in
Canadian thermoelectric container sales for travel. It is not active in the
home, retail, or wine thermoelectric container markets. Canadian Tire formerly
purchased its thermoelectric containers from Koolatron, but in 2007, Canadian
Tire changed suppliers, and now sources its thermoelectric containers
exclusively from Mobicool International Ltd (Mobicool). Mobicool’s
thermoelectric containers qualify as subject goods.
[8]
The Tribunal’s task in the expiry review was to
determine whether the expiry of the finding in respect of the subject goods was
likely to result in injury or retardation (Expiry Review at para. 10). The
Tribunal examined the Chinese market and found that growth in Chinese household
spending had contributed to an increase in demand for thermoelectric containers
(Expiry Review at paras. 33-36). The Tribunal also determined that the
production volume of thermoelectric containers and excess capacity of the
manufacturers of such containers in China was considerably larger than in
Canada (Expiry Review at para. 52). Domestically, the Tribunal held that like
goods continued to compete directly with imported goods (Expiry Review at para.
38). It held that were its finding to expire, there was likely to be a
significant increase in the volume of imports of the subject goods both in
absolute and relative terms (Expiry Review at para. 62).
[9]
The Tribunal next considered whether the dumping
and/or subsidizing of the subject goods was likely to significantly undercut
the prices of the like goods, depress those prices, or suppress them by
preventing price increases that would likely have otherwise occurred. The
Tribunal anticipated that in absence of the finding, the intense price-based
competition among big box retailers, coupled with sustained competition from U.S. imports, would likely exert significant downward pressure on the prices of like goods
(Expiry Review at para. 71). It also held that Koolatron would experience price
suppression, as the significantly depressed prices for like goods would prevent
Koolatron from passing on future increases to production costs (Expiry Review
at para. 75). The Tribunal held that there would likely be a material
deterioration of Koolatron’s performance if the finding were allowed to expire
(Expiry Review at para. 91).
[10]
Before this Court, the applicant submits that
the Tribunal erred in three ways: first, by not basing its finding on positive
evidence; second, by basing its decision on unreasonable findings of facts and
inferences; and third, by failing to allow the applicant certain procedural
fairness entitlements. The respondent’s position is that the applicant’s first
two arguments amount to a disagreement with the manner in which the Tribunal
assessed the evidence and do not identify any reviewable errors that warrant
intervention. It submits that the applicant’s third complaint stands at odds
with what the record discloses actually took place at the proceeding.
III.
Issues
1) Did the Tribunal err by not basing its findings on positive
evidence?
2) Did the Tribunal base its decision on unreasonable findings of fact
or on inferences not supported by sufficient evidence?
3)
Did the Tribunal err by breaching certain
procedural fairness entitlements owed to the applicant?
IV.
Standard of Review
[11]
The standard of review framework to be followed
is that of Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190.
[12]
Canadian Tire submits that its first
argument—that the Tribunal did not base its findings on positive evidence—is a
question of law, and that accordingly, the standard of review is correctness.
It relies on Infasco Division of Ifastgroupe & Co LP v. Canada
(International Trade Tribunal), 2006 FCA 130 at paras 3-4, 347 N.R.
111 [Infasco], in which this Court held that the Tribunal’s
decision should not stand if it did not apply the correct test for causation
under section 42(1) of SIMA. I do not agree that Infasco is
helpful to the applicant. In Infasco, the question was whether the
Tribunal had applied the proper test; not whether it had applied the test
properly. In Owen & Co v. Globe Spring & Cushion Co, 2010 FCA
288, 414 N.R. 114, Layden-Stevenson J.A. (as she was then) held: “The tribunal is highly specialized and is entitled to
significant deference. Only questions related to its jurisdiction are reviewed
on a standard of correctness. All other questions attract a standard of
reasonableness” (at para. 4; see also Canadian Sugar Institute v.
Canada, 2012 FCA 163 at para. 2, [2012] F.C.J No. 668). Pursuant to Owen
& Co, the standard of review for the first issue is reasonableness.
[13]
The parties agree that the standard of review on
the second issue, as to whether the Tribunal’s findings were based on
unreasonable findings of fact or on inferences not supported by the evidence,
is reasonableness. I share that view.
[14]
The applicant argues that the standard of review
on the third issue is correctness, because it deals with procedural fairness issues.
The respondent agrees that the standard of review is correctness, but argues
that a degree of deference is nonetheless warranted, based on Stratas J.A.’s
statement in Bergeron v. Canada (AG), 2015 FCA 160, 255 A.C.W.S. (3d)
955 that this Court review procedural fairness issues in a manner that
is “respectful of the [decision-maker’s] choices”
with a “degree of deference” (at para. 69,
citing Re: Sound v. Fitness Industry Council of Canada, 2014 FCA 48 at para.
42, 455 N.R. 87). While I agree that procedural issues generally attract
considerable deference, I do not agree that this is so when the issue involves
a breach of procedural fairness.
V.
Analysis
(1) Did
the Tribunal err by not basing its findings on positive evidence?
[15]
In order to succeed, the applicant must show
that the Tribunal did not rely on positive evidence in arriving at its
findings. In large measure, the applicant is asking the Court to re-weigh the evidence
considered by the Tribunal and determine that either the positive evidence
before it was completely lacking or sufficiently weak to warrant the
intervention of the Court.
[16]
The applicant argues the evidence relied upon by
the Tribunal for the total production of the subject goods in China was weak and inconclusive, based on the fact that no Chinese manufacturers filled out the
questionnaire sent to them by the Tribunal and because the Tribunal
extrapolated China’s total production volume from the information of two
companies. However:
- The unchallenged evidence filed by the respondent
confirmed that the total production capabilities of just Mobicool and
Fuxin was 2.74 million units (Expiry Review at para. 51; Public
Applicant’s Record (AR), Vol. II, Tab 12 at 617, 620, Exhibit
RR-2012-004-A-0 Vol. 11). At the hearing, the applicant submitted that the
Tribunal had been too vague as to whether the production information that
was relied on concerned refrigerators or travel coolers. The respondent
replied that even if the Tribunal was to take account of only a part of
the total production capacity (so as to isolate units deemed to be
refrigerators), the production capacity of Chinese manufacturers remained
overwhelming. I agree with the respondent that the Tribunal’s finding of
fact was open to it on the evidentiary record.
- The evidence of Mobicool and Fuxin’s production
capacities meant to the Tribunal that the capacity of these two
manufacturers alone was 14 times the size of the Canadian domestic
industry (Expiry Review at para. 52).
- In addition, the Tribunal received unchallenged evidence that
there are between 15 and 20 Chinese manufacturers of the subject goods
(Expiry Review at para. 50).
[17]
In my view, the applicant’s assertion that there
was no evidence or that the evidence was so weak that it could not conclude
that there existed within China a substantial amount of capacity to produce the
subject goods is without any merit.
[18]
The applicant also argues that the Tribunal’s
findings with respect to excess capacity in the Chinese market and the ability
of Chinese producers to export to foreign markets was similarly lacking.
However, there was evidence before the Tribunal in these regards. In
particular:
- There was evidence concerning the willingness of Chinese producers
to price aggressively and sell the subject goods in foreign markets at
prices significantly lower than in China (Expiry review at para. 55;
Confidential AR, Vol. II, Tab 13 at 671, 677-688, Exhibit RR-2012-004-A-04
(protected) Vol. 12).
- Further, there was evidence that just 40 to 50
percent of Fuxin’s production is consumed by the domestic market (Public
Hearing transcript, October 15, 2013, Public AR, Vol I, Tab 9 at p. 151).
- In addition, there was evidence that between the
first half of 2007 and the first half of 2008, the volume of imports of
the subject goods virtually eliminated the like goods from the domestic
market (Expiry review at para. 59).
- There was evidence that Salton, a distributor of
Chinese thermoelectric containers, would consider re-importing the subject
goods were the 2008 finding rescinded (Expiry review at para. 57).
- Finally, the Tribunal heard evidence that Mobicool had been
exporting thermoelectric containers from China to the applicant in Canada prior to and following the 2008 finding.
[19]
This evidence supports the Tribunal’s findings
that there was excess capacity in China that the Chinese domestic market would
not consume and that this excess was available for export to foreign markets. Further,
the evidence supports the conclusion that such exports had been made in the
past and were likely to be made in the future and that such exports would be
priced in amounts significantly lower than the domestic prices in China.
[20]
In my view, the applicant’s assertion that there
was no evidence or that the evidence was too weak on these points is also
without merit.
[21]
Finally with respect to Issue 1, the applicant
argues that the Tribunal made contradictory findings about the relationship
between growth and consumption, with no explanation. In particular, it argues
that the Tribunal erred by finding that the expected drop in China’s overall
growth rate would result in a corresponding drop in wine consumption and
automobile usage, while thermoelectric container demand would remain strong in
Canada if its growth rate slowed. The following pieces of evidence were relied
on by the Tribunal to make these findings:
- The Tribunal received unchallenged evidence that
following decades of strong economic growth in China, household spending
had increased, with wine consumption and automobile ownership increasing
substantially in recent years (Expiry Review at para. 36; Public AR, Vol.
II, Tab 14 at 707-714, Exhibit RR-2012-004-15.01, Vol. 3; Public AR, Vol. II,
Tab 14 at 716-717, Exhibit RR-2014-015.01A, Vol. 3B).
- The Tribunal received unchallenged evidence that
Chinese growth was expected to continue to slow or remain flat (Expiry
Review at para. 35).
- The Tribunal heard evidence from the Koolatron representative
explaining why interest in like goods was likely to remain strong in Canada even in an economic recession. This evidence included the fact that Canadians are travelling
more by car in the face of rising airline costs, and the fact that like
goods are useful for cross-border shopping in the U.S. (Expiry Review at
para. 41; Public AR, Vol. I, Tab 9 at 184-185, Transcript of the Public
Hearing of the 2013 Expiry Review Decision).
[22]
In my view, this evidence is sufficient to
ground the Tribunal’s finding on the likely relationship between growth and
consumption in Canada and China. The applicant’s assertion that there was no
evidence or that the evidence was too weak on these points is without merit.
(2) Did the Tribunal base its decision on
unreasonable findings of fact or on inferences not supported by sufficient
evidence?
[23]
The applicant lists several instances of what it
feels are examples of the Tribunal making unreasonable inferences and
assumptions, and of failing to rely on the evidence before it. Overall, I find
that the Tribunal’s decision was thorough and demonstrated that it had
considered the record. In many instances cited by the applicant, the Tribunal
considered the applicant’s evidence, but disagreed with the conclusions that
could be drawn from that evidence. I agree with the respondent that the points
Canadian Tire raises in this regard go to the weight or emphasis the Tribunal
gave to certain pieces of evidence over others. The Tribunal is experienced at
weighing evidence of market conditions in various countries and their effects
on domestic goods. The evidence the Tribunal favoured and the weight it
accorded is an exercise of discretion and not reviewable unless it falls
outside of a range of acceptable outcomes. I agree with the respondent that the
Tribunal’s findings of fact and inferences were reasonable.
[24]
With respect to the Tribunal’s assessment of the
likely performance of the domestic industry and the likely impact of the dumped
subject goods on the domestic industry, the applicant argues that the
Tribunal’s finding that Koolatron would lose market share in Canada if the
finding expired was unreasonable and not supported by evidence. It claims that
the Tribunal did not take into account the fact that Canadian Tire had recently
terminated its relationship with Koolatron in the lead-up to the Tribunal’s
2008 finding, which was an important reason Koolatron experienced financial
difficulties in 2007. However, the Tribunal explicitly considered the fact that
Canadian Tire switched its business from Koolatron to Mobicool in 2007, and
acknowledged Canadian Tire’s argument that Koolatron’s previous injury was a “one-off” event because it lost the account (Expiry
Review at para. 94). Despite this, the Tribunal concluded that given the
competitive dynamics of the retail market for thermoelectric containers, other
retailers, some of whom are Koolatron customers, would return to importing the
subject goods at low prices to try to regain their share of the market and
improve their margins, and as a result, Koolatron remained vulnerable (Expiry
Review at para. 94).
[25]
The applicant also argues that Koolatron’s
expansion into the U.S. demonstrates its ability to successfully compete with
Chinese and U.S. suppliers without any anti-dumping or countervailing duties on
Chinese thermoelectric containers. It made this argument before the Tribunal,
and the Tribunal explicitly considered it (Expiry Review at para. 88). The
Tribunal went on to provide two evidence-based reasons for why Canada and the U.S operate as separate paradigms and cannot be compared (Expiry Review at
para. 89). The Tribunal also found that Canadian Tire provided no clear
evidence other than oral assertions for why Koolatron’s success in the U.S. demonstrates that it is no longer vulnerable in Canada (Expiry Review at para. 90). I find that
the Tribunal’s finding on this point is reasonable, and based on sufficient
evidence.
[26]
Further, the applicant argues that the Tribunal failed
to focus on the near to medium term when assessing the likelihood of injury. The
Tribunal allegedly did not consider that at the time of the expiry review, the
applicant had already placed its orders for 2014, and hence was effectively
bound to purchase its thermoelectric containers from Mobicool for at least 15
months following the 2013 hearing. First, I note that the Tribunal was
cognizant of the fact “that the focus should be on
circumstances that can reasonably be expected to exist in the near to medium
term, which is generally considered to be 18 to 24 months from the expiry of a
finding or an order” (Expiry Review at para. 30). Second, the
applicant’s argument that it was bound to purchase from Mobicool is in fact contradicted
by the testimony of its own witness. [REDACTED] (Confidential AR, Vol. I, Tab
10 at 253). Third, the Tribunal noted that the applicant engages in annual
reviews of its product lines and that it has no written agreement with Mobicool
(Expiry Review at para. 72).
[27]
With respect to the Tribunal’s assessment of
whether the resumed dumping of the subject goods was likely to significantly
undercut, depress or suppress the prices of the like goods, the applicant
argues, among other things, that the Tribunal overemphasized the importance of
pricing for the applicant. This was allegedly evidenced when the Tribunal
determined that the applicant could appropriate to itself the “margin space” that the elimination of countervailing
duties would create, in an effort to realize higher margins. In my view, it was
open to the Tribunal to conclude as it did. Indeed, the applicant’s witness clearly
stated that price points and margins are two considerations—albeit of
many—that the applicant takes into account, and that price points can be
important (Expiry review at paras. 67, 72; Public AR, Vol. I, Tab 9 at p. 207).
[28]
In a related vein, the applicant argues that
the Tribunal failed to adequately consider the importance of non-price factors
to its purchase decisions. It is true that the Tribunal heard evidence that price
is not the only aspect considered by the applicant when sourcing its
products. Nevertheless, the Tribunal’s conclusion that price points are
important to the applicant does not negate the importance of non-price factors
in the applicant’s purchase decisions.
[29]
In sum, I conclude that the Tribunal adequately
considered the evidence before it, and that its conclusions were reasonable.
(3) Did
the Tribunal err by breaching certain procedural fairness entitlements owed to
the applicant?
[30]
Canadian Tire makes three procedural arguments.
First, it argues the Tribunal made a procedural error by not using its powers
to subpoena Chinese producers pursuant to section 20(1) of the Tribunal’s Rules.
I do not agree that this was a reviewable error. It is clear that the Chinese
producers invited to participate did not wish to do so. I also note that
nothing prevented the applicant from presenting evidence from Mobicool. In any
event, in order for this Court to arrive at a conclusion that the Tribunal made
a procedural error by not issuing subpoenas, it would first have to conclude
that the evidence before the Tribunal on the Chinese thermoelectric container
market was insufficient. The Tribunal made no such finding, and did not
indicate in its expiry review that it found the record as to Chinese producers
was inadequate.
[31]
The applicant also has the power to request that
the Tribunal issue subpoenas under section 20(1) of the Tribunal’s Rules. It
was open to Canadian Tire to request that the Tribunal issue subpoenas if it
felt that more evidence was required, and there is no evidence on the record
that it did so. Given that the applicant has this power, this issue would have
been more appropriately raised before the Tribunal at the time of the hearing,
while the Tribunal was hearing evidence, and not on judicial review (Johnson
v. Canada (AG), 2011 FCA 76 at para. 25, 414 N.R. 321).
[32]
Canadian Tire also argued that the Tribunal
refused its request for a Mobicool representative to participate as a witness.
The transcript of the hearing shows that this is factually inaccurate. Canadian
Tire explicitly stated that it did not want the Mobicool representative
to serve as a witness. Rather, it wanted the representative to be available to
the Canadian Tire witness to assist in answering questions. The Tribunal
rejected the applicant’s request on the basis that it would allow the Mobicool
representative to indirectly testify without being subject to cross-examination
(Expiry Review at para. 29). I find no error in this decision.
[33]
The applicant’s third procedural argument is
that the hearing was unreasonably compressed and that this served to further
minimize the scope of the record before the Tribunal. I do not accept this
argument. The parties submitted a large portion of their evidence through
written witness statements, which were adopted at the hearing. In addition, if
Canadian Tire felt that it needed more time at the hearing, it could have
raised this issue before the Tribunal. It did not do so. In fact, counsel for
the applicant stated during the expiry review hearing, and upon completing his
cross-examination of the respondent’s witness, that “[t]hose
[were] all [his] questions”. Confidential AR, Vol. I, Tab 10 at 249). The
same principle from Johnson v. Canada referenced above applies here:
Canadian Tire may not raise an issue of procedural fairness here that it could
have raised, and failed to raise, before the Tribunal.
VI.
Conclusion
[34]
For the foregoing reasons, I would
dismiss the application with costs.
"David G. Near"
“I agree.
Johanne Gauthier J.A.”
“I agree.
Wyman W. Webb J.A.”
Appendix
1
Legislative Framework
Special Import Measures Act
Section 2(1)
provides the statutory definitions for SIMA:
|
“domestic industry” means, other than for the purposes of section
31 and subject to subsection (1.1), the domestic producers as a whole of the
like goods or those domestic producers whose collective production of the
like goods constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of
the like goods except that, where a domestic producer is related to an
exporter or importer of dumped or subsidized goods, or is an importer of such
goods, “domestic industry” may be interpreted as meaning the rest of those
domestic producers;
|
« branche de production nationale » Sauf pour l’application de
l’article 31 et sous réserve du paragraphe (1.1), l’ensemble des producteurs
nationaux de marchandises similaires ou les producteurs nationaux dont la
production totale de marchandises similaires constitue une proportion majeure
de la production collective nationale des marchandises similaires. Peut
toutefois en être exclu le producteur national qui est lié à un exportateur
ou à un importateur de marchandises sous-évaluées ou subventionnées, ou qui
est lui-même un importateur de telles marchandises.
|
|
“dumped”, in relation to any goods, means that the normal value of
the goods exceeds the export price thereof;
|
« sous-évalué » Qualificatif de marchandises dont la valeur
normale est supérieure à leur prix à l’exportation.
|
|
…
|
[…]
|
|
“injury” means material injury to a domestic industry;
|
« dommage » Le dommage sensible causé à une branche de production
nationale.
|
|
…
|
[…]
|
|
“like goods”, in relation to any other goods, means
|
« marchandises similaires » Selon le cas :
|
|
(a) goods that are identical in all respects to the other goods,
or
|
a) marchandises identiques aux marchandises en cause;
|
|
(b) in the absence of any goods described in paragraph (a), goods
the uses and other characteristics of which closely resemble those of the
other goods;
|
b) à défaut, marchandises dont l’utilisation et les autres
caractéristiques sont très proches de celles des marchandises en cause.
|
|
…
|
[…]
|
|
“subsidized goods” means
|
« marchandises subventionnées » Les marchandises suivantes :
|
|
(a) goods in respect of the production, manufacture, growth,
processing, purchase, distribution, transportation, sale, export or import of
which a subsidy has been or will be paid, granted, authorized or otherwise
provided, directly or indirectly, by the government of a country other than
Canada, and
|
a) celles qui, à un stade quelconque de leur production ou de leur
commercialisation, ou lors de leur transport, de leur exportation ou de leur
importation, ont bénéficié ou bénéficieront, directement ou indirectement,
d’une subvention de la part du gouvernement d’un pays étranger;
|
|
(b) goods that are disposed of by the government of a country
other than Canada for less than fair market value,
|
b) celles qui sont écoulées par un gouvernement d’un pays étranger
à un prix inférieur à leur juste valeur marchande,
|
|
and includes any goods in which, or in the production,
manufacture, growth, processing or the like of which, goods described in
paragraph (a) or (b) are incorporated, consumed, used or otherwise employed;
|
en outre, celles dans la production ou la fabrication desquelles
entrent, se consomment ou sont autrement utilisées les marchandises visées à
l’alinéa a) ou b).
|
|
“subsidy” means
|
« subvention »
|
|
(a) a financial contribution by a government of a country other
than Canada in any of the circumstances outlined in subsection (1.6) that
confers a benefit to persons engaged in the production, manufacture, growth,
processing, purchase, distribution, transportation, sale, export or import of
goods, but does not include the amount of any duty or internal tax imposed by
the government of the country of origin or country of export on
|
a) Toute contribution financière du gouvernement d’un pays
étranger faite dans les circonstances exposées au paragraphe (1.6) qui
confère un avantage aux personnes se livrant à la production ou à la
commercialisation, à un stade quelconque, ou au transport de marchandises
données, ou à leur exportation ou importation. La présente définition exclut
le montant des droits ou des taxes internes imposés par le gouvernement du
pays d’origine ou d’exportation :
|
|
(i) goods that, because of their exportation from the country of
export or country of origin, have been exempted or have been or will be
relieved by means of remission, refund or drawback,
|
(i) sur des marchandises qui, en raison de leur exportation du
pays d’exportation ou d’origine, en ont été exonérées ou en ont été ou en
seront libérées par remise, remboursement ou drawback,
|
|
(ii) energy, fuel, oil and catalysts that are used or consumed in
the production of exported goods and that have been exempted or have been or
will be relieved by means of remission, refund or drawback, or
|
(ii) sur l’énergie, les combustibles, l’huile et les catalyseurs
utilisés ou consommés dans le cadre de la production de marchandises
exportées et qui en ont été exonérés ou en ont été ou en seront libérés par
remise, remboursement ou drawback,
|
|
(iii) goods incorporated into exported goods and that have been
exempted or have been or will be relieved by means of remission, refund or
drawback, or
|
(iii) sur des marchandises qui entrent dans la fabrication de
marchandises exportées et qui en ont été exonérées ou en ont été ou en seront
libérées par remise, remboursement ou drawback;
|
|
(b) any form of income or price support within the meaning of
Article XVI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1994, being part
of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement, that confers a benefit;
|
b) toute forme de soutien du revenu ou des prix, au sens de
l’article XVI de l’Accord général sur les tarifs douaniers et le commerce de
1994 figurant à l’annexe 1A de l’Accord sur l’OMC, qui confère un avantage
|
|
…
|
[…]
|
The Tribunal conducts expiry reviews
pursuant to section 76.03 of SIMA:
|
76.03 (1) If the Tribunal has not initiated an expiry review under
subsection (3) with respect to an order or finding described in any of
sections 3 to 6 before the expiry of five years after whichever of the
following days is applicable, the order or finding is deemed to have been
rescinded as of the expiry of the five years:
|
76.03 (1) À défaut de réexamen relatif à l’expiration aux termes
du paragraphe (3), l’ordonnance ou les conclusions sont réputées annulées à
l’expiration de cinq ans suivant :
|
|
(a) if no order continuing the order or finding has been made
under paragraph (12)(b), the day on which the order or finding was made; and
|
a) la date de l’ordonnance ou des conclusions, si aucune
ordonnance de prorogation n’a été rendue en vertu de l’alinéa (12)b);
|
|
(b) if one or more orders continuing the order or finding have
been made under paragraph (12)(b), the day on which the last order was made.
|
b) la date de la dernière ordonnance de prorogation, dans les
autres cas.
|
|
…
|
[…]
|
|
(6) If the Tribunal decides to initiate an expiry review, it shall
without delay
|
(6) Lorsque le Tribunal décide de procéder au réexamen relatif à
l’expiration, il doit sans délai :
|
|
(a) cause notice of the Tribunal’s decision to be given to
(i) the President, and
(ii) all other persons and governments specified in the rules of
the Tribunal;
|
a) fournir un avis de la décision au président et à toute autre
personne ou à un gouvernement que peuvent préciser ses règles;
|
|
(b) provide the President with a copy of the administrative record
on which it based its decision to initiate a review under subsection (3); and
|
b) fournir au président copie du dossier administratif sur lequel
il a fondé sa décision de procéder au réexamen;
|
|
(c) cause to be published in the Canada Gazette notice of
initiation of the review that includes the information set out in the rules
of the Tribunal.
|
c) faire paraître dans la Gazette du Canada un avis de réexamen
qui renferme les renseignements mentionnés dans les règles du Tribunal.
|
|
(7) If the Tribunal decides to initiate an expiry review, the
President shall
|
(7) Lorsque le Tribunal décide de procéder au réexamen relatif à
l’expiration, le président :
a) dans les cent vingt jours de la réception de l’avis prévu à
l’alinéa (6)
|
|
(a) within one hundred and twenty days after receiving notice
under subparagraph (6)(a)(i), determine whether the expiry of the order or
finding in respect of goods of a country or countries is likely to result in
the continuation or resumption of dumping or subsidizing of the goods; and
|
a), décide si l’expiration de l’ordonnance ou des conclusions
concernant les marchandises d’un ou de plusieurs pays causera
vraisemblablement la poursuite ou la reprise du dumping ou du
subventionnement des marchandises;
|
|
(b) provide the Tribunal with notice of the determination without
delay after making it.
|
b) avise sans délai le Tribunal de sa décision.
|
|
…
|
[…]
|
|
(9) If the President determines that the expiry of the order or
finding in respect of any goods is likely to result in a continuation or
resumption of dumping or subsidizing, the President shall without delay
provide the Tribunal with any information and material with respect to the
matter that is required under the rules of the Tribunal.
|
(9) Dans le cas contraire, le président fournit sans délai au
Tribunal tous les renseignements et pièces qu’exigent les règles de celui-ci.
|
|
(10) If the President makes a determination described in
subsection (9), the Tribunal shall determine whether the expiry of the order
or finding in respect of the goods referred to in that subsection is likely
to result in injury or retardation.
|
(10) Sur décision prise par le président au titre du paragraphe
(9), le Tribunal décide si l’expiration de l’ordonnance ou des conclusions à
l’égard de ces marchandises causera vraisemblablement un dommage ou un
retard.
|
|
(11) For the purpose of subsection (10), the Tribunal shall make
an assessment of the cumulative effect of the dumping or subsidizing of goods
to which the determination of the President described in subsection (9)
applies that are imported into Canada from more than one country if the
Tribunal is satisfied that an assessment of the cumulative effect would be
appropriate taking into account the conditions of competition between goods
to which the order or finding applies that are imported into Canada from any
of those countries and
|
(11) Pour l’application du paragraphe (10), le Tribunal évalue les
effets cumulatifs du dumping ou du subventionnement des marchandises
importées au Canada en provenance de plus d’un pays et visées par la décision
prise par le président au titre du paragraphe (9), s’il est convaincu qu’une
telle évaluation est indiquée, compte tenu des conditions de concurrence
entre les marchandises visées par l’ordonnance ou les conclusions et
importées au Canada d’un de ces pays, et :
|
|
(a) goods to which the order or finding applies that are imported
into Canada from any other of those countries; or
|
a) soit celles visées par l’ordonnance ou les conclusions et
importées au Canada en provenance d’un autre de ces pays;
|
|
(b) like goods of domestic producers.
|
b) soit celles similaires des producteurs nationaux.
|
|
(12) The Tribunal shall make an order
|
(12) Le Tribunal rend une ordonnance en vue :
|
|
(a) rescinding the order or finding in respect of goods
(i) referred to in subsection (8), or
(ii) in respect of which it determines that the expiry of the
order or finding is unlikely to result in injury or retardation; or
|
a) soit d’annuler l’ordonnance ou les conclusions à l’égard des
marchandises visées au paragraphe (8) ou de celles pour lesquelles
l’expiration de l’ordonnance ou des conclusions ne causera vraisemblablement
pas de dommage ou de retard;
|
|
(b) continuing the order or finding, with or without amendment, in
respect of goods which it determines that the expiry of the order or finding
is likely to result in injury or retardation.
|
b) soit de proroger l’ordonnance ou les conclusions avec ou sans
modifications à l’égard des marchandises pour lesquelles l’expiration de
l’ordonnance ou des conclusions causera vraisemblablement un dommage ou un
retard.
|
Special Import
Measures Regulations
Section
37.2(2) of the Regulations lists the factors the Tribunal may consider
in an expiry review:
|
(2) In making a determination under subsection 76.03(10) of the
Act, the Tribunal may consider
|
(2) Pour prendre la décision visée au paragraphe 76.03(10) de la
Loi, le Tribunal peut prendre en compte les facteurs suivants :
|
|
(a) the likely volume of the dumped or subsidized goods if the
order or finding is allowed to expire, and, in particular, whether there is
likely to be a significant increase in the volume of imports of the dumped or
subsidized goods, either in absolute terms or relative to the production or
consumption of like goods;
|
a) le volume probable des marchandises sous-évaluées ou
subventionnées advenant l’expiration de l’ordonnance ou des conclusions, et
tout particulièrement le fait qu’une augmentation importante du volume des
importations des marchandises sous-évaluées ou subventionnées, soit en
quantité absolue, soit par rapport à la production ou à la consommation de
marchandises similaires, est vraisemblable ou non;
|
|
(b) the likely prices of the dumped or subsidized goods if the
order or finding is allowed to expire and their effect on the prices of like
goods, and, in particular, whether the dumping or subsidizing of goods is
likely to significantly undercut the prices of like goods, depress those
prices, or suppress them by preventing increases in those prices that would likely
have otherwise occurred;
|
b) les prix probables des marchandises sous-évaluées ou
subventionnées advenant l’expiration de l’ordonnance ou des conclusions et
leur incidence sur les prix de marchandises similaires, et tout
particulièrement le fait que le dumping ou le subventionnement entraînera
vraisemblablement ou non, de façon marquée, soit la sous-cotation des prix
des marchandises similaires, soit la baisse de ces prix, soit la compression
de ceux-ci en empêchant les augmentations de prix qui autrement se seraient
vraisemblablement produites pour ces marchandises;
|
|
(c) the likely performance of the domestic industry, taking into
account that industry’s recent performance, including trends in production,
capacity utilization, employment levels, prices, sales, inventories, market
share, exports and profits;
|
c) le rendement probable de la branche de production nationale,
compte tenu de son rendement récent, y compris les tendances de la
production, de l’utilisation de la capacité, des niveaux d’emploi, des prix,
des ventes, des stocks, de la part de marché, des exportations et des
bénéfices;
|
|
(d) the likely performance of the foreign industry, taking into
account that industry’s recent performance, including trends in production,
capacity utilization, employment levels, prices, sales, inventories, market
share, exports and profits;
|
d) le rendement probable de la branche de production étrangère,
compte tenu de son rendement récent, y compris les tendances de la
production, de l’utilisation de la capacité, des niveaux d’emploi, des prix,
des ventes, des stocks, de la part de marché, des exportations et des
bénéfices;
|
|
(e) the likely impact of the dumped or subsidized goods on
domestic industry if the order or finding is allowed to expire, having regard
to all relevant economic factors and indices, including any potential decline
in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments
or utilization of production capacity, and any potential negative effects on
cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth or the ability to raise
capital;
|
e) l’incidence probable des marchandises sous-évaluées ou
subventionnées sur la branche de production nationale advenant l’expiration
de l’ordonnance ou des conclusions, eu égard à l’ensemble des facteurs et
indices économiques pertinents, y compris tout déclin potentiel de la
production, des ventes, de la part de marché, des bénéfices, de la
productivité, du rendement du capital investi ou de l’utilisation de la
capacité de la production, ainsi que toute incidence négative potentielle sur
les liquidités, les stocks, les emplois, les salaires, la croissance ou la
capacité de financement;
|
|
(f) the potential for the foreign producers to produce the goods
in facilities that are currently used to produce other goods;
|
f) la possibilité pour les producteurs étrangers de produire les
marchandises dans des installations servant actuellement à la production
d’autres marchandises;
|
|
(g) the potential negative effects of the dumped or subsidized
goods on existing development and production efforts, including efforts to
produce a derivative or more advanced version of like goods;
|
g) l’incidence négative potentielle des marchandises sous-évaluées
ou subventionnées sur les efforts déployés pour le développement et la
production, y compris ceux déployés pour produire une version modifiée ou
améliorée de marchandises similaires;
|
|
(h) evidence of the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing
measures by the authorities in a country other than Canada in respect of goods of the same description or in respect of similar goods;
|
h) la preuve de l’imposition de mesures antidumping ou
compensatoires par les autorités d’un pays autre que le Canada sur des
marchandises de même description ou des marchandises semblables;
|
|
(i) whether measures taken by the authorities in a country other
than Canada are likely to cause a diversion of the dumped or subsidized goods
into Canada;
|
i) le fait que les mesures prises par les autorités d’un pays
autre que le Canada causeront vraisemblablement ou non une réaffectation au
Canada des marchandises sous-évaluées ou subventionnées;
|
|
(j) any changes in market conditions domestically or
internationally, including changes in the supply of and demand for the goods,
as well as any changes in trends and in sources of imports into Canada; and
|
j) tout changement des conditions du marché à l’échelle nationale
et internationale, y compris les variations de l’offre et de la demande des
marchandises, ainsi que tout changement des tendances et des sources des
importations au Canada;
|
|
(k) any other factor pertaining to the current or likely behaviour
or state of the domestic or international economy, market for goods or
industry as a whole or in relation to individual producers, exporters,
brokers or traders.
|
k) tout autre facteur relatif au comportement ou à l’état actuel
ou probable, à l’échelle nationale ou internationale, de l’économie, du
marché des marchandises ou de la branche de production dans son ensemble ou à
l’égard d’un producteur, d’un exportateur, d’un courtier ou d’un négociant en
particulier.
|
Canadian
International Trade Tribunal Rules
Section 20(1)
authorizes the Tribunal to issue subpoenas by its own initiative or at the
request of a party:
|
20. (1) The Tribunal may, on its own initiative or at the request of
any party, summon before it by subpoena any person to attend a hearing and
require that person to give evidence on oath or affirmation and to produce
documents or other things.
|
20. (1) Le Tribunal peut, de son propre chef
ou à la demande d’une partie, assigner une personne à comparaître à une
audience et requérir qu’elle dépose sous serment ou affirmation solennelle et
produise des documents ou autres objets.
|
Email this Content