Date:
20060524
Docket: A-527-04
Citation: 2006 FCA 197
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
DÉCARY
J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
SPECTRA PREMIUM INDUSTRIES
INC.
Applicant
and
SPARKLE DEVELOPMENTS
LTD./MINTAR INTERNATIONAL CORP./
ZHONGSHAN TIANYI AUTO PARTS AND HARDWARE
WORKS/
MINTAR AUTO INDUSTRIES COMPANY, RACO
MANAGEMENT CO. LTD.,
FINELINE FUEL SYSTEMS INC., LINDSAY AUTO
SALES,
RELIABLE AUTOMOTIVE DISTRIBUTING,
CROSS CANADA AUTO BODY SUPPLY (WINDSOR) LIMITED
Respondents
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 24, 2006.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 24, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: RICHARD
C.J.
Date:
20060524
Docket: A-527-04
Citation: 2006
FCA 197
CORAM: RICHARD
C.J.
DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL
J.A.
BETWEEN:
SPECTRA PREMIUM INDUSTRIES
INC.
Applicant
and
SPARKLE DEVELOPMENTS LTD./MINTAR
INTERNATIONAL CORP./
ZHONGSHAN TIANYI AUTO PARTS AND HARDWARE
WORKS/
MINTAR AUTO INDUSTRIES COMPANY, RACO
MANAGEMENT CO. LTD.,
FINELINE FUEL SYSTEMS INC., LINDSAY AUTO
SALES,
RELIABLE AUTOMOTIVE DISTRIBUTING,
CROSS CANADA AUTO BODY SUPPLY (WINDSOR) LIMITED
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT
(Delivered
from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 24, 2006)
RICHARD C.J.
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) of August 31, 2004 in CITT Inquiry
No. NQ-2004-002.
[2]
The
Tribunal conducted an inquiry, under the provisions of section 42 of the Special
Import Measures Act (the Act), to determine whether the dumping in Canada
of new steel fuel tanks, gasoline or diesel, for passenger cars and light
trucks, for the replacement market, originating in or exported from the
People’s Republic of China and Chinese Taipei has caused injury or retardation
or is threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry.
[3]
Pursuant
to subsection 43(1) of the Act, the Tribunal found that the dumping in Canada of the
aforementioned goods has not caused injury and is not threatening to cause
injury to the domestic industry.
[4]
The
Tribunal concluded that:
… the injury due to price erosion and
price suppression, however caused, was not material. The remainder of the
injury, caused by declining sales volume and the consequent impact on SPI’s
financial performance, was primarily attributable to factors other than
dumping. Any portion of this injury that could be attributable to dumping is
not material.
[5]
In
our view, the Tribunal was entitled to take into account the commercial
behaviour of the domestic industry in reaching its conclusion.
[6]
This
suffices to dispose of the application.
[7]
Accordingly,
the application for judicial review will be dismissed with a single set of
costs to the respondents.
“J.
Richard”
Email this Content