Section
2
defines
“like
goods”
as
follows:
In
the
case
at
bar
the
exporter,
SPF,
sold
some
identical
goods
in
its
domestic
market
(Italy)
but
to
an
associatied
purchaser.
It
also
had
sales
of
goods
which
“closely
resemble”
them
to
arm’s
length
domestic
customers.
The
Tribunal
took
the
view
that
the
latter
sales
were
sales
of
like
goods
for
the
purposes
of
Section
15.
We
think
it
was
in
error
to
do
so.
Section
15
is
stated
to
be
subject
to
Section
19.
It
is
clear
from
a
reading
of
the
latter
and
of
the
applicable
Regulation
made
thereunder
that
where
there
are
“identical”
goods
which
cannot
be
used
for
the
determination
of
normal
value
under
Section
15
it
was
intended
that
the
calculation
should
be
made
pursuant
to
the
later
numbered
sections.
The
relevant
provisions
read:
Special
Import
Measures
Act
19.
Subject
to
section
20,
where
the
normal
value
of
any
goods
cannot
be
determined
under
section
15
by
reason
that
there
was
not,
in
the
opinion
of
the
Deputy
Minister,
such
a
number
of
sales
of
like
goods
that
comply
with
all
the
terms
and
conditions
referred
to
in
that
section
or
that
are
applicable
by
virtue
of
subsection
16(1)
as
to
permit
a
proper
comparison
with
the
sale
of
the
goods
to
the
importer,
the
normal
value
of
the
goods
shall
be
determined,
at
the
option
of
the
Deputy
Minister
in
any
case
or
class
of
cases,
as
...
(b)
the
aggregate
of
(i)
the
costs
of
production
of
the
goods,
(ii)
an
amount
for
administrative,
selling
and
all
other
costs,
and
(iii)
an
amount
for
profits.
Special
Import
Measures
Regulations
11:
For
the
purposes
of
paragraph
19(b)
and
subparagraph
20(c)(ii)
of
the
Act...
(b)
subject
to
section
13
of
these
Regulations,
the
expression
“an
amount
for
profits”,
in
relation
to
any
goods,
means
an
amount
equal
to
(i)
where
there
are
a
number
of
sales
of
like
goods
made
by
the
exporter
which,
taken
together,
produce
a
profit
and
are
such
as
to
permit
a
proper
comparison,
the
weighted
average
profit
made
on
such
sales,
(ii)
where
subparagraph
(i)
is
not
applicable
but
there
are
a
number
of
sales
of
goods
of
the
same
general
category
as
the
goods
sold
to
the
importer
in
Canada
made
by
the
exporter
which,
taken
together,
produce
a
profit
and
are
such
as
to
permit
a
proper
comparison,
the
weighted
average
profit
made
on
such
sales,
(iii)
where
subparagraphs
(i)
and
(ii)
are
not
applicable
but
there
are
a
number
of
sales
of
like
goods
made
by
other
producers
located
in
the
country
of
export
which,
taken
together,
produce
a
profit
and
are
such
as
to
permit
a
proper
comparison,
the
weighted
average
profit
made
on
such
sales,
(iv)
where
subparagraphs
(i)
to
(iii)
are
not
applicable
but
there
are
a
number
of
sales
of
goods
of
the
same
general
category
as
the
goods
sold
to
the
importer
in
Canada
made
by
other
producers
located
in
the
country
of
export
which,
taken
together,
produce
a
profit
and
are
such
as
to
permit
a
proper
comparison,
the
weighted
average
profit
made
on
such
sales,
or
(v)
where
subparagraphs
(i)
to
(iv)
are
not
applicable,
8
per
cent
of
the
sum
of
(A)
the
cost
of
production
of
the
goods,
and
(B)
the
amount
for
administrative,
selling
and
all
other
costs,
as
determined
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(c),
in
relation
to
the
goods;
and
...
In
the
present
case
the
Deputy
Minister
purported
to
determine
normal
value
under
Section
19
and
to
calculate
an
“amount
for
profits”
pursuant
to
Regulation
11
(b)(iii).
The
importer
contested
the
amount
so
calculated,
but
not
the
applicability
of
Section
19
and
Regulation
11.
In
such
circumstances
there
was
thus
no
evidence
before
the
Tribunal
on
which
a
finding
of
normal
value
under
Section
15
could
have
been
made.
The
issue
before
the
Tribunal
was
solely
whether
the
evidence
justified
the
Deputy
Minister’s
reliance
on
paragraph
ll(b)iii.
That
is
an
issue
that
requires
findings
of
fact
that
only
the
Tribunal
can
make.
It
having
failed
to
do
so,
the
matter
will
be
returned
to
it
for
redetermination.
Email this Content