|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
            
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS
Download full document in MS Word format, compressed - zip (82K) through FTP Download full document in Adobe Acrobat format (184K) through FTP Download full document in MS Word format, compressed - zip (82K) through HTTP Download full document in Adobe Acrobat format (184K) through HTTP June 7, 2006 The Honourable Jim Flaherty, P.C., M.P. Dear Minister: I have the honour of transmitting to you, for tabling in the House of Commons, pursuant to section 41 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the Tribunal’s annual report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006. Yours sincerely, Pierre Gosselin Chapter IHighlightsMembersOn October 24, 2005, Ms. Elaine Feldman was appointed Vice-chairperson of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal). Prior to her appointment, she served as Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations, with the Department of International Trade. During her time in this position, she served as chief negotiator for Canada for the establishment of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. She was also responsible for the management of the Canada-United States softwood lumber dispute. Prior to this, she held a number of senior positions in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, including Minister and Deputy Permanent Representative of Canada to the World Trade Organization (WTO) from 1995 to 2000 and Director General of the Export and Import Controls Bureau from 2001to 2003. On January 31, 2006, Mr. Serge Fréchette was appointed Vice-chairperson of the Tribunal. He is a lawyer who specializes in international trade and regulatory affairs. A former senior official with the departments of Justice and Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Mr. Fréchette was involved in negotiations of various international trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. He represented Canada and other parties in several matters before the WTO. He has also served as an adjunct professor of law at the University of Ottawa, and he operated his own law firm that specialized in international trade matters prior to his appointment. During the fiscal year, the terms of Dr. Patricia M. Close and Mr. Richard Lafontaine expired. The Tribunal would like to take this opportunity to recognize the valuable contribution that these former vice-chairpersons made to the Tribunal’s work. They brought considerable expertise, handled a large number of cases and were innovative in their approaches. As vice-chairpersons, their experiences, their thoroughness and their leadership will be missed. Dumping and Subsidizing Inquiries and ReviewsIn the fiscal year, the Tribunal issued one preliminary determination of injury under subsection 37.1(1) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA). The Tribunal also issued one injury finding following an inquiry under section 42. The Tribunal issued one order following an interim review pursuant to section 76.01. The Tribunal issued seven orders following reviews under section 76.03. At the end of the fiscal year, one inquiry and two expiry reviews were in progress. Safeguards InquiriesSince its establishment, the Tribunal has received few safeguard complaints. This year, however, it received three such complaints. Following the receipt of two global safeguard complaints filed by the Canadian Bicycle Manufacturers Association (CBMA) and the referral by the Governor in Council for a remedy proposal, the Tribunal joined the two complaints and completed a global safeguard inquiry, issued a determination and made a remedy recommendation to the Government. The Tribunal also commenced a global safeguard inquiry into the importation of unmanufactured bright Virginia flue-cured tobacco. It was terminated upon receipt of a notice from the producers that they would no longer be participating in the inquiry. As part of its protocol of accession to the WTO in 2001, the People’s Republic of China (China) agreed to the establishment of a special safeguard mechanism to deal with instances of market disruption and trade diversion. In 2002, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act (CITT Act) was amended to incorporate these provisions into Canadian law. The Tribunal received three safeguard complaints with respect to imports from China during the fiscal year. The Tribunal completed a safeguard inquiry into one case, barbeques, and made a remedy recommendation to the Government in accordance with the referral from the Governor in Council. The Tribunal also determined that the complaint concerning residential furniture failed to comply with the content requirements of the CITT Act and that, accordingly, it would not proceed to the stage of determining whether an inquiry should be initiated. The third complaint, with respect to apparel products, was still under consideration at the end of the fiscal year. AppealsThe Tribunal issued decisions on 47 appeals from decisions of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) (now the CBSA) and the Minister of National Revenue made under the Customs Act and the Excise Tax Act. Procurement ReviewIn 1994, following the implementation of NAFTA, the Government mandated the Tribunal as its reviewing body for bid challenges. The mandate was expanded with inclusion of a bid challenge mechanism in both the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (AGP) and Canada’s own Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT). As Canada moves into the eighteenth year of procurement review, it is important to emphasize some key principles. Truly competitive procurement processes require open bidding, clear procedures and transparent criteria for selection. By so doing, the process enhances the integrity of the procurement system in Canada, invigorates the delivery of government services and translates into savings for the taxpayer. One of the intended purposes of the recently introduced Federal Accountability Act is to ensure that the bidding process for government contracts be fair, open and transparent. Along the same lines, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, and its successor, NAFTA, required that Canada adopt and maintain bid challenge procedures for procurement in order to promote fair, open and impartial procurement procedures. The formal process of procurement review at the Tribunal allows Canada to meet these obligations, as well as similar ones under the AGP and the AIT. For procurements covered by these agreements, the Tribunal, in line with the objectives of the new Federal Accountability Act, has provided suppliers with an effective means of redress whenever they felt procurement actions were not conducted in a fair, open and transparent manner. The Tribunal received 58 complaints during the fiscal year. The Tribunal issued 14 determinations of its findings and recommendations. Five of these determinations related to cases that were in progress at the end of fiscal year 2004-2005. One determination was remanded to the Tribunal. In 2005-2006, the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) alone issued approximately 20,250 contracts valued at between $25,000 and $100 million, for a total value of $8.928 billion. The 58 complaints received in the fiscal year pertained to 57 different contracts, representing less than 1 percent of the total number of contracts issued by PWGSC in 2005-2006. Economic, Trade and Tariff ReferencesThe Tribunal completed one tariff reference during the fiscal year, and one was in progress at year-end. On January 10, 2005, the Tribunal was directed by the Minister of Finance to inquire into and report on the availability of fibres and yarns produced by Canadian manufacturers and on the availability of fabrics produced by Canadian manufacturers for use in the production of apparel contained in Chapters 39, 40, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60 and 70. The Tribunal published its report on June 30, 2005, proposing a tariff structure that would result in the elimination of duties on 341 tariff items, with an estimated value of $690 million during the two-year period of investigation. Two hundred and fifty tariff items remained dutiable. On October 27, 2005, the Tribunal was directed by the Minister of Finance to inquire into and report on the availability from Canadian production of apparel fabrics classified under certain tariff items in the Customs Tariff. In his letter, the Minister of Finance noted that, in its previous inquiry, the Tribunal did not receive sufficiently detailed production information to enable it to make tariff relief recommendations on a number of tariff items that contain a wide variety of products. For 12 of these tariff items, the Minister of Finance asked the Tribunal to carry out additional inquiry. On November 23, 2005, the Minister of Finance further directed the Tribunal, where appropriate, in identifying new eight-digit tariff items, to ensure that the scope of the product descriptions reflects market realities by considering the nature of the competition between products in the marketplace and the imminent production of any fabric. The Tribunal completed the preliminary information-gathering phase of the inquiry on February 2, 2006, and plans to issue its report by April 27, 2006. Textile ReferenceIn 1994, the Minister of Finance established a standing reference that mandated the Tribunal to investigate requests from domestic producers for tariff relief on imported textile inputs for use in their manufacturing operations and to make recommendations to the Minister of Finance. During the fiscal year, the Tribunal issued one report to the Minister of Finance concerning one request for tariff relief. There were no cases outstanding at the end of the fiscal year. Access to Tribunal Notices, Decisions and PublicationsThe Tribunal’s Web site provides an exhaustive repository of all Tribunal notices, decisions and publications, as well as other information relating to the Tribunal’s current activities. The Tribunal offers a subscriber alert service that notifies subscribers of each new posting on the Tribunal’s Web site. Subscribers can choose their areas of interest. This service is available without charge. Tribunal notices and decisions are also published in the Canada Gazette. Those relating to procurement complaints are also published on MERX (Canada’s electronic tendering service). Meeting Statutory Deadlines (Timeliness)All the Tribunal’s inquiries were completed on time, and decisions were issued within the statutory deadlines. For appeals of customs and excise decisions that are not subject to statutory deadlines, the Tribunal usually issues, within 120 days of the hearing, a decision on the matter in dispute, including the reasons for its decision. Caseload
Chapter IIMandate, Organization and ActivitiesIntroductionThe Tribunal is an administrative tribunal operating within Canada’s trade remedies system. It is an independent quasi-judicial body that carries out its statutory responsibilities in an autonomous and impartial manner and reports to Parliament through the Minister of Finance. The main legislation governing the work of the Tribunal is the CITT Act, SIMA, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Regulations, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Rules (Rules). MandateThe Tribunal’s primary mandate is to: • inquire into whether dumped or subsidized imports have caused, or are threatening to cause, injury to a domestic industry; • inquire into complaints by domestic producers that increased imports from all sources are causing, or threatening to cause, serious injury to domestic producers; • conduct safeguard inquiries with respect to increased imports from China; • hear appeals from decisions of the CBSA made under the Customs Act and SIMA or of the Minister of National Revenue under the Excise Tax Act; • inquire into complaints by potential suppliers concerning federal government procurement that is covered by NAFTA, the AIT and the AGP; • investigate requests from Canadian producers for tariff relief on imported textile inputs used in production operations and to make recommendations to the Minister of Finance on the relative benefits to Canada of the requests; and • inquire into and provide advice on such economic, trade and tariff issues as are referred to the Tribunal by the Governor in Council or the Minister of Finance.
Method of OperationIn carrying out most of its inquiry responsibilities, the Tribunal conducts hearings that are open to the public. These are normally held at the Tribunal’s offices in Ottawa, Ontario, although hearings may also be held elsewhere in Canada, in person or through videoconferencing. The Tribunal has rules and procedures similar to those of a court of law; however, to facilitate access, these are not as formal or strict. The CITT Act states that hearings, generally conducted by a panel of three members, should be carried out as “informally and expeditiously” as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit. The Tribunal has the power to subpoena witnesses and require parties to submit information. The CITT Act contains provisions for the protection of confidential information. Only independent counsel who have filed declarations and confidentiality undertakings may have access to confidential information. Protecting commercially sensitive information against unauthorized disclosure has been, and continues to be, of paramount importance to the Tribunal. MembershipThe Tribunal may be composed of nine full-time members, including a Chairperson and two Vice-chairpersons, who are appointed by the Governor in Council for a term of up to five years that is renewable once. The Chairperson is the Chief Executive Officer responsible for the assignment of members and for the management of the Tribunal’s work. Members come from a variety of educational backgrounds, careers and regions of the country. OrganizationThere are currently 7 Tribunal members assisted by a permanent staff of 87 persons. Its principal officers are the Secretary, responsible for relations with the public and parties, and the court registry functions of the Tribunal; the Director General of Research, responsible for the investigative portion of inquiries, for the economic and financial analysis of firms and industries and for other fact finding required for Tribunal inquiries; the General Counsel, responsible for the provision of legal services; and the Director of Management Services, responsible for corporate management.
*Term expired during the fiscal year. ConsultationsThrough the Bench and Bar Committee (Tribunal-Canadian Bar Association), the Tribunal provides a forum to promote discussion with the bar on issues of importance. The committee also includes representatives from the trade consulting community. The Tribunal consults with bar associations, representatives of industries and others that appear or are likely to appear before the Tribunal to exchange views on new procedures being considered by the Tribunal prior to their distribution as guidelines or practice notices. The Tribunal also briefs federal government departments and trade associations on its procedures. Judicial Reviews and Appeals to the Federal Court of AppealAny person affected by Tribunal findings or orders under section 43, 44 or 76 of SIMA can request a judicial review by the Federal Court of Appeal, for instance, on grounds of alleged denial of natural justice and error of fact or law. Similarly, any person affected by Tribunal procurement orders or determinations under the CITT Act can request a judicial review by the Federal Court of Appeal. Lastly, Tribunal appeal orders and decisions, under the Customs Act, SIMA or the Excise Tax Act, can be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal or the Federal Court. Judicial Review by NAFTA Binational PanelTribunal findings or orders under section 43, 44 or 76 of SIMA involving goods from the United States and Mexico may be reviewed by a NAFTA binational panel. WTO Dispute ResolutionGovernments that are members of the WTO may challenge Tribunal injury findings or orders in dumping and countervailing duty cases before the WTO dispute settlement bodies. This is initiated by intergovernmental consultations. Chapter IIIDumping and Subsidizing Injury Inquiries and ReviewsProcessUnder SIMA, the CBSA may impose anti-dumping and countervailing duties if domestic producers are injured by imports of goods into Canada: • at prices lower than sales in the home market or 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 InquiriesA 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 the 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 domestic producers comprise the domestic industry. In most cases, it does not issue questionnaires or hold a public hearing. The Tribunal completes its inquiry 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 no later than 15 days after its determination. Preliminary Injury Inquiries Completed in the Fiscal YearThe Tribunal completed one preliminary injury inquiry in the fiscal year. The following table summarizes the Tribunal’s preliminary injury inquiry activities during the fiscal year.
Advice Given Under Section 37 of SIMAWhen the CBSA decides not to initiate an investigation because the evidence does not disclose a reasonable indication that the dumping or subsidizing of the goods has caused injury or retardation, or threatens to cause injury, the CBSA or the complainant may, under section 33 of SIMA, refer the matter to the Tribunal for an opinion as to whether or not the evidence before the CBSA discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping or subsidizing has caused injury or retardation or is threatening to cause injury to a domestic industry. Section 37 of SIMA requires the Tribunal to render its advice within 30 days. The Tribunal makes its decision, without holding a public hearing, on the basis of the information before the CBSA when the decision regarding initiation was reached. There were no references under section 33 of SIMA during the fiscal year. Final Injury InquiriesIf 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 to 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 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’s staff carries out extensive research for each inquiry. The Tribunal sends questionnaires to domestic producers, importers, purchasers and foreign producers. Based primarily on questionnaire responses, the Tribunal’s staff prepares a report that focuses on the factors that the Tribunal considers in arriving at decisions regarding 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 conduct 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 may 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 production, sales, market shares, profits, employment and utilization of production capacity. The Tribunal holds a public hearing about 90 days after the commencement of the inquiry, usually starting once the CBSA has made a final determination of dumping or subsidizing. At the public hearing, domestic 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 and exporters challenge the domestic 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 about the industry and market in question. Under certain circumstances, parties may seek exclusions from the effects 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 by the CBSA. It has an additional 15 days to issue a statement of reasons supporting its finding. A Tribunal finding of injury or retardation or threat of injury to a domestic industry is the legal authority for the CBSA to impose anti-dumping or countervailing duties. Final Injury Inquiries Completed in the Fiscal YearThe Tribunal completed one final injury inquiry in the fiscal year. It concerned Laminate Flooring (NQ-2004-006). In 2004, the estimated value of the Canadian market for laminate flooring was $375 million. NQ-2004-006—Laminate FlooringThis inquiry concerned dumped imports from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Poland and dumped and subsidized imports from China. In the CBSA’s final determination of dumping and subsidizing, it terminated its dumping investigation regarding imports from Austria, Belgium, Germany and Poland due to insignificant margins of dumping. Uniboard Surfaces Inc. constituted the domestic industry. The Tribunal found that the domestic industry was materially injured in terms of lost sales volumes and the postponement of a major investment as a result of the growing volume of low-priced dumped imports from China and France and subsidized imports from China that entered the Canadian market during the period of inquiry. Final Injury Inquiries in Progress at the End of the Fiscal YearThere was one inquiry in progress at the end of the fiscal year, Grain Corn (NQ-2005-001). This inquiry concerns dumped and subsidized imports from the United Sates. The following table summarizes the Tribunal’s final injury inquiry activities during the fiscal year.
Public Interest Inquiry Under Section 45 of SIMAFollowing 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. It may decide that there are reasonable grounds to consider that the imposition of part or all of the duties may not be in the public interest. It 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 received no requests for a public interest inquiry during the fiscal year. Importer RulingUnder section 89 of SIMA, the CBSA may request the Tribunal to rule on the question as to which of two or more persons is the importer of goods on which anti-dumping or countervailing duties are payable. If the Tribunal identifies as the importer a person other than the one specified by the CBSA, it may reconsider its original finding of injury under section 91. There were no requests for an importer ruling in the fiscal year. Requests for Interim ReviewsThe 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). It commences an interim review where one is warranted and 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 that time. Interim Reviews Completed in the Fiscal YearThe Tribunal ruled on five requests for interim reviews, two of which were received in the fiscal year. Regarding Requests for Interim Review Nos. RD-2004-009, Fasteners, RD-2004-010, Dishwashers and Dryers, RD-2005-001, Leather Footwear With Metal Toe Caps, and RD-2005-002, Concrete Reinforcing Bar, the Tribunal determined that interim reviews were not warranted. On February 8, 2005, the Tribunal received a request for an interim review of its order made on October 18, 2002, in Expiry Review No. RR-2001-005 concerning waterproof rubber footwear. The applicant, Tracktion Canada Inc., requested the review for the exclusion of steel-studded over-the-shoe rubbers. On June 27, 2005, the Tribunal determined that an interim review was warranted. On August 18, 2005, it amended the order to exclude the product for which the exclusion had been requested. Interim Reviews in Progress at the End of the Fiscal YearThere were no interim reviews in progress and no requests for interim reviews under consideration at the end of the fiscal year. The following table summarizes the Tribunal’s interim review activities during the fiscal year.
Expiry ReviewsSubsection 76.03(1) of SIMA provides that a finding or order expires after five years, unless an expiry review has been initiated. No later than 10 months before the expiry date of the order or finding, the Secretary 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. The Tribunal initiates a review of the order or finding, as requested, if it determines that such a review is warranted. It then issues a notice of 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. During the fiscal year, the Tribunal issued five notices of expiry: LE-2005-001 (Garlic); LE-2005-002 (Concrete Reinforcing Bar); LE-2005-003 (Carbon Steel Welded Pipe); LE-2005-004 (Flat Hot-rolled Carbon and Alloy Steel Sheet and Strip); and LE-2005-005 (Leather Footwear). In Expiry No. LE-2005-002, Concrete Reinforcing Bar, the Tribunal received no request for a review of its finding made on June 1, 2001, in Inquiry No. NQ-2000-007. The Tribunal decided that a review of its finding was not warranted. The finding is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2006. In Expiry No. LE-2005-003, Carbon Steel Welded Pipe, the Tribunal received no request for a review of its order made on July 24, 2001, in Review No. RR-2000-002, continuing, with amendment, its order made on July 25, 1996, in Review No. RR-95-002, continuing, without amendment, its finding made on July 26, 1991, in Inquiry No. NQ-90-005, and its finding made on January 23, 1992, in Inquiry No. NQ-91-003. The Tribunal decided that a review of its order was not warranted. The order is scheduled to expire on July 23, 2006. 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 such likelihood does not exist 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 has been 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 YearIn the fiscal year, the Tribunal completed seven expiry reviews, all of which had been commenced in the previous fiscal year. On April 29, 2005, the Tribunal rescinded its order in Women’s Boots (RR-2004-002) respecting dumped imports from China. On June 3, 2005, the Tribunal rescinded its order in Carbon Steel Welded Pipe (RR-2004-003) respecting dumped imports from the Republic of Korea (Korea). On June 27, 2005, the Tribunal rescinded its finding in Hot-rolled Carbon Steel Plate (RR-2004-004) respecting dumped imports from Brazil, Finland and Ukraine, and dumped and subsidized imports from India, Indonesia and Thailand. On July 29, 2005, following the CBSA’s determination that the expiry of the findings would unlikely result in a continuation or resumption of dumping, the Tribunal rescinded its findings in Dishwashers and Dryers (RR-2004-005) respecting dumped imports from the United States. On September 12, 2005, the Tribunal continued its order in Whole Potatoes (RR-2004-006) respecting dumped imports from the United States, with an amendment to exclude red potatoes, yellow potatoes and the exotic potato varieties, regardless of packaging, and white and russet potatoes imported in 50-lb. cartons in the following count sizes: 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80. On November 2, 2005, the Tribunal continued its orders in Refined Sugar (RR-2004-007) respecting dumped imports from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States and subsidized imports from the European Union, with an amendment to exclude individually wrapped rectangular cane sugar tablets. On December 7, 2005, the Tribunal continued its finding in Waterproof Footwear and Bottoms (RR-2004-008) respecting dumped imports from China. Expiry Reviews in Progress at the End of the Fiscal YearThere were two expiry reviews in progress at the end of the fiscal year. On January 25, 2006, the Tribunal issued a notice of determination (RR-2005-001) with respect to the expiry of the finding respecting the dumping of fresh garlic from Vietnam and frozen garlic from China and Vietnam in Inquiry No. NQ-2000-006 and the order respecting the dumping of fresh garlic from China in Expiry Review No. RR-2001-001. The Tribunal determined, in view of the facts that no parties were participating and that no information had been filed on the factors to be considered by the Tribunal in an expiry review, that the expiry of the finding and order was unlikely to result in injury. The Tribunal will issue orders, with reasons, rescinding the finding and order when they expire on May 1, 2006, and March 19, 2007, respectively. Expiry Review No. RR-2005-002 is a review of the finding in Flat Hot-rolled Carbon and Alloy Steel Sheet and Strip respecting dumped imports from Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Chinese Taipei, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, South Africa and Ukraine, and dumped and subsidized imports from India. The following table summarizes the Tribunal’s expiry review activities during the fiscal year.
Judicial or Panel Review of SIMA DecisionsThe following table lists the Tribunal’s decisions under section 43, 44 or 76 of SIMA that were before the Federal Court of Appeal in the fiscal year.
WTO Dispute ResolutionThere are no Tribunal findings or orders before the dispute settlement bodies of the WTO. International AssistanceAs a major player in Canada’s trade remedies system, the Tribunal is often called upon to provide assistance to countries seeking to establish trade remedy systems or to countries negotiating to become members of the WTO. The Tribunal also participates in technical exchange meetings with other anti-dumping authorities. In 2005-2006, the Tribunal hosted delegations from China, Indonesia, Australia, South Africa and Russia. In addition, Tribunal staff provided training programs in Korea, Morocco, Vietnam and Germany. SIMA Findings and Orders in Force as of March 31, 2006
Chapter IVSafeguardsGlobal Safeguard InquiriesThe Tribunal conducts inquiries to determine if Canadian producers are being seriously injured by increased imports of goods into Canada. The Tribunal may initiate import safeguard inquiries following a complaint by domestic producers. The Government may also direct the Tribunal to conduct import safeguard inquiries. Pursuant to an inquiry where the Tribunal determines that increased imports of the goods have caused, or are threatening to cause, serious injury to Canadian producers of like or directly competitive goods, the Government may apply import safeguard measures to assist those domestic producers. The Government may also direct the Tribunal to conduct inquiries to determine if the provision, by persons normally resident outside Canada, of services in Canada is causing or threatens to cause injury to, or retards, the provision of any services in Canada by persons normally resident in Canada. Inquiry Completed in the Fiscal YearGS-2004-001—Bicycles
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case No. |
Product |
Country of Origin |
File No./Status |
GS-2004-001 and GS-2004-002 |
Bicycles and Frames |
All countries |
A—439—05 |
CS-2005-001 |
Barbeques |
China |
A—532—05 |
The Tribunal hears appeals from decisions of the CBSA under the Customs Act and SIMA or of the Minister of National Revenue under the Excise Tax Act. It hears appeals relating to the tariff classification and value for duty of goods imported into Canada and relating to the origin of goods imported from the United States, Mexico and Chile under the Customs Act. It also hears and decides appeals concerning the application, to imported goods, of a Tribunal finding or order concerning dumping or subsidizing and the normal value or export price or subsidy of imported goods under SIMA. Under the Excise Tax Act, a person may appeal the Minister of National Revenue’s decision about an assessment or determination of federal sales tax or excise tax.
The Tribunal strives to be informal and accessible. However, there are certain procedures and time constraints that are imposed by law and by the Tribunal. For example, the appeal process is set in motion with a notice (or letter) of appeal, in writing, sent to the Secretary of the Tribunal within the time limit specified in the act under which the appeal is made.
Under the Rules, the person launching the appeal (the appellant) normally has 60 days to submit to the Tribunal a document called a “brief”. Generally, the brief states under which act the appeal is launched, gives a description of the goods in issue and an indication of the points at issue between the appellant and the Minister of National Revenue or the CBSA (the respondent), and states why the appellant believes that the respondent’s decision is incorrect. A copy of the brief must also be given to the respondent.
The respondent must also comply with time and procedural constraints. Normally, within 60 days after having received the appellant’s brief, the respondent must provide the Tribunal and the appellant with a brief setting forth the respondent’s position. The Secretary of the Tribunal then contacts both parties in order to schedule a hearing. Hearings are generally conducted before Tribunal members in public. The Tribunal publishes a notice of the hearing in the Canada Gazette to allow other interested persons to attend. Depending on the complexity and precedential nature of the matter at issue, appeals will be heard by a panel of one or three members. Persons may intervene in an appeal by specifying the nature of their interest in the appeal and by indicating the reason for intervening and how they may assist the Tribunal in the resolution of the appeal.
An individual may present a case before the Tribunal in person, or be represented by legal counsel or by any other representative. The respondent is generally represented by counsel from the Department of Justice.
Hearing procedures are designed to ensure that the appellant and the respondent are given a full opportunity to make their cases. They also enable the Tribunal to have the best information possible to make a decision. As in a court, the appellant and the respondent can call witnesses, and these witnesses are questioned under oath or affirmation by the opposing parties, as well as by Tribunal members, in order to test the validity of their evidence. When all the evidence is gathered, parties may present arguments in support of their respective positions.
The Tribunal, on its own initiative or at the request of the appellant or the respondent, may decide to hold a hearing by way of written submissions. In that case, it publishes a notice of the hearing in the Canada Gazette to allow other interested persons to participate. In the notice, the Tribunal establishes the manner and timing for filing the submissions and the requirement, if appropriate, for the parties to file an agreed statement of facts.
Usually, within 120 days of the hearing, the Tribunal issues a decision on the matters in dispute, including the reasons for its decision.
If the appellant, the respondent or an intervener disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision, the decision can be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal or the Federal Court.
Under section 60.2 of the Customs Act, a person may apply to the Tribunal for an extension of time to file a request for a re-determination or a further re-determination with the President of the CBSA. Such an application may be granted by the Tribunal after either the President has refused an application under section 60.1 or 90 days have elapsed after the application was made and the person has not been notified of the President’s decision. Under section 67.1, a person may make an application to the Tribunal for an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal with the Tribunal. During the fiscal year, the Tribunal issued two orders under the Customs Act, both of which granted extensions of time. One request was closed, and three requests were outstanding at the end of the fiscal year.
Under section 81.32 of the Excise Tax Act, a person may apply to the Tribunal for an extension of time to serve a notice of objection with the Minister of Finance under section 81.15 or 81.17 or to file a notice of appeal with the Tribunal under section 81.19. During the fiscal year, the Tribunal issued 31 orders; 23 orders granted extensions of time, and 8 denied extensions of time. Seven requests were withdrawn or closed. There were no requests under the Excise Tax Act that were outstanding at the end of the fiscal year.
During the fiscal year, the Tribunal heard 44 appeals, of which 37 related to the Customs Act and 7 to the Excise Tax Act as shown in the following table.
Act |
Allowed |
Allowed in Part |
Dismissed |
Total |
Customs Act |
26 |
8 |
10 |
44 |
Excise Tax Act |
1 |
- |
2 |
3 |
The following table lists the appeal decisions rendered in the fiscal year.
Appeal No. |
Appellant |
Date of Decision |
Decision |
Customs Act | |||
AP-2004-013 |
Diversco Supply Inc. |
August 12, 2005 |
Appeal dismissed |
AP-2004-018 |
Gladu Tools Inc. |
September 7, 2005 |
Appeal allowed |
AP-2004-011 |
Decolin Inc. |
September 13, 2005 |
Appeal allowed |
AP-2004-009 |
Cherry Stix Ltd. |
October 6, 2005 |
Appeal dismissed |
AP-2004-007 |
Romain L. Klaasen |
October 18, 2005 |
Appeal dismissed |
AP-2002-027, AP-2002-029 to AP-2002-033 and AP-2002-108 |
Asea Brown Boveri Inc. |
October 18, 2005 |
Appeal allowed in part |
AP-2004-012 |
McAsphalt Industries Limited |
November 9, 2005 |
Appeal allowed |
AP-2004-016 |
Innovak DIY Products Inc. |
December 20, 2005 |
Appeal dismissed |
AP-2005-005, AP-2005-010, AP-2005-011 and AP-2005-020 |
Arctic Cat Sales Inc. |
January 20, 2006 |
Appeals dismissed |
AP-2003-036 |
Roche Vitamins Canada Inc. |
January 26, 2006 |
Appeal allowed in part |
AP-2004-024 to AP-2004-046 |
Mammoet Canada Eastern Ltd. and Mammoet Canada Western Ltd. |
February 14, 2006 |
Appeals allowed |
AP-2005-006 |
Jam Industries Ltd. |
March 20, 2006 |
Appeal dismissed |
AP-2004-017 |
3319067 Canada Inc. (Universal Lites) |
March 23, 2006 |
Appeal dismissed |
Excise Tax Act | |||
AP-2002-012 |
Quay Developments Ltd. |
December 21, 2005 |
Appeal allowed |
AP-2004-051 |
Transport Gilles Perrault Inc. |
March 28, 2006 |
Appeal dismissed |
AP-2005-027 |
Les Huiles Thuot et Beauchemin Inc. |
March 29, 2006 |
Appeal dismissed |
Of the many cases heard by the Tribunal in carrying out its appeal functions, several decisions stand out, either because of the particular nature of the product in issue or because of the legal significance of the case. Brief summaries of a representative sample of such appeals follow, one of which was heard under the Customs Act and the other under the Excise Tax Act. These summaries have been prepared for general information purposes only and have no legal status.
This was an appeal under subsection 67(1) of the Customs Act from a decision of the President of the CBSA. This appeal concerned the value for duty of clothes imported from Asia by Cherry Stix Ltd. (Cherry Stix) of New York. The valuation turned on whether Cherry Stix had agreed to sell the clothes to Wal-Mart Canada Corporation (Wal-Mart) before it purchased the clothes from manufacturers in Asia. If Cherry Stix was able to show that no such agreements had been in place, it would have been entitled to a more favourable valuation as a “purchaser in Canada” under the Customs Act. Applying common law contract principles, Ontario’s Sale of Goods Act and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1980, the Tribunal determined that, prior to ordering the clothes from its Asian suppliers, Cherry Stix had in fact entered into agreements with Wal-Mart to sell the clothes to Wal-Mart, notwithstanding subsequent changes in price and quantity. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
This was an appeal under section 81.19 of the Excise Tax Act from a decision of the Minister of National Revenue. The issue in this appeal was whether Quay Developments Ltd. (Quay) was entitled to receive a federal sales tax new housing rebate under paragraph 121(3)(b) of the Excise Tax Act.
Quay was the developer of the Renaissance Development, which consisted of two phases, the Lido and the Rialto. Quay applied for and received a rebate under paragraph 121(3)(b) of the Excise Tax Act for the first phase, the Lido. This appeal dealt with the application for a rebate for the second phase, the Rialto. Quay requested a rebate for the entire development (i.e. both the Lido and the Rialto), assessed as a single “condominium complex”, for the difference between the rebate granted for the Lido, on its own, and the rebate that it claimed that it ought to have received for the Lido and the Rialto, assessed together. In the alternative, Quay requested a rebate for the Rialto alone.
The Tribunal found that the Renaissance Development, which included both the Lido and the Rialto, constituted a single “building” for the purposes of the Excise Tax Act. It found that, by reviewing the architectural design of the project, it became apparent that the Renaissance Development was, in fact, a complex which consisted of two towers sitting on a single foundation with common services and shared property developments. Furthermore, the evidence also indicated that both the Lido and the Rialto shared common basement walls, parking facilities, waterfront and other amenities. On this basis, the Tribunal found that the Lido and the Rialto, together, constituted a “condominium complex” for the purposes of the Excise Tax Act. The Tribunal therefore returned this matter to the Minister of National Revenue for reconsideration of Quay’s application for a rebate in a manner consistent with the above determination.
Appeal No. |
Appellant |
File No./Status |
AP-90-117 |
Artec Design Inc. |
T—1556—92 |
AP-99-062 |
Barney Printing Limited |
T—1627—01 |
AP-2000-034 |
Scott Paper Limited |
T—1270—02 |
AP-2002-005 |
P.L.B. Graphique Inc. |
T—1331—03 |
AP-2002-006 |
Gray O’Rourke Sussmann Advertising Inc. |
T—1334—03 |
AP-2002-007 |
King West Communications Inc. |
T—1335—03 |
AP-2002-008 |
The Russo Group Inc. |
T—1332—03 |
AP-2002-010 |
Corlab Inc. |
T—1333—03 |
AP-2002-034 to AP-2002-037 |
Pierre Roy et Associés Inc. for Lithochrome (1974) Inc. (in Bankruptcy), Le Groupe Lithochrome Inc. (in Bankruptcy), Filmographie P.F. Inc. (in Bankruptcy) and Opticouleur Inc. (in Bankruptcy) |
T—1134—05 |
AP-2002-097 |
Pièces d’autos usagées RTA (1986) Inc. |
T—816—04 |
AP-2002-113 |
Excelsior Foods Inc. |
A—675—04 |
AP-2002-116 |
Black & Decker Canada Inc. |
A—33—05 |
AP-2003-008 |
PartyLite Gifts Ltd. |
A—252—04 |
AP-2003-010 |
Agri-Pack |
A—34—05 |
AP-2003-035 |
713460 Ontario Ltd. o/a Heirloom Clock Company |
T—2203—04 |
AP-2003-040 |
Les Produits Laitiers Advidia Inc. |
A—214—05 |
AP-2004-009 |
Cherry Stix Ltd. |
A—607—05 |
AP-2004-011 |
Decolin Inc. |
A—608—05 |
AP-2004-015 |
Magnum Transport Inc. |
A—239—05 |
AP-2004-016 |
Innovak DIY Products Inc. |
A—6—06 |
AP-2004-018 |
Outils Gladu Ltée |
A—594—-05 |
|
Note: The Tribunal has made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information listed is complete. However, since the Tribunal does not always participate in appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal or the Federal Court, it is unable to confirm that the list contains all appeals or decisions rendered that were before the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. | ||
Suppliers may challenge federal government procurement decisions that they believe have not been made in accordance with the requirements of the following agreements: Chapter Ten of NAFTA, Chapter Five of the AIT or the AGP. The bid challenge portions of these agreements came into force on January 1, 1994, July 1, 1995, and January 1, 1996, respectively.
Any potential suppliers who believe that they may have been unfairly treated during the solicitation or evaluation of bids, or in the awarding of contracts on a designated procurement, may lodge a formal complaint with the Tribunal. A potential supplier with an objection is encouraged to attempt to resolve the issue first with the government institution responsible for the procurement. If this process is not successful or a supplier wishes to deal directly with the Tribunal, the complainant may ask the Tribunal to consider the case by filing a complaint within the prescribed time limit. Complainants may utilize the on-line procurement complaint form that can be found on the Tribunal’s Web site.
When the Tribunal receives a complaint, it reviews the submission against the criteria for filing. If there are deficiencies, the complainant is given an opportunity to correct these within the specified time limit. If the Tribunal decides to conduct an inquiry, the government institution and all other interested parties are sent a formal notification of the complaint and a copy of the complaint itself. An official notice of the complaint is also published on MERX and in the Canada Gazette. If the contract in question has not been awarded, the Tribunal may order the government institution to postpone awarding any contract pending the disposition of the complaint by the Tribunal.
After receipt of its copy of the complaint, the government institution responsible for the procurement files a response called the Government Institution Report. The complainant and any intervener are sent a copy of the response and then have the opportunity to submit comments. Any comments made are forwarded to the government institution and other parties to the inquiry.
Copies of any other submissions or reports prepared for the inquiry are also circulated to all parties for their comments. Once this phase of the inquiry is completed, the Tribunal reviews the information collected and decides if a public hearing is necessary or if the case can be decided on the basis of the information on the record.
The Tribunal then determines whether the complaint is valid. If the complaint is found to be valid, the Tribunal may make recommendations to the government institution (such as re-tendering, re-evaluating or providing compensation). The government institution, as well as all other parties and interested persons, is notified of the Tribunal’s decision. Recommendations made by the Tribunal in its determination are, by statute, to be implemented to the greatest extent possible.
The Tribunal may also award reasonable costs to the complainant or the responding government institution depending on the nature and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal publishes, on its Web site, a guideline for further streamlining the review process by recommending standard complaint costs to be awarded to either side, depending on the relative complexity of the case.
2004-2005 |
2005-2006 | |
Number of Complaints | ||
Carried Over from Previous Fiscal Year |
11 |
8 |
Received in Fiscal Year |
62 |
58 |
Remanded |
1 |
1 |
Total |
74 |
67 |
Cases Resolved | ||
Withdrawn or Resolved by the Parties |
6 |
4 |
Abandoned While Filing |
3 |
2 |
Subtotal |
9 |
6 |
Inquiries Not Initiated | ||
Lack of Jurisdiction |
2 |
3 |
Late or Improper Filing |
16 |
14 |
No Valid Basis/No Reasonable Indication of a Breach/Premature |
20 |
20 |
Subtotal |
38 |
37 |
Inquiry Results | ||
Complaints Dismissed |
- |
3 |
Complaints Not Valid |
6 |
4 |
Complaints Valid or Valid in Part |
10 |
10 |
Remand Decisions |
3 |
- |
Subtotal |
19 |
17 |
Outstanding at End of Fiscal Year |
8 |
7 |
In 2005-2006, PWGSC alone issued approximately 20,250 contracts valued at between $25,000 and $100 million, for a total value of $8.928 billion. The 58 complaints received in the fiscal year pertained to 57 different contracts, representing less than 1 percent of the total number of contracts issued by PWGSC in 2005-2006.
During the fiscal year, the Tribunal issued 14 determinations of its findings and recommendations. In 10 of the 14 determinations, the complaints were determined to be valid or valid in part. Five cases were in progress or being filed at year-end. The table at the end of this chapter summarizes these activities.
Of the cases investigated by the Tribunal in carrying out its procurement review functions, certain decisions stand out because of the legal significance of the cases. Brief summaries of a representative sample of such cases have been prepared for general information purposes only and have no legal status.
This was a complaint filed by Northern Lights Aerobatic Team, Inc. (Northern Lights) concerning a procurement by PWGSC on behalf of the Department of National Defence (DND) for the provision of airborne training services. Northern Lights submitted that PWGSC incorrectly declared its proposals non-compliant with the Contract Program Manager requirement and the ejection seat requirement and incorrectly found Top Aces Consulting Inc.’s proposal compliant with the aircraft’s cold start capability requirement.
As the Tribunal did not believe that the written submissions would be adequate to address Northern Lights’ third ground of complaint regarding the cold start capability, it held a hearing on August 10 and 11, 2005.
Having examined the evidence presented by the parties and considered the provisions of the AIT and NAFTA, the Tribunal determined that the complaint was not valid.
The Tribunal awarded PWGSC costs in the amount of $4,100 for responding to the complaint.
Northern Lights has applied for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision.
In a complaint filed by Radiation Detection Service (RDS), RDS alleged that PWGSC, when procuring power supplies on behalf of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, did not include the criteria for contract award and that PWGSC improperly awarded the contract to a higher-priced bidder. More specifically, RDS claimed that it submitted the lowest-priced, technically compliant bid in accordance with the terms of the RFP and that, had it known that PWGSC was going to award the contract using a different methodology, it would have structured its proposal differently. RDS requested, as a remedy, that the Tribunal award it the contract or its lost profit for having been denied the contract. It also requested that the Tribunal award it its bid preparation costs and the costs that it incurred in bringing the complaint to the Tribunal.
Having examined the evidence presented by the parties, notably that PWGSC acknowledged that the contract award criteria were not present in the RFP, and in consideration of the provisions of the AIT and NAFTA, the Tribunal determined that the complaint was valid.
The Tribunal, taking into account PWGSC’s admission and the fact that there were four bidders evaluated as being technically compliant and, therefore, equally affected by PWGSC’s breach, recommended that PWGSC compensate RDS by an amount that represented one quarter of the profit that RDS would have earned, had it been awarded the contract.
The Tribunal also awarded RDS $1,000 for the costs that it incurred in bringing the complaint before the Tribunal.
Regarding a DND procurement for air charter services, C2 Logistics Incorporated (C2) alleged that DND: (1) failed to provide suppliers with a reasonable period of time to submit bids; (2) failed to clearly identify the evaluation criteria; (3) biased the technical specifications against the services offered by C2; and (4) failed to ensure that the procurement was conducted in a manner that ensured equal access to all suppliers.
Having examined the evidence presented by the parties, and in consideration of the provisions of the AIT, the Tribunal determined that the complaint was valid in part.
The Tribunal determined that the four days that DND had allowed for suppliers to submit bids was not reasonable, even taking into account both industry practice and the particular circumstances of the procurement at issue. The Tribunal also found that DND, despite its argument that its contracting policy was publicly available, had breached the AIT by not clearly identifying the criteria that it would use in the evaluation of bids and the methods of weighting and evaluating the criteria. The Tribunal was not convinced however that DND had biased its technical specification for or against any bidder. Regarding the final allegation, the Tribunal noted that the AIT provision alleged to have been breached is the purpose clause for Chapter 5 of the AIT and, as such, does not give rise to a ground of complaint that requires separate treatment.
The Tribunal considered that C2 should be compensated for its lost opportunity to profit from the contract. Given that DND had established a list of eight pre-qualified suppliers and that they all might have submitted proposals, had they been given more time, the Tribunal estimated the opportunity lost by C2 to be successful to be one chance in eight and that it should be compensated by an amount equal to one eighth of the profit that it would have earned, had it been the successful bidder.
The Tribunal also awarded C2 $2,400 for the costs that it occurred in bringing the complaint before the Tribunal.
The following table lists the procurement decisions that were appealed to and/or decided by the Federal Court of Appeal during the fiscal year.
File No. |
Complainant at the Tribunal |
Applicant before the Federal |
File No./Status |
PR-2003-070 |
CSI Consulting Inc. |
Attorney General of Canada |
A—299—04 |
PR-2003-073 |
Canadyne Technologies Inc. |
Attorney General of Canada |
A—267—04 |
PR-2004-013 |
Flag Connection Inc. |
Flag Connection Inc. |
A—358—04 |
PR-2004-037 |
Ville Marie Holding Limited |
F.-M. Marcotte Inc. |
A—684—04 |
PR-2004-050 |
Med-Emerg International Inc. |
Med-Emerg International Inc. |
A—330—05 |
PR-2004-054 |
Envoy Relocation Services |
Envoy Relocation Services |
A—134—05 |
PR-2004-054 |
Envoy Relocation Services |
Attorney General of Canada |
A—286—05 |
PR-2004-058 and PR-2004-059 |
Trust Business Systems |
Attorney General of Canada |
A—278—05 |
PR-2004-061 |
MTS Allstream Inc., Call-Net Enterprises and TELUS Communications Inc. |
Bell Canada |
A—377—05 |
PR-2005-004 |
Northern Lights Aerobatic Team, Inc. |
Northern Lights Aerobatic Team, Inc. |
A—465—05 |
File No. |
Complainant |
Status/Decision |
PR-2004-054R |
Envoy Relocation Services |
Remanded to the Tribunal |
PR-2004-050 |
Med-Emerg International Inc. |
Decision rendered on June 15, 2005 |
PR-2004-051 |
ProSpect Scientific |
Complaint withdrawn |
PR-2004-052 |
Everest VIT, Inc. |
Complaint dismissed |
PR-2004-054 |
Envoy Relocation Services |
Decision rendered on May 16, 2005 |
PR-2004-058 |
Trust Business Systems |
Decision rendered on May 13, 2005 |
PR-2004-059 |
Trust Business Systems |
Decision rendered on May 13, 2005 |
PR-2004-061 |
MTS All Stream Inc., Call Net Enterprises Inc. and Telus Communications Inc. |
Decision rendered on August 5, 2005 |
PR-2004-062 |
Albatross Aviation Services |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-001 |
Cindy’s Cleaning Co. |
Not accepted for inquiry, late filing |
PR-2005-002 |
Antian |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-003 |
Joint Venture of Rosemary Trehearne and Associates and Bud Long and Associates Inc. |
Not accepted for inquiry, no jurisdiction |
PR-2005-004 |
Northern Lights Aerobatic Team, Inc. |
Decision rendered on September 7, 2005 |
PR-2005-005 |
Allen Systems Group |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-006 |
Joint Venture of Rosemary Trehearne and Associates and Bud Long and Associates Inc. |
Not accepted for inquiry, late filing |
PR-2005-007 |
1590459 Ontario Inc., o/a Trillium Construction Services |
Not accepted for inquiry, not a designated contract |
PR-2005-008 |
Connors Basics Office Products Ltd. |
Not accepted for inquiry, late filing |
PR-2005-009 |
Envoy Relocation Services |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-010 |
SNC Technologies Inc. |
Decision rendered on September 16, 2005 |
PR-2005-011 |
Canadian Bonded Credits Limited |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-012 |
The Corporate Research Group |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-013 |
Corporate Renaissance Group |
Abandoned while filing |
PR-2005-014 |
Spectral Systems Ltd. |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-015 |
Ville Marie Holding |
Decision rendered on November 21, 2005 |
PR-2005-016 |
The Masha Krupp Translation Group Ltd. |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-017 |
Radiation Detection Service |
Decision rendered on December 12, 2005 |
PR-2005-018 |
MAXXAM Analytics Inc. |
Not accepted for inquiry, late filing |
PR-2005-019 |
Vita-Tech Laboratories Ltd. |
Decision rendered on January 18, 2006 |
PR-2005-020 |
C2 Logistics Incorporated |
Decision rendered on January 27, 2006 |
PR-2005-021 |
Titan Tactical Incorporated |
Not accepted for inquiry, late filing |
PR-2005-022 |
MTS Allstream Inc. |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-023 |
Landcruisers Property Maintenance |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-024 |
MAXXAM Analytics Inc. |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-025 |
CDI Education Corporation |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-026 |
P&L Communications Inc. |
Decision rendered on December 22, 2005 |
PR-2005-027 |
Trust Business Systems |
Not accepted for inquiry, not a designated contract |
PR-2005-028 |
Joncas Postexperts, a Division of Quebecor World Inc., on behalf of the consortium composed of Joncas Postexperts, Enveloppe Concept Inc. and The Data Group of Companies |
Complaint dismissed |
PR-2005-029 |
Privasoft Corporation |
Complaint withdrawn |
PR-2005-030 |
Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company of Canada |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-031 |
International Infrared Camera Sales and Leasing Ltd. |
Not accepted for inquiry, late filing |
PR-2005-032 |
L-3 Communications Electronic Systems Inc. |
Complaint dismissed |
PR-2005-033 |
Data Device Corporation |
Not accepted for inquiry, late filing |
PR-2005-034 |
Raymond Arsenault Consultants Inc. |
Not accepted for inquiry, late filing |
PR-2005-035 |
Averna Technologies Inc. |
Decision rendered on February 13, 2006 |
PR-2005-036 |
Valcom Consulting Group Inc. |
Complaint withdrawn |
PR-2005-037 |
Biz-Pro Ltd. |
Decision rendered on February16, 2006 |
PR-2005-038 |
Western Marine Community Association |
Not accepted for inquiry, late filing |
PR-2005-039 |
PSC Ltd. |
Not accepted for inquiry, late filing |
PR-2005-040 |
Market Research Ltd. |
Not accepted for inquiry, late filing |
PR-2005-041 |
Raymond Arsenault Consultants |
Not accepted for inquiry, premature |
PR-2005-042 |
Raymond Arsenault Consultants |
Accepted for inquiry, case in progress |
PR-2005-043 |
Société Gamma |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-044 |
Deloitte & Touche LLP |
Accepted for inquiry, case in progress |
PR-2005-045 |
Promaxis System |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-046 |
Neptune Military Husbanding |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-047 |
OYE! Canada |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-048 |
Superior Safety – Helon Safety Division |
Abandoned while filing |
PR-2005-049 |
BMCI Consulting Inc. |
Not accepted for inquiry, late filing |
PR-2005-050 |
The Impact Group |
Accepted for inquiry, case in progress |
PR-2005-051 |
Cisco Systems |
Complaint withdrawn |
PR-2005-052 |
Les Systèmes Equinox |
Not accepted for inquiry, late filing |
PR-2005-053 |
DigiDyne |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-054 |
Entreprise aérogologique Rafale O Nord |
Accepted for inquiry, case in progress |
PR-2005-055 |
Bell Canada |
Not accepted for inquiry, no reasonable indication of a breach |
PR-2005-056 |
P & L Communications Inc. |
Accepted for inquiry, case in progress |
PR-2005-057 |
Basil Corporate Solutions Inc. |
Not accepted for inquiry, late filing |
PR-2005-058 |
Excel HR (operating as excel ITR) |
Being filed |
The CITT Act contains broad provisions under which the Government or the Minister of Finance may ask the Tribunal to conduct an inquiry on any economic, trade or tariff matter. In an inquiry, the Tribunal acts in an advisory capacity, with powers to conduct research, receive submissions and representations, find facts, hold public hearings and report, with recommendations as required, to the Government or the Minister of Finance.
The Tribunal completed one tariff reference during the fiscal year, and one was in progress at year-end.
On January 10, 2005, the Tribunal was directed by the Minister of Finance to inquire into and report on the availability of fibres, yarns and apparel fabrics (the textile inputs) produced by Canadian manufacturers and to propose a new tariff structure based on that availability.
In the course of its inquiry, the Tribunal reviewed 591 textile tariff items covered by Chapters 39, 40, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60 or 70 of the Customs Tariff. The preliminary information-gathering and analysis phase of the inquiry was based on a survey of known manufacturers of the textile inputs. The Tribunal sent out questionnaires to 185 domestic textile manufacturers. Forty-eight firms reported domestic sales or production for internal processing of the textile inputs. On March 31, 2005, the Tribunal issued a report entitled “Staff Analysis of Textile Industry Questionnaire Replies”, which included a draft tariff structure. This tariff structure was based strictly on evidence of actual or imminent production and did not take into account issues raised by questionnaire respondents on competing or substitutable products.
Seventy-one submissions were received from companies in the textile and apparel industries and by the Canadian Textiles Institute and the Canadian Apparel Federation in response to the findings contained in the staff report. Generally, the textile manufacturers submitted that the Tribunal’s period of inquiry had been too short to include all production capabilities and that failure to retain protection for what they considered to be different but competitive products, under any revised tariff structure, was putting the survival of the textile industry at risk. On the other hand, users of textile inputs submitted that there was a need for significantly more tariff-free items because, in their view, a number of dutiable tariff items were too broadly defined and that tariff protection should be limited to actual or imminent production.
On the basis of the information gathered, the Tribunal published a report on June 30, 2005, in which it proposed a tariff structure that would result in the elimination of duties on 341 tariff items, with 250 tariff items remaining dutiable. The proposed tariff structure was based on evidence of actual or imminent production for sale in Canada or abroad. Greige fabrics produced by integrated knitters and weavers, dyed fabrics when the greige equivalent is produced and printed fabrics when the greige or dyed fabric equivalent is produced retained tariff protection, as these products are part of the chain of production. On the whole, the information submitted was not detailed enough to allow the Tribunal to provide tariff relief for particular imports when there was production reported under the same tariff item, nor retain tariff protection on competitive products when there was no production. Had this tariff structure been in place for the two-year period of inquiry (i.e. 2003-2004), an estimated $690 million of imports would not have been subject to duties on entering the country. Domestic production amounting to $915.1 million, over the same period, retained tariff protection.
On October 27, 2005, the Tribunal was directed by the Minister of Finance to inquire into and report on the availability from Canadian production of apparel fabrics classified under certain tariff items in the Customs Tariff. In his letter, the Minister of Finance noted that, on June 30, 2005, the Tribunal released its Report on the Production in Canada of Certain Fibres, Yarns and Apparel Fabrics and that the Tribunal did not receive sufficiently detailed production information during the course of that inquiry to enable it to make tariff relief recommendations on a number of tariff items that contain a wide variety of products. For 12 of these tariff items, the Minister of Finance asked the Tribunal to carry out additional inquiry.
On November 23, 2005, the Minister of Finance further directed the Tribunal, where appropriate, in identifying new eight-digit tariff items, to ensure that the scope of the product descriptions reflects market realities by considering the nature of the competition between products in the marketplace and the imminent production of any fabric.
The Tribunal completed the preliminary information-gathering phase of the inquiry on February 2, 2006, and plans to issue its report by April 27, 2006.
Pursuant to a reference from the Minister of Finance dated July 6, 1994, as last amended on October 27, 2005, the Tribunal is directed to investigate requests from domestic producers for tariff relief on imported textile inputs for use in their manufacturing operations and to make recommendations, in respect of those requests to the Minister of Finance, that would maximize net economic gains to Canada.
The terms of reference call for the Tribunal to report annually to the Minister of Finance on the investigation process. This chapter reports on the Tribunal’s activities under the textile reference.
A domestic producer may apply for tariff relief on an imported textile input used, or proposed to be used, in its manufacturing operations. The textile inputs on which tariff relief may be requested are the fibres, yarns and fabrics of Chapters 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59 and 60; certain monofilaments or strips and textile and plastic combinations of Chapter 39; rubber thread and textile and rubber combinations of Chapter 40; and products of textile glass fibres of Chapter 70 of the schedule to the Customs Tariff. The following yarns are not included in the textile reference:
Knitting yarns, solely of cotton or solely of cotton and polyester staple fibres, measuring more than 190 decitex, of Chapter 52 or subheading No. 5509.53 other than those used to make sweaters, having a horizontal self-starting finished edge and the outer surfaces of which are constructed essentially with 9 or fewer stitches per 2 centimetres (12 or fewer stitches per inch) measured in the horizontal direction.
The tariff relief that may be recommended by the Tribunal to the Minister of Finance ranges from the removal or reduction of tariffs on one or several, partial or complete, tariff lines, textile- and/or end-use-specific tariff provisions. Except in exceptional circumstances, recommendations are not to include a gender-specific “end use”. The recommendation could be for tariff relief for either a specific or an indeterminate period of time.
Domestic producers seeking tariff relief must file a request with the Tribunal. Along with their request, producers must file either samples of the textile input for which tariff relief is being sought or a National Customs Ruling from the CBSA covering the input. If the Tribunal determines that the request is properly documented, it will conduct an investigation to determine if it should recommend tariff relief.
Upon receipt of a request for tariff relief, and before commencement of an investigation, the Tribunal issues a brief electronic notice on its Web site announcing the request. The minimum period of time for the notification of a request before the start of an investigation is 30 days.
This notification is designed to increase transparency, identify potential deficiencies in the request, avoid unnecessary investigations, provide an opportunity for the domestic textile industry to contact the requester and agree on a reasonable domestic source of supply, inform other users of identical or substitutable textile inputs, prepare the domestic industry to respond to subsequent investigation questionnaires and give associations advance time for planning and consultation with their members.
When the Tribunal is satisfied that a request is properly documented, it commences an investigation. A notice of commencement of investigation is sent to the requester, all known interested parties and any appropriate government department or agency, such as the Department of International Trade, the Department of Industry, the Department of Finance and the CBSA. The notice is also published in the Canada Gazette.
Interested parties include all persons whose rights or pecuniary interests may be affected by the Tribunal’s recommendations. Interested parties are given notice of the request and can participate in the investigation.
To prepare a staff investigation report, the Tribunal’s staff gathers information through such means as questionnaires and plant visits. Information is obtained from the requester and interested parties to determine whether the tariff relief sought will maximize net economic gains for Canada.
In most cases, a public hearing is not required, and the Tribunal will dispose of the matter on the basis of the full written record, including the request, the staff investigation report and all submissions and evidence filed with the Tribunal. In cases where the written record is not sufficient to dispose of the matter, a public hearing is held.
The procedures for the conduct of the Tribunal’s investigation envisage the full participation of the requester and all interested parties. A party, other than the requester, may file submissions, including evidence, in response to the properly documented request, the staff investigation report and any information provided by a government department or agency. The requester may subsequently file submissions with the Tribunal in response to the staff investigation report and any information provided by a government department, agency or other party.
The Tribunal will normally issue its recommendations, with reasons, to the Minister of Finance within 120 days from the date of commencement of the investigation. In exceptional cases, where the Tribunal determines that critical circumstances exist, it will issue its recommendations within an earlier specified time frame.
Where the Minister of Finance has made an order for tariff relief pursuant to a recommendation of the Tribunal, certain domestic producers may ask the Tribunal to commence an investigation for the purpose of recommending the renewal, amendment or termination of the order. A request for the amendment or termination of the order should specify what changed circumstances justify the request.
Where the Minister of Finance has made an order for tariff relief subject to a scheduled expiry date, the Tribunal will, before the expiry date, issue a formal notice that the tariff relief provided by the order will expire unless the Tribunal issues a recommendation that tariff relief should be continued and the Minister of Finance implements the recommendation. The notice invites interested parties to file submissions for or against continuation of tariff relief.
2004-2005 |
2005-2006 | |
Requests | ||
Received |
1 |
0 |
Withdrawn |
1 |
0 |
Awaiting Initiation of Investigation |
1 |
0 |
Investigations Completed During the Year |
3 |
1 |
Investigations in Progress at Year-end |
0 |
0 |
Recommendations to Minister of Finance | ||
Tariff Relief |
3 |
1 |
No Tariff Relief |
0 |
0 |
Reports to Minister of Finance |
3 |
1 |
Cumulative Totals (since 1994) | ||
Requests Received |
175 |
175 |
Recommendations to Minister of Finance | ||
Tariff Relief |
104 |
105 |
No Tariff Relief |
49 |
49 |
During the fiscal year, the Tribunal issued one report to the Minister of Finance that related to one request for tariff relief. The following table summarizes this activity.
Request No. |
Requester |
Textile Input |
Date of Disposition |
Status/Recommendations |
TR-2004-001 |
Tricots Liesse (1983) Inc. |
Yarn |
January 9, 2006 |
Indeterminate Tariff Relief |
The implementation of Tribunal recommendations is made by adding new tariff items to the Customs Tariff or, occasionally, by issuing specific customs duty remission orders. The table at the end of this chapter provides a summary of recommendations currently implemented by the Government. During the period from January 1 to December 31, 2005, the Tribunal estimates that these tariff items covered imports worth about $184 million and provided tariff relief worth about $24 million; for the comparable period in 2004, these amounts were about $205 million and about $26 million respectively. It should be noted that, on November 21, 2005, as part of its implementation of the recommendations made by the Tribunal in Reference No. MN-2004-002, the Government put in place a new tariff structure that created a number of duty-free tariff items. In instances where these broader duty-free tariff items covered products that were already provided duty-free treatment by individual tariff items implemented under the standing textile reference, the latter individual tariff items were deleted from the Customs Tariff. The table at the end of this chapter also provides a list of tariff items that, as of November 21, 2005, provide duty-free treatment as a result of recommendations made by the Tribunal under the authority of the standing textile reference.
As stated earlier, textile inputs on which tariff relief may be requested are limited to 12 chapters of the Customs Tariff. From January 1 to December 31, 2005, tariff relief principally affected textile inputs falling in 2 chapters: Chapter 51 (“Wool, fine or coarse animal hair; horsehair yarn and woven fabric”); and Chapter 52 (“Cotton”). The percentage of total imports accounted for by the imports benefiting from tariff relief, falling in these 12 chapters, ranged from 0 to 20 percent. Overall, slightly less than 1 percent of total imports falling in the 12 chapters benefit from tariff relief. The following table provides, for calendar year 2005, a distribution of the imports benefiting from tariff relief, by Customs Tariff chapter.
Percentage | |
Chapter 39 |
0.0 |
Chapter 40 |
0.0 |
Chapter 51 |
27.7 |
Chapter 52 |
10.0 |
Chapter 53 |
2.4 |
Chapter 54 |
4.2 |
Chapter 55 |
4.3 |
Chapter 56 |
0.4 |
Chapter 58 |
1.7 |
Chapter 59 |
4.2 |
Chapter 60 |
1.5 |
Chapter 70 |
0.1 |
Weighted Average |
0.7 |
|
Source: Statistics Canada. | |
A summary of the Tribunal recommendation issued during the fiscal year follows.
The Tribunal recommended to the Minister of Finance that tariff relief be granted, for an indeterminate period of time, on importations from all countries of synthetic filament yarn, solely of nylon, textured, measuring per single yarn 75 decitex or more but not exceeding 200 decitex, of subheading No. 5402.31, for use in the manufacture of swimwear fabrics; and synthetic filament yarn, solely of polyester, textured, measuring per single yarn 150 decitex or more but not exceeding 200 decitex, of subheading No. 5402.33, for use in the manufacture of swimwear fabrics.
Tricots Liesse (1983) Inc. (Liesse) requested the tariff relief. Two yarn producers, Bermatex Inc. (Bermatex) and Canatex Industries (Canatex), and one yarn importer and distributor, Texturon Inc. (Texturon), opposed the request. The Tribunal noted that Bermatex sold significant volumes of yarns to Liesse, including yarns similar to the subject yarns, during the 1999-2003 period and had recently sold a certain amount of yarns to other companies for use in the manufacture of swimwear fabrics. The Tribunal also noted that Canatex provided some yarns to Liesse for testing, but that the latter found them unacceptable. Furthermore, Canatex provided some information in seeking to demonstrate that, by making minor adjustments to its texturing machines, it was capable of producing yarns similar to those purchased by Liesse from Unifi. This led the Tribunal to believe that Bermatex and Canatex had the ability to serve the needs of Canadian downstream industries in the general marketplace.
The Tribunal concluded that yarns produced by Bermatex and Canatex were, in general, similar to the subject yarns. However, the evidence was unclear as to whether Canadian yarns could be used by Liesse in the manufacture of swimwear fabrics if Bermatex or Canatex were given sufficient opportunity to develop acceptable yarns. In any event, faced with strong competition for its swimwear fabrics in the United States, its principal market, it was the Tribunal’s view that Liesse must source the subject yarns at the most competitive prices possible. On the basis of the evidence, it was clear that potential benefits to Liesse outweighed any potential costs to domestic producers of yarns. Moreover, given that such tariff relief, as recommended, centred only on fabrics used in the manufacture of swimwear fabrics, Bermatex could potentially serve the needs of Liesse for other end uses.
Based on information provided by Liesse, the Tribunal estimated that tariff relief would represent significant direct net gains of over $500,000.
Request No./ |
Expiry No. |
Requester/Textile Input |
Tariff Item No. to November 20, 2005 |
Tariff Item No. from November 21, 2005/Order in Council |
TR-94-001 |
Canatex Industries (Division of Richelieu Knitting Inc.) |
5402.41.12 |
5402.41.00* | |
TR-94-004 |
Woods Canada Limited |
5208.52.10 |
5208.52.10 | |
TR-94-010 |
Palliser Furniture Ltd. |
5806.20.10 |
5806.20.10 | |
TR-94-012 |
Peerless Clothing Inc. |
5309.29.20 |
5309.29.30* | |
TR-94-013 and TR-94-016 |
MWG Apparel Corp. |
5208.42.20 |
5208.42.91* | |
TR-94-017 and TR-94-018 |
Elite Counter & Supplies |
9943.00.00 |
9943.00.00 | |
TR-95-003 |
Landes Canada Inc. |
5603.11.20 |
5603.11.20 | |
TR-95-004 |
Lingerie Bright Sleepwear (1991) Inc. |
5208.12.20 |
5208.12.20 | |
TR-95-005 |
Lingerie Bright Sleepwear (1991) Inc. |
5513.11.10 |
5513.11.91* | |
TR-95-009 |
Peerless Clothing Inc. |
5408.21.10 |
5408.21.40* | |
TR-95-010 and TR-95-034 |
Freed & Freed International Ltd. and |
5111.19.10 |
5111.19.10 | |
TR-95-011 |
Louben Sportswear Inc. |
5408.31.10 |
5408.31.40* | |
TR-95-012 |
Perfect Dyeing Canada Inc. |
5509.32.10 |
5509.32.10 | |
TR-95-013A |
Doubletex |
5208.11.30 |
5208.11.30 | |
TR-95-036 |
Canadian Mill Supply Co. Ltd. |
5208.21.20 |
5208.21.20 | |
TR-95-037 |
Paris Star Knitting Mills Inc. |
5408.24.11 |
5408.24.12* | |
TR-95-051 |
Camp Mate Limited |
5407.41.10 |
5407.41.10 | |
TR-95-053 and TR-95-059 |
Majestic Industries (Canada) Ltd. and Caulfeild Apparel Group Ltd. |
5802.11.10 |
5802.11.20* | |
TR-95-056 |
Sealy Canada Ltd. |
3921.19.20 |
3921.19.20 | |
TR-95-057 and TR-95-058 |
Doubletex |
5407.51.10 |
5407.51.10 | |
TR-95-060 |
Triple M Fiberglass Mfg. Ltd. |
7019.59.10 |
7019.59.10 | |
TR-95-061 |
Camp Mate Limited |
6005.31.20 |
6005.31.20 | |
TR-95-064 and TR-95-065 |
Lady Americana Sleep Products Inc. and el ran Furniture Ltd. |
6005.34.60 |
6005.34.60 | |
TR-96-003 |
Venture III Industries Inc. |
5407.61.95 |
5407.61.95 | |
TR-96-004 |
Acton International Inc. |
5906.99.21 |
5906.99.21 | |
TR-97-001 |
Jones Apparel Group Canada Inc. |
5407.91.10 |
5407.91.10 | |
TR-97-002 and TR-97-003 |
Universal Manufacturing Inc. |
5208.43.30 |
5208.43.70* | |
TR-97-006 |
Peerless Clothing Inc. |
5407.51.30 |
5407.51.30 | |
TR-97-004, TR-97-007, TR-97-008 and TR-97-010 |
Blue Bird Dress of Toronto Ltd. |
5407.51.20 |
5407.51.20 | |
TR-97-011 |
Australian Outback Collection (Canada) Ltd. |
5209.31.20 |
5209.31.20 | |
TR-97-012 |
Ballin Inc. |
5407.93.30 |
5407.93.30 | |
TR-97-014 |
Lenrod Industries Ltd. |
5603.93.40 |
5603.93.40 | |
TR-97-015, TR-97-016 and TR-97-020 |
Helly Hansen Canada Ltd. |
5903.20.24 |
5903.20.24 | |
TR-98-001 |
Cambridge Industries |
5608.19.20 |
5608.19.20 | |
TR-98-002 |
Distex Inc. |
6006.23.10 |
6006.23.10 | |
TR-98-004, TR-98-005 and TR-98-006 |
Ladcal Investments Ltd., O/A Pintar Manufacturing |
5806.10.20 |
5806.10.20 | |
TR-98-007 |
Caulfeild Apparel Group Ltd. |
5208.43.30 |
5208.43.70* | |
TR-98-016 |
Peerless Clothing Inc. |
5407.93.20 |
5407.93.20 | |
TR-98-017 |
Jones Apparel Group Canada Inc. |
5408.32.50 |
5408.32.60* | |
TR-98-019 |
Tribal Sportswear Inc. |
5209.12.30 |
5209.12.10* | |
TR-99-002 |
Albany International Canada Inc. |
5404.10.20 |
5404.10.00* | |
TR-99-003/003A |
Western Glove Works Ltd. |
5209.31.30 |
5209.31.30 | |
TR-99-004 |
Peerless Clothing Inc. |
5112.11.20 |
5112.11.50* | |
TR-99-005 |
Distex Inc. |
6006.22.20 |
6006.22.20 | |
TR-99-006 |
Coloridé Inc. |
5402.41.15 |
5402.41.00* | |
TR-99-008 |
JMJ Fashions Inc. |
5407.61.20 |
5407.61.20 | |
TR-2000-001 |
Peerless Clothing Inc. |
5408.22.22 |
5408.22.23* | |
TR-2000-002 |
Majestic Industries (Canada) Ltd. |
5802.19.30 |
5802.19.40* | |
TR-2000-003 |
Tantalum Mining Corporation of Canada Limited |
5911.40.10 |
5911.40.10 | |
TR-2000-004 |
Ballin Inc. |
5516.23.30 |
5516.23.30 | |
TR-2000-005 |
Peerless Clothing Inc. |
5112.11.40 |
5112.11.50* | |
TR-2000-006 |
Doubletex |
5512.11.30 |
5512.11.30 | |
TR-2000-007 and TR-2000-008 |
Scapa Tapes North America Ltd. |
5208.21.50 |
5208.21.50 | |
TR-2001-001 |
Gibson Textile Dyers |
5512.29.10 |
5512.29.10 | |
TR-2001-002 |
Beco Industries Ltd. |
5513.41.30 |
5513.41.30 | |
TR-2002-001 |
Richlu Manufacturing Ltd. |
5209.39.10 |
5209.39.10 | |
TR-2002-002 |
Peerless Clothing Inc. |
5602.10.20 |
5602.10.20 | |
TR-2002-006 |
C.S. Brooks Inc. |
5407.91.20 |
5407.91.20 | |
TR-2002-007 |
Peerless Clothing Inc. |
5408.22.50 |
5408.22.91* | |
TR-2002-008 |
Tribal Sportswear Inc. |
5515.11.20 |
5515.11.20 | |
TR-2002-010/010A |
Ballin Inc. |
5516.22.10 |
5516.22.10 | |
TR-2003-001 |
Tribal Sportswear Inc. |
5208.39.20 |
5208.39.20 | |
TR-20003-002 |
Sunshine Mills Inc. |
5205.24.30 |
5205.24.30 | |
TR-2003-003 |
Peerless Clothing Inc. |
5603.92.40 |
5603.92.40 | |
TR-2003-004 |
Peerless Clothing Inc. |
5903.90.23 |
5903.90.23 | |
TA-98-001 |
TE-97-004 |
Dyed woven fabrics of rayon and polyester |
5408.31.20 |
5408.31.40* |
TA-98-002 |
TE-97-003 |
Vinex FR-9B fabric |
5512.99.10 |
5512.99.10 |
TA-98-003 |
TE-98-001 |
Woven cut warp pile fabrics |
5801.35.10 |
5801.35.10 |
TA-2003-001 |
TE-2003-001 |
Ring-spun yarns |
5205.14.20 |
5205.14.20 |
|
*These tariff items encompass more goods than those covered in the original request. | ||||
|
|||
| Last Updated: 2006-07-20 |  |
[ Important Notices ] | |
