The Impact of Canadian Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Domestic Shipments, Investments, Employment and Imports: 1989-2014

THE IMPACT OF CANADIAN ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS, INVESTMENTS, EMPLOYMENT, AND IMPORTS: 1989-2014

A report for the
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL
by the

Trade Remedies Investigations Branch of the Secretariat to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada

November 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

SUMMARY[1]

The determinations of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) in anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases under the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) have an important impact on shipments, investments and employment in the domestic manufacturing and agricultural sectors, and on imports of goods into Canada.

International trade agreements allow countries, including Canada, to impose anti-dumping and countervailing measures to protect their industries against the injurious dumping and subsidizing of goods by foreign competitors. Dumping occurs when goods are exported for less than the price of those goods in the home market, or at unprofitable prices. Subsidizing occurs when goods imported into a country benefit from foreign government financial assistance.

The Tribunal jointly administers SIMA with the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). The CBSA’s role is to determine whether dumping or subsidizing has occurred and to enforce anti-dumping and countervailing measures. The Tribunal’s role is to determine whether the dumping or subsidizing has caused or is threatening to cause material injury to a Canadian industry.

Anti-dumping and countervailing measures ordinarily lapse at the end of five years, unless continued by way of an expiry review, in which case the CBSA will collect the duties for another five years. An anti-dumping or countervailing measure can be continued for several years by way of multiple expiry reviews until the CBSA determines that the expiry of the measures is unlikely to result in the continuation or recurrence of the dumping or subsidizing, or the Tribunal determines that injury is unlikely to recur.

Not unexpectedly, when anti-dumping or countervailing measures are in effect, imports of the dumped or subsidized goods tend to decrease and Canadian shipments, related investments and employment tend to increase.

This report evaluates the impact of Canadian anti-dumping and countervailing measures by estimating what Canadian shipments, investments, employment and imports would have been if the trends that existed prior to the imposition of the measures had continued.[2]

As of December 31, 2014, there were 53 anti-dumping and countervailing measures in place. They affected $8 billion in Canadian shipments, $0.5 billion in investments, and nearly 22,000 jobs in the domestic industries directly benefitting from the measures. In addition, the measures affected $1.4 billion in imports.

While the number of Canadian anti-dumping and countervailing measures has decreased by approximately 59 percent from 1989 to 2014, the importance of each measure in terms of its impact on Canadian shipments, investments, jobs and imports has increased. From 1989 to 2014, the average impact per measure on shipments, jobs and imports has increased by approximately 493 percent, 186 percent and 350 percent, respectively. While, from 1995 to 2014, the average impact per measure on investments has increased by approximately 80 percent.

INTRODUCTION

Starting in 1990, the staff of the Tribunal has occasionally produced reports on Canada’s use of anti‑dumping and countervailing measures.[3]

This report updates one such report from 2013.[4] It presents estimates of Canadian shipments, employment and imports affected by anti-dumping and countervailing measures for the period from 1989 to 2014, and of investments from 1995 to 2014.[5]

“Measure” is the unit for counting Tribunal findings and orders (i.e. final determinations in SIMA cases; it does not include preliminary determinations) in this report.[6]

Measures are country-specific. When a Tribunal finding or an order affects imports from more than one country, it is counted as more than one measure. For example, the Tribunal’s finding in Inquiry No. NQ-2000-006 (Garlic) counts as two measures: one for the People’s Republic of China (China) and one for Vietnam.

However, when a case involves multiple determinations relating to separate classes of goods from the same country, one measure is counted. For example, in Inquiry No. NQ-2000-001 (Refrigerators, Dishwashers and Dryers), the Tribunal made separate findings on refrigerators, dishwashers and dryers from the United States. Yet, for the purposes of this report, these three findings count as one measure.

METHODOLOGY

The actual values of shipments, investments and imports, as well as employment levels, in the years following the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing measures do not accurately reflect the extent to which the measures affected those indicators. This is because anti-dumping and countervailing measures have a remedial effect, as they generally result in increased prices of imports covered by the measures. As a result, imports of those products tend to decrease, while Canadian shipments, investments and employment tend to increase.

A better evaluation of the impact of anti-dumping and countervailing measures is to estimate what shipments, investments, employment and imports would have been in the absence of the measures. This is called a “counterfactual” assessment.

To do this counterfactual assessment, a database was established of the market values, shipment values, investment values, employment levels and import values (by subject country) for all measures for the period from 1989 to 2014.[7] The values/levels are taken from the investigation reports prepared for the relevant cases.[8]

Essentially, the estimation approach is as follows:

Step 1: Establish baselines for shipments, investments, employment and imports for each product by taking the average over the three calendar years preceding CBSA’s preliminary determination (PD) of dumping or subsidizing.[9]

Step 2: Estimate the market trend for each product prior to the measure by taking the average annual change in the value or level over the three calendar years prior to the PD.

Step 3: Use the pre-measure market trend to extrapolate the values/levels for each of the five years that a measure is in place.

For the first calendar year following implementation of a measure, multiply the base values or levels by the pre-measure market trend. For the subsequent four years, multiply the pre‑measure trend by the previous year’s estimated shipment values, investment values, employment levels and import values.

Step 4: For a given year, sum the estimates of shipments, investments, employment and imports affected by anti-dumping and countervailing measures across the applicable products.

For example, suppose that at the end of 2010 there were two measures in place, each covering a single product from a single country. One measure had been implemented in 2009 and the other measure had been implemented in 2008. Suppose the base values for shipments and pre-measure trends were as shown:

Product

Measure Implemented

Base Value – Shipments

Pre‑measure Trend

Product 1

2009

$1,000,000

5%

Product 2

2008

$2,000,000

(4)%

 

Therefore, in 2010, the impact of these two measures on shipments would be:

[($2,000,000 × 0.96) × 0.96] + ($1,000,000 × 1.05)

= $1,843,200 + $1,050,000

= $2,893,200

Anti-dumping and countervailing measures ordinarily lapse at the end of five years, unless a finding or order is reviewed and continued, in which case the duties will be collected for another five years. When the Tribunal reviews anti-dumping and countervailing measures, information is typically collected on market values for the three calendar years prior to the start of the review. This means that actual market trends can be calculated for those years. For the other two years of the review period, an average annual change in the market is estimated. The values of affected shipments, investments, imports and employment levels are recalculated for each year of the review period using either actual market trends or estimated average annual changes. These “retroactive” adjustments mean that results for the previous years will change each time a new report is published.

Appendix I gives details on the estimation methodology and addresses certain special issues.

RESULTS

Table 1 summarizes the impact of anti-dumping and countervailing measures on shipments, investments, employment in the domestic industries protected by the measures, and on imports.

Highlights are:

  • Decrease in the number of measures in place by approximately 59 percent from 1989 to 2014
  • Increase in the value of shipments affected per measure by nearly 493 percent from 1989 to 2014
  • Increase in the value of investments affected per measure by 80 percent from 1995 to 2014
  • Increase in the levels of employment affected per measure by about 186 percent from 1989 to 2014
  • Increase in the value of imports affected per measure by almost 350 percent from 1989 to 2014

 

Table 1
                                                           
Impact of Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures on Canadian Shipments, Investments, Employment and Imports

 

Measures in Place on

December 31

Shipments Affected

Investments Affected

Employment Affected

Imports Affected

Year

$ Million

$ Million/Measure

$ Million

$ Million/Measure

Employees

Employees/Measure

$ Million

$ Million/
Measure

1989

128

3,492

27

N/A

 N/A

18,526

144.7

730

6

1990

74

2,816

38

N/A

 N/A

24,053

325.0

788

11

1991

68

2,075

31

N/A

 N/A

6,955

102.3

535

8

1992

67

1,875

28

N/A

 N/A

10,709

159.8

535

8

1993

83

3,485

42

N/A

 N/A

13,452

162.1

1,012

12

1994

93

4,435

48

N/A

 N/A

14,358

154.4

1,162

12

1995

95

4,641

49

434

5

14,118

148.6

1,110

12

1996

94

4,809

51

476

5

14,363

152.8

1,050

11

1997

90

4,705

52

539

6

14,324

159.2

1,107

12

1998

76

3,898

51

426

6

14,461

190.3

956

13

1999

77

5,705

74

512

7

18,347

238.3

977

13

2000

78

6,587

84

613

8

20,042

256.9

1,253

16

2001

93

5,394

58

475

5

19,870

213.7

1,294

14

2002

89

5,689

64

545

6

19,797

222.4

1,193

13

2003

91

5,099

56

515

6

18,460

202.9

980

11

2004

80

4,150

52

410

5

19,693

246.2

958

12

2005

57

4,362

77

483

8

19,054

334.3

804

14

2006

38

4,823

127

 486

13

17,931

471.9

622

16

2007

39

4,479

115

 448

11

15,432

395.7

523

13

2008

39

4,780

123

 440

11

16,009

410.5

625

16

2009

35

4,082

117

290

8

13,851

395.8

668

19

2010

31

6,061

196

430

14

17,459

563.2

853

28

2011

31

6,554

2111

426

14

16,684

538.2

860

28

2012

45

6,899

153

430

10

18,393

408.7

985

22

2013

48

7,732

161

452

9

21,539

448.7

1,200

25

2014

53

8,037

152

466

9

21,892

413.1

1,375

26

Source: CITT Database and Statistics Canada.

 

Table 2 compares, in percentage terms, the value of shipments, value of investments and employment levels in the domestic industries protected by the measures and the value of imports directly affected by the measures to the total value of Canadian shipments and investments, as well as employment levels, and imports, in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors.[10] The general trends for each of these indicators can be found in Figure 1.

Highlights are:

  • Increase of 57 percent in the portion of total Canadian shipments directly affected by anti-dumping and countervailing measures from 1989 to 2014
  • Decrease of 3 percent in the portion of total Canadian investments directly affected by anti‑dumping and countervailing measures from 1995 to 2014
  • Increase of 51 percent in the portion of total Canadian employment directly affected by anti‑dumping and countervailing measures from 1989 to 2014
  • Decrease of 53 percent in the portion of total Canadian imports directly affected by anti-dumping and countervailing measures from 1989 to 2014

Table 2

Percentage of Total Canadian Shipments, Investments, Employment, and Imports Affected in the Manufacturing and Agricultural Sectors

 

Year

Measures in Place on December 31

Canadian Shipments Affected as a Percentage of Total Canadian Shipments

Canadian Investments Affected as a Percentage of Total Canadian Investments

Canadian Employment Affected as a Percentage of Total Canadian Employment

Canadian Imports Affected as a Percentage of Total Canadian Imports

1989

128

1.50

N/A

0.72

0.62

1990

74

1.30

N/A

0.97

0.70

1991

68

1.03

N/A

0.30

0.47

1992

67

0.98

N/A

0.48

0.43

1993

83

1.76

N/A

0.60

0.71

1994

93

2.06

N/A

0.64

0.68

1995

95

1.97

2.02

0.61

0.59

1996

94

2.02

2.09

0.61

0.55

1997

90

1.90

2.13

0.59

0.49

1998

76

1.61

1.62

0.57

0.38

1999

77

1.99

1.90

0.71

0.37

2000

78

2.10

2.18

0.77

0.43

2001

93

1.74

1.94

0.78

0.47

2002

89

1.74

2.33

0.76

0.43

2003

91

1.47

2.14

0.71

0.36

2004

80

1.19

1.75

0.75

0.34

2005

57

1.21

2.02

0.75

0.27

2006

38

1.35

2.39

0.73

0.20

2007

39

1.30

2.04

0.65

0.16

2008

39

1.39

2.03

0.70

0.19

2009

35

1.35

1.65

0.66

0.23

2010

31

1.91

2.27

0.85

0.27

2011

31

1.93

2.04

0.81

0.25

2012

45

1.92

2.05

0.88

0.27

2013

48

2.20

2.04

1.05

0.32

2014

53

2.35

1.95

1.09

0.29

Source: CITT Database and Statistics Canada.

 

Figure 1
Percentage of Total Canadian Shipments, Investments, Employment, and Imports Affected in the Manufacturing and Agricultural Sectors

Figure 1 - Percentage of Total Canadian Shipments, Investments, Employment, and Imports Affected in the Manufacturing and Agricultural Sectors

Text Version

APPENDIX I – METHODOLOGY

This appendix addresses three methodological issues.

First, it sets out the approach used to calculate a base value of affected imports. It responds to the following question: What would have been the value of imports in a base period just before the CBSA’s PD? This methodology is also used to estimate the value of shipments and investments, as well as employment levels.

Second, it describes how the base value of the imports was adjusted to reflect the underlying growth (or decline) in the market for the years during which the measures were in place. It responds to the following question: If there had not been a measure, what would have been the value of imports for each of the years during which the measure was in place?

Third, it explains the approach used to address certain special issues.

CALCULATION OF THE BASE LEVEL OF AFFECTED IMPORTS

Before estimating the value of imports affected by measures, it is necessary to know the level of imports that existed before measures were put in place. For the purposes of this analysis, the base level of imports is the average value of imports in the three calendar years prior to the PD.[11] The PD is the cut-off point because that is when the CBSA begins to impose provisional duties on the dumped or subsidized goods, thereby altering the trajectory of the import trend.

This approach provides a reasonably representative value of the affected imports. It reduces the impact of the period just prior to the PD when there is often a significant artificial increase or decrease in imports, depending on the reaction of the domestic market to the dumped and/or subsidized imports. Taking a three-year average also moderates the potential volatility observed with some year-to-year changes in imports and likely captures a more normal pattern of import flows.

ESTIMATION OF IMPORTS AFFECTED FOR THE YEARS DURING WHICH MEASURES ARE IN PLACE

Once imports for a base period have been determined, the issue is how to estimate the value of affected imports for each year during which the anti-dumping and countervailing measures are in place.[12] This is done by advancing the base level of affected imports, on an annual basis, to reflect the underlying growth (or decline) in the market.

FORWARD ESTIMATION

For each of the five years[13] that a measure is in effect, the value of affected imports was increased or decreased on the basis of an estimate of the market growth for that product.[14] For example, starting with the base level of imports, the value of imports was estimated for each year of a finding, including the first year, on the basis of the average annual change in the market value of the product in the three calendar years prior to the PD. An analogous approach was used for estimating the value of affected imports for each year of an order. The average annual change was based on the three calendar years prior to the order.

PDs are made throughout the year. As well, findings and orders expire or are rescinded throughout the year. Accordingly, the estimated value of affected imports was prorated, as appropriate, to account for situations where imports were affected by anti-dumping and countervailing measures that cover only several months of a particular year.

In both situations, the value of imports affected by anti-dumping and countervailing measures, estimated on an annual basis, was prorated by the number of months during which a measure was in place in a given year. For example, when a PD was made in July or when a finding or an order was rescinded in June, the value of estimated annual affected imports was reduced by 50 percent.

RETROACTIVE ADJUSTMENT

At the time of a review, the value of affected imports is recalculated and adjusted retroactively on the basis of the actual growth observed in the market. Information on the actual market growth becomes available at the time of the review.

Because this new information typically covers only the three calendar years prior to the start of a review, there is still a requirement to estimate the market for the two to three years following the previous finding or order. For example, an expiry review in 2005 of a finding made in 2000 will take into account annual market data for 2002, 2003 and 2004, leaving annual market data to be estimated for the gap years of 2000 and 2001.

The market data for the gap years were estimated on the basis of the average annual growth using the market value for the last full year prior to the PD and the market value for the first full year of the review. An analogous approach was used for estimating the gap years between two reviews.

Estimating the market data for the gap years resulted in an uninterrupted period for the five years during which the measure was in place. For this five-year period, the base value of the imports (for an injury finding) or the last annual import value (for an order) was revised each year by the year-over-year growth in the market. This value replaced the one estimated by forward estimation.

SPECIAL ISSUES

Seasonal Application of Measures

In five cases, all covering agricultural products, there is a seasonal application of measures.

Product

Lineage

Period During Which Duties/Decision in Effect

Number of Months During Which Duties in Effect in a 12-month Period

Whole Potatoes

ADT-4-84

Throughout the year

12

CIT-16-85

Throughout the year

12

RR-89-010

Throughout the year

12

RR-94-007

August 1-April 30

9

RR-99-005

August 1-April 30

9

RR-2004-006

August 1-April 30

9

RR-2009-002

August 1-April 30

9

Fresh, Whole, Yellow Onions

CIT-1-87

August 16-March 31

7.5

RR-91-004

August 16-March 31

7.5

RR-96-005

Rescinded

0

Fresh Iceberg (Head) Lettuce

NQ-92-001

June 1-October 15

4.5

RR-97-002

June 1-October 15

4.5

RD-2001-002

Rescinded

0

Fresh, Whole, Delicious and Red Delicious Apples

NQ-94-001

October 1-June 30

9

RR-99-001

Rescinded

0

 

For these cases, the affected imports are limited to the season in question. Since the base values of imports were established for a 12-month period, the annual import data estimated for these products were discounted by the number of months, within a 12-month period, during which these measures were not in place.

For example, in Expiry Review No. RR-94-007 (Whole Potatoes), the Tribunal continued the findings, with an amendment to exclude imports during the period from May 1 to July 31, inclusive, of each calendar year. As a result, for purposes of estimating the value of affected imports, starting with data for 1996, the values of estimated annual imports were discounted by 25 percent to reflect the impact of such an amendment.[15]

Source Switching and Case Grouping[16]

When anti-dumping and countervailing measures are put in place against goods from certain countries, importers may start to import dumped and/or subsidized goods of the same kind from other countries, resulting in new cases and new findings in subsequent years.[17] If these cases are treated as unique cases, the value of imports affected by anti-dumping and countervailing measures is likely to be overstated. The following cases must be considered as a group of cases.

Year of Finding/Order

Case Grouping

Case

Inquiry

Review

Expiry

A

Photo Albums I ¹

Pre-1989: ADT-4-74

Pre-1995: R-3-84, 1995: RR-94-006

2000: LE-99-006

Photo Albums II

Pre-1989: CIT-18-84

1995: RR-94-006

2000: LE-99-006

Photo Albums III

Pre-1989: CIT-10-85

1995: RR-94-006

2000: LE-99-006

Photo Albums IV

Pre-1989: CIT-5-87

1995: RR-94-006

2000: LE-99-006

Photo Albums V

1990: NQ-90-003

Pre-1995: RR-89-012, 1995: RR-94-006

2000: LE-99-006

B

Hydraulic Turbines I

Pre-1989: ADT-4-76

 

1990: RR-89-004

Electric Generators I

Pre-1989: ADT-11-79

 

1990: RR-89-004

Alternating Current Electric Generators

Pre-1989: ADT-8-83

 

1990: RR-89-004

Hydraulic Turbines

Pre-1989: ADT-9-84

 

1990: RR-89-004

C

Stainless Steel Pipe

Pre-1989: ADT-11-78

Pre-1989: R-16-85

1990: RR-90-002

Stainless Steel Pipe, Nickel and Nickel Alloy

Pre-1989: ADT-1-84

Pre-1989: R-16-85; Pre-1989: R-9-86

1990: RR-90-002

D

Wide Flange Steel Shapes I

Pre-1989: ADT-12-77

 

1990: RR-89-011

Wide Flange Steel Shapes II

Pre-1989: ADT-9-83

 

1990: RR-89-011

Wide Flange Steel Shapes III

Pre-1989: CIT-1-85

 

1990: RR-89-011

Wide Flange Steel Shapes IV

Pre-1989: CIT-7-87

 

1990: RR-89-011

E

Rubber Footwear I

Pre-1989: ADT-4-79

1997: RR-97-001, 2002: RR-2001-005

2007: LE-2006-001

Rubber Footwear II

Pre-1989: ADT-2-82

1997: RR-97-001, 2002: RR-2001-005

2007: LE-2006-001

F

Shotshells I

Pre-1989: ADT-6-79

Pre-1989: R-13-84

1989: RR-89-001

Shotshells II

Pre-1989: CIT-14-85

 

1989: RR-89-001

G

Carbon Steel Welded Pipe I

Pre-1989: ADT-6-83

1995: RR-94-004, 2000: RR-99-004

2004: RR-2004-003

Carbon Steel Welded Pipe II

1991: NQ-90-005

1996: RR-95-002, 2001: RR-2000-002

2006: LE-2005-003

Carbon Steel Welded Pipe III

1991: NQ-91-003

1996: RR-95-002, 2001: RR-2000-002

2006: LE-2005-003

H

Hardboard Panels

Pre-1989: ADT-4-80

Pre-1989: R-11-85

1990: LE-90-004

Hardboard Sheets/Panels

Pre-1989: ADT-4-81

Pre-1989: R-11-85

1990: LE-90-004

I

Drywall Screws I

Pre-1989: ADT-5-82

 

1991: RR-90-003

Drywall Screws II

Pre-1989: CIT-1-86

Pre-1989: R-7-85

1991: RR-90-003

Drywall Screws III

Pre-1989: CIT-6-86

Pre-1989: R-7-85

1991: RR-90-003

Drywall Screws IV

Pre-1989: CIT-10-87

Pre-1989: R-7-85

1991: RR-90-003

J

Alloy Tool Steel Bars, Plates, and Forgings I

Pre-1989: ADT-2-83

 

1990: RR-89-005

Alloy Tool Steel Bars, Plates, and Forgings II

Pre-1989: CIT-3-85

 

1990: RR-89-005

K

Carbon and Alloy Steel Plates I

Pre-1989: ADT-10-83

Pre-1989: R-10-88

1990: RR-89-006

Carbon and Alloy Steel Plates II

Pre-1989: ADT-13-83

Pre-1989: R-10-88

1990: RR-89-006

L

Carbon Steel Plate I

1993: NQ-92-007

 

1998: RR-97-006

Carbon Steel Plate II

1994: NQ-93-004

1999: RR-98-004

2004: RR-2003-001

Carbon Steel Plate III ²

1997: NQ-97-001

2003: RR-2001-006, 2008: RR-2007-001

 

Carbon Steel Plate IV

2000: NQ-99-004

 

2004: RR-2004-004

Carbon Steel Plate V

2003: NQ-2003-002

2009: RR-2008-002

 2014:RR-2013-002

Carbon Steel Plate VI

2009: NQ-2009-003

 

 

Carbon Steel Plate VII

2014: NQ-2013-005

 

 

M

Cold-rolled Steel Sheet I

1993: NQ-92-009

 

1998: RR-97-007

Cold-rolled Steel Sheet II

1999: NQ-99-001

 

2004: RR-2003-004

N

Stainless Steel Round Bar I

1998: NQ-98-001

2003: RR-2002-003

2005: RD-2004-003 to RD-2004-007

Stainless Steel Round Bar II

1999: NQ-98-003

2003: RR-2002-004

2005: RD-2004-003 to RD-2004-007

Stainless Steel Round Bar III

2000: NQ-2000-002

 

2005: RD-2004-003 to RD-2004-007, LE-2004-008

O

Hot-rolled Steel Sheet I

1999: NQ-98-004

 

2004: RR-2003-002

Hot-rolled Steel Sheet II

2001: NQ-2001-001

2006: RR-2005-002, 2010: RR-2010-001

 

P

Reinforcing Bar I

2000: NQ-99-002

 

2004: RR-2004-001

Reinforcing Bar II

2001: NQ-2000-007

 

2006: LE-2005-002

 

Note:

1. The cases on photo albums also covered self-adhesive leaves.

2. The review of Inquiry No. NQ-97-001 (Carbon Steel Plate III) in Expiry Review No. RR-2001-006 was delayed because of the safeguard inquiry into the importation of certain steel goods.

The imports in the first case in the group were estimated and revised, as set out above, for each year during which the finding was in place. As long as this finding was not rescinded, the annual imports were the point of reference for the annual imports of the other cases in the group. Thus, imports in the other cases, similarly escalated and revised, were added to the affected imports for the group, for a given year, only to the extent that they exceeded the corresponding imports of the first case in the group. When the first findings in the group were rescinded, the imports of the second case became the reference point for the other cases in the group, and the process continued until the rescission of all findings or orders in the group.

Temporal Switching

As a result of Inquiry No. NQ-96-002 (Fresh Garlic), anti-dumping measures were applied from July 1 to December 31, inclusive, of each calendar year. In response to this finding, importers started to import the goods in the first half of the year, the six-month period that fell outside the finding.

In the last full year (1995) before the finding, approximately 92 percent of the fresh garlic imported from China entered Canada in the second half of the year. After the finding, the pattern of imports reversed. In 1998, approximately 70 percent of the goods entered Canada in the first half of the year. By 2000, approximately 98 percent entered Canada in the first half of the year.

Coinciding with temporal switching, imports in each year during the period from 1998 to 2000, after the issuance of the finding in 1997, continued to increase and to maintain levels that were significantly higher than those of any year before the finding. This unabated growth in imports, along with a shift in the time of year during which imports entered Canada, strongly suggests that the 1997 finding had very little, if any, impact on the volume of imports.

Given the minimal effect of this finding on imports, it was decided to forgo the methodology set out earlier and to estimate import values for 1998, 1999 and 2000 using actual import data collected for the second half of the year in the first review, Expiry Review No. RR-2001-001. It was believed that these data would be more representative of the affected imports, given the temporal switching of imports since the 1997 injury finding.[18]

Significant Changes in Geographic Scope or Product Coverage

[19]

The Tribunal may terminate a measure against a particular country. In these situations, a country specific measure is no longer in place, and Tribunal staff removes from the estimated values of affected imports the estimated value for that country-specific measure.

As well, the Tribunal may exclude certain products from the scope of a measure. In five cases, the Tribunal removed products that comprise a significant portion of the dumped or subsidized goods. In these situations, TRIB removed, from the estimated values of affected imports, the estimated portion attributed to the excluded product, according to its share in the base values of imports.

Case

Lineage

Exclusion/Decision

Canned Ham and Canned Pork‑based Luncheon Meat

GIC-1-84

 

RR-89-003

 

RR-94-002

 

RR-99-002

Canned pork-based luncheon meat

LE-2004-001

Rescinded

Women’s Boots and Women’s Shoes

NQ-89-003

 

RR-94-003

 

RR-99-003

Women’s shoes

RR-2004-002

Rescinded

Bicycles and Frames

NQ-92-002

Bicycles with selling price > $325

RR-97-003

 

RR-2002-001

Bicycles with retail price > $400

RR-2006-001

Bicycles with retail price > $225
Bicycle frames rescinded

 

RR-2013-001 & RR-2013-002

Rescinded

Corrosion-resistant Steel Sheet Products

NQ-93-007

Electro-galvanized steel for the automotive sector

RR-98-007

Galvanized steel for the automotive sector

RR-2003-003

Rescinded

Certain Fasteners

NQ-2004-005

 

RR-2009-001

Stainless steel fasteners

Waterproof Footwear and Bottoms

NQ-2000-004

Waterproof flocked-suede footwear

RR-2004-008

 

RD-2009-003

Fishing waders made of polyester neoprene shells affixed to ethylene vinyl acetate boots with thermoplastic rubber outsoles

LE-2009-004

Rescinded

 

A case in point is Inquiry No. NQ-89-003 (Women’s Boots and Women’s Shoes). In the second review (Expiry Review No. RR-99-003), the Tribunal continued the order concerning women’s boots from China, but rescinded the part of the order concerning women’s shoes from the same country. To account for this exclusion, starting on May 1, 2000, the estimated values of affected imports were discounted by 92 percent, the share accounted for by shoes in the base imports.

APPENDIX II – MEASURES AND FINDINGS

Table 3

Canadian Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures, 1989-2013

     

Measures

 

Findings/Orders

 

Year

 

Added

 

Expired/Rescinded

 

In Place on December 31

 

In Place on December 31

                   
 

1989

 

3

 

14

 

128

 

59

 

1990

 

7

 

61

 

74

 

37

 

1991

 

11

 

17

 

68

 

32

 

1992

 

7

 

8

 

67

 

32

 

1993

 

16

 

0

 

83

 

37

 

1994

 

19

 

9

 

93

 

37

 

1995

 

7

 

5

 

95

 

40

 

1996

 

0

 

1

 

94

 

39

 

1997

 

7

 

11

 

90

 

38

 

1998

 

10

 

24

 

76

 

34

 

1999

 

9

 

8

 

77

 

35

 

2000

 

14

 

13

 

78

 

33

 

2001

 

19

 

4

 

93

 

35

 

2002

 

0

 

4

 

89

 

31

 

2003

 

5

 

3

 

91

 

32

 

2004

 

9

 

20

 

80

 

29

 

2005

 

4

 

27

 

57

 

21

 

2006

 

0

 

19

 

38

 

16

 

2007

 

3

 

2

 

39

 

15

 

2008

 

3

 

3

 

39

 

17

 

2009

 

2

 

6

 

35

 

17

 

2010

 

3

 

7

 

31

 

18

 

2011

 

1

 

1

 

31

 

19

 

2012

 

14

 

0

 

45

 

24

 

2013

 

7

 

4

 

48

 

25

 

2014

 

6

 

1

 

53

 

25

 

Source:  CITT Database

 

       

 

 

[1].           This edition of the report was prepared by Shawn Jeffrey, Rebecca Campbell, Julie Charlebois and Chuting (Tina) Liusun of the Secretariat to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. The Tribunal gratefully acknowledges their work.    

[2].     Value of Canadian shipments is the value of domestic sales from domestic production. Value of imports is the value of domestic sales from imports.

[3].    Canada’s Use of the GATT Anti-dumping Code (June 1991); The Import Coverage of Tribunal Injury Findings (July 1994); Canadian & International Use of Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures (July 1995); Canadian & International Use of Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures—Data Update—1988-1994 (May 1996); Canadian & International Use of Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures—1988-1995 (May 1997); Canadian Imports Affected by Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures, 1995-2002 (November 2003); Canadian Imports Affected by Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures, 1995-2003 (April 2004); Canadian Imports Affected by Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures, 1995-2004 (July 2005); and Canadian Imports Shipments and Employment Affected by Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures, 1995‑2010 (October 2011); Canadian Shipments, Employment and Imports Affected by Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures, 1995‑2011 (December 2012).

[4].    The Impact of Canadian Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Domestic Shipments, Investments, Employment and Imports, 1989-2013 (October 2014).

[5].     For cases prior to 1995 investment data are not available.

[6].    Measures as used in this report are different than “actions” as used by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in its reports. The most important difference is that when a case involves both anti-dumping and countervailing duties on products from the same country, this report counts one measure, while a WTO report would count two actions. Another important difference is that when a case involves both countervailing duties on products from a country of the European Union (EU) or the European Economic Community (EEC) and countervailing duties on the same products from the EU and EEC, this reports counts one measure.

[7].     Data on affected investments only cover the period from 1995 to 2014.

[8].    As part of its injury inquiries and expiry reviews, the Tribunal sends questionnaires to Canadian producers, as well as to importers and foreign producers, to collect relevant information, including three full years of data on: domestic and foreign production levels, the volume and value of imports, domestic sales and exports, and the financial results of Canadian producers. The information obtained through the questionnaires is compiled and presented in a comprehensive report called the “investigation report” (formerly the “pre-hearing staff report”), which becomes part of the case record. For cases prior to 1989, investigation reports were not prepared and, therefore, the values were taken from tables published by Tribunal staff or directly from questionnaire responses.

[9].    Using a three-year average reduces the impact for the period just prior to the PD, when there are often significant increases or decreases in shipments, investments, employment and imports, depending on how the domestic market reacts to the presence of dumped or subsidized imports.

[10].  These are derived from Statistics Canada data. The value of total Canadian shipments is the sum of the value of farm cash receipts and manufacturing shipments, less total Canadian merchandise exports in agricultural and manufactured products. The value of total Canadian investments is the sum of capital expenditures in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and in manufacturing. Total Canadian employment is the sum of employment in agricultural and manufacturing industries. The total value of Canadian imports is the total value of Canadian imports less re-exports.

[11].  Depending on data availability, the average annual value of imports may be calculated on the basis of less than three years of import data. In other situations, it is necessary to estimate the value of imports by using the volume of imports and pertinent pricing information.

[12].  For injury findings, imports are subject to duties starting on the date of the PD of dumping and/or subsidizing, 120 days before the issuance of a finding. Accordingly, imports during these 120 days were included for purposes of calculating affected imports in the first year of a finding.

[13].  Anti-dumping and countervailing measures expire after five years. Towards the end of the five-year period, the CBSA and the Tribunal may conduct a review to determine if a continuation of the measures is warranted. The Tribunal collects market data, generally covering the preceding three years, only at the time of the initial inquiry and subsequent expiry reviews.

[14].  This approach assumes that the market share of imports remains constant. In reality, in markets where imports are fairly traded, the import share of the market over time may remain constant, increase or decrease.

[15].  This methodology assumes that imports enter Canada regularly throughout the year. In reality, these imports may be seasonal in nature, coming into the country in larger quantities in certain months of the year.

[16].  Prior to 1995, for certain expiry reviews involving similar cases, the Tribunal grouped multiple findings and/or orders together to conduct a single expiry review. While some of these instances involved source switching, not all of them did. For purposes of these reviews the Tribunal collected information and prepared pre-hearing staff reports (now called “investigation reports”) on the basis of a single merged market. To avoid overstating the value of imports affected by the anti‑dumping and countervailing measures, the source switching was used and these cases were grouped.

[17].  An example is the importation of carbon steel plate, with the filing of seven separate complaints over the last 20 years, each typically involving different countries.

[18].  A new finding was put in place (Inquiry No. NQ-2000-006) concerning imports from China that were entering Canada in the first half of the year. With the new finding, imports from China were affected irrespective of the time of year. The two findings were considered a single finding that covered the entire year, and imports for 2001 and thereafter were estimated using the usual methodology.

[19].  Please note that there is limited data available for cases that expired prior to 1995. As a result, the value of any exclusions in existence for this time period was deemed inestimable.

Resource Type

Status

Publication Date

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Modification Date

Wednesday, October 28, 2015