UNITED WOOD FRAMES INC.
PRESIDENT OF THE CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY
Appeal No. AP-2011-039
Decision and reasons issued
Thursday, June 7, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal heard on May 23, 2012, pursuant to
subsection 61(1) of the Special Import Measures Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. S-15;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a decision of the President of the Canada
Border Services Agency, dated August 3, 2011, with respect to a
request for re-determination pursuant to section 59 of the
Special Import Measures Act.
UNITED WOOD FRAMES INC. Appellant
THE PRESIDENT OF THE CANADA BORDER SERVICES
The appeal is dismissed.
Jason W. Downey
Jason W. Downey
Place of Hearing: Ottawa, Ontario
Date of Hearing: May 23, 2012
Tribunal Members: Serge Fréchette, Presiding Member
Diane Vincent, Member
Jason W. Downey, Member
Counsel for the Tribunal: Nick Covelli
Manager, Registrar Programs and Services: Michel Parent
Registrar Officer: Haley Raynor
|United Wood Frames Inc.
|President of the Canada Border Services Agency
Please address all communications to:
Canadian International Trade Tribunal
Standard Life Centre
333 Laurier Avenue West
1. This is an appeal filed by United Wood Frames Inc. (United)
pursuant to subsection 61(1) of the Special Import Measures
Act1 from a re-determination made by the
President of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) pursuant to
2. The appeal concerns mattress innerspring units, which United
imported from the People’s Republic of China. The goods are of the
same description as the goods to which the Tribunal’s finding in
Inquiry No. NQ-2009-0022 applies. Therefore, they are
subject to anti-dumping duties.
3. The CBSA assessed anti-dumping duties on the basis of a
normal value that is well in excess of the export price of the
goods.3 The issue is whether the CBSA correctly
determined the normal value.
4. United filed a brief on December 7, 2011.4 The CBSA
filed its brief on February 2, 2012.5
5. As no material facts are in dispute, the parties consented to
a hearing by way of written submissions.6
6. In lieu of an oral hearing, the Tribunal invited United to
comment on the CBSA’s brief by
April 10, 2012.7 The Tribunal later extended this deadline
to April 23, 2012.8
7. On April 20, 2012, United filed several documents (e.g.
invoices, production schedules, production flowcharts), which
appear to be in Chinese.9 United filed English translations on May
1, 2012.10 No accompanying explanation or argument was
8. On May 3, 2012, the Tribunal offered the CBSA an opportunity
to comment on United’s additional materials. The CBSA filed
comments on May 9, 2012.11
9. The file hearing took place on May 23, 2012.
10. The onus is on United to show that the normal value is
invalid or incorrect.12
11. Subsection 3(1) of SIMA requires that anti-dumping
duties be levied in an amount equal to the “margin of dumping”. The
phrase “margin of dumping” is defined under section 2 as
“. . . the amount by which the normal value exceeds
the export price of the goods”.
12. Sections 15 to 30 of SIMA prescribe the methods for
determining the normal value and export price. Subsection 29(1)
provides that where, “. . . in the opinion of the
[CBSA], sufficient information has not been furnished or is not
available to enable the determination of normal value or export
price as provided in sections 15 to 28, the normal value or export
price, as the case may be, shall be determined in such manner as
the Minister [of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]
13. According to the CBSA, neither the exporter of the goods in
issue nor United nor anyone else, whether individually or
cumulatively, submitted sufficient information to allow the CBSA to
determine the normal value in accordance with any of the manners
prescribed in sections 15 to 28 of SIMA.13
14. As a result, pursuant to subsection 29(1) of SIMA,
the CBSA assessed the normal value of the goods in accordance with
a ministerial specification. This ministerial specification
required the normal value to be determined on the basis of the
export price plus 147.4 percent.14
15. United does not take issue with these facts. United does not
argue that the CBSA erred by either having recourse to a
ministerial specification or by calculating the normal value. On
the contrary, United admits that the CBSA had insufficient
information at the time of its decision.15 This admission is
enough to dismiss the appeal.16
16. United seems to want the Tribunal to re-assess the normal
value on the basis of the materials that it filed in the course of
this appeal. United states in its four-paragraph brief that it
wishes to have the normal values based, in particular, on a
one-page factory production schedule attached to the brief, which
“. . . was not available . . .”
17. However, even if the Tribunal could make such a
re-assessment in this case, United has not shown how the schedule
or the other material that it belatedly filed with the Tribunal is
sufficient for determining the normal value in accordance with one
of the manners prescribed in sections 15 to 28 of
18. In fact, United has presented no argument whatsoever to
support its claim. On the other hand, the CBSA maintains that these
materials are insufficient.18 In the circumstances, the
Tribunal has no reason to doubt that this is the case.
19. Therefore, United has not satisfied the Tribunal that the
normal value, as determined by the CBSA, is invalid or
20. The appeal is dismissed.
1 . R.S.C. 1985, c. S-15 [SIMA].
2 . Mattress Innerspring Units (24
November 2009) (CITT).
3 . Tribunal Exhibit AP-2011-039-05A, tab
4 . Tribunal Exhibit AP-2011-039-03.
5 . Tribunal Exhibit AP-2011-039-05A.
6 . Tribunal Exhibits AP-2011-039-06 and
AP-2011-039-10. See rule 36.1 of the Canadian International
Trade Tribunal Rules, S.O.R./91-499.
7 . Tribunal Exhibit AP-2011-039-11.
8 . Tribunal Exhibits AP-2011-039-12 and
9 . Tribunal Exhibit AP-2011-039-15
10 . Tribunal Exhibit AP-2011-039-15A
11 . Tribunal Exhibit AP-2011-039-17.
12 . See Sugi Canada Ltée v. Deputy
M.N.R.C.E. (17 December 1992), AP-92-013 (CITT) at 3.
13 . Tribunal Exhibit AP-2011-039-05A at
paras. 6-15, 22.
14 . Ibid., tab 16.
15 . As mentioned, United advised the
Tribunal that it did not dispute any of the material facts stated
in the CBSA’s brief. Tribunal Exhibit AP-2011-039-10.
16 . The Tribunal recalls that, in
Massive Prints, Inc. v. President of the Canada Border
Services Agency (27 April 2011),
AP-2010-014 (CITT), it dismissed the appeal under the Customs
Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2d Supp.), c. 1, because the appellant
in that case had not submitted the requisite information to the
CBSA at the time of the CBSA’s re-determination.
17 . Tribunal Exhibit AP-2011-039-03 at
paras. 1, 4.
18 . Tribunal Exhibit AP-2011-039-05A at
para. 34; Tribunal Exhibit AP-2011-039-17.