Interim Reviews (Section 76.01)
CONCRETE REINFORCING BAR
Request for Interim Review No. RD-2005-002
Order and reasons issued
Wednesday, November 9, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IN THE MATTER OF a request for an interim review, under
subsection 76.01(1) of the Special Import Measures Act, of
the finding made by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal on
June 1, 2001, in Inquiry No. NQ-2000-007, concerning:
CONCRETE REINFORCING BAR
ORIGINATING IN OR EXPORTED FROM THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, JAPAN,
THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA, THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA, THE REPUBLIC OF
POLAND, CHINESE TAIPEI AND UKRAINE
On September 20, 2005, Krivorozhstal Mining & Metallurgical
Integrated Works filed a request for an interim review of the
finding made by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal in
Inquiry No. NQ-2000-007 concerning the above-noted goods.
Pursuant to subsection 76.01(4) of the Special Import
Measures Act, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal has
decided not to conduct an interim review of the above finding.
James A. Ogilvy
James A. Ogilvy
Ellen Fry, Presiding Member
Pierre Gosselin, Member
James A. Ogilvy, Member
Director of Research:
Lead Research Officer:
Counsel for the Tribunal:
Please address all communications to:
Canadian International Trade Tribunal
Standard Life Centre
333 Laurier Avenue West
Telephone: (613) 993-3595
Fax: (613) 990-2439
STATEMENT OF REASONS
1. On June 1, 2001, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal
(the Tribunal), in Inquiry No. NQ-2000-007, made a finding of
injury, pursuant to subsection 43(1) of the Special Import
concerning hot-rolled deformed carbon or low
alloy steel concrete reinforcing bar in straight lengths or coils
(rebar) originating in or exported from the Republic of Indonesia,
Japan, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Moldova, the
Republic of Poland, Chinese Taipei and Ukraine.
2. On July 26, 2005, the Tribunal issued Notice of Expiry No.
LE-2005-002 to inform parties that its finding in Inquiry No.
NQ-2000-007 was due to expire on May 31, 2006, and to invite
parties to file submissions on whether an expiry review of the
finding was warranted pursuant to subsection 76.03(2) of
SIMA. The Tribunal received submissions from the following
Canadian producers: Stelco Inc., AltaSteel Ltd. and Norambar Inc.
(collectively referred to as the Stelco companies); and Gerdau
Ameristeel Corporation, Whitby Plant and Cambridge Plant, and
Gerdau MRM Specialty Sections Inc. (collectively referred to as the
Gerdau companies). A Ukrainian producer, Krivorozhstal Mining &
Metallurgical Integrated Works (Krivorozhstal), and the Government
of Indonesia also filed submissions. No party argued for a
continuation of the finding.
3. On September 14, 2005, the Tribunal issued a notice
indicating that it had received no submissions in support of a
review and continuation of the finding and that, consequently, no
expiry review would be initiated. It gave notice that, pursuant to
paragraph 76.03(1)(b) of SIMA, the finding made on
June 1, 2001, in Inquiry No. NQ-2000-007 would expire on May 31,
4. On September 20, 2005, Krivorozhstal filed a request for an
interim review of the Tribunal's finding.
5. In its request, Krivorozhstal argued that the following facts
are sufficient justification for an interim review: during the
proceedings in Expiry No. LE-2005-002, no Canadian producer
supported a review of the finding, and no claims of injury were
offered against any imports or potential imports from Ukraine. It
submitted that such a review is needed to remove immediately the
unnecessary barrier to trade that the finding has imposed on
exports of rebar from Ukraine to Canada. In the Tribunal's view,
Krivorozhstal has submitted a properly documented request in
accordance with the requirements of subrule 70(1) of the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Rules.2
6. Subsection 76.01(1) of SIMA provides that the Tribunal
may conduct an interim review of a finding or an order. Such an
interim review may concern the whole finding or order or any aspect
of it. Pursuant to subsection 76.01(3), the Tribunal shall not
conduct an interim review unless the requester satisfies the
Tribunal that the review is warranted.
7. Before addressing the question of whether an interim review
is warranted, the Tribunal will address one procedural matter in
connection with the request for interim review. Subrule 70(2) of
the Rules requires the Tribunal to give all other parties to
the original inquiry an opportunity to make representations to the
Tribunal concerning the request. However, rule 6 allows the
Tribunal to dispense with, vary or supplement any of the
Rules if it is fair and equitable to do so or to provide for
a more expeditious or informal process, as the circumstances and
considerations of fairness permit.
8. In this case, the Tribunal decided, in accordance with rule 6
of the Rules, not to distribute the request to the parties
for comments, as would ordinarily be the case pursuant to subrule
70(2). The Gerdau companies, during the proceedings of Expiry No.
LE-2005-002, already requested that the finding in Inquiry No.
NQ-2000-007 remain in place until its expiry. In light of this
submission and the Tribunal's determination as outlined below, the
Tribunal is of the view that no parties will be treated unfairly or
be adversely affected by its decision not to distribute the request
9. Having determined that the request is properly documented,
the Tribunal must decide if an interim review is warranted. In
light of subsection 76.01(3) of SIMA, interim reviews should
only be undertaken when there are sufficiently compelling reasons
to persuade the Tribunal to do so. New facts or changes of
circumstances are not, in and of themselves, enough to warrant an
interim review. It is reasonably expected that new facts will arise
and circumstances will change over the course of a finding.
10. However, as indicated in the Tribunal's Guideline on
Interim Reviews, the question is whether there are sufficient
new facts or changes of circumstances to warrant an interim review,
or whether an interim review is warranted due to facts that were
not put into evidence during the original inquiry and not
discoverable by the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time.
For example, since the finding, the domestic industry might have
ceased production or foreign subsidies might have been
11. After having considered the request, it is the Tribunal's
view that Krivorozhstal has not provided evidence of sufficient new
facts or changes of circumstances to warrant an interim review. The
Tribunal notes that Krivorozhstal provided no evidence to indicate
that dumped imports from Ukraine will not injure domestic producers
in the final months of the finding.
12. The Tribunal also notes that subsection 76.03(1) of
SIMA provides that, "[i]f the Tribunal has not initiated an
expiry review . . . with respect to an order or
finding . . . before the expiry of five
years . . ., the order or finding is deemed to have
been rescinded as of the expiry of the five
years . . . ." The Tribunal considers that the
fact that the domestic industry is not seeking a review of the
finding in Inquiry No. NQ-2000-007 does not warrant the
domestic industry being accorded any treatment that is different
from that contemplated in subsection 76.03(1).
13. Based on the Tribunal's injury finding in Inquiry No.
NQ-2000-007, the domestic industry is entitled to expect that the
remedy will not be disturbed for the full five years provided for
14. For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal determines that an
interim review of the finding in Inquiry No. NQ-2000-007 is not
warranted. Consequently, pursuant to subsection 76.01(4) of
SIMA, the Tribunal has decided not to conduct an interim
1 . R.S.C.
1985, c. S-15 [SIMA].
2 . S.O.R.