REPORT TO THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
REQUEST FOR TARIFF RELIEF BY DISTEX INC. REGARDING WEFT KNIT
APRIL 4, 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Request No.: TR-99-005
Tribunal Members: Richard Lafontaine, Presiding Member
Peter F. Thalheimer, Member
Zdenek Kvarda, Member
Research Director: Réal Roy
Researcher: Peter Rakowksi
Statistician: Lise Lacombe
Counsel for the Tribunal: Marie-France Dagenais
Distribution Officer: Claudette Friesen
Address all communications to:
Canadian International Trade Tribunal
Standard Life Centre
333 Laurier Avenue West
On July 14, 1994, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the
Tribunal) received terms of reference from the Minister of Finance
(the Minister) pursuant to section 19 of the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal Act.  The Minister directed 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 with respect to those requests to the
Pursuant to the Minister’s reference, the Tribunal received a
request from Distex Inc. (Distex) on August 19, 1999, for the
removal, for an indeterminate period of time, of the customs duty
on importations of weft knit fabric for use in the manufacture of
On October 18, 1999, the Tribunal, being satisfied that the
request was properly documented, issued a notice of commencement of
investigation that was distributed and published in the October 30,
1999, edition of the Canada Gazette.  The textile input was described in the
notice as “weft knit fabric, solely of cotton yarns, mercerized,
measuring 180 decitex or more but not exceeding 200 decitex, of a
weight of 150 g/m² or more but not exceeding 200 g/m², of tariff
item No. 6002.92.90, for use in the manufacture of golf jerseys”
(the subject fabric).
As part of the investigation, the Tribunal’s research staff sent
questionnaires to potential producers of fabrics identical to or
substitutable for the subject fabric. Questionnaires were also sent
to potential users and importers of the subject fabric. A letter
was sent to the Department of National Revenue (now the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency [CCRA]) requesting a complete
description of the physical characteristics of the subject fabric,
an opinion on whether the tariff relief was administrable, and
suggested wording should tariff relief be recommended. In addition,
the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT)
was asked to provide current information on any quantitative import
restrictions on the subject fabric, and the Department of Industry
was informed of the request and asked to provide any relevant
comments. The Department of Finance was also informed of the
A staff investigation report, summarizing the information
received from these departments, Distex and other interested
parties, was provided to those parties that had filed notices of
appearance in the investigation.
A public hearing was not held for this investigation.
The product under investigation is a “mercerized”,  weft knit fabric solely of
cotton. It differs from the textile input described in the request
filed by Distex, in that the latter was a “double-mercerized”,
 weft knit fabric
solely of cotton. However, the CCRA advised that any tariff relief
on a fabric with the specification “double mercerization” would not
be administrable. Accordingly, the Tribunal issued a notice of
commencement of investigation that did not refer to double
mercerization and, thus, covered a somewhat broader range of fabric
than that contained in the request.
The CCRA advised the Tribunal that the subject fabric is
classified under tariff item No. 6002.92.90 of the schedule to the
Customs Tariff  and is currently dutiable at 16 percent ad
valorem under the MFN tariff and at 7.5 percent ad
valorem under the Mexico tariff and the Chile tariff and is
duty free under the U.S. tariff and the Canada-Israel Agreement
Distex, located in Saint-Laurent, Quebec, is a manufacturer of
men’s and women’s sportswear sold under the trademark “Robert
Barakett”. The company has been in existence for three years. All
designs are developed by Distex at its facility in Saint-Laurent.
Distex hires local manufacturers for the cutting and sewing of its
Distex submitted that identical or substitutable fabrics are not
available from domestic producers and stated that its foreign
supplier mercerizes the yarn and the fabric on an automatic
machine, allowing a continuous mercerization as opposed to batch
mercerization. According to Distex, continuous mercerization
controls the yarn thickness more evenly and is crucial to the fine
yarns that it requires. Distex also stated that continuous
mercerization decreases the knots and naps of the yarn and
eliminates colour unevenness. Distex requested that tariff relief
be effective immediately. 
Distex also submitted that the following other factors account
for its preference for the subject fabric:
• Availability - The supplier has 24 colours of fabric available
at any given time. When other colours are required, the supplier
produces them on demand.
• Short production runs - In the event that a particular colour
is not found in the available stock, the supplier will knit as
little as 160 linear metres in a particular colour.
• Delivery time - Having such a variety of colours of fabric in
stock that are ready to be shipped translates into a quicker
response to Distex’s orders and reduced delivery time. This also
allows for fast repeat orders.
• Production requirements - The fabric used for the collar and
cuffs is of a different yarn specification from the fabric used for
the remainder of the golf jersey. The foreign supplier is able to
dye both fabrics uniformly.
Distex submitted that, due to the absence of domestically
produced substitutes, it must import the subject fabric and incur
unnecessary duty costs. Should tariff relief be granted, Distex
stated that it would achieve substantial duty savings, lower its
cost of production, price its end product more competitively and
Distex submitted that greater sales volumes would mean that it
would hire more staff to manage business expansion and that higher
production volumes would encourage its contractors to employ more
people in Canada. Distex also asserted that domestic companies that
import finished golf jerseys would be encouraged to manufacture in
Canada and pointed to the conclusion by the Tribunal in its
previous recommendation  that net economic gains would be realized in
Canada from the elimination of the tariff on that textile
In its final submission to the Tribunal, Distex stated the
• The specifications supplied by Agmont Inc. (Agmont) for its
fabric samples are substantially different from those found by the
CCRA laboratory when it analysed the same samples.
• Distex is prepared to accommodate Agmont and suggested that
the request be amended, that is, narrowed, to specify that it
covers “2-ply mercerized yarns” having “a yarn count ranging from
30/2 to 32/2”. 
According to Distex, these amendments should be sufficient to
exclude and protect all of Agmont’s production of identical or
• Regarding Agmont’s claims that it is capable of producing
fabrics identical to the subject fabric, Distex argued that the
Tribunal has stated, numerous times, that only actual production
can be considered when determining whether a domestic producer will
be affected by tariff relief.
• The particular mercerization technology used by foreign
suppliers has allowed Distex to penetrate the high-end segment of
the golf jersey market. The very fine details offered by
mercerization technology play a determining role when it sells its
• Agmont’s fabrics are not substitutable because
double-mercerized golf jerseys constitute a specific segment of the
market, and fabrics made of non-mercerized yarns are not
substitutable for the subject fabric. Distex’s golf jerseys command
a much higher retail price and, therefore, do not compete with
products made from Agmont fabrics.
• Even if Agmont made identical or substitutable fabrics, Distex
would not be able to source these fabrics because Agmont is either
unwilling or incapable of selling to it.
• Agmont has never sold, or even offered to sell, fabrics to
Distex. Therefore, Agmont cannot argue that its investments will be
jeopardized if tariff relief is granted.
• Although Agmont claims that one of its customers is making
golf jerseys that retail at approximately the same prices as those
of Distex, these jerseys are made of Jacquard fabrics and,
therefore, are outside the scope of this investigation.
• Given the commercial reality for the market segment under
consideration, Distex stated that Canada is not an attractive place
to manufacture high-end golf jerseys. Implementing a recommendation
for tariff relief would remedy the situation and put Canada at an
• Although the Canadian Textiles Institute (CTI) claimed that
the textile reference “denies textile producers any avenue of
appeal”, the fact is that, under section 19 of the Textile
Guidelines, Agmont is free to file a request for the
termination of the order.
• Canadian manufacturers, such as Distex, are too small to merit
consideration by domestic knitters; therefore, they have no option
but to purchase from foreign knitters.
Finally, Distex stated that it disagreed with the CCRA’s
position that, if the definition of the subject fabric referred to
double-mercerized fabrics, it would not be administrable because of
the inability of the CCRA laboratory to detect double
mercerization. Distex maintained that there are other ways of
ensuring that the fabric has been double mercerized, such as
affidavits, questionnaires, production records and onsite
verifications. According to Distex, exporter certification is being
used in the administration of other tariff initiatives and does not
seem to impose an overwhelming financial burden on the CCRA.
After the receipt of the final submissions, Agmont filed
additional samples of a fabric that, it alleged, was double
mercerized and identical to the subject fabric. In response, Distex
stated that it was still of the opinion that a fabric identical to
or substitutable for the subject fabric was not available in
Canada. Distex argued that there did not appear to be any evidence
that Agmont was actually selling the sample fabric, nor was there
any evidence that Agmont’s sales of this particular fabric would be
jeopardized if tariff relief were granted. Distex also argued that
there was still no evidence on the record to demonstrate that it
would be able to source fabrics identical to or substitutable for
the subject fabric in Canada. Distex concluded by stating that
there would be no cost to Agmont if relief were granted and that
tariff relief would provide net economic gains to Canada.
Ardent is a Canadian manufacturer of sportswear that produces
men’s cotton golf jerseys. The company indicated that it was not
able to complete the questionnaire because it has not had any
orders for golf jerseys using the subject fabric.
Hathaway indicated that, although it does not import the subject
fabric at the present time, it supported the request for tariff
Wing Son indicated that it did not import the subject fabric and
had no intention of doing so in the upcoming year.
Fountain Set did not complete the importer’s questionnaire, but
indicated that it supported the request for tariff relief because
such relief would assist it in making future sales and in creating
more job opportunities for the local apparel industry.
Agmont, of Montréal, Quebec, has been in business for 30 years
and is a manufacturer of circular knit fabrics serving customers in
Canada and the United States.
Agmont stated that it operates a state-of-the-art knitting
factory and that it has the most advanced dyeing and finishing
plant for knitted fabrics in North America (Agmont America Dyeing
Inc.). The company stated that it specializes in the production of
cotton, polyester/cotton, cotton/lycra and specialty-blend knitted
fabrics for use in the manufacture of sportswear and children’s,
men’s and women’s wear, bodywear and swimwear. It alleged that it
has the capability and capacity to produce the fabric as specified
in Distex’s request.
Agmont opposed the request for tariff relief, arguing that it
produces fabrics that are identical to the subject fabric described
in the notice of commencement of investigation. Agmont submitted
that it also produces fabrics that are virtually identical to the
sample fabrics submitted by Distex and that it has the capability
to produce fabrics identical in all respects to these samples by
using identical yarns. Agmont also alleged that it produces a
variety of fabrics that compete directly with those specified in
Agmont argued that, if Distex is permitted to import the subject
fabric duty free, Distex will compete directly with Agmont’s
customers in the U.S. market, causing them to lose market share.
According to Agmont, this would cause a reduction of employment in
its customers’ plants in the United States, a loss of market share
by Agmont in the U.S. market and reduced employment at Agmont’s
Canadian production facilities.
Agmont stated that North American fabric producers are actively
trying to recapture market share from high-quality imported
garments and submitted that it is switching its production to
higher-valued products. Agmont submitted that, in support of this
shift, it invested in mercerizing equipment to develop the market
for mercerized fabrics and argued that this investment will be
jeopardized if Agmont loses market share to the subject fabric.
Agmont made the following additional points in response to the
statement made by Distex that the Tribunal recognized that
“domestic manufacturers cannot duplicate” the characteristics of
the fabrics that they import when it made its recommendation on the
previous case: 
• The new request covers dyed fabrics, not Jacquards.
• It is absolutely untrue that Canadian manufacturers, and
specifically Agmont, cannot produce fabrics identical to those
imported by Distex, whether yarn-dyed Jacquards or dyed fabrics.
Agmont submitted that it purchases mercerized yarns and knits them
into fabrics and that it mercerizes both Jacquards and dyed
fabrics. Regarding “double-mercerized” fabrics, Agmont argued that
the reason that these do not show up in large volumes in its
current or past production numbers is that there has been little
demand for them from their customers and from the marketplace.
• Agmont is greatly alarmed that the CCRA, by not allowing the
use of the double-mercerization specification in the product
definition, has proposed wording that would allow the duty-free
importation of a substantially broader range of golf jersey fabrics
into Canada, in direct competition with Canadian knit fabric
Agmont also argued that its total sales to the golf jersey
market are significant and that allowing duty-free imports of
mercerized fabrics would negatively affect this area of its
business. Furthermore, Agmont submitted that one of its customers
in the United States is making golf jerseys that retail at
approximately the same price as those of Distex.
Agmont submitted that, while market demand is predominantly for
fabrics made from single yarns, it also produces fabrics made from
2-ply yarns for customers that request them.
Edward indicated that it did not produce identical or
substitutable fabrics and did not oppose the request.
Glenoit indicated that it did not oppose the request for tariff
The following are the major points made by the Canadian Apparel
Manufacturers Institute, on behalf of CAF, in support of the
• There is no domestic production of fabrics identical to or
substitutable for the subject fabric and, therefore, tariff relief
would not have an impact on domestic textile manufacturers.
• Agmont has little, if any, supplier presence in the market
niche in which Distex is operating, and there would be no impact on
Agmont if the tariff were eliminated. Furthermore, net economic
benefits would be maximized if tariff relief were granted on
double-mercerized cotton fabric for golf jerseys, as requested by
• CAF questioned whether Agmont is currently supplying
mercerized fabrics at all or, for that matter, whether it has the
capability to produce double-mercerized fabrics.
• CAF pointed out that, although Agmont alleged that it can
produce substitutable fabrics, the Tribunal has stated, in many of
its recommendations, that the fashion industry operates on a lower
degree of substitutability and attaches considerable importance to
even small differences between fabrics, which would allow it to
offer distinctive new products.
• Domestic textile knitters themselves recognize that there are
critical differences between knitted polyester/cotton, cotton and
cotton/lycra. They also recognize that there are business reasons
for making these three fabrics, namely, that the market demands
• It is not clear if Agmont’s double-mercerized fabrics of
single cotton yarns compare well with the subject fabric. It is
CAF’s understanding that the Distex yarns have more tensile
strength and, therefore, can be used for knitting finer-gauge
• It appears as if Agmont wants to establish that it purchases
mercerized yarns, knits them into fabrics and subsequently
mercerizes the fabrics. CAF saw no evidence of Agmont carrying out
a yarn mercerizing operation.
• Distex and Ardent provided evidence that non-mercerized
fabrics were used for low- to mid-priced jerseys. These are the
market niches occupied by lower end golf jersey manufacturers using
Canadian-made non-mercerized fabric. Agmont has not demonstrated
that it is occupying a specialty supplier niche, and there is no
proof that Agmont has the capability to produce high-quality
double-mercerized fabrics, as specified by Distex in its
• Only one of Agmont’s samples is double mercerized and the
others are single-mercerized fabrics that should be excluded from
• Agmont has not provided any evidence that it can make and
supply double-mercerized fabrics. Furthermore, Agmont supplies
manufacturers that make low-end golf jerseys and will not use the
subject fabric for this type of golf jersey. If, and when, Agmont
moves into double-mercerized fabrics, then this issue might become
more legitimate and could be re-examined.
• CAF saw no reason why import certificates would not work, even
if additional import controls were also needed.
In response to Agmont’s final submission of a fabric sample
that, it alleged, was identical to the subject fabric, CAF stated
that Distex has not had a trial run of this fabric and that there
have been no sales to, or orders from, Distex.
The CTI opposed the request for tariff relief. The CTI stated
that, in the first Distex case, the Tribunal’s recommendation was
made over the objections of the CTI and two major knitters,
disregarding the domestic industry’s production capabilities and
recent investments in the industry. The CTI submitted that the
textile reference induces textile importers to attack domestic
textile production and denies textile producers any avenue of
The CTI agreed that the subject fabric should not be described
as double-mercerized because this fabric characteristic cannot be
administered by the CCRA. The CTI submitted that Distex’s
allegations as to the superiority of the subject fabric over
Canadian fabrics are unsupported by comparative evidence on the
performance of Distex’s supplier in Italy and Canadian
The CTI submitted that Agmont has the equipment, yarn sources
and knowledge to produce fabrics identical to the subject fabric.
The CTI also stated that the range of fabrics covered by the
description of the “subject fabric”, on which the case is based, is
substantially broader than the range of Distex samples.
The CTI argued that Agmont can produce weft knit mercerized
fabrics in the following ways:
• from mercerized yarns to produce single-mercerized fabric;
• from regular yarns to produce fabric that is mercerized in the
finishing process; and
• from mercerized yarns to produce fabric which is mercerized in
the finishing process.
The CTI further submitted that Agmont had undertaken to produce
a fabric identical to the Distex fabric samples to demonstrate that
it can produce fabrics identical to the subject fabric. 
DFAIT informed the Tribunal that Canada does not maintain quota
restrictions on the subject fabric classified in subheading No.
6002.92. Therefore, the subject fabric is not subject to any
quantitative import restrictions.
The CCRA stated that there would be no additional costs, over
and above those already incurred by it, to administer tariff relief
on the subject fabric.
The terms of reference direct the Tribunal to evaluate the
economic impact that reducing or removing a tariff would have on
domestic textile producers and downstream producers and, in so
doing, to consider all relevant factors, such as the
substitutability of an imported fabric with a domestic fabric, the
ability of domestic fabric producers to serve the Canadian
downstream industries and the competitiveness of those downstream
industries at home and abroad. Consequently, the Tribunal’s
decision to recommend tariff relief is based on the extent to which
it considers that such tariff relief would provide net economic
gains for Canada.
This investigation concerns a dyed, weft knit, mercerized fabric
that is used to produce golf jerseys in Canada, mainly for export
to the high-end golf jersey market in the United States. The
purchasers of these jerseys are individuals who spend considerably
more money on golfing activities than the bulk of the golfing
public and who seek a degree of exclusivity in their apparel.
Distex alleges that it has been able to capture some of this market
because of the use of continuous, rather than batch, mercerization
by its supplier, the use of double mercerization and the use of
2-ply yarns to knit the fabric. Distex has asked that tariff relief
be provided on a fabric that is double-mercerized and dyed, but not
produced on a Jacquard weft-knitting machine.  As explained earlier, because it
was unable to determine whether a fabric had been mercerized more
than once, the CCRA recommended that the fabric not be described as
having been double mercerized. In addition, the CCRA recommended
against the addition of any wording such as “certified by the
exporter”.  In
the CCRA’s opinion, any tariff relief on a product described as
“double-mercerized” would not be administrable because double
mercerization could not be confirmed by laboratory analysis.
Consequently, the Tribunal commenced an investigation that covered
only a single-mercerized fabric, not a double-mercerized fabric as
requested by Distex.
Agmont, the only Canadian producer to oppose this request,
argued that it produces fabrics which are identical to or
substitutable for the fabric described in the notice of
commencement of investigation (i.e. single-mercerized) and that it
is capable of producing fabrics that are identical in all respects
to the samples provided by Distex with its request (i.e.
double-mercerized). Agmont stated that tariff relief would cause it
to lose market share in the United States and cause reduced
employment at Agmont’s Canadian production facilities. Agmont also
submitted that its investment in mercerizing equipment would be
jeopardized, if tariff relief were granted. Agmont further stated
that allowing the use of the single mercerization specification in
the product definition would allow the duty-free importation of a
substantially broader range of golf jersey fabrics into Canada, in
direct competition with Canadian knit production. In response,
Distex proposed a modification to the definition of the subject
fabric to include the words “2-ply yarns” and “double-mercerized”.
Distex pointed to the fact that, because its golf jerseys are made
from 2-ply mercerized yarns, they are also able to command a higher
price when they are sold at retail. Distex also alleged that
fabrics made of 2-ply mercerized yarns offer greater durability and
suppleness and alleged that identical or substitutable fabrics are
not produced in Canada. According to Distex, this modification
would ensure that Agmont’s fabrics are protected from any adverse
effects caused by tariff relief.
As evidence, Agmont submitted various samples of single- and
double-mercerized fabrics that, it argued, could be used by Distex
to produce golf jerseys. However, Agmont did not produce any
evidence of its single-mercerized fabrics being sold in the same
market as the one supplied by Distex (i.e. high-end golf jerseys)
and, consequently, the Tribunal does not view any of these
single-mercerized fabrics to be substitutable for the subject
fabric. With regard to the double-mercerized fabrics produced by
Agmont, one is a fabric produced on a Jacquard weft-knitting
machine, while the other is a sample fabric that has not yet been
offered for sale.
A double-mercerized Jacquard-knit cotton fabric is generally
viewed as being of a higher quality than the subject fabric.
 While Agmont
reports modest sales of its Jacquard fabric to a U.S. golf jersey
producer, it is not clear whether this producer operates in the
same market as Distex.  In any case, this fabric clearly falls outside
the scope of the Tribunal’s present investigation.
Agmont’s sample fabric has no established sales record and,
therefore, the Tribunal is of the view that it cannot be considered
to be a product that is currently available in commercial volumes.
The Tribunal has stated many times in the past  that it is the responsibility
of the domestic producers to provide evidence, not just assertions
or allegations, of their ability to produce identical or
substitutable fabrics. In the Tribunal’s view, the creation of a
small customized sample for purposes of the Tribunal’s
investigation, without any other production or sales experience,
does not constitute sufficient evidence of the ability of a
domestic producer to produce identical or substitutable
In summary, while Agmont may have the capacity to produce a
sample of a fabric identical to or substitutable for the subject
fabric, it has not demonstrated to the Tribunal that its fabrics
compete in the same market as that of Distex. Therefore, the
Tribunal concludes that the allegedly identical or substitutable
fabrics produced by Agmont are either not substitutable for the
subject fabric or not yet available in commercial volumes.
Accordingly, there would be no economic cost to domestic producers
if tariff relief were granted. For these reasons, and considering
the benefits to Distex, the Tribunal concludes that tariff relief
would result in net economic benefits to Canada.
In administering a new tariff item to provide the tariff relief
requested, a concern was raised respecting the ability to detect
whether an imported fabric has been double mercerized. As stated
earlier, the CCRA reported that it could not ascertain whether the
fabric samples that it analyzed had been double mercerized and,
therefore, recommended against making this feature a characteristic
of the product description and against using the words “certified
by the exporter”. However, the Tribunal believes that both double
mercerization and 2-ply yarns are critical for Distex to be able to
sell its golf jerseys in the high-end golf jersey market.
Furthermore, there has been no evidence submitted before the
Tribunal to indicate that Agmont is supplying double-mercerized
dyed, weft knit fabrics that compete in the same market segment as
Distex. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that there is no
evidence on the record showing that Agmont, or any other domestic
knitter, has ever attempted to sell double-mercerized fabrics to
Distex. Accordingly, the Tribunal is of the view that amending the
definition of the subject fabric to include a reference to 2-ply
yarns and to double mercerization is appropriate. Not only would
this definition protect Agmont’s production but it would also
satisfy both Agmont’s and the CTI’s concerns regarding the broad
scope of the definition of the subject fabric in the Tribunal’s
notice of commencement of investigation.
The Tribunal is of the view that, in the circumstances of this
particular case, the most effective way of providing tariff relief
while protecting the interests of domestic knitters is for the
exporter to be required to provide acceptable certification of
certain characteristics that make the imported fabric special. The
CCRA, itself, implemented the previous Distex recommendation by
using exporter certification, without any problems or abuse being
reported to the Tribunal. Furthermore, there is some evidence that
exporter certification is being used by the CCRA in the monitoring
and administration of other trade and tariff arrangements. 
With respect to Distex’s request for retroactive tariff relief,
the Tribunal has stated in previous cases that it will not consider
recommending such relief other than in exceptional circumstances.
Distex has provided no evidence to justify such a request. The
Tribunal, therefore, is not persuaded that the current
circumstances are so exceptional as to warrant a recommendation for
In the event that the Minister makes an order implementing the
Tribunal’s recommendation for tariff relief, and should the
circumstances that led to the initial recommendation change at some
point in the future, textile producers may request that the
Tribunal review the recommendation that led to the Minister’s
The Tribunal hereby recommends to the Minister that tariff
relief be granted, for an indeterminate period of time, on
importations from all countries of weft knit fabric, solely of
2-ply cotton yarns, measuring, per single yarn, 180 decitex or more
but not exceeding 200 decitex, of a weight of 150 g/m² or more but
not exceeding 200 g/m², certified by the exporter to have been
“double-mercerized” (i.e. the yarns have been mercerized, knit into
a fabric and subjected to a second mercerization process), of
subheading No. 6002.92, for use in the manufacture of golf
Peter F. Thalheimer
Peter F. Thalheimer
1. R.S.C. 1985 (4th
Supp.), c. 47.
2. C. Gaz.
3. Mercerization is a
treatment of cotton yarn or fabric with alkali to increase its
lustre, strength and affinity for dyes.
mercerization is a process whereby yarns are mercerized and knitted
into a fabric, and the fabric is subsequently mercerized.
5. R.S.C. 1985 (3d
Supp.), c. 41.
6. Understood by the
Tribunal to mean the date on which the request was filed.
7. Distex Inc. (8
February 1999), TR-98-002. The recommendation was in respect of a
Jacquard weft knit double-mercerized fabric.
8. Equivalent to 187
to 195 decitex per single yarn.
9. Supra note 7.
10. The fabric was
submitted on February 16, 2000.
11. Supra note
12. Supra note 7.
Further to the Tribunal’s recommendation in the previous Distex
case, tariff relief was granted on a double-mercerized fabric
produced on a Jacquard weft-knitting machine. In order to obtain
tariff relief on this fabric, an importer has to provide, upon
importation, exporter certification that the fabric has been both
double-mercerized and knitted on a Jacquard weft-knitting
13. Supra note 7 at
7 and 8.
14. Agmont’s letter
to the Tribunal dated January 17, 2000.
15. See, for
example, Camp Mate (10 June 1996), TR-95-051 (CITT); Lady Americana
Sleep Products (12 February 1997), TR-95-064 and TR-95-065 (CITT);
Cambridge Industries (12 February 1999), TR-98-001 (CITT); Helly
Hansen Canada (19 March 1999), TR-97-015, TR-97-016 and TR-97-020
(CITT); Jones Apparel Group Canada (8 July 1999), TR-98-017 (CITT);
Tribal Sportswear (24 August 1999), TR-98-019 (CITT); and Western
Glove Works (4 February 2000), TR-99-003 (CITT).
16. Distex’s final
submission dated January 28, 2000, at 14 .
[Table of Contents
Initial publication: April 4, 2000