The Direct Impact of Canadian Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on the Domestic Industries They Protect and on Imports: 1989-2016
THE DIRECT IMPACT OF CANADIAN ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRIES THEY PROTECT AND ON IMPORTS: 1989-2016
A report for the
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL
Secretariat to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- APPENDIX I – METHODOLOGY
- CALCULATION OF THE BASE LEVEL OF THE FOUR AFFECTED INDICATORS
- ESTIMATION OF THE FOUR INDICATORS AFFECTED FOR THE YEARS DURING WHICH MEASURES ARE IN PLACE
- FORWARD ESTIMATION
- RETROACTIVE ADJUSTMENT
- SPECIAL ISSUES
- APPENDIX II – MEASURES AND FINDINGS
The injury 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 industries that have recourse to SIMA, and on imports 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 domestic shipments, related investments and employment tend to increase in the Canadian industries shielded by the measures.Footnote 2
This report evaluates the direct 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.Footnote 3
As of December 31, 2016, there were 66 anti-dumping and 21 countervailing measures in place. They affected $10 billion in Canadian shipments, $0.57 billion in investments, and about 27,000 jobs in the domestic industries directly benefitting from the measures. In addition, the measures affected $2 billion in imports. As a point of comparison, as of December 31, 2015, there were 65 anti-dumping and 19 countervailing measures in place. They affected $9 billion in Canadian shipments, $0.55 billion in investments, about 25,000 jobs and $1.6 billion in imports.
While the number of Canadian anti-dumping and countervailing measures has decreased by approximately 32 percent from 1989 to 2016, the importance of each measure in terms of its direct impact on Canadian shipments, investments, jobs and imports has increased. From 1989 to 2016, the average direct impact per measure on shipments, jobs and imports has increased by approximately 321 percent, 120 percent and 306 percent, respectively. While, from 1995 to 2016, the average direct impact per measure on investments has increased by approximately 48 percent.
Reports for the Tribunal on Canada’s use of anti‑dumping and countervailing measures have been produced intermittently since 1990.Footnote 4
This edition updates one such report from 2016.Footnote 5 It presents estimates of Canadian shipments, employment and imports directly affected by anti-dumping and countervailing measures for the period from 1989 to 2016, and of investments from 1995 to 2016.Footnote 6
“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.Footnote 7
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 and for a country where there is both anti-dumping and countervailing measures, it is counted as two measures. For example, the Tribunal’s finding in Inquiry No. NQ-2016-001 (Welded Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Steel Line Pipe) counts as three measures: two for the People’s Republic of China (China) and one for Japan.
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.
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 domestic shipments, investments and employment in the shielded domestic industries tend to increase.
A better evaluation of the direct impact of anti-dumping and countervailing measures is to estimate what shipments, investments, and employment in the shielded domestic industries 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 2016.Footnote 8The values/levels are taken from the investigation reports prepared for the relevant cases.Footnote 9
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.Footnote 10
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 average value of level of the three calendar years prior to the PD 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|
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
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.
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.
- Decrease in the number of measures in place by 41 measures or approximately 32 percent from 1989 to 2016
- Increase in the value of shipments of approximately $6 billion from 1989 to 2016. Increase in the value of shipments affected per measure by nearly 321 percent from 1989 to 2016
- Increase in the value of investments of approximately $143 million from 1995 to 2016. Increase in the value of investments affected per measure by 48 percent from 1995 to 2016
- Increase in the level of employment of approximately 9000 employees from 1989 to 2016. Increase in the levels of employment affected per measure by about 120 percent from 1989 to 2016
- Increase in the value of imports of approximately $1.2 billion from 1989 to 2016. Increase in the value of imports affected per measure by almost 306 percent from 1989 to 2016
Impact of Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures on Canadian Shipments, Investments, Employment and Imports
|Measures in Place on
|Shipments Affected||Investments Affected||Employment Affected||Imports Affected|
|Year||$ Million||$ Million/Measure||$ Million||$ Million/Measure||Employees||Employees/Measure||$ Million||$ Million/
|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.Footnote 11 The general trends for each of these indicators can be found in Figure 1.
- Increase of 106 percent in the portion of total Canadian shipments directly affected by anti-dumping and countervailing measures from 1989 to 2016
- Increase of 28 percent in the portion of total Canadian investments directly affected by anti‑dumping and countervailing measures from 1995 to 2016
- Increase of 94 percent in the portion of total Canadian employment directly affected by anti‑dumping and countervailing measures from 1989 to 2016
- Decrease of 32 percent in the portion of total Canadian imports directly affected by anti-dumping and countervailing measures from 1989 to 2016
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|
|Source: CITT Database and Statistics Canada.|
Percentage of Total Canadian Shipments, Investments, Employment, and Imports Affected in the Manufacturing and Agricultural Sectors Footnote 12
The image is a multiple line graph.
It shows the general trends for shipments, investments, employment in the domestic industries protected by the measures and imports directly affected by the measures as a percentage of total Canadian shipments, investments, employment, and imports affected in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors by calendar year from 1989 to 2016.
There is a separate line measures in place on December 31 (color coded red) for shipments (color coded green), investments (color coded purple), employment (color coded blue) and imports (color coded orange). All data points are connected by a line.
The data values for shipments, investments, employment and imports by calendar year are found in Table 2.
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 values of the four indicators in a base period just before the CBSA’s PD?
Second, it describes how the base values of the four indicators were 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 values of the four indicators for each of the years during which the measure was in place?
Third, it explains the approach used to address certain special issues.
Before estimating the values of the four indicators affected by measures, it is necessary to know the level of the four indicators that existed before measures were put in place. For the purposes of this analysis, the base level of the four indicators is the average values of each of the four indicators in the three calendar years prior to the PD.Footnote 13 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 reasonably representative values of the four affected indicators. It reduces the impact of the period just prior to the PD when there is often a significant artificial increase or decrease in the four indicators, 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 the four indicators and likely captures a more normal pattern of flows of the four indicators.
Once the four indicators for a base period have been determined, the issue is how to estimate the values of the four affected indicators for each year during which the anti-dumping and countervailing measures are in place.Footnote 14 This is done by advancing the base level of the four affected indicators, on an annual basis, to reflect the underlying growth (or decline) in the market.
For each of the five yearsFootnote 15 that a measure is in effect, the values of the four affected indicators were increased or decreased on the basis of an estimate of the market growth for that product.Footnote 16 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, with the exception of employment, the estimated values of the affected indicators were 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 values of the indicators 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 values of estimated annual affected indicators were reduced by 50 percent.
At the time of a review, the values of the four affected indicators was 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 values of the four indicators (for an injury finding) or the last annual values of the four indicators (for an order) were revised each year by the year-over-year growth in the market. These values replaced the ones estimated by forward estimation.
In four 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|
|RR-2014-004||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|
|Fresh Iceberg (Head) Lettuce||NQ-92-001||June 1-October 15||4.5|
|RR-97-002||June 1-October 15||4.5|
|Fresh, Whole, Delicious and Red Delicious Apples||NQ-94-001||October 1-June 30||9|
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.Footnote 17
Source Switching and Case GroupingFootnote 18
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.Footnote 19 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
|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||2015: RR-2014-002|
|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|
|Q||Oil Country Tubular Goods I||2010: NQ-2009-004||2015: RR-2014-003|
|Oil Country Tubular Goods II||2015: NQ-2014-002|
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.
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.Footnote 20
Significant Changes in Geographic Scope or Product CoverageFootnote 21
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, the estimated portion attributed to the excluded product was removed from the estimated values of affected imports, according to its share in the base values of imports.
|Canned Ham and Canned Pork‑based Luncheon Meat||GIC-1-84|
|RR-99-002||Canned pork-based luncheon meat|
|Women’s Boots and Women’s Shoes||N-003|
|Bicycles and Frames||NQ-92-002||Bicycles with selling price > $325|
|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-2009-001||Stainless steel fasteners|
|Waterproof Footwear and Bottoms||NQ-2000-004||Waterproof flocked-suede footwear|
|RD-2009-003||Fishing waders made of polyester neoprene shells affixed to ethylene vinyl acetate boots with thermoplastic rubber outsoles|
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.
Canadian Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures
|In Place on December 31|
|Year||Added||Expired/Rescinded||Anti-Dumping Measures||Countervailing Measures||Total Measures||In Place on December 31|
|Source: CITT Database|