Special Import Measures Act appeals relating to subjectivity
Summaries of appeal decisions made by the CBSA pursuant to section 59(1)(a) and (e) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) relating to the subjectivity of goods and the application of anti-dumping and countervailing duty assessments can be found below. Where the subjectivity of the goods is not in question, appeal decision summaries will not be posted due to the confidential nature of the applicant’s information.
Aluminum extrusions
Appeal number: AE-1
Decision date: April 2017
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA reviewed an accounting entry for the importation of certain aluminum extrusions and assessed both anti-dumping and countervailing duties. Upon appeal, it was claimed that the goods met the following exclusion:
Aluminum extrusions produced from a 6063 alloy type with a T5 temper designation and forming part of the Vario System™ 20, 30, 40, 45 and 60 series line of profiles, or equivalent, having a length of either 4.5 or 5.8 m and a straightness tolerance of +/-1.5 mm or less per 6.0 m of length, for use in those parts of mechanical systems and automated machinery, such as gantry systems and conveyors, where precise linear movement is required.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
The information provided was unclear regarding the straightness tolerance and did not include any evidence regarding the end use of the goods. As the goods did not meet all the criteria of the exclusion, they are not excluded from the finding.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: AE-2
Decision date: June 29, 2017
Grounds of appeal:
The importer’s position was that the goods were not subject as they were “aluminum extrusions produced from a 6063 alloy type with a T6 temper designation”, and that this initial prototype order was priced based on the cost of the aluminum only.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
The exclusion for aluminum extrusions for use in window frames is worded as follows:
Aluminum extrusions produced from a 6063 alloy type with either a T5 or a T6 temper designation, having a length of between 20 and 33 ft. (between 6.10 and 10.06 m), with a powder coat finish, which finish is certified to meet the American Architectural Manufacturers Association AAMA 2603 standard (“Voluntary Specification, Performance Requirements and Test Procedures for Pigmented Organic Coatings on Aluminum Extrusions and Panels”), for use in window frames.
The goods do not meet the minimum length threshold of 20 feet (6.1 meters). In addition, there was no evidence of alloy type or powder coat finish, and the goods were for sunroom walls and roofs. Therefore, the goods do not meet the terms of the exclusion.
The pricing of the goods is not relevant to subjectivity.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: AE-3
Decision date: June 29, 2017
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on certain aluminum products originating in China. The importer presented documentation showing that the aluminum goods are not produced via an extrusion process but via a die casting process.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
Aluminum joints produced via a die casting process are not subject goods.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Appeal number: AE-4
Decision date: January 9, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of aluminum extrusions originating in China. The importer argued that the goods are shower enclosures, which are not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the imported goods can be assembled into complete shower enclosures. As such, the goods are not covered by the definition of the subject goods.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: AE-5
Decision date: July 6, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of aluminum extrusions originating in China. The importer argued that the goods are an irrigation piping assembly and should not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the imported goods can be assembled into one complete irrigation system for a 67 acre farm. As such, the goods are not covered by the definition of the subject goods.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: AE-6
Decision date: July 11, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of aluminum extrusions originating in China. The importer argued that the goods are solar panel mounts and should not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed in part
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the imported goods are essentially imported in bulk. The aluminum plates are not fabricated via an extrusion process therefore they are not subject to the finding. However, the clamps are fabricated via an extrusion process and still retain the nature and physical characteristics of an aluminum extrusion. As such, the clamps are covered by the definition of the subject goods.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: AE-7
Decision date: July 19, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of aluminum extrusions originating in China. The importer argued that the goods are not subject to the finding.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the goods are aluminum trims originating in China. The diagram of the goods provided with the appeal shows the measurements of an aluminum profile, confirming that the goods meet the measurement criterion of the product description. The samples provided further indicate that the goods fall within the product description of the finding and no information was provided to show otherwise. Based on the information provided, the goods are covered by the definition of the subject goods.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: AE-8
Decision date: August 21, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of aluminum extrusions originating in China. The importer argued that the goods are not subject to the finding as they are further worked, made from a 6063 alloy type with a T5 temper designation and extruded using a specially engineered tool die.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the goods are hollow aluminum extrusions used to create LED light fixtures. The goods were not further worked beyond the fabrication and finishing processes included in the product definition. The 6063 alloy type is one that falls within the alloy types included in the product definition. The finding includes custom-shaped extrusions therefore the fact that the aluminum was extruded through a specially engineered tool die does not exclude it from the finding. As a result, the goods are subject to the finding.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: AE-9
Decision date: June 21, 2019
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on two importations of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that the goods are not subject to the finding as they were manufactured in and exported from Malaysia.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the goods were manufactured in and exported from Malaysia. As a result, the goods are not subject to the finding.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: AE-10
Decision date: September 26, 2019
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on four importations of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that the goods are not subject to the finding as they have been cold-drawn.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the goods have been cold drawn. Cold-drawn aluminum extrusions are not subject to the finding.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: AE-11
Decision date: December 18, 2019
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that the good is not subject to the finding as it is a finished good.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation and the sample submitted demonstrates that the good is an aluminum enclosure used to house a wireless modem. The enclosure no longer possesses the nature and physical characteristic of an aluminum extrusion by virtue of a permanently attached plastic insert. As such, the good is not subject to the finding.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Appeal number: AE-12
Decision date: February 21, 2020
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on two importations of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that the goods are not subject to the finding as they are not raw aluminum extrusions.
Decision: Allowed in part
Reason:
A review of the documentation and the samples submitted demonstrates that two of the aluminum tubes have not been further worked beyond the fabrication and finishing processes described in the product definition. As such, they are subject to the finding.
The third tube has been further worked beyond the fabrication and finishing processes described in the product definition by virtue of the threaded tube welded to the end of it at a 90 degree angle. It is therefore not subject to the finding.
Refund: Less than $5,000
Appeal number: AE-13
Decision date: May 8, 2020
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of aluminum profiles. The importer argued that the goods are not subject to the finding as they are part of a custom-ordered office partition system.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the aluminum profiles imported under this transaction are not kits as they cannot form a finished product using only the contents of the individual packages. As such, the goods are subject to the finding.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: AE-14
Decision date: May 7, 2020
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of aluminum tubes. The importer argued that the goods are not subject to the finding as they are collapsible tubular containers.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the aluminum tubes imported under this transaction are collapsible aluminum tubes, which are manufactured by a process called impact extrusion. The Tribunal confirmed that the subject goods do not include goods made by the process of impact extrusion or cold extrusion. As such, the goods are not subject to the finding.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Appeal number: AE-15
Decision date: August 19, 2020
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on three importations of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that the goods are not subject to the finding as they are finished goods that have been manufactured beyond being an aluminum extrusion.
Decision: Allowed in part
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the aluminum extrusions are two types of slot nuts; one with a hole threaded into it and the other has a stainless steel ball bearing inserted into a separate hole in addition to the threaded hole. The slot nut with only the threaded hole is subject to the finding, while the slot nut with the stainless steel ball bearing permanently attached is not subject to the finding.
Refund: Less than $5,000
Appeal number: AE-16
Decision date: January 19, 2021
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty an importation of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that the goods are not subject to the finding as they are made in Korea.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the aluminum extrusions originate in and are exported from Korea. As a result, the goods are not subject to the finding.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: AE-17
Decision date: February 3, 2021
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty an importation of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that the goods are not subject to the finding as they are made in Spain.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the aluminum extrusions are exported from the United States but originate in Spain. As a result, the goods are not subject to the finding.
Refund: Less than $5,000
Appeal number: AE-18
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on two importations of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that the goods are not subject to the finding as they have been further worked and are finished goods.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that, while the goods have been further worked, they still retain the nature and physical characteristics of an aluminum extrusion. As a result, the goods are subject to the finding.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: AE-19
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on two importations of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that the goods are not subject to the finding as they are incomplete unassembled windows that were misclassified and declared as individual parts; that these are finished goods where two or more aluminum components are permanently joined together with non-aluminum parts.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
The decisive factor in determining whether goods are subject to the finding is the production process undergone in the fabrication of the goods and the form the goods take at the time of importation. The classification of the goods, their end-use and the designated name of an imported product are immaterial to this determination.
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that there is too little to distinguish between the imported goods and those at issue under the Tribunal appeal AP‑2011‑027 (Aluminart), which was dismissed. The imported profiles have not been processed or manufactured to such an extent that they no longer possess the nature and physical characteristics of an aluminum extrusion. As a result, the goods are subject to the finding.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: AE-20
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that the goods are not subject to the finding as they are incomplete unassembled windows that were misclassified and declared as individual parts; that these are finished goods where two or more aluminum components are permanently joined together with non-aluminum parts.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
The decisive factor in determining whether goods are subject to the finding is the production process undergone in the fabrication of the goods and the form the goods take at the time of importation. The classification of the goods, their end-use and the designated name of an imported product are immaterial to this determination.
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that there is too little to distinguish between the imported goods and those at issue under the Tribunal appeal AP‑2011‑027 (Aluminart), which was dismissed. The imported profiles have not been processed or manufactured to such an extent that they no longer possess the nature and physical characteristics of an aluminum extrusion. As a result, the goods are subject to the finding.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: AE-21
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti‑dumping and countervailing duties on an importation of AE originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the imported goods were not subject as the finding excludes cold‑drawn aluminum extrusions.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods under review are cold‑drawn aluminum extrusions. As a result, the goods are not subject to the finding.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: AE-22
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that the goods could not be purchased domestically and for that reason anti-dumping and countervailing duties should be refunded.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
The issue of whether goods can be purchased domestically is not one that falls within the CBSA’s purview. Only goods that are specifically excluded from the finding by the Tribunal will be exempt from duties applied under SIMA.
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the imported aluminum profiles meet the definition of subject goods and as a result remain subject to the finding.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: AE-23
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on an importation of aluminum extrusions originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods are manufactured of vinyl and not aluminum and therefore not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods in question are manufactured of vinyl and therefore not subject to the finding.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Appeal number: AE-24
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that the goods are not subject to the finding as they originated in and were exported from Taiwan.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the aluminum extrusions originate in and are exported from Taiwan. As a result, the goods are not subject to the finding.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: AE-25
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that the goods are not subject to the finding as it is a finished good.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the imported goods are telescopic jack posts. The jack posts no longer possess the nature and physical characteristic of an aluminum extrusion by virtue of a permanently attached base plate and riveted assembly. As such, the good is not subject to the finding.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Appeal number: AE-26
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that a portion of the goods are not subject to the finding as they are a finished good and that the remaining goods are steel and are therefore also not subject.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that a portion of the goods are aluminum beams that remain subject to the finding. The remaining goods are steel props and racks and as such are not subject to the finding.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: AE-27
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that the goods are not subject to the finding as they are complete casket handle sets assembled and shipped in the same box.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the goods imported are not simply aluminum extrusions, rather they are complete casket handle sets which are packaged as assembled before importation. The goods are therefore not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: AE-28
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that goods are not subject to the finding as they for use in window frames.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
The goods are for use in window frames and meet the technical requirements set forth by the Tribunal.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: AE-29
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on three importations of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that the goods were part of a fencing system and could not be purchased domestically and for these reasons anti-dumping and countervailing duties should not apply.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
The issue of whether goods can be purchased domestically is not one that falls within the CBSA’s purview. Only goods that are specifically excluded from the finding by the Tribunal will be exempt from duties applied under SIMA.
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the imported aluminum profiles meet the definition of subject goods and as a result remain subject to the finding.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: AE-30
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that the goods had been misclassified and met the following exclusion:
Decision: Denied
Reason:
The issue of subjectivity is based on the definition of subject goods contained in the Tribunal finding, which in this case does not include specific tariff classification(s).
In reviewing the supporting documents received with this request and in accordance with the exclusion the importer failed to provide evidence that the imported goods met both the end use and finish provisions contained within the exclusion.
As the goods did not meet the criteria of the exclusion, they are not excluded from the finding.
Refund: N/A
Copper pipe fittings
Appeal number: CPF-1
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
Anti‑dumping duty was paid on an importation of certain brass pipe fittings originating in the United Mexican States, the Italian Republic and the Republic of India and exported from the United States of America. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were not solder joinable and therefore not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
The documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported goods are brass pipe fittings having push connect, quick connect, threaded, crimp and barb‑tite ends. These fittings do not connect on either end by soldering and are considered to not be solder joinable. As such, the goods are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: Over $25,000
Carbon steel welded pipe
Appeal number: CSWP-1
Decision date: April 6, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were semi-finished post components for various leisure sporting activities and therefore not subject to the Finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported posts incorporated various configurations of pre-drilled holes and various welded on metal plates, lacing rods and corners making them posts and goal components for outdoor sporting activities. As such, the goods are not subject to the finding.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Appeal number: CSWP-2
Decision date: December 17, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were for natural gas and therefore not subject to the Finding.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported goods are ERW black steel pipe in various diameters and lengths meeting ASTM A53 specifications for use with natural gas. In order to be excluded as oil and gas line pipe the pipe must be made to API specifications exclusively. In this case the goods have been made to meet ASTM A53 specifications and not API specifications exclusively and therefore do not meet the exclusion for oil and gas line pipe.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: CSWP-3
Decision date: March 1, 2021
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods in issue are not of the same description as goods that fall within the scope of the Tribunal’s finding.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted confirm that the products under review are welded pre-galvanized powder coated black steel fencing pipe made to Chinese specification GB/T3091, having an outside diameter of 60 mm (2.36 inches) for use in a fencing structure.
Carbon steel welded pipe produced to foreign standards, galvanized, painted or lacquered, for use in fencing when within the specified dimensions is subject to the Tribunal’s finding.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: CSWP-4
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods in issue are part of a boiler heating system and therefore not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted confirm that the products under review are carbon steel welded pipe made to Chinese specification GB/T3091, having outside diameters of 48 mm, 60 mm and 76 mm in 6’ and 8’ lengths for use in a heating system.
Carbon steel welded pipe produced to foreign standards, for use in heating applications when within the specified dimensions is subject to the Tribunal’s finding.
Refund: N/A
Carbon steel welded pipe 2
Appeal number: CSWP2-1
Decision date: August 28, 2017
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping duty on an importation of certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in Chinese Taipei. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were oil and gas line pipe made to API specifications exclusively, and thus excluded from the Finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation presented, the parties involved, and the goods demonstrated that the pipe was made to API specifications exclusively. The goods are thus excluded from the finding and are therefore not subject goods.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Appeal number: CSWP2-2
Decision date: February 14, 2019
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping duty on an importation of certain carbon steel welded pipe originating in the Republic of Korea. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were piping spools and therefore not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
The documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported goods were piping spools. The piping spools are comprised of miscellaneous piping lengths and components joined together via beveling, fitting, welding, grinding and induction bending where straight lengths of pipe are transformed into curved components that have off-sets of varying degrees built to an engineering specification. As such, the goods are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: CSWP2-3
Decision date: May 25, 2022
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping duty on an importation of carbon steel welded pipe originating in the United Arab Emirates. Upon filing the request for re-determination, the importer contended that the goods were not subject to the finding as they were galvanized fence pipe and therefore did not meet the subject product definition.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
The documentation submitted confirms that the products under review are carbon steel welded pipe ranging in size from 1.315" to 2.375" and in lengths ranging from 6' to 10.6' with a galvanized finish for use in fencing.
Carbon steel welded pipe having a galvanized finish for use in fencing when within the specified dimensions is subject to the Tribunal's finding.
Refund: N/A
Dry wheat pasta
Appeal number: DWP-1
Decision date: June 3, 2019
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA issued a partial refund of the provisional duties paid on yellow and roasted vermicelli originating in and exported from Turkey.
The importer contends that the Tribunal’s finding should be limited to large companies who import vast quantities at dumped prices and not to small importations, especially for products that are ostensibly not produced in Canada.
Decision: Allowed in part
Reason:
The documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported goods are subject to the finding.
A finding by the Tribunal applies to all goods that fall within the product definition, no matter who the importer is or the size of the importation. Only goods that are specifically excluded by the Tribunal can be exempt from anti-dumping and countervailing duties. When certain goods cannot be obtained in Canada, the onus falls on the importer to request an exclusion from the Tribunal.
A correction to the export price due to a clarification of the terms of sale has resulted in a partial refund of the anti-dumping duty paid.
Refund: Less than $5,000
Fabricated industrial steel components
Appeal number: FISC-1
Decision date: May 18, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on an importation of filter press plates originating in the People’s Republic of China and exported from Italy. The importer presented documentation claiming that the filter press plates are components/parts of a filter press waste water filtration system and therefore not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
The documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported goods were filter press plates for use in a filter press waste water and filtration system. Filter presses are considered manufactured equipment components that are primarily mechanical rather than structural. Filter plates are mechanical components/parts of filter press machines and are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: FISC-2
Decision date: July 25, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on two importations of friction flare rock anchors and hemispherical seats. The importer presented documentation and a sample claiming that these goods were made of pearlitic malleable iron (cast iron) and therefore would not fall within the product description of the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
The documentation and sample submitted demonstrated that the imported goods were made of pearlitic malleable iron (cast iron). As the goods are not made of steel, they do not fall within the product description of the finding.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: FISC-3
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on an importation of FISC originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer contended that part of the importation were non-subject goods.
Decision: Allowed in part
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods under review are a mix of subject and non-subject goods.
The subject goods were limited to frames and supports fabricated to be used with the non-subject goods. The anti-dumping and countervailing duties assessed on the non-subject goods will be refunded.
Refund: Over $25,000
Fasteners
Appeal number: F-1
Decision date: May 10, 2017
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping duty based on electronic data accounting for an importation of carbon steel screws with the country of origin coded as CN (China). The importer presented documentation showing the origin as Switzerland (code CH) explaining that the improper coding was a broker error.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted and vendor research demonstrates that the goods were manufactured in, and shipped to Canada from, Switzerland. Carbon steel screws originating from Switzerland are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Appeal number: F-2
Decision date: June 29, 2017
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping duty on an importation of screws originating in Chinese Taipei. The importer presented documentation claiming the screws were stainless steel and thus not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation and research demonstrates that the screws are stainless steel. Stainless steel screws are no longer subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Appeal number: F-3
Decision date: June 29, 2017
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping duty on a few carbon steel screws originating in Chinese Taipei based on the limited information provided at the time of accounting. Upon appeal, the importer presented documentation indicating the goods are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
The documentation demonstrates that the goods are special forcing screws for use as replacement parts in a Brake Anchor Pin and Bushing Service Set. The goods do not meet the definition in the Tribunal’s finding and thus not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: Less than $5,000
Appeal number: F-4
Decision date: September 19, 2017
Grounds of appeal:
Anti-dumping duty was self-assessed at the time of importation on a consolidated shipment of carbon steel screws originating in Chinese Taipei. Upon appeal, the importer presented documentation indicating the goods are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the goods are Tinnerman style U-type spring nuts. U-type spring nuts are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: Less than $5,000
Appeal number: F-5
Decision date: October 16, 2017
Grounds of appeal:
Anti-dumping duty was assessed on carbon steel screws originating in Chinese Taipei and exported from the United States. Upon appeal, the importer presented documentation claiming that the screws were equivalent to the GRK RT Composite Trim head screws, which are excluded from the SIMA measure in force.
Decision: Allowed in part
Reason:
The documentation submitted failed to demonstrate that the imported screws were equivalent to the excluded GRK screws. However, the exporter provided sufficient information to allow the CBSA to establish normal values for these screws. As a result, a partial refund of the anti-dumping duty was granted.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: F-6
Decision date: November 23, 2017
Grounds of appeal:
Anti-dumping and countervailing duty was assessed on carbon steel screws originating in China and exported from the United States. Upon appeal, the importer presented documentation claiming that the screws were Aster screws, which are excluded from the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
The documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported screws were Aster screws. As these screws are excluded from the finding, a full refund of the anti-dumping and countervailing duty was granted.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Appeal number: F-7
Decision date: November 29, 2017
Grounds of appeal:
Anti-dumping duty was assessed on carbon steel screws originating in Chinese Taipei and exported from the United States. The importer’s position was that the goods (assorted wood screws contained within a carrying case) were not subject as they were packaged with a pocket hole jig system as part of a tool promotion and not imported under their own tariff item.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
The CBSA, in determining whether or not goods are subject to a Tribunal finding, relies on the definition of subject goods contained within the finding, regardless of tariff classification. Additionally, the CBSA considers the nature of the product as opposed to how a product is labelled or portrayed.
Paragraph 30 in the Statement of Reasons for appeal no. AP-2008-006 provided guidance with regards to the functionality of goods packaged together and the separation of these goods for the purpose of applying anti-dumping duties under SIMA. The Tribunal is of the view that the parts must be integral to the functional purpose of a system and that separating the parts for the purpose of applying anti-dumping duties must not deprive the system of its functionality.
In this instance the screw kit included with the joinery jig system, being extraneous to the functionality of the jig system itself, is gratuitous and, as such, is considered a separate good.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: F-8
Decision date: January 3, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
Anti-dumping duty was assessed on carbon steel screws originating in Chinese Taipei and exported from the United States. Upon appeal, the importer presented documentation claiming that the screws were hex cap screws, which are excluded from the finding.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
The documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported screws did not have the characteristics of the excluded hex cap screws but rather had the features and characteristics consistent with those of a flange screw. Flange screws, within the dimensions of the ones in issue, are subject to the finding.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: F-9
Decision date: March 22, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on importations of screws originating in the People’s Republic of China and exported from the United States. The importer presented documentation along with samples claiming the two models of screws were brass and stainless steel respectively and therefore not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
The documentation and samples submitted demonstrated that the imported screws were brass and stainless steel respectively. Brass and stainless steel screws are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Appeal number: F-10
Decision date: August 17, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
Anti-dumping and countervailing duties were paid on carbon steel screws exported from the United States. Upon appeal, the importer presented documentation claiming that the screws were manufactured in the United States.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
The documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported screws were manufactured in and exported from the United States, a country not included in the finding.
Refund: Less than $5,000
Appeal number: F-11
Decision date: September 6, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
Anti-dumping duties were paid on certain screws exported from the United States. Upon appeal, the importer presented documentation claiming that the screws were made of stainless steel, not carbon steel.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
The documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported screws were made of stainless steel. Stainless steel screws are excluded from the finding.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Appeal number: F-12
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on an importation of fasteners originating in and exported from the Chinese Taipei. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the imported goods were not subject as they bear a Canadian Trademark and to the best of their knowledge, are not manufactured by or available from Canadian sources.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
A request for exclusion was not submitted to the Tribunal during the expiry review and no request for exclusion was granted during previous expiry reviews or the initial investigation. Regardless of domestic availability or Canadian Trademark, the goods are subject unless they are specifically excluded from the finding by the Tribunal.
Refund: N/A
Gypsum board
Appeal number: GB-01
Decision date: September 6, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping on thirteen importations of gypsum board originating in the United States. The importer presented documentation indicating that the goods were for use and consumption in Ontario and Quebec and would therefore fall outside the scope of the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
The documentation submitted demonstrated that the goods were imported into Canada through Ontario and are for use and consumption in Ontario and Quebec. As the goods are not for use or consumption in the western provinces or the territories, the goods are not subject to the finding.
Refund: Over $25,000
Flat hot-rolled carbon and alloy steel sheet and strips
Appeal number: HRSS-1
Decision date: November 23, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping duty on an importation of hot-rolled alloy steel sheet originating in China and exported from the United States. The importer presented documentation indicating that the goods fell outside the thickness requirement for cut to length sheet and should not be subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
The documentation submitted demonstrated that the thickness of the goods ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 inches. As the goods exceed the thickness requirement of cut to length steel sheet, the goods are not subject to the finding.
Refund: Over $25,000
Large line pipe
Appeal number: LLP-1
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on an importation of certain large line pipe originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were for use in mining and therefore not subject to the finding.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the products under review are SSAW steel pipe Gr. B made to API 5L specification, having an outside diameter of 40 inches (1016 mm) in 2 meter lengths with bevelled ends for use in mining.
SSAW steel pipe produced to API 5L specification, for use in mining when within the specified dimensions is considered to be subject to the Tribunal’s finding.
Refund: N/A
Carbon and alloy steel line pipe
Appeal number: LP-1
Decision date: June 19, 2019
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of certain carbon and alloy steel line pipe originating in the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were not subject to the finding due to the length and the end-use of the product.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
The finding includes line pipe of all lengths and there are no exclusions based on end use. The documentation submitted demonstrated that the seamless carbon steel pipes imported fall within the product definition of the finding. As such, the goods are subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: N/A
Carbon and alloy steel line pipe 2
Appeal number: LP2-1
Decision date: September 10, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping duty on an importation of certain carbon and alloy steel pipe originating and exported from the Republic of Korea. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were meter tube (meter run) and therefore not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
The documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported goods were meter tube (meter run). Meter tube is a specialized tube that forms an integral component of measurement equipment used as a part of a meter station to measure the volume of oil/gas flowing through a pipeline while line pipe is sold for oil and gas transmission or processing piping purposes. In addition, meter tube can only be made by using the cold-drawn method and has strict and additional requirements which are unique only to meter tube and are not required for line pipe. As such, the goods are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: LP2-2
Decision date: February 14, 2019
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping duty on importations of certain carbon and alloy steel line pipe originating in the Republic of Korea. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were piping spools and therefore not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
The documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported goods were piping spools. The piping spools are comprised of miscellaneous piping lengths and components joined together via beveling, fitting, welding, grinding and induction bending where straight lengths of pipe are transformed into curved components that have off-sets of varying degrees built to an engineering specification. As such, the goods are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: LP2-3
Decision date: October 17, 2019
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping duty on an importation of carbon and alloy steel line pipe originating in the Republic of Korea. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were not subject to the finding as they did not meet the end-use of the product.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
The finding does not contain an exclusion based on end use. The documentation submitted demonstrated that the steel pipes imported fall within the product definition of the finding. As such the goods are subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: LP2-4
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping duty on importations of certain carbon and alloy steel pipe originating and exported from the Republic of Korea. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were meter tube (meter run) and therefore not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
The documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported goods were meter tube (meter run). Meter tube is a specialized tube that forms an integral component of measurement equipment used as a part of a meter station to measure the volume of oil/gas flowing through a pipeline while line pipe is sold for oil and gas transmission or processing piping purposes. In addition, meter tube can only be made by using the cold-drawn method and has strict and additional requirements which are unique only to meter tube and are not required for line pipe. As such, the goods are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: LP2-5
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping duty on an importation of carbon and alloy steel line pipe originating in the Republic of Korea. Upon filing the request for re-determination, the importer contended that the goods were not subject to the finding as they did not meet the end-use of the product.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
The finding does not contain an exclusion based on end use. The documentation submitted demonstrated that the steel pipes imported fall within the product definition of the finding. As such the goods are subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: N/A
Oil country tubular goods 2
Appeal number: OCTG2-1
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping duty on an importation of casing and tubing products originating in and exported from Turkey. Upon appeal, the importer contended that goods from the exporter were not subject to anti-dumping duty.
Decision: Allowed in part
Reason:
A review of the documents provided with the appeal confirms that the imported goods are 9 5/8" ERW steel varnished pipe made to API 5CT specification that are subject to the Tribunal’s finding. The applicable established normal values have now been applied resulting in a refund of the anti-dumping duty paid.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Piling pipe
Appeal number: PP-1
Decision date: July 29, 2019
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on importations of steel piling pipe originating in the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were not subject to the finding due to the ASTM A500 standard and the end-use of the product.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
The finding includes steel piling pipe made to ASTM A500 specifications and there are no exclusions based on end use. The documentation submitted demonstrated that the steel pipes imported fall within the product definition of the finding. As such the goods are subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: PP-2
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on an importation of helical piles originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer argued that the goods were not subject as they did not meet the product description and technical requirements of the Tribunal’s finding.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
No requests for exclusion of helical piles was received by the Tribunal during the investigation and the installation technique, end use, specified dimensions, and comparable steel certification of the goods in question are deemed to meet the product description and technical requirements of the Tribunal’s finding. As such, the goods are subject to the SIMNA measure in force.
Refund: N/A
Concrete reinforcing bars
Appeal number: RB2-1
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping duties on 3 importations of concrete reinforcing bars originating in Portugal and exported from the United States. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the imported sizes are not produced in Canada therefore did not cause injury to the domestic market.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
A review of the Tribunal’s finding and submitted documentation demonstrates that the concrete reinforcing bars meet the definition of subject goods and there is no applicable product exclusion. As a result, the goods remain subject to the finding.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: RB2-2
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping duties on 2 importations of concrete reinforcing bars originating in Spain and exported from the United States. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the imported sizes are not produced in Canada therefore did not cause injury to the domestic market.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
A review of the Tribunal’s finding and submitted documentation demonstrates that the concrete reinforcing bars meet the definition of subject goods and there is no applicable product exclusion. As a result, the goods remain subject to the finding.
Refund: N/A
Seamless casing
Appeal number: SC-1
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on an importation of certain seamless casing originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were for use in core sample extraction and therefore not subject to the finding.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the product under review is seamless casing made to API 5CT specification, having an outside diameter of 244.48 mm with plain ends for use in the extraction of core samples.
Steel seamless casing produced to API 5CT specification when within the specified dimensions is considered to be subject to the Tribunal’s finding.
Refund: N/A
Steel grating
Appeal number: SG-1
Decision date: July 21, 2017
Grounds of appeal:
The importer’s position was that the goods (cut and customized steel grating originating in the People’s Republic of China i.e., fabricated grating) were not subject as they formed part of steel structures, were classified under the Customs Tariff as steel structures, and thus had lost the characteristics of gratings.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
Paragraph 44 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (Tribunal) order RR‑2015‑001 states “Logically, there is a point at which grating loses its identity as grating, for example, after it is incorporated into a complex industrial structure”. The Merriam‑Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines “incorporate” as “to unite or work into something already existent so as to form an indistinguishable whole”. This terminology is specific and distinct from other terms such as “for use in” or “part of”.
Whether or not goods are subject to a finding is based on their state or condition at the time of importation. In this case, although the imported gratings were fabricated for use in accompanying steel structures, at the time of importation the gratings were in their own separate containers, and were not physically attached, joined or wrought into a structure. They therefore had the characteristics of gratings. They were also invoiced separately at a price different than the steel structures. The Tribunals description of fabricated gratings includes finishing such as kick plates, cut‑outs, nosing and welding. The use of the terms “e.g.” and “for example” indicates that this list of finishing is not exhaustive. Thus the fact that some of the grating pieces had additional finishing is not determinative.
The Customs Tariff and the principles identified in the General Interpretive Rules are not determinative of the issue of whether or not goods constitute subject goods. Rather, the question of subjectivity is based on the definition of subject goods contained in the Tribunal finding, which in this case does not include specific tariff classification(s).
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: SG-2
Decision date: January 22, 2021
Grounds of appeal:
The importer’s position was that the goods are expanded metal grating comprised of a single piece of sheet slit and expanded and not consisting of welding or joining of multiple pieces of steel, and therefore excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the imported goods are metal grating consisting of multiple welded pieces originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. These welded metal grating products are therefore subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: SG-3
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The importer’s position was that the goods are metal L brackets and angle bars that had been incorrectly described as bar gratings, and are therefore excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the imported goods are metal framing products consisting of cut and welded pieces of 1.5 m coil carbon steel and thick round cross bars originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. These welded metal framing products are therefore not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: Over $25,000
Photovoltaic modules and laminates
Appeal number: SML-1
Decision date: June 13, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of solar panels originating in China. The importer argued that the goods are excluded from the finding by virtue of the power output being 100 W.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the imported goods have a power output of 100 W. Solar panels with a power output not exceeding 100 W are excluded from the finding. As such, the goods are not covered by the definition of the subject goods.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Appeal number: SML-2
Decision date: July 5, 2019
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of solar panels originating in China. The importer argued that the goods were manufactured in and are exported from Thailand and therefore not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the imported goods were manufactured in and exported from Thailand. Only goods originating in and exported from China are subject to the finding. As such, the imported goods are not subject to the finding.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: SML-3
Decision date: June 3, 2020
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti‑dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of solar panels originating in China. The importer argued that the goods were not subject to the finding as they are electric generators, which should have been classified under heading 85.01 by virtue of the Explanatory Notes to Section XVI.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
For findings issued under SIMA, tariff classification numbers are listed for convenience of reference only; they are not determinative. In determining whether or not products constitute subject goods, the definition of the subject goods is authoritative.
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the imported goods meet the product definition of goods subject to the finding.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: SML-4
Decision date: June 16, 2020
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on two importations of solar panels originating in China. The importer argued that the goods should have been classified under 8525.80.00.50 as surveillance video camera systems and should therefore not be subject to the finding.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the solar panel is not incorporated into the surveillance video camera. As such, the solar panel is subject to the finding.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: SML-5
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of solar panels originating in China. The importer argued that the goods were manufactured in and exported from Vietnam and should therefore not be subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the solar panels were manufactured in and exported from Vietnam. As such, the solar panels are not subject to the finding.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Appeal number: SML-6
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on an importation of solar panels originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer argued that the imported goods were not subject as the goods originated in Malaysia and were exported from Vietnam.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods under review originated in Malaysia and were exported from Vietnam
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: SML-7
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of solar panels originating in China and exported from the United States. Upon appeal the importer argued that a portion of the goods were manufactured in Vietnam not China and should therefore not be subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that a portion of the solar panels were manufactured in Vietnam and exported from the United States. As such, those solar panels are not subject to the finding.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Appeal number: SML-8
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of solar panels originating in and exported from China. The importer argued that the goods could not be purchased domestically and for that reason anti-dumping and countervailing duties should be refunded.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
The issue of whether goods can be purchased domestically is not one that falls within the CBSA’s purview. Only goods that are specifically excluded from the finding by the Tribunal will be exempt from duties applied under SIMA.
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the imported solar panels meet the definition of subject goods and as a result remain subject to the finding.
Refund: N/A
Sucker rods
Appeal number: SR-1
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on importations of certain sucker rods originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were extension rods for use in a triplex mud pump and therefore not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
The documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported goods were extension rods for use in the power end of a triplex mud pump in dimensions outside those of the subject goods. As such, the goods are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Stainless steel sinks
Appeal number: SSS-1
Decision date: July 5, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on an importation of stainless steel sinks based on accounting information stating the country of origin and export was the People’s Republic of China. The importer presented documentation showing the origin and export of the goods was Thailand and therefore claiming the goods were not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the imported goods were manufactured in, and shipped to Canada from Thailand. Stainless steel sinks originating in Thailand are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: SSS-2
Decision date: November 9, 2018
Grounds of appeal:
Anti-dumping and countervailing duties were paid on an importation of stainless steel sinks. The CBSA reviewed the importation and assessed additional anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The importer contends the volume of the goods was below those specified and were therefore not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the imported goods have a single drawn bowl with a volume of 666 cubic inches. Stainless steel sinks having a single bowl with a volume of less than 1,600 cubic inches are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: Less than $5,000
Appeal number: SSS-3
Decision date: September 20, 2019
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on an importation of stainless steel sinks based on the available accounting information. The importer presented documentation showing the goods originated in the Republic of Korea and were exported from the United States of America and therefore claiming the goods were not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the imported goods were manufactured in the Republic of Korea and were shipped to Canada from the United States of America. Stainless steel sinks originating in the Republic of Korea are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Appeal number: SSS-4
Decision date: August 14, 2020
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on two importations of stainless steel sinks based on the available accounting information. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were hand fabricated stainless steel sinks and therefore not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the imported goods are hand fabricated stainless steel sinks originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Hand fabricated stainless steel sinks originating in the People’s Republic of China are excluded from the finding and are therefore not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: SSS-5
Decision date: July 8, 2020
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on an importation of SSS originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the imported goods were not subject as the finding excludes handmade sinks.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods under review are handmade stainless steel sinks and therefore, not subject.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: SSS-6
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on an importation of stainless steel sinks originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were hand fabricated stainless steel sinks and therefore not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods in question are hand fabricated stainless steel sinks and therefore excluded from the finding.
Refund: $5,000 to $25,000
Appeal number: SSS-7
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on an importation of stainless steel sinks originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were hand fabricated stainless steel sinks and therefore not subject to the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods in question are hand fabricated stainless steel sinks and therefore excluded from the finding.
Refund: Over $25,000
Refined sugar
Appeal number: SUG-1
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping duty on an importation of refined sugar exported from the United States of America. Upon filing the request for re-determination, the importer contended that the goods were not subject to the finding as they were not exported from but transhipped through the United States of America.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
The documentation submitted demonstrated that the refined sugar was not imported, stored and exported in bond from the United States of America. As such the goods are subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: N/A
Thermoelectric containers
Appeal number: TC-1
Decision date: June 20, 2019
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of certain thermoelectric containers accounted for as originating in the People’s Republic of China and exported from the United States of America. Upon appeal, the importer presented documentation showing the origin of the goods to be the United States of America and contended that the goods were not subject.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the imported goods were manufactured in, and shipped to Canada from the United States of America. Thermoelectric containers originating from the United States of America are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.
Refund: Less than $5,000
Appeal number: TC-2
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on the importation of a thermoelectric container exported from the United States. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the imported good contains a compressor therefore not subject.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the submitted documentation demonstrates that the imported good contains a compressor. Thermoelectric containers with compressors are not subject to the finding.
Refund: Over $25,000
Upholstered domestic seating
Appeal number: UDS-1
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The importer claimed that the goods in question are stationary and made of polyester and thus not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
A review of the documents provided by the importer confirms that the goods in question are not stationary and thus subject to the Tribunal’s finding.
Refund: N/A
Appeal number: UDS-2
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The importer claimed that goods in question are stationary and upholstered with leather-like fabric (Polyurethane), excluding them from the finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods in question stationary and upholstered with leather-like fabric (Polyurethane) and are therefore excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.
Refund: Over $25,000
Appeal number: UDS-3
Decision date:
Grounds of appeal:
The importer claimed that leather pieces on the good in question are decorative accents and not part of the fabric used to upholster it, excluding the good from the Tribunal’s finding.
Decision: Denied
Reason:
A review of the documents provided by the importer confirms that the leather pieces on the good in question form part of the upholstery, making the good subject to the Tribunal’s finding.
Refund: N/A
CBSA request for re-determination number: UDS-4
Decision date:
Grounds of request:
The importer claimed that the goods in question are stationary and upholstered in fabric and thus not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.
Decision: Allowed
Reason:
A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods in question are stationary and upholstered with fabric and are therefore excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.
Refund: Less than $5,000
- Date modified: