Notice of conclusion of administrative review: Upholstered Domestic Seating (UDS 2024 UP6)

Period of investigation

The period of investigation (POI) and the profitability analysis period (PAP) for the administrative review is October 1, 2023 to September 30, 2024.

Administrative review process

At the initiation of the administrative review, the CBSA sent a dumping Request for Information (RFI) to eight required exporters, of which only the above five responded. The CBSA also sent importer RFIs to all known importers that purchased from these exporters. The information was requested for purposes of updating the normal values and export prices for subject goods imported into Canada. Foreign verifications were conducted at the premises of two exporters in Vietnam and two exporters in China.

As part of the administrative review, case briefs were provided by counsel representing two exporters. Details of the representations are provided in Appendix 1.

Details pertaining to the information submitted by the exporters in response to the RFIs as well as the results of the CBSA’s administrative review are provided below.

Normal values and export prices

Gold Lion Furniture Shanghai Company

Gold Lion Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (Gold Lion) is an exporter and producer of subject goods located in China. During the POI, Gold Lion sold subject goods directly to a related importer in Canada.

Gold Lion provided a response to the CBSA’s dumping RFI. Supplemental RFIs were sent to Gold Lion to gather additional information and to seek clarification on certain questions. Gold Lion purchased inputs from a related supplier in significant quantities. A response to the CBSA’s related supplier questionnaire was received from the related input supplier. Officers of the CBSA met with representatives of Gold Lion and its related supplier at their offices in China to verify the information provided.

Gold Lion did not have sufficient sales of like goods that complied with all the terms and conditions referred to in sections 15 and 16 of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) as to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the goods to the importer in Canada. As such, normal values were determined pursuant to paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, based on the aggregate of the cost of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits.

The cost of production was determined in accordance with paragraph 11(1)(a) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR), based on Gold Lion’s cost data associated with the subject goods shipped to Canada. As Gold Lion acquired inputs from an associated supplier, the CBSA investigated whether an adjustment should be made pursuant to paragraph 11.2(1) of the SIMR, however no adjustment was required. The amount for administrative, selling, and all other costs was determined in accordance with subparagraph 11(1)(c)(ii) of the SIMR, based on Gold Lion’s selling and administrative expenses incurred during the PAP.

The amount for profits for Gold Lion could not be determined in accordance with subparagraphs 11(1)(b)(i) to 11(1)(b)(vi) of the SIMR as there was not a sufficient amount of profits from exporters from China. As such, the amount for profits was determined pursuant to section 29 of SIMA, using the weighted-average amount for profits found during the original investigation.

During the POI, the subject goods exported to Canada by Gold Lion were sold to a related importer. Due to the relationship between the companies, a reliability test was performed to determine whether the section 24 export prices were reliable as envisaged by SIMA. This test was conducted by comparing the section 24 export prices with the section 25 export prices. The test revealed that the export prices in accordance with section 24 of SIMA were reliable.

Man Wah Furniture Manufacturing (Huizhou) Co., Ltd.

Man Wah Furniture Manufacturing (Huizhou) Co., Ltd. (Man Wah Huizhou) is an exporter and producer of subject goods located in China. During the POI, Man Wah Huizhou sold subject goods to importers in Canada directly, as well as through its related trading companies.

Man Wah Huizhou provided a response to the CBSA’s dumping RFI. Supplemental RFIs were sent to Man Wah Huizhou to gather additional information and to seek clarification on certain questions. Man Wah Huizhou purchased inputs from several related suppliers in significant quantities. Responses to the CBSA’s related supplier questionnaires were received from all required parties. Officers of the CBSA met with representatives of Man Wah Huizhou and three of its related suppliers at their offices in China to verify the information provided.

Man Wah Huizhou did not have sufficient sales of like goods that complied with all the terms and conditions referred to in sections 15 and 16 of SIMA as to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the goods to the importer in Canada. As such, normal values were determined pursuant to paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, based on the aggregate of the cost of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits.

The cost of production was determined in accordance with paragraph 11(1)(a) of the SIMR, based on Man Wah Huizhou’s cost data associated with the subject goods shipped to Canada. As Man Wah Huizhou acquired inputs from associated suppliers, the CBSA investigated whether an adjustment should be made pursuant to paragraph 11.2(1) of the SIMR, however, no adjustment was required. The amount for administrative, selling, and all other costs was determined in accordance with subparagraph 11(1)(c)(ii) of the SIMR, based on Man Wah Huizhou’s selling and administrative expenses incurred during the PAP.

The amount for profits for Man Wah Huizhou could not be determined in accordance with subparagraphs 11(1)(b)(i) to 11(1)(b)(vi) of the SIMR as there was not a sufficient amount of profits from exporters from China. As such, the amount for profits was determined pursuant to section 29 of SIMA, using the weighted-average amount for profits found during the original investigation.

For the subject goods exported from Man Wah Huizhou to Canada during the POI, export prices were determined in accordance with section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the exporter’s selling price and the importer’s purchase price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

MotoMotion China Corporation

MotoMotion China Corporation (MOTO) (formerly HHC Changzhou Corp.) is an exporter and producer of subject goods located in China. During the POI, MOTO sold subject goods directly to an importer in Canada.

MOTO provided a response to the CBSA’s dumping RFI. Deficiency notices and supplemental RFIs were sent to MOTO to gather additional information and to seek clarification on certain questions. MOTO purchased inputs from several related suppliers in significant quantities. Responses to the CBSA’s related supplier questionnaires were received from all required parties.

MOTO did not have sufficient sales of like goods that complied with all the terms and conditions referred to in sections 15 and 16 of SIMA as to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the goods to the importer in Canada. As such, normal values were determined pursuant to paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, based on the aggregate of the cost of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits.

The cost of production was determined in accordance with paragraph 11(1)(a) of the SIMR, based on MOTO’s cost data associated with the subject goods shipped to Canada. As MOTO acquired inputs from associated suppliers, the CBSA investigated whether an adjustment should be made pursuant to paragraph 11.2(1) of the SIMR, however no adjustment was required. The amount for administrative, selling, and all other costs was determined in accordance with subparagraph 11(1)(c)(ii) of the SIMR, based on MOTO’s selling and administrative expenses incurred during the PAP.

The amount for profits for MOTO could not be determined in accordance with subparagraphs 11(1)(b)(i) to 11(1)(b)(vi) of the SIMR as there was not a sufficient amount of profits from exporters from China. As such, the amount for profits was determined pursuant to section 29 of SIMA, using the weighted-average amount for profits found during the original investigation.

For the subject goods exported from MOTO to Canada during the POI, export prices were determined in accordance with section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the exporter’s selling price and the importer’s purchase price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

MotoMotion Vietnam Limited Company

MotoMotion Vietnam Limited Company (MOTOVN) is an exporter and producer of subject goods located in Vietnam. During the POI, MOTOVN sold subject goods directly to importers in Canada.

MOTOVN provided a response to the CBSA’s dumping RFI. Supplemental RFIs were sent to MOTOVN to gather additional information and to seek clarification on certain questions. MOTOVN purchased inputs from several related suppliers in significant quantities. Responses to the CBSA’s related supplier questionnaires were received from all required parties. Officers of the CBSA met with representatives of MOTOVN at their facility in Vietnam to verify the information provided.

MOTOVN did not have sufficient sales of like goods that complied with all the terms and conditions referred to in sections 15 and 16 of SIMA as to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the goods to the importers in Canada. As such, normal values were determined pursuant to paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, based on the aggregate of the cost of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits.

The cost of production was determined in accordance with paragraph 11(1)(a) of the SIMR, based on MOTOVN’s cost data associated with the subject goods shipped to Canada. As MOTOVN acquired inputs from associated suppliers, the CBSA investigated whether an adjustment should be made pursuant to paragraph 11.2(1) of the SIMR, however no adjustment was required. The amount for administrative, selling, and all other costs was determined in accordance with subparagraph 11(1)(c)(ii) of the SIMR, based on MOTOVN’s selling and administrative expenses incurred during the PAP.

The amount for profits for MOTOVN could not be determined in accordance with subparagraphs 11(1)(b)(i) to 11(1)(b)(vi) of the SIMR as there was not a sufficient amount of profits from exporters from Vietnam. As such, the amount for profits was determined pursuant to section 29 of SIMA, using the weighted-average amount for profits found during the original investigation.

For the subject goods exported from MOTOVN to Canada during the POI, export prices were determined in accordance with section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the exporter’s selling price and the importer’s purchase price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

Timberland Co., Ltd.

Timberland Co., Ltd. (Timberland) is an exporter and producer of subject goods located in Vietnam. During the POI, Timberland sold subject goods to importers in Canada through one of its related trading companies.

Timberland provided a response to the CBSA’s dumping RFI. Supplemental RFIs were sent to Timberland to gather additional information and to seek clarification on certain questions. Timberland purchased inputs from several related suppliers in significant quantities. Responses to the CBSA’s related supplier questionnaires were received from all required parties. Officers of the CBSA met with representatives of Timberland and one of its related suppliers at their offices in Vietnam to verify the information provided.

Timberland did not have sufficient sales of like goods that complied with all the terms and conditions referred to in sections 15 and 16 of SIMA as to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the goods to the importer in Canada. As such, normal values were determined pursuant to paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, based on the aggregate of the cost of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits.

The cost of production was determined in accordance with paragraph 11(1)(a) of the SIMR, based on Timberland’s cost data associated with the subject goods shipped to Canada. As Timberland acquired inputs from associated suppliers, the CBSA investigated whether an adjustment should be made pursuant to paragraph 11.2(1) of the SIMR, however no adjustment was required. The amount for administrative, selling, and all other costs was determined in accordance with subparagraph 11(1)(c)(ii) of the SIMR, based on Timberland’s selling and administrative expenses incurred during the PAP.

The amount for profits for Timberland could not be determined in accordance with subparagraphs 11(1)(b)(i) to 11(1)(b)(vi) of the SIMR as there was not a sufficient amount of profits from exporters from Vietnam. As such, the amount for profits was determined pursuant to section 29 of SIMA, using the weighted-average amount for profits found during the original investigation.

For the subject goods exported from Timberland to Canada during the POI, export prices were determined in accordance with section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the exporter’s selling price and the importer’s purchase price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

Exporter responsibility

All parties are cautioned that, where there are increases in domestic prices and/or costs, the export price should be increased accordingly to ensure that any sale made to Canada is not only above the normal value but at or above selling prices and full costs and profit of the goods in the exporter’s domestic market. If exporters do not adjust export prices accordingly, retroactive assessments of anti-dumping duties may be warranted. Please refer to the Memorandum D14-1-8: Administrative Review Policy – Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) for details.

Importer responsibility

Importers are reminded that it is their responsibility to declare their anti-dumping and countervailing duty liability. If importers are using the services of a customs broker to clear importations, the brokerage firm should be advised that the goods are subject to anti-dumping and countervailing measures and be provided with sufficient information necessary to clear the shipments. To determine their liability for anti-dumping and countervailing duty, importers should contact the exporters to obtain the applicable normal values and amounts of subsidy. For further information on this matter, refer to Memorandum D14-1-2: Disclosure of normal values, export prices, and amounts of subsidy established under the Special Import Measures Act.

The Customs Act applies, with any modifications that the circumstances require, with respect to the accounting and payment of anti-dumping and countervailing duties. As such, failure to pay the duties within the prescribed time will result in the application of the interest provisions of the Act.

Should the importer disagree with the determination made on any importation of goods, a request for re-determination may be filed. For more information on how to file a request for re-determination, please refer to the Guide for appealing a duty assessment.

Contact us

Email: simaregistry-depotlmsi@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca

Appendix 1: Representations

Following the closing of the record on May 7, 2025, case arguments were received on behalf of Man Wah Huizhou and Timberland.^{Footnote 1} No reply submissions were received. The material issues raised by the parties are summarized as follows:

Case arguments

Counsel for Man Wah Huizhou and Timberland provided financial statements for related companies in China and argued that the CBSA should use their average profit for Man Wah Huizhou and Timberland’s amount for profits.

CBSA’s response

While Man Wah Huizhou and Timberland provided financial statements for various related companies, insufficient information was provided to determine an amount for profit under SIMA as it was not possible to assess the sales pursuant to section 13 of SIMR. Therefore the CBSA used the amount for profit from the Ministerial Specification as determined in the original investigation as it was based on the sales of goods meeting the product definition, after ensuring they make a proper comparison to the goods sold to Canada as required under section 13 of SIMR.