Special Import Measures Act re-determinations relating to subjectivity

Justification for request

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:

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.

Justification for request

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.

Reason

The exclusion for aluminum extrusions for use in window frames is worded as follows:

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.

Justification for request

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.

Reason

Aluminum joints produced via a die casting process are not subject goods.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods in question are manufactured of vinyl and therefore not subject to the finding.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

Reason

The goods are for use in window frames and meet the technical requirements set forth by the Tribunal.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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:

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.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of aluminum extrusions. The importer argued that the goods had been misclassified on importation and the goods met the criteria of an exclusion issued by the Tribunal:

Reason

In reviewing the supporting documents received with this request and having conducted an analysis of the proper tariff classification of the imported goods, the goods do not meet the criteria set by the Tribunal.

As the goods do not meet the exclusion criteria, they are therefore subject.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are manufactured from 6063 alloy with a T5 temper designation which are excluded materials. The importer also claimed that the goods are imported as finished products and are thus not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods do not meet the characteristics defined by the Tribunal regarding goods manufactured from 6063 alloy with a T5 temper designation. Further, the review determined that the goods in question cannot be considered finished products. As such, the goods in question are subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question were incorrectly classified under tariff item No. 7604.29.00 and should have instead been classified under tariff item No. 8473.30.90 as they qualify for the exclusion set out by the Tribunal for heat sinks imported under tariff item No. 8473.30.90 and weighing 700 g or less.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods do not meet the requirements to be classified in heading 84.70 to 84.72. As such, the goods in question are subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are not heat sinks and are thus not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods are not heat sinks and are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are produced by the process of impact extrusion and are thus not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods are not produced by the process of impact extrusion and, as such, are subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on an importation of aluminum extrusions originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the imported goods originated in and were exported from Malaysia.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods in question originated in and were exported from Malaysia, therefore not subject to finding NQ-2008-003.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question were inaccurately classified under tariff item No. 7604.10.00.40 and should have instead been classified under tariff item No. 7616.99.90.50. As such, the importer stated that the goods are not targeted by the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods in question are produced via an aluminum extrusion process and are therefore subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on two importations of aluminum extrusions. The importer claimed that the goods in question were not produced from extruded aluminum and had been inaccurately classified and were therefore not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

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).

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that a portion of the goods in question are zinc die-cast parts while the remaining goods in question are produced from rolled aluminum. Products manufactured from zinc and rolled aluminum are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are not container chassis frames but rather parts used in the manufacturing process of container chassis frames that are not major subassemblies.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods are not container chassis frames but rather parts used in the manufacturing process of container chassis frames. Furthermore, the goods in question do not meet the definition of major subassemblies included in the finding and, as such, are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are not container chassis frames but rather parts used in the manufacturing process of container chassis frames that are not major subassemblies.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods are not container chassis frames but rather parts used in the manufacturing process of container chassis frames. Furthermore, the goods in question do not meet the definition of major subassemblies included in the finding and, as such, are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping duty on an importation of corrosion-resistant steel sheet originating in the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were not subject to the finding.

Reason

The documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported corrosion-resistant steel sheets had an organic coating and as such are excluded from the finding. Therefore these goods are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question have not been passivated and as such, are excluded from the Tribunal's finding.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods in question have not been passivated. As such, the goods are excluded from the Tribunal's finding.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

Reason

The documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported screws were made of stainless steel. Stainless steel screws are excluded from the finding.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

Anti-dumping and countervailing duties were self-assessed at the time of importation on an importation of fasteners originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer presented documentation indicating that the goods are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.

Reason

The documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported goods are turnbuckles, J bolts, eye bolts and ring bolts. Turnbuckles, J bolts, eye bolts and ring bolts are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.

Justification for request

Anti-dumping and countervailing duties were self-assessed at the time of importation on an importation of fasteners originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer presented documentation indicating that the goods are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.

Reason

The documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported goods are carriage bolts and hex head cap screws. Carriage bolts and hex head cap screws are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are Aster screws and thus are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods in question are Aster screws. Aster screws are specifically excluded from the Tribunal’s finding and, as such, are not subject goods.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are fasteners specifically designed for application in the automotive industry, and are therefore excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

The documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported goods are carriage bolts and hex head cap screws. Carriage bolts and hex head cap screws are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question meet exclusion 1 of the Tribunal’s finding, as they meet the ASTM A516 Grade 70 specification, are normalized, vacuum degassed and meet the end use requirement.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the imported goods meet the ASTM A516 Grade 70 specification, are normalized, vacuum degassed and meet the end use requirement of exclusion 1. As such, the goods are excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question meet exclusion 1 of the Tribunal’s finding, as they meet the ASTM A516 Grade 70 specification, are normalized, vacuum degassed and meet the end use requirement.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the imported goods meet the ASTM A516 Grade 70 specification, are normalized, vacuum degassed and meet the end use requirement of exclusion 1. As such, the goods are excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question meet exclusion 1 of the Tribunal’s finding, as they meet the ASTM A516 Grade 70 specification, are normalized, vacuum degassed and meet the end use requirement.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the imported goods meet the ASTM A516 Grade 70 specification, are normalized, vacuum degassed and meet the end use requirement of exclusion 1. As such, the goods are excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of industrial pipe originating in and exported from the Republic of Turkey. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods in issue do not fall within the scope of the product definition contained within the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirm that the products under review are industrial pipe made to ASTM A500 specifications, having diameters of 38 mm and 51 mm in lengths of 9000 mm and 10000 mm.

Industrial pipe produced to ASTM A500 standards, when within the specified dimensions is subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of hollow structural sections originating in the Republic of Korea. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods in issue do not fall within the scope of the product definition contained within the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirm that the products under review are ERW steel structural tubing (industrial tube) made to ASTM A500 specification, having dimensions of 3” x 3” and 5” x 5”, in lengths of 20 and 24 feet.

Industrial welded tube produced to ASTM A500 specifications, when within the specified dimensions is considered to be subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question meet an exclusion to the Tribunal’s finding, as the goods were imported as mother tubes for use in the production of seamless line pipe.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the imported goods meet all of the criteria of the specifc exclusion. The goods were unfinished seamless line pipe in the form of mother tubes, having specific outside diameters, wall thickness and lengths listed in the exclusion, not stenciled as meeting any line pipe specification, and imported for use in the production of seamless line pipe in one of the specifications listed in the exclusion.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of 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 as they do not meet the end-use of the product.

Reason

The finding does not contain the condition of 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.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question meet an exclusion to the Tribunal’s finding, as the goods were imported as mother tubes for use in the production of seamless line pipe.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the imported goods meet all of the criteria of the specifc exclusion. The goods were unfinished seamless line pipe in the form of mother tubes, having specific outside diameters, wall thickness and lengths listed in the exclusion, not stenciled as meeting any line pipe specification, and imported for use in the production of seamless line pipe in one of the specifications listed in the exclusion.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on importations of certain mattresses originating in the People’s Republic of China. In their request for re-determination, the importer submitted that the goods did not fall within the product definition, as the goods were sleeping pads and not mattresses.

Reason

A review of the documents provided in addition to a review of the exporter’s Website, confirm that the imported crib mattresses are subject to the Tribunal’s finding. As a result of this decision, the anti-dumping and countervailing duties previously assessed remain applicable.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are not mattresses and are similar goods to mattress topper less than 3 inches thick and camping mattress which are excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the goods in question are mattresses originating in and exported from China that do not meet the exclusions of the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are 2-inch thick mattress toppers and as such are excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the goods in question are mattress toppers measuring 2 inches in thickness. Mattress toppers less than three inches in thickness are excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are 2-inch thick mattress toppers and as such are excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the goods in question are mattress toppers measuring 2 inches in thickness. Mattress toppers less than three inches in thickness are excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are outside the scope of the Tribunal’s finding as they originate in and were exported from Mexico, a non-subject country.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods originate in and were exported from Mexico and as such, are not targeted by the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are three models of mattress toppers, all 6cm (2.3622 inchs) thick, and are therefore excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the goods in question are mattress toppers measuring 6cm (2.3622 inchs) in thickness. Mattress toppers less than three inches in thickness are specifically excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are 25 models of mattress toppers, all 2 inches thick, and are therefore excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the goods in question are mattress toppers measuring 2 inchs in thickness. Mattress toppers less than three inches in thickness are specifically excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are outside the scope of the Tribunal’s finding as they originate in Mexico and are exported from the United States, both non-subject countries.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods originate in Mexico and are exported from the United States. As such, the goods are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are mattress components and as such are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the goods in question are the top layer of an unfinished mattress. Mattress components are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are portable, foldable lounge mats and as such are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the goods in question are portable, foldable lounge mats. Portable, foldable lounge mats are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are mattress components and as such are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the goods in question are mattress components. Mattress components are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question were shipped and landed in Canada prior to the date of the Preliminary decision and as a result, SIMA duties should not have been assessed.

Reason

The goods at issue were released from customs after The Notice of Preliminary Determinations was published by the Canada Border Services Agency on July 7, 2022 and do not qualify for any exclusions issued by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. Therefore, the goods at issue remain subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are camping mattresses and as such are excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the submitted documention and importer’s online catalogue demonstrates that the goods in question are care mattresses for use in institutions. Insufficient evidence was provided to show that the goods are portable nor designed and marketed for camping use. The mattresses at issue are not camping matteresses and thus not excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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 SIMA measure in force.

Justification for request

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.

Reason

The documentation submitted demonstrated that the imported steel pipes have twisted and flattened ends and do not fall within the product definition of the finding. As such the goods are not subject to the SIMA measure in force.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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).

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods under review originated in Malaysia and were exported from Vietnam

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of solar modules that originating in China. The importer argued that the goods were manufactured in Taiwan, therefore the goods were not subject and the anti-dumping and countervailing duties should be refunded.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the imported solar modules were manufactured in China, meet the definition of subject goods, and as a result remain subject to the finding.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of solar panels that originating in China and exported from the United States. The importer argued that the goods were solar powered lights, with harmonized system (HS) classification number 9405.41.00.00, and for that reason the goods are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted demonstrates that the solar panel is not incorporated into the light. As such, the solar panel is subject to the finding.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods under review are handmade stainless steel sinks and therefore, not subject.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on two importations of stainless steel sinks originating in and exported from the People’s Republic of China. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were fabricated stainless steel sinks and therefore not subject to the finding.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods in question are fabricated stainless steel sinks and therefore excluded from the finding.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on an importation of stainless steel sinks originating in the People’s Republic of China and exported from the United States of America. Upon appeal, the importer contended that the goods were fabricated stainless steel sinks and therefore excluded from the finding.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that a portion of the goods in question are fabricated stainless steel sinks and are excluded from the finding. The remaining goods have a single drawn bowl with a volume of less than 1,600 cubic inches and are not subject to the finding.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are stationary and made of polyester and thus not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

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.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that goods in question are stationary and upholstered with leather-like fabric (Polyurethane), excluding them from the finding.

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.

Justification for request

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.

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.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are stationary and upholstered in fabric and thus not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

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.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of upholstered domestic seating. The importer argued that the goods were released prior to the measure in force coming into effect.

Reason

In reviewing the accounting information for the importation in question it was determined that the goods were released during the provisional period and are therefore subject to the finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are stationary and upholstered in fabric and thus not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that one of the goods in question is stationary and upholstered with fabric and is therefore excluded from the Tribunal’s finding. However, two of the goods in question are not stationary and thus subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are stationary and upholstered in fabric and thus not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that two of the goods in question are stationary and upholstered with fabric and are therefore excluded from the Tribunal’s finding. However, four of the goods in question are not stationary and thus subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of upholstered domestic seating. The importer argued that the goods were similar to those of a requested exclusion and therefore not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

In reviewing the provided documentation is was determined that the goods are upholstered rocking chairs which are specifically contained in the subject product definition and are therefore subject to the finding.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of upholstered domestic seating. The importer argued that the goods were released prior to the measure in force coming into effect.

Reason

In reviewing the accounting information for the importation in question it was determined that the goods were accounted for and physically released prior to the provisional period and are therefore not subject to the finding.

Justification for request

The goods at issue were ordered prior to the beginning of the investigation and the importer had no way of knowing that additional anti-dumping duties would apply.

Reason

The goods at issue were imported after the Notice of preminiary determination was published by the Canada Border Services Agency on May 5, 2021 and do not qualify for any exclusions issued by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. The goods at issue were re-assessed at the exporter’s advance over export price and remain subject to the finding.

Justification for request

The goods at issue were ordered prior to the beginning of the investigation and the importer had no way of knowing that additional anti-dumping duties would apply.

Reason

The goods at issue were imported after the Notice of preminiary determination was published by the Canada Border Services Agency on May 5, 2021 and do not qualify for any exclusions issued by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. The goods remain subject to the finding and the previously assessed re-assessed and countervailing duties remain applicable.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are upholstered in fabric and thus not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods are upholstered in fabric. The review also determined that the goods in question are not stationary seating as they all have motion features. As the motion feature of the goods in question is their foldability, the goods are excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of upholstered domestic seating. The importer argued that the goods were upholstered in fabric with a component part of leather and are therefore not subject.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods are upholstered in fabric with an integral part having a partial covering of leather and are therefore subject to the measure in force.

Justification for request

The goods at issue were ordered prior to the beginning of the investigation and the importer had no way of knowing that additional anti-dumping duties would apply.

Reason

The goods at issue were imported after the Notice of preminiary determination was published by the Canada Border Services Agency on May 5, 2021, do not qualify for any exclusions issued by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and are therefore subject to the finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods are upholstered in fabric. The review also determined that the goods in question form part of a 3-piece sectional with motion features. As such, the goods in question are subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are upholstered stools with a height greater than 24 inches and are thus not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods are upholstered stools with a height greater than 24 inches. As such, the goods in question are excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on two importations of upholstered domestic seating. The importer claimed that the goods were stationary and upholstered in polyurethane material and are therefore not subject.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods are upholstered in bonded leather and polyurethane material. The review also confirmed that one product had a motion feature and the other was stationary. Upholstered domestic furniture with or without motion partially upholstered in leather is subject to the measure in force.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on two importations of upholstered domestic seating. The importer claimed that a portion of the goods are stationary and upholstered solely in fabric while an additional product is a daybed and therefore all of these products are not subject.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that a portion of the goods are stationary and upholstered only with fabric. These products are therefore not subject to the measure in force. An additional product is an occasional chair upholstered in both fabric and leather. Upholstered domestic furniture with or without motion partially upholstered in leather is subject to the measure in force. The remaining product is a daybed upholstered in leather. Daybeds are specifically mentioned in the definition of subject goods and as it is upholstered in leather is subject to the measure in force.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are stationary and upholstered in fabric and are thus not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods are stationary and upholstered in fabric. As such, the goods in question are excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are stationary and upholstered in fabric and are thus not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that some of the imported goods are stationary and upholstered in fabric. As such, those goods are excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of upholstered domestic seating. The importer claimed that a portion of the goods are stationary and upholstered solely in fabric and therefore these products are not subject.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that a portion of the goods are stationary and upholstered only with fabric. These products are therefore excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The goods at issue were ordered prior to the beginning of the investigation and the importer had no way of knowing that additional anti-dumping duties would apply.

Reason

The goods at issue were imported after the Notice of Preminiary Determination was published by the Canada Border Services Agency on May 5, 2021 and do not qualify for any exclusions issued by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. The goods remain subject to the finding and the previously assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties remain applicable.

Justification for request

The goods at issue were ordered prior to the beginning of the investigation and the importer had no way of knowing that additional anti-dumping duties would apply.

Reason

The goods at issue were imported after the Notice of Preminiary Determination was published by the Canada Border Services Agency on May 5, 2021 and do not qualify for any exclusions issued by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. The goods remain subject to the finding and the previously assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duties remain applicable.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are not products of mass production and were instead a retail sale of designed to order products. Further, the importer stated that the goods in question were purchased and shipped before the Tribunal issued its finding. As such, the importer claimed that the aforementioned goods are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the goods in question fit the product definition and do not meet any of the exclusions provided by the Tribunal. Whether the goods in question were products of mass production sold wholesale or products designed to order sold as a retail sale is inconsequential to the Tribunal’s finding. Further, the goods were released after the Tribunal issued its finding. As such, the goods in question are subject to the finding in question.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are chairs with a rocking motion that is human powered and not achieved through a motion mechanism. As such, the importer claimed that the aforementioned goods are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods possess all of the elements and characteristics of subject goods. They are domestic seating of Chinese origin, are upholstered in fabric, and produce a rocking motion. Given that a “rocking” motion is enumerated in the Tribunal’s finding and that it does not dictate the means by which a piece of furniture achieves its rocking motion, the goods in issue are subject to the finding in question.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are chairs with a rocking motion that is human powered and not achieved through a motion mechanism. As such, the importer claimed that the aforementioned goods are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods possess all of the elements and characteristics of subject goods. They are domestic seating of Chinese origin, are upholstered in fabric, and produce a rocking motion. Given that a “rocking” motion is enumerated in the Tribunal’s finding and that it does not dictate the means by which a piece of furniture achieves its rocking motion, the goods in issue are subject to the finding in question.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods at issue were ordered prior to the beginning of the investigation and the importer had no way of knowing that additional anti-dumping duties would apply.

Reason

The goods at issue were imported after the Notice of Preliminary Determination was published by the Canada Border Services Agency on May 5, 2021 and do not qualify for any exclusions issued by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. Upon reviewing the documents provided, the CBSA determined that some of the goods in question were stationary seating upholstered in fabric, which do not meet the definition of subject goods.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods at issue were ordered prior to the beginning of the investigation and the importer had no way of knowing that additional anti-dumping duties would apply.

Reason

The goods at issue were imported after the Notice of Preliminary Determination was published by the Canada Border Services Agency on May 5, 2021 and do not qualify for any exclusions issued by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. Upon reviewing the documents provided, the CBSA determined that some of the goods in question were stationary seating upholstered in fabric, which do not meet the definition of subject goods.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of ottomans originating in the People’s Republic of China. The importer argued that the subject goods are covered with polyurethane (PU), therefore making the goods not subject to the Tribunal’s Finding.

Reason

A review of the submitted documentation and exporter’s Website demonstrates that the goods in question are upholstered in polyurethane (PU) and produce a swivel motion. Given that a “swivel” motion is enumerated in the Tribunals’ finding, the goods remain subject to the finding in question.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are not primarily intended for domestic use and as such are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the goods in question are not primarily intended for commercial use but rather are primarily intended for domestic use. However, one of the goods was determined to be stationary and upholstered in fabric and as such is excluded from the Tribunal’s finding while the other good in question is subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are stationary and upholstered in fabric and are thus not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods are stationary and upholstered in fabric. As such, those goods are excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are stationary and upholstered in fabric and are thus not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods are stationary and upholstered in fabric. As such, those goods are excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of upholstered domestic seating. The importer claimed that a portion of the goods are stationary and upholstered solely in fabric and therefore these products are not subject.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that a portion of the goods are stationary and upholstered only with fabric. These products are therefore excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are stationary and upholstered in fabric and are thus not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods are stationary and upholstered in fabric. As such, those goods are excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are not primarily intended for domestic use and as such are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the goods in question were designed and manufactured for commercial use and meet ANSI BIFMA X6.4-2021 specifications and as such are excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are stationary and upholstered in fabric and are thus not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods are stationary and upholstered in fabric. As such, those goods are excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The CBSA assessed anti-dumping and countervailing duty on an importation of upholstered domestic seating. The importer claimed that the goods are stationary and upholstered solely in fabric and therefore these products are not subject.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods are stationary and upholstered only with fabric. These products are therefore excluded from the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are not primarily intended for domestic use and thus are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods in question have been designed and manufactured to commercial-use specifications and, as such, are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are not primarily intended for domestic use and thus are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that some of the goods in question have been designed and manufactured to commercial-use specifications and, as such, are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding while other goods under review were determined to be primarily intended for domestic use and, as such, are subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are not primarily intended for domestic use and thus are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods in question have been designed and manufactured to commercial-use specifications and, as such, are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are not primarily intended for domestic use and thus are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods in question have been designed and manufactured to commercial-use specifications and, as such, are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question are upholstered in polyurethane and are therefore not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Reason

A review of the documentation submitted confirms that the goods in question are upholstered domestic seating with a covering of bonded leather. Upholstered stationary seating with a covering of leather, either full or partial, is subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question originated in and were exported from Poland which is not a country targeted by the Tribunal’s finding applies.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods originated in and were exported from Poland. As such, the goods in question are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question originated in and were exported from Poland which is not a country to which the Tribunal’s finding applies.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods originated in and were exported from Poland. As such, the goods in question are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question originated in and were exported from Poland which is not a country to which the Tribunal’s finding applies.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods originated in and were exported from Poland. As such, the goods in question are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.

Justification for request

The importer claimed that the goods in question originated in and were exported from Poland which is not a country to which the Tribunal’s finding applies.

Reason

A review of the documents provided confirms that the imported goods originated in and were exported from Poland. As such, the goods in question are not subject to the Tribunal’s finding.