Canada — Trade Remedies

Canada's trade-remedies framework is governed by the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), R.S.C. 1985, c. S-15, last amended June 23, 2022. SIMA implements Canada's WTO obligations under the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the Anti-Dumping Agreement) and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.

SIMA is jointly administered by two federal agencies operating in defined, sequential roles:

Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) — investigates whether imported goods have been dumped (sold in Canada at prices lower than in the exporter's home market or at unprofitable prices) or subsidized (benefiting from foreign government financial assistance). The CBSA determines normal value, export price, and the amount of subsidy; issues preliminary and final determinations of dumping or subsidizing; and collects anti-dumping and countervailing duties once a CITT injury finding is in force. The CBSA also conducts expiry-review investigations into the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping or subsidizing, anti-circumvention investigations, and scope proceedings to determine whether specific goods fall within an existing order.

Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) — an independent, quasi-judicial body that conducts injury inquiries to determine whether dumped or subsidized imports have caused, are causing, or threaten to cause material injury to the Canadian domestic industry. The CITT makes preliminary injury determinations (within 60 days of the CBSA's initiation of an investigation) and final injury determinations (within 120 days after the CBSA's preliminary determination of dumping or subsidizing). A positive final injury finding by the CITT authorizes the CBSA to impose anti-dumping or countervailing duties. The CITT also conducts expiry reviews (no later than five years after an injury finding to determine whether expiry of the duties is likely to result in injury or retardation), interim reviews, public-interest inquiries, and hears appeals of CBSA scope rulings.

Dual-track structure. Both agencies must reach affirmative conclusions for duties to be imposed and remain in force. If the CITT finds no reasonable indication of injury at the preliminary stage, both the CITT's inquiry and the CBSA's dumping or subsidizing investigation terminate. If the CBSA makes a negative preliminary or final determination, the investigation ends. Only when both the CBSA and the CITT issue affirmative final determinations do anti-dumping or countervailing duties apply to future imports of the subject goods.

Duration and review. SIMA duties remain in force for five years from the date of the CITT's injury finding unless rescinded earlier. Prior to the five-year expiry, the CITT initiates expiry proceedings; if it determines that a review is warranted, the CBSA has 150 days to assess the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping or subsidizing, and the CITT then has 160 days to determine whether expiry would likely result in injury. If both find in the affirmative, the CITT continues the finding for another five years; otherwise, the finding is rescinded and duties cease.

Regulatory framework. The operative regulations are the Special Import Measures Regulations, SOR/84-927 (current to March 17, 2026, last amended February 15, 2023), which prescribe complaint-documentation requirements, normal-value and export-price methodologies, subsidy-calculation rules, and procedural timelines. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal Regulations govern CITT procedures for injury inquiries, expiry reviews, scope appeals, and public-interest inquiries.

Source: Special Import Measures Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-15 Source: CBSA — Overview of Canada's anti-dumping and countervailing investigative processes Source: CITT — Anti-dumping and countervailing injury inquiries guide Source: Special Import Measures Regulations, SOR/84-927

A Canadian producer alleging that imported goods are dumped or subsidized and causing injury to Canadian industry may file a written complaint with the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) under section 31 of SIMA. A complaint is the primary mechanism for initiating a trade-remedy investigation; the CBSA President may also self-initiate an investigation, but most investigations result from complaints filed by Canadian producers.

## Who may file

Eligible complainants include individual Canadian producers, associations of producers representing the industry, or trade unions whose members are engaged in the production of like goods. SIMA subsection 31(1) does not prescribe a specific identity of complainants, so a single firm, an industry association, or a trade union may file on behalf of Canadian industry.

Industry standing. To ensure sufficient support by the Canadian industry, SIMA imposes a two-prong test that the CBSA must verify before initiating an investigation:

1. 25% support threshold — Producers whose collective production represents at least 25% of total Canadian production of the like goods must support the complaint.

1. Majority support — The total production of Canadian producers who express support for the complaint must exceed the total production of those who express opposition.

If the CBSA determines that the complaint lacks a sufficient level of industry support, it contacts other Canadian producers to gauge support, and the filing becomes known to those producers. The CBSA must satisfy itself that both standing conditions are met before proceeding.

## Required content

A properly documented complaint must:

• Allege dumping or subsidizing. The complaint must allege that the imported goods are being dumped (sold to importers in Canada at prices lower than in the country of export or at unprofitable prices) or subsidized (benefiting from foreign government financial assistance), and that the dumping or subsidizing has caused injury to Canadian production of like goods.

• Describe the goods. The complainant must precisely identify the imported goods by physical characteristics, uses, packaging, technical specifications, trade name, performance standards, major raw materials or chemical composition, manufacturing process, distribution channels, selling patterns, and customers. The CBSA advises using the ordinary meaning of words, avoiding general commercial terms that may have different meanings for different industry participants, and including scientific terms or internationally recognized standards where they exist. The description determines the scope of any eventual anti-dumping or countervailing duties; insufficiently specific descriptions can lead to avoidance of duties through minor product changes.

• Describe Canadian like goods. The complainant must identify the domestic goods that are identical or similar to the competing imports and specify the Canadian industry and market conditions.

• Provide evidence of dumping or subsidizing. The complaint must include available information to support allegations of dumping (for example, sales information, export prices, domestic market prices in the country of export, or cost data) or subsidizing (for example, details of government subsidies, grants, tax benefits, or preferential loans provided to foreign exporters or producers).

• Provide evidence of injury. The complaint must include evidence that the dumped or subsidized imports are causing or threatening to cause material injury to the Canadian domestic industry, such as financial statements, market analyses, production data, pricing trends, lost sales, profit erosion, or capacity-utilization declines.

• Complete a Statement of Complaint. The complaint must open with a formal Statement of Complaint, signed by a person with authority to submit a complaint on behalf of the company, identifying the complainant, the goods, the countries of origin or export, and the allegations of dumping and/or subsidizing and resulting injury. This statement also serves as the complainant's pledge that the information in the complaint is true and complete.

The CBSA offers advice to prospective complainants on preparing the complaint and can advise on the dumping or subsidizing process before filing.

## Properly documented determination and timing

Upon receipt of all required information, the CBSA reviews the complete complaint submission and determines whether the complaint is properly documented. If the CBSA deems the complaint properly documented, the complainant is notified in writing within 21 days under SIMA subsection 32(1.1). If the complaint is not properly documented, the CBSA advises the complainant of the additional information required.

Once the complainant is notified that the complaint is properly documented, the CBSA President has 30 days to determine:

• whether the complaint has been made by or on behalf of the domestic industry (the standing test described above);
• whether there is sufficient evidence that the imports are dumped or subsidized; and
• whether there is a reasonable indication that the dumping or subsidizing has caused injury or retardation or is threatening to cause injury.

Foreign government notification. Under SIMA subsection 32(1.2), the CBSA notifies the foreign government of the exporting country that a properly documented complaint has been received no later than seven days before the President decides whether or not to initiate an investigation (for dumping complaints). For subsidy complaints, the foreign government is provided with a copy of the non-confidential version of the complaint no later than 20 days before the initiation decision.

## Initiation or rejection

If the President concludes there is evidence of dumping or subsidizing causing injury, the President initiates an investigation. If the President rejects the complaint solely because the evidence of injury appears to be inadequate, the complainant may refer the matter to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) within 30 days of the written notice; the CITT may then advise that it believes there is sufficient evidence of injury to justify an investigation, in which case the President must initiate. If the President decides not to initiate for any other reason (lack of industry standing or insufficient evidence of dumping or subsidizing), SIMA does not provide for an appeal.

## Confidentiality

Complainants must prepare both a confidential version and a non-confidential version of the complaint. The confidential version should be clearly marked on every page and should identify confidential information by shading or square brackets. The non-confidential version must include an explanation of why information is designated as confidential and a summary of the confidential evidence in sufficient detail to convey a reasonable understanding. Unless the complainant has publicly announced that a complaint has been filed, the CBSA does not publicize receipt of a complaint prior to initiation, except for the required notification to the foreign government once the complaint is deemed properly documented.

Source: Special Import Measures Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-15, s. 31–32 Source: CBSA — Statement of administrative practices for the Special Import Measures Act Source: CBSA — Guidelines for preparing a dumping or subsidizing complaint Source: CBSA — Overview of Canada's anti-dumping and countervailing investigative processes

The Canada Border Services Agency determines normal value—the benchmark against which export price is compared to establish whether goods are dumped—using a statutory three-tier hierarchy under SIMA sections 15, 19, and 29. The methodology chosen directly determines the margin of dumping and the amount of anti-dumping duty an importer must pay.

## Section 15: domestic sales in ordinary course of trade (primary method)

Section 15 of SIMA establishes the primary methodology: normal value is the price of like goods when sold by the exporter in the domestic market of the country of export to arm's-length purchasers, at the same trade level, in the ordinary course of trade, during a period contemporaneous with the sale to Canada, at the place from which the goods were shipped to Canada. The section 15 price must be adjusted in the prescribed manner to reflect differences in terms and conditions of sale, taxation, and other factors affecting price comparability.

Ordinary course of trade exclusions (section 16). Section 16 of SIMA prescribes which domestic sales the CBSA shall not take into account when determining normal value under section 15:

• Below-cost sales. Sales made at prices less than the cost of the goods (defined as the cost of production plus administrative, selling, and all other costs) during a period determined by the CBSA of not less than six months, unless the CBSA is satisfied that the sales were made within a reasonable period of time and in quantities sufficient to permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period.

• Sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Sales by a vendor to a purchaser who did not, at the same or substantially the same time, sell like goods in the ordinary course of trade to other purchasers in the country of export at the same trade level and not associated with the vendor.

• Particular market situation. Any sale where, in the opinion of the CBSA President, a particular market situation exists that does not permit a proper comparison with the sale to Canada. Under subsection 16(2.1), enacted June 23, 2022, a particular market situation may be found to exist in respect of any goods of a particular exporter or of a particular country.

Adjustments under the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR). Sections 3–14 of the SIMR prescribe mandatory adjustments to the section 15 price to ensure comparability: quantity discounts (section 3), physical-characteristic differences (section 5), rebates or deferred discounts (section 6), differences in terms of sale including packing and containers (section 7), transportation costs (section 8), trade-level adjustments when purchasers at a different trade level must be substituted (section 9), taxation differences (section 10), royalties or licence fees (section 11), and credit terms where credit is extended (sections 13–14 and 18).

Sufficient number of sales. The CBSA must have "such a number of sales" of like goods that comply with all the terms and conditions of sections 15 and 16 "as to permit a proper comparison" with the sale to Canada. If insufficient qualifying domestic sales exist—for example, few or no arm's-length sales, or the exporter sells primarily for export—section 15 cannot be used, and the CBSA proceeds to section 19.

## Section 19: constructed value (fallback when section 15 inapplicable)

When normal value cannot be determined under section 15 (subject to section 20, which addresses export monopolies and prescribed-country situations), section 19 of SIMA provides two alternative methodologies:

(a) Comparable goods sold by other vendors. If there are sales of like goods in the country of export by other vendors in the ordinary course of trade to purchasers not associated with the vendor, and the CBSA President is of the opinion that sufficient information has been furnished, normal value may be based on the price at which those vendors sold like goods, adjusted as prescribed.

(b) Cost of production plus reasonable profit (constructed value). Normal value is the aggregate of:

1. the cost of production of the goods;
2. a reasonable amount for administrative, selling, and all other costs; and
3. a reasonable amount for profits.

Definition of cost of production (section 11 of SIMR). Paragraph 11(1)(a) of the SIMR defines "cost of production" as the aggregate of all costs that are attributable to, or in any manner related to, the production of the goods, or directly attributable to the design or engineering of the goods. Subsection 11.2 of the SIMR addresses the treatment of costs of inputs acquired from associated suppliers: if a significant input is purchased from an associated supplier, the CBSA may use the associated supplier's own cost of production (if higher than the transaction price) to prevent artificial deflation of costs.

Reasonable amount for profit (paragraph 11(1)(b) of SIMR). The "reasonable amount for profits" is the amount equal to the profit margin earned by the exporter on sales in the country of export of goods of the same general category as the subject goods, made during a period contemporaneous with the sale to Canada. If the exporter did not make such sales, or if the CBSA President is not satisfied that the exporter's profit margin is adequate, the profit is based on the weighted-average profit margin of other producers or exporters in the country of export on sales of goods of the same general category. The CBSA applies this provision in practice by requesting detailed financial records and verifying reported profit margins on domestic sales or, in their absence, using industry-wide profit benchmarks.

When section 19(b) is used. In administrative reviews of anti-dumping orders, the CBSA routinely determines normal values under section 19(b) when the exporter has few or no qualifying domestic sales under section 15. For example, in a November 2024 normal value review of carbon and alloy steel line pipe from South Korea, the CBSA determined that the exporter "had domestic sales of like goods during the PAP, however, normal values could not be determined in accordance with section 15 of SIMA as there were not such a number of sales of like goods that complied with all the terms and conditions referred to in sections 15 and 16 of SIMA as to permit a proper comparison." Accordingly, normal values were determined under section 19(b) based on the aggregate of cost of production, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profit, with the profit amount determined under paragraph 11(1)(b) of the SIMR.

## Section 29: ministerial specification (insufficient information)

Section 29(1) of SIMA is the residual methodology. Where, in the opinion of the CBSA President, sufficient information has not been furnished or is not available to enable determination of normal value under sections 15 to 28, the normal value shall be determined in such manner as the Minister specifies. Ministerial specifications are issued on a case-by-case basis and published as part of the CBSA's final determination or administrative-review notice.

Common triggers. Section 29(1) normal values are typically specified when:

• The exporter fails to respond fully to the CBSA's request for information (RFI);
• The exporter's records are incomplete, unreliable, or cannot be verified;
• A particular market situation exists under section 16(2)(c) (for example, government control of input prices or domestic selling prices in non-market economies) and sufficient information is not available to apply section 20 (which addresses situations where domestic prices are substantially determined by government action); or
• The exporter does not cooperate with verification.

Ministerial specification methodologies. The methodology varies by case. In investigations or reviews involving non-market economies such as China, ministerial specifications have been based on: surrogate-country costs (the cost of production in a comparable market-economy country, adjusted for freight and profit); third-country export prices to markets other than Canada; or a combination of verified costs from cooperative producers and constructed profit margins. In a 2022 administrative review of steel piling pipe from China, the CBSA found that "the domestic prices of piling pipe in China were being substantially determined by the Government of China" and "conditions of section 20 of SIMA were found to exist, but sufficient information had not been furnished or was not available." Normal values were therefore determined under a ministerial specification based on the average price of hot-rolled steel for all regions excluding China.

Non-cooperative exporter consequence. Exporters who do not participate in a CBSA investigation or administrative review, or who provide incomplete or unverifiable information, are subject to a ministerial specification that is typically higher than a cooperating exporter's normal value, because it is based on facts available (often the highest margins found for cooperative exporters, adjusted upward, or petition data).

## Practical impact and annual updates

The CBSA has transitioned to an annual administrative review system for updating normal values, export prices, and amounts of subsidy to reflect current market conditions. Under Memorandum D14-1-8 (issued October 8, 2025), the CBSA monitors market dynamics annually and conducts tiered reviews when updates are necessary. Exporters are advised to adjust their selling prices to Canada in response to changes in domestic prices, costs, or terms of sale; failure to do so can result in retroactive assessments of anti-dumping duties. The CBSA is not bound by methodologies used in previous proceedings and may adjust its approach based on the facts and circumstances of each review.

An importer of subject goods bears the responsibility to calculate and declare anti-dumping duty liability. When the CBSA issues updated normal values following an administrative review, those values apply immediately to future importations and may be applied to pending re-determination requests.

Source: Special Import Measures Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-15, ss. 15, 16, 19, 29 Source: Special Import Measures Regulations, SOR/84-927, ss. 3–14, 11 Source: CBSA — Notice of conclusion of normal value review: Carbon and Alloy Steel Line Pipe 2 (LP2 2024 UP1), November 28, 2024 Source: CBSA — Memorandum D14-1-8: Administrative Review Policy – Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), October 8, 2025 Source: CBSA — Notice of conclusion of normal value review: Steel piling pipe (PP 2022 UP2), July 25, 2023

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) conducts an independent injury inquiry to determine whether dumped or subsidized imports have caused material injury to the Canadian domestic industry, are threatening to cause material injury, or have caused material retardation of the establishment of an industry. Under section 42 of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), the CITT makes a preliminary injury determination within 60 days of the CBSA's initiation of an investigation, and a final injury determination within 120 days after the CBSA's preliminary determination of dumping or subsidizing. An affirmative final injury finding by the CITT is the statutory prerequisite for imposing and collecting anti-dumping or countervailing duties; without it, the CBSA cannot levy duties regardless of the margin of dumping or amount of subsidy.

## Statutory definitions: injury, threat of injury, and retardation

SIMA subsection 2(1) defines:

• Injury — material injury to a domestic industry producing like goods.
• Threat of injury — a threat of material injury to a domestic industry producing like goods.
• Retardation — material retardation of the establishment of a domestic industry producing like goods.

The Act does not quantify "material." The CITT applies the ordinary meaning: injury that is real, substantial, and not insignificant or trivial. SIMA subsections 2(11) and 2(12), enacted June 23, 2022, require the CITT to take into account any impacts on workers employed in the domestic industry in any assessment of injury and any impacts on jobs in any assessment of retardation.

## The three-factor test: section 37.1 of the Special Import Measures Regulations

Section 37.1(1) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR) prescribes a non-exhaustive three-factor framework for determining whether dumping or subsidizing has caused injury or retardation:

(a) Volume of dumped or subsidized goods

The CITT examines the volume of the dumped or subsidized goods and, in particular, whether there has been a significant increase in the volume of imports of the dumped or subsidized goods, either in absolute terms or relative to the production or consumption of like goods in Canada.

The CITT typically compares import volumes during the period of investigation (POI, often 24–36 months) to historical periods. Evidence of surging imports after the initiation of a CBSA investigation can support an injury finding; a flat or declining trend may weaken the volume factor.

(b) Price effect of dumped or subsidized goods

The CITT examines the effect of the dumped or subsidized goods on the price of like goods in Canada and, in particular, whether the dumped or subsidized goods have significantly:

1. undercut the price of like goods;
2. depressed the price of like goods (caused the price to decline); or
3. suppressed the price of like goods by preventing the price increases for those like goods that would otherwise likely have occurred.

The CITT compares unit pricing data for the subject imports to unit pricing of domestically produced like goods, often analyzing pricing trends over time and comparing pricing by customer segment or distribution channel. Undercutting (the subject imports sell below the domestic price) is common in affirmative findings; suppression (the domestic industry could not raise prices to cover increased costs because of the presence of low-priced imports) is equally significant where cost inflation was not passed through to customers.

(c) Impact on the domestic industry

The CITT examines the resulting impact of the dumped or subsidized goods on the state of the domestic industry and, in particular, all relevant economic factors and indices that have a bearing on the state of the domestic industry, including:

• actual and potential decline in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, or utilization of capacity;
• factors affecting domestic prices;
• actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, or investments; and
• the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the amount of subsidy in respect of the dumped or subsidized goods.

SIMR section 37.1(1)(c) enumerates illustrative factors but specifies "all relevant economic factors and indices," so the CITT may consider additional factors supported by evidence on the record. In practice, the CITT typically analyzes financial performance (gross margin, operating income, net income), capacity utilization, employment trends, lost sales, and the domestic industry's ability to raise prices or secure financing. The CITT has wide latitude to weigh factors differently depending on the industry and the evidence.

(d) Any other factor relevant in the circumstances

SIMR section 37.1(1)(e) permits the CITT to consider any other factor that is relevant in the circumstances. The CITT has relied on this provision to examine product-specific factors, supply-chain dynamics, government procurement preferences, and structural changes in the industry.

## Threat of injury (section 37.1(2))

SIMR section 37.1(2) prescribes additional forward-looking factors the CITT may consider in determining whether dumping or subsidizing is threatening to cause injury, including:

• the nature of the subsidy in question and the effects it is likely to have on trade;
• whether there has been a significant rate of increase of dumped or subsidized goods imported into Canada, which rate of increase indicates a likelihood of substantially increased imports;
• whether there is sufficient freely disposable capacity, or an imminent, substantial increase in the capacity of the exporter, indicating the likelihood of substantially increased exports to Canada;
• the likelihood that the imports will enter Canada at prices that will have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of like goods; and
• inventories of the goods being imported or produced.

A threat finding requires that injury is clearly imminent, not remote or speculative. The CITT does not issue a threat finding if the domestic industry is already experiencing present material injury; the two are mutually exclusive outcomes for purposes of the final finding (though a preliminary determination may find a "reasonable indication" of either injury or threat).

## Causation: attribution and non-attribution (section 37.1(3))

SIMR section 37.1(3) requires the CITT to assess:

(a) whether a causal relationship exists between the dumping or subsidizing of the goods and the injury, retardation, or threat of injury, on the basis of the factors listed in subsections (1) and (2); and

(b) whether any factors other than the dumping or subsidizing of the goods have caused injury or retardation or are threatening to cause injury, on the basis of:

• (i) the volumes and prices of imports of like goods that are not dumped or subsidized;
• (ii) a contraction in demand for the goods or like goods;
• (iii) any change in the pattern of consumption of the goods or like goods;
• (iv) trade-restrictive practices of, and competition between, foreign and domestic producers;
• (v) developments in technology;
• (vi) the export performance and productivity of the domestic industry producing like goods; and
• (vii) any other matter that is relevant in the circumstances.

The CITT must not attribute to the dumped or subsidized goods injury or threat of injury caused by other factors. In practice, the CITT conducts a "non-attribution analysis" in which it identifies other known causes of injury (for example, a recession that reduced demand, closure of a major customer, quality problems with domestic production, the domestic industry's own pricing strategy, or competition from non-subject imports) and assesses whether those factors, rather than the dumped or subsidized imports, are the real cause of the domestic industry's difficulties. The dumping or subsidizing need not be the sole cause of injury, but it must be a material cause not eclipsed by other factors.

## Cumulation: assessing the effect of imports from multiple countries

SIMA section 42(3) authorizes the CITT to make a cumulative assessment of the effect of dumped or subsidized imports from more than one country if the CITT is satisfied that:

• (a) the margin of dumping or the amount of subsidy in relation to the goods from each of those countries is not insignificant and the volume of the goods from each of those countries is not negligible; and
• (b) a cumulative assessment would be appropriate taking into account the conditions of competition between goods imported from any of those countries and between the imported goods and like goods produced in Canada.

When the CBSA initiates an investigation covering multiple countries, the CITT typically cumulates the volumes and price effects of all subject imports (unless conditions of competition are so different that cumulation would distort the analysis) and assesses the overall injury to the domestic industry attributable to the aggregate subject imports. The CITT may make country-specific findings, but cumulation is the norm when multiple countries are named in the same investigation.

## Negligible volume and the de minimis rule (section 42(4.1))

SIMA section 42(4.1) requires the CITT to terminate its inquiry in respect of goods from a country if it determines that the volume of dumped or subsidized goods from that country is negligible. The Act does not define "negligible" for injury inquiries (it is defined for CBSA initiation purposes in section 31), but the CITT applies a similar threshold: typically, imports from a country representing less than 3% of total imports of like goods are considered negligible unless imports from several countries each accounting for less than 3% collectively account for more than 7% of total imports.

## The CITT's decision and its effect

The CITT issues a final order or finding no later than 120 days after receiving the CBSA's preliminary determination. If the CITT finds that the dumped or subsidized goods have caused injury, anti-dumping or countervailing duties apply to all imports released on or after the date of the CBSA's preliminary determination (provisional duties become final). If the CITT finds that the dumped or subsidized goods are threatening to cause injury but have not yet caused injury, duties apply only to imports released on or after the date of the CITT's finding, and provisional duties paid or security posted before that date are refunded. If the CITT finds no injury and no threat, both the CITT inquiry and the CBSA investigation terminate, all provisional duties are refunded, and no duties are collected.

Source: Special Import Measures Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-15, ss. 2, 42 Source: Special Import Measures Regulations, SOR/84-927, s. 37.1

Every anti-dumping or countervailing order or finding made by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) under the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) expires after five years unless continued following an expiry review. The expiry review is a dual-track process: the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) determines whether dumping or subsidizing is likely to continue or resume if the order expires, and the CITT determines whether such continuation or resumption is likely to result in injury or retardation to the Canadian domestic industry. Both agencies must reach affirmative conclusions for the order to be continued; otherwise, the order is rescinded and duties cease.

## Automatic initiation by the CITT

Section 76.03(1) of SIMA requires the CITT to initiate an expiry review before the expiry of five years after the date the order or finding was made or, if the order has been continued in a previous expiry review, before the expiry of five years after the date of the last continuation order. The CITT typically issues a notice of expiry review several months before the scheduled expiry date to manage its caseload efficiently; the notice is published in the Canada Gazette and sent to all known interested parties and the governments of the countries from which the subject goods are exported.

If the CITT does not initiate an expiry review before the five-year period expires, the order or finding is deemed to be rescinded automatically, and all anti-dumping and countervailing duties paid on goods released after the scheduled expiry date are refunded.

## Termination for lack of domestic producer support

Under subsection 76.03(2) of SIMA, the CITT may terminate an expiry review at any time if, in the CITT's opinion, the review is not supported by domestic producers. The CITT assesses domestic support based on the circumstances of each case but typically considers the failure of domestic producers to file notices of participation with the CITT within 15 days of the notice of expiry review, or the failure to substantially participate in the review, as evidence that the review is not supported. If the CITT terminates the expiry review, it issues an order rescinding the finding or order with reasons to follow, and the SIMA measure is deemed rescinded after the expiry date; all anti-dumping and countervailing duties paid on goods released after the original scheduled expiry date are refunded.

## Phase one: the CBSA's likelihood-of-dumping-or-subsidizing determination

Once the CITT initiates an expiry review and provides the CBSA President with notice and a copy of the administrative record, the CBSA initiates an expiry review investigation. The CBSA sends questionnaires to Canadian producers, importers, exporters, and the governments of the exporting countries. Under paragraph 76.03(7)(a) of SIMA, the CBSA President has 150 days from the date the CITT's notice is received to determine whether the expiry of the order in respect of goods from each country is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping or subsidizing.

Factors the CBSA may consider

Section 37.2(1) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR) enumerates factors the CBSA President may consider when determining likelihood of continued or resumed dumping or subsidizing, including:

• Whether there has been dumping or subsidizing of the goods while the finding or order has been in effect and, if applicable, the magnitude and trend of margins or amounts, the period during which dumping or subsidizing occurred, and (for non-dumped or non-subsidized goods) the amount by which export prices exceed normal values;
• The nature and duration of foreign subsidy programs in respect of the goods;
• Whether there has been a circumvention finding in respect of the order or finding under review or in respect of similar goods;
• The performance of exporters, foreign producers, brokers, and traders, including production, capacity utilization, inventories, market share in the exporting country and in third countries, exports to Canada and other countries, and pricing of goods exported to Canada and to third countries;
• Potential for product shifting or for the product to absorb costs associated with anti-dumping or countervailing duties;
• The nature and extent of government involvement in the industry, including subsidies, trade-restrictive practices, and policies affecting the goods or the inputs used in their production; and
• Any other matter relevant in the circumstances.

The list is illustrative, not exhaustive. The CBSA has discretion to weigh the factors and to consider additional evidence. Exporters who fail to respond to the CBSA's questionnaire or who provide incomplete or unverifiable information are subject to adverse inferences based on facts available.

Consequences of the President's determination

If the CBSA President determines that the expiry of the order in respect of goods from a particular country is unlikely to result in continuation or resumption of dumping or subsidizing, subsection 76.03(8) of SIMA requires the CITT not to take those goods into account in assessing the cumulative effect of dumped or subsidized imports, and the CITT issues an order rescinding the order or finding with respect to those goods.

If the CBSA President determines that the expiry of the order is likely to result in continuation or resumption of dumping or subsidizing, the President provides the CITT with notice of the determination and the complete administrative record, including all information and material required under the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Rules, within the 150-day deadline. The CITT then proceeds to the second phase.

## Phase two: the CITT's likelihood-of-injury determination

Under subsection 76.03(10) of SIMA, if the CBSA President makes an affirmative likelihood-of-dumping or likelihood-of-subsidizing determination, the CITT has 160 days from the date it receives that determination to determine whether the expiry of the order or finding in respect of the goods is likely to result in injury or retardation.

Forward-looking injury analysis

The CITT's expiry-review injury determination is prospective, not retrospective. The legal test is likelihood of injury, not present injury. The CITT assesses whether the expiry of the order would likely result in the continuation or resumption of material injury to the Canadian domestic industry producing like goods.

Section 37.2(2) of the SIMR enumerates factors the CITT may consider, including:

• The likely volume of the dumped or subsidized goods if the order or finding expires, and whether there is likely to be a significant increase in the volume of imports, either in absolute terms or relative to the production or consumption of like goods;
• The likely prices of the dumped or subsidized goods if the order or finding expires and their effect on the prices of like goods, including whether the dumping or subsidizing of goods is likely to significantly undercut, depress, or suppress the prices of like goods;
• The likely performance of the domestic industry, taking into account the industry's recent performance (including trends in production, capacity utilization, employment levels, prices, sales, market share, profits, and return on investment) and the likely performance if the order expires;
• The likely impact on the domestic industry if the order or finding expires, including likely effects on output, employment, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investment, ability to raise capital, and growth;
• Changes in market conditions, including domestic demand, patterns of consumption, trade-restrictive practices, and competition between foreign and domestic producers;
• Export capacity and freely disposable capacity in the exporting country or countries, including whether there is sufficient freely disposable capacity or an imminent substantial increase in the capacity of the exporter indicating the likelihood of substantially increased exports to Canada;
• The likelihood that imports will enter Canada at prices that will have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the prices of like goods; and
• Any other information relevant in the circumstances.

The CITT typically follows the same procedures as in a final injury inquiry, including preparation of an investigation report (based on questionnaire responses), receiving written submissions from parties, and holding a public hearing. The CITT may cumulate the volumes and price effects of goods from multiple countries if conditions permit.

## The CITT's final order: continuation or rescission

Subsection 76.03(12) of SIMA requires the CITT, no later than 160 days after receiving the CBSA's affirmative determination, to make an order either:

(a) rescinding the order or finding in respect of any goods for which the CITT determines that the expiry is unlikely to result in injury or retardation; or

(b) continuing the order or finding, with or without amendment, in respect of goods for which the CITT determines that the expiry is likely to result in injury or retardation.

A continuation order under paragraph 76.03(12)(b) remains in force for another five years from the date of the continuation order, at which point the process repeats: the CITT must again initiate an expiry review before the new five-year period expires.

If the CITT rescinds the order or finding, all anti-dumping and countervailing duties paid on goods released on or after the scheduled expiry date are refunded. If the CITT continues the order, duties remain payable on all future imports of the subject goods at the rates established by the CBSA in administrative reviews.

## Duties continue during the expiry review

SIMA duties remain payable and collectable during the entire expiry review process. Duties continue to be collected from the original expiry date until the CITT makes its final order under subsection 76.03(12) or terminates the review under subsection 76.03(2). Only if the CITT rescinds the order or terminates the review are duties paid after the scheduled expiry date refunded.

## Judicial review

The CBSA President's determination under paragraph 76.03(7)(a) is subject to judicial review by the Federal Court of Appeal under subsection 96.1(1) of SIMA. The CITT's order under subsection 76.03(12) may be challenged by application to the Federal Court of Appeal for judicial review or, for goods of a CUSMA country (United States or Mexico), by binational panel review under CUSMA Article 10.12.

Source: Special Import Measures Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-15, s. 76.03 Source: Special Import Measures Regulations, SOR/84-927, s. 37.2 Source: CITT — Expiry review guidelines Source: CBSA — Information relating to expiry review investigations conducted pursuant to the Special Import Measures Act Source: CBSA — Memorandum D14-1-7: Assessment and payment of duties required under the Special Import Measures Act, July 12, 2025