Safeguard Inquiry No. CS-2005-003, Residential ...
16 March 2006
Safeguard Inquiry No. CS-2005-003, Residential Furniture originating in China
The following letter is from the CITT’s Acting Secretary.
March 15, 2006
Mr. Vincent Routhier
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
Patent and Trade-mark Agents
Stock Exchange Tower
800 Place Victoria
Suite 3400
Montréal, Quebec
H4Z 1E9
Dear Mr. Routhier:
Subject:Safeguard Inquiry - Market Disruption
Residential Furniture Originating in China (Safeguard Inquiry No. CS-2005-003)
This is in response to the above-referenced complaint that you submitted to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) on October 28, 2005, on behalf of the Canadian Council of Furniture Manufacturers and its constituent members and the additional information you submitted in response to the Tribunal’s request for information dated December 5, 2005.
The Tribunal (Meriel V. M. Bradford, presiding member, Pierre Gosselin, member and Ellen Fry, member) finds that the contents of the complaint do not meet the requirements of subsection 30.22(2) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act (the CITT Act).
Accordingly, the Tribunal will not examine the complaint with regard to subsection 30.22(3) of the CITT Act and, therefore, will not make a decision with respect to the commencement of an inquiry.
Subsection 30.22(1) of the CITT Act allows the filing of “a written complaint with the Tribunal alleging that the imported goods are being imported in such increased quantities or under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause market disruption to domestic producers of like or directly competitive goods.”
Subsection 30.22(2) of the CITT Act requires that a complaint:
(a) state in reasonable detail the facts on which the allegations are based;
(b) state an estimate of the total percentage of Canadian production of the like or directly competitive goods that is produced by the domestic producers by whom or on whose behalf the complaint is filed;
(c) be accompanied by any information that is available to the complainant to support the facts referred to in paragraph (a) and to substantiate the estimate referred to in paragraph (b);
(d) be accompanied by any other information that may be required by the rules; and
(e) make any other representations that the complainant deems relevant to the matter.
It is important to note that subsection 30.22(1) of the CITT Act allows the filing of a complaint by or on behalf of producers “of goods that are like or directly competitive with goods originating in the People’s Republic of China” [emphasis added] and paragraph 30.22(2)(b) requires that the complaint “state an estimate of the total percentage of Canadian production of the like or directly competitive goods that is produced by the domestic producers by whom or on whose behalf the complaint is filed”. [emphasis added].
Under section 3 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Regulations, “like or directly competitive goods” are defined as:
(a) goods that are identical in all respects to the goods that are the subject of a complaint, or
(b) in the absence of any identical goods referred to in paragraph (a), goods the uses and other characteristics of which closely resemble those goods that are the subject of a complaint.
In considering the scope of your complaint, which covers a very broad range of products, there appears to be more than one class of like or directly competitive goods. The Tribunal has taken a similar position in a number of other cases, for example Reference No. GC-2001-001 (Steel) and Inquiry No. NQ-2004-001 (Fasteners), in determining whether there is more than one class of goods and whether they are like goods or directly competitive with each other. In the event that the Tribunal finds there is more than one class of goods, a separate injury analysis will be conducted for each class.
Accordingly, in order for the complaint to comply with subsection 30.22(2) of the CITT Act, the Tribunal requires information for each of the class