Tax & Trade Blog

---

CBSA INVESTIGATING CAST IRON SOIL PIPE!

DUMPING & SUBSIDIZING OF CAST IRON SOIL PIPE FROM CHINA

On July 11, 2025, the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) issued a Notice of Initiation of Investigation under the Special Import Measures Act (“SIMA”) in respect of the alleged dumping and subsidizing of cast iron soil pipe from China.  This investigation was prompted by a joint complaint filed by Canada Pipe Company ULC, d/b/a Bibby-Ste-Croix.

The goods under investigation are more specifically described as: 

Cast iron soil pipe originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China, whether finished or unfinished, regardless of industry or proprietary specifications, and regardless of wall thickness, length, surface finish, end finish, or stenciling, having a nominal outside diameter from 1.5 inches to 18 inches. Cast iron soil pipe is non-malleable iron pipe of various designs and sizes, including but not limited to both hub-less and hub and spigot cast iron soil pipe (the “Subject Goods”).

---

NO RETROACTIVE DUTIES ON PEA PROTEIN

DESPITE MASSIVE IMPORTATIONS, CITT RULES NO RETROACTIVE DUTIES

On December 4, 2024, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the “CITT”) announced its Finding in Inquiry NQ-2024-002, concluding that the dumping of certain pea protein from China (the “Subject Goods”) has caused injury to the domestic industry. 

While that may sound like a clear-cut finding, the CITT’s Finding held a twist: despite finding “massive importations” occurred during the investigation, the CITT determined it was unlikely to seriously undermine the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duties.  As a result, retroactive duties were not imposed.

This blog focuses on the massive importation framework under the Special Import Measures Act (the “SIMA”) and why a finding of massive importation does not always lead to retroactive duties.

---

IGNORING THE CITT CAN COME AT A COST 

CONTEMPT FINDING SERVES AS A REMINDER TO IMPORTERS

In the rush of everyday business, both Canadian and foreign businesses can occasionally overlook the importance of responding to requests from the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the “CITT” or “Tribunal”).  

A recent Expiry Review that escalated into a contempt hearing against a U.S.-based steel importer serves as a reminder of the Tribunal’s power to issue orders reaching those across the border!

---

TAXATION OF THE INDIGENOUS: COMPLICATED!

MYRIAD OF CANADIAN TAX & DUTY LAWS & OUR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

One of the more complicated areas of tax and trade law in Canada lies in the intersection of these rules with Canada’s Indigenous Peoples, and their historic rights under sections 87 to 89 of the Indian Act (“the Act”).  A recent case from the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“CITT”) underscores that point in the context of import obligations.

The Indian Act & Customs Duties

---

STATUTORY APPEAL OR JUDICIAL REVIEW?

THE DIFFERENCES & WHY THE FORMER MIGHT BE BETTER!

A recent decision by the Federal Court of Appeal (the “FCA”) has put into focus the distinction between a statutory right of appeal - which might be constrained in scope in some instances - and a judicial review application, which may offer an alternative avenue to deal with those constraints.

Of particular interest is the FCA’s discussion in Best Buy Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Border Services Agency) on why, overall, choosing to proceed solely with a statutory right of appeal might be more beneficial to taxpayers and importers.

On August 21, 2024, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the “CITT”) issued an Order in Expiry Review RR-2023-005 (the “Order”), continuing its finding of material injury in respect of the dumping and subsidizing of sucker rods originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China (the “Subject Goods”). 

More detail, including the full definition of the Subject Goods, can be found in the Expiry Review.