RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/CAN/11
G/SCM/Q1/CAN/11
27 April 2001
(01-2144)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Replies to Questions Posed by the UNITED STATES1
Regarding the Notification of CANADA2
The following communication, dated 26 April 2001, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Canada.
_______________
The questions posed by the United States relate to the provisions of section 45 of the Special
Import Measures Act  (SIMA) and its interaction with other provisions of SIMA, the Special Import
Measures Regulations  (SIMR) and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Rules (CITT Rules).
To understand the interrelationships, some context is required.
An inquiry under section 42 of SIMA relates to whether the dumped or subsidized goods are
causing injury to a domestic industry.  The scope of the inquiry is limited to the questions of injury
and causation in relation to the dumping or subsidizing that was found to exist.  Therefore, the
“interested parties” for such an inquiry are those that have an interest in, and can provide informationrelevant to, those questions.
Section 45 of SIMA, on the other hand, pertains to public interest inquiries which, in the
context of a product subject to an injury inquiry and finding under sections 42 and 43 of SIMA,
allows Canadian authorities to consider the broader public interest in the administration of its anti-dumping and subsidy countervail laws.  As such, Canadian law  goes beyond the obligations of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement by allowing for an inqu iry into whether anti-dumping duties should be
reduced or eliminated for reasons of broader public interest.  These public interest issues could
include competition policy concerns, broader economic impacts to downstream users, health care
issues or consumer interests.  This process allows a broad spectrum of interested persons, includingexport interests, an opportunity to be heard.
Q1. With respect to new Section 41 of the Special Imports Measures Regulations (page 50 of
the Notification), can the government of a country whose goods are under investigation qualify
as a “person interested”?  If not, how is this consistent with Art. 6.11(ii) of the AD Agreement?
                                                     
1 G/ADP/Q1/CAN/10-G/SCM/Q1/CAN/10
2 G/ADP/N/1/CAN/3/Add.1; G/SCM/N/1/CAN/3/Add.1G/ADP/Q1/CAN/11
G/SCM/Q1/CAN/11
Page 2
Reply
With respect to the applicability of Article 6.11 of the AD Agreement, Canada would note
that section 41 of the Special Import Measures Regulations  pertains to public interest inquiries,
which, of course, is not a mandated procedure under the AD Agreement.  Nonetheless Canada chose
to incorporate into its law a separate public interest process which allows authorities, where
appropriate, to conduct an inquiry into whether anti-dumping duties should be eliminated or reduced
for reasons of public interest.
Paragraph 41(a) of the definition of “person interested” includes persons “engaged in the
production, purchase, sale, export or import of an y goods that are the subject of an investigation” .
Paragraph 41(c) in turn includes persons  “acting on behalf of any person referred to in paragraph (a)
or (b).”  While there is no specific reference to governments, this paragraph would allow the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal, an indepe ndent quasi-judicial tribunal, which is legally
constituted as a court of record, to hear from duly authorised representatives of foreign governments
whose exports are under investigation.
Q2. (a) New section 2 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Rules (page 53 of
the notification) contains a new definition for the term “interested party” that is
applicable to inquiries under section 45 of the Special Import Measures Act
(among other provisions).  As amended, Section 45 (page 16 of the Notification)
does not use the term “interested party.”  It uses the term “interested person.”
Are the two terms intended to be equivalent?
(b) The definition of what is an “interested party” for purposes of a section 45
inquiry under new section 2 of the CITT Rules is not the same as the definitionof a  “person interested” for purposes of a section 45 inquiry under new
section 41 of the Special Imports Measures Rules.  Why is there this
discrepancy?  Which set of regulations is controlling?
Reply
The two terms are not intended to be equivalent .  The term “person interested” is intended to
be somewhat broader than an “interested party”, which is a term defined for anti-dumping and subsidy
countervail related injury inquiries held under section 42 of SIMA.  As indicated above, the scope and
purpose of an inquiry under section 42 is different  than that of a public interest inquiry under
section 45 of SIMA and the spectrum of persons that may have an interest in the former proceeding   is
somewhat narrower than in the latter.  The two inquiries occur at different times and sometimes withdifferent participants.
“Interested parties” defined in section 2 of the CITT Rules complements the definition of
“person interested” in section 41 of the SIMR.  The broader definition of persons interested includes,
inter alia , persons that engaged in the production or sale of products used in the production of the like
goods or products that use the like goods as an input in the production of other goods, as well as
associations representing consumers in Canada.  These groups, while free to make submissions to the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal on matters of injury and causation in a section 42 injury
inquiry if they can demonstrate that they are interested parties, are usually not represented in injury
inquiries.  Section 41 of the SIMR specifically allows and invites these groups to make submissions insection 45 public interest inquiries.
Section 45 of SIMA is listed in the definition of “interested party” in the CITT Rules so that
there is not an impression that the persons and groups defined as interested parties are to be excludedG/ADP/Q1/CAN/11
G/SCM/Q1/CAN/11
Page 3
from participating in a public interest inquiry if one is conducted subsequent to an injury inquiry
under section 42.  All of the persons or groups who were eligible to be interested parties in a
section 42 injury inquiry, therefore, may also be an interested party in a section 45 public interest
inquiry.
__________