RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/W/105
2 November 2000
(00-4593)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Ad Hoc Group on ImplementationOriginal:  English
PRACTICAL ISSUES AND EXPERIENCE IN PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES
FOR INDUSTRIAL USERS AND CONSUMER ORGANIZATIONS TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION UNDER ARTICLE 6.12
Paper from Canada
The following communication, dated 30 October 2000, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Canada.
_______________
Introduction
This paper provides an update on Canada’s earlier paper on this subject (G/ADP/AHG/W/76).
The Canadian authorities agree with many of the points raised by Israel in its paper
concerning this subject (G/ADP/AHG/W/101).  Specifically, we believe there is an important link
between the lesser duty option identified in Article 9.1 and Article 6.12 which provides for the
opportunity for consumers and downstream users to raise issues of broader public interest.
Canada has recognized this link in its legislation through the public interest provisions
contained in its anti-dumping law.  Under the provisions of the Canadian legislation, industrial users,
retailers and/or consumers of the product in question, as well as Canadian Competition authorities,
have an opportunity to make submissions to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal on the issuesof injury and causation during the injury inquiry phase of the process.  In addition, if a positive injury
determination is made by the Tribunal, these parties may request that the Tribunal conduct a public
interest inquiry.  In the context of such an inquiry, the parties identified in Article 6.12, as well as
Canada’s competition authorities, may again submit representations that argue for lower anti-dumping
duties.
When such an inquiry is held, the Tribunal may recommend to the government that it is in the
public interest to reduce or eliminate the anti-dumping or countervailing duties.  This
recommendation may take the form of a lesser-duty aimed at eliminating injury as provided for under
Article 9.1
A more detailed explanation of the Canadian process is presented below:G/ADP/AHG/W/105
Page 2
Public Interest in Canadian Law
The public interest mechanism in Canada’s antidumping/countervailing duty law, (i.e., the
Special Import Measures Act ), can be traced back to 1984.1   Recent amendments to the law have
introduced a number of improvements to the public interest process.2
Following the final injury determination, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal 3  can
initiate a public interest inquiry on its own initiative or pursuant to a properly documented request
from an interested person4, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the imposition of
antidumping/countervailing duties in the full amount would not be in the public interest.  The
Tribunal’s notice of commencement of a public interest inquiry includes a schedule of the procedures
that it will follow in conducting the inquiry, in cluding relevant timeframes.  In accordance with the
dictates of procedural fairness (due process), participants5 are afforded the opportunity to file
submissions and to reply to other submissions.  A public hearing is also normally held.
In conducting a public interest inquiry, the Tribunal takes into account any factors considered
relevant in the circumstances.  New regulations6  provide an explicit list of factors to guide the
Tribunal.  These include:
1. whether goods of the same description are readily available from countries or
exporters to which the order or finding does not apply;
2. whether imposition of an antidumping/countervailing duty in the full amount has or is
likely to:
(a) substantially lessen competition in the domestic market in respect of like
goods,
(b) cause significant damage to producers in Canada that use the goods as inputs
in the production of other goods and in the provision of services,
(c) significantly impair competitiveness by limiting access to:
(i) goods that are used as inputs in the production of other goods and in
the provision of services, or
(ii) technology;
                                                     
1 The introduction of a public interest mechanism into Canadian law was based on recommendations
contained in the 1982 Canadian Parliamentary Report on the Special Import Measures Act .
2 An Act to Amend the Special Import Measures Act and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal
Act entered into force on 15 April 2000.
3 The Canadian International Trade Tribunal is an independent and quasi-judicial body.  In this regard,
it is legally constituted under section 17 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act  as a court of record,
which enjoys all the powers, rights and privileges vested in a superior court of record in the exercise of its
jurisdiction.
4  “Interested person” includes any party to the injury inquiry or any other group or person affected by
the injury finding.  A request must be filed with the Tribunal within 45 days of the injury finding.
5 Participants could include, for example, consumer groups, business associations, public interest
advocacy groups, upstream and downstream producers and distributors, representatives of other government
departments, and representatives of provincial governments.
6 Regulations Amending the Special Import Measures Regulations entered into force on 15 April 2000.G/ADP/AHG/W/105
Page 3
(d) significantly restrict the choice or availability of goods at competitive prices
for consumers or otherwise cause them significant harm;
3. whether a reduction or elimination of the antidumping or countervailing duty is likely
to cause significant damage to domestic producers of inputs, including primarycommodities, used in the domestic production of like goods; and
4.  any other factors that are relevant in the circumstances.If the Tribunal concludes that no reduction of antidumping/countervailing duties is warranted,
it will publish a report to this effect with reas ons.  If, however, the Tribunal is of the opinion that
duties should be reduced, it will issue a report to the Minister of Finance to that effect.
7  A report to
the Minister of Finance contains specific recommendations, with supporting reasons.  In this regard,
the Tribunal has the option of recommending: (i) a level of reduction of the
antidumping/countervailing duties; or (ii) a price that is adequate to eliminate injury, retardation or the
threat of injury to the domestic industry.  Any reduction of antidumping/countervailing duties is
effected under the general duty remission authority contained in the Canadian Customs Tariff.
Finally, related changes to the provisions of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act
governing the protected disclosure of confidential information will allow expert witnesses, (including
those of the Canadian Competition Bureau8), to participate more effectively in public interest
inquiries.
Detailed guidelines on the public interest process have been posted on the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal’s web-site (www.citt.gc.ca).
Questions for Discussion
Canada would be interested in knowing how  other members provide an opportunity for
industrial users and consumers to provide relevant input, specifically:
(a) How other members take into account the relevancy of submissions from consumers
and downstream users?
(b) Are competition authorities, on behalf of consumers and downstream industries,
allowed/required to provide input?
(c) Can representations from these groups result in the reduction of anti-dumping duties?
(d) How is the lesser duty amount determined?
__________
                                                     
7 The Tribunal publishes a notice of its report in the Canada Gazett e, and a copy of the report is sent to
all parties to the inquiry. The report is also posted on the Tribunal’s web-site.
8 In this regard, Canada’s Commissioner of Competition has broad authority under section 125 of the
Competition Act  to make representations to and call evidence before any federal board, commission or tribunal
in respect of competition whenever such representations and evidence are relevant to the determination of the
matter.