The seven classes include wire rod; stainless steel wire; hot-rolled sheet; heavy plate; energy tubular; pre-painted steel; and concrete reinforcing bar.

These “safeguard measures” were reportedly prompted by complaints from Canada’s steel industry that U.S. Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum have resulted in shipments of cheap steel to be diverted to Canada from the U.S., and follows the country’s countermeasures imposed on July 1^st applying tariffs on over $12 billion worth of U.S. goods in response to those tariffs.

Notably, the safeguards do not apply to goods originating in and imported from the U.S., Chile and Israel. However imports of energy tubular and wire rod from Mexico “are within the scope of the Tribunal’s inquiry.”

These safeguard measures are provisional, remaining in place for 200 days pending the safeguards inquiry conducted by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT). By April 2019, the CITT must provide recommendations on whether the safeguard should be continued for the longer term. While parties can participate in the CITT inquiry, they are “directed not to make submissions to the Tribunal on classes of goods or to request exclusions from safeguard measures for specific products, producers, exporters, regions, etc., as these matters are outside the scope of the inquiry.”

In particular, Canada challenges:

1. the way in which the U.S. Department of Commerce refunds cash deposits after adverse WTO determinations;
2. the United States’ suspension of liquidation of cash deposit requirements when the U.S. Department of Commerce preliminarily determines critical circumstances exist;
3. the U.S. Department of Commerce’s treatment of certain export measures by foreign governments in the agency’s countervailing duty proceedings;
4. the U.S. Department of Commerce’s calculation of benefits involving the provision of goods for less than adequate remuneration in the agency’s countervailing duty proceedings; and
5. the U.S. Department of Commerce’s procedures for collecting evidence in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations.

Perhaps most concerning to U.S. industries is Canada’s challenge to the United States’ tiebreaker rule. The U.S. International Trade Commission determines whether a domestic industry on whose behalf an antidumping or countervailing duty investigation has been initiated is injured, threatened with injury, or whether material retardation of the establishment of an industry in the United States has occurred. The Commission, which is typically comprised of six Commissioners, can contain no more than three Commissioners from any one political party. When a Commission vote results in a tie, however, 19 U.S.C. § 1677(11) provides that the determination shall be deemed affirmative.

The next step in the process is for the United States and Canada to consult on the request, and those engagements will be closely watched by the trade community.

As of January 4, 2018, there are 416 antidumping and countervailing duty orders in place, only four of which involve Canada. A list of the orders currently in place is available on the U.S. International Trade Commission’s website.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and EU president Jean-Claude Juncker issued the statement after the G20 Summit on July 8^th. The agreement will be “provisionally” applied until all member states have held ratification votes, but 98% of the deal will go into effect on September 21.

The deal will drop barriers between the economies of the European Union and Canada. Trade between the two sides amounts to more than 60 billion euros ($88 billion Cdn) a year, and the EU expects CETA to boost this by 20 per cent by removing almost all tariffs.

For companies that manufacture and sell in the EU and Canada, CETA is a great opportunity for customs duty savings.