ARTICLE 1904
BINATIONAL PANEL REVIEW
UNDER
NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

INTRODUCTION

This is the Panel decision of binational panel review CDA-USA-2000-1904-04 conducted pursuant to Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Part I.1 of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA).¹ The Request for a Panel Review of the finding made by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) on August 1, 2000 in Inquiry No. NQ-2000-001 was filed with the NAFTA Secretariat – Canadian Section by counsel for Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) and Inglis Limited (Inglis)² on September 22, 2000 in accordance with Part II of the NAFTA Rules of Procedure for Article 1904.

The products that are the subject of this panel review are described as top-mount electric refrigerators, in sizes greater than 14.5 cubic feet (410.59 litres) and less than 22 cubic feet (622.97 litres) (the “subject refrigerators”), electric household dishwashers, built-in or portable, greater than 18 inches (45.72 centimetres) in width (the “subject dishwashers”), and gas or electric laundry dryers (the “subject dryers”), originating in or exported from the United States of America and produced by, or on behalf of, White Consolidated Industries, Inc. (WCI) and Whirlpool, their respective affiliates, successors and assigns.³

The parties to this Panel review include Whirlpool, WCI, and Camco Inc. (Camco) as complainants; and Maytag Corporation (Maytag) and the CITT as respondents.


BACKGROUND

In accordance with SIMA subsection 33(1), on November 30, 1999 the Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) commenced an investigation at the request of Camco into alleged dumping by WCI and Whirlpool of the subject refrigerators, dishwashers and dryers over the period running from October 1, 1998 to September 30, 1999.

After this investigation was initiated, counsel for WCI referred to the CITT the question of whether evidence before the Commissioner disclosed a reasonable indication that the dumping of the subject goods had caused injury or retardation or was threatening to cause material injury to the domestic industry. On January 24, 2000, the CITT found that the evidence did in fact disclose a reasonable indication that the dumping of the subject goods from the named exporters had caused or was threatening to cause material injury to the domestic industry.

On April 3, 2000 the Commissioner made a preliminary determination pursuant to subsection 38(1) of SIMA finding that the subject refrigerators, dishwashers and dryers had been dumped and that there was evidence which disclosed a reasonable indication that the dumping had caused injury or was threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry.

The investigation activity of the Commissioner of the CCRA with respect to the subject goods continued after the preliminary determination of April 3, 2000. At the conclusion of this further period of investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that the margins of dumping on the subject goods were not insignificant and that the volumes of dumped goods were not negligible. Consequently, the CCRA made a final determination on June 30, 2000 that the subject goods had in fact been dumped under SIMA subsection 41(1)(a).⁴

As a result of the Commissioner’s preliminary determination that the subject goods had been dumped, the CITT commenced Inquiry No. NQ-2000-001. To facilitate this inquiry, on June 26-30, 2000 and July 4 and 5, 2000 the CITT held public and in camera hearings in Ottawa, Ontario. Represented at the hearing were, inter alia, Camco, Whirlpool, Inglis, WCI, WCI Canada Inc., Maytag, Maytag Canada, Sears Canada Inc. (Sears) and the Commissioner. At these hearings the CITT also heard testimony from four witnesses who appeared at the CITT’s request plus one subpoenaed witness from General Electric Appliances. The witnesses who appeared at the hearings at CITT’s request appeared on behalf of The Brick Warehouse Corporation, Appliance Canada, Brault et Martineau, and Midnorthern Appliance Inc., respectively.

A number of background features to the Canadian market and the scope of the inquiries previously undertaken are worth noting. Camco, for example, is the sole domestic producer concerned with the specific appliances subject to the dumping inquiry. The investigation covered all imports of the subject goods during the period from October 1, 1998 to September 30, 1999. The inquiry, however, was limited to the American producer-exporters WCI and Whirlpool, their respective affiliates, successors and assigns⁵. In other words it did not cover all United States producer-exporters of these certain appliances into Canada. Further it did not include producers from Europe that also export to the Canadian market.

On August 1, 2000 the CITT issued its findings in Inquiry No. NQ-2000-001 and fifteen days later, on August 16, 2000, released its Statement of Reasons (SOR). The CITT’s final determination stated that:

• The dumping in Canada of the subject refrigerators, excluding those with a capacity greater than 18.5 cubic feet and those destined for use in the Habitat for Humanity Program, had caused material injury to the domestic industry;
   
• The dumping in Canada of the subject dishwashers, excluding those with stainless steel interiors or those destined for use in the Habitat for Humanity Program, had caused material injury to the domestic industry;
   
• The dumping in Canada of the subject dryers, excluding those with controls at the front, removable tops and chassis designed to be stacked on top of washers or those destined for use in the Habitat for Humanity Program, had caused material injury to the domestic industry;
   
• The requirements for a finding under SIMA subsection 42(1)(b) of massive importation had not been met; and
   
•  The requirements under SIMA section 46 with respect to advising the Commissioner to consider undertaking an investigation into other allegedly dumped goods from the United States had not been met.

Public hearings were held before all members of this Panel on October 3, 2001 in Ottawa, Ontario, at which counsel for all parties appeared and presented oral argument.

The primary issues raised by the Complainants’ briefs and oral arguments included the following:

1. What are the appropriate standards of review that should be applied by the Panel in determining whether the CITT has committed a reviewable error with respect to each of the contested issues?

2. Did the CITT commit a reviewable error in finding that injury had been caused to the domestic industry via dumping? Did post-hearing data analyses made by the CITT to the financial evidence, without providing clear guidance to the parties as to what this data transformation entailed and/or not giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions regarding this transformation, constitute reviewable error?

3. Did the CITT commit a reviewable error by not considering Camco’s export performance in evaluating Camco’s alleged injury?

4. Did the CITT commit a reviewable error in concluding that SIMA subsection 42(3) makes allowance for a cumulative finding of injury with respect to specific producers?

5. Did the CITT commit a reviewable error in granting exclusions to certain of the subject refrigerators, dryers, and dishwashers and not others? Did the CITT adequately disclose its reasons for granting and not granting the various exclusions requested by the parties?

6. Did the CITT commit a reviewable error by failing to advise the Commissioner of the CCRA to consider undertaking a dumping investigation under SIMA section 46 with respect to the goods of certain non-targeted US exporters of the subject goods?

For the reasons set out below, which are made on the basis of the administrative record, the applicable law, the written submissions of the participants, and the public hearing held in Ottawa, Ontario on October 3, 2001, this Panel hereby decides unanimously not to remand the decision of the CITT.


OPINION

1) STANDARD OF REVIEW

The statutory authority for panel review is found in the relevant provisions of the NAFTA and the Federal Court Act.⁶ Binational panels are directed pursuant to 1904(3) to apply:

…the standard of review set out in Annex 1911 and the general legal principles that a court of the importing Party otherwise would apply to a review of a determination of the competent investigating authority.

In the present case the general legal principles of Canadian law are to be applied in this review. This Panel must apply the general jurisprudence that would be applicable to the Federal Court in its review of a decision made by the CITT.

NAFTA Annex 1911 defines the standard of review as the grounds set forth in subsection 18.1(4) if the Federal Court Act. Subsection 18.1(4) provides that the Tribunal’s decisions will be reviewed on the grounds that it:

a) Acted without jurisdiction, acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;

b) Failed to observe a principal of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required in law to observe;

c) Erred in law in making a decision or order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record;

d) Based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it;

e) Acted, or failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or

f) Acted in any other way that was contrary to law.

These grounds for review need to be read in the light of the standard of review developed by the Supreme Court of Canada. A determination of the appropriate standard of review in respect of a decision of an administrative tribunal such as the CITT calls for the application of the pragmatic and functional approach first adopted by the Supreme Court in U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault⁷ and further developed in subsequent decisions⁸. Most recently the Supreme Court has rendered a unanimous decision in Canada (Deputy Minister of National Revenue-M.N.R.) v. Mattel Canada Inc. (Mattel)⁹ where it once again described the standard of review. In this decision the Supreme Court was asked to review a decision of the CITT although in Mattel, it involved interpretations by the CITT of various sections of the Customs Act.

The Supreme Court has identified the standards of review as points occurring on a spectrum of curial deference that ranges from patent unreasonableness at one end of the continuum – that of greatest deference, through reasonableness simpliciter to correctness at the other end of the spectrum where the least deference is accorded the decision of the administrative tribunal. As Mr. Justice Iacobucci stated in the Southam case:

…the standard may fall somewhere between correctness, at the more exacting end of the spectrum, and patently unreasonable, at the more deferential end.¹⁰

Further, in applying the functional and pragmatic approach a reviewing court must examine a number of factors. Mr. Justice Major speaking for the Supreme Court in Mattel stated that:

In any given case, the focus of the inquiry is on the particular provision at issue, and the central analysis is whether the question raised is one that was intended by the legislators to be left to the exclusive decision of the administrative tribunal. The factors to be considered include: the purpose and objective of the Act and provision at issue, the specific language of the provision at issue and any privative clauses in the tribunal’s constitutive statute, the nature of the decision made by the tribunal, and the relative expertise of the tribunal compared to that of the courts in deciding such matters. None of these factors alone is dispositive.¹¹

1. the existence of a privative clause;
2. the purpose of the Act and the provision at issue;
3. the relative expertise of the tribunal; and
4. the nature of the issue under consideration.

While no factor is dispositive, Mr. Justice Major in Mattel states, (relying on the Southam case in part) that it is the Tribunal’s ‘relative expertise’ that is the most important of the factors that a court must consider in settling on a standard of review.¹² In determining that expertise the court may undertake the following inquiry:

The central inquiry in an assessment of the expertise factor is whether a tribunal has been constituted with a particular expertise with respect to achieving the aims of an Act: Pushpanathan, supra, at para. 32. This may involve several considerations, including the specialized knowledge of its decision-makers, whether any special procedures or non-judicial means of implementing the Act apply, and whether the tribunal plays a role in policy development.¹³

Turning to such a pragmatic and functional review, a number of the factors can be examined generally, e.g. the presence or absence of a privative clause, while other factors, such as the nature of the issue raised by complainants, must be specifically examined.


i. Privative Clause

Previously, a form of a privative clause shielded the CITT but this protection was repealed by Parliament in the 1993 statutory amendments implementing NAFTA. There is a right of judicial review pursuant to SIMA section 76. The absence, or in this instance, the removal of a privative clause would seem to suggest that less deference ought to be accorded decisions of the CITT.¹⁴ Parliament did not intend that decisions of the CITT were to be left to the CITT exclusively. However, as the Supreme Court has indicated, the absence of a privative clause does not settle the question.¹⁵


ii. Purpose of the Act

SIMA is a trade statute designed to protect Canadian domestic industries from the negative effects associated with ‘dumped’ goods and subsidies provided to exporters who import goods into Canada. In addition the legislation is designed to implement Canada’s international trade obligations under the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade and now the World Trade Organization. Thus, the legislation bears some passing similarity to the Competition Act¹⁶, examined for example in the Southam case. As indicated in the Southam case the Competition Act includes an economic and not purely legal purpose. Parliament established the CITT to protect Canada’s domestic industries from possible harm caused by foreign companies. As in Southam¹⁷, then, the statute and the Tribunal established for these ‘economic’ purposes underlines the expertise of the Tribunal and warrants some heightened degree of deference for the decisions of the Tribunal. All this would suggest, in general, that Parliament intended to grant at least some deference to CITT decisions.


iii. The Relative Expertise of the CITT

As noted above, the determination of the expertise of the CITT relative to the courts is the most important of the factors that a court must consider in settling upon the appropriate standard of review. In addition, it is evident that the relative expertise of the Tribunal and the nature of the problem are closely interrelated and close attention should be paid to the following section on the nature of the issue under consideration.

In determining the tribunal’s expertise in relationship to the reviewing court, the court must examine whether the tribunal has been constituted with a particular expertise in achieving the general purposes of the Act. To do so, the Panel examined several considerations including the specialized knowledge of its decision-makers, whether any special procedures or non-judicial means of implementing the Act apply and whether the CITT plays a role in policy development.

With respect to the specialized knowledge of the members of the CITT, as noted in Mattel, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act¹⁸ does not require its members to be expert in any particular field. Nevertheless the tribunal members do acquire experience in trade questions they consider over the course of their appointment.¹⁹ In the abstract then the tribunal members can be characterized as experts though it is necessary to examine the closely related factor of the nature of the issue being considered by panel members. The CITT is an adjudicative body but additionally, as noted in the Mattel case, and by Counsel for the CITT, the CITT has a policy role:

…s. 18 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, which requires the CITT to "inquire into and report to the Governor in Council on any matter in relation to the economic, trade or commercial interests of Canada with respect to any goods or services or any class thereof that the Governor in Council refers to the Tribunal for inquiry”. Although the present appeal does not implicate s. 18, the section indicates that Parliament generally considers the CITT to be expert in some economic, trade or commercial matters. As in Pezim, supra, this is a basis for deference, however, it is important to note that the CITT’s policy-making role is limited in that its function is primarily research oriented, and the CITT cannot elevate its policy recommendations to the status of law.²⁰

In general it would appear that the CITT is recognized as a Tribunal with developed expertise of its commissioners. Again in the abstract, and without reference to the specific issues, this would point to a significant degree of deference that would need to be accorded its decisions.


iv. The Nature of the Issue under Consideration

Thus, reflecting the analysis just examined some considerable deference would accompany decisions of the CITT, yet it still is essential to examine the particular issues before this Panel to determine the standard of review on an issue-by-issue basis. Thus, the Panel needs to assess whether the issue is a matter of fact and evidence, or a matter of mixed fact and law, or whether the issue is a matter of legislative interpretation – a matter of law alone. Matters of fact are generally given wide deference to the Tribunal by reviewing courts. Courts will not normally interfere unless the Tribunal’s conclusions are patently unreasonable. However, where issues are matters of mixed fact and law or matters of law, reviewing courts will accord less deference to the Tribunal. In examining the issues of law, however, the Panel further must examine whether the issue is a matter of general statutory interpretation or a matter of law with highly technical content. Matters of general statutory interpretation are matters that courts are competent to review and less deference is accorded to the Tribunal. In general a standard of correctness would be applied to such an issue. However, where the Panel was asked to examine a question of law that was technical or scientific in nature then greater deference would be accorded the Tribunal.

In the end this Panel is required pursuant to the pragmatic and functional test, to examine all the pertinent factors in arriving at a standard of review. Where the expertise of the Tribunal is engaged and putting all the factors of the pragmatic and functional approach together, substantial deference, along the spectrum of the standard of review to ‘patent unreasonableness’ would be accorded the decisions of this Tribunal. If however, the issues fall outside the specific expertise of the CITT say, for example an issue that could be assessed as a pure matter of law not within the expertise of the CITT, the standard of review would shift towards correctness. The Panel has undertaken such an analysis on an issue-by-issue basis and the standard of review is identified for each issue raised by the Complainants.



2) INJURY AND CAUSATION

SIMA subsection 42(1)(a)(i), from which the Tribunal derives its authority to conduct an injury inquiry, provides that:

(1) The Tribunal, forthwith after receipt by the Secretary pursuant to subsection 38(3) of a notice of a preliminary determination, shall make inquiry with respect to such of the following matters as is appropriate in the circumstances:

(a) in the case of any goods to which the preliminary determination applies, as to whether the dumping or subsidizing of the goods

(i) has caused injury or retardation or is threatening to cause injury, or ...

Section 37.1(1) of the Special Import Measures Regulations²¹, prescribes factors which the Tribunal is required to consider in determining whether the dumping of goods has caused injury. These factors are:

(a) the volume of the dumped or subsidized goods and, in particular, whether there has been a significant increase in the volume of imports of the dumped or subsidized goods, either in absolute terms or relative to the production or consumption of like goods;

(b) the effect of the dumped or subsidized goods on the price of like goods and, in particular, whether the dumped or subsidized goods have significantly

(i) undercut the price of like goods,
(ii) depressed the price of like goods, or
(iii) suppressed the price of like goods by preventing the price increases for those like goods that would otherwise likely have occurred;

(c) the resulting impact of the dumped or subsidized goods on the state of the domestic industry and, in particular, all relevant economic factors and indices that have a bearing on the state of the domestic industry, including

(i) any actual or potential decline in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments or the utilization of industrial capacity,
(ii) any actual or potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth or the ability to raise capital,
(ii.1) the magnitude of the margin of dumping or amount of subsidy in respect of the dumped or subsidized goods, and
       …

(d) any other factors that are relevant in the circumstances.

The Tribunal is also required to determine in SIM Regulations subsection 37.1(3)(b):

(b) whether any factors other than the dumping or subsidizing of the goods have caused injury or retardation or are threatening to cause injury, …

With regard to ‘injury’, Whirlpool and WCI argue that the Tribunal conducted a faulty gross margins analysis by erroneously accepting inappropriate data from Camco, by introducing errors in further 'reworking' the data, and by breaching the rules of natural justice by not disclosing its calculations to the parties. With respect to price suppression/price erosion, Whirlpool and WCI claim that the Tribunal erred by using average prices as evidence of injurious dumping, and by adopting an inconsistent approach to the comparability of subject goods within model groupings.

With regard to ‘causation’, Whirlpool and WCI argue that the use of average prices included goods purchased for non-dumping reasons and therefore the Tribunal had no reliable evidence linking injury to dumping; that the Tribunal failed to consider significant non-dumping factors in its analysis of injury and causation, such as the quality of Camco’s goods and the effect of the bundling of products; that a proper gross margin analysis would show no connection between the injury and dumping; that in the analysis of price suppression/price erosion the elimination of “un-dumped” factors would remove support for any relationship between dumping and injury; and that further to the causal analysis of price suppression, the actual account-specific evidence of displacement of Camco product based on data provided by Camco must be shown, and not merely reduced sales volumes based on data reworked by the CITT. Finally, in the analysis of the impact of lost market share the Tribunal relied on goods purchased for non-dumping reasons and further there is not even evidence of displacement of Camco goods by imports, let alone a demonstration of causation.

The Tribunal's analysis surrounding these issues is clearly within its specialized competence. These are issues concerning the existence and cause of injury. These questions are precisely the questions that the Tribunal has been empowered to decide, and are within its expertise. Furthermore, the issues are factually driven, and the issues that the complainants raise under this heading are all issues of mixed fact and law. Where there are sub issues of law, the issues concern the interpretation of the Tribunal's own statute, and the appropriate ways to exercise its own mandate. Thus, the Panel finds that the applicable standard of review for these issues is one of considerable deference; i.e. at least reasonableness simpliciter or higher.

Essentially, the arguments of Whirlpool and WCI can be distilled down to five issues: i) an allegedly faulty gross margin analysis; ii) the alleged duty to give reasons; (iii) the allegedly inappropriate use of average price data; iv) the failure to consider significant non-dumping factors; and v) the failure to conduct separate analyses and provide separate conclusions on each of the three categories of subject goods.


i. Gross Margin Analysis

The complainants argue that the gross margin analysis of Camco's financial statements was faulty, and was incapable of supporting a conclusion that there was injury. They take issue with the information that the Tribunal accepted as part of the financial records of Camco, the way that the Tribunal reworked the data, and the way that the Tribunal disclosed how they reworked the data. The data that Camco provided was presented to the Tribunal, and the parties had an opportunity to comment on it. The Tribunal found that the gross margin analysis was flawed. At that point, it took the data and conducted a further analysis of the numbers in the financial statements. The Tribunal employed its expert staff, some of whom are accountants, to re-work the financial information. The Tribunal chose a certain methodology to reallocate costs. Whirlpool and WCI proposed an alternative method, but before this Panel they did not make a convincing case that the method employed by the Tribunal was unreasonable.

The analysis of financial information, the appropriate allocation of costs between exports and domestic sales, and the determination of injury on the basis of the effect of dumping, are all areas within the expertise of the Tribunal as laid out in SIMA subsection 42(1). In this technical analysis, which is conducted within the Tribunal’s expertise, it is clear that a reviewing court or panel would owe the Tribunal a great deal of deference. Taking all the factors of the pragmatic and functional test into account the standard of review here approaches patent unreasonableness.

The Tribunal is in a much better position than this Panel to determine the most appropriate method of allocating costs between domestic sales and exports. All that Whirlpool and WCI were able to do was to propose another, albeit plausible, method of allocating costs. Neither Whirlpool nor WCI were able to point to sufficient evidence or legal argument to sustain their argument that the Tribunal’s reworking of the data was unreasonable. To do this, the complainants would have had to show that the Tribunal’s method was one that a court would say was patently unreasonable. The Complainants have not succeeded in making this case.


ii. Duty to Give Reasons

Turning to the issue of giving reasons, Whirlpool and WCI have failed to show any statutory authority for a duty of the Tribunal to give reasons. The Panel, suggests that there is a statutory obligation. Where a tribunal has made a determination of injurious dumping pursuant to Section 42, it is required to make an order or finding with respect to the specified goods. In addition, pursuant to SIMA subsection 43.(2), the following must be done:

(2) The Secretary [of the Tribunal] shall forward by registered mail to the Commissioner, the importer, the exporter and such other persons as may be specified by the rules of the Tribunal

(a) forthwith after it is made, a copy of each order or finding made by the Tribunal pursuant to this section; and

(b) not later than fifteen days after the making of an order or finding by the Tribunal pursuant to this section, a copy of the reasons for making the order or finding.[Emphasis added]

In addition, the Parties in the NAFTA have underlined the commitment to give reasons. In Article 1907.3 of NAFTA:

… the Parties agree that it is desirable in the administration of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws to:

(h) provide disclosure of relevant information, including an explanation of the calculation or the methodology used to determine the margin of dumping or the amount of the subsidy, on which any preliminary or final determination of dumping or subsidization is based, within a reasonable time after a request by interested parties;

(i) provide a statement of reasons concerning the final determination of dumping or subsidization; and

(j) provide a statement of reasons for final determinations concerning material injury to a domestic industry,…threat…or…retardation…

Article 1911 provides:

For purposes of this Chapter:

administrative record means…:

(b) a copy of the final determination of the competent investigating authority, including reasons for the determination…

Although applicable in terms only to Mexican cases, further illumination of the intent of the draftsmen is to be found in the Schedule of Mexico in Annex 1904.15, Amendments to Domestic Laws. It will be recalled that when Canada and the U.S. revised the agreement to include Mexico, they found that due to differences in legal systems and traditions, various matters that were taken for granted between the original Parties needed to be spelled out. Thus the expanded pact included an undertaking by Mexico that its laws would be amended to require:

(r) a detailed statement of reasons and the legal basis for final determinations in a manner sufficient to permit interested parties to make an informed decision as to whether to seek judicial or panel review, including an explanation of methodological or policy issues raised in the calculation of dumping or subsidization…

It seems clear that this requirement was not intended to apply alone to Mexico, but rather that it was deemed already to be a part of Canadian and U.S. law.

This Panel found, without defining the extent of the duty, that the Tribunal is obligated to provide reasons at least sufficient enough to allow the Panel to review a decision of the CITT. This duty was reflected in the decision of this Panel, dated March 22, 2001, regarding the request of Whirlpool and WCI for an Order to compel the CITT to produce its working papers related to the post-hearing analysis of Camco’s financial statements. In that Order, this Panel stated:

...the Investigating Agency carries the burden to fully explain what it has done and how it reached the conclusions of material injury...

Without precisely deciding on the extent of this duty in the context of the CITT and SIMA, this Panel finds that the reasons the Tribunal has given were sufficient to indicate that they found: 1) the financial statements provided by Camco were inaccurate; 2) the problem with them was clear; 3) the Tribunal chose to rework the data; and 4) the Tribunal chose a method to rework the data that it felt was reasonable and relevant to the situation. The Panel notes that the reasons of the Tribunal for reworking the data are briefly described in the Tribunal’s SOR, and are more fully elaborated in the Tribunal's brief submitted to this Binational Panel. The Panel finds that this combined explanation is sufficient to provide a reasonably detailed explanation of its actions to the parties in this case. However, the Panel would underline vigorously the importance in the Tribunal providing adequate reasoning in any initial Statement of Reasons, without the prodding provided by this Panel in this case, so any reviewing body, and more importantly the parties, can properly assess the Tribunal’s decision.

Furthermore, it is clear that the reworked financial data, as long as that data were merely part of a post-hearing analysis of data that were already on the administrative record, do not form part of the administrative record and therefore do not need to be disclosed. This principle has been made very clear in Toshiba Corp. v. Canada.²² A previous Panel Corrosion Resistant Steel Sheet²³ has faced an analogous situation, and its reasoning is intrinsically persuasive:

...the analyses in question were supported by information on the record. Any tribunal must be free to do whatever analyses it requires to come to its decision, provided it does not use information not on the record and not available to the parties.²⁴

iii. Average Price Data

The Tribunal, in its analysis, used average price data in determining injury. This is a compilation of all of the prices of like goods that are sold in the marketplace. The complainants take issue with this practice because, as they argue, the use of average price data is incapable of showing the necessary causal connection between injury and dumping. It is true, as counsel for Whirlpool and WCI argue, that the Tribunal must find pursuant to the statutory requirement, that it was the dumping that caused the injury. However, the statement that the Tribunal must have evidence of account specific incidents of price-based switching, has no foundation in the legislation or the jurisprudence. Subsection 42(1) of SIMA gives the Tribunal a broad discretion in its choice of how to find injury and causation. No methodology or type of proof has been laid out in the statute or the regulations. Furthermore, Whirlpool and WCI have not been able to cite case law or legislation indicating that the use of average price data is unacceptable. The Tribunal indicated that it was an imperfect tool, but that it felt it was accurate enough in the context of the data in this case to make a finding of injury, under the head price suppression/price erosion, as well as causation.

The use of average price data in determining injury is a question of fact, or perhaps mixed fact and law. The finding is within the expertise of the Tribunal and it is strictly within the mandate of the Tribunal, as granted under SIMA. On this question also the Tribunal should be given

considerable deference by the Panel. In looking at all the factors including that the specific issue is a matter of fact or perhaps mixed fact and law, the standard of review is at least reasonableness if not patent unreasonableness. The Panel is not persuaded by Whirlpool or WCI that the use of average price data is either illegal or inappropriate in the circumstances. Therefore this Panel will not disturb the use of average price data in the finding of injury and causation.

Whirlpool and WCI further argue that the Tribunal has included some non-dumped goods in its average pricing analysis such that the findings on gross margins, price suppression/price erosion and loss of market share are unreliable. The decision to include or not include certain goods in the average pricing analysis is a decision squarely within the expertise of the Tribunal, and again is a matter of fact or mixed fact and law. Again, the standard of review is at least reasonableness and the Panel will defer to any reasonable decision of the Tribunal on this question. Although it would certainly have been preferable, in the Panel’s opinion that the prices of non-dumped goods not be included in the average price analysis, the Panel finds that the methodology of the Tribunal was reasonable. Given the standard of review the Panel will not disturb the findings of the Tribunal.


iv. Consideration of Non Dumping Factors

Whirlpool and WCI both argue that the Tribunal failed to consider the effect of certain non-dumping factors in its analysis of injury and causation, and that in fact, much of the injury suffered by Camco was due to non-dumped goods. The Panel recognizes that the Tribunal is under a duty, as set out in SIM Regulations subsection 37.1(3), to consider whether any factors other than dumping or subsidizing may have caused the injury:

(3) For the purpose of determining whether the dumping or subsidizing of any goods has caused injury...the following additional factors are prescribed: ...

(b) whether any factors other than the dumping or subsidizing of the goods have caused injury or retardation or are threatening to cause injury, on the basis of...

The section then goes on to list several factors that must be considered, to determine if injury has been caused by some factor other than the dumping. These factors include, in subsection (3)(b)(vii) "any other factors that are relevant in the circumstances.” Starting at page 27 of the SOR, under the heading “Other Factors”, the Tribunal does carry out the analysis that is required by the Regulations. The CITT recognizes the arguments by several of the parties that there were factors other than dumping that may have caused injury to Camco. The Tribunal also recognized its duty to not attribute injury caused by these factors to dumping. Further, the Tribunal noted that dumping need not be the only or the principal cause of injury, but the injury from dumping must be material. The Tribunal noted the following “other factors” in its decision: product quality, performance, style and innovation; selling and marketing practices; Camco’s business strategies and decisions; Camco’s selling directly to builders; Camco’s lack of investment and later rationalization; the decision to stop producing 16 and 18 cubic foot refrigerators; and Camco’s export performance for dishwashers. The Tribunal also recognized the important position that Sears played in the market, and that Camco’s lack of success at that account was due to many factors.

The Panel finds that the Tribunal in fact discharged its duty under SIM Regulations subsection 37.1(3) to consider the possible injurious effect of non-dumping factors. The weight to be given to the evidence on each of these factors, and the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal as to whether injury was caused by them, is a core element of the duties of the Tribunal, within its scope of expertise, and is a matter of fact or mixed fact and law. Again taking into account all the factors of the pragmatic and functional test, the standard of review in this issue of non-dumping factors is at least reasonableness. The Tribunal, therefore, is owed a high level of deference on the issue. The Panel holds that in this case the Tribunal’s findings with regard to the non-dumping factors enumerated by Whirlpool and WCI was reasonable.


v. The Failure to Conduct Separate Analyses and Provide Separate Conclusions

The duty to make a separate analysis and finding for each of the subject goods is implicit in SIMA subsection 42(1) and in SIM Regulations subsection 37.1. The Tribunal acknowledged, at SOR, page 23 that it had to make a separate finding with respect to each of the categories of subject goods. The Tribunal goes on to say that a parallel analysis is possible, and that where there are distinctions between the subject goods, it would highlight them. Thus, the Tribunal was aware of its duty to make a separate finding for each of the categories of subject goods. The Tribunal did in places indicate that it had done a different analysis for each of the categories of subject goods. An example of the Tribunal’s separate analysis can be seen in the SOR at page 26:

The Tribunal examined the evidence on the record regarding the sales volumes and prices for certain refrigerators, dishwashers and dryers to major accounts in Canada as reported in the pre-hearing staff report. The overall pricing data for dishwashers and dryers do not generally show major decreasing trends...

Furthermore, it is clear in the SOR at page 36 that the Tribunal made separate findings of injury and causation for each of the categories of subject goods. Thus, the Tribunal did do a separate analysis, and came to separate conclusions for the three categories of subject goods. These conclusions are again mixed fact and law. The standard of review is at least reasonableness simpliciter. The Tribunal did exercise its jurisdiction to make separate analyses and did make separate findings for each of the subject goods. The Tribunal conclusions are reasonable and the Panel will not disturb the Tribunal's findings.