Preliminary injury inquiry PI‐2025‐004 Cast Iron Soil Pipe

Determination issued Tuesday, September 9, 2025 Reasons issued Monday, September 29, 2025

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF INJURY i

STATEMENT OF REASONS 1

PRODUCT DEFINITION 1

ADDITIONAL PRODUCT INFORMATION 2

THE CBSA’S DECISION TO INITIATE THE INVESTIGATION 2

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK 3

Reasonable indication 3

Injury factors and framework issues 4

LIKE GOODS AND CLASSES OF GOODS 4

DOMESTIC INDUSTRY 5

CROSS-CUMULATION 5

INJURY ANALYSIS 6

Period of analysis 6

Import volume of dumped and subsidized goods 7

Price effects of the subject goods 8

Resultant impact on the domestic industry 9

THREAT OF INJURY 12

CONCLUSION 14

 

IN THE MATTER OF a preliminary injury inquiry, pursuant to subsection 34(2) of the Special Import Measures Act, respecting:

CAST IRON SOIL PIPE

PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF INJURY

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal, pursuant to the provisions of subsection 34(2) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), has conducted a preliminary injury inquiry into whether there is evidence that discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping and subsidizing of cast iron soil pipe, as defined below (the subject goods), have caused injury or retardation or are threatening to cause injury, as these words are defined in SIMA. The subject goods are defined 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 hubless and hub and spigot cast iron soil pipe.

For greater certainty, the product definition includes all pipe meeting the physical description set forth above, whether or not produced according to a particular standard or specification.

This preliminary injury inquiry follows the notification, on July 11, 2025, that the President of the Canada Border Services Agency initiated investigations into the alleged injurious dumping and subsidizing of cast iron soil pipe originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China.

Pursuant to subsection 37.1(1) of SIMA, the Tribunal determines that there is evidence that discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping and subsidizing of the subject goods have caused or are threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry.

The statement of reasons will be issued within 20 days.

 

Tribunal Panel:

Randolph W. Heggart, Presiding Member Susan Beaubien, Member Elizabeth Whitsitt, Member

PARTICIPANTS:

	Counsel/Representatives
Canada Pipe Company ULC, d.b.a. Bibby-Ste-Croix and Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs de Bibby Sainte-Croix – CSN	Christopher J. Kent Christopher J. Cochlin Andrew Lanouette Laura Little Michael Milne Hugh Seong Seok Lee E. Melisa Celebican Alexander Hobbs Jordan Lebold Mallory Felix Erfan Ehsan Mercedes Labelle Sinéad Dunne Giovanni Pedretti Haneen Faisal Ian Richardson
9513-9085 QUÉBEC INC.	Francis Chaussé
PAGAZ INC.	Greg Kanargelidis
Primo Mechanical Inc.	Leo Agozzino Ivano D’Onofrio
Marli Mechanical Limited	Cesare Ferrara
Sierra Distributors (2017) Ltd.	Richard Matthew
Stellar Hi-Rise Mechanical Inc.	Tony Di Giuseppe Dante Carinci Luciano Carinci Sandro De Sanctis
SIBO International Ltd.	Li Ronghua

Please address all communications to:

The Registry
Telephone: 613-993-3595
Email: citt-tcce@tribunal.gc.ca

 

STATEMENT OF REASONS

[1] On May 22, 2025, Canada Pipe Company ULC, d.b.a. Bibby-Ste-Croix (Bibby) filed a complaint with the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) alleging that the dumping and subsidizing of certain cast iron soil pipe (CISP) originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China (China) (the subject goods) have caused injury or are threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry.

[2] On July 11, 2025, the CBSA initiated investigations into the alleged dumping and subsidizing of the subject goods pursuant to subsection 31(1) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA).[1]

[3] As a result of the CBSA’s decision to initiate the investigations, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal began its preliminary injury inquiry pursuant to subsection 34(2) of SIMA on July 14, 2025, to determine whether the evidence discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping and subsidizing of the subject goods have caused injury or are threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry.[2]

[4] The Tribunal received notices of participation from Bibby, the Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs de Bibby Sainte-Croix, 9513-9085 Québec Inc., Pagaz Inc., Stellar Hi-Rise Mechanical Inc., Sierra Distributors (2017) Ltd., Primo Mechanical Inc., Marli Mechanical Limited and Sibo International Ltd.

[5] The union Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs de Bibby Sainte-Croix also filed submissions in support of the complaint.[3] 9513-9085 Québec Inc. filed submissions in opposition to the complaint.[4] For the purposes of this preliminary injury inquiry, the Tribunal relied on the complaint filed by Bibby representing the domestic industry, the submissions filed by the supporting and opposing parties, and the data and analyses prepared by the CBSA.

[6] On September 9, 2025, pursuant to subsection 37.1(1) of SIMA, the Tribunal determined that there is evidence that discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping and subsidizing of the subject goods have caused injury or are threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry. The reasons for that determination are set out below.

PRODUCT DEFINITION

[7] The CBSA defined the subject goods as follows:[5]

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 hubless and hub and spigot cast iron soil pipe.

For greater certainty, the product definition includes all pipe meeting the physical description set forth above, whether or not produced according to a particular standard or specification.

ADDITIONAL PRODUCT INFORMATION

[8] The CBSA’s statement of reasons contains the following additional product information:[6]

[13] CISP is a non-malleable cast iron pipe produced in a variety of sizes and used as a component for sanitary and storm drain, waste, and vent piping. CISP may be called “soil pipe”, “drainage pipe” or simply “pipe” and is used in residential, commercial, and industrial construction, as well as public buildings such as schools and hospitals. Additionally, CISP may be used for storm drainage from roofs, yards, areaways, and courts.

[14] CISP is classified as either hub and spigot pipe or hubless pipe. CISP is generally distinguished from other types of non-malleable cast iron pipe by the manner in which it is connected to cast iron soil pipe fittings. Hub and spigot pipe has hubs into which the spigot (plain end) of another pipe or of a fitting is inserted. The joint is sealed with a compression gasket or molten lead and oakum. Hubless pipe is manufactured without a hub and is joined to a fitting or another pipe using a hubless coupling that fits over the ends of the pipe and fitting or the ends of the pipes and is tightened to seal the joint.

[15] In Canada, CISP is governed by Canadian Standards Association (CSA) specification B70, while in the United States, CISP is governed by Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute (CISPI) 301 as well as American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A888 and A74 standards.

THE CBSA’S DECISION TO INITIATE THE INVESTIGATION

[9] The CBSA initiated investigations pursuant to subsection 31(1) of SIMA because there was evidence that the subject goods had been dumped and subsidized, as well as evidence that disclosed a reasonable indication that the dumping and subsidizing had caused injury to the domestic industry.

[10] Using information for the period of April 1, 2024, to March 31, 2025, the CBSA estimated that the subject goods were dumped by 16.2%, when expressed as a percentage of the export price.[7]

[11] The CBSA also estimated the amount of subsidy to be equal to 15.1% of the export price of the subject goods for the same period.[8]

[12] The CBSA estimated that imports from China accounted for 80% of total imports in 2024.[9]

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

[13] The Tribunal’s mandate in a preliminary injury inquiry is set out in subsection 34(2) of SIMA, which requires the Tribunal to determine “... whether the evidence discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping or subsidizing of the [subject] goods has caused injury or retardation or is threatening to cause injury”.

Reasonable indication

[14] The term “reasonable indication” is not defined in SIMA, but it has been interpreted to mean that the evidence need not be “conclusive, or probative on a balance of probabilities”.[10] The reasonable indication standard is lower than the standard that applies in a final injury inquiry under section 42 of SIMA.[11]

[15] The evidence at the preliminary phase of the proceedings tends to be significantly less detailed and comprehensive than the evidence in a final injury inquiry. Not all the evidence is available at the preliminary phase, and the evidence cannot be tested to the same extent as it would be during a final injury inquiry.[12] At this stage of the process, the Tribunal’s role is to assess whether there is sufficient evidence of injury or threat of injury caused by the subject goods for the CBSA to proceed to an investigation. If the CBSA makes preliminary determinations of dumping and subsidizing, the Tribunal will proceed to a final injury inquiry to determine whether the dumping and subsidizing of the subject goods has caused injury or is threatening to cause injury, which would justify the imposition of trade remedy measures. Therefore, the standard of “reasonable indication” of injury or threat of injury does not require the extensive evidence needed to satisfy the higher threshold of reliability and cogency that the Tribunal needs in the context of a final injury inquiry.[13]

[16] Nonetheless, the outcome of preliminary injury inquiries must not be taken for granted.[14] Simple assertions are not sufficient.[15] Complaints, as well as the cases of any parties opposed, must be supported by positive evidence that is both relevant and sufficient in that it addresses the requirements in SIMA and the relevant factors of the Special Import Measures Regulations (Regulations).[16] In previous cases, the Tribunal has stated that the “reasonable indication” test is passed where, in light of the evidence presented, the allegations stand up to a somewhat probing examination, even if the theory of the case might not seem convincing or compelling.[17] In conclusion, the evidence presented must be sufficiently convincing at this stage of the inquiry to allow the Tribunal to proceed to a final injury inquiry.[18]

Injury factors and framework issues

[17] In making its preliminary determination of injury, the Tribunal considers the injury and threat of injury factors that are set out in section 37.1 of the Regulations.

[18] However, before examining whether there is evidence of injury or threat of injury, the Tribunal must address several preliminary issues that form a framework for its analysis. Specifically, it must identify the domestically produced goods that are “like goods” in relation to the subject goods and determine whether there is more than one class of goods.

[19] The Tribunal must also identify the domestic industry that produces those like goods. This is required because subsection 2(1) of SIMA defines “injury” as “material injury to a domestic industry” and “domestic industry” as “... the domestic producers as a whole of the like goods or those domestic producers whose collective production of the like goods constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the like goods ...”.

[20] The Tribunal must also determine whether it will assess the cumulative effects of the dumping and subsidizing of the subject goods (i.e., whether it will cross-cumulate the effects).

LIKE GOODS AND CLASSES OF GOODS

[21] Subsection 2(1) of SIMA defines “like goods”, in relation to any other goods, as “(a) goods that are identical in all respects to the other goods, or (b) in the absence of any goods described in paragraph (a), goods the uses and other characteristics of which closely resemble those of the other goods.”

[22] In identifying the like goods, the Tribunal typically considers a number of factors. These include the physical characteristics of the goods (such as composition and appearance) and their market characteristics (such as substitutability, pricing, distribution channels, end uses and whether the goods fulfill the same customer needs).

[23] In addressing the issue of classes of goods, the Tribunal typically examines whether goods potentially included within separate classes of goods constitute “like goods” in relation to each other. If they do, they will be regarded as comprising one class of goods.[19] The Tribunal typically looks at the same factors for determining like goods under subsection 2(1) of SIMA, as described above.

[24] The Tribunal has previously found that the classification of goods is not solely determined on the basis of end-use substitutability. In other words, the fact that certain goods may not be fully substitutable for some end uses is not, in and of itself, a sufficient basis for determining that multiple classes of goods exist. Goods can belong to the same class of goods even if they come in numerous varieties.[20] Accordingly, the Tribunal typically does not subdivide goods into separate classes based on narrow distinctions or customer preferences for a specific type of product.[21]

[25] Bibby submitted that domestically produced CISP meeting the product definition is like goods to the subject goods and that there is a single class of goods. In support of its arguments, Bibby submitted that it is capable of producing goods that are either identical to, or directly competitive with, the entire range of the CISP products included in the scope of the complaint. Apart from the fact that Bibby uses cast iron scrap combined with coke as the primary input, while Chinese producers generally use pig iron combined with coke, imported and domestically produced CISP have the same general inputs and methods of manufacturing. Bibby also submitted that market characteristics and customer needs are the same for imported and domestically produced CISP.^[22]

[26] The opposing party does not dispute that domestically produced CISP meeting the product definition is like goods and that there is a single class of goods.[23]

[27] The evidence on the record indicates that imported and domestically CISP is very similar in terms of physical characteristics, production process and market characteristics, including channels of distribution and end uses. Accordingly, the Tribunal is of the view that domestically produced CISP is “like goods” in relation to the subject goods.

[28] With respect to classes of goods, the Tribunal finds that differences in diameter, length, weight, composition and end features of CISP are insufficient, in light of the evidence on the record, to justify a differentiation of classes of goods. Fundamentally, the Tribunal is of the view that the CISP products are similar in terms of physical characteristics and market characteristics, including channels of distribution and end uses. The Tribunal will therefore conduct its analysis on the basis of a single class of goods.

DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

[29] As indicated above, subsection 2(1) of SIMA defines “domestic industry” as “the domestic producers as a whole of the like goods or those domestic producers whose collective production of the like goods constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the like goods...”.

[30] Bibby indicates that it is the only Canadian producer of CISP.[24] The CBSA also conducted its own supplementary research and did not find any CISP producers in Canada other than Bibby.^[25] No evidence was filed by any opposing party to dispute Bibby’s position.

[31] The Tribunal accepts Bibby’s position and the CBSA’s analysis, which indicates that Bibby is the sole domestic producer of the like goods. The Tribunal will therefore assess the impact of the dumping and subsidizing of the subject goods on the basis of Bibby’s performance indicators alone.

CROSS-CUMULATION

[32] As noted above, since the subject goods are both dumped and subsidized, the Tribunal must also determine whether it will cross-cumulate the effects of the dumping and subsidizing of the subject goods.

[33] No legislative provisions directly address the issue of cross-cumulation of the effects of both dumping and subsidizing. However, as noted in previous preliminary injury inquiries, where subject goods from the same source are both dumped and subsidized, the Tribunal considers that it is not necessary or practicable to disentangle the effects of subsidizing from the effects of dumping of the same goods.[26] In reality, the effects are so closely intertwined as to render it impossible to allocate discrete portions to the dumping and the subsidizing respectively.[27]

[34] The Tribunal sees no reason, in this preliminary injury inquiry, to deviate from the approach it has adopted in the past in similar circumstances. Therefore, it is appropriate to perform a cross-cumulated analysis with respect to subject goods from China.

[35] In the context of a final injury inquiry, the Tribunal will expect the submissions of the participating parties to adequately address the issue of cross-cumulation.

INJURY ANALYSIS

Period of analysis

[36] Bibby submitted that it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to consider data from the past four years (2021–2024) and Q1 of 2025 for the purposes of its analysis. In its view, a four-year period plus an interim period would allow for a full and proper assessment of injury trends, which it submitted emerged in calendar year 2021.^[28] However, Bibby did not substantiate why, in the circumstances of this case, an analysis based on three years of data would be insufficient to assess the relevant trends.

[37] The Tribunal does not usually, and need not formally, define a period of inquiry (POI) in a preliminary injury inquiry. At the preliminary injury inquiry stage, the Tribunal typically relies on the same period of analysis (POA) used by the CBSA.[29] In this case, the Tribunal notes the CBSA’s decision to consider Bibby’s allegations of material injury extending over four calendar years, from 2021 to 2024, plus the interim period of Q1 2025.

[38] However, the Tribunal recognizes that it is generally accepted that the COVID-19 pandemic considerably disrupted commercial activity and supply chains, particularly in 2020 and 2021.[30] In the Tribunal’s view, the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, particularly in its early stages, mean that 2021 is unlikely to be a representative year for the purposes of comparison. The beginning of 2021 is more than three years prior to the one-year period (April 1, 2024, to March 31, 2025) for which the CBSA estimated the margin of dumping and the amount of subsidy in this case. Therefore, it may be difficult to establish a causal link between trends in the volumes and prices of subject goods and negative developments in the state of the domestic industry in 2021. Consequently, the Tribunal concludes that the evidence pertaining to 2021 has, based on the record at this stage of inquiry, minimal relevance and it is not probative with respect to the issues under analysis.

[39] Should the CBSA make a preliminary determination of dumping and subsidizing, the Tribunal will be required to conduct a thorough injury analysis and will collect data for this purpose. In the context of a final injury inquiry, a three-year POI is the normal practice.[31] The Tribunal has occasionally used a POI longer than the typical three-year period, but only in exceptional circumstances.[32] The Tribunal finds no circumstances in this matter comparable to any of the atypical situations in which a POI of longer than three years has been used.

[40] Consequently, for the purposes of this preliminary injury inquiry, the Tribunal conducted its analysis over the three-year period from 2022 to 2024, in addition to the interim period of Q1 2025 (POA).

Import volume of dumped and subsidized goods^[33]

[41] The Tribunal must consider whether the evidence reasonably indicates a significant increase in the volume of the subject imports, both in absolute terms and relative to domestic production of like goods and sales of domestically produced like goods.

[42] Bibby submitted that imports of subject goods increased both in absolute and relative terms.

[43] The opposing party submitted that the CBSA data show total imports from all sources have increased since 2021, but that the share of imports from China has declined significantly since 2024—when subject goods accounted for 80% of imports—and especially when comparing interim 2024 (73%) to interim 2025 (58%).^[34]

[44] In a preliminary inquiry, the Tribunal normally relies on the CBSA’s estimates of subject goods rather than those in the complaint because the CBSA has access to the best information available on the volume of imports at this stage. A comparison of the CBSA’s import estimates with the import figures in the complaint suggests that Bibby significantly overestimated subject imports in certain periods.^[35] This may be due to the inclusion of imports classified under a residual Harmonized System code that is not specific to soil pipe in order to capture data that Bibby alleges show significant volumes of soil pipe not manufactured to CSA specifications that are sold to the same end users and therefore compete with like goods.

[45] While the CBSA did not publicly disclose its estimates of the volume of subject goods, it did disclose the share of imports from subject and non-subject countries for the 2021–2024 period, as well as for the first quarters of 2024 and 2025.^[36] The protected volume data was contained in the CBSA’s complaint analysis.^[37]

[46] Although the CBSA’s import volumes are lower than those stated in the complaint, its import data reasonably indicate a significant increase in the absolute volume of imports of the subject goods between 2022 and 2024. However, this trend reversed in the first quarter of 2025, when the volume of imports declined compared to the same period in 2024.

[47] The volume of imports relative to the domestic production and sales of like goods also increased between 2022 and 2024, then declined in Q1 2025 relative to Q1 2024.^[38]

[48] The share of total imports held by the non-subject goods exceeded that of the subject goods in 2022, but the share of imports of subject goods exceeded that of the non-subject goods in all subsequent periods, including the first quarter of 2025.^[39]

[49] Despite the decline in import volume observed in Q1 2025, the Tribunal finds that there is a reasonable indication of a significant increase in imports of subject goods over the POA, both in absolute and relative terms.

Price effects of the subject goods

[50] The Tribunal must also consider whether the evidence reasonably indicates that the subject goods have had significant adverse price effects on the like goods.

[51] Bibby alleged that low-priced subject goods caused injury by undercutting domestic prices, resulting in price depression and suppression. It supplemented its aggregate data with account-specific allegations.

Price undercutting

[52] Bibby argued that the subject goods undercut domestic industry prices on a consistent and significant basis during the POA.

[53] The evidence from Bibby’s complaint, when reviewed alongside the CBSA’s protected case analysis, shows that the unit value of the subject goods undercut Bibby’s domestic selling prices in all periods covered by its complaint. The evidence also reveals that non-subject imports undercut Bibby’s domestic selling prices in all periods, except for the first quarter of 2025. When comparing the unit values of subject goods and non-subject goods, the data show that non-subject goods undercut the domestic industry’s prices to a lesser degree than the subject goods, indicating that the subject goods were the price leader in the Canadian market during the POA.^[40]

Price depression

[54] Bibby claimed that it experienced price depression, particularly since 2023, which is reflected in the lower prices for its sales from domestic production in 2024.

[55] The Tribunal observes that prior to 2024, Bibby’s domestic selling prices saw year-over-year increases from 2022 to 2023 despite them being undercut by the subject goods.^[41]

[56] While the evidence of price depression at this stage is less compelling than that of price undercutting, the Tribunal is of the view that there is a reasonable indication that the subject goods depressed the prices of domestically produced soil pipe over the POA.

Price suppression

[57] Bibby claimed that it also experienced price suppression between 2023 and 2024, as well as in Q1 2025, when it was forced to decrease its prices despite rising unit costs of goods sold.^[42] The Tribunal accepts this evidence as a reasonable indication of price suppression.

Conclusion on likely price effects

[58] The Tribunal finds that the evidence shows persistent and increasing undercutting by the subject goods between 2022 and Q1 2025. However, the alleged price depression and suppression occurred during a more limited period. Therefore, while the Tribunal accepts that there is a reasonable indication of price depression and price suppression at this preliminary stage, it also acknowledges that the final injury inquiry will need to fully consider the materiality of any price effects found and the extent to which any injury was caused by the subject goods.[43]

Resultant impact on the domestic industry

[59] As part of its injury analysis, the Tribunal must consider the impact of the subject goods on the state of the domestic industry. In particular, it must consider all relevant economic factors and indices that have a bearing on the state of the domestic industry.[44] This includes any impacts on workers employed in the domestic industry.[45]

[60] Bibby alleged that, because of the increased volumes of the subject goods in the Canadian market and their price effects, the domestic industry suffered material injury through decreases in market share, sales volumes, production, capacity utilization rate and profitability. Bibby also described the resulting adverse impacts on employment, the return on past investments, and the threat to future investment.

[61] The Tribunal notes that total domestic production and production for domestic sales both decreased during the POA.[46] Production also decreased between Q1 2024 and Q1 2025. The capacity utilization rate for both domestic sales production and total domestic production decreased considerably over the POA, and Bibby had unused capacity throughout the POA.

[62] The evidence tracking the domestic industry’s market share does not demonstrate consistent upward or downward trends throughout the POA. Instead, the data show that the domestic industry gained market share between 2022 and 2023, with the complainant having its highest market share in 2023. From 2023 to 2024, like goods lost considerable market share, with the evidence indicating a rebound in Q1 2025.

[63] With respect to the market share of subject imports, the evidence shows that, except for the interim period, it climbed steadily over the POA. Non-subject imports decreased in market share, driven by a considerable decrease in Bibby’s U.S. imports in 2023 and 2024. This occurred in the context of a diminishing total Canadian market.[47] Although Bibby lost some market share during the POA (2022 to 2024), a larger decline occurred at the end of the POA between 2023 and 2024, when the subject goods also experienced their largest increase. The increase in the market share of the subject imports in 2024 seems to be largely due to a corresponding loss of market share by the domestic industry. Bibby also lost domestic sales volumes over the POA, including in Q1 2025 compared to Q1 2024. In light of the low evidentiary threshold that must be overcome at this initial stage in proceedings, the Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence of lost sales and market share provide a reasonable indication of an adverse impact on Bibby’s performance during the POA.

[64] Bibby’s financial results also deteriorated during the POA.[48] This happened alongside continued price undercutting and price effects. As noted above, Bibby experienced both price undercutting over the POA, as well as price depression and price suppression in 2024 and Q1 2025. More particularly, the gross margin for domestic sales from domestic production as a percentage of net sales value has, with the exception of 2023, declined over the POA. In the Tribunal’s view, this is particularly indicative of the effects on the performance of the domestic industry. Net income also decreased in 2024 and Q1 2025 compared to Q1 2024. The available evidence can therefore reasonably support the conclusion that the presence of the subject goods in the Canadian market has had a significant negative impact on the financial performance of the domestic industry.

[65] Moreover, the Tribunal noted significant decreases in employment in the domestic industry over the POA. Bibby’s witness Mr. Collins stated that the complainant experienced a decrease in employment levels during the POA.[49]

[66] Bibby approved significant investments in its operations during the POA. It is concerned that unfair competition from the subject goods has had a negative impact on these investments.[50] Bibby does not allege that it failed to make investments during the POA, but notes that the return on major investments approved by the parent company during the POA is now in jeopardy.

[67] As a result of the above, the Tribunal considers that there is a reasonable indication of an injurious volume effect and injurious price effects related to the allegedly dumped and subsidized subject imports. The Tribunal finds that the evidence on the record reasonably indicates that these imports have had a negative impact on the performance of the domestic industry. Having considered the totality of this evidence, the Tribunal further finds that the evidence provides a reasonable indication that the domestic industry experienced injury during the POA.

Causation and materiality

[68] In a preliminary injury inquiry, the Tribunal must determine whether the evidence discloses a

[68]reasonable indication of a causal link between the dumping and subsidizing of the subject goods and the injury. The standard is whether there is a reasonable indication that the dumping and subsidizing of the subject goods has, in and of itself, caused injury.[51]

[69] While subsection 2(1) of SIMA defines “injury” as “material injury to the domestic

[69]industry”, the word “material” itself is not defined. In the past, the Tribunal has considered this to

[69]mean something that is more than de minimis but not necessarily serious injury.[52] Ultimately, the Tribunal determines the materiality of any injury on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the extent (i.e., severity), timing and duration of the injury.[53]

[70] Based on the evidence on the record, the Tribunal is unable to conclude that factors other than the dumping and subsidizing of the subject goods could have contributed to the material injury identified by the domestic industry.

[71] The opposing party called into question the causal link between the subject goods and potential injury to the domestic industry. It pointed to other market factors, including the domestic industry’s monopolistic pricing and increases to the cost of goods sold (COGS)[54] as the more likely causes for any alleged injury to the domestic producer over the POA.

[72] The opposing party also alleged that any significant increase in labour costs, as a portion of COGS during the POA, could directly account for the decrease in Bibby’s profitability, rather than it being mainly attributable to unfair competition from lower-priced subject goods. The opposing party further relied on the Tribunal’s reasoning in Prepared Baby Foods.[55] It suggested that in the context of a monopoly or quasi-monopoly, the assessment of injury must exclude any protection of monopolistic rents and focus on the likelihood of harm directly attributable to dumping. The opposing party submitted that when a domestic industry is facing pressure from imports from various sources, or when the share of subject imports is declining such as in Q1 2025, it becomes difficult to attribute significant injury or threat of injury solely to the subject goods.

[73] In response, Bibby pointed out that several foreign producers and exporters from both subject and non-subject countries are present in the Canadian market, the barriers to entry for other import sources are extremely low, and Chinese importers have a longstanding presence in the market. Bibby also submitted that imports from the U.S. are largely from an unrelated U.S. producer. Bibby noted that the legal standard does not require the subject goods to be solely responsible for the injury. In its view, the opposing party’s submissions ignored the data for the earlier periods of the POA that show increases in the absolute and relative volumes of imports of the subject goods.[56]

[74] While there is evidence of negative effects on capacity utilization, production and market share, Bibby’s import behaviour may have contributed to this and will need to be examined more closely in the full inquiry. For example, the Tribunal notes that Bibby’s non-subject imports from the U.S. decreased significantly during the POA, which may have had some effect on the domestic market and Bibby’s profitability.

[75] There are also issues in Bibby’s financial reporting that will require closer examination during the full injury inquiry, particularly with respect to “other expenses”, which appear to have a distorting effect on net income, particularly in 2023 and 2024.

[76] Nevertheless, there is insufficient evidence to draw a probative conclusion that any other factor constitutes an underlying and direct cause of material injury. The Tribunal concludes that, while non-subject imports may have contributed to some injury, subject imports were a significant cause of injury to the domestic industry. If the CBSA makes preliminary determinations of dumping and subsidizing, the Tribunal will examine these factors in more detail during its final injury inquiry and will also be able to examine pricing at the benchmark product level.[57] The Tribunal encourages participants in any final injury inquiry to present evidence that is clear and as substantiated as possible. This extends to Bibby providing better evidence and explanations with respect to the financial situation of its operation and its allegations of lost sales.

[77] Accordingly, the Tribunal is of the view that the evidence on the record provides a reasonable indication of a causal link between the dumping and subsidizing of the subject goods and the injury suffered by the domestic industry.

[78] The increased volumes of the subject goods from 2022 to 2024, together with the extent of price undercutting by the subject goods during the POA and evidence of price suppression and depression later in the POA, are significant enough to reasonably indicate that the subject goods have caused material injury to the domestic industry. At this stage, the Tribunal finds that there is a reasonable indication that imports of the subject goods caused at least a significant portion of the injury to the domestic industry.

THREAT OF INJURY

[79] Based on the evidence on the record, the Tribunal considers that there is also a reasonable indication of a threat of injury to the domestic industry from the continued and potentially increasing importation and sale of the subject goods. The complaint alleged, with supporting evidence, that imports of the subject goods threaten to cause further material injury to the domestic industry in light of a number of factors.

[80] The domestic industry remains vulnerable due to pricing pressures from sales lost to imports of the subject goods, the impacts of which will continue to be felt in the near to medium term.

[81] The volume of subject goods imported during the POI, as well as the production capacity and export orientation of Chinese producers,[58] indicate a likelihood that substantial volumes of the subject goods will continue to be imported into Canada over the next 12 to 24 months.

[82] Soft market conditions in China and the combined attractiveness of the Canadian market will likely encourage continued or increased levels of subject imports. The Tribunal notes there is conflicting evidence about whether domestic market demand is expected to be weaker than it was over the POA going forward.[59]

[83] Bibby and the Syndicat des travailleuses et travailleurs de Bibby Sainte-Croix also provided concrete evidence of further negative impacts on employment levels, which are expected to materialize over the next 12 to 24 months. There is also evidence of a threat to future investments in the Quebec plant by Bibby’s parent company, due to continued pressure from the subject goods.

[84] In a preliminary injury inquiry, the threshold to be met by a complainant is relatively low. The evidence of actual injury or threat of injury need not be overwhelming.[60] The opposing party denied that there is any threat of injury beyond pure speculation and argued that although there are uncertainties about the economic situation, it would be difficult to conclude that there is a threat of injury based on any objective and well-founded analysis.^[61]

[85] However, based on the information available at this stage, the Tribunal finds that the evidence overall discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping of the subject goods is threatening to cause injury. For the sake of judicial economy, the Tribunal considers that there is no need to more fully elaborate on this finding because the Tribunal has already concluded that there is a reasonable indication that the domestic industry has been materially injured by the dumped and subsidized subject goods.

CONCLUSION

[86] The Tribunal determines that there is evidence that discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping and subsidizing of the subject goods have caused or are threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry.