T-4190-80
Taiwan Footwear Manufacturers Association,
Universal Shoe Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Lee Yee
Enterprise Co. Ltd., Elite Enterprise Co. Ltd.,
Tailung Plastic Industrial Co. Ltd., Pou Chen
Corp., Chung Hoo Industrial Co. Ltd., Shuenn
Yng Industrial Co. Ltd., and Kai Tai Enterprise
Co. Ltd. (Applicants)
v.
Anti-dumping Tribunal (Respondent)
Trial Division, Mahoney J.—Toronto, September
15; Ottawa, September 19, 1980.
Prerogative writs — Mandamus and prohibition — Anti-
dumping — Application by interested parties in an inquiry
instituted under s. 16.1 of the Anti-dumping Act to enforce
their claimed rights to disclosure of information received by
the respondent and to cross-examine on information given by
persons whose interests differ from theirs — Whether the
respondent is required to afford a fair opportunity to meet an
adverse case in the conduct of an inquiry under s. 16.1 of the
Act — Anti-dumping Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. A-15, ss. 16, 16.1
— Export and Import Permits Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. E-17, par.
5 ( 2 )(b)
APPLICATION.
COUNSEL:
I. A. Blue and T. Pinos for applicants.
E. Bowie for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Cassels, Brock, Toronto, for applicants.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment
rendered in English by
MAHONEY J.: The Anti-dumping Tribunal is
clearly enjoined to afford a fair opportunity to
meet an adverse case in the conduct of inquiries
under section 16 of the Anti-dumping Act.' There
are a number of decisions of the Federal Court of
R.S.C. 1970, c. A-15, as amended.
Appeal to that effect. 2 The issue here is whether it
is required to afford a like opportunity in the
conduct of an inquiry under section 16.1 of the
Act:
16.1 The Tribunal shall inquire into and report to the
Governor in Council on any other matter or thing in relation to
the importation of goods into Canada that may cause or
threaten injury to the production of any goods in Canada that
the Governor in Council refers to the Tribunal for inquiry and
report.
The applicants, who are interested parties in
Inquiry Footwear 1980, initiated under section
16.1 by Order-in-Council P.C. 1980-1950, seek
writs of mandamus and prohibition to enforce
their claimed rights to disclosure to them of infor
mation received by the Tribunal, subject to the
undertakings usual in section 16 inquiries with
respect to confidential information, and to cross-
examine on information given by persons whose
interests differ from theirs.
Numerous similarities may be drawn between
inquiries conducted under sections 16 and 16.1.
Both are initiated by the action of an authority
external to the Tribunal and both are concerned
with the importation of goods into Canada having,
actually or potentially, an adverse effect on the
production of goods in Canada. Should the Gover
nor in Council act under paragraph 5(2)(b) of the
Export and Import Permits Act 3 upon a report
under section 16.1, as the Deputy Minister of
National Revenue may be required to act upon
receipt of a report under section 16, the adverse
results, in so far as exporters and importers are
concerned, may be very similar.
2 Magnasonic Canada Ltd. v. Anti-dumping Tribunal
[1972] F.C. 1239. Sarco Canada Ltd. v. Anti-dumping Tri
bunal [1979] 1 F.C. 247.
3 R.S.C. 1970, c. E-17, as amended.
5....
(2) Where at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the
Governor in Council on a report of the Minister made pursuant
to
Notwithstanding those similarities, an inquiry
under section 16.1 remains an inquiry to obtain
information, on which the Governor in Council
may, or may not, act. There is no lis, real or quasi,
among the parties interested in presenting their
views and information to the Tribunal. It can
make no decision affecting the rights of anyone.
The Deputy Minister is bound to act on a section
16 report and, thus, it does affect the rights of
interested persons. In conducting a section 16.1
inquiry "fairly", as that term is used in the context
of administrative law, the Tribunal is not required
to permit cross-examination of persons appearing
before it nor to disclose to interested persons the
information it may receive in closed sessions, or
otherwise under the cloak of confidentiality. I note
that section 27 of the Anti-dumping Tribunal
Rules of Procedure" excludes the conduct of a
section 16.1 inquiry from their application, subject
to publication of a notice of commencement of the
inquiry in the prescribed manner.
JUDGMENT
The application is dismissed with costs.
(b) an inquiry made under section 16.1 of the Anti-dumping
Act by the Anti-dumping Tribunal in respect of any goods
other than textile and clothing goods within the meaning of
the Textile and Clothing Board Act
that goods of any kind are being imported or are likely to be
imported into Canada at such prices, in such quantities and
under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to
Canadian producers of like or directly competitive goods, any
goods of the same kind may, by order of the Governor in
Council, be included on the Import Control List in order to
limit the importation of such goods to the extent and for the
period that, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, is
necessary to prevent or remedy the injury.
4 C.R.C. 1978, Vol. III, c. 300.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.