Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content





Date: 20000119


Docket: A-591-98


CORAM:      THE CHIEF JUSTICE

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NOËL

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EVANS


BETWEEN:

     ACCIAIERIE VALBRUNA s.r.l. AND

     ACCIAIERIE DI BOLZANA SpA

     Applicants

     - and -

     ATLAS SPECIALITY STEELS, AB SANDVIK

     STEEL, SANDVIK STEEL CANADA, BRITISH

     STEEL CANADA INC., FORONI METALS OF

     TEXAS INC., FORONI SPA, AUBERT &

     DUVAL AND MANLUK INDUSTRIES INC.

     Respondents



     Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, Wednesday, January 19, 2000



     Judgment delivered from the Bench

     at Ottawa, Ontario on Wednesday, January 19, 2000


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:      RICHARD C.J.




     Date: 20000119

     Docket: A-591-98


CORAM:      THE CHIEF JUSTICE

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NOËL

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EVANS


BETWEEN:

     ACCIAIERIE VALBRUNA s.r.l. AND

     ACCIAIERIE DI BOLZANA SpA

     Applicants

     - and -

     ATLAS SPECIALITY STEELS, AB SANDVIK

     STEEL, SANDVIK STEEL CANADA, BRITISH

     STEEL CANADA INC., FORONI METALS OF

     TEXAS INC., FORONI SPA, AUBERT &

     DUVAL AND MANLUK INDUSTRIES INC.

     Respondents


     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

     (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario on

     Wednesday, January 19, 2000)


RICHARD C.J.:


[1]      In the circumstances of this case, and given that decisions of the Tribunal are entitled to substantial deference, the Tribunal"s finding of fact that a certain amount of semi-finished round bar, shipped by Atlas to the United States during the course of production to have certain intermediate steps performed (the "tolled goods") and returned to Canada for a number of other operations by Atlas prior to becoming a finished product, should be considered part of domestic production and not considered as imports for the purpose of an injurious dumping inquiry from other countries, is supported by the evidence and is not unreasonable, let alone, patently unreasonable.

[2]      Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.




     ____________________________

     Chief Justice

 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.