During the last softwood lumber dispute, Canada successfully brought and won numerous challenges against the U. Coniferous lumber stacked on edge and fastened together with nails, whether or not with plywood sheathing. Climate Change documents in the last year. Social Media Facebook Twitter. Coniferous drilled and notched lumber and ptoducts cut lumber.

Department of Commerce directly. Yes, subject to certain conditions. Department of Commerce may allow the withdrawal of a company from the administrative review process, but only if all parties that requested a review for that company withdraw their request for review and if the request is submitted in a timely fashion. If the petitioner has requested a review of a company, the petitioner would need to withdraw its request in order for the company to be able to withdraw from the administrative review process.

Normally, the withdrawal request must be submitted within 90 days of the publication of the U. This document will contain the list of parties that you will need to include in your certificate of service attached to your submission. Countervailing and anti-dumping duty payments are typically on deposit until the final duty assessment rates for a given period of review are established retroactively by the U.

Department of Commerce in an administrative review. Companies receive either a refund or invoice for additional duties owed if the final duty assessment is lower or higher than the deposit rate. On February 2 and 26, , the U. Department of Commerce issued customs instructions continuing the suspension of liquidation for the first administrative reviews, pending the completion of the ongoing CUSMA binational panel reviews. Information on the U. International Trade Administration website.

You must first register as a Guest User before being able to access information. Once you have signed up, you can search for documents by case number, as follows:. Information on the softwood lumber injury investigation can be found on the U. In addition, registering with the U. The main allegation made by the U. In the past, U. Canada believes this to once again be the case.

During the last softwood lumber dispute, Canada successfully brought and won numerous challenges against the U. Canada has again brought such cases in this dispute. This process is primarily administered by the U. Department of Commerce and U. International Trade Commission. Key milestones in the process of the initial investigation include:. Final determinations of subsidy, dumping and injury can be reviewed under the World Trade Organization, and through the binding binational panel review process under Chapter 19 of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Canada is currently challenging U. For both the anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations, the U. These companies were individually investigated and received company-specific anti-dumping and countervailing duty rates. Because J. Irving chose to exercise its right to submit voluntary responses in the countervailing duty investigation, and the U. Department of Commerce agreed to investigate alleged subsidization with respect to the company, J. Irving was also individually investigated and received a company-specific countervailing duty rate.

The importer of record on the shipment to the United States is responsible for paying any duties imposed by the United States. Department of Commerce requires importers to provide cash deposits on imports of certain softwood lumber products that are equivalent to the anti-dumping and countervailing duty rates in effect at the time of entry. In most cases, Canadian exporters of softwood lumber products are also listed as the importer of record on shipments to the United States. Consequently, these Canadian exporters are required to shoulder the cost of any U.

Only softwood lumber products that fall within the scope of these investigations are subject to U. Department of Commerce selected four specific Canadian producers to serve as a sample for investigation purposes in both the anti-dumping and the countervailing duty cases.

Each of these has received company-specific countervailing and anti-dumping duty rates. Irving was also individually investigated as a voluntary respondent in the countervailing duty investigation and therefore received a company-specific countervailing duty rate. Historically, the Atlantic Provinces i. The Atlantic producers have in the past been subject to anti-dumping duties.

In this case, however, the U. Department of Commerce investigated allegations that New Brunswick stumpage constituted a countervailable subsidy. It also imposed preliminary anti-dumping and countervailing duties on all exporters in the Atlantic provinces. Canada requested that the U. On November 1, , the U. Department of Commerce confirmed its final scope language, which applies to both the anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations.

Therefore, as of November 8, the date of publication of the U. Federal Register , exports originating from these three provinces, and which have the required Atlantic Lumber Board certificate, are excluded from the final scope of the U.

Softwood lumber products originating in New Brunswick were not excluded from the application of anti-dumping and countervailing duties. Department of Commerce has instructed U. Customs and Border Protection to refund any preliminary anti-dumping and countervailing duties for entries which were accompanied by the appropriate Atlantic Lumber Board certificate.

The instructions sent by the Department of Commerce to U. Customs and Border Protection state that to qualify for this exclusion, an importer must provide an Atlantic Lumber Board certificate with each entry certifying that the merchandise was first produced in the Provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, or Prince Edward Island from logs harvested in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, or Prince Edward Island.

Additionally, the Atlantic Lumber Board certificate of origin number must be identified in the Customs Entry Summary documentation for each entry. In March , U. Customs and Border Protection began applying softwood lumber duties to cedar shakes and shingles from Canada.

This was an unprecedented decision as these products have never been captured in previous softwood lumber disputes. The Shake and Shingle Alliance sought to overturn this decision by requesting a scope ruling from the U. Department of Commerce initially determined that cedar shakes and shingles products were within the scope of the softwood lumber duty orders.

Department Commerce published its final redetermination in the U. Following the publication of the U. Department of Commerce final duty orders in the U. Federal Register, which took place on January 3, , companies can formally request rulings by the U. Department of Commerce on whether their specific products fall within the scope of the orders. Within 45 days of receipt of an application for a scope ruling, the U. Department of Commerce must either issue a final scope ruling or initiate a scope inquiry.

The Department of Commerce will issue a final ruling if it can determine based on prior determinations and the descriptions of the merchandise contained in the application for the scope ruling, whether the product is within or outside of the scope of the final duty orders.

Alternatively, if the U. Department of Commerce cannot make a determination based on these criteria, it will initiate a scope inquiry. Department of Commerce normally issues its determination in a scope inquiry within days of commencing the inquiry. Companies typically have the opportunity to provide comments and additional information to the U. Department of Commerce during the course of a scope inquiry.

The Government of Canada is not able to provide advice on product-specific scope issues. Canadian exporters wishing to obtain scope rulings that are specific to their products may wish to retain U. It took effect as of the date of publication of the U. Federal Register November 8, The full final scope of the U. The merchandise covered by this investigation is softwood lumber, siding, flooring and certain other coniferous wood softwood lumber products. The scope includes:. Finished products are not covered by the scope of this investigation.

For the purposes of this scope, finished products contain, or are comprised of, subject merchandise and have undergone sufficient processing such that they can no longer be considered intermediate products, and such products can be readily differentiated from merchandise subject to this investigation at the time of importation. Such differentiation may, for example, be shown through marks of special adaptation as a particular product.

Subject merchandise as described above might be identified on entry documentation as stringers, square cut box-spring-frame components, fence pickets, truss components, pallet components, flooring, and door and window frame parts. Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive. This is an important issue for Canadian remanufactures. The way duties should be calculated on remanufactured products has been an issue in prior softwood lumber investigations and the U.

Department of Commerce has not always been consistent in its approach. In its November 1, final determinations, the U. Department of Commerce did not direct U. Customs and Border Protection is applying duties according to its normal practice and collect cash deposits on merchandise subject to this investigation including remanufactured products on the value of the final product. Not necessarily. Department of Commerce agreed to a limited scope exclusion based on the origin of the wood. Specifically, the final scope of the U.

Department of Commerce investigation. The expedited review determines whether a company received countervailable subsidies by undergoing essentially the same process as completed in the initial company-specific U. Department of Commerce countervailing duty investigation.

While it is possible for a company to represent itself, these cases are often very complex and familiarity with U. Department of Commerce procedures is important. It is the strong recommendation of the Government of Canada that companies should seek legal advice to determine if proceeding with an expedited review is in their best interests and that companies who choose to request an expedited review retain U.

Under the current U. Department of Commerce within 30 calendar days of the date of publication in the U. Federal Register of any final countervailing duty order. Department of Commerce published its countervailing duty order in the U. Federal Register on January 3, As a result, the deadline for companies to submit a request for an expedited review to the U. Department of Commerce was February 2, Note that the U. International Trade Administration announced that it would extend by three days the deadline to submit a request for an expedited review to the U.

The new deadline was Monday, February 5, Department of Commerce initiated expedited reviews for 33 of the 34 Canadian companies that requested such a review, and granted a withdrawal request for the 34th company. Department of Commerce subsequently granted withdrawal requests for all 24 Canadian companies that requested it after initiation. As a result, only nine companies remain in the process. Current U. If the timeline is fully extended, final results could come as late as spring of If a company demonstrates, and the U.

Department of Commerce verifies, that the company received either zero or de minimis subsidies i. In this situation, the company would no longer be subject to any countervailing duties as of the date of publication of the final results of the expedited review in the U.

This company would also have any cash deposits made to that point refunded to them. Department of Commerce determines that a company has received subsidies above the de minimis threshold i.

Department of Commerce will determine a company-specific countervailing duty rate for that company. This company-specific rate will take effect on a going-forward basis, as of the date of publication in the U.

Department of Commerce in the past has not applied the final expedited review rates that are above de minimis retroactively. The First Administrative Review begins one year following the publication of the countervailing duty order and takes approximately 12 to 18 months to complete. There are no past examples as to how the final results from an expedited review would be impacted by the final results of an Administrative Review in a company-specific countervailing duty case.

It is therefore unclear whether the U. Department of Commerce will replace the expedited review rates with the countervailing duty rates from the first administrative review. The Government of Canada strongly recommends that companies participating in the expedited review seek legal advice to understand how decisions in the First Administrative Review may impact the rates set in the final results of the expedited reviews.

If your company, including any affiliated companies, did not directly harvest logs from provincial, territorial or federal lands, this does not guarantee that the expedited review will result in your company receiving a rate of zero or de minimis. Stumpage is only one element of this calculation. In expedited reviews following the last softwood lumber investigation, the U. Department of Commerce determined that companies that did not harvest logs directly, or have Crown tenure, nevertheless received some stumpage benefits.

It is not clear whether the U. Department of Commerce will undertake the same calculations in these expedited reviews. The Government of Canada is responsible for advising the relevant provincial and territorial governments of any company that has applied for an expedited review, which had operations in their province or territory during calendar years to January 1, to December 31, The Government of Canada, as well as each province and territory in which companies undergoing an expedited review had operations during calendar years to , are required to respond to a questionnaire regarding assistance provided to each of these companies, even if those companies no longer have operations in these provinces and territories.

Skip to main content Skip to secondary menu. Frequently asked questions — Softwood lumber The following information is provided to you for reference purposes only. Irving Ltd. Administrative reviews What is an administrative review? When does the United States begin the administrative review processes? What are the time periods covered by the Periods of Review?

If my company is subject to one or both of the anti-dumping and countervailing administrative reviews, what does this mean for my company? How will my company be affected by the administrative review process? How do administrative reviews work for resellers? Will resellers be subject to the rates attributed to their suppliers, or will they receive their own administrative review rates? If my company is selected as a mandatory or voluntary respondent, can my company represent itself in an administrative review?

Should my company retain legal counsel? How long will an administrative review take? Does the scope of the administrative reviews include cedar shake and shingles products? Department of Commerce has been asked to correct those errors by removing the bolded numbers : a. WRC tapersplit and handsplit-and-resawn shakes Grade 01; c.

WRC tapersawn shakes Grades 01, 02 and 03; and d. Eastern white cedar shingles Grades A, B and C 4. What is the role of the federal, provincial and territorial governments? First Administrative Reviews When did the U.

Department of Commerce announce the mandatory respondents for the first administrative reviews and what companies were selected? What is the significance of the rates the U. Department of Commerce calculates in the administrative reviews? When did the U. Department of Commerce publish the first administrative review final results? When will companies be refunded for payment of the difference for the shipments entered during the periods of review?

Will there be interest included in the potential refund that companies could receive resulting from the final rates from the first administrative reviews? Will there be a return of the bonds related to particular entries now that the final results of the first administrative reviews have been published? When did the final anti-dumping and countervailing first administrative review cash deposit rates take effect?

For how long will the first administrative review cash deposit rates be in effect? Will companies that are not subject to the first administrative reviews be subject to the new final rates resulting from the anti-dumping and countervailing first administrative reviews, or will they keep the old rates?

How will the first administrative review results impact the second administrative review results? How will the first administrative review results impact the results of the expedited review? Second Administrative Reviews What companies did the U. Department of Commerce select as mandatory respondents for the second administrative reviews?

Will the U. Department of Commerce be conducting verifications during the second administrative reviews? In the second administrative reviews, verifications remain a possibility at the present time.

Will companies that do not participate in the second administrative reviews be subject to the new second administrative review anti-dumping and countervailing duty rates going forward, or will they keep the old rates? How will the liquidation of cash deposits affect my company? Third Administrative Reviews When was the deadline to request to participate in the secondthird administrative reviews? What should my company do if it missed the deadline?

Introduction: An ACCESS account is required for Canadian companies wishing to upload any documentation regarding anti-dumping or countervailing duty proceedings by the U.

A company needs to register only once with ACCESS, even if it is interested in uploading documents in more than one proceeding. A single registration allows a company to file in multiple proceedings. The registrant should use a company e-mail address. A personal email address should be used only if there is no company email address. If you are represented by U. Canadian companies interested in U. Department of Commerce proceedings should begin ACCESS account creation at least a week in advance of any document submission deadlines.

Disclaimer : The Government of Canada does not take any responsibility for technical or other issues that may be encountered by Canadian companies wishing to create and use an ACCESS account.

Steps: Open your preferred web browser. You will reach the home login page. Do not click on guest registration. A guest account does not allow you to upload documents related to Department of Commerce proceedings. You will come to the Terms of Use Agreement page. Read through and then click Accept. You will come to the E-Filer registration page. Please fill out all the information that is required. For country code, select Canada from the drop-down menu.

For email address, please use a company e-mail address. If you are interested in both proceedings, you only need to register once, using one or the other of the above case numbers and segment. Enter the security code as your page will indicate. You will come to a page indicating that the Department of Commerce is reviewing your registration.

Note that the approval process, as it indicates, can take up to 48 hours. For additional assistance, you should use the e-mail or telephone number as provided on the webpage. Afterwards, in the e-mail account you used to register for the ACCESS account, you will receive an e-mail from ACCESS indicating that they have received your registration with a summary of the information you just provided.

Follow the instructions in that e-mail to login using the credentials you provided for your account creation. Can companies choose to withdraw from the administrative review process after they have made a request to participate? How do I file a Notice of No Sales? Introduction: In the notice of initiation published in the U. Federal Register on March 4, , the U. Department of Commerce requests that if any company included in the notice had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review, it must notify the U.

Department of Commerce of this lack of sales within 30 days of publication of the notice of initiation. Any company that files such a notice of no sales will be dropped out of the administrative review. Normally, the only reason such a company would have been included in the notice of initiation in the first place would have been because Petitioner requested that they be subject to the review.

The security classification and document type designations may need to be modified if you are filing a different document. The procedures for filing a notice of no sales are very similar to the procedures for filing a request for review, discussed above. Additionally, the Government of Canada does not take any responsibility for technical or other issues that may be encountered by Canadian companies using the ACCESS system.

Please note that you will have to repeat this filing process separately if you are filing for both anti-dumping and countervailing duty proceedings, but you can use the same ACCESS e-filer account to file documents in both proceedings.

Following digital filing on ACCESS, you are also required to serve a paper copy of the submission on all parties listed in the applicable service list via personal service or first class mail.

Please refer to the FAQ below for more information on how to find the applicable service list. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U. Learn more here. Commerce published the Preliminary Results of the expedited review on February 1, The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content. The product covered by this order is certain softwood lumber products from Canada.

A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The subsidy programs under review, and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by the parties, are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at the Appendix.

As a result of this expedited review, we determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be:. Pursuant to section 19 CFR Upon the issuance of these final results, Commerce will instruct U. Customs and Border Protection CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties for the companies subject to this expedited review, at the rates shown above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this expedited review.

These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR Commerce's practice with respect to exclusions of companies from a CVD duty order is to exclude the subject merchandise both produced and exported by those companies.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

Discussion of the Issues. Comment 1: Whether Article Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned with Fontaine Inc. Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned with Marcel Lauzon Inc. Commerce finds the following companies to be cross-owned with Mobilier Rustique Beauce Inc. Rancourt Inc. Commerce finds Bois Ouvre de Beauceville , Inc. Matra and Sechoirs de Beauce Inc. Matra and Sechoirs submitted separate requests for the expedited review; however, based on record evidence, we found them to be cross-owned, and therefore calculated a single countervailing duty rate for both.

Collectively, we refer to Matra, Sechoirs, and their cross-owned affiliate as Groupe Matra. See, e. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform documents in the last year. Government Contracts 40 documents in the last year. Fishery Management documents in the last year. Taking of Marine Mammals documents in the last year. Temporary Travel Restrictions by the U. Cultural Objects Imported for Exhibition 16 documents in the last year. International Trade Anti-Dumping documents in the last year. Broadband Policy documents in the last year.

Patent, Trademark, and Copyright documents in the last year. Climate Change documents in the last year. Oil and Gas Leasing 28 documents in the last year. Air Travel documents in the last year. Trade Adjustment Assistance 69 documents in the last year. Health Care Reform documents in the last year. Veterans Educational Benefits 7 documents in the last year. Go to a specific date Go to a specific date:. Legal Status. Document Details Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Document Statistics Document page views are updated periodically throughout the day and are cumulative counts for this document.

Rockler Cast Iron Router Table Code Build Your Own Wood Bed Frame 01 Ridgid Radial Arm Saw With Stand Recipe