Concerning the initiation of the investigations into the alleged dumping and subsidizing of unarmoured building cables originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China.

Decisions

Ottawa,

March 31, 2026

Pursuant to subsection 31(1) of the Special Import Measures Act, the Canada Border Services Agency initiated investigations on March 16, 2026, respecting the alleged injurious dumping and subsidizing of unarmoured building cables originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China.

Statement of Reasons—Initiation of investigations: Unarmoured Building Cables (UBC 2026 IN)

(PDF, 595 KB)

On this page

---

Summary

[1] On February 11, 2026, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) received a written complaint from PTI Cables Inc (PTI) (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) alleging that imports of unarmoured building cables (hereinafter, “UBC”) originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China (“China” or “the subject country”), are being injuriously dumped and subsidized.

[2] On February 23, 2026, pursuant to paragraph 32(1)(a) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), the CBSA informed the complainant that the complaint was properly documented. On February 24, 2026, the CBSA informed the Government of China that a properly documented complaint had been filed. At that time, the Government of China was provided with a non-confidential version of the subsidy complaint and was invited for consultations pursuant to Article 13.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, prior to the initiation of the subsidy investigation. The CBSA did not receive any request for consultations.

[3] The complainant provided evidence to support the allegations that UBC from China have been dumped and subsidized, as well as evidence that discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping and subsidizing have caused injury or are threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry producing like goods.

[4] On March 16, 2026, pursuant to subsection 31(1) of SIMA, the CBSA initiated investigations respecting the dumping and subsidizing of UBC from China.

---

Interested parties

Complainant

[5] The name and address of the complainant is as follows:

PTI Cables Inc.
91 Hymus Blvd
Pointe-Claire (Québec)
H9R 1E2

Other producers

[6] The complainant identified three additional producers of UBC in Canada: Footnote 1

Domtech Inc.
40 East Davis Street
Trenton, Ontario
K8V 6S4

Nexans Canada Inc.
700-55 Commerce Valley West
Thornhill, Ontario
L3T 7V9

Northern Cables Inc.
P.O. Box 1564
50 California Avenue
Brockville, Ontario
K6V 6E6

[7] The complainant identified four other domestic cable producers that may have capacity to produce UBC: Footnote 2

Belden, Canada
2310 Alfred-Nobel Blvd
St-Laurent (Québec)
H4S 2B4
Belden Cobourg, Canada
130 Willmott Street
Cobourg, Ontario
K9A 4M3

Can Cable

408 – 19100 Airport Way

Pitt Meadows, British Columbia
V3Y 0E2

Electro Cables Inc.
9 Riverside Drive
P.O. Box 276
Trenton, Ontario
K8V 5R5

Prysmian Cables and Systems Canada Ltd. (Prysmian Group)
137 Commerce Drive
Johnstown, Ontario
K0E 1T0

[8] Domtech Inc., Nexans Canada Inc. and Northern Cables Inc. support the complaint. Footnote 3 The complainant also indicated that Electro Cables has been acquired by Nexans, which supports the complaint. Footnote 4 The complainant did not mention if it was aware of any domestic producers who would oppose the complaint.

[9] The complainant notes that Belden, Canada and Can Cable may have produced UBC in much smaller quantities than the domestic producers supporting the complaint. Footnote 5

[10] The Prysmian Group indicated that they did not produce UBC between 2023 and 2025. Footnote 6

[11] The CBSA conducted supplementary research and did not find any other producers of UBC in Canada.

Trade unions

[12] The complainant stated that PTI’s employees are not represented by a trade union. Footnote 7

[13] The complainant reported that the employees of other UBC producers are represented by trade unions. The employees of Northern Cables Inc. are represented by OPSEU, Local 493, the employees of Domtech Inc. are represented by Unifor, Local 887, and the employees of Nexans Canada Inc. are represented by Local Union 636 - Unit #44 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and United Steelworkers, Local 6717. Footnote 8

Exporters

[14] The CBSA identified 129 potential exporters and/or producers of the subject goods from CBSA import documentation and from information submitted in the complaint. All of the potential exporters were asked to respond to the CBSA’s Dumping Request for Information (RFI), Subsidy RFI and Section 20 RFI.

Importers

[15] The CBSA identified 145 potential importers of the subject goods from CBSA import documentation and from information submitted in the complaint. All of the potential importers were asked to respond to the CBSA’s importer RFI.

Government

[16] Upon initiation of the investigations, the Government of China was sent the CBSA’s Government Subsidy RFI and the Government Section 20 RFI.

[17] For the purposes of these investigations, the Government of China refers to all levels of government, i.e., federal, central, provincial/state, regional, municipal, city, township, village, local, legislative, administrative or judicial, singular, collective, elected or appointed. It also includes any person, agency, enterprise, or institution acting for, on behalf of, or under the authority of, or under the authority of any law passed by, the government of that country or that provincial, state or municipal or other local or regional government.

---

Product information

Product definition Footnote 9

[18] For the purpose of these investigations, subject goods are defined as:

Unarmoured Building Cables, and conductors for use in Unarmoured Building Cables, originating and exported from the People's Republic of China, where Unarmoured Building Cables are defined as an assembly of two or three insulated copper or aluminum electrical conductors, plus a metallic conductor intended for use as a bonding wire, and jacketed with a thermoplastic or thermoset, with or without connectors, provided that:

1. Each insulated conductor has a voltage rating greater than 80 volts and not exceeding 300 volts
2. Each insulated conductor has a size not less than American Wire Gauge (“AWG”) 14 and not greater than AWG 2
3. The primary purpose of the electric cable is distribution of electric current to power lighting, appliances, electrical sockets and like items and
4. The cable is certified to meet applicable Canadian standards by a recognized certifying body

Excluding

1. Wire and cable in lengths less than 2 metres
2. Extension cords with permanently attached connections at both ends consisting of a 2 or more prong plug at one end and a receptacle at the other end, designed and intended to connect portable electrical equipment or appliances to a source of electrical supply, and not permanently affixed to a building or structure or part of a permanent electrical wiring system
3. Wire and cable that is to be permanently installed in vehicles and mobile equipment, with the exception of “NMD90” and “NMWU” type cables
4. Wiring harnesses and

5. Wire and cable for use as an input in the manufacturing of mechanical or electrical products, not including electric cable installed as part of a modular construction assembly where the cable is used to distribute power from a power source to machinery and equipment attached to the modular construction assembly
   For clarity, the product definition:

6. Does not include cables for the distribution of data, signals, information or communications and

7. Does not include cables and wiring typically used in vehicles and mobile equipment where the purpose of the cable relates to the vehicular nature or functions of the item

---

Additional product information Footnote 10

[19] The product definition for the subject goods is exclusively set out above. The following paragraphs are intended to provide context and additional information about the subject goods. The following paragraphs are not an exhaustive description of the goods.

[20] The product definition includes two types of non-metallic sheathed cables:

NMD90 Non-metallic sheathed cable, intended for concealed wiring in dry or damp locations, with a 90°C temperature rating and NMWU Non-metallic sheathed cable, intended for underground locations including wet and corrosive locations [21] The products within scope of the complaint are “unarmoured”, meaning they do not include protective steel or aluminum armouring.

[22] The electrical conductor used in UBC may be aluminum or copper. Conductors may be solid or stranded. A solid conductor is a single drawn conductor. Stranded conductors are made from multiple drawn wire strands or filaments. "Stranding" is the bundling, twisting or wrapping of wire strands together. The wire strands may be circular or shaped so they form a uniform circle when stranded. A solid conductor is lower-cost. Stranded wire is more flexible and has better vibration resistance compared to solid wire.

[23] Conductors can have different thicknesses. There are several units of measurement for sizing conductors. The first is American Wire Gauge (“AWG”). AWG units run from #40 (approximately 0.8mm in diameter) to #0000 (also known as 4/0, which is approximately 11.7mm in diameter). A second measurement is the cross-section area of the conductor. This may be measured in metric units (mm2) or imperial units (typically circular mils, where the circular mil is a circle with a 1 mil diameter (1 mil = 1/1000”)).

[24] At least two conductors within a UBC will be insulated. Common insulating materials include polyvinyl chloride (“PVC”) or cross-link polyethylene (“XLPE”). PVC insulation may also be coated with an additional lawyer of nylon. Nylon is not used where the cable is certified for use in wet environments.

[25] UBC will include a bonding wire. A bonding wire is a wire that is not intended to carry current. It is generally bare or uninsulated. In the event of an electrical fault, electricity flows through the bonding wire to a grounding point. It may be copper or aluminum.

[26] UBC will have a jacket made of a thermoplastic or thermoset. The thermoplastic or thermoset surrounds and protects the conductors and bonding wire. PVC is most commonly used as the jacketing material.

[27] UBC may include connectors attached at either or both ends of the wire or cable. Most UBC are sold without connectors.

[28] UBC sold in Canada must be produced in facilities certified to meet Canadian standards set by the Standards Council of Canada. In Canada, the primary certifying body is the Canadian Standards Association (“CSA”). The current CSA Standard for NMD90 and NMWU is C22.2 No. 48. Electric wire and cable certified by the Underwriter Laboratories of Canada (“cUL”) may also be sold in Canada.

[29] The weight, diameter, and value of UBC will vary based on the type, the number of conductors, and the size of conductors. For example, an NMD90 cable with two AWG 14 conductors (NMD 14/2) weighs 103.7 kg per km, whereas an NMD90 cable with three AWG 10 conductors (NMD 10/3) weighs 270.6 kg per km.

[30] The primary purpose of UBC is the distribution of electric current to power lighting, appliances, electrical sockets and the like. Therefore, the scope of the investigations does not include cables used for the distribution of data, signals, information or communications. This includes telecommunication cables, audio cable, and video cable, so long as the primary end-use of the cable is for distribution of signals, communications and the like, and not the distribution of electrical power. Wire and cables imported as a data, instrumentation, signal or communications cable, but installed and used to distribute power rather than signals, communications, and the like, would fall within scope of the product definition.

[31] The product definition includes conductors for use in UBC. These conductors may be aluminum or copper, insulated or bare.

[32] Certain cable and wire products are not included in the product definition for UBC:

1. Wire rod of aluminum or copper that has not be drawn to a gauge suitable for transformation into UBC
2. Conductors that are not to be further manufactured into UBC
3. Cable and wire products within scope of the product definition, but imported in lengths of less than two metres
4. Extension cords, which are used to connect a power consuming object to an installed electrical outlet. Extension cords are different from UBC in terms of physical characteristics, market, and uses. They are also subject to a different standard. For example, CSA Standard C22.2 No. 48 applies to UBC, such as NMD90 and NMWU. CSA standards C22.2 No. 21 and No. 49 apply to cord sets and power supply cords, which includes extension cords. Items imported under a certification standard for extension cords—such as CSA C22.2 No 21 or No 49—would be excluded, whereas an item claiming to be an extension cord (e.g. it has permanently attached plugs), but that is certified to meet UBC standard CSA C22.2 No 48 (or subsequent classification or equivalent standard), would be within scope
5. Wire and cable installed in vehicles and trailers are excluded. Vehicles and mobile equipment may include, cars, trucks, boats and marine vessels, vehicle trailers, locomotives, recreational vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, mobile construction equipment and machinery, mobile farm machinery, buses motorcycles, electric bikes, remotely operated vehicles, submersible vehicles, aircraft or like vehicles. However, the exclusion only applies to wiring and cable that relates to the vehicular function of vehicle, such as automotive wiring for brake lights, sensors, and the like. NMD90 and NMWU type cables for installation in what may be classified as a vehicle (e.g. a portable or mobile structure with wheels) is not excluded. In other words, a power cable within a vehicle that is intended to function like power cables within a residential or commercial structure—such as electrical cables for the purpose of powering lights, sockets and appliances in a portable (wheeled) structure—are not excluded
6. Wiring harnesses. These are specially designed assemblies of wires, connectors and terminals
7. Wire and cable inputs that are processed into a mechanical or electrical product through a manufacturing process. This would include, for example, wire and cable used as a part in a manufactured electrical generator or other piece of machinery. However, this exclusion does not apply to the installation of UBC as part of modular construction assemblies. For example, cables installed as part of a manufactured modular residential or commercial structure, where the power cable will distribute electricity to applies, sockets or lights once the modules are collectively assembled and installed at the final construction site, are not excluded

---

Product use Footnote 11

[33] UBC are used to distribute electricity within or in relation to a residential, commercial or other structures for the purpose of providing power to light fixtures, appliances, heating and cooling apparatuses, electrical sockets and other equipment. The cables are permanently installed, unlike extension cords which are used to temporarily distribute electrical power.

[34] NMD90 cables are suitable for dry locations with temperatures up to 90°C.

[35] NMWU cables are suitable for dry and wet locations, with temperatures up to 60°C. The cables may also come with a UV resistant jacket.

---

Production process Footnote 12

[36] The primary feedstock for UBC is copper or aluminum wire rod, which may be purchased or produced by a cable manufacturer. The production process involves the following steps:

Drawing Copper or aluminum wire rod is drawn (pulled) through a series of dies to reduce its cross-section or diameter into wire strands Annealing A heating and cooling process is used to soften the conductor Stranding Where a stranded conductor is used, individual strands or filaments are assembled in a stranding machine to form a single conductor. Stranding improves wire flexibility while also maintaining electrical current capacity Insulating Insulating material (e.g., polyvinylchrloride (“PVC”) or cross-linked polyethylene (“XLPE”)) are extruded onto the strands. An additional layer of nylon is also extruded on to a PVC insulation coating to add abrasion resistance Cabling Combinations of conductor wire are assembled, which is often referred to as cabling. The assemblies include all conductor wires and bonding wires Jacketing A jacket made from PVC is applied using an extrusion process similar to the one discussed above Testing Testing is done according to the applicable standard. Testing may also occur earlier in the production process Packaging The cable is wound onto spools or reels or coiled and shrink wrapped

---

Classification of imports Footnote 13

[37] The allegedly dumped and subsidized goods are normally imported under the following tariff classification numbers:

1. 8544.49.00.19

2. 8544.49.00.90
   [38] They can also be imported under the following tariff classification numbers, in particular if they are imported as conductors to be further processed into UBC:

3. 7408.11.10.00

4. 7408.19.00.10

5. 7605.29.00.00

6. 7614.90.00.00
   [39] However, these tariff classification numbers also include non-subject goods, and subject goods may also fall under additional tariff classification numbers.

---

Like goods and class of goods Footnote 14

[40] 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 such goods…, goods the uses and other characteristics of which closely resemble those of the other goods.” In considering the issue of like goods, the CITT typically looks at a number of factors, including the physical characteristics of the goods, their market characteristics, and whether the domestic goods fulfill the same customer needs as the subject goods.

[41] In addressing the issue of classes of goods, the CITT typically examines whether goods potentially included in separate classes of goods constitute "like goods" in relation to each other. If those goods are "like goods" in relation to each other, they will be regarded as comprising a single class of goods.

[42] The complainant argued that subject goods and the “like goods” produced in Canada form a single class of goods. Both are manufactured to the same Canadian specifications, using identical production processes and inputs, and both rely on facilities independently certified to Canadian standards by third-party bodies such as the CSA standard. Moreover, UBC, whether produced domestically or in the subject country, are ordered according to precise technical characteristics. Given these uniformly defined specifications, the complainant argues that the goods are identical in all material respects and therefore compete directly in the Canadian market as like goods.

[43] After considering questions of use, physical characteristics and all other relevant factors, the CBSA is of the opinion that subject goods and like goods constitute only one class of goods.

---

The Canadian industry

Domestic producers

[44] In addition to the complainant, there are three other producers and four potential producers of UBC in Canada that were identified by the complainant and the CBSA.

---

Estimates of domestic production

[45] The complaint includes the annual production of like goods for the complainant and supporting producers from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025. Footnote 15 Based on these estimates and supplementary research by the CBSA, the complainant and the supporting producers account for a majority of the production of UBC in Canada in 2025.

---

Standing

[46] Pursuant to subsection 31(2) of SIMA, the following conditions must be met in order for an investigation to be initiated:

1. the complaint is supported by domestic producers whose production represents more than 50% of the total production of like goods by those domestic producers who express either support for or opposition to the complaint and
2. the production of the domestic producers who support the complaint represents 25% or more of the total production of like goods by the domestic industry [47] Based on an analysis of information provided in the complaint, as well as the information gathered by the CBSA, the CBSA is satisfied that the standing requirements of subsection 31(2) of SIMA have been met.

---

The Canadian market

[48] The complainant estimated the import values and volume of subject goods on the basis of aggregate internally-generated customs information data provided by the CBSA prior to the submission of the complaint, for imports under tariff sub-headings 8544.49.00.19 and 8544.49.00.90, for the period of 2023 to 2025. Footnote 16

[49] Prior to providing the data to the complainant, the CBSA had removed goods that are not believed to meet the product description and adjusted the quantities for some imports to provide a consistent unit of measurement for the volume. The CBSA reviewed import data from the CBSA’s Facility Information Retrieval Management (FIRM) database and the CBSA Assessment and Revenue Management (CARM) system, as well as its Accelerated Commercial Release Operations Support System (ACROSS) and other data to correct any errors or inconsistent unit of measures, and to remove non-subject imports.

[50] The CBSA reviewed the complainant’s data and compared it to what it had provided the complainant originally. Considering that the CBSA had already adjusted the import data, the CBSA determined that the data was reasonable as provided.

[51] Detailed information regarding the sales and volume from domestic production cannot be divulged for confidentiality reasons as the data was based on confidential information filed by a limited number of Canadian producers. The CBSA, however, has prepared the following tables to show the estimated import share of subject goods in Canada.

| Country | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| China | 8.4% | 29.1% | 24.3% |
| Other countries 1 | 91.6% | 70.9% | 75.7% |
| Total imports | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| 1 Imports from other countries consist predominantly of imports from the United States of America | | | |

| Country | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| China | 10.5% | 33.8% | 31.0% |
| Other countries 1 | 89.5% | 66.2% | 69.0% |
| Total imports | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| 1 Imports from other countries consist predominantly of imports from the United States of America | | | |
[52] The table below summarizes the CBSA’s estimate of the apparent Canadian market for UBC, in terms of market share, using data submitted by the complainant Footnote 17 along with its own further refined import data:

| Country | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sales of domestic production | 66.1% | 58.1% | 43.6% |
| China | 3.6% | 14.2% | 17.5% |
| Other countries 1 | 30.3% | 27.7% | 38.9% |
| Total imports | 33.9% | 41.9% | 56.4% |
| Total apparent Canadian market | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| 1 Imports from other countries consist predominantly of imports from the United States of America | | | |
[53] The CBSA will continue to gather and analyze information on the volume and value of imports during the period of investigation (POI) of January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025 as part of the preliminary phase of the dumping and subsidy investigations and will refine these estimates.

---

Evidence of dumping

[54] The complainant alleged that the subject goods from China have been injuriously dumped into Canada. Dumping occurs when the normal value of the goods exceeds the export price to importers in Canada.

[55] Normal values are generally based on the domestic selling price of like goods in the country of export where competitive market conditions exist or as the aggregate of the cost of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits.

[56] The complainant made the allegations that the building cables sector in China may not be operating under competitive market conditions and as such, the domestic market for UBC may not be relied upon for the purpose of determining normal values. Accordingly, the complainant submitted that normal values should be determined under section 20 of SIMA. Footnote 18

[57] The export price of goods sold to importers in Canada is generally the lesser of the exporter’s selling price and the importer’s purchase price, less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

[58] Estimates of normal values and export prices by both the complainant and the CBSA are discussed below.

[59] The complainant and the CBSA estimated margins of dumping for the period of January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025.

Section 20 allegations

[60] Section 20 is a provision of SIMA that may be applied to determine the normal value of goods in a dumping investigation where certain conditions prevail in the domestic market of the exporting country. In the case of a prescribed country under paragraph 20(1)(a) of SIMA, it is applied where, in the opinion of the CBSA, the government of that country substantially determines domestic prices and there is sufficient reason to believe that the domestic prices are not substantially the same as they would be in a competitive market. Footnote 19

[61] The CBSA initiates dumping investigations on the presumption that section 20 is not applicable to the sector under investigation unless there is information that suggests otherwise.

[62] A section 20 inquiry refers to the process whereby the CBSA collects information from various sources in order to form an opinion as to whether the conditions described under subsection 20(1) of SIMA exist with respect to the sector under investigation. Before initiating an inquiry under section 20, the CBSA must first analyze the information submitted in the complaint and the evidence it has gathered independently to determine if it is sufficient to warrant the initiation of an inquiry.

[63] The complainant alleged that the conditions described in section 20 of SIMA prevail in the building cables sector in China, which includes the subject goods. Footnote 20 That is, the complainant alleged that this industry sector in China does not operate under competitive market conditions and consequently, the domestic prices of UBC established in China, would not be reliable for determining normal values.

[64] The information provided by the complainant suggests a level of government influence in the building cables sector in China. The complainant alleged that the market distortions and cost advantages provided to Chinese producers of building cables translate directly into distortions to UBC prices in China. Footnote 21

[65] The CBSA has reviewed the information provided in the complaint and conducted its own research. Based on this information, the CBSA believes that there is reasonable evidence to support an inquiry into the allegations that the measures taken by the Government of China substantially influence prices in the building cables sector in China, which includes building cables, and that the prices are substantially different than they would be in a competitive market.

[66] Consequently, on March 16, 2026, the CBSA included in its investigations, a section 20 inquiry in order to determine whether the conditions set forth in paragraph 20(1)(a) of SIMA prevail in the electric cables sector in China.

[67] As part of this section 20 inquiry, the CBSA sent section 20 RFIs to all potential producers and exporters of UBC in China, as well as to the Government of China, requesting detailed information related to the electric cables sector in China.

[68] The electric cables sector will cover the manufacturing of cables, connectors, and wires, for use in the conducting and transmission of electricity. The subject goods are UBC and conductors for use in UBC, and fall within the electric cables sector.

[69] In cases where conditions of section 20 exist, pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(c), the normal value can be determined based on profitable selling prices or full costs of production and an amount for profit on goods sold domestically in a surrogate country, to which the conditions described in section 20 of SIMA are not applicable.

[70] For the purposes of obtaining information necessary to calculate normal values pursuant to subparagraph 20(1)(c) of SIMA, the CBSA requested information from producers in surrogate countries. As such, the CBSA has selected Australia, Mexico, South Korea, Thailand and the United States of America, which produce comparable goods and are believed to operate under fair market conditions, as potential surrogate countries and has sent questionnaires to known producers of UBC in these countries.

[71] In the event that the CBSA does not receive sufficient information from producers and exporters of subject goods in the selected surrogate countries for the purposes of determining normal values pursuant to section 20, the CBSA may identify other surrogate countries at a later date.

[72] Importers were also requested to provide information on sales of like goods produced in surrogate countries, in the event that normal values must be determined under paragraph 20(1)(d) of SIMA.

[73] In the event that the CBSA forms an opinion that domestic prices of UBC in China are substantially determined by the government, and there is sufficient reason to believe that the domestic prices are not substantially the same as they would be if they were determined in a competitive market, the normal values of the goods under investigation will be determined, pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(c) of SIMA, where such information is available, on the basis of the domestic selling prices or the aggregate of the cost of production, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits of like goods sold by producers in any country designated by the CBSA and adjusted for price comparability; or, pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(d) of SIMA, where such information is available, on the basis of the selling price in Canada of like goods produced and imported from any country designated by the CBSA and adjusted for price comparability.

---

Normal value

Complainant’s estimates of normal value

[74] The complainant’s allegations of dumping are based on a comparison of their estimated normal values for the allegedly dumped goods with their estimated export prices. The complainant estimated margins of dumping for different quarters within the period of January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025.

[75] Although the complainant argued that the conditions of section 20 prevails in the building cables sector in China, and that normal values should thus be determined pursuant to section 20 of SIMA, the complainant nevertheless estimated normal values using the methodology of paragraph 19(b) of SIMA (i.e based on the estimated costs in China) in addition to providing an estimate using the methodology of paragraph 20(1)(c) of SIMA (i.e. based on the estimated costs in Mexico as surrogate country).

Section 19(b)

[76] The complainant did not estimate normal values under section 15 of SIMA because like goods are not sold in the domestic market of China. UBC destined for Canada are manufactured to Canadian-specific technical and certification standards, such as CSA or cUL, while cable products sold in China must meet the separate China Compulsory Certification (CCC) standard. As a result, UBC produced in China for the Canadian market are not sold domestically in China, and no comparable domestic sales exist for purposes of a section 15 normal value analysis. The complainant noted that building cables used in China are typically different, for example, they often consist of individual single-core constructions rather than assemblies like NMD90. Footnote 22

[77] The complainant estimated normal values using a constructed cost approach based on the methodology in paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, calculated based on the aggregate of estimates of the cost of production of the subject goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits.

[78] The complainant estimates of normal values were based on the complainant’s own costs of production, adjusted to reflect conditions in China as well as publicly available information on costs and profits in China.

[79] As detailed cost of production information from producers in China was not available, the complainant estimated the cost of production using:

• Conductor costs were calculated by multiplying a monthly Chinese cathode spot price and rod processing fee by the copper weight per meter for each cable Footnote 23
• The complainant’s PVC costs reduced by 2%. The complainant stated that this reflects the average historical PVC price difference between China and the United States of America (US). The complainant argues that US PVC prices are generally representative of the North American market Footnote 24
• The complainant’s unadjusted nylon cost. The complainant indicated that pricing information for nylon in China was not available Footnote 25
• The complainant’s direct and indirect labour costs adjusted to reflect the difference between manufacturing wages in Canada and China. The complainant analysis determined that labour costs in China were 40.3% of Canadian wages Footnote 26
• PTI’s unadjusted overhead costs. The complainant assumed that its overhead costs are the minimum for any other producer regardless of location Footnote 27 [80] To estimate reasonable amounts for sales, general and administrative (“SG&A”), financial expenses, and a reasonable amount for profits for the subject goods from China, the complainant relied on the publicly available financial results of five Chinese producers of building cables: GuangDong Rifeng Electric Cable Co.; Hebei Huatong Wires and Cables Group Co.; Henan Tong-Da Cable; Baosheng Science & Technology Innovation Co., Ltd.; and Shanghai Morn Electric Equipment Co., Ltd. Using this information, the complainant calculated average ratios of SG&A, financial expenses, and profits as a percentage of the costs of goods manufactured, based on quarterly data from Q4 2024 to Q3 2025. The resulting ratios are summarized below: Note de bas de page 28

| | Average
Q4 2024 - Q3 2025 |
| --- | --- |
| SG&A | 5.3% |
| Financial expenses | 0.0% |
| Other expenses | 0.1% |
| Profit | 5.4% |
[81] The complainant states that subject goods purchased by Canadian customers typically arrive in the quarter following the quarter in which they are ordered. Accordingly, the complainant applied a one-quarter lag to its estimated normal values to reflect the fact that production likely occurred several months before the goods arrived in Canada. Footnote 30

[82] On the basis of the above methodology, the complainant estimated the normal values of subject goods for five product models based on paragraph 19(b) of SIMA for each quarter of 2025.

Section 20

[83] As per the section 20 allegations, the complainant also provided normal value calculations for subject goods based on a surrogate methodology. The complainant submitted that Mexico would be an appropriate surrogate country, based on the similar levels of economic development to China, Mexico’s production and use of cables similar to both China and Canada, the availability of information related to building cable producers from the country, and the previous use of Mexico as a surrogate country for China by the CBSA. Footnote 31

[84] As such, the complainant estimated section 20 normal values, using the methodology of subparagraph 20(1)(c)(ii), on the basis of the aggregate of the estimated costs of production, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits, in Mexico.

[85] More specifically, the complainant used its own unadjusted conductor costs, other material inputs, and overhead costs, arguing that these costs are largely the same across North America. PTI’s direct and indirect labour costs were adjusted to account for the wage differential between Canada and Mexico. Footnote 32 Finally, SG&A, financial expenses, and amount of profits were based on the combined financial results of two producers in Mexico: Condumex Group and Viakon. Footnote 33 The percentages are summarized below:

| | Average
Q4 2024 - Q3 2025 |
| --- | --- |
| SG&A | 20.1% |
| Financial expenses | 3.5% |
| Other expenses | -0.1% |
| Profit | 32.9% |
[86] The CBSA notes that, for the negative ‘other expenses’ percentage, the complainant treated the amount as zero.

[87] Just as the complainant did for its estimates of section 19 normal values, a lag of one quarter was applied to the estimated normal values calculated under section 20 of SIMA to reflect the fact that production likely occurred several months before the goods arrived in Canada. Footnote 35

[88] Based on the methodology described above, the complainant estimated the normal values of subject goods for five product models based on section 20 of SIMA.

CBSA’s estimate of normal value

[89] For the purposes of initiation, the CBSA estimated normal values using a constructed cost approach based on the methodology in paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, calculated based on the aggregate of estimates of the cost of production of the subject goods, a reasonable amount for administrative selling and other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits. The CBSA reviewed the complainant’s methodology to determine how normal values were estimated under this methodology, and found that the approach was reasonable; although the CBSA revised the complainant’s calculation on the basis of the information provided.

[90] Instead of calculating separate normal values for each product type, the CBSA averaged the cost of production to establish a single normal value for each quarter. The CBSA expressed these normal values in dollars per kg to ensure consistency with its own estimated export prices, which were derived from customs data and are also reported in dollars per kg.

[91] The CBSA accepts the complainant’s estimates regarding the lead time for a customer to receive subject goods in Canada. Therefore, the CBSA also applied a lag of one quarter to its estimated normal values to account for delivery time between China and Canada.

[92] In estimating normal values for subject goods from China based on the methodology of subparagraph 20(1)(c)(ii) of SIMA, the CBSA used the same methodology applied by the complainant, relying on the complainant’s own financial information as well as data from two producers located in Mexico: Condumex Group and Viakon. The CBSA found that approach reasonable. However, instead of calculating separate normal values for each product type, the CBSA averaged the cost of production to establish a single normal value for each quarter. The CBSA expressed these normal values in dollars per kg to ensure consistency with its own estimated export prices, which were derived from customs data and are also reported in dollars per kg.

[93] Just as the complainant did for its estimates of section 20 normal values, the CBSA applied a lag of one quarter to account for the lead time between when the goods are ordered and when they arrive in Canada.

---

Export price

Complainant’s estimates of export price

[94] The export price of goods sold to an importer in Canada is generally determined in accordance with section 24 of SIMA as the lesser of the exporter’s sale price for the goods and the price at which the importer has purchased or agreed to purchase the goods adjusted by deducting all costs, charges, expenses, and duties and taxes resulting from the exportation of the goods, as provided for in subparagraphs 24(a)(i) to 24(a)(iii) of SIMA.

[95] The complainant’s export prices are based on its own commercial intelligence, which includes observed retail prices and prices offered by importers of UBC. To derive the export price, the complainant deducted estimated freight costs associated with shipping the goods, as well as the importer’s estimated markup and/or the retailer’s markup, as applicable. Footnote 36

[96] Based on the methodology described above, the complainant estimated export prices for different retailers/distributors and product models for different quarters of 2025.

CBSA’s estimates of export price

[97] In order to estimate export prices, volume and value of imports of subject goods into Canada from China, the CBSA relied on information available through customs data, for the period of January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025. The CBSA made certain adjustments to the data.

[98] The CBSA used the adjusted import data to calculate export prices. From these estimated prices, an amount for freight costs associated with shipping the goods from China was deducted.

---

Estimated margins of dumping

[99] For the purposes of the initiation of the dumping investigation, as previously mentioned, the CBSA has estimated a margin of dumping using normal values based on the methodology of section 19 of SIMA.

[100] During the investigation, the CBSA will endeavor to gather additional information regarding domestic prices in China from exporters in order to calculate normal values under section 15 of SIMA, if warranted.

[101] The CBSA acknowledges that there is reasonable indication that the conditions of section 20 may exist in the building cables sector in China; however, the CBSA finds the methodology of section 19 to be a conservative and reasonable basis for estimating the margin of dumping at this stage. The CBSA will endeavor to gather additional information from exporters, government, and other relevant sources in order to enable the CBSA to form an opinion as to whether the conditions of section 20 exist in the relevant market sector in China.

[102] Based on the normal values estimated under section 19, the CBSA estimated the margin of dumping for the subject goods by comparing the total estimated normal values with the total estimated export prices for the period of January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025. The CBSA estimates that subject goods from China were dumped by 52.3%, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

---

Evidence of subsidy

[103] In accordance with section 2 of SIMA, a subsidy exists where there is a financial contribution by a government of a country other than Canada that confers a benefit on persons engaged in the production, manufacture, growth, processing, purchase, distribution, transportation, sale, export or import of goods. A subsidy also exists in respect of any form of income or price support within the meaning of Article XVI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1994, being part of Annex 1A to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement that confers a benefit.

[104] Pursuant to subsection 2(1.6) of SIMA, a financial contribution exists where:

1. practices of the government involve the direct transfer of funds or liabilities or the contingent transfer of funds or liabilities
2. amounts that would otherwise be owing and due to the government are exempted or deducted or amounts that are owing and due to the government are forgiven or not collected
3. the government provides goods or services, other than general governmental infrastructure, or purchases goods or
4. the government permits or directs a non-governmental body to do anything referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (c) above where the right or obligation to do the thing is normally vested in the government and the manner in which the non-governmental body does the thing does not differ in a meaningful way from the manner in which the government would do it [105] A state-owned enterprise (“SOE”) may be considered to constitute “government” for the purposes of subsection 2(1.6) of SIMA if it possesses, exercises, or is vested with, governmental authority. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the CBSA may consider the following factors as indicative of whether the SOE meets this standard: 1) the SOE is granted or vested with authority by statute; 2) the SOE is performing a government function; 3) the SOE is meaningfully controlled by the government; or 4) some combination thereof.

[106] If a subsidy is found to exist, it may be subject to countervailing measures if it is specific. A subsidy is considered to be specific when it is limited, in law or in fact, to a particular enterprise or is a prohibited subsidy. An “enterprise” is defined under SIMA as also including a “group of enterprises, an industry and a group of industries”. Any subsidy which is contingent, in whole or in part, on export performance or on the use of goods that are produced or that originate in the country of export is considered to be a prohibited subsidy and is, therefore, specific according to subsection 2(7.2) of SIMA for the purposes of a subsidy investigation.

[107] In accordance with subsection 2(7.3) of SIMA, notwithstanding that a subsidy is not specific in law, a subsidy may also be considered specific in fact, having regard as to whether:

• there is exclusive use of the subsidy by a limited number of enterprises
• there is predominant use of the subsidy by a particular enterprise
• disproportionately large amounts of the subsidy are granted to a limited number of enterprises and
• the manner in which discretion is exercised by the granting authority indicates that the subsidy is not generally available [108] For purposes of a subsidy investigation, the CBSA refers to a subsidy that has been found to be specific as an “actionable subsidy”, meaning that it is countervailable.

Subsidy programs in China

[109] In alleging that actionable subsidies were applicable to the subject goods imported from China, the complainant relied on: previous CBSA subsidy investigation findings; US Department of Commerce (USDOC) 2019 investigation and 2025 sunset review of Aluminum Cables from China; Australian Anti-dumping Commission 2023 inquiry and finding on PVC Flat Electric Cables from China. The complainant also relied on publications issued by the WTO and the Government of China, and general news articles and publications. Footnote 37

[110] Based on the information available, the complainant identified and provided evidence for numerous subsidy programs that producers of subject goods in China may have benefited from. The complainant categorized these subsidy programs under the following headings:

1. Provision of Goods/Services by the Government at Less than Fair Market Value
2. Special Economic Zones and Other Designated Area Incentives
3. Grants and Grant Equivalents
4. Preferential Tax Programs
5. Preferential Loans and Loan Guarantees
6. Equity Programs
7. Relief from Duties and Taxes on Inputs, Materials, and Machinery and

8. Other Potential Countervailable Programs
   [111] As copper, aluminum, nylon, PVC and XLPE are the main raw material inputs that enter into the production of subject goods, the complainant also identified subsidy programs available for upstream input suppliers. These potentially actionable subsidy programs were categorized under the following headings:

9. Other Programs Specific to China’s Copper Industry

10. Other Programs Specific to China’s Aluminum Industry and

11. Other Programs Specific to China’s Petrochemical Industry
    [112] Within heading 1, the complainant identified electricity/utilities and land as potential goods/services that were provided by the Government of China for less than fair market value. The complainant argues that UBC producers may benefit from these two subsidy programs. Footnote 38

[113] Within heading 2, the complainant identified 22 Special Economic Zones (SEZs) throughout China in which producers of UBC are located within. These different SEZs provide similar but varying levels of incentives including provision of support grants and grant equivalents, preferential tax rates, rent subsidies, preferential loans, incentives for investments and R&D as well as import duty and tax exemptions among other services. Footnote 39

[114] Within heading 3, the complainant identified 88 grants and grant equivalents made available by the Government of China to producers of UBC. The complainant submitted that some of these grants and grants equivalents were found by either the CBSA, USDOC or the Australian Anti-dumping Commission. Footnote 40

[115] Under heading 4, the complainant asserts that numerous preferential tax programs are available to producers of UBC in China. Specifically, the complainant identified 20 preferential tax policies that may be applicable to producers of UBC located in China. Footnote 41

[116] Under heading 5, the complainant asserts that several loan programs have been put into place through its central bank which make direct support available to UBC producers. The complainant added that preferential financing is made available through state policy banks and state-owned commercial banks. The complainant identified 8 preferential loan and financing programs. Footnote 42

[117] Under heading 6, the complainant identified one subsidy equity program that may be available to UBC producers in China. Footnote 43

[118] Under heading 7, the complainant identified 11 subsidy programs related to Relief from Duties and Taxes on Inputs, Materials, and Machinery. Footnote 44

[119] Under heading 8, the complainant identified the Catalogue of industries encouraged by the state for foreign investment. Such industries may benefit from various preferential policies including tariff exemptions, preferential land prices and lower corporate tax rates. Footnote 45

[120] Under headings 9, 10 and 11, the complainant provided evidence of numerous subsidy programs made available to producers of copper, aluminum and PVC/XLPE, the main raw material inputs that enter into the production of subject goods. These subsidy programs include grants and grant equivalents, preferential tax rates and preferential loans, and are similar to the subsidies available to UBC producers. The complainant suggests that subsidies received by input suppliers may pass through to UBC producers. The complainant argues that the CBSA should investigate subsidies received from upstream producers. Footnote 46

[121] The complainant also asserted that the subsidy programs it has identified are not exhaustive and alleged potential additional countervailable subsidy programs available to producers of UBC in China. Footnote 47

[122] Where information was available, the complainant provided a general description of each alleged subsidy program, together with references to the provisions in SIMA, under which the subsidy is alleged to constitute a financial contribution and under which it would be considered to be specific and, therefore, actionable. The complainant alleged that each identified program potentially confers an actionable or prohibited subsidy to producers and exporters of UBC in China. The documents that formed the basis for these allegations were appended to the complaint. Footnote 48

[123] As a result, based on the information available, the CBSA identified 50 potentially actionable subsidy programs that may have benefited Chinese producers/exporters of UBC. Many of these are programs the CBSA has already countervailed in respect of previous subsidy investigations concerning goods from China. These programs have been grouped into the following five categories:

1. Preferential loans, loan guarantees and loan programs
2. Grants and grant equivalents
3. Preferential tax programs
4. Relief from duties and taxes and
5. Provision of goods/services provided by the Government of China [124] The CBSA’s analysis revealed that the alleged subsidy programs constitute potential financial contributions by the Government of China that may have conferred benefits to producers/exporters of UBC. In addition, the programs were further examined and were considered to be potentially specific either in law or in fact within the meaning of subsections 2(7.2) and 2(7.3) of SIMA.

[125] The descriptions of the identified programs to be investigated are found in the Subsidy RFI.

[126] If more information becomes available during the investigation process that indicates that some exporters/producers of subject goods may have benefited from any other programs during the POI, the CBSA will request complete information from the Government of China and exporters/producers of subject goods to pursue the investigation of these programs.

---

CBSA’s conclusion

[127] Sufficient evidence is available to support the allegations that UBC originating in or exported from China have been subsidized. In investigating these programs, the CBSA has requested information from the Government of China, exporters and producers to determine whether exporters/producers of subject goods received benefits under these programs and whether these programs, or any other programs, are actionable subsidies and, therefore, countervailable under SIMA.

---

Estimated amount of subsidy

[128] The complainant was unable to estimate the amounts of subsidy on a program basis for the subject goods imported from China. Instead, the complainant estimated the amount of subsidy as being equal to the difference between the estimated total cost of production and the export price for UBC sold into Canada from January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025. The total cost of production and export price were estimated using the same methodology presented in the Evidence of dumping section. Footnote 49

[129] It is the CBSA’s understanding that subsidies have the effect of lowering the full cost of the goods, including the cost of production and the amount for selling, administrative and all other costs, which allows exporters to pass-through the subsidy benefits in reducing the selling price of those goods to Canada. Therefore, the CBSA is satisfied that the exporter’s ability to sell subject goods to Canada at prices substantially below their estimated full costs supports the complainant’s allegations that subsidies are being conferred on the imported goods.

[130] The CBSA’s analysis of the available information indicates that subject goods imported into Canada during the period from January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025 were subsidized and that the estimated amount of subsidy is 44.9% of the export price.

---

Evidence of injury

[131] The complainant alleged that the subject goods have been dumped and subsidized and that such dumping and subsidizing have caused and are threatening to cause material injury to the UBC industry in Canada.

[132] SIMA refers to material injury caused to the domestic producers of like goods in Canada. The CBSA has concluded that UBC produced by the domestic industry are like goods to the subject goods from China.

[133] Given concerns with respect to the confidentiality of the information of the domestic producers, the CBSA is limited in its ability to discuss certain information contained in the complaint.

[134] In support of their allegations, the complainant provided evidence of:

• Increased volume of subject goods imported and negative impact on market share
• Lost sales, price depression and price undercutting
• Adverse impact on financial performance
• Adverse impact on production and utilization
• Adverse impact on employment and
• Adverse impact on investment

Increased volume of subject goods imported and negative impact on market share

[135] The complainant alleged that imports of subject goods from China have increased significantly in recent years, directly contributing to its lost market share. To support its allegation, the complainant provided estimates of imports, its own domestic volume of sales and of other Canadian producers during the period from 2023 to 2025. Footnote 50

[136] According to the complainant’s estimates, imports of subject goods have steadily risen in both relative and absolute terms. The share of UBC imports from China also rose steadily over this period, growing from 3.6% in 2023 to 17.5% in 2025.

[137] Canadian producers’ domestic market share declined from 2023 to 2025, dropping from 66.1% to 43.6% over this period.

[138] The complainant argued that the increase in the market share of imported subject goods is related to the subject goods’ lower prices. Footnote 51

[139] The CBSA’s estimate of the apparent Canadian market for UBC by volume is reported in Table 3. The CBSA’s analysis of import data supports the allegation of an increase in the import volume of the allegedly injurious dumped and subsidized goods between 2023 to 2025.

[140] The CBSA finds that the injury factors of increased volume of subject goods and lost market share are sufficiently supported and linked to the allegedly dumped and subsidized goods.

---

Lost sales, price depression and price undercutting

[141] The complainant alleged that the dumped and subsidized goods have resulted in price undercutting, price depression and lost sales. The complainant provided evidence of lost sales on an offer specific basis of the allegedly dumped and subsidized goods. The evidence includes detailed commercial intelligence along with supporting documentation. Footnote 52

[142] Price depression or erosion occurs when selling prices of the local product are reduced to meet dumped import price. Price suppression refers to the prevention of price increases, which would have otherwise occurred, if not for the dumped imports.

Example 1: Costco Footnote 53

[143] The complainant argued that Costco’s entry into the building cable market in 2024 introduced large volumes of underpriced UBC, predominantly from China, which disrupted national pricing. The complainant stated that Costco quickly became the price leader and gained substantial market share by offering UBC at prices below prevailing market levels.

[144] The complainant alleged that Costco sources cables from suppliers that imports subject goods from China, including Spectra and Cardiff. The complainant estimated that by mid-2025, Costco’s retail prices were undercutting PTI’s distributor prices.

[145] The complainant argued that Costco’s low prices have forced other national retailers, including Home Depot, Rona and Canac Marquis, to lower their prices or shift to imported UBC to match Costco’s prices. The complainant reported that PTI’s customers cite Costco pricing when seeking quotations, which shows the price-depressing effect of the low-priced imported goods from China across the Canadian UBC market.

Example 2: Imperium Footnote 54

[146] The complainant stated that Imperium imports subject goods from China and competes directly with PTI by selling to Canadian distributors. Imperium’s pricing, based on price lists shared by market participants, undercut PTI’s prices, leading some distributors to request that PTI match these lower prices. The complainant argued that it lost significant business because it could not match Imperium’s lower-priced offers.

[147] The complainant also reported that a customer shared Imperium’s prices showing undercutting. The complainant argued that these prices were made broadly in the market and contributed to price depression. The complainant highlighted the scale of Imperium’s presence, noting that its inventory alone represented a substantial share relative to PTI’s annual sales and reinforced the downward pressure created by low-priced imports from China.

Example 3: Home Depot Footnote 55

[148] The complainant acknowledged that Home Depot historically sold only North American produced UBC at fair prices. However, with the entry of low-priced UBC from China into the Canadian market, Home Depot began lowering its prices in an effort to remain competitive with other retailers.

[149] The complainant claimed that Home Depot repeatedly reduced its prices on North American made UBC throughout 2025, to the point where these products were likely being sold with little or no profit. The complainant stated that by late 2025, Home Depot was selling UBC from China at prices below PTI’s already depressed prices.

Example 4: Confidential Company #1 Footnote 56

[150] Given concerns with respect to the confidentiality of the information of the domestic producers, certain information contained in the complaint cannot be publicly disclosed, including the identity of the company in this example.

[151] The complainant reported that sales to an electrical cable distributor, who has been a long-standing customer, were lost due to low-priced UBC imported from China. Despite PTI reducing its prices and compressing margins in an effort to maintain sales volumes, it has struggled to compete with the significantly cheaper UBC that the customer is now purchasing.

[152] The complainant claimed that in 2025, this customer requested quotations from PTI at prices aligned with imports of UBC from China, which were well below PTI’s selling prices. PTI was unable to match these prices and lost the order.

[153] In early 2026, the complainant met with the customer which confirmed that it had begun importing UBC from China. The complainant contended that it lost sales to this customer due to depressed prices.

Example 5: Confidential Company #2 Footnote 57

[154] Given concerns with respect to the confidentiality of the information of the domestic producers, certain information contained in the complaint cannot be publicly disclosed, including the identity of the company in this example.

[155] The complainant stated that in July 2025, a customer asked PTI to provide a quotation for an order of NMD90 cable, noting that they needed highly competitive pricing because they were competing against suppliers offering UBC from China. PTI had already reduced its prices in response to depressed prices, but further lowered them in an effort to secure the sale.

[156] Despite these reductions, the complainant’s offered prices remained above the prices of imported UBC from China. PTI did not obtain the order, which the complainant attributes to its inability to match prices depressed by imported UBC.

Example 6: Confidential Company #3 Footnote 58

[157] Given concerns with respect to the confidentiality of the information of the domestic producers, certain information contained in the complaint cannot be publicly disclosed, including the identity of the company in this example.

[158] The complainant reported that a Canadian distributor of UBC, approached PTI in July 2025 regarding a supply opportunity for one of its customers. PTI provided pricing in August and further reduced its price at the distributor’s request in order to remain competitive with the depressed market prices driven by imports from China.

[159] Despite these reductions, PTI was informed that it had lost the sale to offshore UBC, understood to be sourced from China. As a result, PTI lost a significant volume of business, contributing to the injury it experienced in 2025.

Example 7: Electric Supplies Footnote 59

[160] The complainant stated that in 2025, an electrical contractor informed PTI that low-priced NMD90 cables were being sold by the retailer Electric Supplies. A flyer from July 2025 showed NMD90 14/2 being offered below PTI’s distributor pricing, and when PTI contacted the retailer directly, it received a quote at an even lower price.

[161] The complainant claimed that these retail prices indicate that Electric Supplies was selling UBC originating from China, as prices were at levels domestic producers could not match. When PTI inquired about North American-made UBC, the retailer reportedly responded that most customers were now choosing cables made in China.

Example 8: Confidential Company #4 Footnote 60

[162] Given concerns with respect to the confidentiality of the information of the domestic producers, certain information contained in the complaint cannot be publicly disclosed, including the identity of the company in this example.

[163] The complainant reported that in 2025, one of its customers, a distributor based in Quebec, informed PTI that it was facing significant pressure against its competitors, specifically Canac Marquis, that were selling low-priced UBC.

The complainant contended that UBC imported from China were underpriced, and that the high price sensitivity in the UBC market means that small price differences are sufficient for customers to switch suppliers.

Summary of price undercutting, price depression and lost sales

[164] The complainant presented several examples that show a consistent pattern of low-priced UBC from China being sold in Canada. These imports have undercut PTI’s prices and have caused PTI to lose sales opportunities with several customers. Distributors and retailers repeatedly requested prices that are aligned with UBC imports from China. The complainant argued that this price undercutting has depressed market prices.

[165] Based on the CBSA’s analysis of the information contained in the complaint and of its own import data, the CBSA finds the claim of price undercutting, price depression and individual lost sales contained in the complaint to be supported and sufficiently linked to the allegedly dumped and subsidized goods.

---

Adverse impact on financial performance

[166] The complainant alleged that the dumped and subsidized goods have had an injurious impact on the profitability of the company. To support its allegation, the complainant provided its income statement for domestic sales of UBC between 2022 and 2025. Footnote 61

[167] The CBSA reviewed the financial information submitted by the complainant and finds that it supports the complainant's allegations of reduced profitability. The CBSA finds that the injury factor of adverse impact on financial performance to be sufficiently supported and reasonably linked to the alleged dumped and subsidized goods.

---

Adverse impact on production and utilization

[168] The complainant showed that the utilization of its production capacity for UBC has declined in recent years. PTI attributed this decline to competition from low-priced UBC imports from China. The complainant argued that without the alleged unfair competition, its capacity utilization rate in 2025 would have remained closer to its 2024 level. Footnote 62

[169] The CBSA reviewed the production information submitted by the complainant and finds that the injury factors of an adverse impact on production and utilization to be sufficiently supported and linked to the allegedly dumped and subsidized goods.

---

Adverse impact on employment

[170] The complainant alleged an adverse impact on employment in the production of cable products at PTI due to low-priced imports of subject goods. Footnote 63

[171] The CBSA finds that the information presented by the complainant does not sufficiently link the injury factor of an adverse impact on employment to the allegedly dumped and subsidized goods.

---

Adverse impact on investment

[172] The complainant alleged an adverse impact on investment at PTI due to imports of subject goods. Footnote 64

[173] The CBSA finds that the injury factor of an adverse impact on investment to be sufficiently supported and linked to the allegedly dumped and subsidized goods.

---

CBSA’s conclusion: Injury

[174] The injury factors allegedly suffered by the domestic industry include:

• Increased volume of subject goods imported and negative impact on market share
• Lost sales, price depression and price undercutting
• Adverse impact on financial performance
• Adverse impact on production and utilization
• Adverse impact on employment and
• Adverse impact on investment [175] The CBSA has reviewed the injury factors discussed above. Based on the evidence provided in the complaint, and supplementary data available to the CBSA through its own research and its customs data, the CBSA is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of a reasonable indication that the allegedly dumped and subsidized subject goods from China have caused injury to the domestic industry.

---

Threat of injury

[176] The complainant alleged that dumping and subsidy are threatening to cause injury to its production and provided evidence for each of the following factors to support its allegations:

• Subject countries market conditions Footnote 65
• Attractiveness of the Canadian market Footnote 66
• International market conditions Footnote 67
• Potential for product shifting Footnote 68 and
• Trade measures against China Footnote 69 [177] In light of the CBSA’s conclusion that sufficient evidence has been provided to indicate that the allegedly dumped and subsidized subject goods have caused injury to the domestic industry and in order to fulfill objectives of administrative efficiency, the CBSA will not address whether there is a reasonable indication that the dumping and subsidizing of the subject goods is threatening to cause injury.

---

Scope of the investigations

[178] The CBSA is conducting investigations to determine whether the subject goods have been dumped and/or subsidized.

[179] The CBSA has requested information from all potential exporters and importers to determine whether or not subject goods imported into Canada during the POI of January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025 were dumped and/or subsidized. The information requested will be used to determine the normal values, export prices, margins of dumping, if any. The CBSA also requested information from the Government of China with respect to the possibility that the conditions of section 20 of SIMA exist in the electric cables sector in China.

[180] The CBSA has also requested information from the Government of China and all potential producers/exporters to determine whether or not subject goods imported into Canada during the POI of January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025 were subsidized. The information requested will be used to determine the amounts of subsidy, if any.

[181] All parties have been clearly advised of the CBSA’s information requirements and the time frames for providing their responses.

---

Future action

[182] The CITT will conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the evidence discloses a reasonable indication that the alleged dumping and subsidizing of the goods has caused or is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry. The CITT must make its decision on or before the 60th day after the date of the initiation of the investigations. If the CITT concludes that the evidence does not disclose a reasonable indication of injury to the Canadian industry, the investigations will be terminated.

[183] If the CITT finds that the evidence discloses a reasonable indication of injury to the Canadian industry and the CBSA’s preliminary investigation reveals that the goods have been dumped and/or subsidized, the CBSA will make a preliminary determination of dumping and/or subsidizing within 90 days after the date of the initiation of the investigations, by June 15, 2026. Where circumstances warrant, this period may be extended to 135 days from the date of the initiation of the investigations.

[184] Under section 35 of SIMA, if, at any time before making a preliminary determination, the CBSA is satisfied that the volume of goods of a country is negligible, the investigations will be terminated with respect to goods of that country.

[185] Imports of subject goods released by the CBSA on and after the date of a preliminary determination of dumping and/or subsidizing, other than goods of the same description as goods in respect of which a determination was made that the margin of dumping of, or the amount of subsidy on, the goods is insignificant, may be subject to provisional duty in an amount not greater than the estimated margin of dumping and/or the estimated amount of subsidy on the imported goods.

[186] Should the CBSA make a preliminary determination of dumping and/or subsidizing, the investigation will be continued for the purpose of making a final determination within 90 days after the date of the preliminary determination.

[187] After the preliminary determination, if, in respect of goods of a particular exporter, the CBSA’s investigations reveals that imports of the subject goods from that exporter have not been dumped or subsidized, or that the margin of dumping or amount of subsidy is insignificant, the investigation(s) will be terminated in respect of those goods.

[188] If a final determination of dumping and/or subsidizing is made, the CITT will continue its inquiry and hold public hearings into the question of material injury to the Canadian industry. The CITT is required to make a finding with respect to the goods to which the final determinations of dumping and/or subsidizing apply, not later than 120 days after the CBSA’s preliminary determinations.

[189] In the event of an injury finding by the CITT, imports of subject goods released by the CBSA after that date will be subject to anti-dumping duty equal to the applicable margin of dumping and countervailing duty equal to the amount of subsidy on the imported goods. Should both anti-dumping and countervailing duties be applicable to subject goods, the amount of any anti-dumping duty may be reduced by the amount that is attributable to an export subsidy.

---

Retroactive duty on massive importations

[190] When the CITT conducts an inquiry concerning injury to the Canadian industry, it may consider if dumped and/or subsidized goods that were imported close to or after the initiation of the investigations constitute massive importations over a relatively short period of time and have caused injury to the Canadian industry.

[191] Should the CITT issue such a finding, anti-dumping and countervailing duties may be imposed retroactively on subject goods imported into Canada and released by the CBSA during the period of 90 days preceding the day of the CBSA making preliminary determinations of dumping and/or subsidizing.

[192] In respect of importations of subsidized goods that have caused injury, however, this provision is only applicable where the CBSA has determined that the whole or any part of the subsidy on the goods is a prohibited subsidy, as explained in the previous “Evidence of subsidizing” section. In such a case, the amount of countervailing duty applied on a retroactive basis will be equal to the amount of subsidy on the goods that is a prohibited subsidy.

---

Undertakings

[193] After a preliminary determination of dumping by the CBSA, other than a preliminary determination in which a determination was made that the margin of dumping of the goods is insignificant, an exporter may submit a written undertaking to revise selling prices to Canada so that the margin of dumping or the injury caused by the dumping is eliminated.

[194] Similarly, after the CBSA has rendered a preliminary determination of subsidizing, a foreign government may submit a written undertaking to eliminate the subsidy on the goods exported or to eliminate the injurious effect of the subsidy, by limiting the amount of the subsidy or the quantity of goods exported to Canada. Alternatively, exporters with the written consent of their government may undertake to revise their selling prices so that the amount of the subsidy or the injurious effect of the subsidy is eliminated.

[195] An acceptable undertaking must account for all or substantially all of the exports to Canada of the dumped or subsidized goods. Interested parties may provide comments regarding the acceptability of undertakings within nine days of the receipt of an undertaking by the CBSA. The CBSA will maintain a list of parties who wish to be notified should an undertaking proposal be received. Those who are interested in being notified should provide their name, telephone number, mailing address and email address to the email address identified in the Contact us section of this document.

[196] If undertakings were to be accepted, the investigations and the collection of provisional duties would be suspended. Notwithstanding the acceptance of an undertaking, an exporter may request that the CBSA’s investigations be completed and that the CITT complete its injury inquiry.

---

Publication

[197] Notice of the initiation of these investigations is being published in the Canada Gazette pursuant to subparagraph 34(1)(a)(ii) of SIMA.

---

Contact us

[198] Interested parties are invited to file written submissions presenting facts, arguments, and evidence that they feel are relevant to the alleged dumping. Written submissions must be filed through CBSA’s ACE web application.

[199] To be given consideration in these investigations, all information should be received by the CBSA by July 24, 2026, at noon.

[200] Any information submitted to the CBSA by interested parties concerning these investigations is considered to be public information unless clearly marked “confidential”. Where the submission by an interested party is confidential, a non-confidential version of the submission must be provided at the same time. This non-confidential version will be made available to other interested parties upon request.

[201] Confidential information submitted to the CBSA will be disclosed on written request to independent counsel for parties to these proceedings, subject to conditions to protect the confidentiality of the information. Confidential information may also be released to the CITT, any court in Canada, or a WTO or Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) dispute settlement panel. Additional information respecting the CBSA’s policy on the disclosure of information under SIMA may be obtained by contacting the CBSA at the email address identified below.

[202] The schedule of the investigations and a complete listing of all exhibits and information are available. The exhibit listing will be updated as new exhibits and information are made available.

[203] For further information, please contact the CBSA at:

Email: simaregistry-depotlmsi@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca

Sean Borg
A/Executive Director
Trade programs directorate

Footnotes

Footnote 1 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paragraph 45

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - para. 45

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - para. 45

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - para. 47

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 48-49

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - para. 46

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - para. 51

Return to footnote 7 referrer

Footnote 8 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 52-54

Return to footnote 8 referrer

Footnote 9 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - para. 20

Return to footnote 9 referrer

Footnote 10 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 21-35

Return to footnote 10 referrer

Footnote 11 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 37-39

Return to footnote 11 referrer

Footnote 12 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - para. 36

Return to footnote 12 referrer

Footnote 13 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 40-41

Return to footnote 13 referrer

Footnote 14 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 79-85

Return to footnote 14 referrer

Footnote 15 Exhibit 1 - UBC Complaint (PRO) - Table 4

Return to footnote 15 referrer

Footnote 16 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - para. 70

Return to footnote 16 referrer

Footnote 17 Exhibit 1 - UBC Complaint (PRO) Table 4

Return to footnote 17 referrer

Footnote 18 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 134-135

Return to footnote 18 referrer

Footnote 19 China is a prescribed country under Section 17.1 of the Special Import Measures Regulations.

Return to footnote 19 referrer

Footnote 20 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - Appendix A

Return to footnote 20 referrer

Footnote 21 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - Appendix A

Return to footnote 21 referrer

Footnote 22 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 93-98

Return to footnote 22 referrer

Footnote 23 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - para. 103a)i)

Return to footnote 23 referrer

Footnote 24 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - para. 103a)ii)

Return to footnote 24 referrer

Footnote 25 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - para. 103a)iii)

Return to footnote 25 referrer

Footnote 26 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 103a)iv) and 103b)i)

Return to footnote 26 referrer

Footnote 27 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - para. 103b)ii)

Return to footnote 27 referrer

Footnote 28 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 104-111

Return to footnote 28 referrer

Footnote 29 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - Table 5

Return to footnote 29 referrer

Footnote 30 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - para. 113

Return to footnote 30 referrer

Footnote 31 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 136-145

Return to footnote 31 referrer

Footnote 32 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - para. 147

Return to footnote 32 referrer

Footnote 33 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 142-144 and 147b)iii)

Return to footnote 33 referrer

Footnote 34 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - Table 5

Return to footnote 34 referrer

Footnote 35 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - para. 148

Return to footnote 35 referrer

Footnote 36 Exhibit 1 - UBC Complaint (PRO) Attachment 22 - Dumping Calculations, and Statement of Evidence of J Farber of PTI Cables Inc.

Return to footnote 36 referrer

Footnote 37 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - Appendix B : Subsidies, paras. 11-19

Return to footnote 37 referrer

Footnote 38 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - Appendix B : Subsidies, paras. 22-33

Return to footnote 38 referrer

Footnote 39 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - Appendix B : Subsidies, paras. 34-122

Return to footnote 39 referrer

Footnote 40 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - Appendix B : Subsidies, paras. 123-304

Return to footnote 40 referrer

Footnote 41 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - Appendix B : Subsidies, paras. 305-365

Return to footnote 41 referrer

Footnote 42 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - Appendix B : Subsidies, paras. 366-387

Return to footnote 42 referrer

Footnote 43 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - Appendix B : Subsidies, paras. 388-391

Return to footnote 43 referrer

Footnote 44 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - Appendix B : Subsidies, paras. 392-417

Return to footnote 44 referrer

Footnote 45 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - Appendix B : Subsidies, paras. 418-419

Return to footnote 45 referrer

Footnote 46 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - Appendix B : Subsidies, paras. 420-529

Return to footnote 46 referrer

Footnote 47 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - Appendix B : Subsidies, para. 7

Return to footnote 47 referrer

Footnote 48 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - Appendix B, Attachments B1-B107

Return to footnote 48 referrer

Footnote 49 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC), paras. 173-174

Return to footnote 49 referrer

Footnote 50 Exhibit 1 - UBC Complaint (PRO) - Table 22

Return to footnote 50 referrer

Footnote 51 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - para. 187

Return to footnote 51 referrer

Footnote 52 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 188-229

Return to footnote 52 referrer

Footnote 53 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 188-202

Return to footnote 53 referrer

Footnote 54 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 203-210

Return to footnote 54 referrer

Footnote 55 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 211-214

Return to footnote 55 referrer

Footnote 56 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 215-219

Return to footnote 56 referrer

Footnote 57 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 220-222

Return to footnote 57 referrer

Footnote 58 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 223-225

Return to footnote 58 referrer

Footnote 59 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 226-227

Return to footnote 59 referrer

Footnote 60 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 228-229

Return to footnote 60 referrer

Footnote 61 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 231-243

Return to footnote 61 referrer

Footnote 62 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 244-246

Return to footnote 62 referrer

Footnote 63 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - para. 247

Return to footnote 63 referrer

Footnote 64 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 248-249

Return to footnote 64 referrer

Footnote 65 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 252-323

Return to footnote 65 referrer

Footnote 66 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 324-340

Return to footnote 66 referrer

Footnote 67 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 341-351

Return to footnote 67 referrer

Footnote 68 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 352-354

Return to footnote 68 referrer

Footnote 69 Exhibit 2 - UBC Complaint (NC) - paras. 355-360

Return to footnote 69 referrer

Page details

Date modified:

2026-03-31