CITT imposes page limits for SIMA proceeding briefs starting October 1

CITT caps brief length in SIMA proceedings starting October 1

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal published new practice notices limiting page counts for written submissions in Special Import Measures Act proceedings. Starting October 1, 2026, initial briefs are capped at 70 pages, and all subsequent briefs at 40 pages. The measures were announced at the Advisory Committee meeting on September 14, and apply to any SIMA proceeding the CITT opens on or after October 1.

This matters if your imports touch subject goods. Most Canadian importers never participate in a CITT proceeding, but if you bring in steel products, certain bicycles, concrete reinforcing bar, or any of the other product categories currently under SIMA orders, you’ve probably received a CBSA verification letter asking for supplier invoices and production costs. That’s the CBSA’s trade programs side doing dumping-margin math. The CITT side is the injury inquiry: does the dumping actually harm the Canadian industry? The page limits apply to the CITT proceedings, not to your responses to CBSA verifications.

When you’d actually file a CITT brief

CITT proceedings fall into a few categories. The most common one importers see is an expiry review. SIMA orders expire after five years unless the CITT finds that ending the order would likely resume or continue injury to the Canadian industry. At that review, domestic producers file briefs arguing the order should stay. Importers and foreign exporters can file responding briefs arguing it should expire. Those are the briefs now capped at 70 pages for the initial submission and 40 pages for replies.

The other scenario is a new injury inquiry. CBSA finishes a dumping investigation, makes a preliminary determination that goods are being dumped, and refers the case to the CITT. The CITT runs an injury inquiry to decide whether the dumping caused or threatened material injury. Parties file briefs. Domestic producers say yes, injury. Importers and exporters say no, other factors explain market effects.

Most briefs are filed by counsel, not by the importer’s in-house trade team. The 70-page cap is plenty of room for a well-argued position. The old practice didn’t set a formal page limit, but longer submissions weren’t necessarily better. Tribunal members read a lot of paper. A concise 50-page brief that ties record evidence to the legal test is more useful than a 120-page brief that rebuts every sentence.

What the cap actually changes

The 40-page limit on subsequent briefs is the binding constraint. Reply briefs used to balloon because parties would respond point-by-point to everything in the initial round. Counsel would quote the other side’s submission, then rebut it, then quote the next paragraph, then rebut that. You’d end up with 80 pages of back-and-forth. The 40-page cap forces you to pick your fights. You argue the three or four points that actually matter.

That’s probably better. SIMA proceedings already generate thousands of pages of record evidence: importer questionnaires, exporter questionnaires, CBSA disclosure documents, financial statements, market reports. The Tribunal’s job is to apply the injury test to that record. A reply brief that relitigates the initial round doesn’t add much. A reply brief that identifies the key data points is useful.

The formatting requirements are standard: 12-point font, 1.5 line spacing, one-inch margins. If you’ve filed anything with a Canadian tribunal or court in the past decade, you’ve already used those settings.

The compliance angle most importers actually face

If you’re importing subject goods, your exposure isn’t usually at the CITT proceeding stage. It’s at the classification and valuation stage on every CAD your broker files. SIMA duties apply when the goods are both (a) subject goods under the order’s product definition, and (b) from a named country. Get the HS classification wrong, or get the country of origin wrong, and you either overpay or underpay the SIMA duty. Underpayments trigger AMPS penalties under B.01(a) of the schedule (failure to pay duties owing), and the penalty floor is 25% of the duties evaded if CBSA decides it was gross negligence.

The CBSA SIMA verification process is separate from the CITT injury inquiry. If CBSA selects your entry for verification, they’ll send a detailed letter asking for commercial invoices, supplier cost breakdowns, production records, and proof of country of origin. You have 30 days to respond, extendable to 60 days if you ask early. The verification checks two things: did you apply the right normal value (the dumping-margin reference price), and are the goods actually from the declared country of origin? CBSA’s SIMA guidance walks through the process, but the practical advice is to respond fully and on time. Incomplete responses give CBSA the legal authority to assess duties based on ministerial specification, which is almost always higher than the importer’s declared value.

The intersection with compliance program design is that if you’re importing subject goods routinely, you need a documented process for confirming origin on every shipment. CUSMA origin doesn’t override a SIMA order. You can have a CUSMA-originating product from Mexico that’s still subject to a SIMA order if the order applies to goods from Mexico. The opposite is also possible: a product manufactured in China but substantially transformed in the U.S. might not be subject to a China-specific SIMA order, but you need the paper trail to prove it.

What changes October 1 vs. what stays the same

The page limits take effect for proceedings opened on or after October 1, 2026. If you’re already a party to an ongoing expiry review or injury inquiry that started before October 1, the old practice applies. For new proceedings, the 70/40-page structure is the rule.

The substance of SIMA hasn’t changed. The injury test is still material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of a Canadian industry. The dumping margin calculations are still normal value minus export price. The CITT applies the same factors: import volumes, price effects, impact on the domestic industry, causation. The only change is how much paper the parties can file.

For importers who’ve never been involved in a CITT proceeding and don’t plan to be, this notice changes nothing about your day-to-day customs brokerage process. You still classify goods, declare origin, and pay SIMA duties when applicable on the CAD. The page limits are a procedural constraint on the litigation side, not a change to the rules your broker applies at release.

If you are planning to participate in an upcoming expiry review, the main implication is that you and your counsel should sketch the argument structure early. With a 70-page cap, you can’t include every exhibit and every rebuttal. You pick the strongest evidence, tie it to the injury factors, and file a tight brief.

Most SIMA verifications we see are routine: CBSA checks the numbers, the importer provides supplier invoices and cost sheets, CBSA closes the file. If you’re facing a verification and the request letter is asking for production-process details and third-country routing records, that’s the signal CBSA thinks there might be a transshipment or circumvention issue. Those verifications are not routine. We handle SIMA verifications as part of the compliance workstream. Get in touch.

Source: CSCB