This article concentrates on the findings of the Canadian Import Tribunal (CIT, predecessor to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal) in their report entitled, Subsidized Grain Corn from the United States of America. To understand the nature of the problem with which the CIT dealt, it will be necessary to look at some of the background and peculiarities of the regulation of international trade in commodities. After a brief discussion of international and comparative discipline in the area of trade impact, of which material injury is a part, Canadian case law will be examined in order to establish trends in the causal relationship between subsidization and material injury. This examination will then proceed to a scrutiny of the findings of the Tribunal with respect to Grain Corn and the real issue at hand, the counter availability of subsidization rather than subsidized imports. A brief summary of the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal will follow.
Finally, alternate courses of action are analyzed for efficacy. This analysis includes a comment on the futures of both the grain trade in general and on practice before the Canadian Import Tribunal.
Francois E. Tougas, Countervailing Subsidization: Another Missile in the Trade Law Arsenal?, 8 Penn St. Int'l L. Rev. 33 (1989).