Browse regulations

This Order grants remission of customs duties on imported outerwear fabrics to manufacturers for producing outerwear apparel, with varying rates (100% in 1998-2004, 75% in 2005-2006, 50% in 2007-2012) capped at 1995 levels and subject to 3-year claims.

Obsolete (all periods expired 2012) and a harmful market distortion that subsidizes selected manufacturers, violates free trade, creates dependency, and imposes unseen costs on consumers and taxpayers.

This regulation grants temporary customs duty remissions (ranging from 50-100%) to specific listed women's blouse, shirt, and coordinated apparel manufacturers for imports during 1998-2012. It is a targeted tariff exemption program that expired over a decade ago, providing selective financial benefits to approximately 80 named companies.

Even while active, this represented corporate welfare—government picking winners through selective duty exemptions that distort competition, create cronyism, and misallocate resources. Its only justification would be if the stated goal (supporting apparel manufacturers) could not be achieved through market mechanisms. The free market can allocate capital efficiently without government favoritism. Moreover, the regulation is now completely obsolete, covering only past periods through 2012, and serves no legitimate purpose in the current legal framework.

This regulation grants customs duty remission to specific outerwear apparel manufacturers, with remission rates decreasing from 100% (1998-2004) to 75% (2007-2009) to 50% (2010-2012), capped at 1995 levels and requiring claims within 5 years.

This regulation artificially favors specific companies over others in the same industry, creating unfair competition and market distortions. The benefit is captured by a limited list of recipients rather than benefiting Canadian consumers or the broader economy, violating principles of equal treatment under the law.

Customs duty remission for specific Canadian shirting fabric importers and manufacturers, with phased reductions from 100% to 50% (1998-2012).

This protectionist regulation distorts competition by providing selective advantages to specific firms, raising consumer prices, misallocating capital, and creating barriers to entry. Its phased elimination acknowledges its temporary and distortionary nature; removal would restore market efficiency.

This regulation grants customs duty remission to Canadian producers importing greige outerwear fabrics (nylon, polyester, acetate, cotton, or blends) for conversion into finished outerwear apparel. Remission rates decline from 100% (1998-2006) to 50-75% (2007-2012), subject to a cap based on 1995 levels and a 3-year claim window.

This protectionist subsidy distorts market signals, artificially sustaining an inefficient domestic textile conversion industry at taxpayer expense. It raises costs for Canadian consumers, reduces competitive pressure on producers to innovate, and misallocates resources toward politically favored sectors. The phased reduction acknowledges its temporary nature, yet the regulation perpetuates a market distortion that harms economic efficiency and consumer welfare.

This regulation has been repealed since 2008, making it obsolete and no longer in effect.

Regulation is already repealed and obsolete, eliminating any potential costs or benefits of maintaining it.

Establishes verification procedures for customs, particularly for goods claiming benefits under the Least Developed Country Tariff. Defines verification methods (questionnaires, letters, record reviews, premise inspections) and prescribes which premises—including foreign exporter/producer locations in beneficiary countries—can be inspected to verify origin, classification, and value declarations.

Without verification, the Least Developed Country Tariff program would be vulnerable to widespread fraud, undermining its purpose and costing revenue. The administrative burden is proportionate to preventing greater systemic harm from misapplied trade preferences.

Regulation sets procedural requirements for collection and handling of public money: recording transactions, timely deposit to Receiver General, handling of dishonored payments, and authorization to collect fees/commissions. Applies to persons collecting government revenues.

Canadians would be worse off without enforceable rules ensuring proper accounting and timely deposit of public funds. These minimal administrative requirements prevent misuse, ensure transparency, and provide legal certainty for both government and external collectors. While basic, codifying these standards as regulations rather than internal policy creates enforceable accountability and protects public revenue integrity, which is foundational to limited, responsible government.

Regulation establishes procedures for verifying the origin of goods under CIFTA to ensure eligibility for preferential tariff treatment. It defines verification methods (questionnaire, site visit), requires written notice to both the foreign customs administration and the exporter/producer, mandates written consent for site visits, allows observers, and permits withdrawal of preferential treatment for non-compliance.

Deletion would undermine CIFTA's integrity, enabling fraudulent origin claims that could trigger trade disputes, tariff reinstatement, and loss of preferential access for legitimate Canadian exporters. The regulation's balanced process—notice, consent, observer rights—achieves enforcement while respecting sovereignty, making it irreplaceable for treaty compliance.

1997 Order granting Les Collections Shan Inc. remission of customs duties on specific textile imports used for women's swimwear and coordinated beachwear, subject to conditions matching patterns and supplier.

Company-specific duty exemption creates unfair competition, distorts market incentives, and represents corporate welfare. It violates equal protection by granting special privileges to one firm at the expense of competitors and consumers, who face higher costs due to regulatory favoritism. The order's five-year term has expired, making it obsolete.

Two regulations that have been repealed by Statutory Instrument 2008-91. No substantive text is provided beyond the repeal notation.

Repealed regulations are obsolete and have no legal force. Their presence in the regulatory corpus creates confusion and inefficiency; the original intent, if any, is no longer relevant.

This is a customs duty remission order that provides tax subsidies to specific tailored collar shirt manufacturers (listed by name) for imports during periods from 1997-2012. Remission rates range from 100% to 50% depending on year, with caps based on 1995 baseline amounts. The order grants special financial benefits to specifically enumerated companies.

This is corporate welfare through the tax code - picking winners and losers in a competitive market. It violates equal treatment under the law, distorts incentives by subsidizing specific businesses, and imposes opportunity costs on taxpayers. The regulation has fully expired (all periods ended 2012) and represents the kind of special-interest capture that free-market economists opposed. There is no legitimate public purpose that justifies continued existence of this preference-granting apparatus. Its mere presence on the books signals that Canada tolerates regulatory favoritism, deterring investment and competition.

This regulation is entirely repealed. All sections (1-13 and 1.1) were repealed by SOR/2008-197, section 47. It has no current legal effect.

Obsolescence: regulation already fully repealed. Original flaws, if any, no longer impose costs on Canadians.

All sections (1-8) of this regulation are marked as repealed by SOR/2008-116, s. 12. No active regulatory text remains; the document is a shell of repealed provisions.

The regulation was already repealed in 2008 and is legally obsolete. It has no current effect, requires no compliance, and imposes zero costs on Canadians. Maintaining a reference to it in the regulatory corpus creates only clutter and confusion.

Sections 1, 2, and 3 have been repealed by SOR/2008-153, section 1

Already repealed and obsolete; keeping it serves no purpose. The original provisions were flawed enough to warrant removal entirely