Thank you.
Maybe I'll provide an example. Importers that are linked with a foreign party will normally have access to a price paid for their good well before it is exported to Canada, therefore being able to use a prior sale up in their supply chain. For example, a U.S.-based company that has affiliates in Canada that are the final purchasers will be able to purchase from, let's say—I'm giving an example—China, pay a certain point, and declare that as the value for export rather than the value of the Canadian importer that is importing that good, that final sale. That's the example where there's a discrepancy, because certain importers have knowledge of a prior price that is paid up in their supply chain in a prior transaction rather than the final transaction that triggers, as Goran was explaining, the actual export to Canada.
What we're trying to establish with this definition is that “sold for export” to a purchaser in Canada is, under the treaty and under the Customs Act, the value that purchasers in Canada must use for the purpose of putting a value on goods imported to Canada. That sets, of course, the value of custom duties and taxes to be paid. If you have, basically, knowledge of a price that you can use up in the supply chain, it will result in the under-collection of revenue simply because the valuation for the purpose of custom duties and taxes then becomes lower as well.