Statement of Reasons—Expiry review determination: Concrete Reinforcing Bar 4 (RB4 2026 ER)

Parties contending that continued or resumed dumping is likely

Domestic producers: AMLPC, AltaSteel, Gerdau, MANA and IRM (collectively, the Canadian producers)

[34] The Canadian producers made representations in their respective case briefs supporting the position that dumping from Oman and Russia is likely to continue or resume in the event the present finding is rescinded. Therefore, the Canadian producers argued that the measures should remain in place for all countries.

[35] The main factors identified by the Canadian producers in support of their position are summarized as follows:

• The Commodity Nature of Rebar^{Footnote 20}
• International Steel Market Conditions^{Footnote 21}
• Market Conditions in the Subject Countries^{Footnote 22}
• Propensity of Subject Country Exporters to Dump and Risk of Trade Diversion^{Footnote 23}
• Export Orientation of Rebar in Subject Countries^{Footnote 24}
• Subject Country Pricing and Costs are Indicative of Dumping^{Footnote 25}
• Canadian Market Conditions^{Footnote 26}
• Product Shifting^{Footnote 27}

[36] The CBSA has carefully reviewed and considered the evidence and submissions provided by the parties. In conducting its analysis, the CBSA has taken into account those facts, arguments, and information it determined to be most relevant and persuasive with respect to the applicable expiry review factors set out in subsection 37.2(1) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR).

Parties contending that continued or resumed dumping is unlikely

Importers

[37] No case briefs or reply submissions were submitted contending that the dumping of the subject goods is not likely to continue or resume if the finding is rescinded.

Exporters and foreign producer

[38] No responses to questionnaires, case briefs or reply submissions were submitted contending that the dumping of the subject goods is not likely to continue or resume if the finding is rescinded.

Common factors

Commodity nature of rebar

[41] Rebar is a commodity product that competes on the basis of price. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) made this finding in all five inquiries involving rebar since 2015.^{Footnote 28} In the most recent Rebar 5 inquiry, the Tribunal stated that “rebar is a commodity product that competes on the basis of price and is interchangeable regardless of whether it is domestic or imported.”^{Footnote 29}

[42] Given the commodity nature of the subject goods, when measures are in place for one country, other sources of rebar emerge. This is evident from the number of measures in place in Canada for rebar and other long products.

[43] As previously noted by the CITT, steel mills are capital intensive with high fixed costs. In order to recover fixed expenses, steel mills must run at high levels of production capacity. When home market demand drops, producers will search out foreign markets to maintain capacity utilization to ensure that these fixed costs are recovered.

International steel market conditions

[44] The International Monetary Fund (IMF) reports that the global economy is threatened with being thrown off course, primarily due to US tariffs shaping international trade and conflict in the Middle East shocking the global economy. These geopolitical factors present a significant counterforce to recent tailwinds that could otherwise support global economic stability. Amid these developments, global uncertainty remains historically high. As a result, global economic growth is expected to slow from 3.4% in 2025 to 3.1% in 2026, before increasing to 3.2% in 2027.^{Footnote 30}

[45] Global steel capacity continues to grow despite a weak outlook for steel demand and the global economy more generally. Global steel excess capacity increased to 640 million MT in 2025 and is projected to increase through 2028, mostly occurring in Asia. The gap between demand for steel and the capacity to produce steel is expected to grow to 721 million MT, reaching the highest level in a decade.^{Footnote 31}

[46] High fixed costs encourage steel producers to maintain steel production in order to recover fixed costs even while margins worsen. Coupled with the concerns of overcapacity in the industry, global steel producers are incentivized to find export markets to maintain production levels rather than idle their mills. The CBSA has acknowledged the impact that these two dynamics have on the steel industry in previous expiry reviews. Excess capacity concerns combined with the need to maintain production levels incentivize producers facing worsening domestic conditions to export their steel products.

[47] Construction activity is the primary driver of rebar demand and has actively slowed globally in major markets. Oxford Economics forecasted that global construction activity would fall by 4.5% over 2025 due to high interest rates, weak housing markets, and broader economic uncertainty.^{Footnote 32} This is particularly evident in China, where approximately 31% of all steel is used domestically. Considering China produces over half of the world’s steel production, the notable decline in China’s real estate sector^{Footnote 33} has led to a record 131 million MT of steel being exported from China in 2025.^{Footnote 34}

[48] In Europe, the construction sector was already experiencing prolonged weakness following contractions throughout 2023 and 2024, with forecasts suggesting that construction activity will likely remain below pre-pandemic levels for the foreseeable future.^{Footnote 35}

Tariffs and safeguard measures on steel imports and diversion of rebar into Canada

[49] The U.S. market became materially more restrictive during the POR. In June 2025, the United States increased the Section 232 tariff on most steel articles and derivatives, including rebar, to 50% ad valorem.^{Footnote 36}

[50] U.S. rebar imports declined from approximately 1.9 million MT in 2023 to approximately 1.25 million MT in 2025, a decrease of about 33%. Following the June 2025 increase in Section 232 tariffs, U.S. rebar imports fell from 787,574 MT in the first half of 2025 to 467,408 MT in the second half, a further decline of about 41%.^{Footnote 37} Reduced import access to the U.S. market creates additional volumes that exporters may seek to place elsewhere.

[51] Access to the European market has also tightened. The new European steel safeguard framework identified in the submissions would reduce tariff-free steel import volumes to 18.3 million MT annually, approximately 47% below the 2024 quota level, and apply a 50% duty to out-of-quota volumes.^{Footnote 38} The definitive phase of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism also began in 2026.^{Footnote 39}

[52] Anti-dumping and other trade measures apply to rebar and related long products in a number of jurisdictions, including measures affecting Russian rebar and wire rod and other steel products from Oman and Russia.^{Footnote 40} These measures further narrow available outlets for producers that rely on export markets.

[53] The combined effect of Section 232 tariffs, European safeguards and other trade remedies is to increase competition for accessible markets. Canada is geographically close to the U.S. market and remains open to prescribed volumes of rebar under its TRQ framework. These conditions increase the potential for trade diversion toward Canada.

[54] Effective June 27, 2025, Canada introduced a tariff rate quota on steel imports during the POR, setting quarterly rebar limits based on free-trade agreement status. Countries without an FTA, such as Oman and Russia, can ship up to 13,445 metric tons combined per quarter, with individual country shipments capped at 3,899 metric tons. In contrast, FTA partners are allocated up to 28,710 metric tons total each quarter, with a per-country limit of 12,920 metric tons. Over quota volumes are subject to a 50% surtax but are not subject to price discipline within the quota limits. Countries compete for allocation on a first-come first-served basis.^{Footnote 41} Furthermore, a 25% surtax is applied to certain steel goods imported into Canada that contain materials melted and poured in China.

[55] The TRQ limits the quantity that may enter without the additional surtax but does not establish a minimum import price. In the 2026 Rebar 1 expiry review, the CITT concluded that the absence of price discipline within the TRQ structure creates incentives for exporters to lower prices and, where commercially feasible, absorb ad valorem duties on over-quota shipments.^{Footnote 42}

[56] The TRQ therefore does not perform the same function as normal values under SIMA. In-quota access remains available, and the TRQ does not prevent price competition within those volumes. The existence of the TRQ is relevant to likely import volumes, but it does not by itself remove the likelihood of dumping.^{Footnote 43}

Canadian market conditions

[57] Ongoing global conflicts have created significant uncertainty for Canada's general economic conditions, North American trade negotiations, and weakening conditions in the construction sector.^{Footnote 44} New construction builds are projected to decline to approximately 243,000 in 2026 from 259,000 in 2025, with condominium presales in Toronto and Vancouver deteriorating significantly.^{Footnote 45}

[58] Similar to the broader economy, forecasts for key rebar-consuming sectors in Canada are mixed. 2025 was a strong year for the Canadian construction industry which carried into early 2026. However housing construction is expected to slow as previously discussed. Information on the record indicates that the Canadian rebar market was relatively stable throughout the POR.^{Footnote 46} Despite significant challenges currently facing the sector, the resilience of the market with attractive pricing relative to markets outside North America makes Canada an appealing export market for subject goods. While the TRQ framework limits the total volume of subject goods entering the market each quarter, there is no mechanism within the framework to prevent dumping.

Oman

[59] In assessing the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping from Oman should the CITT’s order be rescinded, the CBSA relied on the information on the administrative record which includes the responses to the various ERQs from all interested parties.

[60] The CBSA solicited information from potential producers and exporters of subject rebar in Oman. The Agency received no responses to the Exporter/Foreign Producer ERQ from companies located in Oman. Furthermore, no importers of subject rebar from Oman filed a case brief or reply submission.

[61] CBSA enforcement data indicate that significant volumes of subject goods from Oman were imported into Canada over the POR.^{Footnote 47} In addition, SIMA duties were assessed in every period between 2023 and 2025.^{Footnote 48}

[62] Further, Canada was Oman's second-largest rebar export destination in 2024.^{Footnote 49} Omani exporters are therefore familiar with the Canadian market and have demonstrated the ability and interest to serve it.

[63] Oman has a large rebar manufacturing base that has expanded materially since the original investigation. Annual rebar capacity of 4.112 million to 4.412 million MT was identified, including facilities commissioned, acquired or adapted after the original investigation.^{Footnote 50}

[64] Oman is also strongly export oriented. Omani rebar exports rose from 616,894 MT in 2022 to 1,143,293 MT in 2024, and partial-year data show a further increase during January-May 2025 compared with the same period in 2024.^{Footnote 51}

[65] Oman's construction sector contracted over several years, while rebar capacity and exports expanded. Although construction growth was forecast for 2026, domestic demand remains small relative to the identified rebar production capacity.^{Footnote 52}

[66] European safeguards apply to Omani rebar and anti-dumping measures in other jurisdictions apply to other Omani steel products.^{Footnote 53} These measures constrain alternative export opportunities.

[67] During the POR, no Omani exporter had company-specific normal values for rebar exports to Canada.^{Footnote 54} This factor is consistent with the decline in subject imports after the finding and the importance of SIMA price discipline in the Canadian market.^{Footnote 55}

[68] In addition to substantial existing Omani supply, Jindal Steel acquired MISCO and its facilities^{Footnote 56} and Al Jazeera Steel commenced rebar production.^{Footnote 57}

Determination regarding likelihood of continued or resumed dumping: Oman

[69] Based on evidence on the record, the CBSA has determined that the expiry of the order is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping into Canada of certain concrete reinforcing bar originating in or exported from Oman.

Russia

[70] In assessing the likelihood of continued or resumed dumping from Russia should the CITT’s order be rescinded, the CBSA relied on the information on the administrative record which includes the responses to the various ERQs from all interested parties.

[71] The CBSA solicited information from potential producers and exporters of subject rebar in Russia, but it did not receive any responses. No producers or exporters submitted case briefs or reply submissions for the CBSA to consider in making a determination. Furthermore, no importers of subject rebar from Russia filed a case brief or reply submission.

[72] Russia presents a different factual circumstance because imports of Russian rebar into Canada have been prohibited under Canada's sanctions regime since March 10, 2023.^{Footnote 58} The absence of Russian subject imports during the latter part of the POR must therefore be considered in light of that legal restriction rather than treated, without further analysis, as evidence that Russian producers have voluntarily abandoned export markets.

[73] The expiry review under SIMA is forward-looking. The question is whether expiry of the finding is likely to result in resumed or continued dumping; the current existence of a separate import prohibition does not remove the need to examine the commercial and structural circumstances of Russian rebar producers.^{Footnote 59}

[74] Russia has substantial production capability.^{Footnote 60} The original CITT proceeding identified more than 4.2 million MT per year of Russian excess rebar capacity through 2022, and major Russian long-products facilities remain active with significant unused capability or added and transferred capacity.^{Footnote 61}

[75] Russia's steel sector is historically export oriented.^{Footnote 62} Certain major Russian producers exported more than half of production on average during the original period, and MMK had the capacity to redirect substantial volumes to export markets.^{Footnote 63} The industry therefore has an established ability to respond to changes in domestic demand by seeking external outlets.

[76] Russian domestic market conditions increase the importance of that export orientation. Rolled-steel demand fell approximately 4% in 2024 and almost 14% in 2025, while steel exports increased approximately 20% in 2025 to 24.3 million MT.^{Footnote 64} Steel consumption declined a further 15% year over year in the first quarter of 2026.^{Footnote 65}

[77] Russian residential construction also weakened. Delayed projects were projected to reach 16.2 million square metres by the end of 2026, while housing completions were projected at 41 million square metres, 20% below the 2023 peak.^{Footnote 66}

[78] Access to major Western export markets is also constrained. Russian steel is subject to significant restrictions in the United States, the European Union and the United Kingdom, including the 50% U.S. Section 232 steel tariff and European and UK restrictions on Russian-origin steel products.^{Footnote 67} These conditions increase the importance of remaining accessible markets to Russian producers seeking outlets for output.

[79] The CBSA recognizes that Canadian sanctions currently prevent the importation of Russian-origin rebar. The CBSA does not speculate as to when or whether those sanctions will change. For purposes of this expiry review investigation, their current existence is treated as an independent governmental restriction that explains present market access conditions, while the structural factors relevant to the likelihood of dumping - capacity, utilization, demand, export orientation and pricing incentives - are assessed separately.

[80] Other jurisdictions, such as the EU, US, and UK, have maintained anti-dumping measures on Russian goods notwithstanding separate sanctions or trade restrictions.^{Footnote 68} Those foreign determinations on steel goods are not binding on the CBSA, but they illustrate the distinction between sanctions and the commercial likelihood analysis required under an anti-dumping statute.

Determination regarding likelihood of continued or resumed dumping: Russia

[81] Based on evidence on the record, the CBSA has determined that the expiry of the order is likely to result in the continuation or resumption of dumping into Canada of certain concrete reinforcing bar from Russia.