Statement of reasons—Preliminary determination: Oil Country Tubular Goods 5 (OCTG5 2025 IN)

Product definition^{Footnote 14}

[11] For the purpose of this investigation, subject goods are defined as:

[12] For additional product information, the production process, the classification of imports, like goods and classes of goods, and information on the Canadian industry, refer to the Initiation Statement of Reasons.

Normal value

[22] Normal values, at the preliminary determination, are generally estimated based on the domestic selling prices of like goods in the country of export, in accordance with the methodology of section 15 of SIMA, or on the aggregate of the cost of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, plus a reasonable amount for profits, in accordance with the methodology of paragraph 19(b) of SIMA.

Export price

[23] The export price of goods sold to importers in Canada is generally estimated in accordance with the methodology of section 24 of SIMA based on the lesser of the adjusted exporter’s sale price for the goods or the adjusted importer’s purchase price. These prices are adjusted where necessary by deducting the costs, charges, expenses, duties and taxes resulting from the exportation of the goods as provided for in subparagraphs 24(a)(i) to 24(a)(iii) of SIMA.

[24] Where there are sales between associated persons and/or a compensatory arrangement exists, the export price is estimated based on the importer’s resale price of the imported goods in Canada to unrelated purchasers, less deductions for all costs incurred in preparing, shipping and exporting the goods to Canada that are additional to those incurred on the sales of like goods for use in the country of export, all costs included in the resale price that are incurred in reselling the goods (including duties and taxes) or associated with the assembly of the goods in Canada and an amount representative of the average industry profit in Canada as provided for in paragraphs 25(1)(c) and 25(1)(d) of SIMA.

Margin of dumping

[25] The estimated margin of dumping by exporter is equal to the amount by which the total estimated normal value exceeds the total estimated export price of the goods, expressed as a percentage of the total estimated export price. All subject goods imported into Canada during the POI are included in the estimation of the margins of dumping of the goods. Where the total estimated normal value of the goods does not exceed the total estimated export price of the goods, the margin of dumping is zero.

Background of particular market situation inquiry

[26] In accordance with paragraph 16(2)(c) of SIMA, and for purposes of determining normal values under section 15, the CBSA will not consider any sales of like goods for use in the country of export that do not permit a proper comparison with the goods sold to Canada due to the existence of a PMS. Further, for the purposes of constructing normal values pursuant to paragraph 19(b), the CBSA will not take into consideration the acquisition price of an input that does not allow a proper comparison as it does not reasonably reflect the actual costs of that input due to a PMS.

[27] Subsection 16(2.1) provides that, for the purposes of paragraph 16(2)(c), a PMS may be found to exist in respect of any goods of a particular exporter or of a particular country, as appropriate in the circumstances.

[28] In order to form an opinion that a PMS exists that impacts the subject goods, the CBSA must determine that there is a PMS and that it has caused a differentiated impact on the domestic and export prices that precludes a proper comparison.

[29] Where the CBSA is of the opinion that the domestic sales of like goods in the country of export do not permit a proper comparison with the sales of the goods to the importer in Canada because of a PMS, the normal value of those goods will be determined under section 19, where possible, or section 29.

[30] Further, data relied upon in the constructed normal values may not allow for a proper comparison between the subject goods and the sale of the subject goods to Canada due to distortions caused by the existence of a PMS. For instance, a PMS may be found where evidence shows that the acquisition cost of the distorted input in question represents a significant portion in the cost of production of the goods of a particular exporter or a particular country.

[31] In these circumstances, to disregard certain acquisition prices used in the cost of production, the CBSA has to form the opinion that in accordance with paragraph 16(2)(c) of SIMA, a PMS exists in the country of export that does not allow a proper comparison with the sale of like goods such that normal values cannot be determined in accordance with section 15 of SIMA and, when constructing a normal value in accordance with section 19 of SIMA, that this PMS distorts the costs of inputs used in the production of subject goods sold to the importer in Canada such that they do not allow for a proper comparison, as per subsection 11.2(2) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR).

Analysis of PMS

[32] The primary PMS conditions, as provided by the complainants, were:

• Ministry-specific price ceilings for OCTG and its input products distorting prices in the OCTG market
• Volatile economic conditions due to hyperinflation and currency depreciation
• Low-priced OCTG imports distorting OCTG prices in Türkiye and
• Distorted hot-coiled oil inputs due to unfairly traded imports

[33] The CBSA received responses to the government PMS RFI and subsequent SRFI#1^{Footnote 15} from the Government of Türkiye. Additionally, Borusan provided responses to the Dumping RFI and subsequent SRFI#1^{Footnote 16} which included questions pertaining to PMS.

[34] The CBSA has considered the information on the administrative record with respect to the allegations of a particular market situation in Türkiye. Specifically, the CBSA examined the domestic sales of like goods in Türkiye by Borusan, to determine if there are sufficient sales to conduct a PMS analysis.

[35] In reviewing Borusan’s reported domestic sales during the POI, it was determined that a portion of these transactions did not occur in the ordinary course of trade. Sales not within the ordinary course of trade do not permit a proper comparison with the sale of the goods to the importer in Canada, therefore, these sales were excluded for the purposes of the PMS analysis. The remaining sales of like goods were determined to be in the ordinary course of trade, however, given the low volume of remaining sales, it is not possible to assess whether price distortions have occurred in the domestic market in Türkiye and whether these potential price distortions were caused by the alleged PMS factors.

Preliminary results of the PMS inquiry

[36] For the purposes of the preliminary determination, the CBSA has found that the low volume of domestic sales that may be considered for a PMS analysis are insufficient to assess whether price distortions have occurred in the domestic market in Türkiye and whether these potential price distortions were caused by the alleged PMS factors. As such, for the purposes of the preliminary determination, the CBSA has not formed the opinion that a particular market situation exists with respect to sales of like goods in Türkiye by Borusan.

Cooperative exporters

[37] For the exporters/producers from the subject countries that submitted substantially complete responses to the dumping RFI, normal values were either estimated using the methodology of section 15 of SIMA based on domestic selling prices of like goods, or paragraph 19(b) of SIMA, based on the aggregate of cost of production, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits. The costs of production were estimated pursuant to paragraph 11(1)(a) of Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR), based on the costs associated with the production of the subject goods. The amounts for profits were estimated in accordance with paragraph 11(1)(b) of the SIMR.

[38] For two exporters, TAMSA and HSP, the costs of production were estimated pursuant to SIMR subsection 11.2(1) to account for the supply of raw materials purchased from associated suppliers.

[39] The following table summarizes the cooperative exporters’ estimated margins of dumping.

[40] During the POI, all of the subject goods exported to Canada by HLD Clark and Borusan were sold to unrelated importers. Export prices for those subject goods were estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA, as described in the Export price section.

[41] Subject goods exported to Canada by TAMSA, HSP, and MTLP included sales made to related importers (i.e. associated persons). As a result, the CBSA performed a reliability test to determine whether each exporter’s section 24 export prices were reliable as envisaged by SIMA. This test was conducted for each of the three exporters by comparing their estimated section 24 export prices with their estimated section 25 export prices. Both section 24 and section 25 prices were calculated using the methodologies as described in the Export price section. The reliability tests revealed that the export prices were reliable for all three exporters. Therefore, export prices for subject goods exported by TAMSA, HSP, and MTLP were all estimated using the methodology of section 24 of SIMA.

All other exporters: Philippines

[42] As TAMSA, HSP, Borusan, and MTLP all represent 100% of the goods subject to this investigation that were exported to Canada from their respective countries during the POI, an all others rate for exports by other exporters from those countries was not required. However, a small percentage of goods from the Philippines were exported to Canada by parties not participating in the CBSA’s investigation.

[43] In establishing the methodology for estimating the normal values and export prices for all other exporters from the Philippines, the CBSA considered all of the information on the administrative record, including the complaint filed by the domestic industry, the CBSA’s estimates at the initiation of the investigation, information submitted by parties who responded to the Dumping RFI, and CBSA customs entry documentation.

[44] The CBSA decided that the normal values and export prices estimated for all other exporters from the Philippines would be estimated based on information from the exporter in the Philippines that provided a substantially complete RFI response. The CBSA finds this information to be more relevant and reflective of the trading practices of exporters in the Philippines than the information provided in the complaint or estimated at initiation.

[45] The CBSA examined the difference between the estimated normal value and the estimated export price for each individual transaction and considered that the highest amount for the exporter (expressed as a percentage of the export price), was an appropriate basis for estimating normal values. This methodology relies on information related to goods that originated in the Philippines and in general, provides an incentive for exporters to participate by ensuring that exporters who have provided the necessary information requested in a dumping investigation will always have a more favourable outcome than those who have not participated.

[46] As a result, based on the facts available, for all other exporters that did not provide a complete response to the Dumping RFI, normal values of subject goods originating in or exported from the Philippines were estimated based on the highest amount by which an estimated normal value exceeded the estimated export price, on an individual transaction for the cooperative exporter during the POI. The transactions were examined to ensure that no anomalies were considered, such as very low volume and value, effects of seasonality or other business factors. No such anomalies were identified.

[47] The CBSA considered that the information submitted on the CBSA customs entry documentation was the best information on which to estimate the export price of the goods as it reflects actual import data.

All exporters: Mexico

[48] As discussed above, exports of subject goods by TAMSA represent 100% of the volume of subject goods exported to Canada from Mexico during the POI. Accordingly, there are no other exporters, or goods, for which the CBSA must estimate a margin of dumping. As provisional duties will be imposed on all exports of subject goods from Mexico released by the CBSA on or after December 22, 2025, the CBSA must estimate a provisional duty rate for any goods exported from Mexico by any exporter other than TAMSA.

[49] In establishing the methodology for estimating the provisional duty rate for all potential other exporters from Mexico, the CBSA considered all of the information on the administrative record. This information included the complaint filed by the domestic industry, the CBSA’s estimates at the initiation of the investigation, information submitted by parties who responded to the dumping RFI, and CBSA customs entry documentation.

[50] The CBSA decided that the provisional duty rate for all potential other exporters from Mexico would be estimated based on information from the exporter in Mexico that provided a substantially complete RFI response. The CBSA finds this information to be more relevant and reflective of the trading practices of exporters in Mexico than the information provided in the complaint or estimated at initiation.

[51] The CBSA examined the difference between the estimated normal value and the estimated export price for each individual transaction and considered that the highest amount for the exporter (expressed as a percentage of the export price), was an appropriate basis for estimating a provisional duty rate. This methodology relies on information related to goods that originated in Mexico. In general, it provides an incentive for exporters to participate by ensuring that those who provide the necessary information requested in a dumping investigation will always have a more favourable outcome than those who do not participate.

[52] Based on the facts available, for all other potential exporters from Mexico, the provisional duty rate was estimated based on the highest amount by which an estimated normal value exceeded the estimated export price, on an individual transaction for the cooperative exporter during the POI. The transactions were examined to ensure that no anomalies were considered, such as very low volume and value, effects of seasonality or other business factors. No such anomalies were identified.

[53] Using the above methodologies, the provisional duty rate for all other potential exporters from Mexico is 148.4%, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

Summary of preliminary results: Dumping

[54] A summary of the preliminary results of the dumping investigation respecting all subject goods released into Canada during the POI are as follows:

Negligibility

[55] Under section 35 of SIMA, the CBSA is required to terminate an investigation prior to the preliminary determination if the volume of goods of a country is negligible.

[56] Pursuant to subsection 2(1) of SIMA, the volume of goods of a country is considered negligible if it accounts for less than 3% of the total volume of all goods of the same description that are released into Canada from all countries.

[57] The table above confirms that the volume of imports from Mexico, the Philippines, South Korea, Türkiye, and the United States are all above 3% of the total volume of goods released into Canada. Based on the definition above, the volume of imports from Mexico, the Philippines, South Korea, Türkiye, and the United States are not negligible.

Insignificance

[58] If, in making a preliminary determination, the CBSA determines that the margin of dumping of the goods of an exporter is insignificant pursuant to section 38 of SIMA, the investigation will continue in respect of those goods, but provisional anti-dumping duties will not be imposed on goods of the same description imported during the provisional period. Pursuant to subsection 2(1) of SIMA, a margin of dumping of less than 2% of the export price of the goods is defined as insignificant.

[59] For all exporters, in Mexico, the Philippines, South Korea, Türkiye, and the United States, the estimated margin of dumping, expressed as a percentage of the export price, is above 2% and is, therefore, not insignificant. In respect of these goods, provisional anti-dumping duties will be imposed on goods of the same description imported during the provisional period.

[60] A summary of the estimated margins of dumping and provisional duties by exporter is presented in Appendix 1.

The Canada Border Services Agency

[65] The CBSA will continue its investigation of the dumping of certain OCTG and will make final decision by March 23, 2026.

[66] If the margin of dumping of any exporter is found to be insignificant, the CBSA will terminate the investigation in respect of goods of that exporter and any provisional duties paid or security posted will be refunded to importers, as appropriate. If the CBSA is satisfied that the goods were dumped, a final determination will be made.

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal

[67] The CITT has begun its inquiry into the question of injury to the Canadian industry. The CITT is expected to issue its finding by April 21, 2026.

[68] If the CITT finds that the dumping has not caused injury, retardation or is not threatening to cause injury, the proceedings will be terminated and all provisional anti-dumping duty collected or security posted will be refunded.

[69] If the CITT makes a finding that the dumping has caused injury, retardation or is threatening to cause injury, anti-dumping duty in an amount equal to the margin of dumping will be levied, collected and paid on imports of certain OCTG that are of the same description as goods described in the CITT’s finding.

[70] For purposes of the preliminary determination of dumping, the CBSA has responsibility for determining whether the actual and potential volume of goods is negligible. After the preliminary determination of dumping, the CITT assumes this responsibility. In accordance with subsection 42(4.1) of SIMA, the CITT is required to terminate its inquiry in respect of any goods if the CITT determines that the volume of dumped goods from a country is negligible.