Statement of Reasons—Final determination: Oil and Gas Well Casing 6 (OCTG6 2026 IN)

Product definition

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

[14] 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 are generally determined based on the domestic selling prices of like goods in the country of export, in accordance with 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 paragraph 19(b) of SIMA.

[23] Where, in the opinion of the CBSA, sufficient information has not been furnished or is not available, normal values are determined pursuant to a ministerial specification in accordance with subsection 29(1) of SIMA.

Export price

[24] The export price of goods sold to importers in Canada is generally determined in accordance with 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.

[25] Where there are sales between associated persons and/or a compensatory arrangement exists, the export price is 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.

[26] Where, in the opinion of the CBSA, sufficient information has not been furnished or is not available, export prices are determined pursuant to a ministerial specification under subsection 29(1) of SIMA.

Margin of dumping

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

Voestalpine Tubulars GmbH & Co KG

[28] Voestalpine Tubulars GmbH & Co KG (VAT) is a producer and exporter of subject goods located in Kindberg, Austria. VAT produces seamless tubular products with an outside diameter up to 7 5/8 inches.

[29] Subject goods exported by VAT represent all subject goods shipped to Canada during the POI. All subject goods exported by VAT were to an arm’s length importer.

[30] VAT provided substantially complete responses to the CBSA’s RFIs. Supplemental RFIs (SRFIs) were sent to VAT to gather additional information and seek clarification regarding their original response. Responses were received and found to be substantially complete.

[31] Voestalpine Stahl Donawitz GmbH (VASD), a related input supplier to VAT, also provided information related to their sales and costing of a significant factor input provided to VAT for their production of OCTG in its RFI and SRFI responses. These responses were also found to be substantially complete.

[32] Both VAT and VASD/s information was verified by way of onsite verifications, conducted in May 2026.

[33] During the POI, VAT did not have sufficient sales of like goods in the domestic market that met the conditions of sections 15 and 16 of SIMA.^{Footnote 6} Due to insufficient information to determine a reasonable amount for profits under paragraph 11(1)(b) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR), normal values could also not be determined pursuant to paragraph 19(b) of SIMA. Due to the lack of information to enable the determination of normal values as provided in sections 15 to 23 of SIMA, normal values were determined pursuant to a Ministerial Specification under subsection 29(1), using a paragraph 19(b) methodology, based on the aggregate of the cost of production of the goods, a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and all other costs, and a reasonable amount for profits.

[34] The cost of production was determined in accordance with paragraph 11(1)(a) of the SIMR, based on VAT’s cost data associated with the subject goods shipped to Canada. The cost of inputs from the related supplier were determined under SIMR 11.2(1)(a). The amount for profits was based upon information submitted by VAT.

[35] Export prices for the subject goods were determined in accordance with section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the exporter’s selling price and the importer’s purchase price, adjusted by deducting the costs, charges and expenses incurred in preparing the goods for shipment to Canada and resulting from the exportation and shipment of the goods.

[36] For the final determination, the total normal value compared to the total export price resulted in a margin of dumping of 17.6% for VAT, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

[37] During the period of investigation, all of the subject goods exported to Canada by VAT were sold to an unrelated importer. Export prices were determined using section 24 of SIMA, based on the lesser of the exporter’s selling price and the importer’s purchase price, adjusted by deducting the costs, charges and expenses incurred in preparing the goods for shipment to Canada and resulting from the exportation and shipment of the goods.

All exporters: Austria

[38] As discussed above, exports of subject goods by Voestalpine represent 100% of the volume of subject goods exported to Canada from Austria during the POI. Accordingly, there are no other exporters, or goods, for which the CBSA must estimate a margin of dumping.

[39] In the event that the CITT renders a finding of injury and goods from a new exporter are released from customs in the future, anti-dumping duty will be assessed by advancing the export price of the goods by 38.4% pursuant to a ministerial specification under subsection 29(1) of SIMA.

[40] In establishing the methodology for determining normal values and export prices for other potential exporters, the CBSA considered all the information on the administrative record, including the complaint filed by the domestic industry, the CBSA’s estimates at the initiation of the investigation and information submitted by the exporter of subject goods from Austria.

[41] The CBSA decided that the normal values determined for the exporter whose submission was substantially complete for the final determination, rather than the information provided in the complaint or estimated at initiation, would be used to establish the methodology for determining normal values for all other potential exporters, since it reflects the exporter’s actual trading practices during the POI.

[42] The CBSA examined the difference between the normal value and the export price determined for each individual transaction of VAT for the POI, and considered that the highest amount by which the normal value exceeded the export price found on an individual transaction (expressed as a percentage of the export price), was an appropriate basis for determining normal values.

[43] 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. This methodology relies on information related to goods that originated in Austria and limits the advantage that an exporter may gain from not providing necessary information requested in a dumping investigation as compared to an exporter that did provide the necessary information.

[44] Using the above methodology, should subject goods be exported from Austria by an exporter other than VAT, the margin of dumping would be 38.4%, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

Summary of results: Dumping

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

[46] In order to make a final determination of dumping, the CBSA must be satisfied that:

1. the subject goods have been dumped and
2. that the margin of dumping of a particular exporter is not insignificant

[47] Under paragraph 41(1)(a) of SIMA, the CBSA is required to terminate an investigation in respect of any goods of an exporter if it is satisfied that the goods have not been dumped or the margin of dumping of the goods of that exporter is insignificant, meaning a margin of dumping that is less than 2% of the export price of the goods.

[48] The margin of dumping determined for the exporter of subject goods originating in or exported from Austria is greater than the threshold of 2% and are therefore not considered insignificant. As a result, the legislative requirements are satisfied for making a final determination of dumping respecting oil and gas well casing from Austria.

Completeness and accuracy of VAT's cost of production information

Counsel for the complainant, Tenaris Canada, alleged that VAT had failed to “identify subsidies in its RFI response” that it likely benefited from that could materially impact its cost of production.

The representations suggest that subsidies received by VAT may lead to an underreporting of costs of production in the calculation of normal values:

Further, counsel for Tenaris Canada noted:

Counsel for VAT noted that the submission on behalf of the complainant was made only six days prior to the CBSA’s onsite verification of VAT and 100 days after the investigation had been initiated. Counsel argued that these comments on alleged subsidies “should be rejected on the basis of their extraordinary lateness alone” given that VAT had already provided two additional supplemental RFI responses beyond the original RFI response by that point.^{Footnote 11}

CBSA response

The CBSA found VAT’s accounting for the cost of its OCTG production to be sound and reasonable in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). There was no indication that actual costs were not properly reflected in the company’s accounting. As such, the CBSA did not find any evidence to suggest that any alleged subsidy programs impacted the determination of normal values or export prices in this dumping investigation

SIMA segregates dumping and subsidy investigations. In the absence of a formal subsidy complaint, the allegations made by the complainant in their representations are generally not relevant in a dumping investigation.

If the CBSA were to approach dumping investigations with consideration to subsidization in the manner suggested by the complainant, it may result in double-counting in cases where concurrent dumping and subsidy investigations had been initiated on the same goods.

Furthermore, the responses cited by the complainant from the exporter’s RFI response concerned domestic market sales of OCTG.^{Footnote 12} Since there are no usable domestic market sales of OCTG in this investigation, these responses concerning the impact on domestic prices are not relevant to the determination of normal values.

Amount for profits

Counsel for the complainant offered numerous options to determine the amount for profits for the calculations of normal values, suggesting primarily that VAT had sufficient domestic sales from which to permit a proper comparison under SIMR 13(a). Counsel argued that VAT’s sales should not be disqualified under section 15 nor under section 16(2) of SIMA. In the alternative, counsel for the complainant suggested the CBSA should use profits based on other European OCTG producers.^{Footnote 13}

Counsel for VAT argued that since the amount for profit cannot be determined pursuant to paragraph 11(1)(b) of the Regulations, “the same approach adopted in OCTG 4 should be applied in this case. Specifically, VAT submits that an amount for profit should be based on the submitted and verified information from the latest profitable fiscal year report by VAT.”^{Footnote 14}

CBSA response

According to SIMR 11(1)(b), the expression a reasonable amount for profits, in relation to any goods, means an amount equal to:

1. (i) where the exporter has made in the country of export a number of sales of like goods for use in the country of export, and where those sales when taken together produce a profit and are such as to permit a proper comparison, the weighted average profit made on the sales
2. (ii) where subparagraph (i) is not applicable but the exporter has made in the country of export a number of sales of goods that are of the same general category as the goods sold to the importer in Canada and are for use in the country of export, and where those sales when taken together produce a profit and are such as to permit a proper comparison, the weighted average profit made on the sales
3. (iii) where subparagraphs (i) and (ii) are not applicable but producers, other than the exporter, have made in the country of export a number of sales of like goods for use in the country of export, and where those sales when taken together produce a profit and are such as to permit a proper comparison, the weighted average profit made on the sales
4. (iv) where subparagraphs (i) to (iii) are not applicable but producers, other than the exporter, have made in the country of export a number of sales of goods that are of the same general category as the goods sold to the importer in Canada and are for use in the country of export, and where those sales when taken together produce a profit and are such as to permit a proper comparison, the weighted average profit made on the sales
5. (v) where subparagraphs (i) to (iv) are not applicable but the exporter has made in the country of export a number of sales of goods that are of the group or range of goods that is next largest to the category referred to in subparagraph (iv) and are for use in the country of export, and where those sales when taken together produce a profit and are such as to permit a proper comparison, the weighted average profit made on the sales

The CBSA determined that VAT had an insufficient number of domestic sales in any of the SIMR 11(1)(b) options to constitute a “proper comparison” with the subject goods and subparagraphs (iii) and (iv) were not applicable, as there were no other producers in Austria.

The CBSA determined that a reasonable approach was to base the amount for profits using the financial information submitted by VAT. This calculation formed part of the paragraph 19(b) methodology used to determine normal values under the ministerial specification.