Final anti-dumping determination, certain OCTG, multiple origins

Concerning the final determination with respect to the dumping of certain oil country tubular goods originating in or exported from the United Mexican States and The Republic of the Philippines, and originating in the Republic of Türkiye and exported or produced by, or on behalf of, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.Ş., originating in the Republic of Korea and exported or produced by, or on behalf of, Hyundai Steel Company, and originating in the United States of America and exported or produced by, or on behalf of, Tenaris S.A.

Decision

Ottawa,

April 7, 2026

On March 23, 2026, pursuant to paragraph 41(1)(b) of the Special Import Measures Act, the Canada Border Services Agency made a final determination respecting the dumping of certain oil country tubular goods originating in or exported from the United Mexican States and The Republic of the Philippines, and originating in the Republic of Türkiye and exported or produced by, or on behalf of, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.Ş. (or its successors or assigns), originating in the Republic of Korea and exported or produced by, or on behalf of, Hyundai Steel Company (or its successors or assigns), and originating in the United States of America and exported or produced by, or on behalf of, Tenaris S.A. (or its subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, or assigns).

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

(PDF, 434 KB)

On this page

---

Summary

[1] On June 20, 2025, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) received a written complaint from Interpro Pipe & Steel Inc. and Welded Tube of Canada Corporation (hereinafter, “the complainants”) alleging that imports of certain oil country tubular goods (hereinafter, “OCTG”) originating in or exported from the United Mexican States (Mexico) and the Republic of the Philippines (the Philippines), and originating in the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye) and exported or produced by, or on behalf of, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. (Borusan), originating in the Republic of Korea (South Korea) and exported or produced by, or on behalf of, Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel), and originating in the United States of America (U.S.) and exported or produced by, or on behalf of, Tenaris S.A. (Tenaris) (collectively, “the subject countries and exporters/producers”), are being injuriously dumped.

[2] On July 11, 2025, pursuant to paragraph 32(1)(a) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), the CBSA informed the complainants that the complaint was properly documented. On August 5, 2025, the CBSA informed the governments of the subject countries that a properly documented complaint had been filed.

[3] The complainants provided evidence to support the allegations that certain OCTG from the subject countries and exporters/producers have been dumped, as well as evidence that discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping has caused injury or is threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry producing like goods.

[4] On August 11, 2025, pursuant to subsection 31(1) of SIMA, the CBSA initiated an investigation respecting the dumping of certain OCTG from Mexico, the Philippines, Türkiye (Borusan), South Korea (Hyundai Steel), and the U.S. (Tenaris).

[5] Upon receiving notice of the initiation of the investigation, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) commenced a preliminary injury inquiry, pursuant to subsection 34(2) of SIMA, into whether the evidence discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping of the above-mentioned goods have caused injury or are threatening to cause injury to the Canadian industry producing the like goods.

[6] On October 9, 2025, pursuant to subsection 37.1(1) of SIMA, the CITT made a preliminary determination that there is evidence that discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping of certain OCTG from the subject countries and exporters/producers has caused injury to the domestic industry.

[7] On December 22, 2025, as a result of the CBSA’s preliminary investigation and pursuant to subsection 38(1) of SIMA, the CBSA made a preliminary determination of dumping of certain OCTG originating in or exported from the subject countries and exporters/producers.

[8] On the same date, pursuant to subsection 8(1) of SIMA, provisional duties were imposed on imports of dumped goods that are of the same description as any goods to which the preliminary determination applies, and that are released during the period commencing on the day the preliminary determination was made and ending on the earlier of the day on which the CBSA causes the investigation in respect of any goods to be terminated pursuant to subsection 41(1) of SIMA or the day the CITT makes an order or finding pursuant to subsection 43(1) of SIMA.

[9] Based on the available evidence, the CBSA is satisfied that OCTG originating in or exported from the subject countries and exporters/producers has been dumped. Therefore, on March 23, 2026, the CBSA made a final determination of dumping pursuant to paragraph 41(1)(b) of SIMA in respect of those goods.

[10] The CITT’s inquiry into the question of injury to the Canadian industry is continuing, and the CITT will issue its decision by April 21, 2026. Provisional duties will continue to be imposed on the OCTG from the subject countries and exporters/producers until the CITT renders its decision.

---

Period of investigation

[11] The period of investigation (POI) for the investigations is April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025.

---

Interested parties

[12] Refer to the Initiation Statement of Reasons for additional information on interested parties.

Exporters

[13] The following five exporters provided complete responses to the CBSA’s dumping request for information (RFI):

| Country | Exporter |
| --- | --- |
| Mexico | Tubos de Acero de Mexico S.A. Footnote 1 (TAMSA) |
| Philippines | HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. Ltd. Footnote 2 (HLD Clark) |
| South Korea | Hyundai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. Footnote 3 (HSP) |
| Türkiye | Borusan Birleşik Boru Fabrikalari Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.Ş. Footnote 4 (Borusan) |
| United States | Maverick Tube Corporation Footnote 5 (MTLP) |
[14] Six related input suppliers, POSCO Footnote 6, the Hyundai Steel Company Footnote 7, SIDERCA S.A.I.C. Footnote 8, Servicios Generales Tenaris Tamsa, S. A. de C. V Footnote 9, Techgen, S.A. de C.V Footnote 10, and Exiros B.V. Sucursal Uruguay (“Exiros”) Footnote 11 also provided a response to the dumping RFI and if requested, subsequent SRFIs.

Importers

[15] Six importers provided a response to the CBSA’s importer RFI: JY Steel Inc. Footnote 12, Tenaris Global Services (Canada) Inc. Footnote 13, IMEX Canada Inc. Footnote 14, IMCO International Steel Trading Inc. Footnote 15, Hyundai Canada Inc. Footnote 16, and Pacific Tubulars Ltd. Footnote 17

Government

[16] The Government of Türkiye provided a response to the CBSA’s government particular market situation (PMS) RFI. Footnote 18

[17] For the purposes of this investigation, the Government of Türkiye refers to all levels of government, i.e., federal, central, provincial/state, regional, municipal, city, township, village, local, legislative, administrative or judicial, singular, collective, elected or appointed. It also includes any person, agency, enterprise, or institution acting for, on behalf of, or under the authority of, or under the authority of any law passed by, the government of that country or that provincial, state or municipal or other local or regional government.

Canadian producers

[18] Two Canadian producers provided a response to the Canadian industry RFI: Interpro Pipe & Steel, Inc. (Interpro) Footnote 19 and Welded Tube of Canada Corp. Footnote 20

---

Product information

Definition

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

Oil country tubular goods, comprising casing, tubing, and green tubes made of carbon or alloy steel, welded or seamless, heat-treated or not heat-treated, regardless of end finish or connection (including premium or semi-premium connections), having a nominal outside diameter from 2.375 inches to 13.375 inches (60.3 mm to 339.7 mm), meeting or supplied to meet American Petroleum Institute specification 5CT or equivalent and/or enhanced proprietary standards, regardless of grade, originating in or exported from the United Mexican States and the Republic of the Philippines, and originating in the Republic of Türkiye and exported or produced by, or on behalf of, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. (or its successors or assigns), originating in the Republic of Korea and exported or produced by or on behalf of Hyundai Steel Company (or its successors or assigns), and originating in the United States of America and exported or produced by or on behalf of Tenaris S.A. (or its subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, or assigns), but excluding the following:

• drill pipe
• pup joints
• unattached couplings
• coupling stock
• insulated tubing and vacuum insulated tubing
• stainless steel casing, tubing, or green tubes containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium and
• seamless: casing, tubing, or green tubes originating in the United States of America and exported or produced by or on behalf of Tenaris S.A. (or its subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, or assigns) [20] For additional product information, the production process, the classification of imports, and information on the Canadian industry, refer to the Initiation Statement of Reasons.

---

Imports into Canada

[21] During the final phase of the investigation, the CBSA refined the volume and value of imports based on information from CBSA import entry documentation and other information received from exporters and importers.

[22] The following table presents the CBSA’s analysis of imports of OCTG for the purposes of the final determination:

| Country | % of total import volume |
| --- | --- |
| Mexico | 26.3% |
| Philippines | 6.7% |
| South Korea: HSP | 3.1% |
| Türkiye: Borusan | 3.5% |
| USA: MTLP | 7.3% |
| Other | 53.1% |
| Total | 100% |

---

Investigation process

[23] Information was requested from all known and potential exporters, producers, vendors and importers, concerning shipments of OCTG released into Canada during the POI.

[24] Exporters/producers were also notified that failure to submit all required information and documentation, including non-confidential versions, failure to comply with all instructions contained in the RFI, failure to permit verification of any information or failure to provide documentation requested during the verification may result in the margin of dumping and the assessment of dumping duties on subject goods being based on facts available to the CBSA. Further, they were notified that a determination on the basis of facts available could be less favorable to them than if complete, verifiable information was made available.

[25] After reviewing the RFI responses, supplemental RFIs (SRFIs) were sent to responding parties, in order to clarify information provided in the responses and request additional information, where necessary.

[26] Details pertaining to the information submitted by the exporters in response to the dumping RFI as well as the results of the CBSA’s investigation are provided in the Results of the dumping investigation section.

[27] As part of the final phase of the investigation, case briefs and reply submissions were provided by counsel representing the complainants, other Canadian producers, and exporters. A summary of the representations is provided in Appendix 2.

---

Dumping investigation

[28] The following section presents the final results of the investigation into the dumping of OCTG originating in or exported from the subject countries and exporters/producers.

Normal value

[29] 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.

[30] 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

[31] 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.

[32] 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.

[33] 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

[34] 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.

[35] Further information regarding each country and exporter is detailed below.

---

Background of particular market situation inquiry

[36] In accordance with paragraph 16(2)(c) of SIMA, and for the purpose 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.

[37] 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.

[38] 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.

[39] 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.

[40] 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.

[41] 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

[42] 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 [43] The CBSA received responses to the government PMS RFI and subsequent SRFI#1 Footnote 21 from the Government of Türkiye. Additionally, Borusan provided responses to the dumping RFI and subsequent SRFI#1 Footnote 22 which included questions pertaining to PMS.

[44] 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.

[45] 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.

---

Results of the PMS inquiry

[46] For the purposes of the final 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 final 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.

---

Final results of the dumping investigation

Cooperative exporters

[47] For all cooperative exporters, except for the exporter from the Philippines, who submitted substantially complete responses to the dumping RFI, normal values were either determined using 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 determined pursuant to paragraph 11(1)(a) of SIMR, based on the costs associated with the production of the subject goods.

[48] As inputs significant in the production of the goods were acquired from related suppliers, the costs of those inputs were determined pursuant to subsection 11.2(1) of the SIMR for Tubos de Acero de Mexico S.A and Hyundai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.

[49] The amounts for profit were determined in accordance with paragraph 11(1)(b) of the SIMR for all exporters except for HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. Ltd. The table below summarizes the cooperative exporters’ determination of normal values.

[50] The exporter from the Philippines, HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., had no domestic sales of like goods, meaning the CBSA could not determine normal values pursuant to section 15 of SIMA. The exporter also did not have any domestic sales of goods of the same general category or goods that are of the group or range of goods that is next largest to goods of the same general category as the subject goods. Without such domestic sales, and as the only exporter of OCTG from the Philippines to respond to the CBSA’s RFI, the CBSA was unable to determine an amount for profits pursuant to paragraph 11(1)(b) of the SIMR. As such normal values could not be determined under paragraph 19(b) of SIMA. As a result, the CBSA determined normal values pursuant to a ministerial specification in accordance with subsection 29(1) of SIMA, using a methodology similar to paragraph 19(b) of SIMA. The CBSA used the exporter’s cost information but the amount for profits was determined using the weighted average profit made on domestic sales of OCTG by other exporters not located in the Philippines who provided a complete response in this investigation.

| Country | Exporter | Domestic sales | Normal values (SIMA section) | Profit (SIMR section) | Margin of dumping (% of export price) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Mexico | Tubos de Acero de Mexico S.A. | Yes | 19(b) | 11(1)(b)(ii) | 30.7% |
| Philippines | HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. Ltd. | No | 29 [19(b) methodology] | N/A | 16.7% |
| South Korea | Hyundai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. | Yes | 19(b) | 11(1)(b)(v) | 13.6% |
| Türkiye | Borusan Birleşik Boru Fabrikalari Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.Ş. | Yes | 19(b) | 11(1)(b)(v) | 11.0% |
| United States | Maverick Tube Corporation | Yes | 15 & 19(b) | 11(1)(b)(ii) | 13.9% |
[51] During the period of investigation, all of the subject goods exported to Canada by the cooperative exporters in the Philippines and Türkiye were sold to unrelated importers. Export prices for those exporters 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.

[52] During the period of investigation, some of the subject goods exported to Canada by the cooperative exporter in South Korea, and all of the subject goods exported by the cooperative exporters in Mexico and the United States were sold to related importers. Export prices for those exports sold to related importers were subjected to reliability testing to determine whether export prices should be determined pursuant to section 24 or section 25 of SIMA. The subject goods exported from South Korea to a related importer in Canada passed reliability testing and export prices were determined pursuant to section 24. The subject goods exported from Mexico and the United States to their related importer in Canada did not pass reliability testing and export prices were determined pursuant to section 25.

---

All other exporters

[53] In determining the normal values and export prices for all other exporters, 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 preliminary determination, information submitted by parties who responded to the dumping RFI, and CBSA customs entry documentation.

[54] The CBSA decided that the normal values and export prices determined for the exporters from the subject countries whose submissions were complete for purposes of the final determination, rather than the information provided in the complaint or estimated at the preliminary determination, would be used to establish the normal values for all other exporters, since it is more relevant and reflects the trading practices of an exporter of subject goods during the period of investigation.

Philippines

[55] The CBSA decided that the normal values and export prices determined for all other exporters from the Philippines would be determined 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 and Mexico than the information provided in the complaint or estimated at initiation or at the preliminary determination.

[56] The CBSA examined the difference between the determined normal value and the determined 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 determining 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 favorable outcome than those who have not participated.

[57] 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 determined based on the highest amount by which a determined normal value exceeded the determined 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.

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

[59] Using the above methodologies, for the final determination, the margin of dumping for all other exporters from the Philippines is 57.5%, expressed as a percentage of export price.

---

Summary of results: Dumping

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

| Country | Exporter | % of total imports for POI
(by volume) | Margin of dumping
(% of export price) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Mexico | Tubos de Acero de Mexico S.A. | 26.3% | 30.7% |
| Philippines | HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. Ltd. | 6.6% | 16.7% |
| All other exporters | 0.1% | 57.5% | |
| South Korea | Hyundai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. | 3.1% | 13.6% |
| Türkiye | Borusan Birleşik Boru Fabrikalari Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.Ş. | 3.5%% | 11.0% |
| United States | Maverick Tube Corporation | 7.3% | 13.9% |
| All other countries | | | 53.1% |
| Total | | | 100% |
[61] 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 [62] 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.

[63] The margin of dumping determined for all exporters of subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries 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 OCTG from the subject countries.

[64] A summary of the margins of dumping by exporter is presented in Appendix 1.

---

Decision

[65] On March 23, 2026, pursuant to paragraph 41(1)(b) of SIMA, the CBSA made a final determination respecting the dumping of OCTG from the subject countries and exporters/producers.

---

Future action

[66] The provisional period began on December 22, 2025, and will end on the date the CITT issues its finding. The CITT is expected to issue its decision by April 21, 2026. Provisional duties will continue to be imposed on the subject goods from the subject countries until the CITT renders its decision. For further details on the application of provisional duty, refer to the Statement of Reasons issued for the preliminary determination.

[67] If the CITT finds that the dumped goods have not caused injury and do not threaten to cause injury, all proceedings will be terminated. In this situation, all provisional duty paid or security posted by importers will be returned.

[68] If the CITT finds that the dumped goods have caused injury, the anti-dumping duty payable on subject goods released by the CBSA during the provisional period will be finalized pursuant to section 55 of SIMA. Imports released by the CBSA after the date of the CITT’s finding will be subject to anti-dumping duty equal to the margin of dumping.

[69] The importer in Canada shall pay all applicable duties. If the importers of such goods do not indicate the required SIMA code or do not correctly describe the goods in the customs documents, an administrative monetary penalty could be imposed. The provisions of the Customs Act apply with respect to the payment, collection or refund of any duty collected under SIMA. As a result, failure to pay duty within the prescribed time will result in the application of interest.

---

Retroactive duty on massive importations

[70] Under certain circumstances, anti-dumping duty can be imposed retroactively on subject goods imported into Canada. When the CITT conducts its inquiry on material injury to the Canadian industry, it may consider if dumped goods that were imported close to or after the initiation of the investigation constitute massive importations over a relatively short period of time and have caused injury to the Canadian industry. Should the CITT issue a finding that there were recent massive importations of dumped goods that caused injury, imports of subject goods released by the CBSA in the 90 days preceding the day of the preliminary determination could be subject to anti-dumping duty.

---

Publication

[71] A notice of this final determination of dumping will be published in the Canada Gazette pursuant to paragraph 41(3)(a) of SIMA.

---

Contact us

[72] For further information, please contact the email address identified below:

Email: simaregistry-depotlmsi@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca

Sean Borg
A/Executive Director
Trade and anti-dumping programs directorate

Appendix 1: Summary of margins of dumping

| Country | Exporter | Margin of dumping (% of export price) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Mexico | Tubos de Acero de Mexico S.A. | 30.7% |
| Philippines | HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. Ltd. | 16.7% |
| All other exporters | 57.5% | |
| South Korea | Hyundai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. | 13.6% |
| Türkiye | Borusan Birleşik Boru Fabrikalari Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.Ş. | 11.0% |
| United States | Maverick Tube Corporation | 13.9% |
| Note The margins of dumping reported in the table above are the margins determined by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) for purposes of the final determination of dumping. These margins do not reflect the anti-dumping duty to be levied on future importations of dumped goods. In the event of an injury finding by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, normal values have been provided to the exporters which provided sufficient information for future shipments to Canada and these normal values would come into effect the day after the injury finding. Information regarding normal values of the subject goods should be obtained from the exporter. Imports of subject goods from exporters/producers that did not provide sufficient information to the CBSA during the dumping investigation and who are not listed in the table above will be subject to the All Other Exporters anti-dumping duty rate pursuant to a ministerial specification.

Normally, normal values will not be applied retroactively. However, normal values may be applied retroactively in cases where the exporter does not adjust export prices to account for increases in domestic prices and/or costs. Therefore, where substantial changes occur in prices, market conditions, costs associated with production and sales of the goods, the onus is on the concerned parties to increase the export price accordingly to ensure that any sale made to Canada is not only above the normal value but at or above selling prices and full costs and profit of the goods in the exporter’s domestic market.

Please consult the SIMA Self-Assessment Guide for more detailed information explaining how to determine the amount of SIMA duties owing. | | |

---

Appendix 2: Representations

During the investigation, representations were received on behalf of Interpro Pipe & Steel, Inc. (Interpro) Footnote 23 and Welded Tube of Canada Corp. (WTC) Footnote 24, (hereinafter, “the complainants”), Tenaris Global Services (Canada) Inc. (TGS Canada) Footnote 25, and the Government of Mexico Footnote 26.

Following the closing of the record on February 9, 2026, case arguments were received on behalf of the following parties:

• Interpro Footnote 27
• WTC Footnote 28
• Borusan Birleşik Boru Fabrikalari Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.Ş. (Borusan) Footnote 29
• Hyundai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (HSP) Footnote 30

• Algoma Tubes Inc., Tenaris Global Services (Canada) Inc. (TGSC), Hydril Canadian Company LP, Tubos de Acero de Mexico S.A. (TAMSA), Maverick Tube Corporation (MTLP), and Tenaris Global Services and Investments S.à.r.l. (TEIL) (collectively, “Tenaris”) Footnote 31
  The CBSA also received reply submissions on behalf of the following parties:

• Interpro Footnote 32

• WTC Footnote 33

• Borusan Footnote 34

• HSP Footnote 35 and

• Tenaris Footnote 36
  Certain details provided in the representations were designated as confidential information by the submitting counsel. This has restricted the ability of the CBSA to discuss all issues raised in these submissions. The material issues raised by the parties are summarized as follows:

Completeness and accuracy of the exporters' production cost information

Counsel for the complainants submitted that the information submitted by HLD Clark, and HSP in response to the dumping request for information (RFI), and/or supplemental RFIs have production cost deficiencies that makes their information unusable. As a result, counsel argued that the normal values and export prices for those exporters should be determined pursuant to a ministerial specification in accordance with subsection 29(1) of Special Measures Import Act (SIMA).

Counsel for HSP responded to the complainant’s arguments. HSP contended that the complainants criticisms of HSP’s production costs can be dismissed because the CBSA independently verified those costs as accurate and complete during the verification. Therefore, their information should be used to calculate their respective normal values and export prices.

The CBSA did not receive a reply submission from HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co. Ltd. (HLD Clark).

CBSA’s response

The CBSA reviewed all of the information submitted by HSP and HLD Clark and found the information provided to be sufficient. The CBSA also conducted on-site verifications of the information submitted at each of the exporters’ locations and found the information to be accurate and reliable. Therefore, the CBSA has determined normal values and export prices for each exporter using the information they submitted for purposes of the final determination.

---

Adjustments under SIMR

Counsel for Tenaris argued that certain adjustments under the SIMR should be made when determining normal values to ensure a fair comparison between the export price and the normal value. Counsel further argued that these adjustments are needed to account for differences between the trade level and the conditions of sale.

Counsel for the complainants submitted that Tenaris’ claims for trade level and other adjustments under the SIMR should be rejected and argued that the data they submitted is fundamentally flawed and do not meet the requirements of the SIMR.

Counsel for Tenaris responded to the complainant’s arguments and rejected the complainant’s claim that its data is flawed, emphasizing that the same type of verified information was accepted for other Tenaris entities.

CBSA’s response

The CBSA reviewed all of the information submitted by Tenaris and found the information provided to be sufficient. The CBSA also conducted on-site verifications of the information submitted at each of Tenaris’ locations and found the information to be accurate and reliable. Therefore, certain adjustments under the SIMR were applied when determining the normal values for TAMSA and MTLP.

---

Amount for profits: TAMSA

Counsel for Tenaris submitted that OCTG with premium connections normally demands a higher profit than OCTG with API standard connections. Counsel argued that due to the product mix differences between TAMSA’s domestic sales in Mexico and its exports to Canada, applying a single weighted average amount for profits for all connection types would not be fair. As such, counsel argued that the CBSA should apply separate amounts for profits for OCTG with different connection types when determining normal values under paragraph 19(b) of the SIMA.

Counsel for the complainant argued that Tenaris’ claims for profit calculation based on end connection type are without merit and should be rejected. Counsel submitted that the CBSA should determine an amount for profit in accordance with the hierarchy under paragraph 11(1)(b) of the SIMR, and further submitted that each of the subparagraphs dictates that the CBSA calculate a singular amount for profits based on the weighted average profit made on the sales that satisfy the criteria of each category in the hierarchy.

CBSA’s response

For purposes of this investigation, identical goods must be goods that have the same six product characteristics (i.e. product type, grade, outside diameter (OD), end finish, gauge and coating), and similar goods must be goods that have the same four product characteristics (product type, grade, OD, and end finish) as the subject goods. In the absence of domestic sales that would meet the above-noted like goods selection criteria, goods of the same general category are OCTG produced in the subject country and sold in the exporter’s domestic market, including OCTG not covered by the product definition.

These selections are based on the information on the administrative record with respect to the impact of product characteristics on the cost of production and domestic selling price of the goods. As such, for purposes of determining an amount for profit under 11(1)(b)(i) of the SIMR, domestic sales must have at least the same four product characteristics to be considered like goods.

Paragraph 11(1)(b) of the SIMR provides direction on what the CBSA is to use as the amount for profits when calculating normal value under paragraph 19(b) of SIMA. Profit must be established in accordance with a hierarchy provided for in the SIMR.

The CBSA finds that there is no indication that subparagraph 11(1)(b)(ii) would require the determination of an amount for profits based on the selection of one product characteristic. The CBSA is of the view that “same general category” is intentionally expansive to ensure a sufficient number of sales are included to allow for the determination of an amount for profits. In the case of TAMSA, the amount for profits cannot be determined under this first method pursuant to subparagraph 11(1)(b)(i). As such, the amount for profits must be determined pursuant to subparagraph 11(1)(b)(ii) of the SIMR. Based on the explanation above, the CBSA has not determined an amount for profits under 11(1)(b)(ii) by one product characteristic as there was insufficient evidence to support a modification of the definition of goods of the same general category based on a single product characteristic.

Therefore, the CBSA determined an amount for profits for TAMSA based on goods of the same general category which include all OCTG regardless of product characteristics.

---

Determination of the exporter

During the course of the investigation, counsel for Tenaris argued that Tenaris Global Services and Investments S.àr.l. (TEIL), a vendor located in Luxembourg, might be considered as the exporter for subject goods exported from TAMSA of Mexico and MTLP of the United States. Counsel submitted that the leading legal authority on which entity is the exporter for SIMA purposes is the CITT’s decision on EMCO. Counsel also claimed that TEIL is a principal in the transaction and the owner of the goods in the country of export at the time the goods are exported to Canada.

Counsel for the complainant rejected Tenaris’ claims and argued that there is not a single reference made in Tenaris’ case brief respecting the EMCO decision. Counsel also argued that the simple and determinative fact is that TEIL is not located in the country of export, and submitted that Tenaris’ claim that TEIL is the exporter fails based on this fact alone.

CBSA’s response

Based on the information on the administrative record, all parties involved in the export sales to Canada are related parties, including the producers, the vendor and the importer in Canada. The producers are responsible for the logistics, including arrangements of direct shipment of subject goods from the country of export to Canada. The vendor acts as an international distribution and logistics network for OCTG produced by the producers. The parties involved in the export transaction are not at arm’s length relationship until the goods are sold to unrelated end-users in Canada.

As such, consistent with the preliminary determination, the CBSA has determined that the producers (i.e. TAMSA and MTLP) are the exporter for SIMA purposes.

---

Apparent errors in CBSA's negligibility calculation concerning HSP

Counsel on behalf of HSP submitted that the CBSA’s negligibility calculation with respect to exports from HSP contains material errors and claimed that CBSA has not disclosed its negligibility calculations. Counsel noted that a relatively small change in HSP’s attributed volume of imports could result in HSP falling below the negligibility threshold of 3%.

Counsel representing the complainants submitted that arguments made by HSP regarding the CBSA’s negligibility calculation are baseless. The complainants argued that the CBSA has already placed the total import data with breakdown of subject sources and non-subject imports that it found during the preliminary determination on the confidential record, therefore, HSP’s counsel already has access to these data.

CBSA’s response

The CBSA disclosed how the volume of imports and negligibility calculations were conducted to HSP’s counsel on a number of occasions and made reference to the relevant information readily available on the administrative record. The complaint analysis Footnote 37 explains that the CBSA began with import data retrieved from the CBSA’s Facility Information Retrieval Management (FIRM) database and the CBSA Assessment and Revenue Management (CARM) system for subject goods released into Canada during the POI and provides details on how the data was refined to remove non-subject goods. The complaint analysis Footnote 38 also contains the specific transaction-level details for subject goods exported from each country that were released into Canada during the POI, as retrieved from FIRM/CARM. Using its own data as the starting point, the CBSA then reviewed detailed sales data and documentation submitted by exporters and importers and made adjustments to import volumes based on that information, where required.

Both HSP and its importers in Canada participated in the CBSA’s investigation. The CBSA reviewed all parties’ sales data and documentation originally submitted and also requested and received further details and clarifications respecting imports during the POI via supplemental RFIs. Finally, the CBSA conducted an on-site verification of HSP’s export data and documentation and confirmed that the data used both at the preliminary determination and for purposes of the final determination was valid and accurate.

---

Price deductions in the domestic sales database of goods of the next largest category

Counsel on behalf of HSP submitted that certain deductions should be made to selling prices in the domestic market that were not granted by the CBSA at the preliminary determination. These deductions would have an impact on the amount for profits determined under subparagraph 11(1)(b)(v) of the SIMR.

Counsel on behalf of the complainant’s provided comments opposing HSP’s arguments that deductions should be made to selling prices in the domestic market.

CBSA’s response

The CBSA considered the case arguments and reply submissions provided by counsel. For the purpose of the final determination, the CBSA determined the amount for profits under subparagraph 11(1)(b)(v) of the SIMR based on the verified information provided by the cooperative exporter.

---

Footnotes

Footnote 1 Exhibits 91 (PRO) and 92 (NC) - Response to exporter dumping RFI - Tubos de Acero de Mexico S.A..

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2 Exhibits 58 (PRO) and 59 (NC) - Response to exporter dumping RFI - HLD Clark Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3 Exhibits 77 (PRO) and 78 (NC) - Response to exporter dumping RFI - Hyundai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4 Exhibits 74 (PRO) and 75 (NC) - Response to exporter dumping RFI - Borusan Birle?ik Boru Fabrikalari Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.?.

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5 Exhibits 77 (PRO) and 78 (NC) - Response to exporter dumping RFI - Maverick Tube Corporation.

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6 Exhibit 207 (PRO) & 208 (NC) - Response to Dumping RFI - POSCO

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7 Exhibit 83 (PRO) & 84 (NC), 141 (PRO) & 142 (NC), 180 (PRO) & 181 (NC), 254 (PRO) & 255 (NC) - Responses to Dumping RFI, SRFI#1 and SRFI#2 - Hyundai Steel Company

Return to footnote 7 referrer

Footnote 8 Exhibit 70 (PRO) & 71 (NC) - Response to Dumping RFI - SIDERCA S.A.I.C.

Return to footnote 8 referrer

Footnote 9 Exhibit 72 (PRO) & 73 (NC), 213 (PRO) & 214 (NC) - Responses to Dumping RFI and SRFI#1 - Servicios Generales Tenaris Tamsa, S. A. de C. V

Return to footnote 9 referrer

Footnote 10 Exhibit 79 (PRO) & 80 (NC) - Response to Dumping RFI - Techgen, S.A. de C.V

Return to footnote 10 referrer

Footnote 11 Exhibit 95 (PRO) & 96 (NC), 216 (PRO) & 217 (NC) - Responses to Dumping RFI and SRFI#1 - Exiros

Return to footnote 11 referrer

Footnote 12 Exhibits 29 (PRO) and 30 (NC) - Response to importer dumping RFI - JY Steel Inc.

Return to footnote 12 referrer

Footnote 13 Exhibits 33 (PRO) and 34 (NC) - Response to importer dumping RFI - Tenaris Global Services (Canada) Inc.

Return to footnote 13 referrer

Footnote 14 Exhibits 43 (PRO) and 44 (NC) - Response to importer dumping RFI - IMEX Canada Inc.

Return to footnote 14 referrer

Footnote 15 fn Exhibits 50 (PRO) and 51 (NC) - Response to importer dumping RFI - IMCO International Steel Trading Inc.

Return to footnote 15 referrer

Footnote 16 fn Exhibits 68 (PRO) and 69 (NC) - Response to importer dumping RFI - Hyundai Canada Inc.

Return to footnote 16 referrer

Footnote 17 fn Exhibits 66 (PRO) and 67 (NC) - Response to importer dumping RFI - Pacific Tubulars Ltd.

Return to footnote 17 referrer

Footnote 18 Exhibits 62 (PRO) and 63 (NC) - Response to government PMS RFI - Government of Türkiye

Return to footnote 18 referrer

Footnote 19 Exhibit 37 (PRO) and 38 (NC), Response to Canadian industry RFI - Interpro

Return to footnote 19 referrer

Footnote 20 Exhibit 35 (PRO) and 36 (NC), Response to Canadian industry RFI - WTC

Return to footnote 20 referrer

Footnote 21 Exhibits 197 (PRO) and 198 (NC) - Response to SRFI#1- Government of Türkiye

Return to footnote 21 referrer

Footnote 22 Exhibits 194 (PRO) and 195 (NC) - Response to SRFI#1 - Borusan Birle?ik Boru Fabrikalari Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.?.

Return to footnote 22 referrer

Footnote 23 Exhibit 55 (PRO), 56 (NC), 101 (PRO), 102 (NC), 103 (PRO), 104 (NC), 105 (PRO), 106 (NC), 112 (PRO), 113 (NC), 114 (PRO), 115 (NC), 126 (PRO), 127 (NC), 128 (PRO), 129 (NC), 131 (PRO), 132 (NC), 136 (PRO), 137 (NC), 154 (PRO), 155 (NC), 218 (PRO), 219 (NC), 227 (PRO), 228 (NC), 237 (PRO), 238 (NC), 256 (PRO), 257 (NC) - Comments submitted by counsel for the complainants

Return to footnote 23 referrer

Footnote 24 Ibid.

Return to footnote 24 referrer

Footnote 25 Exhibit 25 (PRO), 28 (NC), 222 (PRO), 223 (NC) - Comments submitted by Tenaris Canada

Return to footnote 25 referrer

Footnote 26 Exhibit 236 (NC) - Comments submitted by the Government of Mexico regarding the methodology for calculating anti-dumping margins involving imports from Mexico

Return to footnote 26 referrer

Footnote 27 Exhibit 287 (PRO) & 288 (NC) - Case Brief - Interpro & WTC

Return to footnote 27 referrer

Footnote 28 Ibid.

Return to footnote 28 referrer

Footnote 29 Exhibit 289 (PRO) & 290 (NC) - Case Brief - Borusan

Return to footnote 29 referrer

Footnote 30 Exhibit 291 (PRO) & 292 (NC) - Case Brief - HSP

Return to footnote 30 referrer

Footnote 31 Exhibit 293 (PRO) & 294 (NC) - Case Brief - Tenaris

Return to footnote 31 referrer

Footnote 32 Exhibit 301 (PRO) & 302 (NC) - Reply Submission - Interpro & WTC

Return to footnote 32 referrer

Footnote 33 Ibid.

Return to footnote 33 referrer

Footnote 34 Exhibit 299 (PRO) & 300 (NC) - Reply Submission - Borusan

Return to footnote 34 referrer

Footnote 35 Exhibit 297 (PRO) & 298 (NC) - Reply Submission - HSP

Return to footnote 35 referrer

Footnote 36 Exhibit 295 (PRO) & 296 (NC) - Reply Submission - Tenaris

Return to footnote 36 referrer

Footnote 37 Exhibit 8 (PRO) - CBSA Complaint Analysis, Attachment 3.

Return to footnote 37 referrer

Footnote 38 Exhibit 8 (PRO) - CBSA Complaint Analysis, Attachment 4.

Return to footnote 38 referrer

Page details

Date modified:

2026-04-07