Commerce's rebar orders complete a four-country wall, and Algeria's part of it needed no injury finding

On September 18 the Commerce Department published antidumping duty orders on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Bulgaria, Egypt and Vietnam, and countervailing duty orders on the same product from Egypt and Vietnam^1,2. The orders close a case filed on June 4, 2025 by the Rebar Trade Action Coalition, whose members are Byer Steel, Commercial Metals, Gerdau Ameristeel U.S., Nucor, Optimus Steel and Steel Dynamics⁸. That petition named a fourth country, Algeria, and Algerian rebar has been under its own orders since the spring^4,9. Read together, the five orders show the trade remedy laws working on two tracks. Four of them required the U.S. International Trade Commission to find that American producers were injured. The fifth, a 72.94 percent subsidy duty on Algerian rebar, required no such finding at all, because Algeria does not belong to the World Trade Organization^4,6.

The instrument: two duties, one injury test, and an exception

Both remedies come from the Tariff Act of 1930. An antidumping duty offsets the amount by which a product’s normal value exceeds its U.S. price; a countervailing duty offsets a foreign government’s subsidy^1,7. In the ordinary case each needs two findings. Commerce determines the dumping or subsidy, and the Commission determines whether imports have materially injured, or threaten to injure, a U.S. industry⁷. On September 11 the Commission completed and filed affirmative final determinations for Bulgaria, Egypt and Vietnam, with Commissioners Thanhauser and Foley not participating³. The notice appeared in the Federal Register on September 15³.

The exception is written into section 701 itself. The injury test applies “in the case of merchandise imported from a Subsidies Agreement country,” a term the statute defines as a WTO member or a country that has taken on equivalent obligations to the United States⁷. For any other country, “no determination by the Commission” is required, critical-circumstances findings are not made, and the five-year review provision does not apply⁷.

The Commission asked the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on June 13, 2025 whether Algeria qualified⁶. USTR answered in July that Algeria is not a WTO member, has assumed no substantially equivalent obligations, and has no qualifying most-favored-nation agreement with the United States⁶. The Commission accordingly made no injury determination in the Algeria subsidy case and closed it⁵. Commerce then issued the order “based on the ITC’s confirmation that a material injury determination is not required”⁴. The Algerian antidumping case, by contrast, went through the full injury test; the Commission found injury on April 17 and Commerce issued that order on April 29^3,9.

The mechanism: rates, scope and the provisional gap

The rates divide sharply by country and by method.

Vietnam carries the highest. The Hoa Phat companies have a dumping margin of 128.53 percent, reduced to a 123.49 percent cash deposit after an offset for export subsidies counted in the companion case; the Vietnam-wide entity has 136.57 percent, based on adverse facts available, and a 131.53 percent deposit¹. Vietnam is treated as a non-market economy in antidumping cases⁸. Its countervailing rate is 6.80 percent for Hoa Phat Group and all others². By this journal’s arithmetic, Hoa Phat’s combined deposit is 130.29 percent of entered value.

Egypt’s Ezz group and all other Egyptian exporters face 34.20 percent in dumping deposits, while El Marakby Steel and Suez Steel, assigned adverse rates, face 52.73 percent¹. The Ezz group’s subsidy rate is 23.27 percent, which also applies to all others². Commerce made no export-subsidy offset for Egypt because it found no countervailable export subsidies there¹.

Bulgaria has one respondent, Promet Steel JSC, whose 53.27 percent margin also serves as the all-others rate¹. Commerce verified Promet’s sales and cost data on site and calculated that rate¹¹. It is nearly double the 27.79 percent the petition alleged⁸. Bulgaria has no subsidy order; as the antidumping notice puts it, “there is no companion CVD investigation on rebar from Bulgaria”¹.

The Algerian orders are the steepest. Tosyali Iron Steel Industry Algeria SPA and all others carry a 127.32 percent dumping rate and a 72.94 percent subsidy rate, both based on adverse facts available^4,9.

The scope covers rebar in straight lengths or coils “regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade or lack thereof,” and excludes plain rounds¹. It also covers rebar further processed in the subject country or a third country by cutting, grinding, galvanizing, painting or coating, where that processing would not take the bar out of scope if done at origin¹. The orders list HTSUS 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000 and 7228.30.8010 as the main classifications, with 14 other numbers possible, and state that “the written description of the scope remains dispositive”¹.

When do importers start paying the rebar duties?

Cash deposits for all three countries resumed on September 15, the day the Commission’s notice was published^1,2,3. Duties are assessed back to the preliminary determinations: March 13, 2026 for dumping and January 13, 2026 for subsidies^1,2. The statute caps provisional measures, though. Commerce extended the antidumping period to six months at exporters’ request, so it ran from March 13 through September 8¹. Entries from September 9 until the day before the Commission’s notice, which by this journal’s count means through September 14, will be liquidated without antidumping duties^1,3.

The subsidy gap is longer. Countervailing provisional measures last four months, so Commerce discontinued suspension of liquidation in May. Entries made from that point until September 14, again by this journal’s count, will be liquidated without countervailing duties^2,3. Entries in that window escape the duties.

The effect: a narrow trade, a broad cost question

The covered trade is modest in value. Commerce’s 2024 Census figures put rebar imports from Egypt at $114.8 million (about 205,800 metric tons), from Bulgaria at $66.2 million (about 95,500 tons) and from Vietnam at $29.8 million (about 56,400 tons)¹². By this journal’s arithmetic, those values work out to roughly $560 a ton for Egyptian bar, $530 for Vietnamese and $690 for Bulgarian. Vietnam, the source with the highest rates, was the smallest of the three.

Importers bear the cash deposits directly; Commerce will instruct CBP on the final assessment later^1,2. The domestic producers in the coalition gain protection against the named sources⁸. The Commission’s notice states only its conclusion that the industry is “materially injured” by reason of the imports³. The record cited here does not measure what the duties will do to construction costs, or whether buyers will turn to other origins. SteelOrbis reported the antidumping orders and their rates on September 19¹³.

Commerce’s rates also show how much of each result comes from adverse inferences. Two Egyptian mills, the Vietnam-wide entity and the only Algerian exporter were all assigned rates on facts available with adverse inferences^1,4,9. Rates calculated from verified data came in well below the petition’s allegations for Egypt’s largest producer (34.20 percent against an alleged 110.87 to 128.98 percent) and above them for Bulgaria^1,8. This journal saw the same split between calculated and adverse rates in the September solar cell determinations.

The longer view: rebar’s layered orders

These are not the first rebar orders, and older ones were renewed this year. Commerce published antidumping duties on Mexican rebar and countervailing duties on Turkish rebar on November 6, 2014¹⁰. After second five-year reviews, the Commission found on April 8, 2026 that revoking them would likely lead to renewed injury, and Commerce continued both¹⁰. The 2014 scope differs in small but real ways. It excludes certain deformed steel wire without bar markings, and it does not include the 2026 language reaching bar processed in third countries^1,10.

The Algeria order stands apart in its lifespan. Section 701(c) provides that the five-year review provision, section 751(c), “shall not apply” to imports from a country that is not a Subsidies Agreement country^7,10. The Mexico and Türkiye orders had to survive two such reviews before reaching their second decade¹⁰. The Algerian subsidy order therefore faces no scheduled sunset review⁷. That exemption rests on USTR’s determination, applicable from July 15, 2025, that Algeria is not a WTO member and has no equivalent commitments⁶.

The new orders open the administrative steps that follow any order. Parties wishing to be served with scope and circumvention requests must enter appearances on the annual inquiry service lists within 30 days of publication, and Commerce will finalize the lists within five business days after that¹. September is now the orders’ anniversary month¹. What importers of 2026 rebar actually owe remains open until Commerce issues its assessment instructions^1,2.