The US Department of Commerce (DoC) announced its preliminary decision in the Turkish rebar countervailing duty and anti-dumping investigations, which were filed upon complaint of domestic mills. According to the preliminary decision of countervailing duty investigation, the Turkish producer involved in the case is now subject to a preliminary margin of 3.47 percent.

The preliminary decision of the anti-dumping investigation imposed varying duties on the Turkish companies involved in the case. Criticizing the decisions as unfair, biased and political, Namık Ekinci, Chairman of the Steel Exporters’ Association declared that, if their defense before the DoC failed to get a fair outcome, they would take strong action and seek justice by taking their case to the Court of International Trade and the World Trade Organization.

On October 18, 2016, DoC launched an anti-dumping investigation against rebar imports from Japan, Taiwan, and Turkey, as well as a countervailing duty investigation focused solely on Turkey . Following a four-month inquiry, the DoC reached a preliminary decision that only Turkish company under investigation is subject to a preliminary duty of 3.47 percent.

DoC also announced its preliminary decision on the anti-dumping investigation, assigning a margin of 5.29 percent to 7.07 percent for Turkish companies, 3.48 to 29.47 percent for Taiwanese companies, and 209.46 for Japanese companies. The final decisions in the countervailing duty and anti-dumping investigations are expected to come in May and June, respectively.

“The US Department of Commerce based its preliminary decision on the claims that the Turkish company is purchasing natural gas at a price below the world market prices,” said Namık Ekinci, Chairman of the Steel Exporters’ Association, “and that the natural gas market in Turkey is a distorted market which does not fulfill the conditions of a free market. However, the prices used as a benchmark are calculated with an oversimplified measurement method. In addition, the intense pressure by domestic rebar mills forced the DoC to prosecute the case and announce its preliminary decision in a very limited amount of time. As such, it is very likely that the DoC’s calculations to determine the margin are inaccurate.”

Ekinci points to the DoC’s request from parties to provide additional information on natural gas benchmarks is proof of that fact. “We are confident that the company will prove that it paid unsubsidized, market prices for the natural gas,” he said. “The company in question also underwent another countervailing duty case in 2013, which imposed no duty in its final decision.”