RB3 2020 IN: Certain concrete reinforcing bar
Statement of Reasons—Final determination

Complainant

[15] The contact information of the complainants are as follows:

AltaSteel Inc.
9401 34 St
Edmonton, AB  T6B 2X6

ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada, G.P.
4000 Routes des Aciéries
Contrecoeur, QC  J0L 1C0

Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation
1 Gerdau Ct
Whitby, ON  L1N 5T1

[16] AltaSteel Inc. (AltaSteel) was founded in 1955. It has undergone various ownership changes and is now owned by Kyoei Steel Ltd. AltaSteel is a scrap-based mini-mill with melting and casting manufacturing facilities in Edmonton, Alberta.^{Footnote 3}

[17] ArcelorMittal Long Products Canada, G.P. (AMLPC) is the largest rebar producer in Canada and has three rebar producing facilities in Québec.^{Footnote 4} AMLPC is part of the ArcelorMittal family of companies, which is the largest steel producer in the world and has operations in more than 60 countries.

[18] Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation (Gerdau) has manufacturing facilities in Whitby and Cambridge, Ontario and in Selkirk, Manitoba. Gerdau’s three Canadian rebar-producing operations are capable of producing the full range of sizes and grades of rebar. The parent company of Gerdau is Gerdau S.A of Brazil.^{Footnote 5}

Other producers

[19] There are two other domestic producers of rebar in Canada, Max Aicher North America Ltd. (MANA) and Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 LP (IRM).

[20] MANA is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Max Aicher Group of Companies in Germany. In 2010, MANA acquired the bar mill and certain other assets of the former Stelco Inc. in Hamilton, Ontario from US Steel Canada. MANA’s bar mill produces both hot-rolled bar coils and cut bar lengths.

[21] IRM is a producer of wire rod in L’Orignal, Ontario. IRM was first established in the 1970s and was acquired by Heico Holdings Inc. in 2004. IRM primarily produces wire rod, but will produce rebar occasionally.

[22] Both MANA and IRM filed letters in support of the complaint, in which they provided certain rebar production and sales information.

Trade union

[23] The complainants identified one trade union, the United Steel Workers (with its various locals) that represents persons employed in the production of rebar in Canada.

Importers

[24] The CBSA identified 18 potential importers of the subject goods from CBSA import documentation and from information submitted in the complaint. The CBSA sent an Importer request for information (RFI) to all potential importers of the goods.^{Footnote 6} Three companies provided responses to the Importer RFI.

Exporters

[25] At the initiation of the investigation, the CBSA identified 60 potential exporters, vendors and producers of the subject goods from information provided by the complainant and CBSA import entry documentation. All of the potential exporters were asked to respond to the CBSA’s Dumping RFI.^{Footnote 7}

[26] Six companies provided responses to the CBSA’s Dumping RFI, as well as six responses from associated suppliers.

[27] Of the responses received, three were considered complete submissions for purposes of a final determination. These submissions and results have been summarized in the Results of the dumping investigation section, found below.

[28] Respondents who have not provided complete submissions have been informed that their information could not be used for the purposes of the final determination as it was not found to be complete and/or reliable.

[29] Post initiation, the complainant, Gerdau, made allegations that a particular market situation (PMS) exists in Vietnam.^{Footnote 8} The CBSA considered evidence supplied by the complainant to be sufficient to examine whether a PMS exists in Vietnam. Consequently, the CBSA sent RFIs pertaining to the alleged PMS to the Government of Vietnam (GOV) as well as to rebar and steel billet producers in Vietnam.^{Footnote 9} One producer provided a response PMS RFI^{Footnote 10}, while the Vietnam Steel Association also provided a response on behalf of its members.^{Footnote 11}

Governments

[30] For the purposes of this investigation, the “Government”, 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.

[31] As stated above, the GOV was sent a Government PMS RFI, to which they provided a response.

Normal value

[62] Normal values are generally determined based on the domestic selling prices of like goods in the country of export, in accordance with the methodology of section 15 of SIMA which relies on domestic prices, or one of the methodologies of section 19. Where the methodology of paragraph 19(b) is used, it is based 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.

Export price

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

[64] Where there are sales between associated persons and/or a compensatory arrangement exists, the export price may be determined under paragraphs 25(1)(c) and 25(1)(d) of SIMA 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.

Margin of dumping

[65] 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 determination 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.

[66] Although the CBSA received Dumping RFI responses from exporters in each of the named countries except Italy, a number of the responses were not complete and/or reliable and therefore could not be used for the purposes of determining normal values and export prices.

Algeria

[67] The CBSA received a complete and reliable response to the Dumping RFI from one respondent in Algeria, Spa Tosyali Iron Steel Industry Algerie.

Spa Tosyali Iron Steel Industry Algerie^{Footnote 17}

[68] Spa Tosyali Iron Steel Industry Algerie (Tosyali) is a private joint stock company. Tosyali started producing concrete reinforcing bars in 2013. All of the subject goods shipped to Canada by Tosyali were produced at its production facilities, located in Béthioua wilaya of Oran, Algeria.

[69] Tosyali provided a response to the CBSA’s Dumping RFI, including a database of domestic sales of rebar during the PAP. Four Supplemental RFIs (SRFIs) were sent to Tosyali to gather additional information and to seek clarification.^{Footnote 18} There were sufficient profitable sales of like goods to determine normal values in accordance with section 15 of SIMA, using the exporter’s domestic prices of rebar in Algeria.

[70] During the POI, all of Tosyali’s subject goods sold to Canada were sold through an unrelated trading company. The CBSA has examined the information on the record and determined that Tosyali is the principal in all transactions, is located in the country of export, knowingly places the goods for transport to Canada, that it maintains the ownership of the subject goods when they are sent to Canada. The CBSA considers Tosyali to be the exporter for SIMA purposes. Export prices were determined pursuant to 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.

[71] For the final determination, the total normal value compared to the total export price results in a margin of dumping of 4.8% for Tosyali, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

All other exporters—Algeria

[72] Based on the information on the record, 100% of the subject goods originating in or exported to Canada from Algeria during the POI, were from Tosyali. Therefore, no “all other exporters” margin of dumping has been determined as Tosyali is the only exporter.

Egypt

[73] The CBSA received a two responses to the Dumping RFI from two respondents in Egypt, Al Ezz Dekheila Steel Company— Alexandria and El Marakby for Metallic Industries.

Al Ezz Dekheila Steel Company— Alexandria^{Footnote 19}

[74] Al Ezz Dekheila Steel Company— Alexandria (EZDK) is a joint stock company. All of the subject goods shipped to Canada by EZDK were produced at its production facility, located in Alexandria, Egypt.

[75] EZDK provided a response to the Dumping RFI, which was used to estimate normal values and export prices for the purposes of the preliminary determination.

[76] On December 16, 2020, the CBSA sent an SRFI to EZDK with responses due on December 28, 2020. The CBSA granted an extension to the deadline to the SRFI to January 11, 2021. The SRFI requested clarification to numerous discrepancies, such as further information needed regarding domestic sales. EZDK did not provide a response to the SRFI on the requested due date. On February 24, 2021 the CBSA notified EZDK that it had not received a response to the SRFI and that the CBSA could not guarantee that information received after the initial deadline of January 11, 2021 would be used for the purposes of the investigation, as the CBSA requires sufficient time to issue further SRFIs or request supporting information.^{Footnote 20} On March 2, 2021, the CBSA received EZDK’s response to the SRFI, less than two weeks before the close of record.^{Footnote 21} The SRFI response included a substantial amount of new and revised information. The provision of late information did not allow the CBSA sufficient time to verify the new information by way of further SRFIs and the CBSA was not able to determine the veracity of the SRFI response. As a result, EZDK’s submissions were considered to be unreliable and were not taken into account for the purposes of the final determination.

[77] For the final determination, the margin of dumping for EZDK is based on the “All Other Exporters - Egypt, Italy, Malaysia and Singapore” normal value and export price methodologies which are described later in this document.

El Marakby for Metallic Industries^{Footnote 22}

[78] El Marakby for Metallic Industries (El Marakby), is a joint stock company headquartered in Giza, Egypt. All of the subject goods shipped to Canada by El Marakby were produced at its production facility in Giza, Egypt.

[79] El Marakby’s response to the Dumping RFI was considered incomplete due to deficiencies in the information concerning the domestic sales of like goods, the costs of subject goods, the costs of like goods and the purchases of inputs that are a significant factor in production, as information was not provided for all months of the PAP. A deficiency letter was sent to El Marakby to address these deficiencies, to which El Marakby provided a response.^{Footnote 23} However, the deficiencies were not sufficiently addressed as El Markaby did not provide the additional sales and costing information for the whole PAP. As such, the CBSA could not use El Marakby’s submission to determine normal values and export prices.

[80] For the final determination, the margin of dumping for El Marakby is based on the “All Other Exporters - Egypt, Italy, Malaysia and Singapore” normal value and export price methodologies which are described later in this document.

Indonesia

[81] The CBSA received one responses to the Dumping RFI from one respondent in Indonesia, PT Putra Baja Deli.

PT Putra Baja Deli^{Footnote 24}

[82] PT Putra Baja Deli (Putra Baja Deli), is a producer and exporter of subject goods that was established in 2004 as a private corporation. All of the subject goods shipped to Canada by Putra Baja Deli were produced at its production facility, located in Serang, Indonesia. During the POI, Putra Baja Deli exported subject goods to Canada directly.

[83] Putra Baja Deli provided a response to the CBSA’s Dumping RFI, including a database of domestic sales of rebar during the PAP. Two SRFIs were sent to Putra Baja Deli to gather additional information and seek clarification.^{Footnote 25}

[84] Putra Baja Deli had domestic sales of like goods during the PAP. Where applicable, normal values were either determined in accordance with section 15 of SIMA, based on domestic selling prices of like goods or in accordance with 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.

[85] In this regard, the amount for profits was determined in accordance with subparagraph 11(1)(b)(ii) of the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR) by using Putra Baja Deli’s profitable domestic sales of goods that were of the same general category as the subject goods exported to Canada during the POI.

[86] For the subject goods exported from Putra Baja Deli to Canada during the POI, export prices were determined in accordance with section 24 of SIMA, based on the exporter’s selling price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

[87] For the final determination, the total normal value compared to the total export price results in a margin of dumping of 3.3% for Putra Baja Deli, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

All other exporters—Indonesia

[88] Based on the information on the record, 100% of the subject goods originating in or exported to Canada from Indonesia during the POI, were from Putra Baja Deli. Therefore, no “all other exporters” margin of dumping has been determined as Putra Baja Deli is the only exporter.

Malaysia

[89] The CBSA received one response to the Dumping RFI from one respondent in Malaysia, Southern Steel Berhad.

Southern Steel Berhad^{Footnote 26}

[90] Southern Steel Berhad (SSB) is a publicly listed company in Malaysia. All of the subject goods shipped to Canada by SSB were produced at its production facility, located in Pulau Pinang, Malaysia.

[91] SSB provided a deficient response to the Dumping RFI. As such, the CBSA sent SSB two deficiency letters. Both deficiency letters were sent to SSB to address inconsistencies and discrepancies in the sales and costing information pertaining to subject goods and domestically sold rebar, and to address the fact that information requested for significant factor inputs had not been provided to the CBSA.

[92] SSB did not provide a complete response to the CBSA’s second deficiency letter, which listed the details of nine significant deficiencies uncovered from their response to the Dumping RFI and their response to the first deficiency letter.^{Footnote 27} These significant deficiencies were further addressed by the CBSA in the exporter letter sent to SSB for the preliminary determination.^{Footnote 28} At the date of the close of record, SSB had only provided their response to one of the nine deficiencies.^{Footnote 29}

[93] As of the close of record, SSB had not resolved the significant inconsistencies and discrepancies in the sales and costing information pertaining to subject goods and domestically sold rebar. In addition, the information requested for significant factor inputs had not been provided to the CBSA for this investigation. As such, the CBSA could not use SSB’s submission to determine normal values and export prices.

[94] For the final determination, the margin of dumping for SSB is based on the “All Other Exporters - Egypt, Italy, Malaysia and Singapore” normal value and export price methodologies which are described later in this document.

Singapore

[95] The CBSA received one response to the Dumping RFI from one respondent in Singapore, NatSteel Holdings Pte. Ltd.

NatSteel Holdings Pte. Ltd.^{Footnote 30}

[96] NatSteel Holdings Pte. Ltd. (NatSteel) is a private company incorporated in Singapore. All of the subject goods shipped to Canada by NatSteel were produced at its production facility in Singapore.

[97] NatSteel’s response to the Dumping RFI was considered incomplete due to issues with the identify the manufacturer of the like goods sold domestically, and blended acquisition and production costs of imported rebar. A deficiency letter was sent to NatSteel to address these deficiencies, to which NatSteel provided a response.^{Footnote 31} However, the deficiencies were not sufficiently addressed as NatSteel was unable to separately submit their own cost of production.

[98] As such, the CBSA sent an additional correspondence to NatSteel reminding them that their RFI response would still be considered deficient if they were unable to rectify the issue.^{Footnote 32} On March 9, 2021, less than one week prior to the close of record for the investigation, NatSteel resubmitted their costs noting they had attempted to separate their own costs of production from the acquisition cost of imported rebar.^{Footnote 33} The CBSA had insufficient time prior to the close of record to review and verify the new information by way of further SRFIs or supporting information. As a result, NatSteel’s submissions were considered to be unreliable and were not taken into account for the purposes of the final determination.

[99] For the final determination, the margin of dumping for NatSteel is based on the “All Other Exporters - Egypt, Italy, Malaysia and Singapore” normal value and export price methodologies which are described later in this document.

Vietnam

Particular market situation (PMS)

[100] The CBSA may form the opinion that a PMS exists, which does not permit a proper comparison with the sale of the goods to the importer in Canada, if one or more of the following factors have had a significant impact on the domestic sales of like goods in the country of export:

• government regulations such as price floors, price ceilings, production quotas, import and export controls
• taxation policies
• government support programs (financial or otherwise)
• the presence and activities of state-owned or state-controlled enterprises in the domestic market as suppliers or purchasers of the like goods (also including other state-owned or state-controlled enterprises such as financial institutions)
• the acquisition of production inputs or processing services that do not reflect market-based costs because they are acquired from suppliers which are state-owned or state-controlled or that are affected by government influence or control
• significant volatility in economic conditions in the home market of the exporter
• evidence of distorted input costs and
• any other circumstances which may or may not be the result of government intervention, in which normal market conditions or patterns of supply and demand do not prevail

[101] Paragraph 16(2)(c) is a provision of SIMA that may be applied when the President is of the opinion that 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 a PMS prevails.

[102] Pursuant to subsection 16(2.1), the President may form the opinion that a PMS exists in respect of any goods of a particular exporter or of a particular country.

[103] In such cases, the CBSA would not determine normal values using the methodology of section 15 of SIMA, which relies on domestic prices. Accordingly, and where such information is available, the CBSA would look to use one of the methodologies of section 19 to determine normal values.

[104] Where the methodology of paragraph 19(b) has been applied, and the President is of the opinion that a PMS also distorts the cost of inputs that are significant in the production of the goods, the President will use information in accordance with subsection 11.2(2) of the SIMR, that best represents the actual cost of the input to permit a proper comparison.

[105] Post initiation, Gerdau submitted that the significant presence of Chinese rebar in Vietnam suppresses the prices of Vietnamese produced rebar sold domestically and that the presence of Vietnamese and Chinese state-owned or controlled enterprises in the Vietnamese steel sector generally and in the rebar market more specifically, distorts input costs and further suppresses Vietnamese rebar prices. Gerdau stated that this prevents the CBSA from making a proper comparison between the prices of subject goods and like goods.^{Footnote 34} The CBSA considered the evidence supplied in the complaint to be sufficient to examine whether a PMS exists in Vietnam.

[106] Consequently, the CBSA sent RFIs pertaining to the alleged PMS to the GOV and to all known producers of rebar and steel billet in Vietnam.

[107] The CBSA received a response to the Dumping RFI from the sole exporter of subject goods from Vietnam, which contained questions concerning the alleged PMS. This respondent also provided a response to the PMS RFI.^{Footnote 35} The Vietnam Steel Association (VSA) also provided information in response to the PMS RFI on behalf of its members.^{Footnote 36} Furthermore, the GOV provided a response to the Government PMS RFI.^{Footnote 37} These parties also filed comments and representations relating to the alleged PMS throughout the course of the investigation.

[108] On the basis of its estimate of the apparent domestic market for rebar in Vietnam, the CBSA determined that Gerdau had overstated the presence of Chinese imports of rebar in Vietnam, as well as the presence and influence of SOEs in that market. In this regard, it was determined that Chinese imports accounted for only 2% of the Vietnam market and that import prices were higher than domestic prices. Furthermore, the presence of SOEs was also overstated, as the combination of state-owned rebar producers and all companies operating as joint ventures with an SOE, accounted for a much smaller proportion of the market than what was alleged, at no more than 28% of the market. An estimate of the Herfindahl—Hirschman Index (HHI) score, a measure of the size of firms in relation to the industry and an indicator of the amount of competition among them, also suggested that the industry was not concentrated. Further, the CBSA’s analysis revealed that there were approximately 17 private rebar producers as opposed to a single company as alleged by Gerdau. Furthermore, the CBSA compared domestic prices with benchmark prices and determined that prices in Vietnam were higher.^{Footnote 38} For these reasons, the CBSA believes that the allegations that prices in Vietnam are being suppressed by Chinese imports of rebar and by the presence of SOEs are not supported.

[109] The CBSA also estimated the apparent domestic market for steel billet in Vietnam, which is the principle substrate in the production of rebar. The CBSA determined that Chinese imports were insignificant and that the presence and influence of SOEs in that market was also overstated, with a market share of approximately 31% and an HHI score pointing to a competitive, unconcentrated industry. The information on the record did not support allegations that SOEs are suppressing domestic selling prices of billet, not to mention that prices of rebar do not appear to be suppressed, as suggested by the pricing analysis mentioned above.

[110] While there was an apparent distortion in the domestic prices of iron ore in Vietnam, an important input into the production of steel, the CBSA’s analysis indicated that this apparent price distortion would have minimal impact on the total cost of the subject and like goods, and no significant impact on the prices of rebar. Accordingly, the CBSA did not find that the apparent distortion in the domestic input prices resulted in a PMS.

[111] Based on the information on the administrative record, the CBSA has not formed the opinion that a PMS exists under paragraph 16(2)(c) in the rebar market in Vietnam that affects the domestic sales such that they do not permit a proper comparison with the sales to the importers in Canada.

Hoa Phat Dung Quat Steel Joint Stock Company^{Footnote 39}

[112] The CBSA received one response to the Dumping RFI from one respondent in Vietnam, Hoa Phat Dung Quat Steel Joint Stock Company.

[113] Hoa Phat Dung Quat Steel Joint Stock Company (HPDQ) was established in 2017 as a private corporation. All of the subject goods shipped to Canada by HPDQ were produced at its production facility, located in Binh Dong, Vietnam. During the POI, HPDQ exported subject goods to Canada directly.

[114] HPDQ provided a response to the CBSA’s Dumping RFI. Three SRFIs were sent to HPDQ to gather additional information and seek clarification.^{Footnote 40}

[115] HPDQ did not have domestic sales of rebar to unrelated customers during the PAP. As such, normal values were determined pursuant to 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.

[116] In this regard, the amount for profits was determined in accordance with subparagraph 11(1)(b)(iii) of the SIMR.

[117] For the subject goods exported from HPDQ to Canada during the POI, export prices were determined in accordance with section 24 of SIMA, based on the exporter’s selling price less all costs, charges and expenses resulting from the exportation of the goods.

[118] For the final determination, the total normal value compared to the total export price results in a margin of dumping of 10.5% for HPDQ, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

All other exporters—Vietnam

[119] Based on the information on the record, 100% of the subject goods originating in or exported to Canada from Vietnam during the POI, were from HPDQ. Therefore, no “all other exporters” margin of dumping has been determined as HPDQ is the only exporter.

All other exporters—Egypt, Italy, Malaysia and Singapore

[120] As previously stated, the CBSA did not receive complete and reliable responses to the Dumping RFI from any exporters in Egypt, Italy, Malaysia and Singapore, so as a result, the normal values and export prices for all exporters in Egypt, Italy, Malaysia and Singapore were determined on the basis of facts available.

[121] In establishing the methodology for estimating normal values and export prices, the CBSA analyzed 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, information submitted by exporters of rebar from the named countries and customs documentation.

[122] The CBSA decided that the normal values and export prices determined for the exporters whose submissions were complete and reliable 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 since it reflects exporters’ actual trading practices during the POI.

[123] The CBSA would normally first consider whether information from an exporter of rebar from the applicable country, who provided complete and reliable information, would be appropriate to use as the basis for determining normal values for all other exporters in each respective country. However, as no exporters in Egypt, Italy, Malaysia and Singapore provided a complete and reliable response to the CBSA’s Dumping RFI, the CBSA instead considered whether information from exporters of rebar from the named counties who provided complete and reliable information, would be appropriate to use as the basis for determining normal values.

[124] Normal values for all exporters from Egypt, Italy, Malaysia and Singapore, have been determined based on the highest amount by which a normal value exceed an export price on an individual transaction of the exporters that provided a complete and reliable response for the final determination (expressed as a percentage of the export price).

[125] 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 were shipped to Canada during the POI 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.

[126] Export prices were based on the declared selling prices on customs entry documentation. The CBSA considers this the best available information on which to base the export prices for all other exporters as it reflects actual import data.

[127] Using the above methodology, the margin of dumping for all exporters in Egypt, Italy, Malaysia and Singapore is determined to be 23.1%, expressed as a percentage of the export price.

Summary of results

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

[129] Under paragraph 41(1)(a) of SIMA, the CBSA is required to terminate an investigation in respect of the goods of an exporter if the CBSA 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.

[130] The goods under investigation have been dumped and the margins of dumping on the goods are greater than the threshold of 2% and are therefore not considered insignificant. As a result, pursuant to paragraph 41(1)(b) of SIMA, the CBSA made a final determination of dumping respecting rebar originating in or exported from Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam.