Department of Commerce

The U.S. Department of Commerce published preliminary findings on October 5, 2026, in an administrative review of its antidumping duty order covering steel concrete reinforcing bar from Türkiye. The agency calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of 13.11 percent for Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S., treated together as Colakoglu, and assigned the same preliminary margin to Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. The review concerns merchandise sold during July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025. These are preliminary findings, not the final outcome of the proceeding. For Turkish American businesses involved in steel importing, distribution or cross-border commercial relationships, the immediate development is a new opportunity to examine the agency’s conclusions and participate in the review before final results determine the relevant assessment and deposit requirements.

The announcement is narrower than a general change in U.S. trade policy toward Türkiye. It addresses a particular product, an existing antidumping order and specified producers or exporters. Commerce also ended this administrative review for three company groupings because it found no reviewable, suspended entries associated with them during the review period. That procedural decision does not mean the underlying antidumping order has disappeared. Nor does publication of the preliminary margins automatically establish a new 13.11 percent cash deposit requirement for every shipment of Turkish rebar. The notice separates preliminary calculations, eventual assessment of reviewed entries and deposit requirements that would take effect following publication of final results. Understanding those distinctions is central to interpreting what changed on October 5 and what remains unresolved.

A review of specified Turkish steel suppliers

Commerce began this review on August 22, 2025, following timely requests under its administrative review procedures. On September 9, 2025, it selected Colakoglu as the sole mandatory respondent, meaning that Colakoglu was the company individually examined in this proceeding. The notice identifies the existing order through earlier Federal Register publications, including the July 14, 2017, antidumping duty orders and a subsequent amended determination. Consequently, the October announcement is a later review within an established proceeding rather than the opening of a new investigation. The agency’s notice carries case number A-489-829 and Federal Register document number 2026-20294. Those identifiers distinguish this review from other steel proceedings, other products from Türkiye and separate antidumping or countervailing duty cases that may involve similar commercial names.

The same preliminary percentage applies to Colakoglu and Ekinciler, but the agency reached those entries in the results table through different procedural routes. Colakoglu’s margin came from its individual examination. Ekinciler was under review but was not selected for individual examination. Commerce explains that, when determining a rate for a company in that position, it generally looks to the statutory guidance used for calculating an all-others rate in a market-economy investigation. Because Colakoglu’s preliminary margin was neither zero nor below the stated de minimis threshold, and was not based entirely on facts otherwise available, Commerce assigned that margin to Ekinciler. The resulting table therefore should not be read as evidence that the agency performed two separate, complete examinations and independently arrived at identical figures.

Three company groupings leave this review

The partial rescission concerns Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S.; Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim A.S.; and Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. together with Kaptan Metal Dis Ticaret ve Nakliyat A.S. Commerce says it previously notified interested parties that it intended to end the review for these companies because there were no reviewable, suspended entries of subject merchandise during the relevant period. No party commented on that memorandum, according to the notice. The agency then rescinded the review for the listed companies. Its explanation focuses on the absence of entries that could receive an assessment rate through this review, rather than a substantive finding that those companies’ prices were or were not below normal value.

The notice also explains how Commerce intends to handle appropriate entries associated with the companies removed from the review. It says antidumping duties are to be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit rates required when the merchandise entered, or was withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption. Commerce intends to issue the relevant rescission instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection no earlier than 35 days after publication. The agency separately describes circumstances in which timely litigation can delay liquidation instructions for relevant entries. These provisions make the practical point that leaving an administrative review is not equivalent to receiving a newly calculated zero rate. The notice instead directs attention to the rates already applicable to the entries and to the instructions governing their eventual treatment.

Comment deadlines and access to the record

Interested parties have a defined period to respond to the preliminary findings. Commerce modified the case-brief deadline to no later than 21 days after publication of the notice; rebuttal briefs are due no later than five days after the case-brief deadline and must be limited to issues raised in those briefs. With publication dated October 5, the stated 21-day interval points to October 26, 2026, for case briefs, subject to the agency’s operative filing instructions and any subsequent changes. The notice requires electronic filing through ACCESS, Commerce’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System. Documents must be successfully received in their entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline. Submission is therefore governed by receipt in the system, not simply by the time a sender begins an upload.

Written submissions must include a table of contents listing each issue and a table of authorities. Commerce also requests a public executive summary for each issue raised, with each summary limited to no more than 450 words excluding citations. A party seeking a hearing must file a written request electronically through ACCESS within 30 days after publication, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time. The request must identify the party, provide contact details, state the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national, and list the issues proposed for discussion. The 30-day interval runs to November 4, 2026. No hearing date is announced in the notice: Commerce says it will inform parties of a scheduled date if a hearing is requested, and oral presentations would be limited to issues raised in the briefs.

Final assessments and future deposits remain separate

For reviewed entries, Commerce says final results—not the preliminary table—will provide the basis for assessment of antidumping duties. If Colakoglu’s final weighted-average margin is neither zero nor de minimis, the agency intends to calculate importer-specific assessment rates using the dumping amounts and entered values associated with the importer’s examined sales. Where entered values are unavailable for all relevant sales, the notice describes an alternative per-unit calculation using quantities, together with an estimated-value calculation to determine whether the rate is de minimis. It also explains circumstances in which appropriate entries would be liquidated without antidumping duties. These provisions are important because the preliminary company margin is not necessarily a complete statement of the eventual assessment applicable to an individual importer’s entries.

Future cash deposits follow another part of the notice. Commerce says the described requirements would become effective for covered merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication of the final results. For the reviewed companies, the deposit rate would be established in those final results, with a zero deposit rate if the final rate is below the specified 0.50 percent threshold. Previously investigated or reviewed companies outside this review generally retain their applicable company-specific rates under the framework described. The notice also addresses situations in which the exporter lacks a rate but the manufacturer has one. For other manufacturers or exporters, it identifies the continuing all-others rate as 3.90 percent. That figure is not a declaration that every Turkish supplier qualifies for that rate; the company and transaction categories matter.

The notice includes a separate reminder about importer documentation. Under the cited regulation, importers have a responsibility to file a certificate concerning reimbursement of antidumping or countervailing duties before liquidation of the relevant entries. Commerce warns that failure to comply could lead to a presumption that reimbursement occurred and to the resulting additional duty consequences described in the notice. This reminder sits alongside, rather than replaces, the preliminary margin calculations. It highlights an administrative obligation that can remain important while the substantive review is still underway. The agency provides Elizabeth Beuley of AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, as the public contact for further information, at 202-482-3269. The notice directs interested parties to its Preliminary Decision Memorandum for the fuller product scope and explanation of the underlying methodology.

For businesses maintaining commercial links between the United States and Türkiye, the most useful reading of this development is specific rather than sweeping. A current federal proceeding has produced preliminary margins for two reviewed supplier groupings, removed three others from this review and opened a time-limited opportunity for formal responses. It has not announced a blanket prohibition on Turkish steel, a final finding for these reviewed companies or a universal replacement deposit rate. The next consequential stages are the agency’s consideration of submissions, any requested hearing and publication of final results, for which this notice does not provide a fixed date. Until then, the publication supplies an official reference point for following the case while preserving the distinctions among suppliers, historical entries, preliminary calculations and future deposit instructions.