TRADE LAW | 2026-09-20

A 73.33% Duty Order on Algerian Wire Rod — Issued With No ITC Injury Test at All

Because USTR determined Algeria is not a "Subsidies Agreement country," section 701(c)(1) removed the injury requirement, and Commerce issued the order on the subsidy finding alone.

On September 18, 2026 Commerce issued a final countervailing duty determination and order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod from Algeria at 73.33 percent ad valorem, a rate based on facts available with adverse inferences. The rate is severe, but the procedural posture is the part worth understanding: the notice states that no material injury determination was necessary, because the United States Trade Representative determined that Algeria is not a Subsidies Agreement country within the meanin

On September 18, 2026 Commerce issued a final affirmative countervailing duty determination and a countervailing duty order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod from Algeria, at 73.33 percent ad valorem. The rate itself is severe. The procedural posture is more interesting, and it is the part steel buyers should understand: this order issued without any injury determination from the International Trade Commission at all.

What Commerce decided

The determination and order appear in the Federal Register of September 18, 2026 under case number C-721-003. The period of investigation is January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025. Commerce determined that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of carbon and alloy steel wire rod from Algeria, and simultaneously issued the order.

The rate table is short. SPA Algerian Qatar Steel received 73.33 percent, and the All Others rate is likewise 73.33 percent. The notice marks the company rate with a footnote stating that the rate is based on facts available with adverse inferences.

The unusual part: no ITC injury test

In the ordinary countervailing duty case, two agencies must both say yes. Commerce decides whether countervailable subsidies exist and at what rate; the International Trade Commission decides whether a domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury. An order issues only if both are affirmative. The ITC leg is a genuine check, and petitions do fail there.

That did not happen here. The notice states that no material injury determination is necessary in this countervailing duty investigation, pursuant to section 701(c)(1) of the Act, because the United States Trade Representative has determined that Algeria is not a "Subsidies Agreement country" within the meaning of the Act.

That is the whole mechanism. The injury test in countervailing duty law is, in substance, a benefit the United States extends to countries that have undertaken obligations under the WTO Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement. Where USTR has determined that a country does not hold that status, section 701(c)(1) removes the injury requirement, and Commerce can proceed to an order on the subsidy finding alone.

Why this matters beyond Algeria

Importers and their advisors often model trade remedy risk as a two-gate process and assume there is a second place for the case to die. For merchandise from a country outside the Subsidies Agreement framework, that assumption is simply wrong, and building a risk model on it will understate exposure.

The practical lesson is that country status is a threshold fact worth confirming early, in the same way an importer confirms country of origin or tariff classification. It changes which defenses exist. It changes the realistic timeline. And it changes how much weight to put on domestic-industry arguments that would ordinarily be central to an ITC phase that, in a case like this one, never occurs.

Adverse facts available, and what it does to unnamed suppliers

The 73.33 percent figure carries the notice's adverse-inference footnote. Commerce applies facts available with adverse inferences when a respondent fails to cooperate to the best of its ability — by missing deadlines, withholding requested information, or failing verification. The resulting rate is not an estimate of actual subsidization; it is a rate selected because cooperation did not occur.

The consequence flows downhill. Because the All Others rate here equals the adverse rate, an importer buying from a producer that had nothing to do with the proceeding pays a rate that was set by another company's decision not to participate. There is no mechanism by which a diligent importer can insulate itself from that at the determination stage. The available responses are downstream: entry-level accuracy, sourcing decisions, and participation in later administrative reviews, where a cooperating producer can obtain its own calculated rate.

Suspension of liquidation and cash deposits

In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce stated it intends to instruct CBP to continue the suspension of liquidation of wire rod from Algeria described in the notice's appendix, for merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register, and to assess countervailing duties upon further instruction based on the net countervailable subsidy rates. Those suspension instructions remain in effect until further notice, and effective on the publication date CBP will require cash deposits in the indicated amounts.

Two operational points follow. First, the trigger is the entry date, not the order date, the invoice date, or the arrival date — so the question for any given container is when it was entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption. Second, cash deposits are deposits. They are not the final assessment, and the amount ultimately owed is determined later. Importers who treat a deposit as a final cost, or as a final refund expectation, tend to misstate both their accruals and their claims.

Scope is decided by the product description, not the product name

The notice covers carbon and alloy steel wire rod and lists the Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings under which the merchandise typically enters, including subheadings in headings 7213 and 7227. The scope language also uses chemistry thresholds — specified minimum or maximum contents of elements such as bismuth, sulfur, phosphorus, selenium and tellurium — to draw the boundary of covered merchandise.

That matters because scope arguments in steel cases are usually chemical and dimensional, not commercial. Whether a coil is inside or outside the order can turn on a mill certificate, not on what the product is called on a purchase order. Importers who believe their material sits outside the scope should be prepared to prove it with the documentation Commerce actually uses, and should consider whether a formal scope ruling is the right route. Careful tariff classification work and an honest read of the mill certificates are the first two steps, and a California customs attorney can help evaluate whether the facts support a scope request or simply a corrected entry.

What to do now

Identify every entry of Algerian wire rod and confirm the entry dates against the publication date. Verify the producer and exporter against the company named in the order. Check the chemistry and dimensions against the scope language rather than against the commercial description. Confirm the cash deposit rate your broker is applying, because broker defaults are a common source of underpayment and of later penalty exposure.

Then look forward. If Algerian wire rod is a continuing input, the decision is a sourcing decision with a 73.33 percent variable attached. If it is historical, the work is quantifying exposure on unliquidated entries. Either way, entry-level accuracy is the foundation, and customs defense counsel is most useful before a rate advance or penalty notice arrives rather than after. Further trade developments are tracked in our international trade news.

This article is general information about a published Federal Register determination and is not legal advice. Rates, scope language, case numbers and deadlines change, and the application of a countervailing duty order depends on facts specific to each importer and entry. No outcome is promised or guaranteed. Consult qualified counsel about your own situation.

Contact Trembach Law Firm at (818) 514-7680 for a confidential consultation.

Trembach Law Firm | 27001 Agoura Road, Suite 350, Calabasas, CA 91301