The U.S. International Trade Commission determined on 4 November 2026 that removing existing duties on steel grating from China would likely allow material injury to continue or recur. Its announcement says the antidumping and countervailing duty orders will remain in place following the latest five-year reviews.

USITC keeps existing steel-grating orders in place

Key facts

  • The decision concerns steel grating from China under investigations 701-TA-465 and 731-TA-1161.
  • All six commissioners voting on the final determinations voted in favour.
  • The reviews began on 1 May 2026 and were designated expedited reviews on 4 August.
  • The Commission says its public report will be available by 17 December 2026.

This is a continuation of existing trade-defence measures through the sunset-review process. It is not an announcement of newly created duties on a previously uncovered product. The Commission's release also does not announce a new duty rate. Importers and purchasers should distinguish the decision to retain an order from the separate question of the rate applicable to an individual entry.

The institutional roles are different. Under the process described by USITC, the Department of Commerce examines whether revocation would be likely to lead to continued or recurring dumping or subsidies. The Commission assesses whether removing the orders would be likely to lead to continued or recurring material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The statutory review therefore tests the consequences of removing an existing measure. USITC decision announcement

The six affirmative votes were cast by Chairman Brett W. Doyle and Commissioners Jason E. Kearns, Peter-Anthony Pappas, Bart Thanhauser, David Foley Jr. and Samuel T. Negatu. The release identifies these as the final injury determinations, rather than the earlier procedural vote on whether to conduct full or expedited reviews.

Expedited review and the December report

The August procedural decision followed an assessment of responses from interested parties. USITC found the domestic group responses adequate and the respondent group responses inadequate. One commissioner favoured full reviews, while the other participating commissioners favoured the expedited route. Three of the commissioners voting on the final outcome were not members at the time of that earlier adequacy vote. Review chronology

In expedited reviews, the agency generally does not hold a hearing or undertake further investigative activity. Its announcement explains that commissioners instead rely on available material, including previous determinations, responses to the institution notice, staff data and information supplied by Commerce. That procedural description matters when assessing what evidence the review generated; an expedited determination should not be described as a new full investigation with fresh questionnaires and a public hearing.

For businesses following cross-border trade policy, the decision concerns a specific US remedy and a specific Chinese product. It operates differently from the cooperative trade and standards agenda in the new Canada-EU alliance. That agreement-building process does not alter the US orders. Both developments illustrate why the instrument and its jurisdiction matter when assessing market access.

The Commission's detailed public report, Publication 5812, is due on its website by 17 December. The announcement establishes the outcome, but the report's full reasoning was not yet available through the records read for this article. No additional rate change or implementation deadline is supplied by this release. Further decisions and documents will be followed in our U.S. section.