Thailand's Department of Foreign Trade launches an anti-dumping probe into Chinese prestressed steel strand following a domestic company's complaint.
According to currently disclosed information, Thailand's Department of Foreign Trade under the Ministry of Commerce has published a notice in the Royal Gazette initiating an anti-dumping investigation into prestressed concrete steel strand originating in China, in response to an application from a domestic Thai company.
The applicant alleges a dumping margin of 7.83% of CIF price, and the product concerned falls under Thai tariff subheading 7312.10.91. Prestressed steel strand is widely used in bridges, large buildings, and other prestressed concrete projects, and is not ordinary construction steel. For relevant Chinese manufacturers, if new trade restrictions emerge in the Thai market, the impact may extend beyond an immediate shipment to later quotations, order arrangements, and customer procurement plans.
Based on the currently disclosed application materials, Thai domestic companies mainly put forward three reasons: rising import volumes, increased production capacity and inventories among Chinese exporters, and the impact of imported products on Thai domestic prices. Their logic is that imports of the relevant Chinese products have continued to grow, exporters have the capacity to further expand supply, and imported products are affecting local prices, making an investigation necessary. However, these claims are still only the applicant's assertions. Exactly how much imports have increased, what market share Chinese steel strand has in Thailand, and how significantly local like-product prices have been affected are not yet supported by sufficiently specific public data. It cannot be concluded solely on the basis of the applicant's allegations that Chinese exports constitute dumping or that Thailand's domestic industry has suffered injury. How the investigating authority ultimately determines the dumping margin, injury, and the causal link between them will be key in this case. For exporters, once the case enters the formal investigation stage, sales prices, production costs, export volumes, inventories, and related-party information may all become materials that need to be reviewed.
Viewed in isolation, the steel strand case could be seen as a product-specific trade friction. But when compared with several recent cases, it becomes clear that Thailand is steadily advancing trade remedy measures against Chinese steel-related products. Over the past year or so, hot-rolled steel plate, hot-dip galvanized cold-rolled steel coil, and high-carbon steel wire rod have all appeared in anti-dumping or anti-circumvention cases. Two cases in particular deserve close attention.
First, hot-rolled steel plate. On September 30, 2026, Thailand's Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Subcommittee issued a final affirmative anti-circumvention ruling on hot-rolled steel plate originating in China, extending the relevant measures to wide hot-rolled alloy and non-alloy steel plates and sheets, whether in coils or not in coils. The applicable anti-dumping duty rate for the relevant Chinese producers is 30.91% of CIF price, retroactively effective from November 4, 2025; the exact scope and exceptions remain subject to the formal notice. The significance of this case lies not only in the duty rate itself but also in the further expansion of the original measure's product coverage. When exporters judge whether a product is subject to duties, they cannot look only at the product name; they must also verify product specifications, material composition, and the scope set out in the official notice.
Second, hot-dip galvanized cold-rolled steel coil. On October 5, 2026, Thailand issued a final anti-circumvention ruling on hot-dip galvanized cold-rolled steel coil originating in China, bringing cold-rolled steel coil coated with hot-dip zinc-aluminum-magnesium alloy into the duty scope. According to information released on October 10, 2026, by the Trade Remedy and Investigation Bureau of China's Ministry of Commerce, the case involves 10 Chinese producers, with duty rates ranging from 4.75% to 37.54%. It should be emphasized that this does not mean all similar products will be taxed, nor does it mean steel strand will necessarily follow the same path. Every case has its own investigation scope, factual basis, and ruling result, and duty rates from other products cannot be directly applied.
For steel strand manufacturers and exporters, the first step is to verify whether the product falls within the scope of the investigation. The tariff code can serve as a clue for screening, but it cannot replace analysis of the product's technical parameters, materials, specifications, and end use. The second step is to organize export records, selling prices, production costs, and inventory data as early as possible, leaving time to prepare for possible questionnaire responses and defense deadlines. The third step is to distinguish potential risks from costs that have already materialized. The applicant's alleged 7.83% dumping margin does not mean importers currently have to pay anti-dumping duties at 7.83%; in quotations, contracts, and customer communications, companies should clearly distinguish current taxes and charges from potential but not yet determined costs, and should avoid treating figures from the investigation stage as the final duty rate.
Freight forwarders can proactively remind relevant customers to monitor the investigation's progress, verify whether the goods involved fall within the case scope, and check contract provisions on who bears newly imposed tariffs and other extra costs. For cargo on Thailand routes, they should also watch whether the investigation affects booking rhythms, customer purchasing plans, and subsequent transport arrangements, and where necessary allow for an appropriate policy-risk buffer in their quotations.
Thailand's trade investigations into Chinese steel products now cover multiple categories, but the steel strand investigation does not yet mean duties have formally been imposed. Exporters should promptly verify the scope of the case, carefully assess quotations and contract terms, and continue tracking notices and rulings from the investigating authority.
