Colombia reopens the L and U section dumping case — this time against Türkiye, and against its own 2021 verdict

Colombia has opened a new antidumping investigation into hot-rolled or hot-extruded L and U iron and steel sections up to 101.60 mm in height (four inches) originating in China and Türkiye, under MinCIT Resolution 695 of 16 October 2026. The steel trade press reported the opening on 26 October, describing a "notice published on October 23" that gives interested parties 30 working days to file views, evidence and questionnaire responses.

The procedural compression matters, because the clock is legally tied to a specific act. Resolution 695 was published in Diario Oficial No. 53.663 on 19 October. The 23 October item is the separate convocatoria — the notice convoking interested parties — carried in Diario Oficial No. 53.667. That convocatoria, not the resolution, starts the 30-working-day window. Importers, Turkish producers and exporters, and the Turkish government have all been issued questionnaires; the public case file is open.

What is actually in scope

The product definition is narrow by size but broad by metallurgy: alloy and non-alloy sections, simply hot-rolled or hot-extruded, in L (angle) and U (channel) form, up to 101.60 mm. Five tariff lines are covered:

The two additions — 7216.31 and 7216.40 — are what bring the 80–101.60 mm band fully into play. The 2017 investigation covered only three codes and, in practice, the smaller end of the size range. This case sweeps in the medium sections that are the workhorse of light structural fabrication, mezzanine floors, racking, roofing purlins, guardrails and general metalworking across the Andean market.

The other change is Türkiye. In 2017 only China was named. Adding a second, low-cost, geographically distant but logistically capable supplier turns a single-origin case into a two-front one, and sets up the possibility of different margins, different legal defences and different commercial responses.

The numbers the market has not yet priced

According to a summary of Resolution 695 by CID-Pro Consulting, MinCIT identified indications of dumping with estimated margins of 44.90% for China and 27.94% for Türkiye at the opening stage. These are not preliminary determinations and should be treated as reported secondary figures: the resolution text itself is not easily retrievable in the public record, and MinCIT's own investigation summary page has not been updated to reflect the case. The SteelOrbis report gives no margin figures at all.

If the estimates hold, two things follow. First, the Chinese figure is high but not extraordinary by Colombian standards — Colombia's 2025–26 tire proceeding against China ran an 83.63% preliminary margin using Türkiye as surrogate, and a 37.88% ad valorem duty is in force on Chinese light-gauge steel profiles under Resolution 285 of 2025. Second, the Turkish figure looks far more negotiable. A 27.94% margin against a supplier whose delivered costs to Colombia are closer to market is a number that can plausibly be argued down in the injury and causation phase, or absorbed by a modest price adjustment.

The uncomfortable precedent: Colombia has already said no

This is the analytical core of the case, and it is largely missing from the trade-press coverage.

Colombia has run this exact play before. Resolution 123 of 8 August 2017 opened an antidumping investigation into L and U sections from China at the request of DIACO and Ternium Siderúrgica de Caldas. Resolution 200 of 17 November 2017 imposed provisional measures, in a form Colombian practice uses often: a reference price mechanism, applying a duty equal to the difference between a FOB base price of USD 473.28/t and the importer's declared FOB price where lower, rather than an ad valorem rate. Resolution 211 of 24 August 2018 made that measure definitive for two years.

The measure then went through the mandatory sunset review opened by Resolution 142 of 14 August 2020 — again at the request of the same two petitioners, with duties held in place during the review. In Resolution 113 of 10 May 2021, MinCIT terminated the review and let the duty lapse, finding insufficient evidence that removing the measure would lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

That is the hurdle this case has to clear. The applicants — now DIACO and Ternium Colombia S.A.S., claiming to represent 100% of national production of the like product — must persuade MinCIT to reach a different conclusion on substantially the same product, against substantially the same Chinese suppliers, five years after the ministry's own negative finding. They have three new arguments available: the two additional tariff lines, the arrival of Turkish material as an alternative source, and any post-2021 change in import volumes, prices or market share. Whether that is enough is the central open question.

Why the reference-price mechanism is the thing to watch

Colombian practice in this segment has favoured minimum/reference FOB prices over ad valorem duties. That has a specific commercial consequence: a reference price functions as a floor on the declared customs value, and it bites hardest on low-priced, high-volume commodity grades — precisely the 25–100 mm angle and channel business. It also leaves higher-value or specially cut material less affected, and it creates a clear incentive to reclassify, to move up the size range above 101.60 mm, or to shift to hollow sections and cold-formed profiles that sit outside the scope.

Any eventual measure framed around a 473.28-style base price — the 2018 figure indexed or updated — would sit well above current import parity for Chinese and Turkish material in a way that the 2021 review found unjustified. The gap between that historical reference level and today's market is, in effect, the argument the respondents will make.

What to watch over the next twelve months

• Questionnaire returns and the 30-working-day window. Colombian deadlines in this docket have slipped before: in the 2017–18 case, deadlines were extended twice (Resolutions 165 and 179) and the provisional measure itself was extended by three months (Resolution 119 of 15 May 2018). Expect at least one extension.
• Whether provisional measures are imposed around month four to six. If the ministry follows the 2017 template, a reference-price provisional duty would land in roughly the first quarter of 2027 and would immediately reset landed costs for importers holding forward positions.
• Türkiye's treatment. Whether Türkiye receives a separate, lower margin — or is folded into a single measure — determines whether Turkish mills contest the case actively or settle into a price-adjustment strategy.
• Interaction with Resolution 285 of 2025. The 37.88% ad valorem duty on Chinese light-gauge profiles (codes 7216.61, 7216.91 and 7228.70) is already in force and shares the 7228.70 line with this case. Traders moving between product categories will find themselves boxed in from two directions.
• Downstream cost. Colombian fabricators, racking manufacturers and light construction firms are the consumers of this product. A reference-price regime on angles and channels raises their input costs directly, with no domestic substitution available above Diaco's and Ternium's combined capacity for the size range. That is an injury-to-users argument respondents should be developing now.

The investigation is a real reopening, not a formality — but it is a reopening against a 2021 finding that the measure was no longer needed. The outcome will depend less on the dumping calculation than on whether MinCIT accepts that the market has changed enough since 2021 to justify reversing itself.

Note on sourcing: the procedural dates for Resolution 695 and the convocatoria, and the 44.90%/27.94% margins, come from secondary legal and consulting summaries rather than the retrieved text of the resolution itself, and should be verified against the MinCIT case file. The 2017–2021 case history is drawn from MinCIT's own published resolution pages.