What are the current company‑specific AD/CVD rates for major Canadian lumber exporters to the U.S.?

1. How the U.S. calculated the “default” company rate and what it means

The Commerce Department’s Sixth Administrative Review settled on a countervailing duty rate of 14.63% for “non‑selected” companies — the catch‑all rate that applies to most Canadian exporters that were not individually investigated — a jump from 6.74% in the prior review ^[1]. On the antidumping side, the Department’s preliminary administrative review reported a non‑selected AD margin of 20.07% (up sharply from prior averages), and industry reporting later referenced final AD rates near 20.56%, meaning the combined AD+CVD exposure for most firms sits around 35% when those numbers are added together ^{[2] [3] [4]}.

2. Company‑specific rates: what is known and what remains opaque

Some large Canadian producers were assigned individualized margins in the AR6 results — reporting notes that Canfor and West Fraser, among others, received company‑specific rates — but the public summaries in the supplied reporting do not include a complete, sourceable table of every firm’s AD and CVD percentages, so a definitive, line‑by‑line list of “company X = Y% AD, Z% CVD” cannot be produced from these sources alone ^[5]. The Commerce press release and trade commentary repeatedly emphasize the non‑selected/default rates (14.63% CVD; ~20% AD) as the practical benchmark for most exporters ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Effective combined duties and additional U.S. measures that stack on top

Analysts and trade commentators calculate combined effective trade barriers much higher than the single administrative numbers because Section 232/global sectoral tariffs and emergency IEEPA levies have been applied on top of AD/CVD, producing combined effective tariffs reported in some outlets as exceeding 40–45% for Canadian softwood exports into the U.S. in recent iterations of policy layering ^{[6] [4] [7]}. Government and industry reporting confirms that these layered measures — AD, CVD, plus Section 232 or other sectoral tariffs — are being applied concurrently, which materially raises the cost of U.S. market access beyond the Commerce Department’s AD/CVD calculations alone ^{[8] [6]}.

4. Retroactivity, enforcement window and what to watch next

The administrative review results have been applied retroactively in prior rounds (reporting notes retroactive application to 2022 shipments in some announcements), and Commerce’s AR6 outcomes are scheduled to remain in force until the Seventh Administrative Review or a negotiated settlement; commentary expects another review around mid‑2026 ^{[9] [5]}. Stakeholders — U.S. producer groups, Canadian industry and government — are maneuvering on both legal and trade‑policy fronts; U.S. industry groups welcomed higher duties as protecting domestic mills while Canadian officials are pursuing legal and diplomatic avenues, a dynamic that signals further revisions or legal disputes ahead ^{[9] [8]}.

5. Bottom line and limits of available reporting

For most Canadian lumber exporters, the working company‑specific benchmark from the Commerce reviews is a CVD of 14.63% plus AD margins around 20% (yielding combined AD/CVD of roughly 35%), and a subset of firms have individualized rates though those exact per‑company percentages are not fully enumerated in the supplied sources ^{[1] [2] [3] [5]}. The reporting also documents significant stacking from Section 232 and other tariffs that push effective U.S. duties well above those AD/CVD figures in many analyses, but a precise, public, up‑to‑date table of every major exporter’s separate AD and CVD percentages is not contained within the materials provided here ^{[6] [4] [7]}.