U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4442 December 2013

Washington, DC 20436

Steel Nails from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1114 (Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Irving A. Williamson, Chairman 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert 

David S. Johanson 

Meredith M. Broadbent 

F. Scott Kieff

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Director of Operations

Michael Szustakowski, Investigator 

Gerald Houck, Industry Analyst 

Nataline Viray-Fung, Attorney 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

Douglas Thibeau, Intern 

Samuel Brecker, Intern
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4442 December 2013

Steel Nails from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1114 (Review)

CONTENTS

Page

i

Determination ......................................................................................................................... 1

Views of the Commission......................................................................................................... 3

Information obtained in the review....................................................................................... I‐1

Introduction............................................................................................................................... I‐1

Background............................................................................................................................ I‐1

The original investigations..................................................................................................... I‐2

Commerce’s reviews ............................................................................................................. I‐3

Previous and related title VII investigations.......................................................................... I‐4

The product............................................................................................................................... I‐8

Commerce’s scope ................................................................................................................ I‐8

U.S. tariff treatment .............................................................................................................. I‐9

Domestic like product and domestic industry .................................................................... I‐10

Description and uses ........................................................................................................... I‐10

Production process.............................................................................................................. I‐11

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions............................................. I‐13

Channels of distribution ...................................................................................................... I‐13

Pricing and related information .......................................................................................... I‐13

The industry in the United States ........................................................................................... I‐15

U.S. producers..................................................................................................................... I‐15

U.S. producers’ trade and financial data............................................................................. I‐16

U.S. imports and apparent consumption................................................................................ I‐18

U.S. importers...................................................................................................................... I‐18

U.S. imports......................................................................................................................... I‐18

Ratio of imports to U.S. production .................................................................................... I‐22

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares................................................................. I‐22
CONTENTS

Page

ii

The industry in China............................................................................................................... I‐26

Background.......................................................................................................................... I‐26

Capacity and production ..................................................................................................... I‐26

Exports................................................................................................................................. I‐27

Tariff or non‐tariff barriers to trade .................................................................................... I‐29

The global market ................................................................................................................... I‐30

Appendixes

A. Summary data from the original investigation.................................................................A‐1

Note.—Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not

be published and therefore has been deleted.  Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731‐TA‐1114 (Review)

Steel Nails from China

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1 developed in the subject five‐year review, the United States

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. ' 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on steel

nails from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on July 1, 2013 (78 F.R. 40172) and determined

on October 21, 2013 that it would conduct an expedited review (78 F.R. 68472, November 14,

2013).

 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission=s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19

CFR ' 207.2(f)).

3

Views of the Commission

Based on the record in this five‐year review, we determine under section 751(c) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Tariff Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order

on certain steel nails from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

I. Background

The original investigation of steel nails from China was instituted in response to a

petition filed on May 29, 2007 by Davis Wire Corp., Gerdau Ameristeel Corp., Maze Nails, Mid

Continent Nail Corp. (“Mid Continent”), Treasure Coast Fasteners, Inc., and the United Steel,

Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers

International Union.1

  The period of investigation (“POI”) was January 1, 2005 to December 31,

2007.   In July 2008, the Commission unanimously determined that an industry in the United

States was materially injured by reason of imports of certain steel nails from China that the U.S.

Department of Commerce found had been sold at less than fair value.2  Commerce issued an

antidumping duty order covering the subject merchandise on August 1, 2008.3

   

The Commission instituted this review effective July 1, 2013.4

  The Commission received

one substantive response to the notice of institution from Mid Continent.5  It did not receive a

response from any respondent interested party.  On October 21, 2013, the Commission found

Mid Continent’s response to the notice of institution to be individually adequate, the domestic

interested party group response to be adequate, and the respondent interested party group

response to be inadequate.  The Commission did not find any circumstances that would

warrant conducting a full review and determined that it would conduct an expedited review

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act.6      

                                                      

1 Confidential Report (“CR”) at I‐3, Public Report (“PR”) at I‐2‐3. 2 Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1114 (Final), USITC Pub. 4022 (July 2008)

(“Original Determination”); Certain Steel Nails from China, 73 Fed. Reg. 43474 (July 25, 2008) (final

determination).    3 Certain Steel Nails from the People’s Republic of China, 73 Fed. Reg. 44961 (Aug. 1, 2008)

(antidumping duty order) (“Order”). 4 Steel Nails from China:  Institution of a Five‐Year Review, 78 Fed. Reg. 40172 (July 3, 2013). 5 Mid Continent Response to Notice Initiating Sunset Review, July 31, 2013 (“Response”).  Mid

Continent provided industry data from four additional domestic producers, one of which was

unidentified.  In making our determination, we rely solely on the data from the identified domestic

producers.  We have examined the data from the unidentified domestic producer, and note that its use

would not have affected our conclusions.   6 See Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy, EDIS Doc. No. 520554 (Oct. 28,

2013).
4

II. Domestic Like Product and Industry

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act, the Commission

defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”7  The Tariff Act defines “domestic like

product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and

uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.”8  The Commission’s

practice in five‐year reviews is to examine the domestic like product definition from the original

investigation and consider whether the record indicates any reason to revisit the prior findings.9

  

Commerce has defined the imported merchandise within the scope of the order under

review as follows:

{C}ertain steel nails having a shaft length up to 12 inches. Certain steel

nails include, but are not limited to, nails made of round wire and nails that are

cut. Certain steel nails may be of one piece construction or constructed of two or

more pieces. Certain steel nails may be produced from any type of steel, and

have a variety of finishes, heads, shanks, point types, shaft lengths and shaft

diameters. Finishes include, but are not limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc

(galvanized, whether by electroplating or hot dipping one or more times),

phosphate cement, and paint. Head styles include, but are not limited to, flat,

projection, cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank

styles include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, ring

shank and fluted shank styles. Screw‐threaded nails subject to this proceeding

are driven using direct force and not by turning the fastener using a tool that

engages with the head. Point styles include, but are not limited to, diamond,

blunt, needle, chisel and no point. Finished nails may be sold in bulk, or they may

be collated into strips or coils using materials such as plastic, paper, or wire.

Certain steel nails subject to the order are currently classified under the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings

7317.00.55, 7317.00.65 and 7317.00.75.  

                                                      

7 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

8 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007);

NEC Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp.

v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748‐49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938

F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90‐91 (1979).

9 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks from Japan, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐377

(Second Review), USITC Pub. 3831 at 8‐9 (Dec. 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐

752 (Review), USITC Pub. 3614 at 4 (July 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Turkey, Inv. No. 731‐

TA‐745 (Review), USITC Pub. 3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).
5

Excluded from the scope of the order are steel roofing nails of all lengths

and diameter, whether collated or in bulk, and whether or not galvanized. Steel

roofing nails are specifically enumerated and identified in ASTM Standard F 1667

(2005 revision) as Type I, Style 20 nails. Also excluded from the scope are the

following steel nails: 1) Non‐collated (i.e., hand‐driven or bulk), two‐piece steel

nails having plastic or steel washers (caps) already assembled to the nail, having

a bright or galvanized finish, a ring, fluted or spiral shank, an actual length of

0.500” to 8”, inclusive; and an actual shank diameter of 0.1015” to 0.166”,

inclusive; and an actual washer or cap diameter of 0.900” to 1.10”, inclusive; 2)

Non‐collated (i.e., hand‐driven or bulk), steel nails having a bright or galvanized

finish, a smooth, barbed or ringed shank, an actual length of 0.500” to 4”,

inclusive; an actual shank diameter of 0.1015” to 0.166”, inclusive; and an actual

head diameter of 0.3375” to 0.500”, inclusive; 3) Wire collated steel nails, in

coils, having a galvanized finish, a smooth, barbed or ringed shank, an actual

length of 0.500” to 1.75”, inclusive; an actual shank diameter of 0.116” to

0.166”, inclusive; and an actual head diameter of 0.3375” to 0.500”, inclusive;

and 4) Non‐collated (i.e., hand‐driven or bulk), steel nails having a convex head

(commonly known as an umbrella head), a smooth or spiral shank, a galvanized

finish, an actual length of 1.75” to 3”, inclusive; an actual shank diameter of

0.131” to 0.152”, inclusive; and an actual head diameter of 0.450” to 0.813”,

inclusive.

Also excluded from the scope of the order are corrugated nails. A

corrugated nail is made of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on

one side. Also excluded from the scope of the order are fasteners suitable for

use in powder‐actuated hand tools, not threaded and threaded, which are

currently classified under HTSUS 7317.00.20 and 7317.00.30. Also excluded from

the scope of the order are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under

HTSUS 7317.00.10.00.

Also excluded from the scope of the order are certain brads and finish

nails that are equal to or less than 0.0720 inches in shank diameter, round or

rectangular in cross section, between 0.375 inches and 2.5 inches in length, and

that are collated with adhesive or polyester film tape backed with a heat seal

adhesive. Also excluded from the scope of the order are fasteners having a case

hardness greater than or equal to 50 HRC, a carbon content greater than or

equal to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced‐diameter raised head

section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point, suitable for use in

gas‐actuated hand tools.10

                                                      

10 Steel Nails from China:  Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty

Order, 78 Fed. Reg. 34989 (June 11, 2013).  The scope definition set out above is different from

Commerce’s scope definition in the original investigation.  Shortly after the original investigation,

Commerce initiated a changed circumstances review at Mid Continent’s request and decided to revoke

(Continued...)
6

The steel nails covered by the scope are produced from low‐carbon, stainless, or

hardenable medium to high‐carbon steel.  They are packaged either in bulk (loose in a

container) or collated (joined into strips for use in pneumatic nailing tools).  While most nails

are produced from a single piece of steel, some are produced from two or more pieces.11  The

nails covered by the scope of this review are used for a wide variety of purposes, including

residential construction for flooring and roofing, and industrial uses such as pallet

construction.12  

In the original investigation, the Commission found a single domestic like product

consisting of steel nails, which was coextensive with the scope of the investigation.13  Mid

Continent has stated that it agrees with the Commission’s domestic like product definition,

which is identical to Commerce’s amended scope from the original investigation.14  There is no

new information obtained during this review that would suggest any reason to revisit the

Commission’s domestic like product definition in the original determination.15  Therefore, we

define the domestic like product as certain steel nails, coextensive with Commerce’s scope

definition.  

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

the order with regard to four specific products:  (1) non‐collated (i.e., hand‐driven or bulk), two‐piece

steel nails having plastic or steel washers (caps) already assembled to the nail, having a bright or

galvanized finish, a ring, fluted or spiral shank, an actual length of 0.500” to 8”, inclusive; and an actual

shank diameter of 0.1015” to 0.166”, inclusive; and an actual washer or cap diameter of 0.900” to 1.10”,

inclusive; (2) non‐collated (i.e., hand‐driven or bulk), steel nails having a bright or galvanized finish, a

smooth, barbed or ringed shank, an actual length of 0.500” to 4”, inclusive; an actual shank diameter of

0.1015” to 0.166”, inclusive; and an actual head diameter of 0.3375” to 0.500”, inclusive; (3) wire

collated steel nails, in coils, having a galvanized finish, a smooth, barbed or ringed shank, an actual

length of 0.500” to 1.75”, inclusive; an actual shank diameter of 0.116” to 0.166”, inclusive; and an

actual head diameter of 0.3375” to 0.500”, inclusive; and (4) non‐collated (i.e., hand‐driven or bulk),

steel nails having a convex head (commonly known as an umbrella head), a smooth or spiral shank, a

galvanized finish, an actual length of 1.75” to 3”, inclusive; an actual length of 1.75” to 3”, inclusive; an

actual shank diameter of 0.131” to 0.152”, inclusive; and an actual head diameter of 0.450” to 0.813”,

inclusive. Certain Steel Nails From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Changed Circumstances Review, 76 Fed. Reg. 30101 (May 24, 2011). The effective date of the partial

revocation is an issue still in litigation.  See Itochu Bldg. Products v. United States, 733 F.3d 1140 (Fed.

Cir. 2013).

11 CR at I‐14, PR at I‐10.   12 CR at I‐14,17, PR at I‐10,12.

13 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 5‐6. The Commission found that subject steel

nails, whether used by the construction industry, woodworkers, or other sectors, share certain general

physical characteristic and uses, are interchangeable in most end uses, are sold to end users and

distributors, are produced by similar production processes, and are generally perceived to be similar

products.  Id. at 5. 14 Response at 8 and 23; Certain Steel Nails from China: Mid Continent’s Comments on the

Record (Oct. 23, 2013) (“Comments”) at 2‐3.

15 Response at Exhibit 1.
7

B. Domestic Industry  

Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act defines the relevant industry as the domestic  

“producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output

of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of

the product.”16  In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been

to include in the industry producers of all domestic production of the like product, whether toll‐

produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market.  

In the original determination, the Commission excluded three domestic producers,

Senco, Stanley Fastening Systems, LP (“Stanley”), and Specialty Fastening (“Specialty”), from the

domestic industry pursuant to the related parties provision.  It found that each firm’s primary

interest had shifted from domestic production to importation.17  There are no related party

issues in this review.18  Accordingly, we define the domestic industry to include all domestic

producers of steel nails.  

III. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order Would Likely Lead to

Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a Reasonably

Foreseeable Time  

A. Legal Standards

In a five‐year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act, Commerce will

revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order unless: (1) it makes a determination that

dumping or subsidization is likely to continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a

determination that revocation of the antidumping or countervailing duty order “would be likely

to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”19  

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) states that

“under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must

decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the

status quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its restraining

effects on volumes and prices of imports.”20  Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in

                                                      

16 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).  The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle

containing the antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a.  See 19

U.S.C. § 1677.

17 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 7‐8.    18 ***.  See generally, Response.  ***.   19 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

20 Uruguay Round Agreements Act Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. 103‐316, vol. I

at 883‐84 (1994) (“SAA”).  The SAA states that “{t}he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of

the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury, or

(Continued...)
8

nature.21  The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the five‐year

review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in

five‐year reviews.22  

The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or

termination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of

time.”23  According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case‐to‐case, but

normally will exceed the ‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in

original investigations.”24

Although the standard in a five‐year review is not the same as the standard applied in an

original investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements.  The statute

provides that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of

imports of the subject merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated.”25  It directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury

determination, whether any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the order or

the suspension agreement under review, whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if

the orders are revoked or a suspension agreement is terminated, and any findings by

Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).26  The statute further

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

material retardation of an industry).  Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that

were never completed.”  Id. at 883. 21 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not

necessary,” it indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely

continued depressed shipment levels and current and likely continued {sic} prices for the domestic like

product in the U.S. market in making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of

material injury if the order is revoked.”  SAA at 884. 22 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003)

(“‘likely’ means probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d

mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002)

(same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not”

standard is “consistent with the court’s opinion;” “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any

particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, 26 CIT 1059, 1070

(2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”);

Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely

‘possible’”).

23 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

24 SAA at 887.  Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the

fungibility or differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the

imported and domestic products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as

spot sales or long‐term contracts), and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may

only manifest themselves in the longer term, such as planned investment and the shifting of production

facilities.”  Id. 25 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

26 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).  Commerce has not made any duty absorption findings with respect to

the subject order.  See generally CR at I‐3‐5, PR at I‐3‐4.
9

provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the Commission is required to consider

shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination.27

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the order under

review is revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports

would be significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States.28  The Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four

enumerated factors:  (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused

production capacity in the exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject

merchandise, or likely increases in inventories; (3) the existence of barriers to the importation

of the subject merchandise into countries other than the United States; and (4) the potential

for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce

the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.29

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the order under review is

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant

underselling by the subject imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether the

subject imports are likely to enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a

significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of the domestic like product.30

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the order under

review is revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are

likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not

limited to the following:  (1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity,

return on investments, and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow,

inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely

negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the industry, including

efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.31  All

relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business cycle and the

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry.  As instructed by the statute, we

have considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is

related to the order under review and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury

upon revocation.32

                                                      

27 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).  Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is

necessarily dispositive.  SAA at 886.

28 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

29 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A‐D).

30 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3).  The SAA states that “{c}onsistent with its practice in

investigations, in considering the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and

termination, the Commission may rely on circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse

effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.”  SAA at 886.

31 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

32 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the

order is revoked, the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be

contributing to overall injury.  While these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the

(Continued...)
10

No respondent interested party participated in this expedited review.  The record,

therefore, contains limited information with respect to the steel nail industry in China.  There is

also limited information regarding the steel nail market in the United States during the period

of review.  Accordingly, for our determination, we rely on the facts available from the original

investigation and the new information on the record in this five‐year review, including data

submitted in the response to the notice of institution.  

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry if an

order is revoked, the statute directs the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors

“within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to

the affected industry.”33  The following conditions of competition inform our determinations.

Demand Conditions.  In the original investigation, the Commission found that steel nails

were used primarily in the construction and industrial sectors.34  The primary uses in

construction involved the building of houses and other structures, and primary uses in

industrial sectors were the manufacture of shipping crates and pallets.35   Nails were packaged

either in bulk or collated form, and the Commission observed a shift in sales from bulk nails to

collated nails during the original POI.36  The Commission found that demand for steel nails was

largely determined by the size of the residential and commercial construction markets, the

largest end users of steel nails.37  Apparent U.S. consumption of steel nails declined steadily

during the POI, from 1.2 million short tons in 2005 to 912,175 short tons in 2007, for an overall

decrease of 22.7 percent.38

In this review, the information available indicates that the conditions of competition

that influence demand for steel nails have not changed significantly since the original

investigation.  Demand for steel nails is still influenced by activity in the residential and

commercial construction markets.39  U.S. housing starts, a major factor influencing overall U.S.

demand for nails, declined in 2008 and by June 2013 remained at levels below those in the

beginning of 2008 despite intervening increases.40  The value of private residential and non‐

residential construction also remained lower through June 2013 than at the beginning of

2008.41  Apparent U.S. consumption of steel nails in 2012 based on data from responding

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an industry is facing difficulties from a variety of

sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”  SAA at 885.

33 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

34 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 14.

35 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 14.

36 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 14.

37 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 14.    38 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 14.

39 See CR at I‐32‐34, PR at I‐24‐25.

40 CR/PR at Figure I‐3. 41 CR/PR at Figure I‐4.
11

domestic producers was *** short tons.42  In the original investigation, apparent U.S.

consumption was 1.2 million short tons in 2005, 1.1 million short tons in 2006, and 912,175

short tons in 2007.43     

Supply Conditions.  In the original investigation, the Commission observed that,

historically, the domestic industry supplied only a portion of the U.S. market with steel nails,

with the remainder being supplied by imports.44  The Commission found that 17 domestic

producers accounted for *** U.S. production of steel nails and that the domestic industry had

substantial and increasing excess capacity, largely due to a decline in production during the

POI.45  The domestic industry’s share of the U.S. market declined steadily, from *** percent in

2005 to *** percent in 2007, while subject imports increased their share of the U.S. market

from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2007.46  Nonsubject imports’ share of the U.S.

market decreased steadily, from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2007.47

With respect to supply conditions in this review, the U.S. industry has experienced

additional consolidation and restructuring, but held a *** percentage of apparent U.S

consumption in 2012 than at the end of the original investigation.48  U.S. producers held ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2012, compared with 23.3 percent of apparent U.S.

consumption in 2005, 17.5 percent in 2006, and 15.8 percent in 2007.49   

Evidence on the record indicates that imposition of the antidumping duty order had a

disciplining effect on subject imports.50  In 2012, subject imports held *** percent of apparent

U.S. consumption, compared with *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, and *** percent in

2007.51   

Imports from nonsubject sources continue to be present in the U.S. market, holding ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2012, compared with *** percent in 2005, ***

percent in 2006, and *** percent in 2007.52  Nonsubject sources during the period of review

include a steel nail producer from China which was not subject to the antidumping duty order

                                                      

42 CR/PR at Table I‐6.

43 CR/PR at Table I‐6.  Apparent consumption data in the original investigation were based on a

larger group of U.S. producers than the data in this review.   44 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 15.

45 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 15.

46 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 15. 47 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 15.

48 CR at I‐21, PR at I‐15‐16; CR/PR at Table I‐7.    49 CR/PR at Table I‐7.  The data cited is for all reporting domestic producers for comparison

purposes with the new data.  (When data from the three related parties are excluded, as they were in

the original investigation under the related parties provision,  the domestic industry held *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption in 2005, *** percent in 2006, and *** percent in 2007.  Id. at Table C‐2).

50 CR/PR at Table I‐6.    51 CR/PR at Table I‐7.

52 CR/PR at Table I‐7.
12

because Commerce found it had a de minimis margin and imports of steel nails from the United

Arab Emirates (“UAE”), which became subject to an antidumping duty order in 2012.53

   Substitutability and Other Conditions. In the original investigation, the Commission

found that steel nails regardless of where they were produced, were generally interchangeable

within each type, size, and finish because they were produced to certain industry

specifications.54  The majority of responding U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers stated

that there was a high degree of substitutability between U.S. steel nails and subject imports.55  

They also reported that there were no direct substitutes for nails and that any substitute

fastening product would be usable only in certain specific applications.56  The Commission also

found that price was the single factor that most affected purchasing decisions provided the

nails met the specifications required for the specific end use.57

There is nothing in the information available in this review which indicates that the

substitutability between subject and domestic nails has changed since the original investigation.  

Steel nails continue to be manufactured in a range of sizes and finishes that generally conform

to industry specifications and there is no indication that any direct substitute for steel nails has

entered the market.58  Accordingly, we again find that there is generally a high degree of

substitutability between domestic and subject steel nails and that price continues to be an

important factor in purchasing decisions.   

    

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

Original Investigation.  In the original investigation, the Commission found that subject

imports accounted for a large and increasing share of apparent U.S. consumption and increased

relative to U.S. production during the period of investigation.  The volume of subject imports

increased from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2006, and decreased to *** short

tons in 2007.59  The market share of subject imports increased steadily from *** percent in

2005 to *** percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007.60  Similarly, the ratio of subject imports to

U.S. production rose steadily, from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006 and *** percent

in 2007.61

                                                      

53 See Certain Steel Nails from United Arab Emirates, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1185, USITC Pub. No. 4321

(May 2012) (Final); CR at I‐10, PR at I‐7.

54 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 15‐16.    55 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 16.

56 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 16. 57 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 16.

58 CR at I‐18, PR at I‐13.

59 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 16‐17.  The Commission observed that the 2007

decrease in the volume of subject imports was attributable to the pendency of the original investigation.  

Id.

60 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 17.

61 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 17.
13

The Commission found that subject imports gained market share largely at the expense

of the domestic industry.  As subject imports increased their market share from 2005 to 2007,

domestic producers’ market share declined steadily, dropping from *** percent in 2005 to ***

percent in 2007.  The Commission found that nonsubject imports also declined during the POI,

both in absolute terms and relative to U.S. consumption.  Accordingly, the Commission found

the volume of subject imports to be significant, both in absolute terms and relative to

consumption and production in the United States.62        

Current Review.  In this review, the information available indicates that the order has

had a disciplining effect on the volume of subject imports, which declined significantly since the

imposition of the order in 2008.63  Subject imports decreased from *** short tons in 2007 to

*** short tons in 2012.64  

The record contains no current data specific to subject steel nail capacity or production

because subject producers in China failed to participate or furnish information in this review.  

Nonetheless, the data available in the record indicate that subject producers continue to

manufacture steel nails and are highly export oriented.  China has been the largest exporter of

nails and staples (a category that includes merchandise outside the scope of this review) since

the original investigation, and the United States has been China’s largest export market for

nails, tacks, and staples since 2008.65   

We find that the steel nail industry in China has the ability to increase exports of subject

merchandise to the United States upon revocation, as it did during the original investigation, in

light of its position as the world’s largest exporter of nails and staples.  It has the incentive to do

so because the United States is the world’s largest importer of nails and staples, thus making it

a highly attractive export market for producers of steel nails in China. 66   

The record also indicates that there are barriers to the importation of subject

merchandise into countries other than the United States.  Mexico and New Zealand currently

maintain antidumping duties on steel nails from China.67  The scopes of the orders in other

countries differ somewhat from the scope of the order currently under review. 68  However,  

there is sufficient overlap for us to find that there are third‐country barriers that could create

further incentives for subject producers to direct exports to the U.S. market should the order

under review be revoked.

In light of these considerations, we find that the subject producers are likely, absent the

restraining effects of the order, to direct increasing volumes of steel nails to the U.S. market, as

                                                      

62 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 17.

63 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I‐6.

64 CR/PR at Table I‐6.

65 CR/PR at Table I‐8.  The data in Table I‐8 are for HTS heading 7317, which encompasses a

broader range of nails and fasteners than covered by the scope of this review.  Id.   66 CR/PR at Table I‐8.     67 CR at I‐38‐39, PR at I‐29‐30.  Mexico issued an antidumping duty order on concrete steel nails

from China in November 29, 2004.  New Zealand has maintained antidumping duties on imports of steel

nails from China since June 3, 2011.    68 CR at I‐38‐39, PR at I‐29‐30.   
14

they did during the original POI.  We find that the likely volume of subject imports, both in

absolute terms and relative to consumption in the United States, would be significant if the

order were revoked.    

D. Likely Price Effects  

Original Investigation.  In the original investigation, the Commission found that imports

of steel nails from China had significant adverse effects on domestic prices.   The Commission

found price was generally the most important factor affecting purchasing decisions, but

acknowledged that the record showed the majority of responding importers reported that non‐

price differences were sometimes important.69  The Commission observed that the record

showed subject imports underselling domestic nails in 41 of 84 price comparisons at margins

ranging from 0.1 to 32.1 percent.70  In addition, approximately 82 percent of responding

purchasers reported that subject imports were priced lower than domestic steel nails.  In light

of these facts and the high degree of substitutability of the domestic like product and the

subject imports, the Commission found the underselling to be significant.  The Commission

concluded that the record as a whole demonstrated that subject imports depressed domestic

prices to a significant degree in light of price declines from 2005 to the first half of 2007.71   

Thus, the Commission found that subject imports had significant adverse effects on domestic

prices.72             

Current Review.   We find that subject imports continue to be close substitutes for

domestic steel nails and that price continues to be an important factor in purchasing decisions.  

Because no Chinese exporters responded to the notice of institution, the record of this review

contains no pricing comparisons between the domestic like product and the subject imports.  

We find that significant underselling observed during the original investigation would likely

recur if the antidumping order was revoked.  This in turn would likely cause the domestic

producers to cut prices or restrain price increases to avoid losing sales.   

Accordingly, we conclude that the subject imports would likely undersell the domestic

like product to gain market share and would likely have significant adverse effects on the price

of the domestic like product if the antidumping duty order was revoked.

                                                      

69 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 17‐18.

70 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 18. 71 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 19‐20.  The Commission found that price increases

in the second half of 2007 were related to the filing of the petition. See also id. at n. 130‐32 (discussing

observations that the domestic industry was barely able to cover its increases in unit cost of goods sold

(“COGS”) during the POI and a finding by three Commissioners that subject imports to a limited extent

prevented domestic price increases that would otherwise have occurred).

72 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 20.
15

E. Likely Impact

Original Investigation.  In the original investigation, the Commission found that the

domestic industry’s production, capacity utilization, shipments, and net sales quantity and

value all declined overall during the POI.  Domestic producers’ U.S. production and U.S.

shipments of steel nails declined each year for an overall decline of *** percent, respectively,

from 2005 to 2007.73  Capacity declined by *** percent from 2005 to 2007, and capacity

utilization followed production and shipment trends, declining steadily throughout the POI.74  

Domestic producers’ inventories decreased over the POI in absolute terms, but increased

during the POI when measured as a share of U.S. shipments, from *** percent in 2005 to ***

percent in 2007.75  The average number of production and related workers, hours worked, and

wages paid also declined from 2005 to 2007.76   

The Commission also found that the domestic industry’s financial indicators declined

steadily over the POI.  Operating income declined in each year of the POI, with the largest

decline reported between 2005 and 2006, coinciding with a *** percent increase in subject

imports.77  The domestic industry’s ratio of operating income to net sales declined from ***

percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007.78  Net sales measured by

quantity and value showed similar decreases during the POI.79  Finally, the Commission found

that the domestic industry experienced a cost/price squeeze over the POI, as reflected in an

increase in the ratio of COGS to net sales.80

The Commission concluded that subject imports had an adverse impact on the condition

of the domestic industry during the period of investigation.  It found that the absolute and

relative volumes of subject imports were significant and that the subject imports gained market

share at the expense of the domestic industry, undersold the domestic like product, and

depressed prices to a significant degree.  The Commission further concluded that the depressed

prices and reduced sales volumes caused declines in the domestic industry’s financial

performance over the period of investigation.81

Current Review.  The information available concerning the domestic industry’s condition

in this review consists of the data that the domestic producers provided in response to the

notice of institution.  Because this is an expedited review, we have only limited information

                                                      

73 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 21. 74 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 21.  Capacity utilization decreased from ***

percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007. 75 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 21.

76 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 21.  The average number of production workers

declined steadily from *** in 2005 to *** in 2007.  Hours worked decreased from *** to *** over the

POI.  Wages paid decreased overall from $*** to $*** during the POI. 77 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 21‐22.

78 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 21‐22.

79 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 22.

80 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 22.

81 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4022 at 23.
16

with respect to the domestic industry’s financial performance.  The limited record is insufficient

for us to make a finding as to whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to the continuation

or recurrence of material injury in the event of revocation of the order.

The information on the record indicates that the capacity of reporting U.S. steel nail

producers was *** short tons in 2012.82  Reported production was *** short tons in 2012;

accordingly, capacity utilization was *** percent.83  U.S. shipments were *** short tons in

2012.84  Domestic producers reported an operating income of $*** from sales of $***, resulting

in an operating margin of *** percent in 2012.85  During the original POI, the domestic

industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption ranged between *** and *** percent.86  Its

share of apparent U.S. consumption in 2012 was *** percent.87   

Based on the information on the record, we find that should the order be revoked, the

likely significant volume and price effects of the subject imports would likely have a significant

adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales, market share and revenues of the

domestic industry.  These declines would likely have a direct adverse impact on the domestic

industry’s profitability.

We also have considered the role of factors other than subject imports, including the

presence of nonsubject imports, so as not to attribute injury from other factors to the subject

imports.  Nonsubject imports, which include nails from a Chinese producer not subject to the

order and nails from the UAE subject to an antidumping duty order, have been present in

increasing quantities in the U.S. market since the order was imposed in 2008.  However, we

observe that during the original investigation, subject imports steadily gained market share in

the U.S. market while both nonsubject and domestic steel nails lost market share.  In light of

this, we find that, upon revocation, the significant volume of subject imports would again likely

take market share from both the domestic industry and the nonsubject imports and would

likely reduce overall price levels in the U.S. market.  This is consistent with our finding above

that revocation would have adverse effects on the domestic industry’s output and revenues.  

Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty order were revoked, subject

imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a

reasonably foreseeable time.

IV. Conclusion

For the above reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

steel nails from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

                                                      

82 CR/PR at Table I‐2.

83 CR/PR at Table I‐2.

84 CR/PR at Table I‐6.

85 CR/PR at Table I‐2.

86 CR/PR at Table C‐2.

87 CR/PR at Table I‐7.
I‐1

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Background

Effective July 1, 2013, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or

“USITC”) gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the

Act”),1 that it had instituted a review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty

order on certain steel nails (“nails”) from China would likely lead to the continuation or

recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry.2 3 On October 21, 2013, the Commission

determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the

Act.4 The following tabulation presents information relating to the background and schedule of

this proceeding:

                                                      

1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c). 2 Steel Nails from China; Institution of a Five‐Year Review, 78 FR 40172, July 3, 2013. All interested

parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information requested by the

Commission.

3 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”)

published a notice of initiation of a five‐year review of the subject antidumping duty order concurrently

with the Commission’s notice of institution. Initiation of Five‐Year (“Sunset”) Review, 78 FR 39256, July 1,

2013. 4 Steel Nails From China: Scheduling of an Expedited Five‐Year Review Concerning the Antidumping

Duty Order on Steel Nails From China, 78 FR 68472, November 14, 2013. The Commission received one

submission in response to its notice of institution in the subject review.  It was filed on behalf of Mid

Continent Nail Corporation (“Mid Continent”), a U.S. producer of the domestic like product. Mid

Continent’s response to the notice of institution included data for four additional U.S. producers (with

the inclusion of Mid Continent, collectively the “five producers”), three of which were identified on a

confidential basis (with the inclusion of Mid Continent, collectively the “four identified producers”) and

one that was not identified. The identified producers are: ***. The four identified U.S. producers are

believed to account for a substantial portion of production of the domestic like product in 2012. Where

appropriate, data for the domestic industry are presented separately for the four identified producers

and for the five producers. The Commission did not receive any responses from producers in China or

importers of the subject merchandise from China. The Commission determined that the domestic

interested party group response to its notice of institution was adequate and that the respondent

interested party group response was inadequate. In the absence of respondent interested party

responses and any other circumstances that would warrant the conduct of full reviews, the Commission

determined to conduct expedited reviews.
I‐2

Effective date Action 

August 1, 2008 

Commerce’s antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from China (73 FR 44961, 

August 1, 2008) 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-08-01/pdf/E8-17714.pdf

July 1, 2013 

Commission’s institution of first five-year reviews (78 FR 40172, July 3, 2013) 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-03/pdf/2013-16103.pdf

July 1, 2013 

Commerce’s initiation of first five-year reviews (78 FR 39256, July 1, 2013) 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-01/pdf/2013-15708.pdf

October 21, 2013 

Commission’s determination to conduct an expedited five-year review (78 FR 68472, 

November 14, 2013) 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-11-14/pdf/2013-27209.pdf 

(The press release announcing the Commission’s determination concerning adequacy 

and the conduct of an expedited review can be found at 

http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2013/er1021ll2.htm. 

A summary of the Commission’s votes concerning the adequacy and the conduct of 

an expedited review can be found at 

(http://pubapps2.usitc.gov/sunset/caseProfSuppAttmnt/download/11581). The 

Commission’s explanation of its determination can be found at 

(http://pubapps2.usitc.gov/sunset/caseProfSuppAttmnt/download/11580). 

November 20, 

2013 

Commerce’s final result of expedited five-year review of the antidumping duty order 

(78 FR 69644, November 20, 2013) 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-11-20/pdf/2013-27824.pdf

December 11, 

2013 Commission’s vote 

December 19, 

2013 Commission’s determination 

The original investigations

The original investigation resulted from a petition filed on May 29, 2007, by five U.S.

producers5 of nails alleging that an industry in the United States was materially injured and

threatened with material injury by reason of less‐than‐fair‐value (“LTFV”) imports of nails from

China and the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”).6 7 On June 16, 2008, Commerce determined that

                                                      

5 The five petitioner producers were: Davis Wire Corp., Irwindale, California; Gerdau Ameristeel

Corp., Tampa, Florida; Maze Nails, Peru, Illinois; Mid Continent Nail Corp., Poplar Bluff, Missouri; and

Treasure Coast Fasteners, Inc., Fort Pierce, Florida.

6 On June 22, 2007, the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied

Industrial and Service Workers International Union was added as a co‐petitioner. 7 On June 16, 2008, Commerce found that certain steel nails from the UAE were not being, or were

not likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, and thus certain steel nails from the UAE were no

longer considered to be subject merchandise. Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Notice

of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 33985, June 16, 2008. Accordingly, the

Commission terminated the final phase of its investigation regarding the UAE. Certain Steel Nails From

the United Arab Emirates, 73 FR 39041, July 8, 2008.
I‐3

imports of nails from China were being sold at LTFV.8 On July 21, 2008, the Commission issued

its determination that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of LTFV

imports of nails from China.9 Commerce issued an antidumping duty order of nails from China

on August 1, 2008.10

Commerce’s reviews

Commerce has conducted two inquiries regarding the scope of the order, but neither

has been resolved due to ensuing litigation.  As a result of a changed circumstances review

initiated at Mid Continent’s request, Commerce decided to revoke the order with respect to

four specific products.11  Itochu Building Products supported the exclusion of these products

but contested the effective date of the partial revocation, a question that remains unresolved.12  

Separately, Commerce also conducted a scope inquiry concerning whether certain tool kits

imported by Target are within the scope of the order because the tool kits contained some

subject brass‐coated steel nails in addition to other products outside the scope of the order.13

This question also remains unresolved.

                                                      

8 Certain Steel Nails from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 33977, June 16, 2008.

9 Certain Steel Nails from China: Determination, 73 FR 43474, July 25, 2008.

10 Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Steel Nails From the People’s Republic of China, 73 FR

44961, August 1, 2008. 11 Commerce decided to revoke the order with respect to four types of nails:  (1) non‐collated (i.e.,

hand‐driven or bulk), two‐piece steel nails having plastic or steel washers (caps) already assembled to

the nail, having a bright or galvanized finish, a ring, fluted or spiral shank, an actual length of 0.500” to

8”, inclusive; and an actual shank diameter of 0.1015” to 0.166”, inclusive; and an actual washer or cap

diameter of 0.900” to 1.10”, inclusive; (2) non‐collated (i.e., hand‐driven or bulk), steel nails having a

bright or galvanized finish, a smooth, barbed or ringed shank, an actual length of 0.500” to 4”, inclusive;

an actual shank diameter of 0.1015” to 0.166”, inclusive; and an actual head diameter of 0.3375” to

0.500”, inclusive; (3) wire collated steel nails, in coils, having a galvanized finish, a smooth, barbed or

ringed shank, an actual length of 0.500” to 1.75”, inclusive; an actual shank diameter of 0.116” to

0.166”, inclusive; and an actual head diameter of 0.3375” to 0.500”, inclusive; and (4) non‐collated (i.e.,

hand‐driven or bulk), steel nails having a convex head (commonly known as an umbrella head), a

smooth or spiral shank, a galvanized finish, an actual length of 1.75” to 3”, inclusive; an actual length of

1.75” to 3”, inclusive; an actual shank diameter of 0.131” to 0.152”, inclusive; and an actual head

diameter of 0.450” to 0.813”, inclusive.  Certain Steel Nails From the People’s Republic of China: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 76 FR 30101, May 24, 2011. 12 After concluding that the CIT should not have dismissed Itochu’s appeal for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies, on August 19, 2013, the Federal Circuit remanded the case for further

proceedings regarding the effective date of the revocation.  Itochu Building Products v. United States, Ct.

No. 2013‐1044 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2013) (rehearing denied November 7, 2013).

13 In August 2010, Commerce initially concluded that the tool kits were outside the scope of the

order, but after two remands, in July 2012 the CIT affirmed Commerce’s finding under protest that the

tool kits were within the scope. See Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 770 F. Supp.2d 1372 (Ct.

(continued...)
I‐4

In the recent investigation of steel nails from the UAE, the scope largely mirrored

Commerce’s scope in the original investigation underlying this review but also excluded the

four products at issue in the Itochu appeal.14

Commerce’s results of its expedited sunset review of the subject antidumping duty

order was published in the Federal Register on November 20, 2013.15 Commerce determined

that revocation of the subject order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping

margins of 21.24‐118.04 percent.

Previous and related title VII investigations

On November 21, 1977, a complaint was filed by Armco Steel Corp.; Atlantic Steel Co.;

Bethlehem Steel Corp.; CF & I Steel Corp.; Keystone Steel & Wire Division of Keystone

Consolidated Industries, Inc.; Northwestern Steel & Wire Co.; and the Penn‐Dixie Steel Corp.,

alleging that certain steel wire nails from Canada were being sold at LTFV.16 In November 1978,

the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) determined that certain steel wire nails from

Canada, except those produced by Tree Island Steel Co., Ltd. and the Steel Co. of Canada, Ltd.,

were being, or were likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV.17 In February 1979, the

Commission determined that the domestic steel wire nails industry was not, nor likely to be,

injured and was not prevented from being established, by reason of the importation of certain

steel wire nails from Canada that were being, or were likely to be, sold at LTFV.18

On April 20, 1979, Treasury, in conjunction with its administration of a “Trigger Price

Mechanism,” self‐initiated an investigation to determine whether certain steel wire nails from

Korea were being sold at LTFV. The investigation was subsequently terminated under the

Antidumping Act, but was continued under section 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

Commerce found that certain steel wire nails from Korea were being sold at LTFV.19 However,

the Commission determined that the domestic steel wire nails industry was not materially

                                                      

(...continued)

Int’l Trade 2011); Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 825 F. Supp.2d 1290 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012);

Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 12‐97, 34 I.T.R.D. 1839 (Ct. Int’l Trade Jul. 25, 2012).  

In July 2013, however, the Federal Circuit vacated the CIT’s decision and remanded the case so that

Commerce could refine its methodology to analyze so‐called “mixed media” questions and then explain

how it applies the revised methodology to analyze whether the tool kits are within the scope of the

order. See Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 2013 WL 3746081 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 18, 2013) (remand

result pending). 14 Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1185 (Final), USITC Publication

4022, July 2008, pp. 5‐6.

15 Certain Steel Nails From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 78 FR 69644, November 20, 2013.

16 42 FR 64942, December 29, 1977. 17 43 FR 51743, November 6, 1978.

18 Steel Wire Nails From Canada, Investigation No. AA1921‐189, USITC Publication 937, February

1979.

19 45 FR 34941, May 23, 1980.
I‐5

injured and was not threatened with material injury, and that the establishment of an industry

in the United States was not materially retarded, by reason of imports of certain steel wire nails

from Korea.20  

On July 2, 1981, Commerce self‐initiated antidumping investigations concerning imports

of certain steel wire nails from Japan, Korea, and Yugoslavia pursuant to additional information

developed under the trigger price mechanism.21 Commerce found that subject imports from

these countries were likely being sold below trigger prices and, therefore, possibly at LTFV.

Although the Commission made a negative determination with respect to certain steel wire

nails from Korea in the previous year, the Commission found new evidence indicating that sales

of Korean nails may be having an injurious effect on the domestic industry.22 The investigation

of imports from Japan was subsequently terminated, while the investigation of imports from

Yugoslavia resulted in a negative determination by the Commission.23 After a final affirmative

material injury determination by the Commission, an antidumping duty order was issued

covering steel wire nails from Korea.24 The order against Korea was revoked effective October

1, 1984, following a Voluntary Restraint Agreement25 concerning imports of nails from Korea.26

On January 19, 1982, Armco Inc.; Tree Island Steel, Inc.; Atlantic Steel Co.; Florida Wire

and Nails; New York Wire Mills; and Virginia Wire and Fabric filed a petition alleging that certain

steel wire nails from Korea were being subsidized.27 In September 1982, however, the

countervailing duty investigation was terminated following a determination by Commerce that

Korean producers and exporters of nails were not receiving benefits that constituted

subsidies.28

On January 24, 1984, the United Steelworkers of America, AFL‐CIO/CLC, and Bethlehem

Steel Corp. filed a petition under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 alleging that carbon and

certain alloy steel products, including steel wire nails, were being imported into the United

States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat

thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the

                                                      

20 Certain Steel Wire Nails From The Republic of Korea, Investigation No. 731‐TA‐26 (Final), USITC

Publication 1088, August 1980. 21 46 FR 34613, July 2, 1981. 22 46 FR 34615, July 2, 1981.

23 46 FR 41122, August 14, 1981; and Certain Steel Wire Nails From Japan, The Republic of Korea, and

Yugoslavia, Investigation Nos. 731‐TA‐45, 46, and 47 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 1175, August 1981.   24 47 FR 35266, August 13, 1982.

25 On September 18, 1984, the President established a national policy for the steel industry that led

to the creation of the Voluntary Restraint Agreements (“VRAs”). These VRAs established new measures

limiting steel exports into the United States from certain steel‐supplying countries. 49 FR 36813,

September 20, 1984. The VRAs expired on March 31, 1992.   26 50 FR 40045, October 1, 1985.

27 47 FR 6458, February 8, 1982.

28 47 FR 39549, September 8, 1982.
I‐6

imported articles.29 Following the Commission’s affirmative determinations in July 1984 for

several of the products, including steel wire nails, the United States negotiated various

agreements to limit the importation of steel products into the United States, such as the

VRAs.30

On June 5, 1985, petitions were filed alleging that certain steel wire nails from China,

Poland, and Yugoslavia were being, or were likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV.31 The

petitions concerning imports from Poland and Yugoslavia were subsequently withdrawn

following VRAs with Poland and Yugoslavia with respect to exports of steel wire nails to the

United States. As a result, Commerce terminated the investigations with respect to Poland and

Yugoslavia.32 The investigation with respect to China led to a finding that the domestic steel

wire nails industry was materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of certain steel wire nails

from China.33

On April 20, 1987, a petition was filed alleging that certain steel wire nails from New

Zealand and Thailand were receiving bounties or grants.34 Commerce conducted a section 303

investigation and made affirmative findings with respect to both countries and issued

countervailing duty orders covering steel wire nails from Thailand and New Zealand in October

1987.35 On August 9, 1995, the orders were revoked by Commerce as no domestic interested

party requested a review.36

On March 22, 1989, a petition was filed alleging that certain steel wire nails from

Malaysia were receiving bounties or grants.37 Commerce, however, determined that no

                                                      

29 Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, Investigation No. TA‐201‐51, USITC Publication 1553, July 1984, p.

7.

30 Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, Investigation No. TA‐201‐51, USITC Publication 1553, July 1984, p.

7.

31 The petitions were filed by Atlantic Steel Co.; Atlas Steel & Wire Corp.; Continental Steel Corp.;

Dickson Weatherproof Nail Co.; Florida Wire & Nail Co.; Keystone Steel & Wire Co.; Northwestern Steel

& Wire Co.; Virginia Wire & Fabric Co.; and Wire Products Co. 50 FR 27479, July 3, 1985.

32 51 FR 4205, February 3, 1986, and 50 FR 35281, August 30, 1985.

33 Certain Steel Wire Nails From The People’s Republic of China, Investigation No. 731‐TA‐266 (Final),

USITC Publication 1842, April 1986; 51 FR 10247, March 25, 1986. An antidumping duty order on certain

steel wire nails from China entered into effect on May 21, 1986 (51 FR 18640), but because of changed

circumstances (“petitioners’ affirmative statement of no interest in continuation of the antidumping

duty order”), the order was revoked on September 3, 1987, retroactive to January 1, 1986 (52 FR

33463).

34 The petition was filed by Air Nail Co.; Atlas Steel & Wire Corp.; CF&I Steel Corp.; Davis‐Walker

Corp.; Dickson Weatherproof Nail Co.; Exposaic Industries, Inc.; Keystone Steel and Wire Co.; and

Northwestern Steel & Wire Co. 52 FR 18590, May 18, 1987; 52 FR 18591, May 18, 1987.

35 52 FR 36987, October 2, 1987, and 52 FR 37196, October 5, 1987.

36 60 FR 40568, August 9, 1995.

37 The petition was filed by members of the Nail Committee of the American Wire Producers

Association. 54 FR 15534, April 18, 1989.
I‐7

benefits which constitute bounties or grants were being provided to Malaysian producers or

exporters.38

On November 26, 1996, a petition was filed alleging that collated roofing nails imported

from China, Korea, and Taiwan were being sold at LTFV.39 These investigations led to a finding

that the domestic collated roofing nails industry was threatened with material injury by reason

of LTFV imports of collated roofing nails from China and Taiwan.40 The investigation with

respect to collated roofing nails from Korea was terminated by the Commission following a

negative determination by Commerce.41 On November 19, 1997, Commerce issued

antidumping duty orders covering collated roofing nails from China and Taiwan.42 These orders

were revoked effective November 19, 2002, because no domestic interested party responded

to Commerce’s notice of initiation of five‐year reviews.43

On July 3, 2001, following a request from the United States Trade Representative

(“USTR”) and subsequently a request from the Senate Finance Committee, a section 201

investigation was initiated by the Commission to determine whether certain steel products

were being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial

cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry. The Commission,

however, made a negative determination with respect to carbon and alloy steel nails.44

On March 31, 2011, a petition was filed alleging that certain steel nails (“certain steel

nails”) imported from the UAE were being sold at LTFV.45 The Commission determined that an

industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports from the UAE of

certain steel nails.46 On May 10, 2012, Commerce issued an antidumping duty order covering

certain steel nails from the UAE.47

                                                      

38 54 FR 36841, September 5, 1989.

39 The petition was filed by Paslode Division of Illinois Tool Works Inc. 61 FR 67306, December 20,

1996.

40 Collated Roofing Nails From China and Taiwan, Investigation Nos. 731‐TA‐757 and 759 (Final),

USITC Publication 3070, November 1997. 41 62 FR 51420, October 1, 1997, and 62 FR 53799, October 16, 1997.

42 62 FR 61729, November 19, 1997, and 62 FR 61730, November 19, 1997.

43 67 FR 70578, November 25, 2002. 44 Steel, Investigation No. TA‐201‐73, USITC Publication 3479, December 2001.

45 The petition was filed by Mid Continent.

46 Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1185 (Final), USITC Publication

4022, July 2008. 47 Certain Steel Nails From the United Arab Emirates: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 27421, May 10, 2012.
I‐8

THE PRODUCT

Commerce’s scope

In its final results of the expedited first five year review of the antidumping duty order,

Commerce defined the subject merchandise as:

certain steel nails having a shaft length up to 12 inches. Certain steel nails

include, but are not limited to, nails made of round wire and nails that

are cut. Certain steel nails may be of one piece construction or

constructed of two or more pieces. Certain steel nails may be produced

from any type of steel, and have a variety of finishes, heads, shanks, point

types, shaft lengths and shaft diameters. Finishes include, but are not

limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, whether by electroplating or

hot dipping one or more times), phosphate cement, and paint. Head

styles include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, cupped, oval, brad,

headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank styles include, but are

not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, ring shank and fluted

shank styles. Screw‐threaded nails subject to this proceeding are driven

using direct force and not by turning the fastener using a tool that

engages with the head. Point styles include, but are not limited to,

diamond, blunt, needle, chisel and no point. Finished nails may be sold in

bulk, or they may be collated into strips or coils using materials such as

plastic, paper, or wire. Certain steel nails subject to the order are

currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65 and 7317.00.75.

Excluded from the scope of the order are steel roofing nails of all lengths

and diameter, whether collated or in bulk, and whether or not

galvanized. Steel roofing nails are specifically enumerated and identified

in ASTM Standard F 1667 (2005 revision) as Type I, Style 20 nails. Also

excluded from the scope are the following steel nails: 1) Non‐collated

(i.e., hand‐driven or bulk), two‐piece steel nails having plastic or steel

washers (caps) already assembled to the nail, having a bright or

galvanized finish, a ring, fluted or spiral shank, an actual length of 0.500”

to 8”, inclusive; and an actual shank diameter of 0.1015” to 0.166”,

inclusive; and an actual washer or cap diameter of 0.900” to 1.10”,

inclusive; 2) Non‐collated (i.e., hand‐driven or bulk), steel nails having a

bright or galvanized finish, a smooth, barbed or ringed shank, an actual

length of 0.500” to 4”, inclusive; an actual shank diameter of 0.1015” to

0.166”, inclusive; and an actual head diameter of 0.3375” to 0.500”,

inclusive; 3) Wire collated steel nails, in coils, having a galvanized finish, a

smooth, barbed or ringed shank, an actual length of 0.500” to 1.75”,

inclusive; an actual shank diameter of 0.116” to 0.166”, inclusive; and an
I‐9

actual head diameter of 0.3375” to 0.500”, inclusive; and 4) Non‐collated

(i.e., hand‐driven or bulk), steel nails having a convex head (commonly

known as an umbrella head), a smooth or spiral shank, a galvanized

finish, an actual length of 1.75” to 3”, inclusive; an actual shank diameter

of 0.131” to 0.152”, inclusive; and an actual head diameter of 0.450” to

0.813”, inclusive. Also excluded from the scope of the order are

corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made of a small strip of corrugated

steel with sharp points on one side. Also excluded from the scope of the

order are fasteners suitable for use in powder‐actuated hand tools, not

threaded and threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS

7317.00.20 and 7317.00.30. Also excluded from the scope of the order

are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS

7317.00.10.00. Also excluded from the scope of the order are certain

brads and finish nails that are equal to or less than 0.0720 inches in shank

diameter, round or rectangular in cross section, between 0.375 inches

and 2.5 inches in length, and that are collated with adhesive or polyester

film tape backed with a heat seal adhesive. Also excluded from the scope

of the order are fasteners having a case hardness greater than or equal to

50 HRC, a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, a round

head, a secondary reduced‐diameter raised head section, a centered

shank, and a smooth symmetrical point, suitable for use in gas‐actuated

hand tools. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience

and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order

is dispositive.48

U.S. tariff treatment

The nails products that are the subject of these reviews are currently imported under

the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings:

7317.00.55 (excluding statistical reporting number 7317.00.5501), 7317.00.65, and 7317.00.75.

The column 1‐general (normal trade relations) rate of duty for these products is “free”.

                                                      

48 Certain Steel Nails From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 78 FR 69644, November 20, 2013 and Certain Steel Nails from

the People’s Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Expedited First

Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for

Enforcement and Compliance, November 13, 2013.
I‐10

Domestic like product and domestic industry

In the final phase of the original investigation, the Commission defined a single domestic

like product, coextensive with the scope of the investigation.49 The Commission excluded three

U.S. producers (Senco, Specialty Fastening, and Stanley) from the domestic industry.50 The

Commission determined that these three firms imported *** and increasing volumes of subject

merchandise as their domestic production of steel nails declined, indicating that their primary

interest was shifting from domestic production to importation.51 In the final phase of the

investigation, Commerce determined that exports from ITW’s related Chinese producer

ITW/Paslode Fasteners (Shanghai) were not sold at LTFV. Therefore, ITW’s imports of steel nails

from China were no longer subject merchandise and ITW no longer met the definition of a

related party.  

In its notice of institution for this review, the Commission solicited comments from

interested parties regarding the appropriate domestic like product and domestic industry. In

Mid Continent’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, it indicated that it agrees

with the Commission’s definition of the domestic like product and domestic industry that were

adopted in the original investigation.52 No further comment on the domestic like product or

domestic industry has been filed with the Commission in this proceeding.

Description and uses53

Although most steel nails are produced of low‐carbon steel, nails also are produced of

stainless steel (to resist corrosion) and of hardenable medium‐ to high‐carbon steel. Nails are

packaged for shipment in bulk, that is, loose in a carton or other container, or collated, that is,

joined with wire, paper strips, plastic strips, or glue into coils or straight strips for use in

pneumatic nailing tools. Although most nails are produced from a single piece of steel, some

nails are produced from two or more pieces. Examples include a nail with a decorative head,

such as an upholstery nail; a masonry anchor that comprises a zinc anchor and a steel wire nail;

a nail with a large thin attached head (for nailing roofing felt, for example); and a nail with a

rubber or neoprene washer assembled over its shaft (to seal the nailhole in metal or fiberglass

roofing or siding).

                                                      

49 Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1114 (Final), USITC Publication 4022, July 2008, pp.

6‐8.

50 Ibid.

51 Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1114 (Final), Confidential Views of the Commission,

p. 2.

52 Mid Continent’s Substantive Response To The Notice Of Institution, July 31, 2013, p. 8.

53 Unless otherwise noted this information is based on the following publication: Certain Steel Nails

from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1114 (Final), USITC Publication 4022, July 2008.
I‐11

Production process54

Most steel nails are produced from steel wire, and a small proportion of steel nails are

produced from steel plate and referred to as "cut nails." Some producers of wire nails use

purchased steel wire as a starting raw material and are known as nonintegrated producers,

whereas some producers utilize their own facilities to produce wire for nails, using steel wire

rod as their starting material; these producers are called "integrated producers." Some

integrated producers are further integrated through the steelmaking process, and produce

steel wire rod from raw materials such as scrap, pig iron, and ferroalloys. Figure 1‐1 shows the

general process for producing steel wire nails.

To produce nails, wire is fed from a large coil into a nail machine that automatically

straightens the wire, forms the head of the nail, and cuts the nail from the wire, simultaneously

forming the point and ejecting the finished nail. Nail machines are of two general types: one,

known as a "cold‐heading machine," holds the wire near its end in gripper dies and forms the

head by striking the leading end of the wire, forcing the end of the wire to fill a die cavity of the

desired shape. The wire is fed through the grippers, and shape cutters form the point and cut

the nail free from the wire coming off of the coil. The process is repeated for each individual

nail produced by the cold‐heading process. In the second type of nail machine, known as a

"rotary heading machine," the wire is fed continuously and cutting rollers cut individual nail

blanks, simultaneously forming the point. The nail blanks are then inserted into a die ring and

the heads are formed by compression of the end of the nail between the rotating ring and a

heading roller. The completed nail is then ejected from the machine. Both types of nail

machines are used to produce all styles of nails, and some manufacturers have both types in

their facilities. These automatic machines are capable of producing a range of nail sizes and

head and point styles by changing tooling and adjustment.

Nails that have helical twists, serrations, and other configurations on the shanks require

an additional forming process. These nails are fed into other machines that roll, twist, stamp, or

cut to required forms. These operations may also require heating of the nails before forming.

After forming, nails are tumbled on themselves in rotating drums to remove particles of

head flash and the whiskers, which often remain on the cut and pointed ends. The same drum

may contain a medium (such as sawdust) which effects cleaning and polishing of the nails

during tumbling, otherwise the tumbled nails can be transferred to units that clean the nails

with solvents or vapor degreasers. After tumbling and cleaning, the nails may be given

subsequent processing, such as painting, resin coating, or galvanizing. Finally, nails for use in

pneumatic nailing tools are processed through automatic equipment to collate the nails using

paper strips, plastic strips, fine steel wire, or adhesive. Nails for hand‐driving are packaged in

bulk (loose) in cartons or in smaller count boxes, including one‐ and five‐pound boxes for mass

                                                      

54 Unless otherwise noted this information is based on the following publications: Certain Steel Nails

from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1114 (Final), USITC Publication 4022, July 2008 and Certain Steel Nails from

the United Arab Emirates, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1185 (Final), USITC Publication 4321, May 2012.
I‐12

merchandise retail repair and remodeling customers. Special packaging equipment may be used

in order to pack small (one‐ and five‐pound) boxes at high speed and lowest possible cost.  

Figure 1-1 

Steel nails: General process of producing nails 

Source: Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1114 (Final), USITC Publication 4022, July 2008, 

figure I-1. 

  

Cut nails are produced from plate rather than from wire and are rectangular rather than

round. Cut nails are used primarily for joining to masonry or concrete. Although cut nails may

be made for any carpentry use, the main use other than masonry is for flooring in applications

where an antique appearance is required. Cut nails are made from high‐carbon steel plate that

is sheared into strips. The strips are fed into specially designed nail machines, which shape the

nails and form the heads. The cut nails are then case‐hardened in a furnace. Cut nails are

packed in 50‐pound cartons (also known as large‐count industry standard boxes) on pallets for

the construction trades or either 1‐pound or 5‐pound boxes for mass merchandise retail repair

and remodeling customers.
I‐13

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions

In its original investigation, the Commission observed that steel nails are produced to

certain industry specifications, including ICC and ASTM. The Commission noted that while “the

type, size and finish may limit the interchangeability of a specific product for a particular end

use, this limitation applies whether it is a U.S. product, subject import, or nonsubject import.” 55

The Commission remarked that “the record supports the conclusion that steel nails are

generally interchangeable within type, size and finish, regardless of where produced.”56 The

Commission observed that “{t}he majority of responding U.S. producers, importers, and

purchasers reported that the U.S. product, the subject imports, and nonsubject imports are

frequently or always interchangeable” and that the parties agreed that there is a high degree of

substitutability between U.S. nails and subject imports.57

Channels of distribution

During 2005‐07, the vast majority of U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments

of steel nails was shipped to distributors. For U.S. producers, distributor sales accounted for

79.8‐86.8 percent of U.S. shipments.58 For subject importers, distributor sales accounted for

*** percent of U.S. shipments.59 Data from a more recent investigation show that U.S.

producers’ share of sales to distributors relative to end users has declined.60 In 2011, U.S.

producers’ sales to distributors accounted for 67.4 percent of their shipments and sales to end

users accounted for 32.6 percent their shipments.61

Pricing and related information

In the original investigation, the Commission collected price data for eight products.  

Four of the products were plastic‐strip collated nail products, two were bulk nail products, and

two were wire coil collated nail products. A total of 96 quarterly net weighted‐average U.S.

f.o.b. selling price comparisons were possible between the domestic and imported Chinese

                                                      

55 Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1114 (Final), USITC Publication 4022, July 2008, p.

15.   

56 Ibid. 57 Ibid, pp. 14‐15.

58 Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1114 (Final), Staff Report, INV‐FF‐074, June 25,

2008, p. II‐2.

59 Ibid.

60 Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1185 (Final), USITC Publication

4022, July 2008, p. II‐1.    61 Ibid.
I‐14

steel nails shipped to U.S. customers during 2005‐07. In total, products imported from China

undersold the U.S.‐produced product in 51 of 96 possible quarterly comparisons.62

The overall demand for steel nails depends upon the demand for a variety of end‐use

applications. Steel nails are used in building houses and other structures, while in the industrial

sector, nails are used to make furniture, cabinets, and crates and pallets for shipping. As a

result, demand is generally related to the amount of housing‐related activity in the economy,

and demand for all end uses generally tracks overall economic activity.63  

Raw materials account for approximately 60 percent of the cost of steel nails.  The

primary raw material used in the production of steel nails in the United States is carbon steel

wire.  Price information regarding low‐carbon steel wire rod is show in figure I‐2. Prices for low‐

carbon steel wire rod varied greatly during 2008 and have declined slightly since the beginning

of 2012.   

Figure I-2 

Steel nails: Industrial quality low-carbon steel wire rod price series, January 2008-June 2013 

Source: American Metal Market. 

                                                      

62 Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1114 (Final), USITC Publication 4022, July 2008, V‐

13.  Excluding the three related parties from the domestic industry, subject imports undersold the

domestic like product in 50 of 96 quarterly comparisons. Further exclusion of a product with *** for

which price comparisons or trends were *** shows that subject imports undersold the domestic like

product in 41 of 84 quarterly comparisons. Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1114 (Final),

Confidential Views of the Commission, p. 25.

63 Demand indicators appear following the discussion of apparent U.S. consumption.
I‐15

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. producers

In the original investigation, the Commission issued questionnaires to the 15 producers

cited in the petition, and received questionnaire responses with usable data from all 5

petitioners, from 8 of the other 10 firms identified in the petition, and from 2 other firms that

were identified after receiving the petition.64 The five petitioners in the original investigation

together accounted for *** percent of reported U.S. production of the domestic like product in

2007.

In its substantive response to the Commission’s notice of institution, Mid Continent

identified 10 known and currently operating steel nail producers. Table I‐1 lists the domestic

interested parties (believed to account for a substantial portion of production of the domestic

like product in 2012), each company’s position on the orders, production location, parent

company, and share of reported production of steel nails in 2012. No U.S. producer directly

imports the subject merchandise from China, and none are known to have any affiliation with

subject Chinese producers of steel nails.65

The U.S. nails industry has experienced a mix of expansion, plant closure, and

acquisition over the past several years.

In November 2011, PrimeSource Building Products (“PrimeSource”) (a distributor of

building materials) and Dubai Wire (a UAE nails producer) announced the formation of a joint

venture, Progressive Steel and Wire (“PSW”), for the purpose of manufacturing nail and wire

products in the United States.66 PSW’s plant is in Dallas, TX, and the company is planning to sell

products produced at this facility through 42 distribution centers across North America

operated by its parent company, PrimeSource.67

In February 2012, Mid Continent’s parent company, Libla Industries, Inc., was purchased

by Deacero USA, a unit of Deacero S.A. de C.V. ‐‐ a Mexican steel processor and producer of

mesh and wire products. According to ***,68 ***. According to ***.

In 2012, Maze Nails ***.69  

                                                      

64 The 10 firms other than the petitioners cited in the petition were (1) Air Nail ISM Fastening

Systems, (2) Fox Valley Steel & Wire, (3) Keystone Steel & Wire Company, (4) Parker Metal Corporation,

(5) ITW, (6) Pneu‐Fast Co., (7) Senco, (8) Specialty Fastening, (9) Stanley, and (10) Tree Island.

65 Mid Continent’s Substantive Response To The Notice Of Institution, July 31, 2013, exh. 1 and exh. 4.

66 PrimeSource® Building Products, Inc. Announces Joint Venture with Dubai Wire, November 8,

2011, found at http://www.enap.com/newsletters/newsbrief/pdfs/PrimeSourcePR111511.pdf, retrieved

on November 12, 2013.

67 Progressive Steel & Wire, found at http://pswnail.com/, retrieved on November 12, 2013.

68 Adequacy Phase U.S. Purchasers’ Questionnaire Response of ***.   69 Mid Continent’s Substantive Response To The Notice Of Institution, July 31, 2013, exh. 1.  
I‐16

Table I-1 

Steel nails: U.S. producers, positions on the subject order, U.S. production locations, related 

and/or affiliated firms, and shares of 2012 reported U.S. production 

Firm 

Position 

on 

orders 

U.S. plant 

location(s) Parent company 

Share of 

production 

(percent) 

Mid Continent Support Poplar Bluff, MO Deacero, Mexico *** 

*** Support *** *** *** 

*** Support *** *** *** 

*** Support *** *** *** 

Unidentified1 Support --- --- *** 

1

 ***. 

Source: Mid Continent’s Substantive Response To The Notice Of Institution, July 31, 2013, exh. 1 and 

exh. 4 and Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates, Inv. No. 731-TA-1185 (Final), USITC 

Publication 4321, May 2012, table III-1. 

In its substantive response to the Commission’s notice of institution, Mid Continent

reported that in addition to itself, the following nine companies currently produce certain steel

nails in the United States: (1) Mid Continent, (2) Davis Wire Corporation, (3) ITW, (4) Maze

Nails, (5) Pneu‐Fast Company, (6) Senco Brands, (7) Specialty Fastening, (8) Stanley Black and

Decker, and (9) Tree Island. In addition, PSW also identified itself as a U.S. producer of steel

nails in its entry of appearance. In the original investigation, the Commission excluded three

U.S. producers (Senco, Specialty Fastening, and Stanley) from the domestic industry.70 The

Commission determined that these three firms imported *** and increasing volumes of subject

merchandise as their domestic production of steel nails declined, indicating that their primary

interest was shifting from domestic production to importation.71 In this current review, Mid

Continent and the other U.S. producers agree with the definition of the domestic industry

stated in the Commission’s notice.72 Furthermore, Mid Continent reported that it is not aware

of other currently operating U.S. producers that are related parties.73

U.S. producers’ trade and financial data

The Commission requested domestic interested parties to provide trade and financial

data in their response to the notice of institution of the five‐year reviews of the subject orders.

Table I‐2 presents the data reported by responding U.S. producers from both the original

                                                      

70 Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1114 (Final), USITC Pub. 4022 (July 2008), pp. 6‐8. 71 Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1114 (Final), Confidential Views of the Commission,

p. 10.

72 Mid Continent’s Substantive Response To The Notice Of Institution, July 31, 2013, exh. 1 and exh.

4.

73 Mid Continent’s Substantive Response To The Notice Of Institution, July 31, 2013, exh. 1 and exh.

4. Based on ***. Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1114 (Final), Staff Report, INV‐FF‐074,

June 25, 2008, table III‐7.
I‐17

investigation (2005‐07) and the response to the notice of institution (2012). The table presents

data provided by 14 firms for the period 2005‐07, and presents data for 2012 in two ways: (1)

for the four identified firms and (2) for the five firms, including the unidentified firm.  

Table I-2 

Steel nails: U.S. producers’ trade and financial data, 2005-07 and 2012 

Item 2005 2006 2007 20121

 20122

Capacity (short tons) 694,236 704,958 645,227 *** ***

Production (short tons) 276,358 196,488 146,259 *** ***

Capacity utilization (percent) 39.8 27.9 22.7 *** ***

U.S. shipments 

 Quantity (short tons) 275,448 196,601 143,868 *** ***

 Value (1,000 dollars) 385,057 287,606 220,411 *** ***

 Unit value (dollars per short ton) 1,398 1,463 1,532 *** *** 

Net sales value (1,000 dollars) 391,509 299,920 238,774 *** ***

Cost of goods sold (COGS) ($1,000) 326,652 251,886 199,460 *** ***

Gross profit or (loss) ($1,000) 64,857 48,034 39,314 *** ***

SG&A ($1,000) 36,098 29,812 30,184 *** ***

Operating income or (loss) ($1,000) 28,759 18,222 9,130 *** ***

COGS/sales (percent) 83.4 84.0 83.5 *** ***

Operating income or (loss)/sales 

(percent) 

7.3 6.1 3.8 *** ***

1

 Data for four identified producers. 

2

 Data for five producers. 

Source: Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1114 (Final), USITC Publication 4022, July 2008, 

III-3 and VI-2. Mid Continent’s Substantive Response To The Notice Of Institution, July 31, 2013, exh. 1 

and exh. 4. 

Mid Continent contends that the domestic industry is extremely vulnerable to injury

from unfairly traded imports from China. Mid Continent stated that the domestic industry is in

an even more weakened state than that prior to the imposition to the antidumping duty order

on nails from China. It points to the investigation on steel nails from the UAE, in which the

Commission found that the domestic industry was unable to take full advantage of the order

and unable to take advantage of improvements in the economy and housing market. Mid

Continent argues that the domestic industry’s market share decreased between 2009 and 2011,

a period of gradually increasing demand.74 Financial indicators also declined during this period,

production increased slightly, production capacity declined, and capacity utilization rates were

characterized as low.75 Mid Continent contends that little has changed since the investigation

on nails from the UAE, as illustrated by industry data provided for 2012.

                                                      

74 Mid Continent’s Substantive Response To The Notice Of Institution, July 31, 2013, p. 23. 75 Ibid.
I‐18

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT CONSUMPTION

U.S. importers

In the original investigation, 41 firms provided usable importer questionnaire responses,

38 of which imported steel nails from China, accounting for *** percent of the quantity of

subject U.S. imports from China during 2005‐07.76

In its substantive response to the Commission’s notice of institution, Mid Continent

identified 86 known and currently operating importers of steel nails.77

U.S. imports

In its original investigation, the Commission found the subject import volume and the

increases in that volume were significant, both in absolute terms and relative to consumption

and production in the United States. The volume of subject imports measured by quantity

increased from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2006, and then decreased to ***

short tons in 2007, for an overall increase of *** from 2005 to 2007.78

Data regarding U.S. imports of steel nails, as reported in the final original investigation,

as well as data from 2012, are presented in table I‐3. U.S. subject imports from China decreased

from *** short tons in 2007 to *** short tons in 2012. As a result, their share of the total

quantity of imports declined from *** percent to *** percent. Although imports from all

nonsubject sources increased from *** short tons in 2007 to *** short tons in 2012, total

imports decreased from 768,307 short tons in 2007 to 461,814 short tons in 2012.

Mid Continent acknowledged the Commission’s findings in its original investigation.79

Mid Continent contends that although the U.S. industry did not enjoy the full benefits of the

antidumping duty order on nails from China due to the influx of unfairly traded imports from

the UAE, the order did provide some benefits by limiting Chinese import volume and pricing

behavior.80 Mid Continent argues that Chinese steel nail producers have available capacity for

export along with “the ability and incentive to export large and significant volumes to the

United States.”81 Mid Continent estimates that Chinese steel nail producers have 933,921 short

tons of capacity, arguing that it could use this capacity to return to pre‐order shipment volumes

to the United States.82  

                                                      

76 Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1114 (Final), USITC Publication 4022, July 2008, III‐3

and IV‐1. 77 Mid Continent’s Substantive Response To The Notice Of Institution, July 31, 2013, p. 58 and exh 2.

78 Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1114 (Final), Confidential Views of the Commission,

p. 22.

79 Mid Continent’s Substantive Response To The Notice Of Institution, July 31, 2013, p. 13.

80 Mid Continent’s Substantive Response To The Notice Of Institution, July 31, 2013, p. 17.

81 Mid Continent’s Substantive Response To The Notice Of Institution, July 31, 2013, p. 37.

82 Mid Continent’s Substantive Response To The Notice Of Institution, July 31, 2013, p. 37.
I‐19

Table I-3 

Steel nails: U.S. import data, 2005-07 and 2012 

Item 2005 2006 2007 2012 

 Quantity (short tons) 

China - subject *** *** *** *** 

China - nonsubject *** *** *** *** 

All other 425,250 312,644 206,818 316,878 

Subtotal - nonsubject *** *** *** *** 

 Total imports 905,001 928,191 768,307 461,814 

 Value ($1,000) 

China - subject *** *** *** *** 

China - nonsubject *** *** *** *** 

All other 491,721 375,204 271,225 445,617 

Subtotal - nonsubject *** *** *** *** 

 Total imports 882,879 861,198 763,859 652,853 

 Unit value (dollars per short ton) 

China - subject *** *** *** ***

China - nonsubject *** *** *** ***

All other 1,156 1,200 1,311 1,406

Subtotal - nonsubject *** *** *** ***

 Total imports 976 928 994 1,414

 Share of quantity (percent) 

China - subject *** *** *** ***

China - nonsubject *** *** *** ***

All other 47.0 33.7 26.9 68.6

Subtotal - nonsubject *** *** *** ***

 Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1114 (Final), Staff Report, INV-FF-074, June 25, 

2008, p. IV-4 and compiled from official Commerce statistics, adjusted ***. 

Table I‐4 presents the quantity, value, unit value, and share of quantity for the top ten

sources of U.S. imports as well as China.
I‐20

Table I-4 

Steel nails: U.S. imports, by source, 2008-12 

Source Calendar year 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

 Quantity (short tons)

China (including nonsubject) 266,703 137,975 150,730 144,675 144,935

Nonsubject countries: 

Taiwan 76,520 61,438 57,166 58,754 84,987

Korea 56,336 25,245 34,163 39,598 49,142

United Arab Emirates 48,256 63,494 118,558 110,395 46,632

Malaysia 13,283 10,493 11,634 23,110 31,921

Vietnam 2,515 3,275 4,424 12,731 28,925

Canada 30,712 17,898 17,673 19,118 20,605

Mexico 16,238 10,626 13,704 14,277 16,968

Poland 4,965 6,306 12,439 8,919 9,117

Oman 0 0 0 40 7,445

Bulgaria 0 0 669 2,138 3,426

All other sources 23,157 7,282 11,694 10,319 17,711

 Subtotal nonsubject 271,981 206,056 282,124 299,400 316,878

Total 538,684 344,031 432,854 444,075 461,814

 Value (1,000 dollars)

China (including nonsubject) 326,549 147,976 173,257 188,383 207,236

Nonsubject countries: 

Taiwan 117,931 69,499 74,550 87,222 123,919

Korea 85,059 30,019 43,528 52,354 64,555

United Arab Emirates 70,517 56,662 111,764 130,417 64,288

Malaysia 16,954 9,426 12,176 26,572 38,939

Vietnam 2,923 3,698 4,454 13,362 28,948

Canada 52,716 26,723 29,276 33,837 37,172

Mexico 23,188 13,100 11,282 16,089 18,886

Poland 8,567 8,715 15,159 11,825 12,430

Oman 0 0 0 54 9,356

Bulgaria 0 0 370 1,853 3,074

All other sources 52,219 27,591 31,211 30,666 44,049

 Subtotal nonsubject 430,073 245,434 333,772 404,251 445,617

Total 756,623 393,409 507,030 592,634 652,853

Table continued on next page.
I‐21

Table I-4--Continued

Steel nails: U.S. imports, by source, 2008-12 

Source Calendar year 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

 Unit value (dollars per short ton)

China (including nonsubject) 1,224 1,072 1,149 1,302 1,430

Nonsubject countries: 

Taiwan 1,541 1,131 1,304 1,485 1,458

Korea 1,510 1,189 1,274 1,322 1,314

United Arab Emirates 1,461 892 943 1,181 1,379

Malaysia 1,276 898 1,047 1,150 1,220

Vietnam 1,162 1,129 1,007 1,050 1,001

Canada 1,716 1,493 1,657 1,770 1,804

Mexico 1,428 1,233 823 1,127 1,113

Poland 1,726 1,382 1,219 1,326 1,363

Oman (1) (1) (1) 1,350 1,257

Bulgaria (1) (1) 553 867 897

All other sources 2,255 3,789 2,669 2,972 2,487

 Subtotal nonsubject 1,581 1,191 1,183 1,350 1,406

Total 1,405 1,144 1,171 1,335 1,414

 Share of quantity (percent)

China (including nonsubject) 49.5 40.1 34.8 32.6 31.4 

Nonsubject countries: 

Taiwan 14.2 17.9 13.2 13.2 18.4 

Korea 10.5 7.3 7.9 8.9 10.6 

United Arab Emirates 9.0 18.5 27.4 24.9 10.1 

Malaysia 2.5 3.0 2.7 5.2 6.9 

Vietnam 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.9 6.3 

Canada 5.7 5.2 4.1 4.3 4.5 

Mexico 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.7 

Poland 0.9 1.8 2.9 2.0 2.0 

Oman (1) (1) (1) 0.0 1.6 

Bulgaria (1) (1) 0.2 0.5 0.7 

All other sources 4.3 2.1 2.7 2.3 3.8 

 Subtotal nonsubject 50.5 59.9 65.2 67.4 68.6 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

1

 Not applicable. 

Source: Official Commerce statistics. 
I‐22

Ratio of imports to U.S. production

Imports of subject steel nails from China ranged from *** percent to *** percent of

reported U.S. production during 2005‐07. Imports from nonsubject sources ranged from ***

percent to *** percent of reported U.S. production. Total imports ranged from 327.5 percent to

525.3 percent of total reported U.S. production during 2005‐07. The ratios of imports from

China and nonsubject countries during 2005‐07 and 2012 are shown in table I‐5 below.

Table I-5 

Steel nails: Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production, 2005-07 and 2012 

Item Calendar year 

 2005 2006 2007 20121 20122

 Ratio of imports to U.S. production (percent) 

China - subject *** *** *** *** ***

China - nonsubject *** *** *** *** ***

All other 153.9 159.1 141.4 *** ***

Subtotal - nonsubject *** *** *** *** ***

All countries 327.5 472.4 525.3 *** ***

1

 Data for four identified producers. 

2

 Data for five producers. 

Source: Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1114 (Final), Staff Report, INV-FF-074, June 25, 

2008, pp. III-3 and IV-4 and compiled from official Commerce statistics, adjusted ***. 

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares

Table I‐6 shows U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports and apparent U.S.

consumption in 2005‐07 and 2012. Table I‐7 shows U.S. market shares during 2005‐07 and

2012. Apparent consumption decreased from 1.2 million short tons in 2005 to approximately

900,000 short tons in 2007. In 2012, consumption was ***‐*** short tons. The responding

producers’ share of consumption was 15.8 percent in 2007 and ***‐*** percent in 2012.
I‐23

Table I-6 

Steel nails: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 

2005-07 and 2012 

Item 2005 2006 2007 20121

 20122

Quantity (short tons) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 275,448 196,601 143,868 *** ***

U.S. imports from-- 

China - subject *** *** *** *** *** 

China - nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** 

All other sources 425,250 312,644 206,818 316,878 316,878 

Subtotal - nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** 

Total imports 905,001 928,191 768,307 461,814 461,814 

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,180,449 1,124,792 912,175 *** ***

 Value (1,000 dollars) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 385,057 287,606 220,411 *** ***

U.S. imports from-- 

China - subject *** *** *** *** *** 

China - nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** 

All other sources 491,721 375,204 271,225 445,617 445,617 

Subtotal - nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** 

Total imports 882,879 861,198 763,859 652,853 652,853 

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,267,936 1,148,804 984,270 *** ***

1

 Data for four identified producers. 

2

 Data for five producers. 

Source: Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1114 (Final), USITC Publication 4022, July 2008, 

p. III-5, Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1114 (Final), Staff Report, INV-FF-074, June 25, 

2008, p. IV-4, compiled from official Commerce statistics, adjusted ***, and Mid Continent’s Substantive 

Response To The Notice Of Institution, July 31, 2013, exh. 1 and exh. 4. 
I‐24

Table I-7 

Steel nails: U.S. market shares, 2005-07 and 2012 

Item 2005 2006 2007 20121

 20122

 Quantity (short tons) 

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,180,449 1,124,792 912,175 *** ***

 Value (1,000 dollars) 

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,267,936 1,148,804 984,270 *** ***

 Share of quantity (percent) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 23.3 17.5 15.8 *** ***

U.S. imports from-- 

 China - subject *** *** *** *** ***

 China - nonsubject *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources 36.0 27.8 22.7 *** ***

 Subtotal - nonsubject *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 76.7 82.5 84.2 *** ***

 Share of value (percent) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 30.4 25.0 22.4 *** ***

U.S. imports from-- 

 China - subject *** *** *** *** ***

 China - nonsubject *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources 38.8 32.7 27.6 *** ***

 Subtotal - nonsubject *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 69.6 75.0 77.6 *** ***

1

 Data for four identified producers. 

2

 Data for five producers. 

Source: Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1114 (Final), USITC Publication 4022, July 2008, 

p. III-5, Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1114 (Final), Staff Report, INV-FF-074, June 25, 

2008, p. IV-4, compiled from official Commerce statistics, adjusted ***, and Mid Continent’s Substantive 

Response To The Notice Of Institution, July 31, 2013, exh. 1 and exh. 4. 

In its original determination, the Commission found that demand for steel nails is largely

determined by the size of the construction market, both residential and commercial, which is

the single largest end user of steel nails.83 Mid Continent notes the Commission’s determination

in the investigation on nails from the UAE “confirmed the new residential housing starts in the

U.S. are a major factor influencing the overall demand for steel nails” and that the market

indicators were below historic averages.84 According to Mid Continent, this key demand

condition still exists. Figure I‐3 shows that new housing starts declined during 2008, and in spite

of increasing since then, have remained at levels below those in the beginning of 2008. In

                                                      

83 Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1114 (Final), Confidential Views of the Commission,

p. 14.

84 Mid Continent’s Substantive Response To The Notice Of Institution, July 31, 2013, p. 26.
I‐25

addition, figure I‐4 shows the levels of private residential and nonresidential construction since

2008.

Figure I-3 

Steel nails: Annualized rate of monthly housing starts, seasonally adjusted, January 2008-June 

2013 

Source: http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/startssa.pdf 

Figure I-4 

Value of private residential and nonresidential construction put in place, January 2007-June 2013 

Source: Data gathered from U.S. Census Bureau at: 

http://www.census.gov/construction/c30/c30index.html. 
I‐26

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Background

During the original investigation, the petition identified 75 alleged producers of steel

nails in China. Chinese producers and exporters of steel nails supplied 8 questionnaires,

accounting for *** percent of U.S. imports of steel nails from China during 2007.85 Respondents

to the original questionnaire included:

Cana Hardware;

Master International Co.;

Rizhao Qingdong Electronic Appliance;

Senco‐Xingya Products;

Shanghai Taiping Hardware Co.;

Suzhou Xingya Nail;

Tianjin Lianda Group Co.; and

The Stanley Works Fastener Co.

The Commission did not receive any responses to the notice of inquiry from foreign

producers or exporters. The domestic industry identified 63 Chinese producers/exporters of

steel nails.86

Capacity and production

During the original investigation, 7 firms provided data on their individual capacity and

production in 2007.87 The two largest firms (***) combined accounted for approximately ***

percent of the reported production and *** percent of the reported exports to the United

States (equivalent to ***) in 2007.88 Since no Chinese producers responded to the notice of

institution, no further data are available specific to the production or capacity of subject steel

nails in China.

                                                      

85 During the preliminary phase of the investigation, 43 firms supplied questionnaire response,

reporting 525,419 short tons of steel nail production in 2006 (USITC Pub. 3939, Table VIII‐2). In contrast,

the eight subject firms responding in the final phase reported only *** short tons of steel nail

production in 2007.

86 Mid Continent’s Substantive Response To The Notice Of Institution, July 31, 2013, exh. 3.

87 ***.

88 Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1114 (Final), Staff Report, INV‐FF‐074, June 25,

2008, p. VII‐2.
I‐27

Exports

Table I‐8 presents data for the top 20 markets for Chinese exports of nails and staples.89

The United States has been the largest market for Chinese product since 2008. Total Chinese

exports declined from 2008 to 2009, have risen steadily since 2009, but have not reached their

2008 level.

Table I-8 

Nails and staples: Chinese exports to partner countries 

Partner country 

Quantity (short tons) 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

United States 355,117 220,053 233,979 245,278 248,798 

Japan 69,310 62,629 79,241 85,755 85,586 

Canada 49,389 40,158 58,174 59,748 60,608 

United Kingdom 33,756 20,709 29,271 24,415 25,126 

United Arab Emirates 48,191 34,933 28,938 32,980 37,361 

Korea South 57,384 26,250 23,337 25,782 30,081 

Nigeria 29,629 25,238 14,453 18,614 30,488 

Indonesia 71,245 49,397 23,310 27,462 34,616 

Malaysia 19,538 16,668 23,679 19,867 24,841 

Australia 18,463 18,208 20,830 16,157 17,036 

Saudi Arabia 18,003 15,022 18,558 16,090 17,170 

South Africa 12,578 11,224 14,823 17,338 17,468 

Tanzania 11,561 10,078 8,541 13,211 19,871 

Germany 25,190 9,537 13,600 17,229 13,358 

Myanmar 22,640 22,002 23,084 21,918 21,128 

Ghana 12,241 9,584 8,483 15,191 16,487 

Chile 20,435 8,637 18,436 14,106 14,066 

India 3,757 6,491 6,087 9,941 11,652 

Philippines 21,676 10,997 11,105 10,445 15,121 

Kenya 9,750 9,088 9,963 13,381 15,430 

All others 363,008 264,806 276,951 316,644 334,225 

World 1,272,860 891,708 944,844 1,021,551 1,090,517 

Table continued on next page.

                                                      

89 Data are for HTS heading 7317, which includes all nails, tacks, and staples, including roofing nails

and other nonsubject product.
I‐28

Table I-8--Continued 

Nails and staples: Chinese exports to partner countries 

Partner country 

Value ($1,000) 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

United States 375,273 195,780 226,855 274,927 282,183 

Japan 78,479 62,826 80,147 101,632 96,568 

Canada 50,590 34,325 53,633 63,256 65,399 

United Kingdom 41,736 22,204 33,138 32,899 34,867 

United Arab Emirates 46,842 25,458 23,739 28,698 32,014 

Korea South 55,216 21,487 20,780 27,040 30,330 

Nigeria 29,054 19,178 11,173 17,108 28,589 

Indonesia 65,917 31,018 15,336 18,391 26,446 

Malaysia 16,479 11,990 17,850 19,618 23,741 

Australia 22,904 20,254 23,333 21,077 22,359 

Saudi Arabia 17,613 11,135 15,754 18,545 20,681 

South Africa 13,177 9,737 13,223 18,624 18,545 

Tanzania 9,719 7,185 7,013 12,206 17,886 

Germany 29,871 10,184 15,291 22,572 17,527 

Myanmar 17,056 12,745 15,069 16,467 16,716 

Ghana 11,865 6,895 6,873 13,791 16,435 

Chile 20,282 6,570 14,900 14,142 15,048 

India 3,555 5,120 5,441 9,714 14,860 

Philippines 19,586 8,670 8,520 10,450 14,406 

Kenya 9,800 6,933 7,955 11,688 14,379 

All other 381,851 243,873 282,742 357,232 405,037 

World 1,316,866 773,568 898,766 1,110,079 1,214,016 

Table continued on next page.
I‐29

Table I-8--Continued 

Nails and staples: Chinese exports to partner countries 

Partner country 

Unit value (dollars per short ton) 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

United States 1,057 890 970 1,121 1,134 

Japan 1,132 1,003 1,011 1,185 1,128 

Canada 1,024 855 922 1,059 1,079 

United Kingdom 1,236 1,072 1,132 1,347 1,388 

United Arab Emirates 972 729 820 870 857 

Korea South 962 819 890 1,049 1,008 

Nigeria 981 760 773 919 938 

Indonesia 925 628 658 670 764 

Malaysia 843 719 754 987 956 

Australia 1,241 1,112 1,120 1,304 1,312 

Saudi Arabia 978 741 849 1,153 1,204 

South Africa 1,048 868 892 1,074 1,062 

Tanzania 841 713 821 924 900 

Germany 1,186 1,068 1,124 1,310 1,312 

Myanmar 753 579 653 751 791 

Ghana 969 719 810 908 997 

Chile 993 761 808 1,003 1,070 

India 946 789 894 977 1,275 

Philippines 904 788 767 1,001 953 

Kenya 1,005 763 798 873 932 

All others 1,052 921 1,021 1,128 1,212 

World 1,035 868 951 1,087 1,113 

Source: China Customs reported by Global Trade Information Service, "Global Trade Atlas." 

Tariff or non‐tariff barriers to trade

During the original investigation, no producer, importer, or foreign producer reported

any countervailing or antidumping duty orders on steel nails from China in third‐country

markets. However, on November 29, 2004, Mexico issued an antidumping duty order on

concrete steel nails from China.90 Since the original investigation, New Zealand and Indonesia

have undertaken import restrictions on Chinese nails. On October 1, 2009, Indonesia instituted

a safeguard duty on imports of steel nails from China. The safeguard was in effect from October

1, 2009 through September 30, 2012. The duty rates on imports of Chinese nails were 145

                                                      

90 Mexico, Semi‐Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the Agreement, WTO, Committee on Anti‐

Dumping Practices, September 12, 2013.
I‐30

percent in the first year, 115 percent in the second year, and 85 percent in the final year of the

safeguard.91 New Zealand currently has in place antidumping duties on imports of Chinese steel

nails, dating from June 3, 2011.92

THE GLOBAL MARKET

Table I‐9 shows the 10 largest exporters of nails and staples.93 China is the largest

exporter, a position it held during the original investigation.94 Total exports decreased from

2008 to 2009, and in spite of increasing since 2009, have yet to reach their 2008 level.

Table I-9 

Nails and staples: Exports by reporting country, 2008-12 

Reporting country 

Quantity (short tons) 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

China 1,272,861 891,708 944,844 1,021,551 1,090,517

Taiwan 92,002 81,196 74,108 75,538 104,534

Poland 61,896 52,924 68,838 67,005 61,867

Belarus 46,584 58,754 58,030 60,232 60,734

South Korea 64,132 30,451 41,051 47,431 53,582

Germany 46,222 30,642 31,130 31,716 30,772

Lithuania 25,754 23,586 27,021 31,009 34,350

Malaysia 23,836 25,304 23,671 30,891 49,673

United States 39,983 26,935 31,045 29,960 29,108

Belgium 31,137 24,492 27,272 28,833 26,374

All other 334,026 291,250 306,677 310,012 293,300

Total 2,038,433 1,537,243 1,633,689 1,734,179 1,834,812

Source: Global Trade Atlas. 

Table I‐10 shows the top 10 importers of nails and staples.95 The United States has been

the largest importer of HTS heading 7317 by substantial margins during 2008‐12.  

                                                      

91 Indonesia, Notification Under Article 12.1(B) of the Agreement on Safeguards on Finding a Serious

Injury or Threat Thereof Caused by Increased Imports, WTO, Committee on Safeguards, October 14,

2009.

92 New Zealand, Semi‐Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the Agreement, WTO, Committee on Anti‐

Dumping Practices, September 18, 2013.

93 Data are for HTS heading 7317, which includes all nails, tacks, and staples, including roofing nails

and other nonsubject product.

94 Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1114 (Final), USITC Publication 4022, July 2008, VII‐

6.
I‐31

Table I-10 

Nails and staples: Imports by reporting country, 2008-12 

Reporting country 

Quantity (short tons) 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

United States 621,771 402,956 508,875 523,675 555,202 

Japan 70,675 62,901 81,542 90,315 91,432 

Canada 79,881 53,146 83,275 76,862 78,481 

Germany 76,628 56,316 66,511 68,491 63,166 

United Kingdom HMRC 65,052 44,131 56,417 51,830 50,065 

France 53,894 44,393 43,560 46,558 34,038 

Belgium 50,266 39,196 43,531 43,834 43,454 

Netherlands 33,533 24,068 31,254 33,747 27,293 

South Korea 56,231 26,263 27,071 29,644 31,243 

Indonesia 78,179 52,918 25,365 29,100 42,652 

All other 547,982 383,948 441,284 423,716 413,025 

Total 1,734,093 1,190,236 1,408,686 1,417,773 1,430,051 

Source: Global Trade Atlas. 

                                                      

(...continued)

95 Data are for HTS heading 7317, which includes all nails, tacks, and staples, including roofing nails

and other nonsubject product.

A‐1

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY DATA

A‐3

Data Are Confidential In Their Entirety