Certain Steel Threaded Rod From 

India 

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-498 and 731-TA-1213 (Final) 

Publication 4487 August 2014 

U.S. International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436 
U.S. International Trade Commission 

COMMISSIONERS 

Meredith M. Broadbent, Chairman 

Dean A. Pinkert, Vice Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson 

David S. Johanson 

F. Scott Kieff 

Rhonda K. Schmidtlein 

Robert B. Koopman 

Director of Operations 

Staff assigned 

Nathanael Comly, Investigator 

Michele Breaux, Investigator 

Karen Taylor, Industry Analyst 

James Fetzer, Economist 

Mary Klir, Accountant 

Mara Alexander, Statistician 

Carolyn Holmes, Statistical Assistant 

Courtney McNamara, Attorney 

James McClure, Supervisory Investigator 

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436 
U.S. International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov 

Certain Steel Threaded Rod From 

India 

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-498 and 731-TA-1213 (Final) 

Publication 4487 August 2014 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Determinations 1 

Views of the Commission 3 

Part I: Introduction 1-1 

Background 1-1 

Nature and extent of subsidies and sales at LTFV 1-2 

Subsidies 1-2 

Sales at LTFV 1-2 

Critical circumstances 1-3 

Appendix 

A. Selected Federal Register notices A- l 

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 Nos. 701-TA-498 and 731-TA-1213 (Final) 

CERTAIN STEEL THREADED ROD FROM INDIA 

DETERMINATIONS 

On the basis of th e record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States 

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, 2 pursuant t o sections 705(b) and 

735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)) (the Act), that 

an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened wit h material injury, and 

the establishment of an industry in the United States is not materially retarded by reason of 

imports of certain steel threaded rod fro m India, provided for in subheading 7318.15.50 o f the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule o f the United States, that have been found by the Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) t o be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) and 

subsidized by the Government of India. 

BACKGROUND 

The Commission instituted these investigations effective June 27, 2013, following 

receipt of a petition filed wit h the Commission and Commerce by All America Threaded 

Products Inc., Denver, Colorado; Bay Standard Manufacturing Inc., Brentwood, California; and 

Vulcan Threaded Products Inc., Pelham, Alabama. The final phase of th e investigations was 

scheduled by the Commission following notification of a preliminary determinations by 

Commerce that imports o f certain steel threaded rod fro m India were subsidized within the 

meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1671b(b)) and dumped withi n the meaning of 

733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)). Notice of th e scheduling of the final phase of the 

Commission's investigations and of a public hearing t o be held in connection therewit h was 

given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on January 

17, 2014 (79 FR 3245) and revised on May 2, 2014 (79 FR 25152). The hearing was held in 

Washington, DC, on March 20, 2014, and all persons wh o requested the opportunit y were 

permitted t o appear in person or by counsel. 

1

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

CFR § 207.2(f)). 

2

 Commissioner Schmidtlein did not participate in these investigations. 

1 

Views of the Commission 

Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we find that an industry in 

the United States is not materially injured or threatened wit h material injury by reason of 

imports of certain steel threaded rod fro m India found by the U.S. Department of Commerce 

("Commerce") to be subsidized by the government of India and sold in the United States at less 

than fair value. 1 

I. Background. Domestic Like Product, and Domestic Industry 

On June 27, 2013, Vulcan Threaded Products, Inc., All America Threaded Products, Inc., 

and Bay Standard Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively "petitioners") filed a petition concerning 

certain steel threaded rod ("threaded rod") fro m India and Thailand. The Commission was 

required to issue its determination in the investigation on threaded rod fro m Thailand in April 

2014 because Commerce issued its final determination in that investigation earlier than it did in 

the investigations concerning threaded rod fro m India. The Commission made a negative 

determination on the basis of cumulated subject imports fro m India and Thailand. 2 

The Commission's record in these investigations closed on April 10, 2014, except with 

respect t o Commerce's final antidumping and countervailing duty determinations regarding 

threaded rod fro m India, the final comment s of the parties wit h respect t o these 

determinations, and the supplemental Commission report. 3 The supplemental Commission 

report included the same import data as the original report concerning the question of critical 

circumstances with respect t o threaded rod fro m India. 4 The Commission released the data t o 

counsel for interested parties under administrative protective order on July 31 , 2014. 

Petitioners submitted final comment s on the results of Commerce's final antidumping and 

countervailing duty determinations on July 15, 2014. 

Under section 771(7)(G)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, we are required to 

make our determinations in th e investigations on threaded rod fro m India on the basis of the 

same record as that in the investigation on threaded rod fro m Thailand, except t o the extent 

discussed above. 5 Therefore, in these investigations, we adopt the findings and analysis in the 

final determination on threaded rod fro m Thailand with respect t o the issues of domestic like 

product, domestic industry, and negligibility. 6 

1

 Commissioner Schmidtlein did not participate in these investigations. 

2

 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from Thailand, Inv. No. 731-TA-1214 (Final), USITC Pub. 4462 (May 

2014) ("Thailand Determination"). 

3

 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(iii); INV-MM-073 (July 30, 2014). 

4

 Because we have reached negative determinations, we do not reach the issue of critical 

circumstances in this opinion. 

5

1 9 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(iii). 

6

 This corresponds to sections I, II, and III and footnote 53 of the Thailand Determination. 

3 
II. Cumulation 

In our final determination on threaded rod fro m Thailand, we cumulated subject 

imports fro m India and Thailand for purposes of our analyses of both material injury and threat 

of material injury by reason of subject imports. 7 

We consequently determined for purposes of the determination on threaded rod fro m 

Thailand that (1) subject imports fro m India and Thailand wer e eligible for cumulation and (2) 

that a reasonable overlap of competition existed between subject imports fro m India and 

Thailand, and between imports fro m each of these sources and the domestic like product. 8 

Due t o the staggering of the investigations and our negative determination in the earlier 

investigation on subject imports fro m Thailand, we now address the issue of whether subject 

imports fro m India and Thailand remain eligible for cumulation for purposes of the 

determinations on subject imports from India. 

In the Uruguay Round Agreements Act ("URAA"), Congress provided some guidance as 

t o how the Commission is t o handle investigations that start out together but then become 

staggered. First, the statute provides that subject imports fro m countries for which petitions 

were filed on th e same day are eligible for cumulation. 9 This provision was designed to ensure 

that cumulation is based on the petition filing date, not the date of the ultimate vote. The 

URAA Statement of Administrative Action ("SAA") explains that this provision "eliminates the 

incentive in multi-country investigations for respondents t o seek extensions of individual 

Commerce determinations just to avoid cumulation." 1 0 Second, the statute provides that, in 

the subsequent investigations, the Commission shall make its determination "based on the 

record compiled in the first investigation in which it makes a final determination," with the 

addition of information and argument on Commerce's final margins for the later 

investigations, 1 1 This provision enables the Commission t o continue to cumulate subject 

imports in the later investigation(s), using the record (properly modified) compiled in the first 

investigation(s). 

Wit h this background in mind, we turn t o the relevant statutory exception t o 

cumulation. The statute provides that "the Commission shall not cumulatively assess the 

volume and effect of imports .. . fro m any country with respect t o which the investigation has 

been terminated." 1 2 As a result of the Commission's negative determination with respect to 

threaded rod fro m Thailand, that investigation was "terminated " within the meaning of that 

ter m in 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(2). We find, however, that "terminated " in the cumulation 

provisions refers to something different: situations where investigations are concluded prior t o 

a final Commission determination of material injury or threat of material injury, in particular as 

a result of negligible imports or de minimis margins. The SAA, which is an authoritative 

7

 Thailand Determination, USITC Pub. 4462 at 10-12, 27. 

8

 Thailand Determination, USITC Pub. 4462 at 10-12. 

9

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i). 

1 0

 SAA, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. I at 848 (1994). 

1 1 1 9 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(iii). 

1 2 1 9 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(ii)(ll). 

4 
expression of Congressional intent, 19 U.S.C. § 3512(d), states that the exception for 

investigations that are terminated "implement s the requirement of the {WTO} Agreements that 

negligible or de minimis imports not be cumulated." 1 3 In nearly identical terms, the related 

House and Senate committee reports specifically tie this cumulation exception to negligibility 

and de minimis determinations and refer t o no other purpose. 1 4 

Thus, the intent of Congress in including the exception for terminated investigations in 

the statute is clear, and there is no indication that the provision was meant to apply t o a 

situation in which simultaneously filed petitions become staggered in tim e due to the manner 

in which Commerce schedules the investigations. In fact, the statute, as described above, 

enables the Commission t o preserve cumulation and to treat subsequent investigations as if 

they had been rendered at the same time as the earlier investigations. 

W e conclude based on the statute as a whole that, although an earlier investigation 

resulting in a negative determination is terminated for purposes of 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(2), it is 

not thereby terminated for purposes of the exception t o cumulation in 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1677(7)(G)(ii)(ll). 151 6 Accordingly, b ecause we conclude that none of the statutory exceptions 

" SAA at 849. 

1 4

 H.R. Rep. 103-826 at 75 (1994); S. Rep. 103-412 at 59 (1994). 

1 5

 We acknowledge that in prior staggered investigations, Commission majorities have 

concluded that a negative determination in an earlier, or lead, investigation was a "termination" that 

precluded cumulation of those subject imports in the later, or trailing, staggered investigations. See, 

e.g., Glycine from India, Inv. No. 731-TA-lll l (Final), USITC Pub. 3997 at 4-5 (May 2008); Certain 

Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-865 to 

867 (Final), USITC Pub. 3387 (Jan. 2001); Certain Cold-Rolled Steel from China, Indonesia, Slovakia, and 

Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-831, 832, 835, 837 (Final), USITC Pub. 3320 (July 2000). While we do not 

dispute the permissibility of these prior Commission interpretations of the statute, we observe that the 

statute is not entirely clear how any "termination" for purposes of the cumulation exception in 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1677(7)(G)(ii)(ll) is to be reflected in the record of a staggered investigation, as that record in defined 

in 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(iii). We consequently conclude that our current interpretation is permissible as 

well, and for the reasons explained above, we believe it to be the better interpretation. We observe 

that this interpretation is one that has been advanced by individual Commissioners since the 1990s. See 

Glycine from India, USITC Pub. 3997 at 12-13 (views of Commissioners Pinkert and Williamson); Certain 

Cold-Rolled Steel from Turkey and Venezuela, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-839-640 (Final), USITC Pub. 3297 at 14 n.4 

(May 2000) (views of Commissioner Bragg); Certain Steel Wire Rod from Canada, Germany, Trinidad & 

Tobago, and Venezuela, Inv. Nos. 731.TA-763-766 (Final), USITC Pub. 3087 at 8 n.31 (Mar. 1998) 

(footnote of Commissioner Bragg). 

1 6

 Chairman Broadbent joins in the Commission's determination to cumulate the imports from 

Thailand with the subject imports from India for purposes of these investigations. She notes that, in 

prior staggered investigations, the Commission majority has chosen not to cumulate imports from 

investigations previously terminated due to negative Commission determinations. See, e.g., Glycine 

from India, Inv. No. 731-TA-lll l (Final), USITC Pub. 3997 at 4-5 (May 2008); Certain Stainless Steel ButtWeld Pipe Fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-865 to 867 (Final), USITC 

Pub. 3387 (Jan. 2001); Certain Cold-Rolled Steel from China, Indonesia, Slovakia, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 

731-TA-831, 832, 835, 837 (Final), USITC Pub. 3320 (July 2000). She notes that, in the current 

investigations, no party has argued that subject imports from India should not be cumulated with 

(Continued...) 

5 
t o cumulation is applicable in these investigations, we cumulate subject imports fro m India and 

Thailand for the reasons stated in the final determination on threaded rod from Thailand. 1 7 

III. No Material Injury or Threat of Material by Reason of Subject 

Imports 

We adopt and incorporate by reference our discussion set forth in the determination on 

subject imports fro m Thailand concerning legal standards and the conditions of competition. 1 8 

We also adopt and incorporate by reference our findings and conclusions that the domestic 

industry is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of cumulated 

subject imports fro m India and Thailand. 1 9 

IV. Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, we determine that an industry in th e United States is not 

materially injured or threatened wit h material injury by reason of subject imports of threaded 

rod fro m India that are subsidized by the government of India or sold in the United States at 

less than fair value. 

(...Continued) 

imports of threaded rod from Thailand. She also notes that, whether or not these imports were 

cumulated, she would still make the same negative determinations with respect to subject imports from 

India. She will consider arguments from parties concerning this issue in any future staggered 

investigations. 

17 Thailand Determination, USITC Pub. 4462 at 10-12. 

18 Thailand Determination, USITC Pub. 4462 at 12-18. 

19 Thailand Determination, USITC Pub. 4462 at 18-31. We note that, in its final antidumping and 

countervailing duty determinations on threaded rod from India, Commerce modified the dumping 

margins and net subsidy rates somewhat from its preliminary determinations. These changes, however, 

do not affect our analysis. In its final determination regarding threaded rod from India, Commerce 

found dumping margins ranging from 16.74 to 119.87 percent and countervailable subsidy rates ranging 

from 8.61 to 39.46 percent. Steel Threaded Rod from India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part; 2012 - 2013, 79 

Fed. Reg. 40714 (July 14, 2014); Steel Threaded Rod from India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Partial Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 Fed. Reg. 40712 

(July 14, 2014). 

6 
PART I: INTRODUCTION 

BACKGROUND 

These investigations result fro m petitions filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce 

("Commerce") and the U.S. International Trade Commission ("USITC" or "Commission") by All 

America Threaded Products, Inc., Denver, CO ("All America"), Bay Standard Manufacturing, Inc., 

Brentwood, CA, ("Bay Standard") and Vulcan Threaded Products, Inc., Pelham, AL ("Vulcan"), on 

June 27, 2013, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened 

with material injury by reason of subsidized and less-than-fair-value ("LTFV") imports of certain 

steel threaded rod ("threaded rod") fro m India and LTFV imports for threaded rod fro m 

Thailand. 1 The following tabulation provides information relating t o the background of these 

investigations. 2 

Effective date Action 

June 27, 2013 Petitions filed with Commerce and the Commission; 

institution of the Commission investigations (78 FR 

40170, July 3, 2013) 

July 24 Commerce's notice of initiation (78 FR 44526 and 78 FR 

44532, antidumping duty and countervailing duty, 

respectively) 

November 5 Commission's preliminary determination (78 FR 66382) 

December 19 Commerce's preliminary CVD determination on India (78 

FR 76815) 

December 31 Commerce's preliminary AD determination on Thailand 

(78 FR 79670); scheduling of final phase of the 

Commission's investigation (79 FR 3245, January 17, 

2014) 

February 18, 2014 Commerce's preliminary AD determination on India (78 

FR 79670) 

March 14 Commerce's final AD determination on Thailand (79 FR 

14476) 

March 20 Commission's hearing 

April 17 Commission's vote (Thailand) 

May 1 Commission's views (Thailand) 

May 2 Commission's revised schedule on India (79 FR 25152) 

July 14 Commerce's final CVD determination on India (79 FR 

40712) 

July 14 Commerce's preliminary AD determination on India (79 

FR 40714) 

1

 The Commission transmitted its determination and views with respect to Thailand on May 1, 2014. 

2

 Pertinent Federal Register notices are referenced in app. A, and may be found at the Commission's 

website (www.usitc.gov). 

1-1 
Effective date Action 

August 6 Scheduled date for the Commission's vote (India) 

August 18, 2014 Scheduled date for Commission's views (India) 

The information contained in this report is intended to be used in conjunction wit h data 

presented in the Commission's report Certain Steel Threaded Rod from Thailand, Inv. No. 731-

TA-1214 (Final), USITC Publication 4462, May 2014, and its corresponding confidential version 

contained in memorandu m No. INV-MM-026 (as revised by memoranda INV-MM-028 and INVMM-029), Certain Steel Threaded Rod from Thailand. No new information except for 

Commerce's final affirmative determinations of subsidized imports, sales at LTFV, and critical 

circumstances of threaded rod fro m India, and party comments 3 thereon is included in the 

record for this proceeding. 

Nature and extent of subsidies and sales at LTFV 

Subsidies 

On July 14, 2014, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final 

determination of countervailable subsidies for producers and exporters of threaded rod fro m 

India. 4 Table 1-1 presents Commerce's findings of subsidization of threaded rod in India. 

Table 1-1 

Threaded rod: Commerce's final subsidy determination with respect to imports from India 

Entity 

Final countervailable subsidy margin 

{percent) 

Mangal Steel Enterprises Ltd. 8.61 

Babu Exports 39.46 

All others 8.61 

Source: 79 FR 40712, July 14, 2014. 

Sales at LTFV 

On July 14, 2014, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final 

determination of sales at LTFV wit h respect to imports fro m India. 5 Table 1-2 presents 

Commerce's dumping margins wit h respect to imports of threaded rod fro m India. 

3

 The only party comments received were from counsel on behalf of the petitioners (Vorys). 

4

 Steel Threaded Rod From India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Partial 

Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 40712, July 14, 2014 

1-2 
Table 1-2 

Threaded rod: Commerce's final weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from 

India 

Producer/Exporter 

Final dumping margin 

(percent) 

Mangal Steel Enterprises,, Ltd. 16.74 

Babu Exports 119.87 

All others 16.74 

Source: 79 FR 40714, July 14, 2014. 

CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES 

On July 14, 2014, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final critical 

circumstances determination of countervailable subsidies for producers and exporters of 

threaded rod fro m India. 6 Commerce stated "In our preliminary critical circumstances 

determination, we determined that critical circumstances do not exist for Mangal Steel, but do 

exist wit h respect t o imports fro m Babu and 'all other' exporters of steel threaded rod fro m 

India. No party submitted comment s with respect to , and we made no changes to , our 

preliminary affirmative critical circumstances determination. Therefore, in accordance wit h 

section 705(a)(2) of the Act, as amended, we continue t o find that critical circumstances exist 

with respect t o imports fro m Babu and 'all other' exporters of steel threaded rod fro m India." 7 

Table 1-3 and figure 1-1 present U.S. imports of threaded rod fro m India, excluding 

Mangal, by month , fro m January 2013 to December 2013. U.S. imports fro m India, excluding 

Mangal, were ** * percent higher in the six mont h period (July 2013 to December 2013) 

following the filing of the petition than in the preceding six mont h period (January 2013 t o June 

2013). 

(...continued) 

5

 Steel Threaded Rod from India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final 

Affirmative Determination ofCriticai Circumstances, in Part, 2012-2013, 79 FR 40714, July 14, 2014. 

6Steel Threaded Rod from India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Partial Final 

Affirmative Determination ofCriticai Circumstances, 79 FR 40712, July 14, 2014, referenced in appendix 

A. 

7

l d. 

1-3 
Table 1-3 

Threaded rod: U.S. imports from India, excluding Mangal, by month, January 2013 to December 

2013 

Period 

Imports from India excluding Mangal 

Period Quantity (1,000 pounds) 

Landed Duty-Paid Value 

(1,000 dollars) 

2013: 

Jan *** *** 

Feb *** *** 

Mar *** *** 

Apr *** *** 

May *** *** 

Jun1 *** *** 

Jul *** *** 

Aug *** *** 

Sep *** *** 

Oct *** *** 

Nov *** *** 

Dec *** *** 

Total 2 *** *** 

1

 The petition in this investigation was filed on June 27, 2013. 

Source: Compiled from proprietary Customs data. 

Figure 1-1 

Threaded rod: U.S. imports from India, excluding Mangal, by month, January 2013 to December 

2013 

Also on July 14, 2014, Commerce issued its final critical circumstance determination of 

sales at LTFV wit h respect to imports fro m India, affirming, withou t changes, its preliminary 

affirmative determination that critical circumstances exist wit h respect t o imports fro m Babu of 

steel threaded rod fro m India, but do not exist with respect t o imports o f steel threaded rod 

fro m India fro m Mangal Steel and "all other" exporters or producers. 8 

Steel Threaded Rod from India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final 

Affirmative Determination ofCriticai Circumstances, in Part; 2012-2013, 79 FR 40715, July 14, 2014. 

Commerce noted that "parties submitted no additional information or comments on the Department's 

preliminary critical circumstances determination." Id. 

1-4 
Table 1-4 and figure 1-2 present U.S. imports of threaded rod fro m India, excluding 

Mangal and firms receiving the "All others" rate, by month , fro m January 2013 t o December 

2013. U.S. imports fro m India, excluding imports fro m Mangal and firms receiving the "All 

others " rate, were ** * percent higher in the six mont h period (July 2013 t o December 2013) 

following the filing of the petition than in the preceding six mont h period (January 2013 t o June 

2013). 

Table 1-4 

Threaded rod: U.S. imports from India, excluding Mangal and firms receiving the "All Others" rate, 

by month, January 2013 to December 2013 

Period 

U.S. imports from India excluding Mangal and "All others" 

Period Quantity (1,000 pounds) 

Landed Duty-Paid Value 

(1,000 dollars) 

2013: 

Jan *** *** 

Feb *** *** 

Mar *** *** 

Apr *** *** 

May *** *** 

Jun1 *** *** 

Jul *** *** 

Aug *** *** 

Sep *** *** 

Oct *** *** 

Nov *** *** 

Dec *** *** 

Total 2 *** *** 

1

 The petition in this investigation was filed on June 27, 2013. 

Source: Compiled from proprietary Customs data. 

Figure I-2, 

Threaded rod: U.S. imports from India, excluding Mangal and firms receiving the "All Others" rate, 

by month, January 2013 to December 2013 

I-5 
1-6 
APPENDIX A 

SELECTED FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES 

The Commission makes available notices relevant to its investigations and reviews on its 

website, www.usitc.Rov, In addition, the following tabulation presents Federal Register notices 

issued by Commerce. 

Citation Title Link 

79 FR 

40712, 

July 14, 

2014 

Steel Threaded Rod from 

India: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Partial 

Final Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances 

79 FR https://www.federalreRister.gov/articles/2014/07/14 

40712, 

July 14, 

2014 

Steel Threaded Rod from 

India: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Partial 

Final Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances 

/2014-16421/steel-threaded-rod-from-india-final79 FR 

40712, 

July 14, 

2014 

Steel Threaded Rod from 

India: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Partial 

Final Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances 

affirmative-countervailing-dutv-determination-and79 FR 

40712, 

July 14, 

2014 

Steel Threaded Rod from 

India: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Partial 

Final Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances 

partial-final 

79 FR 

40714, 

July 14, 

2014 

Steel Threaded Rod from 

India: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value and Final 

Affirmative Determination 

of Critical Circumstances, 

in Part; 2012-2013 

79 FR https://www.federalreRister.Rov/articles/2014/07/14 

40714, 

July 14, 

2014 

Steel Threaded Rod from 

India: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value and Final 

Affirmative Determination 

of Critical Circumstances, 

in Part; 2012-2013 

/2014-16419/steel-threaded-rod-from-india-final79 FR 

40714, 

July 14, 

2014 

Steel Threaded Rod from 

India: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value and Final 

Affirmative Determination 

of Critical Circumstances, 

in Part; 2012-2013 

determination-of-sales-at-less-than-fair-value-and79 FR 

40714, 

July 14, 

2014 

Steel Threaded Rod from 

India: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value and Final 

Affirmative Determination 

of Critical Circumstances, 

in Part; 2012-2013 

final 

A-3 
A-4