U.S. International Trade Commission

Carbon and Alloy Seamless

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe

from the Czech Republic, Japan,

Mexico, Romania, and South Africa

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-846-850 (Review)

 Publication 3850 April 2006 

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Stephen Koplan, Chairman

Deanna Tanner Okun, Vice Chairman

Jennifer A. Hillman

Charlotte R. Lane

Daniel R. Pearson

Shara L. Aranoff

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Staff assigned

Christopher Cassise, Investigator

Alan Treat, Industry Analyst

Amelia Preece, Economist

Justin Jee, Accountant

Rhonda Hughes, Attorney

Lemuel Shields, Statistician

Douglas Corkran, 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

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard,

Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech

Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and

South Africa

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-846-850 (Review)

Publication 3850 April 2006

i

CONTENTS

Page

Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

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

Separate views of Commissioner Shara L. Aranoff concerning small diameter CASSLP

pipe from Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Views of Chairman Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Dissenting views of Vice Chairman Deanna T. Okun and Commissioners Jennifer A. Hillman

and Daniel R. Pearson regarding Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Part I: Introduction and overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

The original investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Title VII investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Safeguard investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Commerce’s results of expedited reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Commerce’s administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Small diameter CASSLP pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Large diameter CASSLP pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

The subject products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Definition of the subject products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Description and end uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

Interchangeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

Carbon and alloy SSLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-30

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-30

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-32

U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-32

Apparent U.S. consumption, market shares, and ratio to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-33

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market ................................ II-1

Small diameter CASSLP pipe market characteristics .................................. II-1

Supply and demand considerations for small diameter CASSLP pipe ..................... II-2

U.S. supply ............................................................... II-2

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6

Substitutability issues ....................................................... II-11

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-11

Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports ............ II-16

Elasticity estimates for small diameter CASSLP pipe ................................. II-19

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-20

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-21

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-21
ii

CONTENTS

Page

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market (continued) ...................... II-22

Large diameter CASSLP pipe market characteristics .................................. II-22

Supply and demand considerations for large diameter CASSLP pipe ..................... II-23

U.S. supply ............................................................... II-23

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-25

Substitutability issues ....................................................... II-32

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-33

Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports ............ II-37

Elasticity estimates for large diameter CASSLP pipe ................................. II-40

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-40

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-40

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-40

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry ............................................ III-1

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization for small diameter CASSLP

pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

U.S. producers’ domestic shipments and export shipments of small diameter CASSLP pipe . . . III-2

U.S. producers’ inventories of small diameter CASSLP pipe ........................... III-2

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe .......... III-2

U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity of small diameter CASSLP pipe ...... III-2

Financial experience of U.S. producers of small diameter CASSLP pipe .................. III-3

Background ............................................................... III-3

Operations on small diameter CASSLP pipe ...................................... III-3

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses ........................ III-6

Assets and return on investment ............................................... III-6

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization for large diameter CASSLP

pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-7

U.S. producers’ domestic shipments and export shipments of large diameter CASSLP pipe . . . III-8

U.S. producers’ inventories of large diameter CASSLP pipe ............................ III-8

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe .......... III-8

U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity of large diameter CASSLP pipe ...... III-8

Financial experience of U.S. producers of large diameter CASSLP pipe .................. III-9

Background ............................................................... III-9

Operations on large diameter CASSLP pipe ...................................... III-9

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses ........................ III-10

Assets and return on investment ............................................... III-10
iii

CONTENTS

Page

Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. importers’ inventories of small diameter CASSLP pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Cumulation considerations for small diameter CASSLP pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

The industry in the Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

The industry in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

The industry in Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

The industry in South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

The industry in all subject countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

U.S. importers’ current orders of small diameter CASSLP pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

U.S. imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-14

U.S. importers’ inventories of large diameter CASSLP pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15

Cumulation considerations for large diameter CASSLP pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15

The industry in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-16

The industry in Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-17

The industry in all subject countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-18

U.S. importers’ current orders of large diameter CASSLP pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-18

Antidumping duty orders in third-country markets on CASSLP pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-19

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-19

Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-19

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-21

Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-22

Part V: Pricing and related information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Factors affecting small diameter CASSLP pipe prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Transportation costs to the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Sales terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Price trends and comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

Factors affecting large diameter CASSLP pipe prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

Transportation costs to the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

Pricing methods and sales terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-11

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-11

Price trends and comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-12
iv

CONTENTS

Page

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices and the Commission’s statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Hearing witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. U.S. producers’, U.S. importers’, U.S. purchasers’, and foreign producers’ comments

 regarding the effects of the antidumping duty orders and the likely effects of revocation . . D-1

E. Selected comments regarding comparability of carbon and alloy seamless standard, line

 and pressure pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

F. U.S. import data for nonsubject countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

Note.--Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published

and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.
 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

 Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioners Jennifer A. Hillman and Daniel R. Pearson dissenting

with regard to imports from Romania.

 3

 Chairman Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane dissenting.

 4

 Chairman Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane dissenting.

 5

 The Commission revised its schedule effective February 10, 2006 (71 F.R. 8311, February 16, 2006).

1

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Inv. Nos. 731-TA-846-850 (Review)

CARBON AND ALLOY SEAMLESS STANDARD, LINE, AND PRESSURE PIPE FROM THE

CZECH REPUBLIC, JAPAN, MEXICO, ROMANIA, AND SOUTH AFRICA

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject five-year reviews, 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)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on small diameter

carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe from Japan and Romania2

 and large diameter

carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe from Japan would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably

foreseeable time.

The Commission also determines that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on small

diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe from the Czech Republic and South

Africa3

 and large diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe from Mexico4

would not 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 these reviews on May 2, 2005 (70 F.R. 22688) and determined on

August 5, 2005 that it would conduct full reviews (70 F.R. 49680, August 24, 2005). Notice of the

scheduling of the Commission’s reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith 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 September 23, 2005 (70 F.R.

55917).5

 The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on March 2, 2006, and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. 

 1

 Vice Chairman Okun, Commissioner Hillman and Commissioner Pearson dissenting with respect to Romania. 

See views of Chairman Okun, Commissioner Hillman and Commissioner Pearson.

 2

 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane dissenting. See their views.

 3

 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane dissenting. See their views.

 4

 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane join parts I, II, III.A.-B., and V.A.-B. of these views.

 5

 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa, Inv. Nos.

731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC Pub. 3311 (June 2000).

 6

 65 Fed. Reg. 39,360 (June 26, 2000).

 7

 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Mexico,

and Romania, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-846, 848 and 849 (Final), USITC Pub. 3325 (Aug. 2000).

 8

 65 Fed. Reg. 48,963 (Aug. 10, 2000).

 9

 65 Fed. Reg. 49,539 (Aug. 14, 2000).

 10 65 Fed. Reg. 49,227 (Aug. 11, 2000).

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on small diameter

carbon and alloy seamless standard, line and pressure pipe (“CASSLP pipe”) from Japan and Romania

would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States

within a reasonably foreseeable time.1

 We further determine that revocation of the antidumping duty

orders on small diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic and South Africa would not be likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time.2

We also determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on large diameter CASSLP pipe

from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. We further determine that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on large diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico would not be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably

foreseeable time.3

I. BACKGROUND4

In June 2000, the Commission completed its original investigations on small diameter CASSLP

pipe from Japan and South Africa and determined that an industry in the United States was materially

injured by reason of less than fair value subject imports. The Commission also determined at that time

that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of less than fair value imports of

large diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan.5

 Commerce issued antidumping duty orders on the subject

merchandise on June 26, 2000.6

 Subsequently, in August 2000, the Commission made affirmative

material injury determinations regarding imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech

Republic and Romania as well as large diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico.7

 Commerce issued

antidumping duty orders on the subject merchandise from Romania on August 10, 2000;8

 from the Czech

Republic on August 14, 2000;9

 and from Mexico on August 11, 2000.10 There was no litigation

concerning any of the Commission’s determinations. 

On May 2, 2005, the Commission instituted five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the

Act to determine whether revocation of these antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to
 11 70 Fed. Reg. 22,688 (May 2, 2005).

 12 70 Fed. Reg. 49,680 (Aug. 24, 2005); see also Confidential Staff Report (“CR”)/Public Staff Report (“PR”) at

Appendix A, Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy in Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line

and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-846-850

(Review). All citations to the staff report in these views refer to memorandum INV-DD-036 (Mar. 28, 2006), as

revised by memorandum INV-DD-041 (Mar. 30, 2006).

 13 CR at IV-11, PR at IV-6.

 14 CR at IV-39, PR at IV-16.

 15 One firm from the Czech Republic, Mittal Steel Ostrava, responded to the Commission’s request for

information in these reviews. It accounted for the majority of small diameter CASSLP pipe produced in the Czech

Republic, ***, in 2004. CR at IV-5, PR at IV-4. Mittal Steel Ostrava is the successor firm to Nova Hut, a producer

in the Czech Republic that provided information in the original investigations.

 16 Romanian producers Mittal Roman, S.A., SC Silcotub, S.A. and Artrom, S.A. provided information to the

Commission in these reviews. These firms accounted for all known production of small diameter CASSLP pipe in

Romania in 2004. CR at IV-17, PR at IV-7. The Commission received data from one firm in South Africa, Mittal

Steel (SA) Ltd., which accounted for all of the small diameter CASSLP pipe produced in South Africa in 2004. CR

at IV-24, PR at IV-8. With respect to large diameter CASSLP pipe, the Commission obtained information from

TAMSA, which accounted for all production of subject merchandise in Mexico in 2004. CR at IV-45, PR at IV-17.

4

continuation or recurrence of material injury.11 The Commission received five substantive responses to

its notice of institution. Domestic producers filed a joint response on behalf of domestic producers United

States Steel Corp. (“U.S. Steel”), Koppel Steel Corp. (“Koppel Steel”) and V&M Star, L.P. (“V&M

Star”), with respect to both small and large diameter CASSLP pipe. Mittal Steel Ostrava (a producer in

the Czech Republic), Mittal Steel Roman (a producer in Romania) and Mittal Steel (SA) (a producer in

South Africa) filed a joint response with respect to small diameter CASSLP pipe. S.C. Silcotub S.A.

(“Silcotub”), a producer and exporter of small diameter CASSLP pipe in Romania, submitted a response

with respect to small diameter CASSLP pipe. NKK Tubes (“NKK”), a producer of small and large

diameter CASSLP pipe in Japan, filed a response with respect to small and large diameter CASSLP pipe

and Tubos de Acero de Mexico S.A. (“TAMSA”), a producer of large diameter CASSLP pipe in Mexico,

submitted a response with respect to that product.

On August 5, 2005, the Commission determined that it should conduct full reviews of the orders. 

The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response was adequate, and that the

respondent interested party group responses with respect to the Czech Republic, Mexico, Romania, and

South Africa were adequate, but found that the respondent interested party group response with respect to

Japan was inadequate. However, the Commission determined to conduct full reviews concerning subject

imports from Japan to promote administrative efficiency in light of its decision to conduct full reviews

with respect to subject imports from the remaining countries.12

A number of respondent interested parties did not provide questionnaire responses and/or

participate in these reviews. In particular, only one foreign producer/exporter from Japan, NKK, which

reported that it represented *** percent of production of small diameter CASSLP pipe in Japan in 2004,13

and *** percent of production of large diameter CASSLP pipe in Japan in 2004,14 provided a

questionnaire response or otherwise participated. Although some Czech producers/exporters also failed

to participate, our coverage with respect to the industry in the Czech Republic is considerably more

comprehensive than for Japan, with data covering nearly *** percent of production of small diameter

CASSLP pipe.15 Similarly, our coverage with respect to the subject industries in Mexico, Romania and

South Africa is complete.16 Accordingly, where appropriate, we have relied on the facts available in these

reviews, which consist primarily of the evidence in the record from the Commission’s original
 17 The domestic producers have urged us to take adverse inferences against nonresponding foreign producers. 

The statute permits the Commission to use adverse inferences in selecting among the facts otherwise available when

an interested party has failed to cooperate by acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. 

19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b). Such adverse inferences may include selecting from any information placed on the record

and information from the record of our original determination. Id.

We do not find that participation or non-participation in sunset reviews is indicative of likely differences in

conditions of competition in the U.S. market. Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from France, Germany, Italy, Japan,

Korea, Mexico, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, Inv. No. 701-TA-380-382 and 731-TA-797-804 (Review), USITC

Pub. 3788 (July 2005) at 20.

 18 Commissioner Pearson notes that to the extent a respondent party chooses not to participate in a sunset review,

this fact does not necessarily indicate whether imports from that party would likely increase upon revocation so as to

cause continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry. In these reviews, his use of the best

information available to him, which in the case of Japan is primarily information from the original investigation, is

not intended to penalize any subject producer or exporter.

 19 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 20 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). See 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).

 21 See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan and the United

Kingdom, USITC Pub. 3788 at 6; Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub.

3614 (July 2003) at 4; Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub.

3577 (Feb. 2003) at 4.

5

investigations, the information collected by the Commission since the institution of these reviews, and

information submitted by parties in these reviews.17 18

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c), the Commission defines the “domestic like

product” and the “industry.”19 The Act defines the “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.”20 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the like product

definition from the original determination and any previous reviews and consider whether the record

indicates any reason to revisit that definition.21

In its final expedited five-year review determinations, Commerce described the scope of the small

diameter CASSLP pipe covered by the orders as:

seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes and

redraw hollows produced, or equivalent, to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333,

ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the API 5L specifications and

meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of the

orders also includes all products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting

the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification. Specifically included within

the scope of the orders are seamless pipes and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 4.5 inches

(114.3 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished
 22 70 Fed. Reg. 53,151, 53,152 (Sept. 7, 2005) (quoted in part). For full description of Commerce’s scope, see id.,

reproduced in CR/PR at Appendix A.

 23 70 Fed. Reg. 53,159, 53,160 (Sept. 7, 2005) (quoted in part). For full description of Commerce’s scope, see id.,

reproduced in CR/PR at Appendix A.

 24 CR at I-22 - I-23, PR at I-21.

 25 CR at I-23, PR at I-21.

 26 CR at I-23, PR at I-21.

 27 In the like product analysis for an investigation, the Commission generally considers a number of factors

including: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) common

manufacturing facilities, production processes and production employees; (5) customer and producer perceptions;

and, where appropriate, (6) price. See The Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (CIT 1996). No

single factor is dispositive, and the Commission may consider other factors relevant to a particular investigation. 

The Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products, and disregards minor variations. See,

e.g. S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979); Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49. 

6

or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled),

or surface finish.22

In its final expedited five-year review determinations, Commerce described the scope of 

the large diameter CASSLP pipe covered by the orders as:

large diameter seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure

pipes produced, or equivalent, to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A53,

ASTM A106, ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, and the American

Petroleum Institute (API) 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below,

regardless of application, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below. The scope of this

order also includes all other products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and

meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification, with the exception

of the exclusions discussed below.

Specifically included within the scope of this order are seamless pipes greater than 4.5

inches (114.3 mm) up to and including 16 inches (406.4 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of

wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end,

beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish.23

Seamless standard pipe is most commonly produced to American Society for Testing and

Materials (“ASTM”) A-53 specification, and is generally intended for the low pressure conveyance of

water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air

conditioning units, automatic sprinklers, and other related uses.24 Seamless line pipe is produced to the

American Petroleum Institute (“API”) 5L specification, and is intended for the conveyance of oil and

natural gas and other fluids in pipe lines.25 Seamless pressure pipe is commonly produced to ASTM A106 specification, and is intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil

products, natural gas, and other liquids and gases in industrial piping systems.26

The starting point of the Commission’s like product analysis in a five-year review is the like

product definition in the Commission’s original determination.27 In its original determinations, the

Commission defined the domestic like products as two separate products corresponding with Commerce’s
 28 USITC Pub. 3311 at 11; USITC Pub. 3325 at 4.

 29 Commissioner Hillman finds, based on the record of these reviews, that carbon and alloy steel seamless

standard, line, and pressure pipe (“SSLP pipe”) do not constitute separate domestic like products. Thus, she concurs

with her colleagues’ like product determination, finding two like products: one for small diameter CASSLP pipe and

one for large diameter CASSLP pipe. While she found separate like products for carbon and alloy SSLP pipe in the

original investigations, the record in these reviews indicates significant changes that have led her to revisit her like

product definition. While there are still some differences between carbon and alloy SSLP pipe, the evidence in these

reviews indicates that there is more of a continuum between them than in the original investigations. In particular, in

the original investigations, alloy SSLP pipe was produced domestically by only Gulf States and Michigan Specialty,

relatively small producers. INV-X-114 (May 25, 2000) (“Original Staff Report”) at III-1 - III-4. In contrast, the sole

U.S. producer of alloy SSLP pipe during the period of review was U.S. Steel, the largest U.S. producer of CASSLP

pipe. CR at I-33- I-34, PR at I-28 - I-29. Much of U.S. Steel’s small diameter alloy SSLP pipe is of grades that are

relatively similar in chemical composition to carbon steel grades. CR at I-35 n.52, PR at I-29 n.52. U.S. Steel’s

alloy SSLP pipe does not require cold-finishing; in the original investigations, the domestic alloy SSLP pipe

producers produced pipe that typically required cold-finishing. Id. The evidence regarding price differentials is

mixed in these reviews. The most directly comparable pricing data, those for product 2 (carbon steel, 4.5") and

product 8 (alloy steel, 4.5") show the carbon steel product higher priced toward the end of the period of review. See

CR/PR at Tables V-3 and V-5. While Commissioner Hillman views the shipment average unit value (“AUV”) data

with caution, she notes that the data for small diameter pipe show higher AUVs for carbon pipe than for alloy pipe in

several years of the period of review. See CR/PR at Tables C-2 and C-3. Responses from market participants were

mixed regarding the like product factors. See CR at I-32-I-34 and E-3-E-14, PR at I-27-29 and E-3-6. Finally, no

party has argued for separate like products, unlike the situation in the original investigations.

 30 Domestic Producers’ Small Diameter CASSLP Prehearing Brief at 14; Domestic Producers’ Large Diameter

CASSLP Prehearing Brief at 11; V&M Star’s Prehearing Brief at 3; Mittal’s Response to Notice of Institution at 15;

NKK Tube’s Response to Notice of Institution at 7; Silcotub’s Response to Notice of Institution at 12; TAMSA’s

Response to Notice of Institution at 7.

 31 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 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, provided that adequate production-related activity is conducted

in the United States. See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 682-83 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

 32 CR/PR at Table I-6.

 33 CR/PR at Table I-7.

7

scope descriptions: small diameter seamless pipe and large diameter seamless pipe.28 29 The parties do

not argue for a different definition of the domestic like products.30

The record here contains no information that would warrant a reconsideration of the domestic like

product definition. We therefore define the domestic like products in these reviews as consistent with the

like product definitions in the original determinations, as well as with Commerce’s scope: small diameter

seamless pipe and large diameter seamless pipe, coextensive with the scope of the orders.

B. Domestic Industry

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant domestic industry as the “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.”31 Current domestic

producers of small diameter CASSLP pipe are Koppel Steel, Sharon Tube Co. (“Sharon Tube”), The

Timken Co. (“Timken”), and U.S. Steel;32 current domestic producers of large diameter CASSLP pipe are

Timken, U.S. Steel and V&M Star.33
 34 USITC Pub. 3311 at 12; USITC Pub. 3325 at 4.

 35 Domestic Producers’ Small Diameter CASSLP Prehearing Brief at 14 n.34; Domestic Producers’ Large

Diameter CASSLP Prehearing Brief at 11-12 n.27; TAMSA’s Response to Notice of Institution at 7; NKK Tube’s

Response to Notice of Institution at 7.

 36 We note that V&M Star is a joint venture between V&M Tubes, S.A., a producer of CASSLP pipe in

Boulogne, France (*** percent interest) and Sumitomo Corp. of Houston, TX (*** percent interest), a wholly owned

subsidiary of Sumitomo Corp. of Tokyo, Japan. CR/PR at Table I-7 n.3. A producer is deemed to be a related party

if an exporter or importer directly or indirectly controls the producer. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(ii). Sumitomo owns

only *** percent of V&M Star and it would normally not be regarded as exercising control over V&M Star. There

is no evidence and no argument that Sumitomo exercises direct or indirect control over V&M Star. Accordingly, we

do not find V&M Star to be a related party.

 37 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 38 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 39 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I (1994).

8

In the original investigations, the Commission found two domestic industries, consistent with its

domestic like product findings. These industries comprised all domestic producers of small diameter

seamless pipe and all domestic producers of large diameter seamless pipe.34

As with the definition of the domestic like product, the parties do not argue for a different

definition of the domestic industries.35 Nor does the record here contain any information that would

warrant a reconsideration of this issue.36 We therefore define the domestic industries as all current U.S.

producers of the respective domestic like products.

III. CUMULATION OF SUBJECT IMPORTS OF SMALL DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

FROM THE CZECH REPUBLIC, JAPAN, ROMANIA, AND SOUTH AFRICA

A. Overview

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that:

the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject

merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or

(c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete

with each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The

Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of the

subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are likely to have

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.37

Thus, cumulation is discretionary in five-year reviews. The Commission may exercise its discretion to

cumulate only if the reviews are initiated on the same day and the Commission determines that the subject

imports are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S. market. The

statute precludes cumulation if the Commission finds that subject imports from a country are likely to

have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.38 We note that neither the statute nor the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) provides

specific guidance on what factors the Commission is to consider in determining that imports “are likely to

have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry.39 With respect to this provision, the
 40 For a discussion of the analytical framework of Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Hillman regarding the

application of the “no discernible adverse impact” provision, see Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil,

Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-278-280 (Review) and 731-TA-347-348 (Review) USITC

Pub. 3274 (Feb. 2000). For a further discussion of Chairman Koplan’s analytical framework, see Iron Metal

Construction Castings from India; Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil; and Iron Construction Castings

from Brazil, Canada, and China, Inv. Nos. 303-TA-13 (Review); 701-TA-249 (Review); and 731-TA-262, 263, and

265 (Review) USITC Pub. 3247 (Oct. 1999) (Views of Commissioner Stephen Koplan Regarding Cumulation). 

 41 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(I).

 42 70 Fed. Reg. 22,688 (May 2, 2005).

 43 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether imports compete with each

other and with the domestic like product are: (1) the degree of fungibility between the imports from different

countries and between imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer

requirements and other quality related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographical

markets of imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar

channels of distribution for imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the

imports are simultaneously present in the market. See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50

(CIT 1989).

 44 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 916 (CIT 1996); Wieland Werke, AG, 718 F. Supp. at

52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”); United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 

673, 685 (CIT 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We note, however, that there have been investigations

where the Commission has found an insufficient overlap in competition and has declined to cumulate subject

imports. See, e.g., Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-386 (Preliminary) and 731-TA-812-813

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 at 15 (Feb. 1999), aff’d sub nom, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Foundation v.

United States, 74 F. Supp.2d 1353 (CIT 1999); Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic

of Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-761-762 (Final), USITC Pub. 3098 at 13-15 (Apr. 1998).

 45 See, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. at 1172 (affirming Commission's determination not to

cumulate for purposes of threat analysis when pricing and volume trends among subject countries were not uniform

and import penetration was extremely low for most of the subject countries); Metallverken Nederland B.V. v. United

States, 728 F. Supp. 730, 741-42 (CIT 1989); Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States,

704 F. Supp. 1068, 1072 (CIT 1988).

9

Commission generally considers the likely volume of the subject imports and the likely impact of those

imports on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders are revoked.40

We note that, in the original investigations, the Commission determined to cumulate with respect

to small diameter CASSLP pipe from all four subject countries. In the original investigations, in the

present material injury context, cumulation was governed by section 771(7)(G)(I) of the Act,41 which does

not provide discretion to the Commission, in contrast to section 752(a), which governs in these reviews.

In these reviews, the statutory requirement for cumulation that all reviews be initiated on the

same day is satisfied as the Commission initiated all the reviews on May 2, 2005.42

The Commission generally has considered four factors intended to provide a framework for

determining whether the imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.43 Only a

“reasonable overlap” of competition is required.44 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether

there likely would be competition even if none currently exists because the subject imports are absent

from the U.S. market. Moreover, because of the prospective nature of five-year reviews, we have

examined not only the Commission’s traditional competition factors, but also other significant conditions

of competition that are likely to prevail if the orders under review are terminated. The Commission has

considered factors in addition to its traditional competition factors in other contexts where cumulation is

discretionary.45
 46 Original Staff Report at VII-9.

 47 CR at IV-17 n.16, PR at IV-7 n.16.

 48 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 49 Mittal Steel Roman was known as Petrotub, S.A. before its 2004 acquisition by Mittal Steel Co., N.V. CR at

IV-17 n.17, PR at IV-7 n.17.

 50 CR at IV-17 & n.19, PR at IV-7 & n.19.

 51 CR at IV-17, PR at IV-7.

 52 CR at IV-18, PR at IV-7. Silcotub was acquired by the Tenaris Group in 2004, and is no longer affiliated with

Duferco Steel. CR at IV-17 n.18, PR at IV-7 n.18.

 53 CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 54 CR at IV-18, PR at IV-7.

10

B. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact

We do not find that subject imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic,

Japan, Romania, and South Africa would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry if the antidumping duty orders were revoked.

Romania. The petition cited three producers/exporters of small diameter CASSLP pipe in

Romania: Silcotub SA, SC Republica and Societ. Petrotub SA Roman. The three firms provided

information to the Commission in the original investigations.46 Producers in Romania in the original

investigations reported capacity ranging from *** short tons in 1999 to *** short tons in 1997, reported

production ranging from *** short tons in 1999 to *** short tons in 1998, and exported approximately

*** to *** percent of their shipments to the United States from 1997 to 1999.47 In the original

investigations, the volume of shipments of subject small diameter CASSLP from Romania fell from ***

short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1998, then declined further to *** short tons in 1999. Their market

share was *** percent in 1997, *** percent in 1998, and *** percent in 1999. The order on subject

imports from Romania was imposed in August 2000. Subsequently, the volume of subject imports from

Romania fluctuated. Subject imports were 3,436 short tons in 2000, then rose to 16,573 short tons in

2001, then fell to 9,182 short tons in 2002, and rose again to 11,562 short tons in 2003, then to 18,718

short tons in 2004.48

Mittal Roman, S.A.,49 SC Silcotub, S.A. and Artrom, S.A provided information to the

Commission in these reviews. They accounted for all known production of small diameter CASSLP pipe

in Romania in 2004. Mittal Roman and Silcotub were by far the largest Romanian producers.50

Mittal Roman reported that it exported subject merchandise to the United States during the period

of review and that its volume of shipments to other markets increased from *** short tons in 2000 to ***

short tons in 2004. ***.51

Silcotub reported that during the review period, it exported subject merchandise to its *** These

exports increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. Its volume of shipments to other

markets remained relatively steady at approximately *** short tons annually.52

Producers of small diameter CASSLP pipe in Romania reported an increase in capacity of ***

percent from 2000 to 2004 (from *** short tons to *** short tons),53 and a *** percent increase in

production. Romanian producers’ capacity utilization rates ranged from *** percent in 2000 to ***

percent in January-September 2005.54 In the original investigations, their market share was *** percent

of apparent U.S. consumption in 1997, as measured by quantity, rising to *** percent in 1998 before
 55 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 56 CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 57 Original Staff Report at VII-2.

 58 CR at IV-5 n.5, PR at IV-4 n.5.

 59 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 60 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 61 Mittal Steel Ostrava is the successor company to Nova Hut. CR at II-7 n.13, PR at II-4 n.13.

 62 CR at IV-5, PR at IV-4.

 63 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 64 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 65 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 66 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

11

falling to *** percent in 1999.55 The Romanian producers projected that their capacity will be *** short

tons in 2006 and their capacity utilization would be *** percent in that year.56

Based on the current volume of subject imports from Romania and the production capacity of the

producers in Romania, along with the facts that they have some unused capacity and are export-oriented,

and the capacity, capacity utilization and export orientation of the Romanian producers in the original

investigations, we do not find that subject imports from Romania would likely have no discernible

adverse impact on the domestic industry if the order were revoked.

Czech Republic. The petition, filed on June 30, 1999, cited three known producers/exporters of

small diameter CASSLP pipe in the Czech Republic: Vitkovice, VT Dioss Chomutov and Nova Hut. 

Only the latter two producers responded to the Commission’s request for information in the original

investigations.57 In the original investigations, producers in the Czech Republic had a reported capacity

ranging from *** short tons in 1999 to *** short tons in 1997, had reported production ranging from ***

short tons in 1999 to *** short tons in 1997, and exported approximately *** to *** percent of their

shipments to the United States from 1997 to 1999.58 The volume of shipments of subject imports from

the Czech Republic totaled *** short tons in 1997, rising to *** short tons in 1998, then falling to ***

short tons in 1999. Their market share was *** percent of U.S. consumption in 1997, as measured by

quantity, rising to *** percent in 1998 and further to *** percent in 1999.59 After the order was imposed

in August 2000, the volume of subject imports fell substantially. The volume totaled 310 short tons in

2000, 11 short tons in 2001, 367 short tons in 2002, 355 short tons in 2003, and 1 short ton in 2004.60

One firm, Mittal Steel Ostrava, responded to the Commission’s request for information in these

reviews.61 It reported that it accounted for the majority of small diameter CASSLP pipe produced in the

Czech Republic, ***, in 2004.62 However, it did not export subject merchandise to the United States

during the period examined. Its volume of shipments exported to other markets increased from *** short

tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004 – an increase of *** percent.63 Its reported capacity decreased

from 2000 to 2003 (from *** short tons to *** short tons), then increased in 2004 (to *** short tons).64

Capacity utilization was *** percent in 2000, *** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002, *** percent in

2003, and *** percent in 2004.65 Mittal Steel Ostrava projected that its capacity will increase to *** short

tons in 2006. It also projected that its capacity utilization would be *** percent in that year.66

Based on the actual and projected production capacity of Mittal Steel Ostrava, along with the fact

that it currently has and is projected to have some unused capacity and is export-oriented, as well as the

capacity, capacity utilization and export orientation of the Czech producers in the original investigations,

we do not find that subject imports from the Czech Republic would likely have no discernible adverse

impact on the domestic industry if the order were revoked.
 67 Original Staff Report at VII-11.

 68 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 69 CR at IV-24 n.22, PR at IV-8 n.22.

 70 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 71 Mittal Steel acquired Iscor in 2004. CR at IV-24 n.23, PR at IV- 8 n.23.

 72 CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 73 CR/PR at Table IV-12. Mittal Steel reported no data for 2000. CR/PR at Table IV-12 n.1.

 74 CR/PR at Table IV-13.

 75 Original Staff Report at VII-4.

 76 CR at IV-11 n.9, PR at IV-5 n.9.

 77 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 78 See CR/PR at Table I-1. Romania had a larger market share in 1997: *** percent. CR/PR at Table I-1.

12

South Africa. Petitioners reported that Iscor Limited was the only producer/exporter of subject

merchandise in South Africa during the original investigations. 67 In the original investigations, the

volume of shipments of subject imports from South Africa climbed from *** short tons in 1997 to ***

short tons in 1998, then fell to *** short tons in 1999. After the order was imposed on these imports in

June 2000, subject imports declined and were 442 short tons in 2000; there were no subject imports from

South Africa in the remainder of the period of review.68

In the original investigations, Iscor had a reported capacity ranging from *** short tons in 1998

to *** short tons in 1999, had reported production ranging from *** short tons in 1999 to *** short tons

in 1997, and exported approximately *** to *** percent of their shipments to the United States from 1997

to 1999.69 Its market share was *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 1997, as measured by

quantity, rising to *** percent in 1998 before falling to *** percent in 1999.70

In these reviews, the Commission received data from one firm, Mittal Steel (SA) Ltd., which

accounted for all of the small diameter CASSLP pipe produced in South Africa in 2004.71 It exported ***

short tons of subject pipe to the United States since 2001. Its volume of shipments exported to other

markets increased from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2004. Its reported capacity and

production increased *** percent, respectively, from 2001 to 2004 (with capacity growing from *** short

tons to *** short tons).72 Capacity utilization was *** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002, *** percent

in 2003, and *** percent in 2004.73 Mittal Steel (SA) projected that its capacity will be *** short tons in

2006 and its capacity utilization will be *** percent in that year.74

Based on the production capacity of the South African producer and its export orientation, as well

as the record from the original investigations, we do not find that subject imports from South Africa would

likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the order were revoked.

Japan. The petition cited four producers/exporters of small diameter CASSLP pipe in Japan: 

Kawasaki Steel Corp., Nippon Steel Corp., NKK Corp., and Sumitomo Metal Industries.75 Japanese

producers in the original investigations had a reported capacity ranging from *** short tons in 1998 to

*** short tons in 1999, had reported production ranging from *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in

1999, and exported approximately *** to *** percent of their shipments to the United States from 1997 to

1999.76 The volume of shipments of subject imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan

increased from 14,999 short tons in 1997 to 34,059 short tons in 1998, then decreased to 18,709 short

tons in 1999.77 Their market share was 5.6 percent in 1997, 15.0 percent in 1998 and 12.3 percent in

1999. Japan had the largest market share of the four subject countries in both 1998 and 1999.78 After the

order was imposed in June 2000, subject imports from Japan decreased sharply. They totaled 1,914 short
 79 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 80 CR/PR at Table IV-6. See also CR at IV-11 n.14, PR at IV-6 n.14.

 81 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 82 See CR/PR at Table I-1.

 83 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane do not join the remainder of part III. See their views.

 84 See generally Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp.2d 1313, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002). 

 85 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 917 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996).

 86 USITC Pub. 3311 at 15.

 87 CR at II-23, PR at II-16, and CR/PR at Table II-5.

 88 CR at II-24, PR at II-16.

13

tons in 2000, then declined to 909 short tons in 2001, and were 408 short tons in 2002, 865 short tons in

2003 and 79 short tons in 2004.79 

In these reviews, the Commission received data from one firm, NKK Tubes Corp., which

reported that it accounted for approximately *** percent of small diameter CASSLP pipe produced in

Japan in 2004. It reported ***. However, its volume of shipments exported to other markets increased

from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. Its reported capacity and production increased

from 2000 to 2001. Capacity was stable between 2001 and 2004 at *** short tons, while production

increased irregularly to *** short tons by 2004.80 Its capacity utilization was *** percent in 2000, ***

percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and *** percent in 2004.81

Based on the large production capacity of the producers in Japan as reported in the original

investigations, the fact that they were the largest source of subject imports during the original

investigations,82 had considerable unused capacity, and were export-oriented, as well as the facts that

NKK’s capacity increased during the period of review and it has some excess capacity, we do not find

that subject imports from Japan would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry

if the order were revoked.83

C. Likely Overlap of Competition

With regard to likely overlap of competition, we note that the relevant inquiry is whether there

would likely be competition even if there are no current imports from a subject country.84 Further, only a

“reasonable overlap” of competition is required.85

Fungibility. The Commission found this factor satisfied in the original investigations, despite

some distinctions between imports from individual subject countries and the domestic like product.86

The record in these reviews indicates that subject imports are moderately interchangeable with

each other and with the domestic like product. All three responding U.S. producers reported that the

domestic product and subject imports were always interchangeable. The one importer that provided

information regarding interchangeability stated that for each of the combinations, the products were

sometimes interchangeable. Nearly all purchasers reported that the products were at least sometimes

interchangeable.87 Reasons given by purchasers for non-interchangeability were related to quality; for

example, that mills in Romania, South Africa and the Czech Republic are “not as acceptable” as those in

the United States, Japan and Western Europe; that a mill or country that is not an approved source does

not produce interchangeable products; and the inability of certain sources to meet quality and technical

requirements.88 In the original investigations, the Commission found that small diameter pipe from both
 89 USITC Pub. 3311 at 15.

 90 CR at II-16, PR at II-11.

 91 USITC Pub. 3311 at 15.

 92 CR at II-1, PR at II-1.

 93 USITC Pub. 3311 at 15.

 94 CR at II-2, PR at II-1.

 95 See CR at IV-4 - IV-5, PR at IV-4.

 96 USITC Pub. 3311 at 16.

 97 CR at IV-5, PR at IV-4; CR/PR at Table I-1.

 98 See Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp.2d at 1314 (Commission not required to find that subject

imports currently compete in the U.S. market).

14

subject and domestic sources tends to be generally interchangeable,89 and the record in these reviews

indicates that subject imports are moderately substitutable with the domestic like product.90

Channels of Distribution. In the original investigations, the Commission found that the vast

majority of shipments of both subject imports and the domestic like product were to distributors.91

In these reviews, U.S. producers still sell mainly to distributors but also to end users, while

responding importers from Romania typically sell only to distributors. In 2004, U.S. producers reported

that *** percent of their small diameter CASSLP pipe was sold to distributors and the remainder to end

users. In the original investigations, domestic producers sold *** percent of their product through

distributors. In 1999, U.S. importers of subject merchandise from *** sold *** percent of their product

through distributors. U.S. importers of subject small diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan sold *** percent

through distributors in 1999.92

Geographic Overlap. In the original investigations, the majority of domestic producers reported

that they served the entire U.S. market. Japanese pipe was available in all geographic areas of the United

States; Romanian pipe was present on the ***; Czech pipe was present in ***; and South African pipe

was available on ***. The Commission found that at a minimum, the domestic like product and *** were

present in the Gulf area.93

In these reviews, the three responding U.S. producers reported selling nationwide. Both

responding importers only sold in various regions, including the Northeast, the Southwest, the Gulf Coast,

and the West.94 As in the original investigations, the U.S. producers and subject importers sold product in

the Gulf Coast region.95

Simultaneous Presence in the Market. In the original investigations, subject imports from Japan

occurred in every month during the period of investigation; subject imports from the Czech Republic

occurred in 31 of the 36 months of the period; subject imports from Romania occurred in 30 of the 36

months; and subject imports from South Africa occurred in 28 of the 36 months.96

In these reviews, subject imports from Japan and Romania were present throughout the period of

review, as were subject imports from the Czech Republic, albeit sporadically and in very modest

quantities in some years. However, subject imports from South Africa were only present in 2000.97 We

note that the relevant inquiry before the Commission is whether subject imports from the subject

countries are likely to compete against each other in the U.S. market if the orders are revoked, not

whether imports from the subject countries are currently in the U.S. market.98

In view of the foregoing, we find that the subject imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from

the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa are fungible with each other and with the

domestic like product, that there will likely be a reasonable overlap of geographic markets and channels

of distribution if the orders are revoked, and that the subject imports would be simultaneously present.
 99 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 100 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 101 See CR/PR at Table I-1.

 102 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 103 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 104 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 105 CR/PR at Table I-1.

15

D. Other Considerations

Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we find that subject imports of small diameter

CASSLP pipe from Romania would likely face different conditions of competition in the U.S. market

than subject imports from the Czech Republic, Japan and South Africa. Thus, we decline to exercise our

discretion to cumulate subject imports from Romania with those from the Czech Republic, Japan and

South Africa. Similarly, we find that subject imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech

Republic and South Africa would likely face different conditions of competition in the U.S. market than

subject imports from Japan and Romania. We therefore decline to exercise our discretion to cumulate

subject imports from the Czech Republic and South Africa with those from Romania and Japan. 

However, we find that subject imports from the Czech Republic and South Africa are likely to face

similar conditions of competition and, therefore, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports

from these two countries. Lastly, we find that small diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan would likely face

different conditions of competition in the U.S. market than subject imports from the Czech Republic,

Romania and South Africa. Therefore, we decline to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports

from Japan.

Romania. The volume of subject imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania was

already substantially larger than that of either the Czech Republic or South Africa at the outset of the

original investigations, and remained higher throughout 1997-1999. Shipments of subject imports from

Romania totaled *** short tons in 1997, *** short tons in 1998, and *** short tons in 1999. Shipments of

subject imports from the Czech Republic totaled *** short tons in 1997, *** short tons in 1998, and ***

short tons in 1999. Shipments of subject imports from South Africa totaled *** short tons in 1997, ***

short tons in 1998, and *** short tons in 1999. 99 Shipments of subject imports from Japan totaled 14,999

short tons in 1997, 34,059 short tons in 1998, and 18,709 short tons in 1999.100 While the volume of

subject imports from Romania was quite large at the beginning of the period, it grew steadily smaller;

indeed, the volume of subject imports from Romania declined each year of the period of investigation.101

At the same time, subject imports from Japan grew larger, albeit irregularly.102 Thus, in 1999, subject

imports from Romania had a market share of *** percent compared to *** percent in 1997, while subject

imports from Japan had a market share of 12.3 percent, compared to 5.6 percent in 1997; for the Czech

Republic, the shares were *** percent in 1997 and *** percent in 1999; and for South Africa, *** percent

in 1997 and *** percent in 1999.103

Unlike subject imports from the other countries, subject imports from Romania maintained a

substantial presence in the U.S. market throughout the period of review, regardless of the presence or

absence of dumping margins on shipments of such imports. Subject imports from Romania totaled 3,436

short tons in 2000, 16,573 short tons in 2001, 9,182 short tons in 2002, 11,562 short tons in 2003, and

18,718 short tons in 2004. They were 13,531 short tons in January-September 2004 and 1,811 short tons

in January-September 2005.104 In contrast, no other subject country had a subject import volume over

1,000 short tons throughout the period of review, except for Japan in 2000.105

Czech Republic and South Africa. We find that subject imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe

from these two countries will compete under similar conditions in the U.S. market. The volume of
 106 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 107 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 108 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 109 Compare CR at IV-5 n.5 with CR at IV-24 n.22, IV-11 n.9, and IV-17 n.16, PR at IV-4 n.5 with PR at IV-8

n.22, IV-5 n.9, and IV-7 n.16.

 110 Original Staff Report at VII-2.

 111 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 112 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 113 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 114 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 115 Original Staff Report at Table VII-2.

 116 Original Staff Report at Table VII-1.

16

subject imports from these countries was the lowest of the four countries during the original

investigations. Shipments of subject imports from the Czech Republic totaled *** short tons in 1997, ***

short tons in 1998, and *** short tons in 1999. Shipments of subject imports from South Africa totaled

*** short tons in 1997, *** short tons in 1998, and *** short tons in 1999.106 Their market shares were

low.107 The Czech Republic’s share of apparent U.S. consumption, as measured by quantity, was ***

percent in 1997, *** percent in 1998 and *** percent in 1999. South Africa’s share of apparent U.S.

consumption, as measured by quantity, was *** percent in 1997, *** percent in 1998 and *** percent in

1999. At no time did their respective market shares exceed even the lowest market share held by

Romania (*** percent) or Japan (5.6 percent).108 Production capacity in the Czech Republic and South

Africa was lower than it was for Japan and (in the case of South Africa) Romania.109 While data were

lacking for one of the three Czech producers during the period of investigation,110 there is no evidence

that this producer had any interest in the U.S. market during the period of review. During the period of

review, subject imports from the Czech Republic and South Africa were almost entirely absent from the

U.S. market. Imports from the Czech Republic were only one ton in 2004 and only 130 short tons in

January-September 2005, and there were no subject imports from South Africa after 2000.111 As

explained above, subject imports from Romania have maintained a steady presence in the U.S. market.

Japan. During the original investigations, the change in subject import volumes of small

diameter pipe from Japan was much more significant than with respect to the other subject countries. The

volume of shipments of subject imports from Japan increased from 14,999 short tons in 1997 to 34,059

short tons in 1998. Although it decreased to 18,709 short tons in 1999, compared to the volumes of

shipments of subject imports from the other three countries it remained by far the largest subject import

source in that year.112 While the subject import volume for Romania was similar to that from Japan in the

middle of the period of investigation, subject import volume from Japan was larger at the end, while

imports from Romania declined significantly. Subject import volume from Japan was 34,059 short tons

in 1998, and declined to 18,709 short tons in 1999. Subject import volume from Romania was *** short

tons in 1998, and declined to *** short tons in 1999.113

The market share for subject imports from Japan was also more significant than for subject

imports from the other countries. Subject imports from Japan had a market share of 12.3 percent in 1999,

compared to market shares of *** percent for Romania, *** percent for the Czech Republic and ***

percent for South Africa in that year.114

During the original investigations, the capacity of the industry in Japan increased from *** short

tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1999.115 In contrast, the industry in the Czech Republic shrank, from a

capacity of *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1999.116 The industry in Romania also shrank,
 117 Original Staff Report at Table VII-5.

 118 Original Staff Report at Table VII-6.

 119 CR at II-23 - II-27, PR at II-16, II-18 - II-19; CR/PR at Table II-5.

 120 V&M Star’s Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1; Tr. at 126 (Mr. Schagrin). As stated in the original determinations,

AMLs are widely used, particularly in the energy business, and producers not on a purchaser’s AML may face some

limitations in ability to compete for sales. USITC Pub. 3311 at 15.

 121 CR at II-19 - II-20, PR at II-13. At the hearing, distributors reported that between 10 and 90 percent of their

sales required that the producer be on an AML. CR at II-19, PR at II-13. Domestic producers estimated that AML

sales accounted for 30 percent or less of their small diameter CASSLP pipe sales. See, e.g., Tr. at 133-34 (Messrs.

Shoaff, Leland & Ramsey).

 122 See, e.g., CR at II-19, PR at II-13.

 123 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa, Inv. Nos.

731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC Pub. 3311 (June 2000); Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Italy,

Japan, Korea, and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-364 (Review), 731-TA-711 (Review) and 713-716 (Review), USITC

Pub. 3434 (June 2001).

 124 See, e.g., Cogne Acciai Speciali S.P.A. v. United States, No. 04-00411, Slip Op. at 2, 26-27 (Ct. Int’l Trade

Sept. 12, 2005).

17

from a capacity of *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1999.117 The industry in South Africa was

much smaller and grew only slightly, from a capacity of *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in

1999.118 There is no indication in the record of these reviews that the industry in Japan is now any

smaller than during the original investigations.

Purchasers view subject Japanese CASSLP pipe to be more interchangeable in terms of quality

with the domestic like products than subject merchandise from the Czech Republic, Romania and South

Africa.119 In contrast to the other subject countries, Japan producers are on the approved manufacturer

lists (“AMLs”) maintained by key purchasers of small diameter CASSLP pipe120 and respondent

interested parties reported that the importance of AMLs has grown in the last few years.121 A substantial

minority of purchasers believe that AMLs are important, i.e. the major oil and gas firms such as

ExxonMobil.122 Finally, we note that Japan is subject to antidumping duty orders in the United States on

large diameter CASSLP pipe and oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”), whereas the Czech Republic,

Romania and South Africa are not.123

E. Summary of Cumulation Conclusions

As noted above, the information in the record regarding Japan consists primarily of information

obtained during the original investigations. Unlike the other subject producers, most producers of small 

diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan declined to participate in these reviews. Accordingly, we must rely

primarily on information obtained during the original investigations for Japan, while we have more

current information obtained for the other subject countries as well as information from the original

investigations. We also note that we have discretion to exercise our authority to cumulate subject imports

during five-year reviews.124

Based on the information in the record, we do not find that subject imports of small diameter

CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa would be likely to have no

discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the orders were revoked. We also find a likely

reasonable overlap of competition among the subject imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from the

Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa, and between the subject imports and the domestic

like product. We find, however, significant differences in the conditions of competition with respect to

the subject imports from Romania and the conditions of competition with respect to the subject imports

from the Czech Republic, Japan and South Africa. We find, as well, significant differences in the
 125 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane do not join part IV. See their views.

 126 For the Commission’s views regarding the antidumping duty order on small diameter CASSLP pipe imports

from Romania, see Views of Chairman Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane and Separate Views of

Commissioner Shara L. Aranoff.

 127 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 128 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). 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 material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations

that were never completed.” SAA at 883. 

 129 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.

18

conditions of competition with respect to the subject imports from Japan and the conditions of

competition with respect to the subject imports from the Czech Republic, Romania and South Africa. 

Therefore, we do not exercise our discretion to cumulate the likely volume and price effects of subject

imports from Romania or Japan with those for subject imports from the Czech Republic and South Africa. 

We do exercise our discretion to cumulate the likely volume and price effects of subject imports from the

Czech Republic and South Africa.

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY BY

REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS OF SMALL DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE FROM THE

CZECH REPUBLIC, JAPAN AND SOUTH AFRICA IF THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY

ORDERS ARE REVOKED125 126

A. Legal Standard

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke an

antidumping 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 duty

order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably

foreseeable time.”127 The SAA states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in

a counter-factual 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.”128 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective

in nature.129 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the sunset review
 130 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 without opinion, 05-1019 (Fed.

Cir. Aug. 3, 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-153 at 7-8 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 24, 2002)

(same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-152 at 4 n.3 & 5-6 n.6 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 20, 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, Slip Op. 02-105

at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a

certainty”); Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 19, 2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount

to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 131 Vice Chairman Okun notes that, consistent with her dissenting views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from

Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004) at 15-17, she does not concur with the

U.S. Court of International Trade’s interpretation of “likely” to mean “probable.” See Usinor Industeel, S.A. et. al.

v. United States, No. 01-00006, Slip Op. 02-39 at 13 (Ct. Int’l Trade Apr. 29, 2002). However, she will apply the

Court’s standard in this review and all subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addresses the issue. See also Additional Views of Vice Chairman Deanna

Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review) and 731-TA-707-710

(Review)(Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 132 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 133 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.

 134 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 135 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). There have been no duty absorption findings by Commerce with respect to the

orders under review. CR at I-12, PR at I-11 - I-12. The statute further 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. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one

factor is necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886.

 136 Vice Chairman Okun notes that Section 776 of the Act authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise

available” in reaching a determination when: (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an

interested party or other person withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in

(continued...)

19

provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year

reviews.130 131

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.”132 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.”133

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

antidumping duty 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.”134 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 the suspension agreement is

terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

§ 1675(a)(4).135 136
 136 (...continued)

the time, form, or manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be

verified pursuant to section 782(I) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). The verification requirements in section 782(I)

are applicable only to Commerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(I). See Titanium Metals Corp., 155 F. Supp. 2d at 765 (“the

ITC correctly responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the

evidence before it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of a Commission

investigation.”). Vice Chairman Okun notes that such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its

obligation to consider the record evidence as a whole in making its determination. Vice Chairman Okun generally

gives credence to the facts supplied by the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision

on the evidence as a whole, and does not automatically accept the participating parties’ suggested interpretation of

the record evidence. Regardless of the level of participation and the interpretations urged by participating parties,

the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors and may not draw

adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. In general, the Commission makes determinations by

“weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic industry as a

whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive” (SAA at 869). 

 137 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 138 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 139 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.

 140 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 141 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the

magnitude of the margin of dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). 

(continued...)

20

 In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping orders are

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.137 In

doing so, 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.138

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping duty orders are

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

the subject imports as compared to domestic like products 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 domestic like products.139

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping order 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: (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.140 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.141 As instructed by the statute, we
 141 (...continued)

The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as

“the dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887.

Commerce expedited its determinations in its reviews and found that revocation of the antidumping duty

orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following margins for small diameter

CASSLP pipe: Czech Republic – Nova Hut (now Mittal Steel Ostrava), 39.93 percent and all others, 32.26 percent;

Japan – Kawasaki, Nippon and Sumitomo Metal, 106.07 percent and all others, 70.43 percent; Romania – Metal

Business International and S.C. Petrotub (now Mittal Steel Roman), 11.08 percent, S.C. Silcotub and Sota

Communication, 15.15 percent, and all other others 13.06 percent; South Africa – Iscor (now Mittal Steel (SA)),

43.51 percent and all others, 40.17 percent. CR/PR at Table I-3.

 142 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 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.

 143 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 144 CR at II-9 - II-10 & n.19, PR at II-6 & n.19.

 145 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 146 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 147 See CR/PR at Table II-1.

21

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

the order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked.142

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, 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.”143 The following conditions of

competition are relevant to our determination.

Demand. U.S. demand for small diameter CASSLP pipe depends on the markets for its end uses. 

Small diameter CASSLP pipe is used in oil and gas transmission, in construction and repair of refining

facilities, in the chemical industry, in power generation, and in mechanical applications for general

construction. Because small diameter CASSLP pipe is used mainly in transmission and refining of gas

and oil, the prices of gas and oil are important determinants of demand. Construction also plays an

important role in demand.144

As measured by quantity, apparent U.S. consumption declined steadily over the original period of

investigation. It was 267,927 short tons in 1997, 226,841 short tons in 1998, and 152,502 short tons in

1999.145 By contrast, apparent U.S. consumption grew during the period of review, increasing irregularly

from the beginning of the full-year period to the end. It was *** short tons in 2000, *** short tons in

2001, *** short tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003, and *** short tons in 2004. It was *** short tons in

January-September 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005.146 The recent increases in

consumption are driven primarily by increased prices and demand in the oil and gas sectors.147

Future demand for small diameter CASSLP pipe in large part depends on the future prices of oil

and gas. Parties in these reviews reported differing projections of future demand conditions. Domestic

interested parties reported that natural gas prices have already fallen significantly from their highest level

and are expected to continue to fall, and that oil prices may not remain at their current high levels. They

further reported that it is difficult to estimate future oil prices and estimates tend to be biased upward. In
 148 CR at II-15, PR at II-8, II-10.

 149 CR at II-14, PR at II-8.

 150 See CR/PR at Table II-10; Tr. at 233 (Mr. Allen).

 151 CR at II-12, PR at II-8.

 152 CR/PR at Table II-1 and Purchaser Questionnaire Responses to Question III.11.

 153 See CR/PR at Table II-10.

 154 CR/PR at Table I-11.

 155 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 156 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 157 CR at I-37, PR at I-31.

22

addition, according to the domestic interested parties, the current high price of oil reflects a “speculative

bubble” rather than underlying demand and supply.148 In contrast, respondent interested parties report

that the most recent predictions by the Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) are for continued high

prices for oil and natural gas.149 In addition, the rig count, i.e. the number of exploration and development

oil and gas rigs in place, which is another indicator of demand, has increased and there is no indication

that it will decrease in the reasonably foreseeable future.150

We note that two of three responding domestic producers and two of three responding importers

reported that they anticipated no changes in demand either in the U.S. market or in other markets. The

other domestic producer reported that it expected demand to increase because of increased demand in the

oil industry, while the other importer reported that it expected demand to increase due to the tightness of

refinery capacity and the need to expand and rebuild capacity after hurricanes Katrina and Rita.151

Further, CASSLP pipe purchasers, who buy subject merchandise based on market predictions, generally

stated that they expected demand for oil and natural gas to increase in the near future.152

We recognize that predicting demand is a difficult task. Nonetheless, the industry relies on

predictions, such as the EIA’s, when making its investment decisions. The forecasts and expressed

expectation of market participants contained in the record support a finding that oil and gas prices are

likely to remain sufficiently high in the reasonably foreseeable future so as to continue to support strong

demand for small diameter CASSLP pipe. In particular, many leading market observers, including the

corporate parents of two domestic producers, rely on the EIA’s forecasts or other generally optimistic

forecasts to conclude that prices, although they may decline from recent high levels, will continue to

support oil and gas exploration and, by extension, demand for small diameter CASSLP pipe.153

Supply. The U.S. market is supplied by domestically produced small diameter CASSLP pipe and

such pipe imported from subject and nonsubject countries. U.S. producers’ share of the U.S. market

declined from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. It was *** percent in January-September 2004

as compared with *** percent in January-September 2005.154

Both domestic capacity and production increased over the period of review. Capacity increased

irregularly from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. It was *** short tons in JanuarySeptember 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005.155 Production was *** short tons in

2000, increasing irregularly to *** short tons in 2004. It was *** short tons in January-September 2004

as compared with *** short tons in January-September 2005.156

Since the original investigations, the U.S. industry has experienced some consolidation and the

exit of one U.S. producer of CASSLP pipe. During the original investigations, there were seven U.S.

producers of small diameter CASSLP pipe: Gulf States Tube Co.; Koppel; Michigan Specialty; Sawhill

Tubular, Inc.; Sharon; Timken; and U.S. Steel.157 In 2000, the parent company of Gulf States, Vision

Metals, Inc., filed for bankruptcy and closed its Rosenburg, TX CASSLP pipe production facility. In

2002, Michigan Seamless Tube, Inc. was created to purchase the Michigan Specialty Tube Division of the
 158 CR at I-38, PR at I-31.

 159 CR/PR at Table I-11.

 160 See CR/PR at Table I-11.

 161 CR/PR at Table I-11.

 162 CR/PR at Table F-1.

 163 V&M Star’s Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1; Tr. at 126 (Mr. Schagrin).

 164 See, e.g., CR at II-19, PR at II-13.

23

defunct Vision Metals, Inc. Currently, Michigan Seamless is a part of Atlas Holdings, LLC, a private

equity firm. Also in 2002, Wheatland Tube purchased Sawhill Tubular Inc., which was a division of AK

Steel, Inc. Wheatland reported that it does not produce CASSLP pipe at the former Sawhill Tubular

facilities.158

Total subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption rose irregularly from *** percent in

2000 to *** percent in 2004. It was *** percent in January-September 2004 as compared with ***

percent in January-September 2005.159 The only subject imports present in the U.S. market in appreciable

quantities during the period of review were those from Romania.160 Nonsubject import market share was

*** percent in 2000, and increased, albeit irregularly, to *** percent in 2004. It was *** percent in

January-September 2004 as compared with *** percent in January-September 2005.161 Nonsubject small

diameter CASSLP pipe imports from China, in particular, more than doubled during the period of review: 

from 15,448 short tons in 2000 to 31,610 short tons in 2004. They were 21,273 short tons in JanuarySeptember 2004 and 30,033 short tons in January-September 2005.162

 As discussed above, AMLs are important to a substantial minority of purchasers, namely major

oil and gas companies, and Japan is the only subject country whose small diameter CASSLP producers

are on major purchasers’ AMLs.163 As noted, the recent increases in consumption are being driven

primarily by increased demand in the oil and gas markets. The record indicates that AMLs are more

important in these segments than in others that consume small diameter CASSLP pipe.164 Therefore, the

presence of the Japanese firms on the AMLs of the major oil and gas companies is particularly relevant in

light of the nature of the increase in demand for small diameter CASSLP pipe.

C. Revocation of the Orders on Subject Imports of Small Diameter CASSLP from

Japan Is Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a

Reasonably Foreseeable Time

1. Likely Volume of the Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the quantity of cumulated subject

imports from all four countries rose from 59,017 short tons in 1997 to 83,228 short tons in 1998. The

share of domestic consumption supplied by cumulated subject imports increased from 21.8 percent in

1997 to 35.8 percent in 1998. This increase in import market share came largely at the expense of the

domestic industry, whose market share declined from 67.8 percent to 54.9 percent in the same period. In

1999, the quantity of cumulated subject imports fell to 35,683 short tons. The domestic industry’s market

share rose to 69.3 percent in 1999, but the Commission found that this was largely a result of significant

decreases in domestic prices to meet the subject import prices. The Commission also found that

cumulated subject imports declined in 1999 in part as a result of the filing of the petitions on June 30,

1999, as reflected in the significant decline in subject imports in the fourth quarter of 1999. Even after

this decline from 1998 levels, the share of domestic consumption supplied by cumulated subject imports
 165 USITC Pub. 3311 at 17-18. Similarly, as noted in Table I-1, shipments of cumulated subject imports rose from

58,497 short tons in 1997 to 81,121 short tons in 1998, then fell to 36,270 short tons in 1999.

 166 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 167 Original Staff Report at Table VII-2.

 168 Original Staff Report at Table VII-2.

 169 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 170 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 171 Original Staff Report at Table VII-2. 

 172 Original Staff Report at Table VII-2.

 173 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 174 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 175 CR/PR at Table IV-7.

 176 CR/PR at Table IV-28 n.2.

 177 CR at IV-56, PR at IV-19. While it was argued that Japan’s facilities that are used to produce OCTG and

other pipe products may be converted to the production of small diameter CASSLP pipe, see, e.g., Domestic

(continued...)

24

in 1999 was 23.8 percent, which was higher than the 1997 import market share, and which the

Commission found to be significant.165

In the original investigations, shipments of subject imports from Japan increased from 14,999

short tons in 1997 to 34,059 short tons in 1998, then decreased to 18,709 short tons in 1999. Japan’s

import market share increased from 5.6 percent in 1997 to 15.0 percent in 1998, then fell to 12.3 percent

in 1999.166

As explained above, we have relied on the best information available in the record of these

reviews with respect to Japan – primarily information from the original investigations. We note that the

industry in Japan during that time was large. Japan’s capacity to produce small diameter CASSLP pipe

increased from *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1999. Its production increased from *** short

tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1999.167 At the time of the original investigations, Japan was also

export-oriented. Japan’s total exports increased from *** percent of total shipments in 1997 to ***

percent of total shipments in 1999.168 Subject imports from Japan to the United States increased quickly,

and at a much faster rate than the imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from most of the other subject

countries. Japan’s shipments of subject small diameter CASSLP imports rose from 14,999 short tons in

1997 to 34,059 short tons in 1998 – more than doubling.169 While shipments of subject imports from

South Africa, for example, rose from *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1998, the quantity of

shipments of subject imports from Japan was much larger.170 In addition, there was significant excess

capacity in Japan. Japan’s small diameter CASSLP capacity utilization was *** percent in 1997 and in

1999.171 Moreover, its small diameter CASSLP home market shipments declined over the period from

*** percent of total shipments in 1997 to *** percent in 1999.172

The limited data provided by NKK support the Commission’s earlier findings. NKK’s capacity

increased by more than *** percent during the period of review,173 and its capacity utilization rate was

only *** percent in January-September 2005174 and is projected to be *** percent in 2006.175 Public data

available from the International Iron and Steel Institute show that total seamless tube production in Japan

increased by 4.4 percent from 2000 to 2004.176 Therefore, nothing in the current record indicates that

Japanese producers will behave differently if the orders are lifted than they did during the original

investigations. We also note that there are antidumping orders outstanding in Mexico and Venezuela on

subject imports from Japan, as well as orders on large diameter CASSLP pipe and OCTG in the United

States.177 Therefore, in light of the Japanese producers’ large production capacity, excess production
 177 (...continued)

Producers’ Small Diameter Prehearing Brief at 39, we do not find it necessary to rely on such potential product

shifting in light of Japan’s already significant excess capacity. We note that other steel seamless tubing products

that are produced on the same equipment as subject pipe include CASSLP pipe with outer diameter greater than 16

inches, mechanical tubing, pressure tubing, structural pipe and tubing, and coupling stock. CR at I-28, PR at I-25.

 178 USITC Pub. 3311 at 18-19.

 179 See Original Staff Report at Tables V-1 - V-6.

 180 For instance, Japan’s margins of underselling for pricing product 1 as reported by producers and importers 

increased from *** percent in January-March 1997 to *** percent in October-December 1999. Original Staff Report

at Table V-1. Japan’s margins of underselling increased from *** percent in January-March 1997 to *** percent in

October-December 1999 for product 1 as reported by end users and distributors. Id. at Table V-2. What was a

margin of overselling for product 2 as reported by producers and importers, (***) percent in January-March 1997,

became a margin of underselling in July-September 1997 and was a margin of underselling of *** percent in JulySeptember 1999. Id. at Table V-3. See id. at Tables V-4 - V-6 for more instances of underselling.

 181 See Original Staff Report at Tables V-1 - V-6.

25

capacity and the trends in import volumes in the original investigation, subject Japanese producers would

be able to increase rapidly the volume of subject product exported to the U.S. market if the order were

revoked.

Accordingly, we find that imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan into the United

States would be likely to increase significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping

duty order were revoked.

2. Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports

In the original investigations, when evaluating the cumulated subject imports the Commission

found that prices for domestically produced small diameter pipe declined ***. While the domestic

producers’ prices were stable in 1997 and 1998, those prices declined *** in 1999. Subject import prices

also generally declined in 1999. In addition, there was significant underselling by cumulated subject

imports. Average unit values (“AUVs”) confirmed the pattern shown by the product-specific pricing

data, although the Commission analyzed the AUVs with caution given product mix issues. The

Commission found that the decline in demand did have an effect on prices, but did not fully explain the

price declines evidenced in the record. Given the dramatic decline in price levels, along with pervasive

and significant underselling and the substitutability of subject imports, the Commission found that the

cumulated subject imports depressed domestic prices to a significant degree.178

Because of the lack of questionnaire responses from most producers in Japan no price comparison

data for the period of review on U.S. imports from Japan are available. Accordingly, we rely principally

on the information obtained during the original investigations.

With respect to underselling by the subject Japanese imports, we note that Japan’s data are more

mixed than that of other subject countries,179 but there is evidence that underselling increased over the

original period of investigation.180 In addition, there were more instances of underselling as compared to

overselling for almost every product.181 Nothing in the record indicates that subject imports from Japan

would behave differently upon revocation of the orders.

Because Japanese firms are the only subject country exporters listed on purchaser AMLs, those

firms would have more immediate access to important purchasers in the segment of the end-use market in

which demand would likely be strongest – the oil and gas industry. Similarly, because of the Japanese

industry’s unique presence on AMLs, imports from Japan are more likely to meet the quality standards

required for use in the oil and gas market segments and competition between U.S. and subject product
 182 USITC Pub. 3311 at 19-20.

 183 CR/PR at Table III-6.

 184 CR/PR at Table III-6.

 185 Domestic Producers’ Small Diameter Prehearing Brief at 49 & Exh. 5. The financing of capital for a firm is

comprised of two sources: equity financing and debt financing. The cost of capital is the expected return to

shareholders and/or creditors, depending upon the investment risk. The WACC is the weighted average cost of

capital for a firm based on the combination of its capital; in other words, it represents the investors’ opportunity cost

of taking on the risk of investing in or lending money to a company. A project that has a rate of return (in this case,

operating income) greater than the WACC generates additional cash flow and creates value, while a project that has

a rate of return less than the WACC decreases value. CR at III-11 n.9, PR at III-4 n.9.

26

would be more direct. Therefore, upon revocation the price effects from subject imports from Japan are

likely to be more direct and substantial as compared to those associated with other subject imports. 

As noted above, we find that subject imports from Japan are likely to increase significantly in the

reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty order is revoked. At these likely volumes, the

subject imports from Japan would be likely to have significant depressing or suppressing effects on the

prices of the domestic like product. We therefore find that there likely would be underselling by the

subject imports that, when combined with increased volumes of subject imports, would likely lead to

significant adverse price effects.

3. Likely Impact of the Subject Imports

a. Lack of Vulnerability of Domestic Industry

In the original investigations, the Commission found that all of the industry’s major economic

and financial indicators declined significantly between 1997 and 1999. Operating income fell and five of

the seven firms sustained operating losses in 1999, compared with none of the seven firms in 1997. In

addition, during the period of investigation there were significant declines in production, shipments, net

sales, capacity utilization, cash flow, productivity, number of production workers, hours worked, wages

paid, and hourly wages. There were increases in ending inventories, unit labor costs and unit cost of

goods sold. Capital expenditures increased during the period, but reflected capital decisions made before

1998 and before the decline in demand and the surge in subject imports sold at LTFV. While the declines

in industry performance indicators were partly attributable to the decline in demand, they were also

attributable to the price competition from subject imports. The cumulated subject imports exacerbated the

effects of the decline in demand on the increasingly unprofitable and poorly performing industry.182

We conclude in these reviews that the domestic industry is not currently vulnerable to injury by

reason of increased subject imports. In particular, the industry did not experience any financial losses

during the period of review. Rather, the domestic industry was profitable in every year of the period of

review and profits increased to very high levels. Operating income increased dramatically between 2000

and 2004, and continued its increase when the interim periods are compared. Operating income was $***

in 2000 and rose to $*** in 2004. It was $*** in January-September 2004 and $*** in JanuarySeptember 2005.183 Operating income as a percentage of net sales nearly doubled over the five-year period. 

The ratio of operating income to net sales increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. It 

was *** percent in January-September 2004 and *** percent in January-September 2005.184

Domestic producers alleged that the operating margins earned by the domestic industry between

1997 and September 2005 have been below the industry’s weighted average cost of capital (“WACC”).185

We find that the usefulness of WACC in these proceedings is limited. While we can consider factors not

explicitly required by statute, there is no reason why the Commission should consider WACC to be a
 186 In 2004, Koppel’s share of U.S. production was *** percent, while U.S. Steel’s share was *** percent in the

same year. Hence, we do not view data from the NS Group as representative of the industry. CR/PR at Table I-6. 

Koppel also manufactures OCTG and mechanical tubing, while U.S. Steel also produces OCTG, mechanical tubing

and coupling stock. CR at III-2 n.3, PR at III -1 n.3.

 187 CR at III-13, PR at III-5.

 188 See, e.g., Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 287 F.3d 1365, 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Commission 

“obligated to make active, reasonable efforts to obtain relevant data” especially when seeking to use product line

provision); General Motors Corp. v. United States, 827 F. Supp. 774, 781 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1993) (Commission did

not act unreasonably in not relying on data that were not comparable to those covering period of investigation).

 189 See CR at III-12, PR at III-5.

 190 Capacity increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. It was *** short tons in JanuarySeptember 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-1.

 191 Production increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. It was *** short tons in JanuarySeptember 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-1.

 192 Capacity utilization decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. It was *** percent in

January-September 2004 and *** percent in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-1. U.S. Steel, which

reported an increase in capacity of *** percent from 2000 to 2004, stated that its capacity utilization figures are

relatively low because it used only one production shift at its CASSLP pipe facility in Lorain out of a reportedly

possible three production shifts during the period of review. Domestic Producers’ Small Diameter Posthearing Brief,

Exh. 1 at 39; Tr. at 108 (Mr. Broglie). We note that there is no indication that U.S. Steel operated more than one

shift at its Lorain facility throughout the period of review.

27

more dispositive indicator of the domestic industry’s condition than any of the other indicia specified by

the statute and/or typically used by the Commission. Further, the domestic producers’ WACC was

computed for the period between 1997 and September 2005, which includes three years prior to the

period for which data were collected in these reviews (January 2000 to September 2005). Moreover, the

calculation was based on the financial data of only one company (NS Group, Inc.), which is Koppel’s

parent company and which may not be representative of the domestic industry as a whole.186 The

Commission has gathered actual trade and financial data specific to the domestic CASSLP pipe

producers, and the comparisons between these data and data for a much larger industry whose exact

composition is unknown may not be conclusive.187 188 We also note that the WACC analysis initially

submitted by the domestic industry is very sensitive to the time period used. For example, the same

analysis performed on the period of review yields notably different results.189 In light of the above, we do

not find that the WACC analysis submitted by the domestic industry is more compelling than the other

factors considered by the Commission and does not lead us to conclude that the domestic industry is

vulnerable.

b. Analysis

In these reviews, domestic producers’ small diameter CASSLP pipe capacity significantly

increased over the period of review.190 Production followed the same trend.191 However, capacity

utilization decreased over the period, albeit only slightly.192
 193 U.S. shipments increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. They were *** short tons in

January-September 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-3.

 194 Inventories fell from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. They were *** short tons in JanuarySeptember 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-4.

 195 Net sales increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. They were *** short tons in

January-September 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-6.

 196 U.S. producers’ market share fell from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. It was *** percent in

January-September 2004 and *** percent in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 197 Nonsubject import market share rose from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. It was *** percent in

January-September 2004 and *** percent in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 198 Domestic producers’ market share was*** percent in January-September 2005 as compared with *** percent

in January-September 2004. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 199 The number of production and related workers decreased from *** in 2000 to *** in 2004. It was *** in

January-September 2004 and *** in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-5.

 200 Hours worked declined from *** in 2000 to *** in 2004. They were *** in January-September 2004 and ***

in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-5.

 201 Wages paid increased from $*** in 2000 to $*** in 2004. They were $*** in January-September 2004

and $*** in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-5.

 202 Productivity increased from *** short tons per 1,000 hours in 2000 to *** in 2004. It was *** in JanuarySeptember 2004 and *** in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-5.

 203 Capital expenditures fell from $*** in 2000 to $*** in 2004. They were $*** in January-September

2004 and $*** in January-September 2005. *** reported capital expenditures. The majority were for carbon SSLP

pipe, while there were minimal expenditures for alloy SSLP pipe. CR/PR at Table III-10 & n.1.

 204 Research and development expenses decreased from $***in 2000 to $*** in 2004. They were $*** in

January-September 2004 and $*** in January-September 2005. *** reported research and development expenses,

which were primarily for carbon SSLP pipe, with minimal expenses for alloy SSLP pipe. CR/PR at Table III-10 &

n.2.

28

U.S. shipments increased over the period of review193 and inventories declined.194 Net sales

increased over the period.195 U.S. producers’ market share decreased from 2000 to 2004,196 as nonsubject

imports gained market share.197 However, domestic producers’ market share increased in JanuarySeptember 2005 as compared with January-September 2004.198

The number of production and related workers fell over the period,199 as did their hours

worked.200 However, wages paid increased,201 as did productivity.202 Both capital expenditures203 and

research and development expenses declined.204

We concluded above that revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to Japan likely

would lead to significant increases in the volume of subject imports that would undersell the domestic like

product and significantly depress or suppress U.S. prices. In addition, although demand is projected to

remain strong, the likely substantial volume and price effects of the subject imports from Japan would be

sufficient to have a significant negative impact on the production, shipments, sales, market share, and

revenues of the domestic industry, despite its lack of vulnerability. This reduction in the industry’s

production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues would adversely affect the industry’s

profitability and ability to raise capital and maintain necessary capital investments.
 205 We have described above in our discussion of our determination with respect to Japan the Commission’s

findings in the original determinations.

 206 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 207 The petition cited three known producers/exporters of small diameter CASSLP pipe in the Czech Republic: 

Vitkovice a.s., VT Dioss Chomutov a.s. and Nova Hut a.s. (now Mittal Steel Ostrava). Original Staff Report at VII2 & n.1. Vitkovice did not participate in the Commission’s original investigations and did not respond to the

Commission’s questionnaires in these reviews. Original Staff Report at VII-2, CR at IV-5 n.6, PR at IV-4 n.6. 

Chumotov did not respond to the Commission’s questionnaires in these reviews. CR at IV-5 n.6, PR at IV-4 n.6.

 208 Capacity fell from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. It was *** short tons in JanuarySeptember 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 209 Capacity utilization increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. It was *** percent in JanuarySeptember 2004 and *** percent in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 210 Capacity of the Czech industry fell from *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1999. Original Staff

Report at Table VII-1.

 211 CR/PR at Tables IV-3, IV-4.

 212 Mittal Steel Ostrava’s overall capacity utilization rate was *** percent in 2004 and *** percent in JanuarySeptember 2005. CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 213 Total export shipments rose from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. They were *** short tons

in January-September 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 214 CR/PR at Table IV-31. 

 215 The Czech Republic became a member of the EU in 2004. CR at IV-56 n.1, PR at IV-19 n.1.

29

D. Revocation of the Orders on Subject Imports of Small Diameter CASSLP from the

Czech Republic and South Africa Is Not Likely to Lead to Continuation or

Recurrence of Material Injury Within a Reasonably Foreseeable Time

1. Likely Volume of the Cumulated Subject Imports205

In the original investigation, the volume of subject imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from

the Czech Republic was small. Shipments of subject imports from the Czech Republic increased from

*** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1998, and then declined to *** short tons in 1999.206 As the

largest producer (Mittal Steel Ostrava) participated in both the original investigation and in this review,207

the information available to the Commission accounts for a significant majority of the small diameter

CASSLP pipe industry in the Czech Republic. Mittal Steel Ostrava reported that it accounted for ***

percent of production in the Czech Republic in 2004.

Mittal Steel Ostrava’s capacity to manufacture subject pipe decreased over the period of review208

and its capacity utilization increased.209 Total capacity is considerably less than it was during the original

period of investigation.210 Because Mittal Steel Ostrava accounted for the majority of the industry in the

Czech Republic during the period of review and during the original investigation, it is apparent that total

production capacity has also decreased. Mittal Steel Ostrava has operated at high rates of capacity

utilization, reporting rates of *** percent in 2004 and *** percent in January-September 2005. It projects

capacity utilization in 2006 to be *** percent.211 Further, Mittal Steel Ostrava’s capacity utilization rate

for all small diameter seamless tubular products is high.212

Although Czech producers are export-oriented,213 prices for subject pipe are higher in Western

Europe and parts of Asia214 than in the United States and, particularly now that Czech Republic is a

member of the European Union (“EU”),215 it is likely that Czech producers will direct their shipments to
 216 Mittal Steel Ostrava states that it has ***. CR at IV-6, PR at IV-5.

 217 There was an outstanding antidumping duty order from the EU on subject pipe from the Czech Republic. 

However, because the Czech Republic became a member of the EU, it is no longer subject to the order. CR at IV-56

n.1, PR at IV-19 n.1.

 218 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 219 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 220 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 221 Original Staff Report at VII-11, CR at IV-24, PR at IV-8.

 222 Capacity rose from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. It was *** short tons in JanuarySeptember 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 223 Production rose from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2004. It was *** short tons in JanuarySeptember 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 224 Mittal Steel (SA)’s capacity rose from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. Its production

increased from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2004. CR/PR at Table IV-12. U.S. apparent consumption

was *** short tons in 2000 and *** short tons in 2004. CR/PR at Table I-11.

 225 Mittal Steel (SA)’s home market shipments increased from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2004. 

CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 226 Capacity utilization increased from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2004. It was *** percent in JanuarySeptember 2004 and *** percent in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 227 Capacity utilization for all seamless pipe was *** percent in 2004 and *** percent in January-September 2005. 

CR/PR at Table IV-14.

 228 Total export shipments rose from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2004. They were *** short tons

in January-September 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 229 CR/PR at Figure IV-2 and Table IV-31.

 230 CR at IV-56, PR at IV-19.

30

other markets rather than to the United States even if the order is revoked.216 There are no outstanding

antidumping duty orders in third-country markets with respect to subject pipe from the Czech Republic.217

Czech producers have no inventory available from which to ship to other countries.218 In the event of

revocation, Mittal Steel Ostrava predicted exports to the United States of only *** short tons in 2006.219

 The volume of subject pipe from South Africa was also small in the original investigations. 

Shipments of subject imports from South Africa increased from *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons

in 1998, then decreased to *** short tons in 1999.220 There was only one producer/exporter from South

Africa in both the original investigations and these reviews.221 That producer, Mittal Steel (SA), formerly

Iscor Ltd., increased its capacity to manufacture subject pipe over the period of review.222 Evidence in the

record of these reviews shows that Mittal Steel (SA)’s production of subject pipe increased.223

Nonetheless, Mittal Steel (SA)’s capacity and production are quite small compared to the size of the U.S.

market.224 Additionally, Mittal Steel (SA) increased its home market shipments during this period225 and

is operating at a high rate of capacity utilization for small diameter CASSLP, 226 as well as for all small

diameter seamless tube products.227

Although Mittal Steel (SA) is export-oriented,228 prices for subject pipe are higher in Europe and

parts of Asia than in the United States,229 and it is likely that Mittal Steel (SA) will continue to direct its

shipments to those markets even if the order is revoked. There are no outstanding antidumping duty

orders in third-country markets on subject pipe from South Africa.230 Mittal Steel (SA) predicted exports
 231 CR/PR at Table IV-13.

 232 Mittal Steel (SA)’s inventories ranged from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2004. They were ***

short tons in January-September 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 233 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(D).

 234 See CR at IV-6 n.7, PR at IV-5 n.7 (Czech Republic); CR at IV-24 n.25, PR at IV-8 n.25 (South Africa).

 235 Siderca, S.A.I.C. v. United States, 350 F.Supp.2d 1223 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004), on remand 374 F. Supp.2d 1285

(Ct. Int’l Trade 2005).

 236 See CR at II-12, PR at II-8, CR/PR at Tables II-1, II-2, II-10, IV-31.

 237 CR/PR at Tables II-1, II-2, II-10; CR at II-12 - II-15, PR at II-8, II-10; CR at IV-60, PR at VI-21.

 238 CR/PR at Table IV-31.

 239 See, e.g., CR at IV-24 n.25, PR at IV-8 n.25; Mittal Steel Ostrava’s and Mittal Steel (SA)’s Questionnaire

responses, Responses to Questions II.6 - II.7.

 240 CR/PR at Figure IV-1.

 241 CR/PR at Figure IV-2.

31

to the United States of only *** short tons in 2006.231 Although Mittal Steel (SA)’s reported inventories

increased over the full-year period of review, they remain at relatively low levels.232

We also note that the producers in the Czech Republic and South Africa are not on major U.S.

purchasers’ AMLs for subject product. As discussed earlier, AMLs are important to a substantial

minority of purchasers, namely major oil and gas companies, and the recent increases in demand are

being driven primarily by the oil and gas markets.

We have considered whether either Czech or South African producers will likely re-direct

production towards subject merchandise if the orders are revoked. The statute directs the Commission to

consider 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.233 Subject

producers’ facilities in both the Czech Republic and South Africa are capable of producing other products

besides the subject CASSLP pipe.234 Thus, subject producers could engage in product shifting in order to

increase the volume of subject CASSLP pipe exported to the U.S. market. Parties presented arguments to

the Commission on this issue based on the Court of International Trade’s opinion in Siderca, S.A.I.C. v.

United States.

235

We do not find product shifting to be likely by producers in either the Czech Republic or South

Africa. While U.S. demand has increased during the period of review and U.S. prices for subject small

diameter CASSLP pipe have increased, the record indicates that global demand is also strong and that

prices for subject CASSLP pipe have increased in other markets as well.236 Indeed, industry participants

and publications report continued strong worldwide demand in oil and gas markets, which are the markets

that drive demand for subject CASSLP pipe.237 Further, available price data indicate that prices for

subject CASSLP pipe in Western Europe and certain Asian markets are currently higher than in the

United States.238

The strong demand in the oil and gas markets has also increased demand for other pipe and tube

products, particularly OCTG. In both the Czech Republic and South Africa, OCTG is produced in the

same facilities and uses the same equipment and employees as does subject CASSLP pipe.239 A

comparison of prices between OCTG and subject CASSLP pipe shows that OCTG prices have uniformly

exceeded those for subject CASSLP pipe by a substantial margin. For example, in July 2005, prices for

OCTG exceeded prices for subject CASSLP pipe by approximately $*** per ton.240 Further, OCTG

prices globally currently exceed subject CASSLP prices and, moreover, OCTG prices in Japan exceed

OCTG prices in the U.S. market.241 Therefore, based on relative prices, the record evidence does not

support a finding that shifting production from OCTG to subject small diameter CASSLP pipe would be
 242 See Tr. at 39-40 (Mr. Gurley), 41 (Mr. Gurley), 164 (Mr. Clark), 236 (Mr. Allen), 246 (Mr. Reilly), 254 (Mr.

Daneo), 337-38 (Mr. Daneo).

 243 See CR/PR at Figure IV-1.

 244 See, e.g., Domestic Producers’ Prehearing Small Diameter CASSLP Brief at 34.

 245 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany,

and Italy, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-362 and 731-TA-707-710 (Review), USITC Pub. 3429 ( June 2001).

 246 USITC Pub. 3429 at 22.

 247 Commissioner Pearson notes that U.S. antitrust statutes are premised on the economic rationale that

consolidation of companies within an industry holds the potential for reducing competition among firms, thus

resulting in higher prices for the goods they produce. He sees no obvious reason why consolidation of formerly

independent firms under a single corporate umbrella, but operating in more than one country, should not have a

similar effect. He would expect such transnational consolidations to lead to less competition among various

exporting countries for shipments to the United States and to make it more likely that those sales would be made at

higher prices rather than lower ones.

 248 See CR at IV-24 n.24, PR at IV-8 n.24.

 249 See CR at IV-6 n.7, PR at IV-5 n.7, CR at IV-17 - IV-18 n.20, PR at IV-7 n.20.

32

economically rational for a foreign producer seeking to enter the U.S. market in the reasonably

foreseeable future. 

The domestic industry and respondents disagreed as to whether the higher OCTG prices translate

to a more profitable product.242 However, there is no evidence on the record that indicates CASSLP pipe

production is more profitable than OCTG production. Nor is there any dispute that OCTG is a highervalued product and that OCTG prices are uniformly higher than subject CASSLP pipe prices.243

Therefore, in light of the strong global demand for CASSLP, which limits the relative attractiveness of the

U.S. market, and the higher prices for non-subject products such as OCTG, the record evidence does not

support a conclusion that shifting production from non-subject products to subject CASSLP is

economically rational for subject producers. Therefore, we determine that subject producers are not likely

to engage in product shifting in order to increase exports of subject CASSLP to the U.S. market.

Domestic producers also argue that because of the transnational affiliations of Mittal-owned firms

in the Czech Republic, Romania and South Africa, revoking the orders on imports from one or two of the

countries would quickly result in a re-direction of imports from any country still under an antidumping

duty order, as the requisite mechanisms such as common channels of distribution are already in place.244

In a previous review of antidumping duty orders concerning CASSLP pipe, the Commission noted the

role that transnational affiliations may have on subject producers’ behavior.245 The Commission found

that “the transnational corporate affiliations among many of the subject country producers also enhance

their ability to resume exporting to the United States by providing a ready network for marketing, sales,

and distribution.”246 While transnational affiliations among subject producers may facilitate their ability

to export to the U.S. market if they choose to do so, such affiliations do not, in and of themselves,

constitute evidence that subject producers are likely to increase exports to the U.S. market.247 Before the

impact of any transnational affiliations comes into play, subject producers must first have an economic

incentive to export to the U.S. market. As discussed above, we do not find that the economic incentives

that would induce a likely significant volume of subject imports currently exist or are likely to exist in the

reasonably foreseeable future. In addition, the record indicates that Mittal Steel (SA) ships to the United

States only through MacSteel,248 not through the Mittal group, and that Mittal Ostrava and Mittal Roman

produce complementary products.249 Therefore, the presence of transnational affiliations among subject
 250 See also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and the

United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-380-382 and 731-TA-797-804, USITC Pub. 3788 at 19 n.146 (July 2000).

 251 We have described above in our discussion of our determination with respect to Japan the Commission’s

findings in the original determinations.

 252 See Original Staff Report at Tables V-1 - V-6.

 253 There are no price comparison data available for subject product from either country for the period of review

due to their near absence from the U.S. market. See CR/PR at Table I-1.

 254 CR at II-17, PR at II-11, CR/PR at Tables II-3, II-4.

 255 CR at II-17, PR at II-11, CR/PR at Tables II-3, II-4.

 256 CR at II-25 n.37, PR at II-18 n.37, CR/PR at Table II-5.

 257 We have described above in our discussion of our determination with respect to Japan the Commission’s

findings in the original determinations. Further, we adopt our vulnerability analysis with respect to subject imports

of small diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan, as well as our discussion of the impact factors presented in our analysis

of the impact of subject imports from Japan.

33

producers does not provide substantial evidence that the likely volume of subject imports would be

significant.250

On the basis of the small volumes shipped by the Czech and South African producers in the

original investigations, declines in their capacity since the original period of investigation, lack of

significant current excess capacity, the fact that they currently ship to other export markets, such as those

in Europe and parts of Asia, that are more attractive based on their higher prices relative to those in the

United States, and the fact that producers in these countries are not on major U.S. purchasers’ AMLs, we

find that the likely volume of subject imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic

and South Africa would not be significant if the antidumping duty orders were revoked.

2. Likely Price Effects of the Cumulated Subject Imports251

Subject imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic and South Africa252

significantly undersold domestic merchandise in the original investigations. However, as we have found

that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on subject imports from the Czech Republic and South

Africa will likely not result in significant increased volumes of subject CASSLP pipe to the United States,

we do not find that any increased volumes will result in significant adverse price effects.253

In addition, while price is an important factor in purchasing decisions,254 other factors can be

more important, especially quality.255 We note that there is evidence on the record in these reviews that

indicates that the Czech and South African products either are or are perceived to be somewhat inferior in

quality to other subject imports and the domestic like product.256

Notwithstanding the significant degree of underselling in the original investigations, we find that 

any limited increase in the volume of subject imports from the Czech Republic and South Africa is not

likely to result in significant adverse price effects upon revocation of the orders.

3. Likely Impact of the Cumulated Subject Imports257

In line with our findings regarding the likely volume and price effects of subject imports from the

Czech Republic and South Africa, we find that subject imports would not be likely to have a significant

adverse impact on the domestic industry’s output, sales, market share, profits, or return on investment, if

the orders were revoked. As demand is projected to remain strong, the small volume of subject imports

that would be likely upon revocation would not be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry. Therefore, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on subject imports
 258 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 259 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 260 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I (1994).

 261 For a discussion of the analytical framework of Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Hillman regarding the

application of the “no discernible adverse impact” provision, see Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil,

Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-278-280 (Review) and 731-TA-347-348 (Review) USITC

Pub. 3274 (Feb. 2000). For a further discussion of Chairman Koplan’s analytical framework, see Iron Metal

Construction Castings from India; Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil; and Iron Construction Castings

from Brazil, Canada, and China, Inv. Nos. 303-TA-13 (Review); 701-TA-249 (Review); and 731-TA-262, 263, and

265 (Review) USITC Pub. 3247 (Oct. 1999) (Views of Commissioner Stephen Koplan Regarding Cumulation). 

34

from the Czech Republic and South Africa is not likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of

material injury to the U.S. small diameter CASSLP pipe industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

small diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. We further conclude that

revocation of the antidumping duty orders on small diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic and

South Africa would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in

the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

V. CUMULATION OF SUBJECT IMPORTS OF LARGE DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

FROM JAPAN AND MEXICO

A. Overview

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that:

the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject

merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or

(c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete

with each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The

Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of the

subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are likely to have

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.258

Thus, cumulation is discretionary in five-year reviews. The Commission may exercise its discretion to

cumulate only if the reviews are initiated on the same day and the Commission determines that the subject

imports are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S. market. The

statute precludes cumulation if the Commission finds that subject imports from a country are likely to

have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.259 We note that neither the statute nor the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) provides

specific guidance on what factors the Commission is to consider in determining that imports “are likely to

have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry.260 With respect to this provision, the

Commission generally considers the likely volume of the subject imports and the likely impact of those

imports on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders are revoked.261
 262 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(I).

 263 70 Fed. Reg. 22,688 (May 2, 2005).

 264 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether imports compete with each

other and with the domestic like product are: (1) the degree of fungibility between the imports from different

countries and between imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer

requirements and other quality related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographical

markets of imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar

channels of distribution for imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the

imports are simultaneously present in the market. See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50

(CIT 1989).

 265 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 916 (CIT 1996); Wieland Werke, AG, 718 F. Supp. at

52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”); United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 

673, 685 (CIT 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We note, however, that there have been investigations

where the Commission has found an insufficient overlap in competition and has declined to cumulate subject

imports. See, e.g., Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-386 (Preliminary) and 731-TA-812-813

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 at 15 (Feb. 1999), aff’d sub nom, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Foundation v.

United States, 74 F. Supp.2d 1353 (CIT 1999); Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic

of Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-761-762 (Final), USITC Pub. 3098 at 13-15 (Apr. 1998).

 266 See, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. at 1172 (affirming Commission's determination not to

cumulate for purposes of threat analysis when pricing and volume trends among subject countries were not uniform

and import penetration was extremely low for most of the subject countries); Metallverken Nederland B.V. v. United

States, 728 F. Supp. 730, 741-42 (CIT 1989); Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States,

704 F. Supp. 1068, 1072 (CIT 1988).

35

We note that, in the original investigations, the Commission determined to cumulate imports from

both subject countries with respect to large diameter CASSLP pipe. In the original investigations, in the

present material injury context, cumulation was governed by section 771(7)(G)(I) of the Act,262 which

does not provide discretion to the Commission, in contrast to section 752(a), which governs in these

reviews.

In these reviews, the statutory requirement for cumulation that all reviews be initiated on the

same day is satisfied as the Commission initiated all the reviews on May 2, 2005.263

The Commission generally has considered four factors intended to provide a framework for

determining whether the imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.264 Only a

“reasonable overlap” of competition is required.265 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether

there likely would be competition even if none currently exists because the subject imports are absent

from the U.S. market. Moreover, because of the prospective nature of five-year reviews, we have

examined not only the Commission’s traditional competition factors, but also other significant conditions

of competition that are likely to prevail if the orders under review are terminated. The Commission has

considered factors in addition to its traditional competition factors in other contexts where cumulation is

discretionary.266
 267 Original Staff Report at VII-4.

 268 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 269 CR/PR at Table I-2. Commission staff derived these figures for U.S. imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe

from Japan from ***; they may be understated. CR at IV-36 n.27, PR at IV-14 n.27. U.S. Steel contends that very

few, if any of these imports from Japan are in fact subject imports. Tr. at 211-12 (Mr. Vaughn). For the purposes of

our analysis and findings as detailed in the following sections, we consider U.S. imports of Japanese large diameter

CASSLP pipe during the period of review as being very low to nonexistent. However, our analysis and findings

would not differ whether subject imports from Japan are actually either at these very low calculated levels or are

nonexistent.

 270 CR at IV-39 n.30, PR at IV-16 n.30.

 271 CR/PR at Table IV-19.

 272 CR/PR at Table IV-19.

 273 CR/PR at Table IV-19.

 274 See CR/PR at Table I-2.

36

B. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact

Japan. Four Japanese producers manufactured large diameter CASSLP pipe during the original

investigations.267 In the original investigations, the volume of shipments of subject imports from Japan

increased from 28,725 short tons in 1997 to 42,897 short tons in 1998, then increased further to 49,727

short tons in 1999. Their share of the U.S. market was 7.7 percent in 1997, 11.8 percent in 1998, and

17.0 percent in 1999.268 The order was imposed in June 2000. Subsequently, subject shipments of

imports from Japan declined drastically. They were *** short tons in 2000, *** short tons in 2001, ***

short tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003, and *** short tons in 2004.269

In the original investigations, producers in Japan reported capacity ranging from *** short tons in

1999 to *** short tons in 1997, reported production ranging from *** short tons in 1998 to *** short tons

in 1997, and exported approximately *** to *** percent of their shipments to the United States from 1997

to 1999.270

In these reviews, only one firm, NKK, provided data to the Commission. It reported that it

accounted for approximately *** percent of 2004 Japanese production of large diameter CASSLP pipe. It

reported that *** percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year were sales of subject pipe. It

reported ***. Its volume of shipments to other markets increased from *** short tons in 2000 to ***

short tons in 2004.271 For the full years for which NKK reported data, capacity was stable at *** short

tons between 2001 and 2004, while production grew modestly, rising from *** short tons to *** short

tons.272 Capacity utilization was *** percent in 2000, *** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002, ***

percent in 2003, and *** percent in 2004.273

Based on the large production capacity of the producers in Japan as reported in the original

investigations, the fact that they have substantial unused capacity and are export-oriented, and the fact

that they were the largest source of subject imports during the original investigations, especially at the end

of the period,274 we do not find that subject imports from Japan would likely have no discernible adverse

impact on the domestic industry if the order were revoked.

Mexico. Petitioners stated that there was one producer of large diameter CASSLP pipe in Mexico

during the original investigations: Tubos de Acero de Mexico (TAMSA). Shipments of subject imports

from Mexico rose from *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1998, but then declined to *** short

tons in 1999. Their U.S. market share was *** percent in 1997, *** percent in 1998 and *** percent in
 275 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 276 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 277 CR at IV-45 n.37, PR at IV-17 n.37.

 278 CR/PR at Table IV-22.

 279 CR at IV-45 n.40, PR at IV-17 n.40.

 280 CR/PR at Table IV-22.

 281 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane do not join the remainder of part V. See their views.

 282 See generally Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp.2d 1313, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002).

 283 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 917 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996).

 284 USITC Pub. 3311 at 23.

 285 CR at II-51, PR at II-37, CR/PR at Table II-13.

37

1999.275 The order was imposed in August 2000, and there were no shipments of subject imports from

Mexico during the period of review.276

During the original investigations, TAMSA reported capacity ranging from *** short tons in

1999 to *** short tons in 1997, reported production ranging from *** short tons in 1999 to *** short tons

in 1997, and exported approximately *** to *** percent of its shipments to the United States from 1997

to 1999.277

During the period of review, TAMSA’s volume of exports to other markets decreased from ***

short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. Its reported capacity and production fluctuated between

2000 and 2004, but capacity decreased overall by *** percent (from *** short tons to *** short tons).278

It ***.279 Capacity utilization was *** percent in 2000, *** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002, ***

percent in 2003, and *** percent in 2004.280

Based on TAMSA’s production capacity, its export orientation and its level of exports to the

United States during the original investigations, we do not find that subject imports from Mexico would

likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the order were revoked.281

C. Likely Overlap of Competition

We note that the relevant inquiry is whether there would likely be competition even if there are

no current imports from a subject country.282 Further, only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is

required.283

Fungibility. In the original investigations, after finding that the majority of the subject imports

were commodity grade products, the Commission found that there were not any particular product

characteristics of the commodity grade large diameter CASSLP pipe imports from Japan or Mexico that

would significantly limit their fungibility with the domestic like product. Purchasers generally viewed

Japanese and Mexican common grade product as interchangeable with the domestically produced

product.284

The record in these reviews indicates that subject imports are generally interchangeable with each

other and with the domestic like product. Both responding U.S. producers reported that the domestic

product and subject imports were always interchangeable. Two importers responded and one reported

that each country combination was frequently interchangeable, while the other reported that each

combination was sometimes interchangeable (except for Japan versus Mexico, which was reported as

frequently interchangeable). Nearly all purchasers reported that, for each country combination, the

products were at least sometimes interchangeable.285 In the original investigations, the Commission found
 286 USITC Pub. 3311 at 25.

 287 CR at II-45, PR at II-32.

 288 USITC Pub. 3311 at 24.

 289 CR at II-30, PR at II-22.

 290 USITC Pub. 3311 at 23.

 291 CR at II-31, PR at II-22.

 292 See CR at IV-38 - IV-39, PR at IV-15.

 293 USITC Pub. 3311 at 24.

 294 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 295 See Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp.2d at 1314 (Commission not required to find that subject

imports currently compete in the U.S. market).

38

that there was a moderately high and increasing level of substitutability between the domestic like product

and subject imports,286 and no available data indicate that this has changed.287

Channels of Distribution. In the original investigations, the Commission found a reasonable

overlap of channels of distribution among the subject imports and between them and the domestic like

product, despite a somewhat different distribution pattern for Mexico.288

 In these reviews, both U.S. producers and U.S. importers sell to distributors and, to a lesser

extent, end users. In the original investigations, domestic producers sold *** percent of their large

diameter CASSLP pipe through distributors, while U.S. importers sold *** percent of Mexican large

diameter CASSLP pipe and 77.2 percent of Japanese large diameter CASSLP pipe through distributors in

1999. In 2004, domestic producers sold *** percent of their large diameter CASSLP pipe to distributors. 

Subject imports were very small and not reported by any of the responding importers.289 

Geographic Overlap. In the original investigations, four domestic producers served the entire

United States. Japanese large diameter CASSLP pipe was present in all U.S. geographic regions. 

Mexican large diameter CASSLP pipe was available in the ***.290

In these reviews, two of the three responding U.S. producers reported selling nationwide. One

producer and both responding importers reported only selling to various regions, including the Northeast,

the Southwest, the Gulf Coast, and the West.291 Although, as noted above, there were no reported imports

of large diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico during the period of review, the very small quantities of

imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan entered the United States primarily in the Gulf Coast

region during the period of review and to a lesser extent in the Northeast and the West.292

Simultaneous Presence. In the original investigations, subject imports from Japan and Mexico

occurred in every month of the period of investigation.293 In these reviews, subject imports from Japan

were present throughout the period of review, except for one year (2004), albeit in very modest quantities. 

However, there were no reported subject imports from Mexico during the period of review.294 We note

that the relevant inquiry is whether subject imports from the subject countries are likely to compete

against each other in the U.S. market if the orders are revoked, not whether imports from the subject

countries are currently in the U.S. market.295

In view of the foregoing, we find that the subject imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe from

Japan and Mexico are fungible with each other and with the domestic like product, that there will likely

be a reasonable overlap of geographic markets and channels of distribution if the orders are revoked, and

that the subject imports would be simultaneously present.
 296 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 297 CR at IV-40, PR at IV-16. Although the sole responding Japanese producer, NKK, claims to account for ***

percent of production in 2004, CR at IV-39, PR at IV-16, that assertion implies that the total production by the

Japanese industry of large diameter CASSLP pipe would have been approximately *** short tons in 2004, which

would represent a significant reduction from reported Japanese production during the original investigation, which

ranged from *** short tons in 1998 to *** short tons in 1997. Original Staff Report at Table VII-3. As there is no

other information in the record of these reviews indicating that the industry has shrunk, we do not place much weight

on NKK’s estimate of the industry’s size. We also note that this decline in Japanese production of large diameter

CASSLP pipe contrasts with public data from the International Iron and Steel Institute showing that total seamless

tube production in Japan increased from 1.83 million short tons in 1999 to 2.11 million short tons in 2004. CR/PR at

Tables IV-27 n.2, IV-28 n.2.

 298 CR/PR at Table IV-22.

 299 CR/PR at Table IV-22.

 300 CR/PR at Table IV-19.

 301 Original Staff Report at Table VII-3.

 302 CR/PR at Table F-1.

 303 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa, Inv. Nos.

731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC Pub. 3311 (June 2000).

39

D. Other Considerations

Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we find that subject imports of large diameter

CASSLP pipe from Japan would likely face different conditions of competition in the U.S. market than

the subject imports from Mexico. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject

imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan with those from Mexico.

Subject imports exhibited distinctly different trends during the original period of investigation. 

Subject imports from Japan increased throughout the period, including 1999, even though the petition was

filed on June 30 of that year. In contrast, subject Mexican CASSLP pipe imports decreased substantially

over the original period of investigation as a whole. Shipments of subject imports from Japan totaled

28,725 short tons in 1997, 42,897 short tons in 1998 and 49,727 short tons in 1999. Shipments of subject

imports from Mexico initially rose from *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1998, but then fell

sharply to *** short tons in 1999.296

With respect to the period of review, NKK reported that its individual capacity and production

increased from 2000 to 2001, by *** percent, respectively; capacity remained steady from 2001 through

2004.297 In contrast, total production and capacity in Mexico have declined since the original period of

investigation from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004.298 TAMSA reported operating at ***

percent capacity utilization in 2004 and January-September 2005;299 in contrast, NKK’s capacity

utilization was *** percent in 2004 and *** percent in January-September 2005,300 and the data from the

original period of investigation (the only data for the Japanese industry as a whole) show that Japan’s

capacity utilization ranged from *** percent to *** percent between 1997 and 1999.301

A further difference in the conditions of competition faced by TAMSA as compared to Japanese

producers involves related U.S. and third-country antidumping duty orders. TAMSA, which is not

subject to a U.S. antidumping duty order on small diameter CASSLP pipe, exported very little of that

product to the United States during the period of review,302 indicating that product shifting may be less of

a factor in TAMSA’s business decisions because of its high capacity utilization rate. In contrast, Japanese

producers are subject to small diameter and large diameter CASSLP pipe antidumping duty orders in the

United States.303 Japanese producers have orders against their exports of small diameter CASSLP pipe in
 304 CR at IV-56, PR at IV-19.

 305 See, e.g., Cogne Acciai Speciali S.P.A. v. United States, No. 04-00411, Slip Op. at 2, 26-27 (Ct. Int’l Trade

Sept. 12, 2005).

 306 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane do not join part VI. See their views.

 307 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 308 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). 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 material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations

that were never completed.” SAA at 883. 

 309 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

(continued...)

40

Venezuela and Mexico,304 whereas TAMSA is not subject to any third-country antidumping duty orders

for small or large diameter CASSLP pipe, indicating that TAMSA has more available markets for its

CASSLP pipe exports.

E. Summary of Cumulation Conclusions

As noted above, the information in the record regarding Japanese producers of large diameter

CASSLP pipe consists primarily of information obtained during the original investigations. Unlike the

Mexican subject producer, TAMSA, most producers of large diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan declined

to participate in these reviews. Accordingly, we must rely primarily on information obtained during the

original investigations for Japan, while we have more current information for Mexico as well as

information from the original investigations. We also note that we have discretion to exercise our

authority to cumulate subject imports during five-year reviews.305 Based on the information in the record,

we do not find that subject imports from Japan and Mexico would be likely to have no discernible adverse

impact on the domestic industry if the orders were revoked. We also find a reasonable overlap of

competition between subject imports from Japan and from Mexico, and between the subject imports and

the domestic like product. Nevertheless, we find significant differences in the conditions of competition

with respect to the subject imports from Japan and the conditions of competition with respect to the

subject imports from Mexico. Therefore, we do not exercise our discretion to cumulate likely volume and

price effects of subject imports from Japan with those for subject imports from Mexico.

VI. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY BY

REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS OF LARGE DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE FROM

JAPAN AND MEXICO IF THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS ARE REVOKED306

A. Legal Standard

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke an

antidumping 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 duty

order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably

foreseeable time.”307 The SAA states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in

a counter-factual 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.”308 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective

in nature.309 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the sunset review
 309 (...continued)

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.

 310 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 without opinion, 05-1019 (Fed.

Cir. Aug. 3, 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-153 at 7-8 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 24, 2002)

(same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-152 at 4 n.3 & 5-6 n.6 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 20, 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, Slip Op. 02-105

at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a

certainty”); Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 19, 2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount

to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 311 Vice Chairman Okun notes that, consistent with her dissenting views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from

Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004) at 15-17, she does not concur with the

U.S. Court of International Trade’s interpretation of “likely” to mean “probable.” See Usinor Industeel, S.A. et. al.

v. United States, No. 01-00006, Slip Op. 02-39 at 13 (Ct. Int’l Trade Apr. 29, 2002). However, she will apply the

Court’s standard in this review and all subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addresses the issue. See also Additional Views of Vice Chairman Deanna

Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review) and 731-TA-707-710

(Review)(Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 312 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 313 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.

 314 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 315 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). There have been no duty absorption findings by Commerce with respect to the

orders under review. CR at I-13 - I-14, PR at I-10 - I-12. The statute further 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. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one

(continued...)

41

provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year

reviews.310 311

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.”312 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.”313

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

antidumping duty 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.”314 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 the suspension agreement is

terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

§ 1675(a)(4).315 316
 315 (...continued)

factor is necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886.

 316 Vice Chairman Okun notes that Section 776 of the Act authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise

available” in reaching a determination when: (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an

interested party or other person withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in

the time, form, or manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be

verified pursuant to section 782(I) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). The verification requirements in section 782(I)

are applicable only to Commerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(I). See Titanium Metals Corp., 155 F. Supp. 2d at 765 (“the

ITC correctly responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the

evidence before it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of a Commission

investigation.”). Vice Chairman Okun notes that such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its

obligation to consider the record evidence as a whole in making its determination. Vice Chairman Okun generally

gives credence to the facts supplied by the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision

on the evidence as a whole, and does not automatically accept the participating parties’ suggested interpretation of

the record evidence. Regardless of the level of participation and the interpretations urged by participating parties,

the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors and may not draw

adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. In general, the Commission makes determinations by

“weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic industry as a

whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive” (SAA at 869). 

 317 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 318 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 319 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 320 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the

magnitude of the margin of dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). 

(continued...)

42

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping order 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.317 In

doing so, 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.318

In evaluating the likely price effects of cumulated subject imports if the antidumping duty order is

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

the subject imports as compared to domestic like products 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 domestic like products.

In evaluating the likely impact of cumulated imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping

orders are 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: (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.319 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.320 As instructed by the statute, we
 320 (...continued)

The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as

“the dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887.

For large diameter CASSLP pipe, Commerce found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would

likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following margins: Japan – Kawasaki, Nippon and

Sumitomo Metal, 107.80 percent and all others, 68.88 percent; Mexico – TAMSA and all others, 15.05 percent. 

CR/PR at Table I-4.

 321 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 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.

 322 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 323 CR at II-35 - II-36, PR at II-25.

 324 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 325 CR/PR at Table C-4.

 326 See CR/PR at Table II-8.

43

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

the order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked.321

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, 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.”322 The following conditions of

competition are relevant to our determination.

Demand. U.S. demand for large diameter CASSLP pipe depends on the markets for its end uses. 

Large diameter CASSLP pipe is used mainly in collecting, transmitting and processing gas and oil. As a

result, the prices of gas and oil are important determinants of demand. Large diameter CASSLP pipe is

also used in refinery, petrochemical and processing plants; construction; mechanical contractors;

fabrication; energy applications; shipbuilding; equipment production; and the manufacture of welded

fittings.323

Apparent U.S. consumption declined markedly between 1997 and 1999, falling from 375,084

short tons in 1997 to 365,028 short tons in 1998 and then to 293,151 short tons in 1999.324 By contrast,

apparent U.S. consumption increased irregularly between 2000 and 2004 and into 2005, despite a

substantial decline in 2002-2003. It was *** short tons in 2000, *** short tons in 2001, *** short tons in

2002, *** short tons in 2003, and *** short tons in 2004. It was *** short tons in January-September

2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005.325 The recent increases in consumption are driven

primarily by increased prices and demand in the oil and gas sectors.326

Future demand for large diameter CASSLP pipe in large part depends on the future prices of oil

and gas. Parties in these reviews reported differing projections of future demand conditions. Domestic

interested parties reported that natural gas prices have already fallen significantly from their highest level

and are expected to continue to fall, and that oil prices may not remain at their current high levels. They

further reported that it is difficult to estimate future oil prices and estimates tend to be biased upward. In

addition, according to the domestic interested parties, the current high price of oil reflects a “speculative
 327 CR at II-41, PR at II-27.

 328 CR at II-40, PR at II-27.

 329 See CR/PR at Table II-10; Tr. at 233 (Mr. Allen).

 330 CR at II-38, PR at II-26 - II-27; Purchaser Questionnaire Responses to Question III.11; CR/PR at Table II-8.

 331 See CR at II-41, PR at II-II-29, CR/PR at Table II-10.

 332 CR/PR at Table I-14.

 333 CR/PR at Table III-13.

 334 CR/PR at Table III-13.

 335 CR at I-37, PR at I-31.

 336 CR at I-38, PR at I-31.

 337 CR/PR at Table I-14.

44

bubble” rather than underlying demand and supply.327 In contrast, respondent interested parties provided

estimates by the EIA forecasting sustained high prices for oil and natural gas.328 In addition, the rig

count, i.e. the number of exploration and development oil and gas rigs in place, which is another indicator

of demand, has increased and there is no indication that it will decrease in the reasonably foreseeable

future.329

We note that both responding U.S. producers reported that they expected little change in demand;

one anticipated no changes, while the other expected demand to remain at the 2005 level. Both

responding importers expected continued growth in demand as a result of growth in pipelines or in the

energy sector. Nine of 15 responding purchasers, who buy subject merchandise based on market

predictions, expected increased demand in the future.330

We recognize that predicting demand is a difficult task. Nonetheless, the industry relies on

predictions, such as the EIA’s, when making its investment decisions. The forecasts and expressed

expectation of market participants contained in the record support a finding that oil and gas prices are

likely to remain sufficiently high in the reasonably foreseeable future so as to continue to support strong

demand for large diameter CASSLP pipe. In particular, many leading market observers, including the

corporate parents of two domestic producers, rely on the EIA’s forecasts or other generally optimistic

forecasts to conclude that prices, although they may decline from recent high levels, will continue to

support oil and gas exploration and, by extension, demand for large diameter CASSLP pipe.331

Supply. The U.S. market is supplied by domestically produced large diameter CASSLP pipe and

pipe imported from subject and nonsubject countries. U.S. producers’ share of the U.S. market rose from

*** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. It was *** percent in January-September 2004 as compared

with *** percent in January-September 2005.332

Both the domestic producers’ capacity and production increased over the period of review. 

Average capacity increased irregularly from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. It was ***

short tons in January-September 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005.333 Production was

*** short tons in 2000, increasing irregularly to *** short tons in 2004. It was *** short tons in JanuarySeptember 2004 as compared with *** short tons in January-September 2005.334

Since the original investigations, the U.S. industry has reorganized, but continues to consist of

three producers. During the original investigations, the three U.S. producers of large diameter CASSLP

pipe were North Star Steel, Timken and U.S. Steel.335 In 2002, V&M Tubes acquired North Star’s tubular

division, then a wholly owned subsidiary of Cargill, Inc., and renamed the division V&M Star.336

Total subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption accounted for *** percent or less of

apparent U.S. consumption throughout the review period.337 Nonsubject import market share was ***

percent in 2000, and decreased, albeit irregularly, to *** percent in 2004. It was *** percent in January-
 338 CR/PR at Table I-14.

 339 Nonsubject imports from China rose from 7,002 short tons in 2000 to 11,626 short tons in 2004. Nonsubject

imports from Romania increased from 4,562 short tons to 16,450 short tons during that period, and nonsubject

imports from Ukraine rose from 6,348 to 13,767 short tons during that period as well. CR/PR at Table F-2.

 340 USITC Pub. 3311 at 25. Similarly, as noted in Table I-2, shipments of cumulated subject imports rose from

*** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1998, then fell to *** short tons in 1999.

 341 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 342 Japan’s capacity to produce large diameter CASSLP pipe decreased from *** short tons in 1997 to *** short

tons in 1999. Its production decreased from *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1999. Original Staff Report

at Table VII-3.

 343 Japan’s total exports increased from *** percent of total shipments in 1997 to *** percent of total shipments in

1999. Original Staff Report at Table VII-3.

 344 Japan’s shipments of imports of subject large diameter CASSLP imports rose from 28,725 short tons in 1997

to 49,727 short tons in 1999. CR/PR at Table I-2. By contrast, shipments of subject imports from Mexico declined

from *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1999. CR/PR at Table I-2.

 345 Japan’s capacity utilization for large diameter CASSLP pipe was *** percent in 1997 and *** percent in 1999. 

Original Staff Report at Table VII-3.

45

September 2004 as compared with *** percent in January-September 2005.338 Nonsubject large diameter

CASSLP pipe imports from China, Romania and Ukraine rose substantially during the period of

review.339

C. Revocation of the Orders on Subject Imports of Large Diameter CASSLP from

Japan Is Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a

Reasonably Foreseeable Time

1. Likely Volume of the Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the quantity of cumulated subject

imports rose from *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1998, then fell to *** short tons in 1999,

increasing by *** percent between 1997 and 1999. Apparent U.S. consumption decreased by *** percent

during the same period. The share of domestic consumption held by cumulated subject imports increased

from *** percent in 1997 to *** percent in 1998, while the share held by domestic product declined from

*** percent to *** percent. Although cumulated subject import market share declined *** to *** percent

in 1999, this was still higher than the 1997 import market share. Cumulated subject import volume and

market share of subject imports increased while domestic consumption was declining. Japanese

respondents’ argument that subject imports increased while demand was falling because of a lag in their

response to the change in demand was not borne out by the record.340

In the original investigations, shipments of subject imports from Japan increased from 28,725

short tons in 1997 to 42,897 short tons in 1998, then increased further to 49,727 short tons in 1999. 

Japan’s import market share increased from 7.7 percent in 1997 to 11.8 percent in 1998, then to 17.0

percent in 1999.341

As explained above, we have relied on the best information available in the record of these

reviews with respect to Japan – primarily information from the original investigations. We note that the

industry in Japan during that time was large342 and export-oriented.343 Imports from Japan to the United

States increased rapidly.344 In addition, there was significant excess capacity in Japan.345 Moreover, its
 346 Japan’s home market shipments of large diameter CASSLP pipe declined from *** percent of total shipments

in 1997 to *** percent in 1999. Original Staff Report at Table VII-3.

 347 CR/PR at Table IV-19.

 348 While it was argued that Japan’s facilities that are used to produce OCTG and other pipe products may be

converted to the production of large diameter CASSLP pipe, see, e.g., Domestic Producers’ Large Diameter

Prehearing Brief at 28, we do not find it necessary to rely on such potential product shifting in light of Japan’s

already significant excess capacity. We note that other steel seamless tubing products that are produced on the same

equipment as subject pipe include CASSLP pipe with outer diameter greater than 16 inches, mechanical tubing,

pressure tubing, structural pipe and tubing, and coupling stock. CR at I-28 - I-29, PR at I-25.

 349 USITC Pub. 3311 at 26.

 350 See Original Staff Report at Tables V-7 - V-9.

 351 For instance, Japan’s margins of underselling for pricing product 4 as reported by producers and importers

increased from a margin of overselling of (***) percent in April-June 1997 to a margin of underselling of ***

percent in October-December 1998, and there was a margin of underselling of *** percent in July-September 1999. 

Original Staff Report at Table V-7. For pricing product 4 as reported by end users and distributors, Japan’s margin

of overselling increased from (***) percent in January-March 1998 to a margin of underselling of *** percent in

April-June 1998, and there was a margin of underselling of *** percent in July-September 1999. Id. at Table V-8.

 352 Original Staff Report at Table V-8.

46

home market shipments decreased over the period.346 The data available from NKK indicate that its

production capacity increased significantly during the period of review. NKK reports excess capacity in

its large diameter CASSLP pipe operations. Its capacity utilization rate was *** percent in 2004 and only

*** percent in January-September 2005.347 Nothing in the current record indicates, therefore, that

Japanese producers will behave differently if the order is lifted than they did during the original

investigations.348

Accordingly, we find that the likely volume of imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe from

Japan into the United States would be significant in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping

duty order were revoked.

2. Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports

In the original investigations, when evaluating the cumulated subject imports the Commission

found that domestic prices declined dramatically when demand was at its weakest in late 1998 and 1999

and there was significant underselling by subject imports of common grade large diameter CASSLP pipe. 

The decline in activity in the oil and gas industry contributed to the decline in the price of large diameter

CASSLP pipe, but the Commission found that it did not fully explain the decline in price. Instead, it

found that with demand weak, and cumulated subject imports entering the market in significant volumes

at low and declining prices, domestic producers were forced to cut their prices to regain market share that

had been lost to subject imports. The Commission also found that cumulated subject imports depressed

domestic prices to a significant degree.349

Because of the lack of questionnaire responses from most producers in Japan, price comparison

data for the period of review are not available. Accordingly, we rely on the information obtained during

the original investigations. With respect to underselling by the subject Japanese imports, we note that the

Japanese data were more mixed than those of Mexico,350 but there is evidence of underselling increasing

over the original period of investigation.351 In addition, there were more instances of underselling as

compared to overselling for pricing product 4 as reported by end users and distributors.352 Nothing in the

record indicates that subject imports from Japan would behave differently upon revocation of the orders.

As noted above, we find the likely volume of subject imports from Japan will be significant in the

reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty order is revoked. At these likely volumes, the
 353 USITC Pub. 3311 at 27.

 354 CR/PR at Table III-18.

 355 CR/PR at Table III-18.

 356 Domestic Producers’ Large Diameter Prehearing Brief at 37 & Exh. 8. The financing of capital for a firm is

comprised of two sources: equity financing and debt financing. The cost of capital is the expected return to

shareholders and/or creditors, depending upon the investment risk. The WACC is the weighted average cost of

capital for a firm based on the combination of its capital; in other words, it represents the investors’ opportunity cost

of taking on the risk of investing in or lending money to a company. A project that has a rate of return (in this case,

operating income) greater than the WACC generates additional cash flow and creates value, while a project that has

a rate of return less than the WACC decreases value. CR at III-11 n.9, PR at III-4 n.9.

 357 Koppel, a small diameter CASSLP pipe producer, also manufactures OCTG and mechanical tubing, while U.S.

Steel produces small and large diameter CASSLP pipe, as well as OCTG, mechanical tubing and coupling stock. 

(continued...)

47

subject imports from Japan would be likely to have significant depressing or suppressing effects on the

prices of the domestic like product. We therefore find that there likely would be underselling by the

subject imports that, when combined with increased volumes of subject imports, would likely lead to

significant adverse price effects.

3. Likely Impact of the Subject Imports 

a. Lack of Vulnerability of Domestic Industry

In the original investigations, the Commission found that all of the industry’s major economic

and financial indicators declined significantly during the period of investigation. Operating income

declined, as did production, shipments, net sales, cash flow, capacity utilization, productivity, number of

production workers, hours worked, wages paid, and productivity. There were increases in unit labor costs

and unit cost of goods sold. While the declines were partly attributable to the decline in demand, the

Commission found they were also attributable in significant part to the price competition from subject

imports. The cumulated subject imports exacerbated the effects of the decline in demand on the

increasingly unprofitable and poorly performing industry.353

We conclude in these reviews that the domestic industry is not currently vulnerable to injury by

reason of increased subject imports. In particular, the industry was generally profitable during the period

of review. It experienced losses in two years, but began and ended the period with substantial profits. A

comparison of the interim periods shows extremely high profitability. Operating income was $***

in 2000 and rose to $*** in 2004. It was $*** in January-September 2004 and *** in January-September 

2005.354 The ratio of operating income to net sales was *** percent in 2000 and *** percent in 2004. 

It was *** percent in January-September 2004 and *** percent in January-September 2005.355

Domestic producers alleged that the operating margins earned by the domestic industry between

1997 and September 2005 have been below the industry’s WACC.356 We find that the usefulness of

WACC in these proceedings is limited. While we can consider factors not explicitly required by statute,

there is no reason why the Commission should consider WACC to be a more dispositive indicator of the

domestic industry’s condition than any of the other indicia specified by the statute and/or typically used

by the Commission. Further, the domestic producers’ WACC was computed for the period between 1997

and September 2005, which includes three years prior to the period for which data were collected in these

reviews (January 2000 to September 2005). Moreover, the calculation was based on the financial data of

only one company (NS Group, Inc.), which is the parent company of Koppel, a firm that does not even

produce large diameter CASSLP pipe.357 The Commission has gathered actual trade and financial data
 357 (...continued)

CR at III-2 n.3, PR at III -1 n.3.

 358 CR at III-13, PR at III-5.

 359 See, e.g., Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 287 F.3d 1365, 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Commission 

“obligated to make active, reasonable efforts to obtain relevant data” especially when seeking to use product line

provision); General Motors Corp. v. United States, 827 F. Supp. 774, 781 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1993) (Commission did

not act unreasonably in not relying on data that were not comparable to those covering period of investigation).

 360 See CR at III-12, PR at III-5.

 361 Capacity increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. It was *** short tons in JanuarySeptember 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-13.

 362 Production increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. It was *** short tons in JanuarySeptember 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-13.

 363 Capacity utilization decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. It was *** percent in

January-September 2004 and *** percent in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-13.

 364 U.S. shipments increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. They were *** short tons in

January-September 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-15.

 365 Inventories fell from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. They were *** short tons in JanuarySeptember 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-16.

 366 Net sales increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. They were *** short tons in

January-September 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-18.

 367 U.S. producers’ market share rose from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. It was *** percent in

January-September 2004 and *** percent in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table C-4.

 368 Nonsubject import market share fell from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. It was *** percent in

January-September 2004 and *** percent in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table C-4.

 369 For instance, operating income increased from $*** in 2000 to $*** in 2004, although the domestic industry 

sustained operating losses in 2002 and 2003. Operating income was $*** in January-September 2004. CR/PR at Table III-18.

48

specific to the domestic CASSLP pipe producers, and the comparisons between these data and data for a

much larger industry whose exact composition is unknown may not be conclusive.358 359 We also note

that the WACC analysis initially submitted by the domestic industry is very sensitive to the time period

used. For example, the same analysis performed on the period of review reports notably different

results.360 In light of the above, we do not find that the WACC analysis submitted by the domestic

industry is more dispositive than the other factors considered by the Commission and does not lead us to

conclude that the domestic industry is vulnerable.

b. Analysis

In these reviews, domestic producers’ large diameter CASSLP pipe capacity significantly

increased over the period of review.361 Production followed the same trend.362 However, capacity

utilization decreased over the period.363

U.S. shipments increased over the period of review364 and inventories declined.365 Net sales

increased over the period.366 U.S. producers’ market share increased as well,367 as nonsubject imports lost

market share.368 The domestic industry maintained profitability throughout most of the period of

review.369
 370 The number of production and related workers decreased from *** in 2000 to *** in 2004. It was *** in

January-September 2004 and *** in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-17.

 371 Hours worked declined from *** in 2000 to *** in 2004. They were *** in January-September 2004 and ***

in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-17.

 372 Wages paid increased from $*** in 2000 to $*** in 2004. They were $*** in January-September 2004 and 

$*** in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-17.

 373 Productivity increased from *** short tons per 1,000 hours in 2000 to *** in 2004. It was *** in JanuarySeptember 2004 and *** in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table III-17.

 374 Capital expenditures fell from $*** in 2000 to $*** in 2004. They were $*** in January-September 

2004 and $*** in January-September 2005. All producers reported capital expenditures. The majority were for carbon 

SSLP pipe, while there were minimal expenditures for alloy SSLP pipe. CR/PR at Table III-2 & n.1.

 375 Research and development expenses decreased from $*** in 2000 to $*** in 2004. They were $*** in

January-September 2004 and $*** in January-September 2005. *** reported research and development expenses,

which were primarily for carbon SSLP pipe, with minimal expenses for alloy SSLP pipe. CR/PR at Table III-22 &

n.2.

49

The number of production and related workers fell over the period,370 as did their hours

worked.371 However, wages paid increased,372 as did productivity.373 Both capital expenditures374 and

research and development expenses declined.375

We concluded above that revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to Japan likely

would lead to significant increases in the volume of subject imports that would undersell the domestic like

product and significantly depress or suppress U.S. prices. In addition, although demand is projected to

remain strong, the likely substantial volume and price effects of the subject imports would be sufficient to

have a significant negative impact on the production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues of the

domestic industry, despite its lack of vulnerability. This reduction in the industry’s production,

shipments, sales, market share, and revenues would adversely impact the industry’s profitability and

ability to raise capital and maintain necessary capital investments.

Indeed, as stated above, in the original investigations the Commission found that the increasing

volumes of imports that were underselling the domestic like product caused declines in the domestic

industry’s performance and material injury to the domestic industry. Based on the facts available in these

reviews, we conclude that if the order were revoked, these circumstances would recur and there would be

a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.
 376 We have described above in our discussion of our determination with respect to Japan the Commission’s

findings in the original determinations.

 377 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 378 Original Staff Report at VII-7.

 379 Original Staff Report at Table VII-4.

 380 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 381 CR/PR at Table IV-22.

 382 CR/PR at Table IV-22.

 383 In the original investigation, its exports totaled *** short tons in 1997 and declined to *** short tons in 1999. 

Original Staff Report at Table VII-4.

 384 Total exports during the period of review fell from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. They

were *** short tons in January-September 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005. CR/PR at Table IV22.

 385 CR/PR at Figure IV-2 and Table IV-31. We also note that TAMSA’s home market shipments as a share of its

total shipments declined from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2001, then fell to *** percent in 2002 before

rising to *** percent in 2003, and increased further to *** percent in 2004. CR/PR at Table IV-22.

 386 CR at IV-56, PR at IV-19.

 387 See CR/PR at Table F-1.

50

D. Revocation of the Order on Subject Imports of Large Diameter CASSLP from

Mexico Is Not Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury

Within a Reasonably Foreseeable Time

1. Likely Volume of the Subject Imports376

In the original investigation, the volume of subject imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe from

Mexico decreased over the period. The volume of shipments of subject imports decreased from *** short

tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1999.377 The sole producer in Mexico, TAMSA, participated in the

Commission’s investigation.378 TAMSA’s capacity to manufacture subject pipe decreased over the period

of investigation, as did its production. Capacity decreased from *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons

in 1999. Production decreased from *** short tons to *** short tons during the same period.379

During the period of review, there have been no subject imports from Mexico.380 TAMSA’s

capacity decreased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. It was *** short tons in

January-September 2004 and *** short tons in January-September 2005.381 Capacity utilization was ***

percent for most of the period and was never lower than approximately *** percent.382

TAMSA was export-oriented during the original investigation383 and remains so.384 However, as

TAMSA is operating at *** capacity, we do not find it likely that it will begin shipping significant

volumes of subject merchandise to the United States in the reasonably foreseeable future. In particular,

prices are higher in the EU and certain Asian markets, as well as its home market, as compared to the

United States.385 There are no outstanding antidumping duty orders in third-country markets with respect

to subject pipe from Mexico.386 Moreover, as U.S. imports of nonsubject small diameter CASSLP pipe

from Mexico have been insignificant since 2000,387 we do not find it likely that TAMSA will begin to

ship significant volumes of subject large diameter pipe to the U.S. market when it is operating at ***

capacity and is shipping substantial volumes to other lucrative markets.

We have considered whether TAMSA will likely re-direct production towards subject

merchandise if the order is revoked. The statute directs the Commission to consider the potential for

product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject
 388 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(D).

 389 See CR at IV-45 n.39, PR at IV-17 n.39.

 390 Siderca, S.A.I.C. v. United States, 350 F.Supp.2d 1223 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004), on remand 374 F. Supp.2d 1285

(Ct. Int’l Trade 2005).

 391 See CR at II-38, PR at II-26 - II-27, CR/PR at Tables II-8, II-9, II-10, IV-31.

 392 CR/PR at Tables II-8 - II-10; CR at II-41, PR at II-27; CR at IV-60, PR at IV-21 - V-22.

 393 CR/PR at Table IV-31.

 394 See, e.g., CR at IV-45 n.39, PR at IV-17 n.39; TAMSA’s Questionnaire responses to Questions II.6 - II.7.

 395 CR/PR at Figure IV-1.

 396 CR/PR at Figure IV-2.

 397 See Tr. at 39-40 (Mr. Gurley), 41 (Mr. Gurley), 164 (Mr. Clark), 236 (Mr. Allen), 246 (Mr. Reilly), 254 (Mr.

Daneo), 337-38 (Mr. Daneo).

 398 See CR/PR at Figure IV-1.

51

merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.388 TAMSA’s facilities are capable of

producing other products besides the subject CASSLP pipe.389 Thus, TAMSA could engage in product

shifting in order to increase the volume of subject CASSLP pipe exported to the U.S. market. Parties

presented arguments to the Commission on this issue based on the Court of International Trade’s opinion

in Siderca, S.A.I.C. v. United States.

390

We do not find product shifting to be likely by TAMSA. While U.S. demand has increased

during the period of review and U.S. prices for subject large diameter CASSLP pipe have increased, the

record indicates that global demand is also strong and that prices for subject large diameter CASSLP pipe

have increased in other markets as well.391 Indeed, industry participants and publications report continued

strong worldwide demand in oil and gas markets, which are the markets that drive demand for subject

large diameter CASSLP pipe.392 Further, available price data indicate that prices for subject large

diameter CASSLP pipe in Western Europe and certain Asian markets are currently higher than in the

United States.393

The strong demand in the oil and gas markets has also increased demand for other pipe and tube

products, particularly OCTG. TAMSA produces OCTG in the same facilities and uses the same

equipment and employees as does subject CASSLP pipe.394 A comparison of prices between OCTG and

subject CASSLP pipe shows that OCTG prices have uniformly exceeded those for subject CASSLP by a

substantial margin. For example, in July 2005, prices for OCTG exceeded prices for subject CASSLP

pipe by approximately $*** per ton.395 Further, OCTG prices globally currently exceed subject CASSLP

prices and, moreover, OCTG prices in Japan exceed OCTG prices in the U.S. market.396 Therefore, based

on relative prices, the record evidence does not support a finding that shifting production from OCTG to

subject large diameter CASSLP pipe would be economically rational for a foreign producer seeking to

enter the U.S. market in the reasonably foreseeable future.

The domestic industry and respondents disagreed as to whether the higher OCTG prices translate

to a more profitable product.397 However, there is no evidence on the record that indicates CASSLP pipe

production is more profitable than OCTG production. Nor is there any dispute that OCTG is a highervalued product and that OCTG prices are uniformly higher than subject CASSLP pipe prices.398

Therefore, in light of the strong global demand for large diameter CASSLP pipe, which limits the relative

attractiveness of the U.S. market, and the higher prices for non-subject products such as OCTG, the

record evidence does not support a conclusion that shifting production from non-subject products to large

diameter CASSLP pipe is economically rational for TAMSA. Therefore, we determine that TAMSA is

not likely to engage in product shifting in order to increase exports of subject large diameter CASSLP

pipe to the U.S. market.
 399 CR/PR at Table F-1.

 400 CR/PR at Table F-1.

 401 See Domestic Producers’ Prehearing Large Diameter CASSLP Pipe Brief at 23. Tenaris wholly owns or

controls the following global companies that produce, or are able to produce, large diameter CASSLP pipe: Dalmine

of Italy, Siderca of Argentina, Algoma Tubes of Canada, Tavsa of Venezuela, TAMSA of Mexico, Silcotub of

Romania, and NKK of Japan. CR/PR at IV-45 n.38.

 402 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany,

and Italy, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-362 and 731-TA-707-710 (Review), USITC Pub. 3429 (June 2001).

 403 USITC Pub. 3429 at 22.

 404 Commissioner Pearson notes that U.S. antitrust statutes are premised on the economic rationale that

consolidation of companies within an industry holds the potential for reducing competition among firms, thus

resulting in higher prices for the goods they produce. He sees no obvious reason why consolidation of formerly

independent firms under a single corporate umbrella, but operating in more than one country, should not have a

similar effect. He would expect such transnational consolidations to lead to less competition among various

exporting countries for shipments to the United States and to make it more likely that those sales would be made at

higher prices rather than lower ones.

 405 See also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and the

United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-380-382 and 731-TA-797-804, USITC Pub. 3788 at 19 n.146 (July 2000).

52

Further, we note that TAMSA is not subject to the antidumping order on small diameter CASSLP

pipe. Thus, TAMSA has had unfettered access to the U.S. market for small diameter CASSLP pipe

during the period of review. However, notwithstanding the strong demand and increasing prices for small

diameter CASSLP pipe in the U.S. market, the volume of imports from Mexico has been extremely small. 

During the period of review, U.S. imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico peaked in 2003

at only 241 short tons. In 2004, there were no imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico,399

and in the January-September 2005 period, the United States imported only one short ton of small

diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico.400 Therefore, TAMSA’s actual behavior during the period of

review supports our determination that it will not engage in product shifting in order to increase exports to

the U.S. market.

Domestic producers argue that because of the transnational affiliations of TAMSA in Mexico

with the Tenaris Group, upon revocation of the orders Tenaris will provide it with the same channels of

distribution as it would provide NKK, also a member of the group.401 In a previous review of

antidumping duty orders concerning CASSLP pipe, the Commission noted the role that transnational

affiliations may have on subject producers’ behavior.402 The Commission found that “the transnational

corporate affiliations among many of the subject country producers also enhance their ability to resume

exporting to the United States by providing a ready network for marketing, sales, and distribution.”403

While transnational affiliations among subject producers may facilitate their ability to export to the U.S.

market if they choose to do so, such affiliations do not, in and of themselves, constitute evidence that

subject producers are likely to increase exports to the U.S. market.404 Before the impact of any

transnational affiliations comes into play, subject producers must first have an economic incentive to

export to the U.S. market. As discussed above, we do not find that the economic incentives that would

induce a likely significant volume of subject imports currently exist or are likely to exist in the reasonably

foreseeable future. Therefore, the presence of transnational affiliations among subject producers does not

provide substantial evidence that the likely volume of subject imports would be significant.405

On the basis of TAMSA’s decreased capacity and high capacity utilization as evidenced in this

review, as well as the likelihood that any increased exports of subject merchandise will be shipped to

more lucrative markets in Europe and parts of Asia, we find that the likely volume of subject imports of

large diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico would not be significant if the antidumping duty order were

revoked.
 406 We have described above in our discussion of our determination with respect to Japan the Commission’s

findings in the original determinations.

 407 See Original Staff Report at Tables V-7 - V-9.

 408 There are no price comparison data available for subject product from either country for the period of review

due to their absence from the U.S. market. See CR/PR at Table I-1.

 409 CR at II-46, PR at II-33, CR/PR at Tables II-11, II-12.

 410 CR at II-46, PR at II-33, CR/PR at Tables II-11, II-12.

 411 We have described above in our discussion of our determination with respect to Japan the Commission’s

findings in the original determinations. We adopt our vulnerability analysis with respect to subject imports of large

diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan, as well as our discussion of the impact factors presented in our analysis of the

impact of subject imports from Japan.

 412 In fact, in the event of revocation, TAMSA predicted exports to the United States of *** short tons in 2006,

CR/PR at Table IV-23.

53

2. Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports406

While there was underselling in the original investigation by subject large diameter CASSLP pipe

from Mexico, there were more instances of overselling than underselling throughout the period.407 As we

have found that revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Mexico will likely not

result in significant increased volumes of subject CASSLP pipe to the United States, we do not find that

any increased volumes will result in significant adverse price effects.408

We recognize that price is an important factor in purchasing decisions,409 although other factors

are also important.410 However, in view of our finding that subject import volume is not likely to be

significant upon revocation of the antidumping duty order, in addition to the overselling in the original

investigation, we do not find that any increased volumes of subject imports from Mexico will result in

significant adverse price effects upon revocation of the order.

3. Likely Impact of the Subject Imports411

In line with our findings regarding the likely volume and price effects of subject imports from the

Mexico, we find that subject imports would not be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry’s output, sales, market share, profits, or return on investment, if the orders were

revoked. As demand is projected to remain strong, the small volume of subject imports that would be

likely upon revocation would not be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic

industry.412 Therefore, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject imports from

Mexico is not likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the U.S. large diameter

CASSLP pipe industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that revocation of the antidumping duty order on large

diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. We further conclude that

revocation of the antidumping duty order on large diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico would not be 
54

likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time.
 1

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 2

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 3

 70 Fed. Reg. 22,688 (May 2, 2005).

55

SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER SHARA L. ARANOFF

CONCERNING SMALL DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE FROM ROMANIA

On the basis of the record developed in these reviews, I determine that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on small diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe

(“CASSLP pipe”) from Romania would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury

to a domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. I join the Commission’s determinations

regarding the antidumping duty orders on small diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan,

and South Africa and on large diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Mexico. I write separately to 

explain my decision not to cumulate imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania with imports

of small diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, and South Africa and to explain my

determination that revocation of the antidumping duty order on small diameter CASSLP pipe from

Romania would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic small diameter

CASSLP pipe industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

I. CUMULATION

Section 752(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, provides that:

the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject

merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or

(c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete

with each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The

Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of the

subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are likely to have

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.1

Thus, cumulation is discretionary in five-year reviews. The Commission may exercise its discretion to

cumulate only if the reviews are initiated on the same day and the Commission determines that the subject

imports are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S. market. The

statute precludes cumulation if the Commission finds that subject imports from a country are likely to

have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.2

In these reviews, the statutory requirement for cumulation that all reviews be initiated on the

same day is satisfied as the Commission initiated all the reviews on May 2, 2005.3

 For the reasons

detailed in the Views of the Commission, I join in the Commission’s findings that subject imports of

small diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa would not

likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the antidumping duty orders were

revoked. I also join the majority’s finding that there is likely to be a reasonable overlap of competition

between the domestic like product and subject imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe, as well as among

such imports, if the orders are revoked. Nevertheless, I do not exercise my discretion to cumulate imports

of small diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania with those from the other subject countries because I find

that subject imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania would likely face different conditions

of competition in the U.S. market than the subject imports from the Czech Republic, Japan, and South

Africa if the orders were revoked.

In exercising my discretion not to cumulate imports from Romania, I have relied on the analysis
 4

 CR/PR at Table IV-9 (as revised by memorandum INV-DD-041, March 30, 2006). All subsequent citations to

the confidential report should be understood to incorporate the March 30, 2006, revisions.

 5

 CR at IV-17 n.16, PR at IV-7 n.16. The Czech industry’s reported capacity decreased over the period of review,

from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. It decreased from *** short tons during the interim 2004

period to *** short tons during the interim 2005 period. CR/PR at Table IV-3. The Czech industry’s estimated total

capacity in 2004 was approximately *** short tons, which was significantly lower than the lowest reported capacity

during the original investigation (*** short tons). CR at IV-5 & n.5, PR at IV-4 & n.5 (from calculations based on

the lone responding Czech producer’s estimation that it accounts for *** percent of Czech small diameter CASSLP

pipe production in 2004).

The South African industry’s reported capacity increased over the period of review, from *** short tons in

2000 to *** short tons in 2004. It decreased from *** short tons during the interim 2004 period to *** short tons

during the interim 2005 period. CR at Table IV-12. The South African industry’s capacity in 2004 was almost ***

the lowest reported capacity during the original investigation (*** short tons). CR at IV-24 n.22, PR at IV-8 n.22.

On a cumulated basis, in 2004 the industries of the Czech Republic and South Africa had a reported

capacity of *** short tons, or approximately *** of the reported capacity of the Romanian industry.

 6

 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 7

 CR/PR at Table IV-9. 

 8

 CR/PR at Tables IV-9–IV-10.

 9

 From 2003 to 2004, when the Romanian industry’s capacity increased by *** short tons, the Czech industry’s

and the South African industry’s capacity on a cumulated basis increased by *** short tons. From the interim 2004

period to the interim 2005 period, when the Romanian industry’s capacity decreased by *** short tons, the Czech

industry’s and the South African industry’s capacity on a cumulated basis decreased by *** short tons. CR/PR at

Tables IV-3, IV-12. 

56

provided by the majority, as well as the additional reasons discussed below, which distinguish the

conditions of competition under which Romanian imports are likely to compete in the U.S. market from

those likely to face imports from the Czech Republic and South Africa.

The reported production capacity of the Romanian small diameter CASSLP pipe industry

increased during the period of review from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004.4

 This

reported capacity in 2004 was larger than the highest reported Romanian capacity during the original

period of investigation (*** short tons in 1997). By contrast, the largest reported capacities for the Czech

industry and the South African industry during the period of review were each smaller than or almost the

same as any reported capacity during the original investigation.5

 The reported Romanian capacity in 2004

was equivalent to approximately *** percent of the U.S. small diameter CASSLP pipe market that year

(*** short tons); on a cumulated basis, the Czech and South African industries had a reported capacity in

2004 equivalent to approximately *** percent of the U.S. market.6

In addition, the largest variances in the Romanian industry’s reported capacity during the period

of review occurred between 2003 and 2004 and between the January–September 2004 (“interim 2004”)

period and the January–September 2005 (“interim 2005”) period. From 2003 to 2004, reported capacity

increased from *** short tons to *** short tons, an increase of *** short tons, or *** percent.7

 The

Romanian industry’s reported capacity declined from *** short tons during the interim 2004 period to

*** short tons during the interim 2005 period, a decrease of *** short tons, or *** percent.8

 Therefore,

over a period of 21 months, the Romanian industry’s reported capacity increased *** during the first year,

then decreased *** during the next nine months. The Czech and South African industries did not

experience this type of significant capacity swing.9

Allocations by the two largest responding Romanian small diameter CASSLP pipe producers of

their total small diameter seamless pipe annual capacity to the production of subject pipe varied during

the period of review between *** percent and *** percent, or by *** percentage points, for one company
 10 CR at IV-17–IV-18 nn.20–21, PR at IV-7 nn.20–21.

 11 Mittal Steel Roman, *** Romanian subject pipe producer, is approximately *** Silcotub. Mittal Steel

Roman’s foreign producer questionnaire response at Question II-16a; Silcotub’s foreign producer questionnaire

response at Question II-16a. Based on the relative sizes of these Romanian producers, allocations by the Romanian

industry as a whole varied by *** percentage points. Allocations by the responding Czech producer varied between

*** percent and *** percent, or by *** percentage points, and allocations by the South African producer varied

between *** percent and *** percent, or by *** percentage points. CR at IV-6 n.7, IV-24 n.22, PR at IV-5 n.7, IV-8

n.22.

 12 CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 13 The capacity utilization rate for the Czech industry increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004.

It declined from *** percent in the interim 2004 period to *** percent during the interim 2005 period. CR/PR at

Table IV-3. The capacity utilization rate for the South African industry increased from *** percent in 2001 to ***

percent in 2004. It declined from *** percent in the interim 2004 period to *** percent in the interim 2005 period. 

CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 14 CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 15 For the Czech industry, as a share of total shipments during the period of review, reported exports to the United

States were ***, while reported exports to the EU were *** percent in 2000 and *** percent in 2004 and to Asia

were *** percent in 2000 and *** percent in 2004. As a share of total shipments during the interim periods, Czech

reported exports to the EU were *** percent during the interim 2004 period and *** percent during the interim 2005

period; and to Asia were *** percent during the interim 2004 period and *** percent during the interim 2005 period. 

CR/PR at Table IV-3. Similarly, for the South African industry during the period of review, reported exports to the

United States were ***, while reported exports to the EU were *** percent in 2001 and *** percent in 2004 and to

Asia were *** percent in 2001 and *** percent in 2004, ***. As a share of total shipments during the interim

periods, South African reported exports to the EU were *** percent during the interim 2004 period and *** percent

during the interim 2005 period and to Asia were *** percent during the interim 2004 period and *** percent during

the interim 2005 period. CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 16 CR/PR at Table IV-9.

57

and between *** percent and *** percent, or by *** percentage points, for the other.10 The Czech and

South African industries’ allocations did not vary to this extent,11 indicating their lesser propensity to shift

production capacity between CASSLP pipe and other pipe products.

Capacity utilization for the Romanian small diameter CASSLP pipe industry increased from ***

percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. In comparing the interim 2004 period with the interim 2005

period, capacity utilization rose from *** percent to *** percent.12 The capacity utilization rates for the

Czech and South African industries were consistently higher during the entire period of review.13

Export data reported by the Romanian industry indicate significant redirection of shipments of

subject small diameter CASSLP pipe on a yearly basis among different regions of the world. From 2000

to 2004, as a share of total shipments, Romanian small diameter CASSLP pipe exports to the United

States were *** percent in 2000 and *** percent in 2004; and to Asia, *** percent in 2000 and ***

percent in 2004. Exports to the European Union (EU) remained fairly steady at *** percent of total

shipments in 2000 and *** percent in 2004. However, between the interim 2004 and interim 2005

periods, as a share of total shipments, Romanian subject exports to the United States declined from ***

percent to *** percent; to Asia, declined from *** percent to *** percent; and increased *** to the EU,

from *** percent to *** percent.14 Over the same time period and on a yearly basis, data for the Czech

and South African industries did not demonstrate similarly wide shifts,15 indicating that producers in these

countries have more consistent, longer-term, and more established marketing patterns.

The export orientation of the Romanian industry as a whole also increased significantly during

the period of review. As a share of total shipments, exports by the Romanian industry accounted for ***

percent in 2000, rising to *** percent in 2004. Exports as a share of total Romanian shipments also rose

from the interim 2004 period to the interim 2005 period, from *** percent to *** percent16 The Czech
 17 As a share of total shipments, reported exports by the Czech industry accounted for *** percent during 2000,

rising to *** percent in 2004. CR/PR at Table IV-3. As a share of total shipments, reported exports by the Czech

industry accounted for *** percent of total shipments in the interim 2004 period, declining to *** in the interim 2005

period. CR/PR at Table IV-3. As a share of total shipments, reported exports by the South African industry

accounted for *** percent during 2001, rising to *** percent in 2004. As a share of total shipments, reported exports

by the South African industry accounted for *** percent of total shipments in the interim 2004 period, rising to ***

in the interim 2005 period. CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 18 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 19 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883–884 (1994). 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 material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations

that were never completed.” SAA at 883. 

 20 Although 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.

 21 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 without opinion, 05-1019 (Fed.

Cir. August 3, 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-153 at 7–8 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 24, 2002)

(same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-152 at 4 n.3 & 5–6 n.6 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 20, 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, Slip Op. 02-105

at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a

certainty”); Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43–44 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 19, 2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount

58

and South African industries’ export orientation also increased over the period of review, but not as

significantly as that of the Romanian industry or to the level of the Romanian industry.17

For all these reasons, as well as the reasons detailed in the Views of the Commission on this

topic, I find significant differences in the competitive conditions applicable to the subject imports from

Romania and those with respect to the subject imports from the Czech Republic and South Africa. 

Therefore, I do not exercise my discretion to cumulate subject imports from Romania with imports from

the Czech Republic and South Africa for purposes of my determinations in these reviews.

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY BY

REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS OF SMALL DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE FROM

ROMANIA IF THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER IS REVOKED

A. Legal Standard

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke an

antidumping 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 duty

order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably

foreseeable time.”18 The SAA states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a

counter-factual 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.”19 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in

nature.20 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the sunset review

provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.21
to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 22 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 23 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.

 24 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 25 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). There have been no duty absorption findings by Commerce with respect to the order

under review. CR at I-12, PR at I-11–I-12. The statute further 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. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one

factor is necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886.

 26 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 27 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A–D).

 28 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.

59

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.”22 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.”23

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

antidumping duty 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.”24 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 the suspension agreement is

terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).25

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping orders are

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.26 In

doing so, 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.27

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping duty orders are

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

the subject imports as compared to domestic like products 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 domestic like products.28

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping order is
 29 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 30 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude

of the margin of dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute

defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the

dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19

U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887.

Commerce expedited its determination in its review of this order and found that revocation of the

antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following margins for

small diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania: Metal Business International and S.C. Petrotub (now Mittal Steel

Roman), 11.08 percent, S.C. Silcotub and Sota Communication, 15.15 percent, and all other others 13.06 percent. 

CR/PR at Table I-3.

 31 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 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.

 32 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 33 This discussion can be found in section IV.B. of the Views of the Commission.

60

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: (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.29 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.30 As instructed by the statute, I have

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

order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked.31

As the statute directs, I have considered all relevant economic factors “within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry”32 and join the

Views of the Commission regarding the conditions of competition and the business cycle relevant to my

determination.33

B. Analysis

1. Likely Volume of the Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the quantity of cumulated subject small

diameter CASSLP pipe imports from all four countries rose from 59,017 short tons in 1997 to 83,228

short tons in 1998. The share of domestic consumption supplied by cumulated subject imports increased

from 21.8 percent in 1997 to 35.8 percent in 1998. This increase in import market share came largely at

the expense of the domestic industry, whose market share declined from 67.8 percent to 54.9 percent in

the same period. In 1999, the quantity of cumulated subject imports fell to 35,683 short tons. The

domestic industry’s market share rose to 69.3 percent in 1999, but the Commission found that this was

largely a result of significant decreases in domestic prices to meet the subject import prices. The

Commission also found that cumulated subject imports declined in 1999 in part as a result of the filing of

the petitions on June 30, 1999, as reflected in the significant decline in subject imports in the fourth

quarter of 1999. Even after this decline from 1998 levels, however, the share of domestic consumption
 34 USITC Pub. 3311 at 17–18. Similarly, as noted in CR/PR at Table I-1, shipments of cumulated subject imports

rose from 58,497 short tons in 1997 to 81,121 short tons in 1998, then fell to 36,270 short tons in 1999.

 35 CR/PR at Tables I-1, F-1.

 36 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 37 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 38 During the original investigation, the Czech industry’s import market share increased from *** percent in 1997

to *** percent in 1998 and to *** percent in 1999. The South African industry’s import market share increased from

*** percent in 1997 to *** percent in 1998, then fell to *** percent in 1999. CR/PR at Table I-1.

 39 CR at II-8, PR at II-5.

 40 CR at IV-17, PR at IV-7.

 41 The Romanian industry’s reported capacity was *** short tons in 2000; *** short tons in 2001; *** short tons

in 2002; *** short tons in 2003; and *** short tons in 2004. CR/PR at Table IV-9. By comparison, reported

Romanian capacity in the original investigation ranged from *** short tons in 1999 to *** short tons in 1997. CR at

IV-17 n.16, PR at IV-7 n.16.

 42 The Romanian industry’s reported capacity was *** short tons during the 2004 interim period and *** short

tons during the 2005 interim period. CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 43 Reported capacity for Romanian small diameter seamless pipe decreased from *** short tons in 2000 to ***

short tons in 2003, similar in trend to decreases in reported capacity for the subject product. In 2004, reported

capacity for Romanian small diameter seamless pipe increased to *** short tons, or by *** percent, as compared to

the *** percent increase in reported capacity for the subject product from 2003 to 2004. From the interim 2004

period to the interim 2005 period, reported capacity for Romanian small diameter seamless pipe decreased from ***

short tons to *** short tons, or by *** percent, as compared to the *** percent decline in reported capacity for the

subject product during the interim periods. CR/PR at Table IV-11. 

61

supplied by cumulated subject imports in 1999 was 23.8 percent, which was higher than in 1997 and

which the Commission found to be significant.34

During the original investigations, the Romanian industry was the largest source among all

countries of small diameter CASSLP pipe to the U.S. market in 1997 and the second-largest source in

1998 and 1999, behind Japan.35 U.S. shipments of subject imports from Romania declined from *** short

tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1998 to *** short tons in 1999, with the decline in 1999 being due in

part to the filing of the petition, as noted above.36 The Romanian industry’s U.S. market share increased

from *** percent in 1997 to *** percent in 1998, then fell to *** percent in 1999.37 Notably, during each

year of the original period of investigation, the Romanian industry’s market share was larger than the

Czech industry’s or the South African industry’s market shares individually and, during the two full years

of the original period of investigation not affected by the pendency of the petition, was larger than the

U.S. market share of the Czech and South African industries combined.38

In the original investigation, all three Romanian small diameter CASSLP pipe producers

identified responded to the Commission’s questionnaire.39 In this review, all three Romanian producers

have responded to the questionnaire and account for all Romanian small diameter CASSLP pipe

production.40

The Romanian industry’s reported capacity declined during the first three years of the period of

review, then increased significantly in the last full year41 to a level higher than any recorded during the

original investigation or this review. Data from the 2005 interim period suggests that the Romanian

industry’s reported capacity then declined significantly in 2005 as a whole42 to a level lower than any

recorded during the original investigation or this review. The Romanian industry’s reported capacity for

all small diameter seamless pipe production displayed similar trends as reported capacity for the subject

product, but the annual capacity changes for all small diameter seamless pipe were not as pronounced as

those for the subject product.43 Notably, at the beginning of the period of review, the reported capacity

for the subject product decreased while the reported capacity for all small diameter seamless pipe
 44 Reported capacity for Romanian small diameter seamless pipe increased from *** short tons in 2000 to ***

short tons in 2001, for a total increase of *** short tons, while reported capacity for the subject product decreased

during the same time period from *** short tons to *** short tons, for a total decrease of *** short tons. CR/PR at

Tables IV-9, IV-11.

 45 Each of the two largest responding Romanian producers reported changes in their pipe production operations

during the period of review. The smaller producer, ***, reported that ***. CR at IV-17, PR at IV-7. The larger

producer, ***, reported that, ***. CR at IV-18, PR at IV-7.

I note that the ***. Mittal Steel Roman’s foreign producer questionnaire response at Question II-16a;

Silcotub’s foreign producer questionnaire response at Question II-16a. I also note that ***. CR/PR at Table IV-9. 

These data indicate that *** did not result in an overall decline in the industry’s capacity.

 46 CR at IV-17–IV-18 nn.20–21, PR at IV-7 nn.20–21.

 47 Mittal Steel Roman, *** Romanian subject pipe producer, is approximately *** Silcotub. Mittal Steel

Roman’s foreign producer questionnaire response at Question II-16a; Silcotub’s foreign producer questionnaire

response at Question II-16a. Based on the relative sizes of these Romanian producers, allocations by the Romanian

industry as a whole varied by *** percentage points. Allocations by the responding Czech producer varied between

*** percent and *** percent, or by *** percentage points, and allocations by the South African producer varied

between *** percent and *** percent, or by *** percentage points. CR at IV-6 n.7, IV-24 n.22, PR at IV-5 n.7, IV-8

n.22.

 48 CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 49 CR at II-9, PR at II-5.

 50 The capacity utilization rates for all Romanian small diameter seamless pipe were *** percent in 2000, ***

percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and *** percent in 2004. In comparing the interim 2004

period with the interim 2005 period, capacity utilization rose from *** percent to *** percent. CR/PR at Table IV11.

62

increased,44 indicating further that Romanian capacity for production of the subject product is not directly

related to overall Romanian seamless pipe production capacity.45

Allocations by the two largest responding Romanian small diameter CASSLP pipe producers of

their total small diameter seamless pipe annual capacity to the production of subject pipe varied during

the period of review between *** percent and *** percent for one company and between *** percent and

*** percent for the other.46 The Czech and South African industries’ allocations did not vary to this

extent,47 indicating their lesser propensity to shift production capacity between CASSLP pipe and other

pipe products.

The Romanian industry maintained significant excess capacity over the period of review. The

Romanian industry’s capacity utilization was *** percent in 2000, *** percent in 2001, *** percent in

2002, *** percent in 2003, and *** percent in 2004. The Romanian industry’s capacity utilization

increased from *** percent during the interim 2004 period to *** percent during the interim 2005

period.48 The staff report characterized the Romanian industry’s capacity utilization rates during the

period of review as “low.”49 I note that these rates indicate that the Romanian industry possessed a

significant amount of excess capacity, especially in comparison to the capacity utilization rates reported

by the Czech and South African industries, reflecting conditions under which Romanian producers could

increase subject pipe production and sales. The Romanian industry’s capacity utilization rates for

production of all small diameter seamless pipe were slightly lower than the comparable capacity

utilization rates for the subject product during the first three years of the period of review and slightly

higher during the last two years of the period of review. In comparing the interim 2004 period with the

interim 2005 period, the variance was even larger.50 Thus, the Romanian industry maintained capacity

that could be shifted to the production of CASSLP pipe.

Inventory levels for the Romanian producers *** over the period of review, from *** short tons

in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. They declined between the interim 2004 period and the interim 2005
 51 CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 52 CR/PR at Table IV-9. By comparison, the export orientations of the Czech Republic and South Africa were

significantly less. As a share of total shipments, exports by the Czech industry accounted for *** percent during

2000, rising to *** percent in 2004. As a share of total shipments, exports by the Czech industry accounted for ***

percent of total shipments in the interim 2004 period, declining to *** in the interim 2005 period. CR/PR at Table

IV-3. As a share of total shipments, exports by the South African industry accounted for *** percent during 2001,

rising to *** percent in 2004. As a share of total shipments, exports by the South African industry accounted for ***

percent of total shipments in the interim 2004 period, rising to *** in the interim 2005 period. CR/PR at Table IV12.

 53 My findings on the issues of capacity allocation and export market restraints are further reflected in the U.S.

import data for nonsubject large diameter CASSLP pipe, which include imports from the Czech Republic, Romania,

and South Africa. During the period of review, imports of nonsubject large diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech

Republic were *** shorts tons in 2000, *** short tons in 2001, *** short tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003, and

*** short tons in 2004; imports from South Africa were *** short tons in 2000, *** short tons in 2001, *** short

tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003, and *** short tons in 2004; and imports from Romania were *** short tons in

2000, *** short tons in 2001, *** short tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003, and *** short tons in 2004. CR/PR at

Table F-2.

During these years, imports of nonsubject large diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic varied

from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2004; from South Africa, from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short

tons in 2003; and from Romania, from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2002. At its peak, the Romanian

seamless pipe industry exported more nonsubject large diameter CASSLP pipe to the United States than the Czech

and South African industries combined. Within a two-year period from 2001 to 2003, U.S. imports of Romanian

large diameter CASSLP pipe *** from 2001 to 2002 and then declined by *** percent from 2002 to 2003. These

swings in import amounts, which were larger on an absolute basis than any increase or decrease in U.S. imports from

the Czech Republic or South Africa, contrast with U.S. imports of Romanian subject small diameter CASSLP pipe

during these years. Those imports decreased by 45 percent from 2001 to 2002 (from 16,573 short tons to 9,182 short

tons), then increased by 26 percent from 2002 to 2003 (to 11,562 short tons). CR/PR at Table I-1.

Notably, the swing in U.S. imports of Romanian CASSLP pipe from small diameter pipe to large diameter

pipe in 2002 occurred during a reduction in Romanian reported capacity for small diameter CASSLP pipe, from ***

short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2002, which would be consistent with a capacity allocation shift by the

Romanian producers from small diameter CASSLP pipe, which was under order in the United States, to large

diameter CASSLP pipe, which was not.

63

period, from *** short tons to *** short tons.51

The Romanian small diameter CASSLP pipe industry is highly export oriented. As a share of

total shipments, exports by the Romanian industry accounted for *** percent during 2000, rising to ***

percent in 2004. In comparing the interim period data, exports by the Romanian industry accounted for

*** percent in the interim 2004 period, rising to *** in the interim 2005 period.52

In sum, the record in these reviews indicates that the Romanian seamless pipe industry’s

production capacity devoted to the subject product has varied widely from year to year, as have its

production and shipments of the subject product. It has at all times had excess capacity to produce

CASSLP pipe. As discussed above, the Romanian subject pipe industry is highly export oriented, and

Romanian exports have historically been sold in multiple regions and countries, with no clear pattern to

suggest established, long-term customer relationships.53

Respondents argue that these factors should not lead the Commission to find that the volume of

subject imports is likely to be significant if the order is revoked because the two primary Romanian

producers have been placed under new management with different marketing strategies from the previous

owners and because global pricing trends have eliminated any incentive for these firms to serve the U.S.

market. For the reasons discussed below, I find these arguments unpersuasive.

The *** producer of subject pipe in Romania during the period of review has been Silcotub,
 54 Silcotub’s foreign producer questionnaire response at Question II-16a.

 55 CR at IV-17 n.18, PR at IV-7 n.18.

 56 “The interest of Romania can only strengthen demand for line pipe and non-subject pipe product they will

produce, both in our home market and in the European market. Already, our home market and the European market

represents almost two-thirds of our sales. Our home market continues to be strong and it is an important market for

all of our pipe products, including our extremely profitable OCTG products.” Hearing transcript at 254 (Mr. Daneo).

“Today, our marketing resource develop local and regional markets, I repeat it.” Hearing transcript at 255

(Mr. Daneo).

“Romania is the largest oil producing region in southeastern Europe and there are some 7,000 producing

rigs in Romania and a significant number of those rigs will require refurbishment. And that is going to require a

significant portion of domestic Romanian output.” Hearing transcript at 267 (Mr. Reilly).

“Romania is facing a big evolution, in terms of oil and gas market, because the only main player, Petrom,

Romania has been acquired by a multinational -- it is planning to revamp a lot of the present drills, in order to bring

back them to profitability. So, there is an extremely large plan of investment from Petrom in Romania to revamp

wells.” Hearing transcript at 267–268 (Mr. Daneo).

“So for the moment, {Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and the other oil-producing countries of Central Asia are} a

developing market. Our oil and gas market is the Romanian one and that's all.” Hearing transcript at 325 (Mr.

Daneo).

 57 Hearing transcript at 281 (Mr. Gurley).

 58 From the interim 2004 period to the interim 2005 period, Silcotub’s production capacity ***. Silcotub’s

foreign producer questionnaire response at Question II-16a.

 59 Mittal Steel Roman’s production capacity ***. Mittal Steel Roman’s foreign producer questionnaire response

at Question II-16a.

 60 CR/PR at Table IV-9.

64

which has also accounted for *** subject imports during the period of review.54 In 2004, Silcotub was

purchased by the Tenaris Group, a producer and trader with CASSLP pipe operations in multiple

countries, including Argentina, Canada, Italy, Japan, Mexico, and Venezuela.55 At the Commission’s

hearing, Silcotub’s representatives testified that Tenaris is refocusing Silcotub’s production toward

higher-value–added nonsubject merchandise. They also asserted that Silcotub plans to focus its future

sales in the Romanian home market and Romania’s regional markets in Europe and Central Asia, where

the oil and gas industries are likely to provide substantial and growing demand.56 Silcotub’s

representatives argue that several facts on the record in these reviews demonstrate that these marketing

and production changes have occurred, including (1) the fact that Silcotub has not taken new orders for

sales of the subject product to the United States since its change of ownership;57 (2) ***; and (3) ***.58

Similarly, respondents argue that Mittal Steel Roman, the other significant Romanian producer,

has reduced its capacity through *** and that its production has fallen in the interim 2005 period as

compared to the interim 2004 period.59

Given the Romanian industry’s historically wide, year-to-year swings in capacity, capacity

allocation among pipe products, capacity utilization, production levels, and shipments to particular

regions or countries, I do not find any shifts in Silcotub’s or Mittal Steel Roman’s capacity, allocation of

capacity among products, or allocation of shipments among markets in 2005 to be evidence of a likely

long-term trend. Despite testimony suggesting a large and growing oil and gas sector in Romania, the

record indicates that Romanian shipments of subject pipe to the Romanian home market, as a share of

total shipments, actually decreased over the period of review from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in

2004. It also decreased during the interim 2005 period as compared to the interim 2004 period, from ***

percent to *** percent.60 Moreover, Silcotub concedes that although its marketing plans call for sales to
 61 Hearing transcript at 325, 328 (testimony by Mr. Daneo that sales in the geographic direction of Kazakhstan are

“not so exciting”).

 62 CR/PR at Table IV-31.

 63 CR/PR at Table IV-31 and Figure IV-2.

 64 CR at IV-56 n.1 (in tabulation), PR at IV-19 n.1 (in tabulation).

 65 During the last quarter of 2004 alone, reported Romanian subject pipe shipments to the EU were *** short tons. 

CR/PR at Table IV-9. Also in the last quarter of 2004, reported Romanian subject pipe shipments to the United

States were *** short tons, compared with *** short tons for the first three quarters of 2004. CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 66 Mittal Steel Roman’s foreign producer questionnaire response at Question II-16a; Silcotub’s foreign producer

questionnaire response at Question II-16a.

 67 CR at I-14, PR at I-13–I-14.

 68 Representatives of the Romanian producer Silcotub stated at the hearing that the drop in Silcotub’s shipments

to the U.S. market were a “business decision” and were not the result of the increase in the duty rate. Hearing

transcript at 282 (Mr. Gurley). This testimony does not contradict my finding that Romanian producers of subject

pipe have an economic incentive to export substantial quantities of the subject product to multiple markets, so long

as no trade barriers are in place.

 69 The EU antidumping investigation on Romanian seamless pipe will end with Romania’s accession to the EU,

currently scheduled for January 1, 2007, and Romanian seamless pipe shipments will then enter the other EU

countries free of duty. However, the current economic incentives that Romanian subject pipe producers have to ship

subject product to the U.S. market will be in place until that time and beyond. If the U.S. antidumping duty order on

Romanian small diameter CASSLP pipe were revoked following this review, the Romanian pipe industry would then

have an added incentive to export subject pipe into the U.S. market unhindered by the antidumping duty order while

another primary market remains under trade restraints for at least six months, assuming Romania’s accession takes

place as anticipated and is not delayed. As an example of Romanian producers’ behavior under these conditions, as

detailed above, when the EU removed its antidumping duty order on Romanian seamless pipe in 2004 and therefore

became a market without trade restraints or the possibility of trade restraints for approximately eight months,

65

oil- and gas-producing countries in Central Asia, sales to these markets remain speculative.61

Similarly, I find that the record does not support respondents’ argument that higher prices in

western Europe and Japan62 are likely to eliminate any incentive for Romanian producers to serve the U.S.

market in the future. First, although prices for CASSLP pipe have recently been higher in western Europe

and parts of Asia, the price differences between U.S. and western European markets narrowed *** during

2005.63 Although the record is clear that demand and pricing for CASSLP pipe are and are likely to

remain robust for some time to come, I find no evidence to suggest European or Asian prices are likely to

stay above U.S. prices for the reasonably foreseeable future.

In July 2004, the EU terminated an antidumping duty order on Romanian seamless pipe exports. 

A new EU antidumping investigation on Romanian seamless pipe exports began in March 2005.64 The

time period between these actions corresponds closely to the dramatic increase in Romanian small

diameter CASSLP pipe exports to the EU and a significant decrease in Romanian subject pipe exports to

the United States.65 A corresponding explanation for the significant decrease in Romanian exports to the

United States relates to the publication by Commerce of the results of an administrative review of this

order on July 18, 2005, in which the duty rate for *** responding Romanian producers66 was raised from

1.35 percent to 15.15 percent, on par with the All Others rate of 13.06 percent.67 In other words, the shift

in Romanian exports from the United States to the EU in late 2004 and in 2005 appears largely unrelated

to relative prices or long-term corporate marketing strategies.68

In sum, the record makes clear that Romanian producers of small diameter CASSLP pipe have

ample capacity and economic incentive to export substantial quantities of the subject product to multiple

markets and regions, so long as no trade barriers are in place. In addition to the ongoing EU

investigation69 on seamless pipe from Romania, Brazil and Mexico have antidumping duty orders in place
Romanian exports to the EU increased dramatically in one three-month period alone (*** short tons). CR/PR at

Table IV-9.

 70 CR at IV-56, PR at IV-19.

 71 Romanian producers argue that, because Romanian producers are not included on the approved manufacturers’

lists (AMLs) maintained by small diameter CASSLP pipe purchasers, there is less demand for their product in the

U.S. market, compared with subject producers, especially those in Japan, who are on the AMLs. Hearing transcript

at 327 (Mr. Daneo). As noted in the Views of the Commission, a substantial minority of purchasers believe that

AMLs are important, and respondent interested parties reported that the importance of AMLs has grown in the last

few years. CR at II-19–II-20, PR at II-13. As stated in the original determinations, AMLs are widely used,

particularly in the energy business, and product not on a purchaser’s AML may face some limitations in ability to

compete for sales. USITC Pub. 3311 at 15. Nevertheless, also as stated in the original determinations, a large

number of purchasers do not use AMLs, and some purchasers may “deviate from those AMLs for certain

purchases.” Id. At the hearing, distributors reported that 10–90 percent of their sales required that the producer be

on an AML. CR at II-19, PR at II-13. Domestic producers estimated that AML sales accounted for 30 percent or

less of their small diameter CASSLP pipe sales. See, e.g., hearing transcript at 133–134 (Messrs. Shoaff, Leland &

Ramsey). Testimony at the hearing indicated that the share of sales requiring an AML has declined. Hearing

transcript at 132–133 (Mr. Leland).

In light of the Romanian producers’ continued and constant presence in the U.S. market for small diameter

CASSLP pipe during the original period of investigation and this period of review, when AMLs were in place and a

factor in the U.S. market, I find that, although AMLs may restrict some portion of U.S. sales for which the Romanian

subject product would otherwise be suitable, that restriction is not such that it would prevent the likely volume of

imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania from being significant in the reasonably foreseeable future if

the antidumping duty order were revoked.

 72 USITC Pub. 3311 at 18–19.

 73 CR/PR at Tables V-2–V-4.

66

against Romanian exports of small diameter seamless pipe and small diameter seamless line pipe,

respectively,70 further encouraging Romanian exports of these products to markets in which no orders

restrain their trade.71

Overall, I find, based on evidence on the record, that producers in Romania will ship significant

volumes of small diameter CASSLP pipe into the U.S. market if the antidumping duty order is revoked. 

Accordingly, I find that the likely volume of imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania into

the United States would be significant in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty order

were revoked.

2. Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Commission found that prices for domestically produced small

diameter CASSLP pipe declined ***. Although the domestic producers’ prices were stable in 1997 and

1998, those prices declined *** in 1999. The Commission found that cumulated subject import prices

also declined in 1999 and that there was significant underselling by such imports. The Commission found

that the decline in demand did have an effect on prices, but did not fully explain the price declines

evidenced in the record. Given the dramatic decline in price levels, along with pervasive and significant

underselling and the substitutability of subject imports with the domestic like product, the Commission

found that the cumulated subject imports depressed domestic prices to a significant degree.72

In the current review, the Commission received pricing information on U.S. and Romanian small

diameter CASSLP pipe for each of the three pricing products requested and in each year during the period

of review, except for 2005 for two of the pricing products, when no sales were reported.73 Romanian

prices were lower than U.S. prices for each product in every quarter during the period of review for which

data were reported (34 out of 34 quarters), with average yearly margins of underselling of 28.2–37.7
 74 CR at V-7, PR at V-6. See CR/PR at Table V-6.

 75 The quarterly volumes of reported imports for all three products for which pricing information was gathered

ranged from *** short tons to *** short tons. CR/PR at Tables V-2–V-4.

 76 CR at V-7, PR at V-6.

 77 CR/PR at Table III-6.

 78 In the original investigations, information on the three products for which pricing data were gathered reflected

similar pervasiveness and margins of Romanian underselling as in the current reviews. From 1997 to 1999, for the

quarters in which data were collected, Romanian small diameter pipe products undersold the U.S. product in ***

quarters at margins ranging from *** percent to *** percent. Original staff report at Tables V-1, V-3, and V-5.

 79 A representative for Romanian subject producer Silcotub presented testimony regarding the change in business

orientation for the Romanian pipe producers, stating that, now under private ownership, the Romanian producers are

more profit oriented than in the past. Hearing transcript at 255 (Mr. Daneo).

However, I note that private ownership and profit orientation are not circumstances mutually exclusive of

the occurrence of underselling. As such, the non–state-owned status of the two largest Romanian producers may not

be evidence that suggests that such underselling, as discussed above, would not continue if the antidumping duty

order is revoked.

The average unit values (AUVs) of Romanian subject exports to the U.S. market were $*** in 2000, $***

in 2001, $*** in 2002, $*** in 2003, and $*** in 2004. These AUVs were $*** during the interim 2004 period and

$*** during the interim 2005 period. In comparison, the AUVs of Romanian subject exports to markets in Asia

were $*** in 2000, $*** in 2001, $*** in 2002, $*** in 2003, and $*** in 2004. These AUVs were $*** during

the interim 2004 period, and $*** during the interim 2005 period. CR/PR at Table IV-9. Although AUV data

should be used with caution when there are potential differences in product mix, given the lack of price data for

specific products in the U.S. market compared to prices in alternate markets, I rely on AUV data to the extent that it

is the best information available.

I note that the reported AUV data of Romanian exports to the U.S. market in comparison to the reported

AUV of Romanian exports to markets in Asia, where Romanian seamless pipe exports are not currently restricted by

antidumping duty orders, indicates that the AUVs of exports to the U.S. market *** AUVs of exports to Asian

markets in ***, indicating that Romanian producers can profit from sales at prices that undersell the U.S. market

price and that such underselling would likely be significant.

67

percent.74

Information on the three products for which pricing data were gathered reflects fairly small

volumes during each reported quarter,75 which may limit the information’s use in predicting the likely

price effects of Romanian imports on prices of the domestic product if the antidumping order were

revoked. U.S. producer prices increased by *** to *** percent during the period for which data were

collected, while prices for the Romanian subject product increased between *** and *** percent from

2000 to 2004.76 The unit cost of goods sold (COGS) as a percentage of net sales decreased over the

period of review, from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004; it decreased from *** percent during

the interim 2004 period to *** percent during the interim 2005 period,77 indicating that U.S. producers

were able to raise prices more rapidly than the rise in unit costs. This information indicates that

Romanian imports, which have been underselling domestic merchandise during the period of review, are

not currently having price depressing or suppressing effects.

However, improvements in the condition of the U.S. industry are to be expected following the

imposition of an antidumping order, such that a decreasing COGS to net sales ratio can be evidence of the

effectiveness of the discipline imposed by an order. Notwithstanding the discipline imposed by the order

on Romanian imports in this case, those imports continued to undersell the U.S. product by significant

margins.78 There is no evidence to suggest that such underselling would not continue in the event of

revocation of the antidumping duty order.79

As discussed above, I find that the likely volume of subject imports from Romania will be

significant in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty order is revoked. At these likely
 80 Capacity increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. It was *** short tons and *** short

tons during the interim 2004 and interim 2005 periods, respectively. CR/PR at Table III-1.

 81 Production increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. It was *** short tons and *** short

tons during the interim 2004 and interim 2005 periods, respectively. CR/PR at Table III-1.

 82 Capacity utilization decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. It was *** percent and ***

percent during the interim 2004 and interim 2005 periods, respectively. CR/PR at Table III-1. U.S. Steel, which

reported an increase in capacity of *** percent from 2000 to 2004, reported that its reported capacity utilization

figures are relatively low because it used only one production shift at its CASSLP pipe facility in Lorain out of a

possible three production shifts during the period of review. Domestic Producers’ Small Diameter Posthearing Brief

at 39; Hearing transcript at 108 (Mr. Broglie). I note that there is no indication that U.S. Steel operated more than

one shift at its Lorain facility throughout the period of review.

 83 U.S. shipments increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. They were *** short tons and

*** short tons during the interim 2004 and interim 2005 periods, respectively. CR/PR at Table III-3.

 84 Inventories fell from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. They were *** short tons and *** short

tons during the interim 2004 and interim 2005 periods, respectively. CR/PR at Table III-4.

 85 Net sales increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. They were *** short tons and ***

short tons during the interim 2004 and interim 2005 periods, respectively. CR/PR at Table III-6.

 86 U.S. producers’ market share fell from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. It was *** percent and ***

percent during the interim 2004 and interim 2005 periods, respectively. CR/PR at Table I-11.

 87 Nonsubject import market share rose from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. It was *** percent and

*** percent during the interim 2004 and interim 2005 periods, respectively. CR/PR at Table I-11.

 88 Domestic producers’ market share was *** percent during the interim 2005 period, as compared with ***

percent during the interim 2004 period. CR/PR at Table I-11.

 89 The number of production and related workers decreased from *** in 2000 to *** in 2004. It was *** and ***

during the interim 2004 and interim 2005 periods, respectively. CR/PR at Table III-5.

 90 Hours worked declined from *** in 2000 to *** in 2004. They were *** and *** during the interim 2004 and

interim 2005 periods, respectively. CR/PR at Table III-5.

68

volumes and likely levels of underselling, the subject imports from Romania would be likely to have

significant depressing or suppressing effects on the prices of the domestic like product in the reasonably

foreseeable future if the antidumping duty order were revoked.

3. Likely Impact of the Subject Imports

I join the Views of the Commission regarding the discussion of the domestic industry’s lack of

vulnerability.

In these reviews, domestic producers’ small diameter CASSLP pipe capacity significantly

increased over the period of review.80 Production followed the same trend.81 However, capacity

utilization decreased over the period, albeit only slightly.82

U.S. shipments increased over the period of review83 and inventories declined.84 Net sales

increased over the period.85 U.S. producers’ market share decreased from 2000 to 2004,86 as nonsubject

imports gained market share.87 However, domestic producers’ market share increased during the interim

2005 period, as compared with the interim 2004 period.88

The number of production and related workers fell over the period,89 as did their hours worked.90
 91 Wages paid increased from $*** in 2000 to $*** in 2004. They were $*** and $*** during the interim 2004

and interim 2005 periods, respectively. CR/PR at Table III-5.

 92 Productivity increased from *** short tons per 1,000 hours in 2000 to *** in 2004. It was *** and *** during

the interim 2004 and interim 2005 periods, respectively. CR/PR at Table III-5.

 93 Capital expenditures fell from $*** in 2000 to $*** in 2004. They were $*** and $*** during the interim

2004 and interim 2005 periods, respectively. *** reported capital expenditures. The majority were for carbon

seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (“SSLP pipe”), while there were minimal expenditures for alloy SSLP

pipe. CR/PR at Table III-10 & n.1.

 94 Research and development expenses decreased from $*** in 2000 to $*** in 2004. They were $*** and $***

during the interim 2004 and interim 2005 periods, respectively. *** reported research and development expenses,

which were primarily for carbon SSLP pipe, with minimal expenses for alloy SSLP pipe. CR/PR at Table III-10 &

n.2.

69

However, wages paid increased,91 as did productivity.92 Both capital expenditures93 and research and

development expenses declined.94

I concluded above that revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to Romania likely

would lead to significant volumes of subject imports that would undersell the domestic like product and

significantly depress or suppress U.S. prices. In addition, although demand is projected to remain strong,

the likely substantial volume and price effects of the subject imports from Romania would be sufficient to

have a significant negative impact on the production, shipments, sales, market share, employment, and

revenues of the domestic industry, despite its lack of vulnerability. This reduction in the industry’s

production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues would adversely affect the industry’s

profitability and ability to raise capital and maintain necessary capital investments.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

small diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

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

 1

 Confidential Staff Report (“CR”)/Public Staff Report (“PR”) at Table II-5. All citations to the staff report in

these views refer to memorandum INV-DD-036 (Mar. 28, 2006) as revised by memorandum INV-DD-041 (Mar. 30,

2006).

71

VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN STEPHEN KOPLAN AND COMMISSIONER CHARLOTTE R. LANE

Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on small diameter

carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (“CASSLP pipe”) from the Czech Republic,

Japan, Romania, and South Africa would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury

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

We also determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on large diameter CASSLP

pipe from Mexico and Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

injury in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. We join parts I, II, III.A.-B. and V.A.-B.

of the views of the majority. We write separately to explain our findings with regard to the likelihood of

an overlap of competition, discretionary factors in cumulation, and the likelihood of the continuation or

recurrence of material injury given our determinations on cumulation. 

III. CUMULATION OF SUBJECT IMPORTS OF SMALL DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

FROM THE CZECH REPUBLIC, JAPAN, ROMANIA, AND SOUTH AFRICA

C. Likely Overlap of Competition

The Commission generally has considered four factors in determining whether the imports

compete with each other and with the domestic like product: (1) fungibility; (2) sales or offers in the

same geographic markets; (3) common or similar channels of distribution; and (4) simultaneous presence

in the market. Based on these factors, we find a likely reasonable overlap of competition among the

subject imports and between the subject imports and the domestic like product if the orders were to be

revoked. 

Fungibility. In the original determinations, the Commission considered these same four factors

and determined that imports from each subject country generally competed with each other and with the

domestic like product. In the current reviews, a majority of responding producers and purchasers

characterized small diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa

as always or frequently interchangeable, in comparisons between products from different subject

countries, and in comparisons between subject imports and the domestic like product.1

The bulk of small diameter CASSLP pipe is produced to specifications established by qualifying

organizations such as the ASTM, ASME, and API, and is consequently viewed as largely interchangeable

as long as the product meets the appropriate specification (generally referred to as a stencil). However,

some end users require additional qualifications and will only purchase small diameter CASSLP pipe

from producers on approved manufacturers’ lists (AMLs). In the original investigations, it was argued

that substitutability between domestic small diameter CASSLP pipe and imports from the Czech

Republic, Romania, and South Africa was limited because these producers were not on the AMLs

required by some domestic producers. The Commission pointed out that while product not on an AML

may face some limitation in the ability to compete for some sales, a large number of purchasers did not

require AMLs, and furthermore, that purchasers with AMLs may not require them for all purchases. 

Consequently, the Commission did not view the requirement of AMLs by some purchasers as preventing
 2

 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa, Inv. Nos.

731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC Pub 3311(June 2000), at 20; see also Certain Seamless Carbon and Ally Steel

Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Mexico, and Romania, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-846, 848 and

849(Final), USITC Pub. 3325 (Aug. 2000).

 3

 Tr. 133 Mr. Leland of U.S. Steel (attributed to Mr. Shoaf of Sooner Pipe), and Mr. Ramsey of Koppel Steel. 

 4

 Tr. 132-132, Mr. Leland. 

 5

 Tr. 130, Mr. Durham. 

 6

 USITC Pub. 3311 at 21.

 7

 In the original investigations, *** percent of U.S. shipments by domestic producers, *** percent of U.S. imports

from ***, and *** percent of imports from Japan were sold to distributors. CR/PR at II-1. 

 8

 USITC Pub. 3311 at 16.

 9

 CR at IV-5, PR at IV-4; CR/PR at Table I-1.

72

a reasonable overlap of competition between these subject products and the domestic product.2

 In the

current reviews, testimony from three pipe distributors on the share of sales requiring AMLs was mixed.

For the three distributors that testified at the hearing, the share of sales that require being on an AML

were; 15-20 percent, 50 percent, and 85-90 percent. According to testimony presented at the hearing, 30

percent or less of the sales of subject pipe requires being on an AML.3

 The share of sales requiring an

AML has reportedly declined.4

 Further, while AML requirements may somewhat limit substitutability

between the domestic like product and some pipe produced in the subject countries, taken as a whole, the

subject countries compete in all segments of the U.S. market.5

Geographic Overlap. In these reviews an analysis of the overlap in geographic markets has been

limited by the low volume of current imports, but there is nothing in the record to indicate that subject

imports would not again be marketed so as to compete with the domestic product. Additionally, in these

current reviews, many subject foreign producers of the subject product have been purchased in whole or

in part by global firms with production and distribution ties that would be expected to facilitate

distribution of subject product. NKK Tubes Corp. (the only responding small diameter CASSLP pipe

producer in Japan) is a joint venture between Tenaris, S.A. and JFE Engineering Corp. Silcotub, a

Romanian producer, was affiliated with U.S. importer Duferco Steel until 2004, when it became an

affiliate of the Tenaris Group. Mittal Steel Ostrava, a.s. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mittal Steel Co

N.V. of Rotterdam the Netherlands, as are responding producers Mittal Romania and Mittal Steel South

Africa. 

Channels of Distribution. In the original investigations, the Commission noted that the vast

majority of shipments of small diameter CASSLP pipe by both domestic producers and importers was to

distributors.6

 In the current reviews, domestic producers reported that *** percent of sales were to

distributors in 2004. Responding importers of small diameter CASSLP pipe typically sell only to

distributors.7

Simultaneous Presence in the Market. In the original investigations, subject imports from Japan

occurred in every month during the period of investigation; subject imports from the Czech Republic

occurred in 31 of the 36 months of the period; subject imports from Romania occurred in 30 of the 36

months; and subject imports from South Africa occurred in 28 of the 36 months.8

In these reviews, subject imports from Japan and Romania were present throughout the period of

review, as were subject imports from the Czech Republic, albeit sporadically and in very modest

quantities in some years. Subject imports from South Africa were only present in 2000.9

 We note that

the relevant inquiry before the Commission is whether subject imports from the subject countries are

likely to compete against each other in the U.S. market if the orders are revoked, not whether imports

from the subject countries are currently in the U.S. market.
 10 Mittal Prehearing Brief at 37-38. 

 11 INV-X-114 (May 25, 2000) (“Original Staff Report”) at Table VII-1.

 12 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 13 From data presented by both domestic producers and Mittal, prices for API 5L B line pipe serve as the best

proxy for prices of the subject seamless pipe. According to these confidential data, prices in the European Union,

Japan, and the United States are currently higher than prices in China, India, Eastern Europe and Ukraine. CR/PR at

Table IV-31.

 14 CR/PR at Table IV-3. Although the Commission uses AUV with caution when there are potential differences in

product mix, given the lack of price data for specific products in the U.S. market compared to prices in alternate

markets, AUV data were relied on as the best evidence available. 

 15 CR/PR at Table III-3. 

73

In its initial determinations, the Commission found that there was a reasonable overlap in

competition among imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania,

and South Africa, and between subject imports and the domestic like product. There is no information on

the record to indicate that the range of products produced in the subject countries has narrowed over the

period of review. Nothing in the record suggests that, if the orders are revoked, subject imports from any

of the subject countries would be so limited in product range, geographic presence, or simultaneous

presence in the market as to prevent a reasonable overlap of competition among subject imports or

between subject imports and the domestic like product. 

D. Other Considerations

In determining whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from subject

countries, we assess whether the subject imports from each country are likely to compete under similar or

different conditions of competition in the U.S. market. 

In these reviews, Mittal has pointed to several considerations that it maintains support a

conclusion that subject imports from various subject countries will likely compete under different

conditions of competition. It first asserts that because subject imports from the Czech Republic and

South Africa have been negligible or non-existent over the period of review despite increased U.S.

demand and price increases, that producers in these countries are fully committed to producing small

diameter CASSLP pipe for other markets. It asserts that the Czech Republic’s accession to the European

Union in 2004, allowing unfettered access to the EU market, also would limit exports from the Czech

Republic in the event of revocation.10 

Mittal Ostrava (accounting for an estimated *** percent of subject production in the Czech

Republic) reported *** other products manufactured on the same equipment in interim 2005. Data from

the original investigation show that producers in the Czech Republic have the ability to rapidly shift

between alternate markets in response to relative price changes. In the original period of investigation,

reported exports to the United States declined from *** tons in 1998 to *** tons in 1999 while shipments

to alternate export markets increased from *** tons in 1998 to *** tons in 1999.11 Over the current

period of review, reported Czech exports to the European Union have generally increased from ***

percent of total shipments in 2000 to *** percent in 2004, before declining slightly in the interim period. 

However, export shipments to “all other markets” outside of the United States, the European Union and

Asia have also increased, from *** percent of shipments in 2000 to *** percent in 2004, and from ***

percent in interim 2004 to *** percent in interim 2005.12 13 The reported average unit values (AUVs) of

these shipments have been below those for exports to the European Union and below those for shipments

to the Czech home market in each comparison since 2003,14 and below those for domestic producers’

sales in the U.S. market.15 The volume of such shipments to “all other markets” in 2004 and in interim

2005 exceeded the highest annual volume of U.S. small diameter CASSLP imports from the Czech
 16 Compare CR/PR at Table IV-4 to Table I-1. 

 17 CR/PR at Table IV-3 and Table IV-5. 

 18 Original Staff Report at Table VII-6. 

 19 Compare CR./PR at Table IV-12 to Table I-1. 

 20 Mittal Prehearing Brief at 38. 

 21 Mittal Prehearing Brief at 38. 

74

Republic in the original period of investigation.16 It is likely that the shift from the U.S. market to

alternate export markets was the result of the imposition of 39.93 percent antidumping duties on exports

to the United States by Mittal Ostrava (formerly Nova Hut, A.S.), and that these shipments would be

rapidly shifted back to the U.S. market in the event the orders are revoked. Also, although Mittal Ostrava

is currently operating at relatively high capacity utilization of *** other pipe produced on the same

equipment, there is some ability to increase production still further.17 

Data from the original investigation shows that Mittal South Africa has the ability to shift

between alternate markets and vary production levels in response to price changes. In the original

investigation, Mittal South Africa operated at *** percent capacity utilization in 1998 and exported ***

tons to the United States, and *** tons to other export markets. In 1999, Mittal South Africa exported

only *** tons to the United States, *** tons to other export markets, and its capacity utilization dropped

to *** percent.18 Mittal South Africa did not provide data for 2000, but over the period of review, the

South African home market accounted for *** in each year and in the interim period as well. Home

market shipments reached a high of *** percent of shipments in 2002 and have generally declined as a

share of shipments, to a low of *** percent of shipments in interim 2005. Export shipments to the

European Union accounted for a declining share of all shipments; declining from *** percent of

shipments in 2001 to *** percent in 2004, and *** percent of shipments in interim 2005, compared to ***

percent in interim 2004. Shipments to Asia have increased over the period of review, from *** percent of

shipments in 2001 to *** percent of shipments in 2004, and *** percent of shipments in interim 2005

compared to *** percent in interim 2004. The volume of such shipments to Asia in 2004 and in interim

2005 *** from South Africa over the original period of review.19 The AUVs of Mittal South Africa’s

export shipments throughout the period of review have been below the reported AUVs for domestic

producers’ sales in the U.S. market, and below those reported for sales in the South African home market. 

It is likely that the shift from the U.S. market to alternate export markets was the result of the imposition

of 43.51 percent antidumping duties on exports by Mittal South Africa (formerly Iscor, Ltd.) to the

United States, and that these shipments would be rapidly shifted back to the U.S. market in the event the

orders are revoked. Further, although Mittal South Africa reported capacity utilization of *** other

products manufactured on the same equipment in interim 2005, it retains some ability to increase

production of subject pipe still further. 

Next, Mittal argues that shipments of CASSLP pipe from Romania to the United States “are

expected to remain well below” the peak volume during the original period of investigation, “as they have

for the past five years.”20 Mittal advances a series of arguments in support of this statement including: 

Silcotub’s reported ***. Mittal claims that “The price of Romanian small diameter CASSLP pipe has

increased in tandem with the price increases that U.S. producers have enjoyed.” Mittal claims that

capacity has declined and capacity utilization increased in Romania. Mittal asserts that producers in

Romania have a viable Romanian home market and “very healthy export markets.” Mittal asserts that

Romania will be joining the EU in 2007 and that consequently any restraint on Romanian exports of

CASSLP pipe to the EU will be removed. Mittal also cites the privatization of major producers Mittal

Roman and Silcotub, causing these producers to operate to reduce costs and maximize profits as

supporting a decision not to cumulate exports from Romania with those from the other subject countries.21
 22 Compare confidential data from Mittal’s Posthearing Brief exhibit 1, tab O with that at CR/PR at Table IV-9. 

 23 Compare CR/PR at Table IV-9 with Table III-3. 

 24 CR/PR at Table IV-9. 

 25 CR at IV-17. 

 26 CR at IV-17-IV-18, n. 20. Also see CR/PR at Table IV-11. 

 27 Mittal Posthearing Brief exhibit 1, tab L. 

 28 Mittal Posthearing Brief exhibit 1, Tab O, converted from metric tonne to short ton. These are the most

contemporaneous price data available to the Commission. 

 29 CR/PR at Table III-3. 

75

First, imports over the period of review have been subject to the restraint of the orders. Evidence

of shipment volumes during the period of review are of limited utility. In assessing the likelihood that

shipments of CASSLP pipe from Romania to the U.S. market would significantly increase if the orders

were revoked, we have considered the arguments raised by Mittal and find that we have limited

information to assess the profitability of Silcotub’s ***.22 

Although prices for CASSLP pipe produced in Romania have increased over the period of

review, they remain *** below prices prevailing in the U.S. market. In the interim period, the AUVs of

Romanian producers’ shipments to their primary export markets were less than *** percent of the AUVs

of U.S. domestic producers’ U.S. shipments in the same period. The notable exception was the AUVs for

the *** exports from Romania to the United States in the interim period while subject to the restraint of

the orders. The AUVs of these shipments was *** percent of the AUVs of U.S. domestic producers’ U.S.

shipments in the same period.23 

Capacity to produce small diameter CASSLP pipe in Romania increased between 2000 and 2004,

and declined *** between interim 2004 and interim 2005.24 Although some of the decline is apparently

due to the closure of some production facilities,25 the majority of the decline in capacity is due to shifts in

allocating existing capacity.26 We lack sufficient data to determine the likelihood that some or all of this

capacity would be shifted back to the subject product if the orders were revoked. Producers in Romania

reported operating at only *** percent capacity utilization for subject pipe and *** percent capacity

utilization for other products manufactured on the same equipment in interim 2005. This indicates some

ability to shift unused capacity currently allocated to other products, to subject pipe without decreasing

production of nonsubject products. 

Shipments to the Romanian home market have declined over the period of review. Total exports

increased between 2000 and 2004, before declining in interim 2005 compared to interim 2004. Export

shipments to Asia by producers in Romania have generally increased over the period of review. Such

exports increased from *** percent of all shipments in 2000 to *** percent of all shipments in 2004, but

fell from *** percent of shipments in interim 2004 to *** percent of shipments in interim 2005. In

interim 2005, the only market segment that experienced an increase in the volume of shipments over

interim 2004 was export shipments to the EU. In July 2004, the EU removed ‘price undertakings’ and

antidumping duties ranging from 9.8 percent to 38.2 percent on imports of seamless pipe and tube from

Romania.27 Exports of subject pipe from Romania to the EU increased from *** tons in the first 9 months

of 2004 to *** tons in the first 9 months of 2005. In 2005, the AUV of these exports was $*** per ton; in

comparison, the reported average price for API 5L B line pipe in the EU in October 2005 was $*** per

ton.28 The reported AUV for domestic producers’ U.S. shipments in interim 2005 was $*** per ton.29 It

appears that exports to the EU surged in response to the removal of antidumping duties and other

restrictions. This surge in response to the removal of duties illustrates the ability on the part of producers

in Romania to respond to changes in relative prices, and their willingness to increase exports at prices

below both prices in the Romanian home market and prevailing prices in the U.S. market. 
 30 Although the share of shipments from the Czech Republic to export markets outside of the EU increased

between interim 2004 and interim 2005, despite the fact that the Czech Republic joined the EU in 2004. CR/PR at

Table IV-3.

 31 See European Commission, Romania: 2005 Comprehensive Monitoring Report, COM (2005) 534 final

(October 2005), cited in domestic producers’ Posthearing Brief exhibit 1, page 6. 

 32 EC 2005/C77/02 attached as exhibit 9 to domestic producers’ Posthearing Brief. 

 33 See, e.g., Mittal’s Posthearing Brief, Response to Commission Questions at 2-6. 

 34 USITC Pub. 3311 at 15. 

 35 Tr. at 133-134, Mr. Leland. 

 36 Tr. at 70-71, Mr. Durham and at 310, Mr. Daneo. 

 37 CR at II-19. 

76

If Romania’s accession to the EU does take place in January 2007, shipments to the EU might be

expected to continue in large volumes.30 On the other hand, if Romania does not qualify to join the EU as

scheduled, the increase in shipments to the EU at the expense of alternate export markets might be

expected to be reversed. The accession of Romania to the EU in January 2007 is by no means certain.31

The EU has reportedly initiated another antidumping investigation of seamless pipe and tube from

Romania.32 Even if Romania eventually gains entry into the EU, until that time, particularly if the current

orders under review were to be revoked while an antidumping investigation is underway in the EU (or if

the EU investigation concludes with an affirmative result), we find that it is likely that producers in

Romania would shift a significant volume of exports from the EU to the U.S. market. 

Mittal argues that the privatization of Mittal Roman and Silcotub militates against cumulating

Romania with other subject countries. While privatization does impose restraints on the behavior of these

producers, there are rational economic reasons for a subject firm to resume dumping. Producers of small

diameter CASSLP pipe in the other subject countries are also not state-owned. This change puts

producers in Romania on the same footing as these other subject producers and thus does not provide a

basis for us to decline to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject product from Romania with that from

the other subject countries. 

Japan was the largest source of subject imports in 1998 and 1999 during the original period of

review, but imports from Japan have been minimal since 2000. In these reviews, the Commission

received data from only one subject producer of small diameter CASSLP pipe in Japan, NKK, accounting

for approximately *** percent of subject production in Japan. It has been argued by those in opposition

to continuation of the antidumping duty orders that subject product from Japan should not be cumulated

with that from the other subject countries because CASSLP pipe produced in Japan is more widely

accepted than other subject imports, as producers in Japan are on many of the approved manufacturers’

lists (AMLs) of major end users.33 However, the Commission considered this argument in the original

investigations and concluded that it did not preclude finding a reasonable overlap in competition among

subject imports.34 In the current reviews, the Commission heard testimony that the importance of AMLs

has declined over the period of review.35 The Commission also heard testimony that because producers in

the other subject countries were now affiliated with large global producers Tenaris (Silcotub) and Mittal

(Mittal Ostrava, Mittal Roman, and Mittal South Africa), that subject imports from these producers are

now more widely accepted, and therefore compete more closely with both domestic product and imports

from Japan than during the original investigation.36 If the orders are revoked, it is likely that imports from

Japan would compete with U.S. domestic producers and imports from the other subject countries for the

roughly 70 percent of CASSLP pipe that is not subject to AMLs, and with domestic producers for the

remaining 30 percent.37 

In sum, we find that there would be a reasonable overlap of competition among subject imports

from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa, and between subject imports and the
 38 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 39 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). 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 material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never

completed.” SAA at 883. 

 40 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.

 41 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 without opinion, 05-1019 (Fed.

Cir. August 3, 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-153 at 7-8 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 24, 2002)

(same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-152 at 4 n.3 & 5-6 n.6 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 20, 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, Slip Op. 02-105

at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a

certainty”); Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 19, 2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount

to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 42 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No.

AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in this review and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses this issue. 

 43 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

77

domestic like product if the orders were to be revoked. Accordingly, we have exercised our discretion to

cumulate the subject imports from subject imports from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South

Africa for purposes of our injury analysis. 

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS ARE REVOKED

A. Legal Standard

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

countervailing or antidumping 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 duty order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury

within a reasonably foreseeable time.”38 The SAA states that “under the likelihood standard, the

Commission will engage in a counter-factual 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.”39 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.40 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that

“likely,” as used in the sunset review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission

applies that standard in five-year reviews.41 42

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.”43 According to
 44 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.

 45 In analyzing what constitutes a reasonably foreseeable time, Chairman Koplan examines all the current and

likely conditions of competition in the relevant industry. He defines “reasonably foreseeable time” as the length of

time it is likely to take for the market to adjust to a revocation or termination. In making this assessment, he

considers all factors that may accelerate or delay the market adjustment process including any lags in response by

foreign producers, importers, consumers, domestic producers, or others due to: lead times; methods of contracting;

the need to establish channels of distribution; product differentiation; and any other factors that may only manifest

themselves in the longer term. In other words, this analysis seeks to define “reasonably foreseeable time” by

reference to current and likely conditions of competition, but also seeks to avoid unwarranted speculation that may

occur in predicting events into the more distant future.

 46 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 47 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). There have been no duty absorption findings by Commerce with respect to the orders

under review. CR at I-13 - I-14, PR at I-10 - I-12. The statute further 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. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one

factor is necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886.

 48 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 49 CR at I-20, PR at I-18-19. 

78

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.”44 45

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

antidumping duty 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.”46 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 the suspension agreement is

terminated; and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §

1675(a)(4).47

B. Conditions of Competition

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, 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.”48 The following conditions of

competition are relevant to our determination.

Demand. The subject pipes are widely used for the conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, and

other liquids or gasses in a variety of systems. Seamless pipes are commonly produced to meet ASTM

and API specifications. In order to avoid separate production runs on the part of manufacturers and

separate inventories on the part of distributors, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify (stencil)

seamless pipes to meet the requirements of the most common specifications.49 The primary applications

for small diameter CASSLP pipes are use in piping systems in refineries, petrochemical plants, and

chemical plants, and in some oil field uses. Thus, demand is somewhat responsive to conditions in oil

and gas exploration, and thus, oil and gas prices. Another important determinant of demand is the
 50 CR/PR at II-1. 

 51 Tr. at 63-64 (Mr. Leland). 

 52 U.S. Steel Posthearing brief, exhibit 1 at 10. 

 53 Tr. at 109-110 and 122-123 (Mr. Durham). 

 54 Tr. at 135. 

 55 Tr. at 228. 

79

expectation of distributors with respect to future prices. The vast majority of sales are to distributors.50

Consequently, these distributors bear the risk of price fluctuations that would tend to increase or decrease

the value of their inventories. As long as prices are anticipated to increase, distributors have an incentive

to purchase additional inventory. As long as prices are increasing, distributors can be assured that

additional purchases can be sold at a profit. Additionally, the value of pipe held in inventory, which can

be considerable given the wide range of pipe sizes and grades, continues to increase. Any decline in price

would erode the value of the inventory and make it difficult, if not impossible, to sell at a profit. 

Consequently, if prices are perceived to be falling, or are anticipated to decline, distributors will cut

purchases and buy only for immediate sale or only if offered a still lower price. This of course, makes

prices decline faster.51 

The one distributor that reported inventory levels (***) stated that: “As prices rose during 2004,

*** its inventory, which reached *** NT during the first quarter of 2005. Since that time, *** has *** its

inventory, although it *** of inventory through February 2006".52 At the hearing, another pipe distributor

described that he would expect any increase in supply to lead to a decline in price.53 

Apparent U.S. consumption in the original investigations declined from 267,927 tons in 1997 to

152,502 tons in 1999. Over the period of review, apparent U.S. consumption first increased to a relative

maximum of *** tons in 2001, fell to a low of *** tons in 2002, then increased to *** tons in 2004. 

Consumption in interim 2005, at *** tons was lower than the interim 2004 figure of *** tons. 

Supply. Fluctuations in demand have left domestic producers, intent on supplying the long-run

needs of the U.S. market, reluctant to take advantage of short-term production opportunities. As Mr.

Leland of U.S. Steel testified at the hearing; “this is such a cyclical business that the last thing that we

want to do is start adding shifts and adding people knowing that two or three months from now we may

well have to lay those people off.”54 

Further, domestic producers also are unwilling to increase supply because of the threat that an

increase in supply would lead to a sell-off of inventories by distributors, leading to a rapid decline in both

sales and prices. During the public hearing, Chairman Koplan asked domestic producer witnesses what

change in price would be necessary to cause domestic producers to increase or decrease production in

response.55 The response, at pages 13-14 of the U.S. Steel Posthearing Brief, asserted that: “The record

does show, however, that even a small decline in prices could cause distributors to cut their purchases by

a significant volume.” 

This unwillingness on the part of domestic producers to take advantage of a short-run opportunity

that could precipitate a sell-off of inventories held by distributors helps explain the behavior of these

producers in a market with currently high prices. Throughout these investigations, Respondents have

questioned the capacity utilization data reported by domestic producers. In its Prehearing Brief,

Respondent Mittal asserts at 16 that “Were it to be anywhere near accurate as an indicator of the domestic

industry’s true production capability, it would render impossible the combination of declining shipments

and explosively increasing prices observed during 2005.” Similarly, at pages 3-4 of the Posthearing Brief

Mittal questions how two profitable domestic producers, Koppel and U.S. Steel, can operate at such

different levels of capacity utilization. The production capacity of the two firms and their relative ability

to influence prices in the market explains their behavior. Koppel accounted for *** percent of domestic
 56 CR/PR at Table I-6. 

 57 Tr. at 110. 

 58 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 59 CR/PR at Table C-1 at C-3. 

 60 CR at I-38, PR at I-31.

 61 CR/PR at Table III-1. 

 62 CR at III-2, n. 3, PR at III-1, n. 3.

 63 Tr. at 91. 

 64 CR/PR at Table III-2. 

 65 CR/PR at V-1. 

 66 CR/PR at Table III-8. 

80

production of small diameter CASSLP pipe in 2004, and U.S. Steel accounted for *** percent.56 At the

hearing, Mr. Durham of Dixie Pipe stated that: 

I would also have a little heartburn if U.S. Steel wanted to double their capacity as an example,

because while we support U.S. Steel, and we buy a lot of pipe from U.S. Steel, if they made the

decision to double their capacity, we are not going to be able to buy a lot more pipe.57

Over the period of review, U.S. producers’ share of the U.S. market was highest at *** percent

immediately following the imposition of the duties under review. The share held by domestic producers

declined slightly in 2001 and 2002 as first nonsubject sources, and then *** took advantage of the

absence of unfairly-traded subject imports in the U.S. market. However, domestic producers’ market

share fell to *** percent in 2004, and increased *** to *** percent in interim 2005, compared to ***

percent in interim 2004.58 

The market share of nonsubject imports irregularly increased over the period of review from ***

percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004, and *** percent in the interim period compared to *** percent in

interim 2004.59

Since the original investigations there has been some consolidation in the domestic industry

producing small diameter CASSLP pipe. Gulf States Tube Co. ceased production in 2000.60 Michigan

Specialty (now Michigan Seamless Tube LLC) which accounted for less than ***. Overall, domestic

capacity has increased over the period of review, from *** tons in 2000 to *** tons in 2004, or ***

percent, despite a steep decline in capacity in 2003. However, capacity then declined *** percent

between the interim periods.61 

Domestic producers Koppel and U.S. Steel reported the production of alternate products on the

same equipment or with the same production workers used to produce the subject pipe.62 Mr. Broglie of

U.S. Steel explained at the hearing that the production of multiple products enables longer production

runs, and that production of the subject pipe is necessary to operate the mills efficiently.63 Domestic

producers’ overall capacity utilization in the production of small diameter seamless pipe fluctuated, but

was higher in every period than capacity utilization for the subject pipe.64 

The cost of seamless pipe depends largely on raw material costs.65 Prices of raw materials dipped

slightly in 2001, but generally increased from $*** per ton in 2000 to $*** per ton in 2004. Between

interim 2004 and interim 2005, the reported price of domestic producers’ raw materials increased from

$*** per ton to $*** per ton.66
 67 CR/PR at Table II-3 (12 of 15 purchasers reported price as “very important” in their purchasing decisions). 

 68 CR at II-23, II-29, PR at II-16, II-21.

 69 CR/PR at Table II-5. The few responding importers all reported that pipe from subject sources was

“sometimes” interchangeable with that from other subject sources and with the domestic product. 

 70 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 71 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 72 USITC Pub 3311 at 17-18.

 73 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 74 CR/PR at Table I-1. We note that official statistics covering imports from Japan are likely overstated because

they include nonsubject product. 

 75 Japanese producers did not provide data in the current reviews. Consequently, most data regarding capacity,

production, inventories and exports for producers in Japan is drawn from the original investigations. 

81

Price is an important factor in small diameter CASSLP pipe purchasing decisions.67 There is a

high degree of substitution between domestic and subject pipe.68 There are established industry standards

for this product and, as already noted, a majority of producers and purchasers found all subject sources to

be always or frequently interchangeable with other subject sources and the domestic product.69

C. Revocation of the Orders on Subject Imports from the Czech Republic, Japan,

Romania, and South Africa Is Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of

Material Injury Within a Reasonably Foreseeable Time

1. Likely Volume of the Cumulated Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the current orders are

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether it would be significant either in absolute terms

or relative to production or consumption in the United States.70 In doing so, 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.71

In its original determinations, the Commission found that the market share of cumulated subject

imports increased from 21.8 percent in 1997 to 35.8 percent in 1998, largely at the expense of the

domestic industry, and that the domestic industry won back some market share in 1999 through price

declines, and as a result of the filing of these petitions.72 In 1999, the cumulated market penetration for

the four subject countries, measured by quantity, was 23.8 percent.73 

Subject import volumes almost disappeared following imposition of the orders under review. 

Cumulated subject import volume for the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa declined

from 36,270 tons in 1999 to 6,102 tons in 2000. Since imposition of these orders, of all subject sources,

only imports from Romania, have ever exceeded *** percent of annual apparent domestic consumption.74

Although the volume of cumulated subject imports is only a fraction of what it was during the

original investigations, we must nevertheless determine whether that volume is likely to be at significant

levels if the restraining effect of the antidumping duty orders is eliminated. For the following reasons, we

find that a significant import volume is likely if the orders were revoked.

The industries in the subject countries possess substantial capacity to produce subject pipe.75 As

explained below, we find that producers in the subject countries are export oriented. We also find that
 76 See CR/PR at Tables IV-3, IV-9, and IV-12, Original Staff Report at Table VII-2. 

 77 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 78 CR/PR at Tables IV-3, IV-9, and IV-12, Original Staff Report at Table VII-2. 

 79 Tr. at 70-71, Mr. Durham and at 310, Mr. Daneo. 

 80 CR/PR at Tables IV-3, IV-9, and IV-12, Original Staff Report at Table VII-2.

 81 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 82 CR/PR at Tables IV-3, IV-9, and IV-12, Original Staff Report at Table VII-2.

 83 Producers in the Czech Republic, Romania, and South Africa reported ***, ***, and ***, respectively, of

additional unused capacity to produce small diameter seamless pipe in 2004. (Compare CR/PR at Tables IV-3, IV5, and IV-12 to Tables IV-5, IV-11, and IV-14.) Comparable data regarding subject producers in Japan were not

collected in the original investigations. 

 84 Tr. at 70-71, Mr. Durham and at 310, Mr. Daneo. 

82

substantial capacity exists in subject countries with which to increase production for export. In addition,

we also find that producers in subject countries have the ability to shift a significant volume of small

diameter CASSLP pipe from alternate export markets to the United States based on the substantial level

of their exports described below. Further, we find that subject producers have an incentive to shift

exports to the U.S. market, as prices in the U.S. market are higher than subject producers’ alternate export

markets. Reported capacity in the subject countries totaled *** short tons in the latest full year for which

data are available.76 This quantity is *** the level of U.S. apparent consumption in 2004.77 

The producers in the cumulated subject countries are export oriented. Exports accounted for

approximately *** percent of total shipments in the last full year for which data are available, a total of

*** tons of exports.78 This quantity exceeds reported U.S. apparent consumption in 2004. Exports

accounted for *** percent of reported shipments by producers in Japan in 1999, and *** percent, ***

percent, and *** percent, respectively, of shipments by producers in the Czech Republic, Romania, and

South Africa in 2004. Thus, each of the subject countries is focused on exports to a significant degree. 

Also, as noted above, producers in each of the subject countries have ties to multinational steel producers

(Mittal and Tenaris), with production and distribution systems that would be expected to facilitate

distribution of subject product in the U.S. market.79

Producers in the subject countries have substantial excess capacity which would enable them to

increase exports. Reported cumulated excess capacity in the last full year for which data are available

totaled *** tons.80 This quantity is *** of apparent U.S. consumption in 2004.81 Subject producers

reported an additional *** tons of small diameter CASSLP pipe in inventory.82 Further, subject producers

have some ability to allocate unused capacity from other seamless pipe products to the subject product.83 

As producers in the subject countries are export-oriented, they have the ability to shift a

substantial volume of exports from alternate markets to the United States. As the subject pipe is produced

to widely accepted standards, pipe can be substituted among producers. The fact that some subject

producers are not on the AMLs of some end users does not detract from the general substitutability of the

approximately 70 percent of U.S. purchases that are not subject to AMLs. Further, as noted above, the

fact that many of the subject producers are now affiliated with global producers Mittal and Tenaris has

reportedly made subject imports more acceptable in the U.S. market than during the original period of

investigation.84 

The U.S. market continues to be attractive to producers in the subject countries. According to

confidential data *** at U.S. Steel’s Posthearing Brief exhibit 3, U.S. prices for seamless line pipe in

February 2006 were below prices in Western Europe and Japan, but above prices in China, India, Eastern

Europe, and Ukraine. Also, according to data in the Staff Report, the AUVs of responding foreign

producers’ shipments to all markets were lower in interim 2005 (Jan.-Sep.) than reported AUVs for
 85 Compare CR/PR at Tables IV-3, IV-6, IV-9, and IV-12 to Table III-3. 

 86 CR at IV-56, PR at IV-19.

 87 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.

 88 USITC Pub. 3311 at 18-19. 

 89 Comparison data were available only with respect to relatively small volumes of product from Romania. Those

data show that imports from Romania undersold the domestic like product in every comparison, at margins that were

generally higher for smaller diameter product. CR at Tables V-2, V-3, and V-4. Because the available comparisons

occurred under the discipline of the orders, and related only to small quantities of imports from Romania, we do not

consider those comparisons particularly probative of likely pricing of the cumulated subject imports if the orders are

revoked. 

83

domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of small-diameter CASSLP pipe.85 With an AUV of $***/ton in

interim 2005, U.S. domestic prices were higher than the reported AUV for exports from Romania to the

United States ($***). Even if this lower figure is an indication of the price that subject foreign producers

can expect for their shipments to the U.S. market, it is higher than reported foreign producer AUVs for

shipments to every other market. In addition, there are currently antidumping duty orders in place on

subject exports from Romania to Brazil and Mexico, and on exports from Japan to Venezuela and

Mexico.86 As noted above, the European Union has reinstituted an antidumping investigation on exports

from Romania, which is currently pending. 

We find that the information on relative prices indicates that subject producers would have

incentive to both increase production and shift more of their exports to the U.S. market if the orders are

revoked. Accordingly, we find that subject imports of CASSLP pipe from subject countries into the

United States would be likely to increase significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

2. Likely Price Effects of the Cumulated Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of cumulated subject imports if the orders are revoked, the

Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject

imports as compared to domestic like products 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 domestic like products.87

In the original determinations, the Commission found widespread underselling by the cumulated

subject imports. Further, the Commission found that the volume of subject imports increased

substantially in 1998, during a period of time in which demand in the U.S. market was weak. Subject

import prices led domestic prices down, and subject imports from Japan, the largest subject source during

the original period of investigation, moved from a mixed pattern of underselling to consistent

underselling. Consequently, the Commission found the underselling to be significant, and found that

subject imports depressed domestic prices to a significant degree.88

In light of the significantly reduced volume of imports from all of the subject countries since the

orders were issued, price comparison data for the current period of review are quite limited.89 As

discussed above in the section on Conditions of Competition, the U.S. small diameter CASSLP pipe

market is fairly price competitive and the domestic like product and subject imports are generally

substitutable. Because of this, if the orders were revoked the imports would need to be priced

aggressively to regain market share. Thus, the pricing patterns observed in the original investigations are

likely to recur and the subject imports would likely undersell the domestic like product so as to

significantly depress or suppress domestic prices. As noted above, we find that subject imports from the
 90 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 91 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude

of the margin of dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute

defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the

dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19

U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887.

Commerce found the following dumping margins: Czech Republic 32.26 - 39.93 percent; Japan 70.43 -

106.07 percent; Romania 11.08 - 15.15 percent; South Africa 40.17 - 43.51 percent. CR/PR at Table I-3. 

 92 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 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.

 93 CR/PR at Table III-9. 

 94 CR/PR at Table III-1 and Table III-2. 

 95 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 96 Tr. at 109-110 and 122-123, Mr. Durham, U.S. Steel’s Posthearing Brief, exhibit 1 at 13-14. 

84

Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa are likely to increase significantly in the reasonably

foreseeable future if the orders are revoked. At these likely volumes, the subject imports from these

countries would be likely to have significant depressing or suppressing effects on the prices of the

domestic like product.

We therefore find that there likely would be underselling by the subject imports that, when

combined with increased volumes of subject imports, would likely lead to significant adverse price

effects.

3. Likely Impact of the Cumulated Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely impact of cumulated imports of subject merchandise if the orders under

review are 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: (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.90 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.91 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 at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked.92

We do not find the domestic industry currently vulnerable to injury by increased subject imports. 

Domestic producers have been able to increase prices to keep up with increases in raw material costs.93 In

the most recent period for which data were collected (interim 2005), domestic producers shifted some

capacity from the subject product to other small diameter seamless pipe.94 However, in this interim

period, apparent U.S. consumption declined *** percent on a quantity basis compared to interim 2004.95

Domestic distributors and producers have testified that any substantial increase in supply in the U.S.

market would be likely to lead to declines in both prices and (at least in the short term) purchases.96 
 97 Mittal Prehearing Brief at 19-21 and Posthearing Brief at 7. 

 98 CR at I-20, PR at 18-19. 

 99 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 100 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

85

Mittal argues that high prices for oil and natural gas will ensure high levels of demand for the

subject pipe in the foreseeable future.97 However, small diameter CASSLP pipe is not primarily used in

direct exploration for oil and natural gas. The primary uses are in “pressure piping systems by refineries,

petrochemical plants, and chemical plants.”98 As Mittal points out in its Prehearing Brief at page 20,

small diameter CASSLP pipe competes with seamless OCTG for manufacturing resources and material

inputs. Consequently, while the currently high oil and natural gas prices cited by parties in favor of

revocation have led to increased prices for OCTG and indirectly for subject product, they have not led to

an increase in consumption of small diameter CASSLP. Indeed, as noted above, U.S. apparent

consumption of the subject product declined in the most recent period for which data are available, and

U.S. apparent consumption in 2004 was below that reported in 1997.99 Therefore subject imports in the

volumes we find would be likely if the orders were revoked, would inevitably cause a resumption of

material injury to the domestic producers. 

Immediately following the imposition of these orders in 1999, the domestic industry’s reported

production, shipments, operating income and operating income as a share of sales all increased.100 Given

the ability of producers in the subject countries to significantly increase exports to the United States if the

orders are revoked and the significant price depression found to exist during the original period of

investigation, we conclude that if the orders were revoked, these circumstances would recur and there

would be a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on small

diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa would be likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time. 

V. CUMULATION OF SUBJECT IMPORTS OF LARGE DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

FROM JAPAN AND MEXICO

C. Likely Overlap of Competition

In determining whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate the subject imports, we next

examine whether, upon revocation of the antidumping duty orders, the imports from Japan and Mexico

would be likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product. The Commission has generally

considered four factors in its analysis of overlap of competition: (1) fungibility; (2) geographic markets;

(3) channels of distribution; and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. 

Fungibility. The record in these reviews indicates that subject imports are generally

interchangeable with each other and the domestic product. Purchasers, U.S. producers, and importers 

reported that large diameter CASSLP from Mexico and Japan were interchangeable, albeit in varying

degrees, from “always” interchangeable to “at least sometimes” interchangeable with large diameter

CASSLP from the United States. Out of 27 responses from U.S. producers, importers and purchasers

regarding interchangeability of large diameter CASSLP pipe from the United States with pipe from Japan

or Mexico, 9 indicated that the products were always interchangeable, 10 indicated that they were
 101 CR at II-51, PR at II-37 and CR/PR at Table II-13.

 102 CR/PR at Table II-13.

 103 CR at II-45, PR at 32.

 104 USITC Pub. 3311 at 15.

 105 Domestic Producers’ Large Diameter CASSLP Prehearing Brief at 22.

 106 CR at II-30, PR at II-22.

 107 CR at II-30, PR at II-22.

 108 See CR at IV-40 n. 35, PR at IV-16 n. 35.

 109 CR at IV-39 n. 31, IV-45 n. 38, PR at IV-16 n. 31, IV-17 n. 38.

 110 USITC Pub. 3311 at 24.

 111 CR/PR at Table I-2.

86

frequently interchangeable, 7 indicated that they were sometimes interchangeable and only 1 indicated

that they were never interchangeable.101 In comparing large diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and

Mexico, out of 12 responses, 5 indicated that the products were always interchangeable, 5 indicated that

they were frequently interchangeable, 2 indicated that they were sometimes interchangeable and none

indicated that they were never interchangeable.102 Further, in the original investigations, staff reported

that there was believed to be a moderate degree of substitution between the domestic like product and

subject imports.103 We find no available data indicating that this has changed. 

Geographic Overlap. In the original investigations, the Commission also found a reasonable

overlap of geographic markets. The Commission found the domestic industry served the entire United

States, that the Japanese subject product was present in all geographic regions of the U.S. and that the

Mexican large diameter CASSLP was available in the ***.104 Because subject imports have largely

disappeared from the U.S. market since the orders were imposed, our findings from the original

investigations remain the best available information with respect to this issue.105

Channels of Distribution. In the original investigations, the Commission found that

approximately *** percent of imports from Japan were sold to distributors, as were approximately ***

percent of Mexican imports and *** percent of U.S. producers’ shipments.106 There are no similar

channels of distribution data for subject large diameter pipe in 2004; however, nonsubject importers

reported *** percent of their sales were to distributors and *** percent were to end users.107 Thus, there

is no evidence in the record that the overlap in channels of distribution that existed at the time of our

original investigations has changed significantly. Further, we find that Tenaris’ acquisition of NKK

Tubes in 2000108, and the fact that both TAMSA and NKK Tubes are controlled by Tenaris109, would

likely lead to an even greater overlap in channels of distribution than in the original investigations.

Simultaneous Presence in the Market. In the original investigations, the Commission found that

subject imports occurred in every month of the period examined.110 There were no subject imports during

the period of review.111 Because subject imports have disappeared from the U.S. market since the orders

were imposed, we base our finding in these reviews as that analysis remains the best available information

with respect to this issue.

D. Conclusion

The record in these five-year reviews does not indicate any significant changes regarding overlap

of competition between subject imports from Mexico and Japan and among the imports and the domestic

like product, from the findings in the Commission’s original investigations. We find that there would be

reasonable overlap of competition among the products if the orders were revoked. Accordingly, we find

that it is reasonable to cumulate subject imports from these countries for purposes of our injury analysis.
 112 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 113 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). 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 material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations

that were never completed.” SAA at 883. 

 114 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.

 115 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 without opinion, 05-1019 (Fed.

Cir. August 3, 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-153 at 7-8 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 24, 2002)

(same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-152 at 4 n.3 & 5-6 n.6 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 20, 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, Slip Op. 02-105

at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a

certainty”); Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 19, 2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount

to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 116 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv.

No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in this review and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses this issue. 

 117 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 118 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),

(continued...)

87

VI. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS ARE REVOKED

A. Legal Standard

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

countervailing or antidumping 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 duty order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury

within a reasonably foreseeable time.”112 The SAA states that “under the likelihood standard, the

Commission will engage in a counter-factual 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.”113 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.114 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that

“likely,” as used in the sunset review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission

applies that standard in five-year reviews.115 116

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.”117

According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will

exceed the ‘imminent’ time frame applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”118 119
 118 (...continued)

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.

 119 In analyzing what constitutes a reasonably foreseeable time, Chairman Koplan examines all the current and

likely conditions of competition in the relevant industry. He defines “reasonably foreseeable time” as the length of

time it is likely to take for the market to adjust to a revocation or termination. In making this assessment, he

considers all factors that may accelerate or delay the market adjustment process including any lags in response by

foreign producers, importers, consumers, domestic producers, or others due to: lead times; methods of contracting;

the need to establish channels of distribution; product differentiation; and any other factors that may only manifest

themselves in the longer term. In other words, this analysis seeks to define “reasonably foreseeable time” by

reference to current and likely conditions of competition, but also seeks to avoid unwarranted speculation that may

occur in predicting events into the more distant future.

 120 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 121 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). There have been no duty absorption findings by Commerce with respect to the

orders under review. CR at I-13 - I-14, PR at I-10 - I-12. The statute further 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. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one

factor is necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886.

 122 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 123 CR at II-30, PR at II-22.

 124 CR at II-30, PR at II-22.

88

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

antidumping duty 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.”120 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 the suspension agreement is

terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §

1675(a)(4).121

B. Conditions of Competition

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, 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.”122 The following conditions of

competition are relevant to our determination.

Demand. Large diameter CASSLP is used in a wide variety of end-use products. It is used

primarily for line applications such as oil, gas, or water pipeline, or utility distribution systems. It is sold

in carbon steel grades and alloy steel grades. The vast majority consists of carbon steel pipe, generally

used as line pipe, but typically produced to meet triple or quadruple certification (stencil) as standard, line

and pressure pipe. Such carbon steel pipe accounted for *** percent to*** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption of large diameter CASSLP during 2000-2004, and is generally considered a “commodity”

grade pipe.123 Both U.S. and foreign producers sell to distributors and to end users. In 2004, U.S.

producers reported *** percent of large diameter CASSLP pipe was sold to distributors.124 Imports of

large diameter CASSLP pipe were very small during the period of review, however, as discussed earlier,

evidence from our original investigation indicated that a large majority of imported large diameter

CASSLP pipe was similarly sold to distributors. Distributors sell to oil and gas engineering companies,
 125 CR at II-31, PR at II-22.

 126 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 127 CR at II-36, PR at II-25.

 128 CR at II-36, PR at II-25.

 129 Mittal Posthearing Brief exh. 1, tab O; U.S. Steel Posthearing Brief at exh.3.

 130 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 131 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 132 CR at II-55, PR at II-40.

 133 CR at I-38, PR at I-31.

 134 CR at IV-57, PR at IV-19.

89

to firms that use CASSLP for pipe fabrication, mechanical contracts, pipe spool fabrication, ship building,

and equipment for agricultural, construction, mining, petrochemical, and off road applications, as well as

products used in the transmission and gathering of oil and gas.125

Apparent U.S. consumption in the original investigations decreased from a high of 375,084 short

tons in 1997 to a low of 293,151 short tons in 1999. Apparent U.S. consumption fluctuated over the

current period of review increasing from *** short tons in 2000, to *** short tons in 2001, then

decreasing to *** short tons in 2002, and *** short tons in 2003, before rising to *** short tons in

2004.126 Overall, apparent U.S. consumption in 2004 was *** percent higher than it had been in 2000.127

Reasons cited by U.S. producers for the variations in consumption over the period include the a lack of

investment in the United States and that demand was driven by a volatile oil/gas industry.128

 Prices for seamless pipe have fluctuated but have increased recently. Prices are

 highest in Western Europe and lowest in China.129

Supply. The U.S. market is supplied by domestically produced large diameter CASSLP and by

CASSLP imported from subject and non-subject countries. During the original investigation, U.S.

producers’ share of the U.S. market, by volume, declined from *** percent in 1997 to *** percent in

1998 but then increased to *** in 1999. After imposition of the orders, U.S. producers’ share of the U.S.

market fell to *** percent in 2000, and then rose in 2001 to *** percent before falling again to ***

percent in 2002 and again to *** percent in 2003 before increasing slightly to *** percent in 2004.130 

Subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption fell to nearly nothing over the review

period.131 The market share of non-subject imports initially gained from the drop in subject imports and

remained fairly stable over the period of review from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. Nonsubject sources reported by purchasers included Argentina, Austria, Brazil, China, Czech Republic,

France, Germany and Italy.132 

There was a structural change in the domestic industry since the original investigations. During

the original investigations there were three U.S. producers of large diameter CASSLP. These included

North Star Steel (“North Star”); Timken; and U.S. Steel. In 2002, V&M Tubes acquired North Star’s

tubular division, then a wholly owned subsidiary of Cargill, Inc., and renamed the division V&M Star.133

Another significant change in recent years is the increase in global production of seamless pipe,

with production growth in China outpacing other regions. China’s share of world production increased

from about 20 percent in 1995 to almost 46 percent in 2004.134

Raw material costs are an important component of the total cost of producing large diameter

CASSLP. Large diameter CASSLP is produced from solid steel billets, which in turn are produced either

by integrated mills from iron ore, with coke as a main fuel source, or in mills which melt steel scrap using

electric arc furnaces. Natural gas and electricity are significant cost elements in the production of

CASSLP. The price of scrap was reasonably level between 2000 and 2003, but has risen significantly
 135 CR/PR at Figure V-1 at V-2.

 136 CR/PR at Table V-1 at V-2.

 137 CR/PR at Table V-1 at V-2.

 138 V&M Star’s Prehearing Brief at 11. 

 139 V&M Star’s Posthearing Brief at 3. 

 140 Tr. at 63-64 (Mr. Leland) and 67-68 (Mr. Binder).

 141 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 142 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

90

since then, doubling in price from 2003 to 2006.135 In addition, the cost of electricity, natural gas, and

iron ore have increased significantly from 2000 through 2005.136 Of the raw material and energy inputs

into CASSLP, only the cost of blast furnace coke has been reasonably stable.137 

Price is the critical factor in large diameter CASSLP purchasing decisions because of the high

degree of substitution between domestic and subject large diameter CASSLP.138 Large diameter pipe is

particularly price sensitive given that there are established industry standards for this product and the vast

majority of sales are made to distributors, who actively seek the lowest prices.139 

An additional condition of competition in the large diameter CASSLP pipe industry is a

seemingly paradoxical response to price changes. This is due to the fact that most sales are to distributors

and, therefore, the industry is subject to price swings due to distributors’ anticipation of price changes. 

Both the supply and demand aspects of this industry are, to some extent, affected by the purchasing, or

demand, responses of distributors to expected price changes. In a period of generally rising prices,

distributors have incentive to increase inventories of pipe. Conversely, if distributors anticipate declining

prices, they have an incentive to stop any further inventory buildups and to actually reduce purchases in

order to sell off inventories.140 This is an important consideration for producers who are considering

increasing output in times of rising prices or to take advantage of favorable prices. Since distributors

generally expect increased supply to be accompanied by declining prices, they may similarly respond to

increasing supplies by reducing purchases and selling off inventories, which actions would tend to push

prices down.

We consider the impact of revocation of the orders within the context of these conditions of

competition.

C. Revocation of the Orders on Subject Imports from Mexico and Japan Are Likely to

Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a Reasonably

Foreseeable Time

1. Likely Volume of the Cumulated Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders are 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.141 In doing so, 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.142
 143 CR/PR at Table I-2, and Original Staff Report at Table IV-4.

 144 USITC Pub. 3311 at 25.

 145 Original Staff Report at Table IV-4.

 146 Original Staff Report at Table IV-8.

 147 Original Staff Report at Table IV-4.

 148 Original Staff Report at Table IV-8

 149 Original Staff Report at Table IV-4.

 150 Original Staff Report at Table IV-8.

 151 Original Staff Report at Table IV-8.

 152 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 153 Original Staff Report at Table VII-3.

 154 CR/PR at Table I-2.

91

In the original period of investigation, the volume of cumulated subject imports from Japan and

Mexico was *** short tons in 1997, *** short tons in 1998, and *** short tons in 1999, the last full year

before the orders went into effect.143 These volumes of subject imports were significant, both in absolute

terms and relative to production and consumption in the United States.144 

With respect to Japan, we find that during the original investigations, the volume of subject

imports from Japan increased from *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1998, then increased

further to *** short tons in 1999.145 The percentage of U.S. apparent consumption, measured by

quantity, attributable to shipments of subject imports from Japan rose from *** percent in 1997, to ***

percent in 1998, and *** percent in 1999.146

With respect to Mexico, subject imports were *** short tons in 1997 and *** short tons in

1998, the first two years of the original period of investigation.147 Shipments of those imports represented

a market share of *** percent in 1997 and *** percent in 1998.148 Although this level of subject imports

from Mexico dropped to *** short tons in the last year of the period of investigation,149 the data clearly

show the capability for Mexican producers to ship significant quantities of CASSLP to the United States.

Furthermore, we note that the proximity of Mexican production, which should give such production a

supply chain cost advantage, makes the United States a primary outlet for exports from Mexico. 

Taken together, cumulated subject imports from Japan and Mexico accounted for *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption in 1997, increased to *** percent in 1998, and accounted for *** percent in

1999,

150 as U.S. apparent consumption declined. Relative to domestic production, cumulated subject

imports were equivalent to *** percent of U.S. domestic production in 1997, increased to *** percent in

1998, and was equivalent to *** percent of U.S. production in 1999.151

Subject import volumes have fallen significantly since the original investigations. The volume of

shipments of cumulated subject imports from Japan and Mexico declined from *** short tons in 2000 to

*** short tons in 2004.152 Although the volume of cumulated subject imports is only a fraction of what it

was during the original investigations, we must nevertheless determine whether the volume is likely to be

at significant levels if the restraining effect of the antidumping duty orders is eliminated. For the

following reasons, we find that a significant import volume is likely if the orders were revoked.

The industries in the subject countries possess substantial capacity to produce large diameter

CASSLP. The record from the original investigations indicates that producers in Japan had capacity for

production of large diameter CASSLP of approximately *** tons per year. Actual reported production

during the original period of investigation ranged from *** tons to *** tons. These data represent

capacity utilization of approximately *** percent.153 Compared to the relatively high level of U.S.

consumption of *** short tons in 2004,

154 Japanese production capacity represents approximately ***

percent of total U.S. consumption, and excess capacity in Japan as reported from the original
 155 CR/PR at Table IV-19.

 156 CR at IV-39, PR at IV-16.

 157 CR/PR at Table IV-19.

 158 CR/PR at Table IV-22.

 159 CR/PR at Table IV-22.

 160 CR/PR at Table IV-22

 161 Tr. at 310 (Mr. Daneo).

 162 CR/PR at Tables IV-19, IV-22.

 163 CR/PR at Table IV-19.

 164 CR/PR at Table IV-22.

92

investigation represents approximately *** percent of the U.S. market. For 2004, the one responding

Japanese producer, NKK, reported production capacity of *** short tons,155 which was reported to

represent only an estimated *** percent of all Japanese production of large diameter CASSLP in 2004.156 

During the current period of review, utilization of capacity reported by NKK ranged from approximately

*** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004.157 Thus, based on the original investigation record as

supplemented by the limited record for Japanese current production capability developed in this review,

Japanese capability to increase production from existing capacity is significant.

The Commission received data from one Mexican firm, TAMSA, which accounted for all the

large diameter CASSLP produced in Mexico in 2004. TAMSA reported production capacity ranging

from *** short tons to *** short tons during the period of review. TAMSA further reported relatively

high utilization of existing capacity, with a large majority of that production being exported.158 Based on

U.S. consumption in 2004, TAMSA’s highest reported unutilized capacity represents approximately ***

percent of the U.S. market. TAMSA’s highest reported production capacity represents approximately ***

percent of the U.S. market and its related exports equal approximately *** percent of the U.S. market.159

Although TAMSA responded to the Commission’s questionnaire, it did not submit briefs or elect to

appear at the hearing to respond to the Commission’s questions. Therefore the Commission could not

inquire into its capability to expand reported production capacity either by activating existing facilities or

product shifting, or into the reasons for the very high reported capacity utilization rates. TAMSA’s

production capacity in 2000 was *** short tons higher than in 2004.160 Based on the best information

available, we can only conclude that the Mexican producers could increase their production capability to

the levels during the original period of investigation and respond to a revocation of the orders in a manner

indicated by their market presence during the original investigation. Accordingly, we cannot conclude

that the Mexican producers are without capability to respond to a revocation of the orders in a manner

indicated by their market presence during the original investigation. Furthermore, we note that both NKK

and TAMSA are owned by Tenaris, and Tenaris, as a recognizable brand name, facilitates the marketing

and sales of CASSLP into new and existing markets161 and that this name recognition could be used to

reach purchasers in the U.S.

The large diameter CASSLP producers in Japan and Mexico are export oriented. Exports

accounted for approximately *** percent of shipments of NKK Tubes, the sole responding Japanese

producer, during interim 2005 and approximately *** percent of shipments of TAMSA during the same

period.162 Further, ***’s exports of large diameter CASSLP grew sharply over the period of review,

from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004, a *** percent increase.163 Mexican exports of

large diameter CASSLP declined somewhat over the period, but were as high as *** short tons in 2002

and were still significant at *** short tons in 2004.164 Even in the years of high capacity utilization,

TAMSA was highly export oriented; selling from *** percent to *** of its production in its home market
 165 CR/PR at Table IV-22.

 166 Compare CR/PR at Table IV-22 with Table II-15.

 167 Mittal Post-hearing Brief exh. 1, tab O and U.S. Steel Posthearing Brief exh. 3.

 168 CR at IV-64, PR at IV-23.

 169 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.

 170 CR at II-51, II-56, PR at II-37, II-40.

 171 USITC Pub. 3311 at 26.

93

and exporting *** to *** percent of its production.165 While we do not rely on AUVs because of product

mix considerations, the data also indicate that TAMSA's exports sales are at AUVs that are significantly

below their home market sale AUVs and significantly below the AUVs of domestic producers' U.S.

shipments.166 Thus, it is likely that TAMSA would have a strong economic incentive to shift its exports to

the United States market.

The U.S. large diameter pipe market remains a large and attractive market for subject producers

because there do not appear to be any significant structural or institutional constraints that would hinder

reentry into the U.S. market in the event of revocation. Furthermore, it is important to note that trade from

Mexico benefits from its close proximity to the United States, which provides it with lower transportation

distance and potentially other supply chain advantages. 

With respect to prices for large diameter CASSLP in the United States relative to other global

markets, prices are mixed, with U.S. prices being higher than prices in some, but not all, other markets.167

Global seamless pipe and tube prices for October 2005 through March 2006 as published by *** indicate

that API 5L B pipe was priced highest in Western Europe and Japan and lowest in China and Ukraine.168

We find that this mixed information on relative prices indicates that subject producers will have some

incentive to produce and export more of their product to the United States in order to use more fully their

available capacity, as well as to shift current exports into the U.S. market.

Given their significant production capacity, their export orientation and other evidence and

incentives as discussed herein, if the orders were revoked, producers in these subject countries would

have the ability and motivation to increase exports to the United States. Accordingly, we find that

imports of large diameter CASSLP from these subject countries into the United States would be likely to

increase significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty orders were revoked. 

2. Likely Price Effects of the Cumulated Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of cumulated subject imports if the antidumping and 

countervailing duty orders are revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to

be significant underselling by the subject imports as compared to domestic like products 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 domestic like products.169

As an initial matter, we note that the record indicates that price is an important factor in

purchasing decisions and that there is a moderately high to high level of substitutability between the

subject imports and the domestic product.170 Accordingly, this indicates that subject imports are more

likely to be able to have significant adverse effects on domestic prices through aggressive price

competition. In the original determinations, the Commission found significant underselling by subject

imports of common grade large diameter pipe.171 The Commission determined that the decline in activity

in the oil and gas industry contributed to the decline in the price of large diameter pipe, but that level of
 172 USITC Pub. 3311 at 26.

 173 Tr. at 67-68 (Mr. Binder).

 174 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 175 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the

magnitude of the margin of dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). 

The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as

“the dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887.

Commerce found the following dumping margins : Japan – Kawasaki, Nippon and Sumitomo Metal, 107.80

percent and all others, 68.88 percent.; Mexico – TAMSA and all others, 15.05 percent. CR/PR at Table I-4.

 176 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 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.

94

activity did not fully explain the decline. Instead, it found that domestic producers were forced to cut

their prices in response to subject imports.172 

In light of the significantly reduced volume of imports from all of the subject countries since the

orders were issued, and the absence of current pricing data for the large majority of the Japanese industry

and for the Mexican industry producing large diameter CASSLP, we find that it is reasonable to conclude

that data from the original investigation are sufficient evidence that imports from subject countries will

compete against domestic production and again have a downward price effect on domestic sales. 

We find that the pricing patterns observed in the original investigations are likely to recur and

that the subject imports would likely undersell the domestic like product so as to significantly depress or

suppress domestic prices. As noted above, we find that subject imports from both Japan and Mexico are

likely to increase significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty orders are

revoked. At these likely volumes, the subject imports from these countries would be likely to have

significant depressing or suppressing effects on the prices of the domestic like product. Additionally, U.S.

distributors testified at the hearing that an increase in subject imports if the orders were revoked, would be

likely to lead to price declines due to a sell off of inventory.173 This response of distributors to increased

supply, as discussed earlier, will tend to magnify the impact of revoking the orders on domestic price.

3. Likely Impact of the Cumulated Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely impact of cumulated imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping

orders are 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: (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.174 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.175 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 at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked.176

During the period of review, U.S. producers’ struggled to maintain their market share. Although

market share increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2001, it fell to *** percent in 2002,
 177 CR/PR at Table III-18.

 178 CR/PR at Table III-18.

 179 CR/PR at Table III-17.

 180 CR/PR at Table III-22.

 181 See CR/PR at Table III-18.

95

and fell again in 2003 to ***, before slightly rising to *** in 2004.177 Domestic producers’ operating

income steadily decreased to a loss over the first four years of the period of review from an income of

$***and $*** in 2000 and 2001 respectively, to a loss of $*** in 2002, and a loss of $*** in 2003. In

2004, with an operating income of $***, the domestic industry was able to move back into a profitable

financial position. However, the level of profit was only marginally sufficient to offset the previous two

years of losses. Operating income as a percent of net sales decreased from *** percent in 2000 to ***

percent in 2001, then declined further to a loss of *** percent and *** percent in 2002 and 2003

respectively, before rising in 2004.178 The number of production workers in the industry fluctuated over

the period of review, but ended with a net decrease, from *** workers in 2000 to *** workers in 2004.179

Capital expenditures also declined significantly over the period, from *** in 2000 to *** in 2004.

Research and development expenses fluctuated from $*** in 2000 to $*** and $*** in 2001 and 2002

respectively, before increasing in 2003 to $*** and then dropping to a low for the period of review to

$*** in 2004.180

We find this improvement in the industry to be directly related to the orders and that the domestic

industry could not have experienced this type of operating performance if the subject imports had been

unrestrained by the antidumping orders. More importantly, we find that revocation of the orders will

likely lead to significant increased subject import volumes and domestic product price declines that will

negatively impact the domestic industry in terms of the indicators discussed above. We find that the

significant volumes of cumulated subject imports are also likely to suppress the price increases necessary

to compensate for the domestic industry’s increasing costs. In fact, the only year the domestic industry

has succeeded in increasing its average unit selling price by more than its increases in average cost of

goods sold was 2004. Prior to that time, domestic producers were in a cost price squeeze, lowering prices

while cost of goods sold were increasing.181 If the orders were not in place, the competitive pressure from

subject foreign producers would have prevented, or at least reduced, the ability to make up needed price

increases in 2004 to offset the squeeze experienced in 2001, 2002 and 2003. In the event of revocation,

this situation would likely recur and current prices would not be likely to be maintained due to increased

volumes of dumped or subsidized imports.

We conclude that revocation of the antidumping duty orders with respect to Japan and Mexico

would lead to significant increases in the volume of cumulated subject imports from those subject

countries that would undersell the domestic like product and significantly depress or suppress U.S. prices. 

The volume and price effects of the cumulated subject imports would have a significant negative impact

on the production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues of the domestic industry. Further, we

find that the reduction in these factors would adversely impact the industry’s profitability and ability to

raise capital and maintain necessary capital investments. 
96

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on large

diameter CASSLP from Japan and Mexico would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 
 1

 For our discussion of the legal standard and conditions of competition, see majority views on small diameter

CASSLP pipe.

 2

 For our discussion of the Commission’s findings in the original determinations, see majority views on small

diameter pipe from Japan.

 3

 The petition cited three known producers/exporters of small diameter pipe in Romania: Silcotub SA, SC

Republica, and Societ. Petrotub SA Roman. Original Report at VII-9.

 4

 CR at IV-17, PR at IV-7.

 5

 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 6

 Id.

 7

 CR/PR at Table I-11.

 8

 Id.

 9

 CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 10 Id. Capacity for all small diameter seamless pipe fell from *** short tons in interim 2004 to *** short tons in

interim 2005. CR/PR at Table IV-11.

97

DISSENTING VIEWS OF VICE CHAIRMAN DEANNA T. OKUN AND COMMISSIONERS

JENNIFER A. HILLMAN AND DANIEL R. PEARSON REGARDING ROMANIA

Revocation of the Order on Subject Imports of Small Diameter CASSLP Pipe from Romania Is Not

Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a Reasonably Foreseeable

Time1

A. Likely Volume of Subject Imports2

The three producers of subject merchandise in Romania provided questionnaire responses in the

original investigation.3

 All three currently known producers in Romania provided questionnaire

responses in this review;4

 thus, the Commission has comprehensive information on the industry in

Romania.

In the original investigation, the volume of subject imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from

Romania declined in each year of the period of investigation. U.S. shipments of subject imports from

Romania fell from *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1998, and then declined to *** short tons in

1999.5

 Their market share initially rose ***, from *** percent in 1997 to *** percent in 1998 (as

apparent domestic consumption declined), but then fell ***, to *** percent in 1999, even as apparent

domestic consumption *** fell sharply.6

Unlike the other subject countries in these reviews, subject imports from Romania remained in

the U.S. market in appreciable volumes after the orders were put in place. While their market share by

quantity fell to *** percent in 2000, it then ranged between *** and *** percent in the remaining full

years of the period of review.7

 However, the market share declined in interim 2005 to *** percent.8 This

drop is explained by significant changes in the corporate ownership and operations of Silcotub, the ***

Romanian producer and the source of nearly all subject exports to the United States; these changes are

discussed below.

The Romanian industry’s capacity to manufacture subject pipe fell each year from 2000, when it

was *** short tons, to 2003, when it was *** short tons.9

 While capacity then increased to *** short tons

in 2004, it again declined when the interim periods are compared, falling from *** short tons in interim

2004 to *** short tons in interim 2005.10 Production showed a similar trend, decreasing irregularly

between 2000 and 2003, then increasing in 2004 but falling sharply when the interim periods are
 11 CR/PR at Table IV-9. Production of all small diameter seamless pipe fell from *** short tons in interim 2004

to *** short tons in interim 2005. CR/PR at Table IV-11.

 12 CR/PR at Table IV-9. The capacity utilization rate for all small diameter seamless pipe reached a high of ***

percent in interim 2005. CR/PR at Table IV-11.

 13 See Romanian Foreign Producer Questionnaire Responses.

 14 Id.

 15 Id.

 16 CR at IV-17 n.18, PR at IV-7 n.18; Silcotub’s Foreign Producer Questionnaire Response.

 17 Id. 

 18 Silcotub’s Foreign Producer Questionnaire Response; Silcotub’s Prehearing Brief at 5 and 6; Tr. at 255-57 (Mr.

Daneo).

 19 Silcotub’s Foreign Producer Questionnaire Response.

 20 Id. We also note that, when the interim periods are compared, Silcotub’s capacity for all small diameter

seamless pipe fell from *** short tons to *** short tons, and its production of such pipe fell from *** short tons to

*** short tons.

 21 Silcotub’s Foreign Producer Questionnaire Response.

 22 The third producer, Artrom, accounted for only *** percent of Romanian production of subject merchandise in

2004, and has *** to the United States over the period of review. CR at IV-17 n.19, PR at IV-7 n.19.

 23 CR at IV-17, PR at IV-7.

 24 Mittal’s Posthearing Brief at Exh. 1 p.8.

 25 Mittal Steel Roman’s Foreign Producer Questionnaire Response.

98

compared.11 The industry’s capacity utilization ranged between *** percent and *** percent in the full

years of the period of review, but reached *** percent in interim 2005.12

Throughout the period of review, Silcotub has been *** in Romania, and the source of ***.13 In

the full years of the period of review, Silcotub’s share of total production of subject product in Romania

ranged from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004.14 It accounted for *** Romanian subject exports

to the United States except in 2002, when it accounted for *** percent of such exports.15 Until 2004,

Silcotub was affiliated with U.S. importer ***, which accounted for *** subject imports from Silcotub.16

However, in July 2004, Silcotub became an affiliate of the Tenaris Group, and it is no longer affiliated

with ***; ***.17 Thus, the *** Romanian producer and the only one that had a substantial interest in the

U.S. market during the period of review is no longer affiliated with its importer in the United States. 

Moreover, Silcotub has indicated that it is now focusing on producing higher value-added non-subject

merchandise for the home and regional markets (Romania reportedly has ten of Southeastern Europe’s

eleven petroleum refineries), including ***.18

Silcotub’s stated changes in operations are reflected in the data on the record, which show a sharp

decline in Silcotub’s capacity and production of subject product, and a sharp decline in subject exports to

the United States.19 Between interim 2004 and interim 2005, Silcotub’s reported capacity for subject

product fell from *** short tons to *** short tons, its production of subject product fell from *** short

tons to *** short tons, and its subject exports to the United States fell from *** short tons to *** short

tons.20 Silcotub’s exports to the EU accounted for *** percent of its total shipments in interim 2005,

compared to *** percent in interim 2004.21

Mittal Steel Roman, the other large producer in Romania,22 reported that ***.23 Mittal Steel

Roman produces only CASSLP pipe over 3 inches in outer diameter.24 Mittal Steel Roman’s capacity for,

and production of, subject product has ***.25
 26 CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 27 CR/PR at Table IV-31. 

 28 CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 29 Silcotub’s Prehearing Brief at 7 and Exhibit 2. Domestic interested parties allege that Romania may not enter

the EU on schedule. Domestic Producers’ Posthearing Brief (Small Diameter) at Exh. 1 pp. 6-7. However, we do

not find the sparse support offered for this allegation sufficient to outweigh the other evidence on the record, in

particular the existence of the accession agreement.

 30 We note that both Brazil and Mexico have antidumping duty orders on small diameter seamless pipe from

Romania. CR at IV-56, PR at IV-19. However, the Romanian industry’s major export markets are Asia and the EU. 

CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 31 CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 32 See CR/PR at Table I-1.

 33 CR at II-19, PR at II-12 - II-13.

 34 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(D).

 35 See CR at IV-17 - IV-18 nn.20, 21; PR at IV-7 nn.20, 21.

 36 374 F. Supp.2d 1285, 1291-92 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005).

 37 See CR at II-12, PR at II-8, CR/PR at Tables II-1, II-2, II-10, IV-31.

99

The industry in Romania as a whole is export-oriented.26 However, the record shows that prices

for subject pipe are higher in Western Europe and parts of Asia than in the United States27 and it is likely

that the industry will direct its shipments to those markets rather than to the United States if the order is

revoked. Moreover, as discussed above, Silcotub is shifting its focus to the regional market. Indeed, in

interim 2005, shipments to the EU accounted for *** percent of the industry’s total shipments, as

compared to *** percent in interim 2004.28 While the EU is currently conducting an antidumping duty

investigation on seamless pipe from Romania, Romania is scheduled to enter the EU in January 2007, at

which time it will no longer be subject to antidumping proceedings in the EU.29 30 The Romanian

industry forecasts exporting only *** short tons of subject merchandise to the United States if the order is

revoked,31 a level lower than that ***.32

We also note that the producers in Romania are not on major U.S. purchasers’ AMLs for subject

product. As discussed earlier, AMLs are important to a substantial minority of purchasers, namely major

oil and gas companies, and the recent increase in demand is being driven primarily by the oil and gas

markets.33

We have considered whether Romanian producers will likely re-direct production towards subject

merchandise if the order is revoked. The statute directs the Commission to consider 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.34 Romanian producers’ facilities are

capable of producing other products besides the subject CASSLP pipe.35 Thus, subject producers could

engage in product shifting in order to increase the volume of subject CASSLP pipe exported to the U.S.

market. Parties presented arguments on this issue to the Commission based on the ruling of the Court of

International Trade in Siderca, S.A.I.C. v. United States.

36

We do not find product shifting by Romanian producers to be likely. While U.S. demand has

increased during the period of review and U.S. prices for subject small diameter CASSLP pipe have

increased, the record indicates that global demand is also strong and that prices for subject CASSLP pipe

have increased in other markets as well.37 Indeed, industry participants and publications report continued

strong worldwide demand in oil and gas markets, which are the markets that drive demand for subject
 38 CR/PR at Tables II-1, II-2, and II-10; CR at II-12 - II-15, PR at II-8 - II-10; CR at IV-60, PR at IV-21.

 39 CR/PR at Table IV-31.

 40 See, e.g., CR at IV-17 - IV-18 nn.20 & 21; PR at IV-7 nn.20 & 21.

 41 CR/PR at Figure IV-1.

 42 CR/PR at Figure IV-2.

 43 See Tr. at 39-40 (Mr. Gurley), 41 (Mr. Gurley), 164 (Mr. Clark), 236 (Mr. Allen), 246 (Mr. Reilly), 254 (Mr.

Daneo), 337-38 (Mr. Daneo).

 44 See CR/PR at Figure IV-1.

 45 See, e.g., Domestic Producers’ Prehearing Small Diameter CASSLP Brief at 34.

 46 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany,

and Italy, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-362 and 731-TA-707-710 (Review), USITC Pub. No. 3429, June 2001.

 47 USITC Pub. No. 3429 at 22.

100

CASSLP pipe.38 Further, available price data indicate that prices for subject CASSLP pipe in Western

Europe and certain Asian markets are currently higher than in the United States.39

The strong demand in the oil and gas markets has also increased demand for other pipe and tube

products, particularly OCTG. In Romania, OCTG is produced in the same facilities and using the same

equipment and employees as subject CASSLP pipe.40 A comparison of prices between OCTG and subject

CASSLP pipe shows that OCTG prices have uniformly exceeded those for subject CASSLP pipe by a

substantial margin. For example, in July 2005, prices for OCTG exceeded prices for subject CASSLP

pipe by approximately $*** per ton.41 Further, worldwide OCTG prices currently exceed subject

CASSLP prices and, moreover, OCTG prices in Japan exceed OCTG prices in the U.S. market.42

Therefore, based on relative prices, the record evidence does not support a finding that shifting production

from OCTG to subject small diameter CASSLP pipe would be economically rational for a Romanian

producer seeking to enter the U.S. market in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

The domestic industry and respondents disagreed as to whether the higher OCTG prices translate

to a more profitable product.43 However, there is no evidence on the record that indicates CASSLP pipe

production is more profitable than OCTG production. Nor is there any dispute that OCTG is a highervalued product and that OCTG prices are uniformly higher than subject CASSLP pipe prices.44

Therefore, in light of the strong global demand for CASSLP, which limits the relative attractiveness of the

U.S. market, and the higher prices for non-subject products such as OCTG, the record evidence does not

support a conclusion that shifting production from non-subject products to subject CASSLP is

economically rational for Romanian producers. Therefore, we determine that Romanian producers are not

likely to engage in product shifting in order to increase exports of subject CASSLP to the U.S. market.

Domestic producers also argue that because of the transnational affiliations of Mittal-owned

producers in the Czech Republic, Romania and South Africa, and Tenaris-owned producers in Japan and

Romania, revoking the orders on imports from one or two of the countries would quickly result in a redirection of import from any country still under an antidumping duty order, as the requisite mechanisms,

such as common channels of distribution, are already in place.45 In a previous review of antidumping

duty orders concerning CASSLP pipe, the Commission noted the role that transnational affiliations may

have on subject producers’ behavior.46 The Commission found that “the transnational corporate

affiliations among many of the subject country producers also enhance their ability to resume exporting to

the United States by providing a ready network for marketing, sales, and distribution.”47 While

transnational affiliations among subject producers may facilitate their ability to export to the U.S. market

if they choose to do so, such affiliations do not, in and of themselves, constitute evidence that subject
 48 Commissioner Pearson notes that U.S. antitrust statutes are premised on the economic rationale that

consolidation of companies within an industry holds the potential for reducing competition among firms, thus

resulting in higher prices for the goods they produce. He sees no obvious reason why consolidation of formerly

independent firms under a single corporate umbrella, but operating in more than one country, should not have a

similar effect. He would expect such transnational consolidations to lead to less competition among various

exporting countries for shipments to the United States and to make it more likely that those sales would be made at

higher prices rather than lower ones.

 49 Mittal’s Posthearing Brief at Exh. 1, p. 21.

 50 See also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and the

United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-380-382 and 731-TA-797-804, USITC Pub. 3788 at 19 n.146 (July 2000). 

 51 For our discussion of the Commission’s findings in the original determinations, see majority views on small

diameter pipe from Japan.

 52 See Original Report at Tables V-1 - V-6.

 53 CR/PR at Tables V-2 - V-4.

 54 CR/PR at Table V-7.

 55 See CR/PR at Table III-6.

101

producers are likely to increase exports to the U.S. market.48 Before the impact of any transnational

affiliations comes into play, subject producers must first have an economic incentive to export to the U.S.

market. As discussed above, we do not find that the economic incentives that would induce a likely

significant volume of subject imports exist. Our analysis is supported by the actual behavior of Tenarisaffiliated producers in third countries. There are Tenaris-affiliated producers in Canada, Mexico, and

Italy that produce small diameter CASSLP pipe and are not subject to antidumping duty orders in the

United States. Notwithstanding the strong U.S. demand and rising U.S. prices for small diameter

CASSLP pipe, these producers shipped only *** short tons to the United States in 2005.49 Therefore, the

presence of transnational affiliations among subject producers does not provide substantial evidence that

the likely volume of subject imports would be significant.50

Therefore, on the basis of the recent declines in the Romanian industry’s capacity and production,

the change in Silcotub’s corporate affiliation and production and export strategies, and the industry’s

significant focus on other export markets, such as those in Europe and parts of Asia, that are more

attractive based on their higher prices relative to those in the United States, as well as the fact that

Romanian producers are not on major U.S. purchasers’ AMLs, we find that the likely volume of subject

imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania would not be significant if the antidumping duty

order were revoked.

B. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports51

Subject imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania significantly undersold domestic

merchandise in the original investigations.52 Similarly, in these reviews, subject imports from Romania

undersold domestic product in every available price comparison.53 Notwithstanding the consistent

underselling by subject imports from Romania, U.S. prices have increased over the period of review. 

U.S. prices for products 1, 2, and 3 (products for which subject imports from Romania consistently

undersold the U.S. product) increased by *** percent, *** percent, and *** percent, respectively.54 Nor

has the underselling by subject imports from Romania had any price suppressing effect. Although the

domestic industry’s unit value of cost of goods sold (“COGS”) increased from *** per short ton in 2000

to *** per short ton in 2004, the ratio of COGS to sales declined from *** percent to *** percent in 2004

as average unit values increased more rapidly than unit costs.55 The COGS/sales ratio declined further in
 56 Id.

 57 CR at II-17, PR at II-12, CR/PR at Tables II-3, II-4.

 58 CR at II-24 and II-25 n.37, PR at II-18 n.37, CR/PR at Table II-5.

 59 For our discussion of the Commission’s findings in the original determinations, see majority views on small

diameter pipe from Japan. We also adopt, from those majority views, the vulnerability analysis and the discussion of

the impact factors.

 60 We note that Romania is currently a substantial import source for large diameter CASSLP pipe. U.S. imports

of large diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania were *** short tons in 2004, equivalent to *** percent of total

imports. CR/PR at Table F-2. However, as noted above, we do not find that the economic incentives exist to

encourage Romanian producers to shift from production of large diameter CASSLP pipe to small diameter CASSLP

pipe. Further, imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania have not resulted in any declines in U.S.

prices of large diameter CASSLP pipe or the profitability of domestic large diameter CASSLP pipe producers. 

There is no evidence to suggest that, upon revocation of the antidumping duty order, the impact on the domestic

small diameter CASSLP pipe industry would be different.

102

the interim periods from *** percent.56 In addition, while price is an important factor in purchasing

decisions, other factors are more important, especially quality.57 We note that there is evidence on the

record in these reviews that indicates that the Romanian products are somewhat inferior in quality to other

subject imports and the domestic like product.58

Based on the significant increases in U.S. prices over the period of review, which have not been

negatively impacted by the presence of subject imports that undersell the U.S. product, as well as our

finding that revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Romania will likely not

result in significant increased volumes of subject CASSLP pipe to the United States, we find that any

limited increase in volume of subject imports from Romania upon revocation is not likely to result in

significant adverse price effects.

C. Likely Impact of Subject Imports59

In line with our findings regarding the likely volume and price effects of subject imports from

Romania, we find that subject imports would not be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry’s output, sales, market share, profits, or return on investment, if the order were

revoked. As demand is projected to remain strong, the small volume of subject imports that would be

likely upon revocation would not be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. 

Therefore, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Romania is not

likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the U.S. small diameter CASSLP pipe

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.60

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

small diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
 1

 A complete description of the imported products subject to these reviews is presented in the “Subject Products”

section of this part of the report. The antidumping duty orders cover small diameter (less than or equal to 4.5 inches

in outside diameter) carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan,

Romania, and South Africa and large diameter (greater than 4.5 inches in outside diameter) pipe from Japan and

Mexico.

 2

 The Commission received adequate responses from three U.S. producers, which accounted for a substantial

portion of U.S. production of small diameter CASSLP pipe and all U.S. production of large diameter CASSLP pipe,

and therefore determined that the domestic industry response was adequate. The Commission received adequate

responses from foreign producers in the Czech Republic, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa and therefore

determined that the respondent interested group responses for those countries were adequate. With regard to Japan,

the Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate, but determined to

conduct a full review to promote administrative efficiency. See Explanation of Commission Determination on

Adequacy, app. A.

 3

 The Commission’s notice of institution, notice to conduct full reviews, scheduling notice, and statement on

adequacy appear in app. A and may also be found at the Commission’s web site (internet address www.usitc.gov). 

Commissioners’ votes on whether to conduct expedited or full reviews may also be found at the web site.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

On May 2, 2005, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) gave notice, pursuant

to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), that it had instituted five-year reviews to determine

whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and

pressure pipe (“CASSLP pipe”)1

 from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa

would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry within a

reasonably foreseeable time. Effective August 5, 2005, the Commission determined that it would conduct

full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act.2

 Information relating to the background and

schedule of the reviews is provided in the following tabulation.3
I-2

Effective date Action

Small diameter carbon and alloy seamless, standard, line, and pressure pipe

June 26, 2000 U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”)’s antidumping duty order with

respect to imports from Japan and South Africa (65 FR 39360)

August 10, 2000 Commerce’s antidumping duty order with respect to imports from Romania (65 FR

48963)

August 14, 2000 Commerce’s antidumping duty order with respect to imports from the Czech

Republic (65 FR 49539)

May 2, 2005 Commission’s institution of five-year reviews (70 FR 22688)

August 5, 2005 Commission’s decision to conduct full five-year reviews (70 FR 49680, August 24,

2005)

September 7, 2005 Commerce’s final results of expedited five-year reviews (70 FR 53151)

September 12, 2005 Commission’s scheduling of five-year reviews (70 FR 55917, September 23,

2005); revised effective February 10, 2006 (71 FR 8311, February 16, 2006)

March 2, 2006 Commission’s hearing1

April 6, 2006 Commission’s vote

April 26, 2006 Commission’s determinations sent to Commerce

Large diameter carbon and alloy seamless, standard, line, and pressure pipe

June 26, 2000 Commerce’s antidumping duty order with respect to imports from Japan (65 FR

39360)

August 11, 2000 Commerce’s antidumping duty order with respect to imports from Mexico (65 FR

49227)

May 2, 2005 Commission’s institution of five-year reviews (70 FR 22688)

August 5, 2005 Commission’s decision to conduct full five-year reviews (70 FR 49680, August 24,

2005)

September 7, 2005 Commerce’s final results of expedited five-year reviews (70 FR 53159)

September 12, 2005 Commission’s scheduling of five-year reviews (70 FR 55917, September 23,

2005); revised effective February 10, 2006 (71 FR 8311, February 16, 2006)

March 2, 2006 Commission’s hearing1

April 6, 2006 Commission’s vote

April 26, 2006 Commission’s determinations sent to Commerce

 1 App. B contains a list of witnesses who appeared at the hearing.
I-3

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Section 751(c) of the Act requires Commerce and the Commission to conduct a review no later

than five years after the issuance of an antidumping or countervailing duty order or the suspension of an

investigation to determine whether revocation of the order or termination of the suspended investigation

“would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the

case may be) and of material injury.”

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that in making its determination of likelihood of continuation

or recurrence of material injury--

(1) IN GENERAL.-- . . . the Commission shall determine whether revocation of

an order, or termination of a suspended investigation, would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The

Commission shall consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the

subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation

is terminated. The Commission shall take into account--

(A) its prior injury determinations, including the volume, price

effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry

before the order was issued or the suspension agreement was accepted, 

(B) whether any improvement in the state of the industry is

related to the order or the suspension agreement, 

(C) whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the

order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and 

(D) in an antidumping proceeding . . ., (Commerce’s findings)

regarding duty absorption . . ..

(2) VOLUME.--In evaluating the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise would be significant if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is

terminated, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States. In so doing, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors,

including--

(A) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused

production capacity in the exporting country, 

(B) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely

increases in inventories, 

(C) the existence of barriers to the importation of such

merchandise into countries other than the United States, and 

(D) 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.

(3) PRICE.--In evaluating the likely price effects of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether--

(A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by imports

of the subject merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and 
 4

 Appendix C contains tables depicting the data separated by diameter size (tables C-1 through C-3 show data

related to small diameter CASSLP pipe; tables C-4 through C-6 show data related to large diameter CASSLP pipe)

and by chemistry (tables C-2 and C-3 show small diameter carbon and alloy pipe separated; tables C-5 and C-6 show

large diameter carbon and alloy pipe separated).

 5

 U.S. import data for small diameter CASSLP pipe are based on official Commerce statistics covered by the

following HTS statistical reporting numbers: 7304.10.1020, 7304.10.5020, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020,

7304.39.0024, 7304.59.8010, and 7304.59.8015. This list of HTS statistical reporting numbers is a subset of those

listed in the scope definition issued by Commerce. The complete list of HTS statistical reporting numbers issued by

Commerce in its scope language contains product largely outside of the scope definition, or specifically excluded

from the scope, such as mechanical tubing. See, infra, Part I, The Subject Products. U.S. producers, U.S. Steel and

Koppel, in consultation with the American Iron and Steel Institute (“AISI”), claim that imports covered by the

statistical reporting numbers in the above subset are predominately product within the scope of these reviews. See

U.S. Steel, Koppel Steel, and V&M Star’s response to notice of institution, June 21, 2005, exh. 1.

For the same reasons, U.S. import data for large diameter CASSLP pipe from nonsubject countries are

based on official Commerce statistics covered by the following subset of HTS statistical reporting numbers: 

7304.10.1030, 7304.10.1045, 7304.10.1060, 7304.10.5050, 7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0062,

(continued...)

I-4

(B) imports of the subject merchandise are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic like products.

(4) IMPACT ON THE INDUSTRY.--In evaluating the likely impact of imports of

the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors

which are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States,

including, but not limited to--

(A) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, 

(B) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment,

wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, and 

(C) 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.

The Commission shall evaluate all such relevant economic factors . . . within the context

of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected

industry.

Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states further that in making its determination, “the Commission may

consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy.” 

Information obtained during the course of these reviews that relates to the above factors is presented

throughout this report. 

SUMMARY DATA

A summary of data collected in the reviews is presented in appendix C.4

 U.S. industry data are

based on questionnaire responses of five firms that accounted for virtually all of known U.S. production

of CASSLP pipe during the review period (January 2000-September 2005). U.S. import data are based

on adjusted official Commerce statistics.5

 Responses by U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers of
 5

 (...continued)

7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8045, and 7304.59.8060. See U.S. Steel, Koppel Steel, and V&M Star’s response to notice

of institution, June 21, 2005, exh. 13.

U.S. imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico from August 2000 through July 2004 have been

reduced to zero after Commerce, during its four administrative reviews, determined that TAMSA, the sole producer

of large diameter CASSLP pipe in Mexico, did not ship any subject product to the United States. See Certain Large

Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Mexico, 68 FR 81, January 2, 2003;

68 FR 40627, July 8, 2003; 69 FR 32495, June 10, 2004; 70 FR 54017, September 13, 2005. The foreign producer’s

questionnaire response from TAMSA confirmed that the company did not export large diameter CASSLP pipe to the

United States during the period of review.

U.S. imports from Japan are based on proprietary data obtained from ***. Although these data may

understate U.S. imports from Japan, they are consistent with revenue reported under the Continued Dumping and

Subsidy Offset Act and with the limited data provided by one Japanese producer. Moreover, U.S. Steel contends

that “almost all of this tonnage consists of nonsubject product that has been excluded from the scope of these

reviews.” U.S. Steel’s prehearing brief, February 21, 2006, p. 21 and fn. 68; see also hearing transcript, March 2,

2006, pp. 211-212 (Vaughn)(“Our belief is that very, very little, if any of the imports you’re seeing from Japan and

Mexico are the subject product.”). 

As there were a number of specific exclusions in the Commerce scope definition of large diameter CASSLP

pipe, adjusted Commerce data used in this section depicting U.S. imports from nonsubject countries may be

overstated. 

 6

 Domestic industry data are believed to be modestly understated, particularly for calendar year 2000, due to the

absence of information from Michigan Specialty (*** percent of U.S. production in 1999) and Gulf States (now

closed, formerly *** percent of U.S. production in 1999).

I-5

CASSLP pipe and producers of CASSLP pipe in the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and

South Africa to a series of questions concerning the significance of the existing antidumping duty orders

and the likely effects of revocation are presented in appendix D. Table I-1 presents a summary of data

from the original investigations and from these reviews regarding small diameter CASSLP pipe.6

 Table I2 presents a summary of data from the original investigations and from these reviews regarding large

diameter CASSLP pipe.
I-6

Table I-1Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Summary data from the original investigations and current reviews, 1997-2004

Item 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 200

(Quantity=short tons; value=$1,000; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are 

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount 267,927 226,841 152,502 *** *** *** Producers’ share1 67.8 54.9 69.3 *** *** *** 

Importer’s share:1

 Czech Republic *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Japan 5.6 15.0 12.3 *** *** *** Romania *** *** *** *** *** *** South Africa *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Subtotal 21.8 35.8 23.8 *** *** *** 

All other countries 10.4 9.4 6.9 *** *** *** 

Total imports 32.2 45.1 30.7 *** *** *** 

U.S. import quantity from–2

Czech Republic *** *** *** 310 11 367 Japan 14,999 34,059 18,709 1,914 909 408 Romania *** *** *** 3,436 16,573 9,182 1South Africa *** *** *** 442 0 0 

Subtotal 58,497 81,121 36,270 6,102 17,492 9,957 1

 Other sources 27,903 21,272 10,586 89,194 85,959 77,021 8

All sources 86,400 102,393 46,856 95,296 103,451 86,977 10

Table continued on next page.
I-7

Table I-1--ContinuedSmall diameter CASSLP pipe: Summary data from the original investigations and current reviews, 1997-2004

Item 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 200

(Quantity=short tons; value=$1,000; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are 

U.S. producers’--

Capacity *** *** *** *** *** *** Production *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 

U.S. shipments

 Quantity 181,527 124,448 105,646 *** *** ***  Value 136,424 98,243 76,392 *** *** ***  Unit value $752 $789 $723 *** *** *** 

Production and related 

 workers 354 288 303 *** *** *** 

Hours worked (1,000) 711 537 587 *** *** *** 

Net sales $137,275 $100,616 $76,835 $*** $*** $*** Operating income $14,601 $6,872 ($10,792) $*** $*** $*** Operating income to net 

 sales1 10.6 6.8 (14.0) *** *** *** 

1 In percent.2 In the original investigations, U.S. import data were based on U.S. importer questionnaire responses which staff believed understated U.S. imports fr

countries. Confidential staff report, May 25, 2000, INV-X-114, p. IV-1, fn. 1. Data for 1997-99 presented in this table represent U.S. shipments of imports

calculate market shares in the original investigations.Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.Source: Data for 1997 through 1999 are compiled from information collected in the Commission’s original antidumping duty investigations. See Confiden

2000, INV-X-114; see also Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-847 a

Publication 3311, June 2000 and Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Mexico, and Romania

846, 848, and 849 (Final), USITC Publication 3325, August 2000. Data for 1999-2004 are compiled from data submitted in response to Commission que

present reviews and from adjusted official Commerce statistics.
I-8

Table I-2Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Summary data from the original investigations and current reviews, 1997-2004

Item 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 200

(Quantity=short tons; value=$1,000; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are 

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount 375,084 365,028 293,151 *** *** *** 

Producers’ share1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Importer’s share:1

Japan 7.7 11.8 17.0 *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** 

All other countries *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Total imports *** *** *** *** *** *** 

U.S. import quantity from–3

Japan 28,725 42,897 49,727 *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** 0 0 0 

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** 

 Other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** 

All sources *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Table continued on next page.
I-9

Table I-2--ContinuedLarge diameter CASSLP pipe: Summary data from the original investigations and current reviews, 1997-2004 

Item 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 200

(Quantity=short tons; value=$1,000; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are 

U.S. producers’--

Capacity *** *** *** *** *** *** Production *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 

U.S. shipments

 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***  Value *** *** *** *** *** ***  Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Production and related 

 workers *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Hours worked (1,000) *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Net sales *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income to net 

 sales1 *** *** *** *** *** *** 

1 In percent.2 Less than 0.05 percent.3 In the original investigations, U.S. import data were based on U.S. importer questionnaire responses which staff believed understated U.S. imports fr

countries. Confidential staff report, May 25, 2000, INV-X-114, p. IV-1, fn. 1. Data for 1997-99 presented in this table represent U.S. shipments of imports

calculate market shares in the original investigations.Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.Source: Data for 1997 through 1999 are compiled from information collected in the Commission’s original antidumping duty investigations. See Confiden

2000, INV-X-114; see also Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-847 a

Publication 3311, June 2000 and Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Mexico, and Romania

846, 848, and 849 (Final), USITC Publication 3325, August 2000. Data for 1999-2004 are compiled from data submitted in response to Commission que

present reviews and from adjusted official Commerce statistics.
 7 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa, Invs. Nos.

731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC Publication 3311, June 2000, p. 1.

 8 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Mexico, and

Romania, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-846, 848, and 849 (Final), USITC Publication 3325, August 2000, p. 1.

 9 Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless, Standard, and

Pressure Pipe from Japan; and Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure

Pipe from Japan and South Africa, 65 FR 39360, June 26, 2000; Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard,

Line, and Pressure Pipe from Romania, 65 FR 48963, August 10, 2000; Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain

Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, 65 FR

49539, August 14, 2000.

 10 Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless, Standard, and

Pressure Pipe from Japan; and Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure

Pipe from Japan and South Africa, 65 FR 39360, June 26, 2000; Notice of Amended Final Determinations of Sales

at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Mexico, 65 FR 49227, August 11, 2000.

I-10

THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS

The original investigations resulted from petitions filed on June 30, 1999, by Koppel Steel Corp.

(“Koppel”); Sharon Tube Co. (“Sharon”); U.S. Steel Group (“U.S. Steel”); and Vision Metals’ Gulf

States Tube Division (“Gulf States”). The petitions alleged that industries in the United States were

materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports

of small diameter seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe (“small diameter

CASSLP pipe”) from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa, and by LTFV imports of

large diameter seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe (“large diameter CASSLP

pipe”) from Japan and Mexico. In June 2000, the Commission completed its original investigations for

small diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and South Africa and for large diameter CASSLP pipe from

Japan (invs. nos. 731-TA-847 and 850) and determined that an industry in the United States was

materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and South

Africa and by LTFV imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan.7

 Subsequently, in August

2000, the Commission made an affirmative material injury determination regarding imports of small

diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic and Romania and large diameter CASSLP pipe from

Mexico (invs. nos. 731-TA-846, 848, and 849).8

 

In 2000, Commerce issued antidumping duty orders on imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe

from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa.9

 Also in 2000, it issued antidumping duty

orders on imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Mexico.10 

RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Title VII Investigations

Small and large diameter CASSLP pipe have been the subject of several Commission

investigations. A listing of these investigations is presented in the following tabulation. 
 11 Steel, Inv. No. TA-201-73, USITC Publication 3479, volume 1, December 2001, p. 155.

 12 Ibid., p. 188 (“In summary, the data present a mixed picture as to whether the domestic industry is seriously

injured. There were annual fluctuations in many of the factors examined. . . Nevertheless, one facet of domestic

industry performance remained consistent throughout the period examined: profitability. The domestic industry

maintained strong operating margins throughout the period, other than in 1999.”)

 13 Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe (Under 4.5 inches) from the Czech Republic,

Japan, Romania, and South Africa; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders,

70 FR 53151, September 7, 2005; Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure

(continued...)

I-11

Investigation/source Inv. No.

Date

of Inv. Pub. No. Action/status

Pipes and tubes of iron or

steel from Japan1 731-TA-87 (P) 1982 USITC 1224 Affirmative/Negative2

Pipes and tubes of iron or

steel from Japan 731-TA-87 (F) 1983 USITC 1347

Affirmative

(Order date: 3/1/83)

(Revocation date: 10/29/85)

Seamless carbon and alloy

steel standard, line, and

pressure pipe from:

CVD--Italy 701-TA-362 (F) 1995 USITC 2910

Affirmative

(Order date: 8/9/95)

(Revocation date: 8/8/2000)3

AD--Argentina,

Brazil, Germany,

and Italy 731-TA-707-710 (F) 1995 USITC 2910

Affirmative

(Order date: 8/3/95)

(Continuation date: 7/16/2001)

(Revocation date–Italy: 8/3/2000)3

 1 Seamless heat-resisting and seamless stainless steel pipe were included within the scope of the investigation. 2 The Commission made an affirmative determination with respect to seamless heat-resisting and seamless stainless pipes and tubes,

and a negative determination with respect to seamless “other alloy" pipes and tubes. 3 In five-year reviews completed in 2001, the Commission determined that the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty

orders on U.S. imports of the subject product from Italy would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and

Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362 and 731-TA-707-710 (Review), USITC Publication

3429, June 2001, p. 1.

Source: Compiled from U.S. International Trade Commission publications.

Safeguard Investigations

In 2001, the Commission conducted a global safeguard investigation of steel products (Inv. No.

TA-201-73) that included a category of carbon and alloy steel products referred to as “seamless pipe other

than oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”),” which included CASSLP pipe.11 With regard to this product

category, the Commission made a negative determination and found that the U.S. seamless pipe industry

was not seriously injured by increased U.S. imports, citing the profitability of the U.S. industry during the

period examined.12

COMMERCE’S RESULTS OF EXPEDITED REVIEWS

On September 7, 2005, Commerce published its findings that revocation of the antidumping duty

orders on small diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa and

revocation of the antidumping duty orders on large diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Mexico would

likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.13 Commerce has not conducted any changed
 13 (...continued)

Pipe from Japan and Mexico; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 70 FR

53159, September 7, 2005.

I-12

circumstances reviews nor issued any duty absorption determinations with respect to these orders. The

weighted-average dumping margins (in percent ad valorem), as reported by Commerce, for the original

investigations and the five-year reviews for small diameter CASSLP are presented in the table I-3. The

weighted-average dumping margins for large diameter CASSLP are presented in the table I-4.

Table I-3

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Weighted-average dumping margins, as reported by Commerce, for

the original investigations and the five-year reviews, by country and firm

Country Producer/exporter

Margin percentage (ad valorem)

Original

investigations Reviews

Czech Republic Nova Hut, A.S. 39.93 39.93

All others 32.26 32.26

Japan Kawasaki Steel Corp. 106.07 106.07

Nippon Steel Corp. 106.07 106.07

Sumitomo Metal Ind., Ltd. 106.07 106.07

All others 70.43 70.43

Romania Metal Business Int’l., S.R.L. 11.08 11.08

S.C. Petrotub, S.A. (1)

11.08

S.C. Silcotub, S.A. (1)

15.15

Sota Communication 15.15 15.15

All others 13.06 13.06

South Africa Iscor, Ltd. 43.51 43.51

All others 40.17 40.17

 1 No original margin issued by Commerce.

Source: Compiled from Federal Register notices of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
 14 Commerce did initiate an administrative review with respect to imports of small diameter CASSLP from Japan

on July 24, 2002 to review the second administrative period of June 1, 2001 though May 31, 2002, but later

rescinded the review after U.S. Steel withdrew its request for the review. Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy

Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 67 FR 70403, November 22, 2002.

I-13

Table I-4

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Weighted-average dumping margins, as reported by Commerce, for

the original investigations and the five-year reviews, by country and firm

Country Producer/exporter

Margin percentage (ad valorem)

Original

investigations Reviews

Japan Kawasaki Steel Corp. 107.80 107.80

Nippon Steel Corp. 107.80 107.80

Sumitomo Metal Ind., Ltd. 107.80 107.80

All others 68.88 68.88

Mexico TAMSA 15.05 15.05

All others 15.05 15.05

Source: Compiled from Federal Register notices of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

COMMERCE’S ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS

Small Diameter CASSLP Pipe

The Czech Republic, Japan, and South Africa

Commerce has not conducted any administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on small

diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan,14 or South Africa since the imposition of the

antidumping orders. 

Romania

Commerce has conducted five administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on small

diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania, as shown in the following tabulation:
 15 Commerce did initiate four administrative reviews with respect to large diameter CASSLP from Japan, but later

rescinded all four reviews. Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe

from Japan: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 67 FR 70403, November 22, 2002;

69 FR 627, January 6, 2004; 69 FR 61638, October 20, 2004; 70 FR 61252, October 21, 2005.

Commerce also initiated four administrative reviews with respect to large diameter CASSLP from Mexico. 

These reviews were also all rescinded. Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and

Pressure Pipe from Mexico: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 68 FR 61, January

2, 2003; 68 FR 40627, July 8, 2003; 69 FR 32495, November 10, 2004; 70 FR 54017, September 13, 2005.

 16 Under the provisions of the CDSOA (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the term “affected domestic producer” refers to any

producer or worker representative that (1) was a petitioner or interested party in support of the petition leading to

imposition of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, or antidumping finding, and (2) remains in operation.

 17 According to Customs, between 2001 and 2005, the outstanding orders on small diameter CASSLP pipe

resulted in the following revenue disbursements: Czech Republic, $0; Japan, $273,382; Romania, $287,316; South

Africa, $206.

I-14

Period of review Date results published Exporter

Margins

(percent) 

February 4, 2000 to

July 31, 2001

March 17, 2003 (68 FR 12672) S.C. Silcotub, S.A. 0.04

All others 13.06

August 1, 2001 to

July 31, 2002

September 17, 2003 (68 FR 54418) S.C. Silcotub, S.A. 0

All others 13.06

August 1, 2002 to

July 31, 2003

March 23, 2005 (70 FR 14648) S.C. Silcotub, S.A. 1.35

All others 13.06

August 1, 2003 to

July 31, 2004

July 18, 2005 (70 FR 41206) S.C. Silcotub, S.A. 15.15

All others 13.06

August 1, 2004 to

July 31, 2005

March 22, 2006 (71 FR 14501) S.C. Silcotub, S.A. 15.15

All others 13.06

Large Diameter CASSLP Pipe

Japan and Mexico

Commerce has not conducted any administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on large

diameter CASSLP from Japan or Mexico since the imposition of the antidumping orders.15

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS

Under the provisions of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”),

commonly known as the “Byrd Amendment,” duties assessed pursuant to an antidumping or

countervailing duty order are distributed on an annual basis by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(“Customs”) to “affected domestic firms.”16 Among the antidumping orders imposed on small diameter

CASSLP pipe, those from Japan and Romania generated the majority of revenue.17 With regard to large
 18 According to Customs, between 2001 and 2005, the outstanding orders on large diameter CASSLP pipe

resulted in the following revenue disbursements: Japan, $220,524, and Mexico, $27,199.

I-15

diameter CASSLP pipe, the order on Japan generated the majority of the revenue collected.18 Since

enactment of the CDSOA, the following U.S. producers of CASSLP pipe have received the following

disbursements:

Domestic firm

U.S. dollars (actual)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Small diameter CASSLP pipe

Koppel Steel $109 $0 $22,076 $13,443 $0

Sharon Tube 307 33,943 39,162 29,019 (7,249)

U.S. Steel 0 96,606 116,510 66,760 (25,705)

United Steelworkers 0 252 442 338 0

V&M1 1,048 114,496 0 81,934 (23,262)

Vision Metals 675 0 0 0 0

Large diameter CASSLP pipe

U.S. Steel 0 59,324 107,496 15,327 10,365

United Steel Workers 187 289 297 12 0

V&M 63 38,413 0 8,754 7,196

 1

 V&M Star, presently a U.S. producer solely of large diameter CASSLP pipe, collected

disbursements related to small diameter pipe production of the predecessor company, North Star

Tubular, which V&M acquired during the period of review. 

Note: Negative disbursement amounts are the result of refunds to importers as a result of liquidations or

court cases.

Source: Compiled from Customs CDSOA Annual Reports at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add-cvd/,

retrieved on January 11, 2006.
 19 Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe (Under 4.5 inches) from the Czech Republic,

Japan, Romania, and South Africa; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders,

70 FR 53151, September 7, 2005; Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure

Pipe from Japan and Mexico; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 70 FR

53159, September 7, 2005.

 20 The large diameter seamless pipes subject to these investigations are currently reported under statistical

reporting numbers 7304.10.1030, 7304.10.1045, 7304.10.1060, 7304.10.5050, 7304.31.6050, 7304.39.0036,

7304.39.0040, 7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0052, 7304.39.0056, 7304.39.0062, 7304.39.0068,

7304.39.0072, 7304.51.5060, 7304.59.6000, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045,

7304.59.8050, 7304.59.8055, 7304.59.8060, 7304.59.8065, and 7304.59.8070 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (HTS). Although the HTS statistical reporting numbers are provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

The column 1-general (normal trade relations) rates of duty for the subject products are duty-free.

I-16

THE SUBJECT PRODUCTS

Definition of the Subject Products

The imported products subject to these reviews are (1) large diameter (greater than 4.5 inches

{114 mm} and not over 16 inches {406 mm} in outside diameter (“OD”)) seamless carbon and alloy

(other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes (“large diameter pipes”), and (2) small

diameter (not over 4.5 inches {114 mm} in OD) seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel

standard, line, and pressure pipes and redraw hollows (“small diameter pipes”), the foregoing regardless

of wall thickness, manufacturing process (hot-finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end,

upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish. The subject products were further

defined by Commerce as follows:19 

Large diameter pipe

For purposes of the large diameter seamless pipe investigation, the products covered are large

diameter seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes

produced, or equivalent, to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-53,

ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the American

Petroleum Institute (API) 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below,

regardless of application. The scope of these investigations also includes all other products used

in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described

below, regardless of specification, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below. 

Specifically included within the scope of these investigations are seamless pipes greater than 4.5

inches (114.3 mm) up to and including 16 inches (406.4 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of

wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end,

beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish.20

Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Large diameter seamless pipe is used primarily for line

applications such as oil, gas, or water pipeline, or utility distribution systems. Seamless pressure

pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products,

natural gas and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these

substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of

external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-106 standard may be

used in temperatures of up to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A-335 standard
I-17

must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A-106. Seamless

pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard.

Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and

generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low

temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses

in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other

related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated

temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low

temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM

A-333 or ASTM A-334 specifications.

Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipe

lines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification. 

 

Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A-589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire protection uses

(ASTM A-795) are used for the conveyance of water.

Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, API

5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and

separate inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by meeting the

metallurgical requirements and performing the required tests pursuant to the respective

specifications. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain

a single inventory to service all customers.

The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified pipes in

large diameters is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. A more

minor application for large diameter seamless pipes is for use in pressure piping systems by

refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants, as well as in power generation plants and in

some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and

metering runs. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless

pipes. However, ASTM A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications.

The scope of these investigations includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters

described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application,

with the exception of the exclusions discussed below, whether or not also certified to a

non-covered specification. Standard, line, and pressure applications and the above-listed

specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of these investigations. Therefore,

seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-53,

ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L

specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, line, or pressure application, with the

exception of the specific exclusions discussed below.

For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping

characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM A-106 applications. These specifications

generally include ASTM A-161, ASTM A-192, ASTM A-210, ASTM A-252, ASTM A-501,

ASTM A-523, ASTM A-524, and ASTM A-618. When such pipes are used in a standard, line,

or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of these investigations.

Specifically excluded from the scope of these investigations are:
 21 The small diameter seamless pipes subject to these investigations are currently covered by statistical reporting

numbers 7304.10.1020, 7304.10.5020, 7304.31.3000, 7304.31.6050, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024,

7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 7304.51.5005, 7304.51.5060, 7304.59.6000, 7304.59.8010, 7304.59.8015,

7304.59.8020, and 7304.59.8025 of the HTS. Although the HTS statistical reporting numbers are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

The column 1-general (normal trade relations) rates of duty for the subject products are duty-free.

I-18

A. Boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM

A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM

A-795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure

pipe applications.

B. Finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods (OCTG), if covered by the

scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered

by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this

scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications.

C. Products produced to the A-335 specification unless they are used in an

application that would normally utilize ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications.

D. Line and riser pipe for deepwater application, i.e., line and riser pipe that is 

(1) used in a deepwater application, which means for use in water depths of 1,500

feet or more; (2) intended for use in and is actually used for a specific deepwater

project; (3) rated for a specified minimum yield strength of not less than 60,000

psi; and (4) not identified or certified through the use of a monogram, stencil, or

otherwise marked with an API specification (e.g., “API 5L”).

Small diameter pipe

For purposes of the small diameter seamless pipe investigations, the products covered are

seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes and

redraw hollows produced, or equivalent, to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333,

ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the American Petroleum

Institute (API) 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless

of application. The scope of these investigations also includes all products used in standard, line,

or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of

specification. Specifically included within the scope of these investigations are seamless pipes

and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of

wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end,

beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish.21

Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the

conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids

and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures

and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel

pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1,000

degrees Fahrenheit, at various ASME code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A-335

standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A-106. 
I-19

Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106

standard.

Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and

generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low

temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses

in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other

related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated

temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low

temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM

A-333 or ASTM A-334 specifications.

Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipe

lines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification.

Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A-589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire protection uses

(ASTM A-795) are used for the conveyance of water.

Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, API

5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and

separate inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by meeting the

metallurgical requirements and performing the required tests pursuant to the respective

specifications. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain

a single inventory to service all customers.

The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified pipes is

in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants. Other

applications are in power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field

uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A

minor application of this product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial

applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless

pipes. However, ASTM A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications.

Redraw hollows are any unfinished pipe or “hollow profiles” of carbon or alloy steel transformed

by hot rolling or cold drawing/hydrostatic testing or other methods to enable the material to be

sold under ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM

A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications.

The scope of these investigations includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters

described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application,

with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below, and whether or not also certified to

a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and pressure applications and the above-listed

specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of these investigations. Therefore,

seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-53,

ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and

API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, line, or pressure application, with the

exception of the specific exclusions discussed below.

For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping

characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM A-106 applications. These specifications
 22 The information in this section of the report is derived from the original investigations. See Certain Seamless

Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-847 and 850

(Final), USITC Publication 3311, June 2000; and Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure

Pipe from the Czech Republic, Mexico, and Romania, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-846, 848, and 849 (Final), USITC

Publication 3325, August 2000.

 23 Seamless pipes and tubes commonly are used in demanding applications that require exceptional strength, high

pressure containment, and a great degree of reliability. Welded pipes and tubes more commonly are used to

transport liquids at or near atmospheric pressure. For a further discussion of the comparison of certain seamless pipe

and welded pipe, see the Interchangeability subheading of this section of the report.

 24 Standard, line, and pressure pipe is generally intended to convey liquids and is typically tested and rated for its

ability to withstand hydrostatic pressure. Structural pipe and tubing is used for load-bearing purposes and

construction, although only small amounts of seamless pipe are used in structural applications. Seamless mechanical

tubing is typically a custom-designed product employed within the automotive industry and by equipment

manufacturers. OCTG are steel pipes and tubes used in the drilling of oil and gas wells and in the conveying of oil

and gas from within the well to ground level.

 25 Particular specifications to which pipe products are produced are commonly marked on each pipe and are

referred to as a “stencil.”

I-20

generally include ASTM A-161, ASTM A-192, ASTM A-210, ASTM A-252, ASTM A-501,

ASTM A-523, ASTM A-524, and ASTM A-618. When such pipes are used in a standard, line,

or pressure pipe application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below, such

products are covered by the scope of these investigations.

Specifically excluded from the scope of these investigations are boiler tubing and mechanical

tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM

A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications and are not used

in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications. In addition, finished and unfinished OCTG are

excluded from the scope of these investigations, if covered by the scope of another antidumping

duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and

unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications.

Description and End Uses22

Steel pipes and tubes are made in circular, rectangular, or other cross sections, and are generally

manufactured by either the welded or seamless production process.23 Steel pipe and tube manufactured

through either process can be further categorized by the grades of steel–particularly carbon and alloy

grades–used in steel production. Included in alloy are heat-resisting, stainless, and “other” alloy grades. 

Additionally, steel pipes and tubes can be further categorized by end use. The American Iron and Steel

Institute (AISI) has defined six such end-use categories, which are standard pipe, line pipe, structural pipe

and tubing, mechanical tubing, pressure tubing, and oil country tubular goods (OCTG).24 Subject

products are defined as CASSLP pipe.

Steel pipes and tubes are generally produced according to standards and specifications published

by a number of organizations, including the ASTM, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME), and the API. Comparable organizations in the United Kingdom, Japan, Russia, and other

countries also have developed standard specifications for steel pipes and tubes.25

Seamless standard pipe is most commonly produced to American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) A-53 specification, and is generally intended for the low pressure conveyance of

water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air

conditioning units, automatic sprinklers, and other related uses.
 26 Seamless carbon steel ASTM A-106 B pressure pipe may be used in temperatures of up to 1,000 degrees

Fahrenheit, at various ASME code stress levels. Alloy piping made to ASTM standard A-335 (excluded from

Commerce’s scope for large diameter CASSLP pipe) must be used if temperature and stress levels exceed those

allowed for ASTM A-106 and ASME codes.

 27 Hearing transcript, pp. 104-05 (Leland).

 28 Quadruple certification is referred to as a “quad stencil,” whereby manufacturers put four stencils, or markings,

on the pipe to show that it has been produced to meet the requirements and tests pursuant to the respective

specifications.

 29 Hearing transcript, p. 105 (Leland).

 30 USITC staff e-mail correspondence with ***, March 20, 2005; hearing transcript, pp. 105-106 (Leland).

 31 Hearing transcript, p. 159 (Binder).

I-21

Seamless line pipe is produced to the American Petroleum Institute (API) 5L specification, and is

intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas and other fluids in pipe lines.

Seamless pressure pipe is commonly produced to ASTM A-106 specification, and is intended for

the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas, and other liquids

and gases in industrial piping systems.26

Seamless pipe is commonly produced and certified to meet multiple specifications which reduces

the need for separate production runs and inventories for pipe sold in different markets.27 Manufacturers

often quadruple certify pipe made to ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, API 5L Grade B, and API 5L X-42

specifications,28 thus allowing distributors to maintain a single inventory of quad stenciled pipe for use in

multiple applications.29 Small and, to a somewhat lesser extent, large diameter CASSLP pipe are

commonly produced and certified to the quad stencil specification.30

Small vs. Large Pipe

Pipe diameter is the distinguishing characteristic that differentiates between subject small and

large diameter pipe. Small diameter subject pipe is less than or equal to 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) in outside

diameter (OD), whereas large diameter pipe is greater than 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) up to and including 16

inches (406.4 mm) in OD. Small diameter pipe is frequently used in petrochemical and other nonpipeline applications. Small diameter pipe ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 inches OD may be used for high

pressure construction applications–for example, in refineries or chemical plants.31 Small diameter pipe in

sizes ranging from 2 to 3 inches in outside diameter is typically pressure pipe used for high pressure 
 32 Ibid., p. 159.

 33 Ibid., p. 160. Pipe with as outside diameter of less than 4.5 inches is used on occasion in line pipe applications. 

USITC staff e-mail correspondence with ***, March 20, 2006.

 34 Manganese primarily increases tensile strength and hardness, while reducing ductility and weldability. USITC

staff e-mail correspondence with ***, March 20, 2006.

 35 Alloy steels achieve a high degree of strength and toughness while maintaining weldability–attributes that can

be achieved with carbon steels, though not always to the same degree. USITC staff e-mail correspondence with ***,

March 20, 2006

 36 Nickel primarily increases toughness, especially at lower temperatures, as well as increases tensile strength and

hardness, while slightly reducing weldability. Chromium primarily increases tensile strength and hardness, and

reduces weldability. Higher concentrations of chromium can improve corrosion and abrasion resistance. 

Molybdenum primarily increases tensile strength and hardness, but reduces weldability. USITC staff e-mail

correspondence with ***, March 20, 2006.

 37 ASTM A-333 and A-334 cover several grades of steel used for low temperature applications. Grade 1, 6, and

10 are carbon steel grades. Grades 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 11 are alloy steel grades containing nickel and additional

alloying elements. The most common alloy steel grade is grade 3, which contains about 3.5 percent nickel. See

2000 Annual Book of ASTM standards, Section 1, Iron and Steel Products, Vol. .01.01, Steel–Piping, Tubing, and

Fittings (West Conshohocken, PA), pp. 194-207.

 38 Excluded from Commerce’s scope for large diameter CASSLP pipe. ASTM A-335 covers 12 different alloy

compositions for high temperature service. All contain molybdenum in sufficient amount to be considered alloy

steel. See 2000 Annual Book of ASTM standards, Section 1, Iron and Steel Products, Vol. .01.01, Steel–Piping,

Tubing, and Fittings (West Conshohocken, PA), pp. 208-215.

I-22

applications.32 Pipe with larger outside diameters (especially pipe with an OD greater than 4.5 inches

(corresponding to a nominal pipe size of 4)) is typically line pipe used in gas transmission,33 as well as in

pipeline construction.

Carbon Steel vs. Alloy Steel Pipe

Most steel products, including those subject to these reviews, are produced from carbon steel,

which contains controlled amounts of carbon and manganese.34 Alloy steels, which provide physical

properties not achievable to the same degree with carbon steels,35 contain controlled amounts of alloying

elements–usually, nickel, chromium, and molybdenum.36 ASTM specifications that include alloy steel

and that are referred to in these reviews are ASTM A-333 and A-334 (covering carbon and alloy seamless

pipe and tube for low temperature service),37 and ASTM A-335 (covering alloy steel pipe for high

temperature service).38

The distinguishing characteristics of alloy steel pipe are its physical properties, which make the

alloy steel pipe suitable for application in high temperature or low temperature service. Uses can differ

from those of carbon steel pipe, based upon the service requirements and temperature and pressure

requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Code.
I-23

Manufacturing Process

In the United States, steel used to produce CASSLP pipe is made by either the basic-oxygen

process, in which scrap is added to molten pig iron and alloying materials to convert into molten steel, or

by the electric-arc furnace (EAF) process, in which steel scrap, direct-reduced iron, cold pig iron, and

alloying materials are melted and converted into molten steel. The chemical composition of steel,

including the level of carbon, manganese, and any alloying elements, such as nickel, chromium, and

molybdenum, is controlled in the melting process. Molten steel produced by either steelmaking process is

continuously cast into either round or square billets. CASSLP pipe producers that do not maintain

steelmaking operations use purchased billets or redraw hollows as their raw material.

CASSLP pipe is manufactured by either of two high temperature processes to form a central

cavity in a solid steel billet. In the rotary piercing process, a heated billet is gripped by angled rolls,

which cause the billet to rotate and advance over a piercer point, forming a hole through its length (figure

I-1). In the extrusion process, the billet is hot punch-pierced and then extruded axially through a die and

over a mandrel, forming a hollow shell (figure I-2). The hollow shell produced by either process is then

rolled with either a fixed plug or a continuous mandrel inside the shell to reduce the wall thickness and

increase the length. The shell is then rolled in a sizing mill or a stretch reduction mill where it is formed

in a true round and sized to the required diameter.

Figure I-1

Sequence of operations used to produce seamless pipe products by piercing and rolling

Source: AISI, Steel Products Manual: Steel Specialty Tubular Products, October 1980, p. 17.
 39 ***. USITC telephone interview with ***, March 13, 2006.

 40 Some alloy steel pipe and some carbon steel pipe may require heat treating, which may involve one or more

heating cycles in either a continuous furnace or a batch furnace, with controlled rates of cooling. Specific heat

treating requirements are dependent upon the grade of steel being processed and the specification to which the steel

pipe is produced.

I-24

Figure I-2 

Cycle of operations in the production of an extruded tubular section

Source: AISI, Steel Products Manual: Steel Specialty Tubular Products, October 1980, p. 19.

Whereas CASSLP pipe is normally furnished hot-finished, small diameter pipe of less than two

inches in outside diameter is often cold drawn because hot-rolling of small diameter pipe is often not

possible, although the minimum diameter for hot rolling differs from producer to producer because of

differences in equipment capabilities.39 Pipe also may be cold drawn in order to provide a surface finish

smoother than that which can be produced by hot finishing. When pipe is to be cold drawn, seamless

hollows (called redraw hollows) are first pickled in acid to remove scale and oxides from both the outside

and inside surfaces. Redraw hollows are then rinsed in water and coated with a lubricant for cold

drawing. The hollow is pulled through a die and over an internal mandrel, which reduces the outside

diameter and increases the length (figure I-3). The mandrel inside the hollow controls the inside diameter

and the wall thickness. Following cold drawing, the hollows are annealed (heat treated).40
I-25

Figure I-3

Diagram of the cold drawing process

Source: AISI, Steel Products Manual: Steel Specialty Tubular Products, October 1980, p. 25.

Finishing operations on subject CASSLP pipe include straightening, cutting to length, inspection,

testing, end finishing (e.g., beveling or threading), and coating. Pipes may be furnished galvanized (hotdip zinc coated) and may be threaded and coupled.

Other steel seamless tubing products that are produced on the same equipment as subject

CASSLP pipe include CASSLP pipe with OD greater than 16 inches, mechanical tubing, pressure tubing,

structural pipe and tubing, OCTG, and coupling stock. Table I-5 shows the quantity of shipments in the

United States of all seamless tubular products during 2000-05, as reported by the AISI. These data may

not include shipments of all producers; are not available according to small and large diameter products;

and include production of CASSLP pipe in diameters over 16 inches. However, they indicate that during

the period of review, CASSLP pipe declined as a share of seamless tubular products by reporting

companies, but still accounted for approximately 17 percent of shipments in 2005.

Table I-5

Seamless carbon and alloy steel tubular products: Net shipments by U.S. producers,

2000-05

Product 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Quantity (short tons)

CASSLP pipe 393,078 415,199 299,515 265,092 380,471 375,591

Oil country tubular goods 992,327 986,392 706,672 915,796 1,264,137 1,353,799

Mechanical tubing 429,984 383,217 333,766 311,004 378,919 393,776

Pressure tubing 35,148 29,326 (1) (1) 34,110 41,931

Structural pipe and

tubing, pipe for piling 15,393 7,946 35,853 38,451 20,355 18,494

 Total 1,865,930 1,822,080 1,375,806 1,530,343 2,077,992 2,183,591

 1

 None reported.

Note.--Data include shipments of pipe with outside diameters greater than 16 inches.

Source: AISI, 10P Report, 2000-05.
 41 Whereas seamless pipe is produced from billets, which are rotary pierced or extruded and hot rolled on a plug

mill or mandrel mill, or redraw hollows, which are cold drawn, welded pipe is produced from flat rolled sheet, which

is rolled on hot-strip mills. The sheet is then formed into tubular shape by a series of rollers. Once in tubular form,

the edges of the sheet are joined together by various welding processes to form a pipe or tube. 

 42 USITC staff e-mail correspondence with ***, March 20, 2006.

 43 The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic products that are “like” the subject imported

products is based on a number of factors including (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) common manufacturing

facilities, production process, and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and producer

perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and, where appropriate, (6) price. 

 44 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa,

Invs. Nos. 731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC Publication 3311, June 2000, p. 11; Certain Seamless Carbon and

Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Mexico, and Romania, Invs. Nos. 731-TA846, 848, and 849 (Final), USITC Publication 3325, August 2000, pp. 3-4.

 45 The Commission determined that it “generally has not drawn lines based on size, and has looked for other

points of distinction before finding separate like products. However, in addition to the size difference, we find other

important differences between large diameter and small diameter pipe. Small and large diameter pipe have

somewhat different end uses and limited interchangeability, are priced differently, are perceived as different products

by producers and customers, and (with few exceptions) are manufactured in different mills with different

(continued...)

I-26

Interchangeability

In general, because of engineering design and specifications, there is limited interchangeability

between pipe of different sizes, between pipe made from different manufacturing processes (i.e., seamless

vs. welded), and between carbon and alloy steel pipe. Whereas small diameter CASSLP pipe frequently

is used in petrochemical and other standard applications such as the conveyance of water, steam,

chemicals, natural gases, and other liquids and gases in industrial piping systems, in addition to oil and

gas pipelines, large diameter CASSLP pipe is used primarily in pipeline construction for oil, gas, or

water, or utility distribution systems.

Seamless and welded pipe are produced in different manufacturing facilities and produced using

different equipment.41 Seamless pipe can generally be substituted for welded pipe, but not vice versa. 

The substitution of seamless pipe for welded pipe would generally be economically prohibitive because

of the higher price of seamless pipe. Additionally, seamless pipe is generally perceived to be a stronger,

more reliable product, due to the absence of a longitudinal weld, in which failures could occur.

Alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure (SSLP) pipe may be used in all seamless carbon SSLP

pipe applications according to end-use design, but generally not vice versa. Alloy steels provide added

strength and toughness (while maintaining weldability), which can be achieved with carbon steels, though

not always to the same degree.42 Carbon SSLP pipe may therefore be subject to physical limitations

based on engineering design specifications and requirements, which alloy seamless SSLP pipe may meet.

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

This section presents information related to the Commission’s “domestic like product”

determination.43 In its original determinations regarding imports of small and large diameter CASSLP

pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa, the Commission found that

small diameter and large diameter CASSLP pipe, corresponding to Commerce’s scope definitions,

constituted separate domestic like products.44 

In the original investigations, the Commission examined two separate domestic like product

issues. First, as addressed above, the Commission examined whether small and large diameter CASSLP

pipe constituted one or two domestic like products.45 Second, the Commission examined whether carbon
 45 (...continued)

equipment.” Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South

Africa, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC Publication 3311, June 2000, pp. 8-9.

 46 The Commission majority found that “carbon pipe and alloy pipe comprise a continuum of seamless pipe

products. While there are a number of differences between carbon and alloy pipe, we find those differences to be

less significant than their similarities. Seamless alloy pipe varies in chemical composition and is used in more

extreme environments than seamless carbon pipe, but these differences are not controlling, particularly in the context

of the characteristics and uses shared by seamless pipe products in general. . . Carbon and alloy pipe are

manufactured in the same facilities with the same equipment and the same workers. The carbon/alloy price

differential, customer perceptions of alloy pipe as a specialty product, and the smaller, more specialized alloy

distribution network are consistent with alloy pipe’s small niche within the larger seamless carbon and alloy pipe

market.” Ibid., p 11.

Commissioners Askey and Hillman dissented, determining that carbon and alloy seamless CASSLP pipe

exhibited differences in physical characteristics, end uses, interchangeability, and price to an extent to constitute two

separate domestic like products. Ibid., pp. 30 and 40-41. 

 47 U.S. Steel, Koppel Steel, and V&M Star’s response to notice of institution, June 21, 2005, p. 33; U.S. Steel and

Koppel’s prehearing brief, February 21, 2006, p. 13; V&M Star’s prehearing brief, February 21, 2006, p. 3; U.S.

Steel’s prehearing brief, February 21, 2006, p. 10.

 48 Mittal respondents’ response to notice of institution, June 21, 2005, p. 15; NKK Tube’s response to the notice

of institution, June 21, 2005, p. 7; Silcotub’s response to notice of institution, June 21, 2005, p. 12; Mittal’s

prehearing brief, February 21, 2006, p. 2; Silcotub’s prehearing brief, February 21, 2006, p. 1.

 49 A compilation of questionnaire responses by producers and customers is contained in app. E.

 50 The same process and equipment is used to heat treat carbon and alloy steel SSLP pipe. There are no additional

processes that alloy steel SSLP pipe must undergo compared to carbon steel SSLP pipe. USITC staff e-mail

correspondence with ***, March 20, 2006.

I-27

and alloy pipe constituted one or separate domestic like products. With regard to the second issue, the

Commission majority concluded that carbon and alloy pipe constitute a single domestic like product.46

In their submissions to the Commission in the course of these reviews, the domestic interested

parties stated that they support the Commission’s definition of the domestic like product made in the

original investigations.47 Respondent interested parties have not raised any issues regarding the

Commission’s original domestic like product determination.48

Carbon and Alloy SSLP

In the current reviews, the Commission asked U.S. producers to comment on factors traditionally

used by the Commission to aid in its domestic like product finding including (1) physical characteristics

and uses; (2) common manufacturing facilities, production process, and production employees; (3)

interchangeability; (4) customer and producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and, where

appropriate, (6) price. A summary of the information gathered in these reviews follows.49

Physical Characteristics and Uses

Carbon SSLP pipe and alloy SSLP pipe are both circular and seamless and share many of the

same chemical elements, and both may be heat treated.50 Carbon steel, however, contains controlled

amounts of carbon and manganese, while alloy steels contain controlled amounts of alloying elements,

such as nickel, chromium, and molybdenum, and provide physical properties and strength not achievable

with carbon steel. In response to the Commission’s questionnaire, *** noted that differences in physical

characteristics are limited to the chemical properties of the steel grade. Wall measurements do not differ

between carbon and alloy SSLP pipe.
 51 *** producer questionnaire response. *** nonetheless reported that the manufacturing processes for carbon

and alloy SSLP pipe are fully interchangeable. ***, a purchaser of CASSLP pipe, noted that for alloy SSLP pipe,

(continued...)

I-28

The distinguishing physical characteristic of alloy steel pipe is that its physical properties make it

suitable for use in more demanding applications and environments, such as high pressure applications,

and high temperature or low temperature service. In response to the Commission’s questionnaire, ***, a

U.S. purchaser, noted that for CASSLP pipe used in oil transmission, carbon SSLP is used for normal

sweet (lower amounts of hydrogen sulfide gas) service conditions, whereas alloy SSLP pipe is commonly

applied to sour (higher amounts of hydrogen sulfide gas) service applications and/or applications where

temperatures and flow requirements would be unsuitable for carbon SSLP.

Interchangeability

Because of engineering design and specifications, there is limited interchangeability between

carbon and alloy pipe. Both seamless carbon and alloy SSLP pipe are used to transport liquids and gases

in demanding applications. Large diameter carbon and alloy SSLP pipe are both used to carry oil and gas

volumes over long distances in challenging environments. However, alloy SSLP pipe is used in higher

temperature and higher pressure applications, or both, for which carbon SSLP pipe may not be suitable. 

U.S. purchaser *** noted that in most cases, carbon SSLP pipe and alloy SSLP pipe are not

interchangeable because of the performance and characteristics required of the products. U.S. purchaser

*** noted that if there are no extreme temperatures or severe pressures, then interchangeability is

possible, albeit, limited. Two U.S. purchasers, ***, noted that alloy SSLP pipe can be used in most

carbon SSLP pipe applications, although *** noted that the price of alloy SSLP pipe is higher than that of

carbon SSLP pipe. Interchangeability is discussed in further detail in Part II of this report.

Channels of Distribution

Domestic producers sell both carbon and alloy SSLP pipe primarily to distributors. According to

questionnaire responses, *** percent of U.S. producers’ 2004 U.S. shipments of small diameter carbon

SSLP pipe were to distributors, while *** percent of their U.S. shipments of small diameter alloy SSLP

pipe were to distributors. With respect to large diameter carbon SSLP pipe, *** percent of U.S.

producers’ 2004 U.S. shipments were to distributors, while *** percent of their U.S. shipments of large

diameter alloy SSLP pipe were to distributors. 

As discussed in Part II of this report, alloy SSLP pipe usually is distributed through a smaller

group of distributors than is carbon SSLP pipe. The overall volume of alloy SSLP pipe, however,

whether in small diameter or larger diameter sizes, is substantially smaller than the volume of carbon

SSLP pipe.

Common Manufacturing Facilities, Employees, and Methods

One of the five responding producers of the seamless pipe subject to these reviews, U.S. Steel,

produces alloy SSLP pipe, in both small and large diameters. U.S. Steel produces carbon SSLP pipe as

well, also in both small and large diameters, and accounts for *** of 2004 small diameter CASSLP pipe

production in the United States as well as *** of 2004 large diameter CASSLP production. In general,

the same manufacturing facilities and production employees are used to produce both carbon and alloy

SSLP pipe. In response to the Commission’s questionnaire, *** noted that carbon SSLP pipe is produced

using the same manufacturing processes and employees, as well as produced on the same equipment as

alloy SSLP pipe.51
 51 (...continued)

additional skills are required for heat treating. 

 52 Compare tables C-2 and C-3; The record in these reviews suggests that differences in average unit values

between small diameter carbon and alloy steel SSLP pipe are less pronounced than during the original investigations. 

In part, this reflects the absence of the now-closed Gulf States and the much smaller Michigan Seamless Tube

(formerly Michigan Specialty). In addition to small diameter carbon steel SSLP pipe, both companies produced

relatively specialized alloy pipe. Compare Original Report table C-4 with Original Report table E-3 (***). In

addition, as discussed previously, both companies produced alloy pipe in size ranges that typically required coldfinishing. In contrast, U.S. Steel, which reported no production of small diameter alloy steel SSLP pipe during the

original investigations, was the only reporting producer of such pipe during the current reviews. However, much of

U.S. Steel’s small diameter alloy steel SSLP pipe consists of alloy steel grades that are *** in chemical composition

to carbon steel grades. USITC staff telephone interview with ***. Moreover, U.S. Steel produces small diameter

alloy steel SSLP pipe in sizes that are at the high end of the small diameter size range and which do not require cold

finishing. See, e.g., table V-5 in Part V of this report (presenting data for seamless pipe stenciled to meet API 5L

Grade X-52 specifications, 4.5 inches in outside diameter).

 53 Compare tables C-5 and C-6.

I-29

Producer and Customer Perceptions

*** noted that domestic producers and customers perceive carbon and alloy SSLP pipe as a

continuum of seamless pipe products that are used in demanding applications. *** noted that customer

perceptions are based on particular temperature and pressure requirements as demanded in a given

application. However, *** noted that there are generally no differences in customer/producer perceptions

between carbon and alloy SSLP pipe if the carbon and alloy steels are made within the same steel grade.

U.S. purchasers generally noted that carbon and alloy SSLP pipe are perceived differently based

on factors such as level of specialization (alloy SSLP pipe generally perceived as somewhat more

specialized), end use application, availability, and price. *** noted that there are generally no differences

in producer and customer perceptions between carbon and alloy SSLP pipe, except that purchasers of

alloy SSLP pipe are more perceptive to specification differences. *** noted that alloy SSLP pipe is more

specialized than carbon SSLP and that carbon SSLP pipe is easier to procure because of more capacity

availability allotted to the production of carbon SSLP pipe. *** also noted that alloy SSLP pipe is not

readily available.

Price

Sales of domestically produced alloy SSLP pipe in the United States are extremely limited. 

However, producers and purchasers noted that alloy grades of SSLP pipe are generally more expensive

than carbon grades of SSLP pipe because additional alloying materials and manufacturing steps increase

the manufacturing cost. With respect to small diameter alloy SSLP pipe, the reported average unit value

for 2004, $***, was moderately higher than the reported average unit value for small diameter carbon

SSLP pipe ($***). However, as shown in appendix C, the average unit values for small diameter carbon

SSLP pipe were frequently moderately higher than the average unit values for small diameter alloy SSLP

pipe.52 For large diameter SSLP pipe, the average unit value of alloy pipe was $*** per short ton in 2004,

compared to an average unit value of $*** for carbon pipe. The higher average unit value for alloy

products was observable throughout the period for which data were collected.53 Additional information

on the prices of specific carbon and alloy SSLP pipe products appears in Part V of this report.
 54 Wheatland Tube Co. reported that it did not produce CASSLP pipe during the period examined. Michigan

Seamless Tube, LLC, believed to produce CASSLP pipe during the period examined, did not provide the

Commission with a questionnaire response. In the original investigations, Michigan Specialty (now Michigan

Seamless Tube, LLC) produced small diameter CASSLP pipe and accounted for less than *** percent of U.S.

CASSLP pipe production in 1999.

I-30

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

The Commission sent producers’ questionnaires to seven firms identified as U.S. producers of

CASSLP pipe. Five firms provided the Commission with responses: (1) Koppel Steel Corp. (“Koppel”);

(2) Sharon Tube Co. (“Sharon”); (3) The Timken Co. (“Timken”); (4) U.S. Steel Corp. (“U.S. Steel”);

and (5) V&M Star, L.P. (“V&M Star”).54 Table I-6 presents the list of responding U.S. producers of

small diameter CASSLP pipe with each company’s U.S. production location, share of reported U.S.

production in 2004, and position on the continuation of the antidumping duty orders. Table I-7 presents

the list of responding U.S. producers of large diameter CASSLP pipe with each company’s U.S.

production location, share of reported U.S. production in 2004, and position on the continuation of the

antidumping duty orders.

Table I-6

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. producers, U.S. production locations, shares of reported U.S.

production in 2004, and positions on the continuation of the antidumping duty orders

Firm Production location

Share of

production

(percent)

1

Position on

continuation of

the orders2

Koppel3 Beaver Falls, PA *** Support4

Sharon Sharon, PA *** ***

Timken Canton, OH *** ***

U.S. Steel

Fairfield, AL

Lorain, OH *** Support

 1 Production of small diameter alloy SSLP pipe accounted for *** percent of total 2004 production. *** U.S.

producer to report production of small diameter SSLP pipe during the period of review. 

 2

 Unless otherwise noted, firms stated as supporting the continuation of the antidumping orders do so for the

orders on all countries.

 3

 Koppel is a wholly owned subsidiary of NS Group, Inc. of Newport, KY.

 4

 Koppel takes no position regarding the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on large diameter

CASSLP pipe from Japan and Mexico.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 55 In the original investigations, Sawhill Tubular initially identified itself as a domestic producer owing to ***. In

response to the Commission’s questionnaire in the final phase of the investigations, Sawhill no longer claimed to be

a domestic producer. According to Sawhill, it ***. See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and

Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa, Staff Report to the Commission

on Investigations Nos. 731-TA-846-850 (Final), May 25, 2000.

I-31

Table I-7

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. producers, U.S. production locations, shares of reported U.S.

production in 2004, and positions on the continuation of the antidumping duty orders

Firm Production location

Share of

production

(percent)

1

Position on

continuation of

the orders2

Timken Canton, OH *** ***

U.S. Steel

Fairfield, AL

Lorain, OH *** Support

V&M Star3

Houston, TX

Youngstown, OH *** Support4

 1 Production of large diameter alloy SSLP pipe accounted for *** percent of total 2004 production. *** U.S.

producer to report production of large diameter SSLP pipe during the period of review. 

 2

 Unless otherwise noted, firms stated as supporting the continuation of the antidumping orders do so for the

orders on all countries.

 3

 V&M Star is a joint venture between V&M Tubes, S.A., a producer of CASSLP pipe in Boulogne, France (***

percent interest) and Sumitomo Corp. of Houston, TX (*** percent interest), a wholly owned subsidiary of

Sumitomo Corp. of Tokyo, Japan.

 4

 V&M Star takes no position regarding the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on small diameter

CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Since the original investigations, the U.S. industry has experienced consolidation and the exit of a

number of U.S. producers of CASSLP pipe. During the Commission’s original investigations, there were

eight U.S. producers of small and/or large diameter CASSLP pipe. These companies included: (1) Gulf

States Tube Co. (“Gulf States”); (2) Koppel; (3) Michigan Specialty; (4) North Star Steel (“North Star”);

(5) Sawhill Tubular, Inc.;55 (6) Sharon; (7) Timken; and (8) U.S. Steel. Of these U.S. producers, all

produced small diameter CASSLP pipe with the exception of North Star. North Star, Timken, and U.S.

Steel produced large diameter CASSLP pipe.

In 2000, the parent company of Gulf States, Vision Metals, Inc., filed for bankruptcy and closed

its Rosenburg, TX, CASSLP pipe production facility. Presently, the production facilities are idle. In

2002, Michigan Seamless Tube, Inc. was created to purchase the Michigan Specialty Tube Division of the

defunct Vison Metals, Inc. Presently, Michigan Seamless is a part of Atlas Holdings, LLC, a private

equity firm. In 2002, V&M Tubes acquired North Star’s tubular division, then a wholly owned

subsidiary of Cargill, Inc., and renamed the division V&M Star. Also in 2002, Wheatland Tube

purchased the Sawhill Tubular Division from AK Steel, Inc. Wheatland reported that it does not produce

CASSLP pipe at the former Sawhill Tubular facilities. 
 56 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the original investigations, along with firms

that, based on a review of proprietary data provided by Customs, may have imported CASSLP pipe since 2000.

 57 These companies included: ***.

 58 These companies included: ***. 

I-32

U.S. Importers

The Commission sent importer questionnaires to 38 firms believed to be importers of CASSLP

pipe from subject and nonsubject countries, as well as to all U.S. producers.56 Questionnaire responses

containing data were received from four companies. Fourteen companies reported that they did not

import CASSLP pipe during the review period.57 Many companies that reported U.S. imports from the

subject countries in the original investigations reported that they no longer import CASSLP pipe.58 Table

I-8 presents the responding U.S. importers of small diameter CASSLP pipe, their locations, and imports,

by source, of small diameter CASSLP pipe in 2004. Table I-9 presents the responding U.S. importers of

large diameter CASSLP pipe, their locations, and imports, by source, of large diameter CASSLP pipe in

2004.

Table I-8

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Reported U.S. imports, by importer and by source of imports, 2004

* * * * * * *

Table I-9

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Reported U.S. imports, by importer and by source of imports, 2004

* * * * * * *

U.S. Purchasers

The Commission received information from 15 U.S. purchasers of small diameter CASSLP pipe,

13 of which also purchased large diameter CASSLP pipe. Five of these purchasers were based in Texas,

four were based in other southern states including Alabama, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Louisiana, four

were based in eastern states including Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and one each was based

in Illinois and California. All 14 purchasers that reported the quantity of small diameter CASSLP pipe

they purchased reported U.S.-produced product and all purchased small diameter carbon SSLP pipe. 

Only two purchasers reported purchasing small diameter alloy SSLP pipe, ***. Two purchasers, ***,

were by far the largest purchasers. *** reported purchases of small diameter CASSLP pipe from

Romania, reporting purchases in ***; *** reported purchases of small diameter CASSLP pipe from South

Africa, although only in ***; and nine purchasers reported purchases of small diameter CASSLP pipe

from nonsubject countries.

Fifteen purchasers of large diameter CASSLP pipe responded to the questionnaire. Seven of

these purchasers were based in Texas, four were based in other southern states including Alabama,

Oklahoma, Missouri, and Louisiana, two were based in eastern states including West Virginia and

Pennsylvania, and one each was based in Illinois and California. All 14 purchasers that reported the

quantity or value of large diameter CASSLP pipe they purchased reported purchasing large diameter

carbon SSLP pipe, and 13 reported purchasing U.S.-produced product. Only three purchasers reported

purchasing large diameter alloy SSLP pipe, ***. ***, were by far the largest purchasers. *** reported

purchasing large diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan; *** in each year. *** reported purchasing large
I-33

diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico in *** respectively; and eight purchasers reported purchasing large

diameter CASSLP pipe from nonsubject countries.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION, MARKET SHARES, AND RATIO TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Table I-10 presents apparent U.S. consumption, table I-11 presents U.S. market shares, and table

I-12 presents U.S. production and the ratio of subject imports to U.S. production of small diameter

CASSLP pipe during the review period. Table I-13 presents apparent U.S. consumption, table I-14

presents U.S. market shares, and table I-15 presents U.S. production and the ratio of subject imports to

U.S. production of large diameter CASSLP pipe during the review period.

Table I-10

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent

U.S. consumption, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Jan.-Sept.

2004 2005

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

Czech Republic 310 11 367 355 1 1 130

Japan 1,914 909 408 865 79 67 221

Romania 3,436 16,573 9,182 11,562 18,718 13,531 1,611

South Africa 442 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 6,102 17,492 9,957 12,782 18,798 13,598 1,961

Other sources 89,194 85,959 77,021 88,235 124,607 93,852 96,258

Total imports 95,296 103,451 86,977 101,017 143,405 107,451 98,219

Apparent consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

Czech Republic 142 71 359 2,008 3 3 115

Japan 3,553 1,018 1,205 2,872 513 401 531

Romania 1,722 8,122 4,627 6,102 12,996 8,966 1,971

South Africa 191 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 5,608 9,211 6,191 10,983 13,511 9,370 2,618

Other sources 63,994 61,022 55,627 63,866 93,355 67,965 101,949

Total imports 69,601 70,233 61,818 74,849 106,866 77,335 104,566

Apparent consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from adjusted official Commerce statistics.
I-34

Table I-11

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. market shares, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and JanuarySeptember 2005

* * * * * * *

Table I-12

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. production and ratio of imports to U.S. production, 2000-04,

January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Jan.-Sept.

2004 2005

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. production *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

Czech Republic 310 11 367 355 1 1 130

Japan 1,914 909 408 865 79 67 221

Romania 3,436 16,573 9,182 11,562 18,718 13,531 1,611

South Africa 442 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Subtotal 6,102 17,492 9,957 12,782 18,798 13,598 1,961

All other sources 89,194 85,959 77,021 88,235 124,607 93,852 96,258

 Total 95,296 103,451 86,977 101,017 143,405 107,451 98,219

Ratio of imports to U.S. production (percent)

Czech Republic *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Romania *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1Less than 0.05 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from adjusted official Commerce statistics.
I-35

Table I-13

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent

U.S. consumption, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Table I-14

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. market shares, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and

January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Table I-15

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. production and ratio of imports to U.S. production, 2000-04,

January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

 1

 *** reported that it was ***. This company has been included with the other end users.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

SMALL DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

Small diameter CASSLP pipe is produced and sold in both carbon steel grades and alloy steel

grades. Carbon steel pipe is produced to triple and quadruple certification as standard, line, and pressure

pipe. In 2000-04 carbon steel pipe comprised *** to *** percent of total shipments of small diameter

CASSLP pipe in the U.S. market including, *** to *** percent of U.S. producers’ shipments, by quantity.

In the original investigations, the Japanese respondents argued that small diameter CASSLP pipe

should be divided into two segments. One segment was the carbon steel or “commodity” segment, and

the second segment was alloy pipe or pressure pipe such as ASTM A333 grade 3 pipe. This latter product

can be used to convey fluids at elevated temperatures or pressures. Petitioners agreed that these

variations in pipe existed, but contended that carbon and alloy pipe were not separate like products. 

However, in the current reviews, no party has argued that carbon and alloy small diameter SSLP pipe

constitute separate products.

U.S. producers sell mainly to distributors but also to end users, while responding importers of

CASSLP from Romania and nonsubject countries typically sell *** to distributors. In 2004, U.S.

producers reported that *** percent of their small diameter CASSLP pipe was sold to distributors and the

remainder to end users. In the original investigations, domestic producers sold *** percent of their

product through distributors; U.S. importers of CASSLP from *** sold *** percent through distributors;

and U.S. importers of CASSLP from Japan sold *** percent through distributors in 1999. 

Eleven of the 15 responding purchasers of small diameter CASSLP pipe were distributors, while

four were end users.1

 Two end users reported that they made welded fittings, one reported that it

processed small diameter CASSLP pipe to meet ASTM standards, and one reported that it was an energy

producer. Five of the distributors reported that their customers included the oil and gas industry and five

reported that their customers included other distributors or resellers. Distributors also reported selling to

firms that used small diameter CASSLP for pipe fabrication, mechanical contracts, ship building,

equipment manufacturing, commercial, industrial, processing industries, and transmission and/or

gathering (generally of oil and gas). All 15 responding purchasers reported purchasing small diameter

carbon steel pipe, but only two firms (both distributors) reported purchasing small diameter alloy steel 

pipe.

The three responding U.S. producers reported selling nationwide whereas both responding

importers only sold in various regions including the Northeast, the Southwest, the Gulf Coast, and the

West. Three of the four responding producers reported that they arranged transportation to their

purchasers, while one producer and all three responding importers reported that their customers arranged

transportation. Producers and importers were also asked to estimate the share of their small diameter

CASSLP pipe sales that occurred within certain distance ranges. Three of the four U.S. producers sold

some product (ranging from 2 to 15 percent of the product sold) to locations under 100 miles from their

facilities; three sold most of their product to locations between 101 and 1,000 miles from their facilities;

and one sold most of its product to locations more than 1,000 miles from its facilities. No importers

answered this question.
 2

 Hearing transcript, p. 108 (Broglie).

 3

 U.S. Steel and Koppel Steel’s posthearing brief (small diameter), exhibit 1, p. 39 and exhibit 11.

 4

 “You can’t increase production by going to two shifts a day by a little. You have to increase production by a lot

because you’ve effectively doubled your capacity to put product out the door and you’ve incurred a substantial

increase in labor costs.” Hearing transcript, p. 309 (Reilly), quoted in U.S. Steel and Koppel Steel’s posthearing

brief, exhibit 1, p. 40.

II-2

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS FOR SMALL DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE 

U.S. Supply

Domestic Supply

Based on available information, staff believes that U.S. small diameter CASSLP pipe producers

are likely to respond to changes in demand with small to moderate changes in shipments of U.S.-produced

small diameter CASSLP pipe to the U.S. market. Factors contributing to this degree of responsiveness

are discussed below.

Industry capacity

Domestic capacity for producing small diameter CASSLP pipe increased irregularly from ***

short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. U.S. producers’ reported capacity utilization for small

diameter CASSLP pipe changed relatively little from 2000 to 2004, decreasing from *** percent in 2000

to *** percent in 2004, although it fell as low as *** percent in 2002. 

U.S. Steel reported that one of its facilities that produced small diameter CASSLP pipe was

running only one shift per day, and as a result, it could easily expand production. In addition, it reported

that its other facilities had room to expand production.2

 Increasing production by adding an additional

shift would be expected to increase production substantially and would require some added fixed costs,

including the hiring of a whole new shift of workers. ***.3

 If this is typical of the type of expansion

needed to increase production of small diameter CASSLP pipe, then U.S. production of small diameter

CASSLP pipe could not easily expand or contract production to respond to small and or temporary

changes in demand.4

Typically, this low level of capacity utilization of U.S. producers of small diameter CASSLP pipe

would indicate that they have available capacity with which they could increase (or decrease) production

of small diameter CASSLP pipe in the event of a price change. However, if changing levels of

production requires major changes such as addition of new shifts, then the flexibility of the U.S.

producers is much lower that these capacity utilization figures normally would suggest.

Lead times

Three of the four responding U.S. producers sell all of the small diameter CASSLP pipe they

produce to order. The other U.S. producer, ***, reported that *** percent of its sales are from

inventories. Times reported by the three producers for sales to order ranged from 2 to 8 weeks. *** did

not report its lead times for sales from inventories. All three responding importers reported selling small

diameter CASSLP pipe only on a “to order” basis. They reported lead times of 3 to 6 months. 

Parties opposing continuation of the order reported that differences in lead times were an

important difference between U.S. and imported product. They reported that the short lead times
 5

 Hearing transcript, pp. 236-237 (Allen).

 6

 Hearing transcript, pp. 286-287 (Reilly).

 7

 Hearing transcript, p. 63 (Leland).

 8

 Hearing transcript, pp. 63-64 (Leland).

II-3

resulting from U.S. Steel’s 30-day production cycle were important to the distributors.5

 The longer lead

times of imported products not only tie up capital, but also reduced the distributors ability to adjust

inventories to demand. As a result, they reported that shorter lead times contributed to the price

premiums for U.S. product.6

Alternative markets

Domestic producers’ exports, as a percentage of total shipments, increased irregularly between

2000 and 2004, although it varied from year to year. Exports accounted for between *** percent of total

shipments (in 2001) and *** percent of total shipments (in 2004). The relatively low level of exports

during the period indicates that domestic small diameter CASSLP pipe producers are likely to be

somewhat constrained in their ability to shift shipments between the United States and other markets in

response to price changes. Two of the four responding U.S. producers reported that it was difficult to

shift to export shipments because of low prices outside the United States; one firm reported that ***; and

one producer reported that it could not shift, but it did not elaborate.

Inventory levels

Since most sales are on a to-order basis, inventories would be expected to be relatively low. U.S.

producers’ inventories, as a share of U.S. producers’ total shipments, declined irregularly from ***

percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004; inventories accounted for the highest share of total U.S.

producers’ shipments at *** percent in 2002. These moderate inventory levels suggest that U.S.

producers have a relatively limited ability to respond to changes in demand with changes in the quantity

shipped from inventories.

U.S. producers report that distributors, rather than producers, tend to “maintain inventories on

hand so that they may respond immediately to customer requirements.”7

 This relieves both the producers

and end users of the need to maintain sizeable inventories, but it exposes distributors to the risk of falling

inventory values when prices decline.8

According to a survey conducted by staff, two of the six responding distributors valued their

inventories on a first in first out (FIFO) basis, two reported valuing their inventories on a last in first out

(LIFO) basis, one reported using both FIFO and LIFO valuation, and one reported other methods of

valuing inventories. Distributors were also asked to characterize their inventories of small diameter

CASSLP pipe as high, low, or moderate. Five of the eight responding distributors reported moderate

inventories, the other three reported high inventories. They were also asked to compare current

inventories to those in March 2005 and to compare the current ratio of inventories to shipments to the

ratio in March 2005. Four of the eight responding distributors reported that inventories had increased

relative to March 2005 inventories by more than 5 percent, two reported they had increased by less than 5

percent, one reported unchanged inventories, and one reported inventories had decreased by more than 5

percent. The ratio of inventories to shipments were also reported to have increased more than 5 percent

by three of the eight responding distributors, while one distributor reported that inventories had increased

by less than 5 percent, two distributors reported that this was unchanged, and two reported that

inventories relative to shipments had decreased by more than 5 percent between 2005 and 2006.
 9

 Hearing transcript, pp. 91-92 (Broglie and Lindgren).

 10 Hearing transcript, pp. 245-246 (Reilly).

 11 Hearing transcript, p. 288 (Allen).

 12 U.S. Steel and Koppel’s posthearing brief, March 13, 2006 (small diameter), exhibits, 30 and 31, Declarations

of ***.

 13 However, Mittal reported that it was the only Czech producer that had sold product in the United States at the

time of the original investigations, and Mittal did not expect that the other Czech producer would enter the U.S.

market in the foreseeable future. Hearing transcript, pp. 296-297 (Gurley). At the time of the initial investigations,

the petitioners identified three Czech producers, Chomutov, Nova Hut, and Vitkovice. Chomutov reported that it

***. Nova Hut exported to the United States in the original investigations and is now Mittal Ostrava. Vitkovice did

not respond to the questionnaire either the investigations or these reviews.

 14 The changes in capacity ***. 

II-4

Production alternatives

Three of the four responding producers stated that they could switch production from small

diameter CASSLP pipe to other products. Three firms stated that they could switch to other forms of

tube, and one firm also reported that it could switch to “semifinished products.”

Domestic interested parties reported that U.S. producers did not tend to shift production between

OCTG and small diameter CASSLP pipe.9

 In contrast, the respondent interested parties reported that the

increase in production of (more profitable) OCTG both in the United States and overseas limited firms’

ability to supply small diameter CASSLP pipe to the U.S. market, and that this had contributed to the

increase in the price of small diameter CASSLP pipe.10 The respondent interested parties also reported

that U.S. producers have distributors on allocation for OCTG,11 a contention that certain producers and

purchasers dispute.12

Supply of Subject Imports to the U.S. Market

Czech Republic

Data on the Czech industry were available from Mittal Steel, which reported that it accounted for

*** percent of Czech production.13 Its capacity fell from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2002

and then rose to *** short tons in 2004.14 Its capacity utilization rate ranged from a high of *** percent in

2001 to a low of *** percent in 2002, before rising to *** percent in 2004. Mittal Steel reported *** and

*** exports to United States. Export share to other countries, notably those of the European Union,

increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004.

Both high capacity utilization and low inventories reduce the ability of this Czech producer to

increase shipments to the United States, while rising exports to other countries and rising total capacity

may indicate a greater ability to shift sales to the U.S. market.
 15 All three Romanian producers, Silcotub, Republica, and Petrotub, that were identified by the petitioners in the

original investigations, responded to the foreign producer questionnaires in those investigations. Respondent

interested parties report that Republica is currently out of business. Petrotub, now Mittal Roman, Silcotub, and

Artrom responded to the foreign producer’s questionnaires in these reviews. These were reported to be all the

Romanian producers of the subject product. Hearing transcript, pp. 295-296 (Gurley).

 16 The changes in capacity ***. 

 17 Hearing transcript, pp. 255-256 (Daneo).

 18 Hearing transcript, p. 40 (Gurley).

II-5

Japan

Data on the Japanese industry were only available from NKK Tubes, which reported that it

accounted for *** percent of Japanese production. Its capacity for each of the full years for which the

company reported remained at *** short tons through 2004. Capacity utilization rose irregularly from a

low of *** percent in 2000 to a high of *** percent in 2004. Inventories relative to total shipments fell

from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2003. The company’s export share to the United States was

*** percent in 2000 and *** percent in 2001; NKK did not export to the United States after 2001. The

export share to other countries fell from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2001, rose to *** percent

in 2003, and then fell to *** percent in 2004.

NKK Tubes’ relatively moderate capacity utilization rate and high and apparently flexible exports

to other countries indicate that it has some ability to shift product sales to the U.S. market. This is

somewhat reduced by the declining level of inventories. The small share of all Japanese production

represented by NKK Tubes limits the usefulness of these data in determining overall Japanese ability to

shift to the U.S. market.

Romania

Data on the Romanian industry were available from Mittal, Artrom, and Silcotub which reported

that their production accounted for Romanian production of subject product.15 Their Romanian capacity

fell steadily from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2003, and then rose to *** short tons in

2004.16 Capacity utilization was at its lowest in 2000 at *** percent, rose to *** percent in 2002, then fell

to *** percent in 2004, before rising to *** percent in January through September 2005. Inventories to

total shipments rose from a low of *** percent in 2000 to a high of *** percent in 2003 and then fell to

*** percent in 2004. The producers’ export share to the U.S. market rose irregularly from *** percent in

2000 to *** percent in 2004. Exports to other countries, as a share of total shipments, ranged from a low

of *** percent in 2003 to a high of *** percent in 2004. Silcotub reported that with its purchase by

Tenaris in December of 2004, it has shifted its focusing to production of higher value added product not

covered by these investigations and on its regional market, increasing sales to Romania, the EU, and

nearby countries.17 Romania expects to join the EU 2007,18 increasing its integration with this region.

The Romanian producers’ relatively large capacity, low capacity utilization, and rising exports to

the United States and to other countries, all indicate an ability to increase shipments to the United States

relatively rapidly. The recent reduction in inventories would somewhat decrease this ability.
 19 The only U.S. producer that reported sales of alloy pipe identified the same end uses for alloy pipe as for

carbon pipe. The end uses for CASSLP pipe were reported by U.S. producers; no importers provided information

regarding end uses.

II-6

South Africa

Data on the South African industry were available from Mittal, which reported that it accounted

for *** of South African production of subject product. Mittal’s reported capacity increased from ***

short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. Capacity utilization rose from a low of *** percent in 2001

to a high of *** percent in 2004. Inventories as a share of total shipments ranged from a low of ***

percent in 2001 to a high of *** percent in 2002. South Africa had virtually no exports to the United

States during the period for which data were collected. Export to other countries, as a share of total

shipments, ranged from a low of *** percent in 2002 to a high of *** percent in 2004.

South Africa’s increasing capacity, moderate inventories, and large share of shipments sold to

markets outside the United States all point to flexibility to shift shipments into the U.S. market. However,

the rising capacity utilization rate may offset this flexibility.

U.S. Demand

U.S. demand for small diameter CASSLP pipe depends on its end use markets. Carbon SSLP

pipe is used in oil and gas transmission, in construction and repair of refining facilities, the chemical 

industry, in power generation, and in mechanical applications for general construction. Alloy SSLP pipe

was reported to be used in oil and gas transmission, in construction, and repair of refining facilities.19

Because small diameter CASSLP pipe is used mainly in transmission and refining of gas and oil, demand

is influenced by the price of gas and oil. High current gas and oil prices and oil future prices (figure II-1)

are reflected in relatively high current demand. For small diameter CASSLP pipe, construction also plays

an important role in demand. GDP levels (figure II-2) reflect both construction and underlying demand

for energy.

Price changes for small diameter CASSLP pipe will likely have only a small effect on

consumption. First, the substitutes for small diameter CASSLP pipe are limited to a few applications and

those in which the substitutes are specially engineered. Second, although the cost share of small diameter

CASSLP pipe tends to be high in most intermediate products such as welded fittings, the cost share of

small diameter CASSLP pipe in oil or gas is small. In addition, it is unlikely that there are many viable

substitutes for the end products that use small diameter CASSLP pipe.

Demand Characteristics

Available data indicate that apparent U.S. consumption of small diameter CASSLP pipe increased

irregularly from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004, with apparent U.S. consumption

reaching its lowest level, *** short tons, in 2002. Overall, apparent U.S. consumption in 2004 was ***

percent higher than in 2000 and *** percent higher than in 2002.

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to discuss trends in demand in the United States

since 2000. Two of the three responding U.S. producers, one of the two responding importers, and six of

the 12 responding purchasers reported that demand within the United States had not changed. One 

producer reported that demand had fluctuated with demand for oil and gas uses and for construction, and

one of the producers that reported that demand was unchanged reported it was beginning to change
II-7

Figure II-1

Oil and gas: Monthly crude oil prices and future crude oil prices for Cushing OK crude, and future

prices of natural gas,1

 January 2000 to February 2006

 

1

 Gas future prices are the price for the first reported day of the month.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov.

Figure II-2

Gross Domestic Product: Quarterly GDP, first quarter 2000 to fourth quarter 2005

Source: International Financial Statistics, http://ifs.apdi.net/imf/logon.aspx.
 20 Hearing transcript, p. 52 (Broglie).

 21 Hearing transcript, pp. 239-240 (Reilly).

 22 Mittal’s posthearing brief, app. 5, Energy Information Administration/Short-Term Energy Outlook, March 7,

2006. p. 1, “A Primer on Gasoline Prices” U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov; p. 2,

and U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov.

II-8

because of demand in the oil and gas industries. One importer reported that demand had increased

recently but decreased in 2002; it reported that demand for small diameter CASSLP pipe changed in

response to fluctuations in investment by the oil and gas industries. Three purchasers reported that

demand had increased and three reported that it had decreased. Of the three purchasers reporting demand

growth, two reported increased demand in the gas and oil/energy sector, and one reported generally

increased applications. Only one of the purchasers that reported that demand had decreased provided

details; it reported a lack of investment in the petrochemical and refinery industries.

Purchasers that were end users of small diameter CASSLP pipe were asked if demand for their

final products had changed since 2000. Two purchasers reported that demand was unchanged, one

reported that demand had increased, and one reported that demand had decreased. Both firms reporting

that demand for their products had changed also reported that this had affected their demand for small

diameter CASSLP pipe.

Firms were also asked about changes in demand outside of the United States. Only one producer

responded; it reported that demand had fluctuated with demand in the oil and gas industries. The only

responding importer reported that demand had increased as a result of development in China. Three of

the five responding foreign producers reported that demand had increased (due to increased demand in the

oil and gas sectors), and two foreign producers reported that demand was unchanged (both these referred

only to demand in their countries). No purchasers responded to this question.

Predictions of Future Demand

Producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers were also asked if they anticipated

changes in demand in the future either in the U.S. market or in other markets (tables II-1 and II-2). Two

of the three responding producers and two of three responding importers reported that they anticipated no

changes. The other producer reported that it expected demand to increase with increased demand by the

oil industry and the other importer reported that it expected demand to increase due to the tightness of

refinery capacity and the need to expand and rebuild capacity after hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Domestic interested parties contend that demand for small diameter CASSLP pipe can rise or fall

by 20 percent in one year and that this instability in demand makes the industry particularly vulnerable.20

Respondent interested parties contend that U.S. producers have moderated the increases in consumption

caused by the increases in demand by increasing prices.21

Future demand in large part depends on the future price of oil and gas. Respondent interested

parties report that the most recent predicted price of oil in 2006 and 2007 provided by the Energy

Information Administration, is expected to remain high, as is the price of natural gas. The price of West

Texas Intermediate crude oil is predicted to average $64 per barrel in 2006 and $61 per barrel in 2007,

compared to $42 per barrel at the start of 2005 and $70 per barrel in early September 2006. The price of

natural gas is predicted to be $8.11 per Mcf in 2006 and $8.74 in 2007. In 2005 the price of natural gas

ranged from an average of $5.52 per Mcf in January of 2005 to a high of $10.97 in October with an

annual average of price of $7.51 per Mcf for 2005.22

Domestic interested parties report that natural gas prices have already fallen significantly from

their high and are expected to continue to fall and oil prices may not remain at their current high levels. 

Domestic interested parties report that it is difficult to estimate future oil prices and estimates tend to be
II-9

Table II-1

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Anticipated changes in demand reported by producers, importers,

and purchasers, 

Do you anticipate any future changes in small diameter CASSLP pipe demand in the United

States and, if known, the rest of the world?

Producers

***: “It should pick up a little due to the oil patch demand increase.”

***: (*** reported that it expected no change in demand, but also noted) “While we do not currently

anticipate any changes in demand, it should be noted that this market can change very quickly. It is very

difficult to forecast for small diameter CASSLP pipe more than 6 months in advance.”

Importers

***: “While we have not been actively involved in the small diameter CASSLP U.S. market, *** is aware

that demand has increased in the last several years in the U.S. market. The U.S. and global refinery

capacity is very tight and investments to expand this capacity (as well as rebuild in the United States

after last year’s hurricanes) are going to continue to drive up the demand for small diameter CASSLP in

the United States and worldwide.”

Purchasers

***: “The applications for these products is energy driven. The high price of natural gas and oil will

demand additional construction of facilities that use these products.”

***: “Global increases in demand for oil and gas will drive demand for line and pressure pipe required to

increase production required to meet the increased demand.”

***: “Demand will continue to grow over the next 3-5 years as the domestic economy strengthens and

the demand from the power sector grows.”

***: “Anticipate further declines in the U.S. as more domestic manufacturing moves offshore.”

***: “More demand for oil and natural gas will require more pipelines to move product to the needed

areas.”

***: “We expect investment in refining to increase in the U.S. in 2006.”

Note.--Two producers, two importers, and eight purchasers reported that they expected no change in demand.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 23 U.S. Steel and Koppel’s posthearing brief, March 13, 2006, exhibits 24, 25, 26, 12, 14, 16, 18, 15, 16, 22, and

23.

 24 Additional views on trends in the oil and gas sectors appear in the discussion of demand for large diameter

CASSLP pipe.

II-10

Table II-2

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Anticipated changes in demand reported by foreign producers

Do you anticipate any future changes in subject pipe demand in your home market and the

United States and, if known, the rest of the world?

***: “Domestic market–Demand is anticipated to be stable. U.S. market–Increases in demand due to

growth in oil & gas sector, high drilling activity and high oil price.”

***: “The demand in our home market will remain constant, but with opportunities of increase depending

on potential new governmental or private projects. Also, our domestic market will be stimulated towards

growth as a result of ***.”

***: (*** anticipates no changes in demand, but also noted) “*** is focused on high-end non-line pipe

products, we do not have much information regarding CASSLP pipe. *** knows that worldwide demand

for CASSLP pipe, as well as specialized products where *** is focused is strong and will remain strong

resulting from investments by oil companies that will reach U.S. $238 billion in year 2006, an increase of

15% compared with 2005. There is also predicted to be significant investments (greater than U.S.$12

billion) in off-shore high-end line pipe products, further spurring demand.”

***: “Global demand for seamless pipes remain strong, led by higher drilling activity in the oil and gas

industry. The international count of active drilling rigs, as published by Baker Hughes, averaged 911

during the 3rd quarter of 2005, an increase of 8% compared to the same quarter of the previous year. 

The corresponding percentage rig count increases in the Canadian and U.S. markets, which are more

sensitive to natural gas prices, were 53% and 16% respectively. Strong demand for our seamless pipe

products from the energy sector, particularly for the high-end pipes in which we increasingly specialize. 

We expect market conditions, particularly demand for our products and services for oil and gas

customers, to remain favorable in the 4th quarter of 2005 and through the 1st half of 2006 and that any

further cost increases will be offset by higher selling prices. The constant search for new oil and gas

reserves has led to an increasing focus in deepwater activity--developments which occur at a minimum

of 1,500 ft- particularly in areas such as the Gulf of Mexico, offshore Brazil, and offshore W. Africa. The

exploitation of these reserves has been facilitated by the development of new technology. Activity in

shallow water operations in the North Sea region was depressed during the year. However, several

fields have been passed from the majors to independent operators, so in the coming years, we can

expect more activity with their participation.”

Note.--Two foreign producers reported that they expected no change in demand.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

biased upward. In addition, the current high price of oil reflect a speculative bubble rather than

underlying demand and supply. Demand growth is slowing, the rate of growth in Chinese oil

consumption is falling, and there are sufficient oil supplies and inventories. Indeed, some predict that the

price of oil could fall to $40-45 per barrel or lower in the next few years.23 24

Substitute Products

Substitutes for small diameter CASSLP pipe are limited, three producers, one importer, and four

foreign producers reported substitutes including, welded pipe and nonmetal pipes. Substitution was

reported to be possible in limited applications where less strength was needed, or when the substitute

product had been engineered to a particularly high strength. Substitutes were reported to be less common

for higher end products than for low end products. Three purchasers reported substitutes for small
 25 This purchaser stated that increased costs had caused it to increase its prices; thus, the changes it was

describing had nothing to do with the cost of substitutes.

II-11

diameter CASSLP pipe, including welded pipe such as HFI-EW line pipe and ERW pipe, and nonmetal

pipe including fiberglass line pipe, and polyethylene pipe. These could reportedly be used in oil and gas

pipe lines and production of pipe nipples, and purchasers reported that substitution was an engineering

decision. None of the U.S. producers or importers and only one purchaser reported that changes in

relative prices of substitutes can affect the price of small diameter CASSLP pipe.25

Cost Share

Small diameter CASSLP pipe’s share of the total costs of intermediate products tends to be

relatively high. Purchasers were asked for the cost share of small diameter CASSLP pipe in the products

they produced. Three of the four purchasers that were end users responded. *** reported that small

diameter CASSLP pipe accounted for 100 percent of the cost of pipe flow lines and pipe lines and the

other two responding purchasers reported that the cost of small diameter CASSLP pipe was between 45

and 66 percent of the cost of the elbows, tees, and reducers that they produced. 

Substitutability Issues

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported small diameter CASSLP pipe depends

on factors such as specifications of the product that is produced in each country, product quality,

consistency, relative price, and on conditions of sale such as reliability of supply, reliability of delivery,

payment terms, and delivery/lead time. In the original investigations, staff reported that there was

believed to be a moderate degree of substitution between domestic small diameter CASSLP pipe and that

imported from Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa. No available data indicate that this

has changed.

In the original investigations, petitioners and respondents generally agreed that imported small

diameter CASSLP pipe competed directly with the U.S.-produced product and that both were sold

through similar channels of distribution to similar markets. According to the report in the original

investigations, sales representatives typically carried a range of small diameter CASSLP pipe. As noted

in the original investigations report, small diameter CASSLP pipe could be substituted among producers

with a fair amount of ease, since for most end users it is essential that it meet industry set standards. 

However, some purchasers require other qualifications, the most important of which are “approved

manufacturers lists” (AMLs).

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Major Factors in Purchasing

Purchasers were asked to identify the three major factors considered by their firm in deciding

from whom to purchase small diameter CASSLP pipe (table II-3). Quality was reported by the largest

number of purchasers (six firms) as the most important factor and as the second most important factor

(four firms). Price was reported most frequently as the third most important factor (five firms). Other

factors listed among the top three factors by more than one purchaser were availability, traditional

supplier, meeting specifications, and schedule/on-time delivery.
 26 One of these firms reported that it toured the production facility but did not require prequalification.

II-12

Table II-3

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Most important factors in selecting a supplier, as reported by

purchasers

Factor First1 Second2 Third3

Quality 6 4 3

Availability 4 1 2

Price 3 3 5

Traditional supplier 2 1 0

Meet specifications 1 1 0

Schedule/on-time delivery 0 2 3

Other4 021

 1 One purchaser reported both quality and availability as the most important factor. Two firms reported only the

most important factor.

 2

 One purchaser reported both quality and service as the second most important factor.

 3

 One purchaser reported both acceptability and price as the third most important factor.

 4

 “Other” includes service and consistency as the second most important factors, and acceptability as the third

most important factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Factors Determining Quality

Purchasers were asked to identify the factors that determine the quality of small diameter

CASSLP pipe. Purchasers reported numerous factors including: meeting specifications including API,

ASTM, ASME, NACE, and ISO certification; lab tests and mill test reports; shape such as dimension

tolerances, straightness, roundness, appearance, and surface condition; physical characteristics such as

mechanical properties and chemistry; and characteristics not specific to the product such as packaging and

bill of lading. 

Certification/Qualification Issues

Purchasers were asked if they require prequalification of their suppliers. Twelve of the 15

responding purchasers reported that they required prequalification for all of their purchases. The other

three purchasers reported that they did not require prequalification.26 Purchasers were also asked if, since

2000, any domestic or foreign producer failed in its attempts to certify or qualify its small diameter

CASSLP pipe with their firm or if any producer lost its approved status. Only one of the 15 responding

purchasers reported that at least one supplier had failed; it reported that Siderca of Argentina had failed

because of quality issues.

Purchasers were also asked what factors they consider in qualifying a supplier. Factors

purchasers considered included: product characteristics such as quality/consistent quality, meeting

specifications, and formability; delivery characteristics such as reliability, availability, and delivery;

price; and characteristics of the producers such as shop floor/manufacture practice, financial strength,

safety, overall integrity, and reputation/customer acceptance. Six purchasers reported the time it took to

qualify product. Responses ranged from 2 days to 1 year, with three of these firms reporting one to three

months.
 27 The U.S. producers report that some minor oil and gas firms such as Anadarco and Devon Oil and Gas do not

use AMLs. Hearing transcript, pp. 126, 132, and 232 (Schagrin, Leland, and Gurley).

 28 Hearing transcript, pp. 129, 131, and 132 (Blinder, Durham, and Shoaff).

 29 Hearing transcript, pp. 126, 186-187 (Schagrin). V&M Star’s posthearing brief provides ***. Exhibit 1, V&M

Star’s posthearing brief, March 13, 2006. The ALMs did not distinguish between large and small diameter CASSLP

pipe.

 30 Hearing transcript, pp. 126 (Schagrin).

 31 Hearing transcript, p. 133 (Shoaff and Clark).

 32 Hearing transcript, pp. 236-237 (Allen).

 33 Hearing transcript, pp. 284-285 (Allen). “We believe it would take at least 1 to 2 years to be listed on the

AMLs of large energy companies. However, we are not confident that our pipe would be approved...” Mittal’s

Posthearing brief, exhibits C and D.

 34 Mittal’s posthearing brief, exhibit. B.

 35 One of these purchasers reported that it did not purchase by country of origin, but always purchased U.S.-

produced product; as a result, it has been included in the firms purchasing product by country of origin.

II-13

Both the domestic and the respondent interested parties report that approved manufacturers lists

are important, particularly for the major oil and gas firms such as ExxonMobil.27 At the hearing

distributors reported that between 10 and 90 percent of their sales required that the producer be on an

AML.28

Domestic interested parties contend that subject producers are more likely than nonsubject

producers to be on these approved manufacturers lists, reporting that the Japanese producers are “all on

the approved lists.”29 As a result they argue that subject producers, if allowed in the market, would

compete more head to head with U.S. producers and therefore are more likely to cause prices to fall than

are nonsubject producers.30 Furthermore, only about 30 percent of the product sold by U.S. Steel and

V&M Star is reportedly to firms requiring approved manufacturers.31 Thus, even if importers were not

approved manufacturers, their product would compete with most of the product produced in the United

States.

The respondent interested parties report that subject producers are frequently not on the AMLs of

the major oil companies. Mittal’s plants in Czech Republic, Romania, and South Africa were reported to

not be on any of the major oil producers’ AMLs.32 In addition, respondent interested parties reported that

being placed on an AML of one of the major oil companies was a long, drawn-out process;33 that onethird to one-half of the seamless line pipe market is covered by AMLs, and the importance of AMLs has

increased in the last few years.34 It takes much longer for a producer to be added to an AML than the

times firms reported for qualification or certification. As a result, they expect that any imports from these

subject countries resulting from the revocation of the orders would have no more effect on the price or

demand for U.S.-produced product than do the imports of nonsubject producers who were also not on

AMLs.

Specific Sources

Purchasers were also asked whether they or their customers specifically ordered small diameter

CASSLP pipe from one country in particular over other sources of supply. Six of the 15 responding

purchasers reported ordering by country.35 Four of the six firms reported ordering specifically U.S.

product; one reporting purchasing U.S. product or Ukrainian carbon product by country; and one reported

purchasing U.S. or imported material as driven by customer specifications.
II-14

Purchasers were asked if certain grades of small diameter CASSLP pipe were available from only

a single source. Two of the 14 responding purchasers reported that Sharon Tube was the only source for

some smaller sizes of tube.

Purchases of the Lowest-Priced Product

Purchasers were asked if they always, usually, sometimes, or never purchase the lowest-priced

product when buying small diameter CASSLP pipe. None of the firms always purchased the lowestpriced product, eight usually purchased the lowest-priced product, five sometimes purchased the lowestpriced product, and two never purchased the lowest-priced product. Thus, all purchasers had other factors

that were more important than price in determining from whom they purchased.

Purchases from Higher-Priced Sources

Purchasers were also asked if they purchased small diameter CASSLP pipe from one source

although a comparable product was available at a lower price from another source. Ten purchasers

responded. Two firms reported that when quality is the same, purchases are based on price. Two firms

reported a preference for U.S. product. Other reasons reported by purchasers included: delivery/

logistics, reliability of delivery, stock U.S. product separately from import product, customer acceptance,

quality, cannot risk unknown or marginal quality, and availability.

Importance of Specified Purchase Factors

Purchasers rateed the importance of 15 factors in their purchasing decisions (table II-4). The

factors listed as very important were quality meets industry standards (15 firms), product consistency (14

firms), price (12 firms), availability (11 firms), approved supplier (10 firms), and delivery time (8 firms). 

No other factor was reported as very important by half or more of the responding purchasers.

Changes in Purchasing Patterns

Purchasers were asked a number of questions about whether their purchasing patterns for small

diameter CASSLP pipe from subject and nonsubject sources had changed since 2000. Seven out of 15

responding purchasers reported that they had purchased small diameter CASSLP pipe from subject

countries before 2000; *** purchased Czech product, *** purchased Japanese product, *** purchased

Romanian product, and *** purchased South African product. ***. All seven of the firms that had

purchased from the subject countries before 2000 reported that they had discontinued purchases, although

one of these reported it had discontinued its purchases from *** but it had only reduced its imports of

small diameter CASSLP pipe from ***. When asked about purchases from nonsubject countries, three

firms reported that they had not purchased product from nonsubject countries either before or after the

antidumping duty orders; five reported that their purchases from nonsubject countries were unchanged;

four reported increasing purchases from nonsubject countries because of the orders; and three reported

shifting patterns of purchases from nonsubject countries for reasons other than the orders. The other

reasons for changing patterns of purchases were responses to changes in availability and market

conditions, Slovakia was a new source, increased purchases of nonsubject product because domestics

were unable to supply or went out of business, and purchased only a sample from Argentina.
II-15

Table II-4

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by purchasers

Factor

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Number of firms responding

Availability 11 4 0

Delivery terms 3 12 0

Delivery time 8 7 0

Discounts offered 2 10 3

Extension of credit 6 5 3

Price 12 3 0

Minimum quantity requirement 4 5 6

Packaging 3 7 5

Product consistency 14 1 0

Quality meets industry standards 15 0 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 3 9 3

Product range 4 9 2

Technical support/service 5 8 2

Approved supplier 10 4 1

U.S. transportation costs 2 9 4

Note: Not all firms responded for all questions.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchases from Specific Producers and Countries

Purchasers were asked how frequently they and their customers purchased small diameter

CASSLP pipe from specific producers and from specific countries. The following tabulation summarizes

the responses.

Purchaser/customer decision Always Usually Sometimes Never

Purchaser makes decision based on producer 10 2 2 1

Purchaser’s customer makes decision based on producer 0 6 5 2

Purchaser makes decision based on country 5 1 7 2

Purchaser’s customer makes decision based on country 0 2 8 3

Most (10 of 15) purchasers reported that they always make purchasing decisions based on the

producer of the small diameter CASSLP pipe, but less often based on the country of origin. Their

customers are less likely to make decisions based on either the producer or the country of origin, although

these are reportedly at least sometimes important. Of those purchasers that reported that they always
 36 Some of the purchasers compared U.S. product with product from a number of nonsubject countries; each of

these comparisons was counted if responses differed between different nonsubject countries, otherwise the response

is included only once.

II-16

make decisions based on the manufacturer, reasons cited included quality of product, ability to meet

specifications, approved manufacturers, mill warranties, availability, delivery, and price. Some firms also

reported that they distribute only domestically produced pipe.

Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports

Interchangeability

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to report how frequently small diameter

CASSLP pipe from different countries was interchangeable (table II-5). All three responding U.S.

producers reported that the domestic product and product imported from subject and nonsubject countries

were always interchangeable. Only one importer responded regarding the interchangeability between

U.S. product and subject product and between subject product from the various countries (although not

for the Czech product); it reported that for each of the combinations the products were sometimes

interchangeable. This same firm also reported that U.S. product and subject countries’ (except Czech

Republic) product were “sometimes” interchangeable with product from nonsubject countries. Another

importer responded only regarding comparisons to nonsubject countries, reporting that U.S. product and

subject countries’ (except South Africa) products were “always” interchangeable. Purchasers’ responses

varied, but for each country combination nearly all purchasers reported that the products were at least

sometimes interchangeable. 

Reasons for Non-Interchangeability

Firms were asked to explain why products from country pairs were not interchangeable. The one

importer that responded reported that interchangeability depends on the specific customer’s qualification

of mills. Purchasers that responded reported the following reasons: quality; that mills in Romania, South

Africa, and Czech Republic are “not as acceptable” as those in the United States, Japan, and Western

Europe; products are not interchangeable if a mill or country is not an approved source; and ability to

meet quality and technical requirements.

Significance of Differences Other Than Price

Producers and importers were asked to assess how often differences other than price were

significant in sales of small diameter CASSLP pipe (table II-6). Two importers and three producers

answered this question. Firms were asked to report any differences other than price; no firms provided

any information.

Comparisons of Country Sources

Purchasers were also asked to compare domestically produced small diameter CASSLP pipe and

small diameter CASSLP pipe produced in subject and nonsubject countries, for all country pairs for

which they had actual experience. Respondents were asked to rate small diameter CASSLP pipe

produced in one country as superior, comparable, or inferior to that from another country with respect to

15 different attributes. The most common comparison was between U.S. product and nonsubject product,

with five purchasers providing comparisons;36 three purchasers compared U.S. and Japanese 
II-17

Table II-5

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. firms’ perceived degree of interchangeability of products

produced in the United States, subject, and nonsubject countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers

AFSNAFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. Czech Republic 300000002221

U.S. vs. Japan 300000104520

U.S. vs. Romania 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 1

U.S. vs. South Africa 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 1

Czech Republic vs. Japan 200000002211

Czech Republic vs. Romania 200000002211

Czech Republic vs. South Africa 200000002211

Japan vs. Romania 200000103201

Japan vs. South Africa 200000103301

Romania vs South Africa 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 1

U.S. vs. nonsubject 200010102430

Czech Republic vs. nonsubject 200010001301

Japan vs. nonsubject 200010101420

Romania vs. nonsubject 200010101310

South Africa vs. nonsubject 200000101410

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if small diameter CASSLP pipe produced in the United

States and in other countries is used interchangeably.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 37 Only one firm compared product from the subject countries to product from other countries. In comparing

Czech product to Romanian and South African product, it rated them “comparable” for all factors. In comparing

Czech product to nonsubject product, it rated them comparable regarding all factors except price in which Czech

product was rated “superior” and availability, packaging, and product range in which Czech product was rated

“inferior.” In comparing Czech product to Japanese product, it rated them comparable for all factors except price in

which Czech product was rated “superior” and approved supplier, packaging, product consistency, product range,

quality exceeds industry standards, quality meets industry standards, and technical support in which Czech product

was rated “inferior.” 

In comparing Japanese product to Romanian product, it rated them “comparable” for all factors except price

(continued...)

II-18

Table II-6

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. firms’ perceived significance of differences other than price

between U.S.-produced and imported product1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers

A F S N A FS N

U.S. vs. Czech Republic 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

U.S. vs. Japan 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0

U.S. vs. Romania 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0

U.S. vs. South Africa 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

Czech Republic vs. Japan 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

Czech Republic vs. Romania 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

Czech Republic vs. South Africa 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

Japan vs. Romania 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0

Japan vs. South Africa 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0

Romania vs South Africa 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0

U.S. vs. nonsubject 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0

Czech Republic vs. nonsubject 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0

Japan vs. nonsubject 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0

Romania vs. nonsubject 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0

South Africa vs. nonsubject 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

 1 Producers and importers were asked if differences other than price between small diameter CASSLP pipe

produced in the United States and in other countries were a significant factor in their sales of the products.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

product; one purchaser compared U.S. and Czech product, U.S. and Romanian product, and U.S. and

South African product. Comparisons between each subject country and between each subject country and

nonsubject countries were provided by, at most, one purchaser.37 Comparisons between small diameter
 37 (...continued)

in which Japanese product was rated “inferior” and approved supplier, packaging, product consistency, product

range, quality exceeds industry standards, quality meets industry standards, and technical support in which Japanese 

product was rated “superior.” In comparing Japanese product to South African product, it rated them comparable for

all factors except price in which Japanese product was rated “inferior”and packaging, product consistency, product

range, quality exceeds industry standards, quality meets industry standards, and technical support in which Japanese 

product was rated “superior.” In comparing Japanese product to nonsubject product, it rated them comparable for all

factors except price in which Japanese product was rated “inferior” and approved supplier, availability, packaging,

product consistency, product range, quality exceeds industry standards, quality meets industry standards, and

technical support, and U.S. transportation costs in which Japanese product was rated “superior.”

In comparing Romanian product to South African product, it rated them “comparable” for all factors. In

comparing Romanian product to nonsubject product, it rated them comparable for all factors except price in which

Romanian product was rated “superior” and availability, packaging, and product range, in which Romanian product

was rated “inferior.”

Finally, in comparing South African product to nonsubject product, it rated them comparable for all factors

except price in which South African product was rated “superior” and availability, packaging, and product range, in

which South African product was rated “inferior.”

II-19

CASSLP pipe that is domestically produced with that produced in subject countries and nonsubject

countries are reported in table II-7, and country comparisons for which more than one purchaser

responded are discussed below.

The three purchasers comparing U.S. and Japanese product generally reported that they were

comparable for most factors except availability, delivery time, and product range for which two of three

firms reported that the U.S. product was superior; price for which two of three firms reported that the U.S.

product was inferior; and approved supplier and technical support for which one firm reported “superior,”

one reported “comparable,” and one reported “inferior.” In comparing the U.S. product and product from

nonsubject countries, the majority of firms responding rated the products comparable for most factors

except availability and delivery time for which five of six firms rated the U.S. product as superior; price

for which five of six firms rated the U.S. product as inferior; approved supplier for which three rated the

U.S. product as superior and three rated the products as comparable; and product range for which one 

rated the U.S. product as superior, two rated it as inferior, and one rated the products as

comparable.

Awareness of Country Sources

Purchasers were asked to identify the sources of small diameter CASSLP pipe of which they were

aware. All 14 responding purchasers were aware of the U.S.-produced product. Four reported knowing

of product from subject sources including one for Czech product, four for Japanese product, two for

Romanian product, and one for South African product. Other sources of imports reported by purchasers

included Austria, China, France, Germany, Italy, Slovakia, Spain, and Ukraine. Of the three importers

providing questionnaires, one imported from Romania, one imported from China, and one imported from

both Italy and Canada.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES FOR SMALL DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

This section discusses elasticity estimates. Parties were requested to provide comments in their

prehearing briefs. None of the parties commented on these elasticity estimates.
 38 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

II-20

Table II-7

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Comparisons of imported and U.S. product, as reported by

purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs 

Czech Republic

U.S. vs 

Japan

U.S. vs 

Romania 

U.S. vs 

South Africa

U.S. vs

nonsubject1

S C I SC I SC I SC I SC I

Approved supplier 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 3 0

Availability 1 0 0210100100510

Delivery terms 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 0

Delivery time 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 5 1 0

Discounts offered 1 0 0120100100150

Extension of credit 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0

Minimum quantity requirements 1 0 0020100100051

Packaging 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 6 0

Price2 0 0 1012001001015

Product consistency 1 0 0021100100240

Product range 1 0 0210100100132

Quality exceeds industry

standards 1 0 0021100100141

Quality meets industry

standards 1 0 0021100100150

Technical support/service 1 0 0111100100150

U.S. transportation costs 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 0

 1 Some firms reported answers for multiple nonsubject countries. When these answers differed among the different

nonsubject countries, all answers have been reported. 

 2

 A rating of superior means that the price is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported “U.S. superior,” it meant that the

price of the U.S. product was generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s product is

inferior. Not all companies gave responses for all factors. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. Supply Elasticity38

The domestic supply elasticity for small diameter CASSLP pipe measures the sensitivity of the

quantity supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of small diameter CASSLP pipe. 

The elasticity of domestic supply depends on factors such as the level of excess capacity, the existence of

inventories, and the availability of alternate markets for domestically produced small diameter CASSLP

pipe. Analysis of these factors in the initial investigations indicated that the U.S. industry had a moderate

capacity to increase domestic shipments in response to moderate price increases. In 2000, the supply

elasticity was estimated to be in the range of 2 to 4. No major changes are apparent in supply and it is

expected that it is unchanged.
II-21

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for small diameter CASSLP pipe measures the sensitivity of the

overall quantity demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of small diameter CASSLP pipe. This

sensitivity depends on the availability and viability of substitute products as well as on the component

share of small diameter CASSLP pipe in the production of downstream products. There are few products

that can be successfully substituted for small diameter CASSLP pipe. Small diameter CASSLP pipe is

typically used to extract, transport, and process petroleum products. Thus, its cost share’s significance is

less than that in many products where the product is ultimately used in a consumer product. In the

original investigations, demand was estimated to be moderately elastic with elasticities in a range of -1 to

-2. Staff believes these estimates are high, demand is currently less elastic and is likely to be in the -0.5 to

-1.0 range.

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends on the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products. Product differentiation depends on factors such as the range of products

produced, quality, availability, and reliability of supply. In the original investigations, the elasticity of

substitution was estimated to be in the range of 4-8; staff believes that the substitution elasticity is still

likely to be in that range.
 39 However, as noted in Part I, certain line pipe for deepwater applications was excluded from Commerce’s scope.

 40 Hearing transcript, p. 86 (Durham). Later the witness clarified that he meant through defined distribution

channels, not necessarily direct to end users. Hearing transcript, pp. 225-226 (Durham).

 41 *** reported that it was ***. This company has been included with the other end users.

II-22

LARGE DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

Like its small diameter counterpart, large diameter CASSLP pipe is produced and sold in both

carbon steel grades and alloy steel grades. Carbon steel pipe generally is used as line pipe, but can be 

produced to triple and quadruple certification as standard, line, and pressure pipe, carbon SSLP accounted

for *** percent to *** percent of U.S. consumption of large diameter CASSLP pipe during 2000-04. 

Carbon steel SSLP accounted for between *** and *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, by

quantity, during 2000-04.

In the original investigations, respondents distinguished between “commodity” carbon steel pipe, 

alloy pipe or pressure pipe classified as A333 grade 3 (used to convey fluids at elevated temperatures or

pressures), and high strength line pipe.39 Petitioners agreed that these variations in pipe existed, but

contend that carbon and alloy pipe were not separate like products. In the current reviews, no party has

argued that large diameter carbon and alloy steel SSLP pipe constitute separate products.

Both U.S. producers and U.S. importers sell to distributors, and to a lesser extent, end users. In

2004, U.S. producers reported that the vast majority, *** percent, of their large diameter CASSLP pipe

was sold to distributors and the remainder to end users. In the original investigations, domestic producers

sold *** percent of their large diameter CASSLP pipe through distributors, while U.S. importers sold *** 

percent of Mexican and 77.2 percent of Japanese large diameter CASSLP pipe through distributors in

1999. In 2004, imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe were very small and were not reported by any of

the responding importers. Nonsubject importers, however, sold *** percent to distributors and ***

percent to end users. Hearing testimony suggested that Tenaris, which has production facilities in a

number of countries, sells product directly for big projects.40 ***

*** Tenaris reported selling *** percent of its large diameter CASSLP pipe directly to end users.

Eleven of the 15 responding purchasers of large diameter CASSLP pipe were distributors while

four were end users.41 Two end users reported that they made welded fittings, and the other two used

large diameter CASSLP pipe for petroleum and gas lines. Seven of the distributors reported that some of

their customers were in the oil and gas industry and three reported that their customers included other

distributors. Distributors also reported selling to firms in the pipe and pipe spool fabricators, mechanical

contractors, engineering companies, shipbuilders, and manufacturers of equipment for agricultural,

construction, mining, petrochemical, and off-road applications, as well as products for used in

transmission, gathering, gas flow measurement, power, exploration, and processing. All 15 responding

purchasers reported purchasing carbon large diameter pipe but only three firms (two distributors and one

end user) also reported purchasing alloy large diameter pipe.

Two of the three responding U.S. producers reported selling nationwide, and one producer and

both responding importers reported only selling to various regions including the Northeast, the

Southwest, the Gulf Coast, and the West. Two of the three responding producers reported that they

arranged transportation to their purchasers, while one producer and all three responding importers

reported that their customers arranged transportation from their facilities. Producers and importers were

also asked to estimate the share of their large diameter CASSLP pipe sales that occurred within certain

distance ranges. Both responding importers reported selling all their product within 100 miles of their

facilities. All three responding U.S. producers reported selling only 1 to 7 percent of their product to

locations under 100 miles from their facilities, two sold most to locations between 101 and 1,000 miles

from their facilities, and the other sold most to locations more than 1,000 miles from its facilities.
 42 Hearing transcript, pp. 236-237 (Allen).

 43 Hearing transcript, pp. 286-287 (Reilly).

II-23

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS FOR LARGE DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

U.S. Supply

Domestic Supply

Based on available information, staff believes that U.S. large diameter CASSLP pipe producers

are likely to respond to changes in demand with moderate changes in shipments of U.S.-produced large

diameter CASSLP pipe to the U.S. market. Factors contributing to this degree of responsiveness are

discussed below. 

Industry capacity

Domestic capacity for producing large diameter CASSLP pipe increased from *** short tons in

2000 to *** short tons in 2001 and then steadily declined to *** short tons in 2004, reflecting a shift in

production to OCTG. U.S. producers’ reported capacity utilization for large diameter CASSLP pipe

declined from *** percent in 2000 to only *** percent in 2003 before rising to *** percent in 2004. This

current moderate level of capacity utilization suggests that U.S. producers of large diameter CASSLP pipe

may have available some limited capacity with which they could increase production of large diameter

CASSLP pipe in the event of a price change. The year-to-year fluctuations in both capacity and capacity

utilization may indicate that producers can readily reduce or increase production.

Lead times

U.S. producers reported selling most product to order with two of the three responding producers

selling all to order and the other selling 90 percent to order. Lead times reported by the producers for

sales to order ranged from 6 to 11 weeks, while lead times from inventories ranged from 7 to 10 days. All

three of the responding importers sold all their large diameter CASSLP pipe to order. Importers reported

lead times ranging from 3 to 6 months.

Respondent interested parties contended that differences in lead times are an important difference

between U.S.-produced and imported CASSLP pipe. Respondent interested parties reported the short

lead times that resulted from U.S. Steel’s 30-day production cycle were important to the distributors.42

The longer lead times of imported product not only tie up capital, but also reduce the distributors’ ability

to adjust inventories to demand. According to the respondent interested parties, shorter lead times

contribute to the price premiums for U.S. product.43

Alternative markets

Domestic producers’ exports, as a percentage of total shipments, ranged between *** percent in

2001 and *** percent in 2002. The moderate level of exports during the period indicates that domestic

large diameter CASSLP pipe producers are likely to be somewhat constrained in their ability to shift

shipments between the United States and other markets in response to price changes. Two of the three

responding U.S. producers reported on the difficult of shifting from the U.S. market to other markets; one

firm reported that it was difficult to export product other than high value added products to Canada

because prices tended to be low in other markets; the other producer reported that *** and world over

capacity limited exports. The other U.S. producer reported that ***.
 44 Hearing transcript, p. 63 (Leland).

 45 Hearing transcript, pp. 63-64 (Leland).

II-24

Inventory levels

Since most sales are on a to-order basis, inventories would be expected to be relatively low. U.S.

producers’ inventories, as a share of U.S. producers’ total shipments, fell from *** percent in 2000, to a

low of *** percent in 2001, then increased to *** percent in 2003 before falling to *** percent in 2004. 

These relatively low inventory levels suggest that U.S. producers have little ability to respond to changes

in demand with changes in the quantity shipped from inventories. U.S. producers report that distributors

tend to “maintain inventories on hand so that they may respond immediately to customer requirements.”44

This relieves both the producers and end users of the need to maintain sizeable inventories, but it exposes

distributors to the risk of falling inventory values when prices decline.45

According to a survey conducted by staff, two of the six responding distributors valued their

inventories on a FIFO basis, two reported valuing their inventories on a LIFO basis, one reported using

both FIFO and LIFO valuation, and one reported other methods of valuing inventories. Distributors also

were asked to characterize their inventories of large diameter CASSLP pipe as high, low, or moderate. 

Five of the seven responding distributors reported moderate inventories, the other two reported high

inventories. They were also asked to compare current inventories to those in March 2005 and to compare

the current ratio of inventories to shipments to the ratio in March 2005. Three of the seven responding

distributors reported that inventories had increased relative to March 2005 inventories by more than 5

percent, one reported inventories had increased by less than 5 percent, one reported unchanged

inventories, and two reported that inventories had decreased by more than 5 percent. The ratio of

inventories to shipments were also reported to have increased more than 5 percent by three of the seven

responding distributors, two distributors reported that this was unchanged, and two distributors reported

that it had fallen by more than 5 percent.

Production alternatives

All three of the responding producers stated that they could switch production from large

diameter CASSLP pipe to other tubular products. Two of these producers also reported that their ability

to make this switch was limited.

Supply of Subject Imports to the U.S. Market

Japan

Data on the Japanese industry were reported by NKK Tubes which reported that it represents ***

percent of Japanese production of subject large diameter CASSLP pipe. This firm’s Japanese capacity

rose from *** short tons in 2002 to *** short tons in each of the following years. Capacity utilization

rate rose from a low of *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2001 before falling to *** percent in 2002

and then rising to *** percent in 2004. Inventories as a share of total shipments fell from *** percent in

2000 to *** percent in 2004. Exports to the U.S. market were minor in 2000 and 2001, and ceased

entirely thereafter. Export share to other countries was highest in 2003 at *** percent and lowest in 2004

at *** percent.

Moderate capacity utilization and high export share increase this Japanese producer’s ability to

shift product to the United States, while falling inventories offset these effects. The low share of Japanese

production included in these data reduce their representativeness.
 46 The only U.S. producer that reported sales of alloy pipe identified the same end uses for alloy pipe as for

carbon pipe. No importers provided information regarding end use. Fifteen purchasers reported end uses, but did

not respond separately for carbon and alloy pipe.

II-25

Mexico

Data on the Mexican industry were reported by TAMSA, the sole Mexican producer. Mexican

capacity fluctuated from year to year, peaking in 2002 at *** short tons and reaching its nadir in 2004 at

*** short tons. Capacity utilization rate was *** percent in 2000, 2001, and 2004; it was at its lowest in

2003 at *** percent. Inventories as a share of total shipments fell from *** percent in 2000 to ***

percent in 2001, and then rose steadily to *** percent in 2004. There were no reported shipments to the

United States, while shipments to other markets ranged from *** percent of total shipments in 2000 to

*** percent in 2002.

Fluctuating capacity, rising inventories, and high shipments to other markets increase Mexican

ability to shift sales to the U.S. market, while high capacity utilization in most years limit Mexican ability

to shift sales to the United States.

U.S. Demand

U.S. demand for large diameter CASSLP pipe depends on demand in end use markets. Large

diameter CASSLP pipe is used mainly in collecting, transmission, and processing of gas and oil. As a

result demand is influenced by the price of gas and oil. High current gas and oil prices are reflected in

relatively high current demand (see figure II-1 for price of oil and gas, figure II-2 for GDP, and figure II-3

for the number of rigs currently operating in the United States).

Price changes for large diameter CASSLP pipe will likely have only a small effect on

consumption. First, the substitutes for large diameter CASSLP pipe are limited to a few applications.

Second, although the cost share of large diameter CASSLP pipe tends to be high in most intermediate

products, the cost of large diameter CASSLP pipe as compared to the oil or gas that the pipe is used to

process is small. In addition, it is unlikely that there are many viable substitutes for the end products that

use large diameter CASSLP pipe.

Large diameter carbon SSLP pipe was reported to be used in oil and gas transmission; collection

lines; refinery, petrochemical, and processing plants; construction; mechanical contractors; fabrication;

energy applications; shipbuilding; equipment production; and in manufacture of welded fittings. Both

carbon and alloy pipe were reported to be used in oil and gas lines and in construction.46

Demand Characteristics

Available data indicate that apparent U.S. consumption of large diameter CASSLP pipe increased

from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2001, then fell to *** short tons by 2003 before rising to

*** short tons by 2004. Overall, apparent U.S. consumption in 2004 was *** percent higher than it had

been in 2000.

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to discuss trends in demand in the United States

Since 2000. Both responding U.S. producers reported that demand had fluctuated since 2000, one of

these reported a downward trend in addition to the fluctuations due to lack of investment in the United

States, and the other reported that demand was driven by a volatile oil/gas industry. In contrast, both
II-26

Figure II-3

Weekly number of drilling rigs actively exploring for or developing oil or gas in the United States,

January 1, 2000 to March 18, 2006

Source: Baker Hughes Corp., www.bakerhughesdirect.com; March 20, 2006. 

responding importers reported that demand had increased, one reporting an overall increase in demand,

and the other reported demand declined in 2000, but rose more recently with increased demand by the oil

and gas industry. Nine of the 13 responding purchasers reported that demand had increased and four

reported demand was unchanged. Of the purchasers reporting demand growth, seven reported increased

demand in the gas and oil/energy sector, one reported generally increased applications, and the other two

did not explain the changes.

One of the two responding U.S. producers reported demand outside the United States was

unchanged and the other reported that demand fluctuated with demand in the oil and gas industries. Both

responding importers reported demand outside the United States had increased, one reported that global

demand for pipe consumption increased demand, and the other reported that recent demand in the energy

sector had increased demand for subject product, but in 2002 lower investment in the energy sector had

reduced demand. One of the two responding foreign producers, ***, reported that demand had declined

in 2002, but had increased since then as a result of investments in the oil and gas industries. The other,

***, reported that *** demand was unchanged but did not report on demand outside ***. None of the

purchasers reported on demand outside the United States.

End users of large diameter CASSLP pipe were asked if demand for their final products had

changed since 2000. Two responding end users, ***, reported demand was unchanged; one, a producer

of ***, reported that demand had decreased; and one, ***, reported demand had increased. One of these

end users stated that demand for the *** it produced from large diameter CASSLP pipe had fallen as

imports of *** increased and resulting in its purchasing less large diameter CASSLP pipe.

Predictions of Future Demand

Firms were asked about changes they anticipated in demand in the United States or other markets. 

Both responding producers reported expecting little change, one anticipated no changes, the other

expected demand to remain at the 2005 level. Both responding importers expected continued growth in

demand as a result of growth in pipe lines or in the energy sector. Nine of 15 responding purchasers
 47 Six purchasers expected demand to be unchanged. 

 48 Hearing transcript, p. 52 (Broglie).

 49 Hearing transcript, pp. 239-240 (Reilly).

 50 Mittal’s posthearing brief, app. 5, Energy Information Administration/Short-Term Energy Outlook, March 7,

2006. p. 1, “A Primer on Gasoline Prices” U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov; p. 2,

and U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov.

 51 “Special Report, Worldwide Pipeline Construction” Christopher E. Smith, Oil and Gas Journal, February 13,

2006, p. 57. “As 2006 began, operators had announced plans to build nearly 62,000 miles of crude oil, product and

natural gas pipelines this year and extending into the next decade... This represents a moderate increase over data

reported last year... in this report. The vast majority (nearly 74%) of these plans is for natural gas pipelines...”

 52 “Special Report, Worldwide Pipeline Construction” Christopher E. Smith, Oil and Gas Journal, February 13,

2006, p. 58.

 53 U.S. Steel’s posthearing brief, March 13, 2006, exhibits 15, 16, 17, 2, 5, 7, 9, 6, 13, and 10.

II-27

expected increased demand in the future; six of these expected increased demand because of demand in

the energy sector, one reported it expected demand to increase because of high demand for tubular

products, one expected demand to increase because demand had been weak for quite a while, and one

expected price to continue to increase due to constraints on steel inputs.47 Only one foreign producer

reported the changes in demand it anticipated; it expected strong demand from the energy sector,

particularly for high end product. Table II-8 provides questionnaire responses to predictions of future

demand for large diameter CASSLP pipe by the purchasers, producers, and importers. Table II-9

provides the responses of foreign producers.

Domestic interested parties contend that demand for large diameter CASSLP pipe can rise or fall

by 20 percent in one year and that this instability in demand makes the industry particularly vulnerable.48

Respondent interested parties contend that U.S. producers have moderated the increases in consumption

caused by the increases in demand by increasing prices.49

Future demand depends, in large part, on the future price of oil and gas. Respondent interested

parties reported that the most recent predicted price of oil in 2006 and 2007 provided by the Energy

Information Administration is expected to remain high, as is the price of natural gas. The price of West

Texas Intermediate crude oil is predicted to average $64 per barrel in 2006 and $61 per barrel in 2007

compared to $42 per barrel at the start of 2005 and the high of $70 per barrel in early September 2006. 

The price of natural gas is predicted to be $8.11 per Mcf in 2006 and $8.74 in 2007. In 2005 the price of

natural gas ranged from an average of $5.52 per Mcf in January of 2005 to a high of $10.97 in October

with an annual average of price of $7.51 per Mcf for 2005.50 The high predicted demand for energy is

expected to increase worldwide pipeline construction, and there are more pipeline projects projected now

than there were in the beginning of 2005.51 Oil and natural gas pipeline construction work is expected to

“surge” in the United States.52 

Domestic interested parties reported that natural gas prices have already fallen significantly from

their high and are expected to continue to fall, and that oil prices may not remain at their current high

levels. Domestic interested parties report that it is difficult to estimate future oil prices and estimates tend

to be biased upward. In addition, the current high price of oil reflect a speculative bubble rather than

underlying demand and supply. Demand growth is slowing, the rate of growth in Chinese oil

consumption is falling, and there are sufficient oil supplies and inventories. Indeed, some predict that the

price of oil could fall to $40-45 per barrel or lower in the next few years.53
II-28

Table II-8

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Anticipated changes in demand reported by producers, importers,

and purchasers 

Do you anticipate any future changes in large diameter CASSLP pipe demand in the United

States and, if known, the rest of the world?

Producers

***: “Based on information we have today, we expect U.S. demand levels to remain flat compared to

2005 levels.”

Importers

***: “Continued slow growth of consumption of line pipe.”

*** “The U.S. and global refinery capacity is very tight and investment to expand this capacity will

continue to drive demand of large diameter CASSLP in the United States and worldwide. Also,

increased investment in LNG plants, gas processing plants and pipeline projects is expected to continue

pushing up demand for large product world wide.”

Purchasers

***: “The application for these products is energy driven. The high price of natural gas and oil will

demand additional construction of facilities.”

***: “Do not develop forecast however in {illegible} prices continue to increase due to availability of steel

and supply.”

***: “Global increases in demand for oil and gas will drive demand for line and pressure pipe required to

increase production required to meet the increase in demand.”

***: “Usage will remain strong relative to domestic drilling activity for oil/gas.”

***: “Demand will continue to grow over the next 3-5 years as the domestic economy strengthens and

the demand from the power sector grows.”

***: “Expect demand to increase as long as energy exploration increases.”

***: “More demand for oil and natural gas will require more pipelines to move product to the needed

areas.”

***: “At some point, we expect an increase in demand since, for the last few years, demand has been

relatively weak or unchanged.”

***: “Industry sources and trade publications indicate demand for tubular products will be significant for

the next several years.”

Note.--One producer and six purchasers reported that they expected no change in demand.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-29

Table II-9

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Anticipated changes in demand reported by foreign producers

Do you anticipate any future changes in subject pipe demand in your home market and the

United States and, if known, the rest of the world?

***: (*** anticipates no changes in demand, but also noted) “*** is focused on high-end non-line pipe

products, we do not have much information regarding CASSLP pipe. *** knows that worldwide demand

for CASSLP pipe, as well as specialized products where *** is focused is strong and will remain strong

resulting from investments by oil companies that will reach U.S. $238 billion in year 2006, an increase of

15% compared with 2005. There is also predicted to be significant investments (greater than U.S.$12

billion) in off-shore high-end line pipe products, further spurring demand.”

***: “*** expects strong demand for its seamless pipe products from the energy sector, particularly for

the high-end pipes in which *** increasingly specializes. We expect market conditions, particularly

demand for our products and services from oil and gas customers, to remain favorable in the 4th quarter

of 2005 and at least through the first half of 2006, and that any further cost increases will be offset by

higher selling prices.” “Global demand for seamless pipes remains strong led by higher drilling activity in

the oil and gas industry. The constant search for new oil and gas reserves has led to an increasing

focus in deepwater activity--developments which occur at a minimum of 1,500 feet- particularly in areas

such as the Gulf of Mexico, offshore Brazil, and offshore West Africa. The exploitation of these reserves

has been facilitated by the development of new technology. While activity in shallow water operations in

the North Sea region was depressed during 2005, several fields have been passed from the majors to

independent operators, so in the coming years, we can expect more activity with their participation.”

Note.--One foreign producer reported that it expected no change in demand.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Both domestic and respondent interested parties address demand predictions with reference to

published projections by the Energy Information Administration. In addition to party submissions, Staff

reviewed forward-looking statements by leading participants in other industries that follow trends in the

oil and natural gas markets. As shown in table II-10, several issues raised by the interested parties are

reflected in the cited statements. Demand for oil and gas was generally projected to be strong, and prices

were expected to remain at sufficiently high levels to sustain increased exploration and production levels,

with a corresponding impact on pipeline operations. Several market participants, however, observed that

price volatility was an important risk factor, and several noted the recent decline in natural gas prices

from previous high levels.

Substitute Products

Substitutes for large diameter CASSLP pipe are limited, although both responding producers and

one importer reported some substitutes, including, welded pipe and nonmetal pipes. Substitutes were

reportedly possible either in limited applications where less strength was needed or depending on building

codes and user specifications. Three purchasers reported substitutes for large diameter CASSLP pipe

including welded pipe (such as HFI-EW line pipe or ERW pipe) and nonmetal pipe, including

polyethylene pipe. They reported that these could be used in oil and gas pipe lines, flow lines,

fabrication, and that substitution was an engineering decision. One of these purchasers reported that the

price of substitutes had influenced the price of large diameter CASSLP pipe stating that the price of

welded price was lower than large diameter CASSLP pipe. The other two purchasers commented that 

increasing costs had increased the price of large diameter CASSLP pipe. One U.S. producer reported that

changes in relative prices of substitutes can affect the price of large diameter CASSLP pipe. The other

producer and one responding importer reported that changes in price of substitutes do not affect the price

of large diameter CASSLP pipe.
II-30

Table II-10

Oil and gas: Demand and price forecasts, 2006 and beyond

Demand and Price Forecasts Source

Oilfield Service Providers

“Our outlook for 2006 and 2007 remains very positive. The worldwide economy

has grown despite high energy prices, and we expect that it will continue to grow

through 2006 and beyond. To satisfy the global demand for oil and gas, our

customers have increased their E&P budgets in 2006 and we expect continued

strength through 2007.”

Baker Hughes Inc.: 

“Baker Hughes

Announces Record

Fourth Quarter

Results,” News

Release, February 16,

2006.

“Some of the more significant barometers of current and future spending levels of

oil and gas companies are oil and gas prices, exploration and production

spending by international and national oil companies, the world economy, and

global stability, which together drive worldwide drilling activity.” In the United

States, the EIA “forecasts prices for crude oil, petroleum products, and natural

gas to remain high through 2006 ... Despite adequate gas storage, high natural

gas prices are expected to persist through 2006 according to Spears and

Associates .. In December 2005, Spears and Associates predicted that the

average rig count in 2006 will increase 13% over 2005.” Globally, “the outlook for

world oil demand continues to remain strong, with China and North America

accounting for approximately 45% of the expected demand growth in 2006.”

Haliburton Corp.: 

Annual Report 2005,

filed March 13, 2006.

Rigcount increases will be largely limited to onshore work. Shortages of people

and equipment are expected, along with an increased need technology to

increase productivity. Finally, “exploration activity .. will show a large increase in

2006, and this will continue for a number of years.”

Schlumberger

Limited:

“Schlumberger

Announces FourthQuarter and Full Year

2005 Results,” News

Release, January 20,

2006.

The company “had a strong finish to 2005" and “even better” prospects for 2006,

citing “the higher level of planned investment by exploration and production

companies” and Smith’s exposure to “some of the fastest growing segments in

the oilfield service market.”

Smith International,

Inc.: “Smith

International, Inc.,

Reports 57 Percent

Year-Over-Year

Increase in Earnings,”

News Release,

January 30, 2006.

“We are currently forecasting that the average rig count will increase

approximately 8% to 10% from last year.” (News release) “When forecasting our

results for 2006, we relied on assumptions about the market, customers and

suppliers, and we considered the Company’s backlog ... and past results. All

these indicators point to increased performance in 2006. More recently, however,

U.S. natural gas prices have decreased over 50% from their peak in December

2005. Despite this decline, we have not yet seen any significant changes in our

customers’ spending plans. Therefore, we expect a continuation of strong

worldwide drilling activity levels throughout 2006.” Risks, however, include

changes in the stability and sustainability of oil and gas prices, which have been

“subject to significant fluctuation in recent years.” (Annual report)

Grant Prideco: “Grant

Prideco Reports

Fourth Quarter Diluted

EPS of $0.59,

Including $0.04 Tax

Reversal,” News

Release, February 8,

2006; Grant Prideco: 

Annual Report 2005,

filed March 7, 2006.

Table continued on the following page.
II-31

Table II-10–Continued

Oil and gas: Demand and price forecasts, 2006 and beyond

Regulatory Agency

(Natural gas) prices have declined with a better supply demand relationship

(following hurricanes Katrina and Rita); (natural gas) prices have declined to early

2005 levels; storage is “very strong” compared to history. However, “futures

markets are clearly assigning some possibility to price increases as 2006

continues.” Also, the is no guarantee that next winter will be mild winter; under

cold winter weather conditions, “prices can rise explosively.” Nonetheless,

“prospects for more moderate prices than those experienced last fall are quite

good in 2006.”

Federal Energy

Regulatory

Commission: “Winter

2005-2006 Energy

Market Update,”

issued March 16,

2006.

Gas Pipelines

“Burgeoning activity in the worldwide construction of oil and natural gas pipelines

looked set to continue this year and beyond as 2006 began, based on reports

from the world’s pipeline operating companies and data collected by Oil & Gas

Journal.” The article cites growth in the United States (due to “sustained strength”

in natural gas prices and expectations of continuing demand growth) and the

Middle East, while much European work is considered already completed and

work in Canada, Latin America, and Asia-Pacific is stable. 

Oil & Gas Journal,

“Special Report:

Worldwide Pipeline

Construction,”

February 13, 2006.

Producers of Energy Tubular Products (Welded and/or Seamless OCTG and Line Pipe)

“Demand for line pipe is only partially dependent on oil and natural gas drilling

activities. Line pipe demand is also dependent on factors such as the level of

pipeline construction activity, line pipe replacement requirements, new residential

construction, and gas utility purchasing programs.” (Page 4) “Based on current

settlement prices for natural gas futures, economists’ forecasts of real GDP

growth in 2006, as well as other factors, we estimate the rig count will average

1,550 in 2006. The rig count as of March 3, 2006, was 1,531.” (Page 24). 

However, the first risk factor identified by NS Group was fluctuations in natural

gas and oil prices. (Page 9) 

NS Group: Annual

Report 2005, filed

March 10, 2006.

The company “expects continued strength in the energy markets served by our

Tubular Segment.” In addition, “(s)hipments and average realized prices for the

Tubular segment in the first quarter of 2006 are expected to be in line with the

fourth quarter (of 2005).” (Page 63)

United States Steel

Corporation: Annual

Report 2005, filed

February 28, 2006.

“Based on industry reports, we expect demand for our oilfield products to continue

to remain strong throughout 2006 as both crude oil prices and natural gas prices

are expected to sustain the number of active drilling rigs. The U.S. Energy

Information Agency ("EIA") has projected that the average West Texas

Intermediate crude oil price should increase to levels experienced at the end of

2005 to average in the low- to mid-$60's per barrel range throughout 2006 and

2007. The EIA expects U.S. petroleum demand to grow at an approximate growth

rate average of 1.7% and 1.9% in 2006 and 2007, respectively. U.S. natural gas

spot prices averaged around $9 per thousand cubic feet ("mcf") during 2005. The

EIA expects natural gas spot prices to range from $7.51 - $11.25 per mcf during

2006 and 2007 due to high crude oil prices and a relatively tight natural gas

supply coupled with increasing demand. We believe that these are positive

indicators of increasing and sustainable demand for our oilfield products in 2006.” 

(Page 24)

Lone Star

Technologies Inc.: 

Annual Report 2005,

filed March 6, 2006.

Table continued on the following page.
II-32

Table II-10–Continued

Oil and gas: Demand and price forecasts, 2006 and beyond

Producers of Energy Tubular Products (Welded and/or Seamless OCTG and Line Pipe), cont.

“We believe the rig count published by Baker Hughes Incorporated, which reports

the number of active oil and natural gas drilling rigs, is widely accepted within the

energy industry and is a reliable indicator of drilling activity levels. The level of

drilling activity and the amount of resources our end-users commit to the

exploration for and production of, oil and natural gas is largely a function of

current prices for oil and natural gas and the industry's future price expectations.

High oil and natural gas prices in 2005 caused exploration and production

companies to increase the number of active oil and natural gas drilling rigs

throughout the world. We believe that increasing demand for oil and natural gas,

along with tight supplies, will continue to support high prices for these natural

resources. This, in turn, should continue to support a high level of drilling activity

in 2006.” (Page 17) Specifically addressing (welded) line pipe, Maverick noted

that “line pipe is used to transport primarily natural gas from the well site to

gathering or storage facilities. Accordingly, new natural gas well completions is a

key driver of our line pipe business. However, because line pipe is used later in

the energy cycle, the impact to our line pipe business lags 6 to 12 months behind

drilling activity changes. Similar to OCTG, we analyze the demand for our line

pipe products by focusing on the Baker Hughes rig count, the impact of changes

in the price of oil and natural gas, and the effect of imports and industry inventory

levels. In addition to the OCTG drivers and factors, our line pipe revenues are

also influenced by general economic activity, the level of pipe line construction

activity, and line pipe replacement requirements. (Pages 18-19) Maverick’s firstlisted risk factor is “our energy business is highly cyclical.” (Page 8)

Maverick Tube Corp.: 

Annual Report 2005,

filed March 14, 2006.

Source: Compiled from cited publications.

Cost Share

Large diameter CASSLP pipe’s share of the total costs of intermediate products tends to be

relatively high. Purchasers were asked for the cost share of large diameter CASSLP pipe in the products

they produced. All of the four purchasers that were end users responded. Two reported that large

diameter CASSLP pipe accounted for *** percent of the cost of pipe flow lines and pipe lines in which it

was used. The other two responding purchasers reported that the cost of large diameter CASSLP pipe

was between 50 and 80 percent of the cost of the elbows, tees, and reducers they produced. 

Substitutability Issues

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported large diameter CASSLP pipe depends

on factors such as specifications of the product that is produced in each country, product quality,

consistency, relative price, and on conditions of sale such as reliability of supply, reliability of delivery,

payment terms, and delivery/lead time. In the original investigations, staff reported that there was

believed to be a moderate degree of substitution between domestic large diameter CASSLP pipe and that

imported from Japan and Mexico. There are no data to indicate that this has changed.

In the original investigations, petitioners and respondents generally agreed that imported large

diameter CASSLP pipe competed directly with the U.S.-produced product and that both were sold

through similar channels of distribution to similar markets. According to the report in the original

investigations, sales representatives typically carried a range of large diameter CASSLP pipe. As noted in

the original investigations report, large diameter CASSLP pipe could be substituted among producers

with a fair amount of ease, since for most end users it is essential that it meet set industry standards. 
 54 One reported that it only required ASTM, API5L, and/or ISO certification; a second reported that it toured the

production facility but did not require prequalification; and a third reported that the suppliers were already certified

or qualified and therefor required no qualification by the purchaser itself. 

II-33

However, some purchasers may require other qualification. Differences between sources therefore are

typically not in meeting standards, but in other types of quality measures, availability, preference for U.S.

product, and lead times.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Major Factors in Purchasing

Purchasers were asked to identify the three major factors considered by their firm in deciding

from whom to purchase large diameter CASSLP pipe (table II-11). Price was reported by the largest

number of purchasers (six firms) as the most important factor and the third most important factor (five

firms). Quality was reported most frequently as the second most important factor (five firms). Other

factors listed among the top three factors by more than one purchaser were meeting specifications/

meeting certification/acceptability, availability traditional supplier/approved supplier, and schedule/lead

time/delivery.

Factors Determining Quality

Purchasers were asked to identify the factors that determine the quality of large diameter

CASSLP pipe. Purchasers reported numerous factors including: meeting specifications including API,

API5L, ASTM, ASME, and ISO certification; lab tests and industry/national standards; shape, including

length, dimension, surface condition, surface coating; physical characteristics such as mechanical

properties and chemistry; consistency; stenciling; and characteristics not specific to the product such as

past history and deliveries.

Certification/Qualification Issues

Purchasers were asked if they require prequalification of their suppliers. Eleven of the 15

responding purchasers reported that they required prequalification for all of their purchases. The other

four purchasers reported that they did not require prequalification.54 Purchasers were also asked if, since

2000, any domestic or foreign producer failed in its attempts to certify or qualify its large diameter

CASSLP pipe with their firm or if any producer lost its approved status. Only one of the 15 responding

purchasers reported that one supplier had failed; it reported that Tamsa Mexico had failed because of

quality issues.

Purchasers were also asked what factors they consider in qualifying a supplier. Factors

purchasers considered included: product characteristics such as quality/consistent quality, meeting

specifications, and formability; delivery characteristics such as reliability of deliveries, and availability;

price; mill warranty; and characteristics of the producers such as shop floor/manufacture practice,

financial strength, safety, overall integrity, reliability, production history, and reputation/customer

acceptance. Six purchasers reported the time it took to qualify product. Responses ranged from 1 week

to 1 year, with three of the firms reporting one to three months.
 55 Hearing transcript, pp. 126 and 232 (Schagrin and Gurley).

 56 Hearing transcript, pp. 129, 131, and 132 (Blinder, Durham, and Shoaff).

 57 Hearing transcript, pp. 126, 186-187 (Schagrin). ***. V&M Star posthearing brief, March 13, 2006, exhibit 1. 

 58 Hearing transcript, p. 126 (Schagrin).

 59 Hearing transcript, p. 133 (Shoaff and Clark).

 60 One of these purchasers reported that it did not purchase by country of origin but always purchased U.S.-

produced product, as a result it has been included in the firms purchasing product by country of origin.

II-34

Table II-11

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Most important factors in selecting a supplier, as reported by

purchasers

Factor First1 Second2 Third3

Price 6 2 5

Quality 4 5 2

Meeting specifications/meeting certification/acceptability 3 0 1

Availability 2 4 1

Traditional supplier/approved supplier 1 0 1

Schedule/lead time/delivery 0 2 3

Other4 022

 1 Two firms reported two factors as the most important factor, both reported quality and either acceptability or

meeting certification.

 2

 Two firms reported two factors as the second most important factors, both reported quality and one reported

service and the other availability.

 3

 One firm reported two factors as the third most important factors, reporting quality and reputation.

 4

 “Other” includes for second factor service and product consistency, for third factor reputation and product line. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Both the domestic and the respondent interested parties reported that approved manufacturers lists

are important, particularly for some of the major oil and gas firms.55 At the hearing, distributors reported

that between 10 and 90 percent of their sales required that the producer be on an AML.56

Domestic interested parties contend that subject producers are more likely than nonsubject

producers to be on these approved manufacturers lists, reporting that the Mexican and Japanese producers

are “all on the approved lists.”57 As a result they argued that subject producers, if allowed in the market,

would compete more head to head with U.S. producers and therefore are more likely to cause prices to

fall than are nonsubject producers.58 Furthermore, only about 30 percent of the product sold by U.S. Steel

and V&M Star is reportedly to firms requiring approved manufacturers.59 Thus, even if the subject

producers were not approved manufacturers, their product would compete with most of the product

produced in the United States. 

Specific Sources

Purchasers were also asked whether they or their customers specifically ordered large diameter

CASSLP pipe from one country in particular over other sources of supply. Eight of the 14 responding

purchasers reported ordering by country.60 Six of the eight reported ordering specifically U.S. product; in

addition, one reported purchasing U.S. or imported material as driven by the customer specifications, and

one reported it preferred offshore product with diameters of 6 5/8 inches through 10 3/4 inches.
II-35

Purchasers were asked if certain grades of large diameter CASSLP pipe were available from only

a single source. One of the 14 responding purchasers responded yes, reporting that not all producers

produce the whole range of product.

Purchases of the Lowest-Priced Product

Purchasers were asked if they always, usually, sometimes, or never purchase the lowest-priced

product when buying large diameter CASSLP pipe. None of the firms always purchased the lowestpriced product, eight usually purchased the lowest-priced product, five sometimes purchased the lowestpriced product, and one never purchased the lowest-priced product. Thus, all purchasers had other factors

that could be more important than price in determining from whom they purchased.

Purchases from Higher-Priced Sources

Purchasers were also asked if they purchased large diameter CASSLP pipe from one source

although a comparable product was available at a lower price from another source. Ten purchasers

responded. One firm reported that when quality is the same, purchases are based on price. One reported

a preference for U.S. product. The other reasons purchasers reported for using a more expensive source

included; delivery time and reliability, logistics, customer acceptance, unwillingness to risk unknown or

marginal quality, domestic requirements, brand loyalty, quality, and availability.

Importance of Specified Purchase Factors

Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 15 factors in their purchasing decisions (table II12). The factors listed as very important were quality meets industry standards (15 firms), product

consistency (14 firms), price and availability (12 firms), and approved supplier and delivery time (11

firms). No other factor was reported as very important by half or more of the responding purchasers.

Changes in Purchasing Patterns

Purchasers were asked a number of questions about whether their purchasing patterns for large

diameter CASSLP pipe from subject and nonsubject sources had changed since 2000. Seven out of 14

responding purchasers reported that they had purchased large diameter CASSLP pipe from subject

countries before 2000; all seven purchased Japanese product, three of these also purchased Mexican

product. Six of the seven firms reported that it had discontinued purchases of subject large diameter

CASSLP pipe since 2000 because of the antidumping duty orders; the other reported that it had changed

its patterns for purchasing Japanese product because of the availability and price of the domestic product.

When asked about purchases from nonsubject countries, three firms reported that they had not purchased

product from nonsubject countries either before or after the antidumping duty orders; six reported that

their purchases from nonsubject countries were unchanged; four reported increasing purchases of

nonsubject product because of the orders; and one reported shifting because of availability and changes in

market conditions. 
II-36

Table II-12

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by purchasers

Factor

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Number of firms responding

Availability 12 3 0

Delivery terms 6 9 0

Delivery time 11 4 0

Discounts offered 6 9 0

Extension of credit 4 8 3

Price 12 3 0

Minimum quantity requirement 4 7 4

Packaging 3 8 4

Product consistency 14 1 0

Quality meets industry standards 15 0 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 4 8 3

Product range 4 9 2

Technical support/service 6 8 1

Approved supplier 11 3 1

U.S. transportation costs 2 9 4

Note: Not all firms responded for all questions.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchases from Specific Producers and Countries

Purchasers were asked how frequently they and their customers purchased large diameter

CASSLP pipe from specific producers and from specific countries. The following tabulation summarizes

the responses.

Purchaser/customer decision Always Usually Sometimes Never

Purchaser makes decision based on producer 10 2 2 1

Purchaser’s customer makes decision based on producer 0 8 5 3

Purchaser makes decision based on country 7 0 5 2

Purchaser’s customer makes decision based on country 0 3 6 3

Most (10 of 15) purchasers reported that they always make purchasing decisions based on the

producer of the large diameter CASSLP pipe, but less often based on the country of origin. Their

customers are less likely to make decisions based on either the producer or the country of origin, although

these are reportedly at least sometimes important. Of those purchasers that reported that they always
 61 Some of the purchasers compared U.S. product with product from a number of nonsubject countries; each of

these comparisons was counted if responses differed between different nonsubject countries, otherwise the response

is included only once.

II-37

make decisions based on the manufacturer, reasons cited included quality of product, ability to meet

specifications, approved manufacturers, mill warranties, availability, delivery, and price. Some firms also

reported that they distribute only domestically produced pipe.

Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports

Interchangeability

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to report how frequently large diameter

CASSLP pipe from different countries was interchangeable (table II-13). Both responding U.S.

producers reported that the domestic product and product imported from subject and nonsubject countries

were always interchangeable. Two importers responded; one reported that each country combination was

“frequently” interchangeable, and the other reported that each combination was “sometimes”

interchangeable except for Japan versus Mexico (which it reported as “frequently” interchangeable). 

Purchasers’ responses varied, but for each country combination nearly all purchasers reported that the

products were at least sometimes interchangeable.

Reasons for Non-Interchangeability

Firms were asked to explain why products from country pairs were not interchangeable. The one

importer that responded reported that interchangeability depends on the specific customers qualification

of mills. Purchasers that responded reported the following reasons: quality; product from Mexico is not

as acceptable as that from other sources, products are not interchangeable if a mill or country is not an

approved source; and ability to meet quality and technical requirements. 

Significance of Differences Other Than Price

Producers and importers were asked to assess how often differences other than price were

significant in sales of large diameter CASSLP pipe (table II-14). Two importers and two producers

answered this question. Firms were asked to report any differences other than price; no firms provided

any information.

Comparisons of Country Sources

Purchasers were also asked to compare domestically produced large diameter CASSLP pipe and

large diameter CASSLP pipe produced in subject and nonsubject countries, for all country pairs for which

they had actual experience. Respondents were asked to rate large diameter CASSLP pipe produced in

one country as superior, comparable, or inferior to that from another country with respect to 15 different

attributes. The most common comparison was between U.S. product and nonsubject product, with five

purchasers providing comparisons;61 one purchaser compared U.S. and Japanese product; one purchaser

compared U.S. and Mexican product; two purchasers compared Japanese and nonsubject product; one

purchaser compared Mexican and nonsubject product; and two purchasers compared Japanese with

Mexican product. Comparisons between large diameter CASSLP pipe that is domestically produced,

produced in subject countries, and produced in nonsubject countries are reported in table II-15, and
II-38

Table II-13

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. firms’ perceived degree of interchangeability of products

produced in the United States, subject, and nonsubject countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers

AFSNAFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. Japan 200001103520

U.S. vs. Mexico 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 3 3 1

Japan vs. Mexico 200002003320

U.S. vs. nonsubject 200001102411

Japan vs. nonsubject 200001103310

Mexico vs. nonsubject 200001102320

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if large diameter CASSLP pipe produced in the United

States and in other countries is used interchangeably.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table II-14

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. firms’ perceived significance of differences other than price

between U.S.-produced and imported product1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. Japan 00020020

U.S. vs. Mexico 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0

Japan vs. Mexico 00020020

U.S. vs. nonsubject 00020020

Japan vs. nonsubject 00020020

Mexico vs. nonsubject 00020020

 1 Producers and importers were asked if differences other than price between large diameter CASSLP pipe

produced in the United States and in other countries were a significant factor in their sales of the products.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

country comparisons for which more than one purchaser responded are discussed below.

In comparing U.S. product with that from nonsubject countries, the majority of responding

purchasers rated the products as comparable for most factors except availability for which five of nine

purchasers rated the U.S. product as superior, three rated it as inferior, and one rated the products as

comparable; delivery time for which five of nine firms rated the U.S. product as superior; price for which

six of nine firms rated the U.S. product as inferior; and product range for which two firms rated the U.S.
II-39

Table II-15

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Comparisons of imported and U.S. product, as reported by

purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs 

Japan 

U.S. vs

Mexico

U.S. vs

nonsubject1

Japan vs

Mexico

Japan vs

nonsubject

Mexico vs

nonsubject

SC I SC I SC I SC I SC I SC I

Approved supplier 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0

Availability 100100513011030100

Delivery terms 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 6 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 0

Delivery time 1 0 0 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 0

Discounts offered 100100351020030010

Extension of credit 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 8 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0

Minimum quantity

requirements 010010261020030010

Packaging 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 8 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 0

Price2 010001036011111100

Product consistency 010100360200120001

Product range 100100243110030001

Quality exceeds industry

standards 010100252200120001

Quality meets industry

standards 010100270200120001

Technical support/service 010010270200120010

U.S. transportation costs 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 5 1 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 1

 1 Some firms reported answers for multiple nonsubject countries. When these answers differed among the different

nonsubject countries, all answers have been reported. 

 2

 A rating of superior means that the price is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported “U.S. superior,” it meant that the

price of the U.S. product was generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s product is

inferior. Not all companies gave responses for all factors. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

product as superior, four rated the products as comparable; and three rated the U.S. product as inferior. In

comparing product from Japan with that from Mexico, the two responding purchasers rated the Japanese

product as superior for a number of factors including approved supplier, product consistency, quality

meets industry standards, quality exceeds industry standards, and technical support. Regarding

availability, delivery time, and price, one firm rated the Japanese product and Mexican product as

comparable and one firm rated the Mexican product as superior. Regarding packaging and product range,

one firm rated the Japanese product and Mexican product as comparable and one firm rated the Japanese

product as superior. Finally, in comparing Japanese product and product from nonsubject countries, the

majority of purchasers rated the products as comparable for each factor except for price in regard to

which one firm rated the Japanese product as superior, one firm rated the products as comparable, and one

firm rated the Japanese product as inferior. 
 62 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

II-40

Awareness of Country Sources

Purchasers were asked to identify the sources of large diameter CASSLP pipe of which they were

aware. All 14 responding firms were aware of the U.S.-produced product. Two reported knowing of

product from subject sources. One of these knew product from both Japan and Mexico and the other

knew of product from Japan. Five purchasers reported information on large diameter CASSLP pipe from

nonsubject countries. Nonsubject sources reported by these purchasers included Argentina, Austria,

Brazil, China, Czech Republic, France, Germany, and Italy. Of the three importers providing

questionnaires, one imported from Romania, one from South Africa, and one from Italy and Argentina.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES FOR LARGE DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

This section discusses elasticity estimates. Parties were requested to provide comments in their

prehearing briefs. None of the parties commented on these elasticity estimates.

U.S. Supply Elasticity62

The domestic supply elasticity for large diameter CASSLP pipe measures the sensitivity of the

quantity supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of large diameter CASSLP pipe. 

The elasticity of domestic supply depends on factors such as the level of excess capacity, the existence of

inventories, and the availability of alternate markets for domestically produced large diameter CASSLP

pipe. Analysis of these factors in the initial investigations indicated that the U.S. industry had a moderate

capacity to increase domestic shipments in response to moderate price increases. In 2000, the supply

elasticity was estimated to be in the range of 2 to 4. Other than increasing inventories, no major changes

are apparent in supply and elasticity of supply is expected to essentially remain unchanged.

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for large diameter CASSLP pipe measures the sensitivity of the

overall quantity demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of large diameter CASSLP pipe. This

sensitivity depends on the availability and viability of substitute products as well as on the component

share of large diameter CASSLP pipe in the production of downstream products. There are few products

that can be successfully substituted for large diameter CASSLP pipe. Large diameter CASSLP pipe is

typically used to extract, transport, and process petroleum products. Thus, its cost share’s significance is

less than that in many products where the product is ultimately used in a consumer product. In the

original investigations, demand was estimated to be moderately elastic with elasticities in a range of -1 to

-2. Staff believes these estimates are high, demand is currently less elastic and is likely to be in the -0.5 to

-1.0 range.

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends on the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products. Product differentiation depends on factors such as the range of products

produced, quality, availability, and reliability of supply. In the original investigations, the elasticity of

substitution was estimated to be highly elastic in the range of 2 to 6; staff believes that the substitution

elasticity is still likely to be in that range.
 1

 ***. Koppel’s producer’s questionnaire response, p. 5.

 2

 U.S. Steel’s producer’s questionnaire response, p. 4. U.S. Steel reported that ***. U.S. Steel and Koppel’s

posthearing brief, March 13, 2006, p. 39.

 3

 U.S. Steel reported that ***. U.S. Steel’s producer’s questionnaire response, p. 5.

Koppel reported that ***. Koppel’s producer’s questionnaire response, p. 5.

 4

 Timken’s producer’s questionnaire response, p. 5. Timken reported that ***. Ibid.

III-1

PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION FOR

SMALL DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

Data on U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization of small diameter CASSLP

pipe are presented in table III-1. Reported U.S. capacity increased from 2000 to 2004 by *** percent,

after recovering from a steep decline in 2003. Production also increased from 2000 to 2004, rising by ***

percent, despite decreasing production levels in 2002 and 2003. Annual capacity utilization rates ranged

from *** percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2001. 

Table III-1

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2000-

04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Koppel and Sharon reported steady overall capacity throughout the period reviewed.1

 U.S. Steel

reported an increase in capacity from 2000 to 2004 of *** percent.2

 Timken reported an increase in

capacity from 2000 to 2004 of *** percent, ***.

Koppel and U.S. Steel reported that they produce other products using the same manufacturing

equipment and/or production related employees employed to produce small diameter CASSLP pipe. 

These products include ***.3

 Timken reported that it produces *** using the same manufacturing

equipment and/or production related employees employed to produce small diameter CASSLP pipe.4

Table III-2 presents data for the U.S. industry’s overall capacity, production, and capacity utilization of

its production facilities and workers, in their entirety, capable of producing small diameter CASSLP pipe

and other products. Reported overall capacity remained relatively stable over the period for which data

were collected. Aggregate capacity utilization fluctuated, consistent with overall production levels, but

was consistently higher than small diameter CASSLP pipe capacity utilization. 

Table III-2

Small diameter seamless pipe: U.S. producers’ overall capacity, production, and aggregate

capacity utilization, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *
III-2

U.S. PRODUCERS’ DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS, AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS OF SMALL

DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

As shown in table III-3, the quantity of U.S. shipments of small diameter CASSLP pipe

fluctuated, but increased overall by *** percent from 2000 to 2004. However, the value of U.S.

shipments increased by a substantially greater rate (*** percent) during this period, and the average unit

value of U.S. shipments rose by *** percent. No U.S. producer reported internal consumption or

shipments to related firms of small diameter CASSLP pipe. ***.

Table III-3

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2000-04, January-September

2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES OF SMALL DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

Data on end-of-period inventories of small diameter CASSLP pipe for the review period are

presented in table III-4.

Table III-4

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2000-04, JanuarySeptember 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES OF IMPORTS OF SMALL DIAMETER

CASSLP PIPE

*** reported direct imports or purchases of imports of the subject product during the review

period from any of the subject countries. *** reported purchases of small diameter CASSLP pipe from

nonsubject countries and other domestic producers.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY OF SMALL DIAMETER

CASSLP PIPE

Data provided by U.S. producers on the number of production and related workers (PRWs)

engaged in the production of small diameter CASSLP pipe and the total hours worked by and wages paid

to such PRWs during the period for which data were collected in these reviews are presented in table 

III-5. From 2000 to 2004, the number of PRWs decreased from *** workers in 2000 to *** workers in

2004, a *** percent decrease. Hours worked by PRWs decreased by *** percent during this period, but

hourly wages increased by *** percent. Productivity increased by *** percent during 2000-04.

Table III-5

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Average number of production and related workers, hours worked,

wages paid to such employees, and hourly wages, productivity, and unit labor costs, 2000-04,

January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *
 5

 All producers’ fiscal years end on December 31. 

 6

 ***. Since Timken did not provide financial data for the two interim periods, the interim data were prorated for

the first nine months based on the data submitted for 2004 and 2005.

 7

 Based on U.S. Steel’s Form 10-K submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for 2005 and

Form 10-Q submitted to SEC for the third quarter and the first nine months of 2005 ended September 30, 2005, U.S.

Steel has three reportable segments: Flat-rolled Products (Flat-rolled), U.S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular

Products (Tubular). Based on U.S. Steel’s Historical Segment Financial and Operational Data on December 31,

2005, for the Tubular Products Segment, average price per net ton increased from $863 in 2004 to $1,326 in 2005,

income from operations increased from $197 million in 2004 to $528 million in 2005, and finally, income from

operations per ton increased from $180 in 2004 to $457 in 2005 while the calculated costs per ton also increased

from $683 to $869 from 2004 to 2005. U.S. Steel states in its Form 10-K, “Tubular segment income of $528 million

in 2005 reflected an improvement of $331 million compared to 2004. The increase resulted mainly from higher

prices, partially offset by higher costs for steel rounds.... Tubular recorded segment income of $197 million in 2004,

compared to a segment loss of $25 million in 2003. The improvement resulted primarily from higher average

realized prices.” Income from the operations of Tubular segment was $379 million for the first nine months of 2005

compared to $83 million for the first nine months of 2004. During the third quarter of 2005, income from operations

(continued...)

III-3

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS OF SMALL DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

Background

Four U.S. producers of small diameter CASSLP pipe provided financial data--Koppel, Sharon,

Timken, and U.S. Steel.5

 No production of small diameter CASSLP pipe was either internally consumed

or transferred to related companies. Responding U.S. producers are believed to account for the majority

of the domestic industry’s net sales during the period for which data were collected.

Operations on Small Diameter CASSLP Pipe

The results of the responding U.S. producers’ small diameter CASSLP pipe sales are presented in

table III-6.6

 Net sales quantity, value, and operating income fluctuated in a generally downward trend

between 2000 and 2003, before increasing substantially in 2004. Net sales value as well as operating

income increased noticeably from 2003 to 2004 in conjunction with sales quantity for the same period,

due mainly to a substantial increase in per-short-ton selling price (from $*** to $*** per short ton). An

operating income of less than $*** in 2003 changed to an operating income of almost $*** in 2004 and

per-unit profitability increased substantially for the same period (from $*** to $*** per short ton). The

ratio of the domestic industry’s operating income to net sales in 2004 was *** percent, while its operating

income ratio in 2003 was less than *** percent. Per-short-ton net sales values increased in 2004 (by

$***) from 2003, while per-unit total costs (cost of goods sold (COGS) plus selling, general, and

administrative (SG&A) expenses) also increased by $***, resulting in an operating income of $*** per

short ton in 2004, a net increase of $*** per short ton compared to an operating income of $*** in 2003. 

The pattern of the financial results between January-September 2004 (interim 2004) and JanuarySeptember 2005 (interim 2005) is similar to the pattern between 2003 and 2004, despite lower net sales

quantity in interim 2005. However, the magnitude of the per-unit profitability between the two interim

periods is even greater than between 2003 and 2004 (an increase of operating income of $*** per short

ton from interim 2004 to interim 2005, reflecting an increase in the per-short-ton selling price of $*** for

the same period).

The results of operations by firm are presented in table III-7. All producers’ profitability, i.e.,

operating income and operating income ratio to net sales, improved from 2003 to 2004 and between two

interim periods.7

 ***. 
 7

 (...continued)

of the Tubular segment increased markedly from the third quarter of 2004, compared to the Flat-rolled and USSE

segments which actually decreased significantly during the same periods. Income from the operations of Tubular

segment was $379 million for the first nine months of 2005 compared to $83 million for the first nine months of

2004. U.S. Steel explains that total operating expenses for the entire company in the third quarter of 2005 increased

from the third quarter of 2004 due to higher unit production costs which resulted mainly from inefficiencies related

to blast furnace outages and curtailed operating levels, and from higher energy costs and increased cost related to

profit-based union payments which were included in cost of sales. It further states that segment income for Tubular

in the third quarter and first nine months of 2005 increased by 125 percent and 357 percent, respectively, from the

comparable 2004 periods. The substantial improvements in the 2005 periods mainly resulted from higher average

realized prices, partially offset by higher costs for tube rounds. During 2005, the cost to produce tube rounds has

increased dramatically and the transfer price for tube rounds supplied by Flat-rolled also increased substantially.

 8

 Prehearing brief of the domestic interested parties, p. 49 and exhibit 5. 

 9

 The financing of capital for a firm is comprised of two sources: equity financing and debt financing. The cost

of capital is the expected return to shareholders and/or creditors, depending upon the investment risk. The WACC is

the weighted average cost of capital for a firm based on the combination of its capital; in other words, it represents

the investors' opportunity cost of taking on the risk of investing in or lending money to a company. A project that

has a rate of return (in this case, operating income) greater than the WACC generates additional cash flow and

creates value, while a project that has a rate of return less than the WACC decreases value.

III-4

Table III-6

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2000-04,

January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Table III-7

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Results of operations of U.S. producers (by firms), fiscal years

2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Selected cost data of the producers on their operations for the subject products are presented in

table III-8. Total unit cost increased continuously over the period. Unit raw materials cost and SG&A

expenses generally increased during the same period.

Table III-8

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Operating costs of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2000-04, JanuarySeptember 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Domestic interested parties alleged in their prehearing brief8

 that the operating margins earned by

the domestic industry during the period between 1997 and September 2005 have been below the

industry’s weighted average cost of capital (“WACC”).9

 While the WACC is a useful tool in certain

applications, its usefulness in these proceedings might be limited. First, the domestic interested parties’

WACC was computed for the period between 1997 and September 2005, including three years prior to
 10 Posthearing brief supplement of the domestic interested parties dated March 13, 2006.

III-5

 the period for which data were collected in these reviews (January 2000-September 2005) and based on

the financial data of only one company, NS Group, Inc., which is Koppel’s parent company. Although

NS Group is a pipe manufacturer, staff is not sure it is a reasonable proxy for the domestic CASSLP pipe

industry. Specifically, the NS Group posted large operating losses every year from 2000 to 2003, with

operating loss margins ranging from negative 5.2 percent to negative 17.7 percent. At the same time the

small diameter CASSLP pipe industry was profitable in every period, and the domestic large diameter

CASSLP pipe industry was profitable in two of the years. Profitability affects shareholders’ equity, and

therefore has a bearing upon any WACC calculation. Therefore, the Commission requested domestic

interested parties to compute WACC based on the period January 2000-September 2005, utilizing both

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 331 and SIC 3312, with the financial data of two domestic

producers, U.S. Steel and Koppel.

In response to the Commission staff’s request, domestic interested parties submitted WACC

based on SIC 331 and SIC 3312 with the financial data of three small diameter CASSLP pipe producers

(Koppel, Sharon, and U.S. Steel) and of two large diameter CASSLP pipe producers (U.S. Steel and

V&M Star) for the period January 2000-September 2005. The return on assets (“ROA”) of three small

diameter CASSLP pipe producers for the period January 2000-September 2005 exceeded WACC with

SIC 331 by *** percent and WACC with SIC 3312 by *** percent. For large diameter producers,

WACC with SIC 331 exceeded ROA of two producers for the period January 2000-September 2005 by

*** percent and WACC with 3312 by *** percent.10

SIC 331 may not be representative of the domestic small diameter CASSLP pipe industry. SIC

331 is much broader and diverse and includes steel works, blast furnaces, and rolling mills, coke ovens,

electrometallurgical products, steel wiredrawing and steel nails, and spikes; cold-rolled steel sheet, strip,

and bars; and steel pipe and tubes. A smaller subset, SIC 3312, includes establishments primarily

engaged in manufacturing hot metal, pig iron, and silvery pig iron from iron ore and steel scrap;

converting pig iron, scrap iron, and scrap steel into steel; and, in hot-rolling iron and steel into basic

shapes, such as plates, sheets, strips, rods, bars, and tubing. SIC 3312 also includes stainless steel and

specialty steel producers. 

In most periods, net sales values for companies within SIC 331 were over $30 billion, compared

to approximately $300 million of the combined net sales values reported by the both small and large

diameter CASSLP pipe producers. Given this, it might not be reasonable to draw parallels between

financial data for either SIC 331 or SIC 3312 and the domestic small and large diameter CASSLP pipe

industry, which is a much smaller subset. The Commission has gathered actual trade and financial data

specific to the domestic CASSLP pipe producers, and the comparisons between these data and data for a

much larger industry whose exact composition is unknown may not be conclusive and should be viewed

with caution.

A variance analysis showing the effects of prices and volume on the producers’ net trade sales of

small diameter CASSLP pipe, and of costs and volume on their total cost, is shown in table III-9. The

analysis is summarized at the bottom of the table. Operating income increased by more than $***

between 2000 and 2004. The increase in operating income between 2000 and 2004 resulted mainly from

higher average prices ($***) which were partially offset by the negative effect of increasing

costs/expenses ($***). 
 11 ***.

III-6

Table III-9

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Variance analysis of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years

2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

The U.S. producers’ capital expenditures and research and development (R&D) expenses are

presented in table III-10. Capital expenditures decreased substantially from 2000 to 2001 and remained

below $*** thereafter. R&D expenses decreased markedly from 2000 to 2001 and remained below $***

annually thereafter. Capital expenditures by individual firms are presented in table III-11. 

Table III-10

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Capital expenditures and R&D expenses by U.S. producers, fiscal

years 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Table III-11

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Capital expenditures by U.S. producers (by firms), fiscal years 2000-

04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Assets and Return on Investment

U.S. producers were requested to provide data on their assets used in the production and sales of

small diameter CASSLP pipe during the period for which data were collected to assess their return on

investments (ROI). Although ROI can be computed in different ways, a commonly used method is

income earned during the period divided by the total assets utilized for the operations. Therefore, staff

calculated ROI as operating income divided by total assets used in the production and sale of small

diameter CASSLP pipe. Data on the U.S. producers’ total assets and their ROI are presented in table III12.11

Total assets utilized by the U.S. producers in their operations decreased between 2000 and 2003,

and then increased in 2004. Since the U.S. producers’ operating income increased considerably from

2003 to 2004, their ROI increased from a ratio of *** percent in 2003 to a ratio of *** percent in 2004. 

The trend of ROI over the period was generally the same as the trend of the operating income margin to

net sales in table III-6 over the same period.

Table III-12

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, fiscal

years 2000-04

* * * * * * *
 12 U.S. Steel’s producer’s questionnaire response, p. 4; Hearing transcript, March 2, 2006, p. 51 (Broglie).

 13 U.S. Steel reported that ***. U.S. Steel’s producer’s questionnaire response, p. 5.

V&M Star reported that ***. V&M Star’s producer’s questionnaire response, p. 5.

 14 Timken’s producer’s questionnaire response, p. 5. Timken reported that ***. Ibid.

III-7

U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION FOR

LARGE DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

Data on U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization are presented in table

III-13. Reported U.S. capacity to produce large diameter CASSLP pipe fluctuated during the period of

review, but increased overall by *** percent from 2000 to 2004. Production also fluctuated, but

increased overall by *** percent from 2000 to 2004. Annual capacity utilization rates ranged from ***

percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2000. 

Table III-13

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2000-

04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

V&M Star reported steady capacity throughout the period reviewed. U.S. Steel reported it

installed a $85 million quench and temper facility at its Lorain, OH, production facilities, ***.12 Timken

reported an increase in capacity from 2000 to 2004 of *** percent.

U.S. Steel and V&M Star reported that they produce other products using the same manufacturing

equipment and/or production related employees employed to produce large diameter CASSLP pipe. 

These products include ***.13 Timken reported that it produces *** on the same manufacturing

equipment and/or production related employees employed to produce small diameter CASSLP pipe.14

Table III-14 presents data for the U.S. industry’s overall capacity, production, and capacity utilization of

its production facilities and workers, in their entirety, capable of producing large diameter CASSLP pipe

and other products. Overall capacity, production, and aggregate capacity utilization fluctuated over the

period for which data were collected. Aggregate capacity utilization was frequently, but not always,

higher than large diameter CASSLP pipe capacity utilization. 

Table III-14

Large diameter seamless pipe: U.S. producers’ overall capacity, production, and aggregate

capacity utilization, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *
III-8

U.S. PRODUCERS’ DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS, AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS OF LARGE

DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

As shown in table III-15, the quantity of U.S. shipments of large diameter CASSLP pipe

increased by *** percent from 2000 to 2004. The value of U.S. shipments also increased, by *** percent,

during this period, as did the average unit value of U.S. shipments, by *** percent. No U.S. producer

reported internal consumption or shipments to related firms of large diameter CASSLP pipe. ***.

Table III-15

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2000-04, January-September

2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES OF LARGE DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

Data on end-of-period inventories of large diameter CASSLP pipe for the review period are

presented in table III-16.

Table III-16

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2000-04, JanuarySeptember 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES OF IMPORTS OF LARGE DIAMETER

CASSLP PIPE

*** reported direct imports or purchases of imports of the subject product during the review

period from any of the subject countries. *** reported purchases of large diameter CASSLP pipe from

nonsubject countries or other domestic producers.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY OF LARGE DIAMETER

CASSLP PIPE

Data provided by U.S. producers on the number of production and related workers (PRWs)

engaged in the production of large diameter CASSLP pipe and the total hours worked by and wages paid

to such PRWs during the period for which data were collected in these reviews, are presented in table 

III-17. From 2000 to 2004, the number of PRWs decreased by *** percent and hours worked decreased

by *** percent, while hourly wages increased by *** percent. Productivity increased by *** percent

from 2000 to 2004.

Table III-17

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Average number of production and related workers, hours worked,

wages paid to such employees, and hourly wages, productivity, and unit labor costs, 2000-04,

January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *
 15 All producers’ fiscal years end on December 31. 

 16 ***. Since Timken’s late response did not provide financial data for the two interim periods, the interim data

were prorated for the first nine months based on the data submitted for 2004 and 2005.

III-9

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS OF LARGE DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

Background

Three U.S. producers of large diameter CASSLP pipe provided financial data–Timken, U.S.

Steel, and V&M Star.15 No production of large diameter CASSLP pipe was either internally consumed or

transferred to related companies. These three U.S. producers are believed to account for all of the

domestic industry’s net sales during the period for which data were collected.16

Operations on Large Diameter CASSLP Pipe

The results of the U.S. producers’ large diameter CASSLP pipe operations are presented in table

III-18. Net sales quantity, value, and operating income all fluctuated between 2000 and 2004. 

However, net sales value as well as operating income increased markedly from 2003 to 2004, due mainly

to a substantial increase in per-short-ton selling price (from $*** per short ton to $*** per short ton). 

The operating loss in 2003 changed to operating income in 2004 and per-unit profitability increased

noticeably for the same period. The domestic industry’s operating income ratio to net sales in 2004 was

more than *** percent while its operating loss ratio in 2003 was more than *** percent. Per-short-ton

net sales value increased in 2004 (by $***) from 2003, while per-unit total cost increased by $***,

resulting in operating income of $*** per short ton in 2004 compared to an operating loss of $*** in

2003, an increase of $*** per short ton. 

Per-short-ton net sales were markedly higher in interim 2005 than in interim 2004 (an increase of

$*** per short ton), while per-short-ton total cost also increased by $***, which resulted in an increase in

operating income of $*** per short ton from interim 2004 to interim 2005, while sales quantity for

interim 2005 was less than *** short tons higher than in interim 2004.

Table III-18

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2000-04,

January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

The results of operations by firm are presented in table III-19. All producers experienced

operating income in 2004 and the two interim periods, while all had operating losses in 2003, which

resulted from the combined effects of lower sales volume and prices as well as higher per-unit total cost. 

U.S. Steel produced both carbon and alloy SSLP pipe while Timken and V&M Star produced only carbon

SSLP pipe.

Table III-19

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Results of operations of U.S. producers (by firms), fiscal years

2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *
III-10

Selected cost data of the producers on their operations for the subject products are presented in

table III-20. Total unit costs increased over the period, reflecting increases in raw material costs and

factory overhead. Unit SG&A expenses increased continuously from 2000 to 2003, but then decreased

from 2003 to 2004, and were lower in interim 2005 than in interim 2004.

Table III-20

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Operating costs of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2000-04, JanuarySeptember 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

A variance analysis showing the effects of prices and volume on the producers’ net trade sales of

large diameter CASSLP pipe, and of costs and volume on their total cost, is shown in table III-21. The

analysis is summarized at the bottom of the table. Operating income increased by $*** between 2000 and

2004. After unfavorable (negative) variances between 2000 and 2003, operating income increased by

$*** between 2003 and 2004, and was $*** higher in interim 2005 than in interim 2004, due mainly to

higher average selling prices. 

Table III-21

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Variance analysis of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years

2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

The U.S. producers’ capital expenditures and R&D expenses are presented in table III-22. 

Capital expenditures increased substantially from 2000 to 2002 and then decreased from 2002 through

2004. R&D expenses remained relatively small over the period. Capital expenditures by individual firms

are presented in table III-23. 

Table III-22

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Capital expenditures and R&D expenses by U.S. producers, fiscal

years 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Table III-23

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Capital expenditures by U.S. producers (by firms), fiscal years 2000-

04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Assets and Return on Investment

U.S. producers were requested to provide data on their assets used in the production and sales of

large diameter CASSLP pipe during the period for which data were collected to assess their return on

investments (ROI). Although ROI can be computed in different ways, a commonly used method is

income earned during the period divided by the total assets utilized for the operations. Therefore, staff

calculated ROI as operating income divided by total assets used in the production and sale of large

diameter CASSLP pipe. Data on the U.S. producers’ total assets and their ROI are presented in table III-
 17 ***.

III-11

24.

Total assets utilized by the U.S. producers in their operations increased between 2000 and 2002,17

then decreased in 2003 and increased again in 2004. Since the U.S. producers’ operating income

increased *** from 2003 to 2004, their ROI increased from a loss ratio of *** percent in 2003 to a

positive ratio of *** percent in 2004. 

Table III-24

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, fiscal

years 2000-04

* * * * * * *

 1

 U.S. import data for small diameter CASSLP pipe are based on official Commerce statistics covered by the

following HTS statistical reporting numbers: 7304.10.1020, 7304.10.5020, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020,

7304.39.0024, 7304.59.8010, and 7304.59.8015. This list of HTS statistical reporting numbers is a subset of those

listed in the scope definition issued by Commerce. The complete list of HTS statistical reporting numbers issued by

Commerce in its scope language contains product largely outside of the scope definition, or specifically excluded

from the scope, such as mechanical tubing. See Part I, The Subject Products. U.S. producers, U.S. Steel and V&M

Star, in consultation with the AISI, claim that imports covered by the statistical reporting numbers in the above

subset are predominately product within the scope of these reviews. See U.S. Steel, Koppel Steel, and V&M Star’s

response to notice of institution, June 21, 2005, exh. 1.

Respondent interested parties, Mittal Steel and Silcotub, have indicated that they have no objections to the

use of adjusted Commerce statistics, as presented in this report, to depict U.S. imports from subject and nonsubject

countries.

 2

 According to adjusted Commerce data, U.S. imports from nonsubject countries included the following countries,

in order of volume in 2004: (1) China, (2) Ukraine, (3) France, (4) Spain, (5) Austria, and (6) Germany. These

countries accounted for approximately 82 percent of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries in 2004. U.S. imports

from China alone accounted for approximately 26 percent of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries in 2004. See

appendix F, table F-1 which shows quantities of U.S. imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe by nonsubject country

for the period of review.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRIES

U.S. IMPORTS OF SMALL DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

Data regarding U.S. imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe, based on adjusted official

Commerce statistics,1

 are presented in table IV-1. Generally, U.S. imports from the Czech Republic and

South Africa have been minimal or, in the case of South Africa since 2000, nonexistent. U.S. imports

from Japan decreased by 95.9 percent from 2000 to 2004, while U.S. imports from Romania increased

444.7 percent during this period. U.S. imports from nonsubject sources increased by 39.7 percent from

2000 to 2004.2

 
IV-2

Table IV-1

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. imports, by sources, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and

January-September 2005

Source

Calendar year January-September

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Quantity (short tons)

Czech Republic 310 11 367 355 1 1 130

Japan 1,914 909 408 865 79 67 221

Romania 3,436 16,573 9,182 11,562 18,718 13,531 1,611

South Africa 442 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Subtotal 6,102 17,492 9,957 12,782 18,798 13,598 1,961

All other sources 89,194 85,959 77,021 88,235 124,607 93,852 96,258

 Total 95,296 103,451 86,977 101,017 143,405 107,451 98,219

Landed, duty-paid value ($1,000)

Czech Republic 142 71 359 2,008 3 3 115

Japan 3,553 1,018 1,205 2,872 513 401 531

Romania 1,722 8,122 4,627 6,102 12,996 8,966 1,971

South Africa 191 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Subtotal 5,608 9,211 6,191 10,983 13,511 9,370 2,618

All other sources 63,994 61,022 55,627 63,866 93,355 67,965 101,949

 Total 69,601 70,233 61,818 74,849 106,866 77,335 104,566

Unit value (per short ton)

Czech Republic $456.83 $6,595.08 $979.53 $5,662.86 $3,290.03 $3,290.03 $889.12

Japan 1,856.64 1,120.79 2,956.27 3,319.53 6,498.03 6,017.74 2,407.86

Romania 501.06 490.10 503.87 527.76 694.27 662.66 1,224.13

South Africa 431.65 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

 Subtotal 918.94 526.60 621.81 859.21 718.75 689.04 1,335.17

All other sources 717.47 709.90 722.24 723.82 749.19 724.17 1,059.11

 Average 730.37 678.90 710.74 740.95 745.20 719.73 1,064.62

Table continued on next page.
IV-3

Table IV-1--Continued

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. imports, by sources, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and

January-September 2005

Source

Calendar year January-September

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Share of quantity (percent)

Czech Republic 0.3 (2)

0.4 0.4 (2) (2)0.1

Japan 2.0 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.2

Romania 3.6 16.0 10.6 11.4 13.1 12.6 1.6

South Africa 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal 6.4 16.9 11.4 12.7 13.1 12.7 2.0

All other sources 93.6 83.1 88.6 87.3 86.9 87.3 98.0

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Czech Republic 0.2 0.1 0.6 2.7 (2) (2)

0.1

Japan 5.1 1.4 1.9 3.8 0.5 0.5 0.5

Romania 2.5 11.6 7.5 8.2 12.2 11.6 1.9

South Africa 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subtotal 8.1 13.1 10.0 14.7 12.6 12.1 2.5

All other sources 91.9 86.9 90.0 85.3 87.4 87.9 97.5

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1

 Not applicable.

 2

 Less than 0.05 percent.

Source: Compiled from adjusted Commerce statistics. See p. IV-1 fn. 1. 

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES OF SMALL DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

End-of-period inventories were reported only by U.S. importers of the subject product from

Romania and are shown in table IV-2. U.S. importers did not report any end-of-period inventories for

U.S. imports from the Czech Republic, Japan, South Africa, or nonsubject countries. 

Table IV-2

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source,

2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *
 3

 In the original investigations, the Commission found it appropriate to cumulate U.S. imports from all four

subject sources. Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South

Africa, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC Publication 3311, June 2000, p. 16.

 4

 Respondents argue that U.S. imports from the Czech Republic, Romania, and South Africa should not be

cumulated with U.S. imports from any subject country because U.S. imports from the Czech Republic, Romania, and

South Africa have had no discernable adverse impact on the domestic industry. Silcotub’s prehearing brief, pp. 3-

11; Mittal’s prehearing brief, pp. 27-37.

 5

 According to data obtained by the Commission in the original investigations, producers in the Czech Republic

had a reported capacity ranging from *** short tons in 1999 to *** short tons in 1997, production ranging from ***

short tons in 1999 to *** short tons in 1997, and exported approximately *** to *** percent of their shipments to the

United States from 1997 to 1999. Investigations Nos. 731-TA-777-779 (Final): Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa,

Confidential Staff Report, May 25, 2000, INV-X-114, table VII-1.

 6

 The Commission also sent questionnaires to two other potential producers of small diameter CASSLP pipe in

the Czech Republic, Valcovny Trub Chomutov, a.s. and VVT-Vitkovice Valcovna Trub, a.s., but did not receive a

response from either firm. Mittal Czech Republic is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mittal Steel Co. N.V. of

Rotterdam, the Netherlands and is affiliated with other CASSLP pipe producers, Mittal South Africa and Mittal

Romania. 

IV-4

CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR SMALL DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

In assessing whether imports will likely compete with each other and with the domestic like

product, the Commission has generally considered four factors: (1) fungibility, (2) presence of sales or

offers to sell in the same geographical market, (3) common or similar channels of distribution, and (4)

simultaneous presence in the market.3

 Issues concerning fungibility and channels of distribution are

addressed in Part II of this report. Geographical markets and presence in the market are discussed below.

Based on adjusted official Commerce statistics, U.S. imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe

were generally dispersed geographically throughout the United States during the period of review. 

Reported U.S. Customs districts of entry for U.S. imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech

Republic, Japan, and Romania were predominately Buffalo, NY; Detroit, MI; Houston, TX; Los 

Angeles, CA; Mobile, AL; New Orleans, LA. The principal U.S. Customs district of entry by far for U.S.

imports from Romania (the subject country with the largest import volume) during this period was

Houston, TX. There were no reported U.S. imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from South Africa

after 2000. 

Small quantities of small diameter CASSLP pipe entered the United States from the Czech

Republic sporadically, with adjusted U.S. import statistics showing many months during which the

product did not enter the United States. Small diameter CASSLP pipe entered into the United States from

Japan during almost every month during the period examined except March 2001, May 2003, December

2003, January 2004, April 2005, and August 2005. U.S. imports of the subject product from Romania

entered the United States during almost every month during the period examined except March 2000,

June 2000, and November 2003.4

 Once again, there were no reported U.S. imports of small diameter

CASSLP pipe from South Africa after 2000. 

THE INDUSTRY IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC 

Table IV-3 presents data for reported capacity, production, and shipments of small diameter

CASSLP pipe for the Czech Republic.5

 The Commission received data from one firm, Mittal Steel

Ostrava, a.s. (“Mittal Czech Republic”), which accounted for the majority of small diameter CASSLP

pipe produced in the Czech Republic (*** percent) in 2004.6
 7

 Mittal Czech Republic reported that ***. Mittal Czech Republic’s foreign producer’s questionnaire response, p.

6.

 8

 Mittal Czech Republic’s foreign producer questionnaire response, pp. 7 and 9.

 9

 According to data obtained by the Commission in the original investigations, producers in Japan had a reported

capacity ranging from *** short tons in 1998 to *** short tons in 1999, production ranging from *** short tons in

1997 to *** short tons in 1999, and exported approximately *** to *** percent of their shipments to the United

States from 1997 to 1999. Investigations Nos. 731-TA-777-779 (Final): Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa,

Confidential Staff Report, May 25, 2000, INV-X-114, table VII-2.

 10 NKK is a joint venture between Tenaris, S.A. (*** percent equity interest) and JFE Engineering Corp. (***

percent equity interest). Tenaris wholly owns or controls the following global companies which produce or are able

to produce small diameter CASSLP pipe: (1) Dalmine of Bergamo, Italy; (2) Siderca of Buenos Aires, Argentina;

(3) Algoma Tubes of Alberta, Canada; (4) Tavsa of Bolivar, Venezuela; (5) TAMSA of Veracruz, Mexico; (6)

Silcotub of Zalau, Romania; and (7) NKK of Tokyo, Japan. 

IV-5

Mittal Czech Republic reported that *** percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year

were sales of small diameter CASSLP pipe. Mittal Czech Republic did not export small diameter

CASSLP pipe to the United States during the period examined. Its volume of shipments exported to other

world markets, however, increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004, an increase of

*** percent. Mittal Czech Republic’s reported capacity decreased from 2000 to 2003, then increased in

2004.7

 The firm stated that it had ***.8

Table IV-4 presents data for projected capacity, production, and shipments of small diameter

CASSLP pipe for the Czech Republic for full years 2005 and 2006. Mittal Czech Republic reported

projections for these periods that were *** its reported 2004 levels. 

Table IV-5 presents data for Mittal Czech Republic’s overall capacity, production, and capacity

utilization of its production facilities and workers, in their entirety, capable of producing small diameter

CASSLP pipe and other products. 

Table IV-3

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Mittal Czech Republic’s reported production capacity, production,

shipments, and inventories, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Table IV-4

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Mittal Czech Republic’s reported production capacity, production,

shipments, and inventories, projections for 2005 and 2006

* * * * * * *

Table IV-5

Small diameter seamless pipe: Mittal Czech Republic’s overall capacity, production, and

aggregate capacity utilization, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN JAPAN

Table IV-6 presents data for reported capacity, production, and shipments of small diameter

CASSLP pipe for Japan.9

 The Commission received data from one firm, NKK Tubes Corp. (“NKK”),10
 11 The Commission also sent questionnaires to four other potential producers of small diameter CASSLP pipe in

Japan, JFE Steel Corp., Haneda Pipe Works Co., Ltd., Nippon Steel Corp., and Sumitomo Metal Industries. Three

firms did not submit a response to the Commission. Nippon Steel Corp. reported that it did not produce small

diameter CASSLP pipe during the period examined.

 12 NKK’s U.S. affiliate, Tenaris USA, did report ***.

 13 NKK reported that ***. NKK’s foreign producer’s questionnaire response, pp. 5-6.

 14 ***. NKK’s foreign producer questionnaire response, p. 3.

 15 NKK’s foreign producer questionnaire response, p. 4.

IV-6

which accounted for approximately *** percent of small diameter CASSLP pipe produced in Japan in

2004.11

NKK reported that *** percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year were sales of

CASSLP pipe. NKK reported ***.12 Its volume of shipments exported to other world markets, however,

increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004, an increase of *** percent. NKK

reported capacity13 and production increased from 2000 to 2001, by *** percent, respectively, while both

subsequently remained stable from 2001 through 2004.14 The firm stated that it ***.15

Table IV-7 presents data for projected capacity, production, and shipments of small diameter

CASSLP pipe for Japan for full years 2005 and 2006. NKK reported projections for 2005 that were ***

its reported 2004 levels and for *** in capacity, production, and shipments of small diameter CASSLP

pipe (whether or not the antidumping duty orders are revoked) in 2006. 

Table IV-8 presents data for NKK’s overall capacity, production, and capacity utilization of its

production facilities and workers, in their entirety, capable of producing small diameter CASSLP pipe

and other products. 

Table IV-6

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: NKK’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Table IV-7

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: NKK’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories, projections for 2005 and 2006

* * * * * * *

Table IV-8

Small diameter seamless pipe: NKK’s overall capacity, production, and aggregate capacity

utilization, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *
 16 According to data obtained by the Commission in the original investigations, producers in Romania had a

reported capacity ranging from *** short tons in 1999 to *** short tons in 1997, production ranging from *** short

tons in 1999 to *** short tons in 1998, and exported approximately *** to *** percent of their shipments to the

United States from 1997 to 1999. Investigations Nos. 731-TA-777-779 (Final): Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa,

Confidential Staff Report, May 25, 2000, INV-X-114, table VII-5.

 17 Mittal Romania is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mittal Steel Co. N.V. of Rotterdam, the Netherlands and is

affiliated with other CASSLP pipe producers, Mittal Czech Republic and Mittal South Africa. Prior to its 2004

acquisition by Mittal Steel Co., N.V., the company was known as Petrotub, S.A.

 18 Until 2004, Silcotub was affiliated with U.S. importer Duferco Steel, Inc. (which reported *** during the

period of review). This affiliation ended in 2004, however, when Silcotub became an affiliate of the Tenaris Group

which includes Dalmine of Bergamo, Italy; Siderca of Buenos Aires, Argentina; Algoma Tubes of Alberta, Canada;

Tavsa of Bolivar, Venezuela; TAMSA of Veracruz, Mexico; Silcotub of Zalau, Romania; and NKK Tubes of Tokyo,

Japan. 

 19 Artrom accounted for *** percent of Romanian production of small diameter CASSLP pipe in 2004. Also, it

reported *** during the period of review and projected *** with or without revocation of the antidumping duty order

on Romania.

 20 Mittal Romania reported that ***. Mittal Romania’s foreign producer response, pp. 5-6 and 9-10.

 21 Silcotub reported that ***. Silcotub’s foreign producer response, pp. 4-5, and 9-11; see also Mittal’s

posthearing brief, March 13, 2006, exh. 1, tab F. (***); Silcotub’s posthearing brief, March 13, 2006, p. 10

(“Romanian oil and gas sector is just at the beginning of a widely anticipated robust growth period.”).

IV-7

THE INDUSTRY IN ROMANIA

Table IV-9 presents data for reported capacity, production, and shipments of small diameter

CASSLP pipe for Romania.16 The Commission received data from three firms, Mittal Steel Roman, S.A.

(“Mittal Romania”),17 SC Silcotub, S.A. (“Silcotub”),18 and Artrom, S.A. (“Artrom”),19 which accounted

for all small diameter CASSLP pipe produced in Romania.

Mittal Romania reported that *** percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year were sales

of small diameter CASSLP pipe. Mittal Romania did export small diameter CASSLP pipe to the United

States during the period examined. Its volume of shipments exported to other world markets increased

from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. ***.20

Silcotub reported that *** percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year were sales of

small diameter CASSLP pipe. During the period examined, Silcotub exported subject product to its ***. 

These exports of small diameter CASSLP pipe increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in

2004, an increase of *** percent. Its volume of shipments exported to other world markets remained

relatively steady at approximately *** short tons annually. ***.21

Cumulatively, producers of small diameter CASSLP pipe in Romania reported an increase in

capacity of *** percent from 2000 to 2004, a *** percent increase in production, and a *** percent

increase in export shipments to the United States. They also reported an increase in export shipments to

Europe (*** percent) and Asia (*** percent) during the same period. During the period examined,

capacity utilization rates ranged from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in January-September 2005.

Table IV-10 presents data for projected capacity, production, and shipments of small diameter

CASSLP pipe for Romania for full years 2005 and 2006. The reported projections for these periods show

capacity, production, and exports to the United States of small diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania ***

the reported 2004 levels.

Table IV-11 presents data for Artrom, Mittal Romania and Silcotub’s overall capacity,

production, and capacity utilization of its production facilities and workers, in their entirety, capable of

producing small diameter CASSLP pipe and other products.
 22 According to data obtained by the Commission in the original investigations, South Africa had a reported

capacity ranging from *** short tons in 1998 to *** short tons in 1999, production ranging from *** short tons in

1999 to *** short tons in 1997, and exported approximately *** to *** percent of their shipments to the United

States from 1997 to 1999. Investigations Nos. 731-TA-777-779 (Final): Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa,

Confidential Staff Report, May 25, 2000, INV-X-114, table VII-6.

 23 In 2004, Mittal Steel acquired Iscor, Ltd., the sole producer of small diameter CASSLP in South Africa during

the Commission’s original investigations. Mittal South Africa is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mittal Steel Co. N.V.

of Rotterdam, the Netherlands and is affiliated with other CASSLP pipe producers, Mittal Czech Republic and

Mittal Romania. Mittal South Africa stated that although a subsidiary of Mittal Steel Co. N.V., the individual Mittal

production plants are operated as separate business entities. Mittal South Africa’s foreign producer questionnaire

response, p. 4.

 24 Mittal Steel South Africa is affiliated with U.S. importer, MacSteel, which did report ***.

 25 Mittal South Africa reported that ***. Mittal South Africa’s foreign producer’s questionnaire response, pp. 7-

8.

 26 Mittal South Africa’s foreign producer questionnaire response, p. 5.

IV-8

Table IV-9

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Artrom, Mittal Romania, and Silcotub’s reported production

capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and JanuarySeptember 2005

* * * * * * *

Table IV-10

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Artrom, Mittal Romania, and Silcotub’s reported production

capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, projections for 2005 and 2006

* * * * * * *

Table IV-11

Small diameter seamless pipe: Artrom, Mittal Romania, and Silcotub’s overall capacity,

production, and aggregate capacity utilization, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and JanuarySeptember 2005

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN SOUTH AFRICA

Table IV-12 presents data for reported capacity, production, and shipments of small diameter

CASSLP pipe for South Africa.22 The Commission received data from one firm, Mittal Steel (SA), Ltd.

(“Mittal South Africa”), which accounted for all of the small diameter CASSLP pipe produced in South

Africa in 2004.23

Mittal South Africa reported that *** percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year were

sales of small diameter CASSLP pipe. Mittal South Africa exported *** short tons in *** of small

diameter CASSLP pipe to the United States during the period examined.24 Its volume of shipments

exported to other world markets, however, increased from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in

2004, an increase of *** percent. Mittal South Africa’s reported capacity25 and production have steadily

increased from 2001 to 2004, increasing *** percent, respectively, from 2001 to 2004. The firm stated

that it has ***.26
IV-9

Table IV-13 presents data for projected capacity, production, and shipments of small diameter

CASSLP pipe for South Africa for full years 2005 and 2006. Mittal South Africa reported projections

for these periods that were *** its reported 2004 levels.

Table IV-14 presents data for Mittal South Africa’s overall capacity, production, and capacity

utilization of its production facilities and workers, in their entirety, capable of producing small diameter

CASSLP pipe and other products. 

Table IV-12

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Mittal South Africa’s reported production capacity, production,

shipments, and inventories, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Table IV-13

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Mittal South Africa’s reported production capacity, production,

shipments, and inventories, projections for 2005 and 2006

* * * * * * *

Table IV-14

Small diameter seamless pipe: Mittal South Africa’s overall capacity, production, and aggregate

capacity utilization, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN ALL SUBJECT COUNTRIES

Table IV-15 presents data for reported capacity, production, and shipments of small diameter

CASSLP pipe for the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa combined. Table IV-16

presents data for projected capacity, production, and shipments of small diameter CASSLP pipe for the

Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa combined for full years 2005 and 2006.
IV-10

Table IV-15

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: All subject countries’ reported production capacity, production,

shipments, and inventories, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

Item

Calendar year Jan.-Sept.

20001 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Quantity (short tons)

Capacity 338,151 328,607 309,140 298,212 384,250 302,636 187,932

Production 200,754 261,847 224,246 233,820 302,896 235,718 156,913

End of period inventories 10,496 26,532 28,186 33,979 24,622 144,624 13,501

Shipments:

 Internal consumption 140 250 294 609 3,281 1,642 397

 Home market 103,691 125,547 97,607 97,459 103,412 81,467 52,783

Exports to--

 The United States 5,263 10,903 10,080 9,566 15,334 14,676 772

 European Union 46,485 48,030 41,442 48,777 71,887 47,201 58,770

 Asia 19,303 40,971 52,664 41,693 85,113 71,458 32,008

 All other markets 26,518 29,122 20,700 29,135 32,824 26,222 24,203

 Total exports 97,569 129,026 124,886 129,171 205,158 159,557 115,753

Total shipments 201,400 254,823 222,787 227,239 311,851 242,666 168,933

Value ($1,000)

Shipments to home market 44,826 60,169 50,914 55,307 76,858 57,699 47,348

Exports to--

 The United States 2,376 4,808 3,921 4,431 8,960 8,540 900

 European Union 15,045 17,326 14,854 20,923 45,633 27,895 44,828

 Asia 8,634 17,278 21,153 16,108 40,035 30,909 23,101

 All other markets 10,400 11,447 8,039 12,216 18,666 14,249 18,934

 Total exports 36,455 50,859 47,967 53,678 113,294 81,593 87,763

Total shipments 81,281 111,028 98,881 108,985 190,152 139,292 135,111

Unit value (per short ton)

Shipments to home market $432 $479 $522 $567 $743 $708 $897

Exports to--

 The United States 451 441 389 463 584 582 1,166

 European Union 324 361 358 429 635 591 763

 Asia 447 422 402 386 470 433 722

 All other markets 392 393 388 419 569 543 782

 Total exports 374 394 384 416 552 511 758

Total shipments 404 436 444 481 616 578 802

Table continued on next page
IV-11

Table IV-15--Continued

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: All subject countries’ reported production capacity, production,

shipments, and inventories, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

Item

Calendar year Jan.-Sept.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 59.4 79.7 72.5 78.4 78.8 77.9 83.5

Inventories to production 5.2 10.1 12.6 14.5 8.1 46.0 6.5

Inventories to total

shipments 5.2 10.4 12.7 15.0 7.9 44.7 6.0

Shares of total quantity of

shipments:

 Internal consumption 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.1 0.7 0.2

 Home market 51.5 49.3 43.8 42.9 33.2 33.6 31.2

Exports to--

 The United States 2.6 4.3 4.5 4.2 4.9 6.0 0.5

 European Union 23.1 18.8 18.6 21.5 23.1 19.5 34.8

 Asia 9.6 16.1 23.6 18.3 27.3 29.4 18.9

 All other markets 13.2 11.4 9.3 12.8 10.5 10.8 14.3

 Total exports 48.4 50.6 56.1 56.8 65.8 65.8 68.5

 1 Mittal South Africa did not report data for 2000.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
IV-12

Table IV-16

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: All subject countries’ reported production capacity, production,

shipments, and inventories, projections for 2005 and 2006

Item 2005

If the orders:

remain in effect are revoked

2006 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Capacity 246,100 249,400 249,400

Production 206,540 224,915 228,709

End of period inventories 18,739 16,551 16,551

Shipments:

 Internal consumption 435 150 150

 Home market 68,424 77,421 77,421

Exports to--

 The United States 1,156 3,438 11,200

 European Union 73,112 75,538 75,538

 Asia 39,826 36,199 36,199

 All other markets 30,510 29,882 25,914

 Total exports 144,604 145,057 148,851

Total shipments 213,463 222,628 226,422

Value ($1,000)

Shipments to home market 56,734 64,862 64,862

Exports to--

 The United States 70 2,642 9,458

 European Union 33,403 34,684 34,684

 Asia 27,840 24,054 24,058

 All other markets 21,115 21,390 18,321

 Total exports 82,428 82,770 86,521

Total shipments 139,162 147,632 151,383

Unit value (per short ton)

Shipments to home market $829 $838 $838

Exports to--

 The United States 769 768 844

 European Union 457 459 459

 Asia 699 664 665

 All other markets 692 716 707

 Total exports 570 571 581

Total shipments 652 663 669

Table continued on next page
IV-13

Table IV-16–Continued

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: All subject countries’ reported production capacity, production,

shipments, and inventories, projections for 2005 and 2006

Item 2005

If the orders:

remain in effect are revoked

2006 2006

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 83.9 90.2 91.7

Inventories to production 9.1 7.4 7.2

Inventories to total shipments 8.8 7.4 7.3

Shares of total quantity of shipments:

 Internal consumption 0.2 0.1 0.1

 Home market 32.1 34.8 34.2

Exports to--

 The United States 0.5 1.5 4.9

 European Union 34.3 33.9 33.4

 Asia 18.7 16.3 16.0

 All other markets 14.3 13.4 11.4

 Total exports 67.7 65.2 65.7

 1 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS OF SMALL DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

U.S. importers were requested to indicate whether their firm imported or arranged for the

importation of small diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa

for delivery after September 30, 2005. None of the responding importers indicated that they arranged for

importation of the subject product after September 30, 2005. 
 27 U.S. import data for large diameter CASSLP pipe from nonsubject countries are based on official Commerce

statistics covered by the following subset of HTS statistical reporting numbers: 7304.10.1030, 7304.10.1045,

7304.10.1060, 7304.10.5050, 7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0062, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8045,

7304.59.8060. This list of HTS statistical reporting numbers is a subset of those listed in the scope definition issued

by Commerce. The complete list of HTS statistical reporting numbers issued by Commerce in its scope language

contains product largely outside of the scope definition, or specifically excluded from the scope, such as mechanical

tubing. See Part I, The Subject Products. U.S. producers, U.S. Steel and V&M Star, in consultation with the AISI,

claim that imports covered by the statistical reporting numbers in the above subset are predominately product within

the scope of these reviews. See U.S. Steel, Koppel Steel, and V&M Star’s response to notice of institution, June 21,

2005, exh. 1.

U.S. imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico from August 2000 through July 2004 have been

reduced to zero after Commerce, during its four administrative reviews, determined that TAMSA, the sole producer

of large diameter CASSLP pipe in Mexico, did not ship any subject product to the United States. See Certain Large

Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Mexico, 68 FR 81, January 2, 2003;

68 FR 40627, July 8, 2003; 69 FR 32495, June 10, 2004; 70 FR 54017, September 13, 2005.

As there were a number of specific exclusions in the Commerce scope definition of large diameter CASSLP

pipe, adjusted Commerce data used in this section depicting U.S. imports from nonsubject countries may be

overstated. 

U.S. imports from Japan are derived from ***. Although these data may understate U.S. imports from

Japan, they are consistent with CDSOA reported revenue and with the limited data provided by one Japanese

producer. U.S. Steel contends that “almost all of this (large diameter seamless pipe) tonnage consists of nonsubject

product that has been excluded from the scope of these reviews. U.S. Steel’s prehearing brief, February 21, 2006, p.

21 and fn. 68; see also hearing transcript, March 2, 2006, pp. 211-212 (Vaughn)(“Our belief is that very, very little,

if any of the imports you’re seeing from Japan and Mexico are the subject product.”). 

 28 According to adjusted Commerce data, U.S. imports from nonsubject countries included the following

countries, in order of volume in 2004: (1) Argentina, (2) Italy, (3) the Czech Republic, (4) Romania, (5) Ukraine,

and (6) China. These countries accounted for approximately 84 percent of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries in

2004. U.S. imports from Argentina and Italy alone accounted for approximately 20.8 and 19.5 percent, respectively,

of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries in 2004. See appendix F, table F-2 which shows quantities of U.S.

imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe by nonsubject country for the period of review.

IV-14

U.S. IMPORTS OF LARGE DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

Data regarding U.S. imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe, based on adjusted official

Commerce statistics,27 are presented in table IV-17. The quantity of U.S. imports from Japan went from

*** short tons in 2000 to *** in 2004. U.S. imports from Mexico were nonexistent during the period of

review. U.S. imports from nonsubject sources remained relatively steady and increased 6.1 percent from

2000 to 2004.28 

Table IV-17

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. imports, by sources, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and

January-September 2005

* * * * * * *
 29 In the original investigations, the Commission found it appropriate to cumulate U.S. imports from Japan and

Mexico. Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa, Invs.

Nos. 731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC Publication 3311, June 2000, p. 24.

IV-15

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES OF LARGE DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

End-of-period inventories were reported only by U.S. importers of the subject product from ***

(a nonsubject country) and are shown in table IV-18. U.S. importers did not report any end-of-period

inventories for imports from Japan, Mexico, or any other nonsubject countries. 

Table IV-18

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source,

2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR LARGE DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

In assessing whether imports will likely compete with each other and with the domestic like

product, the Commission has generally considered four factors: (1) fungibility, (2) presence of sales or

offers to sell in the same geographical market, (3) common or similar channels of distribution, and (4)

simultaneous presence in the market.29 Issues concerning fungibility and channels of distribution are

addressed in Part II of this report. Geographical markets and presence in the market are discussed below.

The small quantities of U.S. imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan generally

entered the United States in a geographic area concentrated in the Gulf Coast region during the period of

review. Reported U.S. Customs districts of entry for U.S. imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe from

Japan were predominately ***. Other U.S. Customs districts of entry included: ***. There were no

reported U.S. imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico. 

Large diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan entered the United States in ***. In 2000, U.S. imports

from Japan entered the United States in ***; in 2001, ***; in 2002, ***; in 2003, ***; and in 2005, ***. 

Once again, there were no reported U.S. imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico. 
 30 According to data obtained by the Commission in the original investigations, producers in Japan had a reported

capacity ranging from *** short tons in 1999 to *** short tons in 1997, production ranging from *** short tons in

1998 to *** short tons in 1997, and exported approximately *** to *** percent of their shipments to the United

States from 1997 to 1999. Investigations Nos. 731-TA-777-779 (Final): Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa,

Confidential Staff Report, May 25, 2000, INV-X-114, table VII-3.

 31 NKK is a joint venture between Tenaris, S.A. (*** percent equity) and JFE Engineering Corp. (*** percent

equity stake). Tenaris wholly owns or controls the following global companies which produce or are able to produce

large diameter CASSLP pipe: (1) Dalmine of Bergamo, Italy; (2) Siderca of Buenos Aires, Argentina; (3) Algoma

Tubes of Alberta, Canada; (4) Tavsa of Bolivar, Venezuela; (5) TAMSA of Veracruz, Mexico; (6) Silcotub of

Zalau, Romania; and (7) NKK of Tokyo, Japan. 

 32 The Commission also sent questionnaires to four other potential producers of large diameter CASSLP pipe in

Japan, JFE Steel Corp., Haneda Pipe Works Co., Ltd., Nippon Steel Corp., and Sumitomo Metal Industries. Three

firms did not submit a response to the Commission. Nippon Steel Corp. reported that it did not produce large

diameter CASSLP pipe during the period examined.

 33 NKK’s U.S. affiliate, Tenaris USA, did report ***.

 34 NKK reported that ***. NKK’s foreign producer’s questionnaire response, pp. 5-6.

 35 ***. NKK’s foreign producer questionnaire response, p. 3.

 36 NKK’s foreign producer questionnaire response, p. 4.

IV-16

THE INDUSTRY IN JAPAN 

Table IV-19 presents data for reported capacity, production, and shipments of large diameter

CASSLP pipe for Japan.30 The Commission received data from one firm, NKK,31 which accounted for

approximately *** percent of large diameter CASSLP pipe produced in Japan in 2004.32

NKK reported that *** percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year were sales of

CASSLP pipe. NKK reported ***.33 Its volume of shipments exported to other world markets, however,

increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004, an increase of *** percent. NKK

reported capacity34 and production increased from 2000 to 2001, by *** percent, respectively, while both

subsequently remained stable from 2001 through 2004.35 The firm stated that it ***.36

Table IV-20 presents data for projected capacity, production, and shipments of large diameter

CASSLP pipe for Japan for full years 2005 and 2006. NKK reported projections for 2005 that were ***

its reported 2004 levels and for *** in capacity, production, and shipments of large diameter CASSLP

pipe (whether or not the antidumping duty orders are revoked) in 2006.

Table IV-21 presents data for NKK’s overall capacity, production, and capacity utilization of its

production facilities and workers, in their entirety, capable of producing large diameter CASSLP pipe and

other products. 

Table IV-19

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: NKK’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *
 37 According to data obtained by the Commission in the original investigations, the producer in Mexico had a

reported capacity ranging from *** short tons in 1999 to *** short tons in 1997, production ranging from *** short

tons in 1999 to *** short tons in 1997, and exported approximately *** to *** percent of their shipments to the

United States from 1997 to 1999. Investigations Nos. 731-TA-777-779 (Final): Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa,

Confidential Staff Report, May 25, 2000, INV-X-114, table VII-4.

 38 TAMSA is affiliated with the Tenaris Group. Tenaris wholly owns or controls the following global companies

which produce or are able to produce large diameter CASSLP pipe: (1) Dalmine of Bergamo, Italy; (2) Siderca of

Buenos Aires, Argentina; (3) Algoma Tubes of Alberta, Canada; (4) Tavsa of Bolivar, Venezuela; (5) TAMSA of

Veracruz, Mexico; (6) Silcotub of Zalau, Romania; and (7) NKK of Tokyo, Japan. 

 39 TAMSA reported that ***. TAMSA’s foreign producer’s questionnaire response, p. 6.

 40 TAMSA reported that ***. TAMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire response, p. 3.

 41 TAMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire response, pp. 3-4.

IV-17

Table IV-20

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: NKK’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories, projections for 2005 and 2006

* * * * * * *

Table IV-21

Large diameter seamless pipe: NKK’s overall capacity, production, and aggregate capacity

utilization, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN MEXICO

Table IV-22 presents data for reported capacity, production, and shipments of large diameter

CASSLP pipe for Mexico.37 The Commission received data from one firm, Tubos de Acero de Mexico,

S.A. (“TAMSA”),38 which accounted for all the large diameter CASSLP pipe produced in Mexico in

2004.

TAMSA reported that *** percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year were sales of

large diameter CASSLP pipe. TAMSA did not export large diameter CASSLP pipe to the United States

during the period examined. Its volume of shipments exported to other world markets decreased from

*** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004, a decrease of *** percent. TAMSA reported capacity39

and production fluctuated during the 2000 to 2004 time period, but both decreased overall by ***

percent.40 The firm stated that it had ***.41

Table IV-23 presents data for projected capacity, production, and shipments of large diameter

CASSLP pipe for Mexico for full year 2005 and 2006. TAMSA reported projections for these periods

that were *** its reported 2004 levels.

Table IV-24 presents data for TAMSA’s overall capacity, production, and capacity utilization of

its production facilities and workers, in their entirety, capable of producing large diameter CASSLP pipe

and other products. 
IV-18

Table IV-22

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: TAMSA’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Table IV-23

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: TAMSA’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories, projections for 2005 and 2006

* * * * * * *

Table IV-24

Large diameter seamless pipe: TAMSA’s overall capacity, production, and aggregate capacity

utilization, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN ALL SUBJECT COUNTRIES

Table IV-25 presents data for reported capacity, production, and shipments of large diameter

CASSLP pipe for Japan and Mexico combined. Table IV-26 presents data for projected capacity,

production, and shipments of large diameter CASSLP pipe for Japan and Mexico combined for full years

2005 and 2006.

Table IV-25

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: All subject countries’ reported production capacity, production,

shipments, and inventories, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Table IV-26

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: All subject countries’ reported production capacity, production,

shipments, and inventories, projections for 2005 and 2006

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS OF LARGE DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE

U.S. importers were requested to indicate whether their firm imported or arranged for the

importation of large diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Mexico for delivery after September 30,

2005. None of the responding importers indicated that they arranged for importation of the subject

product after September 30, 2005. 
 42 International Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Statistical Yearbook 2005. Global and regional production data as

published by IISI refer to seamless tube, and are therefore substantially broader than the subject merchandise,

including, for example, OCTG. As such, global and regional production data represent general trends and are for

illustrative purposes only.

 43 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 6 (March 2006).

IV-19

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS ON CASSLP PIPE

The tabulation below shows antidumping duty investigations on CASSLP pipe conducted in

third-country markets, the subject countries, the product, and the action taken.

Market Subject country(ies) Product Action

European Union

Czech Republic and

Romania Seamless pipe

Antidumping order (effective

November 1997 to July 2004)1

Brazil Romania

Small diameter

seamless pipe Antidumping order (effective 2000)

Venezuela Japan

Small diameter

seamless line

pipe Antidumping order (effective 2000)

Mexico

Japan and

Romania

Small diameter

seamless line

pipe

Antidumping order (effective 2000,

Japan; 2004, Romania)

 1 The Czech Republic joined the EU as a Member State on May 1, 2004 and therefore is no longer subject to

antidumping duties imposed by the EU. There is also an ongoing investigation, initiated in March 2005, on

seamless pipe and tubes from Romania. Mittal Romania stated that it believes Romania will also be a Member

State of the EU in January 2007 and, therefore, would be exempt from such duties in the event they are imposed.

Source: Responses to the Commission’s foreign producers’ questionnaire.

GLOBAL MARKET

Supply

Although figures for global production of CASSLP pipe are generally not published, the

International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI) publishes data on the global production of seamless pipe and

tube.42 As illustrated in tables IV-27 and IV-28, global production of seamless pipe and tube has

increased in recent years, despite declines in 1998 and 1999. China’s production growth of seamless pipe

and tube has outpaced all other regions, with China’s share of world seamless pipe and tube production

increasing from approximately 20 percent in 1995 to almost 46 percent in 2004. One reputable source,

Metal Bulletin Research (“MBR”), notes that seamless pipe and tube production in China is forecasted to

surpass *** metric tons (*** short tons) per month in 2006, although exports account for a small

proportion of overall production. Additionally, as noted by MBR, although China has experienced initial

signs of oversupply in early 2006, MBR expects the rate of expansion of seamless pipe and tube

production to decrease.43
IV-20

Table IV-27

Seamless pipe and tube: Global and regional production, 1995-99

Region

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Quantity (thousands of shorts tons)

North America1 2,655 2,946 3,166 2,658 1,896

European Union (15) 3,804 3,642 4,004 4,039 3,018

Asia, excluding China2 2,405 2,287 2,271 2,308 1,849

China 3,605 3,682 3,974 3,822 3,897

CIS 3,127 2,950 2,832 2,556 2,592

South America 1,145 1,263 1,308 1,034 872

Other3 4 5 1,442 1,488 1,387 1,372 989

 Total 18,185 18,259 18,942 17,788 15,110

 1

 Between 1995 and 1999, seamless tube production in Mexico decreased by 9.6 percent from 495 thousand

short tons to 448 thousand short tons.

 2

 Between 1995 and 1999, seamless tube production in Japan decreased by 19.4 percent from 2,272 thousand

short tons to 1,831 thousand short tons.

 3

 Between 1995 and 1999, seamless tube production in the Czech Republic decreased by 32 percent from 466

thousand short tons to 317 thousand short tons.

 4

 Between 1995 and 1999, seamless tube production in Romania decreased by 29.3 percent from 369 thousand

short tons to 261 thousand short tons.

 5

 Seamless tube production in South Africa was not reported between 1997 and 1999.

Note.--Data as reported by the IISI include seamless pipe and tube beyond the scope of the review. Original data

published in metric tons, which were converted to short tons by multiplying by 1.102311. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: International Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Statistical Yearbook, 2005.

Table IV-28

Seamless pipe and tube: Global and regional production, 2000-04

Region

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Quantity (thousands of short tons)

North America1 2,738 2,747 2,237 2,359 2,820

European Union (15) 3,780 4,106 3,590 3,471 4,091

Asia, excluding China2 2,034 2,154 1,910 1,887 2,124

China 4,586 5,653 6,705 8,082 10,012

CIS 2,586 2,625 2,592 2,835 n/a

South America 1,299 1,392 1,240 1,348 1,540

Other3 4 5 1,187 701 1,035 945 1,321

 Total 18,210 19,376 19,310 20,927 21,907

 1 Between 2000 and 2004, seamless tube production in Mexico increased by 12.6 percent from 659 thousand

short tons to 742 thousand short tons.

 2

 Between 2000 and 2004, seamless tube production in Japan increased by 4.4 percent from 2,016 thousand

short tons to 2,105 thousand short tons.

 3

 Between 2000 and 2004, seamless tube production in the Czech Republic increased by 17.6 percent from 403

thousand short tons to 474 thousand short tons. 

 4

 Between 2000 and 2004, seamless tube production in Romania increased by 44.2 percent from 346 thousand

short tons to 499 thousand short tons.

 5

 Seamless tube production in South Africa was not reported between 2000 and 2004.

Note.–Data as reported by the International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI) include seamless pipe and tube beyond the

scope of the review. Original data published in metric tons, which were converted to short tons by multiplying by

1.102311. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: International Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Statistical Yearbook, 2005.
 44 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 1 (October 2005).

 45 Tom Stundza, “Insiders Expect Drill Tube, Line Pipe Mart to Re-energize,” Purchasing Magazine, March 4,

2004, found at http://www.purchasing.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA388189, retrieved January

27, 2006.

 46 Tenaris, Annual Report 2004, p. 15.

 47 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 6 (March 2006).

 48 Tom Stundza, “Insiders Expect Drill Tube, Line Pipe Mart to Re-energize,” Purchasing Magazine, March 4,

2004, found at http://www.purchasing.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA388189, retrieved January

27, 2006; see also Oil and Gas Journal, “Special Report: Worldwide Pipeline Construction,” February 13, 2006, pp.

57, 58, and 62.

 49 Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc, “An Updated Assessment of Pipeline and Storage Infrastructure for

the North American Gas Market: Adverse Consequences of Delays in the Construction of Natural Gas

Infrastructure,” prepared for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, pp. 7-8; and Tom Stundza, “Insiders

Expect Drill Tube, Line Pipe Mart to Re-energize,” Purchasing Magazine, March 4, 2004, found at

http://www.purchasing.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA388189, retrieved January 27, 2006.

 50 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 5 (February 2006).

 51 Tenaris, Annual Report 2004, p. 15.

 52 Tenaris, Annual Report 2004, p. 15.

 53 Oil and Gas Journal, “Special Report: Worldwide Pipeline Construction,” February 13, 2006, pp. 57, 58, and

62.

IV-21

Demand

Demand for line pipe is largely influenced by energy prices and increased drilling activity in new

areas that require additional gathering lines.44 According to published sources, demand for large diameter

line pipe is dependent on the number of large pipeline projects–demand may increase during periods of

high activity and decrease during periods in which there are no projects requiring large diameter line

pipe.45 Global seamless pipe and tube producer Tenaris estimates that seamless tubular products other

than OCTG contributed to an overall 12-percent increase in worldwide apparent consumption of seamless

tubular products in 2004.46 MBR forecasts strong demand for seamless pipe and tubular products in 2006

owing to increased energy and infrastructure investments.47

In the United States, there have been fewer projects requiring oil or gas transmission pipe,

although forecasts of higher natural gas prices, possible shortages of natural gas in storage, and aging

pipeline infrastructure may increase demand for line pipe.48 The Interstate Natural Gas Association of

America estimates that $19 billion will be needed to maintain existing pipeline capacity, and another $42

billion for new pipeline and storage infrastructure in the United States and Canada as domestic natural gas

consumption is expected to increase from 22 trillion cubic feet in 2003 to 30 trillion cubic feet in 2015.49

MBR notes that seamless line pipe may witness increased competition from such substitutable products as

electric resistance-welded line pipe.50

According to MBR, seamless line pipe demand in other markets was strong in 2005, due to the

construction of a major pipeline from Azerbaijan to the Mediterranean Sea, generating demand for

seamless line pipe. Higher energy demand growth, declining production rates from developed reserves,

and high energy prices in 2004 prompted increased crude oil exploration and production activity.51

Looking forward, Tenaris expects activity to increase in the Middle East, Venezuela, and the Caspian

region, as well as increased development of gas reserves associated with major liquefied natural gas

projects.52 Other observers, however, focus on growth in pipeline construction in the United States and

the Middle East.53

Because seamless pipe is used in gathering lines and in oil and gas transportation, demand for

CASSLP pipe is influenced by drilling activity, although not as directly and predictably as demand for

OCTG. As shown in tables IV-29 and IV-30, worldwide drilling increased between 1995 and 1997, then
IV-22

decreased sharply in 1998 and 1999. Drilling rates increased in 2000 and 2001, before declining again in

2002. Drilling activity has increased markedly since 2002.

Table IV-29

Worldwide rig count: Global and regional annual averages of operating rigs, 1995-99

Region

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Quantity (number of rigs)

Latin America 272 282 277 243 187

Europe 112 120 113 99 81

Africa 66 79 80 74 42

Middle East 128 136 159 166 140

Far East 181 176 180 173 139

Canada 230 271 375 260 246

United States 724 777 944 829 622

 Total 1,713 1,841 2,128 1,843 1,457

Source: Baker Hughes Inc., Worldwide Rig Count, 3/17/2006.

Table IV-30

Worldwide rig count: Global and regional annual averages of operating rigs, 2000-05

Region

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Quantity (number of rigs)

Latin America 227 262 214 244 290 316

Europe 83 95 88 83 70 70

Africa 46 53 58 54 48 50

Middle East 156 179 201 211 230 248

Far East 140 157 171 177 197 225

Canada 344 342 266 372 369 458

United States 916 1,155 831 1,032 1,190 1,380

 Total 1,913 2,242 1,829 2,174 2,395 2,746

Note.–For the period January-February 2006, the worldwide rig count averaged 1,503 rigs in the United States, 688

rigs in Canada, and 895 rigs in the other specified regions, resulting in a worldwide rig count of 3,086 rigs.

Source: Baker Hughes Inc., Worldwide Rig Count, 3/17/2006.

Prices

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers to compare market prices of small

diameter CASSLP pipe in U.S. and non-U.S. markets. Both responding U.S. producers indicated that

U.S. prices were higher than prices in other markets. Only one importer responded, reporting that prices

were comparable worldwide. Foreign producers were also asked to compare prices in their home market

with prices in the United States and other country markets. Four foreign producers responded, although

not all of these knew about prices in the U.S. market. One reported that its average f.o.b. prices were

$*** per metric ton in the United States, $*** in Asia, $*** in EU, and $*** in other markets; one

reported that the prices of products did not vary greatly worldwide; one reported prices in its home market

were $*** ex works per short ton, $*** in EU, $*** in the Middle East; and one reported prices of $***

per metric ton in its home market, $*** in EU, and $*** in the Middle East.

The Commission also requested U.S. producers and importers to compare market prices of large

diameter CASSLP pipe in U.S. and non-U.S. markets. One of the two responding U.S. producers

indicated that U.S. prices were higher than prices in other markets; the other reported that U.S. prices

were “attractive.” Only one importer responded, reporting that prices were comparable worldwide

although subject to a variety of factors such as logistics and exchange rate fluctuations. Foreign

producers were also asked to compare prices in their home market with prices in the United States and

other country markets. Two foreign producers responded, reporting that the prices of products did not

vary greatly worldwide.
 54 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 5 (Feb. 2006).

 55 Ibid.

 56 Ibid.

IV-23

Published price data are available from one reputable source by subscription only and cannot be

reproduced without consent of their publisher. These data are distinct from the pricing data presented in

Part V of this report, which are collected directly from U.S. producers and U.S. importers according to

precise product definitions. Figure IV-1 illustrates U.S. prices for OCTG, line pipe, and mechanical

tubing, as published by MBR.54 U.S. prices for seamless line pipe fluctuated between January 2004 and

the second quarter of 2005, but exhibited an upward price trend similar to that of OCTG and mechanical

tubing before flattening out during the second half of 2005 and into 2006. Figure IV-2 illustrates global

prices for seamless OCTG from the United States and Japan, as well as seamless line pipe from the

United States and Western Europe, also published by MBR.55 Between May 2004 and February 2006,

line pipe was priced higher in Western Europe than in the United States, although the price differential

started to decrease in May 2005. Line pipe prices are forecasted to remain relatively constant through

May 2006.

Figure IV-1

U.S. seamless OCTG, line pipe, and mechanical tube prices

* * * * * * *

Figure IV-2

Global seamless base prices

* * * * * * *

Global seamless pipe and tube prices for October 2005 through March 2006 as published by

MBR indicate that API 5L B line pipe was priced highest in Western Europe and Japan and lowest in

China and Ukraine. MBR notes that although Chinese-produced API 5L B has been entering the U.S.

market at lower prices than those of U.S.-produced product, if the pipe is not from an approved Chinese

mill, then additional testing is carried out in the United States, thereby increasing the cost of the pipe to

the end-user.56 As shown in table IV-31, with the exception of Eastern Europe, most markets show an

overall increase in prices for seamless pipe.

Table IV-31

Seamless pipe: Global prices, October 2005 - March 2006

* * * * * * *

 1

 The value of the product imported from the Czech Republic in 2004 is so low that it is probable that this

transportation rate is incorrect. 

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING SMALL DIAMETER CASSLP PRICES

The cost of small diameter CASSLP pipe depends largely on the costs of its inputs and

processing. Small diameter CASSLP pipe is produced from solid steel billets, which in turn are produced

from either iron ore with coke as a main fuel source by integrated mills or from scrap in mini mills using

electric arc furnaces, using electricity and natural gas as main fuels. The price of scrap has fluctuated

since the beginning of 2004 but typically at a much higher level than before 2004 (figure V-1). In

addition, the cost of electricity, natural gas, and iron ore have increased while the price of blast furnace

coke has been reasonably stable (table V-1).

Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

Transportation costs as a percentage of customs value for small diameter CASSLP pipe from

subject countries to the United States (excluding U.S. inland costs) in 2005 were equivalent to 0.6 percent

for the Czech Republic,1

 6.6 percent for Japan, 6.3 percent for Romania, and 4.1 percent for South Africa. 

These estimates are derived from official import data and represent the transportation and other charges

on imports valued on a c.i.f. basis, as compared with customs value.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Three U.S. producers reported their U.S. inland transportation costs for small diameter CASSLP

pipe; reporting that such costs accounted for *** percent of the total delivered cost of the product. The

three responding importers reported that they were not responsible for transportation of small diameter

CASSLP pipe to their customers’ location and did not provide data on inland transportation costs.

Exchange Rates

Quarterly real and nominal exchange rates reported by the International Monetary Fund for the

currencies of the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa relative to the U.S. dollar during the

period January 2000 to December 2005 are shown in figure V-2.

PRICING PRACTICES

Two of the four responding U.S. producers reported that they used price lists; the other producers

reported transaction-by-transaction pricing (one of these companies also reported contract prices). Both

of the U.S. producers that reported price lists and the firm reporting transaction by transaction and

contract pricing also reported some discount based on quantity or order size; the other producer did not

offer discounts. Two of the three responding importers reported transaction by transaction prices, while

the other importer reported that pricing was set based on the manufacturer’s price. All three responding

importers either did not give discounts or did not have a discount policy.
V-2

Table V-1

U.S. natural gas, electricity, iron ore, and blast furnace coke prices, 2000-05

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 20051

U.S. natural gas industrial price2 $4.45 $5.24 $4.02 $5.89 $6.56 $8.47

Electricity industrial price3 4.64 4.98 4.91 5.12 5.27 5.54

Iron ore (per metric ton) 25.57 23.87 26.04 26.86 31.00 37.92

Blast furnace coke (per metric ton) 122.00 120.00 120.00 121.00 122.00 123.00

 1 Monthly average for January through October for electricity, full year estimate for natural gas, iron ore, and

coke.

 2

 Price to industrial users in dollars per thousand cubic feet.

 3

 Price to industrial users in cents per kilowatt-hour.

Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov, official statistics of the U.S. Department

of Energy, http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_ore/feoremcs05.pdf, and USGS estimate. 

Figure V-1

Ferrous scrap prices: No. 1 heavy melt, Chicago and Pittsburgh average consumer prices,

monthly, January 2000 to February 2006

Source: American Metal Market LLC.
V-3

Figure V-2

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates between the currencies of the

Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January

2000-December 2005

Figure continued.
V-4

Figure V-2--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates between the currencies of the

Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January

2000-December 2005

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics,

http://ifs.apdi.net/imf/ifsbrowser.aspx?branch=ROOT retrieved March 10, 2006. 
 2

 Only one of three responding producers reported selling any product with contracts. This firm reported that 5

percent of its sales were on a short term contract basis, however when asked about the details of its contract sales in

another question, it reported that it did not sell on contract.

 3

 This product was not included in the initial questionnaire, but was added after consultation with *** to obtain

pricing on an alloy product.

V-5

Purchasers were asked if there were any price leaders; ten purchasers listed one or more price

leaders. Eight of the ten purchasers listed U.S. Steel, five listed Sharon Steel, two listed Koppal Steel,

one listed V&M Tube, and one listed Heng Yang (a Chinese firm). All three firms reporting only U.S.

Steel as the price leader reported that U.S. Steel announced price increases.

Pricing Methods

Three of the four U.S. producers reported that nearly all of their sales of small diameter CASSLP

pipe were on a spot basis.2

 The other U.S. producer, *** sold *** percent through short term contracts. 

The only responding importer reported that all of its sales were spot sales. 

Sales Terms

Two U.S. producers reported selling on an f.o.b. basis, one reported selling on a delivered basis,

and one reported selling on an ex-works basis. Both responding importers reported selling on an f.o.b.

port-of-entry basis. Two of four responding U.S. producers reported sales terms of net 60 days; the other

two U.S. producers and both responding importers reporting sales terms of net 30.

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of small diameter CASSLP pipe to

provide quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of small diameter CASSLP pipe products that

were shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market during January 2000-September 2005. The

products for which pricing data were requested were as follows:

Product 1: Seamless pipe single-, double-, or triple-stenciled to meet ASTM A-106 Grade B,

ASTM A-53 Grade B, and API 5L Grade B specifications; 1" nominal size (1.315" OD X 0.179"

wall thickness); plain ends; schedule 80;

Product 2: Seamless pipe triple-stenciled (or more) to meet ASTM A-106 Grade B, ASTM A-53

Grade B, and API 5L Grade B specifications; 4" nominal size (4.5" OD X 0.337" wall thickness);

plain ends; schedule 80;

Product 3: Seamless pipe triple-stenciled (or more) to meet ASTM-A-106 Grade B, ASTM-A-53

Grade B, and API 5L Grade B specifications; 3" nominal size (3.5" OD X 0.3" wall thickness);

plain ends; schedule 80; and

Product 8: Seamless pipe stenciled to meet API 5L Grade X-52 specifications; 4.5" OD X

0.531" wall thickness; plain ends.3

Three U.S. producers (U.S. Steel, Koppel Steel, and Sharon Tube) and one importer of Romanian

small diameter CASSLP pipe *** provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products,
 4

 These alloy products, however, are similar in chemical composition to carbon steel grades. Staff telephone

interview with ***, March 27, 2006.

V-6

although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. No importer provided price data

for products from Czech Republic, Japan, or South Africa. By quantity, pricing data reported by

responding firms for January 2000-September 2005 accounted for 21.5 percent of reported U.S.

producers’ shipments of small diameter CASSLP pipe and for 10.5 percent of reported U.S. shipments of

subject imports from Romania. Data on prices, quantities, and margins of underselling (overselling) of

products 1-3 and 8 are presented in tables V-2 through V-5. Prices of products 1-3 (carbon steel SSLP

pipe) and 8 (alloy steel SSLP pipe) are presented in figure V-3.4

Table V-2

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and

imported product 1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-

September 2005

*******

Table V-3

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and

imported product 2 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-

September 2005

*******

Table V-4

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and

imported product 3 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-

September 2005

*******

Table V-5

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic product 8

by quarters, January 2000-September 2005

*******

Figure V-3

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic and imported products

1-3 and 8, January 2000-September 2005

*******
 5

 Staff telephone interviews with ***, March 17, 2006, and ***, March 21, 2006.

V-7

Price Trends and Comparisons

A summary of price trends and comparisons is shown in tables V-6-V-7. U.S. producer prices

increased by *** to *** percent during the period for which data were collected, with most of the increase

in 2004 and 2005. Prices for imports from Romania increased between *** and *** percent from 2000 to

2004. Prices for these imports did not vary significantly from 2000 to 2003 and then increased in 2004;

no sales of products 1-3 were reported for 2005. Prices of products 1-3 imported from Romania were

consistently lower than prices of U.S.-produced product, with average yearly margins of underselling of

*** to *** percent. Romanian product 1 underselling margins were much larger than for products 2 and

3. Product 1 was ***, ***.5

Purchasers were asked if there has there been a change in the price of small diameter CASSLP

pipe since 2000, and if so, whether the price of U.S.-produced small diameter CASSLP pipe changed

more or less than the price of imported small diameter CASSLP pipe from subject countries and from

nonsubject countries. Five of the eight responding purchasers indicated that prices had changed by the

same amount; one indicated that there had been no change in price; one indicated that U.S.-produced

small CASSLP pipe had changed relative to the price of products from each of the four subject countries;

and one indicated that U.S.-produced product had changed relative to the three subject countries other

than Japan.

Table V-6

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Summary of underselling/overselling

Country/period

Number of quarters

of underselling

Number of quarters

of overselling

Average margin of

underselling/

(overselling)

Romania

 2000 3 0 ***

 2001 10 0 ***

2002 5 0 ***

2003 8 0 ***

2004 8 0 ***

 2005 (January-September) 0 0 -

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-8

Table V-7

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-3 and 8,

by country

Country

Number of

quarters

Highest price Lowest price

Percentage

change in price1

Per short ton Per short ton Percent

Product 1

United States 23 *** *** ***

Romania 14 *** *** ***

Product 2

United States 23 *** *** ***

Romania 10 *** *** ***

Product 3 

United States 23 *** *** ***

Romania 10 *** *** ***

Product 8

United States 8 *** *** ***

 1 Percentage change from the first quarter in which price data were available to the last quarter in which price

data were available.

Note: Only countries where price data were reported are listed.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-9

FACTORS AFFECTING LARGE DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE PRICES 

The cost of large diameter CASSLP pipe depends largely on the costs of its inputs and

processing. Large diameter CASSLP pipe is produced from solid steel billets, which in turn are produced

either in integrated mills from iron ore with coke as main fuel source or in mini mills using electric arc

furnaces, from scrap with electricity and natural gas as main fuels. Prices of the major inputs are

discussed in the “SMALL DIAMETER” section of part V of this report.

Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

Transportation costs as a percentage of customs value for large diameter CASSLP pipe from

subject countries to the United States (excluding U.S. inland costs) in 2005 were equivalent to 7.4 percent

for Japan and 2.8 percent for Mexico. These estimates are derived from official import data and represent

the transportation and other charges on imports valued on a c.i.f. basis, as compared with customs value.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Three U.S. producers reported their U.S. inland transportation costs for large diameter CASSLP

pipe; transportation costs ranged from 3 to 7 percent the total delivered cost of the product. The three

responding importers reported that they were not responsible for transportation of large diameter

CASSLP pipe to their customers’ location and therefore did not provide data regarding inland

transportation costs.

Exchange Rates

Quarterly real and nominal exchange rates reported by the International Monetary Fund for the

currencies of the Japan and Mexico relative to the U.S. dollar during January 2000 to December 2005 are

shown in figure V-4.

PRICING PRACTICES

Two of the three responding U.S. producers reported that they used price lists. The other

producer reported selling using contracts for multiple shipments and transaction-by-transaction pricing.

Two producers reported that offering quantity discounts, while the other producer did not offer discounts. 

One of the two responding importers reported transaction by transaction prices, while the other importer

reported that it used “market band pricing due to current issues.” Both importers reported that they either

did not give discounts or did not have a discount policy. Two of the three responding U.S. producers and

the one responding importer reported that all of their sales of large diameter CASSLP pipe were on a spot

basis. The other U.S. producer, ***, reported selling *** percent on contract, using short term contracts,

and *** percent in spot sales.

Purchasers were asked if there were any price leaders; ten purchasers listed one or more price

leaders. Nine of these firms listed U.S. Steel, four listed V&M Star, two listed Dalmine-Tenaris and one

reported V&M Tube. Six firms reported only U.S. Steel as the price leader, four of these reported that

U.S. Steel announced price increases, one reported that U.S. Steel recognized supply and demand and

acted on these, and the other reported that U.S. Steel dominated the market with its size, capacity, and

product range.
V-10

Figure V-4

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates between the currencies of Japan 

and Mexico relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2000-December 2005

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics,

http://ifs.apdi.net/imf/ifsbrowser.aspx?branch=ROOT retrieved March 10, 2006. 
 6

 In addition, the Commission requested two other products for which no firms provided pricing data. These were 

Product 6: Seamless pipe stenciled to meet API 5L Grade X-70 specifications; 8.625" OD X 0.875" wall thickness;

plain ends; and Product 7: Seamless pipe 12.75" OD x 0.875" wall thickness; API 5L Grade X-65 specifications;

produced with a chemistry of low carbon (0.07 min carbon to 0.11 max).

 7

 These alloy products, however, are similar in chemical composition to carbon steel grades. Staff telephone

interview with ***, March 27, 2006.

V-11

PRICING METHODS AND SALES TERMS

One U.S. producer reported that *** percent of its sales were on a delivered basis while ***

percent were on an f.o.b. mill basis, one producer reported selling on an ex works basis, and one sold

f.o.b.. Both responding importers reported selling on an f.o.b. port of entry basis. *** reported sales

terms of 2/10 net 60 days, *** sold net 30. One importer reported sales terms of net 30 while the other

importer reported terms of 2/10 net 30 days.

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of large diameter CASSLP pipe to

provide quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of large diameter CASSLP pipe products that

were shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market during January 2000-September 2005. The

products for which pricing data were requested are as follows:

Product 4: Seamless pipe triple-stenciled (or more) to meet ASTM-A-106 Grade B, ASTM-A-53

Grade B, and API 5L Grade B specifications; 6.625" OD X 0.432" wall thickness; plain ends; and

Product 5: Seamless pipe stenciled to meet API 5L Grade X-52 specifications; 12" OD X 0.500"

wall thickness; plain ends.6

Two U.S. producers (U.S. Steel and V&M Star) provided usable pricing data for sales of the

requested products. *** reported prices for product 4 and 5 and *** reported prices for product 4. Also,

no importers of product from Japan or Mexico provided data. By quantity, pricing data reported by

responding firms for 2000-September 2005 accounted for approximately 10.9 percent of reported U.S.

producers’ shipments of large diameter CASSLP pipe. Data on prices, quantities, of products 4 and 5 are

presented in table V-8. Prices of products 4 (carbon steel SSLP pipe) and 5 (alloy steel SSLP pipe) are

presented in figure V-5.7

Table V-8

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic products 

4 and 5, by quarters, January 2000-September 2005

*******

Figure V-5

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic products 4-5, January

2000-September 2005

*******
V-12

Price Trends and Comparisons

The price of product 4 increased by *** percent and the price of product 5 increased by ***

percent during the period for which price data were collected. Prices of product 4, by far the larger

volume product of the two, did not vary significantly from 2000 to 2003, and then increased from *** per

ton in the fourth quarter of 2003 to *** in the third quarter of 2005.

Purchasers were asked if there has there been a change in the price of large diameter CASSLP

pipe since 2000, and if so, whether the price of U.S.-produced large diameter CASSLP pipe changed

relative to the price of imported large diameter CASSLP pipe from subject countries and from nonsubject

countries. Four of the eight responding purchasers indicated that prices had changed by the same amount;

one indicated that there had been no change in prices; one indicated that U.S. product was now relatively

higher priced compared to that from Japan and Mexico; one firm indicated that prices of U.S. product had

changed relative to that from Japan and Mexico but did not indicate whether they were now relatively

higher or lower; and one firm indicated that prices of product from Japan had changed by the same

amount as domestic prices but that prices of product from Mexico had changed relative to domestic prices

and did not indicate whether they were now relatively higher or lower.
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND THE COMMISSION’S STATEMENT

ON ADEQUACY

22688 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 83 / Monday, May 2, 2005 / Notices 

U.S.C. 188(i)(2) and 43 CFR 3108.2–3(f) 

included a request for reduced rental 

and royalty.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. 

Lewis, Chief, Fluid Minerals 

Adjudication, at (307) 775–6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee 

has agreed to the amended lease terms 

for rental and royalty at rates of $10.00 

per acre or fraction of an acre per year 

and 162⁄3 percent, respectively. 

However, this office is of the opinion 

that the lessees request for reduced 

rental and royalty rates contains 

sufficient evidence to determine that in 

the absence of granting a reduction of 

the rental and royalty rates to that of the 

original lease terms, undue economic 

hardship will occur and that it is 

equitable to do so. Therefore, upon 

reinstatement the rental and royalty 

rates for lease WYW145711 will remain 

at $2.00 per acre or fraction of an acre 

per year and 121⁄2 percent, respectively. 

The lessee has paid the required $500 

administrative fee and $166 to 

reimburse the Department for the cost of 

this Federal Register notice. The lessee 

has met all the requirements for 

reinstatement of the lease as set out in 

Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral 

Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 

188), and the Bureau of Land 

Management is proposing to reinstate 

lease WYW145711 effective August 1, 

2003, under the original terms and 

conditions of the lease, rates cited 

above. BLM has not issued a valid lease 

affecting the lands.

Pamela J. Lewis, 

Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication.

[FR Doc. 05–8637 Filed 4–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management 

[WY–920–1310–01; WYW145710] 

Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of 

Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed 

reinstatement and rental/royalty 

reduction of terminated oil and gas 

lease. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 

U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 

3108.2–3(a), the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) received a petition 

for reinstatement of oil and gas lease 

WYW145710 for lands in Big Horn 

County, Wyoming. The petition was 

filed on time, was accompanied by all 

the rentals due since the date the lease 

terminated and, in accordance with 30 

U.S.C. 188(i)(2) and 43 CFR 3108.2–3(f) 

included a request for reduced rental 

and royalty.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. 

Lewis, Chief, Fluid Minerals 

Adjudication, at (307) 775–6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee 

has agreed to the amended lease terms 

for rental and royalty at rates of $10.00 

per acre or fraction of an acre per year 

and 162⁄3 percent, respectively. 

However, this office is of the opinion 

that the lessees request for reduced 

rental and royalty rates contains 

sufficient evidence to determine that in 

the absence of granting a reduction of 

the rental and royalty rates to that of the 

original lease terms, undue economic 

hardship will occur and that it is 

equitable to do so. Therefore, upon 

reinstatement the rental and royalty 

rates for lease WYW145710 will remain 

at $2.00 per acre or fraction of an acre 

per year and 121⁄2 percent, respectively. 

The lessee has paid the required $500 

administrative fee and $166 to 

reimburse the Department for the cost of 

this Federal Register notice. The lessee 

has met all the requirements for 

reinstatement of the lease as set out in 

Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral 

Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 

188), and the Bureau of Land 

Management is proposing to reinstate 

lease WYW145710 effective August 1, 

2003, under the original terms and 

conditions of the lease, rates cited 

above. BLM has not issued a valid lease 

affecting the lands.

Pamela J. Lewis, 

Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication.

[FR Doc. 05–8638 Filed 4–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management 

[WY–920–1310–01; WYW145709] 

Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of 

Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed 

reinstatement and rental/royalty 

reduction of terminated oil and gas 

lease. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 

U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 

3108.2–3(a), the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) received a petition 

for reinstatement of oil and gas lease 

WYW145709 for lands in Big Horn 

County, Wyoming. The petition was 

filed on time, was accompanied by all 

the rentals due since the date the lease 

terminated and, in accordance with 30 

U.S.C. 188(i)(2) and 43 CFR 3108.2–3(f) 

included a request for reduced rental 

and royalty.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. 

Lewis, Chief, Fluid Minerals 

Adjudication, at (307) 775–6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee 

has agreed to the amended lease terms 

for rental and royalty at rates of $10.00 

per acre or fraction of an acre per year 

and 162⁄3 percent, respectively. 

However, this office is of the opinion 

that the lessees request for reduced 

rental and royalty rates contains 

sufficient evidence to determine that in 

the absence of granting a reduction of 

the rental and royalty rates to that of the 

original lease terms, undue economic 

hardship will occur and that it is 

equitable to do so. Therefore, upon 

reinstatement the rental and royalty 

rates for lease WYW145709 will remain 

at $2.00 per acre or fraction of an acre 

per year and 121⁄2 percent, respectively. 

The lessee has paid the required $500 

administrative fee and $166 to 

reimburse the Department for the cost of 

this Federal Register notice. The lessee 

has met all the requirements for 

reinstatement of the lease as set out in 

Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral 

Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 

188), and the Bureau of Land 

Management is proposing to reinstate 

lease WYW145709 effective August 1, 

2003, under the original terms and 

conditions of the lease, rates cited 

above. BLM has not issued a valid lease 

affecting the lands.

Pamela J. Lewis, 

Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication.

[FR Doc. 05–8639 Filed 4–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–22–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigations Nos. 731–TA–846–850 

(Review)] 

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, 

Line, and Pressure Pipe From Czech 

Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, 

and South Africa

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission.

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on carbon and alloy seamless standard, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 83 / Monday, May 2, 2005 / Notices 22689

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 05–5–120, 

expiration date June 30, 2005. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 10 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436.

line, and pressure pipe from Czech 

Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and 

South Africa. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on carbon and 

alloy seamless standard, line, and 

pressure pipe from Czech Republic, 

Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South 

Africa would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is June 21, 2005. Comments 

on the adequacy of responses may be 

filed with the Commission by July 15, 

2005. For further information 

concerning the conduct of these reviews 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207).

DATES: Effective Date: May 2, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background.On the dates listed below, 

the Department of Commerce issued 

antidumping duty orders on the subject 

imports of small diameter carbon and 

alloy seamless standard, line, and 

pressure pipe:

Order date Country Invoice No. Federal Register

citation 

6/26/2000 .............................................. Japan ................................................... 731–TA–847 ........................................ 65 FR 39360 

6/26/2000 .............................................. South Africa ......................................... 731–TA–850 ........................................ 65 FR 39360 

8/10/2000 .............................................. Romania ............................................... 731–TA–849 ........................................ 65 FR 48963 

8/14/2000 .............................................. Czech Republic .................................... 731–TA–846 ........................................ 65 FR 49539 

On the dates listed below, the 

Department of Commerce issued 

antidumping duty orders on the subject 

imports of large diameter carbon and 

alloy seamless standard, line, and 

pressure pipe:

Order date Country Invoice No. Federal Register

citation 

6/26/2000 .............................................. Japan ................................................... 731–TA–847 ........................................ 65 FR 39360 

8/11/2000 .............................................. Mexico .................................................. 731–TA–848 ........................................ 65 FR 49227 

The Commission is conducting 

reviews to determine whether 

revocation of the order would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to the domestic industry 

within a reasonably foreseeable time. It 

will assess the adequacy of interested 

party responses to this notice of 

institution to determine whether to 

conduct full reviews or expedited 

reviews. The Commission’s 

determinations in any expedited 

reviews will be based on the facts 

available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions. The following definitions 

apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by the Department of 

Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are Czech Republic, Japan, 

Mexico, Romania, and South Africa. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determinations, the Commission found 

two Domestic Like Products 

corresponding to the two scopes of the 

investigations: Small diameter carbon 

and alloy seamless standard, line, and 

pressure pipe and large diameter carbon 

and alloy seamless standard, line, and 

pressure pipe. Certain Commissioners 

defined the Domestic Like Product 

differently. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determinations, 

the Commission found two Domestic 

Industries: A small diameter carbon and 

alloy seamless standard, line, and 

pressure pipe industry and a large 

diameter carbon and alloy seamless 

standard, line, and pressure pipe 

industry, encompassing all domestic 

producers of those products, 

respectively. Certain Commissioners 

defined the Domestic Industry 

differently. 

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

antidumping duty orders under review 

became effective. In the reviews 

concerning Japan and South Africa, the 

Order Date is June 26, 2000; in the 

review concerning Romania, the Order 

Date is August 10, 2000; in the review 

concerning Mexico, the Order Date is 

August 11, 2000; and in the review 

concerning the Czech Republic, the 

Order Date is August 14, 2000. 

(6) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

22690 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 83 / Monday, May 2, 2005 / Notices 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent.

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list. Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are reminded that they 

are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, 

to seek Commission approval if the 

matter in which they are seeking to 

appear was pending in any manner or 

form during their Commission 

employment. The Commission’s 

designated agency ethics official has 

advised that a five-year review is the 

‘‘same particular matter’’ as the 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 19 CFR 201.15 and 18 

U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute 

for Federal employees. Former 

employees may seek informal advice 

from Commission ethics officials with 

respect to this and the related issue of 

whether the employee’s participation 

was ‘‘personal and substantial.’’

However, any informal consultation will 

not relieve former employees of the 

obligation to seek approval to appear 

from the Commission under its rule 

201.15. For ethics advice, contact Carol 

McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics 

Official, at 202–205–3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list. Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1677(9), who are parties to the 

reviews. A separate service list will be 

maintained by the Secretary for those 

parties authorized to receive BPI under 

the APO. 

Certification. Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions. Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is June 21, 2005. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct expedited 

or full reviews. The deadline for filing 

such comments is July 15, 2005. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of sections 201.8 and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules and any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in 

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information. Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 

Information To Be Provided in 

Response to This Notice of Institution:

Please provide the requested 

information separately for each 

Domestic Like Product, as defined by 

the Commission in its original 

determinations, and for each of the 

products identified by Commerce as 

Subject Merchandise. If you are a 

domestic producer, union/worker 

group, or trade/business association; 

import/export Subject Merchandise 

from more than one Subject Country; or 

produce Subject Merchandise in more 

than one Subject Country, you may file 

a single response. If you do so, please 

ensure that your response to each 

question includes the information 

requested for each pertinent Subject 

Country. As used below, the term 

‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Products, a U.S. 

union or worker group, a U.S. importer 

of the Subject Merchandise, a foreign 

producer or exporter of the Subject 

Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or 

business association, or another 

interested party (including an 

explanation). If you are a union/worker 

group or trade/business association, 

identify the firms in which your 

workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission.

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on the Domestic Industries in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industries. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 83 / Monday, May 2, 2005 / Notices 22691

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 05–5–121, 

expiration date June 30, 2005. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 10 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the office of investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436.

Domestic Like Products. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Dates. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Products, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2004 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/

which are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Products accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Products produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Products 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from each Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2004 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from each Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from each Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Countries, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2004 

(report quantity data in short tons and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Products that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Countries since the Order 

Dates, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Products produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in the Subject Countries, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(11) (Optional) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like 

Products and Domestic Industries; if 

you disagree with either or both of these 

definitions, please explain why and 

provide alternative definitions.

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules.

Issued: April 20, 2005.

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05–8717 Filed 4–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–429 (Second 

Review)] 

Mechanical Transfer Presses From 

Japan

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission.

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on mechanical transfer presses from 

Japan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on mechanical 

transfer presses from Japan would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury. Pursuant 

to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested 

parties are requested to respond to this 

notice by submitting the information 

specified below to the Commission;1 to 

be assured of consideration, the 

deadline for responses is June 21, 2005. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

July 15, 2005. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this review 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207).

DATES: Effective Date: May 2, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

22632 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 83 / Monday, May 2, 2005 / Notices 

Antidumping Duty Proceeding Period 

A–791–805 ............................................................................................................................................................. 5/1/04—4/30/05

TAIWAN: Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipe & Tubes.

A–583–008 ............................................................................................................................................................. 5/1/04—4/30/05

TAIWAN: Polyester Staple Fiber.

A–583–833 ............................................................................................................................................................. 5/1/04—4/30/05

TAIWAN: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils.

A–583–830 ............................................................................................................................................................. 5/1/04—4/30/05

THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Iron Construction Castings.

A–570–502 ............................................................................................................................................................. 5/1/04—4/30/05

THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Pure Magnesium.

A–570–832 ............................................................................................................................................................. 5/1/04—4/30/05

THE UNITED KINGDOM:Antifriction Bearings, Ball.

A–412–801 ............................................................................................................................................................. 5/1/04—4/30/05

TURKEY: Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube.

A–489–501 ............................................................................................................................................................. 5/1/04—4/30/05

VENEZUELA: Silicomanganese.

A–307–820 ............................................................................................................................................................. 5/1/04—4/30/05

Countervailing Duty Proceedings.

BELGIUM: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils.

C–423–809 ............................................................................................................................................................. 1/1/04—12/31/04

BRAZIL: Iron Construction Castings.

C–351–504 ............................................................................................................................................................. 1/1/04—12/31/04

CANADA: Softwood Lumber.

C–122–839 ............................................................................................................................................................. 1/1/04—12/31/04

ITALY: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils.

C–475–823 ............................................................................................................................................................. 1/1/04—12/31/04

SOUTH AFRICA: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils.

C–791–806 ............................................................................................................................................................. 1/1/04—12/31/04

Suspension Agreements.

None..

In accordance with section 351.213(b) 

of the regulations, an interested party as 

defined by section 771(9) of the Act may 

request in writing that the Secretary 

conduct an administrative review. For 

both antidumping and countervailing 

duty reviews, the interested party must 

specify the individual producers or 

exporters covered by an antidumping 

finding or an antidumping or 

countervailing duty order or suspension 

agreement for which it is requesting a 

review, and the requesting party must 

state why it desires the Secretary to 

review those particular producers or 

exporters. If the interested party intends 

for the Secretary to review sales of 

merchandise by an exporter (or a 

producer if that producer also exports 

merchandise from other suppliers) 

which were produced in more than one 

country of origin and each country of 

origin is subject to a separate order, then 

the interested party must state 

specifically, on an order–by-order basis, 

which exporter(s) the request is 

intended to cover. 

As explained in Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 69 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), the Department 

has clarified its practice with respect to 

the collection of final antidumping 

duties on imports of merchandise where 

intermediate firms are involved. The 

public should be aware of this 

clarification in determining whether to 

request an administrative review of 

merchandise subject to antidumping 

findings and orders. See also the Import 

Administration web site at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov. 

Six copies of the request should be 

submitted to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street & 

Constitution Avenue, N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20230. The 

Department also asks parties to serve a 

copy of their requests to the Office of 

Antidumping/Countervailing 

Operations, Attention: Sheila Forbes, in 

room 3065 of the main Commerce 

Building. Further, in accordance with 

section 351.303(f)(l)(i) of the 

regulations, a copy of each request must 

be served on every party on the 

Department’s service list. 

The Department will publish in the 

Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Initiation 

of Administrative Review of 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation’’ for requests received by 

the last day of May 2005. If the 

Department does not receive, by the last 

day of May 2005, a request for review 

of entries covered by an order, finding, 

or suspended investigation listed in this 

notice and for the period identified 

above, the Department will instruct 

Customs and Border Protection to assess 

antidumping or countervailing duties on 

those entries at a rate equal to the cash 

deposit of (or bond for) estimated 

antidumping or countervailing duties 

required on those entries at the time of 

entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, 

for consumption and to continue to 

collect the cash deposit previously 

ordered. 

This notice is not required by statute 

but is published as a service to the 

international trading community.

Dated: April 26, 2005. 

Holly A. Kuga, 

Senior Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. E5–2095 Filed 4–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating five-year 

(‘‘sunset’’) reviews of certain 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders. The International Trade 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 83 / Monday, May 2, 2005 / Notices 22633

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

Continued

Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) is 

publishing concurrently with this notice 

its notice of Institution of Five-Year 

Review which covers these same orders.

DATES: Effective Date: May 2, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev 

Primor, Office 4, AD/CVD Operations, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce at (202) 482–4114, or Mary 

Messer, Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission at (202) 

205–3193.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of sunset reviews are set forth 

in 19 CFR 351.218. Guidance on 

methodological or analytical issues 

relevant to the Department’s conduct of 

sunset reviews is set forth in the 

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98.3—

Policies Regarding the Conduct of FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 

(April 16, 1998) (‘‘Sunset Policy 

Bulletin’’). 

Initiation of Reviews 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the sunset 

reviews of the following antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders and 

suspended investigation:

DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product 

A–570–855 ................ 731–TA–841 .............. PRC ........................... Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate. 

A–851–802 ................ 731–TA–846 .............. Czech Republic ......... Small Diameter, Carbon & Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, & Pressure 

Pipe. 

A–588–851 ................ 731–TA–847 .............. Japan ......................... Small Diameter, Carbon & Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, & Pressure 

Pipe. 

A–485–805 ................ 731–TA–849 .............. Romania .................... Small Diameter, Carbon & Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, & Pressure 

Pipe. 

A–791–808 ................ 731–TA–850 .............. South Africa ............... Small Diameter, Carbon & Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, & Pressure 

Pipe. 

A–588–850 ................ 731–TA–847 .............. Japan ......................... Large Diameter, Carbon & Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, & Pressure 

Pipe. 

A–201–827 ................ 731–TA–848 .............. Mexico ....................... Large Diameter, Carbon & Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, & Pressure 

Pipe. 

A–588–810 ................ 731–TA–429 .............. Japan ......................... Mechanical Transfer Presses. 

A–588–852 ................ 731–TA–853 .............. Japan ......................... Structural Steel Beams. 

A–580–841 ................ 731–TA–854 .............. South Korea .............. Structural Steel Beams. 

C–580–842 ................ 701–TA–401 .............. South Korea .............. Structural Steel Beams. 

A–533–806 ................ 731–TA–561 .............. India ........................... Sulfanilic Acid. 

C–533–807 ................ 701–TA–318 .............. India ........................... Sulfanilic Acid. 

A–570–815 ................ 731–TA–538 .............. PRC ........................... Sulfanilic Acid. 

A–570–856 ................ 731–TA–851 .............. PRC ........................... Synthetic Indigo. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

sunset reviews (19 CFR 351.218) and 

Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department’s 

schedule of sunset reviews, case history 

information (i.e., previous margins, duty 

absorption determinations, scope 

language, import volumes), and service 

lists available to the public on the 

Department’s sunset Internet website at 

the following address: ‘‘http://

ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’

All submissions in these sunset 

reviews must be filed in accordance 

with the Department’s regulations 

regarding format, translation, service, 

and certification of documents. These 

rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Also, we suggest that parties check the 

Department’s sunset website for any 

updates to the service list before filing 

any submissions. The Department will 

make additions to and/or deletions from 

the service list provided on the sunset 

website based on notifications from 

parties and participation in these 

reviews. Specifically, the Department 

will delete from the service list all 

parties that do not submit a substantive 

response to the notice of initiation. 

Because deadlines in a sunset review 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of the notice of initiation of the 

sunset review. The Department’s 

regulations on submission of proprietary 

information and eligibility to receive 

access to business proprietary 

information under APO can be found at 

19 CFR 351.304–306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties (defined 

in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) 

wishing to participate in these sunset 

reviews must respond not later than 15 

days after the date of publication in the 

Federal Register of the notice of 

initiation by filing a notice of intent to 

participate. The required contents of the 

notice of intent to participate are set 

forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In 

accordance with the Department’s 

regulations, if we do not receive a notice 

of intent to participate from at least one 

domestic interested party by the 15-day 

deadline, the Department will 

automatically revoke the orders without 

further review. See 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the sunset 

review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of the notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of sunset reviews.1 Please 

22634 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 83 / Monday, May 2, 2005 / Notices 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests for 

extension of that five-day deadline based upon a 

showing of good cause.

1See Notice of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping 

Duty Order: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, 67 FR 65944 

(October 29, 2002) (‘‘Antidumping Order)

2 Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., ISG Georgetown 

Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and 

North Star Steel Texas, Inc.

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department.

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

Dated: April 25, 2005. 

Holly A. Kuga, 

Senior Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4 for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. E5–2096 Filed 4–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

A–274–804

Notice of Initiation and Preliminary 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy 

Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and 

Tobago

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is initiating a 

changed circumstances administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order of 

carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod 

(‘‘steel wire rod’’) from Trinidad and 

Tobago1 in response to a request from 

the petitioners2 and respondent, 

Caribbean Ispat Limited (‘‘CIL’’). Both 

parties have requested that the 

Department conduct a changed 

circumstances review to determine 

whether Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited 

(‘‘Mittal’’) is the successor–in-interest to 

CIL, and, as such, is entitled to receive 

the same antidumping duty treatment 

accorded CIL.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 2, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis McClure or Victoria Cho at 

(202) 482–5973 or (202) 482–5075, 

respectively; AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background:

On October 29, 2002, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on steel wire 

rod from Trinidad and Tobago. See 

Antidumping Order. The current scope 

of the merchandise subject to this order 

was published in the Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Carbon and 

Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Trinidad and Tobago 70 FR 12648 

(March 15, 2005). One of the companies 

subject to the investigation was CIL. On 

March 3, 2005, CIL notified the 

Department of its name change and 

stated that on January 31, 2005, CIL 

legally changed its name to Mittal. See

March 3, 2005, letter from CIL to the 

Secretary of Commerce. On March 21, 

2005, the petitioners requested that the 

Department conduct a changed 

circumstances review to determine 

whether Mittal is the successor–ininterest to CIL. See March 21, 2005, 

letter from the petitioners to the 

Secretary of Commerce. On April 6, 

2005, CIL requested that the Department 

initiate and conduct an expedited 

changed circumstances review to 

determine for purposes of the 

antidumping law whether Mittal is the 

successor–in-interest to CIL. The 

Department has determined to conduct 

the review on an expedited basis and 

preliminarily finds that Mittal is the 

successor–in-interest to CIL. 

Initiation of Changed Circumstances 

Review 

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’), the Department will conduct a 

changed circumstances review upon 

request from an interested party or 

receipt of information concerning an 

antidumping duty order, when either of 

these shows changed circumstances 

sufficient to warrant a review of the 

order. In this case, the Department finds 

that the information submitted by the 

petitioners and respondent provides 

sufficient evidence of changed 

circumstances to warrant a review to 

determine whether Mittal is the 

successor–in-interest to CIL. Thus, in 

accordance with section 751(b) of the 

Act, the Department is initiating a 

changed circumstances review to 

determine whether Mittal is the 

successor–in-interest to CIL for 

purposes of determining antidumping 

duty liability with respect to imports of 

steel wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago 

produced and exported by CIL and 

whether the order as applied to CIL 

should apply to subject merchandise 

manufactured and exported by Mittal. 

Furthermore, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) 

permits the Department to combine the 

notice of initiation of a changed 

circumstances review and the notice of 

preliminary results in a single notice, if 

the Department concludes that 

expedited action is warranted. In this 

case, the Department finds that the 

information submitted provides 

sufficient evidence of changed 

circumstances to warrant a review. 

Furthermore, we determine that 

expedited action is warranted and we 

preliminarily find that Mittal is the 

successor–in-interest to CIL. Because we 

have concluded that expedited action is 

warranted, we are combining these 

notices of initiation and preliminary 

results. 

Preliminary Results 

In making a successor–in-interest 

determination, the Department 

examines several factors including, but 

not limited to, changes in: (1) 

Management; (2) production facilities; 

(3) supplier relationships; and (4) 

customer base. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From 

Japan, 67 FR 58 (Jan. 2, 2002); Brass 

Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460, 

20462 (May 13, 1992). While no single 

factor or combination of factors will 

necessarily provide a dispositive 

indication of a successor–in-interest 

relationship, the Department will 

generally consider the new company to 

be the successor to the previous 

company if the new company’s resulting 

operation is not materially dissimilar to 

that of its predecessor. See, e.g., Fresh 

and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from 

Norway; Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979 

(March 1, 1999); Industrial Phosphoric 

Acid from Israel; Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 

6944 (February 14, 1994). Thus, if the 

evidence demonstrates that, with 

respect to the production and sale of the 

subject merchandise, the new company 

operates as the same business entity as 

the former company, the Department 

will accord the new company the same 

antidumping treatment as its 

predecessor. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(3)(ii), we preliminarily 

determine that Mittal is the successor–

49680 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 163 / Wednesday, August 24, 2005 / Notices 

1Commissioner Marcia E. Miller did not 

participate in these determinations.

as representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public disclosure in their entirety.

Dated: July 29, 2005. 

Frank Michny, 

Regional Environmental Officer, Mid-Pacific 

Region.

[FR Doc. 05–16821 Filed 8–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

Announcement to Extend Comment 

Period on the Preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Statement on 

Excess Spoil Generation and Disposal 

and Stream Buffer Zone Rulemaking

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM), are allowing additional time for 

the public to submit suggestions on 

significant issues and specific 

alternatives that we should consider in 

the planning and preparation on an 

environmental impact statement on the 

excess spoil generation and disposal 

and stream buffer zone rulemaking. We 

received multiple requests to extend the 

comment period by a week beyond the 

last public scoping meeting in order for 

the meeting participants to fully 

consider discussions within the 

meeting. We believe that this is 

reasonable request and are granting an 

extension of public comment period.

DATES: Electronic or written comments:

We must receive your written comments 

by 4 p.m. eastern standard time on 

September 1, 2005, to ensure 

consideration in the preparation of the 

draft EIS.

ADDRESSES: You may mail or hand carry 

comments to: ‘‘EIS Scoping SBZ 

Rulemaking Comments’’ c/o OSM 

Appalachian Region, 3 Parkway Center, 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15220, or you 

may send comments via electronic mail 

to: SBZ-EIS@osmre.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David G. Hartos, Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 3 

Parkway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15220; 

Telephone: 412–937–2909. E-mail 

address: DHARTOS@OSMRE.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

16, 2005 (70 FR 35112), we published a 

notice of our intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) to 

analyze the effects of possibly revising 

our regulations pertaining to excess 

spoil generation and disposal, and 

stream buffer zones. We determined that 

the preparation of an EIS would be an 

appropriate mechanism to fully access 

alternative approaches and potential 

impacts of the changes proposed in the 

Federal Register on January 7, 2004 (69 

FR 1036). We asked for the public’s 

assistance in identifying significant 

issues and specific alternatives related 

to the proposed action. The original 

comment period was scheduled to close 

on August 15, 2005, but we are 

extending the comment period to the 

time and date list under DATES.

Dated: August 16, 2005. 

Michael K. Robinson, 

Acting Regional Director, Appalachian 

Region, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 05–16802 Filed 8–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–846–850 

(Review)] 

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, 

Line, and Pressure Pipe from Czech 

Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, 

and South Africa

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on carbon and alloy 

seamless standard, line, and pressure 

pipe from Czech Republic, Japan, 

Mexico, Romania, and South Africa. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on carbon and alloy seamless 

standard, line, and pressure pipe from 

Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, 

Romania, and South Africa would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule 

for the reviews will be established and 

announced at a later date. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207).

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

5, 2005, the Commission determined 

that it should proceed to full reviews in 

the subject five-year reviews pursuant to 

section 751(c)(5) of the Act.1 The 

Commission found that the domestic 

interested party group response to its 

notice of institution (70 FR 22688, May 

2, 2005) was adequate, and that the 

respondent interested party group 

responses with respect to the Czech 

Republic, Mexico, Romania, and South 

Africa were adequate, but found that the 

respondent interested party group 

response with respect to Japan was 

inadequate. However, the Commission 

determined to conduct a full review 

concerning subject imports from Japan 

to promote administrative efficiency in 

light of its decision to conduct full 

reviews with respect to subject imports 

from the Czech Republic, Mexico, 

Romania, and South Africa. A record of 

the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site.

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules.

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 18, 2005. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05–16836 Filed 8–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Notices 53151 

17, 2004 and were considered in the 

Draft Plan/EIS. 

Notices of availability were published 

in the Federal Register for the Gold 

Camp Road Draft Plan/EIS by the Forest 

Service (70 FR 2605, January 14, 2005) 

and the EPA (70 FR 4119, January 28, 

2005). Comments were accepted on the 

Draft Plan/EIS through March 29, 2005. 

Comments were considered and the 

Final Plan/EIS was prepared based on 

agency and public input. The Final 

Plan/EIS contains a new preferred 

alternative that incorporates elements of 

three of the other action alternatives. 

A ROD accompanies the Final Plan/ 

EIS. The ROD accompanying the Final 

Plan/EIS is subject to appeal pursuant to 

36 CFR 215. 

Reviewers are obligated to structure 

their participation in the National 

Environmental Policy Act process so 

that it is meaningful and alerts the 

agency to the reviewer’s position and 

contentions, [Vermont Yankee Nuclear 

Power Corp. v. NRDS. 435 U.S. 519, 553, 

(1978)]. Environmental objections that 

could have been raised at the draft stage 

may be waived if not raised until after 

completing the Final EIS [City of 

Angoon v. Hodel (9th Circuit 1986) and 

Wisconsin Heritages Inc. v. Harris 490 

F. Suppl. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980)]. 

This notice is provided pursuant to 

federal regulations implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act (40 

CFR 1506.6). 

Dated: August 30, 2005. 

Robert J. Leaverton, 

Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 05–17711 Filed 9–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting 

of the Alaska Advisory Committee 

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 

the provisions of the rules and 

regulations of the U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights, that a conference call of the 

Alaska State Advisory Committee in the 

Western Region will convene at 10 a.m. 

(PDT) and adjourn at 11 a.m., Thursday, 

September 29, 2005. The purpose of the 

conference call is to discuss ongoing 

projects and plan future activities. 

This conference call is available to the 

public through the following call-in 

number: 1–800–473–8694, access code 

number 44001081. Any interested 

member of the public may call this 

number and listen to the meeting. 

Callers can expect to incur charges for 

calls not initiated using the provided 

call-in number or over wireless lines 

and the Commission will not refund any 

incurred charges. Callers will incur no 

charge for calls using the call-in number 

over land-line connections. Persons 

with hearing impairments may also 

follow the proceedings by first calling 

the Federal Relay Service at 1–800–977–

8339 and providing the Service with the 

conference call number and access code. 

To ensure that the Commission 

secures an appropriate number of lines 

for the public, persons are asked to 

register by contacting Thomas Pilla of 

the Western Regional Office, (213) 894–

3437, by 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 

September 28, 2005. 

The meeting will be conducted 

pursuant to the provisions of the rules 

and regulations of the Commission. 

Dated at Washington, DC, August 31, 2005. 

Ivy L. Davis, 

Acting Chief, Regional Programs 

Coordination Unit. 

[FR Doc. 05–17702 Filed 9–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P 

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting 

of the Hawaii Advisory Committee 

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 

the provisions of the rules and 

regulations of the U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights, that a conference call of the 

Hawaii State Advisory Committee in the 

Western Region will convene at 2 p.m. 

(PDT) and adjourn at 3 p.m., Friday, 

September 30, 2005. The purpose of the 

conference call is to discuss on-going 

projects and plan future activities. 

This conference call is available to the 

public through the following call-in 

number: 1–800–473–7796, access code 

number 44001094. Any interested 

member of the public may call this 

number and listen to the meeting. 

Callers can expect to incur charges for 

calls not initiated using the provided 

call-in number or over wireless lines 

and the Commission will not refund any 

incurred charges. Callers will incur no 

charge for calls using the call-in number 

over land-line connections. Persons 

with hearing impairments may also 

follow the proceedings by first calling 

the Federal Relay Service at 1–800–977–

8339 and providing the Service with the 

conference call number and access code. 

To ensure that the Commission 

secures an appropriate number of lines 

for the public, persons are asked to 

register by contacting Thomas Pilla of 

the Western Regional Office, (213) 894–

3437, by 3 p.m. on Thursday, September 

29, 2005. 

The meeting will be conducted 

pursuant to the provisions of the rules 

and regulations of the Commission. 

Dated at Washington, DC, August 31, 2005. 

Ivy L. Davis, 

Acting Chief, Regional Programs 

Coordination Unit. 

[FR Doc. 05–17703 Filed 9–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–851–802, A–485 805, A–588–851, A–791–

808] 

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, 

Line, and Pressure Pipe (Under 4 W 

inches) from the Czech Republic, 

Japan, Romania, and South Africa; 

Final Results of the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 2, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated sunset reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on certain 

carbon and alloy seamless standard, 

line, and pressure pipe (under 4 W 

inches) (seamless pipe) from the Czech 

Republic, Japan, Romania, and South 

Africa pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 

On the basis of a notice of intent to 

participate and adequate substantive 

responses filed on behalf of domestic 

interested parties and no response from 

respondent interested parties, the 

Department conducted expedited (120- 

day) sunset reviews. As a result of these 

sunset reviews, the Department finds 

that revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders would likely lead to the 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

The dumping margins are identified in 

the Final Results of Review section of 

this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Dana 

Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230, telephone (202) 

482–1391. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 2, 2005, the Department 

initiated sunset reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on seamless 

pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, 

53152 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Notices 

Romania, and South Africa pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation 

of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 

22632 (May 2, 2005). The Department 

received notices of intent to participate 

from two domestic interested parties, 

United States Steel Corporation (U.S. 

Steel) and Koppel Steel Corporation 

(Koppel Steel) (collectively, domestic 

interested parties), within the deadline 

specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of 

the Department’s regulations. Domestic 

interested parties claimed interested 

party status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act as U.S. producers of the 

domestic like product. We received 

complete substantive responses from the 

domestic interested parties within the 

30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). However, we did not 

receive any response from any 

respondent interested parties. As a 

result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department 

conducted expedited sunset reviews of 

these orders. 

Scope of the Orders 

The products covered by the orders 

are seamless carbon and alloy (other 

than stainless) steel standard, line, and 

pressure pipes and redraw hollows 

produced, or equivalent, to the ASTM 

A–53, ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, 

ASTM A–334, ASTM A–335, ASTM A–

589, ASTM A–795, and the API 5L 

specifications and meeting the physical 

parameters described below, regardless 

of application. The scope of the orders 

also includes all products used in 

standard, line, or pressure pipe 

applications and meeting the physical 

parameters described below, regardless 

of specification. Specifically included 

within the scope of the orders are 

seamless pipes and redraw hollows, less 

than or equal to 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) 

in outside diameter, regardless of wall–

thickness, manufacturing process (hot 

finished or cold–drawn), end finish 

(plain end, beveled end, upset end, 

threaded, or threaded and coupled), or 

surface finish. 

The seamless pipes subject to the 

orders are currently classifiable under 

the subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 

7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.30.00, 

7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 

7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 

7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 

7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 

7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 

7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 

7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Specifications, Characteristics, and 

Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are 

intended for the conveyance of water, 

steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil 

products, natural gas and other liquids 

and gases in industrial piping systems. 

They may carry these substances at 

elevated pressures and temperatures 

and may be subject to the application of 

external heat. Seamless carbon steel 

pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A–106 

standard may be used in temperatures of 

up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at 

various ASME code stress levels. Alloy 

pipes made to ASTM A–335 standard 

must be used if temperatures and stress 

levels exceed those allowed for ASTM 

A–106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in 

the United States are commonly 

produced to the ASTM A–106 standard. 

Seamless standard pipes are most 

commonly produced to the ASTM A–53 

specification and generally are not 

intended for high temperature service. 

They are intended for the low 

temperature and pressure conveyance of 

water, steam, natural gas, air and other 

liquids and gases in plumbing and 

heating systems, air conditioning units, 

automatic sprinkler systems, and other 

related uses. Standard pipes (depending 

on type and code) may carry liquids at 

elevated temperatures but must not 

exceed relevant ASME code 

requirements. If exceptionally low 

temperature uses or conditions are 

anticipated, standard pipe may be 

manufactured to ASTM A–333 or ASTM 

A–334 specifications. 

Seamless line pipes are intended for 

the conveyance of oil and natural gas or 

other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line 

pipes are produced to the API 5L 

specification. 

Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A–

589) and seamless galvanized pipe for 

fire protection uses (ASTM A–795) are 

used for the conveyance of water. 

Seamless pipes are commonly 

produced and certified to meet ASTM 

A–106, ASTM A–53, API 5L–B, and API 

5L–X42 specifications. To avoid 

maintaining separate production runs 

and separate inventories, manufacturers 

typically triple or quadruple certify the 

pipes by meeting the metallurgical 

requirements and performing the 

required tests pursuant to the respective 

specifications. Since distributors sell the 

vast majority of this product, they can 

thereby maintain a single inventory to 

service all customers. 

The primary application of ASTM A–

106 pressure pipes and triple or 

quadruple certified pipes is use in 

pressure piping systems by refineries, 

petrochemical plants, and chemical 

plants. Other applications are in power 

generation plants (electrical–fossil fuel 

or nuclear), and in some oil field uses 

(on shore and off shore) such as for 

separator lines, gathering lines and 

metering runs. A minor application of 

this product is for use as oil and gas 

distribution lines for commercial 

applications. These applications 

constitute the majority of the market for 

the subject seamless pipes. However, 

ASTM A–106 pipes may be used in 

some boiler applications. 

Redraw hollows are any unfinished 

pipe or ‘‘hollow profiles’’ of carbon or 

alloy steel transformed by hot rolling or 

cold drawing/ hydrostatic testing or 

other methods to enable the material to 

be sold under ASTM A–53, ASTM A–

106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, 

ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–

795, and API 5L specifications. 

The scope of the orders includes all 

seamless pipe meeting the physical 

parameters described above and 

produced to one of the specifications 

listed above, regardless of application, 

with the exception of the specific 

exclusions discussed below, and 

whether or not also certified to a non–

covered specification. Standard, line, 

and pressure applications and the 

above–listed specifications are defining 

characteristics of the scope of the 

orders. Therefore, seamless pipes 

meeting the physical description above, 

but not produced to the ASTM A–53, 

ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–

334, ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, 

ASTM A–795, and API 5L specifications 

shall be covered if used in a standard, 

line, or pressure application, with the 

exception of the specific exclusions 

discussed below. For example, there are 

certain other ASTM specifications of 

pipe which, because of overlapping 

characteristics, could potentially be 

used in ASTM A–106 applications. 

These specifications generally include 

ASTM A–161, ASTM A–192, ASTM A–

210, ASTM A–252, ASTM A–501, 

ASTM A–523, ASTM A–524, and ASTM 

A–618. When such pipes are used in a 

standard, line, or pressure pipe 

application, with the exception of the 

specific exclusions discussed below, 

such products are covered by the scope 

of the orders. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

of the orders are boiler tubing and 

mechanical tubing, if such products are 

not produced to ASTM A–53, ASTM A–

106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, 

ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–

795, and API 5L specifications and are 

not used in standard, line, or pressure 

pipe applications. In addition, finished 

and unfinished oil country tubular 

goods (OCTG) are excluded from the 

scope of the orders, if covered by the 

scope of another antidumping duty 

order from the same country. If not 

covered by such an OCTG order, 

finished and unfinished OCTG are 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Notices 53153 

1Petitioners are the Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc., 

United States Steel Corporation, and Nucor 

Corporation. 

included in this scope when used in 

standard, line or pressure applications. 

With regard to the excluded products 

listed above, the Department will not 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to require end–use 

certification until such time as 

petitioner or other interested parties 

provide to the Department a reasonable 

basis to believe or suspect that the 

products are being used in a covered 

application. If such information is 

provided, we will require end–use 

certification only for the product(s) (or 

specification(s)) for which evidence is 

provided that such products are being 

used in covered applications as 

described above. For example, if, based 

on evidence provided by petitioner, the 

Department finds a reasonable basis to 

believe or suspect that seamless pipe 

produced to the A–161 specification is 

being used in a standard, line or 

pressure application, we will require 

end–use certifications for imports of 

that specification. Normally we will 

require only the importer of record to 

certify to the end use of the imported 

merchandise. If it later proves necessary 

for adequate implementation, we may 

also require producers who export such 

products to the United States to provide 

such certification on invoices 

accompanying shipments to the United 

States. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

merchandise subject to this scope is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these cases are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ from Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, to Joseph A. 

Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, dated August 

30, 2005, (Decision Memorandum), 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margin likely 

to prevail if the orders are revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in these sunset 

reviews and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in room 

B–099 of the main Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov, under the heading 

‘‘September 2005.’’ The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Reviews 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on pipe 

fittings from the Czech Republic, Japan, 

Romania, and South Africa would likely 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the following percentage 

weighted–average margins: 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

Czech Republic.

Nova Hut, A.S. ............................ 39.93 

All Others .................................... 32.26 

Japan.

Nippon Steel Corporation ........... 106.07 

Kawasaki Steel Corporation ....... 106.07 

Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. 106.07 

All Others .................................... 70.43 

Romania.

Metal Business International 

S.R.L. ...................................... 11.08 

S.C. Petrotub S.A. ...................... 11.08 

S.C. Silcotub S.A. ....................... 15.15 

Sota Communication Company .. 15.15 

All Others .................................... 13.06 

South Africa.

Iscor Ltd. ..................................... 43.51 

All Others .................................... 40.17 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: August 30, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E5–4868 Filed 9–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–580–816) 

Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon 

Steel Flat Products from the Republic 

of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results 

and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

petitioners, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting the eleventh administrative 

review of the antidumping order on 

corrosion–resistant carbon steel flat 

products (CORE) from Korea.1 This 

review covers five manufacturers and 

exporters (collectively, the respondents) 

of the subject merchandise: Dongshin 

Special Steel Co., Ltd., (Dongshin); 

Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu); 

Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO); Pohang Iron 

& Steel Company, Ltd. and Pohang 

Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS), and 

Pohang Steel Industries Co., Ltd. (PSI) 

(collectively, the POSCO Group); and 

Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

(Union). The period of review (POR) for 

this review is August 1, 2003, through 

July 31, 2004. We preliminarily 

determine that during the POR, Dongbu, 

the POSCO Group, and Union made 

sales of subject merchandise at less than 

normal value (NV). However, we 

preliminary determine that HYSCO did 

not make sales of subject merchandise at 

less than NV (i.e., sales were made at 

‘‘zero’’ or de minimis dumping 

margins). If these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results of this 

administrative review, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to assess HYSCO’s appropriate 

entries at an antidumping liability of 

zero percent of the entered value and 

instruct CBP to assess Dongbu, 

Dongshin, the POSCO Group, and 

Union at the rates referenced in the 

‘‘Preliminary Results of the Review’’

section of this notice. 

Furthermore, we are rescinding the 

request for review of the antidumping 

order for SeAH Steel Corporation 

(SeAH) because SeAH and its affiliates 

did not have exports or sales in the 

United States of subject merchandise 

manufactured or produced by SeAH 

during the POR. Because Dongshin 

failed to respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire, we preliminarily 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Notices 53159 

1 During the course of its investigation, the 

Department determined that Tubos de Aceros de 

Mexico, S.A. (TAMSA) was the sole producer of 

Large Diameter SSLPP in Mexico. See Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Large Diameter Carbon and 

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe 

From Mexico, 65 FR 5587 (February 4, 2000). 

entries by applying the assessment rate 

to the entered value of the merchandise. 

For assessment purposes, we calculated 

importer–specific assessment rates for 

the subject merchandise by aggregating 

the dumping margins for all U.S. sales 

to each importer and dividing the 

amount by the total entered value of the 

sales to that importer. In instances 

where entered value was not reported, 

we calculated importer–specific 

assessment rates by aggregating the 

dumping margins calculated for all of 

the U.S. sales examined and dividing 

this amount by the total quantity of the 

sales examined. To determine whether 

the duty assessment rates were 

de minimis, in accordance with the 

requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106 

(c)(2), we calculated importer–specific 

ad valorem ratios based on export 

prices. The Department will issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP within 15 days of 

publication of the final results of 

review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

To calculate the cash deposit rate for 

each producer and/or exporter included 

in this administrative review, we 

divided the total dumping margins for 

each company by the total net value for 

that company’s sales during the review 

period. 

The following deposit rates will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of CORE for Korea 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash 

deposit rates for the companies listed 

above will be the rates established in the 

final results of these reviews, except if 

the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, 

therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit 

will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed 

or investigated companies not listed 

above, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company–specific 

rate published for the most recent final 

results in which that manufacturer or 

exporter participated; (3) if the exporter 

is not a firm covered in these reviews, 

a prior review, or the original less than 

fair value investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent final results for the manufacturer 

of the merchandise; and (4) if neither 

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 

firm covered in these or any previous 

review conducted by the Department, 

the cash deposit rate will be 17.70 

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate 

established in the underlying 

investigation. See Orders on Certain 

Steel from Korea. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until publication of the 

final results of the next administrative 

review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

prior to liquidation of the relevant 

entries during this review period. 

Failure to comply with this requirement 

could result in the Secretary’s 

presumption that reimbursement of 

antidumping duties occurred and the 

subsequent assessment of double 

antidumping duties. 

This administrative review is issued 

and published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: August 31, 2005. 

Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E5–4867 Filed 9–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–588–850, A–201–827) 

Certain Large Diameter Carbon and 

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and 

Pressure Pipe from Japan and Mexico; 

Final Results of the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 2, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated sunset reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on certain 

large diameter carbon and alloy 

seamless standard, line and pressure 

pipe (Large Diameter SSLPP) from Japan 

and Mexico pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act). On the basis of a notice of 

intent to participate and an adequate 

substantive response filed on behalf of 

domestic interested parties and no 

response from respondent interested 

parties, the Department conducted 

expedited (120-day) sunset reviews for 

these orders. As a result of these sunset 

reviews, the Department finds that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

The dumping margins are identified in 

the Final Results of Reviews section of 

this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Saliha Loucif 

or David Goldberger, AD/CVD 

Operations, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–1779 and (202) 482–4136, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: 

On May 2, 2005, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset reviews of the antidumping duty 

orders on Large Diameter SSLPP from 

Japan and Mexico, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Fiveyear (Sunset) Reviews, 70 FR 22632 

(May 2, 2005). See also Procedures for 

Conducting Five-year (Sunset) Reviews 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516, 13522 

(March 20, 1998). On May 17, 2005, the 

Department received the Notice of 

Intent to Participate from United States 

Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) (the 

domestic interested party), within the 

deadline specified in section 

351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s 

Regulations. The domestic interested 

party claimed interested party status 

under section 771(9)(c) of the Act, as a 

manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler 

of the subject merchandise in the United 

States. 

On June 1, 2005, we received 

complete substantive responses from the 

domestic interested party within the 30- 

day deadline specified in section 

351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department’s 

Regulations. On the same day, Tubos de 

Aceros de Mexico, S.A. (TAMSA), the 

sole respondent in the investigation of 

Large Diameter SSLPP from Mexico, and 

the only known producer of subject 

merchandise in Mexico, submitted a 

waiver of participation.1 In the sunset 

reviews of Large Diameter SSLPP from 

Mexico and Japan, the Department has 

not received any notice of intent to 

participate nor substantive response 

from any respondent interested party. 

As a result, pursuant to section 

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(c)(2) of the 

Department’s Regulations, the 

53160 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Notices 

Department conducted expedited (120- 

day) sunset reviews of these orders. 

Scope of the Orders 

The products covered by this order 

are large diameter seamless carbon and 

alloy (other than stainless) steel 

standard, line, and pressure pipes 

produced, or equivalent, to the 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) A53, ASTM A106, 

ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, 

ASTM A795, and the American 

Petroleum Institute (API) 5L 

specifications and meeting the physical 

parameters described below, regardless 

of application, with the exception of the 

exclusions discussed below. The scope 

of this order also includes all other 

products used in standard, line, or 

pressure pipe applications and meeting 

the physical parameters described 

below, regardless of specification, with 

the exception of the exclusions 

discussed below. 

Specifically included within the 

scope of this order are seamless pipes 

greater than 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) up 

to and including 16 inches (406.4 mm) 

in outside diameter, regardless of wall–

thickness, manufacturing process (hot 

finished or cold–drawn), end finish 

(plain end, beveled end, upset end, 

threaded, or threaded and coupled), or 

surface finish. 

The seamless pipes subject to this 

order are currently classifiable under 

the subheadings 7304.10.10.30, 

7304.10.10.45, 7304.10.10.60, 

7304.10.50.50, 7304.31.60.50, 

7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 

7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 

7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 

7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 

7304.39.00.72, 7304.51.50.60, 

7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.30, 

7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 

7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 

7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 

7304.59.80.65, and 7304.59.80.70 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). 

Specifications, Characteristics, and 

Uses: Large diameter seamless pipe is 

used primarily for line applications 

such as oil, gas, or water pipeline, or 

utility distribution systems. Seamless 

pressure pipes are intended for the 

conveyance of water, steam, 

petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, 

natural gas, and other liquids and gasses 

in industrial piping systems. They may 

carry these substances at elevated 

pressures and temperatures and may be 

subject to the application of external 

heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure 

pipe meeting the ASTM A106 standard 

may be used in temperatures of up to 

1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME) code stress levels. 

Alloy pipes made to ASTM A335 

standard must be used if temperatures 

and stress levels exceed those allowed 

for ASTM A106. Seamless pressure 

pipes sold in the United States are 

commonly produced to the ASTM A106 

standard. 

Seamless standard pipes are most 

commonly produced to the ASTM A53 

specification and generally are not 

intended for high temperature service. 

They are intended for the low 

temperature and pressure conveyance of 

water, steam, natural gas, air and other 

liquids and gasses in plumbing and 

heating systems, air conditioning units, 

automatic sprinkler systems, and other 

related uses. Standard pipes (depending 

on type and code) may carry liquids at 

elevated temperatures but must not 

exceed relevant ASME code 

requirements. If exceptionally low 

temperature uses or conditions are 

anticipated, standard pipe may be 

manufactured to ASTM A333 or ASTM 

A334 specifications. 

Seamless line pipes are intended for 

the conveyance of oil and natural gas or 

other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line 

pipes are produced to the API 5L 

specification. Seamless water well pipe 

(ASTM A589) and seamless galvanized 

pipe for fire protection uses (ASTM 

A795) are used for the conveyance of 

water. Seamless pipes are commonly 

produced and certified to meet ASTM 

A106, ASTM A53, API 5L–B, and API 

5L–X42 specifications. To avoid 

maintaining separate production runs 

and separate inventories, manufacturers 

typically triple or quadruple certify the 

pipes by meeting the metallurgical 

requirements and performing the 

required tests pursuant to the respective 

specifications. Since distributors sell the 

vast majority of this product, they can 

thereby maintain a single inventory to 

service all customers. The primary 

application of ASTM A106 pressure 

pipes and triple or quadruple certified 

pipes in large diameters is for use as oil 

and gas distribution lines for 

commercial applications. A more minor 

application for large diameter seamless 

pipes is for use in pressure piping 

systems by refineries, petrochemical 

plants, and chemical plants, as well as 

in power generation plants and in some 

oil field uses (on shore and off shore) 

such as for separator lines, gathering 

lines and metering runs. These 

applications constitute the majority of 

the market for the subject seamless 

pipes. However, ASTM A106 pipes may 

be used in some boiler applications. 

The scope of this order includes all 

seamless pipe meeting the physical 

parameters described above and 

produced to one of the specifications 

listed above, regardless of application, 

with the exception of the exclusions 

discussed below, whether or not also 

certified to a non–covered specification. 

Standard, line, and pressure 

applications and the above–listed 

specifications are defining 

characteristics of the scope of this order. 

Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the 

physical description above, but not 

produced to the ASTM A53, ASTM 

A106, ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM 

A589, ASTM A795, and API 5L 

specifications shall be covered if used in 

a standard, line, or pressure application, 

with the exception of the specific 

exclusions discussed below. 

For example, there are certain other 

ASTM specifications of pipe which, 

because of overlapping characteristics, 

could potentially be used in ASTM 

A106 applications. These specifications 

generally include ASTM A161, ASTM 

A192, ASTM A210, ASTM A252, ASTM 

A501, ASTM A523, ASTM A524, and 

ASTM A618. When such pipes are used 

in a standard, line, or pressure pipe 

application, such products are covered 

by the scope of this order. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

of this order are: 

A. Boiler tubing and mechanical 

tubing, if such products are not 

produced to ASTM A53, ASTM A106, 

ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, 

ASTM A795, and API 5L specifications 

and are not used in standard, line, or 

pressure pipe applications. 

B. Finished and unfinished oil 

country tubular goods (OCTG), if 

covered by the scope of another 

antidumping duty order from the same 

country. If not covered by such an 

OCTG order, finished and unfinished 

OCTG are included in this scope when 

used in standard, line or pressure 

applications. 

C. Products produced to the A335 

specification unless they are used in an 

application that would normally utilize 

ASTM A53, ASTM A106, ASTM A333, 

ASTM A334, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, 

and API 5L specifications. 

D. Line and riser pipe for deepwater 

application, i.e., line and riser pipe that 

is (1) used in a deepwater application, 

which means for use in water depths of 

1,500 feet or more; (2) intended for use 

in and is actually used for a specific 

deepwater project; (3) rated for a 

specified minimum yield strength of not 

less than 60,000 psi; and (4) not 

identified or certified through the use of 

a monogram, stencil, or otherwise 

marked with an API specification (e.g., 

API 5L). With regard to the excluded 

products listed above, the Department 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 7, 2005 / Notices 53161 

1The Department found SMI and Sumitomo 

Corporation (SC) to be affiliated in a previous 

review. See Oil Country Tubular Goods From Japan; 

Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 

48589, 48591 (September 7, 1999). Neither SMI nor 

SC has placed information on the record of this 

review suggesting that the basis for this finding has 

changed. 

2Section A of the questionnaire requests general 

information concerning a company’s corporate 

Continued 

will not instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to require end–

use certification until such time as 

petitioner or other interested parties 

provide to the Department a reasonable 

basis to believe or suspect that the 

products are being utilized in a covered 

application. If such information is 

provided, the Department will require 

end–use certification only for the 

product(s) (or specification(s)) for which 

evidence is provided that such products 

are being used in a covered application 

as described above. For example, if, 

based on evidence provided by the 

petitioner, the Department finds a 

reasonable basis to believe or suspect 

that seamless pipe produced to the A–

335 specification is being used in an A–

106 application, it will require end–use 

certifications for imports of that 

specification. Normally the Department 

will require only the importer of record 

to certify to the end–use of the imported 

merchandise. If it later proves necessary 

for adequate implementation, the 

Department may also require producers 

who export such products to the United 

States to provide such certification on 

invoices accompanying shipments to 

the United States. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

subject to this order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders on Certain Large Diameter 

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, 

Line and Pressure Pipe from Japan and 

Mexico; Final Results (Decision Memo) 

from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated August 30, 2005, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the Decision 

Memo include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margins likely 

to prevail if the orders were to be 

revoked. Parties can find a complete 

discussion of all issues raised in these 

reviews and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum which is on file in room 

B–099 of the main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, 

under the heading ‘‘September 2005.’’

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memo are identical in 

content. 

Final Results of Reviews 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on Large 

Diameter SSLPP from Japan and Mexico 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping at the 

following weighted–average percentage 

margins: 

Manufacturers/Exporters/ 

Producers 

Weighted Average 

Margin (percent) 

Japan.

Nippon Steel Corporation 107.80 

Kawasaki Steel Corporation .............................. 107.80 

Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. (SMI) ........... 107.80 

All Others ........................ 68.80 

Mexico.

TAMSA ........................... 15.05 

All Others ........................ 15.05 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with section 351.305 of the 

Department’s Regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective orders is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation, which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: August 30, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E5–4847 Filed 9–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–588–835 

Oil Country Tubular Goods from 

Japan: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Partial Recission of 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on Oil Country 

Tubular Goods (OCTG) from Japan in 

response to requests by the United 

States Steel Corporation, a petitioner in 

the original investigation (petitioner). 

United States Steel Corporation 

requested administrative reviews of JFE 

Steel Corporation (JFE), Nippon Steel 

Corporation (Nippon), NKK Tubes 

(NKK) and Sumitomo Metal Industries, 

Ltd. (SMI). This review covers sales of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the period of August 1, 

2003 through July 31, 2004. 

We have preliminarily determined 

that NKK and SMI had no reviewable 

sales of subject merchandise during the 

period of review (POR) and that the 

review of these two companies should 

be rescinded. We have also 

preliminarily determined that adverse 

facts available should be applied to the 

remaining respondents, neither of 

which participated in this 

administrative review. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. See the Preliminary 

Results of Review section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Hoadley or Kimberley Hunt, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3148 or (202) 482–

1272, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

BACKGROUND 

On August 11, 1995, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on OCTG from Japan in the Federal 

Register (60 FR 41058). On August 3, 

2004, the Department published a notice 

of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of this order (69 

FR 46496). On August 31, 2004, the 

Department received a timely request 

for review from petitioner covering JFE, 

Nippon, NKK and SMI.1 On September 

22, 2004, we published a notice 

initiating an administrative review of 

the antidumping order on OCTG from 

Japan. See Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 69 FR 56745. 

The Department issued Sections A, B 

and C of its original questionnaire on 

November 12, 2004.2 On November 18, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 184 / Friday, September 23, 2005 / Notices 55917 

identified historical data. Consequently, 

a PHA cannot receive an award in 

excess of the amount predetermined for 

its size. The formulaic nature of the 

allocation process makes it irrelevant 

that a PHA may inadvertently or 

otherwise apply for an amount larger 

than HUD decided to award. HUD will 

not exceed the respective award limits 

for the different sizes of PHAs. 

Accordingly, in the Public Housing 

Graduation Incentive Bonus Program, 

HUD will remove paragraph III.C.2. 

entitled Excess Funding Requests. 

Dated: September 15, 2005. 

Paula O. Blunt, 

General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public 

and Indian Housing. 

[FR Doc. 05–18986 Filed 9–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[CA–668–1040–AA] 

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains 

National Monument Advisory 

Committee—Notice of Renewal 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of renewal. 

SUMMARY: This notice is published in 

accordance with section 9(a)(2) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 

1972 (Pub. L. 92–463). Notice is hereby 

given that the Secretary of the Interior 

and the Secretary of Agriculture have 

renewed the Bureau of Land 

Management’s Santa Rosa and San 

Jacinto Mountains National Monument 

Advisory Committee. 

The purpose of the Committee is to 

advise the Secretaries with respect to 

the preparation and implementation of 

the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 

Mountains National Monument 

Management Plan. 

Certification Statement 

I hereby certify that the renewal of the 

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains 

National Monument Advisory 

Committee is necessary and in the 

public interest in connection with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s and the 

Secretary of Agriculture’s 

responsibilities to manage the lands, 

resources, and facilities administered by 

the Bureau of Land Management and the 

Forest Service. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maggie Langlas, National Landscape 

Conservation System (WO–170), Bureau 

of Land Management, 1849 C Street, 

NW., Room 301 LS, Washington, DC 

20240–9998, telephone (202) 452–7787. 

Gale A. Norton, 

Secretary of the Interior. 

[FR Doc. 05–19057 Filed 9–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–40–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. Nos. 731–TA–846–850 (Review)] 

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, 

Line, and Pressure Pipe From the 

CZECH Republic, Japan, Mexico, 

Romania, and South Africa 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on carbon and alloy 

seamless standard, line, and pressure 

pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, 

Mexico, Romania, and South Africa. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of full reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on carbon and alloy seamless 

standard, line, and pressure pipe from 

the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, 

Romania, and South Africa would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher J. Cassise (202–708–5408), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On August 18, 2005, the 

Commission determined that responses 

to its notice of institution of the subject 

five-year reviews were such that full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act should proceed (70 FR 49680, 

August 24, 2005). A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements are available from the Office 

of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in these reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11 of the 

Commission’s rules, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the reviews need not 

file an additional notice of appearance. 

The Secretary will maintain a public 

service list containing the names and 

addresses of all persons, or their 

representatives, who are parties to the 

reviews. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A party 

granted access to BPI following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the reviews need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the reviews will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on February 10, 

2006, and a public version will be 

issued thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.64 of the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the 

reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on March 

2, 2006, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Requests to 

appear at the hearing should be filed in 

writing with the Secretary to the 

55918 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 184 / Friday, September 23, 2005 / Notices 

Commission on or before February 23, 

2006. A nonparty who has testimony 

that may aid the Commission’s 

deliberations may request permission to 

present a short statement at the hearing. 

All parties and nonparties desiring to 

appear at the hearing and make oral 

presentations should attend a 

prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 

a.m. on February 27, 2006, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Oral testimony and written 

materials to be submitted at the public 

hearing are governed by sections 

201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 

207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party to 

the reviews may submit a prehearing 

brief to the Commission. Prehearing 

briefs must conform with the provisions 

of section 207.65 of the Commission’s 

rules; the deadline for filing is February 

21, 2006. Parties may also file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the hearing, as provided 

in section 207.24 of the Commission’s 

rules, and posthearing briefs, which 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 207.67 of the Commission’s 

rules. The deadline for filing 

posthearing briefs is March 13, 2006; 

witness testimony must be filed no later 

than three days before the hearing. In 

addition, any person who has not 

entered an appearance as a party to the 

reviews may submit a written statement 

of information pertinent to the subject of 

the reviews on or before March 13, 

2006. On April 4, 2006, the Commission 

will make available to parties all 

information on which they have not had 

an opportunity to comment. Parties may 

submit final comments on this 

information on or before April 6, 2006, 

but such final comments must not 

contain new factual information and 

must otherwise comply with section 

207.68 of the Commission’s rules. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s rules; any submissions 

that contain BPI must also conform with 

the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II(C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

reviews must be served on all other 

parties to the reviews (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 19, 2005. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–18988 Filed 9–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 751–TA–28–29] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp and 

Prawns From India and Thailand 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Revised schedule for the subject 

investigations. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

McClure (202–205–3191), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 5, 

2005, the Commission published notice 

(70 FR 23884) of its institution of and 

schedule for investigations to be 

conducted pursuant to section 751(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(b)) (the Act) to review its 

determinations in investigation Nos. 

731–TA–1066–1067 (Final). In that 

notice, the Commission found good 

cause existed to waive rule 207.45(c), 

concerning the time for completion of 

changed circumstances review 

investigations, and established a 

completion deadline of October 31, 

2005. The Commission has now found 

that good cause exists to extend further 

the completion date for these review 

investigations, and has set a deadline for 

completion of these reviews of 

November 21, 2005. 

The Commission’s new schedule for 

the investigations is as follows: The 

deadline for filing posthearing briefs is 

October 5, 2005; the Commission will 

make its final release of information on 

October 25, 2005; and final party 

comments are due on October 28, 2005. 

For further information concerning 

these investigations see the 

Commission’s notice cited above and 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 16, 2005. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–18989 Filed 9–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–550] 

In the Matter of Certain Modified 

Vaccinia Ankara (‘‘MVA’’) Viruses and 

Vaccines and Pharmaceutical 

Compositions Based Thereon; Notice 

of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of investigation 

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a 

complaint was filed with the U.S. 

International Trade Commission on 

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2006 / Notices 8311 

Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study 

and associated Environmental Impact 

Statement that will address options for 

supplying additional water storage for 

the Yakima River Basin. Currently, sitespecific recreation-related information 

is unavailable for the primary reservoirs 

and rivers. In order to accurately assess 

the current recreation and recreationrelated economic environment within 

the Yakima River Basin, additional 

information must be collected from the 

recreationists who visit the reservoirs 

and rivers within the basin. Further, the 

survey information will allow 

Reclamation to adequately assess the 

recreation impacts that different options 

may have on the environment and the 

local economy. 

Description of Respondents: Yakima 

River Basin reservoir and river 

recreationists come from the cities of 

Yakima and Ellensburg, Washington, as 

well as the smaller communities within 

the basin. A large number of visitors 

also come from western Washington, in 

particular the Puget Sound communities 

of Seattle and Tacoma. A smaller 

portion of recreationists within the 

basin are out-of-state visitors. 

Frequency: This is a one-time 

voluntary survey. 

Estimated Completion Time: An 

average of 20 minutes per respondent. 

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 

3,216. 

Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 1.0. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 1,072. 

Estimate of Burden for Each Form: 

Form No. 

Burden estimate 

per form 

(in minutes) 

Number of 

respondents 

Annual burden 

on respondents 

(in hours) 

(Rivers) ............................................................................................................................ 20 1,340 447 

(Reservoirs) ..................................................................................................................... 20 1,876 625 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public 

review. Individual respondents may 

request that we withhold their home 

address from public disclosure, which 

we will honor to the extent allowable by 

law. There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold a 

respondent’s identity from public 

disclosure, as allowable by law. If you 

wish us to withhold your name and/or 

address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment. We will make all submissions 

from organizations or businesses, and 

from individuals identifying themselves 

as representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public disclosure in their entirety. 

Dated: February 7, 2006. 

Jerry Kelso, 

Area Manager, Upper Columbia Area Office, 

Pacific Northwest Region. 

[FR Doc. E6–2211 Filed 2–15–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. Nos. 731–TA–846–850 (Review)] 

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, 

Line, and Pressure Pipe From the 

Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, 

Romania, and South Africa 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Revised schedule for the subject 

reviews. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 10, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher J. Cassise (202–708–5408 or 

e-mail at chris.cassise@usitc.gov), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 12, 2005, the Commission 

established a schedule for the conduct 

of the full five-year reviews on carbon 

and alloy seamless standard, line, and 

pressure pipe from the Czech Republic, 

Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South 

Africa (70 FR 55917, September 23, 

2005). The Commission is revising its 

schedule. 

The Commission’s new schedule for 

the subject reviews is as follows: The 

closing of the record and the 

Commission’s final release of 

information is scheduled for March 31, 

2006 and final party comments are due 

on April 4, 2006. 

For further information concerning 

these reviews see the Commission’s 

notice cited above and the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: February 13, 2006. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–2277 Filed 2–15–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–540 and 541 

(Second Review)] 

Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe 

From Korea and Taiwan 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on certain welded stainless 

steel pipe from Korea and Taiwan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of full reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on certain welded stainless steel 

pipe from Korea and Taiwan would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
1

Commissioner Miller did not participate.

2

Commissioner Miller did not participate.

3

Commissioner Miller did not participate.

 EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan,

Mexico, Romania, and South Africa, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-846-850 (Review)

On August 5, 2005, the Commission unanimously determined that it should proceed to a

full review in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. §1675(c)(3)(B).

The Commission unanimously determined1

 that the domestic interested party group

response to the notice of institution was adequate. The Commission received an adequate

response filed jointly on behalf of three producers: United States Steel Corp., Koppel Steel Corp. and

V&M STAR. Because the Commission received an adequate response from domestic producers

accounting for a substantial percentage of U.S. production of small diameter pipe and all of the

production of large diameter pipe, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party

group response was adequate.

With respect to the reviews pertaining to the Czech Republic, Mexico, Romania, and

South Africa, the Commission unanimously determined2

 that the respondent interested party

group responses were adequate and determined to conduct full reviews. Foreign producers of

small diameter subject pipe, Mittal Steel Ostrava, Mittal Steel Roman and Mittal Steel South

Africa, filed an adequate joint response on behalf of respondents from the Czech Republic,

Romania and South Africa. S.C. Silcotub S.A., a producer and exporter of small diameter pipe

in Romania, also submitted an adequate response. These producers account for a majority of the

production of small diameter pipe in the Czech Republic and Romania, and all of the production

of small diameter pipe in South Africa. Tubos de Acero de Mexico S.A., a producer of large

diameter pipe in Mexico that accounts for all Mexican production, submitted an adequate

response as well.

As pertains to the review regarding Japan, only NKK Tubes, a producer of small and

large diameter pipe in Japan that accounts for a minority of production of both small and large

diameter Japanese pipe, filed a response. The Commission unanimously determined that the

respondent interested party group response was inadequate.3

 However, the Commission

determined to conduct a full review in order to promote administrative efficiency in light of its

decision to conduct full reviews with respect to carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and

pressure pipe from the Czech Republic, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa.

A record of the Commissioners' votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and at

the Commission's web site.
B-1

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe

from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and

 South Africa

Inv. Nos.: 731-TA-846-850 (Review)

Date and Time: March 2, 2006 - 9:30 a.m.

Session were held in connection with this investigation in the Main Hearing Room (room

101), 500 E Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

CONGRESSIONAL APPEARANCES:

The Honorable Melissa A. Hart, U.S. Congresswoman, U.S. House of Representatives,

4th District, Pennsylvania

The Honorable Artur Davis, U.S. Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives,

7th District, Alabama

The Honorable Tim Ryan, U.S. Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives,

17th District, Ohio

STATE GOVERNMENT APPEARANCES:

The Honorable Craig Foltin, Mayor, City of Lorain, Ohio

The Honorable Larry P. Langford, President and Commissioner of Finance and General

Services, Jefferson County Commission, Alabama

OPENING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (James C. Hecht,

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP)

In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (John M. Gurley,

Arent Fox PLLC)
B-4

In Support of Continuation of

 Antidumping Duty Orders:

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP 

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Unites States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”)

Koppel Steel Corporation (“Koppel Steel’)

Leslie J. Broglie, General Manager, Tubular

Products, U.S. Steel

Martin Leland, National Sales Manager,

U.S. Steel

William Buono, Marketing Manager, Tubular

Products, U.S. Steel

Thomas Verellen, Manager, Tubular Sales,

U.S. Steel

Michael Ramsey, Product Manager, Seamless

Tubular Products, Koppel Steel

James Durham, Chief Executive Officer,

Dixie Pipe Sales, LP

John Shoaff, Vice President, Marketing and

Alliances, Sooner Pipe, LP

Larry Binder, Manager, Tubular Products,

Red Man Pipe and Supply

Seth T. Kaplan, Vice President, Charles River

Associates

Robert E. Lighthizer )

John J. Mangan )

Stephen J. Narkin ) – OF COUNSEL

James C. Hecht )

Stephen P. Vaughn )
B-5

In Support of Continuation of

 Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

Schagrin Associates

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

V&M Star LP

Roger Lindgren, President and Chief Executive

Officer, V&M Star LP

Ronny R. Clark, General Manager, Sales and

Marketing, V&M Star LP

Roger B. Schagrin ) – OF COUNSEL

In Opposition to Continuation of

 Antidumping Duty Orders:

Arent Fox PLLC

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Mittal Steel Roman

Mittal Steel Ostrava

Mittal Steel South Africa Ltd.

S.C. Silcotub SA

George Allen, Manager, North America Energy

Tubular Sales, Mittal Steel North America

Alessandro Daneo, Economic and Financial

Planning Manager, S.C. Silcotub SA

John Reilly, Economist, Nathan Associates Inc.

John M. Gurley )

) – OF COUNSEL

Nancy A. Noonan )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (Stephen Vaughn, Skadden, Arps,

Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP; and Roger B. Schagrin, Schagrin Associates)

In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (John M. Gurley, Arent Fox PLLC)

C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005 2000-04 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 Czech Republic:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 11 367 355 1 1 130 -99.7 -96.5 3324.0 -3.3 -99.8 14929.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 71 359 2,008 3 3 115 -98.0 -50.1 408.6 458.8 -99.9 3961.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $456.83 $6,595.08 $979.53 $5,662.86 $3,290.03 $3,290.03 $889.12 620.2 1343.7 -85.1 478.1 -41.9 -73.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,914 909 408 865 79 67 221 -95.9 -52.5 -55.1 112.3 -90.9 231.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,553 1,018 1,205 2,872 513 401 531 -85.6 -71.3 18.3 138.3 -82.1 32.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,856.64 $1,120.79 $2,956.27 $3,319.53 $6,498.03 $6,017.74 $2,407.86 250.0 -39.6 163.8 12.3 95.8 -60.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Romania:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,436 16,573 9,182 11,562 18,718 13,531 1,611 444.7 382.3 -44.6 25.9 61.9 -88.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,722 8,122 4,627 6,102 12,996 8,966 1,971 654.8 371.7 -43.0 31.9 113.0 -78.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $501.06 $490.10 $503.87 $527.76 $694.27 $662.66 $1,224.13 38.6 -2.2 2.8 4.7 31.5 84.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 South Africa:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442 0 00000 -100.0 -100.0 (3) (3) (3) (3)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (3) (3) (3) (3)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $431.65 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) -100.0 -100.0 (3) (3) (3) (3)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,102 17,492 9,957 12,782 18,798 13,598 1,961 208.0 186.6 -43.1 28.4 47.1 -85.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,608 9,211 6,191 10,983 13,511 9,370 2,618 140.9 64.3 -32.8 77.4 23.0 -72.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $918.94 $526.60 $621.81 $859.21 $718.75 $689.04 $1,335.17 -21.8 -42.7 18.1 38.2 -16.3 93.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89,194 85,959 77,021 88,235 124,607 93,852 96,258 39.7 -3.6 -10.4 14.6 41.2 2.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63,994 61,022 55,627 63,866 93,355 67,965 101,949 45.9 -4.6 -8.8 14.8 46.2 50.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $717.47 $709.90 $722.24 $723.82 $749.19 $724.17 $1,059.11 4.4 -1.1 1.7 0.2 3.5 46.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95,296 103,451 86,977 101,017 143,405 107,451 98,219 50.5 8.6 -15.9 16.1 42.0 -8.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,601 70,233 61,818 74,849 106,866 77,335 104,566 53.5 0.9 -12.0 21.1 42.8 35.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $730.37 $678.90 $710.74 $740.95 $745.20 $719.73 $1,064.62 2.0 -7.0 4.7 4.3 0.6 47.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Less than 0.05 percent.

 (3) Not appliable.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics (HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.10.1020, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0024, 7304.59.8010, 7304.59.8015, 7304.39.0020, 7304.10.

C-3
Table C-2

Small diameter CSSLP pipe: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005 2000-04 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 Czech Republic:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 11 367 355 1 1 130 -99.7 -96.5 3324.0 -3.3 -99.8 14929.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 71 359 2,008 3 3 115 -98.0 -50.1 408.6 458.8 -99.9 3961.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $456.83 $6,595.08 $979.53 $5,662.86 $3,290.03 $3,290.03 $889.12 620.2 1343.7 -85.1 478.1 -41.9 -73.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,858 907 259 865 73 67 221 -96.1 -51.2 -71.5 234.3 -91.5 231.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,360 1,012 363 2,866 496 401 531 -85.2 -69.9 -64.1 689.6 -82.7 32.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,808.71 $1,115.81 $1,402.77 $3,313.68 $6,764.76 $6,017.74 $2,407.86 274.0 -38.3 25.7 136.2 104.1 -60.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Romania:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,436 16,573 9,182 11,562 18,718 13,531 1,611 444.7 382.3 -44.6 25.9 61.9 -88.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,722 8,122 4,627 6,102 12,996 8,966 1,971 654.8 371.7 -43.0 31.9 113.0 -78.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $501.06 $490.10 $503.87 $527.76 $694.27 $662.66 $1,224.13 38.6 -2.2 2.8 4.7 31.5 84.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 South Africa:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (3) (3) (3) (3)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (3) (3) (3) (3)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $431.65 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) -100.0 -100.0 (3) (3) (3) (3)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,046 17,490 9,808 12,782 18,793 13,598 1,961 210.8 189.3 -43.9 30.3 47.0 -85.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,414 9,205 5,349 10,976 13,494 9,370 2,618 149.2 70.0 -41.9 105.2 22.9 -72.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $895.49 $526.27 $545.38 $858.74 $718.05 $689.04 $1,335.17 -19.8 -41.2 3.6 57.5 -16.4 93.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88,849 85,853 76,226 66,690 124,466 93,734 95,317 40.1 -3.4 -11.2 -12.5 86.6 1.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63,413 60,774 55,002 49,911 93,219 67,852 100,915 47.0 -4.2 -9.5 -9.3 86.8 48.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $713.72 $707.89 $721.57 $748.40 $748.95 $723.88 $1,058.73 4.9 -0.8 1.9 3.7 0.1 46.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94,895 103,343 86,034 79,472 143,258 107,332 97,278 51.0 8.9 -16.7 -7.6 80.3 -9.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,827 69,979 60,351 60,888 106,713 77,222 103,533 55.0 1.7 -13.8 0.9 75.3 34.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $725.30 $677.15 $701.48 $766.15 $744.90 $719.47 $1,064.30 2.7 -6.6 3.6 9.2 -2.8 47.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Less than 0.05 percent.

 (3) Not appliable.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics (HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.10.1020, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024, 7304.59.8010, 7304.59

C-4
Table C-3

Small diameter ASSLP pipe: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-04, January-September 2004, and January-September 2005

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2004 2005 2000-04 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 Czech Republic:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 2 149 0.4 6 0 0 -89.9 -96.6 7628.7 -99.7 1399.7 (3)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 7 842 6 17 0 0 -91.1 -96.6 12525.2 -99.3 172.3 (3)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,440.92 $3,462.18 $5,655.62 $16,751.26 $3,041.20 (3) (3) -11.6 0.6 63.4 196.2 -81.8 (3)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Romania:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 South Africa:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 2 149 0 6 0 0 -89.9 -96.6 7628.7 -99.7 1399.7 (3)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 7 842 6 17 0 0 -91.1 -96.6 12525.2 -99.3 172.3 (3)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,440.92 $3,462.18 $5,655.62 $16,751.26 $3,041.20 (3) (3) -11.6 0.6 63.4 196.2 -81.8 (3)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 106 795 21,545 141 118 941 -59.1 -69.3 649.6 2610.6 -99.3 694.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581 248 625 13,955 136 113 1,034 -76.7 -57.3 151.9 2133.2 -99.0 815.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,683.38 $2,339.47 $786.20 $647.72 $959.98 $953.44 $1,097.91 -43.0 39.0 -66.4 -17.6 48.2 15.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 108 944 21,545 147 118 941 -63.4 -73.1 774.2 2182.9 -99.3 694.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774 255 1,467 13,961 153 113 1,034 -80.3 -67.1 476.0 851.6 -98.9 815.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,929.50 $2,359.51 $1,554.58 $648.00 $1,040.12 $953.44 $1,097.91 -46.1 22.3 -34.1 -58.3 60.5 15.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Less than 0.05 percent.

 (3) Not appliable.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics (HTS statistical reporting number 7304.10.5020).

C-5
C-6

Table C-4

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-04, JanuarySeptember 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Table C-5

Large diameter CSSLP pipe: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-04, JanuarySeptember 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *

Table C-6

Large diameter ASSLP pipe: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-04, JanuarySeptember 2004, and January-September 2005

* * * * * * *
D-1

APPENDIX D

U.S. PRODUCERS’, U.S. IMPORTERS’, U.S. PURCHASERS’, AND FOREIGN

PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF

REVOCATION

D-3

U.S. PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND THE

LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

U.S. producers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in the character of their

operations or organization relating to the production of CASSLP pipe in the future if the antidumping

orders were to be revoked. (Question II-4). Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

U.S. producers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in their production capacity,

production, U.S. shipments, purchases, or employment relating to the production of CASSLP pipe in the

future if the antidumping orders were to be revoked. (Question II-16). Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

U.S. producers were asked to describe the significance of the existing antidumping orders

covering CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa in terms of

their effects on their production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases,

employment, revenues, costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development

expenditures, and asset values. (Question II-15). Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND THE

LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

U.S. importers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in the character of their

operations or organization relating to the importation of CASSLP pipe in the future if the antidumping

orders were to be revoked. (Question II-4). Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

U.S. importers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in their imports, U.S. shipments

of imports, or inventories of CASSLP pipe in the future if the antidumping orders were to be revoked. 

(Question II-9). Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

U.S. importers were asked to describe the significance of the existing antidumping orders

covering CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa in terms of

their effects on their imports, U.S. shipments of imports, and inventories. (Question II-8). Their

responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *
D-4

U.S. PURCHASERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND THE

LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

U.S. purchasers were asked to describe the likely effects of any revocation of the antidumping

orders covering imports of small diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and

South Africa and imports of large diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Mexico in terms of (1) its

future activities and (2) the U.S. market as a whole. (Question III-35). Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

FOREIGN PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND

THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Foreign producers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in the character of their

operations or organization relating to the production of CASSLP pipe in the future if the antidumping

orders were to be revoked. (Question II-3) Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

Foreign producers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in their production capacity,

production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other markets, or inventories

relating to the production of CASSLP pipe in the future if the antidumping orders were to be revoked. 

(Question II-15) Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

Foreign producers were asked to describe the significance of the existing antidumping orders

covering imports of CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa

in terms of their effects on their production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the

United States and other markets, or inventories. (Question II-14) Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *
E-1

APPENDIX E

SELECTED COMMENTS REGARDING COMPARABILITY OF

CARBON AND ALLOY SEAMLESS STANDARD, LINE, AND PRESSURE

PIPE

 1

 Companies that did not provide a response to these questions or which indicated a lack of knowledge regarding

similarities or differences between the products (e.g., U.S. importers ***) are excluded from this appendix. Also

excluded are companies that did not answer the question as presented (e.g., ***).

E-3

In its questionnaires, the Commission requested U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and U.S.

purchasers to compare and contrast certain aspects of carbon steel and alloy steel SSLP. The selected

responses are as follows:1

PRODUCERS OF SMALL DIAMETER PIPE

Characteristics and uses

* * * * * * *

Interchangeability

* * * * * * *

Manufacturing processes

* * * * * * *

Channels of distribution

* * * * * * *

Customer & Producer Perceptions

* * * * * * *

Price

* * * * * * *

PURCHASERS OF SMALL DIAMETER PIPE

Characteristics and uses

* * * * * * *

Interchangeability

* * * * * * *
E-4

* * * * * * *

Manufacturing processes

* * * * * * *

Channels of distribution

* * * * * * *

Customer & Producer Perceptions

* * * * * * *

Price

IMPORTERS OF SMALL DIAMETER PIPE

Characteristics and uses

* * * * * * *

Interchangeability

* * * * * * *

Manufacturing processes

* * * * * * *

Channels of distribution

* * * * * * *

Customer & Producer Perceptions

* * * * * * *

Price

* * * * * * *

PRODUCERS OF LARGE DIAMETER PIPE

Characteristics and uses

* * * * * * *
E-5

Interchangeability

* * * * * * *

Manufacturing processes

* * * * * * *

Channels of distribution

* * * * * * *

Customer & Producer Perceptions

* * * * * * *

Price

* * * * * * *

PURCHASERS OF LARGE DIAMETER PIPE

Characteristics and uses

* * * * * * *

Interchangeability

* * * * * * *

Manufacturing processes

* * * * * * *

Channels of distribution

* * * * * * *

Customer & Producer Perceptions

* * * * * * *

IMPORTERS OF LARGE DIAMETER PIPE

Characteristics and uses

* * * * * * *
E-6

Interchangeability

* * * * * * *

Manufacturing processes

* * * * * * *

Channels of distribution

* * * * * * *

Customer & Producer Perceptions

* * * * * * *

Price

* * * * * * *
F-1

APPENDIX F

U.S. IMPORT DATA FOR NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

Table F-1

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. imports, by source, 1997-2004 and January-September 2004-05

COUNTRY 1997 1998 1999

Quantity (short tons)

Czech Republic 3,699 7,070 5,242

Japan 14,554 32,314 24,645

Romania 42,922 37,848 13,013

South Africa 3,947 10,422 3,851

 Subtotal 65,123 87,653 46,751

All other 34,519 48,466 35,792

 Total 99,642 136,119 82,543

Argentina 2,074 2,569 1,687

Australia 0 0 0

Austria 1,517 5,322 4,789

Belgium 380 159 78

Brazil 1,837 2,179 747

Canada 7,791 9,588 5,029

China 784 3,384 2,064

Colombia 0 0 25

Denmark 1 0 0

France 11,266 6,179 4,800

Germany 5,286 9,060 7,326

Hong Kong 1 0 2

India 37 0 212

Israel 0 0 0

Italy 91 134 869

Korea 24 133 123

Luxembourg 1 0 3

Mexico 106 491 178

Netherlands 37 140 23

New Zealand 0 0 0

Norway 0 18 1,102

Pakistan 0 0 0

Poland 459 1 0

Russia 0 21 124

Singapore 3 0 45

Slovak Republic 413 296 552

Slovenia 0 0 256

Spain 1,391 3,081 5,267

Sweden 25 22 15

Switzerland 0 0 25

Taiwan 31 40 44

Turkey 884 0 0

Ukraine 0 5,557 159

United Kingdom 78 91 248

Venezuela 0 0 2
Table F-1--Continued

Small diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. imports, by source, 1997-2004 and Jan.-Sept. 2004-05

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Jan.-Sept. 2004 Jan.-Sept. 2005

Quantity (short tons)

Czech Republic 310 11 367 355 1 1 130

Japan 1,914 909 408 865 79 67 221

Romania 3,436 16,573 9,182 11,562 18,718 13,531 1,611

South Africa 442 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Subtotal 6,102 17,492 9,957 12,782 18,798 13,598 1,961

All other 89,194 85,959 77,021 88,235 124,607 93,852 96,258

 Total 95,296 103,451 86,977 101,017 143,405 107,451 98,219

Argentina 1,053 2,239 944 1,720 3,163 1,950 1,065

Australia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Austria 12,767 9,609 7,936 8,141 10,600 8,492 10,479

Belgium 114 3 2 0 0 0 0

Brazil 2,329 8 42 44 1,234 1,233 48

Canada 8,081 12,110 15,079 30,352 2,178 2,074 3,453

China 15,448 25,983 13,313 13,633 31,610 21,273 30,033

Costa Rica 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

Denmark 0 14 0 5 3 3 1

Finland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

France 22,472 12,290 9,090 3,910 16,659 14,020 8,661

Germany 6,067 4,536 6,386 7,852 9,158 6,692 6,087

Hong Kong 1 0 0 0 3 0 0

Hungary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

India 247 136 585 158 3,713 2,525 1,937

Indonesia 0 0 72 0 0 0 0

Israel 0 0 0 8 0 0 0

Italy 1,795 485 4,128 2,687 3,379 3,009 3,726

Korea 26 3 25 691 546 445 1,188

Latvia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mexico 189 100 56 241 0 0 1

Netherlands 33 0 18 6 0 0 0

Norway 0 8 5 55 3 3 37

Pakistan 882 0 0 0 0 0 0

Poland 641 0 13 0 0 0 0

Russia 100 0 0 203 1,397 648 1,952

Singapore 1 0 0 0 0 0 5

Slovak Republic 4,051 6,816 7,257 6,152 6,848 6,121 5,391

Slovenia 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spain 11,928 8,989 2,989 6,943 13,980 11,544 6,393

Sweden 9 5 11 150 59 48 64

Switzerland 12 1 0 0 0 0 0

Taiwan 29 40 128 176 42 29 45

Thailand 0 0 0 5 0 0 16

Turkey 0 0 22 16 1 0 0

Ukraine 810 1,932 8,634 4,817 19,717 13,487 15,583

United Arab Em 0 0 48 0 0 0 0

United Kingdom 97 653 235 267 114 59 94

Venezuela 7 0 0 0 194 194 0

Source: Official Commerce statistics.
Table F-2

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. imports, by source, 1997-2004 and January-September 2004-05

COUNTRY 1997 1998 1999

Quantity (short tons)

Japan 36,105 69,771 58,133

Mexico 28,164 52,775 6,882

 Subtotal 64,269 122,546 65,014

All other 55,465 67,667 48,472

 Total 119,734 190,214 113,486

Total 119,734 190,214 113,486

Algeria 0 0 0

Argentina 197 633 3,941

Australia 19 0 0

Austria 54 1,112 1,643

Belgium 320 0 6

Brazil 18,161 13,377 7,428

Canada 366 519 5,494

China 276 1,108 2,118

Croatia 1,152 5,205 32

Czech Republic 9,260 13,501 5,682

France 4,477 3,476 635

Germany 9,862 13,767 12,228

India 0 46 0

Italy 340 954 2,887

Korea 10 26 433

Latvia 0 0 0

Netherlands 2,204 1,332 60

New Zealand 1,323 0 0

Norway 0 243 238

Pakistan 0 0 0

Poland 583 0 0

Romania 3,317 6,491 572

Russia 0 323 1,114

Singapore 0 3 0

Slovak Republic 0 0 0

South Africa 755 4,862 1,026

Spain 112 5 2,076

Sweden 0 0 6

Switzerland 0 2 46

Taiwan 0 11 8

Turkey 2,295 0 0

Ukraine 0 591 719

United Kingdom 382 83 78
Table F-2--Continued

Large diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. imports, by source, 1997-2004 and January-September 2004-05

* * * * * * *