U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4154 May 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Japan, 

Korea, Spain, and Taiwan

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-770-773 and 775 (Second Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Edward Petronzio, Investigator 

Gerald Houck, Industry Analyst 

John Benedetto, Economist 

Steven Hudgens, Statistician 

Charles Yost, Accountant 

Mary Jane Alves, Attorney 

David Fishberg, Attorney 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4154 May 2010

Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Japan, 

Korea, Spain, and Taiwan

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-770-773 and 775 (Second Review)
 
CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Dissenting views of Chairman Shara L. Aranoff with respect to subject imports from Italy and

separate and dissenting views of Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna

Tanner Okun with respect to subject imports from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan . 47

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

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

The original investigations and subsequent five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Stainless steel wire rod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Stainless steel bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Stainless steel wire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Safeguard investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Changed-circumstances reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Scope inquiry reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Results of five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-24

U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

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

U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Geographical markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-1

Supply ................................................................... II-1

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-7

i
CONTENTS

Page

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market–Continued

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

U.S. purchasers ............................................................ II-11

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-13

Comparisons of the U.S.-produced and imported SSWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-18

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-21

U.S. supply elasticity ....................................................... II-21

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-22

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-22

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

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

Background ............................................................... III-1

Changes experienced in operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

Anticipated changes in existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization .......................... III-2

Constraints on capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

U.S. producers’ shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-3

U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity ................................ III-3

Financial experience of U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

Background ............................................................... III-4

Operations on SSWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

Variance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6

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

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses ........................ III-7

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

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

Fungibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

Geographical markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

Presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

The subject foreign industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

Exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

Net trade balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

The industry in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12

The industry in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

The industry in Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-14

The industry in Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15

The industry in Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-16

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-17

Production capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-17

Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-17

Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-18

ii
CONTENTS

Page

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

Factors affecting pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Raw material costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

U.S. prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

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. Responses of U.S. producers, U.S. importers, U.S. purchasers, and foreign producers concerning 

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

E. Construction and motor vehicle markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

F. Raw materials and energy prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

G. Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-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.

iii
 
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-770-773 and 775 (Second Review)

STAINLESS STEEL WIRE ROD FROM ITALY, JAPAN, KOREA, SPAIN, AND TAIWAN

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)), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel wire rod

from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.2

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these reviews effective July 1, 2009 (74 F.R. 31765, July 2, 2009) and

determined on October 5, 2009, that it would conduct full reviews (74 F.R. 54068, October 21, 2009). 

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 November

30, 2009 (74 F.R. 62588). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on April 8, 2010, and all persons

who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

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

 2

 Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun

dissenting with respect to Italy. Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun

dissenting with respect to Korea and Spain. 

1
 
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 Tariff Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on subject

imports of stainless steel wire rod (“SSWR”) from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan 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

I. BACKGROUND

A. Original Investigations

In response to countervailing and antidumping duty petitions filed on July 30, 1997, by Al Tech

Specialty Steel Corp. (“Al Tech”), Carpenter Technology Corp. (“Carpenter”), Republic Engineered

Steels, Inc. (“Republic”), Talley Metals Technology, Inc. (“Talley”), and the United Steelworkers of

America, AFL-CIO/CLC, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determined on

September 1, 1998, that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of subject

imports of SSWR from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan.2

 On September 15, 1998, the

U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued a countervailing duty order on subject imports from

 1 Chairman Aranoff, Vice Chairman Pearson, and Commissioner Okun find that revocation of the antidumping

duty order on SSWR 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. See Separate and Dissenting Views of Chairman

Aranoff, Vice Chairman Pearson, and Commissioner Okun regarding subject imports from Italy. Vice Chairman

Pearson and Commissioner Okun find that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on SSWR from Korea and

Spain 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. See Separate and Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Pearson and

Commissioner Okun regarding subject imports from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan. Chairman Aranoff

joins this opinion except as otherwise noted, whereas Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun join sections

I to IV-B, sections IV-C and IV-D with respect to subject imports from Japan and Taiwan, and section V-A of this

opinion except as otherwise noted.

 2

 See, e.g., Confidential Report, Memo. INV-HH-046 (“CR”) at I-3 (May 3, 2010); Public Report, Stainless Steel

Wire Rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-770 to 773 and 775 (Second

Review), USITC Pub. 4154 (“PR”) at I-2 (May 2010). (Commissioners Askey and Crawford issued separate

dissenting opinions in which they explained their negative final determinations. Commissioner Hillman did not

participate in the original investigations). The Commission made a negative final determination with respect to

subject imports from Germany. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain,

Sweden, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-373 and 731-TA-769-775 (Final), USITC Pub. 3126 (Sept. 1998)

(containing the public version of the Commission’s views and report from the original investigations); Confidential

Version of the Commission’s Original Determinations (EDIS document 410260) (“OCD”); and Confidential Version

of the Report from the Original Investigations, Memorandum INV-V-057 (Aug. 11, 1998) (EDIS document number

410253), as revised by INV-V-058 (Aug. 12, 1998) (EDIS document 410256) and INV-V-060 (Aug. 18, 1998)

(EDIS document 410254) and as supplemented by INV-V-061 (Aug. 19, 1998) (EDIS document 410258);

INV-V-066 (Aug. 25, 1998) (EDIS document 410257); INV-V-067 (Aug. 28, 1998) (EDIS document 410255) and

by INV-V-068 (EDIS document 410259) (“OCR”). The Commission’s negative determination with respect to

subject imports from Germany was affirmed on appeal. Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp. v. United States, 27 CIT 1791

(Dec. 16, 2003).

3
Italy and antidumping duty orders on subject imports from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and

Taiwan.3

Because it found de minimis antidumping duty margins for three subject producers in the original

investigations, Commerce excluded Hitachi Metals, Ltd. (“Hitachi”) (Japan), Yieh Hsing Enterprise Corp.

Ltd. (“Yieh Hsing”) (Taiwan), and Acciaierie Valbruna S.r.l. (“Valbruna”) (Italy) from the scope of those

antidumping duty orders.4

 Valbruna, however, remained subject to a countervailing duty order on subject

imports from Italy, until Commerce revoked that order effective September 15, 2003, as a result of its

negative first five-year reviews of that order.5

B. First Reviews

In full first five-year reviews initiated on August 1, 2003, the Commission determined on July 28,

2004, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on SSWR imports from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain,

Sweden, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.6

 Italian producer Cogne appealed the

Commission’s decision to cumulate subject imports from Italy with imports from the other subject

countries, particularly the Commission’s finding that subject imports from Italy were not likely to have no

discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.7

 The U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”)

upheld the Commission’s affirmative five-year review determination concerning subject imports from

Italy.8

 Separately, Commerce revoked the antidumping duty order on SSWR imports from Sweden

effective April 23, 2007.9

 3 See, e.g., 63 Fed. Reg. 49334 (Italy CVD); 63 Fed. Reg. 49327 (Italy AD), 49329 (Japan AD), 49331 (Korea

AD), 49330 (Spain AD), 49329 (Sweden AD), 49332 (Taiwan AD).

 4

 See, e.g., 63 Fed. Reg. 49334 (Italy); 63 Fed. Reg. 49329 (Japan); 63 Fed. Reg. 49332 (Taiwan).

 5

 See, e.g., 69 Fed. Reg. 40354 (Jul. 2, 2004). Commerce already had excluded Cogne Acciai Speciali S.p.A.

(“Cogne”) from the countervailing duty order on SSWR from Italy, as of November 7, 2003, in response to a report

issued by the WTO Appellate Body concerning privatization. See, e.g., 68 FR 64858 (Nov. 17, 2003).

 6

 See, e.g., Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA770-775 (Review), USITC Pub. 3707 (Jul. 2004) (containing the public version of the Commission’s views and

report); Confidential First-Review Determinations (EDIS document 410265) (“1CD”); and Confidential Report for

First Five-Year Reviews, Memorandum INV-BB-074 (June 10, 2004) (EDIS document 410262), as supplemented

by Memorandum INV-BB-081 (June 24, 2004) (EDIS document 410469) and as revised by Memorandum

INV-BB-082 (June 29, 2004) (EDIS document 410470) and INV-BB-089 (July 7, 2004) (EDIS document 410263)

(“1CR”). The Commission’s opinion reflected the views of Commissioners Lane, Hillman, Koplan, and Miller. 

Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun dissented with respect to SSWR from Italy, Korea, Spain, and

Sweden.

 7

 Cogne Acciai Speciali S.P.A. v. United States, 29 CIT 1168 (2005).

 8

 The CIT concluded that substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding, because the Italian producer

had both excess capacity and the ability to shift SSWR between export markets and was likely to find the U.S.

market more attractive than others in the reasonably foreseeable future. Id.

 9 See, e.g., 72 Fed. Reg. 25261 (May 4, 2007) (determination issued under section 129 of the URAA (19 U.S.C. §

3538(b)(2)) in response to the WTO panel report in United States – Laws, Regulations, and Methodology for

Calculating Dumping Margins (Zeroing) (EC)).

4
C. The Current Reviews

The Commission instituted these second five-year reviews effective July 1, 2009.10 The

Commission received responses to the notice of institution from domestic producer Carpenter, Italian

producer Cogne, and Korean producer POSCO Specialty Steel Co., Ltd. (“POSCOSS”).11 The

Commission decided to conduct full reviews of the antidumping duty orders on subject imports from Italy

and Korea in light of adequate domestic and respondent interested party responses. It decided to conduct

full reviews of each of the other orders for administrative efficiency.12

The Commission received pre- and post-hearing briefs filed on behalf of domestic producer

Carpenter. Along with Carpenter, domestic producers North American Stainless (“NAS”) and Universal

Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc. (“Universal”) submitted questionnaire responses and participated in the

Commission’s hearing.13 The Commission also received pre- and post-hearing briefs from Italian

producer Cogne and a pre-hearing brief from Korean producer POSCOSS. Cogne’s counsel also

participated in the Commission’s hearing.

In these reviews, the Commission received useable questionnaire responses from four domestic

firms that accounted for *** U.S. production and sales of SSWR in 2009: Allvac, Carpenter, NAS, and

Universal.14 The Commission received foreign producers’ questionnaires from Cogne and POSCOSS,

which are the only known producers of subject merchandise in Italy and Korea, respectively. No other

foreign producers of subject merchandise submitted questionnaire responses in these reviews.15 The

Commission also received questionnaire responses from 16 U.S. importers of SSWR and from 19 firms

that reported they have not imported SSWR since 2004.16 The Commission mailed purchaser

questionnaires to 33 companies believed to purchase SSWR. The Commission received questionnaire

responses from nine purchasers whose purchase quantities represented 16.5 percent of U.S. producers’

total U.S. shipments in 2009 and 20.6 percent in 2008, while representing 44.6 percent of U.S. producers’

U.S. commercial shipments in 2009 and 55.1 percent in 2008.17

 10 See, e.g., 74 Fed. Reg. 31765 (Jul. 2, 2009).

 11 The Commission determined that Carpenter’s individual response and the domestic interested party group

response were adequate, as were the individual and respondent interested party group responses for Italy and Korea

filed by Cogne and POSCOSS. The Commission did not receive a response to its notice of institution from any

respondent interested parties in the reviews concerning subject imports from Japan, Spain, or Taiwan, and therefore

determined that the respondent interested party group responses for these countries were not adequate. See, e.g.,

CR/PR at App. A (Explanation of Commission’s Determinations on Adequacy).

 12 See, e.g., CR/PR at App. A (Explanation of Commission’s Determinations on Adequacy).

 13 Domestic producer ATI Allvac (“Allvac”) (a division of Allegheny Technologies Inc.) also submitted a

questionnaire but did not participate in the hearing.

 14 A fifth firm, Latrobe Specialty Steel (“Latrobe”), did not submit a complete questionnaire response but reported

an annual capacity of *** short tons, which is less than *** percent of total U.S. SSWR production. A sixth firm,

Charter Specialty Steel (“Charter”), produced SSWR during the earlier portion of the current review period but

permanently exited the SSWR business in 2008. Although Charter submitted a domestic producer’s questionnaire

response during the first reviews, it did not submit one in these reviews. Data on its shipments submitted during the

Commission’s second reviews of the orders on SSWR from Brazil, France, and India, however, were included on the

record in these reviews and updated to cover the remainder of the data collection period. See, e.g., CR at I-29, III-1;

PR at I-21 to I-22, III-1.

 15 See, e.g., CR at IV-14 to IV-28; PR at IV-12 to IV-17.

 16 See, e.g., CR at I-31; PR at I-24; CR/PR at Table I-9.

 17 See, e.g., CR at I-33; PR at I-25.

5
D. Other Investigations/Reviews/Orders Involving the Same or Related Products

Since December 1, 1993, an antidumping duty order has been in place on SSWR from India, and

the Commission is scheduled to initiate a third five-year review of this order in July 2011 under section

751(c) of the Tariff Act.18 Antidumping duty orders on imports of SSWR from Brazil and France, which

had been the subject of companion investigations and five-year reviews, were revoked on August 8, 2006,

as a consequence of the Commission’s negative determinations in second five-year reviews of those

orders.19 A countervailing duty order on SSWR imports from Spain that had been imposed pursuant to an

investigation completed in 198220 was revoked on August 2, 2000, as a consequence of the Commission’s

negative first five-year review of that order.21 The Commission has also conducted antidumping and/or

countervailing duty investigations of two of the downstream products for which SSWR is an intermediate

 18 See, e.g., Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India, Inv. No. 731-TA-638 (Final), USITC Pub. 2704 (Nov. 1993)

(original determination); 58 Fed. Reg. 6335 (Dec. 1, 1993) (antidumping duty order); Stainless Steel Wire Rod from

Brazil, India, France, and Spain, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-178 and 731-TA-636 to 638 (Review), USITC Pub. 3321 (Jul.

2000) (affirmative five-year review determinations with respect to imports from Brazil, India, and France and

negative determination with respect to imports from Spain, with Commissioners Okun, Askey, and Koplan

dissenting with respect to imports from France); Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, India, and France, Invs. Nos.

731-TA-636 to 638 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3866 (July 2006) (affirmative five-year review determination

with respect to imports from India and negative determinations with respect to imports from Brazil and France, with

Commissioner Lane dissenting with respect to imports from Brazil and France and Commissioner Koplan dissenting

with respect to imports from Brazil).

 19 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3866 (negative determinations with respect to subject imports from Brazil and France,

Commissioner Lane dissenting with respect to Brazil and France and Commissioner Koplan dissenting with respect

to Brazil); 71 Fed. Reg. 450130 (Aug. 8, 2006) (revocation of antidumping duty orders on imports from Brazil and

France).

 20 See, e.g., Hot Rolled Stainless Steel Bar, Cold Formed Stainless Steel Bar, and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from

Spain, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-176 to 178 (Final), USITC Pub. 1333 (Dec. 1982).

 21 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3321; 65 Fed. Reg. 47409 (Aug. 2, 2000) (revocation of countervailing duty order on

imports from Spain). The Commission’s affirmative five-year review companion determination with respect to

SSWR from France was affirmed on appeal. See, e.g., Ugine-Savoie Imphy v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1208

(Ct. Int’l Trade 2002).

6
product – stainless steel wire22 and stainless steel bar.23 The United States has also imposed import relief

measures on imports of stainless steel products that included SSWR.24

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

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

domestic like product” and the “industry.”25 The Tariff Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product

which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to

an investigation under this subtitle.”26 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the

like product definition from the original determinations and any completed reviews and consider whether

the record indicates any reason to revisit the prior finding(s).27

A. Product Description

Commerce has defined the scope of the orders subject to these reviews as follows:

{stainless steel} products that are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or

descaled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons, or other shapes, in coils, that may also be

coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime, or oxalate. SSWR is made of alloy steels

 22 In May 1999, the Commission made negative final injury determinations concerning imports of stainless steel

round wire from Canada, India, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan that Commerce had found were sold at less-thanfair value in the United States. See, e.g., CR at I-8; PR at I-5.

 23 Between 1983 and 1988, subsidized imports of stainless steel bar from Brazil were subject to a suspension

agreement, whereas a countervailing duty investigation of stainless steel bar imports from Spain yielded a negative

final injury determination in 1982. See, e.g., CR at I-6; PR at I-4. In the first quarter of 1995, Commerce issued

antidumping duty orders on stainless steel bar imports from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain, but not imports from

Italy, for which the Commission had made a negative final injury determination. See, e.g., CR at I-6; PR at I-4. The

Commission made affirmative first and second five-year review determinations concerning those orders in 2001 and

2007, respectively. See, e.g., CR at I-6 to I-7; PR at I-4. Separately, stainless steel bar imports from France,

Germany, Italy, Korea, and the United Kingdom became subject to antidumping duty orders in 2002 and imports

from Italy became subject to a countervailing duty order. Commerce had made a negative final antidumping duty

determination concerning stainless steel bar imports from Taiwan at the time of the original investigations. These

antidumping and/or countervailing duty orders on imports from France, Germany, Italy, Korea, and the United

Kingdom were revoked in the first quarter of 2008, after the Commission’s negative five-year review determinations. 

See, e.g., CR at I-7; PR at I-4 to I-5.

 24 On March 5, 2002, President Bush issued a proclamation to impose an additional 15 percent ad valorem tariff

in the first year, 12 percent in the second year, and 9 percent in the third year. These steel safeguards were

terminated on December 4, 2003. Earlier safeguard investigations conducted in 1982 and 1983 resulted in the

implementation of four-year global quotas limiting SSWR imports into the United States to 19,100 tons in the first

year, and 19,700 tons, 20,300 tons, and 20,900 tons in subsequent years. See, e.g., CR at I-8 to I-9; PR at I-5.

 25 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 26 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v.

Dep’t of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT

450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v.

United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also S.

Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979).

 27 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review),

USITC Pub. 3831 at 8-9 (Dec. 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub.

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

3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).

7
containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of

chromium, with or without other elements. These products are manufactured only by

hot-rolling or hot-rolling, annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, are normally sold

in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR sold in the United

States is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed and pickled, and later cold-finished into

stainless steel wire or small-diameter bar. The most common size for such products is 5.5

millimeters or 0.217 inches in diameter, which represents the smallest size that normally

is produced on a rolling mill and is the size that most wire-drawing machines are set up to

draw. The range of stainless steel wire rod sizes normally sold in the United States is

between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inch diameter. Two stainless steel grades, SF20T and KM35FL, are excluded from the scope of these reviews.28

This scope is identical to the scope in the original investigations and first five-year reviews.29

Like other stainless steel products, SSWR is distinguished from carbon and lower-grade alloy

steels by its superior resistance to corrosion or oxidation at ambient or elevated temperatures.30 SSWR is

an intermediate stainless steel product that is used to produce primarily wire, sometimes bar, and to a very

small degree direct downstream products such as industrial fasteners, springs, medical and dental

instruments, automotive parts, and welding electrodes.31 Although produced in a wide variety of grades,

shapes, diameters, and sizes according to specific customer requirements, SSWR’s defining characteristic

is that it is produced in coils.32 SSWR is produced at least as large as 39 mm (1.54 inches) in diameter. 

The most common size, however, is 5.5 mm (0.217 inches) in diameter, circular cross-section, which is

the smallest size normally produced on a hot-rolling mill and the size most commonly used for wire

drawing.33 Manufacturers generally employ three basic steps to produce SSWR regardless of the grade or

cross-section of the final product, as follows: (1) producing rolled or continuous-cast billets from molten

stainless steel; (2) hot-rolling the billets and coiling the wire rod in a hot-rolling mill; and (3) finishing

(annealing, descaling and/or pickling and/or coating).34

B. Findings in Original Investigations and First Reviews

In the original investigations, the Commission rejected arguments that it should find multiple like

products consisting of different forms of SSWR. Instead, the Commission found a single domestic like

product that was coextensive with the scope, consisting of a continuum of SSWR products that are

produced in a wide variety of grades, specifications, shapes, and sizes.35 In the first five-year reviews of

these orders, the domestic industry asked for the same definition of the domestic like product, and

 28 In the scope section of the notice of its second review determinations, Commerce described the chemical makeup of the two excluded grades, identified the tariff subheadings under which the subject product is normally

classified, and explained that the written description of the scope rather than the tariff subheadings was dispositive. 

See, e.g., 74 Fed. Reg. 56179 (Oct. 30, 2009).

 29 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3126 at 4; USITC Pub. 3707 at 4.

 30 See, e.g., CR at I-24; PR at I-19.

 31 See, e.g., CR at I-25 to I-26; PR at I-19 to I-20.

 32 See, e.g., CR at I-25; PR at I-19.

 33 See, e.g., CR at I-25; PR at I-19.

 34 See, e.g., CR at I-26 to I-27; PR at I-20.

 35 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3126 at 7.

8
respondent interested parties made no arguments. The Commission again defined a single domestic like

that was coextensive with the scope.36

C. Analysis and Conclusion

For purposes of these second five-year reviews, we define the domestic like product in the same

manner as in the original investigations and first reviews. The record in these reviews indicates no

material changes in pertinent product characteristics from the original investigations and first reviews.37

Additionally, no party argued that the Commission should depart from the domestic like product

definitions it adopted in those proceedings.38 Consequently, for the reasons articulated in the original

investigations and first five-year reviews of these orders, we define a single domestic like product that is

coextensive with the scope.

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

A. Background

During the period covered by the original investigations (calendar years 1995 to 1997 and interim

periods), ***, Al Tech, Carpenter, and Talley produced SSWR in the United States. *** Republic and

***.39 By the end of the period covered by the first five-year reviews (1998 to 2003), five firms produced

SSWR in the United States: Allvac;40 Al Tech/Empire/Dunkirk/Universal;41 Carpenter;42 and new

entrants to the market Charter43 and NAS.44 Republic exited the SSWR business in *** and has not been

involved in any SSWR operations since then.45

 36 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 5.

 37 See, e.g., CR at I-24 to I-27; PR at I-19 to I-20.

 38 See, e.g., Carpenter’s Prehearing Br. at 5; Cogne’s Prehearing Br. at 17.

 39 See, e.g., CR at I-27 to I-28; PR at I-21; CR/PR at Figure I-1.

 40 ***, a company that merged with Outokumpu Stainless, Inc. in 2001 to become Avesta Polarit, which was

renamed Outokumpu Stainless in 2004 (“Outokumpu”). See, e.g., CR at I-28 to I-30; PR at I-21 to I-22; CR/PR at

Figure I-1.

 41 Following the bankruptcy of its Korean parent (Sammi Steel Corp. (“Sammi”)) during the Asian financial

crisis, Al Tech reorganized under Chapter 11, emerged from bankruptcy in 1999 as Empire Special Steel, Inc.

(“Empire”), which itself went bankrupt and shut down in June 2001. Empire’s assets were subsequently purchased

by Dunkirk Specialty Steel (“Dunkirk”) on February 8, 2002, which resumed plant operations on March 14, 2002. 

Dunkirk is a wholly owned subsidiary of Universal. See, e.g., CR at I-28 & n.52; PR at I-21 & n.52; CR/PR at

Figure I-1.

 42 Carpenter acquired Talley in 1998. See, e.g., CR at I-28; PR at I-21; CR/PR at Figure I-1.

 43 Charter began SSWR production in 2001 utilizing purchased billets that it rolled on an existing rod mill used

primarily for producing carbon steel rod. See, e.g., CR at I-29; PR at I-21 to I-22; CR/PR at Figure I-1.

 44 NAS constructed a continuous casting machine for billets, a new combination rod/bar mill, and finishing

facilities for SSWR and stainless steel bar at the location of its existing stainless steel flat products plant in Ghent,

KY and began SSWR production at this facility in 2003. See, e.g., CR at I-29; PR at I-22; CR/PR at Figure I-1.

 45 See, e.g., CR at I-28; PR at I-21; CR/PR at Figure I-1.

9
According to the record in these reviews, four firms that submitted useable questionnaire

responses accounted for *** U.S. production and sales of SSWR in 2009: Allvac, Carpenter, NAS, and

Universal.46

B. Legal Standard and Analysis of Related Parties

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

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

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”47 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.48 In the original investigations and first reviews, the Commission defined the domestic

industry to include all U.S. producers of SSWR.49 Under the related parties provision of the statute, 19

U.S.C. § 1677 (4)(B), the Commission may, under appropriate circumstances, exclude certain producers

from the domestic industry that import subject merchandise or have a corporate affiliation with importers

or exporters of subject merchandise.

In the original investigations, Al Tech was a majority-owned subsidiary of subject Korean

producer Sammi, and Carpenter had owned a share of subject Taiwan producer Walsin Cartech Specialty

Steel Corp. (“Walsin”) for a portion of the period of investigation. Al Tech and Carpenter each had

imported subject merchandise. The Commission found both Al Tech and Carpenter were related parties

 46 As discussed above, a fifth firm, Latrobe, did not submit a complete questionnaire response but reported an

annual capacity of *** short tons, which is less than *** percent of total U.S. SSWR production. See, e.g., CR at I28, III-1 at n.1; PR at I-21, III-1 at n.1.

 47 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 apply to the entire subtitle containing the

antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677.

 48 See, e.g., 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).

 49 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3126 at 7-8; USITC Pub. 3707 at 6. The Commission determined that tolling companies

that physically produced SSWR engaged in sufficient production-related activities to be included in the domestic

industry, but did not include in the domestic industry tollees (companies that provided billet raw materials to tollers

for production into SSWR). See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3126 at 7-8. ***, Allvac produced during the current review

period a small quantity of SSWR for itself but primarily produced SSWR under a tolling agreement from billets

supplied by Outokumpu. See, e.g., CR at I-18, I-28 to I-30, III-1 at n.1, III-4; PR at I-13, I-21, III-1 at n.1, III-2. 

Outokumpu not only produces the billets but also retains ownership of the SSWR through production, inventory, and

up to sale of the product (which it arranges). Accordingly, certain data are only meaningfully available from

Outokumpu. See, e.g., CR at III-9 n.6; PR at III-4 n.6 (“Staff have included Outokumpu’s sales and costs (including

the tolling charges) in the aggregated sales data in this section. These include the quantity transferred under the

tolling arrangement (and sold commercially) and the costs matched to those sales, which include the tolling

charge.”). No party made any arguments concerning treatment of tolling operations. Consistent with the

Commission’s general approach to tolling agreements and its findings in the original investigations and first reviews

of these orders and absent any significant changes in the facts relied upon by the Commission in the prior

proceedings concerning tolling arrangements, we treat Allvac, the toller, as a domestic producer because Allvac

produces SSWR. See, e.g., CR at I-18, I-28 to I-30, III-1 at n.1, III-4; PR at I-18, I-28 to I-30, III-1 at n.1, III-2; see

also, e.g., USITC Pub. 3126 at 7-8; USITC Pub. 3707 at 6. While toll producers that engage in sufficient productionrelated activity are included in the domestic industry, tollees that merely supply raw materials and pay a fabrication

fee are not. See e.g., Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and

Thailand, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-432 & 731-TA-1024 to 1028 (Review) and AA1921-188 (Third Review), USITC Pub.

4114 at 7-8, n.33 (Nov. 2009); Furfuryl Alcohol from China and Thailand, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-703 & 705 (Review),

USITC Pub. 3412 at 6, n.23 (Apr. 2001), aff’d on other grounds, Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. v. United

States, 26 CIT 1059 (2003).

10
but did not find appropriate circumstances to exclude either from the domestic industry. Neither had

imported significant quantities relative to production, and the Commission found no evidence that

corporate relationships with subject producers had shielded the U.S. affiliates.50

During the first reviews, only NAS had imported SSWR from a subject country. The

Commission did not find appropriate circumstances to exclude NAS from the domestic industry as a

related party, although its subject imports *** were equivalent to *** percent of its domestic production

in 2003. As the Commission explained, no party had asked for its exclusion, whereas NAS supported

continuation of the orders and showed commitment to U.S. SSWR production by constructing a new ***

facility.51 The Commission did not find that importing activities gave NAS any particular advantage over

other domestic producers, with its financial results being *** for the one year it produced, 2003.52

During the current reviews, no domestic producer imported or purchased subject SSWR.53 On the

other hand, NAS is a related party because a third party, Acerinox, S.A. (“Acerinox”), is legally or

operationally in a position to exercise direct or indirect control over both of its wholly owned

subsidiaries, domestic producer NAS and Spanish producer of subject merchandise, Roldan, S.A.

(“Roldan”).54 Nevertheless, we do not find appropriate circumstances to exclude NAS from the domestic

industry. NAS has made clear its commitment to U.S. operations by increasing its share of domestic

SSWR production from *** percent in 2003 (when it began production operations) to *** percent in 2009

(followed by ***).55 NAS ***.56 Neither NAS nor any other firm reported importing subject

merchandise from Roldan during the review period, and there is no indication that NAS’s affiliation with

Roldan has otherwise skewed its performance compared to other domestic producers.57

Based on the record and absent any contrary party arguments,58 we find that appropriate

circumstances do not exist to warrant excluding NAS from the domestic industry as a related party. 

Accordingly, given our definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry as all

U.S. producers of SSWR.

IV. CUMULATION

A. Background

In the original investigations, the Commission cumulated subject imports from Italy, Japan,

Korea, Spain, and Taiwan for purposes of its affirmative material injury determinations, based on its

finding of a reasonable overlap of competition among subject imports from the various sources and

 50 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3126 at 8-9.

 51 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 6-7; 1CD at 3-4. At the time, the facility’s value was an estimated $98 million,

***. See, e.g., Carpenter’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. 4.

 52 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 6-7; 1CD at 3-4.

 53 See, e.g., CR at III-7; PR at III-3.

 54 See, e.g., CR at III-2, IV-25; PR at III-1, IV-15. As a factual matter, however, NAS reports that it operates

***, as discussed in more detail in the “other considerations” section below.

 55 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-8.

 56 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-8.

 57 See, e.g., CR at III-7; PR at III-3; CR/PR at Table III-9.

 58 See, e.g., Carpenter’s Response to Notice of Institution at 13-14; Cogne’s Response to Notice of Institution at

11.

11
between subject imports and the domestic like product.59 In the first five-year reviews of these orders, the

Commission did not find that subject imports from any of the subject countries would be likely to have no

discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event that the antidumping duty orders were

revoked. It found a likely reasonable overlap of competition among all of the subject imports and

between subject imports and the domestic like product, and it did not find significant differences in the

conditions of competition among the various sources of SSWR. On that basis, the Commission

cumulated subject imports from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan (as well as imports from Sweden,

which are no longer subject to an order).60

B. Legal Standards and Overview

With respect to five-year reviews, section 752(a) of the Tariff Act provides as follows:

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.61

Cumulation therefore is discretionary in five-year reviews, unlike original investigations, which are

governed by section 771(7)(G)(I) of the Tariff Act.62 The Commission may exercise its discretion to

cumulate, however, only if the reviews are initiated on the same day, the Commission determines that the

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

and imports from each such subject country are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the

domestic industry in the event of revocation. Our focus in five-year reviews is not only on present

conditions of competition, but also on likely conditions of competition in the reasonably foreseeable

future.

The statutory threshold for cumulation is satisfied, because all reviews were initiated on the same

day.63 Accordingly, we consider three issues in deciding whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate

 59 The Commission also cumulated less-than-fair-value imports from Sweden and subsidized imports from Italy,

but those imports are not eligible for cumulation in these reviews because they are no longer subject to orders, as

discussed above. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3126 at 10-13.

 60 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 8-16 (reflecting the views of Commissioners Lane, Hillman, Koplan, and

Miller). In those reviews, however, Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun cumulated three groups of

countries (Japan/Taiwan; Italy/Korea; and Spain/Sweden), because they found significant differences in the likely

conditions of competition among the three groups. Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun found that

subject imports from each of these countries were not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry in the event of revocation and they found a likely reasonable overlap of competition among all sources of

SSWR. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 29-35.

 61 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 62 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i); see also, e.g., Nucor Corp. v. United States, __ F.3d ___, App. No. 2009-1234, Slip

Op. at 7-8 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2010) (Commission may reasonably consider likely differing conditions of competition

in deciding whether to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews); Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States,

475 F. Supp. 2d 1370, 1378 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission has in selecting the

types of factors it considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to cumulate subject imports in fiveyear reviews); Nucor Corp. v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1337-38 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008).

 63 See, e.g., 74 Fed. Reg. 31765 (Jul. 2, 2009).

12
subject imports, as follows: (1) whether subject imports from any of the subject countries are precluded

from cumulation because they are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry

upon revocation of the orders; (2) whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition

among subject imports of SSWR from the subject countries and the domestic like product; and (3) other

considerations, such as whether there are similarities and differences in the likely conditions of

competition under which subject imports are likely to compete in the U.S. SSWR market.64 65

Domestic producer Carpenter asks the Commission to exercise its discretion to cumulate subject

imports from Italy, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan for the injury analysis in these reviews. Carpenter takes no

position on, but would not oppose, the Commission’s cumulation of subject imports from Spain.66 In

their questionnaire responses, ***.67 Cogne asks the Commission not to cumulate subject imports from

Italy with other subject imports, arguing that subject imports from Italy are likely to have no discernible

adverse impact upon revocation of the orders and that these imports are likely to face different conditions

of competition than other imports. Cogne asks the Commission not to analyze subject imports from Spain

separately unless it also analyzes subject imports from Italy separately.68 POSCOSS asks the Commission

not to cumulate subject imports from Korea based on its assertion that these imports are likely to have no

discernible adverse impact if the antidumping duty order on imports from Korea is revoked.69

Based on the record in these reviews and for the reasons articulated below, we find that subject

imports from each of the five subject countries would not be likely to have no discernible adverse impact

on the domestic industry in the event of revocation. We find a likely reasonable overlap of competition

among subject imports from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan and between the subject imports and

the domestic like product in the event of revocation. We do not find significant differences in the likely

 64 Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun note that, while they consider the same issues discussed in

this section in determining whether to exercise their discretion to cumulate the subject imports, their analytical

framework begins with whether imports from the subject countries are likely to face similar conditions of

competition. For those subject imports which are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition, they

next proceed to consider whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition whereby those imports

are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product. Finally, if based on that analysis they

intend to exercise their discretion to cumulate one or more subject countries, they analyze whether they are

precluded from cumulating such imports because the imports from one or more subject countries, assessed

individually, are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. See Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bar From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA873 to 875, 877 to 880, and 882 (Review), USITC Pub. 3933 (Jul. 2007) (Separate and Dissenting Views of

Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Regarding Cumulation). Accord Nucor Corp.

v. United States, 605 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1372 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009); Nucor Corp. v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 2d

1320, 1345-47 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008), aff’d, Slip Op. 2009-1234 (Fed Cir. Apr. 7, 2010).

 65 As explained below on page 48, Commissioners Lane and Pinkert apply a different analytical framework in

determining whether other considerations justify declining to exercise their discretion to cumulate subject imports.

 66 Carpenter’s position with respect to cumulation of subject imports from Spain changed over the course of the

reviews. Compare, e.g., Carpenter’s Prehearing Br. at 6-14; Hearing Tr. at 8 (Hartquist), 39-40 (Lasoff), 44-51

(Hartquist, Ziolkowski, Feeley, McGrath, Staley, Lasoff) with, e.g., Carpenter’s Posthearing Br. at 2-8, Exh. 1 at 5,

32-33.

 67 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-8. In an affidavit submitted in Carpenter’s posthearing brief, NAS ***. NAS is not

affirmatively requesting that the Commission revoke the antidumping duty order on SSWR from Spain. See, e.g.,

Carpenter’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. 1 at 1, Exh. 4.

 68 See, e.g., Cogne’s Prehearing Br. at 14-20; Hearing Tr. at 12-13; Cogne’s Posthearing Br. at 7-8, Exh. 1 at 2-

10, 12-15, 17-19, 22, 23.

 69 See, e.g., POSCOSS’ Prehearing Br. at 3-4.

13
conditions of competition affecting subject imports from the sources subject to these reviews.70 We

therefore exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan

for purposes of our analysis in these reviews.71

C. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact72

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.73 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.74 With respect to this provision, the

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

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

In these reviews, Cogne argues that subject imports from Italy are likely to have no discernible

adverse impact upon revocation of the order covering Italy,75 and POSCOSS asserts that subject imports

from Korea are likely to have no discernible adverse impact if the order covering Korea is revoked.76

Based on the record in these reviews, however, we do not find that subject imports from any of the

subject countries are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event

that the antidumping duty orders are revoked. Our analysis for each of the subject countries takes into

account the nature of the product and the behavior of subject imports in the original investigations and

during the first and current reviews. Subject imports from each of the subject countries are likely to be

highly substitutable for, and competitive with, domestically produced SSWR.77 Such competition is

likely to be based, at least in part, on price, due to the importance of price in purchasing decisions.78 For

sales of SSWR, subject producers in each of the subject countries undersold domestic producers in the

large majority of pricing comparisons during the original investigations and continued to undersell the

 70 Chairman Aranoff, Vice Chairman Pearson, and Commissioner Okun do not join this sentence because

Chairman Aranoff finds that subject imports from Italy are likely to compete under different conditions of

competition than other subject imports and because Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun find that

subject imports from Italy, Korea, and Spain individually are likely to compete under different conditions of

competition than subject imports from each of the other subject countries.

 71 Chairman Aranoff exercises her discretion to cumulate subject imports from Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan

for purposes of her analysis in these reviews. Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun exercise their

discretion to cumulate subject imports from Japan and Taiwan for purposes of their analysis in these reviews.

 72 Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun join this section only with respect to subject imports from

Japan and Taiwan.

 73 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 74 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I at 887 (1994).

 75 See, e.g., Cogne’s Prehearing Br. at 14-20; Cogne’s Posthearing Br. at 7-8, Exh. 1 at 2-10, 12-15, 17-19, 22,

23.

 76 See, e.g., POSCOSS’ Prehearing Br. at 3-4.

 77 See, e.g., CR at II-18 to II-31; PR at II-11 to II-21; CR/PR at Tables II-2 to II-8.

 78 Purchasers listed quality, price, and delivery as the most important factors affecting their purchasing decisions. 

Because questionnaire respondents generally reported that subject and domestic producers met quality requirements,

price is likely to play an important role in purchasing decisions. See, e.g., CR at II-21 to II-31; PR at II-11 to II-21;

CR/PR at Tables II-4 to II-8.

14
domestic like product during the period covered by the first reviews, even after imposition of the

antidumping duty orders.79

Japan. During the original investigations, eight producers of SSWR in Japan submitted

questionnaire responses.80 Hitachi received a de minimis antidumping duty margin from Commerce and

was excluded from the antidumping duty order.81 As of 1997, two producers in Japan individually

accounted for at least *** percent of SSWR production in Japan *** (Nippon and Daido),82 with the

others individually accounting for smaller shares.83 Subject imports from Japan increased from *** short

tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 1996 and *** short tons in 1997.84 As a share of the U.S. market, these

imports accounted for *** percent in 1995, *** percent in 1996, and *** percent in 1997.85

During the first reviews, no Japanese producer submitted a questionnaire response.86 Subject

imports from Japan had a smaller U.S. market presence after imposition of the antidumping duty order.87

 79 In the original investigations, subject imports from Italy (which at the time also included SSWR imports from

Valbruna) undersold the domestic like product in 37 of 43 price comparisons at average margins of 8.7 percent;

subject imports from Japan undersold the domestic like product in 26 of 32 comparisons at average margins of 11.0

percent; subject imports from Korea undersold the domestic like product in 34 of 37 comparisons at average margins

of 13.6 percent; subject imports from Spain undersold the domestic like product in 14 of 16 comparisons at average

margins of 11.7 percent; and subject imports from Taiwan undersold the domestic like product in 15 of 20

comparisons at average margins of 9.9 percent. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-10. In full-years 1998 through 2003,

the period covered by the first reviews, subject imports from Italy undersold the domestic like product in 10 of 11

price comparisons at average margins of 24.1 percent; subject imports from Japan undersold the domestic like

product in 16 of 23 comparisons at average margins of 46.8 percent; subject imports from Korea undersold the

domestic like product in 44 of 54 comparisons at average margins of 18.0 percent; subject imports from Spain

undersold the domestic like product in 6 of 7 comparisons at average margins of 10.4 percent; and subject imports

from Taiwan undersold the domestic like product in 5 of 14 comparisons at average margins of 5.9 percent. See,

e.g., CR/PR at Table V-9. As the volume of subject imports from each of the subject countries declined or

disappeared entirely from the U.S. market, the instances of underselling observed in full-years 2004 through 2009,

the period covered by the current reviews, also diminished. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-8.

 80 They are as follows: Aichi Steel Works, Ltd. (“Aichi”); Daido Steel Co. (“Daido”); Hitachi; Pacific Metals

Co., Ltd. (“Pacific Metals”); Nippon Koshua Steel Co., Ltd. (“Nippon Koshua”); Nippon Steel Corp. (“Nippon”);

Sanyo Special Steel Co., Ltd. (“Sanyo”); and Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. (“Sumitomo”). See, e.g., CR at IV19; PR at IV-13.

 81 See, e.g., 63 Fed. Reg. 49329 (Japan).

 82 See, e.g., OCR at VII-9 to VII-10; USITC Pub. 3126 at VII-3 to VII-5. In 1997, Nippon accounted for ***

percent of total SSWR production in Japan, represented *** percent of total Japanese SSWR exports to the United

States, and ***. See, e.g., OCR at VII-9; USITC Pub. 3126 at VII-4. Daido accounted for *** percent of total

SSWR production in Japan, represented *** percent of total Japanese SSWR exports to the United States, and ***. 

See, e.g., OCR at VII-9 to VII-10; USITC Pub. 3126 at VII-4 to VII-5. 

 83 Sanyo accounted for *** percent of total SSWR production in Japan and exported *** percent of its production

to the U.S. market in 1997, with most of its exports going to ***. See, e.g., OCR at VII-10; USITC Pub. 3126 at

VII-4. See also, e.g.., OCR at VII-10; USITC Pub. 3126 at VII-4 to VII-5 (as a share of total SSWR production in

Japan in 1997, the others accounted for: Nippon Koshuha (*** percent); Pacific Metals (*** percent but ***);

Sumitomo (*** percent); and Aichi (***).

 84 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 85 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 86 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 11.

 87 Subject imports from Japan declined from *** short tons in 1998 to *** short tons in 1999, *** short tons in

2000, *** short tons in 2001, *** short tons in 2002, and *** short tons in 2003. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1. As

a share of the U.S. market, subject imports from Japan declined from *** percent in 1998 to *** percent in 2003. 

continue...

15
The Commission found that the available information from Steel and Metals Market Research (“SMR”)

indicated that production and consumption of SSWR in Japan both increased since the original

investigations, with production increasing to a greater extent.88 The Commission relied on these data as

well as data on the behavior of the Japanese producers during the original investigations in reaching its

conclusion during the first reviews that subject imports from Japan were not likely to have no discernible

adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation.

In the current reviews, Sumitomo reported that it has not produced or exported SSWR since

January 1, 2004, but no Japanese producer of SSWR submitted a questionnaire response.89 Subject

imports from Japan had a nominal, if any, presence in the U.S. market during the review period, ***.90

*** submitted data regarding the Japanese industry from market research company ***.91 According to

these data, production capacity in Japan ***.92

In this capital-intensive industry, SSWR producers strive to maintain high capacity in order to

spread fixed costs over a larger production volume.93 Record evidence indicates that the U.S. market is

likely to be relatively attractive as an outlet for SSWR production compared to other markets as

evidenced by the fact that ***, despite the transportation costs associated with such sales.94 Moreover,

concerns about transportation costs did not preclude subject producers from Japan from selling to the U.S.

market during the original investigations or first reviews.95 Data on relative prices in the U.S. and other

regional markets is relatively limited on the current record, although average unit value (“AUV”) data

suggest that the U.S. market is more attractive than ***.96

No pricing data were obtained for the current review period for subject imports from Japan,

consistent with the low volume imported from there.97 During the original investigations, however,

subject imports from Japan undersold the domestic like product in 26 of 32 of the monthly comparisons,

and underselling continued during the period covered by the first reviews, occurring in 16 of 23

 87 ...continue

See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 88 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 11.

 89 See, e.g., CR at IV-19; PR at IV-13.

 90 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1. The volume of subject imports from Japan was *** short tons in 2004, *** short

tons in 2005, *** short tons in 2006, *** short tons in 2007, and *** short tons in 2008 and 2009. See, e.g., CR/PR

at Table I-1.

 91 See, e.g., CR at IV-19; PR at IV-13; CR/PR at Table IV-10. In addition to Hitachi, which is not subject to the

order *** percent of SSWR production in Japan, this source identified five main SSWR producers in Japan: ***. 

See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-10. According to this source, SSWR production capacity in for subject producers in

Japan ***, but *** dominant producers ***, had *** capacity changes between 2006 and 2009 and *** projected

capacity changes through 2012. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 92 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-10. In addition to having a relatively large SSWR production base in the original

investigations, Japanese producers reported some excess capacity at that time, amounts that were not trivial relative

to apparent U.S. consumption at the time. See, e.g., OCR at Table VII-3; USITC Pub. 3126 at Table VII-3 (showing

capacity utilization of *** percent in 1995, *** percent in 1996, and *** percent in 1997).

 93 See, e.g., Carpenter’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. 1 at 30; CR at III-22 to III-23; PR at III-7; CR/PR at Table III-14;

1CR at D-4, D-5; USITC Pub. 3707 at D-4, D-5.

 94 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-1, IV-2; CR at IV-1; PR at IV-1.

 95 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 96 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-18, IV-19; CR at IV-30 to IV-31; PR at IV-18.

 97 See, e.g., CR at V-7; PR at V-4.

16
comparisons, even with the order in place.98 In addition, as noted earlier, Japanese imports of stainless

steel bar, a downstream product produced from SSWR, are currently subject to an antidumping duty order

in the United States, giving producers in Japan an incentive to shift production from stainless steel bar to

SSWR if the order on SSWR were revoked.

Based on these facts, we do not find that subject SSWR imports from Japan would likely have no

discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the U.S. antidumping duty order on SSWR imports

from Japan were revoked.

Italy.

99 By the end of the period covered by the original investigations, three firms produced

SSWR in Italy: Cogne; Rodacciai S.p.A. (“Rodacciai”); and Valbruna.100 Valbruna received a de

minimis antidumping duty margin from Commerce and was excluded from the antidumping duty order.101

Valbruna, however, remained subject to a countervailing duty order on subject imports from Italy, until

Commerce revoked that order effective July 2, 2004.102 Cogne accounted for *** percent of Italian

production but *** percent of Italy’s SSWR exports to the United States in 1997, whereas Rodacciai

accounted for *** percent of Italian production but less than *** percent of exports to the United

States.103 In the original investigations, subject SSWR imports from Italy (which included Valbruna’s

imports) declined from *** short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 1996 and increased to *** short tons in

1997.104 Total SSWR imports from Italy accounted for a declining share of the U.S. market (*** percent

in 1995, *** percent in 1996, and *** percent in 1997).105

 98 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 11.

 99 Chairman Aranoff does not join this subsection or the other portions of this opinion discussing the past or likely

behavior of Italian producers of SSWR. She joins the Commission in finding that subject imports from Italy are not

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event that the order on imports from

Italy is revoked, but reaches that decision based on the following analysis. Cogne, the sole Italian producer still

subject to the order under review, accounted for *** percent of Italy’s exports of SSWR to the United States in 1997,

the last year of the original period of investigation. See, e.g., CR at IV-14; PR at IV-12. Cogne’s exports to the

United States declined to low levels after imposition of the order. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1. Nevertheless, since

the original investigations, Cogne has increased its production capacity and remains a significant producer and

exporter of the subject product. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-9. For the reasons discussed in her dissenting views,

she does not agree with Cogne that its near-absence from the U.S. market for SSWR would prevent Cogne from

qualifying for and making sales to U.S. customers within the reasonably foreseeable future. Moreover, Cogne

concedes that it is interested in reentering the U.S. market in order to sell specialty grades, such as welding-grade

SSWR, in the event that the order is revoked. See, e.g., Cogne’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. 1 at 1. Sales of specialty

grades tend to be high margin, but low quantity, sales for the domestic industry. Losing even a small volume of such

sales would meet the standard for a discernible adverse impact even though, as she explains in her dissenting views,

she does not find that revocation of the order would result in the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the

domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 100 As a result of an acquisition in 1995, a fourth Italian producer, Acciaierie di Bolzano S.p.A. (“Bolzano”),

became a subsidiary of Valbruna. Collectively, they accounted for *** percent of Italian production and *** percent

of SSWR exports from Italy to the United States in 1997. See, e.g., CR at IV-14 to IV-15; PR at IV-12.

 101 See, e.g., 63 Fed. Reg. 49334. Rodacciai’s parent Guiseppe Roda had a 30-percent ownership interest in the

Spanish firm Aceros Inoxidables Olarra, S.A. (“Olarra”) discussed below.

 102 See, e.g., 69 Fed. Reg. 40354 (Jul. 2, 2004).

 103 See, e.g., CR at IV-14; PR at IV-12.

 104 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 105 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

17
By the time of the first five-year reviews, two producers produced subject SSWR in Italy, Cogne

and Rodacciai, although the latter appeared “to be only a minor exporter.”106 Cogne’s U.S. exports

declined to low levels after imposition of the antidumping duty order,107 but the Commission found that

Cogne *** increased its exports to other markets, such that in 2003, only *** of Cogne’s shipments

served internal or commercial Italian markets.108 The Commission found that Cogne’s shipments to its

larger markets fluctuated *** between 1998 and 2003, demonstrating an ability and practice of shifting

between export markets.109 In finding in the first reviews that subject imports from Italy were not likely

to have no discernible adverse impact in the event of revocation, the Commission also referred to Cogne’s

*** short-ton capacity increase since the original investigations, its excess capacity equivalent to almost

*** percent of the U.S. market, and Cogne’s affiliate (Cogne USA), which provided a ready outlet and

distribution network for Cogne’s exports to the United States.110

In the current reviews, we incorporate those findings and note that only one producer in Italy

currently manufactures subject SSWR, Cogne, which reportedly accounted for *** percent of SSWR

production in Italy in 2009.111 Cogne’s capacity fluctuated during the period covered by these reviews

(2004 to 2009), but its capacity was *** than during the original investigations.112 Cogne’s capacity

utilization to produce SSWR fluctuated between 2004 and 2008 and declined ***.113 Cogne’s unused

capacity in 2009 (*** short tons) was equivalent to *** of total apparent U.S. consumption in 2009.114

Although Cogne reports that its order books have recovered from the 2009 trough and are now virtually

full,115 we do not give much weight to such data as an indication of Cogne’s likely capacity utilization in

the reasonably foreseeable future. Cogne’s data concern only a single quarter – the second quarter of

2010. The data represent *** from Cogne’s utilization level for the most recent full-year period and from

Cogne’s peak annual capacity utilization for the entire review period of ***.116 Although the SSWR

 106 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 9 n.41.

 107 The volume of subject imports from Italy declined from *** short tons in 1998 to *** short tons in 1999, ***

short tons in 2000, *** in 2001, and *** short tons in 2002 before increasing somewhat to *** short tons in 2003. 

See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1. In terms of the U.S. market between 1998 and 2003, subject imports from Italy never

held a share greater than *** percent. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 108 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 9; 1CD at 7.

 109 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 9 n.45; 1CD at 7 n.45. The Commission found that the European market was

likely to be less attractive to Cogne due to reported overcapacity. It found the Asian market where Cogne had

invested in a new downstream Chinese production facility also was likely to be less attractive due to expectations of

significant increases in Chinese SSWR production and pricing data that showed mixed but generally lower AUVs. 

See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 9; 1CD at 7.

 110 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 9-10; 1CD at 8.

 111 See, e.g., CR at IV-15; PR at IV-13. Valbruna is not subject to the order, and Rodacciai reported that it did not

produce SSWR during the review period. See, e.g., CR at IV-15; PR at IV-13.

 112 Compare, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-9 (showing Cogne’s production capacity ***) with, e.g., OCR at VII-6;

USITC Pub. 3126 at VII-3 (indicating that Cogne’s production capacity in the original investigations rose from ***

short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 1996). Cogne ***, but ***. See, e.g., CR at IV-15; PR at IV-13.

 113 Cogne’s capacity utilization was *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in

2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 114 We note that this unused capacity does not take into account any ability of Cogne to increase the amount of

SSWR available for export to the United States by ***. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1, IV-9.

 115 See, e.g., Cogne’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. 1 at 4-5 (“CAS’demand in 2010 has recovered from the 2009

trough, and in fact CAS’ order books for the second quarter of 2010 are effectively full. ... CAS’ order bookings to

date for the second quarter of 2010 are *** short tons, which is *** percent of its *** ton capacity.”)

 116 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-9.

18
market is expected to improve somewhat from 2009 levels, we do not find a basis to conclude that

conditions will support such *** utilization levels. Cogne has not shown how its particular circumstances

are likely to diverge from the overall SSWR market so sharply as to enable to company to sustain

operations at near-full capacity utilization. Moreover, Cogne submitted these data on the size of its

SSWR order books relative to its SSWR production capacity in isolation without any updates on its endof-period inventories, production, or shipment markets for that quarter (or for the intervening quarter, the

first quarter of 2010).

Cogne has become *** export-oriented since the original investigations and first reviews,117 with

exports as a share of its total shipments increasing from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2009.118

Cogne’s ***.119 In this capital-intensive industry,120 Cogne is likely to continue to use increasing levels of

exports as a means to maintain high capacity and dispose of its SSWR production. Contrary to Cogne’s

claims, we do not find Cogne’s behavior during 2009, when it ***, to be an accurate indicator of its likely

behavior in the event that the U.S. antidumping order on SSWR is revoked, because ***.121

Cogne reported ***.122 The record in these reviews indicates that subject SSWR from Italy had a

nominal, if any, U.S. market presence during the review period.123 Cogne argues that its *** means that it

would need ***.124 Nonetheless, Cogne’s New Jersey sales force already supplies established clients in

the U.S. market with stainless steel bar, tool steel, and valve steel and advertises a full range of SSWR

products.125 After the U.S. antidumping duty order on stainless steel bars from Italy was revoked in the

first quarter of 2008, even Cogne acknowledges that it only took about a year for the company to export

bars to the United States.126 Even if ***, given the relatively limited number of SSWR purchasers in the

U.S. market whose identities are already known to Cogne,127 we find little support for Cogne’s claims

about the likely difficulty of re-entering the U.S. market.

 117 Cogne is not subject to tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade in any country other than the United States. See,

e.g., CR at IV-15 n.7; PR at IV-13 n.7.

 118 Cogne’s exports to “all other markets” accounted for between *** and *** percent of Cogne’s total shipments

during the review period, and the second largest share (*** percent) went to the European Union. Exports to “all

other markets” ***. See, e.g., CR at IV-16; PR at IV-13; CR/PR at Table IV-9 at n.4. Cogne’s exports to Asia,

principally China, increased from *** percent of total shipments in 2004 to *** percent of total shipments in 2009

largely as a result of ***. See, e.g., CR at IV-16; PR at IV-13; CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 119 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 120 See, e.g., Carpenter’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. 1 at 30; CR at III-22 to III-23; PR at III-7; CR/PR at Table III14; 1CR at D-4, D-5; USITC Pub. 3707 at D-4, D-5.

 121 See, e.g., Cogne’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. 1 at 8-9, 9-10, 22.

 122 See, e.g., CR at IV-15; PR at IV-13. ***. See, e.g., Cogne’s Prehearing Br. at 17 n.1.

 123 The volume of subject imports from Italy was *** short tons in 2004, *** short tons in 2005, *** short tons in

2006, *** short tons in 2007 and 2008, and *** short tons in 2009. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1. These imports

never held a share of the U.S. market greater than *** percent during this time. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1. The

***. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-1 at note.

 124 Cogne further asserts that none of its U.S. salesmen has sold SSWR and none of its U.S. customers for nonSSWR products purchase SSWR or have ever inquired about purchasing SSWR either before or after imposition of

the orders.

 125 See, e.g., Carpenter’s Prehearing Br. at 22-24; Carpenter’s Posthearing Br. at 7 (citing Cogne’s counsel’s

testimony regarding the Crucible-related transaction at Hearing Tr. 141).

 126 See, e.g., Cogne’s Posthearing Br. at 7-8, Exh. 1 at 1-2.

 127 According to Cogne, the universe of SSWR purchasers in the U.S. market is limited to only a handful of

independent users, such as Central Wire, Industrial Alloys, Koswire, Zapp, and ECD (before it went bankrupt), none

of which purchase non-SSWR products from Cogne USA. See, e.g., Cogne’s Posthearing Br. at 9-10, Exh. 1 at 7-8;

see also, e.g., CR at II-18; PR at II-11 to II-12.

19
Furthermore, record data refute Cogne’s claims that the U.S. market is not relatively attractive.128

There are limited data on the record in the current reviews regarding relative prices in the U.S. and other

markets, in part due to the fact that Cogne ceased exporting to the United States during the review period. 

Available AUV data, however, suggest that the U.S. market is *** than markets in ***, and *** with

***.129 Moreover, contrary to Cogne’s assertion that NAS functions as an impenetrable shield to an

increased subject import presence in the U.S. market, record data indicate that ***.130 Indeed, ***.131

According to these data, ***, further illustrating the attractiveness of the U.S. market.132 Moreover, NAS,

which accounted for *** percent of domestic production in 2009, is not the only U.S. SSWR supplier. 

The statute requires us to consider the likely effects of revocation on the domestic industry as a whole,

including on the ***.133 Indeed, Cogne, which ***,134 admits that it has some interest in resuming sales to

the U.S. market, and ***.135 Despite Cogne’s claims about the size of its markets in Europe relative to the

U.S. market, ***.136

During the review period, no pricing data were submitted regarding subject imports from Italy,

consistent with the low volume imported from Italy.137 On the other hand, subject imports from Italy

undersold domestic SSWR in 37 of 44 comparisons in the original investigations, although Valbruna may

have accounted for some of the underselling.138 Pricing comparisons were more limited during the period

covered by the first reviews due to Cogne’s smaller presence in the U.S. market, and most of these

instances occurred before imposition of the antidumping duty order. Available comparisons, however,

did show underselling in 1998 and 1999.139

 128 Cogne asserts it is no longer attracted to the U.S. market, compared to what it contends is a four-times larger

and higher-priced European market to which it can ship at much lower transportation costs and where it has

numerous sales offices and warehouses to sell SSWR and its other products. See, e.g., Cogne’s Posthearing Br. at

Exh. 1 at 2-3, 5.

 129 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-18, IV-19; CR at IV-30 to IV-31; PR at IV-18.

 130 Compare, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-18, IV-19 with, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-9 (showing AUV data for NAS’

commercial sales).

 131 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-9 at n.1, Table IV-19 at n.1; Cogne’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. 1 at 20.

 132 See, e.g., CR at III-16; PR at III-4 to III-5; CR/PR at Tables III-9 and IV-19 & n.1. We are mindful of the

limited utility of comparisons of AUVs where there are differences in product mix and have taken care to compare

AUVs involving similar product mixes, where possible, and to use AUV comparisons as only one of numerous

factors relevant to our analyses in these reviews.

 133 See, e.g., 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1) (“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 ... .”); 19 U.S.C. § 19 U.S.C. §

1677(4)(A) (defining “industry” as “the producers as a whole of a domestic like product ... .”). For similar reasons,

we reject Cogne’s arguments that the domestic industry is likely to be ***. See, e.g., Cogne’s Prehearing Br. at 16-

17. As we found to be the case in the original investigations and first reviews, commercial shipments account for a

sizeable portion of the domestic industry’s total shipments that we cannot ignore under the statute. See, e.g., CR/PR

at Table III-4.

 134 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-19 at n.1

 135 See, e.g., Cogne’s Prehearing Br. at 17-18; Cogne’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. 1 at 1, 23.

 136 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-1, IV-1, IV-2, IV-9; CR at IV-1; PR at IV-1.

 137 See, e.g., CR at V-7; PR at V-4.

 138 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 10; 1CD at 8.

 139 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 10; 1CD at 8. As discussed above, Cogne challenged the Commission’s

cumulation analysis, particularly its finding that subject imports from Italy would not be likely to have no discernible

adverse impact if the order were revoked, but the CIT upheld the Commission’s cumulation analysis and affirmative

five-year review determination. Cogne, 29 CIT 1168 (2005).

20
For these reasons, we do not find that SSWR imports from Italy would likely have no discernible

adverse impact on the domestic industry if the antidumping duty order on these imports were revoked.

Korea. By 1997, the final full year of the original investigation period, three firms produced

SSWR in Korea: Changwon Specialty Steel Co., Ltd. (“Changwon”);140 Dongbang Special Steel Co.

(“Dongbang”); and Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (“POSCO”).141 Changwong, which began production

in April 2007, accounted for *** percent of Korea’s white-coil production for full-year 1997, *** percent

of black-coil production, and *** percent of Korean exports to the U.S. market.142 SSWR subject imports

from Korea to the U.S. market declined from 10,938 short tons in 1995 to 10,437 short tons in 1996 and

increased to 13,937 short tons in 1997.143 As a share of the U.S. market, SSWR imports from Korea

accounted for *** percent in 1995, *** percent in 1996, and *** percent in 1997).144

In the first reviews, two producers accounted for all SSWR production in Korea, Changwon and

Dongbang.145 In concluding that subject imports from Korea were not likely to have no discernible

adverse impact in the event of revocation, the Commission noted that subject imports from Korea

maintained a presence in the U.S. market after imposition of the order, although they gradually declined

from their peak in 1997 to 1,437 short tons in 2003.146 The Commission noted that SSWR capacity in

Korea *** and that Changwon and Dongbang had a combined capacity utilization of *** percent in 2003. 

Despite the high percentage, the Commission noted that excess capacity in Korea of *** short tons in

2003 was equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption.147 The Commission observed that

Korean exports to Asia increased over the period measured by the first reviews but that the majority of

Korean SSWR shipments remained in the home market.148 The Commission found mixed evidence with

respect to pricing in various world markets, but noted that at least some sources suggested generally

 140 Korean producer Sammi went bankrupt, and in 1997 POSCO purchased Sammi’s production facilities during

the bankruptcy proceedings and formed a new company called Changwon. Although Changwon submitted a

questionnaire response in the original investigations regarding its operations in 1997, Sammi did not submit a

questionnaire response regarding its operations for the period prior to 1997. See, e.g., OCR at VII-11; USITC Pub.

3126 at VII-5.

 141 See, e.g., OCR at VII-11 to VII-12; USITC Pub. 3126 at VII-5. In 1997, Changwon and Dongbang produced

“white coil” SSWR (finished SSWR that had been pickled and annealed), whereas POSCO produced only “black

coil” SSWR (SSWR that had not been pickled or annealed). See, e.g., OCR at VII-12, VII-15; USITC Pub. 3126 at

VII-5 to VII-6.

 142 See, e.g., OCR at VII-12; USITC Pub. 3126 at VII-6. At the time, Changwong ***. See, e.g., OCR at VII-12,

VII-15; USITC Pub. 3126 at VII-6. Dongbang accounted for *** percent of white coil production in 1997 and ***

percent of Korean SSWR rod exports to the United States. See, e.g., OCR at VII-14; USITC Pub. 3126 at VII-6. In

addition to the United States, Dongbang’s major export markets for SSWR produced ***. See, e.g., OCR at VII-12;

USITC Pub. 3126 at VII-6. POSCO accounted for *** percent of Korea’s black-coil production in 1997, *** on its

SSWR equipment, ***. POSCO reported *** of SSWR during the original investigations. See, e.g., OCR at VII15; USITC Pub. 3126 at VII-6.

 143 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 144 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 145 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 11.

 146 The volume of subject imports from Korea declined from 12,984 short tons in 1998 to 10,570 short tons in

1999, 9,058 short tons in 2000, short tons in 2001, 5,593 in 2002 and 4,482 short tons in 2003. See, e.g., CR/PR at

Table I-1. As a share of apparent U.S. consumption between 1998 and 2003, subject imports from Korea declined

from *** percent in 1998 to *** percent in 1999, *** percent in 2000, *** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002, and

*** percent in 2003. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 147 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 11; 1CD at 9.

 148 See, e.g., OCR at Tables IV-10 and IV-11; USITC Pub. 3126 at Tables IV-10 and IV-11.

21
higher prices in the U.S. market than in Asia. The Commission found this to be consistent with what was

only a gradual decline in Korean exports to the U.S. market during the first review period.149

In the instant reviews, the record reflects only one current subject SSWR producer in Korea,

POSCOSS, which is the current name for the facility once owned by Sammi and more recently known as

Changwon.150 Subject SSWR from Korea had a small, if any, U.S. market presence between 2004 and

2009, with POSCOSS reporting that it last exported SSWR to the United States in ***, all of which was

white-coil SSWR.151 Home market shipments accounted for the largest share of POSCOSS’ total

shipments, representing *** percent in 2009, which is ***. Exports to Asia accounted for ***.152

POSCOSS ***.153 POSCOSS ***.154 POSCOSS’ production capacity *** during the review

period, although its capacity utilization ***.155 POSCOSS’ excess capacity of *** short tons in 2009 was

equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in that year, without even having to ***.156

Given the need in this capital-intensive industry to maintain high capacity to spread fixed costs over a

larger production volume discussed above, our findings above concerning the relative attractiveness of

the U.S. market, our findings from the original investigations and first reviews, and the existence of a

***,157 we find POSCOSS is likely to export SSWR to the United States in the event the antidumping

duty order is revoked in order to maintain high capacity. Although ***.158

During the review period, the Commission received pricing data that accounted for approximately

40.0 percent of the relatively low volume of subject SSWR imported from Korea in 2005. These data,

which ***, showed primarily overselling (*** instances ranging up to *** percent) and only one instance

of underselling (of *** percent).159 Nevertheless, the Commission found that subject imports from Korea

undersold domestic SSWR in 34 of 37 comparisons in the original investigations and in 44 of 54

comparisons during the first reviews.160

For these reasons, we do not find that SSWR imports from Korea would likely have no

discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the U.S. antidumping duty order on these imports

were revoked.

 149 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 12; 1CD at 9.

 150 See, e.g., CR at IV-20 to IV-21; PR at IV-14 to IV-15. Korean producer Dongbang closed its SSWR facility

in 2006, and POSCO did not produce SSWR during the review period. See, e.g., CR at IV-21; PR at IV-14.

 151 See, e.g., CR at IV-21; PR at IV-14 to IV-15. The volume of subject imports from Korea was 1,982 short tons

in 2004, 2,626 short tons in 2005, 385 short tons in 2006, 24 short tons in 2007, and 0 in 2008 and 2009. See, e.g.,

CR/PR at Table I-1. As a share of apparent U.S. consumption, subject imports from Korea increased from ***

percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2005 but dropped to *** percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007, 2008, and 2009. 

See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 152 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-12 (showing exports as a share of total production to *** and to ***).

 153 See, e.g., CR at IV-24; PR at IV-15.

 154 See, e.g., CR at IV-21, IV-24; PR at IV-14, IV-15.

 155 POSCOSS’ capacity utilization was *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, ***

percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 156 Derived from CR/PR at Tables I-1 and IV-12.

 157 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-9 (identifying importer ***).

 158 According to ***. See, e.g., CR at IV-24; PR at IV-15.

 159 See, e.g., CR at V-7; PR at V-4; CR/PR at Table ***.

 160 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 12; 1CD at 10.

22
Spain. During the original investigations, Roldan reportedly dominated the Spanish SSWR

industry.161 A second firm, Olarra, which was 30-percent owned by Italian producer Rodacciai’s parent

Guiseppe Roda, ***.162 Roldan accounted for *** percent of SSWR production in Spain and *** percent

of SSWR exports from Spain in 1997.163 In the original investigations, SSWR imports from Spain

increased from 2,663 short tons in 1995 to 2,854 short tons in 1996 and 4,705 short tons in 1997.164 Total

SSWR imports from Spain accounted for an increasing share of the U.S. market (*** percent in 1995,

*** percent in 1996, and *** percent in 1997).165

In the first reviews, neither of the two known Spanish producers, Roldan and Olarra, submitted

questionnaire responses, so the Commission had limited information concerning the Spanish SSWR

industry.166 In reaching its decision that subject imports from Spain were not likely to have no discernible

adverse impact in the event of revocation, the Commission noted that available information suggested

greater capacity during the first five-year reviews than existed during the original investigations.167 The

two Spanish producers increased production by *** percent between 1998 and 2003.168 Although the

majority of Spanish production was shipped to the home market in the original investigations, the

Commission noted that Spanish SSWR production had increased more than Spanish consumption,

suggesting more exports of SSWR.169

In the current reviews, again no Spanish firm responded to the Commission’s questionnaire.170

Subject imports from Spain had a nominal, if any, presence in the U.S. market during the review period,

***.171 *** submitted data regarding the Spanish industry from market research company ***.172 In

addition to ***.173 According to this source, SSWR production capacity in Spain ***.174 Because of the

lack of participation by any producer in either the first or second reviews, we do not have data on excess

capacity in Spain, but ***.175

No pricing data were submitted for the current review period for subject imports from Spain,

consistent with the low volume imported from there.176 On the other hand, underselling by subject

imports from Spain predominated during the period covered by the first reviews, occurring in 6 of 7

 161 See, e.g., OCR at VII-15, VII-17; USITC Pub. 3126 at VII-6.

 162 See, e.g., OCR at VII-7, VII-15, VII-17; USITC Pub. 3126 at VII-3, VII-6.

 163 See, e.g., OCR at IV-17; USITC Pub. 3126 at VII-6.

 164 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 165 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 166 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 13.

 167 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 13; 1CD at 10.

 168 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 13; 1CD at 10.

 169 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 13; 1CD at 10.

 170 See, e.g., CR at IV-25; PR at IV-15. In seeking a questionnaire response for Roldan, staff contacted its U.S.

affiliate NAS, but NAS was unable to obtain a questionnaire response from Roldan. See, e.g., CR at IV-25; PR at

IV-15; Carpenter’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. 4.

 171 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1. The volume of subject imports from Spain was 34 short tons in 2004, 8 short

tons in 2005, 20 short tons in 2006, and 0 short tons in 2007, 2008, and 2009. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 172 See, e.g., CR at IV-25; PR at IV-15; CR/PR at Table IV-13.

 173 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-13.

 174 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-13.

 175 See, e.g., OCR at Table VII-6; USITC Pub. 3126 at Table VII-6.

 176 See, e.g., CR at V-7; PR at V-4

23
instances, as it did during the original investigations when underselling was reported in 14 of 16

comparisons.177

Based on these facts and our findings above concerning the relative attractiveness of the U.S.

market, we do not find that SSWR imports from Spain would likely have no discernible adverse impact

on the domestic industry if the U.S. antidumping duty order on these imports were revoked.

Taiwan. During the original investigations, two firms produced SSWR in Taiwan, WalsinCartech Specialty Steel Corp. (“Walsin-Cartech”) and Yieh Hsing.178 Yieh Hsing received a de minimis

final antidumping duty margin, so Commerce excluded it from the order in the original investigations.179

Walsin-Cartech’s production and capacity *** between 1995 and 1997, during which time its exports to

the United States increased ***.180 In the original investigations, subject SSWR imports from Taiwan

increased from *** short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 1996 and *** short tons in 1997.181 Subject

SSWR imports from Taiwan accounted for an increasing share of the U.S. market (*** percent in 1995,

*** percent in 1996, and *** percent in 1997).182

In the first reviews, two producers accounted for all SSWR production in Taiwan, Walsin Lihwa

Corp. (“Walsin”) (the successor to Walsin-Cartech) and nonsubject producer Yieh Hsing.183 In

concluding that subject imports from Taiwan were not likely to have no discernible adverse impact in the

event of revocation, the Commission noted that subject imports from Taiwan maintained a presence in the

U.S. market even after imposition of the antidumping duty order.184 At the time of the first five-year

reviews, Walsin exported more than *** of its shipments and had *** short tons since the original

investigations.185 Moreover, its excess capacity of *** short tons in 2003 was equivalent to more than

*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption that year.186 The Commission found mixed evidence

concerning prices in various world markets, but noted at least some sources suggested higher prices in the

U.S. market than in Taiwan, an inference that was consistent with Taiwan’s shipment of *** short tons to

the United States in 2002 despite the antidumping duty order.187

In the current reviews, no producer of SSWR in Taiwan responded to the Commission’s

questionnaires.188 Subject imports from Taiwan maintained a presence in the U.S. market during the

review period, ***.189 *** submitted data regarding the Taiwan industry from ***.190 This source

 177 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 13; 1CD at 10.

 178 See, e.g., OCR at VII-15, VII-17; USITC Pub. 3126 at VII-7.

 179 See, e.g., 63 Fed. Reg. 49332.

 180 See, e.g., OCR at VII-19; USITC Pub. 3126 at VII-8.

 181 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 182 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 183 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 14; 1CD at 12.

 184 The volume of subject imports from Taiwan declined from *** short tons in 1998 to *** short tons in 1999,

and *** short tons in 2000 before increasing to *** short tons in 2001 and then declining to *** in 2002 and ***

short tons in 2003. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1. As a share of apparent U.S. consumption between 1998 and 2003,

subject imports from Taiwan declined from *** percent in 1998 to *** percent in 1999 and 2000, and *** percent in

2001 but increased to *** percent in 2002 before declining to *** percent in 2003. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 185 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 14; 1CD at 12.

 186 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 14; 1CD at 12.

 187 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 14-15; 1CD at 12.

 188 See, e.g., CR at IV-27; PR at IV-16.

 189 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1. The volume of subject imports from Taiwan was *** short tons in 2004, ***

short tons in 2005, *** short tons in 2006, *** short tons in 2007, *** short tons in 2008, and *** short tons in

continue...

24
identified ***.191 According to this source, SSWR production capacity in Taiwan ***.192 Imports of

stainless steel bar from Taiwan are currently subject to a U.S. antidumping duty order, as discussed

above, and Carpenter points out that Walsin could shift some production from stainless steel bar to SSWR

in the event the U.S. order on SSWR were revoked.193

Virtually no pricing data were submitted for the current review period for subject imports from

Taiwan.194 During the first reviews, subject imports from Taiwan undersold domestic SSWR in 5 of 14

instances, compared to 15 of 20 comparisons in the original investigations.195

Based on these facts and our findings above concerning the relative attractiveness of the U.S.

market, we do not find that SSWR imports from Taiwan would likely have no discernible adverse impact

on the domestic industry if the U.S. antidumping duty order on these imports were revoked.

D. Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition196

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

determining whether subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.197 Only

a “reasonable overlap” of competition is required.198 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.199

 189 ...continue

2009. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 190 See, e.g., CR at IV-27; PR at IV-16; CR/PR at Table IV-15.

 191 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-15.

 192 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-15. During the original investigations, Walsin-Cartech showed ***. See, e.g.,

OCR at Table VII-8; USITC Pub. 3126 at Table VII-8.

 193 See, e.g., Carpenter’s Prehearing Br. at 30-32.

 194 Current pricing data represented only *** and consisted of ***. See, e.g., CR at V-7; PR at V-4; CR/PR at

Tables ***.

 195 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 15; 1CD at 12.

 196 Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun join this section only with respect to subject imports from

Japan and Taiwan.

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

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

different countries and between subject 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 subject imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4)

whether subject imports are simultaneously present in the market with one another and the domestic like product. 

See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989).

 198 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 916 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Wieland Werke, 718 F.

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

Supp. 673, 685 (Ct. Int’l Trade 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, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-386 and 731-TA-812 to 813

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

United States, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999); Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the

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

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

25
In the original investigations, the Commission found a reasonable overlap of competition among

subject imports and the domestic like product and cumulated subject imports from Italy, Japan, Korea,

Spain, and Taiwan.200 The Commission found a likely reasonable overlap of competition among imports

from these sources in the first five-year reviews and cumulated subject imports from Italy, Japan, Korea,

Spain, and Taiwan.201

In the current reviews, domestic producer Carpenter asserts that evidence on the current record

continues to support a finding of a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition.202 Cogne and

POSCOSS do not make any arguments concerning a likely reasonable overlap of competition in the event

the orders were revoked.

1. Fungibility203

In the original investigations, the Commission found that SSWR from all subject countries was

fungible with SSWR from other subject countries and with the domestic like product.204 Only Japanese

respondents asserted that their imports did not compete with the domestic like product, with other parties

appearing to concede fungibility.205 The Commission found, however, that the limited evidence of quality

differences was outweighed by other evidence showing a reasonable overlap of competition between

imports from Japan and the domestic like product.206 In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found

that, once made to customers’ specifications, SSWR made domestically and in the subject countries were

generally substitutable and interchangeable in uses.207

In the current reviews, *** responding domestic producers and *** of responding importers

reported that SSWR produced in the subject countries was “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with

SSWR produced in the other subject countries and with the domestic like product. Purchasers typically

reported SSWR to be sometimes or frequently comparable regardless of the subject or domestic source.208

Questionnaire respondents also generally reported that producers in the United States and each of the

subject countries met quality requirements,209 and no party argued otherwise.

 200 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3126 at 12-13.

 201 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 15.

 202 See, e.g., Carpenter’s Prehearing Br. at 8-12.

 203 Commissioner Lane notes that, with respect to fungibility, her analysis does not require such similarity of

products that a perfectly symmetrical fungibility is required. In her view, this factor would be better described as an

analysis of whether subject imports from each country and the domestic like product could be substituted for each

other. See Separate Views of Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane, Certain Lightweight Thermal Paper from China,

Germany, and Korea, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-451 and 731-TA-1126-1128 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3964 at 32-33

(Nov. 2007).

 204 See, e.g., COD at 15-17; USITC Pub. 3126 at 11-13.

 205 See, e.g., COD at 15; USITC Pub. 3126 at 12.

 206 The Commission found a reasonable overlap given that four grades (***) accounted for *** percent of the

domestic industry’s merchant market shipments and *** percent of shipments of subject merchandise from Japan. 

Although most purchasers reported domestic SSWR as inferior in quality to Japanese SSWR, they reported products

from both sources to be largely comparable in many other respects; moreover, importers and domestic producers

generally reported products from both sources to be interchangeable. See, e.g., COD at 16-17; USITC Pub. 3126 at

12-13.

 207 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 15; 1CD at 13.

 208 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-6.

 209 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-8.

26
2. Overlapping Geographic Markets

SSWR imported from the subject countries and produced in the United States was sold

nationwide during the original investigations,210 and nothing on the record of the first reviews undermined

that conclusion.211 Although there were only limited or no subject imports during the review period,

importers generally reported selling to multiple geographic regions,212 supporting a likelihood of

geographic overlap among subject imports and the domestic like product in the event of revocation.

3. Common Channels of Distribution

During the original investigations, the large majority of SSWR produced in the United States was

captively consumed, but the Commission found that the great majority of both domestic and imported

open-market shipments were sold directly to end users, such as wire redrawers and fastener

manufacturers.213 In the first reviews, the Commission found that subject imports and domestically

produced SSWR for the commercial market were sold to end users,214 and we find data in the current

reviews are generally consistent with the earlier proceedings.215

4. Simultaneous Market Presence

In the original investigations, meaningful volumes of imports from all of the subject countries

were present in the U.S. market throughout the period of investigation along with the domestic like

product.216 In the first reviews, the Commission found that subject imports likely would be present from

all countries if the orders were removed, because import statistics and quarterly pricing data showed that

SSWR from each of the subject countries had been sold in the U.S. market during the review period.217

Subject imports generally had lower or no presence in the U.S. market during the current review period

(full-years 2004 to 2009).218 As discussed above, however, we find that upon revocation, imports from all

subject sources will likely have sufficient presence in the U.S. market to have a discernible adverse

impact on the domestic industry. We find that these imports will likely be simultaneously present in the

market alongside SSWR produced domestically as they were during the original investigations.

 210 See, e.g., COD at 15; USITC Pub. 3126 at 11-12.

 211 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 16; 1CD at 13.

 212 See, e.g., CR at II-1; PR at II-1 (indicating that domestic producers and importers shipped to multiple

geographic locations in the United States).

 213 See, e.g., COD at 15; USITC Pub. 3126 at 12.

 214 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 15-16; 1CD at 13.

 215 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-1 (showing overlapping channels of distribution for sales of SSWR produced

domestically and imported into the United States); Hearing Tr. at 67 (Blot) (observing that service centers

(distributors) typically handle small volumes of SSWR). Some reported data appear to suggest that ***. See, e.g.,

CR/PR at Table II-1 & n.1.

 216 See, e.g., COD at 15; USITC Pub. 3126 at 12.

 217 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 16; 1CD at 13.

 218 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1; see also, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-5 (which may include entries by producers not

subject to the orders).

27
5. Conclusion

Based on the traditional four competition factors that the Commission considers, we conclude that

subject imports from each of the subject countries are fungible with one another and with the domestic

like product and that SSWR from each of these sources would likely move in the same channels of

distribution and would likely compete simultaneously in the same geographic markets upon revocation of

the orders. We note that the focus of the Commission’s inquiry in five-year reviews is whether there

would likely be competition upon revocation of the relevant orders, even if there currently are no imports

from a subject country.219 Accordingly, we conclude that there likely would be a reasonable overlap of

competition among the subject imports and between the subject imports and the domestic like product if

the antidumping duty orders were revoked.

E. Other Considerations220

Having concluded above that subject imports from each of these subject countries would not be

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the orders were revoked and

having also concluded that there would likely be a reasonable overlap of competition among subject

imports from each of these sources and between subject imports and the domestic like product,

Commissioner Lane and Commissioner Pinkert would cumulate these imports unless there is a condition

or propensity – not merely a trend – that is likely to persist for a reasonably foreseeable time and that

significantly limits competition such that cumulation is not warranted. In determining whether to exercise

their discretion to cumulate subject imports in these reviews, Chairman Aranoff and Commissioner

Williamson consider whether subject imports from one source are likely to compete under similar or

different conditions in the U.S. market than other subject imports.221 We have applied our respective

analyses here.

In the first reviews, the Commission did not find that subject imports from any of the subject

countries under review were likely to compete under different conditions in the U.S. market in the event

of revocation.222 In these reviews, Cogne asks the Commission to decline to cumulate subject imports

from Italy based on its assertion that subject imports from Italy are likely to compete under different

conditions of competition than other imports subject to these reviews in the event of revocation.223

 219 See, e.g., Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“The statute and

legislative history are clear: the Commission is not required to find that subject imports currently compete in the U.S.

market.”).

 220 Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun do not join this section.

 221 See, e.g., Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 475 F. Supp. 2d at 1378 (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission

has in selecting the type of factors it considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to cumulate

subject imports in five-year reviews); Nucor v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d at 1337-38; United States Steel, Slip

Op. 08-82.

 222 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 8-16 (reflecting the views of Commissioners Lane, Hillman, Koplan, and

Miller). In those reviews, however, Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun cumulated three groups of

countries (Japan/Taiwan; Italy/Korea; and Spain/Sweden), because they found significant differences in the likely

conditions of competition among the three groups. Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun found that

subject imports from each of these countries were not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry in the event of revocation and they found a likely reasonable overlap of competition among all sources of

SSWR. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 29-35.

 223 See, e.g., Cogne’s Prehearing Br. at 18-20; Cogne’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. 1 at 10-11, 12-13, 17-19.

28
1. Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan

The record in the current reviews indicates that SSWR products manufactured by subject

producers in Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan and by producers in the United States are highly

substitutable for one another, subject producers in each of these subject countries have substantial

capacity to produce SSWR and available excess capacity, subject producers in each of these subject

countries are export-oriented, and subject producers in each of these subject countries have a history of

underselling the domestic like product in the original investigations and first reviews, as discussed above. 

For these reasons, we do not find any justification to decline to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject

imports from Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan, and we have cumulated them in these reviews.

2. Italy224

Although Cogne contends that there are some differences between subject imports from Italy and

other subject countries, we do not find any differences that justify declining to exercise our discretion to

cumulate subject imports from Italy with subject imports from Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan. Indeed,

we find that the record in the current reviews belies Cogne’s claims: the record indicates that SSWR

products manufactured by subject producers in each of these subject countries and in the United States are

highly substitutable for one another, subject producers in all five of the subject countries have substantial

capacity to produce SSWR and available excess capacity, subject producers in all five subject countries

are export-oriented, and subject producers in all five of these subject countries have a history of

underselling the domestic like product in the original investigations and first reviews, as discussed above. 

Cogne claims that the volume of subject imports from Italy declined overall during the original

investigations whereas subject imports from the other countries increased overall between 1995 and 1997. 

As Cogne correctly notes, during the original investigations, subject imports from Italy, which also

included imports from Valbruna, declined from *** short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 1996 and then

increased to *** short tons in 1997. To the extent that this information might be relevant to our decision

on cumulation, we note that, even in 1997, subject imports from Italy accounted for *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption, a share that was greater than *** and not much smaller than ***.225

Cogne claims that its current production capacity is small and that its order books were nearly full

in the second quarter of 2009. Cogne’s reported production capacity in 2009, however, ***.226

Moreover, Cogne’s own table illustrates that subject production capacity in each of the subject countries

is substantial and that subject production capacity in Italy is ***.227 Although production capacity in

Japan ***,228 the record reflects that subject producers in each of the subject countries have available

excess SSWR capacity, as discussed above. Finally, although Cogne reports that its order books have

recovered from the 2009 trough and are now virtually full,229 we do not give much weight to such data as

 224 Chairman Aranoff does not join this section. See Separate and Dissenting Views of Chairman Aranoff, Vice

Chairman Pearson, and Commissioner Okun regarding subject imports from Italy.

 225 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1. During the original investigations, Cogne accounted for *** percent of total

exports of SSWR from Italy in 1997, as noted above, meaning that imports of subject SSWR from Cogne alone were

equivalent to approximately *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 1997. Derived from CR at IV-14; PR at

IV-12; CR/PR at Table I-1.

 226 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1, IV-9.

 227 See, e.g., Cogne’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. 1 at 13.

 228 See, e.g., Cogne’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. 1 at 13.

 229 See, e.g., Cogne’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. 1 at 4-5 (“CAS’demand in 2010 has recovered from the 2009

trough, and in fact CAS’ order books for the second quarter of 2010 are effectively full. ... CAS’ order bookings to

continue...

29
an indication of Cogne’s likely capacity utilization in the reasonably foreseeable future, as discussed

earlier. Cogne’s data concern only a single quarter – the second quarter of 2010. The data represent ***

from Cogne’s utilization level for the most recent full-year period and from Cogne’s peak annual capacity

utilization for the entire review period of ***.230 Although the SSWR market is expected to improve

somewhat from 2009 levels, we do not find a basis to conclude that conditions will support such ***

utilization levels. Cogne has not shown how its particular circumstances are likely to diverge from the

overall SSWR market so sharply as to enable to company to sustain operations at near-full capacity

utilization. Moreover, Cogne submitted these data on the size of its SSWR order books relative to its

SSWR production capacity in isolation without any updates on its end-of-period inventories, production,

or shipment markets for that quarter (or for the intervening quarter, the first quarter of 2010).

Cogne also points to the fact that Italy is the only subject country that is a net importer of SSWR. 

To the extent that this fact might be relevant to our decision on cumulation, we note that the record also

reflects that Italy is the third largest exporter of SSWR in the world.231 Moreover, despite its claims that it

is not export-oriented, Cogne’s export-orientation ***, as also discussed above.232

Because we do not find a basis to decline to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports

from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan, we cumulate subject imports from Italy, Japan, Korea,

Spain, and Taiwan for purposes of our analysis in these reviews.

V. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS UNDER REVIEW ARE REVOKED

A. Legal Standards

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Tariff 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.”233 The SAA states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in

a counterfactual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an

important change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of

its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”234 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective

 229 ...continue

date for the second quarter of 2010 are *** short tons, which is *** percent of its *** ton capacity.”)

 230 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 231 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-8.

 232 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 233 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 234 SAA at 883-84. 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.” Id. at 883.

30
in nature.235 The CIT has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Tariff Act,

means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.236 237 238

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.”239 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.”240

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 effects, and impact of imports of the subject

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”241 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 under review, whether the industry is vulnerable to material

injury if the order were revoked, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19

U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).242 The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the

 235 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.

 236 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v.

United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s

opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals

(Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, 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, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002)

(“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 237 For a complete statement of Commissioner Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see 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, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362

(Review) and 731-TA-707 to 710 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 238 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, Inv.

No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (Jun. 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 these reviews and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses this issue. 

 239 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 240 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.

 241 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 242 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). We note that Commerce has not made any duty absorption findings concerning the

imports subject to these reviews. See, e.g., CR at I-19 n.35; PR at I-14 n.35.

31
Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the

Commission’s determination.243

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review were

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.244 In

doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated

factors, as follows: (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.245

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders under review were revoked,

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

imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the

price of the domestic like product.246

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review were

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a

bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to the following: 

(1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and

utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth,

ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and

production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of

the domestic like product.247 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the

business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry. As instructed by the

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

related to the orders at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders were

revoked.248

 243 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 244 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 245 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

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

considering the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely

on circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” 

SAA at 886.

 247 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 248 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
In these reviews, several foreign producers of subject merchandise did not respond to the

Commission’s questionnaires, as discussed above. Accordingly, we have relied on the facts otherwise

available when appropriate in these reviews, which consist primarily of information from the original

investigations and first five-year reviews, information available from published sources, and information

submitted in these reviews, including by the domestic industry, Cogne, POSCOSS, and other

questionnaire respondents.249 250

B. Conditions of Competition and 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.”251

We find that some conditions of competition identified by the Commission in the original

investigations and/or first reviews continue to be relevant to our analysis in these reviews. First, demand

for SSWR depends primarily on demand for the downstream products in which SSWR is used. 

Specifically, SSWR is used to produce stainless steel wire, stainless steel bars, and for applications that

require the special corrosion-resistant characteristics of this stainless steel product, such as in end uses in

automotive, medical instruments, and general manufacturing industries.252 As such, SSWR does not have

its own business cycle but rather reflects trends in general economic conditions and in the industries for

which it is used.253

Second, SSWR represents a relatively large share of the cost of the downstream products in

which it is used, and questionnaire respondents reported few substitutes for SSWR.254 SSWR is typically

made to customer specifications. Sales are primarily made directly to end users, with spot sales and short-

 249 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) 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 any other

person withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time or in the form or

manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to

19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). The verification requirements in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i) only apply to Commerce. See

Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“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 Commission investigations.”).

 250 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as

a whole in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She 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 participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the

level of participation, 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.

 251 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 252 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3126 at 13-14; USITC Pub. 3707 at 19-21; CR at II-13; PR at II-8. Some purchasers

reported purchasing SSWR for use in applications for which Buy America and/or Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) requirements apply. See, e.g., CR at II-19 to II-21, II-26, II-30 to II-31; PR at

II-12 to II-13, II-17, II-19 to II-20.

 253 See, e.g., CR at II-16; PR at II-10.

 254 See, e.g., CR at II-17; PR at II-10 to II-11. Demand for SSWR may not be as responsive to changes in price

for purchase related to government (especially Department of Defense) contracts. See, e.g., CR at II-12; PR at II-9.

33
term contracts accounting for most sales in the U.S. market. Price, as well as quality, are the most

important factors influencing purchasing decisions.255

Third, in this capital-intensive industry, SSWR producers strive to maintain high capacity

utilization in order to spread fixed costs over a larger production volume.256 

We also find several changes in conditions of competition in the U.S. market since the original

investigations and/or first reviews that are relevant to our analysis in these reviews.

Demand. During the original investigations, the Commission found overall demand for SSWR in

the United States, as measured by apparent U.S. consumption, had increased due to general growth in the

economy and the development of new applications for SSWR products, with demand in 1997 at a peak.257

During the first reviews, however, the Commission found that apparent U.S. consumption of SSWR

dropped *** in 2001 and remained *** below its 1998 level. Apparent U.S. consumption was *** short

tons in 1998, but in 2003 it was only *** short tons. The Commission surmised that competition from

imports in the downstream market for wire, as well as the 2001 recession, may have led to this decline,

but it noted agreement among the parties to those reviews that apparent U.S. consumption was likely to

grow over the next few years.258

In the current reviews, most questionnaire respondents reported that U.S. demand for SSWR

declined between 2004 and 2009. As explanation for this trend, they pointed to the current recession,

declines in U.S. demand for stainless steel wire, the movement offshore of some stainless steel wire

production, and, relative to sales of stainless steel wire by U.S. producers, increasing imports of stainless

steel wire (including imports from India of stainless steel wire rather than SSWR that was subject to an

antidumping duty order).259 According to data collected in these reviews, apparent U.S. consumption

continued its longer-term declining trend, decreasing from *** short tons in 2004 to *** short tons in

2005, increasing to *** short tons in 2006, declining to *** short tons in 2007, and increasing to ***

short tons in 2008. Apparent U.S. consumption then declined substantially to *** short tons in 2009,

which is consistent with the recessionary economic environment at that time.260 Questionnaire

respondents generally reported expectations that demand would continue to fluctuate but recover

somewhat in the reasonably foreseeable future as economic conditions improve.261

Supply. As discussed in the domestic industry section above, the identity of the domestic

producers supplying the U.S. SSWR market has changed substantially since the original investigations

and even first reviews, particularly with the emergence of NAS. In 2003, at the end of the first reviews,

Carpenter and Talley accounted for more than *** percent of the domestic industry’s total net sales

quantity and production in 2003.262 NAS has increased its share of domestic SSWR production from ***

percent in 2003 (when it began production operations) to *** percent in 2009, whereas the other domestic

producers account for *** percent (Allvac), *** percent (Carpenter, which acquired Talley in 1998), and

*** percent (Universal).263

 255 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 19; 1CD at 16-17; CR at II-21 to II-31, V-4; PR at II-13 to II-21.

 256 See, e.g., Carpenter’s Posthearing Br. at Exh. 1 at 30; CR at III-22 to III-23; CR/PR at Table III-14; 1CR at D4, D-5; Hearing Tr. at 20, 89-90 (Zilkowski), 151-54 (Ferrin).

 257 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3126 at 13-14; OCD at 18.

 258 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 19-21; 1CD at 16-17.

 259 See, e.g., CR at II-12 to II-16; PR at II-8 to II-10.

 260 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1; see also CR/PR at Figures E-1 and E-2 (steep declines in construction spending

and motor vehicle assemblies).

 261 See, e.g., CR at II-15 to II-16; PR at II-9.

 262 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 19-20; 1CD at 17.

 263 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-8.

34
Although the Commission found that the domestic industry had increased SSWR production

capacity between the original investigations and first reviews, the domestic industry decreased its capacity

by *** percent between 2004 and 2009.264

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the statutory captive production

provision did not apply, but it considered the significant volume of captive consumption of SSWR as a

condition of competition.265 In its first review determinations, the Commission found that captive

consumption of SSWR to manufacture downstream products accounted for over *** percent of the

industry’s shipments in 2003, but noted that this ratio had been gradually declining since 1998 due to

decreases in internal consumption by *** and increasing participation in the merchant market by new

domestic producers.266 Captive consumption of SSWR for use in the production of downstream products

continued to account for a substantial portion of the domestic industry’s total shipments during the

current reviews.267 *** internally consumes SSWR to produce ***.268 In 2009, ***.269 In 2009, NAS

accounted for approximately *** percent of total commercial sales by value, while Carpenter accounted

for approximately *** percent of total commercial sales, by value.270

In the first reviews, the Commission observed that subject imports remained in the U.S. market

but steadily declined from their peak in 1997.271 As we found above, subject imports from Italy, Japan,

Korea, Spain, and Taiwan had a limited, if any, presence in the U.S. market during the review period,

collectively accounting for *** percent of total apparent U.S. consumption in 2004, *** percent in 2005,

*** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, and *** percent in 2008 and 2009.272

Including imports from Sweden (for which the antidumping duty order was revoked as of

April 23, 2007) and imports from the two producers in subject countries that were not covered by any

orders, nonsubject imports accounted for *** percent of the U.S. market in 1997, the last year of the

original investigations, and steadily increased their share during the period covered by the first reviews,

until they peaked at *** percent of the market in 2000, before falling to *** percent in 2003.273 At that

time, antidumping duty orders were in place on SSWR from Brazil, India, and France, and safeguard

 264 The domestic industry’s capacity increased from *** short tons in 2004 to *** short tons in 2005, decreased to

*** short tons in 2006, increased to *** short tons in 2007, and then decreased to *** short tons in 2008 and ***

short tons in 2009. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-3. During this period, NAS and Allvac added capacity and ***

decreased its capacity by *** percent by ***. See, e.g., CR at III-3; PR at III-2. Other products that use the same

equipment and machinery as SSWR include specialty steels, stainless, electronic, high temperature alloys (***),

cold-drawn bar and angle (***), and nickel, titanium, specialty steel products (***). See, e.g., CR at III-3 at n.2; PR

at III-2 n.2.

 265 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3126 at 13-14; OCD at 18.

 266 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 19-20; 1CD at 17-18.

 267 As a share of total shipments by the domestic industry, by quantity, internal consumption of SSWR accounted

for *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and

*** percent in 2009. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-4.

 268 See, e.g., CR at III-5; PR at III-2.

 269 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-8 at n.2. By value, internal consumption in 2009 was $***. See, e.g., CR/PR at

Table III-9.

 270 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-8 at n.1. By value, commercial sales in 2009 were $***. See, e.g., CR/PR at

Table III-9.

 271 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 20-21; 1CD at 18.

 272 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 273 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

35
measures were in effect between March 5, 2002 and December 4, 2003, on steel products including

SSWR.274

During the current review period, imports into the United States of SSWR manufactured by

producers not subject to the orders and by producers in nonsubject countries declined and accounted for

an irregularly declining share of apparent U.S. consumption. As a share of apparent U.S. consumption,

nonsubject imports declined from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2005 and *** percent in 2006,

increased to *** percent in 2007, but then declined to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009.275

The leading nonsubject sources of SSWR during the current review period include China and *** (prior

to 2009); the United Kingdom, Sweden, and France, which collectively accounted for 51.7 percent of

total U.S. imports of SSWR in 2009; and ***, which alone accounted for *** percent of total U.S.

imports of SSWR in 2009.276 The countervailing duty order on SSWR from Italy was revoked effective

September 15, 2003,277 and the antidumping duty orders on imports of SSWR from Brazil and France

were revoked on August 8, 2006.278 An antidumping duty order is still in place regarding SSWR from

India.279

Substitutability. SSWR is manufactured in a wide variety of shapes, sizes, and grades in both

commodity and niche varieties. The primary use for SSWR in the United States is for the production of

wire.280 As explained above in the discussion of cumulation, market participants find subject imports

from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan to be generally interchangeable with one another and with

the domestic like product.281 Purchasers listed quality, price, and delivery as the most important factors

affecting their purchasing decisions. Because questionnaire respondents generally reported that subject

and domestic producers met quality requirements, price is likely to play an important role in purchasing

decisions.282

Other Considerations. Raw material costs are a substantial factor in industry profitability and

vary with the costs of inputs to stainless steel, which are mainly steel scrap or iron ore and alloying

elements nickel, chromium, and molybdenum.283 The domestic industry has responded to changes in raw

material costs by adjusting its sales prices.284 As a result, the domestic industry’s metal margin (defined

as the difference between its average-unit sales price and the average-unit cost of raw materials)

fluctuated moderately and averaged about $*** per short ton between 2004 and 2008, although it was

$*** per short ton in 2009.285 The domestic industry’s ratio of raw materials to sales and to total cost of

 274 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 20-21; 1CD at 18.

 275 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 276 See, e.g., CR at IV-1; PR at IV-1.

 277 See, e.g., 69 Fed. Reg. 40354 (Jul. 2, 2004). Commerce already had excluded Cogne from the countervailing

duty order on SSWR from Italy, as of November 7, 2003, in response to a report issued by the WTO Appellate Body

concerning privatization. See, e.g., 68 FR 64858 (Nov. 17, 2003).

 278 See, e.g., CR at I-5; PR at I-3.

 279 See, e.g., CR at I-5 to I-7; PR at I-3.

 280 See, e.g., CR at I-24 to I-27, V-7; PR at I-19 to I-20, V-4.

 281 See, e.g., CR at II-18 to II-31; PR at II-11 to II-21; CR/PR at Tables II-2 to II-8.

 282 See, e.g., CR at II-21 to II-31; PR at II-13 to II-21; CR/PR at Tables II-4 to II-8.

 283 See, e.g., CR at III-15, V-1; PR at III-5. In 2009, the vast majority of the domestic industry’s *** shipments

consisted of *** grade SSWR, with ***. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables III-5, IV-3. Austenitic SSWR also accounted

for the vast majority of U.S. importers’ total shipments and internal consumption/transfers to related firms in 2009. 

See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 284 See, e.g., CR at III-15; PR at III-5.

 285 See, e.g., CR at III-15; PR at III-5; CR/PR at Table III-10.

36
goods sold (“COGS”) rose irregularly between 2004 and 2008.286 The domestic industry reported that

any differences in unit costs among domestic producers are attributable to differences in product mix,

with NAS concentrating in 300-series commodity grades and Carpenter producing the full product line

but upgrading its product mix toward more specialty grades.287

C. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Orders Under Review 

Is Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury

1. Likely Volume of Cumulated Subject Imports

a. Findings in the Original Investigations and First Five-Year Reviews

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the volume of cumulated subject

imports rose by *** percent from 1995 to 1997 and subject imports’ market share rose from *** percent

over the period. It noted that the increase in the volume of subject imports was greater than the rise in

apparent U.S. consumption over the period. The Commission found the increase in volume and market

share of the subject imports to be significant.288 At the time, the Commission cumulated imports from

Italian producer Valbruna because its imports were subject to an affirmative final subsidy determination

by Commerce.

In its first review determinations, the Commission noted that cumulated subject imports (which at

that time included SSWR imports from Sweden that are now no longer subject to an order) had declined

gradually since imposition of the orders but remained in the market, accounting for *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption. It found that the domestic industry had been unable to increase its market

share until 2002-2003 due to an increase in nonsubject imports. It found that capacity and excess

capacity in the subject countries had increased significantly since the original investigations. Total

capacity had increased by at least *** short tons, and known excess capacity in the subject countries

totaled at least *** short tons, equivalent to more than *** of apparent U.S. consumption in 2003.289

The Commission found several factors indicating that subject exporters were likely to increase

exports to the United States to significant levels if the orders were revoked. First, the subject imports

maintained their presence in the United States to a significant degree, indicating the importance of the

U.S. market to the subject exporters. Second, the subject producers exported a substantial portion of their

shipments, and transportation costs did not appear to provide much disincentive to shipping SSWR to the

United States from Asia and Europe. Third, the United States was an attractive market. Some sources

suggested that prices for SSWR generally had been lower in Asia and Europe than in the United States

during the majority of the review period (although the relationship between U.S. and European prices

fluctuated in 2003 and 2004), indicating that the U.S. market remained attractive. The increase in

nonsubject imports until 2001 when apparent U.S. consumption fell also evidenced the attractiveness of

 286 The ratio of raw materials to sales varied from *** percent to *** percent but was *** percent in 2009. The

domestic industry’s raw material AUVs rose irregularly from $*** per short ton to $*** per short ton and was $***

per short ton in 2009. The ratio of raw material costs to total COGS rose irregularly from *** percent in 2004 to ***

percent in 2008 but was only *** percent in 2009. See, e.g., CR at III-15; PR at III-5; CR/PR at Table III-10.

 287 See, e.g., CR at III-16; PR at III-5; Hearing Tr. at 17 (Feeley), 20 (Ziolkowski), 53 (Hudgens); Carpenter’s

Posthearing Br. at Exh. 1 at 8, 24.

 288 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3126 at 14-15; OCD at 18-20.

 289 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 21-22; 1CD at 18-19.

37
the U.S. market. The safeguard measure on SSWR, described earlier, also was terminated in December

2003, which the Commission believed would make imports more competitive in the United States.290

The Commission found that the domestic industry was able to improve its market share to a

significant degree in 2003 but noted that the U.S. market in 2003 was less than *** the size of the market

in 1997, enhancing the significance of the increased subject imports it found to be likely if the orders

were revoked. On that basis, the Commission concluded that the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise, both in absolute terms and relative to production and consumption in the United States,

would be significant absent the restraining effects of the antidumping orders.291

b. The Current Reviews292

Several factors support the conclusion that cumulated subject import volume is likely to be

significant in the event of revocation.

First, the volume of subject imports from the cumulated subject countries increased rapidly in the

original investigations both absolutely and relative to apparent U.S. consumption and production.293

Cumulated subject imports maintained a presence in the period covered by the first reviews and only

withdrew from the U.S. market completely during the most recent part of the period covered by these

second reviews.294

Second, there is considerable production capacity in the subject countries. Collectively, subject

producers in Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan had an estimated capacity of more than 1.0 million

short tons in 2009.295

Third, there is significant unused capacity in the subject countries. Although we are unable to

quantify precisely the unused production capacity in each of the subject countries because of the failure of

many subject producers to respond to the Commission’s questionnaire in these reviews, it is clear that the

excess capacity has become substantial, as the effects of the world-wide economic slowdown have

deepened. Capacity utilization for Italian producer Cogne *** from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in

2008 before dropping to *** percent in 2009.296 Capacity utilization for Korean producer POSCOSS ***

percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009.297 Because of a lack of participation in

these reviews by subject producers of SSWR from Japan, Spain, and Taiwan, we do not have data on

 290 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 22; 1CD at 19-20.

 291 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 23; 1CD at 20.

 292 Chairman Aranoff joins the Commission’s analysis of the likely volume, likely price effects, and likely impact

of the cumulated subject imports in the event of revocation, except that she has determined not to cumulate subject

imports from Italy with those from the other subject countries. To the extent that the remainder of these views

specifically refer to Italian producer Cogne, she does not join those portions of the Commission’s views. In all other

instances, in place of the data cited, she relies on data reported in USITC Pub. 3126 at V-8; CR/PR at Tables I-1, I10-12, IV-1, IV-7, IV-9, IV-18-19, V-9-10; and Cogne’s Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1 at 2-5, 10-11, Exh. 4, 5, and 9.

 293 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1 (showing the cumulated volume of subject imports from the subject countries

increased from 29,393 short tons in 1995 to 35,084 short tons in 1996 and 50,851 short tons in 1997, corresponding

to an increasing market share from *** percent in 1995 to *** percent in 1996 and *** percent in 1997) (including

imports from Italian producer Valbruna through 1997).

 294 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1 (showing that the market share of cumulated subject imports declined from ***

percent in 1998 to *** percent in 1999 and *** percent in 2000, increased to *** percent in 2001 and *** percent in

2002 and then declined to *** percent in 2003 and *** percent in 2004 before increasing to *** percent in 2005 and

then declining to *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, and *** in 2008 and 2009).

 295 (Derived from CR/PR at Tables IV-9, IV-10, IV-12, IV-13, and IV-15).

 296 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 297 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-12.

38
current excess capacity in those countries.298 Nevertheless, collectively, the subject producers in Italy and

Korea decreased their capacity utilization from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2008 and then to

*** percent in 2009. Subject producers in the other subject countries also reported having excess

capacity in the original investigations and first-year reviews, when they last submitted information on

their operations, as discussed above. The excess capacity available from just Italy and Korea in 2009 was

*** short tons, an amount that *** apparent U.S. consumption of *** short tons in that year and that

***.299 The combined excess capacity of all five subject countries is likely to be significantly larger than

these figures for Italy and Korea. We note that these excess capacity estimates do not even factor in any

shifting of production from non-SSWR products or any shifting of volumes currently supplying other

markets to the U.S. market.300

Fourth, subject SSWR producers depend to a significant degree on exports. Cogne’s *** percent

in 2004 to *** percent in 2009.301 Despite the fact that POSCOSS reports that it *** percent in 2004 to

*** percent in 2009.302 Because of a lack of participation by subject producers in the other subject

countries, we do not have full information on their degree of export orientation. Available information

***, however, shows that subject producers in Japan, Spain, and Taiwan exported large volumes of

SSWR and that their exports were relatively large compared to available published data on their SSWR

production capacity between 2004 and 2008.303 Data from the original investigations and first reviews

also indicate large exports from the subject producers in Japan, Spain, and Taiwan during those periods,

as discussed above.

Finally, the United States is an attractive market for subject producers.304 Given the capitalintensive nature of this industry and the need to operate at high capacity to spread fixed costs over a larger

production volume, the aggregate excess capacity among the subject countries will likely provide a strong

incentive for subject producers of SSWR to increase shipments to export markets, including the United

States, if the orders are revoked. ***, illustrating the attractiveness of the U.S. market to producers in

 298 See, e.g., CR at IV-19 to IV-20, IV-25 to IV-28; PR at IV-13 to IV-17.

 299 Relative to apparent U.S. consumption, combined excess capacity in just Italy and Korea has grown over the

current review period from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009. (Derived from

CR/PR at Tables I-1, IV-9, IV-12).

 300 ***. See, e.g., CR at II-6; PR at II-4. *** currently export stainless steel wire to the United States. See, e.g.,

CR at II-9; PR at II-5. Imports of stainless steel bar from Japan and Spain are still subject to antidumping duty

orders in the United States. See, e.g., CR at I-6 to I-7; PR at I-4 to I-5.

 301 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 302 See, e.g., CR at IV-21; PR at IV-14; CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 303 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-11 (showing SSWR exports from Japan of 97,392 short tons in 2008), Table IV10 (showing production capacity of *** short tons in 2008 for subject producers in Japan); Table IV-14 (showing

SSWR exports from Spain of 52,027 short tons in 2008), Table IV-13 (showing production capacity of *** short

tons in 2008); and Table IV-16 (showing SSWR exports from Taiwan of 99,425 short tons in 2008), Table IV-15

(showing that Walsin Lihwa accounted for *** of the *** short tons of SSWR production capacity in Taiwan in

2008).

 304 We also considered the other economic factors enumerated in the statute in connection with the likely volume

analysis. The evidence in the record with respect to current inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely

increases in inventories, is incomplete (due to the lack of information from many foreign producers) and

inconclusive, although evidence in the original investigations and first reviews indicated available inventories of

subject merchandise from the cumulated subject countries. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-9, IV-12. With respect to

third-country import barriers, the record does not indicate that any exist on SSWR exports from the subject

countries. See, e.g., CR at II-4; PR at II-4.

39
Europe and Asia despite the transportation costs associated with such sales, as discussed above.305

Moreover, concerns about transportation costs did not preclude subject producers from selling to the U.S.

market during the original investigations or first reviews, as also discussed above.306 Data on relative

prices in the U.S. and other regional markets is relatively limited on the current record, although AUV

data suggest that the U.S. market is more attractive than ***, as discussed above.307 308 Contrary to the

assertions of Cogne and POSCOSS that NAS functions as an impenetrable shield to an increased subject

import presence in the U.S. market, data on the current record indicate that ***.309 Moreover, as also

discussed above, ***, is not the only U.S. SSWR supplier. The statute requires us to consider the likely

effects of revocation on the domestic industry as a whole, including on the ***.310

Accordingly, based on the demonstrated ability of the subject SSWR producers in the subject

countries to increase imports into the U.S. market rapidly and to try to stay in the U.S. market even after

imposition of the antidumping duty orders, their substantial production capacity and significant combined

unused capacity, their ability to shift production to SSWR from other products using the same

manufacturing facilities and/or shift SSWR from downstream applications and/or shift sales from other

markets, their export-orientation, and the attractiveness of the U.S. market, we find that the likely volume

of cumulated subject imports, in absolute terms and relative to both U.S. production and consumption,

would be significant in the event of revocation.

2. Likely Price Effects of Cumulated Subject Imports

a. Findings in the Original Investigations and First Reviews

In the original investigations, the Commission found that purchasers of SSWR considered price

to be an important factor in making purchasing decisions. The subject imports from the subject countries

undersold the domestic like product in 83.9 percent of comparisons,311 and the Commission found that the

subject imports suppressed price increases to a significant degree. Domestic prices were declining or flat

and the industry’s cost of goods sold rose as a fraction of net sales even though demand was increasing.312

The Commission found that the conditions of competition at the time of its first reviews were

generally similar to those that prevailed during the original investigations, although at that time there was

greater domestic production capacity but less demand for SSWR. It found no indication that the nature of

the imported product had changed. The record indicated a moderate degree of substitutability between

 305 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-1, IV-2; CR at IV-1; PR at IV-1.

 306 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 307 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-18, IV-19; CR at IV-30 to IV-31; PR at IV-18.

 308 Chairman Aranoff does not join the remainder of this paragraph.

 309 Compare, e.g., CR/PR at Tables IV-18, IV-19 with, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-9 (showing AUV data for NAS’

commercial sales).

 310 See, e.g., 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1) (“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 ... .”); 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A) (defining

“industry” as “the producers as a whole of a domestic like product ... .”). For similar reasons, we reject arguments

by Cogne and POSCOSS that the domestic industry is likely to be ***. See, e.g., Cogne’s Prehearing Br. at 16-17;

POSCOSS’ Prehearing Br. at 6. As we found to be the case in the original investigations and first reviews,

commercial shipments account for a sizeable portion of the domestic industry’s total shipments that we cannot

ignore under the statute. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-4.

 311 This conclusion was based on pricing data for the subject imports that the Commission cumulated in the

original investigations, and thus included data on imports from Sweden and Italian producer Valbruna, which are no

longer subject to orders in these reviews.

 312 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3126 at 15-16; OCD at 21.

40
the subject imports and domestic SSWR and that price, as well as quality, were the most important factors

influencing purchasing decisions.313 The Commission found that subject imports continued to undersell

domestic SSWR to a significant extent even with the orders in place (in 127 of 177 comparisons from

1998 to 2003), for the majority of comparisons for each of the six pricing products, and at average

underselling margins of 17.9 percent.314 The Commission found domestic prices were weak over the

period of review, with domestic SSWR prices falling during 1998 and then fluctuating between 1999 and

2003.315 Prices for raw materials fluctuated over the period and increased as a ratio to the value of net

sales from *** percent. The domestic industry could not raise prices sufficiently to cover costs. Recent

increases in the prices for raw materials led domestic producers to attempt to raise prices to offset these

rising costs.316

The Commission found several factors continued to make it difficult for the domestic industry to

increase prices. While the industry had added capacity, demand remained below the level during the

original investigations. Competition in the downstream market for wire also forced purchasers of SSWR

to be particularly sensitive to price. It found that all of these factors were likely to continue to keep

domestic prices for SSWR weak even with the orders in place.317 Noting that subject imports continued

to undersell domestic SSWR in order to maintain a presence in the U.S. market, the Commission found

that, if the orders were revoked, purchasers of SSWR would have further leverage for obtaining lower

prices from the domestic producers. Because of the substitutability of the subject imports and the

importance of price in purchasing decisions, it found that the increasing volumes of subject imports

would likely undersell domestic SSWR to a significant degree to regain market share. The Commission

found that this underselling would likely suppress price increases and depress domestic prices to a

significant degree.318

b. The Current Reviews

In the current reviews, purchasers listed quality, price, and delivery as the most important factors

affecting their purchasing decisions. Because questionnaire respondents generally reported that subject

and domestic producers met quality requirements and that subject imports are highly substitutable for the

domestic like product, price is likely to play an important role in purchasing decisions in the event that the

antidumping duty orders on subject imports are revoked, just as it did during the original investigations.319

The current record indicates that spot sales play a large role in the U.S. market, accounting for 90 percent

or more of the four responding domestic producers’ sales and over half of responding importers’ sales.320

 313 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 23; 1CD at 21.

 314 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 23; 1CD at 13.

 315 Domestic prices for three pricing products fell by *** percent over the period, prices for two pricing products

fell by approximately *** percent, and prices for one pricing product rose by *** percent. While the safeguard

measure would be expected to bolster U.S. prices, the Commission found demand was weak during 2002 and 2003

so any positive effect on prices was limited, and the safeguard measure had since been revoked. See, e.g., USITC

Pub. 3707 at 23; 1CD at 21.

 316 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 24; 1CD at 21.

 317 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 24; 1CD at 21-22.

 318 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 24; 1CD at 22.

 319 See, e.g., CR at II-21 to II-31; PR at II-11 to II-21; CR/PR at Tables II-4 to II-8.

 320 See, e.g., CR at V-4 to V-5; PR at V-2 to V-3.

41
Given these conditions and the relatively few purchasers of SSWR in the U.S. commercial market,321

pricing information is likely to be disseminated relatively easily, and price changes are likely to occur

relatively quickly.

Subject imports undersold the domestic like product at significant margins and in a majority of

comparisons during the original investigations.322 Even under the discipline of the antidumping duty

orders, subject imports from the cumulated subject countries continued to undersell the domestic like

product in a majority of observations and at significant margins during the period covered by the first

reviews.323 Quarterly pricing data collected for 2004 through 2009 show only limited underselling by

***, but there were only limited or no U.S. imports of subject merchandise from each of the subject

countries during this period, suggesting that the orders provided some discipline on pricing practices of

the subject imports in the U.S. market in recent years.324

Between 2004 and 2008, prices for U.S.-produced SSWR generally followed raw material prices

before decreasing into 2009 as the recession continued. In particular, products 1 and 2 (each at least 8

percent nickel by weight) and product 3 (at least 10 percent nickel) show a pattern similar to nickel price

trends, with a large price spike in 2007 followed by a downtrend in 2008 and some price recovery in

2009. Product 6, which contains no nickel, has a much flatter trend, and products 4 and 5 had large gaps

in the pricing data.325 As noted above, raw materials accounted for between *** and *** percent of

domestic producers’ COGS between 2004 and 2009 and raw material prices have been historically

volatile, so it is important for domestic producers to be able to pass on their raw material costs through

surcharges or other such means, which they were apparently generally able to do during the current

review period.326

In view of the factors motivating foreign producers of the subject merchandise to increase

shipments to the United States and the degree of substitutability between subject and U.S.-produced

SSWR, producers in the subject countries are likely to use underselling to increase market share in the

United States. The record already reflects competitive pricing in the U.S. market among domestic

producers and imports from nonsubject suppliers, even though nonsubject suppliers held a declining share

of the U.S. market during the review period.327 Purchasers admitted switching suppliers after imposition

of the orders for price-based reasons, that they expected price-based competition in the event of

revocation, and that they anticipated obtaining lower prices in the event the orders were revoked.328 We

find that underselling by subject imports is likely to result in significant negative price effects in the event

of revocation, particularly given the historical volatility of raw material prices, the importance of

surcharges to producers in this industry, the large portion of sales on the spot market, and the competitive

nature of the U.S. market, and in light of long-term trends showing generally declining demand for SSWR

in the U.S. market described above. Thus, given the likely significant volume of cumulated subject

imports, the importance of price in the SSWR market, the interchangeability of subject imports and the

domestic like product, the adverse price effects of low-priced imports in the original investigations and

the first reviews even with the orders in place, and evidence of long-term declines in apparent U.S.

 321 See, e.g., CR at II-18; PR at II-11; Cogne’s Posthearing Br. at 9-10, Exh. 1 at 7-8 (identifying *** as the main

purchasers of SSWR in the U.S. market during the review period).

 322 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-10 (stating that at least some of the data for Italy concern imports from Valbruna,

which is no longer subject to any order).

 323 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-9.

 324 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1, V-8.

 325 See, e.g., CR at V-7 to V-8; PR at V-5; CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6, Figure V-2, Appendix F.

 326 See, e.g., CR at V-1 to V-2; PR at V-1; CR/PR at Appendix F.

 327 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 328 See, e.g., CR at II-18 to II-31; PR at II-11 to II-21.

42
consumption of SSWR, we conclude that, if the orders under review were revoked, significant volumes of

cumulated subject imports from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan would significantly undersell the

domestic like product to gain market share and likely would have significant depressing and/or

suppressing effects on prices of the domestic like product.

3. Likely Impact of Cumulated Subject Imports329

a. Findings in the Original Determinations and First Reviews

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the domestic industry’s production and

capacity utilization fell during each year of the period of investigation. Its shipments fell over the period

as did employment levels. The domestic industry’s financial performance also generally deteriorated and

the domestic industry’s operating profits declined from 1995 to 1996, before turning into operating losses

in 1997.330

In its five-year review determinations, the Commission found that the condition of the domestic

industry had deteriorated and found the industry to be vulnerable. The industry ***. The domestic

industry’s total sales fell over the period, and the cost of goods sold including raw material costs did not

fall as quickly, resulting in losses. Raw material prices had begun to increase and the Commission found

this would place further pressure on the domestic industry’s financial condition. While the domestic

industry captively consumed a portion of its production, the Commission found that the current level of

captive consumption was lower than the level during the original investigations when the Commission

found the domestic industry to be materially injured by subject imports.331

Although the domestic industry had increased its capacity as a result of the start-up of Charter

and NAS in 2001 and 2003 respectively, domestic production fell over the period, decreasing from 1998

 329 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, 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Tariff Act states that “the Commission may consider the

magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” 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 conducted expedited sunset reviews of each of the antidumping duty orders. With respect to the

antidumping duty order on subject imports from Italy, Commerce found likely margins of 11.25 percent for Cogne

and all others. With respect to the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Japan, Commerce found likely

margins of 34.21 percent for Daido, 21.18 percent for Nippon, 34.21 percent for Sanyo, 34.21 percent for Sumitomo,

and 25.26 percent for all others. With respect to the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Korea,

Commerce found likely margins of 5.77 percent for Dongbang, Changwon, POSCO, and all others, and a margin of

28.44 percent for Sammi. With respect to the antidumping duty order on Spain, Commerce found a likely margin of

2.71 percent for Roldan and all others. With respect to the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Taiwan,

Commerce found a likely margin of 8.29 percent for Walsin Cartech and all others. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-5. 

The lower antidumping duty margins for Italy and Spain and the revocation of the antidumping duty order on SSWR

from Sweden result from Commerce’s determinations issued under section 129 of the URAA (19 U.S.C. §

3538(b)(2)) in response to the WTO panel report in United States – Laws, Regulations, and Methodology for

Calculating Dumping Margins (Zeroing) (EC). See, e.g., 72 Fed. Reg. 25261 (May 4, 2007) (notice of

determinations under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and revocations and partial revocations of

certain antidumping duty orders).

 330 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3126 at 17-19; OCD at 22-24.

 331 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 25-26; 1CD at 23.

43
to 2001 and then recovering only somewhat in 2002 and 2003. Consequently, the industry’s capacity

utilization fell from *** percent in 1998 to *** percent in 2003.332

The Commission found that neither the antidumping duty orders nor the safeguard measure

enabled the industry to improve its position over the period. In the face of a recession and weak demand,

both subject and nonsubject imports continued to capture a significant portion of the U.S. market despite

the domestic industry’s additions to capacity, which should have enabled it to increase its market share

with the antidumping duty orders in place. The industry was unable to increase its market share until

2003, when nonsubject and subject imports declined. The Commission also found that the domestic

industry’s employment levels and capital expenditures reflected the weakness of the domestic industry.333

Based on its findings that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to a

significant increase in the volume of subject imports that would undersell the domestic like product and

significantly suppress or depress already weak U.S. prices, it found that the volume and price effects of

the subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales,

market share, and revenues of a vulnerable domestic industry. These reductions, in turn, would have a

direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability as well as its ability to raise capital and make and

maintain necessary capital investments. Accordingly, the Commission concluded in the first reviews that,

if the antidumping duty orders were revoked, subject imports would be likely to have a significant

adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.334

b. The Current Reviews

The condition of the domestic industry declined irregularly between 2004 and 2009, before

deteriorating dramatically in 2009. Apparent U.S. consumption declined from *** short tons in 2004 to

*** short tons in 2005, increased to *** short tons in 2006 but then declined to *** short tons in 2007,

increased to *** short tons in 2008, and declined substantially to *** short tons in 2009.335 The domestic

industry’s SSWR production, U.S. shipments, net sales quantities, and capacity utilization followed a

similar trend.336 The domestic industry’s capacity increased from *** short tons in 2004 to *** short tons

in 2005, decreased to *** short tons in 2006, increased to *** short tons in 2007, but then decreased to

*** short tons in 2008 and *** short tons in 2009.337 The domestic industry’s employment-related

indicators showed similar patterns.338 In terms of the domestic industry’s financial performance, gross

 332 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 26; 1CD at 23.

 333 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 26; 1CD at 24.

 334 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3707 at 26-27; 1CD at 24.

 335 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 336 The domestic industry’s production decreased from *** short tons in 2004 to *** short tons in 2005, increased

to *** short tons in 2006, before decreasing to *** short tons in 2007, increasing to *** short tons in 2008, and

decreasing to *** short tons in 2009. U.S. shipments decreased from *** short tons in 2004 to *** short tons in

2005, increased to *** short tons in 2006, before decreasing to *** short tons in 2007, increasing to *** short tons in

2008, and decreasing to *** short tons in 2009. Net sales quantities decreased from *** short tons in 2004 to ***

short tons in 2005, increased to *** short tons in 2006, before decreasing to *** short tons in 2007, increasing to ***

short tons in 2008, and then decreasing to *** short tons in 2009. Capacity utilization declined from *** percent in

2004 to *** percent in 2005, increased to *** percent in 2006, declined to *** percent in 2007, increased to ***

percent in 2008, and then declined to *** percent in 2009. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 337 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 338 The domestic industry’s production and related workers (PRWs) decreased from *** in 2004 to *** in 2005

and then increased to *** in 2006 and *** in 2007 before declining to *** in 2008 and *** in 2009. The number of

hours worked increased irregularly from *** in 2004 to *** in 2007 and then declined to *** in 2009. Hourly

continue...

44
profits were greatest in 2007 but were losses in 2009. The domestic industry recorded an operating

margin of positive *** percent in 2004, negative *** percent in 2005, negative *** percent in 2006,

positive *** percent in 2007, positive *** percent in 2008, and negative *** percent in 2009.339 The

industry’s capital expenditures increased from $*** in 2004 to $*** in 2005, decreased to $*** in 2006,

increased to $*** in 2007 and $*** in 2008, but then declined to $*** in 2009.340 We find, based on

these data, particularly the sharp declines in 2009, that the domestic industry is in a weakened state and

therefore vulnerable to the likely volume and price effects of subject imports.

As discussed in previous sections, we conclude that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on

imports of SSWR from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan would likely lead to a significant increase

in the cumulated volume of subject imports that would likely undersell the domestic like product and

significantly suppress or depress U.S. prices. We find that the likely volume and price effects of the

subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales,

market share, and revenues of the domestic industry. These reductions would have a direct adverse

impact on the industry’s profitability and employment as well as its ability to raise capital and make and

maintain necessary capital investments. We conclude that, if the antidumping duty orders were revoked,

subject imports from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan would be likely to have a significant adverse

impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

We have considered the likely role of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market. As discussed above,

nonsubject imports took on an increasingly significant role in the U.S. market after the imposition of the

antidumping duty orders but have since reduced their market presence.341 We find that nonsubject

imports are not likely to prevent subject imports from reentering the U.S. market in the event of the

revocation of the antidumping duty orders. The presence of these imports from nonsubject producers

from the subject countries and from nonsubject countries does not diminish the attractiveness of the U.S.

market to producers in the subject countries, especially given the large amount of unused subject capacity. 

We note that nonsubject imports were sharply lower in 2009 (*** percent market share compared to ***

percent market share in 2008) and that, although this decline may not be permanent, it is likely to provide

increased opportunity for likely competitively priced subject imports to reenter the U.S. market, at least in

the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, we find that cumulated subject imports are likely to have

a significant adverse impact upon the domestic industry in the event of revocation, notwithstanding the

presence of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market.

Finally, we have considered the likely future effects of suppressed demand for SSWR on the

domestic industry. The global economic crisis has adversely affected the domestic industry through

lower industry sales volumes, capacity utilization, and prices. It is unclear when U.S. demand will

improve. Nevertheless, for the reasons described above, we find that subject imports would further

reduce domestic sales volumes and prices significantly and thus would be likely to have a significant

adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation regardless of demand levels. We also

note that subject imports increased and gained market share while demand increased during the period

covered by the original investigations and continued to maintain a presence in the U.S. market during the

 338 ...continue

wages increased from $*** in 2004 to $*** in 2005 and $*** in 2006 before declining to $*** in 2007, increasing

to $*** in 2008, and then declining to $*** in 2009. Productivity in short tons per hour declined from *** in 2004

to *** in 2005, increased to *** in 2006, declined to *** in 2007, increased to *** in 2008, and declined to *** in

2009. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

 339 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1; CR at III-9; PR at III-4.

 340 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1; CR at III-9; PR at III-4.

 341 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

45
period covered by the first reviews, even after imposition of the antidumping duty orders, despite an

overall decline in U.S. demand between 1998 and 2003.342

CONCLUSION

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

from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

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

 342 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1.

46
DISSENTING VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN SHARA L. ARANOFF WITH RESPECT TO SUBJECT

IMPORTS FROM ITALY

 AND

SEPARATE AND DISSENTING VIEWS OF VICE CHAIRMAN DANIEL R. PEARSON AND

COMMISSIONER DEANNA TANNER OKUN WITH RESPECT TO SUBJECT IMPORTS

FROM ITALY, JAPAN, KOREA, SPAIN, AND TAIWAN

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

Act of 1930, as amended, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel wire rod

(“SSWR”) from Japan and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury

to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, and that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders on SSWR from Italy, Korea, and Spain 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.343

We join the Views of the Commission concerning background, domestic like product, domestic

industry, the no discernible adverse impact and likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition sections

of the cumulation analysis with respect to subject imports from Japan and Taiwan, and the legal standard

governing five-year reviews. We write separately, however, with respect to our cumulation analysis of

the likely conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry, and our analysis of the

likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the antidumping duty orders regarding

subject imports from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan are revoked.344

I. CUMULATION

A. Legal Standard

While we consider the same issues discussed in the Commission’s Views in determining whether

to exercise our discretion to cumulate the subject imports, our analytical framework begins with whether

imports from the subject countries are likely to face similar conditions of competition.345 For those

 343 Chairman Aranoff joins only sections I.B.2 and II.C of these Dissenting Views with respect to subject imports

from Italy. She determines that revocation of the antidumping duty orders with respect to Korea and Spain would be

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

foreseeable time and joins the Views of the Commission with respect to subject imports from Japan, Korea, Spain,

and Taiwan.

 344 Chairman Aranoff joins the Commission’s Views with respect to the legal standard for cumulation, cumulation

of subject imports from Japan, Korea, Spain and Taiwan, and her determination that revocation of the antidumping

duty orders on subject imports from Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan on a cumulated basis would be likely to lead to

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

She only joins these Dissenting Views with respect to her determination not to cumulate subject imports from Italy

with other subject imports because imports from Italy are likely to compete in the United States market under

different conditions of competition and her determination that revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject

imports from Italy would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic

industry producing SSWR within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 345 See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and

Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-873 to 875, 877 to 880, and 882 (Review), USITC Pub. 3933 (July 2007) (Separate and

Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Regarding Cumulation). 

Accord Nucor Corp. v. United States, 605 F. Supp.2d 1361, 1372 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009); Nucor Corp. v. United

States, 594 F. Supp.2d 1320, 1345-47 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008), aff’d Slip Op. 2009-1234, -1235 (Fed Cir., April 7,

continue...

47
subject imports which are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition, we next proceed to

consider whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition whereby those imports are

likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product. Finally, if based on that analysis

we intend to exercise our discretion to cumulate one or more subject countries, we analyze whether we

are precluded from cumulating such imports because the imports from one or more subject countries,

assessed individually, are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.

B. Analysis of Likely Conditions of Competition Among Subject Imports346

In determining whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports, we first assess

whether the subject imports from each subject country are likely to compete under similar conditions of

competition in the U.S. market if the orders are revoked.347 Based on our cumulation analysis, we find

significant differences in the conditions of competition between the subject imports from Japan and

Taiwan, and subject imports from Italy, Korea, and Spain. We therefore exercise our discretion to

cumulate the likely volume and effects of subject imports from Japan and Taiwan, and to assess the likely

volume and effects of subject imports from Italy, Korea, and Spain separately from any other country.

1. Japan and Taiwan

In the original investigations, subject imports from Japan and Taiwan drove the rapid increase in

import volume. Subject imports from Japan increased from *** short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in

1997, an increase of *** percent in just two years. Subject imports from Taiwan increased at an

explosive rate, leaping from just *** short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 1997. The rate of increase in

volume of subject imports from Japan and Taiwan easily outstripped that of any other subject country,

nonsubject imports, or overall demand, as measured by apparent U.S. consumption.348 These dynamic

increases in volume were accompanied by sharp drops in average unit values.349

The antidumping orders on Japan and Taiwan were imposed in September 1998. By 1999,

subject imports from Japan had fallen to *** tons, down nearly *** percent from the peak just two years

earlier, and down nearly *** percent from the 1995 starting point. Subject import volume from Japan

continued to dwindle thereafter until *** after 2007; there were *** subject imports from Japan in 2008

and 2009.350 Subject imports from Taiwan in 1999 were *** short tons, down *** percent from the 1997

 345 ...continue

2010).

 346 Chairman Aranoff joins only subsection 2 of this section, concerning subject imports from Italy.

 347 See, e.g., Nucor Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 2009-1234, -1235 at 7-10 (Fed. Cir., April 7, 2010) (“the

ITC’s consideration of the likely differing conditions of competition in deciding whether to cumulate the subject

imports as part of the sunset review determination was a reasonable and permissible interpretation of the discretion

conferred by § 1675a(a)(7). . . .” Id. at 10.), aff’g, 594 F. Supp.2d 1320 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008); Allegheny Ludlum

Corp. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1370, 1378 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (recognizing the wide latitude the

Commission has in selecting the types of factors it considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to

cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews); Nucor Corp. v. United States, 605 F. Supp.2d 1361, 1369-72 (Ct.

Int’l Trade 2009); Nucor v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1337-38 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008); United States Steel

Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 08-82 (Aug. 5, 2008).

 348 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 349 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 350 CR/PR at Table I-1.

48
peak. There was a brief increase in 2001, but after 2003 subject imports from Taiwan, like those from

Japan, declined significantly. Total subject imports from Taiwan in 2009 were just *** short tons.351 

The record in the original investigations demonstrated that subject producers in Japan and Taiwan

were capable of responding quickly and intensively to openings in the U.S. market. The volume trends

since the orders were imposed suggest that the orders were responsible for largely excluding subject

imports from Japan and Taiwan from the U.S. market. During the original investigations, eight Japanese

SSWR producers, with a reported production capacity of *** in 1997, and two subject Taiwanese SSWR

producers, with a reported production capacity of *** in 1997, provided useable data to the

Commission.352 In the first and second reviews, the Commission received no useable data from SSWR

producers in Japan and incomplete data from a subject SSWR producer in Taiwan for those review

periods.353 In the current reviews, based on data submitted by *** from market research company ***,

subject SSWR production capacity has increased to *** in Japan and *** in Taiwan.354 Nothing in the

record suggests that producers in those two countries are operating under conditions of competition any

different from those found in the original investigations. We therefore exercise our discretion to assess

cumulatively the volume and effect of subject imports from Japan and Taiwan.

2. Italy

Evidence gathered in these reviews suggests that the remaining subject producer in Italy,355

Cogne, would operate under conditions of competition differing from those facing the other subject

producers if the orders were revoked. In the original investigations, the volume of U.S. imports of SSWR

from Italy was actually lower in 1997, at *** short tons, than in the first year of the period of

investigation. Italy’s market share fell from *** percent in 1995 to *** percent in 1997. Of the five

subject countries, Italy was the only one that saw declines in volumes or market share.356

The imposition of the orders had an immediate and significant effect on imports from Cogne. 

Imports from Italy had been *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 1997 (of which Cogne supplied

*** percent)357, but in 1998, subject imports accounted for *** percent. The imposition of the orders

eventually drove most subject imports out of the U.S. market, but subject imports from Italy exited first

 351 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 352 OCR at VII-7 and VII-19, and Tables VII-3 and VII-8. Despite relatively high capacity utilization levels for

the Japanese SSWR producers in the original investigations, the volume of their excess capacity in 1997 is

equivalent to about *** of the apparent U.S. consumption in 2009. During the original investigations, the Japanese

SSWR producers exported about *** of their total shipments. OCR at Table VII-3. During the original

investigations, the subject Taiwanese SSWR producers increased their production capacity by about *** from 1995

to 1997, to *** in 1997. As production capacity increased, subject Taiwanese producers’ exports as a share of their

total shipments increased from *** in 1997. OCR at Table VII-8.

 353 CR at IV-19, PR at IV-13 and CR at IV-27, PR at IV-16. In the first reviews, the Commission received

incomplete data from Taiwanese SSWR producer, Walsin Lihwa Corp. CR at IV-27, PR at IV-16. The Commission

received no response from Taiwan in these second reviews. CR at IV-27, PR at IV-16.

 354 CR/PR at Tables IV-10 and IV-15.

 355 While there are two SSWR producers in Italy, Valbruna received a de minimis antidumping duty margin from

Commerce in the original investigations and has not been subject to an antidumping duty order. Valbruna remained

subject to a countervailing duty order on subject imports from Italy, until that order was revoked by Commerce in

July 2004. CR at IV-15, n.5, PR at IV-12, n.5. Valbruna accounted for *** of Italy’s exports to the United States in

1997, and accounts for *** of its fairly traded exports during the current review period. CR at IV-14, PR at IV-12

and Table I-1.

 356 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 357 CR at IV-14, PR at IV-12.

49
and have stayed out of the market since.358 Indeed, evidence gathered in the first reviews indicated that

the subject producer in Italy adjusted to its exclusion from the U.S. market without significant difficulty. 

The industry operated at high levels of capacity utilization. Cogne exported the majority of its shipments,

but it found large markets in Asia as well as in *** and the European Union.359 

The record gathered in these second reviews indicate that the subject producer is still an active

exporter.360 While the record indicates that in 2009 the industry operated at a significantly lower rate of

capacity utilization, the rate for 2004 to 2008 and during the first period of review was similar to that

reported in the original investigations.361 But the firm’s apparent heavy reliance on exports is somewhat

misleading. The vast majority of its export shipments are in fact ***.362 Another significant portion of

Cogne’s exports are shipped within the European Union, a market described by Cogne as being

significantly larger than the U.S. market.363 Shipments within the EU are more analogous to home market

shipments than true exports for Cogne and have significantly lower transportation costs than shipments to

extra-European markets.364 Furthermore, the EU has expanded since our first reviews, adding 12 new

member states.365 Cogne also exports to Asia, and its exports to Asia have risen from *** percent of its

shipments in 2004 to *** percent in 2009.366 The increase in shipments in Asia is largely a result of

***.367 

Shipments to the U.S. market did not increase significantly, either relatively or absolutely, during

the original investigations, trends which set Italy apart from all other remaining subject countries. In the

years since the orders were imposed, the Italian producer successfully found other markets. Cogne has

unique advantages regarding most of its exports, either through ownership ties, proximity, or the

advantages of common currency and reduced trade barriers. While it is reasonable to presume that all

SSWR manufacturers seek to maximize production, Cogne has successfully done so without access to the

U.S. market since the orders were imposed.368 On balance, we find that the subject producer in Italy

likely would face conditions of competition different from those faced by producers in other subject

countries. We therefore assess the volume and effects of subject imports from Italy separately from any

other subject country.

 358 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 359 USITC Pub. 3707 at 34.

 360 CR/PR at Table IV-9. While Italy is a net importer, we recognize that this is not primarily due to Cogne

transfers and thus we have not relied on it in our analysis. Cogne posthearing brief at Exh. 1, pp.10-11.

 361 During the original investigations, SSWR producers in Italy had capacity utilization levels ranging from a low

of ***. OCR at Table VII-2. In the first reviews, the subject Italian capacity utilization levels ranged from a low of

***. 1CR at Table IV-5. In the current reviews, the subject Italian capacity utilization levels for the 2004 to 2008

period ranged from a low of ***, and then declined to *** in 2009. CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 362 CR at IV-16, PR at IV-13

 363 CR at IV-16, PR at IV-13 Cogne posthearing brief at Exh. 1, pp. 2-3.

 364 Cogne posthearing brief at Exh. 1, pp. 2-3. See, e.g., Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line

and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-707-709 (Second Review), USITC Pub.

3918 at 13 (May 2007).

 365 CR at IV-16 n.8, PR at IV-13 n.8.

 366 CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 367 CR at IV-16, PR at IV-13.

 368 Chairman Aranoff finds that, unlike the SSWR industries in the other subject countries, Cogne has little or no

incentive to seek to optimize its capacity utilization by aggressively seeking new export markets. Cogne submitted

unrebutted evidence that its capacity utilization, while low in 2009, has rebounded to high levels in 2010. Cogne

posthearing brief at Exh. 1, p.4. Accordingly, she finds that subject imports from Italy will compete under different

conditions of competition in the U.S. market than will imports from the other subject countries.

50
3. Korea

In the original investigations, subject imports from Korea increased at a far less significant rate

than did subject imports from Japan or Taiwan, and to some degree less than subject imports from Spain. 

Evidence gathered in these reviews369 suggest that the industry in Korea will operate under conditions of

competition that distinguish it from the industries in the other subject countries. 

The imposition of the orders did not have an immediate effect on the volume of imports from

Korea. Subject imports from Korea remained close to pre-order levels through 2000 but decreased

sharply thereafter, and virtually disappeared from the U.S. market after 2005, despite relatively low

dumping margins.370 The Korean industry has consolidated to a single SSWR producer since 2006, and

production capacity has remained at virtually the same level it was during the first reviews which was

only slightly higher than during the original investigations.371 As evident in the first five-year reviews,

the home market remains the primary focus for Korean SSWR shipments, accounting for between *** of

SSWR shipments during the period examined in these reviews.372 The subject producer in Korea still

ships to export markets,373 but gradually shifted to, and has maintained, receptive and valuable markets

away from the United States.374 The principal destination for Korean SSWR exports continues to be to

purchasers in Asia, which accounted for a low of *** in 2004 and a high of *** in 2008 of all Korean

SSWR shipments during the period examined in these reviews.375 Thus, even though the export market is

not insignificant, the Korean producer has found outlets other than the U.S. market for its exports. 

The record gathered in these reviews indicates that the producer in Korea would face conditions

of competition different from those faced by producers in the other subject countries. First, the principal

market for Korean SSWR shipments continues to be its home market, unlike the shipment patterns for

other subject countries. Second, subject imports from Korea remained in the U.S. market after imposition

of the orders, and, despite low dumping margins, gradually exited as the Korean producer developed

export markets outside the United States. Third, Korean capacity has remained steady since the original

investigations. These distinctions suggest that the Korean producer would respond to revocation

differently than producers in the other subject countries. We therefore assess the volume and effects of

subject imports from Korea separately from any other subject country.

 369 In the current reviews, the Commission received usable data from POSCOSS, which is estimated to account

for *** percent of total SSWR rod production in Korea in 2009. CR at IV-21, PR at IV-14.

 370 CR/PR at Tables I-1 and I-5.

 371 Korea’s reported SSWR capacity was *** short tons (white coil) in 1997 (original investigations), *** short

tons (white coil) from 1998 to 2003 (first five-year reviews), and *** short tons from 2004 to 2009 (second five-year

reviews). OCR at Table VII-4, 1CR at Table IV-11, CR at Table IV-12.

 372 CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 373 The export market accounted for between *** percent of SSWR shipments in the period examined in these

reviews. CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 374 During the first reviews, shipments to the U.S. market accounted for *** percent of shipments in 1998 but only

*** percent by 2003, while shipments to purchasers in Asia shifted from *** percent in 1998 to *** percent of all

shipments in 2003. 1CR/1PR at Table IV-11.

 375 CR/PR at Table IV-12. As discussed below, the Asian markets are expanding and forecasted to experience the

highest rate of increase in demand. CR at IV-24 and 30, PR at IV-15 and IV-18. Based on the *** demand for wire

rod is projected to increase by *** per year through 2012 whereas demand in Europe and the United States are

projected to increase by ***, respectively. ***. POSCOSS reports in its 2010 business plan ***. CR at IV-24, PR

at IV-15.

51
4. Spain

In the original investigations, subject imports from Spain were the smallest in volume and

increased at a far less significant rate than did subject imports from Japan or Taiwan.376 Evidence

gathered in these reviews suggests that subject producers in Spain will operate under conditions of

competition that distinguish them from the industries in the other subject countries.

The volume of subject imports from Spain did not change significantly after the orders were

imposed, and actually increased in some years, but remained close overall to pre-order levels through

2003. These imports were subject to the second lowest initial dumping margins of any of the countries

subject to these investigations.377 We found in the first five-year reviews that the continued steady

presence of these imports suggested that they had found purchasers relatively insensitive to the

uncertainties posed by the orders, and that revocation would have little effect on volume.

Moreover, after 2003, the pattern changed; subject imports from Spain virtually disappeared from

the U.S. market, coinciding with the start-up of SSWR production by U.S. producer North American

Stainless (“NAS”) in July 2003.378 U.S. producer NAS, and the largest Spanish producer, Roldan, are

related as wholly-owned subsidiaries of Acerinox, S.A.379 Prior to 2003 or 2004, Roldan was the only

significant exporter to the U.S. market.380 While there is evidence in these reviews that these subsidiaries

are ***381 the evidence also demonstrates that with the emergence of NAS as the dominant U.S. producer,

subject imports from Spain have largely left the U.S. market.382

In short, conditions of competition have changed for producers in Spain in ways that likely would

affect the way they respond to revocation. They remained in the U.S. market after the order and only left

the U.S. market, despite low dumping margins, after the related U.S. producer commenced SSWR

production and gained an increasing foothold in the U.S. market.383 Producers in Spain will thus be

operating under conditions of competition significantly different from those facing them during the

original investigations, and also significantly different from those likely to face producers of subject

merchandise in Japan or Taiwan, or even those in Italy or Korea. We therefore exercise our discretion to

assess the volume and effect of subject imports from Spain separately from any other subject country.

 376 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 377 CR/PR at Table I-5. For Spain, the final margin determined by Commerce in the original investigations was

4.72 percent.

 378 CR at III-2, PR at III-1.

 379 CR at IV-25, PR at IV-15.

 380 Hearing Tr. at 52 (Lasoff). During the original investigations, two Spanish SSWR producers were identified,

Roldan and Olarra, S.A., and both provided information to the Commission. Roldan reportedly dominated the

Spanish SSWR industry, accounting for *** of SSWR production in Spain and *** of SSWR exports to the U.S.

market. OCR at VII-15. In the first and second reviews, neither firm provided information to the Commission. In

the current reviews, *** submitted data regarding the Spanish industry from market research company *** which, in

addition to ***, identified a ***. Based on this data, *** in 2009. CR/PR at Table IV-13.

 381 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, Exh. 1, p.2 and Exh. 4; CR at IV-25, PR at IV-15.

 382 CR/PR at Table I-1 and I-8.

 383 At the Commission’s hearing, NAS’ Vice President indicated that Roldan would not ship to the United States

if it could do so at a better price than NAS because “the investment originates from Spain here at North American

Stainless, and whether it’s rod in this instance or even flat products we do not elect to compete with ourselves, and

therefore there would be {no} interest on Roldan’s part, capacity or not, to bring the product here, mostly owing to

the fact it’s an investment of theirs, let alone the excess capacity NAS now has. It would not serve the company.” 

Hearing Tr. at 47-48 (Feeley). In an affidavit submitted in Carpenter’s posthearing brief, “NAS has indicated in its

questionnaire that ***. NAS’QR at Question I-3. NAS is not affirmatively requesting that the Commission revoke

the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rod from Spain.” Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Exhibit 4 at 1.

52
5. Conclusion

We join in the Commission majority’s findings in Sections IV.C-D with respect to subject

imports from Japan and Taiwan, and therefore concur with the finding that there likely would be a

reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from Japan and Taiwan, and do not find that

subject imports from these subject countries would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the

domestic industry in the event of revocation of the orders. Therefore, we exercise our discretion to

cumulate subject imports from Japan and Taiwan, and to assess the likely subject imports from Italy,

Korea, and Spain separately from any other country. Based on our cumulation determination, we have

examined the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the antidumping duty orders

are revoked.

II. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS ON SUBJECT IMPORTS ARE REVOKED

We join in Section V.A of the Commission’s Views, which discusses the legal standards.384

A. Conditions of Competition and 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.”385

1. Demand

Demand for SSWR depends primarily on demand for the downstream products in which SSWR is

used. Specifically, SSWR is used to produce stainless steel wire, stainless steel bars, and for applications

that require the special corrosion-resistant characteristics of this stainless steel product, such as in end

uses in automotive, medical instruments, and general manufacturing industries.386 As such, SSWR does

not have its own business cycle but rather reflects trends in general economic conditions and in the

industries for which it is used.387

Apparent U.S. consumption increased over the original period of investigations. Apparent U.S.

consumption in 1997 was *** short tons, up *** percent from the 1995 level of *** short tons.388 In its

original determination, the Commission attributed the increase in demand to general growth in the

economy and also the use of SSWR in “new and expanding applications such as bar conversion and

automotive applications, and replacement of carbon steel products.”389

The last year of the period examined in the original investigations has proven to be a peak for

SSWR demand. Apparent consumption in the United States reached *** short tons in 2000, the second

full year of the orders, but even that peak was *** below the 1997 level. In this current period of review,

apparent consumption was at its highest in the first year, 2004, at *** short tons, down *** percent from

 384 Chairman Aranoff also joins in Section V.B and C of the Commission’s Views with respect to its analysis and

determinations insofar as it addresses likely conditions of competition and volume, price effects, and impact of

subject imports from Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan.

 385 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)4.

 386 CR at II-13, PR at II-8.

 387 CR at II-16, PR at II-10.

 388 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 389 USITC Pub. 3126 at 14, citing II-2.

53
the 1997 peak. In 2009, apparent U.S. consumption was just *** short tons.390 Questionnaire

respondents generally reported expectations that demand would continue to fluctuate but recover

somewhat in the reasonably foreseeable future as economic conditions improve.391

Domestic producers indicate that demand will rise 24 percent over the next three years. 

Production in the automotive market is expected to increase 25 percent in 2010 alone. But growth in

other areas is likely to be slow in 2010 and modest in subsequent years, leaving apparent U.S.

consumption well below even 2008 levels.392 Respondent Cogne notes that the decline in demand for

SSWR was more *** than the decline in demand for stainless steel bar, but expects the worldwide market

for stainless steel long products to reach ***.393

2. Supply

a. Domestic producers

In the original investigations, five domestic producers were identified: Al Tech, Carpenter,

Republic, Talley, and ***; *** toll produced for ***.394 Total domestic production capacity in 1997 was

substantially less than apparent U.S. consumption.395 Even operating at peak capacity utilization, the

domestic industry was unable to supply all the needs of the U.S. SSWR market.396

The domestic industry has changed significantly since the original determination. Republic

ceased SSWR operations; Talley was acquired by Carpenter; Al Tech reorganized under Chapter 11,

emerged as Empire Specialty Steel, shut down, had its assets purchased by Dunkirk, and began operating

again in 2002. Avesta Sheffield merged with Outokumpu Stainless and ***. Finally, two new producers

entered the U.S. market: Charter Specialty Steel constructed a finishing mill and began production in

2001, using as raw material billets purchased ***. Charter closed permanently in 2008 and sold its

finishing mill in January 2010. Finally, in 2003, North American Steel (NAS), which is affiliated with

Roldan, a producer of subject merchandise in Spain, began U.S. production in 2003, with continuous

casting, combination rod/bar mill, and finishing facilities for SSWR and stainless steel bar.397

NAS accounted for only *** percent of production in 2003, the last year of the first review

period. Carpenter accounted for *** percent of domestic production that year and its affiliate Talley,

acquired in 1998, accounted for *** percent. In 2009, however, NAS accounted for *** percent of

domestic production, while Carpenter/Talley accounted for *** percent. NAS’s growing importance in

the domestic industry was most clearly shown in the merchant market. NAS *** than does Carpenter,

instead directing a substantial *** of its production to merchant market sales. In 2004, NAS accounted

for *** percent by quantity of commercial sales by domestic producers; in 2009, that share was ***

percent. NAS’s increasing dominance in the merchant market has come mostly at the expense of

Carpenter. Carpenter’s commercial sales fell from *** in 2004 to *** the next year, and its share of

commercial sales by domestic producers fell from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2009.398 The

industry did continue to devote the majority of its total shipments to internal consumption, but the share

 390 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 391 See, e.g., CR at II-15 and II-16, PR at II-9 and II-10.

 392 Petitioners’ posthearing brief at Exh. 1, pp. 22-23; Hearing Tr. at 29-30 (Blot).

 393 Cogne posthearing brief at Exh. 4, pp. 4-5.

 394 CR at I-23 and I-27-I-28, PR at I-15 and I-21.

 395 CR/PR at Table I-1, as revised by memoranda INV-BB-082 and INV-BB-089.

 396 CR/PR at Table I-1, as revised by memoranda INV-BB-082 and INV-BB-089.

 397 CR at I-28-I-30, PR at I–21-I-22.

 398 CR/PR at Table III-9. 

54
going to internal consumption fell from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2009. In 2006, the

industry’s peak year for production and shipments, only *** percent was directed to internal

consumption.399

The arrival of NAS also significantly changed the industry’s overall capacity. The domestic

industry lacked sufficient capacity to meet domestic consumption in every year of the original

investigation period. Throughout this entire second period of review, however, domestic capacity has

exceeded total apparent U.S. consumption in every year, even though capacity in 2009 was down ***

percent from its 2005 peak. During the original period of investigation, even with increased imports,

capacity utilization remained above *** percent, but during this second review period capacity was below

*** percent in four of six years.400 Capacity utilization in 2009 was *** percent. 

b. Imports

Imports played a role in the U.S. market throughout the period examined in the original

investigations and in the first review period. The imposition of the orders on Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain,

and Taiwan resulted in a steady decline in subject import market share, but nonsubject imports increased

in significance during that first review period, rising to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2000

and 2001. During this second review period, however, imports have steadily declined both in volume and

in market share. Subject imports were barely measureable throughout the second period of review. 

Nonsubject imports slipped from *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2004 to *** percent in

2009. Nonsubject imports from Taiwan consistently accounted for the largest share of nonsubject imports

throughout this second review period.401

3. Substitutability

In the original investigations, the Commission found the domestic like product and subject

imports to be generally substitutable when compared by size and grade,402 and we found the same to be

true in the first reviews.403 The record in these second reviews indicates that purchasers continue to view

the domestic like product and subject imports as substitutes for each other, generally reporting subject

imports as comparable to the domestic like product in quality, consistency, and product range.404 Most

responding purchasers and importers, as well as all responding domestic producers, rated the domestic

like product and subject imports as always or frequently interchangeable.405

Domestic producers have described SSWR as a commodity product, sold in the U.S. market

primarily on the basis of price.406 Purchasers ranked quality as the most important factor in purchasing

decisions, but price was named the second most important factor by a plurality of purchasers.407 No

 399 CR/PR at Tables III-4 and III-8.

 400 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 401 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 402 USITC Pub. 3126 at 15.

 403 USITC Pub. 3707 at 41.

 404 CR/PR at Table II-5.

 405 CR/PR at Table II-6. Purchasers were less likely to see U.S. and Japanese product as comparable in

consistency and range but nonetheless found that those products were always or frequently interchangeable. CR/PR

at Table II-6.

 406 CR at II-21, PR at II-13.

 407 CR/PR at Table II-3.

55
purchaser ranked price as “not important” in purchasing decisions.408 SSWR represents a relatively large

share of the cost of immediate downstream products, which would also suggest that purchasers would be

sensitive to price differences.409

4. Costs and Pricing

In general, raw material prices rose sharply between 2004 and 2007-2008 and then fell thereafter. 

Scrap iron, nickel, and ferromanganese followed this pattern, while molybdenum and natural gas prices

had two spikes over the second period of review, in 2005 and 2008.410 Unit raw material costs rose

sharply between 2004 and 2007, with 2007 costs nearly *** times higher than 2004 costs. Unit raw

material costs fell significantly after 2007, but 2009 unit costs were still nearly *** percent higher than in

2004. The ratio of raw material costs to total net sales rose steadily over this second period of review,

from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2007, ending at *** percent in 2009.411

Raw materials relative to total net sales rose over the second review period, but the industry’s

metal margin was significantly higher in 2007, at $*** per short ton, than in 2004, when the industry’s

margin was $***. By 2009, the industry’s metal margin was down to $***.412 There were very

significant variations in metal margins between the members of the domestic industry.413

Domestic producers try to offset the cost of raw materials by passing them through to purchasers

via a surcharge. Surcharge formulae may be based on a combination of relevant metal prices, including

scrap iron and alloys such as nickel and molybdenum, as well as natural gas prices.414 The price of nickel

in particular is closely coordinated with SSWR prices.415 Prices are gathered from sources such as

American Metals Market, the London Metal Exchange, and NYMEX. The surcharges may be adjusted as

frequently as every month, and some surcharges are available publicly through company websites.416

This practice is typically followed in Europe, though surcharge changes may lag U.S. surcharge changes

by a quarter.417 The use of such a surcharge is less common among U.S. importers, and in Asia prices are

quoted with raw material costs already incorporated, though Asian producers may not fully cover

increased raw material increases with price changes.418 While surcharge changes by U.S. producers are

frequent, base price changes are less so, and base price changes are generally made in response to supply

and demand considerations.419

In the U.S. market, spot sales are the norm, with four producers reporting 90 percent or more of

their sales made this way. All responding importers made at least half their sales on a spot basis. Even

when producers maintained set price lists, negotiations, including the base price as well as quality,

 408 CR/PR at Table II-4.

 409 CR at II-17, PR at II-11.

 410 CR/PR at Figure F-1.

 411 CR/PR at Table III-10.

 412 CR/PR at Table III-10. 

 413 CR/PR at Table III-10.

 414 CR at V-1, PR at V-1.

 415 CR at V-2 and Figure V-1; PR at V-1 and Figure V-1.

 416 CR at V-1-V3, PR at V-1-V-2.

 417 CR at V-3, PR at V-1.

 418 CR at V-1, V-3 and n.6; PR at V-1-V-2 and n.6.

 419 CR at V-1, PR at V-1.

56
volume, etc., were also the norm.420 Six purchasers described NAS as the price leader in the U.S. market,

though NAS claims it has lowered prices only in response to import competition.421

In these second reviews, product-specific pricing data were gathered on six products. Prices for

the three 300-series products followed the same pattern as did nickel prices, with sharp peaks in 2007 or

2008, followed by significant declines thereafter. For these three products, 2009 prices were generally

also well below 2004 levels.422

5. Trade Remedies

The SSWR market in the United States has been subject to a variety of trade remedies. The

orders under review were imposed in 1998. At that time, orders were already in place on SSWR imports

from Brazil, France, India, and Spain; the countervailing duty order on Spain was revoked in 2000, and

the antidumping orders on Brazil and France were revoked in 2006.423 In 2001, at the request of the

United States Trade Representative and, subsequently, a resolution by the Committee on Finance of the

United States Senate, the Commission instituted a safeguard investigation on a wide variety of steel

products, including SSWR; in March 2002, the President imposed temporary additional tariffs on SSWR. 

Those safeguard remedies were terminated in December 2003.424 A variety of antidumping and

countervailing duty orders are in effect on other stainless steel products, including stainless steel bar from

Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain; orders on stainless steel bar from France, Germany, Italy, Korea, and the

United Kingdom were imposed in 2002 but revoked in 2008.425

6. The Domestic Industry’s History

We have already noted the significant changes in the domestic industry since the subject orders

were first imposed. In particular, this second period of review saw NAS take over as the leading domestic

producer, both in total volume and in merchant market sales. This period of review also saw a significant

contraction in total domestic production capacity. Despite NAS’s entry into the industry, total domestic

production capacity in 2009 was down *** percent from its 2005 peak.426 

The record contains 15 years’ worth of industry performance information. As we noted above,

the market for SSWR has been subject to a significant variety of remedies during this period in addition

to these subject orders. Yet the industry has generally operated at relatively low rates of capacity

utilization–only *** did the industry operate at over *** percent. Only *** since these orders were

imposed did the industry achieve profitability in two straight years.427 Nonetheless, the industry was able

to attract significant new participants and new productive capacity. Even with a significant reduction in

capacity during the second review period, the domestic industry still finished the period of review with

more than enough capacity to meet all domestic demand, a significant change from the original

investigations.

 420 CR at V-4-V-5, PR at V-2-V-3.

 421 CR at V-6, PR at V-3.

 422 CR/PR at Tables V-1-V-6.

 423 CR at I-5, PR at I-3.

 424 CR at I-8-I-9, PR at I-5.

 425 CR at I-6-I-7, PR at I-4-I-5.

 426 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 427 CR/PR at Table I-1.

57
B. Revocation of the antidumping duty orders on subject imports from Japan and

Taiwan are likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury within a

reasonably foreseeable time

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review were

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. In so

doing, the Commission shall consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated in the

statute: (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 in countries other than the

United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if the production facilities in the foreign country,

which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other

products.428

Our focus in these reviews is whether subject import volume is likely to be significant in the

reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty order is revoked.429 In performing our analysis, we

have taken into account the Commission’s previous volume findings with respect to the subject imports. 

In the original determination the Commission found that the volume of cumulated subject imports

increased *** percent between 1995 and 1997, from *** short tons to *** short tons. The value of

cumulated imports from subject countries rose from *** in 1995 to *** in 1997, an increase of ***

percent. The Commission further found that the volume of subject imports in the 1995-1997 period

exceeded the increase in apparent domestic consumption by *** short tons, and that subject imports

gained market share at the expense of domestic producers. The Commission found the increases in

volume and market share of subject imports to be significant.430 In the first reviews, we found it likely

that cumulated subject import volume for Japan and Taiwan likely would be significant upon revocation,

both absolutely and relatively.431

In reviewing the original record, it is apparent that subject imports from Japan and Taiwan were

chiefly responsible for the increase in imports between 1995 and 1997. Subject imports from Japan

increased from *** short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 1997, an increase of *** percent.432 Subject

imports from Taiwan also increased sharply between 1995 and 1997, from *** short tons to *** short

tons, a nearly *** increase. Together, Japan and Taiwan accounted for *** percent of the increase in total

subject imports between 1995 and 1997.433 Japan increased its market share from *** percent to ***

percent and Taiwan increased its market share from *** percent to *** percent between 1995 and 1997. 

Japan and Taiwan’s combined market share in 1997 registered *** percent, while the remaining three

countries, combined, accounted for *** percent of U.S. market share in 1997.434

The orders were effective in excluding subject imports from Japan and Taiwan from the U.S.

market. Subject imports from Japan and Taiwan sharply declined during the period of review and were

 428 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 429 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 430 USITC Pub. 3126 at 15.

 431 USITC Pub. 3707 at 40.

 432 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 433 CR/PR at Table I-1. At the time of the original determination, all imports of SSWR were subject imports;

therefore, we have included imports from Valbruna in this calculation.

 434 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

58
nearly non-existent in the U.S. market by 2003 (*** short tons, combined). Record evidence suggests

that subject imports from Japan and Taiwan will reenter the U.S. market if the antidumping orders are

revoked. In fact, the two countries’ post-order behavior suggests that the imposition of the orders were

responsible for the rapid decline in subject imports from Japan and Taiwan from the U.S. market in

1998.435

The limited evidence available on these second reviews record indicate that the SSWR industries

in Japan and Taiwan remain extremely large, relative both to the U.S. industry and recent levels of

apparent U.S. consumption.436 The subject producers in Japan are estimated to have *** short tons of

capacity, and the subject producers in Taiwan are estimated at *** short tons.437 Both industries are

extremely active in export markets as well. The industry in Japan is estimated to have exported *** short

tons in 2008, while the industry in Taiwan is estimated to have exported *** short tons that same year;438

apparent U.S. consumption in 2008 was *** short tons.439 Each industry has exported over 100,000 short

tons during some years of this second period of review.440 Both have exported to a variety of countries

and markets during the period of review.441

Additionally, information provided during the original investigations and the first reviews

indicated that producers in both Japan and Taiwan typically held inventory equivalent to *** percent of

total annual shipments, which would allow shipments in significant quantities to reach the U.S. market

soon after revocation. At least two subject producers in Japan are also believed to product stainless steel

bar as well, which would enable those producers to engage in product shifting.

Therefore, we find that the likely volume of subject imports from Japan and Taiwan upon

revocation would be significant, both absolutely and relatively. 

2. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping finding is revoked, the

Commission considers whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject imports as

compared to domestic like product, and if 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.442

In performing our analysis, we have taken into account the Commission’s previous price findings. 

In the original determination, the Commission found that subject imports undersold the domestic like

product in 83.9 percent of quarterly price comparisons by average margins of 7.6 percent.443

Additionally, the Commission found that underselling was widespread and significant for the products for

which pricing data was collected, which were considered by the Commission to be high-volume,

 435 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 436 In the original investigations, the Commission received questionnaire responses from both Japanese and

Taiwanese SSWR producers, accounting for the majority of production in each country. OCR at VII-7-VII-11 and

VII-19-VII-22. In the current reviews, the Commission received no completed questionnaire responses from

Japanese or Taiwanese producers of SSWR during the 2004-2009 period. CR at IV-19 and IV-27, PR at IV-13 and

IV-16.

 437 CR/PR at Tables IV-10 and IV-15.

 438 CR/PR at Tables IV-11 and IV-16.

 439 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 440 CR/PR at Tables IV-11 and IV-16.

 441 CR/PR at Tables IV-11 and IV-16.

 442 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(3).

 443 USITC Pub. 3126 at 16.

59
commodity-type grades of SSWR. Moreover, the Commission found price suppression to a significant

degree, as producers were unable to raise prices to cover rising production costs. The Commission found

that prices were falling or remained flat as the industry’s ratio of cost of goods sold to net revenue had

risen.444 In the first reviews, we found that revocation of the orders on Japan and Taiwan would likely

lead to significant underselling by subject imports and to significant price suppression within a reasonably

foreseeable time.445

Pricing data supplied by the domestic industry indicate that SSWR prices rose throughout the

early part of the period of review, generally peaking in 2007 or 2008, and falling thereafter.446 This

pattern was apparently driven more by shifts in raw material prices rather than demand, as apparent

consumption in the U.S. market peaked in 2004.447 Despite the decline in apparent consumption, in the

years after 2004 the domestic industry was able to pass on rising raw material costs, and the industry’s

ratio of cost of goods sold to sales fell in 2006-2008. This is a significant change from the original period

of investigation, wherein the domestic industry’s ratio of costs of goods sold to sales rose significantly

faster than did costs during a period where demand increased.448

At the end of this second period of review prices were generally depressed. Nonetheless, pricing

data suggest that prices in the U.S. market were generally well above those found in some other

significant SSWR markets, particularly true for the Asian markets which absorbed significant volumes of

exports from Japan and Taiwan.449 We recognize that the Asian markets are large and that demand in

these markets is forecasted to continue to increase. However, in the current reviews, we have limited

information about Japanese and Taiwanese customers and export shipment patterns. Thus, the apparent

disparity in pricing suggests that subject imports from Japan and Taiwan would again be drawn into the

U.S. market if the orders were revoked. 

Underselling during the original investigations was both widespread and significant, leading to

price suppression. Subject imports from Japan and Taiwan not only entered the U.S. market in rapidly

increasing volumes but at declining prices as well; between 1995 and 1997, the AUVs of imports from

Japan fell by *** percent, those from Taiwan by *** percent.450 During the current period of review, the

domestic industry had some success, even in a declining market, of recouping rising raw material costs. 

But the record indicates that circumstances of the original investigations are likely to recur. The market

for SSWR remains a price-sensitive one, with a significant degree of substitutability between the

domestic like product and subject imports. Upon revocation, subject imports would again arrive in large

volumes and at aggressive prices, and the domestic industry is likely again to suffer significant price

depression or suppression as a result. Therefore, we find that revocation of the order on Japan and

Taiwan is likely to lead to significant price effects.

 444 USITC Pub. 3126 at 16.

 445 USITC Pub. 3707 at 41.

 446 CR/PR at Tables V-1-V-6. Average unit values (AUVs) for U.S. shipments and net sales by the domestic

industry followed a similar pattern. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 447 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 448 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 449 CR/PR at Table IV-18. We note that specific pricing data for higher-volume, more commodity-like domestic

products also indicate that prices for the domestic like product were generally higher than reported pricing in Asian

markets, particularly before the general collapse in demand in 2009. Compare CR/PR at Table IV-18 with CR/PR at

Tables V-1 and V-2.

 450 CR/PR at Table I-1.

60
3. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping order is

revoked, the Commission considers 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.451

In the original determination the Commission found that subject imports had a significant adverse

impact on the U.S. SSWR industry, emphasizing the increase in subject import market share at the direct

expense of U.S. producers; declining domestic production during each year of the period examined; a

drop in U.S. shipments by volume and value between 1995 and 1997; reductions in employment; and a

deterioration of the financial performance of the industry.452 In the first reviews, we did not view the

domestic industry as being in a weakened state, but found that the cumulated volume of subject imports

from Japan and Taiwan would have a significant impact on the industry.453

We have carefully considered whether the imposition of these orders resulted in any improvement

in the domestic industry. Subject imports from Japan and Taiwan retreated from the U.S. market after the

orders were imposed and have remained largely absent from the market since 1999. During that time

period, the domestic industry’s performance was generally unremarkable, with few years of profitability

and several years with significant losses. During the second period of review, the industry’s performance

improved somewhat. The industry managed its only back-to-back years of profitability in 2007-2008,

despite rising raw material costs and falling demand, and also gained market shares well in excess of that

held during the original period of review.

Responding parties believe that demand for SSWR will recover from its current cyclical trough in

the reasonably foreseeable future. We also believe that NAS’s development has made the industry as a

whole stronger than it was during the original investigations or the first reviews, as NAS seems wellplaced to compete in the merchant market even for sales of commodity-type products.

The timing of the industry’s improvement suggests that the entry of NAS, and its successful

participation in the commercial sales portion of the market, are better explanations for the industry’s

improvement than these orders. Nonetheless, we find that revocation of the orders on Japan and Taiwan

are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. Subject imports from Japan and

Taiwan increased rapidly and significantly in the absence of orders during the original review period, and

imports from these two countries actually accounted for the vast majority of the overall increase. The

record indicates that these industries remain large and participate in a variety of export markets in very

significant volumes. Given the commodity nature of the product and higher prices in the U.S. market,

subject imports are likely to enter the market in significant volumes. Demand is likely to increase in the

near future, but remain well below peak levels, and subject imports will again likely compete aggressively

on price. Loss of market share is likely to lead to reduced capacity utilization again, even for an industry

that has already significantly reduced production capacity. Price depression or suppression will put

increasing pressure on operating margins while making it difficult for the industry to recoup any increases

in raw materials. The likely result is further erosion in financial performance, accompanied by losses in

productivity and employment, such as occurred during the original investigations. 

 451 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).

 452 USITC Pub. 3126 at 17-19.

 453 USITC Pub. 3707 at 43.

61
Based on the aforementioned reasons, we therefore find that revocation of the orders on Japan

and Taiwan are likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic SSWR

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

C. Revocation of the antidumping duty orders on subject imports from Italy are not

likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably

foreseeable time

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

Subject imports from Italy were essentially excluded from the U.S. market after the orders were

imposed.454 In 2009, the subject producer in Italy operated at only *** percent capacity utilization.455

The producer has a long history of being export-oriented.456 Nevertheless, we find the record does not

indicate that the volume of subject imports from Italy would likely be significant upon revocation.

Cogne has argued that it would find it difficult to reenter the U.S. market, given its long absence

and its current lack of a dedicated SSWR salesman in the U.S.457 Given Cogne’s size, sophistication, and

knowledge of the U.S. market, we find it likely that Cogne would be able to reenter the U.S. market

within a reasonably foreseeable time if opportunities were available. What we do not find likely, on this

record, is that Cogne would reenter the U.S. market in significant quantities or in commodity grades.

The producer in Italy is dependent on exports, and was more so at the end of this second period of

review than at its outset.458 But we have already noted that most of Cogne’s export volume is to

purchasers in extreme proximity; within the EU; or to a related affiliate in Asia.459 These are all markets

that have taken up the vast majority of Cogne’s shipments throughout the period of review. While

production and shipments were down sharply in 2009, Cogne has produced evidence that its 2010 order

books are already well-filled,460 and that its production efforts are likely to be directed to the same easily

reachable markets that, as recently as 2006, required Cogne to produce at *** percent of capacity. We

find no record evidence that Cogne could improve its overall performance by reducing sales to existing

customers and redirecting those volumes to the U.S. market. Nor is Cogne likely to have significant

unused capacity in the reasonably foreseeable future. Capacity in Italy has been flat during the period of

review and there are no plans to significantly increase capacity in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

Inventories at the end of 2009 were just *** short tons.461 Accordingly, we find that Cogne lacks any

incentive to increase its exports to the United States to significant levels in the event of revocation.

The record indicates that subject imports from Italy actually declined during the original

investigations. Since then Cogne has been successful in finding markets much closer to home or with

related subsidiaries. It has presented evidence that its 2010 production is likely to be much stronger, even

 454 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 455 CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 456 CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 457 Cogne posthearing brief at Exh. 1, pp.7-8.

 458 Italian export shipments as a share of total shipments accounted for about *** from 1995 to 1997 (original

investigations), and ranged from a low of *** between 1998 and 2003 (subject producer shipments in first reviews). 

OCR at VII-2 and 1CR at Table IV-5. In the current reviews, subject Italian export shipments as a share of total

shipments ranged from a low of *** between 1998 and 2003. CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 459 CR at IV-16, PR at IV-13. ***. Id. In the current reviews, subject Italian SSWR exports to all other markets

as a share of its total shipments ranged from a low of *** between 2004 and 2009. CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 460 See, e.g., Cogne’s Posthearing Brief, Exhibit 4.

 461 CR/PR at Table IV-9.

62
without access to the U.S. market, than in 2009 and that the firm will have little available excess

capacity.462 Cogne’s closest markets in Europe are significantly larger than the U.S. market, and Cogne

has presented forecast information indicating that the European market will continue to outperform the

U.S. market for the foreseeable future.463 Furthermore, we note that the revocation of a countervailing

duty order on Valbruna, the other SSWR producer in Italy and similar in size to Cogne, led to an increase

in import volume in one year, with imports then settling back down into normal patterns. 

For these reasons, and taking into consideration our findings above concerning the conditions of

competition distinctive to this industry, we do not find it likely that the volume of SSWR from Italy

would be significant, in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States,

within a reasonably foreseeable time in the event of revocation.

2. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

During the original investigations, sales of subject imported SSWR from Italy to purchasers

undersold the domestic like product in a majority of comparisons (29 of 41 comparisons), but by small

margins, with an average underselling margin of just 1.4 percent.464 In the years since the orders were

imposed, as we have noted, Cogne found substantial markets elsewhere. But Cogne has been faced with a

relatively high antidumping duty in what has been described as a commodity market, at 12.73 percent,

and it has been largely absent from the U.S. market. The unit values for its export sales appear lower than

the unit values in the U.S. commercial market. These factors taken together would suggest that

underselling, followed by price suppression or depression, could be an outcome of revocation. However,

given the particular characteristics of the Italian producer and the changes in the U.S. market during this

second period of review, we do not find significant price effects likely.

Prices for domestically produced SSWR generally rose throughout the first portion of the period

of review, peaking in 2007-08, and then falling notably thereafter. This trend was true for most specific

pricing products and for AUVs for domestic shipments. But this period of review saw a fairly sharp

divergence between AUVs for commercial sales by domestic producers and the value of their internally

consumed SSWR. In 2004, the unit value for the domestic industry’s commercial sales was ***, the unit

value for internal transfers was ***, and the overall unit value was ***. In 2005, however, NAS’s share

of the domestic industry’s commercial sales jumped from *** percent the preceding year to ***

percent.465 Compared to its other domestic producers, NAS is more focused on commercial sales than

internal consumption and on commodity versus specialty grades, and its unit values are significantly

lower than those for other domestic producers. As a result, the gap between unit values for commercial

sales and internal transfers widened. By 2009, the unit value for the domestic industry’s commercial sales

was ***, while the unit value of its internal transfers was ***.466

For any producer looking to enter the U.S. market in substantial quantities or at commodity

grades, therefore, prices or unit values for NAS’s commercial sales would be the relevant comparison.467

By this measure, throughout this second period of review, Cogne received significantly higher AUVs for

 462 Cogne posthearing brief at Exh. 1, p.4, and Exh. 5.

 463 Cogne posthearing brief at Exh. 9.

 464 USITC Pub. 3126 at V-8.

 465 CR/PR at Tables III-3 and III-4, III-9.

 466 CR/PR at Table III-9.

 467 NAS has argued that its prices were low during the period of review because of competition from nonsubject

imports. But we note that NAS’s market share grew steadily over the period of review as nonsubject imports

steadily declined, and NAS was consistently profitable, and the most consistently profitable member of the domestic

industry, even as its market share expanded.

63
its exports to the EU and to other markets. AUVs for its Asian sales were lower, but, as noted, a

significant portion of those sales were to an affiliate.468

We have already noted that the subject producer successfully found other markets throughout the

review periods. Cogne has furthermore produced evidence indicating that it will have little excess

capacity in the near future and that its primary, closest markets are likely to continue being significantly

larger than the U.S. market, as well as typically yielding higher AUVs for Cogne. Given that the subject

producer is not likely to have significant excess capacity and that it has markets that generally return

better prices than does the U.S. merchant market, dominated as it is by NAS, we find little evidence in the

record to indicate that Cogne would have motivation to price its products aggressively in order to try to

compete in any significant quantities in the commodity, merchant market portion of the market dominated

by NAS. We therefore do not find it likely that subject imports from Italy would enter the U.S. market

and undersell to a significant degree, lead to price suppression or depression, or otherwise have

significant price effects within the reasonably foreseeable future if the order on imports from Italy were

revoked.

3. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

We have carefully considered whether the imposition of this order resulted in any improvement in

the domestic industry. Subject imports from Italy retreated from the U.S. market after the order was

imposed and have remained absent from the U.S. market since. During the first review period, the

domestic industry’s performance was generally unremarkable, with few years of profitability and several

years with significant losses. During this second period of review, the industry’s performance improved

somewhat, as the industry experienced its only back-to-back years of profitability in 2007-08. The

industry steadily increased its share of the U.S. market to levels well in excess of that held during the

original period of review.

The timing of the industry’s improvement suggests that the entry of NAS and its successful

participation in the commercial sales portion of the market are better explanations for the industry’s

improved performance than this order. In light of this, and our findings regarding the lack of likely

significant volumes of subject imports or significant price effects, we find that revocation of the order on

Italy is not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. Without significant

volumes or significant underselling, subject imports would not be in a position to have any adverse

impact on the domestic industry.

Based on the aforementioned reasons, we therefore find that revocation of the order on imports

from Italy is not likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic SSWR

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

D. Revocation of the antidumping duty orders on subject imports from Korea are not

likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably

foreseeable time

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

As mentioned earlier, imports from Japan and Taiwan were principally responsible for the

increase in subject imports in the Commission’s original investigations, accounting for *** percent of the

increase between 1995 and 1997.469 Moreover, during the original investigations, Korean subject

imports’ share of the U.S. market increased marginally, by less than *** percentage points, from *** in

 468 Compare CR/PR at Table III-9 with CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 469 CR/PR at Table I-1.

64
1995 to *** in 1997.470 During the first five-year reviews, the volume and market share of subject

imports from Korea remained at pre-order levels until declining sharply after 2000. Despite relatively

low dumping margins,471 the U.S. market dwindled in importance to producers in Korea, declining from

*** short tons in 1998 to *** short tons and only *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2003.472

Subject imports from Korea began the current period of review at low levels and virtually exited the U.S.

market after 2005.473

Despite changes in the structure of the industry, Korean production capacity has remained at

virtually the same level it was during the first reviews which was only slightly higher than during the

original investigations.474 Since 2006, the industry consists of a single SSWR producer, POSCOSS.475

While Korean capacity utilization rates have declined in recent years, from the high levels reported during

the first reviews, the home market remains the primary focus for Korean SSWR shipments.476 The home

market consistently accounted for between *** of SSWR shipments during the period examined in these

reviews.477

Subject producers in Korea still ship SSWR to export markets, but as evident in the first reviews,

the Korean industry shifted its sales of SSWR from the U.S. market to alternative third-country

markets.478 The record in these reviews indicates that the Korean industry has developed a stable and

strong market presence for its SSWR in markets other than the United States. The export market

accounted for between *** percent of SSWR shipments.479 The principal destination for Korean exports

continues to be to purchasers in Asia, which accounted for between *** of all Korean SSWR shipments

during the period examined in these reviews.480 Record evidence demonstrates that the Asian markets

 470 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 471 All producers in Korea except Sammi Steel were subject to margins of 3.18 percent after the orders were

initially imposed. CR/PR at Table I-5.

 472 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 473 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 474 Korea’s reported SSWR capacity was *** short tons (white coil) in 1997 (original investigations), *** short

tons (white coil) from 1998 to 2003 (first five-year reviews), and *** short tons from 2004 to 2009 (second five-year

reviews). OCR at Table VII-4, 1CR at Table IV-11, CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 475 In the current reviews, the Commission received usable data from POSCOSS, which is estimated to account

for *** percent of total SSWR rod production in Korea in 2009. CR at IV-21, PR at IV-14. ***, a market research

company.

 476 CR/PR at Table IV-12 and 1CR at Table IV-11. Korean capacity utilization was *** in 1997 (original

investigations), and steadily increased from *** in 2003 (first reviews). OCR at VII-4 and 1CR at Table IV-11. In

the current reviews, Korean capacity utilization was: *** in 2009. CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 477 CR/PR at Table IV-12. Korean shipments to the home market as a share of total shipments were *** in 1997

(original investigations), and ranged from a low of *** between 1998 and 2003 (first reviews). OCR at VII-4 and

1CR at Table IV-11. In the current reviews, Korean shipments to the home market as a share of total shipments

were: *** in 2009. CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 478 POSCOSS reported ***. CR at IV-24, PR at IV-15.

 479 CR/PR at Table IV-12. Korean export shipments as a share of total shipments were *** in 1997 (original

investigations), and ranged from a low of *** between 1998 and 2003 (first reviews). OCR at VII-4 and 1CR at

Table IV-11. In the current reviews, Korean export shipments as a share of total shipments were: *** in 2009. 

CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 480 CR/PR at Table IV-12. During the first reviews, while shipments to the U.S. market steadily declined from

*** percent of shipments in 1998 to only *** percent by 2003, shipments to purchasers in Asia steadily increased

from *** percent to *** percent of all shipments in 2003. 1CR at Table IV-11. In these second reviews, Korean

export shipments to Asia as a share of total shipments were: *** in 2009. CR/PR at Table IV-12. Korean shipments

continue...

65
have been stable, are expanding, and are forecasted to experience the highest rate of increase in

demand.481 Thus, subject imports from Korea have found receptive and valuable markets away from the

United States and likely would not return to the U.S. market in significant volumes if the subject orders

were revoked.

Consideration of the other relevant economic factors also provides no indication that subject

imports from Korea likely would reenter the U.S. market in significant volumes. The Korean inventories

of SSWR have remained relatively low, fluctuating between a low of *** of total annual shipments.482

The Korean producer reported that it does not, nor does it anticipate that it will, engage in product

shifting.483 Finally, there is no evidence of tariff or non-tariff barriers to the importation of the subject

Korean SSWR in countries other than the United States.484

 For these reasons, and taking into consideration our findings above concerning the conditions of

competition distinctive to this industry, we do not find it likely that the volume of SSWR from Korea

would be significant, in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States,

within a reasonably foreseeable time in the event of revocation.

2. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In performing our analysis, we have taken into account the Commission’s previous price findings. 

 During the original investigations, subject imports of SSWR from Korea undersold the domestic like

product in a majority of comparisons.485 The Commission found price suppression to a significant degree,

as producers were unable to raise prices to cover rising production costs. The Commission found that

prices were falling or remained flat as the industry’s ratio of cost of goods sold to net revenue had risen.

In the current reviews, there is limited price comparison data because subject imports from Korea

have virtually not entered the U.S. market since 2005. However, the limited data show that subject

imports from Korea oversold the domestic like product in 7 of the 8 possible price comparisons.486

Pricing data supplied by the domestic industry indicate that SSWR prices rose throughout the early part of

the period of review, generally peaking in 2007 or 2008, and falling thereafter.487 This pattern was

apparently driven more by shifts in raw material prices rather than demand, as apparent consumption in

the U.S. market peaked in 2004.488 Despite the decline in apparent consumption, in the years after 2004

the domestic industry was able to pass on rising raw material costs, and the industry’s ratio of cost of

 480 ...continue

to Europe as a share of total shipments ranged from a low of *** in 2009. Id.

 481 CR at IV-24 and IV-29, PR at IV-15 and IV-19. The 2010 business plan submitted by Korean producer

POSCOSS provides forecasts for the growth rates of various economies, with *** for the United States. ***. As

such, POSCOSS reports that Asia will be a very important export market for its SSWR products, particularly China,

Taiwan, Japan, and Southeast Asia. According to the business plan, POSCOSS plans ***. CR at IV-24, PR at IV15. Based on the *** demand for wire rod is projected to increase by *** per year through 2012 whereas demand in

Europe and the United States are projected to increase by ***, respectively. ***.

 482 CR/PR at Table IV-12. There have been *** reported inventories of subject SSWR from Korea since 2005. 

See CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 483 CR at IV-24, PR at IV-15.

 484 CR at IV-24, PR at IV-15.

 485 CR/PR at Tables V-9 and V-10. Subject imports from Korea undersold the domestic like product in 34 of 37

price comparisons in the original investigations and in 44 of 54 price comparisons in the first five-year reviews.

 486 CR/PR at Table V-8.

 487 CR/PR at Tables V-1-V-6. U.S. shipments’ AUVs and net sales by the domestic industry followed a similar

pattern. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 488 CR/PR at Table C-1.

66
goods sold to sales fell in 2006-2008. This is a significant change from the original period of

investigation, wherein the domestic industry’s ratio of costs of goods sold to sales rose significantly faster

than did costs during a period where demand increased.489

As discussed above, we do not expect the likely volume of subject imports from Korea to be

significant. As a result, although price is an important consideration for purchasers,490 we do not find that

the likely small volumes of subject imports from Korea will lead to significant price declines for the

domestic like product. Nor do we expect subject imports to capture increases in U.S. demand to the point

that they would be likely to place significant downward pressure on U.S. prices, especially with the

increased competitiveness of the U.S. industry resulting from the emergence of NAS during the period of

review.

Given the likely small volume of subject imports from Korea in the event of revocation and

taking into consideration our findings above concerning the conditions of competition that are distinctive

to this industry, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject imports of SSWR from

Korea would not be likely to lead to significant underselling by the subject imports as compared to the

domestic like product, or to significant price depression or suppression within a reasonably foreseeable

time. Therefore, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty order is not likely to lead to any

significant price effects.

 3. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

We have carefully considered whether the imposition of this order resulted in any improvement in

the domestic industry. While subject imports from Korea remained in the U.S. market after the orders

were imposed, the Korean industry gradually developed other markets for its exports and virtually exited

the U.S. market after 2005. During the first review period, the domestic industry’s performance was

generally unremarkable, with few years of profitability and several years with significant losses. During

this second period of review, the industry’s performance improved somewhat, as the industry experienced

its only back-to-back years of profitability in 2007 and 2008. The domestic industry steadily increased its

share of the U.S. market to levels well in excess of that held during the original period of investigation.

The timing of the industry’s improvement suggests that the entry of NAS in 2003 and its

successful participation in the commercial sales portion of the market are better explanations for the

industry’s improvement than this order. In light of this, and our findings regarding the lack of likely

significant volumes of subject imports or likely significant price effects, we find that revocation of the

order on Korea is not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. Increases in

subject imports from Korea during the original period of investigation were relatively small. The Korean

industry continues to focus principally on its home market and has developed a stable and strong presence

in markets other than the U.S. market for its exports. Without significant volumes or significant

underselling, subject imports would not be in a position to have any adverse impact on the domestic

industry.

Based on the aforementioned reasons, we therefore find that revocation of the order on imports

from Korea is not likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic SSWR

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 489 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 490 CR/PR at Tables II-3 and II-4.

67
E. Revocation of the antidumping duty orders on subject imports from Spain are not

likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably

foreseeable time

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

As mentioned earlier, imports from Japan and Taiwan were principally responsible for the

increase in subject imports in the Commission’s original investigations, accounting for *** percent of the

increase between 1995 and 1997. Moreover, during the original investigations, Spanish subject imports’

share of the U.S. market remained relatively small and increased by only *** percentage points, from ***

in 1995 to *** of the U.S. SSWR market in 1997.491 During the first five-year reviews, subject imports

from Spain not only maintained a consistent presence in the U.S. market pre- and post-orders, but actually

increased in volume and as a share of the U.S. market.492 Thus, subject imports from Spain did not

immediately retreat from the U.S. market as a result of the imposition of the orders.

The import pattern changed after NAS commenced U.S. production of SSWR in 2003. Subject

imports from Spain virtually exited the U.S. market.493 As discussed above, NAS, and the largest Spanish

producer, Roldan, are related as wholly-owned subsidiaries of Acerinox, S.A.494 Prior to 2003 or 2004,

Roldan was the only significant exporter to the U.S. market.495 While there is evidence in these reviews

that these subsidiaries are ***496 the evidence also demonstrates that with the emergence of NAS as the

dominant U.S. producer, subject imports from Spain have largely left the U.S. market.497 In short, this

relationship appears to have affected Roldan’s interest in the U.S. market.498 They remained in the U.S.

market after the order and only left the U.S. market, despite low dumping margins, after the related U.S.

producer commenced SSWR production and gained an increasing foothold in the U.S. market.

The record in these reviews contains limited information on the current capacity of the SSWR

industry in Spain. Based on evidence in the original investigations and a market research study, the

Spanish industry has the smallest production capacity of any of the subject countries.499 The record also

indicates that the European markets are the principal export markets for Spanish shipments of SSWR.500

Thus, the record indicates that subject imports from Spain never accounted for more than a small portion

 491 CR/PR at Table I-1. The volume of subject imports from Spain increased from 2,663 short tons in 1995 to

4,705 short tons in 1997. Id.

 492 The volume of subject imports from Spain fluctuated, from a low of 1,932 short tons in 1998 to a high of 5,885

short tons in 2002. In addition, market share fluctuated from a low of *** in 1998 to a high of *** in 2002. CR/PR

at Table I-1.

 493 CR at Table I-1.

 494 CR at IV-25, PR at IV-15.

 495 Hearing Tr. at 51 (Lasoff).

 496 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Exhibit 1 at 2, and Exhibit 4.

 497 CR/PR at Table I-1 and I-8.

 498 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 45-48 and100 (NAS’ Vice President indicated that “I must reiterate that there’s an

understanding given the investment that those in Spain would have no motive to bring the product from Spain to this

country given the amount of capacity we have. Commercial would prevail, in a sense the commercial decision

would be made in the United States. . . .”).

 499 CR/PR at Table IV-13. In the original investigations, *** in 1997; *** in 1997; and *** of its total shipments. 

OCR at Table VII-6. In the current reviews, the *** market research data provided by *** estimates Spanish

production capacity was: *** for the 2008-2012 period; *** 2006-2012 period. CR at Table IV-13.

 500 CR/PR at Table-IV-14. In 2008, Spain’s principal export markets in descending order by volume were to:

Italy, Finland, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, and the United Kingdom. While the order fluctuated, these six

countries also were Spain’s principal markets in 2005-2007. Id.

68
of the U.S. market, despite relatively low dumping margins, and that Spanish exports of SSWR left the

U.S. market to focus on its home market and other European markets. Moreover, the emergence of NAS,

a sister subsidiary of the major Spanish producer and a large low-cost producer in the United States,

likely decreases the incentive for Roldan to shift to exporting large volumes to the U.S. market. There is

no evidence to suggest that imports from Spain are likely to increase to significant levels nor lead to any

adverse effect if the order is revoked.

Consideration of the other relevant economic factors also provides no indication that subject

imports from Spain likely would reenter the U.S. market in significant volumes. U.S. importers currently

maintain *** inventories of SSWR from Spain.501 Finally, there is no evidence of tariff or non-tariff

barriers to the importation of the subject Spanish SSWR in countries other than the United States.502

 For these reasons, and taking into consideration our findings above concerning the conditions of

competition distinctive to this industry, we do not find it likely that the volume of SSWR from Spain

would be significant, in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States,

within a reasonably foreseeable time in the event of revocation.

2. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In performing our analysis, we have taken into account the Commission’s previous price findings. 

During the original investigations, subject imports of SSWR from Spain undersold the domestic like

product in a majority of comparisons.503 The Commission found price suppression to a significant degree,

as producers were unable to raise prices to cover rising production costs. The Commission found that

prices were falling or remained flat as the industry’s ratio of cost of goods sold to net revenue had risen.

In the current reviews, there is no price comparison data because subject imports from Spain have

not entered (or only in minuscule volumes) the U.S. market since 2003. Pricing data supplied by the

domestic industry indicate that SSWR prices rose throughout the early part of the period of review,

generally peaking in 2007 or 2008, and falling thereafter.504 This pattern was apparently driven more by

shifts in raw material prices rather than demand, as apparent consumption in the U.S. market peaked in

2004.505 Despite the decline in apparent consumption, in the years after 2004 the domestic industry was

able to pass on rising raw material costs, and the industry’s ratio of cost of goods sold to sales fell in

2006-2008. This is a significant change from the original period of investigation, wherein the domestic

industry’s ratio of costs of goods sold to sales rose significantly faster than did costs during a period

where demand increased.506

As discussed above, we do not expect the likely volume of subject imports from Spain to be

significant. As a result, although price is an important consideration for purchasers,507 we do not find that

the likely small volumes of subject imports from Spain will lead to significant price declines for the

domestic like product. Nor do we expect subject imports to capture increases in U.S. demand to the point

that they would be likely to place significant downward pressure on U.S. prices, especially with the

 501 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 502 CITE?.

 503 CR/PR at Tables V-9 and V-10. Subject imports from Spain undersold the domestic like product in 14 of 16

price comparisons in the original investigations and in 6 of 7 price comparisons in the first five-year reviews.

 504 CR/PR at Tables V-1-V-6. U.S. shipments’ AUVs and net sales by the domestic industry followed a similar

pattern. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 505 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 506 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 507 CR/PR at Tables II-3 and II-4.

69
increased competitiveness of the U.S. industry resulting from the emergence of NAS during the period of

review.508

Given the likely small volume of subject imports from Spain in the event of revocation and taking

into consideration our findings above concerning the conditions of competition that are distinctive to this

industry, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject imports of SSWR from Spain

would not be likely to lead to significant underselling by the subject imports as compared to the domestic

like product, or to significant price depression or suppression within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

Therefore, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty order is not likely to lead to any significant

price effects.

3. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

We have carefully considered whether the imposition of this order resulted in any improvement in

the domestic industry. While subject imports from Spain remained in the U.S. market after the orders

were imposed, they left after NAS commenced production in 2003 and the Spanish industry developed

other markets for its exports. During the first review period, the domestic industry’s performance was

generally unremarkable, with few years of profitability and several years with significant losses. During

this second period of review, the industry’s performance improved somewhat, as the industry experienced

its only back-to-back years of profitability in 2007 and 2008. The industry steadily increased its share of

the U.S. market to levels well in excess of that held during the original period of investigation.

The timing of the industry’s improvement suggests that the entry of NAS and its successful

participation in the commercial sales portion of the market are better explanations for the industry’s

improvement than this order. In light of this, and our findings regarding the lack of likely significant

volumes of subject imports or likely significant price effects, we find that revocation of the order on

Spain is not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. Increases in the

relatively small volume of subject imports from Spain during the original period of investigation were not

substantial relatively to most other subject countries. The Spanish industry has developed stable, close

markets for its exports. Without significant volumes or significant underselling, subject imports would

not be in a position to have any adverse impact on the domestic industry.

Based on the aforementioned reasons, we therefore find that revocation of the order on imports

from Spain is not likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic SSWR

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

Conclusion

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

subject imports from Japan and Taiwan would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of

material injury to the domestic SSWR industry within a reasonably foreseeable time, and that revocation

of the antidumping duty orders on subject imports from Italy, Korea, and Spain would not be likely to

lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic SSWR industry within a

reasonably foreseeable time.

 508 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 45-48 and 100.

70
PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

Effective July 1, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”)

gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”),1

 that it had

instituted reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel wire

rod (“SSWR”) from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan would likely lead to the continuation or

recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry.2 3

 On October 5, 2009, the Commission determined

that it would conduct full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act.4

 Information relating to the

background and schedule of this proceeding is provided in the following tabulation:5

Effective date Action

September 15, 1998

Commerce’s countervailing duty order: Italy (63 FR 49334)

Commerce’s antidumping duty orders: Italy (63 FR 49327), Japan (63 FR

49329), Korea (63 FR 49331), Spain (63 FR 49330), Sweden (63 FR 49329),

and Taiwan (63 FR 49332)

August 1, 2003 Commission’s institution (68 FR 45277) and Commerce’s initiation (68 FR

45219) of first reviews

December 10, 2003

Commerce’s final results of expedited reviews: Italy (AD only) (68 FR 68862),

Japan (68 FR 68864), Korea (68 FR 68863), Spain (68 FR 68866), Sweden

(68 FR 68860), and Taiwan (68 FR 68865)

July 2, 2004 Commerce’s revocation of countervailing duty order on imports of SSWR from

Italy (69 FR 40354)

 1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2

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

Commission. Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan, 74 FR 31765, July 2, 2009. 

The Commission received three submissions in response to its notice of institution for the subject reviews. The

submissions were filed on behalf of Carpenter Technology Corp. (“Carpenter”), a U.S. producer of SSWR; Cogne

Acciai Speciali S.r.l. (“Cogne”), an Italian producer of the subject merchandise; and POSCO Specialty Steel Co.,

Ltd. (POSCOSS”), a Korean producer of the subject merchandise. 

 3

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

notice of initiation of five-year reviews of the subject antidumping duty orders concurrently with the Commission’s

notice of institution. Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 74 FR 31412, July 1, 2009. In its notice announcing

the initiation, Commerce inadvertently initiated a review of the antidumping duty order on imports of SSWR from

Sweden, an order that was revoked by Commerce in 2007. On August 3, 2009, Commerce issued a correction

notice, retracting the initiation of the review of the antidumping duty order on imports of SSWR from Sweden. 

Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Review, 74 FR 38401, August 3, 2009.

 4 Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan, 74 FR 54068, October 21, 2009. The

Commission found that the domestic interested party group and individual response to its notice of institution was

adequate, as were the respondent interested party group response of Italy and Korea. The Commission did not

receive a response from any respondent interested parties in these reviews concerning subject imports from Japan,

Spain, and Taiwan, and therefore determined that the respondent interested party group responses for these countries

were not adequate. The Commission nevertheless voted to conduct full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the

Act to promote administrative efficiency.

 5

 The Commission’s notice of institution, notice to conduct full reviews, scheduling notice, and statement on

adequacy appear in appendix 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
September 13, 2004 Commerce’s continuation of the antidumping duty orders on SSWR from Italy,

Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan (69 FR 50167, August 13, 2004)

April 23, 2007 Commerce’s revocation of antidumping duty order on imports of SSWR from

Sweden (72 FR 25261, May 4, 2007)

July 1, 2009 Commission’s institution (74 FR 31765, July 2, 2009) and Commerce’s

initiation (74 FR 31412) of second reviews

October 5, 2009 Commission’s determination to conduct full reviews (74 FR 54068, October 21,

2009)

October 30, 2009 Commerce’s final results of expedited second reviews (74 FR 56179)

November 16, 2009 Commission’s scheduling of the reviews (74 FR 62588, November 30, 2009)

April 8, 2010 Commission’s hearing1

May 14, 2010 Commission’s vote

May 28, 2010 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

 1 The list of hearing witnesses is presented in app. B.

THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND SUBSEQUENT FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS

On July 30, 1997, petitions were filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of

subsidized imports of SSWR from Italy and less-than-fair-value (LTFV) imports of SSWR from

Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan.6

 On July 29, 1998, Commerce made a final

affirmative subsidy determination on imports from Italy and final affirmative dumping determinations for

Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan.7

 On September 1, 1998, the Commission

made final affirmative determinations with respect to subject imports from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain,

Sweden, and Taiwan, and a final negative determination with respect to subject imports from Germany.8

These determinations were transmitted to Commerce on September 8, 1998. Commerce issued a

countervailing duty order on imports from Italy and antidumping duty orders on imports from Italy,

Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan on September 15, 1998.9

On August 1, 2003, the Commission instituted five year reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the

Act, to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on SSWR from Italy and the

antidumping duty orders on SSWR from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan would be likely

 6 The petition was filed by Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Dunkirk, NY (“Al Tech”); Carpenter Technology

Corp., Reading, PA (“Carpenter”); Republic Engineered Steels, Inc., Massillon, OH (“Republic”); Talley Metals

Technology, Inc., Hartsville, SC (“Talley”); and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC.

 7

 Commerce’s determinations with respect to orders still subject to review appear in table I-5.

 8

 Commissioners Bragg, Miller, and Koplan made affirmative determinations with respect to subject imports from

Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan, with Commissioners Crawford and Askey dissenting and

Commissioner Hillman not participating. Commissioners Miller, Koplan, and Askey made negative threat

determinations with respect to subject imports from Germany, while Commissioner Crawford determined such

imports to be negligible, Commissioner Bragg made an affirmative determination, and Commissioner Hillman did

not participate.

 9

 The Commission’s determination with respect to subject imports from Germany was appealed by the petitioning

coalition. Judge Delissa A. Ridgeway of the U.S. Court of International Trade sustained the Commission’s

determination with respect to subject imports from Germany. AL-Tech Specialty Steel Corp., et. al. v. United States,

27 CIT 1791 (Dec. 16, 2003).

I-2
to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

foreseeable time.10 On June 29, 2004, Commerce notified the Commission of its negative final

determination of the likelihood of continuation or occurrence of a countervailable subsidy in connection

with the subject five-year review on SSWR from Italy. Effective July 2, 2004, Commerce revoked the

countervailing duty order on imports of SSWR from Italy.11 Following affirmative determinations by

Commerce and the Commission12 in connection with the first five-year reviews of the antidumping duty

orders, effective September 13, 2004, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty orders on

imports of SSWR from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan.13 Subsequently, effective April

23, 2007, Commerce revoked the antidumping duty order on imports of SSWR from Sweden.14

RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Stainless Steel Wire Rod

Since 1980, the Commission has conducted original investigations on SSWR from Brazil, France,

India, and Spain (subsidy), as well as Germany and Sweden (discussed above) and the five countries

subject to the current reviews. During 1999-2000, the Commission conducted five-year reviews of the

1983 transition countervailing duty order on Spain and the 1993-94 transition antidumping duty orders on

SSWR from Brazil, France, and India. The Commission made affirmative determinations with respect to

the antidumping orders on SSWR from Brazil, France, and India and a unanimous negative determination

with respect to the countervailing duty order on SSWR from Spain.15 16 In July 2005, the Commission

instituted second five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders on SSWR from Brazil, France, and

India. In July 2006, the Commission made an affirmative determination with respect to SSWR from India

and negative determinations with respect to SSWR from France and Brazil.17 The Commission is

scheduled to review the antidumping duty order on SSWR from India beginning in July 2011.

 10 Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan, 68 FR 45277, August 1, 2003.

 11 Commerce found the net countervailing subsidy likely to prevail to be de minimus. Notice of Final Results of

Full Sunset Review of Countervailing Duty Order of Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, 69 FR 40354, July 2, 2004.

 12 Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson dissenting with respect to SSWR

from Italy, Korea, Spain, and Sweden. Cogne appealed the Commission’s decision to cumulate subject imports from

Italy with other subject imports, particularly its finding that subject imports from Italy were not likely to have no

discernable adverse impact upon revocation. The CIT affirmed the Commission. Cogne Acciai Speciali v. United

States, 29 CIT 1168 (2005).

 13 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden,

and Taiwan, 69 FR 50167, August 13, 2004.

 14 Implementation of the Findings of the WTO Panel in US--Zeroing (EC): Notice of Determinations Under

Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Revocations and Partial Revocations of Certain 

Antidumping Duty Orders, 72 FR 25261, May 4, 2007. 

 15 Commissioners Koplan and Okun dissenting with respect to SSWR from France, and Commissioner Askey

dissenting with respect to SSWR from Brazil, France, and India.

 16 Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, France, India, and Spain, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-178 and 731-TA-636-638

(Review), USITC Publication 3321, July 2000. Following an appeal by French respondent interested parties, Senior

Judge Richard W. Goldberg of the U.S. Court of International Trade sustained the Commission’s determination. 

Ugine-Savoie Imphy v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002). 

 17 Commissioners Koplan and Lane dissenting. Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, France, and India, Inv.

Nos. 731-TA-636-638 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3866, July 2006.

I-3
Stainless Steel Bar

On December 30, 1993, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of dumped imports of stainless steel bar

from Brazil, India, Italy, Japan, and Spain.18 On December 28, 1994, Commerce made final affirmative

dumping determinations with respect to imports from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain, and a final negative

dumping determination with respect to Italy.19 The Commission transmitted its final affirmative injury

determinations to Commerce on February 14, 1995.20 On February 21, 1995, Commerce issued

antidumping duty orders for Brazil, India, and Japan, and on March 2, 1995, for Spain.21 The

Commission previously conducted countervailing duty investigations on imports of stainless steel bar

from Brazil and Spain. In 1983, the Commission made an affirmative determination with respect to

imports from Brazil.22 In 1982, the Commission made a negative determination with respect to imports

from Spain.23

On December 30, 1999, the Commission instituted five-year (sunset) reviews concerning the

antidumping duty orders on imports of stainless steel bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain,24 and on

April 6, 2000, the Commission determined to conduct full five-year reviews.25 The Commission

determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel bar from Brazil, India, Japan,

and Spain would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.26 A second review was instituted in March 2006. In

January 2007, the Commission made affirmative determinations.27

On December 28, 2000, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission by Carpenter

Technology Corp. (Wyomissing, PA); Crucible Specialty Metals (Syracuse, NY); Electralloy Corp. (Oil

City, PA); Empire Specialty Steel, Inc. (Dunkirk, NY); Slater Steels Corp., Specialty Alloys Division

(Fort Wayne, IN); and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (Pittsburgh, PA), alleging

that an industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason

of imports of stainless steel bar from France, Germany, Italy, Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom,

that were alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), and by reason of imports

of stainless steel bar from Italy that were alleged to be subsidized by the Government of Italy. The

Commission transmitted its final affirmative injury determinations concerning LTFV stainless steel bar

from France, Germany, Italy, Korea, and the United Kingdom and subsidized imports from Italy to

 18 The petition was filed by AL Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Carpenter, Crucible, Electralloy, Republic Engineered

Steels, Inc., Slater, Talley Metal Technology, Inc., and the United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC). 

 19 The Commission terminated its investigation (Inv. No. 731-TA-680 (Final)) concerning imports of stainless

steel bar from Italy on January 23, 1995. 60 FR 6291, February 1, 1995.

 20 60 FR 9396, February 17, 1995. See also Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain,

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-678, 679, 681, and 682 (Final), USITC Publication 2856, February 1995. 

 21 60 FR 9661, February 21, 1995, and 60 FR 11656, March 2, 1995. 

 22 Hot Rolled Stainless Steel Bar, Cold Formed Stainless Steel Bar, and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Brazil,

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-179-181 (Final), USITC Publication 1398, June 1983.

 23 Hot Rolled Stainless Steel Bar, Cold Formed Stainless Steel Bar, and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Spain,

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-179-181 (Final), USITC Publication 1333, December 1982.

 24 Institution of five-year reviews concerning the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel bar from Brazil,

India, Japan, and Spain, Investigations Nos. 731–TA–678, 679, 681, and 682 (Review), 64 FR 73579, December 30,

1999.

 25 Notice of Commission determinations to conduct full five-year reviews concerning the antidumping duty orders

on stainless steel bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain, Investigations Nos. 731–TA–678, 679, 681, and 682

(Reviews), 65 FR 20834, April 18, 2000.

 26 Determinations, Investigations Nos. 731–TA–678–679 and 681–682 (Review), 66 FR 17928, April 4, 2001.

 27 Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-678,679, 681, and 682 (Second

Review), USITC Publication 3895, January 2007.

I-4
Commerce on March 4, 2002.28 Reviews of these orders were instituted in February 2007. In January

2008, the Commission made negative five-year review determinations.29 

Stainless Steel Wire

On November 16, 1998, the Commission instituted investigation nos. 731-TA-781-786 following

receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and the Department of Commerce by ACS Industries, Inc.,

Woonsocket, RI; Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Dunkirk, NY; Branford Wire & Manufacturing Co.,

Mountain Home, NC; Carpenter Technology Corp., Reading, PA; Handy & Harman Specialty Wire

Group, Cockeysville, MD; Industrial Alloys, Inc., Pomona, CA; Loos & Co., Inc., Pomfret, CT; Sandvik

Steel Co., Clarks Summit, PA; Sumiden Wire Products Corp., Dickson, TN; and Techalloy Co., Inc.,

Mahwah, NJ. In May 1999, the Commission unanimously determined that an industry in the United

States was not materially injured or threatened with material injury, and the establishment of an industry

in the United States was not materially retarded, by reason of imports from Canada, India, Japan, Korea,

Spain, and Taiwan of stainless steel round wire that had been found by Commerce to be sold in the

United States at LTFV.30

Safeguard Investigations

During 1982-83, the Commission conducted a safeguard investigation of stainless steel products

(Inv. No. TA-201-48) that included the SSWR subject to these reviews. Following affirmative

determinations of serious injury and remedy recommendations by the Commission, President Reagan

proclaimed four-year global quotas limiting SSWR imports to 19,100 tons in the first year, increasing to

19,700 tons, 20,300 tons, and 20,900 tons in subsequent years. 

In 2001, the Commission conducted a safeguard investigation of steel products (Inv. No.

TA-201-73) that included the SSWR subject to these reviews (as well as downstream products such as

stainless steel bar and stainless steel wire). Following affirmative determinations of serious injury and

remedy recommendations by the Commission, President Bush issued a proclamation on March 5, 2002,

imposing temporary import relief for a period not to exceed three years and one day. Import relief

relating to SSWR consisted of an additional tariff of 15 percent ad valorem on imports in the first year, 12 

percent in the second year, and 9 percent in the third year.31 On December 4, 2003, President Bush

terminated the steel safeguard tariffs.

SUMMARY DATA

Table I-1 presents a summary of data from the original investigations as well as the first and

current reviews. 

 28 Stainless Steel Bar from France, Germany, Italy, Korea, and the United Kingdom, Investigations Nos.

701-TA-413 and 731-TA-913-916 and 918 (Final), 67 FR 10756, March 8, 2002. Investigation No. 731–TA–917

(Final), concerning stainless steel bar from Taiwan, was terminated effective January 23, 2002, 67 FR 4745, January

31, 2002, following Commerce’s final negative LTFV determination with respect to Taiwan, 67 FR 3152, January

23, 2002.

 29 Stainless Steel Bar from France, Germany, Italy, Korea, and the United Kingdom, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-413 and

731-TA-913-916 and 918 (Review), USITC Publication 3981, January 2008. 

 30 Stainless Steel Round Wire from Canada, India, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan, Investigations Nos.

731–TA–781–786 (Final), 64 FR 28510, May 26, 1999.

 31 Additional relief was provided for stainless steel bar and stainless steel wire. Additional tariffs on the former

product were to decrease from 15 percent to 12 percent to 9 percent, and on the latter product from 8 percent to 7

percent to 6 percent. 

I-5
Table I-1

SSWR: Comparative data from the original investigations and the first and second reviews, 1995-2009

(Quantity in short tons, value in 1,000 dollars, shares/ratios in percent)

Item 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers’ share *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ share:

Italy (ex. Valbruna after 1997) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan (ex. Hitachi) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea *** *** *** *** *** ***

Spain *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan (ex. Yieh Hsing) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, subject imports *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy / Valbruna (1) (1) (1) *** *** ***

Japan / Hitachi *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan / Yieh Hsing *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources (including Sweden) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, nonsubject imports *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

Italy (ex. Valbruna after 1997):

Quantity 9,859 8,289 8,844 *** *** ***

Value 21,446 19,413 17,554 *** *** ***

Unit value $2,175 $2,342 $1,985 $*** $*** $***

Japan (ex. Hitachi):

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Korea:

Quantity 10,938 10,437 13,937 12,984 10,570 9,058

Value 25,392 22,097 25,956 22,489 14,918 13,869

Unit value $2,321 $2,117 $1,862 $1,732 $1,411 $1,531

Spain:

Quantity 2,663 2,854 4,705 1,932 4,732 3,881

Value 6,939 6,529 9,510 3,809 7,584 6,282

Unit value $2,606 $2,288 $2,022 $1,972 $1,603 $1,618

Taiwan (ex. Yieh Hsing)

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

I-6
Table I-1--Continued 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** *** *** $***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** *** ***

5,593 4,482 1,437 1,982 2,626 385 24 0 0

7,745 5,730 2,128 3,858 6,226 960 132 0 0

$1,385 $1,278 $1,481 $1,946 $2,371 $2,490 $5,464 (2) (2)

4,783 5,885 4,158 34 8 20 0 0 0

7,573 8,323 6,602 80 60 48 0 0 0

$1,583 $1,414 $1,588 $2,360 $7,652 $2,363 (2

) (2) (2)

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

I-7
Table I-1--Continued

SSWR: Comparative data from the original investigations and the first and second reviews, 1995-2009

(Quantity in short tons, value in 1,000 dollars, shares/ratios in percent)

Item 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

U.S. imports from:

Subtotal, subject countries

Quantity 29,393 35,084 50,851 22,956 17,333 14,514

Value 68,972 78,656 98,959 40,831 26,005 23,427

Unit value $2,347 $2,242 $1,946 $1,779 $1,500 $1,614

Italy / Valbruna

Quantity (2

) (2) (2) *** *** ***

Value (2

) (2) (2) *** *** ***

Unit value (2

) (2) (2) $*** $*** $***

Japan / Hitachi

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Taiwan / Yieh Hsing

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Quantity $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Other sources:

Quantity 16,754 15,926 16,491 20,852 22,466 36,558

Value 47,499 45,733 40,965 50,430 45,475 71,971

Unit value $2,835 $2,872 $2,484 $2,418 $2,024 $1,969

Subtotal, nonsubject countries:

Quantity 26,241 26,337 30,911 39,161 48,666 70,413

Value 70,644 67,956 69,129 88,512 87,753 134,573

Unit value $2,692 $2,580 $2,236 $2,260 $1,803 $1,911

Total:

Quantity 55,634 61,421 81,762 62,118 65,999 84,926

Value 139,616 146,612 168,088 129,343 113,758 158,000

Unit value $2,510 $2,387 $2,056 $2,082 $1,724 $1,860

I-8
Table I-1--Continued 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

16,363 11,619 6,833 2,230 3,044 636 150 61 35

25,763 15,993 10,591 4,464 7,476 1,844 783 276 111

$1,574 $1,376 $1,550 $2,002 $2,456 $2,898 $5,205 $4,528 $3,122

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

29,669 26,365 20,562 29,350 20,789 19,447 19,257 21,191 8,888

56,696 50,332 38,327 69,503 61,073 63,277 91,427 95,963 29,236

$1,911 $1,909 $1,864 $2,368 $2,938 $3,254 $4,748 $4,528 $3,290

50,943 45,606 29,491 45,377 38,486 30,837 30,411 29,823 14,396

95,093 82,006 54,101 107,256 109,029 96,341 142,371 131,031 43,351

$1,867 $1,798 $1,834 $2,364 $2,833 $3,124 $4,682 $4,394 $3,011

67,305 57,225 36,325 47,608 41,531 31,473 30,562 29,884 14,431

120,856 97,998 64,692 111,720 116,505 98,185 143,154 131,307 43,461

$1,796 $1,713 $1,781 $2,347 $2,805 $3,120 $4,684 $4,394 $3,012

I-9
Table I-1--Continued 

SSWR: Comparative data from the original investigations and the first and second reviews, 1995-2009

(Quantity in short tons, value in 1,000 dollars, shares/ratios in percent)

Item 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

U.S. producers’:2

Capacity quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Capacity utilization *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Export shipments:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Ending inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Inventory/total shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production workers *** *** *** *** *** ***

Hours worked (1,000) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Wages paid *** *** *** *** *** ***

Hourly wage $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Productivity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Net sales:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit Value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Cost of goods sold *** *** *** *** *** ***

Gross profit or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** ***

SG&A *** *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income or (loss) (value) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit cost of goods sold $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Unit operating income or (loss) $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Cost of goods sold/sales (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income or (loss)/sales *** *** *** *** *** ***

Note.–Data for imports from Italy in 1995-97 include imports from Valbruna, which was still subject to the orders. Data for 1998-2009 distinguishes

between subject imports from Italy and nonsubject imports from Valbruna. 

 1

 Not applicable.

 2

 U.S. producers’ data for the period 1995-97 do not include operations of ***, with the exception of production and shipment data.

Source: Data for 1995-97 are compiled from the confidential staff report (memorandum INV-V-057, August 11, 1998) in Stainless Steel Wire Rod

from Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan (Invs. Nos. 701-TA-373 (Final) and 731-TA-769-775 (Final)), as modified to

exclude imports from Germany and Sweden in subtotaling subject imports of SSWR (memorandum INV-V-061, August 19, 1998). Data for 1998-

2003 are compiled from confidential staff report (memorandum INV-BB-074, June 10, 2004) in Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Japan, Korea,

Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan (Inv Nos. 731-TA-770-773 and 775 (Review), as modified to exclude imports from Sweden and Valbruna in subtotaling

subject imports of SSWR (INV-BB-089 and INV-BB-090, July 7, 2004). Data for 2004-09 are compiled from responses to the Commission

questionnaires in the current reviews and from official Commerce statistics.

I-10
Table I-1--Continued 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

$*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

$*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

I-11
STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

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 

I-12
(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 product.

(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. If

a countervailable subsidy is involved, the Commission shall consider information regarding the nature of

the countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the

Subsidies Agreement.”

Organization of the Report

Information obtained during the course of the reviews that relates to the statutory criteria is

presented throughout this report. A summary of trade and financial data for SSWR as collected in these

reviews is presented in appendix C. U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire responses of four

U.S. firms that produce SSWR and a fifth that provides raw materials under a tolling arrangement: 

Allvac, Monroe, NC (tolling for Outokumpu, Richburg, SC); Carpenter, Reading, PA; NAS, Ghent, KY;

and Universal, Bridgeville, PA These firms accounted for virtually all domestic production and sales of

SSWR during 2009.32 33 U.S. import data are based on official Commerce statistics as adjusted by U.S.

 32 Charter Specialty Steel (“Charter”) began producing SSWR in 2001 and provided the Commission with data in

the first five-year reviews; however, Charter exited the SSWR business in 2008. Charter did not submit a U.S.

producer questionnaire in these reviews; however, it did provide its shipment data for 2006-09. Data regarding

Charter’s operations in 2004-06 were presented in the Commission’s 2006 reviews of the antidumping orders on

SSWR from Brazil, France, and India. Charter reported shipments of *** short tons in 2004; *** short tons in 2005;

*** short tons in 2006; *** short tons in 2007; *** short tons in 2008; and *** short tons in 2009. U.S. producer

questionnaire response in Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, France, and India. Inv. Nos. 731-TA-636-638

(Second Review) and Email from *** on March 15, 2010. According to testimony provided at the hearing, Charter

requested Italian SSWR Cogne produce billets that Charter did not produce. Cogne supplied 100 short tons of billets

to Charter in 2004, 138 short tons in 2005, and 22 short tons in 2006. Hearing transcript, p. 138 (Ferrin). In a sworn

affidavit, a representative from Cogne confirmed that Cogne USA had discussions with Charter in 2004 and that

these discussions were initiated by Charter. Charter asked Cogne to supply Charter with billets of XM-19 grade

continue...

I-13
Customs’ data for the companies not covered by the orders.34 Responses by U.S. producers, importers,

and purchasers, and foreign producers of SSWR to a series of questions concerning the significance of the

existing antidumping duty orders and the likely effects of their revocation are presented in appendix D. A

summary of U.S. construction spending and U.S. motor vehicle assemblies is presented in appendix E. A

summary of the prices of raw materials and energy used in the production of SSWR is presented in

appendix F. A summary of the nominal and real exchange rates for the subject countries is presented in

appendix G. 

COMMERCE’S REVIEWS

Administrative Reviews35

Italy

Commerce has not conducted any administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order with 

regard to SSWR from Italy.

Japan

Commerce has not conducted any administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order with

regard to SSWR from Japan.

Korea

Commerce has conducted four administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on SSWR

from Korea and published the final results of the reviews as shown in table I-2.

Table I-2

SSWR: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Korea

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter

Margin

(percent)

February 13, 2002 (67 FR 6685),

corrected March 12, 2002 (67 FR

11096)

09/01/99-08/31/00 POSCO/Changwon/Dongbang 5.61

April 12, 2004 (69 FR 19153) 09/01/01-08/31/02 POSCO/Changwon/Dongbang 1.67

February 12, 2007 (72 FR 6528) 09/01/04-08/31/05 Changwon/Dongbang 9.06

August 16, 2007 (72 FR 46035) 09/01/05-08/31/06 Changwon/Dongbang 28.44

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

 32 ...continue

stainless steel, a grade which Cogne understood was not produced by Charter. Cogne supplied the semifinished steel

input to Charter, for Charter then to process and sell in any manner Charter desired. Cogne’s posthearing brief, exh.

2, p. 3. 

 33 Staff received confirmation that another firm, Latrobe Speciality Steel (“Latrobe”) produces SSWR in the

United States. Latrobe did not submit a complete questionnaire response; however, it reported an annual SSWR

production of *** short tons, which accounted for less than *** percent of total U.S. SSWR production in 2009. 

 34 In 2009, there were *** U.S. imports of SSWR from subject sources from Japan, Korea, or Spain. Only a

limited quantity of SSWR was imported from subject sources in Italy (*** short tons) and Taiwan (*** short tons).

 35 No duty absorption findings were made. 

I-14
Spain

Commerce has conducted one administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSWR

from Spain and published the final results of the review as shown in table I-3.

Table I-3

SSWR: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Spain

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter

Margin

(percent)

February 21, 2001 (66 FR 10988) 03/05/98-08/31/99 Roldan, S.A. 0.80

Source: Cited Federal Register notice.

Taiwan

Commerce has conducted one administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSWR

from Taiwan and published the final results of the review as shown in table I-4.

Table I-4

SSWR: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Taiwan

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter

Margin

(percent)

October 15, 2001 (66 FR 52587) 09/01/99-08/31/00 Walsin Lihwa Corporation 4.75

Source: Cited Federal Register notice.

Changed-Circumstances Reviews

Commerce has conducted a changed-circumstances review with respect to SSWR from Italy,

where Commerce found that Acciaierie Valbruna S.p.A. was the successor-in-interest to Acciaierie

Valbruna S.r.l, and its subsidiary, Acciaierie Bolzano S.p.A. Because Valbruna S.r.l/Acciaierie Bolzano

S.p.A. was excluded from the antidumping duty order on SSWR from Italy, Commerce determined that,

effective December 16, 1998, merchandise from Acciaierie Valbruna S.p.A. should be excluded from the

antidumping order.36

Scope Inquiry Reviews

Commerce has conducted a scope inquiry with respect to SSWR from Italy, Japan, Spain, and

Taiwan, in which Commerce found that certain stainless steel bar that is manufactured in the United Arab

Emirates from SSWR imported from multiple subject countries is excluded from the scope of the

antidumping orders.37

Results of Five-Year Reviews

Table I-5 presents the dumping margins calculated by Commerce in its original investigations and

its first and second five year reviews. 

 36 Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty

Review, 71 FR 24643, April 26, 2006. 

 37 Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 41374, July 19, 2005. 

I-15
Table I-5

SSWR: Commerce’s original and subsequent five-year review antidumping duty margins for

producers/exporters in Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan, by subject country

Producer/exporter

Original margin

(percent)

First five-year review

margin (percent)

Second five-year

review margin

(percent)

Italy1

Cogne Acciai 12.73 12.73 11.25

All others 12.73 12.73 11.25

Japan2

Hitachi 0.0 N/A N/A

Daido Steel Co., Ltd. 34.21 34.21 34.21

Nippon Steel Corp. 21.18 21.18 21.18

Sanyo Steel Co., Ltd. 34.21 34.21 34.21

Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. 34.21 34.21 34.21

All others 25.26 25.26 25.26

Korea3

Dongbang Special Steel Co., Ltd. 3.18 5.77 5.77

Changwon Specialty Steel Co., Ltd. 3.18 5.77 5.77

Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. 3.18 5.77 5.77

Sammi Steel Co., Ltd. 28.44 28.44 28.44

All others 3.18 5.77 5.77

Spain4

Roldan 4.72 4.73 2.71

All others 4.72 4.73 2.71

Taiwan5

Yieh Hsing Corp., Ltd. 0.02 N/A N/A

Walsin Cartech Specialty 8.29 8.29 8.29

All others 8.29 8.29 8.29

 1 Antidumping duty order, 63 FR 49327, September 15, 1998; final results of first expedited five-year review, 68 FR 68862,

December 10, 2003; final results of second expedited five-year review, 74 FR 56179, October 30, 2009.

 2

 Antidumping duty order, 63 FR 49329, September 15, 1998; final results of first expedited five-year review, 68 FR 68864,

December 10, 2003; final results of second expedited five-year review, 74 FR 56179, October 30, 2009.

 3

 Antidumping duty order, 63 FR 49331, September 15, 1998; final results of first expedited five-year review, 68 FR 68863,

December 10, 2003; final results of second expedited five-year review, 74 FR56179, October 30, 2009.

 4

 Antidumping duty order, 63 FR 49330, September 15, 1998; final results of first expedited five-year review, 68 FR 68866,

December 10, 2003; final results of second expedited five-year review, 74 FR 56179, October 30, 2009.

 5

 Antidumping duty order 63 FR 49332, September 15, 1998; final results of first expedited five-year review, 68 FR 68865,

December 10, 2003; final results of second expedited five-year review, 74 FR 56179, October 30, 2009.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd

Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty

orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these

I-16
producers incur after the issuance of such orders.38 Qualified U.S. producers of SSWR have been eligible

to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) under CDSOA

relating to the orders covering the subject merchandise beginning in Federal fiscal year 2001.39 Table I-6

presents CDSOA disbursements and claims, by Federal fiscal years, since 2001. 

Table I-6

SSWR: CDSOA disbursements, by firm and country, Federal fiscal years 2001-091

Item

Federal fiscal year

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

U.S. dollars (actual)

By firm:

Carpenter 1,041,295 918,429 644,762 631,398 116,909 37,077 489,331 1,114,650 51,061

Talley 2 215,622 153,113

Universal 0 174,761 61,408 60,010 11,238 3,694 47,506 108,765 4,984

By country:

Italy 13,150 2,768 1 3,044 4,784 0 0 0 0

Japan 436,915 286,759 126,434 103,179 66,385 912 5,991 4,478 0

Korea 132,352 798,468 484,952 209,558 48,184 34,860 530,196 1,191,335 41,527

Spain 0 112,138 41,420 292,304 1,856 374 615 5,323 0

Taiwan 674,500 46,170 53,364 83,323 6,939 4,625 36 22,279 14,518

 Total 1,256,917 1,246,303 706,171 691,408 128,148 40,771 536,837 1,223,415 56,045

1

 As presented in Section I of Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports. 2

 Carpenter acquired Talley in 1998. All disbursements reported subsequent to 2002 combine Carpenter and Talley.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

The imported product subject to the antidumping duty orders under review, as defined by

Commerce, is the following:

{stainless steel} products that are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or

descaled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that may also be

coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime or oxalate. Stainless steel wire rod is

made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent

or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are manufactured

only by hot-rolling or hot-rolling, annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, are

normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR sold

 38 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)). The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

repealed the CDSOA with respect to duties on entries of goods made and filed on or after October 1, 2007. See Pub.

L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4, 154 (2006).

 39 19 CFR 159.64 (g).

I-17
in the United States is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed and pickled, and later

cold-finished into stainless steel wire or small-diameter bar. The most common size for

such products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217 inches in diameter, which represents the

smallest size that normally is produced on a rolling mill and is the size that most wiredrawing machines are set up to draw. The range of stainless steel wire rod sizes normally

sold in the United States is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inch diameter. Two stainless

steel grades, SF20T and K-M35FL, are excluded from the scope of these reviews.40

Tariff Treatment

The products subject to these orders currently are covered by statistical reporting numbers

7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS statistical reporting numbers are provided

for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Table

I-7 presents current tariff rates for SSWR provided for in HTSUS subheading 7221.00.00.

Table I-7

SSWR: Tariff treatment, 2010

HTS provision Article description

Column 1

Column 22 General1 Special

Rates (ad valorem)

7221.00.00

7221.00.0005

7221.00.0015

7221.00.0030

7221.00.0045

7221.00.0075

Bars and rods, hot-rolled, in irregularly wound coils,

of stainless steel

 Of high-nickel alloy steel

 Other:

 Of circular cross section:

 With a diameter of less than 14 mm

 With a diameter of 14 mm or more 

 but less than 19 mm

 With a diameter of 19 mm or more

 Other

Free (3

) 11%

1

 Normal trade relations rate, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate. 2

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations duty status. 3

 Special rates not applicable when General rate is free.

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010).

 40 The chemical makeup (in percent by weight) for the excluded grades is as follows:

C SF20T: Carbon--0.05 max; Manganese--2.00 max; Phosphorus--0.05 max; Sulfur--0.15 max; Silicon--1.00

max; Chromium--19.00/21.00; Molybdenum--1.50/2.50; Lead--added (0.10/0.30); and Tellurium--added

(0.03 min).

C K-M35FL: Carbon--0.015 max; Silicon--0.70/1.00; Manganese--0.40 max; Phosphorus--0.04 max; Sulfur--

0.03 max; Nickel--0.30 max; Chromium--12.50/14.00; Lead--0.10/0.30; and Aluminum--0.20-0.35.

I-18
THE PRODUCT

General

Stainless steels are alloys of iron containing at least 10.5 percent by weight of chromium. In

comparison to carbon steel and other alloy steels, stainless steels offer superior resistance to corrosion or

oxidation at ambient or elevated temperatures. There are 5 classes of stainless steel, each having different

chemical compositions and physical properties: austenitic, martensitic, ferritic, duplex, and precipitation

hardenable stainless steel alloys. 

Austenitic stainless steels (200- and 300-series) are nonmagnetic, chromium-nickel alloys, such

as grades 304 and 316. Austenitic alloys can be substantially hardened by cold working but not by heat

treatment. Type 304 is the most widely used steel of the austenitic class. It has a nominal composition of

18 percent chromium and 8 percent nickel. Martensitic stainless steels (400-series) are magnetic alloys

containing chromium but little or no nickel, such as type 410, which contains 11.5 percent chromium. 

Martensitic alloys are hardenable by heat treatment and are generally used in the hardened condition for

applications subject to contact friction. Ferritic stainless steels (also 400-series) are magnetic, chromium

alloys such as type 430 (which contains 16 percent chromium) and type 409 (which contains 10.5 percent

chromium.) Type 430 is a general-purpose grade that is less resistant to corrosion than the austenitic

grades and is therefore used in applications that are not subject to corrosive conditions. Type 409 SSWR 

is commonly used to produce wire for exhaust-system hangers. Duplex stainless steels, such as 2205, are

magnetic and not hardenable by heat treatment. Duplex stainless steels are a combination of austenitic

and ferritic stainless steels with excellent corrosion resistance and about twice the yield strength of

common austenitic alloys. Grade 2205 contains 22 percent chromium, 4.5 percent nickel, and 3 percent

molybdenum. Precipitation hardenable (PH) stainless steels combine high strength and hardness with

corrosion resistance that is superior to that of the martensitic alloys. Alloy 17-7 PH is a typical PH alloy

and contains 16 percent chromium, 6.5 percent nickel, and about 1 percent aluminum. The essential

characteristics imparted by physical structures and chemical compositions influence how the steel is

melted, as well as its ladle treatment, hot-rolling, and heat treatment.41

Description and Applications

SSWR is an intermediate stainless steel product that is used primarily to produce stainless steel

wire and stainless steel bar. SSWR is a long product produced in coiled form with no specific size

limitation. SSWR is produced at least as large as 39 mm (1.54 inch) in diameter, although the most

common size is 5.5 mm (0.217 inch) in diameter, circular cross-section. This is the smallest size normally

produced on a hot-rolling mill and is the size most commonly used for wire drawing. SSWR may also be

produced as a square, hexagon, octagon, or other shape.

The primary use for SSWR shipped in the domestic market is for the production of wire. 

According to ***, *** of its shipments of SSWR are for the production of wire with *** percent of the

shipments being of the smallest diameter (5.5 mm).42 The domestic market for SSWR used for the

purpose of converting into bar is very small.43 Finally, some forgers and fabricators use SSWR directly in

manufacturing of downstream products, including, but not limited to, industrial fasteners, springs,

 41 Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 701-TA373 (Final) and 731-TA-769-775 (Final), USITC Publication 3126, September 1998, p. I-4 and Stainless Steels,

ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 1994, and Steel Products Manual: Stainless Steels, Iron & Steel Society,

1999.

 42 Plant tour and interview session with ***, February 24, 2010.

 43 Plant tour and interview session with ***, February 24, 2010.

I-19
medical and dental instruments, automotive parts, and welding electrodes.44 More than *** of

domestically-produced SSWR is consumed internally by producers for the production of stainless steel

wire or cold-finished bar. Of the U.S. firms that produce SSWR, *** reported internally consuming

SSWR. ***.45

Manufacturing Process

There are three basic steps in SSWR production, regardless of grade or final cross section: (1) the

melting of steel and production of billets, (2) hot-rolling the billets and coiling the wire rod, and (3)

finishing, which includes annealing and pickling. Inspection, packaging, and shipment follow these three

stages of production. The production process employed by U.S. producers and by foreign manufacturers

is generally the same.46

In the first stage, molten stainless steel is produced by melting stainless steel scrap and other raw

materials (including chromium, nickel, and molybdenum) in an electric-arc furnace. Molten stainless

steel typically is transferred to an argon-oxygen refining vessel, where its chemistry is refined and

adjusted through further additions to produce steel with the required chemical composition. The steel is

then processed through a continuous casting machine to produce billets, which are semifinished long

products with a square cross section. Other types of melting equipment, such as a vacuum furnace or an

electroslag remelting furnace, may be used to produce special quality SSWR, but these processes are

uncommon. When continuous casting is not used, billet may be produced from ingots by rolling or

forging.

In the second stage, the surface of the billets may be ground to remove defects, following which

the billets are heated to rolling temperature (about 2,200 degrees Fahrenheit) prior to hot rolling. In the

hot-rolling mill, the billet passes through a series of rolling operations until it has been reduced to its final

diameter or shape, at which point it has the dimensions of wire rod. The wire rod is coiled and then is

cooled either by forced air or by water-quenching. Each billet yields a single coil of wire-rod.

In the finishing stage, the coils may be annealed (heat-treated) and mechanically descaled (shotblasted) and/or pickled (dipped in a series of acid baths) to improve surface quality. The coils of wire rod

may also be coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime, or oxalate, which facilitates the drawing

process.

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

In the original investigations and first five-year sunset reviews, the Commission found the

appropriate domestic like product to be all SSWR corresponding to the scope of Commerce’s

investigations.47 No party has advocated for an alternative domestic like product in these reviews.48

 44 Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 701-TA373 (Final) and 731-TA-769-775 (Final), USITC Publication 3126, September 1998, pp. I-4 and I-6.

 45 Carpenter’s posthearing brief, exh 1, p. 35. 

 46 Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 701-TA373 (Final) and 731-TA-769-775 (Final), USITC Publication 3126, September 1998, pp. I-6 - I-8.

 47 Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan, Investigations Nos.

701-TA-373 (Final) and 731-TA-769-775 (Final), USITC Publication 3126, September 1998. Stainless Steel Wire

Rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-770-775 (Review), USITC

Publication 3707, July 2004. 

 48 See generally responses to the Commission’s notice of institution of Carpenter, Cogne, and POSCOSS, and

prehearing and posthearing briefs. 

I-20
U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

The following firms were identified as producers of SSWR in the original investigations: Al

Tech Specialty Steel Corp. (Al Tech), Carpenter Technology Corp. (Carpenter), Republic Engineered

Steels, Inc. (Republic), Talley Metals Technology (Talley), and ***. Two of the five producers, ***,

reported receiving certain quantities of SSWR from ***. The four petitioners, Al Tech, Carpenter,

Republic, and Talley, accounted for virtually all domestic production of SSWR.49

There have been numerous changes in the composition of the domestic industry since petition

was filed in July 1997. Republic exited the stainless steel wire rod business in *** and has not been

involved in any operations concerning SSWR since that time.50 In addition, Carpenter, a publicly owned

company headquartered in Wyomissing, PA., acquired Talley in 1998.51

Following the bankruptcy of its Korean parent company,52 Al Tech reorganized under Chapter 11,

emerging from bankruptcy in 1999 as Empire Specialty Steel, Inc., which itself went bankrupt and shut

down in June 2001. Empire’s assets were subsequently purchased by Dunkirk Specialty Steel (Dunkirk)

on February 8, 2002, and the plant became operational on March 14, 2002.53 Dunkirk is a wholly-owned

subsidiary of Universal Stainless & Alloy Products Inc, a publicly owned company headquartered in

Bridgeville, PA, which responded to the Commission’s questionnaire for these reviews.54

Avesta Sheffield merged with Outokumpu Stainless, Inc., in 2001 to become Avesta Polarit

(renamed Outokumpu Stainless in 2004).55 Owned by Outokumpu Stainless Steel Oyj, a publicly owned

company headquartered in Espoo, Finland, Outokumpu participates in the SSWR industry by ***. The

billets are converted into SSWR by Allvac under a fee-conversion contract. Outokumpu consumes the

SSWR to produce stainless steel bar.56

Charter Specialty Steel (Charter), a division of Charter Manufacturing, a privately owned holding

company headquartered in Mequon, WI, constructed a plant for finishing SSWR and began production in

2001, utilizing purchased billets, which it rolled on an existing rod mill used primarily for the production

 49 Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan, Investigations Nos.

701-TA-373 (Final) and 731-TA-769-775 (Final), USITC Publication 3162, September 1998. 

 50 First Review Staff Report (INV-BB-074), p. I-23.

 51 Carpenter filed a single response to the Commission's questionnaire for these reviews. 

 52 On December 31, 1997, AL Tech filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In a

press release concerning the bankruptcy filing, Al Tech’s Chief Operating Officer was quoted as follows: “Today’s

actions were not surprising in light of the March 1997 bankruptcy filings of our parent and affiliate Sammi Steel

companies in South Korea and Canada, respectively, and the serious economic situation currently taking place in

South Korea. As a result, Al Tech was left with no financial assistance or expectation of future capital from its

parent company. Al Tech is a viable business with outstanding products, loyal customers, a dedicated work force

and strong local management. We believe the company has an excellent prospect of working through this process

quickly.” Original Staff Report (INV-V-057), p. VI-1 n.2. 

 53 Steel: Monitoring Developments in the Domestic Industry, Investigation No. TA-204-9, Volume II, USITC

Publication 3632, September 2003, Tables Stainless I-3, I-4, and I-5. Telephone interview with ***, Dunkirk

Specialty Steel LLC, May 4, 2004.

 54 The Dunkirk plant is supplied with billets produced in Bridgeville, PA, by its parent company, Universal

Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc. http://www.univstainless.com/.

 55 Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-770-775

(Review), USITC Publication 3707, July 2004, p. I-24.

 56 ***. 

I-21
of carbon steel rod. ***. Charter announced the permanent closing of its SSWR finishing operations in

2008 and sold the Fond du Lac finishing mill in January 2010.57 58

North American Stainless (NAS), a division of Acerinox SA, a publicly owned company

headquartered in Madrid, Spain, constructed a continuous casting machine for billets, a new combination

rod/bar mill, and finishing facilities for SSWR and stainless steel bar at the location of its existing plant

producing stainless steel flat products in Ghent, KY. NAS’s production of SSWR began in 2003.59 NAS

reportedly entered the long products market due to the general lack of supply of SSWR in the United

States.60

Allvac (a division of Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, a publicly owned company

headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA.) announced in 2002 that it would spend $30 million to upgrade its

rolling mill in Monroe, NC in a project that included a conversion agreement with Outokumpu (then

known as AvestaPolarit). Those upgrades took place in 2004. Allvac converts Outokumpu-owned billets 

into SSWR and also produces a small quantity of SSWR for itself, but is not a major participant in

SSWR. Allvac *** on the Monroe rolling mill.61

A summary of changes in the U.S. industry since the Commission’s original investigations are

presented in figure I-1.

Currently, Allvac, Carpenter, NAS, and Universal produce SSWR, while Outokumpu maintains a

toll relationship with Allvac. These companies’ identities, positions on the orders, plant locations, and

shares of 2003 and 2009 production are presented in table I-8.

 57 Corinna Perry, “Charter to shut two plants, 155 jobs to be axed,” Amm.com, November 13, 2008.

 58 “Central Wire acquisition broadens product line,” Central Wire, Perth, Ontario press release,

http://www.centralwire.com/news/template.asp?articleid=23, retrieved April 14, 2010.

 59 Plant tour and interview session with ***, February 24, 2010.

 60 “NAS expands line to long products to fill gap in U.S. wire rod supplies.” American Metal Market, January 28,

2003. 

 61 Allvac questionnaire response.

I-22
Figure I-1

SSWR: Openings, closings, and consolidations of U.S. producers, 1997-2010

1997-2000 2001-03 2004-06 2007-10

Republic ceases operations in ***

Al Tech files for

bankruptcy in 1997;

reorganizes as Empire in 1999

Empire declares bankruptcy in 2001. Universal purchases Empire’s assets in 2002

*** Avesta Sheffield merges with Outokumpu in 2001

Allvac announces conversion agreement with Outokumpu in 2002

Talley

Carpenter acquires Talley in 1998

Charter begins operations in 2001; ceases operations in 2008

NAS begins SSWR operations in 2003

Source: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 701-

TA-373 (Final) and 731-TA-769-775 (Final), USITC Publication 3126, September 1998; Stainless Steel Wire Rod

from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan (Inv. Nos. 731-TA-770-773 and 775 (Review), USITC

Publication 3707, July 2004. 

I-23
Table I-8

SSWR: U.S. producers, positions on the orders, U.S. production locations, and shares of 2003 and

2009 reported U.S. production

Firm Position on orders Plant location

Share of production (percent)

First five year

reviews (2003)

Current reviews

(2009)

Allvac *** Monroe, NC *** ***

Carpenter Supports all orders Reading, PA;

Hartsville, SC;

*** ***

Charter (1

) Fond du Lac

and Saukville,

WI

*** (1)

Universal Supports all orders Dunkirk, NY *** ***

NAS *** Ghent, KY *** ***

Outokumpu2 *** Richburg, SC *** ***

Talley (3

) Hartsville, SC *** (3)

 1 No longer produces SSWR and did not provide a questionnaire. 2 Allvac produces SSWR for Outokumpo via a tolling agreement.

 3 Included with Carpenter.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. Importers

In the original investigations, 45 firms provided usable data and 18 firms reported that they did

not import SSWR from any source. In the first five-year reviews, 29 firms provided usable data and 41

firms reported that they did not import SSWR. In response to Commission importers’ questionnaires in

the current reviews, 16 firms supplied usable data and 19 firms indicated that they had not imported the

product since 2004. *** U.S. producers reported importing SSWR from subject suppliers during the

period for which data were gathered.62 Table I-9 presents all responding U.S. importers of SSWR, source

of imports, and their U.S. office locations.

 62 ***.

I-24
Table I-9

SSWR: U.S. importers, source of imports, and U.S. office location(s)

Firm Source of imports U.S. office location(s)

Abco *** Chatham, MA

Byram Steel *** Pompton Plains, NJ

Comprador Inoxidable *** Petaluma, CA

Hitachi Metals America1 *** Purchase, NY; Irwin, PA

Koswire2 *** Flowery Branch, GA

Kurt Orban *** Burlingame, CA

Loos & Co. *** Pomfret, CT

Outokumpu3 *** Richburg, SC

Pan *** Woodland Hills, CA

POSCO America4 *** Fort Lee, NJ

Precision Metal *** Montgomeryville, PA

S + B5 *** Carol Stream, IL

SMT Wire6 *** Summit, PA

Techalloy7 *** Baltimore, MD

Valbruna8 ***

Tucker, GA; Chino, CA; Pompton

Lakes, NJ; Carol Stream, IL; Woodlawn,

OH; Houston, TX; and St. Petersburg,

FL

Wire Industries7

 *** Dumas, AK

 1 Hitachi Metals America is wholly-owned by Hitachi Metals, Ltd. which is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. ***.

 2 Koswire, Inc. ***.

 3 Outokumpu is wholly owned by Outokumpu Stainless, Inc. ***. 

 4 POSCO America ***. 

 5 S + B is wholly owned by Schmolz + Bickenbach AG, which is headquartered in Dusseldorf, Germany. ***

 6 SMT Wire is wholly-owned by Sandvik, Inc., ***. 

 7 Techalloy and Wire Industries are wholly-owned by Central Wire Industries, headquartered in Ontario, Canada. 

 8 Valbruna is a subsidiary of Acciaierie Valbruna, S.p.A., a nonsubject Italian producer of SSWR.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

I-25
U.S. Purchasers

The Commission issued purchaser questionnaires to 33 companies believed to purchase SSWR. 

Two questionnaires were returned as non-purchasers, and three others were returned from firms now out

of business.63 The Commission received responses from nine purchasers.64 These nine purchasers’

purchase quantities represented 16.5 percent of U.S. producers’ total U.S. shipments in 2009 and 20.6

percent in 2008, while representing 44.6 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. commercial shipments in 2009

and 55.1 percent in 2008. Two purchasers (***) are ***. 

Purchasers were based in ***. *** of the purchasers described themselves as wire drawers and/or

end users. Four of the purchasers also submitted importers’ questionnaires. *** purchasers reported

purchases of U.S. SSWR, *** reported purchases of Italian SSWR, *** reported purchases of Japanese

SSWR, *** reported purchases of Korean SSWR, *** reported purchases of Spanish SSWR, and ***

reported purchases of Taiwan SSWR.65 *** purchasers also reported purchases from other countries,

including China, France, Germany, India, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Table I-10 presents apparent U.S. consumption for 2004-09 and table I-11 presents U.S. market

shares for the same period. Table I-12 presents market share calculated for the U.S. merchant market.

 63 Additionally, two importers, ***, did not return purchasers’ questionnaires.

 64 ***.

 65 The questionnaire did not ask purchasers of SSWR to distinguish between subject and nonsubject suppliers in

Italy, Japan, or Taiwan.

I-26
Table I-10

SSWR: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 

2004-09

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

Italy (other than Valbruna) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan (other than Hitachi) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea 1,982 2,626 385 24 0 0

Spain 34 8 20 0 0 0

Taiwan (other than Yieh Hsing) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, subject sources 2,230 3,044 636 150 61 35

Italy (Valbruna only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan (Hitachi only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan (Yieh Hsing only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 29,350 20,789 19,447 19,257 21,191 8,888

Subtotal, nonsubject sources 45,377 38,486 30,837 30,411 29,823 14,396

Total imports 47,608 41,531 31,473 30,562 29,884 14,431

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

Italy (other than Valbruna) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan (other than Hitachi) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea 3,858 6,226 960 132 0 0

Spain 80 60 48 0 0 0

Taiwan (other than Yieh Hsing) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, subject sources 4,464 7,476 1,844 783 276 111

Italy (Valbruna only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan (Hitachi only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan (Yieh Hsing only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 69,503 61,073 63,277 91,427 95,963 29,236

Subtotal, nonsubject sources 107,256 109,029 96,341 142,371 131,031 43,351

Total imports 111,720 116,505 98,185 143,154 131,307 43,461

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

I-27
Table I-11

SSWR: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Table I-12

SSWR: U.S. merchant market consumption and market shares, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

I-28
PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

Geographic Markets

Both U.S. producers1 and importers shipped SSWR to multiple regions and over long distances. 

Four U.S. producers reported that 80 to 100 percent of their sales were 101-1,000 miles from their storage

or production facilities, with up to 20 percent of their sales more than a 1,000 miles from their production

facilities. However, *** reported selling *** percent of its product within 101-1,000 miles and ***

percent more than a 1,000 miles from its production facility. 

Three importers indicated that 90 percent or more of their sales were within 100 miles of their

facilities. Another three importers reported that 50 percent or more of their sales were 101-1,000 miles

from their facilities. No importer sold more than 10 percent of their SSWR to locations further away than

1,000 miles.

All producers shipped to multiple geographic locations including the Northeast and Southeast and

at least one other region. Similarly, six importers sold to multiple geographic locations, although two

sold only to one geographic region.2

Channels of Distribution

As shown in table II-1, U.S. producers and importers generally ship SSWR directly to end users. 

Wire drawers are the leading customers for U.S. producers and importers alike.3

Table II-1

SSWR: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. commercial shipments of SSWR, by sources and

channels of distribution, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

U.S. Supply

Based on available information, U.S. SSWR producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with moderately large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced SSWR to the U.S.

market. The main contributing factor to the moderate large degree of responsiveness of supply is

substantial unused capacity, tempered by low inventories and low levels of exports.

 1 *** submitted both producers’ and importers’ questionnaires. For purposes of this chapter, its answers are

counted only as a producer. Of the nine purchasers, three (***) also submitted importers’ questionnaires. Purchaser

and importer responses were recorded for these firms. ***.

 2

 Geographical markets, as well as quantitative measures relating to fungibility and presence in the market, are

discussed in the section of the report entitled “Cumulation Considerations” beginning on page IV-6.

 3

 Specialty metals consultant Ed Blot, testifying in support of continuation of the antidumping duties, observed

that service centers (distributors) typically handle small volumes of SSWR. Hearing transcript, p. 67 (Blot).

II-1
Testimony at the Commission’s hearing suggested that Carpenter and Universal focused more on

higher-priced specialty-grade SSWR while NAS emphasized commodity “300-series” SSWR.4

Additional testimony described NAS as having emerged as the dominant U.S. producer for the more

widely-used grades of SSWR, while suggesting that the broader U.S. industry was insulated from SSWR

prices because so much of its production is internally consumed.5

Industry capacity

U.S. producers generally operated at less than *** of their reported capacity (2006 and

2008 excepted). By 2009, the domestic industry’s capacity utilization fell to *** percent, despite capacity

reductions. Initial growth by Allvac and NAS has been offset by ***, as well as the cessation of

operations by Charter (not reflected in the reported data). Four producers did not anticipate any changes

to their capacity, but *** stated that if current pricing trends continue, it will need to reduce workforce

and force periodic equipment shutdowns. Five producers said that they had not observed any significant

changes in the product range, product mix, or marketing of SSWR, and did not anticipate any such

changes. 

Alternative markets

U.S. producers never exported more than *** short tons of SSWR in any year during 2004-09. 

Producers describe different constraints to shifting their production to other markets. *** reported that it

would need to add sales staff trained to sell in other countries. *** indicated that it could shift sales to

other countries if the market dictated such a shift. *** observed that shifting SSWR from country to

country does happen, but it takes time. *** described the competitiveness of foreign markets as not

allowing it to export anything but specialty SSWR. *** concurred, and added that current exchange rates

are another impediment to exports. No producers reported any other tariff or non-tariff barriers to their

exports of SSWR.

Inventory levels

U.S. producers’ inventories were equivalent to *** percent to *** percent of total shipments

between 2004 and 2009.

Production alternatives

Three producers stated that they could produce other products, including cold-drawn bar and

angle and specialty and alloy steels, on the same equipment that they use to produce SSWR. *** added

that its SSWR capacity is variable based on other products and their market conditions. It continued that

it also manufactures a variety of specialty steels and alloys. *** reported similar capabilities for other

products. *** indicated that they had not used their equipment for producing SSWR to produce other

products since 2004.

 4 Hearing transcript, pp. 54-55 (Hudgens).

 5

 Hearing transcript, pp. 124-25 (Ferrin), 185 (Silverman). Parties in support of continuation of the orders

disagreed, describing both Carpenter and NAS as having “significant” commercial shipments. Carpenter’s

posthearing brief, p. 6.

II-2
Subject Imports from Italy

Based on available information, Cogne has the ability to respond to changes in demand with

moderate to large changes in the quantity of shipments of SSWR to the U.S. market.6

 The main

contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are Cogne’s current low capacity

utilization,7

 the existence of some inventories, and the level of exports, constrained by the focus on the

European and Asian markets.8

 Cogne stated that it is seeking revocation of the orders in order to take

advantage of available specialty orders, but only in products in which it would not compete with NAS.9

Industry capacity

Cogne’s Italian capacity was stable over 2004-08, with capacity utilization in excess of *** 

percent until 2009, when it fell to under *** percent.10 ***.11

Alternative markets

Italian producer Cogne ships a substantial portion of its production to ***.

Inventory levels

Italian inventories were equivalent to *** to *** percent of sales until 2009, when they reached

*** percent of sales.

 6 In the current reviews, the Commission received usable data from one Italian SSWR producer, Cogne, which

accounted for *** percent of production of SSWR in Italy in 2009. Cogne remains subject to the order while the

other major Italian producer, Valbruna, does not.

 7

 In its posthearing brief, Cogne stated that its order books for the second quarter of 2010 are “effectively full,”

and that capacity utilization was much higher than in 2009. Posthearing brief of Cogne, exhibit 1, pp. 4-5, and

exhibit 5.

 8

 Parties offered different characterizations of the Italian SSWR market. Cogne pointed to data showing that Italy

is a major net importer of SSWR, and imports more SSWR than does the United States. Hearing transcript, pp. 128-

30 (Ferrin). Parties in support of continuation of the orders described Italian imports of SSWR as including

significant volumes from Schmolz & Bickenbach, formerly Ugitech, to its affiliated Italian finishing mill, Bedini. 

Hearing transcript, p. 43 (Lasoff). Cogne estimated that two-thirds of Italian imports from France were from

Ugitech for consumption by its Italian affiliate. Using that estimate, Cogne calculated that Italy still runs a trade

deficit in SSWR. Posthearing brief of Cogne, Exhibit 1, p. 11.

 9

 Hearing transcript, pp. 139-140 (Ferrin). Cogne listed *** as potential opportunities. Posthearing brief of

Cogne, Exhibit 1, p. 1.

 10 Cogne stated that it, “like other steel companies,” would rather shut down production and wait for prices to

return than sell excess production “at any price.” Hearing transcript, p. 152 (Ferrin). It also added that its order

bookings for the second quarter of 2010 account for *** percent of its capacity. Posthearing brief of Cogne, p. 5.

 11 ***.

II-3
Production alternatives

***. Carpenter alleged that Cogne could switch its stainless steel bar production into SSWR

production.12 Cogne stated that its actual exports of stainless steel bar to the United States over 2004-

2009 amounted to only 137 tons.13

In addition, Cogne can and does produce billets that can be sold on the merchant market. By one

account, after the first review of the SSWR orders, Cogne approached U.S. producer Charter to convert

Cogne’s billets into SSWR.14 Cogne responded that Charter had approached Cogne for billets for a grade

of SSWR that Charter did not produce, and that Cogne supplied those billets in 2004, 2005, and 2006.15

Subject Imports from Japan

Based on available information, Japanese producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of SSWR to the U.S. market.16 The main

contributing factors to the large degree of responsiveness of supply are the high Japanese capacity levels

and high levels of exports of similar products. 

Industry capacity

According to data submitted by ***, Japan is a major world producer of SSWR. Japan’s subject

producers have a capacity of approximately *** short tons. SSWR consultant Ed Blot alleged that

Japanese producer Daido Steel had supplied SSWR to purchaser Sumiden in the past, and that Daido was

currently operating at 65 percent capacity in 2009.17

Alternative markets

As shown in table IV-7, in 2008, Japan was the world’s second-largest (by quantity) exporter of

stainless steel rods and bars in irregularly wound coils, a category that closely resembles SSWR, but for

the two excluded grades (see part I for more information on the exclusions).

Subject Imports from Korea

Based on available information, Korean producers (***) have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with moderate to moderately large changes in the quantity of shipments of SSWR to the U.S.

market.18 The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are POSCOSS’ export

shipments and unused capacity, tempered by the degree of commitment to the Asian market.

 12 Carpenter’s prehearing brief, p. 24.

 13 Hearing transcript, p. 135 (Ferrin). 

 14 Hearing transcript, p. 32 (Blot).

 15 Hearing transcript, p. 138 (Ferrin). See also posthearing brief of Cogne, exhibit 2.

 16 In the current reviews, the Commission did not receive a questionnaire from any Japanese producer that had

produced SSWR since January 1, 2004.

 17 Hearing transcript, pp. 30-31 (Blot).

 18 In the current reviews, the Commission received a questionnaire response from Korean producer POSCOSS,

which estimated that it accounted for *** percent of SSWR production in Korea in 2009.

II-4
Industry capacity

Korean capacity has been stable over 2004 to 2009, but capacity utilization dropped from 

levels in excess of *** percent during 2004-06 to *** percent by 2009. ***.19

However, parties in support of continuation of the orders alleged that POSCOSS had been one of

the major suppliers to Koswire, a Korean firm described by such parties as “the largest stainless wire

producer in the world.” Parties in support of continuation of the orders added that Koswire opened a wire

production plant in Georgia in 2002, and that both POSCOSS and Koswire advertise SSWR availability

in the U.S. market.20

Alternative markets

Korean producer POSCOSS ships a *** portion of its production to other countries, 

especially in Asia (***), and to a lesser extent, Europe (***). ***.

Inventory levels

Korean producers typically maintain inventory levels equivalent to *** percent of total

shipments. POSCOSS stated that it produces SSWR upon receipt of orders from customers, and does not

keep products in distribution warehouses prior to delivery.21

Production alternatives

***. Parties in support of continuation of the orders alleged that if the order were revoked, 

POSCOSS could shift production of stainless steel wire (which it currently exports to the United States)

to SSWR for export to the United States.22

Subject Imports from Spain

Based on available information, Spanish producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of SSWR to the U.S. market.23 The main

contributing factors to the large degree of responsiveness of supply are Spain’s high capacity and high

levels of exports of similar products. 

Industry capacity

According to data submitted by ***, Spain has the capacity to produce more than *** short tons

of SSWR per year. Carpenter, NAS, and Universal agreed that their firms did not compete often with

Spanish producers.24

 19 ***.

 20 Hearing transcript, pp. 31 (Blot) and 35 (Hudgens).

 21 Respondent POSCOSS’ prehearing brief, p. 5.

 22 Carpenter’s prehearing brief, p. 29.

 23 In the current reviews, the Commission did not receive a questionnaire from any Spanish producer of SSWR.

 24 Hearing transcript, pp. 44-45 (Ziolkowski, Feeley, and McGrath).

II-5
Alternative markets

As shown in table IV-7, in 2008, Spain was the world’s sixth-largest (by quantity) exporter of

stainless steel bars and rods in irregularly wound coils, a category that closely resembles SSWR, but for

the two excluded grades (see part I for more information on the exclusions).

Subject Imports from Taiwan

Based on available information, Taiwan producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of SSWR to the U.S. market.25 The main

contributing factors to the large degree of responsiveness of supply are Taiwan’s high capacity and high

level of exports of similar products. 

Industry capacity

According to data submitted by ***, Taiwan has the capacity to produce *** short tons of SSWR

per year.

Alternative markets

As shown in table IV-7, in 2008, Taiwan was the world’s largest exporter of stainless steel bars

and rods in irregularly wound coils, a category that closely resembles SSWR, but for the two excluded

grades (see part I for more information on the exclusions).

Nonsubject Imports

Three U.S. producers had not seen any changes in the availability of nonsubject supply since

2004. However, *** reported that the availability of low-priced Indian stainless steel wire has increased

in the U.S. market, hurting U.S. producers’ customers’ demand for U.S.-produced SSWR. Nine importers

had also not seen any changes, but two had, noting new suppliers from China, India, and Eastern Europe. 

One of those importers described the impact of those suppliers as limited due to concerns about the

quality of SSWR from those sources. *** noted that French and Swedish SSWR producers did not revert

to their previous U.S. pricing policies after they had had U.S. antidumping orders removed.26 However,

parties in support of continuation of the orders later presented data and analysis suggesting that imports

from previously subject sources (France, Sweden, Valbruna, and Yieh Hsing) had increased, at least until

the recession.27

Factors Affecting Supply

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if there have been any changes in factors

affecting supply.28 Four producers answered no, but *** said that increased energy costs and higher 

 25 In the current reviews, the Commission did not receive a questionnaire from any Taiwan producer of SSWR.

 26 Staff telephone interview with ***.

 27 Carpenter’s posthearing brief, pp. 17-19.

 28 Factors affecting supply include changes in the availability or prices of energy or labor; transportation

conditions; production capacity and/or methods of production; technology; export markets; or alternative production

opportunities that affected the availability of U.S.-produced SSWR in the U.S. market since 2004.

II-6
foreign producer capacity had affected U.S. SSWR supply.29 Six importers reported that they had also not

seen any changes in supply factors, but four had, with three citing the entry of NAS as increasing supply

and pushing prices lower while also noting exchange rate fluctuations and demand changes. Similarly,

four producers did not anticipate any changes in the availability of U.S.-produced SSWR, but ***

indicated that current industry overcapacity could result in consolidation and capacity reductions. 

Eight importers did not anticipate any change in the availability of subject-country SSWR.30

However, two did, with *** citing competitive pricing and *** stating that subject supply would rise if

the order were revoked. (*** also agreed with this assessment, while otherwise not anticipating any

changes in SSWR availability from subject countries.)31

Nine importers had not observed any change in the product range, mix, or marketing of SSWR

since 2004. However, *** noted that there was a limited and brief move amongst grades when the price

of nickel was high, and *** indicated that it was producing more forming wire since 2004. Eleven

importers did not anticipate any changes.

Purchasers were asked to describe any changes in the U.S. SSWR industry since 2004. *** noted

the general improvement in NAS’s product quality since 2004. *** noted the exit of Charter from the

industry, with *** attributing a significant decrease in the U.S. availability of *** SSWR to that exit. It

added that wire sales plummeted from mid 2008 through mid 2009. *** indicated that the new NAS

facility makes U.S. SSWR that is competitive with most SSWR producers in the world. However, ***

were not aware of any changes. *** described SSWR as a mature product. Among purchasers, only ***

anticipated any changes in the industry, stating that it anticipated an increase in alloys melted and rolled

in the United States as volumes of standard grades declined over the next year.

Six purchasers were not aware of any new suppliers since 2004.32 *** became aware of *** due

to sales call, and *** had been contacted by Indian suppliers Panchamal, Rajaraatna, Venus, and Viraj as

well as Chinese suppliers including Tsinghan. Eight purchasers did not expect any new suppliers.

Demand

Based on available information, the overall demand for SSWR is likely to experience limited

changes in response to changes in price. The main contributing factors are the somewhat limited range of

substitute products and the importance of government (especially Department of Defense) contracts. 

However, the relatively large cost share of SSWR in the intermediate products (e.g., stainless steel wire)

that are made from SSWR may increase the responsiveness of demand to changes in price.

Available data indicate that total apparent U.S. consumption of SSWR decreased from *** short

tons in 2004 to *** short tons in 2009, with at least some of the decline likely due to the current recession

and the movement offshore of stainless steel wire production.

 29 Foreign producers *** also reported that they had not seen any changes in factors affecting supply, and did not

anticipate any changes in the availability of subject SSWR. Five purchasers saw no change in factors affecting the

supply of SSWR, while *** noted the closing of Charter’s SSWR facility in early 2009.

 30 On the other hand, NAS stated that its information indicated that producers in Italy, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan

are operating at “extremely” low capacity utilization. Hearing transcript, p. 18 (Feeley).

 31 When asked about constraints on their shipments to other countries, seven importers described themselves as

U.S.-based operations unable to switch sales to other markets. The others did not answer the question on their

ability to do so.

 32 While *** had not changed its suppliers since 2004, six other purchasers had. Three purchasers noted that

Charter had closed. *** dropped *** because of “noncompetitive” pricing, while adding ***. *** reported adding

***, while *** added ***. *** also added suppliers (citing price considerations), as did *** (because other

suppliers went out of business).

II-7
Demand Characteristics

Producers and importers were asked to describe the end uses of SSWR. Producers listed 

spring wire, antenna wire, welding wire, weaving wire, fasteners, medical wire, nails, fasteners,

couplings, and more. Importers listed similar products. Five producers and eleven importers had not seen

and did not expect any changes in the end uses for SSWR.33

Purchasers generally described the end uses for SSWR as stainless steel wire, cable, and bar. 

Some of the downstream end uses for those products included automotive, general construction

applications, oil and gas equipment, spring wire, welding wire, filter wire, cold drawn bar, and wire for

medical uses.34 Seven purchasers had not observed any changes in the end uses of SSWR since 2004, and

six did not anticipate any future changes in end uses. However, *** anticipated the direct substitution of

non-metallic materials for SSWR.

Carpenter described SSWR for medical and aerospace applications as having more stringent

requirements than other SSWR, and as being more likely to be produced in the United States than in

countries with less developed infrastructures. It added that it expected better growth rates from medical

and aerospace applications than for general industrial applications, although automotive applications are

currently seeing some growth due to inventory restocking.35

Three purchasers described demand for their end use products (using SSWR) since 2004 as

having fluctuated, three said that such demand had decreased, and one saw no change. Five of those

purchasers said that the changing demand for their end use products had affected their demand for SSWR. 

Two of those that saw decreased demand attributed the decrease to increased imports of stainless steel

wire.

Demand Trends

The U.S. stainless steel wire industry, the main end user of U.S.-produced SSWR, has seen

growing import market share over recent years. As figure II-1 shows, U.S. stainless steel wire

consumption has flattened or decreased, while import market share has grown.36 Market consultant Ed

Blot attributed part of this lower consumption to U.S. wire producers moving offshore and to attempts by

Indian stainless steel producers to sell stainless steel wire (rather than SSWR) in the U.S. market because

of antidumping duties on Indian SSWR.37 U.S. imports of Indian stainless steel wire rose from $4.4

million in 2000 to $66.4 million in 2008 before falling to $30.1 million in 2009.38

 33 Foreign producers *** listed similar end uses and indicated that the end uses for their SSWR in their home

markets do not differ from those in the United States and third countries. Neither had seen nor anticipated any

changes in end uses.

 34 Universal described SSWR demand as being “directly related” to the automotive and construction sectors. 

Hearing transcript, p. 25 (McGrath). U.S. construction and automotive assembly data are presented in appendix E.

 35 Hearing transcript, pp. 93-94 (Ziolkowski).

 36 Data for 2009 are not presented here because American Wire Producers' Association has not yet reported data

on shipments of stainless steel wire.

 37 Hearing transcript, p. 71 (Blot).

 38 Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

II-8
0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

50

6 0

70

8 0

9 0

10 0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1,000s of tons

0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

50

6 0

70

8 0

9 0

10 0

percent

A p p a re n t c o n s u mp tio n (le f t a x is )

Im p o r t m a r ke t s h a r e ( r ig h t a x is )

U.S . s ta in le s s s te e l w ire ma rke t

S o u rc e : S p e c ia lt y S t e e l In d u s t ry o f N o rt h A m e ric a (S S IN A ).

Figure II-1

Stainless steel wire: Consumption and import market share, 2000-08

Three producers and two importers characterized U.S. demand for SSWR as decreasing since

January 1, 2004.39 *** described the demand decrease as dramatic and, along with four importers,

attributed it to the movement of customers to Asia and the financial crisis/ ensuing recession. One of

those four importers, ***, added that demand for wire and SSWR that met the Defense Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)40 had offset some of the decrease. Two producers and four

importers stated that U.S. demand had fluctuated, with *** adding that current demand is near five-year

lows. Importer *** described demand as rising from 2004 to 2008 and declining since then, and two

other importers characterized SSWR demand as following general U.S. economic conditions.

Four purchasers described U.S. demand as decreasing since 2004, with three citing the recent

recession and three citing the increase in imported stainless steel wire, especially from India, Korea, and

China. Three purchasers saw fluctuating demand, and one stated that it did not know demand trends.

Among foreign producers, *** stated that there had been no change in demand in *** nor in the

United States, but that demand in other countries had increased. *** expects *** demand to grow, U.S.

demand to be stable, and China/Southeast Asian demand to increase. *** indicated that demand in ***

had fluctuated while U.S. demand had decreased and other country demand, especially in China, had

increased. It anticipates that U.S. and *** demand will continue to fluctuate while Asian demand, driven

by China and India, will increase.

 39 Additionally, SSWR consultant Ed Blot stated that his private data showed a 54 percent fall in U.S. SSWR

consumption over 2004-09, due to the financial crisis and the continuing offshoring of both wire producers and

downstream wire users. However, he forecasts a 24 percent increase in SSWR demand over the next three years,

due to both inventory restocking and improved demand from the automotive sector. Hearing transcript, pp. 29-30

(Blot).

 40 DFARS applies to “to purchases and contracts by DoD {Department of Defense} contracting activities made

in support of foreign military sales or North Atlantic Treaty Organization cooperative projects.” Several

questionnaires specified that DFARS allows use of SSWR only from certain countries (including the United States).

II-9
Two producers did not anticipate any changes in U.S. SSWR demand, with *** describing U.S.

demand as following U.S. GDP. However, two other producers did expect changes in demand, as *** 

forecast small increases of less than four percent annually, and *** expected a return to 2006-08 levels by

2012.

Four importers forecast fluctuating demand reflecting U.S. economic activity. Three others saw

falling SSWR demand as U.S. manufacturing, and specifically wire production, moves to other countries. 

Two predicted no change in U.S. demand, with *** specifying that 2010 demand would likely be close to

2009 demand, i.e., much lower than 2006-2008 demand. Only *** expected a demand increase, due to

slow U.S. economic recovery.

Purchasers *** anticipated an increase in U.S. demand due to general economic recovery and

government infrastructure projects. Purchasers *** saw continuing demand fluctuations, and ***

expected no change in demand, as *** forecast minimal movement offshore of U.S. manufacturing due to

the declining U.S. dollar. However, *** predicted decreasing demand for SSWR as import pricing on

stainless steel wire would hurt U.S. wire producers’ ability to sustain production levels.41

Business Cycles

Questionnaire respondents agreed that the SSWR market does not follow a distinctive business

cycle outside of general economic conditions. Three producers and 10 importers said that the SSWR

market does not have a distinctive business cycle, while *** stated that lower-priced imports had made

business conditions extremely competitive. Among both importers and producers, only *** reported any

changes in business cycles, describing the economic downturn in late 2008 as having had a “drastic”

effect on inventory. Six purchasers said that there were no business cycles nor changes in business cycles

for SSWR, although *** reported that automotive, residential construction market cycles, as well as the

global recession, had had an effect; and *** described competition with *** for *** as “almost

impossible for our company.”

Substitute Products

Questionnaire respondents reported few substitutes for SSWR.42 Four producers and all but one

importer did not list any substitutes, but *** named stainless steel wire, adding that SSWR is cold drawn

into wire, and so as imported wire becomes cheaper, so do SSWR prices. Additionally, importer *** did

list chromium plated carbon steel, corrosion resistant steel, and aluminum as substitutes, but added that

changes in the price of those substitutes had not affected the price of SSWR.43 Three responding

producers and eleven responding importers had not observed any changes in substitutes since 2004, and

did not anticipate any in the future.

Six purchasers did not report any substitute products for SSWR. *** listed carbon steel as a

substitute in wiper blades and fish tape, but said that changes in the price of this substitute had not

affected the price of SSWR. Eight purchasers had also not seen any changes in the number or types of

substitutes. Four producers, 11 importers, and seven purchasers did not anticipate any changes in 

 41 Three purchasers anticipated an increase in foreign demand for SSWR, citing economic recovery, government

infrastructure projects, and continued growth in China and India. However, one purchaser expected a decrease in

Canadian demand, another saw no change in foreign demand, and another purchaser saw foreign demand fluctuating. 

 42 However, at the hearing, NAS suggested that SSWR price volatility due to raw material price volatility might

drive some purchasers to consider using more expensive products that have less volatility. Hearing transcript, pp.

74-75 (Feeley).

 43 Among foreign producers, *** reported that there were no substitutes for SSWR, and *** reported that only

other quality steels might substitute. Neither had seen nor anticipated any changes in substitutes.

II-10
substitutes, but purchaser *** expected an increased use of carbon (rather than stainless) steel in wiper

blades.

Cost Share

SSWR represents a relatively large share of the cost of the immediate downstream products 

into which it is usually incorporated. Those products are usually a component of further downstream

products in which SSWR takes a smaller cost share. Producers were not aware of the SSWR cost share

accounted in downstream products. Importers provided some estimates of the SSWR cost share in

downstream products, including 75 percent of the cost of weaving wire and utensils, 40-80 percent for

other wire drawing, and 40 percent for fasteners. For purchasers, SSWR was generally a high (30-63

percent) portion of the total cost of downstream products.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported SSWR depends upon such factors as

price, quality (e.g., grade standards, reliability of supply, defect rates, etc.), and conditions of sale (e.g.,

price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and delivery dates, payment terms, product services,

etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there is a high degree of substitution between U.S. and

imported SSWR, although U.S. producers may not be able to produce some high-quality niche products

available from Japanese, Swedish, and U.K. producers. On the other hand, U.S. producers offer some

advantages (e.g., reliability and availability) over some imported SSWR.

U.S. Purchasers

The Commission received responses from eight purchasers44 that purchased 16.5 percent of U.S.

producers’ total U.S. shipments in 2009 and 20.6 percent in 2008, or 44.6 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S.

commercial shipments in 2009 and 55.1 percent in 2008. All the purchasers described themselves as wire

drawers.45 *** had purchased from at least one U.S. producer, and *** had purchased from at least three

different suppliers.

Three purchasers had not purchased SSWR from subject countries before 1998, while five had

purchased from at least three subject countries.46 Of those five, four reported discontinuing or reducing

their purchases from those countries. Three purchasers reported no change in their purchases of SSWR

from nonsubject countries since 1998, while five reported increasing purchases.

Purchasers were asked how their relative levels of their purchases from different countries had

changed since 2004. Their answers are summarized in table II-2.

 44 Purchasers were asked to submit purchase data. These data show purchases of U.S. SSWR fluctuating between

2004 and 2008 and then dropping in 2009. Overall purchases show a steady decline over 2004 to 2008, and then a

larger drop in 2009. The data also show few purchases of Italian, Japanese, or Spanish SSWR, and purchases of

Korean SSWR only until 2006. Finally, purchases of Taiwan and nonsubject country SSWR were more substantial,

but falling even before 2009. See part I for more information on purchasers.

 45 *** are owned by *** parent companies, *** is owned by a ***, *** is owned by a *** company, and *** is

owned by a *** company.

 46 ***.

II-11
Table II-2

SSWR: Change in purchasers’ relative levels of purchases from different countries

* * * * * * *

Five purchasers said that buying a product that is produced in the United States was an important

factor in their purchases of SSWR.47 *** stated that Buy America and/or DFARS requirements affected

40 percent of their purchases of SSWR. *** stated that 10 percent of its purchases were for customers

that required material with a U.S. melt, *** reported two percent, and *** reported a similar phenomenon

but did not quantify it. *** indicated that 60 percent of its purchases were for customers who required

U.S. material, but that it had a company preference for U.S. made material for *** percent of its

purchases. However, *** indicated that buying a product made in the United States was not an important

factor in their purchases of SSWR.

Purchasers were asked how often their firm made purchasing decisions based on the producer of

the SSWR that they purchase. Two purchasers (***) answered “always,” citing price, quality, and

chemistry specifications. Three purchasers answered “usually,” noting that quality and capabilities were

determining factors. Finally, three purchasers (***) answered “sometimes,” citing quality, specific

products, and DFARS requirements.

Purchasers were also asked how often their customers made purchasing decisions based on the

producer of the SSWR that they purchase. *** answered “usually,” *** answered never, and *** did not

know. Five purchasers said “sometimes.” Of those five, *** indicated that quality was an important

reason for wanting product from a specific SSWR producer. *** cited automotive supply chain approval

of specific suppliers, while *** cited DFARS requirements.

Purchasers were asked if their firm made purchasing decisions based on the country-of-origin of

the SSWR that they purchase. *** stated that it “always” does so, because it purchases specific chemistry

*** from ***. Three purchasers answered “usually,” citing chemistry, U.S. inventory control, and Buy

America/ DFARS requirements. Three more purchasers answered “sometimes,” citing Buy America/

DFARS requirements, quality, and price.

Purchasers were asked if their customers made purchasing decisions based on the country-oforigin of the SSWR that they purchase. Five answered “sometimes,” adding that Buy American and/or

DFARS requirements, as well as quality, were important factors. Additionally, one purchaser answered

“never,” one answered “usually,” and one responded that it did not know.

All purchasers required their suppliers be certified or prequalified for all or virtually all

purchases. Qualification is rigorous, involving different combinations of certifying chemistry, physical,

and packaging requirements; trial samples; ISO certification; and performance testing. Qualification can

take between six weeks and two years, with most purchasers reporting a time period of at least six

months. When qualifying a new supplier, purchasers consider price, quality, on-time performance,

reliability, technical assistance, and range of product offering. 

Seven purchasers said that no suppliers have failed to qualify since 2004, although *** said that

only one of two attempted qualifications was fully approved, with the other only partially approved due to

“numerous issues.” Similarly, *** also said that not all of its suppliers are qualified on all grades, due to

differing capabilities.48

 47 However, hearing testimony indicated that the U.S. SSWR market for defense-related end uses that require

U.S. melt is limited. Hearing transcript, pp. 56-57 (Lasoff and Ziolkowski).

 48 Additionally, NAS stated that it was unaware of any U.S. producer or importer that was unable to meet SSWR

specifications. Hearing transcript, p. 16 (Feeley).

II-12
Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

NAS described SSWR as a “commodity” product that competes in the United States market on

the basis of price.49 Similarly, Carpenter described quality as “a given” once SSWR has been certified as

meeting specifications, leading to competition being based on price.50

Table II-3 summarizes the purchasers’ responses concerning the top three reported purchasing

decision factors. As indicated in the table, quality is the most important factor, with a plurality of

purchasers naming price as the second-most important factor and delivery the third. ***, which ranked

price as its third-most-important factor, noted that price must be “reasonably” competitive, but that higher

quality could offset this requirement.

Table II-3

SSWR: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Quality1 521

Price 1 4 2

Credit 1 0 0

Chemistry 1 0 0

Availability 0 1 1

Domestic producer 0 1 0

Delivery 0 0 4

1

 Quality means meeting specifications involving grade chemistry, grain size uniformity, surface cleanliness,

finish, consistent tensile strength, and more; having consistent melt and chemistry; and having consistent quality

from lot to lot and melt to melt.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 15 specified factors in their purchasing decisions

(table II-4). Quality (meeting industry standards), product consistency, price, and reliability of supply

were the most commonly characterized as very important.

 49 Hearing transcript, p. 16 (Feeley).

 50 Hearing transcript, p. 21 (Ziolkowski).

II-13
Table II-4

SSWR: Importance of purchasing factors as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Very important

Somewhat

important Not important

Availability 6 2 0

Delivery terms 3 4 1

Delivery time 6 2 0

Discounts offered 2 4 2

Extension of credit 4 2 2

Price 7 1 0

Minimum quantity requirements 1 5 2

Packaging 4 4 0

Product consistency 8 0 0

Quality meets industry standards 8 0 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 5 3 0

Product range 0 7 1

Reliability of supply 7 1 0

Technical support/service 5 2 1

U.S. transportation costs 2 4 2

Other1 10 0

1

 Other factors mentioned included chemistry.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison on the same factors (table II-5). 

Purchasers offered comparisons to numerous nonsubject countries, but fewer comparisons with subject

countries.51 U.S. SSWR was generally found to be of comparable quality to most other SSWR, though

perhaps of higher quality than Italian SSWR and of lower quality than Japanese SSWR.

 51 No purchaser provided comparison data regarding SSWR produced in Spain.

II-14
Table II-5

SSWR: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and subject and nonsubject countries as reported

by U.S. purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs. Italy

U.S. vs.

Japan

U.S. vs.

Korea

U.S. vs.

Taiwan U.S. vs. Other

S C I SC ISC I S C I S C I

Availability 2 1 0 2 1 02 0 0 2 2 0 4 7 0

Delivery terms 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 1 10 0

Delivery time 1 1 1 2 0 12 0 0 3 0 1 3 2 6

Discounts offered 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 0 1 1 1 1 8 2

Extension of credit 2 1 0 2 1 01 1 0 2 2 0 3 8 0

Price 2 1 0 2 1 02 0 0 0 3 1 7 4 0

Minimum quantity

requirements 2 1 0 2 0 11 1 0 2 1 1 4 6 1

Packaging 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 11 0

Product consistency 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 10 1

Quality meets industry

standards 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 11 0

Quality exceeds industry

standards 1 2 0 0 1 20 2 0 0 4 0 2 8 1

Product range 1 2 0 0 1 21 1 0 1 3 0 0 7 4

Reliability of supply 1 2 0 0 3 01 1 0 2 2 0 1 5 5

Technical support/service 2 1 0 2 1 01 1 0 2 2 0 2 9 0

U.S. transportation costs 0 3 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 10 1

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table continued on following page.

II-15
Table II-5--Continued

SSWR: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and subject and nonsubject countries as reported

by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Italy vs.

Japan

Italy vs.

Korea

Italy vs.

Taiwan

Italy vs.

Other

Japan vs.

Korea

Japan vs.

Taiwan

S C I SC ISC I S C I S C I S C I

Availability 0 1 00 10020 0 20 0 10 0 1 0

Delivery terms 0 1 00 10020 0 20 0 10 0 1 0

Delivery time 0 1 00 10020 0 20 0 10 0 1 0

Discounts offered 0 1 00 10020 0 20 0 10 0 1 0

Extension of credit 0 1 00 10020 0 20 0 10 0 1 0

Price 1 0 00 10020 1 10 0 01 0 0 1

Minimum quantity

requirements 0 1 00 10020 0 20 0 10 0 1 0

Packaging 0 1 00 10020 0 20 0 10 0 1 0

Product consistency 0 0 10 01011 0 11 1 00 1 0 0

Quality meets industry

standards 0 1 00 10020 0 20 0 10 0 1 0

Quality exceeds industry

standards 0 0 10 01020 0 11 1 00 1 0 0

Product range 0 1 00 10020 0 20 1 00 0 1 0

Reliability of supply 0 1 00 10020 0 20 0 10 0 1 0

Technical support/service 0 1 00 10020 0 20 0 10 0 1 0

U.S. transportation costs 0 1 00 10020 0 20 0 10 0 1 0

Other 0 0 00 00000 0 00 0 00 0 0 0

Table continued on following page.

II-16
Table II-5--Continued

SSWR: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and subject and nonsubject countries as reported

by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Japan vs. Other

Korea vs.

Taiwan

Korea vs.

Other

Taiwan vs.

Other

S C I S C ISC I S C I

Availability 0 2 0 0 1 00 2 0 0 2 0

Delivery terms 0 2 0 0 1 00 2 0 0 2 0

Delivery time 0 2 0 0 1 00 2 0 0 2 0

Discounts offered 0 2 0 0 1 00 2 0 0 2 0

Extension of credit 0 2 0 0 1 00 2 0 0 2 0

Price 0 1 1 0 1 02 0 0 1 1 0

Minimum quantity

requirements 0 2 0 0 1 00 2 0 0 2 0

Packaging 0 2 0 0 1 00 2 0 0 2 0

Product consistency 1 1 0 0 1 00 1 1 0 1 1

Quality meets industry standards 0 2 0 0 1 00 2 0 0 2 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 1 1 0 0 1 00 1 1 0 1 1

Product range 0 2 0 0 1 00 0 2 0 1 1

Reliability of supply 0 2 0 0 1 00 2 0 0 2 0

Technical support/service 0 2 0 0 1 00 2 0 0 2 0

U.S. transportation costs 0 2 0 0 1 00 2 0 0 2 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s

product is inferior. A rating of superior means that price/U.S. transportation cost is generally lower. For example, if a

firm reported “U.S. superior,” it meant that the price of U.S. product was generally lower than the price of the

imported product.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers *** said that neither they nor their customers ever specifically order SSWR from one

country in particular over other possible sources of supply. However, five other purchasers stated that

they did, citing, DFARS requirements, product consistency, and quality.

Asked if certain grades, forms, or types of SSWR were available from a single source, six 

purchasers answered no while *** reported that some products were only produced by Japanese,

Swedish, U.S., or U.K. mills. 

Purchasers were asked if they “always,” “usually,” “sometimes,” or “never” purchased the lowest

priced SSWR. Of the responding purchasers, six firms reported that they “usually” buy the lowest-priced

product, *** reported that it “sometimes” does, and *** reported that it “never” does. 

Purchasers were also asked if they purchased SSWR from one source although a comparable

product was available at a lower price from another source. Five purchasers reported that they had

purchased SSWR from a certain source when a comparable product was available at a lower price. 

Reasons given include consistency of product, delivery time, minimum order requirements, proven

historical quality, range of product offering, and the importance of country of origin for customers (e.g.,

DFARS or U.S. melt). *** reported buying from one U.S. producer rather than another because of

II-17
delivery time, availability, and size capability; from U.K. producers rather than U.S. producers because of

size capability, coil weights, availability, and alternative sourcing; and from Taiwan producers rather than

U.S. producers because of delivery, availability, and alternative sourcing.

Lead Times

Lead times for producers ranged from one to six weeks for sales from inventory, which could

account for as much as 80 percent of sales (***) or as little as no sales (***). For sales produced to order,

lead times ranged from six to 15 weeks. Lead times for the two importers that reported sales out of

inventories were one to three days. For importers selling product produced to order, lead times ranged

from three to six months.52

Comparison of the U.S.-Produced and Imported SSWR

All purchasers (except ***) had marketing and price knowledge of SSWR from foreign countries,

with most purchasers familiar with SSWR from at least two other countries.

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced SSWR can generally be used in the same

applications as imports from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan, U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and

U.S. purchasers were asked whether the products can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be

used interchangeably. As shown in table II-6, most respondents answered that SSWR from different

countries was at least frequently interchangeable, but purchasers were less likely to do so. 

In additional comments, importer *** said that there are some specific grades that can be

produced only in a certain country. Similarly, *** stated that high-quality SSWR is only available from a

few countries, and *** added that the available specifications from a particular country may not meet

consumer demand. Purchaser *** said that Japanese and Swedish SSWR is routinely higher quality than

U.S. product, especially in *** SSWR. *** described the only difference between its always and

frequently answers as whether the country’s SSWR meets DFARS requirements, allowing use of it in

more applications.

In order to determine the significance of differences other than price between U.S.-produced

SSWR and imports from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan, U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and U.S.

purchasers were asked how often differences other than price were a significant factor in their sales or

purchases of SSWR. As shown in table II-7, importers and purchasers were more likely than producers to

identify important differences other than price in SSWR comparisons.

 52 Foreign producers *** reported lead times of *** for sales produced to order and sold to their domestic market,

and *** for sales produced to order and sold to third-country markets. *** added that it has a lead time of *** for

produced-to-order sales to the U.S. market.

II-18
Table II-6

SSWR: Perceived interchangeability between SSWR produced in the United States and in other

countries, by country pairs

Country pair

Number of U.S. 

producers reporting

Number of U.S.

importers reporting

Number of U.S.

purchasers reporting

AF S N A F S N A F S N

U.S. vs. subject countries:

 U.S. vs. Italy 5 0 0 0 5 3 1 0 1 4 1 0

 U.S. vs. Japan 5 00034101300

 U.S. vs. Korea 5 0 0 0 4 3 3 0 0 3 3 0

 U.S. vs. Spain 5 0 0 0 5 2 2 0 1 2 2 0

 U.S. vs. Taiwan 5 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 0 3 3 0

Subject country comparisons:

 Italy vs. Japan 2 10033100210

 Italy vs. Korea 2 1 0 0 4 3 2 0 0 2 2 0

 Italy vs. Spain 2 1 0 0 6 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

 Italy vs. Taiwan 2 1 0 0 4 2 2 0 0 2 2 0

 Japan vs. Korea 3 00051200210

 Japan vs. Spain 3 00032110200

 Japan vs. Taiwan 3 00041200120

 Korea vs. Spain 2 1 0 0 3 4 2 0 0 2 1 0

 Korea vs. Taiwan 2 1 0 0 4 3 2 0 0 2 2 0

 Spain vs. Taiwan 2 1 0 0 4 2 2 0 0 2 1 0

U.S./subject country vs. nonsubject country comparisons:

 U.S. vs. Nonsubject 2 1 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 4 1 0

 Italy vs. Nonsubject 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 2 1 0

 Japan vs. Nonsubject 1 00013100300

 Korea vs. Nonsubject 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 2 1 0

 Spain vs. Nonsubject 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 2 0 0

 Taiwan vs. Nonsubject 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 2 2 0

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

II-19
Table II-7

SSWR: Differences other than price between SSWR produced in the United States and in other

countries, by country pairs

Country pair

Number of U.S. 

producers reporting

Number of U.S.

importers reporting

Number of U.S.

purchasers reporting

AF S N A F S N A F S N

U.S. vs. subject countries:

 U.S. vs. Italy 0 0 1 4 1 2 0 1 2 3 1 0

 U.S. vs. Japan 0 01422113100

 U.S. vs. Korea 0 0 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1

 U.S. vs. Spain 0 0 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

 U.S. vs. Taiwan 0 0 1 4 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1

Subject country comparisons:

 Italy vs. Japan 0 01221011110

 Italy vs. Korea 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 0

 Italy vs. Spain 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

 Italy vs. Taiwan 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 0

 Japan vs. Korea 0 01222022100

 Japan vs. Spain 0 01211111100

 Japan vs. Taiwan 0 01212122100

 Korea vs. Spain 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 0

 Korea vs. Taiwan 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 0

 Spain vs. Taiwan 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0

U.S./subject country vs. nonsubject country comparisons:

 U.S. vs. Nonsubject 0 0 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 0

 Italy vs. Nonsubject 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0

 Japan vs. Nonsubject 0 00111112100

 Korea vs. Nonsubject 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

 Spain vs. Nonsubject 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0

 Taiwan vs. Nonsubject 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

In additional comments, importer *** stated that customers prefer the quality of SSWR from

Japan, Korea, and Taiwan over U.S.-produced SSWR for numerous applications. *** reiterated that

some SSWR products are only produced by a few manufacturers worldwide. Purchasers *** noted the

importance of DFARS in U.S. comparisons.53 *** also noted the importance of melt quality and/or

chemistry in comparisons with Japanese, Swedish, and U.K. product. *** stated that the biggest 

 53 *** indicated that it considered DFARS expectations in its answers used in table II-6, but not for its answers

used in table II-7.

II-20
difference between imported and domestic SSWR is lead time, with U.S. producers delivering in 60 days

while import suppliers can take 90-120 days.

As can be seen from table II-8, three responding purchasers reported that domestically-produced

SSWR “always” meet minimum quality specifications. Japanese SSWR was generally seen as “always”

meeting specifications, U.S. and Taiwan SSWR were closely divided between “always” and “usually”

meeting specifications, and Italian, Korean, and Spanish SSWR was less likely to “always” meet

specifications.

Table II-8

SSWR: Ability to meet minimum quality specifications, by source

Country

Number of firms reporting1

Always Usually Sometimes Never

 United States 3 4 1 0

 Italy 1 4 1 0

 Japan 3200

 Korea 1 3 2 0

 Spain 0 5 0 0

 Taiwan 2 4 0 0

 Nonsubject2 4800

 1 Purchasers were asked how often domestically produced or imported SSWR meets minimum quality

specifications for their own or their customers’ uses. 2 "Nonsubject" means China, France, Germany, Sweden, and the U.K., with the "always" responses coming only

for Sweden and the U.K.

Source: Compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses elasticity estimates; parties were encouraged to comment on these

estimates and to include comments in an attachment to their prehearing or posthearing brief.54

U.S. Supply Elasticity55

The domestic supply elasticity for SSWR measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by

U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of SSWR. The elasticity of domestic supply depends

on several factors including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which producers can alter 

capacity, producers’ ability to shift to production of other products, the existence of inventories, and the

availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced SSWR. Analysis of these factors, especially U.S.

producers’ low capacity utilization in 2009, indicates that U.S. producers have the ability to greatly

increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market; an estimate in the range of 4 to 8 is suggested. 

 54 No parties included an attachment commenting on staff’s elasticity estimates.

 55 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

II-21
U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for SSWR measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded

to a change in the U.S. market price of SSWR. This estimate depends on factors discussed earlier such as

the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as well as the component share

of the SSWR in the production of any downstream products. Based on the available information, the

aggregate demand for SSWR is likely to be inelastic; a range of -0.2 to -0.5 is suggested. 

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.56 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

(e.g., chemistry, appearance, etc.) and conditions of sale (availability, sales terms/discounts/promotions,

etc.). Based on available information, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.-produced SSWR and

imported SSWR is likely to be in the range of 3 to 6.

 56 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change.

II-22
PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

OVERVIEW

Background

In the current reviews, the Commission issued seven U.S. producer questionnaires to firms

identified in the domestic and respondent interested parties’ responses to the Commission’s notice of

institution or by staff through independent research as possible SSWR producers in the United States. Of

these firms, *** provided the Commission with useable data on their SSWR operations. Allvac,

Carpenter, NAS, and Universal are believed to account for *** of U.S. production of SSWR in 2009.1

Changes Experienced in Operations

 U.S. SSWR producers were asked to indicate whether their firm had experienced any plant

openings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, closures, prolonged shutdowns or

curtailment of production because of shortages of materials or other reasons including revision of labor

agreements; or any other change in the character of their operations or organization relating to the

production of SSWR since January 1, 2004. The domestic producers’ responses to this question are

presented in table III-1. 

Table III-1

SSWR: Changes in the character of U.S. operations since January 1, 2004

* * * * * * *

In July 2003, NAS began to produce SSWR, investing approximately $*** in the facilities that

are used to manufacture SSWR and other stainless steel long products, including stainless steel bar and

angle. As detailed more fully in Part IV, NAS and Spanish SSWR producer Roldan are wholly-owned

subsidiaries of the same entity, Acerinox, S.A. 

Anticipated Changes in Existing Operations

The Commission requested that domestic producers provide a copy of their business plans or

other internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze expected future market conditions for SSWR.

None of the U.S. producers have formalized business plans relating to SSWR. NAS projected 2011 

production volumes of ***. ***. 

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any changes in the character of their

operations or organizations relating to the production of SSWR in the future. Table III-2 presents ***

anticipated changes to its U.S. operations.

 

 1 Allvac continues to produce SSWR under a tolling agreement with Outokumpu. The Commission also received

confirmation that Latrobe Specialty Steel (“Latrobe”) is a small producer of SSWR. Latrobe reported an annual

capacity of *** short tons, which is less than *** percent of total U.S. SSWR production. Charter exited the SSWR

business in 2008, but remains active in the production of other products. Despite multiple requests by Staff, Charter

did not provide a questionnaire response, although it did provide estimates of its SSWR shipments.

III-1
Table III-2

SSWR: Anticipated changes in U.S. operations 

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

The Commission requested information on SSWR capacity and production from SSWR

producers. U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for SSWR are presented in

table III-3.2

 Between 2004 and 2009, total reported U.S. capacity decreased by *** percent. While NAS

and Allvac added capacity during the period, ***’s capacity decreased by *** percent as a result of ***. 

Total U.S. production of SSWR decreased by *** percent during the period for which data were

collected. 

Table III-3

SSWR: U.S. producers’ U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

***.

 Constraints on Capacity

The Commission asked domestic producers to report constraints on their capacity to produce

SSWR. NAS identified *** as the primary constraint, while Carpenter identified ***.3

 

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Table III-4 presents U.S. producers’ shipments of SSWR from 2004 to 2009. During the period

for which data were collected, internal consumption of SSWR by U.S. producers accounted for between

*** and *** percent of total U.S. shipments. As detailed in Part I, SSWR is consumed internally by U.S.

producers for the production of stainless steel wire or cold-finished bar. Of the U.S. firms that produce

SSWR, *** reported internally consuming SSWR. ***.4

 ***. ***. 

As shown in table III-5, the large majority of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments in 2009 was

austenitic grade SSWR. Exports accounted for a small percentage of total shipments, ranging between

*** and *** percent during the period, with Canada and Mexico among the reported export markets for

U.S. producers. *** U.S. producers reported that their exports of SSWR were subject to any tariff or

non-tariff barriers to trade in other countries. 

Table III-4

SSWR: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

 2 *** reported producing stainless steel products other than SSWR using the same equipment and machinery used

in the production of SSWR. These other products include specialty steels, stainless, electronic, high-temperature

alloys *** cold drawn bar and angle *** and nickel, titanium, specialty steel products ***. U.S. producers’

questionnaire, question II-5.

 3

 ***. Email from ***, March 2, 2010.

 4

 Carpenter’s posthearing brief, exh 1, p. 35. 

III-2
Table III-5

SSWR: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, by type and by product grade, 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table III-6 presents U.S. producers’ inventories of SSWR from 2004 to 2009. During the period

for which data were collected, inventories were *** percent of total shipments. 

Table III-6

SSWR: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

No U.S. producer of SSWR reported imports or purchases of SSWR from subject sources during

the period for which data were gathered. ***.5

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES AND PRODUCTIVITY

Table III-7 presents on U.S. producers’ employment for the production of SSWR from 2004 to 

2009. Wages paid fluctuated over the period, reaching peak levels in 2008 before decreasing to their

lowest levels in 2009. Productivity decreased by *** percent between 2004-09 while unit labor costs

increased by *** percent over the same period.

Table III-7

SSWR: Average number of production and related workers (PRWs), hours worked, wages paid to

such employees, hourly wages, productivity, and unit labor costs, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

 5 *** U.S. importers’ questionnaire response, question II-6.

III-3
FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS

Background

Four firms (Carpenter, NAS, Outokumpu, and Universal) provided financial data on their

operations on SSWR, and Allvac provided information on the tolling it performs on behalf of

Outokumpu.6 7

 

Operations on SSWR

Results of U.S. firms’ operations on SSWR are briefly summarized here. 

• Total net sales, composed of commercial sales and internal consumption, declined irregularly

between 2004 and 2009. Sales quantity reached a peak in 2006, then declined in 2007 and 2008

to about the same level as in 2005, and was lower by *** percent in 2009 than in 2008. Sales

value reached a peak in 2007, falling thereafter (by *** percent from 2007 to 2008, and by ***

percent from 2008 to 2009.8

 Changes in total net sales values were attributable primarily to the

changes in average unit sales values as well as to lower quantity in 2009. 

• Changes in raw material costs (which followed market prices for nickel, chrome, and

molybdenum) generally led to overall changes in the industry’s cost of goods sold (“COGS”). 

The absolute value and per-unit value of total COGS increased at a rate faster than sales from

2004 to 2005; both were higher in 2006 and 2007 although the rate of increase was less than that

of sales. Like sales, COGS reached its highest point in 2007, declining thereafter. From 2008 to

2009, the rate of decline of COGS was less than that of sales. These changes affected gross

profit, which was greatest in 2007 but was negative in 2009, and reflected the data reported by

***.

• The firms together recorded operating losses during 2005, 2006, and 2009, equivalent to negative

*** percent, *** percent, and *** percent of sales, respectively. 

• Net income or loss before taxes and cash flow followed the same pattern as operating income or

loss–positive in 2004, 2007, and 2008, and negative in 2005, 2006, and 2009. 

These data for the industry are shown in table III-8, while table III-9 provides operating data on a

firm-by-firm basis.

Table III-8

SSWR: Results of operations of U.S. firms, fiscal years 2004-09

* * * * * * *

 6 ***.

 7

 Charter Manufacturing did not provide data in these reviews. Charter’s sales were ***. Charter’s questionnaire

response in Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, France, and India, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-636-638 (Second

Review). 

 8

 The downturn was attributed to reduced shipments of materials used in the automotive, industrial (valves,

fittings, fasteners), and consumer (housing and electronics) markets. Carpenter Technology Corp., Form 10-K,

August 20, 2009, pp. 20 and 21.

III-4
Table III-9

SSWR: Results of operations of U.S. firms, by firm, fiscal years 2004-09

* * * * * * *

The data in tables III-8 and III-9 reflect the relative volumes of Carpenter and NAS, which

together accounted for between *** percent and *** percent of total net sales, by value. *** while ***. 

From 2008 to 2009, ***.9

 ***. 

Raw material costs are a substantial factor in industry profitability and vary with the costs of

inputs to stainless steel, which are mainly nickel, chromium, and molybdenum. The domestic industry

adjusted for the change in raw materials costs by increasing or decreasing, as need be, its sales prices.10

As a result, the industry's metal margin (defined as the difference between its average unit sales price and

the average unit cost of raw materials) fluctuated moderately and averaged about $*** per short ton from

2004 to 2008; however, it was $*** per short ton in 2009.11 During 2004-08, the ratio of raw materials to

sales varied from *** percent to *** percent but was *** percent in 2009. During 2004-08, the average

unit value of raw materials rose irregularly from $*** per short ton to $*** per short ton, and was $***

per short ton in 2009. These changes are shown in table III-10. The ratio of raw material costs to total

COGS also rose irregularly during 2004-08, from *** percent to *** percent, but was only *** percent in

2009 (table III-8). 

Table III-10

SSWR: Raw material costs and metal margins of U.S. firms, by firm, fiscal years 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Domestic interested parties ascribed unit cost differences between Carpenter and NAS to the

different product mix of each producer. A spokesman for NAS stated that its sales are concentrated in the

300 series commodity grades; a Carpenter representative stated that “although Carpenter has recently

focused on upgrading its product mix to more specialty grades, we continue to produce the entire line of

stainless grades.”12

Table III-11 provides financial data for the merchant market operations of the four reporting

firms.

 9 Pursuant to request by Commission staff for information, ***.

 10 For example, Carpenter states that it uses pricing surcharges, indexing mechanisms, base price adjustments, and

raw material forward contracts to reduce the impact of increased costs for the most significant of its raw materials

(including nickel, chromium, molybdenum, and scrap containing iron and nickel). It uses a formula to calculate

surcharges which is based on published prices of the respective raw materials for the previous month. Carpenter

Technology Corp., Form 10-K, August 20, 2009, pp. 3 and 18.

 11 These data represent the average metal margin for the four reporting firms. There is wide variation between

***.

 12 Hearing transcript, p. 17 (Feeley), p. 20 (Ziolkowski), and p. 53 (Hudgens). Cost differences, ascribed to

higher raw material costs and production costs for specialty grades, were described in Carpenter’s posthearing brief,

exh. 1, p. 8; the major components of other factory costs of Carpenter, NAS, and Universal are shown in exh. 1, p.

24. 

III-5
Table III-11

SSWR: Results of merchant market operations of U.S. firms, by firm, fiscal years 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Variance Analysis

The variance analysis showing the effects of prices and volume on U.S. producers’ total net sales

of SSWR, and of costs and volume on their total expenses, is presented in table III-12. The information

for this variance analysis is derived from table III-8. The variance analysis provides an assessment of

changes in profitability as related to changes in pricing, cost, and volume. The variance analysis is

summarized at the bottom of the table and shows that the decrease in operating income from 2004 to 2009

is attributable to the favorable price variance (higher unit prices) that was much lower than the

unfavorable net cost/expense variance (higher unit costs) and small unfavorable volume variance (due to

the lower volume of sales).13 The mix of favorable and unfavorable variances changed during the period. 

The price variance was unfavorable between 2007 and 2008 and between 2008 and 2009 (unit prices fell)

while the net cost/expense variance was favorable (unit costs declined), reversing the trend in the

preceeding three years of favorable price variances and unfavorable net cost/expense variances. 

Table III-12

SSWR: Variance analysis on U.S. firms’ operations, fiscal years 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Assets and Return on Investment

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,

and sale of SSWR to compute return on investment (“ROI”) for 2004 to 2009 (table III-13). The data for

operating income or loss are from table III-8, ***. Total operating income or loss was divided by total

assets, resulting in ROI.

Table III-13

SSWR: Value of assets used in production, warehousing, and sales, and return on investment,

fiscal years 2004-09

* * * * * * *

 13 A variance analysis is calculated in three parts, sales variance, cost of sales variance, and SG&A expense

variance. Each part consists of a price variance (in the case of the sales variance) or a cost or expense (cost/expense)

variance (in the case of the cost of sales and SG&A expense variance), and a volume variance. The sales or

cost/expense variance is calculated as the change in unit price or per-unit cost/expense times the new volume, while

the volume variance is calculated as the change in volume times the old unit price or per-unit cost/expense. 

Summarized at the bottom of the table, the price variance is from sales; the cost/expense variance is the sum of those

items from COGS and SG&A variances, respectively, and the volume variance is the sum of the volume components

of the net sales, COGS, and SG&A expense variances. The overall volume component of the variance analysis is

generally small.

III-6
Although ROI generally followed operating income, ROI fell more than the industry’s operating

losses because of decreases in the industry’s total assets from 2004 to 2009. Overall, the data show 

increasing charges for *** being lower in 2009 than in 2004. It also reflects changes in allocation

between products because SSWR accounts for a ***. This reflects the data reported by the ***; *** also

reported that the value of its inventory was lower in 2009 than in 2004.

 Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

U.S. producers’ data on their capital expenditures and research and development (“R&D”)

expenses for their operations on SSWR are shown in table III-14. 

Table III-14

SSWR: U.S. firms’ capital expenditures and research and development expenses, fiscal years

2004-09

* * * * * * *

The Commission’s questionnaire requested firms to describe the nature of their capital

expenditures and their R&D expenses. Their responses are tabulated as follows:

* * * * * * *

III-7
 
PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRIES

U.S. IMPORTS

The Commission issued importers’ questionnaires to 47 companies believed to account for all

imports of SSWR, as well as to all U.S. producers. Sixteen companies returned usable questionnaire

responses and 19 responded that they had not imported SSWR since 2004. Quantities and values reported

as subject imports are believed to include only minor amounts of nonsubject merchandise, namely SSWR

grades SF20T and K-M35FL. Through the use of proprietary data compiled by U.S. Customs, official

Commerce statistics have been adjusted to treat as nonsubject imports SSWR from Valbruna of Italy,

Hitachi of Japan, and Yieh Hsing of Taiwan. 

According to official Commerce statistics as adjusted, U.S. imports from subject sources dropped

noticeably in 2006 and continued to decline during the remainder of the period for which data were

collected. As detailed in tables IV-1 and IV-2, the vast majority of U.S. imports of SSWR during the

period for which data were collected have been from nonsubject sources, accounting for no less than ***

percent of total U.S. imports of SSWR during the period. The leading nonsubject sources of SSWR

include China and *** (prior to 2009); the United Kingdom, Sweden, and France, which collectively

accounted for 51.7 percent of total U.S. imports of SSWR in 2009; and ***, which alone accounted for

*** percent of total U.S. imports of SSWR in 2009.1

 No importers reported entering or withdrawing

SSWR from foreign trade zones or bonded warehouses. In addition, no importers reported imports of

SSWR under the temporary importation under bond program.

 1 The Commission requested that importers list any expected deliveries of SSWR after December 31, 2009. Of

the 16 companies that reported that they had arrangements to deliver product, *** companies listed amounts

exceeding 1,000 short tons through June 2010. ***. 

IV-1
Table IV-1

SSWR: U.S. imports, by sources, 2004-09

Source 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (short tons)

Italy (other than Valbruna) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan (other than Hitachi) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea 1,982 2,626 385 24 0 0

Spain 34 8 20 0 0 0

Taiwan (other than Yieh Hsing) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, subject sources 2,230 3,044 636 150 61 35

Italy (Valbruna only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan (Hitachi only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan (Yieh Hsing only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 29,350 20,789 19,447 19,257 21,191 8,888

Subtotal, nonsubject sources 45,377 38,486 30,837 30,411 29,823 14,396

 Total 47,608 41,531 31,473 30,562 29,884 14,431

Value ($1,000)

1

Italy (other than Valbruna) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan (other than Hitachi) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea 3,858 6,226 960 132 0 0

Spain 80 60 48 0 0 0

Taiwan (other than Yieh Hsing) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, subject sources 4,464 7,476 1,844 783 276 111

Italy (Valbruna only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan (Hitachi only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan (Yieh Hsing only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 69,503 61,073 63,277 91,427 95,963 29,236

Subtotal, nonsubject sources 107,256 109,029 96,341 142,371 131,031 43,351

 Total 111,720 116,505 98,185 143,154 131,307 43,461

Continued on next page.

IV-2
Table IV-1--Continued

SSWR: U.S. imports, by sources, 2004-09

Source 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

Italy (other than Valbruna) $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Japan (other than Hitachi) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea 1,946 2,371 2,490 5,464 (2

) (2)

Spain 2,360 7,652 2,363 (2

) (2) (2)

Taiwan (other than Yieh Hsing) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, subject sources 2,002 2,456 2,898 5,205 4,528 3,122

Italy (Valbruna only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan (Hitachi only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan (Yieh Hsing only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 2,368 2,938 3,254 4,748 4,528 3,290

Subtotal, nonsubject sources 2,364 2,833 3,124 4,682 4,394 3,011

 Average 2,347 2,805 3,120 4,684 4,394 3,012

Share of quantity (percent)

Italy (other than Valbruna) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan (other than Hitachi) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea 4.2 6.3 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0

Spain 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Taiwan (other than Yieh Hsing) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, subject sources 4.7 7.3 2.0 0.5 0.2 0.2

Italy (Valbruna only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan (Hitachi only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan (Yieh Hsing only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 61.6 50.1 61.8 63.0 70.9 61.6

Subtotal, nonsubject sources 95.3 92.7 98.0 99.5 99.8 99.8

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Continued on next page. 

IV-3
Table IV-1--Continued

SSWR: U.S. imports, by sources, 2004-09

Source 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Share of value (percent)

Italy (other than Valbruna) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan (other than Hitachi) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea 3.5 5.3 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

Spain 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Taiwan (other than Yieh Hsing) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, subject sources 4.0 6.4 1.9 0.5 0.2 0.3

Italy (Valbruna only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan (Hitachi only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan (Yieh Hsing only) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 62.2 52.4 64.4 63.9 73.1 67.3

Subtotal, nonsubject sources 96.0 93.6 98.1 99.5 99.8 99.7

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Landed, duty-paid.

 2

 Not applicable.

Note.--Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Note.--Cogne asserts that it had zero shipments to the United States during 2004-09. The small amount of subject

SSWR reported in this table for 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2009 may be overstated due to transshipments from ***. 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce as adjusted by proprietary data

compiled by U.S. Customs.

IV-4
Table IV-2

SSWR: U.S. imports from nonsubject countries, by sources, 2004-09

Source 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (short tons)

China 4,499 4,854 5,116 3,916 4,458 929

France1 1,569 1,749 2,328 3,323 4,629 1,490

Germany 2,052 1,130 656 983 1,053 151

India1 1,297 278 685 1,408 1,119 272

Sweden1 4,826 4,193 2,833 1,627 2,359 1,990

United Kingdom 14,951 8,473 7,676 7,917 7,501 3,978

 Subtotal 29,194 20,677 19,293 19,174 21,120 8,810

All other1 156 112 154 83 71 78

 Total 29,350 20,789 19,447 19,257 21,191 8,888

Value (1,000)

2

China 7,111 9,027 9,291 9,040 10,633 1,766

France1 6,000 8,658 11,210 19,310 27,655 5,610

Germany 4,209 3,717 1,467 2,842 3,234 942

India1 2,745 783 1,923 6,299 4,985 716

Sweden1 13,388 14,685 12,032 10,020 14,032 7,292

United Kingdom 35,601 23,846 26,592 43,376 34,967 12,099

 Subtotal 69,054 60,716 62,515 90,888 95,507 28,424

All other1 449 356 762 539 456 812

 Total 69,503 61,073 63,277 91,427 95,963 29,236

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

China $1,581 $1,860 $1,816 $2,308 $2,385 $1,901

France1 3,823 4,950 4,816 5,811 5,974 3,765

Germany 2,051 3,290 2,236 2,892 3,070 6,234

India1 2,117 2,814 2,808 4,473 4,454 2,628

Sweden1 2,774 3,503 4,246 6,159 5,948 3,664

United Kingdom 2,381 2,814 3,464 5,479 4,661 3,042

 Average 2,365 2,936 3,240 4,740 4,522 3,226

All other1 2,881 3,178 4,955 6,459 6,391 10,406

 Average 2,368 2,938 3,254 4,748 4,528 3,290

 1 U.S. imports of SSWR subject to antidumping duty orders include those from France (2004-06), India (2004-

09), Sweden (2004-07), and Brazil (2004-06). SSWR imports from Brazil totaled $15,516 in 2004, the only year

during the period for which data were gathered when imports from Brazil were recorded. 2 Landed, duty-paid. 

 

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce as adjusted by proprietary data

compiled by U.S. Customs.

IV-5
CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing whether subject imports are likely to compete with each other and with domestic like

product with respect to cumulation, the Commission generally has considered the following four factors: (1)

the degree of fungibility, including specific customer requirements and other quality-related questions; (2)

presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets; (3) common channels of distribution; and

(4) simultaneous presence in the market.2

 Channels of distribution and fungibility (interchangeability) are

discussed in Part II of this report. Additional information concerning fungibility, geographical markets, and

simultaneous presence in the market is presented below. 

Fungibility 

U.S. producers and importers were asked to provide data concerning their U.S. shipments of SSWR,

by type. As indicated in tables IV-3 and IV-4, austenitic SSWR accounted for the vast majority of U.S.

producers’ and U.S. importers’ total shipments and internal consumption in 2009.

Table IV-3

SSWR: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, by type and by product grade, 2009

* * * * * * *

 2 In the original investigations, the Commission found that the domestic merchandise and imports of subject

merchandise were relatively fungible, were sold in similar geographic markets, were sold in similar channels of

distribution, and were simultaneously present in the U.S. market. Therefore, the Commission cumulated subject

imports from all of the countries, except for Germany. Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea,

Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan Invs. Nos. 701-TA-373 and 731-TA-769-775 (Final), USITC Publication 3126,

September 1998.

IV-6
Table IV-4

SSWR: U.S. commercial shipments and internal consumption/transfers to related firms of U.S. imports,

by type, 2009

Source Austenitic Ferritic Martensitic All other Total

Quantity (short tons)

Commercial shipments:

Italy (other than Valbruna) 00000

Japan (other than Hitachi) 00000

Korea 0 0 0 0 0

Spain 0 0 0 0 0

Taiwan (other than Yieh Hsing) 00000

 Subtotal, subject sources 0 0 0 0 0

Italy (Valbruna only) *** *** *** *** ***

Japan (Hitachi only) *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan (Yieh Hsing only) *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 2,217 446 665 850 4,177

 Subtotal, nonsubject sources 8,762 499 1,151 896 11,308

 Total 8,762 499 1,151 896 11,308

Internal consumption/transfers to related firms:

Italy (other than Valbruna) 00000

Japan (other than Hitachi) 00000

Korea 0 0 0 0 0

Spain 0 0 0 0 0

Taiwan (other than Yieh Hsing) 00000

 Subtotal, subject sources 0 0 0 0 0

Italy (Valbruna only) *** *** *** *** ***

Japan (Hitachi only) *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan (Yieh Hsing only) *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 2,790 41 421 122 3,374

 Subtotal, nonsubject sources 2,790 41 421 122 3,374

 Total 2,790 41 421 122 3,374

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

IV-7
Geographical Markets

During the period for which data were collected, Philadelphia, PA, Chicago, IL, and New 

York, NY, were among the three largest districts of entry for imports of SSWR from Italy, Japan, Korea,

Spain, and Taiwan.3

Presence in the Market

Table IV-5 presents data on the monthly entries of U.S. imports of SSWR, by source, during 

2004-09. Data in this table are presented by country, and therefore do include entries by

manufacturers/exporters that are not subject to the orders. 

Table IV-5

SSWR: U.S. imports, monthly entries into the United States, by sources, 2004-09

Country

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Italy 12 12 12 12 11 7

Japan 11 8 12 8 11 2

Korea 7 12 6 3 0 0

Spain 1 2 1 0 0 0

Taiwan 12 12 12 12 12 12

All others 12 12 12 12 12 12

Note.--Monthly import data may contain nonsubject imports.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

U.S. importers’ inventories of imports from Italy (nonsubject), Japan (nonsubject), Korea, 

Taiwan (nonsubject), and other sources are shown in table IV-6. 

Table IV-6

SSWR: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports from Korea, Italy (Valbruna only),

Japan (Hitachi only), Taiwan (Yieh Hsing only), and all other countries, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

 3 Given the relatively small volume of subject imports during the period for which data were collected and the

fact that individual SSWR producers in Italy, Japan, and Taiwan are not subject to the orders, much of the imports

that have entered these customs districts may be nonsubject. 

IV-8
THE SUBJECT FOREIGN INDUSTRIES

Exports

Available Global Trade Atlas data concerning the world’s top ten exporters of SSWR are 

presented in table IV-7. The five countries subject to the current reviews were among the largest 

exporters of SSWR during 2004-08. 

Table IV-7

SSWR: Exports by top 10 world suppliers, 2004-08

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (short tons)

Taiwan 85,997 88,272 108,724 103,287 99,425

Japan 102,933 95,252 98,829 77,993 97,392

Italy 90,470 80,504 86,676 76,571 77,744

France 72,714 60,474 76,302 74,593 73,656

Korea 73,313 84,563 72,598 70,987 69,370

Spain 68,845 69,646 76,624 62,637 52,027

India 40,108 19,351 42,189 43,971 37,932

Sweden 39,283 33,832 38,351 36,118 34,797

United Kingdom 38,697 29,498 33,138 25,365 24,859

China 17,243 16,134 18,447 18,416 18,097

All other 50,869 42,647 150,823 60,807 63,550

 Total 680,473 620,174 802,703 650,744 648,849

Value ($1,000)

Taiwan 188,658 209,640 305,842 448,351 373,533

Japan 230,245 247,478 296,426 371,158 422,824

Italy 232,794 224,926 284,782 391,752 344,392

France 177,640 172,077 240,935 339,461 328,958

Korea 150,049 201,582 181,233 295,226 224,883

Spain 156,722 171,034 220,988 305,290 209,706

India 59,909 32,995 92,433 149,218 123,269

Sweden 106,300 107,853 144,712 211,743 186,660

United Kingdom 93,443 82,860 108,491 123,227 115,366

China 26,756 30,389 38,093 50,766 52,344

All other 77,276 79,058 169,379 149,825 177,281

 Total 1,499,791 1,559,892 2,083,314 2,836,016 2,559,216

Continued on next page.

IV-9
Table IV-7--Continued

SSWR: Exports by top 10 world suppliers, 2004-08

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Unit Value (dollars per short ton)

Taiwan $2,194 $2,375 $2,813 $4,341 $3,757

Japan 2,237 2,598 2,999 4,759 4,341

Italy1 2,573 2,794 3,286 5,116 4,430

France 2,443 2,845 3,158 4,551 4,466

Korea 2,047 2,384 2,496 4,159 3,242

Spain 2,276 2,456 2,884 4,874 4,031

India 1,494 1,705 2,191 3,394 3,250

Sweden 2,706 3,188 3,773 5,863 5,364

United Kingdom 2,415 2,809 3,274 4,858 4,641

China 1,552 1,883 2,065 2,757 2,893

All other 1,519 1,854 1,123 2,464 2,790

 Average 2,204 2,515 2,595 4,358 3,944

 1 Italian exports to Switzerland, its leading foreign market, had slightly higher unit values, i.e., $2,645 in 2004,

$2,829 in 2005, $3,363 in 2006, $5,215 in 2007, and $4,418 in 2008.

Note.–Data for 2009 are incomplete due to reporting lags.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.

IV-10
Net Trade Balance

Available Global Trade Atlas data concerning the net trade balance for the world’s top 

ten suppliers of SSWR during 2004-08 are presented in table IV-8. Of the five countries subject to the

current reviews, only Italy was a net importer of SSWR during 2004-08.

Table IV-8

SSWR: World exports, imports, and trade balance for leading exporters 2004-08

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Export quantity (short tons)

Taiwan 85,997 88,272 108,724 103,287 99,425

Japan 102,933 95,252 98,829 77,993 97,392

Italy 90,470 80,504 86,676 76,571 77,744

France 72,714 60,474 76,302 74,593 73,656

Korea 73,313 84,563 72,598 70,987 69,370

Spain 68,845 69,646 76,624 62,637 52,027

India 40,108 19,351 42,189 43,971 37,932

Sweden 39,283 33,832 38,351 36,118 34,797

United Kingdom 38,697 29,498 33,138 25,365 24,859

China 17,243 16,134 18,447 18,416 18,097

All other 50,869 42,647 150,823 60,807 63,550

 Total 680,473 620,174 802,703 650,744 648,849

Import quantity (short tons)

Taiwan 49,364 41,914 45,603 45,769 32,750

Japan 10,104 13,798 13,096 12,465 11,214

Italy 127,716 107,862 140,186 126,194 114,911

France 11,143 6,798 16,348 29,731 9,797

Korea 48,851 50,491 51,567 44,265 52,892

Spain 4,626 2,902 7,813 1,972 2,866

India 3,566 15,866 10,400 11,390 10,449

Sweden 3,247 1,593 2,209 2,495 1,360

United Kingdom 3,546 3,236 4,153 6,043 4,268

China 51,445 45,391 53,895 46,640 58,749

All other 230,370 240,867 268,168 274,003 367,270

 Total 543,978 530,718 613,438 600,965 666,528

Continued on next page.

IV-11
Table IV-8---Continued

SSWR: World exports, imports, and trade balance for leading exporters 2004-08

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Trade balance (short tons)

Taiwan 36,633 46,358 63,121 57,518 66,675

Japan 92,829 81,454 85,734 65,528 86,178

Italy (37,246) (27,358) (53,510) (49,622) (37,167)

France 61,571 53,676 59,954 44,861 63,858

Korea 24,462 34,072 21,031 26,722 16,477

Spain 64,219 66,743 68,811 60,665 49,161

India 36,543 3,486 31,790 32,581 27,482

Sweden 36,035 32,239 36,142 33,623 33,437

United Kingdom 35,151 26,261 28,985 19,322 20,591

China (34,202) (29,256) (35,448) (28,224) (40,652)

All other (179,500) (198,220) (117,345) (213,196) (303,720)

Note.–Data for 2009 are incomplete due to reporting lags.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.

THE INDUSTRY IN ITALY

There were four producers of SSWR in Italy identified during the original investigations: 

Acciaierie di Bolzano S.p.A. (“Bolzano”), Cogne Acciai Speciali S.r.l (“Cogne”), Rodacciai S.p.A.,

(Rodacciai), and Acciaierie Valbruna S.r.l. (Valbruna). All companies except Rodacciai were represented

by counsel, and all provided data in response to the Commission’s foreign producer questionnaire. 

During the original investigations, Cogne’s total share of production *** as the other three producers ***. 

In 1997, ***. Cogne, however, accounted for *** of Italy’s exports to the United States, representing ***

percent of the total in 1997. Valbruna accounted for *** percent of Italy’s exports to the United States in

1997. Bolzano, which was acquired by Valbruna in 1995, accounted for *** percent of Italy’s exports in

1997, while Rodacciai’s exports to the United States accounted for less than *** percent of Italy’s total

exports.4

 

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission received a questionnaire response from Cogne

and an incomplete response from Valbruna (which accounted for data concerning its subsidiary,

Bolzano).5

 Cogne reported that it accounted for *** percent of the production of SSWR in Italy and

accounted for *** percent of total exports to the United States from Italy in 2003. 

In the current reviews, the Commission received usable data from one Italian SSWR producer: 

Cogne. According to testimony provided at the hearing, the only two producers of SSWR in Italy are

Cogne and Valbruna, a firm that was excluded from the original antidumping duty order, but subject to

 4 Original Staff Report, p. VII-6.

 5

 Valbruna was excluded from the original antidumping order, but was subject to the original countervailing duty

order until 2004, when Commerce revoked the countervailing duty order on SSWR from Italy. 

IV-12
the original countervailing duty order until 2004.6

 A third Italian firm, Rodacciai, responded that it did

not produce SSWR during the review period.

Cogne Acciai reported that it accounted for *** percent of the production of SSWR in Italy in

2009 and that it accounted for *** percent of total exports to the United States from Italy in 2009. Cogne

reported that it ***.7

 It also reported that approximately *** percent of its total sales in its most recent

fiscal year was represented by sales of SSWR. ***.

Table IV-9 presents Cogne’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories from 2004 to 2009. 

During the period for which data were collected, exports to “all other markets” accounted for between

*** and *** percent of Cogne’s total shipments. ***. The European Union constituted *** share of

Cogne’s total shipments, accounting for *** percent in 2009.8

 Among its principal EU export markets,

Cogne identified ***. 

During the period for which data were collected, home market shipments, as a share of Cogne’s

total shipments, decreased by *** percentage points. Over the same period, Cogne’s exports to Asia,

principally China, increased largely as a result of ***. 

Table IV-9

SSWR: Italy’s (Cogne’s) capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN JAPAN

The Commission received questionnaire responses from the following eight companies during the

original investigations: (1) Aichi Steel Works, Ltd.; (2) Daido Steel Co.; (3) Hitachi Metals, Ltd.; (4)

Pacific Metals Co., Ltd.; (5) Nippon Koshua Steel Co., Ltd.; (6) Nippon Steel Corp.; (7) Sanyo Special

Steel Co., Ltd.; and (8) Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. No Japanese producer submitted a response to

the foreign producers’ questionnaire in the first five-year reviews. The Commission received one foreign

producer questionnaire from Sumitomo in the current reviews, which confirmed that it had not produced

or exported SSWR since January 1, 2004.9

The following data in table IV-10 were collected from an exhibit attached to the questionnaire

response of ***. The data in the exhibit are based on data supplied by ***, a market research company.

Table IV-10

SSWR: Japan’s production capacity, by producer, 2006-12

* * * * * * *

 6 Hearing transcript, p. 145 (Silverman).

 7

 Cogne further reported that its exports of SSWR are not subject to tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade in any

country other than the United States.

 8

 During the period examined in the original investigations, the European Union consisted of 15 Member States: 

Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland, United Kingdom, Greece, Spain,

Portugal, Austria, Finland, and Sweden. Since the conclusion of the Commission's original investigations, the

European Union has continued to develop. In 1999, the euro was introduced in 11 (later 12) countries for

commercial and financial transactions; euro notes and coinage were issued beginning in 2002. In 2004, the

European Union added 10 more new Member States: Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary,

Malta, Poland, Slovenia, and Slovakia. With the addition of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, the European Union

now consists of 27 Member States. Europa, “The History of the European Union,” found at

http://europa.eu/abc/history/index_en.htm, retrieved on May 3, 2010.

 9

 Staff contacted ***. 

IV-13
The following data in table IV-11 presents Japan’s exports of SSWR during 2004-08 as reported 

by Global Trade Atlas. 

Table IV-11

SSWR: Japan’s exports, 2004-08

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (short tons)

China 20,345 21,582 24,912 19,524 23,160

Taiwan 27,861 25,626 23,405 21,165 23,004

Malaysia 11,675 9,361 13,870 10,637 18,175

Korea 26,501 21,648 22,754 16,093 17,400

Thailand 9,849 8,088 7,421 5,859 11,221

Phillipines 738 3,926 2,006 1,106 1,329

Hong Kong 1,333 828 371 686 939

France 417 398 797 913 741

Vietnam 1,800 1,073 2,022 1,124 621

Belgium 281 325 194 127 188

All other 2,133 2,398 1,078 758 614

 Total 102,933 95,252 98,829 77,993 97,392

Note.–Data for 2009 are incomplete due to reporting lags.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.

THE INDUSTRY IN KOREA

The following three producers of SSWR in Korea were identified during the original

investigations: Dongbang, Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (POSCO), and Sammi Steel Corp. (Sammi).10

In 1997, POSCO purchased Sammi’s production facilities and formed a new company called Changwon

Specialty Steel Co., Ltd. (Changwon). In the first five-year reviews, the Commission received

questionnaire responses from Dongbang, Changwon, and POSCO. POSCO responded that it did not

produce SSWR during the review period. Dongbang closed its SSWR facility in 200611 and Changwon

has changed its name to POSCO Specialty Steel Co., Ltd. (“POSCOSS”).

In the current reviews, the Commission received useable data from POSCOSS, which estimated

that it accounted for *** percent of total SSWR rod production in Korea in 2009. POSCOSS reported

that approximately *** percent of the SSWR it produced and exported during the period for which data

were gathered was white coil (SSWR which has been pickled and annealed) and the remaining ***

percent was black coil (SSWR which has not been pickled or annealed). POSCOSS reported that it last

exported SSWR to the United States in ***. Table IV-12 presents the capacity, production, shipments,

and inventories, reported by POSCOSS from 2004 to 2009. 

 10 The bankruptcy of Sammi Steel (among other Korean chaebol) has been cited as one of the triggering events in

the 1997-98 Asian Financial Crisis. See, e.g., Radelet, Steven and Jeffrey Sachs, “The Onset of the East Asian

Financial Crisis,” Harvard Institute for International Development, 1998, p. 18.

 11 POSCOSS reported that ***. 

IV-14
Table IV-12

SSWR: Korea’s (POSCOSS’) capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

POSCOSS reported that it ***. POSCOSS provided a 2010 business plan for sales of SSWR as

an attachment to its questionnaire response. The business plan provides forecasts for the growth rates of

various economies, including China, Taiwan, Japan, Southeast Asia, Europe, and the United States, with

***. 

POSCOSS reported that approximately *** percent of its total sales in its most recent fiscal

year was represented by sales of SSWR. Since 2004, ***. 

The Commission requested export markets other than the United States that foreign producers

have developed or where they have increased sales of SSWR since 2004. POSCOSS reported ***. As

detailed in table IV-12, home market shipments accounted for *** share of POSCOSS’ total shipments,

representing *** percent of total sales in 2009. POSCOSS’ exports to Asia account for the *** largest

share of its total shipments, representing *** percent in 2009, a share which POSCOSS expects to *** in

the future. 

THE INDUSTRY IN SPAIN

The following two producers of SSWR in Spain were identified during the original

investigations: Roldan and Aceros Inoxidables Olarra. At that time, the staff report observed that “{t}he

industry in Spain is dominated by one producer, Roldan, which is a subsidiary of Acerinox, the largest

stainless steel producer in Spain.”12 In the current reviews, the Commission did not receive a

questionnaire response from any firm in Spain. Roldan is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Acerinox, the

parent company of NAS.13 In seeking a questionnaire response for Roldan, staff has contacted NAS but

was unable to obtain Roldan’s questionnaire. ***. NAS and Roldan are ***.14 

The following data in table IV-13 were collected from an exhibit attached to the questionnaire

response of ***. The data in the exhibit are based on data supplied by ***, a market research company. 

Based on the data presented in table IV-13, Roldan possesses the largest capacity to produce SSWR in

Spain, accounting for more than *** of all Spanish capacity. According to testimony presented at the

hearing, prior to 2003 or 2004, Roldan was the only significant Spanish exporter of SSWR to the United

States.15 

Table IV-13

SSWR: Spain’s capacity, by producer, 2006-12

* * * * * * *

 12 Original staff report, p. VII-15. 

 13 Hearing transcript, p. 45 (Hartquist). 

 14 Carpenter’s posthearing brief, exh. 4.

 15 Hearing transcript, p. 52 (Lasoff). 

IV-15
The data in table IV-14 presents Spain’s exports of SSWR during 2004-08 as reported by Global 

Trade Atlas. 

Table IV-14

SSWR: Spain’s exports, 2004-08

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (short tons)

Italy 45,944 40,698 56,303 44,027 36,707

Germany 9,718 8,991 9,583 9,594 9,392

Belgium 1,871 2,670 2,004 1,849 2,303

Finland 3,368 2,162 2,805 3,094 13,510

Denmark 2,289 2,169 2,519 1,339 953

United Kingdom 747 1,262 1,728 1,125 729

Switzerland 0 1 0 76 191

Portugal 1 17 36 25 141

Sweden 10 60 67 138 78

France 828 865 840 529 52

All others 4,070 10,751 737 840 132

 Total 68,845 69,646 76,624 62,637 52,027

Note.–Data for 2009 are incomplete due to reporting lags.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.

THE INDUSTRY IN TAIWAN

The following two producers of SSWR in Taiwan were identified during the original

investigations: Walsin-Cartech and (nonsubject) Yieh Hsing. In the first five-year reviews, the

Commission received incomplete data from Walsin Lihwa Corp. (Walsin). Walsin reported that it

accounted for *** percent of the production of SSWR in Taiwan in 2003. Its reported that its exports of

SSWR from Taiwan to the United States accounted for *** percent of such exports during 2003. No

SSWR producer from Taiwan submitted a response to the foreign producers’ questionnaire in the current

reviews. 

The following data in table IV-15 were collected from an exhibit attached to the questionnaire

response of ***. The data in the exhibit are based on data supplied by ***, a market research company.

Table IV-15

SSWR: Taiwan’s capacity, by producer, 2006-12

* * * * * * *

The data in table IV-16 presents Taiwan’s exports of SSWR during 2004-08 as reported by 

Global Trade Atlas. 

IV-16
Table IV-16

SSWR: Taiwan’s exports, 2004-08

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (short tons)

China 20,294 17,088 19,701 19,796 17,970

Thailand 11,245 12,105 17,648 13,058 15,729

Italy 10,908 11,870 15,308 15,380 14,752

Korea 7,047 9,103 10,980 8,366 12,870

United States 13,382 12,367 8,230 9,092 7,659

India 2,565 5,228 5,416 7,193 6,207

Vietnam 1,226 1,660 6,102 10,849 4,943

Malaysia 4,946 5,429 6,604 3,556 4,101

Japan 1,526 937 2,662 1,822 3,487

Phillipines 3,052 3,527 4,595 3,952 2,740

All other 9,806 8,958 11,478 10,223 8,968

 Total 85,997 88,272 108,724 103,287 99,425

Note.–Data for 2009 are incomplete due to reporting lags.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.

GLOBAL MARKET

Production Capacity

***.

*** also submitted *** capacity data for 2007 and projections for 2012. These projections

predict constant U.S. and European capacity, but growth in Asian capacity, predominantly due to an

increase in Chinese capacity. It should be noted that the projections were compiled prior to the 2008-09

financial crisis and recession.

Table IV-17

SSWR: *** reported projections for capacity by country and region, 2007 and 2012

* * * * * * *

Consumption

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked how demand outside the United States had

changed since January 1, 2004. Among producers, *** described foreign demand as having decreased,

with *** stating that only Asian countries had seen growth and stability. *** anticipated that demand

would grow as the world economy recovered, while *** forecast that U.S. and EU demand growth would

IV-17
be lower than Asian demand growth. Carpenter also reported that its understanding was that the EU

SSWR market was currently “saturated.”16

Among importers, *** saw no change in foreign demand since 2004, two importers saw increased

demand (with one citing Asian demand), and four saw fluctuating demand. Among the last group, ***

reported that demand rose until 2008 and fell thereafter, while *** described European demand falling

while Asian demand rose.

Two importers anticipated that foreign demand would not change, two anticipated an increase in

foreign demand due to economic recovery and manufacturing growth in other countries, and four

anticipated fluctuating foreign demand. *** predicted that manufacturing would continue shifting to lowcost production regions, and SSWR demand would follow.

*** submitted *** demand projections that showed world demand rising by *** tons over 2007

to 2012, with demand rising in all world regions except the United States, due to a projected fall in U.S.

demand from “process equipment.” However, like the capacity data above, these data are from 2007, and

thus pre-date the changes in the world economy since 2008.

*** submitted demand projections from the International Stainless Steel Forum.17 These

projections showed demand in all world regions flat to down over 2007 to 2012, with the exception of

China, which has projected demand growth sufficient to lead to a projected six percent growth in world

demand.

Among purchasers, two reported a decrease in foreign demand, with *** citing the recession and

*** citing the Canadian market, which it described as similar to the U.S. market. However, *** indicated

that foreign demand had increased, with *** attributing the increase to increased consumption in China

and India. 

Three purchasers anticipated an increase in foreign demand for SSWR, citing economic recovery,

government infrastructure projects, and continued growth in China and India. However, one purchaser

expected a decrease in Canadian demand, another saw no change in foreign demand, and another

purchaser saw foreign demand fluctuating.

Prices

Producers and importers were asked to compare market prices of SSWR in the U.S. and non-U.S.

markets. Few producers or importers had information on pricing in foreign markets. *** said that prices

in *** were similar to U.S. prices. Carpenter stated that despite being active internationally in selling

stainless steel products, low prices for SSWR internationally made exporting SSWR difficult, especially

as it maintained consistent pricing in different countries.18

Among foreign producers, *** described prices in the United States as being considerably lower

than in ***, and attributed the difference to the presence of NAS in the U.S. market. It also submitted

data comparing prices in Europe (including a surcharge) with prices in Asia (with no surcharge). These

prices showed European prices as over *** percent higher than Asian prices in December 2009, and

generally ranging from *** to *** percent higher over 2007 to 2009.

*** submitted comparative pricing data for selected countries and regions, as shown in table IV18. The data are broadly consistent with *** data in showing generally higher prices in Europe than in

Asia, but ***.

Table IV-18

SSWR: Comparative pricing data, by country or region, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

 16 Hearing transcript, p. 22 (Ziolkowski).

 17 These projections were issued in December 2009. Staff telephone interview with ***, April 26, 2010.

 18 Hearing transcript, pp. 52-53 (Ziolkowski).

IV-18
Table IV-19 presents select average unit values for responding domestic and foreign producers. 

Export shipments are not directly comparable to home market shipments because the former do not

include transportation, handling, and processing expenses. In addition, differences in product mix can

affect the comparisons of average unit values from different sources. However, the trends in average unit

values were generally similar across all sources. 

Table IV-19

SSWR: Average unit values, by select suppliers to select markets, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

IV-19
 
PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

Raw materials accounted for between *** and *** percent of U.S. producers’ costs of goods sold

during 2004-09, and thus are an important consideration in the price of SSWR. U.S. producers try to

offset the cost of raw materials by passing them through to purchasers via a surcharge, a practice that is

less common among U.S. importers.1

 The surcharge is added to the base price. Surcharges change with

the price of raw materials, while the base price changes less frequently, and generally in response to

supply and demand considerations.2

A typical surcharge formula is based on a combination that can include the prices of scrap iron,

nickel, chromium, molybdenum, titanium, manganese, and natural gas.3

 Price trends for these products

are presented in appendix F.4

 U.S. producers obtain prices for these products from American Metals

Market (for steel scrap), the London Metal Exchange (for nickel), Platt’s Metal Week (for nickel,

chromium, and molybdenum), and the NYMEX (for natural gas). Some U.S. producers publish their

surcharges on their websites. Four U.S. producers reported adjusting their surcharges monthly to reflect

updates to the published data for key inputs.

When asked to assess the effect of changes in the prices of raw materials on their prices of

SSWR, four U.S. producers stated that their surcharges are usually effective in passing raw materials

costs through to their customers. *** observed that the surcharge can affect the price of SSWR

“dramatically,” and described overall SSWR prices as following raw material prices up from 2004 to

2008 until falling sharply in later 2008 and 2009. ***, however, stated that “most imports” do not pass

raw materials costs through completely or delay the increase in cost, while *** indicated that “the

market” had had a greater effect on its prices than raw material costs.

Seven importers agreed that raw materials costs had a large effect on SSWR prices. Importers

pointed in particular to nickel prices, but also mentioned molybdenum, copper, and iron prices. Seven

importers indicated that they did not use a surcharge formula (at least in part because they are not SSWR

re-sellers but rather wire drawers), but importer *** a surcharge formula. *** said that its formula has

not changed much since 2004. *** also reported using surcharges for iron and energy, and indicated that

surcharges change monthly.

*** described the price of SSWR as closely tracking the price of nickel, and provided the data

graphed in figure V-1 to show the close relationship.5

 1 *** submitted both producers’ and importers’ questionnaires. For purposes of this chapter, its answers are

counted only as a producer. Of the nine purchasers, three (***) also submitted importer questionnaires. Purchaser

and importer responses were recorded for these firms. ***.

 2

 See, for example, posthearing brief of Cogne, exhibit 1, p. 21.

 3

 *** U.S. producers reported an electricity surcharge, but several did report that most of their energy needs were

met with electricity as opposed to natural gas. Carpenter reported that its natural gas surcharge would apply when

natural gas prices were above six dollars per British thermal unit. Hearing transcript, pp. 86-88 (Feeley, McGrath,

and Ziolkowski).

 4

 In addition, Cogne submitted ***. Posthearing brief of Cogne, exhibit 4, p. 6.

 5

 ***.

V-1
Figure V-1

SSWR: Prices of SSWR and nickel, 2004-09 as reported by ***

* * * * * * *

*** reported that producers in Europe follow a surcharge formula similar to that of the United

States, but that in Asia prices are quoted incorporating any raw materials costs into the final price. 

Carpenter agreed with both characterizations, but added that European surcharges tend to lag by a quarter

relative to U.S. surcharges.6

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

U.S. producers reported that U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from two to five percent of

the total delivered cost of SSWR, while importers reported that transportation costs ranged from one to

three percent. Four U.S. producers and seven responding importers also reported arranging transportation

to their customers’ locations (while one producer and one importer reported that the purchaser arranges

transportation).7

Exchange Rates

All the subject countries’ currencies have fluctuated against the dollar over January 2004-

December 2009, generally appreciating against the dollar until mid-2008 before depreciating sharply,

then showing slight appreciation since the end of 2008. The nominal and real values of the subject

countries’ currencies are presented in appendix G.8

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Producers reported that they determined their prices through contracts, set price lists, and

transaction-by-transaction negotiations. *** used only set price lists, *** only transaction-by-transaction

negotiations, and the others a mix of different methods. Eight importers reported that they determined

their prices through transaction-by-transaction negotiations.

Four producers reported that 90 percent or more of their sales were on a spot basis.9

 ***

described its long-term contracts as one year in duration, not renegotiable, fixing price and quantity, and

not having a meet-or-release provision. *** described similar 12-month contracts that fix price, but allow

the surcharge to fluctuate. *** reported some quarterly contracts that were not renegotiable and fixed

quantity or both price and quantity.

 6 Hearing transcript, p. 95 (Ziolkowski). Cogne later added that Asian producers may not fully cover increased

raw material increases with price increases. Posthearing brief of Cogne, exhibit 1, p. 7.

 7

 Three importers reported arranging sales from their storage facility, while three reported arranging sales from

point of importation.

 8

 Carpenter noted that the largest cost components of SSWR are metals (e.g., nickel and ferrochrome) that are

generally sold worldwide in dollars, offering an inducement to European producers to sell in the United States,

where they will receive dollars for their SSWR. Hearing transcript, pp. 110-111 (Leibensperger). However, Cogne

responded that exchange rate effects were not enough to offset Cogne’s price advantage of selling in Europe. 

Hearing transcript, p. 158 (Ferrin). It added that ***. Posthearing brief of Cogne, exhibit 1, p. 15.

 9

 While *** reporting a *** of spot sales and short-term contracts, ***.

V-2
Three importers reported that at least 60 percent of their sales were on a spot basis, while one had

70 percent short-term contract sales (and the rest spot) and one had 50 percent short-term contract sales

and 50 percent spot sales. Importers’ short term contracts were three to six months in duration, did not

allow renegotiation, and fixed price and quantity. Only *** contracts had a meet-or-release provision.

Four producers and seven importers reported that their sales of SSWR usually involved

negotiations with purchasers. Two of those producers described the process as a bidding process, while

another described pricing as a “constant negotiation.” Producers identified quality, price, volume, and

competition were key issues in negotiations, and described negotiations as focused on base prices, while

adding that purchasers made their decisions based on the final (base price plus surcharge) price.10

Importers described different scenarios in which either they or their customers would initiate a bidding or

quoting process. However, three importers and producer *** reported that sales do not typically involve

negotiations.

For six purchasers, purchases involve negotiations with the supplier, but not for two. 

Negotiations cover quality, price, and lead time, and purchasers generally have competing prices

available. Four purchasers reported contacting between two and six suppliers before making a purchase. 

*** reported contacting usually one supplier, though sometimes two, and *** indicated that it contacts

one supplier for its purchases of *** and *** SSWR. *** also indicated that 90 percent of its purchases

of specific products came from a primary source, with an approved second source used for purchases of

large-volume grades. No purchasers reported competing with their suppliers for sales.

Six purchasers stated that they do not vary their purchases from a given supplier due to price. 

However, *** does vary its purchases, explaining that suppliers may be competitive in one ordering

period but not in the next. *** stated that price and supply issues can force it to vary its purchases. Four

purchasers purchase monthly, three purchase weekly, and one purchases daily. None expect their pattern

to change in the next two years.

Sales Terms and Discounts

Producers reported that typical sales terms for SSWR were net 30 days and that prices were

generally quoted on a f.o.b. mill basis. Most importers also used net 30 days (with a few having higher

time periods), but only three reported quoting on a f.o.b. warehouse or point of entry basis, while five

reported quoting on a delivered basis.

Three producers and eight importers reported no discount policy, but *** reported quantity

discounts, and *** based its pricing on competitors’ prices.

U.S. Prices

Six purchasers described NAS as the price leader in the U.S. market, or at least for *** SSWR. 

NAS stated that it was focused on the 300 grade SSWR and contended that it only lowered prices in

response to import competition.11 *** said that import pricing seemed to be set by world wire market

supply.

 10 Hearing transcript, p. 99 (Hartquist).

 11 Hearing transcript, p. 17 (Feeley). 300-series SSWR is a broader category that includes high-nickel and highchromium content SSWR for use in products such as spring wire, rope wire, and more. Carpenter agreed that its

customers “constantly” used import pricing as a tool to negotiate lower prices. Hearing transcript, p. 21

(Ziolkowski). Cogne described the prices of nonsubject imports in the United States as another hurdle (in addition to

pricing from NAS) to selling SSWR in the U.S. market. Hearing transcript, pp. 166-67 (Silverman), and posthearing

brief of Cogne, p. 3.

V-3
Four purchasers reported that base prices (the non-surcharge part of the price) change

infrequently, but the surcharge may change monthly. Other purchasers described prices changing

monthly, quarterly, or semi-annually. *** described the majority of its purchases as having a base price

with a surcharge that changes monthly, but added that for some orders, price can change daily. 

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers12 of SSWR to provide quarterly data for

the total quantity and value of SSWR that was shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market. Data

were requested for the period January 2004 to December 2009. The products for which pricing data were

requested are as follows:

Product 1.--Grade AISI 304 wire rod, 5.5 mm (0.217 inch) diameter, hot rolled, annealed and

pickled.

Product 2.--Grade AISI 302 wire rod, spring quality, 5.5 mm (0.217 inch) diameter, hot rolled,

annealed and pickled.

Product 3.--Grade AISI 308L wire rod, 5.5 mm (0.217 inch) diameter, hot rolled, annealed and

pickled.

Product 4.--Grade AISI 430 wire rod, 5.5 mm (0.217 inch) diameter, hot rolled, annealed and

pickled.

Product 5.--Grade AISI 420 wire rod, 5.5 mm (0.217 inch) diameter, hot rolled, annealed and

pickled.

Product 6.--Grade AISI 410 wire rod, 5.5 mm (0.217 inch) diameter, hot rolled, annealed and

pickled.

Three U.S. producers and four importers provided pricing data for sales of the requested products,

although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. Pricing data reported by these

firms accounted for approximately 43.1 percent of U.S. producers’ commercial shipments of SSWR in

2009,13 40.0 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from Korea in 2005, and 100.0 percent of U.S.

shipments of subject imports from Taiwan in 2008. No pricing data were provided for subject imports

from Italy, Japan, or Spain. (As discussed in Part IV, there have been *** subject imports of SSWR from

these countries since 2006.)

Pricing data are presented in tables V-1 through V-6 and figure V-2. Table V-7 presents a

summary of price movements during the period for which data were collected.

Price Trends

Over 2004-09, prices generally followed raw materials prices up through mid-2008, before

decreasing into 2009 as the recession continued. In particular, products 1 and 2 (each at least eight

 12 Importers were asked to provide pricing data for subject imports from Korea and Spain and for subject sources

in Italy, Japan, and Taiwan.

 13 Pricing data accounted for approximately 16.1 percent of U.S. producers’ shipments of SSWR in 2009.

V-4
percent nickel by weight) and product 3 (at least 10 percent nickel) show a pattern similar to the nickel

prices reported in appendix F, i.e., a large price spike in 2007 followed by a downtrend in 2008 and some

price recovery in 2009. Product 6, which contains no nickel, has a much flatter trend. (Products 4 and 5

had large gaps in their pricing data.) 

Counsel for Cogne analyzed the pricing data submitted in the questionnaires and observed that

***. It concluded that ***.14

However, parties in support of continuation of the orders stated that the different prices by

Carpenter and NAS for products 1 and 2 were explained by competition with nonsubject producers and

the substantial differences in volumes sold by each respective producer.15 Parties in support of

continuation of the orders also stated that more general differences in Carpenter and NAS average unit

values come from higher unit costs for the specialty grades produced by Carpenter, costs that include

melting, shorter production runs, lower yields for more difficult grades, and tighter surface quality

requirements.16

Looking ahead in 2010, American Metal Market (AMM) reported that NAS planned to raise

prices on SSWR by five percent beginning in April 2010.17 Universal and Outokumpu apparently

followed NAS’s lead in a matter of days.18 NAS described its price rise as a base price rise driven by

higher supply costs.19 Cogne also announced an April price increase in February 2010, with increases

ranging from $121 to $181 per short ton.20

Table V-1

SSWR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-2

SSWR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic product 2, by quarters, January

2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-3

SSWR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic product 3, by quarters, January

2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

 14 Prehearing brief of Cogne, pp. 8-10.

 15 Hearing transcript, p. 37 (Hudgens).

 16 Carpenter’s posthearing brief, p. 8.

 17 See “NAS’ 5% stainless rod hike in April said likely to stick,” AMM.com, February 17, 2010.

 18 See “Two firms follow stainless rod hike,” AMM.com, February 19, 2010.

 19 Hearing transcript, p. 66 (Feeley).

 20 Posthearing brief of Cogne, exhibit 10, and staff calculations.

V-5
Table V-4

SSWR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-5

SSWR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic product 5, by quarters, January

2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-6

SSWR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic product 6, by quarters, January

2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2

SSWR: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of products 1-6, by country, January 2004-

December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-7

SSWR: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-6 from the United States, Korea,

and Taiwan

* * * * * * *

Price Comparisons

Table V-8 presents margins of underselling and overselling for the period 2004-2009, table V-9

presents margins of underselling and overselling for the period 1998-2003 (from the previous review),

and table V-10 presents margins of underselling and overselling for January 1995-March 1998 (the

original investigations). The relatively small of subject imports since 2004 has resulted in a limited

number of comparisons in table V-8. As can be seen from that table, prices for SSWR imported from

Korea were below those for U.S.-produced SSWR in one of eight instances; the margin of underselling

was *** percent. In the remaining seven instances, prices for SSWR from Korea were between *** and

*** percent above prices for the domestic product. Additionally, the price for subject SSWR imported

from Taiwan was *** percent above the price for the domestic product in the one quarter available for

comparison. 

V-6
Table V-8

SSWR: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins, January

2004-December 2009

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Korea 1 *** *** 7 *** ***

Taiwan 0 -- -- 1 *** ***

 Total 1 *** *** 8 *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table V-9

SSWR: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins, January

1998-December 2003

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Italy 10 5.2 to 52.7 24.1 1 0.7 0.7

Japan 16 6.3 to 60.7 46.8 7 7.5 to 46.4 23.5

Korea 44 0.8 to 68.1 18.0 10 1.2 to 14.6 5.9

Spain 6 0.5 to 36.7 10.4 1 23.9 23.9

Taiwan 5 3.5 to 9.7 5.9 9 2.8 to 25.7 8.7

 Total 81 0.5 to 68.1 -- 28 0.7 to 46.4 --

Note.– Average margins are not available for the total of all subject countries because average margins in the first

review included margins for Sweden, which is no longer a subject country.

Source: Table V-7 in first review, USITC PUB 3707, July 2004, and staff calculations.

V-7
Table V-10

SSWR: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins, January

1995-March 1998

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Italy1 37 0.4-16.5 8.7 7 0.2-7.1 3.7

Japan 26 0.6-25.2 11.0 6 0.2-22.9 7.8

Korea 34 2.3-26.8 13.6 3 2.0-10.1 7.4

Spain 14 2.6-19.9 11.7 2 1.1-4.7 2.9

Taiwan 15 0.7-24.1 9.9 5 0.2-5.9 2.4

 Total 126 0.4-26.8 -- 23 0.2-22.9 --

 1 Italian price data include imports from Valbruna.

Note.– Average margins are not available for the total of all subject countries because average margins in the first

review included margins for Sweden, which is no longer a subject country.

Source: Tables V-1-4 in original investigation, USITC PUB 3126, September 1998, and staff calculations.

Purchasers were asked whether U.S. SSWR prices had changed more or less than the prices of

SSWR from other countries. *** responded that it had not seen any changes in relative prices. *** said

that prices had changed by the same amount from U.S. and foreign sources. *** indicated that U.S.

prices were now lower relative to Italian, Korean, and Spanish prices, but higher relative to Taiwan

prices. *** stated that U.S. prices were now lower relative to Japanese and Korean prices, but higher

relative to Spanish prices. *** said that U.S. prices were now lower relative to all subject country prices,

and *** agreed for Italy, Japan, and Taiwan. ***, however, stated that prices for U.S.-produced SSWR

were now higher relative to prices for SSWR from all subject countries.

V-8
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND THE COMMISSION’S STATEMENT

ON ADEQUACY

A-1
 
31412 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Notices 

Dated: June 24, 2009. 

James H. Lecky, 

Office Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–15552 Filed 6–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XP85 

Incidental Taking of Marine Mammals; 

Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental 

to the Explosive Removal of Offshore 

Structures in the Gulf of Mexico 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of letters of 

authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) and implementing regulations, 

notification is hereby given that NMFS 

has issued one-year Letters of 

Authorization (LOA) to take marine 

mammals incidental to the explosive 

removal of offshore oil and gas 

structures (EROS) in the Gulf of Mexico. 

DATES: These authorizations are 

effective from July 1, 2009 through June 

30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The application and LOAs 

are available for review by writing to P. 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation, and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3235 or by telephoning the 

contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT), or online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm. Documents cited in this 

notice may be viewed, by appointment, 

during regular business hours, at the 

aforementioned address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Howard Goldstein or Ken Hollingshead, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

301–713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 

1361 et seq.) directs the NMFS to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by United States 

citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region, 

if certain findings are made by NMFS 

and regulations are issued. Under the 

MMPA, the term ‘‘taking’’ means to 

harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to 

attempt to harass, hunt capture, or kill 

marine mammals. 

Authorization for incidental taking, in 

the form of annual LOAs, may be 

granted by NMFS for periods up to five 

years if NMFS finds, after notification 

and opportunity for public comment, 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s) of 

marine mammals, and will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses (where relevant). In 

addition, NMFS must prescribe 

regulations that include permissible 

methods of taking and other means 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on the species and its habitat 

(i.e., mitigation), and on the availability 

of the species for subsistence uses, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating rounds, and areas of similar 

significance. The regulations also must 

include requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

Regulations governing the taking 

incidental to EROS were published on 

June 19, 2008 (73 FR 34889), and remain 

in effect through July 19, 2013. For 

detailed information on this action, 

please refer to that Federal Register 

notice. The species that applicants may 

take in small numbers during EROS 

activities are bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truncatus), Atlantic spotted 

dolphins (Stenella frontalis), 

pantropical spotted dolphins (Stenella 

attenuata), Clymene dolphins (Stenella 

clymene), striped dolphins (Stenella 

coeruleoalba), spinner dolphins 

(Stenella longirostris), rough-toothed 

dolphins (Steno bredanensis), Risso’s 

dolphins (Grampus griseus), melonheaded whales (Peponocephala electra), 

short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala 

macrorhynchus), and sperm whales 

(Physeter macrocephalus). 

Pursuant to these regulations, NMFS 

has issued an LOA to St. Mary Land & 

Exploration Company and Apache 

Corporation. Issuance of these LOAs is 

based on a finding made in the 

preamble to the final rule that the total 

taking by these activities (with 

monitoring, mitigation, and reporting 

measures) will result in no more than a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stock(s) of marine mammals and will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on subsistence uses. NMFS also finds 

that the applicants will meet the 

requirements contained in the 

implementing regulations and LOA, 

including monitoring, mitigation, and 

reporting requirements. 

Dated: June 25, 2009. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–15551 Filed 6–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review 

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 a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping duty orders listed below. 

The International Trade Commission 

(‘‘the Commission’’) is publishing 

concurrently with this notice its notice 

of Institution of Five-year Review which 

covers the same orders. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

For information from the Commission 

contact 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 its Procedures for Conducting Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) 

and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). 

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 Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

duty orders: 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Notices 31413 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

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 to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department Contact 

A–570–007 ......... 731–TA–149 PRC Barium Chloride (3rd Review) Matthew Renkey (202) 482–2312 

A–570–002 ......... 731–TA–130 PRC Chloropicrin (3rd Review) Matthew Renkey (202) 482–2312 

A–570–888 ......... 731–TA–1047 PRC Floor–Standing, Metal Top Ironing Tables 

And Parts Thereof 

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–570–886 ......... 731–TA–1043 PRC Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–557–813 ......... 731–TA–1044 Malaysia Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–549–821 ......... 731–TA–1045 Thailand Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–427–001 ......... 731–TA–44 France Sorbitol (3rd Review) Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–475–820 ......... 731–TA–770 Italy Stainless Steel Wire Rod (2nd Review) Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

A–588–843 ......... 731–TA–771 Japan Stainless Steel Wire Rod (2nd Review) Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

A–580–829 ......... 731–TA–772 South Korea Stainless Steel Wire Rod (2nd Review) Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

A–469–807 ......... 731–TA–773 Spain Stainless Steel Wire Rod (2nd Review) Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

A–401–806 ......... 731–TA–774 Sweden Stainless Steel Wire Rod (2nd Review) Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

A–583–828 ......... 731–TA–775 Taiwan Stainless Steel Wire Rod (2nd Review) Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

A–570–887 ......... 731–TA–1046 PRC Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol Matthew Renkey (202 482–2312 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s sunset 

Internet Web site 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. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103 (d), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

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 this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

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 a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this 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 order 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 this 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.1 Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews. Please 

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). 

June 23, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–15570 Filed 6–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XQ09 

Marine Mammals; File No. 774–1847 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application 

for an amendment 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center, Antarctic Marine Living 

Resources Program (Michael Gobel, Ph 

D, Principal Investigator), 3333 N Torrey 

Pines Ct, La Jolla, CA 92037, has 

requested an amendment to scientific 

research Permit No. 774–1847–03. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail 

comments must be received on or before 

July 31, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review by 

selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public 

Comment’’ from the Features box on the 

Applications and Permits for Protected 

Species (APPS) home page, https:// 

apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting 

File No. 774–1847–04 from the list of 

available applications. 

These documents are also available 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following office(s): 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 31765 

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. 09–5–200, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

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. 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008 (report quantity data 

in pounds 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 the 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 the 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 the Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2008 

(report quantity data in pounds 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 the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) 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 the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country after 2003, 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 Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is 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. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary. 

Issued: June 29, 2009. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–15645 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–770–773 and 

775 (Second Review)] 

Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy, 

Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on stainless steel wire rod from Italy, 

Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan. 

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 stainless 

steel wire rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, 

Spain, and Taiwan 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 July 31, 2009. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

September 15, 2009. 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), as most recently 

amended at 74 FR 2847 (January 16, 

2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2009. 

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 September 15, 1998, 

the Department of Commerce issued 

antidumping duty orders on stainless 

steel wire rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, 

Spain, and Taiwan (63 FR 49327– 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
31766 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 

49332). Following five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective August 13, 2004, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty orders on imports of 

stainless steel wire rod from Italy, Japan, 

Korea, Spain, and Taiwan (69 FR 

50167). The Commission is now 

conducting second reviews to determine 

whether revocation of the orders 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 Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, 

and Taiwan. 

(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 and 

full first five-year review 

determinations, the Commission found 

one Domestic Like Product consisting of 

all stainless steel wire rod 

corresponding to Commerce’s scope. 

(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 and full first fiveyear review determinations, the 

Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as consisting of all domestic 

producers of stainless steel wire rod. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

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 advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official recently has advised that a fiveyear review is no longer considered the 

‘‘same particular matter’’ as the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 

207, the post employment statute for 

Federal employees, and Commission 

rule 201.15(b)(19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are no 

longer required to seek Commission 

approval to appear in a review under 

Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if 

the corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

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 July 31, 2009. 

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 September 15, 2009. 

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. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 31767 

Information To Be Provided in 

Response to This Notice of Institution: 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) and name, telephone number, 

fax number, and E-mail address of the 

certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, 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 Industry 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 Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. 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 after 

2003. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and E-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008, except as noted 

(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 Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(d) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(e) The value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2008 (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. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008 (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) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) 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. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country after 2003, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
31768 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 

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 Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in each Subject 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; 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. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary. 

Issued: June 29, 2009. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–15640 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice (09–062)] 

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; 

Meeting 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 

Law 92–463, as amended, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

announces a forthcoming meeting of the 

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. 

DATES: Thursday, July 23, 2009, 10 a.m. 

to 12 Noon Pacific Time. 

ADDRESSES: Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

(JPL), Von Karman Auditorium, 4800 

Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Kathy Dakon, Aerospace Safety 

Advisory Panel Executive Director, 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, Washington, DC 20546, 

(202) 358–0732. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel will 

hold its third Quarterly Meeting for 

2009. This discussion is pursuant to 

carrying out its statutory duties for 

which the Panel reviews, identifies, 

evaluates, and advises on those program 

activities, systems, procedures, and 

management activities that can 

contribute to program risk. Priority is 

given to those programs that involve the 

safety of human flight. The agenda will 

include JPL Overview; Office of Safety 

Missions Success Overview; 

Environmental Health and Safety Status; 

and Commercial Orbital Transportation 

Services (COTS) Status: 2007–2009 and 

Human Rating. 

The meeting will be open to the 

public up to the seating capacity of the 

room. Seating will be on a first-come 

basis. Attendees will be required to sign 

a visitor’s register. Photographs will 

only be permitted during the first 10 

minutes of the meeting. During the first 

30 minutes of the meeting, members of 

the public may make a 5-minute verbal 

presentation to the Panel on the subject 

of safety in NASA. Any member of the 

public is permitted to file a written 

statement with the Panel at the time of 

the meeting. Verbal presentations and 

written comments should be limited to 

the subject of safety in NASA and 

should be received 2 working days in 

advance. It is imperative that the 

meeting be held on this date to 

accommodate the scheduling priorities 

of the key participants. To reserve a 

seat, file a written statement, or make a 

verbal presentation, please contact Ms. 

Susan Burch via e-mail at 

Susan.Burch@nasa.gov or by telephone 

at (202) 358–0550. 

Dated: June 25, 2009. 

Kathy Dakon, 

Acting Director, Advisory Committee 

Management Division, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–15607 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Committee Management Renewals 

The NSF management officials having 

responsibility for the advisory 

committees listed below have 

determined that renewing these groups 

for another two years is necessary and 

in the public interest in connection with 

the performance of duties imposed upon 

the Director, National Science 

Foundation (NSF), by 42 U.S.C. 1861 et 

seq. This determination follows 

consultation with the Committee 

Management Secretariat, General 

Services Administration. 

Committees: 

Advisory Committee for Biological 

Sciences, 1110. 

Advisory Committee for 

Cyberinfrastructure, 25150. 

Advisory Committee for Education and 

Human Resources, 1119. 

Advisory Committee for Engineering, 

1170. 

Advisory Committee for Geosciences, 

1755. 

Advisory Committee for Polar Programs, 

1130. 

Advisory Panel for Integrative 

Activities, 1373. 

Alan T. Waterman Award Committee, 

1172. 

Proposal Review Panel for Atmospheric 

Sciences, 10751. 

Proposal Review Panel for Behavioral 

and Cognitive Sciences, 10747. 

Proposal Review Panel for Biological 

Infrastructure, 10743. 

Proposal Review Panel for Earth 

Sciences, 1569. 

Proposal Review Panel for 

Environmental Biology, 10744. 

Proposal Review Panel for Geosciences, 

1756. 

Proposal Review Panel for Integrative 

Organismal Systems, 10745. 

Proposal Review Panel for International 

Science and Engineering, 10749. 

Proposal Review Panel for Molecular 

and Cellular Biosciences, 10746. 

Proposal Review Panel for Ocean 

Sciences, 10752. 

Proposal Review Panel for Research on 

Learning in Formal and Informal 

Settings, 59. 

Proposal Review Panel for Social 

Behavioral and Economic Sciences, 

1766. 

Proposal Review Panel for Social and 

Economic Sciences, 10748. 

Effective date for renewal is July 2, 

2009. For more information, please 

contact Susanne Bolton, NSF, at (703) 

292–7488. 

Dated: June 29, 2009. 

Susanne Bolton, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–15656 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2009 / Notices 56179 

activities by demonstrating two 

subsequent years of compliance with 

observer regulations at 50 CFR 635.7. 

Selection Process 

The HMS Management Division will 

review all submitted applications that 

are deemed complete and develop a list 

of qualified applicants. A qualified 

applicant is an applicant that has 

submitted a complete application and 

has met the selection criteria. Qualified 

applicants are eligible to be selected to 

participate in the shark research fishery 

for 2010. The HMS Management 

Division will provide the list of 

qualified applicants to the SEFSC. The 

SEFSC will then evaluate the list of 

qualified applicants and, based on the 

temporal and spatial needs of the 

research objectives, the availability of 

qualified applicants, and the available 

quota for a given year, will randomly 

select approximately 10 qualified 

applicants to conduct the prescribed 

research. Where there are multiple 

qualified applicants that meet the 

criteria, permittees will be randomly 

selected through a lottery system. If a 

public meeting is deemed necessary, 

NMFS will announce details of a public 

selection meeting in a subsequent 

Federal Register notice. 

Once the selection process is 

complete, NMFS will notify the selected 

applicants and issue the shark research 

fishery permits. If needed, NMFS will 

communicate with the shark research 

fishery permit holders to arrange a 

captain’s meeting to discuss the 

research objectives and protocols. The 

shark research fishery permit holders 

must contact the NMFS observer 

coordinator to arrange the placement of 

a NMFS-approved observer for each 

shark research trip. 

A shark research fishery permit will 

only be valid for the vessel and owner(s) 

and terms and conditions listed on the 

permit, and thus, cannot be transferred 

to another vessel or owner(s). Issuance 

of a shark research permit does not 

guarantee that the permit holder will be 

assigned a NMFS-approved observer on 

any particular trip. Rather, issuance 

indicates that a vessel may be issued a 

NMFS-approved observer for a 

particular trip, and on such trips, may 

be allowed to harvest Atlantic sharks, 

including sandbar sharks, in excess of 

the retention limits described in 50 CFR 

635.24(a). These retention limits will be 

based on available quota, number of 

vessels participating in the 2010 shark 

research fishery, the research objectives 

set forth by the shark board, and may 

vary by vessel and/or location. When 

not operating under the auspices of the 

shark research fishery, the vessel would 

still be able to land non-sandbar, SCS, 

and pelagic sharks subject to existing 

retention limits on trips without a 

NMFS-approved observer. The shark 

research permit may be revoked or 

modified at any time and does not 

confer the right to engage in activities 

beyond those listed on the shark 

research fishery permit. 

Commercial shark permit holders 

(directed and incidental) are invited to 

submit an application to participate in 

the shark research fishery on an annual 

basis. Permit applications can be found 

on the HMS Management Division’s 

website at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

sfa/hms/index.htm or by calling (301) 

713–2347. Final decisions on the 

issuance of a shark research fishery 

permit will depend on the submission 

of all required information, and NMFS’ 

review of applicant information as 

outlined above. The 2010 shark research 

fishery will start after the opening of the 

shark fishery and under available quotas 

as published in a separate Federal 

Register final rule. 

Dated: October 26, 2009. 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Deputy Director for Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–26224 Filed 10–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–475–820, A–588–843, A–580–829, A–469– 

807, A–583–828] 

Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy, 

Japan, the Republic of Korea, Spain, 

and Taiwan: Final Results of the 

Expedited Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 1, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated sunset reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on 

stainless steel wire rod (SSWR) from 

Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea 

(Korea), Spain, and Taiwan, pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). The Department 

has conducted expedited (120-day) 

sunset reviews for these orders pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). 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. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 30, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Holly Phelps or Elizabeth Eastwood, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0656 and (202) 

482–3874, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 1, 2009, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset reviews of the antidumping duty 

orders on SSWR from Italy, Japan, 

Korea, Spain, and Taiwan pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation 

of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 74 FR 

31412 (July 1, 2009) (Notice of 

Initiation). 

The Department received a notice of 

intent to participate from Carpenter 

Technology Corporation, a domestic 

interested party, within the deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 

The company claimed interested party 

status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act 

as a manufacturer of a domestic like 

product in the United States. 

The Department received a complete 

substantive response to the notice of 

initiation from the domestic interested 

party within the 30-day deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We 

received no substantive responses from 

respondent interested parties with 

respect to any of the orders covered by 

these sunset reviews, nor was a hearing 

requested. As a result, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the 

Department conducted expedited (120- 

day) sunset reviews of the antidumping 

duty orders on SSWR from Italy, Japan, 

Korea, Spain, and Taiwan. 

Scope of the Orders 

The merchandise covered by these 

orders is SSWR, which comprises 

products that are hot-rolled or hot-rolled 

annealed and/or pickled and/or 

descaled rounds, squares, octagons, 

hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that 

may also be coated with a lubricant 

containing copper, lime, or oxalate. 

SSWR is made of alloy steels 

containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or 

less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more 

of chromium, with or without other 

elements. These products are 

manufactured only by hot-rolling or hotrolling, annealing, and/or pickling and/ 

or descaling, are normally sold in coiled 

form, and are of solid cross-section. The 

majority of SSWR sold in the United 

States is round in cross-sectional shape, 

annealed and pickled, and later coldfinished into stainless steel wire or 

small-diameter bar. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
56180 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 209 / Friday, October 30, 2009 / Notices 

The most common size for such 

products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217 

inches in diameter, which represents 

the smallest size that normally is 

produced on a rolling mill and is the 

size that most wire-drawing machines 

are set up to draw. The range of SSWR 

sizes normally sold in the United States 

is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches 

diameter. Two stainless steel grades, 

SF20T and K–M35FL, are excluded 

from the scope of the order. The 

chemical makeup for the excluded 

grades is as follows: 

SF20T: 

Carbon .......................... 0.05 max 

Chromium .................... 19.00/21.00 

Manganese ................... 2.00 max 

Molybdenum ............... 1.50/2.50 

Phosphorous ................ 0.05 max 

Lead .............................. added (0.10/0.30) 

Sulfur ........................... 0.15 max 

Tellurium ..................... added (0.03 min) 

Silicon .......................... 1.00 max. 

K–M35FL: 

Carbon .......................... 0.015 max 

Nickel ........................... 0.30 max 

Silicon .......................... 0.70/1.00 

Chromium .................... 12.50/14.00 

Manganese ................... 0.40 max 

Lead .............................. 0.10/0.30 

Phosphorous ................ 0.04 max 

Aluminum ................... 0.20/0.35 

Sulfur ........................... 0.03 max. 

The products subject to these orders 

are currently classifiable under 

subheadings 7221.00.0005, 

7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 

7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of these 

orders 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 Stainless Steel Wire Rod from 

Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, 

Spain, and Taiwan’’ from John M. 

Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

(Oct. 29, 2009) (Decision Memo), 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 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 the Central Records Unit, room 

1117 of the main Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

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 SSWR from 

Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping at the 

following weighted-average percentage 

margins: 

Manufacturers/exporters/producers 

Weightedaverage margin 

(percent) 

Italy: 

Cogne Acciai Speciali S.r.l. ...................................................................................................................................................... 11.25 

All-Others Rate ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11.25 

Japan: 

Daido Steel Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................................................................ 34.21 

Nippon Steel Corp. ................................................................................................................................................................... 21.18 

Sanyo Special Steel Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................................................................. 34.21 

Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................ 34.21 

All-Others Rate ......................................................................................................................................................................... 25.26 

Korea: 

Dongbang Special Steel Co., Ltd./Changwon Specialty Steel Co., Ltd./Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. ............................. 5.77 

Sammi Steel Co., Ltd. .............................................................................................................................................................. 28.44 

All-Others Rate ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5.77 

Spain: 

Roldan S.A. .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2.71 

All-Others Rate ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2.71 

Taiwan: 

Walsin Cartech Specialty Steel Corp. ...................................................................................................................................... 8.29 

All-Others Rate ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8.29 

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. 

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 the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: October 26, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–26227 Filed 10–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–848] 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Initiation of Antidumping Duty NewShipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 30, 2009. 

SUMMARY: On September 15, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
54068 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 21, 2009 / Notices 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the review must be 

served on all other parties to the review 

(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: This review is 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: October 16, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–25319 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

SUMMARY: The subject five-year review 

was initiated in August 2009 to 

determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on barbed wire 

and barbless wire strand from Argentina 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury. On 

October 1, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce published notice that it was 

revoking the order effective September 

20, 2009, ‘‘{b}ecause the domestic 

interested parties did not participate in 

this sunset review * * *’’ (74 FR 

50775). Accordingly, pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the subject review is 

terminated. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2009. 

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 individuals are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained 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). 

Authority: This review is being terminated 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.69 of the Commission’s rules (19 

CFR 207.69). 

Issued: October 14, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–25251 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–770–773 and 

775 (Second Review)] 

Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy, 

Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on stainless steel wire rod 

from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and 

Taiwan. 

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 stainless steel wire rod from 

Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan 

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). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 5, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward Petronzio (202–205–3176), 

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: On 

October 5, 2009, 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. The Commission found that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (74 

FR 31765, July 2, 2009) was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group responses with respect to Italy 

and Korea were adequate and decided to 

conduct full reviews with respect to the 

antidumping duty orders concerning 

stainless steel wire rod from Italy and 

Korea. The Commission found that the 

respondent interested party group 

responses with respect to Japan, Spain, 

and Taiwan were inadequate. However, 

the Commission determined to conduct 

full reviews concerning the 

antidumping duty orders on stainless 

steel wire rod from Japan, Spain, and 

Taiwan to promote administrative 

efficiency in light of its decision to 

conduct full reviews with respect to the 

antidumping duty orders concerning 

stainless steel wire rod from Italy and 

Korea. 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. 

Issued: October 14, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–25250 Filed 10–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–44 (Third 

Review)] 

Sorbitol From France 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct a full five-year 

review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on sorbitol from France. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
62588 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 228 / Monday, November 30, 2009 / Notices 

Participation in the review 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 this review 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 review 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 review. 

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 this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, 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 review. A party 

granted access to BPI following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the review 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 review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on March 26, 

2010, 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 review 

beginning at 9:30 a.m. on April 15, 

2010, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Requests to 

appear at the hearing should be filed in 

writing with the Secretary to the 

Commission on or before April 9, 2010. 

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 April 14, 

2010, 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 review 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 April 6, 

2010. 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 April 26, 2010; 

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 

review may submit a written statement 

of information pertinent to the subject of 

the review on or before April 26, 2010. 

On May 19, 2010, 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 May 21, 2010, 

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 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (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: This review is 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. 

Issued: November 23, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–28443 Filed 11–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–770–773 and 

775 (Second Review)] 

Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy, 

Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on stainless steel wire rod 

from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, 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 stainless steel wire rod from 

Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, 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). 

DATES: Effective Date: November 16, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward Petronzio (202–205–3176), 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 228 / Monday, November 30, 2009 / Notices 62589 

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 October 5, 2009, 

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 (74 

FR 54068, October 21, 2009). 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 March 22, 

2010, 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 April 

8, 2010, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Requests to 

appear at the hearing should be filed in 

writing with the Secretary to the 

Commission on or before April 2, 2010. 

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 April 6, 2010, 

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 March 

31, 2010. 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 April 19, 2010; 

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 April 19, 2010. 

On May 7, 2010, 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 May 11, 2010, 

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 Fed. Reg. 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. 

Issued: November 23, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–28444 Filed 11–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–657] 

Certain Automotive Multimedia Display 

and Navigation Systems, Components 

Thereof, and Products Containing 

Same; Notice of Commission 

Determination To Review in Part a 

Final Initial Determination Finding No 

Violation of Section 337; Schedule for 

Filing Written Submissions on the 

Issues Under Review and on Remedy, 

the Public Interest and Bonding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to review 

in part the final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

1

 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)(D); 63 Fed. Reg. 29372, 29374 (May 29, 1998). 

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATIONS ON ADEQUACY

in

Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan

Inv. Nos. 731-TA-770-773 and 775 (Second Review)

On October 5, 2009, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the

subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)). 

The Commission, in consultation with the Department of Commerce, grouped these reviews because they

involve similar domestic like products.1

With respect to the orders concerning stainless steel wire rod (“SSWR”), the Commission

determined that the domestic interested party group and individual response was adequate. The

Commission received a response from Carpenter Technology Corp. (“Carpenter”), a domestic producer

that accounted for a significant percentage of domestic production of SSWR. 

The Commission received an adequate individual response concerning the order on SSWR from

Italy filed by Cogne Acciai Speciali S.P.A., (“CAS”), an Italian producer of SSWR. With respect to the

review of the antidumping duty order on SSWR from Korea, the Commission received an adequate

individual response filed by POSCO Specialty Steel Co., Ltd (“POSCOSS”), a Korean producer of

SSWR.

The Commission found that the respondent interested party group responses were adequate with

respect to the orders on SSWR from Italy and Korea because respondents from each of these countries

accounted for a significant share of the production of subject merchandise in their respective countries. 

Because the group and individual responses from both domestic interested parties and respondent

interested parties were adequate in the reviews of the orders concerning SSWR from Italy and Korea, the

Commission determined to conduct full reviews in those proceedings.

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties in the reviews

concerning subject imports from Japan, Spain and Taiwan, and therefore determined that the respondent

interested party group responses for these countries were not adequate. The Commission nevertheless

voted to conduct a full review concerning subject imports from Japan, Spain and Taiwan to promote

administrative efficiency in light of the Commission’s determination to conduct full reviews of two of the

orders in these grouped reviews. 

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and on the

Commission’s website (http://www.usitc.gov).
APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-1
 
CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and

Taiwan

Inv. Nos.: 731-TA-770-773 and 775 (Second Review)

Date and Time: April 8, 2010 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these reviews in the Main Hearing Room, 500 E Street

(room 101), SW, Washington, D.C.

OPENING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (David A. Hartquist,

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)

In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (William Silverman, 

Hunton & Williams LLP)

In Support of Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders:

Kelley Drye and Warren LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

The Domestic Industry

Andrew Ziolkowski, Vice President, Bar & Coil

Business, Carpenter Technology Corporation

Jerry Leibensperger, Business Manager, Strategic

Activities, Carpenter Technology Corporation

Michele Pharand, Business Manager, Wire and Strand

Products, Carpenter Technology Corporation

Paul McGrath, Vice President of Administration

& General Counsel, Universal Stainless

& Alloy Products, Inc.

Patrick Feeley, Vice President, Commercial, North

American Stainless

B-3
In Support of Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

Jason Sharp, Long Products Supervisor, North

American Stainless

Edward J. Blot, President, Ed Blot and Associates

Brad Hudgens, Economist, Georgetown Economic

Services

David A. Hartquist )

Laurence J. Lasoff )

) – OF COUNSEL

Mary T. Staley )

Michael V. Dobson )

In Opposition to Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders:

Hunton & Williams LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Cogne Acciai Speciali S.p.A.

William Silverman )

) – OF COUNSEL

Richard Ferrin )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (David A. Hartquist,

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)

In Opposition to Continuation of Order (William Silverman,

Hunton & Williams LLP)

B-4
APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-1
 
Table C-1

SSWR: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2004-09

***  

(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

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2004-09 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. imports from:

 Italy (other than Valbruna):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ** * *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan (other than Hitachi):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,982 2,626 385 24 0 0 -100.0 32.5 -85.3 -93.7 -100.0 (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,858 6,226 960 132 0 0 -100.0 61.4 -84.6 -86.2 -100.0 (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,946 $2,371 $2,490 $5,464 (2) (2) (2) 21.8 5.0 119.4 (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Spain:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 8 20 0 0 0-100.0 -76.7 156.9 -100.0 (2) (2)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 60 48 0 0 0 -100.0 -24.4 -20.7 -100.0 (2) (2)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,360 $7,652 $2,363 (2) (2) (2) (2) 224.2 -69.1 (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan (other than Yieh Hsing):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** ***   ** * *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** ***   ** * *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** ***   ** * *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** ***   ** * *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,230 3,044 636 150 61 35 -98.4 36.5 -79.1 -76.4 -59.5 -41.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,464 7,476 1,844 783 276 111 -97.5 67.5 -75.3 -57.5 -64.8 -60.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,002 $2,456 $2,898 $5,205 $4,528 $3,122 56.0 22.7 18.0 79.6 -13.0 -31.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Italy (Valbruna):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan (Hitachi):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan (Yieh Hsing):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,350 20,789 19,447 19,257 21,191 8,888 -69.7 -29.2 -6.5 -1.0 10.0 -58.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,503 61,073 63,277 91,427 95,963 29,236 -57.9 -12.1 3.6 44.5 5.0 -69.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,368 $2,938 $3,254 $4,748 $4,528 $3,290 38.9 24.1 10.8 45.9 -4.6 -27.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (nonsubject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45,377 38,486 30,837 30,411 29,823 14,396 -68.3 -15.2 -19.9 -1.4 -1.9 -51.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107,256 109,029 96,341 142,371 131,031 43,351 -59.6 1.7 -11.6 47.8 -8.0 -66.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,364 $2,833 $3,124 $4,682 $4,394 $3,011 27.4 19.9 10.3 49.8 -6.1 -31.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,608 41,531 31,473 30,562 29,884 14,431 -69.7 -12.8 -24.2 -2.9 -2.2 -51.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111,720 116,505 98,185 143,154 131,307 43,461 -61.1 4.3 -15.7 45.8 -8.3 -66.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,347 $2,805 $3,120 $4,684 $4,394 $3,012 28.3 19.5 11.2 50.1 -6.2 -31.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** ****

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not applicable/not available.

 (3) Undefined.

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, with additional detail provided by U.S. Customs data.

C-3
 
APPENDIX D

RESPONSES OF U.S. PRODUCERS, U.S. IMPORTERS, U.S. PURCHASERS,

AND FOREIGN PRODUCERS CONCERNING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF

REVOCATION

D-1
 
U.S. PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECT OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any changes in the character of their

operations or organizations relating to the production of SSWR in the future if the antidumping

duty orders were to be revoked. (Question II-4). The following are quotations from the responses

of producers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe the significance of the existing antidumping

orders in terms of their effect on their firm’s 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-16). The following are

quotations from the responses of U.S. producers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any anticipated changes in their production

capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits,

cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, and asset values relating

to the production of SSWR in the future if the antidumping duty orders were revoked. (Question

II-17). The following are quotations from the responses of U.S. producers.

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECT OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any changes in the character of their

operations or organizations relating to the production of SSWR in the future if the antidumping

duty orders were to be revoked. (Question II-4). The following are quotations from the responses

of producers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe the significance of the existing antidumping

duty orders covering imports of SSWR in terms of its effect on their firm’s imports, U.S. shipments

of imports, and inventories. (Question II-9). The following are quotations from the responses of

importers.

* * * * * * *

D-3
The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe the significance of the existing antidumping

duty orders covering imports of SSWR in terms of its effect on their firm’s imports, U.S. shipments

of imports, or inventories of SSWR in the future if the antidumping orders were revoked. 

(Question II-10). The following are quotations from the responses of importers.

* * * * * * *

U.S. PURCHASERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission’s questionnaires in this review requested comments from U.S. purchasers

(question III-36) regarding the effects of revocation of the antidumping duty order on (1) the future

activities of their firms and (2) the U.S. market as a whole. The following comments were received:

* * * * * * *

FOREIGN PRODUCERS’/EXPORTERS COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested foreign producers/exporters to describe any anticipated changes to the

character of their operations or organizations relating to the importation of SSWR if the

antidumping duty orders covering imports of SSWR were revoked (Question II-3). The following

are quotations from the responses of foreign producers.

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested foreign producers/exporters to describe the significance of the existing

antidumping duty order covering imports of SSWR in terms of its effects on your firm’s

production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other markets, and

inventories. (Question II-12).

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested foreign producers/exporters if they anticipated any changes in their

production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other

markets, or inventories in the future if the antidumping duty orders were to be revoked. (Question

II-13).

* * * * * * *

D-4
APPENDIX E

CONSTRUCTION AND MOTOR VEHICLE MARKETS

E-1

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source: Census, BLS, and staff calculations. 

U.S. real total construction spending

trillions of December 

2009 dollars, 

annualized

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

millions of units, annualized

U.S. total motor vehicle assemblies

Source: Federal Reserve and staff calculations.

Figure E-1

SSWR demand component: U.S. real total construction spending, by quarters, January 2004-

March 2010

Figure E-2

SSWR demand component: U.S. total motor vehicle assemblies, by quarters, January 2004-March

2010

E-3
 
APPENDIX F

RAW MATERIALS AND ENERGY PRICES

F-1

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dollars 

per ton

Nickel

Source: LME settlement monthly average.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Cents 

per 

pound

Ferrochromium

Source: Derived from AMM data.

Figure F-1

SSWR: Prices of raw materials and energy used in the production of SSWR, by quarters, January

2004-December 2009

Figure continued on next page.

F-3
0

200

400

600

800

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dollars 

per ton

Iron (Scrap Steel)

Source: Derived from AMM data.

0

10

20

30

40

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dollars 

per 

pound

Molybdenum

Source: Derived from AMM data.

Figure F-1--Continued

SSWR: Prices of raw materials and energy used in the production of SSWR, by quarters, January

2004-December 2009

Figure continued on next page.

F-4
0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dollars 

per ton

Ferromanganese

Source: Derived from AMM data.

0

5

10

15

20

25

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dollars 

per k

g Ti

Ferrotitanium

Source: Derived from Metal Bulletin data.

Figure F-1--Continued

SSWR: Prices of raw materials and energy used in the production of SSWR, by quarters, January

2004-December 2009

Figure continued on next page.

F-5
0

2

4

6

8

10

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dollars 

per 1,000 cu. ft.

Natural Gas

Source: Derived from official statistics of the U.S. Dept. of Energy.

Figure F-1--Continued

SSWR: Prices of raw materials and energy used in the production of SSWR, by quarters, January

2004-December 2009

F-6
APPENDIX G

EXCHANGE RATES

G-1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

January-March 2004=100

Nominal Real

E uro (Italy )

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

January-March 2004=100

Nominal Real

Yen (Japan)

Table G-1

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates between the currencies of Italy,

Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan and the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2004-December 2009

Table continued on next page.

G-3
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

January-March 2004=100

Nominal Real

W on (Korea)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

January-March 2004=100

Nominal Real

Euro (Spain)

Table G-1--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates between the currencies of Italy,

Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan and the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2004-December 2009

Table continued on next page.

G-4
Table G-1--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates between the currencies of Italy,

Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan and the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2004-December 2009

Source: International Financial Statistics and http://eng.dgbas.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=2 .

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

January-March 2004=100

Nominal Real

New Taiwan Dollar (Taiwan )

G-5