U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4193 November 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube 

from China and Mexico

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1174-1175 (Final)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson, Vice Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert

Karen Laney

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 (205-3176) 

 Karl Tsuji, Industry Analyst (205-3434) 

 James Fetzer, Economist (708-5403) 

 Mary Klir, Accountant (205-3247) 

 Charles St. Charles, Attorney (205-2782) 

Lita David-Harris, Statistician (205-2537) 

James McClure, Supervisory Investigator (205-3191) 
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4193 November 2010

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube 

from China and Mexico

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1174-1175 (Final)
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Separate Views of Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Part I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

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

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

U.S. market summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Summary data and data sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Previous and related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Nature and extent of sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Domestic industry issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

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

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

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

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-3

Supply ................................................................... II-3

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-9

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-9

Comparison of the U.S.-produced and imported SRC pipe and tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-12

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-17

U.S. supply elasticity ....................................................... II-17

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-17

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-17

Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment ...................... III-1

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization ................................... III-3

U.S. producers’ shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-6

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-7

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent consumption, and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

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

Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

Simultaneous presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

Negligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

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

Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

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

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

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

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

Lead times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

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

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

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-12

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-13

Part VI: Financial experience of the U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Operations on SRC pipe and tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Variance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-5

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6

Actual negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6

Anticipated negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6

Part VII: Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries ............... VII-1

The industry in China .......................................................... VII-2

The industry in Mexico ......................................................... VII-5

U.S. importers’ inventories of SRC pipe and tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-7

U.S. importer’s current orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-7

Antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in third-country markets .............. VII-7

Information on producers in nonsubject countries .................................... VII-7

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. List of hearing witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Appendixes–Continued

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

D. Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. U.S. production and import data regarding industrial and plumbing SRC pipe and tube . . . . . . E-1

F. U.S. producers’ and importers’ comments regarding the comparability of industrial and plumbing 

SRC pipe and tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

G. Nonsubject country price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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-1174-1175 (Final)

SEAMLESS REFINED COPPER PIPE AND TUBE FROM CHINA AND MEXICO

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. § 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury2 3 4

by reason of imports of seamless refined copper pipe and tube (“SRC pipe and tube”) from China and

Mexico provided for in subheadings 7411.10.10 and 8415.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the

United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”).

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these investigations effective on September 30, 2009, following

receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Cerro Flow Products, Inc., St. Louis,

MO; Kobe Wieland Copper Products, LLC, Pine Hall, NC; Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc. and

Mueller Copper Tube Company, Inc., Memphis, TN. The final phase of these investigations was

scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that

imports of SRC pipe and tube from China and Mexico were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of

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

Commission’s investigations 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 of June 11, 2010 (75 FR 33330). 

The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on September 23, 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 Deanna Tanner Okun, Vice Chairman Irving A. Williamson, Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson, and

Commissioner Shara L. Aranoff determine that they would not have found material injury but for the suspension of

liquidation. 

 3

 Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane determines that the domestic SRC pipe and tube industry is materially injured

by reason of imports of the subject merchandise from China and Mexico.

 4

 Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert did not participate in these investigations.
 
VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

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

United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of seamless refined copper pipe and

tube from China and Mexico that the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) has found to be sold

in the United States at less than fair value.1

 2

I. BACKGROUND

The petition in these investigations was filed on September 30, 2009, by domestic producers

Cerro Flow Products, Inc. (“Cerro”), St. Louis, Missouri; Kobe Wieland Copper Products, LLC, (“Kobe

Wieland”), Pine Hall, North Carolina; Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc. and Mueller Copper Tube

Company, Inc., (“Mueller”), Memphis, Tennessee (collectively, “petitioners”). Petitioners appeared at

the hearing and filed joint prehearing and posthearing briefs. 

Respondents that participated at the hearing and filed prehearing and posthearing briefs include

Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group Inc., GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V., and GD Copper

(U.S.A.) Inc., a Chinese producer, a Mexican producer, and a U.S. importer of subject merchandise,

respectively (collectively, “Golden Dragon”); IUSA, S.A. de C.V. (“IUSA”) and Nacional de Cobre, S.A.

de C.V. (“Nacobre”), Mexican producers of subject merchandise;3

 and Johnson Controls, Inc. (“Johnson”)

and Marubeni American Corporation (“Marubeni”), importers of subject merchandise. 

Joint prehearing and posthearing briefs were filed by Luvata Alltop (Zhongshan), Luvata Tube

(Zhongshan) Ltd., Luvata Monterrey S. de R.L. de C.V., foreign producers of subject merchandise, and

Luvata Franklin, Inc. and Luvata Grenada LLC, importers of subject merchandise (collectively,

“Luvata”). A posthearing brief was filed by Wolverine Tube, Inc. (“Wolverine”) a domestic producer and

an importer and purchaser of subject merchandise. 

The Commission received questionnaire responses from 14 domestic producers of seamless

refined copper pipe and tube (hereinafter, “SRC pipe and tube”). These producers accounted for 95

percent of U.S. production of SRC pipe and tube in 2009.4

Importer data in the Report are based primarily on official Commerce import statistics.5 The

Commission, however, received questionnaires responses from 42 importers, which accounted for 83.7

percent of subject imports from China, 106.5 percent of subject imports from Mexico, and 56.2 percent of

nonsubject imports in 2009.6

The Commission received foreign producer questionnaire responses from eight producers or

exporters of Chinese SRC pipe and tube, which are believed to account for *** Chinese export shipments

 1 Commissioner Lane determines that the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of the subject imports

from China and Mexico. She joins in parts I through IV.B.1. of these Views. She also joins in part V, Legal

Framework, and part VI, Conditions of Competition. She writes separately concerning Material Injury By Reason of

Subject Imports. See Separate Views of Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane.

 2

 Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert is not participating in the final phase of these investigations. 

 3

 The appearance of IUSA and Nacobre at the hearing and their posthearing brief were also on behalf of their U.S.

affiliates, Cambridge-Lee Industries LLC and Copper and Brass International.

 4

 CR at I-4, PR at I-3; CR/PR at III-1. 

 5

 CR at I-4, PR at I-3.

 6

 CR at I-4, PR at I-3; CR/PR at IV-1. Imports for China and Mexico based on questionnaire data appear at

CR/PR at Table C-2. 

3
to the United States in 2009.7

 The Commission received foreign producer questionnaire responses from

five producers or exporters of Mexican SRC pipe and tube, believed to account for *** Mexican export

shipments to the United States in 2009.8

 The Commission received purchaser questionnaire responses

from 44 firms.9

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

A. In General

In determining whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with

material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”10 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a whole of a domestic like

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

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”11 In turn, 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.”12

The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product(s) in an investigation is a factual

determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.13 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.14 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.15

Although the Commission must accept the determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce

 7 CR at VII-3, PR at VII-2. 

 8

 CR at VII-6, PR at VII-5.

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

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 11 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 12 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

 13 See, e.g., Cleo, Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v. Department of

Commerce, 36 F. Supp.2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455

(1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed.

Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts

of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of factors including the following: (1) physical

characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions

of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where

appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1996).

 14 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979).

 15 Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49; see also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979)

(Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion as to

permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article are

not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent

consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”).

4
(“Commerce”) as to the scope of the imported merchandise subsidized or sold at less than fair value,16 the

Commission determines what domestic product is like the imported articles Commerce has identified.17

B. Product Description

Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations as follows:

Seamless circular refined copper pipes and tubes, including redraw hollows, greater than

or equal to 6 inches (152.4 mm) in length and measuring less than 12.130 inches

(308.102 mm) (actual) in outside diameter (“OD”), regardless of wall thickness, bore

(e.g., smooth, enhanced with inner-grooves or ridges), manufacturing process (e.g., hot

finished, cold-drawn, annealed), outer surface (e.g., plain or enhanced with grooves,

ridges, fins, or gills), end finish (e.g., plain end, swaged end, flared end, expanded end,

crimped end, threaded), coating (e.g., plastic, paint), insulation, attachments (e.g., plain,

capped, plugged, with compression or other fitting), or physical configuration (e.g.,

straight, coiled bent, wound on spools). The scope covers, but is not limited to, seamless

refined copper pipe and tube produced or comparable to the American Society for

Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) ASTM-B42, ASTM-B68, ASTM-B75, ASTM-B88,

ASTM-B88M, ASTM-B188, ASTM-B251, ASTM-B251M, ASTM-B280, ASTM-B302,

ASTM-B306, ASTM-B359, ASTM-B743, ASTM-B819, and ASTM-B903 specifications

and meeting the physical parameters described therein. Also included within the scope of

these investigations are all sets of covered products, including “line sets” of seamless

refined copper tubes (with or without fittings or insulation) suitable for connecting an

outdoor air conditioner or heat pump to an indoor evaporator unit. The phrase “all sets of

covered products” denotes any combination of items put up for sale that is comprised of

merchandise subject to the scope. “Refined copper” is defined as: (1) metal containing

at least 99.85 percent by weight of copper; or (2) metal containing at least 97.5 percent

by weight of copper, provided that the content by weight of any other element does not

exceed the following limits 

ELEMENT LIMITING CONTENT PERCENT BY WEIGHT

Ag - Silver 0.25

As - Arsenic 0.5

Cd - Cadmium 1.3

Cr - Chromium 1.4

Mg - Magnesium 0.8

Pb - Lead 1.5

S - Sulfur 0.7

Sn - Tin 0.8

Te - Tellurium 0.8

Zn - Zinc 1.0

 16 See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 34 Fed. Appx. 725, 730 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The ITC may not modify the

class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 688 F.

Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919 (1989).

 17 Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Commission may find a single

like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298 n.1

(“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s {like product} determination.”); Torrington, 747

F. Supp. at 748-52 (affirming Commission determination of six like products in investigations where Commerce

found five classes or kinds).

5
Zr - Zirconium 0.3

Other elements (each) 0.3

Excluded from the scope of these investigations are all seamless circular hollows of refined

copper less than 12 inches in length whose OD (actual) exceeds its length.18

SRC pipe and tube are fabricated products of high-purity copper, distinguished by a circular cross

section of varying nominal sizes (typically 0.04"–12") and wall thicknesses. The inner and outer tubing

surfaces are either smooth or enhanced (e.g., with grooves, ridges, fins, or gills). Additional

characteristics can include outer surface coatings (e.g., paint, plastics, or other coating materials) for

corrosion protection or insulation; marking with paint or plastic color coding for product identification;

cleaning, pressurizing with nitrogen gas, and capping of each end to assure interior cleanliness; end

finishes (e.g., plain, swaged, flared, expanded, crimped, or threaded); and attachments (e.g., plain, capped,

or plugged). SRC pipe and tube is available in straight lengths, bent to shape, coiled flat without spools

(“pancake coils”), or coiled onto spools. “Line sets” consist of a smaller-diameter liquid line (commonly

with end finishes) and a larger-diameter suction line (commonly insulated), which typically are used to

connect outdoor air conditioners and heat pumps with indoor evaporator units.19

End-use applications for SRC pipe and tube take advantage of copper’s strength, malleability,

ductility, thermal conductivity, resistance to corrosion and fouling, and chemical purity. SRC pipe and

tube applications generally involve fluids under pressure, either for conveyance or closed-loop thermal

transfer. Conveyance applications include residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, and municipal

water systems, as well as distribution systems for other liquids and gasses. Thermal transfer applications

include residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial heating systems; commercial refrigeration

systems; and combined or split-unit air-conditioning systems.20

“Plumbing” (or “standard”) tubing is commonly produced to various standards of the American

Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”). The ASTM designations specify the chemical composition,

outside diameter, wall thickness, strength, hardness, cleanliness, roundness, marking, and other

requirements for SRC pipe and tube, based on end-use applications.21

“Industrial” (or “commercial”) tubing is produced to either industry standard (e.g., ASTM)

specifications or customer (including original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”)) nonstandard

specifications, including any surface enhancements (e.g., grooves, ridges, fins, or gills) designed to

enhance thermal transfer capabilities. For example, customer specifications are often based on ASTM

standards to which are added further requirements such as custom dimensions, temper, or packaging. 

Common applications for commercial SRC pipe and tube include refrigeration and heating units; splitsystem central, room and window, central, and vehicle air conditioners; and chillers and freezers.22

SRC pipe and tube production involves three stages: (1) prefabricating, which includes melting,

casting, and either extrusion or rolling of rough tubing; (2) intermediate fabrication, consisting of cold

drawing of unfinished tubing; and (3) finishing of the SRC pipe and tube.23

 18 CR at I-5-6, PR at I-5. The products subject to these investigations are currently classifiable under statistical

reporting numbers 7411.10.1030, 7411.10.1090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS),

and may also enter under HTSUS statistical reporting numbers 7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 8415.90.8065, and

8415.90.8085. Id.

 19 CR at I-7-8, PR at I-6.

 20 CR at I-8, PR at I-6-7.

 21 CR at I-8, PR at I-7.

 22 CR at I-8-9, PR at I-7.

 23 CR at I-12, PR at I-10.

6
C. Preliminary Phase Determination

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the domestic industry requested that the

Commission define a single domestic like product, coextensive with Commerce’s scope. No party

opposed that definition. The Commission found that plumbing and commercial tube possessed both

similarities and differences with respect to physical characteristics and uses, there was some degree of

interchangeability between plumbing and commercial tube, as well as some similarities in terms of the

channels through which they were traded, and some commonality of manufacturing facilities and

employees. The Commission also observed that, although plumbing and commercial tube were sold

under different price structures, the record did not indicate whether or to what extent those structural

differences resulted in actual price differences between plumbing and commercial tube. Based on these

similarities, and in the absence of clear dividing lines between plumbing and commercial SRC pipe and

tube, the Commission found a single domestic like product, consisting of all SRC pipe and tube, that was

coterminous with the scope.

In the final phase of these investigations, petitioners argue that the Commission should again find

one domestic like product comprised of all SRC pipe, that is coextensive with Commerce’s scope.24

Importers Marubeni and Johnson contend that the Commission should define plumbing SRC pipe and

tube and industrial SRC pipe and tube as separate domestic like products.25 Although IUSA, Nacobre,

Luvata, and Goodman do not disagree with the Commission’s finding of a single domestic like product,

they identify the distinction between plumbing and commercial tube as a relevant condition of

competition in the SRC pipe and tube market, and rely in that regard upon the factors the Commission

traditionally considers in defining the domestic like product.26

D. Domestic Like Product Factors

1. Physical Characteristics and Uses

Parties’ Arguments. Petitioners assert that all SRC tubes share the same basic physical

characteristics and uses in that all SRC tubes are seamless products, they have circular cross sections, they

consist entirely or virtually entirely of refined copper, and they are commonly used to transport fluids,

either in conveyance applications or in closed loops for thermal transfer. They contend that, although

plumbing pipe and tube is generally produced to ASTM specifications and industrial pipe and tube to the

specification of OEMs, ASTM standards also apply in some respects to industrial pipe and tube, and the

differences between SRC pipe and tubes in plumbing and industrial application can be minimal.27 They

assert that fabrication prior to finishing is similar for plumbing and industrial pipe and tube, that plumbing

pipe and tube often meets the same degree of purity (percentage of copper cathode) required for industrial

pipe, and that certain plumbing tube (e.g., OXY/MED and ARC products) are cleaned and capped, as is

industrial pipe and tube.28

 24 Petition at 35-36, Petitioners Postconference Brief at 9-15.

 25 Johnson/Marubeni Prehearing Brief at 1.

 26 IUSA and Nacobre Prehearing Brief at 6-10, Luvata Prehearing Brief at 6-17, Goodman Prehearing Brief at 2-

5. Although we do not set out here those arguments of these parties, we have taken them into account in our

domestic like product analysis.

 27 Petitioners Prehearing Brief at 13-15.

 28 Hearing Transcript at 66 (Arndt), 264 (Levy). Cleaning and capping means the pipe or tube is filled with pure

nitrogen to displace oxygen and prevent corrosion and then capped to prevent escape of the nitrogen. See, e.g.,

Johnson/Marubeni Posthearing Brief at 3. OXY/MED and ARC products are cleaned and capped to ensure

continue...

7
Johnson and Marubeni argue that, unlike industrial pipe and tube, plumbing pipe and tube does

not have to meet the copper purity requirements of ASTM standard B743 or the 1,832 pounds per square

inch burst pressure requirement. They also assert that all industrial pipe and tube must be cleaned and

capped and that the plumbing products petitioners identify as cleaned and capped either are not plumbing

products or account for a small segment of the plumbing pipe and tube market.29

Analysis. All SRC pipe and tube share certain basic physical characteristics, including being

seamless, made of refined copper, and having a circular cross section. All SRC pipe and tube are used to

transport or circulate fluids.30 Substantial similarities generally exist between the physical characteristics

of SRC pipe and tube up to the finishing steps of production, although finishing steps may differ.31 The

record indicates, therefore, that specifications for SRC pipe and tube used in plumbing applications and

SRC pipe and tube used in industrial applications can differ, with plumbing pipe and tube conforming to

ASTM standards and industrial pipe and tube conforming to individual OEMs’ specifications or ASTM

standards.32 Pipe and tube meeting certain ASTM standards (e.g., ASTM designations B-280, B-903,

Type K, Type L, Type M, DWV, and ARC/RST) is designated for use in industrial applications (i.e., in

conjunction with heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration systems), but some may also be

used in plumbing applications.33 34 Accordingly, there are similarities in the physical characteristics and

uses of plumbing and industrial pipe and tube.

2. Interchangeability 

Parties’ Arguments. Petitioners argue that interchangeability between plumbing and industrial

tube is indicated by the fact that OEM specifications can mirror ASTM specifications or can be stated in

terms of ASTM specifications with adjustments or additions. They claim that, whether an article is being

 28 ...continue

contaminant-free transportation of oxygen, other gases, and refrigerants. Field notes (July 30, 2010) at 2.

at 2.

 29 Johnson/Marubeni Posthearing Brief at 3-4.

 30 CR at I-7-8, PR at 1-6.

 31 CR at I-12-20, PR at I-10-14. 

 32 CR at I-8, PR at I-6. 

 33 See CR/PR at Tables I-1, I-2. 

 34 In their claims regarding copper purity and burst pressure requirements for industrial pipe and tube, Johnson

and Marubeni do not argue that plumbing pipe and tube does not often, or could not, also meet those purity and

pressure requirements. Rather, they simply state that lower purity copper could be used in producing plumbing pipe

and tube, not that it actually is used. Johnson/Marubeni Posthearing Brief at 3-4. The record identifies steps for

removal of impurities during the molten copper stage of production, without distinguishing between industrial and

plumbing pipe and tube. CR at I-12-13, PR at I-10. Johnson and Marubeni do not indicate that plumbing tube

would not meet the same burst pressure requirements that can be made explicit for industrial SRC pipe and tube

(although it appears that the pressures to which pipe and tube employed in industrial (e.g., HVAC applications) are

far greater than those in plumbing applications). Rather, they state simply that burst pressure requirements do not

apply to plumbing pipe and tube. Johnson/Marubeni Posthearing Brief at 3-4. Additionally, at the hearing, the

significance of whether burst pressure requirements were met was raised primarily in comparing the seamless

product with the nonsubject welded product. Johnson explained that it switched from welded to seamless product to

avoid the seam-splitting under pressure to which welded pipe and tube were more prone. Thus, the testimony may

have been more concerned with welded product being more prone to burst under pressure than the seamless product,

rather than that plumbing pipe and tube was more prone to burst under pressure than industrial pipe and tube. See

Hearing Transcript at 163-64 (Smith). Accordingly, we find that the record does not support the claim of significant

physical differences between industrial and plumbing SRC pipe and tube in terms of copper purity and burst pressure

characteristics. 

8
produced for a plumbing or an industrial application, the manufacturer’s primary focus is on the outside

diameter (OD) of the article. The difference in the processes, they assert, can be as simple as cutting the

finished product to a cut length for plumbing pipe and tube or turning it into a level wound coil for the

industrial article.35 The absence of a clear dividing line between industrial and plumbing pipe and tube is

highlighted, petitioners contend, by the fact that six of the Commission’s eight pricing products were sold

by domestic producers for both plumbing and industrial applications.36

Johnson and Marubeni argue that plumbing pipe and tube and industrial pipe and tube are not

interchangeable. They contend, for instance, that plumbing codes require pipe and tube used in plumbing

applications to have plumbing-specific ASTM markings. They argue, therefore, that contrary to

petitioners’ claim, even in the instances in which industrial pipe or tube meet specifications for plumbing

applications, the pipe or tube cannot simply be used in a plumbing application, at least not without the

addition of the necessary ASTM markings.37

Analysis. The record indicates that there is at least some interchangeability between plumbing

pipe and tube and industrial pipe and tube. Requirements for industrial pipe and tube may include ASTM

standards, including the same ASTM standards applicable to plumbing tube, and they sometimes mirror

ASTM standards or reflect ASTM standards plus other elements.38 The same product may be sold as

either plumbing or industrial pipe and tube, although ASTM markings may be necessary when otherwise

identical industrial product is sold in the plumbing market.39

3. Channels of distribution

Parties’ Arguments. Petitioners argue that there is overlap in channels of distribution between

plumbing and industrial pipe and tube, even though plumbing pipe and tube is generally sold to

distributors, wholesalers, and retailers, whereas industrial pipe and tube is generally sold to OEMs. They

contend that whether plumbing or industrial pipe and tube is sold through distributors or directly to OEMs

is really a question of the size of the end user.40 

Johnson and Marubeni argue that domestic producers generally sell SRC pipe and tube for

plumbing applications to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers and generally sell industrial pipe and tube

to OEMs. They claim that producers have separate marketing teams for the sale of plumbing and

industrial SRC pipe and tube and that, to the extent OEMs purchase from distributors rather than directly

from producers, the quantities involved likely are small.41 

Analysis. All parties agree that domestic producers generally sell SRC pipe and tube for

plumbing applications to wholesalesers, distributors and retailers and that they generally sell industrial

pipe and tube to OEMs. It appears, however, that both distributors and SRC pipe and tube mills sell tube

conforming to ASTM designations (e.g., Type K, Type L, Type M, DWV, and ARC/RST) to OEMs and

that the channel of distribution can be based on the volume of SRC pipe and tube being purchased.42

Accordingly, there appears to be overlap between the channels through which plumbing and industrial

pipe and tube are sold.

 35 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Appendix A at 35-36; Hearing Tr. (Arndt) at 36-37. 

 36 Petitioners Prehearing Brief at 15-16, Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 13 (citing Prehearing Report at V-24).

 37 Johnson/Marubeni Posthearing Brief at 4-5.

 38 See CR/PR at Tables I-1, I-2; Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Appendix A at 35-36; Hearing Tr. (Arndt) at 36-

37. 

 39 Petitioners Prehearing Brief at 15-16, Johnson/Marubeni Posthearing Brief at 4-5.

 40 Petitioners Prehearing Brief at 16-18.

 41 Johnson/Marubeni Posthearing Brief at 5-6.

 42 Petitioners Postconference Brief at 12.

9
4. Common Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes, and Production

Employees

Parties’ Arguments. Petitioners claim that U.S. producers manufacture SRC pipe and tube in the

same production facilities, using common production processes and production employees. ***.43 They

assert that production of all SRC tube begins with a prefabrication stage in which raw copper material is

melted then formed, by either a high-ratio extrusion or a cast-and-roll method, into a so-called “mother

tube.” The mother tube then undergoes an intermediate, cold drawing, step. Cold drawing is followed by

a combination of finishing steps, as applicable. Petitioners assert that the cast and roll method or the

extrusion method can be used to produce either plumbing or industrial pipe and tube. The assert that

Kobe Wieland and Cerro produce both plumbing and commercial tube, and Kobe Wieland produces both

plumbing and commercial tube on the same production line at its Pine Hall, North Carolina facility.44

Johnson and Marubeni argue that the cast and roll method is more commonly used for production

of industrial pipe and tube and the extrusion method is more commonly used for production of plumbing

pipe and tube. They contend that the greatest distinctions in the production process for plumbing and

industrial pipe occur at the finishing stage, which, in the case of the industrial product but not the

plumbing product, can include steps such as stretching, annealing, winding, and rifling to create an inner

groove product.45 

Analysis. Although either the cast and roll or extrusion methods can be used, the initial stages of

production are the same whether the ultimate product will be a plumbing or an industrial pipe and tube

product.46 Therefore, they can be produced in the same facilities with the same processes, and production

employees. Although some producers confine their production to either plumbing pipe and tube or

industrial pipe and tube, certain producers produce both plumbing and industrial tube in the same facility

with the same employees. Thus, there is some degree of shared facilities, processes, and employees in the

production of plumbing and industrial pipe and tube. 

5. Producer and Customer Perceptions

Parties’ Arguments. Petitioners assert that, overall, customers perceive SRC tube as a single

product, with a broad mix of variations across a continuum. They contend that, although some OEM

customers may perceive industrial tube meeting their custom specifications as distinct from plumbing

tube meeting standard ASTM specifications, these differences are minor from the perspective of SRC

pipe and tube producers.47 They argue that the absence of a clear dividing line in the perception of market

participants is indicated also by the apparently differing perceptions of importers and purchasers as to

what constititutes plumbing versus industrial pipe and tube. This is indicated, they contend, by the small

volume of plumbing pipe and tube from China that importers reported importing compared with the

considerably larger volume of plumbing pipe and tube from China that purchasers reported purchasing.48

Johnson and Marubeni argue that, because the purchasers, channels of distribution, technical

specification for plumbing and industrial pipe and tube are completely different, and because plumbing

 43 Petitioners Posthearing Brief at A-2.

 44 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 19-20.

 45 Johnson/Marubeni Prehearing Brief at 5, Johnson/Marubeni Posthearing Brief at 6.

 46 E.g., CR at I-15-16, I-18; PR at I-12, I-13.

 47 Petitioners Prehearing Brief at 12.

 48 Petitioners Posthearing Brief, Appendix A at 36.

10
and industrial pipe and tube are not interchangeable, customers do not perceive plumbing and industrial

pipe and tube to be similar.49

Analysis. Although producers and customers may view plumbing and industrial SRC pipe and

tube as falling to some extent on a continuum, the record indicates that market participants also perceive a

distinction.50 

6. Price

Parties’ Arguments. Petitioners acknowledge dual pricing structures for plumbing and

commercial tube, with plumbing tube typically sold on the spot market at a discount off list prices and

industrial pipe and tube sold at the contemporaneous COMEX price of copper plus a negotiated perpound fabrication charge fixed for 12 months. They assert, however, that the differing pricing structures

do not result in prices for plumbing or industrial tube necessarily being higher or lower than the other. 

The absence of a clear price distinction is confirmed, they claim, by the varying responses of producers

and importers regarding the relative pricing levels of plumbing and industrial pipe and tube.51

Johnson and Marubeni generally agree with petitioners’ description of the differing approaches

for setting prices in the sale of plumbing and industrial pipe and tube and argue that these pricing

mechanisms, therefore, are not comparable.52

Analysis. It is uncontested that plumbing and industrial tube are typically sold under different

price structures. Plumbing pipe and tube is typically sold on the spot market at a discount off price lists

published by producers, whereas industrial pipe and tube is typically sold at the contemporaneous

COMEX price of copper plus a negotiated per-pound fabrication charge that is fixed for a 12-month

period. Three U.S. producers, ***, report selling industrial pipe and tube on a spot basis.53 It appears

that, notwithstanding the different pricing structures, prices for SRC pipe and tube overall may fall

generally on a continuum of prices determined primarily by the prevailing market price for copper,

variations in finishing costs, and relative demand for different SRC pipe and tube products.54 We note,

moreover, that prices for the pricing products that are generally used in plumbing applications and those

generally used in industrial applications55 generally followed similar trends over the period for which

quarterly pricing data were obtained in these investigations.56 

7. Conclusion

The record indicates that plumbing and industrial pipe and tube possess at least some similarities

with respect to physical characteristics and uses, regardless of their manner of production. There is,

moreover, some interchangeability between plumbing and industrial pipe and tube, as well as some

similarities in terms of the channels through which they are traded, and some commonality of

manufacturing facilities and employees. Although plumbing and industrial pipe and tube are sold under

different price structures, we are not able to conclude that those structural differences result in actual price

 49 Johnson/Marubeni Prehearing Brief at 6.

 50 E.g., CR/PR at Appendix F.

 51 Petitioners Prehearing Brief at 20-21.

 52 Johnson/Marubeni Prehearing Brief at 7.

 53 CR at V-2-3, PR at V-2.

 54 Petitioners Prehearing Brief at 14.

 55 Pricing products 1-4 were generally used in plumbing applications and products 5-8 were generally used in

industrial applications. CR at V-25, PR at V-12.

 56 CR/PR at Figure V-2.

11
differences between plumbing and industrial pipe and tube with similar characteristics. Therefore, we

conclude, on the basis of the current record, that there is not a clear dividing line between plumbing and

industrial pipe and tube. We note, moreover, that most respondent parties do not disagree with the

Commission’s finding a single domestic like product in the preliminary phase of these investigations. 

Accordingly, we find one domestic like product, coterminous with the scope, consisting of all

SRC pipe and tube.

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The domestic industry is defined 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.”57 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. 

Based on our definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry as all domestic

producers of SRC pipe and tube. 

We must determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from

the domestic industry pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). Subsection 1677(4)(B) allows the

Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are

related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers.58 Exclusion

of such producers is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each

investigation. In these investigations, several domestic producers may be related parties based on their

relationship to exporters of the subject merchandise, importations of subject imports, or purchases of

subject imports.59 No party, however, has argued for exclusion of any producer as a related party. 

Wolverine ***.60 Although Wolverine is a related party, we find that appropriate circumstances

do not exist to exclude it from the domestic industry. The ***.61 Thus, ***62***.63 Wolverine reports

***64 and also states that the importation of subject merchandise from foreign producers ***.65

Wolverine, however, has been a substantial domestic producer throughout the period of investigation; it

 57 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 58 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 59 The Commission has concluded that a domestic producer that does not itself import subject merchandise, or

does not share a corporate affiliation with an importer, may nonetheless be deemed a related party if it controls large

volumes of imports. The Commission has found such control to exist where the domestic producers were

responsible for a predominant proportion of an importer's purchases and the importer’s purchases were substantial.

See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from the Czech Republic, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea,

and Macedonia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-387-392 and 731-TA-815-822 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3181 at 12 (April

1999); Certain Brake Drums and Rotors from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-744 (Final), USITC Pub. 3035 at 10 n.50

(April 1997).

 60 Wolverine’s ***. CR/PR at Table III-7. ***. Wolverine would be a related party based on its *** percent

interest in the Chinese producer and exporter Wolverine Tube (Shanghai), if it were in a position to exercise direct or

indirect control over Wolverine Tube (Shanghai). CR/PR at Table III-1. The record does not reflect, however, that

Wolverine is in a position to exercise direct or indirect control over Wolverine Tube (Shanghai). 

 61 CR/PR at Table III-7. 

 62 ***. Wolverine Posthearing Brief at 2. 

 63 CR/PR at Table III-7. 

 64 CR/PR at Table III-7 n.7.

 65 Wolverine Posthearing Brief at 2, see also CR at III-4-5.

12
accounted for *** percent of domestic production in 2009, and was the *** largest producer in that year.66

Its interests appear to vary between domestic production or importation at different times during the

period of investigation.67 Wolverine ***.68 Wolverine *** in view of its *** operating performance. Its

operating income as a ratio of net sales was *** the industry average ***.69 70 Therefore, we do not find

appropriate circumstances to exclude Wolverine from the domestic industry.

Cambridge-Lee is wholly owned by IUSA, a Mexican producer and exporter of SRC pipe and

tube and, therefore, Cambridge-Lee is a related party.71 ***.72 We find, however, that appropriate

circumstances do not exist to exclude Cambridge-Lee from the domestic industry. ***.73 ***.74

Moreover, Cambridge Lee accounted for *** percent of domestic production in 2009 and is, thus, the ***

domestic producer.75 Additionally, Cambridge-Lee *** in view of its *** operating performance for most

of the period. Its operating income as a ratio of net sales was *** the industry average from 2007 to 2008

and in interim 2010, and *** the average *** in 2009.76 Accordingly, we find, on balance, that

circumstances are not appropriate to exclude Cambridge-Lee from the domestic industry.

Seven other domestic producers are or may be related parties. ***.77 ***.78 ***.79 Kobe

Wieland is *** percent owned by Wieland-Werke, a German firm, which, in turn, owns an interest in the

Chinese exporter Wolverine Tube (Shanghai).80 Mueller is an equity participant in the joint venture

Jiangsu Mueller-Xingrong Copper, a Chinese exporter.81 Precision Tube is a sister company of Mueller,

which, as noted above, has an ownership interest in the Chinese exporter Jiangsu Mueller-Xingrong

Copper.82 

It is clear that *** are related parties by virtue of their importation of subject merchandise. The

other four producers also may be related parties by virtue of corporate relationships to, or purchases of,

subject merchandise. We need not resolve, however, the question of whether all of these seven producers

are related parties because we would not find appropriate circumstances exist to exclude any of them from

the domestic industry.

 66 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 67 ***. CR at III-10, PR at III-6 n.15. 

 68 Wolverine Posthearing Brief at 3-4.

 69 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 70 In these investigations, Commissioner Aranoff does not rely on individual company operating income margins

in assessing whether particular related parties benefit from importation of subject merchandise. Rather, she has based

her determination regarding whether to exclude related parties principally on their ratios of subject imports to

domestic shipments and on whether their primary interests lie in domestic production or importation. She finds that

appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude any company.

 71 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 72 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 73 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 74 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 75 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 76 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 77 CR/PR at Table III-7. 

 78 CR/PR at Table III-7. 

 79 CR/PR at Table III-7. ***. CR/PR at Table III-1, IV-1. ***. CR/PR at Table III-7. 

 80 CR/PR at Table III-1, III-3. Kobe Wieland ***. CR/PR at Table III-7. 

 81 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 82 CR/PR at Table III-1.

13
*** each accounted for a very small percentage of domestic production.83 Thus, neither inclusion

nor exclusion of their individual data would skew the industry data. Moreover, to the extent they

imported or purchased subject imports, their imports or purchases were small relative to their

production.84 Accordingly, their interests appear to be those of domestic producers. Moreover, they do

not appear to have derived a significant benefit from their potential related party status. *** operating

income as a ratio of net sales was below the industry average throughout the period of investigation, and

the ratios for *** were below the industry average for a majority of the period of investigation.85 

*** Mueller nor Kobe Wieland ***.86 Moreover, Kobe Wieland ***. Additionally, these

producers ***. Kobe Wieland’s operating income as a ratio of net sales was *** the industry average

***. Although the financial performance of Mueller ***,87 there is no indication that this *** resulted

from its potential related party status. Mueller and Kobe Wieland are also petitioners, further indicating

that their interests are those of domestic producers notwithstanding their potential related party status. 

Finally, purchases were equivalent to only *** percent of Howell’s production in *** and it ***.88

Moreover, Howell *** the petition.89

For the reasons stated above, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude any

domestic producer from the domestic industry. We therefore define the domestic industry to include all

domestic producers of SRC pipe and tube. 

IV. CUMULATION

For purposes of evaluating the volume and price effects for a determination of material injury by

reason of the subject imports, section 771(7)(G)(i) of the Act requires the Commission to assess

cumulatively the volume and effect of imports of the subject merchandise from all countries as to which

petitions were filed and/or investigations self-initiated by Commerce on the same day, if such imports

compete with each other and with the domestic like products in the U.S. market.90 In assessing whether

subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product,91 the Commission has

generally considered the following four factors:

(1) the degree of fungibility between the subject imports from different countries and

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

customer requirements and other quality related questions;

 83 Precision Tube accounted for *** percent of domestic production in 2009, Packless for *** percent, and ***

for *** percent, and Elkhart for *** percent. CR/PR at Table III-1. 

 84 CR/PR at Table III-7. ***. Id.

 85 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 86 CR/PR at Table III-7. Mueller accounted for *** percent of total domestic production in 2008, and Kobe

Wieland accounted for *** percent. CR/PR at Table III-1. Id.

 87 CR/PR at Table VI-2

 88 CR/PR at Table III-7. 

 89 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 90 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i).

 91 The SAA expressly states that “the new section will not affect current Commission practice under which the

statutory requirement is satisfied if there is a reasonable overlap of competition.” SAA, H.R. Rep. 103-316, vol. I at

848 (1994), citing Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898, 902 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 859

F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

14
(2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets of subject

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 the subject imports are simultaneously present in the market.92

Although no single factor is necessarily determinative, and the list of factors is not exclusive,

these factors are intended to provide the Commission with a framework for determining whether the

subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.93 Only a “reasonable

overlap” of competition is required.94

For purposes of determining if a threat of material injury exists, cumulation is discretionary. 

Under section 771(7)(H) of the Tariff Act, the Commission may “to the extent practicable” cumulatively

assess the volume and price effects of subject imports from all countries as to which petitions were filed

on the same day if the requirements for cumulation are satisfied.95 In addition to considering the four

cumulation factors described above, the Commission has considered other factors such as the similarity of

the volume trends and pricing data of subject imports from countries under investigation.96

A. Parties’ Arguments

Petitioners contend that the Commission should cumulate subject imports from China and Mexico

as there is a reasonable overlap of competition. They assert that the domestic like product and subject

imports from China and Mexico are fungible, that the geographic overlap and simultaneous presence

requirement are satisfied, and that the domestic like product and subject imports from China and Mexico

are sold through the same channels of distribution.97

IUSA and Nacobre contend that these investigations are concerned solely with threat of material

injury and, therefore, they limit their cumulation arguments to the Commission’s threat analysis. They

argue, in the context of cumulation for purposes of threat of material injury, that the subject imports are

not substantially fungible because the SRC pipe and tube from China are concentrated in industrial pipe

and tube and the SRC pipe and tube from Mexico is concentrated in plumbing pipe and tube. They also

contend that plumbing and industrial pipe and tube are generally sold through different channels of

 92 See Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-278-280

(Final), USITC Pub. 1845 (May 1986) at 8 n.29, aff’d sub nom. Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp.

898 (Ct. Int’l Trade), aff’d, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 93 See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989).

 94 See Goss Graphic System, Inc. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1087 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998) (“cumulation

does not require two products to be highly fungible”); 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.”).

 95 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(H).

 96 See Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F.Supp. at 1172 (affirming Commission’s determination not to

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

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

States, 728 F.Supp. 730, 741-42 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989); Associacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v.

United States, 704 F.Supp. 1068, 1072 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988). 

 97 Petitioners Prehearing Brief at 37-40.

15
distribution and are priced differently.98 These arguments are also relevant to the Commission’s present

material injury cumulation analysis. 

Specific to whether the Commission should exercise its discretion to cumulate subject imports if

it reaches the issue of whether a domestic industry is threatened with material injury by reason of subject

imports, IUSA and Nacobre argue that subject imports from Mexico must be assessed independently of

those from China in a threat analysis. They argue essentially that the volume and pricing trends for

subject imports from China and Mexico are separate and distinct.99 100

B. Analysis

1. Cumulation for Material Injury

In these investigations, the threshold criterion for cumulation is satisfied because the petitioners

filed the antidumping duty petitions with respect to China and Mexico on the same day. None of the

cumulation exceptions applies. Subject imports from China and Mexico are therefore eligible for

cumulation. We consequently examine whether there is a reasonable overlap of competition between

subject imports from China and Mexico, as well as among subject imports and the domestic like product.

Fungibility.

101 There appears to be a moderate to high degree of fungibility with respect to the

subject imports from China and Mexico as well as with respect to the subject imports from each source

and the domestic like product.102 The questionnaire responses indicate that market participants perceive

domestic SRC pipe and tube and subject imports to be interchangeable. A majority of responding

domestic producers, importers, and purchasers reported that the domestic product is always or frequently

interchangeable with the subject imports from each subject source and that the Chinese and Mexican SRC

pipe and tube are interchangeable with each other.103

The available data suggest that, notwithstanding the greater focus of the imports from Mexico on

plumbing tube and the greater focus of imports from China on industrial pipe and tube, the subject

imports from both China and Mexico include both plumbing and industrial pipe and tube to some degree. 

We note, moreover, as discussed with respect to conditions of competition, infra, that the share of subject

imports from Mexico consisting of industrial pipe and tube has increased late in the period examined. 

Also, as discussed in the context of the volume of subject imports, infra, it does not appear that

interchangeability is affected in any significant degree by the extent to which subject merchandise or the

domestic like product is produced by the extrusion method as opposed to the cast and roll method. 

 98 IUSA and Nacobre Prehearing Brief at 38-40. 

 99 IUSA and Nacobre Posthearing Brief at 40-41. 

 100 Luvata argues that its imports of subject merchandise should be disregarded because they displaced nonsubject

welded copper pipe and tube rather than sales of the dometic like product. Luvata Posthearing Brief at 3-5. 

Consistent with the statute, however, we include all subject imports among the cumulated imports and cumulatively

assess their volume and their impact on the U.S. industry as a whole. In short, the statute does not provide for

assessment of the impact of the imports of individual importers separately from the impact of the cumulated subject

imports. 

 101 Commissioner Lane notes that, with respect to fungibility, her analysis does not require such similarity of

products that a perfectly symmetrical fungibility is required, and she notes that 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 to 1128 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3964 (Nov.

2007).

 102 CR at II-24-25, PR at II-17-18.

 103 CR/PR at Table II-4.

16
Geographic Overlap. All responding domestic producers reported that they serve a nationwide

market.104 Official Commerce statistics show that the largest ports of entry for both the Chinese and the

Mexican imports were in Texas, with more than one-half the subject imports from China entering at

Houston-Galveston and Dallas-Fort Worth and a large majority of the subject imports from Mexico

entering the port at Laredo.105 Moreover, 11 of 33 importers reported that they serve a nationwide

market.106 Thus, although some importers sell subject imports from China or Mexico only to a limited

number of geographic regions, in the aggregate, importers sell subject imports to all geographic regions

within the continental United States.107 Accordingly, the record indicates that there was significant

geographic overlap between the subject imports from China and Mexico and between subject imports and

the domestic like product. 

Channels of Distribution. U.S. producers’ shipments and shipments of subject imports from

China and Mexico all included shipments to both distributors and end users. Over the period examined,

shipments of the domestic like product to distributors accounted for between 56 and 61 percent of total

shipments and shipments to end users accounted for between 39 and 44 percent. Subject imports from

China ranged between 5 and 57 percent to distributors and between 43 and 95 percent to end users. 

Subject imports from Mexico, on the other hand, ranged between 25 percent and 84 percent to distributors

and between 16 and 75 percent to end users.108 Accordingly, imports from each subject source and the

domestic like product overlap in channels of distribution sufficiently to support cumulation. 

Simultaneous Presence. Official import statistics show that subject imports from China and

those from Mexico have each been present in the U.S. market in each month of the period of

investigation.109

Conclusion. Although it appears that there may be limited fungibility between plumbing and

industrial pipe and tube, channel of distribution data indicate that both plumbing and industrial pipe and

tube were included among the shipments of domestic pipe and tube, subject imports from China, and

subject imports from Mexico. We find that the tube type and channel of distribution overlaps between the

subject imports from China and Mexico are sufficient to support cumulation. Accordingly, on these

bases, and because there is geographic overlap and simultaneous presence, we find that there is a

reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from China and Mexico and among subject

imports and the domestic like product. Therefore, we cumulatively assess the volume and effects of

subject imports from China and Mexico for purposes of determining whether the domestic industry is

materially injured by reason of the subject imports. 

2. Cumulation for Threat of Material Injury

Having found a reasonable overlap of competition, we consider other factors to determine

whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from China and Mexico for purposes of

assessing whether an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of subject

imports. The volume of subject imports from Mexico declined by 5.1 percent between 2007 and 2009,

while the volume of subject imports from China increased by 22.6 percent. In market share terms, subject

imports from Mexico increased somewhat from 7.6 percent in 2007 to 8.3 percent in 2008, before

declining to 6.9 percent in 2009. The market share of subject imports from China increased from 9.1

 104 CR/PR at II-1.

 105 CR/PR at Tables IV-4, IV-5.

 106 CR/PR at II-1.

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

 108 CR/PR at Table II-1. 

 109 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

17
percent in 2007 to 12.9 percent in 2008, before increasing further to 13.2 percent in 2009. A greater

convergence in the market share trends for subject imports from China in Mexico appears in the interim

period. The volume of subject imports from Mexico in interim 2010 was 45.2 percent lower than the

volume reported in interim 2009. The volume of subject imports from China was 41.8 percent lower in

interim 2010 than in interim 2009.110

Regarding the pricing data, subject imports from each country at times undersold the domestic

like product, with subject imports from Mexico underselling somewhat more frequently than did subject

imports from China. Subject imports from Mexico undersold the domestic like product in 53 of 90

quarterly comparisons, while subject imports from China primary oversold – underselling in only 43 of

91 instances.111 

While the industry in Mexico is significantly smaller than the industry in China, it has been

undergoing significant expansion.112 Both industries rely on export markets to absorb a significant share

of shipments.113 The industry in Mexico is closely intertwined with both the U.S. industry and the

industry in China. All of the reported capacity expansions in Mexico have been undertaken by producers

with related parties in the U.S. (Luvata) or in China (Golden Dragon).114

Regarding the type of SRC pipe and tube that is exported from the subject countries, we have

defined a single domestic like product consisting of all SRC pipe and tube. Respondents IUSA, Nacobre,

Cambridge-Lee, and Copper and Brass International argue that subject imports should not be cumulated

because Mexico supplied principally plumbing tube whereas China supplied predominantly industrial

tube.115 While the record shows that imports from China were mostly industrial pipe and tube and those

from Mexico were mostly for plumbing applications, there was significant and growing overlap in the

product types exported to the United States from China and Mexico. Importers reported sales of imports

from China of seven of eight pricing products for industrial applications and five of eight for plumbing

applications. Importers reported sales of imports of four products from Mexico for plumbing applications

and four products for industrial applications.116 Finally, capacity expansions in Mexico are for the

production of industrial SRC pipe and tube.117 These expansions will lead to increased overlap in subject

import product types. 

Based on the record in these investigations, on balance we find sufficient evidence to exercise our

discretion to consider the impact of subject imports cumulatively in our threat analysis. 

V. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. In General

In the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the Commission

determines whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material

 110 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 111 CR/PR at Table V-10.

 112 CR at VII-7, PR at VII-6.

 113 CR /PR at Tables VII-1, VII-4. 

 114 CR at VII-7, PR at VII-6.

 115 IUSA and Nacobre Posthearing Brief at 8. 

 116 CR at V-25-26, PR at V-12.

 117 CR at VII-7, PR at VII-5-6; CR/PR at Table VII-5. As noted above, moreover, the share of total imports from

Mexico consisting of industrial SRC pipe and tube had already increased substantially in 2009 and interim 2010.

CR/PR at Tables E-3, E-4. 

18
injury by reason of the imports under investigation.118 In making this determination, the Commission

must consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices for the domestic like product, and their

impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in the context of U.S. production

operations.119 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or

unimportant.”120 In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject

imports, we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United

States.121 No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”122

Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether the domestic industry is

“materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of” unfairly traded imports,123 it does not

define the phrase “by reason of,” indicating that this aspect of the injury analysis is left to the

Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion.124 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject

imports and material injury to the domestic industry, the Commission examines the facts of record that

relate to the significance of the volume and price effects of the subject imports and any impact of those

imports on the condition of the domestic industry. This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard

must ensure that subject imports are more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a

sufficient causal, not merely a temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.125

In many investigations, there are other economic factors at work, some or all of which may also

be having adverse effects on the domestic industry. Such economic factors might include nonsubject

imports; changes in technology, demand, or consumer tastes; competition among domestic producers; or

management decisions by domestic producers. The legislative history explains that the Commission must

examine factors other than subject imports to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other factors to

the subject imports, thereby inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the

statutory material injury threshold.126 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

 118 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b).

 119 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination” but shall “identify each {such} factor ... and explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

 120 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 121 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 122 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 123 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(a), 1673d(a).

 124 Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484-85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he statute does not

‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’d, 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1996).

 125 The Federal Circuit, in addressing the causation standard of the statute, observed that “{a}s long as its effects

are not merely incidental, tangential, or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than fair value meets the causation

requirement.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This was further ratified in

Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the Federal Circuit, quoting

Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997), stated that “this court requires evidence in

the record ‘to show that the harm occurred “by reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a minimal or

tangential contribution to material harm caused by LTFV goods.’” See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States,

458 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed.

Cir. 2001).

 126 SAA at 851-52 (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from

other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (1979) (the Commission “will consider information

which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than less-than-fair-value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47

continue...

19
isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.127 Nor does the

“by reason of” standard require that unfairly traded imports be the “principal” cause of injury or

contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors, such as nonsubject

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.128 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.129

Assessment of whether material injury to the domestic industry is “by reason of” subject imports

“does not require the Commission to address the causation issue in any particular way” as long as “the

injury to the domestic industry can reasonably be attributed to the subject imports” and the Commission

“ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”130 Indeed, the

Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid

adherence to a specific formula.”131

The Federal Circuit’s decisions in Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel all involved cases

where the relevant “other factor” was the presence in the market of significant volumes of pricecompetitive nonsubject imports. The Commission interpreted the Federal Circuit’s guidance in Bratsk as

requiring it to apply a particular additional methodology following its finding of material injury in cases

involving commodity products and a significant market presence of price-competitive nonsubject

 126 ...continue

(1979) (“in examining the overall injury being experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take into account

evidence presented to it which demonstrates that the harm attributed by the petitioner to the subsidized or dumped

imports is attributable to such other factors;” those factors include “the volume and prices of nonsubsidized imports

or imports sold at fair value, contraction in demand or changes in patterns of consumption, trade restrictive practices

of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the export

performance and productivity of the domestic industry”); accord Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877.

 127 SAA at 851-52 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by

unfair imports.”); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“{T}he

Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports ... . Rather, the

Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject

imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha de Chile AG v. United States, 180

F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“{t}he Commission is not required to isolate the effects of subject

imports from other factors contributing to injury” or make “bright-line distinctions” between the effects of subject

imports and other causes.); see also Softwood Lumber from Canada, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928

(Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 100-01 (Dec. 2003) (Commission recognized that “{i}f an alleged other factor is

found not to have or threaten to have injurious effects to the domestic industry, i.e., it is not an ‘other causal factor,’

then there is nothing to further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States,

132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the statute “does not suggest that an importer of LTFV goods can escape

countervailing duties by finding some tangential or minor cause unrelated to the LTFV goods that contributed to the

harmful effects on domestic market prices.”).

 128 S. Rep. 96-249 at 74-75; H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47.

 129 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1381 (“an affirmative material-injury determination under the statute

requires no more than a substantial-factor showing. That is, the ‘dumping’ need not be the sole or principal cause of

injury.”).

 130 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877-78; see also id. at 873 (“While the Commission may not enter an affirmative

determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of’ subject imports, the

Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that determination ... {and has} broad

discretion with respect to its choice of methodology.”) citing United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d

1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and S. Rep. 96-249 at 75.

 131 Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at

879 (“Bratsk did not read into the antidumping statute a Procrustean formula for determining whether a domestic

injury was ‘by reason’ of subject imports.”).

20
imports.132 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether nonsubject imports might have

replaced subject imports without any benefit to the U.S. industry. The Commission applied that specific

additional test in subsequent cases, including the Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad

and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

Mittal Steel clarifies that the Commission’s interpretation of Bratsk was too rigid and makes clear

that the Federal Circuit does not require the Commission to apply an additional test nor any one specific

methodology; instead, the court requires the Commission to have “evidence in the record” to “show that

the harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,” and requires that the Commission not attribute

injury from nonsubject imports or other factors to subject imports.133 Accordingly, we do not consider

ourselves required to apply the replacement/benefit test that was included in Commission opinions

subsequent to Bratsk.

The progression of Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel clarifies that, in cases involving

commodity products where price-competitive nonsubject imports are a significant factor in the U.S.

market, the Court will require the Commission to give full consideration, with adequate explanation, to

non-attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.134 135

The question of whether the material injury threshold for subject imports is satisfied

notwithstanding any injury from other factors is factual, subject to review under the substantial evidence

standard.136 Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s

institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.137

B. Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

In evaluating the volume of subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(I) of the Tariff Act provides that

the “Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that

volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, is

significant.”138

In evaluating the price effects of the subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act

provides that the Commission shall consider whether –

 132 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875-79.

 133 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 875-79 & n.2 (recognizing the

Commission’s alternative interpretation of Bratsk as a reminder to conduct a non-attribution analysis).

 134 Commissioner Lane refers to her dissenting views in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from

Brazil, China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1131 to 1134 (Final), USITC Pub. 4040

(Oct. 2008), for further discussion of Mittal Steel.

 135 To that end, after the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Bratsk, the Commission began to present published

information or send out information requests in final phase investigations to producers in nonsubject countries that

accounted for substantial shares of U.S. imports of subject merchandise (if, in fact, there were large nonsubject

import suppliers). In order to provide a more complete record for the Commission’s causation analysis, these

requests typically seek information on capacity, production, and shipments of the product under investigation in the

major source countries that export to the United States. The Commission plans to continue utilizing published or

requested information in final phase investigations in which there are substantial levels of nonsubject imports.

 136 We provide in our respective discussions of volume, price effects, and impact a full analysis of other factors

alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry.

 137 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873; Nippon Steel Corp., 458 F.3d at 1350, citing U.S. Steel Group, 96 F.3d at 1357;

S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (“The determination of the ITC with respect to causation is ... complex and difficult, and is a

matter for the judgment of the ITC.”).

 138 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

21
 (I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as

compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and

 (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant

degree.139

In examining the impact of subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that

the Commission “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the

industry.”140 These factors include output, sales, inventories, ability to raise capital, research and

development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor is dispositive and all relevant factors

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

to the affected industry.”141

C. Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(F) of the Tariff Act directs the Commission to determine whether the U.S.

industry is threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing whether “further

dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would

occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted.”142 The Commission may not make

such a determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition,” and considers the threat factors “as

a whole” in making its determination whether dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether

material injury by reason of subject imports would occur unless an order is issued.143 In making our

determination, we consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to this investigation.144

 139 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 140 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, 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 also may demonstrate that an industry is facing

difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”). 

 141 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-

TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 at 25 n.148 (Feb. 1999).

 142 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 143 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 144 These factors are as follows:

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be presented to it by the administering

authority as to the nature of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a subsidy

described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement) and whether imports of the subject merchandise

are likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the

exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional

exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise

indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports,

continue...

22
VI. CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is material injury or

threat of material injury by reason of subject imports.

A. Production Processes

The technology used in the production of SRC pipe and tube in the United States, China, and

Mexico has been evolving over the past 20 years. The most common method for producing SRC pipe and

tube historically has been the extrusion method, in which hollow billets are cast from molten copper. The

billets are later reheated and converted into rough tubes using an extrusion process. A more recent

development is the continuous horizontal cast and roll (“cast and roll”) process, which uses fewer steps by

eliminating the billet reheating and extrusion steps.145

The cast and roll process was developed by Outokumpu (now Luvata) in October 1989. The

patent expired in March 2008. The cast and roll process was introduced in China in February 1991, when

China National Technical Import and Export Corporation (now Golden Dragon) obtained licences from

Outokompu that initially limited the process to a single facility in Xiangxiang. Golden Dragon obtained

additional licenses in April 2001, for production on a new cast and roll line through March 2003, and in

December 2004 for lines in three Golden Dragon facilities. It also was granted permission to ship its

product under these licenses to market destinations worldwide.146

 144 ...continue

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) 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.

* * *

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability that there is likely to be material

injury by reason of imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually

being imported at the time).

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i). To organize our analysis, we discuss the applicable statutory threat factors using the

same volume/price/impact framework that applies to our material injury analysis. Statutory threat factors (II), (III),

(V), and (VI) are discussed in the analysis of subject import volume. Statutory threat factor (IV) is discussed in the

price effects analysis, and statutory threat factor (IX) is discussed in the impact analysis. Statutory threat factors (I)

is inapplicable as these investigations do not include a countervailing duty investigation, and factor (VII) is

inapplicable as no imports of agricultural products are involved in this investigation. No argument was made that

the domestic industry is currently engaging or will imminently engage in any efforts to develop a derivative or more

advanced version of the domestic like product, which would implicate statutory threat factor (VIII).

 145 CR at I-12-15, PR at I-11.

 146 CR at I-17-18, PR at I-13; Golden Dragon Posthearing Brief at R-18.

23
In the United States, ***.147

***.148 Mexican producer IUSA initiated construction of a cast and roll facility in 2007 and

started production trials in 2008 with equipment manufactured by Danieli & Kalamari rather than by

Outokompu.149

Although respondent parties contend that that the cast and roll method results in a better seamless

product than the extrusion method, petitioners contend that they can and do consistently meet purchasers’

specification for both industrial and plumbing SRC pipe and tube by using the cast and roll or extrusion

processes interchangeably.150

 B. Demand Conditions

SRC pipe and tube is principally used in plumbing, refrigeration, and air conditioning systems. 

Demand for SRC pipe and tube, therefore, is largely derived from residential construction, commercial

construction, and the market for air conditioning and refrigeration units. Most producers, importers, and

purchasers agree that demand for SRC pipe and tube in the United States declined over the period

examined. They also note that demand declined with increased substitution of plastic (known as PVC and

PEX) in plumbing applications, and aluminium and stainless steel pipe and tube in industrial applications,

in the place of SRC pipe and tube.151 Plastic pipe and tube is easier to install than SRC pipe and tube and

its substitution for the subject product has had a long term impact on demand for SRC pipe and tube. 

While aluminum and stainless steel pipe and tube are less desirable than SRC pipe and tube in industrial

applications owing to their lower heat transfer efficiencies, OEMs have been willing to substitute

aluminum pipe and tube in response to high copper prices in recent years.152

 When measured by apparent domestic consumption, U.S. demand declined over the period

examined from 992.5 million pounds in 2007 to 698.0 million pounds in 2009, a 29.7 percent decline, and

 147 CR at I-17, PR at I-13.

 148 CR at I-17, PR at I-13.

 149 Hearing Transcript at 257-258 (Ochoa).

 150 Golden Dragon, for instance, contends that the cast and roll method permits better control of wall thickness

along the length of the mother tube, thus permitting lighter and more consistent wall thicknesses to be drawn in the

finishing stage. It contends, moreover, that the cast and roll process also enables Golden Dragon to manufacture

smaller diameter product requiring less copper per foot. Golden Dragon Prehearing Brief at 11-12, Hearing

Transcript (Weil) at 197. Goodman maintains that it purchases subject cast and roll product because the process

results in the far fewer defects in the finished product than in those originating from the extrusion process. Hearing

Transcript (Topper) at 201.

Petitioners’ argue that there are no differences in the resulting SRC pipe and tube product whether the

mother tube is produced from the extrusion or the cast and roll processes. See, e.g., Conference Transcript (Arndt,

Hansen, and Sigloch) at 52. In fact, larger diameters can be produced only by the extrusion method. See, e.g.,

Conference Transcript (Sigloch) at 52. A witness on behalf of petitioners testified that all plumbing and industrial

pipe and tubing up to 1-5/8" outer diameters sold by domestic producer Cerro originates from both extrusion or cast

and roll technologies interchangeably, customers do not require production by a specific process, and its SRC pipe

and tube consistently meets customer specifications because a finished product manufactured to a given specification

will always be the same, no matter which prefabrication technology produces the mother tube. Hearing Transcript

(Arndt) at 39, 76. ***. Petitioners Posthearing Brief at 9 and Exhibit 6. Petitioners also contend that the defect rate

for SRC pipe and tube originating from the extrusion method is no greater than for SRC pipe and tube originating

from the cast and roll process. 

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

 152 CR at II-12-13, PR at II-8.

24
was 10.4 percent lower in interim 2010, at 341.5 million pounds, than in interim 2009, at 381.0 million

pounds.153 

 

C. Supply Conditions

The domestic industry is the largest source of supply in the U.S. market. Domestic producers’

market share was 75.8 percent in 2007, 71.3 percent in 2008, and 73.5 percent in 2009. The domestic

industry’s market share was 77.5 percent in interim 2010 compared with 72.8 percent in interim 2009.154

U.S. producers’ production capacity exceeds domestic demand.155 Fourteen domestic producers

accounted for 95 percent of U.S. SRC pipe and tube production in 2009.156 The record indicates that

some domestic producers manufacture only plumbing tube, some manufacture only industrial pipe and

tube, and some manufacture both plumbing and industrial pipe and tube.157 Mueller, Cerro, Kobe

Wieland, and Cambridge-Lee are the largest domestic producers, accounting for *** percent, *** percent,

and ***, and percent *** of reported domestic production, respectively.158 ***.159 

The market share of subject imports increased from 16.7 percent in 2007 to 21.2 percent in 2008

then declined to 20.0 percent in 2009. Their market share was 13.4 percent in interim 2010 compared

with 21.2 percent in interim 2009.160 *** and *** were the largest reporting U.S. importers of subject

SRC pipe and tube accounting for about *** percent of U.S. imports from subject sources. *** imported

over *** of subject imports from China and *** imported almost *** of subject imports from Mexico.161

Whereas industrial pipe and tube accounted for only *** percent or less of subject imports from Mexico

in 2007 and 2008, they accounted for nearly *** percent in 2009 and about *** percent in interim 2010

compared with about *** percent in interim 2009.162 Subject imports from China remained largely

concentrated in industrial SRC pipe and tube throughout the period examined. 

The market share of nonsubject imports was 7.5 percent in 2007 and 2008, 6.5 percent in 2009,

and 9.0 percent in interim 2010 compared with 6.0 percent in interim 2009.163

D. Interchangeability

There is a moderate to high degree of substitutability between the domestic like product and

subject imports.164 As noted above, market participants perceive domestic SRC pipe and tube and subject

imports to be interchangeable. A majority of reporting domestic producers, importers, and purchasers

reported that the domestic product is always or frequently interchangeable with the subject imports from

each subject source and that the Chinese and Mexican SRC pipe and tube are interchangeable with each

 153 CR/PR at Tables C-1.

 154 CR/PR at Tables C-1. 

 155 Domestic producers’ capacity was 1.2 billion pounds in 2007, 1.1 billion pounds in 2008 and 1.1 billion

pounds in 2009 and 563.5 million pounds in interim 2009 and 545.7 million pounds in interim 2010. CR/PR at

Table C-1.

 156 CR/PR at III-1. 

 157 E.g., Petitioners Postconference Brief at 13, IUSA and Nacobre Postconference Brief at 5-7.

 158 CR/PR at Table III-1. 

 159 CR at I-22, PR at I-16 n.82.

 160 CR/PR at Tables IV-5, C-1.

 161 CR/PR at II-1, CR/PR at Table IV-1.

 162 CR/PR at Tables E-3, E-4.

 163 CR/PR at Tables IV-5, C-1.

 164 See, e.g., CR at II-24-25, PR at II-17-18.

25
other.165 We note, however, as discussed above, that the interchangeability between plumbing and

industrial pipe and tube appears to be somewhat limited with respect to finished product characteristics,

channels of distribution, and the manner in which they are priced. Regarding price, as explained above,

plumbing pipe and tube is typically sold at a discount off published price lists, while commercial pipe and

tube is sold by the largest U.S. producers and importers of product from China at the prevailing COMEX

price of copper plus a fabrication charge.166

VII. MATERIAL INJURY AND THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF

SUBJECT IMPORTS167

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

United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of SRC pipe and tube from China

and Mexico that Commerce has found are sold at less than fair value. 

A. Likely Volume of the Subject Imports168

1. Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

In absolute terms, the volume of subject imports increased from 165.8 million pounds in 2007 to

182.5 million pounds in 2008, then dropped to 139.8 million pounds in 2009.169 Although the volume of

subject imports fell by 15.7 percent overall from 2007 to 2009, it rose by 10.0 percent between 2007 and

2008.170 Subject imports were 43.1 percent lower in interim 2010, at 45.9 million pounds, than in interim

2009, at 80.7 million pounds.171

The market share of subject imports increased sharply then decreased slightly during 2007-09.172

Demand declined between 2007 and 2008 as the volume of subject imports increased. Specifically,

apparent U.S. consumption decreased by 13.5 percent, whereas the volume of subject imports increased

by 10.0 percent.173 As a result, the market share held by subject imports increased from 16.7 percent in

2007 to 21.2 percent in 2008.174 From 2008 to 2009, as apparent U.S. consumption fell by 18.7 percent

and the volume of subject imports decreased by 23.4 percent, the market share held by subject imports

 165 CR/PR at Table II-4.

 166 CR at V-2-3, PR at V-2.

 167 Negligibility under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24) is not an issue in these investigations. Official statistics from

Commerce indicate that, from September 2008 to August 2009, which is the most recent 12-month period preceding

the filing of the petition for which data were available, subject imports from China accounted for 44.7 percent, and

subject imports from Mexico for 29.3 percent, of total imports of SRC pipe and tube in that period. CR at IV-12, PR

at IV-11. The volume of subject imports is thus well above the statute’s three percent negligibility level. 

 168 In its final less than fair value determinations regarding imports of SRC pipe and tube from China and Mexico,

Commerce calculated dumping margins ranging from 11.25 percent to 60.85 percent ad valorem for SRC pipe and

tube from China and ranging from 24.89 to 27.16 percent ad valorem for SRC pipe and tube from Mexico. CR at I5, PR at I-4. 

 169 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 170 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 171 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 172 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 173 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 174 CR/PR at Table C-1.

26
fell by just 1.2 percentage points, from 21.2 percent in 2008 to 20.0 percent in 2009.175 By contrast, the

domestic producers’ market share declined from 75.8 percent in 2007 to 71.3 percent in 2008 before

increasing to 73.5 percent in 2009, a level still below that in 2007.176 

We note that the market share held by subject imports was markedly lower in interim 2010, at

13.4 percent, than in interim 2009, when it was 21.2 percent.177 By contrast, domestic producers’ market

share was markedly higher in interim 2010, at 77.5 percent, than in interim 2009, when it was 72.8

percent.178 Nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption, based on quantity, was higher in

interim 2010, at 9.0 percent, than in interim 2009, at 6.0 percent.179

Notwithstanding the declines in subject import volume and market share in interim 2010, we find

the volume of subject imports during the period examined to be significant, both in absolute terms and

relative to consumption and production in the United States. We note that the declines in the volume and

market share of subject imports in interim 2010 occurred after the petitions in these investigations were

filed on September 30, 2009. Notably, the decline in subject imports in interim 2010 stands in stark

contrast to the relatively steady presence of nonsubject imports in that same time frame.180 Based on the

record evidence, we find that the decline in subject import volumes at the end of the period examined

resulted to a large extent from the pendency of these investigations.181 Absent these investigations, the

absolute and relative volumes of subject imports would likely have been greater in interim 2010.

We note that certain OEM purchasers that use industrial SRC pipe and tube in their manufacture

of HVAC systems argue that the significance of the volume of subject imports should be discounted

because certain diameters of SRC pipe and tube or certain inner groove patterns cannot be obtained in the

United States. They also claim that they import subject SRC pipe and tube from China because they

prefer to use SRC pipe and tube produced by the cast and roll method rather than SRC pipe and tube

produced by the extrusion process.182

Significantly, however, these purchasers do not argue that subject imports, by whatever method

produced, are not generally interchangeable with the domestic like product. Moreover, to the extent they

prefer to purchase cast and roll products, cast and roll SRC pipe and tube are produced by the domestic

industry, although domestic producers were limited in their ability to produce industrial SRC pipe and

tube using the cast and roll production method until 2008.183 Additionally, domestic producers are able to

produce industrial (including inner groove) pipe and tube with outside diameters up to 1-5/8", the size

 175 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 176 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 177 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 178 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 179 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 180 CR/PR at Table IV-2, IV-3. 

 181 The statutory provision governing the Commission’s treatment of post-petition information, states that:

[T]he Commission shall consider whether any change in the volume, price effects, or impact of imports of

the subject merchandise since the filing of the petition in an investigation ... is related to the pendency of

the investigation and, if so, the Commission may reduce the weight accorded to the data for the period after

the filing of the petition in making its determination of material injury, threat of material injury, or material

retardation of the establishment of an industry in the United States.

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I).

 182 See Prehearing Brief of Goodman at 5 and Appendices 1, 3; Prehearing Brief of Marubeni and Johnson at 9-

11.

 183 CR at I-15-17, PR at I-13. The combined cast and roll capacity of Cerro and Kobe Wieland is ***. CR at I17, PR at I-13.

27
range that comprises the bulk of the market, from mother tube originating from either the extrusion or the

cast and roll methodologies. The same finished product originating from mother tube made by either

technology is sold to and used by some purchasers interchangeably. Moreover, it appears that these OEM

purchasers account for a relatively small share of total HVAC system production and industrial SRC pipe

and tube consumption, that the specific 5 mm product that they claim they are required to import is a

small share of their total SRC pipe and tube requirements, that the product they import likely could be

produced in the United States (but currently is not), and that other HVAC producers, as noted above, use

domestically produced industrial SRC pipe and tube produced by both the extrusion and the cast and roll

methods.184 

2. Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

As noted above, as demand decreased from 2007 to 2008, the volume of subject imports

increased.185 As a result, the market share held by subject imports increased from 16.7 percent in 2007 to

21.2 percent in 2008, while the market share held by the domestic industry declined from 75.8 percent in

2007 to 71.3 percent in 2008.186 Nothing on the record indicates that demand will increase in the

imminent future.187 

The Commission requested data from the 14 firms that were listed in the petition as producing

SRC pipe and tube in China during the period of the investigation. The Commission received responses

from eight firms.188 Exports to the United States by these eight firms accounted for a substantial share of

SRC pipe and tube imported from China from January 2007 to June 2010.189 190 It appears, however, that

there are producers of SRC pipe and tube in China whose operations are not accounted for in the

responses of the eight firms reporting here and that, therefore, record data on the Chinese SRC pipe and

tube industry (including producers in China who have not exported to the United States) are

incomplete.191 The record does include, however, a published *** report that 18 major copper tube

manufacturers in China have a combined SRC pipe and tube capacity of 2 billion pounds per year and

 184 CR at I-15-17, PR at I-13, Petitioners Final Comments at 11-13. Even if Golden Dragon’s use of the cast and

roll method to produce the 5mm product played a role in U.S. purchasers’ sourcing decision, we note that this

product accounted for *** percent of Golden Dragon’s U.S. shipment during the period examined (Petitioners Final

Comments at 11, Golden Dragon Posthearing Brief at Attachment 3) and, thus, for ***. 

 185 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 186 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 187 See, e.g., CR/PR at Figure II-1.

 188 CR/PR at VII-3.

 189 CR/PR at Tables VII-1 & C-1. 

 190 Chairman Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences 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.” Statement of

Administrative Action (“SAA”) on Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. I at 869

(1994).

 191 U.S. importers, for instance, identified the following producers/exporters as other Chinese sources for SRC

pipe and tube: ***. CR/PR at VII-3.

28
were operating at only 35 percent of capacity early in 2009.192 This means that Chinese producers may

have had 1.30 billion pounds of unused capacity at that time. This contrasts with total capacity reported

by Chinese producer/exporters in responses to the Commission’s questionnaire of 1.2 billion pounds in

2009, and their reported excess capacity of only 12.2 percent, or 145.5 million pounds.193 

Moreover, even based on the questionnaire response data, it is clear that significant amounts of

SRC pipe and tube capacity and excess capacity are available in China that can be used to produce SRC

pipe and tube for the U.S. market. Reported Chinese capacity was 1.0 billion pounds in 2007, 1.1 billion

pounds in 2008, 1.2 billion pounds in 2009, and 644.4 million pounds in interim 2010 compared with

588.7 million pounds in interim 2009. Thus, Chinese capacity increased 17.3 percent from 2007 to 2009,

and was 9.5 percent higher in interim 2010 than in interim 2009. Chinese producers’ reported capacity

utilization rates of 88.1 percent in 2007, 82.0 percent in 2008, 87.8 percent in 2009, and 86.6 percent in

interim 2010. Accordingly, the responding Chinese producers reported 145.5 million pounds of unused

capacity in 2009.194 This unused capacity substantially exceeds China’s peak shipments to the U.S.

market of 103.4 million pounds in 2008.195 Chinese capacity is projected to increase further in 2010 and

2011.196

The capacity and excess capacity reported by Mexican producers is also substantial. The

Commission received questionnaire responses from each of the five producers of SRC pipe and tube in

Mexico from which it requested data. These firms are believed to account for *** of Mexican export

shipments to the United States in 2009.197 Capacity reported by Mexican producers increased from ***

million pounds in 2007 to *** million pounds in 2008, and to *** million pounds in 2009, a 2007-09

increase of *** percent. Capacity was *** percent higher in interim 2010, at *** million pounds, than in

interim 2009, at *** million pounds. Mexican producers’ capacity is projected to increase further in 2010

and 2011.198 Capacity utilization rates reported by the Mexican producers declined over the period

examined from *** percent in 2007, to *** percent in 2008, and to *** percent in 2009. The rate was

lower in interim 2010, at *** percent, than in interim 2009, at *** percent. Accordingly, Mexican

producers reported *** million pounds of unused capacity in 2009.199 This unused capacity substantially

exceeds Mexican producers’ peak shipments to the U.S. market of 74.8 million pounds in 2007.200 201

 192 Petitioners Postconference Brief at 4, Petitioners Prehearing Brief at Exhibit 6 (***. 

 193 CR/PR at Table VII-1.

 194 CR/PR at Table VII-1.

 195 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 196 CR/PR at Table VII-1.

 197 CR at VII-6, PR at VII-5.

 198 CR at VII-6, PR at VII-5; CR/PR at Table VII-4. 

 199 CR/PR at Table VII-1.

 200 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 201 Contributing to the actual and projected capacity increases in Mexico, Golden Dragon Affiliates opened a

plant in Monclova, Mexico at the end of September 2009 and projects capacity at the plant to be approximately ***. 

Golden Dragon’s intention in opening the facilities in Mexico was to produce the same products in Mexico that are

being produced for export to the United States by Golden Dragon’s Chinese operations to permit replacement of

U.S. imports from Golden Dragon in China with imports from Golden Dragon in Mexico. CR at VII-7, PR at VII-6. 

Another Mexican producer, Luvata Monterrey, began production in 2009 ***. Id. IUSA asserts that it is shifting its

production of plumbing pipe and tube for U.S. consumption from its operations in Mexico to its related party

producer in the United States, Cambridge-Lee, and that therefore its exports of subject merchandise from Mexico to

the United States have declined or will decline as a result. In light of the emergence of new producers in Mexico 

and declining demand conditions in the U.S. market, we find that IUSA’s shift of production from Mexico to the

United States does not mean that increased imports from Mexico (in absolute or relative terms) are not likely in the

continue...

29
Reported excess capacity for Chinese and Mexican producers combined was *** million pounds

in 2009, *** percent greater than the *** million pounds peak volume of subject imports in 2008.202

Chinese and Mexican producers’ inventories would also permit them to increase exports to the

United States. Chinese producers reported end-of-period inventories of 21.0 million pounds in 2007, 16.1

million pounds in 2008, 20.1 million pounds in 2009, 16.0 million pounds in interim 2009, and 23.9

million pounds in interim 2010.203 Mexican producers reported end-of-period inventories of *** million

pounds in 2007, *** million pounds in 2008, *** million pounds in 2009, *** million pounds in interim

2009, and *** million pounds in interim 2010.204 Accordingly, subject producers inventories, which were

equivalent to only *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2007 and *** percent in 2008, increased

to *** percent in 2009, and were *** percent in interim 2010 compared with *** percent in interim

2009.205 

Chinese and Mexican producers/exporters have incentives to increase exports to the U.S. market. 

The U.S. market is familiar to SRC pipe and tube producers in China and Mexico that have developed

channels of distribution in the United States market during the period examined and, as such, have

established relationships with a broad range of importers. The significance of those relationships is

heightened to the extent that importers in the United States are related to subject producers/exporters. For

instance, Golden Dragon and Luvata each has production operations in China and Mexico and a related

importer in the United States, and IUSA is related to the U.S. producer and importer Cambridge-Lee. 

Moreover, during 2007-09, more than one-third of the total exports of Chinese producers/exporters and

more than *** of the total exports of Mexican producers/exporters were to the United States,206 indicating

that they view the United States as an attractive export market. There is no indication in the record that

Chinese and Mexican producers, in the absence of antidumping duty orders, would find the U.S. market

any less attractive in the imminent future than they have during the period examined, during which they

increased their overall market share by 3.3 percentage points between 2007 and 2009.207 In fact, Golden

Dragon opened its plant in Mexico intending to supply product it currently ships from China, but the

capacity will remain available in its Chinese facility.208 Thus, although demand in the United States is

expected to remain low in the imminent future, Chinese and Mexican producers would likely target the

new orders for SRC pipe and tube that arise, consistent with their behavior in aggressively seeking sales

and market share gains in the United States during the period examined.209

Based on the above, we conclude that producers of SRC pipe and tube in China and Mexico have 

the ability and the incentive to increase exports of subject SRC pipe and tube. We also conclude that the

United States is a highly attractive market for Chinese and Mexican SRC pipe and tube producers as

evidenced by their increased presence in and familiarity with the U.S. market in recent years and the

 201 ...continue

imminent future, as IUSA claims. 

 202 CR/PR at Tables VII-1, VII-4, C-1. We note that these data are limited to data provided by the eight Chinese

producers that responded to the Commission’s foreign producer questionnaire.

 203 CR/PR at Table VII-1. We note that these data are limited to data provided by the eight Chinese producers

that responded to the Commission’s foreign producer questionnaire.

 204 CR/PR at Table VII-4.

 205 CR/PR at Tables IV-7, VII-1, VII-4.

 206 CR/PR at Tables VII-1, VII-4.

 207 As discussed above, official Commerce statistics indicate that subject imports have been at extremely low

levels since March 2010. CR/PR at Tables IV-4. As noted above, we find that the decline in subject imports’

market share attributable to the pendency of these investigations. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I)). 

 208 Golden Dragon Final Comments at 12, Hearing Transcript (Weil) at 153.

 209 See Petitioners Prehearing Brief at Exhibit 13 (quoting Golden Dragon’s President as stating, “[e]ven if we

lose at the final [ITC} ruling, we will continue to export to the American market and seize a larger market share....”). 

30
importance of the U.S. market among their export markets. Additionally, we note that the market share of

subject imports in the United States has increased during the period examined or remained at or near

period high levels, with the exception of interim 2010. As noted, we attribute the decline in interim 2010

to these pending investigations. We find that subject imports could easily increase at least to their peak

absolute volume in 2008. Thus, we conclude that subject import volume is likely to be significant in the

imminent future, both in absolute terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States,

and that the increase in subject imports’ market share will likely be significant.

B. Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports

1. Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

As explained above in the discussion of conditions of competition, the domestic like product and

subject imports are generally interchangeable, and price is an important consideration in purchasing

decisions.210 The Commission collected quarterly pricing data for eight SRC pipe and tube products.211

Eight U.S. producers, 13 importers of SRC pipe and tube from China, and eight importers of SRC pipe

and tube from Mexico provided usable pricing data for sales of those eight pricing products. Pricing data

reported by these firms accounted for approximately 11 percent of U.S. producers’ shipments of SRC

pipe and tube, 81 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from China, and 17 percent of U.S.

shipments of subject imports from Mexico in 2009.212 

Subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 96 of 181 quarterly pricing comparisons

by margins ranging from less than one percent to 27.6 percent.213 We note, however, that subject imports

undersold the domestic like product with far greater frequency for products that accounted for the largest

volume of imports. In fact, the 96 quarterly instances in which subject imports undersold the domestic

product accounted for approximately two-thirds (67.1 percent) of the total volume of subject imports for

the eight products used in these comparisons.214 In light of the degree of mixed underselling and

overselling, we do not find that subject imports undersold the domestic like product to a significant

degree during the period examined.215 

In examining the record for evidence that subject imports had significant price depressing effects,

we note that prices for all eight U.S.-produced SRC pipe and tube products fluctuated within a wide range

during the period examined, but increased overall from the first quarter to the last.216 Most of this price

fluctuation and increase, however, can be attributed to the cost of raw materials, which accounted for 84

percent of the COGS during the period examined, rather than the effect of subject imports.217 Prices for

U.S.-produced products 1 through 8 increased by 2.4 to 22.3 percent. Prices for products 2 and 3

imported from China decreased by 4.1 to 54.9 percent, respectively, and prices of other products

increased by 0.9 to 39.3 percent. Prices of products 5 and 6 imported from Mexico decreased by 5.7 and

 210 CR/PR at Tables II-4 & II-6. 

 211 CR at V-6, PR at V-4.

 212 CR at V-7, PR at V-4.

 213 CR/PR at Table V-7.

 214 CR/PR at Tables V-1-8. See, e.g., CR at Table V-5 (underselling in 9 of 14 comparisons of prices for the

domestic and Chinese product 5; product 5 accounts for the majority of subject imports analyzed in the quarterly

price comparison tables). 

 215 Vice Chairman Williamson finds that subject imports undersold the domestic like product to a significant

degree during the period examined. 

 216 CR/PR at Table V-9.

 217 CR at VI-5, PR at VI-1.

31
5.3 percent respectively and prices of other products increased by 5.2 to 19.1 percent.218 Accordingly, we

do not find adequate evidence on the record to find that subject imports significantly depressed the prices

of domestically produced SRC pipe and tube. 

We do not find evidence that subject imports prevented price increases that otherwise would have

occurred to a significant degree. Although the domestic industry experienced an increase in costs relative

to sales revenues in 2009,219 the increase coincided with a decline in demand that was a consequence of

conditions in the overall economy and the market for SRC pipe and tube.220 Moreover, the decline in

demand during the period examined – especially between 2008 and 2009 – made it more difficult for

domestic producers to raise prices; purchasers had less need for SRC pipe and tube and were therefore

likely less willing to pay higher prices. We also note that the domestic industry’s COGS-to-sales ratio

continued to increase in 2009 and in interim 2010 despite decreasing subject imports. Accordingly, we

are unable to find that subject imports, which fell in tandem with the downturn in demand and maintained

a relatively steady share of the market, played a significant role in the increase in the industry’s COGS-tosales ratio in 2009. For these reasons, we do not find that subject imports significantly suppressed prices

for the domestic like product in 2009. 

For the above reasons, we conclude that subject imports are not currently having a significant

adverse effect on domestic producers’ prices for SRC pipe and tube.

2. Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

We next consider the likely price effects of subject imports in the imminent future. The record

includes evidence of some underselling and aggressive marketing of low priced subject imports during the

period examined.221 As sellers of the Chinese and Mexican product attempt to increase sales of the

subject product in the United States, they are likely to increase their use of underselling and aggressive

pricing as a means of increasing market share, particularly given that SRC pipe and tube from China and

Mexico are generally substitutable and price is an important factor in purchasing decisions.222 This

underselling by subject imports is likely to increase the attractiveness of those imports to domestic

purchasers compared with domestically produced pipe. 

We find that the increasing and significant volumes of subject imports that are likely in the

imminent future in the absence of antidumping duty orders would be aggressively priced in an effort to

gain market share. Pressure on the domestic industry would be to either lower prices, or more likely, cede

volume, given the limit on the domestic industry to lower prices in the face of aggressive pricing

strategies by subject imports. While the total volume and value of confirmed lost sales and lost revenues

was not great in the context of total consumption, purchasers reported that during the period of

investigation, they switched suppliers from domestic to subject sources because of lower subject import

prices, or U.S. producers had reduced their prices in order to compete with prices of SRC pipe and tube

from China or Mexico.223 We further recognize that the raw material share of the cost of production is

significant and limits the ability of the domestic producers to lower prices.224

 218 CR/PR at Table V-9; CR at V-7, PR at V-12.

 219 COGS as a percentage of net sales increased from 90.7 percent in 2007 to 91.5 percent in 2008 and 93.5

percent in 2009. The COGS/net sales ratio was higher in interim 2010, at 94.2 percent, than in interim 2009, at 93.0

percent. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 220 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 221 E.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 - V-8, Petitioners Final Comments at 7.

 222 CR/PR at Tables II-4, II-2.

 223 See, e.g., CR at V-33-43, PR at V-14-19 (comments of representatives of ***).

 224 CR at VI-5, PR at VI-1.

32
We note that the domestic industry was not able to raise prices in interim 2010 to offset higher

COGS compared with interim 2009, resulting in a higher COGS to net sales ratio in interim 2010 than in

interim 2009.225 This suggests that the domestic industry will have little flexibility to compete

aggressively with subject imports on price. For these reasons, we conclude that the domestic industry is

likely to cede market to the subject imports.

We conclude that, in the imminent future, increased quantities of subject imports, that are

aggressively priced in an effort to gain market share would cause the domestic industry to cede market

share as well as experience some price suppression in a market that will likely remain characterized by

severely depressed demand. As subject imports cause domestic sales volumes and prices to deteriorate

and per-unit costs to increase, the domestic industry would likely experience adverse price effects through

higher unit costs, compressed margins, and some price suppression as well.

C. Likely Impact of the Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry

1. Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

As discussed above, apparent U.S. consumption of SRC pipe and tube declined over the period

examined.226 Many indicators of the domestic industry’s performance declined in the same manner,

including production,227 capacity,228 capacity utilization,229 shipments,230 net sales,231 operating income and

operating margins,232 and employment.233 Although most of the industry’s performance indicators were

down sharply in 2009 compared with 2007, we are not able to conclude that these declines were

significantly linked to subject imports rather than declines in demand. Although capital expenditures

 225 As noted above, COGS as a percentage of sales was higher in interim 2010, at 94.2 percent, than in interim

2009, at 93.0 percent. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 226 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 227 The domestic industry’s production declined 31.9 percent between 2007 and 2009. Its production was 781.1

million pounds in 2007, 640.0 million pounds in 2008, 531.6 million pounds in 2009. Production was 284.8 million

pounds in interim 2009 and 296.1 million pounds in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 228 The domestic industry’s capacity declined 8.3 percent overall between 2007 and 2009. Its capacity was 1.223

billion pounds in 2007, 1.121 billion pounds in 2008, and 1.123 billion pounds in 2009. Capacity was 563.5 

million pounds in interim 2009 and 545.7 million pounds in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 229 The domestic industry’s capacity utilization declined by 16.5 percentage points between 2007 and 2009. Its

capacity utilization was 63.8 percent in 2007, 57.1 percent in 2008, and 47.3 percent in 2009. Capacity utilization

was 50.5 percent in interim 2009 and 54.3 percent in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 230 U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments declined by 31.9 percent between 2007 and 2009. Their domestic shipments

were 752.5 million pounds in 2007, 612.0 million pounds in 2008, and 512.8 million pounds in 2009. Shipments

were 277.3 million pounds in interim 2009 and 264.7 million pounds in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 231 The domestic industry’s net sales, by value, declined 48.3 percent between 2007 and 2009. Its net sales

totaled $3.151 billion in 2007, $2.762 billion in 2008, and $1.630 billion in 2009. Net sales totaled $748.3 million

in interim 2009 and $1.162 billion in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 232 The domestic industry’s operating income declined by 79.6 percent overall between 2007 and 2009. Its

operating income totaled $219.9 million in 2007, $167.4 million in 2008, and $44.9 million in 2009. Operating

income was $21.9 million in interim 2009 and $34.2 million in interim 2010. As a ratio to net sales, the domestic

industry’s operating income was 7.0 percent in 2007, 6.1 percent in 2008, and 2.8 percent in 2009. It was 2.9

percent in interim 2009 and interim 2010. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 233 Production and related workers (“PRWs”) were 3,644 in 2007, 3,303 in 2008, 2,902 in 2009, 2,962 in interim

2009, and 2,668 in interim 2010. Hours worked by PRWs were 7.8 million 2007, 7.0 million in 2008, 5.9 million in

2009, 3.1 million in interim 2009, and 2.8 million in interim 2010. Worker productivity (in pounds per hour) was

100.1 in 2007, 91.6 in 2008, 90.5 in 2009, 93.1 in interim 2009, and 105.3 in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table C-1.

33
declined overall during the period examined, we note that the industry was able to undertake significant

capital expenditures.234 Cerro and Kobe Wieland, which reported ***, engaged in significant

modernization programs during the period examined, including, as discussed above, the development of

production using cast and roll technology.235 As noted above, the domestic industry experienced modest

improvement in many of its performance indicators in interim 2010.236 

Accordingly, we do not find that the domestic industry producing SRC pipe and tube was

materially injured by reason of subject imports during the period examined.

2. Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

 As discussed above, we do not find the domestic industry to be currently materially injured by

reason of subject imports. We do, however, find that, in light of the substantial declines in the industry’s

performance as summarized above, the industry is in a vulnerable condition. Increasing this vulnerability

are the industry’s relatively recent and substantial capital expenditures in cast and roll technology. ***

has not yet achieved the ***.237 In the absence of any indication that demand for SRC pipe and tube will

increase significantly, the domestic industry is unlikely to perform well in the near term. As a result, even

relatively modest volumes of subject imports have the potential to cause significant adverse consequences

for the domestic industry. 

The state of the domestic SRC pipe and tube industry toward the end of the period examined

(2009 and interim 2010) weighs heavily in our consideration of the likely impact of subject imports in the

imminent future. As discussed above, the industry’s performance in 2009 declined substantially in terms

of production, shipments, net sales, unit COGS, operating income, and operating margins. The industry

experienced overall declines in these performance indicators between 2007 and 2009 and only a moderate

recovery in interim 2010.238

The current state of the domestic industry is primarily attributable to the sudden drop in demand

that began in 2008. Looking forward, the conditions that drove demand and domestic prices upward in

2008 are not likely to recur in the imminent future. Rather, demand is likely to remain anemic in the

imminent future.239

We evaluate the likely effects of the significant volume of aggressively priced subject imports

from China on the domestic industry in the imminent future in light of these market conditions. In the

absence of antidumping duty relief, we conclude that the likely increasing and significant volumes of

subject imports would be priced aggressively enough to gain sales at the expense of domestic producers. 

Consequently, the domestic industry would likely experience declines in production, market share,

capacity utilization, and shipments. The domestic industry would also likely experience lower

employment levels, net sales, operating income, and profitability. Accordingly, we find that there is a

likely causal relationship between the subject imports and an imminent adverse impact on the domestic

industry. 

 We have considered whether other factors would likely have an imminent adverse impact on the

domestic industry. As noted, we recognize the impact of the decline in demand for SRC pipe and tube

 234 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 235 CR at VI-7-8, PR at VI-4.

 236 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 237 CR/PR at Table III-3.

 238 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 239 CR/PR at Figure II-1. The substitution of plastic in plumbing applications and aluminum and stainless steel

pipe and tube in industrial applications reportedly occurred during the period examined in part because of increased

copper prices. CR at II-12-13, PR at II-8-9. If copper prices reach similarly high levels in the near future, such

substitution may accelerate. 

34
after 2008 on the domestic industry’s performance. Although demand is likely to remain at depressed

levels in the imminent future, it is not likely to decline further from present levels. Accordingly, the

likely further declines in the domestic industry’s production, market share, capacity utilization,

shipments, employment levels, productivity, and operating income will come as a result of subject

imports gaining market share rather than as a result of continued or renewed declines in demand. 

We also recognize that nonsubject imports were a factor in the U.S. market during the period

examined. Subject imports, however, gained market share from the domestic industry from 2007 to 2009,

while the market share of nonsubject imports declined in that period. Moreover, in interim 2010, when

subject imports lost market share following the filing of the petitions in these investigations, the domestic

industry’s market share increased by 4.7 percentage points, whereas nonsubject imports increased by only

3.0 percentage points.240 We note that the domestic industry’s condition improved to some extent, as

discussed above, in interim 2010.241 Accordingly, the presence of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market

does not alter our finding that, in the absence of the restraining effect of antidumping duty orders, the

subject imports will have a significant adverse impact on the performance of the domestic industry. 

We conclude that a significant volume of less-than-fair-value imports from China and Mexico

would likely gain additional U.S. market share in the imminent future and lead to material injury to the

vulnerable domestic industry by reason of subject imports in the absence of antidumping duty relief. 

Accordingly, we determine that the domestic industry is threatened with material injury by reason of

subject imports from China and Mexico. 

We further determine, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)(4)(B), that we would not have found

material injury but for the suspension of liquidation of subject imports. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record in these final phase investigations, we find

that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of

SRC pipe and tube from China and Mexico that Commerce has found are sold in the United States at less

than fair value. 

 240 CR/PR at Table C-1. The record data on nonsubject import prices is very limited. Those data suggests a

mixed but fairly balanced pattern of underselling and overselling compared with prices for domestically produced

product and subject imports. CR at G-3, PR at G-3; CR/PR at Tables G-1, G-2.

 241 CR/PR at Table C-1.

35
 
SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER CHARLOTTE R. LANE

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

States is materially injured by reason of imports of SRC pipe and tube from China and Mexico that

Commerce has found are sold at less than fair value. I join in parts I through IV.B.1. of the Views of the

majority. I also join in part V, Legal Framework, and part VI, Conditions of Competition. I write

separately concerning Material Injury By Reason of Subject Imports. 

Volume of the Subject Imports

The absolute volume of subject imports increased from 165.8 million pounds in 2007 to 182.5

million pounds in 2008, and then dropped to 139.8 million pounds in 2009. The increase in subject

imports between 2007 and 2008 was 10.0 percent. That increase was followed by a drop of 23.4 percent

between 2008 and 2009. Overall, between 2007 and 2009 the volume of subject imports declined by 15.7

percent. The volume of subject imports declined both absolutely and relative to apparent domestic

consumption in interim 2010, dropping to 45.9 million pounds in interim 2010 compared to 80.7 million

pounds in interim 2009.1

Because of a declining U.S. market, even though the volume of subject imports dropped between

2007 and 2009, the market share of subject imports actually increased from 16.7 percent in 2007 to 20.0

percent in 2009. By contrast, the domestic producers’ market share declined from 75.8 percent in 2007 to

73.5 percent in 2009.2

 In interim 2010 the market share of subject imports was lower, at 13.4 percent,

than in interim 2009, when it was 21.2 percent. The domestic producers gained market share in interim

2010, going from 72.8 percent to 77.5 percent.3

 Nonsubject imports also gained market share in interim

2010 over interim 2009, going from 6.0 percent to 9.0 percent.4

 

The declines in the volume and market share of subject imports in interim 2010 occurred after the

petitions in these investigations were filed on September 30, 2009. I find that the decline in subject

import volumes at the end of the period examined was due, to a significant degree, to the initiation of

these investigations. Accordingly, for the purpose of evaluating the volume of subject imports, I give less

weight to the substantial decline in volume and market share of subject imports in the latter part of 2009

and in interim 2010.5

Subject imports equaled 22.0 percent of U.S. shipments of domestic production of SRC pipe and

tube in 2007. This relationship increased to 29.8 percent in 2008. Even with a significant drop in subject

imports in 2009, they still equaled 27.3 percent of shipments of domestic SRC pipe and tube in 2009. 

This measure of relative subject imports dropped in interim 2010 as subject imports equaled 17.3 percent

 1 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 2 Id.

 3 Id.

 4 Id.

 5 The statutory provision governing the Commission’s treatment of post-petition information, states that:

[T]he Commission shall consider whether any change in the volume, price effects, or impact of imports of

the subject merchandise since the filing of the petition in an investigation ... is related to the pendency of

the investigation and, if so, the Commission may reduce the weight accorded to the data for the period after

the filing of the petition in making its determination of material injury ... 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I).

37
of shipments of domestic production.6

 Comparing the volume of subject imports to domestic production

yields similar results. Subject imports, represented 21.2 percent , 28.5 percent, 26.3 percent and 15.5

percent of domestic production in 2007, 2008, 2009, and interim 2010 respectively.7

 

I find the volume of subject imports during the period examined is significant, both in absolute

terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States. 

Price Effects of the Subject Imports

The Commission collected quarterly pricing data for eight SRC pipe and tube products.8 Pricing

data reported in questionnaire responses accounted for approximately 11 percent of U.S. shipments of

domestic SRC pipe and tube, 81 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from China, and 17 percent

of U.S. shipments of subject imports from Mexico in 2009.9

 

Subject imports from China undersold the domestic like product in 43 of 91 pricing comparisons. 

This represents underselling in 47.3 percent of the quarterly comparisons. Subject imports from Mexico

undersold the domestic like product in 53 of 90 quarterly pricing comparisons, or 58.9 percent of the

quarterly comparisons. In total, subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 96 of 181, or 53.0

percent, of the quarterly pricing comparisons.10 

These data alone indicate mixed results, but show a significant number, and a majority, of

quarterly comparisons in which there was underselling by subject imports. However, further review

of the data based on volumes for which there was underselling produces an even stronger indication that

the underselling by subject imports was significant and pervasive. 

The following table summarizes the quarters of underselling of domestic like product prices by

subject imports and the associated volumes that undersold the prices of the domestic like product. The

data for the following table are taken from Tables V-1 through V-8 in the Commission’s Final Report.

Summarizing and comparing the pricing product data by volume shows that there were

146,417,000 pounds of subject imports from China that undersold domestic like product out of a total

reported volume of Chinese subject imports of 216,947,000 pounds. Although 47.3 percent of the

quarters reflected underselling by Chinese subject imports, on the basis of volume underselling occurred

for 67.5 percent of the subject imports from China. 

Similarly, for subject imports from Mexico, there were 24,239,000 pounds that undersold

domestic like product out of a total reported subject import volume of 37,450,000 pounds. On a

volumetric basis, the underselling by subject imports from Mexico occurred for 64.7 percent of the

pricing products. 

In total, by a count of quarters of data, 53.0 percent of the quarterly pricing comparisons showed

underselling by total subject imports from China and Mexico, however, on a volumetric basis the

underselling occurred for 67.1 percent of those subject imports. 

Review of the pricing data also shows that the domestic like product was undersold by either

subject imports from China or subject imports from Mexico in approximately 66.0 percent of the 112

 6 Derived from CR/PR at Table C-1.

 7 Id.

 8 CR at V-6, PR at V-4.

 9 CR at V-7, PR at V-4.

 10 Derived from CR/PR Tables V-1 through V-8.

38
quarters of data covering the eight pricing products over three and one-half years.11 The underselling

competed against a large majority of the volumes of domestic SRC pipe and tube for which pricing data

was gathered as approximately 75.0 percent of the total volume of domestic like product reported in the

pricing data was undersold by either Chinese or Mexican subject imports.

Based on the record in these investigations, I find that subject imports undersold domestic like

product for a significant majority of volumes for which price comparisons are available. I take this

significant underselling into consideration in my evaluation of the extent to which injury to the domestic

industry is by reason of subject imports.

The domestic industry suffered from a cost-price squeeze from 2007 through 2009. This squeeze

is seen as Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) increased in 2008 and as COGS declined in 2009. In 2008 the

domestic industry was not able to increase prices as much as the increase in COGS as unit COGS

increased by $0.19 per pound while unit revenue increased by only $0.17 per pound. In 2009 the

domestic industry experienced a significant decrease in unit COGS, but its unit revenue decreased even

more as COGS dropped by $1.00 per pound and revenue dropped by $1.15 per pound. As a result of this

cost-price squeeze, gross profit fell from $0.38 per pound in 2007 to $0.36 per pound in 2008 and then

fell again to only $0.21 per pound in 2009.12 

Considering the conditions of competition, including the substitution and demand elasticities for

SRC pipe and tube, even though the demand for SRC pipe and tube dropped in 2008 and 2009, I do not

find that the decreased demand can be the sole, or even primary, cause for the inability of the domestic

industry to hold its gross profit levels in 2008 and 2009 closer to the level achieved at the beginning of

the period in 2007. Subject imports contributed significantly to the cost-price squeeze experienced by the

domestic industry. Given the availability of lower priced subject imports, it is not surprising that

purchasers would have held the line against domestic price increases for their SRC pipe and tube.

Unlike calendar years 2008 and 2009 when subject imports were increasing their market share,

the domestic industry was able to reverse the decline in gross profit in a continuing weak market and in

the face of significant increases in costs during interim 2010. From interim 2009 to interim 2010 the unit

COGS of the domestic industry increased by $1.32 per pound while its unit value of sales increased by

$1.36 per pound. The gross profit of the domestic industry increased from $0.19 per pound in interim

2009 to $0.23 per pound in interim 2010. The ability of the domestic industry to increases prices

significantly in interim 2010, even more than the substantial increase in COGS, occurred within a

continuing weak market and in the face of increases in nonsubject import market share, but, notably, also

within a period of significant decline in subject import market share. Apparent domestic consumption

was very low in interim 2010, at 341.5 million pounds compared to 381.0 million pounds in interim 2009,

a weak market that would indicate resistance to price increases. However in conjunction with that weak

market, subject imports declined to their lowest market share by far at 13.4 percent in interim 2010. The

domestic industry, which had been unable to even maintain gross profit margins at the 2007 level in 2008

and 2009 when subject import market share was increasing in a weak market, was able to reverse its costprice squeeze and increase its gross profit margin in interim 2010 in a continuing weak market, but

coincidental with a substantial decline in subject import market share. 

I find that the record clearly supports a finding that competition from unfairly traded imports that

pervasively undersold the domestic like product in significant volumes contributed substantially to the

cost-price squeeze experienced by the domestic industry during the period of investigation. Therefore, I

find that subject imports suppressed domestic prices to a significant degree, preventing domestic price

increases that otherwise would have occurred absent the low- priced, unfairly traded, subject imports. 

 11 CR/PR Tables V-1 through V-8.

 12 In interim 2009 the unit gross profit was only $0.19 per pound.

39
Likely Impact of the Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry

Almost all of the indicators of the domestic industry’s performance declined during the full years

covered by the period of investigation. The domestic industry’s production declined by 32.0 percent from

2007 to 2009, dropping from 781.1 million pounds in 2007 to 640.0 million pounds in 2008, and then to

531.6 million pounds in 2009.13 During the same period, total apparent U.S. consumption dropped by

29.7 percent. Even before the full force of the U.S. and worldwide recession was felt in 2009, U.S.

production declined by 18.1 percent in 2008. This exceeded the reduction in U.S. demand, which

dropped by only 13.5 percent in 2008. Domestic production began to pick up in interim 2010, helped by

increases in export sales by U.S. producers and the decline in subject imports. Production, which had

been 284.8 million pounds in interim 2009 (January through June), and even lower at 246.8 million

pounds in the last half of 2009, increased to 296.1 million pounds in interim 2010 (January through June). 

The production capacity of the domestic industry dropped from 1.224 billion pounds in 2007 to

1.123 billion pounds in 2009, a decrease of 8.3%. Capacity utilization dropped from 63.8 percent in 2007

to 47.3 percent in 2009. For the interim periods examined, capacity utilization was 50.5 percent in

interim 2009 and 54.3 percent in interim 2010.14

Mirroring the reduction in production, domestic shipments dropped by 18.7 percent from 2007 to

2008 and by an aggregate 31.9 percent from 2007 to 2009. The U.S. producers lost market share from

2007 to 2009 since the drop in shipments of U.S. production significantly exceeded the drop in apparent

U.S. consumption. This steep decline in the market share of domestically produced SRC pipe and tube

reversed in interim 2010. While U.S. shipments of domestic production had been declining more rapidly

than the decline in apparent U.S. consumption in 2008 and 2009, in interim 2010 domestic shipments

dropped by only 4.5 percent as compared to the 10.4 percent drop in U.S. consumption and the market

share of the domestic industry rebounded from 72.8 percent in interim 2009 to 77.5 percent in interim

2010. This increase in market share in 2010 occurred as subject imports were leaving the U.S. market

both absolutely and as measured by market share.

Domestic employment declined significantly during the period of investigation, dropping from

3,644 workers in 2007 to 2,902 workers in 2009, a decline of 20.4 percent. Hours worked dropped even

more, declining by 24.6 percent from 2007 to 2009. The slight rebound in domestic production quantities

and the increase in market share in interim 2010 was not translated into a recovery in jobs or hours

worked. The number of production workers continued to decline in interim 2010, dropping from 2,962 in

interim 2009 to 2,668 in interim 2010, a drop of 9.9 percent. Hours worked dropped in interim 2010 by

8.1 percent.15

The operating income of the domestic industry dropped from $219,878,000 in 2007 to

$44,893,000 in 2009, a decrease of 79.6 percent.16 Net income dropped slightly more, going from

$209,652,000 in 2007 to $35,285,000 in 2009, a decrease of 83.2 percent.17 Unit net operating income

dropped from $0.28 per pound in 2007 to $0.09 in 2009, a decrease of 70.0 percent. The ratio of net

operating income to sales dropped from 7.0 percent in 2007 to 2.8 percent in 2009.18 The unit net 

 13 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 14 Id.

 15 Id.

 16 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 17 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 18 CR/PR at Table C-1.

40
operating income improved to $0.12 per pound in interim 2010 and the ratio of net operating income to

sales also improved very slightly over calendar year 2009, going to 2.9 percent.

The level of capital expenditures made by the domestic industry declined from $41,162,000 in

2007 to $34,090,000 in 2009, a decline of 17.2 percent. Capital expenditures dropped more significantly

between the interim periods, going from $17,231,000 in interim 2009 to only $6,024,000 in interim 2010,

a decline of 65.0 percent.19

Cash flow generated by the domestic industry declined significantly from $247,946,000 in 2007

to $73,175,000 in 2009, a decrease of 70.5 percent.20 The return on investment earned by the domestic

industry dropped from 17.5 percent in 2007 to 15.8 percent in 2008 and then plummeted to 4.4 percent in

2009.21

Based on declines in all indicators of the operational and financial health of domestic producers

and the significant declines in employment, I find that the domestic industry suffered material injury

during the period of investigation. However, the mere existence of material injury is not the only thing

that I must determine. It is necessary to determine whether subject imports were a material contributor to

the injury. As discussed in more detail in Section V of the majority Views, in which I have joined, the

Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded

imports. Nor does the "by reason of" standard require that unfairly traded imports be the principal cause

of injury or contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors which

may be contributing to overall injury to an industry. Moreover, the existence of injury caused by other

factors does not compel a negative determination.22 

The significant decline in U.S. demand associated with an unprecedented economic depression

and a downturn in the construction and manufacturing activities, upon which demand for SRC pipe and

tube depends, contributed to injury to the domestic industry. However, that contributory factor does not

eliminate the reality that the domestic industry was, at the time of these critical economic problems, faced

with competition from significant volumes of unfairly traded subject imports. I cannot conclude that

simply because there were multiple causes of injury to the domestic industry that there is not material

injury be reason of subject imports. Therefore, I further analyze the data to determine if the record

supports a finding of material injury by reason of the subject imports during the period of investigation.

In order to determine whether a significant portion of the material injury experienced by the

domestic industry is attributable to subject imports I analyze the likely impacts during the period of

investigation if subject imports had been fairly traded in the U.S. market. For this analysis, it is necessary

to consider the conditions of competition existing for this industry. These conditions include supply and

demand conditions and certain related elasticity factors. Although the Commission has discussed some of

these conditions in the portions of the majority Views in which I have joined, I will now discuss them as

they relate to the ability of the U.S. industry to beneficially respond if subject imports had been fairly

traded in the U.S. market, albeit a declining market.

Supply conditions determine how producers can respond to an increase in demand for their

product. The same supply conditions apply whether the increase in demand is attributable to the total 

 19 Id.

 20 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 21 CR/PR at Table VI-5

 22 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1381 ("an affirmative material-injury determination under the statute

requires no more than a substantial-factor showing. That is, the ‘dumping' need not be the sole or principal cause of

injury.").

41
demand in the market or a decline in the price advantage of subject imports leading to a decline in

demand for the subject imports.

Total U.S. capacity to produce SRC pipe and tube declined slightly from 1.224 billion pounds in

2007 to 1.123 billion pounds in 2009. However, even taking this drop into consideration, the amount of

unused capacity that was available to meet additional demand for U.S. produced SRC pipe and tube

increased significantly during the period of investigation. The unused capacity was 443 million pounds in

2007 but had grown to 591 million pounds in 2009. The utilization of domestic industry capacity

declined from 63.8 percent in 2007 to only 47.3 percent in 2009.

Other supply conditions that could contribute to the domestic industry’s ability to increase

domestic sales are the inventory levels, ability to shift from other markets, and ability to shift production

from other products to SRC pipe and tube. However, given the extremely high level of unused capacity

as evidenced by the very low capacity utilization rate, I find that even without considering these other

supply conditions, the domestic industry could easily have met increased domestic orders for SRC pipe

and tube from available unused capacity throughout the period of investigation. My analysis of the

domestic supply factors indicate that the elasticity of domestic supply is high. This is consistent with the

Commission’s Final Report which suggests a domestic supply elasticity in the range of 5 to 10. 

An analysis of demand conditions considers options or alternatives that are available to

purchasers and how they are likely to respond to changes in price. The price that purchasers are able or 

willing to pay for domestic SRC pipe and tube depends on a number of factors, including the cost share of

the SRC pipe and tube in the total cost of production and market value of products that use SRC pipe and

tube, purchasers' ability to switch to imports or alternate products in lieu of paying higher domestic prices

for SRC pipe and tube.

SRC pipe and tube is mainly used either in plumbing applications or in the manufacture of

heating and air conditioning systems. SRC pipe and tube generally makes up a very small share of the

total cost of the products that it is used in. Petitioners indicated that copper plumbing represents a few

hundred dollars out of the total cost of a $100,000 house. Petitioners further estimated the cost share of

SRC pipe and tube for heating and air conditioning applications to be in the range of [1] to [11] percent.23

There are, however, some substitutes for SRC pipe and tube, including plastic pipe for plumbing and, to a

lesser degree, aluminum and stainless steel tubes for heating and air conditioning applications.24 

Considering the low cost share of SRC pipe and tube in the products in which it is used, but also

considering the availability of some substitute products in some applications, I find that the price

elasticity of demand ranges from moderately inelastic to moderately elastic. This is consistent with the

demand elasticity estimate of -0.75 to -1.25 contained in the Commission’s Final Report.25

I also look closely at the ability of purchasers to substitute imported SRC pipe and tube for

domestic pipe and tube. A high elasticity of substitution between domestic and imported SRC pipe and

tube would indicate that purchasers are likely to move to lower priced imports in response to lower prices

for those imports. This factor is important in two respects. First, to determine whether any imports,

including subject imports, would be an important factor in holding down domestic price increases. 

Secondly, a high degree of substitutability would indicate whether increases in prices of subject imports

would be likely to encourage shifts to domestic production, non-subject imports, or both.

In the prehearing Staff Report, Staff suggested that the substitution elasticities between domestic

SRC pipe and tube and subject imports was in the range of 3 to 5. A range of 3 to 5 has been historically

 23 CR at II-13, PR at II-9.

 24 CR at II-12 and 13, PR at II-9 and 10.

 25 CR at II-24, PR at II-17.

42
characterized as “high substitutability”.26 Petitioners agreed that the substitutability was “high”, but

suggested that the factor range for “high substitutability” was more appropriately 6 to 10. Golden

Dragon, on the other hand, suggested that a range of 3 to 5 was consistent with a description of “high

substitutability”. 

I find that the evidence supports a finding that there is a high degree of substitutability between

domestic SRC pipe and tube and subject imports. I use the range of 3 to 5 in my analysis, but also

consider the low end of the range suggested by the Petitioners as part of my analysis.

Taking all of the conditions of competition, including the supply, demand and substitution

elasticity factors, and the volume and price impact of subject imports, into consideration I find that lower

priced subject imports were capturing volumes from domestic SRC pipe and tube during the period of

investigation. I further find that there would have been a shift in demand away from subject imports if

they had been fairly traded. This shift would have increased demand for both nonsubject imports and

domestic SRC pipe and tube.

If prices of subject imports had been increased to reflect a fairly traded value, there would have

been a beneficial impact on the domestic industry, either in price increases, volume increases or both. I

find that the data supports a finding that the domestic industry would have benefitted through increased

prices and increased market share if subject imports had been fairly traded. This would have translated to

increased operating profits, increased return on investment, increased cash flows, and increased

employment for the domestic industry. Although there would have been some benefits to nonsubject

imports they would not have captured all of the benefits of subject imports being traded at fair prices.

Therefore, I conclude that the domestic industry would have been better off if the subject imports from

China and Mexico had been fairly traded. I find that the subject imports were a substantial factor

contributing to the material injury experienced by the domestic industry during the period of

investigation, as opposed to a merely being an "incidental, tangential, or trivial" factor.

Consequently, based on the record in these final phase investigations, I find that subject imports

had an adverse impact on the condition of the domestic industry during the period of investigation. In

particular, I find that the absolute and relative volumes of subject imports, and the increase in those

volumes, are significant and that subject imports have undersold the domestic product, and have

suppressed domestic prices to a significant degree. The significant volume of subject imports, the pattern

of consistent underselling by the subject imports, and suppression of domestic prices caused declines in

the domestic producers’ relevant economic factors over the period of investigation and declines in

employment factors.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, I find that the domestic industry producing SRC pipe and tube is

materially injured by reason of cumulated subject imports of SRC pipe and tube from China and Mexico

that are sold in the United States at less than fair value.

 26 CR at II-24, PR at II-18.

43
 
PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from a petition filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by Cerro Flow

Products, Inc. (“Cerro”), St. Louis, MO; Kobe Wieland Copper Products, LLC (“Kobe Wieland”), Pine

Hall, NC; Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc. and Mueller Copper Tube Company, Inc. (“Mueller”),

Memphis, TN, on September 30, 2009, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured

and threatened with material injury by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of seamless

refined copper pipe and tube (“SRC pipe and tube”)1

 from China and Mexico. Information relating to the

background of the investigations is provided below.2

Effective date Action

September 30, 2009 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission

investigations 

October 27, 2009 Commerce’s notice of initiation of antidumping duty investigations 

November 24, 2009 Commission’s preliminary determinations 

May 12, 2010 Commerce’s preliminary determinations

May 12, 2010 Scheduling of final phase of Commission investigations (75 FR 33330, June

11, 2010)

September 23, 2010 Commission’s hearing1

October 1, 2010 Commerce’s final determinations: Mexico (75 FR 60723), China (75 FR

60725)

October 26, 2010 Commission’s vote

November 15, 2010 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

 1 A list of witnesses that appeared at the hearing is presented in app. B.

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in

making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission--

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II)

the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States

for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only

in the context of production operations within the United States; and . . . 

 1 See the section entitled “The Subject Merchandise” in Part I of this report for a complete description of the

merchandise subject to these investigations.

 2 Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation are presented in appendix A.

I-1
may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of

imports.

Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that--

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission

shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any

increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production

or consumption in the United States is significant.

. . .

In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the

Commission shall consider whether . . . (I) there has been significant

price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the

price of domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of

imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph

(B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to

. . . 

(I) actual and potential declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (II)

factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative

effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to

raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects

on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping

investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping.

Organization of the Report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, dumping margins, and

domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of competition and other

relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the U.S. industry, including

data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Parts IV and V present the

volume of subject imports and pricing of domestic and imported products, respectively. Part VI presents

information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. Part VII presents the statutory requirements

and information obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat of material

injury as well as information regarding nonsubject countries.

I-2
U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

SRC pipe and tube generally involve fluids under pressure, either for conveyance or closed-loop

thermal transfer applications. The leading U.S. producers of SRC pipe and tube are Mueller and Cerro,

while leading producers of SRC pipe and tube outside the United States include Golden Dragon Precise

Copper Tube (“Golden Dragon”) and Zhejiang Hailiang Copper (“Hailiang”) of China and IUSA, S.A. de

C.V. (“IUSA”) and Nacional de Cobre of Mexico (“Nacobre”). The leading U.S. importer of SRC pipe

and tube from China is Golden Dragon Copper U.S.A. (“GD Copper (U.S.)”), while the leading importer

of SRC pipe and tube from Mexico is Cambridge-Lee Industries (“Cambridge-Lee”). Leading importers

of SRC pipe and tube from nonsubject countries include Nordyne, LLC (“Nordyne”) and Marubeni

America Corporation (“Marubeni”). The leading purchasers include Wolverine Tube Inc. (“Wolverine”)

and Carrier Corporation (“Carrier”).

 Apparent U.S. consumption of SRC pipe and tube totaled approximately 698 million pounds

($2.1 billion) in 2009. Currently, 14 firms are known to produce SRC pipe and tube in the United States. 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of SRC pipe and tube totaled approximately 513 million pounds ($1.6

billion) in 2009, and accounted for 73.5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 76.0

percent by value. U.S. imports from subject sources totaled approximately 140 million pounds ($375

million) in 2009 and accounted for 20.0 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and

17.8 percent by value. U.S. imports from nonsubject sources totaled approximately 45 million pounds

($132 million) in 2009 and accounted for 6.5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and

6.3 percent by value.

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in these investigations is presented in appendix C. Except as noted,

U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of 14 firms that accounted for 95 percent of U.S.

production of SRC pipe and tube during 2009. U.S. import data are based on official import statistics of

Commerce.3

 Data regarding the Chinese industry are based on eight foreign producer questionnaire

responses, and data regarding the Mexican industry are based on five foreign producer questionnaire

responses, while information with respect to other foreign industries is drawn from questionnaire

responses and public sources.

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS 

SRC pipe and tube has not been the subject of any prior countervailing or antidumping duty

investigations in the United States.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SALES AT LTFV

On October 1, 2010, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register setting forth its final

determinations with regard to its antidumping investigations on SRC pipe and tube from China4

 and

 3 Table C-2 presents U.S. import data for China and Mexico based on the questionnaire responses of 42 firms and

U.S. import data for nonsubject sources based on official import statistics of Commerce. Table C-3 presents U.S.

industry data, excluding Wolverine, based on questionnaire responses and official import statistics of Commerce.

 4 Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 60725, October 1, 2010.

I-3
Mexico.5

 Commerce determined that imports from China and Mexico are being sold, or likely to be sold,

in the United States at less than fair value. The weighted-average final dumping margins (in percent ad

valorem), as reported by Commerce, are presented in the following tabulation: 

Exporter Producer

Margin

(percent)

China

Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube

Group, Inc.

Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube

Group, Inc.

11.25

Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd.; Hong Kong

Hailiang Metal Trading Limited; Shanghai

Hailiang Copper Co., Ltd.

Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd.; Shanghai

Hailiang Copper Co., Ltd.

60.85

Zhejiang Naile Copper Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Naile Copper Co., Ltd. 36.05

Zhejiang Jiahe Pipes Inc. Zhejiang Jiahe Pipes Inc. 36.05

Luvata Tube (Zhongshan) Ltd. Luvata Tube (Zhongshan) Ltd. 36.05

Luvata Tube (Zhongshan) Ltd. Luvata Alltop(Zhongshan) Ltd. 36.05

Luvata Alltop(Zhongshan) Ltd. Luvata Alltop(Zhongshan) Ltd. 36.05

Ningbo Jintian Copper Tube Co. Ltd. Ningbo Jintian Copper Tube Co. Ltd. 36.05

All others 60.85

Mexico

IUSA S.A. de C.V 24.89

Nacional de Cobre, S.A. de C.V. 31.43

All others 28.16

Source: 75 FR 60723 and 75 FR 60725.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations as follows:

all copper pipe and tube, including redraw hollows, greater than or equal to 6 inches (152.4 mm)

in length and measuring less than 12.130 inches (308.102 mm) (actual) in outside diameter

(“OD”), regardless of wall thickness, bore (e.g., smooth, enhanced with inner-grooves or ridges),

manufacturing process (e.g., hot finished, cold-drawn, annealed), outer surface (e.g., plain or

enhanced with grooves, ridges, fins, gills), end finish (e.g., plain end, swaged end, flared end,

expanded end, crimped end, threaded), coating (e.g., plastic, paint), insulation, attachments (e.g.,

 5 Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,

75 FR 60723, October 1, 2010. 

I-4
plain, capped, plugged, with compression or other fitting), or physical configuration (e.g.,

straight, coiled, bent, wound on spools). The scope of these investigations covers, but is not

limited to, copper pipe and tube produced or comparable to the ASTM-B42, ASTM-B68, ASTMB75, ASTM-B88, ASTM-B88M, ASTM-B188, ASTM-B251, ASTM-B251M, ASTM-B280, ASTMB302, ASTM-B306, ASTM-B359, ASTM-B743, ASTM-B819, and ASTM-B903 specifications and

meeting the physical parameters described therein. Also included within the scope are all sets of

covered products, including “line sets” of copper pipe and tube (with or without fittings or

insulation) suitable for connecting an outdoor air conditioner or heat pump to an indoor

evaporator unit. The phrase “all sets of covered products” denotes any combination of items put

up for sale that is comprised of merchandise subject to the scope. “Refined copper” is defined

as: (1) metal containing at least 99.85 percent by weight of copper; or (2) metal containing at

least 97.5 percent by weight of copper, provided that the content by weight of any other element

does not exceed the following limits: 

ELEMENT LIMITING CONTENT PERCENT BY WEIGHT

Ag - Silver 0.25

As - Arsenic 0.5

Cd - Cadmium 1.3

Cr - Chromium 1.4

Mg - Magnesium 0.8

Pb - Lead 1.5

S - Sulfur 0.7

Sn - Tin 0.8

Te - Tellurium 0.8

Zn - Zinc 1.0

Zr - Zirconium 0.3

Other elements (each) 0.3

Excluded from the scope are all seamless circular hollows of refined copper less than 12 inches

in length whose OD (actual) exceeds its length. The products subject to these investigations are

currently classifiable under subheadings 7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090 of the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). Products subject to these investigations may also

enter under HTSUS subheadings 7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 8415.90.8065, and

8415.90.8085.6

Tariff Treatment

SRC pipe and tube is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) under subheading 7411.10.10 (statistical reporting numbers 7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090). 

SRC pipe and tube may also be imported under HTS subheading 7407.10.15 (refined copper hollow

profiles) or statistical reporting numbers 7419.99.5050 (which also contains various other products of

refined copper and copper alloys), 8415.90.8065 (which also contains parts other than SRC pipe and tube,

for heat pumps), and 8415.90.8085 (which also contains parts other than SRC pipe and tube, including

those of other air conditioning machinery). Current tariff rates for SRC pipe and tube are presented in

appendix D. Imports of SRC pipe and tube from countries (including China) that qualify for normal trade

 6 Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,

75 FR 60723, October 1, 2010. 

I-5
relations are eligible to enter the United States at general duty rates of 1.5 percent ad valorem under HTS

subheading 7411.10.10, 3.0 percent under HTS subheading 7407.10.15, or 1.4 percent under HTS

subheading 8415.90.80; whereas such imports under HTS subheading 7419.99.50 can enter the United

States free of duty. Imports of SRC pipe and tube from Mexico that are originating goods under HTS

general note 12 are eligible to enter the United States under these HTS subheadings at the “free” special

duty rate, as Mexico is a party to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

THE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

SRC pipe and tube are fabricated products7

 of high-purity copper,8 distinguished by a circular

cross section of varying nominal sizes (typically 0.04"–12")9

 and wall thicknesses.10 The inner and outer

tubing surfaces are either smooth or enhanced (e.g., with grooves, ridges, fins, or gills).11 Depending

upon the requirements of industry standards or customers' specifications, additional characteristics can

include: outer surface coatings (e.g., paint, plastics, or other coating materials) for corrosion protection or

insulation; marking with paint or plastic color coding for product identification; cleaning, pressurizing

with nitrogen gas, and capping of each end to assure interior cleanliness; end finishes (e.g., plain, swaged,

flared, expanded, crimped, or threaded); and attachments (e.g., plain, capped, or plugged).12 SRC pipe

and tube is available in straight lengths, bent to shape, coiled flat without spools (“pancake coils”), or

coiled onto spools.13 “Line sets” consist of two different sizes of SRC pipe and tube, a smaller-diameter

liquid line (commonly with end finishes) and a larger-diameter suction line (commonly insulated), usually

to connect outdoor air conditioners and heat pumps with indoor evaporator units.14

End-use applications for SRC pipe and tube take advantage of copper’s strength, malleability,

ductility (i.e., readily bent or formed), thermal conductivity, resistance to corrosion and fouling, and

chemical (e.g., lead-free) purity.15 SRC pipe and tube applications generally involve fluids under

pressure, either for conveyance or closed-loop thermal transfer. Conveyance applications include

residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, and municipal water systems, as well as distribution

systems for other liquids and gasses. Thermal transfer applications include residential, commercial,

 7 SRC pipe and tube producers distinguish between “tubes” with smooth ends and joined together by soldering or

brazing, versus “pipes” that are threaded. Almost all products considered in these investigations are tubes rather

than pipes. Conference transcript, p. 63 (Hansen).

 8 “Refined copper” contains either 1) at least 99.85 percent by weight of copper or 2) at least 97.5 percent by

weight of copper with the content of other elements not exceeding specific percentage weight limits listed in Note

1(a) to Chapter 74, Copper and Related Articles, HTS (2010 Rev. 2). Amendments to petition (October 13, 2009),

exhibit D.

 9

 Capillary tube is available with actual outside diameters (“ODs”) less than 0.04". The nominal size of 12" is

equivalent to an OD of 12.130" (the upper width limit in the petition scope), or more specifically an actual OD of

12.125" with a tolerance of ± 0.005". Counsel for petitioners, e-mail correspondence with Commission staff,

November 3, 2009; and amendments to petition (October 16, 2009), exhibit #51.

 10 Petition, p. 12.

 11 Petition, p. 10.

 12 Petition, pp. 10, 12-13.

 13 Petition, pp. 10 and 12.

 14 Petition, p. 10; and amendments to petition (October 13, 2009), p. 4.

 15 Amendments to petition (October 13, 2009), p. 5.

I-6
institutional, and industrial heating systems; commercial refrigeration systems (e.g., refrigerated display

cases for frozen food in grocery stores); and combined or split-unit air-conditioning systems.16

“Plumbing” (or “standard”) tubing is commonly produced to various standards of the American

Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”). The ASTM designations specify the chemical composition,

outside diameter, wall thickness, strength, hardness, cleanliness, roundness, marking, and other

requirements for SRC pipe and tube, based on end-use applications.17

“Commercial” (or “industrial”) tubing is produced to either industry standard (e.g., ASTM)

specifications or customer (including original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”)) nonstandard

specifications, including any surface enhancements (e.g., grooves, ridges, fins, or gills) designed to

enhance thermal transfer capabilities.18 For example, customer specifications are often based on ASTM

standards to which are added further requirements such as custom dimensions, temper, or packaging.19

Petitioners provided examples of customer product specifications ***.20 Individual OEM purchasers,

such as Goodman Global (“Goodman”), may require more exacting specifications for the industrial tubing

that it purchases compared to plumbing tubing, the latter being regarded more as a commodity product.21

Common applications for commercial SRC pipe and tube include refrigeration and heating units; splitsystem central, room and window, central, and vehicle air conditioners; and chillers and freezers.22

Applicable ASTM designations for SRC pipe and tube and specific end-use applications are listed

in table I-1. Common pipe and tube designations, relevant ASTM standards, and end-use applications are

presented in table I-2.

 16 Petition, p. 11.

 17 Petition, pp. 11-12.

 18 Petition, p. 12.

 19 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, p. 14; and conference transcript, pp. 19-20 (Sigloch).

 20 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 8 and ***.

 21 Respondent’s prehearing brief (Goodman), p. 4.

 22 Petition, p. 12.

I-7
Table I-1

SRC pipe and tube: American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard designations,

titles, and specified end-use applications

ASTM

designation Title Specified end-use applications

B-42 Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Pipe,

Standard Sizes

Plumbing and boiler feed lines

B-68 Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Tube,

Bright Annealed

Refrigeration, oil lines, gasoline lines, and

other applications requiring interior

surfaces free of scale and dirt

B-75 Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Tube General engineering applications

B-88 Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Water Tube Water and fire-sprinkler systems

B-88M Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Water Tube

(Metric)

Water and fire-sprinkler systems

B-188 Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Bus Pipe

and Tube

Electrical conductors

B-251 Standard Specification for Wrought Seamless Copper

and Copper-Alloy Tube

Applications listed in ASTM B-68 and

ASTM B-75

B-251M Standard Specification for General Requirements for

Wrought Seamless Copper and Copper-Alloy Tube

(Metric)

Applications listed in ASTM B-68 and

ASTM B-75

B-280 Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Tube for Air

Conditioning and Refrigeration Field Service

Air conditioning and refrigeration units

B-302 Standard Specification for Threadless Copper Pipe Assembled piping systems

B-306 Standard Specification for Copper Drainage Tube (DWV) Sanitary drainage, waste, and vent piping

B-359 Standard Specification for Copper and Copper-Alloy

Seamless Condenser and Heat Exchanger Tubes With

Integral Fins

Surface condensers, evaporators, and

heat exchangers

B-743 Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Tube in

Coils

Refrigeration, air conditioning, and oil

lines

B-819 Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Tube for

Medical Gas Systems

Medical gas systems requiring specially

cleaned interior surfaces

B-903 Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Tube for

Heat Exchanger Tubes with Internal Enhancement

Refrigeration, air conditioning, and other

heat exchangers

Source: Petition, p. 10 and exhibits 8-18; amendments to petition (October 13, 2009), p. 3 and exhibits B-C; and amendments to

petition (October 16, 2009), exhibits 51-53.

I-8
Table I-2

SRC pipe and tube: Designations, color codes, standards, applications, sizes, tempers, and

lengths

Designation

Color

Code ASTM Applications

Commercially available lengths

Size Drawn Annealed

Type K

(thicker

walled1

)

Green B-88 Water service and distribution

Fire protection

Solar energy

Fuel and fuel oil

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning

Snow melting

Compressed air

Natural gas

Liquified petroleum gas

Vacuums

Straight lengths:

1⁄4”–8" 20' 20'

10" 18' 18'

12" 12' 12'

Coils:

1⁄4”–1"

— 60'

— 100'

11⁄4”–11⁄2” — 60'

2"

— 40'

— 45'

Type L

(intermediate

walled1

)

Blue B-88 Water service and distribution

Fire protection

Solar energy

Fuel and fuel oil

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning

Snow melting

Compressed air

Natural gas

Liquified petroleum gas

Vacuums

Straight lengths:

1⁄4"–10" 20' 20'

12" 18' 18'

Coils:

1⁄4"–1"

— 60'

— 100'

11⁄4"–11⁄2" — 60'

2"

— 40'

— 45'

Type M

(thinner

walled1

)

Red B-88 Water service and distribution

Fire protection

Solar energy

Fuel and fuel oil

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning

Snow melting

Vacuums

Straight lengths:

1⁄4"–12" 20' —

DWV Yellow B-306 Drain, waste, vent

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning

Solar energy

Straight lengths:

1⁄4"–8" 20' —

ACR/RST Blue B-280 Air conditioning

Refrigeration

Natural gas

Liquified petroleum gas

Compressed air

Straight lengths:

d”–4c” 20' (2

)

Coils:

c“–1e“ — 50'

OXY/MED (K) Green

(L) Blue

B-819 Medical gasses

Compressed air

Vacuums

Straight lengths:

1⁄4"–8" 20' —

1

 Wall thicknesses differ for Types K, L, and M plumbing pipes having a common nominal diameter, being greater for

Type K than for Type L, and lesser for Type M than for Type L. 2

 Available by special order.

Source: Petition, p. 12; and Copper Development Association (CDA), “Table 1, Copper Tube: Types, Standards, Applications,

Tempers, Lengths,” The Copper Tube Handbook, 2006, p. 20.

I-9
Manufacturing Processes23

The steps for producing SRC pipe and tube can be grouped into three stages: (1) prefabricating,

which includes melting, casting, and either extrusion or rolling of rough tubing; (2) intermediate

fabrication, consisting of cold drawing of unfinished tubing; and (3) finishing of the SRC pipe and tube.24

The starting material is metallic copper in the form of sections cut from refined cathodes (“primary

copper”), scrap (“secondary copper”), or ingots. The exact input mix depends on the cost and availability

of the various forms of copper, technical capabilities of the melting furnace, and customer specifications. 

Primary copper is purchased from copper producers that electrolytically refine blister copper from

smelting furnaces into plate-shaped copper cathodes of at least 99.95 percent purity. Secondary copper is

a mix of recycled (“old”) scrap bales consisting of copper wire and tubing recovered from demolished or

renovated structures and “home or runaround” (“new”) scrap returned from downstream production steps

within the SRC pipe and tube mill. Brick-shaped copper ingots, cast from melted-down cathode sections

and scrap, are more commonly consumed by pipe and tube mills with smaller-scale melting furnaces with

doors that cannot accommodate cathode sections and baled scrap. According to an OEM purchaser, SRC

pipe and tube facilities can use a significant share of scrap in their input mix to manufacture plumbing

tubing, as the specifications for plumbing tubing are not as exacting as those for industrial tubing.25 Two

OEM purchasers, Goodman and Johnson Controls, reported that they require that the industrial tubing

they purchase be of high-purity copper or even be manufactured solely from cathode copper.26

Prefabricating

The production process begins with melting and refining of copper in a furnace to produce molten

copper. A shaft furnace is adequate to melt high-purity cathodes, new scrap, and ingots into molten

copper that does not need further refining. Alternatively, inclusion of less-pure old scrap in the initial

furnace charge requires a reverberatory or other hearth-type furnace that allows for further refining of the

molten copper. The copper charge is melted at temperatures between 2,300"

–2,400" F (above the melting

point of copper at 1,981"

 F) and fire-refined by exposure to oxygen. Most impurities are converted into

oxides that are trapped in the surface slag, whereas less-readily oxidized impurities (especially tin and

nickel) must be removed by reaction with a special slag compound. The molten copper is stirred with

greenwood poles (“poling”), which burn and vaporize to create a stirring action that drives the

conversions to completion. The molten copper is sampled periodically to monitor the progress of

refining. After the surface slag is skimmed off, the fire-refined melt exceeds 99.9 percent pure copper,

similar to fire-refined primary copper smelted from ore. Phosphorous is added to deoxidize the molten

copper to produce “phosphorous-deoxidized, high residual phosphorus copper” (DHP, standard

designation UNS C12200).27

 23 This section is compiled from the petition, pp. 13-19; conference, petitioners’ exhibits 5-7; field notes, October

14, 2009; Rainer Hergemoeller, “Modern Production Methods for High Volume Copper Tube Manufacturing,”

TubeNet; e-mail correspondence of Commission staff with counsel for petitioners, November 2 and 3, 2009; and

field notes, July 30, 2010.

 24 Conference, petitioners’ exhibits 5-7.

 25 Respondent’s prehearing brief (Goodman), p. 4.

 26 Respondent’s prehearing brief (Goodman), p. 4; and hearing transcript, pp. 234-235 (Smith).

 27 The Unified Numbering System (UNS) for Metals and Alloys is the standard designation and identification

system in North America. The “C” indicates “copper” and the following five digits identify the specific pure or

alloyed copper. UNS C12200 is the standard designation for DHP that contains a minimum of 99.9 percent copper

(including silver) and 0.015–0.040 phosphorous. Copper Development Association (CDA), “CDA UNS Standard

continue...

I-10
In the casting step, the molten copper is transferred from the melting/refining furnace to either a

holding furnace or tundish (reservoir dam) that is heated to maintain the molten copper at constant

temperature for casting. The surface of the molten copper is protected from oxidation by a layer of

pulverized graphite. The SRC pipe and tube industry relies on three different technologies for casting

molten copper into unfabricated forms. “Continuous casting” and “semi-continuous casting” are both

well-established technologies for producing large-diameter solid “logs” or thick-walled hollow “tube

rounds.” In the continuous casting process, molten metal flows into vertical graphite-lined cylindrical

steel molds, that are water-cooled to quickly solidify the copper, which is gripped and withdrawn from

the bottom as more molten copper is poured into the top of the mold. Some mills utilize casting molds

with a central water-cooled core to produce a tube round. A moving saw cuts the withdrawn log or tube

round into billets, approximately two- to four-feet long, to fit the downstream extrusion or rolling

equipment. In the semi-continuous casting process, a water-cooled floor of the mold cavity seals the

vertical mold until the molten copper solidifies. More molten copper is poured into the top of the mold at

the same rate as the floor is lowered. When the log or tube round reaches the depth of the pit beneath the

mold, the mold is (and central core are) raised to allow the log or tube round to be removed from the pit

for sawing into shorter solid or hollow billets, respectively.

The billet is preheated (to approximately 1,535"

 F) before being placed in an horizontal extrusion

press. The press includes a ram fitted with a dummy block (that is smaller in diameter than the billet),

and a rod slightly smaller in diameter than that of the die opening, if the billet was either cast hollow or

already pierced (or alternatively a piercing mandrel, if the billet is still solid).28 The ram forces the heated

copper over the rod (or mandrel) and through the die to form a long rough tube. Material that

accumulates over the dummy block is removed for remelting. The extruded rough tube is carried along a

run-out table to maintain its straightness until it is cool enough to be cleaned and descaled. The ends are

removed, and the length is subsequently coiled in preparation for drawing.

A more recent innovation is the “continuous horizontal cast and roll” (cast and roll) process29 that

combines horizontal casting and milling, followed by planetary rolling,30 and is capable of producing

unfinished tube directly from molten copper.31 ***.32 The hollow shell is cut by a saw into 30- to 60-feet

long “shells.”33 ***.34 Both a petitioners’ witness and a respondents’ witness testified at the hearing that

the cast and roll process offers the advantage over the extrusion process of reduced production costs, as

this prefabrication technology is continuous and involves far fewer production steps, particularly by

eliminating the billet reheating and extrusion steps.35 Another advantage of the cast and roll process,

 27 ...continue

Designations for Wrought and Cast Copper and Copper Alloys: Introduction,” 2009.

 28 If the reheated billet is solid, it is pierced lengthwise with a mandrel (pointed rod) to form a hole through its

center, that will eventually become the inner wall of the resulting tubing. Solid billets can be pierced either prior to

or concurrent with extrusion. However, according to counsel for petitioners, billet piercing is no longer prevalent

among major global producers. Counsel for petitioners, e-mail correspondence with Commission staff, November 2,

2009.

 29 ***, on behalf of ***, written submission to the Commission, October 26, 2009, p. 3.

 30 Conference, petitioners’ exhibit 5.

 31 ***, on behalf of ***, written submission to the Commission, October 26, 2009, p. 3.

 32 Field notes, July 30, 2010, p. 3.

 33 Conference, petitioners’ exhibit 5.

 34 Field notes, July 30, 2010, p. 3.

 35 Hearing transcript, pp. 100-101 (Arndt); and p. 197 (Weil).

I-11
according to the respondents’ witness, is the improved control of wall thickness along the length of the

mother tube, compared to the greater variability resulting from the extrusion process.36

At the staff conference in the preliminary phase of these investigations, petitioners’ witnesses

claimed there are no differences in the resulting product from either the extrusion or the cast and roll

processes,37 although producing larger diameters still requires the extrusion method.38 Subsequently,

domestic OEM purchaser *** (through counsel), characterized foreign-origin cast and rolled inner-groove

SRC pipe and tube as “...produced directly from copper’s molten state, thereby resulting in a seamless

product unlikely to fail in its chosen applications.”39 At the hearing in the final phase of these

investigations, a petitioners’ witness testified that all plumbing and industrial (including inner-groove)

tubing with ODs up to 1 5/8" (the size that comprises the bulk of the market)40 sold by Cerro originates

from both extrusion or cast and roll technologies interchangeably. The witness further claimed that in

either case, Cerro is not constrained by customers specifications to a prefabrication process, for its SRC

pipe and tube consistently meets customer specifications, as the finished product manufactured to a given

specification will always be the same, no matter which prefabrication technology produces the mother

tube.41 ***.42 ***.43 By contrast, a respondents’ witness from GD Copper U.S. testified that the more

consistent wall thickness of the mother tubes prefabricated by the cast and roll process enables lighter and

more consistent wall thickness to be drawn in the finishing stage, and a higher quality finished product.44

45 Another respondents’ witness testified that a major reason that OEM purchaser Goodman switched is

that the cast and roll process results in the far fewer defects in the finished product than in those

originating from the extrusion process.46 A respondents’ witness from Johnson Controls specifically cited

inclusions within domestically available extruded products as the cause of bursting of sidewalls that were

unable to withstand the higher internal pressures required as a result of switching refrigerants and stricter

energy efficiency standards for air conditioning applications.47 48

 36 Hearing transcript, p. 197 (Weil).

 37 Conference transcript, p. 52 (Arndt, Hansen, and Sigloch).

 38 Conference transcript, p. 52 (Sigloch).

 39 *** purchases cast and rolled inner-groove SRC pipe and tube from ***. Specific product quality

characteristics reported by the purchaser were the tubing's even and compact structure, precise dimensions, few

residuals present on inner surfaces, unique groove shape, increased inner surface area, and greater heat transfer

capability. ***, on behalf of ***, written submission to the Commission, October 26, 2009, p. 2.

 40 Hearing transcript, p. 68 (Arndt).

 41 Cerro supplies OEM customers from either its cast-and-roll plant or one of its extrusion plants, based on market

demand, mill production schedules, and destinations for specific product shipments. Hearing transcript, pp. 39 and

76 (Arndt).

 42 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, p. 9; and exhibit 6, ***.

 43 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, responses to Commission questions, p. A-2.

 44 Hearing transcript, p. 197 (Weil).

 45 The cast and roll process also enabled Chinese producer Golden Dragon to manufacture small-diameter SRC

pipe and tube requiring less copper per foot of length. Respondents’ prehearing brief (Golden Dragon), pp. 11-12.

 46 Hearing transcript, p. 201 (Topper).

 47 Hearing transcript, p. 163 (Smith).

 48 For more details about the changes to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s refrigerant and

corresponding internal burst pressure requirements for pipes and tubes, and to the U.S. Department of Energy’s

Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratings (SEER), see respondents’ pre-hearing brief (Johnson Controls and Marubeni),

pp. 8-9.

I-12
The cast and roll process was developed by Outokumpu (now Luvata) and subsequently patented

in October 1989.49 ***.50 ***.51 ***.52 ***.53 In February 1991, Chinese producer Golden Dragon

obtained licences for Outokompu’s cast and roll technology, initially limited to a single facility in

Xiangxiang. Subsequently, Golden Dragon obtained additional licenses in April 2001, for production on

a new cast and roll line through March 2003, and in December 2004 for lines in three Golden Dragon

facilities54 and for its SRC pipe and tube exports to market destinations worldwide,55 including cast and

roll-based SRC tube (including inner-groove tube) in North America.56 Mexican producer IUSA initiated

construction of its cast and roll facility in 2007 and started production trials in 2008, but the equipment

was manufactured by Danieli & Kalamari rather than by Outokompu.57 Counsel for petitioners reported

that petitioners that Golden Dragon’s facility in Mexico produces SRC pipe and tube drawn from cast and

rolled mother tube.58

Intermediate fabrication

The mother tube resulting from the prefabrication stage (irrespective of which of the three

different casting technologies) is successively cold drawn through a series of (as many as 14)59 steel dies

to reduce diameter and wall thickness (by approximately 35 percent per draw) to final dimensions. 

Before the tube is drawn through each die, a tapered plug mandrel is inserted into one end and that end is

crimped to fit through the die and is gripped by the jaws of the drawing machine. As the tube is drawn,

the die and mandrel reduce the outer diameter and wall thickness, respectively. The mandrel also imparts

either a smooth or enhanced (grooved) surface to the inside of the tube. According to two OEM

respondents and the Chinese respondents, industrial tubing generally being ***.60

Finishing

The finishing steps depend on the specific type of SRC pipe and tube being produced. Tubing to

be sold as straight lengths is passed through a series of straightening rolls that bend the tubing less at each

successive roll station so that the tubing emerges straight and can be subsequently cut to length. Tubing

to be sold in coils is passed through rolls that impart a bend of the coil radius as the tubing emerges from

the coiler. Annealed tubing for thermal transfer applications is passed through a series of rollers and over

 49 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, responses to Commission questions, p. A-1.

 50 Counsel for petitioners, e-mail correspondence with Commission staff, November 2, 2009; and petitioners'

post-hearing brief, responses to Commission questions, p. A-1.

 51 Counsel for petitioners, e-mail correspondence with Commission staff, November 2, 2009; and petitioners'

post-hearing brief, responses to Commission questions, pp. A-1 and A-2, and exhibit 5.

 52 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, responses to Commission questions, p. A-1.

 53 Counsel for petitioners, e-mail correspondence with Commission staff, November 2, 2009; and petitioners’

post-hearing brief, responses to Commission questions, pp. A-1 and A-2, and exhibit 6.

 54 These three Golden Dragon facilities are located in Xiangxiang, Shanghain and Zuhai.

 55 Respondents’ posthearing brief (Golden Dragon), responses to Commission’s questions, p. R-18.

 56 Hearing transcript, p. 256 (Weil).

 57 Hearing transcript, pp. 257-258 (Ochoa).

 58 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, responses to Commission questions, p. A-2.

 59 Field notes, July 30, 2010, p. 3.

 60 Respondents’ posthearing brief (Johnson Controls and Marubeni), p. 6; and respondents’ prehearing brief

(Golden Dragon), p. 7.

I-13
a mandrel to impart enhancements (i.e., fins, ridges, grooves, gills, etc.) to the inner surface. Similar

enhancements can also be imparted to the outer surface by additional operations. For some SRC pipe and

tube, the ends also can be finished by swaging, flaring, expanding, crimping, or threading.

SRC pipe and tube is sold either as-drawn (“hard”) or annealed (“soft”). SRC pipe and tube

(either in straight lengths or coils) to be annealed is passed through either a continuous (long, heated box)

furnace or an in-line induction (short, electric-powered) furnace, heated at 1,300o

 F in a non-reactive gas

atmosphere to prevent oxidation of the copper. Some mills utilize bell furnaces for batch annealing in

which coils are stacked beneath the bell and heated in a non-reactive atmosphere. Soft (annealed) SRC

pipe and tube can be distinguished from hard (as-drawn) by the matte surface finish and lesser stiffness of

annealed tubing. Otherwise, annealed and non-annealed SRC pipe and tube are of the same product

quality and exhibit the same performance characteristics when in contact with fluids.

Pipe and tube surfaces are cleaned to remove any remaining drawing lubricants or other debris,

which is particularly critical for SRC pipe and tube designed to carry medical gases and cooling

refrigerants. Outer surfaces can be coated for corrosion protection or insulation, marked or color coded

for product identification, and attachments added to the ends, depending upon the requirements of

industry standards or customers’ specifications. 

The number and extent of finishing processes typically varies between SRC pipe and tube for

plumbing versus industrial applications. Two OEM respondents emphasized that the finishing process is

extremely important for the vast majority of industrial tubing but not so by comparison for plumbing

tubing. For example, unlike plumbing tubing, industrial tubing undergoes ***.61 Approximately 90S95

percent of all industrial tubing applications use inner-groove tube (IGT), according to a respondents’

hearing witness.62 The rationale for grooving the inner surface of SRC pipe and tube is to enhance its

heat transfer capability, as the inner grooves provide additional surface area for heat transfer and provide

more turbulence that promotes heat transfer.63 Johnson Controls purchases a specially designed IGT from

Golden Dragon ***.64 

According to OEM purchasers, Johnson Controls and Marubeni, IGT and other industrial tubing

for HVAC applications are distinguished by three physical characteristics that are generally not applicable

to plumbing tubing. First, IGT must meet minimum copper purity (99.84 percent copper cathode)

requirements of ASTM B743. Second, because IGT convey refrigerants under pressure, they must meet a

minimum bursting pressure of 1,832 pounds per square inch. Third, IGT must be cleaned inside to

prevent surface corrosion, by filling with nitrogen to purge out the oxygen and then capping the ends.65 66

 61 Respondents’ posthearing brief (Johnson Controls and Marubeni), p. 6.

 62 Hearing transcript, p. 234 (Smith).

 63 Inner grooving improves the coefficient of two-phase flow by a factor of 2.0S2.5, depending on the design, and

also provides for better thermal-resistance balance between the air and refrigerant sides of the IGT. Respondent’s

posthearing brief (Goodman), appendix 1, pp. 1-12.

 64 Respondents posthearing brief (Johnson Controls), answers to Commissioners’ questions, p. 2.

 65 Counsel for petitioners testified that certain OXY/MED and ACR tubing is also cleaned and capped, but

counsel for the two OEMs claims that these products are industrial rather than plumbing tubing. Hearing transcript,

p. 264 (Levy); and respondents’ posthearing brief (Johnson Controls and Marubeni), footnote 4, p. 4.

 66 Respondents’ posthearing brief (Johnson Controls and Marubeni), pp.2-3; and hearing transcript, pp. 234-235

(Smith).

I-14
DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the Commission defined a single domestic like

product, coterminous with the scope of these investigations, consisting of all SRC pipe and tube.67

Respondents claimed two distinctly different types of and market segments for SRC pipe and tube –

plumbing versus industrial68 69 – but did not contest petitioners’ proposal of a single domestic like product

in the preliminary phase of these investigations.70

In the final phase of these investigations, the petitioners claimed that “there has been no change in

the record of these final investigations that would warrant any different conclusions” other than a single

domestic like product.71 Two OEM purchasers, Johnson Controls and Marubeni, argued that “a clear

dividing line exists between industrial tubing and plumbing tubing,” and that the Commission should find

two separate domestic like products,72 and maintained that the statutory standard has been met for

separating out plumbing versus industrial SRC pipe and tube.73 Another OEM purchaser, Goodman, took

no position on the like-product issue,74 but stated that there are two different market segments.75 Both the

Chinese and Mexican respondents also initially argued that the Commission should find two distinct

product segments,76 but subsequently took no position on the like-product issue.77 The Chinese

respondents noted further that they are “not arguing for two distinct like products but submit{s} that the

record strongly supports market segmentation between industrial and plumbing tube.”78 Mexican

respondents continued to claim definite market segmentation between plumbing versus industrial tubing.

79

Luvata, an importer of SRC pipe and tube, noted that all respondent’s hearing witnesses agreed that

plumbing and industrial tubing are separate market segments.80

In light of the Commission’s stated intention to solicit additional information about the

distinctions between plumbing and industrial tube,81 the Commission requested that U.S. producers report

 67 Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from China and Mexico, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1174-1175

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4116, November 2009, p. 9. 

 68 Conference transcript, p. 126 (O’Brien); and respondents’ postconference briefs, (Golden Dragon) pp. 5-8l; and

(Hailiang) pp. 3 and 8.

 69 Respondents’ postconference brief (IUSA and Nacobre), pp. 5-7.

 70 Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from China and Mexico, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1174-1175

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4116, November 2009, p. 9. 

 71 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, responses to Commission questions, p. A-34.

 72 Respondents’ prehearing brief (Johnson Controls and Marubeni), pp. 1 and 7.

 73 Respondents’ posthearing brief (Johnson Controls and Marubeni), pp. 2 and 8.

 74 Hearing transcript, p. 239 (Paretzky), and respondents’ prehearing brief (Goodman), pp. 2 and 5.

 75 Respondent’s posthearing brief (Goodman), appendix 1, p. 1-23.

 76 Respondents’ prehearing brief (Golden Dragon), p. 2; and respondents’ prehearing brief (IUSA, Nacobre,

Cambridge-Lee, and Copper and Brass International), p. 9.

 77 Hearing transcript, p. 239 (O’Brien); and hearing transcript, p. 239 (Ryan).

 78 Respondents’ post-hearing brief (Golden Dragon), responses to Commission’s questions, p. R-13.

 79 Hearing transcript, p. 240 (Ryan); and respondents’ post-hearing brief (IUSA, Nacobre, Cambridge-Lee, and

Copper and Brass International) did not further address the domestic like product issue.

 80 Respondent’s post-hearing brief (Luvata), p. 7.

 81 Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from China and Mexico, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1174-1175

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4116, November 2009, p. 9. 

I-15
their production of plumbing and industrial SRC pipe and tube separately82 and that U.S. importers report

their imports of plumbing and industrial SRC pipe and tube from China and Mexico separately as well. 

These data are presented in Appendix E. Additionally, the Commission requested comments from U.S.

producers and U.S. importers regarding the comparability of plumbing and industrial SRC pipe and tube,

which are presented in Appendix F.

DOMESTIC INDUSTRY ISSUES

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, no party argued for the exclusion of any

producer as a related party and the Commission defined the domestic industry to include all domestic

producers of SRC pipe and tube. However, the Commission did note that it intended to revisit the

question of whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude any related party, particularly Wolverine

*** and Cambridge-Lee ***.83 Data regarding *** are presented in Part III. No party has argued for the

exclusion of any producer as a related party in the final phase of these investigations.84

 82 Based on the questionnaire responses from U.S. producers, the following firms produce only plumbing tube:

***; the following firms produce only industrial tube: ***; and the following firms produce both: ***. 

 83 Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from China and Mexico, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1174-1175

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4116, November 2009, p. 12. 

 84 Petitioners argue that the Commission should not exclude either Cambridge-Lee or Wolverine because: 1) no

party has objected to the inclusion of either U.S. producer in the domestic industry; 2) Cambridge-Lee’s ***; 3) ***;

4) excluding Wolverine from the domestic industry would actually skew the Commission’s analysis of the condition

of the domestic industry ***; and 5) Wolverine’s ***. Petitioners’ posthearing brief, p. 20 in Responses to

Commission Questions. 

I-16
PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

As described in more detail in Part I, SRC pipe and tube is generally used for fluids under

pressure, either for conveyance or in a closed loop for thermal transfer.1

 Conveyance applications include

water applications, as well as distribution systems for other liquids and gases while thermal transfer

applications include heating systems, commercial refrigeration systems (such as grocery store refrigerated

cases), and combined or split-unit air conditioning systems of all sizes.2

U.S. produced SRC pipe and tube made up 73.5 percent of the market in terms of volume in

2009; down from 76 percent in 2007. In 2009, imports from China made up about 13.1 percent of the

market, imports from Mexico made up about 6.9 percent of the market compared to 7.6 percent for each

in 2007.

The three petitioners (Cerro, Kobe Weiland, and Mueller) produced about *** of U.S. production

and two importers (Cambridge-Lee and GD Copper) imported about *** of U.S. imports from subject

sources in 2009. GD Copper imported just over *** of U.S. imports from China, while Cambridge-Lee

imported almost *** of U.S. imports from Mexico.

SRC pipe and tube is typically sold either as plumbing tube or industrial tube. Most U.S.

producers and importers reported making sales of plumbing tube on a spot basis. The largest U.S.

producers and importers of product from China reported making most of their sales of industrial tube

using short- or long-term contracts, while the largest importer of product from Mexico reported making

all its sales of industrial tube on a spot basis.

All 10 responding U.S. producers and 11 of 33 responding importers reported selling SRC pipe

and tube nationally. Twelve of the remaining responding importers reported selling to the Southeast, 11

reported selling to the Southwest, 7 reported selling to the Pacific Coast, 6 reported selling to the

Northeast, 8 reported selling to the Midwest, and 1 reported selling to the Mountain Region. 

Forty-four firms responded to the purchaser’s questionnaire and indicated that they have

purchased SRC pipe and tube since 2007. Twenty firms reported being distributors, 23 reported being

end users, and one firm reported being a retailer.3

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

Plumbing tube is sold to wholesalers, retailers, and distributors who in turn sell it to different end

users, while industrial tube is generally sold to OEMs such as Carrier, Trane, and York.4

A majority of U.S.-produced and SRC pipe and tube imported from Mexico were sold to

distributors (except in interim 2010, when the majority of imports from Mexico were sold to end users),

while a majority of imports from all sources except for Mexico were usually sold to end users. As shown

in table II-1, in each full-year period, 57.5 to 60.6 percent of shipments of U.S.-produced SRC pipe and

tube were to distributors, with the rest of the shipments to end users. The share of reported U.S. 

 1 Petition, p. 11.

 2

 Ibid.

 3

 The distributors include one firm that indicated it was a “buy-sell agent” and one that indicated that it was a

plumbing/HVAC wholesaler. The end users included a redraw copper tube mill, a HVAC OEM, a supplier of

HVAC equipment to OEMs, a contractor installing complete line sets, a manufacturer of air-conditioning and

refrigeration coils, a “manufacturer of purchased tube.”

 4

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 20; and Conference transcript, p. 25 (J. Hansen), p. 97 (Weil).

II-1
Table II-1

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments of SRC pipe and tube, by

sources and channels of distribution, 2007-09, and January-June 2010

Item

Period

2007 2008 2009

Jan.-June

2010

 Share of reported shipments (percent)

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of SRC pipe and tube to:

 Distributors 60.6 57.5 58.8 55.6

 End users 39.4 42.5 41.2 44.4

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of SRC pipe and tube from China:

 Distributors 5.1 6.1 56.9 6.3

 End users 94.9 93.9 43.1 93.7

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of SRC pipe and tube from Mexico:

 Distributors 83.6 80.5 69.8 24.7

 End users 16.4 19.5 30.2 75.3

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of SRC pipe and tube from all other countries to: 

 Distributors 22.1 24.2 36.0 47.0

 End users 77.9 75.8 64.0 53.0

Note.–Data for domestic producers include only U.S. commercial shipments.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

shipments of U.S. imports from Mexico made to distributors decreased from 83.6 percent in 2007 to 69.8

in 2009. The share of reported U.S. shipments of U.S. imports from China made to end users decreased

from 94.9 percent in 2007 to 43.1 percent in 2009,5 while the share of reported U.S. shipments of U.S.

imports from countries other than China and Mexico made to end users decreased from 77.9 percent in

2007 to 64.8 percent in 2009. 

 5 Most of this change was due to importer ***, which started selling imports of SRC pipe and tube from China in

2009 through its distributor ***. Between 2009 and 2010, *** and now sells directly to end users. 

II-2
SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

U.S. Supply

Based on available information, U.S. SRC pipe and tube producers have the ability to respond to

changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced SRC pipe and tube

to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are the

availability of unused capacity and the ability to produce alternate products; supply responsiveness is 

constrained somewhat by a limited ability to ship to alternate markets and the somewhat limited ability to

use inventories to increase shipments. 

Industry capacity

U.S. producers’ capacity utilization decreased from 63.8 percent in 2007 to 47.3 percent in 2009.

This level of capacity utilization indicates that U.S. producers have unused capacity with which they

could increase production of SRC pipe and tube in the event of a price change. 

Alternative markets

Exports by U.S. producers, as a share of total shipments, increased from 4.2 percent in 2007 to

5.7 percent in 2009. This level of shipments to alternative markets indicates that U.S. producers have a

somewhat limited ability to divert shipments to or from alternative markets in response to changes in the

price of SRC pipe and tube.

Inventory levels

The ratio of end-of-period inventories to total shipments for U.S. producers increased from 6.7

percent in 2007 to 7.0 percent in 2009. This level of inventories indicate that U.S. producers are

somewhat limited in their ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of SRC pipe and

tube to the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

Five of 11 responding U.S. producers indicated that they produce products other than SRC pipe

and tube on the equipment and machinery that is used to produce SRC pipe and tube. Specifically, these

producers indicated that they produce brass, aluminum, and copper nickel tube; copper wire, round and

flat wire; and billets.

Supply constraints

Four of 11 responding U.S. producers indicated that they had refused, declined, or had been

unable to supply SRC pipe and tube at some time since January 2007. *** indicated that in the spring of

2008 it had declined new customers because of “unusual demand” and also as a result of the spike in

commodity prices. *** indicated that during periods of high seasonal demand, delivery times were

extended sporadically for a few customers, and also that it delayed production and shipments for some

customers in 2010 ***. Two producers, ***, reported extended lead times following publication of

Commerce’s preliminary antidumping determination due a sudden increase in orders to which they were

II-3
not immediately able to respond. *** reported placing customers on allocation and declining sales

opportunities due to ***.

Subject Imports from China

Based on available information, Chinese producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of SRC pipe and tube to the U.S. market.6

 The

main contributing factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused

capacity, the existence of alternate markets, and some ability to produce alternate products; supply

responsiveness is constrained by the somewhat limited ability to use inventories. 

Industry capacity

Chinese producers’ capacity utilization decreased from 88.1 percent in 2007 to 87.8 percent in

2009. This level of capacity utilization indicates that Chinese producers have unused capacity with which

they could increase production of SRC pipe and tube in the event of a price change. 

Alternative markets

Shipments of SRC pipe and tube from China to markets other than the United States (both exports

to alternative markets and shipments to the home market) decreased slightly from approximately 91.4

percent of total shipments in 2007 to 91.1 percent in 2009. This level of shipments to alternative markets

indicate that subject producers in China have the ability to divert shipments to or from their home market

and alternative markets in response to changes in the price of SRC pipe and tube. 

Inventory levels

The ratio of end-of-period inventories to total shipments for the Chinese producers decreased

from 2.3 percent in 2007 to 1.9 percent in 2009. This level of inventories indicate that Chinese producers

have a somewhat limited ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of SRC pipe and

tube to the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

Only one (***) of eight responding Chinese producers indicated that it produces products other

than SRC pipe and tube on the equipment and machinery that is used to produce SRC pipe and tube. ***.

Supply constraints

Importer *** indicated that it has refused, declined, or been unable to supply SRC pipe and tube

because it can not compete with pricing by domestic mills. Importer *** reported that strong and

growing demand in China has fully utilized its capacity for much of 2010. As a result of this growing

demand in China and in third-country markets, foreign producer *** projects that exports to the United

States will fall from *** million pounds in 2009 to *** million pounds in 2010 and further to *** million

pounds in 2011. 

 6 Eight Chinese producers responded to the foreign producers’ questionnaire. These responses are believed to

account for approximately *** of Chinese export shipments to the United States.

II-4
Subject Imports from Mexico

Based on available information, Mexican producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of SRC pipe and tube to the U.S. market.7

 The

main factors contributing to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused

capacity and the existence of alternate markets; supply responsiveness is constrained by the somewhat

limited ability to use inventories and an inability to produce alternate products. 

Industry capacity

Mexican producers’ capacity utilization decreased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in

2009. This level of capacity utilization indicates that Mexican producers have unused capacity with

which they could increase production of SRC pipe and tube in the event of a price change. 

Alternative markets

Shipments of SRC pipe and tube from Mexico to markets other than the United States (both

exports to alternative markets and shipments to the home market) increased from approximately ***

percent of total shipments in 2007 to *** percent in 2009. This level of shipments indicates that Mexican

producers have the ability to divert shipments to or from its home market and alternative markets in

response to changes in the price of SRC pipe and tube. 

Inventory levels

The ratio of end-of-period inventories to total shipments for Mexican producers increased from

*** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2009. This level of inventories indicates that Mexican producers

have a limited ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of SRC pipe and tube to the

U.S. market.

Production alternatives

None of the four responding Mexican producers indicated that they produce products other than

SRC pipe and tube on the equipment and machinery that is used to produce SRC pipe and tube.

Supply constraints

Importer *** indicated that it has refused, declined, or been unable to supply SRC pipe and tube

because it can not compete with pricing by domestic mills. *** indicated that it has refused many orders

due to its inability to compete with U.S. producers’ prices, and inability to meet order requirements on a

timely basis. *** reported that supply constraints are common in the copper tube industry, but that the

imposition of antidumping duties could lead to an increased number of heat exchangers being

manufactured in lower cost countries, and relocation of SRC pipe and tube facilities to Mexico. 

 7 Five Mexican producers responded to the foreign producers’ questionnaire. These responses are believed to

account for approximately *** of Mexican export shipments to the United States.

II-5
Demand

Based on available information, it is likely that any change in the price level of SRC pipe and

tube will result in a moderate change in the quantity of SRC pipe and tube demanded. The main

contributing factors are substitute products and the small cost share of SRC pipe and tube in its end-use

products.

Demand Characteristics

SRC pipe and tube is typically sold either as plumbing tube or industrial tube. “Plumbing tube”

is typically manufactured according to ASTM standards and used in construction. “Industrial tube” may

be similarly produced to industry standard specifications or may be produced to OEM specification and is

typically used in HVAC systems.

U.S. demand for SRC pipe and tube depends on demand for construction, air conditioning and

refrigeration, and industrial manufacturing and the price of substitute goods such as PEX tubing.8

 U.S.

producer Mueller indicates that new home construction plays an important role in demand for both

plumbing and industrial SRC pipe and tube, whereas much of the demand for plumbing tube is derived

from nonresidential construction rather than residential construction.9

 Kobe Wieland also notes that the

warmer the weather is early in the year, the better the air conditioning season will be; thus increasing

demand in the replacement market, which it estimates makes up about 35 to 65 percent of the market for

SRC pipe and tube.10 U.S. producer and importer Cambridge-Lee indicated that it is difficult to estimate

demand for SRC pipe and tube from housing starts because of the substitution of plastic in residential

construction; but nonresidential construction is a more reliable indicator of changes in demand because

SRC pipe and tube is typically used instead of substitutes.11 Importer JMF indicated that the relatively

cool summers over the last two or three years has decreased demand for SRC pipe and tube.12 Importer

GD Copper (U.S.) estimated that replacement units make up 60 to 70 percent of the market for air

conditioning units (which use SRC pipe and tube and do not use plastic tubing).13 

Respondent Hailiang indicated that demand for both the plumbing and industrial pipe segments

rely on commercial and residential construction.14 Dayco, Homewerks, JMF, and Marubeni indicated that

the retail segments of the plumbing market have been impacted by the recession less than the wholesale

segment because many homeowners chose to remodel instead of purchasing new homes.15 They also

stated that sales of SRC pipe and tube for HVAC in the industrial market for nonresidential buildings has

fared better than sales of SRC pipe and tube for HVAC in residential buildings.16

The real value of total construction decreased by 36 percent between January 2007 and August

2010 (see figure II-1). The real value of residential construction decreased by 60 percent between 

 8 Petition, p. 38. PEX is a cross-linked polyethylene tubing that is sold in straight lengths or coils. Conference

transcript, p. 141 (M. Hansen).

 9

 Conference transcript, pp. 52-53 (J. Hansen).

 10 Conference transcript, pp. 53-54 (Sigloch).

 11 Conference transcript, pp. 146-147 (Kerins).

 12 Conference transcript, p. 147 (M. Hansen).

 13 Conference transcript, pp. 147-149 (Weil).

 14 Respondent Hailiang’s postconference brief, p. 8.

 15 Respondents Dayco, Homewerks, JMF, and Marubeni’s postconference brief, p. 5.

 16 Ibid, p. 6.

II-6
Figure II-1

Construction spending and housing starts: Total, residential, and nonresidential construction

spending in the United States, seasonally adjusted annual rate, deflated by the producer price

index; and seasonally adjusted housing starts, monthly, January 2007-August 2010

Note: Expenditures on private residential improvements to rental, vacant, and seasonal properties are not included in the

construction spending data. Expenditures are deflated by the producer price index for intermediate goods (seasonally adjusted).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing, Mining and Construction Statistics, Construction Spending. 

http://www.census.gov/const/www/c30index.html#. and Bureau of Labor Statistics (retrieved October 5, 2010).

January 2007 and August 2010, while the real value of nonresidential construction decreased by 15

percent. Also, seasonally adjusted housing starts decreased by 58 percent between January 2007 and

August 2010.

Ten of 11 responding U.S. producers, 29 of 38 responding importers, and 29 of 39 purchasers

indicated that demand for SRC pipe and tube in the United States has decreased since 2007. *** indicated

that in 2007, there was a HVAC SEER (Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio) change which increased

copper consumption in North American, and that an increase in housing starts driving increased demand,

but that due to economic downturn beginning in late 2008, demand for copper tubing began to decrease.

Three of seven responding U.S. producers, six of 22 responding importers, and five of 13

responding purchasers indicated that demand for SRC pipe and tube decreased outside the United States

since 2007. Four importers and one purchaser indicated that demand outside the United States increased,

and one importer and one purchaser reported that demand increased for industrial tube, but decreased for

plumbing tube. One producer, five importers, and three purchasers indicated that demand outside of the

United States fluctuated and the remaining two producers, six importers, and three importers indicated

that there was no change in demand. Several responding firms attributed decreases in demand to the

global economic downturn and several firms attributed increases in demand to increased demand in China

and developing countries. Importer *** indicated that the primary market for copper plumbing tube

outside the United States is Europe, where the market has exhibited increased use of PVC tube and a

decline in construction and that the primary markets for industrial tube outside the United States are

China and other developing nations.

II-7
Business Cycles

Nine of 11 responding U.S. producers, 20 of 39 responding importers, and 18 of 38purchasers

indicated that the SRC pipe and tube market is subject to distinctive business cycles or conditions of

competition. Several U.S. producers and importers indicated that the SRC pipe and tube market is subject

to both seasonal and business cycles and that the business cycle is influenced by the construction market. 

U.S. producer Mueller indicated that residential construction typically peaks in the spring and early

summer months, and, to a lesser extent, so does commercial construction because of the winter weather

discourages construction starts in the northern tier of states.17 Seven of nine responding U.S. producers

and 15 of 19 responding importers indicated that these distinctive business cycles or conditions of

competition for SRC pipe and tube have changed since January 2007. Importers *** indicated that the

increase in government energy efficiency standards increased demand above the typical business cycle in

2006 and 2007 and altered the anticipated seasonality. Only four of 34 responding purchasers indicated

that the emergence of new markets for SRC pipe and tube since 2007 has affected the business cycles or

conditions of competition distinctive to the SRC pipe and tube market. Purchaser *** indicated that

increasing incomes in emerging economies in Asia, India, Latin America, and Eastern Europe have

enabled consumers to purchase air conditioning in much greater volume than in the past.

Substitute Products

Eight of 11 responding U.S. producers, 19 of 31 responding importers, and 28 of 41 responding

purchasers indicated that there are substitutes for SRC pipe and tube. The most frequently cited

substitutes were plastic tube (such as PEX or PVC), aluminum tube, and stainless steel tube. Specific

products listed as substitutes by purchasers include PEX (14 purchasers), PVC/CPVC (12 purchasers),

aluminum tube (nine purchasers), stainless tube (four purchasers), plastic tube (three purchasers),

aluminum micrcochannel tube (four purchasers), welded seamless copper tube (two purchasers), and

brass and steel tube (one purchaser each).

Both petitioners and respondents indicate that demand for SRC pipe and tube has decreased

because of substitution of other types of tubing. Generally this decrease has been attributed to the

increase in the price of copper relative to other materials such as plastic and aluminum. The COMEX

price of copper has fluctuated since 2007, increasing by 14 percent between January 2007 and June

2010.18

Importer GD Copper (U.S.) believes that the main reason that substitutes for tube have developed

is that the price of copper has increased dramatically in recent years. It indicated that although the switch

to aluminum requires certain tradeoffs for air conditioning manufacturers, such as heat transfer efficiency,

OEMs have been willing to substitute aluminum tubing given the high price of copper. It also noted that

plastic tube has been used in indoor plumbing applications because there is no concern of heat transfer

complications and because PEX tube installation is less expensive since it does not require the same

technical skill as copper tube installation.19 Purchaser *** indicated that, given the 

 17 Conference transcript, pp. 54-55 (M. Hansen).

 18 Platt’s Metal Week and USGS.

 19 Conference transcript, pp. 97-100 (Weil). Hearing transcript, p. 172 (Rogers).

II-8
application of inner grove tube in its “Building Efficiency” products, it is not able to substitute other

materials such as plastic or steel.20

Petitioners indicate that because investment in nonresidential structures and custom built

residential structures has held up better than for corporate-built single-family residential structures (such

as by Ryan Homes) and because the substitution of plastic tube for SRC pipe and tube in corporate-built

single-family residential structures had largely occurred by the end of 2006, increased substitution of

plastic tube was not an issue during the POI.21 Dayco, Homewerks, JMF, and Marubeni indicate that the

share of new housing starts using copper tube for their water distribution system fell from *** percent in

2006 to *** percent in 2008 for single-family detached homes and from *** percent in 2006 to ***

percent in 2008 for multifamily homes, while the share of housing starts using PEX tube increased for

both single-family and multifamily homes.22 

Cost Share

SRC pipe and tube generally makes up a very small share of the final cost of construction, 

although it may make up a larger share of plumbing systems.23 Petitioners indicated that copper plumbing

represents a few hundred dollars out of the total cost of a $100,000 house and that there was considerable

variation in the amount of copper tube in a large chiller unit as compared to a small air conditioner.24

Petitioners estimated the cost share of SRC pipe and tube for HVAC applications to be in the range of ***

to *** percent.25 Importer GD Copper (U.S.) indicated that in a residential air conditioner, the cost share

of SRC pipe and tube will be on the low side and be larger for large chillers.26

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported SRC pipe and tube depends upon such

factors as relative prices, 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 moderate to high

degree of substitutability between domestically produced SRC pipe and tube and SRC pipe and tube

imported from China and Mexico.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Petitioners indicated that SRC pipe and tube producers compete primarily on the basis of price

because SRC pipe and tube produced to a given specification is highly interchangeable whether it is

manufactured in the United States, Mexico, or China.27 Importer Homewerks indicates that it competes

on the basis of a superior product range and services and not necessarily lower price, offering over 80

 20 ***, written submission to the Commission, October 26, 2009, p. 5. 

 21 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exhibit 14, response to question 9.

 22 Respondents Dayco, Homewerks, JMF, and Marubeni’s postconference brief, p. 5.

 23 Conference transcript, p. 56 (J. Hansen).

 24 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exhibit 14, response to question 8 and conference transcript, p. 56 (J. Hansen)

and p. 55 (Sigloch).

 25 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exhibit 14, response to question 8. 

 26 Conference transcript, p. 135 (Weil).

 27 Conference transcript, pp. 9, 16 (Levy).

II-9
different copper tube items to retail customers, smaller case pack sizes than domestic manufacturers use,

and being the first to offer security tagging and consumer friendly labeling and packaging.28 Importer

JMF indicated that it can not compete on the basis of price with domestic producers, so it attempts to

out-service the copper tube mills by usually shipping its SRC pipe and tube in one day and within two

days 98 percent of the time.29 Purchaser *** indicated it does not base its decisions on price but, rather,

on the performance parameters and capability of the materials and products that it purchases.30 It

purchases product that is made from a cast and roll process and has not found SRC pipe and tube

produced using other methods to be of the same quality and reliability.31 Petitioners indicated that there is

no difference between SRC pipe and tube produced from the cast and roll and extrusion processes.32

Purchasers report that they consider a variety of factors to be important when selecting among

competing SRC pipe and tube suppliers including availability, price, and quality. As indicated in table II2, price was named by 16 of 42 responding purchasers as the number one factor generally considered in

deciding from whom to purchase SRC pipe and tube, as the number two factor by 11 responding

purchasers, and as the number three factor by 11 other responding purchasers. Also, as indicated in table

II-3, 37 of 43 responding purchasers indicated that price was a “very important” factor in their purchase

decisions for SRC pipe and tube. Twenty of 41 responding purchasers indicated that the lowest-priced

SRC pipe and tube “sometimes” will win a sale, 15 reported “usually,” five reported “always,” and three

reported “never.”

Quality was named by 14 of 42 responding purchasers as the number one factor generally

considered in deciding from whom to purchase SRC pipe and tube, the number two factor by 10

purchasers, and the number three factor by seven purchasers. Also, as indicated in table II-3, 40 of 42

responding purchasers indicated that quality meeting industry standards was a “very important” factor in

their purchase decisions for SRC pipe and tube, and 21 of 42 responding purchasers indicated that quality

exceeding industry standards is a “very important” factor in their purchase decisions. Quality

characteristics that purchasers consider when determining the quality of SRC pipe and tube include

meeting or exceeding specifications; consistency of tubing; absence of leaks, defects, or material

impurities; cleanliness; packaging; dimensional consistency; and heat transfer efficiency.

Twenty-six of 44 responding purchasers reported that they require their suppliers to become

certified or pre-qualified for all, or nearly all, of their purchases of SRC pipe.33 Purchasers reported that it

can take from days to a year to qualify a new supplier; the average time reported was 90 days. Eight of

34 responding purchasers indicated that since 2007, certain domestic or foreign producers failed in their

attempts to certify or qualify their SRC pipe and tube or have lost their approved status. Specifically, two

purchasers reported that U.S.-produced product from Luvata did not meet quality standards. One firm

stated that one particular size from Wolverine failed to meet quality and performance standards. Another

purchaser reported that product from a mill in China was either too soft or too hard for their production

process. One firm reported that product from Mexico failed all tests. Purchasers also listed SRC pipe and

tube sourced from importer CMC and a specific product from Malaysia as failing to qualify.

 28 Conference transcript, pp. 80-81 (Altman).

 29 Conference transcript, pp. 168-169 (M. Hansen).

 30 ***, written submission to the Commission, October 26, 2009, p. 2.

 31 Ibid, p. 2.

 32 Conference transcript, p. 52 (Arndt, J. Hansen, Sigloch). Kobe Wieland indicated that some sizes cannot be

produced with cast and roll methods, but that for all sizes that can be produced with both methods, there is no

difference. Ibid., p. 52 (Sigloch).

 33 In addition, one purchaser indicated that it requires new suppliers to fill out a quality form.

II-10
Table II-2

SRC pipe and tube: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions, as reported by unrelated

U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one

factor Number two factor Number three factor

Availability 5 8 11

Delivery1 06 6

Location of manufacturer 0 1 0

Price 16 11 11

Prearranged contracts 1 0 0

Product range 0 0 2

Rebate programs 0 0 1

Quality2 14 11 7

Traditional/approved supplier 4 3 1

 1 Includes on time performance, freight policy, and lead times.

 2

 Includes meets specifications and performance.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

II-11
Table II-3

SRC pipe and tube: Importance of factors used in purchasing decisions, as reported by U.S.

purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Availability 40 3 0

Delivery terms 23 17 2

Delivery time 36 7 0

Discounts offered 20 16 6

Extension of credit 17 15 10

Price 37 6 0

Minimum quantity requirements 10 20 12

Packaging 8 27 7

Product consistency 38 4 0

Quality meets specifications 40 2 0

Quality exceeds specifications 21 19 2

Product range 9 25 8

Reliability of supply 38 4 0

Rebate program 9 7 26

Technical support 14 20 8

U.S. transportation costs 14 18 10

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Forty of 43 responding purchasers indicated that availability was a “very important” factor in

their SRC pipe and tube purchasing decisions. Five of 42 responding purchasers reported that availability

was the most important factor in their purchasing decisions, eight purchasers reported it was the number

two factor, and 11 purchasers reported it was the number three factor. Reliability of supply was cited as a

“very important” factor by 38 of 42 responding purchasers. 

Comparison of U.S.-Produced and Imported SRC Pipe and Tube

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced SRC pipe and tube can generally be used in the

same applications as imports from China and Mexico, 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 from table II-4, at least 70 percent of responding U.S. producers, between 39

and 41 percent of responding importers, and slightly more than half of purchasers indicated that SRC pipe

and tube produced in the United States and imported from China and Mexico are “always” used

interchangeably. All or all but one responding producer, 77 percent of responding importers, and 75 to 80

percent of responding purchasers reported that they are at least “frequently” used interchangeably. 

II-12
Table II-4

SRC pipe and tube: Perceived interchangeability between SRC pipe and tube 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 

purchasers

reporting

AFSNAFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. subject countries: 

 U.S. vs. China 7 2 1 0 12 12 5 2 16 8 5 1

 U.S. vs. Mexico 6 2 0 0 9 8 4 1 18 6 6 2

U.S. vs. nonsubject countries:

 U.S. vs. Canada 5 1 2 0 9 3 4 1 15 5 1 1

 U.S. vs. Malaysia 4 0 0 0 7 5 1 1 7 3 3 0

 U.S. vs. other nonsubject 1 00084117210

Subject countries comparisons:

 China vs. Mexico 5 1 0 0 8 4 2 1 13 3 4 1

Nonsubject countries comparisons:

 China vs. Canada 4 1 0 0 8 2 3 1 10 1 1 1

 China vs. Malaysia 4 0 0 0 7 4 1 0 7 2 3 0

 China vs. other nonsubject 1 00073007110

 Mexico vs. Canada 4 1 0 0 8 2 3 1 11 0 1 1

 Mexico vs. Malaysia 4 0 0 0 6 2 2 0 7 1 3 0

 Mexico vs. other nonsubject 1 00071007010

 Canada vs. Malaysia 4 00061217012

 Canada vs. other nonsubject 0 00071017011

 Malaysia vs. other nonsubject 1 00072017011

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Importer *** indicated that plumbing tube produced in Mexico is interchangeable with

U.S.-produced plumbing tube, but that Mexico does not currently export a significant amount of

“interchangeable” industrial tube products to the United States. Importer *** indicates that, generally,

imported copper tube product is better quality (higher copper content) and has more consistent wall

thicknesses. Importer Copper and Brass indicated that the products that it imports from Mexico and not

produced in the United States include military specification tube for ship building, heat exchanges for

petrochemical applications, sugar tubes for producing sugar, wave guide tubes for cellular

communications, and heavy wall copper tubes often used in heat exchange applications and electronic

applications.34 It indicates that these products are probably a fraction of all the SRC pipe and tube

products Copper and Brass imports into the U.S. market (Copper and Brass indicates that its imports

make up about 1 to 2 percent of the U.S. market).35 Importer *** indicated (***) that its SRC pipe and

tube is generally perceived as being of higher quality than that of U.S. producers.

 34 Conference transcript, pp. 114-115 (Kelly).

 35 Conference transcript, p. 161 (Kelly).

II-13
 Importer *** indicates that commercial and industrial buyers prefer cast and roll-produced

product because of higher copper content (cathode only) and tighter specifications. Purchaser ***

indicated that inner groove tube produced from a continuous horizontal cast and roll process has

historically only been available from Chinese sources and more recently Mexican sources.36

 In comparing imported SRC pipe and tube from China to that from Mexico, 83 percent of

responding U.S. producers, 50 percent of responding importers, and 62 percent of responding purchasers

reported that they are “always” used interchangeably. All responding U.S. producers, 81 percent of

responding importers, and 76 percent of responding purchasers reported that SRC pipe and tube from

China and from Mexico are at least “frequently” used interchangeably.

At least 62 percent of responding U.S. producers, and at least half of responding importers and

purchasers reported that SRC pipe and tube produced in the United States and imported from nonsubject

countries are “always” used interchangeably. At least 80 percent of U.S. producers, at least 57 percent of

importers, and at least 58 percent of purchasers reported that SRC pipe and tube imports from China and

Mexico, and imports from nonsubject countries are “always” used interchangeably.

As indicated in table II-5, all responding U.S. producers and 60 to 67 percent of responding

importers indicated that differences other than price between SRC pipe and tube produced in the United

States and imported from China and Mexico were at most “sometimes” a significant factor in their sales. 

All responding U.S. producers and at least 55 percent of responding importers indicated that differences

other than price between SRC pipe and tube produced in the United States and imported from nonsubject

countries were at most “sometimes” a significant factor in their sales. 

 Purchasers were also asked to compare SRC pipe and tube produced in the United States and

subject and nonsubject countries on the basis of different purchasing factors (table II-6). The U.S.

product was ranked comparable with imports from China by at least half of responding purchasers for all

characteristics except for delivery time, price, and reliability of supply. The U.S. product was ranked

comparable with imports from Mexico by at least half of responding purchasers for all characteristics. 

 36 ***.

II-14
Table II-5

SRC pipe and tube: Perceived differences other than price between SRC pipe and tube 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

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. subject countries: 

 U.S. vs. China 0 0 5 4 3 5 8 8

 U.S. vs. Mexico 0 0 3 4 2 4 6 3

U.S. vs. nonsubject countries:

 U.S. vs. Canada 00520137

 U.S. vs. Malaysia 0 0 3 0 1 3 3 2

 U.S. vs. other nonsubject 00101244

Subject countries comparisons:

 China vs. Mexico 0 0 0 4 0 1 3 3

Nonsubject countries comparisons:

 China vs. Canada 00210224

 China vs. Malaysia 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 1

 China vs. other nonsubject 00000223

 Mexico vs. Canada 00310124

 Mexico vs. Malaysia 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 1

 Mexico vs. other nonsubject 00000124

 Canada vs. Malaysia 00200121

 Canada vs. other nonsubject 00000023

 Malaysia vs. other nonsubject 00000033

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

II-15
Table II-6

SRC pipe and tube: Purchasers’ comparisons of domestic and subject and nonsubject products

Factor

U.S. vs. China U.S. vs. Mexico China vs. Mexico

S C I S C I S C I 

 Availability 9 13 3 8 12 1 5 7 3

 Delivery terms 6 16 3 8 12 2 6 7 2

 Delivery time 14 7 4 10 12 1 5 4 6

 Discounts offered 0 19 3 1 18 2 2 11 1

 Extension of credit 5 15 5 6 14 2 2 12 1

 Lower price 0 9 16 0 11 11 3 10 2

 Lower US. transportation costs 6 15 2 7 13 2 1 13 1

 Minimum quantity requirements 7 14 4 7 13 2 2 10 3

 Packaging 2 19 4 3 18 1 1 14 0

 Product consistency 1 17 7 4 13 5 4 11 0

 Product range 4 17 4 3 15 4 3 11 1

 Quality exceeds industry standards 1 19 5 5 13 4 6 9 0

 Quality meets industry standards 0 21 3 4 15 1 4 11 0

 Rebate program 3 14 0 3 14 0 1 11 1

 Reliability of supply 7 12 6 10 11 1 6 8 1

 Technical support/service 10 14 1 7 14 1 2 11 2

Note.–S = domestic product superior, C = domestic product comparable, I = domestic product inferior. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

II-16
ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses the elasticity estimates.

U.S. Supply Elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity for SRC pipe and tube measures the sensitivity of the quantity

supplied by U.S. producers to a change in the U.S. market price of SRC pipe and tube. 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 the production of other products, the existence

of inventories, and the availability of alternative markets for U.S.-produced SRC pipe and tube.37 Earlier

analysis of these factors indicates that the U.S. industry has the ability to respond to changes in demand

with large changes in shipments of SRC pipe and tube to the U.S. market. Staff estimated that the supply

elasticity for SRC pipe and tube was between 5 and 10 in the prehearing staff report. Petitioners

described this range as a “reasonable” estimate and Golden Dragon respondents indicated that while the

estimate is reasonable, it should be lowered to a range of 4 to 6 because domestic producers’ unused

capacity is overestimated because theoretical capacity may bear little resemblance to actual capacity.38

However, Golden Dragon respondents do not propose an alternative estimate of domestic capacity

utilization and staff has estimated the responsiveness of both U.S. supply and subject imports based on

the capacity and production reported in U.S. producer and foreign producer questionnaires.39

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for SRC pipe and tube measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity

demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of SRC pipe and tube. 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 SRC pipe and tube in the production of downstream products. Based on

available information, the demand elasticity for SRC pipe and tube is likely to be in the range of -0.75 to -

1.25. Petitioners described this range as an “appropriate” estimate and Golden Dragon respondents

indicated that they do not “quibble” with the U.S. demand elasticity estimate.40

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.41 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

(e.g., chemistry, surfaces, coil sizes) and conditions of sale (e.g., service, availability, delivery). 

Petitioners feel that an estimate of 6 to 10 is more in alignment with the characterization of

 37 Domestic supply response is assumed to be symmetrical for both an increase and a decrease in demand for the

domestic product. Therefore, factors affecting increased quantity supplied to the U.S. market also affect decreased

quantity supplied to the same extent.

 38 Hearing transcript, pp. 140-41 (Boyce), p. 154 (Weil), and p. 233 (Rogers) and Golden Dragon respondent’s

posthearing brief at R-12.

 39 For example, see “Subject Imports from China” and “Subject Imports from Mexico” earlier in this section.

 40 Hearing transcript, p. 141 (Boyce) and p. 233 (Rogers).

 41 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and U.S. domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers

switch from the U.S. product to the subject product (or vice versa) when prices change.

II-17
substitutability being moderate to high than the range of 3 to 5 suggested in the prehearing staff report.42

Golden Dragon respondents indicate that the substitution elasticities should be lowered to a range of 2 to

4 because industrial SRC pipe and tube imported from China is not necessarily the same as U.S.-produced

industrial SRC pipe and tube.43 In most recent investigations, staff has suggested an elasticity range of 2

to 4 for “moderate” substitutability and an average range of 3 to 5 for “high” substitutability.44 Also, the

“moderate to high” characterization of substitutability reflects that 39 to 41 percent of responding

importers and slightly more than one-half of responding purchasers feel that U.S. produced SRC pipe and

tube and SRC pipe and tube imported from China and Mexico is always interchangeable. Therefore a

range of 3 to 5 is appropriate to characterize the moderate to high level of substitutability between U.S.-

produced SRC pipe and tube and subject imported SRC pipe and tube.45

Petitioners estimate that dumped subject imports accounted for a *** percent reduction in the

price of U.S. produced SRC pipe and tube and a *** percent reduction in the volume of U.S. shipments

using the “full pass through case in the CADIC model.”46 They also estimated a price decline of ***

percent and a decrease in the volume of U.S. shipments of *** percent using the partial pass through case. 

Petitioners assumed the midpoint of the elasticity estimates in the prehearing staff report and a margin of

33.3 percent.47 

 42 Hearing transcript, p. 141 (Boyce, Levy) and petitioners’ prehearing brief, exhibit 14.

 43 Hearing transcript, p. 233 (Rodgers) and Golden Dragon respondent’s posthearing brief at R-12.

 44 For example, Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from China Investigation Nos. 701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173

(Final), Publication No. 4171, July 2010 at II-17 and II-29; Wire Decking from China Investigation Nos. 701-TA-466

and 731-TA-1162 (Final), Publication No. 4172, July 2010 at II-8 and II-14; and Certain Oil Country Tubular

Goods from China Investigation No. 701-TA-463 (Final), Publication No. 4124, January 2010 at II-14 and II-22 all

suggest a range of 3 to 5 for a “high” level of substitutability and Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from

China Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Final), Publication No. 4162, June 2010 at II-16 suggests a

range of 2 to 4 for a “moderate” level of substitutability. Also, Certain Steel Grating from China Investigation Nos.

701-TA-465 and 731-TA-1161 (Final), Publication No. 4168, July 2010 at II-5, II-11-12 suggests a range of 2 to 4

for “high” substitutability and Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Indonesia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Investigation

Nos. 701-TA-462 and 731-TA-1156-1158 (Final), Publication No. 4144, April 2010 at II-15 and II-26 suggests a

range of 4 to 6 for high substitutability.

 45 Additionally, the elasticities of substitution between U.S.-produced SRC pipe and tube and nonsubject imports

and between subject imports and nonsubject imports are likely to be in the same range.

 46 CADIC is a precursor to the COMPAS model. Using the same assumptions, the COMPAS model provides

similar estimates as the full pass through case in the CADIC model.

 47 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, Response to Commissioners’ questions p. 38 and Exhibit 10.

II-18
PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

Information presented in this section of the report is based on the questionnaire responses of 14

firms which are believed to account for 95 percent of U.S. production of SRC pipe and tube in 2009. 

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to 23 firms identified in the petition as domestic

producers of SRC pipe and tube. The Commission received usable producer questionnaire responses

from 14 producers.1

 Presented in table III-1 is a list of current domestic producers of SRC pipe and tube,

each company’s position on the petition, production location(s), related and/or affiliated firms, and share

of reported production of SRC pipe and tube in 2009. Two firms, ***, accounted for *** percent of

reported 2009 domestic production of SRC pipe and tube. 

Seven U.S. producers2

 are related to foreign producers of the subject merchandise and two are

related to U.S. importers3

 of the subject merchandise. In addition, as discussed later in this section, four

U.S. producers4

 directly import ***.

Table III-1

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, related

and/or affiliated firms, and shares of 2009 reported U.S. production

Firm

Position

on

petition

U.S.

production

location(s) Related and/or affiliated firms

Share of

production

(percent)

Cambridge-Lee *** Reading, PA United Copper Industries (U.S.)

Cambridge-Lee Holdings (U.S.)

Tanjore Corp. (U.S.)

Tubo dl Pastege (U.S.)

IUSA (Mexico)

***

Cerro Petitioner Sauget, IL

Shelbina, MO

Vinita Park, MO

Mexico, MO

Cedar City, UT

Marmon Holdings ***

Table continued on following page:

 1 ***. A number of U.S. firms consume in-scope copper tube as a raw material and further process those tubes

into finished products, which may be either within or outside the scope of these investigations. Some of these

finishing processes include: drawing, beading, bending, annealing, cutting to length, flaring, machining, stamping,

and brazing. ***. The Commission received useable questionnaire data from the following converters: ***. These

firms accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. production of SRC pipe and tube in 2009. 

 2

 ***. 

 3

 ***.

 4

 ***. ***. ***. Respondents’ posthearing brief (Golden Dragon), responses to Commission’s questions, p. R19. 

III-1
Table III-1--Continued

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, related

and/or affiliated firms, and shares of 2009 reported U.S. production

Elkhart Products *** Elkhart, IN Aalberts Industries (Netherlands) ***

Freeport-McMoRan *** Elizabeth, NJ Freeport-McMoRan Copper &

Gold Inc. (U.S.)

***

H & H *** Vanderbilt, MI Sunspring Metal Corp. (Taiwan) ***

Howell Metal *** New Market, VA Commercial Metals (CMC)(U.S.) ***

Kobe Wieland Petitioner Pine Hall, NC

Wheeling, IL

Wieland Holdings (U.S.)

Kobe Copper (U.S.)

Wieland Metals (U.S.)

Wieland-Werke (Germany)

Wolverine Tube Shanghai (China)

Kobelco & Materials Copper

(Japan)

Kobelco & Materials Copper

(Malaysia)

Kobelco & Materials Copper

(Thailand)

***

Mueller Petitioner Fulton, MS

Wynne, AR

Mueller Industries

Jiangsu Mueller-Xingrong Copper

(China)

Mueller Europe

Precision Tube (U.S.)

***

National Copper

Products

*** Birmingham, AL National Tube Holding Co.

National Copper & Smelting Co.

***

Packless *** Waco, TX None ***

Precision Tube *** North Wales,

PA

Mueller Streamline Co.

Jiangsu Mueller-Xingrong

Copper (China)

Mueller Europe

Mueller

***

S.T. Products *** Duncansville,

PA

S.T. Products Holdings (U.S.) ***

Trojan Tube *** Howell, NJ None ***

Wolverine *** Ardmore, TN

Huntsville, AL

Shawnee, OK

Decatur, AL

Carrolton, TX

Booneville, MS

Wolverine Tube Shanghai

(China)

Wolverine Tubagem (Portugal)

WLVN de LatinoAmerica

(Mexico)

***

Total 100.0

Note.–Because of rounding, shares may not total to 100.0 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

III-2
U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for SRC pipe and tube are

presented in table III-2. These data show capacity to produce SRC pipe and tube decreased by 8.3

percent from 2007 to 2009. Production of SRC pipe and tube decreased by 31.9 percent from 2007 to

2009 and increased by 4.0 percent between the interim periods. Capacity utilization decreased by 16.5

percentage points from 2007 to 2009, and increased by 3.7 percentage points between the interim periods.

Table III-2 

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2007-09, January-June

2009, and January-June 2010

Item

Calendar year January-June

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Capacity1

 (1,000 pounds) 1,223,928 1,120,991 1,122,794 563,535 545,709

Production (1,000 pounds) 781,123 640,036 531,562 284,755 296,071

Capacity utilization (percent) 63.8 57.1 47.3 50.5 54.3

 1 U.S. producers reported capacity (production capacity) based on operating *** hours per week and *** weeks

per year.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. producers were asked if they had experienced any plant openings, relocations, expansions,

acquisitions, consolidations, closures, or prolonged shutdowns because of strikes or equipment failure;

curtailment of production because of shortages of materials; or any other change in the character of their

operations or organization relating to the production of SRC pipe and tube since January 1, 2007. Eight

U.S. producers provided responses which are presented in table III-3. 

The domestic industry closed a number of SRC pipe and tube plants during the period examined: 

Luvata Grenda shut down production in 2006. Luvata Grenada estimated it produced *** pounds of SRC

pipe and tube in 2006.5

 Wolverine closed its Decatur, AL, plant in December 2007 (capacity

approximately *** pounds). According to testimony presented at the hearing, the majority of the

products produced at the Decatur, AL, plant consisted of plumbing tube and smooth industrial tube. With

the closing of the Decatur plant, Wolverine exited the plumbing tube business and moved some of its

smooth industrial tube production to its plant in Shawnee, OK.6

 Wolverine closed its Booneville, MS,

plant in November 2007.7

 Wolverine also closed its Jackson, TN, plant (capacity approximately ***

pounds); however, production at this plant consisted solely of welded inner-groove copper tube, which

 5 ***.

 6

 Hearing transcript, pp. 227-228 (Weil). Wolverine’s decision to exit the plumbing tube business was based on

the decline in demand for plumbing tube due to the advent of plastic tubing and the sharp rise in commodity copper

prices. In addition, Wolverine’s maintains that the competitiveness of the Decatur and Booneville products was ***. 

Respondents’ posthearing brief (Wolverine), p. 7.

 7

 Wolverine’s Booneville, MS, plant produced inner-groove copper tube and was temporarily closed in October

2003. It was later reopened to produce redraw material that was then shipped to other Wolverine facilities before

ultimately closing in November 2007. Hearing transcript, p. 150 (Weil). 

III-3
can be substituted for SRC pipe and tube, but is not subject to these investigations.8

 Linderme Tube Co.

closed in September 2008 (capacity approximately *** pounds);9

 and National Copper closed its

Dowagiac, MI, plant in November 2008 (capacity *** pounds).10

Table III-3

SRC pipe and tube: Changes in U.S. producers’ production operations

* * * * * * *

Five U.S. producers reported the production of other products on the same equipment and

machinery and using the same production and related workers employed in the production of SRC pipe

and tube, as presented in table III-4.

Table III-4

SRC pipe and tube: Production of other products on the same equipment and machinery 

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Data on domestic producers’ shipments of SRC pipe and tube are presented in table III-5. U.S.

shipments decreased by 31.9 percent from 2007 to 2009. The unit value of U.S. shipments decreased by

22.5 percent from 2007 to 2009, and increased by 46.0 percent in the interim periods. Exports of SRC

pipe and tube were reported by 9 firms.11 Exports accounted for 5.7 percent of U.S. producers’ total

shipments during 2009. The export markets listed included ***. U.S. commercial shipments accounted

for *** percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments of SRC pipe and tube in 2009. Transfers to related

firms accounted for *** percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments of SRC pipe and tube in 2009.12

Internal consumption accounted for *** percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments of SRC pipe and tube

in 2009.13

 8 Hearing transcript, p. 148 (Weil). Wolverine’s Jackson, TN, plant manufactured and sold non-subject welded

inner groove tube from approximately 2003 to 2006. During a portion of that period, Golden Dragon exported and

sold in North America subject seamless IGT products ***. Wolverine closed the Jackson plant and subsequently

***. Respondents’ posthearing brief (Wolverine), p. 2.

 9

 Linderme employed approximately 85 workers in Euclid, OH. Its assets and customer base were purchased by

S.T. Products. http://www.tubelinks.com/tubenews.php?cat=Closures, retrieved July 8, 2010. In the twelve

calendar months prior to S.T. Products’ acquisition of Linderme in October 2008, Linderme Tube shipped ***

pounds of SRC pipe and tube and in the previous 12 calendar months, Linderme shipped *** pounds of SRC pipe

and tube. ***.

 10 ***. ***. 

 11 ***.

 12 ***.

 13 ***. 

III-4
Table III-5 

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and

January-June 2010

Item

Calendar year January-June

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 752,491 612,032 512,809 277,289 264,741

Export shipments 33,253 33,243 30,971 14,578 21,541

Total shipments 785,744 645,275 543,780 291,867 286,282

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 3,033,910 2,578,115 1,602,849 768,352 1,070,821

Export shipments 136,379 142,244 100,139 40,457 90,235

Total shipments 3,170,289 2,720,359 1,702,988 808,809 1,161,056

Unit value (per pound)

Commercial shipments $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 4.03 4.21 3.13 2.77 4.04

Export shipments 4.10 4.28 3.23 2.78 4.19

Average 4.03 4.22 3.13 2.77 4.06

Share of quantity (percent)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 95.8 94.8 94.3 95.0 92.5

Export shipments 4.2 5.2 5.7 5.0 7.5

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

III-5
U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Data on domestic producers’ end-of-period inventories of SRC pipe and tube are presented in

table III-6. Domestic producers’ inventories decreased by 28.1 percent from 2007 to 2009, and decreased

by 15.0 percent in interim 2010 compared with interim 2009. U.S. producers’ inventories were

equivalent to between 6.2 and 7.6 percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments during 2007 to June 2010. 

Producers generally do not maintain significant inventories of SRC pipe and tube because of the volatility

of copper prices.14

Table III-6

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and

January-June 2010

Item

Calendar year January-June

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 52,936 48,747 38,053 41,930 35,642

Ratio to production (percent) 6.8 7.6 7.2 7.4 6.0

Ratio to U.S. shipments (percent) 7.0 8.0 7.4 7.6 6.7

Ratio to total shipments (percent) 6.7 7.6 7.0 7.2 6.2

Note.–Partial-year ratios are based on annualized production and shipments.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

Two U.S. producers reported that they directly imported SRC pipe and tube from ***,15 three

imported from ***,16 and two imported from ***17 during the period examined. Nine U.S. producers

reported that they purchased SRC pipe and tube from other U.S. producers,18 three purchased imports

from ***,19 three purchased imports from ***,20 and four purchased imports from nonsubject sources.21

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of SRC pipe and tube from China and Mexico are presented in

table III-7. 

 14 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 32.

 15 ***. ***. Respondents’ posthearing brief (Golden Dragon), responses to Commission’s questions, p. R-19. 

 16 ***.

 17 ***.

 18 ***.

 19 ***.

 20 ***.

 21 ***.

III-6
Table III-7

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. producers’ imports and purchases, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and

January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for SRC pipe and tube are presented in table III-8.22

In the aggregate, U.S. SRC pipe and tube producers reported a 20.4 percent decrease in the number of

production and related workers employed in the manufacture of SRC pipe and tube from 2007 to 2009,

and a 9.9 percent decrease in interim 2010 compared with interim 2009. *** accounted for the major

share of the decrease in number of employees from 2007 to 2009. Productivity decreased 9.7 percent

from 2007 to 2009, and increased by 13.1 percent in interim 2010 compared with interim 2009. 

Table III-8

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and

January-June 2010

Item

Calendar year January-June

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Production and related workers (PRWs) 3,644 3,303 2,902 2,962 2,668

Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 7,791 6,980 5,873 3,056 2,809

Wages paid to PRWs (1,000 dollars) 136,285 124,976 104,257 54,720 50,468

Hourly wages $17.49 $17.90 $17.75 $17.91 $17.97

Productivity 

 (pounds produced per hour) 100.1 91.6 90.5 93.1 105.3

Unit labor costs (per pound) $0.17 $0.20 $0.20 $0.19 $0.17

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 22 ***.

III-7
 
PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

Importer questionnaires were sent to 72 firms believed to be importers of subject SRC pipe and

tube, as well as to all U.S. producers of SRC pipe and tube.1

 U.S. import data are based on official import

statistics of Commerce.2

 Table IV-1 lists all responding U.S. importers of SRC pipe and tube from China,

Mexico, and other sources, their locations, and their shares of U.S. imports in 2009. In 2009, the largest

importer of SRC pipe and tube from China was ***, the largest importer of SRC pipe and tube from

Mexico was ***, and the largest importer of SRC pipe and tube from other sources was ***.

Table IV-1

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. importers, source(s) of imports, U.S. headquarters, and shares of imports

in 2009

Firm Headquarters

Share of 2009 imports (percent)

China Mexico

Subject

sources Other Total

Abco Chatham, MA

Memphis, TN

*** *** *** *** ***

Ask Products Aurora, IL *** *** *** *** ***

Automotive Technical Dacula, GA *** *** *** *** ***

Browning Metal Purchase, NY *** *** *** *** ***

Burndy Shelton, CT *** *** *** *** ***

Cambridge-Lee Reading, PA *** *** *** *** ***

Carrier Syracuse, NY *** *** *** *** ***

CMC Fort Lee, NJ *** *** *** *** ***

Copper & Brass Houston, TX *** *** *** *** ***

CPW America Houston, TX *** *** *** *** ***

David Bleich Calabasas, CA *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.

 1 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition, along with firms that, based on a

review of data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), may have imported greater than one

percent of total imports under HTS subheadings 7411.10.1030 or 7411.10.1090 in any one year since 2007. The

Commission received responses from nine firms that reported they did not import SRC pipe and tube during the

period examined. Those firms are: ***. 

 2

 When compared to official import statistics of Commerce, questionnaire responses from U.S. importers

represented 83.7 percent of total imports from China, 106.5 percent of total imports from Mexico, and 56.2 percent

of total imports from all other sources in 2009. Table C-2 presents U.S. import data for China and Mexico based on

questionnaire responses of 42 firms and U.S. import data for nonsubject sources based on official import statistics of

Commerce. 

IV-1
Table IV-1--Continued

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. importers, source(s) of imports, U.S. headquarters, and shares of imports

in 2009

Firm Headquarters

Share of 2009 imports (percent)

China Mexico

Subject

sources Other Total

Dayco Mira Loma, CA *** *** *** *** ***

Dial Phoenix, AZ *** *** *** *** ***

Energy Solar

Products

Toa Baja, PR *** *** *** *** ***

Engineered Controls Elon, NC *** *** *** *** ***

GD Copper (U.S.) Ponte Vedra

Beach, FL

*** *** *** *** ***

Gemaire Deerfield Beach,

FL

*** *** *** *** ***

Global Brass Redlands, CA *** *** *** *** ***

Hitachi San Jose, CA *** *** *** *** ***

Homewerks Wheeling, IL *** *** *** *** ***

JMF Bettendorf, IA *** *** *** *** ***

Jones Stephens Moody, AL *** *** *** *** ***

KME Oak Brook, IL *** *** *** *** ***

Kobe Wieland Pine Hall, NC *** *** *** *** ***

Lloyds Pacific Hacienda Heights,

CA

*** *** *** *** ***

Luvata Franklin Franklin, KY *** *** *** *** ***

Luvata Grenada Grenada, MS *** *** *** *** ***

Marubeni New York, NY *** *** *** *** ***

MGM Las Vegas, NV *** *** *** *** ***

Modine Racine, WI *** *** *** *** ***

MWI Oceanside, CA *** *** *** *** ***

National Bronze Houston, TX *** *** *** *** ***

Nordyne O’Fallon, MO *** *** *** *** ***

Packless Waco, TX *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.

IV-2
Table IV-1--Continued

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. importers, source(s) of imports, U.S. headquarters, and shares of imports

in 2009

Panduit Tinley Park, IL *** *** *** *** ***

Pepco Sales Irving, TX *** *** *** *** ***

Refricenter Miami, FL *** *** *** *** ***

Refricentro San Juan, PR *** *** *** *** ***

S.T. Products Duncansville, PA *** *** *** *** ***

Wells Plumbing Chicago, IL *** *** *** *** ***

Wieland Metals Wheeling, IL *** *** *** *** ***

Wolverine Huntsville, AL

Ardmore, TN

Shawnee, OK

Carrollton, TX

*** *** *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. IMPORTS

 U.S. import data for China and Mexico are based on official import statistics of Commerce. 3

Table IV-2 presents data for U.S. imports of SRC pipe and tube from China, Mexico, and all other

sources. From 2007 to 2009, the quantity of imports of SRC pipe and tube from China increased by 1.3

percent and the value decreased by 30.0 percent. The unit value of imports of SRC pipe and tube from

China decreased by 30.9 percent from 2007 to 2009, and increased by 70.2 percent in interim 2010

compared with interim 2009. From 2007 to 2009, the quantity of imports of SRC pipe and tube from

Mexico decreased by 36.2 percent and the value decreased by 53.8 percent. The unit value of imports of

SRC pipe and tube from Mexico decreased by 27.7 percent from 2007 to 2009, and increased by 46.4

percent in interim 2010 compared with interim 2009. The quantity and value of imports from nonsubject

countries decreased by 38.8 percent and by 54.9 percent, respectively, from 2007 to 2009, and increased

by 34.3 percent and 113.1 percent, respectively, in interim 2010 compared with interim 2009. The unit

value of imports of SRC pipe and tube from nonsubject sources decreased by 26.2 percent from 2007 to

2009, and increased by 58.6 percent in interim 2010 compared with interim 2009. 

Nonsubject imports of SRC pipe and tube are presented in table IV-3. Canada and Malaysia are

the largest nonsubject foreign suppliers of SRC pipe and tube to the United States.4

 3 SRC pipe and tube is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) under

statistical reporting numbers 7411.10.1030 or 7411.10.1090. 

 4

 Other major nonsubject suppliers include Korea, Japan, Germany, and Chile. 

IV-3
Table IV-2

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. imports, by sources, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

Source

Calendar year January-June

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China 90,624 111,126 91,768 49,388 28,719

Mexico 75,199 71,327 48,014 31,340 17,183

 Subtotal 165,823 182,453 139,782 80,728 45,902

Nonsubject 74,226 64,441 45,426 22,961 30,847

Total 240,049 246,894 185,209 103,689 76,750

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

China 348,772 446,282 244,101 110,981 109,860

Mexico 284,287 281,957 131,261 79,376 63,732

 Subtotal 633,059 728,238 375,362 190,357 173,592

Nonsubject 292,345 268,218 131,960 57,314 122,111

Total 925,404 996,456 507,321 247,671 295,703

Unit value (per pound)

1

China $3.85 $4.02 $2.66 $2.25 $3.83

Mexico 3.78 3.95 2.73 2.53 3.71

 Subtotal 3.82 3.99 2.69 2.36 3.78

Nonsubject 3.94 4.16 2.90 2.50 3.96

Average 3.86 4.04 2.74 2.39 3.85

Share of quantity (percent)

China 37.8 45.0 49.5 47.6 37.4

Mexico 31.3 28.9 25.9 30.2 22.4

 Subtotal 69.1 73.9 75.5 77.9 59.8

Nonsubject 30.9 26.1 24.5 22.1 40.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China 37.7 44.8 48.1 44.8 37.2

Mexico 30.7 28.3 25.9 32.0 21.6

 Subtotal 68.4 73.1 74.0 76.9 58.7

Nonsubject 31.6 26.9 26.0 23.1 41.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 Landed, U.S. port of entry, duty-paid. 

Source: Compiled from data from official Commerce statistics.

IV-4
Table IV-3

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. imports from nonsubject countries, by sources, 2007-09, January-June

2009, and January-June 2010

Source

Calendar year January-June

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Canada 17,557 20,016 19,217 8,638 12,410

Malaysia 23,039 15,633 11,974 6,565 8,326

Korea 8,550 8,816 5,469 3,119 5,777

Japan 10,864 4,726 312 195 310

Germany 3,936 3,930 3,243 1,810 1,156

Chile 2,458 3,688 1,419 666 809

United Kingdom 3,651 2,805 2,160 981 553

Greece 2,603 2,486 807 543 113

All other 1,569 2,341 828 443 1,394

 Total 74,226 64,441 45,426 22,961 30,847

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

Canada 65,556 80,748 56,150 20,721 49,817

Malaysia 89,966 64,082 32,653 15,386 31,859

Korea 32,981 36,266 14,905 7,416 21,248

Japan 42,197 20,908 1,116 627 1,472

Germany 19,134 20,151 11,361 6,006 5,812

Chile 9,433 14,509 4,081 1,603 3,013

United Kingdom 15,080 11,922 6,448 2,491 2,294

Greece 9,958 10,282 2,510 1,736 461

All other 8,040 9,349 2,735 1,328 6,136

 Total 292,345 268,218 131,960 57,314 122,111

Unit value (per pound)

1

Canada $3.73 $4.03 $2.92 $2.40 4.01

Malaysia 3.90 4.10 2.73 2.34 3.83

Korea 3.86 4.11 2.73 2.38 3.68

Japan 3.88 4.42 3.58 3.21 4.75

Germany 4.86 5.13 3.50 3.32 5.03

Chile 3.84 3.93 2.88 2.41 3.72

United Kingdom 4.13 4.25 2.99 2.54 4.15

Greece 3.83 4.14 3.11 3.20 4.08

All other 5.12 3.99 3.30 3.00 4.40

 Average 3.94 4.16 2.90 2.50 3.96

1

 Landed, U.S. port of entry, duty-paid. 

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

IV-5
CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing whether subject imports are likely to compete with each other and with the 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. Channels of distribution and fungibility

(interchangeability) are discussed in Part II of this report. 

Petitioners argue that the Commission should cumulate SRC pipe and tube imports from China

and Mexico for its present injury and threat analysis and note that no party has argued the subject imports

not be cumulated for the present injury analysis.5 6

 Respondents IUSA/Nacobre do not oppose

cumulation for the purposes of the Commission’s present injury analysis, but argue that SRC pipe and

tube imports from China and Mexico should not be cumulated for the purposes of the Commission’s

threat analysis because “most imports from these two countries are very different, i.e., plumbing tube

from Mexico versus industrial tube from China, as are other circumstances respecting these imports, such

as the disparate volume trends.”7

 

Geographic Markets

Table IV-4 presents imports from China by Customs districts from 2007 to 2009, while table IV-5

presents imports from Mexico by Customs districts for the same period. Houston-Galveston, TX, was the

largest district of entry for imports from China, accounting for 58.5 percent of total subject imports during

2009. New Orleans, LA, was the second largest port, with 11.1 percent of imports from China. Laredo,

TX, was the largest district of entry for imports from Mexico, accounting for 88.3 percent of total subject

imports during 2009. El Paso, TX, was the second largest port, with 8.1 percent of subject imports.

 5 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, responses to Commission questions, A-24.

 6

 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, responses to Commission questions, A-27. Petitioners also argue that even if the

Commission determines not to cumulate on the basis of threat, the Commission should find that the domestic

industry is threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from China and Mexico separately. 

Ibid, A-28. 

 7

 Respondents posthearing brief (IUSA, Nacobre, Cambridge-Lee, and Copper and Brass International), p. 8. 

IUSA/Nacobre/Cambridge Lee/Copper Brass International do not argue that the Commission should find two

separate like products. Rather they argue “the divergent volume and pricing trends for these distinct products,

imported primarily from different countries, warrant a Commission determination that it would impractical to

cumulate subject imports from Mexico with subject imports from China.” Ibid, p. 9. 

IV-6
Table IV-4

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. imports from China, by Customs district, 2007-09

Customs district

Calendar year Share of 2009

2007 2008 2009 (percent)

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Baltimore, MD 430 0 0 0.0

Boston, MA 1,062 1,241 667 0.7

Buffalo, NY 603 562 169 0.2

Charleston, SC 0 90 482 0.5

Charlotte, NC 244 237 119 0.1

Chicago, IL 2,025 5,875 5,259 5.7

Cleveland, OH 35 486 25 0.0

Columbia Snake, OR 0 0 9 0.0

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 7,886 6,871 2,788 3.0

Detroit, MI 753 459 241 0.3

Great Falls, MT 2 139 0 0.0

Honolulu, HI 0 7 0 0.0

Houston-Galveston, TX 47,814 54,124 53,675 58.5

Laredo, TX 43 17 7 0.0

Los Angeles, CA 8,337 5,743 4,767 5.2

Miami, FL 2,724 2,169 530 0.6

Minneapolis, MN 193 1,054 385 0.4

Mobile, AL 623 3,563 2,128 2.3

New Orleans, LA 8,913 12,371 10,186 11.1

New York, NY 1,051 728 1,112 1.2

Nogales, AZ 146 2 4 0.0

Norfolk, VA 434 331 241 0.3

Ogdensburg, NY 30 17 5 0.0

Philadelphia, PA 0 13 0 0.0

San Francisco, CA 95 51 11 0.0

San Juan, PR 139 176 324 0.4

Savannah, GA 5,736 11,845 6,595 7.2

Seattle, WA 127 132 45 0.0

St. Albans, VT 5 0 0 0.0

St. Louis, MO 353 2,509 1,810 2.0

Tampa, FL 819 312 184 0.2

Total 90,624 111,126 91,768 100.0

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

IV-7
Table IV-5

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. imports from Mexico, by Customs district, 2007-09

Customs district

Calendar year Share of 2009

2007 2008 2009 (percent)

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Chicago, IL 0 1 0 0.0

Cleveland, OH 0 (1

) 0 0.0

El Paso, TX 6,038 6,446 3,908 8.1

Laredo, TX 68,623 63,480 42,411 88.3

Los Angeles, CA 0 0 (1

) (2)

Miami, FL 184 580 203 0.4

San Diego, CA 1 1 899 1.9

San Juan, PR 353 820 593 1.2

Total 75,199 71,327 48,014 100.0

 (1) Less than 500 pounds

 (2

) Less than 0.05 percent

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

Simultaneous Presence in the Market

SRC pipe and tube produced in China and Mexico was present throughout the period for which

data were collected. Table IV-6 presents monthly imports into the United States by sources. 

IV-8
IV-9

Table IV-6SRC pipe and tube: U.S. imports, monthly entries into the United States, by sources, 2007-09, and January-June 20

Source Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. 

2007: Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China 6,095 5,879 8,884 6,882 8,146 11,180 11,256 8,448 6,275 7,715 5,6Mexico 6,623 5,171 8,243 6,858 9,594 6,082 5,811 7,160 5,722 4,651 4,6 Subtotal 12,718 11,049 17,127 13,740 17,741 17,262 17,067 15,608 11,998 12,365 10,3All other 5,964 5,964 6,518 5,966 6,077 6,433 7,521 5,698 5,609 5,960 6,5 Total 18,681 17,013 23,645 19,707 23,817 23,695 24,588 21,307 17,606 18,325 16,82008:China 8,957 7,570 11,533 13,683 13,328 9,368 13,332 12,307 6,553 6,473 4,9Mexico 5,942 6,583 8,855 7,484 5,675 5,570 6,761 6,489 6,129 5,306 2,8 Subtotal 14,900 14,152 20,389 21,168 19,003 14,938 20,093 18,795 12,682 11,779 7,7All other 5,009 5,557 6,258 5,794 4,728 5,131 7,460 5,193 5,715 4,275 5,2 Total 19,908 19,710 26,646 26,962 23,731 20,069 27,553 23,989 18,396 16,054 13,02009China 6,012 6,834 9,989 7,611 8,836 10,107 8,661 8,387 8,172 5,176 5,9Mexico 5,679 4,864 5,575 5,735 5,771 3,717 4,843 3,234 2,933 2,617 1,7 Subtotal 11,690 11,698 15,564 13,346 14,607 13,823 13,504 11,622 11,105 7,793 7,6All other 3,981 3,481 3,913 3,179 4,075 4,331 4,015 4,365 3,746 3,656 3,5 Total 15,672 15,179 19,477 16,525 18,681 18,155 17,519 15,987 14,851 11,449 11,12010:China 7,980 6,515 4,024 7,100 1,974 1,126 (1) (1) (1) (1) 

Mexico 1,381 2,265 2,295 5,623 3,340 2,279 (1) (1) (1) (1)  Subtotal 9,360 8,780 6,319 12,723 5,314 3,405 (1) (1) (1) (1) All other 4,487 2,703 4,865 5,893 5,229 7,670 (1) (1) (1) (1)  Total 13,848 11,484 11,184 18,616 10,543 11,075 (1) (1) (1) (1) 

1 Not available.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of Commerce. 
NEGLIGIBILITY

The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports

of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.8

 Negligible imports are generally defined in the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as imports from a country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic

like product where such imports account for less than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise

imported into the United States in the most recent 12-month period for which data are available that

precedes the filing of the petition or the initiation of the investigation. However, if there are imports of

such merchandise from a number of countries subject to investigations initiated on the same day that

individually account for less than 3 percent of the total volume of the subject merchandise, and if the

imports from those countries collectively account for more than 7 percent of the volume of all such

merchandise imported into the United States during the applicable 12-month period, then imports from

such countries are deemed not to be negligible.9

 Imports from China accounted for 44.7 percent of total

imports of SRC pipe and tube by quantity during September 2008 - August 2009. Imports from Mexico

accounted for 29.3 percent of total imports of SRC pipe and tube by quantity during September 2008 -

August 2009.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of SRC pipe and tube during the period shown in

table IV-7 are based on questionnaire responses for U.S. shipments and imports are based on official

Commerce statistics.10 The quantity of apparent U.S. consumption decreased by 29.7 percent from 2007

to 2009, and then decreased by 10.4 percent in interim 2010 compared with interim 2009. U.S. demand

for SRC pipe and tube is primarily from new residential construction, new commercial construction, and

the replacement market for air conditioning and refrigeration units.11 

 8 Sections 703(a)(1), 705(b)(1), 733(a)(1), and 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1), 1671d(b)(1),

1673b(a)(1), and 1673d(b)(1)).

 9

 Section 771(24) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)).

 10 In the Commission’s prehearing report, data concerning apparent U.S. consumption data were based on

questionnaire responses from U.S. shipments and imports from China and Mexico and official Commerce statistics

for imports from all other sources. On September 28, 2010, *** submitted revisions due to the fact that ***. ***. 

As such, official Commerce statistics were used to calculate apparent U.S. consumption. See also Respondents’

post-hearing brief (Golden Dragon), responses to Commissioners’ questions, R-1.

 11 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 23.

IV-10
Table IV-7

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

Item

Calendar year January-June

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 752,491 612,032 512,809 277,289 264,741

U.S. imports from–

 China 90,624 111,126 91,768 49,388 28,719

 Mexico 75,199 71,327 48,014 31,340 17,183

 Subtotal 165,823 182,453 139,782 80,728 45,902

 Nonsubject countries 74,226 64,441 45,426 22,961 30,847

 Total U.S. imports 240,049 246,894 185,209 103,689 76,750

Apparent U.S. consumption 992,540 858,926 698,018 380,978 341,491

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 3,033,910 2,578,115 1,602,849 768,352 1,070,821

U.S. imports from--

 China 348,772 446,282 244,101 110,981 109,860

 Mexico 284,287 281,957 131,261 79,376 63,732

 Subtotal 633,059 728,238 375,362 190,357 173,592

 Nonsubject countries 292,345 268,218 131,960 57,314 122,111

 Total U.S. imports 925,404 996,456 507,321 247,671 295,703

Apparent U.S. consumption 3,959,314 3,574,571 2,110,170 1,016,023 1,366,524

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and official Commerce statistics.

IV-11
U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share data are presented in table IV-8. U.S. producers’ market share decreased by

2.3 percentage points from 2007 to 2009, on the basis of quantity, and was 4.7 percentage points higher in

interim 2010 compared with interim 2009. 

Table IV-8

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and

January-June 2010

Item

Calendar year January-June

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Apparent U.S. consumption 992,540 858,926 698,018 380,978 341,491

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 3,959,314 3,574,571 2,110,170 1,016,023 1,366,524

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 75.8 71.3 73.5 72.8 77.5

U.S. imports from--

 China 9.1 12.9 13.2 13.0 8.4

 Mexico 7.6 8.3 6.9 8.2 5.0

 Subtotal 16.7 21.2 20.0 21.2 13.4

 Nonsubject countries 7.5 7.5 6.5 6.0 9.0

 All countries 24.2 28.7 26.5 27.2 22.5

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 76.6 72.1 76.0 75.6 78.4

U.S. imports from--

 China 8.8 12.5 11.6 10.9 8.0

 Mexico 7.2 7.9 6.2 7.8 4.7

 Subtotal 16.0 20.4 17.8 18.7 12.7

 Nonsubject countries 7.4 7.5 6.3 5.6 8.9

 All countries 23.4 27.9 24.0 24.4 21.6

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and official Commerce statistics.

IV-12
RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of imports to U.S. production of SRC pipe and tube is presented

in table IV-9. Subject imports were equivalent to 21.2 percent of U.S. production in 2007 and were

equivalent to 26.3 percent in 2009 and decreased to 15.5 percent in interim 2010. 

Table IV-9

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S. production, 2007-

09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

Item

Calendar year January-June

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. production 781,123 640,036 531,562 284,755 296,071

Imports from:

 China 90,624 111,126 91,768 49,388 28,719

 Mexico 75,199 71,327 48,014 31,340 17,183

 Subtotal 165,823 182,453 139,782 80,728 45,902

 Nonsubject countries 74,226 64,441 45,426 22,961 30,847

 Total imports 240,049 246,894 185,209 103,689 76,750

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

Imports from:

 China 11.6 17.4 17.3 17.3 9.7

 Mexico 9.6 11.1 9.0 11.0 5.8

 Subtotal 21.2 28.5 26.3 28.4 15.5

 Nonsubject countries 9.5 10.1 8.5 8.1 10.4

 Total imports 30.7 38.6 34.8 36.4 25.9

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and official Commerce statistics.

IV-13
 
PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

Raw material costs accounted for 78 to 86 percent of the total cost of goods sold for U.S.

producers during 2007 to 2009. Copper is the main raw material used to produce SRC pipe and tube. 

One U.S. producer (***) indicated that copper makes up 80 percent of the cost of the SRC pipe and tube. 

The COMEX price of copper has fluctuated since 2007 ranging from $1.39 per pound to $3.94 per pound

(see figure V-1).

Figure V-1

SRC pipe and tube: Monthly average COMEX high-grade copper, first position prices, by month,

January 2007-August 2010

Source: Platt’s Metal Week and USGS.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Transportation costs for U.S. inland shipments of SRC pipe and tube generally account for a

small-to-moderate share of the delivered price of these products. U.S. producers reported that the costs

ranged from less than 1 percent to 3 percent of the delivered price for SRC pipe and tube. Over twothirds of responding U.S. importers reported that such costs were less than or equal to 1 percent of the

delivered price of SRC pipe and tube; while most of the remaining firms reported costs of less than 10

percent.1

 1 However, importer *** reported that transportation costs made up 50 percent of the delivered price.

V-1
PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Most U.S. producers and importers reported making sales of plumbing tube on a spot basis. All

six responding U.S. producers and five of eight responding importers reported making all or almost all of

their sales of plumbing tube on a spot basis. Petitioners indicate that plumbing tube products are typically

sold on a spot basis using a price list and a multiplier that applies equally to all list prices on a given price

sheet. They note that a supplier may bid for a total volume without knowing which products from its

price list the customer will select.2

 

The largest U.S. producers and importers of product from China reported making most of their

sales of industrial tube using short- or long-term contracts, while the largest importer of product from

Mexico reported making all its sales of industrial tube on a spot basis. The three petitioners reported

making at least 65 percent of their sales of industrial tube using short- or long-term contracts. The two

largest importers of product from China reported making at least 95 percent of their sales of industrial

tube using short- or long-term contracts, while the largest importer of product from Mexico reported

making all of its sales of industrial tube on a spot basis. Overall, three of 11 responding U.S. producers

and seven of 26 responding importers reported making at least 90 percent of their sales of industrial tube

using either short- or long-term contracts. Three U.S. producers (***) and 11 importers indicated that

they make at least 99 percent of their sales of industrial tube on a spot basis. Petitioners indicated that

SRC pipe and tube sold to industrial end users is typically sold using annual contracts with prices quoted

on the basis of the COMEX copper price plus a per-pound fabrication charge. They note that under these

annual contracts SRC pipe and tube producers generally compete based on the quoted fabrication charge

with the understanding that the COMEX price will adjust depending upon the date(s) of shipment.3

 One

of four U.S. producers and four of seven importers reported that their long-term contracts use metal costs

that are based on a benchmark and are sold for plumbing applications. Four of six U.S. producers and

five of 12 importers indicated that this was also the case for short-term contracts. In addition, two of 12

responding importers indicated that their short-term contracts use metal costs that are based on a

benchmark and are sold for both plumbing and industrial applications. U.S. producers reported using the

COMEX price as a benchmark, while importers reported using both the COMEX and LME prices.

Only three of 10 responding U.S. producers and six of 32 responding importers indicated that the

quotation period of their copper purchases influence their selling prices of SRC pipe and tube. U.S.

producer *** indicated that the longer the quotation period, the lower their selling price. Seven of 10

responding U.S. producers and 10 of 30 responding importers offer hedging transactions that might lock

the copper price for long periods of time. Responses suggest that some U.S. producers and importers may

offer hedging only to larger customers for limited periods of time such as one month or a year. Eight of

10 responding U.S. producers and 13 of 27 responding importers indicated that variations or changes in

the COMEX, LME, or other copper benchmarks affect their overall prices lists.

Most firms reported setting prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis, although some firms also

use price lists or contracts for multiple shipments. The seven U.S. producers that reported their method of

price setting for sales of SRC pipe and tube for plumbing applications reported using transaction-bytransaction negotiations; three of these U.S. producers also reported using contracts, three also reported

using price lists, and one also reported the use of e-auctions. With regard to sales for industrial

applications, seven of eight responding U.S. producers reported using transaction-by-transaction

negotiations, five reported using contracts, and one reported using price lists. Among importers reporting

methods of price setting for plumbing applications, nine reported using transaction-by-transaction

 2 Petition, p. 38.

 3

 Petition, p. 39.

V-2
negotiations, two reported using contracts, three reported using price lists, and two reported other

methods. Among importers reporting methods of price setting for industrial applications, 15 reported

using transaction-by-transaction negotiations, six reported using contracts, five reported using price lists,

and one reported other methods.

 Four of 10 responding U.S. producers and 16 of 29 responding importers reported making their

sales on a delivered basis only. Five U.S. producers and six importers reported making their sales on an

f.o.b. basis only and the remaining responding U.S. producer and three importers reported making their

sales on both f.o.b. and delivered bases. Five of nine responding U.S. producers and 14 of 30 importers

reported that at least 90 percent of their sales of SRC pipe and tube are made to order. Three of nine

responding U.S. producers and 11 of 30 importers reported that at least 88 percent of their sales are from

inventory.

Six of 11 responding U.S. producers and 12 of 26 responding importers reported making at least

90 percent of their sales on a spot basis. Five importers reported making at least 90 percent of their sales

on a short-term contract basis, which typically last for 4 months to a year. Three importers (***) reported

making at least 60 percent of their sales on a long-term contact basis, although *** defined long-term

contacts as “one year and longer” in length and *** defined them as one year in length. One U.S.

producer (***) reported making 53 percent of its sales on a short-term contract basis, 35 percent of its

sales on a spot basis, and 12 percent of its sales on a long-term (two to three years) contract basis. U.S.

producer *** reported making 60 percent of its sales on a short-term contract basis and 35 percent of its

sales on a long-term (two years) contract basis.

Sixteen responding purchasers identified price leaders in the market for SRC copper pipe and

tube, four responding purchasers indicated there were no price leaders, and three purchasers indicated that

they did not know if there were any price leaders. *** was named by 11 purchasers as a price leader, ***

was named by eight purchasers, *** was named by three purchasers, *** was named by two purchasers

and seven other suppliers were mentioned by one purchaser. Purchaser *** indicated that it does not see

any clear suppliers emerging as a “price leader,” but that their competitive bench marking has shown that

typically suppliers are clustered around a fairly narrow band of pricing. Purchaser *** indicated that it

has no interest in the “price leader mentality/business model” and focuses on quality, delivery,

technology, and total cost. Cambridge-Lee and Copper and Brass identify Mueller and Cerro as the price

leaders in the U.S. market.4

 Cambridge-Lee and Marubeni both deny being price leaders for SRC copper

pipe and tube.5

 

Lead Times

U.S. producers reported lead times from inventory of up to two weeks and lead times for sales of

product-to-order of two to six weeks. Lead times for delivery for all but two responding U.S. importers

ranged up to two weeks on sales from inventory and most importers reported lead times on sales of

product produced-to-order ranging from 2 to 16 weeks. Six of 10 responding U.S. producers and 24 of 32

responding importers reported that they generally arrange for the transportation to their customers’

locations. All 10 responding U.S. producers and 14 of 30 responding importers reported making at least

47 percent of their sales within 101 to 1,000 miles of their storage or production facilities. No U.S.

producers and three responding importers reported making at least 79 percent of their sales over 1,000

miles from their storage or production facilities and all responding U.S. producers and 25 responding

importers reported making at least 49 percent of their sales within 1,000 miles of their storage or

production facilities. 

 4 Hearing transcript, p. 183 (Kelly), p. 185 (Kerins). 

 5

 Hearing transcript, p. 168 (Krahmer), p. 185 (Kelly). 

V-3
Sales Terms and Discounts

Eight U.S. producers and 12 importers reported the use of quantity discounts, five U.S. producers

and three importers reported using annual volume discounts, and two U.S. producers and 15 importers

reported having no discount policy. Five of 10 responding U.S. producers and five of 30 responding

importers indicated that their company has a rebate program for at least some of their purchasers of SRC

pipe and tube. U.S. producers and importers indicated that rebates ranged up to 5 percent.

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of SRC pipe and tube to provide

quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of SRC pipe and tube that was shipped to unrelated

customers in the U.S. market during January 2007-June 2010. The products for which pricing data were

requested are as follows:

Product 1.– Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 1⁄2" Type L, hard temper, 20' lengths

Product 2.– Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 3/4" Type M, hard temper, 20' lengths

Product 3.– Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 3/8" OD, ACR/RST coil, 50'-100' lengths

Product 4.– Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 3/4" OD, ACR/RST coil, 50'-100' lengths 

Product 5.– Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 3/8" OD, inner-grooved LWC,

0.0110"-0.0144" bottom wall thickness

Product 6.– Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 5/16" OD, inner grooved LWC,

0.01170-0.0125" bottom wall thickness

Product 7.– Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 3/8" OD, smooth bore LWC,

0.0249"-0.0327" bottom wall thickness

Product 8.– Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 3/4" OD, smooth bore LWC,

0.0327"-0.0430" bottom wall thickness

Eight U.S. producers, 13 importers of SRC pipe and tube from China, and eight importers of SRC

pipe and tube from Mexico provided usable 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 11 percent of U.S. producers’ shipments of SRC pipe and tube, 81 percent of U.S.

shipments of subject imports from China, and 17 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from

Mexico in 2009. 

Price Trends

Price data are shown in tables V-1 to V-8 and figure V-2. Nonsubject price data are presented in

appendix G. Price trend summary data are presented in table V-9. Weighted-average sales prices for 

V-4
Table V-1

SRC pipe and tube: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 11 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007-June 2010

Period

United States China Mexico

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. $3.32 6,373,523 -- 0 -- $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June 4.27 6,836,605 $*** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 4.36 3,752,329 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 4.04 4,245,997 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 3.94 5,361,700 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 4.41 3,912,587 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 4.11 3,965,318 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.89 3,282,253 -- 0 – *** *** ***

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.19 3,661,633 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.50 3,788,433 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 3.02 3,215,782 -- 0 -- *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.27 2,798,012 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2010:

 Jan.-Mar. 3.51 3,280,150 -- 0 -- *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 3.40 3,297,868 -- 0 -- *** *** ***

 1 Product 1: Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 1⁄2" Type L, hard temper, 20' lengths.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-5
Table V-2

SRC pipe and tube: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

products 21

 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007-June 2010

Period

United States China Mexico

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. $3.26 3,424,664 -- 0 -- $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June 4.17 4,071,349 -- 0 -- *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 4.28 3,068,029 -- 0 -- *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.96 2,254,224 -- 0 -- *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 3.93 2,261,843 -- 0 -- *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 4.35 1,791,320 $*** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 4.02 1,898,740 -- 0 -- *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.93 1,334,630 -- 0 -- *** *** ***

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.16 1,228,243 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.50 1,087,142 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 3.03 1,283,783 -- 0 -- *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.25 1,476,378 -- 0 -- *** *** ***

2010:

 Jan.-Mar. 3.50 1,542,453 -- 0 -- *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 3.42 1,554,454 -- 0 -- *** *** ***

 1 Product 2: Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 3/4" Type M, hard temper, 20' lengths.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-6
Table V-3

SRC pipe and tube: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

products 31

 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007-June 2010

Period

United States China Mexico

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. $3.61 2,269,309 $*** *** *** $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June 4.69 3,068,659 4.74 179,449 (1.1) *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 4.68 2,000,059 4.56 167,342 2.6 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 4.42 1,873,448 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 4.40 1,900,957 4.59 159,967 (4.3) *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 4.87 1,940,883 4.60 339,881 5.4 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 4.68 1,658,448 4.47 232,848 4.4 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.50 1,299,268 4.16 270,663 (19.0) *** *** ***

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.47 1,382,492 2.29 273,256 7.2 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.80 1,213,539 2.60 254,075 7.4 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 3.33 1,134,195 3.28 169,335 1.7 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.66 1,354,540 3.87 92,385 (5.8) *** *** ***

2010:

 Jan.-Mar. 4.06 1,427,314 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 3.96 1,782,679 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Product 3: Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 3/8" OD, ACR/RST coil, 50'-100' lengths.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-7
Table V-4

SRC pipe and tube: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

products 41

 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007-June 2010

Period

United States China Mexico

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. $3.36 1,739,325 $4.14 55,434 (23.2) $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June 4.33 2,458,151 4.21 207,501 3.0 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 4.33 1,354,142 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 4.04 1,217,006 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 4.15 1,422,224 4.07 231,963 1.8 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 4.53 1,670,846 4.81 268,556 (6.1) *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 4.34 1,322,794 4.78 216,967 (10.0) *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.28 888,789 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.30 1,067,639 2.31 273,202 (0.7) *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.73 942,580 2.80 249,413 (2.5) *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 3.26 804,493 3.22 169,222 1.4 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.71 524,354 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2010:

 Jan.-Mar. 3.67 954,025 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 4.00 1,388,405 *** *** *** -- 0 --

 1 Product 4: Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 3/4" OD, ACR/RST coil, 50'-100' lengths. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-8
Table V-5

SRC pipe and tube: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

products 51

 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table V-6

SRC pipe and tube: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

products 61

 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table V-7

SRC pipe and tube: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

products 71

 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007-June 2010

Period

United States China Mexico

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. $3.23 2,913,166 $*** *** *** $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June 3.77 3,843,203 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 3.86 2,897,721 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.87 2,026,447 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 3.70 2,447,430 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 4.36 2,509,290 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 4.27 2,273,696 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.05 1,477,516 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.13 2,078,680 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.53 2,247,601 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 3.03 2,349,698 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.42 1,542,478 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2010:

 Jan.-Mar. 3.85 2,340,490 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 3.95 3,015,643 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Product 7: Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 3/8" OD, smooth bore LWC, 0.0249"-0.0327" bottom wall

thickness.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-9
Table V-8

SRC pipe and tube: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

products 81

 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007-June 2010

Period

United States China Mexico

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. $*** *** - 0 - $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June 3.36 1,597,201 - 0 - *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 3.68 1,322,295 - 0 - *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.68 904,853 - 0 - *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 3.56 1,078,742 - 0 - *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 4.15 1,311,172 $*** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 4.20 1,215,610 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.40 796,190 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.23 1,073,860 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.31 1,447,346 3.59 52,105 (55.5) *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.80 1,092,576 3.04 63,057 (8.6) *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.13 783,508 3.31 26,062 (5.8) *** *** ***

2010:

 Jan.-Mar. 3.65 1,313,408 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 3.73 1,921,574 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Product 8: Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 3/4" OD, smooth bore LWC, 0.0327"-0.0430" bottom wall

thickness.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Figure V-2

SRC pipe and tube: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product, by quarters, January 2007-June 2010

* * * * * * 

V-10
Table V-9

SRC pipe and tube: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-8 from the United

States, China, and Mexico

Item

Number of

quarters

Low price 

(per ton)

High price

(per ton)

Change in price1

(percent)

Product 1 

United States 14 $2.19 $4.41 2.4

China 9 1.96 4.70 26.0

Mexico 14 2.14 4.30 5.2

Product 2 

United States 14 2.16 4.35 5.1

China 3 2.98 6.60 -54.9

Mexico 14 2.13 4.99 12.1

Product 3 

United States 14 2.47 4.87 9.7

China 14 2.29 4.74 -4.1

Mexico 14 2.52 4.70 6.3

Product 4 

United States 14 2.30 4.53 19.0

China 14 2.31 4.81 ***

Mexico 13 2.34 4.44 19.1

Product 5 

United States 14 2.28 4.49 14.7

China 14 2.32 4.48 17.6

Mexico 4 3.72 4.25 -5.7

Product 6 

United States 14 2.32 4.71 9.9

China 15 2.48 4.60 3.9

Mexico 3 3.90 4.34 -5.3

Product 7 

United States 14 2.13 4.36 22.3

China 14 2.42 4.23 0.9

Mexico 14 2.19 4.21 9.0

Product 8 

United States 14 2.23 4.20 ***

China 9 3.04 5.63 39.3

Mexico 14 2.27 4.30 17.8

 1 Percentage change from the first quarter in which price data were available to the last quarter in which price data

were available, based on unrounded data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-11
U.S.-produced products 1-8 increased by 2.4 to 22.3 percent. Weighted average sales prices of products 2

and 3 imported from China decreased by 4.1 to 54.9 percent, respectively, and prices of other products

increased by 0.9 to 39.3 percent. Weighted average sales prices of products 5 and 6 imported from

Mexico decreased by 5.7 and 5.3 percent respectively and prices of other products increased by 5.2 to

19.1 percent. 

Price Comparisons

Margins of underselling and overselling for the period are presented in table V-10. As can be

seen from the table, prices for SRC pipe and tube imported from China were below those for U.S.-

produced SRC pipe and tube in 43 of 91 instances; margins of underselling ranged from 0.9 to 27.6 

percent. In the remaining 48 instances, prices for SRC pipe and tube imported from China were above

those for U.S.-produced SRC pipe and tube; margins of overselling ranged from 0.3 to 128.8 percent.

Prices for SRC pipe and tube imported from Mexico were below those for U.S.-produced SRC pipe and

tube in 53 of 90 instances; margins of underselling ranged from 0.0 to 23.3 percent. In the remaining 37

instances, prices for SRC pipe and tube imported from Mexico were above those for U.S.-produced SRC

pipe and tube; margins of overselling ranged from 0.0 to 25.7 percent. 

With the exception of reported sales of Chinese imports for products 3 and 4 by *** and reported

sales of Chinese and Canadian imports of product 7 by ***, most U.S. producers and importers reported

sales of products 1-4 for plumbing applications and sales of products 5-8 for industrial applications.6

 U.S.

producers reported sales of all eight price products for industrial applications and sales of products 1-4, 7,

and 8 for plumbing applications. However, at least 97 percent of reported sales by U.S. producers of

products 1-4 were for plumbing applications and sales of product 5-8 were for industrial applications. 

Likewise, over 90 percent of reported sales of Mexican imports of products 1-4 were for plumbing

applications and all reported sales of imports from Mexico of products 5-8 were for industrial

applications. All reported sales of Malaysia imports of product 5 were reported for industrial uses. 

Table V-10

SRC pipe and tube: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins,

January 2007-June 2010

Source

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

China 43 0.9 to 27.6 7.9 48 0.3 to 128.8 17.6

Mexico 53 0.0 to 23.3 3.6 37 0.0 to 25.7 5.9

 Total 96 0.0 to 27.6 5.5 85 0.0 to 128.8 12.5

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Importers reported sales of imports from China of products 1 and 3-8 for industrial applications,

and sales of products 1-4 and 7 for plumbing applications. Reported sales for industrial applications of

imports from China for products 1, 3 and 4 accounted for 3 percent, *** percent, and *** percent of sales

of those products, respectively. However, ***. For sales of Chinese imports of product 7, ***. *** also 

 6 Importers ***.

V-12
Table V-11

SRC pipe and tube: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins

by type of application, January 2007-June 2010

Source

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Industrial Applications

China 50 1.2 to 55.1 11.5 31 0.9 to 87.3 16.2

Mexico 24 0.2 to 58.9 12.9 35 0.7 to 25.7 8.6

 Total 74 0.2 to 58.9 11.9 66 0.7 to 87.3 12.1

Plumbing Applications

China 24 1.5 to 26.5 9.1 29 0.0 to 128.9 16.6

Mexico 51 0.2 to 11.0 2.9 4 0.5 to 19.8 8.0

 Total 75 0.2 to 26.5 4.9 33 0.0 to 128.9 15.6

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

reported sales of Canadian imports of products 1-4 and 7 for plumbing applications. Margins of

underselling and overselling by applications are presented in table V-11. 

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

The Commission requested U.S. producers of SRC pipe and tube to report any instances of lost

sales or revenues they experienced due to competition from imports of SRC pipe and tube from China

and/or Mexico since January 2006. Petitioners provided allegations of both lost sales and revenues in the

petition. Of the seven responding non-petitioning U.S. producers, two reported that they had to either

reduce prices or roll back announced price increases and two indicated that they had lost sales of SRC

pipe and tube to imports from China and Mexico. One of these U.S. producers provided additional lost

sales allegations.7

 The 55 lost sales allegations totaled $232 million and involved 75 million pounds of

SRC pipe and tube and the 19 lost revenues allegations totaled $1.4 million and involved 25 million

pounds of SRC pipe and tube. Staff attempted to contact all of the alleged purchasers, and a summary of

the information obtained follows (tables V-12 and V-13). 

Thirteen of 19 responding purchasers named in lost sales and lost revenue allegations indicated

that they switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube

from China and Mexico since January 2006. Six of these 13 purchasers indicated that price was the

reason for the shift. Of the seven purchasers that indicated that price was not the reason for the shift,

three purchasers (***) indicated that domestic producers were not able to supply enough product, one

purchaser (***) indicated that both availability and pricing were reasons for the switch, one purchaser

(***) indicated that their “switch was caused by a better incentive from our buying group,” one purchaser

(***) noted a quality, service, and lead-time reduction, and one purchaser (***) noted product quality 

 7 In addition, some petitioners provided additional lost sales and lost revenue allegation after the filing of the

petition. These allegations were not included in this section.

V-13
Table V-12

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

Table V-13

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations

* * * * * * *

and performance. Four of 13 responding purchasers (***) named in lost sales and lost revenue

allegations indicated that U.S. producers reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to compete 

with prices of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico since January 2006. Three purchasers indicated

that they were not certain if U.S. producers lowered their prices during this time period to compete with

price of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico.

Purchasers specifically “agreed” with lost sales allegations totaling $34 million and lost revenue

allegations totaling $19 thousand. The allegations that were “agreed” with represent 15 percent of the

value of all lost sales allegations and 1 percent of the value of all lost revenue allegations made by U.S.

producers. Purchasers specifically “disagreed” with lost sales allegations totaling $184 million and lost

revenue allegations totaling $818 thousand. The allegations that were “disagreed” with represent 79

percent of the value of all lost sales allegations and 57 percent of the value of all lost revenue allegations. 

Purchasers did not specifically “agree” or “disagree” with lost sales allegations totaling $10 million and

lost revenue allegations totaling $583 thousand, but provided narrative responses that are summarized on

the following pages. These allegations represent 4 percent of the value of all lost sales allegations and 41

percent of the value of all lost revenue allegations. 

*** disagreed with the *** lost sales allegations made against his company. *** indicated that

the accepted quote for the imported product was not lower than the rejected quote for U.S. product. He

indicated that the metal price was not a factor and that fabrication costs and duties above base metal costs

were higher than the costs of U.S. product. *** also indicated that the U.S. supplier which had been his

company’s ***. Prior to ***, he indicated that his company was satisfied with its U.S. vendor. ***

indicated that while his firm had switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to

suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico since January 2006, price was not the reason for

the shift. He indicated that his U.S. supplier was not able to supply material and forced it to find a second

supplier, and that now his company is committed to maintain at least two suppliers. He also noted that to

the best of his recollection, U.S. producers did not reduce their prices of SRC pipe and tube to compete

with prices of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico.

*** of *** indicated that with regard to the lost sales allegation involving China in 2009 that it

has not purchased from China and that with regard to the lost sales allegation involving Mexico in 2010

that the sales was lost to another domestic supplier. He indicated that each year his company solicits

competitive quotes from qualified domestic and foreign mills and that regardless of price, no bid from a

supplier will be considered unless *** quality requirements are met. He indicated that availability

requirements in the form of reasonable lead times or inventories are necessary and that price including

fabrication, surcharges, freight and terms are considered. He also indicated that the metal cost applies to

all mills and is not a factor in the analysis.

*** of *** indicated that *** had no record of a quote or sale that could be used to confirm the

lost sales allegation made by ***. *** indicated that *** does not import copper tubing from China. 

V-14
*** of *** agreed with the lost sales allegation made by ***. He indicated that the accepted

quote for imported product was $***/lb (same as the domestic quoted price) for the metal and $*** for

fabrication and freight for a total value of $***. *** indicated that *** uses both domestic and imported

copper tube. He noted that ***’s SRC pipe and tube is highly engineered to *** and to date only

domestic producer *** and a Chinese supplier have qualified to provide the raw copper tube that meet

their quality specifications and tolerances. *** indicated that in order to be qualified, SRC pipe and tube

must meet specifications regarding ***. He noted that *** attempted to qualify one additional domestic

source, but the supplier was unable to provide a qualifying product. *** claimed that while his firm had

switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from

China and Mexico since January 2006 and that price was a reason, it was not the only reason for the shift. 

He indicated that the industry has been particularly hard hit in the economic downturn because of the

strong correlation between plumbing product demand and the strength or weakness of the housing market. 

*** indicated that sales of ***’s product are down for 2009 and that it accepted the U.S. producer’s

quote, but ordered less volume than the *** pounds offered. He also noted that historically ***’s

purchases of SRC pipe and tube shifts between qualified suppliers based both on price and quality

offered. *** also indicated that while U.S. producers reduced their prices in order to compete with prices

of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico, that there have only been limited reductions since 2006 and

no reductions in 2008 or 2009.

*** disagreed with the lost sales allegation made by ***. *** indicated that his company was

planning on purchasing this order from *** and then selling to a customer, but that the purchase was not

made since the customer decided not to purchase the product, although his firm did secure an order for

this job (with different quantities) at a later date.8

 He indicated that the customer said he was going to

wait on the market and buy as needed in hope for better pricing. *** indicated that he had no idea what

his competition’s price was to customer and that his firm purchased the majority of its copper pipe from

***.

*** of *** disagreed with the lost sales allegation made by ***. *** indicated that the material

purchased from their supplier was the same whether *** firm used domestic or foreign copper. While

*** indicated that *** firm switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of

SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico, *** noted that, in January 2008 her firm switched to material

from China because the U.S. supplier did not have adequate capacity to cover their needs. *** also

indicated that since January 2006, U.S. producers did not reduce their prices in order to compete with

prices of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico.

*** of *** disagreed with the lost sales allegation made by ***. He indicated that the supplier

*** told him they could not keep up with their demand. *** noted that he pays $***/lb. plus duties for

imported copper tube and that the U.S. supplier *** indicated that they would not be able to supply his

firm’s needs. In regard to all of his purchases since January 2006, he indicated that while his firm

switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers from China or Mexico, price

was not the reason for the switch; rather the U.S. supplier *** could not supply his firm’s requirements.

*** also indicated that since January 2006 U.S. producers had raised their prices of SRC pipe and tube.

*** of *** agreed with the lost revenue allegation by ***. He indicated that since January 2006

his firm has not switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe

and tube from China or Mexico, but that U.S. producers have reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube

in order to compete with prices of SRC pipe and tube imported from China or Mexico and that “it is still

going on.” 

*** of *** agreed with the lost sales allegation made by ***. He indicated that the allegation

included product provided under two jobs. *** indicated that the *** went to Mexico and the *** went to

China. He indicated that since January 2006, his firm switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from

 8 Staff telephone interview with ***, October 16, 2009.

V-15
U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico and that price was the reason for

the switch. *** also reported that U.S. producers reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to

compete with prices of SRC pipe and tube imported from China or Mexico. *** indicated that in several

cases, the cost of the imported “finished product” was less than the raw material cost based on the

COMEX price at the time of the closing bid.

 *** of *** disagreed with the lost sales allegation made by ***. With regard to the ***

allegation, he indicated that he is familiar with the quote from *** and indicates that his firm sent out the

inquiry in line with the contract they had in place. *** noted that the number of short tons in the quote

would represent about *** percent of *** total requirements so “capacity constraints are obvious.” While

agreeing with the rejected quote numbers, he indicated that his firm did not pay the amount provided and

that the amount noted in the “accepted quote” was not possible given the market price of metal at that

time. *** indicated that *** was their sole supplier for several years prior to being replaced by U.S.

producer *** due to major quality problems and that his firm incurred major production disruptions in

2004 due to lack of capacity in the U.S. market. *** indicated that his company went on the open market

and purchased some material in 2004 from *** as well as from other U.S. and foreign suppliers due to

capacity constraints in the United States. He claimed that the material his firm purchased from ***

exhibited many of the same quality problems as when they were the primary supplier to ***. He noted

that his firm moved away from ***. *** claims that ***, as well as all but one U.S. manufacturer of

copper tube, does not have the ability to produce ***. He also indicated that since January 2006 his firm

has not switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube

from China or Mexico. *** also noted that he cannot speak as to whether U.S. producers reduced their

prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to compete with prices of SRC pipe and tube imported from China

or Mexico since he has been under contract since 2005.

With regard to the *** allegation, he indicated that the product quoted by *** did not meet the

mandatory requirements of the applicable *** specification including the *** and the ***.

He indicated that differences of this magnitude would adversely affect ***. He also indicated that ***

has subsequently placed a purchase order for manufacturing a trial quantity of the material but that ***

has delayed this trial several times due to ***. *** also indicated that the capacity offered by *** would

not provide sufficient material to allow *** to address its consumption requirements and that ***

stipulated that before it would provide any material in 2011, *** would have to make a minimum of a ***

year commitment before *** would ***.

*** of *** disagreed with the lost revenue allegation made by ***. He indicated that ***

rejected the U.S. producer’s quote for all *** indicated that when the quote was revised to use the ***,

only the price of the first item (which was for ***) was adjusted downward and that *** accepted this

quotation with no other reductions. He also noted that the first item was awarded *** due to continued

quality problems and tube weight issues and that *** material which they did not have with the material

from the Chinese supplier. While *** indicated that since January 2006 his firm switched purchases of

SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico, he

indicated that his firm switched to imported material because of quality, service, and reduced lead times

since the Chinese suppliers have U.S. representatives that warehouse finished goods for his firm. He also

noted that he is not certain why *** lowered their price on the one item mentioned, but believes it was

related to improvements in efficiencies as a result of production ***. 

***.

V-16
*** of *** agreed with the lost sale allegation but he indicated that the volume was smaller ***. 

*** also indicated that he can not be certain that the sale was lost to imports pricing because the supplier

sells both imported and U.S. produced SRC pipe and tube. 

*** of *** agreed with one lost sales allegation made by *** and neither disagrees or agrees with

another one. With regard to the April 2009 allegation, he agrees with the allegation indicating that since

January 2006 his firm switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC

pipe and tube from China or Mexico and that price was the reason for the switch. *** also indicated that

U.S. producers reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to compete with prices of SRC pipe

and tube imported from China or Mexico. With regard to the October 2009 allegation, he indicated that

he neither agreed or disagreed the allegation with the information given and needs a quote number or an

email to verify the allegation. He indicated that suppliers of imports from China and Mexico have raised

their prices as had U.S. producers. *** indicated that U.S. producers like *** will always keep their

prices higher.

*** of *** indicated that in 2007 *** company only obtained the product described in the ***

allegation from domestic sources of supply. *** indicated that since January 2006 *** firm had switched

purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China or

Mexico, but that any sourcing decisions were driven by product quality and performance and not pricing. 

*** reported that U.S. producers have not reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to compete

with prices of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico and that any changes in U.S. producer pricing

that may have occurred were did not influence to ***’s sourcing decisions. *** indicated that during

August 2007, *** switched from purchasing from U.S. producer *** to Chinese producer ***. ***

indicated that until 2009, ***.9

*** of *** disagreed with the *** allegation made by ***, indicating that the bid provided by the

domestic producer was for ***. *** indicated the primary reason for switching to purchasing material

produced by *** was quality as the *** used by the domestic supplier was prone to *** and as measured

by defective parts per million, the performance was more than *** times worse than the *** that was

selected ro replace it.

*** of *** agreed with the lost revenue allegations made by ***. *** indicated that ***. He

noted that the manufacturer had to lower its price to his firm because its wholesale customers would have

purchased imported product if it could not meet competitive conditions.10 He indicated that since January

2006 his firm has not switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC

pipe and tube from China or Mexico, but that U.S. producers reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in

order to compete with prices of SRC pipe and tube imported from China or Mexico. 

*** of *** disagreed with the lost revenue allegation made by ***. His company’s records do not

show it purchasing tube from a second source on or around the date of the allegation nor do the records

show it purchasing the alleged amount of the specified product at any time. He noted that his company

may have made this quote and not received an order from its customer.

In response to the lost revenue allegation made by ***, *** of *** indicated that his company

only purchases copper tube from “U.S. entities” and is not certain about the country of origin of the

copper tubing that it purchases.

*** of *** disagreed with the lost revenue allegation made by ***. He did not find copper

tubing imported from Mexico to be consistently cheaper than domestically produced copper tubing. ***

indicated that domestic manufacturers were the low bidder as often as importers from Mexico were.

In response to the lost revenue allegation made by ***, *** of *** indicated that his company

does not purchase or have sources to purchase imported copper tube. He stated that his purchases for ***

were from domestic producers. *** indicated that he paid 5 percent more than the *** multiplier net

 9 Email from ***.

 10 Email from ***.

V-17
stated as the rejected quote for the U.S. product and that the U.S. producer did not lower its price. He

responded that since January 2006, his firm has not switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S.

producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico. *** added that although it is

possible, he is not certain whether U.S. producers reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to

compete with prices of SRC pipe and tube imported from China or Mexico.

*** of *** disagreed with the lost sale allegation made by ***. He indicated that this supplier

was the highest bidder of all, including two other U.S. sources who would have gotten an order before

this supplier with the pricing referenced. *** noted that the two items in the allegation had been

purchased from *** for over 10 years and when that source ***, the Mexican source agreed to continue

the supply at the same price. He indicated that the U.S. source referenced was quoted in September 2009,

and it was told that it was not competitive although there are other U.S. suppliers with pricing that is

competitive with Mexico and China. While *** indicated that since January 2006, his firm did switch

purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China or

Mexico, he indicated that this switch was due to the availability of certain alloys in addition to pricing.

*** also indicated that since January 2006, U.S. producers have not raised their prices of SRC pipe and

tube.

*** of *** disagreed with the two lost sale allegations made by ***. He cannot find any

documentation showing that his company received quotes for the dates provided in the allegations (***). 

*** indicated that the *** his company was using used to be produced ***. He indicated that fabrication

costs did not change after ***. *** noted that his company was satisfied with the quality and services

provided by *** and that he cannot find any documentation showing that *** was interested in switching

to an alternative supplier for lower costs between the dates of the two allegations.

*** of *** agreed with the lost sales allegation made by ***. He indicated that his firm did

switch purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from

China or Mexico and that price was the reason for the switch. *** also indicated that U.S. producers

reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to compete with prices of SRC pipe and tube imported

from China or Mexico. 

*** of *** disagreed with the two lost sales allegations and one lost revenue allegation made by

***. He agreed with one lost sales allegation made by *** and disagreed with another lost sales

allegation. *** indicated that the *** pound allegation made by *** was awarded to a domestic supplier. 

He noted that the *** pound allegation was an unsolicited quote and that business for this product was

already contractually committed for 2009. *** indicated that the lost revenue allegation was a quote from

a U.S. producer for a price increase, and due to a sharp decrease in sales, *** was not accepting price

increases. With regard to the 2009 lost sales allegation made by *** that he disagreed with, he indicated

that the quote was for 2010 business and that *** is not “importing” copper tubing. ***’s purchaser

questionnaire response indicates that *** only purchased copper pipe and tubing produced in the United

States during the first six months of 2010, but that it purchased copper tubing imported from China each

year from 2007 to 2009, ranging from *** pounds per year. With regard to the *** lost sales allegation

that he agreed with, he noted that *** awarded this requirement to a Chinese producer, as well as a

domestic producer, both of which quoted a lower price. He indicated that his firm switched purchases of

SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico and that

price was the reason for the switch. *** noted that *** still purchases significant quantities from U.S.

producers but that it is important to have multiple supply sources. He also indicated that the HVAC

industry has suffered a sharp decrease in sales, and that a reduction in prices could be the result of lower

demand generally, and increased competition from domestic and foreign producers.

The representative for *** did not respond to the specific lost sales allegation. However, he did

indicate that since January 2006, the firm switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers

to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico and that price was the reason for the switch. He

also reported that U.S. producers did not reduce their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to compete

with prices of SRC pipe and tube imported from China or Mexico.

V-18
 *** of *** agreed with the lost sales allegation made by ***. He indicated that the fabrication

cost of the imported quote was $***/lb., plus a $***/lb. premium. *** also indicated that sales were lost

to imports from both China and Mexico (only Mexico was named in the allegation). He indicated that

since January 2006, his firm switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers

of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico and that price was the reason for the switch. However, ***

stated that U.S. producers had not reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to compete with

prices of SRC pipe and tube imported from China or Mexico. 

*** of *** did not specifically agree or disagree with the lost revenue allegation made by ***.

*** indicated that his company places a premium on the use of domestic material and doesn’t actively

solicit information on imported copper. He responded that since January 2006, his firm has not switched

purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China or

Mexico and that U.S. producers had not reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to compete

with prices of SRC pipe and tube imported from China or Mexico. 

*** of *** disagreed with the three lost sales allegation involving his company. He indicated that

the quantity (approximately *** pounds) and value (approximately $***) of the alleged lost sales are

incorrect and are significantly higher than the company’s annual purchases. *** also indicated that the

only orders placed by *** for imported SRC pipe and tube in 2007 (the year of the allegation) was a

purchase of *** in November and December 2007. He indicates that one of the main reasons for

purchasing imported SCR pipe and tube was the payment terms offered by U.S. producer ***. According

to ***, rather than extending credit terms to ***, ***.

*** of *** disagreed with the lost sales allegation made by ***. He indicated that he did not

recall the quote. *** reported that since January 2006, his firm switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube

from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico, but that price was not the

reason for the switch, rather that ***. He also indicated that U.S. producers had not reduced their prices

of SRC pipe and tube in order to compete with prices of SRC pipe and tube imported from China or

Mexico. 

*** of *** agreed with two sales allegations by *** and disagreed with another two allegations. 

Although he agreed with the allegations for *** 2008, he indicated that the quantities were smaller; ***

pounds for the *** pound allegation and *** pounds for the *** pound allegation. *** disagreed with the

other two allegations, indicating that his company has no record of the quote and that all 2009 purchases

of these products have of domestically produced product.

V-19
 
PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCERS

Introduction

Twelve U.S. firms provided usable financial data on their operations on SRC pipe and tube.1

These data are believed to account for the large majority of U.S. operations on SRC pipe and tube. 

Internal consumption and transfers to related firms were reported by several firms; however, these noncommercial transactions accounted for only *** percent of total net sales value in 2009 and are not

presented separately in this section. All firms reported a fiscal year end on or near December 31 ***.2

Operations on SRC Pipe and Tube

Income-and-loss data for U.S. firms on their operations on SRC pipe and tube are presented in

table VI-1, while selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table VI-2. The domestic industry

experienced a continuous decline in net sales (quantity and value) and operating income from 2007 to

2009; however, both net sales and operating income improved between the comparable interim periods. 

The per-pound net sales value irregularly declined from 2007 to 2009, then improved in January-June

2010 to a level comparable to full year 2007. From 2007 to 2009, the per-pound net sales value declined

more than operating costs and expenses (cost of goods sold (“COGS”) and selling, general, and

administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, combined), thus leading to a decline in profits. Between the 

comparable interim periods, per-pound revenue increased more than operating costs and expenses, which

led to improved profitability in January-June 2010 as compared to January-June 2009. 

Raw material costs are the primary component of total COGS, accounting for 84 percent of total

COGS during the period for which data were collected. While other components of COGS increased on a

per-pound basis from 2007 to 2009, raw material costs (copper cathode, ingot, and/or scrap) declined by

$0.91, or 29 percent, from 2007 to 2009. Between the comparable interim periods, per-pound raw

material costs increased by $1.33, or 69 percent, while direct labor and other factory costs were stable. 

Thus, the overall change in per-pound COGS during the period examined is predominantly the result of 

fluctuations in raw material costs.

 Petitioners’ state that conversion revenues (per-pound net sales values less per-pound raw

material costs) provide a better measure of the industry’s financial performance since the price of copper

is essentially passed through to customers. From 2007 to 2009, per-pound average conversion revenues

irregularly declined from $0.90 to $0.83, then increased from $0.78 to $0.81 between the comparable

interim periods.3

 1 The U.S. producers are ***. The company records underlying ***’s financial data were reviewed at

Commission offices. ***. 

 2

 Full year financial data for all U.S. producers cover fiscal years 2007 to 2009. Separate financial data on

industrial and plumbing SRC pipe and tube are presented in appendix E. ***.

 3

 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, pp. 50-51. Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exh. 9.

VI-1
Table VI-1

SRC pipe and tube: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June

2010

Item

Fiscal year January-June

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Total net sales 772,482 649,879 526,474 277,322 286,115

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales 3,151,317 2,761,903 1,630,144 748,334 1,161,741

COGS 2,857,802 2,526,053 1,523,536 696,297 1,094,715

Gross profit 293,515 235,850 106,608 52,037 67,026

SG&A expenses 73,637 68,408 61,715 30,144 32,796

Operating income 219,878 167,442 44,893 21,893 34,230

Interest expense 9,376 7,206 4,003 1,534 2,514

Other income/(expense) (850) (705) (5,605) (473) (478)

Net income 209,652 159,531 35,285 19,886 31,238

Depreciation 38,294 36,554 37,890 18,935 17,565

Cash flow 247,946 196,085 73,175 38,821 48,803

Ratio to net sales (percent)

 COGS:

 Raw materials 77.9 77.7 73.2 71.2 80.1

 Direct labor 3.1 3.4 4.8 5.2 3.4

 Other factory costs 9.7 10.4 15.5 16.6 10.7

 Total COGS 90.7 91.5 93.5 93.0 94.2

Gross profit 9.3 8.5 6.5 7.0 5.8

SG&A expenses 2.3 2.5 3.8 4.0 2.8

Operating income 7.0 6.1 2.8 2.9 2.9

Net income 6.7 5.8 2.2 2.7 2.7

Unit value (per pound)

Total net sales $4.08 $4.25 $3.10 $2.70 $4.06

 COGS:

 Raw materials 3.18 3.30 2.27 1.92 3.25

 Direct labor 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.14

 Other factory costs 0.39 0.44 0.48 0.45 0.44

 Total COGS 3.70 3.89 2.89 2.51 3.83

Gross profit 0.38 0.36 0.20 0.19 0.23

SG&A expenses 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.11

Operating income 0.28 0.26 0.09 0.08 0.12

Net income 0.27 0.25 0.07 0.07 0.11

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses 2 3 3 3 5

Data 11 12 12 11 11

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

VI-2
Table VI-2

SRC pipe and tube: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and

January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

While the overall industry, as well as ***, reported a general decline in profitability during the

period examined, *** in January-June 2010.4

 According to petitioners, ***. Further, petitioners’ stated

that per-pound selling expenses are lower for sales to OEMs as compared to sales of standard products to

distributors and retailers.5 6 7

Variance Analysis

The variance analysis presented in table VI-3 is based on the data in table VI-1. The analysis

shows that the decline in operating income from 2007 to 2009 is primarily attributable to an unfavorable

price variance that more than offset a favorable net cost/expense variance (that is, prices declined more

than costs and expenses). Between the comparable interim periods, the improvement in operating income

is primarily attributable to a favorable price variance that more than offset an unfavorable net

cost/expense variance (that is, prices increased more than costs/expenses).8

 4 The SRC pipe and tube industry experienced a slight decline in its operating margin in the last six months of

2009 (an operating margin of 2.6 percent) as compared to the first six months of 2009 (an operating margin of 2.9

percent). Calculated from table VI-1 in this section of the report. Staff notes that three firms have a fiscal year end

other than December 31, which makes this calculation imprecise. However, it may serve as a gauge of trends in the

SRC pipe and tube industry during 2009. 

 5

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 14.

 6

 SG&A expenses represent only 2.9 percent of total operating costs during the period for which data were

collected, and are not a major factor behind the industry’s reported financial performance.

 7

 During the period examined, the reported financial data for industrial and plumbing SRC pipe and tube revealed

greater profitability for plumbing SRC pipe and tube, with operating income margins of 10.2 (2007), 9.5 (2008), 5.0

(2009), 7.1 (January-June 2009), and 4.5 (January-June 2010) percent. In contrast, operating income margins for

industrial SRC pipe and tube were 3.3 (2007), 1.6 (2008), negative 0.9 (2009), negative 5.1 (January-June 2009),

and 1.4 (January-June 2010) percent. Net sales quantities of plumbing SRC pipe and tube declined by 3.2 percent

from 2007-09 and declined by 26.9 percent between the comparable interim periods, while net sales quantities of

industrial SRC pipe and tube declined by 17 percent from 2007-09 and increased by 15 percent between the

comparable interim periods. See also appendix E. 

 8

 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 variance (in the case of

the cost of sales and SG&A expense variance) and a volume variance. The sales or cost variance is calculated as the

change in unit price times the new volume, while the volume variance is calculated as the change in volume times

the old unit price. 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

lines under price and cost/expense variance. The net volume component is generally the smallest component.

VI-3
Table VI-3

SRC pipe and tube: Variance analysis on operations of U.S. producers, 2007-09, and January-June 2009-10

Item

Between fiscal years Jan.-June

2007-09 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Value ($1,000)

 Total net sales:

 Price variance (517,591) 110,741 (607,303) 389,680

 Volume variance (1,003,582) (500,155) (524,456) 23,727

 Total net sales variance (1,521,173) (389,414) (1,131,759) 413,407

Cost of sales:

 Cost variance 424,158 (121,822) 522,847 (376,341)

 Volume variance 910,108 453,571 479,670 (22,077)

 Total cost variance 1,334,266 331,749 1,002,517 (398,418)

Gross profit variance (186,907) (57,665) (129,242) 14,989

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance (11,529) (6,458) (6,297) (1,696)

 Volume variance 23,451 11,687 12,990 (956)

 Total SG&A variance 11,922 5,229 6,693 (2,652)

Operating income variance (174,985) (52,436) (122,549) 12,337

Summarized as:

 Price variance (517,591) 110,741 (607,303) 389,680

 Net cost/expense variance 412,629 (128,280) 516,550 (378,037)

 Net volume variance (70,023) (34,898) (31,795) 694

Note.-- Unfavorable variances are shown in parentheses; all others are favorable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

The responding firms’ aggregate data on capital expenditures and research and development

(“R&D”) expenses are shown in table VI-4. Ten firms provided capital expenditure data, and four firms

provided data on R&D expenses. Capital expenditures declined irregularly from 2007 to 2009, and also

declined between the comparable interim periods. Cerro and KobeWieland reported ***. Cerro’s capital

expenditures primarily reflect the completion of an expansion and modernization program at the firm’s

Cedar City, UT, facility, while KobeWieland’s capital expenditures primarily reflect ongoing

expenditures for expansion and modernization of the firm’s Pine Hall, NC, facility.9 10

 9 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exhibit 14.

 10 Capital expenditures for industrial SRC pipe and tube represented the majority of reported total capital

expenditures during the period for which data were requested, ranging from 55.6 percent in January-June 2009 to

78.5 percent in 2008. While capital expenditures for industrial SRC pipe and tube declined irregularly from 2007-

09, such expenditures increased irregularly for plumbing SRC pipe and tube. Capital expenditures for both

industrial and plumbing SRC pipe and tube declined between the comparable interim periods. See also appendix E. 

VI-4
Table VI-4

SRC pipe and tube: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. producers, 2007-

09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

Item

Fiscal year January-June

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Value ($1,000)

Capital expenditures:

 Total 41,162 45,241 34,090 17,231 6,024

R&D expenses:

 Total 1,865 2,137 2,239 1,115 1,132

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Assets and Return on Investment

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,

and sale of SRC pipe and tube to compute return on investment (“ROI”). Data on the U.S. producers’

total assets and their ROI are presented in table VI-5. From 2007 to 2009, the total assets for SRC pipe

and tube decreased from $1.3 billion in 2007 to $1.0 billion in 2009, and the ROI declined from 17.5

percent in 2007 to 4.4 percent in 2009.

Table VI-5

SRC pipe and tube: Asset values and return on investment of U.S. producers, 2007-09

Item

Fiscal year

2007 2008 2009

Value of assets: Value ($1,000)

Current assets:

 Cash and equivalents 213,394 204,279 153,714

 Accounts receivable, net 306,044 213,395 176,264

 Inventories 288,526 190,055 212,997

 Other 83,617 72,541 112,469

 Total current assets 891,581 680,270 655,444

Property, plant and equipment:

Original cost 771,968 834,499 841,490

Less: accumulated depreciation 488,897 535,859 548,750

Equals: book value 283,071 298,640 292,740

Other non-current assets 79,259 81,103 74,874

 Total assets 1,253,911 1,060,013 1,023,058

Operating income or (loss) 219,878 167,442 44,893

Return on investment 17.5 15.8 4.4

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

VI-5
CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers of SRC pipe and tube to describe any actual or

potential negative effects of imports of SRC pipe and tube from China and Mexico on their firms’ growth,

investment, ability to raise capital, development and production efforts, or the scale of capital

investments. Their responses are next.

Actual Negative Effects

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Negative Effects

* * * * * * *

VI-6
PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON

NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

Section 771(7)(F)(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)) provides that--

In determining whether an industry in the United States is threatened

with material injury by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of the

subject merchandise, the Commission shall consider, among other

relevant economic factors1

--

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be

presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the

subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a

subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement), and

whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial

increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the

likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export

markets to absorb any additional exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of

imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of

substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices

that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on

domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) 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,

(VII) in any investigation under this title which involves imports of both

a raw agricultural product (within the meaning of paragraph (4)(E)(iv))

and any product processed from such raw agricultural product, the

likelihood that there will be increased imports, by reason of product

shifting, if there is an affirmative determination by the Commission

 1 Section 771(7)(F)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii)) provides that “The Commission shall consider *** .

. . as a whole in making a determination of whether further dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether

material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted

under this title. The presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider . . . shall not

necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the determination. Such a determination may not be made on the

basis of mere conjecture or supposition.”

VII-1
under section 705(b)(1) or 735(b)(1) with respect to either the raw

agricultural product or the processed agricultural product (but not both),

(VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing

development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including

efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic

like product, and

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability

that there is likely to be material injury by reason of imports (or sale for

importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually

being imported at the time).2

Information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts

IV and V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’

existing development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the

subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any

other threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in third-country markets, follows. Also presented

in this section of the report is information obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject

countries and the global market.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The Chinese SRC pipe and tube industry has experienced significant recent expansion in response

to the country’s rapid growth in demand by downstream industry sectors driven by China’s rapid overall

economic development. However, according to the 2009 U.S. Geological Survey, although Chinese

smelter and refinery capacity has expanded in recent years, its mine and refinery production are 

insufficient to meet growing domestic consumption needs for refined copper,3

 so China is a leading global

importer of copper in the forms of refined metal and scrap.4

In 2009, there were reportedly 18 major SRC pipe and tube producers in China with a combined

capacity of approximately 2 billion pounds (operating at 35 percent capacity).5

 The Commission

requested data from the 14 firms that were listed in the petition as producing SRC pipe and tube in China

during the period of the investigation. The Commission received a response from eight firms,6

 and data

regarding the Chinese industry are based on the eight foreign producer questionnaires received. These

responses are believed to account for approximately *** of Chinese export shipments to the United States

in 2009.7

 In addition to the responding Chinese producers of SRC pipe and tube, U.S. importers

 2 Section 771(7)(F)(iii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(iii)) further provides that, in antidumping

investigations, “. . . the Commission shall consider whether dumping in the markets of foreign countries (as

evidenced by dumping findings or antidumping remedies in other WTO member markets against the same class or

kind of merchandise manufactured or exported by the same party as under investigation) suggests a threat of material

injury to the domestic industry.”

 3

 Pui Kwan Tse, “The Mineral Industry of China,” 2007 Mineral Yearbook (advanced release), U.S. Geological

Survey, February 2009, pp. 9.5 – 9.6.

 4

 Ibid., pp. 9.3 and 9.23.

 5

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, page 4.

 6

 Producers in China that submitted foreign producer questionnaires were: ***.

 7

 According to testimony presented at the hearing, Golden Dragon is by far the largest exporter of Chinese tubes,

and Golden Dragon exports almost exclusively inner groove tube that it produces using the cast and roll process. 

continue...

VII-2
identified the following producers/exporters as other Chinese sources for their imports of SRC pipe and

tube: ***.

Table VII-1 presents information on the Chinese industry’s SRC pipe and tube operations. 

Chinese capacity increased 17.3 percent from 2007 to 2009, increased 9.5 percent between the interim

periods, and were projected to increase in 2010 and 2011. The share of Chinese exports to the United

States increased from 8.6 percent in 2007 to 8.9 percent in 2009. The share of Chinese exports to all

other countries decreased from 21.5 percent in 2007 to 15.6 percent in 2009.8

 

 7 ...continue

Hearing transcript, p. 170 (Rogers). 

 8

 These other export markets include: ***.

VII-3
Table VII-1

SRC pipe and tube: Chinese production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2007-

09, January-June 2009, January-June 2010, and projected 2010-11

Item

Actual experience Projections

2007 2008 2009

January-June

2009 2010 2010 2011

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Capacity1 1,015,514 1,103,084 1,191,010 588,740 644,404 1,207,614 1,229,660

Production 894,589 904,116 1,045,492 459,804 558,254 1,094,771 1,095,986

End of period inventories 20,989 16,098 20,151 15,990 23,869 21,942 23,316

Shipments

 Internal consumption/

 transfers 79,303 76,206 113,072 54,372 37,688 81,286 66,529

 Home market 545,332 532,280 679,786 317,164 394,888 769,641 813,162

 Exports to--

The United States 76,725 103,417 93,143 51,500 33,265 50,436 11,165

All other markets 191,978 199,083 164,369 86,745 101,899 191,572 206,390

 Total exports 268,703 302,500 257,512 138,245 135,164 242,008 217,555

Total shipments 893,338 910,986 1,050,370 509,781 567,740 1,092,935 1,097,246

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 88.1 82.0 87.8 78.1 86.6 90.7 89.1

Inventories to production 2.3 1.8 1.9 1.7 2.1 2.0 2.1

Inventories to total

 shipments 2.3 1.8 1.9 1.6 2.1 2.0 2.1

Share of total quantity of

 shipments:

 Internal consumption/

 transfers 8.9 8.4 10.8 10.7 6.6 7.4 6.1

 Home market 61.0 58.4 64.7 62.2 69.6 70.4 74.1

 Exports to--

The United States 8.6 11.4 8.9 10.1 5.9 4.6 1.0

All other markets 21.5 21.9 15.6 17.0 17.9 17.5 18.8

All export markets 30.1 33.2 24.5 27.1 23.8 22.1 19.8

 1

 ***.

Note.– Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

VII-4
Chinese producers of SRC pipe and tube were asked if they had experienced any plant openings,

relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, closures, or prolonged shutdowns because of strikes

or equipment failure; curtailment of production because of shortages of materials; or any other change in

the character of their operations or organization relating to the production of SRC pipe and tube since

January 1, 2007. Five Chinese producers provided responses which are presented in table VII-2.

Table VII-2

SRC pipe and tube: Changes in Chinese producers’ production operations

* * * * * * *

When asked to describe constraints on production capacity, Chinese producers of SRC pipe and

tube reported: ***. Table VII-3 presents the Chinese producers’ share of their total sales represented by

sales of SRC pipe and tube. *** Chinese producer reported producing other products on the same

equipment and machinery used to produce SRC pipe and tube.9

Table VII-3

SRC pipe and tube: Share of Chinese producers’ total sales

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN MEXICO

The Commission requested data from five producers of SRC pipe and tube in Mexico. The

Commission received responses from five firms, which are believed to account for *** of Mexican export

shipments to the United States in 2009.10

Table VII-4 presents information on the Mexican industry’s operations in Mexico.11 Mexican

producers’ capacity increased by *** percent from 2007 to 2009 and was *** percent higher in interim

2010 when compared to interim 2009. Mexican production of SRC pipe and tube decreased by ***

percent from 2007 to 2009. Mexican capacity utilization *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2009. 

The volume of Mexican producers’ shipments to its home market ranged from *** percent in

2007 to *** percent in interim 2010. The *** of Mexican producers’ exports was exported to the United

States, and ranges from *** percent to *** percent of total shipments.12

One Mexican producer, Luvata Monterrey, began production in 2009 ***.13 Another Mexican

producer, Golden Dragon Affiliates, opened a plant in Monclova at the end of September 2009 and

 9 ***.

 10 Producers in Mexico that submitted foreign producer questionnaires were: ***.

 11 The Mexican SRC pipe and tube industry relies upon both domestic and foreign sources of copper imports. 

 12 The other export markets are ***.

 13 Luvata Monterrey foreign producer questionnaire, page 4. The facility located in the Monterrey area of Nuevo

Leon, Mexico reportedly focuses on sales to both large OEM manufacturers and smaller local customers in the air

conditioning and heating industry using Luvata’s own cast and roll technology. See “Luvata announces official

opening of multi-million dollar copper-tube manufacturing plant,”

http://www.luvata.com/zh-cn/News-Room/Press-Releases/Luvata-announces-official-opening-of-multi-milliondollar/, retrieved September 9, 2010.

VII-5
projects capacity at the plant to be approximately ***.14 According to testimony presented at the hearing,

Golden Dragon built this Mexican facility to produce the same product it was importing from China and

that it “has had plans over time to replace the products imported from China with Mexican product to the

United States.”15 

According to testimony presented at the hearing, IUSA shifted most of its production to its U.S.

subsidiary, Cambridge-Lee in Reading, PA, in 2009.16 Respondents argue that the decision to shift

production to the United States was based on: freight cost savings; Buy America requirements; cheaper

electricity and gas costs; production efficiencies; and minimal labor cost differentials.17

Table VII-4

SRC pipe and tube: Mexican production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2007-

09, January-June 2009, January-June 2010, and projected 2010-11

* * * * * * *

Mexican producers of SRC pipe and tube were asked if they had experienced any plant openings, 

relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, closures, or prolonged shutdowns because of strikes

or equipment failure; curtailment of production because of shortages of materials; or any other change in

the character of their operations or organization relating to the production of SRC pipe and tube since

January 1, 2007. Three Mexican producers provided responses which are presented in table VII-5.

Table VII-5

SRC pipe and tube: Changes in Mexican producers’ production operations

* * * * * * *

Table VII-6 presents the Mexican producers’ share of their total sales represented by sales of 

SRC pipe and tube.

Table VII-6

SRC pipe and tube: Share of Mexican producers’ total sales

* * * * * * *

 14 The plant is located in the northern Mexican state of Coahuila. At the launching ceremony, Li Changjie,

president of Golden Dragon, said the Monclova plant was part of a global strategy which would allow his company

to meet the demand in North America and Europe. See “Golden Dragon opens copper pipe plant in Mexico,”

http://www.steelguru.com/metals_news/Golden_Dragon_opens_copper_pipe_plant_in_Mexico/118419.html,

retrieved September 9, 2010. 

 15 Hearing transcript, p. 153 (Weil). 

 16 Hearing transcript, p. 180 (Kerins). ***. According to documents provided in IUSA/Nacobre/CambridgeLee/Copper and Brass International’s posthearing brief, Cambridge-Lee ramped up production of plumbing pipe and

decreased imports from Mexico *** and ***. Respondents posthearing brief (IUSA, Nacobre, Cambridge-Lee, and

Copper and Brass International), p. 2 ***. 

 17 Hearing transcript, pp. 174-175 (Ochoa). 

VII-6
U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES OF SRC PIPE AND TUBE

Data collected in these investigations on U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of SRC pipe

and tube are presented in table VII-7. 

Table VII-7

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, 2007-09, January-June

2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

Two U.S. importers reported imports or the arrangement of imports of SRC pipe and tube of 4.1

million pounds from China, and six importers reported the arrangement of imports of 2.3 million pounds

from Mexico after June 30, 2010.

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY INVESTIGATIONS

IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

SRC pipe and tube have not been subject to any import relief investigation in other countries.

INFORMATION ON PRODUCERS IN NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material 

injury “by reason of subject imports,” the legislative history states “that the Commission must examine all

relevant evidence, including any known factors, other than the dumped or subsidized imports, that may be

injuring the domestic industry, and that the Commission must examine those other factors (including nonsubject imports) ‘to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.’”18

Canada and Malaysia are leading nonsubject sources for U.S. imports of SRC pipe and tube.

Canada

Wolverine Tube (Canada) Inc. (Wolverine-Canada) is a major producer of SRC pipe and tube in

Canada.19 As part of its plans to exit the North American residential plumbing tube market, parentcompany Wolverine Tube Inc. (Wolverine) announced, in July 2008, the sell-off of Wolverine-Canada’s

residential plumbing tube operations, to focus on heat-transfer tubing, fabricated assemblies, and metaljoining products.20 Subsequently, Wolverine-Canada’s product line was expanded beyond uncoated SRC

pipe and tube through acquisition of Kamco Products (Kamco) in November 2008, a leading Canadian

and North American producer of coated SRC pipe and tube.21 Kamco’s plastic-coated SRC pipe and tube

is encased in polyethylene for corrosion resistance in conveyance of fuel oil, natural gas and liquified

 18 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. V. United States, Slip Op. 2007-1552 at 17 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2008), quoting

from Statement of Administrative Action on Uruguay round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 851-52;

see also Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 32006).

 19 Petition, p. 25.

 20 Wolverine, “Wolverine Tube Sells Canadian Plumbing Tube Unit for $42 Million,” press release, July 8, 2008.

 21 Wolverine-Canada, Kamco Div., “Wolverine Tube (Canada) Inc. Acquires the Assets of Kamco Products, a

Division of Granby Steel Tanks,” November 1, 2008.

VII-7
petroleum gas, and potable water in industrial and municipal service sectors.22 Further information was

not available about Wolverine-Canada’s annual production capacity.

Malaysia

MetTube Sdn Bhd (MetTube) is the first integrated mill in Malaysia that produces SRC pipe and 

tube from melting, casting, extruding, and drawing of refined copper.23 Both smooth and inner-groove

SRC pipe and tube are produced by MetTube for the air conditioning and refrigeration industries. 

MetTube’s tubing is available either unannealed or with varying degrees of annealing; and in spooled

coils, pancake coils, and straight lengths.24 MetTube’s tubing is produced to several different foreignmarket specifications, including ASTM B-75, the U.S. specification for seamless copper tube for general

engineering applications.25 Total annual production capacity at MetTube’s facility in Selangor state is

nearly 26,500 short tons per annum.26 The extent of MetTube’s globalized marketing is its claim to be

shipping to customers and partners in 31 countries worldwide.27

Outokumpu Copper Products (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. (Outokumpu-Malaysia) is a producer of

SRC pipe and tube for air conditioning and refrigeration (ACR), along with copper profiles and sections,28

as a member of Luvata (formerly Outokumpu Copper Products before May 2006) since 1998.29 Further

information was not available about Outokumpu-Malaysia’s annual production capacity.

 22 Kamco, “Profile;” and “Products.”

 23 MetTube was established in 1991 as a joint venture between Metdist Ltd. (United Kingdom) and Mitsubishi

Materials Corp. (Japan). MetTube, “MetTube & You– Chairman Statement;” and MetTube, “Virtual Tour–

MetTube Today.”

 24 MetTube, “MetTube & You– Product Range.”

 25 MetTube, “MetTube & You– Product Specifications.”

 26 Total annual production capacity originally reported as 24,000 metric tons. MetTube, “MetTube & You–

MetTube Today.”

 27 Ibid.; and MetTube, “Tube & You– Global Market.”

 28 E-Directory.com.my, Malaysia Manufacturers Directory, “Outokumpu Copper Products (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

(417125-K).

 29 Luvata, “About Luvata, Our History,” 2009.

VII-8
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-1
 
33330 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Notices 

1For purposes of these investigations, the 

Department of Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise as ‘‘all seamless circular refined 

copper pipe and tubes, including redraw hollows, 

greater than or equal to 6 inches (152.4 mm) in 

length and measuring less than 12.130 inches 

(308.102 mm) (actual) in outside diameter (‘‘OD’’), 

regardless of wall thickness, bore (e.g., smooth, 

enhanced with innergrooves or ridges), 

manufacturing process (e.g., hot finished, colddrawn, annealed), outer surface (e.g., plain or 

enhanced with grooves, ridges, fins, or gills), end 

finish (e.g., plain end, swaged end, flared end, 

expanded end, crimped end, threaded), coating 

(e.g., plastic, paint), insulation, attachments (e.g., 

plain, capped, plugged, with compression or other 

fitting), or physical configuration (e.g., straight, 

coiled bent, wound on spools). The scope covers, 

but is not limited to, seamless refined copper pipe 

and tube produced or comparable to the American 

Society for Testing and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) ASTM– 

B42, ASTM–B68, ASTM–B75, ASTM–B88, ASTM– 

B88M, ASTM–B188, ASTM–B251, ASTM–B251M, 

ASTM–B280, ASTM–B302, ASTM–B306, ASTM– 

B359, ASTM–B743, ASTM–B819, and ASTM–B903 

specifications and meeting the physical parameters 

described therein. Also included within the scope 

of these investigations are all sets of covered 

products, including ‘‘line sets’’ of seamless refined 

copper tubes (with or without fittings or insulation) 

suitable for connecting an outdoor air conditioner 

or heat pump to an indoor evaporator unit. The 

phrase ‘‘all sets of covered products’’ denotes any 

combination of items put up for sale that is 

comprised of merchandise subject to the scope. 

(NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the 

completion of an inventory of human 

remains in the possession and control of 

the New York University College of 

Dentistry, New York, NY. The human 

remains were removed from the 

cemetery at Kienuka, Niagara County, 

NY. 

This notice is published as part of the 

National Park Service’s administrative 

responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 

U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in 

this notice are the sole responsibility of 

the museum, institution, or Federal 

agency that has control of the Native 

American human remains. The National 

Park Service is not responsible for the 

determinations in this notice. 

A detailed assessment of the human 

remains was made by the New York 

University College of Dentistry 

professional staff in consultation with 

representatives of the Tuscarora Nation 

of New York. 

In 1903, human remains representing 

a minimum of two individuals were 

removed from the cemetery at Kienuka 

in Niagara County, NY, by John 

MacKay. The remains were 

subsequently added to the collection of 

William MacKay, John MacKay’s 

brother. The Museum of the American 

Indian, Heye Foundation, purchased 

William MacKay’s collection in 1918. In 

1956, the Museum of the American 

Indian transferred the remains to Dr. 

Theodore Kazamiroff, New York 

University College of Dentistry. No 

known individuals were identified. No 

associated funerary objects are present. 

Kienuka is located within the 

boundaries of the Tuscarora 

Reservation, which was established in 

1797. The removal occurred prior to the 

Antiquities Act, and, therefore, the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, is not asserting control. 

Archival and historical records suggest 

that the removal of the remains was not 

authorized by the Tuscarora Nation and 

that a law enforcement official from the 

Tuscarora Nation investigated the 

desecration of the cemetery but was 

unable to arrest anyone. 

Kienuka was a Neutral village of the 

early 17th century, and the morphology 

of the remains is consistent with 

individuals of Native American 

ancestry. The Neutral were a 

confederacy of Iroquoian speakers who 

lived to the south and north of the 

eastern half of Lake Erie. Their name 

was derived from the neutral position 

they occupied geographically and 

sociopolitically between the Huron and 

Iroquois Confederacies. Between 1647 

and 1651, the Neutral coalition was 

fractured and its people were decimated 

as a result of warfare with the Iroquois 

nations. The Neutral ceased to be 

identified as a distinct group by 1660. 

In 1713, the Tuscarora migrated to 

New York from North Carolina. The 

Tuscarora were adopted as the sixth 

nation of the Iroquois Confederacy in 

1722 and 1723. After the Revolutionary 

War, the Tuscarora settled on the east 

side of the Niagara River. The Tuscarora 

Nation received their land grant, which 

includes portions of Niagara County, in 

1797. Their reservation was 

subsequently expanded and continues 

to include the site of Kienuka. 

Officials of the New York University 

College of Dentistry have determined 

that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the 

human remains described above 

represent the physical remains of two 

individuals of Native American 

ancestry. Officials of the New York 

University College of Dentistry also 

have determined that, pursuant to 25 

U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared 

group identity cannot be reasonably 

traced between the Native American 

human remains and any present-day 

Indian tribe. 

The Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Review 

Committee (Review Committee) is 

responsible for recommending specific 

actions for disposition of culturally 

unidentifiable human remains. In July 

2009, the New York University College 

of Dentistry requested that the Review 

Committee recommend disposition of 

the culturally unidentifiable human 

remains of two individuals to the 

Tuscarora Nation of New York. The 

Review Committee considered the 

proposal at its October 30–31, 2009, 

meeting and recommended disposition 

of the human remains to the Tuscarora 

Nation of New York. 

A March 4, 2010, letter from the 

Designated Federal Official, writing on 

behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, 

transmitted the authorization for the 

College to effect disposition of the 

physical remains to the Tuscarora 

Nation of New York, contingent on the 

publication of a Notice of Inventory 

Completion in the Federal Register. 

This notice fulfills that requirement. 

Representatives of any other Indian 

tribe that believes itself to be culturally 

affiliated with the human remains 

should contact Dr. Louis Terracio, New 

York University College of Dentistry, 

345 East 24th St., New York, NY 10010, 

telephone (212) 998–9917, before July 

12, 2010. Disposition of the human 

remains to the Tuscarora Nation of New 

York may proceed after that date if no 

additional claimants come forward. 

The New York University College of 

Dentistry is responsible for notifying the 

Tuscarora Nation of New York that this 

notice has been published. 

Dated: May 27, 2010 

David Tarler, 

Acting Manager, National NAGPRA Program. 

[FR Doc. 2010–14039 Filed 6–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–50–S

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1174–1175 

(Final)] 

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube From China and Mexico 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase 

of antidumping investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of antidumping investigation Nos. 

731–TA–1174–1175 (Final) under 

section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act) to 

determine whether an industry in the 

United States is materially injured or 

threatened with material injury, or the 

establishment of an industry in the 

United States is materially retarded, by 

reason of less-than-fair-value imports 

from China and Mexico of seamless 

refined copper pipe and tube, provided 

for in subheadings 7411.10.10 and 

8415.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States.1

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Notices 33331 

‘‘Refined copper’’ is defined as: (1) Metal containing 

at least 99.85 percent by weight of copper; or (2) 

metal containing at least 97.5 percent by weight of 

copper, provided that the content by weight of any 

other element does not exceed the following limits: 

Ag–Silver 0.25; As–Arsenic 0.5; Cd–Cadmium 1.3; 

Cr–Chromium 1.4; Mg–Magnesium 0.8; Pb–Lead 

1.5; S–Sulfur 0.7; Sn–Tin 0.8; Te–Tellurium 0.8; 

Zn–Zinc 1.0; Zr–Zirconium 0.3; Other elements 

(each) 0.3. Excluded from the scope of these 

investigations are all seamless circular hollows of 

refined copper less than 12 inches in length whose 

OD (actual) exceeds its length. The products subject 

to these investigations are currently classifiable 

under subheadings 7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090, 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States (HTS). Products subject to these 

investigations may also enter under HTSUS 

subheadings 7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 

8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of the 

investigations, hearing procedures, 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 and C (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: May 5, 2010. 

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 investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The final phase of these 

investigations are being scheduled as a 

result of affirmative preliminary 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce that imports of seamless 

refined copper pipe and tube from 

China and Mexico are being sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

within the meaning of section 733 of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). These 

investigations were requested in a 

petition filed on September 30, 2009, by 

Cerro Flow Products, Inc., St. Louis, 

MO; Kobe Wieland Copper Products, 

LLC, Pine Hall, NC; Mueller Copper 

Tube Products, Inc. and Mueller Copper 

Tube Company, Inc., Memphis, TN. 

Participation in the investigations 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 final phase of these 

investigations 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, no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. A 

party that filed a notice of appearance 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigations need not file an 

additional notice of appearance during 

this final phase. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the investigations. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list: Pursuant to 

§ 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the 

Secretary will make BPI gathered in the 

final phase of these investigations 

available to authorized applicants under 

the APO issued in the investigations, 

provided that the application is made 

no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. 

Authorized applicants must represent 

interested parties, as defined by 19 

U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the 

investigations. A party granted access to 

BPI in the preliminary phase of the 

investigations 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 final phase of these 

investigations will be placed in the 

nonpublic record on September 9, 2010, 

and a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing: The Commission will hold a 

hearing in connection with the final 

phase of these investigations beginning 

at 9:30 a.m. on September 23, 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 September 17, 

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 September 21, 2010, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Oral testimony and written 

materials to be submitted at the public 

hearing are governed by §§ 201.6(b)(2), 

201.13(f), and 207.24 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 who 

is an interested party shall submit a 

prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of § 207.23 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is September 16, 2010. Parties 

may also file written testimony in 

connection with their presentation at 

the hearing, as provided in § 207.24 of 

the Commission’s rules, and posthearing 

briefs, which must conform with the 

provisions of § 207.25 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is September 

30, 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 investigations may submit a 

written statement of information 

pertinent to the subject of the 

investigations, including statements of 

support or opposition to the petition, on 

or before September 30, 2010. On 

October 20, 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 October 22, 

2010, but such final comments must not 

contain new factual information and 

must otherwise comply with § 207.30 of 

the Commission’s rules. All written 

submissions must conform with the 

provisions of § 201.8 of the 

Commission’s rules; any submissions 

that contain BPI must also conform with 

the requirements of §§ 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 § 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. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

33332 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Notices 

In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the 

investigations must be served on all 

other parties to the investigations (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 investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to § 207.21 of the Commission’s 

rules. 

Issued: June 7, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–14035 Filed 6–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention 

[OMB Number 1121–0219] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comments Requested 

ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review; 

(Reinstatement, without change, of a 

previously approved collection for 

which approval has expired) Juvenile 

Residential Facility Census. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Office of Justice Programs, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, will be submitting the 

following information collection request 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed 

information collection is published to 

obtain comments from the public and 

affected agencies. This proposed 

information collection was previously 

published in the Federal Register 

Volume 75, Number 67, page 17956 on 

April 8, 2010, allowing for a 60-day 

comment period. 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 

for an additional 30 days for public 

comment until July 12, 2010. This 

process is conducted in accordance with 

5 CFR 1320.10. 

Written comments and/or suggestions 

regarding the items contained in this 

notice, especially the estimated public 

burden and associated response time, 

should be directed to The Office of 

Management and Budget, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention Department of Justice Desk 

Officer, Washington, DC 20503. 

Additionally, comments may be 

submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 

395–7285. 

Request written comments and 

suggestions from the public and affected 

agencies concerning the proposed 

collection of information are 

encouraged. Your comments should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agencies estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of information collection: 

Extension of previously approved 

collection. 

(2) The title of the form/collection: 

Juvenile Residential Facility Census. 

(3) The agency form number, if any, 

and the applicable component of the 

Department sponsoring the collection: 

The form number is CJ–15, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, United States Department of 

Justice. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Federal Government, 

State, Local or Tribal. 

Other: Not-for-profit institutions; 

Business or other for-profit. 

This collection will gather 

information necessary to routinely 

monitor the types of facilities into 

which the juvenile justice system places 

young persons and the services 

available in these facilities. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond/reply: It is estimated that 3,500 

respondents will complete a 2-hour 

questionnaire. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: The total hour burden to 

complete the nominations is 7,000 

annual burden hours. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Lynn Bryant, Department 

Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning 

Staff, Justice Management Division, 

Department of Justice, Patrick Henry 

Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: June 7, 2010. 

Lynn Bryant, 

Department Clearance Officer, PRA, 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2010–14000 Filed 6–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

[OMB Number 1110–0015] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comments Requested 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: Extension of 

current collection. Hate Crime Incident 

Report; Quarterly Hate Crime Report. 

The Department of Justice, Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice 

Information Services Division will be 

submitting the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and clearance in accordance 

with established review procedures of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

The proposed information collection is 

published to obtain comments from the 

public and affected agencies. Comments 

are encouraged and will be accepted 

until August 10, 2010. This process is 

conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 

1320.10. 

All comments and suggestions, or 

questions regarding additional 

information, to include obtaining a copy 

of the proposed information collection 

instrument with instructions, should be 

directed to Gregory E. Scarbro, Unit 

Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

Criminal Justice Information Services 

Division (CJIS), Module E–3, 1000 

Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West 

Virginia 26306, or facsimile to (304) 

625–3566. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning them proposed collection of 

information are encouraged. Comments

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 60723 

1On May 28, 2010, the Department also 

published in the Federal Register, Seamless 

Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico: 

Correction to Notice of Preliminary Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 75 FR 29990 (May 

28, 2010) and Postponement of Final Determination 

to correct the Scope section of the Preliminary 

Determination. 

2See Memorandum to the File titled ‘‘Verification 

of the Sales Response of IUSA S.A. de C.V. (‘‘IUSA’’) 

and its affiliates (‘‘IUSA’’) in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube from Mexico, dated July 21, 2010’’ 

‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of IUSA, S.A. de 

C.V. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico, dated July 19, 2010’’ ‘‘Verification of the 

Sales Response of Nacobre, S.A. de C.V. and its 

affiliates (‘‘Nacobre’’) in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube from Mexico,’’ dated July 21, 2010, and 

‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of Nacobre, S.A. 

de C.V. and its affiliates (‘‘Nacobre’’) in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of Seamless 

Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from Mexico,’’ dated 

July 22, 2010. 

3See IUSA’s July 23, 2010, and Nacobre’s July 26, 

2010, submission of the sales and cost databases. 

4The petitioners in this investigation are Cerro 

Flow Products, Inc., KobeWieland Copper Products, 

LLC, Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc., and 

Mueller Copper Tube Company, Inc. (collectively, 

‘‘petitioners’’). 

support your comments as you think 

necessary. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are accessible to 

people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to 

Rachel Sprague, (808) 944–2200 (phone) 

or (808) 973–2941 (fax), at least 5 days 

before the scheduled meeting date. 

Dated: September 22, 2010. 

Eric C. Schwaab, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24738 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–838] 

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube From Mexico: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) has 

determined that imports of seamless 

refined copper pipe and tube (‘‘copper 

pipe and tube’’) from Mexico are being, 

or are likely to be, sold in the United 

States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), 

as provided in section 735 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The 

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

listed in the ‘‘Continuation of 

Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of 

this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy 

Zhang or George McMahon, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1168 or (202) 482– 

1167, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 12, 2010, the Department 

published in the Federal Register its 

preliminary determination on copper 

pipe and tube from Mexico. See 

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube 

from Mexico: Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 75 FR 26726 (May 12, 

2010) (‘‘Preliminary Determination).1

We selected the following companies for 

individual examination: IUSA S.A. de 

C.V. (‘‘IUSA’’) and Nacional de Cobre, 

S.A. de C.V. (‘‘Nacobre’’). 

See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR 

at 26726. 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we conducted sales and cost 

verifications of the questionnaire 

responses submitted by IUSA and 

Nacobre. We used standard verification 

procedures, including examination of 

relevant accounting and production 

records, as well as original source 

documents provided by IUSA and 

Nacobre.2 All verification reports are on 

file and available in the Central Records 

Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 7046, of the main 

Department of Commerce building. 

On July 23, 2010 and July 26, 2010, 

respectively, IUSA and Nacobre, 

submitted sales and cost databases with 

revisions that reflect the minor 

corrections presented during their 

respective verifications.3 IUSA, 

Nacobre, and the petitioners 4 filed their 

case briefs with the Department on 

August 4, 2010, and rebuttal briefs on 

August 10, 2010. At the petitioners’ 

request, we held a hearing on August 

12, 2010. 

We used IUSA’s July 23, 2010, and 

Nacobre’s July 26, 2010, sales and cost 

databases to calculate IUSA’s and 

Nacobre’s antidumping duty margin. No 

parties have objected to the use of these 

databases. 

On September 13, 2010, the 

Department placed a memorandum on 

the record of this case regarding a recent 

ex parte meeting in which Francisco J. 

Sa ́nchez, Under Secretary for 

International Trade Administration met 

with Mr. Carlos Peralta, President and 

Director General of IUSA. The 

Department invited interested parties to 

comment on this memorandum by 

September 17, 2010; however, no 

comments were received. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009. This 

period corresponds to the four most 

recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 

of the filing of the petition. See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of Investigation 

For the purpose of this investigation, 

the products covered are all seamless 

circular refined copper pipes and tubes, 

including redraw hollows, greater than 

or equal to 6 inches (152.4 mm) in 

length and measuring less than 12.130 

inches (308.102 mm) (actual) in outside 

diameter (‘‘OD’’), regardless of wall 

thickness, bore (e.g., smooth, enhanced 

with inner grooves or ridges), 

manufacturing process (e.g., hot 

finished, cold-drawn, annealed), outer 

surface (e.g., plain or enhanced with 

grooves, ridges, fins, or gills), end finish 

(e.g., plain end, swaged end, flared end, 

expanded end, crimped end, threaded), 

coating (e.g., plastic, paint), insulation, 

attachments (e.g., plain, capped, 

plugged, with compression or other 

fitting), or physical configuration (e.g., 

straight, coiled, bent, wound on spools). 

The scope of this investigation covers, 

but is not limited to, seamless refined 

copper pipe and tube produced or 

comparable to the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) ASTM– 

B42, ASTM–B68, ASTM–B75, ASTM– 

B88, ASTM–B88M, ASTM–B188, 

ASTM–B251, ASTM–B251M, ASTM– 

B280, ASTM–B302, ASTM–B306, 

ASTM–359, ASTM–B743, ASTM–B819, 

and ASTM–B903 specifications and 

meeting the physical parameters 

described therein. Also included within 

the scope of this investigation are all 

sets of covered products, including ‘‘line 

sets’’ of seamless refined copper tubes 

(with or without fittings or insulation) 

suitable for connecting an outdoor air 

conditioner or heat pump to an indoor 

evaporator unit. The phrase ‘‘all sets of 

covered products’’ denotes any 

combination of items put up for sale 

that is comprised of merchandise 

subject to the scope. 

‘‘Refined copper’’ is defined as: (1) 

Metal containing at least 99.85 percent 

by weight of copper; or (2) metal 

containing at least 97.5 percent by 

weight of copper, provided that the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
60724 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 

5For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum and memorandum 

titled, ‘‘Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value in the Antidumping Duty Investigation 

of Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico—Sales Analysis Memorandum for IUSA’’ 

(‘‘IUSA Sales Analysis Memo’’); ‘‘Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value in 

the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Seamless 

Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from Mexico—Sales 

Analysis Memorandum for Nacobre’’ (‘‘Nacobre 

Sales Analysis Memo’’); ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Final Determination—IUSA’’ (‘‘IUSA Cost Analysis 

Memo’’); and ‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final 

Determination—Nacobre’’ (‘‘Nacobre Cost Analysis 

Memo’’), dated September 24, 2010. 

6See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 47587, 47591 

(August 14, 2008). 

content by weight of any other element 

does not exceed the following limits: 

Element 

Limiting content 

percent by 

weight 

Ag—Silver ........................... 0 .25 

As—Arsenic ........................ 0 .5 

Cd—Cadmium .................... 1 .3 

Cr—Chromium .................... 1 .4 

Mg—Magnesium ................. 0 .8 

Pb—Lead ............................ 1 .5 

S—Sulfur ............................ 0 .7 

Sn—Tin ............................... 0 .8 

Te—Tellurium ..................... 0 .8 

Zn—Zinc ............................. 1 .0 

Zr—Zirconium ..................... 0 .3 

Other elements (each) ........ 0 .3 

Excluded from the scope of this 

investigation are all seamless circular 

hollows of refined copper less than 12 

inches in length whose OD (actual) 

exceeds its length. The products subject 

to this investigation are currently 

classifiable under subheadings 

7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Products 

subject to this investigation may also 

enter under HTSUS subheadings 

7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 

8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of this investigation is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

antidumping duty investigation are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Seamless Refined 

Copper Pipe and Tube from Mexico’’ 

(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from Acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, Susan H. Kuhbach, to 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

dated September 24, 2010, which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. A list of 

the issues which parties have raised and 

to which we have responded, all of 

which are in the Decision 

Memorandum, is attached to this notice 

as an appendix. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this investigation and the 

corresponding recommendations in the 

Decision Memorandum which is on file 

in the CRU of the main Department of 

Commerce building, Room 7046, and is 

accessible on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received and our findings at 

verification, we have made certain 

changes to the margin calculations for 

IUSA and Nacobre based on the sales 

and cost verifications.5

Cost of Production 

As explained in the Preliminary 

Determination, we conducted an 

investigation concerning sales at prices 

below the cost of production in the 

home market. We found that, for certain 

specific products, more than 20 percent 

of IUSA and Nacobre’s home market 

sales were at prices less than the cost of 

production and, in addition, such sales 

did not provide for the recovery of costs 

within a reasonable period of time. 

Therefore, we disregarded these sales 

and used the remaining sales as the 

basis for determining normal value in 

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 

Act. Based on this test, for this final 

determination we have disregarded 

below-cost sales by IUSA and Nacobre. 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the 

Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to continue to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

subject merchandise from Mexico 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after May 12, 

2010, the date of the publication of the 

Preliminary Determination. We will 

instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond equal to the 

weighted-average margin, as indicated 

below, as follows: (1) The rates for IUSA 

and Nacobre will be the rates we have 

determined in this final determination; 

(2) if the exporter is not a firm identified 

in this investigation but the producer is, 

the rate will be the rate established for 

the producer of the subject 

merchandise; (3) the rate for all other 

producers or exporters will be 28.16 

percent as discussed in the ‘‘All-Others 

Rate’’’ section below. These suspensionof-liquidation instructions will remain 

in effect until further notice. 

Final Determination 

The final antidumping duty margins 

are as follows: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted-average margin 

(percent) 

IUSA S.A. de C.V. ................ 24.89 

Nacional de Cobre, S.A. de 

C.V. ................................... 31.43 

All Others .............................. 28.16 

All-Others Rate 

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

provides that the estimated ‘‘All Others’’ 

rate shall be an amount equal to the 

weighted average of the estimated 

weighted-average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero or de minimis margins, and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. IUSA and 

Nacobre are the only respondents in this 

investigation for which the Department 

has calculated a company-specific rate 

that is not zero or de minimis. 

Therefore, because there are only two 

relevant weighted-average dumping 

margins for this final determination and 

because using a weighted average risks 

disclosure of business proprietary 

information, the ‘‘all others’’ rate is a 

simple-average of these two values, 

which is 28.16 percent.6

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose the 

calculations performed in connection 

with this final determination within five 

days of the date of publication of this 

notice to parties in this proceeding. See 

19 CFR 351.224(b). 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of our final determination. As our final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine within 45 days whether 

imports of the subject merchandise are 

causing material injury or threat of 

material injury to an industry in the 

United States. If the ITC determines that 

material injury or threat of injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 60725 

3See Letter from Petitioners to the Secretary of 

Commerce, ‘‘Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube from the People’s Republic of China; 

Investigation; Case Brief of Petitioners’’ (July 2, 

2010); Letter from Golden Dragon to the Secretary 

of Commerce, ‘‘Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube from the People’s Republic of China’’ (July 2, 

2010); Letter from the Hailiang Group to the 

Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘Seamless Refined Copper 

Pipe & Tube from the People’s Republic of China: 

The Hailiang Group—Administrative Case Brief’’ 

(July 2, 2010). 

4See Letter from Petitioners to the Secretary of 

Commerce, ‘‘Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube from the People’s Republic of China; 

Investigation; Rebuttal Brief of Petitioners’’ (July 9, 

2010); Letter from Golden Dragon to the Secretary 

of Commerce, ‘‘Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube from the People’s Republic of China’’ (July 9, 

2010); Letter from the Hailiang Group to the 

Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘Seamless Refined Copper 

Pipe & Tube from the People’s Republic of China: 

Rebuttal Brief of the Hailiang Group’’ (July 9, 2010). 

5See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube from the People’s Republic of China: Wage 

Data’’ (August 3, 2010). 

6See Letter from Petitioners to the Secretary of 

Commerce, ‘‘Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube from China; Petitioners’ Comments on the 

Surrogate Value for Labor’’ (August 9, 2010); Letter 

from Golden Dragon to the Secretary of Commerce, 

‘‘Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the 

People’s Republic of China: Golden Dragon Precise 

Copper Tube Group, Inc.’’ (August 9, 2010). 

determines that such injury does exist, 

we will issue an antidumping duty 

order directing CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all imports of the 

subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Destruction of Proprietary Information 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO as explained in 

the APO itself. See 19 CFR 

351.305(a)(3). Timely written 

notification of the destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a sanctionable 

violation. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the 

Act. 

Dated: September 24, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

List of Issues in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum 

Comment 1: Comments Regarding the 

Investigation 

Comment 2: Alternative Cost Averaging 

Methodology 

Comment 3: Cost Recovery Test 

Comment 4: Model Matching Hierarchy 

Comment 5: Nacobre’s U.S. Date of Sale 

Comment 6: Treatment of Nacobre’s General 

and Administrative Expense Ratio 

Comment 7: Nacobre’s Weight Basis 

Comment 8: Treatment of the Negative Value 

of Certain U.S. Expense Variables for 

IUSA 

Comment 9: Treatment of Early Payment 

Discounts for IUSA’s Home Market Sales 

Comment 10: IUSA’s Packing Costs 

Comment 11: Further Manufactured Line 

Sets 

Comment 12: ‘‘All Others’’ Rate 

[FR Doc. 2010–24719 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–964] 

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2010. 

SUMMARY: On May 12, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published its preliminary 

determination of sales at less than fair 

value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the antidumping duty 

investigation of seamless refined copper 

pipe and tube (‘‘copper pipe and tube’’) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’).1 The Department invited 

interested parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Determination. Based on 

the Department’s analysis of the 

comments received, the Department has 

made changes from the Preliminary 

Determination. The Department 

determines that copper pipe and tube 

from the PRC is being, or is likely to be, 

sold in the United States at LTFV as 

provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’). The 

final dumping margins for this 

investigation are listed in the ‘‘Final 

Determination’’ section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karine Gziryan or Shawn Higgins, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4081 and (202) 

482–0679, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published its 

Preliminary Determination of sales at 

LTFV and postponement of the final 

determination on May 12, 2010. 

Between May 24, 2010, and June 1, 

2010, the Department conducted 

verification of mandatory respondents 

Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube 

Group, Inc. (‘‘Golden Dragon’’) and 

Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd., Shanghai 

Hailiang Copper Co., Ltd., and Hong 

Kong Hailiang Metal Trading Limited 

(collectively, the ‘‘Hailiang Group’’).2

Cerro Flow Products, Inc., 

KobeWieland Copper Products, LLC, 

Mueller Copper Tube Company, Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’), Golden 

Dragon, and the Hailiang Group 

submitted case briefs on July 2, 2010.3

On July 9, 2010, Petitioners, Golden 

Dragon, and the Hailiang Group filed 

rebuttal briefs.4 The Department 

conducted a public hearing on August 4, 

2010. 

On August 3, 2010, the Department 

notified parties that as a result of the 

recent decision in Dorbest Ltd. v. United 

States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 

(‘‘Dorbest’’), issued by the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(‘‘CAFC’’) on May 14, 2010, the 

Department would be reconsidering its 

valuation of the labor wage rate in this 

investigation. The Department placed 

export data on the record of the 

investigation and gave parties an 

opportunity to comment on the narrow 

issue of the labor wage value in light of 

the CAFC’s decision.5 On August 9, 

2010, Petitioners and Golden Dragon 

submitted comments regarding the wage 

rate issue.6

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009. 

This period corresponds to the two most 

recent fiscal quarters prior to the month


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 60725 

1See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube 

from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 26716 

(May 12, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

2See the ‘‘Verification’’ section below. 

3See Letter from Petitioners to the Secretary of 

Commerce, ‘‘Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube from the People’s Republic of China; 

Investigation; Case Brief of Petitioners’’ (July 2, 

2010); Letter from Golden Dragon to the Secretary 

of Commerce, ‘‘Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube from the People’s Republic of China’’ (July 2, 

2010); Letter from the Hailiang Group to the 

Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘Seamless Refined Copper 

Pipe & Tube from the People’s Republic of China: 

The Hailiang Group—Administrative Case Brief’’ 

(July 2, 2010). 

4See Letter from Petitioners to the Secretary of 

Commerce, ‘‘Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube from the People’s Republic of China; 

Investigation; Rebuttal Brief of Petitioners’’ (July 9, 

2010); Letter from Golden Dragon to the Secretary 

of Commerce, ‘‘Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube from the People’s Republic of China’’ (July 9, 

2010); Letter from the Hailiang Group to the 

Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘Seamless Refined Copper 

Pipe & Tube from the People’s Republic of China: 

Rebuttal Brief of the Hailiang Group’’ (July 9, 2010). 

5See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube from the People’s Republic of China: Wage 

Data’’ (August 3, 2010). 

6See Letter from Petitioners to the Secretary of 

Commerce, ‘‘Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube from China; Petitioners’ Comments on the 

Surrogate Value for Labor’’ (August 9, 2010); Letter 

from Golden Dragon to the Secretary of Commerce, 

‘‘Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the 

People’s Republic of China: Golden Dragon Precise 

Copper Tube Group, Inc.’’ (August 9, 2010). 

determines that such injury does exist, 

we will issue an antidumping duty 

order directing CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all imports of the 

subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Destruction of Proprietary Information 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO as explained in 

the APO itself. See 19 CFR 

351.305(a)(3). Timely written 

notification of the destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a sanctionable 

violation. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the 

Act. 

Dated: September 24, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

List of Issues in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum 

Comment 1: Comments Regarding the 

Investigation 

Comment 2: Alternative Cost Averaging 

Methodology 

Comment 3: Cost Recovery Test 

Comment 4: Model Matching Hierarchy 

Comment 5: Nacobre’s U.S. Date of Sale 

Comment 6: Treatment of Nacobre’s General 

and Administrative Expense Ratio 

Comment 7: Nacobre’s Weight Basis 

Comment 8: Treatment of the Negative Value 

of Certain U.S. Expense Variables for 

IUSA 

Comment 9: Treatment of Early Payment 

Discounts for IUSA’s Home Market Sales 

Comment 10: IUSA’s Packing Costs 

Comment 11: Further Manufactured Line 

Sets 

Comment 12: ‘‘All Others’’ Rate 

[FR Doc. 2010–24719 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–964] 

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2010. 

SUMMARY: On May 12, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published its preliminary 

determination of sales at less than fair 

value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the antidumping duty 

investigation of seamless refined copper 

pipe and tube (‘‘copper pipe and tube’’) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’).1 The Department invited 

interested parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Determination. Based on 

the Department’s analysis of the 

comments received, the Department has 

made changes from the Preliminary 

Determination. The Department 

determines that copper pipe and tube 

from the PRC is being, or is likely to be, 

sold in the United States at LTFV as 

provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’). The 

final dumping margins for this 

investigation are listed in the ‘‘Final 

Determination’’ section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karine Gziryan or Shawn Higgins, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4081 and (202) 

482–0679, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published its 

Preliminary Determination of sales at 

LTFV and postponement of the final 

determination on May 12, 2010. 

Between May 24, 2010, and June 1, 

2010, the Department conducted 

verification of mandatory respondents 

Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube 

Group, Inc. (‘‘Golden Dragon’’) and 

Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd., Shanghai 

Hailiang Copper Co., Ltd., and Hong 

Kong Hailiang Metal Trading Limited 

(collectively, the ‘‘Hailiang Group’’).2

Cerro Flow Products, Inc., 

KobeWieland Copper Products, LLC, 

Mueller Copper Tube Company, Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’), Golden 

Dragon, and the Hailiang Group 

submitted case briefs on July 2, 2010.3

On July 9, 2010, Petitioners, Golden 

Dragon, and the Hailiang Group filed 

rebuttal briefs.4 The Department 

conducted a public hearing on August 4, 

2010. 

On August 3, 2010, the Department 

notified parties that as a result of the 

recent decision in Dorbest Ltd. v. United 

States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 

(‘‘Dorbest’’), issued by the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(‘‘CAFC’’) on May 14, 2010, the 

Department would be reconsidering its 

valuation of the labor wage rate in this 

investigation. The Department placed 

export data on the record of the 

investigation and gave parties an 

opportunity to comment on the narrow 

issue of the labor wage value in light of 

the CAFC’s decision.5 On August 9, 

2010, Petitioners and Golden Dragon 

submitted comments regarding the wage 

rate issue.6

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009. 

This period corresponds to the two most 

recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
60726 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 

7See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

8See Memorandum from Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. 

Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum 

for the Final Determination in the Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Seamless Refined Copper Pipe 

and Tube from the People’s Republic of China’’ 

(September 24, 2010) (‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’). 

9See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1; Memorandum to the File from Shawn 

Higgins, International Trade Compliance Analyst, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, ‘‘Investigation of 

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Surrogate Value 

Memorandum,’’ (September 24, 2010) (‘‘Final 

Surrogate Value Memorandum’’) at 2, Attachment 3. 

10See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2; Final Surrogate Value Memorandum at 

2, Attachment 4. 

11See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 4; Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, to the File, ‘‘Seamless Refined 

Copper Pipe and Tube from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Analysis Memorandum for Golden 

Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc.’’ 

(September 24, 2010) (‘‘Golden Dragon’s Final 

Analysis Memorandum’’) at 1–2, Attachment 1. 

12See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 8; Golden Dragon’s Final Analysis 

Memorandum at 2, Attachment 3. 

13See Memorandum from Shawn Higgins, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, to the File, ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Seamless Refined Copper Pipe 

and Tube from the People’s Republic of China: 

Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of 

Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc.’’ 

(June 15, 2010) (‘‘Golden Dragon’s Verification 

Report’’) at 3; Golden Dragon’s Final Analysis 

Memorandum at 2. 

14 Id. 

15 Id. 

16See Golden Dragon’s Verification Report at 3; 

Golden Dragon’s Final Analysis Memorandum at 3. 

17See Golden Dragon’s Verification Report at 2, 

29; Golden Dragon’s Final Analysis Memorandum 

at 3. 

18See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 9; Golden Dragon’s Final Analysis 

Memorandum at 3. 

19 Id. 

20See Golden Dragon’s Verification Report at 33; 

Golden Dragon’s Final Analysis Memorandum at 3. 

21See Golden Dragon’s Verification Report at 32; 

Golden Dragon’s Final Analysis Memorandum at 

3–4, Attachment 4. 

22 Id. 

23See Golden Dragon’s Verification Report at 2, 

18; Golden Dragon’s Final Analysis Memorandum 

at 4. 

24See Golden Dragon’s Verification Report at 2, 

22; Golden Dragon’s Final Analysis Memorandum 

at 4. 

25See Golden Dragon’s Verification Report at 2, 

22–23; Golden Dragon’s Final Analysis 

Memorandum at 4. 

26See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 12; Memorandum from Karine Gziryan, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, to the File, ‘‘Seamless Refined 

Copper Pipe and Tube from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Analysis Memorandum for the 

Hailiang Group’’ (September 24, 2010) (‘‘Hailiang 

Group’s Final Analysis Memorandum’’) at 2. 

27See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 13; Hailiang Group’s Final Analysis 

Memorandum at 2. 

of the filing of the petition (i.e., 

September, 2009).7

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation, as well as comments 

received pursuant to the Department’s 

requests, are addressed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum.8 A list of the 

issues which parties raised and to 

which the Department responds in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum is 

attached to this notice as Appendix I. 

The Issues and Decision Memorandum 

is a public document that is on file in 

the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of 

the main Commerce building and 

accessible at http://trade.gov/ia. The 

paper copy and electronic version of the 

memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Changes Applicable to Multiple 

Companies 

1. Pursuant to Dorbest, the 

Department calculated an hourly wage 

rate by averaging earnings and/or wages 

in countries that are economically 

comparable to the PRC and that are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise.9

2. The Department made several 

adjustments to the calculations of the 

surrogate financial ratios.10

Changes Specific to Golden Dragon 

1. The Department treated Golden 

Dragon’s copper cathode purchases from 

a certain PRC supplier as market 

economy purchases.11

2. In accordance with section 

777A(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.413, the Department declined to 

make certain adjustments to the 

calculation of indirect U.S. selling 

expenses for salaries paid to two 

employees of Golden Dragon who 

worked in the United States during the 

POI because these adjustments are 

insignificant in relation to the price of 

the merchandise.12

3. The Department revised the 

reported wall thickness for one control 

number (‘‘CONNUM’’).13

4. The Department revised the 

reported electricity consumption to 

account for indirect consumption of 

electricity.14

5. The Department revised the 

reported indirect labor to account for 

previously unreported labor hours.15

6. The Department revised the 

reported water consumption to reflect 

the water consumption calculated in 

Golden Dragon’s cost reconciliation.16

7. The Department revised the 

reported direct labor and electricity 

consumption to reflect the correct 

production quantities at all stages of the 

production process.17

8. The Department revised the 

reported electricity consumption to 

reflect the correct allocation of 

electricity to the different inner grooved 

tubes (‘‘IGT’’) based on the IGT forming 

processing stage consumption that 

corresponds to each type of IGT.18

9. The Department adjusted the 

reported electricity and direct labor 

consumption for a particular CONNUM 

to reflect the lower electricity and direct 

labor usage rates for a nine millimeter 

(mm) IGT product instead of the higher 

rates for a seven mm product.19

10. The Department revised the 

reported consumption of plastic plugs, 

wood boards, rubber plugs, and paper 

pads to reflect the weights measured by 

the Department during verification.20

11. The Department revised the 

distances between Golden Dragon and 

several of its suppliers.21

12. The Department revised the 

distances between Golden Dragon and 

several seaports, including the nearest 

seaport.22

13. The Department revised the gross 

unit price of eight invoices in which the 

sales amount recorded in the U.S. sales 

database was less than the sales amount 

recorded in the records of the U.S. sales 

staff.23

14. The Department revised the 

reported international freight amount to 

include a security fee that was not 

reported in the U.S. sales database.24

15. The Department revised the credit 

period over which the reported credit 

expenses are based from the period 

between the date of sale and the 

payment date to the period between the 

date of shipment and the payment 

date.25

Changes Specific to the Hailiang Group 

1. The Department determined that 

the Hailiang Group has failed to 

cooperate because it has not acted to the 

best of its ability to comply with the 

Department’s requests to provide factors 

of production (‘‘FOP’’) on a productgroup specific basis. Therefore, 

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 

the Department has found that, in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available (‘‘FA’’), an adverse 

inference is appropriate for the Hailiang 

Group.26

2. The Department revised the 

weighted-average per-unit FOP for water 

to include the FOP for water reported on 

a cubic meter per kilogram basis.27


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 60727 

28See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 14; Hailiang Group’s Final Analysis 

Memorandum at 3. 

29See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 15; Hailiang Group’s Final Analysis 

Memorandum at 3. 

30 Id. 

31See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 15; Hailiang Group’s Final Analysis 

Memorandum at 4. 

32See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 17; Hailiang Group’s Final Analysis 

Memorandum at 4. 

33See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 18; Hailiang Group’s Final Analysis 

Memorandum at 4. 

34See Memorandum from Robert Bolling, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to 

the File, ‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors 

Responses of Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd.; Shanghai 

Hailiang Co., Ltd.; and Hong Kong Hailiang Co., 

Ltd. in the Antidumping Investigation of Seamless 

Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the People’s 

Republic of China’’ (June 18, 2010); Memorandum 

from Shawn Higgins, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, 

to the File, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the 

People’s Republic of China: Verification of the 

Questionnaire Responses of Golden Dragon Precise 

Copper Tube Group, Inc.’’ (June 15, 2010). 

35See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the 

People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 

(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet 

Paper from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 

60632 (October 25, 2007). 

36See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 26719. 

3. The Department revised the 

weighted-average per-unit FOP for 

wooden crate.28

4. The Department revised its normal 

value calculation to include carbon soot, 

scale-like graphite, hydrogen, and mold 

oils as direct materials.29

5. The Department revised its normal 

value calculation to exclude polythene, 

colorant, and anti-aging master batch.30

6. The Department revised its normal 

value calculation to include nitrogen, 

kerosene and charcoal as direct 

inputs.31

7. The Department revised its normal 

value calculation to include the labor 

hours reported in the two additional 

indirect labor fields from the Hailiang 

Group’s post-verification sales 

database.32

8. The Department incorporated all 

changes from the Hailiang Group’s 

minor corrections in the final 

calculation of the Hailiang Group’s 

antidumping margin.33

Scope of Investigation 

For the purpose of this investigation, 

the products covered are all seamless 

circular refined copper pipes and tubes, 

including redraw hollows, greater than 

or equal to 6 inches (152.4 mm) in 

length and measuring less than 12.130 

inches (308.102 mm) (actual) in outside 

diameter (‘‘OD’’), regardless of wall 

thickness, bore (e.g., smooth, enhanced 

with inner grooves or ridges), 

manufacturing process (e.g., hot 

finished, cold-drawn, annealed), outer 

surface (e.g., plain or enhanced with 

grooves, ridges, fins, or gills), end finish 

(e.g., plain end, swaged end, flared end, 

expanded end, crimped end, threaded), 

coating (e.g., plastic, paint), insulation, 

attachments (e.g., plain, capped, 

plugged, with compression or other 

fitting), or physical configuration (e.g., 

straight, coiled, bent, wound on spools). 

The scope of this investigation covers, 

but is not limited to, seamless refined 

copper pipe and tube produced or 

comparable to the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) ASTM– 

B42, ASTM–B68, ASTM–B75, ASTM– 

B88, ASTM–B88M, ASTM–B188, 

ASTM–B251, ASTM–B251M, ASTM– 

B280, ASTM–B302, ASTM–B306, 

ASTM–359, ASTM–B743, ASTM–B819, 

and ASTM–B903 specifications and 

meeting the physical parameters 

described therein. Also included within 

the scope of this investigation are all 

sets of covered products, including ‘‘line 

sets’’ of seamless refined copper tubes 

(with or without fittings or insulation) 

suitable for connecting an outdoor air 

conditioner or heat pump to an indoor 

evaporator unit. The phrase ‘‘all sets of 

covered products’’ denotes any 

combination of items put up for sale 

that is comprised of merchandise 

subject to the scope. 

‘‘Refined copper’’ is defined as: (1) 

Metal containing at least 99.85 percent 

by weight of copper; or (2) metal 

containing at least 97.5 percent by 

weight of copper, provided that the 

content by weight of any other element 

does not exceed the following limits: 

Element Limiting content 

percent by weight 

Ag—Silver ..................... 0 .25 

As—Arsenic .................. 0 .5 

Cd—Cadmium .............. 1 .3 

Cr—Chromium .............. 1 .4 

Mg—Magnesium ........... 0 .8 

Pb—Lead ...................... 1 .5 

S—Sulfur ...................... 0 .7 

Sn—Tin ......................... 0 .8 

Te—Tellurium ............... 0 .8 

Zn—Zinc ....................... 1 .0 

Zr—Zirconium ............... 0 .3 

Other elements (each) .. 0 .3 

Excluded from the scope of this 

investigation are all seamless circular 

hollows of refined copper less than 12 

inches in length whose OD (actual) 

exceeds its length. The products subject 

to this investigation are currently 

classifiable under subheadings 

7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Products 

subject to this investigation may also 

enter under HTSUS subheadings 

7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 

8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of this investigation is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

The Department has not received 

comments on the scope of this 

investigation since the publication of 

the Preliminary Determination. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, the Department verified the 

information submitted by Golden 

Dragon and the Hailiang Group for use 

in the final determination. The 

Department used standard verification 

procedures including examination of 

relevant accounting and production 

records and original source documents 

provided by the respondents.34

Non-Market Economy Treatment 

The Department considers the PRC to 

be a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country.35 In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a foreign country is 

an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. No party has challenged the 

designation of the PRC as an NME 

country in this investigation. Therefore, 

the Department continues to treat the 

PRC as an NME country for purposes of 

this final determination. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department stated that it selected India 

as the appropriate surrogate country to 

use in this investigation for the 

following reasons: (1) It is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise; 

(2) it is at a similar level of economic 

development pursuant to section 

773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) the 

Department has reliable data from India 

that it can use to value the FOPs.36 The 

Department received no comments on 

this issue after the Preliminary 

Determination and the Department has 

not made changes to its findings with 

respect to the selection of a surrogate 

country for the final determination. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department holds a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
60728 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 

37See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s 

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as 

further developed in Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994). 

38See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 26720. 

39See section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. 

40See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 47587, 47591 

(August 14, 2008). 

41See Letter from the Hailiang Group to the 

Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘Certain Seamless Refined 

Copper Pipe & Tube from the People’s Republic of 

China: Supplemental Section D Questionnaire 

Response of Hailiang Group’’ (March 19, 2010) at 

Exhibit 6; Letter from the Hailiang Group to the 

Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘Certain Seamless Refined 

Copper Pipe & Tube from the People’s Republic of 

China: Supplemental Section D Questionnaire 

Response of Hailiang Group’’ (April 12, 2010) at 

Exhibit 12. 

42See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the 

Hailiang Group, ‘‘Sections C&D Third Supplemental 

Questionnaire’’ (April 28, 2010) at 2–3; Letter from 

Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, to the Hailiang Group, 

‘‘Sections C&D Second Supplemental 

Questionnaire’’ (March 29, 2010) at 5; Letter from 

Robert Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, to the Hailiang Group, 

‘‘Sections C&D Supplemental Questionnaire’’ 

(February 26, 2010) at 8–9; Letter from Robert 

Bolling, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, to Zhejiang Hailiang, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube from the People’s Republic of China: Request 

for Information’’ (December 4, 2009) at D–2. 

43See Letter from the Hailiang Group to the 

Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘Certain Seamless Refined 

Copper Pipe and Tube from the People’s Republic 

of China: Third Supplemental Section D 

Questionnaire & Part 1 of Post-Preliminary FOP 

Response of Hailiang Group’’ (May 11, 2010); Letter 

from the Hailiang Group to the Secretary of 

Commerce, ‘‘Certain Seamless Refined Copper Pipe 

and Tube from China: Part 2 of Post-Preliminary 

FOP Response of the Hailiang Group’’ (May 14, 

2010). 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of subject 

merchandise in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate.37

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that the following 

companies demonstrated eligibility for 

separate-rate status: Luvata Tube 

(Zhongshan) Ltd.; Ningbo Jintian 

Copper Tube Co. Ltd.; Zhejiang Naile 

Copper Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Jiahe Pipes 

Inc.; and Luvata Alltop (Zhongshan) 

Ltd. (collectively, the ‘‘Separate Rate 

Applicants’’).38 Since the publication of 

the Preliminary Determination, no party 

has commented on the eligibility of the 

Separate Rate Applicants for separaterate status. For the final determination, 

the Department continues to find that 

the evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by the Separate Rate 

Applicants demonstrates both de jure 

and de facto absence of government 

control with respect to each company’s 

respective exports of the merchandise 

under investigation. Thus, the 

Department continues to find that the 

Separate Rate Applicants are eligible for 

separate-rate status. 

The separate rate is determined based 

on the estimated weighted-average 

dumping margins established for 

exporters and producers individually 

investigated, excluding zero and de 

minimis margins or margins based 

entirely on adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’).39 In this investigation both 

mandatory respondents, Golden Dragon 

and the Hailiang Group, have estimated 

weighted-average dumping margins 

which are above de minimis and which 

are not based on total AFA. Therefore, 

because there are only two relevant 

weighted-average dumping margins for 

this final determination and because 

using a weighted average risks 

disclosure of business proprietary 

information, the separate rate is a 

simple-average of these two values, 

which is 36.05 percent.40

Use of FA and AFA 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that 

the Department shall apply FA if (1) 

necessary information is not on the 

record, or (2) an interested party or any 

other person (A) withholds information 

that has been requested, (B) fails to 

provide information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form 

and manner requested by the 

Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 

and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding, or 

(D) provides information that cannot be 

verified as provided by section 782(i) of 

the Act. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying FA 

when a party has failed to cooperate by 

not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with a request for information. 

Such an adverse inference may include 

reliance on information derived from 

the petition, the final determination, a 

previous administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

Hailiang Group 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department determined, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(1) and (2)(B) of the Act, 

that it was appropriate to base the 

Hailiang Group’s preliminary dumping 

margin, in part, on FA because (1) the 

Hailiang Group’s own information on 

the record indicates that it had the 

ability to report its FOPs on a productgroup specific basis,41 and (2) the 

Hailiang Group continued to report FOP 

values that are identical for all 

CONNUMs, despite the Department’s 

multiple requests to provide this data on 

a more specific basis.42 On April 29, 

2010, the Department issued a 

questionnaire that requested the 

Hailiang Group to report productspecific FOPs for different production 

stages and, if the Hailiang Group 

believed that this were not possible, to 

comment on the product-group specific 

processing yields that are on the record 

of this investigation. However, the 

Hailiang Group neither reported 

product-specific FOPs for different 

production stages nor explained why 

these product-group specific processing 

yields are incorrect and cannot be 

applied in the calculation of productgroup specific FOPs.43 The Hailiang 

Group had multiple opportunities both 

before and after the Preliminary 

Determination to explain why the 

cumulative yields that were calculated 

by Petitioners and used in the 

Preliminary Determination were flawed 

and could not be used in the final 

determination. The Hailiang Group, 

however, did not provide such an 

explanation. 

Because the Hailiang Group has 

continued to report FOP values that are 

identical for all CONNUMs, despite the 

Department’s multiple requests to 

provide this data on a more specific 

basis, all the information necessary for 

the Department to calculate an accurate 

dumping margin for the Hailiang Group 

is not on the record and available for 

use in the final determination. Since the 

Hailiang Group did not provide the 

requested FOPs on a product-group 

specific basis, this necessary 

information was not available on the 

record and, therefore, the Department 

has determined, pursuant to section 

776(a)(1) and (2)(B) of the Act, that it 

continues to be appropriate to base the 

Hailiang Group’s dumping margin, in 

part, on FA. Furthermore, the 

Department determines that the 

Hailiang Group has failed to cooperate 

because the Hailiang Group has not 

acted to the best of its ability to comply 

with the Department’s requests both 

before and after the Preliminary 

Determination to provide FOPs on a 

product-group specific basis or to 

explain why the cumulative yields 

calculated by Petitioners and used in 

the Preliminary Determination could 

not be used in the final determination. 

Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, the Department finds that, in 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 60729 

44See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 12; Hailiang Group’s Final Analysis 

Memorandum at 6. 

45See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 26722. 

46 Id. 

47See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People’s 

Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 

3, 2000). 

48See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 

8932 (February 23, 1998). 49See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 

Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the 

Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 

(November 18, 2005) (quoting the Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d 

Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994)). 

50See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon 

Quality Steel Products From The People’s Republic 

of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

‘‘Facts Available.’’ 

51See Hailiang Group’s Final Analysis 

Memorandum at 1, Attachment III. 

52See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube 

From the People’s Republic of China and Mexico: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 74 

FR 55194, 55199 (October 27, 2009) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’). 

selecting from among FA, an adverse 

inference is appropriate for the Hailiang 

Group.44

PRC-Wide Entity 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department determimined that certain 

PRC exporters/producers did not 

respond to the Department’s requests for 

information.45 Thus, the Department 

treated these PRC exporters/producers 

as part of the PRC-wide entity and 

found that the PRC-wide entity did not 

respond to our requests for 

information.46 No additional 

information was placed on the record 

with respect to any of these companies 

after the Preliminary Determination. 

Since the PRC-wide entity did not 

provide the Department with requested 

information, pursuant to section 

776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department 

continues to find it appropriate to base 

the PRC-wide rate on FA. 

The Department determines that, 

because the PRC-wide entity did not 

respond to our requests for information, 

the PRC-wide entity has failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability. 

Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, the Department finds that, in 

selecting from among the FA, an adverse 

inference is appropriate for the PRCwide entity. 

Because the Department begins with 

the presumption that all companies 

within an NME country are subject to 

government control, and because only 

Separate Rate Applicants have 

overcome that presumption, the 

Department is applying a single 

antidumping rate (i.e., the PRC-wide 

entity rate) to all other exporters of 

subject merchandise from the PRC. Such 

companies did not demonstrate 

entitlement to a separate rate.47 The 

PRC-wide entity rate applies to all 

entries of subject merchandise except 

for entries from Golden Dragon, the 

Hailiang Group, and the Separate Rate 

Applicants. 

Selection of the AFA Rate for the PRCWide Entity 

In selecting a rate for AFA, the 

Department selects a rate that is 

sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the 

purpose of the facts available rule to 

induce respondents to provide the 

Department with complete and accurate 

information in a timely manner.’’ 48

Further, it is the Department’s practice 

to select a rate that ensures ‘‘that the 

party does not obtain a more favorable 

result by failing to cooperate than if it 

had cooperated fully.’’ 49 It is the 

Department’s practice to select, as AFA, 

the higher of the (a) highest margin 

alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest 

calculated rate of any respondent in the 

investigation.50 In the instant 

investigation, as AFA, the Department 

has assigned to the PRC-wide entity the 

highest rate on the record of this 

proceeding, which is the 60.85 percent 

weighted-average margin calculated for 

the Hailiang Group.51 The Department 

determines that this information is the 

most appropriate from the available 

sources to effectuate the purposes of 

AFA. 

The dumping margin for the PRCwide entity applies to all entries of the 

merchandise under investigation except 

for entries of merchandise under 

investigation from the exporter/ 

manufacturer combinations listed in the 

chart in the ‘‘Final Determination’’ 

section below. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation.52 This 

practice is described in Policy Bulletin 

05.1, available at http://www.trade.gov/ 

ia. 

Final Determination 

The Department determines that the 

following dumping margins exist for the 

period January 1, 2009 through June 30, 

2009: 

Exporter Producer 

Weightedaverage 

percent 

margin 

Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc ......................... Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc ........................ 11.25 

Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd.; Hong Kong Hailiang Metal Trading ... Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Hailiang Copper Co., Ltd 60.85 

Limited; Shanghai Hailiang Copper Co., Ltd 

Zhejiang Naile Copper Co., Ltd ..................................................... Zhejiang Naile Copper Co., Ltd .................................................... 36.05 

Zhejiang Jiahe Pipes Inc ................................................................ Zhejiang Jiahe Pipes Inc .............................................................. 36.05 

Luvata Tube (Zhongshan) Ltd ........................................................ Luvata Tube (Zhongshan) Ltd ...................................................... 36.05 

Luvata Tube (Zhongshan) Ltd ........................................................ Luvata Alltop (Zhongshan) Ltd ..................................................... 36.05 

Luvata Alltop (Zhongshan) Ltd ....................................................... Luvata Alltop (Zhongshan) Ltd ..................................................... 36.05 

Ningbo Jintian Copper Tube Co. Ltd ............................................. Ningbo Jintian Copper Tube Co. Ltd ............................................ 36.05 

PRC-Wide Entity ............................................................................ PRC-Wide Entity ........................................................................... 60.85 

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose the 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

to parties in this proceeding in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department 

will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to continue to 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
60730 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 

1See Notice of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping 

Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 5152 

(February 1, 2005) (‘‘Order’’). 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

copper pipe and tube from the PRC, as 

described in the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ 

section, entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

May 12, 2010, the date of publication of 

the Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. The Department will 

instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond equal to the 

weighted-average amount by which the 

normal value exceeds U.S. price, as 

indicated above. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, the Department has notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of the final affirmative determination of 

sales at LTFV. As the Department’s final 

determination is affirmative, in 

accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act, within 45 days the ITC will 

determine whether the domestic 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess, upon further instruction by 

the Department, antidumping duties on 

all imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: September 24, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Issues for Final Determination 

Comment 1: Whether the Department should 

revise its labor rate calculation. 

Comment 2: Whether the Department should 

revise its calculation of the surrogate 

financial ratios. 

Comment 3: Whether the Department should 

issue cash deposit instructions that 

contain ad valorem rates or specific 

rates. 

Issues Specific to Golden Dragon Precise 

Copper Tube Group, Inc. 

Comment 4: Whether the Department should 

treat copper cathode purchases by 

Golden Dragon from a certain supplier in 

the Peoples’s Republic of China as nonmarket economy purchases. 

Comment 5: Whether the Department should 

recalculate Golden Dragon’s copper 

cathode cost based on the bonded and 

general trade copper cathode purchases 

during the period of investigation. 

Comment 6: Whether the Department should 

revise the surrogate value for plywood 

batten consumed by Golden Dragon. 

Comment 7: Whether the Department should 

consider solvent consumed by Golden 

Dragon to be a direct material input. 

Comment 8: Whether the Department should 

include salaries paid to two employees 

of Golden Dragon who worked in the 

United States during the period of 

investigation as indirect U.S. selling 

expenses. 

Comment 9: Whether the Department should 

adjust the factor of production for 

electricity for 7 mm and 9 mm innergrooved tube products. 

Comment 10: Whether the Department 

should make certain minor corrections. 

Issues Specific to Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd., 

Shanghai Hailiang Copper Co., Ltd., and 

Hong Kong Hailiang Metal Trading Limited 

Comment 11: Whether to use facts available 

with regard to the Hailiang Group’s line 

set sales. 

Comment 12: Whether to use of facts 

available with regard to the Hailiang 

Group’s factors of production. 

Comment 13: Whether to correct the water 

usage factor of production used in the 

Preliminary Determination. 

Comment 14: Whether the Department 

should accept the post-preliminary 

correction of the consumption of 

Shanghai Hailiang’s wooden crates. 

Comment 15: Whether to continue 

considering certain raw materials as 

factors of production or exclude them 

from the calculation of the Hailiang 

Group’s normal value. 

Comment 16: Whether to continue using the 

actual weight reported by the Hailiang 

Group in its United States sales database. 

Comment 17: Whether to include two 

additional categories of indirect labor as 

labor inputs. 

Comment 18: Whether the Department 

should make certain minor corrections. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24720 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–802] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2010. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) has determined that a 

request for a new shipper review 

(‘‘NSR’’) of the antidumping duty order 

on certain frozen warmwater shrimp 

(‘‘shrimp’’) from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’), received on 

August 26, 2010, meets the statutory 

and regulatory requirements for 

initiation. The period of review (‘‘POR’’) 

for this NSR is February 1, 2010–July 

31, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: 202–482–0413. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The notice announcing the 

antidumping duty order on shrimp from 

Vietnam was published in the Federal 

Register on February 1, 2005.1 On 

August 26, 2010, pursuant to section 

751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘Act’’), and section 

351.214(c) of the Department’s 

regulations, the Department received a 

NSR request from Quoc Viet 

Seaproducts Processing Trading and 

Import-Export Co., Ltd. (‘‘Quoc Viet’’). 

Quoc Viet’s request was properly made 

during August 2010, which is the semiannual anniversary of the Order. Quoc 

Viet certified that it is a producer and 

exporter of the subject merchandise 

upon which the request was based. 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of 

the Act and section 351.214(b)(2)(i) of 

the Department’s regulations, Quoc Viet


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
APPENDIX B

LIST OF HEARING WITNESSES

B-1
 
CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

hearing:

Subject: Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from China and Mexico

Inv. Nos.: 731-TA-1174 and 1175 (Final)

Date and Time: September 23, 2010 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these investigations in the Main Hearing Room (room 101),

500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

CONGRESSIONAL WITNESS:

The Honorable Lincoln Davis, U.S. Representative, 4th District, Tennessee

EMBASSY WITNESS:

Embassy of Mexico

Washington, D.C.

Hugo Perezcano, Head of the International Trade Practices Unit of the Secretary of Economy

of Mexico

OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Jack A. Levy, DLA Piper)

Respondents (Kevin M. O’Brien, Baker & McKenzie LLP and John M. Ryan, Weil, Gotshal & Manges

LLP)

In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping Duty Orders:

DLA Piper

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Cerro Flow Products, LLC

Kobe Wieland Copper Products, LLC

Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc.

Mueller Copper Tube Company, Inc.

John Hansen, President, Manufacturing Operations, Mueller Industries, Inc.

Bart Arndt, Vice President/Industrial Unit Manager, Cerro Flow Products, LLC

Mike Flowers, Former Employee of Wolverine Tube, Inc.

Brian Stemler, President, USW, Local 4294

Dr. Richard Boyce, President, Econometrica International, Inc.

B-3
Jack A. Levy )

– OF COUNSEL

Martin Schaefermeier )

In Opposition to the Imposition of

 Antidumping Duty Orders:

Baker & McKenzie LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Croup, Inc.

GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V.

GD Copper (U.S.A.), Inc.

Keith Weil, Executive Vice President, GD Copper (U.S.A.), Inc.

Thomas Rogers, Economic Consultant, Capital Trade, Inc.

Kevin M. O’Brien ) – OF COUNSEL

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

IUSA, S.A. de C.V. (“IUSA”)

Nacional de Cobre, S.A. de C.V. (“NACOBRE”)

Cambridge-Lee Industries LLC

Copper and Brass International

Juan José Ochoa, Chief Operating Officer, IUSA

Ed Kerins, Chief Executive Officer, Cambridge-Lee Industries

Steven Kelly, President, Copper and Brass International

John M. Ryan )

Stuart M. Rosen ) – OF COUNSEL

Joseph M. Johnson )

B-4
In Opposition to the Imposition of

 Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Johnson Controls, Inc.

Marubeni America Corporation

Scott Smith, C.P.M., Purchasing Director, Building Efficiency, Johnson Controls, Inc.

Duane E. Webber, Vice President, Global Purchasing, Building Efficiency, Johnson

Controls, Inc.

Jean-Philippe Krahmer, Sales Manager, Copper Tubing, Marubeni America Corporation

William Silverman )

) – OF COUNSEL

Douglas Heffner )

McDermott Will & Emery LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Goodman Global, Inc. (“Goodman”)

Michael J. Knights, Vice President, Procurement, Goodman

William L. Topper, Senior Vice President, Operations, Goodman

Raymond Paretzky ) – OF COUNSEL

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Jack A. Levy, DLA Piper)

Respondents (Kevin M. O’Brien, Baker & McKenzie and John M. Ryan, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP)

B-5
 
APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-1
 
Table C-1

SRC pipe & tube: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2007 2008 2009 2009 2010 2007-09 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992,539 858,926 698,018 380,978 341,491 -29.7 -13.5 -18.7 -10.4

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 75.8 71.3 73.5 72.8 77.5 -2.3 -4.6 2.2 4.7

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 12.9 13.1 13.0 8.4 4.0 3.8 0.2 -4.6

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 8.3 6.9 8.2 5.0 -0.7 0.7 -1.4 -3.2

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.7 21.2 20.0 21.2 13.4 3.3 4.5 -1.2 -7.7

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 7.5 6.5 6.0 9.0 -1.0 0.0 -1.0 3.0

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2 28.7 26.5 27.2 22.5 2.3 4.6 -2.2 -4.7

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,959,314 3,574,571 2,110,170 1,016,023 1,366,524 -46.7 -9.7 -41.0 34.5

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 76.6 72.1 76.0 75.6 78.4 -0.7 -4.5 3.8 2.7

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 12.5 11.6 10.9 8.0 2.8 3.7 -0.9 -2.9

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 7.9 6.2 7.8 4.7 -1.0 0.7 -1.7 -3.1

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.0 20.4 17.8 18.7 12.7 1.8 4.4 -2.6 -6.0

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 7.5 6.3 5.6 8.9 -1.1 0.1 -1.2 3.3

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.4 27.9 24.0 24.4 21.6 0.7 4.5 -3.8 -2.7

U.S. imports from (2):

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90,624 111,126 91,768 49,388 28,719 1.3 22.6 -17.4 -41.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348,772 446,282 244,101 110,981 109,860 -30.0 28.0 -45.3 -1.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.85 $4.02 $2.66 $2.25 $3.83 -30.9 4.4 -33.8 70.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Mexico:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,199 71,327 48,014 31,340 17,183 -36.2 -5.1 -32.7 -45.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284,287 281,957 131,261 79,376 63,732 -53.8 -0.8 -53.4 -19.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.78 $3.95 $2.73 $2.53 $3.71 -27.7 4.6 -30.8 46.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165,823 182,453 139,782 80,728 45,902 -15.7 10.0 -23.4 -43.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633,059 728,238 375,362 190,357 173,592 -40.7 15.0 -48.5 -8.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.82 $3.99 $2.69 $2.36 $3.78 -29.7 4.5 -32.7 60.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74,226 64,441 45,426 22,961 30,847 -38.8 -13.2 -29.5 34.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292,345 268,218 131,960 57,314 122,111 -54.9 -8.3 -50.8 113.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.94 $4.16 $2.90 $2.50 $3.96 -26.2 5.7 -30.2 58.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240,049 246,894 185,209 103,689 76,750 -22.8 2.9 -25.0 -26.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925,404 996,456 507,321 247,671 295,703 -45.2 7.7 -49.1 19.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.86 $4.04 $2.74 $2.39 $3.85 -28.9 4.7 -32.1 61.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . 1,223,928 1,120,991 1,122,794 563,535 545,709 -8.3 -8.4 0.2 -3.2

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . 781,123 640,036 531,562 284,755 296,071 -31.9 -18.1 -16.9 4.0

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . 63.8 57.1 47.3 50.5 54.3 -16.5 -6.7 -9.8 3.7

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 752,491 612,032 512,809 277,289 264,741 -31.9 -18.7 -16.2 -4.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,033,910 2,578,115 1,602,849 768,352 1,070,821 -47.2 -15.0 -37.8 39.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4.03 $4.21 $3.13 $2.77 $4.04 -22.5 4.5 -25.8 46.0

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,253 33,243 30,971 14,578 21,541 -6.9 -0.0 -6.8 47.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136,379 142,244 100,139 40,457 90,235 -26.6 4.3 -29.6 123.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4.10 $4.28 $3.23 $2.78 $4.19 -21.2 4.3 -24.4 50.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 52,936 48,747 38,053 41,930 35,642 -28.1 -7.9 -21.9 -15.0

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . 6.7 7.6 7.0 7.2 6.2 0.3 0.8 -0.6 -1.0

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . 3,644 3,303 2,902 2,962 2,668 -20.4 -9.4 -12.1 -9.9

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . 7,791 6,980 5,873 3,056 2,809 -24.6 -10.4 -15.9 -8.1

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . 136,285 124,976 104,257 54,720 50,468 -23.5 -8.3 -16.6 -7.8

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17.49 $17.90 $17.75 $17.91 $17.97 1.5 2.4 -0.9 0.3

 Productivity (pounds per hour) . 100.1 91.6 90.5 93.1 105.3 -9.7 -8.5 -1.2 13.1

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.17 $0.20 $0.20 $0.19 $0.17 12.3 11.9 0.4 -11.3

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772,482 649,879 526,474 277,322 286,115 -31.8 -15.9 -19.0 3.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,151,317 2,761,903 1,630,144 748,334 1,161,741 -48.3 -12.4 -41.0 55.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4.08 $4.25 $3.10 $2.70 $4.06 -24.1 4.2 -27.1 50.5

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . 2,857,802 2,526,052 1,523,536 696,297 1,094,715 -46.7 -11.6 -39.7 57.2

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . 293,515 235,851 106,608 52,037 67,026 -63.7 -19.6 -54.8 28.8

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . 73,637 68,408 61,715 30,144 32,796 -16.2 -7.1 -9.8 8.8

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . 219,878 167,443 44,893 21,893 34,230 -79.6 -23.8 -73.2 56.4

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . 41,162 45,241 34,090 17,231 6,024 -17.2 9.9 -24.6 -65.0

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.70 $3.89 $2.89 $2.51 $3.83 -21.8 5.1 -25.5 52.4

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . $0.10 $0.11 $0.12 $0.11 $0.11 23.0 10.4 11.4 5.5

 Unit operating income or (loss) . $0.28 $0.26 $0.09 $0.08 $0.12 -70.0 -9.5 -66.9 51.5

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.7 91.5 93.5 93.0 94.2 2.8 0.8 2.0 1.2

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 6.1 2.8 2.9 2.9 -4.2 -0.9 -3.3 0.0

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Import data are from official Commerce statistics.

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.

C-3
 
Table C-2

SRC pipe & tube: U.S. Import data, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2007 2008 2009 2009 2010 2007-09 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

U.S. shipments imports from (1):

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Mexico:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147,586 163,469 127,979 70,684 50,141 -13.3 10.8 -21.7 -29.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572,860 681,701 373,098 177,795 194,784 -34.9 19.0 -45.3 9.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.88 $4.17 $2.92 $2.52 $3.88 -24.9 7.4 -30.1 54.4

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74,226 64,441 45,426 22,961 30,847 -38.8 -13.2 -29.5 34.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292,345 268,218 131,960 57,314 122,111 -54.9 -8.3 -50.8 113.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.94 $4.16 $2.90 $2.50 $3.96 -26.2 5.7 -30.2 58.6

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221,812 227,910 173,405 93,645 80,988 -21.8 2.7 -23.9 -13.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865,205 949,919 505,058 235,109 316,895 -41.6 9.8 -46.8 34.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.90 $4.17 $2.91 $2.51 $3.91 -25.3 6.9 -30.1 55.9

 (1) U.S. shipments of imports are from questionnaire data, and data for all other sources are from official Commerce statistics.

C-5
 
Table C-3

SRC pipe & tube: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, (excluding Wolverine) 2007-09,

January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

C-7
 
APPENDIX D

TARIFF TREATMENT

D-1
 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

 XV

74-5

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

7404.00 Copper waste and scrap:

7404.00.30 Spent anodes; waste and scrap with a copper content 

of less than 94 percent by weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 6%

 20 Of refined copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Of copper alloys:

 Of copper-zinc base alloys (brass):

 45 Containing more than 0.3 percent of lead . . . kg

 55 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 65 Of copper-tin base alloys (bronze) . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7404.00.60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 6%

 20 Of refined copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Of copper alloys:

 Of copper-zinc base alloys (brass):

 45 Containing more than 0.3 percent of lead . . . kg

 55 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 65 Of copper-tin base alloys (bronze) . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7405.00 Master alloys of copper:

7405.00.10 00 Containing by weight 5 percent or more but not more 

than 15 percent of phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 12%

7405.00.60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 28%

 30 Beryllium copper master alloy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7406 Copper powders and flakes:

7406.10.00 00 Powders of non-lamellar structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 49%

7406.20.00 00 Powders of lamellar structure; flakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 12%

7407 Copper bars, rods and profiles:

7407.10 Of refined copper:

Profiles:

7407.10.15 00 Hollow profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 48%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7407.10.30 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 48%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7407.10.50 Bars and rods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 7%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

 10 Having a rectangular cross section . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Of copper alloys:

7407.21 Of copper-zinc base alloys (brass):

Profiles:

7407.21.15 00 Hollow profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 2.2% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 17%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7407.21.30 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 2.2% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 17%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

Bars and rods:

7407.21.50 00 Low fuming brazing rods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 2.2% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 9%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

Other:

7407.21.70 00 Having a rectangular cross section . . . . kg . . . . . . 1.9% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 9%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7407.21.90 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 2.2% Free (A*,AU,BH, 9%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,

 P,PE,SG)
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

XV

74-10

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

7410 Copper foil (whether or not printed or backed with paper, 

paperboard, plastics or similar backing materials) of a 

thickness (excluding any backing) not exceeding 0.15 mm:

Not backed:

7410.11.00 00 Of refined copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 1% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 6.5%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7410.12.00 Of copper alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 6.5%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

 30 Of copper-zinc base alloys (brass) . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Backed:

7410.21 Of refined copper:

7410.21.30 Copper clad laminates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 80%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

Having a base wholly of plastics

impregnated glass:

 20 Having copper on one side only .......m2

kg

 40 Having copper on both sides .........m2

kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

kg

7410.21.60 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 1.5% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 6%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7410.22.00 00 Of copper alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 1.5% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 6%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7411 Copper tubes and pipes:

7411.10 Of refined copper:

7411.10.10 Seamless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 13%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

 30 Having an outside diameter of 6 mm or more 

but not exceeding 16 mm, in coils on spools . . . kg

 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7411.10.50 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 47%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

Of copper alloys:

7411.21 Of copper-zinc base alloys (brass):

7411.21.10 00 Seamless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 1.4% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 10%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7411.21.50 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,BH, 49%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,

 P,PE,SG)

7411.22.00 00 Of copper-nickel base alloys (cupro-nickel) or 

copper-nickel-zinc base alloys (nickel-silver) . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 47%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7411.29 Other:

7411.29.10 00 Seamless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 1.4% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 10%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7411.29.50 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 49%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

XV

74-14

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

7419 Other articles of copper:

7419.10.00 00 Chain and parts thereof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,B,AU,BH, 45%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,

 P,PE,SG)

Other:

7419.91.00 Cast, molded, stamped or forged, but not further 

worked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 46%

 10 Brass plumbing goods, not elsewhere specified

or included . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7419.99 Other:

Cloth (including endless bands), grill and

netting, of copper wire; expanded metal of

copper:

Cloth:

7419.99.03 00 Fourdrinier wires, seamed or not

seamed, suitable for use in papermaking machines, with 94 or more

wires to the lineal centimeter .........m2 . . . . . . Free 75%

kg

7419.99.06 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 43%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

 60 Fourdrinier wires, seamed or not

seamed, suitable for use in papermaking machines, with fewer than

94 or more wires to the lineal

centimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

kg

 80 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

kg

7419.99.09 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 43%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,

 P,PE,SG)

7419.99.15 00 Containers of a kind normally carried on the 

person, in the pocket or in the handbag . . . . . . . doz. . . . . 3% Free (AU,BH,CA,D, 110%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7419.99.16 00 Copper springs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 45%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,

 P,PE,SG)

Other:

7419.99.30 00 Coated or plated with precious metal . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 65%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7419.99.50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 46%

 10 Brass plumbing goods not elsewhere 

specified or included . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

 XVI

84-17

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

8414 Air or vacuum pumps, air or other gas compressors and 

fans; ventilating or recycling hoods incorporating a fan, 

whether or not fitted with filters; parts thereof:

8414.10.00 00 Vacuum pumps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . 2.5% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 35%

 C,CA,CL,E,IL,J,

 JO,MA,MX,OM,P,

 PE,SG)

8414.20.00 00 Hand- or foot-operated air pumps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . 3.7% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 35%

 C,CA,CL,E,IL,J,

 JO,MA,MX,OM,P,

 PE,SG)

8414.30 Compressors of a kind used in refrigerating equipment 

(including air conditioning):

8414.30.40 00 Not exceeding 1/4 horsepower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . Free 35%

8414.30.80 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 35%

Screw type:

 10 Not exceeding 200 horsepower . . . . . . . . . . No.

 20 Exceeding 200 horsepower . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

Other:

For all refrigerants except ammonia:

 30 For motor vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

Other:

 50 Exceeding 1/4 horsepower but

not exceeding 1 horsepower . . . . . . No.

 60 Exceeding 1 horsepower but

not exceeding 3 horsepower . . . . . . No.

 70 Exceeding 3 horsepower but

not exceeding 10 horsepower . . . . . No.

 80 Exceeding 10 horsepower . . . . . . . . No.

 90 For ammonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

8414.40.00 00 Air compressors mounted on a wheeled chassis

for towing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . 2.7% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 35%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

 XVI

84-21

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

8415 Air conditioning machines, comprising a motor-driven fan 

(con.) and elements for changing the temperature and humidity, 

including those machines in which the humidity cannot be 

separately regulated; parts thereof (con.):

Other, except parts:

8415.81.01 Incorporating a refrigerating unit and a 

valve for reversal of the cooling/heat 

cycle (reversible heat pumps) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 35%

 C,CA,CL,E,IL,J,

 JO,MA,MX,OM,P,

 PE,SG)

Self-contained:

 10 Not exceeding 17.58 kW per hour . . . . . . . . No.

 20 Exceeding 17.58 kW per hour . . . . . . . . . . . No.

 30 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

8415.82.01 Other, incorporating a refrigerating unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 35%

 C,CA,CL,E,IL,J,

 JO,MA,MX,OM,P,

 PE,SG)

Self-contained machines and remote

condenser type air conditioners other than 

year-round units:

 05 Not exceeding 17.58 kW per hour . . . . . . . . No.

 10 Exceeding 17.58 kW per hour . . . . . . . . . . . No.

Year-round units (heating and cooling):

 15 Not exceeding 17.58 kW per hour . . . . . . . . No.

 20 Exceeding 17.58 kW per hour . . . . . . . . . . . No.

Room or central station air conditioning units 

for use with water chillers:

 30 Room fan coil units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

 35 Central station air handlers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

 40 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

Dehumidifiers:

 55 With a rated water removal capacity of 

less than 35 liters over a 24 hour period . . . . No.

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

 70 Other air conditioning machines incorporating 

a refrigerating unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

8415.83.00 Not incorporating a refrigerating unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 35%

 C,CA,CL,E,IL,J,

 JO,MA,MX,OM,P,

 PE,SG)

Heat exchangers including condensing units:

Condensing units:

 50 Not exceeding 17.58 kW per hour . . . . . No.

 60 Exceeding 17.58 kW per hour . . . . . . . . No.

 70 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

 90 Other air conditioning machines not 

incorporating a refrigerating unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

XVI

84-22

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

8415 Air conditioning machines, comprising a motor-driven fan 

(con.) and elements for changing the temperature and humidity, 

including those machines in which the humidity cannot be 

separately regulated; parts thereof (con.):

8415.90 Parts:

8415.90.40 00 Chassis, chassis bases and outer cabinets . . . . . . . No. . . . . . 1.4% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 35%

 C,CA,CL,E,IL,J,

 JO,MA,MX,OM,P,

 PE,SG)

8415.90.80 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 35%

 C,CA,CL,E,IL,J,

 JO,MA,MX,OM,P,

 PE,SG)

 25 Air conditioning evaporator coils . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

Other:

 45 Of automotive air conditioners ...........X

 65 Of heat pumps .......................X

 85 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

8416 Furnace burners for liquid fuel, for pulverized solid fuel or 

for gas; mechanical stokers, including their mechanical 

grates, mechanical ash dischargers and similar 

appliances; parts thereof:

8416.10.00 00 Furnace burners for liquid fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . Free 27.5%

8416.20.00 Other furnace burners, including combination burners . . . . . . . . . . . Free 27.5%

 40 Gas burners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

 80 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

8416.30.00 00 Mechanical stokers, including their mechanical grates, 

mechanical ash dischargers and similar appliances . . . . X . . . . . . . Free 27.5%

8416.90.00 00 Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . Free 27.5%

8417 Industrial or laboratory furnaces and ovens, including 

incinerators, nonelectric, and parts thereof:

8417.10.00 00 Furnaces and ovens for the roasting, melting or other 

heat treatment of ores, pyrites or of metals . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . 2.9% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 45%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

8417.20.00 00 Bakery ovens, including biscuit ovens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . 3.5% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 45%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

8417.80.00 00 Other, except parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . 3.9% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 45%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

8417.90.00 00 Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . 3.9% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 45%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)
APPENDIX E

U.S. PRODUCTION AND IMPORT DATA REGARDING INDUSTRIAL AND

PLUMBING SRC PIPE AND TUBE

E-1
 
Table E-1

SRC pipe & tube: Summary data concerning U.S. producers of INDUSTRIAL copper pipe & tube, 2007-09, 

January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values and unit labor costs are per pound)

Reported data

January-June 

Item 2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . . . . 816,140 813,541 794,101 399,538 400,038

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228,014 201,560 165,705 87,660 104,232

 Capacity utilization (percent) . . . . . . 27.9 24.8 20.9 21.9 26.1

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216,867 191,809 158,563 85,832 96,438

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799,084 768,380 469,157 225,636 382,577

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.68 $4.01 $2.96 $2.63 $3.97

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,218 11,253 10,889 5,092 7,378

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,391 46,236 33,221 13,227 30,446

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.80 $4.11 $3.05 $2.60 $4.13

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . 12,594 12,125 8,171 8,993 9,522

 Inventories/total shipments . . . . . . . 5.5 6.0 4.8 4.9 4.6

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . 1,902 2,069 1,773 917 963

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . 30,020 34,905 32,435 15,991 17,404

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15.78 $16.87 $18.29 $17.44 $18.07

 Productivity (pounds per hour) . . . . 94.1 84.9 81.8 83.7 96.1

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.17 $0.20 $0.22 $0.21 $0.19

Net sales Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179,749 176,224 148,975 79,817 92,045

Net sales V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669,380 710,180 447,204 212,121 368,598

COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634,863 684,368 436,370 214,735 354,830

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . 34,517 25,812 10,834 (2,614) 13,768

SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,629 14,766 14,779 8,185 8,686

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . 21,888 11,046 (3,945) (10,799) 5,082

Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,733 34,354 18,516 8,953 2,622

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

E-3
Table E-2

SRC pipe & tube: Summary data concerning U.S. producers of PLUMBING copper pipe & tube, 2007-09, 

January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values and unit labor costs are per pound)

Reported data

January-June 

Item 2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . . . . 1,021,144 976,144 976,144 489,496 489,496

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479,401 379,356 316,409 171,180 176,729

 Capacity utilization (percent) . . . . . . 46.9 38.9 32.4 35.0 36.1

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498,506 389,361 328,658 180,584 169,568

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,069,647 1,644,440 991,728 473,032 676,356

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4.15 $4.22 $3.02 $2.62 $3.99

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,595 18,098 13,851 7,593 10,419

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,972 76,254 41,934 19,947 42,127

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4.17 $4.21 $3.03 $2.63 $4.04

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . 35,257 34,366 28,672 31,104 25,281

 Inventories/total shipments . . . . . . . 6.9 8.4 8.4 8.3 7.0

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . 3,533 3,334 2,829 1,445 1,394

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . 64,079 59,554 52,976 26,825 26,176

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $18.14 $17.86 $18.73 $18.56 $18.78

 Productivity (pounds per hour) . . . . 124.9 113.8 111.8 118.5 126.8

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.15 $0.16 $0.17 $0.16 $0.15

Net sales Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443,780 383,589 323,724 174,800 167,072

Net sales V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,853,721 1,641,278 985,786 462,238 672,631

COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,621,053 1,441,726 897,598 410,582 621,517

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . 232,668 199,552 88,188 51,656 51,114

SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,647 42,987 39,139 18,682 20,881

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . 189,021 156,565 49,049 32,974 30,233

Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,511 9,417 12,842 7,137 2,045

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

E-5
Table E-3

SRC Pipe and Tube: U.S. importers’ U.S. imports, U.S. shipments, inventories, and channels of

distribution for INDUSTRIAL copper pipe and tube from China and Mexico, 2007-09, January-June

2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

E-5
Table E-4

SRC Pipe and Tube: U.S. importers’ U.S. imports, U.S. shipments, inventories, and channels of

distribution for PLUMBING copper pipe and tube from China and Mexico, 2007-09, January-June

2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

E-6
APPENDIX F

U.S. PRODUCERS’ AND IMPORTERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE

COMPARABILITY OF INDUSTRIAL AND PLUMBING SRC PIPE AND TUBE

F-1

U.S. PRODUCERS COMMENTS REGARDING THE COMPARABILITY OF INDUSTRIAL

AND PLUMBING SEAMLESS REFINED COPPER PIPE AND TUBE

The Commission asked U.S. producers whether industrial and plumbing seamless refined copper

pipe and tube have the same physical characteristics and end uses and to describe these similarities

and/or differences Their responses are as follows.

* * * * * * *

The Commission asked U.S. producers whether industrial and plumbing seamless refined copper

pipe and tube are interchangeable and to describe what makes the products interchangeable or not

interchangeable. Their responses are as follows.

* * * * * * *

The Commission asked U.S. producers whether the manufacturing processes to produce industrial

seamless refined copper pipe and tube are similar to those to produce plumbing seamless refined

copper pipe and tube and to describe these similarities and/or differences. Their responses are as

follows.

* * * * * * *

The Commission asked U.S. producers whether industrial and plumbing seamless refined copper

pipe and tube share the same channels of distribution. Their responses are as follows.

* * * * * * *

The Commission asked U.S. producers whether customers perceive industrial and plumbing

seamless refined copper pipe and tube to be similar products. Their responses are as follows.

* * * * * * *

The Commission asked U.S. producers whether there are generally differences in price between

industrial and plumbing seamless refined copper pipe and tube. They were asked which type was

generally higher in price. Their responses are as follows.

* * * * * * *

F-3
U.S. IMPORTERS COMMENTS REGARDING THE COMPARABILITY OF INDUSTRIAL

AND PLUMBING SEAMLESS REFINED COPPER PIPE AND TUBE

The Commission asked U.S. importers whether industrial and plumbing seamless refined copper

pipe and tube have the same physical characteristics and end uses and to describe these similarities

and/or differences. Their responses are as follows.

* * * * * * *

The Commission asked U.S. importers whether industrial and plumbing seamless refined copper

pipe and tube are interchangeable and to describe what makes the products interchangeable or not

interchangeable. Their responses are as follows.

* * * * * * *

The Commission asked U.S. importers whether the manufacturing processes to produce industrial

seamless refined copper pipe and tube are similar to those to produce plumbing seamless refined

copper pipe and tube and to describe these similarities and/or differences. Their responses are as

follows.

* * * * * * *

The Commission asked U.S. importers whether industrial and plumbing seamless refined copper

pipe and tube share the same channels of distribution. Their responses are as follows.

* * * * * * *

The Commission asked U.S. importers whether customers perceive industrial and plumbing

seamless refined copper pipe and tube to be similar products. Their responses are as follows.

* * * * * * *

The Commission asked U.S. importers whether there are generally differences in price between

industrial and plumbing seamless refined copper pipe and tube. They were asked which type was

generally higher in price. Their responses are as follows.

* * * * * * *

F-4
APPENDIX G

NONSUBJECT COUNTRY PRICE DATA

G-1

One importer (***) reported price data for nonsubject country Canada for products 1-4, and 7 and

one importer (***) reported price data for nonsubject country Malaysia for product 5. In comparing

nonsubject country pricing data with U.S. producer pricing data, prices for product imported from

nonsubject countries were lower than prices for U.S. produced product in 15 instances and higher in 19

instances. In comparing nonsubject country pricing data with subject country pricing data, prices for

product imported from nonsubject countries were lower than prices for product imported from subject

countries in 28 instances and higher in 29 instances. Specifically, prices for product imported from

nonsubject countries were lower than prices for product imported from China in 15 instances and higher in

12 instances; and nonsubject prices were lower than prices for product imported from Mexico in 13

instances and higher in 17 instances. Price and quantity data for Canadian and Malaysia are in tables G-1

to G-2 and in shown in figure G-1 with U.S. and subject sources.

Table G-1

SRC pipe and tube: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of nonsubject imported products

1-31

, by quarters, January 2007-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table G-2

SRC pipe and tube: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of nonsubject imported products

4,5, and 71, by quarters, January 2007-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Figure G-1

SRC pipe and tube: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product, by quarters, January 2007-June 2010

* * * * * * *

G-3