U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4019 July 2008

Washington, DC 20436

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe

from China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-447 and 731-TA-1116 (Final)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman

Deanna Tanner Okun

Charlotte R. Lane

Irving A. Williamson

Dean A. Pinkert

Staff assigned

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Joanna Lo, Investigator

Norman VanToai, Industry Analyst

Craig Thomsen, Economist

Justin Jee, Financial Analyst/Auditor

Lemuel Shields, Statistical Assistant

Charles St. Charles, Attorney

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

Gabriel Ellenberger, Research Assistant

Craig Anthony Rychel, Investigations Intern
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4019 July 2008

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe

from China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-447 and 731-TA-1116 (Final)

i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

U.S. circular welded pipe market summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

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

Previous and related Title VII investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Previous and related safeguard investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Nature and extent of subsidies and sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Manufacturing facilities and production employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

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

Market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

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

Lead times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2

Purchaser characteristics ..................................................... II-3

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

U.S. supply ............................................................... II-3

Subject imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5

Nonsubject imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-7

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-8

Foreign demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-11

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

Factors affecting sales and purchases ........................................... II-12

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-14

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-22

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-22

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

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

Submitted economic models ..................................................... II-23
ii

CONTENTS

Page

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-5

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-8

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-8

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-9

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

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

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

Subject imports from China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Negligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Critical circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

Nonsubject sources of imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

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

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

Comparison of U.S.-produced and imported circular welded pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

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

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

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

Tariff rates and transportation costs to the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Price leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

Quarterly price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

Announced selling price increases and decreases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-22

Published price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-23

Lost revenues and lost sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-23

Part VI: Financial condition of U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Operations on circular welded pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-2

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

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

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-8
iii

CONTENTS

Page

Part VII: Threat considerations and Bratsk information ............................. VII-1

The industry in China .......................................................... VII-1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-1

Circular welded pipe operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-3

Alternative products ........................................................ VII-5

U.S. imports subsequent to December 31, 2007 ...................................... VII-6

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-7

Dumping in third-country markets ................................................ VII-8

Information on nonsubject sources ................................................ VII-8

“Bratsk” considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-8

Nonsubject source information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-9

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-9

Leading nonsubject sources of circular welded pipe ................................ VII-11

Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-16

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-18

Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-19

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-20

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-21

Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-22

Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-23

Appendixes

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

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

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

D. Current orders and historic duty rates on circular welded pipe from previous investigations . . D-1

E. Additional data regarding domestic shipments, Chinese imports, and nonsubject imports . . . . E-1

F. Questionnaire selling price data for circular welded pipe products 1-4 and 1a-4a produced

 domestically and imported from nonsubject countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

G. Alleged effects of subject imports on U.S. producers’ existing development

 and production efforts, growth, investment, and ability to raise capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

H. Additional data regarding the Chinese industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1

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

published and therefore has been replaced with asterisks in this report.

 1

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

 2

 Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert recused himself to avoid any conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict.

 3

 The Commission further determines that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to those imports of the

subject merchandise from China that were subject to the affirmative critical circumstances determination by the

Department of Commerce.

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-447 and 731-TA-1116 (Final)

CIRCULAR WELDED CARBON-QUALITY STEEL PIPE FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is materially

injured by reason of imports from China of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe, provided for in

subheadings 7306.19.10, 7306.19.51, 7306.30.10, 7306.30.50, 7306.50.10, and 7306.50.50 of the

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

(Commerce) to be subsidized by the Government of China and sold in the United States at less than fair

value (LTFV).2 3

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these investigations effective June 7, 2007, following receipt of a

petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Allied Tube & Conduit, Harvey, IL; IPSCO

Tubulars, Inc., Camanche, IA; Northwest Pipe Co., Portland, OR; Sharon Tube Co., Sharon, PA; Western

Tube & Conduit Corp., Long Beach, CA; Wheatland Tube Co., Collingswood, NJ; and the United

Steelworkers, Pittsburgh, PA. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission

following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of welded carbon-quality

steel pipe from China were being subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

§ 1671b(b)) and 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 February 5, 2008 (73 FR 6738). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on

May 13, 2008, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by

counsel.

 1

 Commissioner Pinkert did not participate in this determination.

 2

 As addressed further infra, we also determine that the imports subject to Commerce’s affirmative critical

circumstances determinations are not likely to undermine seriously the remedial effect of the countervailing duty and

antidumping duty orders to be issued on CWP from China.

 3

 Consisting of Pusan Pipe America, Inc. (d/b/a SeAH Steel America, Inc.); Kumkang America, Inc.; Oxbow

Carbon & Minerals LLC (Mark Steel International); James Steel, Inc.; Hyundai Corp. USA; North American Pipe &

Steel, Inc.; and Shamrock Building Materials Inc. 

 4

 CR at III-1, PR at III-I. 

 5

 CR at IV-1, PR at IV-I.

 6

 CR at VII-2, PR at VII-I.

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in these investigations, we determine that an industry in the United States is 

materially injured by reason of imports of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (“CWP”) from China

that are subsidized and sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”).1 2

I. BACKGROUND

A. In General

These countervailing and antidumping duty investigations result from a petition filed on June 7,

2007, by six domestic producers of CWP – Allied Tube & Conduit, IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., Northwest

Pipe Company (“Northwest”), Sharon Tube Company, Western Tube & Conduit Corporation, Wheatland

Tube Company (“Wheatland”) – and the United Steelworkers, a labor union whose members are engaged

in production of CWP (collectively “petitioners”). Petitioners and U.S. Steel Corporation (another U.S.

producer of CWP) filed prehearing and posthearing briefs and were represented at the hearing on May 13,

2008, in support of the petition. In opposition to the petition, filing prehearing and posthearing briefs and

represented at the hearing, were the China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals, and Chemicals

Importers & Exporters (“CCCMC”), representing its member producers and exporters of the subject

merchandise; the Standard Pipe Importers’ Coalition;3

 MAN Ferrostaal, Inc., Commercial Metals

Company, and QT Trading LP, importers of the subject merchandise (“MAN”, “Commercial”, and

“QT”); and Western International Forest Products, LLC (“Western”), an importer of subject merchandise. 

A prehearing brief was also filed by Shuangjie Steel Pipe Co. Ltd. and its affiliate Tianjin Wa Song Imp.

& Exp. Co., Ltd. (“Shuangjie”), a producer/exporter of the subject merchandise.

The Commission received usable questionnaire responses from 21 U.S. producers, accounting for

more than 90 percent of U.S. production of CWP in 2007.4

 The Commission also received usable

questionnaire responses from 32 importers believed to account for 82.6 percent of CWP imports from

China and 75.3 percent of imports from other sources in 2007,5

 and from 15 Chinese producers of CWP

accounting for an estimated 51.5 percent of CWP production in China in 2007, and an estimated 65.1 of

exports of CWP to the United States in 2007.6

Tubular products, only some of which are CWP, frequently are distinguished by the following six

end uses as defined by the American Iron and Steel Institute (“AISI”).

C Standard pipe is ordinarily used for low-pressure conveyance of air, steam, gas, water, oil, or

other fluids for mechanical applications. It is used primarily in machinery, buildings, sprinkler

systems, irrigation systems and water wells rather than in pipe lines or utility distribution
 7

 CR at I-14, PR I-12.

 8

 See definition of Commerce’s scope, infra.

 9

 Each antidumping or countervailing duty investigation is sui generis, presenting unique interactions of the

economic variables the Commission considers, and therefore is not binding on the Commission in subsequent

investigations, even when the same subject country and merchandise are at issue. E.g., Nucor Corp. v. United

States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Ugine-Savoie Imphy v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1220 (Ct.

Int’l Trade 2002). Findings made in investigations under other statutory provisions, such as those in the section 201

and section 421 investigations discussed herein, provide even lesser guidance in subsequent antidumping or

countervailing duty proceedings. Greenhouse Tomatoes from Canada, Inv. No. 731-TA-925 (Preliminary), USITC

Pub. 3424 (May 2001) at n.13 (“See Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Foundation v. United States, 74 F. Supp. 2d

1353, 1379 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999) (‘As the ITC explained that the previous [ITC] publication was not for an

antidumping investigation and the information and data gathered were not for the same time period as this

investigation, the Court finds the ITC did not abuse its discretion in apparently not relying on its previous finding in

this determination.’”); Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-386 (Preliminary) and

731-TA-812-813 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 (Feb. 1999) at 5-6, n.20 (“determinations in Commission

investigations of live cattle conducted under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 in 1977 . . . offer limited guidance

in decisions under the antidumping/countervailing duty laws”). 

4

systems. It may carry fluids at elevated temperatures which are not subject to external heat

applications. It is usually produced in standard diameters and wall thicknesses to ASTM

specifications.

C Line pipe is used for transportation of gas, oil, or water generally in a pipeline or utility

distribution system. It is produced to API-5L and American Water Works Association

(“AWWA”) specifications.

C Structural pipe and tubing is welded or seamless pipe and tubing generally used for structural or

load-bearing purposes above ground by the construction industry, as well as for structural

members in ships, trailers, farm equipment and other similar uses. It is produced in nominal wall

thicknesses and sizes to ASTM specifications in round, square, rectangular, or other

cross-sectional shapes.

C Mechanical tubing is welded or seamless tubing produced in a large number of shapes of varied

chemical composition. It is not normally produced to meet any specification other than that

required to meet the end use.

C Pressure tubing is used to convey fluids at elevated temperatures or pressures, or both, and is

suitable to be subjected to heat applications. It is produced to specifications, such as ASTM.

C Oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) are pipe produced to API specifications and used in wells in

oil and gas industries.7

The Commission's focus in these investigations is upon standard and structural pipe and tubing.8

CWP is produced in various grades of carbon, alloy, or stainless steel and is frequently

distinguished by its wide variety of end use applications, including plumbing applications, structural

applications, and more specific applications (e.g., shells for electrical conduit, scaffolding components,

and fencing).

B. Previous and Related Investigations9

In 1986, in an antidumping duty investigation, the Commission determined that an industry in the

United States was not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of less than fair

value (LTFV) imports of standard pipes and tubes from China. Such imports were found by the

Commission to have “serious deficiencies” and to have been imported “only in very small quantities;”

moreover, despite China’s position as a net importer of standard pipe, there was “no information of record
 10 Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from The People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-292

(Final), USITC Pub. 1885 (Aug. 1986) at 3-13. 

 11 19 U.S.C. § 2251 et seq.

 12 Steel; Import Investigations, 66 Fed. Reg. 67304 (December 28, 2001); Steel, Inv. No. TA-201-73, USITC Pub.

3479 at 157-170 (Dec. 2001).

 13 Presidential Proclamation 7529 of March 5, 2002, To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to Competition From

Imports of Certain Steel Products, 67 Fed. Reg. 10553 (March 7, 2002).

 14 Id. Dual/multiple-stenciled line pipe for use in CWP applications was not covered by this measure as it was

already covered by a separate measure on line pipe. CR at I-6 n.8, PR at I-5 n.8.

 15 The safeguard measures applied to imports of subject steel products from all countries except Canada, Israel,

Jordan, and Mexico, which had entered into free trade agreements with the United States, and most developing

countries that were members of the World Trade Organization. The President’s initial proclamation also excluded

numerous specific products from the measures, and was followed by further exclusions. 67 Fed. Reg. 10558 (Mar.

7, 2002), 67 Fed. Reg. 16484 (Apr. 5, 2002), 67 Fed. Reg. 46221 (Jul. 12, 2002); 67 Fed. Reg. 56183 (Aug. 30,

2002).

 16 On July 18, 2002, Commerce announced proposed rules regarding a steel import licensing and surge

monitoring system (67 Fed. Reg. 47338 (July 18, 2002)) and, on December 31, 2002, published regulations

establishing such a system. CR at I-7 n.13; PR at I-6 n.13. 

 17 Presidential Proclamation 7741 of December 4, 2003, To Provide for the Termination of Action Taken With

Regard to Imports of Certain Steel Products, 68 Fed. Reg. 68483 (December 8, 2003).

 18 Proclamation 7741 terminated the tariff-rate quota and the increased import duties on certain steel products, but

directed the Secretary of Commerce to continue the monitoring system until the earlier of March 21, 2005, or such

time as the Secretary establishes a replacement program. On March 11, 2005, Commerce published an interim final

rule to implement a replacement program for the period beyond March 21, 2005. 70 Fed. Reg. 12133 (March 11,

2005). On December 5, 2005, Commerce published its final rule. 70 Fed. Reg. 72373 (December 5, 2005).

On March 21, 2005, the Commission instituted an investigation under section 204(d) of the Trade Act of

1974 for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of the relief action imposed by the President on imports of

certain steel products. The Commission’s report on the evaluation was transmitted to the President and the Congress

on September 19, 2005.

5

that the Chinese are currently increasing productive capacity for standard pipe or that they intend to

increase such capacity.”10

In 2001, the Commission determined, pursuant to section 201 et seq of the Trade Act of 1974,11 in

its investigation of Steel, including carbon and certain alloy welded pipe other than OCTG (encompassing

standard pipe), that such welded pipe was being imported into the United States in such increased

quantities as to be a substantial cause of the threat of serious injury to the domestic industries producing

articles like or directly competitive with the imported article.12 On March 5, 2002, the President

announced safeguard measures, effective March 20, 2002, for a period of three years and one day.13

Import relief relating to welded tubular products (other than OCTG) consisted of an additional tariff of 15

percent ad valorem on imports in the first year, 12 percent in the second year, and 9 percent in the third

year.14 China was not among the countries excluded from the safeguard remedies.15 The President also

instructed the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce to establish a system of import

licensing to facilitate the monitoring of imports of certain steel products.16 On December 4, 2003, the

President terminated the safeguard measures.17 Import licensing, however, remained in place through

March 21, 2005, and continues in modified form.18

In 2002, in an antidumping duty investigation, the Commission determined that an industry in the

United States was not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV imports of
 19 Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-943 (Final), USITC Pub. 3523 (Jul.

2002). 

 20 Id. at 12 n.75.

 21 Id. at 7.

 22 Id. at 15.

 23 19 U.S.C. § 2451.

 24 Circular Welded Non-alloy Steel Pipe From China, Inv. No. TA-421-6, USITC Pub. 3807 (Oct. 2005). Two

dissenting Commissioners found that the domestic industry “remained healthy,” and noted that responding Chinese

producers projected their capacity, production, and shipments, including those to the United States, to be “similar to

2004 levels.” Id. at 72-74.

 25 Presidential Proclamation 2006-7 of December 30, 2005, Presidential Determination on Imports of Circular

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the People’s Republic of China, 71 Fed. Reg. 871 (January 6, 2006).

 26 CR/PR at Table I-1 (listing of investigations).

 27 See, e.g., Certain Pipe and Tube From Argentian, Brazil, India Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey,

Inv. Nos. 701-TA-253 and 731-TA-132, 252, 271, 273, 409, 410, 532-534 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3867 (Jul.

2006).

 28 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 29 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

6

standard pipes and tubes from China.19 Commerce calculated dumping margins of zero for Chinese

producers Baosteel and Weifang and thus their exports were not considered subject imports.20 In

considering the issue of material injury, the Commission specifically noted as a condition of competition

the recently-enacted U.S. safeguard action described above.21 In considering threat, the Commission

found no evidence of an imminent, substantial increase in production capacity among the responding

Chinese producers and noted that reported capacity was “projected to remain flat in 2002.”22

In 2005, the Commission conducted a China-specific safeguard investigation on circular welded

nonalloy steel pipe under section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974.23 The Commission determined that

rapidly increasing imports of the subject product from China were a significant cause of market

disruption, defined as material injury or the threat of material injury to the domestic industry, and

proposed remedies for the President’s consideration.24 The President determined not to impose import

relief.25

Circular welded pipe from countries other than China has been the subject of numerous 

countervailing duty or antidumping duty investigations since the mid-1980s.26 Antidumping duty orders

are currently outstanding on CWP from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey, and

a countervailing duty order is outstanding on CWP from Turkey.27

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

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.”28 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a [w]hole 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.”29 In turn, the Act defines “domestic like
 30 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

 31 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: (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).

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

 33 Nippon Steel, 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.”).

 34 See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 01-1421 (Fed. Cir. April 25, 2002) at 9 (“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).

 35 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, Inc. v. United States,

501 F.3d 1291, 1298, n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Commerce’s [scope] finding does not control the Commission’s [like

product] determination.”); Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-752 (affirming Commission determination of six like

products in investigations where Commerce found five classes or kinds).

7

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 . . . .”30

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.31 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.32 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.33

Although the Commission must accept the determination of Commerce as to the scope of the imported

merchandise allegedly sold at LTFV,34 the Commission determines what domestic product is like the

imported articles Commerce has identified.35

B. Product Description

In its final determinations, Commerce defined the imported merchandise within the scope of these

investigations as:

[C]ertain welded carbon quality steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross section, and with

an outside diameter of 0.372 inches (9.45 mm) or more, but not more than 16 inches

(406.4 mm), whether or not stenciled, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (e.g.,

black, galvanized, or painted), end finish (e.g., plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded,

or threaded and coupled), or industry specification (e.g., ASTM, proprietary, or other),

generally known as standard pipe and structural pipe (they may also be referred to as

circular, structural, or mechanical tubing).

Specifically, the term “carbon quality” includes products in which: (a) iron

predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (b) the carbon
 36 73 Fed. Reg. 31966-31967 (June 5, 2008) (countervailing duty determination), 73 Fed. Reg. 31970 - 31971

(June 5, 2008) (antidumping duty determination). This scope replaces the scope definition in Commerce’s initiation

notice, which was before the Commission at the preliminary phase of these investigations, in which dual- and

multiple-stenciled pipe was defined as within the scope if it was used, or intended for use in, a standard pipe

application. The scope now identifies dual- and multiple-stenciled pipe within the scope in terms of the physical

characteristics of the pipe, rather than its use or intended use.

8

content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds

the quantity, by weight, as indicated: 

(i) 1.80 percent of manganese; (ii) 2.25 percent of silicon; (iii) 1.00 percent of copper;

(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum; (v) 1.25 percent of chromium; (vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;

(vii) 0.40 percent of lead; (viii) 1.25 percent of nickel; (ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;

(x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum; (xi) 0.10 percent of niobium; (xii) 0.41 percent of

titanium (xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or (xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.

All pipe meeting the physical description set forth above that is used in, or intended for

use in, standard and structural pipe applications is covered by the scope of this

investigation. Standard pipe applications include the low–pressure conveyance of water,

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

conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipe

may also be used for light load–bearing and mechanical applications, such as for fence

tubing, and as an intermediate product for protection of electrical wiring, such as conduit

shells. Structural pipe is used in construction applications. 

Standard pipe is made primarily to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

specifications, but can be made to other specifications. Standard pipe is made primarily to

ASTM specifications A–53, A–135, and A–795. Structural pipe is made primarily to

ASTM specifications A–252 and A–500. Standard and structural pipe may also be

produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications. This is often

the case, for example, with fence tubing. Pipe multiple–stenciled to an ASTM

specification and to any other specification, such as the American Petroleum Institute

(API) API–5L or 5L X–42 specifications, is also covered by the scope of this

investigation when it meets the physical description set forth above and also has one or

more of the following characteristics: is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches

(50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted surface finish; or has a

threaded and/or coupled end finish.

The scope does not include: (a) pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat

exchangers, condensers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold

drawn; (b) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold–drawn; (c) finished electrical conduit;

(d) tube and pipe hollows for redrawing; (e) oil country tubular goods produced to API

specifications; and (f) line pipe produced to API specifications for oil and gas

applications.36 
 37 Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-447, 731-TA-1116 (Preliminary), USITC

Pub. 3938 (Jul. 2007) at 8.

 38 CR at I-13, PR at I-11.

 39 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 40 United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 681-84 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d

1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

 41 CR/PR at III-1. 

 42 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 43 See, e.g., Foundry Coke from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-891 (Final), USITC Pub. 3449 (September 2001) at 8-9;

Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from the Czech Republic, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, and

(continued...)

9

C. Analysis

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, Petitioners proposed that the Commission define

a single domestic like product including all CWP, coextensive with the scope of the investigations. The

Commission agreed and defined a single domestic like product, coextensive with the scope.37

In the final phase of these investigations, no party advocates defining the domestic like product

differently,38 and no new information has been developed since the preliminary determinations to suggest

that a different definition would be warranted. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preliminary

determinations, we define a single domestic like product consisting of CWP coextensive with the scope of

these investigations. 

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

A. In General

The domestic industry is defined as the “producers as a [w]hole 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.”39 In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general

practice has been to include in the industry all domestic production of the domestic like product, whether

toll produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market.40 Based on our finding that

the domestic like product is CWP, we find that the domestic industry consists of all known domestic

producers of CWP. The Commission obtained data from 21 U.S. producers estimated to account for more

than 90 percent of U.S. production of CWP in 2007.41

B. Related Parties

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.42 Exclusion

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

investigation. 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.43
 43 (...continued)

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). See also SAA at 858.

 44 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 45 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 46 Specifically, *** purchased the Chinese CWP from *** U.S. importers, ***. *** did not list its primary (i.e.,

top 10) customers. ***, one of the *** U.S. importers of circular welded pipe from China, listed *** as purchasers

of its subject CWP imports, but those purchases accounted for only *** percent of *** sales of CWP from China

during the period. *** did not list its primary customers. Questionnaire responses of ***.

 47 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 48 No party argues that negligibility is an issue in these investigations under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24). Subject

imports from China were 65.0 percent of total imports during the most recent 12-month period prior to the filing of

the petition for which data are available, June 2006 to May 2007, and thus are well above the three-percent

negligibility threshold. CR/PR at Table IV-3. Consequently, we find that subject imports are not negligible.

 49 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(a) and 1673d(a).

 50 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 . . . [a]nd explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). See also Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

 51 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 52 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 53 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

10

No party has argued that any domestic producer should be excluded from the domestic industry

under the related party provision. However, although they did not import subject merchandise, *** and

*** purchased subject merchandise during the period of investigation.44

*** purchased *** short tons of subject merchandise in 2006 and *** short tons in 2007.45

However, *** does not appear to have purchased a predominant proportion of any importer’s

importations of the subject merchandise and, therefore, is not a related party by reason of those

purchases.46

*** purchased *** short tons of subject merchandise in 2006 and *** short tons in 2007.47 The

volume of *** purchases are small; accordingly, there is no indication that *** is responsible for a

predominant portion of any importer’s importations, and its purchases do not constitute a large proportion

of total imports from China. We consequently find that *** is not a related party producer. 

IV. MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS48

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

determines whether an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of the imports under

investigation.49 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.50 The statute defines

“material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”51 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.52 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.”53
 54 CR at II-12 - II-14, PR at II-8 - II-9; Petitioners Postconference Brief at 7; Conference Transcript at 101-103

(Magno, Filetti, and Barnes); Respondents’ Postconference Brief at 34-35.

 55 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 56 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 12 & Exhibit 2; CR at II-13, PR at II-9.

 57 CCCMC’s Prehearing Brief at 55-56, CR at II-13 - II-14, PR at II-9.

 58 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 59 CR/PR at II-1.

 60 CR/PR at II-1, n.1.

 61 CR/PR at II-1 - II-2.

 62 CR/PR at II-2 & nn. 3, 4. We note that master distributors have existed in this market for at least 20 years

(CR/PR at II-2) and “generally are more on the plumbing and heating . . . the industrial side[s] of the business as

opposed to fire protection or fencing.” Conference Transcript at 82 (Magno). 

 63 CR/PR at Table III-1, CR at III-3, PR at III-4.

11

For the reasons stated below, we determine that the domestic industry producing CWP is

materially injured by reason of subject imports from China.

A. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

The following conditions of competition are pertinent to our analysis of the impact of subject

imports of CWP on the domestic industry.

1. Demand Conditions

Demand for CWP is largely derived from nonresidential construction.54 U.S. CWP demand, as

measured by apparent U.S. consumption, increased from 2.36 million short tons in 2005 to 2.72 million

short tons in 2006, then declined to 2.58 million short tons in 2007, for an overall increase of

9.0 percent.55 The record is mixed regarding demand in 2008. Petitioners argue that CWP demand will

decline in relation to a downturn in the economy generally, slowing nonresidential construction, tightened

credit markets, and retail expansion cutbacks.56 CCCMC asserts that CWP demand will increase slightly

in 2008 in response to a modest increase in nonresidential construction spending.57 

The vast majority of shipments of CWP in the U.S. market, both of domestic product and imports,

is to distributors.58 Distributors can vary in terms of size, inventory, and types of customers they serve.59

Nine of 22 responding purchasers identified themselves as master distributors.60 Master distributors

typically sell to other distributors, carry a larger selection of CWP in inventory than do smaller

distributors, and purchase in greater volume and, thus, they are able to purchase CWP at lower prices than

can the smaller distributors.61 The record indicates that master distributors have enhanced the ability of

the subject imports to compete in the U.S. market.62

2. Supply Conditions

The Commission received questionnaire responses from 21 U.S. producers, accounting for the

vast majority of U.S. production of CWP during the period of investigation.63 The industry’s capacity

declined over the period by 13.7 percent, largely as a result of closures by Wheatland of its Sharon,

Pennsylvania plant in May 2006; its Little Rock, Arkansas facility and its Houston, Texas facility in
 64 CR/PR at Table III-2 (the domestic industry’s capacity declined from 2.57 million short tons in 2005 to

2.41 million short tons in 2006 and 2.22 million short tons in 2007), CR/PR at III-1 n.2 (Wheatland’s closings), see

also CR/PR at Table III-3 (summary of plant openings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, closures, and prolonged

shutdowns). 

 65 Domestic production declined slightly from 1.39 million short tons in 2005 to 1.38 million short tons in 2006,

then increased to 1.46 million short tons in 2007. CR/PR at Table III-2.

 66 CR/PR at Table IV-8.

 67 CR/PR at Table IV-8 and C-1. 

 68 CR/PR at Table IV-8.

 69 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 70 CR at II-17 - II-18, PR at II-11 - II-12.

 71 CR at I-15 - I-16, PR at I-12 - I-13.

 72 CR/PR at Table II-2. 

 73 CR/PR at Table II-2. 

 74 Responding U.S. producers reported most frequently that differences in non-price factors among CWP

produced in the United States, imported from China, and imported from third countries were only sometimes or

never significant, whereas the responding U.S. importers and purchasers were more divided in characterizing such

factors as always, frequently, sometimes, and never significant. CR/PR at Table II-3.

 75 CR/PR at Table II-5. “Quality meets industry standards” was cited by purchasers most frequently as the

primary factor in purchasing decisions, with “availability” and “price,” respectively, a close second and third; price

was cited by the most purchasers as one of the three most important factors in making purchasing decisions. CR/PR

at Table II-5.

12

September 2007; and its Collingswood, New Jersey facility in December 2007.64 The domestic

industry’s production increased overall by 5.1 percent.65 

Domestic producers’ share of the U.S. market, by quantity, declined from 58.4 percent in 2005 to

49.3 percent in 2006, then increased to 55.2 percent in 2007, for an overall period decrease of

3.2 percentage points.66 Subject imports’ share of the U.S. market increased from 16.2 percent in 2005 to

26.4 percent in 2006 and 29.0 percent in 2007, for an overall period increase of 12.9 percentage points.67

The U.S. market share held by nonsubject imports declined steadily during the period examined, from

25.4 percent in 2005 to 24.3 percent in 2006 and 15.8 percent in 2007, for an overall period decline of 9.6

percentage points.68 Imports of CWP from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey,

which are subject to antidumping orders (CWP from Turkey is also subject to a countervailing duty

order), accounted for approximately half of the nonsubject imports over the period of investigation.69

3. Substitutability and Other Conditions

The record indicates a moderately high degree of substitutability between CWP produced

domestically and that imported from China.70 CWP, regardless of source, is manufactured to meet

common ASTM specifications (such as A-53, A-135, A-795, A-500, A-252 or F-1083) regarding

materials, dimensions, and testing.71 The vast majority of market participants found domestically

produced CWP always or frequently interchangeable with subject CWP from China.72 Additionally, the

majority of market participants who compared subject imports to imports from nonsubject sources found

them to be always or frequently interchangeable.73 Domestic producers, importers, and purchasers differ

somewhat on the importance of non-price factors – such as quality, availability, transportation network,

product range, and technical support – when comparing CWP from one country with that from another.74

The vast majority of purchasers identified price as a very important factor in their purchasing decisions.75
 76 CR at II-2 - II-3, PR at II-2.

 77 A high variable cost industry is one in which variable costs (e.g., cost of direct materials and direct labor),

which change directly with the amount of production, are high in relation to fixed costs (e.g., costs for plant

facilities, equipment, and insurance), which remain constant in total regardless of changes in production volumes.

 78 CR/PR at Table VI-3; CR/PR at Table V-10 (while many responding purchasers reported that domestic

producers reduced prices to compete with subject imports, a majority of purchasers reported that domestic prices

were not reduced); Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 10; USITC Pub. 3938 at 12; Conference Transcript at 72 (Magno,

Barnes).

 79 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 80 CR/PR at Tables IV-2, C-1.

 81 CR/PR at Table IV-8. The ratio of subject imports to U.S. production increased over the period by

23.7 percentage points, from 27.6 percent in 2005 to 51.3 percent in 2007. CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 82 CR/PR at Table IV-8.

 83 CR/PR at Table IV-8.

13

Importers reported that their average lead time (i.e., between order and delivery) for CWP from

China that was produced to order was over 120 days, whereas domestic producers reported an average

lead time of 31 days on produced-to-order CWP. Domestic producers reported lead times averaging 6

days for shipments from inventory. Of the six importers reporting shipping out of inventory, four

reported lead times of 10 days or less and two reported lead times greater than 30 days.76

The ability or willingness of domestic producers to reduce prices to compete with subject imports

is limited by the high variable cost nature of CWP production.77 The need to meet variable costs can lead

producers, at least initially, to adjust sales volume rather than prices when competing with low-priced

products.78

B. Volume of the Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(c) of the 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.”79

Subject import volume increased from 382,122 short tons in 2005 to 715,728 short tons in 2006

and 748,181 short tons in 2007, for a period increase of 95.8 percent.80 The market share held by subject

imports increased from 16.2 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2005 to 26.4 percent in 2006 and to

29.0 percent in 2007, for a period increase of 12.9 percentage points.81 The market share held by the

domestic industry declined from 58.4 percent in 2005 to 49.3 percent in 2006, before increasing to

55.2 percent in 2007, for an overall period decline of 3.2 percentage points.82 The market share held by

nonsubject imports declined throughout the period, from 25.4 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in

2005 to 24.3 percent in 2006 and 15.8 percent in 2007, for a period decline of 9.6 percentage points.83 As

the data reflect, increasing subject import volumes took market share from the domestic industry,

particularly in 2006, as well as from nonsubject imports. We also note that subject imports captured a

substantial share of a growing market as apparent U.S. consumption increased by 9.0 percent over the

period and by 14.8 percent from 2006 to 2007.
 84 CR at II-8 - II-11, PR at II-6 - II-7.

 85 In conducting our analysis, we have given less weight to the decline in subject imports that occurred in the final 

months of 2007, since we find that it was at least partly due to the effects of the filing of the petitions. See 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677(7)(I).

 86 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 87 CR at II-17 - II-18, PR at II-11 - II-12.

 88 CR/PR at Table II-2. 

 89 CR/PR at Tables II-4, II-5. 

 90 The Commission requested price data for: Product 1 - ASTM A-53 schedule 40 black plain-end pipe, with

nominal outside diameter of 2-4 inches inclusive; Product 1a - ASTM A-53 schedule 40 black plain-end pipe, with

nominal outside diameter of 2 inches; Product 2 - ASTM A-53 schedule 40 galvanized plain-end pipe, with nominal

outside diameter of 2-4 inches inclusive; Product 2a - ASTM A-53 schedule 40 galvanized plain-end pipe, with

nominal outside diameter of 2 inches; Product 3 - ASTM A-53 schedule 40 black plain-end pipe, with nominal

outside diameter of 6-8 inches inclusive; Product 3a - ASTM A-53 schedule 40 black plain-end pipe, with nominal

outside diameter of 6 inches; Product 4 - galvanized fence tube, with nominal outside diameter of 1-3/8 - 2-3/8

inches inclusive, and wall thickness of 0.055-0.075 inch; Product 4a - galvanized fence tube, with nominal outside

diameter of 2 inches (also referred to as 2 and 3/8 inch in the fence tube industry), and wall thickness of 0.065 inch

(+/- 10 percent). CR at V-9, PR at V-7. 

 91 CR at V-10, PR at V-8, as revised by Memorandum INV-FF-068 (June 16, 2008). 

14

The volume of subject imports declined sharply in the final months of 2007. While the pendency

of these investigations may have had some impact on import volume,84 as discussed above, even with the

decline in the last quarter of 2007, subject import volume in 2007 was significantly greater than in 2005.85

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the subject import volume and the increase in that volume

are significant, both in absolute terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States.

C. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of the subject

imports, 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.86

As discussed above, there is a moderately high degree of substitutability between domestic and

subject CWP, both of which are commonly produced to ASTM specifications.87 A majority of market

participants found subject imports and the domestic like product to be always or frequently

interchangeable.88 Price plays an important role in sales of CWP.89 

The Commission collected quarterly weighted-average price data from U.S. producers and

importers on four specific CWP products and four broader product categories.90 Price data reported by

U.S. producers accounted for 28.2 percent of their reported commercial shipments of CWP. Price data

reported by U.S. importers accounted for 37.8 percent of their total reported U.S. commercial shipments. 

U.S. importers also reported pricing data for their commercial shipments of nonsubject imports, which

accounted for 16.5 percent of total official imports of CWP from nonsubject countries in 2007.91 Ninetysix quarterly price comparisons were possible between domestic product and the subject imports across
 92 The difference between the average quarterly prices for the specific products and the broader product categories

was generally small, averaging 2.3 percent. CR at V-27, PR at V-21.

 93 CR/PR at Table V-5. 

 94 CR/PR at Tables V-1 - V-4a (increases only for products 2 and 2a).

 95 CR/PR at Table C-1 and V-7. Also, several purchasers indicated shifting, over the period of investigation, 

from domestic product to subject imports due to price differences. CR/PR at Table V-10.

 96 CR/PR at Table C-1 and V-7.

 97 CR/PR at Table C-1. COGS/sales declined from 85.6 percent in 2005 to 83.2 percent in 2006, before

increasing to 89.2 percent in 2007. Id.

 98 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 99 CR/PR at Table V-9.

15

specific products and broader product categories.92 In all comparisons the subject imports undersold the

domestic product, by margins ranging from 4.3 percent to 56.0 percent.93 Domestic producers’ prices for

six of the eight pricing products declined over the period of investigation.94 

As discussed earlier, CWP production entails relatively high variable costs. The record indicates

that, in response to sharply increased volumes of low priced subject imports in 2006, the domestic

industry generally maintained prices at the cost of sales volume and thus experienced declines in sales,

shipments, and market share in 2006 compared with 2005.95 In 2007, domestic producers appear to have

competed more on price to regain market share. However, they were not able to regain the market share

they had held in 2005, nor were they able to increase prices sufficiently to cover increased costs as subject

imports undersold the domestic product in increasing volumes.96 The domestic industry’s total cost of

goods sold (“COGS”) as a share of net sales increased by 3.5 percentage points from 2005 to 2007.97

Unit COGS, after declining from $817 in 2005 to $794 in 2006, increased to $833 in 2007. Unit sales

values, on the other hand, declined from $954 in both 2005 and 2006 to $933 in 2007.98 We therefore

find that U.S. producers’ prices were suppressed to a significant degree because of persistent underselling

by subject imports. The evidence of some confirmed lost sales provide additional support for our finding

that subject imports have suppressed price increases that otherwise would have occurred to a significant

degree.99

In sum, the record indicates significant underselling by subject imports during the period of

investigation, and that subject imports have suppressed domestic prices to a significant degree. 

Accordingly, we find that subject imports have had significant adverse effects on domestic prices during

the period of investigation.
 100 The statute instructs the Commission to consider the "magnitude of the dumping margin" in an antidumping

proceeding as part of its consideration of the impact of imports. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii)(V). In its final

antidumping duty determination regarding CWP from China, Commerce found dumping margins for subject imports

of 69.20 percent for 31 specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers, and 85.55 percent for all

others (PRC-wide entity rate). 73 Fed. Reg. 31970, 31973 (Jun. 5, 2008). The Commission may also consider the

magnitude of countervailable subsidies. 19 U.S.C. §1677(7)(C)(iii). In its final countervailing duty determination,

Commerce found net subsidy rates of 29.57 percent for Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; 44.86 percent for

Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd., and affiliated companies; 615.92 percent for Tianjin

Shuangjie Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd., Tianjin Wa Song Imp. & Exp. Co.,

Ltd., and Tianjin Shuanglian Galvanizing Products Co., Ltd.; and 37.22 percent for all others. 73 Fed. Reg. 31966,

31969 (Jun. 5, 2008). 

 101 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.”). SAA at 885.

 102 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).

 103 See USITC Pub. 3938 at 12 (high variable cost industry discussion).

 104 E.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 105 CR/PR at III-1 n.2. While Wheatland’s closings were largely responsible for the net decline in the industry’s

capacity, we note that there also were other plant openings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, closures, and

prolonged shutdowns that affected capacity over the period. See CR/PR at Table III-3. 

 106 CR/PR at Table C-1.

16

D. Impact of the Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry100

Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Act provides that the Commission, in examining the impact of the

subject imports on the domestic industry, “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a

bearing on the state of the industry.”101 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.”102

As an initial matter, we again note that the high variable cost nature of CWP production appears

to have led domestic producers in 2006 to sacrifice sales volume rather than lowering prices to compete

with increasing volumes of low-priced CWP from China.103 Thus, while the shipments, sales quantity,

sales revenue, and market share of the domestic industry declined in 2006, the industry was able in that

year to maintain prices at levels sufficient to increase operating income, both absolutely and as a percent

of net sales. However, in 2007, the domestic industry competed more on price in order to regain lost

market share. As a result, the industry was unable to sustain its operating margin in the face of a

cost/price squeeze due, to a significant extent, to the increased volume of low-priced subject imports, as

described above.104

 The industry’s capacity declined over the period from 2.57 million short tons in 2005 to

2.22 million short tons in 2007, a decline of 13.7 percent, largely as a result of Wheatland’s facility

closures.105 While total apparent consumption increased by 14.8 percent in 2006 and by 9.0 percent in the

period overall (for a total increase of 212,855 short tons), domestic production decreased from 1.39

million short tons in 2005 to 1.38 million short tons in 2006, before increasing to 1.46 million short tons

in 2007, for an overall increase of 5.1 percent, or 71,169 short tons.106 Although capacity utilization
 107 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 108 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 109 CR/PR at Table C-1. Sales quantity decreased from 1.40 million short tons in 2005 to 1.36 million short tons

in 2006, then increased to 1.47 million short tons in 2007. Total sales value decreased from $1.36 billion in 2005 to

$1.30 billion in 2006, then increased to $1.37 billion in 2007. 

 110 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 111 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 112 CR/PR at Table C-1. The average number of production workers declined from 2,528 in 2005 to 2,450 in

2007. While hours worked also decreased from 4.77 million in 2005 to 4.63 million in 2007, hourly wages increased

from $21.62 in 2005 to $22.48 in 2007. Additionally, wages paid increased irregularly from $103.20 million in 

2005 to $104.07 in 2007. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 113 CR/PR at Table C-1. Productivity increased from 290.4 short tons per 1,000 hours in 2005 to 314.7 short tons

per 1,000 hours in 2007.

 114 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 115 CR/PR at Table C-1. Net sales value declined from $1.34 million in 2005 to $1.30 million in 2006 before

increasing to $1.37 million in 2007. Id. 

 116 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 117 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 118 CR/PR at Table VI-1. The domestic industry’s return on investment decreased from 21.9 percent in 2005 to

*** percent in 2007. CR/PR at Table VI-7.

 119 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

17

increased over the period of investigation, its peak level was 65.7 percent in 2007 (it was 53.9 percent in

2005 and 57.5 percent in 2006).107

Domestic producers’ shipments decreased from 1.38 million short tons in 2005 to 1.34 million

short tons in 2006 before increasing to 1.42 million short tons in 2007.108 Domestic producers’ market

share declined from 58.4 percent in 2005 to 49.3 percent in 2006, then increased to 55.2 percent, for an

overall decline of 3.2 percentage points. While domestic sales volume increased irregularly over the

period by 5.1 percent, the value of domestic sales increased by only 2.9 percent.109 

During the period 2005-2007, domestic producers’ ending inventories of CWP declined by

15.8 percent, and fell by 2.6 percentage points relative to the quantity of total shipments.110 U.S.

importers’ ending inventories of subject merchandise increased by 219.5 percent.111

The industry’s employment related data for the period is mixed. The average number of

production-related workers and hours worked declined steadily from 2005 to 2007, by 3.1 percent and 3.0

percent respectively.112 The domestic industry’s average unit labor costs declined steadily by 4.1 percent

from 2005 to 2007. Productivity rose by 8.4 percent.113

Net sales volume increased irregularly over the period, declining from 1.40 million short tons in

2005 to 1.36 million short tons in 2006, before increasing to 1.47 million short tons in 2007, a period

increase of 5.1 percent.114 The net sales value increased overall to a lesser extent, by only 2.9 percent.115 

As discussed previously, COGS as a ratio to sales increased overall from 2005 to 2007 by 3.5 percentage

points.116

The domestic industry’s financial indicators, including operating income and operating margins,

improved from 2005 to 2006, but then fell to their lowest levels of the period in 2007. Operating income 

rose from $140.5 million in 2005 to $151.6 million in 2006, but fell to $61.5 million in 2007, for a period

decline of 56.2 percent.117 The industry’s ratio of operating income to net sales followed a similar trend,

growing from 10.5 percent in 2005 to 11.6 percent in 2006, before declining to 4.5 percent in 2007.118

The operating incomes of 17 of 20 domestic producers were lower in 2007 than in 2005.119
 120 CR/PR at Table VI-5.

 121 CR/PR at Table VI-5.

 122 For instance, the operating margins on a calendar year basis were 10.5 percent in 2005, 11.6 percent in 2006,

and 4.5 percent in 2007 (CR/PR at Table C-1); on a fiscal year basis they were *** percent in 2005, *** percent in

2006, and *** percent in 2007 (CR/PR at Table C-2). 

 123 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 124 With respect to the claim regarding Wheatland’s reporting of interest expenses, we note that interest expenses

impact only the industry’s net income, not its operating income, and that our analysis has focused primarily on

operating income:

It has been the Commission’s consistent practice in assessing an industry’s financial performance

to focus primarily on its operating income. Any exceptions to this practice generally have occurred

in investigations of agricultural products, where producers often do not calculate operating income

in their financial statements. A firm’s operating income more accurately reflects the results of its

production operations than does its net income, which may be dependent on decisions regarding

the form of financing that the firm undertakes and on its “other” income and expenses.

Coated Free Sheet Paper from China, Indonesia, and Korea, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-444-446 (Final) and 731-TA-1107-

1109 (Final), USITC Pub. 3965 (Dec. 2007) at 19 n.127.

 125 CR/PR at Table III-4.

 126 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit C.

18

The industry’s capital expenditures declined from $42.7 million in 2005 to $24.0 million in

2007.120 R&D expenses increased from $*** in 2005 to $*** in 2007.121

As previously discussed, subject imports increased in volume and market share, undersold

domestic product, and suppressed domestic prices. We find that these volume and price effects led to

declines in many of the industry’s performance indicators. Especially significant has been the decrease in

industry profitability, due mainly to the significant price effects of the subject imports. 

CCCMC argued that, because some domestic producers had fiscal years that did not end on

December 31, the reported financial data masked the industry’s actual profitability levels in calendar year

2007 due to price trends for hot-rolled steel that domestic producers had in inventory. The Commission

therefore gathered financial data on a calendar year basis as well. We find the data on the two bases to be

largely consistent and that the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of the subject imports,

regardless of whether we rely on the fiscal year or calendar year for the industry’s financial data.122

CCCMC argued that ***. We note, however, that our analysis is based on the data for the

industry as a whole and the poor performance of the industry in 2007 cannot be attributed *** when

operating incomes of 17 out of 20 domestic producers were lower in 2007 than in 2005.123 Moreover, the

Commission ***. ***.124

CCCMC asserts that, rather than being adversely impacted by the growing volume of subject

imports, the domestic industry was limited in its ability to supply CWP because of the industry’s shift

from production of CWP to production of energy tubulars, e.g., line pipe and OCTG. However, as noted

above, the domestic industry’s production increased over the period of investigation and the industry had

substantial unused capacity with which it could have supplied additional CWP. Moreover, the major U.S.

producers of CWP are not major producers of line pipe and OCTG, and the majority of increases in

energy tubular production125 has been by companies that are not major CWP producers.126

CCCMC also attributes the industry’s difficulties to the tight supply of the hot-rolled steel raw

material during the period. However, supply and demand conditions for hot-rolled steel are dynamic,

preventing characterization of the supply as tight for any extended period. While it appears that hotrolled steel supply may have been relatively tight in early 2006, this was increasingly less true over the
 127 See CR at II-5 - II-6 (citing *** and MEPS), PR at II-4.

 128 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 129 444 F.3d at 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

 130 Bratsk, 444 F.3d at 1375.

 131 Bratsk, 444 F.3d at 1375.

 132 For a full discussion of our views on the applicability of Bratsk, see our Views in the Remand Determination

for Silicon Metal from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-991 (Final) (Second Remand), USITC Pub. 3910 (March 2007) and

Views of the Commission in Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1104 (Final), USITC Pub.

3922 at 24-26 (June 2007). For a full discussion of Vice Chairman Pearson’s views on the applicability of Bratsk,

see his Separate and Additional Views in Silicon Metal from Russia. For a full discussion of Chairman Aranoff’s

views on the applicability of Bratsk, see the Views of the Commission in Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod

from Trinidad and Tobago, Inv. No. 731-TA-961 (Final) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3903 (January 2007). For a full

discussion of Commissioner Okun’s views of the applicability of Bratsk, see her Separate and Dissenting Views in

Certain Lined Paper School Supplies from China, India, and Indonesia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-442-443, 731-TA-1095-

1097 (Final), USITC Pub. 3884 (Sept. 2006).

 133 See Silicon Metal from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-991 (Second Remand), USITC Pub. 3910 (Mar. 2007), at 3-8

(articulating in detail the Commission’s long-standing interpretation of the “by reason of” causation standard).

19

course of the second half of that year.127 Additionally, the industry’s operating margin was highest in

2006 as compared with the other years of the period, suggesting that any tightness in hot-rolled steel

supply during that year did not have a significant adverse impact on the industry.128

Consequently, based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we conclude that

subject imports had a significant adverse impact on the condition of the domestic industry during the

period of investigation. In particular, we find that the absolute and relative volume of subject imports,

and the increase in those volumes, are significant and that subject imports have undersold the domestic

product and suppressed domestic prices to a significant degree. These volume and price effects have

caused significant declines in the domestic industry’s relevant economic factors over the period of

investigation.

IV. APPLICATION OF THE BRATSK ALUMINIUM SMELTER v. UNITED STATES

REPLACEMENT/BENEFIT TEST

Having reached an affirmative determination by application of the statutorily mandated factors,

the Federal Circuit’s decision in Bratsk Aluminium Smelter v. United States requires that we turn to an

additional analysis which can, in some circumstances, negate an affirmative determination.129 The

Federal Circuit directed the Commission to undertake an “additional causation inquiry” whenever certain

triggering factors are met: “whenever the antidumping investigation is centered on a commodity product,

and price competitive nonsubject imports are a significant factor in the market.”130 The additional inquiry

required by Bratsk, which we refer to as the Bratsk replacement/benefit test, is “whether non-subject

imports would have replaced the subject imports without any beneficial effect on domestic producers.”131

As noted in other investigations, we respectfully disagree with Bratsk that the statute requires any

analysis beyond that already included in our discussion of volume, price, and impact above, and do not

reiterate the Commission’s interpretation of the statutory scheme here.132 The Commission has a well

established approach to addressing causation.133 However, we apply the Bratsk replacement/benefit test

to our analysis because the Federal Circuit has directed us to do so, notwithstanding that, in our

considered view, this test is not required by, or consistent with, the statute.
 134 Bratsk, 444 F.3d at 1375. 

 135 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 56-61.

 136 CCCMC’s Prehearing Brief at 72-79.

 137 Commissioner Lane finds that the first trigger of the Bratsk test, that CWP is a commodity product, is not met

because of the importance of non-price factors. See Separate and Dissenting Views Of Commissioners Stephen

Koplan And Charlotte R. Lane, Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago, Inv. No. 731-

TA-961 (Final) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3903 (Jan. 2007). Commissioner Lane does not join the remainder of the

discussion in section IV.A. 

 138 We note that it is improper to assume that simply because goods are generally interchangeable for purposes of

the “reasonable overlap of competition” analysis for cumulation, or are interchangeable for purposes of defining the

domestic like product, that they are necessarily “commodities” for purposes of assessing causation, which is the

function of the Bratsk “test.” See Silicon Metal from Russia, USITC Pub. 3910 at 10-11 (footnotes omitted), citing

BIC Corp. v. United States, 964 F. Supp. 391, 397, 399 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1997) (“[L]ike product, cumulation and

causation are functionally different inquiries because they serve different statutory purposes . . . . As a result, each

inquiry requires a different level of fungibility. Hence the record may contain substantial evidence that two products

are fungible enough to support a finding in one context (e.g., one like product), but not in another (e.g., cumulation

or causation.”)).

 139 Both Petitioners and CCCMC acknowledge that CWP is a commodity product. Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief

at 13; CCCMC’s Prehearing Brief at 17, 71-73. 

20

The Bratsk analysis “is triggered whenever the antidumping investigation is centered on a

commodity product, and price competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the market.”134

If both Bratsk triggering factors are satisfied, we apply the “replacement/benefit” test required under

Bratsk.

Petitioners state that the Bratsk analysis is inapplicable to the present investigations. While

Petitioners acknowledge that the first Bratsk triggering factor (whether the investigation involves a

commodity product) is met, they argue that the second triggering factor (whether price competitive

nonsubject imports are a significant factor in the market) is not met. Petitioners also contend that, even if

the second triggering factor were met, the replacement/benefit test is not met because nonsubject imports

would not have completely replaced subject imports if subject imports had been removed from the

market, and the domestic industry would have benefitted from any replacement because prices for

nonsubject imports are higher than those for subject imports.135 CCCMC argues that both Bratsk

triggering factors are met and that the replacement/benefit analysis is also met because sufficient capacity

exists in nonsubject countries to replace subject imports and the margin by which nonsubject imports

would be priced above subject imports is not substantial enough to result in a significant benefit to the

domestic industry in the event of such replacement.136 

As discussed below, we conclude that the Bratsk triggering factors are satisfied.137 We also find

that the evidence is mixed regarding whether nonsubject imports would have replaced subject imports

during the period of investigation, and find that the imposition of orders on subject imports would have

benefitted the domestic industry regardless of the extent of such replacement.

A. Triggering Factors

We find that CWP qualifies as a “commodity product” based upon Bratsk’s reference to that term

as “meaning that it is generally interchangeable regardless of its source.”138 No party argues otherwise.139

The record indicates that CWP is broadly interchangeable regardless of where it is produced. U.S.
 140 CR/PR at Table II-5.

 141 CR/PR at Table IV-2. 

 142 CR/PR at Table IV-8. 

 143 During this period, U.S. apparent consumption increased by 9.0 percent. On an absolute volume basis,

nonsubject imports declined by 32.4 percent, while subject imports increased by 95.8 percent, from 2005 to 2007. 

See CR/PR at Table C-1.

 144 CR/PR at Tables V-1 - V-4a. In addition, the average unit values of nonsubject imports as a whole were

significantly higher than those of subject imports in nearly all comparisons throughout the period of investigation. 

 145 CR at VII-22, VII-26 - VII-28, PR at VII-17, VII-19 - VII-20.

 146 CR at VII-21 - VII-32, PR at VII-16, VII-23.

 147 CR/PR at Tables VII-13, VII-14.

21

producers and most importers and purchasers reported that the U.S. product, the subject imports, and nonsubject imports are frequently or always comparable.140

With respect to the second triggering factor (whether price-competitive nonsubject imports are a

significant factor in the U.S. market), nonsubject imports declined from 61.1 percent of total imports (on a

quantity basis) in 2005 to 35.2 percent in 2007.141 The U.S. market share of nonsubject imports declined

from 25.4 percent in 2005 to 15.8 percent in 2007, while that of subject imports increased from 16.2

percent in 2005 to 29.0 percent in 2007.142 Although nonsubject imports declined in absolute volume and

market share from 2005 to 2007, as subject imports increased during this period, it appears that

nonsubject imports have been a significant factor in the market whether considered on a volume or market

share basis over the period of investigation.143

The pricing information in the record indicates that prices for nonsubject imports were nearly

uniformly lower than those for the domestic like product but higher than those for the subject imports.144

Thus, we find that nonsubject import prices were within a competitive range of domestic and subject 

CWP in the U.S. market. Accordingly, we find that the second triggering factor is met.

B. Replacement/Benefit Factors

We next consider whether non-subject imports would have replaced subject imports over the

period of investigation, without any benefit to the domestic industry. We find that nonsubject imports at

most would have partially replaced subject imports, and that, even if there were full replacement, the

domestic industry still would have benefitted from orders on subject imports.

We initially note that several sources of nonsubject imports – Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico,

Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey – are subject to antidumping orders, while CWP from Turkey is subject to

a countervailing duty order as well.

In the final phase of these investigations, the Commission sought information, through

questionnaires and public sources, on nonsubject producers of CWP in Canada, India, Korea, Mexico,

Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey. The Commission received usable data from three of the seven CWP

producers in Canada to which it sent questionnaires and from four out of five producers in Mexico. We

received limited information from the Korean Iron & Steel Association, and relied on public information

on exports of a category of merchandise encompassing CWP and other products for India, Taiwan,

Thailand, and Turkey.145

While the record indicates that there may be substantial CWP capacity in nonsubject countries,146

information on excess capacity is available only with respect to Canada and Mexico. Canada had about

*** short tons of excess capacity allocated to CWP and over *** short tons of excess capacity for all

welded pipe in 2007.147 Imports of CWP from Canada have been relatively flat over the period of

investigation – 51,521 short tons in 2005, 50,561 short tons in 2006, and 49,778 short tons in 2007 –
 148 CR/PR at Table VII-12.

 149 The AUV of Canadian CWP exports to the United States was $904 in 2007 compared with an AUV of $629

for subject imports from China. CR/PR at Tables VII-12 and IV-2. We are mindful that the use of AUVs for price

comparisons may present product mix issues because different values may reflect different types of merchandise

rather than differences in price. Accord Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 287 F.3d 1365, 1373-74 (Fed.

Cir. 2002). We therefore give only limited weight to AUV data. 

 150 CR/PR at Tables VII-19, VII-20.

 151 CR/PR at Tables VII-19, VII-20.

 152 CR/PR at Table VII-18.

 153 The AUV of CWP exports from Mexico to the United States was $860 in 2006, compared with $580 for

subject imports from China. CR/PR at Table IV-2. 

 154 CR/PR at Table VII-17. 

 155 In 2007, India exported about 44,000 short tons of CWP, Taiwan exported nearly 67,000 short tons, Thailand

about 73,000 short tons, and Turkey about 357,000 short tons. CR/PR at Tables VII-13, VII-14, VII-16, VII-17,

VII-19, VII-20, VII-21, VII-22, VII-23.

22

notwithstanding the fact that CWP imports from Canada are not subject to the discipline of an

antidumping or countervailing duty order. The vast majority, 97 percent, of Canada’s CWP exports is

already shipped to the United States,148 meaning that there is little to no potential for Canada to increase

CWP exports to the United States by shifting export markets. We also find it unlikely, in the absence of

an indication to the contrary, that Canadian producers would abandon established customers in their home

market to divert a substantial share of their home market shipments to the United States. Accordingly, we

do not find that subject imports from Canada would likely have increased substantially or replaced subject

imports to a substantial degree if the lower-priced subject imports had been removed from the market.149

CWP from Mexico is subject to an antidumping duty order in the United States and, absent

evidence to the contrary, the discipline of the existing order is likely to constrain increases in imports of

CWP from Mexico. Mexico’s excess capacity allocated to CWP was about *** short tons in 2007, while

its excess capacity for all welded pipe was *** short tons.150 Its excess capacity is considerably less than

the volume necessary for a hypothetical replacement of subject imports from China.151 Additionally, ***

percent of Mexico’s CWP exports are already to the United States,152 indicating that a significant increase

in the volume of CWP would not likely occur if all Mexican exports to other markets were shifted to the

United States. We also find no indication that producers in Mexico would abandon existing customers in

their home market to divert a substantial share of such shipments to the United States. Accordingly, we

do not find that subject imports from Mexico would likely have increased substantially or replaced

subject imports to a substantial degree if the lower-priced subject imports had been removed from the

market.153

Available information regarding Korea is limited to production and shipments and does not

include data on capacity or excess CWP capacity. The Korean Iron and Steel Institute reported CWP

production of *** short tons and shipments of *** short tons in 2007. Of total shipments in 2007, ***

percent were domestic shipments and *** percent were export shipments.154 We find it unlikely, in the

absence of an indication to the contrary, that producers would divert a substantial share of their home

market shipments to the United States. 

Information on India, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey is limited to public information on exports

from those countries,155 and the range of products covered by those export data is broader, to an

undetermined extent, than CWP within the scope definition, and thus may not accurately reflect CWP

export quantities. However, even if all CWP exports from the nonsubject producers that currently go to

countries other than the United States were sent to the United States – an extreme conclusion not
 156 CR/PR at Tables VII-12, VII-15, VII-16, VII-18, VII-21, VII-22, VII-23.

 157 CR/PR at Table IV-2. 

 158 Bratsk at 1375.

 159 CR/PR at Tables V-1 - V-4a. 

 160 CR/PR at Tables IV-2, IV-6 (Chinese AUVs were lower in each comparison with AUVs for each of 18

nonsubject countries in each of the three years of the period, except Taiwan and Dominican Republic in 2005 and

the Phillippines in 2006). As noted earlier, we give limited weight to AUV data but note that they are consistent

with product-specific price data. 

 161 Although Commissioner Lane did not find the first triggering factor to be met, she agrees that even if both

trigger factors were present non-subject imports would not have replaced subject imports without any beneficial

impact on the domestic producers. 

23

supported by the record, particularly in light of the outstanding antidumping and countervailing duty

orders – that volume would still not be sufficient to fully replace the subject imports.156

We also note that nonsubject imports from all sources totaled about 600,000 short tons in 2005,

660,000 short tons in 2006, and 406,000 short tons in 2007.157 Thus, even if nonsubject imports were to

increase from their 2007 level of 406,000 short tons to their 2006 period peak of 660,000 short tons, they

would replace only about a third of the subject import volume in 2007. 

In sum, we find that a complete replacement of subject imports by nonsubject imports would not

have occurred if subject imports from China had exited the market. 

With respect to the benefit to the domestic industry, the Court in Bratsk appears to have focused

primarily on price factors. The Bratsk opinion indicates that the price of the nonsubject imports would be

an important consideration: “it may well be that . . . the price of the nonsubject imports is sufficiently

above the subject imports such that elimination of the subject imports would have benefitted the domestic

industry.”158 The pricing data for nonsubject imports indicate that nonsubject prices were higher than the

prices of subject imports in the large majority of comparisons for all pricing products. In 81 of 90

quarterly price comparisons, prices for the nonsubject imports were higher than prices for the Chinese

merchandise.159 Also, the AUVs of nonsubject imports were higher than the AUVs of subject imports

throughout the period.160 

Accordingly, we conclude that the domestic industry would likely have benefitted from the

imposition of orders on subject imports due to higher prices for its CWP, even if nonsubject imports

would have fully replaced subject imports.161 Therefore, our affirmative material injury determination is

consistent with the Court’s holding in Bratsk.
 162 73 Fed. Reg. 31970, 31972 (June 5, 2008), 73 Fed. Reg. 31966, 31967 (June 5, 2008). 

 163 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)(4)(i) and § 1673d(b)(4)(A)(i). The statute further provides that in making this

determination:

the Commission shall consider, among other factors it considers relevant--

(I) the timing and volume of the imports,

(II) a rapid increase in inventories of the imports, and

(III) any other circumstances indicating that the remedial effect of the antidumping order will be

seriously undermined.

19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)(4)(ii) and § 1673d(b)(4)(ii).

 164 SAA at 877.

 165 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 166 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 167 CR/PR at Table VII-8.

24

V. CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Because Commerce made affirmative critical circumstances determinations with respect to all

subject imports from China,162 and we have determined that the domestic CWP industry is materially

injured by reason of subject imports from China, we must further determine “whether the imports subject

to the affirmative [critical circumstances] determinations . . . are likely to undermine seriously the

remedial effect of the [antidumping or countervailing duty order] to be issued.”163 The URAA Statement

of Administrative Action indicates that the Commission is to determine “whether, by massively

increasing imports prior to the effective date of relief, the importers have seriously undermined the

remedial effect of the order.”164

Based on the record, we determine that the imports subject to Commerce’s affirmative critical

circumstances determinations are not likely to undermine seriously the remedial effect of the orders to be

issued on CWP from China. 

The statute does not specify any time frames to be considered or compared by the Commission in

assessing whether the subject imports are likely to undermine seriously the remedial effect of the orders.

The Commission generally compares data for the six months prior to the filing of the petition with data

for the six months following the filing of the petition, but it also may consider shorter or longer periods,

either in conjunction with, or instead of, those six-month periods. 

The petition in these investigations was filed on June 7, 2007. The Commission compiled

monthly subject import data for the six months preceding the filing of the petition, December 2006 to

May 2007, and for the six months after the filing of the petition, June 2007 to November 2007. Subject

imports were 393,606 short tons in the six months following the filing of the petition, 19.0 percent greater

than the 329,683 short tons of subject imports in the six months prior to the filing of the petition.165

Petitioners argue that we should consider only five months of data prior to and following the filing the

petition given that Commerce’s affirmative preliminary countervailing duty determination was issued

November 13, 2007, at which point liquidation of CWP from China began to be suspended. On that

basis, imports were 376,986 short tons in the five months following the filing of the petition, 32.2 percent

greater than the 284,981 short tons of subject imports in the five months prior to the filing of the

petition.166 We note, moreover, that importers’ inventories of CWP from China were lower in 2007 than

in 2006.167 

We determine that, whether comparing the pre-petition and post-petition period on a six- or fivemonth basis, imports subject to Commerce’s affirmative critical circumstances determinations did not
 168 Respondents argue that, in light of normal lag times between order and delivery of CWP from China, June

2007, the month in which the petition was filed, ought to be considered a pre-petition month and the two six-month

periods should be adjusted accordingly. Because we find that, even considering June as a post-petition month, the

imports are not likely to undermine seriously the remedial effect of the countervailing or antidumping duty order, we

need not reach this issue. 

25

increase sufficiently to undermine seriously the remedial effect of the countervailing or antidumping duty

order to be issued on CWP from China.168

VI. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we find that the domestic industry producing CWP is materially

injured by reason of subject imports of CWP from China that are subsidized and sold in the United States

at less than fair value.

 1

 The six petitioning producers are: Allied Tube & Conduit, Harvey, IL; IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., Camanche, IA;

Northwest Pipe Co., Portland OR; Sharon Tube Co., Sharon, PA; Western Tube & Conduit Corp., Long Beach, CA;

and Wheatland Tube Co., Collingswood, NJ.

 2

 As discussed in greater detail in the section of this chapter entitled “The Subject Merchandise,” for purposes of

these investigations, circular welded pipe consists of welded carbon quality steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross

section, and with an outside diameter of 0.372 inch (9.45 mm) or more, but not more than 16 inches (406.4 mm),

whether or not stenciled, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish, end finish, or industry specification, generally

known as standard pipe and structural pipe. 

 3

 Selected Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation are presented in appendix A.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from a petition filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission

(“Commission” or “USITC”) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) by six U.S.

producers and the United Steelworkers, Pittsburgh, PA.1

 The petition alleges that an industry in the

United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized and lessthan-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of circular welded pipe2

 (“circular welded pipe”) from China. 

Information relating to the background of the investigations is provided below.3

Effective Date Action

June 7, 2007

Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission

investigations (72 FR 32862, June 14, 2007)

July 5, 2007

Commerce’s notices of initiation (72 FR 36663 (antidumping duty investigation) and 72

FR 36668 (countervailing duty investigation), July 5, 2007)

July 31, 2007 Commission’s preliminary affirmative determinations (72 FR 43295, August 3, 2007)

November 13, 2007

Commerce’s preliminary affirmative countervailing duty determination, preliminary

affirmative determination of critical circumstances, and alignment of final countervailing

duty determination with final antidumping duty determination (72 FR 63875)

January 10, 2008 Commission’s scheduling of final phase investigations (73 FR 6738, February 5, 2008)

January 15, 2008

Commerce’s preliminary antidumping duty determination and postponement of final

determination (73 FR 2445) (amended in 73 FR 22130, April 24, 2008)

May 13, 2008 Commission’s hearing1

June 5, 2008

Commerce’s final affirmative countervailing duty determination and final affirmative

determination of critical circumstances and notice of final determination of sales at less

than fair value and affirmative final determination of critical circumstances (73 FR 31966

and 31970) 

June 20, 2008 Commission’s vote

July 15, 2008 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

 1 Appendix B presents a list of witnesses appearing at the hearing.
I-2

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. . .

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.
 4 Silicon Metal from Russia, Investigation No. 731-TA-991 (Second Remand), USITC Publication 3910, March

2007, p. 2; citing Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d at 1375.

 5

 During the preliminary phase of these investigations, 20 firms that produce/export circular welded pipe in China

submitted foreign producer/exporter questionnaires to the Commission. The petitioners have identified as many as

57 potential producers and exporters of the subject product in China. Petition, exh. 5.

 6

 Table C-1 includes the financial data of U.S. producers on a calendar year basis and table C-2 includes the

financial data of U.S. producers on a fiscal year basis.

I-3

Organization of the Report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, subsidies and 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 and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise, 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 and the judicial requirements and information obtained for use in the Commission’s

consideration of Bratsk issues.4

U.S. CIRCULAR WELDED PIPE MARKET SUMMARY

The circular welded pipe industry totaled approximately $2.2 billion (2.6 million short tons) in

sales in the U.S. market in 2007. Currently, at least 21 firms produce circular welded pipe in the United

States. However, three producers – Wheatland, Allied, and Bull Moose – accounted for *** percent of

reported U.S. production in 2007. At least 27 out of 32 responding firms have imported circular welded

pipe from China since 2005, including seven firms that imported the product from China for the first time

in 2006 or 2007. Four importers (***) accounted for *** percent of reported U.S. imports from China in

2007. Finally, at least 20, and possibly as many as 57, firms produce circular welded pipe in China (15 of

which provided data in the final phase of these investigations).5

 The *** largest Chinese responding

producers (***) accounted for *** percent of reported Chinese production in 2007. The five largest

responding exporters *** accounted for *** percent of reported Chinese exports to the United States in

2007. 

Circular welded pipe is used in a wide variety of applications, including plumbing applications,

structural applications, and more specific applications (e.g., shells for electrical conduit, scaffolding

components, and fencing). U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of circular welded pipe totaled 1.4 million

short tons in 2007, and accounted for 55.2 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity. U.S.

imports from China totaled 748,181 short tons in 2007, and accounted for 29.0 percent of apparent U.S.

consumption by quantity, while U.S. imports from all other sources combined totaled 406,280 short tons

in 2007, and accounted for 15.8 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity.

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in the investigations is presented in appendix C, tables C-1 and C2.6

 Except as noted, U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of 21 firms that accounted

for more than 90 percent of U.S. production of circular welded pipe during 2007. U.S. imports are based

on official import statistics of Commerce, as modified to include dual-stenciled pipe with one or more of

the following characteristics: 32 feet or less in length; less than 2 inches in outside diameter; galvanized

and/or painted surface finish; or threaded and/or coupled end finish (based on questionnaire responses); to
I-4

include circular welded pipe of micro-alloy steel (based on questionnaire responses); and to exclude

mechanical tubing (based on Statistics Canada data) from Canada. Data regarding the Chinese industry

are based on foreign producer questionnaires, while information with respect to other foreign industries is

drawn from published sources or from responses to staff inquiries.

PREVIOUS AND RELATED TITLE VII INVESTIGATIONS

The Commission has conducted a number of previous import relief investigations on circular

welded nonalloy steel pipe or substantially similar merchandise. Table I-1 presents data on previous and

related Title VII investigations. Appendix D presents details of current orders on circular welded pipe

from previous import relief investigations. 

Table I-1

Certain welded pipe: Previous and related Title VII investigations

Product Inv. no.

Year of

petition Country

Original

determination Current status of order

Circular welded pipe 701-TA-165 1982 Brazil Terminated (1

)

701-TA-166 1982 France Terminated (1

)

701-TA-167 1982 Italy Negative (P) (1

)

701-TA-168 1982 Korea Affirmative

Order revoked by

Commerce --1985

701-TA-169 1982 West Germany Terminated (1)

731-TA-132 1983 Taiwan Affirmative Order in place.2

701-TA-220 1984 Spain Terminated (1)

731-TA-183 1984 Brazil Terminated (1

)

731-TA-197 1984 Brazil Terminated (1

)

731-TA-198 1984 Spain Terminated (1

)

701-TA-242 1985 Venezuela Terminated (1

)

701-TA-251 1985 India ITA Negative (1

)

701-TA-252 1985 Taiwan ITA Negative (1

)

701-TA-253 1985 Turkey Affirmative Order in place.2

731-TA-211 1985 Taiwan Negative (

1

)

731-TA-212 1985 Venezuela Terminated (1)

731-TA-252 1985 Thailand Affirmative Order in place.2

731-TA-253 1985 Venezuela Terminated (1)

731-TA-271 1985 India Affirmative Order in place.2

731-TA-273 1985 Turkey Affirmative Order in place.2

731-TA-274 1985 Yugoslavia Terminated (1)

731-TA-292 1986 China Negative (1

)

731-TA-293 1986 Philippines Negative (1

)

Table continued on next page.
 7

 19 U.S.C. § 2252.

 8

 The safeguard investigation did not cover dual-stenciled line pipe, however, as such product was already

covered under Presidential Proclamation 7274, issued on February 18, 2000, which imposed additional duties of 19

percent on line pipe imports of more than 9,000 short tons annually (exclusive of “arctic grade” line pipe), declining

to 15 percent in 2001 and to 11 percent in 2002 (as modified with respect to Korea by Proclamation 7585, issued on

August 28, 2002).

I-5

Table I-1--Continued

Certain welded pipe: Previous and related Title VII investigations

Product Inv. No.

Year of

petition Country

Original

determination Current status of order

Circular welded pipe 731-TA-294 1986 Singapore Negative (1

)

701-TA-311 1991 Brazil ITA Negative (1

)

731-TA-532 1991 Brazil Affirmative Order in place.2

731-TA-533 1991 Korea Affirmative Order in place.2

731-TA-534 1991 Mexico Affirmative Order in place.2

731-TA-535 1991 Romania Negative (1)

731-TA-536 1991 Taiwan Affirmative Order in place.2

731-TA-537 1991 Venezuela Affirmative

ITC negative,

2000 review

731-TA-732 1995 Romania Negative (1

)

731-TA-733 1995 South Africa Negative (1

)

731-TA-943 2001 China Negative (1

)

731-TA-944 2001 Indonesia Negative (P) (1

)

731-TA-945 2001 Malaysia Negative (P) (1

)

731-TA-946 2001 Romania Negative (P) (1

)

731-TA-947 2001 South Africa Negative (P) (1

)

 1 Not applicable.

 2

 Historic and current duty rates for orders that remain in place are presented in appendix D.

Source: Certain Pipe and Tube from Argentina, Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey, Investigation Nos.

701-TA-253 and 731-TA-132, 252, 271, 273, 409, 410, 532-534, and 536 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3867, July 2006,

tables Overview-2 and Overview-3.

PREVIOUS AND RELATED SAFEGUARD INVESTIGATIONS

Following receipt of a request from the Office of the United States Trade Representative

(“USTR”) on June 22, 2001, the Commission instituted investigation No. TA-201-73, Steel, under section

202 of the Trade Act of 19747

 to determine whether certain steel products, including welded pipe of

carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel,8

 were being imported into the United States in such increased

quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industries
 9 Institution and Scheduling of an Investigation under Section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) (the

Act), 66 FR 35267, July 3, 2001.

 10 19 U.S.C. § 2251.

 11 Consolidation of Senate Finance Committee Resolution Requesting a Section 201 Investigation with the

Investigation Requested by the United States Trade Representative on June 22, 2001, 66 FR 44158, August 22,

2001.

 12 Steel; Import Investigations, 66 FR 67304, December 28, 2001.

 13 Presidential Proclamation 7529 of March 5, 2002, To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to Competition From

Imports of Certain Steel Products, 67 FR 10553, March 7, 2002. 

 14 Thus, the increased duties were reduced from 15 percent to 12 percent on March 20, 2003.

 15 The Department of Commerce published regulations establishing such a system on December 31, 2002.

 16 Steel: Monitoring Developments in the Domestic Industry, Investigation No. TA-204-9, USITC Publication

3632, September 2003.

I-6

producing articles like or directly competitive with the imported article.9

 On July 26, 2001, the

Commission received a resolution adopted by the Committee on Finance of the U.S. Senate (“Senate

Finance Committee” or “Committee”) requesting that the Commission investigate certain steel imports

under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974.10 Consistent with the Senate Finance Committee’s

resolution, the Commission consolidated the investigation requested by the Committee with the

Commission’s previously instituted investigation No. TA-201-73.11 On December 20, 2001, the

Commission issued its determinations and remedy recommendations. The Commission reached an

affirmative determination with respect to welded tubular products other than oil country tubular goods.12

On March 5, 2002, following determinations regarding serious injury or threat of serious injury

by the Commission under section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974, the President announced the safeguard

measures that he planned to implement to facilitate efforts by various domestic steel industries and their

workers to make a positive adjustment to import competition with respect to certain steel products. The

safeguard measures encompassed 10 different product categories for which the Commission made

affirmative determinations or was evenly divided. Presidential Proclamation 7529 implemented the

safeguard measures, principally in the form of tariffs and tariff-rate quotas, effective March 20, 2002, for

a period of three years and one day. Import relief relating to welded tubular products (other than OCTG)

consisted of an additional tariff of 15 percent ad valorem on imports in the first year, 12 percent in the

second year, and 9 percent in the third year.13 14 The President also instructed the Secretary of the

Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce to establish a system of import licensing to facilitate the

monitoring of imports of certain steel products.15

The safeguard measures applied to imports of subject steel products from all countries except

Canada, Israel, Jordan, and Mexico, which had entered into free trade agreements with the United States,

and most developing countries that were members of the World Trade Organization. The President’s

initial proclamation also excluded numerous specific products from the measures, and was followed by

subsequent additional exclusions.

On September 19, 2003, the Commission submitted a mid-term report to the President and the

Congress on the results of its monitoring of developments in the steel industry, as required by section

204(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974.16 The Commission’s monitoring report noted that, since the

safeguard measures were instituted, the U.S. industry producing certain carbon and alloy welded pipe and

tube had increased its market share to 62.9 percent from 57.3 percent, that the total quantity of imports

from subject sources had declined, and that demand for welded pipe and tube during the relief period also
 17 Steel: Monitoring Developments in the Domestic Industry, Investigation No. TA-204-9, Volume I, USITC

Publication 3632, September 2003, p. xvi.

 18 Presidential Proclamation 7741 of December 4, 2003, To Provide for the Termination of Action Taken With

Regard to Imports of Certain Steel Products, 68 FR 68483, December 8, 2003.

 19 Proclamation 7741 terminated the tariff-rate quota and the increased import duties on certain steel products, but

directed the Secretary of Commerce to continue the monitoring system until the earlier of March 21, 2005, or such

time as the Secretary establishes a replacement program. On March 11, 2005, Commerce published an interim final

rule to implement a replacement program for the period beyond March 21, 2005. 70 FR 12133, March 11, 2005. On

December 5, 2005, Commerce published its final rule. 70 FR 72373, December 5, 2005.

 20 Presidential Proclamation 2006-7 of December 30, 2005, Presidential Determination on Imports of Circular

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 871, January 6, 2006. 

 21 Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 31966,

June 5, 2008. 

I-7

had declined. The review also noted that because of declining demand, the industry’s output-related

indicators were mixed.17

On December 4, 2003, President Bush terminated the U.S. measure with respect to increased

tariffs, following receipt of the Commission’s mid-point monitoring report in September 2003, and after

seeking information from the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Secretary of Labor, having

determined that the effectiveness of the action taken had been impaired by changed circumstances.18

Import licensing, however, remained in place through March 21, 2005, and continues in modified form.19

On March 21, 2005, the Commission instituted an investigation under section 204(d) of the Trade

Act of 1974 for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of the relief action imposed by the President

on imports of certain steel products. The Commission’s report on the evaluation was transmitted to the

President and the Congress on September 19, 2005.

In 2005, the Commission conducted a China-specific safeguard investigation on circular welded

nonalloy steel pipe (Inv. No. TA-421-6). Following the Commission’s affirmative determination of

market disruption and remedy recommendations, the President issued a proclamation on December 30,

2005, determining not to impose temporary import relief.20 

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV

Subsidies

On June 5, 2008, the Commission received Commerce’s final determination of countervailable

subsidies for producers and exporters of circular welded pipe in China.21 Table I-2 presents Commerce’s

findings of subsidization of circular welded pipe from China.
 22 Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 31970, June 5, 2008. 

I-8

Table I-2

Circular welded pipe: Commerce’s final subsidy determination

Entity

Final countervailable subsidy

margins (percent)

Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Tianjin Shuangjie Steel

Pipe Group Co., Ltd., Tianjin Wa Song Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.,

and Tianjin Shuanglian Galvanizing Products Co., Ltd. 615.92

Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 29.57

Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd., and

affiliated companies. 44.86

All others 37.22

Source: 73 FR 31966, June 5, 2008.

Sales at LTFV

On June 5, 2008, the Commission received Commerce’s final determination of sales at LTFV

with respect to imports from China.22 Table I-3 summarizes Commerce’s final LTFV findings.

Table I-3

Circular welded pipe: Commerce’s final weighted-average LTFV margins

Exporter Producer

Final dumping

margin (percent)

Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd.

Xuzhou Guang Huan Steel Tube Products

Co, Ltd. 69.20

Wuxi Fastube Industry Co., Ltd. Wuxi Fastube Industry Co., Ltd. 69.20

Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc-Plating Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc-Plating Co., Ltd. 69.20

Wuxi Eric Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. Wuxi Eric Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 69.20

Qingdao Xiangxing Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. Qingdao Xiangxing Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 69.20

Wah Cit Enterprises

Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial

Co., Ltd. 69.20

Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial

Co., Ltd.

Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial

Co., Ltd. 69.20

Hengshui Jinghua Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. Hengshui Jinghua Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 69.20

Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-Making

Co., Ltd.

Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-Making

Co, Ltd. 69.20

Table continued on next page.
I-9

Table I-3--Continued

Circular welded pipe: Commerce’s final weighted-average LTFV margins

Exporter Producer

Final dumping

margin (percent)

Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 69.20

Shijiazhuang Zhongqing Imp & Exp Co.,

Ltd. Bazhou Zhuofa Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 69.20

Tianjin Baolai Int’l Trade Co., Ltd.

Tianjin Jinghai County Baolai Business

and Industry Co., Ltd. 69.20

Wai Ming (Tianjin) Int’l Trading Co., Ltd.

Bazhou Dong Sheng Hot-dipped

Galvanized Steel Pipes Co., Ltd. 69.20

Kunshan Lets Win Steel Machinery Co.,

Ltd.

Kunshan Lets Win Steel Machinery Co.,

Ltd. 69.20

Shenyang Boyu M/E Co., Ltd.

Bazhou Dong Sheng Hot-dipped

Galvanized Steel Pipes Co., Ltd. 69.20

Dalian Brollo Steel Tubes Ltd. Dalian Brollo Steel Tubes Ltd. 69.20

Benxi Northern Pipes Co., Ltd. Benxi Northern Pipes Co., Ltd. 69.20

Shanghai Metals & Minerals Import &

Export Corp. Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co. 69.20

Shanghai Metals & Minerals Import &

Export Corp. Benxi Northern Pipes Co., Ltd. 69.20

Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co. Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co. 69.20

Tianjin Xingyuda Import & Export Co., Ltd. Tianjin Lifengyuanda Steel Group 69.20

Tianjin Xingyuda Import & Export Co., Ltd. Tianjin Xingyunda Steel Pipe Co. 69.20

Tianjin Xingyuda Import & Export Co., Ltd. Tianjin Lituo Steel Products Co. 69.20

Tianjin Xingyuda Import & Export Co., Ltd.

Tangshan Fengnan District Xinlida Steel

Pipe Co., Ltd. 69.20

Jiangyin Jianye Metal Products Co., Ltd. Jiangyin Jianye Metal Products Co., Ltd. 69.20

Rizhao Xingye Import & Export Co., Ltd. Shandong Xinyuan Group Co., Ltd. 69.20

Tianjin No. 1 Steel Rolled Co., Ltd. Tianjin Hexing Steel Co., Ltd. 69.20

Tianjin No. 1 Steel Rolled Co., Ltd. Tianjin Ruitong Steel Co., Ltd. 69.20

Tianjin No. 1 Steel Rolled Co., Ltd. Tianjin Yayi Industrial Co. 69.20

Kunshan Hongyuan Machinery

Manufacture Co., Ltd.

Kunshan Hongyuan Machinery

Manufacture Co., Ltd. 69.20

Qingdao Yongjie Import & Export Co., Ltd. Shandong Xinyuan Group Co., Ltd. 69.20

All others (including Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe Co. Ltd.) 85.55

Source: 73 FR 31970, June 5, 2008.
 23 Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 31966,

June 5, 2008. 

I-10

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

The scope of these investigations, as defined by Commerce, covers the following subject

merchandise: 

{C}ertain welded carbon quality steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross- section, and with

an outside diameter of 0.372 inches (9.45 mm) or more, but not more than 16 inches

(406.4 mm), whether or not stenciled, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (e.g.,

black, galvanized, or painted), end finish (e.g., plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded,

or threaded and coupled), or industry specification (e.g., ASTM, proprietary, or other),

generally known as standard pipe and structural pipe (they may also be referred to as

circular, structural, or mechanical tubing). 

Specifically, the term ‘‘carbon quality’’ includes products in which (a) iron

predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (b) the carbon

content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds

the quantity, by weight, as indicated: (i) 1.80 percent of manganese; (ii) 2.25 percent of

silicon; (iii) 1.00 percent of copper; (iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum; (v) 1.25 percent of

chromium; (vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt; (vii) 0.40 percent of lead; (viii) 1.25 percent of

nickel; (ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten; (x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum; (xi) 0.10 percent

of niobium; (xii) 0.41 percent of titanium; (xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or (xiv) 0.15

percent of zirconium. Standard pipe is made primarily to American Society for Testing

and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) specifications, but can be made to other specifications. 

Standard pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A–53, A–135, and A–795.

Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A–252 and A–500. Standard

and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to

industry specifications. This is often the case, for example, with fence tubing. Pipe

multiple-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to any other

specification, such as the American Petroleum Institute ("API") API–5L specification, is

also covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the physical description set

forth above and also has one or more of the following characteristics: is 32 feet in length

or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or

painted surface finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled end finish. 

The scope does not include: (a) pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat

exchangers, condensers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold

drawn; (b) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn; (c) finished electrical conduit;

(d) finished scaffolding; (e) tube and pipe hollows for redrawing; (f) oil country tubular

goods produced to API specifications; and (g) line pipe produced to only API

specifications.23
 24 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, p. 7; see also Commission’s preliminary views, p. 10.

 25 Information in this section is drawn to a large degree from the previous investigations and reviews on circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe. In particular, see, e.g., Certain Pipe and Tube from Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India,

Korea, Mexico, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela (Review), Investigation Nos. 701-TA-253 and

731-TA-132, 252, 271, 273, 276, 277, 296, 409, 410, 532-534, 536, and 537 (Review), USITC Publication 3316, July

2000, pp. CIRC-I-17 and I-18. See also Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From China (Final), Investigation

No. 731-TA-943, USITC Publication 3523, July 2002, pp. I-4 through I-6.

 26 Pipe dimensions (e.g., outside diameter (“O.D.”) and wall thickness) are standardized while tube dimensions

are design-specific. The HTS generally makes no distinction between pipes and tubes.

I-11

Tariff Treatment

The pipe products that are the subject of these investigations are currently imported under the

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) statistical reporting numbers: 

7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090,

7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5050, 7306.50.5070, 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, and

7306.19.5150. The scope definition of “carbon quality” extends to some “other alloy” products classified

under the HTS within subheadings 7306.19 and 7306.50. In addition, pipe that is multiple-stenciled to a

standard and/or structural specification and to any other specification, such as the American Petroleum

Institute API-5L specification, is also covered by the scope of these investigations when it meets the

physical description within the scope and also has one or more of the following characteristics: is 32 feet

in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted

surface finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled end finish. The column 1- general (most-favored-nation)

rate of duty for the tariff rate lines superior to these statistical reporting numbers, applicable to the circular

welded pipe from China subject to these investigations, is free. 

THE DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

Consistent with the Commission’s finding in the preliminary phase of these investigations, 

petitioners contend that the Commission should find one domestic like product that is co-extensive with

the scope of merchandise subject to the investigations as identified by Commerce.24 No party has raised

an objection or suggested that the Commission seek further information regarding the domestic like

product.

Physical Characteristics and Uses25

Steel pipes and tubes26 in general are produced in various grades of carbon, alloy, or stainless

steel. Tubular products frequently are distinguished by the following six end uses as defined by the

American Iron and Steel Institute (“AISI”).

C Standard pipe is ordinarily used for low-pressure conveyance of air, steam, gas, water, oil, or

other fluids for mechanical applications. It is used primarily in machinery, buildings, sprinkler

systems, irrigation systems, and water wells rather than in pipe lines or utility distribution

systems. It may carry fluids at elevated temperatures which are not subject to external heat

applications. It is usually produced in standard diameters and wall thicknesses to ASTM

specifications.

C Line pipe is used for transportation of gas, oil, or water generally in a pipeline or utility

distribution system. It is produced to API-5L and American Water Works Association

(“AWWA”) specifications.
 27 Although the scope of these investigations provides for micro-alloy steel (steel with minor additions of

elements that technically place the product in the alloy steel range but do not functionally alter the product), there

were only infrequent reports of imported circular welded pipe of micro-alloy steel and, staff believes, little or no

domestic production of such products.

 28 Produced to API specifications, welded line pipe for use in oil and gas pipelines requires higher hydrostatic test

pressures and more restrictive weight tolerances than standard pipe. Pipe that is in conformance with API

Specification 5L Grade B is automatically also in conformance with the less restrictive standard pipe specification of

the American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM A-53 Grade B. As a consequence, manufacturers often

mark such product with both specifications (so-called “dual stencil”) so that it may be applied for either use. The

API 5L specification also suggests that “products in compliance with multiple compatible standards may be marked

with the name of each standard.” Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from China, Korea, and

Mexico, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1073-1075 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3687, April 2004, p. I-7.

 29 According to one U.S. producer, “the real distinction between the two {standard pipe compared to line pipe

specifications} is that the API specification has a mass requirement (a weight requirement whereby the API

tolerance on weight is 1.75 percent per carload or truckload shipment), which means there is more steel involved

with an API specification than there is ASTM because the ASTM tolerance on mass is, it can be 10 percent under

the nominal wall. There is somewhere between zero and ten percent wall thickness difference between the two

(continued...)

I-12

C Structural pipe and tubing is welded or seamless pipe and tubing generally used for structural or

load-bearing purposes above ground by the construction industry, as well as for structural

members in ships, trailers, farm equipment, and other similar uses. It is produced in nominal wall

thicknesses and sizes to ASTM specifications in round, square, rectangular, or other

cross-sectional shapes. 

C Mechanical tubing is welded or seamless tubing produced in a large number of shapes of varied

chemical composition in sizes 3/16 inch to 103⁄4 inches O.D. inclusive for carbon and alloy

material. It is not normally produced to meet any specification other than that required to meet

the end use. It is produced to meet exact O.D. and decimal wall thickness.

C Pressure tubing is used to convey fluids at elevated temperatures or pressures, or both, and is

suitable to be subjected to heat applications. It is produced to exact O.D. and decimal wall

thickness in sizes 1⁄2 inch to 6 inches O.D. inclusive, usually to specifications such as ASTM.

C Oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) are pipe produced to API specifications and used in wells in

oil and gas industries:

C Casing is the structural retainer for the walls of oil or gas wells and covers sizes 41⁄2 to 20

inches O.D. inclusive.

C Tubing is used within casing oil wells to convey oil to ground level and ordinarily

includes sizes 1.050 to 4.500 inches O.D. inclusive.

C Drill pipe is used to transmit power to a rotary drilling tool below ground level and

covers sizes 2d to 63⁄4 inches O.D., inclusive.

Standard pipe of non-alloy steel27 is the primary product within the scope of these investigations

(see figure I-1). Standard pipe is intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas,

air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic

sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipe may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but

may not be subject to the application of external heat. It is made primarily to ASTM A-53, A-135, and A795 specifications, but can also be made to other specifications, such as British Standard (“BS”) 1387. 

Since these standards often specify required engineering characteristics that overlap, a pipe can also be

dual stenciled, meaning that the pipe is stamped with monograms signifying compliance with two

different specifications, such as ASTM A-53 and API 5L.28 29
 29 (...continued)

products.” 

The witness further observed that, in terms of dual stenciling, “in my long experience with selling line pipe

it's very rare to find line pipe that is less than 32 feet, as an example. Most of it is sold in longer lengths -- 40 foot,

even 60 foot, some even in 80 foot lengths because the product is not, in pipeline applications, is not connected by

using thread and couple connections, it's usually field welded. Line pipe is not galvanized, overwhelmingly not

galvanized. And generally you don't see line pipe in less than two inch diameter in the marketplace. We do make

line pipe in two inch and larger, but the bulk of the market is in the larger sizes.” Hearing transcript, pp. 175-177

(Barnes).

 30 ASTM specification A-500 is applicable to common structural tubular products for above-ground use, while

ASTM specification A-252 applies to piling pipe (pipe that typically is filled with concrete and used as a permanent

load-carrying member below ground in foundation work). Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from China,

Investigation No. TA-421-6, USITC Publication 3807, October 2005, pp. I-7 through I-9.

In addition, ASTM specification A-589 is the standard specification for water-well pipe (including waterwell casing). However, testimony at the staff conference suggests that circular welded pipe produced to ASTM A53 and A-500 frequently are used for this application. Conference transcript, pp. 167-168 (Schmid).

I-13

Figure I-1

Circular welded pipe: Cross section of welded pipe showing inside diameter “A” and wall thickness “B”

Source: ASA Alloys, Inc., retrieved at http://www.asaalloys.com/diagrams.html.

Other uses of circular welded pipe include light load-bearing and mechanical applications, such

as for fence tubing; scaffolding components; and protection of electrical wiring, such as conduit shells. 

Fence tubing is commonly produced to ASTM specification F-1083, which covers hot-dipped galvanized

welded steel pipe used for fence structures. 

In addition, circular welded pipe is used for structural applications in general construction. 

Structural pipe is generally used for structural or load-bearing purposes above ground by the construction

industry, as well as for structural members in ships, trailers, farm equipment, and other similar uses. It is

produced in nominal wall thicknesses and sizes to ASTM specifications. These products also are

manufactured primarily to standard ASTM specifications (such as A-500 or A-252),30 as well as

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”) specifications.

Standard pipe used in light load-bearing, mechanical, and structural applications may be

galvanized (zinc-coated by dipping in molten zinc), lacquered (black finish), or painted (black) to provide

corrosion resistance, which is important for storage in humid conditions or for ocean transport. End

finishes include plain end, which may be either cut, or beveled suitable for welding, or include threaded

ends, or threaded or coupled, as well as other special end finishes. Pipe with threaded ends is usually

provided “threaded and coupled,” meaning that a coupling is attached to one end of each length of pipe.
 31 The heat for welding is generated by the resistance of the steel to the flow of an electric current. In one

process, a low frequency (typically 60 to 360 hertz) is conducted to the strip edges by a pair of copper alloy discs

that rotate as the pipe is propelled under them. A second variation uses high frequency current (typically 400 to 500

kilohertz), which enters the tubing through shoes that act as sliding contacts. An induction coil can also be used with

this high frequency current to induce current in the edges of the steel to be welded together. No direct contact is

made between the induction coil and the tubing. See AISI, Steel Products Manual – Steel Specialty Tubular

Products, October, 1980, pp. 19-20; and United States Steel, The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel, 10th Ed.

(Pittsburgh, PA: Herbick & Held, 1985), pp. 1030-1031.

I-14

Manufacturing Facilities and Production Employees

Circular welded pipes of the sizes subject to these investigations are manufactured by either the

electric resistance-welding (“ERW”) process or the continuous-welding (“CW”) process. The ERW

process is a cold-forming process. The raw material input is steel sheet which has been slit into strips of

appropriate width that will equal the diameter of the pipe to be welded. The strips, or “skelp,” are formed

into a tubular shape by passing it through a series of rollers, which provide the initial shaping into round

form, as well as guidance into the welding section (figure I-2).

Figure I-2

Circular welded pipe: Operations to make ERW tubes from steel strip

Source: AISI, Steel Products Manual – Steel Specialty Tubular Products, p. 20.

After the strips have been formed to a tubular shape, the edges are heated by electrical resistance31

and welded by a combination of heat and pressure. The welding pressure causes some of the metal to be

squeezed from the joint, forming a bead of metal on both the inside and outside of the tube. While still in

the continuous processing line, the tube is then subjected to post-weld heat treatment, as required. This

may involve heat treatment of the welded seam only, or treatment of the entire pipe. After heat treatment,

sizing rolls shape the tube to the correct diameter. The product is cooled and then cut at the end of the

tube mill by a flying shear or saw, synchronized with the tube’s movement so that it is not necessary to
 32 United States Steel, The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel, 10th Ed. (Pittsburgh, PA: Herbick & Held,

1985), p. 1029.

 33 Circular welded pipe often is produced on the same equipment and machinery, by the same employees, as

small/medium line pipe, large diameter line pipe, OCTG, and other products. See Part III of this report for data on

U.S. producers’ production of other pipe products on their circular welded pipe facilities.

 34 The oil is a hardening transparent oil that leaves a lacquer finish. United States Steel, The Making, Shaping

and Treating of Steel, 10th Ed. (Pittsburgh, PA: Herrick & Held, 1985), p. 1062.

 35 Ibid.

 36 See “Zinc Coatings,” American Galvanizers Association, found at

http://www.galvanizeit.org/showContent,289,333.cfm, retrieved April 10, 2006.

I-15

stop the process.32 The ERW process can be used to cover the full range of standard pipe diameters

pertinent to these investigations.33

In the CW process, the entire strip is heated to approximately 2,450 degrees Fahrenheit in a gasfired, continuous furnace. As the strip leaves the furnace, a blower is normally furnished to provide a

blast of air to raise the temperature of the edges to approximately 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit for welding. 

The strip is formed into tubular shape by a series of rollers, and the edges are butted together under

pressure to form the weld. While still hot, the product may be processed through a stretch reduction mill,

which simultaneously reduces the diameter and wall thickness of the pipe. The continuous tube is then

cut into predetermined lengths by a flying saw or shear. The CW method can be used to produce pipe up

to 4.5 inches in O.D.

Finishing operations on standard pipe and tube may include hydrostatic testing, oiling,34 and

galvanizing. The process of galvanizing involves the application of a zinc coating to steel pipe for

protection from atmospheric corrosion. In a hot-dip process of galvanizing, cut lengths of steel pipe are

dipped in a bath of molten zinc maintained at a temperature of 820 to 860 degrees Fahrenheit.35 The

combination of the temperature of both the zinc and the steel, as well as the immersion time within the

zinc bath, determine the thickness of the coating.36 The zinc coating may be applied to the outside only,

or both the inside and outside of the steel pipe, depending on end-use application and industry

specification (e.g., ASTM). In a continuous galvanizing process, the zinc coating may be applied to the

outside of the pipe before the steel pipe is cut to length by passing it through a bath of molten zinc.

End finishing may include square cutting, beveling, threading, or grooving. Threaded pipe may

be furnished “threaded and coupled,” in which case both ends of each length of pipe are threaded and a

threaded coupling is applied to one end.

 1

 Nine of 22 responding purchasers identified themselves as master distributors: ***. For eight of these nine

master distributors, sales reportedly are made via a negotiation process, while the supplier sets the prices, payment

terms, etc. to one of them (***). In contrast, for the 13 non-master distributors, the supplier sets the prices for eight,

four negotiate, and one (***) does both.

 2

 The majority of producers and importers replied that master distributors only ship to other distributors, however

one importer noted that master distributors may sell to both distributors and end users.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

Channels of Distribution

Responding U.S. producers and importers of circular welded pipe from China and nonsubject

countries shipped their circular welded pipe primarily to U.S. distributors during 2005-07. U.S.

producers’ and importers’ shares of their U.S. shipments during 2007, by quantity, of the domestically

produced circular welded pipe and that imported from China and from nonsubject countries, by type of

customer, are shown in table II-1.

Table II-1

Circular welded pipe: U.S. producers’ and importers’ shares of reported U.S. shipments, by

sources and channels of distribution, 2005-07

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007

Share of reported shipments (percent)

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of circular welded pipe to:

Distributors 84.7 83.2 82.7

End users 15.3 16.8 17.3

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of circular welded pipe from China to:

Distributors 97.8 96.8 98.8

End users 2.3 3.2 1.2

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of circular welded pipe from all other countries to:

Distributors 99.6 99.6 99.6

End users 0.4 0.4 0.4

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Distributors can vary in terms of size, inventory, and types of customers which they serve. 

Certain “master distributors”1

 carry a larger selection of circular welded pipe in inventory, purchase

ingreater volumes, may sell products other than circular welded pipe, and typically ship to other

distributors.2

 Due to the greater volumes, master distributors reportedly can purchase at a lower price
 3

 In fact, importer *** reported that master distributors were among the first to buy circular welded pipe from

China, which led to reduced price bids from domestic sources and increased profits.

 4

 This, along with the fact that master distributors reportedly have expanded since 2005, has led to increased price

competition within this channel, according to ***. *** further explained that pricing to master distributors is

typically more than 10 percent lower than pricing to other distributors. 

 5

 Hearing transcript, pp. 249 and 253 (Lee and Rudolph). Further, one witness reported that his clients are told to

expect West Coast customers can expect to wait 30 to 45 days from shipment, and East Coast customers can expect

15 days beyond that. Since most vessels call on multiple ports, there can be some variability and increased risk of

marine-related problems. Hearing transcript, p. 255 (Rudolph).

 6

 Ibid.

 7

 Hearing transcript, pp. 253-254 (Rudolph).

 8

 One of these purchasers had noted that there were no transportation delays, so there could be no impact.

II-2

than smaller-volume purchasers.3

 Three domestic producers and two purchasers reported that master

distributors were responsible for importing large quantities of circular welded pipe.4

 According to a

majority of responding purchasers and importers, master distributors have existed in this industry for at

least 20 years.

Lead Times

Nineteen U.S. producers and 26 U.S. importers reported their 2007 commercial shipments that

were shipped from U.S. inventory or direct from U.S./Chinese production and the number of days of lead

time from the date of order to the date of delivery to U.S. customers. The majority (81.6 percent, on a

weighted-average basis) of shipments of domestically produced circular welded pipe is shipped from

inventory, with lead times averaging 6 days. For those shipments of product produced-to-order, lead

times averaged 31 days. Twenty-one of 27 responding importers only shipped on a produced-to-order

basis in 2007, two only shipped out of inventories, and four used both methods. For those shipping out of

inventories, four of six importers reported lead times of 10 days or less, with the remaining two reporting

lead times of greater than 30 days. For produced-to-order shipments coming from overseas, lead times

averaged over 120 days. At the hearing, one respondent estimated a lag of four to five months between

an order in China and delivery in the United States, and another reported that it tells its customers to

expect delivery about six months after placing an order.5

Sixteen of the 19 responding U.S. producers and 24 of 25 responding importers of Chinese

circular welded pipe reported that the reported lead times had not changed since January 2005.6

 Two U.S.

producers, ***, reported that their lead times have shortened, while *** has had to move out its lead times

due to very strong line pipe demand.

Eleven of 20 responding importers reported specifically that shipping delays from China occurred

during 2005-07. Five of 12 responding producers and 9 of 17 responding purchasers also noted shipping

delays during this time period. According to nine of the 12 responding importers, delays affected

between 5 and 75 percent of their shipments during this time. Eight of 19 responding importers noted that

any delays had little or no impact on their sales of circular welded pipe from China. Of the other eleven,

however, seven noted increasing their prices, and one each noted the following: prices had to be lowered

to compensate for the delays, fewer sales were able to be made, increased inventories had to be carried,

and importing was made more difficult. At the hearing, one witness in opposition to the petition noted

that shipping delays in late 2006 and early 2007 delayed delivery 60 to 90 days.7

 Five of ten responding

purchasers8

 noted that the delays had no impact on their purchases, two were willing to deal with delay

difficulties because of the lower price of Chinese imports, one bought from the spot market, one paid

increased prices, and the final purchaser replied that the impact depended on availability of the specific

product, as certain products are not readily available from domestic sources, especially in the Western
 9

 The other two purchasers identified themselves as an OEM and a broker.

 10 Short-run effects discussed in the supply and demand sections refer to changes that could occur within 12

months, unless otherwise indicated.

 11 Data on U.S. circular welded pipe production, production capacity, capacity utilization, inventories, and

exports are shown in detail in Part III.

 12 Hearing transcript, p. 141 (Kaplan).

II-3

United States. Three purchasers in total estimated that delays in transportation from China affected the

price they were willing to pay for some of their imports from China. One purchaser noted that delays

impacted 5 percent of its subject Chinese imports, a second estimated an impact on 35 to 40 percent of its

subject Chinese imports, and a third put its estimate at 60 percent of its subject Chinese imports.

Purchaser Characteristics

Twenty-one purchasers responded to the purchaser questionnaire, with 19 reporting their role as a

distributor or end user.9

 Eight of these reported that they were master distributors, 10 reported that they

were other distributors (including two which also identified themselves as master distributors). Three

were not distributors (two of these produced products including nipples, couplings, PVC coated products,

and fabricated piping products, and one was a wholesaler of fencing products). 

Purchasers were asked if they purchased standard pipe, structural pipe, or other pipe. All

responding firms reported purchasing standard pipe, nine purchased structural pipe, and five purchasers

reported purchasing other pipe. Purchasers reported overlapping applications, particularly between

standard and structural pipe, for such uses as water wells, fencing, and industrial applications. Additional

applications included water, oil, and gas lines, heating and cooling, hand railings, construction, and fire

suppression (for standard pipe), refinery and chemical applications (for structural pipe), and electrical

conduit (other related pipes and tubes).

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS10

U.S. Supply11

Based on available information, U.S. producers have the ability to respond to changes in U.S.

demand with relatively large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced circular welded pipe

to the U.S. market during 2005-07. Factors contributing to this degree of responsiveness of supply are

discussed below.

Industry Capacity

Based on U.S. producers’ reported capacity and production, the domestic industry’s capacity

utilization for circular welded pipe increased during 2005-07, from 53.9 percent in 2005 to 65.7 percent

in 2007. Overall capacity declined, however, by 13.7 percent; from 2.6 million short tons in 2005 to 2.2

million short tons in 2007. These levels of capacity utilization indicate that U.S. producers of circular

welded pipe have available capacity with which they could increase production of circular welded pipe in

the short run in the event of a price change. The supply flexibility may be constrained, however, by

limited capability of specific U.S. mills to produce the required sizes (diameter and wall thickness) and

surface finishes (black, painted, or galvanized) of circular welded pipe. Moreover, increasing labor to

increase production of circular welded pipe is a difficult decision, as workers cannot be hired and fired

quickly.12
 13 China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals, and Chemicals Importers & Exporters (“CCCMC”)

respondents’ posthearing brief, exh. 1, pp. 2-5.

 14 A recent article reported that a lack of imports of steel due to high prices overseas have been driving domestic

prices of steel higher. “‘Bottom line is that the supply scenario - the lack of imports - is really having an impact on

producers,’ which are operating near capacity despite declining demand. ‘With the weakness in imports, 2008

production could increase 5 to 10 percent in a market where demand declines 5 to 10 percent.’” Metal Center News

Business Topics, April 2008, quoting Mark Parr, managing director and equity research analyst with KeyBanc

Capital Markets in Cleveland, http://www.metalcenternews.com/2008/April/April2008_BusinessTopics.htm,

retrieved June 4, 2008. Since February 2008, weekly domestic raw steel production has been operating at between

87.5 and 90.5 percent capacity utilization. “US raw steel production edges 1.2% lower,” American Metal Markets,

June 3, 2008, http://amm.com/2008-06-03__19-17-50.html, retrieved June 4, 2008.

 15 ***, and International Steel Review, MEPS, October 2006, p. 2 and November 2006, pp. 2 and 4.

II-4

Respondents noted that the Commission found in its 2007 review of hot-rolled steel that

numerous purchasers noted being put on allocation or had supply refused since 2004. Also, they reported

that the hot-rolled steel market was extremely tight during the period for which data were collected in the

current investigations, especially in the first half 2006.13 14 Though market conditions were tight in the

early 2006, by the middle of the year, supply tightness had started to ease, and continued through at least

November 2006.15 Petitioners noted that hot-rolled steel consumption peaked in 2004, subsided in 2005

before rising in 2006, and declining again in the first half of 2007. 

Inventory Levels

U.S. producers of circular welded pipe reported combined end-of-period inventory quantities that

decreased during 2005-07, from 13.9 percent of total shipments in 2005 (197,527 short tons) to 11.3

percent in 2007 (166,336 short tons). These levels of inventories suggest that U.S. producers have some

ability to use inventories to respond to price changes. Again, this flexibility may be restrained in the short

run if U.S. producers’ inventories consist of products that are not required by any increase in demand, or

consist of products already committed to customers in the U.S. and/or export markets.

Alternate Markets

The majority of U.S. producers do not export circular welded pipe. Responding U.S. producers’

total reported exports of their U.S.-produced circular welded pipe decreased from 2.6 percent of total

shipments (37,605 short tons) during 2005 to 2.2 percent (30,514 short tons) in 2006, but increased to 3.3

percent (48,668 short tons) in 2007. U.S. producers indicated that the circular welded pipe they

manufacture and hold in inventory could be exported (if the producer exports circular welded pipe) and

do not face barriers to exportation. 

Production Alternatives

Nineteen of 20 responding U.S. producers reported that the equipment and machinery that they

used to produce circular welded pipe was also used to produce other products. U.S. producers reported

manufacturing products such as OCTG, small/medium/large-diameter line pipe, galvanized mechanical

rounds and squares, mechanical tubing (automotive use), and other products on the equipment used to

produce the subject circular welded pipe. Petitioners noted that many major domestic producers of

circular welded pipe cannot produce many energy-related tubular products, whereas smaller producers of

circular welded pipe are the firms that have large production of line pipe and other energy-related tubular
 16 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exh. C.

 17 Data submitted by Chinese producers of circular welded pipe included capacity and production projections for

2007 and 2008. Based on these projections, capacity utilization rates would be 76.9 percent in 2008 and 79.6

percent in 2009. 

 18 Chinese producers reported producing several other products such as OCTG, small-, medium-, and

large-diameter line pipe, and other (non-circular) tubular products on the same equipment that they used to produce

circular welded pipe. Measures of capacity and capacity utilization for each type of product, including circular

welded pipe, is subject to allocations and may change as relative prices and demand for the various types of products

change. Chinese producers' total reported annual plant capacity during 2005-07 increased by 11.9 percent, and was

about 4.1 million short tons, across all products they manufactured in 2007. Total Chinese circular welded pipe

production during 2005 accounted for 93.3 percent of all products that Chinese producers manufactured on this

equipment, decreasing to 90.6 percent in 2006 and 85.5 percent in 2007.

II-5

products.16 The ability of U.S. producers to shift production between circular welded pipe and other

products enhances their supply responsiveness in the short run in response to relative price changes

between circular welded pipe and alternative products.

Product Range and Marketing

Four of 19 responding producers of circular welded pipe noted that there have been changes in

the product range or marketing efforts of domestic supplies since 2005. *** reported that there has been a

concerted effort through the manufacturing trade association to increase demand at the design and

engineering level through focused efforts at major universities. *** added a large structural pipe mill and

***, both increasing the size range to their portfolios. *** reported that it was driven out of the market on

the West Coast by Chinese imports. In contrast, one importer stated that the purchase of Sharon by

Wheatland reduced the number of domestic small diameter A-53 producers to one, which is inadequate to

supply fully the needs of the entire domestic market.

Subject Imports

Based on available information, staff believes that Chinese producers of circular welded pipe

have the ability to respond to changes in demand with somewhat large changes in shipments of circular

welded pipe to the U.S. market. Factors contributing to this degree of responsiveness of supply are

discussed below.

Fifteen responding Chinese producers’ reported total capacity utilization for circular welded pipe

increased from 71.8 percent in 2005 to 84.2 percent in 2006, before decreasing to 81.7 percent in 2007.

Overall, Chinese circular welded pipe capacity increased from 3.5 million short tons in 2005 to 3.7

million short tons in 2006 and 2007.17 18 

Chinese producers of circular welded pipe responding to the Commission’s questionnaire

reported end-of-period inventories that decreased from 6.0 percent of total shipments in 2005 to 4.6

percent of shipments in 2007. Inventories of imports of circular welded pipe from China held by

importers increased from 3.7 percent of U.S. shipments of imports of circular welded pipe from China at

the end of 2005 to 8.4 percent at the end of 2006, before decreasing to 4.9 percent at the end of 2007. 

Though the majority of Chinese shipments went to their home market, the United States was the

largest single market for circular welded pipe exports from China in every year since 2005, accounting for

45.2 percent in 2005, 47.7 percent in 2006, and 45.9 percent of exports in 2007. 
 19 One importer decreased its imports from China at this time, but it was due to quality issues rather than

antidumping or countervailing duty issues.

 20 One producer specified that the slowdown of imports occurred on the West Coast.

 21 One of these also reported that price increased.

 22 *** producer questionnaire response.

 23 *** producer questionnaire response.

 24 The final importer conveyed that “quantities were increased drastically,” but did not mention a time frame.

II-6

Effect of the Filing of the Petition

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to describe the effect of a number recent

occurrences on the price of circular welded pipe and the market for Chinese product. Ten of 15

responding producers, four of 25 responding importers,19 and nine of 20 responding purchasers reported

that the filing of the countervailing duty/antidumping duty petition had little to no effect on the market.

One of these producers, however, reported that imports increased temporarily because of the filing of the

petition to get imports into the United States before duties were imposed. Of those producers that

reported more than a minimal impact, one reported that its sales continued to decline, two producers were

able to announce price increases for the last quarter of 2007, and two noted a decline in the quantity of

imports.20 Fifteen of 21 importers that stated the filing had an impact reported that they had stopped

ordering circular welded pipe from China and four more decreased their purchases or looked to other

sources to buy pipe. Two importers stated that prices had increased due to the decreased supply from

China, and one added that other nonsubject sources entered the market. One purchaser reported that it

had already stopped buying Chinese products based on its expecting the Chinese to end its export rebate,

seven reported that they had stopped buying Chinese material, two reduced orders of Chinese material,21

and one reported the price increased. 

Effect of the 13-Percent Export Tax Rebate Repeal

The second event about which firms were asked to comment on the abolition of China’s 13-

percent export tax rebate on standard (but not line) pipe on July 1, 2007. Nine of 15 responding

producers, two of 25 responding importers, and 11 of 20 responding purchasers reported that the abolition

of the Chinese 13-percent export rebate had caused no change in their purchasers or prices. Two of the

six other producers reported that prices increased in the latter portion of 2007, one noted that its sales

were still down 10 percent year-over-year, one reported that there was “some significant effect, but

inventories were already established at lower pricing,”22 and one noted “general optimism.”23 Eleven

importers that noted some effect of the rebate abolition reported that prices increased, three reported that

other countries became more competitive or China became less competitive, three offered that producers

in China tried to increase shipments prior to July 1, three had already stopped importing from China by

that time, one reported losing competitiveness in the marketplace, and one importer stopped importing

from China at this time.24 Three purchasers that did notice an effect of the rebate abolition reported price

increases, two reported that they stopped receiving offers for Chinese material, one reported that the

export rebate was not abolished for API 5L, one renegotiated the purchase price of its existing orders, and

one stopped carrying Chinese pipe. 
 25 One of these importers and one of the purchasers explained that there was no effect because it had already

stopped importing. 

 26 Ten of these importers gave the same response or responded “same as above” to this question as they did to the

question about the countervailing duty bonding requirements. Additionally, two of these importers reported that

there was little to no effect because they had already stopped importing from China, and one replied that

“importation of Chinese welded pipes are not going to position traders in a very competitive place and there is no

reason to focus on import of Chinese pipes.”

II-7

Effect of the Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination

Three of 14 responding producers, six of 21 responding importers, and 11 of 19 responding

purchasers25 reported that the preliminary countervailing duty determination and resultant bonding

requirements on November 13, 2007 had little to no effect on the circular welded pipe market. Of the 11

producers noting an effect, four each reported that imports from China have decreased and that prices

have increased, three reported an import surge before to beat investigation deadlines, and two reported

increased sales. Thirteen of 22 importers stated that they stopped ordering/importing/selling Chinese

circular welded pipe, and three others noted a general decrease in the quantity of imported Chinese

products in the domestic marketplace. Two purchasers reported that they stopped buying Chinese

product, two reported no more Chinese offers, two reported price increases (although one of these

reported it was mostly due to the increased price of input steel), one reported increased imports from other

countries at higher prices, and one purchaser reported that Chinese overall imports of circular welded pipe

declined as a result of this duty determination.

Effect of the Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determination

The subsequent preliminary antidumping duty determination and bonding requirements effective

January 15, 2008, reportedly had little to no additional effect on the market for circular welded pipe,

according to three of 14 responding producers, 17 of 21 responding importers,26 and 10 of 18 responding

purchasers. Similar to their responses for the imposition of bonding requirements for countervailing

duties issued two months earlier, five producers reported that prices have increased, three each reported

that imports from China have decreased and that their own sales have increased, and two reported that

imports had already stopped by this time. Two importers each noted that import quantities had decreased

and market prices (including, as noted by one importer, nonsubject sources) had increased for circular

welded pipe. For the other eight purchasers, three purchasers reported rising prices (although one of these

attributed it to the price of inputs), one noted a decrease in imports of Chinese circular welded pipe, one

stopped receiving quotes from Chinese mills, two stopped buying Chinese product (with one purchasing

product from Korea instead), and one reported problems with pipe availability. 

Nonsubject Imports

Based on official import statistics of Commerce (presented in Part IV), a total of 62 nonsubject

countries exported circular welded pipe to the United States from 2005 to 2007. Nonsubject imports

accounted for a decreasing share of the quantity of total U.S. imports of circular welded pipe during this

period: from 61.1 percent of imports in 2005 to 48.0 percent in 2006 and 35.2 percent in 2007. Although

the nonsubject import quantity increased by 10.0 percent in 2006, imports from China increased by 87.3

percent, leading to a decreased share of nonsubject imports. Mexico, Canada, Thailand, Taiwan, and
 27 Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey are covered by antidumping and/or countervailing

duty orders. See appendix D for historic and current duty rates.

 28 Hearing transcript, pp. 101, 112, and 114 (Dorn, Magno, and Barnes).

 29 Hearing transcript, pp. 131 (Boggs) and 153-54 (Magno).

II-8

Korea were the largest nonsubject country suppliers.27 Twenty-one of 29 responding importers reported

importing from nonsubject countries during 2005-07.

 

U.S. Demand

Demand for circular welded pipe, as measured by annual U.S. apparent consumption, increased

irregularly between 2005 and 2007, increasing from 2.4 million short tons in 2005 to 2.7 million short

tons in 2006 before decreasing to 2.6 million short tons in 2007, an overall increase of 9.0 percent from

2005 to 2007. Circular welded pipe is used in a variety of applications including commercial and

residential fencing, plumbing, transmission of air, water, and gas, and in sprinkler systems. Thus, U.S.

demand for circular welded pipe is largely derived from the level of demand for downstream products

using these pipe products. Overall, U.S. demand for circular welded pipe reportedly tends to move with

general economic activity in the U.S. economy and with non-residential construction.28 Monthly U.S.

private non-residential construction during January 2005-April 2008 are shown in figure II-I. Overall,

monthly non-residential construction spending increased by 54.8 percent in that time period. However,

monthly residential construction spending, which reportedly affects fence tube sales and non-residential

spending,29 increased from $603.7 billion in January 2005 to $696.0 billion in February 2006 before 

declining every month until reaching $435.8 billion in April 2008, the most recent available month. 

Figure II-1

U.S. private non-residential construction spending, by months, January 2005-April 2008

Note.--Monthly values are seasonally adjusted annual rates of construction spending.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing, Mining and Construction Statistics, Construction Spending, historical

and current data available at http://www.census.gov/const/www/c30index.html, non-residential construction series
 30 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, exh. 2.

 31 Ibid. The downturn has been led by residential construction, though commercial/industrial billings and

inquiries were also down considerably in March 2008. In the following month’s index, industrial/commercial

billings and inquiries increased to an indexed value of 39 from 38, whereas institutional non-residential construction

decreased from an indexed value of 51 to 50. “Design Slowdown Continues in April,” AIA This Week, Kermit

Baker, May 23, 2008.

 32 CCCMC respondents’ prehearing brief, pp. 55-56.

 33 “After Strong Growth in 2007, Non-residential Construction Activity is Projected to Flatten Out,” AIArchitect

This Week, January 11, 2008, as submitted in petitioners’ posthearing brief at exh. T. 

 34 The other three purchasers reported demand was unchanged.

II-9

U.S. producers and importers provided a mix of responses when reporting how U.S. demand for

circular welded pipe has changed since January 1, 2005. Six U.S. producers reported that demand has

increased, seven reported that it has fluctuated, three reported a decrease, and one stated that demand is

unchanged. Eleven of 21 responding importers reported an increase in demand since January 1, 2005,

five reported that demand has fluctuated, two reported a decrease, and three replied that demand for

circular welded pipe has not changed. The factors most often cited by producers and importers as driving

the change in demand were the construction (residential and non-residential) industry, energy and mining

projects, and general economic conditions. 

Petitioners argued that non-residential construction indicators are pointing toward a declining

trend based upon declining general economic conditions, slackening demand for non-residential

construction, and the appearance of commercial backed mortgage security defaults.30 Studies that

petitioners cite point to the commercial sector of non-residential construction facing the largest declines. 

For example, the Architecture Billings Index, a leading indicator of construction spending, has declined to

its lowest point since inception in 1995.31 CCCMC respondents, in contrast, noted that spending on nonresidential construction was 13.2 percent higher in February 2008 than it was a year earlier, and that the

American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) Consensus Construction Forecast Panel predicted nonresidential construction to grow at 0.7 percent in 2008 and decline 0.9 percent in 2009.32 In particular, the

AIA predicted a 1.3 percent decline in commercial non-residential construction and a 4.2 percent increase

in institutional non-residential construction.33 

Eight of the responding 21 purchasers reported that demand in the United States had increased,

five reported it had decreased, and eight reported demand was unchanged. Reasons given by purchasers

for an increase in demand included: the boom in commercial construction; increased oil and gas drilling;

increased pipeline construction; increased high-rise commercial and residential construction; increased

manufacturing; availability of Chinese product at competitive prices; an upswing in the market; and a

robust U.S. economy. Purchasers agreed that demand had declining because of declines in housing

construction or general construction. Six of the nine34 responding purchasers reported demand outside the

United States had increased for reasons including: economic growth in Asia (specifically China, India,

and Vietnam), Russia, South America, and developing countries; a robust world economy; oil and gas

demand; and the commodities boom. 

U.S. producers and purchasers were asked if the circular welded pipe industry is subject to

business cycles. Eight of 17 responding producers and 15 of 22 responding purchasers responded

affirmatively. In addition to citing the non-residential construction market and general economic

conditions, some producers noted that demand is seasonal with an increase in the summer months for

water pipe applications. Purchasers also were asked if the emergence of new markets for circular welded

pipe has affected the business cycles or otherwise influenced demand for circular welded pipe. Seventeen

of 19 responded “no.” One purchaser responding affirmatively noted that the emergence of new markets

has added to price pressure for circular welded pipe, and the other reported that growth in developing has

increased to worldwide demand for standard pipe.
 35 Fluid conveyance included oil, gas, and water conveyance, plumbing, and sprinklers.

II-10

Since all but one purchaser described themselves as distributors, resellers, wholesalers, or

brokers, many of them will stock their purchases in inventory. The quantities of inventories, in short

tons, held by the responding purchasers increased since 2005, as can be seen in the following tabulation:

Origination country of inventories: 2005 2006 2007

United States 29,184 27,734 29,189

China 34,282 55,051 63,397

Nonsubject countries 44,038 64,575 71,680

Total 107,504 147,360 164,266

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Substitute Products

Nine of 17 responding U.S. producers, 17 of 26 responding U.S. importers, and 13 of 22

responding purchasers reported that no substitutes exist for circular welded pipe. The remaining eight

U.S. producers, nine U.S. importers, and nine purchasers identified substitutes for circular welded pipe.

Producers, importers, and purchasers reported that substitutes included ornamental, wood, aluminum, or

plastic pipe, and block wall typically used for fencing; plastic pipes including PVC and polyethylene

pipe, copper tube, seamless pipe, flexible gas piping for natural gas in residential housing, and ASTM A106 typically used for fluid conveyance;35 steel beams, rectangular tubing, and ASTM A-500 grade A, B,

and C typically used for structural uses; and line pipe (single- or multiple-certified) could be used in many

of the same uses as circular welded pipe.

Five of the eight producers reporting that substitutes exist responded to how the price of

substitutes affected the price of circular welded pipe: two reported that the price of substitutes affected

the price of circular welded pipe; two reported that they did not affect the price of circular welded pipe,

and one reported that the prices of circular welded pipe and the substitutes moved together with the price

of steel. Four of the nine importers reporting the existence of substitutes responded to how the price of

substitutes affected the price of circular welded pipe: three reported that prices of the substitutes tend to

be higher than circular welded pipe, and as a result typically do not affect the price of circular welded

pipe and one reported that the price of substitutes would effect the price of circular welded pipe, but only

in the long run. Purchasers were asked if the price of these products influenced the price or quantity of

circular welded pipe sold: one reported major changes with a 6 month lag; one reported prices of

substitutes and circular welded pipe moved together; one reported as the price of seamless pipe converged

with circular welded pipe, substitution increased; one reported substitutes would have a small effect; one

reported that the total cost including labor from installation substantially affects the consumption of

circular welded pipe or its substitutes; and one reported that which product is to be used is determined in

the engineering specifications. Two purchasers noted that the number of types of products that can be

substituted for circular welded pipe increased since January 2005: fox pipe (1⁄2" - 2" O.D.) and laborsaving alternate connection systems for copper tubes and residential natural gas systems.
 36 Additional replies were also given in the questionnaires from the preliminary phase. Those answers are

included in this paragraph as well.

 37 Unless the specific uses have substitutes, which for plumbing, sprinkler systems, handrails, etc., is unlikely, the

cost of the circular welded pipe in these uses may be more appropriately measured against the cost of the total

project (petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 6).

 38 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-B-17 and III-B-16, respectively.

 39 CCCMC respondents’ prehearing brief, pp. 56-61, citing the International Iron and Steel Institute.

II-11

Cost Share

As noted earlier, circular welded pipe is used in non-residential and, to a lesser extent, residential

construction applications. Nine U.S. producers and two importers provided usable cost share data for

circular welded pipe.36 Circular welded pipe reportedly accounted for 25 to 40 percent of the total cost of

installing fences and corrals, for 20 percent of the cost of installing handrails, for 20 to 30 percent of fire

suppression systems, for 30 percent of the cost of installing sprinkler systems, for 20-30 of the cost of

structural applications, for 16 percent of the cost of automobile parts, and for 4 to 20 percent of the cost of

installing water wells. Many of these uses constitute portions of larger building projects, such as an entire

building, and, therefore, likely represent a much smaller share of the total project, often less than 1

percent of the total cost of the construction, as reported by three domestic producers of circular welded

pipe.37

Foreign Demand

U.S. producers and importers were requested in their questionnaire responses to comment on

demand for circular welded pipe outside of the United States since January 1, 2005.38 Nine of 15

responding U.S. producers and 17 of 30 responding U.S. importers did not have information relating to

foreign demand. Four U.S. producers noted that demand outside the United States had increased (three

responding specifically about demand in Canada), while each noted that demand either fluctuated (again,

with respect to Canada) or remained unchanged. With respect to the 13 responding importers, eight

reported an increase, four reported fluctuations, and one reported a decrease (with respect to Mexico,

Canada, and the Caribbean). Regions with noted increases include Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and

Latin America. 

In addition, respondents cited reports of strong growth in spending in construction in several

countries, including China, the Middle East, Brazil, India, and Russia, as evidenced by forecasted steel

use in those countries.39

Presently, there are two antidumping cases filed against imports of circular welded pipe from

China: one in Canada and the other in the EU, which are the largest non-U.S. markets for Chinese

circular welded pipe. There has already been a preliminary affirmative determination in Canada, which

covers pipe up to six inches O.D. 

 

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution in demand between circular welded pipe produced in the United States

and that imported from China depends upon such factors as relative prices, conditions of sales (order lead

times, payment terms etc.), purchaser supply requirements, and product differentiation. Product

differentiation depends on factors such as the range of products, quality (grade standards, defect rates,

etc.), availability, reliability of supply, product services, and the market perception of these factors. 
II-12

Based on the reported information in these investigations, there appears to be a moderately high degree of

substitution in demand between circular welded pipe produced domestically and that imported from

China.

Factors Affecting Sales and Purchases

U.S. producers and importers of circular welded pipe were requested in their questionnaires to

report on the extent of interchangeability (products from different countries physically capable of being

used in the same applications) of circular welded pipe produced domestically, imported from China, and

imported from third countries. They were also asked to report the extent of any non-price differences that

would affect sales in the U.S. market among these various sources of circular welded pipe. Responses of

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers regarding the degree of interchangeability between domestic

and imported circular welded pipe are summarized in table II-2, and their responses regarding differences

other than price affecting competition are summarized in table II-3. U.S. producers, importers, and

purchasers were also requested in their questionnaires to provide any comments where products are

sometimes or never interchangeable and where nonprice factors were always or frequently significant in

competition between the domestic and imported circular welded pipe. These comments are included in

the text.

With regard to the degree of interchangeability, 19 U.S. producers, 31 importers, and 22

purchasers provided the requested information (table II-2). U.S. producers most frequently asserted that

circular welded pipe produced in the United States, imported from China, and imported from third

countries was “always” interchangeable among each other; whereas the largest number of importers

asserted that the circular welded pipe from these sources typically was “frequently” interchangeable. 

According to the majority of purchaser responses most domestic, subject, and nonsubject imported

circular welded pipe was “always” or “frequently” interchangeable.

Some producers, importers, and purchasers provided additional information. One U.S. producer,

***, provided an additional response, asserting that the base quality level for domestic producers is higher

than that for most other countries. Five importers provided further details regarding interchangeability. 

Importer *** reported that domestic and Chinese pipe are “sometimes” interchangeable, since there are

differences in diameter, wall thickness, and grade. *** replied that there are sometimes quality issues,

which lead some customers to restrict sales to non-Chinese sources. *** submitted that fewer U.S.

producers make galvanized pipe, and all customers require a uniform length, which not all U.S. producers

will manufacture. *** reported that domestic and Chinese mills may not make pipe all countries’

standards. The last importer providing clarification, ***, stated that, for small diameter A-53 pipe,

domestic manufacturers use furnace welding, an older method than ERW, which leads to more impurities

and more corrosion. Three purchasers provided comments, with two noting that some customers may

only want domestic product, and one noting a customer preference for anything but Chinese circular

welded pipe. Purchaser *** stated that most Thai pipe is A-53, type A, which cannot be used if A-53,

type B is specified.

For responses regarding differences in factors other than price affecting competition, 19 U.S.

producers, 24 importers, and 20 purchasers reported the requested information (table II-3). The 

responding producers and importers reported most often that differences in nonprice factors among

circular welded pipe produced in the United States, imported from China, and imported from third

countries were “sometimes” or “never” significant among sales of the domestic and imported products,

whereas the responding purchasers were more frequently divided in characterizing such factors as

frequently, sometimes, and never significant. 

Several producers, importers, and purchasers added comments. ***, a U.S. producer, reported

that the perceived higher quality of domestic circular welded pipe would increase the level of domestic

sales if there were proper supply chain management and no price differences with imports of circular 
II-13

Table II-2

Circular welded pipe: Perceived degree of interchangeability of circular welded pipe produced in

the United States, imported from China, and imported from third countries and sold in the U.S.

market1

Country pair

 Number of U.S. 

 producers 

 reporting

Number of U.S.

importers

reporting

Number of U.S.

purchasers

reporting

AFS N AFS N AFSN

U.S. vs. China 11 6 2 0 7 15 3 0 7 7 2 1

U.S. vs. Canada 13 5 1 0 87 2 2 91 10

U.S. vs. India 9 4 0 0 6 10 2 0 3 4 1 0

U.S. vs. Korea 11 5 2 0 7 11 1 1 6 6 1 0

U.S. vs. Mexico 11 5 2 0 6 12 3 1 2 4 1 0

U.S. vs. Taiwan 10 4 0 0 6 10 2 1 4 5 1 0

U.S. vs. Thailand 10 4 0 0 6 9 1 2 1 4 2 0

U.S. vs. Turkey 10 4 1 0 6 7 3 2 2 3 1 0

U.S. vs. other 6 4 0 0 5 9 3 0 2 3 1 0

China vs. Canada 10 3 1 0 6 10 2 2 6 1 2 1

China vs. India 9 2 0 0 7 8 3 1 7 1 0 1

China vs. Korea 10 3 1 0 7 11 2 1 5 5 1 1

China vs. Mexico 10 3 0 0 6 9 3 1 4 2 1 1

China vs. Taiwan 10 2 0 0 6 11 2 1 5 3 0 1

China vs. Thailand 10 2 0 0 6 9 1 2 4 4 0 1

China vs. Turkey 10 2 0 0 6 7 3 2 4 1 0 1

China vs. other 6 2 0 0 5 7 4 1 4 1 0 1

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked, “Are all types of circular welded pipe produced in the United States,

imported from China, and imported from other countries used interchangeably (i.e., can they physically be used in the same

applications)?” 

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

welded pipe from China. Four importers provided additional comments. ***, an importer, reported that

non-price factors that limit or preclude interchangeable use include: customer perceptions that foreign

product is inferior, production and delivery delays, unreliable deliveries, limited production range vs.

U.S. mills, and limited technical support. Importer *** replied that quality “frequently” is a difference

between domestic circular welded pipe and that imported from China. Importer *** also noted that

quality, along with lead times, “frequently” are differences between domestically produced circular

welded pipe and that imported from China, Turkey, and India. In addition to noting quality differences

previously reported, *** stated that imports subjected to ocean transport is more often exposed to

contaminants, and imports from non-North American countries must be of a larger size to make

transportation economically feasible. Importer *** reported that the quality and product range of Korean

pipes allow them to be sold for a higher price. Two purchasers noted that some domestic buyers will not

accept Chinese-made circular welded pipe. Among the factors noted by purchasers *** as differences

are: availability, lead time, domestic content regulations, perceived quality product range, and technical

support. 
 40 One master distributor (***), however, reported that it contacts between 10 and 15 suppliers before making a

purchase.

II-14

Table II-3

Circular welded pipe: Perceived importance of differences in factors other than price between

circular welded pipe produced in the United States, imported from China, and imported from third

countries and sold in the U.S. market1

Country pair

 Number of U.S. 

 producers 

 reporting

Number of U.S.

importers

reporting

Number of U.S.

purchasers

reporting

AFS N AFS N AFSN

U.S. vs. China 1 0 8 9 3 4 10 5 2 5 6 4

U.S. vs. Canada 1 0 6 11 2 2 4 8 31 25

U.S. vs. India 1 0 4 9 3 3 6 4 1 2 2 3

U.S. vs. Korea 1 0 6 11 2 2 8 5 2 4 3 4

U.S. vs. Mexico 1 0 6 10 3 2 9 4 1 0 2 3

U.S. vs. Taiwan 1 0 5 9 2 3 7 4 0 2 3 4

U.S. vs. Thailand 1 0 5 9 3 1 6 4 0 3 2 2

U.S. vs. Turkey 1 0 6 9 2 3 6 4 0 1 2 3

U.S. vs. other 0 0 5 6 1 4 5 5 1 1 2 2

China vs. Canada 1 0 4 9 32 7 4 10 44

China vs. India 1 0 2 9 2 1 7 5 1 1 2 5

China vs. Korea 1 0 4 9 2 2 9 4 0 3 4 4

China vs. Mexico 1 0 4 9 2 1 8 5 1 0 5 2

China vs. Taiwan 1 0 3 9 2 3 6 5 0 2 3 5

China vs. Thailand 1 0 3 9 2 2 6 4 0 2 3 3

China vs. Turkey 1 0 3 9 2 2 7 4 0 0 3 4

China vs. other 0 0 2 6 1 1 5 6 0 0 3 3

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked, “Are differences other than price (i.e., quality, availability, transportation

network, product range, technical support, etc.) between circular welded pipe produced in the United States and in other

countries a significant factor in your firm's sales of the products?” 

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Many factors influence a purchaser’s decision regarding its suppliers of circular welded pipe. On

average, a purchaser will contact between 3 and 4 suppliers of circular welded pipe before making its

decision, though some will contact fewer domestic mills and more suppliers for purchases of imports.40

Twelve of 22 purchasers reported having changes suppliers since 2005. Though only five purchasers

became aware of new suppliers since 2005, ten expect new suppliers to enter the circular welded pipe

market in the future. 
II-15

Knowledge of Country Sources

Purchasers were asked to identify the sources of circular welded pipe of which they have actual

marketing or pricing knowledge. Twenty purchasers identified U.S.-produced product and 18 Chinese

product. The number of purchasers identifying product from the seven other listed countries in order of

frequency were Korea (13), Taiwan (10), India (6), Canada (5), Thailand (5), Mexico (3), and Turkey (3). 

Other sources of imports identified by purchasers were in order of their frequency; Oman (4), South

Africa (2), Brazil, Guatemala, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Romania, United Arab Emirates, and

Vietnam (1 each).

Major Factors in Purchasing

Purchasers were asked to identify the three major factors considered by their firm in deciding

from whom to purchase circular welded pipe (table II-4). Quality was most frequently reported to be the

most important factor, reported by 8 purchasers. For the second most important factor, price was the most

common response (reported by 7 firms), and for the third most important factor, availability and price

were the most common responses (6 firms each). Other factors listed among the top three factors were

delivery, product range, service, and being a traditional supplier. Additionally, more than two-thirds of

purchasers (15 of 22) reported that buying circular welded pipe produced in the United States is

an important factor in their purchasing decisions. Ten purchasers reported that at least a small portion of

their purchases of domestically produced circular welded pipe is due to legal requirements. Seven

purchasers or their customers require domestically produced pipe. Of the seven purchasers that consider

buying pipe domestically an important factor for reasons other than legal, internal, or customer

requirements, all responded that shorter lead times are at least a part of the reason. 

Table II-4

Circular welded pipe: Ranking factors used in purchasing decisions, as reported by U.S.

purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

First Second Third Total

Quality (including appearance, quality reputation,

and meeting specifications) 8 5 2 15

Price 6 7 6 19

Availability 5 6 6 17

Traditional supplier 1 1 1 3

Product range 1 1 0 2

Delivery 1 0 3 4

Service 0 1 0 1

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Factors Determining Quality

Purchasers were asked to identify the factors that determine the quality of circular welded pipe. 

Purchasers reported numerous specific factors relating to both the pipe itself, as well as the supplier of the

pipe. With respect to the pipe itself, factors included: meeting standards; appearance (e.g., uniform

appearance and surface sheen); tight dimensional tolerances (e.g., length, ovalness, and straightness);

coating quality; end finish; hydrotest results; tensile strength; consistency; traceability with clear mill
II-16

markings; readable and correct mill test reports; integrity of seams; ability to thread or weld pipes

together; and packaging.

Certification/Qualification Issues

Purchasers were asked if they require certification or prequalification of their suppliers. Only

eight of 21 responding purchasers reported that they required prequalification, and each required it for all

of its purchases. Five of these reported requiring certification, typically ASTM certification, one reported

trial runs of the material, and one reported that all suppliers were qualified before 2005. Purchasers were

asked if the certification required exceeding industry standards. Five reported that all their product

required certification exceeding industry standards and two reported that 10 percent of their purchases

did. 

Seventeen purchasers reported factors considered when choosing a supplier. Factors included

ASTM, ISO, API, ASME, UL, and FM certification/standards, quality, availability, mill inspections, lead

time, inventories on hand, machineability, product range, appearance, mill reputation/track record, price,

port of entry logistics, manufacture process, technical support, claims handling, third party inspections,

accuracy of paperwork, and timeliness of communications.

Only four of the 21 responding purchasers reported any firms had failed to qualify. These four

firms reported that certain Chinese firms, including *** had failed because of leaks, poor welding, poor

quality, and unreliability of supply. 

Purchasers were asked how often domestic, imported Chinese, and imported nonsubject circular

welded pipe met minimum quality specifications during 2005-07. Out of 19 responding purchasers,

domestic producers were able to meet minimum specifications “always” for 14 purchasers, “usually” for

four purchasers, and “rarely or never” for one purchaser. Of 22 responding purchasers, imported Chinese

circular welded pipe met minimum specifications “always” for five purchasers, “usually” for nine

purchasers, “sometimes” for four purchasers, and “rarely or never” for four further purchasers. Responses

are summarized in the following tabulation:

Country meeting minimum quality

specifications:

Always Usually Sometimes Rarely or

never

United States 14 4 0 1

China 5 9 4 4

Korea 7 1 0 0

Canada 3 1 0 0

Thailand 3 0 0 0

Taiwan 3 1 0 1

Mexico 2 1 1 0

India 1 2 0 0

Turkey 1 0 0 0

Japan 1 0 0 0

Oman 1 1 0 1

South Africa 0 1 0 0

Vietnam 0 1 0 0

Chile 0 0 0 1

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-17

Importance of 15 Specified Purchase Factors

Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 15 factors in their purchasing decisions (table II5). The factors listed as very important by the majority of firms were quality meets industry standard (20

firms), availability (19 firms), price (18 firms), product consistency (17 firms), reliability of supply (17

firms), and delivery time (16 firms). No other factor was rated as very important by a majority of the

responding firms.

With respect to price, three of 21 responding purchasers reported that they will “always” buy the

lowest-priced circular welded pipe; seven “usually” will, ten “sometimes” will, and one “never” will. 

Factors that were also important in the purchasing decisions were: availability, quality, lead times,

supplier reputation, past experience with a vendor/product, appearance, product range, service, pricing

terms, inventory levels, the number of partial shipments, and that the pipe was produced domestically.

Table II-5

Circular welded pipe: Importance of factors as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Number of firms responding 

Availability 19 3 0

Delivery terms 10 11 1

Delivery time 16 6 0

Discounts offered 4 11 7

Extension of credit 7 9 6

Minimum quantity requirements 2 12 8

Packaging 4 8 10

Price 18 4 0

Product consistency 17 5 0

Product range 5 15 2

Quality exceeds industry standards 6 8 8

Quality meets industry standards 20 2 0

Reliability of supply 17 4 0

Technical support/service 4 15 3

U.S. transportation costs 5 11 5

Other1 3 00

 1 Other includes appearance, meets customer specifications (coating and length tolerances), and responsiveness

to problems/complaints.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Changes in Purchasing Patterns

Purchasers were requested to note if the relative shares of their purchases from different countries

had changed since 2005. The relative share of their purchases from domestic sources increased for four

purchasers and decreased for five. Nine purchasers reportedly had increased the relative share

attributable to imports from China (at least before the filing of the petition in these investigations). Five

purchasers decreased the share attributable from China because of these investigations, and two decreased
 41 The reasons given by purchasers were too much inventory and poor quality.

 42 For the other purchaser, the reasons were related to availability or ***, though the reported prices paid for

imported Chinese circular welded pipe were lower than domestic prices.

 43 For more information regarding changes in purchasing patterns, see the section entitled “Supply of Nonsubject

Imports of Circular Welded Pipe to the U.S. Market” supra.

II-18

their purchases for other reasons.41 Various purchasers reported increased relative levels of imports from

India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Oman, and Taiwan, and decreased relative levels of imports from Canada,

Chile, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand. 

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, those purchasers named in lost sale or lost

revenue allegations were also asked whether they had shifted their purchases of circular welded pipe from

U.S. producers to suppliers of products from China during January 2004-March 2007 and whether, during

this period, U.S. producers reduced their prices of circular welded pipe to compete with suppliers of

circular welded pipe from China. Twelve of the 17 responding purchasers reported that they had shifted

purchases of circular welded pipe from the U.S. producer to imports from China, with all stating that price

was the reason for the shift. In the final phase of the investigations, purchasers were asked if they had

shifted, at least partially, from domestically produced circular welded pipe to that imported from China

since January 2005, and if the switch had been because of price. Six of the 22 responding firms reported

that they had switched to greater use of Chinese product, and all but one of the six reported that this was

due to the lower price of the Chinese product.42 43

Purchases from Specific Producers and Countries

Purchasers were asked how frequently they and their customers purchase circular welded pipe

based on the producer and country of origin. The following tabulation summarizes the responses:

Purchaser/customer decision Always Usually Sometimes Never

Purchaser makes decision based on producer 9 5 4 4

Purchaser’s customer makes decision based on producer 1 5 11 4

Purchaser makes decision based on country of origin 3 9 5 5

Purchaser’s customer makes decision based on country of origin 0 5 11 5

Most purchasers (14 of 22) reported that they “always” or “usually” make purchases based on the

producer of circular welded pipe. The purchasers that reported that they “always” make decisions based

on the producer cited the following reasons: quality; price; service; reliability; consistency; problem

solving by the producer; accuracy in order fulfillment; buying from approved suppliers; “Buy American”

provisions; that mills’ product must be tested; avoidance of Chinese-produced circular welded pipe;

customer expectations of quality from certain mills; and if pipe from some foreign producers can be PVCcoated better than domestic product. More than half of the responding purchasers (11 of 21) reported that

their customers sometimes make decisions based on the producer. Country of origin was slightly less

important for both purchasers and their customers, with 14 of 22 responding purchasers reporting that the

source country was either “usually” or “sometimes” important for their purchases. Twelve of the 21

responding purchasers reported that it was “sometimes” or “never” important for their customers.

Six of 22 purchasers reported that certain sizes/grades/types of pipe are only available from a

single source, with four specifying certain types of domestically produced pipe. Thirteen of 21

purchasers or its customers will specify pipe from one country over another. Those purchasers relating

preferences acknowledged domestic, Chinese, Korean, and Indian as preferred (or “not preferred” in one
 44 CCCMC respondents’ and importers’ postconference brief, p.15. See also Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel

Pipe from China, Investigation No. TA-421-6, USITC Publication 3807, October 2005, p. V-9, fn.11 (U.S. producers

estimate “Buy American” coverage at 5-10 percent).

 45 In aggregate, Chinese circular welded pipe had superior prices in 20 of 22 possible comparisons with circular

welded pipe from nonsubject countries. In the other two comparisons, the price of Chinese pipe was described as

comparable to the price of Korean and Thai pipe.

II-19

case) sources. Eleven of the 13 responding purchasers will buy from one source even when a lowerpriced source is available. Factors that influence this decision include lead times, quality, size range,

availability, reliability of supply, faster deliveries, “Buy American” provisions, long-term business

relationships, and approved mill requirements. 

During the preliminary phase of these investigations, respondents asserted that 10 to 15 percent of

the U.S. market for circular welded pipe is subject to “Buy America” policies, especially non-residential

construction projects undertaken by governments, such that the imported products from China cannot

compete for this segment of the market.44

Purchasers were also asked to compare circular welded pipe produced in the U.S. to that made in

China and nonsubject countries with respect to 15 different attributes (table II-6). Purchasers were further

requested to compare domestic and Chinese circular welded pipe with circular welded pipe from

nonsubject countries (tables II-6 and II-7). Eighteen purchasers provided responses.

The majority of firms comparing products from the United States and China reported that the

U.S. producers were superior for seven factors: availability, delivery terms, delivery time, product

consistency, quality exceeds industry standard, reliability of supply, and technical support. The only

factor for which China was reported to be superior by most firms was price. Chinese pipe was also rated

as superior in price when compared to prices for pipe from nonsubject countries.45 Though domestic

producers were rated as superior on a range of factors, two importers noted the increasing quality of 

Chinese steel was having an effect in the market. *** asserted that the pipe imported from China has

been increasingly accepted over the past three years, mainly due to improvements in quality and price,

while the U.S. steel industry reportedly has been forced to improve its productivity to lower its price. ***

reported that the biggest change it has seen is the overall confidence of its customers in the quality and

reliability of pipe imported from China. In the past three years, some of its customers have begun to

request specific Chinese mills. 
II-20

Table II-6

Circular welded pipe: Comparisons of U.S. product to product from other countries, as reported

by U.S. purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs China U.S. vs Canada U.S. vs India U.S. vs Korea

S C I S C I S C I S C I

Number of firms responding 

Availability 9 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 5 2 1

Delivery terms 7 5 1 1 3 0 2 1 0 4 4 0

Delivery time 11 1 1 2 1 1 3 0 0 8 0 0

Discounts offered 2 9 2 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 4 2

Extension of credit 2 10 1 1 3 0 2 1 0 2 6 0

Minimum quantity requirements 3 9 1 2 2 0 2 1 0 3 5 0

Packaging 0 11 2 0 4 0 0 2 1 0 7 1

Price1 1 0 12 0 1 3 0 0 3 0 1 7

Product consistency 841130120170

Product range 292040021053

Quality exceeds industry standards 751040030071

Quality meets industry standards 4 8 1 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 6 1

Reliability of supply 7 6 0 1 3 0 2 1 0 3 5 0

Technical support/service 9 3 1 2 2 0 2 1 0 3 5 0

U.S. transportation costs1 2 7 4 0 3 1 0 1 2 0 5 3

Factor

U.S. vs Mexico U.S. vs Taiwan U.S. vs Thailand U.S. vs other

S C I S C I S C I S C I

Number of firms responding 

Availability 030311300251

Delivery terms 0 3 0 2 2 1 3 0 0 2 6 0

Delivery time 2 1 0 4 0 1 3 0 0 5 2 1

Discounts offered 030230120080

Extension of credit 0 3 0 2 2 1 2 1 0 2 5 1

Minimum quantity requirements 210311210530

Packaging 0 3 0 0 4 1 0 2 1 0 8 0

Price1 11110400 3125

Product consistency 120140120260

Product range 021041120053

Quality exceeds industry standards 021041120071

Quality meets industry standards 030140210260

Reliability of supply 030230210260

Technical support/service 111311300260

U.S. transportation costs1 0 1 202302 1044

 1 A rating of superior means that price/U.S. transportation cost is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported “U.S.

superior”, it meant that the price of U.S. product was generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s product is

inferior. “Other” includes Italy, Japan, Oman, South Africa, Turkey, and United Arab Emirates.

Note.--Some purchasers compared U.S. product with that from more than one nonsubject country; each of these comparisons was

counted separately if responses differed between for each nonsubject country, otherwise the response is included only once.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-21

Table II-7

Circular welded pipe: Comparisons of Chinese product to product from other countries, as

reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

China vs Canada China vs India China vs Korea China vs Mexico

S C I S C I S C I S C I

Number of firms responding 

Availability 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 4 4 0 2 2

Delivery terms 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 5 3 0 3 1

Delivery time 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 5 3 0 1 3

Discounts offered 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 7 0 1 3 0

Extension of credit 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 6 0 0 4 0

Minimum quantity requirements 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 8 0 0 4 0

Packaging 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 5 2 0 4 0

Price1 1 00200710400

Product consistency 0 01011017031

Product range 0 10020053310

Quality exceeds industry standards 0 01020026031

Quality meets industry standards 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 5 3 0 4 0

Reliability of supply 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 6 0 3 1

Technical support/service 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 6 0 2 2

U.S. transportation costs1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 7 1 1 2 1

Factor

China vs Taiwan China vs Thailand China vs other

S C I S C I S C I

Number of firms responding 

Availability 0 22031051

Delivery terms 0 4 0 0 3 1 0 5 1

Delivery time 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 3 3

Discounts offered 0 40121060

Extension of credit 0 4 0 0 3 1 0 5 1

Minimum quantity requirements 0 31031051

Packaging 1 3 0 0 3 1 0 5 1

Price1 4 0031 0600

Product consistency 0 13013051

Product range 1 30040330

Quality exceeds industry standards 0 22013051

Quality meets industry standards 0 40013051

Reliability of supply 0 22004051

Technical support/service 0 22013051

U.S. transportation costs1 0 3 104 0231

 1 A rating of superior means that price/U.S. transportation cost is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported “U.S.

superior”, it meant that the price of U.S. product was generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s product is

inferior. “Other” includes Malaysia, Oman, Turkey, and Vietnam.

Note.--Some purchasers compared U.S. product with that from more than one nonsubject country; each of these comparisons was

counted separately if responses differed between for each nonsubject country, otherwise the response is included only once.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 46 Parties were invited to submit comments on these elasticity estimates, if so desired; their comments are

included as approriate.

 47 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

 48 Petitioners' postconference brief, p. 7.

 49 Circular Welded Non-alloy Steel Pipe from China, Investigation No. TA-421-6, October 2005, p. V-19.

 50 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like product 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-22

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES46

U.S. Supply Elasticity47

The domestic supply elasticity for circular welded pipe measures the sensitivity of the quantity

supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of circular welded pipe. 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 and from production of other products, the

existence of inventories, and the availability of alternative markets for U.S.-produced circular welded

pipe. 

In the short term, circular welded pipe producers are likely to respond to changes in price with

moderate changes in the quantity shipped to the U.S. market. Supply responsiveness is enhanced by

available capacity, the ability to switch from producing other products, the quantity of inventory on hand,

but limited by a small amount of exports, and, for some producers, competition from other products

which are in high demand that are made on the same equipment. In the economic model contained in

Petitioners’ prehearing brief at exhibit 9, a domestic supply elasticity of between 3 and 5 was employed.

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for circular welded pipe measures the sensitivity of the overall

quantity demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of circular welded pipe, and is likely to be

moderately low. This estimate is driven by factors discussed earlier, such as the low cost share of circular

welded pipe in the production of construction products, though the existence and commercial viability of

substitute products serves to enhance the responsiveness of demand. Petitioners initially suggested a U.S.

demand elasticity for circular welded pipe ranging from -0.1 to -0.4.48 The Commission staff in the recent

China safeguard investigation had recommended a somewhat higher, yet still inelastic, U.S. demand

elasticity, ranging from -0.5 to -0.75.49 In the final phase of this investigation, petitioners’ economist

employed demand elasticities ranging from -0.25 to -0.75.

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.50 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

(both perceived and actual), grade, and conditions of sale. As reported by purchasers, though Chinese

circular welded pipe most often meets industry standards, a majority of purchasers noted that domestic

circular welded pipe exceeds industry standards. There were also other factors which differentiated

domestic and imported Chinese circular welded pipe, such as availability, reliability of supply, delivery

time, delivery terms, and technical support. Based on available information, the elasticity of substitution

between domestic and subject circular welded pipe is likely to be somewhat high for most applications. 
 51 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, exh. 8.

 52 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, exh. 9.

 53 Hearing transcript, pp. 234-242 (Prusa).

 54 Letter from Dr. Seth Kaplan, May 20, 2008, pp. 1-2. 

 55 At the 10-percent confidence level. Prices of subject imports were not shown to have a statistically significant

determinative effect on domestic prices of circular welded pipe.

 56 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, exh. 9.

 57 Hearing transcript, pp. 242-243 (Prusa). 

 58 Letter from Dr. Seth Kaplan, p. 2.

II-23

In the model submitted in the petitioners’ prehearing brief, substitution elasticities of between 4 and 6

were employed. 

SUBMITTED ECONOMIC MODELS

In their prehearing brief, petitioners submitted two economic models. The first was an

econometric model attempting to explain variations in the quantities and prices of domestic shipments of

circular welded pipe.51 The second model, a partial-equilibrium, constant elasticity Armington-type

model performed “what-if” scenarios to see how the domestic industry would have been affected if there

were either prohibitive or 85.8 percent tariffs on imports of circular welded pipe from China.52 

In the first study, petitioners’ economists used several econometric methods to measure the effect

of various market forces on the quantities and prices of domestically-produced circular welded pipe. For

2000 to 2007, the first study estimates monthly total pipe sales as a function of domestic, subject, and

nonsubject prices, the previous month’s pipe sales, current and leading non-residential construction

values, monthly indicators, the price of PVC resin (an input into plastic pipes, a possible substitute), an

indicator for the exit of Chinese material from the market, and a time trend. Petitioners’ economists

interpreted the results to say that the price of subject imports helped to explain changes in domestic sales

of circular welded pipe. At the hearing, the economist for the respondents criticized the model in four

ways: the results do not fit the data very well; there are key factors missing from the analysis; differing

types of pipe over-aggregated; and the model’s results are counter-intuitive in that prices for subject

imports have twice the impact on domestic sales than the price of domestic circular welded pipe itself.53

One of the study’s authors responded to these criticisms in a letter submitted to staff discounting these

criticisms and noting reasons why the model is still valid.54 

In the second part of the econometric analysis, the study’s authors looked at the timing of pricing

changes in the domestic market. They concluded that lagged hot-rolled steel prices were the main

determinant of domestic circular welded pipe prices. Also, lagged quantities of subject imports were

found to have some influence on domestic prices of circular welded pipe in three of four instances.55 

Petitioners also submitted a second, counterfactual simulation analysis to test the effect that

putting tariffs on subject imports might have had if duties were already in place.56 In their analysis,

market share, profits, revenues, shipments, and compensation to labor would be higher by about 10

percent (or more, depending on the inputs used), if the 85.8 percent combined tariffs were in place. If the

tariffs were large enough to become prohibitive, the effect would be greater. Respondents replied that

this type of analysis is too general and does not capture the real underlying market structure.57 The

economist that testified on behalf of petitioners replied that this type of analysis has been used in this

industry by the Commission in its recent Section 421 investigation of imported Chinese circular welded

pipe.58 

 1

 Since 2005, the circular welded pipe industry has experienced several mergers and acquisitions. In September

2005, Atlas Tube acquired the Copperweld Tube Group. In March 2006, Wheatland’s parent company, John

Maneely, was acquired by the Carlyle Group for $500 million. In June 2006, Maverick was acquired by Tenaris

S.A. (Argentina) for $3.2 billion. In September 2006, IPSCO acquired the NS Group for $1.5 billion. In October

2006, Atlas Tube was acquired by the Carlyle Group for $1.5 billion. In February 2007, John Maneely acquired

Sharon Tube for an undisclosed amount. In June 2007, Lone Star was acquired by U.S. Steel for $2.1 billion. In

March 2008, IPSCO was sold by its Swedish parent, SSAB Svenskt Stål AB, to Evraz Group S.A. (Russia) for $4

billion. Also in March 2008, Maruichi Tube acquired 60 percent of Leavitt Tube for $90 million. 

 2

 The largest U.S. producer of circular welded pipe, Wheatland, had several plant closures during the period of

investigation. In May 2006, Wheatland closed its Sharon, PA plant (the plant was formerly known as Sawhill

Tubular); in September 2007, Wheatland closed its Houston, TX and its Little Rock, AR facilities; and in December

2007, Wheatland closed its Collingswood, NJ facility. Hearing transcript, pp. 65-66 and ***. See table II-3 for

more information on operational changes for all U.S. producers of the subject product.

III-1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, 

AND EMPLOYMENT

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to all firms identified as domestic producers of

circular welded pipe and to other domestic firms identified by public sources as producers of welded pipe

(including standard and line pipe and structural tubing). Twenty-one firms that provided responses to the

Commission’s producer questionnaires in the final phase of the investigations are estimated to account for

more than 90 percent of U.S. production of circular welded pipe during 2007.1 2

Presented in table III-1 is a list of current domestic circular welded pipe producers, each

company’s position on the petition, production locations, related and/or affiliated firms, and their share of

2007 domestic production of circular welded pipe. Three producers, Wheatland, Allied, and Bull Moose,

together accounted for *** percent of reported 2007 production of circular welded pipe. 

Table III-1

Circular welded pipe: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, related and/or

affiliated firms, and shares of 2007 reported U.S. production of circular welded pipe

Firm name

Position on

petition

U.S. production

locations Related and/or affiliated firms

Share of

production

(percent)

Allied Petitioner

Harvey, IL

Philadelphia, PA

De Pere, WI

Pine Bluff, AR

Phoenix, AZ Tyco International (US)1 ***

American Support Birmingham, AL None ***

Atlas Support Chicago, IL John Maneely Co. (US)1 2 ***

Bull Moose Support Chesterfield, MO Caparo Industries PLC (UK)1 ***

California Steel Support Fontana, CA

JFE (US)3

Rio Doce LTD (US)3 ***

EXL Tube4 *** Kansas City, MO Steel & Pipe Supply Co.1 ***

Table continued on next page.
III-2

Table III-1--Continued

Circular welded pipe: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, related and/or

affiliated firms, and shares of 2007 reported U.S. production of circular welded pipe

Firm name

Position on

petition

U.S. production

locations Related and/or affiliated firms

Share of

production

(percent)

Hanna Support

Pekin, IL

Northport, AL Hanna Holdings (US)1 ***

IPSCO Petitioner

Camanche, IA

Blytheville, AR

IPSCO Inc. (Canada)1 5

SSAB (Sweden)1 6 ***

Leavitt Tube Support Chicago, IL None7 ***

Maruichi Support

Santa Fe

Springs, CA 

Maruichi Steel Tube Co., Ltd. (Japan)8

Metal One Corp. (Japan)9 ***

Maverick Support

Blytheville, AR

Hickman, AR

Counce, TN Tenaris S.A. (Luxemburg)1

 ***

Northwest Petitioner

Portland, OR

Houston, TX

Atchison, KS None ***

Sharon Tube Petitioner Sharon, PA John Maneely Co. (US)1 2 ***

Southland Tube *** Birmingham, AL None ***

Stupp Support Baton Rouge, LA Stupp Bros., Inc. (US)1 ***

Texas Tubular Support Lone Star, TX None ***

Tex-Tube *** Houston, TX

Visteel/Vi Capital (US)1

Tuberia Nacional (Mexico)11

S&P Steel12 ***

U.S. Steel

(Camp Hill)13 Support McKeesport, PA U.S. Steel Tubular (US)14 ***

U.S. Steel

Tubular15 Petitioner Dallas, TX

Lone Star Technologies (US)15

U.S. Steel Corp. (US)1 ***

Western Tube Petitioner Long Beach, CA

Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd.

(Japan)16

Sumitomo Corp. (Japan)

Sumitomo Corp. of America (US)

Sumikin Bussan International Corp. (US)

Sumitomo Pipe & Tube Co., Ltd. (Japan) ***

Wheatland Petitioner

Sharon, PA

Wheatland, PA

Warren, OH 

Chicago, IL 

Little Rock, AR

John Maneely Co. (US)2

DBO Holdings (US)1 ***

 Total 100.0

Footnotes continued on next page.
 3

 Six firms, ***, reported a decline in both capacity and production of circular welded pipe of more than 25

percent from 2005 to 2007.

 4

 Wheatland, the largest producer of circular welded pipe, shut down its Sharon, PA pipe plant in 2006 in which it 

had invested $25 million in plant upgrades. In September 2007, Wheatland closed its Little Rock, AR facility. 

Petitioners claimed that the subject imports prevented the domestic industry from benefitting financially during the

strong demand conditions for circular welded pipe in the United States from 2005 to 2007. Petitioners’ posthearing

brief, pp. 6-7 and hearing transcript, pp. 67-68 (Kerin).

 5

 Staff calculated the capacity to produce circular welded pipe for *** to be equal to their actual production of the

subject pipe due to *** for these companies. For ***, staff calculated its capacity to produce circular welded pipe

by allocating *** percent of overall capacity, consistent with that company’s estimate of circular welded pipe as a

share of total welded pipe sales. *** offered two methods of calculating its capacity to produce circular welded

pipe. The first methodology allocates subject capacity for 2005, 2006, and 2007 based on its capacity allocation in

2005. The second approach, as it more fully captures changing market conditions for subject and nonsubject pipe, is

used by staff to calculate capacity utiliation. Letter from ***, April 23, 2008, attachment 2.

III-3

Table III-1--Continued

Circular welded pipe: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, related and/or

affiliated firms, and shares of 2007 reported U.S. production of circular welded 

 1 Parent.

 2

 Atlas, Sharon Tube, and Wheatland Tube are sister companies. 

 3

 ***-percent owner.

 4

 Also known as Steel Ventures, Inc.

 5

 Foreign producer and/or exporter.

 6

 Evraz Group SA and TMK (Russia) purchased SAAB’s (Sweden) IPSCO tubular facilities in North America for $4 billion on

March 14, 2008.

 7

 Maruichi Steel Tube Ltd. acquired *** percent equity of Leavitt (Chicago) from private investors in March 2008. Sumitomo

Corp. of America still owns *** percent of Leavitt.

 8

 *** percent owner and/or exporter.

 9

 *** percent owner.

 10 Less than 0.05 percent.

 11 Sister company and exporter.

 12 Sister company and importer.

 13 Production by Camp-Hill Corp. takes place under a toll agreement with U.S. Steel.

 14 Sister company.

 15 Formerly known as Lone Star. Lone Star Technologies was sold to U.S. Steel Corp. for $2.1 billion, effective June 15,

2007.

 16 Extent of ownership is as follows: Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. (Japan), *** percent; Sumitomo Corp. (Japan), ***

percent; Sumitomo Corp. of America (US), *** percent; Sumikin Bussan International Corp. (US), *** percent; and Sumitomo Pipe

& Tube Co., Ltd. (Japan), *** percent.

Note.–Because of rounding, shares may not total 100.0 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for circular welded pipe are

presented in table III-2. These data show a decline in the capacity to produce circular welded pipe of 13.7

percent from 2005 to 2007.3 4

 In contrast, production of circular welded pipe increased overall by 5.1

percent from 2005 to 2007. Capacity utilization rose overall by 11.8 percentage points from 2005 to

2007.5
 6

 Petitioners argued that the “major U.S. producers of circular welded pipe are not major players in the energy

tubular markets, and the vast majority of expansion of line pipe and OCTG production has been players who are

very minimal in the circular welded pipe market.” Petitioners also contended that, there is no restraint on circular

welded pipe product since the industry has a “significant amount of excess capacity” and that there is “no basis for

the assertion that imports from China were simply drawn into the U.S. market by an unwillingness of domestic

producers to supply the increasing demand because they were shifting to other products.” Petitioners’ posthearing

brief, exh. C, pp. 2 and 4.

 7

 CCCMC respondents reported that the “strong demand for energy tubulars had the effect of limiting domestic

supply of circular welded pipe since the {U.S.} domestic market shifted both capacity and production to more

profitable products. By making this shift, the demand for imported circular welded pipe to fill the void in expanding

domestic demand, resulting in both nonsubject sources and imports from China to increase over the same period in

an amount comparable to the shift in production.” CCCMC posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 29.

III-4

Table III-2

Circular welded pipe: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2005-07

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007

Capacity (short tons)

1 2,571,019 2,405,229 2,219,300

Production (short tons) 1,385,959 1,383,110 1,457,128

Capacity utilization (percent) 53.9 57.5 65.7

 1 The majority of U.S. producers reported capacity (production capability) based on operating 120-168 hours per

week, 52 weeks per year; however, five firms reported capacity based on operating fewer hours per week. ***

reported capacity based on operating *** hours per week, respectively.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

In the Commission’s questionnaire, 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 circular welded

pipe since January 1, 2005. Ten firms reported such changes; their responses to this question are

presented in table III-3.

Table III-3

Circular welded pipe: U.S. producers’ comments concerning plant openings, relocations,

expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, closures, or prolonged shutdowns

* * * * * * *

*** of the U.S. producers of circular welded pipe that responded to the Commission’s

questionnaire reported producing other products on the same equipment and machinery and using the

same production and related workers employed in the production of circular welded pipe.6 7

 In the

aggregate, the producers reported the following products that were produced using the same production

and related workers employed to produce circular welded pipe and those products’ shares of total plant

production in 2007: subject circular welded pipe (26.6 percent); small/medium line pipe (13.9 percent);

large diameter line pipe (7.0 percent); OCTG (20.5 percent); and other products (32.0 percent). Firms

were also asked to provide total annual production and capacity to produce all products. Aggregate data

for the firms are presented in table III-4.
III-5

Table III-4

Circular welded pipe: U.S. producers’ total plant capacity and production, by products, 2005-07

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons), except as noted

Total plant capacity1 8,437,707 8,462,713 8,333,849

Production:

Subject circular welded pipe 1,385,546 1,383,257 1,457,376

Small/medium line pipe2 3 586,942 763,625 761,517

Large diameter line pipe4 5 *** *** ***

OCTG6 1,355,970 1,362,761 1,120,854

Other7 8 *** *** ***

Total, all products 5,270,268 5,596,976 5,473,154

Total plant capacity utilization (percent) 62.5 66.1 65.7

 1 The majority of U.S. producers reported capacity (production capability) based on operating 120-168 hours per

week, 52 weeks per year; however, five firms reported capacity based on operating fewer hours per week. ***

reported capacity based on operating *** hours per week, respectively.

 2

 Welded line pipe 16 inches or less in outside diameter (excluding dual-stenciled pipe with one or more of the

following characteristics: 32 feet in length or less; less than 2 inches in outside diameter; galvanized and/or painted

surface finish; or threaded and/or coupled end finish used in standard/structural applications). 

 3

 Eleven out of 21 producers of subject circular welded pipe also produced small/medium line pipe in 2007. 

These 11 producers’ production of subject circular welded pipe on shared equipment accounted for *** percent of

total subject circular welded pipe production in 2007.

 4

 Welded line pipe greater than 16 inches in outside diameter.

 5

 Three out of 21 producers of subject circular welded pipe also produced large diameter line pipe in 2007. 

These three producers’ production of subject circular welded pipe on shared equipment accounted for *** percent of

total subject circular welded pipe production in 2007.

 6

 Six out of 21 producers of subject circular welded pipe also produced OCTG pipe in 2007. These six

producers’ production of subject circular welded pipe on shared equipment accounted for *** percent of total subject

circular welded pipe production in 2007.

 7

 Other products include the following: rigid conduit, EMT, electrical conduit, mechanical rounds and shapes,

Gal-Z rounds and shapes, welded standard pipe greater than 16 inches OD, special fabrication casing, ASTM A500

Grade A, Grade B square and rectangular tube, drawn over mandrel (“DOM”) tubing, hot finished tubing (“HFT”),

squares and rectangles 1 inch to 16 inch OD, AWWA and ASTM pipe in 18 to 24 inch OD, and mill crop ends.

 8

 Fifteen out of 21 producers of subject circular welded pipe also produced other pipe in 2007. These 15

producers’ production of subject circular welded pipe on shared equipment accounted for *** percent of total subject

circular welded pipe production in 2007.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Data on domestic producers’ shipments of circular welded pipe are presented in table III-5. 

Domestic commercial sales accounted for *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of circular

welded pipe and *** percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments in 2007. The domestic producers

reported about *** percent of total U.S. shipments as transfers of circular welded pipe to related firms and
 8

 Transfers to related companies and internal consumption are accounted for by *** firms, ***.

 9 See Part IV, table IV-11 for more details on U.S. producers’ shipments of circular welded pipe.

III-6

approximately *** percent of total U.S. shipments as internal consumption during 2007.8 The majority of

U.S. producers’ shipments were sold to meet ASTM specifications, less than or equal to 4.5 inches in

diameter, plain end/square cut, with the black finish, and in single random lengths.9

Table III-5

Circular welded pipe: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2005-07

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

Commercial shipments *** *** ***

Internal consumption1 *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms2 *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 1,381,578 1,338,934 1,422,667

Export shipments 37,605 30,514 48,668

Total shipments 1,419,183 1,369,448 1,471,335

Value ($1,000)

Commercial shipments *** *** ***

Internal consumption1 *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms2 *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 1,362,886 1,314,637 1,350,791

Export shipments 37,375 28,082 44,193

Total shipments 1,400,261 1,342,719 1,394,984

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

Commercial shipments *** *** ***

Internal consumption1 *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms2 *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 986 982 949

Export shipments 994 920 908

Total shipments 987 980 948

Table continued on next page.
 10 Export shipments were reported by ***.

III-7

Table III-5--Continued

Circular welded pipe: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2005-07

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007

Share of quantity (percent)

Commercial shipments *** *** ***

Internal consumption1 *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms2 *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 97.4 97.8 96.7

Export shipments 2.6 2.2 3.3

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Commercial shipments *** *** ***

Internal consumption1 *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms2 *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 97.3 97.9 96.8

Export shipments 2.7 2.1 3.2

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 The large majority (***) of the internal consumption reported are accounted for by ***. *** reported that its data

do not reconcile due to “scrap generation/loss, timing of shipments, and international consumption of products being

changed into nonsubject products.” *** producer questionnaire, revised May 5, 2008.

 2

 The large majority of transfers to related firms (*** short tons in 2007) were accounted for by ***’s transfers to

its sister company, ***. ***. In addition, ***.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Exports of circular welded pipe were reported by nine domestic circular welded pipe producers.10

These exports accounted for approximately three percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments during 2005-

07. All nine producers reported Canada as their primary export market, although Mexico was also cited

by one domestic producer.

Commercial U.S. shipments fluctuated during 2005-07, as ten firms (***) reported higher

commercial U.S. shipment quantities in 2007 when compared to 2005. Eleven firms (***) reported lower

commercial U.S. shipment quantities in 2007 than in 2005.

*** firms reported involvement in toll agreements concerning the production of circular welded

pipe. *** reported a toll agreement with ***, *** reported toll agreements with ***, and *** reported

toll agreements with ***. No firm reported production of circular welded pipe in a Foreign Trade Zone.
 11 ***.

 12 ***.

 13 ***.

III-8

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Data collected in these investigations on domestic producers’ end-of-period inventories of

circular welded pipe are presented in table III-6. *** firms, ***, together accounted for the majority of

the inventories held during the period for which data were collected. ***’s reduction of its inventories

from *** short tons in 2006 to *** short tons in 2007 accounted for the largest share of the decline of

inventories in 2007.

Table III-6

Circular welded pipe: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2005-07

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007

Inventories (short tons) 197,527 192,877 166,336

Ratio of inventories to production (percent) 14.3 13.9 11.4

Ratio of inventories to U.S. shipments (percent) 14.3 14.4 11.7

Ratio of inventories to total shipments (percent) 13.9 14.1 11.3

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

No U.S. producers reported direct imports of circular welded pipe from China during the period

for which data were collected.11 Data concerning U.S. producers’ purchases of imported and domestically

produced circular welded pipe are shown in table III-7. Two producers, ***12 and ***,13 reported

purchases from importers of circular welded pipe from China. *** reported purchases of circular welded

pipe from importers of product from nonsubject sources. *** purchased circular welded pipe from

domestic producers, citing size as the primary purchase factor. *** purchased circular welded pipe from

another source (***), citing production plant conveyance usage as the reason for purchase.

Table III-7

Circular welded pipe: Purchases by U.S. producers, 2005-07

* * * * * * *
III-9

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for circular welded pipe are presented in table

III-8. In the aggregate, U.S. circular welded pipe producers reported an overall decline of 3.1 percent in

the number of production and related workers employed in the manufacture of circular welded pipe

during 2005-07. The number of hours worked by these employees decreased by 3.0 percent while wages

paid grew by less than one percent from 2005 to 2007. Hourly wages paid and productivity both

increased overall (primarily in 2007), while unit labor costs decreased throughout this period.

Table III-8

Circular welded pipe: U.S. producers’ employment-related indicators, 2005-07

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007

Production and related workers (PRWs) 2,528 2,451 2,450

Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 4,773 4,733 4,630

Wages paid to PRWs (1,000 dollars) 103,195 100,393 104,073

Hourly wages $21.62 $21.21 $22.48

Productivity (short tons produced per 1,000 hours) 290.4 292.2 314.7

Unit labor costs (per short ton) $74.46 $72.58 $71.42

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 1

 Coverage of imports is based on the total reported imports compared with official statistics, adjusted for

nonsubject mechanical tubing from Canada and adding reported micro-alloy and dual-stencil pipe imports.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

In response to Commission questionnaires sent to importers in these investigations, 32 firms

supplied usable data. Presented in table IV-1 are the responding 32 U.S. importers’ shares of U.S.

imports in 2007. Responding importers are believed to account for 82.6 percent of imports from China

and for 75.3 percent of imports from other sources during 2007.1

Table IV-1

Circular welded pipe: U.S. importers, locations, related and/or affiliated firms, shares of U.S. imports from

China, and shares of U.S. imports from all other sources, 2007

Firm name Location Related and/or affiliated firms

Share of U.S. imports

 from China 

(percent)

 from all other

sources 

(percent)

ArcelorMittal Montreal, QC

ArcelorMittal1

ArcelorMittal P&T Canada2

Mittal Steel Poland2

Mittal Steel Ostrava2

Mittal Steel Jakl Karvina2

Mittal Steel Iasi2

Mittal Steel Galati2

Mittal Steel Temirtau2

Mittal Steel Aktau2 *** ***

B & K

Industries Elk Grove Village, IL

Mueller Industries, Inc.1

Mueller Comercial de Mexico3 *** ***

Commercial

Metals Irving, TX None. *** ***

Corus

International Schaumburg, IL Tata Steel Ltd.1 *** ***

Duferco Steel Matawan, NJ

Nina Finance1

Duferco SA3

Tubac SA2 *** ***

Hyosung

America Brea, CA None. *** ***

Hyundai CA Gardena, CA

Hyundai Corporation1

Hyundai NJ2 *** ***

Hyundai NJ Englewood Cliffs, NJ

Hyundai Corporation1

Hyundai CA2 *** ***

IPSCO

Tubular Camanche, IA IPSCO Inc.1

 *** ***

Table continued on next page.
IV-2

Table IV-1--Continued

Circular welded pipe: U.S. importers, locations, related and/or affiliated firms, shares of U.S. imports from

China, and shares of U.S. imports from all other sources, 2007

Firm name Location Related and/or affiliated firms

Share of U.S. imports

 from China 

(percent)

 from all other

sources 

(percent)

James Steel Torrance, CA None. *** ***

Kumkang Orange, CA Kumkang Industries, Co., Ltd. (***%)2 *** ***

Kurt Orbane Burlingame, CA None. *** ***

Macsteel 

27 locations in CA,

GA, HI, IL, IN, MI, NC,

NH, NY, OH, OK, PA,

SC, TN, TX, and VA

Macsteel Global B.V.1

Asoma3

Macsteel Pipe & Tube2 *** ***

MAN

Ferrostaal Houston, TX

MAN Capital Corp.1

Ferrostaal GmbH3 *** ***

MC Tubular Houston, TX Metal One Holding America, Inc.1 *** ***

MinMetals Pomona, CA China Minmetals Group Corp.1 *** ***

Mueller Metals San Angelo, TX None. *** ***

Nippon Steel Los Angeles, CA Nippon Steel Trading1 *** ***

Okaya USA

Houston, TX

Torrance, CA Okaya & Co., Ltd.1 *** ***

Oxbow Steel Pleasant Hill, CA None. *** ***

QT Trading Wilmington, DE None. *** ***

S&P Steel Laredo, TX

VI Industries, Inc.1

Tuberia Nacional3

Tex-Tube4 *** ***

SDB Trade Pasadena, TX SDB Trade, LLC (***%) *** ***

SeAH Steel Santa Fe Springs, CA SeAH Steel Corp. (***%)2 *** ***

Shamrock Eugene, OR None. *** ***

Stemcor USA New York, NY Stemcor Holdings, Ltd.1 *** ***

Sunbelt Group Houston, TX

Sunbelt Group, Inc. (***%)

Femet Enterprises Corp. (***%) *** ***

Tata New York, NY

Tata Steel Limited1

Tata Steel Tubes Division2 *** ***

Toyota Tsusho Houston, TX Toyota Tsusho Corp.1 *** ***

Tusco Pipe Tuscaloosa, AL None. *** ***

Uniwire New York, NY None. *** ***

Western

International Portland, OR Forest City Trading Group1 *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0

 1 Parent.

 2

 Foreign producer.

 3

 Importer/exporter; sister company.

 4

 Domestic producer; sister company.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 2

 The characteristic-based definition of subject dual-stenciled pipe in the final phase of these investigations is

more specific than the definition used during the preliminary phase of the investigations (pipe “used or intended for

use in standard and structural applications”).

IV-3

U.S. IMPORTS

Subject Imports from China

U.S. imports (table IV-2) are based on official import statistics of Commerce, as modified to

include micro-alloy steel pipe and multiple-stenciled pipe with one or more of the following

characteristics: 32 feet or less in length; less than 2 inches in outside diameter; galvanized and/or painted

surface finish; or threaded and/or coupled end finish (based on questionnaire responses); and to exclude

mechanical tubing (based on Statistics Canada data) from Canada.2

The U.S. import data for China show an increase both in quantity and value in each year between

2005 and 2007. The unit value of circular welded pipe imported from China declined from $642 per short

ton in 2005 to $580 per short ton in 2006, before rising in 2007 to $629 per short ton. The U.S. import

data for all other sources show an overall decline in both quantity and value from 2005 to 2007, despite

increasing in 2006.

Table IV-2

Circular welded pipe: U.S. imports, by sources, 2005-07

Source

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

China 382,122 715,728 748,181

All other sources 600,574 660,381 406,280

Total 982,696 1,376,109 1,154,462

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

China 245,357 415,197 470,787

Nonsubject sources 490,728 507,222 363,801

Total 736,086 922,419 834,588

Unit value (per short ton)

1

China $642 $580 $629

Nonsubject sources 817 768 895

Average 749 670 723

Share of quantity (percent)

China 38.9 52.0 64.8

Nonsubject sources 61.1 48.0 35.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table continued on next page.
 3

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(ii).

 4

 Similarly, as calculated in the preliminary phase of these investigations, “For the most recent 12-month period

prior to the filing of the petition for which adjusted data are available (April 2006 - March 2007), imports of circular

welded pipe from China accounted for 59.3 percent of total imports of circular welded pipe.” Circular Welded

Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-447 and 731-TA-1116 (Preliminary), USITC

Publication 3938, July 2007, p. IV-4, fn. 2.

IV-4

Table IV-2--Continued

Circular welded pipe: U.S. imports, by sources, 2005-07

Share of value (percent)

China 33.3 45.0 56.4

Nonsubject sources 66.7 55.0 43.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 Landed, duty-paid.

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires (micro-alloy and dual-stenciled

pipe), petitioners’ postconference brief, exhibit 22 (imports from Canada for 2005-06), petitioners’ e-mail on April 9,

2008 (imports from Canada for 2007), and official Commerce statistics.

Negligibility

The Tariff Act of 1930 provides for the termination of an investigation if imports of the subject

product from a country are less than 3 percent of total imports, or, if there is more than one such country,

their combined share is less than or equal to 7 percent of total imports, during the most recent 12 months

for which data are available preceding the filing of the petition.3

 On an aggregated basis, subject imports

accounted for 65.0 percent of total imports of circular welded pipe by quantity between June 2006 and

May 2007.4

 Table IV-3 presents data on U.S. imports in the one-year period beginning in June 2006 by

source.

Table IV-3

Circular welded pipe: U.S. imports, by source, June 2006 to May 2007 

Source

June 2006 - May 2007

Quantity (short tons) Share (percent)

China, subject 727,566 65.0

All others, nonsubject 391,925 35.0

Total 1,119,491 100.0

Note.--Data presented in this table do not include subject dual-stenciled pipe or subject pipe produced from microalloy steel.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics for statistical reporting numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025,

7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090 and from petitioners’ e-mail on June

4, 2008 (monthly imports from Canada for February 2005 to March 2008).
 5 Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 31966,

June 5, 2008 and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Affirmative Final

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of

China, 73 FR 31970, June 5, 2008.

 6

 Section 705(b)(4)(A)(I) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)(4)(A)(I)); section 735(b)(4)(A)(I) of the Act (19

U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4)(A)(I)).

 7

 Section 705(b)(4)(A)iii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)(4)(A)(ii)); section 735(b)(4)(A)iii) of the Act (19

U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4)(A)(ii)).

 8

 Petitioners argued that the Commission should find critical circumstances in these investigations, claiming that

“Chinese exporters intentionally accelerated their shipments to the United States before Commerce’s preliminary

determination, causing both a surge in imports and increased the total import volume in the U.S. industry.” In

addition, they claim that importers “deliberately chose a course of accelerated shipments to undermine the domestic

industry’s remedy, rather than a steady-as-you-go approach that would have avoided creating critical

circumstances.” Petitioners contend that the Commission should compare the imports in the five-month period of

June-October 2007 to the five-month period from January-May 2007, or the three-month period before and after the

petition’s filing. Petitioners’ posthearing brief, p. 9 and exh. A, pp. 2 and 13.

 9

 The standard pipe importers’ coalition respondents argued that subject imports decreased following the filing of

the petition, inventories of imports also declined in 2007 compared to 2006, and that “virtually all imports that

arrived in the United States in June would have been shipped before June 7 due to a three- to five-months lead time

in circular welded pipe.” These respondents contend that June 2007 should be considered a pre-petition period. 

Standard pipe importers' coalition’s posthearing brief, p. 1 and exh. 1, pp. 2-3. Similarly, respondents MAN

Ferrostaal, Commercial Metals, and QT Trading also claim that June 2007 should be considered a pre-petition

month, noting hearing testimony that “the average time between the bill of lading and the actual delivery of circular

welded pipe in the United States is approximately three to five weeks, and thus imports during June 2007 were

ordered and in most cases even shipped in advance of the June 7th petition filing date.” MAN Ferrostaal,

Commercial Metals, and QT Trading’s posthearing brief, p. 3. In addition, importer Western International argued

that the Commission should make negative critical circumstances determinations in these investigations, asserting

that average lead times for circular welded pipe are typically 120 days or longer and that “post-petition imports were

made in response to orders taken in the normal course of business months prior to the filing of the petition.” The

(continued...)

IV-5

Critical Circumstances

On June 4, 2008, Commerce made final countervailing and antidumping duty determinations that

critical circumstances exist with regard to all imports of circular welded pipe from China.5

If the Commission determines that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason

of subsidized and LTFV imports of circular welded pipe from China, it must further determine “whether

the imports subject to the affirmative {Commerce critical circumstances} determination . . . are likely to

undermine seriously the remedial effect of the antidumping or countervailing duty order to be issued.”6

The statute further provides that in making this determination, the Commission shall consider: 

(I) the timing and the volume of the imports,

(II) a rapid increase in inventories of the imports, and

(III) any other circumstances indicating that the remedial effect of the antidumping or

countervailing duty order will be seriously undermined.7

Table IV-4 presents data on monthly imports of circular welded pipe from China before

(December 2006 to May 2007) and after (June 2007 to November 2007) the filing of the petition on June

7, 2007. These data reflect U.S. imports of circular welded pipe from all firms in China since no firm in

China is exempt from both the countervailing duty and antidumping duty determinations by Commerce.8 9
 9

 (...continued)

company asserts that June 2007 should be considered a pre-petition period. Western International reported that it

canceled approximately one-third of its open orders after the filing of the petition. Western International’s

posthearing brief, pp. 3-4.

 10 See table E-1 for data on the quarterly presence of imports of circular welded pipe from China from 2005 to

2007 and January-March 2008.

IV-6

Table IV-4

Circular welded pipe: U.S. imports from China subject to Commerce’s final affirmative critical

circumstance determinations, December 2006 to November 2007

Year/month

Monthly imports1

(official statistics)

Quarterly imports

(questionnaires)

Quantity (short tons)

2006 December 44,702

102,227

2007 January 55,523

February 27,689

March 57,504

131,769

April 56,201

May 88,063

 Subtotal, pre-petition 329,683 233,996

Quantity (short tons)

2007 June 94,829

215,746

July 86,840

August 96,366

September 51,576

115,873

October 47,375

November 16,620

 Subtotal, post-petition 393,606 331,619

 Total 723,288 565,615

 1 Monthly data do not include subject dual-stenciled pipe or subject pipe produced from micro-alloy steel.

Source: Monthly data compiled from official Commerce statistics for statistical reporting numbers 7306.30.1000,

7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090 and quarterly data

compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

Because of the variability demonstrated in the preceding monthly data, table IV-5 presents data

on the monthly presence of circular welded pipe imports from China from 2005 to 2007 and JanuaryMarch 2008.10
IV-7

Table IV-5

Circular welded pipe: U.S. imports from China, by month, 2005-07 and January-March 2008

Month

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (short tons)

January 25,509 42,431 55,523 1,433

February 23,791 32,761 27,689 1,969

March 18,684 40,360 57,504 1,011

April 44,878 44,875 56,201 (1

)

May 30,006 46,704 88,063 (1)

June 42,151 36,233 94,829 (1

)

July 30,287 59,712 86,840 (1

)

August 32,294 93,184 96,366 (1

)

September 32,963 78,279 51,576 (1

)

October 32,147 72,518 47,375 (1

)

November 25,644 57,958 16,620 (1

)

December 33,848 44,702 1,725 (1

)

Total 372,202 649,718 680,311 (1

)

 1 Not available.

Note.–Data presented in this table do not include subject dual-stenciled pipe or subject pipe produced from

micro-alloy steel.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics for statistical reporting numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025,

7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090.

Nonsubject Sources of Imports

Nonsubject imports of circular welded pipe, both covered and not covered by a countervailing or

antidumping duty order or suspension agreement, are presented in table IV-6. Seven countries - Canada,

India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey - consistently accounted for the majority of

nonsubject imports during 2005-07.
IV-8

Table IV-6

Circular welded pipe: U.S. imports from nonsubject countries, by sources, 2005-07

Source

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

Covered by order or suspension agreement

Brazil 1,784 570 386

India 38,416 47,856 14,060

Korea 34,867 44,348 31,437

Mexico 72,601 74,808 64,935

Taiwan 20,369 43,038 33,306

Thailand 80,799 77,832 47,736

Turkey 40,763 31,797 3,146

 Total (covered) 289,600 320,248 195,006

Not covered by order or suspension agreement

Canada 51,521 50,561 49,778

Japan 25,062 18,453 20,019

Venezuela 8,978 15,846 8,686

Oman 16,433 16,112 6,446

Dominican Republic 5,008 3,374 4,948

Philippines 13,265 3,265 4,888

Vietnam 216 2,279 3,227

Switzerland 1,565 1,487 2,748

Colombia 25,062 15,463 2,547

United Arab Emirates 7,717 6,389 2,219

All other sources 73,832 76,142 11,004

Dual-stenciled line pipe 82,316 130,762 94,764

Subtotal (not covered) 310,975 340,132 211,275

Total nonsubject imports 600,574 660,381 406,280

Table continued on next page.
IV-9

Table IV-6--Continued

Circular welded pipe: U.S. imports from nonsubject countries, by sources, 2005-07

Source

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007

Value (1,000 dollars)

Covered by order or suspension agreement

Brazil 1,807 841 696

India 27,768 32,145 12,848

Korea 28,524 35,399 29,031

Mexico 64,314 61,461 52,858

Taiwan 13,005 26,302 22,296

Thailand 58,397 52,738 36,736

Turkey 27,851 21,087 3,295

 Total (covered) 221,666 229,974 157,760

Not covered by order or suspension agreement

Canada 45,539 45,362 45,020

Japan 35,533 24,665 25,470

Venezuela 9,083 13,504 10,407

Oman 11,158 10,470 4,606

Dominican Republic 3,097 2,512 5,446

Philippines 9,027 1,863 3,416

Vietnam 151 1,284 2,355

Switzerland 4,589 5,166 9,185

Colombia 20,742 12,719 2,521

United Arab Emirates 7,173 5,340 1,823

All other sources 60,632 56,617 18,609

Dual-stenciled line pipe 62,337 97,748 77,184

Subtotal (not covered) 269,062 277,248 206,041

Total nonsubject imports 490,728 507,222 363,801

Table continued on next page.
IV-10

Table IV-6--Continued

Circular welded pipe: U.S. imports from nonsubject countries, by sources, 2005-07

Source

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

Covered by order or suspension agreement

Brazil 1,013 1,475 1,804

India 723 672 914

Korea 818 798 923

Mexico 886 822 814

Taiwan 638 611 669

Thailand 723 678 770

Turkey 683 663 1,047

 Total (covered) 765 718 809

Not covered by order or suspension agreement

Canada 884 897 904

Japan 1,418 1,337 1,272

Venezuela 1,012 852 1,198

Oman 679 650 714

Dominican Republic 618 744 1,101

Philippines 680 571 699

Vietnam 701 564 730

Switzerland 2,932 3,475 3,342

Colombia 828 823 990

United Arab Emirates 930 836 821

All other sources 821 744 1,691

Dual-stenciled line pipe 757 748 814

 Subtotal (not covered) 865 815 975

Total nonsubject imports 817 768 895

Note.--Value data are calculated based on the average unit values for all imports from Canada entered under the

specified statistical reporting numbers.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires for dual-stenciled pipe (no U.S.

importer reported imports of micro-alloy pipe from nonsubject sources), from petitioners’ postconference brief,

exhibit 22 (imports from Canada for 2005-06), from petitioners’ e-mail on April 9, 2008 (imports from Canada for

2007), and from official Commerce statistics.
IV-11

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data collected in these investigations concerning apparent U.S. consumption of circular welded

pipe, as shown in table IV-7, are based on U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of circular welded pipe

provided in response to Commission questionnaires and U.S. imports from official statistics as adjusted to

include dual-stenciled line pipe and micro-alloy steel pipe and to exclude mechanical tubing from

Canada. The quantity of apparent U.S. consumption fluctuated, but increased by 9.0 percent from 2005

to 2007. 

Table IV-7

Circular welded pipe: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. imports, by sources, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 2005-07

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 1,381,578 1,338,934 1,422,667

U.S. imports from--

China 382,122 715,728 748,181

Nonsubject countries 600,574 660,381 406,280

Total U.S. imports 982,696 1,376,109 1,154,462

Apparent U.S. consumption 2,364,274 2,715,043 2,577,129

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 1,362,886 1,314,637 1,350,791

U.S. imports from–

China1 245,357 415,197 470,787

Nonsubject countries1 490,728 507,222 363,801

Total U.S. imports1 736,086 922,419 834,588

Apparent U.S. consumption 2,098,972 2,237,056 2,185,379

1

 Landed, duty paid.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires (micro-alloy and dual-stenciled

pipe), from petitioners’ postconference brief, exhibit 22 (imports from Canada for 2005-06), from petitioners’ e-mail

on April 9, 2008 (imports from Canada for 2007), and from official Commerce statistics.
IV-12

U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share data are presented in table IV-8. U.S. producers’ share of the domestic market

fell from 2005 to 2006, but grew in 2007, with a net loss from 2005 to 2007. The share of the domestic

market accounted for by subject imports from China grew in quantity throughout 2005 to 2007.

Nonsubject import market shares declined in 2006 and 2007. 

 

Table IV-8

Circular welded pipe: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, 2005-07 

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

Apparent U.S. consumption 2,364,274 2,715,043 2,577,129

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 2,098,972 2,237,056 2,185,379

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 58.4 49.3 55.2

U.S. imports from--

China 16.2 26.4 29.0

Nonsubject countries 25.4 24.3 15.8

Total U.S. imports 41.6 50.7 44.8

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 64.9 58.8 61.8

U.S. imports from--

China 11.7 18.6 21.5

Nonsubject countries 23.4 22.7 16.6

Total U.S. imports 35.1 41.2 38.2

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires (micro-alloy and dual-stenciled

pipe), from petitioners’ postconference brief, exhibit 22 (imports from Canada for 2005-06), from petitioners’ e-mail

on April 9, 2008 (imports from Canada for 2007), and from official Commerce statistics.
IV-13

RATIO OF U.S. IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production of circular welded pipe is

presented in table IV-9. Subject imports were equivalent to 27.6 percent of U.S. production in 2005. 

This level increased to 51.7 percent in 2006, then fell slightly to 51.3 percent in 2007.

Table IV-9

Circular welded pipe: Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production, by sources, 2005-07

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

China 27.6 51.7 51.3

Nonsubject countries 43.3 47.7 27.9

All countries 70.9 99.5 79.2

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires (micro-alloy and dual-stenciled

pipe), from petitioners’ postconference brief, exhibit 22 (imports from Canada for 2005-06), from petitioners’ e-mail

on April 9, 2008 (imports from Canada for 2007), and from official Commerce statistics.

COMPARISON OF U.S.-PRODUCED AND IMPORTED CIRCULAR WELDED PIPE

Information concerning the physical attributes of U.S.-produced and imported circular welded

pipe is presented in table IV-10. As shown in the following table, the majority of circular welded pipe

from all sources is certified to ASTM specifications, sometimes in conjunction with API specifications. 

Subject and nonsubject imports are generally certified to ASTM A-53. Domestically produced circular

welded pipe is certified to the general ASTM A-53 specification, fire suppression specifications, and

certain structural specifications. Smaller sizes of circular welded pipe in single random lengths are the

most commonly sold forms of subject pipe. The majority of circular welded pipe is sold with a black

finish, although a substantial minority of U.S.- and Chinese-produced circular welded pipe is sold with a

galvanized finish. U.S.-produced circular welded pipe is generally sold with plain ends, while imports are

sold both plain-end and beveled.
IV-14

Table IV-10

Circular welded pipe: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ reported U.S. shipments, by certification, grade,

size, end finish, surface finish, and length, by sources, 2007

Item

Share of U.S. shipments (in percent)

of circular welded pipe produced in:

United States China

All other

countries

By certification:

Stenciled to meet only ASTM specifications 76.6 83.1 56.9

Stenciled to both ASTM & API specifications 1.9 10.1 37.3

Stenciled to proprietary specifications 0.8 2.2 0.0

Not stenciled to any specification 8.3 1.0 3.3

Other1 12.5 3.6 2.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

By grade:

ASTM A-53A *** 57.7 41.6

ASTM A-53B *** 26.6 42.6

 ASTM A-135/795 14.3 0.7 4.3

ASTM A-500/A-252 12.5 1.5 0.1

Other2 26.0 13.6 11.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

By size (outside diameter):

Less than or equal to 4.5" 79.5 54.3 62.1

Greater than 4.5 inches but less than or equal to 10.75" 17.1 35.4 23.3

Greater than 10.75" but less than or equal to 16" 3.5 10.3 14.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

By end finish:

Plain end/square cut 68.3 43.6 19.3

Beveled 12.6 39.6 62.2

Threaded or threaded & coupled 9.3 16.8 16.5

Other3 9.8 0.0 2.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

By surface finish:

Black 65.3 66.2 82.1

Painted 1.6 2.6 8.5

Galvanized 28.1 31.2 9.2

Other4 5.0 0.0 0.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

By length:

Single random lengths (approximately 20 feet) 84.1 68.5 66.4

Double random lengths (approximately 40 feet) 9.2 21.7 28.8

Triple random lengths (approximately 60 feet) 0.4 0.1 0.0

Other5 6.4 9.7 4.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Footnotes continued on next page
IV-15

 1 Domestic producers included the following in the “other” category: fence, 18-24 inch ASTM and API grades; 10 3/4-24 inch

mill crop ends; 10 3/4 inch abrasive resistant pipe; 10 3/4-16 inch API line pipe; A-500; less than 2.875 inch OD. Importers

included the following: API; API/ASTM dual for line pipe application; API/ASTM dual for oil/gas transmission; BS-1387; ANSI C80.1 

 2

 Domestic producers included the following in the “other” category: no stencil fence; 18-24 inch ASTM and API grades; API

SL-X-grades; A 513; A 847; API; API dual/GR3; proprietary (C.P.); X46-X52 fence products F1083 and F1043. Importers included

the following: API X42/5LB/ASTM A-53B triple or dual grade; ASTM and/or API limited service; BS-1387; A-523 grade A; A587/SW; UL-6 rigid conduit; ANSI C-80.1; ASTM A-53B/ASME SA-5331/API 5LB/X42; A-53B/API grade (B and/or X42); A-1043;

ASTM A-513 medium tube. 

 3

 Domestic producers included the following in the “other” category: roll grove; victoria ends. Importers included the following: 

grooved and/or sledged.

 4

 Domestic producers included the following in the “other” category: bare unbolted pipe; UV fence coating. Importers included

structural pipe in this category.

 5

 Domestic producers included the following in the “other” category: approximately 100 feet. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 1

 *** and *** as inputs to their circular welded pipe products.

 2 According to 18 responding producers, steel, by far the largest raw material input, accounted for 73.0 percent of

their cost of goods sold in 2005, 71.8 percent in 2006, and 74.5 percent in 2007, on a weighted-average basis.

 3 The reported figures for variable and fixed costs were weighted by each responding firm’s reported cost of

goods sold to derive a weighted-average figure for the industry. The U.S. circular welded pipe producers identified a

number of variable cost items, such as raw materials, especially hot-rolled steel and zinc, electricity, natural gas,

utilities, direct labor, tooling, and packaging, etc., and a number of fixed cost items, such as direct and nonproduction labor, depreciation, certain utilities, utilities, insurance, overhead, etc. (some U.S. producers considered

direct labor and utility costs variable costs and other U.S. producers considered such costs fixed costs). 

 4 Some U.S. producers of circular welded pipe, like those with a continuous-weld mill and/or those with a hot-dip

process for galvanizing, may encounter higher costs than others when temporarily reducing production. Conference

transcript, pp. 75-76 (Barnes, Schagrin, and Magno).

 5 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 23-24.

 6 Conference transcript, pp. 72-73 (Barnes and Filetti).

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICING

As noted earlier, the prices of circular welded pipe are influenced by demand factors such as

fluctuations in the non-residential and, to a lesser extent, residential construction sectors as well as overall

U.S. economic activity. On the supply side, prices of circular welded pipe also differ by a number of

product specifications, including but not restricted to end finishing (plain or threaded end with and

without coupling) and surface finishing (black or galvanized). 

Raw Material Costs

The principal raw material input used to produce domestic circular welded pipe is hot-rolled steel

sheet/coil,1

 while zinc is an important element in the production of galvanized circular welded pipe. 

During 2005-07, raw materials accounted for approximately three-quarters of the domestic producers’

production costs, a share that remained relatively stable 2005 and 2007.2

 For the *** domestic producers

using zinc to galvanize pipes, the average cost share of zinc was between *** and *** percent of their

cost of the galvanized circular welded pipe they sold, depending on the year. 

More than two-thirds of responding producers (14 of 19) reported that variable costs account for

more than 80 percent of their total production costs. Variable costs for all responding producers averaged

82.1 percent of their costs to produce circular welded pipe during 2007, while fixed costs averaged 17.9

percent.3

 Although low output levels potentially lead to increased unit costs, substantial variable costs

can moderate such increases.4

 In the short run, firms with a relatively high ratio of variable costs to total

costs tend to reduce production and maintain price levels when faced with a downturn in demand.5

 U.S.

producers reported that they will produce circular welded pipe only if they cover at least their variable

costs.6

U.S. spot market quarterly purchase prices of hot-rolled steel sheet fluctuated but increased

during January 2005-April 2008. In addition, spot market quarterly purchase-order averages of zinc

prices increased markedly during this period, peaking in late 2006 (figure V-1). 
 7

 Price data from Preston Pipe and Tube, published by Preston Publishing Company, indicate a similar pattern to

domestic hot-rolled coil prices since 2007: a small increase in March 2007, then a decrease to July 2007, and

increasing thereafter, including a larger rise between March and April 2008; from *** per ton to *** per ton. 

Preston Pipe and Tube, May 2008, p. 17.

 8 The reported purchase prices of hot-rolled steel are intended primarily to indicate price trends; specific prices

any buyer pays reportedly will vary due to a number of factors, including volume, distribution issues, specification

variances, surcharges, packaging fees, and other market factors.

V-2

Figure V-1

Hot-rolled steel sheet and zinc: Monthly average U.S. purchase prices, by quarter, January 2005-

April 2008

Source: American Metal Market Free Market price (zinc), and Purchasing Magazine Transaction Report (hot-rolled

steel), retrieved May 21, 2008.

U.S. purchase prices of hot-rolled steel sheet decreased from $640 per short ton during January

2005 to a period low of $435 per short ton in the August 2005 before increasing to $630 per ton July and

August 2006. Prices then declined to $508 per ton in February 2007, and, after a two month increase,

again in August 2007. Prices have since increased, with an especially steep rise in 2008, reaching $850

per ton in April 2008.7 8

 Zinc prices steadily increased to a period peak of $2.03 per pound ($203 per

hundredweight) in the fourth quarter of 2006, before declining irregularly to $1.07 per pound ($107 per

hundredweight) in April 2008.

Tariff Rates and Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

The U.S. normal trade relations ad valorem import duty rate was free for imports of circular

welded pipe, including that from China, under HTS subheadings 7306.30.10 and 7306.30.50 during 2005-

07 and into 2008. Transportation charges to ship circular welded pipe from China to the U.S. ports of

entry, as a ratio to the U.S. official customs value, averaged 13.4 percent during 2007, compared to 12.1
 9

 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exh. O, “Baltic Dry Index.” The Baltic Dry Index is a shipping and trade index

created by the London-based Baltic exchange and is composed of three sub-indices that measure price levels for

different sizes of merchant ships. It decreased from ***. Shipping prices reportedly are being pressured by

increasing demand from Chinese steelmakers for coal and iron ore due to the recent high prices of steel worldwide. 

“Baltic Dry Index hits new high,” Purchasing Magazine online, May 19, 2008,

http://www.purchasing.com/article/CA6562344.html, retrieved June 3, 2008, and “Baltic Dry Index Advances to

Record in London on Chinese Demand,” Bloomberg News, May 15, 2008,

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aTz.Cc_oSAno&refer=europe, retrieved June 3, 2008.

 10 The remaining four responded, but answered either “zero” or “100 percent.” 

 11 Relatively fewer importers reported U.S. inland freight costs than did U.S. producers for circular welded pipe,

likely because U.S. importers typically reported that their customers arranged the U.S.-inland freight and U.S.

producers typically reported that they arranged U.S.-inland freight to their customers. 

 12 For firms with f.o.b. sales, 11 of 17 noted that they arrange for the transportation for these sales. All producers

except *** prepay for freight.

 13 One importer replied that it quotes on both an f.o.b. and delivered basis. Fifteen of twenty-two responding

importers have the customer arrange the freight, and half of responding importers prepay for freight. 

V-3

percent in 2005. Ocean transportation costs to the United States have more than doubled since the

beginning of 2005.9

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Fifteen of 19 responding producers of circular welded pipe10 and 12 of 24 responding U.S.

importers of the circular welded pipe from China reported in their questionnaire responses the average

U.S. freight costs to their U.S. customers locations.11 U.S.-inland freight costs for the domestic products

ranged between 2 and 20 percent, and averaged 6.8 percent of the delivered prices. Fifteen of 19

domestic producers typically arrange for delivery,12 and six typically quote their prices on a delivered

basis. U.S.-inland freight costs of the subject imported products averaged 7.5 percent of the delivered

prices during 2005-07. Eight of 29 responding importers typically arrange for delivery, and 3 of 23

responding importers typically quote their prices on a delivered basis.13

Nineteen U.S. producers and 24 importers estimated their U.S. shipments of the domestic and

imported Chinese circular welded pipe, that were shipped to U.S. customers in three specified distance

categories. The U.S. producers’ and importers’ reported shipment shares of the domestic and subject

imported circular welded pipe, by distance categories from their U.S. selling locations, are shown in the 

following tabulation:

Distance shipped

Share of U.S. commercial shipments (percent)

U.S.-produced

products

Imported Chinese

products

Within 100 miles 27.8 49.9

101 to 1,000 miles 58.5 28.2

Over 1,000 miles 13.7 21.9

Total 100.0 100.0
 14 The quarterly nominal were calculated from quarterly-average nominal exchange rates reported by the IMF;

producer price data in China was not available to calculate real exchange rates vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar. The

exchange rate indices were based on exchange rates expressed in U.S. dollars per unit of the foreign currency, such

that index numbers below 100 represent depreciation and numbers above 100 represent appreciation of the foreign

currency vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar.

 15 The Chinese government effectively pegged the yuan to the U.S. dollar at 8.28 yuan per dollar during the early

part of this period. On July 21, 2005, the Chinese government announced that it would no longer peg the yuan to the

U.S. dollar but would tie the yuan to a basket of currencies. 

V-4

Nineteen U.S. producers and 21 U.S. importers reported the U.S. geographic market area(s),

during 2005-07, that were served by the firms’ domestic and imported Chinese circular welded pipe. The

number of U.S. producers and importers responding for each of the specified market areas are shown in

the following tabulation:

Geographic area U.S.-produced products Products imported from China

National 12 4

West Coast 3 12

Northwest 2 4

Southwest 5 16

Rocky Mountains 4 4

Northeast 1 7

Mid-Atlantic 1 5

Southeast 2 8

Midwest 3 4

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Several responding U.S. producers and importers reported for more than a single geographic area. 

Two domestic producers reported that a large volume of imported Chinese circular welded pipe primarily

impacted the West Coast first, before spreading eastward.

Exchange Rates

Figure V-2 shows the quarterly nominal exchange rate index of the Chinese yuan relative to the

U.S. dollar during January 2005-March 2008.14 The nominal exchange rate for the Chinese yuan vis-à-vis

the U.S. dollar remained stable during January-June 2005, but has appreciated by 15.5 percent between

the first quarter of 2005 and the first quarter of 2008.15
 16 Information on pricing practices discussed in this section was based on questionnaire responses of the U.S.

producers and importers of the domestic and imported Chinese circular welded pipe, unless otherwise noted.

 17 Spot sales are usually one-time delivery, within 30 days of the purchase agreement; short-term sales are for

multiple deliveries for up to 12 months after the purchase agreement; and long-term sales are for multiple deliveries

for more than 12 months after the purchase agreement. Short-term and long-term sales can be arranged by contracts

or verbal agreements.

V-5

Figure V-2

Nominal exchange rate indices of the Chinese yuan relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January

2005-March 2008

Note.–Index (Jan.-Mar. 2005=100). Exchange rates are in U.S. dollars per Chinese yuan.

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, www.imfstatistics.org, May 2008.

PRICING PRACTICES16

Pricing in the circular welded pipe industry can be quoted given by both weight (short tons) or

length (feet or 100 feet). For sales to distributors, 12 of 19 responding producers reported that they

usually price their circular welded pipe by length, three sell by weight, and four sell using both length and

weight. For the 28 responding importers, 10 sell by length, 6 by weight, and 12 by both length and

weight. For sales to end users, 13 of 15 responding producers and 4 of 7 responding importers usually

sell by length. 

Nineteen U.S. producers and 24 responding U.S. importers of circular welded pipe from China

estimated their 2007 U.S. shipments by type of sale. U.S. producers’ and importers’ shares of their 2007

U.S. commercial shipments, by quantity, of the domestically produced and imported Chinese circular

welded pipe, by type of sale, are shown in the following tabulation:17
 18 Domestic producer *** reported selling on a long-term contract basis, however its long-term contracts are ***

months, which are categorized as short-term contracts for tabulation purposes.

 19 The last importer offers net 10 day payment terms.

 20 Hearing transcript, p. 255 (Rudolph).

 21 Hearing transcript, p. 127 (Boggs).

V-6

Type of sale

Share of 2007 U.S. commercial shipments (percent)

U.S.-produced

products

Imported Chinese

products

Spot sales 79.0 47.8

Short-term sales 19.7 51.4

Long-term sales 1.3 0.8

Total 100.0 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Only two U.S. producers sell on a long-term basis, and four sell the majority of their circular

welded pipe on a short-term contract basis.18 The average short-term contract length is three months and

the majority of producers responded that both price and quantities are fixed. Eleven U.S. producers sold

only on a spot basis. Selling prices for domestically produced circular welded pipe reportedly is 

determined by the prevailing market price, the cost of steel, competitive conditions in the marketplace at

that time, and the outcome of transaction by transaction negotiations. Importers also sell very little on a

long-term contract basis, but sell less imported Chinese circular welded pipe on a spot basis than U.S.

producers do. U.S. importers’ short term contracts average over 4 months in length, and also typically fix

both price and quantities. U.S. producers and importers of Chinese circular welded pipe generally

reported that prices of their short-term contracts cannot be renegotiated during the contract period. Meetor-release provisions are atypical but sometimes occur in this industry, as reported by a few domestic

producers and importers. 

Fourteen of 19 responding U.S. producers and 2 of 23 responding U.S. importers reported

offering discounts for early payment in the range of 1⁄2 to 2 percent discount for the domestic and subject

imported circular welded pipe. The six remaining U.S. producers and 19 of 20 remaining U.S. importers

offered payment terms of net 30 days during 2005-07.19

Nine of 17 responding U.S. producers reported that they offer some sort of quantity discount,

rebate, or take into account volume during price negotiations. The majority of importers, however, offer

no quantity discounts or rebates. Sixteen of 20 responding U.S. producers and all 25 responding U.S.

importers of the domestic and subject imported circular welded pipe reported that they did not sell their

products over the internet, whereas the remaining 4 U.S. producers reported internet sales, which ranged

from less than *** percent to *** percent of the reporting firm’s sales. No purchaser reported using the

internet to buy circular welded pipe.

At the hearing, one respondent testified that, “There is generally a discount assumed by U.S.

customers due to the risks associated with purchasing imports and the opportunity costs related to the

long lead times between order and delivery.”20 Petitioners testified also that there is a price premium for

domestic goods since domestic firms are able to get 23 to 25 SKUs on a truck and delivered within a few

days.21 Three witnesses in support of the petition estimated that the premium would be between 5 and 7
 22 Hearing transcript, pp. 127-129 (Boggs, Magno, and Filetti).

 23 Hearing transcript, pp. 265-266 (Rudolph and Lee).

 24 Hearing transcript, p. 266 (Barringer).

V-7

percent, 0 and 5 percent, and 4 and 6 percent.22 Respondent witnesses testified that the premium/discount

is between 10 and 20 percent or 15 percent.23 Counsel for respondents noted that a 5 to 10 percent gap

has historically been the price gap, though it has grown due to increased volatility in input prices.24

Price Leadership

Purchasers were asked which firms are price leaders in this industry. Allied and Wheatland were

each reported by six purchasers as being price leaders, IPSCO and U.S. Steel were reported by three, and

Western, California, Mittal, and China were reported by two. Other price leaders that were mentioned

include Tex-Tube, Northwest, Kelly Pipe, North American, and Korea. A majority of purchasers noted

that price leadership is exhibited by being the first to announce any price changes.

PRICE DATA

Quarterly Price Data

U.S. selling value and quantity data were requested for sales to U.S. customers for the following

four circular welded pipe product categories produced in the United States and imported from China:

Product 1.–ASTM A-53 schedule 40 black plain-end pipe, with nominal outside

diameter of 2-4 inches inclusive.

Product 1a.–ASTM A-53 schedule 40 black plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter of

2 inches.

Product 2.–ASTM A-53 schedule 40 galvanized plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter

of 2-4 inches inclusive.

Product 2a.–ASTM A-53 schedule 40 galvanized plain-end pipe, with nominal outside

diameter of 2 inches.

Product 3.–ASTM A-53 schedule 40 black plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter of 6-

8 inches inclusive.

Product 3a.–ASTM A-53 schedule 40 black plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter of

6 inches.

Product 4.–Galvanized fence tube, with nominal outside diameter of 1-3/8 – 2-3/8 inches

inclusive, and wall thickness of 0.055-0.075 inch.

Product 4a.–Galvanized fence tube, with nominal outside diameter of 2 inches (also referred to

as 2 and 3/8 inch in the fence tube industry), and wall thickness of 0.065 inch (+/- 10 percent).
 25 Pricing data was requested on a per ton, f.o.b. basis, and are net of all deductions for discounts, rebates, etc.

 26 Data for one U.S. producer, ***, were omitted from the data set due to ***.

 27 Price data of circular welded pipe from the other seven nonsubject countries involved the following countries:

Canada, Guatemala, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Oman, and Romania.

V-8

The price data were based on quarterly net U.S. f.o.b. selling price data of U.S. producers and

importers for their shipments of the specified domestic and imported Chinese circular welded pipe

product categories, during January 2005-December 2007, to U.S. distributors unrelated to the selling

firms.25 In addition, each U.S. importer was requested to provide the selling price data for the specified

product categories that they imported from their two largest nonsubject country sources.

Twelve U.S. producers26 of circular welded pipe and 21 U.S. importers of the circular welded

pipe from China reported useable price information, but not necessarily for all product categories or

periods. In addition, 18 U.S. importers of circular welded pipe also reported the requested price data for

13 nonsubject countries, five of which (India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and Thailand) have U.S.

antidumping duty orders in place and one of which (Turkey) has both U.S. antidumping and

countervailing duty orders in place.27 Data for responding U.S. producers totaled 400,989 short tons, or

28.2 percent of their total reported U.S. commercial shipments in 2007. Data for responding U.S.

importers of imported Chinese circular welded pipe totaled 282,650 short tons, or 37.8 percent of their

total reported U.S. commercial shipments in 2007. U.S. importers also reported data for 70,140 short tons

of circular welded pipe from the 12 nonsubject countries, or 16.5 percent of total official U.S. imports of

circular welded pipe from nonsubject countries in 2007.

Price Trends

Quarterly weighted-average selling prices and total quantities of circular welded pipe in product

categories 1-4 and 1a-4a reported by domestic producers and importers of subject and nonsubject pipe are

shown in tables V-1 through V-4 and V-1a through V-4a, respectively. They are also reproduced in

figures V-3 through V-6. In addition, price comparisons between domestic circular welded pipe and that

imported from nonsubject countries are shown separated by country in appendix F.
V-9

Table V-1

Circular welded pipe: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic,

subject, and nonsubject imported circular welded pipe product category 11

 and margins of

underselling, by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

Period

United States China Nonsubject

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. $937 20,296 $734 7,935 21.7 $764 9,178

 Apr.-June 923 19,502 786 6,492 14.8 797 7,577

 July-Sept. 862 21,053 749 10,521 13.1 735 7,362

 Oct.-Dec. 912 20,792 676 10,448 25.8 776 5,652

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 950 20,940 659 11,811 30.7 779 7,211

 Apr.-June 909 20,753 665 17,850 26.9 737 8,235

 July-Sept. 971 19,230 651 24,061 32.9 768 7,780

 Oct.-Dec. 965 16,605 719 19,940 25.5 770 8,394

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 872 21,090 670 25,466 23.1 763 8,655

 Apr.-June 856 17,931 620 28,012 27.6 715 6,631

 July-Sept. 827 18,413 636 37,628 23.1 712 5,444

 Oct.-Dec. 818 18,297 687 10,592 16.0 763 6,373

 1 ASTM A-53 schedule 40 black plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter of 2-4 inches inclusive.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-10

Table V-1a

Circular welded pipe: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic,

subject, and nonsubject imported circular welded pipe product category 1a1

 and margins of

underselling, by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

Period

United States China Nonsubject

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. $949 4,706 $742 2,210 21.8 $734 2,985

 Apr.-June 905 4,610 781 1,991 13.7 762 2,065

 July-Sept. 858 4,965 745 3,250 13.2 711 1,270

 Oct.-Dec. 865 6,129 716 1,377 17.2 761 1,456

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 897 5,058 652 3,830 27.3 737 1,871

 Apr.-June 875 5,601 686 4,057 21.6 716 2,054

 July-Sept. 915 4,778 645 6,295 29.5 738 1,953

 Oct.-Dec. 935 4,155 711 5,255 23.9 736 1,833

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 881 4,870 645 7,125 26.8 746 1,472

 Apr.-June 854 4,924 613 8,442 28.2 649 1,180

 July-Sept. 844 5,156 636 5,285 24.6 640 1,185

 Oct.-Dec. 849 4,828 678 3,481 20.1 785 1,154

 1 ASTM A-53 schedule 40 black plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter of 2 inches.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-11

Table V-2

Circular welded pipe: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic,

subject, and nonsubject imported circular welded pipe product category 21

 and margins of

underselling, by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

Period

United States China Nonsubject

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. $*** *** $698 8,563 *** $796 3,919

 Apr.-June *** *** 703 13,067 *** 812 2,917

 July-Sept. *** *** 708 12,289 *** 780 4,199

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** 688 13,163 *** 735 5,329

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** 669 14,507 *** 746 5,479

 Apr.-June *** *** 646 19,316 *** 735 6,250

 July-Sept. *** *** 645 24,389 *** 810 2,233

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** 661 14,547 *** 839 2,176

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** 697 19,350 *** 835 6,184

 Apr.-June *** *** 703 23,608 *** 832 6,534

 July-Sept. *** *** 711 27,461 *** 847 5,567

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** 738 10,321 *** 853 5,559

 1 ASTM A-53 schedule 40 galvanized plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter of 2-4 inches inclusive.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-12

Table V-2a

Circular welded pipe: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic,

subject, and nonsubject imported circular welded pipe product category 2a1

 and margins of

underselling, by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

Period

United States China Nonsubject

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. $*** *** $718 2,449 *** $786 1,734

 Apr.-June *** *** 756 3,068 *** 788 993

 July-Sept. *** *** 738 2,811 *** 771 2,020

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** 712 3,255 *** 751 2,028

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** 678 4,218 *** 748 2,034

 Apr.-June *** *** 646 4,126 *** 719 1,970

 July-Sept. *** *** 643 6,740 *** 817 806

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** 672 4,079 *** 806 587

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** 706 7,320 *** 825 639

 Apr.-June *** *** 706 8,642 *** 844 786

 July-Sept. *** *** 715 10,403 *** 897 423

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** 744 3,139 *** 920 488

 1 ASTM A-53 schedule 40 galvanized plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter of 2 inches.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-13

Table V-3

Circular welded pipe: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic,

subject, and nonsubject imported circular welded pipe product category 31

 and margins of

underselling, by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

Period

United States China Nonsubject

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. $930 21,971 $758 4,848 18.5 $777 5,755

 Apr.-June 894 28,452 752 14,452 15.9 793 5,885

 July-Sept. 845 32,049 797 7,381 5.7 786 4,432

 Oct.-Dec. 914 26,952 726 6,618 20.6 718 3,108

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 896 27,746 669 6,302 25.4 711 4,180

 Apr.-June 894 32,967 704 8,984 21.2 650 6,386

 July-Sept. 968 23,345 695 12,286 28.2 749 3,206

 Oct.-Dec. 958 21,419 661 11,139 31.0 771 3,521

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 842 25,010 685 17,543 18.7 783 7,338

 Apr.-June 836 25,941 666 24,432 20.2 784 3,509

 July-Sept. 799 24,655 683 20,473 14.5 767 3,684

 Oct.-Dec. 804 26,571 689 7,018 14.3 796 4,521

 1 ASTM A-53 schedule black plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter of 6-8 inches inclusive.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-14

Table V-3a

Circular welded pipe: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic,

subject, and nonsubject imported circular welded pipe product category 3a1

 and margins of

underselling, by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

Period

United States China Nonsubject

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. $903 9,213 $763 3,242 15.5 $789 3,182

 Apr.-June 876 13,500 828 3,475 5.5 807 3,565

 July-Sept. 838 15,858 803 4,197 4.3 790 3,029

 Oct.-Dec. 890 12,171 737 4,070 17.2 715 2,593

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 886 9,666 6692 4,131 24.5 735 2,027

 Apr.-June 874 10,665 701 5,093 19.8 644 5,084

 July-Sept. 935 10,240 685 7,129 26.7 757 2,323

 Oct.-Dec. 943 9,461 661 6,437 29.9 780 2,521

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 809 12,611 664 10,400 18.0 773 5,365

 Apr.-June 805 12,972 653 11,483 18.8 762 2,233

 July-Sept. 772 12,987 681 7,722 11.7 747 2,347

 Oct.-Dec. 782 15,137 685 4,023 12.4 785 2,540

 1 ASTM A-53 schedule black plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter of 6 inches.

 2

 One data point from *** had to be adjusted to be consistent with its other quarterly pricing data, which resulted in an increase

of ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-15

Table V-4

Circular welded pipe: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic,

subject, and nonsubject imported circular welded pipe product category 41

 and margins of

underselling, by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

Period

United States China Nonsubject

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. $*** *** $693 3,376 *** $*** ***

 Apr.-June *** *** 723 2,724 *** 916 626

 July-Sept. *** *** 703 11,571 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** 686 3,705 *** *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** 689 6,055 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June *** *** 643 14,542 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. *** *** 688 14,058 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** 686 17,150 *** *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** 790 6,275 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June *** *** 776 8,761 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** *** -- 0

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** -- 0

 1 Galvanized fence tube, with nominal outside diameter of 1-3/8 – 2-3/8 inches inclusive, and wall thickness of 0.055-0.075

inch.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-16

Table V-4a

Circular welded pipe: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic,

subject, and nonsubject imported circular welded pipe product category 4a1

 and margins of

underselling, by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

Period

United States China Nonsubject

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per ton)

Quantity

(tons)

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. $*** *** $*** *** *** $*** ***

 Apr.-June 1,268 2,413 786 366 38.0 *** ***

 July-Sept. *** *** 729 1,236 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1,130 2,064 753 266 33.3 *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 1,102 2,951 656 1,543 40.5 *** ***

 July-Sept. *** *** 671 3,144 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** 733 2,729 *** *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** *** -- 0

 Apr.-June 1,116 2,278 859 1,386 23.1 -- 0

 July-Sept. 1,127 2,153 *** *** *** -- 0

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** -- 0

 1 Galvanized fence tube, with nominal outside diameter of 2 inches (also referred to as 2 and 5/8 inches in the fencing tube

industry), and wall thickness of 0.065 inch (+/- 10 percent).

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-17

Figure V-3

Circular welded pipe: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of U.S.-

produced and Chinese products 1 and 1a,1

 by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

 1 Product 1.–ASTM A-53 schedule 40 black plain-end, with nominal outside diameter of 2-4 inches inclusive. 

Product 1a.–ASTM A-53 schedule 40 black plain-end, with nominal outside diameter of 2 inches.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Figure V-4

Circular welded pipe: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of U.S.-

produced and Chinese products 2 and 2a, by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

* * * * * * *
V-18

Figure V-5

Circular welded pipe: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of U.S.-

produced and Chinese products 3 and 3a,1

 by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

 1 Product 3.–ASTM A-53 schedule black plain-end, with nominal outside diameter of 6-8 inches inclusive. Product

3a.–ASTM A-53 schedule 40 black plain-end, with nominal outside diameter of 6 inches.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 28 The same is true for product 2a.

V-19

Figure V-6

Circular welded pipe: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of U.S.-

produced and China products 4 and 4a, by quarters, January 2005-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Price trends of the domestic circular welded pipe during 2005-07 appear to be influenced, at least

partially, by price fluctuations of hot-rolled steel. This is most apparent in the price of domestically

produced products 1 and 1a. Prices of domestically-produced product 1 decreased between the first and

third quarter of 2005 before increasing until the third quarter of 2006 (fourth quarter for product 1a). 

After this, prices decreased until the last quarter of 2007 (until the third quarter of 2007 before increasing

in the last quarter of 2007 for product 1a). Except as noted, price trends for domestic product 1a are

similar. Quantities of domestic product 1 decreased slightly between 2005 and 2007, from 81,643 short

tons to 75,731 short tons, despite large increases in the quantity of shipments of imported product 1 from

China, which increased from 35,396 short tons in 2005 to 101,698 short tons in 2007. Prices of imported

product 1 from China generally decreased from the second quarter of 2005 to the third quarter of 2006,

and again from the fourth quarter of 2006 to the second quarter of 2007 before increasing again.

Prices for domestically produced product 2 (and 2a) remained relatively stable through the second

quarter of 2006 before increasing until the second quarter of 2007, after which prices began to decline. 

Imported products 2 (and 2a) from China decreased from the third quarter (second quarter for product 2a)

of 2005 until the second quarter (third quarter for product 2a) of 2006 before generally increasing through

the end of the period. Quantities of imported Chinese product 2 sold in the United States were degrees of

magnitude higher than the quantities of domestically produced product 228 and were highest in the second

and third quarters of 2006 and 2007. 

Prices for domestically produced product 3 (and 3a) decreased from the first quarter of 2005 to

the third quarter of 2005, increased irregularly until the third quarter of 2006 (fourth quarter for product

3a), before generally decreasing for the remainder of quarters. Prices for imported Chinese product 3

peaked in the second and third quarters of 2005 before generally decreasing through the end of 2007. 

Quantities of domestic product 3 decreased from 109,424 short tons in 2005 to 102,177 short tons in

2007, as quantities of shipments of imported Chinese product 3 more than doubled from 33,299 short tons

to 69,466 short tons. From the first quarter of 2006 to the second quarter of 2007, quarterly shipments of

imported product 3 from China increased from 6,302 short tons to 24,432 short tons, before decreasing to

7,018 tons in the fourth quarter of 2007. Shipment quantities of domestically produced product 3a

increased from 50,742 short tons in 2005 to 53,707 short tons in 2007, while quantities of imported

Chinese product 3a increased from 14,984 short tons in 2005 to 33,628 short tons in 2007.

Prices for domestically produced product 4 (and 4a) were the highest in the second quarter of

2005, decreased through the first quarter of 2006, increased through the fourth quarter of 2006, decreased

for the first quarter of 2007, and then increased slightly through the rest of 2007. For shipments of

imports from China of this product, prices were also highest in the second quarter of 2005, then decreased

irregularly through the second quarter of 2006 before generally increasing through the last quarter of

2007. Quantities of shipments of domestic product 4 were highest in the first half of each year, but

declined between 2005 and 2007, from *** short tons to *** short tons. Quantities of imported product 4

from China were somewhat different than other products, increasing from *** short tons in 2005 to ***

short tons in 2006 before decreasing to *** short tons in 2007.
 29 Though asked separately for each pricing product, producers’ answers for one product were essentially the

same throughout the four products. Importers were more somewhat more varied in their responses among products,

(continued...)

V-20

Price Comparisons

A total of 96 quarterly net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling price comparisons were possible

between the domestic and imported Chinese circular welded pipe product categories 1-4 and 1a-4a

shipped to U.S. distributor customers during 2005-07. In all of the 96 selling price comparisons, the

imported China products were priced less than the U.S.-produced products. The selling price

comparisons are shown by period and by product category in table V-5.

Table V-5

Circular welded pipe: Number of quarters of underselling, and lowest, highest and average margin

of underselling by imported Chinese product, by product

Products

Number of

quarters of

underselling

Lowest margin of

underselling

(percent)

Highest margin of 

underselling

(percent)

Average margin

of underselling

(percent)

Product 11 12 13.1 32.9 23.4

Product 1a2 12 13.2 29.5 22.3

Product 23 12 44.2 54.7 49.2

Product 2a4 12 40.0 56.0 47.8

Product 35 12 5.7 31.0 19.5

Product 3a6 12 4.3 29.9 17.0

Product 47 12 28.3 45.4 37.8

Product 4a8 12 23.1 45.1 34.4

 1 ASTM A-53 schedule 40 black plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter of 2-4 inches inclusive.

 2 ASTM A-53 schedule 40 black plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter of 2 inches.

 3 ASTM A-53 schedule 40 galvanized plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter of 2-4 inches inclusive.

 4 ASTM A-53 schedule 40 galvanized plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter of 2 inches.

 5 ASTM A-53 schedule black plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter of 6-8 inches inclusive.

 6 ASTM A-53 schedule black plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter of 6 inches.

 7 Galvanized fence tube, with nominal outside diameter of 1-3/8 – 2-3/8 inches inclusive, and wall thickness of 0.055-0.075

inch.

 8 Galvanized fence tube, with nominal outside diameter of 2 inches (also referred to as 2 and 3/8 inch in the fence tube

industry), and wall thickness of 0.065 inch (+/- 10 percent).

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Price Variability

During the preliminary phase of these investigations, somewhat large variations were found

within the pricing product data set. In these investigations, pricing data for product 1a through 4a were

selected to be representative of a single product rather than a range of products. These product represent

a subset of the pricing data for products 1 through 4 and were selected to help assess the variation within

each producer’s and importer’s products. Producers and importers also were asked what might cause the

variation within each of the pricing product categories 1 through 4 for which they had sales of circular

welded pipe.29 Five of ten responding producers and two of 17 responding importers noted that there
 29 (...continued)

but most variation occurred when describing differences between the products, not within the same product category. 

 30 *** reported that the costs to manufacture circular welded pipe of smaller outside diameter within each pricing

product category is higher than the large products within that pricing category due to the substrate on the lighter

walls carrying some “gauge extras from suppliers” and “consuming more production time by weight.” 

 31 Additionally, five noted galvanizing costs. However this differentiated product category 2 from product

category 1, not necessarily differences within product category 2. 

 32 Also cited by one importer each was country of origin, experience with the supplying mill, insurance,

manufacturing process, port costs, and wall thickness.

 33 All quarterly data containing quarterly price differences of greater than $100 and 10 percent were attempted to

be verified with importers and producers.

 34 The average difference for these data will be somewhat greater if the quarters when quantities in the product

category (e.g., product 1) equal the quantities of the corresponding product (e.g., product 1a) are excluded from the

data set: 3.1 percent.

V-21

were not significant differences within the products. Wall thickness was noted by three of the five

remaining producers as a possible factor; market conditions, outside diameter, and cost to manufacture

were noted by two producers;30 and end finish, volume, competition in the market, and timing were each

noted by one producer. For product category 4, *** noted that this contains three different gauge

products, with made from hot-rolled steel and the other made from cold-rolled steel. Of the remaining 15

responding importers, six noted wall thickness as a differentiating factor, four noted outside diameter/size,

three noted costs, three each noted volume, timing and market conditions, and one each noted the cost and

availability of hot-rolled coils.31

Producers and importers were asked what might account for differences in price of $100 or more

per ton (on an f.o.b. basis) across suppliers for each pricing product categories for which they had sales in

2005-07. Ten producers responded, with three each noting location, varying raw material (i.e., steel)

costs, varying production efficiencies, and different transportation costs as possible reasons. Two also

noted that competition with imports can cause pricing differentials. Seventeen importers responded to

this question, with three not having observed price differences of this magnitude. Raw material cost

differences was the reason most often cited by the other 13 importers (reported by 5 importers). The next

most frequent responses were zinc costs and supply and demand/market conditions (4 importers); freight

costs and timing (3 importers); and quality and the price from the supplying mill (2).32 

An analysis of the difference in quarterly pricing data submitted by producers and importers of

subject circular welded pipe from China is presented in table V-6. On average, the difference between

pricing product categories and the narrower product within that category was not great, though the highest

average differences were found in product 4 for producers and importers.33 The average overall

difference between the product and the product category for U.S. producers and importers of subject

circular welded pipe from China which it contains was 2.3 percent.34
 35 Increases or decreases may come in the form of price lists. One producer noted that increases are announced

whereas decreases are mostly due to transaction-by-transaction negotiation, rather than being formally announced. 

Not all producers or importers responded to this question, often due to prices being determined solely on a

transaction-by-transaction basis for a number of firms.

V-22

Table V-6

Circular welded pipe: Variation of pricing between pricing categories and pricing products for U.S.

producers and importers of subject Chinese goods

Products Quarters

Average

difference1

Highest

quarterly

difference

Differences of

greater than 

10 percent

Differences

of less than

10 percent

Zero

difference

Number Percent Percent Number of quarters

Producers 

 1 vs. 1a 83 3.0 21.6 5 73 34

 2 vs. 2a 36 3.3 17.3 5 17 14

 3 vs. 3a 72 3.0 37.7 7 32 33

 4 vs. 4a 36 4.2 13.2 1 35 0

Importers 

 1 vs. 1a 128 2.1 50.1 6 115 7

 2 vs. 2a 125 1.6 23.3 3 100 22

 3 vs. 3a 134 1.8 60.1 4 86 36

 4 vs. 4a 73 2.4 17.7 3 55 15

 1 The average difference is given in absolute values of differences.

Source: Compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.

Announced Selling Price Increases and Decreases

U.S. producers and importers of circular welded pipe were requested in the questionnaire

responses to report any announced U.S. price increases and decreases since January 1, 2005 for sales of

the domestic and subject imported circular welded pipe.35 In addition, the firms were requested to

identify the dates of announced price increases, the extent to which they held, and the products that were

covered by the price increases. The number of reported price changes are shown in table V-7.

Table V-7

Circular welded pipe: U.S. producers’ and importers’ announced price increases/decreases, 2005-

07 and January-February 2008

* * * * * * *
 36 Staff telephone interview with ***, April 2, 2008.

 37 “HSS producers drive for $100/T April price hike,” American Metal Market, March 31, 2008, as submitted in

CCCMC respondents’ prehearing brief, Exh. 1.

 38 “Ipsco Tubulars boosts ERW pipe prices,” American Metal Market, April 16, 2008, as submitted in CCCMC

respondents’ prehearing brief, Exh. 1.

 39 “Ipsco Tubulars boosts ERW pipe prices,” American Metal Market, May 12, 2008.

 40 “USS Tubular imposing surcharge,” American Metal Market, April 29, 2008.

 41 Three of the four pricing products correspond generally to the pricing products for which the Commission

collected quarterly data. Data for welded black threaded and coupled standard pipe between 0" and 41⁄2" O.D. does

not correspond to one of the Commission’s four pricing product categories, and, for ease in comparison with the

Commission’s quarterly data, are not presented in figure V-7. 

 42 *** each reported 12 lost sales allegations of a general nature; two purchasers, ***, were cited by both firms. 

Therefore, 22 distinct purchasers were identified in these 24 lost sales allegations. 

V-23

Published Price Data

 Thirteen U.S. producers and four U.S. importers reported their price increases, but did not

necessarily report for the full period since 2005, the extent to which the price increases held, or the

products that were included. In a staff telephone interview, one purchaser noted that domestic producers

reportedly have been raising their prices five percent per month since preliminary duties were imposed on

China and will continue through July 2008, at which time prices will have increased 40 percent.36

Leavitt, Hanna, and Atlas announced at the end of March 2008 a $100 per ton increases in tubular

products for April 2008.37 IPSCO announced increasing its prices by $200 per ton on its ERW pipe to be

delivered on and after April 30, 2008.38 This price increase was its fifth of 2008, and brings the total

increase in price to $390 per ton. Since that time, IPSCO announced more increases: $250 to $350 per

ton on ERW pipe after May 31, 2008.39 U.S. Steel Tubular imposed a $250 per ton surcharge effective

May 1, 2008.40 Data published by the Preston Pipe & Tube Report indicate that, between the fourth

quarter of 2007 and March 2008, prices for welded black plain-end standard pipe between 0” and 41⁄2”

O.D. have increased 30.2 percent; welded black plain-end standard pipe between 5” and 16” O.D. have

increased 24.5 percent; welded black threaded and coupled standard pipe between 0” and 41⁄2” O.D. have

increased 21.8 percent; and welded galvanized plain-end standard pipe between 0” and 41⁄2” O.D. have

increased 20.8 percent. Pricing data for three of these four products, along with their prices extending

back to April 2005, are presented in figure V-7.41

Figure V-7

Circular welded pipe: Monthly pricing data for selected products, April 2005-March 2008

* * * * * * *

LOST REVENUES AND LOST SALES

In the petition, three U.S. producers, ***, reported 27 lost sales allegations due to competition

from imports of circular welded pipe from China during January 2004-March 2007. Three of these

allegations provided some product information and specific time periods, whereas the remaining 24

allegations were typically general in nature without specifying transaction information, such as products,

time periods, or competing prices.42 *** asserted in the petition that the nature of the market for sales to
 43 Petition, Exh. 14.

 44 At the conference, a representative from Wheatland provided some additional discussion of the types of

information it is able to obtain in the U.S. market for circular welded pipe that indicate that it has lost sales to the

imported products from China. He asserted that, if the firm's distributor customers have competitors in the

marketplace that are selling significantly lower-priced material (in this particular case Chinese pipe), its customers

“know that Wheatland Tube cannot drop its prices 50 percent to compete on that level so they don't come to the U.S.

producer with those lost opportunities.” Conference transcript, pp. 57-58 (Magno). 

 45 Only purchasers for which there were sufficient information for the staff to send inquiries are shown in tables

V-8 and V-9.

V-24

pipe and tube distributors made it difficult to obtain precise information on lost revenues and lost sales

due to competition from low-priced imports.43 44 

In producer questionnaire responses during the preliminary phase, three U.S. producers provided

further allegations of lost revenues and four U.S. producers provided further allegations of lost sales, but

not all such allegations had sufficient information for staff to follow up. In the final phase, one producer

provided lost revenue allegations and 4 provided lost sales allegations with enough information for staff

to follow up with. In addition, nine other U.S. producers responded that they had lost revenues and seven

has lost sales, but were unable to provide any information.

The purchasers cited in the lost revenue and lost sales allegations in the petition and questionnaire

responses,45 the transaction information supplied by the U.S. producers, and whether the responding

purchasers agreed or disagreed with the allegations are shown in tables V-8 and V-9. 

Table V-8

Circular welded pipe: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations

* * * * * * *

Table V-9

Circular welded pipe: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

*** disagreed with the allegation, stating that he has not bought foreign pipe in the past five

years.

*** did buy some pipe and tube from a broker during the alleged time frame, but is unsure of the

origin. 

***. However, ***.

*** could not identify the specific transactions, but agreed with the general pricing at the time of

the ***. Also, he noted that he does not deal in ***, but agrees with the general pricing also. 

***.

*** agreed with the allegation, noting that it, too, had lost sales to China due to their extremely

low prices, so it had to buy some pipe from China in order to compete. 

 *** disagreed with the allegation, reporting that it purchases pipe and tube from China along with

that from domestic and other sources, not instead of these purchases.

*** disagreed with the lost sales allegation, noting that *** made a spot offer one time, but is not

a normal supplier of ***. At that time, it had already had orders around *** from Korea, Indonesia,

Taiwan, and China.

*** identified *** purchasers where they alleged that they had lost sales of standard pipe to lowpriced imports of the products from China; the U.S. producers did not specify transactions, products, or
 46 In addition, *** alleged that it had lost revenues as a result of competition with the imported circular welded

pipe from China, but was not able to provide any specific details.

 47 The annual quantities of domestic circular welded pipe that *** alleged it had lost with each purchaser during

2006 to imports from China were much higher than the annual quantities it sold to *** of the *** purchasers during

2004-06.

V-25

competing prices.46 *** reported the quantity of standard pipe from China that *** of its U.S. customers

have been buying annually, totaling *** tons, asserting that these quantities represented lost sales. In its

producer questionnaire response in the final phase of these investigations, *** alleged a further loss of

*** tons in 2007 to its top *** customers. *** reported the quantity of standard pipe sales that it

allegedly lost to *** of its U.S. customers in 2006 in competing with the imported Chinese pipe products,

which totaled *** short tons.47 The 23 purchasers cited by ***, where transaction details were not

specified, were asked during the preliminary phase whether they had shifted their purchases of circular

welded pipe from U.S. producers to suppliers of products from China during January 2004-March 2007. 

In addition, these purchasers were asked whether U.S. producers reduced their prices of circular welded

pipe to compete with suppliers of circular welded pipe from China during this period. The 23 purchasers

named in the allegations of a general nature in both the petition and questionnaire responses, and any

responses received from these purchasers to the questions regarding lost sales and lost revenues are

shown in table V-10.

Table V-10

Circular welded pipe: Purchaser responses to questions regarding competition

* * * * * * *

Twelve of the 17 purchasers responding to the question about shifts in their purchases reported

that, since January 2004, they had shifted purchases of circular welded pipe from the U.S. producer to

imports from China; all 12 of these purchasers stated that price was the reason for the shift. The

remaining five responding purchasers reported that they had not shifted their purchases. Seven of the 17

purchasers responding to the question of reduced prices stated that, since January 2004, the U.S.

producers had reduced their prices of circular welded pipe to compete with prices of the imported

products from China. Nine other firms reported that U.S. circular welded pipe producers did not reduce

their prices in competition with the products imported from China, and the final responding firm did not

know whether U.S. producers lowered their prices.

 1

 The producers with fiscal year ends other than December 31 are ***. ***. However, the financial data of ***

were submitted on a calendar year basis. Further, the financial data of *** were updated on a calendar year basis

while the financial data of *** were also updated to reflect the most recently completed fiscal year which ended

March 31, 2008. The aggregated financial data with *** are presented in table C-2 for reference and comparison

purposes. ***’s incomplete response did not contain any financial data. 

 2

 ***.

 3

 ***.

 4

 Commission staff conducted a verification of Wheatland’s questionnaire response on April 29-30, 2008. The

verification adjustments were made. However, at the hearing, the Commission requested several producers whose

fiscal years are different from the calendar year to report their financial data on a calendar year basis. *** updated

their data on a calendar year basis.

 5

 ***.

 6

 There were data changes for *** in the final phase of these investigations to correct data errors made in the

preliminary phase and data changes for *** due to ***. After the hearing, *** corrected additional errors and the

financial data of *** were updated and reported on a calendar year basis, and ***’s financial data were also updated

to reflect the most recently completed fiscal year which ended March 31, 2008.

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL CONDITION OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Twenty producers provided usable financial data on their operations producing circular welded

pipe.1

 The responding producers are believed to represent the substantial majority of U.S. production. 

Firms differ considerably in size in terms of sales quantity and value. The largest producers, ***,

reported sales values *** times that of the next largest producer, ***, as well as substantially higher sales

quantities. In contrast, *** firms, ***, reported average annual sales of less than 10,000 short tons.2

Overall, net sales consisted primarily of commercial sales, but *** U.S. producers, ***, reported internal

consumption (which accounted for approximately *** percent of total net sales value in 2007) and related

party transfers (which reflected approximately *** percent of sales value in 2007).3

The questionnaire data of Wheatland were verified with company records at its corporate

facilities.4

 The verification adjustments were incorporated into this report. The financial data of

Wheatland were changed to ***.5

 

OPERATIONS ON CIRCULAR WELDED PIPE

The results of operations of the responding firms on their circular welded pipe operations are

presented in table VI-1, which includes data on a per-short ton basis as well as on a ratio to net sales

basis.6

 The quantity of total sales decreased from 2005 to 2006 but increased in 2007 to a level above that

in 2005, due mainly to an increase in commercial sales and related party transfers from 2006 to 2007. 

Likewise, total sales values also decreased from 2005 to 2006 and increased from 2006 to 2007, as unit

net sales values were stable from 2005 to 2006, and then decreased somewhat from 2006 to 2007. The

unit values of cost of goods sold (“COGS”) followed a different pattern from that of unit sales values,

decreasing from 2005 to 2006, but then increasing from 2006 to 2007, due primarily to increased direct

labor and especially factory overhead (jointly comprising conversion costs). Selling, general, and

administrative (“SG&A”) expenses increased on an absolute and per-unit basis every period. 
VI-2

Table VI-1

Circular welded pipe: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2005-07

Item

Fiscal year

2005 2006 2007

Net sales: Quantity (short tons)

 Commercial sales *** *** ***

 Internal consumption *** *** ***

 Transfers to related firms *** *** ***

 Total net sales 1,400,129 1,364,791 1,471,543

Net sales: Value ($1,000)

 Commercial sales *** *** ***

 Internal consumption *** *** ***

 Transfers to related firms *** *** ***

 Total net sales 1,335,159 1,302,373 1,373,678

COGS 1,143,517 1,083,988 1,225,209

Gross profit 191,642 218,385 148,469

SG&A expenses 51,097 66,745 86,933

Operating income 140,545 151,640 61,536

Interest expense 7,489 22,015 62,973

Other expense 5,526 6,345 27,847

Other income 2,635 11,954 1,435

Net income (loss) 130,165 135,234 (27,849)

Depreciation/amortization 19,806 25,350 28,249

Cash flow 149,971 160,584 400

Unit value (per short ton)

Net sales $954 $954 $933

COGS 817 794 833

Gross profit 137 160 101

SG&A expenses 36 49 59

Operating income 100 111 42

Table continued on next page.
 7

 The per-unit factory overhead costs for all producers except *** were higher in 2007 than in 2006. Eight

producers, ***, experienced substantially increased per-unit factory overhead costs. However, as noted in footnote

10, some of these increases are attributable to costs being shifted from direct labor into other factory costs.

 8

 The unit values of ***. 

VI-3

Table VI-1--Continued

Circular welded pipe: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2005-07

Item Fiscal year

2005 2006 2007

Ratio to net sales (percent) 

COGS 85.6 83.2 89.2

Gross profit 14.4 16.8 10.8

SG&A expenses 3.8 5.1 6.3

Operating income 10.5 11.6 4.5

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses 0 0 3

Data 20 20 20

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

While both net sales quantity and value were higher in 2007 than in 2006, operating income was

$62 million in 2007 compared to $152 million in 2006, due to lower per-unit sales values and higher perunit total costs/expenses, especially factory overhead.7

 The average per-unit sales values fell from $954

per short ton in 2005 to $933 per short ton in 2007, while average per-unit total costs (COGS and SG&A

combined) were higher ($892 compared to $853) during the same period. As a result, the operating

income margin decreased from 10.5 percent in 2005 to 4.5 percent in 2007, despite reaching 11.6 percent

in 2006.

*** were the only producers to report internal consumption. *** internal consumption accounted

for *** percent of overall 2007 sales values, while *** accounted for *** percent. *** also reported

related party transfers. *** related party transfers accounted for *** percent of overall 2007 sales values,

while *** accounted for *** percent, and *** accounted for *** percent. ***.8

Selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table VI-2. Total net sales (quantities and

values), per-unit values (sales and COGS), operating income, and the ratio of operating income (loss) to

net sales are presented in this table. Seventeen of 20 reporting producers generated operating income in

each fiscal year during 2005-07, while the remaining three producers, ***, reported operating losses in

one year (2007) during the period. The industry’s operating income and operating income margin both

increased slightly from 2005 to 2006, but then decreased noticeably in 2007. When comparing 2007

results to 2006 results, only five producers, ***, reported higher levels of operating income (and only ***

generated a higher operating income margin); when comparing 2007 results to 2005 results, 17 of the 20

producers reported decreased operating income.

Table VI-2

Circular welded pipe: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, fiscal years 2005-07

* * * * * * *
 9

 According to ***, its product mix is ***, making its raw material costs ***.

 10 ***.

 11 ***.

 12 ***.

 13 ***. Financing expenses, whether they were related to *** or not, were reported as interest expenses, and fees

related to refinancing were reported as other expenses. Both of these expenses were below the operating income line

and do not have any impact on the operating income. ***.

 14 ***.

 15 Eight producers reported substantially increased conversion cost (direct labor and factory overhead combined)

between 2006 and 2007. Their supplemental responses to Commission staff’s questions ***.

 16 ***.

VI-4

The data show that *** achieved the highest dollar value of operating profits, and accounted for

approximately *** percent of the industry’s operating income in 2007. *** achieved the next highest

dollar value of operating income, accounting for approximately *** percent and *** percent,

respectively, of the industry’s combined operating income in 2007. With respect to ***, this is due to its

relatively higher average unit sales values compared with its decreased COGS. *** per-unit COGS was

lower than the industry average and decreased substantially from 2006 to 2007. On the other hand, ***

operating income decreased noticeably from 2006 to 2007 because its production costs rose substantially

during the same period.9

 *** had unusually higher sales volume in *** compared to other periods and

sales fell sharply ***. *** received a large order in *** which was not repeated ***.

***.10 ***.11 *** also reported ***. It explained that ***12 ***.13 

Selected aggregate per-short ton cost data of the producers on their operations, i.e., COGS and

SG&A expenses, are presented in table VI-3. The ratio of total COGS to net sales increased from 83.2 

percent in 2006 to 89.2 percent in 2007. Overall per-short ton COGS14 and total cost (which includes

both COGS and SG&A expenses) increased by approximately 5.8 percent from 2006 to 2007, driven

mainly by changes in conversion (also called fabrication) costs,15 as well as SG&A expenses.16

Table VI-3

Circular welded pipe: Average unit costs of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2005-07

Item

Fiscal year

2005 2006 2007

COGS: Value (per short ton)

 Raw materials $631 $632 $629

 Direct labor 67 46 62

 Factory overhead 118 116 142

 Total COGS 817 794 833

SG&A expenses 36 49 59

 Total cost 853 843 892

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
VI-5

A variance analysis for the 20 U.S. producers is presented in table VI-4. A variance analysis

depicts the effects of changes in average prices and volume on the producers’ net sales, and of

costs/expenses and volume on their total cost. The data presented in table VI-4 are comparable to

changes in operating income as presented in table VI-1. The analysis is summarized at the bottom of the

table. The analysis indicates that the decrease in operating income ($79.0 million) between 2005 and

2007 was attributable mainly to the negative effects of increased costs/expenses ($56.6 million) and

decreased sales price ($29.6 million) which was offset partially by the positive effect of increased sales

volume ($7.2 million). Between 2006 and 2007, it indicates that the decrease in operating income of

$90.1 million again resulted from the negative effects of increased costs/expenses and decreased sale

price, despite increases of sales volume. 

Table VI-4

Circular welded pipe: Variance analysis of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2005-07 

Item

Between fiscal years

2005-07 2005-06 2006-07

Value ($1,000)

Net sales:

 Price variance (29,581) 912 (30,565)

 Volume variance 68,100 (33,698) 101,870

 Total net sales variance 38,519 (32,786) 71,305

Cost of sales:

 Cost variance (23,367) 30,668 (56,433)

 Volume variance (58,325) 28,861 (84,788)

 Total cost variance (81,692) 59,529 (141,221)

Gross profit variance (43,173) 26,743 (69,916)

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance (33,230) (16,938) (14,967)

 Volume variance (2,606) 1,290 (5,221)

 Total SG&A variance (35,836) (15,648) (20,188)

Operating income variance (79,009) 11,095 (90,104)

Summarized as:

 Price variance (29,581) 912 (30,565)

 Net cost/expense variance (56,596) 13,730 (71,400)

 Net volume variance 7,169 (3,547) 11,861

Note.--Unfavorable variances are shown in parentheses; all others are favorable. The data are comparable to

changes in operating income as presented in table VI-1.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 17 As discussed in detail in table VI-6, ***.

VI-6

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES

The responding firms’ aggregate data on capital expenditures and research and development

(“R&D”) expenses are presented in table VI-5. Even though all U.S. producers except for *** reported

capital expenditures, eight producers incurred substantial amounts of capital expenditures during the

period for which data were collected.17 Data for capital expenditures on a firm-by-firm basis are shown in

table VI-6. While capital expenditures decreased continuously between 2005 and 2007, due primarily to

*** over the period examined, R&D expenses increased continuously during the same period. Only four

of the responding firms, ***, reported R&D expenses.

Table VI-5

Circular welded pipe: Capital expenditures and R&D expenses by U.S. producers, fiscal years

2005-07

Item

Fiscal year

2005 2006 2007

Value ($1,000)

 Capital expenditures1 42,724 37,666 23,962

 R&D expenses2

 *** *** ***

 1 All companies except *** reported capital expenditures. 

 2

 Only *** reported R&D expenses.

 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table VI-6

Circular welded pipe: Capital expenditures by U.S. producers, by firms, fiscal years 2005-07 

* * * * * * *

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

U.S. producers were requested to provide data on their assets used in the production and sales of

circular welded pipe during the period for which data were collected to assess their return on investment

(“ROI”). Although ROI can be computed in different ways, a commonly used method is income earned

during the period divided by the total assets utilized for the operations. Therefore, staff calculated ROI as

operating income divided by total assets used in the production and sales of circular welded pipe. Data on

the U.S. producers’ total assets and their ROI are presented in table VI-7. The return on investment

decreased continuously and substantially between 2005 and 2007. 
 18 ***.

 19 ***. ***. ***. 

 20 ***.

 21 Other variations and changes of the value of PPE may be attributable to the allocated assets based on the

relative sales value of the subject merchandise compared to the total sales.

 22 ***.

VI-7

Table VI-7

Circular welded pipe: Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, fiscal years

2005-07

Item

Fiscal year

2005 2006 2007

Value of assets Value ($1,000)

1. Current assets:

 A. Cash and equivalents 30,767 61,727 34,130

 B. Trade receivables (net) 187,205 169,276 169,604

 C. Inventories 221,717 322,863 253,318

 D. All other current 10,164 19,123 26,454

 Total current 449,853 572,989 483,506

2. Non-current assets:

 A. Productive facilities1 382,584 380,314 390,342

 B. Productive facilities 175,271 220,781 215,421

 C. Other non-current 15,419 771,606 601,088

 Total non-current 190,690 *** ***

 Total assets 640,543 *** ***

 Value ($1,000)

Operating income 140,545 151,640 61,536

Ratio of operating income to total assets (percent)

Return on investment 21.9 *** ***

 1 Original cost of property, plant, and equipment (PPE).

 2

 Net book value of PPE (original cost less accumulated depreciation). 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The value of total assets, especially for other non-current assets, as well as net book value of

property, plant, and equipment (“PPE”) increased substantially from 2005 to 2006 and then decreased

from 2006 to 2007. The data for individual companies show a wide range of fluctuation during the period

for which data were collected.18 19 20 21 Total assets value increased substantially from 2005 to 2006, the

result of increases in other non-current assets reported by ***.22
VI-8

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual negative effects on their return

on investment, or their growth, investment, ability to raise capital, existing development and production

efforts, or the scale of capital investments as a result of imports of circular welded pipe from China. The

producers’ comments are presented in appendix G.
 1

 Global welded tube and pipe production, by region, 2005-07, International Iron and Steel Institute.

 2

 As reported by Global Trade Atlas in HTS 7306.30, which includes most welded carbon steel pipe and tube

(other than line pipe and OCTG). At the international level, the HTS system is consistent across countries at the 6-

digit level and lower.

 3

 Welded Steel Tube & Pipe Monthly (“WSTPM”), February 2008, p. 6.

 4 On March 25, 2008, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal issued a preliminary determination that carbon

steel welded pipe, commonly identified as standard pipe, from China have caused injury or retardation or are

threatening to cause injury by reason of dumping and subsidizing,

("http://www.citt-tcce.gc.ca/dumping/preinq/determin/pi2h002_e.asp"), retrieved April 8, 2008 and WSTPM,

February 2008, p. 8. On September 26, 2007, the EU issued a “Notice of Initiation” (No. 2007/C 226/04) for an

antidumping proceeding concerning imports of standard tubes and pipes from China and other countries. 

Imports of nonsubject line pipe and nonsubject light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from China also face trade

actions in the United States. See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From China, Korea, Mexico, and Turkey,

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-449 and 731-TA-118-1121(Preliminary), USITC Publication 3941, August 2007 and

Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from China and Korea, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-445 and

731-TA-1149-1150 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4003, May 2008.

 5

 Staff used 2006 data from the estimates in the preliminary phase of the investigations for estimated production

of circular welded pipe in China and estimated exports of Chinese circular welded pipe to the United States for nine

firms (***) that stated these estimates are not available in the final phase of these investigations. In addition, ***

did not provide estimates of either its production of circular welded pipe in China or its exports to the United States

accounted for by its operations. Reported exports in 2007 were equivalent to 59 percent of 2007 imports of circular

(continued...)

VII-1

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND BRATSK INFORMATION

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making threat determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(F)(I)). Information on the nature of the subsidies was presented earlier in this report; 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 and appendix G. 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.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Overview

According to the International Iron and Steel Institute, China is currently the world’s leading

producer of welded tubular products, with total production of 22.1 million short tons in 2006, an increase

of almost 15 percent from the level recorded in 2005.1

According to Global Trade Atlas, China has been the world’s leading exporter of circular welded

tubular products (other than line pipe and OCTG) since 2005.2

 However, price increases and a 15 percent

export tariff have contributed to increasing challenges by welded tubular products from Australia,

Thailand, and Korea.3

 In addition, Chinese exports of tubular products to the EU, the U.S., and Canadian

markets face trade actions in each of these key markets.4

 

For these final phase investigations, the Commission sent foreign producer questionnaires to 52

firms that were identified as possible producers/exporters of circular welded pipe in China. Chinese

producers and exporters of circular welded pipe supplied 15 questionnaires, accounting for an estimated

51.5 percent of production in China in 2007, and an estimated 65.1 percent of 2007 Chinese exports of

circular welded pipe to the United States.5 6

 Questionnaire respondents included: 
 5

 (...continued)

welded pipe from China according to official statistics (as adjusted to include subject dual-stenciled line pipe and

micro-alloy steel pipe).

 6

 CCCMC respondents claim that products could be deemed exported if they are placed in a bonded warehouse

prior to being physically exports, but that bonded warehousing is expensive and that there is “little evidence to

suggest that this occurred to any significant degree in advance of the effective date of the VAT rebate elimination or

the export tax.” CCCMC posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 8.

 7

 Shanghai Metals is an exporter of circular welded pipe produced by ***.

 8

 Shijiazhuang an exporter of circular welded pipe produced by ***.

VII-2

• Benxi Northern Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Benxi”);

• Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Guangdong Walsall”);

• Hengshui Jinghua Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Hengshui”);

• Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Huludao”);

• Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc-Plating Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Jiangsu Guoqiang”);

• Liaoning Northern Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Liaoning Northern”);

• Shanghai Alison Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Alison”);

• Shanghai Metals and Minerals Import and Export Co. (“Shanghai Metals”);7

• Shanghai Zhongyou TIPO Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Zhongqing”);

• Shijiazhuang Zhongqing Import & Export Co., Ltd. and Bazhoushi Zhuofa Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.

(“Shijiazhuang”);8

• Tai Feng Qiao Metal Products Co., Ltd. (“Tai Feng”);

• Tianjin Lifengyuanda Steel Group Co., Ltd. (“Tianjin Lifengyuanda”);

• Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Tianjin Shuangjie”);

• Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Weifang”);

• Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Zhejiang Kingland”)

Table VII-1 presents data on the shares of 2007 reported capacity and production in China of

each of the 15 Chinese respondents, and their estimated shares of total 2007 production in China. The

*** largest firms, ***, accounted for approximately one-half of reported production and capacity in

China in 2007. 

Table VII-2 presents data on the shares of 2007 reported exports to the United States for each

respondent. Exports from China appear to be dispersed among the 15 respondents. ***, ***, ***, ***,

and *** are the larger responding exporters of circular welded pipe to the United States. 

Table VII-1

Circular welded pipe: Chinese producers’ reported capacity, production, shares of reported

capacity and production, and estimated shares of total production in China, 2007

* * * * * * *

Table VII-2

Circular welded pipe: Chinese producers’ reported exports to the United States and shares of total

reported exports to the United States, 2007

* * * * * * *

The estimated share of each respondent firm’s total sales represented by sales of circular welded

pipe varied widely by firm. Table VII-3 presents information by firm for 2007 sales. Most firms devoted
 9

 Only two reporting firms, ***, in the industry devoted a minor amount of their sales (***) to the subject

product. In addition, *** is an exporter only and does not produce the subject product.

 10 CCCMC respondents asserted that “there is no incentive for the Chinese industry to ship circular welded pipe

in volume to the United States” due to the “strong demand for circular welded pipe in China’s domestic market and

other markets, a weak U.S. dollar, rising input costs in China and high freight rates.” CCCMC posthearing brief, pp.

13-14.

 11 For 2005 and 2006, exports of circular welded pipe from China received a “commodity export rebate” of 13

percent. However, in a document issued on June 19, 2007, China’s Ministry of Finance/State Administration of

Taxation declared this rebate to be abolished with respect to “general ordinary pipe products (except oil casing),”

effective July 1, 2007 (with the effective date for certain transactions extended to July 20, 2007). Postconference

brief of Chinese producers and exporters, exhibit 25. In the another document issued on December 26, 2007,

China’s Ministry of Finance/State Administration of Taxation instituted a 15 percent export duty rate for 7306.30.00, 

“steel welded pipe of circular cross section.” Letter from Matthew McCullough, counsel to Chinese producers and

exporters, March 27, 2008. Tables H-3 and H-4 in appendix H present firm-by-firm information on the impact of the

abolishment of the 13 percent commodity export rebate by the Chinese government. Dual-stenciled pipe that meets

line pipe specifications would be exported as line pipe (subject to these investigations), and is not subject to the VAT

rebate elimination or the export tax under China’s current tax schedule. CCCMC posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 37.

 12 CCCMC respondents contend that China’s tax policy changes as well as its broader policy objectives will

“dramatically reduce the level of circular welded pipe exports from China.” CCCMC posthearing brief, p. 13.

VII-3

the vast majority of their sales to the subject product. Only three firms devoted less than *** percent of

their sales to sales of circular welded pipe: ***.9

 

Table VII-3

Circular welded pipe: Chinese producers’ shares of total sales represented by sales of circular

welded pipe, 2007

* * * * * * *

Circular Welded Pipe Operations

Information on the Chinese industry’s circular welded pipe operations is presented in table VII-4. 

Reported capacity, production, and capacity utilization increased overall from 2005 to 2007, while

projections for 2008-09 for capacity and production declined to levels lower than those reported in 2005,

2006, or 2007. Capacity for responding firms was based on a range of 8 to 168 hours per week, 3.3 to 51

weeks per year. Table H-1 in appendix H presents firm-by-firm operating rates for circular welded pipe

production in China. 

Production in China of circular welded pipe was more than double that of the U.S. industry

during 2007. Home market sales were consistently greater than two-thirds of shipments, but declined as a

share of total shipments during 2005-07.10 From 2005 to 2007, the shares of internal

consumption/transfers were less than two percent of the total quantity of shipments. As a share of total

shipments, exports destined for the United States increased from 2005 to 2006, but fell slightly in 2007

when compared to 2006. Projections for exports to the United States in 2008-09 show a marked decline

as a share of total shipments and a more moderate decline for exports to Canada and the European Union,

while exports to all other markets are projected to rise, with a resulting overall decline of projected

exports by nearly one-half when compared to 2007.11 12 Home market sales are projected to grow as a

share of total shipments during 2008-09.

Table H-2 in appendix H presents firm-by-firm information on the basis for projections for 2008-

09 data included in table VII-4.
VII-4

Table VII-4

Circular welded pipe: Chinese producers’ reported production capacity, production, shipments,

and inventories, 2005-07, and projected 2008-09

Item

Actual experience Projections

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (short tons)

Capacity 3,495,377 3,745,454 3,708,289 3,097,946 3,121,277

Production 2,508,466 3,155,326 3,029,949 2,381,006 2,483,684

End-of-period inventories 152,401 159,825 148,996 106,277 120,314

Shipments:

Internal consumption 31,678 49,601 47,513 40,300 45,220

Home market 1,914,105 2,259,046 2,172,206 1,906,475 1,965,149

Exports to--

The United States 272,062 474,262 453,355 80,081 88,081

European Union 82,961 142,874 248,247 142,200 153,700

Canada 63,514 84,700 75,903 55,750 54,000

All other markets 183,739 293,285 209,651 187,351 201,198

Total exports 602,276 995,121 987,156 465,382 496,979

Total shipments 2,548,059 3,303,768 3,206,875 2,412,157 2,507,348

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 71.8 84.2 81.7 76.9 79.6

Inventories to production 6.1 5.1 4.9 4.5 4.8

Inventories to total shipments 6.0 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.8

Share of total quantity of shipments:

Internal consumption 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.8

Home market 75.1 68.4 67.7 79.0 78.4

Exports to--

The United States 10.7 14.4 14.1 3.3 3.5

European Union 3.3 4.3 7.7 5.9 6.1

Canada 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.2

All other markets 7.2 8.9 6.5 7.8 8.0

All export markets 23.6 30.1 30.8 19.3 19.8

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Inventories held by producers in China decreased moderately between 2005 and 2007. No firm

reported maintaining inventories of circular welded pipe in the United States. One firm, ***, reported
 13 Currently subject to countervailing and antidumping duty investigations in the United States. Certain Circular

Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from China and Korea, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-445 and 731-TA-1149-

1150 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4003, May 2008.

 14 Currently subject to countervailing and antidumping duty investigations in the United States. Light-Walled

Rectangular Pipe and Tube From China, Korea, Mexico, and Turkey, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-449 and

731-TA-118-1121(Preliminary), USITC Publication 3941, August 2007.

VII-5

that approximately *** percent of its total sales of circular welded pipe in 2007 were made over the

internet.

Three out of 15 firms reported plans to add, expand, curtail, or shut down production capacity

and/or production of circular welded pipe in China:

• ***

• ***

• ***

Alternative Products

In addition to circular welded pipe, Chinese producers produce small/medium diameter line

pipe,13 large diameter line pipe, OCTG, and other (primarily non-circular) pipe14 on the same equipment

and machinery used to produce circular welded pipe. The production of these other pipe products was a

relatively small part of the operations of Chinese circular welded pipe producers. The largest nonsubject

product category produced on the same equipment and machinery was the production of OCTG. Tubular

products other than the subject circular welded pipe grew in volume of production throughout 2005-07,

while the volume in production of subject circular welded pipe fell in 2007 after increasing by 25.8

percent in 2006. Subject circular welded pipe is still the highest volume type of pipe produced in the

Chinese producers’ facilities in each of the periods, as shown in table VII-5.
VII-6

Table VII-5

Circular welded pipe: Chinese producers’ total plant capacity and production, by products, 2005-

07

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

Total plant capacity1 3,655,732 4,080,540 4,089,289

Production:

Subject circular welded pipe 2,508,466 3,155,326 3,029,949

Small/medium line pipe2 48,962 76,976 131,076

Large diameter line pipe3 25,000 54,000 104,000

OCTG 68,376 136,310 223,354

Other4 38,943 60,103 56,780

Total, all products 2,689,747 3,482,715 3,545,158

Total plant capacity utilization (percent) 73.6 85.3 86.7

 1 Capacity (production capability) is based on operating 32-144 hours per week, 32-50 weeks per year.

 2

 Welded line pipe 16 inches or less in outside diameter (excluding dual-stenciled pipe with one or more of the

following characteristics: 32 feet in length or less; less than 2 inches in outside diameter; galvanized and/or painted

surface finish; or threaded and/or coupled end finish used in standard/structural applications). 

 3

 Welded line pipe greater than 16 inches in outside diameter.

 4

 Other products consist primarily of non-circular tubing.

Note.--Staff included the capacity and production data of 4 firms (***) that produce only subject pipe.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Most Chinese producers reported constraints on their capacity as presented in table VII-6. These

constraints consisted primarily of raw materials shortages, power cuts, and production equipment issues.

Table VII-6

Circular welded pipe: Chinese producers’ constraints on capacity to produce circular welded pipe

in China

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTS SUBSEQUENT TO DECEMBER 31, 2007

U.S. importers responding to the Commission’s questionnaire provided information concerning

their imports of circular welded pipe from China scheduled for delivery after December 31, 2007. This

information is presented in table VII-7.

Table VII-7

Circular welded pipe: U.S. imports scheduled for delivery after December 31, 2007

Item Jan-Mar 2008 Apr-June 2008 July-Sept 2008 Oct-Dec 2008

Imports from China 3,600 23 0 0

Imports from all other sources 104,824 95,593 31,121 21,615

 Total 108,424 95,616 31,121 21,615

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 15 CCCMC respondents contend that products could be deemed exported if they are placed in a bonded

warehouse prior to being physically exports, but that bonded warehousing is expensive and that there is “little

evidence to suggest that this occurred to any significant degree in advance of the effective date of the VAT rebate

elimination or the export tax.” CCCMC posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 8.

VII-7

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Data collected in these investigations on U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of circular

welded pipe are presented table VII-8. U.S. importers’ inventories of circular welded pipe from China

more than quadrupled from 2005 to 2006, then declined in 2007. These inventories as a share of imports

and U.S. shipments of imports more than doubled from 2005 to 2006, then declined in 2007.15

Inventories of nonsubject product continued to rise in each year from 2005 to 2007. 

Table VII-8

Circular welded pipe: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2005-07

Item

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007

China:

Inventories (short tons) 9,328 42,220 29,798

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) 3.6 7.6 4.8

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 3.7 8.4 4.9

Ratio to total shipments of imports (percent) 3.7 8.4 4.9

Nonsubject sources:

Inventories (short tons) 28,190 46,494 48,319

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) 7.9 11.8 15.8

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 8.1 12.7 17.1

Ratio to total shipments of imports (percent) 8.1 12.7 17.1

All sources:

Inventories (short tons) 37,518 88,714 78,117

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) 6.1 9.3 8.5

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 6.2 10.2 8.7

Ratio to total shipments of imports (percent) 6.2 10.2 8.7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 16 *** reported that certain hollow steel sections are subject to antidumping findings or remedies in Australia

since May 24, 2007. Australian Custom Service, Trade Measure Branch, “Preliminary Affirmative Determination

No 116: Certain Hollow Structural Sections Exported from the People’s Republic of China,” November 24, 2006.

 17 On March 25, 2008, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal issued a preliminary determination that carbon

steel welded pipe, commonly identified as standard pipe, in the nominal size range of half an inch up to and

including six inches, in various forms and finishes, usually supplied to meet ASTM A53, ASTM A135, ASTM

A252, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, ASTM F1083, or Commercial Quality, or AWWA C200-97 or equivalent

specifications, including water well casing, piling pipe, sprinkler pipe, and fencing pipe, but excluding oil and gas

line pipe made to API specifications exclusively, from China have caused injury or retardation or are threatening to

cause injury by reason of dumping and subsidizing. 

“http://www.citt-tcce.gc.ca/dumping/preinq/determin/pi2h002_e.asp”, retrieved April 8, 2008.

 18 *** reported that ASTM black pipe and ASTM galvanized pipe are subject to antidumping findings or

remedies in Dubai since September 18, 2007 and September 30, 2007, respectively.

 19 *** reported that GB galvanized pipe are subject to antidumping findings or remedies in Fiji since October 31,

2007 and November 3, 2007.

 20 *** reported that ASTM black pipe and ASTM galvanized pipe are subject to antidumping findings or

remedies in the Philippines since December 1, 2007.

 21 Silicon Metal from Russia, Investigation No. 731-TA-991 (Second Remand), USITC Publication 3910, March

2007, p. 2; citing Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d at 1375.

 22 In the silicon metal remand, Chairman Pearson noted “consistent with his views in Lined Paper School

Supplies From China, India, and Indonesia, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-442-443 and 731-TA-1095-1097 (Final),

USITC Publication 3884 (September 2006) at 51, that while he agrees with the Commission that the Federal

Circuit’s opinion suggests a replacement/benefit test, he also finds that the Federal Circuit’s opinion could be read,

not as requiring a new test, but rather as a reminder that the Commission, before it makes an affirmative

determination, must satisfy itself that it has not attributed material injury to factors other than subject imports.” 

Silicon Metal from Russia, Investigation No. 731-TA-991 (Second Remand), USITC Publication 3910, March 2007,

p. 2, fn. 17. Commissioner Okun joined in those separate and dissenting views in Lined Paper.

VII-8

DUMPING IN THIRD COUNTRY MARKETS

Chinese questionnaire respondents reported that circular welded pipe was subject to an

antidumping duty order in Australia imposed on June 25, 2006.16 Canada17 and the European Union 

initiated antidumping and subsidized import investigations on carbon steel welded pipe from China in

early 2008. One Chinese producer, ***, reported that circular welded pipes from China are subject to

antidumping findings or remedies in Dubai,18 Fiji,19 and the Philippines.20 Chinese respondents reported

no additional barriers to their exports of circular welded pipe. 

 INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT SOURCES

“Bratsk” Considerations

As a result of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) decision in Bratsk

Aluminum Smelter v. United States (“Bratsk”), the Commission is directed to:21 22

undertake an “additional causation inquiry” whenever certain triggering factors are met:

“whenever the antidumping investigation is centered on a commodity product, and price

competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the market.” The additional

inquiry required by the Court, which we refer to as the Bratsk replacement/benefit test, is
 23 Silicon Metal from Russia, Investigation No. 731-TA-991 (Second Remand), USITC Publication 3910,

September 2007, p. 2; citing Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d at 1375. 

 24 Petitioners argue that Bratsk considerations are not applicable in these investigations because “price

competitive nonsubject imports were not a significant factor in the U.S. market during the period of investigations.” 

Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exh. B, p. B-2.

 25 CCCMC respondents argue that Bratsk considerations are applicable in these investigations, noting that the

record in these investigations show that nonsubject imports “fulfill both the volume and pricing prongs of the Bratsk

test.” It states that imports have “always had a significant presence in this market and that nonsubject sources have a

demonstrated capacity to ship much more circular welded pipe to the U.S. market and at prices that undersell the

domestic product.” CCCMC posthearing brief, p. 14 and exh. 1, p. 5.

 26 IISI, Steel Statistical Yearbook 2007. Global and regional production data as published by IISI refer to all

welded pipe and tube (including, e.g., mechanical tubing, structural tubing, OCTG, and line pipe), and are therefore

substantially broader than the subject merchandise. As such, global and regional production data represent general

trends and are for illustrative purposes only.

 27 Data for 2007 are not yet available.

VII-9

“whether non-subject imports would have replaced the subject imports without any

beneficial effect on domestic producers.”23 24 25

Nonsubject Source Information

During the final phase of these investigations, the Commission sought pricing data from U.S.

importers for each of the firm’s two largest nonsubject sources of U.S. imports from each U.S. importer of

circular welded pipe. Those data are presented collectively in Part V of this report and individually in

appendix F. With respect to foreign nonsubject sources of supply, the Commission sought publicly

available information regarding international suppliers of circular welded pipe from national import and

export statistics, from conference and hearing testimony, from correspondence with industry sources, and

from published sources.

Overview

In general, most published data on welded steel pipes and tubes distinguish between OCTG and 

line pipe on the one hand, and all other forms of welded pipe (including standard pipe and various forms

of structural and mechanical pipe, pressure pipe, and piling) on the other. That is, in terms of demand

factors, most analyses focus on energy applications compared with structural applications, very broadly

defined. 

 In addition, published analyses of supply factors often are aggregated at an even broader level,

combining all forms of welded pipe, reflecting in part a commonality among raw materials (i.e., hot-rolled

sheet and strip and, for thicker pipe and tubes, steel plate) and some overlap of production facilities and

methods. Accordingly, information and data are provided according to their availability, and include both

circular welded pipe tube and nonsubject forms of welded pipe. 

Circular welded pipe is produced in substantial quantities by welded pipe and tube producers

throughout the world. Although figures specifically for global circular welded pipe production are not

generally available, the International Iron and Steel Institute (“IISI”) publishes data on the global

production of the larger product grouping of all welded pipe and tube.26 As shown in table VII-9, welded

pipe and tube production, especially in China, increased between 2004 and 2006.27
VII-10

Table VII-9

Carbon steel welded pipes: Global production, by region, 2004-06

Region 2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 short tons)

North America

 Canada 2,995 3,127 3,250

 Mexico 612 639 651

 Subtotal 3,607 3,766 3,901

 Total North America 4,892 6,662 7,019

Europe

 European Union (15) 10,049 9,984 10,639

 Other EU 1,271 1,167 1,268

 Subtotal 11,320 11,151 11,907

 Total Europe 11,601 11,418 12,205

Asia

 China 14,344 19,255 22,144

 Korea 4,701 4,467 4,527

 Taiwan 1,204 1,096 1,230

 Subtotal 20,249 24,818 27,901

 Total Asia 29,544 33,901 38,061

Other 533 712 0

World, total 46,570 52,693 57,285

Note.–The data presented in this table are for all welded pipe and tube, and are therefore substantially overstated

with respect to standard and structural pipe and tube subject to these investigations. Data were not published for

Commonwealth of Independent States, India, South America, Thailand, and Turkey in 2004-06; data were also not

published for Australia and Oceania in 2006. The original data were published in metric tons, which were converted

to short tons by multiplying by a conversion factor of 1.1023. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals

shown.

Source: International Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Statistical Yearbook, 2007.
VII-11

Leading Nonsubject Sources of Circular Welded Pipe

Global Trade Atlas data also provide a measure of the trade flows in subject merchandise,

although for international comparisons only the 6-digit level of the HTS is available. Table VII-10

presents data for HTS 7306.30 which covers most welded carbon quality steel tube and pipe, including

nonsubject products such as tapered welded pipe and pipes that are used in boilers, superheaters, and heat

exchangers (but not including energy tubular products such as line pipe or OCTG). Table VII-11

provides available information regarding the production capabilities of the industries providing the largest

volumes of U.S. imports of circular welded pipe from countries other than China.

Table VII-10

Carbon steel welded pipe: Global exports, by region, 2005-07

Reporting country

2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007

Exports (short tons) Unit value (per short ton)

China 781,837 1,294,082 1,637,627 $538 $517 $564

Italy 733,308 860,513 880,201 1,027 1,013 1,178

Germany 377,504 451,863 459,122 1,334 1,262 1,436

Canada 455,532 428,103 417,193 910 929 954

United States 236,690 264,708 317,655 1,411 1,350 1,298

South Korea 215,812 209,104 254,777 796 718 838

Ukraine 108,040 138,990 228,203 525 564 715

Switzerland 189,628 206,683 216,758 1,295 1,286 1,524

Belgium 103,108 134,119 197,129 810 765 859

All other 2,419,084 2,160,205 1,992,324 858 947 1,094

Total 5,663,855 6,193,584 8,230,508 894 891 789

Note.--The data presented in this table are for HTS 7306.30 which covers most welded carbon steel pipe and tube

(other than line pipe and OCTG), including welded circular pipe together with tapered welded pipe and pipes that are

used in boilers, superheaters, and heat exchangers that are not included as subject products.

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas.
VII-12

Table VII-11 

Circular welded pipe: Locations, capacity,1

 and parent companies of production facilities in nonsubject

countries

Firm

Production

location

Capacity1

(short tons) Product standard(s)

Parent company/related

foreign producer

Canada 

Atlas Tube Inc.

(Canada) Harrow , Ontario 750,000 ASTM A-500

Atlas Tube Group (Canada) is

an affiliate of Carlyle Group

(US)

Canada Phoenix

Steel Products Ltd. Etobicoke, Ontario (2

) ASTM A-252

(

2

)

IPSCO Inc.

Calgary, Alberta 300,000

ASTM A-53,

 A-135, A-252, 

A- 500

Evraz-TMK purchased IPSCO’s

facility from SSAB (Sweden) in

2008.

Regina,

Saskatchewan 1,000,000

Red Deer, Alberta 155,000

OSM TubularCamrose Camrose, Alberta 320,000API 5L X 42 ASTM A252 Purchased by Evraz (Russia)

Mittal Canada Inc. Montreal, Quebec 130,000

ASTM A-53, 

A-795 ArcelorMittal 

Prudential Steel

(Canada) Calgary, Alberta 529,000

API 5L, ASTM A-53,

A- 252, A-500

An affiliate of Tenaris

(Luxembourg) group.

Lake Side Steel

Corp. Welland, Ontario 200,000

API 5L, 

ASTM A-53, A-135,

A252, A-500, A-795

Lake Side purchased Telpipe in

November 2005.

India

Advance Steel Tube Sahibabad 83,000

ASTM A-53, 

A-500, (2

)

Ajanta Tubes Delhi 127,000 ASTM A-53 (2

)

Arce Ispat Udyog

Talwandi Rana,

Hisar (2

)

Standard, ordinary

carbon steel pipe (2)

Asian Mills Pvt

Limited Taluk Kalol, Gujarat (2

)

API 5L, 

ASTM A-53 (2)

Bihar Tubes (BTL) Sikandrabad, U.P. 110,000 ASTM A-53 (2

)

Denholm Steels

Tajola,

Maharashtra (2

)

British and European

standards (2)

Good Luck Steel

Tubes (GTC)

Goodluckwork

Works,

Bulandshahr 110,000 ASTM A-53, (2

)

Gemini Steel Tubes Hoscote, Karnataka 24,000 ASTM A-53, A-500 (2

)

Jagan Tubes

Gholumajra Works,

Punjab 132,000

British and EU

Standards.

(

2

)

Jindal Pipe

Raigad

220,000 API 5L, ASTM A-53 (2 Ghaziabad )

Table continued on next page.
VII-13

Table VII-11--Continued

Circular welded pipe: Locations, capacity,1

 and parent companies of production facilities in nonsubject

countries

Firm

Production

locations

Capacity1

(short tons) Product standards

Parent company/related

foreign producer

India (continued) 

KLTA

 Premium Tubes

Taluka-Palghar,

Thane (2

) EU standard (2)

Lloyds Metals &

Engineers Murbad 83,000 API 5L, ASTM A-500 (2

)

Laxmi Pipe Hansi (2

) EU Standard (2)

Maharashtra 

Seamless Raigad, Maharastra 165,000

API 5L, 

ASTM A-53, (2

)

Metalman Industries Indore, India (2

) ASTM A-53, A-500 (2)

Mretalex Pipes New Dehli (2

)

British and EU

standards (2)

Nezone Tube

Dankuni, West

Bengal (2

)

Low carbon standard

pipe (2)

Rama Steel Tubes Sahibabad, U.P. (2

) ASTM A-53, A-500 (2)

Shakti Tubes Hazipur, Bihar (2

) EU standard (2)

Siddhartha Tubes Sarangpur, M.P. (2

) ASTM A-53 (2)

Sri Sarbati Steel

Tubes

Pondichery Mailam,

Pondichery (2

) ASTM A-53 (2)

Steel Authority of

India Rourkela, Orissa 143,000

API 5L, 

ASTM A-53, (2

)

Surya Steel Pipe Rohtak, Haryana 331,000

API 5L, 

ASTM A-53

Former name: Surya Roshni

Ltd.

Technocraft Mumbai 93,000 ASTM A-53 (2)

Zenith Steel Pipes

Khopoli,

Maharashtra (2

) ASTM A-53, A-500 (2)

Korea

Dongbu Steel Seo Gu, Inchon 2,756,000

API 5L, 

ASTM A- 53, A-135,

A-252, A-500 (2

)

His Steel Seoul (2

) ASTM A-53, A-500 (2)

Husteel Co.

Daebul, ChullanamDo 331,000

API 5L, 

ASTM A-53, A-252,

A-500 (2

)

Dangjin,

ChungcheonnamDo 551,000

Hyundai HYSCO Buk-Ku, Ulsan 1,102,000

API 5L, 

ASTM A-53, A-135,

A-252, A-500 Hyundai Steel Pipe Co.

Table continued on next page.
VII-14

Table VII-11--Continued

Circular welded pipe: Locations, capacity,1 and parent companies of production facilities in nonsubject

countries

Firm

Production

locations

Capacity1

(short tons) Product standards

Parent company/related

foreign producer

Korea (continued)

Miju Steel

Nam-Gu, Incheon

(

2

)

Standard, ordinary

uses, structure,

scaffolding (

2

)

Pohang-Si,

Gyeongsangbuk-Do

Suncheon -Si

Jeollanam-Do

SeAH Steel Corp.

Changwon City,

Gyongsannam-Do

1,300,000

API-5L, 

ASTM A-53, A-135,

A-252, A-500 (2

)

Pohang City,

Gyungsangbuk-Do

Mexico

Fabrica de Tubos

Bufalo SA

GuadelupeTepayac, Deleg

Gustavo, A Madero 11,000 Standard pipe (2

)

Ternium Hylsa/

Industrias Monterrey

Monterrey and

Nuevo Leon (2

)

API-5L, ASTM A-53,

A-500 Ternium

Tuberia Laguna

Parque Industrial

Lagunero, Durango 138,000

API-5L, 

ASTM A-53 (2

)

Tuberia Nacional

S.A.de C.V. Nuevo Leon (2

)

API-5L, ASTM A-53,

A-500 Villacero

Taiwan

Femco Chiayi 159,000

API-5L, ASTM A-53,

A-252, A-500 (2

)

Kao Hsing Chang

(KHC) KaoHsiung (2

) API-5L, ASTM A-53 (2)

Kounan Steel Kaohsiung Shiang (2

)

Carbon and low alloy,

 structural, round (2)

Yieh Hsing

Enterprise Kaohsiung 220,000 ASTM A-53 (2

)

Yieh Loong Kaohsiung Hsieng 110,000 API-5L, ASTM A-53 (2

)

Thailand

Able Industries Pathumthani 120,000

API-5L 

ASTM A-533 (

2

)

Saha Thai Steel

Pipe Samutprakarn 198,000

Black steel pipe,

galvanized steel pipe4 (

2

)

Samchai Steel

Industries Samutsakom 165,000 ASTM A-53 (2

)

Thai Union Steel Phrapradaeng (2

) ASTM A-53 (2)

Table continued on next page.
VII-15

Table VII-11--Continued

Circular welded pipe: Locations, capacity,1

 and parent companies of production facilities in nonsubject

countries

Firm

Production

locations

Capacity1

(short tons) Product standards

Parent company/related

foreign producer

Turkey

Borusan

Mannesmann

Boru

Gemlik, Bursa

827,000

API-5L, ASTM A-53,

A-135, A-252, A-500 (2 Sefakoy, Istanbul )

Can Boru Eregli 55,000 ASTM A-500 (2

)

Cayirova Boru Gebze 331,000

API-5L, ASTM A-53,

A-500 (2

)

Emek Boru Sincan, Ankara 176,000

API-5L, ASTM A-252, 

A 53 (2

)

Ebosan Kayseri 154,000

API-5L, 

ASTM A- 53 (2

)

Erciyas Steel Pipe

Industry Duzce/Bolu 187,000

API-5L, ASTM-A53, 

A-252 (2

)

Goktas Tube Gebze 55,000 ASTM A-53 (2

)

Hatboru Antakya Hatay 26,000 ASTM A-53 (2)

HDM Steel Pipe

Industry & Trade Gebze-Kocaeli (2

) ASTM A-252 (2)

MMZ Akcakoca, Bolu 220,000

ASTM A-53, 

A-500 (2

)

Nosksel

Henrek-Sakarya 110,000 API-5L, ASTM A- 53,

A-252 (2 Iskenderun 110,000 )

Ozbosan Tube

Industry Zonguldak (2

) ASTM A-53 (2)

Ozgur Boru Gobasi, Ankara 132,000 ASTM A-53 (2

)

Ufuk Spiral Pipe Sanliurfa 44,000

ASTM A-53, 

A-252

Previous name: Uyar Celik Section

Industry

Umran Steel Pipe

Akcakoca 551, 000 API-5L, ASTM 

A-53, A-252 (2 Umraniye, Istanbul 220,000 )

 1 Capacity generally refers to overall welded pipe capacity for production facilities with the capability of producing circular

welded pipe as defined in Commerce scope. 

 2

 Not available. 

Sources: Companies’ websites and Simdex Steel Tube Manufacturers Worldwide Guide, 2008.
 28 International Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Statistical Yearbook 2007, Table 29. The data for these years

exceed capacity estimates in table VII-11 found in The Simdex Steel Tube Manufacturers Worldwide Guide, 2007. 

These different data sources have potentially different participants and are not expected to agree. Throughout the

remainder of this section, capacity and production data from different sources are not directly comparable.

 29 There are no U.S. restrictions on circular welded pipe imports from Canada.

VII-16

Canada

As shown in table VII-11 there are seven companies in Canada capable of producing circular

welded pipe. Some of these firms are owned by non-Canadian parent companies located in: 

• The United States: Atlas Tube in Canada and Atlas Tube in Plymouth, Michigan, are affiliates of

the Carlyle Group, a U.S. investment entity that purchased John Maneely, the parent company of

Sharon Pipe and Wheatland Tube;

C Russia: Evraz-Oregon Steel Mills owns OSM-Camrose in Alberta; and TMK has purchased

IPSCO production facilities both in Canada and the United States.

C Luxembourg: Tenaris purchased Maverick in October 2006, including Prudential Steel (Canada),

a Maverick Tube subsidiary.

In total, the IISI estimates that Canadian production of welded pipe and tube increased from 3.0

million short tons in 2004 to 3.1 million short tons in 2005 and to 3.3 million short tons in 2006.28

As shown in table VII-12, Canada exported almost exclusively to the United States in 2005-07. 

These accounted for nearly 97 percent of Canada’s total exports of circular welded pipe and related

tubular products, in terms of quantity.29 Canada’s exports of carbon steel welded pipe to China, its

second-largest export destination, amounted to slightly over one percent in 2007 and exports to other

countries, including Mexico, accounted for about 0.6 percent or less each.

Table VII-12

Carbon steel welded pipe: Canada’s exports, by quantity and average unit value, 2005-07

Reporting country

2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007

Exports (short tons) Unit value (dollars per short ton)

United States 446,522 419,242 404,311 890 904 911

China 19 13 4,813 2,068 3,378 2,431

Mexico 913 2,383 2,542 577 1,317 1,756

Australia 1,600 1,433 823 2,093 2,733 2,768

Chile 1,151 1,175 627 2,100 2,553 2,145

Germany 1,575 884 604 1,646 1,929 2,059

Peru 658 674 538 2,185 2,597 2,362

Netherlands 114 140 493 1,734 1,767 2,396

Trinidad & Tobago 3 98 424 2,509 2,039 2,568

All other 2,977 1,991 2,062 2,019 2,336 2,406

Total 455,532 428,103 417,193 910 929 954

Note.– The data presented in this table are for HTS 7306.30 which covers most welded carbon steel pipe and tube (other than

line pipe and OCTG), including welded circular pipe together with tapered welded pipe and pipes that are used in boilers,

superheaters, and heat exchangers that are not included as subject products.

 

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas.
VII-17

In addition to the above data, staff sent nonsubject foreign producer questionnaires to

ArcelorMittal Canada, Atlas Tube of Canada, Bolton Steel Tube Co., Ltd., IPSCO Canada, Lakeside Steel

Corp., Prudential Steel Ltd., and Welded Tube of Canada. Three out of seven firms provided usable data

presented in tables VII-13 and VII-14. 

Table VII-13

Circular welded pipe: Canada’s capacity, production, and domestic shipments, 2007

* * * * * * *

Table VII-14

Circular welded pipe: Canada’s reported capacity and production for all welded pipe, 2007

* * * * * * *
 30 Welded Steel Tube & Pipe Monthly, April 2007, p. 7. WSTPM is published by Metal Bulletin Research, a

reputable London-based international marketing and consulting firm.

VII-18

India

Table VII-11 identifies 25 large producers of circular welded pipe and tube in India with a wide

range of products including ASTM A-53 and A-252, as well as API-5L with a total known capcity of

over 1.6 million short tons per year. Surya Steel Pipes is the country’s leading producer of circular

welded pipe and related tubular products with a capacity of more than 331,000 short tons per year (table

VII-11). 

Table VII-15 shows that the United States was, by far, the leading market for Indian exports,

accounting for nearly one-half of the total in 2007. Consistent with India’s declining exports to the world

during 2005-07, its exports to the United States declined by almost 55 percent during the period. Other

important export markets for India included Sri Lanka and the EU27. WSTPM reported that India’s

relative proximity to the Middle East provides Indian steel tubular products with a competitive advantage

in this important regional market over those from the EU and Japan.30 

Table VII-15

Circular welded pipe: India’s exports, by quantity and average unit value, 2005-07

Reporting country

2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007

Exports (short tons) Unit value (dollars per short ton)

United States 44,174 54,038 20,362 732 682 963

Sri Lanka 15,369 39,641 13,931 610 304 729

EU27 (External Trade) 12,087 10,302 7,476 713 772 1,031

Canada 720 1,191 1,257 1,375 1,593 1,608

Indonesia 49 150 269 1,373 1,527 2,325

Australia 391 594 230 806 999 1,615

Thailand 38 55 197 1,058 1,157 1,294

Paraguay 113 20 115 676 934 952

China 0 12 100 -- 1,511 1,393

Malaysia 0 63 93 -- 1,140 1,168

All other 412 644 234 1,577 1,757 1,964

 Total 84,334 121,970 44,255 715 627 944

Note.–The data presented in this table are for HTS 730630 which covers most welded carbon steel pipe and tube

(other than line pipe and OCTG), including welded circular pipe together with tapered welded pipe and pipes that are

used in boilers, superheaters, and heat exchangers that are not included as subject products.

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas’ import data of India’s trading partners.
 31 International Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Statistical Yearbook 2007, table 29.

VII-19

Korea 

 Korea is a large global producer of pipe and tube with a total reported capacity of at least 6

million tons (table VII-11). According to the IISI, overall Korean production of welded tubes and pipes

decreased from 4.7 million short tons in 2004 to 4.5 million short tons in 2006.31

Although the United States is the leading market for Korean exports circular welded pipe, table

VII-16 indicates that Korea has achieved a somewhat greater diversification of its export to Asian markets

and developing countries during the last three years.

Table VII-16

Carbon steel welded pipe: Korea’s exports, by quantity and average unit value, 2005-07

Reporting

country

2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007

Exports (short tons) Unit value (dollars per short ton)

United States 45,772 36,649 54,465 831 776 825

Japan 52,128 41,879 44,506 748 660 750

Hong Kong 20,341 20,726 20,425 725 618 730

China 25,962 13,444 18,906 768 766 908

Singapore 10,278 10,638 17,158 649 675 743

Saudi Arabia 1,350 5,870 15,114 540 519 709

Thailand 8,079 8,957 9,143 777 763 870

Canada 4,071 6,514 8,462 804 758 1,046

Yemen 4,407 27 5,829 521 907 652

Vietnam 4,442 4,602 5,411 902 867 672

All other 38,981 59,798 55,357 943 751 999

Total 215,812 209,104 254,777 796 718 838

Note.– The data presented in this table are for HTS 730630 which covers most welded carbon steel pipe and tube

(other than line pipe and OCTG), including welded circular pipe together with tapered welded pipe and pipes that

are used in boilers, superheaters, and heat exchangers that are not included as subject products.

 

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas.

In addition to the above data, staff also received the following information for HTS 7306.30 

(steel standard pipe of less than 16-inch outside diameter) from Korean Iron & Steel Association (table

VII-17). The data indicate that production and shipments remained stable during 2005-07. 

Table VII-17

Circular welded pipe: Korea’s capacity, production, and domestic shipments, 2005-07

* * * * * * *
 32 See table VII-9.

 33 ***.

VII-20

Mexico

Three of Mexico’s four identified producers of circular welded pipe have a reported capacity of

over 500,000 short tons per year (table VII-11). According to IISI, production of all welded tubular

products in Mexico increased from 612,000 short tons in 2004 to 639,000 short tons in 2005 and to

651,000 short tons in 2006.32

Table VII-18 shows that the United States is virtually the exclusive export market for Mexican

product. Most other exports are to Latin American countries. 

Table VII-18

Carbon steel welded pipe: Mexico’s exports, by quantity and average unit value, 2004-06

Reporting

country

2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006

Exports (short tons) Unit value (dollars per short ton)

United States 77,452 97,605 97,355 935 899 860

Cuba 639 1,695 737 1,074 1,028 953

Puerto Rico (U.S.) 958 1,022 496 1,117 1,293 1,305

Costa Rica 154 528 354 880 937 1,301

Guatemala 857 1,030 307 615 789 950

Germany 152 202 287 1,008 1,007 978

Taiwan 0 0 177 -- -- 4,688

El Salvador 232 324 161 891 859 1,068

France 113 228 159 943 920 909

Belize 33 41 124 936 911 864

All other 4,480 2,248 709 741 960 1,533

Total 85,070 104,923 100,866 924 905 877

Note.– The data presented in this table are for HTS 730630 which covers most welded carbon steel pipe and tube

(other than line pipe and OCTG), including welded circular pipe together with tapered welded pipe and pipes that

are used in boilers, superheaters, and heat exchangers that are not included as subject products.

 

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas.

In addition to the above data, staff sent additional nonsubject foreign producer questionnaire to

***. All four firms provided usable data presented in tables VII-19 and VII-20.33

Table VII-19

Circular welded pipe: Mexico’s reported capacity, production, and domestic shipments, 2007

* * * * * * *
 34 Information regarding historical and current U.S. duty rates appear in appendix D.

VII-21

Table VII-20

Circular welded pipe: Mexico’s reported capacity and production for all welded pipe, 2007

* * * * * * *

Taiwan

As shown in table VII-11, several mills in Taiwan have the capacity to produce circular welded

pipe and related tubular products, although reported capacity of approximately 500,000 short tons is

substantially understated. The IISI reports that Taiwan is the fourth-largest producer of circular welded

steel pipe and related tubular products in East Asia, behind China, Japan, and Korea. Taiwan’s

production of welded tubes has fluctuated around 1.2 million short tons since 1996 (table VII-9). 

The United States has been the leading export market for Taiwan’s circular welded steel pipe and

related tubular products since at least 2005, accounting for almost two-thirds of Taiwan’s exports of these

products in 2007 as shown in table VII-21.34 In contrast, Vietnam, Taiwan’s second largest customer,

accounted for approximately 15 percent of Taiwan’s exports of these products.

Table VII-21

Circular welded pipe: Taiwan’s exports, by quantity and average unit value, 2005-07

Reporting country

2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007

Exports (short tons) Unit value (dollars per short ton)

United States 25,072 50,523 44,218 567 558 611

Vietnam 1,581 1,800 9,839 691 558 713

Thailand 2,134 1,733 4,429 962 995 860

Australia 1,746 1,016 2,286 725 680 707

Saudi Arabia 0 0 1,253 -- -- 907

China 2,400 2,673 1,113 785 645 771

Kuwait 122 47 879 631 678 651

Singapore 191 528 817 645 642 740

Turkey 0 0 768 -- -- 759

Japan 1,272 656 648 774 605 671

Other 2,350 2,073 531 713 730 953

Total 36,868 61,050 66,782 634 584 661

Note.– The data presented in this table are for HTS 7306.30 which covers most welded carbon steel pipe and tube

(other than line pipe and OCTG), including welded circular pipe together with tapered welded pipe and pipes that

are used in boilers, superheaters, and heat exchangers that are not included as subject products.

 

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas.
 35 IISI has no current estimates of Thai production of welded tubular products.

 36 Certain Pipe and Tube from Argentina, Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey,

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-253 and 731-TA-132, 252, 271, 273, 409, 410, 532-534 and 536 (Second Review), USITC

Publication 3867, July 2006, p. IV-23.

 37 Saha Thai company website, found at “http://www.sahathai.com/EN_Sahathai/index_en.html” retrieved April

12, 2008.

VII-22

Thailand

Table VII-11 identifies four producers of circular welded pipe and related tubular products in

Thailand with a total capacity of approximately 500,000 short tons.35 However, in 2005, the Iron and

Steel Institute of Thailand estimated that there are 20 firms capable of producing welded steel pipe and

tube, with 14 of these 20 producers having an overall welded steel pipe and tube capacity of 1.8 million

short tons in 2005 and an actual production of 977,000 short tons of circular welded pipe and tube in

2005; the remaining production capability is divided between nonsubject products and idle capacity.36

Among these pipe producers, Saha Thai claims to be the biggest manufacturer and seller of steel

tube and pipe in Thailand and that a large portion of its production is for export. The company also

claims that it is the Thailand’s sole exporter of steel pipe to the United States.37 Table VII-22 indicates

that the United States is the leading market for Thailand’s products, accounting for about one half of all

its exports in 2007. In addition, Thailand also exports to Australia, South Africa, the Middle-East, and

various countries in Asia. 

Table VII-22

Circular welded pipe: Thailand’s exports, by quantity and average unit value, 2005-07

Reporting country

2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007

Exports (short tons) Unit value (dollars per short ton)

United States 79,280 69,849 36,738 612 589 775

Australia 1,646 4,498 7,569 569 1,425 676

South Africa 0 0 7,194 -- -- 577

Indonesia 12,987 8,897 5,702 1,433 1,566 4,061

Malaysia 329 402 4,545 1,621 1,650 631

India 1,362 2,006 4,090 1,446 1,411 1,350

Philippines 624 1,372 1,383 1,162 1,089 1,300

Pakistan 123 139 1,168 1,194 1,405 1,649

Vietnam 69 2,751 1,148 1,719 5,238 1,663

United Arab Emirates 192 1,505 631 907 1,150 1,058

All other 13,438 9,322 2,989 635 672 888

Total 110,050 100,740 73,157 730 884 1,069

Note.--The data presented in this table are for HTS 7306.30 which covers most welded carbon steel pipe and tube

(other than line pipe and OCTG), including welded circular pipe together with tapered welded pipe and pipes that

are used in boilers, superheaters, and heat exchangers that are not included as subject products.

 

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas.
 38 1999 is the last year that Turkey provided the IISI with data on its production of welded tubes.

 39 Certain Pipe and Tube from Argentina, Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey,

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-253 and 731-TA-132, 252, 271, 273, 409, 410, 532-534 and 536 (Second Review), USITC

Publication 3867, July 2006, pp. IV-25 and IV-26.

 40 The EU27 includes Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,

France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands,

Romania, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

 41 Information regarding historical and current U.S. duty rates appear in appendix D.

VII-23

Turkey 

Turkey is a leading global producer of circular welded steel pipe and related tubular products,

with a production capacity of over 2.1 million short tons as reported by the IISI.38 Table VII-11 identifies

16 producers of circular welded steel pipe and related tubular products in Turkey, with Borusan

Mannesmann Boru and Umran Steel Pipe as its leading producers. Most of Turkey’s plants can

manufacture a variety of products including line pipe and seamless products. Four firms in Turkey

(Borusan, Erbosan, Guven, and Noksel) had a capacity to produce circular welded pipe and tube of

696,000 short tons in 2005, with actual production of circular welded pipe and tube of 380,000 short tons

in 2005, and a capacity utilization of 54.5 percent in 2005.39 

According to Global Trade Atlas shown in table VII-23, during 2005-07, the EU2740 was the

dominant market for Turkey’s exports, accounting for roughly 70 percent of the total. The United States,

until 2007, was the second leading export market for Turkey.41

Table VII-23

Circular welded pipe: Turkey’s exports, by quantity and average unit value, 2005-07

Reporting country

2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007

Exports (short tons) Unit value (dollars per short ton)

EU27 194,635 222,931 245,047 721 696 818

Canada 21,648 15,712 99,638 654 635 70

Croatia 1,677 3,700 4,919 780 764 892

United States 40,763 31,821 3,148 622 607 967

Kazakhstan 416 352 2,418 1,809 1,265 1,150

Ukraine 1 0 511 871 3,205 1,890

Russia 467 371 415 2,675 4,083 3,639

Iceland 151 584 95 773 744 1,988

Switzerland 28 0 63 1,895 -- 1,287

All other 2,016 2,007 56 660 712 3,182

Total 282,672 296,289 357,176 719 701 620

Note.--The data presented in this table are for HTS 7306.30 which covers most welded carbon steel pipe and tube

(other than line pipe and OCTG), including welded circular pipe together with tapered welded pipe and pipes that are

used in boilers, superheaters, and heat exchangers that are not included as subject products.

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas’ import data of Turkey’s trading partners.

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

6738 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Notices 

1For purposes of these investigations, the 

Department of Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise as ‘‘certain welded carbon quality 

steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, and 

with an outside diameter of 0.372 inches (9.45 mm) 

or more, but not more than 16 inches (406.4 mm), 

whether or not stenciled, regardless of wall 

thickness, surface finish (e.g., black, galvanized, or 

painted), end finish (e.g., plain end, beveled end, 

grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or 

industry specification (e.g., ASTM, proprietary, or 

other), generally known as standard pipe and 

structural pipe (they may also be referred to as 

circular, structural, or mechanical tubing). 

The scope of this investigation does not include: 

(a) Pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, 

heat exchangers, condensers, refining furnaces and 

feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn; (b) 

mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn; (c) 

finished electrical conduit; (d) finished scaffolding; 

(e) tube and pipe hollows for redrawing; (f) oil 

country tubular goods produced to API 

specifications; and (g) line pipe produced to only 

API specifications.’’

water and related resources in an 

environmentally and economically 

sound manner in the interest of the 

American public. The project examined 

Reclamation’s core capabilities and the 

agency’s ability to respond to both 

expected and unforeseeable future 

needs in an innovative and timely 

manner. For more information regarding 

the project, Action Plan, and specific 

actions being taken, please visit the 

Managing for Excellence Web site at 

http://www.usbr.gov/excellence. 

Registration 

Although you may register the day of 

the workshop beginning at 12 p.m., we 

highly encourage you to register prior to 

the date of the meeting online at 

http://www.usbr.gov/excellence, or by 

phone at 303–445–2935. 

Dated: January 18, 2008. 

Kris D. Polly, 

Deputy Commissioner—External and 

Intergovernmental Affairs, Washington 

Office. 

[FR Doc. E8–1995 Filed 2–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection for 1029–0055 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing 

its intention to request renewed 

approval for the collection of 

information in 30 CFR 877—Rights of 

Entry. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed 

information collection must be received 

by April 7, 2008, to be assured of 

consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

John A. Trelease, Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 

1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 

202–SIB, Washington, DC 20240. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically to jtrelease@osmre.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request a copy of the information 

collection request contact John A. 

Trelease, at (202) 208–2783, or 

electronically at jtrelease@osmre.gov. 

You may also review the collection 

request at http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which 

implement provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), 

require that interested members of the 

public and affected agencies have an 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection and recordkeeping activities 

[see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. This notice 

identifies an information collection that 

OSM will be submitting to OMB for 

extension. This collection is contained 

in 30 CFR 877. 

OSM has revised burden estimates, 

where appropriate, to reflect current 

reporting levels or adjustments based on 

reestimates of burden or respondents 

and costs. OSM will request a 3-year 

term of approval for this information 

collection activity. Comments are 

invited on: (1) The need for the 

collection of information for the 

performance of the functions of the 

agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency’s 

burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility and clarity of the 

information collection; and (4) ways to 

minimize the information collection 

burden on respondents, such as use of 

automated means of collection of the 

information. A summary of the public 

comments will accompany OSM’s 

submission of the information collection 

request to OMB. 

This notice provides the public with 

60 days in which to comment on the 

following information collection 

activity: 

Title: 30 CFR 877—Rights of Entry. 

OMB Control Number: 1029–0055. 

Summary: This regulation establishes 

procedure for non-consensual entry 

upon private lands for the purpose of 

abandoned mine land reclamation 

activities or exploratory studies when 

the landowner refuses consent or is not 

available. 

Bureau Form Number: None. 

Frequency of Collection: Once. 

Description of Respondents: State 

abandoned mine land reclamation 

agencies. 

Total Annual Responses: 12. 

Total Annual Burden Hours: 24. 

Total Annual Non-wage Costs: $1,080 

for publication costs. 

Dated: January 30, 2008. 

John R. Craynon, 

Chief, Division of Regulatory Support. 

[FR Doc. 08–490 Filed 2–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–447 (Final) and 

731–TA–1116 (Final)] 

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 

Pipe From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of 

countervailing duty and antidumping 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of countervailing duty 

investigation No. 701–TA–447 (Final) 

under section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act) and 

the final phase of antidumping 

investigation No. 731–TA–1116 (Final) 

under section 735(b) of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1673d(b)) 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 

subsidized and less-than-fair-value 

imports from China of circular welded 

carbon-quality steel pipe, provided for 

in subheadings 7306.30.10, 7306.30.50, 

7306.50.10, 7306.50.50, 7306.19.10, and 

7306.19.51 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States.1

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). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joanna Lo (202–205–1888), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2008 / Notices 6739 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—The final phase of 

these investigations is being scheduled 

as a result of affirmative preliminary 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce that certain benefits which 

constitute subsidies within the meaning 

of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1671b) are being provided to 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

in China of circular welded carbonquality steel pipe, and that such 

products 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). The investigations were 

requested in a petition filed on June 7, 

2007, by Allied Tube & Conduit, Sharon 

Tube Company, IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., 

Western Tube & Conduit Corporation, 

Northwest Pipe Company, Wheatland 

Tube Co., i.e., the Ad Hoc Coalition For 

Fair Pipe Imports From China, and the 

United Steelworkers (collectively, the 

‘‘petitioners’’) on behalf of the domestic 

industry producing circular welded 

carbon-quality steel pipe. 

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 

section 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 April 29, 2008, 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 May 13, 2008, 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 May 7, 2008. 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 May 9, 2008, 

at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 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 section 207.23 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is May 6, 2008. Parties may also 

file written testimony in connection 

with their presentation at the hearing, as 

provided in section 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules, and posthearing 

briefs, which must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.25 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is May 20, 

2008; 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 May 20, 2008. In addition, 

comments on the Department of 

Commerce’s final determinations with 

respect to subject imports from China 

will be permitted; parties and nonparties should file such comments (not 

to exceed 10 pages in length) on or 

before June 2, 2008. On June 16, 2008, 

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 by noon 

on June 18, 2008, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.30 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

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 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
31966 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices 

participate in the Sunset Review must 

provide substantive comments in 

response to the notice of initiation no 

later than 30 days after the date of 

initiation. 

This notice is not required by statute 

but is published as a service to the 

international trading community. 

Dated: May 30, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–12609 Filed 6–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–911] 

Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel 

Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination and Final 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) has determined that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

circular welded carbon quality steel 

pipe (‘‘CWP’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). For 

information on the estimated 

countervailing duty rates, please see the 

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section, 

below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Subler, Damian Felton or Salim 

Bhabhrawala, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 1, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0189, (202) 482–0133 or (202) 482–

1784 respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Petitioner 

The Petitioners in this investigation 

are the Ad Hoc Coalition for Fair Pipe 

Imports from the People’s Republic of 

China and the United States Steel 

Workers (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, or period of 

investigation, is January 1, 2006, 

through December 31, 2006. 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the announcement of the 

preliminary determination published in 

the Federal Register on November 13, 

2007. See Circular Welded Carbon 

Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination; Preliminary Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances; and Alignment of Final 

Countervailing Duty Determination with 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 

72 FR 63875 (November 13, 2007) 

(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

On November 13, 2007, the 

Department issued questionnaires to 

Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (‘‘East 

Pipe’’); Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and 

Technologies Co., Ltd., Kingland Group 

Co., Ltd., Beijing Kingland Century 

Technologies Co., Ltd., Zhejiang 

Kingland Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd., 

and Shanxi Kingland Pipeline Co., Ltd. 

(collectively, ‘‘Kingland’’) and, the 

Government of the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘GOC’’) regarding new subsidy 

allegations made by petitioners on 

October 3, 2007. We received responses 

to these questionnaires from Kingland 

on November 22, 2007, and from the 

GOC and East Pipe on December 5, 

2007. 

We issued supplemental 

questionnaires to East Pipe and 

Kingland on November 16, 2007, and to 

the GOC on November 19, 2007. We 

received responses to these 

questionnaires from Kingland on 

December 4, 2007, from East Pipe on 

December 12, 2007, and from the GOC 

on December 17, 2007. We issued 

additional supplemental questionnaires 

to Kingland on December 14, 2007, and 

East Pipe on December 17, 2007. We 

received responses to these 

questionnaires from Kingland and East 

Pipe on December 27, 2007. 

The GOC, East Pipe, Kingland, 

Petitioners, and interested parties also 

submitted factual information, 

comments, and arguments at numerous 

instances prior to the final 

determination based on various 

deadlines for submissions of factual 

information and/or arguments 

established by the Department 

subsequent to the Preliminary 

Determination. 

From January 14 through January 23, 

2008, we conducted verification of the 

questionnaire responses submitted by 

the GOC, Kingland, and East Pipe. 

On April 9, 2008, we issued our post–

preliminary determination regarding the 

provision of land for less than adequate 

remuneration and new subsidy 

allegations. We addressed our 

preliminary findings in an April 9, 

2008, memorandum to David M. 

Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, entitled Post–

Preliminary Findings for the Provision 

of Land for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration and New Subsidy 

Allegations, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’). 

We received case briefs from the GOC, 

East Pipe, Kingland, Petitioners, certain 

members of the Specialty Steel Industry 

of North America (‘‘SSINA’’), United 

States Steel Corporation (‘‘US Steel’’), 

Western International Forest Products, 

LLC (‘‘Western’’), MAN Ferrostaal, Inc., 

Commercial Metals Company and QT 

Trading LP (collectively, ‘‘MAN 

Ferrostaal’’), and SeAH Steel America 

(‘‘SSA’’) on April 17, 2008. The same 

parties submitted rebuttal briefs on 

April 22 and April 29, 2008. We held a 

hearing for this investigation on May 5, 

2008. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation covers 

certain welded carbon quality steel 

pipes and tubes, of circular cross–

section, and with an outside diameter of 

0.372 inches (9.45 mm) or more, but not 

more than 16 inches (406.4 mm), 

whether or not stenciled, regardless of 

wall thickness, surface finish (e.g., 

black, galvanized, or painted), end 

finish (e.g., plain end, beveled end, 

grooved, threaded, or threaded and 

coupled), or industry specification (e.g., 

ASTM, proprietary, or other), generally 

known as standard pipe and structural 

pipe (they may also be referred to as 

circular, structural, or mechanical 

tubing). 

Specifically, the term ‘‘carbon 

quality’’ includes products in which (a) 

iron predominates, by weight, over each 

of the other contained elements; (b) the 

carbon content is 2 percent or less, by 

weight; and (c) none of the elements 

listed below exceeds the quantity, by 

weight, as indicated: 

(i) 1.80 percent of manganese; 

(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon; 

(iii) 1.00 percent of copper; 

(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum; 

(v) 1.25 percent of chromium; 

(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt; 

(vii) 0.40 percent of lead; 

(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel; 

(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten; 

(x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum; 

(xi) 0.10 percent of niobium; 

(xii) 0.41 percent of titanium; 

(xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or 

(xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium. 

Standard pipe is made primarily to 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) specifications, but 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices 31967 

can be made to other specifications. 

Standard pipe is made primarily to 

ASTM specifications A–53, A–135, and 

A–795. Structural pipe is made 

primarily to ASTM specifications A–252 

and A–500. Standard and structural 

pipe may also be produced to 

proprietary specifications rather than to 

industry specifications. This is often the 

case, for example, with fence tubing. 

Pipe multiple–stenciled to a standard 

and/or structural specification and to 

any other specification, such as the 

American Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) 

API–5L specification, is also covered by 

the scope of this investigation when it 

meets the physical description set forth 

above and also has one or more of the 

following characteristics: is 32 feet in 

length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 

mm) in outside diameter; has a 

galvanized and/or painted surface 

finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled 

end finish. (The term ‘‘painted’’ does 

not include coatings to inhibit rust in 

transit, such as varnish, but includes 

coatings such as polyester.) 

The scope of this investigation does 

not include: (a) pipe suitable for use in 

boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, 

condensers, refining furnaces and 

feedwater heaters, whether or not cold 

drawn; (b) mechanical tubing, whether 

or not cold–drawn; (c) finished 

electrical conduit; (d) finished 

scaffolding; (e) tube and pipe hollows 

for redrawing; (f) oil country tubular 

goods produced to API specifications; 

and (g) line pipe produced to only API 

specifications. 

The pipe products that are the subject 

of this investigation are currently 

classifiable in HTSUS statistical 

reporting numbers 7306.30.10.00, 

7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 

7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 

7306.30.50.85, 7306.30.50.90, 

7306.50.10.00, 7306.50.50.50, 

7306.50.50.70, 7306.19.10.10, 

7306.19.10.50, 7306.19.51.10, and 

7306.19.51.50. However, the product 

description, and not the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) classification, is dispositive 

of whether merchandise imported into 

the United States falls within the scope 

of the investigation. 

Scope Comments 

The scope listed above has changed 

from the Preliminary Determination. 

On December 19, 2007, Petitioners 

requested that the Department clarify 

the scope of this investigation and the 

companion antidumping duty 

investigation of CWP from the PRC. We 

have analyzed the request and 

comments of the interested parties 

regarding the scope of this investigation. 

Our position on these comments is 

discussed in the final determination in 

the companion antidumping duty 

investigation of CWP from the PRC. 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act), 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to 

this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC 

must determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to a U.S. industry. On August 3, 

2007, the ITC published its preliminary 

determination that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured or 

threatened with material injury by 

reason of imports from China of circular 

welded carbon–quality steel pipe. 72 FR 

43295. 

Critical Circumstances 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department determined that critical 

circumstances exist with respect to 

imports of circular welded pipe from 

certain PRC exporters, pursuant to 

section 703(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.206. Preliminary Determination, 72 

FR at 63879–80. The Department 

continues to find critical circumstances 

in this final determination. For further 

discussion on this issue, see ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Determination,’’ from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated May 29, 2008 

(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) at 

Comments 10, 11, and 12, and 

Memorandum to the File Re ‘‘Critical 

Circumstances Analysis for Zhejiang 

Kingland Pipeline and Technologies 

Co., Ltd. Import Shipment Analysis for 

Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and 

Technologies Co., Ltd. and ‘‘All Others’’

(May 29, 2008) (‘‘Final Critical 

Circumstances Memorandum’’) (this 

memorandum is on file in the 

Department’s CRU). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

Decision Memorandum, which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. Attached to this 

notice as an Appendix is a list of the 

issues that parties have raised and to 

which we have responded in the 

Decision Memorandum. Parties can find 

a complete discussion of all issues 

raised in this investigation and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the CRU. In addition, a complete 

version of the Decision Memorandum 

can be accessed directly on the Internet 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Use of Adverse Facts Available 

Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act 

provide that the Department shall apply 

‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, 

necessary information is not on the 

record or 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. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department will so 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits and subject to section 782(e) 

of the Act, the Department may 

disregard all or part of the original and 

subsequent responses, as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that 

the Department ‘‘shall not decline to 

consider information that is submitted 

by an interested party and is necessary 

to the determination but does not meet 

all applicable requirements established 

by the administering authority’’ if the 

information is timely, can be verified, is 

not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 

and if the interested party acted to the 

best of its ability in providing the 

information. Where all of these 

conditions are met, the statute requires 

the Department to use the information if 

it can do so without undue difficulties. 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Section 776(b) 

of the Act also authorizes the 

Department to use as adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) information derived 

from the petition, the final 

determination, a previous 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
31968 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation or review, it shall, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is defined as 

‘‘{i}nformation derived from the 

petition that gave rise to the 

investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning the subject 

merchandise, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

subject merchandise.’’ See Statement of 

Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’) 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, attached to H.R. Rep. 

No. 103–316, Vol. I at 870 (1994), 

reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3773, 

4163 (‘‘SAA’’). Corroborate means that 

the Department will satisfy itself that 

the secondary information to be used 

has probative value. See SAA at 870. To 

corroborate secondary information, the 

Department will, to the extent 

practicable, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information to be used. 

The SAA emphasizes, however, that the 

Department need not prove that the 

selected facts available are the best 

alternative information. See SAA at 869. 

The Department has concluded that it 

is appropriate to base the final 

determination for Tianjin Shuangjie 

Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shuangjie’’) 

on facts otherwise available. Shuangjie 

failed to respond at all to the 

Department’s October 24, 2007, request 

for shipment data relating to the 

allegation of critical circumstances, did 

not respond to the Department’s October 

25, 2007, supplemental questionnaire, 

and finally, on October 31, 2007, 

withdrew all of its proprietary 

information from the record. 

Consequently, the use of facts 

otherwise available is warranted under 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. 

In selecting from among the facts 

available, the Department has 

determined that an adverse inference is 

warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act because, in addition to not fully 

responding to all of our requests for 

information, Shuangjie withdrew from 

all participation in the investigation and 

did not provide the Department with the 

opportunity to verify the information it 

did submit. Thus, Shuangjie failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability, and our final determination is 

based on total AFA. 

We have also determined that it is 

appropriate to apply facts available with 

respect to certain information that the 

GOC failed to provide, or information 

that could not be verified. Specifically, 

despite the Department’s requests to 

submit sub–national government plans 

relating to the steel industry in the PRC, 

the GOC stated that none existed. 

However, at verification the Department 

discovered the existence of the 

Shandong Provincial Steel Plan. 

Additionally, the Department was 

unable to verify information regarding 

the level of state ownership in the HRS 

industry in the PRC because the GOC 

misrepresented the source of the data. In 

both instances, the GOC failed to act to 

the best of its ability and, consequently, 

application of AFA is warranted. 

Selection of the Adverse Facts 

Available 

In deciding which facts to use as 

AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the 

Department to rely on information 

derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation, (3) 

any previous review or determination, 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. It is the Department’s practice to 

select, as AFA, the highest calculated 

rate in any segment of the proceeding. 

See, e.g., Certain In–shell Roasted 

Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of 

Iran: Final Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

66165 (November 13, 2006), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Analysis of 

Programs’’ & Comment 1. 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting an adverse rate from among 

the possible sources of information is to 

ensure that the margin is sufficiently 

adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of 

the facts available role to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner.’’ See 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). The 

Department’s practice also ensures ‘‘that 

the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See 

SAA at 870. In choosing the appropriate 

balance between providing a respondent 

with an incentive to respond accurately 

and imposing a rate that is reasonably 

related to the respondent’s prior 

commercial activity, selecting the 

highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common 

sense inference that the highest prior 

margin is the most probative evidence of 

current margins, because, if it were not 

so, the importer, knowing of the rule, 

would have produced current 

information showing the margin to be 

less.’’ See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United 

States, 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 

1990). 

Therefore, for every program based on 

the provision of goods at less than 

adequate remuneration, the Department 

used the Kingland rate for the provision 

of hot–rolled steel for less than adequate 

remuneration. For value added tax 

(‘‘VAT’’) programs, we are unable to 

utilize company–specific rates from this 

proceeding because neither respondent 

received any countervailable subsidies 

from these subsidy programs. Therefore, 

for VAT programs we are also applying 

the highest subsidy rate for any program 

otherwise listed, which in this instance 

is Kingland’s rate for the provision of 

hot–rolled steel for less than adequate 

remuneration. 

Similarly, for the grant programs, we 

are not relying on the highest calculated 

final rate because it is de minimis. 

Instead, we are applying the highest 

calculated final subsidy rate, which in 

this instance is Kingland’s rate for the 

provision of hot–rolled steel for less 

than adequate remuneration. 

Finally, for the six alleged income tax 

programs pertaining to either the 

reduction of the income tax rates or 

exemption from income tax, we have 

applied an adverse inference that 

Shuangjie paid no income tax during 

the period of investigation (i.e., calendar 

year 2006). The standard income tax 

rate for corporations in the PRC is 30 

percent, plus a 3 percent provincial 

income tax rate. Therefore, the highest 

possible benefit for these six income tax 

rate programs is 33 percent. We are 

applying the 33 percent AFA rate on a 

combined basis (i.e., the six programs 

combined provided a 33 percent 

benefit). This 33 percent AFA rate does 

not apply to income tax deduction or 

credit programs. For income tax 

deduction or credit programs, we are 

applying the highest subsidy rate for 

any program otherwise listed, which in 

this instance is Kingland’s rate for the 

provision of hot–rolled-steel at less than 

adequate remuneration. 

In a change from the Preliminary 

Determination, we are not assigning 

rates for alleged provincial subsidy 

programs where record evidence shows 

that Tianjin Shuangjie was not located 

in those provinces. See Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 15. 

We do not need to corroborate these 

rates because they are not considered 

secondary information as they are based 

on information obtained in the course of 

this investigation, pursuant to section 

776(c) of the Act. See also SAA at 870. 

Regarding the application of adverse 

facts available to the GOC, we have 

treated companies as state–owned 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices 31969 

where the GOC did not provide 

information regarding the companies’

ownership. Also, where the provincial 

steel plan was not provided, we are 

finding that policy lending existed in 

that province. See Decision 

Memorandum at ‘‘Analysis of 

Programs;’’ Comment 3; and Comment 

8. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have 

calculated an individual rate for the 

companies under investigation, East 

Pipe, Kingland and Shuangjie. Section 

705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for 

companies not investigated, we will 

determine an ‘‘all others’’ rate equal to 

the weighted average countervailable 

subsidy rates established for exporters 

and producers individually 

investigated, excluding any zero and de 

minimis countervailable subsidy rates, 

and any rates determined entirely under 

section 776. As Shuangjie’s rate was 

calculated under section 776 of the Act, 

it is not included in the ‘‘all others’’

rate. 

Nothwithstanding the language of 

section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we 

have not calculated the ‘‘all others’’ rate 

by weight averaging the rates of East 

Pipe and Kingland, because doing so 

risks disclosure of proprietary 

information. Therefore, we have 

calculated a simple average of the two 

responding firms’ rates. Since there 

were either no or de minimis 

countervailable export subsidies for 

Kingland and East Pipe and because the 

‘‘all others’’ rate is a simple average 

based on the individually investigated 

exporters and producers, the ‘‘all 

others’’ rate does not include export 

subsidies. 

Exporter/Manufacturer Net Subsidy 

Rate 

Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., 

Ltd. .................................... 29.57% 

Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline 

and Technologies Co., 

Ltd., and affiliated companies. ................................... 44.86 % 

Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe 

Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Shuangjie 

Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd.; 

Tianjin Wa Song Imp. & 

Exp. Co., Ltd.; and Tianjin 

Shuanglian Galvanizing 

Products Co., Ltd. ............. 615.92% 

All Others .............................. 37.22% 

Because we preliminarily determined 

that critical circumstances exist for 

entries of CWP manufactured/exported 

by Kingland, Shuangjie and ‘‘all other’’

Chinese manufacturers/exporters and 

pursuant to sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) 

and 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 

instructed the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to suspend 

liquidation of entries of CWP 

manufactured/exported by Kingland, 

Shuangjie and ‘‘all other’’ Chinese 

exports of CWP which were entered or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after November 13, 

2007, and to apply the suspension of 

liquidation to any unliquidated entries 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse 

for consumption, on or after August 15, 

2007 (90 days before the date of 

publication of the Preliminary 

Determination. Also, in accordance with 

section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed 

CBP to discontinue the suspension of 

liquidation for countervailing duty 

purposes for subject merchandise 

entered on or after March 12, 2008, but 

to continue the suspension of 

liquidation of entries made from August 

15, 2007, through March 12, 2008. 

Preliminary Determination, 72 FR at 

6386. 

For entries of CWP manufactured/ 

exported by East Pipe, we did not 

instruct CBP to suspend liquidation 

because we preliminarily determined 

that East Pipe did not receive any 

countervailable subsidies. 

We will issue a countervailing duty 

order and reinstate the suspension of 

liquidation under section 706(a) of the 

Act (for all companies including East 

Pipe) if the International Trade 

Commission (‘‘ITC’’) issues a final 

affirmative injury determination, and 

will require a cash deposit of estimated 

countervailing duties for such entries of 

merchandise in the amounts indicated 

above. If the ITC determines that 

material injury, or threat of material 

injury, does not exist, this proceeding 

will be terminated and all estimated 

duties deposited or securities posted as 

a result of the suspension of liquidation 

will be refunded or canceled. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all non–

privileged and non–proprietary 

information related to this investigation. 

We will allow the ITC access to all 

privileged and business proprietary 

information in our files, provided the 

ITC confirms that it will not disclose 

such information, either publicly or 

under an APO, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to an administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: May 29, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. 

Appendix 

List of Comments and Issues in the 

Decision Memorandum 

Comment 1: The Department’s 

Authority to Apply the Countervailing 

Duty Law to China 

Comment 2: Subsidies Prior to China’s 

Accession to the World Trade 

Organization 

Comment 3: Adverse Facts Available 

(‘‘AFA’’) 

Comment 4: Attribution of Subsidies 

Received by Affiliates of Zhejiang 

Kingland Pipeline and Technologies 

Co., Ltd. 

Comment 5: Scope of the Investigation 

Comment 6: Sales Denominator for 

Weifang East Steel Pipe Company Ltd. 

Comment 7: Provision of Hot–rolled 

Steel for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration 

Comment 8: Government Policy 

Lending 

Comment 9: Provision of Electricity for 

Less Than Adequate Remuneration 

Comment 10: Critical Circumstances on 

an Importer Specific Basis 

Comment 11: Base and Comparison 

Period for Critical Circumstances 

Comment 12: Kingland Export Subsidy 

and Finding of Critical Circumstances 

Comment 13: East Pipe Debt 

Forgiveness 

Comment 14: Discount Rate 

Comment 15: Programs Included in 

AFA Rate for Tianjin Shuangjie Steel 

Pipe Co., Ltd. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
31970 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices 

4The Weifang East Pipe April 28, 2008, case brief 

is hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Weifang East Pipe 

April Case Brief.’’

5Petitioners’ April 30, 2008, rebuttal brief is 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Petitioners’ April 

Rebuttal Brief.’’

Comment 16: Double Remedy 

[FR Doc. E8–12606 Filed 6–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 
31970 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices 

1Petitioners in this investigation are Allied Tube 

& Conduit, Sharon Tube Company, IPSCO Tubulars, 

Inc., Western Tube & Conduit Corporation, 

Northwest Pipe Company, Wheatland Tube Co., i.e., 

the Ad Hoc Coalition For Fair Pipe Imports From 

China, and the United Steelworkers. 

2Petitioners’ March 12, 2008, case brief is 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Petitioners’ March 

Case Brief.’’ The Yulong March 12, 2008, case brief 

is hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Yulong March Case 

Brief.’’ The Weifang East Pipe March 12, 2008, case 

brief is hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Weifang East 

Pipe March Case Brief.’’ The SeAH March 12, 2008, 

case brief is hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘SeAH 

March Case Brief.’’ The Western March 12, 2008, 

case brief is hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Western 

March Case Brief.’’

3Petitioners’ March 20, 2008, rebuttal brief is 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Petitioners’ March 

Rebuttal Brief.’’ The Yulong March 20, 2008, 

rebuttal brief is hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Yulong March Rebuttal Brief.’’ The MAN 

Ferrostaal March 20, 2008, rebuttal brief is 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘MAN Ferrostaal 

March Rebuttal Brief.’’

4The Weifang East Pipe April 28, 2008, case brief 

is hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Weifang East Pipe 

April Case Brief.’’

5Petitioners’ April 30, 2008, rebuttal brief is 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Petitioners’ April 

Rebuttal Brief.’’

Comment 16: Double Remedy 

[FR Doc. E8–12606 Filed 6–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–910 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Final Determination of 

Critical Circumstances: Circular 

Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from 

the People’s Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 2008. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) has determined that 

circular welded carbon quality steel 

pipe (‘‘CWP’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) is being, or 

is 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 

final dumping margins for this 

investigation are listed in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Martin or Maisha Cryor, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3936 or (202) 482–

5831, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

On January 15, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register its 

preliminary determination that CWP 

from PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold 

in the United States at LTFV, as 

provided in the Act. See Circular 

Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination, 73 FR 2445, 

2451 (January 15, 2008) (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’). For the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department 

calculated a zero percent dumping 

margin for Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yulong’’). On March 12, 

2008, Petitioners,1 mandatory 

respondent Yulong, separate rate 

applicants Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., 

Ltd., Tianjin Baloai International Trade 

Co., Ltd., Shijiazhuang Zhongqing 

Import and Export Co., Ltd., and 

Shandong Fubo Group Co. (collectively, 

‘‘Weifang East Pipe’’), and two U.S. 

importers of subject merchandise, SeAH 

Steel America, Ltd. (‘‘SeAH’’) and 

Western International Forest Products, 

LLC (‘‘Western’’), filed case briefs 

pursuant to the Preliminary 

Determination.2 On March 20, 2008, 

Petitioners, Yulong, and one U.S. 

importer, MAN Ferrostaal Inc., 

Commercial Metals Company, and QT 

Trading LP (collectively, ‘‘MAN 

Ferrostaal’’), filed rebuttal briefs.3 On 

March 24, 2008, the Department held a 

public hearing. Subsequent to the 

submission of briefs and the hearing, the 

Department received an allegation that a 

PRC pipe company involved in the 

investigation submitted falsified 

documents to the Department. 

Following the Department’s request for 

comments on this allegation, on April 7, 

2008, Yulong withdrew from the 

investigation and stated that it did not 

contest the allegation. See Amended 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Circular Welded 

Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 

22130, 22131 (April 24, 2008) 

(‘‘Amended Preliminary 

Determination’’) In light of Yulong’s 

withdrawal from the investigation, on 

April 24, 2008, the Department 

published its Amended Preliminary 

Determination, in which the Department 

applied total adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’) to Yulong and denied Yulong 

a separate rate, treating it as part of the 

PRC–wide entity. In addition, the 

Department assigned a new rate to the 

PRC–wide entity and provided parties 

with the opportunity to submit a second 

set of case briefs and rebuttal briefs. On 

April 28, 2008, Weifang East Pipe 

submitted a case brief pursuant to the 

Amended Preliminary Determination.4

On April 30, 2008, Petitioners submitted 

a rebuttal brief in response to Weifang 

East Pipe’s April Case Brief.5

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by the parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Determination of Sales at Less 

than Fair Value: Circular Welded 

Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice, which is 

hereby adopted by this notice in its 

entirety (‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’). A list of the issues 

which parties raised and to which we 

respond in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum is attached to this notice 

as an Appendix. The Issues and 

Decision Memorandum is a public 

document and is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Main Commerce 

Building, Room 1117, and is accessible 

on the Web at http://www.trade.gov/ia. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

October 1, 2006, through March 31, 

2007. 

Changes Since the Amended 

Preliminary Determination 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received, we have made no changes in 

our margin calculations since the 

Department’s Amended Preliminary 

Determination. 

Scope of Investigation 

The scope of this investigation covers 

certain welded carbon quality steel 

pipes and tubes, of circular crosssection, and with an outside diameter of 

0.372 inches (9.45 mm) or more, but not 

more than 16 inches (406.4 mm), 

whether or not stenciled, regardless of 

wall thickness, surface finish (e.g., 

black, galvanized, or painted), end 

finish (e.g., plain end, beveled end, 

grooved, threaded, or threaded and 

coupled), or industry specification (e.g., 

ASTM, proprietary, or other), generally 

known as standard pipe and structural 

pipe (they may also be referred to as 

circular, structural, or mechanical 

tubing). 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices 31971 

Specifically, the term ‘‘carbon 

quality’’ includes products in which (a) 

iron predominates, by weight, over each 

of the other contained elements; (b) the 

carbon content is 2 percent or less, by 

weight; and (c) none of the elements 

listed below exceeds the quantity, by 

weight, as indicated: 

(i)1.80 percent of manganese; 

(ii)2.25 percent of silicon; 

(iii)1.00 percent of copper; 

(iv)0.50 percent of aluminum; 

(v)1.25 percent of chromium; 

(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt; 

(vii) 0.40 percent of lead; 

(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel; 

(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten; 

(x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum; 

(xi) 0.10 percent of niobium; 

(xii) 0.41 percent of titanium; 

(xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or 

(xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium. 

Standard pipe is made primarily to 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) specifications, but 

can be made to other specifications. 

Standard pipe is made primarily to 

ASTM specifications A–53, A–135, and 

A–795. Structural pipe is made 

primarily to ASTM specifications A–252 

and A–500. Standard and structural 

pipe may also be produced to 

proprietary specifications rather than to 

industry specifications. This is often the 

case, for example, with fence tubing. 

Pipe multiple–stenciled to a standard 

and/or structural specification and to 

any other specification, such as the 

American Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) 

API–5L specification, is also covered by 

the scope of this investigation when it 

meets the physical description set forth 

above and also has one or more of the 

following characteristics: is 32 feet in 

length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 

mm) in outside diameter; has a 

galvanized and/or painted surface 

finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled 

end finish. (The term ‘‘painted’’ does 

not include coatings to inhibit rust in 

transit, such as varnish, but includes 

coatings such as polyester.) 

The scope of this investigation does 

not include: (a) pipe suitable for use in 

boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, 

condensers, refining furnaces and 

feedwater heaters, whether or not cold 

drawn; (b) mechanical tubing, whether 

or not cold–drawn; (c) finished 

electrical conduit; (d) finished 

scaffolding; (e) tube and pipe hollows 

for redrawing; (f) oil country tubular 

goods produced to API specifications; 

and (g) line pipe produced to only API 

specifications. 

The pipe products that are the subject 

of this investigation are currently 

classifiable in HTSUS statistical 

reporting numbers 7306.30.10.00, 

7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 

7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 

7306.30.50.85, 7306.30.50.90, 

7306.50.10.00, 7306.50.50.50, 

7306.50.50.70, 7306.19.10.10, 

7306.19.10.50, 7306.19.51.10, and 

7306.19.51.50. However, the product 

description, and not the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) classification, is dispositive 

of whether merchandise imported into 

the United States falls within the scope 

of the investigation. 

Scope Comments 

In its March case brief, Petitioners 

argued that the Department should 

revise; 1) the scope of the investigation 

to be based upon end–use application, 

and 2) the definition of ‘‘painted.’’ For 

the reasons discussed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, we have not 

revised the scope of the investigation. 

However, we have revised the definition 

of the term ‘‘painted,’’ and have updated 

the scope accordingly. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

Non–Market Economy Treatment 

In the Preliminary Determination and 

Amended Preliminary Determination, 

the Department considered the PRC to 

be a non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country. In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a country is an NME 

country shall remain in effect until 

revoked by the administering authority. 

See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of 2001–2002 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 

(February 14, 2003), unchanged in 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of 2001–2002 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 

2003). In its March case brief, Weifang 

East Pipe argued that the PRC should be 

granted market economy status. See 

Weifang East Pipe March Case Brief, at 

6. For the reasons discussed in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum, we 

disagree with Weifang East Pipe and 

have continued to treat the PRC as an 

NME. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation 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. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), 

as amplified by 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) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’), and 

Section 351.107(d) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that the following separate rate 

applicants demonstrated their eligibility 

for separate–rate status: Wai Ming 

(Tianjin) Int’l Trading Co., Ltd.; Weifang 

East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; Wuxi Fastube 

Industry Co., Ltd.; Wuxi Eric Steel Pipe 

Co., Ltd.; Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware 

Co., Ltd.; Wah Cit Enterprises; 

Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial 

Co., Ltd.; Shijiazhuang Zhongqing Imp 

& Exp Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Baolai Int’l 

Trade Co., Ltd.; Dalian Brollo Steel 

Tubes Ltd.; Benxi Northern Pipes Co., 

Ltd.; Shanghai Metals & Minerals Import 

& Export Corp.; Huludao Steel Pipe 

Industrial Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Xingyuda 

Import & Export Co. Ltd.; Jiangyin 

Jianye Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Rizhao 

Xingye Import & Export Co., Ltd.; 

Kunshan Hongyuan Machinery 

Manufacture Co., Ltd.; Tianjin No. 1 

Steel Rolled Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Yongjie 

Import & Export Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu 

Guoqiang Zinc–Plating Industrial 

Company, Ltd.; Qingdao Xiangxing 

Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; Hengshui Jinghua 

Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; Zhangjiagang 

Zhongyuan Pipe–Making Co., Ltd.; 

Kunshan Lets Win Steel Machinery Co., 

Ltd.; and Shenyang BOYU M/E Co., Ltd. 

No party has commented on the 

eligibility of these companies for 

separate–rate status. For the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

the evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by these companies 

demonstrates both a de jure and de facto 

absence of government control with 

respect to their respective exports of the 

merchandise under investigation. Thus, 

we continue to find that they are eligible 

for separate–rate status. Normally the 

separate rate is determined based on the 

estimated weighted–average dumping 

margins established for exporters and 

producers individually investigated, 

excluding de minimis margins or 

margins based entirely on AFA. See 

section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. In this 

case, given the absence of participating 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
31972 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices 

respondents and having calculated no 

margins, we have assigned to the 

separate rate companies the simple 

average of the margins alleged in the 

petition. See Amended Preliminary 

Determination, 73 FR at 22133. 

We determined in the Preliminary 

Determination that Shandong Fubo 

Group Co. (‘‘Fubo’’) and Tianjin 

Youcheng Galvanized Steel Pipe Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Youcheng’’) are not entitled to a 

separate rate. We received no comments 

on this denial of separate rates and, for 

the final determination, continue to find 

that Fubo and Youcheng are not entitled 

to a separate rate. 

The PRC–Wide Rate 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that certain 

companies did not respond to our 

requests for information. See 

Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 

2451. In the Preliminary Determination 

we treated these PRC producers/ 

exporters as part of the PRC–wide entity 

because they did not demonstrate that 

they operate free of government control 

over their export activities. In addition, 

in the Amended Preliminary 

Determination, the Department applied 

total AFA to Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yulong’’). We determined, as 

AFA, that Yulong was not eligible for a 

separate rate, and, for the final 

determination, we are treating Yulong as 

part of the PRC–wide entity. No 

additional information was placed on 

the record with respect to any of these 

companies after the Preliminary 

Determination or the Amended 

Preliminary Determination. Therefore, 

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act, the Department continues to find 

that the use of facts available is 

appropriate to determine the PRC–wide 

rate. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold–

Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel 

Products from the Russian Federation, 

65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). 

See also ‘‘Statement of Administrative 

Action’’ accompanying the URAA, H.R. 

Rep. No. 103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) 

(‘‘SAA’’). We determined that, because 

the PRC–wide entity did not respond to 

our request for information, it has failed 

to cooperate to the best of its ability. 

Therefore, the Department finds that, in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, an adverse 

inference is appropriate for the PRC–

wide entity. 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

a NME country are subject to 

government control and because only 

the companies listed under the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below 

have overcome that presumption, we are 

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. See, 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). The PRC–wide entity rate applies 

to all entries of subject merchandise 

except for entries from the respondents 

which are listed in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below. 

In the Amended Preliminary 

Determination, we assigned to the PRC–

wide entity the highest margin alleged 

in the petition, as revised in Petitioners’

supplemental responses, 85.55 percent. 

See Amended Preliminary 

Determination, 73 FR at 22133. We 

received no comments on this rate. 

Therefore, for the final determination, 

we have continued to assign to the PRC–

wide entity the rate of 85.55 percent. 

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information in using the facts 

otherwise available, it must, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. We 

have interpreted ‘‘corroborate’’ to mean 

that we will, to the extent practicable, 

examine the reliability and relevance of 

the information submitted. See Certain 

Cold–Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–

Quality Steel Products From Brazil: 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 5554, 

5568 (February 4, 2000); see, e.g., 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, 

Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, 

from Japan; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 

57392 (November 6, 1996). 

Because there are no cooperating 

mandatory respondents, to corroborate 

the 85.55 percent margin used as 

adverse facts available for the PRC–wide 

entity, we relied upon our pre–initiation 

analysis of the adequacy and accuracy 

of the information in the petition. See 

Antidumping Investigation Initiation 

Checklist: Circular Welded Carbon 

Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China, (Initiation Checklist) 

(‘‘Initiation Checklist’’) (July 5, 2007). 

During the initiation stage, we examined 

evidence supporting the calculations in 

the petition and the supplemental 

information provided by Petitioners to 

determine the probative value of the 

margins alleged in the petition. During 

our pre–initiation analysis, we 

examined the information used as the 

basis of export price and NV in the 

petition, and the calculations used to 

derive the alleged margins. Also during 

our pre–initiation analysis, we 

examined information from various 

independent sources provided either in 

the petition or, based on our requests, in 

supplements to the petition, which 

corroborated key elements of the export 

price and NV calculations. Id. We 

received no comments as to the 

relevance or probative value of this 

information. Therefore, for the final 

determination, the Department finds 

that the rates derived from the petition 

for purposes of initiation have probative 

value for the purpose of being selected 

as the AFA rate assigned to the PRC–

wide entity. 

Final Critical Circumstances 

Determination 

On December 11, 2007, the 

Department preliminarily found that 

critical circumstances existed for all 

PRC exporters of subject merchandise, 

including the separate rate applicant 

companies and companies subject to the 

PRC–wide rate. The Department 

affirmed this preliminary finding in the 

Preliminary Determination and the 

Amended Preliminary Determination. 

Pursuant to the Preliminary 

Determination, we received comments 

on this issue from SeAH and Western. 

See SeAH March Case Brief, at 3; see 

also Western March Case Brief, at 1. 

These companies argued that we should 

no longer find that critical 

circumstances exist for certain 

importers that had placed information 

on the record of the proceeding to 

support claims that their imports were 

not part of the ‘‘massive’’ imports found 

by the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.206. We also received comments 

from Petitioners, who support the 

preliminary finding of critical 

circumstances for all PRC exporters, but 

who recommend certain modifications 

to the Department’s analysis. See 

Petitioners’ March Rebuttal Brief, at 19. 

Based on the comments from 

interested parties, we have revised our 

analysis, but continue to find that 

critical circumstances exist with regard 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices 31973 

to all imports of CWP from the PRC. For 

further details, see the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comments 

11–13; see also, Memorandum from 

Abdelali Elouaradia, Office Director, to 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon 

Quality Steel Pipe (‘‘CWP’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) - 

Final Affirmative Determination of 

Critical Circumstances,’’ dated May 29, 

2008. 

Combination Rates 

In Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Circular Welded Carbon 

Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 36663 (July 5, 

2007) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’), the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Initiation Notice. This change in 

practice is described in Policy Bulletin 

05.1, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. 

Policy Bulletin 05.1, states: 

{w}hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to 

exporters, all separate rates that the 

Department will now assign in its 

NME investigations will be specific 

to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of 

investigation. Note, however, that 

one rate is calculated for the 

exporter and all of the producers 

which supplied subject 

merchandise to it during the period 

of investigation. This practice 

applies both to mandatory 

respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate 

rate as well as the pool of non–

investigated firms receiving the 

weighted–average of the 

individually calculated rates. This 

practice is referred to as the 

application of ‘‘combination rates’’

because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one 

or more producers. The cash–

deposit rate assigned to an exporter 

will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in 

question and produced by a firm 

that supplied the exporter during 

the period of investigation.See 

Policy Bulletin 05.1, ‘‘Separate 

Rates Practice and Application of 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations Involving Non–

Market Economy Countries.’’

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

percentage weighted–average margins 

exist for the POI: 

Exporter Producer Weighted–Average Margin 

Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd. ........................ Xuzhou Guang Huan Steel Tube Products Co., Ltd. 69.20 

Wuxi Fastube Industry Co., Ltd. .................................. Wuxi Fastube Industry Co., Ltd. 69.20 

Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc–Plating Industrial.Co.,Ltd.6 .... Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc–Plating Industrial Co., Ltd. 69.20 

Wuxi Eric Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. ..................................... Wuxi Eric Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 69.20 

Qingdao Xiangxing Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. ...................... Qingdao Xiangxing Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 69.20 

Wah Cit Enterprises ..................................................... Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd. 69.20

Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd. ..... Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co.,.Ltd. 69.20 

Hengshui Jinghua Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. ....................... Hengshui Jinghua Steel Pipe Co.,Ltd. 69.20 

Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe–Making Co., Ltd. ....... Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe–Making Co, Ltd. 69.20 

Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. ............................... Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 69.20 

Shijiazhuang Zhongqing Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. ............. Bazhou Zhuofa Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 69.20 

Tianjin Baolai Int’l Trade Co., Ltd. ............................... Tianjin Jinghai County Baolai Business and Industry 

Co., Ltd. 

69.20 

Wai Ming (Tianjin) Int’l Trading Co., Ltd. .................... Bazhou Dong Sheng Hot–dipped Galvanized Steel 

Pipes Co., Ltd. 

69.20 

Kunshan Lets Win Steel MachineryCo., Ltd. .............. Kunshan Lets Win Steel Machinery Co., Ltd. 69.20 

Shenyang Boyu M/E Co., Ltd. ..................................... Bazhou Dong Sheng Hot–dipped Galvanized Steel 

Pipes Co., Ltd. 

69.20 

Dalian Brollo Steel Tubes Ltd. ..................................... Dalian Brollo Steel Tubes Ltd. 69.20 

Benxi Northern Pipes Co., Ltd. .................................... Benxi Northern Pipes Co., Ltd. 69.20 

Shanghai Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp. ... Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co. 69.20 

Shanghai Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp. ... Benxi Northern Pipes Co., Ltd. 69.20 

Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co. ............................... Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co. 69.20 

Tianjin Xingyuda Import & Export Co., Ltd. ................. Tianjin Lifengyuanda Steel Group 69.20 

Tianjin Xingyuda Import & Export Co., Ltd. ................. Tianjin Xingyunda Steel Pipe Co. 69.20 

Tianjin Xingyuda Import & Export Co., Ltd. ................. Tianjin Lituo Steel Products Co. 69.20 

Tianjin Xingyuda Import & Xinlida Export Co., Ltd. ..... Tangshan Fengnan District Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 69.20 

Jiangyin Jianye Metal Products Co., Ltd. .................... Jiangyin Jianye Metal Products Co., Ltd. 69.20 

Rizhao Xingye Import & Export Co., Ltd. .................... Shandong Xinyuan Group Co., Ltd. 69.20 

Tianjin No. 1 Steel Rolled Co., Ltd. ............................. Tianjin Hexing Steel Co., Ltd. 69.20 

Tianjin No. 1 Steel Rolled Co., Ltd. ............................. Tianjin Ruitong Steel Co., Ltd. 69.20 

Tianjin No. 1 Steel Rolled Co., Ltd. ............................. Tianjin Yayi Industrial Co. 69.20 

Kunshan Hongyuan Machinery Manufacture Co., Ltd. Kunshan Hongyuan Machinery Manufacture Co., Ltd. 69.20 

Qingdao Yongjie Import & Export Co., Ltd. ................. Shandong Xinyuan Group Co., Ltd. 69.20 

PRC–Wide Entity7 ....................................................... .......................................................................................... 85.55 

6 In the Preliminary Determination, the Department incorrectly identified Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc-Plating Industrial Company, Ltd., as Jiangsu 

Guoqiang Zinc-Plating Co., Ltd. We note, however, that in the Department’s subsequent instructions to CBP to suspend liquidation and require 

cash deposits for CWP from PRC, the Department correctly identified Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc-Plating Industrial Company, Ltd. 7 In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that the Tianjin Shuangjie Group is part of the PRC-wide entity. In the Amended Preliminary Determination, the Department found that Yulong is part of the PRC-wide entity. 

Disclosure 

We 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). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
31974 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all imports of subject 

merchandise as described in the ‘‘Scope 

of Investigation’’ section, that are 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after October 17, 

2007, which is 90 days prior to the date 

of publication of the preliminary 

determination in the Federal Register, 

except for imports from Yulong. In 

specific regard to Yulong, we are 

directing CBP to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of subject 

merchandise as described in the ‘‘Scope 

of Investigation’’ section, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after January 25, 

2008, which is 90 days prior to the date 

of publication of the amended 

preliminary determination in the 

Federal Register. See Amended 

Preliminary Determination. We will 

instruct CBP to continue to require a 

cash deposit or the posting of a bond for 

all companies based on the estimated 

weighted–average dumping margins 

shown above. The suspension of 

liquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

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 of sales at 

LTFV. As our 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: May 29, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

Comment 1: Whether the Scope 

Language Should Include End–Use 

Definition and Reference to End–Use 

Applications 

Comment 2: Whether the Department 

Should Graduate the People’s Republic 

of China to Market Economy Status 

Comment 3: Whether the Department 

Should Calculate a Company–Specific 

Separate Rate for Weifang East Pipe 

Comment 4: Whether the Department 

Should Find Weifang East Pipe to be a 

Market–Oriented Enterprise 

Comment 5: Whether the Department 

Should Utilize Weifang East Pipe’s 

Actual Hot–Rolled Costs When 

Calculating an AD Margin Due to the 

Existence of the Companion 

Countervailing Duty Investigation 

Comment 6: Whether a Double–Remedy 

Results from the Simultaneous 

Application of Non–Market Economy 

AD and Countervailing Duty 

Methodologies 

Comment 7: Whether the Department’s 

Amended Preliminary Determination 

Violated Legal Principles 

Comment 8: Whether the Department 

Should Employ Weifang East Pipe’s 

Suggested Analytical Approach For 

Calculating Its Company–Specific 

Margin 

Comment 9: Whether the Department 

Should Assign Weifang East Pipe’s 

Company–Specific AD Rate to All 

Cooperative Separate Rate Respondents 

Comment 10: Whether the Department 

Should Make an Adjustment for 

Countervailable Export Subsidies 

Comment 11: Whether the Department 

Should Use the Highest Petition Margin 

as the Adverse Facts Available Rate 

Comment 12: Whether the Department 

Should Find That Critical 

Circumstances Do Not Exist for Yulong 

Comment 13: Whether the Department 

Should Analyze Critical Circumstances 

on an Importer–Specific Basis in its 

Critical Circumstances Analysis 

Comment 14: Whether the Department 

Should Include June 2007 in the Base 

Period Rather than the Comparison 

Period in its Critical Circumstances 

Analysis 

[FR Doc. E8–12608 Filed 6–4–08; 8:45 am] 

Billing Code: 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping duty orders listed below. 

The International Trade Commission 

(‘‘the Commission’’) is publishing 

concurrently with this notice its notice 

of Institution of Five-Year Review which 

covers the same orders. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. For 

information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) 

and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). 

Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of Sunset 

Reviews is set forth in the Department’s 

Policy Bulletin 98.3—Policies Regarding 

the Conduct of Five-Year (’’Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

duty orders: 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
B-1

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from China 

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-447 and 731-TA-1116 (Final)

Date and Time: May 13, 2008 - 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 WITNESSES:

The Honorable Arlen Specter, United States Senator, United States Senate, Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania

The Honorable Blanche L. Lincoln, United States Senator, United States Senate, State of Arkansas

The Honorable Evan Bayh, United States Senator, United States Senate, State of Indiana

The Honorable Mark Pryor, United States Senator, United States Senate, State of Arkansas

The Honorable Sherrod Brown, United States Senator, United States Senate, State of Ohio

The Honorable Robert P. Casey, Jr., United States Senator, United States Senate, Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania

The Honorable Phil English, U.S. Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd District,

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

The Honorable Marion Berry, U.S. Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives, 1st District, State

of Arkansas

The Honorable Tim Ryan, U.S. Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives, 17th District State of

Ohio

The Honorable Jason Altmire, U.S. Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives, 4th District

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
B-4

OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioner (Joseph W. Dorn, King & Spalding LLP)

Respondents (William H. Barringer, Heller Ehrman LLP)

In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing Duties:

King & Spalding LLP

Washington, D.C.

 and

Schagrin Associates

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Ad Hoc Coalition for Fair Pipe Imports from China

and its Members

Bill Kerins, President, Wheatland Tube Division,

John Maneely Company

Mark Magno, Vice President Standard Pipe, Fence

and Sprinkler Sales, Wheatland Tube

Company and Sharon Tube Company

Rick Filetti, Past President and Consultant, Allied

Tube & Conduit

Will Boggs, Vice President, Fence Division, Allied

Tube & Conduit

Tom Conway, Vice President, International, The United

Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,

Energy, Allied-Industrial and Service Workers

International Union (“USW”)

Don Finn, Vice President, Sales, Western Tube &

Conduit Corporation

Scott Barnes, Vice President, Commercial, IPSCO

Tubulars, Inc.
B-5

In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing Duties (continued):

Seth Kaplan, Consultant, The Brattle Group

Joseph W. Dorn )

Gilbert B. Kaplan ) – OF COUNSEL

Roger B. Schagrin )

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

United States Steel Corporation

George H. Thompson, General Manager, Commercial,

Tubular Products, U.S. Steel Tubular Products, Inc.

Stephen P. Vaughn ) – OF COUNSEL

In Opposition to the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing Duties:

Heller Ehrman LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

The China Chamber of Commerce of Metals,

Minerals, and Chemicals Importers &

Exporters (“CCCMC”)

Professor Thomas Prusa, Professor of Economics,

Rutgers University

William H. Barringer )

) – OF COUNSEL

Matthew McCullough )
B-6

In Opposition to the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing Duties (continued):

Troutman Sanders LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Pusan Pipe America, Inc. (d/b/a SeAH Steel America, Inc.)

Kumkang America, Inc.

Oxbow Carbon and Minerals LLC (Mark Steel International)

James Steel, Inc.

Hyundai Corp. USA

North American Pipe & Steel Inc.

Shamrock Building Materials Inc.

Jun Lee, Vice President and General Manager,

SeAH Steel America, Inc.

Donald B. Cameron )

) – OF COUNSEL

Julie C. Mendoza )

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

MAN Ferrostaal Inc.

Commercial Metals Company

QT Trading LP

Frederick P. Waite )

) – OF COUNSEL

Kimberly R. Young )
B-7

In Opposition to the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing Duties (continued):

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Western International Forest Products, LLC (“Western”)

Doug Rudolph, Steel Trade, Western

Steve Stipe, Steel Trade, Western

Laura Fraedrich )

) – OF COUNSEL

Daniel J. Gerkin )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Roger B. Schagrin, Schagrin Associates)

Respondents (William H. Barringer, Heller Ehrman LLP; and

Donald B. Cameron, Troutman Sanders LLP)

C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

Circular welded pipe: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2005-07

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; 

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2005 2006 2007 2005-07 2005-06 2006-07

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,364,274 2,715,043 2,577,129 9.0 14.8 -5.1

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 58.4 49.3 55.2 -3.2 -9.1 5.9

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2 26.4 29.0 12.9 10.2 2.7

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 25.4 24.3 15.8 -9.6 -1.1 -8.6

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.6 50.7 44.8 3.2 9.1 -5.9

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,098,972 2,237,056 2,185,379 4.1 6.6 -2.3

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 64.9 58.8 61.8 -3.1 -6.2 3.0

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.7 18.6 21.5 9.9 6.9 3.0

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 23.4 22.7 16.6 -6.7 -0.7 -6.0

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.1 41.2 38.2 3.1 6.2 -3.0

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382,122 715,728 748,181 95.8 87.3 4.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245,357 415,197 470,787 91.9 69.2 13.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $642 $580 $629 -2.0 -9.7 8.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 9,328 42,220 29,798 219.5 352.6 -29.4

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600,574 660,381 406,280 -32.4 10.0 -38.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490,728 507,222 363,801 -25.9 3.4 -28.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $817 $768 $895 9.6 -6.0 16.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 28,190 46,494 48,319 71.4 64.9 3.9

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982,696 1,376,109 1,154,462 17.5 40.0 -16.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736,086 922,419 834,588 13.4 25.3 -9.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $749 $670 $723 -3.5 -10.5 7.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 37,518 88,714 78,117 108.2 136.5 -11.9

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . 2,571,019 2,405,229 2,219,300 -13.7 -6.4 -7.7

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . 1,385,959 1,383,110 1,457,128 5.1 -0.2 5.4

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . 53.9 57.5 65.7 11.8 3.6 8.2

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,381,578 1,338,934 1,422,667 3.0 -3.1 6.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,362,886 1,314,637 1,350,791 -0.9 -3.5 2.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $986 $982 $949 -3.8 -0.5 -3.3

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,605 30,514 48,668 29.4 -18.9 59.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,375 28,082 44,193 18.2 -24.9 57.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $994 $920 $908 -8.6 -7.4 -1.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 197,527 192,877 166,336 -15.8 -2.4 -13.8

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . 13.9 14.1 11.3 -2.6 0.2 -2.8

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . 2,528 2,451 2,450 -3.1 -3.0 -0.0

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . 4,773 4,733 4,630 -3.0 -0.8 -2.2

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . 103,195 100,393 104,073 0.9 -2.7 3.7

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $21.62 $21.21 $22.48 4.0 -1.9 6.0

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) . 290.4 292.2 314.7 8.4 0.6 7.7

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . $74.46 $72.58 $71.42 -4.1 -2.5 -1.6

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,400,129 1,364,791 1,471,543 5.1 -2.5 7.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,335,159 1,302,373 1,373,678 2.9 -2.5 5.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $954 $954 $933 -2.1 0.1 -2.2

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . 1,143,517 1,083,988 1,225,209 7.1 -5.2 13.0

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . 191,642 218,385 148,469 -22.5 14.0 -32.0

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,097 66,745 86,933 70.1 30.6 30.2

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . 140,545 151,640 61,536 -56.2 7.9 -59.4

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . 42,724 37,666 23,962 -43.9 -11.8 -36.4

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $817 $794 $833 1.9 -2.8 4.8

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . $36 $49 $59 61.9 34.0 20.8

 Unit operating income or (loss) . $100 $111 $42 -58.3 10.7 -62.4

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.6 83.2 89.2 3.5 -2.4 6.0

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 11.6 4.5 -6.0 1.1 -7.2

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a calendar year basis, except for those of *** which are based on the fiscal year ending

March 31, 2006-08.

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

Circular welded pipe: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, presenting financial data for firms on a fiscal year basis, 2005-07

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; 

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2005 2006 2007 2005-07 2005-06 2006-07

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,364,274 2,715,043 2,577,129 9.0 14.8 -5.1

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 58.4 49.3 55.2 -3.2 -9.1 5.9

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2 26.4 29.0 12.9 10.2 2.7

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 25.4 24.3 15.8 -9.6 -1.1 -8.6

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.6 50.7 44.8 3.2 9.1 -5.9

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,098,972 2,237,056 2,185,379 4.1 6.6 -2.3

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 64.9 58.8 61.8 -3.1 -6.2 3.0

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.7 18.6 21.5 9.9 6.9 3.0

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 23.4 22.7 16.6 -6.7 -0.7 -6.0

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.1 41.2 38.2 3.1 6.2 -3.0

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382,122 715,728 748,181 95.8 87.3 4.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245,357 415,197 470,787 91.9 69.2 13.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $642 $580 $629 -2.0 -9.7 8.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 9,328 42,220 29,798 219.5 352.6 -29.4

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600,574 660,381 406,280 -32.4 10.0 -38.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490,728 507,222 363,801 -25.9 3.4 -28.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $817 $768 $895 9.6 -6.0 16.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 28,190 46,494 48,319 71.4 64.9 3.9

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982,696 1,376,109 1,154,462 17.5 40.0 -16.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736,086 922,419 834,588 13.4 25.3 -9.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $749 $670 $723 -3.5 -10.5 7.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 37,518 88,714 78,117 108.2 136.5 -11.9

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . 2,571,019 2,405,229 2,219,300 -13.7 -6.4 -7.7

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . 1,385,959 1,383,110 1,457,128 5.1 -0.2 5.4

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . 53.9 57.5 65.7 11.8 3.6 8.2

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,381,578 1,338,934 1,422,667 3.0 -3.1 6.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,362,886 1,314,637 1,350,791 -0.9 -3.5 2.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $986 $982 $949 -3.8 -0.5 -3.3

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,605 30,514 48,668 29.4 -18.9 59.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,375 28,082 44,193 18.2 -24.9 57.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $994 $920 $908 -8.6 -7.4 -1.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 197,527 192,877 166,336 -15.8 -2.4 -13.8

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . 13.9 14.1 11.3 -2.6 0.2 -2.8

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . 2,528 2,451 2,450 -3.1 -3.0 -0.0

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . 4,773 4,733 4,630 -3.0 -0.8 -2.2

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . 103,195 100,393 104,073 0.9 -2.7 3.7

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $21.62 $21.21 $22.48 4.0 -1.9 6.0

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) . 290.4 292.2 314.7 8.4 0.6 7.7

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . $74.46 $72.58 $71.42 -4.1 -2.5 -1.6

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis for *** 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-4
D-1

APPENDIX D

CURRENT ORDERS AND HISTORIC DUTY RATES ON 

CIRCULAR WELDED PIPE FROM PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 

D-3

Table D-1

Circular welded pipe from Brazil: Original margins and subsequent administrative reviews conducted by

Commerce

Firm

September 1992

Order

Persico Pizzamiglio 103.38

All others 103.38

Note.–The circular welded pipe covered in this table was the subject of the Commission's Investigation No. 731-TA-532.

Source: 57 FR 42940, September 17, 1992.

Table D-2

Circular welded pipe from India: Original margins and subsequent administrative reviews conducted by

Commerce

Firm

Mar. 1986 Dec. 1991 Dec. 1991 Dec. 1992 Sept. 1997 Jun. 1998 May 1999

Order1

5/1/87 -

4/30/88

5/1/88 -

4/30/89

5/1/90 -

4/30/91

5/1/94 -

4/30/95

5/1/96 -

4/30/97

5/1/97 -

4/30/98

Jindal 77.32

Lloyd’s 0.002 0.00

Rajinder 18.252 3 14.054 87.39

TISCO 7.08 77.32 87.39 37.65

All others 7.08

 1 Zenith and Gujarat excluded from order.

 2

 New shipper review.

 3

 As amended November 26, 1997, 62 FR 63070.

 4

 As amended December 1, 1998, 63 FR 66120.

Note.–The circular welded pipe covered in this table was the subject of the Commission's Investigation No. 731-TA-271.

Source: 51 FR 9089, March 17, 1986; 56 FR 64753, December 12, 1991; 57 FR 54360, November 18, 1992; 62 FR 47632,

September 10, 1997; 63 FR 32825, June 16, 1998; and 64 FR 23821, May 4, 1999.
D-4

Table D-3

Circular welded pipe from Korea: Original margins and subsequent administrative reviews conducted 

by Commerce

Firm

Sept. 1992 Oct. 1997 Jun. 1998 Apr. 2001 Jun. 2004

Order

4/28/92 -

10/31/93

11/1/95 -

10/31/96

11/1/98 -

10/31/99

11/1/01 -

10/31/02

Dongbu 1.71

Hyundai HYSCO1 4.622 2.643 2.534 0.84

KISCO/ Union Steel 1.525 0.71

Korea Steel 4.082 3.15

Masan Steel 11.632

Pusan Steel/SeAH6 5.352 5.315 2.633 0.954 0.66

Shinho/Husteel7 3.34 2.994 1.82

All others 4.802

 1 HYSCO is the successor to Hyundai Pipe, 66 FR 30409, June 6, 2001.

 2

 As amended November 3, 1995, 60 FR 55833.

 3

 As amended July 21, 1998, 63 FR 39071.

 4

 As amended May 23, 2001, 66 FR 28422.

 5

 As amended January 14, 1998, 63 FR 2200.

 6

 SeAH is the successor to Pusan, 63 FR 20572, April 27, 1998.

 7

 Husteel is the successor-in-interest to Shinho, 67 FR 69716, November 16, 2002.

Note.–The circular welded pipe covered in this table was the subject of the Commission's Investigation No. 731-TA-533.

Source: 57 FR 42942, September 17, 1992; 62 FR 55574, October 27, 1997; 63 FR 32833, June 16, 1998; 66 FR 18747, April

11, 2001; and 69 FR 32492, June 10, 2004. 

Table D-4

Circular welded pipe from Mexico: Original margins and subsequent administrative reviews conducted by

Commerce

Firm

Sept. 1992 Jul. 1997 Jun. 1998 Jun. 2000 Apr. 2001

Order 11/1/94 - 12/15/95 11/1/95 - 10/31/96 11/1/97 - 10/31/98 11/1/98 - 10/31/99

HYLSA 32.62 2.99 7.391 10.38

TUNA 1.77 1.92 2.922

All others 32.62

 1 As amended July 16, 1998, 63 FR 38370.

 2

 As amended July 18, 2001, 66 FR 37454.

Note.–The circular welded pipe covered in this table was the subject of the Commission's Investigation No. 731-TA-534.

Source: 57 FR 42953, September 17, 1992; 62 FR 37014, July 10, 1997; 63 FR 33041, June 17, 1998; 65 FR 37518, June 15,

2000; 66 FR 21311, April 30, 2001.
D-5

Table D-5

Circular welded pipe (small diameter) from Taiwan: Original margins and subsequent administrative reviews

conducted by Commerce

Firm

May

1984

Dec.

1986

Oct.

1988

Nov.

1989

Mar.

1991

Oct.

1997

Dec.

1999

Oct.

2000

Sept.

2004

Order

10/1/83 -

4/30/84

5/1/85 -

4/30/86

5/1/86 -

4/30/87

5/1/87 -

4/30/88

6/1/95 -

5/31/96

5/1/97 -

4/30/98

5/1/98 -

4/30/99

5/1/02 -

4/30/03

An Mau Steel 0.091 0.66 0.662

Far East

Machinery 12.303 0.201 4 02 02

Kao Hsing

Chang 9.70 0 02 24.805

Tai Feng 43.70 43.70

Yieh Hsing6 38.50 0 0 02 0.371 1.355 0.171 1.617

Yieh Loong 24.805

Yun Din 24.805

All others 9.70

 1 De minimus.

 2

 No shipments during the period. Rates are from the last antidumping duty administrative review in which there were shipments.

 3

 As amended December 20, 1988, 53 FR 51128.

 4

 As amended January 17, 1989, 54 FR 1752.

 5

 As amended February 3, 2000, 65 FR 5310.

 6

 Yieh Phui is successor-in-interest to Yieh Hsing, 70 FR 71802, November 30, 2005.

 7

 As corrected January 4, 2005, 70 FR 326.

Note.–The circular welded pipe covered in this table was the subject of the Commission's Investigation No. 731-TA-132.

Source: 49 FR 19369, May 7, 1984; 51 FR 43946, December 5, 1986; 53 FR 41218, October 20, 1988; 54 FR 46432, November 3,

1989; 56 FR 8741, March 1, 1991; 62 FR 52971, October 10, 1997; 64 FR 69488, December 13, 1999; 65 FR 60613, October 12,

2000; and 69 FR 58390, September 30, 2004.

Table D-6

Circular welded pipe (medium diameter) from Taiwan: Original margins and subsequent administrative

reviews conducted by Commerce

Firm

September 1992

Order

Kao Hsing Chang Iron 19.46

Yieh Hsing 27.65

All others 23.56

Note.–The circular welded pipe covered in this table was the subject of the Commission's Investigation No. 731-TA-536.

Source: 57 FR 42961, September 17, 1992.
D-6

Table D-7Circular welded pipe from Thailand: Original margins and subsequent administrative reviews conducted by Commerce

Firm

Jan.

1986

Nov.

1991

Aug.

1992

Jan.

1996

Nov.

1996

Oct.

1997

Oct.

1998

Oct.

1999

Oct.

2000

Oct.

2001

Order

3/1/87 -

2/29/88

3/1/88 -

2/28/89

3/1/92 -

2/28/93

3/1/94 -

2/28/95

3/1/95 -

2/29/96

3/1/96 -

2/28/97

3/1/97 -

2/28/98

3/1/98 -

2/28/99

3/1/99 

2/29/00

Saha Thai 15.69 0.491 0.461 2 17.283 7.274 9.525 1.92 9.846 1.81 1.9

Siam Steel 29.897

Thai Hong 29.897 29.89Thai Steel Pipe 15.60Thai Tube 29.89Thai Union 29.897 37.55All others 15.67

1 De minimus.2 As amended June 11, 1996, 61 FR 29533.3 As amended April 25, 1996, 61 FR 18375.4 As amended February 25, 1997, 62 FR 8423.5 As amended January 18, 2000, 65 FR 2581.6 As amended August 29, 2001, 66 FR 45666.7 As amended December 21, 1994, 59 FR 65753.

Note.–The circular welded pipe covered in this table was the subject of the Commission's Investigation No. 731-TA-252.

Source: 51 FR 3384, January 27, 1986; 56 FR 58355, November 19, 1991; 57 FR 38668, August 26, 1992; 61 FR 1328, January 19, 1996; 61 FR 5651

53808, October 15, 1997; 63 FR 55578, October 16, 1998; 64 FR 56759, October 21, 1999; 65 FR 60910, October 13, 2000; 66 FR 53388, October 22, October 20, 2004; and 71 FR 54266, September 14, 2006.
D-7

Table D-8Circular welded pipe from Turkey: Original margins and subsequent administrative reviews conducted by Commerce

Firm

Jan. 1986 Mar. 1988 Aug. 1997 Apr. 1998 Aug. 1999 Aug. 2000 Jul. 2006 Mar. 2007 

Order

10/28/85 -

12/31/88

1/1/95 -

12/31/95

1/1/96 -

12/31/96

1/1/97 -

12/31/97

1/1/98 -

12/31/98

1/1/04 -

12/31/04

1/1/05 -

12/31/05

Bant Boru 1.43Borusan Group 2.851 0.202 0.272 0.232 

Erbosan 3.97Mannesmann 0.75 3.751 4.20

Toscelik 

Yucel Boru Group 0.84All others 17.80 12.67

1 As amended October 18, 2000, 65 FR 62334.2 De minimus.3 New shipper review.

Note.–The circular welded pipe covered in this table was the subject of the Commission’s countervailing duty Investigation No. 701-TA-253.

Source: 51 FR 1268, January 10, 1986; 53 FR 9791, March 25, 1988; 62 FR 43984, August 18, 1997; 63 FR 18885, April 16, 1998; 64 FR 44496, AuguAugust 11, 2000; 71 FR 43111, July 31, 2006; 72 FR 13479, March 22, 2007; 72 FR 24278, May 2, 2007; and 73 FR 12080, March 6, 2008.
D-8

Table D-9Circular welded pipe from Turkey: Original margins and subsequent administrative reviews conducted by Commerce

Firm

Apr. 1986 Oct. 1988 Oct. 1990 May 1991 Dec. 1996 Oct. 1997 Jun. 1998 Jun. 2000 Aug. 2004 Dec

Order

1/3/86 -

4/30/87

5/1/87 -

4/30/88

5/1/88 -

4/30/89

5/1/94 -

4/30/94

5/1/93 -

4/30/94

5/1/96 -

4/30/97

5/1/98 -

4/30/99

5/1/02 -

4/30/03

5/1

4/3

Borusan 1.26 0.031 2.562 0.111 2.573 3.974 0.021 0.381 1.48 

Cayirova Erbosan 25.01Erkboru 23.12 28.28Mannesmann 23.12 28.28Toscelik Yucelboru 0.00All others 14.74

1 De minimus.3 As amended November 16, 1992, 57 FR 54046.3 As amended May 16, 1997, 62 FR 27013.4 As amended November 25, 1997, 62 FR 62758.5 As amended January 24, 2006, 71 FR 3824.6 New shipper review.

Note.–The circular welded pipe covered in this table was the subject of the Commission's antidumping duty Investigation No. 731-TA-273.

Source: 51 FR 13044, April 17, 1986; 53 FR 39632, October 11, 1988; 55 FR 42230, October 18, 1990; 56 FR 23864, May 24, 1991; 57 FR 54046, NovFR 69067, December 31, 1996; 62 FR 51629, October 2, 1997; 63 FR 35190, June 29, 1998; 65 FR 37116, June 13, 2000; 69 FR 48843, August 11, 20December 12, 2005; and 71 FR 43444, August 1, 2006.
E-1

APPENDIX E

ADDITIONAL DATA REGARDING DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS, 

CHINESE IMPORTS, AND NONSUBJECT IMPORTS

E-3

Table E-1

Circular welded pipe: Domestic shipments, U.S. imports from China, and U.S. shipments from all

other sources, by quarters, 2005-07 and January-March 2008

Quarter

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (short tons)

January-March

 Domestic shipments1

 277,028 341,095 327,512 389,162

 China 67,983 115,552 140,716 4,412

 All other sources 136,289 172,930 80,357 141,008

 Subtotal 481,301 629,577 548,586 534,582

April-June

 Domestic shipments1 304,926 407,482 322,795 (2

)

 China 117,035 127,812 239,093 (2

)

 All other sources 118,005 157,568 68,763 (2

)

 Subtotal 539,966 692,863 630,652 (2

)

July-September

 Domestic shipments1 337,161 317,674 342,854 (2

)

 China 95,544 231,175 234,782 (2

)

 All other sources 128,213 102,160 55,336 (2

)

 Subtotal 560,918 651,009 632,972 (2

)

October-December

 Domestic shipments1 342,674 310,958 294,531 (2

)

 China 91,639 175,178 65,720 (2

)

 All other sources 139,580 97,020 107,074 (2

)

 Subtotal 573,893 583,157 467,325 (2

)

 Total 2,156,078 2,556,605 2,279,533 (2

)

 1 Data from Preston Pipe & Tube Report.

 2

 Not available.

Note.–Data presented in this table do not include subject dual-stenciled pipe or subject pipe produced from

micro-alloy steel.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics for statistical reporting numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025,

7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090, Preston Pipe & Tube Report, and

from petitioners' e-mail on June 4, 2008 (monthly imports from Canada for February 2005 to March 2008).
E-4

Table E-2

Circular welded pipe: U.S. imports from leading sources, January-March 2007 and January-March

2008

Country

January-March

2007 2008 2007 2008

Quantity (short tons) Share (percent)

China 140,716 4,412 63.7 3.0

Canada 12,212 12,792 5.5 8.8

Dominican Republic 861 1,912 0.4 1.3

India 1,923 13,458 0.9 9.3

Japan 4,433 7,367 2.0 5.1

Korea 7,430 21,552 3.4 14.8

Mexico 15,194 19,557 6.9 13.4

Oman 1,833 3,487 0.8 2.4

Romania 0 2,674 0.0 1.8

Taiwan 6,139 22,146 2.8 15.2

Thailand 16,030 20,208 7.3 13.9

Turkey 2,247 3,216 1.0 2.2

United Arab Emirates 403 2,522 0.2 1.7

Venezuela 1,954 2,780 0.9 1.9

Vietnam 0 3,022 0.0 2.1

All other 9,698 4,315 4.4 3.0

 Total 221,074 145,420 100.0 100.0

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics for statistical reporting numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025,

7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090 and from petitioners' e-mail on June

4, 2008 (monthly imports from Canada for February 2005 to March 2008).
F-1

APPENDIX F

QUESTIONNAIRE SELLING PRICE DATA

FOR CIRCULAR WELDED PIPE PRODUCTS 1-4 AND 1a-4a

PRODUCED DOMESTICALLY AND IMPORTED 

FROM NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

F-3

Table F-1

Circular welded pipe: Weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and

nonsubject imported product 1,1 by country,2 by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

Period

United States Canada Guatemala India

Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity

per short

ton

short

tons

per short

ton

short

tons

per short

ton

short

tons

per short

ton

short

tons

2005:

 January-March $937 20,296 $*** *** $*** *** $*** ***

 April-June 923 19,502 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-September 862 21,053 *** *** *** *** -- 0

 October-December 912 20,792 *** *** -- 0 *** ***

2006:

 January-March 950 20,940 *** *** -- 0 *** ***

 April-June 909 20,753 *** *** -- 0 *** ***

 July-September 971 19,230 *** *** *** *** -- 0

 October-December 965 16,605 *** *** -- 0 *** ***

2007:

 January-March 872 21,090 *** *** -- 0 *** ***

 April-June 856 17,931 *** *** -- 0 -- 0

 July-September 827 18,413 *** *** -- 0 -- 0

 October-December 818 18,297 *** *** -- 0 -- 0

Period

Indonesia Japan Korea

Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity

per short

ton short tons

per short

ton short tons

per short

ton short tons

2005:

 January-March -- 0 $*** *** *** ***

 April-June $*** *** -- 0 875 1,390

 July-September -- 0 -- 0 852 593

 October-December -- 0 -- 0 833 196

2006:

 January-March *** *** *** *** 749 743

 April-June -- 0 -- 0 735 357

 July-September *** *** -- 0 698 498

 October-December *** *** -- 0 704 1,179

2007:

 January-March -- 0 -- 0 768 1,983

 April-June -- 0 -- 0 *** ***

 July-September -- 0 -- 0 *** ***

 October-December *** *** -- 0 684 1,157

 1 ASTM A-53 schedule 40 black plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter of 2-4 inches inclusive.

 2

 Romanian data were available for the second quarter of 2005, at a price of $*** per ton and quantity of *** tons.

Table continued on the next page.
F-4

Table F-1--Continued

Circular welded pipe: Weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and

nonsubject imported product 1, by country, by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

* * * * * * *
F-5

Table F-1a

Circular welded pipe: Weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and

nonsubject imported product 1a,1 by country,2 by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

Period

United States Canada Guatemala India Indonesia

Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity

per

short

ton

short

tons

per

short

ton

short

tons

per

short

ton

short

tons

per

short

ton

short

tons

per

short

ton

short

tons

2005:

 Jan.-March $949 4,706 $*** *** $*** *** $*** *** -- 0

 April-June 905 4,610 *** *** *** *** *** *** $*** ***

 July-Sept. 858 4,965 *** *** *** *** -- 0 -- 0

 Oct.-Dec. 865 6,129 *** *** -- 0 *** *** -- 0

2006:

 Jan.-March 897 5,058 *** *** -- 0 *** *** *** ***

 April-June 875 5,601 *** *** -- 0 *** *** -- 0

 July-Sept. 915 4,778 *** *** -- 0 *** 0 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 935 4,155 *** *** -- 0 *** *** *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-March 881 4,870 *** *** -- 0 *** *** -- 0

 April-June 854 4,924 *** *** -- 0 -- 0 -- 0

 July-Sept. 844 5,156 *** *** -- 0 -- 0 -- 0

 Oct.-Dec. 849 4,828 *** *** -- 0 -- 0 *** ***

Period

Korea Mexico Oman Taiwan Thailand

Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity

per

short

ton

short

tons

per

short

ton

short

tons

per

short

ton

short

tons

per

short

ton

short

tons

per

short

ton

short

tons

2005:

 Jan.-March $*** *** $*** *** -- 0 $*** *** *** ***

 April-June 882 169 *** *** -- 0 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** -- 0 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** -- 0 *** *** *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-March 748 255 *** *** -- 0 *** *** *** ***

 April-June *** *** *** *** -- 0 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 666 149 *** *** -- 0 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-March 712 267 *** *** -- 0 *** *** *** ***

 April-June *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** -- 0 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 764 97 *** *** -- 0 *** *** *** ***

 1 ASTM A-53 schedule 40 black plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter of 2 inches.

 2

 Romanian data were available for the second quarter of 2005, at a price of $*** per ton and quantity of *** tons.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
F-6

Table F-2

Circular welded pipe: Weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and

nonsubject imported product 2, by country, by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

* * * * * * *

Table F-2a

Circular welded pipe: Weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and

nonsubject imported product 2a, by country, by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

* * * * * * *
F-7

Table F-3

Circular welded pipe: Weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and

nonsubject imported product 3,1 by country,2 by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

Period

United States Canada India Indonesia Korea

Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity

per

short

ton

short

tons

per

short

ton

short

tons

per

short

ton

short

tons

per

short

ton

short

tons

per

short

ton

short

tons

2005:

 Jan.-March $930 21,971 $*** *** $*** *** -- 0 $812 1,229

 April-June 894 28,452 *** *** *** *** $*** *** 844 1,997

 July-Sept. 845 32,049 *** *** -- 0 -- 0 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 914 26,952 *** *** *** *** -- 0 *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-March 896 27,746 *** *** -- 0 *** *** 723 849

 April-June 894 32,967 *** *** *** *** -- 0 *** ***

 July-Sept. 968 23,345 *** *** -- 0 *** *** 704 399

 Oct.-Dec. 958 21,419 *** *** *** *** *** *** 743 792

2007:

 Jan.-March 842 25,010 *** *** *** *** -- 0 805 3,499

 April-June 836 25,941 *** *** -- 0 -- 0 *** ***

 July-Sept. 799 24,655 *** *** -- 0 -- 0 783 763

 Oct.-Dec. 804 26,571 *** *** -- 0 *** *** 777 1,486

Period

Malaysia Taiwan Thailand Turkey

Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity

per short

ton

short

tons

per short

ton

short

tons

per short

ton

short

tons

per short

ton

short

tons

2005:

 January-March -- 0 $*** *** $*** *** *** ***

 April-June -- 0 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-September -- 0 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 October-December -- 0 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2006:

 January-March -- 0 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 April-June -- 0 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-September -- 0 *** *** *** *** -- 0

 October-December -- 0 *** *** *** *** -- 0

2007:

 January-March -- 0 *** *** *** *** -- 0

 April-June $*** *** *** *** *** *** -- 0

 July-September *** *** *** *** *** *** -- 0

 October-December -- 0 *** *** *** *** -- 0

 1 ASTM A-53 schedule black plain-end pipe, with nominal outside diameter of 6-8 inches inclusive.

 2

 Romanian data were available for the second quarter of 2005, at a price of $*** per ton and quantity of *** tons.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
F-8

Table F-3a

Circular welded pipe: Weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and

nonsubject imported product 3a,

1

 by country,2 by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

Period

United States Canada India Indonesia

Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity

per short

ton

short

tons

per short

ton

short

tons

per short

ton

short

tons

per short

ton

short

tons

2005:

 January-March $903 9,213 $*** *** $*** *** -- 0

 April-June 876 13,500 *** *** *** *** $*** ***

 July-September 838 15,858 *** *** -- 0 -- 0

 October-December 890 12,171 *** *** *** *** -- 0

2006:

 January-March 886 9,666 *** *** -- 0 *** ***

 April-June 874 10,665 *** *** *** *** -- 0

 July-September 935 10,240 *** *** -- 0 *** ***

 October-December 943 9,461 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2007:

 January-March 809 12,611 *** *** *** *** -- 0

 April-June 805 12,972 *** *** -- 0 -- 0

 July-September 772 12,987 *** *** -- 0 -- 0

 October-December 782 15,137 *** *** -- 0 *** ***

Period

Korea Taiwan Thailand Turkey

Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity

per short

ton

short

tons

per short

ton

short

tons

per short

ton

short

tons

per short

ton

short

tons

2005:

 January-March $*** *** $*** *** $*** *** $*** ***

 April-June 839 1,513 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-September *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 October-December *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2006:

 January-March 721 348 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 April-June *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-September 708 219 *** *** *** *** -- 0

 October-December 743 439 *** *** *** *** -- 0

2007:

 January-March *** *** *** *** *** *** -- 0

 April-June *** *** *** *** *** *** -- 0

 July-September 779 564 *** *** *** *** -- 0

 October-December 777 714 *** *** *** *** -- 0

 1 ASTM A-53 schedule black plain-end, with nominal outside diameter of 6 inches.

 2

 Romanian data were available for the second quarter of 2005, at a price of $*** per ton and quantity of *** tons.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
F-9

Table F-4

Circular welded pipe: Weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and

nonsubject imported product 4, by country, by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

* * * * * * *

Table F-4a

Circular welded pipe: Weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and

nonsubject imported product 4a, by country, by quarters, January 2005-December 2007

* * * * * * *
F-10

Table F-5

Circular welded pipe: Summary of nonsubject country quarterly pricing data submitted by U.S.

producers and importers

Country

Number

of firms

Number of quarters of data

1 1a 2 2a 3 3a 4 4a Total

Canada 1 12 12 12 12 12 12 0 0 72

Guatemala 1 4 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 13

India 6 7 7 10 10 6 6 5 1 52

Indonesia 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 30

Japan 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Korea 6 12 12 12 12 12 12 9 8 89

Malaysia 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

Mexico 1 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 24

Oman 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 7

Romania 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 4

Taiwan 3 12 12 12 12 12 12 0 0 72

Thailand 1 12 12 12 12 12 12 0 0 72

Turkey 1 6 0 5 0 6 6 6 0 29

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
G-1

APPENDIX G

ALLEGED EFFECTS OF SUBJECT IMPORTS ON U.S. PRODUCERS’

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION EFFORTS,

 GROWTH, INVESTMENT, AND ABILITY TO RAISE CAPITAL

G-3

Responses of U.S. producers to the following questions:

1. Since January 1, 2005 has your firm experienced any actual negative effects on its return on

investment or its growth, investment, ability to raise capital, existing development and production efforts

(including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the product), or the scale of capital

investments as a result of imports of circular welded pipe from China?

* * * * * * *

2. Does your firm anticipate any negative impact of imports of circular welded pipe from China?

* * * * * * *

H-1

APPENDIX H

ADDITIONAL DATA REGARDING THE CHINESE INDUSTRY

H-3

Table H-1

Circular welded pipe: Chinese producers’ basis for reporting capacity of circular welded pipe,

2005-07

* * * * * * *

Table H-2

Circular welded pipe: Chinese producers’ basis for their projections on production, capacity, and

shipments of circular welded pipe in China, 2008-09

* * * * * * *

Table H-3

Circular welded pipe: Chinese producers’ response to the impact of the abolishment of the 13

percent commodity export rebate by the Chinese government in July 2007 on exports to the United

States

* * * * * * *

Table H-4

Circular welded pipe: Chinese producers’ response to the impact of the abolishment of the 13

percent commodity export rebate by the Chinese government in July 2007 on exports to third

country markets

* * * * * * *