U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4250 August 2011

Washington, DC 20436

Heavy Forged Hand Tools From China

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-457-A-D (Third Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson, Vice Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Christopher Cassise, Senior Investigator 

Dennis Fravel, Industry Analyst 

David Fishberg, Attorney 

Christopher Cassise, Acting Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4250 August 2011

Heavy Forged Hand Tools From China

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-457-A-D (Third Review)

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

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

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

Commerce’s administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Commerce’s final results of its expedited third five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

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

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

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

U.S. tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Domestic like products and domestic industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Description and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

U.S. producers’ trade and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Antidumping actions outside the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

The industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Appendix

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

B. Statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

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

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

i

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-457-A-D (Third Review)

HEAVY FORGED HAND TOOLS FROM CHINA

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States 

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (19 U.S.C. ' 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools 

from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to industries in the 

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these reviews on January 3, 2011 (76 F.R. 168) and determined on 

April 8, 2011 that it would conduct expedited reviews (76 F.R. 31631, June 1, 2011).

 

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

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

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

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand

tools from China is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to industries in the

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

I. BACKGROUND

The U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determined that industries in the

United States were materially injured by reason of less than fair value (“LTFV”) imports of heavy forged

hand tools (“hand tools”) from China in January 1991,1

 and Commerce issued antidumping duty orders on

the subject merchandise on February 19, 1991.2

 The Commission found four separate like products: (1)

picks and mattocks, with or without handles (“picks and mattocks”); (2) hammers and sledges, with heads

weighing two pounds or more (“hammers and sledges”); (3) bar tools, track tools and wedges (“bars and

wedges”); and (4) axes, adzes and hewing tools, other than machetes, with or without handles (“axes and

adzes”). 

On October 1, 1999, the Commission determined to conduct full reviews of the antidumping duty

orders on heavy forged hand tools from China. The Commission found the domestic interested party

group response to be adequate for picks and mattocks, hammers and sledges, and bars and wedges, but

inadequate with respect to axes and adzes. The Commission also determined that the respondent

interested party group responses were adequate with respect to all heavy forged hand tools. Pursuant to

19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5), the Commission decided to conduct full reviews of these orders. In June 2000,

the Commission determined that revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.3

Subsequently, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty orders, effective February 4,

2000, for picks and mattocks and axes and adzes,4

 and effective June 2, 2000, for hammers and sledges

and bars and wedges.

The Commission instituted the second reviews of the orders at issue on July 1, 2005. It found the

domestic interested party group responses to the notice of institution to be adequate with respect to all

four domestic like products and the respondent interested party group responses to be inadequate. In the

absence of adequate respondent interested party group responses or other circumstances warranting a full

review, the Commission decided to conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

In those reviews, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on heavy

forged hand tools from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to

industries in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.5

 

 1 Heavy Forged Handtools from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-457 (Final), USITC Pub. 2357, (Feb. 1991) at 3

(“Original Determination”). All citations are to the published version of the determination unless otherwise noted. 

 2

 56 Fed. Reg. 6622 (Feb. 19, 1991).

 3

 Heavy Forged Handtools from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-457 (A-D) (First Review), USITC Pub. 3322, (July

2000) at 3 (“First Five-Year Review Determination”). All citations are to the published version of the determination

unless otherwise noted. 

 4

 65 Fed. Reg. 5497 (Feb. 4, 2000).

 5

 Heavy Forged Handtools from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-457 (A-D) (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3836 (Jan.

2006), at 3 (“Second Five-Year Review Determination”). All citations are to the published version of the

determination unless otherwise noted. 

3
The Commission instituted these third reviews of the orders at issue on January 3, 2011.6

 On

April 4, 2011, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group responses to its notice

of institution were adequate, but that the respondent interested party group responses were inadequate.7

In the absence of adequate respondent interested party group responses, or other factors warranting full

reviews, the Commission determined to conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the

Act.8 9

 Domestic interested parties Ames True Temper (“Ames”) and Council Tool Co., Inc. (“Council”),

both domestic producers of all four separate like products (axes and adzes, bars and wedges, hammers and

sledges, and picks and mattocks), responded to the Commission’s notice of institution and filed comments

in these reviews. Fiskars Brands Inc., (“Fiskars”), a U.S. importer of subject axes and adzes during the

period of review, submitted a response to the Commission’s notice of institution. On February 28, 2011,

however, Fiskars submitted a letter indicating that it no longer intended to participate in these reviews and

requested that its response be withdrawn.10 No other respondent interested party has provided any

information or argument to the Commission in these reviews.

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

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

product” and the “industry.”11 The Act defines the “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or

in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation

under this subtitle.”12 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the like product

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

indicates any reason to revisit that definition.13

In these five-year reviews, Commerce has defined the scope of the antidumping duty orders as

follows:

The products covered by these orders are hand tools (“HFHTs”) comprising the

following classes or kinds of merchandise: (1) hammers and sledges with

heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds); (2) bars over 18 inches in length, track tools,

and wedges; (3) picks and mattocks; and (4) axes, adzes, and similar hewing

tools. HFHTs include heads for drilling, hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks,

 6 76 Fed. Reg. 168 (Jan. 3, 2011).

 7

 See Confidential Staff Report (“CR”) at Appendix B. 

 8

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3).

 9

 See CR at Appendix B.

 10 CR/PR at I-1, n.4. Fiskars reported that ***. Id.

 11 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 apply to the entire subtitle containing the

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

 12 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United

States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct.

Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91

(1979).

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

Kingdom, Inv. No. 701-TA-380-382 and 731-TA-797-804 (Review), USITC Pub. 3788 (July 2005) at 6; Crawfish

Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub. 3614 (July 2003) at 4; Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bar from Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub. 3577 (Feb. 2003) at 4.

4
and mattocks, which may or may not be painted, which may or may not be

finished, or which may or may not be imported with handles; assorted bar

products and track tools including wrecking bars, digging bars, and tampers;

and steel woodsplitting wedges. HFHTs are manufactured through a hot forge

operation in which steel is sheared to required length, heated to forging

temperature, and formed to final shape on forging equipment using dies specific

to the desired product shape and size. Depending on the product, finishing

operations may include shot blasting, grinding, polishing and painting, and the

insertion of handles for handled product. HFHTs are currently provided for

under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”)

subheadings 8201.30.00, 8201.40.60, 8205.20.60, and 8205.59.30. Specifically

excluded from these reviews are hammers and sledges with heads 1.5 kilograms

(3.33 pounds) in weight and under, hoes and rakes, and bars 18 inches in length

and under.14

Heavy hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) have heads that are heavier

than claw-type (carpenters’) hammers or ball peen type (machinists’) hammers. Sledge hammers are

heavy hammers used for driving stakes, wedges or other objects. Woodsplitting mauls resemble sledge

hammers except that they have one axe-like edge. Primarily, they are intended to split wood without the

use of wedges, but the blunt end may be used for striking stakes, wedges or other objects as one would

with a sledge hammer. Hammers and sledges, including mauls, within the scope of the antidumping duty

order typically have handles made of wood or fiberglass.15

The principal product within the bars and wedges category is the crowbar. This tool typically has

a gooseneck-like shape to the bar at the claw end for pulling nails and spikes, and a chisel blade at the

other end of the bar for prying. Other bars, such as wrecking bars, may be flattened. Various

configurations of curves allow for differing degrees of leverage in prying operations. Bars and wedges

encompass digging bars and tampers. Bars are used for demolition, scraping, lifting, or prying apart floor

tile, wood paneling, nailed wood items, wood molding, and/or removing nails and spikes from wood. 

 14 76 Fed. Reg. at 24856 (May 3, 2011). Since the original investigations, Commerce has issued ten scope

rulings regarding the merchandise covered by these orders: (1) On August 16, 1993, the Commerce found the “Max

Multi-Purpose Axe,” imported by the Forrest Tool Co., to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order; (2) on March

8, 2001, Commerce found “18–inch” and “24– inch” pry bars, produced without dies, imported by Olympia

Industrial, Inc. and SMC Pacific Tools, Inc., to be within the scope of the bars/wedges order; (3) on March 8, 2001, 

Commerce found the “Pulaski” tool, produced without dies by TMC, to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order;

(4) on March 8, 2001, Commerce found the “skinning axe,” imported by Import Traders, Inc., to be within the scope

of the axes/adzes order; (5) on December 9, 2004, Commerce found the “Scrapek MUTT,” imported by Olympia

Industrial, Inc., under HTS 8205.59.5510, to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order; (6) on May 23, 2005, 

Commerce found 8 inch by 8 inch and 10 inch by 10 inch cast tampers, imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. to be

outside the scope of the orders; (7) on October 14, 2005, Commerce found the “Mean Green Splitting Machine”

imported by Avalanche Industries to be within the scope of the bars/wedges order; (8) on February 20, 2008,

Commerce found that “stamped machetes, gator machetes, and brush axes” imported by Fiskars are not within the

scope of the orders; (9) on December 1, 2008, Commerce found that New Buffalo Corp.’s “4 Ton Electric Log

Splitter” was not within the scope of the orders; and (10) on February 25, 2011, Commerce found that “stubby bar”

imported by Olympia Tools was not within the scope of the orders. Id.; 73 Fed Reg. 9293 (Feb. 20, 2008);73 Fed

Reg. 72771, (Dec. 1, 2008); 76 Fed Reg. 10558, (Feb. 25, 2011).

 15 CR at I-9, PR at I-8.

5
Digging bars are used to break up hardened soil and tampers are used to compact loose soil or asphalt. 

Wedges are used in splitting wood.16

Picks and mattocks are produced in a number of styles and sizes, and differ principally in the

weight of the head, the angle and size of the prongs, and the shape of the pick points. Picks generally are

used for digging in relatively hard soil and striking the soil with the point of the pick head, whereas the

mattock has one side of the head being a broad blade and is used in relatively soft soil. Both mattocks

and picks are produced with either wood or fiberglass handles.17

Axes and adzes are hewing tools. Axes generally are grouped into two categories: large axes and

special-purpose axes. Large axes are intended primarily for chopping wood. They are manufactured with

either two cutting edges (double-bit) or a single cutting edge (single-bit). The single-bit axe has on the

opposite side of the axe head a hammer face that can be used for pounding. Special-purpose axes are

designed to function as two tools. For example, the mattock axe is a single-bit axe with an adze-shaped

grubbing blade on the back and is designed for digging, prying or chopping. Adzes are used in shaping

wood, and may have either a flat or curved blade at a right angle to the handle.18

In the original investigation, the Commission determined that there were four like products: (1)

hammers and sledges, with heads weighing two pounds or more, with or without handles (striking tools);

(2) all bar tools, track tools and wedges (bar tools); (3) picks and mattocks, with or without handles

(digging tools); and (4) axes, adzes and hewing tools, other than machetes, with or without handles

(hewing tools).19 The Commission found the same four like products in its first and second five-year

reviews.20

In these third five-year reviews, there is no new information on the record that suggests a

reexamination of the Commission’s definition of domestic like product is warranted, and no party has

argued for different domestic like product definitions than in the original investigation and prior

reviews.21 For the reasons stated in the original determination and the first and second five-year reviews,

we again define the domestic like products as: (1) axes, adzes and hewing tools, other than machetes,

with or without handles; (2) bar tools, track tools and wedges; (3) hammers and sledges, with heads

weighing two pounds or more, with or without handles; and (4) picks and mattocks, with or without

handles, coextensive with Commerce’s scope.

B. Domestic Industry

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

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

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”22 

 16 CR at I-9, PR at I-8.

 17 CR at I-10, PR at I-9.

 18 CR at I-8, PR at I-8.

 19 Original Determination at 15.

 20 First Five-Year Review Determination at 6; Second Five-Year Review Determination at 7.

 21 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at 25; Council’s Response to Notice of Institution at 9. 

 22 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to

include in the industry producers of all domestic production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively

consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market, provided that adequate production-related activity is conducted

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

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

6
In the original investigation and the first two reviews, the Commission found four domestic

industries, consistent with the four domestic like products.23 These industries consisted of the following:

 (1) domestic producers of hammers and sledges, with heads weighing two pounds or more, with or

without handles (striking tools); (2) domestic producers of all bar tools, track tools and wedges (bar

tools); (3) domestic producers of picks and mattocks, with or without handles (digging tools); and (4)

domestic producers of axes, adzes and hewing tools, other than machetes, with or without handles

(hewing tools).

In their responses to the notice of institution, Ames and Council list themselves and Warwood

Tool Co. as the domestic producers of hand tools.24 Both Ames and Council indicated that to the best of

their knowledge no domestic producer is a related party under the statute.25 

The record here contains no information that would warrant a reconsideration of any of the prior

domestic industry definitions. We therefore define the domestic industries in these reviews as consistent

with the definitions in the first and second five-year reviews and the original determination: (1) domestic

producers of hammers and sledges, with heads weighing two pounds or more, with or without handles

(striking tools); (2) domestic producers of all bar tools, track tools and wedges (bar tools); (3) domestic

producers of picks and mattocks, with or without handles (digging tools); and (4) domestic producers of

axes, adzes and hewing tools, other than machetes, with or without handles (hewing tools).

III. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS ARE REVOKED

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

antidumping duty order unless (1) it makes a determination that dumping or subsidization is likely to

continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation of the antidumping duty

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

foreseeable time.”26 The SAA states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a

counter-factual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an

important change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of

its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”27 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in

nature.28 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the sunset review

 23 Original Determination at 19; First Five-Year Review Determination at 7; Second Five-Year Review

Determination at 8-9. In the original investigation, the Commission excluded from the domestic industries

companies that did no more than assemble imported heads with handles purchased from a domestic manufacturer. 

The Commission also excluded one domestic producer, Madison Mill, from the domestic industries under the related

parties provision. In the first reviews, one of the domestic producers, ***, imported axes from China in 1999, and

was therefore a related party. The Commission determined that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude

*** from the axes and adzes domestic industry. First Five-Year Review Determination at 7 at 8. In the second

expedited review, the Commission did not exclude any company as a related party. Second Five-Year Review

Determination at 8-9. 

 24 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at 22-23; Council’s Response to Notice of Institution at 6-7. 

 25 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at 22-23; Council’s Response to Notice of Institution at 6-7. 

 26 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 27 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury standard

applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury,

or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never

completed.” SAA at 883. 

 28 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

(continued...)

7
provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.29

30 31

The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or termination

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”32 According to

the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will exceed the

‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”33

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

antidumping duty investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute provides

that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject

merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”34 It

directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether any improvement in

the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether the

industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated,

and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).35

 28 (...continued)

indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed

shipment levels and current and likely continued [sic] prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in

making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” 

SAA at 884.

 29 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v.

United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s

opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals

(Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, 26 CIT 1059 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of

continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002) (“‘likely’ is

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

 30 For a complete statement of Chairman Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see Additional Views of

Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel

Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review) and

731-TA-707 to 710 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 31 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, Inv.

No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in this review and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses this issue.

 32 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 33 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or

differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic

products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),

and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,

such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id.

 34 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). There have been no duty absorption findings by Commerce with respect to the orders

under review. The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the Commission is

required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination. 19

U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily dispositive. 

SAA at 886.

8
No respondent interested parties participated in these expedited reviews. The record, therefore,

contains limited new information with respect to the hand tools industries in China, as well as limited

information on the hand tools market during the period of review. Accordingly, in reaching our

determination, we rely as appropriate on the facts available from the original investigation and prior

reviews and the limited new information on the record in these reviews.36 37

B. Conditions of Competition and Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statute directs

the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”38

1. The Original Investigation and the Prior Reviews

In the original investigations, the Commission did not make explicit findings regarding conditions

of competition for each of the domestic industries.

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found several conditions of competition for each of

the domestic industries, as follows. The production of hand tools was labor intensive, rather than capital

intensive, and there were no significant differences reported in the manufacturing process between

imported and domestically produced products. There was a moderate to high degree of substitution

between the domestic products and subject imports. Demand had been relatively flat since the time of the

original investigations and there had been a shift in demand from the industrial sector to large retail

accounts as well as to the do-it-yourself market. Price was an important factor in purchasing decisions,

particularly with the large retail accounts. Since the time of the original investigations, there had been a

large increase in nonsubject imports, which accounted for a large percentage of total imports at the time

of the first reviews.39

 36 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

determination when (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an interested party or other person

withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time, form, or manner

requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to section

782(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). The verification requirements in section 782(i) are applicable only to

Commerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). See Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 2001) (“[T]he ITC correctly responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification

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

Commission investigation.”).

 37 Chairman Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as

a whole in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by

the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does

not automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the

level of participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors

and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes

determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 38 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 39 First Five-Year Review Determination at 11. Based on the record data, the Commission found that the

important conditions of competition were similar for each of the industries, as were the likely effects of revocation of

the orders.

9
In the second five-year reviews, the Commission stated that the limited record did not indicate

that there had been any significant changes in the conditions of competition since the time of the first

five-year reviews.40 The Commission noted that there had been no significant changes in supply and

demand conditions or in the business cycle for hand tools since 1991.41 The Commission also noted that

there was no indication from the record that the production of any of the hand tools is no longer labor

intensive, nor was there any indication that the degree of substitution between the domestic products and

subject imports is no longer moderate to high.42 The Commission stated that Chinese producers

reportedly continued to compete on price.43 The record also indicated that there had been an increase in

sales at internet retail sites.44 Finally, the Commission noted that the domestic industries appeared to have

consolidated since the first reviews, declining from five major domestic producers to three major

domestic producers of each of the domestic like products.45

2. The Current Reviews

In these reviews, we find the following conditions of competition relevant to our analysis.

The limited record of these expedited reviews indicates that the conditions of competition relied

upon by the Commission in making its determinations in the second five-year reviews generally

continued in the current period. The record indicates that the high degree of substitutability between

subject imports and the domestic like products, the importance of price in the U.S. hand tools market, and

overlapping channels of distribution continue to exist in the market.46 

Since the last reviews, Ames notes that the economic downturn has had a significant impact on

U.S. manufacturing industries, including the hand tools industries. It states that hand tools demand is

heavily dependent on construction activity, both residential and non-residential, which has been adversely

affected by the recent recession.47 Ames asserts that demand for hand tools has declined, resulting in

reduced capacity utilization and downward pressure on U.S. prices.48

Ames listed 87 Chinese producers of subject merchandise49 and two known importers of subject

merchandise from China.50 Council listed eight Chinese firms that it believes are major exporters of

subject merchandise to the United States,51 and nine importers of subject merchandise from China.52

During the original investigations and the first reviews, import data were collected from

Commission questionnaires. Such data were unavailable in the expedited second reviews and the current

reviews; the only data available for 2010 are based on official Commerce import statistics. As a result,

our volume data in the original investigations were based on import shipment data reported in

 40 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 12.

 41 Id.

 42 Id.

 43 Id.

 44 Id.

 45 Id. at 14-15.

 46 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at 12-13.

 47 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at 14-15.

 48 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at 15. Ames asserts that there are ***. Ames’ Response to Notice of

Institution at 15-16. Ames states that while *** Id. at 16.

 49 CR at I-19, PR at I-16. Ames was unable to list which producers produced which categories of hand tools. 

 50 CR at I-15, PR at I-12.

 51 CR at I-19, PR at I-16.

 52 CR at I-15, PR at I-12.

10
Commission questionnaires, whereas our volume data in these third reviews are based on import data

from official Commerce import statistics. Moreover, three of the four categories of HTS numbers,

corresponding to three out of the four hand tool products subject to the orders, are “basket” categories

with nonsubject items included in the category (only “hammers and sledges” is not a basket category). 

We recognize that any comparison of the data should be made with caution.53

The U.S. hand tools market is supplied by domestic producers,54 subject imports, and nonsubject

imports. In 2010, the domestic industries’ shares of apparent U.S. consumption for each like product

category were *** percent for axes and adzes, *** percent for bars and wedges, *** percent for hammers

and sledges, and *** percent for picks and mattocks.55 The market shares held by subject imports from

China were *** percent for axes and adzes, *** percent for bars and wedges, *** percent for hammers

and sledges, and *** percent for picks and mattocks.56 The market shares held by nonsubject imports

were *** percent for axes and adzes, *** percent for bars and wedges, *** percent for hammers and

sledges, and *** percent for picks and mattocks.57

We find that these conditions of competition in the hand tools market provide us with a

reasonable basis on which to assess the likely effects of revocation of the orders. 

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

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

were revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.58 In

doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated

factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the

exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories;

(3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the

United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country,

which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other

products.59

 53 CR/PR at Appendix C; CR at I-15, PR at I-12. 

 54 Ames estimated that in 2010 it accounted for *** percent of U.S. production of axes and adzes, *** percent of

U.S. production of bars and wedges, *** percent of U.S. production of hammers and sledges, and *** percent of

U.S. production of picks and mattocks. CR at I-13; PR at I-11. Council estimated that it accounted for

approximately *** percent of U.S. production of all four domestic like products. CR at I-13, PR at. I-11. In the

second five-year reviews, data on domestic producers were available only for Ames, which accounted for ***

percent of domestic production of hammers and sledges, *** percent of the production of bars and wedges, ***

percent of the production of picks and mattocks, and *** percent of the production of axes and adzes. In the first

five-year reviews, data were available for 100 percent of domestic production of hammers and sledges, *** percent

of the production of bars and wedges, 100 percent of the production of picks and mattocks, and 100 percent of the

production of axes and adzes. In the original investigation, data were available for 99.9 percent of domestic

production of hammers and sledges, 99.9 percent of the production of bars and wedges, *** percent of the

production of picks and mattocks, and 99.9 percent of the production of axes and adzes. CR/PR at Appendix C.

 55 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 56 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 57 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 58 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 59 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

11
1. The Original Determinations

The Commission found that the market share of subject imports corresponding to each of the four

like products had increased significantly. Between 1987 and 1989, subject imports’ share of total

domestic consumption of hammers and sledges rose from *** percent to *** percent, as the actual

volume of subject imports rose by *** percent, from *** units in 1987 to *** in 1989. Subject imports’

share of total domestic consumption of bars and wedges by volume rose from *** percent in 1987 to ***

percent in 1989, with actual imports rising by *** percent, from *** units in 1987 to *** units in 1989. 

Subject imports’ share of total domestic consumption of picks and mattocks rose from *** percent in

1987 to *** percent in 1989, as the actual volume of imports rose by *** percent, rising from *** units in

1987 to *** units in 1989. For axes and adzes, subject imports’ share of total domestic consumption rose

from *** percent in 1987 to *** percent in 1989; the volume of subject axe and adze imports rose from

*** units in 1987 to *** units in 1989, or by *** percent.60

2. The Prior Reviews

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that the volume of subject imports would

likely be significant if the orders were revoked. The limited information available indicated that the

Chinese industries remained very large. In addition, the United States was the most important export

market for the Chinese products.61

In the second five-year reviews, the Commission found that the volume of subject imports from

China likely would be significant in the reasonably foreseeable future if the orders were revoked “in light

of the large and growing capacity of Chinese producers and the continued and rising presence of subject

imports in the market despite the orders, the importance of the U.S. market and the aggressive pursuit of

market share by Chinese producers and exporters seeking to evade duties.”62

3. The Current Reviews

In these third five-year reviews, we find that the volume of subject imports would likely be

significant if the orders were revoked. Even with the orders in place, Chinese producers continue to

supply the United States with large volumes of subject merchandise.63 64 The absolute volumes of subject

imports for two of the four products, bars and wedges and hammers and sledges, were greater in 2010

than the volumes for those products that were found to be injurious during the original investigations.65

Shipments of subject imports of bars and wedges were *** units in 1989, and subject imports were 2.0

 60 Original Determination at 25-30.

 61 First Five-Year Review Determination at 13-14.

 62 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 11-13.

 63 As indicated above, we view the available import data with caution because three of the subject product

categories are covered by basket categories.

 64 According to the Global Trade Atlas data, which we also view with caution because they are over-inclusive,

substantial volumes of all categories of heavy forged hand tools from China are being exported to the United States. 

CR/PR at Tables I-6-I-9.

 65 CR/PR at Table I-5 and Appendix C at Tables I-16 and I-17. As discussed earlier, our volume data in the

original investigations were based on import shipment data reported in Commission questionnaires, whereas our

volume data in these third reviews were based on import data from official Commerce import statistics. We also

recognize that the official Commerce import data are over-inclusive for all categories except hammers and sledges. 

We note that the record of the second reviews did not contain subject import data by quantity.

12
million unit in 2010.66 Shipments of subject imports of hammers and sledges were *** units in 1989, and

subject imports were 695,000 in 2010.67 

Despite an initial decline in subject import volumes for all four products immediately after the

orders were put in place, subject import volumes have increased for all four products since the first

reviews, even with the orders in place.68 Subject imports, except for bars and wedges, have also increased

their market shares since the first reviews.69 Thus, it is evident that subject imports have once again

increased their presence in the U.S. market and Chinese exporters have been able to increase their exports

to the United States even with the antidumping duty orders in place.

Because of the lack of participation by Chinese producers and importers of subject merchandise,

the Commission has limited information on the Chinese industries producing hand tools in these reviews.

There is no information indicating that the total number of producers in China or that Chinese capacity to

produce hand tools has decreased since the last reviews. Domestic producer Ames identified 87 firms that

it believes produced heavy forged hand tools in China since 2004, and domestic producer Council

reported eight firms that it believes are major exporters of hand tools from China since 2004.70

The record of these reviews also indicates that the Chinese industries producing hand tools

remain export-oriented. In the second reviews, the Commission noted that the United States was the most

important export market for China.71 The United States remains the most important export market for

each product category in these current reviews except for axes and adzes. For hammers and sledges, 17.1

percent of China’s exports went to the United States in 2010; for bars and wedges, 29.9 percent; for picks

and mattocks, 18.7 percent; and for axes and adzes, 4.0 percent.72 In light of the size of the Chinese

industries and the importance of the U.S. market for Chinese producers even with the orders in place, it is

likely that, upon revocation of the orders, Chinese producers and exporters would ship even greater

volumes to the United States.73

Based on subject imports’ volume and market share, the subject imports’ increasing presence in

the U.S. market even with the orders in place, the reported size of the industries and available capacity in

 66 CR/PR at Table I-5 and Appendix C at Table I-17. Shipments of subject imports of picks and mattocks were

*** units in 1989, and subject imports were 204,000 units in 2010. CR/PR at Table I-5 and Appendix C at Table I18. Shipments of subject imports of axes and adzes were *** units in 1989, and subject imports were 184,000 units

in 2010. CR/PR at Table I-5 and Appendix C at Table I-18.

 67 CR/PR at Table I-16. 

 68 CR/PR at Table I-5 and Appendix C at Tables I-16 and I-17. Shipments of subject imports of bars and wedges

were *** units in 1999, and subject imports were 2.0 million units in 2010. CR/PR at Table I-5 and Appendix C at

Table I-17. Shipments of subject imports of hammers and sledges were *** units in 1999, and subject imports were

695,000 in 2010. CR/PR at Table I-5 and Appendix C at Table I-16. Shipments of subject imports of picks and

mattocks were *** units in 1999, and subject imports were 204,000 units in 2010. CR/PR at Table I-5 and Appendix

C at Table I-18. Shipments of subject imports of axes and adzes were *** units in 1999, and subject imports were

184,000 units in 2010. CR/PR at Table I-5 and Appendix C at Table I-18.

 69 Subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption on a quantity basis of bar and wedges was *** percent in

1999 and *** percent in 2010; for subject imports of hammer and sledges it was *** percent in 1999 and ***

percent in 2010; for subject imports of picks and mattocks it was *** percent in 1999 and *** percent in 2010; and

for subject imports of axes and adzes it was *** percent in 1999 and *** percent in 2010. CR/PR at Table I-5 and

Appendix C at Tables I-16, I-17, I-18, and I-19. 

 70 CR at I-19, PR at I-16; Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at p. 23 and Ex. 5; Council’s Response to the

Notice of Institution at Ex. 3.

 71 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 19.

 72 CR/PR at Tables I-6-I-9.

 73 Based on the available record, we note that hand tools from China are not subject to import investigations in

any third country markets. CR at I-19, PR at I-16.

13
China, and the demonstrated continued importance of the U.S. market to Chinese producers, we find that

Chinese producers would likely significantly increase their exports to the United States if the antidumping

duty orders were revoked. Thus, we find that the likely volume of subject imports, both in absolute terms

and as a share of the U.S. market, would be significant if the orders were revoked.

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

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

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

the subject imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are likely to

enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect

on prices for the domestic like product.74

1. The Original Determinations

The Commission found that persistent or sustained underselling occurred with subject imports of

picks and mattocks and axes and adzes. The Commission found evidence of underselling of subject

imports of hammers and sledges and bars and wedges, although the patterns of underselling were less

consistent than those exhibited by the two other products. During the years 1987-1989, average unit

values (“AUVs”) for subject imports from China were below both the AUVs for the domestic like product

and for nonsubject imports for each of the four products.75

2. The Prior Reviews

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission was unable to gather complete pricing data.76

However, the pricing data available showed significant underselling by subject imports ***. Pricing data

on hammers and sledges showed mixed patterns of overselling and underselling, with *** on some

products and mixed *** for others. The Commission noted that, despite the imposition of the

antidumping duties, AUVs for two of the four products, bars and wedges and picks and mattocks,

remained *** AUVs for the domestic like products. The AUV for subject imports of axes and adzes in

1999 was *** to the AUV of domestic shipments of axes and adzes. In light of this evidence, the

Commission found that the likely significantly increased volumes of lower-priced subject imports would

adversely and significantly affect prices for the domestic like products upon revocation, and that

revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to significant price suppression or

depression by the subject imports of the domestic like product in the reasonably foreseeable future.77 

In the second five-year reviews, the Commission noted that it had no public sources of price data. 

The Commission found that price remained a key element in sales, as the record indicated that Chinese

producers continue to compete in the U.S. market on the basis of price.78 The Commission noted that at

the time of the first five-year reviews, nonsubject imports played an important role in the market making

gains in volume and market share, but mainly at the expense of subject imports, and that nonsubject

 74 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that, “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely on

circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAA

at 886.

 75 Original Determination at 40-44.

 76 First Five-Year Review Determination at 13-14.

 77 First Five-Year Review Determination at 15-16.

 78 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 14-15.

14
import gains in volume and market share gave the Chinese producers and exporters a strong incentive to

price even more aggressively in order to expand their market share in the United States.79 The

Commission stated that the record in the second five-year reviews indicated that nonsubject imports

continue to play a large role in the market.80 Moreover, the Commission found that “the record indicates

that even in the face of increased material input costs, the majority of Chinese producers and exporters do

not intend to raise prices, making it likely that subject import prices will undercut domestic product

prices.”81 Accordingly, the Commission determined that likely significant increased volumes of lowerpriced subject imports would adversely and significantly affect prices for the domestic like products upon

revocation of the antidumping duty orders.

3. The Current Reviews

We note that we have no public sources of price data in these reviews. As noted above, the

record continues to indicate that hand tools are highly substitutable and price remains a key element in

sales, as Chinese producers continue to compete in the U.S. market on the basis of price.82

At the time of the first reviews, producers aggressively pursued sales in a very competitive

market.83 There is no indication in the record that the current market is any less competitive. Nonsubject

imports played an important role in the market at that time, making gains in volume and market share, but

mainly at the expense of subject imports.84 The Commission found that nonsubject import gains in

volume and market share gave the Chinese producers and exporters a strong incentive to price even more

aggressively in order to expand their market share in the United States.85 The record in these current

reviews indicates that nonsubject imports continue to play a large role in the market.86

Thus, if the orders were revoked, we find that the likely significantly increasing subject imports

from China would enter the U.S. market at aggressive prices in an effort to further increase subject import

market share. In response, domestic producers would either have to reduce their prices or relinquish

market share. 

For the reasons stated above, we find that upon revocation of the orders, subject imports from

China would be likely to enter the United States at prices that would likely undersell the domestic like

products and that would likely have significant suppressing or depressing effects on U.S. producers’

prices (and/or would lead to significant lost market share for U.S. producers).

 79 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 14.

 80 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 14.

 81 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 15.

 82 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at 20-21; Council’s Response to Notice of Institution at 5.

 83 First Five-Year Review Determination at 15-16. In the second five-year review, the Commission stated that

there was no indication in the record that the current market is any less competitive. Second Five-Year Review

Determination at 22.

 84 First Five-Year Review Determination at 16.

 85 First Five-Year Review Determination at 16. In the second five-year review, the Commission found that

nonsubject imports continued to play a large role in the market. Second Five-Year Review Determination at 22.

 86 CR/PR at Table I-5.

15
E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports87

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty orders

under review were revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are

likely to have a bearing on the state of the industries in the United States, including, but not limited to the

following: (1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments,

and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages,

growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing

development and production efforts of the industries, including efforts to develop a derivative or more

advanced version of the domestic like product.88 All relevant economic factors are to be considered

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

industries.89 As instructed by the statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the

state of the domestic industries is related to the order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to

material injury if the orders were revoked.

1. The Original Determinations

The Commission found that subject imports had a detrimental impact on each of the domestic

industries producing heavy forged hand tools. One producer, the original petitioner, was forced into

bankruptcy in 1991, and the domestic producers believe that imposition of the orders was crucial to the

industries’ survival after the injury suffered due to the subject imports in the 1980s.90 

2. The Prior Reviews

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that, if the antidumping duty orders were

revoked, subject imports would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industries

within a reasonably foreseeable time. Even with the orders in place, subject imports had successfully

competed for contracts with some of the largest and most important mass market retailers in the U.S.

markets. Given the likely significant increase in volume of subject imports and the resultant intense price

competition in a market with sluggish demand growth, the domestic industries would likely experience

significant declines in output, sales, and income, with eventual losses in employment and capital and

research and development expenditures similar to those experienced in the years of the original

investigation.91

In the second five-year reviews, the Commission found that subject import volumes were likely

to be significant if the orders were revoked, resulting in significant price effects, which would lead to a

 87 Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of

dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the

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

or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. In the final results of its expedited sunset reviews of the antidumping

orders, Commerce published likely dumping margins of 50.81 percent for picks and mattocks; 15.02 percent for axes

and adzes; 45.42 percent for hammers and sledges; and 31.76 percent for bars and wedges. CR/PR at Table I-2. 

 88 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 89 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 90 Original Determination at 26-30.

 91 First Five-Year Review Determination at 17-18.

16
significant adverse impact on the domestic industries.92 The Commission found that revocation of the

orders would likely lead to significant declines in output, sales and income, with eventual losses in

employment and capital and research and development expenditures. Accordingly, the Commission

concluded that, if the antidumping duty orders were revoked, subject imports would be likely to have a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industries within a reasonably foreseeable time.93

3. The Current Reviews

In these expedited reviews, the record includes limited information on the condition of the

domestic industries. We collected 2010 data for several performance indicators, but we have no data on

the performance of the domestic industries from 2005 to 2009. The limited evidence is insufficient for us

to determine whether the domestic industries are vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of material

injury in the event of revocation of the orders.94

Domestic producers contend in these reviews that material injury is likely to recur were the

antidumping duty orders to be revoked, given the likely resumption of large volumes of low-priced

subject imports of hand tools from China. They argue that the high degree of substitutability between the

subject imports and the domestic like products, the importance of price in the market, and the overlapping

channels of distribution make the domestic market for hand tools “sensitive to fluctuations in the volume

of subject imports, and consequently to subject imports’ price pressure.”95 Were the orders to be revoked,

domestic producers assert that “the fluctuations in volume and price resulting from a surge in dumped

Chinese HFHTs would result in material injury to the domestic industries.”96

Based on the information available in these reviews, including information in the record of the

original investigations and prior reviews, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on hand

tools from China would likely lead to a significant increase in the volume of subject imports. In addition,

subject imports would significantly undersell the domestic products, resulting in significant depression

and/or suppression of U.S. producers’ prices for the domestic like products. We find that the intensified

price competition with subject imports that would likely occur after revocation of the orders would likely

have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industries. Specifically, the domestic industries would

likely lose market share to low-priced subject imports and would likely obtain lower prices because of

competition from subject imports, which would adversely impact their production, shipments, sales, and

revenues. These reductions would likely have a direct adverse impact on the industries’ profitability and

employment levels, as well as their ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital

investments. 

We also have considered the role of factors other than the subject imports so as not to attribute

injury from such factors to subject imports. In 2010, the share of the U.S. market held by nonsubject

imports of each of the four products has remained large; *** percent for bars and wedges, *** percent for

 92 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 25. The Commission noted that the evidence in the record was

insufficient to enable it to determine that the domestic industries producing hand tools were vulnerable. It also noted

that Ames maintained that the industries were vulnerable, based upon the plant closures and decline in production

regarding three of the four products (all excepting picks and mattocks). Id. at 24.

 93 Second Five-Year Review Determination at 25.

 94 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert agree with their colleagues that the available information regarding the

vulnerability of the four domestic industries is insufficient to make definitive determinations on that issue. They

nevertheless find that three of the industries -- axes and adzes, bars and wedges, and hammers and sledges -- appear

to be in a significantly weakened state. According to record data, in 2010, those industries had a much smaller share

of apparent U.S. consumption than in previous years (with nonsubject imports in a dominant position). Capacity and

production were much lower as well. On the other hand, the available information for the picks and mattocks

industry does not suggest such a weakened state.

 95 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at 13; see also Council’s Response to Notice of Institution at 6.

 96 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution at 13; see also Council’s Response to Notice of Institution at 6.

17
hammers and sledges, *** percent for picks and mattocks, and *** percent for axes and adzes.97 We

nevertheless find that a significant portion of the expected increase in subject imports would continue to

be at the expense of the domestic industry given the likelihood of subject import underselling and adverse

price effects.98

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on hand

tools from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the respective

domestic industries within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 97 CR/PR at Table I-5. 

 98 Although at the time of the first reviews nonsubject imports increased significantly in three of the four product

categories, the Commission did not find that the impact of increased volumes of subject imports would fall on

nonsubject imports. First Five-Year Review Determination at 25. Rather, it found that all suppliers compete and

were likely to compete intensely in the retail market. Id. There is no indication in the record of these reviews that

this has changed.

18
INTRODUCTION

Background

On January 3, 2011, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,1

 the

U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) gave notice that it had instituted reviews to

determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools (“HFHTs”)

from China would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably

foreseeable time.2

 On April 4, 2011, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group

response to its notice of institution was adequate.3

 The Commission also determined that the respondent

interested party group response was inadequate.4

 The Commission found no other circumstances that

would warrant conducting full reviews.5

 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct

expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930.6

 The Commission is

tentatively scheduled to vote on these reviews on July 27, 2011, and will notify the U.S. Department of

Commerce (“Commerce”) of its determinations on August 10, 2011. Information relating to the

background of the reviews is presented below:7

 1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from China, 76 FR 168, January 3, 2011. All interested parties were requested to

respond to this notice by submitting the information requested by the Commission. The Commission’s notice of

institution is presented in app. A.

 3

 The Commission received two submissions in response to its notice of institution for the subject reviews. The

first submission was filed on behalf of Ames True Temper (“Ames”). Ames, a U.S. producer of all four domestic

like products, is believed to account for the majority of U.S. production, with the exception of picks and mattocks,

for which it accounted for approximately *** percent of total U.S. production. The second submission was filed on

behalf of Council Tool Co., Inc. (“Council”), a U.S. producer of all four domestic like products. See also the

Commission’s memorandum of March 29, 2011, INV-JJ-024–Recommendation on Adequacy of Responses to Notice

of Institution.

 4

 Fiskars, a U.S. importer of HFHTs during the period of review, submitted a response to the Commission’s

notice of institution. On February 28, 2011, after given an opportunity to remedy deficiencies in its response to the

notice of institution, counsel to Fiskars submitted a letter stating that it no longer intended to participate in these

reviews and requested that its response be withdrawn. Fiskars reported that ***. The Commission did not receive a

response from any other respondent interested party.

 5

 The Commission’s statement on adequacy is presented in app. B.

 6

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3).

 7

 Cited Federal Register notices beginning with the Commission’s institution of third five-year reviews are

presented in app. A. 

I-1
Effective date Action Federal Register

citation

February 19, 1991 Commerce’s original antidumping duty orders issued 56 FR 6622

February 16, 2006 Commerce’s continuation of antidumping duty orders

after second five-year reviews

71 FR 8276

January 3, 2011 Commission’s institution of third five-year reviews 76 FR 168

April 8, 2011 Commission’s determinations to conduct expedited

third five-year reviews and scheduling of such reviews

76 FR 31631, June 1,

2011

May 3, 2011 Commerce’s final results of expedited third five-year

reviews

76 FR 24856

July 27, 2011 Commission’s vote Not applicable

August 10, 2011 Commission’s determinations to Commerce Not applicable

The Original Investigation and Subsequent Five-Year Reviews

These investigations resulted from a petition filed on April 4, 1990 by Woodings-Verona

Toolworks, Verona, PA8

 in which it alleged injury to a U.S. industry from U.S. imports from China of

HFHTs.9

 The Commission completed the original investigation in February 1991 and determined that

industries in the United States were threatened with material injury by reason of imports of HFHTs from

China.10 Subsequently, Commerce issued antidumping duty orders on imports of HFHTs from China.11

In June 2000, the Commission completed full five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders,

and determined that revocation of the orders on HFHTs from China would be likely to lead to

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

foreseeable time.12 On February 4, 2000, Commerce found that revocation of the antidumping duty

orders on picks and mattocks and axes and adzes from China would likely lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping.13 On June 2, 2000, Commerce found that revocation of the antidumping duty

 8 Ames is the successor company to Woodings-Verona Tool Works, Inc.

 9 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China: Inv. No. 731-TA-457 (Final), USITC

Publication 2357, February 1991, p. A-1.

 10 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China: Inv. No. 731-TA-457 (Final), USITC

Publication 2357, February 1991, p. 1. The Commission stated that its affirmative determinations included the

industries producing striking tools (or “hammers and sledges” with heads over 1.5 kg. or 3.3 lbs.), bar tools (bars

over 18 inches in length, track tools, and wedges, or “bars and wedges”), digging tools (or “picks and mattocks”),

and hewing tools (or “axes and adzes”). 

 11 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 6622, February 19, 1991.

 12 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from China: Invs. Nos. 731-TA-457 (A-D) (Review), USITC Publication 3322,

July 2000, p. 1.

 13 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 5497, February 4, 2000.

I-2
orders on hammers and sledges and bars and wedges from China would likely lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping.14

In January 2006, the Commission completed expedited five-year reviews of the antidumping duty

orders on HFHTs from China and determined that revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to

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

foreseeable time.15 On November 7, 2005, in its expedited second five-year reviews, Commerce found

that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on all four domestic like products from China would likely

lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.16

Commerce’s Administrative Reviews

Since 2006, when the antidumping duty orders were last continued, Commerce conducted two

administrative reviews with respect to imports of HFHTs from China. No producers of HFHTs in China

have been excluded from the antidumping orders. Table I-1 shows these administrative reviews, their

period of review, and resulting margins.

 14 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 35321, June 2, 2000.

 15 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from China: Invs. Nos. 731-TA-457 (A-D) (Second Review), USITC Publication

3836, January 2006, p. 1.

 16 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 67451, November 7, 2005.

I-3
Table I-1

Commerce’s administrative reviews, 2006-2011

Period of review Exporter Margin 

(percent ad valorem)

Federal Register

citation

Axes and Adzes

2004-2005 TMC 189.37 71 FR 54269

Haurong 189.37

SMC 189.37

All others 189.37

2005-2006 China-wide 189.37 72 FR 51787

Bar and Wedges

2004-2005 TMC 139.31 71 FR 54269

Huarong 139.31

SMC 104.54

Iron Bull 139.31

All others 139.31

2005-2006 China-wide 139.31 72 FR 51787

Hammers and Sledges

2004-2005 TMC 45.42 71 FR 54269

SMC 34.56

All others 45.42

2005-2006 China-wide 45.42 72 FR 51787

Picks and Mattocks

2004-2005 TMC 53.04 71 FR 54269

SMC 98.77

All others 98.77

2005-2006 China-wide 98.77 72 FR 51787

I-4
Commerce’s Final Results of Its Expedited Third Five-Year Reviews

On May 3, 2011, Commerce found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on HFHTs

from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.17 The weighted-average

dumping margins (in percent ad valorem), as reported by Commerce, for the original investigations and

subsequent five-year reviews are presented in Table I-2.

Table I-2

Commerce’s weight-average dumping margins for the original investigations and subsequent fiveyear reviews

Country and firm

Original

First

reviews

Second

reviews

Third

reviews

Margin (percent)

Axes and Adzes

All exporters 15.02 15.02 15.02 15.02

Bars and Wedges

All exporters 31.76 31.76 31.76 31.76

Hammers and Sledges

All exporters 45.42 45.42 45.42 45.42

Picks and Mattocks

All exporters 50.81 50.81 50.81 50.81

Source: Heavy Forged Hand Tools (i.e. Axes & Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers & Sledges, and Picks & Mattocks) From the

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 76 FR 24856, May

3, 2011.

SUMMARY DATA

Appendix C presents selected data from all investigations and reviews that the Commission has

compiled regarding HFHTs since the original investigations. Appendix C(a) presents selected data for

axes and adzes. Appendix C(b) presents selected data for bars and wedges. Appendix C(c) presents

selected data for hammers and sledges. Appendix C(d) presents selected data for picks and mattocks.

 17 Heavy Forged Hand Tools (i.e. Axes & Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers & Sledges, and Picks & Mattocks)

From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty

Orders, 76 FR 24856, May 3, 2011.

I-5
THE SUBJECT PRODUCT

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce defined the scope of these reviews in its notice of its final results of the expedited

reviews as follows: 

The products covered by these orders are hand tools (“HFHTs”) comprising the following classes

or kinds of merchandise: (1) hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds); (2) bars over 18

inches in length, track tools, and wedges; (3) picks and mattocks; and (4) axes, adzes, and similar hewing

tools. HFHTs include heads for drilling, hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks, and mattocks, which may

or may not be painted, which may or may not be finished, or which may or may not be imported with

handles; assorted bar products and track tools including wrecking bars, digging bars, and tampers; and

steel woodsplitting wedges. HFHTs are manufactured through a hot forge operation in which steel is

sheared to required length, heated to forging temperature, and formed to final shape on forging equipment

using dies specific to the desired product shape and size. Depending on the product, finishing operations

may include shot blasting, grinding, polishing and painting, and the insertion of handles for handled

product. HFHTs are currently provided for under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (“HTS”) subheadings 8201.30.00, 8201.40.60, 8205.20.60, and 8205.59.30. Specifically

excluded from these reviews are hammers and sledges with heads 1.5 kilograms (3.33 pounds) in weight

and under, hoes and rakes, and bars 18 inches in length and under.18

 18 Heavy Forged Hand Tools (i.e. Axes & Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers & Sledges, and Picks & Mattocks)

From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty

Orders, 76 FR 24856, May 3, 2011. 

Since the original investigations, Commerce has issued ten conclusive scope rulings regarding the

merchandise covered by these orders: (1) On August 16, 1993, the Commerce found the “Max Multi-Purpose Axe,”

imported by the Forrest Tool Co., to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order; (2) on March 8, 2001, Commerce

found “18–inch” and “24– inch” pry bars, produced without dies, imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. and SMC

Pacific Tools, Inc., to be within the scope of the bars/wedges order; (3) on March 8, 2001, Commerce found the

“Pulaski” tool, produced without dies by TMC, to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order; (4) on March 8, 2001, 

Commerce found the “skinning axe,” imported by Import Traders, Inc., to be within the scope of the axes/adzes

order; (5) on December 9, 2004, Commerce found the “Scrapek MUTT,” imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc.,

under HTS 8205.59.5510, to be within the scope of the axes/adzes order; (6) on May 23, 2005, Commerce found 8

inch by 8 inch and 10 inch by 10 inch cast tampers, imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. to be outside the scope of

the orders; (7) on October 14, 2005, Commerce found the “Mean Green Splitting Machine” imported by Avalanche

Industries to be within the scope of the bars/wedges order; (8) on February 20, 2008, Commerce found that “stamped

machetes, gator machetes, and brush axes” imported by Fiskars are not within the scope of the orders; (9) on

December 1, 2008, Commerce found that New Buffalo Corp.’s “4 Ton Electric Log Splitter” was not within the

scope of the orders; and (10) on February 25, 2011, Commerce found that “stubby bar” imported by Olympia Tools

was not within the scope of the orders. Ibid; Notice of Scope Rulings, 73 FR 9293, February 20, 2008; Notice of

Scope Rulings, 73 FR 72771, December 1, 2008; Notice of Scope Rulings, 76 FR 10558, February 25, 2011.

I-6
U.S. Tariff Treatment19

Merchandise classified under the following HTS subheadings have a tariff rate of free: (1) HTS

subheading 8205.20.60–(hammers/sledges) hammers and sledge hammers, and parts thereof, with heads

over 1.5 kg each; (2) HTS subheading 8205.59.30–(bars/wedges) crowbars, track tools, and wedges, and

parts thereof; and (3) HTS subheading 8201.30.00–(mattocks/picks) mattocks, picks, hoes and rakes, and

parts thereof. Merchandise under HTS subheading 8201.40.60–(axes/adzes), axes, bill hooks, and similar

hewing tools, and parts thereof, other than machetes and parts thereof, are dutiable at a general tariff rate

of 6.2 percent ad valorem.

20

Domestic Like Products and Domestic Industry

In its original determinations, the first full five-year reviews, and the second expedited five-year

reviews, the Commission found four domestic like products: (1) axes, adzes, and hewing tools, other than

machetes, with or without handles; (2) bar tools, track tools, and wedges; (3) hammers and sledges, with

heads weighing two pounds or more, with or without handles; and (4) picks and mattocks, with or without

handles.21 Ames and Council indicated in their responses to the Commission’s notice of institution in

these third reviews that it agrees with the Commission’s definition of the four domestic like products.22

In its original determinations, the full first review, and second expedited review, the Commission

found four domestic industries corresponding with the four separate domestic like product definitions. In

the original investigations, the Commission excluded from the domestic industries companies that did no

more than assemble imported heads with handles purchased from a domestic manufacturer. The

Commission also excluded one domestic producer, Madison Mill, from the domestic industries under the

related parties provision.23 In the first review determinations, the Commission found that Madison Mill

did not engage in sufficient production-related activity to be considered a domestic producer.24 In the

second expedited review, the Commission did not exclude any company as a related party. Ames and

Council indicated in their responses to the Commission’s notice of institution in these third reviews that it

 19 Effective July 1, 2005, in Supplement I of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2005),

statistical annotations were provided for: (1) mattocks and picks, and parts thereof, HTS statistical reporting number

8201.30.00.10; (2) axes and adzes, and parts thereof, statistical reporting number HTS 8201.40.6010; and (3)

crowbars, HTS statistical reporting number 8205.59.3010. 

 20 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2011). Imports of these products are eligible for duty-free

entry under a number of trade preference and free trade agreements between the United States and other countries

listed under the Special sub-column in column 1 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The 2011 column 2 rate of

duty, applicable to countries listed in HTS general note 3(b), is 45 percent ad valorem for 8201.30.00 and

8201.40.60; 20 percent for 8205.20.60; 3 cents per kilogram for 8205.59.30.

 21 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China Invs. Nos. 731-TA-457 (Final), USITC

Publication 2357, February 1991, p. 15.

 22 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, p. 25; Council’s Response to Notice of Institution,

February 2, 2011, p. 9. Council stated that it wished to reserve the right to comment on the appropriate definitions

during the course of the proceeding.

 23 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China Invs. Nos. 731-TA-457 (Final), USITC

Publication 2357, February 1991, p. 19.

 24 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from China Invs. Nos. 731-TA-457 (Review), USITC Publication 3322, July 2000,

p. 7, fn. 24.

I-7
agrees with the Commission’s definition of the domestic industries and does not advocate excluding any

U.S. producer from the domestic industry as a related party.25

Description and Uses26

Axes and Adzes

Axes and adzes are hewing tools. Axes are generally grouped into two categories: large axes and

special-purpose axes. Large axes are intended primarily for chopping wood. They are manufactured with

either two cutting edges (double-bit) or a single cutting edge (single-bit). The single-bit axe has on the

opposite side of the axe head a hammer face that can be used for pounding. Special-purpose axes are

designed to function as two tools. For example, the mattock axe is a single-bit axe with an adze-shaped

grubbing blade on the back and is designed for digging, prying, or chopping. Adzes are used in shaping

wood, and may have either a flat or curved blade at a right angle to the handle.

Bars and Wedges

The principal product of bars and wedges is the crowbar. This tool typically has a gooseneck-like

shape to the bar at the claw end for pulling nails and spikes, and a chisel blade at the other end of the

bar for prying. Other bars, such as wrecking bars, may be flattened. Various configurations of curves

allow for differing degrees of leverage in prying operations. Included in bars and wedges are digging

bars and tampers. Bars are used for demolition, scraping, lifting, or prying apart floor tile, wood

paneling, nailed wood items, wood molding, and/or removing nails and spikes from wood. Digging bars

are used to break up hardened soil and tampers are used to compact loose soil or asphalt. Wedges are

used in splitting wood.

Hammers and Sledges

Heavy hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) have heads that are heavier

than claw-type (carpenters’) hammers or ball peen type (machinists’) hammers. Heavy hammer and

sledge heads included in the scope of the investigation are over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) in weight, and may

weigh as much as 9.1 kg (20 pounds). Sledge hammers are heavy hammers used for driving stakes,

wedges, or other objects. Woodsplitting mauls resemble sledge hammers except that they have one axelike edge. Primarily, they are intended to split wood without the use of wedges, but the blunt end may be

used for striking stakes, wedges, or other objects as one would with a sledge hammer. Hammers and

sledges, including mauls, within the scope of the antidumping duty order typically have handles made of

wood or fiberglass.

 25 Neither Ames nor Council is related to a producer of HFHTs from China. Neither firm reported importing

HFHTs from China during the period of review. Ames reported that it is related to Garant, a Canadian importer of

HFHTs from China, which does not import subject product into the United States. Ames’ Response to Notice of

Institution, February 2, 2011, pp. 22-25; Council’s Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, p. 7.

 26 All of the discussion in this section is from the original investigation, unless otherwise noted. Heavy Forged

Hand Tools from China: Inv. Nos. 731-TA-457 (A-D) (Second Review), USITC Publication 3836, January 2006, p.

I-13.

I-8
Picks and Mattocks

Picks and mattocks are produced in a number of styles and sizes, and differ principally in the

weight of the head, the angle and size of the prongs, and the shape of the pick points. Picks are generally

used for digging in relatively hard soil, striking the soil with the point of the pick head, whereas the

mattock has one side of the head being a broad blade and is used in relatively soft soil. Both mattocks

and picks are produced with either wood or fiberglass handles.

Manufacturing Process27

Heavy forged hand tools are manufactured through a hot forge operation in which steel is sheared

to the required length, heated to forging temperature, and formed to final shape on forging equipment

using dies specific to the desired product shape and size. Depending upon the product, finishing

operations may include shot blasting, grinding, polishing and painting, and insertion of the handles for

handled products. Handles are made of wood or molded fiberglass. The manufacturing of wood handles

involves cutting, drying, sanding, and finishing.

Marketing28

Little public information is available about the HFHT market in 2011. The most recent data

available are from the first full reviews completed in 2000 (with data from 1998 and 1999). Four

channels of distribution exist in the HFHT market: (1) sales to distributors; (2) sales to retailers; (3) sales

to large end users; and (4) sales to OEMs.29 Based on information obtained in the original investigations,

both producers and importers predominantly sell in the spot market and both reported selling nationwide. 

With regard to current retail sales in 2011, there appears to be significant sales at Internet retail

sites. In some instances, the companies using this method do not have physical retail locations.30

Other retailers using the Internet will sometimes list for sale products that can be purchased only through

the Internet or their catalog, and will not stock those products at their retail locations.31

Axes and Adzes

In 1999, over *** percent of U.S. shipments of axes and adzes included handles. Approximately

*** percent of such shipments went to the hardware segment of the market, with the majority going to

hardware wholesalers (*** percent) and the remainder going to the hardware retailers (*** percent). 

 27 See Heavy Forged Handtools From the People’s Republic of China: Inv. No. 731-TA-457 (Final), USITC

Publication 2357, February 1991, pp. A-3 and A-4 and Commerce’s notice of final results of expedited review, 70

FR 67451, November 7, 2005.

 28 All of the discussion in this section is from the second full five-year reviews, unless otherwise noted. Heavy

Forged Hand Tools from China: Inv. Nos. 731-TA-457 (A-D) (Second Review), USITC Publication 3836, January

2006, pp. I-16-I-18.

 29 Most OEMs manufacture handles, purchase heads, and assemble the finished tool which they sell under their

own name.

 30 For example, see Internet retailer Doityourself.com, found at http://www.doityourself.com.

 31 For example, see Home Depot, Inc. Internet site, http://www.homedepot.com, for product category wrecking,

nail pullers, and pry bars.

I-9
About *** percent were sold to the industrial segment, *** percent were shipped to OEMs, and

approximately *** percent was sold to the government sector in 1999.

Bars and Wedges

Approximately *** percent of 1999 shipments of bars and wedges went to the hardware segment

of the market, with a small percentage going to hardware wholesalers (*** percent) and the majority

going to hardware retailers (*** percent). About *** percent were sold to the industrial segment, about

*** percent were shipped to OEMs, and approximately *** percent were sold to the government sector in

1999.

Hammers and Sledges

In 1999, over *** percent of U.S. shipments of hammers and sledges included handles. Over ***

percent of such shipments went to the hardware segment of the market, with slightly more going to

hardware wholesalers (*** percent) than hardware retailers (*** percent). About *** percent were sold

to the industrial segment, about *** percent were shipped to OEMs, and less than *** percent were sold

to the government sector in 1999.

Picks and Mattocks

Approximately *** percent of 1999 shipments of picks and mattocks went to the hardware

segment of the market, with *** hardware wholesalers and hardware retailers. About *** percent were

sold to the industrial segment, about *** percent were shipped to OEMs, and approximately *** percent

was sold to the government sector in 1999.

Changes in the market reported in 1999 (compared with 1990, the time of the original

investigation) were the growth of large retailers such as Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and Lowe’s, which

lengthened the time frame of sales agreements and increased the importance of price competition. Also

reported by U.S. producers was an increase in production for private label use and specialty customers. 

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

The original investigations resulted from a petition filed on behalf of Woodings-Verona Tool

Works, Inc. (Woodings-Verona) on April 4, 1990. At that time, there were essentially four U.S.

producers of heavy forged hand tools (“HFHTs”): Council Tool Co., Inc. (Council); Mann Edge Tool

Co. (Mann Edge); Warwood Tool Co. (Warwood); and Woodings-Verona.32 Only two, Warwood and

Woodings-Verona, produced all four domestic like products. Council and Mann Edge produced all

domestic like products except picks and mattocks. During the original investigation, Woodings-Verona

accounted for *** percent of all HFHT subject imports from China in 1989. Mann Edge accounted for

*** percent of all subject imports in that year. 

 32 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China Invs. Nos. 731-TA-457 (Final), USITC

Publication 2357, February 1991, p. A-6. In 1989, there was an insignificant number of other firms that also

produced some or all of the four domestic like products; however, their production capability was believed to be

minuscule.

I-10
Subsequent to the original investigations, Woodings-Verona filed for protection under Chapter 11

of the Bankruptcy Code. Woodings-Verona emerged from bankruptcy and was purchased by O. Ames in

1997. J&H Manufacturing (J&H) entered the industry in 1997, founded by former employees of

Woodings-Verona after the 1997 acquisition by O. Ames. It produced only bars and wedges. At the time

of the first five-year reviews in 1999, there were five major U.S. producers of HFHTs: Ames, Council,

Mann Edge, J&H, and Warwood. *** accounted for *** percent of all subject imports of HFHTs in 1999.

*** accounted for *** percent of subject imports in that year.33

In March 1999, O. Ames merged with True Temper Companies, a hardware firm. In January

2002, Ames True Temper was purchased by Wind Point Partners, a private equity investment firm in

conjunction with current officers of Ames, from Ames’ parent, U.S. Industries, Inc. In June 2004, Ames

was purchased by Castle Harlan, a private equity firm and certain current employees. As a result of

increased imports, workers at Mann Edge Tool Co. were certified for eligibility to apply for Trade

Adjustment Assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Labor in April 2001 (for the period January 5,

2000 to April 5, 2003) and in September 2003 (for the period September 15, 2003 to September 15,

2005).34 Warwood is still producing HFHTs according to the response by Council to the notice of

institution. In these third five-year reviews, Ames and Council stated in their responses to the

Commission’s notice of institution that they and Warwood are the only remaining U.S. producers of

HFHTs.35 Ames estimated that in 2010, it accounted for *** percent of U.S. production of axes and

adzes, *** percent of U.S. production of bars and wedges, *** percent of U.S. production of hammers

and sledges, and *** percent of U.S. production of picks and mattocks.36

U.S. Producers’ Trade and Financial Data

Domestic interested parties were requested by the Commission to present certain data in their

response to the notice of institution.37 Table I-3 presents U.S. producers’ 2010 data on its operations for

all four domestic like products.38

Table I-3

HFHTs: U.S. producers’ trade and financial data, 2010

* * * * * * *

 33 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from China Invs. Nos. 731-TA-457 (Review), USITC Publication 3322, July 2000,

pp. I-9-10.

 34 Heavy Forged Hand Tools from China Invs. Nos. 731-TA-457 A-D (Second Review), USITC Publication 3836,

January 2006, pp. I-15-16.

 35 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, p. 22, exh. 3; Council’s Response to Notice of

Institution, February 2, 2011, pp. 6-7. 

 36 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, p. 22, exh. 3; Council’s Response to Notice of

Institution, February 2, 2011, exh. 3. Council estimated that it accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S.

production of all four domestic like products. Council’s Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, p. 7. 

 37 Total U.S. industry data for 2010, the only year for which data were collected, is compiled from Ames’ and

Council’s responses to the Commission’s notice of institution.

 38 Data from the original investigations and subsequent five-year reviews are presented in Appendix C.

I-11
U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

U.S. Importers

During the original investigation, the Commission identified approximately 16 firms that

imported HFHTs from China, including the Atlas Group; Hickory Forge; Kulkoni, Inc.; Madison Mill;

Olympia, Tools, Inc.; and Woodings-Verona.39 During the first sunset reviews, there were five firms that

imported HFHTs from China, including American Presto Corp.; Home Depot, Inc.; Madison Mill, Inc.;

***; and Olympia Group, Inc.40

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution for these reviews, Ames listed two U.S.

firms that it believes imported HFHTs from China: ***.41 Council listed 9 U.S. firms that it believed

imported HFHTs from China.42 These firms include: ***43***.

U.S. Imports

The quantity, value, and unit value of U.S. imports of HFHTs from 2005 to 2010 are shown in

table I-4. U.S. imports from China and nonsubject countries are based on official Commerce statistics:

Axes and adzes (HTS 8201.40.6010); Bars and wedges (HTS 8205.59.30); Hammers and sledges (HTS

8205.20.60); Picks and mattocks (HTS 8201.30.0010). All of these HTS subheadings, with the exception

of 8205.20.60, which refers to hammers and sledges, are broader product categories that include not only

subject merchandise, but also may include nonsubject merchandise, such as rakes, bill hooks, hoes,

machetes, and track tools among other nonsubject items.

 39 Staff Report of January 28, 1991, pp. A-13-14.

 40 Staff Report of June 16, 2000, p. I-18.

 41 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, p. 23, exh. 5.

 42 Council’s Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, exh. 3.

 43 Ames reported that ***. Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, p. 15.

I-12
Table I-4

HFHTs: U.S. imports from all sources, 2005-2010

Item 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 units)

Axes and adzes:

 China 433 311 215 172 132 184

 All other 604 1,939 1,972 2,187 1,711 2,152

 Total 1,037 2,250 2,187 2,359 1,843 2,336

Bars and wedges:

China 1,008 1,857 1,837 1,547 1,446 2,001

 All other 2,174 5,654 4,070 4,195 3,622 6,144

 Total 3,182 7,511 5,907 5,742 5,068 8,145

Hammers and sledges:

China 80 80 67 62 215 695

 All other 163 207 165 198 789 2,067

 Total 243 287 232 260 1,004 2,762

Picks and mattocks:

China 1,756 4,622 1,860 328 132 204

 All other 1,425 3,375 1,947 2,527 950 1,466

 Total 3,181 7,997 3,806 2,855 1,082 1,670

Value ($1,000)

Axes and adzes:

 China 1,366 1,279 1,455 1,505 899 1,068

 All other 4,456 11,798 11,341 14,194 12,572 15,612

 Total 5,822 13,077 12,796 15,699 13,471 16,680

Bars and wedges:

China 2,600 4,330 4,637 4,547 3,365 3,787

 All other 7,888 28,765 21,363 24,609 18,526 24,422

 Total 10,488 33,095 26,000 29,156 21,891 28,209

Table continued on next page.

I-13
Table I-4--Continued

HFHTs: U.S. imports from all sources, 2005-2010

Item 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Value ($1,000)

Hammers and sledges:

China 3,637 3,703 2,654 3,551 2,134 3,145

 All other 11,248 13,984 12,815 14,622 13,240 17,607

 Total 14,885 17,687 15,469 18,173 15,374 20,752

Picks and mattocks:

China 3,842 9,629 2,908 870 302 316

 All other 4,508 9,701 6,460 8,076 4,273 8,131

 Total 8,350 19,330 9,368 8,946 4,575 8,447

Unit value (dollars per unit)

Axes and adzes:

 China $3.16 $4.11 $6.77 $8.75 $6.81 $5.80

 All other 7.38 6.08 5.75 6.49 7.35 7.25

 Total 5.61 5.81 5.85 6.65 7.31 7.14

Bars and wedges:

China $2.58 $2.33 $2.52 $2.94 $2.33 $1.89

 All other 3.63 5.09 5.25 5.87 5.11 3.98

 Total 3.30 4.41 4.40 5.08 4.32 3.46

Hammers and sledges:

China $45.28 $46.03 $39.61 $57.26 $9.91 $4.53

 All other 69.11 67.53 77.61 73.75 16.79 8.52

 Total 61.24 61.52 66.64 69.82 15.31 7.51

Picks and mattocks:

China $2.19 $2.08 $1.56 $2.66 $2.28 $1.55

 All other 3.16 2.87 3.32 3.20 4.50 5.54

 Total 2.63 2.42 2.46 3.13 4.23 5.06

Source: Official statistics of the Department of Commerce.

I-14
Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares of HFHTs for 2010 is shown in table I-5.

Table I-5

HFHTs: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, apparent U.S.

consumption, and U.S. market shares, 2010

Item

Axes and

Adzes

Bars and

Wedges

Hammers and

Sledges

Picks and

Mattocks

Quantity (1,000 units)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from– 

 China 184 2,001 695 204

 Other sources 2,152 6,144 2,067 1,466

 Total U.S. imports 2,336 8,145 2,762 1,670

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** ***

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from– 

 China *** *** *** ***

 Other sources *** *** *** ***

 Total U.S. imports *** *** *** ***

Value ($1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from– 

 China 1,068 3,787 3,145 316

 Other sources 15,612 24,422 17,607 8,131

 Total U.S. imports 16,680 28,209 20,752 8,447

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** ***

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from– 

 China *** *** *** ***

 Other sources *** *** *** ***

 Total U.S. imports *** *** *** ***

Source: Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011 as amended by supplemental information, March 10, 2011;

Council’s Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011 as amended by supplemental information, March 10, 2011 and

Official statistics of the Department of Commerce.

I-15
ANTIDUMPING ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Based on available information, HFHTs have not been subject to any other import relief

investigations in any other countries.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

There are no public sources, either domestic or foreign, that compile specific data for the total

capacity or production of HFHTs in China.44 At the time of the original investigation there were an

estimated 500 producers of HFHTs in China and 130 importers. During the first sunset reviews there

were estimated to be 12 major producers in China. In February 2004, Ames requested that Commerce

conduct administrative reviews on 302 companies in China, covering all four antidumping duty orders. In

March 2004, Commerce initiated reviews of 194 companies. Of the 194 firms, 187 did not respond to

Commerce’s shortened Section A questionnaire. In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution

for these reviews, Ames listed 87 firms that it believes produced HFHTs in China since 2004.45 Council

listed 8 firms, which it believes are major firms that have exported HFHTs to the United States. These

firms include:46 ***.

Tables I-6 through I-9 present Chinese export data for the four corresponding domestic like

products from 2005 to 2010. The data are compiled using the Global Trade Atlas which provides data

only to a 6-digit classification level and therefore, may also include products that are not within the scope

of these reviews.

 44 Ames, however, provided anecdotal evidence that a number of Chinese producers of HFHTs may have

increased production during the period of review and remained export oriented. Ames’ Response to Notice of

Institution, February 2, 2011, pp. 17-19.

 45 Ames’ Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, p. 23, exh. 5.

 46 Council’s Response to Notice of Institution, February 2, 2011, exh. 3. These are also the larger firms that have

requested administrative reviews from Commerce since 1999.

I-16
Table I-6

Axes and adzes:1

 Chinese exports, 2005-2010

Export market

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Value (1,000 dollars)

United States 3,379 2,495 2,032 2,011 1,666 1,971

Nigeria 573 328 250 139 1,737 3,484

Kenya 1,107 1,829 3,790 2,771 2,682 3,424

Germany 1,497 1,750 2,729 3,443 2,823 3,243

Netherlands 3,292 5,088 4,723 3,962 3,837 3,207

All other 21,097 23,128 28,294 37,505 27,453 34,430

 Total 30,945 34,618 41,819 49,831 40,197 49,759

Share of value (percent)

United States 10.9 7.2 4.9 4.0 4.1 4.0

Nigeria 1.9 0.9 0.6 0.3 4.3 7.0

Kenya 3.6 5.3 9.1 5.6 6.7 6.9

Germany 4.8 5.1 6.5 6.9 7.0 6.5

Netherlands 10.6 14.7 11.3 8.0 9.5 6.4

All other 68.2 66.8 67.7 75.3 68.3 69.2

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Chinese tariff number 8201.40, includes other hewing tools, such as machetes, bill hooks, and parts thereof.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.

I-17
Table I-7

Bars and wedges:1

 Chinese exports, 2005-2010

Export market

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Value (1,000 dollars)

United States 134,934 171,018 161,920 133,955 105,088 131,876

Germany 17,495 22,615 24,115 23,213 14,365 21,265

United Kingdom 17,690 21,034 24,131 20,337 14,311 21,264

Netherlands 15,314 16,549 20,902 17,410 11,514 16,589

Russia 7,024 10,065 14,914 17,108 9,008 16,223

All other 162,117 189,903 223,223 225,043 167,320 233,107

 Total 354,574 431,184 469,204 437,066 321,606 440,325

Ratios and shares (percent)

United States 38.1 39.7 34.5 30.6 32.7 29.9

Germany 4.9 5.2 5.1 5.3 4.5 4.8

United Kingdom 5.0 4.9 5.1 4.7 4.4 4.8

Netherlands 4.3 3.8 4.5 4.0 3.6 3.8

Russia 2.0 2.3 3.2 3.9 2.8 3.7

All other 45.7 44.0 47.6 51.5 52.0 52.9

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Data are for Chinese tariff number 8205.59, which includes data on a wide variety of miscellaneous hand tools such as

crowbars, track tools, and wedges; powder-actuated tools; pipe tools; caulking guns; single edge razor blades other than for

shaving; agricultural, horticultural, or forestry tools; other hand tools; and parts thereof. Many of these tools are not covered by

Commerce’s product scope.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.

I-18
Table I-8

Hammers and sledges:1

 Chinese exports, 2005-2010

Export market

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Value (1,000 dollars)

United States 27,057 28,526 29,541 31,232 24,400 30,481

United Kingdom 5,956 7,228 8,075 8,336 4,648 7,638

Indonesia 3,954 5,531 4,695 5,186 5,252 7,353

United Arab Emirates 5,799 7,593 7,811 9,420 6,194 6,516

Germany 3,596 4,158 4,489 7,568 5,187 6,509

All other 71,881 81,334 98,804 119,340 91,455 120,254

 Total 118,243 134,370 153,416 181,082 137,137 178,752

Ratios and shares (percent)

United States 22.9 21.2 19.3 17.2 17.8 17.1

United Kingdom 5.0 5.4 5.3 4.6 3.4 4.3

Indonesia 3.3 4.1 3.1 2.9 3.8 4.1

United Arab Emirates 4.9 5.7 5.1 5.2 4.5 3.6

Germany 3.0 3.1 2.9 4.2 3.8 3.6

All other 60.8 60.5 64.4 65.9 66.7 67.3

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Chinese tariff number 8205.20, includes other hammers and sledge hammers with a head of 1.5 kg or less, and parts

thereof, which are not covered by Commerce’s product scope.

Source: Global Trade Atlas

I-19
Table I-9

Picks and mattocks:1

 Chinese exports, 2005-2010

Export market

Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Value (1,000 dollars)

United States 15,243 16,490 13,612 17,147 16,755 21,489

Kenya 5,015 5,961 8,097 10,482 11,022 9,925

Tanzania 5,596 3,755 4,875 9,017 8,643 9,234

Japan 4,483 4,002 4,347 4,940 6,770 5,961

Malaysia 4,583 3,440 3,105 2,254 4,976 4,726

All other 29,198 36,007 41,242 51,241 46,643 63,389

 Total 64,118 69,657 75,278 95,081 94,809 114,724

Ratios and shares (percent)

United States 23.8 23.7 18.1 18.0 17.7 18.7

Kenya 7.8 8.6 10.8 11.0 11.6 8.7

Tanzania 8.7 5.4 6.5 9.5 9.1 8.0

Japan 7.0 5.7 5.8 5.2 7.1 5.2

Malaysia 7.1 4.9 4.1 2.4 5.2 4.1

All other 45.5 51.7 54.8 53.9 49.2 55.3

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Chinese tariff number 8201.30, includes hoes and rakes, and parts thereof.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.

I-20
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-1

168 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 11–5–235, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2010, except as noted 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). 

If you are a union/worker group or 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms in which your workers are 

employed/which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); 

(d) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s); and 

(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2010 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping or countervailing duties) 

of U.S. imports and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total U.S. 

imports of Subject Merchandise from 

the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. 

commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. internal 

consumption/company transfers of 

Subject Merchandise imported from the 

Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2010 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping or 

countervailing duties). If you are a 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country after 2004, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(13) (Optional) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 22, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32697 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–457–A–D (Third 

Review)] 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on heavy forged hand tools from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on heavy 

forged hand tools from China would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury. Pursuant 

to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested 

parties are requested to respond to this 

notice by submitting the information 

specified below to the Commission; 1 to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Notices 169 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

be assured of consideration, the 

deadline for responses is February 2, 

2011. Comments on the adequacy of 

responses may be filed with the 

Commission by March 18, 2011. For 

further information concerning the 

conduct of these reviews and rules of 

general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207), as most recently amended at 74 FR 

2847 (January 16, 2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: January 3, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 

202–205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On February 19, 1991, 

the Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Commerce’’) issued antidumping duty 

orders on imports of the following 

classes or kinds of heavy forged hand 

tools from China: (1) Axes and adzes, 

(2) bars and wedges, (3) hammers and 

sledges, and (4) picks and mattocks (56 

FR 6622). Following the first five-year 

reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective August 10, 2000, 

Commerce issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

heavy forged hand tools from China (65 

FR 48962). Following second five-year 

reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective February 16, 

2006, Commerce issued a continuation 

of the antidumping duty orders on 

imports of heavy forged hand tools from 

China (71 FR 8276). The Commission is 

now conducting third reviews to 

determine whether revocation of the 

orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to the domestic industry within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. It will 

assess the adequacy of interested party 

responses to this notice of institution to 

determine whether to conduct full 

reviews or expedited reviews. The 

Commission’s determinations in any 

expedited reviews will be based on the 

facts available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in these 

reviews is China. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determinations, its full first five-year 

review determinations, and its 

expedited second five-year review 

determinations, the Commission found 

four Domestic Like Products: (1) Axes, 

adzes, and hewing tools, other than 

machetes, with or without handles; 

(2) bar tools, track tools, and wedges; (3) 

hammers and sledges, with heads 

weighing two pounds or more, with or 

without handles; and (4) picks and 

mattocks, with or without handles. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determinations, 

its full first five-year review 

determinations, and its expedited 

second five-year review determinations, 

the Commission found four Domestic 

Industries: (1) Domestic producers of 

axes, adzes and hewing tools, other than 

machetes, with or without handles; 

(2) domestic producers of bar tools, 

track tools, and wedges; (3) domestic 

producers of hammers and sledges, with 

heads weighing two pounds or more, 

with or without handles; and (4) 

domestic producers of picks and 

mattocks, with or without handles. The 

Commission excluded from the 

Domestic Industries companies that do 

no more than assemble imported heads 

with handles purchased from a 

domestic manufacturer. In the original 

determinations, the Commission also 

excluded one domestic producer, 

Madison Mill, from the Domestic 

Industries under the related parties 

provision. In the first reviews, the 

Commission did not find that Madison 

Mill engaged in sufficient productionrelated activity to be considered a 

domestic producer. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official has advised that a five-year 

review is not considered the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the corresponding 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees, and Commission rule 

201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are not 

required to seek Commission approval 

to appear in a review under Commission 

rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
170 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Notices 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification.—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is February 2, 2011. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties 

(as specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct expedited 

or full reviews. The deadline for filing 

such comments is March 18, 2011. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of sections 201.8 and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules and any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in 

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information.—Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 

Information to be Provided in 

Response to this Notice of Institution: 

Please provide the requested 

information separately for each 

Domestic Like Product, as defined by 

the Commission in its determinations, 

and for each of the products identified 

by Commerce as Subject Merchandise. 

As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes 

any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address) and name, telephone number, 

fax number, and e-mail address of the 

certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Products, a U.S. 

union or worker group, a U.S. importer 

of the Subject Merchandise, a foreign 

producer or exporter of the Subject 

Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or 

business association, or another 

interested party (including an 

explanation). If you are a union/worker 

group or trade/business association, 

identify the firms in which your 

workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on the Domestic Industries in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industries. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Products. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in the Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

2004. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Products and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and e-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Products or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Products, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2010, except as noted 

(report quantity data in units and value 

data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you 

are a union/worker group or trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms in which your workers are 

employed/which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Products accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Products 

(i.e., the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Products produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); 

(d) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Products 

produced in your U.S. plant(s); and 

(e) The value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Products 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Notices 171 

1 1 No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 11–5–237, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2010 (report quantity data 

in units and value data in U.S. dollars). 

If you are a trade/business association, 

provide the information, on an aggregate 

basis, for the firms which are members 

of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2010 

(report quantity data in units and value 

data in U.S. dollars, landed and dutypaid at the U.S. port but not including 

antidumping duties). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Products that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country after 2004, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Products 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(13) (Optional) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like 

Products and Domestic Industries; if you 

disagree with either or both of these 

definitions, please explain why and 

provide alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 22, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32699 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–663 (Third 

Review)] 

Paper Clips From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on paper clips from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on paper clips 

from China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is February 2, 2011. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

March 18, 2011. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this review 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207), as most recently amended at 74 FR 

2847 (January 16, 2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: January 3, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 

202–205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On November 25, 1994, 

the Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Commerce’’) issued an antidumping 

duty order on imports of paper clips 

from China (59 FR 60606). Following 

five-year reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective August 15, 2000, 

Commerce issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

paper clips from China (65 FR 49784). 

Following second five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective February 7, 2006, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Notices 31631 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); 

(d) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s); and 

(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2010 (report 

quantity data in pounds and value data 

in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from each Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from each Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2010 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars, landed and duty-paid at the 

U.S. port but not including antidumping 

duties). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country(ies) after 2005, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country(ies), and such merchandise 

from other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 25, 2011. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13445 Filed 5–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–457–A–D Third 

Review] 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools From China; 

Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year 

Reviews Concerning the Antidumping 

Duty Orders on Heavy Forged Hand 

Tools From China. 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of expedited 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders on heavy forged hand tools 

from China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. For further information 

concerning the conduct of these reviews 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: April 8, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Cassise (202–708–5408), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On April 8, 2011, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (76 

FR 168, January 3, 2011) of the subject 

five-year reviews was adequate and that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

31632 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by Ames True Temper and Council Tool 

Co., Inc. to be individually adequate. Comments 

from other interested parties will not be accepted 

(see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

the respondent interested party group 

response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting full reviews.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct expedited reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the reviews will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on July 

7, 2011, and made available to persons 

on the Administrative Protective Order 

service list for these reviews. A public 

version will be issued thereafter, 

pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the reviews and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

reviews may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the 

reviews. Comments are due on or before 

July 13, 2011 and may not contain new 

factual information. Any person that is 

neither a party to the five-year reviews 

nor an interested party may submit a 

brief written statement (which shall not 

contain any new factual information) 

pertinent to the reviews by July 13, 

2011. However, should the Department 

of Commerce extend the time limit for 

its completion of the final results of its 

reviews, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 Fed. Reg. 68036 

(November 8, 2002). Even where 

electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 Fed. 

Reg. 68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the review must be 

served on all other parties to the reviews 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determination.—The Commission has 

determined to exercise its authority to 

extend the review period by up to 90 

days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 25, 2011. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13450 Filed 5–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Receipt of Complaint; 

Solicitation of Comments Relating to 

the Public Interest 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has received a complaint 

entitled In Re Certain Protective Cases 

and Components thereof, DN 2809; the 

Commission is soliciting comments on 

any public interest issues raised by the 

complaint. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James R. Holbein, Acting Secretary to 

the Commission, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–2000. The public version of the 

complaint can be accessed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov, and will be 

available for inspection during official 

business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) 

in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (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 

this investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission has received a complaint 

filed on Otter Products LLC on May 25, 

2011. The complaint alleges violations 

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into 

the United States, the sale for 

importation, and the sale within the 

United States after importation of 

certain protective cases and components 

thereof. The complaint names as 

respondents A.G. Findings and Mfg. Co., 

Inc. of Sunrise, FL; AFC Trident Inc. of 

Chino, CA; Alibaba.com Hong Kong Ltd. 

of Hangzhou, China; Anbess Electronics 

Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; Cellairis 

Franchise, Inc. of Alpharetta, GA; Cellet 

Products of Santa Fe Springs, CA; 

DHgate.com of Beijing, China; Griffin 

Technology, Inc. of Nashville, TN; 

Guangzhou Evotech Industry Co., Ltd., 

of Guangdong, China; Hardcandy Cases 

LLC, of Sacramento, CA; Hoffco Brands 

Inc. of Wheat Ridge, CO; Hong Kong 

Better Technology Group Ltd. of 

Shenzhen, China; Hong Kong HJJ Co., 

Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; Hypercel 

Corporation of Valencia, CA; InMotion 

Entertainment of Jacksonville, FL; Mega 

Watts Computers LLC of Tulsa, OK; 

National Cellular of Brooklyn, NY; 

OEMBargain.com of Wantagh, NY; One 

Step Up Ltd. of New York, NY; Papaya 

Holdings Ltd. of Central, Hong Kong; 

Quanyun Electronics Co., Ltd. of 

Shenzhen, China; ShenZhen Star & Way 

Trade Co., Ltd. of Guangzhou City, 

China; Sinatech Industrial Co., Ltd. of 

Guangzhou, China; Smilecase of 

Windsor Mill, MD; Suntel Global 

Investment Ltd. of Guangzhou, China; 

TheCaseInPoint.com of Titusville, FL; 

TheCaseSpace of Fort Collins, CO; 

Topter Technology Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen 

China and Trait Technology (Shenzhen) 

Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China 

The complainant, proposed 

respondents, other interested parties, 

and members of the public are invited 

to file comments, not to exceed five 

pages in length, on any public interest 

issues raised by the complaint. 

Comments should address whether 

issuance of an exclusion order and/or a 

cease and desist order in this 

investigation would negatively affect the 

public health and welfare in the United 

States, competitive conditions in the 

United States economy, the production 

of like or directly competitive articles in 

the United States, or United States 

consumers. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

24856 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2011 / Notices 

1Ames is the successor company to WoodingsVerona Tools Works, the petitioner in the original 

investigation. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–803] 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools (i.e., Axes & 

Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers & 

Sledges, and Picks & Mattocks) From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of the Expedited Sunset 

Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 3, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the antidumping duty orders on 

heavy forged hand tools (‘‘Hand Tools’’) 

(i.e., Axes & Adzes, Bars & Wedges, 

Hammers & Sledges, and Picks & 

Mattocks) from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’). Based on the notices of 

intent to participate and adequate 

responses filed by the domestic 

interested parties, and the lack of 

response from any respondent 

interested party, the Department 

conducted an expedited sunset review 

of the orders pursuant to section 

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of this 

sunset review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the orders would likely 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping, at the levels indicated in the 

‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 3, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emeka Chukwudebe, AD/CVD 

Operations, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0219. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 3, 2011, the Department 

initiated the third sunset review of the 

orders on Hand Tools pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation 

of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 76 FR 89 

(January 3, 2011) (‘‘Initiation’’); see also 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Heavy 

Forged Hand Tools, Finished or 

Unfinished, With or Without Handles 

From the People’s Republic of China, 

56 FR 6622 (February 19, 1991) 

(‘‘Orders’’). On January 12, 2011, the 

Department received notices of intent to 

participate from two domestic parties 

within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i): (1) Ames True Temper 

(‘‘Ames’’)1 and (2) Council Tool 

Company, Inc. (‘‘Council Tool’’). These 

two parties claimed interested party 

status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.102(b), as domestic 

manufacturers and producers of the 

domestic like product. On February 2, 

2011, Ames and Council Tool both filed 

timely and adequate substantive 

responses within 30 days after the date 

of publication of the Initiation. The 

Department did not receive a 

substantive response from any 

respondent interested party in the 

sunset review. As a result, pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the 

Department conducted an expedited 

sunset review of the Orders. 

Scope of the Orders 

The products covered by these orders 

are Hand Tools comprising the 

following classes or kinds of 

merchandise: (1) Hammers and sledges 

with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds); 

(2) bars over 18 inches in length, track 

tools and wedges; (3) picks and 

mattocks; and (4) axes, adzes and 

similar hewing tools. Hand Tools 

include heads for drilling hammers, 

sledges, axes, mauls, picks and 

mattocks, which may or may not be 

painted, which may or may not be 

finished, or which may or may not be 

imported with handles; assorted bar 

products and track tools including 

wrecking bars, digging bars, and 

tampers; and steel wood splitting 

wedges. Hand Tools are manufactured 

through a hot forge operation in which 

steel is sheared to required length, 

heated to forging temperature, and 

formed to final shape on forging 

equipment using dies specific to the 

desired product shape and size. 

Depending on the product, finishing 

operations may include shot blasting, 

grinding, polishing and painting, and 

the insertion of handles for handled 

products. Hand Tools are currently 

provided for under the following 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings: 

8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and 

8201.40.60. Specifically excluded from 

these orders are hammers and sledges 

with heads 1.5 kg. (3.33 pounds) in 

weight and under, hoes and rakes, and 

bars 18 inches in length and under. The 

tariff classifications are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

scope of the orders is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) dated concurrently with 

this notice. The issues discussed in the 

Decision Memorandum include the 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of dumping and the magnitude of the 

dumping margin likely to prevail if the 

Orders were revoked. Parties can obtain 

a public copy of the Decision 

Memorandum on file in the Central 

Records Unit, room 7046, of the main 

Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete public version 

of the Decision Memorandum can be 

accessed directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the Orders on Hand Tools 

would likely lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the rates listed 

below. 

PRC–wide (all manufacturers/ 

producers/exporters) 

Margin 

(percent) 

Axes/Adzes ............................... 15.02 

Picks/Mattocks .......................... 50.81 

Bars/Wedges ............................ 31.76 

Hammers/Sledges .................... 45.42 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: April 26, 2011. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10768 Filed 5–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES

APPENDIX B

STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

C-2

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Heavy Forged Hand Tools from China, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-457-A-D (Third Review)

On April 8, 2011, the Commission determined that it should proceed to expedited reviews in the

subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19

U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B).

The Commission determined that the domestic producer responses filed by Ames True Temper

and Council Tool Co., Inc. were individually adequate. Because these two domestic producers together

accounted for a substantial proportion of domestic production of each of the four domestic like products

the Commission defined in the original investigations and prior reviews, the Commission further

determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission also received a response from Fiskars Brands, Inc. (“Fiskars”), an importer of

subject axes and adzes, but Fiskars subsequently filed a letter indicating that it no longer intended to

participate in the reviews, and requesting that its response be withdrawn. In light of this, and having

received no response from any other respondent interested party, the Commission determined that the

respondent interested party group response was inadequate.

Given the absence of an adequate respondent interested party group response, and any other

circumstances that would warrant proceeding to full reviews, the Commission determined to conduct

expedited reviews. A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary

and the Commission’s website (http://www.usitc.gov).

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-2
C-2
A. AXES & ADZES

* * * * * * *

B. BARS & WEDGES

* * * * * * *

C. HAMMERS & SLEDGES

* * * * * * *

D. PICKS & MATTOCKS

* * * * * * *