U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4190 November 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe 

from China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-469 and 731-TA-1168 (Final)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Karen Laney

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Jennifer Merrill, Investigator 

 Norman VanToai, Industry Analyst 

 Clark Workman, Economist 

 Charles Yost, Accountant 

 David Goldfine, Attorney 

 Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

Lemuel Shields, Statistician
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4190 November 2010

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe 

from China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-469 and 731-TA-1168 (Final)

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Separate views of Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary data and data sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

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

Title VII investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Global safeguard investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Nature and extent of subsidies and sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Production processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Small- and Large-Diameter Seamless SLP Pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

ASTM A-335 Pipe and Non-ASTM A-335 Pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

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

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

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Business cycle ............................................................. II-1

Regional availability and lead times ............................................ II-1

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-2

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

Foreign supply ............................................................. II-5

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

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

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

Comparison of domestic products and subject and nonsubject imports ................. II-16

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-18

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-18

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-18

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-19

i
CONTENTS

Page

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

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

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization ................................... III-5

Alternative products ........................................................... III-5

U.S. producers’ shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-7

Order books ................................................................. III-7

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

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................ III-9

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

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

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

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

Critical circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-14

Negligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-14

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-16

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

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

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

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

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

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

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

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Lost revenues and lost sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

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

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

Operations on seamless SLP pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

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

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-7

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-7

Actual negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-7

Anticipated negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-7

ii
CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

Operations on seamless SLP pipe .............................................. VII-5

Alternative products ........................................................ VII-6

U.S. inventories of seamless SLP pipe from China ................................... VII-6

U.S. importers’ current orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-7

Antidumping investigations in third-country markets ................................. VII-7

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-8

Supply ................................................................... VII-8

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-11

Leading suppliers to the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-12

Appendixes

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

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

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

D. Comparisons of seamless SLP pipe by size and by grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Nonsubject country price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

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

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

asterisks.

iii

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-469 and 731-TA-1168 (Final)

CERTAIN SEAMLESS CARBON AND ALLOY STEEL 

STANDARD, LINE, AND PRESSURE PIPE FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

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

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

threatened with material injury by reason of imports from China of certain seamless carbon and alloy steel

standard, line, and pressure pipe (“seamless SLP pipe”), provided for in subheadings 7304.19.10,

7304.19.50, 7304.31.30, 7304.31.60, 7304.39.00, 7304.51.50, 7304.59.60, and 7304.59.80 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that the U.S. Department of Commerce has determined

are subsidized and sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”).2 3

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these investigations effective September 16, 2009, following receipt

of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by U.S. Steel Corp, Pittsburgh, PA and V&M Star

L.P., Houston, TX.4

 The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following

notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of seamless SLP pipe from China

were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1671b(b)) and dumped

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

phase of the Commission’s investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was

given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission,

Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on May 11, 2010 (75 FR 26273). 

The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on September 14, 2010, and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

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

 2

 Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane determines that the domestic seamless SLP pipe industry is materially injured

by reason of imports of the subject merchandise from China.

 3

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

Commissioner Irving A. Williamson, and Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert determine that they would not have found

material injury but for the suspension of liquidation.

 4

 On September 25, 2009, the petition was amended to add TMK IPSCO and The United Steel, Paper and

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Worker International Union (“USW”) as

additional petitioners.

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

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

United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of certain seamless carbon and alloy

steel standard, line, and pressure pipe (“seamless SLP pipe”) from the People’s Republic of China

(“China”) that the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) has found to be sold in the United States

at less than fair value (“LTFV”) and subsidized by the Government of China.1

I. BACKGROUND

The petition in these investigations was filed on September 16, 2009, by U.S. Steel Corporation

(“U.S. Steel”) and V&M Star L.P. (“V&M Star”); the petition was amended on September 25, 2009, to

add as petitioners TMK IPSCO and The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (“USW”) (collectively “Petitioners”).2

U.S. Steel has seamless SLP pipe production facilities in Fairfield, Alabama, and Lorain, Ohio.3

 V&M

Star has seamless SLP pipe production facilities in Houston, Texas, and Youngstown, Ohio.4

 TMK

IPSCO has seamless SLP pipe production facilities in five U.S. locations.5

 Representatives from U.S.

Steel, V&M Star, TMK IPSCO, and the USW appeared at the hearing accompanied by counsel and

submitted prehearing and posthearing briefs.6

 Another domestic producer of seamless SLP pipe, WymanGordon Forgings, Inc. (“Wyman-Gordon”), submitted a prehearing brief, and a representative appeared

on its behalf at the hearing.

Representatives and counsel for Chinese producers Hengyang Valin Steel Tube Co., Ltd.

(“Hengyang Valin”), Baosteel Group Corporation (“Baosteel”), Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corporation, and

U.S. importer Baosteel America, Inc. (“Baosteel”) appeared at the hearing and submitted prehearing and

posthearing briefs.

The Commission sent questionnaires to 14 firms identified as possible U.S. producers of seamless

SLP pipe and received eight responses.7

 The responding producers accounted for all or virtually all

known U.S. production of seamless SLP pipe in 2009.8

The Commission sent questionnaires to 119 firms believed to be importers of subject seamless

SLP pipe, based on information provided in the petition and information provided by U.S. Customs and

Border Protection.9

 Usable questionnaire responses were received from 31 companies.10 Questionnaire

responses were received from U.S. importers accounting for 90.6 percent of total seamless SLP pipe

imports from China in 2009.11

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

See Separate Views of Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane. She joins in parts I-V of these Views. 

 2

 CR/PR at I-1.

 3

 CR/PR at Table III-1. 

 4

 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 5

 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 6

 V&M Star, TMK IPSCO, and the USW filed joint prehearing and posthearing briefs.

 7

 U.S. Steel, V&M Star, TMK IPSCO, The Timken Company (“Timken”), Wheatland Tube Co. (“Wheatland”),

Michigan Seamless, Plymouth Tube (limited information only), and Wyman-Gordon. CR/PR at Table III-1. 

 8

 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 9

 CR/PR at IV-1.

 10 CR/PR at IV-1.

 11 CR/PR at Table IV-1 contains a list of the 31 importers of record responding to the Commission’s

questionnaire, as well as each importer’s share of imports in 2009. 

3
The Commission sent foreign producer questionnaires to 84 Chinese firms believed to be

producing seamless SLP pipe.12 Four firms provided usable responses.13 The quantity of seamless SLP

pipe exports to the United States reported by these four firms was equivalent to approximately one-third

of U.S. imports of seamless SLP pipe from China in 2009, but was lower for other parts of the period

examined.14 Accordingly, the quantity of seamless SLP pipe exports to the United States reported by the

four responding firms was equivalent to less than one-quarter of U.S. imports of seamless SLP pipe from

China for the period from January 2007 to June 2010.15 16

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

A. In General

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

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

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”17 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

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

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

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”18 In turn, the Tariff Act defines “domestic

like product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses

with, the article subject to an investigation.”19

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

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

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.20 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

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

 13 Data for these Chinese respondents are presented in CR/PR at Table VII-3.

 14 CR/PR at Tables VII-4 & C-1. The quantity of seamless SLP pipe exports to the United States reported by

these firms was equivalent to approximately *** percent of U.S. imports of seamless SLP pipe from China in 2007

and *** percent of U.S. imports from China in 2008. Id. 

 15 CR at VII-7, PR at VII-5; Compare CR/PR at Tables VII-4 & IV-2. 

 16 Chairman Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences but such

authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as a whole in making

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

parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does not automatically

accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the level of

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

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

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

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” Statement of

Administrative Action (“SAA”) on Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. I at 869

(1994).

 17 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 18 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 19 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

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

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

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

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

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

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

(continued...)

4
may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.21 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.22

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

(“Commerce”) as to the scope of the imported merchandise subsidized or sold at LTFV,23 the Commission

determines what domestic product is like the imported articles Commerce has identified.24

B. Product Description

Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations as follows:

Certain seamless carbon and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipes and redraw

hollows, less than or equal to 16 inches (406.4 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of

wall-thickness, manufacturing process (e.g., hot-finished or cold-drawn), end finish (e.g.,

plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish

(e.g., bare, lacquered or coated). Redraw hollows are any unfinished carbon or alloy steel

(other than stainless steel) pipe or “hollow profiles” suitable for cold finishing operations,

such as cold drawing, to meet the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”)

or American Petroleum Institute (“API”) specifications referenced below, or comparable

specifications. Specifically included within the scope are seamless carbon and alloy steel

(other than stainless steel) standard, line, and pressure pipes produced to the ASTM A-53,

ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, ASTM A1024, and the API 5L specifications, or comparable specifications, and meeting the

physical parameters described above, regardless of application, with the exception of the

exclusion discussed below.

Specifically excluded from the scope of the investigation are: (1) all pipes meeting

aerospace, hydraulic, and bearing tubing specifications; (2) all pipes meeting the

chemical requirements of ASTM A-335, whether finished or unfinished; and (3)

unattached couplings. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are all

mechanical, boiler, condenser and heat exchange tubing, except when such products

 20 (...continued)

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

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

Trade 1996).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

found five classes or kinds).

5
conform to the dimensional requirements, i.e., outside diameter and wall thickness of

ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106 or API 5L specifications.25 26

Seamless SLP pipe is used for the transmission of oil and natural gas; in chemical, petrochemical,

and refinery facilities; and in mechanical applications for general construction. Seamless standard pipe is

intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other

liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems,

and other related uses.27 Seamless line pipe is produced to the API 5L specification and is intended for

the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipelines, transmission lines, or gathering lines.28

Seamless pressure pipe is commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 specification (covering seamless

carbon steel pipe for higher temperature service) and is intended for the conveyance of water, steam,

petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas, and other liquids and gases in industrial piping

 25 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the People’s Republic of

China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances, in Part, 75 Fed. Reg. 57449

(Sept. 21, 2010); Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the People’s

Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Final Critical Circumstances

Determination, 75 Fed. Reg. 57444 (Sept. 21, 2010

 26 The scope of these investigations has been modified over the course of this proceeding. As filed, the petition

specifically excluded boiler and mechanical tubing if such products are not produced to ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106,

ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications and are not

used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications. Commerce’s notices of initiation did not retain the language

regarding the exclusion of boiler and mechanical tubing based on end-use applications. Subsequently, in

Commerce’s preliminary determination of sales at LTFV, the issue of boiler and mechanical tubing was discussed

further, and Commerce stated that “if a product conforms to the specifications in the scope or a comparable

specification, and it meets the physical parameters identified in the scope, it is covered by the scope of the

investigation.” However, on June 23, 2010, following a letter filed jointly by Petitioners and Respondents,

Commerce issued a memorandum stating it was considering modifying the scope language to include the following

sentence:

“Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are all mechanical, boiler, condenser and heat

exchange tubing, except when such products conform to the dimensional requirements, i.e.,

outside diameter and wall thickness of ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106 or API 5L specifications.”

In addition, on August 19, 2010, Commerce issued a memorandum in response to a request by Petitioners

that Commerce exclude from the scope of the investigation seamless SLP pipe produced to the ASTM A-335

specification. Commerce indicated that it was planning to remove the reference to ASTM A-335 from the list of

specifications within the scope and add the following language to the scope:

“Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are all pipes that meet the chemical

requirements of ASTM A-335 whether finished or unfinished.”

The exclusions of mechanical and boiler tube and ASTM A-335 pipe were incorporated into the final scope

language identified above in Commerce’s final determinations.

CR at I-11 to I-12, PR at I-8 to I-9. 

 27 CR at I-14, PR at I-10. Seamless standard pipe is most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification

and generally is not intended for high temperature service. If exceptionally low temperature uses or conditions are

anticipated, standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM A-333 or ASTM A-334 specifications.

 28 CR at I-15, PR at I-11.

6
systems.29 Seamless pressure pipe may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and

may be subject to the application of external heat.30 Seamless SLP pipe is commonly produced and

certified to meet all of the most common standard, line, and pressure pipe requirements (i.e.,

multiple-certified or multiple stenciled)31 to avoid separate production runs and to allow distributors to

maintain a single inventory of “quad-stenciled” pipe for multiple applications.32 

C. Analysis

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the Commission found that all seamless SLP

pipe is used in the same general applications (i.e., the transmission of fluids or gas under pressure), shares

common physical characteristics, is manufactured to the same specifications, and is sold through the same

channels of distribution. In addition, it found that customers and producers generally do not perceive

small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe as two distinct product groups with a clear dividing

line at 4.5 inches in outside diameter.33 The Commission thus found there was no clear dividing line at

4.5 inches in outside diameter and identified a single domestic like product, consisting of all seamless

SLP pipe less than or equal to 16 inches in outside diameter, that was co-extensive with the scope of the

investigations.34 

In the final phase of these investigations, U.S. Steel and V&M Star argue that the Commission

should again find one domestic like product comprised of all seamless SLP pipe less than or equal to 16

inches in outside diameter that is coextensive with Commerce’s scope.35 Chinese Respondent Hengyang

Valin argues that the Commission should define two domestic like products comprised of “small

diameter” seamless SLP pipe less than or equal to 4.5 inches in outside diameter and “large diameter”

seamless SLP pipe greater than 4.5 inches and less than or equal to 16 inches in outside diameter.36 37

 29 CR at I-15, PR at I-11. 

 30 Seamless pressure pipe sold in the United States is commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard. Alloy

pipe made to the ASTM A-335 standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for

ASTM A-106. CR at I-15, PR at I-11.

 31 CR at I-15, PR at I-11.

 32 Quadruple certification is referred to as a “quad stencil,” whereby manufacturers put four stencils, or markings,

on the pipe to show that it has been produced to meet the requirements and tests pursuant to the respective

specifications – ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, API 5L grade B, and API 5L X-42. CR at I-15 & n.22, PR at I-11 &

n.22.

 33 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-469

& 731-TA-1168 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4106 at 9 (Nov. 2006) (“Preliminary Determinations”).

 34 Preliminary Determinations at 9.

 35 U.S. Steel Prehearing Br. at 5-8; V&M Star Prehearing Br. at 13-14.

 36 Hengyang Valin Prehearing Br. at 3-7.

 37 In support of its proposed definitions, Hengyang Valin cites the Commission’s like product findings in Certain

Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa, USITC Pub. 3311,

731-TA-847 and 850 (Final) (June 2000). We note, however, that Commission determinations are sui generis, and

like product determinations are based on the record of each investigation. See e.g., Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v.

United States, 704 F. Supp. 1075, 1087-88 (CIT 1988); Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United

States, 693 F. Supp 1165, 1669 n.5 (CIT 1988). We note that, in the 2000 investigations of seamless SLP pipe from

Japan and South Africa, the petitions defined two separate scopes: (1) seamless pipe less than or equal to 4.5 inches

in outside diameter, and (2) seamless pipe greater than 4.5 inches and up to and including 16 inches in outside

diameter. Therefore, given that Commerce found two scopes, the starting point for the Commission’s like product

analysis was different. Furthermore, Petitioners requested that the Commission find two domestic like products,

defined as co-extensive with the two scopes, and the Respondents did not object. In addition, the Commission’s

final importer and purchaser questionnaires did not collect information on like product factors. In its final

7
Physical Characteristics and Uses

Responding U.S. producers observed that small diameter seamless SLP pipe and large diameter

seamless SLP pipe have different size ranges, which can affect the flow rate.38 Otherwise, U.S. producers

reported that small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe had similar physical characteristics

and uses, although the large diameter may be used more intensively in pipeline applications than the

smaller diameter pipe.39 U.S. purchasers similarly noted few physical differences other than diameter,

although two indicated that small diameter SLP pipe is available in shorter lengths.40

As the Commission found in the preliminary phase of these investigations, both small and large

diameter pipe are generally used for the transmission of fluids or gas under pressure, and no new evidence

has been developed to the contrary in this final phase.41 Although several purchasers indicated that small

diameter seamless SLP pipe may be used more intensively in higher pressure applications than large

diameter seamless SLP pipe, the record does not demonstrate that 4.5 inches represents a clear dividing

line between end uses.42

Interchangeability

Both U.S. producers and U.S. purchasers noted that small diameter seamless SLP pipe and large

diameter seamless SLP pipe generally are not interchangeable due to the size requirements of the finished

pipe, although these same limitations also are present within the “small” and “large” categories.43

Exceptions were noted around 4.5 inches in outside diameter size and to a limited degree with respect to

thicker-walled small diameter pipe, which can accommodate a higher flow rate than can be

accommodated by thinner-walled large diameter pipe.44 45

Channels of distribution

The parties agree, and purchaser questionnaire responses collected in these final phase

investigations confirm, that both small diameter seamless SLP pipe and large diameter seamless SLP pipe

are sold primarily through distributors.46 

determination, the Commission found, consistent with the two separate scopes, that small diameter and large

diameter seamless SLP pipe constituted separate domestic like products. USITC Pub. 3311 at 4-5.

 38 CR at I-25, PR at I-18.

 39 CR at I-25, PR at I-18.

 40 CR at I-25, PR at I-18

 41 CR at I-25, PR at I-18.

 42 CR at I-25, PR at I-18.

 43 CR at I-27, PR at I-19.

 44 CR at I-27, PR at I-19.

 45 We note that “[a] lack of interchangeability between products at either end of a continuum is not inconsistent

with a finding of a single domestic like product when the products are all part of a continuum.” Outboard Engines

from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-1069 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3673 (March 2004) at 8, n. 40; see also Certain Offthe-Road Tires from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Final), USITC Pub. 4031 (August 2008) at 9

(“This factor is, however, of limited use in assisting the Commission with making its finding because, in an industry

in which there are literally thousands of products, each is designed for a specific use. As such the lack of

interchangeability does not provide strong guidance as to whether a clear dividing line exists.”); Citric Acid and

Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-456 and 731-TA-1151-1152 (Preliminary), USITC

Pub. 4008 (June 2008) at 11.

 46 CR at I-27, PR at I-19. 

8
Common Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes, and Production Employees

During the period for which data were collected, U.S. Steel and Timken manufactured both small

diameter seamless SLP pipe and large diameter seamless SLP pipe in the United States. Timken’s

operations in Canton, OH produce seamless tubular products (primarily mechanical tubing, as well as

pressure pipe and drill pipe) on three piercing mills.47 The plant’s overall production capability ranges

from 1.9 inches to 13 inches in diameter.48 U.S. Steel produces seamless SLP pipe ranging from 4.5 to

9.875 inches outside diameter at its facility in Fairfield, AL.49 U.S. Steel produces both small diameter

seamless SLP pipe and large diameter seamless SLP pipe at its facility in Lorain, OH, but in different

mills on different equipment.50 In their questionnaire responses, U.S. producers generally indicated that

the production processes for small and large diameter seamless SLP pipe are similar, but that the

dimensions of the mill equipment limit the degree of overlap on the same production lines.51 U.S.

purchasers also noted a general similarity in production processes, although several noted that some small

diameter pipe is cold drawn.52

Producer and Customer Perceptions

U.S. producers reported in their questionnaire responses that their perceptions of small diameter

and large diameter seamless SLP pipe were similar.53 Responding U.S. purchasers largely agreed,

although several noted that their perceptions of small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe

were dependent upon the dimensions required for a particular end-use application.54

Price

To the extent that U.S. producers identified price differences, small diameter seamless SLP pipe

was considered to be priced higher than large diameter seamless SLP pipe.55 Purchasers identified this

relationship with greater frequency, but primarily emphasized the higher prices of pipe in diameters of

two inches or less (but also, in some instances, in larger diameters such as those greater than ten inches).56

Conclusion

As in the preliminary phase, the record in the final phase of these investigations indicates that

there is not a clear dividing line at 4.5 inches in outside diameter for seamless SLP pipe. In particular, the

record reflects that small diameter seamless SLP pipe and large diameter seamless SLP pipe possess

similarities and differences with respect to uses and common manufacturing facilities/employees, but

mostly similarities with respect to physical characteristics, channels of distribution, manufacturing

methods, customer and producer perceptions, and price. 

 47 CR at I-25, PR at I-18.

 48 CR at I-25, PR at I-18.

 49 CR at I-26, PR at I-18.

 50 CR at I-26, PR at I-18.

 51 CR at I-26, PR at I-19.

 52 CR at I-26, PR at I-19.

 53 CR at I-27, PR at I-19.

 54 CR at I-27, PR at I-19. 

 55 CR at I-28, PR at I-20.

 56 CR at I-28, PR at I-20. 

9
Small diameter seamless SLP pipe and large diameter seamless SLP pipe share nearly all physical

characteristics and are made to common specifications from identical grades of carbon and alloy steel.57

Differences in outside diameter size represent the only physical distinction between small diameter and

large diameter seamless SLP pipe, but that factor is also present within the small diameter and large

diameter groups.58 Both small diameter pipe and large diameter pipe are generally used for the

transmission of fluids or gas under pressure.59 Domestic producers accounting for a substantial portion of

seamless SLP pipe production manufactured both small diameter and large diameter pipe, with two

producers manufacturing both size ranges in a single mill on the same types of equipment.60 Because

purchasers generally seek seamless SLP pipe that meets a particular ASTM/API or proprietary

specification, different sizes of seamless SLP pipe generally will not be substitutable for each other in

particular end uses.61 All seamless SLP pipe is sold through the same channels of distribution, principally

through distributors, with the remainder to end users.62 Prices for seamless SLP pipe vary based on a

number of factors, although the data are mixed regarding the existence of any relationship between price

and diameter.63 Although customers and producers perceive small diameter pipe and large diameter pipe

as different insofar as they are not generally interchangeable, they do not perceive them to be two distinct

product groups with a clear dividing line at 4.5 inches in outside diameter.64

Accordingly, for the above reasons, we find a single domestic like product consisting of all

seamless SLP pipe less than or equal to 16 inches in outside diameter that is co-extensive with

Commerce’s scope.65

 57 CR at I-24, PR at I-17. 

 58 CR at I-24 to I-25, PR at I-17 to I-18.

 59 CR at I-25, PR at I-18.

 60 CR at I-25 to I-26, PR at I-18. The two domestic producers that manufacture both small diameter seamless SLP

pipe and large diameter seamless SLP pipe, U.S. Steel and Timken, accounted for *** percent of total seamless pipe

production in 2009. CR/PR at Table III-1.

 61 CR at I-27, PR at I-19.

 62 CR at I-27, PR at I-19.

 63 CR at I-28, PR at I-19.

 64 CR at I-27, PR at I-19.

 65 On February 4, 2010, the Commission received a letter from Wyman-Gordon requesting that seamless SLP

pipe made to the ASTM A-335 specification be considered as a separate domestic like product. CR at I-24, PR at I17. In light of Wyman-Gordon’s request, the Commission collected separate data for pipe made to the ASTM A-335

specification and for all seamless SLP pipe. In its prehearing brief, Wyman-Gordon argued that the Commission

should find that seamless SLP pipe produced to the ASTM A-335 specification is a separate domestic like product

and that the Commission should reach a negative determination with respect to seamless SLP pipe made to the A335 specification in the absence of any significant adverse impact on the domestic industry producing such pipe. 

See e.g., Wyman-Gordon Prehearing Br. at 4-10. Commerce, however, subsequently amended its scope language

specifically to exclude SLP pipe made to the ASTM A-335 specification. See e.g., CR at I-24, PR at I-17. Given

that Commerce has narrowed the scope language, we cannot decide the issue posed by Wyman-Gordon without first

reaching the threshold question of whether to broaden the domestic like product to include domestically produced

ASTM A-335 pipe. No party has advocated such an expansion and Wyman-Gordon’s arguments that ASTM A-335

pipe should be treated as a separate like product weigh against expansion. Without intending to pre-judge how we

would decide the issue in another investigation, we determine not to broaden the like product to include ASTM A335 in these investigations. In light of our determination not to expand the like product, Wyman-Gordon’s argument

for a separate like product determination is rendered moot.

 Separately, Toyota Tsusho America, Inc. (“TAI”) requested that “the Commission publicly confirm that the

injury determination it makes regarding SLP pipe from China does not include mechanical/boiler tubing products as

like products, except those particular products used in SLP pipe applications.” TAI’s Prehearing Br. at 1. We note

that TAI has not argued that mechanical/boiler tubing products constitute a separate domestic like product under the

10
III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The domestic industry is defined as the domestic “producers as a whole of a domestic like

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

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”66 In defining the domestic industry, the

 Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic production

of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market. 

Based on our definition of the domestic like product, we define a single domestic industry consisting of

all domestic producers of seamless SLP pipe less than or equal to 16 inches in outside diameter.67 68

IV. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. In General

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

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

injury by reason of the imports under investigation.69 In making this determination, the Commission must

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

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

operations.70 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or

unimportant.”71 In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject

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

traditional six-factor like product analysis. Rather, it appears that TAI sought to preserve a domestic like product

argument in the event that Commerce did not exclude mechanical/boiler tubing products from the scope. TAI’s

Prehearing Br. at 1 n.2. Because Commerce excluded mechanical/boiler tubing from the scope, we find TAI’s

request to be moot.

 66 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 67 CR/PR at Table III-1. 

 68 We find no basis to exclude any producer from the domestic industry under the statute’s related party

provision, 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A), and no party has argued that any producer should be excluded. In the final

phase of these investigations, *** qualifies as a related party because it directly imported subject merchandise during

the period examined. Nevertheless, as we found in the preliminary phase of these investigations, appropriate

circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry because it supports the petition, its interests

appear to be primarily in domestic production (particularly given that it ceased importing the subject merchandise in

2007), and no party has argued for its exclusion from the domestic industry.

 *** likely qualifies as a related party because it appears to be under the control of a company that also controls

a firm that exports seamless SLP pipe from China to the United States. *** parent company, ***, acquired a ***

percent ownership interest in ***, which produces seamless SLP pipe in China and exports it to the United States. 

The *** percent ownership stake probably gives *** a significant degree of control over ***. Nevertheless, we find

that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry. *** did not acquire the

ownership interest in *** until ***, meaning that *** probable related party status did not arise until very late in the

period examined. Accordingly, *** interests are primarily in domestic production. We also note that *** and that

no party has argued for the exclusion of *** from the domestic industry. 

 69 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b).

 70 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

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

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

 71 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

11
States.72 No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”73

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

“materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of” unfairly traded imports,74 it does not

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

Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion.75 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject

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

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

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

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

sufficient causal, not merely a temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.76

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

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

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

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

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

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

statutory material injury threshold.77 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.78 Nor does the

 72 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 73 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 74 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(a), 1673d(a).

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

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

1996).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cir. 2001).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12
“by reason of” standard require that unfairly traded imports be the “principal” cause of injury or

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

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.79 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.80

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

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

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

“ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”81 82 Indeed, the

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

adherence to a specific formula.”83

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

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

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

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

imports.84 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether nonsubject imports might have

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

harmful effects on domestic market prices.”).

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

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

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

injury.”).

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

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

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

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

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

 82 Commissioner Pinkert does not join this paragraph or the following three paragraphs. He points out that the

Federal Circuit, in Bratsk, 444 F.3d 1369, and Mittal, held that the Commission is required, in certain circumstances

when considering present material injury, to undertake a particular kind of analysis of nonsubject imports. Mittal

explains as follows:

What Bratsk held is that “where commodity products are at issue and fairly traded, price-competitive,

nonsubject imports are in the market,” the Commission would not fulfill its obligation to consider an

important aspect of the problem if it failed to consider whether nonsubject or non-LTFV imports would

have replaced LTFV subject imports during the period of investigation without a continuing benefit to the

domestic industry. 444 F.3d at 1369. Under those circumstances, Bratsk requires the Commission to

consider whether replacement of the LTFV subject imports might have occurred during the period of

investigation, and it requires the Commission to provide an explanation of its conclusion with respect to

that factor.

542 F.3d at 878.

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

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

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

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

13
replaced subject imports without any benefit to the U.S. industry. The Commission applied that specific

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

and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

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

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

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

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

injury from nonsubject imports or other factors to subject imports.85 Accordingly, we do not consider

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

subsequent to Bratsk.

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

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

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

non-attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.86 87

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

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

standard.88 Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s

institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.89

B. Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

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

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

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

significant.”90

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

provides that the Commission shall consider whether –

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

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

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

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

 86 Commissioner Lane also refers to her dissenting views in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip

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

4040 (Oct. 2008), for further discussion of Mittal Steel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

matter for the judgment of the ITC.”).

 90 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

14
 (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

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

degree.91

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

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

industry.”92 These factors include output, sales, inventories, ability to raise capital, research and

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

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

to the affected industry.”93

C. Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

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

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

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

occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted.”94 The Commission may not make

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

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

material injury by reason of subject imports would occur unless an order is issued.95 In making our

determination, we consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to these investigation.96

 91 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 92 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission

considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in

some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing

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

 93 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-

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

 94 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 95 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 96 These factors are as follows:

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

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

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

are likely to increase,

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

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

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

exports,

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

indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

15
V. CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION

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

threat of material injury by reason of subject imports.

A. Demand Conditions

Overall U.S. demand for seamless SLP pipe derives primarily from activity in the energy industry

(petroleum, natural gas, and refineries), in drilling, and in nonresidential construction.97 98 Demand for

seamless SLP pipe relating to the energy industry and to drilling generally rises in conjunction with

higher prices for oil and natural gas.99 Demand relating to nonresidential construction is more a function

of overall economic activity.

Monthly prices for oil and gas increased irregularly from January 2007 to June 2008, and then

generally declined during the remainder of 2008.100 The price of oil has recovered somewhat from the

low level reached in early 2009, but the price of natural gas has remained relatively low throughout 2009

and the early months of 2010.101 Consistent with the observed changes in prices for oil and gas, demand

for seamless SLP pipe in the relevant sectors of the energy industry increased irregularly from January

2007 to August 2008, and then declined throughout the remainder of 2008 and early 2009 before

recovering to some extent in 2010.102 The same general pattern emerged in drilling activity, as the

number of rigs increased irregularly from January 2007 to September 2008, declined sharply for the

(VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to

produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.

* * *

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability that there is likely to be material

injury by reason of imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually

being imported at the time).

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i). To organize our analysis, we discuss the applicable statutory threat factors using the

same volume/price/impact framework that applies to our material injury analysis. Statutory threat factors (I), (II),

(III), (V), and (VI) are discussed in the analysis of subject import volume. Statutory threat factor (IV) is discussed in

the price effects analysis, and statutory threat factor (IX) is discussed in the impact analysis. Statutory threat factor

(VII) is inapplicable, as no imports of agricultural products are involved in this investigation. No argument was

made that the domestic industry is currently engaging or will imminently engage in any efforts to develop a

derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product, which would implicate statutory threat factor

(VIII).

 97 CR at II-10, PR at II-6.

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

 99 CR at II-10, PR at II-6. 

 100 CR/PR at Figure II-2.

 101 CR at II-10, PR at II-6. 

 102 CR at II-10, PR at II-8. 

16
remainder of 2008 and the first half of 2009, and recovered from the second half of 2009 to the first half

of 2010.103 104

Demand for seamless SLP pipe is also affected by nonresidential construction, including the

construction and repair of petrochemical and refining facilities in the chemical industry, power

generation, and mechanical applications for general construction.105 Consistent with general economic

activity, total nonresidential construction spending in the United States declined from 2007 to 2009 and

stabilized at low levels in 2010.106

Most producers and importers reported that demand for seamless SLP pipe fluctuated over the

period examined.107 Of 16 responding purchasers, one reported that overall U.S. demand for seamless

SLP pipe had both increased and fluctuated since 2007, four reported that it had decreased, eight reported

that it had fluctuated, and three reported that it was unchanged.108 Most producers, importers, and

purchasers reporting that demand had fluctuated since 2007 also reported that demand had increased

though 2008 before falling sharply in 2009 as a result of the recession.109

When measured by apparent U.S. consumption, U.S. seamless SLP pipe demand decreased by

*** percent on a quantity basis from 2007 to 2009.110 Total apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent

higher in interim 2010 than in interim 2009.111 The data on apparent U.S. consumption, however, do not

fully reflect changes in demand because the data do not account for changes in the amount of seamless

SLP pipe held in inventory by U.S. importers and purchasers. Those inventories surged in 2008,

increased through June 2009, and then declined through the remainder of the period examined.112

The downturn in the seamless SLP pipe market is not unique to the United States. The global

economic recession has caused a general decline in demand for oil and natural gas since the third quarter

of 2008, which has led to a weakening global seamless SLP pipe market.113

 103 CR/PR at Figure II-3. Since the first half of 2009, the number of drilling rigs has increased, although it

remains below the peak level reached in 2008. CR at II-12, PR at II-8. However, most new drilling for natural gas

is being done in so-called “shale plays,” and in such areas welded pipe is generally preferred over seamless pipe

because of its lower cost. CR at II-12, PR at II-8. 

 104 Drilling rigs are used in both inland and offshore drilling. Although offshore drilling rigs account for a small

share of the total rig count, offshore drilling is an important market for seamless SLP pipe. Weekly data show that

offshore rigs as a share of total rigs ranged from one to five percent from 2007 to early September 2010. The weekly

counts have generally declined since 2007. CR at II-13, PR at II-9. Recent events in the Gulf of Mexico, including

a moratorium on deepwater drilling, appear likely to have contributed to a decline in the level of offshore,

particularly deepwater, drilling. CR at II-13, PR at II-9. Subsequent to the period examined, the moratorium was

slightly revised. See e.g., CR at II-13 n.15, PR at II-9 n.15.

 105 CR at II-14, PR at II-9; Transcript of September 14, 2010 Hearing (“Hearing Tr.”) at 96-97 (Mr. Durham).

 106 CR/PR at Figure II-4; See also Hearing Tr. at 97 (Mr. Durham), 159-60 (Mr. Thompson) (on much lower

demand for seamless SLP pipe in nonresidential construction sector).

 107 CR at II-15, PR at II-11.

 108 CR at II-15, PR at II-11. 

 109 CR at II-15, PR at II-11.

 110 CR/PR at Table C-1. Apparent U.S. consumption of seamless SLP pipe increased from *** short tons in 2007

to over *** short tons in 2008 and then decreased sharply to *** short tons in 2009. Id.

 111 Apparent U.S. consumption of seamless SLP pipe was *** short tons in interim 2009 and *** short tons in

interim 2010. CR/PR at C-1.

 112 U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of subject imports surged *** percent from 2007 to 2008. CR/PR at

Table C-1. U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of subject imports peaked in June 2009, decreased by ***

percent in December 2009, and then decreased a further *** percent by June 2010. CR/PR at Additional Table 1. 

The record also indicates a substantial drawdown of inventories (including subject and nonsubject imports and

domestically produced pipe) by U.S. purchasers from December 2009 through June 2010. CR/PR at Table II-2.

 113 CR at II-14-15, PR at II-9; see also CR/PR at Table VII-12.

17
B. Supply Conditions

There are three sources of supply in the U.S. market: imports of subject merchandise from China,

imports from nonsubject countries, and domestic production. During the period examined, nonsubject

imports were supplied by many countries, including Argentina, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Mexico, Russia, and Ukraine.114 At the beginning of the period, domestic producers accounted for

the largest share of the U.S. market, followed by nonsubject imports, then subject imports. By 2008, the

three sources of seamless SLP pipe *** of the U.S. market, with subject imports holding the largest

share.115 In 2009, as apparent consumption of seamless SLP pipe plunged, the domestic industry’s market

share shrank substantially, and subject and nonsubject imports accounted for almost *** percent of the

U.S. market.116 In interim 2010, however, domestic producers accounted for the largest share of the U.S.

market (almost ***), followed by nonsubject imports, while the market share of subject imports was

sharply lower.117

As discussed above, U.S. importers and purchasers held significant inventories over the period

examined. End-of-period inventories held by U.S. importers increased significantly from 2007 to interim

2009, and then decreased throughout the remainder of the period examined, although these inventory

levels remain higher than they were in 2007.118 End-of-period inventories held by U.S. purchasers

increased significantly from 2007 to 2008, and then decreased throughout the remainder of the period

examined, ending below 2007 levels.119

C. Interchangeability

Although factors such as differences in availability and product quality may limit substitutability

somewhat, the record indicates a moderately high level of substitutability between subject imports and the

domestic like product.120 The majority of producers, importers, and purchasers reported that domestically

produced seamless SLP pipe and subject imports are “frequently” or “always” interchangeable, with the

remainder reporting that the domestic like product and subject imports are “sometimes”

interchangeable.121 Most purchasers ranked price, availability, and quality as the most important factors

in purchasing decisions, with price identified most often as the most important factor.122

D. Other Conditions

Whether domestically produced or imported, seamless SLP pipe is sold mainly through

distributors. In 2009, the final full year of the period examined, *** percent of domestically produced

 114 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 115 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 116 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 117 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 118 U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of seamless SLP pipe from all sources were *** short tons in 2007,

*** short tons in 2008, *** short tons in 2009, *** short tons in interim 2009, and *** short tons in interim 2010. 

CR/PR at Table VII-8.

 119 U.S. purchasers’ end-of-period inventories of seamless SLP pipe from all sources were *** short tons in 2007,

*** short tons in 2008, *** short tons in 2009, and *** short tons in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table II-2.

 120 CR at II-21 to II-25, PR at II-16 to I-18.

 121 CR/PR at Tables II-7 & II-8.

 122 CR/PR at Tables II-3 & II-4.

18
seamless SLP pipe was sold to distributors, while *** percent of U.S. imports of seamless SLP pipe from

China and *** percent of nonsubject imports were sold to distributors.123

Raw materials account for a large share of the cost of seamless SLP pipe. These

costs ranged from a low of *** percent of the cost of goods sold (“COGS)” in 2009 to a high of ***

percent in 2008.124 During January-June 2010, raw material costs accounted for *** percent of COGS. 

Ferrous scrap is a major input used in the production of seamless SLP pipe.125 The price of ferrous scrap

rose irregularly to peak levels in mid-2008 and then declined sharply in the latter part of that year.126

Ferrous scrap prices increased irregularly in 2009 and 2010 and have fluctuated in recent months.

VI. MATERIAL INJURY AND THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF

SUBJECT IMPORTS127

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

United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of seamless SLP pipe from China

that Commerce has found are sold at LTFV and subsidized by the Government of China.

A. Volume of the Subject Imports128

1. Analysis of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

In absolute terms, the volume of subject imports increased from *** short tons in 2007 to ***

short tons in 2008, then dropped to *** short tons in 2009.129 Although the volume of subject imports fell

by *** percent overall from 2007 to 2009, it rose sharply by *** percent between 2007 and 2008.130

Subject imports were *** percent lower in interim 2010, at *** short tons, than in interim 2009, at ***

short tons.131

 123 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 124 CR/PR at V-1.

 125 CR/PR at V-1.

 126 CR/PR at V-1.

 127 Negligibility under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24) is not an issue in these investigations. Official statistics from

Commerce indicate that, from September 2008 to August 2009, which is the most recent 12-month period preceding

the filing of the petition for which data were available, subject imports from China accounted for 52.5 percent of

total U.S. imports of seamless SLP pipe. CR at IV-20 to IV-21. The volume of subject imports is thus well above

the statute’s three percent negligibility level. 

 128 In its final countervailing duty determination regarding imports of seamless SLP pipe from China, Commerce

assigned subsidy rates ranging from 13.66 percent to 33.66 percent ad valorem. In its investigation, Commerce

examined seven preferential loan programs, four equity programs, four direct tax benefit programs, nine indirect and

tax exemption programs, seven remuneration programs, eight grant programs, and two other regional programs. 

CR/PR at Tables I-2 & I-3. 

 Commerce also determined that certain producers in China were selling seamless SLP pipe in the U.S. market

at less than fair value. Commerce calculated dumping margins ranging from 48.99 percent to 65.51 percent ad

valorem for certain Chinese producers of seamless SLP pipe and a dumping margin of 98.94 percent ad valorem for

the PRC-wide entity. 

 129 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 130 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 131 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

19
The market share of subject imports increased sharply or at least remained stable for most of the

period examined regardless of whether demand was rising or falling.132 Between 2007 and 2008, as

demand increased, the volume of subject imports increased at a substantially faster rate. Specifically,

apparent U.S. consumption increased by *** percent, whereas the volume of subject imports increased by

*** percent.133 As a result, the market share held by subject imports increased from *** percent in 2007

to *** percent in 2008.134 From 2008 to 2009, as apparent U.S. consumption fell by *** percent and the

volume of subject imports decreased by *** percent, the market share held by subject imports fell by just

*** percentage points, from *** percent in 2008 to *** percent in 2009.135 By contrast, the domestic

producers’ market share consistently declined from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and ***

percent in 2009.136

We note that the market share held by subject imports was sharply lower in interim 2010, at ***

percent, than in interim 2009, when it was *** percent.137 By contrast, domestic producers’ market share

was markedly higher in interim 2010, at *** percent, than in interim 2009, when it was *** percent.138

Nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption, based on quantity, was only slightly lower in

interim 2010, at *** percent, than in interim 2009, at *** percent.139

Notwithstanding the declines in subject import volume and market share in interim 2010, we find

the volume of subject imports during the period examined to be significant, both in absolute terms and

relative to consumption and production in the United States. From 2007 to 2009, subject imports

comprised between one-quarter and one-third of apparent U.S. consumption. The declines in subject

imports’ volume and market share in interim 2010 occurred after the petitions in these investigations were

filed,140 and stand in stark contrast to the relatively substantial presence of nonsubject imports at that

time.141 We therefore find that the decline in subject import volumes at the end of the period examined

resulted, in part, from the pendency of these investigations. Absent these investigations, the absolute and

relative volumes of subject imports would likely have been greater in interim 2010.

2. Analysis of Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

The Commission sent foreign producer questionnaires to 84 Chinese firms believed to be

producing seamless SLP pipe.142 Only four firms provided usable responses: Baoshan Iron & Steel Co.,

Hengyang Valin, Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corp., and Yangzhou Chengde Steel.143 As discussed above,

exports to the United States by these four firms accounted for only about one-quarter of all seamless SLP

pipe imported from China from January 2007 to June 2010.144 Given Chinese producers’ limited

cooperation in responding to our questionnaires, comprehensive data on the Chinese seamless pipe

industry are not available from that source. Nevertheless, there are substantial published data on the

 132 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 133 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 134 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 135 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 136 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 137 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 138 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 139 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 140 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 141 CR/PR at Table IV-4. 

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

 143 Data for these Chinese respondents are presented in CR/PR at Table VII-3.

 144 CR/PR at Tables VII-4 & C-1. 

20
Chinese seamless pipe industry from various independent sources. These sources indicate that the

available supply from China will likely be very high in the imminent future.

Chinese seamless SLP pipe producers will likely have the ability to increase shipments to the

United States significantly. China is the world’s largest producer of seamless tubular products, a category

that includes both seamless SLP pipe and other seamless products, such as oil country tubular goods

(“OCTG”). According to the World Steel Association (“WSA”),145 China was the leading global

producer of seamless tubular products in 2008, accounting for 72.8 percent (22.2 million short tons) of

global production of seamless pipe and tube.146 *** reports that, with respect to seamless line pipe alone,

China’s 2007 production level exceeded an estimated *** short tons.147 According to ***, China’s annual

production of seamless tubular products increased by more than *** percent during 2000-08, accounting

for approximately half of global production.148

As one of the witnesses for the Chinese Respondents acknowledged in hearing testimony, the

Chinese industry’s production capacity for subject seamless SLP pipe is “huge and growing.”149 China

reportedly has more than *** seamless pipe and tube producers, and they continue to expand or upgrade

their seamless pipe capacity.150 Moreover, even based on the limited responses to the Commission’s

questionnaire provided by Chinese producers, it is clear that significant amounts of seamless tubular

capacity are available in China that can be used to produce seamless SLP pipe.151 Production facilities in

China that are currently used to produce other pipe products have a strong potential to be shifted to the

production of seamless SLP pipe. Chinese producers reported that ***.152 Given Chinese OCTG

producers’ large production capacity, there is an enormous potential for product shifting by Chinese

producers from OCTG to seamless SLP pipe.153

Chinese producers’ inventories would also permit them to increase exports to the United States

significantly. Chinese producers’ reported end-of-period inventories were *** short tons in 2007, ***

short tons in 2008, *** short tons in 2009, *** short tons in interim 2009, and *** short tons in interim

2010.154 Notably, in interim 2010, Chinese producers’ reported end-of-period inventories of *** short

tons were equivalent to *** percent of domestic producers’ interim 2010 production of *** short tons.155

U.S. importers’ inventories of subject imports were also substantial at the end of the period examined,156

 145 The WSA, formerly known as the International Iron and Steel Institute, is an international organization

representing approximately 180 steel producers, national and regional steel industry associations, and steel research

institutes. WSA members produce about 85 percent of the world’s steel. WSA provides data for all seamless

tubular products, a much broader category than the subject product. CR/PR at VII-2.

 146 CR/PR at Table VII-1. Between 2002 and 2007, China’s production of seamless pipe and tube almost

tripled, increasing from 6.7 million short tons to 20.0 million short tons as China’s share of global seamless

tubular production increased from 40 percent to 60 percent. CR at VII-17, PR at VII-8 to VII-9.

 147 CR/PR at Table VII-2.

 148 CR/PR at VII-1.

 149 Hearing Tr. at 217 (Mr. Tang). 

 150 CR/PR at VII-4 to VII-5, PR at VII-3 to VII-4.

 151 Compare CR/PR at Table VII-4 with CR/PR at Table VII-7 (production of other seamless tubular products

more than *** times the level of production of seamless SLP pipe on shared equipment in 2009). 

 152 CR/PR at Table VII-3 (***).

 153 See e.g., U.S. Steel Prehearing Br. at 88-89.

 154 CR/PR at Table VII-4. We note that these data are limited to data provided by the four Chinese producers that

responded to the Commission’s foreign producer questionnaire.

 155 CR/PR at Tables VII-6 and C-1.

 156 CR/PR Table VII-8. Importers’ inventories of subject merchandise increased from *** short tons in 2007 to

*** short tons in 2008 and *** short tons in 2009. Importers’ inventories of subject imports were *** short tons in

interim 2009 and *** short tons in interim 2010. Id. 

21
and the sale of those inventories into the U.S. market would likely have a significant negative impact on

domestic production of seamless SLP pipe.

The record indicates that the Chinese seamless SLP pipe industry is significantly export-oriented.

According to Global Trade Atlas, China surpassed Germany in 2007 to become the world’s leading

exporter of seamless pipe (excluding OCTG).157 In 2008 and 2009, Chinese producers accounted for

approximately 25 percent of global exports of seamless pipe (excluding OCTG).158 China has been the

world’s leading seamless pipe exporter (excluding OCTG) in each year from 2007 to 2009, with exports

ranging from 1.4 million short tons to 2.4 million short tons of seamless pipe (excluding OCTG).159

Chinese producers have an incentive to increase exports to the U.S. market for several reasons. 

First, Chinese producers face trade restrictions, both existing and pending, in several important non-U.S.

markets. In September 2009, the EU imposed antidumping duties on certain seamless pipe and tube from

China.160 The Government of India has reportedly placed imports of seamless pipe and tube on a list of

“restricted” imported products in order to reduce the potential volume of seamless pipe and tube imports

from China.161 162 These actions will likely inhibit shipments of seamless SLP pipe from China to these

significant third-country markets in the imminent future. 

Second, the United States represents a highly attractive market. The United States is the world’s

largest importer of seamless SLP pipe,163 and the U.S. market has attractive prices, with prices generally

higher in the United States than in other markets such as Europe or Asia.164 The United States also has a

large, well-developed distribution network for seamless SLP pipe.165 Moreover, the U.S. market is

familiar to seamless SLP pipe producers in China, who increased their share of the U.S. market from 2007

to 2009 and, in so doing, established relationships with a broad range of importers. There is no indication

in the record that Chinese producers, in the absence of a countervailing or antidumping duty order, would

find the U.S. market any less attractive in the imminent future than they did between 2007 and 2009,

when they increased their U.S. market share overall by *** percentage points, or *** percent.166

Although demand in the United States is expected to be lower in the imminent future than in 2007 and

2008, albeit increasing, Chinese producers would likely target new orders for seamless SLP pipe in an

attempt to gain market share as they did from 2007 to 2008.

 157 CR at VII-5, PR at VII-4.

 158 CR at VII-5, PR at VII-4.

 159 CR/PR at Table VII-11. 

 160 CR at VII-15, PR at VII-7. In March 2008, the Canadian Government imposed antidumping and

countervailing duty orders on seamless OCTG casing from China. CR at VII-16, PR at VII-8.

 161 CR at VII-15, PR at VII-7. 

 162 In May 2010, Mexico imposed provisional antidumping duty margins on seamless SLP pipe from China. In

addition, Argentina has reportedly recently instituted an antidumping duty investigation into imports of seamless

pipe from China. CR at VII-15 to VII-16, PR at VII-7 to VII-8. Mexico’s imposition of provisional duties and

Argentina’s institution of an antidumping duty investigation will likely dampen demand for the targeted products in

the imminent future even if both inquiries are ultimately resolved in favor of the Chinese parties. Cf. 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(I) (U.S. law recognizing that the filing of an antidumping or countervailing duty petition may affect the

volume of subject imports).

 163 CR/PR at Table VII-11.

 164 See, e.g., Metal Bulletin Research (Issue No. 57) (June 2010) (comparing U.S., European, Asian, and Middle

Eastern prices for seamless line pipe).

 165 CR/PR at Table II-2.

 166 As discussed above, official Commerce statistics indicate that subject imports have been at extremely low

levels since March 2010. CR/PR at Tables IV-4. As noted above, we find that the decline in subject import volumes

is at least in part attributable to the pendency of these investigations. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I)). 

22
 Third, Chinese OCTG producers have a strong incentive to shift production to seamless SLP

pipe in reaction to the recently imposed countervailing and antidumping orders in the United States on

OCTG.167 Given their ability and incentive to shift production from OCTG to seamless SLP pipe, it is

likely that Chinese producers will ship more seamless SLP pipe to the U.S. market in order to make up for

their significant losses in the OCTG market.168

Finally, we note that the rate of demand growth in the Chinese home market has slowed.169

Despite the higher rate of growth in the home market earlier in the period examined, Chinese producers

substantially increased exports to the U.S. market.170 As the rate of growth slows, the Chinese home

market will be less able to absorb increases in shipments by Chinese producers, creating an additional

incentive to increase substantially exports to the United States.

Based on the above, we conclude that producers of seamless SLP pipe in China have both the

ability and the incentive to increase exports of subject seamless SLP pipe. We also conclude that the

United States is a highly attractive market for Chinese seamless SLP pipe producers, for reasons including

its size and attractive prices, trade barriers in other markets, the U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty

orders on OCTG, and Chinese producers’ familiarity with the U.S. market. Additionally, we note that the

market share of subject imports in the United States has increased during the period examined or

remained at near-period high levels, regardless of U.S. market conditions. Thus, we conclude that subject

import volume is likely to be significant in the imminent future, both in absolute terms and relative to

consumption and production in the United States, and that the increase in subject imports’ market share

will likely be significant.

D. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

1. Analysis of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

As explained above in the discussion of conditions of competition, the domestic like product and

subject imports are generally interchangeable, and price is an important consideration in purchasing

decisions.171 Moreover, most sales of both the domestic like product and subject imports are made to

distributors.172

The Commission collected quarterly pricing data for four seamless SLP pipe products.173 Usable

pricing data were provided by four domestic producers, accounting for *** percent of domestic

producers’ shipments during the period examined, and thirteen importers, accounting for *** percent of

shipments of subject imports during the period.174 Subject imports undersold the domestic like product in

 167 See e.g., Oil Country Tubular Goods from China, USITC Pub. 701-TA-463, 731-TA-1159 (Final) (May 2010);

Oil Country Tubular Goods from China, USITC Pub. 4124, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-469 (Final) (Jan. 2010).

 168 Imports of OCTG from China into the United States increased from 725,027 short tons in 2006 to 860,711

short tons in 2007 and 2.20 million short tons in 2008. Oil Country Tubular Goods from China, USITC Pub. 4124 at

16, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-469 (Final) (Jan. 2010). Following the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties,

imports of OCTG from China into the United States virtually ceased. See e.g., Prehearing Br. of V&M Star, TMK

IPSCO, and the United Steel Workers at 17 & Exh. 5 at 4. 

 169 Prehearing Br. of U.S. Steel Corporation at 83-84 and Exh. 97; Metal Bulletin Research, Issue 55 (April 2010)

at 9. 

 170 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 171 CR/PR at Tables II-5 & II-7. 

 172 CR/PR at Table II-1. 

 173 CR at V-4, PR at V-3 to V-4.

 174 CR at V-5, PR at V-4. 

23
55 of 56 quarterly pricing comparisons by margins ranging from 5.2 percent to 65.4 percent.175 We find

that subject imports undersold the domestic like product to a significant degree during the period

examined.

In examining the record for evidence that subject imports had significant price depressing effects,

we note that prices for all four U.S.-produced seamless SLP pipe products increased overall during the

period examined.176 U.S. prices for all four products increased sharply between 2007 and 2008, but then

declined in 2009 from their peak 2008 levels, before recovering somewhat in late 2009 (product 1) and

the first half of 2010 (products 2, 3, and 4).177 Prices for the subject imports from China also generally

increased between 2007 and 2008 and often moved in the same direction as U.S. prices in 2009 and

interim 2010.178

Despite price declines in 2009 and significant underselling, we do not find adequate evidence on

the record to conclude that subject imports significantly depressed or suppressed the price of domestically

produced seamless SLP pipe. As discussed above, domestic producers’ prices increased to very high

levels in 2008, indicating that the underselling by subject imports did not depress prices for the domestic

like product between 2007 and 2008. Although domestic producers’ prices declined in 2009, we are

unable to conclude that subject imports had significant price depressing effects given that there were

other, unusually adverse market factors having an impact at that time, including a sharp fall in demand

and the relatively large amount of seamless SLP pipe that was stockpiled in inventory. Indeed, despite

underselling, Chinese subject import market share actually fell slightly from *** percent in 2008 to ***

percent in 2009.179 Absent additional data demonstrating the price depressing effects of subject imports in

2009, we are unable to conclude that those effects were significant. Nor do we see evidence of significant

price depression in interim 2010. To the contrary, U.S. prices for three of the four products increased

somewhat in interim 2010.180

We also do not find sufficient evidence to conclude that subject imports prevented price increases

that otherwise would have occurred to a significant degree. Given that the domestic industry’s COGS to

net sales ratio declined between 2007 and 2008, the domestic industry was evidently able to raise its

prices sufficiently to more than cover its costs.181 Although the domestic industry experienced a sharp

increase in costs relative to sales revenues in 2009,182 this increase coincided with a sharp drop in

demand.183 184 185 This decline in demand during the period examined, especially between 2008 and 2009, 

 175 For products 1 and 2, subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 27 out of 28 quarterly pricing

comparisons by margins ranging from 5.2 percent to 63.2 percent. For products 3 and 4, subject imports undersold

the domestic like product in all 28 quarterly pricing comparisons by margins ranging from 8.3 percent to

65.4 percent. CR/PR at Table V-7.

 176 CR at V-5, PR at V-4; CR/PR at Tables V-2 to V-5.

 177 CR at V-5, PR at V-4; CR/PR at Tables V-2 to V-5.

 178 CR at V-5, PR at V-4; CR/PR at Tables V-2 to V-5.

 179 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 180 CR/PR at Tables V-2 to V-5.

 181 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 182 COGS as a percentage of sales increased from *** percent in 2008 to *** percent in 2009, and was lower in

interim 2010, at *** percent, than in interim 2009, at *** percent. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 183 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 184 We do not find the increasing COGS to net sales ratio between 2008 and 2009 to be especially probative

because other factory costs rose sharply as a result of a large dropoff in capacity utilization, which in turn was due to

the sharp contraction in demand. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 185 Commissioner Pinkert notes here that U.S. demand for seamless SLP is inelastic relative to supply. See CR at

II-25, 26, PR at II-18. He notes as well, however, that -- despite the slump in demand discussed in the text -- U.S.

producers were able to pass through to their purchasers a very substantial percentage of their unit cost increases,

24
made it more difficult for domestic producers to raise prices; purchasers had less need for seamless SLP

pipe and were therefore likely less willing to pay higher prices. Accordingly, we are unable to find that

subject imports, which fell in tandem with the downturn in demand and maintained a relatively steady

share of the market, played a significant role in the increase in the industry’s COGS/sales ratio in 2009. 

For these reasons, we do not find that subject imports significantly suppressed prices for the domestic like

product in 2009. Further, we do not find that subject imports suppressed price increases in interim 2010. 

The domestic industry’s COGS/sales ratio was lower in interim 2010, at *** percent, than in interim

2009, at *** percent.186

For the above reasons, we conclude that subject imports are not currently having a significant

adverse effect on domestic producers’ prices for seamless SLP pipe.187

2. Analysis of Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

We next consider the likely price effects of subject imports in the imminent future. As it attempts

to increase exports to the United States, the Chinese industry is likely to continue to use aggressive

pricing as a means to increase market share, given that seamless SLP pipe from China and the domestic

like product are generally substitutable. Because subject imports undersold domestically produced

seamless SLP pipe to a significant degree during the period examined – both in 2007 and 2008 when

demand was robust, and in 2009 when demand was relatively depressed – we find that underselling is

likely to be significant in the imminent future. This underselling by subject imports is likely to increase

the attractiveness of those imports to domestic purchasers compared with domestically produced pipe.

With regard to whether price depression is likely as a result of subject imports, we first examine

how the market responded when subject imports largely exited the market in interim 2010. The record

indicates that certain demand indicators, such as apparent U.S. consumption and the rig count, were

somewhat higher in interim 2010 than in interim 2009, but that overall demand was still relatively

depressed compared to levels earlier in the period examined.188 Despite continuing weak demand,

however, the substantial declines in subject import volumes in interim 2010 (due in part to the pendency

of these investigations) allowed the domestic industry to raise prices by more than enough to cover its

costs.189 In fact, for all four pricing products, domestic producers’ U.S. prices were moderately higher

beginning in the second quarter of 2010 compared to the fourth quarter of 2009.190 In the imminent

future, however, and in the absence of antidumping or countervailing duty orders, increasing and

significant subject import volumes would be priced aggressively in an effort to gain market share. 

Moreover, demand is not expected to grow robustly in the imminent future, and inventory stockpiles are

still relatively high.191 In this environment, domestic producers would be forced to lower prices in order

to compete for sales and try to prevent erosion of their market share. Accordingly, subject imports are

particularly in the first half of 2009 (when unit costs peaked). See CR/PR at Table VI-1. Because the degree to

which the cost increases were passed through during a period of declining demand was consistent with the relative

elasticities of demand and supply, he does not find that subject imports prevented price increases that otherwise

would have occurred.

 186 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 187 The domestic industry did not make any lost sales or lost revenue allegations in these investigations. 

 188 Demand for seamless SLP pipe in the U.S. market was slightly higher in interim 2010, at *** short tons, than

in interim 2009, at *** short tons. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 189 CR/PR at Tables V-2 to V-5.

 190 CR/PR at Tables V-2 to V-5.

 191 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 77 (Mr. Conway). 

25
likely to enter the U.S. market at prices that would have a significant depressing effect on domestic prices

for seamless SLP pipe. 

Similarly, with regard to price suppression, although demand is expected to increase to a modest

degree in the imminent future, domestic producers will likely be unable to raise prices to offset cost

increases that might occur, due to competition from the increased volume of aggressively priced subject

imports. As subject imports cause the domestic industry to experience increased per-unit production costs

due to declining sales volumes and prevent domestic producers from raising prices in order to offset the

higher costs, the domestic industry will likely experience a cost/price squeeze. For these reasons, we

conclude that subject imports are likely to enter at prices that will have significant price suppressing as

well as price depressing effects. 

We conclude that, in the imminent future, and in the absence of antidumping and countervailing

duty relief, increased quantities of subject imports that are priced aggressively in an effort to gain market

share will cause domestic producers to lower prices in a market recovering from severely depressed

demand. As subject imports cause domestic sales volumes and prices to deteriorate and per-unit costs to

increase, the domestic industry will likely experience significant price depression and suppression. 

E. Impact of the Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry

1. Analysis of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

Apparent U.S. consumption of seamless SLP pipe fluctuated over the period examined,

increasing from 2007 to 2008, and falling from 2008 to 2009.192 As discussed above, apparent U.S.

consumption was slightly higher in interim 2010 than in interim 2009, although it remained well below its

level in 2007.193 Many indicators of the domestic industry’s performance fluctuated in the same manner,

including production,194 capacity,195 capacity utilization,196 shipments,197 net sales,198 operating income and

 192 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 193 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 194 The domestic industry’s production declined *** percent overall between 2007 and 2009. Its production was

*** short tons in 2007, *** short tons in 2008, and *** short tons in 2009. Production was *** short tons in interim

2009 and *** short tons in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 195 The domestic industry’s capacity declined *** percent overall between 2007 and 2009. Its capacity was ***

short tons in 2007, *** short tons in 2008, and *** short tons in 2009. Capacity was *** short tons in interim 2009

and *** short tons in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 196 The domestic industry’s capacity utilization declined by *** percent overall between 2007 and 2009. Its

capacity utilization was *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. Capacity utilization was

*** percent in interim 2009 and *** percent in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 197 U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments declined by *** percent overall between 2007 and 2009. Their domestic

shipments were *** short tons in 2007, *** short tons in 2008, and *** short tons in 2009. Shipments were ***

short tons in interim 2009 and *** short tons in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 198 The domestic industry’s net sales, by value, declined *** percent overall between 2007 and 2009. Its net sales

totaled *** in 2007, *** in 2008, and *** in 2009. Net sales totaled *** in interim 2009 and *** in interim 2010. 

CR/PR at Table C-1.

26
operating margins,199 employment,200 and inventory.201 Although most of the industry’s performance

indicators were down sharply in 2009 compared with 2007, this decline appears to have been linked

primarily to declines in demand. In particular, despite increasing volumes of subject imports, favorable

demand conditions permitted the industry to increase prices and register record profits in 2008.202

Although competition from aggressively priced subject imports may have prevented the domestic industry

from making even greater gains, the record does not establish a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry during the period from 2007 to 2009, with the domestic industry registering solid

operating profits in all of those years.203 As noted above, the domestic industry experienced modest

improvement in most of its performance indicators in interim 2010, including double-digit operating

profits.204 

Accordingly, we do not find that the domestic industry producing seamless SLP pipe was

materially injured by reason of subject imports during the period examined.

2. Analysis of Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

 Throughout much of the period examined, the seamless SLP industry maintained strong financial

returns. As discussed above, as a ratio to net sales, the domestic industry’s operating income was ***

percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. It was *** percent in interim 2010

compared to *** percent in interim 2009.205 Indeed, the profitability of the U.S. industry reached record

levels in 2008, at *** percent, even as subject import volumes were at their highest level.206 U.S. prices

rose during the period examined overall.207 Moreover, in the most recent period, interim 2010, the

domestic industry was able to increase its prices to cover increases in costs.208 On the other hand, in light

of the fact that demand is unlikely to rise substantially in the imminent future, the domestic industry is

unlikely to perform as well in the near term as it did during the period examined. On balance, however,

given the industry’s solid financial performance throughout the period, we do not find that the domestic

 199 The domestic industry’s operating income declined by *** percent overall between 2007 and 2009. Its

operating income totaled *** in 2007, *** in 2008, and *** in 2009. Operating income was *** in interim 2009 and

*** in interim 2010. As a ratio to net sales, the domestic industry’s operating income was *** percent in 2007, ***

percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. It was *** percent in interim 2009 and *** percent in interim 2010. 

CR/PR at Table C-1.

 200 Production and related workers (“PRWs”) were *** in 2007, *** in 2008, *** in 2009, *** in interim 2009,

and *** in interim 2010. Hours worked by PRWs were *** in 2007, *** in 2008, *** in 2009, *** in interim 2009,

and *** in interim 2010. Worker productivity (in tons per 1,000 hours) was *** in 2007, *** in 2008, *** in 2009,

*** in interim 2009, and *** in interim 2010 . CR/PR at Table C-1.

 201 U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories were *** short tons in 2007, *** short tons in 2008, *** short tons

in 2009, *** short tons in interim 2009, and *** short tons in interim 2010. CR/PR at C-1.

 202 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 203 As discussed above, as a ratio to net sales, the domestic industry’s operating income was *** percent in 2007,

*** percent in 2008, *** percent in 2009, *** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. CR/PR at

Table C-1.

 204 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 205 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 206 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 207 CR/PR at Tables V-2 to V-5.

 208 CR/PR at Table C-1.

27
industry is currently in a vulnerable state, despite lost wages and lost employment among production

workers.209

Although we do not find that the domestic industry is in a vulnerable condition, the state of the

domestic seamless SLP industry toward the end of the period examined (2009 and interim 2010) weighs

heavily in our consideration of the likely impact of subject imports in the imminent future. As discussed

above, despite a positive trend in the industry’s performance through 2008, its performance in 2009

declined substantially in terms of production, capacity utilization, shipments, net sales, operating income,

and operating margins. The industry experienced overall declines in these performance indicators

between 2007 and 2009 and only a moderate recovery in interim 2010.210

The current state of the domestic industry is primarily attributable to the sudden drop in demand

that began in 2008. Looking forward, the conditions that drove demand and domestic prices upward

earlier in the period examined are not likely to recur in the imminent future. Rather, demand is likely to

improve only modestly in the imminent future.211

We evaluate the likely effects of the significant volume of aggressively priced subject imports

from China on the domestic industry in the imminent future in light of these market conditions. As

discussed above, with stable but relatively weak demand for seamless SLP pipe, and with a substantial

decline in the volume of subject imports in interim 2010 due in part to the pendency of these

investigations, the domestic industry was able to increase its sales volume compared to interim 2009. In

the absence of antidumping and countervailing duty relief, the likely increasing and significant volumes

of subject imports would be aggressively priced in an effort to gain market share and would put pressure

on domestic producers to lower prices to compete for sales and prevent erosion of their market share. 

Consequently, the domestic industry would likely experience declines in production, market share,

capacity utilization, shipments, employment levels, net sales, operating income, and profitability. 

Accordingly, we find that there is a likely causal relationship between the subject imports and an

imminent adverse impact on the domestic industry. 

 We have considered whether other factors would likely have an imminent adverse impact on the

domestic industry. As noted, we recognize the impact of the decline in demand for seamless SLP pipe

after 2008 on the domestic industry’s performance. Although demand is likely to remain at depressed

levels in the imminent future, it is not likely to decline further from present levels, but instead will

increase only modestly. Accordingly, the likely further declines in the domestic industry’s production,

market share, capacity utilization, shipments, employment levels, productivity, and operating income will

come as a result of subject imports gaining market share and having adverse price effects on domestic

seamless SLP pipe, rather than as a result of renewed declines in demand. 

We also recognize that nonsubject imports were a factor in the U.S. market during the period

examined. Nonsubject import prices, however, tended to be higher than subject import prices.212

Although subject imports and nonsubject imports *** of the U.S. market between 2007 and 2009,213

 209 Commissioner Pinkert does not join this paragraph and finds that the domestic industry is vulnerable to

material injury by reason of the subject imports. He notes that, in addition to the generally declining indicators of

the industry's condition during 2007-2009, the industry's financial performance reached its low point for the period

examined in July-December 2009 (the last period that was essentially unaffected by the filing of the petition), with

its operating income margin falling to only *** percent and its operating income falling to only $***. See CR/PR at

Additional Table 1. 

 210 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 211 CR/PR at II-1 to II-2.

 212 CR/PR at Table E-1.

 213 U.S. producers’ market share, based on quantity, decreased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2009; it

was *** percent in interim 2009 and *** percent in interim 2010. The market share of the subject imports, based on

quantity, increased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2009; it was *** percent in interim 2009 and ***

28
subject imports gained more market share from the domestic industry than did nonsubject imports, some

of which were subject to the discipline of antidumping duty orders.214 While the market share of

nonsubject imports was *** percent in interim 2010 compared to *** percent in interim 2009, the

domestic industry’s market share was *** percent in interim 2010 compared to *** percent in interim

2009, indicating that the domestic industry captured market share entirely from subject imports following

the filing of the petitions.215 Moreover, a significant portion of the volume of nonsubject imports in 2009

and interim 2010 was attributable to imports of specialized products that are not produced by the

domestic industry.216 Despite the substantial market share maintained by nonsubject imports in interim

2010, we note that the domestic industry’s condition improved, as the industry’s operating income as a

ratio to net sales was *** percent in interim 2010, compared to *** percent in interim 2009.217

Accordingly, nonsubject imports are not likely to take market share or sales from the domestic industry in

the imminent future.

We conclude that a significant volume of LTFV and subsidized imports from China would likely

gain additional U.S. market share in the imminent future and lead to material injury by reason of subject

imports in the absence of antidumping and countervailing duty relief. Accordingly, we determine that the

domestic industry is threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from China. 

We further determine, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)(4)(B), that we would not have found

material injury but for the suspension of liquidation of subject imports. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the domestic industry producing seamless SLP pipe

is threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from China that are sold at LTFV and

subsidized by the Government of China.

percent in interim 2010. Nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption, based on quantity, increased from

*** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2009; it was *** percent in interim 2009 and *** percent in interim 2010. 

CR/PR at Table C-1.

 214 U.S. imports of seamless SLP pipe from Germany, Romania, and Japan were subject to antidumping duty

orders during the period examined. CR at IV-8, PR at IV-5.

 215 See CR/PR at Table C-1.

 216 CR/PR at IV-8 to IV-9; Hearing Tr. at 90-91 (Pognonec).

 217 CR/PR at Table C-1.

29

 SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER CHARLOTTE R. LANE

On the basis of the record in the final phase of these investigations, I determine that an industry in

the United States producing certain seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe

(“seamless SLP pipe”) is materially injured by reason of imports of seamless SLP pipe from the People’s

Republic of China (“China”) that the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) has found to be sold in the

United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the Government of China. I join my colleagues’

findings with regard to: I. Background, II. Domestic Like Product, III. Domestic Industry, IV. Legal

Standards, and V. Conditions of Competition. I write separately to explain my conclusion that the

domestic industry has already suffered material injury at the hands of subject imports. I also make a

negative critical circumstances finding.

VI. MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS:

From 2007 through 2008, the domestic seamless SLP pipe industry performed strongly in a

growing market, enjoying increasing levels of sales, prices, employment, production and profits. 

However, during 2008, the continued pervasive underselling of the domestic like product by Chinese

seamless SLP pipe, enabled U.S. importers to more than double their entries of seamless SLP pipe into

the United States, gain U.S. market share at the expense of domestic producers, and more than triple their

own inventories of subject imports. 

In late 2008 and early 2009, as the financial crisis hit the U.S. economy, energy prices and the

active rig counts dropped, while the decline in non-residential construction accelerated. This severely

reduced U.S. demand for seamless SLP pipe. However, low-priced subject imports flooded the U.S.

market in late 2008 and continued at relatively high volumes over the course of 2009, maintaining their

2008 market share in a significantly smaller U.S. market, and further increasing inventories of Chinese

seamless SLP pipe.

While sales prices of U.S.-produced seamless SLP pipe continued at a relatively high level in the

first half of 2009 (due to commitments negotiated in late 2008), the combination of high inventories of

low-priced subject imports and a further decrease in U.S. consumption of seamless SLP pipe meant that

the prices for new seamless SLP pipe decreased in the second half of 2009. The domestic industry’s

order books plummeted in 2009, causing U.S. producers to operate at a mere *** percent capacity

utilization in 2009, compared to over *** percent in 2008. U.S. importers began working-down their

large inventories of low-priced subject imports in the second half of 2009 and the first half of 2010,

creating additional downward pressure on U.S. prices.

The connection between subject imports and the U.S. industry’s poor 2009 experience is apparent

even after accounting for the impact of the economic crisis that began in late 2008. While apparent U.S.

consumption of seamless SLP pipe was down *** percent in 2009 compared to 2008, domestic

production and shipments were approximately *** percent lower and operating profits were *** percent

lower, forcing producers to layoff more than *** of their production-related workforce. Notwithstanding

the recession of 2009, the presence of large volumes of unfairly-traded and highly-substitutable subject

imports negatively affected every domestic industry performance indicator in 2009, and many

performance indicators in the first half of 2010. 

During the preliminary phase of these investigations, at which time the period examined included

data up through June 2009, my colleagues and I found a reasonable indication that the domestic industry

31
was threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports.1

 Now having an additional twelve

months of data on the record, it is clear that the U.S. seamless SLP pipe industry was materially injured

by reason of unfairly-traded seamless SLP pipe imports from China during the period examined.

For these reasons, as explained further below, I make an affirmative determination on the basis of

present material injury.

A. Volume of Subject Imports:

While apparent U.S. consumption increased *** percent from 2007 to 2008, subject import

volume increased at a substantially faster rate in 2008, increasing by *** percent compared to 2007.2

Subject imports’ share of the U.S. market increased, from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008, and

remained stable at *** percent in 2009.3

 Thus, subject imports captured a substantial portion of the

domestic seamless SLP pipe market from 2007 to 2009.

Subject import levels continued to be very high throughout 2009, entering in volumes larger than

total domestic production and sales. From February 2010 onward, new entries of subject imports

dramatically declined. I attribute the reduction of new entries of subject imports to Commerce’s

preliminary determinations issued in March and April 2010.4

 As a result I give reduced weight to the

decline in the absolute volume of entries of subject imports in 2010. 

A substantial share of the subject imports purchased by U.S. importers in 2008 was not sold

downstream to distributors and end-users in that year, but instead remained in the inventories of U.S.

importers. Inventories of subject imports held by U.S. importers increased by *** percent from 2007 to

2008, and peaked at *** short tons in June 2009.5

 Even with a decline in inventories during the second

half of 2009 as importers worked down their large inventories of subject seamless SLP pipe, these

 1 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-469

and 731-TA-1168 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4106 (Nov. 2006) (“Preliminary Determination”). The data on the

record in the preliminary phase of these investigations showed: (1) increasing subject import market share

throughout the period examined; (2) increasing U.S. importer end-of-period inventories of subject imports

throughout the period examined; (3) a domestic industry with “strong performance” from 2006 through 2008; but (4)

a “severe curtailment” of domestic industry operations in the second quarter of 2009, such that Commissioners

Williamson and Pinkert and I found that the domestic industry was in a weakened and vulnerable state. Id., at 34,

n.142.

 2

 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 3

 CR/PR at Table C-1. The ratio of subject imports to domestic production increased even more substantially,

from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009. The ratio of subject imports to domestic

production was *** percent in January-June 2010 compared to *** percent in January-June 2009. CR/PR at Table

IV-20. 

 4

 Commerce's preliminary countervailing duty determination, describing twelve countervailable programs with

subsidy margins of 11.06 to 12.97 percent, was published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2010. Certain

Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the People’s Republic of China:

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Preliminary Affirmative Critical Circumstances

Determination, 75 Fed. Reg. 9163, 9180 (March 1, 2010). Commerce's preliminary antidumping duty determination,

with dumping margins that ultimately ranged from 22.67 to 98.37 percent, was initially published on April 28, 2010. 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the People’s Republic of China:

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical

Circumstances, 75 Fed. Reg. 22372, 22383-22383 (April 28, 2010); and Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the People’s Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Affirmative

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 Fed. Reg. 29972, 29973 (May 28, 2010).

 5

 CR/PR at Table C-1.

32
inventories were *** percent higher in December 2009 than they had been in December 2008.6

 U.S.

importers further worked down their large inventories of subject seamless SLP pipe in the first half of

2010.7

 Similarly, responding U.S. purchasers (primarily distributors) worked down their large inventories

of subject imports in the first half of 2010.8

Thus, including sales of subject imports from U.S. importers’ inventories, the volume of subject

imports competing with the domestic like product was still quite significant in the first half of 2010,

despite the large decline in new entries of subject imports. Specifically, subject imports still comprised

*** percent of shipments of seamless SLP pipe in the U.S. market during the first half of 2010.9

As a result of the growth in subject import volume, the U.S. market share held by domestic

seamless SLP pipe producers steadily declined over the period examined. The domestic industry’s U.S.

market share fell from *** percent in 2007, to *** percent in 2008, and to *** percent in 2009. The

domestic industry’s market share was substantially higher in interim 2010, at *** percent, than it was in

interim 2009, at *** percent.10

The combined volume of imports from nonsubject countries nearly followed demand trends,

increasing from 2007 to 2008, then decreasing from 2008 to 2009, for an overall decrease of *** percent

from 2007 to 2009. The market share of nonsubject imports increased from *** percent in 2007 to ***

percent in 2009.11

Based on the foregoing discussion, I find that the volume of subject imports was significant, both

in absolute terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States, during the period

examined.

B. Price Effects of Subject Imports:

As addressed in Part V. Conditions of Competition, the record indicates that: (1) there is a

moderately high level of interchangeability between subject imports from China and domestic seamless

 6 U.S. importers’ inventories of subject imports were the following: *** short tons in December 2008; *** short

tons in June 2009; and *** short tons in December 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 7

 U.S. importers’ inventories of subject imports decreased *** percent from December 2009 to June 2010. INVHH-099 at Additional Table 1. 

 8

 U.S. purchasers reduced their inventories of subject imports by at least 37,336 short tons, from an end-of-period

inventory of 89,816 short tons in 2009, to an end-of-period inventory of 52,480 short tons in June 2010. CR/PR at

Table II-2.

 9

 See CR/PR at Table C-1. After adjusting for changes in U.S. importers’ end of period inventories from 2009 to

June 2010, calculated U.S. consumption of seamless SLP pipe was *** short tons in the first half of 2010. Of that,

*** short tons were of Chinese origin, *** short tons were from nonsubject sources, and *** short tons were U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments. Thus, U.S. market shares based on this calculation of U.S. consumption were as follows:

U.S. producers with *** percent; subject imports with *** percent; and nonsubject imports with the remaining ***

percent.

 10 CR/PR at Table C-1. See supra, note 9, for market shares adjusted for inventory depletion.

 11 The sudden increase in market share for nonsubject imports in 2009 reportedly is attributable to the importation

from Germany of special, heavy-walled line pipe designed specifically for two projects in the Gulf of Mexico. CR at

IV-8 - 9; PR at IV-5; Conference Transcript at 105 (Pognonec); U.S. Steel Postconference Brief at n.139; and V&M

Postconference Brief at 9. This type of pipe reportedly is not produced by the domestic industry, and the Chinese

industry does not compete for the Gulf projects. Preliminary Determination, at 35, n.145. The leading source for

heavier-walled large diameter seamless SLP pipe in 2009 was Germany. CR/PR at IV-1 - 2, n.4. The data on the

record appear to confirm at least the large increase in nonsubject import market share in the first half of 2009. 91

percent of German seamless SLP pipe imports in 2009 entered the U.S. market in the first half of 2009. CR/PR at

Table IV-5 and tabular n.1. In the second half of 2009, nonsubject import market share was *** percent, down from

*** percent during the first half of 2009. INV-HH-099 at Additional Table 1.

33
SLP pipe;12 (2) most sales of both the domestic like product and subject imports are made to distributors;13

(3) price is a very important factor in purchasing decisions;14 and (4) raw materials account for a large

share of the cost of seamless SLP pipe production.15

The Commission collected quarterly pricing data from domestic producers and importers of

subject imports for four seamless SLP pipe products.16 Usable pricing data were provided by four

domestic producers, accounting for *** percent of domestic producers’ shipments during the period

examined, and thirteen importers, accounting for *** percent of shipments of subject imports during the

period.17 Subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 55 of 56 quarterly pricing comparisons

by margins averaging 37.7 percent, and ranging from 5.2 to 65.4 percent.18 Subject import underselling

margins were high throughout the period examined. I find subject import underselling of the domestic

like product to be both pervasive and significant throughout the period examined.

I have considered trends in seamless SLP pipe prices over the period examined. Prices for all

four pricing products increased steadily from 2007 through the first quarter of 2008, sharply increased

from the second quarter of 2008 through the first quarter of 2009,19 and then decreased significantly in the

second and third quarters of 2009.20 From the fourth quarter of 2009 through June 2010, prices

recovered, albeit unevenly, to end higher than they were in 2007.21

Average unit values (“AUVs”) of domestic seamless SLP pipe increased by *** percent from

2007 to 2008, increased *** percent from 2008 to 2009, but were *** percent lower in interim 2010

compared to interim 2009.22

Given the large price rise during the period examined, and the fact that prices for all four pricing

products, as well as AUVs, ended the period higher than when they started despite the fall-off in

underlying demand, I do not find that the subject imports significantly depressed prices for the domestic

like product.

I have also considered the degree to which subject imports prevented domestic industry price

increases which otherwise would have occurred.23 Specifically, I examined the domestic industry’s cost

of goods sold (“COGS”) as a share of net sales over the period examined. However, due to significant

fluctuations in demand, U.S. production, and raw material costs, I have also closely examined per unit

sales values and per unit raw material costs.24

For the entire period examined, the domestic industry’s COGS-to-sales ratio increased slightly

from *** percent to *** percent.25 This increase was caused by fixed costs being allocated over fewer

 12 CR at II-21 to II-25; PR at II-16 to II-18. CR/PR at Table II-7 and Table II-8.

 13 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 14 CR/PR at Table II-3 and Table II-4.

 15 CR/PR at V-1.

 16 CR at V-2 through V-5; PR at V-2 to V-4.

 17 CR at V-5.

 18 CR/PR at Table V-7.

 19 Three of the four products’ prices peaked in the first quarter of 2009, and one product’s prices peaked in the

fourth quarter of 2008. CR at V-2 through V-5; PR at V-2 to V-4.

 20 CR at V-2 through V-5; PR at V-2 to V-4.

 21 CR at V-2 through V-5; PR at V-2 to V-4.

 22 Within the full year 2009, prices in the first half of 2009 were *** percent higher than that for the second half

of 2009. Interim 2010 prices were only *** percent lower than prices for the second half of 2009. CR/PR at Table

C-1; INV-HH-099 at Additional Table 1.

 23 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 24 In comparing per unit sales values and per unit raw material costs, I was mindful of the potential product mix

issues inherent in using average unit values.

 25 CR/PR at Table C-1.

34
sales.26 From 2007 to 2008, the domestic industry’s COGS-to-sales ratio decreased by *** percentage

points from *** percent to *** percent.27 However, from 2008 to 2009 U.S. producers’ COGS-to-sales

ratio increased by *** percentage points to *** percent.28 Similar to the comparison of full period

examined, this increase in the domestic industry’s COGS-to-sales ratio was again due to fixed costs being

allocated over significantly fewer sales.29 Within the full year 2009, as subject imports increased their

share of the U.S. market from the first half to the second half of 2009, the domestic industry’s COGS-tosales ratio increased by *** percentage points to *** percent, despite a *** percent increase in U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments in the second half of 2009.30 Compared to the first half of 2009, the domestic

industry’s per unit raw material costs for the second half of 2009 increased ***, while per unit sales

values decreased ***.31 Similarly, comparing interim 2009 and interim 2010, per unit raw material costs

increased ***, while per unit sales values decreased ***, although the domestic industry’s COGS-to-sales

ratio decreased slightly due to fixed costs being allocated over more than twice the amount of sales.32 

Given the range of assumed demand, substitution, and supply elasticities, U.S. producers should

have been able to pass through a significant portion of any increase in their input cost to purchasers.33

From 2007 through 2008, as demand sky-rocketed, domestic producers were able to pass through all raw

material cost increases to purchasers. However, beginning in 2009 and continuing through the remainder

of the period examined, the continuing sales by U.S. importers of large volumes of significantly lowerpriced seamless SLP pipe from China prevented U.S. producers from even maintaining their prices during

a period of rising raw material costs.34 Accordingly, I find that subject imports suppressed domestic

prices to a significant degree during the period examined. 

In sum, I find that pervasive and significant subject import underselling of the domestic like

product throughout the period examined contributed significantly to the substantial market share that

subject imports gained during the 2007 to 2009 period at the expense of the domestic industry. Subject

imports gained *** percentage points in market share between 2007 and 2009, while U.S. producers lost

 26 Per unit sales values were *** higher in 2010 than in 2007, while per unit raw material costs were only ***

higher in 2010 than in 2007. However, combined per unit direct labor and “other factory costs” were *** more in

2010 than in 2007. CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 27 Per unit sales values were *** higher in 2008 than in 2007, while per unit raw material costs were only ***

higher in 2008 than in 2007. CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 28 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 29 Per unit sales values were *** higher in 2009 than in 2008, while per unit raw material costs were *** less in

2009 than in 2008. However, combined per unit direct labor and “other factory costs” were *** more in 2009 than

in 2008. CR/PR at Table VI-1. 

 30 U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments increased from *** short tons in the first half of 2009 to *** short tons in the

second half of 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1; INV-HH-099 at Additional Table 1.

 31 U.S. producers’ per unit raw material costs increased from *** per short ton in the first half of 2009 to *** per

short ton in the second half of 2009, while U.S. producers’ per unit sales values decreased from *** in the first half

of 2009 to *** in the second half of 2009. CR/PR at Table VI-1 and CR/PR at VI-5, n.6.

 32 Combined per unit direct labor and “other factory costs” were *** more in interim 2009 compared to interim

2010. CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 33 Since demand for seamless SLP pipe is relatively price inelastic, one would expect that U.S. producers would

be able to pass a majority of the increased input cost to purchasers. As the available information suggests that there

were no close substitutes for seamless SLP pipe in most applications, the demand elasticity for seamless SLP pipe is

likely to be low to medium. Commission Staff estimated a demand elasticity in the range of -0.5 to -1.0. 

Commission Staff have estimated the elasticity of substitution between U.S.-produced seamless SLP pipe and

imported seamless SLP pipe to be in the range of 2 to 4. Commission Staff have estimated that domestic supply

elasticity for seamless SLP pipe is likely to be relatively high, in the range of 5 to 10. CR at II-25 through II-26; PR

at II-18 through II-19.

 34 See CR/PR at Tables V-2 through V-5.

35
*** percentage points in market share during that same period.35 Furthermore, continued subject import

underselling from 2009 through the end of the period examined suppressed U.S. prices to a significant

degree. Accordingly, I find that subject imports have had significant adverse effects on domestic prices

during the period examined.

C. Impact of Subject Imports:

I have examined the performance indicators in the trade and financial data for the domestic

seamless SLP pipe industry.36 Between 2007 and 2008, the domestic seamless SLP pipe industry

registered significant gains in most indicators, except for market share, for which it lost *** percentage

points.37 However, for many of the indicators that did improve, the extent of the gains were well below

the *** percent increase in apparent U.S. consumption from 2007 to 2008 because the volume of lowpriced subject imports increased by *** percent over this period and captured *** percentage points of

market share, *** points of which came at the expense of the domestic industry.38 

Demand for seamless SLP pipe in the U.S. market began to decline in the fourth quarter of 2008,

and remained low throughout 2009. Apparent U.S. consumption in 2009 was *** percent lower than in

2008.39 However, significant volumes of subject imports continued to enter the U.S. market through

February 2010,40 increasing U.S. importer inventories of low-priced subject imports41 and decreasing

demand for new seamless SLP pipe supply in 2009. Instead of purchasing newly-produced seamless SLP

pipe, many distributors and end-users purchased subject imports from U.S. importers’ inventories,

significantly decreasing domestic order books.42 In the first half of 2008, U.S. producers’ order books for

seamless SLP pipe peaked at roughly 73,500 short tons per quarter.43 Since then, order books decreased

markedly, reaching the lowest level of 3,093 short tons in the second quarter of 2009.44

As a result, virtually all domestic industry performance indicators were drastically lower in 2009

compared to 2008. Domestic production was *** percent lower in 2009 compared to 2008.45 Similarly,

U.S. shipments in 2009 were *** percent less than the level of U.S. shipments in 2008.46 Domestic

producers lost *** percentage points of market share in 2009 compared to 2008.47 With domestic

producers operating at only *** percent of production capacity in 2009, employment of production and

related workers was *** percent lower than in 2008, the equivalent of *** fewer workers.48

Domestic industry profits were still relatively strong in the first half of 2009 as many sales were

made at higher prices negotiated when demand was stronger in 2008. However, the significant decline in

domestic industry prices led to increasingly poor financial performance during the second half of 2009. 

Compared to the first half of 2009, domestic industry operating income was *** percent lower in the

second half of 2009 and the domestic industry’s profit margin was *** percentage points lower in the

 35 Nonsubject imports gained *** percentage points of market share at the expense of the domestic industry from

2007 to 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 36 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 37 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 38 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 39 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 40 CR/PR at Table IV-11.

 41 CR/PR at Table C-1; INV-HH-099 at Additional Table 1.

 42 CR/PR at Table III-6.

 43 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 44 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 45 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 46 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 47 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 48 CR/PR at Table C-1.

36
second half of 2009.49 Comparing the full year 2008 to 2009, domestic industry operating profits were

*** percent less and profit margins were *** percentage points lower.50

I have examined factors other than subject imports to ensure that I have not attributed injury from

other factors to the subject imports.51 In doing so I note that even if other factors are contributing injury

to the domestic industry, the Commission is not required to isolate the effects of subject imports from

other factors contributing to injury52 or make “bright-line distinctions” between the effects of subject

imports and other causes,53 and that the existence of injury caused by other factors does not compel a

negative determination.54 It is sufficient to consider causes of injury to the domestic industry other than

subject imports, and to determine that, notwithstanding other causes of injury, the subject imports

contributed to the injury to a significant degree. 

One significant “other factor” in this case is the significant decline in U.S. demand for, and

apparent U.S. consumption of, seamless SLP pipe. I reject respondents’ argument that the condition of

the domestic industry is solely the result of the market cycle entering a downturn.55 The decrease in U.S.

producer U.S. shipments and production of new seamless SLP pipe by the U.S. industry in 2009

significantly exceeded the decrease in actual U.S. consumption of seamless SLP pipe.56 Despite the

decrease in demand, subject imports entered the United States in significant volumes, exceeding the U.S.

shipments of the domestic industry and maintaining market share in the much smaller U.S. market of

2009.57 Although 2009 output levels would be expected to drop due to the reduction in demand from

2008, the evidence in this case indicates that the impact of unfairly-traded subject imports, which

maintained *** of the U.S. market, contributed significantly to the domestic industry’s low capacity

utilization in 2009.58

Furthermore, a significant share of the seamless SLP pipe consumed in the first half of 2010 (at

least *** percent) was being drawn from the large U.S. importer inventories, which were

disproportionately comprised of subject imports.59 Similarly, data on responding U.S. seamless SLP pipe

 49 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 50 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 51 See Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Statement of

Administrative Action on Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. I at 851-52 (1994) (“SAA”); S.

Rep. 96-249 at 75. I also refer to my dissenting views in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from

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

(Oct. 2008).

 52 SAA at 851-52; Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

 53 Associacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha de Chile AG v. United States, 180 F.Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct.

Int’l Trade 2002).

 54See Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1381 (“an affirmative material-injury determination under the

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

cause of injury.”).

 55 Hengyang Valin Prehearing Brief at 14.

 56 Apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent less in 2009 than in 2008, whereas domestic shipments were ***

percent less, and domestic production was *** percent less, over the same period. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 57 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 58 In the first half of 2010, in which subject imports’ presence in the market dropped significantly, despite

apparent U.S. consumption levels being slightly higher than that in the first half of 2009, U.S. producers were able to

increase sales by *** percent and increase production by *** percent, compared to the first half of 2009. CR/PR at

Table C-1.

 59 See CR/PR at Table C-1. U.S. importers reduced their inventories of subject imports by *** short tons, and

reduced their inventories of nonsubject imports by *** short tons. Thus, *** percent of actual U.S. consumption

during the first half of 2010 was comprised of U.S. importer sales of subject imports. See supra, note 9, for an

adjusted calculation of U.S. consumption for interim 2010.

37
purchasers (primarily distributors) show that distributors also sold very substantial amounts of subject

imports out of inventory in the first half of 2010.60 This working down of large inventories of low-priced

subject imports prolonged the negative impact of the subject imports, as they depressed domestic sales

and revenues through June 2010. I find that, although the decline in U.S. consumption during the 2009

through June 2010 period had a negative impact on the domestic industry, that impact was exacerbated by

significant volumes of low-priced subject imports entering the market in 2009 as well as the inventory

work down in the first half of 2010, both of which displaced domestic sales. Thus, decreased U.S.

demand does not sufficiently explain the severe decrease in virtually all of the domestic seamless SLP

pipe industry’s performance indicators in 2009. 

In addition to the decline in apparent U.S. domestic consumption and demand, I have also

considered nonsubject imports as a potential “other factor” that may have been contributing to the injury

to the domestic industry during the period examined. I find that the presence of nonsubject imports does

not undermine my finding of material adverse effects due to subject imports. Although combined imports

from nonsubject sources gained *** percentage points of U.S. market share from 2007 to 2009, subject

imports captured *** percentage points during that same period. Furthermore, the overall increase in

subject import market share in 2009 is largely attributable to the importation of specialized German pipe

in the first half of 2009.61 Nonsubject imports did not increase in absolute or relative terms to the same

degree as did subject imports, particularly from 2007 to 2008, and U.S. importer inventory levels of

nonsubject imports were much more stable than that for subject imports.62 Prices of nonsubject imports

were generally higher than prices of subject imports throughout the period examined.63 If subject imports

had been fairly traded, subject import volumes would have likely been lower. It is likely that the lower

subject import volumes would have been filled to some extent, but not exclusively, by fairly-traded

nonsubject imports. The remainder of that volume would have benefitted the domestic industry by way

of increased prices, sales, production, market share and employment, among other performance

indicators. 

After considering other potential causes of injury to the domestic industry, including decreased

demand and the presence of nonsubject imports, I conclude that the domestic industry would have been

better off if subject imports had been fairly traded. I have not attributed any injury from decreased U.S.

demand and/or nonsubject imports to subject imports. 

 In sum, I find that both the absolute and relative volumes of subject imports, and their increase

during the period examined, were significant. Subject imports gained market share at the expense of the

domestic industry by underselling the domestic product to a significant degree throughout the period

examined and suppressing U.S. prices from 2009 through June 2010. The presence of large volumes of

unfairly-traded subject imports exacerbated the severe declines in the domestic industry’s trade,

employment, and financial performance in 2009 and the first half of 2010: the injury caused by imports of

seamless SLP pipe from China was not merely “incidental, tangential, or trivial.”64 Accordingly, I find

that subject imports had a material adverse impact on the domestic industry during the period examined.

 60 Responding purchasers reduced their inventories of subject imports by at least 37,336 short tons in the first half

of 2010. CR/PR at Table II-2.

 61 See supra, at note 11.

 62 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 63 Nonsubject imports had AUVs substantially higher than those of subject imports, and even higher than those of

the domestic product, throughout the period examined. CR/PR at Table C-1. Based on quarterly price comparisons

involving specific seamless SLP pipe products, prices of nonsubject imports were in most cases higher than prices of

subject imports, while in most cases lower than prices of the domestic product. CR/PR at E-3.

 64 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1384; Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873.

38
D. Conclusion:

For the foregoing reasons, I determine that the domestic seamless SLP pipe industry is materially

injured by reason of subject imports of seamless SLP pipe from China found to be sold in the United

States at less than fair value and subsidized by the Government of China.

VII. CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES:

In its final antidumping and countervailing duty determinations, Commerce found, as it had in its

preliminary determinations, that critical circumstances existed with respect to imports from China of

seamless SLP pipe from Hengyang Valin and the PRC-wide entity, but did not exist with respect to

Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corporation.65 Because I have determined that the domestic seamless SLP pipe

industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports from China, I must further determine “whether

the imports subject to the affirmative *** ... are likely to undermine seriously the remedial effect of the

antidumping order to be issued.”66 The SAA indicates that the Commission is to determine “whether, by

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

the remedial effect of the order.”67

The statute further provides that in making this determination the Commission shall consider

among other factors it considers relevant –

(I) the timing and the volume of the imports,

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

(III) any other circumstances indicating that the remedial effect of the 

 antidumping order will be seriously undermined.68

In considering the timing and volume of subject imports, the Commission’s practice is to consider

import quantities prior to the filing of the petition with those subsequent to the filing of the petition69

using monthly statistics on the record regarding those firms for which Commerce has made an affirmative

critical circumstance determination.70

 65 CR/PR at IV-18; PR at IV-14; Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From

the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Determination, Final Affirmative Critical

Circumstances Determination, 75 FR 57444, September 21, 2010; Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel

Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing

Determination, Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances, in Part, 75 FR

57449, September 21, 2010.

 66 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4)(A)(I).

 67 SAA at 877.

 68 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4)(A)(ii).

 69 The legislative history for the critical circumstances provision indicates that the provision was designed “to

deter exporters whose merchandise is subject to an investigation from circumventing the intent of the law by

increasing their exports to the United States during the period between the initiation of an investigation and a

preliminary determination by ***.” ICC industries, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 694, 700 (Fed. Cir. 1987),

quoting H.R. Rep. No. 317, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 63 (1979).

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

731-TA-1095-1097 (Final) USITC Pub. 3884 (September 2006) at 47; Carbozole Pigment from China and India,

Inv. Nos. 701-TA-437 and 731-TA-1060 and 1061 (Final), USITC Pub. 3744 (December 2004) at 26; Certain

Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam, Inv. No. 731-TA-1012 (Final), USITC Pub. 3617 (August 2003) at 20-22. 

However, the Commission is not required to examine the same period that Commerce examined in performing its

critical circumstances analysis. Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Final), USITC

(continued...)

39
U.S. Steel argues that the Commission should make an affirmative finding of critical

circumstances based on the fact that subject import volume was *** percent higher in the six months

following the filing of the petition compared to the six-month period up to and including the month in

which the petition was filed.71 Hengyang Valin argues that critical circumstances do not exist because the

increase in subject imports was mainly due to a spike in November 2009, and that spike did not have any

impact on the domestic industry.72

Based on a comparison of subject import volumes over the six-month periods before and after the

petition’s filing in September 2009, although monthly imports from China *** in the six months after the

petition was filed, I do not consider the increase as likely to seriously undermine the remedial effect of the

orders. 

I have also examined the extent to which there was an increase in inventories of the subject

imports.73 U.S. importers’ ending inventories of subject imports increased by *** short tons during the

first six months of 2009, but then decreased by *** short tons for the second six months of 2009, and then

decreased further by *** short tons in the first half of 2010.74 The inventory evidence on the record

strongly supports that U.S. importer inventories of subject imports were lower in the six month period

following the filing of the petition compared to the six months prior to the filing of the petition. 

Accordingly, I conclude that the likely decrease in inventories of subject imports during that time period

will not seriously undermine the remedial effect of the orders.

Nor do I find the existence of any other circumstances indicating that the remedial effect of orders

will be seriously undermined.

In sum, I find that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to the subject imports covered

by Commerce’s affirmative critical circumstances determination, and therefore I make a negative critical

circumstances finding.

 70(...continued)

Pub. 3034 (April 1997) at 34.

 71 U.S. Steel Prehearing Br. at 39-41.

 72 Hengyang Valin Posthearing Br. at 28-29.

 73 See 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4)(A)(i)(II).

 74 See CR/PR at Table C-1.

40
PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from a petition filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by U.S. Steel

Corp., Pittsburgh, PA and V&M Star L.P., Houston, TX on September 16, 2009,1

 alleging that an industry

in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized and

less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of certain seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and

pressure pipe (“seamless SLP pipe”)2

 from China. Information relating to the background of the

investigations is provided below.3

Effective date Action

September 16, 2009 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission

investigation (74 FR 48282, September 22, 2009)

October 14, 2009 Commerce’s antidumping duty notice of initiation (74 FR 52744)

October 15, 2009 Commerce’s countervailing duty notice of initiation (74 FR 52945)

November 6, 2009 Commission’s determination in preliminary (74 FR 57521)

March 1, 2010 Commerce’s preliminary countervailing duty determination (75 FR 9163)

April 28, 2010

Commerce’s preliminary antidumping duty determination (75 FR 22372);

scheduling of final phase of Commission’s investigations 

(75 FR 26273, May 11, 2010)

May 28, 2010 Commerce’s amended preliminary antidumping duty determination (75 FR 29972)

September 14, 2010 Commission’s hearing1

September 21, 2010 Commerce’s final countervailing duty determination (75 FR 57444); 

Commerce’s final antidumping duty determination (75 FR 57449)

October 15, 2010 Commission’s vote

November 4, 2010 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce

 1 A list of witnesses appearing at the hearing is presented in appendix B.

 1 On September 25, 2009, the petition was amended to add TMK IPSCO and The United Steel, Paper and

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Worker International Union (“USW”) as

additional petitioners.

 2

 See the section entitled “The Subject Merchandise” in Part I of this report for a complete description of the

merchandise subject to these investigations.

 3 Federal Register notices relating to Commerce’s final determinations and the Commission’s schedule are

presented in app. A.

I-1
STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in

making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission--

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II)

the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States

for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only

in the context of production operations within the United States; and . . .

may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of

imports.

Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C) further provides that--

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission

shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any

increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production

or consumption in the United States is significant.

. . .

In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the

Commission shall consider whether . . . (I) there has been significant

price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the

price of domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of

imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph

(B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to

. . . 

(I) actual and potential declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (II)

factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative

effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to

raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects

on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping

investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping.

I-2
Organization of the Report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, final subsidy and dumping

margins, and domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of

competition and other relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the

U.S. industry, including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Parts IV

and V present the volume of subject imports and pricing of domestic and imported products, respectively.

Part VI presents information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. Part VII presents the

statutory requirements and information obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the

question of threat of material injury as well as information regarding nonsubject countries.

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

Seamless standard pipe’s end-use applications include the low pressure conveyance of water,

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

units, automatic sprinklers, and other related uses. Seamless line pipe is intended for the conveyance of

oil and natural gas and other fluids in pipe lines, transmission lines, or gathering lines. Seamless pressure

pipe is intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas,

and other liquids and gases at elevated temperatures or pressures, or both, in industrial piping systems.

The U.S. producers of seamless SLP pipe include Michigan Seamless Tube LLC (“Michigan

Seamless”); Plymouth Tube Co. (“Plymouth”); The Timken Co. (“Timken”); TMK Ipsco (“TMK

IPSCO”); U.S. Steel Corp. (“U.S. Steel”); V&M Star, L.P. (“V&M Star”); Wheatland Tube Co.

(“Wheatland”); and Wyman-Gordon Forgings, Inc. (“Wyman-Gordon”). U.S. Steel is the largest

producer of seamless SLP pipe ***. The largest responding producer of seamless SLP pipe in China is

***. The leading U.S. importers of seamless SLP pipe from China are ***. U.S. purchasers of seamless

SLP pipe include distributors and, to a lesser extent, end users that typically purchase directly from U.S.

mills and U.S. importers. The leading U.S. purchasers of seamless SLP pipe are distributors ***.

Apparent U.S. consumption of total seamless SLP pipe4

 totaled *** short tons ($***) in 2009. 

Currently, eight firms reported producing seamless SLP pipe (either small or large diameter) in the United

States. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of total seamless SLP pipe totaled *** short tons ($***) in 2009,

and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S.

imports from China totaled *** short tons ($***) in 2009 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. imports from nonsubject sources totaled ***

short tons ($***) in 2009 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and

*** percent by value.

Apparent U.S. consumption of small diameter seamless SLP pipe5

 totaled *** short tons ($***)

in 2009. Currently, six firms (Michigan Seamless, Plymouth, Timken, TMK IPSCO, U.S. Steel, and

Wheatland) are known to produce small diameter seamless SLP pipe in the United States. U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments of small diameter seamless SLP pipe totaled *** short tons ($***) in 2009,

and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S.

imports from China totaled *** short tons ($***) in 2009 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. imports of small diameter seamless SLP pipe

from nonsubject sources totaled *** short tons ($***) in 2009 and accounted for *** percent of apparent

U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value.

 4 The term “total seamless SLP pipe” refers to the combination of both small diameter and large diameter

seamless SLP pipe (as those terms are defined in the following footnotes).

 5

 The term “small diameter seamless SLP pipe” refers to seamless SLP pipe up to and including 4.5 inches in

outside diameter.

I-3
Apparent U.S. consumption of large diameter seamless SLP pipe6

 totaled *** short tons ($***) in

2009. Currently, four firms (Timken, U.S. Steel, V&M Star, and Wyman-Gordon) reported producing

large diameter seamless SLP pipe in the United States. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of large diameter

seamless SLP pipe totaled *** short tons ($***) in 2009, and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. imports from China totaled *** short tons

($***) in 2009 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent

by value. U.S. imports of large diameter seamless SLP pipe from nonsubject sources totaled *** short

tons ($***) in 2009 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and ***

percent by value.

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in the investigations is presented in appendix C, tables C-1 through

C-6. Tables C-1 through C-3 include all seamless SLP pipe currently within the scope of these

investigations (which excludes ASTM A-335 pipe). Tables C-4 through C-6 include all seamless SLP

pipe within the scope and also ASTM A-335 pipe. The eight identified producers that provided at least

partial data accounted for the large majority of U.S. production of seamless SLP pipe during 2009 (see

Part III of this report). U.S. imports are based on official Commerce statistics (see Part IV of this report)

as adjusted by questionnaire data to exclude ASTM A-335 pipe. Foreign producers’ and exporters’ data

are based on questionnaire responses of four producers and exporters in China (see Part VII of this report)

as well as published sources. Additional information regarding a comparison of small diameter and large

diameter seamless SLP pipe as well as a comparison of seamless pipe meeting the ASTM A-335

specification and seamless pipe not meeting the ASTM A-335 specification appears in appendix D. 

Further information regarding price data -- specifically incorporating prices of small diameter and large

diameter seamless SLP pipe from nonsubject countries -- appears in appendix E.

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Title VII Investigations

Seamless SLP pipe has been the subject of several Commission investigations and reviews. A

listing of these proceedings is presented in table I-1. Of the three antidumping duty orders in place, two

cover small diameter seamless SLP pipe only (Germany, Romania) while one covers small diameter and

large diameter seamless SLP pipe (Japan).

 6 The term “large diameter seamless SLP pipe” refers to seamless SLP pipe greater than 4.5 inches and less than

or equal to 16 inches in outside diameter.

I-4
Table I-1

Seamless SLP pipe: Previous and related investigations, 1980-2010

Original Investigation Review

Current status

Date1 Number Country Outcome Date1 Outcome

1980 731-TA-15 Japan Negative2 3 -- -

1982 731-TA-87 Japan

Affirmative/

Negative4 - -

ITA revoked effective

10/29/85

1994 701-TA-362 Italy Affirmative 2000 Negative ITA revoked effective 8/8/00

1994 731-TA-707 Argentina Affirmative

2000 Affirmative

2006 Negative ITA revoked effective 7/16/06

1994 731-TA-708 Brazil Affirmative

2000 Affirmative

2006 Negative ITA revoked effective 7/16/06

1994 731-TA-709 Germany Affirmative

2000 Affirmative

2006 Affirmative Continuation order 5/18/07

1994 731-TA-710 Italy Affirmative 2000 Negative ITA revoked effective 8/3/00

2000 731-TA-846

The Czech

Republic Affirmative 2005 Negative ITA revoked effective 8/14/05

2000 731-TA-847 Japan Affirmative 2005 Affirmative Continuation order 5/8/06

2000 731-TA-848 Mexico Affirmative 2005 Negative ITA revoked effective 8/14/05

2000 731-TA-849 Romania Affirmative 2005 Affirmative Continuation order 5/8/06

2000 731-TA-850 South Africa Affirmative 2005 Negative ITA revoked effective 8/14/05

 1 “Date” refers to the year in which the investigation or review was instituted by the Commission.

 2

 Preliminary determination.

 3 See Determination of the Commission After Reconsideration of Imports Provided for in Item 610.3205 of the Tariff Schedule

of the United States Annotated, 45 FR 47769, July 16, 1980.

 4

 The Commission made an affirmative determination with respect to seamless heat-resisting and seamless stainless pipes

and tubes, and a negative determination with respect to seamless “other alloy” pipes and tubes.

Source: Compiled from U.S. International Trade Commission publications.

Global Safeguard Investigations

Following receipt of a request from the Office of the United States Trade Representative

(“USTR”) on June 22, 2001, the Commission instituted investigation No. TA-201-73, Steel, under section

202 of the Trade Act of 19747

 to determine whether certain steel products, which included seamless

carbon and alloy steel SLP pipe,8

 were being imported into the United States in such increased quantities

as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industries producing

articles like or directly competitive with the imported article.9

 On July 26, 2001, the Commission

received a resolution adopted by the Committee on Finance of the U.S. Senate (“Senate Finance

 7 19 U.S.C. § 2252.

 8 Steel, Inv. No. TA-201-73, USITC Publication 3479, December 2001, volume 1, p. 155.

 9 Institution and Scheduling of an Investigation under Section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) (the

Act), 66 FR 35267, July 3, 2001.

I-5
Committee” or “Committee”) requesting that the Commission investigate certain steel imports under

section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974.10 Consistent with the Senate Finance Committee’s resolution, the

Commission consolidated the investigation requested by the Committee with the Commission’s

previously instituted investigation No. TA-201-73.11 On December 20, 2001, the Commission issued its

determinations and remedy recommendations. With regard to this product category, the Commission

made a negative determination, concluding that the U.S. seamless pipe industry was not seriously injured

by increased U.S. imports, citing the profitability of the U.S. industry during the period examined.12

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV 

Subsidies

On September 21, 2010, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final

determination of countervailable subsidies for producers and exporters of seamless SLP pipe from

China.13 Commerce identified the following government programs in China:

A. Policy Loans to the Seamless Pipe Industry

B. Export Loans from the Export-Import Bank of China

C. Provision of Steel Rounds for Less Than Adequate Remuneration

D. Provision of Electricity for Less Than Adequate Remuneration

E. The State Key Technology Project Fund

F. Subsidies Provided in the Tianjin Binhai New Area and the Tianjin Economic and

Technological Development Area

G. Other Subsidies Received by TPCO

H. Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions for FIEs Using Imported Equipment in Encouraged

Industries

 I. Income Tax Credits for Domestically Owned Companies Purchasing Domestically

Produced Equipment

 10 19 U.S.C. § 2251.

 11 Consolidation of Senate Finance Committee Resolution Requesting a Section 201 Investigation with the

Investigation Requested by the United States Trade Representative on June 22, 2001, 66 FR 44158, August 22,

2001.

 12 Steel, Inv. No. TA-201-73, Publication No. 3479, volume 1, p. 188 (“In summary, the data present a mixed

picture as to whether the domestic industry is seriously injured. There were annual fluctuations in many of the

factors examined. . . Nevertheless, one facet of domestic industry performance remained consistent throughout the

period examined: profitability. The domestic industry maintained strong operating margins throughout the period,

other than in 1999.”).

 13 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the People’s Republic of

China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances

Determination, 75 FR 57444, September 21, 2010.

I-6
J. “Two Free, Three Half” Program

K. Local Income Tax Exemption and Reduction Programs for “Proactive” FIEs

L. Government Debt Forgiveness

Table I-2 presents Commerce’s findings of subsidization of seamless SLP pipe from China.

Table I-2

Seamless SLP pipe: Commerce’s final subsidy determination with respect to imports from China

Entity

Final

countervailable

subsidy margin

(percent)

Tianjin Pipe (Group) Co., Tianjin Pipe Iron Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Tianguan

Yuangtong Pipe Product Co., Ltd., Tianjin Pipe International Economic and

Trading Co., Ltd., and TPCO Charging Development Co., Ltd. 13.66

Hengyang Steel Tube Group International Trading, Inc., Hengyang Valin Steel

Tube Co., Ltd., Hengyang Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd., Xigang Seamless Steel

Tube Co., Ltd., Wuxi Seamless Special Pipe Co., Ltd., Wuxi Resources Steel

Making Col, Ltd., and Jiansu Xigang Group co., Ltd. 53.65

All others 33.66

Source: 75 FR 57444, September 21, 2010.

Sales at LTFV

On September 21, 2010, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final

determination of sales at LTFV with respect to imports from China.14 Table I-3 presents Commerce’s

dumping margins with respect to imports of seamless SLP pipe from China.

 14 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the People’s Republic of

China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances, in Part, 75 FR 57449,

September 21, 2010.

I-7
Table I-3

Seamless SLP pipe: Commerce’s final weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports

from China

Exporter Producer

Final

dumping margin

(percent)

Tianjin Pipe International Economic

and Trading Corporation Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corporation 48.99

Hengyang Steel Tube Group 

International Trading Inc.

Hengyang Valin Steel Tube Co., Ltd. and

Hengyang Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd. 82.03

Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co.,

Ltd.

Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd,

and Wuxi Seamless Special Pipe Co.,

Ltd. 65.51

Jiangyin City Changjiang Steel Pipe

Co., Ltd.

Jiangyin City Changjiang Steel Pipe Co.,

Ltd. 65.51

Pangang Group Chengdu Iron &

Steel Co., Ltd.

Pangang Group Chengdu Iron & Steel

Co., Ltd. 65.51

Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co.,

Ltd. Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd. 65.51

Yangzhou Chengde Steel Tube

Co., Ltd. Yangzhou Chengde Steel Tube Co., Ltd. 65.51

PRC-Wide Rate 98.74

Source: 75 FR 57449, September 21, 2010.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations as follows:

Certain seamless carbon and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipes and redraw

hollows, less than or equal to 16 inches (406.4 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of

wall-thickness, manufacturing process (e.g., hot-finished or cold-drawn), end finish (e.g.,

plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish

(e.g., bare, lacquered or coated). Redraw hollows are any unfinished carbon or alloy steel

(other than stainless steel) pipe or “hollow profiles” suitable for cold finishing operations,

such as cold drawing, to meet the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”)

or American Petroleum Institute (“API”) specifications referenced below, or comparable

specifications. Specifically included within the scope are seamless carbon and alloy steel

(other than stainless steel) standard, line, and pressure pipes produced to the ASTM A-53,

ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, ASTM A1024, and the API 5L specifications, or comparable specifications, and meeting the

physical parameters described above, regardless of application, with the exception of the

exclusion discussed below.

I-8
Specifically excluded from the scope of the investigation are: (1) all pipes meeting

aerospace, hydraulic, and bearing tubing specifications; (2) all pipes meeting the

chemical requirements of ASTM A-335, whether finished or unfinished; and (3)

unattached couplings. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are all

mechanical, boiler, condenser and heat exchange tubing, except when such products

conform to the dimensional requirements, i.e., outside diameter and wall thickness of

ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106 or API 5L specifications.15

The scope of these investigations has been modified over the course of this proceeding. As filed,

the petition specifically excluded boiler and mechanical tubing if such products are not produced to

ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795,

and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications. Commerce’s

notices of initiation did not retain the language regarding the exclusion of boiler and mechanical tubing

based on end-use applications. Subsequently, in Commerce’s preliminary determination of sales at less

than fair value, the issue of boiler and mechanical tubing was discussed further, and Commerce stated that

“if a product conforms to the specifications in the scope or a comparable specification, and it meets the

physical parameters identified in the scope, it is covered by the scope of the investigation.” However, on

June 23, 2010, following a letter filed jointly by Petitioners and Respondents, Commerce issued a

memorandum stating it was considering modifying the scope language to include a sentence reading:

“Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are all mechanical, boiler, condenser

and heat exchange tubing, except when such products conform to the dimensional

requirements, i.e., outside diameter and wall thickness of ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106 or

API 5L specifications.”

This scope language modification was integrated into the questionnaires issued by the

Commission.

Commerce also addressed an additional issue involving ASTM A-335 pipe. On August 19, 2010,

Commerce issued a memorandum following a request by Petitioners that Commerce exclude from the

scope of the investigation seamless SLP pipe produced to the ASTM A-335 specification. Commerce

indicated its intent to remove the reference to ASTM A-335 from the list of specifications within the

scope and to add the following language to the scope:

“Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are all pipes that meet the chemical

requirements of ASTM A-335 whether finished or unfinished.”

Both the mechanical and boiler tube and the ASTM A-335 exclusions were incorporated into the

final scope language in Commerce’s final determinations.

Tariff Treatment

The imported seamless SLP pipe subject to these investigations is classified in the 2010

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) in subheadings 7304.19, 7304.31, 7304.39,

 15 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the People’s Republic of

China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances, in Part, 75 FR 57449,

September 21, 2010.

I-9
7304.51, and 7304.59.16 The HTS statistical reporting numbers are provided for convenience and

customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive. The

column-1 general (normal trade relations) rates of duty for the subject product under all covered

subheadings are free.

THE PRODUCT17

Overview

Steel pipes and tubes are made in circular, rectangular, or other cross sections, and are generally

manufactured by either the welded or seamless production process. Steel pipe and tube manufactured by

either process can be categorized by the grades of steel (e.g., carbon and alloy) used in steel production.18

In addition, steel pipe and tube can be categorized by end-use. The American Iron and Steel Institute

(AISI) has defined six such end-use categories: standard pipe, line pipe, structural pipe and tubing,

mechanical tubing, pressure tubing, and oil country tubular goods (OCTG).19 The imported products

subject to these investigations are certain seamless SLP pipe produced from carbon or alloy (other than

stainless) steel.

Steel pipes and tubes generally are produced according to standards and specifications published

by a number of organizations, including the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and the American Petroleum Institute (API). 

Comparable organizations in the United Kingdom, Japan, Russia, and other countries also have developed

standard specifications for steel pipes and tubes.20

Description and Applications

Seamless standard pipe is commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification, and generally is

not intended for high temperature or high pressure service. Rather, typical end-use applications include

the low pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and

heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinklers, and other related uses. If used in water

 16 The merchandise covered by these investigations is currently imported under the following HTS statistical

reporting numbers: 7304.19.1020, 7304.19.1030, 7304.19.1045, 7304.19.1060, 7304.19.5020, 7304.19.5050,

7304.31.3000, 7304.31.6050, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024, 7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032,

7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0040, 7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0052, 7304.39.0056, 7304.39.0062,

7304.39.0068, 7304.39.0072, 7304.51.5005, 7304.51.5060, 7304.59.6000, 7304.59.8010, 7304.59.8015,

7304.59.8020, 7304.59.8025, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 7304.59.8050,

7304.59.8055, 7304.59.8060, 7304.59.8065, and 7304.59.8070. 

 17 Except where noted, information presented in this section is drawn from Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-707-709 (Second

Review), USITC Publication 3918, May 2007.

 18 Included in alloy grades are heat-resisting, stainless, and “other” alloy grades.

 19 Standard, line, and pressure pipe generally is intended to convey liquids and typically is tested and rated for its

ability to withstand hydrostatic pressure. Structural pipe and tubing is used for load-bearing purposes and

construction, although only small amounts of prime seamless pipe are used in structural applications. Seamless

mechanical tubing is typically a custom-designed product employed within the automotive industry and by

equipment manufacturers. OCTG is used in the drilling of oil and gas wells (drill pipe) and in the conveying of oil

and gas from within the well to ground level (casing and tubing).

 20 Particular specifications to which pipe products are produced are commonly marked on each pipe and are

referred to as a “stencil.”

I-10
wells, such pipe is typically certified to the ASTM A-589 specification. Fire protection applications are

covered by the ASTM A-795 specification.

Depending on the type and grade, however, standard pipe may carry liquids at elevated

temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low temperature

end uses or conditions are anticipated, seamless standard pipe may be produced to meet ASTM A-333

and A-334 specifications (covering carbon and alloy seamless pipe and tube for low temperature service).

Seamless line pipe is produced to the API 5L specification, and is intended for the conveyance of

oil and natural gas and other fluids in pipe lines, transmission lines, or gathering lines. Line pipe may

also be certified to the ASTM A-1024 specification. 

Seamless pressure pipe is commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 specification (covering

seamless carbon steel pipe for higher temperature service), and is intended for the conveyance of water,

steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas, and other liquids and gases at elevated

temperatures or pressures, or both, in industrial piping systems. Seamless pressure pipe may carry

substances at elevated temperatures and pressures and may be subjected to external heat. Seamless

pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-106 specification may be used in temperatures of up to 1,000 degrees

Fahrenheit at various ASME code stress levels.21

Seamless SLP pipe is commonly produced and certified to meet multiple specifications to avoid

separate production runs and inventories for pipe sold for different applications. Manufacturers often

quadruple certify22 pipe made to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, API 5L grade B, and API 5L X-42

specifications,23 thus allowing distributors to maintain a single inventory of quad stenciled pipe for use in

multiple applications.24 25

Seamless SLP pipe less than 2 inches in outside diameter is commonly pressure pipe produced to

the ASTM A-106 specification, and is frequently used in high pressure or high temperature applications,

 21 Seamless alloy pipes made to the ASTM A-335 specification (covering alloy steel pipe for high temperature

service) must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A-106.

 22 Quadruple certification is referred to as a “quad stencil,” whereby manufacturers put four stencils, or markings,

on the pipe to show that it has been produced to meet the requirements and tests pursuant to the respective

specifications.

 23 Principal differences among standard pipe made to the ASTM A-53 specification, pressure pipe made to the

ASTM A-106 specification, and line pipe made to the API 5L X-42 or grade B specifications include differences in

minimum yield strength, chemical composition, and variation in permissible weight and dimensional tolerances. 

Line pipe made to the API 5L X-42 specification has a higher minimum yield strength (42,000 pounds per square

inch (psi)) than line pipe made to the API grade B specification (35,000 psi), pressure pipe made to the ASTM A106 grade B specification (35,000 psi), and standard pipe made to the ASTM A-53 grade B specification (35,000

psi). Alloying elements such as Columbium (niobium) and titanium may be included in line pipe made to the API

5L X-42 or grade B specifications to achieve a higher minimum yield strength than that of standard pipe made to the

ASTM A-53 specification. Line pipe made to the API 5L X-42 specification may also contain more manganese,

which increases tensile strength and hardness, than either standard pipe (ASTM A-53) or pressure pipe (ASTM A106). Variations in permissible weight and dimensional tolerances are more stringent for pressure pipe (ASTM A106) and line pipe (API 5L grade B or X-42) than those for standard pipe (ASTM A-53). However, all of these

specifications overlap, so that pipe may be produced to comply with all of them. 

 24 Conference transcript, p. 29 (Lindgren).

 25 Although seamless SLP pipe may be quad-stenciled to meet the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, and API 5L X-42

or grade B specifications, seamless SLP pipe produced to the ASTM A-333 and A-334 specifications (covering

carbon and alloy seamless pipe and tube for lower temperature service) is not dual, triple, or quadruple certified with

ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, and API 5L X-42 or grade B because of the inclusion of higher levels of alloying

elements such as nickel, chromium, and molybdenum, and higher requirements for minimum tensile and yield

strengths that exceed those of ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, and API 5L X-42 or grade B. This is also true for

seamless pipe produced to the ASTM A-335 specification (covering alloy steel pipe for high temperature service).

I-11
such as in the construction or repair of refineries and chemical plants. Seamless SLP pipe with outside

diameters greater than 2 inches and less than or equal to 4.5 inches is commonly produced and certified to

the quad stencil certification and used in more general high pressure applications in industrial piping

systems. However, seamless SLP pipe that is 2-3 inches in outside diameter may also be used as

gathering lines connecting oil and natural gas wells to transmission lines.26 Oil and natural gas producers

specify the diameter of seamless SLP pipe needed according to the type of flow of oil or natural gas

achieved from a particular well.27

Most steel products, including those subject to these investigations, are produced from carbon

steel, which contains controlled amounts of carbon and manganese.28 Alloy steels, which provide

physical properties not achievable to the same degree as carbon steels,29 contain controlled amounts of

alloying elements—usually nickel, chromium, and molybdenum.30 ASTM specifications that include

alloy steel and that are referred to in these investigations are ASTM A-333 and A-334 (covering carbon

and alloy seamless pipe and tube for low temperature service)31 and the now-excluded ASTM A-335

(covering alloy steel pipe for high temperature service).32

Production Processes 

In the United States, steel used to produce seamless SLP pipe is made by either the basic-oxygen

process, in which scrap is added to molten pig iron and alloying materials to convert into molten steel, or

by the electric-arc furnace process, in which steel scrap, direct-reduced iron, cold pig iron, and alloying

materials are melted to convert into molten steel. The chemical composition of steel, including level of

carbon, manganese, and other alloying materials is controlled in the melting process. Molten steel

produced by either steelmaking process is continuously cast into either round or square billets, which are

the starting materials, for the production of seamless SLP pipe. Seamless SLP producers that do not

maintain steelmaking operations use purchased billets or redraw hollows as their raw material. Of the

eight U.S. producers that reported producing seamless SLP pipe, four use billets produced in their own

 26 “Over the years as you know there has been a huge development for the gas drilling in the U.S. In fact, close to

80 percent of the drilling is for gas, not for oil, and when you develop a gas well in a new territory where no

infrastructure exists, you need to be able to gather in line, let's say transmission line, and those will be using a

diameter that will in a two- to three-inch range in addition to the main line that will be more in a six-inch and

eight-inch range.” Conference transcript, p. 57 (Pognonec, responding to a question regarding shale gas).

 27 Conference transcript, pp. 56–57 (Pognonec).

 28 Manganese primarily increases tensile strength and hardness, while reducing ductility and weldability.

 29 Alloy steels achieve a high degree of strength and toughness while maintaining weldability—attributes that

carbon steels can achieve, though not always to the same degree.

 30 Nickel primarily increases toughness, especially at lower temperatures. Nickel also increases tensile strength

and hardness, while slightly reducing weldability. Chromium partly increases tensile strength and hardness, and

reduces weldability. Higher concentrations of chromium can improve corrosion and abrasion resistance. 

Molybdenum primarily increases tensile strength and hardness, but reduces weldability.

 31 ASTM A-333 and A-334 cover several grades of steel used for low temperature applications. Grades 1, 6, and

10 are carbon steel grades. Grades 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 11 are alloy steel grades containing nickel and additional

alloying elements. The most common alloy steel grade is grade 3, which contains approximately 3.5 percent nickel.

 32 ASTM A-335 covers 12 different alloy steel grades containing varying levels of chromium and molybdenum

and additional alloying elements used for high temperature service. 

I-12
steelmaking facilities,33 two purchase billets as raw materials,34 one is a finisher of pipe using purchased

semifinished pipe or redraw hollows,35 and one uses billets or hollows as inputs.36

Seamless SLP pipe is generally manufactured by either of two high temperature processes to form

a central cavity in a solid steel billet. In the rotary piercing process, a heated billet is gripped by angled

rolls that cause the billet to rotate and advance over a piercer point, forming a hole through the billet’s

length (figure I-1). In the extrusion process, the billet is hot-punch pierced and then extruded axially

through a die and over a mandrel, forming a hollow shell (figure I-2). The hollow shell produced by

either process is then rolled with either a fixed plug or a continuous mandrel inside the shell to reduce the

wall thickness and increase the length. The shell is then rolled in a sizing mill or a stretch reduction mill

where it is formed into a true round and sized to the specified diameter.37

Wyman-Gordon’s vertical extrusion manufacturing process for the production of ASTM A-335

and other forms of seamless pipe differs from the process described above. ***.

***. 

***.38

 33 Timken, TMK IPSCO, U.S. Steel, and V&M Star. TMK IPSCO’s Koppel (PA) facility produces billets to

make seamless SLP pipe at IPSCO’s Ambridge (PA) facility. U.S. Steel produces both billets and seamless SLP

pipe at its Fairfield (AL) facility and purchases billets to make seamless SLP pipe at its Lorain (OH) facility. 

Timken’s Gambrinus plant utilizes billets shipped from its Harrison Steel Plant and Faircrest Steel Plant. See, e.g.,

Staff interviews and plant tours at Timken (August 10, 2010) and U.S. Steel / Lorain (August 11, 2010).

 34 Wyman-Gordon does not make its own steel and Michigan Seamless Tube purchases solid round billets as raw

material. Company website found at http://www.mstube.com/process/index.html/.

 35 Wheatland Tube Co.’s Wheatland (PA) and Sharon Tube (PA) facilities.

 36 Staff telephone interview with *** on August 26, 2010. Plymouth Tube Company is a privately-held, family

owned supplier of carbon, alloy, specialty, stainless steel and nickel alloy tubing. It also produces boiler and heat

exchanger tubes to specification ASTM A-106. 

 37 For a detailed description of the tube-forming operations employed by the two U.S. producers that manufacture

both small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe in the United States, see Staff interviews and plant tours

at Timken (August 10, 2010) and U.S. Steel / Lorain (August 11, 2010).

 38 Staff interview and field trip to Wyman-Gordon, August 5, 2010.

I-13
Figure I-1

Seamless pipe: Sequence of operations used to produce seamless pipe products by piercing and

rolling

Source: AISI, Steel Products Manual: Steel Specialty Tubular Products, October 1980, p. 17.

I-14
Figure I-2

Seamless pipe: Sequence of operations in the production of an extruded tubular section

Source: AISI, Steel Products Manual: Steel Specialty Tubular Products, October 1980, p. 19.

Whereas most seamless SLP pipe is normally produced hot-finished, small diameter pipe of less

than two inches in outside diameter is normally cold drawn because hot-rolling of small diameter pipe is

not possible.39 Pipe also may be cold drawn to provide a smoother surface and closer dimensional

tolerances than that which can be produced by hot finishing. When pipe is to be cold drawn, seamless

hollows (redraw hollows)40 are first pickled in acid to remove scale and oxides from both the outside and

inside surfaces. Redraw hollows are then rinsed in water and coated with a lubricant for cold drawing. 

The hollow is pulled through a die and over an internal mandrel, which reduces the outside diameter and

increases the length (figure I-3). The mandrel inside the hollow controls the inside diameter and the wall

thickness. Following cold drawing, the hollows are annealed (heat treated).41

 39 The minimum diameter for hot rolling differs from producer to producer because of differences in equipment

capabilities.

 40 Redraw hollows, in these investigations, are any unfinished carbon or alloy steel pipe or “hollow profiles”

suitable for hot or cold finishing operations to form a tube or pipe that meet the ASTM or API specifications or

comparable specifications of the subject products.

 41 Alloy steel pipe and carbon steel pipe may require heat treating, which may involve one or more heating cycles

in either a continuous furnace or a batch furnace, with controlled rates of cooling. Specific heat treating

requirements are dependent upon the grade of steel being processed and the specification to which the steel is

produced. The same processes and equipment are used to heat treat carbon and alloy seamless SLP pipe.

I-15
Figure I-3

Seamless pipe: Diagram of the cold drawing process

Source: AISI, Steel Products Manual: Steel Specialty Tubular Products, October 1980, p. 25. 

Finishing operations on subject seamless SLP pipe can include a variety of steps such

straightening, cutting to length, inspection, testing, end finishing (e.g., beveling or threading), and

coating. Pipes may be furnished galvanized (hot-dip zinc coated for additional corrosion resistance) and

may be threaded and coupled, though such operations are not typical for line pipe.42

As discussed in Part III of this report, other steel seamless tubular products that are produced on

the same equipment as subject seamless SLP pipe include mechanical tubing, OCTG, boiler tubing, as

well as structural and other pipe and tubing. Of these products, OCTG is by far the largest, substantially

exceeding production levels of seamless SLP pipe in the United States.

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

Overview

The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic product(s) that are “like” the

subject imported product is based on a number of factors including: (1) physical characteristics and uses;

(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and

producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and (6) price. Information regarding these factors is

discussed below.

 For the purposes of its determinations in the preliminary phase of these investigations, the

Commission found, “a single domestic like product consisting of all seamless SLP pipe less than or equal

to 16 inches in outside diameter, that is co-extensive with the scope of the investigations.” In finding a

single domestic like product, the Commission commented:

“In any final phase of these investigations, we intend to seek further data to better assess

the extent to which the end uses for seamless SLP pipe vary with diameter, as argued by

 42 For example, common finishing operations at the U.S. Steel / Lorain facility include ***. During the final

stages of production at Timken, the tube ***. The tube is ***. After completion of all testing, the tube is stenciled

and tagged, and prepared for shipment. Staff interviews and plant tours at Timken (August 10, 2010) and U.S. Steel

/ Lorain (August 11, 2010).

I-16
Hengyang Valin, in order to determine whether end use presents a clear dividing line

between small and large diameter seamless SLP pipes.”43 

In light of these comments by the Commission and as was the case in the preliminary phase of

these investigations, data were collected for total seamless SLP pipe as well as separately for small and

large diameter seamless SLP pipe.

Petitioners contend that the Commission should find that seamless SLP pipe up to and including

16 inches in outside diameter constitutes one domestic like product.44 Respondents contend that seamless

SLP pipe up to and including 4.5 inches in outside diameter should constitute one domestic like product

(“small diameter SLP pipe”), while seamless SLP pipe greater than 4.5 inches and less than or equal to 16

inches in outside diameter should constitute a separate domestic like product (“large diameter SLP

pipe”).45

In the preliminary views, the Commission noted that “(a)ccording to staff interviews and followup communications, Wyman-Gordon Forgings is now believed to produce the domestic like product. The

company estimates that it produces and sells *** of large diameter (*** inch seamless ***) pipe annually. 

We will examine this issue in any final phase of these investigations.”

On February 4, 2010, the Commission received a letter from Wyman-Gordon requesting a

separate like product consideration for seamless SLP pipe made to the ASTM A-335 specification. In

light of this, data were collected for total seamless SLP pipe as well as separately for pipe made to the

ASTM A-335 specification. In Commerce’s final affirmative countervailing duty and LTFV

determinations for seamless SLP pipe, the scope language specifically excludes pipe meeting the

chemical requirements of ASTM A-335, whether finished or unfinished.

Small and Large Diameter Seamless SLP Pipe

Physical Characteristics and Uses

Petitioners argue that the only difference in the physical characteristics of small diameter and

large diameter seamless SLP pipe is the diameter of the products and that both small diameter and large

diameter seamless SLP pipe are made to identical specifications from the same grades of carbon and alloy

steel.46 Petitioners argue that such a size difference, by itself, cannot form the basis for a finding of

multiple like products.47 Petitioners argue that small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe have

overlapping end uses and that both are used in standard pipe, line pipe, and pressure pipe applications. 

 43 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from China, Investigation Nos.

701-TA-469 and 731-TA-1168 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4106, November 2009, p. 9.

 44 U.S. Steel’s prehearing brief, exh. 1 p. 8 and V&M Star, TMK IPSCO, and USW’s prehearing brief, p. 2.

 45 Respondents’ prehearing brief, pp. 2-3.

 46 Petition, pp. 15-16; V&M Star, TMK IPSCO, and USW’s postconference brief, p. 4. Hearing transcript, p. 120

(Thompson).

 47 Petition, pp. 15-16; U.S. Steel’s postconference brief, Exhibit 1, p. 6.

I-17
Respondents argue that small diameter seamless SLP pipe and large diameter seamless SLP pipe

often have distinct and separate end uses.48 Respondents also maintain that the information collected by

the Commission suggests that 4.5 inch outside diameter represents a clear dividing line within the like

products in terms of physical characteristics.49 Respondents argue that small diameter seamless SLP pipe

is primarily used in industrial applications, such as refineries and chemical plants, to carry small amounts

of liquids or gases under pressure, while large diameter seamless SLP pipe is primarily used in pipeline

applications to convey large volumes of oil or gas over longer distances.50

Responding U.S. producers observed that small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe

have different size ranges, which can impact the flow rate.51 Otherwise, however, U.S. producers reported

that small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe had similar physical characteristics and uses,

although the larger diameter pipe may be used more intensively in pipeline applications than the smaller

diameter pipe. U.S. purchasers similarly noted few physical differences other than diameter, although

two indicated that small diameter seamless SLP pipe is available in shorter lengths. In terms of use,

several purchasers indicated that small diameter seamless SLP pipe may be used more intensively in

higher pressure applications than large diameter seamless SLP pipe.

Manufacturing Facilities and Employees

During the period for which data were collected, U.S. Steel and Timken manufactured both small

diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe in the United States. Timken’s operations at Canton, OH,

produce seamless tubular products (primarily mechanical tubing, as well as pressure pipe and drill pipe)

on three piercing mills. The plant’s overall production capability ranges from 1.9 inches to 13 inches in

diameter.52 U.S. Steel produces large diameter seamless SLP pipe (4.5-9.875 inches outside diameter) at

its facility in Fairfield, AL. U.S. Steel produces both small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP

pipe at its facility in Lorain, OH, but in different mills on different equipment at that location.53

Petitioners contend that small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe is produced in

common manufacturing facilities using the same manufacturing equipment and employees,54 and further

point to the capability of TMK IPSCO to produce seamless SLP pipe up to 5.5 inches in outside diameter

on the same equipment as that used to produce small diameter SLP pipe.55 U.S. Steel states that the

processes used to make small diameter pipe and large diameter pipe are the same.56 

 48 Conference transcript, p. 133 (Mills).

 49 Respondents’ posthearing brief, pp. A-26, A-27.

 50 Conference transcript, pp. 133-134 (Mills); Hengyang’s postconference brief, p. 7.

 51 Hearing transcript, p. 119 (Thompson).

 52 The Timken / Gambrinus Plant's piercing mills are designated #3 (*** in outside diameter); #4 (*** in outside

diameter); and #5 (*** in outside diameter). Although Timken is primarily a mechanical tubing producer, company

representatives described ***. Staff plant tour and interview, Timken, August 10, 2010.

 53 U.S. Steel operates two seamless pipe mills at its Lorain facility. #3 seamless mill has a size range of 10.125" -

26"; the mill's major products are ***. #4 seamless mill has a size range of 1.900" - 4.500"; its major products are

***. Staff plant tour and interview, U.S. Steel / Lorain, August 11, 2010.

 54 Petition, p. 17.

 55 ***. E-mail from ***, October 12, 2009; staff telephone interview with ***.

 56 U.S. Steel’s producer questionnaire response, section II-14, attachment 16A.

I-18
Respondents argue that small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe is generally

manufactured in different mills using different equipment.57 Respondents argue that ***.58

In general, U.S. producers indicated that the production processes for small and large diameter

seamless SLP pipe are similar, but that the dimensions of the mill equipment limit the degree of overlap

on the same production lines. U.S. purchasers also noted a general similarity in production processes,

although several noted that some small diameter pipe is cold drawn.

Interchangeability

Both U.S. producers and U.S. purchasers responding to Commission questionnaires noted that

small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe generally are not interchangeable due to size

requirements of the finished pipe, although these same limitations are present within the “small” and

“large” categories. Exceptions were noted around the 4-1/2" diameter size and to a limited degree when

thicker-walled small diameter product can accommodate a higher flow rate that is comparable to thinnerwalled larger diameter product. 

Customer and Producer Perceptions

U.S. producers responded that the perceptions are similar for both small diameter and large

diameter seamless SLP. Responding U.S. purchasers largely agreed, although several noted that their

perception of small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe is dependent upon the dimensions

required for the end-use application.

Channels of Distribution

Both small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe are sold primarily through distributors

and secondly to end users.59 Table I-4 presents data on channels of distribution for U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments of the small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe.

Table I-4

Seamless SLP pipe: Channels of distribution for U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of small diameter 

and large diameter seamless SLP pipe, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Price

Details for pricing practices and prices reported for domestically produced and imported seamless

SLP pipe in response to the Commission’s questionnaires are presented in Part V of this report, Pricing

and Related Information. Table I-5 presents data on the average unit values of U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments of the small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe. Consistent with the data

presented below, to the extent that U.S. producers identified price differences, small diameter seamless

 57 Hengyang’s postconference brief, pp. 8–9.

 58 Hengyang’s postconference brief, p. 9.

 59 Both petitioners and respondents agree that the channels of distribution are generally the same for both small

diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe. Petitioners’ IPSCO, V&M Star, and USW postconference brief, p.

7 and Hengyang’s postconference brief, p. 8. In addition, U.S. producers and U.S. purchasers confirmed this

similarity in their responses to Commission questionnaires.

I-19
SLP pipe was considered to be priced higher than large diameter seamless SLP pipe. Purchasers

identified this relationship with greater frequency, but primarily emphasized the higher prices of pipe in

diameters of two inches or less (but also, in some instances, in larger diameters such as those greater than

ten inches).

Table I-5

Seamless SLP pipe: Average unit values of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of small diameter and

large diameter seamless SLP pipe, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

ASTM A-335 Pipe and Non-ASTM A-335 Pipe

Physical Characteristics and Uses

Wyman-Gordon has argued that seamless A-335 pipe produced from alloy steel should be treated

as a separate like product from seamless carbon steel and low-alloy steel pressure pipes (“carbon steel

pipe”) because the A-335 specification is very different from the standards applicable to carbon steel

pipes.60 Specifically, Wyman-Gordon maintained that because of the inclusion of alloying elements such

as chromium, nickel, and molybdenum, which effectively increase the toughness of the material, A-335

has much higher tensile strengths that exceed those of carbon steel pipe. In addition, A-335 pipe is used

in applications at highly elevated temperatures whereas carbon steel pipe are only suitable for applications

at lower temperatures.61

The A-335 specification includes several grades of steels which are required to contain

molybdenum, chromium, and other alloys. The contents of these alloying elements cover a wide range

because distinct properties for the steel can be created by substituting these elements in the chemical

composition of the steel in these grades. For example, while all A-335 grades contain about 0.5 percent

to above 1 percent of molybdenum, low grade P1 does not require any chromium while high grade P122

must contain between 10 to 11.50 percent of chromium.62

In response to Commission questionnaires, responding U.S. producers reported differences in

chemistry between A-335 pipe and other forms of seamless SLP pipe, largely focusing on differences

between alloy and carbon steel, and on the heat treatment requirements for A-335 pipe, resulting in their

use in higher temperature applications. Responding purchasers generally agreed with respect to both

chemistry and applications.

 60 As stated earlier, the scope language in Commerce’s final determinations specifically excludes all A-335 pipe.

 61 As stated before, seamless carbon pressure pipe meeting the A-106 standard may be used in temperature up to

1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”) code stress levels. 

ASTM A-335 alloy pipe includes several alloys containing varying contents by weigh of up to 10 percent of

chromium while A-106 only contain 2 percent of chromium at maximum. Chromium is a chemical that enhance the

toughness of the material. A-53 and A-106 have tensile strengths ranging from 30,000 psi to 60,000 psi while A335's tensile strengths range from 55,000 psi to 95,500 psi. Tensile strength is the maximum pulling force at which

the material will break down. Tensile strength is measured in pounds per square inch (psi) which is the pulling force

per square inch of the cross sectional area of the material. 

 62 Annual Book of ASTM Standards-2009, Volume 01.01, p. 214; U.S. Steel Corp., “The Making, Shaping and

Treating of Steel,” 10th Edition, 1985, p. 1317.

I-20
Manufacturing Facilities and Production Employees

Wyman-Gordon argues that petitioners do not manufacture A-335 pipe and that WymanGordon’s Houston plant is the only domestic producer of A-335 pipe that can produce seamless pipe with

nominal wall-thickness greater than 1.594 inches.63 Specifically, Wyman-Gordon claimed that its 35,000-

ton vertical extrusion process is unique worldwide to Wyman-Gordon. Furthermore, Wyman-Gordon’s

specialized heat-treatment equipment, which has a quench-and-temper procedure that can operate up to

2,200 degrees Fahrenheit, is unique in the United States to Wyman-Gordon.64 By contrast, other domestic

seamless pipe producers typically employ the rotary piercing method with a maximum capacity from

2,000 to 5,000 tons. Since equipment operators at Wyman-Gordon’s facilities are trained in a very

sophisticated technology that is unique in the United States, these employees have skills that are

completely different from those of the employees in a typical carbon steel pipe mill. 

Wyman-Gordon stressed that its vertical extrusion process is entirely concentrated in the

production of A-335 pipe in large diameters while Michigan Seamless Tube’s process focuses exclusively

in smaller-diameter sizes.65

Petitioners, in response, disputed some of the specifics of those claims, stressing that there are

other producers of A-335 pipe in the United States.66 Petitioners also provided evidence showing that

they can produce seamless standard and line pipe with outside diameter of less than 16 inches and a wall

thickness at or larger than 1.594 inches. They also pointed out that domestic seamless producers such as

Michigan Seamless Tube have achieved very close tolerance for its pipe diameter, using a draw bench

and stationary die.67 However, U.S. producers generally acknowledged the different heat treatment

facilities required for A-335 pipe. U.S. purchasers provided few responses, typically indicating similar

production processes while noting distinctions such as cold drawing or heat treating.

Interchangeability

U.S. producers reported a degree of interchangeability in which A-335 pipe could be used in

certain applications, most specifically pressure applications requiring A-106 pipe. However, such

substitution was not deemed economical and was not possible in reverse. U.S. purchasers were largely

unable to even address the question, but those that did indicated that any interchangeability would be

unusual, one-way, and costly.

Customer and Producer Perceptions

Responding U.S. producers focused on the requirement of A-335 pipe for higher temperature

applications, but also noted differences in the customer base and in pricing practices. U.S. purchasers

provided limited responses and generally focused on material differences, application differences,

differences in volume and inventory, and prices.

 63 Bruce Malashevich, Economic Consulting Services, LLC, to the Commission, March 18, 2010, on behalf of

Wyman-Gordon.

 64 Wyman-Gordon’s producer questionnaire response, Part V–ASTM A-335, p. 40.

 65 Wyman-Gordon’s prehearing brief, p. 5.

 66 U.S. Department of Commerce’s letter to the Commission, April 22, 2010, p. 8.

 67 U.S. Department of Commerce’s letter to the Commission, April 22, 2010, p. 8.

I-21
Channels of Distribution

Both producers and purchasers, to the extent that they could address the issue, identified some

overlap in the channel structure for A-335 pipe and other forms of seamless SLP pipe, although the enduse customers could differ. Table I-6 presents the channels of distribution for U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments of ASTM A-335 pipe and seamless SLP pipe not produced to ASTM-335 specifications (“nonASTM A-335”). Additional details regarding the channel structure of U.S.-produced and imported

seamless SLP pipe are presented in Part II of this report, Conditions of Competition in the U.S. Market.

Table I-6

Seamless SLP pipe: Channels of distribution for U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of ASTM-335 and

non-ASTM-335 seamless SLP pipe, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Price

Responding U.S. producers and purchasers identified A-335 pipe as higher priced than other

forms of seamless SLP pipe. Table I-7 presents average unit values for U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of

ASTM A-335 and non-ASTM A-335 seamless SLP pipe in the United States from various sources. The

average unit value of small diameter ASTM A-335 pipe was *** times greater than small diameter non

ASTM A-335 pipe. The average unit value of large diameter ASTM A-335 pipe was *** times greater

than non-ASTM A-335 pipe.68 Pricing practices and prices reported for domestically produced and

imported seamless SLP pipe in response to the Commission’s questionnaires are presented in Part V of

this report, Pricing and Related Information.

Table I-7

Seamless SLP pipe: Average unit values of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of ASTM-335 and nonASTM-335, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

 68 However, in 2007, ***. This is consistent with an observation by U.S. importer *** that low-grade A-335 pipe

can be sold at prices only *** - *** percent higher than carbon steel pipe. *** quoted prices of imported A-335 pipe

at $*** - $*** per short ton, depending on the grade.

I-22
PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS 

Overview

Seamless SLP pipe is used for the transmission of oil and natural gas; in chemical, petrochemical,

and refinery facilities; in certain applications for general construction; and in industrial applications. 

Larger volume varieties of seamless SLP pipe in common diameters and wall thicknesses are often

stenciled to multiple certifications for crossover applications and ease of stocking in inventory.

Business Cycle

When asked whether the demand for seamless SLP pipe is subject to distinct business cycles,

questionnaire responses were varied. Three of 5 responding U.S. producers, 8 of 22 responding

importers, and 11 of 22 responding purchasers identified business cycles unique to seamless SLP pipe,

although descriptions of the cycles varied widely. Firms reporting the existence of business cycles for

this product frequently reported that they are tied closely to the general U.S. economy or to economic

activity in certain industries, particularly the oil, natural gas, and chemical industries. Some firms

reported that demand increased greatly in 2008 and then decreased in 2009 as a result of the recession. In

assessing the length of the business cycle for seamless SLP pipe, estimates ranged from two to five years. 

Regional Availability and Lead Times

Seamless SLP pipe is sold nationally by both U.S. producers and importers of Chinese product. 

Among the seven responding U.S. producers, four reported that they sell nationally (including not only

the continental United States, but also Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands). Two

reported that their sales are limited to the continental United States. For the 25 responding firms that

import from China, 2 reported that they sell nationally, 5 reported that they sell throughout the continental

United States, and 18 reported that their sales are limited to specific regions. The regions most frequently

cited were the Central Southwest and the Pacific Coast. 

Average lead times for delivery of seamless SLP pipe depend upon whether the product is sold

from inventory or produced to order.1

 Six of the seven responding U.S. producers reported that between

90 and 100 percent of their sales were items produced to order during 2008 and 2009, while one producer

reported that *** percent of its sales were from inventory.2

 Throughout 2008-09, lead times for items

sold from producers’ inventories consistently ranged between 1 and 7 days. However, reported lead times

by producers for items produced to order ranged widely from firm to firm over the 2008-09 period. 

Throughout this period, the delivery lead time for one producer, ***, consistently ranged between 14 and

21 days. However, for the other six producers, lead times were generally longer, although they decreased

 1 Most importers reported importing and selling both small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe during

the investigation period. 

 2

 While the majority of all sales of seamless SLP pipe are produced to order, the vast majority of sales by

producers are to distributors rather than end users. Staff contacted producers for an explanation. According to email

responses from Timken, TMK IPSCO, U.S. Steel, and V&M Star, distributors order both generic, standard products

that they sell to multiple customers, and also unique products requested by specific end users. *** noted that it often

does not know whether a product is being ordered for inventory, or for a specific customer. See emails from

Timken, U.S. Steel, and V&M Star (September 23, 2010), and from Schagrin Associates (September 24, 2010). 

 

II-1
between 2008 and 2009. Among these six producers, lead times ranged from 28 to 365 days in JanuaryJune 2008, from 42 to 273 days in July-December 2008, from 28 to 273 days in January-June 2009, and

from 21 to 180 days in July-December 2009. 

Among all importers, most sales also consist of items produced to order. During July 2008

through December of 2009, lead times for imported items for the small quantity of items sold from

inventory ranged from 3 to 7 days. Ten importers were able to estimate delivery lead times for items

produced to order during the first and second halves of 2008 and 2009. For seven of these firms, the

length of delivery lead times remained the same throughout the period and consistently ranged between

14 and 180 days. However, for the other three importers, lead times varied during 2008 and 2009 with no

consistent trend.

Channels of Distribution

The majority of shipments of seamless SLP pipe by both U.S. producers and importers of product

from China and other sources went to distributors throughout the period for which data were collected, as

shown in table II-1. A larger share of shipments of imports of large diameter seamless SLP pipe from

nonsubject countries was directed to end users than for U.S. producers or importers from China. 

Table II-1

Seamless SLP pipe: Channels of distribution for U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S.

shipments, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

Domestic Production

Based on available information, U.S. seamless SLP pipe producers have the ability to respond to

changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced seamless SLP pipe

to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are the

availability of unused capacity and the existence of inventories. In addition, it may be feasible to shift to

the production of seamless SLP pipe from the production of other products manufactured at industry

facilities.

Industry capacity

During 2007-09, aggregate capacity utilization rates for U.S. producers of small diameter and

large diameter SLP pipe ranged from a low of *** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. During

January-June 2010, the rate was *** percent as compared a level of just *** percent in January-June

2009.3

 This level indicates that the U.S. producers could expand output in response to a change in market

conditions.

 3 During 2007-09, capacity utilization rates for U.S. producers of small diameter SLP pipe ranged from a low of

*** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. During January-June 2010, the rate was *** percent as compared

to a level of just *** percent in January-June 2009. During 2007-09, capacity utilization rates for U.S. producers of

large diameter SLP pipe ranged from a low of *** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. During JanuaryJune 2010, the rate was *** percent as compared to a level of *** percent in January-June 2009.

II-2
Alternative markets

During 2007-09, exports as a share of total shipments by small diameter and large diameter

seamless SLP pipe producers ranged from a low of *** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. 

During January-June 2010, exports accounted for *** percent of total shipments.4

 One U.S. producer

(***) reported that export opportunities are generally limited because of formal and informal barriers to

exports in other markets (such as currency manipulation and control over the channels of distribution by

mills in other countries).

Inventory levels

During 2007-09, the ratio of inventories to total shipments for small diameter and large diameter

seamless SLP pipe producers ranged from a low of *** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. 

During January-June 2010, this ratio was *** percent as compared to *** percent in January-June 2009.5

This inventory level also indicates that domestic producers could respond to a change in market

conditions with increased supply of seamless SLP pipe.

Production alternatives

Six of seven U.S. producers reported that they make other products on the equipment and

machinery used to produce seamless SLP pipe. The products listed included ***. It is possible that these

producers could shift from production of these other products to increase production and shipment of

seamless SLP pipe.

Purchaser Inventories

Table II-2 presents end-of-period inventories of seamless SLP pipe held by responding

purchasers for 2007-09 and January-June 2010. The purchase data are broken out by country (i.e, U.S.-

 4 During 2007-09, exports as a share of all small diameter pipe shipments by producers ranged from a low of ***

percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. During January-June of 2010 they accounted for *** percent of total

shipments. During 2007-09, exports as a share of all large diameter pipe shipments by producers ranged from a low

of *** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. During January-June 2010 they accounted for *** percent of

total shipments.

 5

 During 2007-09, the ratio of inventories to total shipments of small diameter pipe by producers ranged from a

low of *** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. During January-June 2010, this ratio was *** percent as

compared to *** percent in January-June 2009. During 2007-09, the ratio of inventories to total shipments of large

diameter pipe by producers ranged from a low of *** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. During

January-June 2010, it was *** percent as compared to *** percent in January-June 2009. 

II-3
produced, imports from China, and imports from nonsubject countries) and by size (i.e, small and large

diameter pipe). One large U.S. purchaser, ***, was not able to break out purchases by size or by country

source. The data show that inventories of U.S.-produced seamless SLP pipe, both small and large

diameter, decreased between 2007 and 2009. All inventory data for China showed an increase

during 2007-09. Inventories of both large and small diameter pipe from nonsubject sources increased

irregularly during 2007-09.

Table II–2

Seamless SLP pipe: Purchasers’ aggregate end-of-period inventories, 2007-09 and January-June

2010

Quantity (short tons)

Item Country Period

2007 2008 2009 Jan.-June 2010

Small & Large

United States 82,312 62,158 39,454 41,057

China 32,474 79,779 89,816 52,480

Other 44,463 64,064 46,088 36,754

Unknown 48,527 66,378 55,417 45,782

Small

United States *** *** *** ***

China *** *** *** ***

Other *** *** *** ***

Unknown *** *** *** ***

Large

United States *** *** *** ***

China *** *** *** ***

Other *** *** *** ***

Unknown *** *** *** ***

Unknown

Sm/Lg

United States *** *** *** ***

China *** *** *** ***

Other *** *** *** ***

Unknown *** *** *** ***

Grand Total 207,776 272,579 230,775 176,073

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

II-4
Foreign Supply

Subject Imports

Based on available information, the Chinese producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with small to moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of seamless SLP pipe to the U.S.

market.6

 The main contributing factors are the existence of some excess capacity, inventories, alternative

markets, and the ability to shift from other products produced at their facilities to the production of

seamless SLP pipe. 

Industry capacity

During 2007-09, Chinese producers’ capacity utilization rates ranged from a low of ***

percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***.7

 During January-June 2010, the rate was *** percent as

compared to a level of *** percent in January-June 2009. Capacity utilization is projected to be ***

percent for all of 2010 and *** percent for 2011. These data indicate that the Chinese industry could

expand output in response to a change in market conditions.

Alternative markets

Home market shipments for all subject pipe accounted for *** percent of total shipments in 2007,

*** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009.8

 They are projected to be *** percent of total shipments for

2010 and *** percent for 2011. Exports to markets other than the United States accounted for ***

percent of total shipments in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. They are projected to

be *** percent of total shipments in 2010 and *** percent in 2011. 

Inventory levels

During 2007-09, the ratio of inventories to total shipments ranged from a low of *** percent

in*** to a high of *** percent in ***. During January-June 2010, the ratio was *** percent as compared

 6 The Commission received questionnaire responses from four Chinese producers; exports to the United States

were equivalent to approximately one-third of official Commerce imports in 2009.

 7

 During 2007-09, capacity utilization rates for the responding Chinese producers manufacturing small diameter

pipe ranged from a low of *** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. During January-June 2010, the rate

was *** percent as compared to a level of *** percent in January-June 2009. During 2007-09, capacity utilization

rates for responding Chinese firms producing large diameter pipe ranged from a low of *** percent in *** to a high

of *** percent in ***. During January-June 2010, the rate was *** percent, as compared to *** percent in JanuaryJune 2009.

 8

 Home market shipments of small diameter pipe accounted for *** percent of all shipments of small diameter

pipe in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent 2009. Exports to markets other than the United States accounted

for *** percent of total shipments in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. Home market shipments

of large diameter pipe accounted for *** percent of total large diameter pipe shipments in 2007, *** percent in 2008

and *** percent in 2009. Exports to markets other than the United States accounted for *** percent of total

shipments in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009.

II-5
to *** percent in January-June 2009.9

 Inventories are projected to be equivalent to *** percent of total

shipments in 2010 and *** percent in 2011.

Production alternatives

All four of the responding Chinese producers reported that they make other products on

the equipment and machinery used to produce seamless SLP pipe. The products listed included ***. 

Nonsubject Imports

The quantity of nonsubject imports increased between 2007 and 2008, before declining

in 2009 and in January-June 2010 (relative to January-June 2009). Nonsubject imports accounted for

approximately one-third of the U.S. market in 2007 and again in 2008 (when U.S. imports from China

surpassed imports from all other sources combined in terms of market share), and for *** percent of the

U.S. market in 2009 and January-June 2010. Nonsubject imports account for a relatively smaller portion

of apparent U.S. consumption of small diameter seamless SLP pipe than of large diameter seamless SLP

pipe.

U.S. Demand

The overall U.S. demand for seamless SLP pipe is a derived demand that depends to an

important extent on the energy industry and thus to some extent upon factors such as the level of prices of

oil and natural gas and the extent of new drilling activity.10 A number of indicators relating to the energy

industry reflect increasing activity from January 2007 to mid-2008, followed by a large decline until midto-late 2009; many, though not all, indicators reflected some recovery in late 2009 and into 2010. Figure

II-1 shows total consumption of new seamless pipe in the petroleum, natural gas, and refinery industries

monthly from January 2007 through July 2010. The data show that consumption of new seamless pipe

increased irregularly from January 2007 through August 2008, and then declined throughout the

remainder of 2008 and early 2009 before recovering to some extent in 2010. Figure II-2 shows that

monthly prices of oil and natural gas both increased irregularly from January 2007 through June 2008,

and then generally declined during the remainder of 2008. The price of oil has recovered somewhat from

its low level early in 2009, but the price of natural gas has generally remained relatively lower throughout

2009 and the early months of 2010. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the

Henry Hub spot averaged $4.32 per million btu (MMbtu) in August, $0.31 per MMbtu lower than the

average spot price in July.11 EIA expects that the Henry Hub spot price will average $4.54 per MMbtu in

2010 and $4.76 per MMbtu in 2011. Oil prices (West Texas Intermediate), which averaged $77 per

barrel in August, are projected to average $77 per barrel in the fourth quarter of 2010 and $82 per barrel

in 2011. 

 9 During 2007-09, the ratio of inventories to total shipments of small diameter pipe ranged from a low of ***

percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. During January-June 2010, this ratio was *** percent as compared to

*** percent in January-June 2009. During 2007-09, the ratio of inventories to total shipments of large diameter pipe

ranged from a low of *** percent in *** to a high of *** percent in ***. During January-June 2010, this ratio was

*** percent as compared to *** percent in January-June 2009.

 10 The petitioners have estimated that 15 to 20 percent of seamless SLP pipe consumption is used in the gathering

and transmission of oil and gas from oil and gas wells. Posthearing brief of Schagrin and Associates, Answers to

Commission questions, p. A-2. 

 11 Short Term Energy Outlook (September 8, 2010), www.eia.doe.gov. 

II-6
Figure II-1

Seamless pipe: Combined consumption of new seamless pipe in petroleum, natural gas, and

refinery operations, by month, January 2007- July 2010

Source: U.S. Department of Energy official statistics and the American Petroleum Institute’s “Basic Petroleum Data

Book.”

Figure ll-2

Crude oil and natural gas: Monthly indexed prices, January 2007-August 2010 for oil and January

2007-June 2010 for natural gas

Source: Energy Information Administration, crude oil spot prices and monthly summary of natural gas prices and

volumes.

II-7
As shown in figure II-3, drilling activity, as measured by the number of rigs, increased irregularly

during January 2007 through September 2008 and then declined through the remainder of 2008 and the

first half of 2009. Since that time, the number of drilling rigs has increased, although it remain below the

peak levels reached in 2008. However, in the shale plays (geographic areas subject to intense

exploration) where much of the new natural gas drilling is taking place, welded pipe is generally

preferred over seamless because of its lower cost.12

Figure II-3

Rig counts: Number of drilling rigs actively exploring for or developing oil and natural gas in the

United States, by month, January 2007- August 2010

Source: Compiled from Baker Hughes data, U.S. monthly averages, January 2007-August 2009.

During 2007-09 and in 2010, more active rigs have been involved in exploring for natural gas

than for oil as shown in the following tabulation which breaks out the percentage of total rigs devoted to

each in June and December from 2007 through 2010. However, the share devoted to oil has been

increasing during this period.13

Item

2007 2008 2009 2010

June Dec June Dec June Dec June

Oil 16% 18% 20% 21% 23% 35% 38%

Natural

Gas 84% 82% 80% 78% 75% 64% 62%

Hearing transcript, p. 55 (Mathews) and email comments from ***, September 15, 2010.

12

Compiled from Baker Hughes data. The shares presented may not sum to 100, because Baker Hughes lists

13

some rigs under “miscellaneous.”

II-8
Drilling rigs are used in both inland and offshore drilling. While the number of offshore drilling

rigs account for a small share of the total rig count, offshore drilling is an important market for

seamless SLP pipe. During 2007 through early September 2010, weekly data show that offshore rigs as a

share of total rigs has ranged from one to five percent of the total rig count. As shown in the following

tabulation of reported offshore rig counts in June and December during 2007 through June of 2010, the

weekly counts have been going down. 

14

2007 2008 2009 2010

June 28 Dec 28 June 27 Dec 26 June 26 Dec 31 June 25

78 rigs 63 rigs 64 rigs 66 rigs 43 rigs 39 rigs 17 rigs

As a result of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion and oil spill on April 20, 2010, a sixmonth moratorium on deepwater drilling was issued by the U.S. Government on May 28, 2010, to

provide for the implementation of safety reforms. Testimony at the Commission’s hearing indicated 15

that the Federal suspension of drilling at ocean depths beyond 500 feet has caused a steep demand for

seamless pipe in deepwater applications.16

In addition to energy applications, seamless SLP pipe is used extensively in construction and

repair of refining facilities in petrochemical and refining facilities, the chemical industry, in power

generation, and in mechanical applications for general construction. As shown in figure II-4, total

nonresidential construction spending in the United States exhibited a modest decline in 2007, continuing

in 2008, then accelerating in 2009, before stabilizing at a much lower level in 2010.

Compiled from Baker Hughes data.

14

This moratorium was revised slightly on July 12, 2010 (www.doe.gov).

15

Hearing transcript, p. 78 (Durham).

16

II-9
Figure II-4

Nonresidential construction: Total value of nonresidential construction spending, seasonally

adjusted, monthly, January 2007-May 2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing, Mining and Construction Statistics, Construction Spending, 

http://www.census.gov/const.

Apparent U.S. consumption of seamless SLP pipe, in quantity terms, increased from *** short

tons in 2009. During January-June 2010, apparent consumption was *** short tons as compared to ***

short tons in January-June 2009. These trends in consumption were generally the same for both small 17

diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe.

Demand Characteristics

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked whether demand for seamless SLP pipe

had increased, decreased, fluctuated, or remained unchanged since January 1, 2007. Producer and

importer responses are shown in the tabulation separately for small and large diameter seamless SLP

pipe. 

Item Increased No change Decreased Fluctuated

Small diameter

Producers 0 0 2 3

Importer 2 2 8 13

Large diameter

Producers 0 0 1 4

Importer 2 2 7 13

At the hearing, it was argued that apparent consumption is not a good measure of actual consumption because it

17

does not take inventory changes into account. Hearing transcript, p. 93 (Schagrin).

II-10
fluctuated, and 3 reported that it was unchanged. Firms that reported that demand had fluctuated since

2007 frequently reported that demand increased up through 2008 and then fell sharply in 2009 as a result

of the recession. 

Substitute Products

When asked whether substitutes for seamless SLP pipe exist, the majority of producers,

importers, and purchasers answered “no.” However, some firms reported that welded pipe can be

substituted for either small or large diameter seamless SLP pipe in certain applications. Double

submerged arc welded pipe, plastic pipe, and mechanical and boiler tubing were also listed as substitutes.

Producers and importers that did not list mechanical tubing or boiler tubing as substitutes for

seamless SLP pipe were asked to discuss the characteristics of these products that limited or precluded

substitution. Two of 7 producers and 11 of 30 importers responded to the question. Reported reasons

that limited substitutability were differences in physical characteristics, price, and channels of

distribution. 

In addition, purchasers were specifically asked whether mechanical tubing or boiler tubing can

be substituted for small diameter seamless SLP pipe or large diameter seamless SLP pipe. For small

diameter pipe, 5 purchasers answered “yes” and 13 answered “no.” For large diameter pipe, 5 purchasers

answered “yes” and 14 answered “no.” Firms answering no were asked to explain why the substitutions

could not be made. Most firms answered that differences in physical dimension and specifications did not

make such substitutions feasible. 

Cost Share

When asked to estimate the cost of seamless SLP as a percentage of the cost of end-use products,

none of the producers, and only two importers and one purchaser provided estimates. One importer, ***,

estimated that large diameter pipe accounts for 30 to 40 percent of the cost of natural gas transmission

lines. Another importer, ***, reported that large and small diameter pipe account for 100 percent of the

cost of fence posts and framing. *** a manufacturer of ***, reported that large diameter seamless SLP

accounts for ***. 

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitutability between domestic products and subject imports, between domestic

products and nonsubject imports, and between subject and nonsubject imports is examined in this section. 

Much of the discussion is based on information obtained from questionnaire responses.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Purchasers

Twenty-five purchasers submitted questionnaires; these include 19 distributors, one firm that

operates as a distributor and end user, one wholesale supplier to fence companies, one boiler

manufacturer, one manufacturer of bearing accessories, a producer of redraw hollows, and a producer of

subsea flowlines. Among these 25 firms, 22 have purchased both small and large diameter pipe; one has

purchased only small diameter pipe; and two have purchased only large diameter pipe. Three of the

II-11
firms have purchased only U.S.-produced products; two have purchased imports only from China; one

has purchased only from nonsubject sources; two have purchased only U.S.-produced products and

imports from China; and 17 have purchased U.S.- produced products, imports from China, and imports

from nonsubject sources.18 The combined value of all purchases from these firms in 2009 was $550.3

million, equivalent to 91 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2009. 

When asked to rank the three most important factors involved in purchasing decisions, the 23

purchasers that responded reported availability, price, and quality as the most important factors for both

small and large diameter seamless SLP pipe (tables II-3).19 Of the three factors, price was identified most

often as the number one and number two factor. Other factors mentioned included credit, delivery,

customer acceptance, industry acceptance, and reliability.

Table II-3

Seamless SLP pipe: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions as reported by U.S.

purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Small diameter

Availability 3 2 2

Price 7 9 3

Quality 1 5 1

Other1 11 4 16

Large diameter

Availability 4 4 1

Price 6 8 5

Quality 3 3 1

Other1 10 7 17

 1

 Other factors include traditional supplier, credit, delivery, contracts, customer acceptance, industry acceptance, market

acceptance, trusted relationship, and reliability.

Note.– Some purchasers did not rank factors or listed less than three factors.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were also asked whether their firm purchases seamless SLP pipe at the lowest

possible price. Of the 24 responding purchasers, 1 answered “always,” 10 answered “usually,” 12

answered “sometimes,” and 1 answered “never.”

To examine further the importance of different factors in purchasing decisions, purchasers were

asked to indicate whether the 19 factors listed in table II-4 were “very important,” “somewhat important,”

or “not important” in their purchasing decisions. The factors ranked “very important” most frequently 

 18 Purchasers identified Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary,

Italy, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Spain, and Ukraine as nonsubject import sources. 

 19 All but 3 of the 23 purchasers gave the same rankings to small and large diameter seamless SLP pipe. One

purchaser that only bought large diameter pipe did not rank the factors for small diameter pipe

II-12
were quality meets standard pipe standard (23 purchasers), quality meets pressure pipe standard and

quality meets line pipe standards (21 purchasers each), reliability of supply (20 purchasers), delivery time

(19 purchasers), availability (18 purchasers), product consistency (17 purchasers), price (16 purchasers),

and discounts offered (14 purchasers).

Table II-4

Seamless SLP pipe: Importance of purchasing factors, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Very important

Somewhat

important Not Important

Number of firms responding

Availability 18 6 1

Delivery terms 12 11 1

Delivery time 19 5 0

Discounts offered 14 9 1

Extension of credit 11 9 4

Price 16 8 0

Minimum quantity requirement 8 14 2

Packaging 6 14 4

Product consistency 17 7 0

Quality meets standard pipe standard 23 0 1

Quality meets line pipe standard 21 0 3

Quality meets pressure pipe standard 21 2 1

Quality triple stenciled 12 7 4

Quality meets ASTM A-335 standard 7 4 14

Quality exceeds industry standards 8 12 3

Product range 9 12 3

Reliability of supply 20 4 0

Technical support/service 11 11 2

U.S. transportation costs 8 11 5

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were also asked to compare U.S.-produced seamless SLP pipe and imported seamless

SLP pipe from China with respect to the 23 selected characteristics listed in table II-5, noting whether the

domestic product was superior, comparable, or inferior to the imported product. Among the responding

purchasers, a majority ranked the United States superior with regard to delivery terms, delivery time,

quality triple-stenciled, quality exceeding industry standards, and technical support/service. A plurality 

also ranked the United States superior with regard to availability as alloy steel and product consistency. 

In contrast, all purchasers identified China as being superior with regard to price, with additional

recognition for discounts offered and minimum quantity requirements.

II-13
Table II-5

Seamless SLP pipe: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and subject China products as reported

by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

U.S. superior Comparable U.S. inferior

Availability 9 9 2

Availability as carbon steel 8 11 1

Availability as alloy steel 7 6 4

Availability of small diameter 7 8 5

Availability of large diameter 8 8 2

Delivery terms 12 6 2

Delivery time 12 6 2

Discounts offered 2 8 10

Extension of credit 4 12 2

Price1 0 0 20

Minimum quantity requirements 3 8 8

Packaging 3 15 2

Product consistency 10 9 1

Quality meets standard pipe standard 8 12 0

Quality meets line pipe standard 8 11 0

Quality meets pressure pipe standard 7 13 0

Quality triple stenciled 10 8 1

Quality meets ASTM A-335 standard 4 6 3

Quality exceeds industry standards 11 8 0

Product range 5 13 2

Reliability of supply 8 11 1

Technical support/service 12 6 2

U.S. transportation costs 6 12 2

 1

 A rating of superior means that the price is generally lower. For example, if a firm reports “U.S. superior,” this

means that it rates the U.S. price generally lower than the China price.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were also asked to compare U.S.-produced seamless SLP pipe and nonsubject

imports with respect to the selected characteristics, noting whether the domestic product was superior,

comparable, or inferior to the imported product. Among the responding purchasers, a majority or

plurality ranked the United States superior in availability, availability as carbon steel, availability as alloy

steel, availability of small diameter, availability of large diameter, and delivery time (table II-6). A

majority ranked nonsubject imports superior in price, with additional recognition for discounts offered, 

and availability of alloy pipe more generally.

II-14
Table II-6

Seamless SLP pipe: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and nonsubject products as reported

by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

U.S. superior Comparable U.S. inferior

Availability 13 8 3

Availability as carbon steel 13 9 2

Availability as alloy steel 7 6 5

Availability of small diameter 10 9 4

Availability of large diameter 13 7 3

Delivery terms 8 15 1

Delivery time 13 8 2

Discounts offered 3 13 7

Extension of credit 3 18 2

Price1 1 6 17

Minimum quantity requirements 3 21 0

Packaging 3 21 0

Product consistency 6 18 0

Quality meets standard pipe standard 5 19 0

Quality meets line pipe standard 5 19 0

Quality meets pressure pipe standard 5 19 0

Quality triple stenciled 6 17 1

Quality meets ASTM A-335 standard 2 10 4

Quality exceeds industry standards 6 17 1

Product range 8 11 5

Reliability of supply 9 13 2

Technical support/service 6 15 3

U.S. transportation costs 4 18 2

 1

 A rating of superior means that the price is generally lower. For example, if a firm reports “U.S. superior,” this

means that it rates the U.S. price generally lower than the nonsubject import price.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

II-15
Comparisons of Domestic Products and Subject and Nonsubject Imports

To determine whether U.S.-produced seamless SLP pipe can generally be used in the

same applications as subject imports from China and nonsubject sources, producers, importers,

and purchasers were asked whether the product can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be

used interchangeably. A majority of questionnaire respondents including producers, importers, and

purchasers reported that U.S.-produced products and imports from China can always or frequently be

used interchangeably (tables II-7 and II-8). One U. S. producer, ***, stated that while not all purchasers

accept Chinese pipe in the same applications, both small and large diameter Chinese pipe has steadily

become accepted for an increased number of uses. One importer, ***, stated that some end users prefer

small diameter pipe from sources other than China. Another importer, ***, stated that companies have

approved manufacturers’ lists for both small and large diameter pipe, and that products of some countries

and suppliers are not considered acceptable. Another importer, ***, reported that some end users might

not accept Chinese small or large diameter pipe due to its inconsistent quality. Another importer, ***,

reported that during times when U. S. producers are unable to offer enough quantity of small and large

diameter pipe to satisfy needs, alternative sources such as China are acceptable. One purchaser, ***,

reported that in the case of small diameter pipe, many end users have approved manufacturers’ lists and

Chinese mills are not always acceptable.20 

Table II-7

Small diameter seamless SLP pipe: Perceived degree of interchangeability of product produced in

the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers Purchasers

A F S N A F S N A F SN

U.S. vs. China 4 2 0 0 13 4 5 0 13 4 2 0

U.S. vs. Other countries 4 1 0 0 12 3 6 0 11 3 3 0

China vs. Other countries 4 1 0 0 11 4 6 0 9 7 1 0

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if small diameter seamless SLP pipe produced in the United States and in

other countries is used interchangeably.

Note.-- “A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 20 Staff requested and received from ***, a distributor, approved manufacturers lists (AMLs) of seamless SLP

pipe from three of its end use customers, ***. While these lists probably limit the use of Chinese pipe in some

applications, the volume of U.S. imports from China in 2008 suggests that the overall effect of AMLs likely is not

large. In their posthearing brief, the petitioners have argued that AMLs are used largely for offshore pipeline

applications, but less in other applications. See posthearing brief (Schagrin, p. A-2). 

II-16
Table II-8

Large diameter seamless SLP pipe: Perceived degree of interchangeability of product produced in

the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers Purchasers

A F S N A F S N A F SN

U.S. vs. China 3 2 0 0 11 6 5 0 12 3 3 0

U.S. vs. Other countries 3 2 0 0 11 5 6 0 12 2 4 0

China vs. Other countries 3 2 0 0 10 6 6 0 10 7 1 0

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if large diameter seamless SLP pipe produced in the United States and in

other countries is used interchangeably.

Note.-- “A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

In addition to questions concerning interchangeability, questionnaire respondents were also asked

if differences in factors other than price are “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” a factor in

their sales of seamless SLP pipe. A majority of producers reported that factors other than price are

“never” a consideration in sales of either small or large diameter pipe when comparing the United States

with China or other countries, or when comparing China with other countries (tables II-9 and II-10). In

contrast, a majority of importers and purchasers reported that factors other than price are “always,”

“frequently,” or at least “sometimes” a factor in such comparisons. One importer, ***, reported that

many end users place country of origin restrictions on manufacturers, fearing that Chinese origin may be

of substandard quality. One purchaser, ***, reported that for small and large diameter pipe, most Chinese

seamless SLP pipe falls into the non-approved category. Another purchaser, ***, reported that sometimes

Chinese product does not meet certain additional customer requirements or “Buy America” provisions. 

Table II-9

Small diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. producers’, importers’, and purchasers’ perceived

importance of factors other than price in sales of products produced in the United States and in

other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers Purchasers

A F S NAF S N AFS N

U.S. vs. China 0 1 1 4 6 6 5 5 9 3 2 5

U.S. vs. Other countries 0 0 1 4 4 5 7 5 743 3

China vs. Other countries 0 1 1 4 4 5 6 5 653 4

 1

 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if differences other than price between small diameter seamless SLP pipe

produced in the United States and in other countries are a significant factor in their firms’ sales or purchases of small diameter

seamless SLP pipe. 

Note.-- “A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

II-17
Table II-10

Large diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. producers’, importers’, and purchasers’ perceived

importance of factors other than price in sales of products produced in the United States and in

other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers Purchasers

A F S NAF S N AFS N

U.S. vs. China 0 2 0 3 2 9 5 6 9 3 3 4

U.S. vs. Other countries 0 1 1 3 2 7 7 4 743 3

China vs. Other countries 0 2 0 3 2 8 6 4 653 3

 1

 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if differences other than price between large diameter seamless SLP pipe

produced in the United States and in other countries are a significant factor in their firms’ sales or purchases of large diameter

seamless SLP pipe. 

Note.-- “A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES 

This section discusses elasticity estimates; the interested parties were encouraged to comment on

these estimates in their briefs. The petitioners commented on the substitution elasticity in their prehearing

brief, but did not comment on other elasticity estimates. The respondents did not comment on any of the

estimates. 

U.S. Supply Elasticity21

The domestic supply elasticity for seamless SLP pipe measures the sensitivity of the quantity

supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of seamless SLP pipe. The elasticity of

domestic supply depends on several factors, including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which

producers can alter capacity, producers’ ability to shift to production of other products, the existence of

inventories, and the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced seamless SLP pipe. Analysis of

these factors, particularly the existence of excess production capacity, indicates that the elasticity is likely

to be relatively high. A range of 5 to 10 is estimated. 

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for seamless SLP pipe measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity

demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of seamless SLP pipe. This estimate depends on factors

discussed earlier such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as

well as the component share of this seamless SLP pipe in the production of any downstream products. 

Since the available information suggest that there are no close substitutes for this product in most

applications, the demand elasticity is likely to be low to medium, in the range of -0.5 to -1.0. 

 21 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

II-18
Substitution Elasticity 22

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products. Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

(e.g., chemistry, appearance, etc.) and conditions of sale (availability, sales terms/discounts/promotions,

etc.). Based on available information, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.-produced seamless SLP

pipe and imported seamless SLP pipe is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.

In their prehearing brief, the petitioners argued that a range of 2 to 4 is far too low for the subject

product and should be in a range of 3 to 5 as was estimated for the case involving OCTG from China.23

Because of the evidence that Chinese-produced seamless SLP pipe is not accepted in some applications,

the lower range is probably more accurate. 

 22 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change.

 23 Prehearing brief of U.S. Steel, p .26 n. 48. 

II-19

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§

1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the subsidies and margin of dumping was presented earlier

in this report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is

presented in Parts IV and V. Information on the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or

Part VI and (except as noted) is based on the questionnaire responses and other submissions from eight

firms that accounted for all known U.S. production of seamless SLP pipe during 2009.1

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to 14 firms identified in the petition as domestic

producers of seamless SLP pipe or in Commerce’s preliminary determination of sales at less than fair

value as potential producers of ASTM A-335 pipe or mechanical tubing.2

 Eight firms reported production

of seamless SLP pipe.3

 Table III-1 lists the reporting domestic producers of seamless SLP pipe and

presents each company’s position on the petition, production location(s), related and/or affiliated firms,

and share of reported production of seamless SLP pipe in 2009.

 1 Michigan Seamless and Wyman-Gordon reported on their seamless SLP pipe operations, including their

operations on ASTM A-335 pipe, and were included in the prehearing staff report. Consistent with Commerce’s

exclusion of ASTM A-335 pipe from the scope of its investigations, data reported by these firms in this chapter now

exclude their operations on ASTM A-335 pipe.

 2 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the People’s Republic of

China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of

Critical Circumstances, in Part, and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 22372, April 28, 2010.

 3

 Arcelor-Mittal, Atlas Tube, a subsidiary of the John Maneely Corporation, Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel, Mach

Industrial Group, Rockwell Collins Rollmet, and Webco Industries Inc. certified that they had not produced seamless

SLP pipe since 2007.

III-1
Table III-1

Seamless SLP pipe: Reporting U.S. producers, positions on the petition, U.S. production

locations, related and/or affiliated firms, and shares of 2009 reported U.S. production

Firm

Position

on

petition

U.S. production

location(s)

Related and/or

affiliated firms

Share of production (percent)

Small

diameter

Large

diameter Total

Michigan

Seamless1 *** South Lyon, MI None *** 0.0 ***

Plymouth Tube2 (

2

) Warrenville, IL (2) *** 0.0 ***

Timken *** Canton, OH None *** *** ***

TMK IPSCO3 Petitioner

Ambridge, PA

Baytown, TX

Houston, TX

Koppel, PA

Odessa, TX

Volzhsky Pipe Plant,

Volgograd, Russia

Sinarsky Pipe Plant,

Sverdlovsk, Russia

Seversky Tube Works,

Sverdlovsk, Russia

TagMet, Postov,

Russia *** 0.0 ***

U.S. Steel Petitioner

Fairfield, AL

Lorain, OH None *** *** ***

V&M Star4 Petitioner

Youngstown, OH

Houston, TX

V&M France

V&M Deutchland

V&M do Brasil SA 0.0 *** ***

Wheatland5 ***

Sharon, PA

Wheatland, PA None *** 0.0 ***

WymanGordon6 *** Houston, TX

Yanzhou Chengde

Steel Tube Co., Ltd. 0.0 *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Wholly owned by Optima International.

 2

 Plymouth Tube ***.

 3

 Wholly owned by OAO TMK.

 4

 Owned by Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes (*** percent) and Sumitomo Corporation of America (*** percent).

 5

 Wholly owned by DBO Holdings, Inc.

 6

 Wholly owned by Precision Castparts Corp.

Note.–Because of rounding, shares may not total to 100.0 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Three U.S. producers are related to foreign producers of seamless SLP pipe and one, ***, is

related to a firm that exports seamless SLP pipe from China to the United States. As discussed in greater

detail below, three U.S. producers (***) directly import seamless SLP pipe while one U.S. producer (***)

purchased domestically produced SLP pipe during the period for which data were collected.4

Each firm was asked if it experienced any plant openings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions,

consolidations, closures, or prolonged shutdowns because of strikes or equipment failure; curtailment of

production because of shortages of materials; or any other change in the character of their operations or

 4 See table III-10.

III-2
organization relation to the production of seamless SLP pipe since January 1, 2007. Their responses are

included in table III-2.

Table III-2

Seamless SLP pipe: Important industry events, 2007–10

Year Company

Description of event (merger, shutdown, bankruptcy, change in

production capacity level, etc.)

2007

IPSCO Acquisition: SSAB (Sweden) purchases IPSCO for approximately $7.7

billion in July 2007. In December 2006, IPSCO had acquired NS Steel

(parent company of former seamless SLP pipe producer Koppel Steel),

Newport, KY.

Wheatland Tube Acquisition: John Maneely Co. (parent company of Wheatland Tube)

acquires seamless SLP pipe producer Sharon Tube, Sharon, PA, in

January 2007. John Maneely is a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group (a

Washington, DC-based investment firm).

2008

Evraz Group SA and TMK

(Russia)

Acquisition: Evraz Group SA and TMK purchase SSAB’s IPSCO

tubular facilities in North America for $4 billion in June 2008. TMK

obtains all of IPSCO’s U.S. tubular operations and 51 percent of NS

Group for approximately $1.2 billion. IPSCO’s tubular operations are

renamed TMK IPSCO.

Wheatland Tube Acquisition cancelled: Russian steel producer OJSC Novolipestk

Steel suspends efforts to acquire John Maneely Co.

V&M Star Investment: V&M Star (which acquired the seamless tubular assets of

North Star Steel in 2002) announces plans to invest $639 million to

increase liquid steel production by up to 70 percent to 1.4 million short

tons, expand billet casting operations, and add a second pipe mill to

make smaller diameter seamless pipe.

2009

Timken Expansion: Timken expands the size capability of existing equipment

from 12" maximum tube outside diameter (O.D.) to 13" O.D.

TMK IPSCO Acquisition: TMK IPSCO acquires the remaining shares of NS Group

from Evraz for $508 million in February 2009, becoming sole owner.

TMK IPSCO New facility: TMK IPSCO completes a new quenching and tempering

facility at Baytown Works in Baytown, TX. The facility is designed to heat

treat and finish seamless standard pipes for high temperature

applications, line pipe, and OCTG, with sizes from 2 3/8 to 7 5/8 inches

in diameter with capacity of 85,000 tons per year and with potential for

increasing to 100,000 tons.

TMK IPSCO Plant idling: All locations are closed for portions of the year and

experience reduced operating schedules.

V&M Star Investment delay: V&M Star delays the implementation of a $600

million to $1 billion investment to increase steel production and expand

seamless tubular production at its Youngstown, OH, facility.

U.S. Steel Plant idling: U.S. Steel idles its small diameter seamless pipe mill in

Lorain, OH, in March 2009. In May 2009, U.S. Steel temporary idles the

blast furnace and caster, but continues operating its large diameter

seamless pipe mill at reduced levels at its Fairfield, AL, facility. 

Table continued on next page.

III-3
Table III-2--Continued

Seamless SLP pipe: Important industry events, 2007–10

Year Company

Description of event (merger, shutdown, bankruptcy, change in

production capacity level, etc.)

2010

Wyman-Gordon Acquisition: Precision Castparts Corp. (Parent company of WymanGordon) acquires a 49.0 percent stake in Yangzhou Chengde Steel

Tube Co., Ltd. (large diameter seamless pipe producer) in January 2010.

V&M Star Capacity expansion: V&M Star breaks ground on a $650-million tubular

mill expansion project in Youngstown, Ohio. The melt shop and billet

casting operations will increase annual output by 830,000 tons to 1.4

million tons of liquid steel. Current employment at the plant is about 500

workers; the expansion will add 350 new jobs. Existing tubular capacity

is 550,000 tons with O.D. from 5 to 10.756 inches. The new plant will

add 390,000 tons of finished tubulars with an O.D. from 2.375 to 7

inches, beginning in late 2011. The new mill has a heat-treat line and a

high-speed threading facility for tube products and OCTG. Fifteen

percent of the new mill’s capacity will be for seamless SLP pipe, while 75

percent will be for OCTG and 10 percent for drill pipe. The plant will

serve traditional natural gas customers and potential major shale basins

including Marcellus, Fayetteville, and Haysville.

The state of Ohio contributed $20 million to upgrade road and related

infrastructure.

TMK IPSCO Labor contract ratification: TMK IPSCO and its employees at Koppel

and Ambridge, PA, tubular plants ratify a new labor agreement which will

remain in effect through May 31, 2014. 

U.S.Steel Capacity Adjustment: U.S. Steel announces plans to install a new 

$87-million quench and temper facility at its Lorain plant for tubular

products from 2 3/8 inches through 7 5/8 inches O.D. Capacity will be at

340,000 tons and will be directed toward OCTG.

U.S. Steel Plant resuming: ***.

TPCO (China) Investment: An air permit has been obtained for TPCO’s $1-billion pipe

mill project in Gregory, TX. Ground breaking is expected in October

2010.

Timken Investment: Timken announces plans to install a $50-million

intermediate finishing line at the Gambrinus Steel Plant for both bar and

tube products.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires; American Metal Market; "TMK IPSCO Opens

Baytown Heat Treat Facility,” The Fabricator, April 13, 2009; Preston April 2009, p.12; “Tianjin Pipe Sees Progress on Texas

Tube Plant,” Metal Bulletin, November 24, 2009; E-mail from ***– Gregory, TX, August 9, 2010; “TMK IPSCO Workers OK

Contract,” American Metal Market, June 22, 2010; “Vallourec Commits to Building $650 million Tubular Rolling in Ohio”. U.S.

Steel’s posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 6. Metal Bulletin, February 16, 2010; “US Steel to Install Quench and Temper Facility at

Lorain Tubular,” U.S. Steel, Press Releases, July 27, 2010. Staff field trip report, U.S. Steel, August 11, 2010. 

“http://www.precast.com/pr_pages/pr01.15.10.html,” retrieved August 19, 2010. “The Timken Company to Invest $50 Million in

Its Ohio Steel Operations”; The Timken Company, Press Release, August 12, 2010,

http://www.timken.com/en-us/about/NewsRoom/Stories/Pages/Invest50MillionInOhioSteel Operations.aspx, retrieved September

16, 2010; Hearing transcript, p. 58 (Herald). 

III-4
U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Table III-3 presents U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for

seamless SLP pipe. U.S. producers’ combined capacity for small and large diameter seamless SLP pipe

decreased between 2007 and 2009, but was higher in January-June 2010 than in January-June 2009

(reflecting greater capacity allocated to small diameter seamless SLP pipe). Production and capacity

utilization for both small and large diameter seamless SLP pipe peaked in 2008, but declined in 2009. 

Capacity, production, and capacity utilization for total seamless SLP pipe were substantially higher in the

first half of 2010 than in the first half of 2009.5

Table III-3

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2007-09, January-June

2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS

Table III-4 presents data on U.S. seamless SLP pipe producers’ capacity, production, and

capacity utilization data for all seamless pipe products produced using the same machinery and equipment

as the subject pipe. Responding firms reported that subject small diameter seamless SLP pipe accounted

for *** percent of their total small diameter seamless pipe (including nonsubject pipe) production in 2009

and that subject large diameter seamless SLP pipe accounted for *** percent of their total large diameter

seamless pipe production in 2009. 

Nonsubject OCTG was the largest component of U.S. producers’ overall seamless pipe

production, for both small and large diameter pipe. Production of both OCTG and mechanical tubing

substantially exceeded production of seamless SLP pipe in 2009. Reductions in the volume of production

of OCTG accounted for the largest portion of the overall decline in small diameter and large diameter

seamless pipe production in 2009, and for the largest portion of the expanded production in the first half

of 2010 relative to the first half of 2009. 

Production of every form of tubular product 16" in diameter and below declined steeply from

2008 to 2009, which resulted in a substantial decline of overall capacity utilization. While capacity

utilization levels for small diameter, large diameter, and total seamless pipe were markedly higher in the

first half of 2010 relative to the first half of 2009, they remained below 2007 levels and well below 2008

levels.

 5 Results in the second half of 2009 exceeded operational levels in the first half of 2009. Specifically, capacity

was *** short tons, production was *** short tons and capacity utilization was *** percent. 

III-5
Table III-4

Seamless pipe: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization of seamless pipe products,

2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

Item

Calendar year January-June

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Capacity (short tons)

Total seamless pipe 3,026,900 3,030,700 3,106,700 1,529,500 1,552,500

Small diameter (4.5" or less OD) *** *** *** *** ***

Large diameter (4.5"-16" OD) *** *** *** *** ***

Over 16 inches *** *** *** *** ***

Production (short tons)

TOTAL (all seamless pipe) 1,992,173 2,302,102 972,387 419,707 938,926

Small diameter (4.5" or less OD):

Standard, line & pressure pipe *** *** *** *** ***

OCTG *** *** *** *** ***

Boiler tubing *** *** *** *** ***

Mechanical tubing *** *** *** *** ***

Other tubing *** *** *** *** ***

Total small diameter *** *** *** *** ***

Large diameter (4.5"-16" OD):

Standard, line & pressure pipe *** *** *** *** ***

OCTG *** *** *** *** ***

Boiler tubing *** *** *** *** ***

Mechanical tubing *** *** *** *** ***

Other tubing *** *** *** *** ***

Total large diameter *** *** *** *** ***

Seamless pipe greater than 16" OD *** *** *** *** ***

Capacity utilization (percent)

TOTAL (all seamless pipe) 65.8 76.0 31.3 27.4 60.5

Small diameter (4.5" or less OD) *** *** *** *** ***

Large diameter (4.5"-16" OD) *** *** *** *** ***

Seamless pipe greater than 16" OD *** *** *** *** ***

Note.– Production of ASTM A-335 pipe is included in “other tubing” for purposes of this presentation.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

III-6
U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Tables III-5, III-6, and III-7 present data on U.S. producers’ shipments of total seamless SLP

pipe, small diameter seamless SLP pipe, and large diameter seamless SLP pipe, respectively. The

quantity of U.S. shipments of total seamless SLP pipe increased from 2007 to 2008, but decreased from

2008 to 2009. U.S. shipments were higher, however, in January-June 2010 than in January-June 2009 for

both small and large diameter seamless SLP pipe. Export shipments of total seamless SLP pipe decreased

throughout 2007-09 but were higher in January-June 2010 than in January-June 2009. 

Overall, the quantity of U.S. shipments of seamless SLP pipe by domestic producers increased

between 2007 and 2008, although less rapidly than apparent U.S. consumption. Between 2008 and 2009,

the quantity of U.S. shipments decreased even more rapidly than the sharp decline in apparent U.S.

consumption. The domestic producers’ exports of seamless SLP pipe decreased as well, from a smaller

base, and accounted for a diminishing share of total shipments. 

Despite rising average unit values in both 2008 and 2009, the value of the domestic producers’

U.S. and export shipments followed the same trend as the quantity of such shipments. In the second half

of 2009, however, the quantity of domestic producers’ U.S. and export shipments were higher than in

January-June 2009, however the value of U.S. shipments decreased slightly. Both quantity and value of

U.S. shipments were higher in January-June 2010, when compared with July-December 2009 by ***

percent and *** percent, respectively, despite lower average unit values of U.S. shipments.6

 Export

shipments continued to account for a diminishing share of total seamless SLP pipe shipments by domestic

producers.

Table III-5

TOTAL seamless SLP pipe: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and

January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table III-6

SMALL diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2007-09, January-June

2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table III-7

LARGE diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2007-09, January-June

2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

ORDER BOOKS

Table III-8 presents the reported quantity of small diameter, large diameter, and total seamless

SLP pipe, entered in reporting the firm’s “order books” at the close of specified months.7

 Reported lead

times ranged from 20 to 102 days for small diameter and 20 days to a year for large diameter seamless

SLP pipe. The lead time of a year for large diameter seamless SLP pipe was reported by ***, and is

 6 During July-December 2009, the quantity of U.S. shipments was *** short tons, an increase relative to the

quantity of U.S. shipments in January-June 2009. The value of U.S. shipments, however, was lower, at $*** , as the

unit value of U.S. shipments decreased to $*** per short ton.

 7

 ***’s producer questionnaire, sections II-12a, II-12b.

III-7
primarily for seamless *** pipe. Excluding ***’s experience, lead times ranged from 20 to 84 days for

large diameter seamless SLP pipe.

Table III-8

Seamless SLP pipe: Seamless SLP pipe entered into order books, March 31, 2007 - June 30, 2010

Period Total Small diameter Large diameter

Quantity (short tons)

2007

March 31 33,498 *** ***

June 30 32,430 *** ***

September 30 28,725 *** ***

December 31 42,593 *** ***

2008

March 31 73,563 *** ***

June 30 73,405 *** ***

September 30 37,324 *** ***

December 31 27,713 *** ***

2009

March 31 5,364 *** ***

June 30 3,093 *** ***

September 30 10,060 *** ***

December 31 17,208 *** ***

2010

March 31 27,794 *** ***

June 30 29,088 *** ***

Note.– The data presented in this table are slightly overstated because Michigan Seamless and Wyman-Gordon

primarily produce ASTM A-335 pipe. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

As shown in table III-9, end-of-period inventories for small and large diameter seamless SLP pipe

declined between 2007-09 in absolute terms, but as a result of reduced operations were higher relative to

production and shipments in interim 2009 than in any other period. Inventories of small diameter

seamless SLP pipe increased in absolute terms from 2007 to 2008. In absolute terms, inventories were

*** lower for small diameter seamless SLP pipe in January-June 2010 than in January-June 2009 but

were higher for large diameter seamless SLP pipe in January-June 2010 than in January-June 2009. 

Aggregate inventories increased from 2007 to 2008, but were lower in 2009 when compared with 2008.

III-8
Table III-9

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and

January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

Table III-10 presents U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of seamless SLP pipe.

Table III-10

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. producers’ imports and purchases, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and

January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for seamless SLP pipe are presented in table III11. For aggregate seamless SLP pipe, the number of hours worked by PRWs, the wages paid to PRWs,

and productivity increased from 2007 to 2008, but decreased from 2008 to 2009. These same factors,

however, were higher in the second half of 2009 when compared with the first half of 2009, and were

higher again in the first half of 2010.8

 ***.9 A witness V&M Star also testified to laying off a

“significant” number of employees in 2009.10 

Table III-11

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and

January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

 8 During July-December 2009, PRWs worked *** hours, wages paid to PRWs were $***, and productivity was

*** short tons per hour.

 9

 ***’s producer questionnaire response, attachment 1.

 10 Hearing transcript, p. 60 (Herald).

III-9

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

The Commission issued importer questionnaires to 119 possible importers of subject seamless

SLP pipe, as well as to all known U.S. producers of seamless SLP pipe,1

 and received usable responses 

from 31 companies.2

 Questionnaire responses from U.S. importers accounted for 90.6 percent of total

seamless SLP pipe imports (79.6 percent of small diameter seamless SLP pipe and 100.5 percent of large

diameter seamless SLP pipe from China). Questionnaire responses from U.S. importers from nonsubject

sources accounted for 77.0 percent of total seamless SLP pipe imports (40.2 percent of small diameter

seamless SLP pipe and 92.8 percent of large diameter seamless SLP pipe). Questionnaire responses from

U.S. importers from subject and nonsubject sources accounted for 83.4 percent of total seamless SLP pipe

imports (65.2 percent of small diameter seamless SLP pipe and 95.9 percent of large diameter seamless

SLP pipe in 2009). Although staff believes that the coverage level is high, because of the differing

coverage between subject and nonsubject sources and between small diameter and large diameter

seamless SLP pipe, the data presented in this chapter are based on official import statistics.3 4

 1 The Commission issued questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition, along with firms that, based on a

review of data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), may have imported at least $1 million

of seamless SLP pipe under HTS subheadings 7304.10.10, 7304.10.50, 7304.19.10, 7304.19.50, 7304.39.00,

7304.59.80, 7304.10.10, 7304.10.50, 7304.19.10, 7304.19.50, 7304.39.00, and 7304.59.80 in 2008.

 2

 Twenty-five other firms certified that they did not import seamless SLP pipe during the period for which data

were collected.

 3

 Small diameter seamless SLP pipe is covered under HTS subheadings: 7304.10.1020, 7304.10.5020,

7304.19.1020, 7304.19.5020, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024, 7304.59.8010, and 7304.59.8015. Large

diameter seamless SLP pipe is covered under HTS subheadings: 7304.10.1030, 7304.10.1045, 7304.10.1060,

7304.10.5050, 7304.19.1030, 7304.19.1045, 7304.19.1060, 7304.19.5050, 7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0048,

7304.39.0062, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8045, and 7304.59.8060. Following the change in the scope by Commerce,

the staff report has been amended to exclude data for U.S. imports of ASTM A-335 pipe only. 

 4

 The large majority of U.S. imports of seamless SLP pipe are of carbon steel and enter the United States under

the following statistical reporting numbers: 

C 7304.19.1020 -- Line pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines, of iron or nonalloy steel, having an outside

diameter not exceeding 114.3 mm (4-1/2 inches); 

C 7304.19.1060 -- Line pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines, of iron or nonalloy steel, having an outside

diameter of 215.9 mm (8-1/2 inches) or more but not exceeding 406.4 mm (16 inches), and having a wall

thickness of 12.7 mm (1/2 inch) or more; 

C 7304.19.1045 -- Line pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines, of iron or nonalloy steel, having an outside

diameter of 215.9 mm (8-1/2 inches) or more but not exceeding 406.4 mm (16 inches), and having a wall

thickness less than 12.7 mm (1/2 inch); and 

C 7304.19.1030 -- Line pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines, of iron or nonalloy steel, having an outside

diameter exceeding 114.3 mm (4-1/2 inches) but less than 215.9 mm (8-1/2 inches). 

U.S. imports from China comprised the largest share of the first item (small diameter seamless SLP pipe) throughout

2007-09, and the largest individual share of any country in each of the three full years for the third and fourth items

(large diameter seamless SLP pipe). However, for heavier-walled large diameter seamless SLP pipe, the leading

source of U.S. imports in 2007 was Argentina; the leading source in 2008 was Mexico; and the leading source in

2009 was Germany.

IV-1
Table IV-1 lists confirmed U.S. importers of seamless SLP pipe from China and other sources,

their locations, and their shares of reported U.S. imports, in 2009. Five out of 31 companies imported

only small diameter seamless SLP pipe, one company imported only large diameter, and 25 companies

imported both.5

Table IV-1

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. importers, U.S. headquarters, source(s) of imports, and shares of

imports in 2009

Firm Headquarters Source of imports Share of imports (percent)

China Other Total

Baosteel America Inc.1 Montvale, NJ *** *** *** ***

Commercial Metals Co.2 Irving, TX *** *** *** ***

Connectors, Inc. Hauppauge, NY *** *** *** ***

Conveyco Mfg. Co. Clackamas, OR *** *** *** ***

Corus America3 Schaumburg, IL *** *** *** ***

Corus International4 Schaumburg, IL *** *** *** ***

Coutinho & Ferrostaal Inc.5 Houston, TX *** *** *** ***

Houston OCTG Group Inc.6 Houston, TX` *** *** *** ***

Kurt Orban Partners Burlingame, CA *** *** *** ***

Marubeni Itochu Tubulars America Inc.7 Houston, TX *** *** *** ***

MinMetals Inc.8 Brea, CA *** *** *** ***

National Tube Supply, Co.9 University Park, IL *** *** *** ***

North American Interpipe, Inc.10 Houston, TX *** *** *** ***

Oxbow Steel International Pleasant Hill, CA *** *** *** ***

Pusan Pipe America (SeAH Steel)11 Santa Fe Springs, CA *** *** *** ***

S B International, Inc.12 Dallas, TX *** *** *** ***

Schlumberger Tech. Corp.13 Sugarland, TX *** *** *** ***

SDB Trade International, LP14 Pasadena, TX *** *** *** ***

Seba Pipe, Inc. Houston, TX *** *** *** ***

Shamrock Eugene, OR *** *** *** ***

Sumitomo Corp. of America15 Houston, TX *** *** *** ***

Sunbelt Group, L.P.16 Houston, TX *** *** *** ***

Tenaris Global Services USA17 Houston, TX *** *** *** ***

TMK IPSCO18 Downers Grove, IL *** *** *** ***

Toyota Tsusho America, Inc.19 Houston, TX *** *** *** ***

TPCO Enterprise, Inc.20 Houston, TX *** *** *** ***

Tranton Company San Marino, CA *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.

 5 *** imported ASTM A-335 pipe from China and *** from sources other than China.

IV-2
Table IV-1--Continued

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. importers, U.S. headquarters, source(s) of imports, and shares of imports in 2009

Firm Headquarters Source of imports Share of imports (percent)

China Other1 Total1

Uniwire Trading, LLC New York, NY *** *** *** ***

Vallourec & Mannesmann USA Corp.21 Houston, TX *** *** *** ***

Wells Plumbing & Heating, Inc. Chicago, IL *** *** *** ***

Wheatland Tube Co.22 Sharon, PA *** *** *** ***

Total *** *** ***

 1 Baosteel America Inc. is wholly owned by Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (China). It is also related to large diameter SLP pipe

producer Yantai Lubao Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (China).

 2

 Commercial Metals is related to CMC Sisak d.o.o (Croatia), which is also a producer of both small and large diameter

seamless SLP pipe. 

 3

 Corus America is wholly owned by Corus Group Ltd. (England) and related to Corus International Trading Ltd.

 4

 Corus International is wholly owned by Corus America Holding, Inc. 

 5

 Coutinho & Ferrostaal is owned by Man-Ferrostaal (Germany), MPC (Germany), and Villacero Group (Mexico).

 6

 Houston OCTG Group is wholly owned by WSP Holding Limited. It is related to Chinese seamless SLP pipe producers WSP

Wuxi Seamless and Oil Pipe Co., Ltd.

 7

 Marubeni Itochu Tubulars America Inc. is wholly owned by Marubeni Itochu Steel Inc.

 8

 Minmetals Inc. (L.A.) is wholly owned by China MinMetals Group (China). 

 9

 National Tube is owned by STAD, S.A. (France), SICAM, S.P.A. (Italy), and Cleveland Steel & Tube Holdings (USA).

 10 North American Interpipe is wholly owned by Interpipe Europe SA. It is related to Ukranian seamless SLP pipe producers

Interpipe Nikotube and Interpipe NTRP.

 11 Pusan Pipe is ***% owned by SeAH Steel Corp. (Korea). 

 12 S B International is ***% owned by SBI Trading Co. (USA) and ***% owned by Virendra Gupta (USA).

 13 Schlumberger Tech. is wholly owned by Schlumberger Limited (USA).

 14 SDB Trade is ***% owned by Dilip Bhargava, limited partner, and ***% owned by SDB Trade, LLC (USA).

 15 Sumitomo is wholly owned by Sumitomo Corp. (Japan). It is related to small and large seamless SLP producer Sumitomo

Metal Industries, Ltd. (Japan).

 16 Sunbelt is wholly owned by Russel Metals (Canada).

 17 Tenaris Global Services USA is wholly owned by Tenaris S.A. It is related to the following small and large diameter seamless

SLP pipe producers: Dalmine SPA (Italy), Siderca SAIC (Argentina), Tubos de Acero de Mexico (Mexico), NKK Tubes (Japan),

S.C. Silcotub SA (Romania), and Algoma Tubes (Canada).

 18 TMK IPSCO is wholly owned by OAO TMK (Switzerland). It is related to Russian seamless SLP pipe producers Volzhsky

Pipe Plant, Sinarsky Pipe Plant, Seversky Tube Works, TagMet.

 19 Toyota Tsusho America is wholly owned by Toyota Tsusho Corp. (Japan).

 20 TPCO is ***% owned by Tianjin Pipe International Economic & Trading Co. and ***% owned by Look Ease Enterprises. It is

related to small and large diameter seamless SLP producer Tianjin Pipe Group Corp. (China).

 21 V&M USA is wholly owned by V&M Tubes (France). It is related to the following small diameter seamless SLP pipe

producers: V&M France, V&M Deutschland GmbH (Germany), V&M do Brasil SA (Brazil). It is also related to the following large

diameter seamless SLP pipe producers: V&M France, V&M Deutschland GmbH, V&M do Brasil SA, and V&M Star L.P.

 22 Wheatland is wholly owned by DBO Holdings. 

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. IMPORTS

Tables IV-2, IV-3, and IV-4 present data for U.S. imports of total seamless SLP pipe, small

diameter seamless SLP pipe, and large diameter seamless SLP pipe from China and all other sources,

respectively. Imports from China and nonsubject sources of small and large diameter seamless SLP pipe

(separately and jointly) increased from 2007 to 2008, but were lower in 2009 compared with 2008. 

Quantities and values of imports of seamless SLP pipe from China were lower in July-December 2009

than in January-June 2009, and were even lower in January-June 2010. Quantities and values of imports

of seamless SLP pipe from all other sources decreased from the first to the second half of 2009, although

they were higher in January-June 2010, with import quantities almost reaching the level of entries in the

first half of 2009. Unit values of imports of seamless SLP pipe from China increased from 2007 to 2008,

IV-3
but were lower in 2009. When comparing the three half-year periods of January 2009 - June 2009, July

2009 - December 2009, and January - June 2010, unit values of subject imports decreased in each period

relative to the previous six-month period. Unit values of imports of seamless SLP pipe from all other

sources increased from 2007 to 2009. However, they were lower in July-December 2009 than in JanuaryJune 2009, and they decreased again in January-June 2010.6

Houston-Galveston, TX, was by far the largest port of entry for both small and large diameter

seamless SLP pipe from China during the period for which data were collected. The second largest port

of entry was Los Angeles, CA. For imported seamless SLP pipe generally, Houston-Galveston and Los

Angeles were the leading ports of entry, followed distantly by Seattle, Philadelphia, and Tampa.

Table IV-2

TOTAL seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports, by sources, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and JanuaryJune 2010

* * * * * * *

Table IV-3

SMALL diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports, by sources, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and

January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table IV-4

LARGE diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports, by sources, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and

January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

 6 During July-December 2009, quantities of imports of aggregate seamless SLP pipe from China, nonsubject

sources, and total were ***, ***, and *** short tons, respectively. Values of imports of aggregate seamless SLP

pipe from China, nonsubject sources, and total were $***, $***, and $***, respectively. Unit values of aggregate

seamless SLP pipe imports from China, nonsubject sources, and total were $***, $***, and $*** per short ton,

respectively.

IV-4
Tables IV-5, IV-6, and IV-7 present data on U.S. imports of total seamless SLP pipe, small

diameter seamless SLP pipe, and large diameter seamless SLP pipe by source, respectively. As discussed

in Part I, U.S. imports of small diameter seamless SLP pipe from Germany and Romania are subject to

antidumping duty orders, as are U.S. imports of small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe

from Japan. With respect to nonsubject import volumes in 2009, witnesses at the hearing testified that

these are largely attributable to imports of specialized product that was imported for a specific project in

the Gulf of Mexico.7

Table IV-5

TOTAL seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports, by sources, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June

2010

Country

Calendar year January - June

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (short tons)

China 172,319 366,088 123,324 66,458 12,191

Argentina 36,357 44,409 12,433 9,627 10,682

Russia 30,889 33,333 9,983 9,853 18,637

Italy 21,136 36,176 22,614 11,663 10,553

Germany1 18,576 25,247 26,698 24,337 7,759

Czech Republic 23,473 31,799 6,970 6,590 6,081

Japan2 28,800 13,673 21,045 5,053 2,496

Mexico 5,953 39,332 11,403 2,675 1,948

Ukraine 16,199 33,679 1,740 1,622 2,493

Spain 7,066 17,807 7,927 5,504 6,806

France 6,987 18,115 9,869 9,079 1,457

All other 33,876 54,850 20,921 15,410 22,776

 Total 401,629 714,508 274,926 167,871 103,878

Table continued on next page.

 7 Hearing transcript, pp. 90-91 (Pognonec); conference transcript, pp. 104-105 (Pognonec).

IV-5
Table IV-5--Continued

TOTAL seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports, by sources, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and

January-June 2010

Country

Calendar year January - June

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Value ($1,000)

China 142,658 412,051 135,240 88,099 10,548

Argentina 67,462 73,867 31,153 25,320 19,695

Russia 29,046 38,654 15,148 14,968 18,178

Italy 44,072 76,632 57,394 34,599 18,596

Germany 35,669 48,667 73,159 67,282 14,083

Czech Republic 25,483 40,710 13,600 13,051 7,175

Japan 56,365 26,828 47,006 13,213 6,482

Mexico 9,910 77,578 26,966 7,884 3,341

Ukraine 15,417 47,877 2,829 2,551 2,773

Spain 11,766 33,186 16,078 12,198 11,577

France 9,573 31,466 21,526 20,090 2,377

All other 47,570 101,763 43,752 32,306 28,608

 Total 494,991 1,009,278 483,849 331,560 143,432

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

China 828 1,126 1,097 1,326 865

Argentina 1,856 1,663 2,506 2,630 1,844

Russia 940 1,160 1,517 1,519 975

Italy 2,085 2,118 2,538 2,967 1,762

Germany 1,920 1,928 2,740 2,765 1,815

Czech Republic 1,086 1,280 1,951 1,980 1,180

Japan 1,957 1,962 2,234 2,615 2,597

Mexico 1,665 1,972 2,365 2,947 1,715

Ukraine 952 1,422 1,626 1,573 1,113

Spain 1,665 1,864 2,028 2,216 1,701

France 1,370 1,737 2,181 2,213 1,631

All other 1,404 1,855 2,091 2,096 1,256

 Average 1,232 1,413 1,760 1,975 1,381

 1 According to official import statistics, large diameter heavy-walled seamless SLP pipe accounted for the large majority

of the observed increase in U.S. imports from Germany in 2009 (concentrated in January – June 2009).

 2

 According to official import statistics, large diameter alloy steel seamless SLP pipe accounted for the large majority of

the observed increase in U.S. imports from Japan in the second half of 2009.

Note.--Countries ranked by import quantity during 2007-June 2010.

Note.–These data do not exclude ASTM A-335 pipe and therefore do not reconcile with table IV-2.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics (HTS 7304.10.1020, 7304.10.1030, 7304.10.1045, 7304.10.1060,

7304.10.5020, 7304.10.5050, 7304.19.1020, 7304.19.1030, 7304.19.1045, 7304.19.1060, 7304.19.5020, 7304.19.5050,

7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024, 7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0062, 7304.59.8010, 7304.59.8015,

7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8045, and 7304.59.8060).

IV-6
Table IV-6

SMALL diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports, by sources, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and

January-June 2010

Country

Calendar year January - June

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (short tons)

China 103,677 197,022 58,577 35,641 5,306

Russia 12,473 10,448 4,674 4,674 5,859

Spain 6,564 15,092 6,899 4,636 3,267

Ukraine 12,080 12,302 1,103 991 1,943

Germany 11,728 9,058 2,431 1,137 1,694

France 6,720 10,057 4,532 4,240 1,398

Austria 1,651 9,489 6,919 4,926 2,630

Japan 5,440 7,381 3,734 2,081 1,845

Czech Republic 5,449 7,243 2,947 2,638 2,663

Slovak Republic 6,865 4,076 994 628 2,015

Argentina 1,333 7,222 1,640 1,073 1,591

All other 9,373 13,184 6,203 3,608 6,874

 Total 183,354 302,573 100,653 66,273 37,085

Value ($1,000)

China 86,290 221,020 63,807 44,597 4,550

Russia 10,442 8,726 7,478 7,478 5,455

Spain 10,575 28,245 13,577 10,097 6,247

Ukraine 11,585 17,944 1,802 1,583 2,213

Germany 20,625 17,591 6,000 3,307 3,147

France 9,061 16,333 11,793 11,163 2,205

Austria 1,886 15,727 14,617 11,125 4,092

Japan 9,380 14,967 10,034 5,596 4,626

Czech Republic 5,679 10,209 5,611 5,208 3,229

Slovak Republic 8,446 6,032 1,671 1,136 2,554

Argentina 2,002 11,417 4,055 2,807 4,507

All other 14,829 24,806 11,352 6,616 8,494

 Total 190,800 393,016 151,796 110,713 51,319

Table continued on next page.

IV-7
Table IV-6--Continued

SMALL diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports, by sources, 2007-09, January-June 2009,

and January-June 2010

Country

Calendar year January - June

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

China 832 1,122 1,089 1,251 858

Russia 837 835 1,600 1,600 931

Spain 1,611 1,871 1,968 2,178 1,912

Ukraine 959 1,459 1,633 1,598 1,139

Germany 1,759 1,942 2,469 2,909 1,858

France 1,348 1,624 2,602 2,633 1,576

Austria 1,142 1,657 2,113 2,259 1,556

Japan 1,724 2,028 2,687 2,689 2,508

Czech Republic 1,042 1,409 1,904 1,974 1,212

Slovak Republic 1,230 1,480 1,682 1,808 1,268

Argentina 1,501 1,581 2,472 2,617 2,832

All other 1,582 1,881 1,830 1,834 1,236

 Average 1,041 1,299 1,508 1,671 1,384

Note.--Countries ranked by import quantity during 2007-June 2010.

Note.–These data do not exclude ASTM A-335 pipe and therefore do not reconcile with table IV-3.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics (HTS 7304.10.1020, 7304.10.5020, 7304.19.1020,

7304.19.5020, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024, 7304.59.8010, and 7304.59.8015).

IV-8
Table IV-7

LARGE diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports, by sources, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and

January-June 2010

Country

Calendar year January - June

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (short tons)

China 68,642 169,066 64,747 30,817 6,885

Argentina 35,024 37,186 10,793 8,555 9,090

Italy 20,823 32,419 21,288 10,630 10,513

Russia 18,416 22,885 5,309 5,179 12,778

Mexico 5,946 39,298 11,139 2,669 1,839

Germany1 6,847 16,189 24,267 23,200 6,065

Czech Republic 18,024 24,556 4,023 3,952 3,418

Japan2 23,360 6,292 17,311 2,973 652

Ukraine 4,119 21,377 637 631 550

Brazil 6,079 13,083 1,889 1,273 81

France 267 8,058 5,337 4,839 59

All other 10,728 21,525 7,535 6,882 14,864

 Total 218,275 411,934 174,273 101,598 66,793

Value ($1,000)

China 56,368 191,031 71,433 43,502 5,998

Argentina 65,460 62,449 27,099 22,513 15,188

Italy 43,380 70,145 55,219 32,818 18,525

Russia 18,603 29,928 7,670 7,490 12,723

Mexico 9,891 77,429 26,728 7,827 3,247

Germany 15,044 31,076 67,159 63,974 10,936

Czech Republic 19,804 30,501 7,989 7,843 3,946

Japan 46,985 11,862 36,972 7,617 1,856

Ukraine 3,832 29,934 1,027 968 560

Brazil 8,579 29,526 4,445 3,096 199

France 513 15,133 9,733 8,927 172

All other 15,730 37,249 16,579 14,272 18,763

 Total 304,191 616,262 332,053 220,847 92,113

Table continued on next page.

IV-9
Table IV-7--Continued

LARGE diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports, by sources, 2007-09, January-June 2009,

and January-June 2010

Country

Calendar year January - June

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

China 821 1,130 1,103 1,412 871

Argentina 1,869 1,679 2,511 2,632 1,671

Italy 2,083 2,164 2,594 3,087 1,762

Russia 1,010 1,308 1,445 1,446 996

Mexico 1,663 1,970 2,399 2,933 1,766

Germany 2,197 1,920 2,768 2,758 1,803

Czech Republic 1,099 1,242 1,986 1,984 1,154

Japan 2,011 1,885 2,136 2,562 2,849

Ukraine 930 1,400 1,612 1,535 1,019

Brazil 1,411 2,257 2,354 2,433 2,473

France 1,923 1,878 1,824 1,845 2,939

All other 1,466 1,730 2,200 2,074 1,262

 Average 1,394 1,496 1,905 2,174 1,379

 1 According to official import statistics, large diameter heavy-walled seamless SLP pipe accounted for the large

majority of the observed increase in U.S. imports from Germany in 2009 (concentrated in January – June 2009).

 2

 According to official import statistics, large diameter alloy steel seamless SLP pipe accounted for the large

majority of the observed increase in U.S. imports from Japan in the second half of 2009.

Note.--Countries ranked by import quantity during 2007-June 2010.

Note.–These data do not exclude ASTM A-335 pipe and therefore do not reconcile with table IV-4.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics (HTS 7304.10.1030, 7304.10.1045, 7304.10.1060,

7304.10.5050, 7304.19.1030, 7304.19.1045, 7304.19.1060, 7304.19.5050, 7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0048,

7304.39.0062, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8045, and 7304.59.8060).

Tables IV-8, IV-9, and IV-10 present data on U.S. imports of total seamless SLP pipe, small

diameter seamless SLP pipe, and large diameter seamless SLP pipe, by source and month from January

2007 to June 2009, respectively. These tables do not exclude A-335 and therefore they do not reconcile

with tables IV-2 through IV-4.

IV-10
IV-11

Table IV-8TOTAL seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports, by source and month, January 2007-June 2010 

Source January February March April May June July August September October N

Quantity (short tons)

2007China 15,047 26,460 10,972 11,228 27,430 11,496 14,717 11,418 11,709 14,367 Nonsubject 20,367 17,177 8,622 32,096 15,837 24,329 23,245 9,406 19,343 26,428  Total 35,415 43,637 19,593 43,324 43,267 35,824 37,962 20,823 31,051 40,795 2008China 23,244 12,632 18,042 13,634 23,948 26,100 21,546 32,594 45,437 50,582 Nonsubject 20,021 16,067 28,217 32,051 28,299 25,320 43,151 24,805 29,663 38,590  Total 43,264 28,699 46,259 45,685 52,247 51,420 64,697 57,400 75,100 89,171 2009China 28,235 10,768 10,037 12,190 3,829 1,399 7,313 1,779 2,263 8,321 Nonsubject 30,129 18,102 22,877 15,101 4,894 10,308 7,866 4,211 3,047 16,014  Total 58,364 28,871 32,914 27,291 8,723 11,708 15,179 5,989 5,310 24,335 2010China 2,621 8,706 179 300 357 28 --- --- --- --- Nonsubject 14,842 9,709 13,018 9,636 18,449 26,034 --- --- --- ---  Total 17,463 18,415 13,197 9,936 18,806 26,062 --- --- --- --- Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics (HTS 7304.10.1020, 7304.10.1030, 7304.10.1045, 7304.10.1060, 7304.10.5020, 7304.10.5050, 73047304.19.1045, 7304.19.1060, 7304.19.5020, 7304.19.5050, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024, 7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0062, 7307304.59.8030, 7304.59.8045, and 7304.59.8060).
IV-12

Table IV-9SMALL diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports, by source and month, January 2007-June 2010 

Source January February March April May June July August September October N

Quantity (short tons)

2007China 9,887 14,125 5,610 5,370 16,314 7,566 10,619 6,537 5,932 11,117 Nonsubject 9,516 5,309 5,375 11,325 4,870 5,377 3,760 6,169 8,371 8,895  Total 19,403 19,434 10,985 16,695 21,184 12,943 14,379 12,706 14,304 20,012 2008China 14,086 7,213 8,877 11,143 11,372 11,155 9,962 13,717 24,854 27,761 Nonsubject 8,142 5,881 10,130 8,067 7,520 10,419 11,368 5,136 9,251 7,521  Total 22,228 13,094 19,007 19,210 18,893 21,574 21,330 18,853 34,105 35,282 2009China 13,515 6,218 7,327 5,506 2,360 715 4,909 1,406 1,063 2,134 Nonsubject 11,987 8,786 5,828 1,401 1,691 938 1,555 1,042 2,102 2,074  Total 25,502 15,004 13,155 6,908 4,050 1,653 6,463 2,448 3,165 4,208 2010China 2,217 2,744 154 99 75 17 --- --- --- --- Nonsubject 2,795 3,360 5,067 4,029 6,987 9,542 --- --- --- ---  Total 5,012 6,104 5,220 4,128 7,061 9,559 --- --- --- --- 

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics (HTS 7304.10.1020, 7304.10.5020, 7304.19.1020, 7304.19.5020, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024
IV-13

Table IV-10LARGE diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports, by source and month, January 2007-June 2010 

Source January February March April May June July August September October N

Quantity (short tons)

2007China 5,160 12,335 5,361 5,858 11,116 3,929 4,098 4,881 5,776 3,251 Nonsubject 10,852 11,868 3,247 20,771 10,967 18,952 19,484 3,237 10,971 17,533  Total 16,012 24,203 8,608 26,629 22,083 22,881 23,582 8,117 16,748 20,783 2008China 9,158 5,419 9,164 2,491 12,576 14,945 11,584 18,878 20,583 22,821 Nonsubject 11,878 10,186 18,087 23,984 20,779 14,901 31,783 19,669 20,412 31,068  Total 21,036 15,605 27,251 26,475 33,354 29,847 43,367 38,547 40,995 53,889 2009China 14,720 4,550 2,710 6,684 1,469 684 2,405 373 1,200 6,186 Nonsubject 18,142 9,317 17,049 13,700 3,204 9,370 6,311 3,168 944 13,940  Total 32,862 13,867 19,758 20,384 4,672 10,055 8,716 3,541 2,144 20,126 2010China 404 5,962 26 201 282 10 --- --- --- --- Nonsubject 12,047 6,349 7,951 5,606 11,462 16,492 --- --- --- ---  Total 12,452 12,311 7,977 5,807 11,744 16,503 --- --- --- --- 

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics (HTS 7304.10.1030, 7304.10.1045, 7304.10.1060, 7304.10.5050, 7304.19.1030, 7304.19.1045, 7304.19.10607304.39.0048, 7304.39.0062, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8045, and 7304.59.8060).
CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES

On September 21, 2010, Commerce issued its final determination that “critical circumstances”

exist with regard to imports from China of seamless SLP pipe from Hengyang and PRC-wide entity.8

 In

these investigations, if both Commerce and the Commission make affirmative final critical circumstances

determinations, certain subject imports may be subject to antidumping and countervailing duties

retroactive by 90 days of April 28, 2010 and/or March 1, 2010, the effective date of Commerce’s

preliminary affirmative LTFV and subsidy determinations, respectively. Tables IV-11, IV-12, and IV-13

present import quantity data for the six-month period prior to the filing of the petition and for the six

month period following filing for total seamless SLP pipe, small diameter seamless SLP pipe, and large

diameter seamless SLP pipe, respectively. Commerce has determined, in both the antidumping duty and

countervailing duty determinations, that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to Tianjin Pipe

(Group) Corporation (“TPCO”). 

Table IV-11

TOTAL seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports from China, by month, April 2009 - March 2010

* * * * * * *

Table IV-12

Small diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports from China, by month, April 2009 - March 2010

* * * * * * *

Table IV-13

Large diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports from China, by month, April 2009 - March 2010

* * * * * * *

NEGLIGIBILITY

The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports

of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.9

 Negligible imports are generally defined in the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as imports from a country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic

like product where such imports account for less than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise

imported into the United States in the most recent 12-month period for which data are available that

 8 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the People’s Republic of

China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances

Determination, 75 FR 57444, September 21, 2010 and Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and

Pressure Pipe From the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Critical Circumstances, in Part, 75 FR 57449, September 21, 2010, presented in app. A. When petitioners file

timely allegations of critical circumstances, Commerce examines whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or

suspect that (1) either there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United

States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was

imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at LTFV and that there

was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and (2) there have been massive imports of the subject

merchandise over a relatively short period.

 9

 Sections 703(a)(1), 705(b)(1), 733(a)(1), and 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1), 1671d(b)(1),

1673b(a)(1), and 1673d(b)(1)).

IV-14
precedes the filing of the petition or the initiation of the investigation. However, if there are imports of

such merchandise from a number of countries subject to investigations initiated on the 

same day that individually account for less than 3 percent of the total volume of the subject merchandise,

and if the imports from those countries collectively account for more than 7 percent of the volume of all

such merchandise imported into the United States during the applicable 12-month period, then imports

from such countries are deemed not to be negligible.10 Imports from China accounted for 67.7 percent of

total imports of small diameter seamless SLP pipe by quantity from September 2008 to August 2009;

imports from China accounted for 40.8 percent of total imports of large diameter seamless SLP pipe

byquantity from September 2008 to August 2009; and imports from China accounted for 52.5 percent of

total imports of seamless SLP pipe by quantity from September 2008 to August 2009.11

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of total seamless SLP pipe, small diameter seamless

SLP pipe, and large diameter seamless SLP pipe during the period for which data were collected are

shown in tables IV-14, IV-15, and IV-16, respectively. Apparent U.S. consumption for total seamless

SLP pipe increased from 2007 to 2008 by *** percent, but declined in 2009 by *** percent. Apparent

U.S. consumption dipped again and was lower in the second half of 2009 than in the first half of 2009,

but was higher in the first half of 2010 than in the second half of 2009.12

Table IV-14

TOTAL seamless SLP pipe: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table IV-15

SMALL diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and

apparent U.S. consumption, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table IV-16

LARGE diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and

apparent U.S. consumption, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share data for total seamless SLP pipe, small diameter seamless SLP pipe, and large

diameter seamless SLP pipe are presented in tables IV-17, IV-18, and IV-19, respectively.

 10 Section 771(24) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)).

 11 Data are modestly overstated because they include ASTM A-335 pipe.

 12 During July-December 2009 apparent U.S. consumption was *** short tons by quantity and $*** by value.

IV-15
Table IV-17

TOTAL seamless SLP pipe: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2007-09, January-June 2009,

and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table IV-18

SMALL diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2007-09, January-June

2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table IV-19

LARGE diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2007-09, January-June

2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of imports to U.S. production of total seamless SLP pipe, small

diameter seamless SLP pipe, and large diameter seamless SLP pipe is presented in tables IV-20, IV-21,

and IV-22, respectively.

Table IV-20

TOTAL seamless SLP pipe: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S.

production, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table IV-21

SMALL diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S.

production, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table IV-22

LARGE diameter seamless SLP pipe: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S.

production, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

IV-16
PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

Raw materials account for a large share of the cost of seamless SLP pipe. During 2007-09, these

costs ranged from a low of *** percent of the cost-of-goods sold (COGS) in 2009 to a high of *** percent

in 2008. During January-June 2010, raw material costs accounted for *** percent.1

 Ferrous scrap is a

major input used in the production of seamless SLP pipe. As shown in figure V-1, the price of ferrous

scrap rose irregularly to peak levels during mid-2008 and then declined sharply during the latter portion

of the year. Ferrous scrap prices increased irregularly through 2009 and into 2010, but have fluctuated in

recent months. 

Figure V-1

Ferrous scrap: Prices for number 1 heavy melt, Chicago average, monthly, January 2007-

September 2010

Source: American Metal Market, found at http.//www.amm.com/pricing, retrieved on September 16, 2010.

 1 For small diameter seamless SLP pipe, these costs ranged from a low of *** percent of the COGS in 2009 to a

high of *** percent in 2008. During January-June 2010, raw material costs accounted for *** percent of the COGS

for such pipe. For large diameter seamless SLP pipe, these costs ranged from a low of *** percent of the COGS in

2009 to a high of *** percent in 2008. During January-June 2010, raw material costs accounted for *** percent of

the COGS for such pipe.

V-1
In addition to ferrous scrap, energy costs are also an important input in the cost of producing

seamless SLP pipe. Table V-1 presents costs of natural gas and electricity to industrial users during

2007-09 and during January-July 2010 for natural gas and January-June for electricity. The data show

that the cost of natural gas increased significantly in 2008 and then fell sharply in 2009 before recovering

moderately in January-July 2010. The cost of electricity also increased significantly in 2008 and

remained at the higher level in 2009 before declining in January-June 2010. 

Table V-1

Energy and input prices: U.S. natural gas and electricity, average annual prices, 2007-09 and 2010

year-to-date

Item 2007 2008 2009 2010

U.S. natural gas industrial price1 $7.68 $9.67 $5.28

(Jan.-July)

$5.74

Electricity industrial price2 6.1¢ 6.8¢ 6.8¢

(Jan.-June)

6.7¢ 

 1 Price to industrial users in dollars per thousand cubic feet.

 2

 Price to industrial users in cents per kilowatt-hour.

Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov, official statistics of the U.S. Department

of Energy, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_3.html,

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html,

U.S. Inland Transportation

Inland shipping charges vary as a share of delivered prices for U.S. producers and importers of

seamless SLP pipe. For producers, estimated costs ranged from 3 to 5 percent. Most of the importers

provided cost estimates ranging from 1 percent to 5 percent. Questionnaire responses show that U.S.

producers’ sales typically involve longer distances than importers’. U.S. producers reported that 75 to

100 percent of sales involve distances of 101 miles or more from their storage or production facilities. In

contrast, 14 of 20 responding importers reported that 75 to 100 percent of their sales involved distances of

100 miles or less from their storage facilities. 

PRICING PRACTICES

U.S. producers and importers of Chinese-produced and nonsubject products commonly establish

seamless SLP prices through transaction-by-transaction negotiations, although they use other methods as

well. Three of seven responding U.S. producers use transaction-by-transaction negotiations, two rely

completely on price lists, one primarily uses price lists with some transactional negotiations, and one uses

a combination of transaction-by-transaction negotiations and contracts for multiple shipments. Among 30

responding importers, 17 reported that prices are determined solely or principally by transaction-bytransaction negotiations. Other importers use price lists, markups based upon import costs, and contracts

in determining prices. 

V-2
Discount policies on seamless SLP pipe vary. Three of seven responding U.S. producers 

(***) reported that they provide or have provided volume discounts.2

 A fourth producer, ***, reported

that it does not have a discount policy, but it does offer lower prices for larger volume transactions than

for smaller volume transactions. Three producers, ***, generally do not offer discounts.3

 Among the 28

responding importers, 23 reported that they do not provide volume discounts or at least do not have a

policy regarding such discounts, while 5 reported that they do regularly use volume discounts, or

negotiate lower prices for larger volume sales. Six U.S. producers reported offering discounts, generally

of 1 to 2 percent, for the early payment of accounts. Among importers, just three of 29 responding firms

reported offering discounts of 1 to 2 percent for early payment.

 Questionnaire respondents reported widely varying methods of quoting prices. U.S. producers

commonly quote prices for seamless SLP pipe on an f.o.b. mill, f.o.b warehouse, or delivered basis. 

Among importers, methods for price quotes included f.o.b. dock, f.o.b. warehouse, f.o.b. storage yard,

f.o.b. loaded truck port, delivered, c.i.f. duty paid, and direct discharge at port. 

Five of seven responding U.S. producers and 24 of 28 responding importers sell entirely on a spot

rather than contract basis. *** and *** reported using contracts for periods ranging from *** months or

until further notice. For ***, both prices and quantities are fixed during the contract period, while for ***

the price but not the quantity is fixed. Neither company has contracts with meet-or-release provisions. 

Among the importers that sell under contract, four reported contract periods ranging from 3 to 18 months,

with most involving periods of 6 months or less. For most of these importers, contracts fix both prices

and quantities for the duration of the contract periods, and do not include meet-or-release provisions. 

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of seamless SLP pipe from China and

nonsubject countries to provide quarterly data for the total quantity and value of two small diameter, and

two large diameter seamless SLP pipe products shipped to distributors (unrelated to the supplying firms)

in the U.S. market during the period January 2007 through June 2010. The products for which pricing

data were requested are as follows:4

Product 1.–Seamless pipe quad stenciled to meet ASTM A-106 grade B, ASTM A-53 grade

B, API 5L and APL 5L grade X-42 specifications; 2" nominal size (2 3/8 inch OD x 0.154

wall thickness); plain ends.

Product 2.--Seamless pipe quad stenciled to meet ASTM A-106 grade B, ASTM A-53 grade

B, API 5L and APL 5L grade X-42 specifications; 4" nominal size (4 1⁄2 inch OD x 0.237 wall

thickness); plain ends.

Product 3.--Seamless pipe quad stenciled to meet ASTM A-106 grade B, ASTM A-53 grade

B, API 5L and APL 5L grade X-42 specifications; 8" nominal size (8 5/8 inch OD x 0.322

wall thickness); plain ends.

 2 ***. 

 3

 ***.

 4

 These four product descriptions were recommended in the original petition (see petition, volume 1, p. 22). Data

were originally requested for a fifth product, ASTM A-335 P91 pipe. The product was defined as follows: Product

5.--Seamless pipe single stenciled to meet ASTM A-335 grade P91; 12" nominal size (12 3/4 inch OD x 1.00 wall

thickness); square cut plain ends. However, ASTM A-335 pipe is no longer within the scope of the investigations.

V-3
Product 4.--Seamless pipe quad stenciled to meet ASTM A-106 grade B, ASTM A-53 grade

B, API 5L and APL 5L grade X-42 specifications; 12" nominal size (12 3/4 inch OD x 0.375

wall thickness); plain ends.

Four U.S. producers of seamless SLP pipe and thirteen importers of seamless SLP pipe from

China provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported

pricing for all products or for all quarters. Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for 13.6 percent

of U.S. producers’ shipments of seamless SLP pipe and 27.5 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports

from China during 2007 through January-June 2010.5

Price Trends

Tables V-2 through V-5 present quarterly weighted-average prices for products 1-4 for the United

States and China for the period January-March 2007 through April-June 2010.6 7

 The data show that

prices of all four U.S.-produced products increased overall during the period for which data were

collected. U.S. prices for all four products increased sharply during 2008, with small diameter seamless

SLP pipe prices peaking in the fourth quarter of 2008, and large diameter seamless SLP pipe prices

peaking in the first quarter of 2009. U.S. prices of all four products declined from their peak levels, and

then recovered to some extent in late 2009 (product 1) and the first half of 2010 (products 2, 3, 4). Prices

of imports from China generally increased in 2008, and often moved in the same general direction as U.S.

prices during the 14 quarter period. A summary of price ranges and percentage changes in prices is

presented in table V-6. 

Shipment quantities for all four U.S.- produced products and imports from China fluctuated

widely during the 14 quarters for which data were collected. U.S. producers’ shipment quantities for

these quad-stencilled products fell markedly in 2009, while Chinese volumes also fell, but not to the same

extent. In 2010, however, U.S. importers’ sales volumes continued to decline most notably for large

diameter seamless SLP pipe. 

 5 For small diameter pipe, price data accounted for *** percent of U.S. producers’ shipments of seamless SLP

pipe and 31.3 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from China during 2007 through January-June 2010. For

large diameter pipe, price data accounted for *** percent of U.S. producers’ shipments of seamless SLP pipe and

23.9 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from China during 2007 through January-June 2010. 

 6

 Price data for U.S.-produced seamless SLP pipe and imports from both China and nonsubject sources are

presented in Appendix E. Nonsubject country pricing data were reported for Argentina, Brazil, Croatia, Czech

Republic, France, Italy, India, Poland, and Russia. 

 7

 Just one U.S. producer, Wyman-Gordon, reported prices for product 5. Wyman-Gordon sold *** short tons in

the third quarter of 2009 at an average price of $*** per short ton, *** short tons in the fourth quarter of 2009 at an

average price of $*** per short ton, and *** short tons in the second quarter of 2010 at an average price of $*** per

short ton. There were no reported sales of this product from China. 

V-4
Table V-2

Seamless SLP pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table V-3

Seamless SLP pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 2 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table V-4

Seamless SLP pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 3 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table V-5

Seamless SLP pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 4 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2

Seamless SLP pipe: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product,

by quarters, January 2007-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table V-6

Seamless SLP pipe: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-4 from the United

States and China, January 2007-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Price Comparisons

Table V-7 presents margins of underselling and overselling for the period. As shown in the table,

prices for seamless SLP pipe imported from China were below those for U.S.-produced seamless SLP

pipe in 55 of 56 comparisons; margins of underselling ranged from 5.2 to 65.4 percent. Detailed

breakouts of margin data between small and large diameter seamless pipe are presented in the table. For

the specified price items, U.S. imports of Chinese small diameter seamless SLP pipe undersold

comparable U.S.-produced pipe in 27 of 28 comparisons, with margins of underselling in excess of 33

percent in 15 comparisons. For the specified price items, U.S. imports of Chinese large diameter

seamless SLP pipe undersold comparable U.S.-produced pipe in all 28 comparisons, with margins of

underselling in excess of 33 percent in 22 comparisons.

V-5
Table V-7

Seamless SLP pipe: Instances of underselling/overselling in price comparisons between products

produced in the United States and China and ranges and averages of margins, January 2007-June

2010

Item

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

All seamless

SLP pipe 55 5.2 - 65.4 37.7 1 4.3 4.3

Small

diameter

(products 1

and 2) 27 5.2 - 63.2 34.0 1 4.3 4.3

Large

diameter

(products 3

and 4) 28 8.3 - 65.4 41.5 0 - -

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

Neither the petitioners nor the non-petitioning firms provided the detailed information and

purchaser contacts needed to investigate lost sales or lost revenue allegations directly. The petitioners

have argued that since most producer sales are made to distributors, the companies are not well positioned

to trace a specific lost sale to a specific import. Nonetheless, petitioners attribute declining market shares,

declining revenues due to falling prices, and the inability to make further sales to the presence of U.S.

imports of seamless SLP pipe from China.8

 The respondents disagree with these allegations.9

 8 Conference transcript, p. 80 (Schagrin) and Postconference Brief of V&M Star, TMK IPSO and the USW,

p. 16.

 9

 See respondents’ prehearing brief, pp. 13-14.

V-6
PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Eight U.S. firms produce and sell seamless SLP pipe; *** provided usable financial data on their

operations producing seamless SLP pipe.1

 These reported data are believed to represent the large

majority of U.S. seamless SLP pipe production during the period for which data were collected.2

OPERATIONS ON SEAMLESS SLP PIPE

Income-and-loss data for the reporting U.S. producers of seamless SLP pipe combined for small

and large diameter are presented in table VI-1; income-and-loss data for U.S. producers of small diameter

seamless SLP pipe and large diameter seamless SLP pipe are presented in tables VI-2 and VI-3,

respectively. Table VI-1 data are briefly summarized as follows:

• Total industry net sales rose substantially from 2007 to 2008 and fell sharply in 2009. The

average unit value (“AUV”) of sales increased during the full year periods (the greatest amount of

the increase occurred in 2008), which contributed to the initial increase in sales value. That

increase in sales in 2008 from 2007 was ascribed to high energy prices for oil and gas, high scrap

prices, and the “hot market”3

 during the latter half of that year. Sales were much higher on a

quantity and value basis in interim 2010 compared with interim 2009 although sales AUV was

much lower. 

• Cost of goods sold (“COGS”) tended to follow sales volume: From 2007 to 2008, the dollar

values of sales and COGS both increased sharply with the increase in sales ($***) being much

greater than that of COGS ($***). From 2008 to 2009, the dollar values of sales and COGS both

fell sharply with the fall in sales being much greater than that of COGS ($*** versus $***). 

Total COGS was greater in January-June 2010 compared to January-June 2009 but the dollar

value difference in COGS between the two periods was less than the dollar value difference in

total sales. Changes in the dollar value of raw material costs accounted for most of the change in

dollar value of COGS. The unit value of raw material costs increased sharply from 2007 to 2008;

although the AUV of raw material costs were slightly lower in 2009 compared to 2008, the fixed

cost components of direct labor and other factory costs led those two cost categories to much

higher levels, particularly when sales volume fell sharply.

• Selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses increased from 2007 to 2008 in dollar

terms but were lower when expressed as a ratio to sales or as an AUV. Because SG&A expenses

tend to have a higher proportion of fixed costs, these expenses were higher as a ratio to sales and

as an AUV when sales volume fell in 2009. SG&A expenses were much higher in January-June

2010 than in January-June 2009 but the dollar difference was not as much as that of sales on a

percentage basis; hence, the ratio of these costs to sales was lower as was the unit cost.

 1 *** provided complete data on a calendar-year basis. ***. 

 2

 Data differences between the preliminary phase and final phase are due to: (1) ***; and (2) two firms (***) that

changed data for 2007 and 2008. Data differences between the prehearing and posthearing staff reports are due to: 

(1) corrections to ***, and (2) the exclusion of data on ASTM A-335. *** reported on their seamless SLP pipe

operations, including their operations on ASTM A-335, and were included in the prehearing staff report. Following

the change in the scope by Commerce, the staff report has been amended to exclude the data on ASTM A-335 only. 

This affects the total reported for small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe together and the reported

data for small diameter (by ***) and large diameter (by ***) separately.

 3

 Conference transcript, p. 94 (Schagrin).

VI-1
• Operating income increased by more than *** percent from 2007 to 2008 but fell sharply in 2009

although it remained positive. Operating margins for the industry as a whole ranged from ***

percent to *** percent during 2007-08 but were much lower at about *** percent in 2009. Most

of the operating income in 2009 occurred during the first half of the year (discussed later). 

Operating income was higher in dollar terms in interim 2010 compared to interim 2009 (up by

*** percent) and as a ratio to sales (up *** percentage points) while it was lower on a per-unit

basis. 

• Net income before taxes following adjustments for interest and other expenses and other income

items and cash flows followed operating income. Both were positive in each of the periods for

which data were collected.

Table VI-1

Combined small and large diameter seamless SLP pipe: Results of operations of U.S. producers,

2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

The fall in sales from 2008 to 2009 was ascribed to a combination of the economic crisis that

began in late 2008 and high levels of imports and inventories of imported subject product.4

 Petitioners

attributed the industry’s 2009 profitability to sales made early in 2009 at prices reflecting 2008 values.5

U.S. producers’ reported total data reflect relatively higher profitability during the January-June 2009

period compared to the July-December 2009 period (half-year profitability for small and large diameter

seamless SLP pipe is described later).6

Tables VI-2 and VI-3 present financial data for the firms producing small and large diameter

seamless SLP pipe (a detailed presentation of U.S. producers’ prices and sales volumes for representative

small and large diameter seamless SLP pipe products may be found in tables V-1 through V-4).

 4 The sharp decline in net sales was characterized as a “collapse” in the preliminary phase of the investigations.

Conference transcript, p. 17 (Vaughn). An industry witness stated that “in May of 2009, virtually the entire

domestic industry was shut down.” Hearing transcript, p. 50 (Matthews). See also hearing transcript, pp. 54-55

(Matthews). A witness from V&M Star described the effect on volume by saying that the import surge destroyed the

firm’s order book, and that the inventory overhang combined with weak demand prevented the firm’s order book

from returning to normal levels. These factors affected production, employment, pricing, and profitability as well. 

Hearing transcript, pp. 59-60 (Herald). Witnesses stated that prices, a lagging indicator, did not immediately

collapse but drifted down for about a year starting in September 2008. Hearing transcript, pp. 155 (Vaughn), 156

(Thompson), and 157 (Pognonec–prices fell only when the firm resumed selling after almost a year of shutdown).

 5

 Hearing transcript, pp. 156-157 (Thompson) and U.S. Steel’s posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 36. 

 6

 Subtracting the reported data for January-June 2009 from full year 2009 (table VI-1) provides the following for

July-December 2009: Sales quantity was greater at *** short tons but the unit value was lower at $*** per short ton

and total sales value was nearly the same at $***. Due to the greater sales volume, COGS was higher at $***,

representing *** percent of sales and a unit cost of $*** per short ton). Within COGS, the dollar value, ratio to

sales, and unit cost of raw materials were greater ($***; *** percent; and $*** per short ton, respectively), while the

dollar value, ratio to sales, and unit cost of other factory costs were lower ($***; *** percent; and $*** per short

ton, respectively). The dollar value, ratio-to-sales and unit cost of SG&A expenses were higher ($***, *** percent,

and $*** per short ton). Operating income was $***, equivalent to *** percent of sales or $*** per short ton.

VI-2
Table VI-2

Small diameter seamless SLP pipe: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2007-09, JanuaryJune 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table VI-3

Large diameter seamless SLP pipe: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2007-09, JanuaryJune 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Continuously cast rounds, a semifinished intermediate product, may be produced by either scrapbased or integrated steelmaking process7

 and transferred from the steelmaking unit to the pipe-making

unit or purchased from an unrelated party. COGS were mostly affected by changes in raw material costs

from 2007 to 2008, which increased as a share of total COGS, from *** percent to ***, but fell to ***

percent in 2009. Raw material costs were *** percent of COGS in January-June 2010 compared with ***

percent in the same period one year earlier. Raw material costs rose in absolute value, as a percentage of

net sales, and on a per-unit basis from 2007 to 2008. This was ascribed to high natural gas costs, scrap,

and other input costs in 2008, which was described as a “hot market.”8

 For example, raw material costs

averaged $*** per short ton of sales in 2008 for the reporting U.S. producers (up substantially from $***

per short ton in 2007. Raw material costs were lower in 2009 compared to 2008 as the market declined

and demand for inputs fell; the ratio of such costs to sales and the unit value of raw material costs were

lower as well, but to a lesser degree. Overall, the dollar value, ratio to sales, and unit value of raw

material costs were greater in interim 2010 than in interim 2009. The unit value of raw material costs was

somewhat lower for small diameter seamless SLP pipe in interim 2010 than in interim 2009.

Table VI-4 depicts operating data on a firm-by-firm basis for small diameter SLP pipe while table

VI-5 provides that data for large diameter SLP pipe.9

Table VI-4

Small diameter seamless SLP pipe: Selected results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm,

2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

 7 Continuously cast rounds are the direct raw materials used in making seamless SLP pipe and may be produced

or purchased by integrated steelmakers or electric arc furnace steelmakers. Steel scrap is the primary raw material

utilized in the production of steel by electric furnace steelmakers, while the integrated steelmaking process utilizes

such inputs as molten iron, coke, steel scrap, and other additives. In the integrated steelmaking process, molten iron

(produced in a blast furnace) is transferred to a basic oxygen furnace (BOF) and combined with steel scrap and other

additives (aluminum, ferro alloys, fluxes and the like) to produce liquid steel. The liquid steel, whether produced by

the electric furnace or BOF, is transferred to a ladle, where the steel’s chemistry may be fine-tuned, and thence to a

casting unit where billets of circular cross section (“rounds”) are continuously cast. For a description of ***, see

Petition, exh. II-15. U.S. Steel is an integrated producer while the other U.S. producers are electric arc furnace scrapbased producers. Irrespective of process, direct raw materials such as steel scrap may be purchased.

 8

 Conference transcript, pp. 72 (Schagrin, with regard to natural gas, scrap, and input costs), 72 (Schagrin,

relationship between input costs and sales prices), and 94 (Schagrin, with regard to “hot” market).

 9

 The data for small diameter seamless SLP pipe indicates that this product was ***. Petitioners stated that ***. 

See U.S. Steel’s postconference brief, exh. 1, pp. 11-12.

VI-3
Table VI-5

Large diameter seamless SLP pipe: Selected results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm,

2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

U.S. producers’ combined data for small diameter and large diameter seamless SLP pipe reflect 

relatively higher profitability during the January-June 2009 period compared to the July-December 2009,

as noted earlier. U.S. producers’ financial performance on small diameter seamless SLP pipe was slightly

better in July-December 2009 compared with January-June 2009; this result could be attributed to ***.10

U.S. producers’ financial performance on large diameter seamless SLP pipe was worse in July-December

2009 compared with January-June 2009; only ***.11

Michigan Seamless, ***, provided data for its production facility in South Lyon, MI, where it

produces small diameter seamless SLP pipe. Including ASTM A-335, that product accounted for ***

percent of its production at the plant in 2009. The firm, which described itself as a producer of small

quantity runs that are customized to customer specifications,12 reported producing ***. Unlike the other

reporting producers of small diameter seamless pipe, Michigan Seamless’s ***. It was ***. The firm’s

operating income was ***. 

Plymouth Tube, as noted previously, ***.

Timken, ***, provided data for its production facility in Canton, OH, where it produces both

small (accounting for *** percent of its total production in 2009) and large diameter seamless SLP pipe

(*** percent of its total production in 2009). Mechanical tube (*** percent) and OCTG (*** percent)

also were produced at the Canton, OH, facility. Timken reported ***.13 The firm noted that it does not

maintain historical data on booking levels and lead times but was able to determine that ***.14

 10 Subtracting the reported data for January-June 2009 from full year 2009 for small diameter seamless SLP pipe

(tables VI-2 and VI-4) provides the following for the July-December 2009 period: Sales quantity was greater at ***

short tons but the unit value was lower at $*** per short ton. Total sales value was higher, $***. Due to the greater

sales volume, COGS was greater at $***, representing *** percent of sales and a unit cost of $*** per short ton. 

Within COGS, the dollar value and ratio to sales of raw materials were greater ($*** and *** percent, respectively)

while the unit cost was lower ($*** per short ton). The dollar value, ratio to sales, and unit cost of other factory

costs were lower ($***; *** percent; and $*** per short ton, respectively). The dollar value and ratio-to-sales of

SG&A expenses were higher ($*** and *** percent, respectively, while the unit costs were lower--$*** per short

ton). Operating income was $***, equivalent to *** percent of sales and $*** per short ton of sales. 

 11 Subtracting the reported data for January-June 2009 from full year 2009 for large diameter seamless SLP pipe

(tables VI-3 and VI-5) provides the following for the July-December 2009 period: Sales quantity was greater at ***

short tons but the unit value was lower at $*** per short ton. Total sales value was lower, $***. Due to the greater

sales volume, COGS was greater at $***, representing *** percent of sales but a lower unit cost of $*** per short

ton). Within COGS, the dollar value, ratio to sales, and unit cost of raw materials were greater ($***, *** percent,

and $*** per short ton, respectively). The dollar value and ratio to sales of other factory costs were higher ($***

and *** percent; respectively) while the unit cost was lower at $*** per short ton. The dollar value, ratio-to-sales,

and unit costs of SG&A expenses were higher ($***, *** percent, and $*** per short ton, respectively). The

operating loss was $***, equivalent to a negative *** percent of sales or $(***) per short ton of sales.

 12 See company website at http://www.mstube.com. Company data were revised ***, as noted earlier.

 13 Timken’s pipe operations are included in its steel segment for reporting purposes. Overall (including its

bearings business) and for the steel segment, Timken reported a loss in 2009 compared with profit from operations

during 2005-08. It reported that its steel segment sales fell by more than 60 percent from 2008 to 2009. Timken’s

annual report on form 10-K for 2009.

 14 Timken’s questionnaire response, II-12a.

VI-4
TMK IPSCO, ***, reported for its production facilities in Ambridge and Koppel, PA and for its

processing facilities in Baytown,Houston, and Odessa, TX.15 It produces only small diameter seamless

SLP pipe, which accounted for percent of its production in 2009 (OCTG accounted for *** percent of

production in that year by comparison). TMK IPSCO was ***.

U.S. Steel, which produces seamless SLP pipe at Fairfield, AL and Lorain, OH, was the ***

producer and accounted for about *** percent by value of U.S. producers’ total sales in 2009. U.S. Steel

reported for both small and large diameter SLP pipe (small diameter accounted for *** percent of

production and large diameter accounted for *** percent of production in 2009; OCTG production

accounted for *** percent of production at U.S. Steel’s facilities in Lorain, OH and Fairfield, AL in 2009. 

It was *** of the periods for which data were gathered; its *** in January-June 2010 were *** than in

January-June 2009. U.S. Steel stated that its overall ***.16 U.S. Steel reported in late 2008 and 2009 that

its order book ***,17 which it attributed to increased imports and inventories at distributors, and that it

slashed production: the firm idled *** during 2009. 

V&M Star, the *** U.S. producer overall in terms of sales value in 2009, produces only large

diameter seamless SLP pipe at its plant in Youngstown, OH; its processing operation is located at

Houston, TX. In 2009, large diameter seamless SLP pipe accounted for approximately *** percent of

total production (OCTG production accounted for a *** share in that year, *** percent. In 2009, it was

the *** producer of seamless SLP pipe, accounting for about *** percent, by value, of U.S. producers’

sales. It reported ***. The firm stated it previously did not lay off any of its workers, even when demand

conditions were depressed, but has been forced to lay off half of its workforce.18

Wheatland, the *** producer overall in terms of sales value in 2009, produces only small

diameter seamless SLP pipe; its facilities are located in Sharon, PA, and Wheatland, PA. Small diameter

seamless SLP pipe production accounted for *** percent of its 2009 production, whereas drawn over

mandrel mechanical tubing accounted ***. Wheatland’s sales ***. Wheatland ***.19

Wyman-Gordon, the ***, produces large diameter pipe at its Houston, TX facility (its production

of seamless SLP pipe accounted for *** percent of total production at that facility in 2009).20 After the

firm’s data were revised ***, Wyman-Gordon’s sales ***. 

 15 TMK IPSCO was formed in June 2008 when TMK acquired IPSCO Tubular from SSAB Svenkst Stal AB. As

noted in the firm’s press release dated June 13, 2008, TMK acquired 10 production sites with combined pipe

production capacity of over one million metric tons, including about 300,000 metric tons of seamless pipe

production capacity as well as steelmaking capability of 450,000 metric tons of billets. The acquisition was

described as TMK’s largest to-date and an essential part of TMK’s strategy to expand the firm’s global presence. 

Press release found at company Internet site, http://www.tmk-group.com, retrieved on August 16, 2010.

 16 See U.S. Steel’s postconference brief, exh. 21. U.S. Steel classifies its operations into three reportable

segments, including “Tubulars”. From 2008 to 2009 net sales fell 71 percent and operating income fell 95 percent. 

The Tubulars segment was profitable ($57 million) in contrast to other reporting segments of U.S. Steel, which

together recorded a loss of $1.6 billion. The decline was attributed to “unfavorable commercial effects, operating

inefficiencies related to idled facilities and facilities operating at reduced production levels and write-downs of

inventory. These were partially offset by lower costs of substrate steel purchases from the Flat-rolled segment, and

the absence of accruals for profit based payments.” U.S. Steel’s 2009 form 10-K, pp. 58, 61, and 64.

 17 Orders for small diameter seamless SLP pipe as of March 31, 2009 and June 30, 2009, were approximately ***

percent and *** of the level one year earlier, respectively. Orders for large diameter seamless SLP pipe as of March

31, 2009 and June 30, 2009, were each approximately *** percent of the level one year earlier. U.S. Steel

producers’ questionnaire response, II-12a and II-12b.

 18 Conference transcript, p. 30 (Lindgren). In its questionnaire response, the firm stated that it ***. V&M Star’s

questionnaire response, III-16b.

 19 Wheatland’s ***. The ratio of ***.

 20 Wyman-Gordon reported that *** percent of its production was accounted for by pipes with a diameter greater

than 16 inches; it also reported the ***.

VI-5
Summary variance analyses for the operations of U.S. producers on small and large diameter

seamless SLP pipe are presented in table VI-6. The information for these variance analyses is derived

from tables VI-1, VI-2, and VI-3.21 The analysis for the combined small and large diameter pipe shows

that the decrease of $*** in operating income from 2007 to 2009 was attributable to the favorable price

variance (unit sales values increased) that was much less than the unfavorable net cost/expense variance

(unit costs increased) and volume variances combined. Operating income increased by $*** in interim

2010 compared to interim 2009 because an unfavorable price variance (unit prices fell) was less than the

favorable variances on net cost/expense (unit costs and expenses decreased) and volume. Changes in

operating income and the mix of favorable/unfavorable variances between small and large diameter

seamless SLP pipe were similar to the combined analysis.22

Table VI-6

Combined, small, and large diameter seamless SLP pipe: Summary of variance analysis on the

operations of U.S. producers, 2007-09, and January-June 2009 to January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES

Each of the U.S. producers was asked about the nature of their capital expenditures and research

and development (“R&D”) expenses. As shown in table VI-7, capital expenditures and R&D expenses

increased between 2007 and 2008, but were lower in 2009. Both were higher in January-June 2010 than

in January-June 2009.

Table VI-7

Seamless SLP pipe: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S.

producers, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Company responses regarding the focus of their capital expenditures and R&D expenses are

summarized in the following tabulation.

* * * * * * *

 21 A variance analysis is calculated in three parts, sales variance, cost of sales variance, and SG&A expense

variance. Each part consists of a price variance (in the case of the sales variance) or a cost or expense (cost/expense)

variance (in the case of the cost of sales and SG&A expense variance), and a volume variance. The sales or

cost/expense variance is calculated as the change in unit price or per-unit cost/expense times the new volume, while

the volume variance is calculated as the change in volume times the old unit price or per-unit cost/expense. 

Summarized at the bottom of the table, the price variance is from sales; the cost/expense variance is the sum of those

items from COGS and SG&A variances, respectively, and the volume variance is the sum of the volume components

of the net sales, COGS, and SG&A expense variances. The overall volume component of the variance analysis is

generally small.

 22 As noted earlier, at $***, U.S. producers’ total operating income was lower by approximately $*** in JulyDecember 2009, compared with January-June 2009, attributable to an unfavorable price variance (a negative $***

that overwhelmed the favorable variances on net cost/expense and volume. In July-December 2009, compared with

January-June 2009, the operating income on small diameter seamless SLP was greater by $***, attributable to an

unfavorable price variance of $*** that did not completely offset favorable variances on net cost/expense and

volume. In July-December 2009, compared with January-June 2009, the operating income on large diameter

seamless SLP was less by $***, reflecting an unfavorable price variance of $***.

VI-6
ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Data on the U.S. producers’ total assets and their return on investment (“ROI”) are presented in

table VI-8. Total assets utilized in the production, warehousing, and sale of seamless SLP pipe for

reporting U.S. producers increased by nearly *** percent from 2007 to 2008 led by accounts receivables,

the book value of property, plant, and equipment, and by “other non-current” assets (goodwill, deferred

tax assets and debt costs, and declining from 2008 to 2009 by nearly *** percent. To a large extent,

changes in assets reflect the changing allocations of values to seamless SLP pipe (i.e., how the product

uses costs differently from period to period). ROI, which is calculated as the ratio of operating income to

total assets, therefore followed the trend of operating income, and was higher in 2008 from 2007 but fell

back in 2009 to a much lower level than in 2007.23

Table VI-8

Seamless SLP pipe: Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, fiscal years

2007–09

* * * * * * *

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers of seamless SLP pipe to describe any actual or

potential negative effects of imports of seamless SLP pipe from China on their firms’ growth, investment,

ability to raise capital, development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments. Their

responses are shown below.

Actual Negative Effects

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Negative Effects

* * * * * * *

 23 The calculated ROI for 2010 is *** percent. This is based on 2009 values being carried over to 2010 without

change and doubling (annualizing) the January-June 2010 operating income as shown in table VI-1. The

assumptions are that asset values allocated to seamless SLP pipe might be the same in 2010 as in 2009 or that the

industry’s operating income would continue at the same pace through the second half of 2010. Either or both

assumptions might not be proven correct.

VI-7

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON

NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making threat determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(F)(I)). Information on the nature of the subsidies was presented earlier in this report; information

on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV and V; and

information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing development

and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the subject merchandise;

foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any other threat indicators, if

applicable; and any dumping in third-country markets, follows. Also presented in this section of the

report is information obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries and the

global market.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Overview

 According to ***, during 2000-08, China’s annual production of seamless tubular products

increased by more than *** percent,1

 growing to account for approximately half of global production.2

China is believed to have more than *** seamless pipe and tube producers, of which the top five

reportedly accounted for *** percent of production in China.3

 As shown in table VII-1, China was the

largest producer of seamless tubular products in the world with production estimated at over 22 million

tons in 2008 (and by one estimate 24 million tons in 2009).4

 As shown in table VII-2, with respect to

seamless line pipe alone, China’s 2007 production level has been estimated to exceed *** tons. 

 1 For purposes of this discussion, “seamless pipe” or “seamless tubular products” refer to a broader range of

seamless tubular products, including OCTG and other “nonsubject” products.

 2

 ***, in V&M Star, TMK IPSCO, and USW postconference brief, exh. 2.

 3

 ***, in V&M Star, TMK IPSCO, and USW postconference brief, exh. 2.

 4

 See “Chinese Seamless Steel Tube Producers Suffer Export Bottlenecks,” Mysteel, June 2010. 

http://www.mysteel.net/article/detail_w-a469108-c020107.html/. MySteel is a private Chinese consultant and data

company in the iron and steel industry.

VII-1
Table VII-1

Seamless pipe and tube: Global production, by region, 2006–08

Region

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 short tons)

North America

 United States 2,293 1,908 2,338

 Mexico 823 732 744

 Canada (1) (1) 254

 Subtotal 3,116 2,640 3,336

South America

 Argentina 963 925 1,006

 Brazil 614 (1

) (1)

 Venezuela 55 64 50

 Subtotal 1,633 989 1,056

European Union (27)

 Germany 1,958 2,011 (1

)

 Italy 913 933 (1)

 France 873 929 (1

)

 Czech Republic 515 502 464

 All others 1,978 2,108 1,035

 Subtotal 6,237 6,483 1,499

Asia

 China 16,975 20,039 22,241

 Japan 2,307 2,281 2,321

 All others 22 22 23

 Subtotal 19,305 22,341 24,586

 Total 30,289 32,454 30,476

 1

 Not reported.

Note.--Data originally reported in metric tons, which were converted to short tons by multiplying by 1.1023.

Source: WSA, Steel Statistical Yearbook 2009, table 25, p. 62.

VII-2
Table VII-2

Seamless line pipe: Historical production estimates, by region, 2005–07

* * * * * * *

 During the recent global recession, MBR noted that China’s economy still grew by 8.7 percent in

2009, a growth rate attributed to a government stimulus package of $586 billion.5

China’s steel industry and, in particular, its seamless pipe sector are in a stage of transition.6

 As

part of the national effort to build a sustainable, globally competitive, and environmentally sound

economy, the Government of China (GOC) has tried to consolidate its fragmented steel industry,

eliminate outdated capacities, and upgrade its technology to improve product quality. To that end, several

companies have been encouraged to merge to form more competitive companies7

 and most new pipe mills

reportedly are now equipped with modern German-made equipment.8

In spite of market uncertainties, Chinese producers continue to expand or upgrade their seamless

pipe capacity in China and abroad. The following examples have been identified from published sources,

although the exact product mix is not always specified:

C Tianjin Pipe Group Corp. (TPCO) is investing in a seamless mill in Gregory, TX, that will have a

550,000-ton mini-mill to supply its own steel. The construction of the $1-billion mill is expected

to begin in October 2010 and to be completed in 2011. The plant is expected to employ 600 at

full capacity, producing seamless pipe (including OCTG and line pipe) with outside diameters

from 4 1⁄2 inches to 10 3/4 inches.9

C Tianjin Pipe and Huaigang Special Steel have formed a joint venture to build a 550,000-ton 

seamless plant in China which can potentially be increased up to 1.7 million tons. Production is

expected to begin in July 2011. To produce high quality products, the rolling mill will be built

with imported equipment from Germany (similar to efforts by other leading Chinese seamless

pipe producers including Baosteel and Baotu).10 ***.11 However, this mill is believed to produce

seamless pipe in a size range greater than 16" in outside diameter.12

C Baosteel, a leading Chinese steel producer, with current seamless capacity of almost 900,000 net

tons, is expanding its range of seamless pipe production to X65 grade line pipe. Baosteel is

expected to be capable of producing pipe of up to 168.3 mm (6 5/8 inches) in outside diameter

and 9.5 mm (0.375 inch) thickness.13

 5 Metal Bulletin–Worldnews, January 25, 2020, p. 3. See also “East Asia and Pacific Economic Update -

Emerging Stronger from the Crisis”, the World Bank, April 2010; found at

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEAPHALFYEARLYUPDATE/Resources/550192-1270538603148/eap_april

2010_ch1.pdf. 

 6

 See “Four Chinese Steelmakers Agree to Merge,” Wall Street Journal, July 15, 2010, p. B3. 

 7

 The government of the city of Tianjin has recently announced the merger of Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corp. with

Tianjin Iron and Steel Group, Tianjin Metallurgical Group Co, and Tianjin Tiantie Metallurgical Group Co. to form

the Tianjin Bohai Iron & Steel Group Corp. See “Four Chinese Steelmakers Agree to Merge,” Wall Street Journal,

July 15, 2010, p. B3. 

 8

 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, July 2010, p. 12.

 9

 Gregory is located in southern Texas, near Corpus Christi. Staff telephone interview with ***, July 13, 2010. 

See also “Tianjin Pipe Sees Progress on Texas Tube Plant,” American Metal Market, November 24, 2009.

 10 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly-Seamless, July 2010, p. 12.

 11 U.S. Steel’s prehearing brief, p. 71.

 12 Respondents’ posthearing brief, p. A-12.

 13 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly-Seamless, July 2010, p. 12.

VII-3
C Baotou Iron and Steel Co., in early 2010, commissioned a new $292-million, 440,000-ton

seamless pipe mill of diameters up to 6.61 inches in China. Products include line pipe and other

pipes for the chemical and oil industries. Baotou also has recently commissioned a new seamless

pipe mill with a capacity of 100,000 tons that will make “commercial pipes” and OCTG.14 15

C Anhui Haihe Pipe plans to build a 500,000-ton seamless pipe mill in Eastern China with outside

diameters ranging from 5.24 inches to 10.75 inches. A second, similar, mill is expected to be

built at the completion of the first mill.16

C Yantai Lubao Steel Pipe Co., a unit of Baoshan, will begin operations in April 2011 on a

600,000-ton per year seamless mill.17

C Xinbayi Steel Pipe will place in operation this year a new seamless pipe mill with a capacity of

400,000 tons per year. The facility will have the ability to make 100,000 tons of line pipe per

year.18

According to Global Trade Atlas, China surpassed Germany in 2007 to become the world’s

leading exporter of seamless pipe (excluding OCTG).19 Between 2007 and 2008, China’s exports of

seamless pipe (excluding OCTG) increased by approximately 1 million short tons, accounting for

approximately one-quarter of global exports of seamless pipe (excluding OCTG).20 In 2009, although its

total exports decreased by 1 million short tons to approximately 1.5 million short tons, China remained

the world’s leading exporter, accounting for the same share of the global export market of seamless pipe

(excluding OCTG).21

With respect to home market prospects, most Chinese oil and natural gas exploration activities

have been concentrated in the onshore fields in the western provinces of Xinjiang, Sichuan, Gansu, and

Inner Mongolia.22 China reportedly plans to build *** kilometers of new oil and natural gas pipelines

over the next decade, requiring approximately *** metric tons (*** short tons) of large diameter line

pipe, *** metric tons (*** short tons) of which are forecasted to be used in the construction of natural gas

pipelines.23 According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, China’s domestic oil and gas

pipeline is increasing at about six percent per year.24 However, many pipelines (such as the 8,700-

kilometer second West-to-East pipeline) utilize large diameter pipe that is welded and/or greater than 16"

in outside diameter.25

 14 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly–Seamless, April 2010, p. 12.

 15 U.S. Steel’s prehearing brief, p. 70.

 16 Preston, November 2009, p. 17 and U.S. Steel’s prehearing brief, p. 71.

 17 U.S. Steel’s prehearing brief, p. 71.

 18 U.S. Steel’s prehearing brief, p. 71.

 19 Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas online database. Trade data reported at the HS 6-

digit subheading level for subheadings 7304.10, 7304.19, 7304.39, and 7304.59. These subheadings include

nonsubject products and therefore likely overstate the volume of imports and exports of seamless SLP pipe.

 20 The United States is a net importer of seamless pipe (excluding OCTG), accounting for 4 percent of global

exports of seamless SLP pipe, and approximately 9.2 percent of global imports in 2009.

 21 Table VII-11. As shown in this table, China is, by a substantial margin, the largest net exporter of seamless

pipe (excluding OCTG). 

 22 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA), “China Energy Profile,” July 2009.

 23 ***, in V&M Star, TMK IPSCO, and USW postconference brief, exh. 2.

 24 Respondent’s posthearing brief, p. A-5.

 25 See, e.g., GE press release dated March 25, 2009. The company noted that the 8,700 kilometer second Westto-East pipeline will utilize 48 inch pipe. 

(continued...)

VII-4
Operations on Seamless SLP Pipe

The petition in these investigations identified 84 foreign producers in China allegedly producing

seamless SLP pipe.26 27 The Commission sent foreign producer questionnaires to all firms that were

identified and received four completed foreign producer questionnaire responses. The names of the

foreign firms, production, subject exports to the United States (by quantity) in 2009 are presented in table

VII-3. In response to a question on capacity changes and inventory, no responding Chinese producer

reported plans to change production capacity or production of seamless SLP pipe in China. Reported

exports to the United States (*** short tons) accounted for approximately one-third of subject imports

from China (*** short tons) in 2009.28 

Table VII-3

Seamless SLP pipe: Reporting manufacturers/exporters in China, and quantities and shares of

reported production and exports to the United States, 2009

* * * * * * *

Responding Chinese producers increased production of small and large diameter seamless SLP

pipe from 2007 to 2009. Production was also higher in January-June 2010 than in January-June 2009. 

Capacity of small diameter seamless SLP pipe increased from 2007-08, decreased in 2009, and was lower

in January-June 2010 than in January-June 2009. Capacity of large diameter seamless SLP pipe

decreased *** during the entire period, but none of the responding foreign producers reported plans to

change capacity or production in China. Capacity for responding firms was based on a range of 17 to 168

hours per week, 47 to 52 weeks per year. Reported exports of small and large diameter seamless SLP

pipe to the United States increased from 2007-08, but fell from 2008-09. Exports of small and large

diameter seamless SLP pipe to the United States were also lower in January-June 2010 when compared

with January-June 2009. Chinese exports of total seamless SLP pipe to other markets grew from 2007 to

2008 but decreased *** in 2009, however were greater in January-June 2010 than in January-June 2009. 

Home market shipments in both quantity and shares were the largest component of shipments during the

period examined. Table VII-4 presents information on responding Chinese producers’ and exporters’

production and exports of total seamless SLP pipe, table VII-5 presents information on responding

Chinese producers’ and exporters’ production and exports of small diameter seamless SLP pipe, and table

VII-6 presents information on large diameter seamless SLP pipe operations for the responding producers

and exporters in China. 

 25 (...continued)

“http://www.genewscenter.com/content/detail.aspx?releaseid=6376&newsareaid=2&menusearchcategoryid=,”

retrieved October 1, 2010. Similarly, other major projects with international connections such as the ESPO Pipeline

in Siberia are also substantially larger than 16" in diameter (up to 48 inches in the case of the ESPO Pipeline). See,

e.g., “ESPO Pipeline Siberia, Russia,” http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/espopipeline/, retrieved

on October 4, 2010.

 26 Petition, exh. I-11.

 27 Petioner U.S. Steel argues that China recognizes itself that it has “high” seamless pipe capacity due to “heavy”

investments. Petitioner U.S. Steel’s postconference brief, pp. 27-28.

 28 According to their questionnaire responses, other export markets reported by Chinese producers included

Africa, India, the Middle East, Russia, South Korea, South America, South East Asia, and Taiwan.

VII-5
Table VII-4

TOTAL seamless SLP pipe: Chinese producers’ operations, 2007-09, January-June 2009, JanuaryJune 2010, and projected 2010-11

* * * * * * *

Table VII-5

SMALL diameter seamless SLP pipe: Chinese producers’ operations, 2007-09, January-June 2009,

January-June 2010, and projected 2010-11

* * * * * * *

Table VII-6

LARGE diameter seamless SLP pipe: Chinese producers’ operations, 2007-09, January-June 2009,

January-June 2010, and projected 2010-11

* * * * * * *

Alternative Products

In addition to the subject seamless SLP pipe, all four Chinese producers reported producing

nonsubject seamless pipe using the same equipment and machinery. Table VII-7 presents information on

the types of products produced using the same equipment and machinery by responding Chinese

producers from 2007 to June 2010.29

Table VII-7

Seamless SLP pipe: Chinese capacity, production, and capacity utilization of seamless pipe

products on same machinery & equipment used to produce seamless SLP pipe, 2007-09,

January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

U.S. INVENTORIES OF SEAMLESS SLP PIPE FROM CHINA

Data collected in these investigations on U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of seamless

SLP pipe are presented in tables VII-8, VII-9, and VII-10. For small and large diameter seamless SLP

pipe, responding U.S. importers’ reported inventories from China increasing from 2007 to 2009, however

they decreased in the interim periods. U.S. importers also reported increased inventories from nonsubject

sources for small and large diameter seamless SLP pipe between 2007 and 2008, but a decline from 2008

to 2009. 

 29 Respondents assert that “there is no evidence that the subject producers will shift any significant production

from machinery that is currently being used to produce other pipe products to the production of seamless SLP

pipe...because OCTG is the highest value pipe product it is far more likely that with the rebound in the oil and gas

sector Chinese producers would shift available SLP pipe capacity to producing OCTG.” Respondents’

postconference brief, p. 45. See also Respondents’ posthearing brief, p. A-24.

VII-6
Table VII-8

TOTAL seamless SLP pipe: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2007-

09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table VII-9

SMALL diameter seamless SLP pipe : U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by

source, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

Table VII-10

LARGE diameter seamless SLP pipe : U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by

source, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of seamless SLP pipe from China after June 30, 2010. Of the questionnaire respondents, only

one, ***, indicated that it had arranged for the importation of seamless SLP pipe from China after June

30, 2010. These imports were reported as approximately *** short tons of Chinese small diameter

seamless SLP pipe and approximately *** short tons of Chinese large diameter seamless SLP pipe

scheduled for delivery in *** 2010.

ANTIDUMPING INVESTIGATIONS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

In November 2008, the government of India reportedly placed imports of seamless pipes and

tubes on a list of “restricted” imported products in order to reduce the potential volume of imports of

seamless pipes and tubes from China.30

In September 2009, the European Union imposed antidumping duties on imports of certain

seamless pipes and tubes from China. The European Union’s investigation covered certain seamless

pipes and tubes, or iron or steel, or circular cross section, or an external diameter not exceeding 16 inches

(406.4 mm (also including OCTG used for drilling, casing, and tubing in the oil industry)). Definitive

antidumping duty rates range from 17.7 percent to 39.2 percent.31

On May 25, 2010 Mexico imposed provisional antidumping duty margins on seamless SLP pipe

costing less than $1,561. The rates will be set for no more than 36 percent.32

 30 “Govt imposes curbs on imports of more steel items,” Press Trust of India, November 25, 3008, cited in USS’s

postconference brief, pp. 34–35 and exh. 41.

 31 Council Regulation (EC) No. 926/2009 of September 24, 2009, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and

collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel

originating in the People’s Republic of China, Official Journal of the European Union, L 262/19.

 32 “http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2516573420100525," retrieved August 22, 2010 and

“http://www.pymes.gob.mx/upci/paginas/1462.pdf,” retrieved August 22, 2010.

VII-7
Argentina has reportedly instituted an antidumping duty investigation into seamless pipe imports

from China, covering tubes of 10.75 inches or less in diameter for both carbon and alloy steels.33

With respect to seamless OCTG, on March 10, 2008, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal

(CITT) issued a finding that “the dumping and subsidizing of seamless carbon or alloy steel oil and gas

well casing originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China have not caused injury but are

threatening to cause injury to the domestic industry.” The CITT’s inquiry covered seamless carbon or

alloy seamless carbon or alloy steel oil and gas well casing, whether plain end, beveled, threaded or

threaded and coupled, heat-treated or not heat-treated, meeting API specification 5CT, with an outside

diameter not exceeding 11.75 inches (298.5 mm), in all grades, including proprietary grades.34 In August

2009, Canada initiated investigations into the dumping and subsidizing of certain seamless or welded

OCTG from China. The CITT’s inquiry covered casing, tubing, and coupling stock of carbon or alloy

steel, welded or seamless, heat-treated or not heat-treated, regardless of end finish, having an outside

diameter from 2-3/8 inches to 13-3/8 inches (60.3 mm to 339.7 mm), meeting the API specification 5CT,

in all grades, excluding drill pipe and excluding seamless casing up to 11-3/4 inches (298.5 mm) in

outside diameter.35 In March 2010, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal found that “the dumping

and subsidizing of those aforementioned goods that are casing and tubing have caused injury” but that

“the dumping and subsidizing of those aforementioned goods that are coupling stock have not caused

injury or retardation and are not threatening to cause injury.”36 

GLOBAL MARKET

Most published data on steel pipes and tubes generally distinguish welded from seamless and

generally distinguish OCTG and line pipe from other forms of pipe, including standard pipe and various

forms of structural and mechanical pipe, pressure pipe and tube, and piling. However, such data on steel

pipes and tubes generally do not distinguish seamless SLP pipe as a separate category of seamless tubular

products. Accordingly, for the purpose of this market review, information and data are provided based on

their availability, and may include both subject and nonsubject pipe.

Supply

Seamless pipe and tube, including seamless SLP pipe, is produced throughout the world, as noted

previously in table VII-1. Between 2002 and 2007, global production of all reported seamless tubular

 33 SBB, “Future Looks Bleak for China’s Seamless Pipe Exporters,” November 23, 2009, in U.S. Steel’s

prehearing brief, exh. 107.

 34 See generally Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Dumping and Subsidizing Finding and Reasons, Inquiry

No. NQ-2007-001, Seamless Carbon or Alloy Steel Oil and Gas Well Casing, findings issued March 10, 2008 and

Reasons issued March 25, 2008. The report noted that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) had previously

determined that the weighted average margin of dumping was 62 percent and that the weighted average amount of

subsidy was 19 percent. 

 35 Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Statement of Reasons, Inquiry 421-26, Certain Oil Country Tubular

Goods Originating In Or Exported From The People’s Republic of China, issued September 8, 2009.

 36 Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Statement of Reasons, Inquiry No. NQ-2009-004, Oil Country Tubular

Goods, issued April 7, 2010. The CITT determined that there were two classes of goods: (1) the subject coupling

stock; and (2) the other subject oil country tubular goods. The Tribunal subsequently found that domestically

produced coupling stock constitutes like goods in relation to the subject coupling stock and that domestically

produced casing and tubing constitute like goods in relation to the subject goods. Ibid.

VII-8
products (excluding the CIS countries)37 was almost doubled, increasing from 16.7 million short tons to

32.5 million short tons.38 During that time, China’s production of seamless pipe and tube has almost

tripled, increasing from 6.7 million short tons to 20.0 million net tons as China’s share of global seamless

tubular production increased from 40 percent in 2002 to 60 percent in 2007.39

Table VII-11 shows the major global exporters of seamless pipe (excluding OCTG). China was

the largest exporter during 2007-09. In terms of its net trade position (exports minus imports) for

seamless pipe other than OCTG, China was also the largest net exporter in each of the three years.

Table VII-11

Seamless pipe (excluding OCTG): Exports, imports, and net trade positions of major subject and

nonsubject countries, 2007-09

Country

Calendar year

2007 2008 2009

Quantity (short tons)

Exports from:

China 1,387,396 2,403,736 1,499,908

Germany 1,010,561 1,095,278 648,652

Italy 648,869 686,151 481,096

Japan 643,663 653,284 458,057

Russia 426,527 333,710 290,407

Ukraine 729,647 628,562 257,623

United States 276,176 371,134 240,043

Czech Republic 356,598 333,905 233,185

France 464,407 397,058 218,727

Romania 381,638 362,318 209,029

Argentina 274,032 262,025 146,891

Austria 154,907 178,768 100,950

Slovakia 128,059 137,117 95,748

Belgium 168,791 163,785 85,823

Spain 177,972 182,453 85,414

Mexico 92,362 102,483 72,181

Poland 70,312 80,077 67,977

All other 1,230,022 763,324 605,532

Total 8,621,937 9,135,168 5,797,242

Table continued on next page.

 37 The C.I.S. or Commonwealth of Independent States, for the purpose of the WSA’s seamless data collection,

includes Russia and Ukraine. 

 38 WSA, “Steel Statistical Yearbook 2009,” published 2010, table 25, p. 60. Trend data do not include 2008

because of changes in the coverage (many countries that are major seamless pipe producers were not included by the

WSA).

 39 WSA, “Steel Statistical Yearbook 2009,” published 2010, table 25, p. 60. 

VII-9
Table VII-11--Continued

Seamless pipe (excluding OCTG): Exports, imports, and net trade positions of major subject

and nonsubject countries, 2007-09

Country

Calendar year

2007 2008 2009

Quantity (short tons)

Imports into:

 China 249,607 296,110 181,474

Germany 466,116 425,833 254,799

Italy 736,780 664,572 307,449

Japan 10,956 7,293 17,102

Russia 317,780 273,150 102,109

Ukraine 14,976 16,112 9,195

United States 723,685 1,159,864 445,029

Czech Republic 87,896 72,217 35,537

France 181,857 183,152 127,243

Romania 20,646 26,397 16,814

Argentina 25,616 27,823 15,746

Austria 121,385 103,961 109,305

Slovakia 50,102 62,884 22,362

Belgium 212,970 213,607 99,522

Spain 277,052 206,316 102,290

Mexico 109,775 123,787 67,188

Poland 148,611 155,417 85,692

All other 3,909,482 6,597,900 2,833,112

 Total 7,665,292 10,616,399 4,831,968

Table continued on next page.

VII-10
Table VII-11--Continued

Seamless pipe (excluding OCTG): Exports, imports, and net trade positions of major subject

and nonsubject countries, 2007-09

Country

Calendar year

2007 2008 2009

Quantity (short tons)

Trade balance of:

 China 1,137,789 2,107,626 1,318,435

Germany 544,445 669,446 393,853

Italy (87,911) 21,579 173,646

Japan 632,707 645,991 440,955

Russia 108,746 60,560 188,298

Ukraine 714,671 612,450 248,428

United States (447,509) (788,730) (204,986)

Czech Republic 268,702 261,688 197,648

France 282,549 213,907 91,484

Romania 360,992 335,922 192,215

Argentina 248,416 234,201 131,145

Austria 33,522 74,806 (8,355)

Slovakia 77,957 74,233 73,386

Belgium (44,179) (49,822) (13,699)

Spain (99,080) (23,864) (16,876)

Mexico (17,413) (21,305) 4,994

Poland (78,299) (75,340) (17,715)

All other (2,679,460) (5,834,576) (2,227,580)

 Total 956,645 (1,481,228) 965,274

Note.–The data presented in this table include nonsubject product (e.g., boiler tube), and therefore are likely overstated

with respect to the seamless SLP pipe subject to these investigations. Positive numbers presented for “trade balance”

show net exports and numbers with parentheses for “trade balance” show net imports. Based on top exporting countries

to the world in 2009. 

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas database, HTS subheadings 7304.10 (prior to Feb. 2007), 7304.19 (after Feb.

2007), 7304.39, and 7304.59.

Demand

Worldwide demand for seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe is derived from its use for the

conveyance of liquids and gases in a diverse array of end-use markets, including as line pipe or gathering

lines in oil and natural gas production and transmission; its use in chemical, petrochemical, or other nonpipeline applications; its use in high pressure construction applications, such as in refineries or chemical

plants; as well as its use as steam lines in manufacturing or factory applications.

Because seamless pipe is used in gathering lines and in oil and gas transportation, demand for

seamless SLP pipe is influenced by drilling activity, although not as directly and predictably as demand

for OCTG. Demand for seamless line pipe, for example, is influenced by energy prices and increased

VII-11
drilling activity in new areas that require additional gathering lines.40 As shown in table VII-12,

worldwide drilling increased by approximately 7 percent between 2007 and 2008, led primarily by

growth in drilling in the United States. However, worldwide rig counts declined substantially in 2009

compared with 2008, coinciding with the global economic downturn and falling oil and gas prices. 

Drilling activity in the United States decreased by approximately 42 percent in 2009 compared with 2008. 

Table VII-12 also shows improvements in rig counts, both in the United States and worldwide, in 2010.

Table VII-12

Worldwide rig count: Global and regional annual averages of operating rigs, 2006–09, JanuaryJune 2010

Region

2007 2008 2009 Jan.-June 2010

average

Quantity (number of rigs)

Latin America 355 384 356 381

Europe 78 98 84 92

Africa 66 65 62 82

Middle East 265 280 252 258

Far East 241 252 243 262

Canada 343 379 221 318

United States 1,768 1,878 1,086 1,427

 Total 3,116 3,336 2,304 2,820

Note.– Data do not include operating rigs in China or the CIS.

Source: Baker Hughes, Inc., Worldwide Rig Count, August 16, 2010.

Leading Suppliers to the U.S. Market

Staff requested that U.S. producers provide a statistical profile of their related seamless SLP pipe

operations in nonsubject countries. These operations account for a substantial portion or even essentially

all of the seamless SLP pipe production in several of the leading nonsubject countries supplying the

United States with seamless SLP pipe. Additional information concerning capacity, production, and

shipments are presented in table VII-13.

Table VII-13

Seamless SLP pipe: Leading nonsubject foreign producers’ trade data, 2009

* * * * * * *

 40 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel and Pipe Monthly, Issue 1 (October 2005), p. 2; conference transcript,

p. 57 (Pognonec).

VII-12
Argentina

Argentina is the second largest manufacturer of seamless pipe in the Western Hemisphere,

producing over 1 million short tons of seamless pipe and tube in 2008, as noted in table VII-1.41

However, in 2009, Argentina’s total exports were reduced by almost one half from the previous year’s

levels.42 According to Global Trade Atlas, the United States was Argentina’s largest export market for

seamless pipe (excluding OCTG) in 2008. However, in 2009, the United States fell to third place among

Argentina’s leading export markets.43

Tenaris Siderca (“Siderca”) is the only known producer of seamless pipe (excluding OCTG) in

Argentina. Siderca is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tenaris, a leading global producer of seamless pipe

and tube.44 As a major global seamless producer, Siderca produces a wide range of seamless products

including ASTM A-53, A-106, A-333, A-334, A-335, and API 5L. OCTG are believed to account for the

largest share of the company’s seamless production operations.45

Czech Republic

According to the WSA, the Czech Republic produced approximately 464,000 short tons of

seamless pipe and tube in 2008.46 Global Trade Atlas reports that the Czech Republic exported 233,185

short tons of seamless pipe and tube (excluding OCTG) in 2009, a decrease of almost one third compared

with 2008.47 Germany is the Czech Republic’s largest export customer for seamless pipe and tube. 

There are three known producers of seamless SLP pipe in the Czech Republic: ArcelorMittal

Ostrava (“Ostrava”), Valcovna Trub TZ (“Valcovna”),48 and Valcovny Trub Chomutov. 

Ostrava has an annual production capacity of 353,000 short tons of finished seamless tubular

products, which include OCTG.49 Ostrava produces a wide range of seamless pipes including ASTM A53, A-106, and APL 5L with outside diameters ranging from 0.840 inch to 10.750 inches. 

Valcovna’s annual seamless pipe and tube production capacity amounts to 132,000 short tons. 

The company reportedly produced 88,000 short tons of seamless pipes and tubes in 2009, including

 41 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, February 2010, p. 4. 

 42 Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas online database. Trade data reported at the HS 6-

digit subheading level for subheadings 7304.10, 7304.19, 7304.39, 7304.59. These subheadings include nonsubject

products and therefore likely overstate the volume of exports of seamless pipe (excluding OCTG).

 43 Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas online database. Trade data reported at the HS 6-

digit subheading level for subheadings 7304.10, 7304.19, 7304.39, 7304.59. These subheadings include nonsubject

products and therefore likely overstate the volume of exports of seamless pipe (excluding OCTG).

 44 Tenaris is also affiliated with seamless pipe producers Dalmine (Italy), Algoma Tubes (Canada), TAVSA

(Venezuela), TAMSA (Mexico), Silcotub (Romania), and NKK Tubes (Japan).

 45 Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-711 and 713-

716 (Second Review), USITC publication 3923, June 2007, p. IV-14.

 46 Table VII-1.

 47 Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas online database. Trade data reported at the HS 6-

digit subheading level for subheadings 7304.10, 7304.19, 7304.39, 7304.59, and exclude OCTG. These subheadings

include nonsubject products, including mechanical tubing and boiler tubing, and therefore substantially overstate the

volume of exports of seamless SLP pipe.

 48 ArcelorMittal Ostrava is a wholly owned subsidiary of ArcelorMittal (Luxembourg), and is affiliated seamless

pipe producers ArcelorMittal South Africa and ArcelorMittal Romania.

 49 ArcelorMittal company website, found at http://www.arcelormittal.com/tubular/ostrava-53.html, retrieved

October 23, 2009.

VII-13
seamless OCTG and couplings.50 Valcovna produces a wide range of seamless pipes including ASTM A53, A-106, A-333, A-335, and APL 5L with outside diameters ranging from 2.375 inches to 16 inches. 

The third company, Valcovny Trub Chomutov, also provides a wide range of seamless products

including ASTM A-53, A-106, A-333, and APL 5L with outside diameters ranging from 10.750 inches to

24.016 inches.51

Germany

According to the WSA, Germany produced over 2 million short tons of seamless pipe and tube in

2007, as noted in table VII-1.52 Global Trade Atlas reports that Germany exported 648,652 short tons of

seamless pipe (excluding OCTG) in 2009, a decrease of over 40 percent compared with 2008.53 France is

Germany’s largest export market for seamless pipe (excluding OCTG), although the United States

imported 57,887 short tons of seamless SLP pipe from Germany in 2009. 

There are several seamless producers in Germany but the three best known producers are Benteler

Steel AG, ESW Rohrewerke GmbH, and V&M Tube Deutschland GmbH (“VMD”)54 which account for

the majority of seamless pipe production in Germany.55 These companies also produce other seamless

pipes, including OCTG, stainless pipe, boiler tubing, tubing suitable for ball or roller bearings,

mechanical tubing, and structural tubing.56 

VMD is the largest producer with a capacity exceeding 1.8 million net tons, a wide range of

seamless products including ASTM A-53, A-335, and APL 5L with outside diameters ranging from 0.591

inch to 59.055 inches.57

Italy

 According to the WSA, Italy produced 933,000 short tons of seamless pipe and tube in 2007, as

noted in table VII-1.58 Global Trade Atlas reports that Italy exported 481,096 short tons of seamless pipe

(excluding OCTG) in 2009, a decrease of almost 30 percent compared with 2008.59 The United States is

Italy’s second largest export market for seamless pipe (excluding OCTG), after Saudi Arabia. 

 50 Metal Bulletin Directories, Iron and Steel Works of the World Directory 2009, 18th Edition, January 2009, p.

70; Valcovna Trub TZ, Annual Report 2008, p. 7; and Valcovna Trub TZ company website, found at

http://www.tube.cz, retrieved October 21, 2009. 

 51 Simdex data does not provide total seamless production for Valcovny Trub Chomutov. 

 52 Germany did not report its seamless tube production for 2009 to the WSA. 

 53 Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas online database. Trade data reported at the HS 6-

digit subheading level for subheadings 7304.10, 7304.19, 7304.39, 7304.59. These subheadings include nonsubject

products and therefore likely substantially overstate the volume of exports of seamless pipe (excluding OCTG).

 54 VMD is affiliated with seamless pipe producers V&M Star (United States), V&M Brazil (Brazil), V&M France

(France), and V&M Tubes (wholly-owned by Groupe Vallourec (France)).

 55 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and

Germany, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-707-709 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3918, May 2007, p. IV-15.

 56 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and

Germany, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-707-709 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3918, May 2007, p. IV-16.

 57 Simdex Steel Tube Manufacturers Worldwide Guide, April 2010 Update. 

 58 Italy did not report its 2008 seamless production to the WSA. 

 59 Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas online database. Trade data reported at the HS 6-

digit subheading level for subheadings 7304.10, 7304.19, 7304.39, 7304.59. These subheadings include nonsubject

products and therefore likely overstate the volume of exports of seamless pipe (excluding OCTG).

VII-14
Tenaris Dalmine (“Dalmine”) is the largest producer of seamless pipe (excluding OCTG) in Italy. 

Dalmine has an annual production capacity of approximately 1 million short tons, which includes

seamless pipe, OCTG, mechanical tubing, and structural tubing.60

Mexico

According to the WSA, Mexico produced 744,000 short tons of seamless pipe and tube in 2008,

as noted in table VII-1. Mexico exported approximately 72,181 short tons of seamless pipe (excluding

OCTG) in 2009, a decrease of almost 30 percent compared with 2008.61 The United States is Mexico’s

largest export market for seamless pipe. 

Tubos de Acero de Mexico (“TAMSA”), wholly owned by Tenaris, is the only seamless pipe

producer in Mexico.62 TAMSA has an annual production capacity of approximately 860,000 short tons of

seamless products, which include OCTG casing, drill pipe, fittings, mechanical tubing, and automotive

components.63 In September 2008, TAMSA announced plans to increase production capacity by

installing a new seamless pipe facility capable of producing seamless pipe up to 7 inches in outside

diameter.64 The new $1.6 billion pipe mill, which reportedly will include iron and steelmaking facilities,

will have an annual production capacity of approximately 500,000 short tons of finished tubular products,

and is expected to begin production in 2011.65 In March 2009, TAMSA reportedly was operating at 70-

80 percent capacity as a result of decreased demand for seamless tubular products due to falling oil prices. 

The company has delayed drilling projects but stressed that it would continue to pursue its planned

expansion investment when market conditions improve.66

Russia

Although estimates of seamless tube production in Russia are unavailable from the WSA, Russia

exported 290,407 short tons of seamless pipe in 2009, primarily to Iran, Turkey, and Kazakhstan.67

TMK Group (“TMK”) is a leading Russian seamless pipe maker. TMK reportedly produces both

seamless and welded tubular products at the following subsidiaries: Seversky Tube Works, Sinarksy Pipe

Works, Taganrog Metallurgical Works, and Volzhsky Pipe Plant with a total capacity of 2.3 million short

 60 Tenaris Dalmine information sheet, found at http://www.tenaris.com/Italy/en/files/Dalmine_ing_02.pdf,

retrieved October 19, 2009. 

 61 Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas online database. Trade data reported at the HS 6-

digit subheading level for subheadings 7304.10, 7304.19, 7304.39, 7304.59. These subheadings include nonsubject

products and therefore likely overstate the volume of exports of seamless pipe (excluding OCTG).

 62 Simdex Steel Manufacturers Worldwide Guide, April 2010 Update.

 63 Simdex Steel Manufacturers Worldwide Guide, April 2010 Update.

 64 Tenaris, Annual Report 2008, p. 9; Tenaris press release, “Tenaris to expand production capacity, September 2,

2008).

 65 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, May 2009, p. 12.

 66 Steel Guru, “Production pruning—Tenaris Tamsa operating at 80% capacity,” March 12, 2009; Steel Guru,

“Tenaris Tamsa to continue pursuing its investment plans,” March 15, 2009. See also MBR– Seamless, May 2009,

p. 12.

 67 Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas online database. Trade data reported at the HS 6-

digit subheading level for subheadings 7304.10, 7304.19, 7304.39, and 7304.59. These subheadings include

nonsubject products and therefore likely overstate the volume of exports of seamless pipe (excluding OCTG).

VII-15
tons for tubes and pipes of outside diameters ranging from 0.2 to 17 inches.68 TMK has recently begun to

explore opportunities in the Sub-Saharan Africa market by opening a sales office in South Africa.69

Currently, due to low demand, TMK is operating at 70-80 percent of capacity. Preston reported

that the company believes that the demand for pipe products is currently “equally stable” in the United

States (where it owns the former IPSCO tubular operations) and in Russia.70 

Another seamless pipe producer, Pervouralsky Novotrubny Works, located near Moscow, has a

capacity of 882,000 net tons. It produces seamless pipe to specifications ASTM A-53 and A-106 with

outside diameters ranging from 0.157 inch to 8.625 inches.71

Chelyabinsk Tube Rolling Company Chelyabinsk produces seamless products to ASTM A-333

and API 5L with outside diameters ranging from 0.394 inch to 20 inches.72

Ukraine

Although estimates of seamless tube production in Ukraine are unavailable from the WSA, 

Global Trade Atlas reported that Ukraine exported 257,623 short tons of seamless pipe (excluding

OCTG) in 2009, a decrease of almost 60 percent compared with 2008. Russia was the leading market for

Ukraine’s exports, accounting for approximately one third of Ukraine’s exports in 2008-09. The United

States was the second largest destination for Ukraine’s seamless pipe in 2008, but fell to seventeenth in

2009.73

There are four known producers of seamless pipe (excluding OCTG) in Ukraine: 

Dniepropetrovsk Tube Works, Ilyich Iron & Steel Works, Interpipe, and Steelprom. Among these,

Interpipe is the most well-known. In 2006, Interpipe’s seamless pipe and tube mill NTRP reportedly

produced 840,000 short tons of seamless pipe and tube, while its Niko Tube facility produced 238,000

short tons. In late 2008, Interpipe reportedly reduced production levels because of weak demand. 

Interpipe’s NTRP facility reportedly was operating at 60 percent of normal production levels, while Niko

Tube was operating at 20 percent of capacity.74 In 2009, Russia reportedly introduced a five-year

antidumping duty on imports of pipe from Ukraine. Interpipe reportedly had negotiated with Russia an

export quota of 470,000 short tons of pipe into Russia.75 As reported by MBR, Interpipe has recently

extended their marketing activities in the Middle East region.76

 68 Metal Bulletin Ltd., “Iron & Steel Works of the World,” 18th edition, January 2009, p. 215.

 69 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, July 2010, p. 12.

 70 Preston Publishing Company, Preston Pipe and Tube Report, June 2010, p. 20.

 71 Simdex Steel Tube Manufacturers Worldwide Guide, April 2010 Update. 

 72 Simdex Steel Tube Manufacturers Worldwide Guide, April 2010 Update. 

 73 Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas online database. Trade data reported at the HS 6-

digit subheading level for subheadings 7304.10, 7304.19, 7304.39, 7304.59. These subheadings include nonsubject

products and therefore likely overstate the volume of exports of seamless pipe (excluding OCTG).

 74 Metal Bulletin Research, “Interpipe Reduces Production,” November 4, 2008.

 75 Metal Bulletin, Interpipe Faces New Tariffs on Exports to Russia,” March 5, 2009.

 76 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, June 2010, p. 12.

VII-16
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Notices 26273 

1For purposes of these investigations, the 

Department of Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise as ‘‘* * * Certain seamless carbon and 

alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipes and 

redraw hollows, less than or equal to 16 inches 

(406.4 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall 

thickness, manufacturing process (e.g., hot-finished 

or cold-drawn), end finish (e.g., plain end, beveled 

end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), 

or surface finish (e.g., bare, lacquered or coated). 

Redraw hollows are any unfinished carbon or alloy 

steel (other than stainless steel) pipe or ‘‘hollow 

profiles’’ suitable for cold finishing operations, such 

as cold drawing, to meet the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) or American 

Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) specifications 

referenced below, or comparable specifications. 

Specifically included within the scope are seamless 

carbon and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) 

standard, line, and pressure pipes produced to the 

ASTM A–53, ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM 

A–334, ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–795, 

ASTM A–1024, and the API 5L specifications, or 

comparable specifications, and meeting the 

physical parameters described above, regardless of 

application, with the exception of the exclusion 

discussed below. Specifically excluded from the 

scope of the investigation are unattached 

couplings.’’ 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Notice of Public Meeting and 

Teleconference for the National Park 

Service Alaska Region’s Subsistence 

Resource Commission (SRC) Program 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting and 

teleconference for the National Park 

Service Alaska Region’s Subsistence 

Resource Commission (SRC) program. 

SUMMARY: The Wrangell-St. Elias 

National Park SRC will conduct a 

meeting and teleconference to develop 

and continue work on National Park 

Service (NPS) subsistence hunting 

program recommendations and other 

related subsistence management issues. 

The NPS SRC program is authorized 

under title VIII, section 808 of the 

Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act, Public Law 96–487, 

to operate in accordance with the 

provisions of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. 

Public Availability of Comments: The 

meeting and teleconference are open to 

the public and will have time allocated 

for public testimony. The public is 

welcome to present written or oral 

comments to the SRC. The meeting will 

be recorded and meeting minutes will 

be available upon request from the park 

superintendent in approximately six 

weeks after June 9, 2010. Before 

including your address, telephone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

written or oral comments, you should be 

aware that your entire comment— 

including your personal identifying 

information—may be made publicly 

available at any time. While you can ask 

us in your comment to withhold your 

personal identifying information from 

public review, we cannot guarantee that 

we will be able to do so. 

Teleconference Information: The 

teleconference will be open to the 

public. Teleconference participants 

must call the Wrangell-St. Elias National 

Park and Preserve office at 907–822– 

5234 or 907–822–7236, at least 72 hours 

prior to the meeting to receive 

teleconference passcode information. 

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park SRC 

Meeting and Teleconference Date and 

Location: The Wrangell-St. Elias 

National Park SRC meeting will be held 

on Wednesday, June 9, 2010, from 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Wrangell-St. Elias 

National Park and Preserve, Copper 

Center, AK. The meeting may end early 

if all business is completed. 

For Further Information on the 

Wrangell St. Elias National Park SRC 

Meeting and Teleconference Contact: 

Meg Jensen, Superintendent, or Barbara 

Cellarius, Subsistence Manager, (907) 

822–5234, Wrangell-St. Elias National 

Park and Preserve, P.O. Box 439, Copper 

Center, AK 99573, or Clarence 

Summers, Subsistence Manager, NPS 

Alaska Regional Office, at (907) 644– 

3603. 

Proposed SRC Meeting Agenda: 

The proposed meeting agenda for 

each meeting includes the following: 

1. Call to order. 

2. SRC Roll Call and Confirmation of 

Quorum. 

3. SRC Chair and Superintendent’s 

Welcome and Introductions. 

4. Administrative Announcements. 

5. Review and Approve Agenda. 

6. Approval of Minutes from Last SRC 

Meeting. 

7. SRC Member Reports. 

8. National Park Service Staff Report. 

9. Federal Subsistence Board Update. 

10. Alaska Board of Game Update. 

11. Old Business. 

a. Nabesna Road Off Highway 

Vehicle Environmental Impact 

Statement Update. 

b. Subsistence Uses of Horns, 

Antlers, Bones and Plants EA Update. 

c. Chisana Caribou Herd 

Management Plan Update. 

12. New Business. 

13. Public and other Agency 

Comments. 

14. SRC Work/Training Session. 

15. Set Time and Place for next SRC 

Meeting. 

16. Adjournment. 

SRC meeting locations and dates may 

need to be changed based on lack of 

quorum, inclement weather or local 

circumstances. If the meeting date and 

location are changed, a notice will be 

published in local newspapers and 

announced on local radio stations prior 

to the meeting date. The SRC meeting 

and teleconference may end early if all 

business is completed. 

Victor W. Knox, 

Acting Regional Director, Alaska. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11061 Filed 5–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–HC–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–469 (Final) and 

731–TA–1168 (Final)] 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure 

Pipe From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of 

countervailing duty and antidumping 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of countervailing duty 

investigation No. 701–TA–469 (Final) 

under section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act) and 

the final phase of antidumping 

investigation No. 731–TA–1168 (Final) 

under section 735(b) of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1673d(b)) to determine whether 

an industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, or the establishment of 

an industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

subsidized and less-than-fair-value 

imports from China of certain seamless 

carbon and alloy steel standard, line, 

and pressure pipe (‘‘seamless SLP 

pipe’’), provided for in subheadings 

7301.19.10, 7304.19.50, 7304.31.60, 

7304.39.00, 7304.51.50, 7304.59.60, and 

7304.59.80 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States.1

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of the 

investigations, hearing procedures, and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: April 28, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Merrill (202–205–3188), 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
26274 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 11, 2010 / Notices 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—The final phase of 

these investigations is being scheduled 

as a result of affirmative preliminary 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce that certain benefits which 

constitute subsidies within the meaning 

of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1671b) are being provided to 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

in China of seamless SLP pipe, and that 

such products are being sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

within the meaning of section 733 of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The 

investigations were requested in a 

petition filed on September 16, 2009, by 

U.S. Steel Corp., Pittsburgh, PA, and 

V&M Star L.P., Houston, TX. 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the final phase of these 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

section 201.11 of the Commission’s 

rules, no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. A 

party that filed a notice of appearance 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigations need not file an 

additional notice of appearance during 

this final phase. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the investigations. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in the final phase of these 

investigations available to authorized 

applicants under the APO issued in the 

investigations, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days prior to the hearing date specified 

in this notice. Authorized applicants 

must represent interested parties, as 

defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are 

parties to the investigations. A party 

granted access to BPI in the preliminary 

phase of the investigations need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the final phase of these 

investigations will be placed in the 

nonpublic record on August 30, 2010, 

and a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the final 

phase of these investigations beginning 

at 9:30 a.m. on September 14, 2010, at 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Requests to 

appear at the hearing should be filed in 

writing with the Secretary to the 

Commission on or before September 8, 

2010. A nonparty who has testimony 

that may aid the Commission’s 

deliberations may request permission to 

present a short statement at the hearing. 

All parties and nonparties desiring to 

appear at the hearing and make oral 

presentations should attend a 

prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 

a.m. on September 10, 2010, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Oral testimony and written 

materials to be submitted at the public 

hearing are governed by sections 

201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules. Parties must submit 

any request to present a portion of their 

hearing testimony in camera no later 

than 7 business days prior to the date of 

the hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party 

who is an interested party shall submit 

a prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.23 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is September 7, 2010. Parties may 

also file written testimony in connection 

with their presentation at the hearing, as 

provided in section 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules, and posthearing 

briefs, which must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.25 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is September 

21, 2010; witness testimony must be 

filed no later than three days before the 

hearing. In addition, any person who 

has not entered an appearance as a party 

to the investigations may submit a 

written statement of information 

pertinent to the subject of the 

investigations, including statements of 

support or opposition to the petition, on 

or before September 21, 2010. On 

October 8, 2010, the Commission will 

make available to parties all information 

on which they have not had an 

opportunity to comment. Parties may 

submit final comments on this 

information on or before October 12, 

2010, but such final comments must not 

contain new factual information and 

must otherwise comply with section 

207.30 of the Commission’s rules. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s rules; any submissions 

that contain BPI must also conform with 

the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

investigations must be served on all 

other parties to the investigations (as 

identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 5, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11057 Filed 5–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Pursuant To the Clean Water Act 

Notice is hereby given that on May 5, 

2010, a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States v. Washington Beef LLC, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
57444 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 

Extension of Time Limit for Final 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department to issue the 

final results in an administrative review 

within 120 days after the date on which 

the preliminary results are published. 

However, if it is not practicable to 

complete the review within this time 

period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 

allows the Department to extend the 

time period to a maximum of 180 days. 

We determine that it is not practicable 

to complete the final results of this 

review within the original time limit 

because the Department requires 

additional time to analyze: (a) Issues 

raised in post-preliminary results 

supplemental questionnaire responses; 

(b) issues raised in recent surrogate 

value submissions; and (c) the 

anticipated complexity of arguments in 

the upcoming case and rebuttal briefs 

due to surrogate valuation, successor-ininterest, and scope issues with regard to 

the respondents. Therefore, given the 

complexity of issues in this case, we are 

extending the time limit for completion 

of the final results by 30 days. 

An extension of 30 days from the 

current deadline of November 12, 2010, 

would result in a new deadline of 

December 12, 2010. However, since 

December 12, 2010, falls on a Sunday, 

a non-business day, the final results will 

now be due no later than December 13, 

2010, the next business day. 

This notice is published pursuant to 

sections 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: September 15, 2010. 

Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23551 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Extension of Application Period for 

Seats for the Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council 

AGENCY: Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean 

Service (NOS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Notice of extension for 

application period and request for 

applications. 

SUMMARY: The ONMS is extending the 

deadline and seeking applications for 

the following vacant seats on the 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary Advisory Council: 

Advisory Council: for member and 

alternate seats for Conservation; and 

alternates seats for Whalewatching, 

Education, At-Large and Mobile Gear 

Commercial Fishing. 

Applicants are chosen based upon 

their particular expertise and experience 

in relation to the seat for which they are 

applying; community and professional 

affiliations; philosophy regarding the 

protection and management of marine 

resources; and possibly the length of 

residence in the area affected by the 

sanctuary. Applicants who are chosen 

as members should expect to serve twoto three-year terms, pursuant to the 

council’s Charter. 

DATES: Applications are due by 11 

October, 2010 (COB: close of business 

day). 

ADDRESSES: Application kits may be 

obtained at http://www.stellwagen.noaa.

gov/sac/news.html. Completed 

applications should be sent to 

Elizasbeth.stokes@noaa.gov or faxed to 

781–545–8036. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nathalie Ward, Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary, 175 Edward 

Foster Road, Scituate, MA 02066, 781– 

545–8026 X206, nathalie.ward@noa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary Advisory Council was 

established in March 2001 to assure 

continued public participation in the 

management of the Sanctuary. The 

Advisory Council’s 17 voting members 

represent a variety of local user groups, 

as well as the general public, plus 6 

local, state and Federal government 

agencies. Since its establishment, the 

Council has played a vital role in 

advising the Sanctuary and NOAA on 

critical issues. 

The Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary encompasses 842 square 

miles of ocean, stretching between Cape 

Ann and Cape Cod. Renowned for its 

scenic beauty and remarkable 

productivity, the sanctuary supports a 

rich diversity of marine life including 

22 species of marine mammals, more 

than 30 species of seabirds, over 60 

species of fishes, and hundreds of 

marine invertebrates and plants. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431, et seq. 

(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 

Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program) 

Dated: September 3, 2010. 

Daniel J. Basta, 

Director, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23450 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–957] 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure 

Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination, Final Affirmative 

Critical Circumstances Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) has determined that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

seamless carbon and alloy steel 

standard, line, and pressure pipe 

(‘‘seamless pipe’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). For 

information on the estimated 

countervailing duty rates, please see the 

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section, 

below. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 21, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Subler, Joseph Shuler, and 

Matthew Jordan, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 1, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0189, (202) 482–1293, and (202) 

482–1540, respectively. 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, or period of 

investigation, is January 1, 2008, 

through December 31, 2008. 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since our preliminary determination. 

See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination, Preliminary 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances 

Determination, 75 FR 9163 (March 1, 

2010) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

On February 23, 2010, the Department 

received supplemental questionnaire 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57445 

1See Volume 5, page 5 of Hengyang’s January 4, 

2010, questionnaire response. 

2Petitioners in this investigation are United 

States Steel Corporation (‘‘U.S. Steel’’); TMK IPSCO; 

V&M Star L.P.; and the United Steel, Paper and 

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers International Union, 

AFL–CIO–CLC (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

3See Memorandum from Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, dated August 13, 2010, 

‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain 

Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, 

and Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Post-Preliminary Analysis and Calculation 

Memorandum for: Hengyang Steel Tube Group 

International Trading, Inc. (‘‘Hengyang Trading’’), 

Hengyang Valin Steel Tube Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hengyang 

Valin’’), Hengyang Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Hengyang MPM’’), Xigang Seamless Steel Tube 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xigang Seamless’’), Wuxi Seamless 

Special Pipe Co., Ltd. (‘‘Special Pipe’’), Jiangsu 

Xigang Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xigang Group’’), Wuxi 

Resources Steel Making Co., Ltd. (‘‘Resources 

Steel’’), Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Valin Xiangtan’’), Wuxi Sifang Steel Tube Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Sifang’’), Hunan Valin Steel Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hunan 

Valin’’), Hunan Valin Iron & Steel Group Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Valin Group’’) (collectively ‘‘Hengyang’’) (August 

13, 2010) (‘‘Hengyang Post-Preliminary Analysis’’); 

and Memorandum from Edward Yang to Ronald 

Lorentzen, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation of 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, 

Line, and Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic 

of China: Post-Preliminary Analysis and Calculation 

Memorandum for (TPCO)’’ (August 13, 2010) 

(‘‘TPCO Post-Preliminary Analysis’’). 

responses from Hengyang Steel Tube 

Group International Trading, Inc. 

(‘‘Hengyang Trading’’), Hengyang Valin 

Steel Tube Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hengyang Valin’’), 

Hengyang Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Hengyang MPM’’), Xigang Seamless 

Steel Tube Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xigang 

Seamless’’), Wuxi Seamless Special Pipe 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Special Pipe’’), Jiangsu 

Xigang Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xigang 

Group’’), and Wuxi Resources Steel 

Making Co., Ltd. (‘‘Resources Steel’’), as 

well as responses from Hunan Valin 

Xiangtan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (‘‘Valin 

Xiangtan’’), Wuxi Sifang Steel Tube Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Sifang’’), Hunan Valin Steel Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Hunan Valin’’), and Hunan Valin 

Iron & Steel Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Valin 

Group’’), (collectively, ‘‘Hengyang’’). 

On March 3, 2010, and March 8, 2010, 

the Department issued questionnaires 

regarding new subsidy allegations to 

Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corp., Tianjin Pipe 

Iron Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Tianguan 

Yuantong Pipe Product Co., Ltd., 

Tianjin Pipe International Economic 

and Trading Co., Ltd., TPCO Charging 

Development Co., Ltd. (collectively, 

‘‘TPCO’’), and Hengyang. The 

Department received a response from 

TPCO on March 10, 2010. The 

Department received a response from 

Hengyang on March 23, 2010. The 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to Hengyang on March 29, 

2010, and received a response on April 

13, 2010. The Department issued a letter 

on April 5, 2010, to the Government of 

China (‘‘GOC’’) asking for an update of 

its initial questionnaire response with 

respect to coking coal purchase 

information supplied to the GOC by 

Hengyang. The Department received a 

response to this letter on May 4, 2010. 

The Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire regarding export 

restrictions to the GOC on April 13, 

2010 and received a response on April 

20, 2010. The Department issued a letter 

on April 16, 2010, to the GOC regarding 

CRC China, a company identified by 

Hengyang as the ultimate owner of 

subsidiary companies that held 

ownership stakes in the responding 

Hengyang companies since December 

11, 2001.1 The Department received a 

response on April 30, 2010. The 

Department sent a letter to the GOC on 

May 5, 2010, regarding the GOC’s April 

30 response on CRC China. The 

Department received a response on May 

12, 2010. The Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to the GOC 

on May 18, 2010, and received a 

response on May 25, 2010. 

On March 1, 2010, Petitioners 2

requested alignment of the final 

countervailing duty determination with 

the final determination in the 

companion antidumping duty 

investigation of seamless pipe from the 

PRC, in accordance with section 

705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 CFR 

351.210(b)(4). On March 15, 2010, the 

Department announced the alignment of 

the final countervailing duty 

determination of seamless pipe from the 

PRC with the final determination in the 

companion antidumping duty 

investigation of seamless pipe from the 

PRC. See Certain Seamless Carbon and 

Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure 

Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Alignment of Final 

Countervailing Duty Determination with 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 

75 FR 13255 (March 19, 2010). 

On April 14, 2010, U.S. Steel filed an 

uncreditworthy allegation with respect 

to Xigang Group, Xigang Seamless, 

Special Pipe, and Resources Steel. On 

May 12, 2010, the Department 

announced it would not investigate the 

uncreditworthiness allegation. See 

Memorandum from Joseph Shuler and 

Shane Subler, International Trade 

Compliance Analysts, to Susan 

Kuhbach, Director, Office 1, Import 

Administration, entitled 

‘‘Uncreditworthy Allegation,’’ (May 12, 

2010). 

On May 12, 2010, the Department 

received a response from U.S. Steel 

regarding the GOC’s April 20, 2010, 

export restrictions response. 

From June 7, 2010, to June 18, 2010, 

we conducted verification of the 

questionnaire responses submitted by 

Hengyang and TPCO. See Memorandum 

from Shane Subler and Matthew Jordan, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analysts, Office 1, to Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 1, entitled ‘‘Verification Report: 

Hengyang Steel Tube Group 

International Trading, Inc. (‘‘Hengyang 

Trading’’), Hengyang Valin Steel Tube 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hengyang Valin’’), Hengyang 

Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hengyang 

MPM’’), Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Xigang Seamless’’), Wuxi 

Seamless Special Pipe Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Special Pipe’’), Jiangsu Xigang Group 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xigang Group’’), Wuxi 

Resources Steel Making Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Resources Steel’’), Hunan Valin 

Xiangtan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (‘‘Valin 

Xiangtan’’), Wuxi Sifang Steel Tube Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Sifang’’), Hunan Valin Steel Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Hunan Valin’’), and Hunan Valin 

Iron & Steel Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Valin 

Group’’) (collectively, ‘‘Hengyang’’)’’ (July 

16, 2010); and Memorandum from Scott 

Holland and Joseph Shuler, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analysts, Office 1, to Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 1, entitled ‘‘Verification Report: 

Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corporation 

(‘‘TPCO Group’’), Tianjin Pipe Iron 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (‘‘TPCO Iron’’), 

Tianguan Yuantong Pipe Product Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Yuantong’’), Tianjin Pipe 

International Economic and Trading 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘TPCO International’’), and 

TPCO Charging Development Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Charging’’) (collectively, ‘‘TPCO’’) 

(August 9, 2010). 

On August 13, 2010, the Department 

issued its Hengyang Post-Preliminary 

Analysis and TPCO Post-Preliminary 

Analysis.3 We received case briefs from 

the GOC, TPCO, Hengyang, U.S. Steel, 

Toyota Tsusho American Inc. (‘‘TAI’’), 

and Salem Steel North America, LLC 

(‘‘Salem Steel’’) on August 26, 2010. We 

returned the case brief of Hengyang on 

August 26, 2010, as it appeared to 

contain new factual information not on 

the record of this case. Hengyang 

resubmitted its case brief on August 30, 

2010. The GOC, TPCO, Hengyang, and 

U.S. Steel submitted rebuttal briefs on 

September 1, 2010. 

The GOC, TPCO, and Petitioners 

requested a hearing. The same parties 

later withdrew their requests. Therefore, 

no hearing was held. Hengyang and U.S. 

Steel requested a meeting. A meeting 

with Hengyang was held on September 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57446 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 

4See 75 FR at 9165. 

2, 2010. A meeting with U.S. Steel was 

held on September 3, 2010. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation 

consists of certain seamless carbon and 

alloy steel (other than stainless steel) 

pipes and redraw hollows, less than or 

equal to 16 inches (406.4 mm) in 

outside diameter, regardless of wallthickness, manufacturing process (e.g., 

hot-finished or cold-drawn), end finish 

(e.g., plain end, beveled end, upset end, 

threaded, or threaded and coupled), or 

surface finish (e.g., bare, lacquered or 

coated). Redraw hollows are any 

unfinished carbon or alloy steel (other 

than stainless steel) pipe or ‘‘hollow 

profiles’’ suitable for cold finishing 

operations, such as cold drawing, to 

meet the American Society for Testing 

and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) or American 

Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) 

specifications referenced below, or 

comparable specifications. Specifically 

included within the scope are seamless 

carbon and alloy steel (other than 

stainless steel) standard, line, and 

pressure pipes produced to the ASTM 

A–53, ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, 

ASTM A–334, ASTM A–589, ASTM A– 

795, ASTM A–1024, and the API 5L 

specifications, or comparable 

specifications, and meeting the physical 

parameters described above, regardless 

of application, with the exception of the 

exclusion discussed below. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

of the investigation are: (1) All pipes 

meeting aerospace, hydraulic, and 

bearing tubing specifications; (2) all 

pipes meeting the chemical 

requirements of ASTM A–335, whether 

finished or unfinished; and (3) 

unattached couplings. Also excluded 

from the scope of the investigation are 

all mechanical, boiler, condenser and 

heat exchange tubing, except when such 

products conform to the dimensional 

requirements, i.e., outside diameter and 

wall thickness of ASTM A–53, ASTM 

A–106 or API 5L specifications. 

The merchandise covered by the 

investigation is currently classified in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item 

numbers: 7304.19.1020, 7304.19.1030, 

7304.19.1045, 7304.19.1060, 

7304.19.5020, 7304.19.5050, 

7304.31.6050, 7304.39.0016, 

7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024, 

7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 

7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0040, 

7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 

7304.39.0052, 7304.39.0056, 

7304.39.0062, 7304.39.0068, 

7304.39.0072, 7304.51.5005, 

7304.51.5060, 7304.59.6000, 

7304.59.8010, 7304.59.8015, 

7304.59.8020, 7304.59.8025, 

7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 

7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 

7304.59.8050, 7304.59.8055, 

7304.59.8060, 7304.59.8065, and 

7304.59.8070. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

merchandise subject to this scope is 

dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

On May 26, 2010, Salem Steel, a U.S. 

importer of cold drawn seamless 

mechanical tubing, submitted comments 

on the scope of this investigation. Salem 

requested that the Department amend 

the scope of this investigation to 

exclude CD Mechanical Tubing from the 

scope of the investigation. On June 4, 

2010, Salem Steel submitted proposed 

scope language to exclude CD 

mechanical tubing from the scope of the 

investigation. On June 8, 2010, TAI 

submitted comments supporting 

Salem’s proposed scope exclusion 

language. On June 23, 2010, the 

Department issued a proposed scope 

modification via letter and requested 

comments. See Letter to Interested 

Parties, Regarding the ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Certain Seamless 

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, 

and Pressure Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ dated June 23, 2010. 

Specifically, the Department’s proposed 

scope modification language excluded 

‘‘all mechanical, boiler, condenser and 

heat exchange tubing, except when such 

products conform to the dimensional 

requirements, i.e., outside diameter and 

wall thickness of ASTM A–53, ASTM 

A–106 or APL 5L specifications.’’ Id. On 

June 30, 2010, TAI and Salem Steel 

submitted comments that both 

supported the Department’s proposed 

scope modifications, as well as language 

that suggested additional modifications 

to the scope of the investigation. On July 

2, 2010, Petitioners also submitted 

comments that both supported the 

Department’s proposed scope 

modification, as well as language that 

suggested additional modifications to 

the scope of the investigation. On 

August 20, 2010, the Department issued 

a proposed scope modification via 

memorandum and requested comments. 

On August 23, 2010, TAI submitted 

comments supporting the Department’s 

proposed scope modification language. 

After considering parties’ comments, the 

Department has determined to remove 

ASTM A–335 from the list of covered 

specifications included within the scope 

of this investigation, and include the 

following exclusion language in the 

scope: 

Specifically excluded from the scope of 

these investigations are: (1) All pipes meeting 

aerospace, hydraulic, and bearing tubing 

specifications; (2) all pipes meeting the 

chemical requirements of ASTM A–335, 

whether finished or unfinished; and (3) 

unattached couplings. Also excluded from 

the scope of these investigations are all 

mechanical, boiler, condenser and heat 

exchange tubing, except when such products 

conform to the dimensional requirements, 

i.e., outside diameter and wall thickness of 

ASTM A–53, ASTM A–106 or API 5L 

specifications. 

See Comment 5 of the accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

additional information. 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the meaning 

of section 701(b) of the Act, section 

701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this 

investigation. Accordingly, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

must determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to a U.S. industry. On November 

2, 2009, the ITC issued its affirmative 

preliminary determination that there is 

a reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is threatened with 

material injury by reason of allegedly 

subsidized imports of seamless pipe 

from the PRC. See Certain Seamless 

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, 

and Pressure Pipe From China, 74 FR 

57521 (November 6, 2009) and Certain 

Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel 

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from 

China: Investigation Nos. 701–TA–469 

and 731–TA–1168 (Preliminary) 

(November 2009). 

Critical Circumstances 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department concluded that critical 

circumstances did not exist with respect 

to imports of seamless pipe from the 

PRC from TPCO, in accordance with 

703(e)(1) of the Act, because TPCO’s 

shipments did not reach the threshold 

for a finding that there have been 

massive imports of the subject 

merchandise over a relatively short 

period.4 However, in the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department 

concluded that critical circumstances do 

exist with respect to imports of seamless 

pipe from the PRC from Hengyang, in 

accordance with 703(e)(1)(B) of the Act. 

For ‘‘all other’’ exporters, we determined 

that critical circumstances do exist with 

respect to imports of seamless pipe from 

the PRC from ‘‘all other’’ exporters, in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57447 

5See 75 FR at 9165. 

6See 75 FR at 9180. 

7See 75 FR at 9170. 

accordance with section 703(e)(1)(B) of 

the Act.5

We have not received any information 

since the Preliminary Determination 

that would lead us to change our 

preliminary finding. Therefore, in 

accordance with 705(a)(2) of the Act, we 

continue to find that critical 

circumstances exist with respect to 

imports of subject merchandise from the 

PRC from Hengyang and ‘‘all other’’ 

exporters, but not for imports from 

TPCO. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

Memorandum from Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Paul Piquado, Acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, entitled ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Determination in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigation of Certain Seamless 

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, 

and Pressure Pipe (‘‘Seamless Pipe’’) 

from the People’s Republic of China’’ 

(September 10, 2010) (hereafter 

‘‘Decision Memorandum’’), which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. Attached 

to this notice as an Appendix is a list 

of the issues that parties have raised and 

to which we have responded in the 

Decision Memorandum. Parties can find 

a complete discussion of all issues 

raised in this investigation and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Central Records Unit, Room 1117 in 

the main building of the Commerce 

Department. In addition, a complete 

version of the Decision Memorandum 

can be accessed directly on the Internet 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Use of Adverse Facts Available 

For purposes of this final 

determination, we have continued to 

rely on facts available and to draw an 

adverse inference, in accordance with 

sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, to 

determine that the GOC’s dominance of 

the market in the PRC for steel round 

billets supports the reasonable 

conclusion that this market is 

significantly distorted. Consequently, 

we are not relying on domestic prices in 

the PRC in determining whether a 

benefit was conferred through the GOC’s 

provision of steel round billets to the 

mandatory respondents. Similarly, we 

have continued to apply AFA to 

determine that all of the steel round 

billets were provided by government 

authorities. 

The Department continues to find that 

the use of ‘‘facts otherwise available’’ is 

warranted with regard to the GOC’s 

provision of electricity to the mandatory 

respondents. Specifically, the 

Department requested that the GOC 

explain how electricity cost increases 

are reflected in retail price increases. 

The GOC responded that it was 

gathering this information, but it did not 

request an extension from the 

Department for submitting this 

information after the original 

questionnaire deadline date. Because 

the GOC did not provide the requested 

information, we determine that 

necessary information is not on the 

record. Accordingly, the use of facts 

otherwise available under section 776(a) 

of the Act is appropriate. By not 

responding to our questionnaire, the 

GOC has failed to act to the best of its 

ability. Accordingly, we find that an 

adverse inference is warranted, 

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. 

Specifically, we find that the GOC’s 

provision of electricity constitutes a 

financial contribution within the 

meaning of section 771(5)(D) of the Act 

and is specific within the meaning of 

section 771(5A) of the Act. We have also 

relied on an adverse inference in 

selecting a benchmark for determining 

the existence and amount of the benefit. 

The Department continues to find that 

the use of ‘‘facts otherwise available’’ is 

warranted with regard to TPCO’s 

reported receipt of countervailable 

grants. The Department requested that 

the GOC provide information about 

these grants in the initial questionnaire 

and a supplemental questionnaire. The 

GOC did not provide the requested 

information, asserting that it needed 

more time to gather the data. Although 

the GOC responded that it was gathering 

this information, it did not request an 

extension from the Department for 

submitting this information after the 

supplemental questionnaire deadline 

date. Because the GOC did not provide 

the requested information concerning 

these grants, we determine that 

necessary information is not on the 

record and that the GOC did not provide 

requested information by the 

submission deadline. Accordingly, the 

use of facts otherwise available pursuant 

to section 776(a) of the Act is 

appropriate. Also, we determine that the 

GOC has failed to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with our request for information as it 

did not respond by the deadline dates, 

nor did it explain why it is unable to 

provide the requested information, with 

the result that an adverse inference 

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act is 

warranted in the application of facts 

available. We find that these subsidies 

are a direct transfer of funds within the 

meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the 

Act, providing a benefit in the amount 

of the grant. See 19 CFR 351.504(a). We 

determine, in the absence of a response 

from the GOC, that the subsidies 

received under this program are limited 

to TPCO. Hence, we find that these 

subsidies are specific under section 

771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. 

In a departure from the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department now 

finds that the use of ‘‘facts otherwise 

available’’ pursuant to section 776(a) of 

the Act is warranted with regard to the 

provision of coking coal for less than 

adequate remuneration (‘‘LTAR’’). In the 

Preliminary Determination, based on the 

information on the record at that time, 

the Department found that none of the 

mandatory respondents received 

benefits under the program.6 At that 

time, Hengyang was scheduled to 

provide a supplemental questionnaire 

response on behalf of certain crossowned affiliates. Accordingly, the 

Department stated, ‘‘We intend to 

address {Hengyang’s supplemental} 

response in a post-preliminary 

determination.’’ 7 In Hengyang’s 

February 23, 2010 supplemental 

questionnaire response, Hengyang 

indicated that a cross-owned affiliate 

used coking coal. Accordingly, 

subsequent to the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department 

investigated the allegation concerning 

coking coal provided for LTAR. In the 

context of its investigation, the 

Department requested information from 

the GOC about the coking coal suppliers 

and the coking coal industry within the 

PRC. The GOC did not provide the 

requested information. Because the GOC 

did not provide the requested 

information concerning the coking coal 

industry within the PRC, we determine 

that necessary information is not on the 

record. Accordingly, the use of facts 

otherwise available pursuant to section 

776(a) of the Act is appropriate. Also, 

we determine that the GOC has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with our request for 

information, with the result that an 

adverse inference pursuant to section 

776(b) of the Act is warranted in the 

application of facts available. 

Consequently, we have applied AFA to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57448 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 

8See 75 FR at 9179. 9See TPCO Post-Preliminary Analysis at pages 3– 

9; see also Hengyang Post-Preliminary Analysis at 

pages 25–30. 10See Hengyang Post-Preliminary Analysis at 

pages 22–23. 

11See Response of the Government of China to 

the Department’s Fourth Supplemental 

Questionnaire (May 5, 2010) (‘‘G4SR’’) at 1. 

12See section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. 

13See 19 CFR 351.509(a)(1). 

14See Hengyang Post-Preliminary Analysis at 8. 

15Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corporation, Tianjin Pipe 

Iron Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Tianguan Yuantong 

Pipe Product Co., Ltd., Tianjin Pipe International 

Economic and Trading Co., Ltd., and TPCO 

Charging Development Co., Ltd. (collectively, 

‘‘TPCO’’). 

determine that all of the coking coal was 

provided by government authorities. 

In a departure from the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department now 

finds that the use of ‘‘facts otherwise 

available’’ is warranted with regard to 

export restrictions on coke. In the 

Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found the program to be not 

countervailable.8 After the Preliminary 

Determination, we requested additional 

information on this program from the 

GOC. The GOC failed to answer certain 

questions from the supplemental 

questionnaires, which we described in 

the TPCO Post-Preliminary Analysis 

and Hengyang Post-Preliminary 

Analysis.9 Because the GOC did not 

provide the requested information 

concerning the coke industry within the 

PRC, we determine that necessary 

information is not on the record. 

Accordingly, the use of facts otherwise 

available pursuant to section 776(a) of 

the Act is appropriate. Also, we 

determine that the GOC has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with our request for 

information, with the result that an 

adverse inference pursuant to section 

776(b) of the Act is warranted in the 

application of facts available. In 

drawing an adverse inference, we 

determine that the GOC’s export 

restraints on coke constitute a financial 

contribution (i.e., provision of goods) to 

PRC producers of downstream goods 

that incorporate coke within the 

meaning of sections 771(5)(B) and (D)(ii) 

of the Act. Moreover, as an adverse 

inference, we find that GOC’s export 

restraints on coke are specific to 

producers of seamless pipe in the PRC 

within the meaning of section 771(5A) 

of the Act. Accordingly, we determine 

that, through these export restraints, the 

GOC is providing inputs to downstream 

producers of seamless pipe. 

The Department also now finds that 

the use of ‘‘facts otherwise available’’ is 

warranted with regard to deed tax 

exemption. In the Hengyang PostPreliminary Analysis, we determined 

that Hengyang Valin and Valin Xiangtan 

each received benefits under this 

program.10 We asked the GOC to update 

its response to the initial questionnaire 

regarding the benefits received by 

Hengyang Valin and Valin Xiangtan. 

However, the GOC stated that it has no 

record of either company receiving 

benefits from this program and, 

therefore, did not provide a response to 

any parts of the original questionnaire 

with respect to this program.11 Because 

the GOC did not provide the requested 

information concerning these 

exemptions, we determine that 

necessary information is not on the 

record. Accordingly, the use of facts 

otherwise available pursuant to section 

776(a) of the Act is appropriate. Also, 

we determine that the GOC has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with our request for 

information. We determine that these 

deed tax exemptions confer a 

countervailable benefit on Hengyang. 

The deed tax exemptions are a financial 

contribution in the form of revenue 

forgone.12 In the absence of a response 

from the GOC, we find, as an adverse 

inference pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, that the subsidies received 

under this program are limited to 

Hengyang and, therefore, are specific 

under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. 

The amount of the countervailable 

benefit is the amount of deed tax 

Hengyang would have paid in the 

absence of this program.13

The Department finds that the use of 

‘‘facts otherwise available’’ is warranted 

with regard to CRC China and its 

subsidiaries. In the Hengyang PostPreliminary Analysis, we found that 

Hengyang and the GOC failed to provide 

complete information on CRC China or 

its subsidiaries.14 Thus, we had no 

information to determine the ownership 

structure of CRC China or its 

subsidiaries, or to determine whether 

CRC China or its subsidiaries received 

countervailable subsidies. We also 

could not determine whether CRC China 

and/or its subsidiaries have other crossowned affiliates (e.g., producers of 

seamless pipe) that received 

countervailable subsidies. Because the 

GOC did not provide the requested 

information concerning CRC China and 

its subsidiaries, we determine that 

necessary information is not on the 

record. Accordingly, the use of facts 

otherwise available pursuant to section 

776(a) of the Act is appropriate. Also, 

we determine that the GOC has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with our request for 

information. Consequently, an adverse 

inference pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act is warranted in the application 

of facts available. For purposes of this 

final determination, we determine that 

CRC China together with its subsidiaries 

benefitted from all countervailable 

programs that at least one respondent in 

this investigation has used because we 

do not have information on the record 

concerning which programs CRC China 

and its subsidiaries actually used, but 

do have information that exporters or 

producers of seamless pipe and their 

cross-owned companies did use and 

benefit from these programs. For each of 

these programs, we are applying the 

highest rate that we calculated for that 

program for the responding Hengyang 

companies as a whole or for TPCO.15

Specifically, we will apply the highest 

calculated rate for the identical program 

in this investigation if either Hengyang 

or TPCO used the program. 

For a full discussion of these issues, 

please see the Decision Memorandum, 

at ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available 

and Adverse Facts Available.’’ 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have 

calculated a rate for each individually 

investigated producer/exporter of the 

subject merchandise. Section 

705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for 

companies not investigated, we will 

determine an ‘‘all others’’ rate equal to 

the weighted average countervailable 

subsidy rates established for exporters 

and producers individually 

investigated, excluding any zero and de 

minimis countervailable subsidy rates, 

and any rates determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. 

Notwithstanding the language of 

section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we 

have not calculated the ‘‘all others’’ rate 

by weight averaging the rates of TPCO 

and Hengyang, because doing so risks 

disclosure of proprietary information. 

Therefore, we have calculated a simple 

average of the two responding firms’ 

rates. Since both TPCO and Hengyang 

received countervailable export 

subsidies and the ‘‘all others’’ rate is a 

simple average based on the 

individually investigated exporters and 

producers, the ‘‘all others’’ rate includes 

export subsidies. 

We determine the total net 

countervailable subsidy rates to be: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57449 

Exporter/Manufacturer Net subsidy 

rate 

Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corp., 

Tianjin Pipe Iron Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Tianguan 

Yuantong Pipe Product 

Co., Ltd., Tianjin Pipe 

International Economic 

and Trading Co., Ltd., and 

TPCO Charging Development Co., Ltd. ................... 13.66 

Hengyang Steel Tube Group 

Int’l Trading, Inc., 

Hengyang Valin Steel 

Tube Co., Ltd., Hengyang 

Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd., 

Xigang Seamless Steel 

Tube Co., Ltd., Wuxi 

Seamless Special Pipe 

Co., Ltd., Wuxi Resources 

Steel Making Co., Ltd., 

Jiangsu Xigang Group Co., 

Ltd., Hunan Valin Xiangtan 

Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., 

Wuxi Sifang Steel Tube 

Co., Ltd., Hunan Valin 

Steel Co., Ltd., Hunan 

Valin Iron & Steel Group 

Co., Ltd. ............................ 53.65 

All Others .............................. 33.66 

Also, in accordance with section 

703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to discontinue the suspension of 

liquidation for countervailing duty 

purposes for subject merchandise 

entered on or after June 29, 2010, but to 

continue the suspension of liquidation 

of entries made from March 1, 2010, 

through June 28, 2010. 

We will issue a countervailing duty 

order if the ITC issues a final affirmative 

injury determination, and will instruct 

CBP to suspend liquidation of entries of 

seamless pipe from the PRC and to 

require a cash deposit of estimated 

countervailing duties for such entries of 

merchandise in the amounts indicated 

above. If the ITC determines that 

material injury, or threat of material 

injury, does not exist, this proceeding 

will be terminated and all estimated 

deposits or securities posted as a result 

of the suspension of liquidation will be 

refunded or canceled. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary 

information related to this investigation. 

We will allow the ITC access to all 

privileged and business proprietary 

information in our files, provided the 

ITC confirms that it will not disclose 

such information, either publicly or 

under an APO, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to an administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 10, 2010. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix—List of Comments and 

Issues in the Decision Memorandum 

General Issues 

Comment 1 Application of CVD Law 

to the PRC 

Comment 2 Whether Application of 

the CVD Law to NMEs Violates the 

Administrative Protection Act 

Comment 3 Double Counting/ 

Overlapping Remedies 

Comment 4 Cutoff Date for Identifying 

Subsidies 

Comment 5 Scope of the Investigation 

Provision of Steel Rounds for LTAR 

Comment 6 Application of AFA in 

Determining the Benchmark for Steel 

Rounds 

Comment 7 Government Ownership 

Should Not be the Dispositive Factor 

in Determining Whether a Financial 

Contribution Has Occurred 

Comment 8 Trading Company 

Suppliers 

Comment 9 Benchmark Issues 

Government Policy Lending 

Comment 10 Whether Chinese 

Commercial Banks Are ‘‘Authorities’’ 

Comment 11 Whether the Policy Loan 

Program Is De Jure Specific 

Comment 12 Whether the Department 

Should Use an In-country Benchmark 

Comment 13 External Benchmark 

Methodology 

Whether There is a Provision of Land for 

LTAR 

Comment 14 Financial Contribution 

Comment 15 Whether to Use an Incountry Benchmark 

Comment 16 Whether There Are Flaws 

in the Thai Benchmark 

Comment 17 Whether Land Is Specific 

Comment 18 Provision of Land-use 

Rights to Hengyang 

Provision of Coking Coal for LTAR 

Comment 19 Countervailability of 

Program 

Comment 20 Freight Benchmark for 

Coking Coal Purchases 

Hengyang-specific Issues 

Comment 21 Cross-ownership 

Between Hengyang Companies 

Comment 22 Application of AFA to 

CRC China 

Comment 23 Finding that the GOC Did 

Not Cooperate With Respect to CRC 

China 

Comment 24 Hengyang Attribution 

Comment 25 Hengyang Electricity 

Purchases 

Comment 26 Currency Denomination 

for Hengyang Loans 

Comment 27 Clerical Error Allegations 

for Debt Restructuring 

Comment 28 Uncreditworthiness 

Allegation 

TPCO-specific Issues 

Comment 29 TPCO Attribution of 

Subsidies 

Comment 30 TPCO Group Accelerated 

Depreciation 

Other Issues 

Comment 31 Export Restraints on 

Steel Rounds 

Comment 32 Export Restraints on 

Coke 

[FR Doc. 2010–23547 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–956] 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure 

Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Critical 

Circumstances, in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 21, 

2010. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) has determined that 

certain seamless carbon and alloy steel 

standard, line, and pressure pipe from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57449 

Exporter/Manufacturer Net subsidy 

rate 

Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corp., 

Tianjin Pipe Iron Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Tianguan 

Yuantong Pipe Product 

Co., Ltd., Tianjin Pipe 

International Economic 

and Trading Co., Ltd., and 

TPCO Charging Development Co., Ltd. ................... 13.66 

Hengyang Steel Tube Group 

Int’l Trading, Inc., 

Hengyang Valin Steel 

Tube Co., Ltd., Hengyang 

Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd., 

Xigang Seamless Steel 

Tube Co., Ltd., Wuxi 

Seamless Special Pipe 

Co., Ltd., Wuxi Resources 

Steel Making Co., Ltd., 

Jiangsu Xigang Group Co., 

Ltd., Hunan Valin Xiangtan 

Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., 

Wuxi Sifang Steel Tube 

Co., Ltd., Hunan Valin 

Steel Co., Ltd., Hunan 

Valin Iron & Steel Group 

Co., Ltd. ............................ 53.65 

All Others .............................. 33.66 

Also, in accordance with section 

703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to discontinue the suspension of 

liquidation for countervailing duty 

purposes for subject merchandise 

entered on or after June 29, 2010, but to 

continue the suspension of liquidation 

of entries made from March 1, 2010, 

through June 28, 2010. 

We will issue a countervailing duty 

order if the ITC issues a final affirmative 

injury determination, and will instruct 

CBP to suspend liquidation of entries of 

seamless pipe from the PRC and to 

require a cash deposit of estimated 

countervailing duties for such entries of 

merchandise in the amounts indicated 

above. If the ITC determines that 

material injury, or threat of material 

injury, does not exist, this proceeding 

will be terminated and all estimated 

deposits or securities posted as a result 

of the suspension of liquidation will be 

refunded or canceled. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary 

information related to this investigation. 

We will allow the ITC access to all 

privileged and business proprietary 

information in our files, provided the 

ITC confirms that it will not disclose 

such information, either publicly or 

under an APO, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to an administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 10, 2010. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix—List of Comments and 

Issues in the Decision Memorandum 

General Issues 

Comment 1 Application of CVD Law 

to the PRC 

Comment 2 Whether Application of 

the CVD Law to NMEs Violates the 

Administrative Protection Act 

Comment 3 Double Counting/ 

Overlapping Remedies 

Comment 4 Cutoff Date for Identifying 

Subsidies 

Comment 5 Scope of the Investigation 

Provision of Steel Rounds for LTAR 

Comment 6 Application of AFA in 

Determining the Benchmark for Steel 

Rounds 

Comment 7 Government Ownership 

Should Not be the Dispositive Factor 

in Determining Whether a Financial 

Contribution Has Occurred 

Comment 8 Trading Company 

Suppliers 

Comment 9 Benchmark Issues 

Government Policy Lending 

Comment 10 Whether Chinese 

Commercial Banks Are ‘‘Authorities’’ 

Comment 11 Whether the Policy Loan 

Program Is De Jure Specific 

Comment 12 Whether the Department 

Should Use an In-country Benchmark 

Comment 13 External Benchmark 

Methodology 

Whether There is a Provision of Land for 

LTAR 

Comment 14 Financial Contribution 

Comment 15 Whether to Use an Incountry Benchmark 

Comment 16 Whether There Are Flaws 

in the Thai Benchmark 

Comment 17 Whether Land Is Specific 

Comment 18 Provision of Land-use 

Rights to Hengyang 

Provision of Coking Coal for LTAR 

Comment 19 Countervailability of 

Program 

Comment 20 Freight Benchmark for 

Coking Coal Purchases 

Hengyang-specific Issues 

Comment 21 Cross-ownership 

Between Hengyang Companies 

Comment 22 Application of AFA to 

CRC China 

Comment 23 Finding that the GOC Did 

Not Cooperate With Respect to CRC 

China 

Comment 24 Hengyang Attribution 

Comment 25 Hengyang Electricity 

Purchases 

Comment 26 Currency Denomination 

for Hengyang Loans 

Comment 27 Clerical Error Allegations 

for Debt Restructuring 

Comment 28 Uncreditworthiness 

Allegation 

TPCO-specific Issues 

Comment 29 TPCO Attribution of 

Subsidies 

Comment 30 TPCO Group Accelerated 

Depreciation 

Other Issues 

Comment 31 Export Restraints on 

Steel Rounds 

Comment 32 Export Restraints on 

Coke 

[FR Doc. 2010–23547 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–956] 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure 

Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Critical 

Circumstances, in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 21, 

2010. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) has determined that 

certain seamless carbon and alloy steel 

standard, line, and pressure pipe from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57450 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 

1See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel 

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, in Part, and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 75 FR 22372 (April 28, 2010) 

(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

2See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel 

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China: Amended Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 75 

FR 29972 (May 28, 2010) (‘‘Amended Preliminary 

Determination’’). 

3Petitioners are United States Steel Corporation, 

V&M Star L.P, TMK IPSCO, and the United Steel, 

Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, 

Allied Industrial and Service Workers International 

Union (hereinafter, ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

4See Memorandum to The File, through Howard 

Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, concerning, ‘‘Data on Labor Wage,’’ dated 

July 16, 2010. 

5See Memorandum to The File, through Howard 

Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, concerning, ‘‘Honduras Data on Labor 

Wage Rate,’’ dated August 10, 2010. 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(‘‘LTFV’’) as provided in section 735 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). The final dumping margins for 

this investigation are listed in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below. 

The period covered by the investigation 

is January 1, 2009, through June 30, 

2009 (the ‘‘POI’’). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Magd Zalok or Howard Smith, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4162 and 482– 

5193, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published in the 

Federal Register its preliminary 

determination of sales at LTFV on April 

28, 2010.1 The Department published in 

the Federal Register its amended 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on May 28, 2010, after identifying 

and correcting certain ministerial 

errors.2 Between May 10, 2010, and May 

14, 2010, the Department conducted a 

verification of Hengyang Steel Tube 

Group Int’l Trading Inc., and its 

affiliates Hengyang Valin Steel Tube 

Co., Ltd., and Hengyang Valin MPM 

Tube Co., Ltd., (collectively, Hengyang) 

at its facilities in Hengyang City, China. 

Between May 17, 2010, and May 26, 

2010, the Department conducted a 

verification of Tianjin Pipe (Group) 

Corporation and Tianjin Pipe 

International Economic Trading 

Corporation (collectively, TPCO) at its 

facilities in Tianjin City, China. 

Between June 7, 2010, and June 9, 2010, 

the Department conducted a verification 

of TPCO Enterprise Inc. (‘‘TEI’’), an 

affiliate of TPCO, at its facilities in 

Houston, Texas. See the ‘‘Verification’’ 

section of this notice below for 

additional information. 

On May 24, 2010, Salem Steel North 

America LLC (Salem Steel), a U.S. 

importer of cold drawn seamless 

mechanical tubing, submitted a request 

to the Department that it reconsider its 

preliminary decision to include cold 

drawn mechanical tubing within the 

scope of the antidumping duty 

investigation. On May 27, 2010, 

Petitioners,3 Salem Steel and a number 

of other importers and end-users of 

mechanical tubing met with Department 

officials to discuss the May 24, 2010, 

submission filed by Salem Steel. 

Subsequently, a number of interested 

parties filed comments regarding 

excluding mechanical tubing from the 

scope of the investigation. Additionally, 

on July 2, 2010, Petitioners submitted a 

request to the Department that it 

exclude from the scope seamless pipe 

made to the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) A–335 

specification. The Department has 

issued proposed modifications to the 

scope language addressing mechanical 

tubing and pipe meeting the ASTM A– 

335 specification and interested parties 

have commented on the proposed 

modifications. See the ‘‘Scope 

Comments’’ section of this notice below 

for additional information. 

On July 9, 2010, Mr. Daniel Porter of 

Winston Strawn LLP, counsel to TPCO, 

submitted an affidavit in response to the 

Department’s verification report. The 

Department subsequently rejected the 

affidavit because it contained untimely 

new factual information and Mr. Porter 

resubmitted the affidavit on July 22, 

2010. The Department responded to the 

affidavit on August 16, 2010. United 

States Steel Corporation and TPCO filed 

comments regarding the Department’s 

response to the affidavit on August 18, 

2010. United States Steel Corporation 

filed rebuttal comments on August 20, 

2010. See the ‘‘Verification’’ section of 

this notice below for additional 

information. 

On June 7, 2010, Petitioners, 

Hengyang, and TPCO filed surrogate 

value information. On June 17, 2010, 

Petitioners filed rebuttal surrogate value 

information. 

In response to the Department’s 

invitation to comment on the 

Preliminary Determination and 

Amended Preliminary Determination, 

on July 14, 2010, Petitioners, Hengyang, 

TPCO, Salem Steel North America LLC 

(‘‘Salem Steel’’), Toyota Tsusho America, 

Inc. (‘‘TAI’’) and MC Tubular Products, 

Inc. (‘‘MC Tubular’’) filed case briefs. 

Petitioners, Hengyang, TPCO and the 

Government of China filed rebuttal 

briefs on July 21, 2010, and TPCO’s 

rebuttal brief was resubmitted on July 

26, 2010. 

On July 16, 2010, the Department 

placed additional data on the record of 

the investigation and notified interested 

parties that it would be reconsidering its 

valuation of the labor wage rate in this 

investigation as a result of the recent 

decision in Dorbest Limited et al. v. 

United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (Dorbest) issued by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) on May 14, 2010.4 The 

Department invited interested parties to 

comment on the narrow issue of the 

labor wage rate in light of the CAFC’s 

decision. On July 21, 2010, TPCO and 

United States Steel Corporation 

submitted comments on the export data. 

On August 10, 2010, the Department 

released additional information relating 

to the wage rate to interested parties.5

United States Steel Corporation 

submitted comments on the additional 

information on August 12, 2010. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All of the issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs submitted in this 

investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Determination’’ dated 

September 10, 2010, which is hereby 

adopted by this notice (‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum’’). Appendix I to 

this notice contains a list of the issues 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. The Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, which is a public 

document, is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) at the Main 

Commerce Building, Room 7046, and is 

accessible on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the memorandum 

are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made the 

following changes to our preliminary 

determination. The following changes 

have been made to surrogate values: (1) 

We calculated financial ratios based on 

data contained within the financial 

statements of Jindal Steel & Power, Ltd., 

Oil Country Tubular Ltd., and Lloyds 

Line Pipe, Ltd. (see Comment 6 in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum); (2) 

we valued steel billets using Indonesian 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57451 

6See Letter to Interested Parties, Regarding the 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain 

Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, 

and Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ dated June 23, 2010. 

7 Id. 

World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’) import data 

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

(‘‘HTS’’) number 7201.20.100 (see 

Comment 7 in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum); (3) we valued iron ore 

using the simple average of iron ore 

lump prices from the financial 

statements of Kirloskar Ferrous 

Industries, Limited and KIOCL, Limited 

(see Comment 9 in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum); (4) we valued 

compressed air based on the value of 

electricity used to generate the air (see 

Comment 14 in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum); (5) we revised our 

calculation of the value of labor (see 

Comment 5 in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum); and (6) we valued 

calcium silicide (Si Ca cable and 

SICAWIRE) using HTS number 

2850.00.41 (see Comment 12 in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum). 

The following TPCO-specific changes 

have been made: (1) We have not 

granted TPCO a by-product offset for 

electricity (see Comment 26 in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum); (2) 

as partial adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’), we assigned each model 

(control number (CONNUM)) of 

seamless pipe sold by TPCO to the 

United States during the POI the highest 

purchased-billet consumption quantity 

reported by TPCO (see Comment 16 in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum); 

(3) we updated the AFA rate applied to 

TPCO’s downstream sales to reflect the 

highest CONNUM-specific dumping 

margin calculated for TPCO (see 

Comment 17 in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum); (4) we calculated a 

value for compressed air in TPCO’s 

margin program (see Comment 14 in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum); (5) 

as partial AFA, we based the 

consumption quantity for steel strap on 

the average of the three highest usage 

rates for steel strap reflected in 

Hengyang’s factors of production 

(‘‘FOP’’) database (see Comment 27 in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum); 

(6) we deducted inland freight 

insurance from TPCO’s reported U.S. 

prices (see Comment 23 in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum); (7) we 

valued steel scrap based on both market 

economy prices and a surrogate value 

based on WTA Indian import data (see 

Comment 19 in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum); (8) we reduced TPCO’s 

reported by-product offset for steel scrap 

by the quantity of further processed 

steel scrap for which TPCO never 

reported the inputs used for further 

processing (see Comment 20 in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum); (9) 

we corrected the conversion factor for 

argon gas (see Comment 24 in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum); and (10) 

we added truck freight to TPCO’s cost 

of manufacturing to account for TPCO’s 

costs associated with transporting semifinished pipes for further processing 

(see Comment 21 in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum). 

The following Hengyang-specific 

changes have been made: (1) We 

adjusted the market-economy and nonmarket economy (‘‘NME’’) percentages of 

pig iron purchased (see Comment 33 in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum); 

(2) we did not value dolomite and 

dolomite powder (see Comment 13 in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum); 

and (3) we made several corrections to 

the Preliminary Determination margin 

calculation program (see Hengyang 

Analysis Memorandum). 

Scope Comments 

As noted above, on May 24, 2010, 

Salem Steel, submitted comments on 

the scope of this investigation. Salem 

requested that the Department amend 

the scope of this investigation to 

exclude cold drawn seamless 

mechanical tubing (‘‘mechanical 

tubing’’). On May 27, 2010, Petitioners, 

Salem Steel and a number of other 

importers and end-users of mechanical 

tubing met with Department officials to 

discuss the May 24, 2010, submission 

filed by Salem Steel. On June 4, 2010, 

Salem Steel submitted proposed scope 

language to exclude mechanical tubing 

from the scope of the investigation. On 

June 8, 2010, MC Tubular Products, Inc. 

(‘‘MC Tubular’’) and Toyota Tsusho 

America, Inc. (‘‘TAI’’) submitted 

comments supporting Salem’s proposed 

scope exclusion language. On June 23, 

2010, the Department issued a proposed 

scope modification to interested parties 

and requested comments.6 Specifically, 

the Department’s proposed scope 

modification language excluded ‘‘all 

mechanical, boiler, condenser and heat 

exchange tubing, except when such 

products conform to the dimensional 

requirements, i.e., outside diameter and 

wall thickness of ASTM A–53, ASTM 

A–106 or APL 5L specifications.’’ 7 On 

June 30, 2010, TAI, MC Tubular and 

Salem Steel submitted comments 

supporting the exclusion of mechanical 

tubing from the scope of the 

investigation and providing suggestions 

for additional modifications to the scope 

of the investigation. Primarily parties’ 

comments involved modifying the 

language so that all forms of mechanical 

tubing, regardless of whether they 

conform to the dimensional 

requirements of certain seamless pipe 

specifications, are excluded from the 

scope. On July 2, 2010, Petitioners 

submitted a request that the Department 

exclude from the scope seamless pipe 

produced to the ASTM A–335 

specification. On August 19, 2010, the 

Department issued an additional 

proposed scope modification which 

excludes all pipes meeting the chemical 

requirements of ASTM A–335 whether 

finished or unfinished. On August 23, 

2010, TAI submitted comments 

supporting the Department’s proposed 

exclusion of ASTM A–335. After 

considering parties’ comments, the 

Department has determined to remove 

ASTM A–335 from the list of covered 

specifications included within the scope 

of this investigation, and include the 

following exclusion language in the 

scope: 

Specifically excluded from the scope of 

these investigations are: (1) All pipes meeting 

aerospace, hydraulic, and bearing tubing 

specifications; (2) all pipes meeting the 

chemical requirements of ASTM A–335, 

whether finished or unfinished; and (3) 

unattached couplings. Also excluded from 

the scope of these investigations are all 

mechanical, boiler, condenser and heat 

exchange tubing, except when such products 

conform to the dimensional requirements, 

i.e., outside diameter and wall thickness of 

ASTM A–53, ASTM A–106 or API 5L 

specifications. 

See Comment 1 of the accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

additional information. 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is certain seamless carbon 

and alloy steel (other than stainless 

steel) pipes and redraw hollows, less 

than or equal to 16 inches (406.4 mm) 

in outside diameter, regardless of wallthickness, manufacturing process (e.g., 

hot-finished or cold-drawn), end finish 

(e.g., plain end, beveled end, upset end, 

threaded, or threaded and coupled), or 

surface finish (e.g., bare, lacquered or 

coated). Redraw hollows are any 

unfinished carbon or alloy steel (other 

than stainless steel) pipe or ‘‘hollow 

profiles’’ suitable for cold finishing 

operations, such as cold drawing, to 

meet the American Society for Testing 

and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) or American 

Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) 

specifications referenced below, or 

comparable specifications. Specifically 

included within the scope are seamless 

carbon and alloy steel (other than 

stainless steel) standard, line, and 

pressure pipes produced to the ASTM 

A–53, ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57452 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 

8See the Department’s verification reports for 

Hengyang and TPCO, both on file in the CRU. 

9See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 22376– 

22377. 

10See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s 

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as 

amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 

1994); see also 19 CFR 351.107(d). 

11See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 

22377–22378. 

ASTM A–334, ASTM A–589, ASTM A– 

795, ASTM A–1024, and the API 5L 

specifications, or comparable 

specifications, and meeting the physical 

parameters described above, regardless 

of application, with the exception of the 

exclusion discussed below. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

of the investigation are: (1) All pipes 

meeting aerospace, hydraulic, and 

bearing tubing specifications; (2) all 

pipes meeting the chemical 

requirements of ASTM A–335, whether 

finished or unfinished; and (3) 

unattached couplings. Also excluded 

from the scope of the investigation are 

all mechanical, boiler, condenser and 

heat exchange tubing, except when such 

products conform to the dimensional 

requirements, i.e., outside diameter and 

wall thickness of ASTM A–53, ASTM 

A–106 or API 5L specifications. 

The merchandise covered by the 

investigation is currently classified in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item 

numbers: 7304.19.1020, 7304.19.1030, 

7304.19.1045, 7304.19.1060, 

7304.19.5020, 7304.19.5050, 

7304.31.6050, 7304.39.0016, 

7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024, 

7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 

7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0040, 

7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 

7304.39.0052, 7304.39.0056, 

7304.39.0062, 7304.39.0068, 

7304.39.0072, 7304.51.5005, 

7304.51.5060, 7304.59.6000, 

7304.59.8010, 7304.59.8015, 

7304.59.8020, 7304.59.8025, 

7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 

7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 

7304.59.8050, 7304.59.8055, 

7304.59.8060, 7304.59.8065, and 

7304.59.8070. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

merchandise subject to this scope is 

dispositive. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we conducted verifications of 

Hengyang, TPCO, and TEI.8 In 

conducting the verifications, we used 

standard verification procedures, 

including examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, as 

well as original source documents 

provided by Hengyang, TPCO, and TEI. 

As noted above, on July 9, 2010, Mr. 

Daniel Porter of Winston Strawn LLP, 

counsel to TPCO, submitted an affidavit 

in response to the Department’s 

verification report concerning TPCO, 

addressing the ratio TPCO calculated to 

distinguish between self-produced and 

purchased billets, as well as the 

Department’s verification findings 

regarding certain market economy 

purchases of steel scrap. Specifically, 

Mr. Porter alleged that, at verification, 

the Department refused to accept a 

corrected chart and support 

documentation that revised its ratio of 

self-produced and purchased billets and 

erred in finding that TPCO’s market 

economy purchases of steel scrap were 

less than the Department’s 33 percent 

threshold for using a market economy 

price to value all of the input. The 

Department requested that Mr. Porter 

resubmit this affidavit to omit certain 

untimely new factual information; Mr. 

Porter complied and resubmitted the 

affidavit on July 22, 2010. On August 

16, 2010, the Department issued a 

memorandum in response to Mr. 

Porter’s affidavit. Specifically, the 

Department stated that it would not 

have accepted such information at 

verification because it would have been 

considered new information. On August 

18, 2010, Petitioners submitted 

comments supporting the Department’s 

response. On August 18, 2010, TPCO 

submitted comments contesting the 

facts in the Department’s memorandum 

and arguing that the Department should 

have accepted its revisions and that 

information on the record prior to 

verification would have supported its 

ratio revisions. On August 20, 2010, 

Petitioners submitted comments arguing 

that TPCO’s data for its consumption of 

steel billets could not be verified. See 

Comment 16 of the accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

additional information. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, 

pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act, we 

selected India as the appropriate 

surrogate country because it is at a level 

of economic development comparable to 

the PRC, and because it is a significant 

producer of merchandise comparable to 

subject merchandise. Additionally, we 

determined that reliable Indian data for 

valuing FOPs are readily available.9 No 

party has commented on our selection 

of India as the appropriate surrogate 

country. We continue to find India to be 

the appropriate surrogate country in this 

investigation. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate.10

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that TPCO, Hengyang, Xigang 

Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Xigang’’), Jiangyin City Changjiang 

Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Pangang Group 

Chengdu Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., 

Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd., 

and Yangzhou Chengde Steel Tube Co., 

Ltd., demonstrated their eligibility for, 

and were hence assigned, separate rate 

status. No party has commented on the 

eligibility of these companies for 

separate rate status. For the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

the evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by these companies 

demonstrates both a de jure and de facto 

absence of government control with 

respect to their exports of the 

merchandise under investigation and 

that these companies are thus eligible 

for separate rate status.11

Critical Circumstances 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department determined that, in 

accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the 

Act, critical circumstances exist with 

respect to Hengyang and the PRC-wide 

entity but not for TPCO or the separate 

rate companies, including Xigang. After 

the Preliminary Determination, TPCO 

and Hengyang placed additional 

shipment data on the record for use in 

the Department’s critical circumstances 

analysis. Furthermore, Hengyang 

contended that the Department must 

revisit its critical circumstances analysis 

using Hengyang’s final antidumping 

duty margin. We have examined the 

additional shipment information placed 

on the record, as adjusted for 

verification findings, and reviewed 

Hengyang’s final antidumping margin 

and, for the final determination, we 

continue to find that critical 

circumstances exist with respect to 

Hengyang and the PRC-wide entity but 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57453 

12See id., 75 FR at 22379–22380. 

13See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the 

Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 

2000) (where the Department applied an adverse 

inference in determining the Russia-wide rate); 

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value: Certain Artists Canvas from the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 16116, 16118–19 (March 

30, 2006) (where the Department applied an adverse 

inference in determining the PRC-wide rate). 

14See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon 

Quality Steel Products From the People’s Republic 

of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and 

accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum 

at ‘‘Facts Available.’’ 

15See Synthetic Indigo From the People’s 

Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 

3, 2000) (applying the PRC-wide rate to all 

exporters of subject merchandise in the PRC based 

on the presumption that the export activities of the 

companies that failed to respond to the 

Department’s questionnaire were controlled by the 

PRC government). 

16See SAA, accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103–316, Vol. 1 at 870. 

17See id. 

18See id. 

19See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 

and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

not for TPCO or the separate rate 

companies, including Xigang. 

The PRC-Wide Rate 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department considered certain nonresponsive PRC producers/exporters to 

be part of the PRC-wide entity because 

they did not respond to our requests for 

information and did not demonstrate 

that they operated free of government 

control over their export activities.12 No 

additional information regarding these 

entities has been placed on the record 

since the publication of the Preliminary 

Determination. Since the PRC-wide 

entity did not provide the Department 

with requested information, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we 

continue to find it appropriate to base 

the PRC-wide rate on facts otherwise 

available. Moreover, given that the PRCwide entity did not respond to our 

request for information, we continue to 

find that it failed to cooperate to the best 

of its ability to comply with a request 

for information. Thus, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, and consistent 

with the Department’s practice, we have 

continued to use an adverse inference in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available.13

Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 

the Department may select, as AFA, 

information derived from: (1) The 

petition; (2) the final determination 

from the LTFV investigation; (3) a 

previous administrative review; or (4) 

any other information placed on the 

record. To induce respondents to 

provide the Department with complete 

and accurate information in a timely 

manner, the Department’s practice is to 

select, as AFA, the higher of: (a) The 

highest margin alleged in the petition; 

or (b) the highest calculated rate for any 

respondent in the investigation.14

Since we begin with the presumption 

that all companies within an NME 

country are subject to government 

control and only the exporters listed 

under the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below have overcome 

that presumption, consistent with the 

Department’s practice, we are applying 

a single antidumping rate (i.e., the PRCwide rate) to all exporters of subject 

merchandise from the PRC, other than 

the exporters listed in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section of this 

notice.15

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information, rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation as facts available (‘‘FA’’), it 

must, to the extent practicable, 

corroborate that information from 

independent sources reasonably at its 

disposal. Secondary information is 

described in the Statement of 

Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’) as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning subject merchandise, or any 

previous review under section 751 of 

the Act concerning the subject 

merchandise.’’16 The SAA provides that 

to ‘‘corroborate’’ means simply that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value.17 The SAA also states 

that independent sources used to 

corroborate may include, for example, 

published price lists, official import 

statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation.18 To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used.19

As total AFA, the Department 

preliminarily selected the rate of 98.37 

percent from the ‘‘Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties: 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe 

from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated September 16, 2009 (‘‘Petition’’). 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

preliminarily found the rate of 98.37 

percent to be the highest Petition margin 

that could be corroborated within the 

meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. For 

the final determination, we find that 

this rate, as adjusted to reflect the 

CAFC’s decision in Dorbest (98.74), is 

within the range of CONNUM-specific 

margins calculated for the mandatory 

respondents in this proceeding. 

Therefore, we consider the rate to have 

probative value. See Hengyang and 

TPCO Analysis Memoranda. Therefore, 

we continue to find that the margin 

based on the petition has probative 

value. Accordingly, we find that the rate 

of 98.74 percent is corroborated within 

the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. 

Partial AFA for TPCO 

As in the Preliminary Determination, 

the Department has continued to apply 

partial AFA with respect to the 

unreported downstream sales of TPCO’s 

U.S. affiliate which TPCO failed to 

timely submit to the Department. 

Because this information is not on the 

record and TPCO significantly impeded 

this proceeding by its failure to timely 

submit the information, we have 

continued to rely upon the FA with 

respect to the unreported sales pursuant 

to sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(C) of the 

Act. Further, because the Department 

finds that TPCO failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, the 

Department has determined to use an 

adverse inference when applying FA in 

this investigation. As partial AFA, the 

Department is applying to the 

unreported sales the highest control 

number-specific dumping margin 

calculated for TPCO. For further details, 

see Comment 17 of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. 

Also, the Department finds that the 

correct ratios of purchased and selfproduced billets which TPCO used to 

produce subject merchandise are not on 

the record because the information 

regarding these ratios that was provided 

by TPCO could not be verified, pursuant 

to sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(D) of the 

Act. Accordingly, the Department is 

using FA. Moreover, because the 

Department finds that TPCO failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability, pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act, the Department has determined to 

use an adverse inference when applying 

partial facts available. As partial AFA, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57454 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 

20See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel 

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 52744, 

52748 (October 14, 2009) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

21See Policy Bulletin 05.1 can be found on the 

Import Administration Web site at the following 

address: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05–1.pdf. 

the Department is using the highest 

purchased billet usage rate of any 

CONNUM sold to the United States 

during the POI, reported in TPCO’s FOP 

database, as the usage rate for purchased 

steel billets for all other CONNUMs. For 

further details, see Comment 16 of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

In addition, the Department finds that 

necessary information is not on the 

record to determine TPCO’s steel strap 

usage because TPCO did not report its 

steel strap usage by the deadline 

established by the Department, pursuant 

to sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(B) of the 

Act. Thus, the Department has 

determined to use FA. Moreover, 

because the Department finds that TPCO 

failed to cooperate by not acting to the 

best of its ability to report steel strap 

usage, pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act, the Department has determined to 

use an adverse inference when applying 

partial facts available. As partial AFA, 

we have assigned the average of the two 

highest consumption rates for steel strap 

provided on the record of this 

investigation by Hengyang, the other 

mandatory respondent in this 

investigation, to all CONNUMs reported 

in TPCO’s FOP database. For further 

details, see Comment 27 of the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation.20 This 

practice is described in Department 

Policy Bulletin 05.1, ‘‘Separate-Rates 

Practice and Application of 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries,’’ which states: 

{W}hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to exporters, all 

separate rates that the Department will now 

assign in its {non-market economy} 

investigations will be specific to those 

producers that supplied the exporter during 

the period of investigation. Note, however, 

that one rate is calculated for the exporter 

and all of the producers which supplied 

subject merchandise to it during the period 

of investigation. This practice applies both to 

mandatory respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate rate as well 

as the pool of non-investigated firms 

receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of ‘‘combination 

rates’’ because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one or more 

producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to 

an exporter will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in question and 

produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation.21

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for the period January 1, 2009, 

through June 30, 2009: 

Exporter & producer 

Weighted-average margin 

(percent) 

Tianjin Pipe International Economic and Trading Corporation ........................................................................................................... 48.99 

Produced by: Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corporation.

Hengyang Steel Tube Group Int’l Trading Inc. ................................................................................................................................... 82.03 

Produced by: Hengyang Valin Steel Tube Co., Ltd., and Hengyang Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd..

Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................... 65.51 

Produced by: Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd., and Wuxi Seamless Special Pipe Co., Ltd..

Jiangyin City Changjiang Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................................................... 65.51 

Produced by: Jiangyin City Changjiang Steel Pipe Co., Ltd..

Pangang Group Chengdu Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................................ 65.51 

Produced by: Pangang Group Chengdu Iron & Steel Co., Ltd..

Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................... 65.51 

Produced by: Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd..

Yangzhou Chengde Steel Tube Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................................................... 65.51 

Produced by: Yangzhou Chengde Steel Tube Co., Ltd..

PRC-Wide Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................... 98.74 

Disclosure 

We will disclose to parties the 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of public announcement of 

this determination in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, and consistent 

with our finding of critical 

circumstances with respect to Hengyang 

and the PRC-wide entity, pursuant to 

section 733(e)(2) of the Act, the 

Department will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

continue to suspend liquidation of all 

entries of certain seamless carbon and 

alloy steel standard, line, and pressure 

pipe from the PRC, as described in the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after January 28, 

2010, which is 90 days prior to the date 

of publication of the Preliminary 

Determination in the Federal Register. 

However, because we have determined 

that critical circumstances does not 

exist for TPCO or the separate rate 

companies (including Xigang), we will 

instruct CBP to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of the 

merchandise under consideration from 

the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for the consumption on or 

after April 28, 2010, the date of 

publication of the Preliminary 

Determination. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57455 

22See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel 

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination, dated concurrently with this 

notice. 

23See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 

from India, 69 FR 67306, 67307 (November 17, 

2004). 

Additionally, the Department 

determined in its final determination for 

the companion countervailing duty 

(‘‘CVD’’) investigation that TPCO’s and 

Hengyang’s merchandise benefited from 

export subsidies.22 Therefore, we will 

instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or 

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which normal value 

exceeds U.S. price for TPCO and 

Hengyang, as indicated above, minus 

the amount determined to constitute an 

export subsidy.23

With respect to the companies other 

than TPCO and Hengyang that are 

receiving a separate rate, we have 

applied to these companies the average 

of the rates calculated for TPCO and 

Hengyang. In the companion CVD 

investigation, the Department found that 

TPCO’s and Hengyang’s merchandise 

benefited from export subsidies during 

the POI, and, consequently all other 

exporters (besides TPCO and Hengyang) 

were found to have benefited from 

export subsidies based upon TPCO’s 

and Hengyang’s results. Therefore, we 

will instruct CBP to require a cash 

deposit or posting of a bond equal to the 

weighted-average amount by which 

normal value exceeds U.S. price for 

TPCO and Hengyang, as indicated 

above, minus the amount determined to 

constitute an export subsidy. 

With respect to the PRC-wide entity, 

as AFA, we applied the highest rate 

from the Petition, as adjusted to reflect 

the CAFC’s decision in Dorbest, that we 

were able to corroborate. See the 

Corroboration section above. 

Cash Deposit 

The Department will instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted-average 

dumping margin amount by which the 

normal value exceeds U.S. price, as 

follows: (1) The rate for the exporter/ 

producer combinations listed in the 

chart above will be the rate the 

Department has determined in this final 

determination; (2) for all PRC exporters 

of subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash-deposit 

rate will be the PRC-wide entity rate; 

and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash-deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporter/producer combination 

that supplied that non-PRC exporter. 

These suspension-of-liquidation 

instructions will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of our final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will 

determine whether the domestic 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise 

within 45 days of this final 

determination. If the ITC determines 

that material injury or threat of material 

injury does not exist, the proceeding 

will be terminated and all securities 

posted will be refunded or canceled. If 

the ITC determines that such injury 

does exist, the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess, upon further instruction by 

the Department, antidumping duties on 

all imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: September 10, 2010. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Comment 1: Scope Issues 

Comment 2: Double Remedy 

Comment 3: Zeroing 

Comment 4: Whether to Deduct Chinese 

VAT from U.S. Price 

Comment 5: The Appropriate Surrogate 

Value for Labor 

Comment 6: The Appropriate Financial 

Statements 

Comment 7: The Appropriate Surrogate 

Value for Steel Billets 

Comment 8: The Appropriate Surrogate 

Value for Pig Iron 

Comment 9: The Appropriate Surrogate 

Value for Iron Ore and Iron Powder 

Comment 10: The Appropriate 

Surrogate Value for Oxygen and 

Nitrogen 

Comment 11: The Appropriate 

Surrogate Value for Medium 

Chromium 

Comment 12: The Appropriate 

Surrogate Value for SiCa Cable 

Comment 13: The Appropriate 

Surrogate Value for Dolomite and 

Dolomite Powder 

Comment 14: The Appropriate 

Surrogate Value for Compressed Air 

Comment 15: The Appropriate 

Surrogate Value for Steam Coal 

Comment 16: Whether to Apply AFA 

Because of Errors in the FOP Database 

Comment 17: Whether TPCO is 

Affiliated with One of its U.S. 

Customers and Whether AFA or 

Partial AFA Should be Applied 

Because of Unreported Downstream 

Sales 

Comment 18: Whether Targeted 

Dumping Exists 

Comment 19: Whether Market Economy 

Purchase Prices Should be Used to 

Value Steel Scrap 

Comment 20: Whether to Disallow a ByProduct Offset for Steel Scrap 

Comment 21: Calculating Freight 

Expenses for Transporting Pipe for 

Further Processing 

Comment 22: Whether Certain Materials 

are Inputs or Overhead 

Comment 23: Whether to Deduct 

Domestic Inland Insurance from the 

U.S. Price 

Comment 24: Whether to Correct the 

Conversion Factor for Argon 

Comment 25: Whether to Calculate a 

Factor for Pipeline Transmission 

Comment 26: Whether to Disallow a ByProduct Offset for Electricity 

Comment 27: Whether to Apply Partial 

AFA to Unreported Steel Strap 

Comment 28: Whether to Deduct 

Warranty Expenses from the U.S. 

Price 

Comment 29: Whether to Deduct 

Unreported Stevedoring Expenses 

from the U.S. Price 

Comment 30: Whether the 33 Percent 

Threshold Test is Appropriate When 

Deciding to Use Market Economy 

Purchase Prices 

Comment 31: Whether the Ratio for Pig 

Iron was Calculated Correctly 

Comment 32: Whether Freight Cost 

Should be Added to TPCO’s 

Consumption of Water 

Comment 33: Pig Iron Market Economy 

Purchases 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57456 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 

1Petitioners are Atlas Tube, Bull Moose Tube 

Company and Searing Industries, Inc.

Comment 34: Export Price Sales 

Classification to a U.S. Customer 

Comment 35: Steel Scrap Offset 

Comment 36: By-product Offset for the 

Recovery of Blast Furnace Gas 

Comment 37: Whether Hengyang Failed 

to Report Certain Alloying Materials 

Comment 38: Treating Certain Ancillary 

Materials as Inputs 

Comment 39: Application of Certain 

Adjustment to the Factors for Sintered 

Iron Ore 

Comment 40: Critical Circumstances 

[FR Doc. 2010–23549 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–914] 

Light–Walled Rectangular Pipe and 

Tube from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of the 2008–2009 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 14, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published the 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on light–walled rectangular pipe and 

tube from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’), covering the period 

January 20, 2008, through July 31, 2009. 

See Light–Walled Rectangular Pipe and 

Tube from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of the 2008– 

2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 27308 (May 14, 2010) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We gave 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the Preliminary Results. 

After reviewing the interested parties’ 

comments, we made changes to our 

calculations for the final results of the 

review. The final dumping margin for 

this review is listed in the ‘‘Final Results 

of Review’’ section below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 21, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Blackledge or Howard Smith, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–3518 or (202) 482– 

5193, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Following the Preliminary Results, the 

Department issued additional 

supplemental questionnaires to Sun 

Group Inc.’s (‘‘respondent’’) U.S. 

affiliated importer FitMAX Inc. 

(‘‘FitMAX’’) on June 2, 2010 and June 16, 

2010. FitMAX responded on June 7, 

2010, and June 21, 2010, respectively. 

Respondent submitted post–preliminary 

surrogate value comments on June 1, 

2010, and on June 11, 2010, petitioners1

submitted rebuttal comments. On June 

28, 2010, respondent submitted a case 

brief, and on July 6, 2010, petitioners 

submitted a rebuttal brief. None of the 

interested parties requested a hearing. 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

exercised its discretion to toll deadlines 

for the duration of the closure of the 

Federal Government from February 5, 

through February 12, 2010. Thus, all 

deadlines in this segment of the 

proceeding were extended by seven 

days. The revised deadline for the final 

results of this administrative review was 

thus extended to September 11, 2010. 

See Memorandum to the Record from 

Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import 

Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines As a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorms,’’ dated February 12, 

2010. 

On June 9, 2010, the Department 

notified parties that as a result of the 

recent decision in Dorbest Limited et al. 

v. United States, No. 2009–1257, -1266 

(Fed. Cir. May 14, 2010), issued by the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’), the 

Department would be reconsidering its 

valuation of labor in this review. On 

July 22, 2010, the Department placed 

export data on the record of the review 

and gave parties until July 27, 2010, to 

comment on the narrow issue of the 

labor wage value in light of the CAFC’s 

decision. On July 27, 2010, respondent 

submitted comments on the labor wage 

issue. No other party commented. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is certain welded carbon–quality light– 

walled steel pipe and tube, of 

rectangular (including square) cross 

section, having a wall thickness of less 

than 4 mm. 

The term carbon–quality steel 

includes both carbon steel and alloy 

steel which contains only small 

amounts of alloying elements. 

Specifically, the term carbon–quality 

includes products in which none of the 

elements listed below exceeds the 

quantity by weight respectively 

indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 

2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent 

of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, 

or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 

percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of 

lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 

percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of 

molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of 

niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or 

0.15 percent of zirconium. The 

description of carbon–quality is 

intended to identify carbon–quality 

products within the scope. The welded 

carbon–quality rectangular pipe and 

tube subject to the order is currently 

classified under the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 

and 7306.61.70.60. 

While HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and Customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs are addressed in the 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Results in the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Light– 

Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 

the People’s Republic of China’’ (‘‘Issues 

and Decision Memorandum’’), which is 

dated concurrently with and hereby 

adopted by this notice. A list of the 

issues that parties raised and to which 

we responded in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum is attached to 

this notice as an Appendix. The Issues 

and Decision Memorandum is a public 

document that is on file in the Central 

Records Unit in room 7046 in the main 

Department building, and is accessible 

on the web at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

frn. The paper copy and electronic 

version of the memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we made the 

following changes in calculating the 

respondent’s dumping margin: (1) we 

made changes to the surrogate value for 

labor; and (2) we excluded delivery and 

website expenses from U.S. indirect 

selling expenses (‘‘ISE’’) used to 

calculate the ISE ratio. For further 

details, see the accompanying ‘‘Issues 

and Decision Memorandum,’’ and the 

memoranda entitled ‘‘Analysis for the 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Light–Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the 

People’s Republic of China: Sun Group 

Inc.,’’ and ‘‘2008–2009 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Light– 

Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 

the People’s Republic of China:


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-1

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

hearing:

Subject: Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and

Pressure Pipe from China

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-469 and 731-TA-1168 (Final)

Date and Time: September 14, 2010 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these investigations in the Main Hearing Room (room

101), 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

CONGRESSIONAL APPEARANCES:

The Honorable Arlen Specter, United States Senator, Pennsylvania

The Honorable Sherrod Brown, United States Senator, Ohio

The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky, U.S. Representative, 1st District, Indiana

The Honorable Betty Sutton, U.S. Representative, 13th District, Ohio

The Honorable Jason Altmire, U.S. Representative, 4th District, Pennsylvania

The Honorable Kathy Dahlkemper, U.S. Representative, 3rd District, Pennsylvania

OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Stephen P. Vaughn, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP)

Respondents (Philippe M. Bruno, Greenberg Traurig, LLP)

B-3
In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders:

Schagrin Associates

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

V&M Star, L.P.

TMK IPSCO

The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial

and Service Workers International Union,

AFL-CIO-CLC (“United Steelworkers”)

Domestic Producers

Thomas M. Conway, Vice President, Administration,

United Steelworkers

James Herald, Managing Director, V&M North America

Michael Jardon, President, V&M USA Corporation

Joel Mastervich, President and COO, V&M Star

Yves Pognonec, Vice President of Sales, Energy

Division, V&M USA Corporation

L. Scott Barnes, Vice President and Chief

Commercial Officer, TMK IPSCO

Roger B. Schagrin )

) – OF COUNSEL

John W. Bohn )

B-4
In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders (continued):

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”)

Douglas R. Matthews, Vice President, Tubular

Operations, U.S. Steel

George H. Thompson, General Manager, Commercial,

U.S. Tubular Products, U.S. Steel

William M. Buono, Manager, Market Analysis and

Strategy, U.S. Steel Tubular Products, U.S. Steel

Robert C. Upton, Manager, Standard and Line Pipe

Marketing, U.S. Steel Tubular Products,

U.S. Steel

Emmett K. Beever, Manager, Commercial Standard,

and Line Pipe, U.S. Steel Tubular Products,

U.S. Steel

James Durham, President, Dixie Pipe Sales, Inc.

Bob Gilleland, Senior Vice President, Edgen Murray

Robert E. Lighthizer )

James C. Hecht )

) – OF COUNSEL

Stephen P. Vaughn )

Stephen J. Narkin )

B-5
Available for Questions:

Economic Consulting Service, LLC

Washington, D.C.;

on behalf of

Wyman-Gordon Forgings, Inc.

Bruce Malashevich, President, Economic Consulting

Services, LLC

In Opposition to the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders:

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Hengyang Valin Steel Tube Co., Ltd. (Hengyang”)

Baosteel Group Corporation (“Baosteel”)

Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corporation (“TPCO”)

Changhua Tang, Overseas Manager, Hengyang

Binghua Qin, Sales Manager, Baosteel America, Inc.

Philippe M. Bruno )

) – OF COUNSEL

Rosa S. Jeong )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Stephen P. Vaughn, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

 and Roger B. Schagrin, Schagrin Associates)

Respondents (Rosa S. Jeong, Greenberg Traurig, LLP)

B-6
APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-1

Table C-1

Total seamless SLP pipe (other than ASTM A-335): Summary data concerning the U.S. market,

2007-09, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

C-3
Table C-2

Small diameter seamless SLP pipe (other than ASTM A-335): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 2007-09, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

C-4
Table C-3

Large diameter seamless SLP pipe (other than ASTM A-335): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 2007-09, and January-June 2010

* * * * * * *

C-5
Table C-4

Total seamless SLP pipe (including ASTM A-335): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2007 2008 2009 2009 2010 2007-09 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677,065 1,060,383 369,101 210,087 204,358 -45.5 56.6 -65.2 -2.7

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 40.7 32.6 25.5 20.1 49.2 -15.2 -8.1 -7.1 29.1

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.5 34.5 33.4 31.6 6.0 8.0 9.1 -1.1 -25.7

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 33.9 32.9 41.1 48.3 44.9 7.2 -1.0 8.2 -3.4

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59.3 67.4 74.5 79.9 50.8 15.2 8.1 7.1 -29.1

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881,255 1,703,225 683,206 432,244 324,636 -22.5 93.3 -59.9 -24.9

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 43.8 40.7 29.2 23.3 55.8 -14.7 -3.1 -11.6 32.5

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2 24.2 19.8 20.4 3.2 3.6 8.0 -4.4 -17.1

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 40.0 35.1 51.0 56.3 40.9 11.0 -4.9 16.0 -15.4

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.2 59.3 70.8 76.7 44.2 14.7 3.1 11.6 -32.5

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172,319 366,088 123,324 66,458 12,191 -28.4 112.4 -66.3 -81.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142,658 412,051 135,240 88,099 10,548 -5.2 188.8 -67.2 -88.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $828 $1,126 $1,097 $1,326 $865 32.5 36.0 -2.6 -34.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 17,206 61,916 65,331 79,577 43,317 279.7 259.9 5.5 -45.6

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229,310 348,420 151,602 101,413 91,688 -33.9 51.9 -56.5 -9.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352,332 597,227 348,609 243,461 132,883 -1.1 69.5 -41.6 -45.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,536 $1,714 $2,300 $2,401 $1,449 49.7 11.6 34.2 -39.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 20,101 38,655 21,523 32,040 20,163 7.1 92.3 -44.3 -37.1

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401,629 714,508 274,926 167,871 103,878 -31.5 77.9 -61.5 -38.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494,991 1,009,278 483,849 331,560 143,432 -2.3 103.9 -52.1 -56.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,232 $1,413 $1,760 $1,975 $1,381 42.8 14.6 24.6 -30.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 37,307 100,571 86,854 111,617 63,480 132.8 169.6 -13.6 -43.1

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . 524,074 504,128 423,200 207,572 259,635 -19.2 -3.8 -16.1 25.1

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . 308,760 374,821 87,428 35,041 111,620 -71.7 21.4 -76.7 218.5

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . 58.9 74.4 20.7 16.9 43.0 -38.3 15.4 -53.7 26.1

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275,436 345,875 94,175 42,216 100,480 -65.8 25.6 -72.8 138.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386,264 693,947 199,357 100,684 181,204 -48.4 79.7 -71.3 80.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,402 $2,006 $2,117 $2,385 $1,803 50.9 43.1 5.5 -24.4

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,767 26,933 7,484 2,511 4,484 -77.8 -20.2 -72.2 78.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,294 51,061 23,461 8,727 11,447 -55.1 -2.4 -54.1 31.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,549 $1,896 $3,135 $3,476 $2,553 102.4 22.4 65.4 -26.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 28,831 29,976 10,499 11,949 14,880 -63.6 4.0 -65.0 24.5

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . 9.3 8.0 10.3 13.4 7.1 1.0 -1.3 2.3 -6.3

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . 408 486 223 198 258 -45.4 19.0 -54.1 30.8

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . 865 1,002 484 203 331 -44.0 15.8 -51.7 63.5

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . 29,017 32,055 15,186 7,074 11,023 -47.7 10.5 -52.6 55.8

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $33.53 $31.98 $31.36 $34.91 $33.26 -6.5 -4.6 -2.0 -4.7

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) . 356.8 373.9 180.5 172.9 336.8 -49.4 4.8 -51.7 94.8

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . $93.98 $85.52 $173.70 $201.89 $98.76 84.8 -9.0 103.1 -51.1

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309,203 372,809 101,660 44,727 105,405 -67.1 20.6 -72.7 135.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438,558 745,006 222,811 109,410 193,817 -49.2 69.9 -70.1 77.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,418 $1,998 $2,192 $2,446 $1,839 54.5 40.9 9.7 -24.8

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . 278,407 441,862 166,996 77,560 134,856 -40.0 58.7 -62.2 73.9

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . 160,151 303,144 55,815 31,850 58,961 -65.1 89.3 -81.6 85.1

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,839 51,520 31,273 13,588 21,216 -30.3 14.9 -39.3 56.1

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . 115,312 251,624 24,542 18,262 37,745 -78.7 118.2 -90.2 106.7

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . 11,483 23,360 10,705 4,831 6,671 -6.8 103.4 -54.2 38.1

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $900 $1,185 $1,643 $1,734 $1,279 82.4 31.6 38.6 -26.2

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . $145 $138 $308 $304 $201 112.1 -4.7 122.6 -33.7

 Unit operating income or (loss) . $373 $675 $241 $408 $358 -35.3 81.0 -64.2 -12.3

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.5 59.3 74.9 70.9 69.6 11.5 -4.2 15.6 -1.3

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.3 33.8 11.0 16.7 19.5 -15.3 7.5 -22.8 2.8

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-6
Table C-5

Small diameter seamless SLP pipe (other than ASTM A-335): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2007 2008 2009 2009 2010 2007-09 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103,677 197,022 58,577 35,641 5,306 -43.5 90.0 -70.3 -85.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86,290 221,020 63,807 44,597 4,550 -26.1 156.1 -71.1 -89.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $832 $1,122 $1,089 $1,251 $858 30.9 34.8 -2.9 -31.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 5,575 15,890 16,800 21,435 7,517 201.3 185.0 5.7 -64.9

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79,677 105,551 42,075 30,631 31,779 -47.2 32.5 -60.1 3.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104,510 171,996 87,989 66,115 46,768 -15.8 64.6 -48.8 -29.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,312 $1,629 $2,091 $2,158 $1,472 59.4 24.2 28.3 -31.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 4,719 15,991 4,808 11,379 5,197 1.9 238.9 -69.9 -54.3

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183,354 302,573 100,653 66,273 37,085 -45.1 65.0 -66.7 -44.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190,800 393,016 151,796 110,713 51,319 -20.4 106.0 -61.4 -53.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,041 $1,299 $1,508 $1,671 $1,384 44.9 24.8 16.1 -17.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 10,294 31,881 21,608 32,814 12,714 109.9 209.7 -32.2 -61.3

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-7
Table C-6

Large diameter seamless SLP pipe (other than ASTM A-335): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and January-June 2010

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2007 2008 2009 2009 2010 2007-09 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,642 169,066 64,747 30,817 6,885 -5.7 146.3 -61.7 -77.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56,368 191,031 71,433 43,502 5,998 26.7 238.9 -62.6 -86.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $821 $1,130 $1,103 $1,412 $871 34.4 37.6 -2.4 -38.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 11,631 46,026 48,531 58,142 35,800 317.3 295.7 5.4 -38.4

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149,633 242,869 109,526 70,781 59,908 -26.8 62.3 -54.9 -15.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247,822 425,231 260,620 177,345 86,115 5.2 71.6 -38.7 -51.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,656 $1,751 $2,380 $2,506 $1,437 43.7 5.7 35.9 -42.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 15,382 22,664 16,715 20,661 14,966 8.7 47.3 -26.2 -27.6

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218,275 411,934 174,273 101,598 66,793 -20.2 88.7 -57.7 -34.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304,191 616,262 332,053 220,847 92,113 9.2 102.6 -46.1 -58.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,394 $1,496 $1,905 $2,174 $1,379 36.7 7.3 27.4 -36.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 27,013 68,690 65,246 78,803 50,766 141.5 154.3 -5.0 -35.6

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-8
APPENDIX D

COMPARISONS OF SEAMLESS SLP PIPE

BY SIZE AND BY GRADE

D-1

All responses in appendix D contain information that would reveal confidential operations and

therefore been have deleted from this report. 

D-3

APPENDIX E

NONSUBJECT COUNTRY PRICE DATA

E-1

Nonsubject Price Comparisons

Table E-1 compares quarterly prices of nonsubject imports with U.S. producer prices and Chinese

prices for products 1-4 sold to unrelated distributors during 2007-09 and January-June 2010. Figure 1

presents prices for each of the specified price items individually. Prices of imports from individual

nonsubject countries were generally lower than U.S. producer prices in the majority of comparisons, with

the exception of the Czech Republic (where there was only one comparison) and India. However, prices

of these nonsubject imports were generally higher than prices of imports from China (with the exception

of Croatia and Russia). For these higher volume standardized products sold to distributors, there were no

reported prices for certain suppliers such as Germany and Japan. 

Table E-1

Seamless SLP pipe: Number of quarterly price comparisons of imported nonsubject and U.S.

products 1, 2, 3, and 4, and imported nonsubject and Chinese products 1, 2, 3, and 4

Nonsubject

Countries

United States China

Higher1 Lower Higher1 Lower

Argentina 6 15 19 2

Brazil 0 10 10 0

Croatia 0 13 5 8

Czech Republic 1010

France 6 11 16 1

India 5 0 4 1

Italy 1 9 10 0

Poland 1 4 5 0

Russia 2 36 11 27

Total 22 98 81 39

 1 “Higher” signifies that the price of the nonsubject country’s product was higher than the U.S. or Chinese price.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Figure E-1

Seamless SLP pipe: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product,

by quarters, January 2007-June 2010

* * * * * * *

E-3