Clad Steel Plate From Japan

Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Second Review)

Publication 3907 March 2007
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Daniel R. Pearson, Chairman

Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman

Deanna Tanner Okun

Charlotte R. Lane

Irving A. Williamson

Dean A. Pinkert*

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Staff assigned

Eric Land, Investigator

Heather Sykes, Industry Analyst

David Goldfine, Attorney

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

________________

* Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert was sworn in on February 26, 2007, succeeding

Commissioner Jennifer A. Hillman. Commissioner Pinkert did not participate in this review.

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436
Clad Steel Plate From Japan

Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Second Review)

Publication 3907 March 2007
 
i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Information obtained in the second review

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

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

The original investigation and expedited first five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

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

Title VII investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Safeguard investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Results of expedited five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

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

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

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

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

U.S. production, capacity, shipments, and selected financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. imports and consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

The foreign industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

Appendix

A. Federal Register notices and the Commission’s statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-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.

 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

 Commissioners Jennifer A. Hillman and Irving A. Williamson not participating.

1

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Second Review)

Clad Steel Plate from Japan

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines,2

 pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act

of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on clad steel plate from

Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United

States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on October 2, 2006 (71 F.R. 57996), and determined on

January 5, 2007, that it would conduct an expedited review (72 F.R. 2554, January 19, 2007). Notice of

the scheduling of the Commission’s reviews 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 January 19, 2007 (72 F.R. 2554).

 1

 Commissioners Jennifer A. Hillman and Irving A. Williamson did not participate in this determination. 

Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert was not a member of the Commission at the time of the vote. 

 2

 Clad Steel Plate from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-739 (Final), USITC Pub. 2972 (June 1996) (“Original

Determination”).

 3

 Clad Steel Plate from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-739 (Review) USITC Pub. 3459 (Oct. 2001) (“First Review”). 

 4

 Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun voted to conduct a full review. 

 5

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 6

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

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

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

(continued...)

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in this five-year review, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on clad steel plate from

Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United

States within a reasonably foreseeable time.1

I. BACKGROUND

In June 1996, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially

injured by reason of imports of clad steel plate from Japan,2

 and the Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) issued an antidumping duty order on such imports from Japan. In October 2001, the

Commission determined in its first expedited five-year review that revocation of the antidumping duty

order covering clad steel plate from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

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

The Commission instituted this second review on October 2, 2006. The only response to the

notice of institution that the Commission received was from domestic producer Mittal Steel USA, Inc.

(“Mittal”). 

On January 5, 2007, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group

response to the notice of institution was adequate, but that the respondent interested party group response

was inadequate. The Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full

review. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B), the Commission determined to conduct an expedited

review.4

 

On February 6, 2007, Mittal filed comments pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(d) arguing, as it did

in its response to the notice of institution, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on clad steel plate

from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

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

product” and the “industry.”5

 The Act defines the “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or

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

under this subtitle.”6
 6

 (...continued)

(1979).

 7

 72 Fed. Reg. 4482 (Jan. 31, 2007). 

 8

 Id. 

 9

 Confidential Report (“CR”) at I-9 n.37 & I-10 to I-11; Public Report (“PR”) at I-7 n.37 & I-8.

 10 Clad steel plate differs from corrosion resistant steel. Indeed, we note that the Commission has previously

considered whether to include clad steel plate in the same like product as corrosion resistant steel, and declined,

citing “clear distinctions in characteristics, uses, production techniques, production facilities, consumer perceptions,

and price.” Certain Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland,

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden,

and the United Kingdom, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-319-322, 334, 336-342, 344, and 347-353 and 731-TA-573-579, 581-

592, 594-597, 599-609, and 612-619 (Final), USITC Publication 2664, August 1993, at 167.

 11 CR at I-10 to I-11; PR at I-7 to I-8.

 12 Original Determination at 4.

4

Commerce has defined the subject merchandise in this review as follows: “all clad steel plate 

of a width of 600 mm or more and a composite thickness of 4.5 mm or more.”7

 Clad steel plate within the

scope of this order is classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheading

7210.90.10.8

Cladding is the association of layers of metals of different colors or natures by molecular

interpenetration of the surfaces in contact. This limited diffusion is characteristic of clad products and

differentiates them from products metalized in other manners (i.e., by normal electroplating). The various

cladding processes include pouring molten cladding metal onto the basic metal followed by rolling;

simple hot-rolling of the cladding metal to ensure efficient welding to the basic metal; and any other

method of deposition or superimposing of the cladding metal followed by any mechanical or thermal

process to ensure welding (i.e., electrocladding), in which the cladding metal (nickel, chromium, etc.) is

applied to the basic metal by electroplating, molecular interpenetration of the surfaces in contact then

being obtained by heat treatment at the appropriate temperature with subsequent cold rolling.9

 

Clad steel plate is produced to exact customer specifications. It is used to manufacture vessels or

structures used in heavy industry projects where corrosion resistance qualities are essential.10 The main

end users of clad steel plate include petrochemical companies, the shipbuilding industry, electric utilities,

pulp and paper companies, and other users of industrial equipment. The petrochemical industry,

specifically the hydrocarbon processing industry which includes petroleum refining and petrochemical

and chemical processing, consistently has been the largest market for clad steel plate.11

In the original investigation, no party raised any like product issues and the Commission found a

single domestic like product coextensive with the scope of Commerce’s investigation, i.e., all clad steel

plate of a width of 600 mm or more and a composite thickness of 4.5 mm or more.12

 In the first review, the Commission found that there had been no significant changes in the

product at issue or with regard to the like product factors the Commission generally considers. No

party participating in that review urged the Commission to reconsider its like product determination

from the original investigation. It also did not find that any other circumstances warranted revisiting

the Commission’s original like product determination. Thus, consistent with its like product

determination in the original investigation, the Commission again found a single like product

coextensive with the scope 
 13 First Review at 4-5.

 14 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to

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

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

States. See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 682-83 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96

F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

 15 Original Determination at 3-5; First Review at 4-5.

 16 Mittal’s Comments at 4. 

5

of Commerce’s investigation, i.e., all clad steel plate of a width of 600 mm or more and a composite

thickness of 4.5 mm or more.13 

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution and comments submitted in this

second five-year review, Mittal argues that the Commission should continue to find a single domestic

like product coextensive with Commerce’s scope. There is no new information obtained during this

second review that would suggest any reason for revisiting the Commission’s domestic like product

definition. Accordingly, consistent with our like product definition in the original investigation and

first review, we find a single domestic like product coextensive with Commerce’s scope, i.e., all clad

steel plate of a width of 600 mm or more and a composite thickness of 4.5 mm or more. 

B. Domestic Industry

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

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

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”14

In the original investigation and first review, the Commission found a single domestic industry

consisting of all domestic producers of clad steel plate at least 600 mm wide and at least 4.5 mm thick.15

In this second review, Mittal expressly supports the Commission’s previous domestic industry definition

in the original investigation and first review.16 Consistent with our like product definition, and because

there is no new information obtained during this second review that would suggest any reason for

revisiting the Commission’s prior domestic industry definition, we find a single domestic industry

consisting of all domestic producers of clad steel plate at least 600 mm wide and at least 4.5 mm thick.

III. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF 

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER IS REVOKED

For the reasons stated below, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on clad

steel plate from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the

domestic industry producing clad steel plate within a reasonably foreseeable time.

A. Legal Standard In a Five-Year Review

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

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

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

order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably 
 17 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 18 The Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at

883-84 (1994) (SAA). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of the nature of

the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of an

industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never completed.” SAA at 883. 

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

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

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

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

SAA at 884.

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

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d without opinion, 140 Fed.

Appx. 268 (2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-153 at 7-8 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 24, 2002)

(same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-152 at 4 n.3 & 5-6 n.6 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 20, 2002)

(“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to

imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105

at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a

certainty”); Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 19, 2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount

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

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

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

Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review)

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

 22 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No.

AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004) at 15-17, she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

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

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

addresses the issue.

 23 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

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

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

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

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

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

6

foreseeable time.”17 The Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Statement of Administrative Action, states

that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counter-factual analysis; it must

decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the status quo –

the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and

prices of imports.”18 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in nature.19 The U.S. Court of

International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Act, means

“probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.20 21 22

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

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”23 According to

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

‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”24

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

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

that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject 
 25 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 26 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). Commerce did not make any duty absorption findings with respect to the order under

review. See Commerce’s Review Determination, 72 Fed. Reg. 4482 (Jan. 31, 2007). The statute further provides

that the presence or absence of any factor that the Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give

decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the

Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886.

 27 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

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

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

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

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

Commerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). See Titanium Metals Corp., 155 F. Supp. 2d at 765 (“[T]he ITC correctly

responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the evidence before

it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of a Commission investigation.”).

 28 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

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

a whole in making its determination. 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 and the interpretations urged by participating parties, the Commission is obligated to consider all

evidence relating to each of the statutory factors and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis

superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding

a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the

evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 29 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 

7

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”25 It

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

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

industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked or the suspension agreement is

terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

§ 1675(a)(4).26

No respondent interested party has participated in this review. The record, therefore, contains

limited information with respect to the clad steel plate industry in Japan. Accordingly, we rely on

available information when appropriate, which consists primarily of information from the original

investigation and the first five-year review and information collected in this five-year review, including

that submitted by Mittal, the only participating domestic producer.27 28

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

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

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

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”29 The following conditions of

competition are relevant to our determination.

Demand. In the original investigation and first review, the Commission found that demand for

clad steel plate was derived from demand for the end products produced by purchasers mainly in the

petrochemical industry, and to a lesser extent by purchasers in the power/utilities industry, the pulp and 
 30 First Review at 8. 

 31 CR at I-11; PR at I-8. 

 32 Apparent U.S. consumption calculated using U.S. production dropped from *** short tons in 1995 to *** short

tons in 2000. CR/PR at Table I-6; First Review at 7. 

 33 Apparent U.S. consumption calculated using U.S. production dropped from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short

tons in 2005. CR/PR at Table I-6.

 34 CR at I-16; PR at I-13. 

 35 DMC acquired Dupont’s clad steel plate operations in 1996 and Bethlehem Steel Corp. acquired Lukens Steel

in 1998. CR at I-17; PR at I-13. 

 36 Subsequent to the filing of the original petition, petitioner Lukens Steel Co. was acquired by Bethlehem Steel

Corporation in 1998, and was renamed Bethlehem Lukens Steel Plate. In May 2003, the assets of Bethlehem,

including Bethlehem Lukens Plate, were acquired by International Steel Group (“ISG”). In April 2005, ISG merged

with and into Mittal Steel Co. and became Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. In December 2005, the company became

Mittal Steel USA, Inc. CR at I-16 n.58; PR at I-13 n.58.

 37 Mittal’s Response at 4.

 38 Domestic production of clad steel plate fell from *** short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 2000. CR/PR at

Table I-6. 

 39 CR/PR at Table I-6. 

 40 Id.

 41 Id.

8

paper industry, and the shipbuilding industry.30 The record in this review likewise indicates that demand

for clad steel plate remains derived from demand for downstream products, mainly in the petrochemical

industry, but also in newer applications, namely desulfurization of flues in coal-fired power plants.31

In the first review, the Commission found that apparent U.S. consumption of clad steel plate had

declined since the time of the original investigation, falling *** percent from 1995 to 2000.32 This trend

has continued in this second review with apparent U.S. consumption falling by *** percent between 2000

and 2005.33 

Supply. In the original investigation, four firms (Ametek, DuPont, DMC, and Lukens Steel Co.)

comprised the domestic industry.34 In the first review, four firms also comprised the domestic industry

(Ametek, DMC, Lukens (subsequently Bethlehem Lukens), and Vee Cee Metals).35 Since the first

review, Vee Cee Metals has exited the industry, leaving DMC, Ametek, and Mittal (the successor

company to Bethlehem Lukens) as the three remaining domestic producers.36 Mittal accounted for the

majority of domestic production in 2005.37 

Production of clad steel plate in the United States declined since the imposition of the

antidumping duty order in July 1996, falling from 1995 to 1997, then rising in 1998 compared to 1997,

and then falling again from 1998 to 2000, for an overall decline of *** percent from 1995 to 2000.38

Domestic production of clad steel plate in 2005 was *** short tons, which was similar to the level of

domestic production in the final year of the first review period (*** short tons in 2000) and below the

level of domestic production in the original investigation.39

As in the original investigation and first review, the domestic industry remains the dominant

supplier to the U.S. market in this second review.40 Following the imposition of the antidumping duty

order in July 1996, subject imports from Japan dropped to minimal levels, accounting for less than ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2000 and 2005.41 Nonsubject imports have occupied a relatively

minor but growing share of the clad steel plate market since the original investigation. In 1995, 
 42 Id.

 43 Id.

 44 Original Determination at 4. 

 45 First Review at 8-9, 13. 

 46 First Review at 8-9.

 47 Mittal’s Comments at 4. 

 48 Other notable events during the period of review affecting the clad steel plate industry include: (1) the U.S.

safeguard action on steel products, including clad steel plate (CR at I-4 to I-7; PR at I-4 to I-6); (2) the assumption of

pension legacy costs by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (CR at I-20 n.72; PR at I-16 n.72); (3) the

restructuring of labor contracts (CR at I-20 & n.75; PR at I-16 & n.75); and (4) the growing internationalization of

the U.S. industry (CR at I-20; PR at I-16). Mittal did not comment in its submissions on these developments. We

note that the safeguard measures on clad steel plate became effective on March 20, 2002. Import relief relating to

clad steel plate consisted of an additional tariff of 30 percent ad valorem on imports in the first year, 24 percent in

the second year, and 18 percent in the third year. On December 4, 2003, the President terminated the additional

tariff on clad steel plate. CR at I-5 to I-6; PR at I-4 to I-5. 

 49 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 50 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A)-(D).

9

nonsubject imports accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption.42 By 2005, however,

nonsubject imports accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption.43 We note, however, that

nonsubject import market share has decreased markedly from the levels attained prior to the U.S.

safeguard action, i.e., during 1997-2000. 

Substitutability. In the original investigation, the Commission found that “imported clad steel

plate from Japan is able to, and does, compete directly with the domestic product.”44 In the first review,

the Commission observed that the U.S. market for clad steel plate is price sensitive such that price plays a

key role in determining which supplier will win a bid and that, given the apparent high substitutability

between domestic and Japanese clad steel plate, relatively small changes in price can result in significant

shifts in market share.45 In the first review, the Commission also found that contract negotiations in this

industry are characterized by a relatively small number of major bids, and that sales are made through a

multi-level, competitive bidding process.46 Mittal maintains that these conditions continue today.47 48

Based on the record evidence, we find that conditions of competition in the domestic clad steel

plate market are not likely to change significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, in

this review, we find that current conditions in the market provide us with a reasonable basis on which to

assess the likely effects of revocation of the order in the reasonably foreseeable future.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders are revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume

of imports would be significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States.49 In doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including

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

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

in inventories; (3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries

other than the United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the

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

produce other products.50
 51 Original Determination at 14-15. 

 52 First Review at 11-12. 

 53 Id. at 12. 

 54 Id. at 12-13.

 55 CR at I-27 to I-30; PR at I-22 to I-23. 

 56 CR at I-28 to I-29; PR at I-22 to I-23.

 57 CR at I-28; PR at I-22. 

 58 First Review at 13. 

 59 CR/PR at Table I-8. 

 60 CR/PR at Tables I-6 & I-8.

10

As discussed below, we conclude from the facts available that subject import volume is likely to

be significant if the order is revoked. This conclusion is based largely on the record from the original

investigation and first review, and the information in this second review.

In the original investigation, the Commission found that Japanese clad steel plate producers had

the ability and willingness to establish a significant presence in the U.S. market. Especially because

subject imports of clad steel plate from Japan rose continuously on an annual basis during the period 

examined in the original investigation, the Commission concluded that the volume of subject imports was

significant.51 

In the first review, the Commission concluded that subject import volume was likely to increase

significantly and would be significant if the order were revoked, explaining that “[t]his conclusion is

based largely on the record from the original investigation,” which “indicated that Japanese clad steel

plate producers had the ability and willingness to establish a significant presence in the U.S. market.”52

Whereas total U.S. imports of clad steel plate from Japan rose continuously on an annual basis during the

period examined in the original investigation, and even excluding imports under temporary import bond

exhibited significant overall growth between 1993 and 1995, U.S. imports of clad steel plate from Japan

dropped to minimal levels following the imposition of the antidumping order in July 1996.53 In 2000,

there were only 4 tons of clad steel plate imported from Japan. Based on this evidence as well as

evidence indicating that Japanese producers were export oriented and had increased their production

capacity since the order went into effect, the Commission in the first review concluded that the likely

volume of subject imports would be significant absent the restraining effect of the antidumping duty

order.54

 Evidence collected in this second review indicates that Japanese producers have increased their

production capability since the order went into effect.55 Japanese producers JSW and JFE both reported

large increases in sales of clad steel plate in their 2006 annual reports.56 Similarly, overall Japanese

production of clad steel plate has increased markedly since the original investigation and first review,

increasing from 35,281 short tons in 1992 to 37,309 short tons in 2000 to 80,971 short tons in 2005.57

During the original investigation, the Japanese industry exported over one-half of its production

volume.58 Evidence collected in this second review indicates that the Japanese industry remains export

oriented. While Japanese total exports dropped from 14,122 short tons in 1996 to 12,469 short tons in

2000, they increased sharply to 25,203 short tons in 2005.59 Total Japanese exports in 2005 were more

than *** times greater than apparent U.S. consumption in that year.60 The export orientation of the 
 61 CR at I-31; PR at I-24. 

 62 Following the imposition of the antidumping duty order in July 1996, U.S. imports of clad steel plate from

Japan dropped to minimal levels. In 2000, there were 4 tons of clad steel plate imported from Japan. In 2005, there

were 44 tons of clad steel plate imported from Japan. CR/PR at Table I-6.

 63 CR/PR at Table I-4.

 64 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

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

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

at 886.

 65 Original Determination at 8. 

 66 First Review at 14. 

11

Japanese industry indicates that it would likely seek to re-enter the U.S. market with significant quantities

of subject merchandise, as it did during the original investigation, if the order were revoked. 

We note that subject producers appear to have the ability to divert exports to the U.S. market. 

Evidence collected in this second review indicates that the vast majority of Japanese exports of clad steel

plate are shipped into markets other than the United States, including Mexico.61

We recognize that the volume of subject imports is currently at a very low level relative to total

consumption.62 In a five-year review, however, our focus is on whether subject import volume is likely to

be significant in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty order is revoked, as current

import levels may be affected by the antidumping duty order. We find that, overall, the order has had a

restraining effect on the volume of subject imports from Japan. In fact, subject imports have remained

largely absent from the U.S. market ever since the antidumping order was issued in July 1996.63

We conclude, based on the facts available, that the volume of subject imports from Japan is likely

to increase significantly, and the resulting volume is likely to be significant, if the order is revoked.

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping order is revoked, the

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

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

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

price of the domestic like product.64

In the original investigation, the Commission found that subject imports from Japan had

significant adverse price effects. In so doing, the Commission found that, in light of the price sensitive

nature of the market, the significant underbidding by Japanese suppliers of clad plate on significant

volumes of product, the success of Japanese suppliers in winning important large contracts on the basis of

price, and the domestic industry’s inability to recoup increases in its cost of goods sold and SG&A

expenses from 1993 to 1995, the evidence indicated that the pricing of the subject imports suppressed

prices to a significant degree.65

In the first five-year review, the Commission observed that the record contained “very little

pricing data and provides no information comparing current prices of the domestic like product and the

subject imports in the U.S. market.”66 Accordingly, the Commission based its conclusion that subject

imports were likely to have significant price effects largely upon the record of the original investigation

where subject imports from Japan consistently undersold the domestic like product and depressed prices

to a significant 
 67 Id. 

 68 Id. 

 69 Id. at 15. 

 70 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 71 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude

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

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

dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. Commerce expedited its determination in its review of clad

steel plate from Japan and found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping at margins of 118.53 percent for all subject exporters in Japan. Commerce’s

Review Determination, 72 Fed. Reg. 4482 (Jan. 31, 2007).

12

degree.67 Based upon their behavior in the original investigation, the Commission concluded in the first

review that “it is likely that if the order is revoked subject Japanese exporters would offer attractively low

prices to U.S. purchasers in order to regain market share.”68 The Commission also found that revocation

of the antidumping duty order would be likely to result in significant price effects, including significant

underselling by the subject imports of the domestic like product, as well as significant price depression

and suppression in the reasonably foreseeable future.69

There is no new product-specific pricing information on the record in this expedited review. As

concluded above, we find that the volume of subject imports would be significant in the reasonably

foreseeable future if the antidumping duty order were revoked. Based on the information available in this

review, including the determination in the original investigation, we find that the market for subject

merchandise is price competitive. Therefore, as in the original investigation, subject imports would likely

undersell the domestic like product to regain market share if the antidumping duty order were revoked. 

The volume of subject imports at those prices, in turn, would be likely to have significant depressing or

suppressing effects on prices of the domestic like product. We therefore conclude that, were the order to

be revoked, the significant volume of subject imports would likely significantly undersell the domestic

like product and those imports would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on prices for the

domestic like product. 

E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

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

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a

bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to: (1) likely declines in

output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity;

(2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital,

and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like

product.70 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business cycle and

the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry.71 As instructed by the statute, we have

considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related to the

order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is revoked.

In the original investigation, the Commission found that the significant increases in subject

imports adversely affected the financial condition of the domestic industry. It found that the adverse

impact on the domestic industry of the volume and prices of subject imports was reflected in the 
 72 Original Determination at 12. 

 73 First Review at 16. 

 74 Id. at 17. 

 75 CR/PR at Table I-6. 

 76 Id.

 77 Id.

13

industry’s low capacity utilization rates, declining shipments and employment, and consistently poor

financial performance and operating losses throughout the period of investigation.72 

In the first review, the Commission concluded that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

clad steel plate from Japan would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within

a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission reached this conclusion based upon the adverse impact

subject imports had on the domestic industry during the original investigation.73 In so doing, the

Commission reasoned that the “volume and price effects of the subject imports would have a significant

adverse impact on the domestic industry and would likely cause the domestic industry to further lose

market share. In addition, the price and volume declines would likely have a significant adverse impact

on the production, sales, shipments, and revenue levels of the domestic industry.”74

 As discussed above, apparent U.S. consumption was lower in 2005 than in 2000.75 Since the

original investigation, U.S. production of clad steel plate has declined, and despite a decrease in imports

from countries other than Japan after 2000, showed virtually no net growth between 2000 and 2005.76

U.S. shipments of clad steel plate were lower in 2005 than during the original investigation period.77 

There is no current information in the record, however, pertaining to many of the other indicators,

such as operating income, capacity, capacity utilization rates, and employment levels, that we customarily

consider in assessing whether the domestic industry is in a weakened condition, as contemplated by the

statute. The limited evidence in this expedited review is insufficient for us to make a finding on whether

the domestic industry producing clad steel plate is vulnerable to the continuation or reoccurrence of

material injury in the event of revocation of the order. 

We find that if the order were revoked the likely volume of subject imports would be significant

and would likely undersell the domestic like product to a significant degree and otherwise significantly

suppress or depress U.S. prices. We find that the significant likely volume of low-priced subject clad

steel plate, when combined with the likely adverse price effects of those imports, would likely have a

significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales, and revenue levels of the domestic

industry. This reduction in the industry’s production, shipments, sales, and revenue levels would likely

have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and employment levels, as well as its ability to

raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital investments. Accordingly, we conclude that, if the

antidumping duty order on clad steel plate from Japan were revoked, subject imports from Japan would

be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable

time. Thus, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on clad steel plate from Japan

would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States

within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine under section 751(c) of the Act that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on clad steel plate from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or

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

 1

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

 2

 All interested parties were requested to respond to the notice by submitting information requested by the

Commission. Copies of the Commission’s Federal Register notices are presented in app. A.

 3

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

notice of initiation of the five-year review of the subject antidumping duty order concurrently with the Commission’s

notice of institution. Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 71 FR 57921, October 2, 2006.

 4

 The Commission received one submission in response to its notice of institution for the subject review. It was

filed on behalf of Mittal Steel USA, Inc. (“Mittal”), a major U.S. producer of clad steel plate. Mittal is believed to

have accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. clad steel plate production in 2005. Mittal’s November 21,

2006, response to the notice of institution, confidential exhibit 4. See also Commission’s memorandum of December

21, 2006, INV-DD-170, Clad Steel Plate from Japan: Inv. No. 731-TA-739 (Second Review) -- Recommendation on

Adequacy of Responses to Notice of Institution.

 5

 Vice Chairman Shara L. Aranoff and Commissioners Jennifer A. Hillman, Stephen Koplan, and Charlotte R.

Lane concluded that the domestic interested party group response for this review was adequate and the respondent

interested party group response was inadequate and voted for an expedited review. Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and

Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun concluded that the domestic interested party group response for this review was

adequate and the respondent interested party group response was inadequate, but that circumstances warranted a full

review.

 6

 A copy of the Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy is presented in app. A.

I-1

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE SECOND REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Background

On October 2, 2006, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Act”),1

 the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave notice that it

had instituted a review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on clad steel plate

from Japan would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry

within a reasonably foreseeable time.2 3

 On January 5, 2007, the Commission determined that the

domestic interested party group response for this review was adequate;4

 the Commission also determined

that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate (in fact, nonexistent). Accordingly,

the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of

the Act.5 6

 Information relating to the background of the review is provided in table I-1.
 7

 The petition was filed by Lukens Steel Co., Coatesville, PA.

 8 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Clad Steel Plate From Japan, 61 FR 21158,

May 9, 1996.

 9 Clad Steel Plate from Japan, 61 FR 34862, July 3, 1996.

 10 Notice of Antidumping Order: Clad Steel Plate from Japan, 61 FR 34421, July 2, 1996.

 11 Clad Steel Plate from Japan, 66 FR 29829, June 1, 2001.

 12 Clad Steel Plate from Japan, 66 FR 49040, September 25, 2001.

 13 Clad Steel Plate from Japan, 66 FR 51007, October 5, 2001.

I-2

Table I-1

Clad steel plate: Chronology of investigation No. 731-TA-739

Effective date Action Federal Register citation

July 2, 1996 Commerce’s antidumping duty order 61 FR 34421

November 16, 2001

Commerce’s continuation of antidumping duty order after

first five-year review 66 FR 57703

October 2, 2006

Commission’s institution of second review; Commerce’s

initiation of second review 71 FR 57996; 71 FR 57921

January 5, 2007

Commission’s determination to conduct an expedited

second review 72 FR 2554 (January 19, 2007)

January 31, 2007 Commerce’s final results of expedited second review 72 FR 4482 

February 20, 2007 Commission’s vote Not applicable

March 1, 2007 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce Not applicable

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

The Original Investigation and Expedited First Five-Year Review

On September 29, 1995, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of dumped imports of clad steel plate from

Japan.7

 On May 14, 1996, Commerce made a final affirmative dumping determination, with margins of

118.53 percent for all exporters.8

 The Commission made its final affirmative injury determination on

June 25, 1996,9

 and Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on July 2, 1996.10

On June 1, 2001, the Commission instituted the first five-year review of the antidumping duty

order11 and, on September 4, 2001, the Commission determined that it should proceed to an expedited

review.12 On October 5, 2001, Commerce found that revocation of the antidumping duty order on clad

steel plate from Japan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.13 On October 29,

2001, the Commission completed its expedited first five-year review of the antidumping duty order and

determined that revocation of the order on clad steel plate from Japan would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably
 14 Clad Steel Plate from Japan, Determination, 66 FR 55697, November 2, 2001.

 15 Continuation of Countervailing and Antidumping Duty Orders: Pasta from Italy and Turkey, and Clad Steel

Plate from Japan, 66 FR 57703, November 16, 2001.

 16 Stainless Steel Clad Plate from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-50 (Final), USITC Publication 1270, July

1982, p. 1.

 17 Stainless Steel Clad Plate from Japan; Antidumping Duty Order, 47 FR 34178, August 6, 1982, and Stainless

Steel Clad Plate from Japan; Final Results of Changed Circumstances and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, 

50 FR 38151, September 20, 1985.

 18 The petitions were filed by Armco, Bethlehem, Geneva, Gulf States, Ispat/Inland, Laclede Steel, LTV, Lukens,

National, Sharon, USX, and WCI.

 19 Certain Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,

Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain,

Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Invs. 701-TA-319-354 and 731-TA-573-620 (Preliminary), USITC

Publication 2549, August 1992, pp. 2-4.

 20 Certain Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France,

Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the

United Kingdom, Invs. 701-TA-319-322, 334, 336-342, 344, and 347-353 and 731-TA-573-579, 581-592, 594-597,

599-609 and 612-619 (Final), USITC Publication 2664, August 1993, pp. 1-5.

I-3

foreseeable time.14 On November 16, 2001, Commerce issued a continuation of the subject antidumping

duty order.15

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Title VII Investigations

Following a petition filed on October 6, 1981, by Lukens Steel Co., the Commission conducted

an antidumping duty investigation on stainless steel clad plate from Japan. Following a determination of

sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”) by Commerce, on July 20, 1982, the Commission determined that

an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports from Japan.16 Commerce

issued an antidumping duty order on stainless steel clad plate from Japan on August 6, 1982, which it

subsequently revoked on September 20, 1985.17

On June 30, 1992, petitions18 were filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of cut-to-length

(“CTL”) plate from 10 countries; hot-rolled products from 7 countries; cold-rolled products from 11

countries; and corrosion-resistant products (including clad steel plate) from 8 countries. The petitions

further alleged that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of dumped imports

of CTL plate from 15 countries; hot-rolled products from 9 countries; cold-rolled products from 15

countries; and corrosion-resistant products (including clad steel plate) from 9 countries.19 Following

affirmative final determinations of subsidization and sales at LTFV by Commerce, the Commission found

clad steel plate to be a separate domestic like product produced by a separate domestic industry. The

Commission reached negative determinations with respect to subject imports of clad steel plate from

France and Japan, and noted that, to the extent that any such determination was deemed necessary, it

would have reached negative determinations with respect to other subject countries because there were no

imports of clad steel plate from those countries during the period examined.20
 21 19 U.S.C. § 2252.

 22 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.

 23 19 U.S.C. § 2251.

 24 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.

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

Imports of Certain Steel Products, 67 FR 10553, March 7, 2002. 

 26 The increased duties were reduced from 30 percent to 24 percent on March 20, 2003.

 27 The Department of Commerce published regulations establishing such a system on December 31, 2002.

I-4

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 197421 to determine whether certain steel products, including plate (both clad and

CTL), 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.22 On July 26, 2001, the Commission received a resolution adopted

by the Committee on Finance of the U.S. Senate (“Senate Finance Committee” or Committee”) requesting

that the Commission investigate certain steel imports under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974.23

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-201-73.24 On December 20, 2001, the Commission issued its determinations and remedy

recommendations. The Commission reached an affirmative determination with respect to certain flatrolled steel, including plate (both clad and CTL). 

On March 5, 2002, following determinations regarding serious injury or threat of serious injury

by the Commission under section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974, the President announced the safeguard

measures that he planned to implement to facilitate efforts by various domestic steel industries and their

workers to make a positive adjustment to import competition with respect to certain steel products. The

safeguard measures encompassed 10 different product categories for which the Commission made

affirmative determinations or was evenly divided. Presidential Proclamation 7529 implemented the

safeguard measures, principally in the form of tariffs and tariff-rate quotas, effective March 20, 2002, for

a period of three years and one day. Import relief relating to plate (both clad and CTL) consisted of an

additional tariff of 30 percent ad valorem on imports in the first year, 24 percent in the second year, and

18 percent in the third year.25 26 The President also instructed the Secretary of the Treasury and the

Secretary of Commerce to establish a system of import licensing to facilitate the monitoring of imports of

certain steel products.27

The safeguard measures applied to imports of subject steel products from all countries except

Canada, Israel, Jordan, and Mexico, which had entered into free trade agreements with the United States, 
 28 Steel: Monitoring Developments in the Domestic Industry, Inv. No. TA-204-9, USITC Publication 3632,

September 2003.

 29 Steel: Monitoring Developments in the Domestic Industry, Inv. No. TA-204-9, Volume I, USITC Publication

3632, September 2003, p. ix.

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

Regard to Imports of Certain Steel Products, 68 FR 68483, December 8, 2003.

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

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

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

rule to implement a replacement program for the period beyond March 21, 2005. Steel Import Monitoring and

Analysis System, 70 FR 12133, March 11, 2005. On December 5, 2005, Commerce published its final rule. Steel

Import Monitoring and Analysis System, 70 FR 72373, December 5, 2005.

 32 A review for the period of January 4, 1999 through June 30, 2000 was initiated and then rescinded. Clad Steel

Plate from Japan: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Order, 65 FR 60615, October 12, 2000.

I-5

and most developing countries that were members of the World Trade Organization. The President’s

initial proclamation also excluded numerous specific products from the measures, and was followed by

subsequent additional exclusions.

On September 19, 2003, the Commission submitted a mid-term report to the President and the

Congress on the results of its monitoring of developments in the steel industry, as required by section

204(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974.28 The Commission’s monitoring report noted that, although growth

in demand for carbon and alloy flat-rolled products (the product category that included clad plate) was at

most modest and total imports increased, output-related indicators for the domestic industry such as

production, capacity utilization, and shipments increased in the first relief year, as did labor productivity. 

Per-unit net sales rose while per-unit costs fell (despite rising raw material costs), resulting in improved

financial performance.29

On December 4, 2003, President Bush terminated the U.S. measure with respect to increased

tariffs, following receipt of the Commission’s mid-point monitoring report in September 2003, and after

seeking information from the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Secretary of Labor, having

determined that the effectiveness of the action taken had been impaired by changed circumstances.30

Import licensing, however, remained in place through March 21, 2005, and continues in modified form at

this time.31

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

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

on imports of certain steel products. The Commission’s report on the evaluation was transmitted to the

President and the Congress on September 19, 2005.

COMMERCE’S REVIEWS

Administrative Reviews

Commerce completed no administrative reviews for firms covered by the antidumping duty order

on clad steel plate from Japan.32
 33 Clad Steel Plate from Japan: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review (Second Review) of the

Antidumping Order, 72 FR 4482, January 31, 2007.

 34 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)).

 35 19 CFR 159.64 (g).

 36 See U.S. Customs CDSOA Annual Reports for fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.

I-6

Results of Expedited Five-Year Review

Commerce issue a final determination with respect to clad steel plate from Japan on January 31,

2007. In its final results, Commerce found that revocation of the antidumping duty order on clad steel

plate from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at margins determined

in its original final determination.33 Table I-2 presents the margins calculated by Commerce in its original

investigation, first review, and second review. 

Table I-2

Clad steel plate: Commerce’s original, first five-year review, and second five-year review antidumping duty

margins for producers/exporters in Japan

Producer/exporter

Original margin

(percent)

First five-year review

margin (percent)

Second five-year review

margin (percent)

The Japan Steel Co. 118.53 118.53 118.53

All others 118.53 118.53 118.53

Source: Antidumping duty order, 61 FR 34421, July 2, 1996; final results of first expedited sunset review, 66 FR 51007, October 

5, 2001; final results of second expedited sunset review, 72 FR 4482, January 31, 2007.

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd

Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty

orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.34 During the review period, qualified U.S. producers of

clad steel plate were eligible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(“Customs”) under CDSOA relating to the antidumping duty order on the subject product beginning in

Federal fiscal year 2001.35 No disbursements were issued by Customs for clad steel plate.36
 37 Cladding is the association of layers of metals of different colors or natures by molecular interpenetration of the

surfaces in contact. This limited diffusion is characteristic of clad products and differentiates them from products

metalized in other manners (i.e., by normal electroplating). The various cladding processes include pouring molten

cladding metal onto the basic metal followed by rolling; simple hot-rolling of the cladding metal to ensure efficient

welding to the basic metal; any other method of deposition or superimposing of the cladding metal followed by any

mechanical or thermal process to ensure welding (i.e., electrocladding), in which the cladding metal (nickel,

chromium, etc.) is applied to the basic metal by electroplating, molecular interpenetration of the surfaces in contact

then being obtained by heat treatment at the appropriate temperature with subsequent cold rolling. See Harmonized

Commodity Description and Coding System Explanatory Notes, Chapter 72, General Note (IV)(C)(2)(e).

 38 Clad Steel Plate from Japan: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review (Second Review) of the

Antidumping Order, 72 FR 4482, January 31, 2007.

 39 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, 1996-2003. 

 40 Clad Steel Plate from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 2936, November

1995, pp. I-3-4; Clad Steel Plate from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Final), USITC Publication 2972, June

1996, pp. 3-5.

I-7

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the imports covered by the antidumping duty order as follows: 

all clad37 steel plate of a width of 600 millimeters (“mm”) or more and a composite

thickness of 4.5 mm or more. Clad steel plate is a rectangular finished steel mill product

consisting of a layer of cladding material (usually stainless steel or nickel) which is

metallurgically bonded to a base or backing of ferrous metal (usually carbon or low alloy

steel) where the latter predominates by weight.

Stainless clad steel plate is manufactured to American Society for Testing and Materials

(“ASTM”) specifications A263 (400 series stainless types) and A264 (300 series stainless

types). Nickel and nickel-base alloy clad steel plate is manufactured to ASTM

specification A265. These specifications are illustrative but not necessarily

all-inclusive.38

U.S. Tariff Treatment

Clad steel plate is classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”)

subheading 7210.90.10. The column 1-general rate of duty for HTS subheading 7210.90.10 is “free.” At

the time of the original investigation (1996), the normal trade relations tariff rate was 5.2 percent ad

valorem. However, this subheading was accorded staged reductions starting in 1995, such that the normal

trade relations tariff rate was reduced to 2.0 percent ad valorem at the time the first review was instituted

in 2001. As of 2004, clad steel plate that entered under this subheading was free of duty.39

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

In the original investigation, the Commission defined the domestic like product as clad steel plate

corresponding to Commerce’s scope of the subject merchandise.40 In the first five-year review, the 
 41 Clad Steel Plate from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Review), USITC Publication 3459, October 2001,

p. 4.

 42 Clad Steel Plate from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 2936, November

1995, p. I-5; Clad Steel Plate from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Final), USITC Publication 2972, June

1996, pp. 4-5; and Clad Steel Plate from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Review), USITC Publication 3459,

October 2001, pp. 4-5.

 43 Mittal’s response to the second review notice of institution, p. 24.

 44 Clad steel flat-rolled products of a thickness of less than 4.5 mm would generally be considered sheet, rather

than plate.

 45 See, e.g., “History: DMC Clad Metal,” an undated fact sheet retrieved from www.dynamicmaterials.com on

January 22, 2007.

 46 Mittal’s response to the second review notice of institution, p. 18.

 47 Ibid., p. 18.

I-8

Commission found the appropriate definition of the domestic like product to be clad steel plate, coextensive with Commerce’s first review scope.41 In the original investigation and the first five-year

review, the Commission defined the domestic industry to include all domestic producers of clad steel

plate.42 In this second five-year review, the responding U.S. producer, Mittal, agrees with these

definitions of the domestic like product and the domestic industry.43

Description and Uses

The imported product subject to this review is clad steel plate, of a width of 600 mm

(approximately 24 inches) or more and a thickness of 4.5 mm (approximately 3/16 inch) or more.44 The

product is a flat-rolled, corrosion-resistant, “composite” steel plate product composed of cladding material

that is metallurgically bonded to a base carbon steel plate. The cladding material, which is usually a solid

sheet or plate of alloy metal such as stainless steel, nickel-based alloys, copper, or titanium, is generally

10 to 20 percent of the total thickness of the composite. The base metal, the thicker portion of the

composite, is usually either carbon or low-alloy steel and normally provides the required strength to the

clad composite. 

Clad steel plate is produced to meet exact customer specifications. It is used to manufacture

vessels or structures used in heavy industry projects where corrosion resistance qualities are essential. 

The main end users of clad steel plate include petrochemical companies, the shipbuilding industry,

electric utilities, pulp and paper companies, and other users of industrial equipment.45 The petrochemical

industry, specifically the hydrocarbon processing industry which includes petroleum refining and

petrochemical and chemical processing, consistently has been the largest market for clad steel plate, likely

consuming as much as *** percent of clad products used in the United States in the mid-1990s according

to estimates made by Lukens during the original investigation. In its response to the Commission’s

institution of the second review,46 Mittal states that a recently developed end use for clad steel plate is in

flues for gas desulfurization. Clad steel plate is used in flues that remove sulfur from exhaust gas in

coal-fired power plants. However, the cladding materials, such as high nickel alloys, that are used in clad

steel plate for this application are very costly. Thus, lower cost alternative materials, such as brick liners

and chimney liners made from spun fiberglass, could rapidly cause demand for clad steel plate used in

flues for gas desulfurization to slacken as the cost of high nickel alloy continues to rise.47
 48 All of the discussion in this section is from the original investigation, unless otherwise noted. Original

investigation confidential report (INV-T-044, June 3, 1996), pp. I-6 - I-10.

 49 Ametek Corp.’s (“Ametek,” Eighty Four, PA) steel clad plate is manufactured by roll bonding a core and

backing with a specialty metal to produce a metallurgically bonded clad. Ametek’s roll bonding is achieved by

processing a specially prepared “sandwich” (layers of backing and cladding materials) through a conventional plate

hot rolling mill that reduces the thickness and metallurgically bonds the backing steel to the clad material. Parting

compound is used between each clad pack before it is welded and then roll-bonded to yield two separated clad

plates. After cutting to finished size, the bonded plates are cleaned by blasting with an abrasive that is mixed with

glass beads to obtain a clean, relatively bright surface, both top and bottom, if desired. Steel clad plate can then be

fabricated into different shapes which allow designers the freedom to produce custom products for a wide range of

applications. Retrieved from the Ametek Specialty Metals’ website,

http://www.ametekmetals.com/cladmanufacture.asp, on January 25, 2007.

 50 In the late 1960s, Dynamic Materials Corp. (“DMC,” Lafayette, CO) started an explosion metal forming

business that shaped blank sheets of metal alloys into complex three-dimensional parts for aerospace equipment

manufacturers. Retrieved from the DMC website, http://www.dynamicmaterials.com/, on January 25, 2007.

I-9

Japan Steel Works, Ltd. (“JSW”), the sole responding Japanese manufacturer of clad steel plate in

the original investigation, testified at the hearing that all of its sales of the subject product in the United

States were to companies in the petrochemical industry. The firm maintained that it did not compete for

projects in the shipbuilding, utilities, or pulp and paper industries and had not sold clad steel plate for any

U.S. projects in these sectors during the period examined in the original investigation, 1993-95.

Manufacturing Processes48

There are two processes by which clad steel plate is produced, regardless of what cladding

material is used. The first is the roll-bonding process, or “sandwich” process. Figure I-1 shows the

roll-bonding process, as used by JFE Steel Corporation (“JFE”). This manufacturing method typically

involves assembling a four-ply clad “pack” comprised of two “backing steel” slabs and two “cladding”

inserts in a dedicated production facility. The assembled pack is rolled at high temperature and pressure,

which metallurgically bonds the backing steel to the cladding. After rolling, the edges of the pack are cut

and it is separated into two clad plates. The second method is called explosion bonding. Figure I-2

shows the explosion bonding process. In this process, the base and cladding materials are prepared for

ideal surface conditioning, then matched before being transported to the cladding site. Here the matched

plates are moved into an underground “shooting chamber” where the base and clad materials are bonded

by the detonation of specially formulated explosives over the cladding material. 

While roll bonding49 and explosion bonding50 are distinctly different processes, clad steel plate

products produced by these two methods are largely interchangeable. A specific production process will,

however, be more cost-effective for certain ranges in product thickness; roll-bonding is most costeffective between 1⁄2 inch and 2 inches, but explosion bonding is usually reserved for plate between 2 and

31⁄2 inches thick. Generally, over 80 percent of stainless clad plate manufactured by Lukens during the

original investigation was between 1⁄2 inch and 2 inches in thickness. Most of the large contracts

reportedly covered goods in this thickness range, where Lukens competed most heavily with JSW during

the period examined in the original investigation. Other domestic producers competed with Lukens in

other size ranges.
I-10

Figure I-1

Clad steel plate: Roll bonding process used by JFE

Source: JFE Steel Corporation catalog, p. 4. 
I-11

Figure I-2

Clad steel plate: Explosion manufacturing schematic

Source: DMC, reproduced in Stainless Steel World 2004, “Explosion Welding, Technical Growth and

Commercial History,” p. 4.
 51 The Commission noted several conditions of competition in its views for the original investigation, among

them (1) that “virtually all” of the Japanese clad steel plate sold in the U.S. market during the period examined was

sold to the petrochemical industry, as was “a large percentage” of domestic production of clad steel plate; (2) that

sales in the clad steel plate market are made through a multi-level competitive bidding process; (3) that certain

purchasers of clad steel plate have domestic content (“Buy American”) requirements or domestic preferences; and

(4) that demand patterns for clad steel plate are irregular since a substantial proportion of the annual sales volume of

clad steel plate is derived from large contracts that are made on a sporadic basis. First review confidential report

(INV-Y-196, October 1, 2001), p. I-7.

 52 ***. First review confidential report (INV-Y-196, October 1, 2001), p. I-7.

 53 Mittal’s response to the second review notice of institution, p. 18.

 54 ***.

I-12

Channels of Distribution51 52

Both domestic and imported clad steel plate are generally sold on a competitive-bid basis to the

fabricators of equipment, process equipment, heat exchangers, etc., which are seeking to meet the

requirements of general contractors or engineers for specific projects that incorporate vessels or other

structures where corrosion resistance is required. Fabricators, in turn, compete for contract awards to

construct these vessels or structures for the end user. However, in its response, Mittal notes that the

decline in the number of domestic vessel fabricators, which had been noted in the previous review by

Lukens, has continued to the point where there are believed to be few, if any, vessel fabricators active in

the domestic market.53

The bid process begins when the engineering firm retained by the eventual owner of the project

solicits bids from various clad fabricators, which, in turn, contact several clad producers and U.S.

importers54 to ensure the lowest possible bid. The clad steel plate firm may, therefore, receive an inquiry

from one or more of the competing fabricators, and formal quotations are sent to each. Upon selection of

the fabricator by the engineering firm, the bidding process becomes extremely competitive among clad

plate suppliers. The successful fabricator finalizes the design details and contacts the clad plate bidders,

as long as they were initially competitive, with final plate sizes and more detailed specifications. On the

basis of the final bids, the fabricator chooses a clad plate supplier for the project. Since each contract

provides fairly exact specifications, there is generally very little difference in the physical characteristics

of the competing clad steel plate products for a specific bid.
 55 Ametek is a leading global manufacturer of electronic instruments and electromechanical devices with

annualized sales of more than $1.8 billion. Ametek has approximately 10,000 employees and over 60 sales and

service operations in the United States and more than 30 other countries. Ametek Specialty Metals is the division

responsible for producing steel clad plate. Retrieved from http://www.ametek.com/about/overview.cfm on January

31, 2007. 

 56 DuPont Detaclad was the original explosion cladding company. DuPont reportedly invented and

commercialized the explosion welding technology in the 1960s (retrieved from

http://www.dynamicmaterials.com/Divisions/Clad%20Metal%20Group/Clad%20Metal%20USA on January 31,

2007). DuPont designed, manufactured and distributed explosion bonded clad metal plates and provided explosive

shock syntheses services in connection with its production of industrial diamonds (Dynamic Materials Corporation,

Form 10-QSB for Quarter Ended March 31, 1997, retrieved from http://www.secinfo.com/dsvrp.83u2.htm on

January 31, 2007).

 57 DMC, a publicly traded company under the stock market symbol “BOOM,” licensed technology from E.I.

DuPont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) to explosively bond, or clad, two or more dissimilar metal plates

together. The explosion-bonded clad metal business reportedly remains DMC’s core business today, enhanced by

the acquisitions of DuPont’s Detaclad Division in 1996 and Nobelclad Europe in 2001. Retrieved from the DMC

website, http://www.dynamicmaterials.com/, on January 25, 2007.

 58 Subsequent to the filing of the original petition, petitioner Lukens Steel Co. was acquired by Bethlehem Steel

Corporation (in 1998), and was renamed Bethlehem Lukens Steel Plate. In May 2003, the assets of Bethlehem,

including Bethlehem Lukens Plate, were acquired by International Steel Group (“ISG”). In April 2005, ISG merged

with and into Mittal Steel Co. and became Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. In December 2005, the company became

Mittal Steel USA, Inc. Mittal’s response to the second review notice of institution, p. 1.

 59 In addition, Vessel Clads (Berwyn, PA) ***. Vessel Clads was renamed Vee Cee Metals (“Vee Cee”). First

review confidential report (INV-Y-196, October 1, 2001), pp. I-9 and I-10. 

 60 Purchase and Sale Agreement Between Dynamic Materials Corporation and E. I. du Pont De Nemours and

Company, July 26, 1996. Retrieved from the EDGAR SEC database website,

http://sec.edgar-online.com/1996/08/06/00/0000932384-96-000166/Section6.asp, on January 25, 2007.

I-13

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

In 1995, there were four firms producing clad steel plate in the United States: Ametek,55

DuPont,56 DMC,57 and Lukens Steel Co.58 (“Lukens,” Coatesville, PA).59 Each of these firms, with the

exception of DMC, provided a response to the Commission’s questionnaire during the original

investigation. Lukens accounted for *** percent of reported U.S. production in 1995, DuPont accounted

for *** percent, and Ametek accounted for the remaining *** percent. No U.S. producer reported

importing clad steel plate or purchasing imported clad steel plate. Lukens primarily produced clad steel

plate during the period examined in the original investigation by the rollbonding method, but also utilized

the “bang and roll” method, on a toll basis, for thicker plate gauges. DuPont and DMC were primarily

explosion-bond clad steel plate producers and Ametek manufactured the product through roll-bonding.

Each of the original producing firms, with the exception of DuPont, continued to manufacture the

subject clad steel plate in the United States through the first review. In July 1996, DMC acquired

DuPont’s clad plate operations.60 In 1998, Bethlehem Steel Corp. acquired Lukens, resulting in the

formation of the Bethlehem Lukens plate division, which was the successor to Lukens Steel. 
 61 Although noted as a domestic producer in the first review, Vee Cee was not noted as a domestic producer in the

original investigation. First review confidential report (INV-Y-196, October 1, 2001) and original investigation

confidential report (INV-T-044, June 3, 1996).

 62 Mittal’s response to the second review notice of institution, p. 18.

 63 On June 25, 2006, Mittal announced that it had reached an agreement with Arcelor to combine the two

companies in a merger of equals to create the world’s leading steel company. The combined group is headquartered

in Luxembourg. Retrieved from http://www.mittalsteel.com/News+and+Press/News+Releases/ on February 1, 2007. 

 64 Mittal’s response to the second review notice of institution, p. 1.

 65 Mittal’s response to the second review notice of institution, pp. 17-18 and p. 20.

 66 Mittal’s response to the second review notice of institution, p. 18, p. 20, and p. 23.

 67 Due to the prevalence of sporadic but large contracts in the clad steel plate industry, as well as to a wide variety

in product mix, the Commission stated in its views for the original investigation that it finds “overall period trends

less probative in this investigation.” Clad Steel Plate from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Review), USITC

Publication 3459, October 2001, p. I-8 (citing USITC Publication 2972, June 1996, p. 18).

 68 Estimated by staff for 2005, based on information provided in Mittal’s response to the second review notice of

institution, confidential exhibit 4.

 69 Shipments in 2005 of *** short tons represents a *** compared with 1995, the last year for which shipment

data are available. Estimated by staff for 2005, based on Mittal’s estimate of the company’s share of domestic

production, ***. 

I-14

Bethlehem Lukens was estimated by petitioner to account for *** percent of U.S. production in 2000,

DMC for *** percent, Ametek for *** percent, and Vee Cee Metals61 for *** percent.

In its response,62 Mittal,63 the successor to the petitioner64 (in the original investigation) and

Bethlehem Lukens (in the first review), notes that it remains a “significant producer of clad steel plate.”65

Mittal also maintains that DMC and Ametek are still actively producing clad steel plate; Vee Cee is

believed to have exited the industry, however, resulting in a decline in domestic production capacity.66 

U.S. Production, Capacity, Shipments, and Selected Financial Data

Data reported by U.S. producers of clad steel plate in the Commission’s original investigation are

presented in table I-3. As shown, the majority of the industry indicators reported during the original

investigation (i.e., production; capacity utilization; and the quantity, value, and unit value of U.S.

shipments) dipped from 1993 to 1994 then rose in 1995 to, in some instances, points higher than those

reported for 1993.67 Production of clad steel plate in the United States has declined since the imposition

of the antidumping duty order in July 1996, falling from 1995 to 1997, then rising in 1998 compared to

1997, and then decreasing again from 1998 to 2000, for an overall decline of *** percent from 1995 to

2000. Production68 in 2005 of *** short tons was similar to the level in 2000.69
 70 Clad Steel Plate from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Final), USITC Publication 2972, June 1996, p. 13.

I-15

Table I-3

Clad steel plate: Summary data from the original investigation, the first review, and the current review, 1993-2005

Item

 Calendar year

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Reporting firms:1

 Capacity (short tons) *** *** *** (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Production (short tons) *** *** *** (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Capacity utilization

 (percent) *** *** *** (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 U.S. shipments 

 Quantity (short tons) *** *** *** (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Value ($1,000) *** *** *** (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Unit value ($ per ton) *** *** *** (2

) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

Total industry:3

 Production4 (short tons) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2) (2) (2) ***

Mittal5

 U.S. shipments

 Quantity (short tons) (

2

) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2) (2) (2) ***

 Value ($1,000) (

2

) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2) (2) (2) ***

 Unit value ($ per ton) (2

) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (2) (2) (2) (2) ***

 1 Data for those firms (Ametek, DuPont, and Lukens) that responded to the Commission questionnaires during the original investigation. Clad steel plate produced

by the responding firms accounted for *** percent of total U.S. production in 1995.

 2 Not available.

 3

 Data for all firms in the industry.

 4

 Estimated by staff for 2005, based on information provided in Mittal’s response to the second review notice of institution, confidential exhibit 4. 

 5

 Mittal includes Lukens and Bethlehem Lukens.

Note.--Production figures for those firms responding to Commission questionnaires during the original investigation are, for certain periods (specifically ***), *** than

the total industry figures reported by petitioner in its response (to the first review). This is primarily due to the industry totals being based on petitioner estimates for

*** that are somewhat *** than the actual production figures reported by those firms to the Commission during the original investigation.

Source: First review confidential report (INV-Y-196, October 1, 2001) for data reported during the original investigation and first review, and Mittal’s response to the

second review notice of institution for all other information. 

There are no current financial or pricing data available for the subject product. Reported net sales

by the responding clad steel plate producers increased overall between 1993 and 1995. However, as noted

by the Commission in its views for the original investigation, “the industry experienced declining gross

profits and mounting operating losses during this same period, concurrent with increases in cost of goods

sold and SG&A expenses.”70

Although the domestic industry has consolidated within the United States, two of the remaining

domestic producers’ global operations on clad plate have expanded over time. In 2001, DMC acquired the

French producer Nobleclad which, by virtue of its own 1992 purchase of the Swedish producer

Nitrometall, added production operations in Rivesaltes, France, and Likenas, Sweden to DMC’s Mount 
 71 See, e.g., “History: DMC Clad Metal,” an undated fact sheet retrieved from www.dynamicmaterials.com on

January 22, 2007.

 72 Prior to its acquisition by ISG, Bethlehem Steel declared bankruptcy in 2001. In 2002, Bethlehem Steel’s

pension plan was terminated and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) took over Bethlehem Steel’s

pension plan, which had a $4.3 billion shortfall. The PBGC’s coverage, however, was limited to $3.7 billion. 

Remarks by Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance Randle K. Quarles to the National Association of

State Treasurers, March 6, 2006.

 73 Retrieved from http://www.mittalsteel.com/News+and+Press/News+Releases/ on February 1, 2007.

 74 Steel: Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Import Relief, Investigation No. TA-204-12, USITC Publication 3797,

September 2005, pp. 6-7.

 75 “In January 2003, an agreement was reached between USWA workers and ISG, which had purchased the assets

of LTV and proposed buying other steel companies in bankruptcy. The plan provides for a benefit trust to provide

for funding of health-care for retirees of predecessor companies. That agreement allows for a substantial reduction

in employee and retiree healthcare expenses through a variable cost sharing mechanism, and provides for early

retirement incentives. The contract also provides for profit sharing from substantial productivity gains.”

“. . . In June 2003, the USWA ratified an agreement with ISG for steelworkers at the former Bethlehem

Steel facilities. The agreement, which expires in September 2008, includes provisions for pension benefits under a

defined benefit plan and a fund to provide health care for retirees of Bethlehem Steel, together with profit-sharing

and labor productivity arrangements.” Steel: Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Import Relief, Investigation No.

TA-204-12, USITC Publication 3797, September 2005, pp. III-19 - III-20.

 76 ***.

 77 Mittal’s response to the second review notice of institution, p. 20.

I-16

Braddock, PA, plant commissioned in 1999.71 Similarly, Lukens evolved through mergers and

acquisitions into the Bethlehem Lukens Plate Division, ISG, and then Mittal Steel.72 The 2006 merger of

Mittal Steel and Arcelor of France (itself a manufacturer of clad steel plate) will be incorporated in 2007

following a successful tender offer.73

As part of the restructuring process, the United Steelworkers of America (“USWA”) reached

innovative new collective bargaining agreements with several producers, including Mittal (then ISG).74

The new agreement was designed to achieve goals such as reducing fixed costs, improving productivity,

and protecting retiree welfare. To reach these goals the agreements incorporate workforce restructuring,

variable and competitive cost structures, reduced healthcare costs, and fewer job classifications.75

U.S. IMPORTS AND CONSUMPTION

U.S. Imports

During the original investigation, the Commission identified six possible importers of the subject

merchandise. Four of these firms,76 which accounted for *** of U.S. imports from Japan during 1994-95,

responded to Commission questionnaires during the original investigation. In its response to the

Commission’s notice of institution of the first review, Bethlehem Lukens maintained, and currently Mittal

maintains (but could not verify), that all of these firms listed as U.S. importers in the 1995 petition

continued to import subject clad steel plate from Japan.77 Citing the dearth of imports of subject product

during 2000-04, and the imports of “only 40 (metric) tons” of subject product in 2005, Mittal states that “it

seems likely that there are very few if any importers currently importing the subject merchandise from 
 78 Mittal’s response to the second review notice of institution, p. 21.

 79 i-Logistics is a company based in Japan specializing in warehousing/transportation, distribution, and

international freight handling. It was founded in Osaka as ITOCHU Transportation & Warehouse Co., Ltd.;

transferred its headquarters to Tokyo in 1988; merged with New Japan Air Service Co., Ltd. and Itochu Express Co.,

Ltd. in 2001, and changed its name to i-Logistics Corp. Its U.S. subsidiary, i-Logistics (USA) Corp., is based in

Torrance, CA. The source of this information is the i-Logistics Corp. website: http://www.ilogi.co.jp/en/, retrieved

on January 30, 2007. 

 80 Based on data obtained from proprietary Customs’ information, the importers of record in 2005 were ***. 

There were no subject imports recorded during 2001-04.

 81 Mittal’s response to the second review notice of institution, p. 21.

 82 TIB is a procedure whereby merchandise may be entered into the customs territory of the United States

duty-free by posting a bond. Under the terms of the bond, the importer agrees to export the merchandise within a

specified time (usually a year) or pay liquidated damages, generally equal to twice the normal duty. There have been

no TIB imports reported during 1998-2005. Most TIB imports of clad steel plate appeared to be destined for U.S.

fabricators, with the subsequent production often exported.

 83 The data on which the majority of the Commission relied in its original determination were calculated exclusive

of TIB imports. The Commission stated that “{s}uch imports are technically not entries for consumption and thus

are not subject to Commerce’s affirmative LTFV determination.” Commissioner Bragg, however, indicated that it

was “appropriate in this investigation to include TIB imports, which are sold to U.S. purchasers in direct competition

with domestic clad steel plate and are used in the fabrication of industrial equipment in the United States ...” 

Clad Steel Plate from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Review), USITC Publication 3459, October 2001,

pp. I-9 - I-11 (citing USITC Publication 2976, June 1996, p. 8).

 84 The Commission noted in its views for the original investigation that “(i)n 1994, when subject imports were at

their height, many of the domestic industry’s economic indicators experienced their worse performance. Conversely,

between 1994 and 1995, when the level of subject imports decreased, and the rate of growth in overall imports of

Japanese clad plate (including TIB imports) greatly slowed, many domestic industry economic indicators improved.” 

Clad Steel Plate from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Review), USITC Publication 3459, October 2001,

pp. I-11 - I-12.

 85 The Commission stated in its views for the original investigation that “{w}e regard TIB entries ... as a relevant

economic factor in our analysis of the volume of imports, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1677(7)(b)(ii). Specifically, while

subject imports declined from 1994 to 1995, we give the decline less weight in considering whether subject imports

are significant. TIB imports compete for U.S. fabricators’ purchases in the U.S. market. Thus, there was not a

wholesale decline in imports of clad plate from Japan, but rather a shift of such imports to TIB entries.” Clad Steel

Plate from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Review), USITC Publication 3459, October 2001, p. I-12.

I-17

Japan.”78 However, Mittal cites one firm (not mentioned as an importer in either the original investigation

or the first review), i-Logistics (USA) Corp.,79 80 as having imported subject product since 2004.81

Table I-4 presents data on U.S. imports of clad steel plate excluding TIB (temporary in-bond)

imports and table I-5 presents import data including TIB imports.82 JSW reportedly made *** TIB entries

in 1995 for a total of *** short tons.83 As shown in table I-4, U.S. imports of clad steel plate from Japan

excluding TIB imports rose from *** short tons in 1993 to *** short tons in 1994 and then fell to ***

short tons in 1995.84 In contrast, total U.S. imports of clad steel plate from Japan rose continuously on an

annual basis during the period reviewed during the original investigation (table I-5).85 

Following the imposition of the order in July 1996, U.S. imports of clad steel plate from Japan

dropped noticeably (table I-5). In 2000, there were 4 short tons of clad steel plate imported from Japan. 

U.S. imports of clad steel plate from sources other than Japan were relatively low in 1994 and 1995 
 86 Compare the quantity of U.S. imports of clad steel plate from France in 1993 with that imported in 1994 as

reported in official Commerce statistics for HTS subheading 7210.90.10.

 87 See official Commerce statistics for HTS subheading 7210.90.10.

 88 As noted earlier, the Commission viewed data concerning trends with caution.

I-18

compared to 1993, as the quantity of clad steel plate imported from France dropped off.86 After the

imposition of the antidumping duty order in July 1996, nonsubject imports began to rise and, by 1997,

exceeded the highest annual level reported during the period examined in the original investigation (i.e.,

1993-95). Nonsubject imports of clad steel plate declined somewhat from 1997 to 1998, rose again in

1999, and increased sharply in 2000, as relatively large amounts of U.S. imports of clad steel plate from

Austria were entered for consumption.87 88

Table I-4

Clad steel plate:1

 U.S. imports from Japan and other sources excluding TIB imports, 1993-2005,

January-September 2005, and January-September 2006

Item

Calendar year

JanuarySeptember

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Japan *** *** *** 213 70 78 0 4 0 0 0 0 44 33 0

Other sources *** *** *** 636 1,387 1,079 1,283 1884 928 171 179 279 392 348 363

 Total *** *** *** 849 1,457 1,158 1,283 1,888 928 171 179 279 436 382 363

Landed duty-paid value (1,000 dollars)

Japan *** *** *** 837 310 273 0 15 0 0 0 0 238 193 0

Other sources *** *** *** 2,089 4,929 3,808 4,438 8921 3310 785 787 1043 1704 1565 1338

 Total *** *** *** 2,926 5,240 4,081 4,438 8,936 3,310 785 787 1,043 1,942 1,758 1,338

Landed duty-paid unit value (dollars per short ton)2

Japan *** *** *** 3,932 4,433 3,489 ----- 3,712 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5,472 5,805 -----

Other sources *** *** *** 3,285 3,554 3,527 3,458 4,736 3,566 4,594 4,407 3,738 4,345 4,493 3,683

 Average *** *** *** 3,448 3,596 3,525 3,458 4,734 3,566 4,594 4,407 3,738 4,458 4,607 3,683

 1 Excludes imports on nonsubject clad steel plate less than 4.5 mm in thickness from Kawasaki Steel for 1993-95. Clad steel plate less

than 4.5 mm in thickness is used in cookware, coinage, and electrical applications. (However, data after 1995 include any U.S. imports of

clad steel plate less than 4.5 mm in thickness. See Note 4 to table I-6.) Also excludes TIB imports from Japan in 1995 reported to the

Commission as well as TIB imports from France of *** short tons in 1996 and *** short tons in 1998. 

 2 Unit values calculated from unrounded figures.

Note.--There have been no TIB imports reported for 1998-2006.

Source: First review confidential report (INV-Y-196, October 1, 2001), p. I-13 for 1993-2000; official statistics of the U.S. Department of

Commerce for 2001-05. Note that landed, duty-paid values do not include any antidumping duties.
 89 Mittal’s response to the second review notice of institution, p. 17.

 90 Clad Steel Plate from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Review), USITC Publication 3459, October 2001,

p. I-12.

I-19

Table I-5

Clad steel plate:1

 U.S. imports from Japan and other sources,2 including TIB imports, 1993-2005,

January-September 2005, and January-September 2006

Item

Calendar year

JanuarySeptember

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Japan 105 975 1,567 213 70 78 0 4 0 0 0 0 44 33 0

Other sources 661 236 99 659 1,387 1,200 1,283 1,884 928 171 179 279 392 348 363

 Total 765 1,211 1,666 872 1,457 1,278 1,283 1,888 928 171 179 279 436 382 363

Landed duty-paid value (1,000 dollars)

Japan 298 2,143 3,904 837 310 273 0 15 0 0 0 0 238 193 0

Other sources 4,620 883 317 2,266 4,929 4,493 4,438 8,921 3,310 785 787 1,043 1,704 1,565 1,338

 Total 4,918 3,026 4,221 3,104 5,240 4,766 4,438 8,936 3,310 785 787 1,043 1,942 1,758 1,338

Landed duty-paid unit value (dollars per short ton)3

Japan 2,854 2,197 2,491 3,932 4,433 3,489 ----- 3,712 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5,472 5,805 -----

Other sources 6,991 3,742 3,207 3,438 3,554 3,745 3,458 4,736 3,566 4,594 4,407 3,738 4,345 4,493 3,683

 Average 6,425 2,499 2,533 3,558 3,596 3,729 3,458 4,734 3,566 4,594 4,407 3,738 4,458 4,607 3,683

 1 Includes TIB imports and product less than 4.5 mm in thickness.

 2 The largest sources of U.S. imports were France in 1993, 2002, and 2003; Japan in 1994 and 1995; United Kingdom in 1996,

1997, 1998, 1999, and 2001; Austria in 2000; and Canada in 2004 and 2005.

 3

 Unit values calculated from unrounded figures.

Note.--There have been no TIB imports reported for 1998-2006.

Source: First review confidential report (INV-Y-196, October 1, 2001), p. I-14 for 1993-2000; official statistics of the U.S. Department

of Commerce for 2001-05. Note that landed, duty-paid values do not include any antidumping duties.

During 2001-05, U.S. imports of clad steel plate declined overall, reaching period lows in 2002-

03. Prior to the increased tariffs resulting from the U.S. safeguard measures on steel, France, Germany, the

United Kingdom, and Austria were major sources for U.S. imports of clad steel plate. Subsequently,

however, imports from these four countries, together, declined sharply, from a total of 1,762 short tons in

2000 to 18 short tons in 2003, a decline of 99 percent. U.S. imports of clad steel plate from these countries

have increased slightly since 2003, reaching 105 short tons in 2005, and 115 short tons through September

of 2006. Imports from Canada and Australia increased from 2000 to 2005 and into 2006, but total U.S.

imports of clad steel plate declined by almost 80 percent during the 2000-05 period.

There were no pricing data provided by Mittal in its response to the notice of institution; Mittal

maintains, however, that “clad steel plate continues to be a price sensitive product.”89 However, as the

Commission noted in its views in the original investigation, “movements in average unit values are not

reliable for purposes of evaluating the price effects of subject imports since bid prices vary according to

the unique specifications of each contract.”90 The Commission relied in large part on its analysis of bid 
 91 The Commission received usable bid data from *** U.S. producers and *** importers of Japanese clad steel

plate. U.S. producers’ reported bid data accounted for *** percent of total U.S. producers’ domestic shipments of

clad steel plate during January 1993-March 1996 and bid information reported by importers of the subject Japanese

product accounted for *** percent of total U.S. imports of the clad steel plate from Japan during that period. 

Original investigation confidential report (INV-T-044, June 3, 1996), p. V-4.

 92 Clad Steel Plate from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Review), USITC Publication 3459, October 2001,

pp. I-12 - I-13 (citing USITC Publication 2976, June 1996, pp. 19-20).

 93 Mittal’s response to the second review notice of institution, p. 16.

 94 Mittal’s response to the second review notice of institution, p. 16.

 95 The Commission noted in its views in the original investigation that “demand patterns for clad steel plate are

irregular” due to the sporadic nature of the contracts through which the product is sold. Clad Steel Plate from Japan,

Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Review), USITC Publication 3459, October 2001, p. I-13 (citing USITC Publication

2972, October 2001, pp. 19-20).

 96 The same trend is shown for domestic market shares calculated using both U.S. production and U.S. producers’

U.S. shipments (i.e., the data analyzed by the Commission during the original investigation).

I-20

data provided in response to Commission questionnaires during the original investigation.91 For the 12 bid

comparisons where there was competition between domestic and Japanese suppliers, the imported

Japanese product was priced lower than the domestic product in five instances. The Commission stated in

its views that “{w}hile the Japanese bidder did not always win the contract ... the amount and value of

sales for which it did win bids based on lower prices were significant.”92

Mittal, in discussing the price of subject imports in its response, states it is “not aware of any

public sources that compare prices for clad steel plate in the USA compared to other markets, (although)

Mittal Steel USA believes that U.S. prices are favorable compared to prices in other markets.”93 Mittal

Steel USA also noted that “any such comparisons of prices in different markets absent information

showing that the specifications of the clad steel plate are comparable would likely render such comparisons

unreliable.”94 

Apparent U.S. Consumption

Apparent U.S. consumption of clad steel plate has continued to decline on an overall basis since

the time of the original investigation, having fallen *** percent from 1995 to 2000, and decreased by

another *** percent during 2000-05 (table I-6).95 As shown in table I-6, the market shares for U.S.

producers during the original investigation fell from 1993 from 1994 and then rose in 1995 to a point

slightly higher than that reported for 1993.96 Following the completion of the original investigation, U.S.

producers’ market shares declined irregularly, reaching a period low in 2000. However, domestic market

share appears to have reached a new high (since the original investigation) in 2005 of about *** percent,

possibly related to the safeguard investigations and measures since 2001. 
I-21

Table I-6

Clad steel plate: U.S. producers’ production and U.S. shipments, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, on the basis of quantity, 1993-2005

Item 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

U.S. production1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (3) (3) (3) (3) ***

U.S. producers’

 U.S. shipments2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (3

) (3) (3) (3) ***

U.S. imports:4

 Japan *** *** *** *** *** *** 0 4 0 0 0 0 44

 Other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** 1,283 1,884 928 171 179 279 392

 Total *** *** *** *** *** *** 1,283 1,888 928 171 179 279 436

Apparent U.S. consumption:

 calculated using -- 

 U.S. production . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (

3

) (3) (3) (3) ***

 U.S. shipments . . . *** *** *** (3

) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) ***

Share of consumption using U.S. production (percent) 

U.S. production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (3

) (3) (3) (3) ***

U.S. imports:

 Japan *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (3

) (3) (3) (3) ***

 Other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (3

) (3) (3) (3) ***

 Total *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (3

) (3) (3) (3) ***

Share of consumption using U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments (percent) 

U.S. producers’

 U.S. shipments *** *** *** (3

) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) ***

U.S. imports:

 Japan *** *** *** (3

) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) ***

 Other sources *** *** *** (3

) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) ***

 Total *** *** *** (3

) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) ***

 1 Estimated total U.S. production.

 2 Estimated total U.S. shipments.

 3 Not available.

 4

 Excluding TIB imports. U.S. imports for 1993-95 were adjusted using questionnaire data to exclude nonsubject clad steel plate less than 4.5 mm in

thickness and are not absolutely comparable to presented U.S. imports for after 1995 that include such product. Total U.S. imports of all clad steel plate 

(including TIB imports) were 765 short tons in 1993, 1,211 short tons in 1994, and 1,666 short tons in 1995.

Source: First review confidential report (INV-Y-196, October 1, 2001), and Mittal’s response to the second review notice of institution.

The market share for imports from Japan rose from 1993 to 1994, declined in 1995, and then fell

sharply after the imposition of the antidumping duty order in July 1996. From 1997 onward, the market

share for subject imports remained below *** percent, with only minimal imports from Japan since 1998. 

 The market share of U.S. imports of clad steel plate from countries other than Japan has

fluctuated since 1993 with large increases shown in the years spanning the imposition of the antidumping

duty order (i.e., from 1995 to 1997), and more increases through 2000. Though the market share of

nonsubject imports increased sharply in 2000, as clad steel plate from Austria entered in relatively large 
 97 Mittal’s response to the second review notice of institution, pp. 21-22.

 98 Original investigation confidential report (INV-T-044, June 3, 1996), pp. VII-1 - VII-2.

 99 “Monthly Iron and Steel Statistics” (June 2001), Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry. Data may

include some nonsubject clad steel (i.e., narrower than 600 mm and thinner than 4.5 mm). 

 100 Data for 2002-2005 found at the website of the JISF, retrieved on January 24, 2007,

http://www.jisf.or.jp/en/statistics/production, data for 1999-2001 provided by Mr. Terashima of JISF.

 101 Original investigation confidential report (INV-T-044, June 3, 1996), pp. VII-1 - VII-2.

 102 JSW, 2006 Annual Report, June 29, 2006, p. 2.

 103 Ibid., p. 2.

I-22

amounts, the market share of nonsubject imports declined back to *** percent in 2005. During 2000-05,

the U.S. market share of all imports of clad steel plate declined from *** percent to *** percent.

THE FOREIGN INDUSTRY

There were five known producers of clad steel plate in Japan during the period examined in the

original investigation: JSW, NKK Corporation (“NKK”), Nippon Steel Corporation (“Nippon”),

Kawasaki Steel Corporation (“Kawasaki”), and Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd. (“Sumitomo”). Mittal

maintains that there are now four firms continuing to produce clad steel plate in Japan, as a result of the

merger of Kawasaki and NKK to form JFE Steel Corporation (“JFE”).97 

Total production of clad steel plate in Japan, as reported by MITI, was 36,281 short tons in 1992,

33,751 short tons in 1993, and 44,431 short tons in 1994.98 Clad steel plate production in Japan was

60,936 short tons in 1998, 52,343 in 1999, and 37,309 in 2000.99 According to statistics provided by the

Japan Iron and Steel Federation (“JISF”), clad steel plate production in Japan increased steadily during

2000-04 to 82,107 short tons, a 120 percent increase, before declining slightly in 2005 to 80,971 short

tons.100

JSW was the only Japanese producer of the subject merchandise that was known during the

original investigation to export to the United States. The firm manufactured clad steel plate in a roll

bonding process (see figure I-1). JSW’s wholly owned subsidiary company in the United States, JSWA

(New York), provided technical and mechanical assistance to U.S. customers during the period examined

in the original investigation.101

Data provided by JSW on its operations during the original investigation are shown in table I-7. 

As shown, production of clad steel plate by the firm rose from 1993 to 1995 while capacity remained

somewhat constant, resulting in increased capacity utilization during the period examined. In 1995, ***

percent of total shipments by JSW were to the home market while *** percent were to the United States

and *** percent were to other export markets. There are no comparable data available for JSW’s current

operations. However, according to the JSW 2006 Annual Report, there “was a surge in orders for towers

and pressure vessels for oil refining, and in cladded steel plate and piping.”102 Also, sales of “cladded

steel plate” were reported to have shown a large increase.103 JSW reported that their steel sheet and

structure business registered a 64 percent increase in orders received ($896 million in fiscal 2005) and a

23 percent growth in sales ($548 million in fiscal 2005) owing primarily to “a surge in demand for towers

and pressure vessels for oil refineries, nickel alloy-clad steel pipe sections for ocean-bed natural gas

pipelines, and incoloy (nickel-chromium) clad steel sheet material for chemical tankers and 
 104 Ibid., p. 6.

 105 Ibid., p. 6.

 106 In April 2001, Kawasaki Steel Corporation (“KSC”) and NKK Corporation (“NKK”) reached a basic

agreement to consolidate the entire operations of the two companies including their subsidiaries and affiliates, on the

basis of equal partnership and in mutual trust. The aim is to create a new group with a strong earnings base

generated mainly from its core businesses of steel and engineering. In December 2001, the two companies entered

into the Basic Agreement for Consolidation. JFE Factbook, June 2003, p. 1.

 107 Fiscal 2006 covers April 1, 2005 through March 31, 2006.

 108 JSW, Annual Report 2006, pp. 15-21.

 109 Ibid., p. 16.

 110 Ibid., p. 16.

 111 The Japan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., formed with Yawata Works as the nucleus, was split into Yawata and Fuji

Steels in 1950 under the Law for the Elimination of Excessive Concentration of Economic Power. Twenty years later

in 1970, the two companies merged again to form Nippon Steel Corporation. Retrieved from

http://www0.nsc.co.jp/shinnihon_english/company_profile/enkaku/index.html on January 31, 2007.

I-23

desalination plants.”104 JSW expects “continued strong demand for clad steel plates for natural gas field

projects in South East Asia and desalination plant projects in the Middle East.”105

Table I-7

Clad steel plate: JSW’s capacity and shipments, 1993-95

Item 1993 1994 1995

Capacity (short tons) *** *** ***

Production (short tons) *** *** ***

Capacity utilization (percent) *** *** ***

Shipments:

 Home market (short tons) *** *** ***

 Exports:1

 United States (short tons) *** *** ***

 Other markets (short tons) *** *** ***

 Total exports (short tons) *** *** ***

 Total shipments (short tons) *** *** ***

 1 Includes tonnage exported under TIB.

Source: Original investigation confidential report (INV-T-044, June 3, 1996), p. VII-3, for 1993-95 data (which were provided by

JSW). 

JFE,106 in its most recent annual report, stated “net sales” for fiscal 2005107 were $1,476 million,

10 percent higher than the previous year.108 JSW stated that “growth in overall sales was the result of a

significant increase in clad steel plate and pipes.”109 JSW’s operating income was reported to have

increased by 67 percent between fiscal 2004 and 2005, and net income increased by 101 percent.110

Nippon111 reported an increase in total net sales of more than 15 percent, reaching $33.3 billion. 

Nippon also reported an increase in net sales within its Nippon Steel Division (“Nippon Steel”) of about 
 112 Fiscal 2006 covers April 1, 2005 through March 31, 2006.

 113 Basic Facts about Nippon Steel 2006, pp. 25-28. Retrieved from

http://www0.nsc.co.jp/shinnihon_english/company_profile/product_sales/index.html on February 1, 2007.

 114 Basic Facts about Nippon Steel 2006, p. 25-26. Retrieved from

http://www0.nsc.co.jp/shinnihon_english/company_profile/product_sales/index.html on February 1, 2007.

 115 Retrieved from http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4790471.html on January 31, 2007.

 116 Retrieved from http://www.sumitomometals.co.jp/e/profile/profile.html on January 31, 2007.

 117 Sumitomo Annual Report 2006, p. 17.

 118 Ibid., p. 17.

 119 Japan export statistics from retrieved from the World Trade Atlas, sourced from “Japan Customs.”

I-24

21 percent, to $22.1 million in fiscal 2006.112 113 Also, Nippon Steel reported that 72 percent of its sales

were to domestic purchasers and 28 percent were exports.114

Nippon is reported to have developed a “better cladding process *** than the present

state-of-the-art in America.”115 This process, a modification of the roll bonding process, was developed

by Nippon Steel Co. It involves an inert atmosphere attained by welding together the substrate plate and

cladding plate into a subassembly in vacuum conditions of an electron beam welder.

Sumitomo,116 established in 1897, “uses an integrated process to manufacture high function

special stainless products such as clad steel sheets and precision rolled strips, and provides them for sale

to customers outside the Sumitomo Metals Group.”117 Sumitomo “produced a total of 13.31 million

metric tons of crude steel in fiscal 2005, ended March 31, 2006. As core products, Sumitomo Metals

supplies a wide variety of high-quality steel sheets, especially for automotive and electrical machinery

applications.”118

Table I-8 presents data on Japan’s exports of clad steel plate during 1996-2005. In 2000, Japan

exported 12,469 short tons of clad steel plate, the vast majority of which were to destinations other than

the United States. Korea accounted for 65.5 percent of the quantity of total Japanese exports of clad steel

plate in 2000. As of 2005, Japan’s exports had increased to 25,203 short tons of clad steel plate, with

Korea accounting for nearly 56.8 percent of the exports. In 2005, Mexico and China were the next largest

markets for Japanese-produced clad steel plate, accounting for 10.3 percent and 9.1 percent of Japan’s

clad steel plate exports.119

Table I-8

Clad steel plate: Japan’s exports, 1996-2005

Item 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Exports:

 United States

Quantity (short tons)

236 220 78 136 139 79 112 249 225 180

 Other markets 13,885 13,695 15,959 14,763 12,330 16,578 25,473 18,517 22,465 25,022

 Total exports 14,122 13,915 16,037 14,899 12,469 16,656 25,585 18,766 22,690 25,203

Source: Compiled from official trade statistics for HTS subheading 7210.90.10, published by the World Trade Atlas (source noted

is “Japan Customs”). 
 120 Clad Steel Plate from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Review), USITC Publication 3459, October 2001,

p. I-17.

 121 Clad Steel Plate from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Review), USITC Publication 3459, October 2001,

p. I-17.

 122 “NKK to Focus on Stainless Plate,” Steel (July 1, 1998), retrieved, on September 6, 2001, at 

http://www.amm.com, NKK Corporation, “NKK Titanium-Clad Steel Plate for Power Plant Condenser Tubes”

January 26, 2001, and American Metal Market, “Australia Plant to Get Titanium-Clad Plate,” March 19, 2001.

 123 World Trade Organization (see www.wto.org).

I-25

During the first review, Bethlehem Lukens stated that “after the 1996 antidumping order was

issued, JSW increased its aggressiveness in combining with Japanese fabricators to concentrate on

‘downstream’ clad pressure vessels not subject to the U.S. order for ultimate shipment to U.S.

customers.”120 Also, Bethlehem Lukens stated that it believed that NKK has increased its manufacturing

capacity to produce clad steel plate since the period reviewed during the original investigation.121 In July

1998, NKK was reported to have indicated that it would be withdrawing from production of hot-rolled

stainless sheet to concentrate on the manufacture of the more profitable stainless steel plate and clad

steels.122

There are no antidumping orders in place, other than in the United States, for clad steel plate

produced in Japan.123

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND THE

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

57996 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 190 / Monday, October 2, 2006 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 07–5–159, 

expiration date June 30, 2008. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 10 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

provided sufficient evidence of 

identifications of leaders or of a 

governing body of the petitioning group 

by authoritative, knowledgeable 

external sources on a substantially 

continuous basis since 1917. The BLB 

petitioner does not meet criterion 

83.7(c), under the provisions of section 

83.8(d)(5), because it has not provided 

a combination of evidence sufficient to 

demonstrate that the petitioning group 

has maintained political influence or 

authority over its members from 1917 to 

the present. From 1917 into the 1970’s, 

the available evidence, with one 

exception, demonstrates political 

activity by Burt Lake band descendants 

within entities much larger than the 

petitioner. This historical pattern 

persists at present. 

The politically active members of the 

BLB are part of the greater Burt Lake 

community, composed predominantly 

of Indian individuals who are not 

members of BLB. Past members of BLB, 

who are now enrolled in a federally 

recognized tribe, influence the 

petitioner’s members on significant 

issues. Authority flows from influential 

family members to their kin. Families, 

however, have members both in BLB 

and in federally recognized tribes, 

primarily LTBB, or not enrolled in any 

Indian tribe or petitioner. Younger, 

peripheral members of BLB consult with 

older relatives who belong to LTBB 

concerning BLB issues, and these older 

relatives, former BLB members, deal 

with leaders of the greater Burt Lake 

community who belong to both 

organizations. The evidence 

demonstrates the existence of influence 

within a group of Burt Lake band 

descendants larger than the current 

membership of the petitioner, rather 

than a bilateral relationship between 

leaders and members within the 

petitioning group. 

Criterion 83.7(d) requires that the 

petitioner provide a copy of the group’s 

present governing document including 

its membership criteria. The BLB 

petitioner submitted a constitution, 

voted on by the members via absentee 

ballots in February 2005, and certified 

as the group’s official governing 

document by a resolution dated April 9, 

2005. The BLB petitioner submitted a 

copy of its current governing document, 

which includes its membership criteria 

and the processes by which it governs 

itself. Therefore, the BLB petitioner 

meets criterion 83.7(d). 

Criterion 83.7(e) requires that the 

petitioner’s membership consist of 

individuals who descend from a 

historical Indian tribe or from historical 

Indian tribes which combined and 

functioned as a single autonomous 

political entity. The BLB submitted a 

membership list dated April 2005, 

identifying 320 members, and including 

all categories of information required by 

section 83.7(e)(2). This represents a 

removal of 624 of the 857 members who 

appeared on the group’s December 2002 

membership list, and an addition of 87 

new members. 

The FD found that 68 percent, or 218 

of the 320 BLB members, could 

satisfactorily document descent from 

the historical band. The 102 members 

who could not document descent from 

the historical tribe included 53 

descendants of two non-Cheboygan 

women, Elizabeth Martell and Charlotte 

Boda, who arrived in the Burt Lake area 

after the October 1900 burnout of the 

Indian village. These women had 

siblings who married into the group, but 

neither the women nor their 

descendants did so. The other 49 

members could not document descent 

from the historical tribe due to missing 

or insufficient evidence of descent. 

Based on precedent, because only 68 

percent of its members descend from the 

historical Cheboygan band, the BLB 

petitioner does not meet the 

requirements of criterion 83.7(e). 

Criterion 83.7(f) requires that the 

membership of the petitioning group be 

composed principally of persons who 

are not members of any acknowledged 

North American Indian tribe. A review 

of the available documentation revealed 

that the membership is composed 

principally of persons who are not 

members of any acknowledged North 

American Indian tribe. The BLB 

petitioner meets criterion 83.7(f). 

Criterion 83.7(g) requires that neither 

the petitioner nor its members be the 

subject of congressional legislation that 

has expressly terminated or forbidden 

the Federal relationship. A review of the 

available documentation showed no 

evidence that the petitioning group was 

the subject of congressional legislation 

to terminate or prohibit a Federal 

relationship as an Indian tribe. The BLB 

petitioner meets the requirements of 

criterion 83.7(g). 

As provided by 25 CFR 83.10(h), a 

report summarizing the evidence, 

reasoning, and analyses that are the 

basis for the final determination will be 

provided to the petitioner and interested 

parties, and is available to other parties 

upon written request. 

After the publication of notice of the 

final determination, the petitioner or 

any interested party may file a request 

for reconsideration with the Interior 

Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) under 

the procedures set forth in section 83.11 

of the regulations. This request must be 

received by the IBIA no later than 90 

days after the publication of the final 

determination in the Federal Register. 

The final determination will become 

effective as provided in the regulations 

90 days from the Federal Register 

publication unless a request for 

reconsideration is filed within that time 

period. 

Dated: September 21, 2006. 

James E. Cason, 

Associate Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E6–16191 Filed 9–29–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–G1–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–739 (Second 

Review)] 

Clad Steel Plate From Japan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on clad steel plate from Japan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on clad steel 

plate from Japan would be likely to lead 

to continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is November 21, 2006. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

December 15, 2006. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 2, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 190 / Monday, October 2, 2006 / Notices 57997 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On July 2, 1996, the 

Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

clad steel plate from Japan (61 FR 

34421). Following five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective November 16, 2001, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

clad steel plate from Japan (66 FR 

57703). The Commission is now 

conducting a second review to 

determine whether revocation of the 

order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to the domestic industry within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. It will 

assess the adequacy of interested party 

responses to this notice of institution to 

determine whether to conduct a full 

review or an expedited review. The 

Commission’s determination in any 

expedited review will be based on the 

facts available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to this review: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year review, as defined 

by the Department of Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in this review 

is Japan. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determination and its expedited fiveyear review determination, the 

Commission defined the Domestic Like 

Product as all clad steel plate 

coextensive with Commerce’s scope of 

the investigation, i.e., all clad steel plate 

of a width of 600mm or more and a 

composite thickness of 4.5mm or more, 

regardless of cladding alloy. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determination 

and its expedited five-year review 

determination, the Commission defined 

the Domestic Industry as producers of 

clad steel plate of a width of 600mm or 

more and a composite thickness of 

4.5mm or more. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the review and public 

service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the review as parties must 

file an entry of appearance with the 

Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the review. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are reminded that they 

are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, 

to seek Commission approval if the 

matter in which they are seeking to 

appear was pending in any manner or 

form during their Commission 

employment. The Commission is 

seeking guidance as to whether a second 

transition five-year review is the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the underlying 

original investigation for purposes of 19 

CFR 201.15 and 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees. Former employees may seek 

informal advice from Commission ethics 

officials with respect to this and the 

related issue of whether the employee’s 

participation was ‘‘personal and 

substantial.’’ However, any informal 

consultation will not relieve former 

employees of the obligation to seek 

approval to appear from the 

Commission under its rule 201.15. For 

ethics advice, contact Carol McCue 

Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, 

at 202–205–3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the review. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification.—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with this 

review must certify that the information 

is accurate and complete to the best of 

the submitter’s knowledge. In making 

the certification, the submitter will be 

deemed to consent, unless otherwise 

specified, for the Commission, its 

employees, and contract personnel to 

use the information provided in any 

other reviews or investigations of the 

same or comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is November 21, 2006. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct an 

expedited or full review. The deadline 

for filing such comments is December 

15, 2006. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of sections 

201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s 

rules and any submissions that contain 

BPI must also conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6 and 

207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The 

Commission’s rules do not authorize 

filing of submissions with the Secretary 

by facsimile or electronic means, except 

to the extent permitted by section 201.8 

of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 

67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, 

in accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1
57998 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 190 / Monday, October 2, 2006 / Notices 

are not a party to the review you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information.—Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determination in the review. 

Information to be provided in 

response to this notice of institution: As 

used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes 

any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in this review by providing information 

requested by the Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in the Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

2000. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2005 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/ 

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/ 

which are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2005 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2005 

(report quantity data in short tons and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country after 2000, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(11) (Optional) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 25, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–16084 Filed 9–29–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1

2554 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 12 / Friday, January 19, 2007 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s web site. 

2Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner 

Deanna Tanner Okun concluded that the domestic 

group response for this review was adequate and 

the respondent group response was inadequate, but 

that circumstances warranted a full review. 

3The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by the domestic interested party Mittal 

Steel USA, Inc., to be individually adequate. 

Comments from other interested parties will not be 

accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

session for a confidential presentation 

by Thai Respondents. Each session will 

be followed by an in camera rebuttal 

presentation by petitioner and questions 

from the Commission relating to the 

BPI. During the in camera session the 

room will be cleared of all persons 

except those who have been granted 

access to BPI under a Commission 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and are included on the Commission’s 

APO service list in this investigation. 

See 19 CFR 201.35(b). The time for the 

parties’ presentations and rebuttals in 

the in camera session will be taken from 

their respective overall allotments for 

the hearing. All persons planning to 

attend the in camera portions of the 

hearing should be prepared to present 

proper identification. 

Authority: The General Counsel has 

certified, pursuant to Commission Rule 

201.39 (19 CFR 201.39) that, in his opinion, 

a portion of the Commission’s hearing in 

Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, Inv. 

Nos. 731–TA–706 (Second Review), may be 

closed to the public to prevent the disclosure 

of BPI. 

Issued: January 16, 2007. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–718 Filed 1–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 731–TA–739 (Second Review)] 

Clad Steel Plate From Japan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited fiveyear review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on clad steel plate from 

Japan. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of an expedited 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty order on clad steel plate from 

Japan would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this review 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Land (202–205–3349), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On January 5, 2007, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic group response to its notice of 

institution (71 FR 57996, October 2, 

2006) of the subject five-year review was 

adequate and that the respondent 

interested party group response was 

inadequate. The Commission did not 

find any other circumstances that would 

warrant conducting a full review.1

Accordingly, the Commission 

determined that it would conduct an 

expedited review pursuant to section 

751(c)(3) of the Act.2

Staff report. A staff report containing 

information concerning the subject 

matter of the review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on February 1, 

2007, and made available to persons on 

the Administrative Protective Order 

service list for this review. A public 

version will be issued thereafter, 

pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,3 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before 

February 6, 2007, and may not contain 

new factual information. Any person 

that is neither a party to the five-year 

review nor an interested party may 

submit a brief written statement (which 

shall not contain any new factual 

information) pertinent to the review by 

February 6, 2007. However, should the 

Department of Commerce extend the 

time limit for its completion of the final 

results of its review, the deadline for 

comments (which may not contain new 

factual information) on Commerce’s 

final results is three business days after 

the issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 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). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the review must be 

served on all other parties to the review 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: January 12, 2007. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–669 Filed 1–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–590] 

In the Matter of Certain Coupler 

Devices For Power Supply Facilities, 

Components Thereof, and Products 

Containing Same; Notice of 

Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

4482 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 31, 2007 / Notices 

1Cladding is the association of layers of metals 

of different colors or natures by molecular 

interpenetration of the surfaces in contact. This 

limited diffusion is characteristic of clad products 

and differentiates them from products metalized in 

other manners (e.g., by normal electroplating). The 

various cladding processes include pouring molten 

cladding metal onto the basic metal followed by 

rolling; simple hot-rolling of the cladding metal to 

ensure efficient welding to the basic metal; any 

Dated: January 24, 2007. 

Joe Meade, 

Chugach National Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 07–407 Filed 1–30–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Economics and Statistics 

Administration 

Measuring Innovation in the 21st 

Century Economy Advisory 

Committee; Notice of Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Economics and Statistics 

Administration, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(DOC) is announcing the first meeting of 

the Measuring Innovation in the 21st 

Century Economy Advisory Committee. 

The meeting is open to the public. 

Seating at the meeting will be on a firstcome, first-served basis. Interested 

parties may register on the Advisory 

Committee Web site: http:// 

www.innovationmetrics.gov. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Thursday, February 22, 2007, from 

approximately 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. On-site 

sign-in begins at noon. Pre-registration 

is encouraged but not required. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in 

the Vista Ballroom at The Wyndham 

Washington Hotel, 1400 M Street, NW., 

Washington DC. The Wyndham 

telephone number is 202–429–1700. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth E.R. Anderson, Deputy Under 

Secretary for Economic Affairs, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230: facsimile: 202–482–0432 or 

Jacque Mason, ESA Communications 

and Advisory Committee Liaison, Room 

4855, telephone: 202–482–5641, or 

online: http:// 

www.innovationmetrics.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 

U.S.C. App. 2, and the General Services 

Administration rule on Federal 

Advisory Committee Management, 41 

CFR part 101–6, the Secretary of 

Commerce determined that the 

establishment of the Measuring 

Innovation in the 21st Century Economy 

Advisory Committee (the ‘‘Committee’’) 

was in the public interest in connection 

with the performance of duties imposed 

on the Department by law. 

The Committee will advise the 

Secretary on new or improved measures 

of innovation in the economy that will 

help explain how innovation occurs in 

different sectors of the economy, how it 

is diffused across the economy, and how 

it impacts economic growth and 

productivity. 

The Committee consists of fifteen 

members appointed by the Secretary of 

Commerce and is composed of 

individuals from business and 

academia. The Committee will function 

solely as an advisory body, in 

compliance with the provisions of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act. The 

Charter was filed under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act. 

The meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Individuals 

requiring special accommodations at 

this meeting including sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should contact Jacque Mason at the 

address listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT at least 5 business 

days prior to the meeting so that 

appropriate arrangements can be made. 

The meeting will be videotaped and 

made public on the Committee Web site 

within one month after the meeting 

date. 

Elizabeth ‘‘E.R.’’ Anderson, 

Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 07–427 Filed 1–30–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–BS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–588–838] 

Clad Steel Plate from Japan; Final 

Results of the Expedited Sunset 

Review (Second Review) of the 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 2, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated the second sunset 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on clad steel plate from Japan pursuant 

to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). On the 

basis of a notice of intent to participate 

and a complete substantive response 

filed on behalf of the domestic 

interested parties, and no response from 

respondent interested parties, the 

Department conducted an expedited 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). 

As a result of this sunset review, the 

Department finds that revocation of the 

order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the levels indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nichole Zink or Brandon Farlander, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0049 and (202) 

482–0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 2, 2006, the Department 

of Commerce initiated a sunset review 

of the antidumping duty order on clad 

steel plate from Japan pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation 

of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews, 71 FR 

57921 (October 2, 2006) (Notice of 

Initiation). The Department received a 

notice of intent to participate from the 

domestic parties, Mittal Steel USA 

(Mittal Steel) and United Steel, Paper 

and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union, AFL–CIOCLC (USW), within the deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 

Mittal Steel claims interested party 

status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act 

as a domestic manufacturer of clad steel 

plate. USW claims interested party 

status under section 771(9)(D) of the Act 

as a certified union or recognized union 

group of workers which is 

representative of an industry engaged in 

the manufacture, production, or 

wholesale in the United States of clad 

steel products. 

The Department received a complete 

substantive response from Mittal Steel 

within the 30-day deadline specified in 

19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not 

receive a substantive response from 

respondent interested parties in this 

proceeding. As a result, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(iii)(C), the 

Department determined that it was 

appropriate to conduct an expedited 

120-day sunset review of this 

antidumping duty order. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order is all clad1

steel plate of a width of 600 millimeters 

mstockstill on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 31, 2007 / Notices 4483 

other method of deposition of superimposing of the 

cladding metal followed by any mechanical or 

thermal process to ensure welding (e.g., 

electrocladding), in which the cladding metal 

(nickel, chromium, etc.) is applied to the basic 

metal by electroplating, molecular interpenetration 

of the surfaces in contact then being obtained by 

heat treatment at the appropriate temperature with 

subsequent cold rolling. See Harmonized 

Commodity Description and Coding System 

Explanatory Notes, Chapter 72, General Note (IV) 

(C) (2) (e). 

(mm) or more and a composite thickness 

of 4.5 mm or more. Clad steel plate is 

a rectangular finished steel mill product 

consisting of a layer of cladding material 

(usually stainless steel or nickel) which 

is metallurgically bonded to a base or 

backing of ferrous metal (usually carbon 

or low alloy steel) where the latter 

predominates by weight. 

Stainless clad steel plate is 

manufactured to American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) 

specifications A263 (400 series stainless 

types) and A264 (300 series stainless 

types). Nickel and nickel–base alloy 

clad steel plate is manufactured to 

ASTM specification A265. These 

specifications are illustrative but not 

necessarily all–inclusive. 

Clad steel plate within the scope of 

this order is classifiable under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) 7210.90.10.00. 

Although the HTSUS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

scope of this order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of 

the Expedited Second Sunset Review of 

the Antidumping Duty Order on Clad 

Steel Plate from Japan’’ (Decision 

Memo) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. The issues 

discussed in the Decision Memo include 

the likelihood of continuation or 

recurrence of dumping and the 

magnitude of the margins likely to 

prevail if the order were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this review and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum, which is on 

file in room B–099 of the main 

Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic versions 

of the Decision Memo are identical in 

content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on clad steel plate from Japan 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping at the rates 

listed below: 

Producers/Exporters Margin 

(percent) 

The Japan Steel Company ......... 118.53 

All Others .................................... 118.53 

Notification regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: January 25, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–1571 Filed 1–30–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–809] 

Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges 

From India; Preliminary Results of New 

Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting a new 

shipper review of the antidumping duty 

order on certain forged stainless steel 

flanges (stainless steel flanges) from 

India manufactured by Kunj Forgings 

(Kunj). The period of review (POR) 

covers February 1, 2005, through 

January 31, 2006. We preliminarily 

determine that Kunj made sales of 

subject merchandise at less than normal 

value (NV) in the United States during 

the POR. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results of this new 

shipper review, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

assess antidumping duties on entries of 

the subject merchandise for which the 

importer–specific assessment rates are 

above de minimis. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Parties who submit argument in these 

proceedings are requested to submit 

with the argument 1) a statement of the 

issues; 2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and 3) a table of authorities 

cited. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, 

telephone (202) 482–2924 or (202) 482–

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 9, 1994, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel flanges from India. See 

Amended Final Determination and 

Antidumping Duty Order; Certain 

Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from 

India, 59 FR 5994 (February 9, 1994). 

On February 28, 2006, we received 

requests for new shipper reviews from 

Kunj Forgings Pvt. Ltd. (Kunj), Micro 

Forge (India) Ltd. (Micro), Pradeep 

Metals Limited (Pradeep), and Rollwell 

Forge, Ltd. (Rollwell) for the period 

February 1, 2005, through January 31, 

2006. We initiated the reviews on April 

6, 2006. See Stainless Steel Flanges from 

India: Notice of Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Reviews 71 FR 17439 (April 6, 2006). On 

September 29, 2006, we rescinded the 

reviews with respect to Micro, Pradeep, 

and Rollwell. See Certain Forged 

Stainless Steel Flanges from India: 

Notice of Partial Rescission of New 

Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 27468 

(September 29, 2006). 

On October 3, 2006, we extended the 

time limit for the preliminary results of 

this new shipper review to no later than 

January 25, 2007. See Stainless Steel 

Flanges From India: Notice of Extension 

of Time Limit for the Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review, 71 FR 58372 (October 

3, 2006). 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain forged stainless steel flanges, 

both finished and not finished, 

generally manufactured to specification 

ASTM A–182, and made in alloys such 

mstockstill on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES

1

Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna T. Okun voted to conduct a full

review. 

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Clad Steel Plate From Japan

 Inv. No. 731-TA-739 (Second Review)

On January 5, 2007, the Commission determined that it should proceed to an expedited

review in the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B).1

The Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to the

notice of institution was adequate. The Commission received one response to the notice of

institution from domestic producer Mittal Steel USA, Inc. (“Mittal”). Because Mittal

represented the majority of domestic production in 2005, the Commission determined that the

domestic interested party group response was adequate. 

 

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested party, and

therefore determined that the respondent interested party group response to the notice of

institution was inadequate. In the absence of an adequate respondent interested party group

response, or any other circumstances that warranted a full review, the Commission determined to

conduct an expedited review. A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office

of the Secretary and the Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov).