Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod

From Trinidad and Tobago

Investigation No. 731-TA-961(Final) (Remand)

Publication 3903 January 2007
U.S. International Trade Commission

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

COMMISSIONERS

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

Jennifer A. Hillman

Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman

Daniel R. Pearson, Chairman

Stephen Koplan

Deanna Tanner Okun

Charlotte R. Lane

Staff assigned

Mary Messer, Investigator

Jeremy Wise, Investigator

Gabriel Ellenberger, Investigator

Harry Lenchitz, Industry Analyst

Jonathan Engler, Attorney

Geaorge Deyman, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

January 2007

www.usitc.gov

Publication 3903

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod

From Trinidad and Tobago

Investigation No. 731-TA-961(Final) (Remand)
 
 1

 Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, Inv. No. 731-TA-961 (Final), USITC

Pub. 3546 (Oct. 2002). Chairman Okun issued Dissenting Views, in which she found that a domestic industry was

neither materially injured nor threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from Trinidad and

Tobago. Id. at 39-47.

 2 Caribbean Ispat v. United States, 366 F.Supp. 2d 1300 (Ct Int’l Trade 2005).

 3 Caribbean Ispat v. United States, 450 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

 4 Caribbean Ispat v. United States, Slip Op. 06-151 (Ct. Int’l Trade, Oct. 13, 2006).

 5

 Chairman Pearson did not participate in this remand determination. Commissioner Okun does not join these

Views, but continues to find that a domestic industry is neither materially injured nor threatened with material injury

by reason of subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago for the reasons set forth in her original Dissenting Views. 

As discussed in their Separate and Dissenting Views, Commissioners Koplan and Lane reach an affirmative

determination on remand.

In October 2002, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”)

determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of

carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago that were found by the

Department of Commerce to be sold at less than fair value (“LTFV”).1 On March 22, 2005, the

Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued a decision affirming the Commission’s material

injury determination, finding that it was based on substantial evidence and in accordance with

law.2

 Caribbean Ispat appealed the CIT’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). On May 4, 2006, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the

CIT’s decision, finding that the holding in Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d

1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2006) required the Commission in the present case “to make a specific

causation determination and in that connection to directly address whether [other LTFV imports

and/or fairly traded imports] would have replaced [Trinidad and Tobago’s] imports without any

beneficial effect on domestic producers.”3

 Following the Federal Circuit’s instructions, the CIT,

on October 13, 2006, remanded the case to the Commission.4 On remand, the Commission

determines that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with

material injury by reason of certain wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago sold at LTFV.5
 
i

CONTENTS

Page

Views of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Separate and Dissenting Views of Commissioners Stephen Koplan and Charlotte R. Lane . . . . . . . 25

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

U.S. Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Nonsubject countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-24

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-28

Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-30

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-32

Korea (South) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-34

Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-36

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-38

United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-40

Appendixes

A. The Court of International Trade’s remand order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Federal Register notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

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

and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.
 
 1

 Chairman Daniel R. Pearson did not participate in this remand determination.

 2 Commissioners Stephen Koplan and Charlotte R. Lane dissent, but join in Sections I, II and III of these remand

views. As further set forth in their Separate and Dissenting Views, they find that an industry in the United States is

materially injured by reason of subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago. 

 3

 Commissioner Okun does not join these views as she found, and continues to find, that a domestic industry is

neither materially injured nor threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from Trinidad and

Tobago. In the original determination Commissioner Okun did not find significant volume or price effects from

subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago, and concluded that the domestic industry was not materially injured by

reason of such imports. See Dissenting Views of Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun, Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel

Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, Inv. No. 731-TA-961 (Final), USITC Pub. 3546 (Oct. 2002). Her analysis

included evaluating both non-subject imports and LTFV imports from the other subject countries in a manner

consistent, in her view, with the Federal Circuit’s articulation of the causation standard in Gerald Metals, Inc. v.

United States, 132 F.3d 716 (Fed. Circ. 1997) and Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. United States, 59 F.

Supp.2d (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999). As her views are not the subject of this remand, she does not find it appropriate to

opine on the application of the Bratsk analysis.

 4 Caribbean Ispat v. United States, 366 F.Supp. 2d 1300 (Ct Int’l Trade 2005).

1

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION1

On October 13, 2006, the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) remanded the Commission’s

determination in Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, Inv. No.

731-TA-961 (Final), USITC Pub. 3546 (Oct. 2002), for compliance with the Federal Circuit’s decision in

Caribbean Ispat Limited v. United States, 430 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Upon consideration of the

court’s remand instructions, we determine, in light of the holding of the Federal Circuit in Bratsk

Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed.Cir. 2006), that an industry in the United

States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of certain wire rod

from Trinidad and Tobago that is sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”).2

I. BACKGROUND

In October 2002, the Commission issued its final determinations in Carbon and Certain Alloy

Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago,

Turkey, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-417-421 and 731-TA-953, 954, 956-959, 961, and 962, USITC

Pub. 3546 (Oct. 2002). In accordance with the requirements of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery

Act (“CBERA”)(19 U.S.C. 1677(7)(G)(ii)(III)), the Commission made a separate material injury

determination with respect to carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (“wire rod”) from Trinidad and

Tobago, and determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of subject

imports from Trinidad and Tobago.3

 The Commission also determined that a domestic industry was

materially injured by reason of the subject imports from six other subject countries, cumulated with one

another and with the imports from Trinidad and Tobago.

Respondent Caribbean Ispat Ltd. (“Caribbean Ispat”), now known as Mittal Steel Point Lisas

Limited, appealed the Commission’s determination to the CIT. On March 22, 2005, the CIT issued a

decision affirming the Commission’s material injury determination, finding that it was based on

substantial evidence and in accordance with law.4

 Caribbean Ispat appealed the CIT’s decision to the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). On May 4, 2006, the Federal Circuit

vacated and remanded the CIT’s decision, finding that its holding in Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United

States, 444 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed.Cir. 2006) required the Commission in the present case “to make a

specific causation determination and in that connection to directly address whether [other LTFV imports
 5 Caribbean Ispat v. United States, 450 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2006), quoting Bratsk, 444 F.3d at 1375. The

Court also reversed the Commission and the CIT by holding that the Commission must take into account other

imports subject to investigation when assessing causation with respect to Trinidad and Tobago. 

 6 Caribbean Ispat, 450 F.3d at 1341, quoting Bratsk, 444 F.3d at 1373.

 7 Caribbean Ispat v. United States, Slip Op. 06-151 (Ct. Int’l Trade, Oct. 13, 2006) (“CIT Remand Order”) at 1,

quoting Caribbean Ispat, 450 F.3d at 1341 and Bratsk 444 F.3d at 1375. 

 8

 See 71 Fed.Reg. 74,558 (Dec. 12, 2006).

 9

 Motion for Extension of Time, Docket. No. 45, filed Dec. 4, 2006, at pp. 1-2. The Commission’s delay in

requesting an extension of time following the CIT’s remand order was due to two factors. First, following issuance

of the CIT’s remand order in this case and in Bratsk, the Commission entered into interagency consultations with the

Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of State as to

the potential impact of the remands on their respective agency resources. Second, the Commission delayed the

dissemination of questionnaires in this case pending final disposition of the agency’s motion for a stay of the remand

order in this case, which it had requested pending final disposition of the Commission’s petition for certiorari in

Bratsk. The Commission delayed the dissemination of the questionnaires in order to prevent placing an unnecessary

burden on the intended recipients of the questionnaires, the need for whose responses could have been postponed or

obviated depending upon the disposition of the Commission’s stay motion or the certiorari petition in Bratsk.

Immediately after the CIT denied the Commission’s motion for a stay in this case, the Commission filed its motion

to enlarge the period for its remand determination. 

2

and/or fairly traded imports] would have replaced [Trinidad and Tobago’s] imports without any beneficial

effect on domestic producers.”5

 In so finding, the Federal Circuit in Caribbean Ispat explained that, in

Bratsk, it had addressed the statutory “by reason of” standard and explained that:

[w]here commodity products are at issue and fairly traded, price competitive, non-subject

imports are in the market, the Commission must explain why the elimination of subject

imports would benefit the domestic industry instead of resulting in the non-subject

imports’ replacement of the subject imports’ market share without any beneficial impact

on the domestic producers.6

Following the Federal Circuit’s instructions, the CIT on October 13, 2006 remanded the case and

ordered the Commission to:

make a specific causation determination and in that connection . . . directly address

whether [other LTFV imports and/or fairly traded imports] would have replaced

[Trinidad and Tobago’s] imports without any beneficial effect on domestic producers.7

The CIT gave the Commission until January 12, 2007 to file its remand determination. The

Commission then, after consideration of the best course it could take to assure full compliance with the

remand instructions,8

 moved the CIT for an additional 60 days in which to conduct its remand

determination, to allow the Commission to send questionnaires to non-subject foreign producers and U.S.

importers of non-subject products concerning factors such as the foreign producers’ capacity to produce

steel wire rod during the period of investigation, the commodity nature and interchangeability of

categories of the non-subject and subject merchandise for purposes of the Bratsk analysis, and pricing

information for sales of steel wire rod in the U.S. market.9

 Caribbean Ispat opposed the Commission’s

motion for additional time. Upon consideration of the Commission’s request and Caribbean Ispat’s

opposition, the CIT, on December 12, 2006, denied the Commission’s request. Consequently, the

Commission was precluded by lack of time from collecting the necessary additional data from foreign
 10 Some of the non-subject imports were subject to investigation but were found negligible in either the

preliminary or final investigations (or, in the case of Turkey, terminated from the final investigation due to the

Department of Commerce’s negative determination). We therefore have additional data for these countries (Egypt,

Germany, South Africa, Turkey, and Venezuela), in comparison with other non-subject countries for which we do

not have full data.

 11 As discussed in their Separate and Dissenting Views, Commissioners Koplan and Lane reach an affirmative

determination, finding that the first triggering factor for the Bratsk “replacement/benefits” analysis is not present in

this remand determination. Therefore, they dissent from any further analysis of Bratsk in this remand determination.

 12 Vice Chairman Shara L. Aranoff and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane were not members of the Commission at

the time of the original determination. For purposes of this remand determination, they adopt all findings from the

original determination, as elaborated upon or incorporated in this remand determination. Commissioner Koplan was

a member of the Commission at the time of the original determination and readopts his findings here.

 13 For purposes of our analysis, and in accordance with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Caribbean Ispat and the

CIT’s remand order, we have treated all non-Trinidadian imports as non-subject imports. We at times separately

discuss non-Trinidadian subject imports from Brazil, Canada (excluding Stelco), Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, and

Ukraine, and non-subject imports. 

3

producers and U.S. importers that would likely have been relevant to the additional analysis sought by the

Federal Circuit in Bratsk. The Commission’s determination in this case is therefore based on data in the

record of the original investigation, which were not collected with the additional analysis now mandated

by the Federal Circuit in Bratsk in mind, as well as on limited additional public information placed on the

record of this remand proceeding by the Commission’s Office of Investigations.10

After considering the record as a whole in light of the Court’s remand instructions, and taking

into account the additional analysis required by Bratsk, we determine that an industry in the United States

is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of certain wire rod from Trinidad

and Tobago sold at LTFV. Vice Chairman Aranoff and Commissioner Hillman have arrived at this

negative determination solely as a consequence of our application of the additional “replacement/benefit”

analysis set forth by the Federal Circuit in Caribbean Ispat and Bratsk. Had the Commission applied

only what we believe to be the proper standard for “material injury by reason of subject imports,” as

discussed in greater detail below, we would have arrived at an affirmative determination.11

The Court did not remand the Commission’s findings, analysis, and conclusions with respect to

the domestic like product and domestic industry definitions, negligibility, cumulation, and conditions of

competition. We therefore adopt and incorporate those sections of our Original Views in their entirety.12

We further adopt our legal framework, findings, analysis, and conclusions from the Original Views with

respect to volume, price effects, and impact of the subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago, as

elaborated upon below in order to fully elucidate that we have taken the subject non-CBERA imports, as

well as non-subject imports, into account in our examination of whether the domestic industry is

materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports from Trinidad and

Tobago.13
 14 The enumerated factors are: actual and potential decline in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity,

return on investments, and utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic prices; actual and potential negative

effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; actual and

potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including

efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product, and, in an antidumping

investigation, the magnitude of the dumping margin. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii)(I)-(V). 

 15 See, e.g. Vector Supercomputers From Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-750 (Remand), USITC Pub. 3166 (May, 1999)

at 5, 8 (The “by reason of” test requires more than a de minimis (i.e., minimal or tangential) contribution to material

injury or threat thereof . . . it is appropriate to consider significant, non-subject import economic factors that also

may contribute to material injury or threat of material injury. “[I]n our view, we are not required to determine that

subject imports contribute as much or more than any other economic factors. Rather, we understand the Court's

opinion and the other legislative and judicial authority . . . to mean that the Commission may not analyze subject

imports in a vacuum. Instead, we fully consider other significant economic factors in determining that subject

imports themselves contribute in a more than de minimis way to material injury or threat”); Tin and ChromiumCoated Steel Sheet From Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-860 (Final)(Second Remand) USITC Pub. 3674 (February, 2004)

at 61 (under the statutory standard, the issue in an antidumping or countervailing duty proceeding “is not whether the

subject imports are a cause of injury that is more important than, or even equal to any effect of nonsubject imports,

but rather whether the subject imports have caused more than a minimal or tangential amount of injury”); Stainless

Steel Bar From France, Germany, Italy, Korea and the United Kingdom, Inv. No. 701-TA-413 (Final) and Inv. Nos.

731-TA-913-916 and 918, USITC Pub. 3488 at 21, nn.102 and 103 (the statute does not require the Commission to

“subtract out” the injurious effects of other causes, such as nonsubject imports); Softwood Lumber From Canada,

Inv. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928 (Final), USITC Pub. 3509 (May 2002) at 31, n.195 (the statute does not

require the Commission to separate and distinguish the injurious effects of the other factors from the injurious effects

4

II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR CAUSATION

In antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, Congress has charged the Commission to

determine whether a domestic industry is materially injured. The statute defines “material injury” as

“harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A). 

In certain respects, the statute provides the Commission with specific and detailed direction. 

Thus, the statute requires the Commission to consider the volume, price effects, and impact of the subject

imports. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). Specifically, it requires the Commission to consider “whether the

volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative

to production or consumption in the United States, is significant.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i). The statute

also directs the Commission to consider whether there is underselling by the subject imports, and whether

the subject imports depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise

would have occurred, to a significant degree. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii). The ITC is also required, in

examining impact, to evaluate “all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the

industry in the United States,” including, but not limited to, certain enumerated factors14 and to evaluate

all such relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition

that are distinctive to the affected industry.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 

The statute does not define the term “by reason of,” indicating that this aspect of the injury

analysis is left to the Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion. The Commission, in

administering the statute, has interpreted this language in a manner that is concordant with the statutory

purpose.

Although the statute does not define “by reason of,” there are several situations in which this

causation standard would not be satisfied. First, the Commission may not arrive at affirmative material

injury determinations in cases where subject imports were a minimal or tangential cause of material injury

to the domestic industry. 15 Alternately, if the Commission finds that there are other causes that fully
of dumped imports); Softwood Lumber From Canada, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928 (Remand), USITC

Pub. 3658 (December 2003) at 100, nn.290 & 291 (Commission is required to consider other causal factors only to

ensure that it is not attributing the injury from other sources to subject imports).

 16 See, e.g., Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722; Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

 17 Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA.”) on Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 103d Cong., H.R. Doc. 103-

316, Vol. I at 851-52 (1994) By law, the SAA is “an authoritative expression by the United States concerning the

interpretation and application of the Uruguay Round Agreements and this Act in any judicial proceeding in which a

question arises concerning such interpretation or application.” 19 USC § 3512(d).

 18 Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F. 3d 1345, 1358-1359 (Fed. Cir. 2006) at 9-10 (explaining the

meaning of the substantial evidence standard of review, noting that the issue is merely whether the Commission’s

determination was reasonable, not whether the court would itself have made the same decision).

 19 Id. at 21-22.

 20 See Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. United States, 59 F. Supp.2d 1324, 1328 n.7 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999)

(Commission need not weigh causes and need not use a single method of causation analysis or articulate a causation

standard); United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d 1352, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (neither the “one-step”

(unitary) nor “two-step” (bifurcated) analysis is mandated by the statute; Commissioners may use either).

 21 See SAA at 851-52, 885.

 22 H.R. Rep. No. 317, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. at 47 (1979); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. ITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1381

(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[D]umping need not be the sole or principal cause of injury.”)

5

explain the injury suffered by the domestic industry, or that these other causes render the impact of the

subject imports minimal or tangential, the causation standard is not satisfied.16 In addition, the legislative

history explains that the Commission must examine factors other than subject imports to ensure that it is

not attributing injury from these sources to the subject imports, but does not require the Commission to

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports.17 Rather, we examine the

record to determine whether the subject imports themselves have been a cause of material injury to the

domestic industry, so that we do not attribute to subject imports injury caused by other factors. 

The Commission ensures that it has taken into account the impact of the multiple possible causes

of material injury to the domestic industry, including other imports, by setting forth the facts as they relate

to the significance of the volume and price effects of the subject and non-subject imports, and the impact

of those imports on the condition of the domestic industry. These factual findings must, of course, be

supported by substantial evidence.18 But the factual determination of whether the impact of the subject

imports constitutes a more than minimal or tangential cause of material injury to the domestic industry is

the question which Congress delegated to the Commission, the agency that Congress established to apply

its institutional expertise to the issue of material injury.19

The Commission is not required to weigh different material causes of injury to the domestic

industry.20 The statutory scheme clearly contemplates that an industry may be facing difficulties from a

variety of sources, including non-subject imports and other factors, but that the existence of injury caused

by other factors does not compel a negative determination if the subject imports themselves are a cause of

material injury.21 The legislative history further clarifies that dumped imports need not be the “principal”

cause of material injury and that the “by reason of” causation standard does not contemplate that injury

from dumped imports be weighed against other factors, such as imports from other countries not under

investigation (“non-subject imports”), which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry: “Any

such requirement has the undesirable result of making relief more difficult to obtain for those industries

facing difficulties from a variety of sources, precisely those industries that are most vulnerable to

subsidized or dumped imports.”22
 23 Angus Chemical, 140 F.3d 1478 (“[T]he statute does not ‘compel the commissioners’ to employ [a particular

methodology] . . . [however] regardless of what approach is used, whether it be the two-step or unitary approach or

some other approach, the three mandatory factors must be considered in each case”), aff’g 944 F. Supp. 943, 951

(Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). See also Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. United States, 59 F. Supp.943, 951 (Ct.

Int’l Trade 1999) (Commission need not weigh causes and need not use a single method of causation analysis or

articulate a common causation standard).

 24 See Nucor, 414 F.3d 1331; Altx, Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2004); See also, Nippon Steel

Corp. v. United States, 458 F. 3d 1345, 1358-1359 (Fed. Cir. 2006) at 21-22; Angus Chemical, 140 F.3d 1478

(“[T]he statute does not ‘compel the commissioners’ to employ [a particular methodology] . . . [however] regardless

of what approach is used, whether it be the two-step or unitary approach or some other approach, the three

mandatory factors must be considered in each case”), aff’g 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Taiwan

Semiconductor, 59 F. Supp.2d 1324, 1328 n.7 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999) (Commission need not weigh causes and need

not use a single method of causation analysis or articulate a causation standard); Gerald Metals v. United States, 132

F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting prior Federal Circuit precedent did not endorse any specific methodology).

 25 Nucor, 414 F.3d at 1336, 1341.

 26 Confidential Remand Report (“Remand CR”) and Public Remand Report (“Remand PR”) at Table C-1.

 27 Similar to our material injury analysis with respect to the other subject countries, due to the pendency of this

investigation, we have reduced the weight accorded to interim 2002 data for purposes of our present material injury

determinations regarding Trinidad and Tobago. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I). We note, however, that the volume of

subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago was significantly higher in interim (January-March) 2002, 89,857 short

tons, than in interim 2001, 60,992 short tons. Memorandum INV-Z-162, Table C-2a.

 28 Memorandum INV-Z-162, Table C-2a.

6

The statute does not prescribe a specific approach that the Commission must take with respect to

addressing the question of causation, other than that its analysis must consider the three mandatory

statutory factors of volume, price and impact on the domestic industry of the subject imports.23 The

Commission has broad discretion to apply its expertise to the question of whether subject imports were

more than a minimal or tangential cause of material injury to the domestic industry. As the Federal

Circuit has consistently found, “even where ‘ample evidence existed on both sides . . . on the question of

causation’ or where a mixed record ‘does not illuminate a black-and-white answer to a disputed issue,’

the Commission’s expert judgment must be respected.”24 Indeed, the Federal Circuit has examined and

affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid adherence to a specific formula.”25

Accordingly, the question whether one out of several possible causes of injury exceeds the de minimis

threshold and is an independent cause of material injury to the domestic industry is left to the expertise of

the Commission, subject to review under the substantial evidence standard. 

III. MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS FROM TRINIDAD AND

TOBAGO

A. Volume of Subject Imports

Throughout the period of investigation, Trinidad and Tobago was the second or third largest

source, measured by volume, of subject wire rod imports into the U.S. market.26 The volume and market

share of subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago increased from 1999 to 2001, even though total

apparent consumption was declining.27 The volume of subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago

increased from 341,815 short tons in 1999 to 355,089 short tons in 2001, after declining to 287,507 short

tons in 2000.28 The share of the volume of the U.S. market held by subject imports from Trinidad and

Tobago increased from *** percent in 1999 to *** percent in 2001, after decreasing to *** percent in
 29 Memorandum INV-Z-162, Table C-2a. Although we give less weight to the interim data due to the pendency

of the investigation, we note that the market share was *** percent in interim 2001 and *** percent in interim 2002. 

 30 The ratio of subject import volume from Trinidad and Tobago to domestic production increased irregularly

from *** percent in 1999 to *** percent in 2000 and *** percent in 2001. It was *** percent in interim 2001 and

*** percent in interim 2002. Calculated from Memorandum INV-Z-162, Table C-2a and Memorandum INV-EE002 at Tables C-1b and C-2b. 

 31 It is well-established that the Commission has broad discretion in evaluating the significance of import

volumes. See Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161, 1172-73 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992) (noting the statute

does not specify how volume is to be evaluated and Commission discretion in investigative methodology). 

 32 The volume of all non-Trinidadian imports increased slightly, by 25,674 short tons. The volume of nonsubject imports increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2001, while the volume of nonTrinidadian subject imports remained relatively stable, increasing slightly from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short

tons in 2001. In contrast, the volume of subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago increased by 67,582 short tons,

from 287,507 short tons in 2000 to 355,089 short tons in 2001, an increase of 23.5 percent. Memorandum INV-EE002 at Table C-1b. 

We have placed greatest weight on the last two years of the POI consistent with that period being the more

recent. Additionally, this is the period during which apparent consumption in the United States declined and the

domestic industry began to experience a significant decline in trade and financial indicators. Consequently, it is only

logical to look to this period to assess whether there is a causal connection between injury and the subject imports or

some other factor. 

 33 Memorandum INV-EE-002 at Table C-1b. 

 34 Memorandum INV-EE-002 at Table C-1b. 

 35 Memorandum INV-EE-002 at Table C-1b. 

 36 Memorandum INV-EE-002 at Table C-1b. 

7

2000.29 As a percentage of total domestic producers’ shipments of steel wire rod, the volume of subject

imports from Trinidad and Tobago increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2001.30 These

facts alone are sufficient to find the volume of subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago, and the

increase in that volume, to be significant.31

Moreover, the record establishes that, while the total volume of imports from Trinidad and

Tobago was smaller in absolute terms than that of either the cumulated non-Trinidadian subject imports

or the non-subject imports, imports from Trinidad and Tobago increased at a greater rate than the other

imports.32 With respect to both countries focused on lower-priced industrial-grade wire rod, the

relationship between relatively low prices and volume trends was mixed, with exports from some nonTrinidadian subject sources of relatively low-priced wire rod, such as Indonesia, Moldova, and Ukraine,

dropping significantly from 2000 to 2001, when the import volumes of relatively more expensive subject

imports from Trinidad and Tobago surged.33 Similarly, import volumes from some relatively low-priced

non-subject countries such as Egypt and Venezuela also dropped from 2000 to 2001, despite reported unit

values that were relatively lower than those from Trinidad and Tobago.34 From 2000 to 2001, the period

in which we find that the domestic industry was injured most acutely, the overall import volumes of nonTrinidadian subject imports and non-subject imports were relatively stable.35 It was during this key

period for the domestic industry, however, that import volumes from Trinidad increased very

substantially.36

Unlike shipments from other large import sources such as Canada and Germany, which were

typically more concentrated in higher-value steel wire rod, the subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago

were concentrated in the industrial standard-grade wire rod where most domestic production was
 37 Original CR/PR at Tables D-1 and D-2. For the U.S. industry, *** wire rod accounted for *** percent of

reported shipments in 2001, while for Trinidad and Tobago, this category accounted for *** percent of total reported

U.S. shipments of the subject imports, *** percent for Canada, and *** percent for Germany. Thus, most countries

provide a full range of steel wire rod, but concentrations vary.

 38 Memorandum INV-EE-002 at Table C-2b.

 39 Original CR/PR at Tables D-1 and D-2. This category’s share of U.S. shipments of imports from Trinidad and

Tobago was *** percent in interim 2001 and *** percent in interim 2002. Id. 

 40 We note that the other significant category of wire rod imports from Trinidad and Tobago, which comprised

*** percent of its U.S. shipments in 2001, is the *** wire rod category, which is also supplied by many domestic and

import suppliers. Original CR/PR at Tables D-1 and D-2.

 41 Original CR/PR, calculated from Table V-10. Original CR at V-30; Original PR at V-12. For the periods

examined (including interim 2002), there was underselling in 69.2 percent of all quarterly comparisons. 

 42 Original CR/PR at Tables V-3-V-4. 

 43 Original CR/PR at Table II-11. 

8

concentrated.37 We find that the concentration of imports from Trinidad and Tobago of wire rod in this

portion of the market contributes to the significance of the volume of these subject imports, given their

direct competition with the domestic like product as overall U.S. shipments decreased sharply from 2000

to 2001 and domestic producers lost market share. 38

For all these reasons, we find that the volume of subject imports, both absolutely and as a

percentage of domestic production and consumption in the United States, is significant. 

B. Price Effects of Subject Imports

Subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago are concentrated in the *** wire rod category,

products which are relatively unspecialized and sold largely on the basis of price. These products, which

constituted approximately *** percent of all U.S. shipments of subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago

from 1999 to 2001, are sold by many suppliers.39 The market for these products is very price sensitive.40

Subject imports from Trinidad are highly substitutable with the domestic product in that category, which

accentuates the price competition between subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago and the domestic

product. 

Subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago undersold comparable U.S. products in 70.8 percent

of quarterly comparisons from 1999 to 2001.41 For Products 1 and 2, both of which were grades of

industrial quality wire rod, subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago undersold the domestic industry in

22 out of 26 price comparisons (84.6 percent) by margins that ranged up to 11.0 percent.42 Price

comparisons between imports from Trinidad and Tobago and the domestic product for Products 1 and 2

represent the greatest quantity of merchandise for which the Commission obtained pricing data. In

addition, eight purchasers rated the U.S. product inferior (higher) in price to subject imports from

Trinidad and Tobago, and only one purchaser ranked the domestic product superior (lower) in price to

subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago.43 In light of the importance of price in purchasing decisions,

and the significant and increasing volume of subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago from 1999 to

2001, we find the underselling indicated by the pricing data, and corroborated by the other information in

the record, to be significant. 

The Commission also finds that the domestic industry suffered from a significant cost-price

squeeze during the period of investigation. The domestic industry’s cost of goods sold (“COGS”) as a

share of net sales steadily increased from *** percent in 1999 to *** percent in 2000 and to *** percent
 44 Memorandum INV-Z-162, Table C-2a.

 45 Memorandum INV-Z-162, Table C-2a.

 46 Original CR/PR at Table VI-3. 

 47 Original CR/PR at Table VI-5 (original cost of productive facilities for U.S. producers valued at $*** in 2001).

 48 Original CR/PR at Table C-2. 

 49 Original CR/PR at Table V-3-V-9.

 50 Original CR/PR at Table VI-3. 

 51 Memorandum INV-EE-002 at Table C-1b. 

 52 The Commission’s preference is to rely on actual prices rather than average unit values (“AUVs”), which can

mask differences in, and changes in, product mix. For example, the product-specific pricing data show underselling

by Germany in 23 of 35 comparisons, and by Canada in 24 of 78 comparisons. Original CR/PR at Table V-10. The

AUVs for these countries, however, were above those for the domestic producers’ shipments, demonstrating the

9

in 2001.44 Unit cost of goods sold also steadily increased during the period examined.45 These data

indicate that as the domestic industry’s costs increased, the industry was unable to raise its prices to cover

them.46 This cost/price squeeze was exacerbated by the large fixed costs in the industry,47 the price-based

nature of the competition, the decreasing demand in the domestic industry’s market, and the falling rate of

its capacity utilization.48

The adverse price effects of subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago are underscored by the

ability of those imports to increase significantly their U.S. market share from 1999 to 2001 at the expense

of the domestic industry, despite the significant presence of other low-priced subject and non-subject

merchandise in the market. The sharp growth of Trinidad and Tobago’s subject import volumes, even as

apparent domestic consumption declined, exacerbated the cost-price squeeze by displacing domestic

products, particularly during 2001, as lower-priced imports from Trinidad and Tobago increased in

volume by 67,582 short tons, or 23.5 percent, and gained market share at the expense of the domestic

industry. The loss of shipment volume led to even higher per-unit costs for the domestic producers, due

to the high fixed-cost nature of wire rod production. 

We further find that subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago have suppressed prices for the

domestic like product to a significant degree. Pricing data collected in this investigation showed stagnant

prices or, at best, small increases in prices between 1999 and 2000 for the specific products for which data

were collected.49 As noted above, subject imports undersold the domestic product in a large majority of

comparisons over this entire period. We therefore find that pricing pressure from the readily available

and increasing volume of lower-priced subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago prevented the domestic

industry from raising prices when its costs increased,50 particularly in the price-sensitive low carbon

industrial quality wire rod category. Had the domestic industry attempted to increase prices to cover its

costs, it would have lost further market share, thereby worsening the cost-price squeeze from which it

already suffered. 

The price suppression that took place from 1999 to 2001 cannot be solely, or even largely,

attributed to the combined non-Trinidadian subject and non-subject imports. Reported prices of the

non-Trinidadian subject imports of industrial-grade wire rod (pricing products 1 and 2) were mixed, and

in most quarters were *** those from Trinidad and Tobago throughout the period of investigation. 

Nevertheless, the subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago were increasing their presence in the U.S.

market at a substantially faster rate than the other imports, an increase of 67,582 short tons from 2000 to

2001, or by 23.5 percent, compared to an increase for all other import suppliers of *** short tons, or by

*** percent, for the same period. The average unit values of non-subject imports were, on average,

significantly *** those from Trinidad and Tobago throughout the period.51 52 In light of Trinidad and
problem with using AUVs as a proxy for price. 

However, this record does not contain actual prices for many of the non-subject imports because of the

Commission’s inability to distribute questionnaires to U.S. importers of non-subject merchandise and to the nonsubject producers. In its comparisons of subject import prices to non-subject prices, consequently, the Commission

has been forced to rely on AUVs, the only data available for many of the non-subject imports. See CR Tables V-3 to

V-9. While the Federal Circuit has criticized the use of AUVs as a basis for establishing price trends when there are

serious issues of product mix, and where the values may thus reflect different merchandise rather than differences in

prices, the Court also has criticized the Commission for failing to rely on AUVs under similar circumstances. 

Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 287 F.3d 1365, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 

The record contains actual pricing data with respect to small quantities of non-subject wire rod imports

from Germany, Egypt, Venezuela, and South Africa, which were each subject to investigation but found by the

Commission to be negligible (Egypt, Venezuela, and South Africa in the preliminary investigation, and Germany in

the final investigation), and from Turkey, which was terminated from the final investigation due to the Department

of Commerce’s negative determination. Imports from these countries, however, in the aggregate accounted for less

than *** percent of all non-subject imports, and pricing data from them cannot be extrapolated to non-subject

imports as a whole.

 53 Memorandum INV-Z-162, Table C-2a. 

 54 Memorandum INV-EE-002, Table C-2b. 

 55 Although we give less weight to these data due to the pendency of the investigation, we note that in interim

2002, the domestic industry experienced an operating income of $*** as compared to an operating loss of $*** in

interim 2001. Memorandum INV-Z-162, Table C-2a.

 56 Memorandum INV-Z-162, Table C-2a. 

10

Tobago’s greater increase, and its impact on the domestic industry’s production volume and market share,

we cannot say that these other causes fully explain the price suppression. 

We find, therefore, that there has been significant price underselling by subject imports from

Trinidad and Tobago as compared with the price of domestic like product, and that the effect of the

subject imports was to prevent price increases which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant

degree.

C. Impact of Subject Imports

From 2000 to 2001, as the volume of subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago increased in a

contracting market, and the domestic industry lost significant market share, the condition of the U.S.

industry deteriorated markedly. Several performance indicators for the domestic industry decreased from

1999 to 2000, then fell more sharply from 2000 to 2001. The domestic industry’s production, quantity

and value of U.S. shipments, and capacity utilization all followed this trend.53 The domestic industry lost

*** percentage points in market share from 1999 to 2001, falling from *** percent of the U.S. market to

*** percent.54

As a result of declining sales volume, low and declining capacity utilization, and price levels that

were suppressed to a significant degree, the industry’s operating losses grew progressively from a loss of

$*** in 1999 to a loss of $*** in 2000, and to a loss of $*** in 2001.55 The industry’s operating income

margin (operating income as a share of sales) fell from negative *** in 1999 to negative *** in 2000 and

to negative *** in 2001.56 Further, we find that the number of production and related workers, hours

worked, and wages paid were relatively consistent from 1999 to 2000, but declined sharply from 2000 to
 57 Memorandum INV-Z-162, Table C-2a. 

 58 Memorandum INV-Z-162, Table C-2a.

 59 Memorandum INV-EE-002 at Table C-1b.

11

2001.57 Industry capital expenditures reported in the questionnaires increased somewhat from 1999 to

2000, then fell by *** percent in 2001.58

Thus, during the investigation period the domestic industry experienced growing operating losses,

decreased production, shipments, capacity and capacity utilization, declining employment indicators,

increasing costs, and suppressed prices. Trinidad and Tobago, which was ranked as the second or third

most significant subject import supplier throughout the period, shipped increasing volumes of subject

imports that undersold the domestic wire rod in a majority of comparisons and gained market share at the

expense of the domestic industry. Between 2000 and 2001, when the domestic industry was experiencing

its sharpest declines in shipments and profitability and was at its most vulnerable, Trinidad and Tobago

was able to significantly increase the volume of its U.S. shipments in both absolute and relative terms,

while regularly underselling domestic producers. 

Increasing volumes of unfairly traded subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago had an adverse

impact on the domestic industry that is not attributable to the non-subject imports. In contrast to the 23.5

percent increase in imports from Trinidad and Tobago, non-subject import volumes increased by only ***

percent in 2001, and non-Trinidadian subject import volumes increased by only *** percent.59 The

information available to the Commission indicates that average unit values for the non-subject imports, a

proxy for pricing data under these circumstances, were *** overall than those from Trinidad and Tobago

during the period of investigation. The average unit values of the non-subject imports also *** the

average unit values of domestic producers’ U.S. shipments. These data, viewed in the context of the far

smaller increase in non-subject import volumes during the period of investigation, indicate that the

material injury suffered by the domestic industry cannot be entirely explained by the presence of nonsubject imports in the market. 

With respect to the non-Trinidadian subject imports, the pricing data were mixed; a significant

proportion of these imports was comprised of higher-value wire rod products from Canada and Germany

which did not directly compete with much of the subject merchandise from Trinidad and Tobago. While

other non-Trinidadian subject imports from other countries entered the United States at prices competitive

with those from Trinidad, the incidence and degree of underselling from Trinidad and Tobago was

sufficient by itself to drive a significant increase in subject import volumes and market share from 2000 to

2001 at the expense of the domestic industry, while all other imports combined exhibited a much smaller

increase in total imports and a far smaller gain in market share. 

Consequently, we find that the subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago alone were having a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry producing wire rod, based on the significant and

increasing volume and market share of subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago in a shrinking market,

significant price underselling and significant price suppression by these imports, and declining industry

indicators from 1999 to 2001.
 60 Commissioners Stephen Koplan and Charlotte R. Lane do not join in Section IV, having arrived at an

affirmative material injury determination in Section III supra, and having found in Section V infra that steel wire rod

is not a commodity product for purposes of Bratsk.

 61 Section 771(7)(F) of the Act directs the Commission to determine whether an industry in the United States is

threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing whether “further dumped or subsidized

imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a

suspension agreement is accepted.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii). The Commission may not make such a

determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition,” and considers the threat factors “as a whole.” 19

U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii). 

 62 Memorandum INV-EE-002 at Table C-1b.

 63 Original CR/PR at Table VII-7.

 64 Original CR/PR at Table VII-7.

 65 Original CR/PR at Table VII-7.

 66 Original CR at VII-10, VII-13; Original PR at VII-5.

12

IV. THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS FROM

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO60

Given that we find present material injury, the statute does not require us to reach the issue of

threat of material injury. Nonetheless, because of the unusual posture of this case, we have examined the

threat factors and do not find any indication that conditions in the market would soon change such that the

present injury caused by subject imports would not continue into the imminently foreseeable future.61 In

addressing threat, we have considered all factors under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F) that are relevant to this

investigation. 

In our present injury analysis, we found that subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago were

already at a significant volume, accounting for *** percent of apparent domestic consumption in 2001

and *** percent of apparent domestic consumption in interim 2002, and that they had adverse price

effects and a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. We also find that the increase in the

volume and market share of subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago during the period of investigation,

as well as the continued rapid increase in shipments of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago between

interim 2001 and interim 2002, when shipments increased by almost 50 percent, indicates a likelihood of

increased imports from Trinidad and Tobago in the imminent future.62

We find that Caribbean Ispat – the sole producer of wire rod in Trinidad and Tobago – has the

ability to increase exports to the United States. As previously noted, Caribbean Ispat increased exports to

the United States significantly over the annual periods examined. The company retained *** throughout

the period of investigation, operating at *** percent of capacity in interim 2001, rising to *** percent of

capacity in interim 2002.63 However, Caribbean Ispat has the ability to divert additional exports from

other market to the United States. In 1999, the company shipped *** percent of its total exports of steel

wire rod to markets other than the United States, increasing to *** percent in 2000 and then declining to

*** percent in 2001, when exports to the United States increased substantially, indicating that Caribbean

Ispat could direct exports of subject wire rod to the United States instead of to these other markets.64

From interim 2001 to interim 2002, the share of Caribbean Ispat’s exports sent to other markets decreased

from *** percent to *** percent, while the share accounted for by U.S. exports rose from *** percent to

*** percent. 65

In addition, product-shifting is a potential source of additional Trinidadian capacity. Caribbean

Ispat reported that it produces *** on the same production equipment they use to produce steel wire rod.66

Thus, although Caribbean Ispat reported relatively high capacity utilization rates, we do not consider
 67 Colombia imposed an order on low-carbon wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago in 1997, and the order is due to

expire on December 26, 2002. Id.

 68 Original CR/PR at Table VII-7.

 69 Original CR/PR at Table VII-7.

 70 Original CR/PR at Tables V-3-V-9.

 71 Original CR/PR at Table C-2a.

 72 Original CR/PR at Table C-2a. 

13

these rates to represent an impediment to significant increased exports of subject wire rod from Trinidad

and Tobago to the United States.

Because of the Trinidadian industry’s apparent ability to increase production of subject wire rod

relatively easily, the historical increase in exports to the United States during the period examined, and

the increase in the proportion of Trinidadian exports sent to the United States in interim 2002, we find

that Caribbean Ispat has sufficient available capacity to substantially increase exports to the United

States.67

We find that inventories of wire rod held in Trinidad and Tobago support a conclusion that the

domestic industry is threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from Trinidad and

Tobago. End-of-period inventories held in Trinidad and Tobago increased by *** percent from 1999 to

2001, and were *** percent higher in interim 2002 as compared to interim 2001.68 End-of-period

inventories were *** short tons of steel wire rod in 2001 an increase from *** short tons in 2000. In

interim 2002, they were *** short tons as compared to *** in interim 2001. The highest level of year-end

inventories in the period examined was in 2001.69 

We also find that subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago have undersold the prices for the

domestic like product, are entering at prices that are likely to continue to have a significant suppressing, if

not ultimately a depressing, effect on domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for further

imports. Significantly, imports from Trinidad and Tobago generally undersold the domestic like product

in the industrial-grade commodity products where domestic production is concentrated. Interim 2002

data suggest that subject merchandise from Trinidad and Tobago continued to enter the United States at

very low prices, and we conclude that they are likely to continue to do so in the imminent future.70

The subject imports, moreover, are likely to have an actual or potential negative effect on the

domestic industry’s existing production and development efforts. The domestic industry, if not already

suffering material injury by reason of the subject imports, certainly was very vulnerable at the end of the

period of investigation to such injury, with U.S. shipments continuing their downward trajectory.71

Although the domestic industry reported improved capacity utilization in interim 2002, this was mainly

due to a decrease in production capacity rather than an increase in production.72 Most other indicators of

industry’s condition, including employment and wages paid, continued to deteriorate in interim 2002. 

Given the increasing trends in subject import shipments and evidence of significant price effects

from those imports during the period, coupled with evidence of unused capacity in Trinidad and Tobago,

we find a likelihood of continued imminent injury to the domestic industry from subject imports from

Trinidad and Tobago. 

Thus, application of the statutorily-mandated threat factors, as well as of the statutorily-mandated

present material injury factors each would have led us to an affirmative determination.
 73 Commissioners Stephen Koplan and Charlotte R. Lane do not find that the wire rod under investigation

constitutes a commodity product. In light of their finding that this Bratsk triggering factor is not met in this

investigation, they have reached an affirmative material injury determination. They do not join in the remainder of

this opinion. See Separate and Dissenting Views of Commissioners Stephen Koplan and Charlotte R. Lane.

 74 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

 75 Id. at 1375.

 76 Id.

 77 We do not believe that the Federal Circuit’s remand in this case, nor Bratsk itself, can be read as narrowly as

Caribbean Ispat suggests. Comments on Remand of Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. at pp.1-4 (Dec. 22, 2006). In this

case, the Federal Circuit and the CIT have explicitly directed the Commission to “address whether [other LTFV

imports and/or fairly traded imports] would have replaced [Trinidad and Tobago’s] imports without any beneficial

effect on domestic producers.” Caribbean Ispat v. United States, Slip Op. 06-151 (Ct. Int’l Trade, Oct. 13, 2006)

(“CIT Remand Order”) at 1, quoting Caribbean Ispat, 450 F.3d at 1341 and Bratsk 444 F.3d at 1375. The CIT,

moreover, has already remanded another case to the Commission on the basis that, while the Commission had met

the Federal Circuit’s requirements under Gerald Metals and Taiwan Semiconductor, it had failed to apply the

additional Bratsk replacement/benefit test. See, Sichuan Changhong Electric Co. v. United States, Slip. Op. 06-168

(Ct. Int’l Trade Nov. 15, 2006) at 17-18, 23-26. 

14

V. BRATSK REPLACEMENT ANALYSIS73

A. Summary

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

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

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

provides that we must undertake an additional analysis of non-subject imports if certain pre-conditions

are met.74 This analysis is triggered “whenever the antidumping investigation is centered on a commodity

product, and price competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the market.”75 In these

situations, we are directed to address “whether non-subject imports would have replaced the subject

imports without any beneficial effect on domestic producers.”76 

We respectfully disagree with the Bratsk court that the statute requires any analysis beyond that

already included in our discussion of volume, price and impact above. Caribbean Ispat argues that it is

possible to read the Court’s decision in Bratsk as focused on more rigorous de minimis analysis, which we

have done in our Remand Views.77 However, a much broader reading is more consistent with the

language employed by the Bratsk panel and the panel in this case. In light of the Federal Circuit’s

express concern in Bratsk that the Commission was too narrowly interpreting the Court’s previous

holding in Gerald Metals, and in light of the Federal Circuit and CIT’s remand in this case, we view it as

prudent to take the Court at its word and not attempt to construe narrowly its intent. Accordingly, we

proceed to the Bratsk replacement/benefit analysis. Based on the record and the Federal Circuit’s holding

in this case, we conclude that the Bratsk analysis is triggered. Although, as indicated above, we have

concluded that the domestic industry has experienced material injury by reason of the subject imports

from Trinidad and Tobago, we cannot conclude, based on the data available to us, that non-subject

imports and non-Trinidadian subject imports would not have replaced subject imports and thus negated

the beneficial effect of an order on subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago.
 78 See S. Rep. No. 249, at 74-75 (1979) (“Current law does not . . . contemplate that the effects from

less-than-fair-value . . . imports be weighed against the effects associated with other factors (e.g., the volume and

prices of imports sold at fair value . . . . [i.e., non-subject imports]”), 56-57 (concerning subsidized imports)).

 79 Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

 80 SAA at 883-85, 889-90.

 81 Bratsk states that the Commission “must explain why the elimination of subject imports would benefit the

domestic industry instead of resulting in the non-subject imports’ replacement of the subject imports’ market share

without any beneficial impact on domestic producers.” Bratsk at 1373 (emphasis added).

15

B. The Bratsk Test Is Unclear

At the outset, we note that the “replacement/benefit” test devised by the Court in Bratsk is not

precise, and leaves many questions unanswered. For example, in applying the test, we must address what

constitutes a “commodity product” in this new context and how the meaning of that term relates to the

Commission’s standard analysis regarding interchangeability; the range of elements that might contribute

to an analysis of non-subject imports being a “significant factor” in the market; when “replacement”

would have occurred; and the indicators by which any “beneficial effect” may be measured. Given that

the statute does not contemplate a “replacement/benefits” test, there is, of course, no actual guidance in

the statute or legislative history as to how to interpret these terms in the application of such an analysis. 

While no Commissioner has ever construed the statute to require the kind of replacement/benefit analysis

required here by the Federal Circuit, we are now left with the task of taking this new test and developing

the best means of making it administrable, in our role as the agency charged with the Commission’s

responsibility and authority to use its expertise in applying the law to the facts in antidumping

investigations. 

As the finders of fact, we have interpreted these aspects of the additional analysis that we

undertake here in conjunction with the Commission’s traditional indicators of material injury. This

traditional analysis, in accordance with Congressional intent, includes our long-standing and continuing

examination of non-subject imports and their effect on the U.S. market, which we explore more

expansively in accordance with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Bratsk.

78

The aforementioned ambiguities arise in large part because the requirement imposed by the

Bratsk panel, as noted above, is not among the statutory factors Congress has required the Commission to

consider. Indeed, such a test misconstrues the purpose of the statute, which is not to bar subject imports

from the U.S. market or award subject import market share to U.S. producers, but is meant instead to

“level[] competitive conditions” by imposing a duty on subject imports and thus enabling the industry to

compete against fairly traded imports.79 The statutory scheme in fact contemplates that subject imports

may remain in the U.S. market after an order is imposed and even that the industry afterwards may

continue to suffer material injury.80 Indeed, the dumping of subject imports may have no impact on

respective market shares, but may affect the domestic industry’s selling price and profitability alone. 

Therefore, the Commission is required under Bratsk to determine whether non-subject imports would fill

the void created by the “elimination” of subject imports despite the fact that there may be no such void

created by an order.81

Indeed, the purpose of antidumping and countervailing duty orders is not to “eliminate” the

subject merchandise from the domestic market, but rather to impose remedial duties to ensure that the

subject merchandise is sold at fairly traded prices. It is not unusual for substantial volumes of the subject

merchandise to continue to enter the United States following the imposition of an antidumping or

countervailing duty order. Consequently, the counterfactual analysis that underpins the Federal Circuit’s

analysis in Bratsk – the complete absence of the subject merchandise from the domestic market – is
 82 19 U.S.C. Section 1675c.

 83 19 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2)(B)(emphasis added).

 84 SAA at 885.

 85 As the Commission has previously explained, “nothing in the statute or case law requires (or allows) us to

consider the likely effectiveness of a dumping order in making our injury determination. The possibility that

non-subject imports will increase in the future after an antidumping order is imposed is . . . not relevant to our

analysis of whether subject imports are currently materially injuring the industry.” Wooden Bedroom Furniture

From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1058 (Final), USITC Pub. 3743 at 27, n.222 (Dec. 2004). 

 86 The new analysis will also impose an undue burden on non-party foreign producers and could impose an undue

burden on U.S. embassies which likely will be requested to assist the Commission in gathering the information

necessary to conduct the Bratsk inquiry. Specifically, non-subject foreign producers will be faced with the burden of

supplying the Commission with confidential business data relating to such factors as their prices, production,

16

neither the purpose nor, frequently, the effect of the antidumping and countervailing duties. In fact, the

incorrectness of the assumption that the imposition of an antidumping duty or countervailing duty order

would necessarily exclude all subject imports from the market is demonstrated by the hundreds of

millions of dollars in duties collected on imports that are subject to AD/CVD orders and that have been

segregated pursuant to the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (the “Byrd Amendment”)

for distribution to eligible domestic producers.82

The Commission respectfully submits that under the statute, it is not required, nor is it permitted,

to reach a negative determination based on the likely effectiveness of an order. In fact, the statute

recognizes that an industry may remain injured even after an order is issued: the standard for the ITC’s

review of an existing order under the five-year review provisions is whether “material injury would be

likely to continue or recur” if the order were revoked.83 Congress noted that in five-year reviews the

Commission should consider whether the industry remains in a weakened state “due to the possible

ineffectiveness of the order.”84 Thus, the statute contemplates that not all orders will be effective and

does not ask the ITC to perform an additional inquiry to predict the future effectiveness of import relief.85

A second issue that complicates application of the “replacement/benefit” test is the Court’s

creation of a presumption in favor of finding replacement which, as a practical matter, the Commission

and domestic producers will seldom have information sufficient to rebut. The effect of the

replacement/benefit test mandated by the Federal Circuit’s decision seems to require the agency to render

a negative determination, if the triggering factors are satisfied, unless the record contains substantial

evidence that either non-subject imports would not replace the subject imports or that such replacement

would nonetheless benefit the domestic industry. This, in effect, requires proving the negative. Put

otherwise, it creates a rebuttable presumption that replacement will occur. Problematically, to rebut the

presumption, the replacement/benefit test would require the Commission to attempt to obtain considerable

data from non-subject producers from countries not under investigation in order to determine whether

these countries are capable of exporting sufficient quantities of the product at issue so as to replace the

subject imports. This would include data on excess capacity, third country markets, trends in their home

markets, pricing, and other indicia of whether they would have replaced subject imports in the U.S.

market without benefit to the U.S. industry. Such producers have no incentive to provide such data to the

Commission, since an order against the subject producers would be to their advantage, and the statute, at

19 U.S.C. Section 1677e(b), does not allow the Commission to take adverse inferences against such noncooperating persons because they would not be “interested parties” under the statute. We foresee the

likelihood of frequent situations where the Commission would be unable to obtain sufficient data from

such non-interested parties to satisfy the Bratsk test. Thus, the test will result in negative determinations

in circumstances when the Commission would otherwise have found material injury, simply because data

to show that non-subject imports would not replace subject imports will not be obtainable.86
capacity, shipments, and markets. As non-subject producers will have little or no incentive to cooperate in supplying

information to the Commission, since an order against the subject producers would be to their advantage, the

Commission will also likely have to try to enlist the assistance of U.S. embassies in the non-subject countries for

help in obtaining the information, which may present a significant burden on limited embassy resources.

 87 Bratsk at 1375; Caribbean Ispat, 450 F.3d. at 1341.

 88 Bratsk at 1376.

 89 Bratsk at 1369. 

 90 Id. at 1375.

 91 Bratsk at 1374. 

 92 Bratsk at 1371.

17

C. Bratsk Framework

Under Bratsk and Caribbean Ispat, the obligation to apply the “replacement/benefits” analysis “is

triggered whenever the antidumping investigation is centered on a commodity product, and price

competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the market.”87 Thus, the Bratsk test

purportedly is not required in every case, but is required in those cases involving a “commodity product”

and where “price competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the market.” 

If the Commission determines that Bratsk is triggered, then the Commission must assess whether

non-subject imports would replace subject imports and negate the benefit to the domestic industry. For

purposes of assessing benefit, the Court indicated that the price of non-subject imports would be an

important consideration in this analysis as non-subject imports may not be priced low enough to negate

the benefit to the domestic industry (i.e., “the price of the non-subject imports may be sufficiently above

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

industry”).88 The Court’s decision does not specify how complete the replacement of subject imports by

non-subject imports must be, what factors to consider regarding “benefit,” or how much of the benefit to

the domestic industry must be negated to require a determination that any material injury is not by reason

of the subject imports, i.e., a negative determination.

D. Bratsk Analysis

a. Triggering Factors

The Bratsk Court refers to a “commodity product” as “meaning that it is generally

interchangeable regardless of its source.”89 The second trigger for the Bratsk replacement/benefit test is

whether “price competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the market.”90 On the issue of

whether the non-subject imports are “price competitive,” the Bratsk Court refers to the fact that in Gerald

Metals the non-subject imports had undersold the domestic product just as the subject imports had.91

The Federal Circuit in Caribbean Ispat appears to suggest that the Commission’s finding of

fungibility in the context of its cumulation analysis would permit the Commission to find that wire rod is

“generally interchangeable regardless of its source.”92 The Commission believes that a finding that the

subject merchandise is generally fungible for purposes of cumulation, however, is distinct from a

determination that the merchandise subject to investigation is a commodity product as defined by Bratsk,

i.e one that is “generally interchangeable regardless of its source.” Because the subject imports from

certain subject countries are sufficiently fungible with one another and the domestic like product to

establish a “reasonable overlap of competition” for cumulation purposes does not necessarily mean that
 93 Bratsk 444 F.3d at 1375.

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

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

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

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

cumulation or causation.”).

 95 Original CR at I-6, II-1, II-14; Original PR at I-5, II-1, II-9; Original CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 96 The Federal Circuit stated that “[t]he Commission did not make that specific determination [whether other

imports would have replaced Trinidad and Tobago’s imports without any beneficial effect on domestic producers] in

this case.” Caribbean Ispat at 1341.

18

the scope of the merchandise under investigation, as a whole, is a generally interchangeable ‘commodity’

product for purposes of Bratsk. 

This distinction is particularly important given the breadth of the Bratsk analysis, which requires

the Commission to consider whether non-subject imports would have replaced the subject imports, such

that the domestic industry would not benefit from an order. The Commission’s findings as to the

fungibility of subject imports with one another and the domestic like product cannot be automatically

extrapolated to the (possibly much more varied) non-subject imports that the Commission must now take

into account under Bratsk. The Commission’s analysis under the “reasonable overlap of competition”

standard with regard to cumulation for individual countries is therefore different from a finding under

Bratsk that the subject merchandise under investigation is a fungible, interchangeable commodity product

that is replaceable by other imports. 

The case law is clear that considerations of interchangeability and substitutability differ

depending on the purpose of the comparison. It is improper to assume, simply because goods are

generally interchangeable for purposes of the “reasonable overlap of competition” analysis for

cumulation, or are interchangeable for purposes of defining the domestic like product, that they are

“commodities” for purposes of assessing causation, which is the function of the Bratsk ‘test.’93 Simply

because the Commission has concluded in one section of its opinion that goods are “generally

interchangeable,” for example, does not logically render such goods “commodities” for purposes of

analyzing material injury by reason of subject imports.94

In this investigation, the domestic like product and imports of wire rod generally encompass

eleven types of products which are used in a wide variety of other intermediate products and end-use

products, including various types of wire (aluminum-coated wire, barbed wire, spring wire, and industrial

wire), springs, nails, fasteners, clothes hangers, fencing material, construction mesh, tire bead, and tire

cord.95 The record demonstrates no clear demarcation between the various types of wire rod products,

but rather indicates a continuum of at least 11 major categories of products, ranging from low carbon wire

rod such as industrial wire rod used for nails and coat hangers, to medium to high carbon wire rod, such

as that used for tire bead and prestressed concrete strand, to the highest-end products, including CHQ,

CSPBIC, and tire cord wire rod.

Notwithstanding the factual nature of the question, and the Commission’s long-standing approach

of carefully approaching each precise factual question in the context of the particular analysis at hand, the

Court of Appeals in Caribbean Ispat appears to assume that wire rod is a “commodity” product as defined

in Bratsk, since it stated that the task remaining before the Commission is to conduct the

replacement/benefit test, not to analyze whether the threshold factors in Bratsk have been met.96 The

Federal Circuit appears to assume that the Commission had already concluded that steel wire rod is a

commodity product by referencing the Commission’s discussion of cumulation, in which the Commission

found a “high level of fungibility between subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago and the domestic
 97 Caribbean Ispat, 450 F.3d at 1341. 

 98 See Bratsk at 1371, 1375.

 99 Memorandum INV-EE-002 at Table C-1b.

 100 Memorandum INV-EE-002 at Table C-1b.

 101 Memorandum INV-EE-002 at Tables C-1b and C-2b.

 102 As previously noted, total non-subject imports included both non-subject imports that were not simultaneously

under investigation with those from Trinidad and Tobago, and non-Trinidadian subject imports that were. The first

group, non-subject imports, generally declined during the period of investigation, from *** short tons in 1999 to ***

short tons in 2001. These imports as a share of total imports fell from *** percent in 1999 to *** percent in 2000

and *** percent in 2001. Relative to consumption, non-subject imports decreased from *** percent in 1999 to ***

percent in 2000, before rising to *** percent in 2001 by quantity. With respect to non-Trinidadian subject imports,

imports rose from *** short tons in 1999 to *** short tons in 2000 and *** short tons in 2001. Non-Trinidadian

subject imports as a share of total imports rose from *** percent in 1999 to *** percent in 2000 before falling *** to

*** percent in 2001. Relative to consumption, non-Trinidadian subject imports increased from *** percent in 1999

to *** percent in 2000, before rising to *** percent in 2001 by quantity.

19

[like] product . . . and imports from each of the other subject countries.”97 Moreover, the Court appears to

be applying a very broad definition of “commodity.” Under this broad definition, the replacement/benefit

test would be required in the majority of Commission cases; we estimate that the Bratsk panel’s test

would apply to approximately three-quarters of the products the Commission investigated in 2005 and the

first half of 2006. 

Because we feel constrained to interpret the Court’s ruling broadly for purposes of satisfying the

Court’s remand in this case, we conclude that this “antidumping investigation is centered on a commodity

product” that is “generally interchangeable regardless of its source.”98 

With respect to the second threshold factor – whether price competitive non-subject imports are a

significant factor in the U.S. market – the record indicates that non-Trinidadian imports were present in

each calendar year in significant volumes during these final phase investigations.99 The volume of total

non-Trinidadian imports increased during the period, from 2,423,123 short tons in 1999 to 2,665,576

short tons in 2000 and 2,691,250 short tons in 2001.100 Relative to consumption, non-Trinidadian imports

increased from *** percent in 1999 to *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2001, by quantity.101 These

data suggest that non-Trinidadian imports of wire rod are at significant levels and are a “significant

factor” in the U.S. market.102
 103 Caribbean Ispat v. United States, Slip Op. 06-151 (Ct. Int’l Trade, Oct. 13, 2006) (“CIT Remand Order”) at 1,

quoting Caribbean Ispat, 450 F.3d at 1341 and Bratsk 444 F.3d at 1375. As previously noted, we are undertaking

this analysis under the direction of the Court. We do not agree, however, that the imposition of an antidumping duty

order on Trinidad and Tobago would necessarily lead to the exclusion of Trinidadian imports from the U.S. market. 

 104 Remand CR at I-21, Remand PR at I-20.

 105 Original CR/PR at Tables VII-1, VII-2, VII-4, VII-5, VII-6, and VII-8. 

 106 Remand CR at I-21, Remand PR at I-20; Memorandum INV-EE-002 at Table C-2b.

 107 Memorandum INV-EE-002 at Table C-1b.

 108 Original CR/PR at Table VII-10 (Preliminary).

 109 Remand CR at I-37, Remand PR at I-34.

 110 Original CR/PR at Table VII-3.

 111 Remand CR at I-23, Remand PR at I-22.

 112 Id.

20

b. Replacement/Benefit Factors

Under the Court’s instruction, we are required to analyze “whether [other LTFV imports and/or

fairly traded imports] would have replaced [Trinidad and Tobago’s] imports without any beneficial effect

on domestic producers.”103 

During the period of investigation, from 1999 to 2001, steel wire rod was produced in 41

countries.104 With respect to non-Trinidadian subject imports, the record indicates that producers in the

six countries collectively had sufficient excess capacity in 2001, *** short tons, to more than replace

Trinidadian exports to the United States of 355,089 short tons.105 

With respect to non-subject countries, for which the record contains more limited data, the top ten

non-subject producing countries accounted for about 87 percent of total non-subject production. These

ten countries had a combined production of 71.1 million short tons in 2000, compared to subject imports

from Trinidad and Tobago of *** short tons and apparent U.S. consumption of *** tons.106 The main

non-subject sources of wire rod in the U.S. market over the period of investigation are Turkey, Japan, and

Germany.107 Turkey’s production capacity in 2000 was estimated at *** short tons, with capacity

utilization of *** percent and excess capacity of *** short tons.108 Japan was the world’s third largest

non-Trinidadian producer of wire rod in 2000, producing approximately 7.9 million short tons, of which

16 percent was exported worldwide during 1999 and 2000 combined, years for which data were

available.109 Japanese exports to the United States decreased by 15.0 percent during the period of

investigation, and appear to have been concentrated in the higher-end wire rod products. Germany was

the world’s fourth-largest non-Trinidadian producer of wire rod in 2000, exporting very large quantities

of wire rod to many countries during the period of investigation, with exports accounting for 43.4 percent

of domestic production in 2000. Public data show German production of about 6.8 million tons in 2000,

and the Commission’s data show excess capacity of approximately *** tons in 2001.110 China was the

world’s largest producer of wire rod in 2000, with production of 29 million short tons, although a

relatively small exporter of wire rod to the United States during the POI.111 There is some evidence that

China would have had the ability to export additional wire rod products to the United States during the

period of investigation, given planned increases in its domestic production capacity during the period and

the rapid trajectory of its growth in wire rod exports to the United States from 1999 to 2001.112 This is
 113 Memorandum INV-Z-162 at Table C-1a.

 114 We find that the record does not show that the Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) on steel wire rod would have

prevented replacement of Trinidadian imports by other sources, as petitioners argue. Petitioners’ Comments on

Remand at 12-13. The TRQ did not apply to Canada and Mexico, both of which account for a large percentage of

imports into the U.S. market and were able to *** their imports into the United States during the period of

investigation. Original CR/PR at Table IV-2; Remand CR at Table C-2b. Moreover, the TRQ did not prevent

imports from other countries, but instead permitted over-quota imports with additional duties; these duties declined

each year from 10.0 percent beginning March 1, 2000 to 5.0 percent beginning March 1, 2003. Original CR/PR at

Table 1-3. Indeed, petitioners themselves stated the TRQ was ineffective in providing meaningful relief to the

domestic industry. Original CR at I-14, Original PR at I-10, citing Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 4; Hearing

Transcript at 24-26, 37.

 115 The Commission does not believe that simply because a foreign producer could divert wire rod production

shipments to the United States to “replace” subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago means that they necessarily

would. There is, in fact, no evidence on the record to suggest that such diversion would be likely here. However, as

we have previously noted, the Federal Circuit appears to have created a presumption under the Bratsk

replacement/benefit test that if a foreign producer could “replace” subject imports, it would. There is inadequate

information in the record of this investigation for the Commission to rebut such a presumption. We note, moreover,

that the development of a record that would at least allow for the possibility of rebutting such a presumption would

require the cooperation of a significant proportion of all non-subject foreign producers, and their willingness to share

with the Commission proprietary data regarding their commercial intentions, production capacity, etc. We view the

likelihood of such cooperation as remote. 

 116 Remand CR at I-23 to I-45, Remand PR at I-22 to I-40.

 117 Original CR/PR at Tables V-3-V-6; Original Preliminary Staff Report at Tables V-3-V-6.

 118 Remand CR/PR at Table C-2b.

 119 Original CR/PR at Tables D-1 and D-2.

21

consistent with the existence of unused non-subject capacity to supply the U.S. market. In total, nonsubject imports increased by approximately *** tons in interim 2002 compared to interim 2001.113 114

Taken together, the record with respect to production, unused production capacity, and export

orientation of the producers in the aggregate in the non-Trinidadian countries provides ample evidence

that such producers could have, if so inclined, exported sufficient volumes to the United States during the

POI to fully replace subject imports from Trinidad.115 Absent any evidence that these producers would

not have acted in such a manner, we are unable to find that imports from such producers would not have

replaced subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago in the U.S. market, either by using unutilized capacity

or by diverting exports from other markets.116 We would not have reached this conclusion absent the

Federal Circuit’s direction that we must make a negative determination unless substantial evidence in the

record will support the conclusion that non-subject imports would not have replaced subject imports or if

they would have replaced them, would not have resulted in a benefit to the domestic industry. 

Regarding the benefit to the domestic industry, we note that we lack the type of pricing data for

many non-subject products that we would normally use to analyze this factor, and are forced to rely

partially on average unit values as a consistent unit of measurement. The situation with respect to pricing

is mixed. For the foreign sources for which we have product-specific pricing data (both other subject

imports and non-subject imports that were originally under investigation) the pricing data show numerous

instances in which other imports oversold imports from Trinidad and Tobago, but also numerous

instances in which other imports undersold imports from Trinidad and Tobago.117 Average unit values

for several non-Trinidadian producers that export primarily *** industrial wire rod, such as Turkey, South

Africa, and Egypt, were considerably lower than those for Trinidad and Tobago, which competed in the

same, low-end segment of the market with the domestic industry.118 119 However, average unit values for
 120 Original CR/PR at Table D-2.

 121 Original CR/PR at Table D-2 and Memorandum INV-EE-002 at Table C-1b.

 122 Given that the Federal Circuit’s Bratsk and Caribbean Ispat decisions concern present material injury

determinations and speak in terms of what “would” have happened during the period of investigation, we do not

necessarily read the Bratsk test as extending to threat of material injury determinations. In order to comply

completely with the spirit of the court’s order, however, we find that, for the same reasons application of that test

would negate a present material injury determination, it would also negate the benefits that would be gained by

imposition of an antidumping duty order based on a threat of material injury determination. The record does not

show that combined non-subject imports and non-Trinidadian subject imports of wire rod would not remain price

competitive and continue to be a significant factor and in the U.S. market in the imminent future. The record data

suggest that non-subject and non-Trinidadian subject producers collectively have the capacity to replace subject

import volume if the order were to be imposed and that such capacity would allow them to continue to replace

subject imports in the imminent future. Inasmuch as we could not find that the non-subject and non-Trinidadian

subject imports at low prices would not have replaced subject imports during the period of investigation, they

likewise could replace subject imports if an order were imposed and negate the benefit of the order on subject

imports from Trinidad and Tobago in the imminent future.

22

other non-Trinidadian producers, such as Canada, Japan, and Germany, were *** than average sales

values for the domestic like product and for average unit values for Trinidad and Tobago. In the case of

Canada and Germany, the record shows that their U.S. shipments were concentrated in the ***, where

*** Trinidadian shipments were concentrated.120 Similarly, Japan’s relatively high average unit values

suggest that these imports consisted of product in the higher-grade segment of the market.121 

The underselling and low average unit values for many non-Trinidadian imports, considered in

light of the apparent ability of numerous subject and non-subject wire rod producers to divert additional

wire rod to the U.S. market, and the large number of foreign producers producing the *** wire rod in

which Trinidadian shipments were concentrated, leaves us unable to conclude that non-subject and nonTrinidadian subject imports would not have replaced imports from Trinidad and Tobago in the U.S.

market during the period of investigation, had Trinidad and Tobago been excluded from the market. 

Given the low prices or average unit values at which many of these imports entered the United States, we

cannot conclude that non-subject and non-Trinidadian subject imports would not have replaced imports

from Trinidad and Tobago and negated the benefit to the domestic industry of the exclusion from the

market of an antidumping duty order on the subject imports. 

For all these reasons, we believe that the Federal Circuit’s decision in Bratsk and its remand order

in this case compel us to reach a negative determination in this investigation, even though we believe an

affirmative determination is consistent with the statute and supported by the factual record.122 For the

foregoing reasons, and the reasons provided in the Original Views undisturbed by the Court and adopted

here, we determine that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with

material injury by reason of imports of certain wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago and sold in the United

States at LTFV.
23

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons provided in the Original Views undisturbed by the

Court and adopted here, we determine that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or

threatened with material injury by reason of imports of certain wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago and

sold in the United States at LTFV.
24
 1 Caribbean Ispat, 450 F.3d at 1341, quoting Bratsk, 444 F.3d at 1373.

 2 Wooden Bedroom Furniture From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1058 (Final), USITC Pub. 3743 at 27, n.222 (Dec.

2004). 

25

SEPARATE AND DISSENTING VIEWS OF COMMISSIONERS STEPHEN KOPLAN AND

CHARLOTTE R. LANE

We have joined in Sections I, II and III of the majority views of the Commission. We write

separately on the Federal Circuit’s directed additional Bratsk analysis. Although we disagree with our

colleagues regarding the presence of the first triggering factor under Bratsk – whether or not this

investigation involves a “commodity product” – our separate and dissenting views reveal a convergence

with those of Vice Chairman Aranoff and Commissioner Hillman regarding several aspects of the Bratsk

analysis developed by the Federal Circuit. 

The Federal Circuit in Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States requires that we undertake an

additional analysis of non-subject imports in certain circumstances. Specifically, the Court has directed

that: 

[w]here commodity products are at issue and fairly traded, price competitive, non-subject

imports are in the market, the Commission must explain why the elimination of subject

imports would benefit the domestic industry instead of resulting in the non-subject

imports’ replacement of the subject imports’ market share without any beneficial impact

on the domestic producers.1

 

We perform the analysis required by the Court; however, we note, as explained below, that a mandatory

finding of either benefits to the domestic industry or elimination of subject imports upon the imposition of

an Order is not required, or even consistent, with the statute.

At the outset, we note that Congress has left no room for the Commission or the Department of

Commerce to dispense with relief on any grounds once subject imports have been found to be causing

present injury. Furthermore, there is no statutory requirement that a duty imposed as a result of an

affirmative determination result in removal of subject imports from the U.S. market or eliminate the

injury incurred by the domestic industry. In fact, the statute recognizes that an industry may remain

injured even after an order is issued: the standard for the ITC’s review of an existing order under the

five-year review provisions is whether “material injury would be likely to continue or recur” if the order

were revoked. 19 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2)(B) (emphasis added). Congress noted that in five-year reviews the

Commission should consider whether the industry remains in a weakened state “due to the possible

ineffectiveness of the order.” SAA at 885. Thus, the statute contemplates that not all orders will be

effective and does not provide for the ITC to perform an additional inquiry to predict the future

effectiveness of import relief. As the Commission has previously explained:

[W]e note that nothing in the statute or case law requires (or allows) us to consider the

likely effectiveness of a dumping order in making our injury determination. The

possibility that non-subject imports will increase in the future after an antidumping order

is imposed is . . . not relevant to our analysis of whether subject imports are currently

materially injuring the industry.2

Indeed, the purpose of antidumping and countervailing duty orders is not to “eliminate” the

subject merchandise from the domestic market, or award subject import market share to U.S. producers,

but rather to impose remedial duties to ensure that the subject merchandise is sold at fairly traded prices. 
 3

 Consequently, the counterfactual analysis that underpins the Federal Circuit’s analysis in Bratsk – the complete

absence of the subject merchandise from the domestic market – is neither the purpose or, frequently, the effect of the

antidumping and countervailing duty statutes.

 4 Bratsk at 1375; Caribbean Ispat, 450 F3d. at 1341.

 5 Bratsk at 1370.

 6 Bratsk 444 F.3d at 1375.

 7 Caribbean Ispat, 450 F.3d at 1341.

26

It is not unusual for substantial volumes of the subject merchandise to continue to enter the United States

following the imposition of an antidumping or countervailing duty order.3

Notwithstanding our disagreement with the “benefit” presumption of the Court’s decision, we

have applied the Court’s directive to the facts of this case.

Under Bratsk and Caribbean Ispat, the obligation to apply the “replacement/benefits” analysis “is

triggered whenever the antidumping investigation is centered on a commodity product, and price

competitive nonsubject imports are a significant factor in the market.”4

 Thus, the Bratsk test purportedly

is not required in every case, only in cases involving a “commodity product” and where “price

competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the market.” 

The Federal Circuit in Caribbean Ispat appears to suggest that fungibility for purposes of the

Commission’s cumulation analysis may permit the Commission to find that wire rod is “generally

interchangeable regardless of its source.”5

 The Commission believes that a finding that the subject

merchandise is generally fungible for purposes of cumulation, however, is distinct from a determination

that the merchandise subject to investigation is a commodity product that is “generally interchangeable

regardless of its source.” Because the subject imports from certain subject countries are sufficiently

fungible with one another and the domestic like product to be cumulated based on a reasonable overlap of

competition does not necessarily mean that the scope of the merchandise under investigation, as a whole,

is a generally interchangeable ‘commodity’ product for purposes of Bratsk. This distinction is

particularly important given the breadth of the Bratsk analysis, which requires the Commission to

consider whether non-subject imports would have replaced the subject imports, such that the domestic

industry would not benefit from an order. The Commission’s findings as to the fungibility of subject

imports with one another and the domestic like product cannot be automatically extrapolated to the

(possibly much more varied) non-subject imports that the Commission must now take into account under

Bratsk. The Commission’s analysis under the “reasonable overlap of competition” standard with regard

to cumulation for individual countries is therefore different from a finding under Bratsk that the subject

merchandise under investigation is a fungible, interchangeable commodity product that is replaceable by

other imports and would not necessarily support the latter assumption or conclusion. 

Considerations of interchangeability and substitutability differ depending on the purpose of the

comparison. It is improper to assume, simply because goods are generally interchangeable for purposes

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

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

which is the function of the Bratsk ‘test.’6

 

Notwithstanding the factual nature of the question, and the Commission’s long-standing practice

of carefully approaching each precise factual question in the context of the particular analysis at hand, the

Court of Appeals in Caribbean Ispat appears to assume that wire rod is a commodity product based on

the criteria for cumulation, noting that the Commission found a “high level of fungibility between subject

imports from Trinidad and Tobago and the domestic like product . . . and imports from each of the other

subject countries” for purposes of its entirely separate cumulation analysis.7

 However, the determination

of a “commodity product” for purposes of the replacement test mandated by the Court is significantly
 8

 While the factors considered in defining the like product are somewhat similar to those considered in assessing

whether there is a reasonable overlap in competition, or whether there is a sufficient causal nexus between the

subject imports and the injury experienced by the domestic industry, the fact that there is, for example, sufficient

“interchangeability” among domestic articles for purposes of defining the like product does not bind the assessment

of the degree of competition between subject imports and the domestic like product for those other purposes. See

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

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

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

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

or causation.”). See also, Siderca S.A.I.C. v. United States, 391 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1362 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005);

Committee of Domestic Steel Wire Rope and Specialty Cable Manufacturers v. United States, 201 F.Supp.2d 1287,

1298-99 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002).

27

different than the determination of fungibility of subject merchandise from a particular subject country

with the domestic like product and other imports for purposes of cumulation.8

Upon a review of the specific products imported from Trinidad and Tobago, we do not find that

the wire rod under investigation constitutes a commodity product. We find that wire rod, as defined in

the scope of this investigation, is comprised of a continuum of eleven different product types, not all of

which are imported from all sources. Product differences between different grades of wire rod are very 

considerable. Products included within the scope of this investigation range from relatively inexpensive

low carbon wire rod such as industrial wire rod used for nails and coat hangers, to medium to high carbon

wire rod, such as that used for tire bead and prestressed concrete strand, to expensive, high-end products,

including CHQ, CSPBIC, and tire cord wire rod, which are manufactured to very high tolerances and for

which most purchasers require extensive supplier pre-certification. Consequently, any and all wire rod is

not replaceable by or interchangeable with wire rod from any or all sources. Therefore, the domestic like

product, subject imports, non-Trinidadian subject imports, and non-subject imports of wire rod are not

“generally interchangeable regardless of its source” and consequently are not commodity products for

purposes of the Bratsk analysis. Since this threshold Bratsk triggering factor is not met, we do not

address whether price competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the U.S. market.

As indicated in those portions of the majority Views of the Commission in which we join, we

have found that subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago alone were having a significant adverse impact

on the domestic industry producing wire rod, based on the significant and increasing volume and market

share of subject imports from Trinidad and Tobago in a shrinking market, significant price underselling

and significant price suppression by these imports, and declining industry indicators from 1999 to 2001. 

Based on these findings, and in light of our separate finding that the threshold Bratsk triggering factor is

not met in this investigation, we have reached an affirmative material injury finding in this investigation.
 
INFORMATION OBTAINED DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDING

 1

 67 F.R. 66662, November 1, 2002. The original investigations resulted from petitions filed by counsel on

behalf of Co-Steel Raritan, Inc., Perth Amboy, NJ; GS Industries, Inc., Charlotte, NC; Keystone Consolidated

Industries, Inc., Dallas TX; and North Star Steel Texas, Inc., Edina, MN, on August 31, 2001, alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized

imports of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Germany, Trinidad and Tobago, and Turkey

and less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Egypt,

Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Commerce

issued final negative countervailing duty determinations with respect to Trinidad and Tobago and Turkey and the

Commission terminated countervailing duty investigations Nos. 701-TA-420-421 concerning those countries. Also,

the Commission determined in the preliminary phase of its investigations, and ultimately on remand, that imports of

carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Egypt, South Africa, and Venezuela, were negligible and the

investigations with regard to those countries were terminated. On October 2002, the Commission determined in the

final phase of the investigations that imports of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Germany that were

found by Commerce to be subsidized by the Government of Germany and sold in the United States at LTFV were

negligible, and its investigations with regard to that country were also terminated. 66 F.R. 54539, October 29, 2001,

and 67 F.R. 66663, November 1, 2002.

 2 Caribbean Ispat Ltd. is now known as Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. 

 3 Caribbean Ispat Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 05-37, March 22, 2005.

 4 Caribbean Ispat Ltd. v. United States, 450 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

 5 Caribbean Ispat Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 06-151, October 13, 2006, pp. 1-2. The CIT’s order is presented

in appendix A.

I-1

BACKGROUND

In October 2002, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) made final

determinations in Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Germany, Indonesia,

Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-417-421 and 731-TA953, 954, 956-959, 961, and 962, USITC Publication 3546, October 2002.1

 Respondent Caribbean Ispat

Ltd. (“Respondent”),2

 the sole producer of the subject merchandise in Trinidad and Tobago at the time of

the original investigation, appealed the Commission’s affirmative determination with respect to Trinidad

and Tobago to the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”), which affirmed the Commission’s

determination.3

 Respondent then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which

vacated and remanded the Commission’s determination.4

 On October 13, 2006, the CIT issued an order

remanding the case to the Commission to comply with the Federal Circuit’s decision. The CIT’s order

stated:

ORDERED that the defendant United States International Trade “Commission . . . make a

specific causation determination and in that connection . . . directly address whether {other LTFV

imports and/or fairly traded imports} would have replaced {Trinidad and Tobago’s} imports

without any beneficial effect on domestic producers, 450 F.3d at 1341, quoting from Bratsk

Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2006); . . .”

ORDERED that the defendant have until January 12, 2007 to make that determination and report

the result thereof to the other parties and this court, whereupon those parties may have until

February 2, 2007 to comment thereon.5

The Commission filed a motion with the CIT on November 10, 2006, to stay the remand

proceedings pending the Commission’s consideration, in coordination with the Office of the Solicitor
 6

 The Solicitor General filed a motion requesting the Supreme Court to extend the deadline for filing any petition

for writ of certiori until December 21, 2006.

 7 Commission staff drafted questionnaires in preparation for the collection of additional information from

industry participants. These questionnaires were approved by the Commission on December 15, 2006 (see Action

Jacket Control No. INV-06-142), but the questionnaires were not mailed because the Commission’s request for an

extension was denied.

 8 71 F.R. 74558, December 12, 2006. The Commission’s Federal Register notice of the reopening of the record

in this remand proceeding is presented in appendix B. Also see memoranda GC-DD-191 and GC-DD-219 regarding

the issue of reopening the record in the above-referenced remand investigation in order to include additional

information on the role of nonsubject imports of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod in the U.S. market during the

original period of investigation.

 9 Respondent placed on the record in this proceeding public volume, value, and unit value data for U.S. imports

of wire rod from 1996 through the second quarter of 2002. Commission staff added the following documents to the

record: (1) export statistics for selected nonsubject countries as published by the Global Trade Atlas, (2) selected

pages from Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th Edition, Metal Bulletin Books Ltd., 2001, identifying producers

of wire rod in major nonsubject countries, (3) official U.S. import statistics, (4) world production data as published

by the International Iron and Steel Institute in Steel Statistical Yearbook, 2001, and (5) the Customs Net Import File

identifying the foreign manufacturers of wire rod imports into the United States. There are no publicly available

data concerning (1) aggregate capacity to produce wire rod in nonsubject countries, and (2) prices of wire rod

manufactured in nonsubject countries. Therefore, such information is not presented in this report.

I-2

General, of whether to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in Bratsk Aluminum

Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006), on which the Federal Circuit relied in

Caribbean Ispat.

6

 On December 4, 2006, the Commission filed a motion with the CIT to extend the time

to file its remand determination by 60 days from January 12, 2006, to March 12, 2006, in order to allow

the Commission to send out additional questionnaires to obtain further data relevant to the remand

instructions; however, that request was denied.7

In order to assist it in making its determination on remand, the Commission reopened the record

on remand in this investigation to include additional information on the role of nonsubject imports of

carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (“wire rod”) in the U.S. market during the original period of

investigation.8

 The record in this proceeding encompasses the material from the record of the original

investigation and additional information placed on the record by Commission staff and by parties during

this remand proceeding.9

 Information presented in this remand report includes additional information

concerning production, exports, and imports of wire rod from nonsubject sources that was gathered and

placed on the record in this remand proceeding. In addition, there is information from questionnaires

placed on the record in the preliminary and/or final phases of the original investigations that is relevant to

the nonsubject imports, especially those from Egypt, Germany, South Africa, and Venezuela. Such

information is also presented in this report, as appropriate.
 10 In this report, official import statistics presented for subject wire rod imported prior to March 1, 2000 are based

on the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) statistical reporting numbers 7213.91.3000,

7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0000, and 7227.90.6050. Those data presented for the period

from March 1, 2000, to December 31, 2001, are based on HTS statistical reporting numbers 7213.91.3010,

7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038,

7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0090, 7227.90.6051, and 7227.90.6058. The statistical reporting numbers listed above

include not only subject merchandise but also the grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod products

specifically excluded by Commerce from the scope of these investigations.

 11 The U.S. importers of wire rod that responded to the Commission’s questionnaires in the final phase of the

investigations were estimated to have accounted for 95 percent of U.S. imports of wire rod during 2001. The

questionnaire responses provided in the final phase of the original investigations indicate that there were imports of

the excluded grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod products from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany,

and Japan.

 12 Tables C-1 and C-2 were re-configured as tables C-1a and C-2a to present Germany separately after Trinidad

and Tobago, along with the appropriate subtotals.

I-3

U.S. IMPORTS

Table I-1 presents U.S. imports of wire rod based on official Commerce statistics,10 adjusted to

exclude the grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod reported in importers’ questionnaire

responses in the Commission’s final phase of the original investigations.11 Table I-1 presented in this

report corresponds to table IV-1 presented in the Commission’s staff report in the final phase of the

original investigations; the tables differ in that the table that appears in this report contains additional data

concerning U.S. imports of wire rod from nonsubject sources. As table I-1 illustrates, the largest

nonsubject sources of U.S. wire rod imports during 1999-2001 were Canadian producer Stelco, Germany,

Japan, Malaysia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and Venezuela.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND U.S. MARKET SHARES

Data on U.S. consumption and market shares of wire rod are shown in tables I-2 and I-3. Tables

I-2 and I-3 presented in this report correspond to tables IV-4 and IV-5 presented in the Commission’s

staff report in the final phase of the original investigations; the tables differ in that the tables that appear

in this report contain additional data concerning U.S. imports of wire rod from nonsubject sources. The

data presented are based on U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and official Commerce import statistics

adjusted to exclude the grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod as reported in importers’

questionnaire responses in the final phase of the Commission’s original investigations.

SUMMARY DATA

Summary data are presented in appendix C.12 The summary data presented in tables C-1 and 

C-1a reflect the subject product as defined in Commerce’s scope of the investigations (i.e., excluding

certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod), and the data presented in tables C-2 and C-2a

are summary data concerning carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod including the grade 1080 tire cord

and tire bead quality wire rod. The summary tables presented in this report correspond to the same table

titles presented in the Commission’s staff report and supplemental memorandum INV-Z-162 in the final

phase of the original investigations; the tables differ in that they present additional data concerning U.S.

imports of wire rod from nonsubject sources. The U.S. industry data presented are based on questionnaire

responses submitted during the Commission’s final phase of the investigations by 12 firms that accounted

for approximately *** percent of U.S. production of wire rod during 2001. U.S. imports
I-4

Table I-1

Wire rod: U.S. imports, by sources, 1999-2001

Source

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Quantity (short tons)

Brazil *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** ***

Indonesia 69,805 86,940 60,065

Mexico 122,038 159,818 266,925

Moldova 190,239 191,074 187,370

Ukraine 193,003 367,712 258,526

 Subtotal *** *** ***

Trinidad and Tobago1 341,815 287,507 355,089

 Subtotal, subject *** *** ***

Germany *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** ***

Other sources:

 Argentina 0 35,910 58,499

 Australia 512 0 5

 Austria 11 0 0

 Belarus 0 623 8,374

 Belgium 1,717 10,623 8,552

 Canadian producer Stelco (excluded by Commerce) *** *** ***

 China 1,814 7,932 22,961

 Czech Republic 16,086 3,624 5,537

 Egypt 24,044 37,480 23,447

 Finland 5,899 1,939 2,866

 France 4,424 30,769 ***

 India 52,286 31,477 450

 Italy 29,488 38,358 31,919

 Japan *** *** ***

 Korea 4,126 965 936

Table continued. See footnotes at the end of table.
I-5

Table I-1--Continued

Wire rod: U.S. imports, by sources, 1999-2001

Source

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Quantity (short tons)

Other sources:–Continued

 Latvia 23 0 0

 Luxembourg 11,309 11,340 2,845

 Malaysia 4,338 19,767 85,815

 Netherlands 8,291 7,470 5,320

 New Zealand 0 11,017 54

 Poland 12,546 1,204 0

 Portugal 0 0 53

 Romania 8,194 0 0

 Russia 37,415 0 0

 Saudi Arabia 0 10,808 0

 Singapore 0 3,130 505

 South Africa 55,850 75,412 76,058

 Spain 92,370 35,979 41,908

 Sweden 146 43 1,025

 Taiwan 173 583 617

 Thailand 0 887 0

 Turkey 151,346 187,878 259,945

 United Kingdom 74,671 52,540 31,425

 Venezuela 132,084 84,957 76,077

 Subtotal, other sources *** *** ***

 Total 2,764,938 2,953,083 3,046,339

Table continued. See footnotes at the end of table.
I-6

Table I-1--Continued

Wire rod: U.S. imports, by sources, 1999-2001

Source

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Value (1,000 dollars)

2

Brazil *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** ***

Indonesia 14,884 19,669 13,118

Mexico 29,449 39,337 64,309

Moldova 38,888 41,667 39,439

Ukraine 35,568 75,568 49,770

 Subtotal *** *** ***

Trinidad and Tobago1 87,289 75,511 91,335

 Subtotal, subject *** *** ***

Germany *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** ***

Other sources:

 Argentina 0 8,832 14,355

 Australia 183 0 3

 Austria 3 0 0

 Belarus 0 151 1,780

 Belgium 517 3,656 2,186

 Canadian producer Stelco (excluded by Commerce) *** *** ***

 China 420 1,870 5,168

 Czech Republic 3,162 880 1,319

 Egypt 5,377 9,066 5,273

 Finland 1,451 931 1,355

 France 2,005 10,066 ***

 India 11,761 8,658 103

 Italy 7,986 13,281 10,252

 Japan *** *** ***

 Korea 1,833 529 757

 Latvia 4 0 0

 Luxembourg 4,597 4,463 1,075

 Malaysia 1,036 5,527 19,336

Table continued. See footnotes at the end of table.
I-7

Table I-1--Continued

Wire rod: U.S. imports, by sources, 1999-2001

Source

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Value (1,000 dollars)

2

Other sources:–Continued

 Netherlands 5,392 5,014 3,019

 New Zealand 0 2,547 11

 Poland 2,454 278 0

 Portugal 0 0 12

 Romania 1,487 0 0

 Russia 6,901 0 0

 Saudi Arabia 0 2,694 0

 Singapore 0 742 133

 South Africa 13,524 19,062 18,216

 Spain 23,664 12,321 11,682

 Sweden 129 50 320

 Taiwan 107 189 193

 Thailand 0 279 0

 Turkey 30,150 45,285 56,212

 United Kingdom 27,386 19,209 12,054

 Venezuela 30,063 18,536 18,275

 Subtotal, other sources *** *** ***

 Total 797,766 884,769 867,770

Table continued. See footnotes at the end of table.
I-8

Table I-1--Continued

Wire rod: U.S. imports, by sources, 1999-2001

Source

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Unit value (per short ton)

2

Brazil *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** ***

Indonesia $213.22 $226.23 $218.39

Mexico 241.31 246.14 240.92

Moldova 204.42 218.07 210.49

Ukraine 184.29 205.51 192.52

 Average *** *** ***

Trinidad and Tobago1 255.37 262.64 257.22

 Average, subject *** *** ***

Germany *** *** ***

 Average *** *** ***

Other sources:

 Argentina (3

) 245.94 245.39

 Australia 357.48 (3

) 567.60

 Austria 301.91 (3

) (3)

 Belarus (3

) 241.75 212.58

 Belgium 300.85 344.16 255.67

 Canadian producer Stelco (excluded by Commerce) *** *** ***

 China 231.47 235.76 225.08

 Czech Republic 196.55 242.93 238.21

 Egypt 223.64 241.90 224.91

 Finland 246.04 479.95 472.82

 France 453.28 327.15 ***

 India 224.93 275.07 229.04

 Italy 270.81 346.23 321.20

 Japan *** *** ***

 Korea 444.36 548.06 808.30

 Latvia 195.09 (3

) (3)

 Luxembourg 406.51 393.53 377.98

 Malaysia 238.84 279.63 225.32

Table continued. See footnotes at the end of table.
I-9

Table I-1--Continued

Wire rod: U.S. imports, by sources, 1999-2001

Source

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Unit value (per short ton)

2

Other sources:–Continued

 Netherlands $650.34 $671.19 $567.45

 New Zealand (3

) 231.19 206.98

 Poland 195.62 231.10 (3

)

 Portugal (3

) (3) 226.91

 Romania 181.46 (3

) (3)

 Russia 184.44 (3

) (3)

 Saudi Arabia (3

) 249.29 (3)

 Singapore (3

) 237.15 262.85

 South Africa 242.15 252.77 239.50

 Spain 256.19 342.45 278.74

 Sweden 885.63 1,150.09 312.19

 Taiwan 619.93 323.47 313.31

 Thailand (3

) 315.08 (3)

 Turkey 199.21 241.04 216.24

 United Kingdom 366.75 365.61 383.58

 Venezuela 227.61 218.18 240.21

 Average, other sources *** *** ***

 Average, all sources 288.53 299.61 284.86

Table continued. See footnotes at the end of table.
I-10

Table I-1--Continued

Wire rod: U.S. imports, by sources, 1999-2001

Source

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Share of quantity (percent)

Brazil *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** ***

Indonesia 2.5 2.9 2.0

Mexico 4.4 5.4 8.8

Moldova 6.9 6.5 6.2

Ukraine 7.0 12.5 8.5

 Subtotal *** *** ***

Trinidad and Tobago1 12.4 9.7 11.7

 Subtotal, subject *** *** ***

Germany *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** ***

Other sources:

 Argentina 0.0 1.2 1.9

 Australia (4

) 0.0 (4)

 Austria (4

) 0.0 0.0

 Belarus 0.0 (4

) 0.3

 Belgium 0.1 0.4 0.3

 Canadian producer Stelco (excluded by Commerce) *** *** ***

 China 0.1 0.3 0.8

 Czech Republic 0.6 0.1 0.2

 Egypt 0.9 1.3 0.8

 Finland 0.2 0.1 0.1

 France 0.2 1.0 ***

 India 1.9 1.1 (4

)

 Italy 1.1 1.3 1.0

 Japan *** *** ***

 Korea 0.1 (4

) (4)

 Latvia (4

) 0.0 0.0

 Luxembourg 0.4 0.4 0.1

 Malaysia 0.2 0.7 2.8

Table continued. See footnotes at the end of table.
I-11

Table I-1--Continued

Wire rod: U.S. imports, by sources, 1999-2001

Source

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Share of quantity (percent)

Other sources:–Continued

 Netherlands 0.3 0.3 0.2

 New Zealand 0.0 0.4 (4

)

 Poland 0.5 (4

) 0.0

 Portugal 0.0 0.0 (4

)

 Romania 0.3 0.0 0.0

 Russia 1.4 0.0 0.0

 Saudi Arabia 0.0 0.4 0.0

 Singapore 0.0 0.1 (4

)

 South Africa 2.0 2.6 2.5

 Spain 3.3 1.2 1.4

 Sweden (4

) (4) (4)

 Taiwan (4

) (4) (4)

 Thailand 0.0 (4

) 0.0

 Turkey 5.5 6.4 8.5

 United Kingdom 2.7 1.8 1.0

 Venezuela 4.8 2.9 2.5

 Subtotal, other sources *** *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Trinidad and Tobago is shown separately because the statute directs the Commission not to cumulate imports from

any country that is designated as a beneficiary country under the CBERA for purposes of making a determination with

respect to that country. (However, for purposes of making a determination with respect to non-CBERA countries, imports

from CBERA countries may be cumulated with imports from non-CBERA countries.)

 2

 Landed, duty-paid.

 3

 Not applicable.

 4

 Less than 0.05 percent.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics adjusted to exclude the grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire

rod reported in Commission importers’ questionnaire responses in the final phase of the Commission’s original

investigations.
I-12

Table I-2

Wire rod: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, by sources, and apparent U.S. consumption,

1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’ shipments 5,381,030 5,307,725 3,889,355

U.S. imports from--

 Brazil *** *** ***

 Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** ***

 Indonesia 69,805 86,940 60,065

 Mexico 122,038 159,818 266,925

 Moldova 190,239 191,074 187,370

 Ukraine 193,003 367,712 258,526

 Subtotal *** *** ***

 Trinidad and Tobago 341,815 287,507 355,089

 Subtotal, subject *** *** ***

 Germany *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** ***

 Other sources:

 Argentina 0 35,910 58,499

 Australia 512 0 5

 Austria 11 0 0

 Belarus 0 623 8,374

 Belgium 1,717 10,623 8,552

 Canadian producer Stelco (excluded by Commerce) *** *** ***

 China 1,814 7,932 22,961

 Czech Republic 16,086 3,624 5,537

 Egypt 24,044 37,480 23,447

 Finland 5,899 1,939 2,866

 France 4,424 30,769 ***

 India 52,286 31,477 450

 Italy 29,488 38,358 31,919

Table continued on following page.
I-13

Table I-2--Continued

Wire rod: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, by sources, and apparent U.S. consumption,

1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. imports from–Continued

 Other sources:–Continued

 Japan *** *** ***

 Korea 4,126 965 936

 Latvia 23 0 0

 Luxembourg 11,309 11,340 2,845

 Malaysia 4,338 19,767 85,815

 Netherlands 8,291 7,470 5,320

 New Zealand 0 11,017 54

 Poland 12,546 1,204 0

 Portugal 0 0 53

 Romania 8,194 0 0

 Russia 37,415 0 0

 Saudi Arabia 0 10,808 0

 Singapore 0 3,130 505

 South Africa 55,850 75,412 76,058

 Spain 92,370 35,979 41,908

 Sweden 146 43 1,025

 Taiwan 173 583 617

 Thailand 0 887 0

 Turkey 151,346 187,878 259,945

 United Kingdom 74,671 52,540 31,425

 Venezuela 132,084 84,957 76,077

 Subtotal, other sources *** *** ***

 Total, U.S. imports 2,764,938 2,953,083 3,046,339

Apparent consumption 8,145,968 8,260,808 6,935,694

Table continued on following page.
I-14

Table I-2--Continued

Wire rod: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, by sources, and apparent U.S. consumption,

1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

U.S. producers’ shipments 1,668,534 1,603,157 1,175,017

U.S. imports from--

 Brazil *** *** ***

 Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** ***

 Indonesia 14,884 19,669 13,118

 Mexico 29,449 39,337 64,309

 Moldova 38,888 41,667 39,439

 Ukraine 35,568 75,568 49,770

 Subtotal *** *** ***

 Trinidad and Tobago 87,289 75,511 91,335

 Subtotal, subject *** *** ***

 Germany *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** ***

 Other sources:

 Argentina 0 8,832 14,355

 Australia 183 0 3

 Austria 3 0 0

 Belarus 0 151 1,780

 Belgium 517 3,656 2,186

 Canadian producer Stelco (excluded by Commerce) *** *** ***

 China 420 1,870 5,168

 Czech Republic 3,162 880 1,319

 Egypt 5,377 9,066 5,273

 Finland 1,451 931 1,355

 France 2,005 10,066 ***

 India 11,761 8,658 103

 Italy 7,986 13,281 10,252

 Japan *** *** ***

 Korea 1,833 529 757

 Latvia 4 0 0

Table continued on following page.
I-15

Table I-2--Continued

Wire rod: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, by sources, and apparent U.S. consumption,

1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

U.S. imports from–Continued

 Other sources:–Continued

 Luxembourg 4,597 4,463 1,075

 Malaysia 1,036 5,527 19,336

 Netherlands 5,392 5,014 3,019

 New Zealand 0 2,547 11

 Poland 2,454 278 0

 Portugal 0 0 12

 Romania 1,487 0 0

 Russia 6,901 0 0

 Saudi Arabia 0 2,694 0

 Singapore 0 742 133

 South Africa 13,524 19,062 18,216

 Spain 23,664 12,321 11,682

 Sweden 129 50 320

 Taiwan 107 189 193

 Thailand 0 279 0

 Turkey 30,150 45,285 56,212

 United Kingdom 27,386 19,209 12,054

 Venezuela 30,063 18,536 18,275

 Subtotal, other sources *** *** ***

 Total 797,766 884,769 867,770

Apparent consumption 2,466,300 2,487,926 2,042,787

 1 Import values are landed, duty-paid.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics

adjusted to exclude the grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod reported in Commission importers’ questionnaire

responses in the final phase of the Commission’s original investigations.
I-16

Table I-3

Wire rod: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Quantity (short tons)

Apparent consumption 8,145,968 8,260,808 6,935,694

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent consumption 2,466,300 2,487,926 2,042,787

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ shipments 66.1 64.3 56.1

U.S. imports from--

 Brazil *** *** ***

 Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** ***

 Indonesia 0.9 1.1 0.9

 Mexico 1.5 1.9 3.8

 Moldova 2.3 2.3 2.7

 Ukraine 2.4 4.5 3.7

 Subtotal *** *** ***

 Trinidad and Tobago 4.2 3.5 5.1

 Subtotal, subject *** *** ***

 Germany *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** ***

 Other sources:

 Argentina 0.0 0.4 0.8

 Australia (1

) 0.0 (1)

 Austria (1

) 0.0 0.0

 Belarus 0.0 (1

) 0.1

 Belgium (1

) 0.1 0.1

 Canadian producer Stelco (excluded by Commerce) *** *** ***

 China (1

) 0.1 0.3

 Czech Republic 0.2 (1

) 0.1

 Egypt 0.3 0.5 0.3

 Finland 0.1 (1

) (1)

 France 0.1 0.4 ***

 India 0.6 0.4 (1

)

Table continued on following page.
I-17

Table I-3--Continued

Wire rod: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. imports from–Continued

 Other sources:–Continued

 Italy 0.4 0.5 0.5

 Japan *** *** ***

 Korea 0.1 (1

) (1)

 Latvia (1

) 0.0 0.0

 Luxembourg 0.1 0.1 (1

)

 Malaysia 0.1 0.2 1.2

 Netherlands 0.1 0.1 0.1

 New Zealand 0.0 0.1 (1

)

 Poland 0.2 (1

) 0.0

 Portugal 0.0 0.0 (1

)

 Romania 0.1 0.0 0.0

 Russia 0.5 0.0 0.0

 Saudi Arabia 0.0 0.1 0.0

 Singapore 0.0 (1

) (1)

 South Africa 0.7 0.9 1.1

 Spain 1.1 0.4 0.6

 Sweden (1

) (1) (1)

 Taiwan (1

) (1) (1)

 Thailand 0.0 (1

) 0.0

 Turkey 1.9 2.3 3.7

 United Kingdom 0.9 0.6 0.5

 Venezuela 1.6 1.0 1.1

 Subtotal, other sources *** *** ***

 Total 33.9 35.7 43.9

Table continued on following page.
I-18

Table I-3--Continued

Wire rod: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ shipments 67.7 64.4 57.5

U.S. imports from--

 Brazil 0.8 1.3 1.7

 Canada (excluding Stelco) 7.8 10.1 12.3

 Indonesia 0.6 0.8 0.6

 Mexico 1.2 1.6 3.1

 Moldova 1.6 1.7 1.9

 Ukraine 1.4 3.0 2.4

 Subtotal *** *** ***

 Trinidad and Tobago 3.5 3.0 4.5

 Subtotal, subject *** *** ***

 Germany 2.0 1.4 1.4

 Subtotal *** *** ***

 Other sources:

 Argentina 0.0 0.4 0.7

 Australia (1

) 0.0 (1)

 Austria (1

) 0.0 0.0

 Belarus 0.0 (1

) 0.1

 Belgium (1

) 0.1 0.1

 Canadian producer Stelco (excluded by Commerce) *** *** ***

 China (1

) 0.1 0.3

 Czech Republic 0.1 (1

) 0.1

 Egypt 0.2 0.4 0.3

 Finland 0.1 (1

) 0.1

 France 0.1 0.4 ***

 India 0.5 0.3 (1

)

 Italy 0.3 0.5 0.5

 Japan *** *** ***

 Korea 0.1 (1

) (1)

 Latvia (1

) 0.0 0.0

Table continued on following page.
I-19

Table I-3--Continued

Wire rod: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Share of value (percent)

U.S. imports from–Continued

 Other sources:–Continued

 Luxembourg 0.2 0.2 0.1

 Malaysia (1

) 0.2 0.9

 Netherlands 0.2 0.2 0.1

 New Zealand 0.0 0.1 (1

)

 Poland 0.1 (1

) 0.0

 Portugal 0.0 0.0 (1

)

 Romania 0.1 0.0 0.0

 Russia 0.3 0.0 0.0

 Saudi Arabia 0.0 0.1 0.0

 Singapore 0.0 (1

) (1)

 South Africa 0.5 0.8 0.9

 Spain 1.0 0.5 0.6

 Sweden (1

) (1) (1)

 Taiwan (1

) (1) (1)

 Thailand 0.0 (1

) 0.0

 Turkey 1.2 1.8 2.8

 United Kingdom 1.1 0.8 0.6

 Venezuela 1.2 0.7 0.9

 Subtotal, other sources *** *** ***

 Total 32.3 35.6 42.5

 1 Less than 0.05 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics adjusted

to exclude the grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod reported in Commission importers’ questionnaire responses in

the final phase of the Commission’s original investigations.
 13 The data and other information presented in this section of the report were obtained from public sources and

may include wire rod products that are excluded from Commerce’s scope. For example, the data presented may

include certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod that was specifically excluded from Commerce’s

scope.

 14 Steel Statistical Yearbook 2001, International Iron and Steel Institute, Committee on Economic Studies,

Brussels, December 2001.

 15 Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th Edition, Metal Bulletin Books Ltd., 2001.

 16 The top ten nonsubject countries producing wire rod during 2000 were as follows: China, France, Germany,

India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. Steel Statistical Yearbook 2001, International

Iron and Steel Institute, Committee on Economic Studies, Brussels, December 2001.

I-20

are based on official Commerce statistics, adjusted to exclude the grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead

quality wire rod reported in importers’ questionnaire responses during the final phase of the

Commission’s investigations. The U.S. importers of wire rod that responded to the Commission’s

questionnaires during the final phase of the original investigations were estimated to have accounted for

95 percent of U.S. imports of wire rod during 2001.

NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES13

During 1999-2000, wire rod was produced in 41 nonsubject countries14 by more than 100

producers.15 Data published by the International Iron and Steel Institute indicate that the top ten

nonsubject producing countries in 2000 accounted for approximately 87 percent of the nonsubject world

production of wire rod in 2000.16 Moreover, China, the largest producer of wire rod, accounted for over

35 percent of world production in 2000 while India, the second-largest producer, accounted for

approximately 13 percent of world production. Table I-4 presents world production of wire rod and share

of production, by nonsubject country, for 1999 and 2000.

Table I-4

Wire rod: World production and share of production, by nonsubject country, 1999-2000

Source

Calendar year

Share of production in 2000

(percent)

1999 2000

Quantity (short tons)

Selected nonsubject producers:

China 28,748,271 29,045,895 35.5

France 1,848,576 2,029,355 2.5

Germany 6,488,203 6,832,124 8.3

India 10,595,413 10,371,644 12.7

Italy 4,149,099 4,239,488 5.2

Japan 7,721,689 7,883,728 9.6

Korea 2,756,880 2,735,936 3.3

Spain 2,597,045 2,492,325 3.0

Taiwan 3,305,831 3,375,276 4.1

United Kingdom 2,102,107 2,128,563 2.6

Subtotal (selected) 70,313,112 71,134,333 86.9

Table continued on following page.
I-21

Table I-4–Continued

Wire rod: World production and share of production, by nonsubject country, 1999-2000

Source

Calendar year

Share of production in 2000

(percent)

1999 2000

Quantity (short tons) 

Other nonsubject producers:

Algeria (1

) 71,650 0.1

Argentina 220,462 438,720 0.5

Australia 895,077 755,083 0.9

Austria 521,393 557,769 0.7

Belgium 1,039,479 1,029,558 1.3

Byelorussia 52,911 (1) (1)

Chile 147,710 (1

) (1)

Colombia 153,221 (1) (1)

Czech Republic 1,295,215 1,242,304 1.5

Dominican Republic 33,069 (1

) (1)

Ecuador 2,205 (1

) (1)

Finland 390,218 432,106 0.5

Greece 241,406 285,499 0.3

Hungary 56,218 62,832 0.1

Indonesia 526,905 836,654 1.0

Luxembourg 677,921 820,119 1.0

Malaysia 881,849 1,115,539 1.4

Netherlands 198,416 244,713 0.3

Norway (1) 65,036 0.1

Paraguay 8,818 (1) (1)

Peru 25,353 (1) (1)

Philippines 11,023 22,046 0.0

Poland 1,042,786 (1

) (1)

Portugal 138,891 251,327 0.3

Romania 231,485 253,532 0.3

Russia 2,535,315 (1

) (1)

South Africa 902,793 961,215 1.2

Sweden 120,152 138,891 0.2

Thailand 341,716 417,776 0.5

Venezuela 503,756 (1) (1)

Vietnam 579,816 724,218 0.9

Subtotal (other) 13,775,581 10,726,588 13.1

Total 84,088,692 81,860,922 100.0

 1 Data not available.

Source: Compiled from Steel Statistical Yearbook 2001, International Iron and Steel Institute, Committee on

Economic Studies, Brussels, December 2001.
 17 Chinese carbon steel wire rod producers were: Anshan Iron & Steel Group Corp.; August 1st Steelworks;

Benxi Iron & Steel Co.; Chongqing Iron & Steel Group Co., Ltd.; Daye Special Steel Co., Ltd.; Echeng Iron & Steel

Group Co., Ltd.; Fuijan Sansteel Group Co.; Guangdong Shaoguan Iron & Steel Group Co., Ltd.; Handan Iron &

Steel Group Co., Ltd.; Hualin Iron & Steel Co.; Jiangsu Shagang Group Co., Ltd.; Jiangxi Xinyu General Iron &

Steel Works; Jiuquan Iron & Steel Group Co., Ltd., Jisco; Liuzhou Iron & Steel Co.; Maanshan Iron & Steel Co.,

Ltd.; Nanjing Iron & Steel Group Co.; Qingdao Iron & Steel Group Co.; Shanghai Baosteel Group Corp.; Sichuan

Chuantou Changcheng Special Steel Group Co., Ltd.; Southern NatSteel, Xiamen, Ltd.; Taiyuan Iron & Steel Group

Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Tiangang Steel Group Co., Ltd.; Wuhan Iron & Steel Group Corp.; Wujin NatSteel Co., Ltd.;

Xiangtan Iron & Steel Group Co., Ltd.; and Xuanhua Iron & Steel Co. (Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th

edition (2001)).

 18 Chinese alloy steel wire rod producers were: Daye Special Steel Co., Ltd.; Echeng Iron & Steel Group Co.,

Ltd.; Nanjing Iron & Steel Group Co.; Shanghai Baosteel Group Corp.; and Sichuan Chuantou Changcheng Special

Steel Group Co., Ltd. (Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th edition (2001)).

 19 Specific production capacity amounts were not identified for some firms.

I-22

China

During the original period of investigation, there were 26 known producers of wire rod in

China.17 18 Available data indicate that Xiangtan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. was the largest producing firm at

that time with a reported annual production capacity of 1.4 million short tons of wire rod and two highspeed mills. Table I-5 presents China’s top export markets for wire rod during 1999-2001 and the

average unit values of exports to those markets. Table I-6 presents China’s net export position, apparent

consumption, and import penetration for the same period of time.

China produced approximately 29 million short tons of wire rod in 2000. Data indicate that

individual Chinese firms typically produced between at least 350,000 and 1.3 million short tons of wire

rod.19 Further, numerous companies had planned capacity expansions at the time of the Commission’s

original investigations. Total exports increased by 230.5 percent between 1999 and 2001, whereas total

imports decreased by 34.6 percent during the same period. The U.S. share of Chinese exports grew from

2 percent (131 short tons) in 1999 to 14 percent (26,000 short tons) in 2001. The average unit value for

all Chinese exports of wire rod decreased by 7.1 percent between 1999 and 2001, whereas the average

unit value for Chinese exports of wire rod to the United States decreased by 14.3 percent during the same

time period. Apparent consumption remained steady in 2000 at 29 million short tons. Import penetration

decreased from 2.3 percent in 1999 to 1.1 percent in 2000. 
I-23

Table I-5

Wire rod: China’s exports and average unit values, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Quantity (short tons) 

United States 131 6,145 25,861

Top export markets:

 Cambodia 14,093 19,685 19,517

 Cuba 2,775 (1) 833

 Hong Kong 22,400 20,386 47,159

 Indonesia (1

) 6,906 15,937

 Korea, North 355 4,745 2,957

 Korea, South 4,254 23,341 35,340

 Myanmar 7,168 19,779 9,041

 Sri Lanka (1

) (1) 952

 Thailand 239 15,816 17,024

 Vietnam 969 4,227 4,155

 All other 3,085 7,573 4,558

 Subtotal 55,339 122,457 157,473

 Total, world 55,470 128,602 183,333

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

United States 231 197 198

Top export markets:

 Cambodia 186 186 180

 Cuba 329 (1

) 294

 Hong Kong 196 201 195

 Indonesia (1

) 181 202

 Korea, North 271 208 216

 Korea, South 227 220 193

 Myanmar 299 282 292

 Sri Lanka (1

) (1) 318

 Thailand 244 167 236

 Vietnam 285 276 216

 All other 301 239 317

 Average 224 215 209

 Average, world 224 214 208

 1 Not applicable.

Note: Export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all of which are included in

the product scope. Country export totals may not add to the world total due to rounding.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.
 20 The French carbon steel wire rod producers were: Ascometal; Acieries de Bonpertuis; Ispat Unimetal

Gandrange; and SAM, Societe des Aciers d’Armature pour le Beton. (Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th

edition (2001)).

 21 The French alloy steel wire rod producers were: Ascometal; Acieries de Bonpertuis; Ispat Unimetal

Gandrange; and Ugine-Savoie Imphy. (Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th edition (2001)).

I-24

Table I-6

Wire rod: China’s net export position, apparent consumption, and import penetration, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Production (short tons) 28,748,271 29,045,895 (1

)

Imports (short tons) 673,152 309,357 439,832

Exports (short tons) 55,470 128,602 183,333

Net exports (short tons) (617,682) (180,755) (256,498)

Apparent consumption (short tons) 29,365,953 29,226,650 (1

)

Import penetration (percent) 2.3 1.1 (1

)

 1 Data not available.

Note: Import and export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all

of which are included in the product scope.

Source: Production data obtained from Steel Statistical Yearbook 2001, International Iron and Steel Institute; export

and import data compiled from the Global Trade Atlas.

France

There were five known producers of wire rod in France during the period examined by the

Commission in the original investigations.20 21 Available data indicate that Ispat Unimetal Gandrange was

the largest firm producing wire rod in France at that time, with an annual production capacity of 1.1

million short tons of wire rod and a combined bar and wire rod mill and an SMS wire rod mill. Table I-7

presents France’s top export markets for wire rod and the average unit values of exports to those markets

during 1999-2001. Table I-8 presents France’s net export position, apparent consumption, and import

penetration during the same time period.

France, the tenth-largest nonsubject producer of wire rod in 2000, produced approximately two

million short tons. Total exports remained relatively stable at one million short tons between 1999 and 

2001, but exports to the United States increased by 145.7 percent. The average unit value for all French

exports increased by 6.3 percent between 1999 and 2001, whereas the average unit value for French

exports to the United States increased by 11.7 percent during the same time period. French imports also

remained relatively stable during the period. Apparent consumption increased by 10.0 percent from 1999

to 2000, with import penetration increasing by 1.0 percentage point to 60.8 percent in 2000.
I-25

Table I-7

Wire rod: France’s exports and average unit values, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Quantity (short tons)

United States 11,783 35,141 28,952

Top export markets:

 Belgium 183,498 197,541 140,240

 Denmark 8,589 7,489 5,833

 Germany 521,847 485,191 398,124

 Italy 141,726 171,674 93,662

 Luxembourg 3,117 6,382 40,511

 Netherlands 71,048 67,226 157,838

 Portugal 18,923 21,378 19,329

 Spain 17,654 94,472 79,177

 Switzerland 67,102 76,690 95,204

 United Kingdom 23,403 19,932 15,872

 All other 22,058 32,245 22,924

 Subtotal 1,078,966 1,180,220 1,068,713

 Total, world 1,090,749 1,215,362 1,097,665

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

United States 976 529 485

Top export markets:

 Belgium 208 215 206

 Denmark 258 244 239

 Germany 233 232 282

 Italy 300 293 406

 Luxembourg 261 226 212

 Netherlands 206 209 187

 Portugal 215 212 201

 Spain 372 245 228

 Switzerland 255 243 231

 United Kingdom 376 392 416

 All other 343 352 500

 Average 245 244 262

 Average, world 252 252 268

Note: Export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all of which

are included in the product scope. Country export totals may not add to the world total due to rounding.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.
 22 The German carbon steel wire rod producers were: Badische Stahlwerke GmbH; Brandenburger

Elektrostahlwerke GmbH, BES; ESF, Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi GmbH; Ispat Hambuger Stahlwerke GmbH; Ispat

Walzdraht Hochfeld GmbH; Moselstahlwerk GmbH & Co., KG; and Saarstahl AG. (Iron and Steel Works of the

World, 14th edition (2001)).

 23 The German alloy steel wire rod producers were: BGH Edelstahl Freital GmbH; BGH Edelstahl Lugau GmbH;

BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH; Ispat Walzdraht Hochfeld GmbH; Krupp Edelstahlprofile; and Saarstahl AG. (Iron

and Steel Works of the World, 14th edition (2001)).

 24 German steel firms had the capacity to produce at least 5.3 million short tons of wire rod annually; however,

capacity for an additional three wire rod mills and one continuous bar and wire rod mill were not included in this

(continued...)

I-26

Table I-8

Wire rod: France’s net export position, apparent consumption, and import penetration, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Production (short tons) 1,848,576 2,029,355 (1

)

Imports (short tons) 1,128,944 1,261,919 1,118,792

Exports (short tons) 1,090,749 1,215,362 1,097,665

Net exports (short tons) (38,195) (46,558) (21,127)

Apparent consumption (short tons) 1,886,771 2,075,912 (1

)

Import penetration (percent) 59.8 60.8 (1

)

 1 Data not available.

Note: Import and export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all

of which are included in the product scope.

Source: Production data obtained from Steel Statistical Yearbook 2001, International Iron and Steel Institute; export

and import data compiled from the Global Trade Atlas.

Germany

In its final staff report in the original investigations, the Commission identified seven producers

of wire rod in Germany. The following five German wire rod producers provided the Commission with

information in response to its questionnaire in those investigations: Badische, Brandenburger

Elektrostahlwerke, Ispat Hamburger, Ispat Walzdraft, and Saarstahl. Those five producers accounted for

approximately *** percent of German production of wire rod and virtually all subject exports to the

United States during 2001.

According to the Iron and Steel Works of the World, there were 11 known producers of wire rod

in Germany during the period examined by the Commission in the original investigations.22 23 Available

data indicate that Brandenburger Elektrostahlwerke, the largest wire rod producer in Germany at the time

of the original investigations, had a reported annual production capacity of 1.7 million short tons of wire

rod with a continuous wire rod mill. Table I-9 presents Germany’s top export markets and the average

unit values of exports to those markets during 1999-2001. Table I-10 presents Germany’s net export

position, apparent consumption, and import penetration for the same time period.

Germany, the fourth-largest nonsubject producer of wire rod in 2000, produced approximately

6.8 million short tons.24 Total exports of wire rod by Germany decreased by 6.8 percent between 1999 
 24 (...continued)

figure. (Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th edition (2001)).

I-27

Table I-9

Wire rod: Germany’s exports and average unit values, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Quantity (short tons)

United States 164,697 172,612 126,303

Top export markets:

 Belgium 304,640 247,219 170,494

 Czech Republic 51,796 94,928 86,712

 France 349,739 382,562 296,601

 Italy 296,764 378,562 343,479

 Luxembourg 29,403 64,118 66,486

 Netherlands 367,975 480,552 445,750

 Spain 93,073 56,281 68,539

 Sweden 68,279 89,764 50,979

 Switzerland 107,554 126,173 124,944

 United Kingdom 261,414 247,540 134,214

 All other 438,015 622,389 445,952

 Subtotal 2,368,652 2,790,088 2,234,150

 Total, world 2,533,349 2,962,700 2,360,453

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

United States 274 297 286

Top export markets:

 Belgium 244 256 247

 Czech Republic 290 250 237

 France 306 267 272

 Italy 310 269 259

 Luxembourg 282 245 255

 Netherlands 197 207 197

 Spain 286 277 253

 Sweden 276 259 238

 Switzerland 267 248 246

 United Kingdom 243 244 247

 All other 285 261 265

 Average 267 251 245

 Average, world 267 253 248

Note: Export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all of which are included in

the product scope. Country export totals may not add to the world total due to rounding.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.
 25 Indian carbon steel wire rod producers were: Bhoruka Steel Ltd.; Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd.; Kalyani

Carpenter Special Steels Ltd.; KR Steelunion Ltd.; Mukand Ltd.; Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd.; Parikh Steel (P) Ltd.;

Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., Visakhapatnam Steel Plant; Sail, Steel Authority of India Ltd.; The Tata Iron & Steel

Co., Ltd., Tisco; Tata SSL Ltd.; and Usha Beltron Ltd., Steel Division. (Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th

edition (2001)).

 26 Indian alloy steel wire rod producers were: Bhoruka Steel Ltd.; Kalyani Carpenter Special Steels Ltd.; Sail,

Steel Authority of India Ltd.; Usha Beltron Ltd., Steel Division; and Viraj Alloys Ltd. (Iron and Steel Works of the

World, 14th edition (2001)).

I-28

Table I-10

Wire rod: Germany’s net export position, apparent consumption, and import penetration, 1999-

2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Production (short tons) 6,488,203 6,832,124 (1

)

Imports (short tons) 1,478,116 1,656,460 1,388,005

Exports (short tons) 2,533,349 2,962,700 2,360,453

Net exports (short tons) 1,055,233 1,306,240 972,449

Apparent consumption (short tons) 5,432,970 5,525,884 (1

)

Import penetration (percent) 27.2 30.0 (1)

 1 Data not available.

Note: Import and export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all

of which are included in the product scope.

Source: Production data obtained from Steel Statistical Yearbook 2001, International Iron and Steel Institute; export

and import data compiled from the Global Trade Atlas.

and 2001, while wire rod exports from Germany to the United States decreased by 23.3 percent. The

average unit value for all German wire rod exports decreased by 7.1 percent between 1999 and 2001,

whereas the average unit value for German wire rod exports to the United States increased by 4.4 percent

during the same time period. Imports remained relatively stable during the period. Apparent

consumption increased by 1.7 percent from 1999 to 2000, with import penetration increasing by 2.8

percentage points to 30.0 percent in 2000.

India

There were 13 known producers of wire rod in India during 2001.25 26 Available data indicate

that Rashtriya Ispat Nigam (“Rashtriya”) was the largest firm during the Commission’s original

investigations. During 2001, Rashtriya had a reported annual production capacity of approximately

937,000 short tons of wire rod with a 4-strand, 25-stand wire rod mill. Table I-11 presents India’s top

export markets and the average unit values of exports to those markets during 1999-2001, and table I-12

presents India’s net export position, apparent consumption, and import penetration.

India, the second-largest nonsubject producer of wire rod in 2000, produced approximately 10.3

million short tons of wire rod. Total exports decreased by 26.3 percent between 1999 and 2001, whereas 
I-29

Table I-11

Wire rod: India’s exports and average unit values, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Quantity (short tons)

United States 47,599 17,008 2,916

Top export markets:

 Bangladesh 1,037 155 2,047

 Hong Kong (1

) (1) 4,221

 Italy (1

) 125 11,989

 Kenya 13 9 3,309

 Myanmar 668 1,895 18,875

 Saudi Arabia 5,832 203 3,119

 Sri Lanka 9,431 2,935 22,237

 Taiwan 3 233 4,069

 Thailand 11,789 11,905 4,297

 United Arab Emirates 1,316 824 25,162

 All other 69,440 30,465 6,223

 Subtotal 99,530 48,749 105,547

 Total, world 147,129 65,757 108,462

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

United States 192 388 526

Top export markets:

 Bangladesh 236 215 235

 Hong Kong (1

) (1) 476

 Italy (1

) 761 208

 Kenya 403 1,396 335

 Myanmar 379 339 191

 Saudi Arabia 250 503 210

 Sri Lanka 220 268 221

 Taiwan 389 575 168

 Thailand 302 324 338

 United Arab Emirates 483 427 197

 All other 203 242 411

 Average 225 275 236

 Average, world 214 304 244

 1 Not applicable.

Note: Export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all of which are included in

the product scope. Country export totals may not add to the world total due to rounding.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.
 27 The Italian carbon steel wire rod producers were: ABS, Acciaierie Bertoli Safau SpA; Alfa Acciai SpA;

Ferriera Alto Milanese SpA; Cima SpA; Feralpi Siderurgica SpA; Lucchini SpA; Metallurgica Marcora SpA;

Ferriere Nord SpA; Ori Martin SpA; Rodacciai SpA; and Acciaierie e Ferriere Stefana F.lli fu Girolama SpA. (Iron

and Steel Works of the World, 14th edition (2001)).

 28 The Italian alloy steel wire rod producers were: ABS, Acciaierie Bertoli Safau SpA; Cogne Acciai Speciali

Srl; Lucchini SpA; Metallurgica Marcora SpA; Ori Martin SpA; and Acciaierie Valbruna SpA. (Iron and Steel

Works of the World, 14th edition (2001)).

 29 In the aggregate, Italian steel firms had the capacity to produce at least 2.9 million short tons of wire rod

annually. This does not include 1.3 million short tons of production capacity on combined bar and wire rod mills. 

(Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th edition (2001)).

I-30

Table I-12

Wire rod: India’s net export position, apparent consumption, and import penetration, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Production (short tons) 10,595,413 10,371,644 (1

)

Imports (short tons) 39,796 21,889 27,668

Exports (short tons) 147,129 65,757 108,462

Net exports (short tons) 107,333 43,868 80,795

Apparent consumption (short tons) 10,488,081 10,327,776 (1

)

Import penetration (percent) 0.4 0.2 (1

)

 1 Data not available.

Note: Import and export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all

of which are included in the product scope.

Source: Production data obtained from Steel Statistical Yearbook 2001, International Iron and Steel Institute; export

and import data compiled from the Global Trade Atlas.

exports to the United States decreased by 93.9 percent. The average unit value for all Indian exports

increased by 14.0 percent between 1999 and 2001, whereas the average unit value for Indian exports to

the United States increased by 174.0 percent during the same time period. Indian imports decreased by

one-third during the period. Apparent consumption remained fairly stable between 1999 and 2000, as did

import penetration, which declined from 0.4 percent to 0.2 percent.

Italy

During the Commission’s original investigations, there were 13 known producers of wire rod in

Italy.27 28 Available data indicate that Lucchini was the largest firm at that time. Table I-13 presents

Italy’s top export markets and the average unit values of exports to those markets during 1999-2001. 

Table I-14 presents Italy’s net export position, apparent consumption, and import penetration.

Italy, the fifth-largest nonsubject producer of wire rod in 2000, produced approximately 4.2

million short tons.29 Total Italian exports decreased by 11.3 percent between 1999 and 2001, but exports 
I-31

Table I-13

Wire rod: Italy’s exports and average unit values, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Quantity (short tons)

United States 39,386 54,740 26,256

Top export markets:

 Austria 37,074 52,605 42,187

 France 15,139 16,852 16,126

 Germany 91,944 85,909 73,776

 Greece 13,165 27,593 24,910

 Portugal 37,602 55,154 62,036

 Slovenia 5,086 9,195 10,017

 Spain 22,753 20,508 21,090

 Switzerland 14,604 17,993 8,438

 Turkey 36,107 51,370 28,331

 United Kingdom 21,386 23,201 15,288

 All other 79,859 39,591 38,902

 Subtotal 374,719 399,971 341,100

 Total, world 414,105 454,711 367,356

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

United States 242 282 286

Top export markets:

 Austria 246 229 207

 France 405 351 363

 Germany 322 308 322

 Greece 261 238 225

 Portugal 238 249 244

 Slovenia 309 295 296

 Spain 326 312 305

 Switzerland 211 219 254

 Turkey 258 256 248

 United Kingdom 381 321 326

 All other 285 316 316

 Average 292 277 278

 Average, world 288 278 279

Note: Export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all of which

are included in the product scope. Country export totals may not add to the world total due to rounding.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.
 30 The Japanese carbon steel wire rod producers were: Asahi Industries Co., Ltd., Asahi Kogyo; Daido Steel Co.,

Ltd.; Godo Steel Ltd., Godo Seitetsu; Hokuetsu Metal; Kawasaki Steel Corp.; Kobe Steel Ltd.; Kyoei Steel Ltd.;

Nakayama Steel Works Ltd., Nakayama Seikosho; Nippon Steel Corp., NSC; NKK Bars & Shapes Co., Ltd.;

Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd.; and Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th

edition (2001)).

 31 The Japanese alloy steel wire rod producers were: Aichi Steel Corp.; Daido Steel Co., Ltd.; Hitachi Metals

Ltd., Hitachi Kinzoku; Nippon Steel Corp., NSC; and NKK Bars & Shapes Co., Ltd. (Iron and Steel Works of the

World, 14th edition (2001)).

 32 Nippon Steel also appears to have been a large producer of wire rod in 2001, but its wire rod production data

could not be separated from its bar production data. Nippon had the capacity to produce at least 397,000 short tons

of wire rod alone, and had a combined wire rod and bar production capacity of 2.8 million short tons. (Iron and

Steel Works of the World, 14th edition (2001)).

I-32

Table I-14

Wire rod: Italy’s net export position, apparent consumption, and import penetration, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Production (short tons) 4,149,099 4,239,488 (1

)

Imports (short tons) 1,074,140 1,329,475 1,330,594

Exports (short tons) 414,105 454,711 367,356

Net exports (short tons) (660,035) (874,764) (963,238)

Apparent consumption (short tons) 4,809,134 5,114,252 (1

)

Import penetration (percent) 22.3 26.0 (1

)

 1 Data not available.

Note: Import and export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all

of which are included in the product scope.

Source: Production data obtained from Steel Statistical Yearbook 2001, International Iron and Steel Institute; export

and import data compiled from the Global Trade Atlas.

to the United States decreased by one-third percent. The average unit value for all Italian exports

decreased by 3.1 percent between 1999 and 2001, whereas the average unit value for Italian exports to the

United States increased by 18.2 percent during the same time period. Italian imports increased by 23.9

percent during the period. Apparent consumption increased by 6.3 percent from 1999 to 2000, with

import penetration increasing by 3.7 percentage points to 26.0 percent in 2000.

Japan

There were 14 known producers of wire rod in Japan during the period examined by the

Commission in the original investigations.30 31 Available data indicate that Kobe Steel was the largest

nonsubject of wire rod, with a reported annual production capacity of 2.1 million short tons with one wire

rod mill and one continuous wire rod mill.32 Table I-15 presents Japan’s top export markets and the

average unit values of exports to those markets. Table I-16 presents Japan’s net export position, apparent

consumption, and import penetration.
I-33

Table I-15

Wire rod: Japan’s exports and average unit values, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Quantity (short tons)

United States 313,574 279,954 266,644

Top export markets:

 Canada 37,861 41,859 24,742

 China 156,454 115,419 201,213

 Ecuador (1

) (1) 12,264

 Guatemala (1

) (1) 15,069

 Hong Kong 47,018 36,911 21,139

 Indonesia 25,636 25,126 40,481

 Korea, South 346,325 297,110 272,597

 Malaysia 92,417 99,789 102,188

 Taiwan 87,822 71,476 63,006

 Thailand 128,040 124,922 134,274

 All other 138,218 122,885 101,772

 Subtotal 1,059,792 935,497 988,747

 Total, world 1,373,366 1,215,450 1,255,391

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

United States 484 488 439

Top export markets:

 Canada 244 267 261

 China 282 306 242

 Ecuador (1

) (1) 188

 Guatemala (1) (1) 184

 Hong Kong 229 263 228

 Indonesia 281 311 273

 Korea, South 299 321 285

 Malaysia 311 316 270

 Taiwan 310 345 337

 Thailand 323 341 314

 All other 405 417 346

 Average 310 331 283

 Average, world 350 367 316

 1

 Not applicable.

Note: Export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all of which are included in

the product scope. Country export totals may not add to the world total due to rounding.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.
 33 Japanese steel firms had the capacity to produce at least 6.2 million short tons of wire rod annually in 2001. 

This figure does not include another 3.9 million short tons of production capacity on combined bar and wire rod

mills. (Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th edition (2001)).

 34 The Korean carbon steel wire rod producers were: Kia Steel Co., Ltd.; Kosteel Co., Ltd.; and Posco, Pohang

Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th edition (2001)).

 35 The Korean alloy steel wire rod producers were: Changwon Specialty Steel Co., Ltd.; and Kia Steel Co., Ltd.

(Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th edition (2001)).

I-34

Table I-16

Wire rod: Japan’s net export position, apparent consumption, and import penetration, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Production (short tons) 7,721,689 7,883,728 (1

)

Imports (short tons) 46,070 84,730 68,344

Exports (short tons) 1,373,366 1,215,450 1,255,391

Net exports (short tons) 1,327,296 1,130,720 1,187,048

Apparent consumption (short tons) 6,394,393 6,753,008 (1

)

Import penetration (percent) 0.7 1.3 (1

)

 1 Data not available.

Note: Import and export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all

of which are included in the product scope.

Source: Production data obtained from Steel Statistical Yearbook 2001, International Iron and Steel Institute; export

and import data compiled from the Global Trade Atlas.

Japan, the third-largest nonsubject producer of wire rod in 2000, produced approximately 7.9

million short tons.33 Total Japanese exports decreased by 8.6 percent between 1999 and 2001, but exports

to the United States decreased by 15.0 percent. The average unit value for all Japanese exports decreased

by 9.7 percent between 1999 and 2001, and the average unit value for Japanese exports to the United

States decreased by 9.3 percent during the same time period. Japanese imports increased by 48.3 percent

during the period. Apparent consumption increased by 5.6 percent from 1999 to 2000, with import

penetration increasing by 0.6 percentage points to 1.3 percent in 2000.

Korea (South)

There were four known producers of wire rod in Korea during 2001.34 35 Available data indicate

that Pohang Iron & Steel Co. (“Posco”) was the largest firm at that time. Posco had a reported annual

production capacity of approximately 2.2 million short tons of wire rod with a Davy wire rod mill, a

Morgan/Sumitomo wire rod mill, and a MDS wire rod mill. Table I-17 presents Korea’s top export

markets and the average unit values of exports to those markets during 1999-2001. Table I-18 presents

Korea’s net export position, apparent consumption, and import penetration.
I-35

Table I-17

Wire rod: Korea’s exports and average unit values, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Quantity (short tons)

United States 3,298 352 2

Top export markets:

 China 86,466 61,257 68,432

 Hong Kong 8,289 23,213 19,262

 Indonesia 1,521 1,848 3,918

 Japan 52,078 50,197 49,719

 Malaysia 24,227 18,708 15,716

 Philippines 846 2,010 3,486

 Singapore 1,776 2,311 2,894

 Taiwan 19,621 23,330 7,218

 United Arab Emirates (1

) 3,041 1,924

 Vietnam 207 844 4,843

 All other 15,604 2,902 1,019

 Subtotal 210,635 189,660 178,432

 World 213,932 190,012 178,434

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

United States 330 325 1,639

Top export markets:

 China 228 254 225

 Hong Kong 212 206 198

 Indonesia 260 279 260

 Japan 332 335 243

 Malaysia 258 282 266

 Philippines 294 281 235

 Singapore 419 452 228

 Taiwan 256 239 248

 United Arab Emirates (1

) 279 264

 Vietnam 426 357 258

 All other 255 348 318

 Average 263 276 234

 Average, world 264 276 234

 1

 Not applicable.

Note: Export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all of which

are included in the product scope. Country export totals may not add to the world total due to rounding.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.
 36 In the aggregate, Korean steel firms had the capacity to produce at least 2.3 million short tons of wire rod

annually in 2001. This figure does not include another 3 million short tons of production capacity on combined bar

and wire rod mills. (Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th edition (2001)).

 37 The Spanish carbon steel wire rod producers were: Aceralia Corporacion Siderurgica; Cia Espanola de

Laminacion SL, Celsa; Celsa Group; Global Steel Wire SA, GSW; Megasa, Metalurgica Galaica SA; and Sidenor

Corp SA. (Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th edition (2001)).

 38 The Spanish alloy steel wire rod producer was: Sidenor Corp., SA. (Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th

edition (2001)).

I-36

Table I-18

Wire rod: Korea’s net export position, apparent consumption, and import penetration, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Production (short tons) 2,756,880 2,735,936 (1

)

Imports (short tons) 734,217 834,548 701,578

Exports (short tons) 213,932 190,012 178,434

Net exports (short tons) (520,285) (644,536) (523,144)

Apparent consumption (short tons) 3,277,165 3,380,471 (1

)

Import penetration (percent) 22.4 24.7 (1

)

 1 Data not available.

Note: Import and export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all

of which are included in the product scope.

Source: Production data obtained from Steel Statistical Yearbook 2001, International Iron and Steel Institute; export

and import data compiled from the Global Trade Atlas.

Korea, the seventh-largest nonsubject producer of wire rod in 2000, produced approximately 2.7

million short tons.36 Total Korean exports decreased by 16.6 percent between 1999 and 2001, whereas

exports to the United States almost completely disappeared by 2001. The average unit value for all

Korean exports decreased by 11.4 percent between 1999 and 2001, whereas the average unit value for

Korean exports to the United States increased by a factor of five during the same time period. Korean

imports decreased by 4.4 percent during the period. Apparent consumption increased by 3.2 percent from

1999 to 2000, with import penetration increasing by 2.3 percentage points to 24.7 percent in 2000.

Spain

During the original investigations, there were six known producers of wire rod in Spain.37 38

Available data indicate that Aceralia Corporacion Siderurgica (“Aceralia”) was the largest firm at that

time. Aceralia had a reported annual production capacity of 1.4 million short tons of wire rod with a wire

rod mill and an H/V Demag-Morgan wire rod mill. Table I-19 presents Spain’s top export markets for

wire rod and the average unit values of exports to those markets. Table I-20 presents Spain’s net export

position, apparent consumption, and import penetration.

Spain, the eighth-largest nonsubject producer of wire rod in 2000, produced approximately 2.5

million short tons. Furthermore, data indicate that, in the aggregate, Spanish steel firms had the capacity 
I-37

Table I-19

Wire rod: Spain’s exports and average unit values, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Quantity (short tons)

United States 94,025 71,519 49,600

Top export markets:

 Belgium 8,237 8,088 15,805

 France 73,036 65,181 65,581

 Germany 55,687 111,656 51,754

 Italy 55,186 67,442 72,344

 Mexico 44,180 9,066 17,026

 Portugal 79,551 66,099 81,437

 Senegal 1,384 1,101 11,308

 Sweden 3,985 4,323 3,216

 Turkey 60,597 57,614 44,524

 United Kingdom 52,125 61,045 41,217

 All other 50,645 30,313 26,136

 Subtotal 484,613 481,928 430,348

 Total, world 578,638 553,447 479,948

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

United States 242 299 271

Top export markets:

 Belgium 236 226 249

 France 316 322 330

 Germany 275 251 270

 Italy 255 239 264

 Mexico 257 286 230

 Portugal 246 238 228

 Senegal 205 202 199

 Sweden 247 222 220

 Turkey 252 249 246

 United Kingdom 272 261 260

 All other 302 349 264

 Average 271 264 262

 Average, world 266 269 263

Note: Export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all of which

are included in the product scope. Country export totals may not add to the world total due to rounding.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.
 39 Published information for 2001 indicate that Spanish companies had another 2 million short tons of production

capacity on combined bar and wire rod mills. (Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th edition (2001)).

 40 Taiwan’s carbon steel wire rod producers were: China Steel Corp.; Feng Hsin Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.; Li

Chong Steel & Iron Works Co., Ltd.; Lung Ching Steel Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Walsin Lihwa Corp, Specialty Steel

Business Center; and Yieh Hsing Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th edition (2001)).

 41 Taiwan’s alloy steel wire rod producers were: Chih Lien Industrial Co., Ltd.; Feng Hsin Iron & Steel Co.,

Ltd.; and Yieh Hsing Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Iron and Steel Works of the World, 14th edition (2001)).

I-38

Table I-20

Wire rod: Spain’s net export position, apparent consumption, and import penetration, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Production (short tons) 2,597,045 2,492,325 (1

)

Imports (short tons) 530,315 741,722 633,043

Exports (short tons) 578,638 553,447 479,948

Net exports (short tons) 48,323 (188,274) (153,096)

Apparent consumption (short tons) 2,548,722 2,680,599 (1

)

Import penetration (percent) 20.8 27.7 (1

)

 1 Data not available.

Note: Import and export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all

of which are included in the product scope.

Source: Production data obtained from Steel Statistical Yearbook 2001, International Iron and Steel Institute; export

and import data compiled from the Global Trade Atlas.

to produce at least 3.6 million short tons of wire rod annually at that time.39 Total exports decreased by

17.1 percent between 1999 and 2001, but exports to the United States decreased by nearly half. The

average unit value for all Spanish exports remained stable from 1999 to 2001, whereas the average unit

value for Spanish exports to the United States increased by 12.0 percent during the same time period. 

Spanish imports increased by 19.4 percent during the period. Apparent consumption increased by 5.2

percent from 1999 to 2000, with import penetration increasing by 6.9 percentage points to 27.7 percent in

2000.

Taiwan

During the original period of investigation, there were seven known producers of wire rod in

Taiwan.40 41 Available data indicate that China Steel was the largest firm at that time, with a reported

annual wire rod production capacity of approximately 529,000 short tons of wire rod on a wire rod mill

and an additional wire rod and bar production capacity of approximately 717,000 short tons on a

combined mill. Taiwan’s top export markets and the average unit values of exports to those markets

during 1999-2001 are presented in table I-21. Table I-22 presents Taiwan’s net export position, apparent

consumption, and import penetration.
I-39

Table I-21

Wire rod: Taiwan’s exports and average unit values, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Quantity (short tons)

United States 8 659 1,812

Top export markets:

 China 13,197 60,110 49,983

 Hong Kong 166,884 198,546 188,905

 Indonesia 21,459 20,317 31,265

 Iran 599 1,541 1,129

 Korea, South 47,687 59,146 49,525

 Malaysia 36,723 42,604 35,726

 Philippines 3,493 2,532 2,644

 Singapore 2,191 3,028 2,241

 Thailand 43,111 36,434 43,741

 Vietnam 5,816 9,707 7,156

 All other 12,405 597 2,044

 Subtotal 353,566 434,562 414,359

 Total, world 353,574 435,221 416,171

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

United States 1,940 257 256

Top export markets:

 China 229 236 238

 Hong Kong 281 310 296

 Indonesia 269 288 255

 Iran 409 373 343

 Korea, South 251 265 248

 Malaysia 258 288 266

 Philippines 286 354 259

 Singapore 712 726 503

 Thailand 285 317 278

 Vietnam 276 295 304

 All other 246 603 270

 Average 274 294 277

 Average, world 274 294 276

Note: Export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all of which

are included in the product scope. Country export totals may not add to the world total due to rounding.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.
 42 In the aggregate, Taiwan’s steel firms had the capacity to produce at least 1.3 million short tons of wire rod

annually in 2001. This figure does not include additional production capacity on combined bar and wire rod mills in

Taiwan.

 43 The British carbon steel wire rod producers were: ASW Holdings, plc; and Unsco, Ltd. (Iron and Steel Works

of the World, 14th edition (2001)).

 44 The British alloy steel wire rod producers were: Alphasteel Ltd.; ASW Holdings, plc; and Unsco Ltd. (Iron

and Steel Works of the World, 14th edition (2001)).

I-40

Table I-22

Wire rod: Taiwan’s net export position, apparent consumption, and import penetration, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Production (short tons) 3,305,831 3,375,276 (1

)

Imports (short tons) 362,280 350,687 267,760

Exports (short tons) 353,574 435,221 416,171

Net exports (short tons) (8,706) 84,534 148,411

Apparent consumption (short tons) 3,314,537 3,290,742 (1

)

Import penetration (percent) 10.9 10.7 (1

)

 1 Data not available.

Note: Import and export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all

of which are included in the product scope.

Source: Production data obtained from Steel Statistical Yearbook 2001, International Iron and Steel Institute; export

and import data compiled from the Global Trade Atlas.

 Taiwan, the sixth-largest nonsubject producer of wire rod in 2000, produced approximately 3.4

million short tons of wire rod.42 Total exports increased by 17.7 percent between 1999 and 2001, with

exports to the United States increasing from a small base of eight short tons in 1999 to 1,812 short tons in

2000. The average unit value for all of Taiwan’s exports remained stable between 1999 and 2001,

whereas the average unit value for Taiwan’s exports to the United States decreased by 86.8 percent during

the same time period. Taiwan’s imports decreased by 26.1 percent during the period. Apparent

consumption remained fairly stable from 1999 to 2000, as did import penetration, which decreased by

only 0.2 percentage points to 10.7 percent in 2000.

United Kingdom

There were three known producers of wire rod in the United Kingdom during the period

examined in the Commission’s original investigations.43 44 Available data indicate that, at that time, ASW

Holdings (“ASW”) was the largest firm. ASW had a reported annual combined production capacity of

approximately 816,000 short tons for wire rod and bar with a combined bar and wire rod mill. Table I-23

presents the United Kingdom’s top export markets and the average unit values of exports to those

markets. Table I-24 presents the United Kingdom’s net export position, apparent consumption, and

import penetration.
I-41

Table I-23

Wire rod: United Kingdom exports and average unit values, 1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Quantity (short tons)

United States 144,753 153,829 114,451

Top export markets:

 Belgium 220,348 174,678 158,342

 China 182 8,207 18,015

 France 59,905 75,573 68,279

 Germany 108,716 96,776 86,101

 Ireland 41,808 50,676 55,988

 Italy 64,080 56,391 39,260

 Portugal 39,860 29,042 40,565

 Spain 144,701 174,855 119,098

 Sweden 54,595 38,280 45,938

 Taiwan 22,967 52,409 41,353

 All other 112,018 113,143 100,679

 Subtotal 869,181 870,029 773,618

 Total, world 1,013,933 1,023,858 888,069

Unit value (dollars per short ton)

United States 339 330 366

Top export markets:

 Belgium 201 209 243

 China 352 311 254

 France 163 106 237

 Germany 201 137 272

 Ireland 220 197 235

 Italy 226 229 286

 Portugal 206 190 213

 Spain 213 204 225

 Sweden 143 109 250

 Taiwan 265 282 239

 All other 266 268 309

 Average 210 200 252

 Average, world 228 219 267

Note: Export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all of which are included in

the product scope. Country export totals may not add to the world total due to rounding.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.
I-42

Table I-24

Wire rod: United Kingdom net export position, apparent consumption, and import penetration,

1999-2001

Item

Calendar year

1999 2000 2001

Production (short tons) 2,102,107 2,128,563 (1

)

Imports (short tons) 408,457 432,601 384,491

Exports (short tons) 1,013,933 1,023,858 888,069

Net exports (short tons) 605,476 591,257 503,578

Apparent consumption (short tons) 1,496,631 1,537,305 (1

)

Import penetration (percent) 27.3 28.1 (1)

 1 Data not available.

Note: Import and export figures are quantities reported at the 4-digit level for HTS subheadings 7213 and 7227, all

of which are included in the product scope.

Source: Production data obtained from Steel Statistical Yearbook 2001, International Iron and Steel Institute; export

and import data compiled from the Global Trade Atlas.

The United Kingdom, the tenth-largest nonsubject producer of wire rod in 2000, produced

approximately 2.1 million short tons. Total exports decreased by 12.4 percent between 1999 and 2001,

and exports to the United States decreased by 20.9 percent. The average unit value for all UK exports 

increased by 17.1 percent between 1999 and 2001, and the average unit value for UK exports to the

United States increased by 8.0 percent during the same time period. UK imports decreased slightly, by

5.9 percent, during the period. Apparent consumption remained fairly stable from 1999 to 2000, only

increasing slightly, and import penetration increased by 0.8 percentage points to 28.1 percent in 2000.
APPENDIX A

THE COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE’S REMAND ORDER

Slip Op. 06 - 151 

Distri burion: 

General Counsel 

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL T #g#~ Gene ray 11 n s el 

tiwi:?y 679 

------------------ -x 

CARIBBEAN ISPAT LIMITED, 

V. 

UNITED STATES, 

Plaintiff, : 

: Court No. 02-00756 

: Before: Senior Judge 

Aquilino 

Defendant. 

ORDER 

The mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit having now issued in conjunction with its opinion 

and judgment reported at 450 F.3d 1336 (2006) that this court's 

underlying slip opinion 05-37, 29 CIT , 366 F.Supp.2d 1300 

(2005), be vacated and the case remanded; Now therefore, in 

compliance therewith, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the defendant United States International 

Trade' llCommission . . . make a specific causation determination and 

in that connection . . . directly address whether [other LTFV 

imports and/or fairly traded imports] would have replaced [Trinidad 

and Tobagols] imports without any beneficial effect on domestic 

producers", 450 F.3d at 1341, quoting from Bratsk Aluminum Smelter 

v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed.Cir. 2006); and it is 

further hereby 
Court No. 02-00756 Page 2 

ORDERED that the defendant have until January 12, 2007 to 

make that determination and report the result thereof to the other . 

parties and this court, whereupon those parties may have until 

February 2, 2007 to comment thereon. 

Dated: New York, New York 

October 13, 2006 
APPENDIX B

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE

74558 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Notices 

the Grand Canyon Protection Act and 

other applicable provisions of Federal 

law. 

To improve scientific understanding 

of the downstream ecosystem, periodic 

experimental releases from Glen Canyon 

Dam were conducted in water years 

1996 through 2006. Non-flow actions 

were also conducted, including removal 

of non-native fish and translocation of 

the endangered Kanab ambersnail and 

humpback chub. Specific experimental 

actions included: 

• 1996 test of a Beach Habitat 

Building Flow (BHBF) at 45,000 cubic 

feet per second (cfs) and translocation of 

endangered Kanab ambersnail. 

• 2000 test of Low Steady Summer 

Flows at 8,000 cfs. 

• 2003—2005 block of experimental 

actions which included: 

Æ Translocation of endangered 

humpback chub above Chute Falls. 

Æ Winter fluctuating fish suppression 

releases (5,000 to 20,000 cfs). 

Æ Mechanical removal of non-native 

fish near the confluence of the Little 

Colorado River to benefit the humpback 

chub. 

Æ Fall constrained releases to test the 

conservation of sediment (6,500 to 9,000 

cfs). 

Æ 2004 test of a BHBF at 42,000 cfs 

immediately following Paria River 

sediment inputs. 

In addition, drought-induced 

reductions in Lake Powell elevations 

caused an increase in dam release 

temperatures during 2003 to 2005. 

Considerable monitoring and research 

on endangered fish, sediment 

conservation, and other resources in the 

Grand Canyon were conducted in 

concert with these actions. Among other 

documents related to adaptive 

management experimentation, two 

Environmental Assessments and 

Findings of No Significant Impacts were 

prepared: Proposed Experimental 

Releases from Glen Canyon Dam and 

Removal of Non-Native Fish (2002) and 

Proposed Experimental Actions for 

Water Years 2005–2006—Colorado 

River, Arizona, in Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area and Grand Canyon 

National Park (2004). These two 

documents can be found at the 

following Internet location: http:// 

www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/gcdltep/ 

index.html. 

Proposed Action 

The proposed action is to develop and 

adopt a Long-Term Experimental Plan 

that will implement a structured, longterm program of experimentation 

(including dam operations, 

modifications to Glen Canyon Dam 

intake structures, and other non-flow 

management actions, such as removal of 

non-native fish species) in the Colorado 

River below Glen Canyon Dam. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The purpose of the proposed action is 

to increase scientific understanding of 

the ecosystem downstream from Glen 

Canyon Dam and to improve and protect 

important downstream resources. 

Specific hypotheses to be addressed 

include the effect of dam release 

temperatures; ramp rates; non-native 

control; and the timing, duration, and 

magnitude of BHBF releases. Adoption 

of a Long-Term Experimental Plan is 

needed to ensure a continued, 

structured application of adaptive 

management in such a manner as to 

protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and 

improve the values for which Grand 

Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon 

National Recreation Area were 

established, including, but not limited 

to natural and cultural resources and 

visitor use, consistent with applicable 

Federal law. Adoption of a Long-Term 

Experimental Plan will assist scientists, 

policy makers, and resource managers to 

better understand resource management 

options, tradeoffs and consequences, 

and assist in the long-term operations of 

Glen Canyon Dam. 

Scoping 

The range of alternatives for the 

proposed action will be developed 

following recommendations provided 

by the AMWG and through information 

received from upcoming public scoping 

meetings. In addition, Reclamation will 

utilize information developed through 

prior meetings of the AMWG, Technical 

Work Group, and Science Planning 

Group as relevant information for the 

purposes of scoping the upcoming 

NEPA process and to develop the 

appropriate scope of analysis pursuant 

to 40 CFR 1508.25. 

Public Disclosure 

It is our practice to make comments, 

including names, home addresses, home 

telephone numbers, and e-mail 

addresses of respondents, available for 

public review. Individual respondents 

may request that we withhold their 

names and/or home addresses, etc., but 

if you wish us to consider withholding 

this information you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comments. In addition, you must 

present a rationale for withholding this 

information. This rationale must 

demonstrate that disclosure would 

constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of privacy. Unsupported 

assertions will not meet this burden. In 

the absence of exceptional, 

documentable circumstances, this 

information will be released. We will 

always make submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Dated: November 17, 2006. 

Rick L. Gold, 

Regional Director—UC Region, Bureau of 

Reclamation. 

[FR Doc. E6–20756 Filed 12–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–961 (Final) 

(Remand)] 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod From Trinidad and Tobago; Notice 

and Scheduling of Remand Proceeding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States 

International Trade Commission 

(Commission) gives notice of the courtordered remand of its final antidumping 

duty investigation, Investigation No. 

731–TA–961 (Final) (Remand). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan J. Engler, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, telephone (202) 205–

3112, or Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, telephone (202) 205–

3193, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired individuals are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 

205–1810. General information 

concerning the Commission may also be 

obtained by accessing its Internet server 

(http://www.usitc.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Reopening the Record 

In October 2002, the Commission 

made a final affirmative determination 

in the referenced investigation. 67 FR 

66662 (Nov. 1, 2002). Respondent 

appealed the determination to the U.S. 

Court of International Trade (CIT), 

which affirmed the Commission’s 

determination. Caribbean Ispat Ltd. v. 

United States, Slip Op. 05–37 (March 

22, 2005). Respondent appealed to the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit, which vacated and remanded 

the Commission’s determination. 

Caribbean Ispat Ltd. v. United States, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Notices 74559 

450 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). On 

October 13, 2006, the CIT issued an 

order remanding the case to the 

Commission to comply with the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in Caribbean Ispat 

and giving the Commission until 

January 12, 2007, to issue its remand 

determination. The Commission is 

seeking an extension of that deadline in 

order to allow the Commission to send 

out additional questionnaires to obtain 

further data relevant to the remand 

instructions. In the meantime, the 

Commission is proceeding based on the 

existing deadline, in accordance with 

the schedule set out below. 

In order to assist it in making its 

determination on remand, the 

Commission is reopening the record on 

remand in this investigation to include 

additional information on the role of 

non-subject imports of carbon and 

certain alloy steel wire rod in the U.S. 

market during the original period of 

investigation. The record in this 

proceeding will encompass the material 

from the record of the original 

investigation and additional information 

placed by Commission staff on the 

record during this remand proceeding. 

Participation in the Proceeding 

Only those persons who were 

interested parties in the original 

administrative proceeding and are 

parties to the ongoing litigation (i.e., 

persons listed on the Commission 

Secretary’s service list and parties to 

Caribbean Ispat Ltd. v. U.S., Court No. 

05–1400) may participate as interested 

parties in this remand proceeding. 

Nature of the Remand Proceeding 

On December 15, 2006, the 

Commission will make available to 

parties who participate in the remand 

proceeding information that has been 

gathered by the Commission as part of 

this remand proceeding. Parties that are 

participating in the remand proceeding 

may file comments on or before 

December 22, 2006, addressing the 

record facts as they relate to the 

question raised in the CIT’s remand 

instructions. Such comments shall not 

exceed 25 double-spaced pages. 

In addition, all written submissions 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules; 

any submissions that contain business 

proprietary information (BPI) must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing 

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). Each 

document filed by a party participating 

in the remand investigation must be 

served on all other parties who may 

participate in the remand investigation 

(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. Parties are also 

advised to consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subpart A (19 CFR 

part 207), for provisions of general 

applicability concerning written 

submissions to the Commission. 

At this time, the Commission’s 

remand determination is due to be 

submitted to the CIT on January 12, 

2007. On December 4, 2006, the 

Commission filed a motion with that 

Court to extend the time to file its 

remand determination until March 12, 

2006. In the event the CIT grants the 

motion, or otherwise modifies the date 

on which the Commission’s remand 

determination is due to the Court, the 

Commission intends to issue an 

amended notice and schedule. 

Limited Disclosure of Business 

Proprietary Information (BPI) Under an 

Administrative Protective Order (APO) 

and BPI Service List 

Information obtained during the 

remand investigation will be released to 

the referenced parties, as appropriate, 

under the administrative protective 

order (APO) in effect in the original 

investigation. A separate service list will 

be maintained by the Secretary for those 

parties authorized to receive BPI under 

the APO in this remand investigation. 

Authority: This action is taken under the 

authority of the Tariff Act of 1930, title VII. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 7, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–21119 Filed 12–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—Open Systemic Initiative 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

November 13, 2006, pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the National Cooperative 

Research and Production Act of 1993, 

15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Open 

SystemC Initiative (‘‘OSCI’’) has filed 

written notifications simultaneously 

with the Attorney General and the 

Federal Trade Commission disclosing 

changes in its membership. The 

notifications were filed for the purpose 

of extending the Act’s provisions 

limiting the recovery of antitrust 

plaintiffs to actual damages under 

specified circumstances. Specifically, 

Actis Design, LLC, Portland, OR; 

Broadcom Corporation, Bristol, United 

Kingdom; Denali Software, Inc., Palo 

Alto, CA; Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., 

Herzelia, Israel; NEC Corporation, 

Kawasaki, Japan; SpringSoft, Inc., 

Hsinchu, Taiwan; and Vast Systems, 

Inc., Sunnyvale, CA have been added as 

parties to this venture. 

No other changes have been made in 

either the membership or planned 

activity of the group research project. 

Membership in this group research 

project remains open, and OSCI intends 

to file additional written notifications 

disclosing all changes in membership. 

On October 9, 2001, OSCI filed its 

original notification pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the Act. The Department of 

Justice published a notice in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on January 3, 2002 (67 FR 350). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on February 27, 2006. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on March 27, 2006 (71 FR 15218). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 06–9645 Filed 12–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—Power Tool Institute 

Table Saw Guarding Joint Venture 

Project 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

november 2, 2006, pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the national Cooperative 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-3

Table C-1

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount 8,145,968 8,260,808 6,935,694 -14.9 1.4 -16.0

Producers’ share1 66.1 64.3 56.1 -10.0 -1.8 -8.2

Importers’ share:1

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.0 0.2 -0.2

Mexico 1.5 1.9 3.8 2.4 0.4 1.9

Moldova 2.3 2.3 2.7 0.4 0.0 0.4

Ukraine 2.4 4.5 3.7 1.4 2.1 -0.7

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago 4.2 3.5 5.1 0.9 -0.7 1.6

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Argentina 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4

 Australia (2

) 0.0 (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Austria (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Belarus 0.0 (2

) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1

 Belgium (2

) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

 Canadian producer Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China (2

) 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2

 Czech Republic 0.2 (2

) 0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0.0

 Egypt 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.2 -0.1

Finland 0.1 (2

) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

France 0.1 0.4 *** *** 0.3 ***

India 0.6 0.4 (2

) -0.6 -0.3 -0.4

Italy 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0

 Japan *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea 0.1 (2

) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Latvia (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Luxembourg 0.1 0.1 (2

) -0.1 0.0 -0.1

 Malaysia 0.1 0.2 1.2 1.2 0.2 1.0

 Netherlands 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

 New Zealand 0.0 0.1 (2

) 0.0 0.1 -0.1

 Poland 0.2 (2

) 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

 Portugal 0.0 0.0 (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Romania 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0

 Russia 0.5 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 0.0

Table continued on next page.
C-4

Table C-1--Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

U.S. consumption quantity:–Continued

Importers’ share:1

–Continued

 Saudi Arabia 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1

 Singapore 0.0 (2

) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 South Africa 0.7 0.9 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.2

 Spain 1.1 0.4 0.6 -0.5 -0.7 0.2

 Sweden (2) (2) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Taiwan (2

) (2) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Thailand 0.0 (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Turkey 1.9 2.3 3.7 1.9 0.4 1.5

 United Kingdom 0.9 0.6 0.5 -0.5 -0.3 -0.2

 Venezuela 1.6 1.0 1.1 -0.5 -0.6 0.1

Subtotal, nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 33.9 35.7 43.9 10.0 1.8 8.2

U.S. consumption value:

Amount 2,466,300 2,487,926 2,042,787 -17.2 0.9 -17.9

Producers’ share1 67.7 64.4 57.5 -10.1 -3.2 -6.9

Importers’ share:1

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.2 -0.1

Mexico 1.2 1.6 3.1 2.0 0.4 1.6

Moldova 1.6 1.7 1.9 0.4 0.1 0.3

Ukraine 1.4 3.0 2.4 1.0 1.6 -0.6

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago 3.5 3.0 4.5 0.9 -0.5 1.4

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Argentina 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.3

 Australia (2

) 0.0 (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Austria (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Belarus 0.0 (2

) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1

 Belgium (2

) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

 Canadian producer Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China (2

) 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2

 Czech Republic 0.1 (2

) 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.1

 Egypt 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 -0.1

Finland 0.1 (2

) 0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.1

Table continued on next page.
Table C-1--Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-5

U.S. consumption value:–Continued

Importers’ share:1

–Continued

France 0.1 0.4 *** *** 0.3 ***

India 0.5 0.3 (2

) -0.5 -0.1 -0.3

Italy 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.0

 Japan *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea 0.1 (2

) (2) -0.1 -0.1 0.0

 Latvia (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Luxembourg 0.2 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1

 Malaysia (2

) 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.7

 Netherlands 0.2 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1

 New Zealand 0.0 0.1 (2

) 0.0 0.1 -0.1

 Poland 0.1 (2

) 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0

 Portugal 0.0 0.0 (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Romania 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0

 Russia 0.3 0.0 0.0 -0.3 -0.3 0.0

 Saudi Arabia 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1

 Singapore 0.0 (2

) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 South Africa 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.1

 Spain 1.0 0.5 0.6 -0.4 -0.5 0.1

 Sweden (2

) (2) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Taiwan (2

) (2) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Thailand 0.0 (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Turkey 1.2 1.8 2.8 1.5 0.6 0.9

 United Kingdom 1.1 0.8 0.6 -0.5 -0.3 -0.2

 Venezuela 1.2 0.7 0.9 -0.3 -0.5 0.2

Subtotal, nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 32.3 35.6 42.5 10.1 3.2 6.9

U.S. imports from--

Brazil

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) :

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-1--Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-6

U.S. imports from–Continued

Germany:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia:

Quantity 69,805 86,940 60,065 -14.0 24.5 -30.9

Value 14,884 19,669 13,118 -11.9 32.2 -33.3

Unit value $213.22 $226.23 $218.39 2.4 6.1 -3.5

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Mexico:

Quantity 122,038 159,818 266,925 118.7 31.0 67.0

Value 29,449 39,337 64,309 118.4 33.6 63.5

Unit value $241.31 $246.14 $240.92 -0.2 2.0 -2.1

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Moldova:

Quantity 190,239 191,074 187,370 -1.5 0.4 -1.9

Value 38,888 41,667 39,439 1.4 7.1 -5.3

Unit value $204.42 $218.07 $210.49 3.0 6.7 -3.5

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ukraine:

Quantity 193,003 367,712 258,526 33.9 90.5 -29.7

Value 35,568 75,568 49,770 39.9 112.5 -34.1

Unit value $184.29 $205.51 $192.52 4.5 11.5 -6.3

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago:

Quantity 341,815 287,507 355,089 3.9 -15.9 23.5

Value 87,289 75,511 91,335 4.6 -13.5 21.0

Unit value $255.37 $262.64 $257.22 0.7 2.8 -2.1

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-1--Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-7

U.S. imports from–Continued

Subtotal:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canadian producer Stelco:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Egypt:

Quantity 24,044 37,480 23,447 -2.5 55.9 -37.4

Value 5,377 9,066 5,273 -1.9 68.6 -41.8

Unit value $223.64 $241.90 $224.90 0.6 8.2 -7.0

Ending inventory (3

) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)

South Africa:

Quantity 55,850 75,412 76,058 36.2 35.0 0.9

Value 13,524 19,062 18,216 34.7 41.0 -4.4

Unit value $242.15 $252.77 $239.50 -1.1 4.4 -5.3

Ending inventory (3

) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)

Turkey:

Quantity 151,346 187,878 259,945 71.8 24.1 38.4

Value 30,150 45,285 56,212 86.4 50.2 24.1

Unit value $199.21 $241.04 $216.24 8.5 21.0 -10.3

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Venezuela:

Quantity 132,084 84,957 76,077 -42.4 -35.7 -10.5

Value 30,063 18,536 18,275 -39.2 -38.3 -1.4

Unit value $227.61 $218.18 $240.21 5.5 -4.1 10.1

Ending inventory (3

) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)

Argentina:

Quantity 0 35,910 58,499 (4

) (4) 62.9

Value 0 8,832 14,355 (4

) (4) 62.5

Unit value (4

) $245.94 $245.39 (4) (4) -0.2

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-1--Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-8

U.S. imports from–Continued

France:

Quantity 4,424 30,769 *** *** 595.5 ***

Value 2,005 10,066 *** *** 402.0 ***

Unit value $453.28 $327.15 *** *** -27.8 ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy:

Quantity 29,488 38,358 31,919 8.2 30.1 -16.8

Value 7,986 13,281 10,252 28.4 66.3 -22.8

Unit value 270.81 346.23 321.20 18.6 27.9 -7.2

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Malaysia:

Quantity 4,338 19,767 85,815 1878.2 355.7 334.1

Value 1,036 5,527 19,336 1766.4 433.5 249.8

Unit value $238.84 $279.63 $225.32 -5.7 17.1 -19.4

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Russia:

Quantity 37,415 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (4

)

Value 6,901 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (4

)

Unit value 184.44 (4

) (4) (4) (4) (4)

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Spain:

Quantity 92,370 35,979 41,908 -54.6 -61.0 16.5

Value 23,664 12,321 11,682 -50.6 -47.9 -5.2

Unit value $256.19 $342.45 $278.74 8.8 33.7 -18.6

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

United Kingdom:

Quantity 74,671 52,540 31,425 -57.9 -29.6 -40.2

Value 27,386 19,209 12,054 -56.0 -29.9 -37.2

Unit value $366.75 $365.61 $383.58 4.6 -0.3 4.9

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-1--Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-9

U.S. imports from–Continued

All other sources:

Quantity 123,133 103,664 60,100 -51.2 -15.8 -42.0

Value 33,501 32,931 17,434 -48.0 -1.7 -47.1

Unit value $272.07 $317.67 $290.08 6.6 16.8 -8.7

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, nonsubject:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total, all sources:

Quantity 2,764,938 2,953,083 3,046,339 10.2 6.8 3.2

Value 797,766 884,769 867,770 8.8 10.9 -1.9

Unit value $288.53 $299.61 $284.86 -1.3 3.8 -4.9

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers’--

Capacity quantity 7,122,442 7,185,787 5,980,551 -16.0 0.9 -16.8

Production quantity 5,438,898 5,379,891 3,793,871 -30.2 -1.1 -29.5

Capacity utilization1 76.4 74.9 63.4 -12.9 -1.5 -11.4

U.S. shipments:

Quantity 5,381,030 5,307,725 3,889,355 -27.7 -1.4 -26.7

Value 1,668,534 1,603,157 1,175,017 -29.6 -3.9 -26.7

Unit value $310.08 $302.04 $302.11 -2.6 -2.6 0.0

Export shipments:

Quantity 11,672 19,755 26,954 130.9 69.3 36.4

Value 4,863 9,138 13,114 169.7 87.9 43.5

Unit value $416.64 $462.57 $486.53 16.8 11.0 5.2

Inventory quantity 272,531 325,296 191,830 -29.6 19.4 -41.0

Inventories/total shipments1 5.1 6.1 4.9 -0.2 1.1 -1.2

Production workers 3,249 3,193 2,405 -26.0 -1.7 -24.7

Hours worked (1,000s) 7,260 7,668 5,130 -29.3 5.6 -33.1

Wages paid ($1,000s) 188,285 199,858 133,393 -29.2 6.1 -33.3

Hourly wages $25.93 $26.06 $26.00 0.3 0.5 -0.2

Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) 749.1 701.6 739.5 -1.3 -6.3 5.4

Unit labor costs $34.62 $37.15 $35.16 1.6 7.3 -5.4

Table continued on next page.
Table C-1--Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-10

U.S. producers’–Continued

Net sales:

Quantity 4,845,268 5,001,339 3,893,038 -19.7 3.2 -22.2

Value 1,465,279 1,523,719 1,180,358 -19.4 4.0 -22.5

Unit value $302.41 $304.66 $303.20 0.3 0.7 -0.5

Cost of goods sold (COGS) 1,415,715 1,499,048 1,203,534 -15.0 5.9 -19.7

Gross profit or (loss) 49,564 24,671 (23,176) (4

) -50.2 (4)

SG&A expenses 58,587 56,300 59,399 1.4 -3.9 5.5

Operating income or (loss) (9,023) (31,629) (82,575) -815.2 -250.5 -161.1

Capital expenditures 58,955 61,838 32,606 -44.7 4.9 -47.3

Unit COGS $292.19 $299.73 $309.15 5.8 2.6 3.1

Unit SG&A expenses $12.09 $11.26 $15.26 26.2 -6.9 35.5

Unit operating income or (loss) $(1.86) $(6.32) ($21.21) -1039.0 -239.6 -235.4

COGS/sales1 96.6 98.4 102.0 5.3 1.8 3.6

Operating income or (loss)/sales1 -0.6 -2.1 -7.0 -6.4 -1.5 -4.9

1

 “Reported data” are in percent and “Period changes” are in percentage points. 2

 Less than 0.05 percent.

3

 Ending inventory data was not reported separately in Commission questionnaires. These data are included in inventories for “all other.” 4

 Not applicable.

Note.–Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because

of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics adjusted to exclude grade

1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod from questionnaire responses in the final phase of the Commission’s original investigations.
C-11

Table C-1a

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount 8,145,968 8,260,808 6,935,694 -14.9 1.4 -16.0

Producers’ share1 66.1 64.3 56.1 -10.0 -1.8 -8.2

Importers’ share:1

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.0 0.2 -0.2

Mexico 1.5 1.9 3.8 2.4 0.4 1.9

Moldova 2.3 2.3 2.7 0.4 0.0 0.4

Ukraine 2.4 4.5 3.7 1.4 2.1 -0.7

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago 4.2 3.5 5.1 0.9 -0.7 1.6

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Argentina 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4

 Australia (2

) 0.0 (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Austria (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Belarus 0.0 (2

) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1

 Belgium (2

) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

 Excluded Canadian producer Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China (2

) 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2

 Czech Republic 0.2 (2

) 0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0.0

 Egypt 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.2 -0.1

Finland 0.1 (2) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

France 0.1 0.4 *** *** 0.3 ***

India 0.6 0.4 (2

) -0.6 -0.3 -0.4

Italy 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0

 Japan *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea 0.1 (2

) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Latvia (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Luxembourg 0.1 0.1 (2

) -0.1 0.0 -0.1

 Malaysia 0.1 0.2 1.2 1.2 0.2 1.0

 Netherlands 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

 New Zealand 0.0 0.1 (2

) 0.0 0.1 -0.1

 Poland 0.2 (2

) 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

 Portugal 0.0 0.0 (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Romania 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0

 Russia 0.5 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 0.0

Table continued on next page.
C-12

Table C-1a–Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

U.S. consumption quantity:–Continued

 Importers’ share:1

–Continued

 Saudi Arabia 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1

 Singapore 0.0 (2

) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 South Africa 0.7 0.9 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.2

 Spain 1.1 0.4 0.6 -0.5 -0.7 0.2

 Sweden (2

) (2) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Taiwan (2

) (2) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Thailand 0.0 (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Turkey 1.9 2.3 3.7 1.9 0.4 1.5

 United Kingdom 0.9 0.6 0.5 -0.5 -0.3 -0.2

 Venezuela 1.6 1.0 1.1 -0.5 -0.6 0.1

Subtotal, nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 33.9 35.7 43.9 10.0 1.8 8.2

U.S. consumption value:

Amount 2,466,300 2,487,926 2,042,787 -17.2 0.9 -17.9

Producers’ share1 67.7 64.4 57.5 -10.1 -3.2 -6.9

Importers’ share:1

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.2 -0.1

Mexico 1.2 1.6 3.1 2.0 0.4 1.6

Moldova 1.6 1.7 1.9 0.4 0.1 0.3

Ukraine 1.4 3.0 2.4 1.0 1.6 -0.6

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago 3.5 3.0 4.5 0.9 -0.5 1.4

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Argentina 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.3

 Australia (2

) 0.0 (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Austria (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Belarus 0.0 (2

) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1

 Belgium (2

) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

 Canadian producer Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China (2

) 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2

 Czech Republic 0.1 (2

) 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.1

 Egypt 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 -0.1

Finland 0.1 (2

) 0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.1

Table continued on next page.
Table C-1a–Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-13

U.S. consumption value:–Continued

Importers’ share:1

–Continued

France 0.1 0.4 *** *** 0.3 ***

India 0.5 0.3 (2

) -0.5 -0.1 -0.3

Italy 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.0

 Japan *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea 0.1 (2

) (2) -0.1 -0.1 0.0

 Latvia (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Luxembourg 0.2 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1

 Malaysia (2

) 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.7

 Netherlands 0.2 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1

 New Zealand 0.0 0.1 (2

) 0.0 0.1 -0.1

 Poland 0.1 (2

) 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0

 Portugal 0.0 0.0 (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Romania 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0

 Russia 0.3 0.0 0.0 -0.3 -0.3 0.0

 Saudi Arabia 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1

 Singapore 0.0 (2

) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 South Africa 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.1

 Spain 1.0 0.5 0.6 -0.4 -0.5 0.1

 Sweden (2

) (2) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Taiwan (2

) (2) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Thailand 0.0 (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Turkey 1.2 1.8 2.8 1.5 0.6 0.9

 United Kingdom 1.1 0.8 0.6 -0.5 -0.3 -0.2

 Venezuela 1.2 0.7 0.9 -0.3 -0.5 0.2

Subtotal, nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 32.3 35.6 42.5 10.1 3.2 6.9

U.S. imports from--

Brazil

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) :

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-1a–Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-14

U.S. imports from–Continued

Indonesia:

Quantity 69,805 86,940 60,065 -14.0 24.5 -30.9

Value 14,884 19,669 13,118 -11.9 32.2 -33.3

Unit value $213.22 $226.23 $218.39 2.4 6.1 -3.5

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Mexico:

Quantity 122,038 159,818 266,925 118.7 31.0 67.0

Value 29,449 39,337 64,309 118.4 33.6 63.5

Unit value $241.31 $246.14 $240.92 -0.2 2.0 -2.1

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Moldova:

Quantity 190,239 191,074 187,370 -1.5 0.4 -1.9

Value 38,888 41,667 39,439 1.4 7.1 -5.3

Unit value $204.42 $218.07 $210.49 3.0 6.7 -3.5

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ukraine:

Quantity 193,003 367,712 258,526 33.9 90.5 -29.7

Value 35,568 75,568 49,770 39.9 112.5 -34.1

Unit value $184.29 $205.51 $192.52 4.5 11.5 -6.3

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago:

Quantity 341,815 287,507 355,089 3.9 -15.9 23.5

Value 87,289 75,511 91,335 4.6 -13.5 21.0

Unit value $255.37 $262.64 $257.22 0.7 2.8 -2.1

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-1a–Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-15

U.S. imports from–Continued

Germany:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canadian producer Stelco:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Egypt:

Quantity 24,044 37,480 23,447 -2.5 55.9 -37.4

Value 5,377 9,066 5,273 -1.9 68.6 -41.8

Unit value $223.64 $241.90 $224.90 0.6 8.2 -7.0

Ending inventory (3

) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)

South Africa:

Quantity 55,850 75,412 76,058 36.2 35.0 0.9

Value 13,524 19,062 18,216 34.7 41.0 -4.4

Unit value $242.15 $252.77 $239.50 -1.1 4.4 -5.3

Ending inventory (3

) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)

Turkey:

Quantity 151,346 187,878 259,945 71.8 24.1 38.4

Value 30,150 45,285 56,212 86.4 50.2 24.1

Unit value $199.21 $241.04 $216.24 8.5 21.0 -10.3

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Venezuela:

Quantity 132,084 84,957 76,077 -42.4 -35.7 -10.5

Value 30,063 18,536 18,275 -39.2 -38.3 -1.4

Unit value $227.61 $218.18 $240.21 5.5 -4.1 10.1

Ending inventory (3

) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)

Table continued on next page.
Table C-1a–Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-16

U.S. imports from–Continued

Argentina:

Quantity 0 35,910 58,499 (4

) (4) 62.9

Value 0 8,832 14,355 (4

) (4) 62.5

Unit value (4

) $245.94 $245.39 (4) (4) -0.2

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

France:

Quantity 4,424 30,769 *** *** 595.5 ***

Value 2,005 10,066 *** *** 402.0 ***

Unit value $453.28 $327.15 *** *** -27.8 ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy:

Quantity 29,488 38,358 31,919 8.2 30.1 -16.8

Value 7,986 13,281 10,252 28.4 66.3 -22.8

Unit value $270.81 $346.23 $321.20 18.6 27.9 -7.2

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Malaysia:

Quantity 4,338 19,767 85,815 1878.2 355.7 334.1

Value 1,036 5,527 19,336 1766.4 433.5 249.8

Unit value $238.84 $279.63 $225.32 -5.7 17.1 -19.4

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Russia:

Quantity 37,415 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (4

)

Value 6,901 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (4

)

Unit value $184.44 (4

) (4) (4) (4) (4)

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Spain:

Quantity 92,370 35,979 41,908 -54.6 -61.0 16.5

Value 23,664 12,321 11,682 -50.6 -47.9 -5.2

Unit value $256.19 $342.45 $278.74 8.8 33.7 -18.6

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-1a–Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-17

U.S. imports from–Continued

United Kingdom:

Quantity 74,671 52,540 31,425 -57.9 -29.6 -40.2

Value 27,386 19,209 12,054 -56.0 -29.9 -37.2

Unit value $366.75 $365.61 $383.58 4.6 -0.3 4.9

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources:

Quantity 123,133 103,664 60,100 -51.2 -15.8 -42.0

Value 33,501 32,931 17,434 -48.0 -1.7 -47.1

Unit value $272.07 $317.67 $290.08 6.6 16.8 -8.7

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, nonsubject:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total, all sources:

Quantity 2,764,938 2,953,083 3,046,339 10.2 6.8 3.2

Value 797,766 884,769 867,770 8.8 10.9 -1.9

Unit value $288.53 $299.61 $284.86 -1.3 3.8 -4.9

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers’--

Capacity quantity 7,122,442 7,185,787 5,980,551 -16.0 0.9 -16.8

Production quantity 5,438,898 5,379,891 3,793,871 -30.2 -1.1 -29.5

Capacity utilization1 76.4 74.9 63.4 -12.9 -1.5 -11.4

U.S. shipments:

Quantity 5,381,030 5,307,725 3,889,355 -27.7 -1.4 -26.7

Value 1,668,534 1,603,157 1,175,017 -29.6 -3.9 -26.7

Unit value $310.08 $302.04 $302.11 -2.6 -2.6 0.0

Export shipments:

Quantity 11,672 19,755 26,954 130.9 69.3 36.4

Value 4,863 9,138 13,114 169.7 87.9 43.5

Unit value $416.64 $462.57 $486.53 16.8 11.0 5.2

Inventory quantity 272,531 325,296 191,830 -29.6 19.4 -41.0

Inventories/total shipments1 5.1 6.1 4.9 -0.2 1.1 -1.2

Production workers 3,249 3,193 2,405 -26.0 -1.7 -24.7

Hours worked (1,000s) 7,260 7,668 5,130 -29.3 5.6 -33.1

Wages paid ($1,000s) 188,285 199,858 133,393 -29.2 6.1 -33.3

Hourly wages $25.93 $26.06 $26.00 0.3 0.5 -0.2

Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) 749.1 701.6 739.5 -1.3 -6.3 5.4

Table continued on next page.
Table C-1a–Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-18

U.S. producers’–Continued

Unit labor costs $34.62 $37.15 $35.16 1.6 7.3 -5.4

Net sales:

Quantity 4,845,268 5,001,339 3,893,038 -19.7 3.2 -22.2

Value 1,465,279 1,523,719 1,180,358 -19.4 4.0 -22.5

Unit value $302.41 $304.66 $303.20 0.3 0.7 -0.5

Cost of goods sold (COGS) 1,415,715 1,499,048 1,203,534 -15.0 5.9 -19.7

Gross profit or (loss) 49,564 24,671 (23,176) (4

) -50.2 (4)

SG&A expenses 58,587 56,300 59,399 1.4 -3.9 5.5

Operating income or (loss) (9,023) (31,629) (82,575) -815.2 -250.5 -161.1

Capital expenditures 58,955 61,838 32,606 -44.7 4.9 -47.3

Unit COGS $292.19 $299.73 $309.15 5.8 2.6 3.1

Unit SG&A expenses $12.09 $11.26 $15.26 26.2 -6.9 35.5

Unit operating income or (loss) $(1.86) $(6.32) ($21.21) -1039.0 -239.6 -235.4

COGS/sales1 96.6 98.4 102.0 5.3 1.8 3.6

Operating income or (loss)/sales1 -0.6 -2.1 -7.0 -6.4 -1.5 -4.9

1

 “Reported data” are in percent and “Period changes” are in percentage points. 2

 Less than 0.05 percent.

3

 Ending inventory data was not reported separately in Commission questionnaires. These data are included in inventories for “all other.” 4

 Not applicable.

Note.–Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because

of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics adjusted to exclude grade

1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod from questionnaire responses in the final phase of the Commission’s original investigations.
C-19

Table C-1b

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and

period changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount 8,145,968 8,260,808 6,935,694 -14.9 1.4 -16.0

Producers’ share1 66.1 64.3 56.1 -10.0 -1.8 -8.2

Importers’ share:1

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.0 0.2 -0.2

Mexico 1.5 1.9 3.8 2.4 0.4 1.9

Moldova 2.3 2.3 2.7 0.4 0.0 0.4

Ukraine 2.4 4.5 3.7 1.4 2.1 -0.7

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago 4.2 3.5 5.1 0.9 -0.7 1.6

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Argentina 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4

 Australia (2

) 0.0 (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Austria (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Belarus 0.0 (2

) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1

 Belgium (2

) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

 Canadian producer Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China (2

) 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2

 Czech Republic 0.2 (2

) 0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0.0

 Egypt 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.2 -0.1

Finland 0.1 (2

) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

France 0.1 0.4 *** *** 0.3 ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** ***

India 0.6 0.4 (2

) -0.6 -0.3 -0.4

Italy 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0

Japan *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea 0.1 (2

) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Latvia (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Luxembourg 0.1 0.1 (2

) -0.1 0.0 -0.1

Malaysia 0.1 0.2 1.2 1.2 0.2 1.0

Netherlands 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

New Zealand 0.0 0.1 (2

) 0.0 0.1 -0.1

Poland 0.2 (2

) 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.0

Portugal 0.0 0.0 (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Romania 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0

Russia 0.5 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 0.0

Table continued on next page.
C-20

Table C-1b–Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and

period changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

U.S. consumption quantity:–Continued

Importers’ share:1

–Continued

Saudi Arabia 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1

Singapore 0.0 (2

) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

South Africa 0.7 0.9 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.2

Spain 1.1 0.4 0.6 -0.5 -0.7 0.2

Sweden (2

) (2) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Taiwan (2

) (2) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Thailand 0.0 (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Turkey 1.9 2.3 3.7 1.9 0.4 1.5

United Kingdom 0.9 0.6 0.5 -0.5 -0.3 -0.2

Venezuela 1.6 1.0 1.1 -0.5 -0.6 0.1

Subtotal, nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 33.9 35.7 43.9 10.0 1.8 8.2

U.S. consumption value:

Amount 2,466,300 2,487,926 2,042,787 -17.2 0.9 -17.9

Producers’ share1 67.7 64.4 57.5 -10.1 -3.2 -6.9

Importers’ share:1

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.2 -0.1

Mexico 1.2 1.6 3.1 2.0 0.4 1.6

Moldova 1.6 1.7 1.9 0.4 0.1 0.3

Ukraine 1.4 3.0 2.4 1.0 1.6 -0.6

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago 3.5 3.0 4.5 0.9 -0.5 1.4

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Argentina 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.3

 Australia (2

) 0.0 (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Austria (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Belarus 0.0 (2

) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1

 Belgium (2

) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

 Canadian producer Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China (2

) 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2

 Czech Republic 0.1 (2

) 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.1

 Egypt 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 -0.1

Finland 0.1 (2

) 0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.1

France 0.1 0.4 *** *** 0.3 ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-1b–Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and

period changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-21

U.S. consumption value:–Continued

Importers’ share:1

–Continued

India 0.5 0.3 (2

) -0.5 -0.1 -0.3

Italy 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.0

Japan *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea 0.1 (2

) (2) -0.1 -0.1 0.0

Latvia (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Luxembourg 0.2 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1

Malaysia (2

) 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.7

Netherlands 0.2 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1

New Zealand 0.0 0.1 (2

) 0.0 0.1 -0.1

Poland 0.1 (2

) 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0

Portugal 0.0 0.0 (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Romania 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0

Russia 0.3 0.0 0.0 -0.3 -0.3 0.0

Saudi Arabia 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1

Singapore 0.0 (2

) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

South Africa 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.1

Spain 1.0 0.5 0.6 -0.4 -0.5 0.1

Sweden (2

) (2) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Taiwan (2

) (2) (2) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Thailand 0.0 (2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Turkey 1.2 1.8 2.8 1.5 0.6 0.9

United Kingdom 1.1 0.8 0.6 -0.5 -0.3 -0.2

Venezuela 1.2 0.7 0.9 -0.3 -0.5 0.2

Subtotal, nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 32.3 35.6 42.5 10.1 3.2 6.9

U.S. imports from--

Brazil

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) :

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-1b–Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and

period changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-22

U.S. imports from–Continued

Indonesia:

Quantity 69,805 86,940 60,065 -14.0 24.5 -30.9

Value 14,884 19,669 13,118 -11.9 32.2 -33.3

Unit value $213.22 $226.23 $218.39 2.4 6.1 -3.5

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Mexico:

Quantity 122,038 159,818 266,925 118.7 31.0 67.0

Value 29,449 39,337 64,309 118.4 33.6 63.5

Unit value $241.31 $246.14 $240.92 -0.2 2.0 -2.1

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Moldova:

Quantity 190,239 191,074 187,370 -1.5 0.4 -1.9

Value 38,888 41,667 39,439 1.4 7.1 -5.3

Unit value $204.42 $218.07 $210.49 3.0 6.7 -3.5

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ukraine:

Quantity 193,003 367,712 258,526 33.9 90.5 -29.7

Value 35,568 75,568 49,770 39.9 112.5 -34.1

Unit value $184.29 $205.51 $192.52 4.5 11.5 -6.3

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago:

Quantity 341,815 287,507 355,089 3.9 -15.9 23.5

Value 87,289 75,511 91,335 4.6 -13.5 21.0

Unit value $255.37 $262.64 $257.22 0.7 2.8 -2.1

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-1b–Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and

period changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-23

U.S. imports from–Continued

Canadian producer Stelco:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Egypt:

Quantity 24,044 37,480 23,447 -2.5 55.9 -37.4

Value 5,377 9,066 5,273 -1.9 68.6 -41.8

Unit value $223.64 $241.90 $224.91 0.6 8.2 -7.0

Ending inventory (3

) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)

Germany:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa:

Quantity 55,850 75,412 76,058 36.2 35.0 0.9

Value 13,524 19,062 18,216 34.7 41.0 -4.4

Unit value $242.15 $252.77 $239.50 -1.1 4.4 -5.3

Ending inventory (3

) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)

Turkey:

Quantity 151,346 187,878 259,945 71.8 24.1 38.4

Value 30,150 45,285 56,212 86.4 50.2 24.1

Unit value $199.21 $241.04 $216.24 8.5 21.0 -10.3

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Venezuela:

Quantity 132,084 84,957 76,077 -42.4 -35.7 -10.5

Value 30,063 18,536 18,275 -39.2 -38.3 -1.4

Unit value $227.61 $218.18 $240.21 5.5 -4.1 10.1

Ending inventory (3

) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)

Table continued on next page.
Table C-1b–Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and

period changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-24

U.S. imports from–Continued

Argentina:

Quantity 0 35,910 58,499 (4

) (4) 62.9

Value 0 8,832 14,355 (4

) (4) 62.5

Unit value (4

) $245.94 $245.39 (4) (4) -0.2

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

France:

Quantity 4,424 30,769 *** *** 595.5 ***

Value 2,005 10,066 *** *** 402.0 ***

Unit value $453.28 $327.15 *** *** -27.8 ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy:

Quantity 29,488 38,358 31,919 8.2 30.1 -16.8

Value 7,986 13,281 10,252 28.4 66.3 -22.8

Unit value $270.81 $346.23 $321.20 18.6 27.9 -7.2

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Malaysia:

Quantity 4,338 19,767 85,815 1878.2 355.7 334.1

Value 1,036 5,527 19,336 1766.4 433.5 249.8

Unit value $238.84 $279.63 $225.32 -5.7 17.1 -19.4

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Russia:

Quantity 37,415 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (4

)

Value 6,901 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (4

)

Unit value $184.44 (4

) (4) (4) (4) (4)

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Spain:

Quantity 92,370 35,979 41,908 -54.6 -61.0 16.5

Value 23,664 12,321 11,682 -50.6 -47.9 -5.2

Unit value $256.19 $342.45 $278.74 8.8 33.7 -18.6

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-1b–Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and

period changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-25

U.S. imports from–Continued

United Kingdom:

Quantity 74,671 52,540 31,425 -57.9 -29.6 -40.2

Value 27,386 19,209 12,054 -56.0 -29.9 -37.2

Unit value $366.75 $365.61 $383.58 4.6 -0.3 4.9

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources:

Quantity 123,133 103,664 60,100 -51.2 -15.8 -42.0

Value 33,501 32,931 17,434 -48.0 -1.7 -47.1

Unit value $272.07 $317.67 $290.08 6.6 16.8 -8.7

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, nonsubject:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total, all sources:

Quantity 2,764,938 2,953,083 3,046,339 10.2 6.8 3.2

Value 797,766 884,769 867,770 8.8 10.9 -1.9

Unit value $288.53 $299.61 $284.86 -1.3 3.8 -4.9

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers’--

Capacity quantity 7,122,442 7,185,787 5,980,551 -16.0 0.9 -16.8

Production quantity 5,438,898 5,379,891 3,793,871 -30.2 -1.1 -29.5

Capacity utilization1 76.4 74.9 63.4 -12.9 -1.5 -11.4

U.S. shipments:

Quantity 5,381,030 5,307,725 3,889,355 -27.7 -1.4 -26.7

Value 1,668,534 1,603,157 1,175,017 -29.6 -3.9 -26.7

Unit value $310.08 $302.04 $302.11 -2.6 -2.6 0.0

Export shipments:

Quantity 11,672 19,755 26,954 130.9 69.3 36.4

Value 4,863 9,138 13,114 169.7 87.9 43.5

Unit value $416.64 $462.57 $486.53 16.8 11.0 5.2

Inventory quantity 272,531 325,296 191,830 -29.6 19.4 -41.0

Inventories/total shipments1 5.1 6.1 4.9 -0.2 1.1 -1.2

Production workers 3,249 3,193 2,405 -26.0 -1.7 -24.7

Hours worked (1,000s) 7,261 7,668 5,130 -29.3 5.6 -33.1

Wages paid ($1,000s) 188,285 199,858 133,393 -29.2 6.1 -33.3

Hourly wages $25.93 $26.06 $26.00 0.3 0.5 -0.2

Table continued on next page.
Table C-1b–Continued

Wire rod (excluding certain grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning

the U.S. market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and

period changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-26

U.S. producers’–Continued

Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) 749.1 701.6 739.5 -1.3 -6.3 5.4

Unit labor costs $34.62 $37.15 $35.16 1.6 7.3 -5.4

Net sales:

Quantity 4,845,268 5,001,339 3,893,038 -19.7 3.2 -22.2

Value 1,465,279 1,523,719 1,180,358 -19.4 4.0 -22.5

Unit value $302.41 $304.66 $303.20 0.3 0.7 -0.5

Cost of goods sold (COGS) 1,415,715 1,499,048 1,203,534 -15.0 5.9 -19.7

Gross profit or (loss) 49,564 24,671 (23,176) (4

) -50.2 (4)

SG&A expenses 58,587 56,300 59,399 1.4 -3.9 5.5

Operating income or (loss) (9,023) (31,629) (82,575) -815.2 -250.5 -161.1

Capital expenditures 58,955 61,838 32,606 -44.7 4.9 -47.3

Unit COGS $292.19 $299.73 $309.15 5.8 2.6 3.1

Unit SG&A expenses $12.09 $11.26 $15.26 26.2 -6.9 35.5

Unit operating income or (loss) ($1.86) ($6.32) ($21.21) -1039.0 -239.6 -235.4

COGS/sales1 96.6 98.4 102.0 5.3 1.8 3.6

Operating income or (loss)/sales1 (0.6) (2.1) (7.0) -6.4 -1.5 -4.9

1

 “Reported data” are in percent and “Period changes” are in percentage points. 2

 Less than 0.05 percent.

3

 Ending inventory data was not reported separately in Commission questionnaires. These data are included in inventories for “all other.” 4

 Not applicable.

Note.–Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because

of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics adjusted to exclude grade

1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod from questionnaire responses in the final phase of the Commission’s original investigations.
C-27

Table C-2

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount *** *** *** *** *** ***

Producers’ share1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Importers’ share:1

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Mexico *** *** *** *** *** ***

Moldova *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ukraine *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Argentina *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Australia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Austria *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Belarus *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Belgium *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canadian producer Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Czech Republic *** *** *** *** *** ***

Egypt *** *** *** *** *** ***

Finland *** *** *** *** *** ***

France *** *** *** *** *** ***

India *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Latvia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Luxembourg *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Malaysia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Netherlands *** *** *** *** *** ***

 New Zealand *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Poland *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Portugal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Romania *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Russia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Saudi Arabia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
C-28

Table C-2--Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

U.S. consumption quantity:–Continued

Importers’ share:1

–Continued

 Singapore *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Spain *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Sweden *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Thailand *** *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey *** *** *** *** *** ***

United Kingdom *** *** *** *** *** ***

Venezuela *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

Amount *** *** *** *** *** ***

Producers’ share1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Importers’ share:1

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Mexico *** *** *** *** *** ***

Moldova *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ukraine *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Argentina *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Australia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Austria *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Belarus *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Belgium *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canadian producer Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Czech Republic *** *** *** *** *** ***

Egypt *** *** *** *** *** ***

Finland *** *** *** *** *** ***

France *** *** *** *** *** ***

India *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-2--Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-29

U.S. consumption value:–Continued

Importers’ share:1

–Continued

 Japan *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Latvia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Luxembourg *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Malaysia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Netherlands *** *** *** *** *** ***

 New Zealand *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Poland *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Portugal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Romania *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Russia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Saudi Arabia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Singapore *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa *** *** *** *** *** ***

Spain *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Sweden *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Thailand *** *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey *** *** *** *** *** ***

United Kingdom *** *** *** *** *** ***

Venezuela *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

Brazil

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) :

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-2--Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-30

U.S. imports from–Continued

Germany:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia:

Quantity 69,805 86,940 60,065 -14.0 24.5 -30.9

Value 14,884 19,669 13,118 -11.9 32.2 -33.3

Unit value $213.22 $226.23 $218.39 2.4 6.1 -3.5

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Mexico:

Quantity 122,038 159,818 266,925 118.7 31.0 67.0

Value 29,449 39,337 64,309 118.4 33.6 63.5

Unit value $241.31 $246.14 $240.92 -0.2 2.0 -2.1

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Moldova:

Quantity 190,239 191,074 187,370 -1.5 0.4 -1.9

Value 38,888 41,667 39,439 1.4 7.1 -5.3

Unit value $204.42 $218.07 $210.49 3.0 6.7 -3.5

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ukraine:

Quantity 193,003 367,712 258,526 33.9 90.5 -29.7

Value 35,568 75,568 49,770 39.9 112.5 -34.1

Unit value $184.29 $205.51 $192.52 4.5 11.5 -6.3

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago:

Quantity 341,815 287,507 355,089 3.9 -15.9 23.5

Value 87,289 75,511 91,335 4.6 -13.5 21.0

Unit value $255.37 $262.64 $257.22 0.7 2.8 -2.1

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-2--Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-31

U.S. imports from–Continued

Subtotal:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canadian producer Stelco:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Egypt:

Quantity 24,044 37,480 23,447 -2.5 55.9 -37.4

Value 5,377 9,066 5,273 -1.9 68.6 -41.8

Unit value $223.64 $241.90 $224.91 0.6 8.2 -7.0

Ending inventory (3

) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)

South Africa:

Quantity 55,850 75,412 76,058 36.2 35.0 0.9

Value 13,524 19,062 18,216 34.7 41.0 -4.4

Unit value $242.15 $252.77 $239.50 -1.1 4.4 -5.3

Ending inventory (3

) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)

Turkey:

Quantity 151,346 187,878 259,945 71.8 24.1 38.4

Value 30,150 45,285 56,212 86.4 50.2 24.1

Unit value $199.21 $241.04 $216.24 8.5 21.0 -10.3

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Venezuela:

Quantity 132,084 84,957 76,077 -42.4 -35.7 -10.5

Value 30,063 18,536 18,275 -39.2 -38.3 -1.4

Unit value $227.61 $218.18 $240.21 5.5 -4.1 10.1

Ending inventory (3

) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)

Argentina:

Quantity 0 35,910 58,499 (4

) (4) 62.9

Value 0 8,832 14,355 (4

) (4) 62.5

Unit value (4

) $245.94 $245.39 (4) (4) -0.2

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-2--Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-32

U.S. imports from–Continued

France:

Quantity 4,424 30,769 28,221 537.9 595.5 -8.3

Value 2,005 10,066 9,463 372.0 402.0 -6.0

Unit value $453.28 $327.15 $335.31 -26.0 -27.8 2.5

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy:

Quantity 29,488 38,358 31,919 8.2 30.1 -16.8

Value 7,986 13,281 10,252 28.4 66.3 -22.8

Unit value $270.81 $346.23 $321.20 18.6 27.9 -7.2

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan:

Quantity 257,806 222,031 177,173 -31.3 -13.9 -20.2

Value 129,245 110,489 89,105 -31.1 -14.5 -19.4

Unit value $501.33 $497.63 $502.93 0.3 -0.7 1.1

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Malaysia:

Quantity 4,338 19,767 85,815 1878.2 355.7 334.1

Value 1,036 5,527 19,336 1766.4 433.5 249.8

Unit value $238.84 $279.63 $225.32 -5.7 17.1 -19.4

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Russia:

Quantity 37,415 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (4

)

Value 6,901 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (4

)

Unit value $184.44 (4

) (4) (4) (4) (4)

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Spain:

Quantity 92,370 35,979 41,908 -54.6 -61.0 16.5

Value 23,664 12,321 11,682 -50.6 -47.9 -5.2

Unit value $256.19 $342.45 $278.74 8.8 33.7 -18.6

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

United Kingdom:

Quantity 74,671 52,540 31,425 -57.9 -29.6 -40.2

Value 27,386 19,209 12,054 -56.0 -29.9 -37.2

Unit value $366.75 $365.61 $383.58 4.6 -0.3 4.9

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-2--Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-33

U.S. imports from–Continued

All other sources:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, nonsubject:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total, all sources:

Quantity 2,787,291 2,987,084 3,066,218 10.0 7.2 2.6

Value 807,566 899,451 875,963 8.5 11.4 -2.6

Unit value $289.73 $301.11 $285.68 -1.4 3.9 -5.1

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers’--

Capacity quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Capacity utilization1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Share of quantity of U.S. shipments to:

Distributors1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

End users1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Inventories/total shipments1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production workers *** *** *** *** *** ***

Hours worked (1,000s) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Wages paid ($1,000s) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Hourly wages *** *** *** *** *** ***

Productivity (short tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit labor costs *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-2--Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-34

U.S. producers’–Continued

Net sales:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Cost of goods sold (COGS) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Gross profit or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** ***

SG&A expenses *** *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Capital expenditures *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit COGS *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit SG&A expenses *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** ***

COGS/sales1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income or (loss)/sales1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

1

 “Reported data” are in percent and “Period changes” are in percentage points. 2

 Less than 0.05 percent.

3

 Ending inventory data was not reported separately in Commission questionnaires. These data are included in inventories for “all other.” 4

 Not applicable.

Note.–Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because

of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics adjusted for the subject

merchandise to exclude grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod from questionnaire responses in the final phase of the Commission’s

original investigations.
C-35

Table C-2a

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount *** *** *** *** *** ***

Producers’ share1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Importers’ share:1

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Mexico *** *** *** *** *** ***

Moldova *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ukraine *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Argentina *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Australia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Austria *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Belarus *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Belgium *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canadian producer Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Czech Republic *** *** *** *** *** ***

Egypt *** *** *** *** *** ***

Finland *** *** *** *** *** ***

France *** *** *** *** *** ***

India *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Latvia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Luxembourg *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Malaysia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Netherlands *** *** *** *** *** ***

 New Zealand *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Poland *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Portugal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Romania *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Russia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
C-36

Table C-2a–Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

U.S. consumption quantity:–Continued

Importers’ share:1

–Continued

 Saudi Arabia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Singapore *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa *** *** *** *** *** ***

Spain *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Sweden *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Taiwan *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Thailand *** *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey *** *** *** *** *** ***

 United Kingdom *** *** *** *** *** ***

Venezuela *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

Amount *** *** *** *** *** ***

Producers’ share1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Importers’ share:1

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Mexico *** *** *** *** *** ***

Moldova *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ukraine *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Argentina *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Australia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Austria *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Belarus *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Belgium *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canadian producer Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Czech Republic *** *** *** *** *** ***

Egypt *** *** *** *** *** ***

Finland *** *** *** *** *** ***

France *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-2a–Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-37

U.S. consumption value:–Continued

Importers’ share:1

–Continued

India *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Japan *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Korea *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Latvia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Luxembourg *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Malaysia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Netherlands *** *** *** *** *** ***

 New Zealand *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Poland *** *** *** *** *** ***

Portugal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Romania *** *** *** *** *** ***

Russia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Saudi Arabia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Singapore *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa *** *** *** *** *** ***

Spain *** *** *** *** *** ***

Sweden *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan *** *** *** *** *** ***

Thailand *** *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey *** *** *** *** *** ***

United Kingdom *** *** *** *** *** ***

Venezuela *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

Brazil

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) :

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-2a–Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-38

U.S. imports from–Continued

Indonesia:

Quantity 69,805 86,940 60,065 -14.0 24.5 -30.9

Value 14,884 19,669 13,118 -11.9 32.2 -33.3

Unit value $213.22 $226.23 $218.39 2.4 6.1 -3.5

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Mexico:

Quantity 122,038 159,818 266,925 118.7 31.0 67.0

Value 29,449 39,337 64,309 118.4 33.6 63.5

Unit value $241.31 $246.14 $240.92 -0.2 2.0 -2.1

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Moldova:

Quantity 190,239 191,074 187,370 -1.5 0.4 -1.9

Value 38,888 41,667 39,439 1.4 7.1 -5.3

Unit value $204.42 $218.07 $210.49 3.0 6.7 -3.5

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ukraine:

Quantity 193,003 367,712 258,526 33.9 90.5 -29.7

Value 35,568 75,568 49,770 39.9 112.5 -34.1

Unit value $184.29 $205.51 $192.52 4.5 11.5 -6.3

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago:

Quantity 341,815 287,507 355,089 3.9 -15.9 23.5

Value 87,289 75,511 91,335 4.6 -13.5 21.0

Unit value $255.37 $262.64 $257.22 0.7 2.8 -2.1

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-2a–Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-39

U.S. imports from–Continued

Germany:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canadian producer Stelco:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Egypt:

Quantity 24,044 37,480 23,447 -2.5 55.9 -37.4

Value 5,377 9,066 5,273 -1.9 68.6 -41.8

Unit value $223.64 $241.90 $224.91 0.6 8.2 -7.0

Ending inventory (3

) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)

South Africa:

Quantity 55,850 75,412 76,058 36.2 35.0 0.9

Value 13,524 19,062 18,216 34.7 41.0 -4.4

Unit value $242.15 $252.77 $239.50 -1.1 4.4 -5.3

Ending inventory (3

) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)

Turkey:

Quantity 151,346 187,878 259,945 71.8 24.1 38.4

Value 30,150 45,285 56,212 86.4 50.2 24.1

Unit value $199.21 $241.04 $216.24 8.5 21.0 -10.3

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Venezuela:

Quantity 132,084 84,957 76,077 -42.4 -35.7 -10.5

Value 30,063 18,536 18,275 -39.2 -38.3 -1.4

Unit value $227.61 $218.18 $240.21 5.5 -4.1 10.1

Ending inventory (3

) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)

Table continued on next page.
Table C-2a–Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-40

U.S. imports from–Continued

Argentina:

Quantity 0 35,910 58,499 (4

) (4) 62.9

Value 0 8,832 14,355 (4

) (4) 62.5

Unit value (3

) $245.94 $245.39 (4) (4) -0.2

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

France:

Quantity 4,424 30,769 28,221 537.9 595.5 -8.3

Value 2,005 10,066 9,463 372.0 402.0 -6.0

Unit value $453.28 $327.15 $335.31 -26.0 -27.8 2.5

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy:

Quantity 29,488 38,358 31,919 8.2 30.1 -16.8

Value 7,986 13,281 10,252 28.4 66.3 -22.8

Unit value $270.81 $346.23 $321.20 18.6 27.9 -7.2

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan:

Quantity 257,806 222,031 177,173 -31.3 -13.9 -20.2

Value 129,245 110,489 89,105 -31.1 -14.5 -19.4

Unit value $501.33 $497.63 $502.93 0.3 -0.7 1.1

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Malaysia:

Quantity 4,338 19,767 85,815 1878.2 355.7 334.1

Value 1,036 5,527 19,336 1766.4 433.5 249.8

Unit value $238.84 $279.63 $225.32 -5.7 17.1 -19.4

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Russia:

Quantity 37,415 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (4

)

Value 6,901 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (4

)

Unit value $184.44 (4

) (4) (4) (4) (4)

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Spain:

Quantity 92,370 35,979 41,908 -54.6 -61.0 16.5

Value 23,664 12,321 11,682 -50.6 -47.9 -5.2

Unit value $256.19 $342.45 $278.74 8.8 33.7 -18.6

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-2a–Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-41

U.S. imports from–Continued

United Kingdom:

Quantity 74,671 52,540 31,425 -57.9 -29.6 -40.2

Value 27,386 19,209 12,054 -56.0 -29.9 -37.2

Unit value $366.75 $365.61 $383.58 4.6 -0.3 4.9

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, nonsubject:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total, all sources:

Quantity 2,787,291 2,987,084 3,066,218 10.0 7.2 2.6

Value 807,566 899,451 875,963 8.5 11.4 -2.6

Unit value $289.73 $301.11 $285.68 -1.4 3.9 -5.1

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers’--

Capacity quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Capacity utilization1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Share of quantity of U.S. shipments to:

Distributors1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

End users1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Inventories/total shipments1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production workers *** *** *** *** *** ***

Hours worked (1,000s) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-2a–Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period

changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-42

U.S. producers’–Continued

Wages paid ($1,000s) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Hourly wages *** *** *** *** *** ***

Productivity (short tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit labor costs *** *** *** *** *** ***

Net sales:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Cost of goods sold (COGS) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Gross profit or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** ***

SG&A expenses *** *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Capital expenditures *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit COGS *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit SG&A expenses *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** ***

COGS/sales1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income or (loss)/sales1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

1

 “Reported data” are in percent and “Period changes” are in percentage points. 2

 Less than 0.05 percent.

3

 Ending inventory data was not reported separately in Commission questionnaires. These data are included in inventories for “all other.” 4

 Not applicable.

Note.–Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because

of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics adjusted for the subject

merchandise to exclude grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod from questionnaire responses in the final phase of the Commission’s

original investigations.
C-43

Table C-2b

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and

period changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount *** *** *** *** *** ***

Producers’ share1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Importers’ share:1

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Mexico *** *** *** *** *** ***

Moldova *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ukraine *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Argentina *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Australia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Austria *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Belarus *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Belgium *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canadian producer Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Czech Republic *** *** *** *** *** ***

Egypt *** *** *** *** *** ***

Finland *** *** *** *** *** ***

France *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** ***

India *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea *** *** *** *** *** ***

Latvia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Luxembourg *** *** *** *** *** ***

Malaysia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Netherlands *** *** *** *** *** ***

New Zealand *** *** *** *** *** ***

Poland *** *** *** *** *** ***

Portugal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Romania *** *** *** *** *** ***

Russia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
C-44

Table C-2b–Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and

period changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

U.S. consumption quantity:–Continued

Importers’ share:1

–Continued

Saudi Arabia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Singapore *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa *** *** *** *** *** ***

Spain *** *** *** *** *** ***

Sweden *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan *** *** *** *** *** ***

Thailand *** *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey *** *** *** *** *** ***

United Kingdom *** *** *** *** *** ***

Venezuela *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

Amount *** *** *** *** *** ***

Producers’ share1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Importers’ share:1

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Indonesia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Mexico *** *** *** *** *** ***

Moldova *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ukraine *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Argentina *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Australia *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Austria *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Belarus *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Belgium *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canadian producer Stelco *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Czech Republic *** *** *** *** *** ***

Egypt *** *** *** *** *** ***

Finland *** *** *** *** *** ***

France *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-2b–Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and

period changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-45

U.S. consumption value:–Continued

Importers’ share:1

–Continued

India *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan *** *** *** *** *** ***

Korea *** *** *** *** *** ***

Latvia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Luxembourg *** *** *** *** *** ***

Malaysia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Netherlands *** *** *** *** *** ***

New Zealand *** *** *** *** *** ***

Poland *** *** *** *** *** ***

Portugal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Romania *** *** *** *** *** ***

Russia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Saudi Arabia *** *** *** *** *** ***

Singapore *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa *** *** *** *** *** ***

Spain *** *** *** *** *** ***

Sweden *** *** *** *** *** ***

Taiwan *** *** *** *** *** ***

Thailand *** *** *** *** *** ***

Turkey *** *** *** *** *** ***

United Kingdom *** *** *** *** *** ***

Venezuela *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject subtotal *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

Brazil

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Canada (excluding Stelco) :

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-2b–Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and

period changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-46

U.S. imports from–Continued

Indonesia:

Quantity 69,805 86,940 60,065 -14.0 24.5 -30.9

Value 14,884 19,669 13,118 -11.9 32.2 -33.3

Unit value $213.22 $226.23 $218.39 2.4 6.1 -3.5

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Mexico:

Quantity 122,038 159,818 266,925 118.7 31.0 67.0

Value 29,449 39,337 64,309 118.4 33.6 63.5

Unit value $241.31 $246.14 $240.92 -0.2 2.0 -2.1

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Moldova:

Quantity 190,239 191,074 187,370 -1.5 0.4 -1.9

Value 38,888 41,667 39,439 1.4 7.1 -5.3

Unit value $204.42 $218.07 $210.49 3.0 6.7 -3.5

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ukraine:

Quantity 193,003 367,712 258,526 33.9 90.5 -29.7

Value 35,568 75,568 49,770 39.9 112.5 -34.1

Unit value $184.29 $205.51 $192.52 4.5 11.5 -6.3

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Trinidad & Tobago:

Quantity 341,815 287,507 355,089 3.9 -15.9 23.5

Value 87,289 75,511 91,335 4.6 -13.5 21.0

Unit value $255.37 $262.64 $257.22 0.7 2.8 -2.1

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-2b–Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and

period changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-47

U.S. imports from–Continued

Canadian producer Stelco:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Egypt:

Quantity 24,044 37,480 23,447 -2.5 55.9 -37.4

Value 5,377 9,066 5,273 -1.9 68.6 -41.8

Unit value $223.64 $241.90 $224.91 0.6 8.2 -7.0

Ending inventory (3

) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)

Germany:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

South Africa:

Quantity 55,850 75,412 76,058 36.2 35.0 0.9

Value 13,524 19,062 18,216 34.7 41.0 -4.4

Unit value $242.15 $252.77 $239.50 -1.1 4.4 -5.3

Ending inventory (3

) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)

Turkey:

Quantity 151,346 187,878 259,945 71.8 24.1 38.4

Value 30,150 45,285 56,212 86.4 50.2 24.1

Unit value $199.21 $241.04 $216.24 8.5 21.0 -10.3

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Venezuela:

Quantity 132,084 84,957 76,077 -42.4 -35.7 -10.5

Value 30,063 18,536 18,275 -39.2 -38.3 -1.4

Unit value $227.61 $218.18 $240.21 5.5 -4.1 10.1

Ending inventory (3

) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4)

Table continued on next page.
Table C-2b–Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and

period changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-48

U.S. imports from–Continued

Argentina:

Quantity 0 35,910 58,499 (4

) (4) 62.9

Value 0 8,832 14,355 (4

) (4) 62.5

Unit value (4

) $245.94 $245.39 (4) (4) -0.2

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

France:

Quantity 4,424 30,769 28,221 537.9 595.5 -8.3

Value 2,005 10,066 9,463 372.0 402.0 -6.0

Unit value $453.28 $327.15 $335.31 -26.0 -27.8 2.5

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Italy:

Quantity 29,488 38,358 31,919 8.2 30.1 -16.8

Value 7,986 13,281 10,252 28.4 66.3 -22.8

Unit value $270.81 $346.23 $321.20 18.6 27.9 -7.2

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan:

Quantity 257,806 222,031 177,173 -31.3 -13.9 -20.2

Value 129,245 110,489 89,105 -31.1 -14.5 -19.4

Unit value $501.33 $497.63 $502.93 0.3 -0.7 1.1

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Malaysia:

Quantity 4,338 19,767 85,815 1,878.2 355.7 334.1

Value 1,036 5,527 19,336 1,766.4 433.5 249.8

Unit value $238.84 $279.63 $225.32 -5.7 17.1 -19.4

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Russia:

Quantity 37,415 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (4

)

Value 6,901 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (4

)

Unit value $184.44 (4

) (4) (4) (4) (4)

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Spain:

Quantity 92,370 35,979 41,908 -54.6 -61.0 16.5

Value 23,664 12,321 11,682 -50.6 -47.9 -5.2

Unit value $256.19 $342.45 $278.74 8.8 33.7 -18.6

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-2b–Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and

period changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-49

U.S. imports from–Continued

United Kingdom:

Quantity 74,671 52,540 31,425 -57.9 -29.6 -40.2

Value 27,386 19,209 12,054 -56.0 -29.9 -37.2

Unit value $366.75 $365.61 $383.58 4.6 -0.3 4.9

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal, nonsubject:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total, all sources:

Quantity 2,787,291 2,987,084 3,066,218 10.0 7.2 2.6

Value 807,566 899,451 875,963 8.5 11.4 -2.6

Unit value $289.73 $301.11 $285.68 -1.4 3.9 -5.1

Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers’--

Capacity quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Capacity utilization1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Share of quantity of U.S. shipments to:

Distributors1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

End users1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Inventories/total shipments1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production workers *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
Table C-2b–Continued

Wire rod (including grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 1999-2001

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and

period changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year Period changes

1999 2000 2001 1999-2001 1999-2000 2000-2001

C-50

U.S. producers’–Continued

Hours worked (1,000s) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Wages paid ($1,000s) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Hourly wages *** *** *** *** *** ***

Productivity (short tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit labor costs *** *** *** *** *** ***

Net sales:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value *** *** *** *** *** ***

Cost of goods sold (COGS) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Gross profit or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** ***

SG&A expenses *** *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Capital expenditures *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit COGS *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit SG&A expenses *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** ***

COGS/sales1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income or (loss)/sales1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

1

 “Reported data” are in percent and “Period changes” are in percentage points. 2

 Less than 0.05 percent.

3

 Ending inventory data was not reported separately in Commission questionnaires. These data are included in inventories for “all other.” 4

 Not applicable.

Note.–Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because

of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics adjusted for the subject

merchandise to exclude grade 1080 tire cord and tire bead quality wire rod from questionnaire responses in the final phase of the Commission’s

original investigations.