Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From

Argentina, Brazil, and Germany

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-707-709 (Second Review)

Publication 3918 May 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

Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman

Daniel R. Pearson, Chairman

Staff assigned

Joanna Lo, Investigator

Alan Treat, Industry Analyst

Amelia Preece, Economist

Rhonda Hughes, Attorney

Lita David-Harris, Statistician

Douglas E. Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Deanna Tanner Okun

Charlotte R. Lane

Irving A. Williamson

Dean A. Pinkert
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

May 2007

www.usitc.gov

Publication 3918

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From

Argentina, Brazil, and Germany

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-707-709 (Second Review)
 
i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Additional and dissenting views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna 

Tanner Okun regarding Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Dissenting views of Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Part I: Introduction and overview

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

The original investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

The first five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

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

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

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

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Changed circumstances review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Scope ruling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Expedited reviews of orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-28

U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-29

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-31
ii

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-15

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-15

Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports ............ II-19

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-24

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-24

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-24

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-25

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization .......................... III-1

Anticipated changes in existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

Alternative products ........................................................ III-2

U.S. producers’ domestic shipments and export shipments ............................. III-2

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-3

U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity ................................ III-3

Financial experience of U.S. producers of seamless SLP pipe .......................... III-4

Background ............................................................... III-4

Operations on seamless SLP pipe .............................................. III-4

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

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

Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

Subject imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

Nonsubject imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

Presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

The industry in Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

Seamless SLP pipe operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12
iii

CONTENTS

Page

Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries–Continued

The industry in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

Seamless SLP pipe operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-14

The industry in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15

Seamless SLP pipe operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15

Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-16

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-17

Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-17

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-19

Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-21

Part V: Pricing and related information

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

Raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Transportation costs to the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Sales terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices and the Commission’s statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

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

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

D. U.S. producers’, U.S. importers’, U.S. purchasers’, and foreign producers’ comments

 regarding the effects of the antidumping duty orders and the likely effects of revocation . . D-1

E. Fax memorandum from Commerce on scope language correction for the final results of 

 expedited five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders on seamless pipe

 from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

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

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

 1

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

 2

 Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane dissenting, Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert not participating.

 3

 Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun dissenting, Commissioner Dean A.

Pinkert not participating.

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-707-709 (Second Review)

CERTAIN SEAMLESS CARBON AND ALLOY STEEL 

STANDARD, LINE, AND PRESSURE PIPE FROM ARGENTINA, BRAZIL, AND GERMANY

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

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

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

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain seamless

carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe from Argentina and Brazil would not be likely to

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

reasonably foreseeable time.2

 The Commission also determines that revocation of the antidumping duty

order on certain seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe from Germany would be

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

reasonably foreseeable time.3

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these reviews on June 1, 2006 (71 F.R. 31209) and determined on

September 5, 2006 that it would conduct full reviews (71 F.R. 54520, September 15, 2006). Notice of

the scheduling of the Commission’s reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith

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

Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on September 29,

2006 (71 F.R. 57567). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on February 8, 2007, and all persons

who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

 1

 Commissioner Lane dissenting. See Dissenting Views of Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane. She joins sections I

- II of these views. Commissioner Pinkert not participating.

 2

 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun dissenting. See Additional and Dissenting Views of Chairman

Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun. They join sections I - IV.E. of these views. 

Commissioner Pinkert not participating.

 3

 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Steel Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany,

and Italy, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-362 & 731-TA-707-710 (Final), USITC Pub. 2910 (July 1995) (“Original

Determinations”).

 4

 60 Fed. Reg. 39,704, 39,705, 39,707, and 39,708 (Aug. 3, 1995).

 5

 60 Fed. Reg. 40,569 (Aug. 9, 1995).

 6

 The Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on seamless

SLP pipe from Italy would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and

Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-362 & 731-TA-707-710 (Review),

USITC Pub. 3429 (June 2001), at 3 (“First Review Determinations”). Commerce consequently revoked the orders

on seamless SLP pipe from Italy.

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

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

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain

seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe (“seamless SLP pipe”) from Argentina

and Brazil would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.1

 We further determine that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on seamless SLP pipe from Germany would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.2

I. BACKGROUND

In July 1995, the Commission found that an industry in the United States was materially injured

by reason of less than fair value (“LTFV”) imports of seamless SLP pipe from Argentina, Brazil and

Germany, as well as LTFV and subsidized imports from Italy.3

 The Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) issued the antidumping duty orders on August 3, 1995,4

 and the countervailing duty order

on Italy effective August 9, 1995.5

 The Commission’s original determinations were not appealed.

On July 3, 2000, the Commission instituted reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act to

determine whether revocation of the countervailing and antidumping duty orders on imports of seamless

SLP pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to a domestic industry. On October 5, 2000, the Commission determined to conduct full

reviews of the orders. In June 2001, the Commission made an affirmative determination in all reviews

except those pertaining to Italy.6

Siderca, S.A.I.C. (“Siderca”), a producer of seamless SLP pipe in Argentina, appealed the first

review determination pertaining to the order on imports from Argentina. The Court of International Trade
 7

 The CIT remanded the determination for clarification and further analysis on several issues. Siderca, S.A.I.C. v.

United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 1243 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004).

 8

 Siderca, S.A.I.C. v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005). Then Vice Chairman Okun and

Commissioner Pearson dissented.

 9

 Benteler is not an importer of the subject merchandise. Explanation of Commission Determinations on

Adequacy, Confidential Staff Report (“CR”)/Public Staff Report (“PR”) CR/PR at App. A.

 10 Commissioners Okun and Lane determined that the respondent interested party group response with respect to

Germany was adequate.

 11 See Confidential Staff Report (“CR”)/Public Staff Report (“PR”) at App. A. All citations to the staff report in

these views refer to memorandum INV-EE-026 (Mar. 12, 2007), as revised by memorandum INV-EE-027 (Mar. 13,

2007).

 12 65 Fed. Reg. 39,360 (June 26, 2000); 65 Fed. Reg. 48,963 (Aug. 10, 2000); 65 Fed. Reg. 49,539 (Aug. 14,

2000); 65 Fed. Reg. 49,227 (Aug. 11, 2000). See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure

Pipe from Japan and South Africa, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC Pub. 3311 (June 2000); Certain

Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Mexico, and

(continued...)

4

sustained the Commission’s affirmative determination in part and remanded it in part.7 The Court upheld

the Commission’s affirmative remand determination.8

The Commission instituted these second reviews of the remaining orders on seamless SLP pipe

on June 1, 2006. The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to the notice

of institution for each review was adequate and that the Argentine respondent interested party group was

adequate; it determined to conduct a full review with respect to the order on seamless SLP pipe from

Argentina. The Commission received no responses from any respondent interested party regarding the

order on subject imports from Brazil and therefore determined that the Brazilian respondent interested

party group response to the notice of institution was inadequate. With regard to the review of the order

on subject imports from Germany, the Commission received an individually adequate joint response from

Benteler Stahl/Rohr GmbH (“Benteler”), a German producer and exporter of the subject merchandise, and

Benteler Steel and Tube Corporation, a U.S. importer.9

 Because Benteler accounts for *** of production

of subject merchandise in Germany, the Commission determined that the German respondent interested

party group response to the notice of institution was inadequate.10 Notwithstanding its determinations that

the respondent interested party group responses with respect to Brazil and Germany were inadequate, the

Commission determined to conduct full reviews with respect to all the orders in order to promote

administrative efficiency in light of its decision to conduct a full review with respect to the order on

seamless SLP pipe from Argentina.11

In these reviews, the Commission received usable data from Siderca, the only known producer of

seamless SLP pipe in Argentina, from V&M do Brasil, S.A. (“V&M Brazil”), the only producer of the

subject product in Brazil, and from the three known producers of the subject merchandise in Germany: 

Benteler, Rohrwerk Neue Maxhuette GmbH (“Rohrwerk”) and V&M Deutschland GmbH (“VMD”). 

Thus, our coverage with respect to all subject industries is complete. Siderca, Benteler and Benteler Steel

and Tube Corporation also filed briefs and appeared at the Commission’s hearing, as did the domestic

producers United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”) and IPSCO Koppel Tubulars Corporation

(“Koppel”). We have made our determinations based on the evidence in the record from the

Commission’s original investigations and first reviews, and the information submitted by parties and

collected by the Commission since the institution of these reviews.

Seamless SLP pipe (4.5 inches or less in outside diameter) was the subject of a separate set of

antidumping duty investigations in 2000. Orders were imposed on seamless SLP pipe from the Czech

Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa.12 The orders on the Czech Republic and South Africa were
 12 (...continued)

Romania, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-846, 848 and 849 (Final), USITC Pub. 3325 (Aug. 2000).

 13 71 Fed. Reg. 27,463 (May 11, 2006). See Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From

the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-846-850 (Review), USITC Pub.

3850 (Apr. 2006).

 14 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 15 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United

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

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

(1979).

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

Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-381-382 (Review) and 731-TA-797-804 (Review), USITC Pub. 3788 at 6 (July 2005);

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

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

5

revoked in 2006 as a result of the Commission’s negative determinations in the five-year reviews of those

orders.13

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

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

product” and the “industry.”14 The Act defines the “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or

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

under this subtitle.”15 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the like product

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

indicates any reason to revisit that definition.16

Commerce in its expedited five-year reviews defined the scope of merchandise covered by the

orders on seamless pipe as:

The products covered by the orders are seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless)

steel standard, line, and pressure pipes and redraw hollows produced, or equivalent, to the ASTM

A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795,

and the API 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of

application. The scope of the orders also includes all products used in standard, line, or pressure

pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of

specification.

Specifically included within the scope of the orders are seamless pipes and redraw

hollows, less than or equal to 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of

wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end,

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

The seamless pipes subject to the orders are currently classifiable under the subheadings

7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.30.00, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20,

7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00,
 17 71 Fed. Reg. 59,079 (Oct. 6, 2006). The notice describes the specifications, characteristics and uses of

seamless SLP pipe as follows.

Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals,

chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gases in industrial piping systems. They may

carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of

external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-106 standard may be used in

temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various ASME code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to

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

A-106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106

standard.

Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and

generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and

pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating

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

(depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant

ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard

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

Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in

pipelines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification.

Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A-589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire protection uses

(ASTM A-795) are used for the conveyance of water.

Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, API

5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate

inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by meeting the metallurgical

requirements and performing the required tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors

sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers. 

The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified pipes is use in

pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants. Other applications are in

power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and off

shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this product is

for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. These applications constitute the

majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A-106 pipes may be used in some

boiler applications.

Redraw hollows are any unfinished pipe or “hollow profiles” of carbon or alloy steel transformed

by hot rolling or cold drawing/ hydrostatic testing or other methods to enable the material to be sold under

ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795,

and API 5L specifications.

The scope of the orders includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described

above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, with the exception

of the specific exclusions discussed below, and whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. 

Standard, line, and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of

the scope of the orders. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced

to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM

A-795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, line, or pressure application, with

the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below. For example, there are certain other ASTM

specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM

A-106 applications. These specifications generally include ASTM A-161, ASTM A-192, ASTM A-210,

ASTM A-252, ASTM A-501, ASTM A-523, ASTM A-524, and ASTM A-618. When such pipes are used

in a standard, line, or pressure pipe application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed

below, such products are covered by the scope of the orders.

(continued...)

6

7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).17
 17 (...continued)

Specifically excluded from the scope of the orders are boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such

products are not produced to ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335,

ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe

applications. In addition, finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods (OCTG) are excluded from the

scope of the orders, if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If

not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used

in standard, line or pressure applications.

71 Fed. Reg. at 59,080. Two subheadings have been changed: 7304.10.10.20 is now 7304.19.10.20, and

7304.10.50.20 is now 7304.90.50.20. See CR at I-22 n.44, PR at I-19 n.44.

 18 CR/PR at App. E.

 19 65 Fed. Reg. 41,957 (July 7, 2000).

 20 63 Fed. Reg. 37,338 (July 10, 1998).

 21 Original Determinations at I-6 - I-7.

 22 First Review Determinations at I-6.

 23 First Review Determinations at 8 n.34.

 24 Domestic Industry’s Response to Notice of Institution at 24; Siderca’s Response to Notice of Institution at 9;

Benteler’s Response to Notice of Institution at 9.

7

Notwithstanding the fact that the scope language quoted above includes redraw hollows and 

the HTS subheading that contains them (7304.31.30.00), the actual scope of these reviews does not

include redraw hollows due to an amendment made by Commerce in the context of the first reviews.18

Further, the scope in these second reviews differs somewhat from the scope in the original investigations

because Commerce issued a scope ruling on June 25, 1999, excluding from the antidumping duty order

on subject imports from Germany tubing with a circular cross-section and an outside diameter that varies

from 0.05 mm to 25 mm.19 Finally, as a result of a changed circumstances review, glass-lined pressure

pipes are excluded from the scope of the order on subject imports from Brazil.20

In the original investigations, the Commission found a single like product consisting of circular

seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe and tubes not more than 4.5 inches in

outside diameter, and including redraw hollows.21 In the first reviews, the Commission again defined a

single like product consisting of all seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe and

tubes not more than 4.5 inches in outside diameter, including redraw hollows.22 It noted that it included

redraw hollows, which were included in the like product in the original investigations, as no party argued

that they should not be included and no information had been elicited during the reviews to indicate that

they should not be part of the domestic like product.23

Similarly, in these second reviews, no party has argued for a different definition of the domestic

like product from that employed in the original investigations and the first reviews. In particular, no party

has argued that redraw hollows should not be included.24 Nor has the Commission obtained any

information during these reviews indicating that they should not be part of the domestic like product. 

Accordingly, we define a single domestic like product: all seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line

and pressure pipe and tubes not more than 4.5 inches in outside diameter, including redraw hollows.
 25 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to

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

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

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

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

 26 CR at I-32 - I-33, PR at I-26 - I-27.

 27 First Review Determinations at 10.

 28 No party has advocated the exclusion of any domestic producer as a related party. One domestic producer, ***,

purchased redraw hollows from *** during the period of review. *** purchased nonsubject merchandise, i.e. redraw

hollows, from *** throughout the period of review in the following quantities: *** short tons in 2001, *** short

tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003, *** short tons in 2004, and *** short tons in 2005. CR at III-7 n.12, PR III-3

n.12; *** Producer Questionnaire at section II. In the original investigations and first reviews, *** purchased

subject merchandise, yet the Commission did not exclude it from the domestic industry in either instance. Original

Determinations at I-14 - I-15, Original Views (confidential) at 19-21; First Review Determinations at 9; First

Reviews Views (confidential) at 11. Regardless of whether *** is a related party, we find that appropriate

circumstances do not exist to exclude that producer from the domestic industry. *** reported that it purchased

redraw hollows imported from *** because it “ ‘could not buy all sizes from domestic sources and that imported

material was lower cost.’ ” CR III-7 n.12, PR III-3 n.12. *** profits during the period of review were not

meaningfully different from the industry as a whole. See CR/PR at Table III-8. Additionally, *** is a relatively

small producer of the subject product and accounted for only *** percent of domestic production. CR/PR at Table I7. We do not find that *** has benefitted from LTFV sales or that its imports have otherwise shielded its production

operations. Including *** would not skew the data for the rest of the domestic industry. Therefore, we find that

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

 29 Consistent with her practice in past investigations and reviews, Vice Chairman Aranoff does not rely on

individual-company income margins in assessing whether a related party has benefitted from importation of subject

merchandise. Rather, she determines whether to exclude a related party based principally on its ratio of subject

imports to domestic shipments and whether its primary interests lie in domestic production or importation.

8

B. Domestic Industry and Related Parties

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

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

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”25 Current domestic

producers are Koppel, Sharon Tube Co. (“Sharon Tube”), The Timken Co. (“Timken”), and U.S. Steel. 

These four companies are believed to represent the vast majority of the production of seamless SLP pipe

in the United States during the period for which data were collected.26

In the original investigations and first reviews, the Commission found the domestic industry to

consist of the domestic producers of seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipes and

tubes not more than 4.5 inches in outside diameter, as well as all redraw hollows.27 In these second

reviews, the parties do not argue for a new definition of the domestic industry and there is no new

information on the record to indicate that the Commission should revisit its previous definition of the

domestic industry. Thus, in accordance with our like product determination, we determine that the

domestic industry consists of all U.S. producers of seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and

pressure pipes and tubes not more than 4.5 inches in outside diameter, including redraw hollows.28 29
 30 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun note that while they consider the same issues discussed in this

section in determining whether to exercise their discretion to cumulate the subject imports, their analytical

framework begins with whether imports from the subject countries are likely to face similar conditions of

competition. For those subject imports which are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition, they

next proceed to consider whether those imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like

product. Finally, if based on that analysis they intend to exercise their discretion to cumulate one or more subject

countries, they analyze whether they are precluded from cumulating such imports because the imports from one or

more subject countries, assessed individually, are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry. See Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-678, 679, 681, and 682

(Second Review), USITC Pub. 3895 (Dec. 2006) (Additional and Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson

and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun).

 31 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 32 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(I).

 33 See, e.g., Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 06-188 at 17 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 22, 2006)

(recognizing the wide latitude the Commission has in selecting the type of factors it considers relevant in deciding

whether to exercise discretion to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews).

 34 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether imports compete with each

other and with the domestic like product are: (1) the degree of fungibility between the imports from different

countries and between imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer

requirements and other quality related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic

markets of imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar

channels of distribution for imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the

(continued...)

9

III. CUMULATION OF SUBJECT IMPORTS OF SEAMLESS SLP PIPE FROM

ARGENTINA, BRAZIL AND GERMANY30

A. Overview

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that:

the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject

merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or

(c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete

with each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The

Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of the

subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are likely to have

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.31

Cumulation is therefore discretionary in five-year reviews, unlike in the case of original

investigations, which are governed by section 771(7)(G)(I) of the Act.32 Because of the prospective

nature of five-year reviews and the Commission’s discretion with respect to cumulation, we consider

significant conditions of competition that are likely to prevail with respect to each subject country if the

orders under review are terminated.33

The Commission may exercise its discretion to cumulate, however, only if the reviews are

initiated on the same day and the Commission determines that the subject imports are likely to compete

with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S. market. The Commission generally has

considered four factors intended to provide a framework for determining whether the imports compete

with each other and with the domestic like product.34 Only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is
 34 (...continued)

imports are simultaneously present in the market. See Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of

Korea, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-278-280 (Final), USITC Pub. 1845 (May 1986), aff’d, Fundicao Tupy, S.A.

v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Mukand Ltd. v.

United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 915 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996).

 35 See Mukand, 937 F. Supp. at 916; Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50, 52 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1989) (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”); United States Steel Group, 873 F. Supp. at 685. We

note, however, that there have been investigations where the Commission has found an insufficient overlap in

competition and has declined to cumulate subject imports. See, e.g., Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Invs.

Nos. 701-TA-386 (Prelim.) and 731-TA-812-813 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3155 at 15 (Feb. 1999), aff’d, RanchersCattlemen Action Legal Foundation v. United States, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999); Static Random

Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-761-762 (Final),

USITC Pub. 3098 at 13-15 (Apr. 1998).

 36 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 37 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I (1994).

 38 In the original investigations, the Commission also cumulated subject imports from Italy.

 39 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 40 During the period of review, Argentina’s production of seamless SLP pipe was *** short tons in 2005. It was

*** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table IV-7. Brazil’s production

of subject pipe was *** short tons in 2005. It was *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** short tons in Jan.-Sept.

2006. CR/PR at Table IV-12. Germany’s production of subject pipe was *** short tons in 2005. It was *** short

tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table IV-18. Similarly, at the time of the

first reviews, each subject country produced substantial volumes of subject pipe. First Reviews Views (confidential)

at 13-14.

10

required.35 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether there likely would be competition after

revocation of the orders, even if none currently exists.

The statute precludes cumulation if the Commission finds that subject imports from a country are

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.36 We note that neither the statute

nor the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”)

provides specific guidance on what factors the Commission is to consider in determining that imports “are

likely to have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry.37 With respect to this provision,

the Commission generally considers the likely volume of the subject imports and the likely impact of

those imports on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders are revoked.

In the original investigations and first review investigations, the Commission cumulated subject

imports from Argentina, Brazil and Germany.38 In these second reviews, the statutory requirement for

cumulation that all reviews be initiated on the same day is satisfied as all the reviews were initiated on

June 1, 2006.39

B. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact

We do not find that subject imports of seamless SLP pipe from Argentina, Brazil and Germany

would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the antidumping duty orders

were revoked.

In these second reviews, all three countries produce subject product in substantial volumes.40 The

seamless SLP pipe industries in all three countries are not small in relation to the size of the U.S.
 41 U.S. apparent consumption of seamless SLP pipe was *** short tons in 2005. It was *** short tons in Jan.-

Sept. 2005 and *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table I-11. Argentina’s capacity was *** short tons in

2005. It was *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table IV-7. Brazil’s

capacity was *** short tons in 2005. It was *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006. 

CR/PR at Table IV-12. Germany’s capacity was *** short tons in 2005. It was *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005

and *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 42 Brazil’s capacity utilization was *** percent in 2005. It was *** percent in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** percent in

Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table IV-12. Germany’s capacity utilization was *** percent in 2005. It was ***

percent in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** percent in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 43 Argentina’s seamless SLP pipe exports were *** short tons in 2005, *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and ***

short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table IV-7. Brazil’s seamless SLP pipe exports were *** short tons in

2005, *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table IV-12. Germany’s

seamless SLP pipe exports were *** short tons in 2005, *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** short tons in Jan.-

Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 44 Brazil exported *** short tons of subject merchandise to the United States in 2002, *** short tons in 2003, ***

short tons in 2004, and *** short tons in 2005. It exported *** short tons of subject merchandise to the United

States in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table IV-12. Germany exported *** short tons of subject merchandise to the

United States in 2001, *** short tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003, *** short tons in 2004, and *** short tons in

2005. It exported *** short tons of subject merchandise to the United States in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table IV18.

 45 See generally Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002). 

 46 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 917 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996).

 47 Original Views (confidential) at 32-34.

 48 CR at II-1, PR at II-1 (channels of distribution), CR at II-28 - II-34, PR at II-19 - II-24 (fungibility); and CR/PR

at Tables IV-3 (geographic markets), IV-4 (simultaneous presence).

11

market.41 The industries in two of the countries, Brazil and Germany, have appreciable unused capacity.42

All three countries also export subject product.43 Two of them, Brazil and Germany, exported subject

merchandise to the United States during the period of review,44 although Argentina ***. Based on these

factors, we do not find that subject imports from Argentina, Brazil or Germany would likely have no

discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the orders were revoked.

C. Likely Reasonable Overlap of Competition

With regard to likely overlap of competition, the relevant inquiry is whether there would likely be

competition even if there are no current imports from a subject country.45 Only a “reasonable overlap” of

competition is required.46 In the original investigations, the Commission cumulated subject imports from

all subject countries, based on a reasonable overlap of competition.47

In these reviews, the record does not show any current or likely changes in the reasonably

foreseeable future with respect to fungibility, channels of distribution, geographic markets or

simultaneous presence from those found in the original investigations or first reviews.48 Accordingly, 

we again find a reasonable overlap of competition in these five-year reviews.

D. Other Considerations

Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we find that subject imports of seamless SLP pipe

from Argentina, Brazil and Germany would all likely compete in the U.S. market under different
 49 Argentina’s capacity utilization was *** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and ***

percent in 2004. CR/PR at Table IV-7. Brazil’s capacity utilization was *** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002,

*** percent in 2003, and *** percent in 2004. CR/PR at Table IV-12. Germany’s capacity utilization was ***

percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and *** percent in 2004. CR/PR at Table IV-18.

Argentina’s excess of capacity over production was *** short tons in 2005, *** short tons in Jan.-Sept.

2005 and *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table IV-7. By contrast, Brazil’s excess capacity was ***

short tons in 2005. It was *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table

IV-12. Germany’s excess capacity was *** short tons in 2005. It was *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and ***

short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 50 CR/PR at Table IV-7.

 51 CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 52 CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 53 Argentina’s capacity to manufacture seamless SLP pipe remained steady at *** short tons between 1992 and

1994, Original Staff Report at I-63, and declined from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2005. CR/PR at

Table IV-7. Brazil’s capacity was *** short tons in 1994, Original Staff Report at I-65, and *** short tons in 2005

(although it declined from *** short tons in 2001). CR/PR at Table IV-12. As discussed below, while data for the

industry in Germany was not complete in the original investigations and first reviews, that industry appears to have

grown at least since the first reviews.

 54 Compare CR/PR at Table IV-8 with CR/PR at Tables IV-13, IV-19.

 55 CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 56 CR/PR at Table IV-7.

 57 Argentina’s subject pipe exports represented *** percent of its total shipments in 2005, CR/PR at Table IV-7,

while Brazil’s subject pipe exports represented *** percent of its total shipments in that year, CR/PR at Table IV-12,

and Germany’s subject pipe exports represented *** percent of its total shipments in that year. CR/PR at Table IV18. In Jan.-Sept. 2006, Argentina’s subject pipe exports represented *** percent of its total shipments, CR/PR at

Table IV-7, while Brazil’s subject pipe exports represented *** percent of its total shipments during that period,

CR/PR at Table IV-12, and Germany’s subject pipe exports represented *** percent of its total shipments during that

period. CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 58 Compare CR/PR at Table IV-7 with CR/PR at Tables IV-12 & IV-18.

12

conditions of competition. Thus, we decline to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from

any of these countries based on the following considerations.

Argentina. The sole Argentine producer, Siderca, operated at *** of capacity utilization

throughout the period of review and had *** less excess capacity than the industries in Brazil or

Germany.49 Siderca’s capacity utilization was *** percent in 2005 and *** percent in Jan.-Sept. 2006.50

In contrast, V&M Brazil’s capacity utilization was *** percent in 2005 and *** percent in Jan.-Sept.

2006;51 the German producers’ capacity utilization was *** percent in 2005 and *** percent in Jan.-Sept.

2006.52 Siderca experienced *** declines in production capacity over the period of review,53 resulting in

an industry *** smaller than during the time of the original investigations and one that, unlike the

industries in Brazil and Germany, does not project any increased capacity between 2006 and 2007.54

Siderca’s capacity to produce subject pipe was *** smaller than that of the German producers throughout

the period of review. The German producers’ capacity to manufacture subject pipe was *** short tons

between 2001 and 2005,55 whereas Siderca’s capacity was between *** short tons and *** short tons.56

The industry in Argentina is more export oriented than that in Brazil or Germany.57 Argentina was the

only one of the three countries that exported *** subject product to the United States during the period of

review.58
 59 Original Staff Report at I-65.

 60 CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 61 CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 62 CR/PR at Table IV-7.

 63 CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 64 CR/PR at Table IV-7.

 65 CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 66 CR/PR at Tables IV-7, IV-12 & IV-18, CR at IV-22 n.21, PR at IV-14 n.21.

 67 Original Staff Report at I-65.

 68 First Reviews Staff Report at Table IV-5.

 69 CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 70 Germany’s capacity to produce subject pipe was *** short tons in 2005. CR/PR at Table IV-18. Argentina’s

capacity to produce subject pipe was *** short tons in 2005, CR/PR at Table IV-7, and Brazil’s capacity was ***

short tons in that year. CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 71 During the original investigations, the German industry reported total production capacity in each year of ***

short tons. Original Staff Report at I-67. While coverage for the German industry was not complete in the original

investigations, this reported capacity is that of Mannesmannroehren-Werke, the predecessor to VMD, which

accounted for a large majority of German production in both the first five-year reviews and the current reviews. 

Original Staff Report at I-66, First Reviews Staff Report at IV-12.

 72 Germany’s capacity to produce subject pipe is projected to grow from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons

in 2006, then to *** short tons in 2007. CR/PR at Table IV-19.

13

Brazil. The industry in Brazil is significantly more focused on its home market now than it was

during the original period of investigation and is more focused on its home market than the industries in

Argentina or Germany. During the original investigations *** percent of the Brazilian industry’s total

shipments were to its home market,59 while in 2005 *** percent of the industry’s total shipments were to

its home market;60 the share of home market shipments to total shipments was *** percent in Jan.-Sept.

2005 and *** percent in Jan.-Sept. 2006.61 By contrast, the Argentine and German industries shipped ***

percent62 and *** percent,63 respectively, of total shipments to their home markets in 2005, and ***

percent64 and *** percent,65 respectively, in Jan.-Sept. 2006. The *** majority of Brazil’s shipments are

to its home market or its regional Latin American market. In contrast, the industries in Argentina and

Germany reported meaningful volumes of exports outside their home and regional markets.66 Unlike the

industries in Argentina and Germany, the size of the industry in Brazil has remained generally stable

since the time of the original investigations. The Brazilian industry reported production capacity of ***

short tons in 1994,67 *** short tons in 200068 and *** short tons in 2005.69

Germany. Germany’s seamless SLP pipe industry is *** larger than those of the two other

countries; in fact, it is larger than ***.70 The total production capacity of the industry in Germany has

grown since the time of the original investigations.71 Moreover, the capacity of the industry in Germany

is projected to grow further in the near future.72 In absolute terms, German producers’ unused capacity is
 73 Germany’s unused capacity was *** short tons in 2005. CR/PR at Table IV-18. Argentina’s unused capacity

was *** short tons in that year, and Brazil’s unused capacity was *** short tons. CR/PR at Tables IV-7 (Argentina),

IV-12 (Brazil).

 74 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 75 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

14

*** higher than that of producers in the two other countries.73 Unlike the other subject countries, there

have been subject imports from Germany in every year since the orders were imposed.74

Based on these differences among the three countries, we find that subject imports from each

country are likely to compete in the U.S. market under different conditions of competition if the orders

are revoked. Therefore, we decline to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from any of

these countries.

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY BY

REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS OF SEAMLESS SLP PIPE FROM ARGENTINA,

BRAZIL AND GERMANY IF THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS ARE REVOKED

A. Legal Standard

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

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

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

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

foreseeable time.”75 The SAA states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a

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

important change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of
 76 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury standard

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

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

completed.” SAA at 883. 

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

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

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

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

SAA at 884.

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

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d without opinion, 05-1019 (Fed.

Cir. Aug. 3, 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-153 at 7-8 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 24, 2002)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 80 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

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

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

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

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

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

 82 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

15

its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”76 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in

nature.77 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the sunset review

provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.78

79

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

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”80 According to

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

‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”81

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

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

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

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”82 It

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

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

industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked or the suspension agreement is
 83 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). There have been no duty absorption findings by Commerce with respect to the orders

under review. U.S. Department of Commerce, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard,

Line and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany; Final Results,” Sept. 29, 2006. The statute further

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

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

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

 84 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to use the “facts otherwise available” in reaching a

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

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

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

781(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). The verification requirements in section 781(i) are applicable only to

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

Trade 2002) (“the ITC correctly responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification

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

Commission investigations.”)

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

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

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

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

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

level of participation and the interpretations urged by participating parties, the Commission is obligated to consider

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

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

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

evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 86 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 87 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 88 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

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

(continued...)

16

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

§ 1675(a)(4).83 84 85

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

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

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.86 In

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

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

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

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

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

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

products.87

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

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

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

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

on the price of domestic like products.88
 88 (...continued)

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

at 886.

 89 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 90 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude

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

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

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

U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887.

Commerce expedited its determinations in its reviews and found that revocation of the antidumping duty

orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. For Argentina, Commerce found a weightedaverage margin of 108.13 percent for Siderca and for all others. With respect to Brazil, it found a weighted-average

margin of 124.94 percent for V&M and for all others. For Germany, it found a weighted-average margin of 57.72

percent for Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes and for all others. 71 Fed. Reg. 59,079 (Oct. 6, 2006).

 91 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

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

these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an

industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at

885.

 92 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 93 See generally CR at II-8 - II-10, PR at II-5 - II-7.

17

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

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

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

output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity; (2)

likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and

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

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

product.89 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business cycle and

the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry.90 As instructed by the statute, we have

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

order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked.91

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

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

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

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”92 The following conditions of

competition are relevant to our determination.

Demand. The business cycle for seamless SLP pipe is a function of demand in downstream, enduse markets. Seamless SLP pipe is used in oil and gas transmission, construction and repair of refining

facilities, the chemical industry, power generation, and mechanical applications for general construction.93

Because seamless SLP pipe is used extensively in the transmission and refining of gas and oil, the

business cycle and prices for seamless SLP pipe are particularly influenced by the business cycle and

prices in the oil and gas markets.
 94 Apparent U.S. consumption was *** short tons in 2001 and declined irregularly to *** short tons in 2003. 

Consumption then increased in 2004 to *** short tons. Consumption remained at a high level, albeit at somewhat

reduced levels compared to 2004, in 2005 at *** short tons. Apparent U.S. consumption in the Jan.-Sept. 2006

period, (***) short tons, was *** higher than apparent U.S. consumption in the comparable 2005 period: *** short

tons. CR/PR at Table II-1.

 95 See CR at II-13, PR at II-9; CR/PR at Table II-1.

 96 CR at IV-39 - IV-40, PR at IV-19.

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

 98 CR/PR at Tables V-2 and V-3, Figure V-3, and Table IV-26 and Figure IV-1.

 99 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 100 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 101 CR at IV-40, PR at IV-19.

 102 CR at IV-40, PR at IV-19.

 103 CR at IV-40, PR at IV-19.

 104 CR at IV-40, PR at IV-19.

 105 CR at II-16, PR at II-11 (citing data compiled by the Energy Information Administration).

 106 CR/PR at Figures II-4 and II-5. 

18

Demand for seamless SLP pipe, as measured by apparent U.S. consumption, fluctuated during the

2001 to 2005 period, but increased overall.94 The increases in consumption of seamless SLP since 2003

have been driven by increases in demand in the gas, oil and energy markets.95 Published sources report

that U.S. demand for line pipe has risen because of increased drilling activity, which usually precedes the

construction of pipeline systems. According to Metal Bulletin Research (“MBR”), between April and

October 2006, demand for seamless line pipe grew as strongly as demand for OCTG.96 Preston Pipe and

Tube Report noted that “all world markets are doing well.”97

The high level of demand for seamless SLP has resulted in *** increases in U.S. and global

prices. U.S. prices have increased ***, particularly since 2004, and global prices have increased and

remained at high levels.98 These high prices have resulted in significant improvements in the condition of

the domestic industry. The domestic industry’s operating margins increased from *** percent in 2003 to

*** percent in 2004, and increased further to *** percent in 2005.99 The domestic industry’s operating

margin remained very high at *** percent in the Jan.-Sept. 2006 period.100

In the United States, there have been fewer projects requiring oil or gas transmission pipe,

although the aging pipeline infrastructure may increase the demand for line pipe.101 The Interstate Natural

Gas Association of America estimates that $19 billion will be required to maintain existing pipeline

capacity.102 Another $42 billion will be needed for new pipeline and storage infrastructure in the United

States and Canada, as domestic natural gas consumption is expected to increase from 22 trillion cubic feet

in 2003 to 30 trillion cubic feet in 2015.103 MBR states that the replacement or refurbishing of existing

infrastructure, as well as the increased investment in gathering lines and distribution systems in the United

States, has spawned greater demand for seamless line pipe.104

Looking forward, the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil is projected to remain high at an

average of $62.23 per barrel in 2007, down slightly from $66.00 per barrel in 2006.105 Prices for oil and

gas are also projected to fall, but remain high in 2008.106 A strong majority of market participants

responding to the Commission’s inquiry anticipated no changes in U.S. or global demand in the future. 

One of three responding U.S. producers, six of nine responding importers and 14 of 18 responding
 107 CR at II-14, PR at II-9 - II-11.

 108 CR at II-12, IV-40, PR at II-8, IV-19.

 109 Siderca’s Posthearing Brief, Answer to Commission Question 2.

 110 See CR/PR at Tables I-11, II-6, II-7; CR at II-28 - II-31, PR at II-19-21.

 111 CR/PR at Table I-11.

 112 During the original investigations, there were eight U.S. producers: Gulf States Tube Co., Koppel, Michigan

Specialty, Plymouth Tube, Sharon Tube, Timken, USS Fairfield, and USS Lorain. In 2000, the parent company of

Gulf States, Vision Metals, Inc., filed for bankruptcy and closed its Rosenburg, Texas seamless SLP pipe production

facility, which is currently idle. In 2002, Michigan Seamless Tube, Inc. was created to purchase the Michigan

Specialty Tube Division of the defunct Vision Metals, Inc. Currently, Michigan Seamless is a part of Atlas

Holdings, LLC, a private equity firm, and no longer produces seamless SLP pipe. In December 2006, IPSCO

acquired NS Group, the parent company of Koppel. On January 30, 2007, Sharon Tube announced that it signed a

definitive agreement to be acquired by John Maneely Company, the parent company of Wheatland Tube and Atlas

Tube. Finally, Plymouth Tube no longer produces seamless SLP pipe and U.S. Steel is now operating its two mills

on a consolidated basis. CR at I-33 - I-34, PR at I-27 - I-28. 

 113 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 114 Reported capacity is a function of the amount of total seamless pipe capacity allocated by the producers to the

production of the subject pipe.

 115 CR/PR at Table III-1.

19

purchasers reported no anticipated changes in U.S. demand. Two of three responding U.S. producers,

five of six responding importers and nine of 12 responding purchasers did not expect changes in demand

outside the United States. However, four of five responding foreign producers reportedly expect demand

in the United States and the rest of the world to change, while one firm expects no change.107 Preston

Pipe and Tube Report has forecasted strong U.S. demand for line pipe in 2007, with new line pipe orders

placed in 2006 for projects to begin in 2007, although MBR describes demand in this sector as

“lackluster.”108 Siderca has identified numerous projects worldwide that will consume seamless SLP

pipe.109

Thus, the record evidence does not indicate an impending downturn in the business cycle,

consumption, or prices for seamless SLP or the related downstream industries. 

Supply. The U.S. market for seamless SLP pipe is supplied by domestic production and imports

from both subject and nonsubject countries. Seamless SLP pipe from various sources is generally

substitutable.110

U.S. producers’ share of the U.S. market declined from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in

2005. It was *** percent in Jan.-Sept. 2005 as compared with *** percent in Jan.-Sept. 2006.111 Since

the original investigations, the U.S. industry has experienced some consolidation and the exit of two U.S.

producers of seamless SLP pipe operating three mills.112

Domestic capacity increased irregularly from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2005. It

was *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006.113 114 Domestic production

declined irregularly from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2005, although it was higher in 2005

than in 2002 or 2003. Domestic production was higher in Jan.-Sept. 2006 than in Jan.-Sept. 2005 (***

short tons compared to *** short tons).115
 116 CR/PR at Table I-11. Whether measured by quantity or by value, Germany was the sole subject country

whose market share exceeded *** percent during a calendar year or interim period. CR/PR at Table I-11. 

 117 CR/PR at Table I-10.

 118 CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 119 CR/PR at Table II-3.

 120 CR at II-22, PR at II-15, CR/PR at Table II-3.

 121 CR/PR at Table II-3.

 122 CR/PR at Table II-8. With one exception, purchasers rated subject and domestic seamless SLP pipe as

comparable in terms of product consistency, quality meets industry standards, and quality exceeds industry

standards. Id. A majority of purchasers also rated nonsubject and domestic product comparable in these measures,

although a notable minority ranked the nonsubject producer inferior or, less often, superior, in product consistency

and quality exceeds industry standards. Id.

 123 Of 16 responding purchasers, one indicated that it “always” purchased the lowest-priced product, nine

reported “usually,” one indicated both “usually” and “sometimes,” and five replied “sometimes.” CR at II-26, PR at

II-17 - II-18; see Tr. at 45 (Mr. Verellen) (indicating that some purchasers “are still unwilling” to purchase Chinese

product and that imports by only certain Chinese producers are becoming more accepted).

 124 Original Views (confidential) at 41-42.

20

Total subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption was steady at very low levels over the

period of review, never exceeding *** percent.116 Nonsubject import market share was *** percent in

2001, increasing to *** percent in 2005. It was *** percent in Jan.-Sept. 2005 as compared with ***

percent in Jan.-Sept. 2006. Nonsubject imports increased from 96,667 short tons in 2001 to 118,484 short

tons in 2005, and were 91,020 short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005 as compared with 126,725 short tons in Jan.-

Sept. 2006.117 Imports of seamless SLP pipe from China were responsible for a substantial portion of this

increase. These imports rose from 25,983 short tons in 2001 to 43,215 short tons in 2005, and totaled

64,401 short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006 as compared to 30,033 short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005.118

Interchangeability. While price is not the most important factor in purchasing decisions for

seamless SLP pipe, it remains important.119 In these reviews, quality and price were reported as the most

important factors by the largest number of purchasers, and price was reported most frequently as the third

most important factor.120 

While purchasers most frequently identified quality as the most important purchasing factor,121

they generally regard subject and nonsubject seamless SLP pipe to be comparable to the U.S. product in

quality and consistency.122 Consistent with those reports, a majority of responding purchasers indicated

that they usually or always purchased the lowest-priced product.123

C. Findings in the Original and First Review Investigations 

1. Original Investigations

The Commission found that cumulated subject imports were present in substantial quantities

throughout most of the period. It also found that the volume and market share of cumulated subject

imports were significant.124
 125 Original Views (confidential) at 43-45.

 126 Original Views (confidential) at 47-48.

 127 First Reviews Views (confidential) at 24-27. The Commission revoked the antidumping duty order on imports

of seamless SLP pipe from Italy.

 128 First Reviews Views (confidential) at 27-28.

 129 First Reviews Views (confidential) at 29-30 & nn.179-80.

 130 Upon remand the Commission again found that the likely volume of subject imports would be significant, that

revocation of the orders would likely have significant price depressing and suppressing effects, and that the likely

volume and price effects of the cumulated subject imports would have a significant negative impact on the domestic

industry (then Vice Chairman Okun and Commissioner Pearson dissenting). Remand Views (confidential) at 5-29. 

 131 CR/PR at Table I-3.

21

The Commission found significant underselling and significant price depression and suppression

by cumulated subject imports. It found that the domestic and imported products were reasonably good

substitutes and that price was an important factor in purchasing decisions.125

The Commission found that despite the domestic industry’s increases in market share, shipments,

production, and capacity utilization over the period of investigation, it experienced poor financial

performance as a result of the price effects resulting from the subject imports, and thus found a significant

adverse impact by reason of subject imports.126

2. First Reviews

In the first reviews, the Commission found that the volume of cumulated subject imports (from

Argentina, Brazil and Germany) would likely be significant if the orders were revoked. The record

indicated that producers in those subject countries had significant production capacity and there was

evidence that product shifting was likely, that seamless pipe prices were generally higher in the United

States than elsewhere, that subject producers relied heavily on their export markets, and that transnational

corporate affiliations among many of the subject country producers enhanced their ability to resume

exporting to the United States.127

The Commission found that a majority of producers and importers reported that differences other

than price between the domestic and subject product were generally not a significant factor in their sales. 

Thus, there was a strong incentive for subject imports to compete on the basis of price to capture sales in

the event of their return to the U.S. market. The Commission found that, given the likely significant

volume of subject imports upon revocation of the orders, subject pipe would likely have significant

depressing and suppressing effects on prices for the domestic like product.128

The Commission found that the volume and price effects of the cumulated subject imports would

likely have a significant negative impact on the domestic industry.129 130

D. Revocation of the Order on Subject Imports of Seamless SLP Pipe from Argentina

Is Not Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a

Reasonably Foreseeable Time

1. Likely Volume of the Subject Imports

In the original investigations, subject imports from Argentina increased from *** short tons in

1992 to *** short tons in 1994. There have been *** subject imports from Argentina since ***.131
 132 CR/PR at Table IV-7.

 133 CR/PR at Table IV-7.

 134 Apparent U.S. consumption was *** short tons in 2001 and grew to *** short tons in 2005. It was *** short

tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table I-10. Argentina’s excess capacity for

subject pipe was only *** short tons in 2005, representing only *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in that

year. Argentina’s excess capacity for subject pipe was *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** short tons in Jan.-

Sept. 2006, representing *** percent and *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, respectively. CR/PR at Tables

I-11, IV-7.

 135 CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 136 Tr. at 182-82 (Mr. Balkenende), Siderca’s Prehearing Brief at 20-21, Siderca’s Posthearing Brief at 10; cf.

CR/PR at Table IV-7.

 137 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 138 See CR/PR at Table I-10.

 139 See CR/PR at Tables V-2 - V-3.

 140 CR at IV-42, PR at IV-21.

 141 CR/PR at Table IV-26.

 142 CR/PR at Tables II-1 - II-2. See, e.g., Preston Pipe and Tube Report, United States and Canada, Vol. 22, No.

1, Jan. 2007, at 1; Vol. 24, No. 6, June 2006, at 1; Vol. 24, No. 8, Aug. 2006, at 1.

 143 CR/PR at Table IV-26. 

22

The Argentine industry’s capacity to produce seamless SLP pipe declined over the period of

review, from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2005; its capacity was *** short tons in Jan.-

Sept. 2005 and *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006.132 Argentina’s capacity is projected to be *** short tons

in 2006 and 2007. The industry has *** excess capacity. Capacity utilization for subject products was

*** percent in 2001 and rose to *** percent in 2005. It was *** percent in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and ***

percent in Jan.-Sept. 2006.133 Considering the level of apparent consumption in the U.S. market, the

production volume represented by this excess capacity is not large.134 In addition, Siderca’s capacity

utilization is high for the broader range of all seamless pipe products that it manufactures (in excess of

*** percent in 2005 and 2006).135

Siderca does not maintain inventories of its seamless SLP pipe for export sales, as it produces

products pursuant to purchase order. Such pipe is not held in inventory per se, but is stored while

awaiting shipment.136 Thus, its inventories are not a significant factor in our analysis.

Siderca has not shipped subject pipe to the United States since ***, when U.S. imports of

Argentine seamless SLP pipe reached *** short tons.137 Based on the global demand conditions described

above, we do not find that Siderca is likely to shift significantly shipments from either its home market or

third-country export markets to the U.S. market.

While U.S. demand has increased during the period of review138 and U.S. prices for seamless SLP

pipe have increased,139 the record indicates that global demand is also strong140 and that prices for subject

pipe have increased in other markets as well.141 Indeed, industry participants and publications report

continued strong worldwide demand in oil and gas markets, which are the markets that drive demand for

seamless SLP pipe.142 As a result of this strong global demand, prices for subject pipe in other key

markets have been higher than or comparable to prices in the U.S. market.143 While we note that

differences in average unit values may be attributable to differences in product mix, the average unit

value of Siderca’s shipments of subject pipe to its home market exceeded the average unit value of U.S.
 144 Compare CR/PR at Table III-4 and Table IV-7. Although we are cognizant of product mix concerns, we note

also that Siderca’s AUV for its home market shipments is greater than its AUVs for shipments to each category of

export market, CR/PR at Table IV-7, providing some indication that its home market shipments are at higher prices

for comparable products, are of higher value items, or some combination thereof.

 145 Siderca’s Posthearing Brief, Response to Commission Question 4.

 146 Our analysis of the likelihood of Siderca engaging in product shifting takes into account the analytical

framework outlined by the Court of International Trade in Siderca, S.A.I.C. v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1223.

 147 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(D).

 148 Siderca’s Prehearing Brief at 17.

 149 We note that there is currently a U.S. antidumping duty order on OCTG from Argentina. See Oil Country

Tubular Goods from Argentina, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-711 & 713-716, USITC Pub.

2911 (Aug. 1995); 60 Fed. Reg. 41,055 (Aug. 11, 1995); 65 Fed. Reg. 66,701 (Nov. 7, 2000).

 150 CR/PR at Figure IV-1.

 151 While there is some evidence to the contrary, the weight of the evidence, particularly the available pricing

data, do not support a finding that seamless SLP pipe is consistently a more profitable product than OCTG. See,

e.g., Tr. at 138 (Mr. Broglie); Siderca’s Posthearing Brief, Response to Commission Question 10; Domestic

Industry’s Posthearing Brief at Exh. 1 pp. 18-19; see CR/PR at Figure IV-1.

 152 See, e.g., Tr. at 258-59 (Mr. Spak); Siderca’s Posthearing Brief at 17-18; see also Tr. at 138 (Mr. Broglie).

23

producers’ U.S. shipments throughout the period of review.144 In fact, the United States has represented

only a minor export market for Siderca in recent years for its sales of all seamless pipe. In 2005, the

United States was ranked *** as a country market for Siderca’s total exports and in 2006, the United

States was only ranked ***, despite rising prices and demand. The United States represented only ***

percent of Siderca’s total sales in 2006.145

We have considered whether Siderca is likely to redirect production from other seamless pipe

products to subject SLP pipe if the order is revoked.146 The statute directs the Commission to consider the

potential for product shifting if the facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the

subject product, are currently being used to produce other products.147 In Argentina, OCTG and other

products are produced in the same facilities using the same equipment and employees as seamless SLP

pipe.148 Thus, Siderca could potentially engage in product shifting in order to increase the volume of

subject pipe exported to the U.S. market.149

The strong demand in the oil and gas markets has also increased demand for other pipe and tube

products, particularly OCTG. A comparison of prices between OCTG and subject pipe shows that OCTG

prices have uniformly exceeded those for seamless SLP pipe by a substantial margin. Prices for a

representative OCTG product have recently exceeded prices for a representative subject pipe product by

up to $*** per ton; in the most recent months, the price difference was approximately $*** per ton and

this differential is forecast to persist.150 Therefore, based on relative prices, the record evidence does not

support a finding that shifting production from OCTG to seamless SLP pipe would be economically

rational for a foreign producer seeking to enter the U.S. market in the reasonably foreseeable future.151

Siderca’s high capacity utilization rate for overall seamless pipe products also indicates strong demand

and sales of nonsubject product, and that the industry is not likely to shift away from the production of

those nonsubject products in the reasonably foreseeable future. Additionally, seamless pipe production

facilities have an optimal product mix based on prevailing market conditions that discourages the

wholesale shifting of production from one product to another.152 Thus, we do not find it likely that

Siderca will engage in significant product shifting.
 153 See Domestic Industry’s Prehearing Brief at 53; Tr. at 28 (Mr. Vaughn), 52-53 (Mr. Leland), 73-74 (Mr.

Vaughn), 77 (Mr. Hecht).

 154 Commissioner Pearson notes that U.S. antitrust statutes are premised on the economic rationale that

consolidation of companies within an industry holds the potential for reducing competition among firms, thus

resulting in higher prices for the goods they produce. He sees no obvious reason why consolidation of formerly

independent firms under a single corporate umbrella, but operating in more than one country, should not have a

similar effect. He would expect such transnational consolidations to lead to less competition among various

exporting countries for shipments to the United States and to make it more likely that those sales would be made at

higher prices rather than lower ones.

 155 See CR/PR at Table IV-2. Tenaris has affiliations with seamless pipe producers in Italy, Canada, Venezuela,

Mexico, Romania, and Japan, as well as Argentina. CR at IV-12 n.3, PR at IV-11 n.3. Seamless SLP pipe from

Romania and Japan are subject to antidumping duty orders in the United States, as are OCTG from Argentina, Italy,

and Mexico.

 156 See also Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the Czech Republic, Japan,

Mexico, Romania, and South Africa, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-846-850 (Review), USITC Pub. 3850 (Apr. 2006), at 32.

 157 CR at IV-14, PR at IV-12.

 158 Domestic Industry’s Prehearing Brief at 45; Domestic Industry’s Posthearing Brief at 3, 15.

 159 Domestic Industry’s Prehearing Brief at 48.

 160 CR/PR at Table IV-7.

24

Domestic producers also argue that the existence of transnational corporate affiliations and global

contracts would enhance the ability of the subject foreign producers to reestablish quickly their presence

in the U.S. market if the orders are revoked by providing a ready network for marketing, sales and

distribution.153 While transnational affiliations among subject producers may facilitate their ability to

export to the U.S. market if they choose to do so, such affiliations do not, in and of themselves, constitute

evidence that subject producers are likely to increase exports to the U.S. market.154 Before the impact of

any transnational affiliations comes into play, subject producers must first have an economic incentive to

export to the U.S. market. As discussed above, we do not find that the economic incentives that would

induce a likely significant volume of subject imports from Argentina currently exist or are likely to exist

in the reasonably foreseeable future. The record indicates that the Tenaris Group, which owns Siderca, is

not supplying large volumes of seamless SLP pipe to the United States from its mills in other countries.155

Nor, as noted above, has Siderca supplied large volumes of nonsubject seamless pipe to the United States. 

For these reasons, including the lack of clear economic incentives, we find the presence of transnational

affiliations among subject producers does not by itself provide substantial evidence that the likely volume

of subject imports would be significant.156

Siderca’s seamless SLP pipe exports are not subject to any tariff or non-tariff barriers in any other

country, nor are they subject to current investigations outside the United States.157 However, the domestic

industry argues that increases in Chinese production and exports act as a barrier by shrinking the export

outlets for producers in the subject countries.158 The domestic industry argues that China’s seamless pipe

production and exports will likely grow and will increasingly displace subject producers’ shipments to

third-country markets.159

There is no information in the record that Siderca’s exports of seamless SLP pipe have been

displaced by Chinese exports. To the contrary, the record indicates that Siderca’s exports to China and to

other Asian markets have increased over the period of review, as have its exports to non-Asian markets.160
 161 CR at IV-13 n.10, PR at IV-11 n.10.

 162 We note that Siderca argues that its focus is on specialized energy projects – supplying petrochemical, gasprocessing and refinery construction projects rather than the maintenance market for commodity-grade pipe -- which

are not plentiful in the United States. See Siderca’s Posthearing Brief at 8; Tr. at 184-85, 200, 243-44 (Mr.

Balkenende). However, the evidence in the record is mixed as to Siderca’s concentration on supplying such projects

and the size of this project market in the United States. See Domestic Industry’s Final Comments at 5-11. 

Therefore, our volume finding is not based on Siderca’s arguments with respect to the project market.

 163 CR/PR at Table V-4.

 164 First Reviews Staff Report at V-9; CR at V-6, PR at V-5.

 165 For pricing product 1, domestic prices increased from $*** per short ton in Jan.-Mar. 2001 to $*** per short

ton in July-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table V-2. For pricing product 2, domestic prices increased from $*** per short

ton in Jan.-Mar. 2001 to $*** per short ton in July-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table V-2. For pricing product 3,

domestic prices increased from $*** per short ton in Jan.-Mar. 2001 to $*** per short ton in July-Sept. 2006. 

CR/PR at Table V-3. For pricing product 4, domestic prices increased from $*** per short ton in Jan.-Mar. 2001 to

$*** per short ton in July-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table V-2.

 166 Although the domestic industry has alleged some weakness in prices recently, Domestic Industry’s Prehearing

Brief at 66-70, we note that any recent weakness in prices is apparently a result of inventory destocking. The

domestic industry has noted that this process typically lasts three months or less. See Metal Bulletin Research,

Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 18 (Mar. 2007) at 2; Tr. at 128 (Mr. Durham).

 167 CR/PR at Table III-7.

25

There is also evidence in the record that some of Siderca’s sales are subject to ***.161 Not only does this

indicate that Chinese exports have not, and are not likely to, displace Siderca’s subject pipe exports, but it

also provides another reason why Siderca has little reason to ship significant volumes of seamless SLP

pipe to the United States upon revocation of the order.162

In sum, while we acknowledge that there may be some increase in subject imports from

Argentina upon revocation of the order, we find that the volume of subject imports from Argentina will

not be significant in the reasonably foreseeable future.

2. Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the Argentine product was priced lower than the domestic product

in 57 of 68 quarterly price comparisons, with underselling margins ranging from *** percent to ***

percent.163 In both the first reviews and these second reviews, there were *** imports of subject product

from Argentina, and the Commission therefore obtained no pricing data with respect to Argentina.164 

We find, as stated above, that seamless SLP pipe is a product that is generally substitutable

among the subject imports and domestic like product and for which price is important in purchasing

decisions. U.S. prices increased considerably over the period of review, notwithstanding increasing

quantities of nonsubject imports.165 166 These price increases have resulted in a decline in the domestic

industry’s ratio of cost of goods sold to net sales from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2006.167

Thus, the evidence does not indicate that the domestic industry is experiencing a cost-price squeeze. 

Also, as explained above, given relative prices between the U.S. and other key markets, lack of

substantial excess capacity in Argentina, and lack of incentive for the Argentine producer to shift

production to subject pipe from other, more profitable, pipe products, there is no incentive to undersell in

order to ship significant volumes to the United States. For these reasons, as well as sustained strong U.S.

demand and our determination that revocation of the order on subject SLP pipe from Argentina is not

likely to result in significant volumes of imports of subject merchandise, we find that revocation of the
 168 See CR/PR at Table I-3.

 169 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 170 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 171 Capacity increased from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2005. It was *** short tons in Jan.-Sept.

2005 and *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table III-1. Sharon Tube reported *** while Koppel reported

***. Timken reported an *** in capacity from 2001 to 2004 of *** percent, but then ***, which *** its capacity by

*** percent in 2005 from the previous year. CR at III-2, PR at III-1.

 172 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 173 U.S. Steel’s share of production of seamless SLP pipe in 2005 was *** percent. CR/PR at Table I-7.

 174 U.S. Steel’s Producer Questionnaire Response at section II-8.

 175 CR at III-1 n.2, III-2 n.4., PR at III-1 n.2, III-1 n.4.

 176 CR/PR at Table I-3; Domestic Industry’s Posthearing Brief, Exh. 1 at 8-10; Tr. at 37-38 (Mr. Broglie).

 177 Inventories rose from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2005. They were *** short tons in Jan.-Sept.

2005 and *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table III-5.

 178 See *** Responses to Producer Questionnaire, section II-8; CR at III-7, PR at III-3.

26

order is not likely to lead to significant underselling or to significant price suppressing or depressing

effects by reason of subject imports from Argentina.

3. Likely Impact of the Subject Imports

We conclude in these reviews that the domestic industry is not currently vulnerable to injury by

reason of increased subject imports. In particular, the domestic industry was profitable in every year of

the period of review and profits increased to levels not seen in at least 14 years.168 Operating income

increased *** between 2001 and 2005, and continued its increase when the interim periods are compared. 

Operating income was $*** million in 2001 and rose to $*** million in 2005. It was $*** million in

January-September 2005 and $*** million in January-September 2006.169 Operating income as a

percentage of net sales *** over the five-year period. The ratio of operating income to net sales increased

from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2004. It was *** percent in January-September 2004 and ***

percent in January-September 2005.170 Because these increases occurred while the orders under review

had already been in place for nearly a decade, we attribute them to strong prices and demand, rather than

to the influence of the orders.

Domestic producers’ seamless SLP capacity *** increased over the period of review, primarily

because of *** in capacity.171 We note that the industry’s reported capacity utilization ranged between

*** percent and *** percent over the period of review.172 We do not find these capacity utilization rates,

however, to indicate vulnerability. In these reviews, U.S. Steel, *** the largest domestic producer,173

reported an increase in capacity of *** percent from 2001 to 2005.174 It reported its capacity as based on

a possible three production shifts at its Lorain Number 4 mill, although it operated with only one

production shift at that mill throughout the period of review despite strong demand and prices.175

Moreover, U.S. Steel has not operated more than one shift at this mill since early 1998. We also note that

from 1992 onward, the industry’s reported capacity utilization has never exceeded *** percent.176

We also considered other indicators of the industry’s condition; on balance, the indicators as a

whole do not support a finding that the industry is vulnerable. We note that although inventories

increased,177 the vast majority of these inventories are held by ***.178 U.S. producers’ market share
 179 U.S. producers’ market share fell from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2003, and was *** percent in

2004 and *** percent in 2005. It was *** percent in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** percent in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at

Table I-11.

 180 The number of production and related workers decreased from *** in 2001 to *** in 2005. The number of

production and related workers increased was *** in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table

III-6.

 181 Hours worked declined from *** in 2001 to *** in 2005. Hours worked were *** in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and ***

in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table III-6.

 182 Wages paid decreased from $*** million in 2001 to $*** million in 2004. Wages paid were $*** million in

Jan.-Sept. 2005 and $*** million in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table III-6.

 183 Productivity increased from *** short tons per 1,000 hours in 2001 to *** short tons per 1,000 hours in 2005. 

It was *** in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table III-6.

 184 Unit labor costs fell from $*** in 2001 to $*** in 2005. Unit labor costs were $*** in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and

$*** in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table III-6.

 185 Capital expenditures rose from $*** in 2001 to $*** in 2005. They were $*** in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and $*** in

Jan.-Sept. 2006. All producers reported capital expenditures. CR/PR at Table III-11 & n.1.

 186 Research and development expenses ranged between $*** in 2003 to $*** in 2005. They were $*** in Jan.-

Sept. 2005 and $*** in Jan.-Sept. 2006. *** reported research and development expenses. CR/PR at Table III-11 &

n.2.

 187 The ratio of operating income to total assets increased dramatically over the period of review, reaching a

period high of *** percent by the end of the period. CR/PR at Table III-13.

 188 See, e.g., Domestic Industry’s Prehearing Brief at 1.

 189 The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments declined by *** percent and its net sales volumes declined by ***

percent. CR/PR at Tables III-4 and III-7.

 190 Nonsubject and total import volume declined by *** percent. CR/PR at Table IV-1.

27

declined from 2001 to 2003 and remained unchanged in 2004 and 2005.179 While the number of

production and related workers,180 hours worked181 and wages paid182 declined from 2001 to 2005,

productivity increased183 and unit labor costs declined.184 The domestic industry’s capital expenditures

increased from 2001 to 2005,185 while research and development expenditures fluctuated over the period

of review.186 The domestic industry realized significant increases in its return on investment in 2004 and

2005.187

The domestic industry argues that it has been forced into niche segments of the U.S. market by

the increase in nonsubject imports and that, if the orders are revoked, the subject imports will compete

against the domestic like product in these niches.188 We do not find that the record evidence supports the

domestic industry’s contention that it has been forced into niche segments of the U.S. market. If this

contention were true, we would expect the domestic industry’s shipments and net sales volume to have

declined as the volume of nonsubject imports increased. We do not, however, see this inverse

relationship.

The domestic industry’s shipment and net sales volumes declined between 2001 and 2003,189

while the volume of nonsubject imports also declined.190 From 2003 to 2004, the domestic industry’s

U.S. shipments increased by *** percent and its net sales volume increased by *** percent, despite a

sharp increase in the volume of nonsubject imports of 42.1 percent. From 2004 to 2005, domestic

producers’ U.S. shipments and net sales declined somewhat (by *** percent and *** percent,

respectively), as the volume of nonsubject imports declined by a similar degree (8.9 percent). Comparing
 191 CR/PR at Tables I-3, III-4, III-7.

 192 Moreover, the domestic industry’s production of the domestic like product was higher as a share of its total

seamless pipe production in the latter interim period – it was *** percent of total seamless pipe production in Jan.-

Sept. 2005 as compared to *** percent of total seamless pipe production in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Table III-3.

 193 We acknowledge that the domestic industry’s market share has declined. CR/PR at Table I-11. However,

these declines occurred in conjunction with some increases in the domestic industry’s shipment and sales volumes,

while consumption increased more rapidly. Compare CR/PR at Table III-4, III-7 with CR/PR at Table I-11. Further,

the domestic industry’s capacity utilization rate increased as well. CR/PR at Table I-3. The domestic industry’s

market share was *** percent in the Jan.-Sept. 2005 period as compared to *** percent in the Jan.-Sept. 2006 period,

while its capacity utilization was *** percent in Jan.-Sept. 2005 as compared to *** percent in Jan.-Sept. 2006. Its

shipments were *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005 as compared to *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006. CR/PR at Tables

I-10, III-1, and III-4.

 194 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 195 CR/PR at Tables I-3, IV-1.

28

Jan.-Sept. 2005 to Jan.-Sept. 2006, the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments and net sales again increased,

despite another increase in the volume of nonsubject imports.191 Therefore, the record does not support

the domestic industry’s contention that it has been forced by nonsubject imports into niche segments of

the market.192 193

At the same time, a comparison reveals that AUVs for nonsubject imports were *** lower than

AUVs for the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments, indicating that the domestic industry on average

receives higher prices on sales, sells higher value products, or a combination of both.194 Thus, while not

confined to a market niche, the domestic industry’s shipments are skewed toward higher value sales when

compared to nonsubject imports. In an expanding market, the domestic industry would be expected to

pursue higher value sales in order to maximize profitability.

In line with our findings regarding the likely volume and price effects of subject imports from

Argentina, we find that subject imports would not be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry’s output, sales, market share, profits, or return on investment, if the order were

revoked. Demand is projected to remain sufficiently strong such that the small volume of subject imports

that would be likely upon revocation would not be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry. Therefore, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject imports

from Argentina is not likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the U.S.

seamless SLP pipe industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

E. Revocation of the Orders on Subject Imports of Seamless SLP Pipe from Brazil Is

Not Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a

Reasonably Foreseeable Time

1. Likely Volume of the Subject Imports

In the original investigations, subject imports from Brazil initially rose from *** short tons in

1992 to *** short tons in 1993, then fell to *** short tons in 1994. There were *** subject imports from

Brazil during the period of the first review. In the current period of review, there were minimal volumes

of subject imports from Brazil, ranging between *** and *** short tons in the full years, and *** short

tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006.195
 196 CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 197 See CR/PR at Table IV-12; CR at IV-22 n.21, PR at IV-14 n.21.

 198 CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 199 CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 200 See CR/PR at Table IV-26.

 201 CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 202 CR/PR at Table IV-12. In 1994, Brazil’s capacity to produce seamless SLP pipe was *** short tons. Original

Staff Report at I-65. Brazil’s capacity is forecast to be *** short tons in 2006 and to grow *** to *** short tons in

2007 and 2008. CR/PR at Table IV-13.

 203 CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 204 CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 205 CR at IV-28, PR at IV-14; see CR/PR at Table IV-15.

 206 CR/PR at Table IV-15.

 207 V&M Brazil’s end of period inventories fell from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2005. They were

*** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006. These inventories were equivalent to *** of

total shipments in 2001 and *** percent in 2005. CR/PR at Table IV-12.

29

Brazil has shipped only small volumes of subject product to the United States since 2002.196

V&M Brazil is primarily focused on supplying seamless SLP pipe to its home market and, to the extent

V&M Brazil exports, it exports mainly to Latin American markets.197 Home market shipments accounted

for a large share of the industry’s total shipments throughout the period of review, ranging between ***

percent and *** percent between 2001 and 2005, and accounting for *** percent of total shipments in

Jan.-Sept. 2005 compared with *** percent of total shipments in Jan.-Sept. 2006.198 The record thus does

not indicate that the industry is searching for new markets, notwithstanding the existence of some unused

capacity, as discussed below.199 In addition, as discussed earlier, due to strong global demand, prices for

subject pipe in other key markets have been higher than or comparable to prices in the U.S. market.200

Although we are cognizant of product mix concerns, we note that V&M Brazil’s AUV of its home market

shipments is greater than the AUVs of its shipments to all other markets,201 providing some indication that

its home market shipments are at higher prices for comparable products, are of higher value items, or

some combination thereof. For these reasons, we do not find it likely that V&M Brazil is likely to

redirect product from other markets to the U.S. market.

Brazil’s capacity to produce seamless SLP pipe declined over the period of review, from ***

short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2005, a level that is approximately the same size as at the time of

the original investigations.202 Capacity was *** short tons in Jan.-Sept. 2005 as compared to *** short

tons in Jan.-Sept. 2006.203 Brazil’s capacity utilization for subject products also declined over the period

– from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2005. It was *** percent in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** percent

in Jan.-Sept. 2006.204 Brazil also manufactures OCTG and other seamless pipe products on the same

equipment and machinery as the subject product.205 Its capacity utilization for all seamless pipe products

is *** higher -- *** percent in 2005, *** percent in Jan.-Sept. 2005 and *** percent in Jan.-Sept. 2006.206

In addition, its inventories are relatively low and declined over the period of review.207

The same reasons we did not find product shifting to be likely for the Argentine producer apply

as well to Brazil. Moreover, the Brazilian producer’s higher capacity utilization rate for overall seamless

pipe products than for subject product indicates strong demand and sales of nonsubject product, contrary

to any notion that the industry is likely to shift away from the production of those nonsubject products. 
 208 V&M Brazil’s Foreign Producer Questionnaire, section II-12.

 209 CR/PR at Table IV-12. 

 210 CR/PR at Table V-4.

 211 First Reviews Staff Report at V-9.

 212 CR at V-6, PR at V-5.

30

Thus, we do not find it likely that V&M Brazil will engage in significant product shifting in the

reasonably foreseeable future.

Nor do we find that V&M Brazil’s affiliation with VMD, a German producer of seamless SLP

pipe, indicates that the likely volume of subject imports would be significant. Our reasons why corporate

affiliations alone do not provide a sufficient basis for a finding of likely increased imports are discussed

above with respect to our likely volume finding for subject pipe imports from Argentina.

V&M Brazil’s seamless SLP exports are not subject to any tariff or non-tariff barriers in any

country.208 For the 2001 to 2005 period generally, and the interim periods in particular, there is no

evidence that Brazil’s exports to third-country markets have been displaced by Chinese exports. 

Although Brazil’s exports to third-country markets declined in 2005, exports to third-country markets in

interim 2006 rebounded to levels consistent with the full year periods from 2001 to 2004.209

In light of the foregoing, any volume of subject imports from Brazil that may occur upon

revocation of the order is not likely to be significant in the reasonably foreseeable future, particularly in

light of the continued growth that is likely in the U.S. market.

2. Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports

In the original investigations, Brazilian product was priced lower than domestic product in 44 of 

62 quarterly price comparisons, with underselling margins ranging from *** percent to *** percent.210 In

the first reviews, there were *** subject imports from Brazil, and the Commission therefore obtained no

pricing data with respect to subject pipe imports from Brazil.211 Subject imports from Brazil were

minimal in these second reviews, and only limited pricing data are available.212

We incorporate by reference our findings above with respect to current price levels in the U.S.

market, the lack of any current cost-price squeeze and the attractiveness of other markets. For these

reasons, as well as sustained strong U.S. demand and our determination that revocation of the order as to

Brazil is not likely to result in significantly increased volumes of imports of subject merchandise, we find

that revocation of the order is not likely to lead to significant underselling or to significant price

suppressing or depressing effects by reason of subject imports from Brazil.

3. Likely Impact of the Subject Imports

We incorporate by reference our above discussion and findings with respect to the condition of

the domestic industry. In addition, in view of our findings regarding the likely volume and price effects

of subject imports from Brazil, we find that subject imports from Brazil would not be likely to have a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry’s output, sales, market share, profits, or return on

investment, if the order were revoked. Demand in the U.S. market is projected to remain sufficiently

strong such that the small volume of subject imports that would be likely upon revocation would not be

likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. Therefore, we find that revocation of

the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Brazil is not likely to lead to the continuation or

recurrence of material injury to the U.S. seamless SLP pipe industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.
 213 CR/PR at Table I-3. In the original investigations, only one of three German manufacturers of seamless SLP

pipe, Mannesmanroehren-Werke, responded to the Commission’s questionnaire. One producer, Rohrwerke, ***. 

Original Staff Report at I-66 & n.92. It is unclear what percentage of the industry was represented by the responding

German producer. However, we note that this producer is the predecessor of VMD, which currently accounts for

nearly *** percent of production in Germany. CR/PR at Table IV-16.

 214 CR/PR at Table I-3. In the first reviews, data were provided by VMD, which reported that it accounted for

*** percent of total German production of subject product. First Reviews Staff Report at IV-12.

 215 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 216 CR/PR at Table IV-18 (German capacity *** short tons in 2005), Table IV-7 (Argentine capacity *** short

tons in 2005), and Table IV-12 (Brazilian capacity *** short tons in 2005).

 217 CR/PR at Tables IV-18, IV-19. VMD expects to *** production capacity by *** in its Muelheim plant ***,

and Rohrwerk plans to invest *** in 2006-07 to ***. Benteler did not report any changes in production or

operations, or anticipated changes. CR at IV-30, PR at IV-15.

 218 CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 219 Figures derived from CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 220 Figures derived from CR/PR at Table IV-18.

31

F. Revocation of the Orders on Subject Imports of Seamless SLP Pipe from Germany 

Is Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a

Reasonably Foreseeable Time

1. Likely Volume of the Subject Imports

In the original investigations, subject imports from Germany declined from *** short tons in

1992 to *** short tons in 1993, then increased to *** short tons in 1994.213 In the first reviews, these

imports decreased from *** short tons in 1995 to *** short tons in 2000.214 In these second reviews,

subject imports from Germany rose from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2005.215

In evaluating the likely volume of subject imports from Germany if the order is revoked, we

consider the size of the German seamless SLP pipe industry, its large and growing excess capacity, and

the *** decline in sales to its primary markets in recent years. Additionally, the German industry has had

only limited success in cultivating new markets, and ***. Based on these and other considerations, we

find that the likely volume of subject imports from Germany would be significant if the order is revoked. 

With an annual production capacity of *** short tons between 2001 and 2005, the German

seamless SLP pipe industry is *** larger than the combined industries of Argentina and Brazil.216

Moreover, German capacity to produce the subject product was higher in Jan.-Sept. 2006 than in Jan.-

Sept. 2005 (*** short tons compared to *** short tons), and is projected to increase to *** short tons in

2006 and to *** short tons in 2007, with further increases projected in both 2007 and 2008.217 

At the beginning of the period of review, the German home market and the European Union

(“EU”) were the Germany industry’s principal markets, accounting for *** percent of its shipments of

seamless SLP pipe in 2001.218 By 2005, however, the industry’s shipments to the home market had fallen

by *** percent, while shipments to the rest of the EU fell by nearly ***.219 Collectively, German

producers’ annual shipments to these markets fell by more than *** short tons.220 While the German

producers sought out new export markets, they have to date achieved only limited success, offsetting only
 221 Figures derived from CR/PR at Table IV-18. Germany’s exports to China increased from *** short tons in

2001 to *** short tons in 2005. Its exports to other Asian markets increased from *** short tons to *** short tons

during that period, and its exports to all other markets increased from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons during

that period. CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 222 CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 223 ***.

 224 ***.

 225 CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 226 Compare CR/PR at Table IV-18 with CR/PR at Table I-11.

 227 In 2005, the U.S. market for all seamless tubular products was about *** tonnes, compared to Japan (about

*** excluding stainless) and Europe (defined as Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy,

Norway, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the UK) (about *** tonnes). Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless

Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 18 (Mar. 2007) at 3, 6 and 8.

 228 Tr. at 31 (Mr. Vaughn), 46 (Mr. Verellen) and 58 (Mr. Durham).

 229 For example, Germany’s AUVs for shipments to its home market was $*** in 2005, while it was $*** to the

United States, $*** to the EU, $*** to China, $*** to other Asian markets, and $*** to all other markets. CR/PR at

Table IV-18. By contrast, Argentine and Brazilian producers had higher AUVs in their home markets than in export

markets. See CR/PR at Tables IV-7, IV-17. While we are cognizant of product mix concerns, the differences in

AUVs provide some indication that Germany’s home market shipments are at lower prices for comparable product,

are of lower value items, or some combination thereof.

32

about *** of the volume lost in their primary markets.221 Thus, while the industry’s capacity was ***

short tons from 2001 to 2005, its total shipments fell from *** short tons to *** short tons, and while its

capacity increased from *** short tons to *** short tons between the interim periods, total shipments

again fell, from *** short tons to *** short tons.222 Moreover, there remain difficult challenges for the

German producers in important markets. The ***.223 That ***.224 

As a result of the *** loss of sales, the German industry’s capacity utilization fell from ***

percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2005. German capacity utilization was also lower in Jan.-Sept. 2006

than in Jan.-Sept. 2005 (*** percent compared to *** percent).225 In 2005, the industry’s excess capacity

represented *** short tons, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in that year.226

Considering that capacity utilization was lower in Jan.-Sept. 2006 than in Jan.-Sept. 2005, and that the

industry added capacity in 2006, with further increases due in 2007 and 2008, it is likely that the German

industry’s excess capacity will remain large, and perhaps increase, in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

We consider the loss of sales volumes and sharply lower capacity utilization to demonstrate that the

German industry has a strong motivation to increase shipments to new markets, an effort that has met

with only limited success to date.

The record also indicates that the United States is an attractive market for the German producers. 

For the broader category of all seamless tubular products reported by Metal Bulletin Research, the U.S.

market is a very large market, larger than that represented by Europe or Japan.227 It is likely, therefore,

that the U.S. market for subject seamless pipe is likewise comparatively large, consistent with testimony

received at the Commission’s hearing.228 Moreover, the German industry’s AUVs for home market

shipments are *** lower than those received on sales to export markets.229 Finally, as noted above, the
 230 ***; Tr. at 244 (Mr. Herminghaus) (Benteler exporting seamless pipe to Canada but not the United States as a

result of the antidumping duty order); Benteler’s Posthearing Brief at Supplemental Information at 2 (Benteler’s

exports to Canada during Jan.-Sept. 2006 totaled *** short tons). 

 231 Tr. at 190 (Mr. Herminghaus). We note that only *** exported seamless SLP pipe to the United States during

these second reviews. CR at IV-30, PR at IV-15. However, as noted above, Benteler states that it expects to ship

subject pipe to the United States upon revocation of the order.

 232 See CR/PR at Table IV-20.

 233 See Benteler’s Posthearing Brief at 10, Tr. at 190 (Mr. Herminghaus).

 234 Tr. at 190 (Mr. Herminghaus).

 235 Benteler’s Prehearing Brief at 8.

 236 Benteler’s Posthearing Brief at 5. 

 237 With the amount of excess capacity they have currently and the amount of capacity they will have by the end

of 2007, it appears that German producers would not need to abandon their longstanding customers in order to

increase significantly shipments to the United States.

 238 VMD’s Foreign Producer Questionnaire, section II-12. Benteler and Rohwerk are not subject to any

additional tariffs in other countries.

 239 CR/PR at Table IV-16.

33

*** that the U.S. market is attractive, and *** the antidumping duty order under review is the reason ***

not selling in greater volumes in the United States.230

In sum, the record indicates that the large German seamless SLP pipe industry has sustained

major losses in sales volumes to its primary markets in recent years. The industry’s efforts to find new

markets have met with only limited success to date, with the result that the German producers have

experienced a steep reduction in capacity utilization: unused capacity was equivalent to nearly *** the

U.S. market in 2005. As the German industry continues to seek out new opportunities to expand sales,

the United States presents a large and attractive market, ***. Moreover, ***. For these reasons, we

conclude that the likely volume of subject imports from Germany would be significant if the order is

revoked. 

Although Benteler (which accounted for *** percent of production in Germany in 2005) argued

that it primarily produces in smaller sizes that it does not export to the United States,231 the German

industry as a whole produces seamless SLP pipe in a range of sizes.232 In addition, Benteler argued that it

plans to ship only “niche” products to the U.S. market that are not produced by the domestic producers to

the extent it will ship subject merchandise to the United States.233 However, Benteler admitted that it is

“not your typical pipe and tube producer.”234 Further, Benteler argues that in 2007 it will continue its

pattern of exporting primarily to the ***,235 where it has ***.236 Notwithstanding Benteler’s projection

and its long-term commitments, we find it likely, in view of the expected need of the German industry as

a whole to find additional markets for its seamless SLP pipe in the face of large and increasing excess

capacity as described above, that German producers will ship significant volumes of various sizes of pipe

to the United States that are not limited to “niche” products.237

VMD’s subject pipe exports are subject to additional tariffs in Argentina, which were imposed

before 2001.238 As VMD is, ***, Germany’s *** producer of seamless SLP pipe,239 and as it is planning

***, the Argentine tariffs are another reason that the German industry will likely increase exports of

subject pipe to the United States upon revocation of the order.
 240 CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 241 CR/PR at Table V-4.

 242 First Reviews Staff Report at V-9.

 243 CR at V-6, PR at V-5 - V-6.

 244 ***.

 245 ***. Based on our finding that the likely volume of subject imports from Argentina would not be significant if

the order is revoked, we do not conclude that subject imports from that country would be likely to have significant

price depressing or price suppressing effects, as explained above.

 246 See Benteler’s Prehearing Brief at 12; CR/PR at Table IV-1, V-2 - V-3.

 247 From 2001 to 2005, imports from China increased by 17,232 short tons, while total nonsubject import volumes

(include those from China) increased by 21,817 short tons. CR/PR at Table IV-2. The figure 17,232 is 79.0 percent

of the figure 21,817.

 248 CR/PR at Tables II-4, IV-16.

34

We note that there were no inventories of German subject pipe during the period of review.240 

In addition, for the same reasons we did not find product shifting from OCTG to seamless SLP pipe to be

likely by the Argentine producer – namely, the higher prices OCTG commands – we do not find it to be

likely with respect to the German producers. Thus, we do not rely on this factor in making our finding

regarding likely volume of subject imports.

In view of the foregoing, we find that the likely volume of subject imports from Germany would

be significant in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty order were revoked.

2. Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports

In the original investigations, German product was priced lower than domestic product in 21 of

33 quarterly price comparisons; underselling margins ranged from *** percent to *** percent.241 In the

first reviews, the Commission obtained no pricing data with respect to subject pipe imports from

Germany.242 Only limited pricing data were provided for German seamless SLP pipe during these second

reviews.243

As explained above, we find it likely that German subject pipe producers will ship significant

volumes of subject pipe to the United States in the event of revocation of the order. Also as stated above,

seamless SLP pipe is a product that is generally substitutable and for which price is important in

purchasing decisions. Thus, to gain additional market share, the German producers will be required to

undersell the domestic product. In fact, ***.”244 This contrasts with the subject pipe producers in

Argentina and Brazil, whom we found lack incentive to attempt to gain any significant increase in market

share in the United States.245

It was argued that, because prices in the U.S. market have increased despite a concurrent increase

in the volume of nonsubject imports, an increase in the volume of subject imports from Germany would

not be likely to have significant price depressing or price suppressing effects in the reasonably foreseeable

future.246 As an initial matter, the record indicates that China accounted for 79.0 percent of the increase in

nonsubject import volumes.247 Nonsubject imports from China are not a good basis for projecting the

effects of subject imports from Germany, given evidence of differences between the two. ***, is found

on *** approved manufacturers lists (“AMLs”) available to the Commission, ***.248 By contrast, only
 249 CR/PR at Table II-4.

 250 Tr. at 46 (Mr. Verellen).

 251 Tr. at 65 (Mr. Stoner).

 252 Tr. at 20 (Mr. Hecht), 54 (Mr. Leland).

 253 Tr. at 63 (Mr. Stoner).

 254 With respect to nonsubject imports as a whole, although a majority of purchasers considered that product and

the German product comparable in most respects, four of eight rated the German product superior in reliability of

supply and three of eight rated the German product superior in consistency (the others judged them comparable).

CR/PR at Table II-8. Large majorities of purchasers rated reliability of supply and consistency as “very important”

purchasing factors. CR/PR at Table II-5. These reports indicate that a substantial portion of purchasers continue to

perceive differences between the German and nonsubject product.

 255 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 256 Figures derived from CR/PR at Table C-1.

 257 Figures derived from CR/PR at Table C-1.

 258 CR/PR at Tables II-1, II-2; CR/PR at Figure II-4; CR at II-16, II-19, PR at II-11.

 259 71 Fed. Reg. 59,079, 59,081.

 260 CR/PR at Tables II-6 (strong majorities of U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers reporting that the German

and U.S. product are “always” or “frequently” used interchangeably) and II-7 (all U.S. producers reporting that

differences other than price between the German and U.S. produce are “never” significant, and all U.S. importers

reporting that such differences were “sometimes” or “never” significant).

35

three AMLs include a single Chinese producer, ***.249 In the same vein, witnesses for the domestic

industry testified at the Commission’s hearing that while the quality of the subject products made in

Germany are “second to none” and “instantly acceptable to all customers,”250 imports from China, despite

some high quality producers, are still “improving in quality,”251 and “mov[ing] up the value chain.”252

These witnesses also testified that some customers rely on AMLs or “are otherwise reluctant to purchase

from unknown quantities such as China.”253 254

Even if nonsubject imports from China, or as a whole, were a good proxy for subject imports

from Germany, the record still does not support the assertion suggested to us. From 2001 to 2005, the

volume of nonsubject imports increased irregularly from 96,667 short tons to 118,484 short tons.255 The

largest annual increase occurred from 2003 to 2004 (38,450 short tons) and nonsubject volumes were

similarly 35,705 short tons higher in Jan.-Sept. 2006 than in Jan.-Sept. 2005.256 Over the same periods,

however, there were *** larger increases in apparent U.S. consumption (which was *** short tons higher

in 2004 than in 2003, and *** short tons higher in Jan.-Sept. 2006 than in Jan.-Sept. 2005).257 In each

case, therefore, the increase in nonsubject import volumes was substantially more than offset by increases

in apparent U.S. consumption. Price declines are not to be expected in such an environment.

No similar increases in demand are forecast for the reasonably foreseeable future. While demand

in the U.S. is projected to remain strong, it is not forecast to change substantially and may even be

somewhat lower than in recent years.258

Thus, the record does not indicate that the large likely increase in subject imports from Germany

will be offset by a similarly large increase in demand. Additionally, Commerce has found that subject

imports from Germany are likely to be sold at LTFV.259 Absent a large increase in consumption, and

given that subject imports are generally substitutable with the domestic like product,260 the German

producers, which have sustained a *** decline in sales and increase in unused capacity, will likely lower
 261 We have described above, in our discussion of with respect to Argentina, our vulnerability analysis as well as

presented our analysis of the impact factors. We adopt that discussion for the purposes of our discussion of the

impact of subject imports from Germany.

36

prices in order to regain market share, ***. For these reasons, we find that the likely significant volumes

of subject imports from Germany and the likely significant underselling would likely have significant

price depressing or price suppressing effects on prices for the domestic product, even if past increases in

nonsubject volumes have not.

3. Likely Impact of the Subject Imports261

We concluded above that revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to Germany

likely would lead to significant increases in the volume of subject imports that would undersell the

domestic like product and significantly depress or suppress U.S. prices. As we noted in our discussion of

the likely impact of subject imports from Argentina, we attribute the domestic industry’s gains in

profitability to strong prices and demand. However, although demand is projected to remain strong, it is

not likely to increase at a rapid rate, as explained above. Further, as also explained above, the volumes of

subject imports from Germany are likely to be substantial upon revocation of the order. The likely

substantial volume and price effects of the subject imports from Germany, unlike those from Argentina

and Brazil, would be sufficient to have a significant negative impact on the production, shipments, sales,

market share, and revenues of the domestic industry, despite its lack of vulnerability. This reduction in

the industry’s production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues would adversely affect the

industry’s profitability and ability to raise capital and maintain necessary capital investments. Therefore,

we find that revocation of the order on subject imports from Germany would be likely to have a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry and find further that revocation of the order is likely

to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the U.S. seamless SLP pipe industry within

a reasonably foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

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

seamless SLP pipe from Argentina and Brazil would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

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

conclude that revocation of the antidumping duty order on seamless SLP pipe from Germany would be

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

reasonably foreseeable time.
 1

 The Commission’s affirmative determination in the first reviews on Argentina, Brazil, and Germany was

reviewed by the Court of International Trade. The Court sustained the Commission’s affirmative determination in

part and remanded it in part for clarification regarding the standard of “likeliness” employed, and if an improper

standard was used, reconsideration in light of the proper standard. The Court also directed the Commission to

identify whether it was economically feasible for subject producers to engage in product-shifting, to identify the

weight it gave to the impact of international corporate affiliations, to further explain the importance of price in

purchasing decisions, to clarify its position with regard to price suppression and depression, and to further discuss

and explain why increasingly positive market indicators did not defeat a finding of vulnerability to material injury.

Siderca, S.A.I.C. v. United States, 350 F. Supp.2d 1223, 1243 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004).

 2

 In light of the Court of International Trade’s instructions on the interpretation of the likely standard

Commissioner Okun found that she could not conclude that revocation of the orders would be more likely than not to

lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time and therefore changed her

determination from affirmative to negative. See Additional Views of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun

Concerning the “Likely” Standard, Siderca, SAIC v. United States and United States Steel Corp, Ct. No. 01-00603,

January 24, 2005, remand determinations.

 3

 Vice Chairman Okun and Commissioner Pearson determined on remand that revocation of the orders on

Argentina, Brazil, and Germany, on a cumulated basis, was not likely to result in the continuation or recurrence of

material injury. See Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Daniel R.

Pearson, Siderca, SAIC v. United States and United States Steel Corp, Ct. No. 01-00603, January 24, 2005, remand

determinations.

 4

 CR at IV-29, PR at IV-15.

 5

 See CR/PR Table IV-17.

37

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL R. PEARSON AND

COMMISSIONER DEANNA TANNER OKUN REGARDING GERMANY

I. INTRODUCTION1 2

Based on the record in this second five-year review, we determine that material injury is not

likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time if the antidumping duty order on subject

imports of certain seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe (SLP pipe) from

Germany is revoked.

We join our colleagues’ discussion regarding domestic like product, domestic industry, the legal

standard governing five-year reviews, cumulation, conditions of competition, and the analysis of the

statutory factors for Argentina and Brazil. We write separately to discuss our analysis of the statutory

factors with regard to Germany. 

II. REVOCATION OF THE ORDER ON SUBJECT IMPORTS FROM GERMANY

IS NOT LIKELY TO LEAD TO CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF

MATERIAL INJURY WITHIN A REASONABLY FORESEEABLE TIME3

A. Likely Volume of Subject Imports 

The Commission received complete foreign producers’ questionnaire responses from all three

known producers of the subject product in Germany, Benteler Stahl/Rohr GmbH (Benteler), Rohrwerk

Neue Maxhuette GmBh (Rohrwerk), and V&M Deutschland GmbH (VMD).4

 Comparisons between the

data on the German industry for the current period of review and prior periods are of limited utility

because the Commission lacked complete data for the German industry in the original investigations and

the first reviews.5
 6

 Original Views (confidential) at 41-42.

 7

 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 8

 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 9

 First Reviews Views (confidential) at 24-27.

 10 Remand Views (confidential) at 10-11.

 11 Remand Views (confidential) at 12.

 12 CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 13 CR/PR at Table IV-19.

 14 CR/PR at Table IV-18

 15 CR/PR at Table IV-18 and Table IV-21.

38

In the original investigations, the Commission found that, on a cumulated basis, subject import

volume from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy was significant.6

 Subject imports from Germany,

however, declined irregularly over the period of the original investigation. Subject import volume was

*** short tons in 1992, *** short tons in 1993, and *** short tons in 1994.7

 Subject import market share

also declined irregularly from *** percent in 1992 to *** percent in 1994.8

In the first review, the Commission found that, on a cumulated basis, subject import volume from

Argentina, Brazil, and Germany were likely to be significant based on the potential for product shifting,

that prices in the U.S. market was generally higher than in third-country markets, that subject producers

relied heavily on export markets, and that transnational affiliations enhanced subject producers’ ability to

resume exports to the U.S. market.9

In our remand determinations, we found that although capacity utilization rates for total seamless

pipe production were somewhat lower than capacity utilization for subject seamless SLP pipe product,

subject producers had not engaged in product shifting and the record indicated that subject producers have

optimum production patterns from which they did not significantly deviate.10 Additionally, we found that

although U.S. prices for seamless SLP may have been higher than prices in third-country markets the

record did not indicate that if the orders were revoked U.S. prices would remain sufficiently higher so as

to induce subject producers to shift export markets.11

On the record of this review, we find evidence of a German industry focused on serving its home

and EU market. Further, strong global demand for all seamless pipe and high prices in the EU market

reduce incentives to engage in product shifting or shift export markets to target the U.S. market.

Production capacity for the German industry was unchanged during the 2001 to 2005 period at

*** short tons; however, it is projected to increase to *** short tons in 2007.12 13 Capacity utilization for

the subject product declined during from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2005.14 However, as

noted above in the Commission’s discussion of conditions of competition, reported production capacity

for the subject pipe reflects the allocation of total capacity to produce seamless pipe on shared equipment. 

Therefore, the ultimate constraint on a producer’s ability to increase production is its total capacity for all

seamless pipe. We have, therefore, also evaluated the German industry’s overall capacity utilization rates.

Capacity utilization for all seamless pipe products is currently *** high, at *** percent in 2005 and ***

percent in the January-September 2006 period.15 Evaluating the capacity utilization rates in the context of

the other record evidence regarding global demand and prices we conclude that subject producers in

Germany have moderate total excess capacity.
 16 CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 17 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 18 CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 19 CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 20 CR/PR at Table IV-26.

 21 CR/PR at Table IV-18.

 22 We note that U.S. imports from other Western European countries, which may face similar conditions of

competition as subject producers in Germany, have remained at moderate levels from 2001 to 2005. CR/PR at Table

IV-2 and hearing transcript at 81-82 (Mr. Binder). We also note that the domestic industry has reported that such

imports are not negatively affecting the U.S. market. Hearing transcript at 81 (Mr. Leland).

 23 Domestic Industry prehearing brief at 45.

 24 We note that the with respect to barriers to the importation of seamless SLP pipe from Germany into other

countries, one subject producer ***, that its shipments of seamless SLP face duties of 16 percent plus an additional

12 percent in Argentina. *** Foreign Producers’ Questionnaire response to question II-12 (a). 

 25 CR/PR at Table IV-21.

 26 CR/PR at Figure IV-1.

39

Subject product cannot be shipped to the U.S. market out of inventory because subject German

producers reported *** inventories.16 U.S. importers reported *** inventories of subject product in

interim 2006.17

Although subject producers in Germany have some excess capacity, we do not find that it is

likely that subject producers will direct that excess capacity at the U.S. market. The industry in Germany

is strongly focused on serving its home market and the EU market. Although the German industry’s share

of total shipments to the EU market declined somewhat from 2001 to 2005, it remains strongly focused on

serving the EU market. In 2005, *** percent of total shipments were to its home market or other EU

Member States.18 This share was *** percent in the interim 2006 period.19 Further, the available data on

prices for the in the EU market indicate that such prices for API 5LB line pipe (a representative product)

have remained higher than or comparable to prices in the U.S. market since at least October 2005.20

While we recognize that comparisons of average unit values are complicated by potential

differences in product mix, the available data indicate that the average unit values of subject German

producers’ shipments to other export markets were higher than or comparable to the average unit value of

exports to the U.S. market in 2005.21 22 Finally, although the domestic industry has alleged that Chinese

exports are forcing subject producers’ exports out of third-country markets, there is limited record

evidence that such displacement is actually taking place.23 Indeed, subject German producers have

increased the share of total shipments to Asian and other export markets from *** and *** percent of total

shipments in 2001 to *** and *** percent in 2005, respectively.24 Based on the foregoing, German

producers have no economic incentive to shift product from its home or EU market to the U.S. market. 

Consistent with the Commission’s discussion of the likely volume of subject imports from

Argentina and Brazil, we do not find it likely that subject producers in Germany will engage in product

shifting in order to direct exports of the subject product to the U.S. market. Indeed, the available data

indicate that subject producers in Germany are shifting away from the production of the subject pipe.

German production of the subject product declined from *** percent of total seamless pipe production in

interim 2005 to *** percent of total seamless pipe production in interim 2006.25 Further, prices for

alternative seamless pipe products (i.e. OCTG) remain higher than prices for SLP pipe.26 In interim 2005,

OCTG production accounted for approximately *** percent of total seamless pipe production and
 27 CR/PR at Table IV-21.

 28 *** Foreign Producers’ Questionnaire responses to questions II-3, II-14, and II-15.

 29 *** Foreign Producers’ Questionnaire, response to question II-4.

 30 CR/PR at Table IV-19.

 31 Original Views (confidential) at 43-45.

 32 First Reviews Views (confidential) at 27-28.

 33 Remand Views (confidential) at 15.

 34 Remand Views (confidential) at 16.

40

approximately *** percent of all seamless pipe production with an outside diameter of less than 4.5

inches.27 These shares increased to approximately *** and *** percent in interim 2006, respectively. 

We are mindful that the subject producer *** has ***.28 We do not, however, find such a

statement to be sufficient to justify a finding that the likely volume of subject imports from Germany will

be significant given the totality of the record evidence. As an initial matter, while *** reported that there

would be *** the absolute volume of such increased exports is not likely to be significant relative to

current U.S. production and consumption.29 *** projected an increase in exports to the U.S. market in

2007 from *** short tons to *** short tons if the order is revoked. For the German industry as a whole,

exports to the U.S. market in 2007 are projected to increase from *** short tons to *** short tons if the

order is revoked.30 While these increases in exports to the U.S. market may constitute a *** the projected

volume of exports to the U.S. market is equivalent to only *** percent of 2005 U.S. apparent

consumption and *** percent of 2005 U.S. production.

Thus, while there may be a moderate increase in the volume of subject imports from Germany if

the order is revoked, we find that under the market conditions likely to exist in the reasonably foreseeable

future, including strong demand and prices globally, given that subject producers have only moderate

amounts of excess capacity, have *** inventories, and have little economic incentives to engage in

product shifting or to shift exports to the U.S. market, thus, we do not find it likely that the volume of

subject imports upon revocation would be significant, either in absolute terms or relative to production or

consumption in the U.S. market.

B. Likely Price Effects

In the original investigation, the Commission found that cumulated subject imports from

Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy significantly undersold the domestic like product and caused

significant price depression and suppression.31

In the first reviews, the Commission found that there was a strong incentive for cumulated subject

imports to compete on the basis of price to capture sales in the U.S. market.32 The Commission found that

given the likely volume of cumulated subject imports upon revocation of the orders, cumulated subject

imports would likely have significant depressing and suppressing effects on prices for the domestic like

product.

In our remand determination, we found that while subject imports might enter the market at prices

that undersold the domestic like product, such underselling was not likely to be significant or lead to

significant price depression or suppression.33 We found because of strong U.S. consumption and the

likelihood of continued increases in consumption, that prices for the domestic like product would remain

relatively strong.34

We adopt the Commission’s discussion of price trends for the period of review presented with

respect to Argentina and Brazil. In particular, we note that prices for SLP pipe in the U.S. market have
 35 Compare First Reviews confidential staff report at Tables V-1 - V-4 and CR/PR at Tables V-2 and V-3.

 36 See CR/PR Tables V–2 and V-3 and Figure V-3.

 37 The domestic industry has argued that prices have weakened in the most recent months. We note that the

industry has largely attributed this to inventory destocking that is estimated to last less than three months. Hearing

transcript at 128 (Mr. Durham). 

 38 CR/PR at Table IV-1.

 39 We note that the increases in U.S. prices occurred even though non-subject import prices, based on average unit

values, were lower than U.S. prices. The average unit value of non-subject imports ranged between *** per short

ton in 2001 to *** per short ton in 2005 while the average unit value of U.S. shipments ranged between *** in 2001

and *** in 2005. CR/PR At Table IV-1 and III-4.

 40 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 41 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 42 We note that the domestic industry is on record as stating that imports of the subject product from France,

where VMD has a sister facility, are not negatively affecting prices in the U.S. market and that the domestic industry

expects subject imports to compete in a manner similar to imports from France. Hearing transcript at 81 (Mr.

Leland).

 43 Original Views (confidential) at 47-48.

 44 Original Views (confidential) at 47-48.

41

increased ***, particularly between 2004 and 2006. We note that as a result, current U.S. prices ***

exceed those reported during the first reviews.35 

The Commission gathered product-specific price data on four products. Prices for all four

products increased ***.36 37 Prices globally have increased and remained high. We note that these ***

increases in prices in the U.S. market took place even as the volume of non-subject imports increased ***,

and the industry’s costs rose ***.38 39 The *** increase in prices resulted in a decline in the ratio of the

domestic industry’s COGS/sales from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2005.40 This ratio remained

extremely low at *** percent in interim 2006.41 Thus, we observe that the industry has been able to

increase prices well in excess of increases in its costs. Because these increases have occurred even while

total imports were increasing and at a time of strong demand, we do not attribute the strong prices to the

presence of the order.

As noted in the Commission’s discussion of the likely conditions of competition above, demand

for SLP pipe both in the U.S. market and globally is expected to remain strong in the reasonably

foreseeable future. This expected strong demand will continue to support high prices both in the U.S.

market and globally.42

Because of the *** increase in U.S. prices even as non-subject import volume increased, the

expectation for continued strong demand, and our determination that the volume of subject imports from

Germany is not likely to be significant we do not find that a modest volume of subject imports from

Germany upon revocation are likely to have significant price depressing or suppression effects on prices

for the domestic like product, or to otherwise have significant negative effects on domestic prices. 

C. Likely Impact

In the original investigations the Commission found that despite the domestic industry’s increases

in market share, shipments, production, and capacity utilization, it experienced poor financial

performance as a result of the price effects from subject imports.43 The Commission therefore found a

significant adverse impact by reason of subject imports.44
 45 First Reviews Views (confidential) at 27-28.

 46 Remand Views (confidential) at 18-19.

 47 ***. CR/PR at Tables III- 4 and III-7.

42

In the first reviews the Commission found that the likely volume and price effects of the

cumulated subject imports would likely have a significant negative impact on the domestic industry.45

In our remand views we found that the domestic industry was not vulnerable. We found that the

outlook for demand was good and that given that the likely volume of cumulated subject imports would

not be significant, and that cumulated subject imports were not likely to have significant negative effects

on prices for the domestic like product, found that revocation of the order was not likely to have a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.46 We adopt the

Commission’s discussion with respect to vulnerability and the condition of the domestic industry

presented in its discussion on Argentina and Brazil in this review.

Additionally, we note that while much of the domestic industry’s improved profitability is a result

of the *** increases in U.S. prices, the domestic industry has experienced increases in shipments and net

sales volumes. In particular, the domestic industry’s shipments and net sales volume in interim 2006, on

an annualized basis, are *** high compared to prior levels from 2001 to 2005. On an annualized basis,

U.S. shipment volume for 2006 is *** short tons and net sales volume is *** short tons.47 This is the ***

highest level of shipments and the *** level of net sales volumes reported by the domestic industry during

the 2001 to 2005 period.

Consistent with our findings that the likely volume and likely price effects of subject imports

from Germany will not be significant, we find that subject imports would not be likely to have a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry’s output, sales, market share, profits, or return on

investment, if the order were revoked. Based on the strong demand in the U.S. market and the strong

condition of the domestic industry, the small volume of subject imports from Germany that would be

likely upon revocation would not be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.

III. CONCLUSION 

For the above-stated reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on SLP

pipe from Germany would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 
 1

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 2

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 3

 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I (1994). 

 4

 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether imports compete with each other

and with the domestic like product are: (1) the degree of fungibility between the imports from different countries

and between imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer requirements and

other quality related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographical markets of subject

(continued...)

43

DISSENTING VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER CHARLOTTE R. LANE

I join with my colleagues in Sections I and II of the majority Views. However, I write separately

with regard to cumulation and the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the orders

on certain seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and

Germany are revoked.

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

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain

seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe (“seamless pipe”) from Argentina,

Brazil, and Germany would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

III. CUMULATION

A. Framework

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that:

the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject

merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or

(c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete

with each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The

Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of the

subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are likely to have

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.1

Cumulation is discretionary in five-year reviews. However, the Commission may exercise its

discretion to cumulate only if the reviews are initiated on the same day and the Commission determines

that the subject imports are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S.

market. The statute precludes cumulation if the Commission finds that subject imports from a country are

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.2

 Neither the statute nor the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) provides

specific guidance on what factors the Commission is to consider in determining that imports “are likely to

have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry.3

 For this determination the Commission

has generally considered the likely volume of the subject imports and the likely impact of those imports

on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders are revoked.

To provide a framework for determining whether the imports compete with each other and with

the domestic like product the Commission has generally considered four factors.4

 Only a “reasonable
 4

 (...continued)

imports and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar channels of distribution for subject

imports and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the subject imports are simultaneously present in the market.

 5

 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 916 (CIT 1996); Wieland Werke, AG, 718 F. Supp. at 52

(CIT 1989) (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”); United States Steel Group v. United States, 873

F. Supp. 673, 685 (CIT 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). 

 6

 See Notice of Institution (Int’l Trade Comm’n); see also Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews,

71 Fed. Reg. 31153 (June 1, 2006)(Dep’t of Commerce). 

 7

 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 8

 CR/PR at Table I-3. I note, however, that subject imports from Germany still accounted for a not-insubstantial

*** percent of the U.S. market in 1995, with entries of *** short tons. Ibid.

 9

 CR at I-35; PR at I-28, I-29. The U.S. importer Tenaris Global Services (USA) Corp. (“Tenaris”), formerly

known as “Siderca”, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tenaris S.A. of Luxemburg. Tenaris SA has affiliations with

seamless tube producers Dalmine (Italy), Siderca (Argentina), Algoma Tubes (Canada), Tavsa (Venezuela), Tamsa

(Mexico), Silcotub (Romania), and NKK Tubes (Japan). The U.S. importer Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes Corp.

(“V & M Tubes”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes S.A. of Boulogne, France,

which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Groupe Vallourec. Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes S.A. wholly

owns V & M Tubes do Brazil (V & M Brazil”) and V & M Tubes Germany (“VMD”).

44

overlap” of competition is required.5 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether there likely

would be competition even if none currently exists. 

In these reviews, the statutory requirement for cumulation that all of the seamless pipe reviews be

initiated on the same day is satisfied.6 As more fully explained below, based on the record, I find that

subject imports from each of the three subject countries likely would have a discernible adverse impact on

the domestic industry if the orders were revoked. I also find that subject imports from Argentina, Brazil,

and Germany likely would compete with each other and the domestic like product if the orders were

revoked. I do not find any significant differences in the conditions of competition among subject imports

from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany nor do I find any persuasive reason that would lead me to conclude

that I should not cumulate subject imports from all countries that meet the statutory criteria for

cumulation. Therefore, I exercise my discretion to cumulate the likely volume and effects of subject

imports from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany.

B. Analysis

1. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact

During the original period of investigation, 1992-94, subject imports from Argentina accounted

for *** to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, while subject imports from Brazil accounted for

*** to *** percent, and those from Germany accounted for *** to *** percent.7

 After the orders were

imposed, the volume of subject imports declined significantly, and generally were relatively small during

the periods examined in either the first reviews or the current second reviews.8

 Nevertheless, each subject

country has displayed the intention and the ability to ship into the U.S. market in the past, prior to the

imposition of orders, and each has had access to channels of distribution in the United States.9

Although their percentage of total production which is exported has declined to some degree

since the last review, producers in each of the subject countries continue to export *** volumes of the
 10 In 2005, production of the subject product totaled *** short tons in Argentina (*** percent of which was

exported), *** short tons in Brazil (*** percent of which was exported), and *** short tons in Germany (*** percent

of which was exported). CR and PR at Tables IV-6, IV-11, and IV-17.

 11 CR/PR at Tables IV-6, IV-11, IV-17.

 12 CR/PR at Tables II-4, II-5 and II-6.

 13 The original investigations also covered Italy. The order on seamless pipe from Italy, however, was revoked

following the first five-year review. CR/PR at Table I-2.

 14 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 2910, at I-22. 

 15 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 2910, at I-22-23.

 16 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 2910, at I-23.

 17 Hearing transcript, p. 70 (Hecht). CR at II-22, PR at II-15.

 18 Hearing transcript, pp. 46, 54, and 62 (Verellen, Leland, and Stoner). CR at II-22, PR at II-15.

 19 Hearing transcript, pp. 221-222 (Balkenende).

45

subject seamless pipe.10 Total 2005 capacity for production of subject seamless pipe in the subject

countries was *** short tons in Argentina, *** short tons in Brazil and *** short tons in ***.11 In

addition, producers in each of the subject countries produce other seamless pipe products on the same

machinery used to produce the subject merchandise and can shift production between other products and

the subject merchandise. In light of the prevailing conditions of competition in the U.S. market

(including the importance of price considerations to purchasers and significant purchaser acceptance of

seamless pipe from each of the subject countries),12 I do not find that subject imports from any of the

subject countries are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.

2. Reasonable Overlap of Competition

In the original investigations concerning seamless pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany,13

the Commission found that subject imports from each of the subject countries competed with each other

and with the domestic like product. Based on this finding, the Commission cumulated those subject

imports. The Commission found that subject imports and the domestic like product were reasonably good

substitutes, and that there were no significant quality differences between the domestic and imported

product.14 The Commission also determined that both the domestic and imported product competed

directly for sales in the same geographic markets. It found that both the domestic and imported product

were sold through similar channels of distribution, since both domestic producers and importers sold

subject pipe predominantly to distributors who, in turn, resold it to end users and other distributors.15

Finally, the Commission concluded that subject imports from all countries and the domestic product were

simultaneously present in the U.S. market throughout the period of investigation.16

In these reviews, the domestic interested parties report that subject seamless SLP pipe is a much

better substitute for U.S.-produced product than is nonsubject, particularly Chinese, product.17 They

reported that this is due in large part to the fact Chinese producers are not yet on the major “approved

manufacturers lists” (AMLs), while subject producers are typically on the AMLs.18

Producers from the subject countries argued that they had little interest in the U.S. market. The

Argentine producer Siderca asserted that it is now attempting to serve the market for new plant

construction, while the U.S. market is mainly a market for repairs and plant expansions.19 Benteler Steel, a

German producer, reported that it was not on most major AMLs because AMLs are primarily for

maintenance and repair projects for refineries and petrochemical plants, which is an area which it is not
 20 Hearing transcript, pp. 247 and 257 (Herminghaus). ***. CR/PR at Table II-4.

 21 Hearing transcript, p. 251 (Herminghaus).

 22 CR/PR at Table II-6.

 23 CR at II-23, PR at II-16.

 24 CR at II-24, PR at II-16.

 25 CR at II-24, PR at II-16. 

 26 CR/PR at Table II-4. 

 27 CR/PR at Table II-7.

 28 Siderca’s Foreign Producers’ Questionnaire Response, section II-2; Siderca’s posthearing brief, p.7.

 29 CR/PR at Tables IV-9, 10, 14, 15, 20, and 21. Although the Argentine respondent Siderca S.A.I.C. argued that

it has shifted its focus to the production of high value-added seamless pipe such as OCTG rather than subject

seamless pipe, I note that the company continues to produce significant quantities of subject seamless pipe in

sufficient quantities that there would likely be reasonable overlap of competition with the domestic like product. 

Even though the company’s capacity dedicated to the production of subject seamless pipe *** between the last

review and the current review, it actually reported *** excess capacity to produce subject seamless pipe in 2005 than

in 2000. See CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 30 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 2910, at I-12-13; 2000 Determinations, USITC Pub. 3311, at 10. 

 31 First Reviews Views (confidential) at 15-16.

 32 In 2005, *** percent of domestic producers’ and *** importers’ sales were to distributors who stock both

carbon and alloy product. CR/PR at II-1. Although Siderca may have direct contact with engineering companies in

the United States for some projects, it explained that it this is primarily for securing mill reservations and that it

generally uses distributors to provide services such as maintenance, logistics, and warehousing. Hearing transcript,

p. 213 (Balkenende).

46

very active.20 Benteler also reported that it intends to sell in the United States “products that are either not

manufactured here or manufactured very infrequently.”21 However, all producers, importers, and

purchasers found the domestic product and the product from all three of the subject countries to be

interchangeable.22 Virtually all purchasers of seamless pipe require some form of pre-qualification of

suppliers, based on the product’s compliance with the standards of the American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) and/or the American Petroleum Institute (API),23 and its quality, chemistry, strength,

and other performance characteristics.24 No purchasers indicated that either U.S. or subject product failed

to qualify.25 In addition, both domestic and foreign producers from each of the subject countries are on

multiple purchasers’ AMLs.26 Moreover, most importers and all responding domestic producers agreed

that differences other than price are never a significant factor in their sales.27

Although the Argentine producer asserts that it has decreased the share of its capacity dedicated

to producing SLP due to its investment of ***,28 producers in each subject country are capable of

producing a wide range of tubular products in a variety of sizes and degrees of sophistication.29

The Commission found in the original investigations that both domestic producers and subject

importers sold subject pipe predominantly to distributors who resold it to end users and other distributors.

This indicates that domestic producers and subject importers use common channels of distribution.30 In

the first reviews, the Commission stated that nothing in the record indicated that a significant overlap in

the channels distribution among subject imports and domestic like product would not be likely upon

revocation of the orders.31 U.S. producers continue to sell mainly to distributors, although *** also sell to

end users. All five responding importers of subject pipe sold only to distributors.32 I find the current

channels of distribution to be relatively unchanged from the situation existing during the original

investigation and the first reviews. 
 33 Original Determinations USITC Pub. 2910 at I-22-23.

 34 First Reviews Views (confidential) at 16 n. 84.

 35 CR at II-1-II-2, PR at II-1.

 36 The Staff Report notes that official import statistics for the subject countries are overstated. CR/PR at Table IV3.

 37 CR/PR at Table IV-4. The Staff Report notes that official import statistics for the subject countries are

overstated. CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 38 In these reviews, both domestic producers and importers reported that they serve the entire continental United

States. CR at II-1-II-2, PR at II-1. See also CR/PR at Table I-9 (U.S. purchasers dispersed across the United States).

 39 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

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

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

(continued...)

47

The Commission also found in the original investigations that subject product from Argentina,

Brazil, and Germany was simultaneously present and competed directly with the domestic product

nationwide.33 In the first reviews, both domestic producers and importers reported that they served the

entire continental United States.34 In these reviews, all four responding U.S. producers reported selling

nationwide. The one importer that reported selling subject pipe sold product from ***.35 In addition,

subject and related imports entered the United States in various ports throughout the country, with most

entering the Houston-Galveston, TX, customs district.36 Further, in these reviews, official Commerce

statistics show that subject and related seamless pipe from the three subject countries entered the U.S. in

each year of the period of review.37

I find nothing in the record of these reviews or in the first reviews that varies significantly from

the original investigation or that suggests that subject imports and the domestic like product could not

compete on a nationwide basis if the orders were revoked.38

3. Other Considerations

I do not find that the record in these reviews indicates significant differences in the likely

conditions of competition between imports of the subject merchandise from Argentina, Brazil, and

Germany. I therefore exercise my discretion to cumulate the likely volume and effects of subject imports

from these countries. 

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ORDERS ARE REVOKED

A. Legal Standard

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

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

continue or recur, and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation of an order “would be

likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”39

The SAA states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counter-factual

analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in

the status quo – the revocation [of the order] . . . and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes

and prices of imports.”40 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in nature.41 The statute states that
 40 (...continued)

or material retardation of an industry).” SAA at 883. 

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

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

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

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

SAA at 884.

 42 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

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

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

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

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

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

 44 I note that, consistent with my views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167

(Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), I do not concur with the U.S. Court of International Trade’s

interpretation of “likely,” but will apply the Court’s standard in this review and all subsequent reviews until either

Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addresses this issue. 

 45 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 46 There have been no duty absorption findings by Commerce with respect to the orders under review. U.S.

Department of Commerce, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the

Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure

Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany; Final Results,” Sept. 29, 2006. 

 47 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the

Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s

determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is

necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886.

 48 CR at I-33, IV-12, IV-21, IV-29; PR at I-27, IV-11, IV-13, IV-15.

48

“the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation . . . may not be imminent, but may manifest

themselves only over a longer period of time.”42 According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’

will vary from case-to-case, but normally will exceed the ‘imminent’ time frame applicable in a threat of

injury analysis [in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations].”43 44

Although the standard in five-year reviews is not the same as the standard applied in original

investigations, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute provides that the

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

merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked.”45 It directs the Commission to take into account its

prior injury determination, whether any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the order

under review, whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is revoked, and any

findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption46 under section 1675(a)(4) of the Act.47

The statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year reviews, but such

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

in making its determination. In these reviews, the Commission has received relatively complete trade,

production, and financial data from a substantial majority of all the domestic producers and for all the

subject country producers as well.48 Accordingly, I have relied on these facts as well as the evidence in

the record from the Commission’s original investigations, and the previous five-year review.

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review are

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of subject imports would be
 49 19 U.S.C. §1675a(a)(2).

 50 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2)(A)-(D).

 51 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

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

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

at 886.

 52 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 53 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude

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

The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year review

investigations as “the dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section

1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. Commerce assigned likely

antidumping duty margins for all manufacturers in Argentina of 108.13 percent. The likely margin of dumping for all

producers in Brazil is 124.94 percent. All producers in Germany were assigned a likely margin of dumping of 57.72

percent. 71 Fed. Reg. 59079-59081 (October 6, 2006).

49

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.49 In

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

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

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

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

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

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

products.50

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders are revoked, the Commission

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

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

States at prices that would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic

like products.51

In evaluating the likely impact of subject imports if the orders are revoked, the Commission is

directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a bearing on the state of the

industry in the United States, including but not limited to: (1) likely declines in output, sales, market

share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effectson cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3)

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

efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.52 All relevant

economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business cycle and the conditions of

competition that are distinctive to the industry. 53
 54 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 55 CR at I-23-I-26, PR at I-19-22.

 56 CR at II-11 and II-19-20; PR at II-8 and II-13-14.

 57 CR at II-8; PR at II-5.

 58 CR at I-24-I-25; PR at I-21.

 59 CR at II-9; PR at II-5.

 60 CR/PR at Table I-11.

 61 Id.

 62 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 63 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 64 These countries accounted for approximately three-quarters of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries in 2005. 

U.S. imports from China alone accounted for more than one-third of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries in 2005. 

CR/PR at Table IV-2.

50

B. Conditions of Competition

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

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

conditions of competition that are distinct to the industry.”54 In performing my analysis under the statute,

I have taken into account the following conditions of competition in the U.S. market for seamless pipe. 

Seamless pipe is produced in a variety of grades and sizes, depending on its use in transmitting

water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil, natural gas, and other gases and fluids in refineries,

petrochemical facilities, and energy plants.55 Evidence in the record indicates that there are few substitute

products for certain seamless pipe.56

U.S. demand for seamless SLP depends on its end use markets, particularly the oil and gas,

chemical/petrochemical, energy-generating industries and mechanical applications for general

construction.57 More specifically, seamless SLP pipe less than 2 inches in outside diameter is commonly

pressure pipe and is often used in high pressure and high temperature applications--for example, in the

construction or repair or refineries and chemical plants. Slightly larger pipes are used in more general

high pressure applications in industrial piping systems. Seamless pipe that is 2-3/8 inches or greater in

outside diameter may be used in gathering lines or as line pipe for the conveyance of oil or natural gas.58

Thus, demand for seamless pipe is often subject to the business cycles for other products such as oil and

gas.59

During the period of these reviews, apparent U.S. consumption fell from *** short tons in 2001 to

*** short tons in 2002, then rose slightly to *** short tons in 2003, and to *** short tons in 2004.60

Apparent U.S. consumption then fell in 2005, to *** short tons.61

During the 1992-94 period, subject imports collectively supplied as much as *** of the U.S.

market, with each individual subject country accounting for *** percent of the U.S. market in at least one

year.62 Since the last review, however, subject imports generally have had only a minimal presence in the

U.S. market, while nonsubject imports have increased their presence in the U.S. market noticeably. 

Nonsubject imports' U.S. market share rose from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2005.63 The

primary sources of nonsubject imports have been, in order of volume in 2005, China, Ukraine, Austria,

France, and Spain.64
 65 CR/PR at V-5.

 66 CR at II-1-2;PR at II-1. 

 67 CR at II-24; Prat II-17.

 68 CR/PR at Table II-4.

 69 CR/PR at Tables II-6, II-7.

 70 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 2910 at I-28. 

 71 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 2910 at I-27. This figure also includes subject imports from Italy. 

Subtracting subject imports from Italy, subject imports' market share increased from *** to *** percent between

1992 and 1993. CR/PR at Table I-3.

 72 This figure also includes subject imports from Italy. Subtracting subject imports from Italy, subject imports'

market share decreased to *** percent in between 1993 and 1994. CR/PR at Table I-3.

 73 CR/ PR at Table I-3. 

51

Most responding U.S. producers reported that nearly all sales were on a spot basis, while the

majority of importers responded that their sales are made on a spot or short-term contract basis.65 The

majority of seamless pipe is sold by domestic producers and importers to distributors.66 Eleven of 16

responding purchasers reported that they or their customers used approved manufacturers lists (“AMLs”)

when considering the source of supply.67 Producers from each of the subject countries are included on the

major AMLs.68 The domestic and imported product are generally considered interchangeable, and most

producers and importers agreed that differences other than price are rarely a significant factor in sales of

seamless pipe.69

I find that the foregoing conditions of competition, which are consistent with the conditions

existing during the original investigation and the last review, are likely to prevail for the reasonably

foreseeable future and thus provide a reasonable basis to assess the likely effects of revocation within the

reasonably foreseeable future.

C. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Subject Imports From Argentina,

Brazil, and Germany Is Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury

Within a Reasonably Foreseeable Time.

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In the original determinations, the Commission found that the volume and market share of

cumulated subject imports were significant.70 While apparent U.S. consumption increased from 1992 to

1993, the volume of subject imports increased at a greater rate than overall consumption and subject

imports’ market share increased from 21.0 percent to 25.4 percent.71 Between 1993 and 1994, both

subject import volume and overall consumption declined somewhat, with subject imports’ market share

decreasing to 23.2 percent.72 Upon issuance of the orders, the volume and market share of subject

seamless pipe fell dramatically and have remained substantially below the levels they attained during the

original investigations, never accounting for more than *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption after

1996.73 

In the last review of these orders, the Commission found that the volume of subject imports from

Argentina, Brazil and Germany will likely be significant if the orders were revoked. I find the record in

this proceeding even more compelling than the record of the last review with regard to the potential

volume of subject imports if the orders are revoked. Thus, I find that the volume of cumulated subject

imports from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany will likely be significant if the orders are revoked. 
 74 Derived from CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 75 The large increase in reported capacity is attributed to more complete data from Germany. In the last review,

data for 2000 were provided for only one producer in Germany whereas data for 2005 reflects full participation by

German subject SLP producers. See CR/PR, Table IV-17 (Note). However, the fact that the current data is more

complete cannot detract from the fact that the reported potential for cumulated production of subject SLP is ***

percent greater in the record in this review than the data reported to the Commission in the last review. 

 76 This large increase is due to more complete data from Germany. (See footnote 73). Nevertheless the

availability of more complete data does not alter the fact that the cumulated gross capacity and net excess capacity

reported to the Commission in this review is much more significant relative to other reported data than cumulated

capacity data available in the last review.

 77 CR/PR at Tables IV-6, IV-11, and IV-17.

 78 Estimated overall seamless SLP and other pipe capacity for Argentina, Brazil, and Germany in 2005 was ***,

***, and *** short tons, respectively. CR/PR at Tables IV-10, IV-15, and IV-21. 

 79 Furthermore, if the order on seamless pipe from Argentina in particular is revoked, the sole seamless pipe

producer in Argentina, Siderca, would have a strong incentive to shift production from OCTG to seamless SLP pipe,

since seamless SLP pipe is one of the company’s *** product lines. CR/PR at Table IV-10. The United States

maintains an antidumping duty order on OCTG from Argentina. Antidumping Duty Order: Oil Country Tubular

Goods from Argentina, 60 Fed. Reg. 41055 (Aug. 11, 1995). During these reviews, the antidumping duty order on

OCTG from Argentina was also the subject of a full five-year review by the Commission. Oil Country Tubular

Goods from Argentina, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-711 and 713-716 (Second Review).

 80 Estimated overall seamless SLP and other pipe capacity for Argentina, Brazil, and Germany in 2005 was

calculated from CR/PR at Tables IV-10, IV-15, and IV-21.

52

Producers in the subject countries have significant production capacity and each subject country

has significant unused capacity and inventories. Furthermore, even though it is argued that Argentina has

significantly reduced its capacity to produce subject seamless pipe, the excess capacity to produce subject

seamless pipe in Argentina alone is over *** tons greater than it was in 2000,74 as reported in the record

of the last review. In 2005, the total excess capacity for subject seamless pipe in all three countries,

totaling *** tons, *** tons of excess capacity the countries had in 2000.75 An important consideration in

this case is that even though capacity to produce subject seamless pipe in both Argentina and Brazil

decreased, the amount of excess capacity for each country increased. In Germany, the reported capacity

for production of subject seamless pipe in 2005 was *** times that reported to the Commission in 2000

and the excess capacity to produce subject seamless pipe was nearly *** times that reported to the

Commission in 2000.76 The following table summarizes the very large increases in excess capacity

between 2000 and 2005.77

* * * * * * *

In addition, because the subject foreign producers can manufacture both non-subject and subject

seamless pipe on the same equipment, their significant overall capacity could be used to shift production

between subject merchandise and other products.78 79 In 2005, the total capacity of Argentina, Brazil and

Germany to produce all seamless pipe products, subject and non-subject, was *** short tons and the

excess capacity to produce all seamless pipe products was *** short tons.80 Their significant overall

capacity could be used to shift production from other products to subject merchandise. There is testimony

in these reviews that indicates that the United States is the largest, best and most attractive market for
 81 Some of the foreign producers have *** *** Importers Questionnaire Response at 8, Question II-8 (APO

Document). *** stated that the order has prevented it from shipping more small diameter SLP pipe to the United

States, and that the U.S. market has “high level prices” that are “attractive to ***.” *** Foreign Producers’

Questionnaire Response at 14, Question III-7 (APO Document). Tr.166-168 (Mr. Vaughn). 

 82 The share of Argentina's shipments that were exported ranged between *** and *** percent during the original

investigations and between *** and *** percent during these reviews. For Brazil, the shares were between *** and

*** percent during the original investigations and between *** and *** percent during these reviews, and, for

Germany, the shares were between *** and *** percent during the original investigations and between *** and ***

percent during these reviews. CR/PR at Tables IV-7, IV-12, and IV-18.

 83 Domestic Industry’s Prehearing Brief at 44-45.

 84 China’s production growth of all seamless pipe and tube has outpaced all other regions, with China’s share of

world seamless pipe and tube production increasing from 20 percent in 1995 to almost 48 percent in 2005. From

2004 to 2005, Chinese production of seamless pipe and tube increased from 9,349 short tons to 11,542 short tons, an

increase of 23 percent in one year. Derived from CR/PR, Table IV-23.

 85 Domestic Industry’s Prehearing Brief at 45. Domestic Industry’s Posthearing Brief at 3, 15.

 86 Tr. 123 (Mr.Stoner)

 87 Tr.131 (Mr. Vaughn)

 88 Domestic Industry Prehearing Brief at 47.

 89 As a result of these corporate relationships, one parent corporation, V&M Tubes (wholly owned by Groupe

Vallourec) is affiliated with seamless pipe producers V&M Brazil (Brazil), V&M Deutschland GmbH

(“VMD”)(Germany), V&M France (France), and V&M Star (United States). V&M Star in the United States

produces nonsubject large diameter seamless pipes. V&M Brazil exports to the United States through its sister

company, V&M Corporation, Houston, TX. V&M Brazil foreign producer questionnaire response, section I-3.

(continued...)

53

seamless SLP, and that foreign producers have shown a willingness to enter the U.S. market.81 Each of

the subject countries exports significant quantities of other seamless tubular products to the United States.

Further, in the event of revocation, they would have a strong incentive to use their excess capacity and

inventories to resume exportation of subject pipe through these existing channels of distribution. Each of

the subject countries is ***.82 Thus, they exported approximately *** percent of their production in 2005.

The domestic industry argued that subject producers are exporting *** volumes of product at prices ***

the prices that are prevailing in the United States.83

The subject countries face market barriers to importation of their product. The most significant

barrier is the fact that expanding capacity in China is rapidly shrinking the export outlets for export

oriented producers like those in the subject countries. U.S. domestic parties argue that China’s expanded

SLP production capacity has led to domestic oversupply propelling a surge of Chinese imports around the

world and has caused competition among different Chinese firms trying to sell into the U.S. market.84

This competition constitutes a significant barrier to the subject producers’ exports to third country

markets. As a result, the subject producers have a need to ship subject merchandise to the United States. 85

This in turn, drives the price of the subject product down.86 Although much has been made of the Chinese

selling product into the low-end of the market, the shrinking export markets are not just the lowest price

product markets. The Chinese product is moving out of the low end of the market, and becoming more

acceptable and eventually, may achieve acceptability in all parts of the *** market, a trend that is likely to

continue.87 88

Finally, I find, as the Commission found in the last review, that the transnational corporate

affiliations among many of the subject country producers enhance their ability to resume exporting to the

United States by providing a ready network for marketing, sales, and distribution.89 Cross-ownership
 89 (...continued)

Siderca is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tenaris. Tenaris has affiliations with seamless pipe producers Dalmine

(Italy), Siderca (Argentina), Algoma Tubes (Canada), Tavsa (Venezuela), Tamsa (Mexico), Silcotub (Romania),

and NKK Tubes (Japan). CR at IV-12 n.3; PR at IV-11 n.3.

 90 First Review Views at 21. On remand, the Commission found that there was extensive testimony that the

existence of transnational affiliations would enhance the ability of subject foreign producers to ship subject product

to the U.S. if the orders were revoked. One witness testified that after the orders went into effect, the V&M Group

began shipping subject pipe to the United States from France in significant quantities, rather than from Brazil and

Germany. Remand Views (confidential) at 14-15.

 91 Siderca argues that it has not participated to any extent in the U.S. subject pipe market for more than 12 years

and that it has no intent to do so in the future. Siderca states that it has ***, is operating at a high capacity utilization,

that prices in its home and key third country markets have *** and that the prices in third country markets to which

Siderca sells subject pipe are higher than the prices in the United States. Siderca also states that it cannot shift

supply to the U.S. market because of its long term commitments to its home market and third country markets.

Siderca Prehearing Brief at 14, 15, 16, 16, and 18. Siderca Posthearing Brief at 10 and 11. I do not find that the

record supports the conclusion that Siderca cannot ship significant volumes of seamless pipe to the United States if

the order on Argentina is revoked. In particular, I find that the data on excess subject seamless pipe capacity

contradicts Siderca’s claim that its reduced dedication of capacity to the small diameter SLP pipe business indicates

that it is not likely to reenter the U.S. market if the order is revoked. Nor do I find supporting evidence that Siderca

does not have an interest in exporting this product to the United States, even though prices are higher in the United

States than in other markets to which it exports, considering that its exports into the U.S. market during the original

period of investigation, prior to the imposition of the order, were significant.

 92 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

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

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

at 886.

 93 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 2910, at I-28.

 94 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 2910, at I-30. 

54

among foreign subject producers appears to be enhancing their ability to supply seamless pipe customers

with operations in the United States and abroad through flexible supply arrangements, including global

contracts.90

For these reasons, I conclude that the likely volume of subject seamless pipe imports from

Argentina, Brazil, and Germany would be significant in the reasonably foreseeable future if the orders

were revoked.91

2. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders are revoked, the Commission

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

compared with domestic like products, and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the United

States at prices that would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic

like products.92

In the original determinations, the Commission found that price was an important factor in

purchasing decisions, and that subject imports significantly undersold the domestic product during the

period of investigation. The margins of underselling were found by the Commission to be large, in most

instances exceeding 20 percent.93 The Commission further found that the subject imports had significant

price depressing and suppressing effects.94 In the first review, the Commission found that, given the likely

significant volume of subject imports upon revocation of the orders, the substitutability of the subject
 95 First Review Views (Confidential) at 27-28. Upon remand, the Commission again found that price was a highly

important factor in purchasing decisions and that this finding supported a likely finding of likely underselling if the

orders were revoked. Remand Views (confidential) at 21. It also found upon remand that revocation of the orders

would likely have significant price depressing and suppressing effects on the domestic like product. Remand Views

(confidential) at 22.

 96 CR/PR at Table II-4.

 97 CR/PR at Table II-7.

 98 CR/PR at Table II-5.

 99 CR/PR at Table V-4.

 100 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany,

and Italy, USITC Pub. 3429, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-362 and 731-TA-707-710 (Final) at 23 (June 2001)(“Review

Determination”). Domestic Industry’s Prehearing Brief at 11.

 101 Domestic Industry’s Prehearing Brief at 55.

 102 CR/PR at Table III-7.

55

imports, the lower prices for subject imports reported by purchasers, and the record of consistent

underselling by imports in the original investigations, that in the absence of the orders, subject pipe would

likely have significant depressing and suppressing effects on the domestic like product.95

The record at hand indicates that the subject imports from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany are a

much better substitute for domestic seamless pipe than is nonsubject, particularly Chinese product.96 A

majority of producers and importers reported that differences other than price between the domestic and

subject product are generally not a significant factor in their sales, indicating a moderate to high level of

price competition in the industry.97 Price was ranked “very important” in making purchasing decisions by

15 of 18 purchasers.98

In looking at the original investigations to analyze the likelihood of underselling in the event of

revocation of the order, removing data from Italy still shows underselling in approximately three-quarters

of pricing comparisons.99 Because there is overwhelming evidence that subject imports and the domestic

like product are sold primarily on the basis of price, the downward pressure that the significant

underselling would exert on domestic prices is likely to be severe.100

The domestic industry argues that because the evidence shows that subject pipe is a price

sensitive product, it is likely that subject producers would increase imports through aggressive pricing,

which would suppress and depress domestic prices. Furthermore, the domestic industry argued that

because the great majority of the subject product is sold through distributors, an increase in supply in this

market is likely to lead to a sell off of inventories by the distributors, which would place even greater

downward pressure on prices.101 I find these arguments of the domestic industry to be supported by

substantial evidence. In these reviews, the industry’s cost of goods sold per ton increased from $*** per

ton in 2004 to $*** per ton in the first nine months of 2006.102 Considering the history of underselling

during the period examined in the original investigation, if the orders are revoked, it is likely that subject

imports would once again come into the U.S. market in significant quantities at relatively low prices,

resulting in a cost/price squeeze on the domestic industry.

Given the likely significant volume of subject imports if the orders are revoked, the

substitutability of the subject imports from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany, and the record of consistent

underselling by the imports in the original investigations, I find that, in the absence of the orders, certain

seamless pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany would likely have significant price depressing and

suppressing effects on the domestic like product. I further find thatsubject producers from Argentina,

Brazil, and Germany will likely revert to aggressive pricing practices in connection with exports of

subject merchandise to the United States, as evidenced in the Commission’s original determinations. 
 103 Original Determinations, USITC Pub. 2910, at I-31-32.

 104 Review Determination at 29, n. 174. CR at Table I-3.

 105 Domestic Industry’s Prehearing Brief at 65.

56

3. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In its original determinations, the Commission found that, despite the domestic industry’s

increases in market share, shipments, production, and capacity utilization over the period of investigation,

it experienced poor financial performance as a result of the adverse price effects resulting from the subject

imports. The Commission determined that, although subject imports declined in 1994 and in interim

1995, their continued large and significant share of the market in 1994 caused poor operating results

within the industry. The Commission found that underselling by the subject imports suppressed and

depressed prices and also determined that improvements in many indicators during the first quarter of

1995 could not compensate for the adverse impact of the subject imports throughout the period of

investigation.103

Following imposition of the orders, the domestic industry’s financial condition improved

somewhat from 1995 to 1997, but then deteriorated sharply as import levels increased and demand fell,

resulting in a substantial operating loss in 1999 of $***.104 I find that the initial improvement in the state

of the industry, which occurred during a period of relatively stable demand as measured by apparent U.S.

consumption, was related to the orders.

I concur with the recitation of financial and trade indicia over the current review period by my

colleagues in the Views of the Commission, and likewise concur in the finding that the domestic industry

currently is not vulnerable. As discussed above, however, my analysis takes into account the likely

combined effects of the subject imports.

I find that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to significant increases in

the volume of cumulated subject imports at prices that would undersell the domestic product and

significantly depress or suppress U.S. prices. The domestic industry argued that the price effects are

likely to be “devastating” because subject foreign producers would aggressively price their product to

reestablish their presence in the market and because offers of lower priced products are likely to lead to a

sell off in inventories which would put further downward pressure on prices.105

The price and volume declines would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production,

shipment, sales, and revenue levels of the domestic industry. This reduction in the industry’s production,

sales and revenue levels would have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability, as well as its

ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital investments. In addition, these negative

impacts on the condition of the domestic industry would likely result in employment declines for

domestic firms. 
57

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, I determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders covering

imports of certain seamless pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable

time.

 1

 As used in this report, the term “seamless SLP pipe” includes pipes and tubes of carbon steel and alloy steel

(other than stainless steel), consistent with the scope definition that appears in the section of this report entitled “The

Subject Merchandise.” With respect to domestic product, the term also includes redraw hollows.

 2

 The Commission’s notice of institution, notice to conduct full reviews, scheduling notice, and statement on

adequacy appear in app. A and may also be found at the Commission’s web site (internet address www.usitc.gov). 

Commissioners’ votes on whether to conduct expedited or full reviews may also be found at the web site.

 3

 In its first reviews of these orders, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty and

countervailing duty orders on seamless SLP pipe from Italy would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence

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

(continued...)

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

On June 1, 2006, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave

notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that it had instituted second fiveyear reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain seamless carbon

and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure (“SLP”) pipe1

 from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany would

likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry within a reasonably

foreseeable time. Effective September 5, 2006, the Commission determined that it would conduct full

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. Information relating to the background and schedule of

the reviews is provided in table I-1.2

Table I-1

Seamless SLP pipe: Background information

Effective date Action

August 3, 1995 U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”)’s antidumping duty orders (60 FR 39704)

June 7, 2001 Commission’s determinations in the first five-year reviews (66 FR 34717, June 29, 2001)

June 1, 2006 Commerce’s initiation of second five-year reviews (71 FR 31153)

June 1, 2006 Commission’s institution of five-year reviews (71 FR 31209)

September 5, 2006 Commission’s decision to conduct full five-year reviews (71 FR 54520, September 15, 2006)

September 22, 2006 Commission’s scheduling of second five-year reviews (71 FR 57567, September 29, 2006)

October 6, 2006 Commerce’s final results of expedited second five-year reviews (71 FR 59079)

February 8, 2007 Commission’s hearing1

April 19, 2007 Commission’s vote

May 2, 2007 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

 1 App. B presents a list of witnesses appearing at the hearing.

The Original Investigations

On June 23, 1994, a petition was filed by the Gulf States Tube Division of Quanex Corp. (“Gulf

States”) with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an industry in the United States was materially

injured by reason of dumped imports of seamless carbon and alloy steel SLP pipe from Argentina, Brazil,

and Germany, as well as dumped and subsidized imports from Italy.3

 
 3

 (...continued)

and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Inv. Nos. 701-TA362 (Review) and 731-TA-707-710 (Review), USITC Publication 3429 (June 2001), p. 1.

 4 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and

Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, 60 FR 31953, June 19, 1995.

 5 Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and

Pressure Pipe from Argentina, 60 FR 39708, August 3, 1995.

 6 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and

Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Brazil, 60 FR 31960, June 19, 1995.

 7 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Amended Final Determination: Small

Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Brazil, 60 FR 39707,

August 3, 1995.

 8 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and

Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Germany, 60 FR 31974, June 19, 1995.

 9 Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determinations: Certain Diameter Seamless Carbon

and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Germany, 60 FR 39704, August 3, 1995.

 10 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon

and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Italy, 60 FR 31981, June 19, 1995.

 11 Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and Alloy

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Italy, 60 FR 31992, June 19, 1995

 12 Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and

Pressure Pipe from Italy, 60 FR 39705, August 3, 1995 and Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Certain

Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Italy, 60 FR 40569, August 9,

1995.

 13 Amended Order and Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Small Diameter Circular Seamless

Carbon and Alloy Steel, Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Italy: 63 FR 31735, June 10, 1998.

I-2

On June 19, 1995, Commerce made a final determination of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”)

for Argentina,4

 with dumping margins of 108.13 percent ad valorem for Siderca S.A.I.C. (“Siderca”) and

for all other firms. The Commission notified Commerce of its final affirmative injury determination on

July 26, 1995, and Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on August 3, 1995.5

For Brazil, on August 3, 1995, Commerce amended its original dumping margin6 of 125.00

percent ad valorem to 124.94 percent ad valorem after correction of ministerial error for Mannesmann

S.A. and for all other firms. The Commission notified Commerce of its final affirmative injury

determination on July 26, 1995, and Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on August 3, 1995.7

For Germany, on August 3, 1995, Commerce amended its original dumping margin8 of 58.23

percent ad valorem to 57.72 percent ad valorem after correction of ministerial error for

Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG and for all other firms. The Commission notified Commerce of its final

affirmative injury determination on July 26, 1995, and Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on

August 3, 1995.9

For Italy, Commerce made a final affirmative LTFV determination on June 19, 1995, with a

dumping margin of 1.84 percent ad valorem for Dalmine S.p.A. and all other firms,10 and a subsidy

margin of 1.47 percent ad valorem for all of Italy.11 The Commission notified Commerce of its final

affirmative injury determination on July 26, 1995, Commerce issued an antidumping duty order effective

August 3, 1995 and a countervailing duty order effective August 8, 1995.12 On June 10, 1998, Commerce

amended its original dumping margin of 1.84 percent ad valorem to 1.27 percent ad valorem after remand

instructions from the Court of International Trade.13
 14 Seamless pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, 65 FR 41090, July 3, 2000.

 15 Seamless pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, 65 FR 63889, October 5, 2000.

 16 Final results of expedited sunset reviews: Seamless pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, 65 FR

66708, November 7, 2000.

 17 Notice of determinations in the first five-year reviews, 66 FR 34717, June 29, 2001.

 18 Siderca S.A.I.C. (“Siderca”), a producer of subject merchandise in Argentina, contested the Commission’s

determinations in the first review of these orders. On October 27, 2004, the U.S. Court of International Trade

(“CIT”) remanded the Commission’s determinations with respect to Argentina, Brazil, and Germany in Certain

Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy,

Inv. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review) and 731-TA-707-710 (Review), USITC Publication 3429 (June 2001). The

Commission found on remand that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain seamless carbon and alloy

steel standard, line, and pressure pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany would be likely to lead to continuation

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

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany (Views on Remand),

Inv. Nos. 731-TA-707-709 (Review) (Remand), USITC Publication 3754 (February 2005).

 19 Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Italy, 66 FR 36999, July 16, 2001. 

 20 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany, 66 FR 37004, July 16, 2001. 

I-3

The First Five-Year Reviews

On July 3, 2000, the Commission instituted the first five-year reviews of the antidumping duty

orders on seamless SLP pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy and the countervailing duty

order on seamless SLP pipe from Italy.14 On October 5, 2000, the Commission determined that it should

proceed to full reviews.15 On November 7, 2000, Commerce found that revocation of the antidumping

duty orders on seamless SLP pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping.16 On June 7, 2001, the Commission determined that revocation of

the antidumping duty orders on seamless SLP pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany would likely

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

reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission also determined that revocation of the antidumping duty

and countervailing duty orders on seamless SLP pipe from Italy would not be likely to lead to

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

foreseeable time.17 18 For Italy, Commerce revoked the antidumping duty order effective August 3, 2000

and the countervailing duty order effective August 8, 2000.19 For Argentina, Brazil, and Germany,

Commerce issued a continuation of antidumping duty orders on seamless SLP pipe on July 16, 2001.20

Previous and Related Title VII Investigations

Seamless SLP pipe has been the subject of several Commission investigations. A listing of these

investigations is presented in table I-2. 
 21 19 U.S.C. § 2252.

 22 Steel, Inv. No. TA-201-73, USITC Publication 3479, December 2001, volume 1, p. 155.

 23 Institution and Scheduling of an Investigation under Section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) (the

Act), 66 FR 35267, July 3, 2001.

I-4

Table I-2

Seamless SLP pipe: Previous and related investigations, 1980-2006

Original Investigation First review

Current status

Date1 Number Country Outcome Date1 Outcome

1980 731-TA-15 Japan Negative2 3 -- -

1982 731-TA-87 Japan

Affirmative/

Negative4 - -

ITA revoked effective

10/29/85

1994 701-TA-362 Italy Affirmative 2000 Negative ITA revoked effective 8/8/00

1994 731-TA-707 Argentina Affirmative 2000 Affirmative Under review

1994 731-TA-708 Brazil Affirmative 2000 Affirmative Under review

1994 731-TA-709 Germany Affirmative 2000 Affirmative Under review

1994 731-TA-710 Italy Affirmative 2000 Negative ITA revoked effective 8/3/00

2000 731-TA-846

The Czech

Republic Affirmative 2005 Negative ITA revoked effective 8/14/05

2000 731-TA-8475 Japan Affirmative 2005 Affirmative Continuation order 5/8/06

2000 731-TA-8485 Mexico Affirmative 2005 Negative ITA revoked effective 8/14/05

2000 731-TA-849 Romania Affirmative 2005 Affirmative Continuation order 5/8/06

2000 731-TA-850 South Africa Affirmative 2005 Negative ITA revoked effective 8/14/05

 1 “Date” refers to the year in which the investigation or review was instituted by the Commission.

 2

 Preliminary determination.

 3 See Determination of the Commission After Reconsideration of Imports Provided for in Item 610.3205 of the Tariff Schedule

of the United States Annotated, 45 FR 47769, July 16, 1980.

 4

 The Commission made an affirmative determination with respect to seamless heat-resisting and seamless stainless pipes

and tubes, and a negative determination with respect to seamless “other alloy" pipes and tubes.

 5

 These investigations included large diameter seamless SLP pipe.

Source: Compiled from U.S. International Trade Commission publications.

Previous and Related Global Safeguard Investigations

Following receipt of a request from the Office of the United States Trade Representative

(“USTR”) on June 22, 2001, the Commission instituted investigation No. TA-201-73, Steel, under section

202 of the Trade Act of 197421 to determine whether certain steel products, which included seamless

carbon and alloy steel SLP pipe,22 were being imported into the United States in such increased quantities

as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industries producing

articles like or directly competitive with the imported article.23 On July 26, 2001, the Commission

received a resolution adopted by the Committee on Finance of the U.S. Senate (“Senate Finance

Committee” or “Committee”) requesting that the Commission investigate certain steel imports under
 24 19 U.S.C. § 2251.

 25 Consolidation of Senate Finance Committee Resolution Requesting a Section 201 Investigation with the

Investigation Requested by the United States Trade Representative on June 22, 2001, 66 FR 44158, August 22,

2001.

 26 Steel, Inv. No. TA-201-73, Publication No. 3479, volume 1, p. 188 (“In summary, the data present a mixed

picture as to whether the domestic industry is seriously injured. There were annual fluctuations in many of the

factors examined. . . Nevertheless, one facet of domestic industry performance remained consistent throughout the

period examined: profitability. The domestic industry maintained strong operating margins throughout the period,

other than in 1999.”)

I-5

section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974.24 Consistent with the Senate Finance Committee’s resolution, the

Commission consolidated the investigation requested by the Committee with the Commission’s

previously instituted investigation No. TA-201-73.25 On December 20, 2001, the Commission issued its

determinations and remedy recommendations. With regard to this product category, the Commission

made a negative determination, concluding that the U.S. seamless pipe industry was not seriously injured

by increased U.S. imports, citing the profitability of the U.S. industry during the period examined.26

Summary Data

Table I-3 presents a summary of data on seamless SLP pipe from the original investigations, first

reviews, and current second reviews. 
Table I-4

Seamless SLP pipe: Summary data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1992-94, 1995-2000, and 2001-05

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per short ton)

Item 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 200

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount 170,057 225,584 205,247 199,555 192,927 257,360 234,890 147,254 204,268 *** Producers’ share 62.8 64.2 67.2 86.9 80.1 69.8 55.4 70.2 64.0 *** Importer’s share: 

Argentina *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Germany *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

All other countries *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Total imports2 37.2 35.8 32.8 13.1 19.9 30.2 44.6 29.8 36.0 *** 

U.S. consumption value:

Amount 123,653 145,966 133,079 144,150 142,456 194,122 173,295 102,183 146,632 *** Producers’ share 63.8 65.8 68.9 83.8 82.5 69.7 59.3 74.1 67.8 *** Importer’s share: 

Argentina *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Brazil *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Germany *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

All other countries *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Total imports2 36.2 34.2 31.1 16.2 17.5 30.3 40.7 25.9 32.2 *** 

U.S. shipments of imports from--

Argentina:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Table continued on next page.

I-6
Table I-4--Continued

Seamless SLP pipe: Summary data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1992-94, 1995-2000, and 2001-05

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per short ton)

Item 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 200

Brazil:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Germany:

Quantity4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Value4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

All subject sources:

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

All other sources (imports):

Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 96,667 79,Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 63,012 54,Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** $652 $Ending inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 0 

Table continued on next page

I-7
Table I-4--Continued

Seamless SLP pipe: Summary data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1992-94, 1995-2000, and 2001-05

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per short ton)

Item 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 200

All sources:

Quantity 63,236 80,811 67,254 26,171 38,395 77,645 104,769 43,914 73,525 *** Value 44,809 49,955 41,391 23,399 24,979 58,763 70,450 26,477 47,279 *** Unit value $709 $618 $615 $894 $651 $757 $672 $603 $643 *** Ending inventory quantity 608 529 375 139 67 156 212 212 193 *** 

U.S. producers’--

Capacity quantity 296,925 292,750 292,650 403,313 378,077 346,425 355,277 416,395 327,838 *** Production quantity 108,242 147,641 138,295 179,693 150,656 184,080 127,958 110,217 134,365 *** Capacity utilization 36.5 50.4 47.3 44.6 39.8 53.1 36.0 26.5 41.0 *** U.S. shipments:

Quantity 106,821 144,773 137,993 173,384 154,532 179,715 130,121 103,340 130,743 *** Value 78,844 96,011 91,688 120,751 117,477 135,359 102,845 75,706 99,353 *** Unit value $738 $663 $664 $696 $760 $753 $790 $733 $760 *** 

Export shipments:

Quantity 1,430 2,098 453 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value 849 997 259 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value $594 $475 $572 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Ending inventory quantity 13,823 14,410 14,095 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventories/total shipments 12.8 9.8 10.2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** PRWs 241 296 264 328 281 320 257 283 273 *** Hours worked (1,000 hours) 568 679 642 687 650 674 534 578 584 *** 

Wages paid (1,000 dollars) 9,260 12,437 12,318 12,756 11,975 12,734 10,244 11,348 11,546 *** Hourly wages $16.30 $18.32 $19.19 $18.58 $18.42 $18.90 $19.18 $19.64 $19.78 *** Productivity (short tons per 

 1,000 hours) 190.6 217.4 215.4 261.7 231.7 273.3 239.6 190.7 230.1 *** 

Unit labor costs5 $85.55 $84.24 $89.07 $70.99 $79.48 $69.18 $80.06 $102.96 $85.93 *** 

Table continued on next page

I-8
Table I-4--Continued

Seamless SLP pipe: Summary data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1992-94, 1995-2000, and 2001-05

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per short ton)

Item 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 200

U.S. producers’--

Net sales:

Quantity 107,734 147,948 138,390 173,737 155,395 182,296 133,632 104,550 136,634 *** Value 79,476 97,439 91,788 120,404 118,140 136,991 105,303 76,699 102,395 *** Unit value $738 $659 $663 $693 $760 $751 $788 $734 $749 *** 

Cost of goods sold 75,989 90,805 87,314 110,014 104,934 116,536 91,752 80,738 89,676 *** Gross profit or (loss) 3,487 6,634 4,474 10,390 13,206 20,455 13,551 (4,039) 12,719 *** SG&A expenses 4,332 5,830 4,597 7,647 7,156 9,079 7,844 6,966 6,503 *** Operating income or (loss) (845) 804 (123) 2,743 6,050 11,376 5,707 (11,005) 6,216 *** Unit cost of goods sold $705 $614 $631 $633 $675 $639 $687 $772 $656 *** Unit SG&A expenses $40 $39 $33 $44 $46 $50 $59 $67 $48 *** Unit operating income or 

(loss) $(8) $5 $(1) $16 $39 $62 $43 $(105) $45 *** 

Cost of goods sold/sales 95.6 93.2 95.1 91.4 88.8 85.1 87.1 105.3 87.6 *** Operating income or 

(loss)/sales (1.1) 0.8 (0.1) 2.3 5.1 8.3 5.4 (14.3) 6.1 *** 

Capital expenditures 5,069 2,029 1,276 2,348 2,973 4,385 10,879 4,577 26,212 *** 

1 Less than 0.05 percent.2 Not applicable.3 End-of-period inventories were imported and held in inventory by the [only U.S. importer, Tenaris, of subject product from Argentina] from 1997 to 2000. See confidential staff repo

Y-104, p. IV-7.

4 Data for 1995-2000 are estimated by Commission staff in the first reviews.5 Data for 1992-94 differ from unit labor costs shown in the original investigations (which derived from total compensation paid). For comparability with data presented in these revie

the first reviews, staff recomputed the 1992-94 unit labor costs based on wages paid.Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.Note.–Data for “all other sources” in the 1992-94 and the 1995-2000 periods include data from Italy, pursuant to the Commission’s negative determination with respect to such imports orders.Source: Data for 1992-1994 are from Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Steel Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362 a2910 (July 1995) and the confidential staff report in the original investigations; data for 1995-2000 and 2001-05 are from the confidential version of the staff report in the first reviews an

response to Commission questionnaires, except where noted. 

I-9
I-10

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 751(c) of the Act requires Commerce and the Commission to conduct a review no later than

five years after the issuance of an antidumping or countervailing duty order or the suspension of an

investigation to determine whether revocation of the order or termination of the suspended investigation “would

be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and

of material injury.”

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that in making its determination of likelihood of continuation or

recurrence of material injury--

(1) IN GENERAL.-- . . . the Commission shall determine whether revocation of

an order, or termination of a suspended investigation, would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The

Commission shall consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the

subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation

is terminated. The Commission shall take into account--

(A) its prior injury determinations, including the volume, price

effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry

before the order was issued or the suspension agreement was accepted, 

(B) whether any improvement in the state of the industry is

related to the order or the suspension agreement, 

(C) whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the

order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and 

(D) in an antidumping proceeding . . ., (Commerce’s findings)

regarding duty absorption . . ..

(2) VOLUME.--In evaluating the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise would be significant if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is

terminated, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States. In so doing, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors,

including--

(A) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused

production capacity in the exporting country, 

(B) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely

increases in inventories, 

(C) the existence of barriers to the importation of such

merchandise into countries other than the United States, and 

(D) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in

the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject

merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.

(3) PRICE.--In evaluating the likely price effects of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether--

(A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by imports

of the subject merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and 
I-11

(B) imports of the subject merchandise are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic like products.

(4) IMPACT ON THE INDUSTRY.--In evaluating the likely impact of imports of

the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors

which are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States,

including, but not limited to--

(A) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, 

(B) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment,

wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, and 

(C) likely negative effects on the existing development and

production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a

derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.

The Commission shall evaluate all such relevant economic factors . . . within the context

of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected

industry.

Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states further that in making its determination, “the Commission may

consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy.” 

Information obtained during the course of these reviews that relates to the above factors is presented

throughout this report. 

Organization of the Report

Information obtained during the course of these reviews that relates to the above factors is

presented throughout this report. A summary of data collected in these reviews is presented in appendix

C. U.S. industry data presented throughout the report are based on the questionnaire responses of Koppel

Steel Corp. (“Koppel Steel”), Sharon Tube Co. (“Sharon Tube”), The Timken Co. (“Timken”), and U.S.

Steel Group (“U.S. Steel”), which are believed to account for more than *** percent of U.S. production of

seamless SLP pipe during the period for which data were collected. Import data for subject countries are

based on responses submitted to Commission questionnaires and import data for nonsubject countries are

based on official import statistics. Responses by U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers of seamless

SLP pipe, and producers of seamless SLP pipe in Argentina, Brazil, and Germany to a series of questions

concerning the significance of the existing antidumping duty orders and the likely effects of revocation

are presented in appendix D.
 27 “Certain glass-lined seamless pressure pipe” is defined by Commerce as seamless carbon and alloy (other than

stainless) steel pipe, of circular cross-section, not more than 114.3 mm (4.5 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of

wall thickness or manufacturing process (hot-finished or cold-drawn) that: (1) has been cut into lengths of 6 to 120

inches (15.2 cm to 304.8 cm), (2) has had the inside bore ground to a smooth surface, (3) has had multiple layers of

specially formulated corrosion resistant glass permanently baked on at temperatures of 1,440 to 1,700 degrees

Fahrenheit in thicknesses from 0.032 to 0.085 inch (40 to 80 mils), and (4) has flanges or other forged stub ends

welded on both ends of the pipe. The special corrosion resistant glass referred to in this definition may be glass

containing by weight: (1) 70 to 80 percent of an oxide of silicone, zirconium, titanium, or cerium (Oxide Group

RO2), (2) 10 to 15 percent of an oxide of sodium, potassium, or lithium (Oxide Group RO), (3) from a trace amount

to 5 percent of an oxide of either aluminum, cobalt, iron, vanadium, or boron (Oxide Group R203), or (4) from a trace

amount to 5 percent of a fluorine compound in which fluorine replaces the oxygen in any one of the previously listed

oxide groups. Glass-lined pressure pipe is commonly manufactured for use in glass-lined equipment systems for

processing corrosive or reactive chemicals, including acrylates, alkanolamines, herbicides, pesticides,

pharmaceuticals, and solvents. V&M Brazil, the sole Brazilian producer of certain seamless pipe, reported ***

exports of this product to the United States. In addition, U.S. importers reported *** imports of this product.

 28 Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Brazil:

Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of

Antidumping Duty Order, 63 FR 37338, July 10, 1998.

 29 Notice of Scope Rulings, 65 FR 41957, July 7, 2000.

 30 V&M Brazil previously requested an administrative review for Brazil for the August 1, 2001, though July 31,

2002, period, but subsequently withdrew its request for review (Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and

Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Brazil: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 67 FR 70716, November 26, 2002). 

 31 Commerce amended its initial final results of 12.67 percent to 7.96 percent after the correction of certain

ministerial errors (Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Small Diameter Circular

Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Brazil, 70 FR 7243, February 11, 2005

(continued...)

I-12

COMMERCE’S REVIEWS

Changed Circumstances Review

On April 27, 1998, the petitioner, Vision Metals, requested that Commerce conduct a changed

circumstances administrative review to determine whether to revoke in part the antidumping duty order

on certain seamless pipe from Brazil with respect to certain glass-lined seamless pressure pipe.27 As no

comments were received from interested parties, the request was granted and certain glass-line pressure

pipe was excluded from the order.28

Scope Ruling

Effective July 2, 2000, Commerce issued a scope ruling excluding from the antidumping order on

imports from Germany tubing with a circular cross-section and an outside diameter that varies from 

0.05 mm to 25 mm.29

Administrative Reviews

Commerce has completed two administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on certain

seamless pipe from Brazil since 2000.30 In the first administrative review on Brazil, Commerce examined

the period from August 1, 2002 to July 31, 2003, and calculated a 7.96 percent LTFV margin on subject

imports from V&M Brazil.31 In the second review, Commerce examined the period from August 1, 2004
 31 (...continued)

and Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Small Diameter Circular

Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Brazil, 70 FR 13459, March 21, 2005). 

 32 Certain Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Brazil: 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 56473, September 27, 2006.

 33 Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Germany: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 13217, March 18, 1998. Mannesmann requested a

second administrative review for Germany for the August 1, 1996, though July 31, 1997, period, but subsequently

withdrew its request (Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe

From Germany; Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 60688, November 12,

1997).

 34 Commerce amended its initial final results of 22.12 percent to 21.94 percent after the correction of a ministerial

error (Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Germany: 

Amendment of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 20579, April 27, 1998).

 35 Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Germany: 

Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Accordance with Final Court

Decision, 66 FR 12465, February 27, 2001.

I-13

to July 31, 2005, and calculated a 0.00 percent LTFV margin on subject imports from V&M Brazil.32 For

Germany, Commerce completed one administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain

seamless pipe.33 Commerce examined the period from January 27, 1995, to July 31, 1996, and calculated

a 21.94 percent LTFV margin on Mannesmann.34 Commerce’s assigned margin was subsequently

reduced to 20.08 percent after receiving remand instructions from the Court of International Trade.35

Administrative reviews completed since 2000 appear in the following tabulation.

Country Period of review Date results published Exporter

Margin

(percent)

Brazil 8/1/2002-7/31/2003

February 11, 2005 

(70 FR 7243) V&M do Brasil 12.67

Brazil 8/1/2002-7/31/2003

Amended: March 21, 2005

(70 FR 13459) V&M do Brasil 7.96

Brazil 8/1/2004-7/31/2005

September 27, 2006 

(71 FR 56473) V&M do Brasil 0.00
 36 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and

Germany, 71 FR 59079, October 6, 2006.

 37 19 CFR 159.64(g).

I-14

Expedited Reviews of Orders

On October 6, 2006, Commerce published the final results of its expedited reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on seamless carbon and alloy steel SLP pipe, determining that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the rates listed

below:36

Manufacturer/producer/exporter Weighted-average margin (percent)

Argentina:

Siderca SAIC .............................................................................. 108.13

All others .................................................................................... 108.13

Brazil:

V&M do Brasil, S.A. .................................................................. 124.94

All others .................................................................................... 124.94

Germany:

Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes GmbH ................................... 57.72

All others .................................................................................... 57.72

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS

Qualified U.S. producers of seamless SLP pipe are eligible to receive disbursements from U.S.

Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of

2000 (“CDSOA”), also known as the Byrd Amendment.37 Between 2001 and 2006, four firms (Michigan

Seamless Tube, Koppel Steel, U.S. Steel, and Vision Metals) received such funds. Table I-4 presents

CDSOA claims and disbursements for Federal fiscal years 2001-06.
I-15

Table I-4

Seamless SLP pipe: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal years 2001-061

Year Order Claimant

Share of yearly

allocation

Certification

amount

Amount

disbursed

Percent Dollars

2001

A-357-809 (Argentina) Vision Metals2 100.0 $166,725,000 $0

A-351-826 (Brazil) Vision Metals2 100.0 $166,725,000 $0

A-428-820 (Germany) Vision Metals2 100.0 $166,725,000 $0

Total $0

2002

A-357-809 (Argentina) U.S. Steel3 100.0 $308,000,000 $501

A-351-826 (Brazil) U.S. Steel3 100.0 $308,000,000 $344

A-428-820 (Germany) U.S. Steel3 100.0 $308,000,000 $31,973

Total $32,817

2003

A-357-809 (Argentina)

Koppel Steel 4.6 $26,112,000 $1,240

Michigan

Seamless Tube 30.8 $174,564,574 $8,289

U.S. Steel3 64.6 $366,416,458 $17,398

Subtotal 100.0 $567,093,032 $26,927

A-351-826 (Brazil)

Koppel Steel 4.6 $26,112,000 $1,371

Michigan

Seamless Tube 30.8 $174,564,574 $9,162

U.S. Steel3 64.6 $366,416,458 $19,232

Subtotal 100.0 $567,093,032 $29,765

A-428-820 (Germany)

Koppel Steel 4.6 $26,112,000 $5,898

Michigan

Seamless Tube 30.8 $174,564,574 $39,306

U.S. Steel3 64.6 $366,416,458 $82,766

Subtotal 100.0 $567,093,032 $127,971

Total $184,662

Table continued on next page.
I-16

Table I-4--Continued

Seamless SLP pipe: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal years 2001-051

Year Order Claimant

Share of yearly

allocation

Certification

amount

Amount

disbursed

Percent Dollars

2004

A-357-809 (Argentina)

Koppel Steel 7.0 $30,464 $683

U.S. Steel3 93.0 $403,180,593 $9,033

Subtotal 100.0 $403,211,057 $9,715

A-351-826 (Brazil)

Koppel Steel 7.0 $30,464 $151

U.S. Steel3 93.0 $403,180,593 $1,997

Subtotal 100.0 $403,211,057 $2,148

A-428-820 (Germany)

Koppel Steel 7.0 $30,464 $6,999

U.S. Steel3 93.0 $403,180,593 $92,633

Subtotal 100.0 $403,211,057 $99,632

Total $111,495

2005

A-357-809 (Argentina) U.S. Steel3 100.0 $452,486,848 $3,435

A-351-826 (Brazil) U.S. Steel3 100.0 $452,486,848 $24

A-428-820 (Germany) U.S. Steel3 100.0 $452,486,848 $79,967

Total $83,427

2006

A-357-809 (Argentina)

Koppel Steel 16.6 $104,733,722 $2,560

U.S. Steel3 83.4 $524,450,672 $12,821

Subtotal 100.0 $629,184,394 $15,381

A-351-826 (Brazil)

Koppel Steel 16.6 $104,733,722 $3,825

U.S. Steel3 83.4 $524,450,672 $19,155

Subtotal 100.0 $629,184,394 $22,980

A-428-820 (Germany)

Koppel Steel 16.6 $104,733,722 $25,144

U.S. Steel3 83.4 $524,450,672 $125,909

Subtotal 100.0 $629,184,394 $151,053

Total $189,414

 1 The federal fiscal year is October 1-September 30. Data are reported as published.

 2

 In 2000, Vision Metals, parent company of Gulf States Tube and Michigan Specialty, filed for bankruptcy and closed its Rosenburg, TX

seamless SLP pipe production facility. In 2002, Michigan Seamless Tube was created to purchase the assets of the Michigan Specialty Tube

division of the defunct Vision Metals.

 3

 U.S. Steel is the successor to USX and National Steel.

Source: Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports FY 2001-06, found at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd/cont_dump/.
 38 The scope did not include redraw hollows under HTS subheading 7304.31.30 as subject products in the original

or the first reviews of these orders. Based on staff inquiries, Commerce has stated that the scope language should

not include redraw hollows as subject products and the scope should conform with the previous investigations. 

Commerce issued an internal memorandum to correct the scope language for these reviews. See app. E and staff

telephone interview with ***, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, December 8, 2006.

 39 Classification of the subject merchandise under the HTSUS is discussed in the section of this report entitled

“Tariff Treatment.”

 40 Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of

the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive.

I-17

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

The scope definition for the imported product subject to the antidumping duty orders under

review, as defined by Commerce, is as follows:

The products covered by the orders are seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless)

steel standard, line, and pressure pipes and redraw hollows produced, or equivalent, to the

ASTM A–53, ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, ASTM A–335, ASTM

A–589, ASTM A–795, and the API 5L specifications and meeting the physical

parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of the orders also

includes all products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the

physical parameters described below, regardless of specification. 

Specifically included within the scope of the orders are seamless pipes and redraw

hollows,38 less than or equal to 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of

wall–thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold–drawn), end finish (plain

end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish.39

The seamless pipes subject to the orders are currently classifiable under the subheadings

7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20,

7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60,

7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).40

Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the

conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas and

other liquids and gases in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at

elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external

heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A–106 standard may be

used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various ASME code stress

levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A–335 standard must be used if temperatures and

stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A–106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the

United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A–106 standard.

Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A–53 specification

and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the

low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other
I-18

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

sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code)

may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code

requirements. If exceptionally low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated,

standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM A–333 or ASTM A–334 specifications. 

Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids

in pipelines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification. 

Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A–589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire

protection uses (ASTM A–795) are used for the conveyance of water. 

Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A–106, ASTM

A–53, API 5L–B, and API 5L–X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate

production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple

certify the pipes by meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required

tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors sell the vast majority of

this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers. 

The primary application of ASTM A–106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified

pipes is use in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical

plants. Other applications are in power generation plants (electrical–fossil fuel or

nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines,

gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this product is for use as oil

and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. These applications constitute the

majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A–106 pipes

may be used in some boiler applications. 

Redraw hollows are any unfinished pipe or ‘‘hollow profiles’’ of carbon or alloy steel

transformed by hot rolling or cold drawing/ hydrostatic testing or other methods to enable

the material to be sold under ASTM A–53, ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334,

ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–795, and API 5L specifications. 

The scope of the orders includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters

described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of

application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below, and whether or

not also certified to a non–covered specification. Standard, line, and pressure

applications and the above–listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope

of the orders. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not

produced to the ASTM A–53, ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, ASTM

A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used

in a standard, line, or pressure application, with the exception of the specific exclusions

discussed below. For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe

which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM A–106

applications. These specifications generally include ASTM A–161, ASTM A–192,

ASTM A–210, ASTM A–252, ASTM A–501, ASTM A–523, ASTM A–524, and ASTM

A–618. When such pipes are used in a standard, line, or pressure pipe application, with

the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below, such products are covered by

the scope of the orders. 
 41 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and

Germany, 71 FR 59079, October 6, 2006. 

 42 Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Brazil:

Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of

Antidumping Duty Order, 63 FR 37338, July 10, 1998.

 43 Notice of Scope Rulings, 65 FR 41957, July 7, 2000.

 44 As of February 3, 2007, statistical reporting number 7304.10.1020 has been reclassified as 7304.19.1020 and

7304.10.5020 has been reclassified as 7304.19.5020.

I-19

Specifically excluded from the scope of the orders are boiler tubing and mechanical

tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A–53, ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333,

ASTM A–334, ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–795, and API 5L specifications

and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications. In addition, finished and

unfinished oil country tubular goods (OCTG) are excluded from the scope of the orders,

if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not

covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this

scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications.41

With Respect to Subject Merchandise from Brazil

As a result of a changed circumstances review, glass-lined pressure pipes are excluded from the

scope of the antidumping duty order on seamless SLP pipe from Brazil.42

With Respect to Subject Merchandise from Germany

As a result of a scope ruling issued by Commerce on June 25, 1999, tubing with a circular crosssection and an outside diameter that varies from 0.05 mm to 25 mm is excluded from the antidumping

order on imports from Germany.43

Tariff Treatment

The small diameter seamless pipes subject to these reviews are currently imported under the

statistical reporting numbers 7304.10.1020, 7304.10.5020, 7304.31.6050, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020,

7304.39.0024, 7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 7304.51.5005, 7304.51.5060, 7304.59.6000, 7304.59.8010,

7304.59.8015, 7304.59.8020, and 7304.59.8025 of the HTSUS.44 The column 1-general (normal trade

relations) rates of duty for the subject products are free.

THE DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

Steel pipes and tubes are made in circular, rectangular, or other cross sections, and are generally

manufactured by either the welded or seamless production process. Steel pipe and tube manufactured by 

either process can be further categorized by the grades of steel–particularly carbon and alloy grades–used

in the steel production. Included in alloy grades are heat-resisting, stainless, and “other” alloy grades. 

Additionally, steel pipes and tubes can be further categorized by end use. The American Iron and Steel

Institute (AISI) has defined six such end-use categories, which are standard pipe, line pipe, structural pipe
 45 Standard, line, and pressure pipe is generally intended to convey liquids and is typically tested and rated for its

ability to withstand hydrostatic pressure. Structural pipe and tubing is used for load-bearing purposes and

construction, although only small amounts of seamless pipe are used in structural applications. Seamless mechanical

tubing is typically a custom-designed product employed within the automotive industry and by equipment

manufacturers. OCTG are steel pipes and tubes used in the drilling of oil and gas wells and in the conveying of oil

and gas from within the well to ground level.

 46 Particular specifications to which pipe products are produced are commonly marked on each pipe and are

referred to as a “stencil.”

 47 ASTM A-333 and A-334 cover several grades of steel used for low temperature applications. Grades 1, 6, and

10 are carbon steel grades. Grades 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 11 are alloy steel grades containing nickel and other alloying

elements. The most common alloy steel grade is grade 3, which contains about 3.5 percent nickel. See 2000 Annual

Book of ASTM Standards, Section I, Iron and Steel Products, Vol. 01.01, Steel–Piping, Tubing, and Fittings (West

Conshohocken, PA), pp. 194-207.

I-20

and tubing, mechanical tubing, pressure tubing, and oil country tubular goods (OCTG).45 Subject

products are defined as seamless SLP pipe and are produced from carbon or alloy (other than stainless)

steel.

Steel pipes and tubes generally are produced according to standards and specifications published

by a number of organizations, including the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and the American Petroleum Institute (API). 

Comparable organizations in the United Kingdom, Japan, Russia, and other countries also have developed

standard specifications for steel pipes and tubes.46

Seamless standard pipe is most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 standard, and generally is

not intended for high temperature or high pressure service. Rather, typical end use applications include

the low pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and

heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinklers, and other related uses. Depending on the

type and grade, however, standard pipe may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed

relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low temperature end-uses or conditions are

anticipated, seamless standard pipe may be produced to meet ASTM A-333 and A-334 specifications

(covering carbon and alloy seamless pipe and tube for low temperature service).47

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

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

petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas, and other liquids and gases at elevated temperature

or pressure, or both, in industrial piping systems. Seamless pressure pipe may carry substances at

elevated temperatures and pressures and may be subject to external heat. Seamless pressure pipe meeting

ASTM A-106 specification may be used in temperatures of up to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit at various

ASME code stress levels. Seamless alloy pipes made to ASTM A-335 specification (covering alloy steel

pipe for high temperature service) must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for

ASTM A-106.

Seamless line pipe is produced to the API 5L specification, and is intended for the conveyance of

oil and natural gas and other fluids in pipe lines, transmission lines, or gathering lines.

Seamless pipe is commonly produced and certified to meet multiple specifications in order to

avoid maintaining separate production runs and inventories for pipe sold for different applications. 

Manufacturers often quadruple certify pipe made to ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, API 5L Grade B, and
 48 Quadruple certification is referred to as a “quad stencil,” whereby manufacturers put four stencils, or markings,

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

specifications.

 49 Principal differences among standard pipe made to the A-53 specification, pressure pipe made to the A-106

specification, and line pipe made to the API 5L X42 or grade B specifications include differences in minimum yield

strength, chemical composition, and variation in permissible weight and dimensional tolerances. Line pipe made to

the API 5L X42 specification has a higher minimum yield strength (42,000 pound per square inch (psi)) than line

pipe made to API grade B specification (35,000 psi), pressure pipe made to A-106 grade B specification (35,000

psi), and standard pipe made to A-53 grade B specification (35,000 psi). Alloying elements such as columbium

(niobium) and titanium may be included in line pipe made to API 5L X42 or grade B to achieve a higher minimum

yield strength than that of standard pipe made to A-53. Line pipe made to API 5L X42 may also contain more

manganese, which increases tensile strength and hardness, than either standard pipe (A-53) or pressure pipe (A-106). 

Variations in permissible weight and dimensional tolerances are more stringent for pressure pipe (A-106), and line

pipe (API 5L grade B or X-42), than those for standard pipe (A-53). However, all of these specifications overlap, so

that pipe may be produced to comply with all of them, allowing for duel, triple, or quadruple certification.

 50 Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico,

Romania, and South Africa (Inv. Nos. 731-TA-846-850 (Review)), USITC Publication 3850, April 2006, p. I-21.

 51 Ibid. See also table III-2.

 52 Seamless pressure pipe is frequently produced in a size range of 0.5 - 1.5 inch outside diameter, and is *** on a

per-ton basis compared to seamless SLP pipe with larger outside diameters (i.e., greater than two inches). See

Domestic Interested Parties’ posthearing brief, Exhibit 1, p. 19; Siderca’s posthearing brief, response to Question 10,

p. 1. 

 53 Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from The Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico,

Romania, and South Africa (Inv. Nos. 731-TA-846-850 (Review)), USITC Publication 3850, April 2006, p. I-22.

 54 Manganese primarily increases tensile strength and hardness, while reducing ductility and weldability. Carbon

and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from The Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and

South Africa, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-846-850 (Review), USITC Publication 3850, April 2006, p. I-22, fn. 34.

 55 Alloy steels achieve a high degree of strength and toughness while maintaining weldability–attributes that can

be achieved with carbon steels, though not always to the same degree. Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line,

and Pressure Pipe from The Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-846-850

(Review), USITC Publication 3850, April 2006, p. I-22, fn. 35.

I-21

API 5L X-42 specifications,48 49 thus allowing distributors to maintain a single inventory of quad stenciled

pipe for use in multiple applications.50 Small diameter seamless SLP pipe in sizes greater than 2 inches

and less than or equal to 4.5 inches in outside diameter is commonly produced and certified to the quad

stencil certification while small diameter seamless SLP pipe in sizes less than or equal to 2 inches in

outside diameter is commonly produced as pressure pipe and made to the A106 specification.51 

Seamless SLP pipe may be used in petrochemical and other non-pipeline applications, as well as in high

pressure or high temperature applications, including in steam lines. Seamless SLP pipe less than 2 inches

in outside diameter is commonly pressure pipe produced to the ASTM A-106 standard,52 and is frequently

used in high pressure and high temperature applications–for example, in the construction or repair or

refineries and chemical plants. Slightly larger pipes are used in more general high pressure applications

in industrial piping systems. Seamless SLP pipe that is 2-3/8 inches or greater in outside diameter may be

used in gathering lines or as line pipe for the conveyance of oil or natural gas. Seamless pipe with outside

diameters (especially pipe with an OD greater than 4.5 inches, which is not subject to these reviews) is

typically line pipe used in gas transmission,53 as well as in pipeline construction.

Most steel products, including those subject to these reviews, are produced from carbon steel,

which contains controlled amounts of carbon and manganese.54 Alloy steels, which provide physical

properties not achievable to the same degree with carbon steels,55 contain controlled amounts of alloying
 56 Nickel primarily increases toughness, especially at lower temperatures, as well as increases tensile strength and

hardness, while slightly reducing weldability. Chromium primarily increases tensile strength and hardness, and

reduces weldability. Higher concentrations of chromium can improve corrosion and abrasion resistance. 

Molybdenum primarily increases tensile strength and hardness, but reduces weldability. Carbon and Alloy Seamless

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from The Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa, Invs. Nos.

731-TA-846-850 (Review), USITC Publication 3850, April 2006, p. I-22, fn. 36.

 57 Michigan Seamless Tube, LLC (“Michigan Tube”), is no longer producing seamless SLP pipe since the

company re-started four years ago. E-mail from ***.

 58 Koppel, Timken, and U.S. Steel’s Fairfield facility.

 59 U.S. Steel’s Lorain facility.

 60 Sharon Tube.

I-22

elements–usually, nickel, chromium, and molybdenum.56 ASTM specifications covering alloy steel

include ASTM A-333, A-334, and A-335. These alloy specifications, however, account for only a small

portion of total seamless SLP pipe produced and sold in the United States. Additional details are

provided in part III of this report.

The distinguishing characteristics of alloy steel pipe are its physical properties, which make the

alloy steel pipe suitable for application in high temperature or low temperature service. Uses can differ 

from those of carbon steel pipe, based upon the service requirements and temperature and pressure

requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Code.

Manufacturing Processes

In the United States, steel used to produce seamless SLP pipe is made by either the basic-oxygen

process, in which scrap is added to molten pig iron and alloying materials to convert into molten steel, or

by the electric-arc furnace (EAF) process, in which steel scrap, direct-reduced iron, cold pig iron, and

alloying materials are melted and converted into molten steel. The chemical composition of steel,

including the level of carbon, manganese, and any alloying elements, such as nickel, chromium, and

molybdenum, is controlled in the melting process. Molten steel produced by either steelmaking process is

continuously cast into either round or square billets, which are the starting materials for the production of

seamless SLP pipe. Seamless SLP pipe producers that do not maintain steelmaking operations use

purchased billets or redraw hollows as their raw material. Of the five U.S. plants currently producing

seamless pipe,57 three use billets produced in their own steelmaking facilities,58 one uses billets purchased

from others,59 and one is a finisher of pipe using purchased semifinished pipe or redraw hollows.60

Seamless SLP pipe is manufactured by either of two high temperature processes to form a central

cavity in a solid steel billet. In the rotary piercing process, a heated billet is gripped by angled rolls,

which cause the billet to rotate and advance over a piercer point, forming a hole through its length (figure

I-1). In the extrusion process, the billet is hot-punch pierced and then extruded axially through a die and

over a mandrel, forming a hollow shell (figure I-2). The hollow shell produced by either process is then

rolled with either a fixed plug or a continuous mandrel inside the shell to reduce the wall thickness and 

increase the length. The shell is then rolled in a sizing mill or a stretch reduction mill where the shell is

formed in a true round and sized to the specified diameter.
I-23

Figure I-1

Seamless pipe: Sequence of operations used to produce seamless pipe products by piercing and rolling

Source: AISI, Steel Products Manual: Steel Specialty Tubular Products, October 1980, p. 17.
 61 The minimum diameter for hot rolling differs from producer to producer because of differences in equipment

capabilities. 

 62 Alloy steel pipe and carbon steel pipe may require heat treating, which may involve one or more heating cycles

in either a continuous furnace or a batch furnace, with controlled rates of cooling. Specific heat treating

requirements are dependent upon the grade of steel being processed and the specification to which the steel is

produced. The same processes and equipment are used to heat treat carbon and alloy SLP pipe. There are no

additional processes that alloy SLP pipe must undergo compared to carbon SLP pipe. USITC staff e-mail

correspondence with ***, March 20, 2005.

I-24

Figure I-2 

Seamless pipe: Cycle of operations in the production of an extruded tubular section

Source: AISI, Steel Products Manual: Steel Specialty Tubular Products, October 1980, p. 19.

Whereas seamless SLP pipe is normally produced hot-finished, small diameter pipe of less than

two inches in outside diameter is frequently cold drawn because hot-rolling of small diameter pipe is

often not possible.61 Pipe also may be cold drawn to provide a smoother surface and closer dimensional

tolerances than that which can be produced by hot finishing. When pipe is to be cold drawn, seamless

hollows (redraw hollows) are first pickled in acid to remove scale and oxides from both the outside and

inside surfaces. Redraw hollows are then rinsed in water and coated with a lubricant for cold drawing. 

The hollow is pulled through a die and over an internal mandrel, which reduces the outside diameter and

increases the length (figure I-3). The mandrel inside the hollow controls the inside diameter and the wall

thickness. Following cold drawing, the hollows are annealed (heat treated).62
I-25

Figure I-3

Seamless pipe: Diagram of the cold drawing process

Source: AISI, Steel Products Manual: Steel Specialty Tubular Products, October 1980, p. 25.

Finishing operations on subject seamless SLP pipe include straightening, cutting to length,

inspection, testing, end finishing (e.g., beveling or threading), and coating. Pipes may be furnished

galvanized (hot-dip zinc coated) and may be threaded and coupled.

Other steel seamless tubing products that are produced on the same equipment as subject

seamless SLP pipe include seamless SLP pipe with an outside diameter greater than 4.5 inches, coupling

stock, mechanical tubing, OCTG, pressure tubing, and structural pipe and tubing, all of which may be

made of alloy steel or carbon steel. Table I-5 shows the quantity of shipments in the United States of all

seamless tubular products from 2001 through 2006, as reported by AISI. These data may not include

shipments of all producers and do include production of seamless SLP pipe in diameters greater than 4.5

inches. However, they indicate that seamless SLP pipe declined as a share of seamless tubular products

by reporting companies from 22.9 percent in 2001 to 16.9 percent in 2005 but increased in 2006 to 20.4

percent.

Table I-5

Seamless carbon and alloy steel tubular products: Domestic shipments by U.S. producers, 2001-06

Item

Calendar year

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Seamless SLP pipe 415,199 299,515 265,092 338,979 347,288 435,522

OCTG 986,392 706,672 915,796 1,202,742 1,273,732 1,286,908

Mechanical tubing 383,217 333,766 311,004 356,811 369,672 346,541

Pressure tubing 29,326 (1

) (1) 34,055 41,874 46,670

Structural pipe and

tubing, pipe for piling 7,946 35,853 38,451 20,355 18,494 19,833

 Total 1,822,080 1,375,806 1,530,343 1,952,942 2,051,060 2,135,474

 1 None reported.

Note.--Data include shipments of pipe with outside diameters greater than 4.5 inches.

Source: AISI, 10P Report, 2001 through 2006.
 63 See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany,

and Italy, USITC Publication 2910 (July 1995), pp. I-12-13; Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line,

and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa, USITC Publication 3311 (June 2000), pp. 9-11; and Certain

Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, USITC

Publication 3429 (June 2001), pp. 5-8.

 64 See confidential first review report (INV-Y-104, May 24, 2001), p. I-21. 

 65 See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany,

and Italy, USITC Publication 2910 (July 1995), pp. I-12-13; and Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line,

and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, USITC Publication 3429 (June 2001), pp. 5-8.

 66 U.S. Steel and Koppel Steel’s response to notice of institution, July 24, 2006, p. 24.

 67 Benteler Stahl and Benteler Steel and Tube’s response to notice of institution, July 21, 2006, p. 9, and Siderca

response to notice of institution, July 21, 2006, p. 9.

 68 U.S. Steel and Koppel Steel’s comments on draft questionnaires, October 3, 2006.

I-26

Marketing

The vast majority of domestic seamless SLP pipe and all reported imported seamless SLP pipe is

sold through distributors. Some distributors are master distributors and sell to other distributors. 

Seamless SLP pipe is also sometimes sold directly to end users. Table I-6 presents data on U.S.

producers’ and importers’ shipments of seamless SLP pipe by channel of distribution. 

Table I-6

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ channels of distribution, 2001-05, JanuarySeptember 2005, and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

In the original investigations and the first five-year reviews regarding this product, the

Commission examined the issue of whether carbon seamless pipe and alloy seamless pipe should be

separated into two distinct like products.63 The presence of alloying elements in the pipe grants it the

ability to withstand greater temperatures, pressure, and corrosiveness than carbon seamless pipe.64

In the original investigations and the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that carbon

and alloy seamless pipe constituted a single domestic like product. It observed that although the chemical

composition, as well as the end uses, of the two products may differ, these differences were less

significant than the products’ similarities, including the same general physical characteristics,

interchangeability for most end uses, similar channels of distribution, and production using the same

equipment and labor.65 In their submissions to the Commission in the course of these reviews, the

domestic interested parties stated that they support the Commission’s definition of the domestic like

product made in the original investigations and the first five-year reviews.66 Respondent interested parties

did not raise any issues regarding the Commission’s original domestic like product determination.67 No

party requested that the Commission collect additional information or data with respect to like product

considerations following review of draft questionnaires.68

In both the original investigations and the first reviews, the Commission found that redraw

hollows are included in the domestic like product although certain redraw hollows are excluded from the
 69 See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany,

and Italy, USITC Publication 2910 (July 1995), pp. I-11-12 and Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line,

and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, USITC Publication 3429 (June 2001), p. 7. 

 70 Michigan Seamless Tube, LLC (“Michigan Seamless”), did not provide the Commission with a producer

questionnaire and responded that “***.” E-mail from ***. In the first reviews, Michigan Specialty (now Michigan

Seamless Tube, LLC) produced seamless SLP pipe and accounted for less than *** percent of U.S. seamless SLP

pipe production in 2000. 

 71 Plymouth Tube Co. (“Plymouth Tube”) reported that it has not produced seamless SLP pipe since January 1,

2001. During the first reviews, Plymouth Tube stated that it was a *** privately held company and that ***.

I-27

scope of these orders.69 No party in these reviews has argued that redraw hollows should not be included

in the domestic like product. 

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to six firms which were identified as producers by

the parties and in the earlier investigations on seamless SLP pipe. Four firms provided the Commission

with responses: (1) Koppel Steel Corp. (“Koppel”); (2) Sharon Tube Co. (“Sharon”); (3) The Timken Co.

(“Timken”); and (4) U.S. Steel Corp. (“U.S. Steel”). Two firms indicated that they had not produced 

seamless SLP pipe in years.70 71 Table I-7 presents a list of the U.S. producers that responded to the

Commission’s questionnaires, with each company’s production location(s), share of reported 2005

production, and position on continuation of the orders. These four companies are believed to represent

the vast majority of the production of the seamless SLP pipe in the United States during the period for

which data were collected.

Table I-7

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. producers, production locations, shares of reported 2005 production, and

positions on the continuation of the orders

Firm Production locations

Share of 2005

production (percent)

Position on

continuation

Koppel Steel1 Beaver Falls, PA *** ***

Sharon Tube2 Sharon, PA *** ***

Timken Canton, OH *** ***

U.S. Steel Fairfield, AL & Lorain, OH *** ***

 1 Koppel is a wholly owned subsidiary of NS Group, Inc., of Newport, KY. In December 2006, welded line pipe producer

IPSCO (Lisle, IL) acquired NS Group, including Koppel.

 2

 Sharon Tube’s production of seamless SLP pipe ***. All of Sharon Tube’s purchases from *** are redraw hollows and all its

*** are ***. E-mail from ***, December 18, 2006.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Since the original investigations, the U.S. industry has experienced consolidation and an overall

reduction in the number of U.S. producers of seamless SLP pipe. During the Commission’s original

investigations, there were eight U.S. producers of small diameter seamless SLP pipe. These companies

included (1) Gulf States Tube Co. (“Gulf States”); (2) Koppel; (3) Michigan Specialty; (4) Plymouth

Tube; (5) Sharon Tube; (6) Timken; (7) USS Fairfield; and (8) USS Lorain.
 72 IPSCO press release, “IPSCO Acquires NS Group” (December 1, 2006), found at http://ipsco.com, retrieved

December 11, 2006.

 73 The Carlyle Group press release, “John Maneely Company to Acquire Sharon Tube Company” (January 30,

2007, found at http://carlyle.com, retrieved February 28, 2007) and “Sharon Tube Sale Closes, CEO Bill Perrine

Retires” (February 20, 2007, found at http://www.sharon-herald.com/homepage/local_story_051213234.html,

retrieved February 28, 2006). The sale is expected to close in the first quarter of 2007.

 74 U.S. Steel also produces nonsubject products, such as OCTG, at both of these facilities. U.S. Steel’s producer

questionnaire response, attachment 1.

 75 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified by the parties, along with firms identified by ***

as having imported certain seamless pipe classified under the subject HTS subheadings during the period examined. 

Recipients of producer questionnaires were also sent importer questionnaires.

I-28

In 2000, the parent company of Gulf States, Vision Metals, Inc., filed for bankruptcy and closed

its Rosenburg, TX, seamless SLP pipe production facility. Presently, the production facility is idle. In

2002, Michigan Seamless Tube, Inc., was created to purchase the Michigan Specialty Tube Division of its

defunct parent company, Vision Metals. Presently, Michigan Seamless is a part of Atlas Holdings, LLC

(a private equity firm), and no longer produces seamless SLP pipe. In December 2006, plate and large

diameter welded pipe producer IPSCO (Lisle, IL) acquired NS Group, the parent company of Koppel

Steel.72 On January 30, 2007, Sharon Tube announced that it signed a definitive agreement to be acquired

by John Maneely Company (the parent company of Wheatland Tube and Atlas Tube).73 USS Lorain in

the original investigations was U.S. Steel’s facility at Lorain, Ohio that produced seamless SLP pipe. 

Currently, U.S. Steel produces seamless SLP pipe at two facilities, Fairfield, Alabama, and Lorain,

Ohio.74 Finally, as noted previously, Plymouth Tube no longer produces seamless SLP pipe.

U.S. Importers

The Commission sent importer questionnaires to 35 firms believed to be importers of seamless

carbon and alloy SLP pipe, including all U.S. producers.75 Questionnaire responses were received from

22 companies, 11 of which reported that they do not import the subject product. Table I-8 presents a

summary of information regarding U.S. importers of seamless SLP pipe.

Two importers are related to foreign exporters of the subject product in subject countries. The

U.S. importer Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes Corp. (“V&M Tubes”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of 

Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes S.A. of Boulogne, France, which is in turn a wholly owned subsidiary

of Groupe Vallourec. Vallourec and Mannesmann Tubes S.A. wholly owns V&M Tubes do Brasil

(“V&M Brazil”) and V&M Tubes Germany (“VMD”). The U.S. importer Tenaris Global Services (USA)

Corp. (“Tenaris”), formerly known as “Siderca”, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tenaris S.A. of

Luxembourg. Tenaris SA of Luxembourg has affiliations with seamless tube producers Dalmine (Italy),

Siderca (Argentina), Algoma Tubes (Canada), Tavsa (Venezuela), Tamsa (Mexico), Silcotub (Romania),

and NKK Tubes (Japan). 
I-29

Table I-8

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. importers, source of imports, U.S. headquarters, and parent company

Firm Source of imports Headquarters Parent company

Commercial Metals Co. *** Irving, TX None

Duferco Steel, Inc. *** Matawan, NJ

Nina Finance, Luxembourg

(100%)

Connectors, Inc. *** Hauppauge, NY None

Man Ferrostaal, Corp. *** Houston, TX

Man Capital Corp., U.S.A.,

(100%)

Norca Industrial Co. *** Great Neck, NY None

Sumitomo Corp. of

America *** New York, NY

Sumitomo Corp., Japan

(100%)

Tenaris Global Services *** Houston, TX

Tenaris S.A., Luxembourg

(100%)

TPCO Enterprise, Inc. *** Houston, TX

Look Ease Enterprise, Inc.,

U.S.A. (***)

Tianjin Pipe International

Economic & Trading Corp.,

China (***)

V&M Tubes Corporation *** Houston, TX

V&M Tubes, France

(100%)

Voest Alpine Tubular

Corp. *** Houston, TX

Voestalpine Tubulars

GmbH, Austria (100%)

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

U.S. Purchasers

The Commission sent questionnaires to 92 firms that were believed to be purchasers of certain

seamless SLP pipe since 2001. Usable responses were received from 17 purchasers. The geographical

distribution of respondents was as follows: California, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, New York, Oklahoma,

Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia. U.S. purchasers, their sources, U.S. locations, and type of firm,

are shown in table I-9.

Table I-9

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. purchasers, their sources of purchases, U.S. locations, and types of firms

* * * * * * *
 76 Hearing transcript, p. 63 (Stoner). A witness for Koppel, however, suggested that demand for seamless SLP

pipe appears to be weakening, stating that “oil and gas prices have both fallen” and that its order book for seamless

SLP pipe was “relatively strong” during the first half of 2006, but are “experiencing significant declines” for the

third and fourth quarter of 2006. Hearing transcript, p. 43 (Ramsey).

I-30

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Apparent U.S. consumption for seamless SLP pipe increased from 2001 to 2005, and was higher

in interim 2006 than in interim 2005, following a strong demand in the oil and gas industry.76 Table I-10

presents apparent U.S. consumption for seamless SLP pipe.

Table I-10

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption,

2001-05, January-September 2005, and January-September 2006

Item 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Jan.-Sept.

2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

 Argentina *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Brazil *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Germany *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total subject imports *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources 96,667 79,606 91,400 129,850 118,484 91,020 126,725

Total imports *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

 Argentina *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Brazil *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Germany *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total subject imports *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources 63,012 54,162 65,560 95,347 123,329 94,709 126,198

Total imports *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.
 77 Hearing transcript, p. 20 (Hecht) and p. 28 (Vaughn).

I-31

 Despite strong demand for seamless SLP pipe after 2003, U.S. producers’ market share for

seamless SLP pipe declined during the period for which data were collected, reportedly due to the growth

of imports from nonsubject countries.77 Table I-11 presents U.S. market shares for seamless SLP pipe. 

Table I-11

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. market shares, 2001-05, January-September 2005, and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *

 1

 E-mail responses to Commission questions received January 18-February 4, 2007. These responses clarified

initial reporting that focused on distance between the production or storage facility and the U.S. customer.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

Seamless SLP pipe is produced and sold in both carbon steel grades and alloy steel grades. In the

United States the majority of carbon steel seamless SLP pipe is produced to triple and quadruple

certification as standard, line, and pressure pipe; most pipe with a diameter of less than 2 inches, however,

is only certified as pressure pipe. Alloy steel seamless SLP pipe is less widely used than carbon steel

seamless SLP pipe, usually in high pressure applications.

U.S. producers sell mainly to distributors although *** also sell to end users. All five responding

importers of seamless SLP pipe from subject and nonsubject countries *** only to distributors throughout

the period covered by these reviews, just as in 2000. In 2005, U.S. producers reported that *** percent of

their seamless SLP pipe was sold to distributors and the remainder was sold to end users. In 2000, U.S.

producers sold *** percent of their carbon steel seamless SLP pipes and *** percent of alloy product

through distributors. 

Fourteen of 18 responding purchasers of seamless SLP pipe were distributors and four were end

users. ***. Eleven of the distributors reported selling to the oil and gas or energy industries, one reported

that it was a master distributor, and three reported selling to both distributors (including stockists

identified as “supply houses”) and end users. Distributors also reported selling to firms that used

seamless SLP pipe for construction, food plants, paper mills, chemical plants, refineries, mechanical or

structural uses, casing, ship building, fabricators, and transmission and/or gathering (generally of oil and

natural gas).

All four responding U.S. producers reported selling nationwide. Two of eight responding

importers sell nationwide with the remaining six selling in various regions including the Northeast, the

Mid Atlantic, the Midwest, the Southeast, the Southwest, and the West Coast. ***. Three of four

responding producers reported that they arrange transportation to their customers while one reported that

its customers arrange transportation. In contrast, only one of eight importers reported arranging

transportation to its customers while seven reported that their customers arranged transportation. 

Three of four U.S. producers sold some product (ranging from 2 to 10 percent of sales) to

locations less than 100 miles from their facilities; three sold most of their product to locations between

101 and 1,000 miles from their facilities; and one sold most of its product to locations more than 1,000

miles from its facilities. Importers were asked if their sales were from the U.S. port of entry, U.S. storage

facility, or sold delivered. All seven responding importers reported selling from U.S. port of entry. Four

of these importers reported knowing the distance to their purchasers from the U.S. port of entry; one

reported that “most” of its customers were within 100 miles of the U.S. port of entry; and the other three

reported that *** percent of the customers were within 100 miles of the U.S. port of entry and the

remainder were 101 to 1,000 miles of the U.S. port.1

 Only one importer reported the cost of

transportation from port of entry to customer, reporting that this was *** percent.
 2

 Hearing transcript, pp. 151-152 (Broglie)

 3

 U.S. producers’ posthearing brief, exhibit 7, p. 2. U.S. Steel reports that in order to increase the number of its

shifts it would need to have “sustained” demand. Hearing transcript, pp. 157-158 (Broglie). Chinese imports have,

however, reduced the U.S. producers’ market share. Hearing transcript, pp. 19-20 (Hecht).

 4

 Hearing transcript, p. 129 (Durham).

 5

 The higher level of exports in January-September 2006, *** percent of total shipments, reflects in part ***.

II-2

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

Domestic Supply

Based on available information, staff believes that U.S. seamless SLP pipe producers are likely to

respond to changes in demand with small to moderate changes in shipments of U.S.-produced seamless

SLP pipe to the U.S. market. Factors contributing to this degree of responsiveness are discussed below.

Industry capacity

U.S. producers’ capacity for producing seamless SLP pipe increased irregularly from *** short

tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2005. U.S. producers’ reported capacity utilization for seamless SLP

pipe fluctuated from 2001 to 2005, decreasing from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002, then

increasing to *** percent in 2004 before falling to *** percent in 2005. 

Typically, this low level of capacity utilization of U.S. producers of seamless SLP pipe would

indicate that they have available capacity with which they could increase (or decrease) production of

seamless SLP pipe in the event of a price change. Given the historically high prices, one would expect

production to be closer to capacity. However, if changing levels of production requires major changes

such as addition of new shifts, then the flexibility of the U.S. producers is likely lower than these capacity

utilization figures normally would suggest. U.S. Steel reported that its capacity was based on running

three shifts a day at its Lorain mill,2

 however, it reported last running three shifts in that facility in the

beginning of 1998, since that time it has run only one shift.3

Lead times

Three of the four responding U.S. producers reported that they sell all of their seamless SLP pipe 

on a made-to-order basis while the other producer, ***, reported that it sold *** percent from inventories. 

Lead times reported by the three producers that produced all their product to order ranged from six to

eight weeks. ***, in contrast, reported lead times of *** on sales from inventories and *** for “to order”

sales. All eight responding importers reported selling seamless SLP pipe only on a “to order” basis, with

lead times of two to five months. Purchaser Dixie Pipe reported that, if mill performance is good,

imported product would be available to the distributors between 60 to 90 days after the date the product

was offered/ordered.4

Alternative markets

Domestic producers’ exports, as a percentage of total shipments, ranged from a low of ***

percent to a high of *** percent between 2001 and 2005. Exports accounted for *** percent of total

shipments in 2001 and *** percent of total shipments in 2005.5

 The relatively low level of exports during

the period indicates that domestic seamless SLP pipe producers are likely to be constrained in their ability
 6

 Hearing transcript, pp. 93-94 (Leland and Durham).

 7

 Hearing transcript, pp. 56, 61 (Durham and Binder).

 8

 Hearing transcript, p. 137 (Ramsey).

 9

 U.S. producers’ posthearing brief, Exhibit 1, p. 15.

 10 Hearing transcript, p. 138 (Broglie).

II-3

to shift shipments between the United States and other markets in response to price changes. Both

responding U.S. producers reported that it was difficult to shift to export shipments, noting that low prices

outside the United States made selling less practical; one firm also reported that it could only export high

value items and that nontariff barriers were also important.

Inventory levels

Since most sales are on a made-to-order basis, producers’ inventories would be expected to be

relatively low. U.S. producers’ inventories, as a share of U.S. producers’ total shipments, increased

irregularly from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2005; inventories accounted for the highest share

of total U.S. producers’ annual shipments in 2005. These moderate inventory levels suggest that U.S.

producers have a some ability to respond to changes in demand with changes in the quantity shipped from

inventories.

U.S. producers reported that distributors, rather than producers, tended to maintain inventories of

seamless SLP pipe for the customer’s immediate requirements. This relieved producers and end users of

the need to maintain sizeable inventories, but exposed distributors to the risk of falling inventory values

when prices declined.6

 Distributors reported that inventories are currently high, causing them to reduce

their current purchases.7

Production alternatives

Three of the four responding producers stated that they could switch production from seamless

SLP pipe to other products. Three firms stated that they could switch to other forms of tube including

mechanical tube and OCTG, and one firm also reported that it could switch to “semifinished products.” 

Typically, OCTG is seen as more profitable than seamless pipe; however, while some types of OCTG are

very profitable,8

 U.S. Steel reported that ***,9 and that it currently has unused capacity that could be used

to produce both these products. As noted at the hearing, U.S. producers try to balance their production of

these products.10 

Supply of Subject Imports to the U.S. Market

Argentina

Data on the industry in Argentina were available from one producer, Siderca, which reported that

it accounted for all Argentine production. Siderca’s capacity fell from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short

tons in 2005. Its capacity utilization rate ranged from a low of *** percent in 2002 to a high of ***

percent in 2004, and increased from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2005. 

Inventories ranged from *** percent of shipments in 2004 to *** percent in 2002. Siderca

reported that it produces seamless SLP pipe for exports based on purchase orders, while for the home

market it either produces to order or for its regional customer service centers. This inventory, Siderca

contends, is not available, as it is for a specific use for a specific customer to be supplied to the customer
 11 Hearing transcript, pp. 182-183 (Balkenende).

 12 Siderca’ posthearing brief, exhibit 5, pp. 1-2.

 13 Capacity levels reportedly fluctuated because of changes in product mix. See Part IV. Siderca also reported it

had made and was making ***. Siderca’s prehearing brief, p. 8.

 14 Hearing transcript, p. 180 (Balkenende).

 15 But see the U.S. producers’ posthearing brief, Exhibit 8.

 16 Hearing transcript, p. 184 (Balkenende).

 17 ***. Siderca’s posthearing brief Appendix 1, question 2, pp. 3-5.

 18 Over *** percent, and in most years *** percent, of Brazil’s exports were to “other markets” which V&M

reported to be “Latin American Countries.”

 19 The German producers report that they have full order books, and that Benteler is allocating its SLP and other

seamless pipe to its regular customers. German prehearing brief, pp. 4-5.

II-4

on a just in time basis.11 Siderca characterized its inventories of subject product as material stored in the

finished good yards for shipment to a customer because Siderca is ***.12 

Siderca reported *** exports to the United States in any of the years of the period of review. 

Export shares decreased from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2005. Exports to Asian countries

other than China grew between 2001 and 2005 while shipments to all other major regions declined.

High capacity utilization, falling capacity,13 and low inventories reduce the ability of Siderca to

increase shipments to the United States, while relatively high (though falling in 2005) exports to other

countries may indicate a greater ability to shift sales to the U.S. market.

Siderca reported that it directs its sales of seamless SLP pipe to supply petrochemical, gasprocessing, and refinery construction projects, rather than to other uses.14 15 Siderca reports that most

seamless SLP pipe sold in the United States is for maintenance or upgrading existing plants which is not

its typical market.16 Siderca reported that ***.17

Brazil

Data on the Brazilian industry were available from one producer, V&M Brazil, which accounted

for all Brazilian production. V&M Brazil’s capacity decreased from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short

tons in 2005. Its capacity utilization rates were *** percent in 2001, reached their highest level in 2004

(*** percent) and then fell to the lowest levels (*** percent) in 2005. Reported inventories ranged from

*** to *** percent of shipments and the reported share of its shipments exported to the United States

ranged between *** percent and *** percent during 2001-05. Export shares increased erratically from

*** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2004, but then fell to *** percent in 2005. V&M Brazil reported

that most exports were to markets in Latin American countries.18

The high share of sales to the home market, low inventories, and declining capacity reduce the

ability of Brazilian producers to increase shipments to the United States, while some available capacity

may indicate some ability to shift sales to the U.S. market.

Germany

Data on the German industry were available from all three known German producers. Reported

German capacity was *** short tons throughout 2001-05, but increased from *** short tons in interim

2005 to *** short tons in interim 2006. German capacity utilization rates ranged from a high of ***

percent in 2001 to a low of *** percent in 2005.19 Throughout the period for which data were collected,

German producers reported *** inventories. Exports to United States ranged from *** percent to ***
 20 Hearing transcript, pp. 191 and 193 (Herminghaus).

 21 Hearing transcript, p. 194 (Herminghaus); Vallourec press release, “Salzgitter AG and Vallourec reach a

preliminary agreement regarding the possible acquisition of Vallourec’s precision tubes activities,” December 13,

2006.

 22 Vallourec press release, “Salzgitter AG and Vallourec reach a preliminary agreement regarding the possible

acquisition of Vallourec’s precision tubes activities,” December 13, 2006.

 23 ***. 

II-5

percent between 2001 and 2005. Export shares declined from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2005,

with the largest share of the exports shipped within the European Union.

Stable capacity and low inventories reduce the ability of German producers to increase shipments

to the United States, while relatively high exports and moderate capacity utilization rates may indicate a

greater ability to increase sales to the U.S. market.

Benteler reported that it anticipated selling niche products not produced in the United States and

that it has placed customers on allocation.20 In addition, Benteler reported that Vallourec has tentatively

agreed to sell VMD’s Zeithain Works seamless pipe and tube mill to Salzgitter in connection with

Salzgitter’s acquisition of Vallourec Precision Etirage (VPE), France, a manufacturer of nonsubject colddrawn precision tubes and wholly owned subsidiary of Vallourec, resulting in a net reduction of 200,000

tons in potential Germany capacity to produce and export seamless SLP pipe.21 Salzgitter would acquire

the Zeithain Works facility, which would supply VPE exclusively with seamless tube hollows as

feedstock for the manufacture of cold-drawn precision tubes.22 However, ***.23

U.S. Demand

U.S. demand for seamless SLP pipe depends on its end-use markets. Seamless SLP pipe is used

in oil and gas transmission, in construction and repair of refining facilities, the chemical industry, in

power generation, and in mechanical applications for general construction. Because seamless SLP pipe is

used extensively in the transmission and refining of gas and oil, demand is influenced by the price of gas

and oil. While declining in recent months, still-high current gas and oil prices and oil future prices (figure

II-1) and the relatively high rig count (figure II-2) are reflected in relatively high current demand for

seamless SLP pipe. For seamless SLP pipe, construction also plays an important role in demand. GDP

levels (figure II-3) reflect both construction and underlying demand for energy. 
II-6

Figure II-1

Oil and gas: Monthly crude oil prices and future crude oil prices for WTI Cushing, OK crude, and

future prices of natural gas,1

 January 2001 to February 2007

 1 Gas future prices are the price for the first reported day of the month.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov., retrieved on February 23, 2007 and March

8 2007. 
II-7

Figure II-2

Baker-Hughes U.S. rig count, of number of drilling rigs actively exploring for or developing oil or

natural gas in the United States, monthly averages, January 2000 to December 2006

Source: Baker-Hughes Rig Count.

Figure II-3

Gross domestic product: Quarterly GDP, first quarter 2001-third quarter 2006

Source: International Financial Statistics, http://ifs.apdi.net/imf/logon.aspx., retrieved on February 26, 2007. 

At the hearing a witness for purchaser Dixie Pipe reported that the NYMEX futures prices for gas

and crude oil could be used as projections of future oil prices. “You can look at the NYMEX natural gas

and crude oil futures, which is not just a government body making projections. These are people in the

market that are contracting for future delivery, where a lot of money is to be made or lost based on the
 24 Hearing transcript, pp. 112-113 (Durham).

 25 Hearing transcript, pp. 112-113 (Durham).

 26 Wall Street Journal, March 8, 2007, p. C8. Two days earlier, on March 6, 2007, the futures prices were $64.93

for December 2007, $66.19 for December 2008, and $66.16 for December 2009 while the natural gas futures prices

were $7.254 for April 2007, $8.985 for December 2007, and $9.045 for March 2008. Wall Street Journal, March 6,

2007, p. C8.

 27 Hearing transcript, pp. 196 and 198 (Herminghaus).

 28 Preston Pipe and Tube Report, United States and Canada, Vol. 24, No. 6, June 2006, p. 1. and Vol. 24, No. 8,

August 2006, p. 1.

 29 Preston Pipe and Tube Report, United States and Canada, Vol. 22, No. 1, January 2007, p. 1.

 30 Preston Pipe and Tube Report, United States and Canada, Vol. 24, No. 7, July 2006, p. 1.

II-8

projection being a good one.”24 He reported that NYMEX futures prices indicate that the market expects

energy price to “stabilize, if not decrease.”25 It is, however, difficult to interpret NYMEX prices as these

prices vary from day to day. In addition, the NYMEX does not take into account certain market

situations or unanticipated changes in supply, as does the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information

Administration (EIA) forecast which produces different scenarios with some covering price shocks. As

of March 8, 2007, the NYMEX settle price for “light sweet crude oil” was $66.79 per barrel for

December 2007, $67.94 for December 2008, and $67.84 for December 2009 while natural gas prices were

$7.366 per MMBtu for April 2007, 9.159 for December 2007, and $9.214 for March 2008.26 

Price changes for seamless SLP pipe will likely usually have only a small effect on consumption. 

The substitutes for seamless SLP pipe are limited to a few applications and those in which the substitutes

are specially engineered for these uses. However, seamless pipe can easily be substituted for welded pipe

in most applications if there are problems with availability of welded pipe or if the price of seamless is

low enough.27 In addition, although the cost share of seamless SLP pipe tends to be high in most

intermediate products such as welded fittings, the cost share of seamless SLP pipe in oil or gas refining is

small. It is unlikely that there are many viable substitutes for the end products that use seamless SLP

pipe.

Demand Characteristics

Available data indicate that apparent U.S. consumption of seamless SLP pipe declined from ***

short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2002 and then increased to *** short tons in 2004 before declining

to *** short tons in 2005. Apparent U.S. consumption was substantially higher in January-September

2006 (*** short tons) than in January-September 2005 (*** short tons). Overall, apparent U.S.

consumption in 2005 was *** percent higher than in 2001.

Overall demand for pipe and tube is reported in Preston Pipe and Tube Report, United States and

Canada, published by Preston Publishing. This publication reported that for the steel pipe and tube

market “all world markets are doing well,” which is unusual as typically “one or another global market is

not doing well while others thrive.” In addition, it reported that “all segments are doing well both in

welded and in seamless products.”28 Preston reported that 2006 was the strongest year for every category

of pipe and tube since 1981, and it expects that 2007 “will probably be on par” with 2006. “Seamless

product will have some more pricing power with increases expected in the second and third quarters.”29

According to Preston, seamless pipe production has been somewhat constrained recently by the high

demand for high-margin OCTG, which some producers can produce on the same lines as seamless pipe.30

Preston, however, predicted a small reduction in demand for OCTG. Reduction in demand for OCTG

may allow U.S. producers to increase production of seamless SLP pipe. In addition, Preston reported that

the demand fundamentals for pressure tube were strong, although this includes many products that are not
 31 Preston Pipe and Tube Report, United States and Canada, Vol. 24, No. 11, November 2006, p. 38.

 32 Metal Bulletin Research Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 17, February 2007, p. 2. 

 33 One of the foreign producers reported that though demand was unchanged it had shifted production away from

seamless SLP pipe to higher value-added products.

II-9

subject to these reviews.31 On the other hand Metal Bulletin reports that the U.S. market for line pipe is

“said to be lackluster with supply moderately outstripping demand.”32

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to discuss trends in demand in the United States

since 2001. One of the three responding U.S. producers, four of the 10 responding importers, and four of

the 16 responding purchasers reported that demand within the United States had not changed. One

producer reported that demand had fluctuated with demand for oil and gas uses and for construction, and

one purchaser reported that demand had first fallen and then risen because of demand in the energy

industries. One importer reported that demand for its product had increased but they did not know about

overall demand. One producer, five importers, and 11 purchasers reported demand had increased,

reflecting increased demand in the oil, gas, energy, and petrochemical sectors.

Purchasers that were end users of seamless SLP pipe were asked if demand for their final

products had changed since 2001. Three firms responded; one, ***, reported that demand had increased

and two reported that demand had decreased. These firms reported that their demand for seamless SLP

pipe had increased or decreased correspondingly, with one of these reporting that they were using more

electric resistance welded (ERW) pipe in the place of seamless SLP pipe.

Firms were also asked about changes in demand outside of the United States. Two producers

responded; one reported demand had increased with strong world demand for energy and one reported

that demand had fluctuated with demand in the oil and gas industries. Three of five responding importers

reported that demand had increased as a result of demand in the gas, oil, and energy sectors while two

importers reported that demand was unchanged. Thirteen of 14 responding purchasers reported demand

had increased outside the United States, noting that this growth was due to energy demand and economic

growth. One purchaser reported that demand was unchanged.

Foreign producers were asked how demand had changed in their home markets, in the U.S.

market, and in other markets. Three of the five responding foreign producers reported that demand in

their home market was unchanged.33 One foreign producer, ***, reported that demand had increased (due

to increased demand in the oil and gas sectors) as well as economic growth ***, and the other foreign

producer reported that demand changed every year. Two of three responding foreign producers reported

that U.S. demand had increased and one reported that U.S. demand was unchanged. The firms reporting

increased demand cited the increased demand for oil and gas, effects of the hurricanes, an aging pipe

network needing replacement, and additional industrial demand. Four of five responding foreign

producers reported that demand outside of the United States had increased and the other foreign producer

reported that demand changed from year to year. Those firms indicating increased world demand noted

the higher price of oil and gas and the resulting increase in investment in pipelines and refineries,

increased construction in power generation, Canadian investment in oil sands, and Asian activity in

shipbuilding and petrochemicals.

Predictions of Future Demand

U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers were also asked if they anticipated

future changes in demand in the U.S. market or in other markets. Their explanations of why changes

were anticipated (or why no change was anticipated for those firms providing explanations) are presented

in tables II-1 and II-2. One of three responding U.S. producers, six of nine responding importers, and 14

of 18 responding purchasers reportedly anticipated no changes in U.S. demand. Two of three responding 
II-10

Table II-1

Seamless SLP pipe: Anticipated changes in demand reported by producers, importers, and

purchasers 

Do you anticipate any future changes in seamless SLP pipe demand in the United States?

Producers

***

***

Importers

***: “The Preston Pipe and Tube Report is forecasting an increase in demand of seamless line pipe of

148,000 tons or 32% for 2007. With U.S. producers running at full capacities, we anticipate shortages in

supply.”

***: “Slower, but steady growth providing oil and gas markets remain buoyant.”

***: “Unfortunately, compared to the rest of the world, there is very little new investment in refineries,

petrochemical and chemical plants.”

***: “While we have not been actively involved in the SLP U.S. market, *** is aware that demand has

increased in the last several years in the U.S. market. The U.S. refinery capacity is very tight and

investment to expand this capacity (as well as rebuild in the United States after last year’s hurricanes)

are going to continue to drive up the demand for SLP in the United States.”

***: “We don’t expect significant changes in demand of the subject pipe as long as the crude oil prices

linger between $50 and $65 per barrel.”

***: (Anticipate no change.) “Demand is cyclical and will continue to be so.”

Purchasers

***: “More demand for oil and natural gas in the world and the United States. Revamping refineries.”

***: “With the sudden increase of imports from (the third world) and China has already begun to affect

the domestic supply requirements.”

***: “Within the next few years energy demand and needs will continue to grow.”

***: “Demand for pipe will follow energy demand up and down.”

***: “As the need for energy increases, more product consumption.”

Do you anticipate any future changes in seamless SLP pipe demand in the rest of the world,

other than the United States?

Producers

***

Importers

***: “*** is aware that demand has increased in last several years worldwide. The global refinery

capacity is tight and investments to expand this capacity are going to continue to drive up the demand

for SLP worldwide.”

Purchasers

***: “Demand for oil and natural gas is on the increase world wide and it takes pipe to move product

within all the countries.”

***: “Need for energy, oil and gas and power plants - China and India.”

***: “As the need for energy increases, more product consumption.”

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 34 ***.

 35 Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, March 6, 2007, p. 1.

 36 Hearing transcript, pp. 254-255 (Balkenende and Spak).

 37 Siderca’s posthearing brief, Question 2 p. 2.

 38 Siderca’s posthearing brief, Exhibit 4 p. 1.

 39 Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, February 2007, table 4.

II-11

Table II-2

Seamless SLP pipe: Anticipated changes in demand reported by foreign producers

Do you anticipate any future changes in SCASLP pipe demand in your home market and the

United States and, if known, the rest of the world?

***: “The Preston Pipe and Tube Report is forecasting an increase in demand of seamless line pipe of

148,000 tons or 32 % for 2007. With U.S. producers running at full capacity, we anticipate shortages in

supply.”

***: “No.”

***: “*** expects strong demand for its seamless pipe products from the energy sector, particularly for

the high-end pipes ***. We expect market conditions, particularly demand for our products *** from oil

and gas customers, to remain favorable in the near future, and that any further cost increase will be

offset by higher selling prices. ...

Global demand for seamless pipes remains strong led by higher drilling activity in the oil and gas

industry. The constant search for new oil and gas reserves has led to an increasing use of flowline

pipes. In coming years, we can expect more activity with the participation of independent operators.”

***: “*** expects an increase in demand ***, due to higher activity in the energy fields, where seamless

steel SLP pipes are used in the construction of refineries and power generation stations.”

***: “The fastest growing market is - according to our knowledge - China, where the supply is growing

even quicker. That Chinese surplus should contribute to a surplus of SLP pipe ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. producers, five of six responding importers, and nine of 1234 responding purchasers reported that

they did not expect changes in demand outside the United States. However, four of five responding

foreign producers reportedly expected demand in the United States and the rest of the world to change

while one firm expected no change.

Future demand in large part depends on the future price of oil and gas predicted by end users. 

Prices of oil and gas have fallen from their recent highs, although futures prices remain at historically

high levels. OPEC cut oil production in November, and, as a result, the price of West Texas Intermediate

crude oil is projected to average $62.23 per barrel in 2007, down only slightly from $66 per barrel in

2006.35 The Energy Information Agency short run and long run average price predictions for petroleum

and natural gas are presented in figures II-4 and II-5.

Siderca reported that it expected future prices of oil and natural gas to remain high. Siderca

believes that the current high price of oil is not because of a temporary imbalance in the market such as

had occurred in 1995 and 2001, but reflected the greater demand for oil that is the result of economic

growth in India and China.36 Siderca projected demand for subject product for July-June business years

2006-07 would be *** short tons, falling to *** short tons in 2007-08, then rising to *** short tons in

2008-09 and *** short tons in 2009-10.37 Siderca provided a 2006 *** report that predicted that U.S.

drilling would increase in the second half of 2007. In the United States, it reported, new wells were

profitable at gas prices above $***,38 a level exceeded by current prices and predicted prices through

2008.39 
II-12

Figure II-4

Oil and gas: Short term actual and predicted quarterly West Texas crude oil prices and Henry Hub

spot prices of natural gas, first quarter 2006 to fourth quarter 2008 base case and 95 percent

confidence interval

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov., retrieved on March 8, 2007. 
II-13

Figure II-5

Oil and gas: Long term actual and predicted quarterly West Texas crude oil prices and wellhead

prices of natural gas, 2006 to 2020

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov., retrieved on March 5, 2007. 

Substitute Products

The questionnaire asked for substitutes for carbon steel SLP pipe and alloy steel SLP pipe

separately. Substitutes for seamless carbon steel SLP pipe are limited. Three of four responding

producers, five of seven responding importers, and two of five responding foreign producers reported

substitutes including welded pipe and nonmetal pipes. Seven of 15 responding purchasers reported
 40 One purchaser reported both ERW pipe and full body normalized ERW pipe were substitutes for seamless

carbon SLP pipe.

 41 Hearing transcript, pp. 135 and 196 (Durham, Balkenende).

 42 Hearing transcript, pp. 133 and 197 (Durham, Spak).

 43 Hearing transcript, pp. 135 and 217-218 (Durham).

 44 Hearing transcript, p. 198 (Herminghaus).

 45 This steel producer used subject product in maintenance and repair.

II-14

substitutes for seamless carbon SLP pipe, such as ERW pipe or double sub-merged arc welded pipe.40

Fewer firms reported substitutes for seamless alloy steel SLP pipe. One of four responding producers,

three of six responding importers, and one of four responding foreign producers reported substitutes

including welded, plastic, and seamless stainless steel pipe. None of the purchasers reported that there

were any substitutes for seamless alloy SLP pipe.

Firms were asked for the applications in which substitutes could be used; substitution was

frequently reported to be possible in limited applications either where less strength was needed or when

the substitute product had been engineered to a particularly high strength. In addition, some firms

reported that substitutes were viable in standard and line pipe applications; in the transmission of oil, gas

and water; in production of pipe nipples; in structural and engineering uses; and petrochemical

applications (stainless steel pipe). One purchaser, however reported that substitutes were possible in

“every use because lower prices and better/improved quality.”

None of the U.S. or foreign producers reported that changes in relative prices of substitutes have

affected the price of seamless SLP pipe. Four of six responding importers and seven of the eight

responding purchasers agreed that substitutes have not affected the price of seamless SLP pipe. Two

importers and one purchaser, however, reported that the price of substitutes had affected the price of

seamless SLP pipe. One importer reported that the price of substitutes put downward pressure on the

price of seamless SLP pipe.

The domestic interested parties and respondent interested parties agreed there is some substitution

between 4 inch full-bodied normalized welded and seamless SLP pipe.41 However, the price of welded

pipe was related to the price of flat products rather than the price of seamless pipe.42 In addition, both

reported that recently low-priced Chinese seamless pipe has been used in applications in which welded

pipe was traditionally used, with respondent interested parties reporting this was occurring for substantial

tonnage.43 The respondent interested parties also report that the price gap between seamless pipe and

welded pipe is normally about 15 percent. If the price of seamless pipe rises very much above this some

purchasers will see “whether they could use the welded,” while if the prices of welded and seamless

became the same, “a lot of people would probably use more seamless (rather) than welded.”44

Cost Share

Seamless SLP pipe’s share of the total costs of intermediate products tends to vary noticeably 

between end uses. Purchasers were asked for the cost share of seamless SLP pipe in the products they

produced. Three of four end user purchasers responded. One reported that the cost share of seamless

pipe was 10 to 30 percent of the cost of ***, one reported that the cost share ranged from 45 to 66 percent

of the cost of ***, and one reported that the cost share in *** was less than 0.1 percent.45
 46 Channels of distribution for subject product were not discussed in the first reviews because there was little

importation of this product.

 47 Hearing transcript, p. 70 (Hecht).

 48 Hearing transcript, pp. 46, 54, and 62 (Verellen, Leland, and Stoner).

 49 Hearing transcript, pp. 221-222 (Balkenende).

 50 Hearing transcript, pp. 247 and 257 (Herminghaus). ***.

 51 Hearing transcript, p. 251 (Herminghaus).

 52 AMLs are discussed as a discrete factor affecting purchasing decisions in the next section of this report.

II-15

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported seamless SLP pipe depends on factors

such as specifications of the product that is produced in each country, product quality, consistency,

relative price, and on conditions of sale such as reliability of supply, reliability of delivery, payment

terms, and delivery/lead time. In the original investigations, staff reported that there was believed to be a

moderate degree of substitution between domestic seamless SLP pipe and that imported from Argentina,

Brazil, and Germany. In the first reviews, however staff reported it believed that U.S. and subject

seamless SLP pipe were highly substitutable, with only longer lead times for subject product hindering

substitutability.

In the original investigations, petitioners and respondents generally agreed that imported seamless

SLP pipe competed directly with the U.S.-produced product and that both were sold through similar

channels of distribution to similar markets. According to the staff report in the original investigations,

sales representatives typically carried a range of seamless SLP pipe.46 As noted in the original staff

report, seamless SLP pipe could be substituted among producers with a fair amount of ease, since for

most end users it is essential that it meet industry set standards. 

In the current reviews, domestic interested parties report that subject seamless SLP pipe is a much

better substitute for U.S.-produced product than is nonsubject, particularly Chinese, product.47 They

reported that this in large part was because Chinese producers are not yet on the major “approved

manufacturers lists” (AMLs), while subject producers are typically on the AMLs.48 On the other hand,

the Argentine producer Siderca asserted that it is now attempting to serve the market for new plants, while

the U.S. market is mainly a market for repairs and plant expansions.49 Benteler Steel reported that it was

not on most major AMLs because AMLs are primarily for maintenance and repair projects for refineries

and petrochemical plants, which is an area which it is not very active.50 Benteler also reported that it

intends to sell in the United States “products that are either not manufactured here or manufactured very

infrequently.”51 52

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Major Factors in Purchasing

Purchasers were asked to identify the three major factors considered by their firm in deciding

from whom to purchase seamless SLP pipe (table II-3). Quality (seven firms) and price (six firms) were

reported as the most important factors by the largest number of purchasers; and quality (four firms) and

availability (five firms) were most frequently reported as the second most important factor. Price was

reported most frequently as the third most important factor (6 firms). Other factors listed among the top

three factors by more than one purchaser were traditional supplier, AML listed/traditional supplier,

acceptability, and delivery/reliability of delivery.
 53 One firm reported that it did not make the initial certification, as that was done by major energy companies.

II-16

Table II-3

Seamless SLP pipe: Most important factors in selecting a supplier, as reported by purchasers

Factor First1 Second Third2

Quality 7 4 3

Price 6 3 6

Availability 2 5 2

AML listed/ prearranged contract 2 0 0

Acceptability 2 0 1

Delivery/reliability of delivery 0 2 3

Other3 0 21

 1 One purchaser reported both quality and price as the most important factor and one reported both quality and

acceptability as the most important factor. One firm reported only the most important factor.

 2

 One purchaser reported both acceptability and price as the third most important factor.

 3

 “Other” includes meeting specifications and product consistency as the second most important factors, and

range of product line as the third most important factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Factors Determining Quality

Purchasers were asked to identify the factors that determine the quality of seamless SLP pipe. 

Eight of 18 responding purchasers reported that meeting specifications including API, ASTM, ASME,

NACE, and ISO certification was important in determining quality. Other factors reported included lab

tests; shape such as consistent wall thickness, straightness, roundness, appearance, and surface condition;

physical characteristics such as mechanical properties, hardness, and chemistry; characteristics of the

producer, such as universal acceptance of producer’s product, being on AMLs, and the history of the

manufacturer; other consistency factors such as variation in length, consistency, and tolerances; product

liability insurance; and experience with the producer.

Certification/Qualification Issues

Purchasers were asked if they require prequalification of their suppliers. Fifteen of the 18

responding purchasers reported that they required prequalification for all of their purchases. The other

three purchasers reported that they did not require prequalification, although one of these reported that it 

did tour suppliers’ facilities. Purchasers were also asked if, since 2001, any domestic or foreign producer

failed in its attempts to certify or qualify its seamless SLP pipe with their firm or if any producer lost its

approved status. None of the 14 responding purchasers reported that any producer had been disqualified.

Purchasers were also asked what factors they consider in qualifying a supplier. Factors

purchasers considered included: product characteristics quality and results of chemical and physical tests;

and meeting API, ASME, and ASTM specifications; characteristics of the producers, financial strength,

insurance, and reputation/customer acceptance; trial runs of the material; and price.53 Eight purchasers

reported the time that it took to qualify product or supplier. Responses ranged from one day to one year,

with four of these firms reporting one day to one month.
 54 Two purchasers provided AMLs for seamless SLP pipe. *** reported approved manufacturers for seamless

SLP pipe included ***. *** reported approved manufacturers for seamless SLP pipe included ***. In addition, ***

listed *** approved manufacturers for carbon steel pipe, some of which produce subject seamless SLP pipe, and ***. 

 55 The other firm reported purchases from Austria, France, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, United States, and Japan,

because these countries are on most AMLs.

II-17

AMLs

Eleven of the 16 responding purchasers reported that either they or their customers used AMLs

when considering the source of supply. Purchasers were asked what share of their purchase were made

based on AMLs. Five responded as presented below. 

C one reported that it purchased product off its AML lists only by special management approval;

C one, ***, purchased off its AML only as a trial purchase for new suppliers;

C one reported 90 percent of its purchases were based on AMLs;

C one reported half its purchases were based on AML; and

C one purchased less than half using AMLs, also reporting that AMLs are increasingly less relevant.

In addition, one firm reported that it only purchased domestic seamless SLP pipe and it believed these

producers were on all AMLs.54 

Some of the major AMLs and a few minor ones are reported in table II-4. Most of the AMLs

below include the Brazilian producer, the Argentina producer, and one of the German producers, V&MD. 

Only one of these AMLs, that for ***, includes a German producer other than V&MD; it includes

Benteler. Three oil producers’ AMLs each include one Chinese producer. ***

Table II-4

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. and subject producers included on AMLs of end users

* * * * * * *

Specific Sources

Purchasers were also asked whether they or their customers specifically ordered seamless SLP

pipe from one country in particular over other sources of supply. Eight of 17 responding purchasers

reported ordering by country. Of the six firms that reported the countries from which they ordered, five 

reported ordering specifically U.S. product or product produced by ***.55 Reasons for preference of U.S.

material included the preference of customers, quality, and speed of delivery.

Purchasers were asked if certain grades of seamless SLP pipe were available from only a single

source. Fourteen of the 16 responding purchasers reported that no product was available only from a

single source. One purchaser reported that chrome-moly alloy pipe A335/SA335 was available from

foreign sources, but not U.S. producers, and the other purchaser did not report what products were

available only from a single source.

Purchases of the Lowest-Priced Product

Purchasers were asked if they always, usually, sometimes, or never purchase the lowest-priced

product when buying seamless SLP pipe. One firm always purchased the lowest-priced product, nine

usually purchased the lowest-priced product, (one reported both usually or sometimes), five sometimes

purchased the lowest-priced product, and one never purchased the lowest-priced product.
II-18

Purchases from Higher-Priced Sources

Purchasers were also asked if they purchased seamless SLP pipe from one source although a

comparable product was available at a lower price from another source. Fourteen purchasers responded,

with four of these reporting that they did not purchase from one source if a less expensive source was

available. Two firms reported a preference for U.S. product. Other reasons reported by purchasers

included: delivery/ logistics, reliability of delivery, customer acceptance of the manufacturer, quality,

minimum order size, quantity allocations, and availability. One purchaser reported that over 50 percent

of its customers bought on price, but did not report factors that would cause them to purchase other than

price.

Importance of Specified Purchase Factors

Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 15 factors in their purchasing decisions (table II5). The factors most often rated as very important were quality meets industry standards (18 firms);

product consistency (17 firms); availability (16 firms); and price, reliability of supply, and delivery time

(15 firms each). No other factor was rated as very important by half or more of the responding

purchasers.

Table II-5

Seamless SLP pipe: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by purchasers

Factor

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Number of firms responding

Availability 16 2 0

Delivery terms 7 11 0

Delivery time 15 3 0

Discounts offered 3 11 4

Extension of credit 6 8 4

Price 15 3 0

Minimum quantity requirement 4 10 4

Packaging 2 10 6

Product consistency 17 1 0

Quality meets industry standards 18 0 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 5 10 3

Product range 6 9 3

Reliability of supply 15 3 0

Technical support/service 7 8 3

U.S. transportation costs 6 9 3

Note:--Not all firms responded for all questions.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchases from Specific Producers and Countries

Purchasers were asked how frequently they and their customers purchased seamless SLP pipe

from specific producers and from specific countries. The following tabulation summarizes the responses.
 56 One purchaser reported that carbon product was always interchangeable for every country pair, but that alloy

pipe is not produced in the United States.

 57 Japan reportedly produces specialty products that are not produced by other countries.

II-19

Purchaser/customer decision Always Usually Sometimes Never

Purchaser makes decision based on producer 7 3 5 2

Purchaser’s customer makes decision based on producer 0 7 5 2

Purchaser makes decision based on country 2 3 4 7

Purchaser’s customer makes decision based on country 0 3 7 3

Seven of 17 responding purchasers reported that they always make purchasing decisions based on

the producer of the seamless SLP pipe, but seven of the 16 responding purchasers never make purchase

decisions based on the country of origin. Their customers are less likely to make decisions based on the

producer or the country of origin, although seven of the 14 responding purchasers reported that the

producer was usually important for their customers and for 10 of the 13 the country of origin was at least

sometimes important for their customers. Of those purchasers that reported that they always make

decisions based on the manufacturer, reasons cited included quality of product, ability to meet

specifications, approved manufacturers, mill warranties, price, and ability to provide MTRs (Mill

Traceability Report or Materials Test Report). 

Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports

Interchangeability

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to report how frequently seamless SLP pipe

from different countries was interchangeable (table II-6). Two U.S. producers reported that the domestic

product and product imported from subject and nonsubject countries were always interchangeable while

one reported that U.S. product and imported product were sometimes interchangeable. Eight importers

responded regarding the interchangeability between U.S. product and subject product and between subject

product from the various countries. For both Brazil and Argentina, three reported they were always

interchangeable, four reported they were frequently interchangeable, and one reported that they were

sometimes interchangeable. For Germany, three reported they were always interchangeable, three

reported they were frequently interchangeable, and two reported they were sometimes interchangeable. 

Purchasers' responses varied, but most reported that U.S. and subject imports were always

interchangeable. Comparing U.S. or subject product with nonsubject product purchasers, the most

common response was “always,” but a number of firms also reported “frequently” or “sometimes.”

Reasons for Non-Interchangeability

Firms were asked to explain why products from country pairs were not interchangeable. Three

purchasers and four importers responded. One purchaser reported that interchangeability depends on

whether manufacturers were on AMLs, one reported country of origin was not as important as other

factors, and one reported that if mills meet specifications then their product was interchangeable.56

Differences reported by importers included AMLs/mill qualifications, application-specific considerations,

market standards could limit interchangeability, and Japanese product must be used in some deep water

applications.57
 58 Two importers gave more than one response when they compared product from either the United States or

subject countries to those of other countries reflecting differences between various nonsubject countries. 

 59 For these pairs, two firms each reported there were “sometimes” and “never” differences other than price.

II-20

Table II-6

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. firms’ perceived degree of interchangeability of products produced in the

United States, subject, and nonsubject countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers2 U.S. purchasers3

AFSNAFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. Argentina 201034107300

U.S. vs. Brazil 2 0 1 0 3 4 1 0 7 3 0 0

U.S. vs. Germany 2 0 1 0 3 3 2 0 11 2 0 0

Argentina vs. Brazil 200043106100

Argentina vs. Germany 200033106100

Brazil vs. Germany 2 0 0 0 3 3 1 0 6 1 0 0

U.S. vs. nonsubject 201024418330

Argentina vs. nonsubject 200024304120

Brazil vs. nonsubject 200024304120

Germany vs. nonsubject 200024305220

 1

 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if seamless SLP pipe produced in the United States and in

other countries is used interchangeably.

 2

 Some importers gave more than one response when comparing U.S. and subject product with nonsubject

product, with responses based on country of origin. 

 3

 One purchaser gave two response when comparing U.S. with nonsubject product, with responses based on

country of origin.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Importance of Differences Other Than Price

Producers and importers were asked to assess how often differences other than price between

product from country pairs were a significant factor in sales of seamless SLP pipe (table II-7). Eight

importers58 and three U.S. producers answered this question. None of the producers reported that there

were ever differences other than price for any of the country pairs. In contrast, most of the importers

reported that there was at least sometimes differences other than price for all country pairs except for

Argentina and Germany and Brazil and Germany.59 Firms were asked to report any differences other than

price; four importers responded. These firms reported that differences other than price included customer

perception that the foreign product is inferior; U.S. product usually has more availability than imports,

though this has changed as the demand increases; production delays; unreliable deliveries; limited

production range of imported product relative to domestic; limited technical support; Japanese product

differs from both U.S. and subject product because Japanese product must be used in some deep 
 60 There are more responses than the number of purchasers that made comparisons with product from nonsubject

countries because some of the purchasers compared U.S. product with product from a number of nonsubject

countries; each of these comparisons was counted if responses differed between different nonsubject countries,

otherwise the response is included only once.

II-21

Table II-7

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. firms’ perceived significance of differences other than price between

U.S.-produced and imported product1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers2

A F S N A FS N

U.S. vs. Argentina 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 2

U.S. vs. Brazil 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 2

U.S. vs. Germany 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 2

Argentina vs. Brazil 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 2

Argentina vs. Germany 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2

Brazil vs. Germany 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2

U.S. vs. nonsubject 0 0 0 3 1 2 5 3

Argentina vs. nonsubject 0 0 0 2 1 1 3 2

Brazil vs. nonsubject 0 0 0 2 1 1 3 2

Germany vs. nonsubject 0 0 0 2 1 1 3 1

 1 Producers and importers were asked if differences other than price between seamless SLP pipe produced in

the United States and in other countries were a significant factor in their sales of the products.

 2

 Some importers gave more than one response when comparing U.S. and subject product with nonsubject

product, with responses based on country of origin. 

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

water applications; the significance of differences will depend on the requirements of the application; and

differences in quality of products and services among the seamless producers.

Comparisons of Country Sources

Purchasers were also asked to compare domestically produced seamless SLP pipe and seamless

SLP pipe produced in subject and nonsubject countries, for all country pairs for which they had actual

experience. Respondents were asked to rate seamless SLP pipe produced in one country as superior,

comparable, or inferior to that from another country with respect to 15 different attributes. The most

common comparison was between U.S. product and nonsubject product, with eight purchasers providing

comparisons;60 six firms compared U.S. and German product, three purchasers each compared U.S. and

Brazilian product, and U.S. and Argentine product. Comparisons between U.S.-produced seamless SLP

pipe and that produced in subject and nonsubject countries are reported in table II-8, and country

comparisons for which more than one purchaser responded are discussed below.
II-22

Table II-8

Seamless SLP pipe: Comparisons of U.S. product and subject imported product with subject

and nonsubject product, as reported by purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs 

Argentina

U.S. vs 

Brazil

U.S. vs 

Germany

Argentina

vs Brazil

Argentina

vs

Germany

Brazil vs

Germany

SC I SC I SC I SC I SC I SC I

Availability 201201402010010010

Delivery terms 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Delivery time 2 0 1 2 0 1 5 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Discounts offered 120120150010010010

Extension of credit 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Minimum quantity

requirements 030030141010010010

Packaging 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Price1 012012123010010010

Product consistency 030030150010010010

Product range 120120231010010010

Quality meets industry

standards 030030060010010010

Quality exceeds industry

standards 030030060010010010

Reliability of supply 111111312010010010

Technical support/service 021021051010010010

U.S. transportation costs 2 1 0 2 1 0 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Table continued on the following page.
II-23

Table II-8--Continued

Seamless SLP pipe: Comparisons of U.S. product and subject imported product with subject

and nonsubject product, as reported by purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs

nonsubject2

Argentina vs

nonsubject2

Brazil vs

nonsubject2

Germany vs

nonsubject2

SC I SC I SC I SC I

Availability 930130130242

Delivery terms 4 8 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 1 7 0

Delivery time 10 2 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 2 5 1

Discounts offered 1 11 0040040080

Extension of credit 0 12 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 8 0

Minimum quantity requirements 0 11 1040040080

Packaging 0 11 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 6 1

Price1 0 2 10 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 5 3

Product consistency 381130130350

Product range 453040040071

Quality meets industry standards 1 10 1040040080

Quality exceeds industry standards 372040040251

Reliability of supply 570220220440

Technical support/service 570130130260

U.S. transportation costs 10 2 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 2 6 0

 1 A rating of superior means that the price is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported “U.S. superior,” it

meant that the price of the U.S. product was generally lower than the price of the imported product.

 2

 Some firms reported answers for multiple nonsubject countries. When these answers differed among the

different nonsubject countries, all answers have been reported. 

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed

country’s product is inferior. Not all companies gave responses for all factors. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Three purchasers compared U.S.-produced seamless SLP pipe with product from Argentina and

Brazil. They gave the same answers when comparing U.S. with Argentina as they did comparing U.S.

product with Brazilian product. The majority of these purchasers reported that product from the pairs

were comparable for most factors except availability, delivery terms, delivery time, and U.S.

transportation cost for which most firms reported that the U.S. product was superior; for price which two

of the three responding firms reported that the U.S. product was inferior; and reliability of supply for

which one firm reported “superior,” one reported “comparable,” and one reported “inferior.”

Six purchasers compared U.S. and German products. The majority of these purchasers reported

that they were comparable for most factors except availability, delivery time, and U.S. transportation

costs for which most firms reported that the U.S. product was superior. For delivery terms, price, product

range, and reliability of supply the responses were more diverse; three purchasers reported that U.S.

producers were superior in delivery terms and reliability of supply but two found U.S. suppliers inferior;

three reported U.S. and German product were comparable in product range but two reported the U.S.
 61 Eight firms compared U.S. and nonsubject product with four providing different answers for two groups of

nonsubject countries.

 62 Two firms compared Brazilian and Argentine product with product from two groups of nonsubject countries.

 63 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

II-24

product was superior; and three reported that U.S. product was inferior with regard to price while two

reported U.S. and German product were comparable.

In comparing the U.S. product and product from nonsubject countries, the majority of responses

rated the products as comparable for most factors except availability, delivery time, and U.S.

transportation costs, for which most responses rated the U.S. product as superior; price for which most

responses reported U.S. product was inferior; and for product range, four reported superior, five

comparable, and three inferior.61 There were four comparisons of nonsubject product with subject

product from Argentina and Brazil provided identical responses for the two subject countries.62 The

majority of these responses were that the products were comparable with regard to most factors except

packaging, price, and reliability of supply, for which views were mixed. There were eight comparisons of

German and nonsubject product; the majority reported that they were comparable with regard to all

factors except availability (mixed) and reliability of supply (four responses reported German product to

be superior).

Awareness of Country Sources

Purchasers were asked to identify the sources of seamless SLP pipe of which they were aware. 

Fourteen purchasers were aware of the U.S.-produced product and four reported that they were aware of

subject sources, specifically, Argentina (2 firms), Brazil (2 firms), and Germany (4 firms). Other sources

of imports reported by purchasers included Austria, Canada, China, Czech Republic, France, Italy, Japan,

Korea, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Romania, Spain, and Ukraine. Of the 11 importers providing

questionnaires, *** imported from subject countries (Brazil and Germany).

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses elasticity estimates. Parties were requested to provide comments in their

prehearing briefs. None of the parties commented on these estimates.

U.S. Supply Elasticity63

The domestic supply elasticity for seamless SLP pipe measures the sensitivity of the quantity

supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of seamless SLP pipe. The elasticity of

domestic supply depends on factors such as the level of excess capacity, the existence of inventories, and

the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced seamless SLP pipe. Analysis of these factors in the

original investigations indicated that the U.S. industry had a moderate ability to increase domestic

shipments in response to price increases. The supply elasticity is estimated to be in the range of 2 to 4. 

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for seamless SLP pipe measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity

demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of seamless SLP pipe. This sensitivity depends on the

availability and viability of substitute products as well as on the component share of seamless SLP pipe in

the production of downstream products. There are few products that can be successfully substituted for

seamless SLP pipe and although seamless pipe can be substituted for welded pipe this is unlikely to
II-25

happen at the prices currently charged by the domestic producers. Seamless SLP pipe is typically used to

extract, transport, and process petroleum products. Thus, its cost share’s significance is less than that in

many products where the product is ultimately used in a consumer product. Demand is estimated to be in

the -0.5 to -1.0 range.

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends on the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products. Product differentiation depends on factors such as the range of products

produced, quality, availability, and reliability of supply. The elasticity of substitution is estimated to be

in the range of 4 to 8.

 1

 Capacity utilization rates for Koppel and Timken were consistently *** from 2001 to 2005, while capacity

utilization rates for Sharon Tube and U.S. Steel were consistently ***. U.S. Steel stated that its production of

seamless pipes ***. U.S. Steel’s producer questionnaire response, sections II-6 and II-8.

 2

 From 2001 to 2005, U.S. Steel has operated one shift at its Lorain Number 4 mill, although this mill was

designed to operate three shifts. Operating one shift incurs substantial inefficiencies such as the need to restart

operations each morning. The furnace at Lorain Number 4 mill is heated 24 hours a day, even though production of

seamless SLP pipe occurs for only 8 hours each day. Hearing transcript, pp. 37-38 (Broglie). U.S. Steel noted that it

could increase production at its Lorain Number 4 mill without adding any employees, but there is not sufficient

demand to justify adding another shift at Lorain Number 4. Any increase in demand of seamless SLP pipe during

these second reviews was largely met by growing presence of imports from nonsubject countries. U.S. Steel and

Koppel’s posthearing brief, exh. 1, pp. 9-10.

 3

 Koppel’s reported OCTG production was *** than its production of seamless SLP pipe. Koppel reported

capacity utilization rates from *** percent to more than *** percent during 2001-05. Koppel’s reported average

production capacity is ***. Staff telephone interview with ***, December 19, 2006 and Koppel’s producer

questionnaire response, sections II-6, II-7, and II-8.

 4

 U.S. Steel ***. U.S. Steel’s producer questionnaire response, section II-8 and attachment 1. U.S. Steel further

explained that its reported total capacity and production for both subject and nonsubject products ***. In addition,

U.S. Steel’s Fairfield mill operated ***, while *** at the Number 4 mill at Lorain during the period for which data

were collected. As a result, the capacity utilization rates reported by U.S. Steel ***. Letter from ***, January 8,

2007, and hearing transcript, p. 151 (Broglie).

III-1

PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Data on U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization of seamless SLP pipe are

presented in table III-1. Reported U.S. capacity increased by *** percent from 2001 to 2005, after

recovering from a steep decline in 2003. Production decreased from 2001 to 2005, declining by ***

percent, despite an increased production level in 2004. Both production capacity and production in

January-September 2006 were higher than in January-September 2005. Annual capacity utilization rates

ranged from *** percent in 2002 to *** percent in 2001, but reached *** percent in January-December

2006.1 2

Table III-1

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2001-05, JanuarySeptember 2005, and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *

Sharon reported *** while Koppel reported ***.3 U.S. Steel reported an increase in capacity

from 2001 to 2005 of *** percent.4

 Timken reported an increase in capacity from 2001 to 2004 of ***

percent, but then ***, which reduced its capacity by *** percent in 2005 from the previous year.

The majority of U.S.-produced seamless SLP pipe under consideration in these reviews is

produced in diameters of 2 inches or larger. Only about *** of U.S. production of seamless SLP pipe is

less than 2 inches in outside diameter. While the large majority of this smaller pipe is only certified for

pressure pipe applications, the vast majority of larger pipe (and thus seamless SLP pipe in general) is

triple stenciled to meet standard, line, and pressure pipe specifications and no other specifications. Table

III-2 presents the reported specifications to which seamless SLP pipe was stenciled in sizes less than or

equal to 2" in outside diameter and in sizes greater than 2" and less than or equal to 4.5" in outside

diameter.
 5

 U.S. Steel reported producing seamless SLP pipe, OCTG, mechanical tubing, and coupling stock *** in outside

diameter. U.S. Steel’s producer’s questionnaire response, section II-5. Koppel reported producing OCTG products

of *** in outside diameter. Koppel’s producer questionnaire response, section II-5.

 6

 U.S. Steel’s producer questionnaire response, section II-7. 

 7

 Koppel’s producer questionnaire response, section II-7.

 8

 Timken’s producer questionnaire response, section II-5. Timken reported that ***. Ibid.

 9

 Sharon Tube’s producer questionnaire response, section II-5.

 10 U.S. Steel reported “***” in the seamless SLP pipe market in 2002 and 2003. U.S. Steel’s producer

questionnaire response, p. 9A, attachment 2.

III-2

Table III-2

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. producers’ production, 2005, January-September 2005, and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Changes in Existing Operations

The Commission asked domestic producers to report anticipated any changes in their operations. 

None of the responding producers anticipate changes in their existing operations relating to the

production of seamless SLP pipe in the future. 

Alternative Products

Koppel and U.S. Steel reported that they produce other products using the same manufacturing

equipment and/or production related employees employed to produce seamless SLP pipe. These products

include oil country tubular goods, mechanical tubing, coupling stock, and seamless SLP pipe greater than

4.5 inches in outside diameter.5

 U.S. Steel further stated that it can switch production to other tubular

products, depending on the ***.6

 Similarly, Koppel reported that it can switch from producing seamless

SLP pipe to other products such as OCTG, mechanical tubing, or semifinished products with ***.7

Timken also reported that it produces OCTG, mechanical tubing, and tubing for ball and roller bearings

less than 4.5 inches in outside diameter using the same manufacturing equipment and/or production

related employees employed to produce seamless SLP pipe.8

 Sharon Tube reported producing only

seamless SLP pipe less than 4.5 inches in outside diameter during the period under review.9

 Production

of OCTG products was markedly greater than production of seamless SLP pipe. Table III-3 presents data

for the U.S. industry’s overall capacity, production, and capacity utilization of its production facilities and

workers, in their entirety, capable of producing subject seamless SLP pipe and other nonsubject products

in 2005 and 2006.

Table III-3

Seamless SLP pipe and other seamless tubular products: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization,

2005, January-September 2005, and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

As shown in table III-4, the quantity of U.S. shipments of seamless SLP pipe fluctuated,10 but

decreased overall by *** percent from 2001 to 2005. However, the value of U.S. shipments rose by ***

percent during this period, and the average unit value of U.S. shipments increased by *** percent. No

U.S. producer reported internal consumption or shipments to related firms of seamless SLP pipe. One
 11 E-mail from ***, March 8, 2007.

 12 ***’s producer questionnaire, section II-10. This company does purchase ***. No other U.S. purchasers

reported purchasing *** during the period of these reviews. As discussed in part I, ***.

 13 The decline in PRWs from 2001 to 2005 largely reflects ***. ***’s producer questionnaire, section II-6, II-7,

and II-8.

III-3

U.S. producer, ***, reported export shipments and identified Canada as the only destination of its exports. 

The higher level of export shipments in January-September 2006 reflects ***.

Table III-4

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2001-05, January-September 2005, and JanuarySeptember 2006

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Data on end-of-period inventories of seamless SLP pipe for the review period are presented in

table III-5. ***. End-of-period inventories reported by U.S. Steel and Koppel consist of seamless SLP

pipe that has been ***.11

Table III-5

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2001-05, January-September 2005, and

January-September 2006

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

No U.S. producer reported direct imports or purchases of imports of the subject product as

defined by Commerce’s scope during the review period from any of the subject countries. *** reported

purchases of seamless SLP pipe from domestic producers.12

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Data provided by U.S. producers on the number of production and related workers (PRWs)

engaged in the production of seamless SLP pipe and the total hours worked by and wages paid to such

PRWs during the period for which data were collected in these reviews are presented in table III-6. From 

2001 to 2005, the number of PRWs decreased from *** to ***, or *** percent.13 Hours worked by PRWs

decreased by *** percent during this period, but hourly wages increased by *** percent. Productivity

increased by *** percent during 2001-05, offsetting the higher wage rate and resulting in unit labor costs

in 2005 that were relatively comparable to those in 2001.

Table III-6

Seamless SLP pipe: Average number of production and related workers, hours worked, wages paid to such

employees, and hourly wages, productivity, and unit labor costs, 2001-05, January-September 2005, and

January-September 2006

* * * * * * *
 14 All producers’ fiscal years end on December 31. 

 15 ***.

 16 ***.

III-4

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS OF SEAMLESS SLP PIPE

Background

Four U.S. producers of seamless SLP pipe provided financial data--Koppel, Sharon, Timken, and

U.S. Steel.14 No production of seamless SLP pipe was either internally consumed or transferred to related

companies. Responding U.S. producers are believed to account for virtually all of the domestic industry’s

net sales during the period for which data were collected.

Operations on Seamless SLP Pipe

The results of the responding U.S. producers’ seamless SLP pipe sales are presented in table III-7. 

Net sales quantity, value, and operating income all steadily declined between 2001 and 2003, before

increasing *** in 2004 and (except for sales quantity) in 2005. Net sales value as well as operating

income increased *** from 2003 to 2004 in conjunction with sales quantity for the same period, due

mainly to a substantial increase in per-short-ton selling price (from $*** to $*** per short ton). An

operating income of less than $*** in 2003 changed to an operating income of more than $*** in 2004

and per-unit profitability increased *** for the same period (from $*** to $*** per short ton). The ratio

of the domestic industry’s operating income to net sales in 2004 was *** percent, while its operating

income ratio in 2003 was less than *** percent. Per-short-ton net sales values increased in 2004 (by

$***) from 2003, while per-unit total costs (cost of goods sold (“COGS”) plus selling, general, and

administrative (“SG&A”) expenses) also increased by $***, resulting in an operating income of $*** per

short ton in 2004, a net increase of $*** per short ton compared to an operating income of $*** in 2003. 

Table III-7

Seamless SLP pipe: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2001-05, JanuarySeptember 2005, and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *

Even though net sales quantity decreased somewhat from 2004 to 2005, all levels and measures

of profitability increased substantially again (as operating income of $*** per short ton in 2004 rose to

$*** per short ton in 2005), reflecting an increase in the per-short-ton selling price of $*** for the same

period. Between 2004 and 2005, operating income from sales of seamless SLP pipe increased from $***

to $***, and the operating margin increased from *** percent to *** percent. 

The pattern of the financial results between January-September 2005 (interim 2005) and JanuarySeptember 2006 (interim 2006) reflected an increase in per-short-ton total costs that was marginally larger

than the increase in per-short-ton selling price. This resulted in *** lower per-unit profitability and lower

gross and operating margins. However, the operating income in interim 2006 ($***) was still higher than

the operating income of interim 2005 ($***), due to a higher sales quantity in interim 2006, compared to

the quantity in interim 2005.15

The results of operations by firm are presented in table III-8. U.S. producers’ financial

performance was mixed between 2001 and 2003.16 However, all producers’ profitability, i.e., operating
 17 Based on U.S. Steel’s Forms 10-K submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for 2006

(issued on February 27, 2007) and 2005 and Form 10-Q submitted to the SEC for the third quarter and the first nine

months of 2006 ended September 30, 2006, U.S. Steel has three reportable segments: Flat-rolled Products (Flatrolled), U.S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products (Tubular). Based on U.S. Steel’s Historical Segment

Financial and Operational Data on December 31, 2005, the average price per net ton for the Tubular Products

Segment increased from $863 in 2004 to $1,326 in 2005, income from operations increased from $197 million in

2004 to $528 million in 2005 and further increased to $631 million in 2006, and finally, income from operations per

ton increased from $180 in 2004 to $457 in 2005 while the calculated costs per ton also increased from $683 to $869

from 2004 to 2005. U.S. Steel states in its Form 10-K for 2005, “Tubular segment income of $528 million in 2005

reflected an improvement of $331 million compared to 2004. The increase resulted mainly from higher prices,

partially offset by higher costs for steel rounds.... Tubular recorded segment income of $197 million in 2004,

compared to a segment loss of $25 million in 2003. The improvement resulted primarily from higher average

realized prices.” Income from the operations of Tubular segment was $487 million for the first nine months of 2006

compared to $379 million for the first nine months of 2005. It further states that segment income for Tubular in the

third quarter and first nine months of 2006 increased by 32 percent and 28 percent, respectively, from the

comparable 2005 periods. U.S. Steel explains that the improvements in Tubular income from operations in the third

quarter and first nine months of 2006 as compared to the same periods of 2005 mainly resulted from higher average

realized prices and shipment volumes, partially offset by higher costs for steel rounds. Finally, according to the U.S.

Steel’s management analysis of the percentage change in net sales for its reportable segments, the net change in net

sales for Tubular segment from 2005 to 2006 was 16 percent, which comprised of 3 percent increase in volume, a 12

percent increase in price, and an 1 percent increase in mix. 

 18 ***.

III-5

income and operating income ratio to net sales, improved continuously from 2003 to 200517 and generally

was higher in January-September 2006 than in January-September 2005,18 with the exception of ***. ***.

Table III-8

Seamless SLP pipe: Results of operations of U.S. producers (by firms), fiscal years 2001-05,

January-September 2005, and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *

Selected cost data of the producers on their operations for the subject products are presented in

table III-9. Total unit cost increased continuously over the period. However, as explained previously, the

increase of per-unit sales values generally exceeded the increase of per-unit total costs after 2003. Unit

raw materials cost and SG&A expenses increased the most during the period.

Table III-9

Seamless SLP pipe: Operating costs of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2001-05, January-September

2005, and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *

A variance analysis showing the effects of prices and volume on the producers’ net trade sales of

seamless SLP pipe, and of costs and volume on their total cost, is shown in table III-10. The analysis is

summarized at the bottom of the table. Operating income increased by $*** between 2001 and 2005. 

The increase in operating income during this period resulted mainly from higher unit sales prices ($***)

which were partially offset by the negative effects of increased costs/expenses ($***) and decreased sales

volume ($***). 
 19 ***.

 20 ***.

III-6

Table III-10

Seamless SLP pipe: Variance analysis of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2001-05,

January-September 2005, and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *

Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

The U.S. producers’ capital expenditures and research and development (R&D) expenses are

presented in table III-11. Capital expenditures increased *** between 2001 and 2003, decreased from

2003 to 2004, then increased in 2005. R&D expenses fluctuated between 2001 and 2003, then decreased

continuously from 2003 to 2005. Both capital expenditures and R&D expenses were higher in JanuarySeptember 2006 than in January-September 2005. Capital expenditures by individual firms are presented

in table III-12.19

Table III-11

Seamless SLP pipe: Capital expenditures and R&D expenses by U.S. producers, fiscal years 2001-

05, January-September 2005, and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *

Table III-12

Seamless SLP pipe: Capital expenditures by U.S. producers (by firms), fiscal years 2001-05,

January-September 2005, and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *

Assets and Return on Investment

U.S. producers were requested to provide data on their assets used in the production and sales of

seamless SLP pipe during the period for which data were collected to assess their return on investments

(ROI). Although ROI can be computed in different ways, a commonly used method is income earned

during the period divided by the total assets utilized for the operations. Therefore, staff calculated ROI as

operating income divided by total assets used in the production and sale of seamless SLP pipe. Data on

the U.S. producers’ total assets and their ROI are presented in table III-13.20

Total assets utilized by the U.S. producers in their operations decreased between 2001 and 2003,

and then increased substantially between 2003 and 2005. Just as the U.S. producers’ operating income

increased considerably from 2003 to 2004, their ROI increased from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent

in 2004, and further increased to *** percent in 2005. The trend of ROI over the period was generally the

same as the trend of the operating income margin to net sales in table III-7 over the same period.

Table III-13

Seamless SLP pipe: Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2001-

05

* * * * * * *
 1

 U.S. import data for seamless SLP pipe from nonsubject sources are based on official Commerce statistics

covered by the following HTS statistical reporting numbers: 7304.10.1020, 7304.10.5020, 7304.39.0016,

7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024, 7304.59.8010, and 7304.59.8015. This list of HTS statistical reporting numbers is a

subset of those listed in the scope definition issued by Commerce. The complete list of HTS statistical reporting

numbers issued by Commerce in its scope language contains product largely outside of the scope definition, or

specifically excluded from the scope, such as mechanical tubing. See Part I, The Subject Products. U.S. producers 

U.S. Steel and Koppel contend that imports covered by the statistical reporting numbers in the above subset are

predominately product within the scope of these reviews. See U.S. Steel and Koppel Steel’s response to notice of

institution, June 21, 2006, pp. 12-13.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRIES

U.S. IMPORTS

Data regarding U.S. imports of seamless SLP pipe from subject sources are based on responses to

Commission questionnaires, while those for U.S. imports from nonsubject sources are based on official

Commerce statistics.1

 The Commission sent importers’ questionnaires to U.S. firms believed to have

imported seamless SLP pipe during previous investigations and reviews and to firms identified by *** as

importers of record for seamless SLP pipe between January 2001 and August 2006. Ten firms supplied

usable data while 11 reported that they had not imported seamless SLP pipe since 2001.

Subject Imports

During 2001-05, *** U.S. imports were reported from Argentina while U.S. imports from Brazil

fluctuated from *** imports in 2001 to a peak of *** short tons in 2003 before dropping to *** short tons

in 2005. The quantity of U.S. imports from Brazil increased from *** short tons in January-September

2005 to *** short tons in January-September 2006 , an increase of *** percent. U.S. imports from

Germany increased from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2005, an increase of *** percent but

were *** lower in January-September 2006 than in January-September 2005. Seamless SLP pipe imports

from subject and nonsubject countries appear in table IV-1. 
IV-2

Table IV-1

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports, by sources, 2001-05, January-September 2005, and January-September

2006

Source

Calendar year January-September

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Argentina *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources 96,667 79,606 91,400 129,850 118,484 91,020 126,725

 Total *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Landed, duty-paid value ($1,000)

Argentina *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources 63,012 54,162 65,560 95,347 123,329 94,709 126,198

 Total *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per short ton)

Argentina *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Average *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources $652 $680 $717 $734 $1,041 $1,041 $996

 Average *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
IV-3

Table IV-1--Continued

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports, by sources, 2001-05, January-September 2005, and January-September

2006

Source

Calendar year January-September

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Share of quantity (percent)

Argentina *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Share of value (percent)

Argentina *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. production (percent)

Argentina *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Brazil *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Germany *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 ***.

 2

 ***.

Note.–***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires (subject sources) and from official Commerce

statistics (all other).
IV-4

Nonsubject Imports

U.S. imports from nonsubject sources increased by 22.6 percent from 2001 to 2005. The highest

volume of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries included the following countries, in order of volume in

2005: China, Ukraine, Austria, France, and Spain. These countries accounted for approximately threequarters of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries in 2005. U.S. imports from China alone accounted for

more than one-third of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries in 2005. Imports from China had the

largest increase in quantity, increasing from 25,983 short tons in 2001 to 43,215 short tons in 2005, or by

17,232 short tons. Nonsubject imports from Ukraine grew substantially, from 1,932 short tons in 2001 to

16,714 short tons in 2005, an increase of 14,782 short tons. From 2001 to 2005, average unit values for

nonsubject Chinese imports were consistently among the lowest of nonsubject countries. Table IV-2

details U.S. imports of seamless SLP pipe from nonsubject countries during these reviews.

Table IV-2

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports from nonsubject sources, 2001-05, January-September 2005, and January-September

2006

Country

Calendar year January-September

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Australia 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Austria 9,609 7,936 8,141 10,600 12,965 10,479 7,755

Belgium 3 2 0 0 0 0 0

Canada 12,110 15,079 30,352 2,178 3,853 3,453 1,736

Chile 0 0 0 0 0 0 459

China 25,983 13,313 13,633 31,610 43,215 30,033 64,401

Costa Rica 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

Czech Republic1 11 367 355 1 130 130 10

Denmark 14 0 5 3 1 1 0

Dominican Republic 0000900

Finland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

France 12,290 9,090 3,910 16,659 10,313 8,661 13,742

Hong Kong 0003000

Hungary 0000000

India 136 585 158 3,713 2,175 1,937 1,959

Indonesia 0 7200000

Ireland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Israel 0 0 8 0 0 0 0

Italy2 485 4,128 2,687 3,379 4,458 3,726 1,138

Japan 909 408 865 79 227 221 219

Korea 3 25 691 546 1,868 1,188 1,174

Latvia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table continued on next page.
IV-5

Table IV-2–Continued

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports from nonsubject sources, 2001-05, January-September 2005, and January-September

2006

Country

Calendar year January-September

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Mexico 100 56 241 0 2,470 1 441

Netherlands 0 1860000

Norway 8 5 55 3 37 37 0

Poland 0 13 0 0 0 0 0

Romania 16,573 9,182 11,562 18,718 2,274 1,611 226

Russia 0 0 203 1,397 3,878 1,952 3,894

Singapore 0000550

Slovak Republic 6,816 7,257 6,152 6,848 5,739 5,391 3,237

South Africa3 0 0 0 0 0 0 333

Spain 8,989 2,989 6,943 13,980 7,924 6,393 16,106

Sweden 5 11 150 59 73 64 8

Switzerland 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Taiwan 40 128 176 42 45 45 97

Thailand 0 0 5 0 16 16 0

Turkey 0 22 16 1 0 0 0

Ukraine 1,932 8,634 4,817 19,717 16,714 15,583 9,703

United Arab Emirates 0 48 0 0 0 0 0

United Kingdom 653 235 267 114 98 94 87

Venezuela 0 0 0 194000

 Total 96,667 79,606 91,400 129,850 118,484 91,020 126,725

 Landed, duty-paid value ($1,000)

Australia 0 9 0 0 0 0 21

Austria 6,166 5,237 5,146 7,101 14,641 11,580 9,366

Belgium 11 20 0 0 0 0 0

Canada 12,590 16,549 24,054 2,965 5,841 5,303 3,368

Chile 0 0 0 0 0 0 341

China 12,870 6,756 7,398 20,208 36,041 24,221 52,970

Costa Rica 0 0 0 9 0 0 0

Czech Republic1 71 359 2,008 3 115 115 13

Denmark 19 0 38 40 9 9 0

Dominican Republic 0 0 0 0 11 0 0

Finland 0 0 0 24 0 0 0

France 8,203 5,730 2,608 11,220 11,929 9,994 16,846

Table continued on next page.
IV-6

Table VI-2–Continued

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports from nonsubject sources, 2001-05, January-September 2005, and January-September

2006

Country

Calendar year January-September

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Hong Kong 0 0 0 19000

Hungary 0030000

India 453 436 205 3,855 2,864 2,546 2,397

Indonesia 0 7100000

Ireland 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Israel 0 0 6 0 0 0 0

Italy2 460 2,942 1,652 2,832 5,105 4,305 1,370

Japan 1,018 1,205 2,872 513 565 531 399

Korea 66 148 622 694 3,375 2,359 2,165

Latvia 0 0 9 0 0 0 0

Mexico 146 92 99 0 2,102 4 386

Netherlands 0 45 110000

Norway 23 25 200 16 30 30 0

Poland 0 7 0 0 3 3 0

Romania 8,122 4,627 6,102 12,996 2,958 1,971 357

Russia 0 6 83 757 2,876 1,445 2,958

Singapore 0000550

Slovak Republic 3,949 3,589 2,897 4,078 6,197 5,669 3,650

South Africa3 0 0 0 0 0 0 332

Spain 6,826 2,389 5,421 12,812 12,397 9,634 20,143

Sweden 33 15 217 85 414 356 167

Switzerland 26 0 5 0 0 0 0

Taiwan 92 200 182 43 44 44 136

Thailand 0 0 3 0 25 25 0

Turkey 0 17 228 6 0 0 0

Ukraine 778 2,987 2,763 12,729 15,249 14,238 8,470

United Arab Emirates 0 18 0 0 0 0 0

United Kingdom 1,092 684 729 456 535 321 337

Venezuela 0 0 0 1,887000

 Total 63,012 54,162 65,560 95,347 123,329 94,709 126,198

Table continued on next page.
IV-7

Table VI-2–Continued

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports from nonsubject sources, 2001-05, January-September 2005, and January-September

2006

Country

Calendar year January-September

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Unit value (per short ton)

Australia (4

) $29,154 (4) (4) (4) (4) $9,634

Austria $642 660 $632 $670 $1,129 $1,105 1,208

Belgium 4,195 7,976 (4

) (4) (4) (4) (4)

Canada 1,040 1,097 793 1,361 1,516 1,536 1,940

Chile (4

) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 743

China 495 507 543 639 834 806 823

Costa Rica (4

) (4) (4) 2,916 (4) (4) (4)

Czech Republic1 6,595 980 5,663 3,290 889 889 1,387

Denmark 1,293 (4

) 7,120 12,314 8,598 8,598 (4)

Dominican Republic (4

) (4) (4) (4) 1,272 (4) (4)

Finland (4

) (4) (4) 59,922 (4) (4) (4)

France 667 630 667 674 1,157 1,154 1,226

Hong Kong (4

) (4) (4) 7,282 (4) (4) (4)

Hungary (4

) (4) 13,297 (4) (4) (4) (4)

India 3,331 745 1,295 1,038 1,317 1,314 1,223

Indonesia (4

) 982 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4)

Ireland (4

) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 10,657

Israel (4

) (4) 717 (4) (4) (4) (4)

Italy2 949 713 615 838 1,145 1,155 1,204

Japan 1,121 2,956 3,320 6,498 2,487 2,408 1,824

Korea 19,899 5,975 900 1,270 1,807 1,985 1,843

Latvia (4

) (4) 18,779 (4) (4) (4) (4)

Mexico 1,457 1,634 410 (4

) 851 2,890 877

Netherlands (4

) 2,553 1,874 (4) (4) (4) (4)

Norway 2,772 4,711 3,644 4,953 812 812 (4

)

Poland (4

) 565 (4) (4) 12,539 12,539 (4)

Romania 490 504 528 694 1,301 1,224 1,582

Russia (4

) 22,565 411 542 742 740 760

Singapore (4

) (4) (4) (4) 917 917 (4)

Slovak Republic 579 494 471 596 1,080 1,052 1,127

South Africa3 (

4

) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 998

Spain 759 799 781 916 1,565 1,507 1,251

Table continued on next page.
 2

 Official Commerce statistics measure imports at the district port of entry; material imported into one district,

however, may be shipped to another geographic region.

IV-8

Table VI-2–Continued

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports from nonsubject sources, 2001-05, January-September 2005, and January-September

2006

Country

Calendar year January-September

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Sweden 7,142 1,312 1,445 1,430 5,652 5,594 21,311

Switzerland 43,185 (4

) 34,331 (4) (4) (4) (4)

Taiwan 2,317 1,559 1,033 1,031 973 973 1,405

Thailand (4

) (4) 642 (4) 1,555 1,555 (4)

Turkey (4

) 793 14,612 8,971 (4) (4) (4)

Ukraine 403 346 573 646 912 914 873

United Arab Emirates 383 (4

) (4) (4) (4) (4)

United Kingdom 1,673 2,907 2,726 3,984 5,465 3,424 3,890

Venezuela (4

) (4) (4) 9,709 (4) (4) (4)

 Average 652 680 717 734 1,041 1,041 996

 1 In May 2006, the antidumping duty order on seamless SLP pipe from the Czech Republic was revoked by Commerce following a negative

determination by the Commission in its first review.

 2

 In July 2001, the countervailing and antidumping duty orders on seamless SLP pipe from Italy were revoked by Commerce following a negative

determination by the Commission in its first review.

 3

 In May 2006, the antidumping duty order on seamless SLP pipe from South Africa was revoked by Commerce following a negative determination

by the Commission in its first review.

 4

 Not applicable.

Note.–U.S. imports of seamless SLP pipe from Romania and Japan remain subject to antidumping duty orders issued in August 2000.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to totals shown.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing whether subject imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic

like product with respect to cumulation, the Commission generally has considered the following four

factors: (1) fungibility, (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets, (3) common

or similar channels of distribution, and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. Issues concerning

fungibility and channels of distribution are addressed in Part II of this report. Geographic markets and

presence in the market are discussed below. 

Geographic Markets

Based on questionnaire responses, seamless SLP pipe production occurs throughout the United

States, and seamless SLP pipe is shipped nationwide. Information summarizing national and regional

markets and the shipment of seamless SLP pipe is presented in Part II. As illustrated in table IV-3,2

 the

Houston-Galveston, TX, district accounted for the largest share of imports of seamless SLP (and related)

pipe entered into the United States from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany during the period for which data

were collected (60.4 percent). 
IV-9

Table IV-3

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports from subject countries, by Customs district, January 2001-September 2006

Customs district Argentina Brazil Germany Total

Quantity (short tons)

Houston-Galveston, TX 10,026 5,019 23,694 38,739

Cleveland, OH - - 11,330 11,330

Chicago, IL - 6 8,178 8,185

Norfolk, VA - 1 3,410 3,410

Tampa, FL - 711 8 719

Savannah, GA - 345 14 359

Detroit, MI - - 311 311

New Orleans, LA 1 - 309 310

Philadelphia, PA - - 280 280

Miami, FL - 126 33 159

New York, NY - 12 79 91

Charleston, SC - - 58 58

St. Louis, MO - - 39 39

All others 42 9 98 149

Total 10,069 6,229 47,841 64,139

Note.–As discussed at the beginning of part IV, official import statistics, even as adjusted, are over-inclusive.

Source: Compiled from official statistics from Commerce.
IV-10

Presence in the Market

Table IV-4 presents data on the monthly entries of U.S. imports of seamless SLP (and related)

pipe, by source, during the period for which data were collected. 

Table IV-4

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. imports, monthly entries into the United States, by source, 2001-05, JanuarySeptember 2005, and January-September 2006

Source

Calendar year January-September

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Quantity (short tons)

Argentina 12 11 9 11 12 9 4

Brazil 7 2 2 8 4 3 5

Germany 12 12 12 12 12 9 9

All others 12 12 12 12 12 9 9

Note.–As discussed at the beginning of part IV, official import statics, even as adjusted, are over-inclusive.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of Commerce.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

End-of-period inventories reported by U.S. importers of seamless SLP pipe are shown in table

IV-5. 

Table IV-5

Seamless SLP pipe: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of nonsubject1

 imports, 2001-05, JanuarySeptember 2005, and January-September 2006

Source

Calendar year Jan.-Sept.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006

Inventories (short tons) 0 400 80 636 301 0 0

Ratio to imports (percent) 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 0.0 1.6 0.3 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.0

 1 U.S. importers did not report any inventories from subject countries for the period for which data were collected. The

inventories reported were from nonsubject countries. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 3

 Tenaris has affiliations with seamless pipe producers Dalmine (Italy), Siderca (Argentina), Algoma Tubes

(Canada), Tavsa (Venezuela), Tamsa (Mexico), Silcotub (Romania), and NKK Tubes (Japan).

 4

 Siderca’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-1.

 5

 Ibid.

 6

 Siderca only produces seamless SLP pipe on LACO #1. During 2001 to 2005, Siderca did not produce any

subject pipe in its LACO #2 plant. Hearing transcript, p. 182 (Balkenende).

 7

 Siderca’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-1.

 8

 Siderca is focusing its production mix to ***. Siderca’s foreign producer questionnaire, section I-6; hearing

transcript, p. 183 (Balkenende); and Siderca’s posthearing brief, question 6, pp. 1-2.

 9

 Siderca’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-3.

 10 Siderca has ***. Siderca’s foreign producer questionnaire, sections II-1 and II-10.

 11 Hearing transcript, p. 182 (Balkenende).

IV-11

THE INDUSTRY IN ARGENTINA

Overview

The Commission received data from Siderca, S.A.I.C. (“Siderca”), a wholly owned subsidiary of

Tenaris3

 and the only known producer of seamless SLP pipe in Argentina. Siderca estimates that its

production of seamless SLP pipe accounted for *** percent of seamless SLP pipe production in Argentina

in 2005. Table IV-6 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first

reviews, and these second reviews.

Table IV-6

Seamless SLP pipe: Comparison of select Argentine industry data, 1994, 2000, and 2005

* * * * * * *

Siderca has remained the sole producer of seamless SLP pipe since the original investigations. 

Since 2001, Siderca has been ***, in order to ***.4

 These investments reportedly have ***.5

Seamless SLP Pipe Operations

Table IV-7 presents the Argentine seamless SLP pipe industry’s capacity, production, shipments,

and inventories for 2001-05 as well as interim (January-September) 2005 and 2006. Table IV-8 presents

projections for 2006 and 2007.

According to Siderca, the decline in demand for steel pipes in 2002 and the Argentine economic

crises required Siderca to undergo reduction in capacity by reducing work shifts instead of producing

excess inventory. ***6

 ***. In addition to these reductions in capacity due to economic considerations,

Siderca also performs maintenance stoppages at its plants ***.7

Siderca reported ***.8 Therefore, the company does *** as a result of the revocation of these

orders.9

 Siderca reported focusing on supplying *** and also on ***.10 Siderca noted that it does not

maintain inventories of seamless SLP pipe. For export shipments, Siderca stated that it “produces

products which it already has a purchase order” and any inventory is stored in the “finished good yards

while awaiting shipment to a customer.”11 For its home market, Siderca also produces pipes either for a

purchase order or for its regional customer service centers. Any inventory reported is not “available

inventory,” but rather is intended for “a specific use, for a specific customer, kept in a specific region so
 12 Hearing transcript, pp. 182-183 (Balkenende).

 13 Siderca’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-12.

 14 Siderca’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-9.

IV-12

that it can be supplied to the customer on a just-in-time basis.”12 As shown in table IV-7, Siderca’s homemarket shipments are about *** of its total shipments. Siderca’s exports of seamless SLP pipe are not

currently subject to any tariff or non-tariff barriers in any country, nor subject to current investigations

outside the United States.13

Table IV-7

Seamless SLP pipe: Siderca’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2001-

05, January-September 2005, and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *

Table IV-8

Seamless SLP pipe: Siderca’s projected production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2006

and 2007

* * * * * * *

As shown in table IV-9, the most common seamless SLP pipe produced by Siderca is in sizes of

greater than 2" but less than 4.5" in outside diameter and is triple stenciled to meet standard, line, and

pressure pipe specifications and no other specifications. Table IV-9 presents the reported specifications

to which subject pipe was stenciled in sizes less than or equal to 2" in outside diameter and in sizes

greater than 2" and less than or equal to 4.5" in outside diameter.

Table IV-9

Seamless SLP pipe: Siderca’s production, 2005, January-September 2005, and January- September 2006

* * * * * * *

Alternative Products

As shown in table IV-10, Siderca produces nonsubject seamless pipe and plans, particularly

production of high value-added seamless pipe such as OCTG.14

Table IV-10

Seamless pipe: Siderca’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject seamless

SLP and other pipe, 2005, January-September 2005 and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *
 15 During the original investigations, this firm was called Mannesmann S.A. 

 16 Companhia Siderurgical Nacional was initially identified as a possible producer of seamless SLP pipe in Brazil,

but it is not a producer of the subject product. V&M Brazil is the only producer of seamless SLP pipe in Brazil. Email from *** for V&M Brazil, February 7, 2007.

 17 V&M Tubes (wholly owned by Groupe Vallourec) is affiliated with seamless pipe producers V&M Brazil

(Brazil), V&M Deutschland GmbH (Germany), V&M France (France), and V&M Star (United States). V&M Star

in the United States produces nonsubject large diameter seamless pipes. V&M Brazil exports to the United States

through its sister company, V&M Corporation, Houston, TX. V&M Brazil foreign producer questionnaire response,

section I-3.

 18 V&M Brazil’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-1 (revised December 29, 2006). V&M

Brazil also noted that it ***. V&M Brazil foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-16a (revised

December 29, 2006).

 19 V&M Brazil’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-5.

 20 V&M Brazil’s noted that the significance of the antidumping duty order is *** and that its *** its ability to

shift sales to the U.S. market if the antidumping duty orders are revoked. V&M Brazil’s foreign producer

questionnaire response, sections II-13, II-14, and II-15.

IV-13

THE INDUSTRY IN BRAZIL

Overview

In the current second reviews, the Commission received a usable questionnaire response from

V&M Brazil,15 the only producer of the subject product in Brazil. V&M Brazil accounts for all of the

Brazilian production of seamless SLP pipe during the period covered by these second reviews.16 V&M

Brazil is a wholly owned subsidiary of Vallourec & Mannesman Tubes (“V&M Tubes”)17 and provided

the only questionnaire response for Brazil in the original investigations, the first reviews, and the current

second reviews. Table IV-11 presents comparative information available from the original investigations,

the first reviews, and these second reviews.

Table IV-11

Seamless SLP pipe: Comparison of select Brazilian industry data: 1994, 2000, and 2005

* * * * * * *

Seamless SLP Pipe Operations

V&M Brazil reported increasing its overall production capacity by *** percent in October 2005

with the intent to produce seamless SLP pipes under 4.5 inches in outside diameter after ***.18 In

addition, V&M Brazil reported production technology changes since 2001 in its charcoal-based steel

making process. The iron ore and charcoal are converted into pig iron and high-purity steel. The solid

bars are then hot-rolled and made into seamless pipes with an eco-friendly process utilizing large-scale

production and reducing greenhouse effects through the absorption of atmospheric CO2 into the planted

eucalyptus forest.19 V&M Brazil noted that the bulk of its sales are to its home market and the rest of

Latin America, where demand for small diameter SLP pipe is ***.20

Table IV-12 presents V&M Brazil’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of seamless

SLP pipe for 2001-05 as well as interim (January-September) 2005 and 2006. Table IV-13 presents

projections for 2006 and 2007. 
 21 V&M Brazil reported Latin America as its primary export market. V&M Brazil’s foreign producer

questionnaire response, section II-13.

 22 V&M Brazil noted that it intends to ***. V&M Brazil foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-6.

IV-14

Table IV-12

Seamless SLP pipe: V&M Brazil’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories,

2001-05, January-September 2005, and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *

Table IV-13

Seamless SLP pipe: V&M Brazil’s projected production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories,

2006 and 2007

* * * * * * *

From 2000 to 2005, capacity declined, from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2005, a

decline of *** percent. Capacity utilization fluctuated during 2001 to 2005, peaking in 2004 at ***

percent. Home market sales constitute *** the largest share of shipments and were at their highest level

relative to total shipments in ***. Exports to markets other than the United States, the European Union,

and Asia represented the largest share of shipments after home market shipments.21

As demonstrated in table IV-14, the majority of V&M Brazil’s production of seamless SLP pipe

is in sizes greater than 2" and less than or equal to 4.5" in outside diameter and the most common types

were line pipe and triple stenciled (meeting standard, line, and pressure pipe specifications). Table IV-14

presents the reported specifications to which subject pipe was stenciled in sizes less than or equal to 2" in

outside diameter and in sizes greater than 2" and less than or equal to 4.5" in outside diameter. 

Table IV-14

Seamless SLP pipe: V&M Brazil’s production, 2005, January-September 2005, and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *

Alternative Products

As shown in table IV-15, V&M Brazil produces nonsubject seamless SLP pipes including OCTG,

boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, tubing suitable for ball or roller bearings, and tubing for bearings less

than 4.5 inches and pipe and tube up to 7 inches in outside diameter on the same equipment and

machinery as the subject product.22

Table IV-15

Seamless pipe: V&M Brazil’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject

seamless SLP and other pipe, 2005, January-September 2005, and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *
 23 VMD’s foreign producer questionnaires, sections II-1 and II-4.

 24 In December 2006, VMD’s parent company, Vallourec, France, and Salzgitter, Germany, announced the 

merge of their activities in the “production of seamless precision tubes under the roof of Salzgitter,” with a planned

start date of April 2007 for the new company. Gradually, VMD mills will “***.” From 2008 on, the production of

seamless hot-rolled tubes and pipes will be “*** and the production of ***.” In total, there will be *** for VMD. 

E-mail from ***, March 1, 2007.

 25 Rohrwerk’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-2.

 26 Benteler’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-16b. Benteler states that it plans to sell “niche products in

sizes that are not produced in the United States.” Hearing transcript, p. 191 (Herminghaus).

IV-15

THE INDUSTRY IN GERMANY

Overview

The Commission identified three German producers of seamless SLP pipe in the current second

reviews: Benteler Stahl/Rohr GmbH (“Benteler”), Rohrwerk Neue Maxhutte GmBh (“Rohrwerk”), and

V&M Deutschland GmbH (“VMD”). All three known producers of the subject product submitted usable

questionnaire responses. Responding German producers, shown in table IV-16, reportedly account for all

known seamless SLP pipe production in Germany.

Table IV-16

Seamless SLP pipe: German producers’ shares of reported 2005 production

Firm Share of 2005 production (percent)

Benteler ***

Rohrwerk ***

VMD ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Sales of seamless SLP pipe in 2005 accounted for *** percent of total firm sales from ***, ***

percent from ***, and *** percent from ***. Table IV-17 presents comparative information available

from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews.

Table IV-17

Seamless SLP pipe: Comparison of select German industry data, 1994, 2000, and 2005

* * * * * * *

Seamless SLP Pipe Operations

VMD reported several operational changes since 2001.23 It reported *** production capacity in

2002 from *** to *** for seamless SLP pipe at its Zeithain plant in Saxony, Germany.24 VMD also

reported plans to *** production capacity in its Muelheim plant for seamless pipe products by increasing

***. Rohrwerk plans to invest *** in 2006-07 to ***.25 Benteler did not report any changes in

production or operations since 2001. During these second reviews, all of the subject exports to the United

States ***. Benteler anticipates exporting *** short tons of the subject product to the United States in

2007 if the antidumping duty order on seamless SLP pipe is revoked.26
 27 VMD’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-10.

IV-16

Table IV-18 presents the German industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of

seamless SLP pipe for 2001-05 as well as interim (January-September) 2005 and 2006. Table IV-19

presents projects for 2006 and 2007. 

Table IV-18

Seamless SLP pipe: Germany’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2001-

05, January-September 2005, and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *

Table IV-19

Seamless SLP pipe: Germany’s projected production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2006

and 2007

* * * * * * *

As shown in table IV-20, a *** majority of German-produced seamless SLP pipe is in sizes less

than or equal to 2" in outside diameter, and is triple stenciled to meet standard, line, and pressure pipe

specifications and no other specifications. Table IV-20 presents the reported specifications to which

subject pipe was stenciled in sizes less than or equal to 2" in outside diameter and in sizes greater than 2"

and less than or equal to 4.5" in outside diameter.

Table IV-20

Seamless SLP pipe: Germany’s production, 2005, January-September 2005, and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *

Alternative Products

All three German producers of seamless SLP pipe reported producing other seamless pipes

including: OCTG, stainless SLP pipe, boiler tubing, tubing suitable for ball or roller bearings, mechanical

tubing, structurals, and hollows on the same equipment used to produce certain seamless pipe during the

period of review. VMD noted that it could “***.”27 Overall capacity, production, and capacity utilization

to produce both large and small diameter seamless products on the same manufacturing equipment are

shown in table IV-21.

Table IV-21

Seamless pipe: Germany’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject

seamless SLP and other pipe, 2005, January-September 2005, and January-September 2006

* * * * * * *
 28 International Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Statistical Yearbook 2005 and Steel Statistical Yearbook 2006. 

Global and regional production data as published by IISI refer to seamless tube, and therefore are substantially

broader than the subject merchandise, including, for example, OCTG. As such, global and regional production data

represent general trends and are for illustrative purposes only. The most current production data published by IISI

are through 2005.

 29 Preston Publishing Company, Preston Pipe and Tube Report, Vol. 24, no. 6 (June 2006), p. 1. Global

production data referred to in the Preston Pipe and Tube Report include all seamless tube, and therefore are

substantially broader than the subject merchandise. Differences in 2005 seamless tube production as reported by

Preston Pipe and Tube Report and IISI likely reflect differences in reporting.

 30 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 15 (December 2006), p. 7.

 31 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 16 (January 2007), p. 7.

 32 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 16 (January 2007), p. 3.

IV-17

GLOBAL MARKET

Supply

Although figures for global production of seamless SLP pipe are generally not published, the

International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI) publishes data on the global production of seamless pipe and

tube.28 As illustrated in tables IV-22 and IV-23, global production of seamless pipe and tube has

increased in recent years, despite declines in 1998 and 1999. Between 1995 and 2005, global production

of seamless pipe and tube increased by 32 percent to a little more than 24 million short tons. One

reputable source, Preston Pipe and Tube Report, notes that global seamless pipe and tube production

increased to 28.8 million short tons in 2005, or about 4.8 million short tons more than production figures

reported by IISI.29 China’s production growth of seamless pipe and tube has outpaced all other regions,

with China’s share of world seamless pipe and tube production increasing from 20 percent in 1995 to

almost 48 percent in 2005. In late 2006, China reportedly increased exports of seamless line pipe,

focusing increasingly on Asian markets more so than on the U.S. market that has traditionally been the

main destination of Chinese line pipe exports.30 However, the U.S. market continues to be an important

export market for Chinese line pipe, with China increasing its U.S. market share.31 Additionally, Metal

Bulletin Research (“MBR”) notes that Chinese exports to the U.S. market of API-certified OCTG, if not

approved for purchase by oil and gas producers, will challenge North American standard pipe markets as

a substitute for seamless standard pipe.32
IV-18

Table IV-22

Seamless pipe and tube: Global and regional production, 1995-2000

Region

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Quantity (thousands of short tons)

North America 2,655 2,946 3,166 2,658 1,896 2,738

European Union (15)1 3,804 3,642 4,004 4,039 3,018 3,780

Asia, excluding China 2,405 2,287 2,271 2,308 1,849 2,034

China 3,605 3,682 3,974 3,822 3,897 4,586

CIS 3,127 2,950 2,832 2,556 2,592 2,586

South America2 3 1,145 1,263 1,308 1,034 872 1,299

Other 1,443 1,488 1,388 1,371 988 1,188

 Total 18,185 18,259 18,942 17,788 15,112 18,210

 1 Between 1995 and 2000, seamless tube production in Germany decreased by 12.4 percent from 1,598 thousand short tons in

1995 to 1,400 thousand short tons in 2000.

 2

 Between 1995 and 2000, seamless tube production in Argentina increased by 2.6 percent from 811 thousand short tons in

1995 to 832 thousand short tons in 2000.

 3

 Between 1995 and 2000, seamless tube production in Brazil increased by 56.1 percent from 299 thousand short tons in 1995

to 466 thousand short tons in 2000.

Note.--Data as reported by the IISI include seamless pipe and tube beyond the scope of the review. Original data published in

metric tons, which were converted to short tons by multiplying by 1.102311. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the

totals shown.

Source: International Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Statistical Yearbook, 2005 and Steel Statistical Yearbook, 2006.

Table IV-23

Seamless pipe and tube: Global and regional production, 2001-05

Region

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Quantity (thousands of short tons)

North America 2,747 2,237 2,359 2,826 3,006

European Union (15)1 4,106 3,590 3,471 4,091 4,317

Asia, excluding China 2,154 1,910 1,887 2,124 2,258

China 5,653 6,705 8,082 9,349 11,542

CIS 2,625 2,592 2,835 n/a n/a

South America2 3 1,392 1,240 1,348 1,540 1,547

Other 700 1,036 945 1,319 1,365

 Total 19,376 19,310 20,927 21,249 24,034

 1 Between 2001 and 2005, seamless tube production in Germany increased by 12.5 percent from 1,587 thousand short tons in

2001 to 1,786 thousand short tons in 2005.

 2

 Between 2001 and 2005, seamless tube production in Argentina increased by 13.6 percent from 837 thousand short tons in

2001 to 950 thousand short tons in 2005.

 3

 Between 2001 and 2005, seamless tube production in Brazil increased by 6.7 percent from 509 thousand short tons in 2001

to 543 thousand short tons in 2005. 

Note.–Data as reported by the International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI) include seamless pipe and tube beyond the scope of the

review. Original data published in metric tons, which were converted to short tons by multiplying by 1.102311. Because of

rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: International Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Statistical Yearbook, 2005 and Steel Statistical Yearbook, 2006.
 33 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 1 (October 2005), p. 2.

 34 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 13 (October 2006), p. 2.

 35 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 13 (October 2006), p. 3.

 36 “Pipe and Tube Outlook,” Metal Center News Online (September 2006), found at

http://www.metalcenternews.com, retrieved January 4, 2006 and Tom Stundza, “Insiders Expect Drill Tube, Line

Pipe Mart to Re-energize,” Purchasing Magazine, March 4, 2004, found at

http://www.purchasing.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA388189, retrieved January 27, 2006; see

also “Special Report: Worldwide Pipeline Construction,” Oil and Gas Journal (February 13, 2006), pp. 57, 58, and

62. 

 37 Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc, “An Updated Assessment of Pipeline and Storage Infrastructure for

the North American Gas Market: Adverse Consequences of Delays in the Construction of Natural Gas

Infrastructure,” prepared for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (July 2004), pp. 7-8; and Tom

Stundza, “Insiders Expect Drill Tube, Line Pipe Mart to Re-energize,” Purchasing Magazine, March 4, 2004, found

at http://www.purchasing.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA388189, retrieved January 27, 2006.

 38 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issues 13-14 (October-November 2006).

 39 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 5 (February 2006), p. 1.

 40 Preston Publishing Company, Preston Pipe and Tube Report, Vol. 24, no. 10 (October 2006), p. 1.

 41 Tenaris, Annual Report 2005, p. 13.

IV-19

Demand

Worldwide demand for seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe is derived from its use for the

conveyance of liquids and gases in a diverse array of end-use markets, including as line pipe or gathering

lines in oil and natural gas production and transmission; its use in chemical, petrochemical, or other nonpipeline applications; its use in high pressure construction applications, such as in refineries or chemical

plants; as well as its use as steam lines in manufacturing or factory applications.

Demand for seamless line pipe is largely influenced by energy prices and increased drilling

activity in new areas that require additional gathering lines.33 According to published sources, demand

for line pipe in the United States has increased owing to increased drilling activity, which usually

precedes the construction of pipeline systems.34 Between April and October 2006, MBR notes that

demand for seamless line pipe grew as strongly as demand for OCTG, driving the price of line pipe to

levels comparable to OCTG prices.35

In the United States, there have been fewer projects requiring oil or gas transmission pipe,

although aging pipeline infrastructure may increase demand for line pipe.36 The Interstate Natural Gas

Association of America estimates that $19 billion will be needed to maintain existing pipeline capacity,

and another $42 billion will be needed for new pipeline and storage infrastructure in the United States and

Canada as domestic natural gas consumption is expected to increase from 22 trillion cubic feet in 2003 to

30 trillion cubic feet in 2015.37 MBR notes that the replacement or refurbishment of existing

infrastructure, as well as increased investment in gathering lines and distribution systems in the United

States, has spawned greater demand for seamless line pipe.38 MBR further notes that seamless line pipe

may witness increased competition from such substitutable products as electric resistance-welded line

pipe.39 Looking forward, Preston Pipe and Tube Report has forecasted strong U.S. demand for line pipe

in 2007, with new line pipe orders placed in 2006 for projects to begin in 2007.40

Global seamless pipe and tube producer Tenaris estimates that seamless tubular products other

than OCTG contributed to an overall 9 percent increase in worldwide apparent consumption of seamless

tubular products in 2005.41 Higher energy demand growth, declining production rates from developed

reserves, and high energy prices in 2005 prompted increased crude oil exploration and production
 42 Tenaris, Annual Report 2005, p. 13; Tenaris press release, “Tenaris Announces 2006 Fourth Quarter and

Annual Results” (February 28, 2007), found at http://www.tenaris.com, retrieved March 1, 2007.

 43 Tenaris, Annual Report 2005, p. 19.

 44 Tenaris, Annual Report 2005, p. 19.

 45 “Special Report: Worldwide Pipeline Construction,” Oil and Gas Journal (February13, 2006), pp. 57, 58, and

62.

IV-20

activity, which continued in 2006.42 Increased development of gas reserves associated with liquefied

natural gas (LNG) projects and the construction of process trains for LNG production reportedly surged in

2005, particularly in the Middle East.43 Looking forward, Tenaris expects increased demand for seamless

tubular products from refinery projects currently under development.44 Other observers, however, focus

on growth in pipeline construction in the United States and the Middle East.45

Because seamless pipe is used in gathering lines and in oil and gas transportation, demand for

seamless SLP pipe is influenced by drilling activity, although not as directly and predictably as demand

for OCTG. As shown in tables IV-24 and IV-25, worldwide drilling increased between 1995 and 1997,

then decreased sharply in 1998 and 1999. Drilling rates increased in 2000 and 2001, before declining

again in 2002. Drilling activity has increased markedly since 2002.

Table IV-24

Worldwide rig count: Global and regional annual averages of operating rigs, 1995-2000

Region

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Quantity (number of rigs)

Latin America 272 282 277 243 187 227

Europe 112 120 113 99 81 83

Africa 66 79 80 74 42 46

Middle East 128 136 159 166 140 156

Far East 181 176 180 173 139 140

Canada 230 271 375 260 246 344

United States 724 777 944 829 622 916

 Total 1,713 1,841 2,128 1,843 1,457 1,913

Source: Baker Hughes Inc., Worldwide Rig Count, 2/7/2006.

Table IV-25

Worldwide rig count: Global and regional annual averages of operating rigs, 2001-06

Region

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Quantity (number of rigs)

Latin America 262 214 244 290 316 324

Europe 95 88 83 70 70 77

Africa 53 58 54 48 50 58

Middle East 179 201 211 230 248 238

Far East 157 171 177 197 225 228

Canada 342 266 372 369 458 470

United States 1,155 831 1,032 1,190 1,380 1,648

 Total 2,242 1,829 2,174 2,395 2,746 3,043

Source: Baker Hughes Inc., Worldwide Rig Count, 2/7/2006.
 46 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 7 (April 2006), p. 4.

 47 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 7 (April 2006), p. 1.

 48 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 10 (July 2006), p. 1.

 49 MBR prices are used in lieu of those published by Preston Publishing Company used in the prehearing staff

report in order to illustrate general price comparisons across geographic markets for seamless line pipe in a range of

outside diameters substantially broader than those of the subject product. U.S. prices for seamless tubular products

reported by Preston Pipe and Tube Report are average transaction prices (by weighted average value), and represent

a combination of both domestic and import shipments. See ***, and staff telephone interview with ***. Because

prices reported by Preston Pipe and Tube Report `are influenced by the import market share computed in the

weighted average price for each of these products, these prices do not give a clear price comparison across

domestically produced seamless tubular products. Additionally, the inclusion of relatively more expensive smaller

diameter (i.e., under two inches) seamless pipe in the standard pipe pricing column raises the average price of

standard pipe to levels higher than those of other categories. See ***. Because of the lack of a clear price

comparison across domestically produced seamless tubular products in the United States, prices as reported by the

Preston Pipe and Tube Report have been omitted.

 50 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 5 (February 2006), p. 2.

IV-21

In other geographic markets, demand for seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe is generally

favorable. In Europe, demand for seamless standard pipe is reportedly improving following a decline in

demand in the second half of 2005.46 In the Middle East, Africa, and the United States, the

petrochemicals and chemicals sectors are reportedly increasing consumption of line pipe for use in new

refinery projects.47 Globally, demand for seamless pipe was reportedly strong from refining and power

generation sectors.48 

Prices

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers to compare market prices of seamless

SLP pipe in U.S. and non-U.S. markets. Two responding U.S. producers indicated that U.S. prices were

higher than prices in other markets. Only one importer responded, reporting that prices were comparable

worldwide. Foreign producers were also asked to compare prices in their home market with prices in the

United States and other country markets. Four foreign producers responded, although not all of these

knew about prices in the U.S. market. One reported that its average net sales prices for 3.5 inch OD triple

stenciled seamless pipe were $*** per short ton in its home market, $*** in the United States, $*** in

Singapore, and $*** in Italy; one reported that the prices of products were comparable worldwide; and

one reported that seamless carbon line pipe prices were $*** per metric ton in the United States, $*** per

metric ton in Asia, and €*** (approximately $***) per metric ton (***) in Europe.

Published price data for a broader range of seamless line pipe by geographic market are available

from MBR.49 These data are distinct from the pricing data presented in Part V of this report, which are

collected directly from U.S. producers and U.S. importers according to precise product definitions. 

Global seamless pipe and tube prices for October 2005 through February 2007 as published by MBR

indicate that API 5L B line pipe in both small and large diameters was priced highest in Japan and

Western Europe, although Western European prices converged with those in the United States beginning

in late 2006 and early 2007 (table IV-26). Prices were lowest in China. MBR notes that although

Chinese-produced API 5L B has been entering the U.S. market at lower prices than those of U.S.-

produced product, if the pipe is not from an approved Chinese mill, additional testing is carried out in the

United States, thereby increasing the cost of the pipe to the end user.50 Most markets show an overall

increase in prices for seamless pipe, although prices in the United States and Western Europe declined
 51 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 17 (February 2007), pp. 1–4.

 52 Metal Bulletin Research, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, Issue 17 (February 2007), pp. 1–4.

IV-22

slightly in late 2006 and early 2007 reportedly due to high inventories, softening demand, and continued

high import pressure.51

Table IV-26

Seamless pipe: Global prices, October 2005 - February 2007

* * * * * * *

Global seamless base prices and forecasts as published by MBR indicate that between summer

2005 and autumn 2006, prices for seamless line pipe in Europe were higher than those for line pipe in the

United States before converging towards the end of 2006 (figure IV-1). MBR forecasts line pipe prices in

Europe to slightly surpass U.S. prices in early 2007, with both prices following a slight declining trend

during the first half of 2007 due to higher inventory levels, softening demand, and continued high import

pressure.52

Figure IV-1

Seamless pipe: Global base prices (U.S. dollars per metric ton), July 2005 - July 2007 (forecasted)

* * * * * * *
 1

 Iron-ore prices are projected to continue to rise in 2007, based on negotiations between major iron-ore producers

and steelmakers. “Iron-Ore Prices Get Boost from Asia,” The Wall Street Journal, December 28, 2006, p. A12.

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Materials

The cost of seamless SLP pipe depends largely on the costs of its inputs and processing. 

Seamless SLP pipe is produced from solid steel billets, which in turn are produced from either iron ore

with coke as a main fuel source by integrated mills or from scrap in mini mills using electric arc furnaces,

using electricity and natural gas as main fuels. The price of scrap has fluctuated since the beginning of

2004, but typically at a much higher level than before 2004 (figure V-1). In addition, electricity, natural

gas, iron ore, and blast furnace coke costs have all increased since 2004 (table V-1).1

Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

Transportation costs as a share of customs value for seamless SLP pipe from subject countries to

the United States (excluding U.S. inland costs) in 2005 were equivalent to 4.1 percent for Argentina, 7.5

percent for Brazil, and 7.7 percent for Germany. These estimates are derived from official import data

and represent the transportation and other charges on imports valued on a c.i.f. basis, as compared with

customs value.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Three U.S. producers reported that U.S. inland transportation costs accounted for *** percent of

the total delivered cost of seamless SLP pipe. Seven of eight responding importers reported that they

were not responsible for transportation of seamless SLP pipe to their customers’ location, and none of the

importers provided the costs of inland transportation.
V-2

Figure V-1

Ferrous scrap prices: No. 1 heavy melt, Chicago and Pittsburgh average consumer prices, monthly, January

2001 to February 2007

Source: American Metal Market LLC.

Table V-1

U.S. natural gas, electricity, iron ore, and blast furnace coke prices, 2001-06

Item 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20061

U.S. natural gas industrial price2 $5.24 $4.02 $5.89 $6.56 $8.46 $7.89

Electricity industrial price3 5.05 4.88 5.11 5.25 5.73 6.09

Iron ore (per metric ton) 23.87 26.04 32.30 37.92 44.00 52.00

Blast furnace coke (per metric ton) 120.00 120.00 121.00 122.00 123.00 135.00

 1 Monthly average for January through November for electricity. 

 2

 Price to industrial users in dollars per thousand cubic feet.

 3

 Price to industrial users in cents per kilowatt-hour.

Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov, official statistics of the U.S. Department

of Energy, http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_ore/feoremcs06.pdf,

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_ore/feoremcs07.pdf, and USGS estimate. 

Exchange Rates

Quarterly real and nominal exchange rates reported by the International Monetary Fund for the

currencies of Argentina, Brazil, and Germany relative to the U.S. dollar during the period January 2001 to

September 2006 are shown in figure V-2.
V-3

Figure V-2

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates between the currencies of Argentina, Brazil,

and Germany relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2001-September 2006

Figure continued.
V-4

Figure V-2--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates between the currencies of Argentina, Brazil,

and Germany relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2001-September 2006

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics,

http://ifs.apdi.net/imf/ifsbrowser.aspx?branch=ROOT, retrieved on November 24, 2006. 

PRICING PRACTICES

Two of four responding U.S. producers, ***, reported using price lists; the other two producers

reported transaction-by-transaction pricing (one of these companies also reported contract prices). Three

U.S. producers reported offering discounts based on quantity or order size (one of these firms reported

quantity discounts were available to authorized distributors) while one U.S. producer reported that it did

not offer discounts. Seven of nine responding importers reported transaction by transaction prices, while

one importer reported pricing on a cost plus basis and one reported contract prices. Seven of nine

responding importers did not give discounts, or did not have a discount policy, one had annual volume

discounts for its major distributors, and one gave discounts for individual items in order to increase the

length of production lots.

Purchasers were asked if there were any price leaders; seven of 13 responding purchasers listed

U.S. Steel as the only price leader, three other purchasers listed U.S. Steel as one of a number of price

leaders, and three reported other price leaders, none of which were a U.S. producer. Other price leaders

listed by purchasers were Koppel Steel and V&M Tube (listed by two firms), Sharon Tube, Mittal,

Tenaris, and Heng Yang (a Chinese firm). 

Pricing Methods

Three of four responding U.S. producers reported that nearly all of their sales of seamless SLP

pipe were on a spot basis. The other U.S. producer, ***, sold *** percent through short-term contracts. 

Importers also were asked to provide shares of contract and spot sales of seamless SLP pipe. *** an
 2

 ***.

 3

 The products used in these second reviews were also used in the first reviews. There was one additional product

in the first reviews, however, there were few sales of this product and for this reason data for this product were not

requested for this product in the second reviews.

V-5

importer of *** product, reported that all of its sales were spot sales.2

 In addition, four importers

separately reported that at least some of their sales of imported seamless SLP pipe from *** were through

short-term contracts.

Sales Terms

Three U.S. producers reported selling on an f.o.b. basis while one reported selling on a delivered

basis. One of the two responding importers reported selling on a delivered basis and the other on a c.i.f.

duty paid basis. Two U.S. producers reported sales terms of net 60 days; one reported terms of net 30

days; and one reported terms of 1⁄2 percent for payments within 10 days, net 30. All three responding

importers reporting sales terms of net 30.

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of seamless SLP pipe to provide

quarterly quantity and f.o.b. value data for shipments of the following products to unrelated U.S.

customers during January 2001-September 2006:3

Product 1: Seamless pipe triple-stenciled (or more) to meet ASTM A-106 grade B, ASTM A-53

grade B, and API 5L grade B specifications; 1 inch nominal size (1.315 inch OD x 0.179 inch

wall thickness); plain ends; schedule 80.

Product 2: Seamless pipe triple-stenciled (or more) to meet ASTM A-106 grade B, ASTM A-53

grade B, and API 5L grade B specifications; 2-1/2 inch nominal size (2.875 inch OD x 0.276 inch

wall thickness); plain ends; schedule 80.

Product 3: Seamless pipe triple-stenciled (or more) to meet ASTM A-106 grade B, ASTM A-53

grade B, and API 5L grade B specifications; 3 inch nominal size (3.5 inch OD x 0.3 inch wall

thickness); plain ends; schedule 80.

Product 4: Seamless pipe triple-stenciled (or more) to meet ASTM A-106 grade B, ASTM A-53

grade B, and API 5L grade B specifications; 4 inch nominal size (4.5 inch OD x 0.337 inch wall

thickness); plain ends; schedule 80.

Product 5: Seamless pipe stenciled to meet ASTM A-335 grade P22; 2 inch nominal size (2.375

inch OD x 0.218 inch wall thickness); plain ends; schedule 80.

U.S. producers ***, ***, and *** provided pricing data for sales of products 1-4; no U.S.

producer reported data for product 5. Limited price data were reported by one importer for Brazil for

product 3 and for Germany for product 1. ***. No importer provided price data for products from

Argentina. By quantity, pricing data reported by responding firms for January 2001-September 2006

accounted for approximately one-quarter of reported U.S. producers’ shipments of seamless SLP pipe and
 4

 Pricing data accounted for *** percent of reported U.S. producers' shipments of seamless SLP pipe, *** percent

of Brazilian and *** percent of German product. ***.

V-6

less than one percent of Brazilian and German product.4

 Data for the United States and Brazil are

presented in tables V-2 and V-3 and data for the United States, Brazil, and Germany are presented in

figure V-3. For the two quarters in which there were Brazilian price data, Brazilian product was priced

higher than U.S. product, with margins of overselling of *** percent in the fourth quarter of 2004 and ***

percent in the *** quarter of 2005. *** reported that in the first quarter of 2001, it sold *** short tons of

product *** imported from *** at an average unit value of $*** per ton, *** percent higher than reported

U.S. producer prices in that quarter.

Table V-2

Seamless SLP pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic products 1, 2, and 4, by

quarters, January 2001-September 2006

* * * * * * *

Table V-3

Seamless SLP pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported products, and

margins of underselling/(overselling) for product 3, by quarters, January 2001-September 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure V-3

Seamless SLP pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic and imported products 1-4, January 2001-

September 2006

* * * * * * *

Price Trends

U.S. producer prices increased by *** to *** percent during the period for which data were

collected, with most of the increase since 2004. 

Purchasers were asked if there has there been a change in the price of seamless SLP pipe since

2001, and if so, whether the price of U.S.-produced seamless SLP pipe changed more or less than the

price of seamless SLP pipe imported from Argentina, Brazil, or Germany. Six of nine responding

purchasers indicated that prices had changed by the same amount; one indicated that there had been no

change in price; one indicated that the price of U.S.-produced seamless SLP pipe had changed relative to

the price of products from each of the three subject countries; and one indicated that the price of U.S.-

produced product had changed relative to the price of product from Germany.

In the original investigations, pricing data were collected for seven products, however comparable

prices were only available for six of the products. The number of instances of underselling and

overselling for each of these products, by country, are provided in table V-4. No pricing comparisons for

U.S. and subject countries were available in the first reviews. 

Table V-4

Seamless SLP pipe: Number of quarters of underselling and overselling and highest and lowest margin of

underselling and overselling in the initial investigations, by country and product

* * * * * * *
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND 

THE COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Notices 31153 

General Counsel, Antitrust 

Modernization Commission: telephone: 

(202) 233–0701; e-mail: info@amc.gov. 

Mr. Heimert is also the Designated 

Federal Officer (DFO) for the Antitrust 

Modernization Commission. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of this meeting is for the 

Antitrust Modernization Commission to 

deliberate on its report and/or 

recommendations to Congress and the 

President regarding the antitrust laws. 

The meeting will cover merger 

enforcement and possible patent reform. 

The Commission will also conduct other 

additional business, as necessary. 

Materials relating to the meeting will be 

made available on the Commission’s 

Web site (http://www.amc.gov) in 

advance of the meeting. 

The AMC has called this meeting 

pursuant to its authorizing statute and 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

Antitrust Modernization Commission 

Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107–273, 

§ 11054(f), 116 Stat. 1758, 1857; Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., 

§ 10(a)(2); 41 CFR 102–3.150 (2005). 

Dated: May 26, 2006. 

By direction of Deborah A. Garza, Chair of 

the Antitrust Modernization Commission. 

Approved by Designated Federal Officer: 

Andrew J. Heimert, 

Executive Director & General Counsel, 

Antitrust Modernization Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–8445 Filed 5–31–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–YH–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

(‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders listed 

below. The International Trade 

Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) is 

publishing concurrently with this notice 

its notice of Institution of Five-Year 

Review which covers these same orders. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review(s) section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20230. For 

information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) 

and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). 

Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of Sunset 

Reviews is set forth in the Department’s 

Policy Bulletin 98.3—Policies Regarding 

the Conduct of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) 

(‘‘Sunset Policy Bulletin’’). 

Initiation of Reviews 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders: 

DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–357–810 ............ 731–TA–711 ......... Argentina .............. Oil Country Tubular Goods (2nd Review).Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–475–816 ............ 731–TA–713 ......... Italy ....................... Oil Country Tubular Goods (2nd Review).Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

C–475–817 ............ 701–TA–364 ......... Italy ....................... Oil Country Tubular Goods (2nd Review).Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–588–835 ............ 731–TA–714 ......... Japan .................... Oil Country Goods (2nd Review) ........ Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–580–825 ............ 731–TA–715 ......... South Korea ......... Oil Country Tubular Goods (2nd Review).Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–201–817 ............ 731–TA–716 ......... Mexico .................. Oil Country Tubular Goods (2nd Review).Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–357–809 ............ 731–TA–707 ......... Argentina .............. Seamless Line and Pressure Pipe 

(2nd Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–351–826 ............ 731–TA–708 ......... Brazil ..................... Seamless Line and Pressure Pipe 

(2nd Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

A–428–820 ............ 731–TA–709 ......... Germany ............... Seamless Line and Pressure Pipe 

(2nd Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482–1391. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

Sunset Reviews (19 CFR 351.218) and 

Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department’s 

schedule of Sunset Reviews, case 

history information (i.e., previous 

margins, duty absorption 

determinations, scope language, import 

volumes), and service lists available to 

the public on the Department’s sunset 

Internet Web site at the following 

address: ‘‘http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’

All submissions in these Sunset 

Reviews must be filed in accordance 

with the Department’s regulations 

regarding format, translation, service, 

and certification of documents. These 

rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of the notice of initiation of the 

sunset review. The Department’s 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
31154 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Notices 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests for 

extension of that five-day deadline based upon a 

showing of good cause. 

regulations on submission of proprietary 

information and eligibility to receive 

access to business proprietary 

information under APO can be found at 

19 CFR 351.304–306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties (defined 

in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) 

wishing to participate in these Sunset 

Reviews must respond not later than 15 

days after the date of publication in the 

Federal Register of this notice of 

initiation by filing a notice of intent to 

participate. The required contents of the 

notice of intent to participate are set 

forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In 

accordance with the Department’s 

regulations, if we do not receive a notice 

of intent to participate from at least one 

domestic interested party by the 15-day 

deadline, the Department will 

automatically revoke the orders without 

further review. See 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c). 

Dated: May 22, 2006. 

Thomas F. Futtner, 

Acting Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4 for Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–8510 Filed 5–31–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

Background 

Every five years, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, the Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) and the 

International Trade Commission 

automatically initiate and conduct a 

review to determine whether revocation 

of a countervailing or antidumping duty 

order or termination of an investigation 

suspended under section 704 or 734 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping or a 

countervailable subsidy (as the case may 

be) and of material injury. As a courtesy, 

the Department provides advance notice 

of these cases that are scheduled for 

sunset reviews one month before those 

reviews are initiated. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev 

Primor, Office 4, AD/CVD Operations, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce at (202) 482–4114. 

Upcoming Sunset Reviews 

There are no sunset reviews 

scheduled for initiation in July 2006. 

For information on the Department’s 

procedures for the conduct of sunset 

reviews, See 19 CFR 351.218. This 

notice is not required by statute but is 

published as a service to the 

international trading community. 

Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of sunset reviews 

is set forth in the Department’s Policy 

Bulletin 98.3, ‘‘Policies Regarding the 

Conduct of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders;’’ Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) 

(‘‘Sunset Policy Bulletin’’). The Notice 

of Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews provides further information 

regarding what is required of all parties 

to participate in sunset reviews. 

Dated: May 19, 2006. 

Thomas F. Futtner, 

Acting Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–8512 Filed 5–31–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–899] 

Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Certain Artist Canvas from the 

People’s Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: Based on affirmative final 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) and the 

International Trade Commission 

(‘‘ITC’’), the Department is issuing an 

antidumping duty order on certain artist 

canvas from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). On May 15, 2006, the 

ITC notified the Department of its 

affirmative determination of material 

injury to a U.S. industry (Artist Canvas 

from China, Investigation No. 731–TA–

1091 (Final), Publication 3853, May 

2006). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Holton, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–1324. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In accordance with section 735(d) and 

777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), on March 30, 

2006, the Department published the 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Artist 

Canvas from the People’s Republic of 

China, 71 FR 16116 (March 30, 2006) 

(‘‘Final Determination’’). A notice of 

correction was published on May 8, 

2006 to correct one of the exporter and 

producer names that was published in 

the Final Determination. See Notice of 

Correction to Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas from 

the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 

26735 (May 8, 2006). 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Notices 31209 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the countervailing and 

antidumping duty orders on each 

Domestic Industry in general and/or 

your firm/entity specifically. In your 

response, please discuss the various 

factors specified in section 752(a) of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the 

likely volume of subject imports, likely 

price effects of subject imports, and 

likely impact of imports of Subject 

Merchandise on each Domestic 

Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

2000. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2005 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/ 

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/ 

which are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Countries, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2005 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping or countervailing duties) 

of U.S. imports and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total U.S. 

imports of Subject Merchandise from 

each Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. 

commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. internal 

consumption/company transfers of 

Subject Merchandise imported from 

each Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Countries, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2005 

(report quantity data in short tons and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping or 

countervailing duties). If you are a 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Countries after 2000, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Countries, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(11) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 24, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–8305 Filed 5–31–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–707–709 

(Second Review)] 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure 

Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, and 

Germany 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on certain seamless carbon and alloy 

steel standard, line, and pressure pipe 

(‘‘seamless pipe’’) from Argentina, 

Brazil, and Germany. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on seamless 

pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and 

Germany would be likely to lead to 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
31210 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 06–5–154, 

expiration date June 30, 2008. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 10 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission;1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is July 21, 2006. Comments 

on the adequacy of responses may be 

filed with the Commission by August 

14, 2006. For further information 

concerning the conduct of these reviews 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On August 3, 1995, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) 

issued antidumping duty orders on 

imports of seamless pipe from 

Argentina, Brazil, and Germany (60 FR 

39704). Following five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective July 16, 2001, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty orders on imports of 

seamless pipe from Argentina, Brazil, 

and Germany (66 FR 37004). The 

Commission is now conducting second 

reviews to determine whether 

revocation of the orders would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to the domestic industry 

within a reasonably foreseeable time. It 

will assess the adequacy of interested 

party responses to this notice of 

institution to determine whether to 

conduct full reviews or expedited 

reviews. The Commission’s 

determinations in any expedited 

reviews will be based on the facts 

available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions. The following definitions 

apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are Argentina, Brazil, and 

Germany. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determinations and its full five-year 

review determinations, the Commission 

found one Domestic Like Product 

consisting of seamless carbon and alloy 

steel standard, line, and pressure pipe 

and tube not more than 4.5 inches in 

outside diameter, and including redraw 

hollows. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determinations 

and full five-year review 

determinations, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Industry as 

producers of seamless carbon and alloy 

steel standard, line, and pressure pipe 

and tube not more than 4.5 inches in 

outside diameter, as well as all redraw 

hollows. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list. Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are reminded that they 

are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, 

to seek Commission approval if the 

matter in which they are seeking to 

appear was pending in any manner or 

form during their Commission 

employment. The Commission is 

seeking guidance as to whether a second 

transition five-year review is the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the underlying 

original investigation for purposes of 19 

CFR 201.15 and 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees. Former employees may seek 

informal advice from Commission ethics 

officials with respect to this and the 

related issue of whether the employee’s 

participation was ‘‘personal and 

substantial.’’ However, any informal 

consultation will not relieve former 

employees of the obligation to seek 

approval to appear from the 

Commission under its rule 201.15. For 

ethics advice, contact Carol McCue 

Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, 

at 202–205–3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list. Pursuant to 

§ 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the 

Secretary will make BPI submitted in 

these reviews available to authorized 

applicants under the APO issued in the 

reviews, provided that the application is 

made no later than 21 days after 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. Authorized applicants must 

represent interested parties, as defined 

in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to 

the reviews. A separate service list will 

be maintained by the Secretary for those 

parties authorized to receive BPI under 

the APO. 

Certification. Pursuant to § 207.3 of 

the Commission’s rules, any person 

submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Notices 31211 

Written submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is July 21, 2006. 

Pursuant to § 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct expedited 

or full reviews. The deadline for filing 

such comments is August 14, 2006. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of §§ 201.8 and 207.3 of 

the Commission’s rules and any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

§§ 201.6 and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

§ 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, as 

amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Also, in accordance with 

§§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the 

Commission’s rules, each document 

filed by a party to the reviews must be 

served on all other parties to the reviews 

(as identified by either the public or 

APO service list as appropriate), and a 

certificate of service must accompany 

the document (if you are not a party to 

the reviews you do not need to serve 

your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information. Pursuant to § 207.61(c) of 

the Commission’s rules, any interested 

party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 

Information To Be Provided in 

Response to This Notice of Institution: If 

you are a domestic producer, union/ 

worker group, or trade/business 

association; import/export Subject 

Merchandise from more than one 

Subject Country; or produce Subject 

Merchandise in more than one Subject 

Country, you may file a single response. 

If you do so, please ensure that your 

response to each question includes the 

information requested for each pertinent 

Subject Country. As used below, the 

term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

2000. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2005 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/ 

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/ 

which are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Countries, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2005 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from each Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from each Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Countries, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2005 

(report quantity data in short tons and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
31212 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Notices 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Countries after 2000, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Countries, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(11) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 24, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–8308 Filed 5–31–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Partial Consent 

Decree Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980 (‘‘CERCLA’’) 

Consistent with Section 122(d) of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980, as amended (‘‘CERCLA’’), 

42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and 28 CFR 50.7, 

notice is hereby given that on May 22, 

2006, a proposed Partial Consent Decree 

with Midcontinent Commodity 

Exchange, Inc. in United States v. 

American Cyanamid, et al., Nos. 1:02–

CV–109–1 and 1:03–CV–122–3 (M.D. 

Ga.), was lodged with the United States 

District Court for the Middle District of 

Georgia. 

In this action, the United States seeks 

to recover from various defendants, 

pursuant to Sections 107 and 113(g)(2) 

of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607 and 

9613(g)(2), the costs incurred and to be 

incurred by the United States in 

responding to the release and/or 

threatened release of hazardous 

substances at and from the Stoller 

Chemical Company/Pelham Phosphate 

Company Site (‘‘Site’’) in Pelham, 

Mitchell County, Georgia. Under the 

proposed Partial Consent Decree, 

Defendant Midcontinent Commodity 

Exchange, Inc. will pay $50,000 to the 

Hazardous Substances Superfund in 

reimbursement of the costs incurred by 

the United States at the Site. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the Partial Consent Decree. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States v. American Cyanamid, et al., 

(M.D. Ga.) (Partial Consent Decree with 

Midcontinent Commodity Exchange, 

Inc., DOJ Ref. No. 90–11–3–07602). 

The Partial Consent Decree may be 

examined at the Office of the United 

States Attorney, Middle District of 

Georgia, Cherry St. Galleria, 4th Floor, 

433 Cherry St., Macon, GA 31201 ((478) 

752–3511), and at U.S. EPA Region 4, 

Altanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth 

Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

(contact Bonnie Sawyer, Esq. (404) 562–

9539.) During the public comment 

period, the Partial Consent Decree may 

also be examined on the following 

Department of Justice Web site, http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html. A copy 

of the Partial Consent Decree may also 

be obtained by mail from the Consent 

Decree Library, U.S. Department of 

Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 

20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a 

request to Tonia Fleetwood 

(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. 

(202) 514–0097, phone confirmation 

number (202) 514–1547. In requesting a 

copy from the Consent Decree Library, 

please refer to United States v. 

American Cyanamid, et al., (M.D. Ga.) 

(Partial Consent Decree with 

Midcontinent Commodity Exchange, 

Inc., DOJ Ref. No. 90–11–3–07602), and 

enclose a check in the amount of $5.50 

(25 cents per page reproduction cost) 

payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by email or fax, forward a check in that 

amount to the Consent Decree Library at 

the stated address. 

Henry S. Friedman, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 06–5016 Filed 5–31––06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Partial Consent 

Decree Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980 (‘‘CERCLA’’) 

Consistent with Section 122(d) of the 

comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980, as amended (‘‘CERCLA’’), 

42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and 28 CFR 50.7, 

notice is hereby given that on May 22, 

2006, a proposed partial Consent Decree 

with Olin Corporation (‘‘Olin’’) and 

Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. f/k/a 

Borden Chemical, Inc. (‘‘Hexion/ 

Borden’’) in United States v. American 

Cyanamid, et al., Nos. 1:02–CV–109–1 

and 1:03–CV–122–3 (M.D. GA.), was 

lodged with the United States District 

Court for the Middle District of Georgia. 

In this action, the United States seeks 

to recover from various defendants, 

pursuant to Sections 107 and 113(g)(2) 

of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607 and 

9613(g)(2), the costs incurred and to be 

incurred by the United States in 

responding to the release and/or 

threatened release of hazardous 

substances at and from the Stoller 

Chemical Company/Pelham Phosphate 

Company Site (‘‘Site’’) in Pelham, 

Mitchell County, Georgia. Under the 

proposed Partial Consent Decree, 

Defendant Olin and Third-Party 

Defendant Hexion/Borden will jointly 

pay $1,750,000 to the Hazardous 

Substances Superfund in 

reimbursement of the costs incurred by 

the United States at the Site. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the Partial Consent Decree. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States v. American Cyanamid, et al., 

(M.D. Ga.) (Partial Consent Decree with 

Olin and Hexion/Borden, DOJ Ref. No. 

90–11–3–07602). 

The Partial Consent Decree may be 

examined at the Office of the United 

States Attorney, Middle District of 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
54520 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 179 / Friday, September 15, 2006 / Notices 

1Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun and 

Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane found that the 

respondent interested party group response with 

respect to Germany was adequate. 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Michael Nepstad, 

Acting Regional Environmental Officer, MidPacific Region. 

[FR Doc. 06–7705 Filed 9–14–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–M 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the countervailing duty 

order on OCTG from Italy and the 

antidumping duty orders on OCTG from 

Argentina, Italy, Japan, Korea, and 

Mexico would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. A schedule for the reviews will be 

established and announced at a later 

date. For further information concerning 

the conduct of these reviews and rules 

of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: September 5, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 5, 2006, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to 

full reviews in the subject five-year 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. The Commission found that 

both the domestic and respondent 

interested party group responses to its 

notice of institution (71 FR 31207, June 

1, 2006) were adequate. A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 11, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–15359 Filed 9–14–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–707–709 

(Second Review)] 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure 

Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, and 

Germany 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determinations to conduct full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on certain seamless carbon 

and alloy steel standard, line, and 

pressure pipe (‘‘seamless pipe’’) from 

Argentina, Brazil, and Germany. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on seamless pipe from Argentina, 

Brazil, and Germany would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. A schedule for the 

reviews will be established and 

announced at a later date. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: September 5, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 5, 2006, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to 

full reviews in the subject five-year 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. The Commission found that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (71 

FR 31209, June 1, 2006) was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response with respect to 

Argentina was adequate and decided to 

conduct a full review with respect to the 

order covering seamless pipe from 

Argentina. The Commission found that 

the respondent interested party group 

responses with respect to Brazil and 

Germany were inadequate.1 However, 

the Commission determined to conduct 

full reviews concerning seamless pipe 

from Brazil and Germany to promote 

administrative efficiency in light of its 

decision to conduct a full review with 

respect to seamless pipe from Argentina. 

A record of the Commissioners’ votes, 

the Commission’s statement on 

adequacy, and any individual 

Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the 

Secretary and at the Commission’s Web 

site. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 179 / Friday, September 15, 2006 / Notices 54521 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 11, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–15360 Filed 9–14–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 2006 / Notices 57567 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II(C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

reviews must be served on all other 

parties to the reviews (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 25, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–16077 Filed 9–28–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–707–709 

(Second Review)] 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure 

Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, and 

Germany 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of full five-year 

reviews concerning the antidumping 

duty orders on certain seamless carbon 

and alloy steel standard, line, and 

pressure pipe from Argentina, Brazil, 

and Germany. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of full reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on certain seamless carbon and 

alloy steel standard, line, and pressure 

pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and 

Germany would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. For further information 

concerning the conduct of these reviews 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

Effective Date: September 22, 2006 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joanna Lo (202–205–1888), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: On September 5, 2006, the 

Commission determined that responses 

to its notice of institution of the subject 

five-year reviews were such that full 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act should proceed (71 FR 54520, 

September 15, 2006). A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements are available from the Office 

of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list: Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in these reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11 of the 

Commission’s rules, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the reviews need not 

file an additional notice of appearance. 

The Secretary will maintain a public 

service list containing the names and 

addresses of all persons, or their 

representatives, who are parties to the 

reviews. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list: Pursuant to section 

207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the 

Secretary will make BPI gathered in 

these reviews available to authorized 

applicants under the APO issued in the 

reviews, provided that the application is 

made by 45 days after publication of 

this notice. Authorized applicants must 

represent interested parties, as defined 

by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to 

the reviews. A party granted access to 

BPI following publication of the 

Commission’s notice of institution of 

the reviews need not reapply for such 

access. A separate service list will be 

maintained by the Secretary for those 

parties authorized to receive BPI under 

the APO. 

Staff report: The prehearing staff 

report in the reviews will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on January 9, 

2007, and a public version will be 

issued thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.64 of the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing: The Commission will hold a 

hearing in connection with the reviews 

beginning at 9:30 a.m. on February 8, 

2007, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Requests to 

appear at the hearing should be filed in 

writing with the Secretary to the 

Commission on or before January 30, 

2007. A nonparty who has testimony 

that may aid the Commission’s 

deliberations may request permission to 

present a short statement at the hearing. 

All parties and nonparties desiring to 

appear at the hearing and make oral 

presentations should attend a 

prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 

a.m. on February 5, 2007, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Oral testimony and written 

materials to be submitted at the public 

hearing are governed by sections 

201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 

207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions: Each party to the 

reviews may submit a prehearing brief 

to the Commission. Prehearing briefs 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 207.65 of the Commission’s 

rules; the deadline for filing is January 

19, 2007. Parties may also file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the hearing, as provided 

in section 207.24 of the Commission’s 

rules, and posthearing briefs, which 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 207.67 of the Commission’s 

rules. The deadline for filing 

posthearing briefs is February 20, 2007; 

witness testimony must be filed no later 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
57568 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 2006 / Notices 

than three days before the hearing. In 

addition, any person who has not 

entered an appearance as a party to the 

reviews may submit a written statement 

of information pertinent to the subject of 

the reviews on or before February 20, 

2007. On March 19, 2007, the 

Commission will make available to 

parties all information on which they 

have not had an opportunity to 

comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before March 21, 2007, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.68 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in 

II(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

reviews must be served on all other 

parties to the reviews (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: September 26, 2006. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–16025 Filed 9–28–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Importer of Controlled Substances; 

Notice of Registration 

By Notice dated June 12, 2006, and 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 19, 2006, (71 FR 35310), Aptuit, 

10245 Hickman Mills Drive, Kansas 

City, Missouri 64137, made application 

by letter to the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) to be registered as 

an importer of a Cocaine derivative 

under the drug code for Cocaine (9041), 

a basic class of controlled substance 

listed in Schedule II. 

The company plans to import bulk 

capsules in dosage form specifically for 

packaging for a clinical trial study. 

No comments or objections have been 

received. DEA has considered the 

factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) 

and determined that the registration of 

Aptuit to import the basic class of 

controlled substances is consistent with 

the public interest and with United 

States obligations under international 

treaties, conventions, or protocols in 

effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA 

has investigated Aptuit to ensure that 

the company’s registration is consistent 

with the public interest. The 

investigation has included inspection 

and testing of the company’s physical 

security systems, verification of the 

company’s compliance with State and 

local laws, and a review of the 

company’s background and history. 

Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) 

and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 

CFR 1301.34, the above named company 

is granted registration as an importer of 

the basic class of controlled substances 

listed. 

Dated: September 20, 2006. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–16026 Filed 9–28–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Importer of Controlled Substances; 

Notice of Registration 

By Notice dated June 1, 2006, and 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 8, 2006, (71 FR 33315), Cambrex 

Charles City, Inc., 1205 11th Street, 

Charles City, Iowa 50616, made 

application by renewal to the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 

be registered as an importer of 

Phenylacetone (8501), a basic class of 

controlled substance listed in Schedule 

II. 

The company plans to procure 

Phenylacetone through importation to 

be used as a precursor in the 

manufacture of amphetamines only. 

No comments or objections have been 

received. DEA has considered the 

factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) 

and determined that the registration of 

Cambrex Charles City, Inc. to import the 

basic class of controlled substances is 

consistent with the public interest and 

with United States obligations under 

international treaties, conventions, or 

protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at 

this time. DEA has investigated 

Cambrex Charles City, Inc. to ensure 

that the company’s registration is 

consistent with the public interest. The 

investigation has included inspection 

and testing of the company’s physical 

security systems, verification of the 

company’s compliance with State and 

local laws, and a review of the 

company’s background and history. 

Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) 

and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 

CFR 1301.34, the above named company 

is granted registration as an importer of 

the basic class of controlled substances 

listed. 

Dated: September 20, 2006. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–16024 Filed 9–28–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

Amphetamine (1100) .................... II 

Methylphenidate (1724) ................ II 

Phenylacetone (8501) .................. II 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 194 / Friday, October 6, 2006 / Notices 59079 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on pure 

magnesium from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’). See Pure Magnesium 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

18067 (April 10, 2006) (‘‘Preliminary 

Results’’). In the Preliminary Results, we 

stated that we would issue our final 

results of review no later than 120 days 

after the date of publication of the 

preliminary results (i.e., August 8, 

2006). On July 31, 2006, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice extending the time limit for the 

final results of the administrative review 

from August 8, 2006, to September 7, 

2006. See Notice of Extension of Final 

Result of the 2004–2005 Administrative 

Review of Pure Magnesium from the 

People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 43110 

(July 31, 2006). Additionally, on 

September 12, 2006, the Department 

published a notice extending the time 

limit for the final results of review until 

September 29, 2006. See Notice of 

Extension of Final Results of the 2004–

2005 Administrative Review of Pure 

Magnesium from the People’s Republic 

of China, 71 FR 53662 (September 12, 

2006). The final results of review are 

currently due no later than September 

29, 2006. 

Extension of Time Limit for Final 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department to issue the 

final results in an administrative review 

within 120 days of publication date of 

the preliminary results. However, if it is 

not practicable to complete the review 

within this time period, the Department 

may extend the time limit for the final 

results to 180 days. Completion of the 

final results within the 120-day period 

is not practicable because this review 

involves certain complex issues 

involving valuation of various factors of 

production. 

Therefore, we are fully extending the 

time period for issuing the final results 

of review to 180 days until October 7, 

2006, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. However, 

because October 7, 2006, falls on a 

Saturday, and the next business day 

October 9, 2006 is a federal holiday, the 

final results will be due on October 10, 

2006, the next business day. This notice 

is published pursuant to sections 751(a) 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: September 28, 2006. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration 

[FR Doc. E6–16522 Filed 10–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–357–809, A–351–826, A–428–820) 

Certain Small Diameter Carbon and 

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and 

Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil 

and Germany: Final Results of the 

Expedited Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 1, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated sunset reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on certain 

small diameter carbon and alloy 

seamless standard, line, and pressure 

pipe (seamless line pipe) from 

Argentina, Brazil, and Germany 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See 

Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews, 71 FR 31153 (June 1, 2006) 

(Sunset Initiation). On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate and 

adequate substantive responses filed on 

behalf of domestic interested parties, 

and only one notice of intent to 

participate filed on behalf of a German 

respondent interested party, Benteler 

Stahl/Rohr GmbH (Benteler Stahl), the 

response for which was determined by 

the Department to be inadequate, the 

Department conducted expedited (120- 

day) sunset reviews. As a result of these 

sunset reviews, the Department finds 

that revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders would likely lead to the 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

The dumping margins are identified in 

the Final Results of Review section of 

this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dana Mermelstein or Dena Crossland, 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1391 or (202) 482–

3362, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 1, 2006, the Department 

initiated sunset reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on seamless 

line pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and 

Germany pursuant to section 751(c) of 

the Act. See Sunset Initiation. The 

Department received notices of intent to 

participate from two domestic interested 

parties, United States Steel Corporation 

(US Steel) and Koppel Steel Corporation 

(Koppel Steel) (collectively, domestic 

interested parties), within the deadline 

specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of 

the Department’s regulations. Domestic 

interested parties claimed interested 

party status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act as U.S. producers of the 

domestic like product. We received 

complete substantive responses from the 

domestic interested parties within the 

30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i) on July 3, 2006. 

The Department received one 

substantive response from the German 

respondent interested party, Benteler 

Stahl, on July 3, 2006. On July 14, 2006, 

we received rebuttal responses from 

domestic interested parties and Benteler 

Stahl. After reviewing its substantive 

and rebuttal responses, the Department 

determined that Benteler Stahl’s 

submissions were inadequate, pursuant 

to sections 218(e)(1)(ii)(A) and (C) of the 

Department’s regulations. See 

Memorandum from Dena M. Crossland, 

Import Compliance Specialist, through 

Richard O. Weible, AD/CVD Operations 

Office 7 Director, to Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Import 

Administration, regarding Adequacy 

Determination: Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Seamless 

Standard Line, and Pressure Pipe from 

Germany, dated July 21, 2006. No other 

respondent interested parties submitted 

responses. As a result of the timely 

filed, substantive responses from 

domestic interested parties, and the 

inadequacy of the substantive response 

for Germany (the sole substantive 

response from a respondent interested 

party in these sunset reviews), the 

Department conducted expedited sunset 

reviews of these orders, pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). 

Scope of the Orders 

The products covered by the orders 

are seamless carbon and alloy (other 

than stainless) steel standard, line, and 

pressure pipes and redraw hollows 

produced, or equivalent, to the ASTM 

A–53, ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, 

ASTM A–334, ASTM A–335, ASTM A–

589, ASTM A–795, and the API 5L 

specifications and meeting the physical 

parameters described below, regardless 

of application. The scope of the orders 

also includes all products used in 

standard, line, or pressure pipe 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
59080 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 194 / Friday, October 6, 2006 / Notices 

applications and meeting the physical 

parameters described below, regardless 

of specification. 

Specifically included within the 

scope of the orders are seamless pipes 

and redraw hollows, less than or equal 

to 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) in outside 

diameter, regardless of wall–thickness, 

manufacturing process (hot finished or 

cold–drawn), end finish (plain end, 

beveled end, upset end, threaded, or 

threaded and coupled), or surface finish. 

The seamless pipes subject to the 

orders are currently classifiable under 

the subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 

7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.30.00, 

7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 

7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 

7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 

7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 

7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 

7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 

7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Specifications, Characteristics, and 

Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are 

intended for the conveyance of water, 

steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil 

products, natural gas and other liquids 

and gases in industrial piping systems. 

They may carry these substances at 

elevated pressures and temperatures 

and may be subject to the application of 

external heat. Seamless carbon steel 

pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A–106 

standard may be used in temperatures of 

up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at 

various ASME code stress levels. Alloy 

pipes made to ASTM A–335 standard 

must be used if temperatures and stress 

levels exceed those allowed for ASTM 

A–106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in 

the United States are commonly 

produced to the ASTM A–106 standard. 

Seamless standard pipes are most 

commonly produced to the ASTM A–53 

specification and generally are not 

intended for high temperature service. 

They are intended for the low 

temperature and pressure conveyance of 

water, steam, natural gas, air and other 

liquids and gases in plumbing and 

heating systems, air conditioning units, 

automatic sprinkler systems, and other 

related uses. Standard pipes (depending 

on type and code) may carry liquids at 

elevated temperatures but must not 

exceed relevant ASME code 

requirements. If exceptionally low 

temperature uses or conditions are 

anticipated, standard pipe may be 

manufactured to ASTM A–333 or ASTM 

A–334 specifications. 

Seamless line pipes are intended for 

the conveyance of oil and natural gas or 

other fluids in pipelines. Seamless line 

pipes are produced to the API 5L 

specification. 

Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A–

589) and seamless galvanized pipe for 

fire protection uses (ASTM A–795) are 

used for the conveyance of water. 

Seamless pipes are commonly 

produced and certified to meet ASTM 

A–106, ASTM A–53, API 5L–B, and API 

5L–X42 specifications. To avoid 

maintaining separate production runs 

and separate inventories, manufacturers 

typically triple or quadruple certify the 

pipes by meeting the metallurgical 

requirements and performing the 

required tests pursuant to the respective 

specifications. Since distributors sell the 

vast majority of this product, they can 

thereby maintain a single inventory to 

service all customers. 

The primary application of ASTM A–

106 pressure pipes and triple or 

quadruple certified pipes is use in 

pressure piping systems by refineries, 

petrochemical plants, and chemical 

plants. Other applications are in power 

generation plants (electrical–fossil fuel 

or nuclear), and in some oil field uses 

(on shore and off shore) such as for 

separator lines, gathering lines and 

metering runs. A minor application of 

this product is for use as oil and gas 

distribution lines for commercial 

applications. These applications 

constitute the majority of the market for 

the subject seamless pipes. However, 

ASTM A–106 pipes may be used in 

some boiler applications. 

Redraw hollows are any unfinished 

pipe or ‘‘hollow profiles’’ of carbon or 

alloy steel transformed by hot rolling or 

cold drawing/ hydrostatic testing or 

other methods to enable the material to 

be sold under ASTM A–53, ASTM A–

106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, 

ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–

795, and API 5L specifications. 

The scope of the orders includes all 

seamless pipe meeting the physical 

parameters described above and 

produced to one of the specifications 

listed above, regardless of application, 

with the exception of the specific 

exclusions discussed below, and 

whether or not also certified to a non–

covered specification. Standard, line, 

and pressure applications and the 

above–listed specifications are defining 

characteristics of the scope of the 

orders. Therefore, seamless pipes 

meeting the physical description above, 

but not produced to the ASTM A–53, 

ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–

334, ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, 

ASTM A–795, and API 5L specifications 

shall be covered if used in a standard, 

line, or pressure application, with the 

exception of the specific exclusions 

discussed below. For example, there are 

certain other ASTM specifications of 

pipe which, because of overlapping 

characteristics, could potentially be 

used in ASTM A–106 applications. 

These specifications generally include 

ASTM A–161, ASTM A–192, ASTM A–

210, ASTM A–252, ASTM A–501, 

ASTM A–523, ASTM A–524, and ASTM 

A–618. When such pipes are used in a 

standard, line, or pressure pipe 

application, with the exception of the 

specific exclusions discussed below, 

such products are covered by the scope 

of the orders. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

of the orders are boiler tubing and 

mechanical tubing, if such products are 

not produced to ASTM A–53, ASTM A–

106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, 

ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–

795, and API 5L specifications and are 

not used in standard, line, or pressure 

pipe applications. In addition, finished 

and unfinished oil country tubular 

goods (OCTG) are excluded from the 

scope of the orders, if covered by the 

scope of another antidumping duty 

order from the same country. If not 

covered by such an OCTG order, 

finished and unfinished OCTG are 

included in this scope when used in 

standard, line or pressure applications. 

With regard to the excluded products 

listed above, the Department will not 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to require end–use 

certification until such time as 

petitioner or other interested parties 

provide to the Department a reasonable 

basis to believe or suspect that the 

products are being used in a covered 

application. If such information is 

provided, we will require end–use 

certification only for the product(s) (or 

specification(s)) for which evidence is 

provided that such products are being 

used in covered applications as 

described above. For example, if, based 

on evidence provided by petitioner, the 

Department finds a reasonable basis to 

believe or suspect that seamless pipe 

produced to the A–161 specification is 

being used in a standard, line or 

pressure application, we will require 

end–use certifications for imports of 

that specification. Normally we will 

require only the importer of record to 

certify to the end use of the imported 

merchandise. If it later proves necessary 

for adequate implementation, we may 

also require producers who export such 

products to the United States to provide 

such certification on invoices 

accompanying shipments to the United 

States. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

merchandise subject to this scope is 

dispositive. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 194 / Friday, October 6, 2006 / Notices 59081 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these cases are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated September 28, 

2006, (Decision Memorandum), which 

is hereby adopted by this notice. The 

issues discussed in the Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margin likely 

to prevail if the orders are revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in these sunset 

reviews and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in room 

B–099 of the main Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov, under the heading 

‘‘September 2006.’’ The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Reviews 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on pipe 

fittings from Argentina, Brazil, and 

Germany would likely lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following percentage weighted–

average margins: 

Manufacturers/exporters/producers Weighted–average margin (percent) 

Argentina.

Siderca SAIC ................................................................................................................................................. 108.13 

All Others ....................................................................................................................................................... 108.13 

Brazil.

V & M do Brasil, S.A. .................................................................................................................................... 124.94 

All Others ....................................................................................................................................................... 124.94 

Germany.

Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes - V&M Deutschland GmbH ...................................................................... 57.72 

All Others ....................................................................................................................................................... 57.72 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APO) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: September 29, 2006. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–16601 Filed 10–5–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–533–809 

Stainless Steel Flanges from India: 

Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) has received requests 

for new shipper reviews of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

forged stainless steel flanges (flanges) 

from India issued on February 9, 1994. 

See Amended Final Determination and 

Antidumping Duty Order; Certain 

Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from 

India, 59 FR 5994 (February 9, 1994). In 

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(d) (2005), we 

are initiating antidumping new shipper 

reviews of Micro Forge (India), Ltd. 

(Micro) and Pradeep Metals Limited 

(Pradeep), exporters and producers that 

requested new shipper reviews. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Baker, Michael Heaney, or Robert James, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, 

telephone: (202) 482–2924, (202) 482–

4475, or (202) 482–0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In accordance with section 

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214(d), the Department received 

timely requests submitted by Micro and 

Pradeep (producers and exporters of 

flanges) for new shipper reviews of the 

antidumping duty order on flanges from 

India. See August 31, 2006, letters from 

Micro and Pradeep to the Secretary of 

Commerce requesting new shipper 

reviews. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b), Micro 

and Pradeep certified that they are both 

exporters and producers of the subject 

merchandise, that they did not export 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the period of the 

investigation (POI) (July 1, 1992 through 

December 31, 1992), and that since the 

investigation was initiated, they have 

not been affiliated with any producer or 

exporter who exported the subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POI. They also submitted 

documentation establishing the date on 

which they first shipped the subject 

merchandise to the United States, the 

volume of those shipments, and the date 

of their first sales to unaffiliated 

customers in the United States. They 

also certified they had no shipments to 

the United States during the period 

subsequent to their first shipments. 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with section 

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 

351.214(d) of the Department’s 

regulations, we find that the requests 

submitted by Micro and Pradeep meet 

the threshold requirements for initiation 

of a new shipper review. Accordingly, 

we are initiating new shipper reviews of 

the antidumping duty order on flanges 

from India manufactured and exported 

by Micro and Pradeep. These reviews 

cover the period February 1, 2006, 

through July 31, 2006. We intend to 

issue the preliminary results of these 

reviews no later than 180 days after the 

date on which these reviews are 

initiated, and the final results within 90 

days after the date on which we issue 

the preliminary results. See section 

751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. 

On August 17, 2006, the Pension 

Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

1

 Commissioners Okun and Lane determined that the respondent interested party group

response with respect to Germany was adequate.

 EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATIONS ON ADEQUACY

in

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina,

Brazil, and Germany, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-707-709 (Second Review)

On September 5, 2006, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews

in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B).

The Commission received an individually adequate response filed jointly by United

States Steel Corporation and Koppel Steel Corporation, which indicated that they account for the

majority of U.S. production of seamless pipe. The Commission therefore determined that the

domestic interested party group response was adequate.

With respect to the review pertaining to the order on subject imports from Argentina, the

Commission received an individually adequate response from Siderca S.A.I.C., which accounts

for all production of the subject merchandise in Argentina, and determined that the Argentine

respondent interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission received no responses from any respondent interested party regarding

the order on subject imports from Brazil. Thus, it unanimously determined that the Brazilian

respondent interested party group response to the notice of institution was inadequate.

As pertains to the review regarding the order on subject imports from Germany, the

Commission received an individually adequate joint response from Benteler Steel and Tube

Corporation, a German producer and exporter of the subject merchandise, and Benteler

Stahl/Rohr GmbH, a U.S. importer, though not of the subject merchandise. Benteler accounts

for a small portion of production of subject merchandise in Germany. The Commission

determined that the German respondent interested party group response to the notice of

institution was inadequate.1

Notwithstanding its determinations that the respondent interested party group responses

with respect to Brazil and Germany were inadequate, the Commission determined to conduct full

reviews in order to promote administrative efficiency in light of its decision to conduct a full

review with respect to the order on seamless pipe from Argentina.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and at

the Commission's web site.

B-1

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

hearing on Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina,

Brazil, and Germany, Investigation Nos. 731-TA-707-709 (Second Review).

On February 8, 2007, sessions were held in connection with these reviews in the Main Hearing

Room, 500 E Street (room 101), SW, Washington, D.C.

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

CONGRESSIONAL APPEARANCE:

The Honorable Betty Sutton, U.S. Congresswoman, 13th District, State of Ohio

STATE GOVERNMENT APPEARANCE:

The Honorable Linda Coleman, State Senator, District 20, State of Alabama

OPENING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (James C. Hecht,

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP)

In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (Gregory J. Spak,

White & Case LLP)

In Support of Continuation of

 Antidumping Duty Orders:

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”)

IPSCO Koppel Tubulars Corporation (“Koppel Steel”)

Leslie J. Broglie, General Manager, Tubular

Products, U.S. Steel
B-4

In Support of Continuation of

 Antidumping Duty Orders (continued):

Thomas Verellen, Manager, Tubular Sales,

U.S. Steel

Martin Leland, National Sales Manager,

Tubular Products, U.S. Steel

Scott Dorn, Director, Commercial Tubular Products,

U.S. Steel

William Buono, Marketing Manager, Tubular

Products, U.S. Steel

Michael Ramsey, Product Manager, Seamless

Tubular Products, Koppel Steel

James Durham, Chief Executive Officer, Dixie

Pipe Sales, LP

Larry Binder, Manager, Tubular Products,

Red Man Pipe and Supply

David McCall, Director, District 2, United

Steelworkers of America

Robert Stoner, Senior Vice President,

Economists, Inc.

James C. Hecht )

Stephen P. Vaughn ) – OF COUNSEL

Stephen J. Narkin )
B-5

In Opposition to Continuation of

 Antidumping Duty Orders:

White & Case LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Siderca S.A.I.C. (“Siderca”)

Roland Balkenende, General Manager, Tenaris

Global Services (USA) Corporation

(“TGS USA”)

Gregory J. Spak )

Kristina Zissis ) – OF COUNSEL

Miguel Mayorga-Martinez )

Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Benteler Stahl/Rohr GmbH

Benteler Steel and Tube Corporation

Michael Herminghaus, President, Benteler Steel

and Tube Corporation

Mark D. Herlach )

Christer L. Mossberg ) – OF COUNSEL

Leanne Cowen )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Orders (Stephen P. Vaughn,

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP)

In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (Gregory J. Spak,

White & Case LLP)

C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-3

Table C-1

Seamless SLP pipe: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2001-05, January-September 2005, and

January-September 2006

* * * * * * *

D-1

APPENDIX D

U.S. PRODUCERS’, U.S. IMPORTERS’, U.S. PURCHASERS’, 

AND FOREIGN PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING 

THE EFFECTS OF THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND 

THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

D-3

U.S. PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND THE

LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

U.S. producers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in the character of their

operations or organization relating to the production of seamless SLP pipe in the future if the antidumping

orders were to be revoked. (Question II-4). Their responses were as follows:

Koppel Steel

***

Sharon Tube

***

Timken

***

U.S. Steel

***

__________________________

U.S. producers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in their production capacity,

production, U.S. shipments, purchases, or employment relating to the production of seamless SLP pipe in

the future if the antidumping orders were to be revoked. (Question II-15). Their responses were as

follows:

Koppel Steel

***

Sharon Tube

***

Timken

***

U.S. Steel

***

__________________________
 1

 ***.

D-4

U.S. producers were asked to describe the significance of the existing antidumping orders

covering seamless SLP pipe from Argentina, Brazil, or Germany in terms of their effects on their

production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs,

profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, and asset values. 

(Question II-14). Their responses were as follows:

Koppel Steel

***

Sharon Tube

***

Timken

***

U.S. Steel

***

U.S. IMPORTERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND THE

LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

U.S. importers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in the character of their

operations or organization relating to the importation of seamless SLP pipe in the future if the

antidumping orders were to be revoked. (Question II-4). Their responses were as follows:

Benteler Steel & Tube Corporation1

***

Commercial Metals Co.

***

Connectors, Inc.

***

Duferco Steel, Inc.

***
D-5

Man Ferrostaal, Inc.

***

Norco Industrial, Co.

***

Sumitomo Corporation of America

***

Tenaris

***

TPCO Enterprises, Inc.

***

V&M Tubes Corp.

***

Voest Alpine Tubular, Corp.

***

__________________________

U.S. importers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in their imports, U.S. shipments

of imports, or inventories of seamless SLP pipe in the future if the antidumping orders from Argentina,

Brazil, or Germany were to be revoked. (Question II-9). Their responses were as follows:

Benteler Steel & Tube Corporation

***

Commercial Metals Co.

***

Connectors, Inc.

***

Duferco Steel, Inc.

***

Man Ferrostaal, Inc.

***
D-6

Norco Industrial, Co.

***

Sumitomo Corporation of America

***

Tenaris

***

TPCO Enterprises, Inc.

***

V&M Tubes Corp.

***

Voest Alpine Tubular, Corp.

***

__________________________

U.S. importers were asked to describe the significance of the existing antidumping orders

covering seamless SLP pipe from Argentina, Brazil, or Germany in terms of their effects on their imports,

U.S. shipments of imports, and inventories. (Question II-8). Their responses were as follows:

Benteler Steel & Tube Corporation

***

Commercial Metals Co.

***

Connectors, Inc.

***

Duferco Steel, Inc.

***

Man Ferrostaal, Inc.

***
D-7

Norco Industrial, Co.

***

Sumitomo Corporation of America

***

Tenaris

***

TPCO Enterprises, Inc.

***

V&M Tubes Corp.

***

Voest Alpine Tubular, Corp.

***

U.S. PURCHASERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND THE

LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Purchasers were asked to identify the likely effects of any revocation of the antidumping duty order for

imports of seamless carbon and alloy steel SLP pipe from Argentina, Brazil, or Germany; and to discuss

any potential effects of revocation of the antidumping duty order on (1) the future activities of your firm

and (2) the U.S. market as a whole. (Question III-34). Their responses were as follows:

* * * * * * *

FOREIGN PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS AND

THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Foreign producers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in the character of their

operations or organization relating to the production of seamless SLP pipe in the future if the antidumping

orders were to be revoked. (Question II-3) Their responses were as follows:

Benteler

***

Rohrwer

***
D-8

Siderca

***

V&M Brazil

***

VMD

***

__________________________

Foreign producers were asked whether they anticipated any changes in their production capacity,

production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other markets, or inventories

relating to the production of seamless SLP pipe in the future if the antidumping orders were to be

revoked. (Question II-15) Their responses were as follows:

Benteler

***

Rohrwerk

***

Siderca

***

V&M Brazil

***

VMD

***

__________________________

Foreign producers were asked to describe the significance of the existing antidumping orders

covering imports of seamless SLP pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany in terms of their effects on

their production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other

markets, or inventories. (Question II-14) Their responses were as follows:

Benteler

***

Rohrwerk

***
D-9

Siderca

***

V&M Brazil

***

VMD

***

E-1

APPENDIX E

FAX MEMORANDUM FROM COMMERCE ON SCOPE LANGUAGE

CORRECTION FOR THE FINAL RESULTS OF EXPEDITED FIVE-YEAR

REVIEWS OF THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS ON SEAMLESS PIPE 

 FROM ARGENTINA, BRAZIL, AND GERMANY