U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4450 January 2014

Washington, DC 20436

Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings 

From China

Investigation No. 731-TA-990 (Second Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Irving A. Williamson, Chairman 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert 

David S. Johanson 

Meredith M. Broadbent 

F. Scott Kieff

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Director of Operations

Donald Thibeau, Investigator 

Karen Taylor, Industry Analyst 

Cindy Cohen, Statistician 

Charles St. Charles, Attorney 

John Henderson, Attorney 

Supervisory Investigator, Elizabeth Haines
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4450 January 2014

Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings 

From China

Investigation No. 731-TA-990 (Second Review)

i

CONTENTS

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

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

Information obtained in the review............................................................................................................I‐1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................I‐1

Background.............................................................................................................................................I‐1

The original investigation .......................................................................................................................I‐2

First five‐year review ..............................................................................................................................I‐2

Dumping margin history and Commerce’s reviews................................................................................I‐3

Previous and related investigations and reviews...................................................................................I‐4

The product.................................................................................................................................................I‐7

Commerce’s scope..................................................................................................................................I‐7

U.S. tariff treatment ...............................................................................................................................I‐8

Domestic like product and domestic industry........................................................................................I‐8

Physical characteristics and uses............................................................................................................I‐9

Manufacturing process.........................................................................................................................I‐10

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions...............................................................I‐12

Channels of distribution .......................................................................................................................I‐12

Pricing and related information............................................................................................................I‐12

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

U.S. producers ......................................................................................................................................I‐13

U.S. producers’ trade and financial data ..............................................................................................I‐14

Related party issues..............................................................................................................................I‐14

U.S. imports and apparent consumption..................................................................................................I‐15

U.S. importers.......................................................................................................................................I‐15

U.S. imports..........................................................................................................................................I‐16

Ratio of imports to U.S. production......................................................................................................I‐17

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares...................................................................................I‐18

The industry in China ................................................................................................................................I‐19

Background...........................................................................................................................................I‐19

Chinese exports....................................................................................................................................I‐20

Antidumping actions outside the United States...................................................................................I‐20

The world market......................................................................................................................................I‐23

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

be published and therefore has been deleted.  Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.

 

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

 Investigation No. 731-TA-990 (Second Review) 

 NON-MALLEABLE CAST IRON PIPE FITTINGS FROM CHINA 

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

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

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

1930 (“the Act”) (19 U.S.C. ' 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on non-malleable 

cast iron pipe fittings from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to 

an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on July 1, 2013 (78 F.R. 39321) and determined on October 

21, 2013, that it would conduct an expedited review (78 F.R. 68474, November 14, 2013). 

 

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

3

Views of the Commission

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

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

on non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings from China would be likely to lead to continuation or

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

foreseeable time.

I. Background

Original Investigation and First Five‐Year Review:  The original investigation of non‐

malleable cast iron pipe fittings from China was initiated in response to an antidumping duty

petition filed on February 21, 2002, by Anvil International, LLC (“Anvil”) and Ward

Manufacturing (“Ward”), domestic producers of non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings.1  In

March 2003, the Commission issued its final determination that an industry in the United States

was threatened with material injury by reason of imports of non‐malleable cast iron pipe

fittings from China that the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) had determined were

sold in the United States at less than fair value.2

  On April 7, 2003, Commerce published the

corresponding antidumping duty order.3

In the first five‐year review of the order, the Commission determined that the domestic

interested party group response to its notice of institution was adequate.  In the absence of an

adequate respondent interested party group response, or any other circumstances that would

warrant a full review, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review.4   

In July 2008, it determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on non‐malleable

cast iron pipe fittings from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

                                                       

 1 Confidential Report, Memorandum INV‐LL‐103 (“CR”) at I‐3 (Dec. 2, 2013); Public Report, Non‐

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐990 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 4450 (Jan.

2014) (“PR”) at I‐2. 2 Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐990 (Final), USITC Pub. 3586

(March 2003). The Commission based its determination on data for the period January 1999 through

September 2002 (the period of investigation or “POI”).

3 Antidumping Duty Order:  Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of

China, 68 Fed. Reg. 16765 (April 7, 2003). 4 See Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy, Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe

Fittings from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐990 (Review), USITC Pub. 4023 (July 2008) at Appendix A.  

Commissioners Aranoff and Pearson dissented, finding that changes in conditions of competition

resulting from Anvil’s purchase during the period of review of the largest importer of subject

merchandise warranted conducting a full review.  Id.
4

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.5  

Commerce issued a continuation of the order on August 15, 2008.6

Current Review:  The Commission instituted this second five‐year review effective July 1,

2013.  Anvil and Ward (jointly “Domestic Producers”) filed a response to the notice of

institution.  The Commission did not receive a response to the notice of institution from any

respondent interested party.  On October 21, 2013, the Commission found the domestic

interested party group response to be adequate.  In the absence of an adequate respondent

interested party group response, or any other circumstances that would warrant a full review,

the Commission unanimously determined to conduct an expedited review of the subject order.7

   

II. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act, the Commission

defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”8  The Tariff Act defines “domestic like

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

uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.”9  The Commission’s

practice in five‐year reviews is to examine the domestic like product definition from the original

investigations and consider whether the record indicates any reason to revisit the prior

findings.10

Commerce has defined the imported merchandise within the scope of the order under

review as follows:  

   

                                                       

5 Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐990 (Review), USITC Pub.

4023 (July 2008).

6 73 Fed. Reg. 47887 (Aug. 15, 2008). 7 See Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy, Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe

Fittings from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐990 (Second Review), EDIS Doc. No. 520865.  Although Anvil

responded to the institution notice and was an importer of subject merchandise, the Commission did

not count Anvil’s share of imports toward the sufficiency of the respondent interested party group

response because Anvil did not support revocation.  Id.    8 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

9 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007);

NEC Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp.

v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); 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).

10 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks from Japan, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐377

(Second Review), USITC Pub. 3831 at 8‐9 (Dec. 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐

752 (Review), USITC Pub. 3614 at 4 (Jul. 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Turkey, Inv. No. 731‐

TA‐745 (Review), USITC Pub. 3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).
5

finished and unfinished non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings with an inside

diameter ranging from 1/4 inch to 6 inches, whether threaded or un‐threaded,

regardless of industry or proprietary specifications.  The subject fittings include

elbows, ells, tees, crosses, and reducers as well as flanged fittings.  These pipe

fittings are also known as “cast iron pipe fittings” or “gray iron pipe fittings.”  

These cast iron pipe fittings are normally produced to ASTM A‐126 and ASME

B.16.4 specifications and are threaded to ASME B1.20.1 specifications.  Most

building codes require that these products are Underwriters Laboratories (“UL”)

certified.  The scope does not include cast iron soil pipe fittings or grooved

fittings or grooved couplings.  

Fittings that are made out of ductile iron that have the same physical

characteristics as the gray or cast iron fittings subject to the scope above or

which have the same physical characteristics and are produced to ASME B.16.3,

ASME B.16.4, or ASTM A‐395 specifications, threaded to ASME B1.20.1

specifications and UL certified, regardless of metallurgical differences between

gray and ductile iron, are also included in the scope of this petition.  These

ductile fittings do not include grooved fittings or grooved couplings.  Ductile cast

iron fittings with mechanical joint ends (“MJ”), or push on ends (“PO”), or

flanged ends and produced to the American Water Works Association (“AWWA”)

specifications AWWA C110 or AWWA C153 are not included.  Additionally,

certain brake fluid tube connectors are excluded from the scope of this order.11

This scope definition is changed somewhat from Commerce’s scope definition in the

original investigation and the first five‐year review.  Specifically, it excludes certain brake fluid

tube connectors as a result of partial revocation of the order following a changed circumstances

review in which the domestic industry expressed a lack of interest in continuation of the order

with respect to those connectors.12  

The subject imports include non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings, as well as certain

ductile cast iron pipe fittings, such as those that can be used in traditionally non‐malleable pipe

fitting applications.13  Non‐malleable iron, also referred to as gray iron, is defined by ASTM

                                                      

11 78 Fed. Reg. 72639 (Dec. 3, 2013) (partial scope language); Commerce’s Issues and Decision

Memorandum for the Expedited Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Non‐

malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China (Dec. 2, 2013) (full scope language);

see also CR at I‐11, PR at I‐7.  Commerce explained that imports of subject merchandise are currently

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers

7307.11.00.30, 7307.11.00.60, 7307.19.30.60, 7307.19.30.85, 7326.90.8588, and 7326.90.8588, noting

that HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes and that the written

description of the scope of the order is dispositive.  78 Fed. Reg. at 72639. 12 CR at I‐5‐6, I‐11; PR at I‐4, I‐7.

13 CR at I‐11‐12, PR at I‐7.
6

International (“ASTM”) as cast iron in which fine graphite flakes are formed during cooling.  

Ductile iron fittings, on the other hand, are cast from iron to which a very small amount of

magnesium has been added in the liquid state to induce the formation of graphites as

spheroids or nodules.  Pipe fittings generally are used to connect the bores of two or more

pipes or tubes, connect a pipe to another apparatus, change the direction of fluid flow, or close

a pipe.  Cast iron is a general term for alloys which are primarily composed of iron, carbon

(more than two percent), and silicon.14    

A. The Original Investigation and First Review  

In the original investigation, the Commission defined the domestic like product as

consisting of non‐malleable and ductile cast iron pipe fittings, coextensive with Commerce’s

scope.15  The Commission found that non‐malleable and ductile cast iron pipe fittings were not

separate like products, and it also declined to define the domestic like product to include

grooved fittings or fittings over six inches in inside diameter, both of which were outside the

scope definition.16  In the first review, the Domestic Producers stated that they agreed with the

like product definition in the original investigation, and the Commission observed that it had

obtained no new information in the review that would suggest any reason to revisit its

domestic like product definition in the original investigation.  Consequently, the Commission

again defined the domestic like product to be non‐malleable and ductile cast iron pipe fittings,

coextensive with the scope of the review.17  

B. The Current Review  

In this second five‐year review, Domestic Producers agree with the Commission’s

definitions of the domestic like product from the original investigation and first review.18  The

record contains no information suggesting that the characteristics and uses of domestically

produced non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings have changed since the prior proceedings or that

the like product definition should be revisited.19  Therefore, we define the domestic like

product as non‐malleable and ductile cast iron pipe fittings, which is coextensive with the scope

of Commerce’s review.  

                                                      

14 CR at I‐13‐15, PR at I‐9‐10.

15 USITC Pub. 3586 at 5‐8.

16 USITC Pub. 3586 at 5‐8. 17 USITC Pub. 4023 at 4‐5.

18 Domestic Producers’ Response to Notice of Institution at 24; Domestic Producers’ Comments

at 2.

19 See generally CR at I‐11‐21, PR at I‐7‐13.  As noted above, the only change in the scope since

the original investigation and first review is exclusion of certain brake fluid tube connectors with respect

to which the domestic industry was not interested in continuing the order.  CR at I‐5‐6, I‐11; PR at I‐4, I‐

7.    
7

III. Domestic Industry  

Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act defines the relevant industry as the domestic  

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

of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of

the product.”20  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.  If appropriate

circumstances exist, the statute provides the Commission with the authority to exclude from

the domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject

merchandise, or are themselves importers.21  Exclusion of such a producer from the domestic

industry as a related party is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts

presented in each investigation.22

In the original determination, the Commission defined the domestic industry as

consisting of all producers of non‐malleable and ductile cast iron pipe fittings corresponding to

the scope.  The Commission recognized that *** was a related party based on its importation of

subject merchandise, but found that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude that

producer from the domestic industry.23  

In the expedited first review, the Commission observed that in 2004, Anvil purchased a

firm that was a major importer of subject pipe fittings and that Anvil was a related party

because it imported subject merchandise during the period of review.  In 2007 (the only year of

the review period for which data were available), Anvil accounted for *** percent of the

subject imports from China and its subject imports were equivalent to *** percent of its

domestic production.  The Commission noted, however, that Anvil supported continuation of

                                                       

20 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).  The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 apply to the entire subtitle

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

19 U.S.C. § 1677. 21 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B); see Torrington Co v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161, 1168 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1992), aff’d mem., 991 F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1322,

1331‐32 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989), aff’d mem., 904 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Empire Plow Co. v. United States,

675 F. Supp. 1348, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1987). 22 See, e.g., Torrington, 790 F. Supp. at 1168.

23 USITC Pub. 3586 at 8 n.39.  In finding that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude

*** from the domestic industry, the Commission explained that “*** production, reflecting *** percent

of total domestic production in 2001, indicate{d} that *** {was} focused primarily on domestic

production, particularly given that *** importation of subject merchandise from China *** was

equivalent to *** percent of *** production in that period.”  The Commission also noted that *** {did}

not appear to have obtained any special advantage from its related party status, as ***.”  USITC Pub.

3586 at 8 n.39 (citations omitted).
8

the order.  Because the review was expedited with a limited record, the Commission declined

to find appropriate circumstances to exclude Anvil from the industry.24  

In the current five‐year review, Anvil is a related party because it imported subject

merchandise during the period of review.  In 2012, Anvil accounted for *** percent of total

subject imports from China and its subject imports were equivalent to *** percent of the

quantity of Anvil’s U.S. production.25  Anvil, one of two domestic producers of non‐malleable

cast iron pipe fittings, accounted for *** percent of U.S. production in 2012.26  Although Anvil

accounted for *** of total subject imports from China in 2012 and its subject imports *** its

domestic production, Anvil’s share of total subject imports and the ratio of its imports to its U.S.

production in that year were both *** than in the prior review.  The domestic industry

maintains that Anvil imports some subject merchandise simply because some customers insist

on the lower prices available for imports.27  Moreover, Anvil supports continuation of the order.  

Based on the foregoing and the limited record in this expedited review, we find that

appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude Anvil from the industry.

IV. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order Would Likely Lead to Continuation or

Recurrence of Material Injury Within a Reasonably Foreseeable Time  

A. Legal Standards

In five‐year reviews conducted under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act, Commerce will

revoke an antidumping or countervailing 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 or countervailing duty order “would be likely

to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”28  

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) states that

“under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must

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

status quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its restraining

effects on volumes and prices of imports.”29  Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in

                                                       

24 USITC Pub. 4023 at 5‐6.  Commissioners Aranoff and Pearson noted that they had voted to

conduct a full review based on Anvil’s acquisition of an importer of subject merchandise and that, based

on the limited record in the expedited review, the facts concerning Anvil’s importations led them to

conclude only that it was likely they would have excluded Anvil from the domestic industry as a related

party in a full review.  Id. at 6‐7.

25 CR/PR at Tables I‐4, I‐5, I‐6.    26 CR/PR at Table I‐2.

27 CR at I‐26, PR at I‐15.

28 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

29 SAA at 883‐84.  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

(Continued...)
9

nature.30  The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the five‐year

review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in

five‐year reviews.31  

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

termination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of

time.”32 According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case‐to‐case, but

normally will exceed the ‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in

original investigations.”33

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

original 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.”34  It directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury

determination, whether any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the orders

under review, whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked,

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

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

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

material retardation of an industry).  Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that

were never completed.”  Id. at 883.

30 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.

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

(“‘likely’ means probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d

mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002)

(same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not”

standard is “consistent with the court’s opinion;” “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any

particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, 26 CIT 1059, 1070

(2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”);

Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely

‘possible’”).

32 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

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

fungibility or differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the

imported and domestic products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as

spot sales or long‐term contracts), and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may

only manifest themselves in the longer term, such as planned investment and the shifting of production

facilities.”  Id. 34 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

35 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).  Commerce has not made any duty absorption findings regarding

imports of non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings from China.  CR at I‐4, PR at I‐3.
10

required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the

Commission’s determination.36

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

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

in the United States.37  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.38

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders under review are

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

underselling by subject imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether subject

imports are likely to enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on the price of the domestic like product.39

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under

review 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 the following:  (1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity,

return on investments, and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow,

inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely

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

efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.40  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.  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 orders under review and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury

upon revocation.41

                                                      

36 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).  Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is

necessarily dispositive.  SAA at 886.

37 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

38 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A‐D).

39 See 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.

40 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 41 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

(Continued...)
11

No respondent interested party participated in this expedited review.  The record,

therefore, contains limited new information with respect to the non‐malleable cast iron pipe

fittings industry in China.  There also is limited information regarding the non‐malleable cast

iron pipe fittings market in the United States during the period of review.  Accordingly, for our

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

first review, and the limited new information on the record in this five‐year review.

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry if an

order is revoked, 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.”42  The following conditions of competition, several of which also existed

during the original investigation, inform our determinations.

1. Demand Conditions

In the original investigation, the Commission reported that approximately 90 to 95

percent of non‐malleable/ductile cast iron pipe fittings were used in fire protection/sprinkler

systems, and indicated that demand was related to non‐residential construction, in which fire

protection/sprinkler systems are installed.43  The Commission found that U.S. demand for non‐

malleable cast iron pipe fittings had been declining, with apparent domestic consumption

(measured by weight) falling by *** percent from 1999 to 2001.  Apparent U.S. consumption

was *** percent lower in the first nine months of 2002 (“interim 2002”) than in the first nine

months of 2001 (“interim 2001”).44   

In the expedited first review, the Commission found that there was no evidence on the

record to suggest that the nature of demand for non‐malleable/ductile cast iron pipe fittings

had changed significantly since the original investigation.  It noted, however, that that there

was some indication in the record that demand would weaken in the second half of 2008 and in

2009 if non‐residential construction spending declined.45

In this review, the available information indicates that non‐malleable cast iron pipe

fittings continue to be used mostly in fire protection/sprinkler systems and that demand is

influenced by activity in the non‐residential construction market.46  The record indicates that a

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

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.

42 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

43 USITC Pub. 3586 at 9, IV‐3. 44 USITC Pub. 3586 at 9.

45 USITC Pub. 4023 at 9.   46 CR at I‐14, I‐21; PR at I‐9, I‐13.
12

significant downturn in construction spending since 2008 reduced demand for non‐malleable

cast iron pipe fittings.47  As measured by apparent U.S. consumption, demand for non‐

malleable/ductile cast iron pipe fittings was lower in 2012 than at the end of the original period

of investigation, and at the end of the first review period.  Specifically, apparent U.S.

consumption was *** short tons in 2012, *** short tons in 2001, and *** short tons in 2007.48

2. Supply Conditions

In the original investigation, the Commission noted that Anvil and Ward accounted for

the bulk of domestic production (*** percent in 2001) and that two other companies, Frazier

and Buck, accounted for most of the remainder.  The Commission also observed that, during

the period of investigation, there was no home market for the subject merchandise in China

and that *** exports from China of the subject merchandise were directed to the United States.  

Finally, the Commission noted that there were some nonsubject imports of non‐malleable cast

iron pipe fittings during the period of investigation.49   

In the expedited first review, Anvil and Ward continued to account for the large majority

of domestic production.  Frazier produced a *** share of the domestic like product.  The

Commission explained that Anvil purchased a major importer of subject pipe fittings in January

2004 and, thus, Anvil accounted for *** of the subject imports in 2007.  Also, the record

indicated that the United States was not necessarily the predominant market for exports of

non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings from China.  The Commission found that there was no

evidence on the record to suggest that the other supply conditions had changed significantly

since the original investigation.50

In the current review, two producers ‐‐ Anvil and Ward ‐‐ accounted for all domestic

production of non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings, with Anvil accounting for *** percent and

Ward for *** percent of total domestic production in 2012.51 The domestic producers’ share of

apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent in 2012, compared with *** percent in 2001 and

*** percent in 2007.52  Subject imports held the second largest share of the U.S. market in

2012, with *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, compared with *** percent in 2001 and

*** percent in 2007.53  Nonsubject imports held *** percent of the U.S. market in 2012

compared with *** percent in 2001 and *** percent in 2007.54     

                                                      

47 Domestic Producers’ Comments at 5.

48 CR/PR at Table I‐8.  Apparent U.S. consumption totals for 2007 and 2012 may be understated

by the amount of U.S. imports entered under statistical reporting numbers other than 7307.11.0030 and

7307.11.0060.  Id. n.2.   49 Original Confidential Views (EDIS Doc. 517426) at 14.

50 USITC Pub. 4023 at 9‐10.

51 CR/PR at Table I‐2.   52 CR/PR at Table I‐8 (see table notes on possible issues when comparing data between years).

53 Id.

54 Id.
13

3. Substitutability

In the original investigation, the Commission observed that purchasers generally

focused on quality, supply, and price considerations, and that a majority of purchasers viewed

U.S. and Chinese non‐malleable and ductile fittings as comparable in terms of supply and

quality, while almost all purchasers ranked the Chinese product as superior in terms of lower

price.  Most purchasers also reported that U.S. and Chinese non‐malleable and ductile fittings

were used in the same applications.  The Commission noted that use of the domestic product

was sometimes required in government projects to which “Buy America” provisions applied and

that there also may have been a strong preference for the domestic product in certain projects,

particularly ones in which the workers were members of trade unions.55

In the expedited first review, the Commission found that there was no evidence on the

record to suggest that these conditions had changed significantly since the original

investigation.56  Based on the record evidence, the Commission found that these conditions of

competition were not likely to change significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future.57

According to the Domestic Producers, the basic conditions regarding substitutability

between non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings made in China and in the United States remain

unchanged.58  There is no indication on the current record that these conditions have changed

significantly since the original investigation.  We further find that these conditions of

competition are not likely to change significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

1. Original Investigation and First Review

In its original determination, the Commission found that subject import volume

increased *** between 1999 and 2001, but that it was *** percent higher in interim 2002 than

in interim 2001, even as apparent U.S. consumption fell by *** percent.  The market share of

subject imports increased from *** percent in 1999 to *** percent in 2000 and *** percent in

2001.  Subject imports’ market share was *** percent in interim 2001 and reached *** percent

in interim 2002.  The domestic industry’s market share fell over the period of investigation.  The

Commission found the increase in the volume of subject imports, most notably during the

interim period, to be significant.59

In its analysis of threat of material injury, the Commission found that a significant

increase in the volume and market share of subject imports from China was likely in the

imminent future, given the accelerating rate of subject imports toward the end of the period of

                                                      

55 USITC Pub. 3586 at 10.   56 USITC Pub. 4023 at 10. 57 USITC Pub. 4023 at 10.

58 Domestic Producers’ Comments at 4.

59 USITC Pub. 3586 at 10‐11.
14

investigation, the presence of large subject import inventories in the United States, the

substantial and growing available capacity in China to produce subject merchandise, the

reliance of the Chinese industry almost exclusively on the U.S. market, declining subject import

prices, and increasing margins of underselling.60

In the expedited first review, the Commission observed that, after the antidumping duty

order was imposed in early 2003, the volume of subject imports declined for two years, then

increased irregularly.  The market share of subject imports was *** higher in 2007 than in 2001,

the last full year of the original period of investigation.  The Commission found that nothing in

the record of that expedited review contradicted the Commission’s earlier findings that Chinese

producers of the subject merchandise had substantial excess capacity and that the United

States was an important market for Chinese producers.  Moreover, the Commission found that,

because the subject producers were also subject to an antidumping duty order on malleable

pipe fittings, subject producers may have had an incentive to shift their production from

malleable pipe fittings to the subject merchandise if the order on the subject merchandise were

revoked.61

Based on the significant increase in the volume of subject imports during the original

investigation (especially in the latter portion of the period), the continued significant levels of

subject imports since then, the increase in the market share held by subject imports, the excess

capacity of the Chinese industry, the importance of the U.S. market to Chinese producers, and

the potential for product shifting, the Commission found that Chinese producers would have

the incentive and ability to ship significant volumes of additional exports to the United States if

the order were revoked.  Therefore, the Commission found that the likely volume of subject

imports, both in absolute terms and relative to production and consumption in the United

States, would be significant if the order were revoked.62

2. Current Review

In the current review, the available information indicates that the market share of

subject imports was ***  higher in 2012 than in 2001, the last full year of the original period of

investigation.  Subject imports accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in

2012, compared with *** percent in 2001 and *** percent in 2001.63   

The data collected in the original investigation indicated that reporting producers of

non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings in China had substantial capacity in 2001 and that their

                                                      

60 USITC Pub. 3586 at 11.

61 USITC Pub. 4023 at 11.

62 USITC Pub. 4023 at 10‐11.   63 CR/PR at Table I‐8 (see table notes on possible issues when comparing data between years).

U.S. shipments of subject imports were 6,432 short tons in 2001, 12,832 short tons in 2007, and 6,838

short tons in 2012.  Nevertheless, as previously discussed, apparent U.S. consumption was substantially

lower in 2012 than in either 2001 or 2007, according to the data available.  CR/PR at Table I‐8.       
15

capacity and production increased during the period of investigation.64  Data available in this

review suggest that these trends have continued.  The record indicates that total Chinese

exports of non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings within a broader classification that encompasses

the subject merchandise65 increased substantially from 2008 to 2012.66  This increase in total

Chinese exports of non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings suggests an increase in production of

the subject merchandise in China during this period.  These data indicate that the industry in

China has the ability to continue to increase exports of the subject merchandise upon

revocation.

The United States remains an attractive market to the industry in China.  Subject

imports have remained in the U.S. market in substantial volumes and available data suggest

that the United States is the largest export market for non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings from

China.67  In light of the attractiveness of the U.S. market, we find that upon revocation the

industry in China is likely to exercise its ability to increase exports of subject merchandise to the

United States.68   

Based on the significant increase in the volume of subject imports during the original

investigation, especially at the end of the period, the continued significant levels of subject

imports since then, the increase in the market share held by subject imports, the capacity and

export orientation of the Chinese industry, and the importance of the U.S. market to Chinese

producers, we find that Chinese producers would have the incentive and ability to ship

significant volumes of additional exports to the United States if the order were revoked.  

Therefore, we find that the likely volume of subject imports, both in absolute terms and relative

to production and consumption in the United States, would be significant if the order were

revoked.

D. Likely Price Effects

1. Original Investigations

In the original determination, the Commission found that the domestic like product and

subject imports were largely substitutable and that price was an important factor in purchasing

decisions.  The Commission observed that the price comparisons showed underselling by the

                                                      

64 USITC Pub. 3586 at 17, VII‐2.

65 The available data are based on an HTS classification for exports of non‐malleable cast iron

pipe fittings that includes both subject and nonsubject merchandise, such as cast iron soil pipe fittings.  

CR/PR at Tables I‐9, I‐10.    66 CR/PR at Tables I‐9, 1‐10, I‐11.

67 CR/PR at Tables I‐8, I‐10, I‐11.

68 Due to the failure of any foreign producer, exporter, or importer of subject merchandise from

China to participate in this review, the record does not contain current information regarding any

existing inventories of subject merchandise or any likely increase in such inventories.  The record does

not indicate the existence of tariff or non‐tariff barriers specific to non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings

from China in any third‐country markets.  CR at I‐33, PR at I‐20.
16

subject merchandise in each calendar‐year quarter examined and that the margins of

underselling increased markedly toward the end of the period of investigation.  Nonetheless,

the Commission found that the record did not indicate that subject imports depressed or

suppressed domestic prices, because the prices for the domestic product rose *** over the

period and it did not appear that the domestic industry would have been able to make

additional price increases given the weak market conditions.  Accordingly, the Commission

found the current price effects of subject imports not to be significant.69

In its analysis of threat of material injury, the Commission found that the domestic

industry’s apparent strategy of not matching the prices of subject imports would likely change

and that the growing volume and margins of underselling of subject imports could cause the

domestic industry to lower its prices, or refrain from raising its prices, in order to limit its loss of

additional sales.70

In the expedited first review, the Commission observed that the record did not include

any new product‐specific pricing information and also did not include any other information

that would suggest that price was no longer an important factor in purchasing decisions.  The

Commission consequently found, as in the original investigation, that subject imports would

likely undersell the domestic like product to gain market share.  The Commission also found

that, as the volume of low‐priced subject imports increased, and the disparity between prices

for the domestic like product and subject imports grew, any preference of certain purchasers

for the domestic like product would likely erode.  The volume of subject imports at those prices,

in turn, would likely have significant depressing or suppressing effects on prices of the domestic

like product.  Therefore, the Commission concluded, if the order were revoked, subject imports

from China likely would increase significantly at prices that likely would undersell the domestic

like product, and those imports would likely have a significant depressing or suppressing effect

on prices for the domestic like product.71

2. Current Review

In this review, the record does not contain current pricing comparisons due to the

failure of respondent interested parties to participate and the expedited nature of the review.  

We continue to find, in the absence of record evidence indicating changes in the conditions of

competition, that the domestic like product and subject imports are largely substitutable and

that price is an important factor in purchasing decisions.  Consequently, if the order were

revoked, subject imports would again likely undersell the domestic like product to gain market

share, as occurred during the original period of investigation.   

We find that, in the event of revocation, increasing volumes of low‐priced subject

imports would likely have significant depressing or suppressing effects on prices of the

domestic like product.  We, therefore, conclude that the likely significant volume of subject

                                                      

69 USITC Pub. 3586 at 12‐13.   70 USITC Pub. 3586 at 18.   71 USITC Pub. 4023 at 12.
17

imports upon revocation would likely have significant adverse effects on prices for the domestic

like product.

E. Likely Impact72

1. Original Investigations

In its original determination, the Commission found that the subject imports did not

have a significant current impact on the domestic industry’s performance.  Although a number

of the performance indicators for the domestic industry declined, the Commission found that

the declines resulted mainly from declining apparent U.S. consumption.  The Commission also

found, however, that the domestic industry was vulnerable to the effects of subject imports in

the imminent future in light of its weakened state.73   

In making its affirmative determination of threat of material injury, the Commission

found that the significantly increased volume and market share of imports in the imminent

future would have a significant negative impact on the domestic industry’s production, capacity

utilization, employment, revenues, and profitability.  It further found that, given the already

weakened condition of the domestic industry, this negative impact would be such that the

industry would be materially injured.74

In the expedited first review, given the likely significant increase in the volume of

subject imports and the likely adverse price effects, the Commission found the domestic

industry would likely experience significant declines in production, shipments, sales, and

revenue levels, with eventual losses in profitability and employment, as well as its ability to

raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital investments.  The limited information on

the record was insufficient to enable the Commission to determine whether the domestic

industry was vulnerable.  Nonetheless, the Commission concluded that revocation of the orders

would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably

foreseeable time.75

                                                      

72 Under the statute, “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.  After conducting an expedited review of the

antidumping duty order on non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings from China, Commerce determined that

revocation of the order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at weighted‐average

margins of up to 75.50 percent.  78 Fed. Reg. at 72639.

73 USITC Pub. 3586 at 13‐15. 74 USITC Pub. 3586 at 18. 75 USITC Pub. 4023 at 13‐14.
18

2. Current Review

Because this is an expedited review, we have only limited information with respect to

the domestic industry’s financial performance, consisting of data that Domestic Producers

provided in response to the notice of institution.  The limited record is insufficient for us to

make a finding on whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to the continuation or

recurrence of material injury in the event of revocation of the order.76

In 2012, the capacity of the U.S. producers of non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings was

*** short tons, production was *** short tons, and capacity utilization was *** percent.77  U.S.

shipments were *** short tons, and Domestic Producers reported an operating *** of $***  

from sales of $***, resulting in an operating *** margin of *** percent in 2012.78   

Based on the information on the record, we find that, should the order be revoked, the

likely significant volume and price effects of the subject imports would likely have a significant

adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues of the

domestic industry.  These declines would likely have a direct adverse impact on the domestic

industry’s profitability.

In our analysis, we typically examine known factors other than subject imports which

may cause injury so as not to attribute likely injury caused by these factors to the subject

imports.  In this review, however, there are no factors other than the subject imports that are

known to be a likely cause of material injury.

Accordingly, we conclude that, if the order were revoked, subject imports would likely

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

time.

V. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order

on non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings from China would likely lead to continuation or

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

foreseeable time.

                                                       

76 Based on the limited record of this review Commissioner Pinkert finds that the domestic

industry is vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of material injury in the event of revocation of

the orders.  The domestic industry’s market share has declined since the original investigations, and in

2012 import shipments accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption.  CR/PR at Table I‐8.  

The industry’s capacity utilization in 2012 was *** percent even though there were fewer domestic

producers in 2012 than in 2001.  It had an operating margin of *** percent in 2012, which is profitable,

but lower than its operating margin in the first two years of the original investigations.   U.S. production,

net sales, and shipments were much lower in 2012 than in 2001.  CR at I‐22, PR at I‐13; CR/PR at Table I‐

3.    77 CR/PR at Table I‐3.

78 CR/PR at Table I‐3.
i

CONTENTS

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

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

Information obtained in the review............................................................................................................I‐1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................I‐1

Background.............................................................................................................................................I‐1

The original investigation .......................................................................................................................I‐2

First five‐year review ..............................................................................................................................I‐2

Dumping margin history and Commerce’s reviews................................................................................I‐3

Previous and related investigations and reviews...................................................................................I‐4

The product.................................................................................................................................................I‐7

Commerce’s scope..................................................................................................................................I‐7

U.S. tariff treatment ...............................................................................................................................I‐8

Domestic like product and domestic industry........................................................................................I‐8

Physical characteristics and uses............................................................................................................I‐9

Manufacturing process.........................................................................................................................I‐10

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions...............................................................I‐12

Channels of distribution .......................................................................................................................I‐12

Pricing and related information............................................................................................................I‐12

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

U.S. producers ......................................................................................................................................I‐13

U.S. producers’ trade and financial data ..............................................................................................I‐14

Related party issues..............................................................................................................................I‐14

U.S. imports and apparent consumption..................................................................................................I‐15

U.S. importers.......................................................................................................................................I‐15

U.S. imports..........................................................................................................................................I‐16

Ratio of imports to U.S. production......................................................................................................I‐17

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares...................................................................................I‐18

The industry in China ................................................................................................................................I‐19

Background...........................................................................................................................................I‐19

Chinese exports....................................................................................................................................I‐20

Antidumping actions outside the United States...................................................................................I‐20

The world market......................................................................................................................................I‐23

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

be published and therefore has been deleted.  Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.
I‐1   

  

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Background

On July 1, 2013, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”)

gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”),1 that it

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

non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings (“NMPF”) from China would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry.2 On October 21, 2013, the

Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to the notice of

institution was adequate3 and the respondent interested party group response was

inadequate.4 In the absence of respondent interested party responses or any other

circumstances that would warrant the conduct of a full review, the Commission determined to

conduct an expedited review of the antidumping duty order pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of

the Act.

5

The following tabulation presents information relating to the background and schedule

of this proceeding:

   

                                                       1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c). 2 Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China Institution of a Five‐Year Review, 78 FR 39321, July

1, 2013. All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information

requested by the Commission.   3 The Commission received one submission from domestic producers Anvil International, LLC

(“Anvil”) and Ward Manufacturing (“Ward”) (collectively referred to herein as “domestic interested

parties”) in response to its notice of institution for the subject review. Response of domestic interested

parties, July 31, 2013. 4 The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties to its notice of

institution. 5 Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five‐Year Review

Concerning the Antidumping Duty Order on Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China, 78 FR

68474, November 14, 2013.  
I‐2   

Effective date Action 

April 7, 2003 

Notice of antidumping duty order on NMPF from China (68 FR 16765) 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-04-07/pdf/03-8414.pdf

August 15, 2008 

Continuation of antidumping duty order on NMPF from China (73 FR 47887) 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-08-15/pdf/E8-18941.pdf

July 1, 2013 

Commission’s institution of a second five-year review (78 FR 39321) 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-01/pdf/2013-15556.pdf 

July 1, 2013 

Commerce’s initiation of a second five-year review (78 FR 39256) 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-01/pdf/2013-15708.pdf

October 21, 2013 

Commission’s notice of scheduling of an expedited five-year review (78 FR 68474) 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-11-14/pdf/2013-27212.pdf 

January 16, 2014 Commission’s vote 

January 29, 2014 Commission’s determination 

The original investigation

The original investigation was instituted on February 21, 2002, following receipt of a

petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Anvil and Ward, alleging that an industry

in the United States was materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of

less‐than‐fair‐value (“LTFV”) imports of NMPF from China. On February 18, 2003, Commerce

published final determinations that imports of NMPF from China were being sold at LTFV.6 The

Commission subsequently determined that the industry in the United States producing NMPF

was threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV imports of the subject merchandise from

China on March 24, 2003.7 The antidumping duty order was issued by Commerce on April 7,

2003.8  

First five‐year review

The Commission instituted its first five‐year review on March 3, 2008. The Commission

received a joint response to its notice of institution from Anvil and Ward. The Commission did

not receive a response from any respondent interested parties. The Commission found the

domestic interested party response to the notice of institution adequate, and the respondent

interested party response inadequate on June 6, 2008, and determined that it would conduct

an expedited review.9

On July 24, 2008, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty

order on NMPF from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material  

   

                                                       6 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings

from the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 7765, February 18, 2003. 7 Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China, 68 FR 15743, April 1, 2003.

8 Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Filings From the People’s Republic

of China, 68 FR 16765, April 7, 2003.

9 Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China Investigation No. 731‐TA‐990 (Review), USITC

Publication 4023, July 2008, p. 3.  
I‐3   

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.10 Commerce

issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on August 15, 2008.11

Dumping margin history and Commerce’s reviews

Since the original investigation, Commerce has completed three administrative reviews

with respect to imports of NMPF from China. There have been no new shipper reviews and no

duty absorption findings. Information on Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty

margins, and administrative review determinations is presented in table I‐1. 

Table I-1

Non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings: Commerce’s antidumping duty margins, and administrative 

review determinations 

Action Date of action Federal Register 

citation Period of review 

Antidumping duty 

margins 

Firmspecific Countrywide 

Percent ad 

valorem 

Antidumping duty 

order 04/07/2003 68 FR 16765 -- 

7.081 

6.342 75.50

Final results of 

administrative 

review 12/01/2006 71 FR 69546 

04/01/2004- 

03/31/2005 75.503 

Final results of 

administrative 

review 07/13/2007 72 FR 38563 

04/01/2005- 

03/31/2006 75.503 75.50

Final results of first 

five-year review 07/10/2008 

73 FR 39656 

73 FR 47887 -- 

7.081 

6.342 75.50

Final results of 

administrative 

review 06/02/2011 76 FR 31936 

04/01/2009- 

03/31/2010 0.004 

Final results of 

second five-year 

review 12/03/2013

Publication 

pending -- 75.50

Note. -- The country-wide rate applies to all companies that otherwise have not received a “firm-specific” rate. 

1 Jian Meide Casting Co., Ltd. 

2

 Shanghai Foreign Trade Enterprises Co. Ltd. 

3

 Myland Industrial Co., Ltd. and Myland Buxin Foundry Ltd. 

4

 NEP (Tianjin) Machinery Co. 

Source: Cited Federal Register notices. 

   

                                                       10 Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China, 73 FR 45075, August 1, 2008. 11 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order on Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s

Republic of China, 73 FR 47887, August 15, 2008.
I‐4   

On May 29, 2012, Commerce issued the final results of an antidumping duty changed

circumstances review. Commerce stated that because the domestic industry affirmatively

expressed a lack of interest in the continuation of the order with respect to a particular brake

fluid connector (“connector”), it revoked the antidumping duty order with regard to this

particular connector.12 The connector that was excluded is defined as follows:

A “joint block” for brake fluid tubes and is made of non‐malleable cast iron to Society of

Automotive Engineers (SAE) automotive standard J431. The tubes have an inside

diameter of 3.44 millimeters (0.1355 inches) and the inside diameters of the fluid flow

channels of the connector are 3.2 millimeters (0.1260 inches) and 3.8 millimeters

(0.1496 inches). The end of the tube is forced by pressure over the end of a flared

opening in the connector also known as “flared joint.” The flared joint, once made fast,

permits brake fluid to flow through channels that never exceed 3.8 millimeters (0.1496

inches) in diameter.13

Commerce has issued three scope rulings relating to NMPF from China. On May 10,

2005, Commerce determined that certain electrical conduit fittings are within the scope of the

antidumping order.14 On December 1, 2008, Commerce determined that black cast iron flange,

green ductile iron flange, and cast iron “Twin Tee” are within the scope of the antidumping

order.15 On September 27, 2013, Commerce issued a scope ruling stating that all of R.W.

Beckett Corporation’s pipe fittings except for those that are not made of cast iron (i.e., three

pipe fittings that are made of either aluminum or zinc alloy) are within the scope of the order

because they are pipe fittings made of cast iron and, therefore, fit the physical description of

the subject merchandise.16   

Previous and related investigations and reviews17  

On April 13, 1977, the Commission instituted investigation No. TA‐201‐26 under section

201 of the Trade Act of 1974 concerning malleable cast iron pipe and tube fittings in response

to a petition filed by the American Pipe Fittings Association (“APFA”). On September 19, 1977,

the Commission reported to the President its unanimous finding that malleable cast iron pipe

and tube fittings were not being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as

to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing

a like or directly competitive article.  

                                                       12 The order was revoked retroactive to April 1, 2011.

13 Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From the People’s Republic of china: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation of Order, in Part, 77 FR 31577, May

29, 2012.

14 Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 24534, May 10, 2005.

15 Notice of Scope Rulings, 73 FR 72772, December 1, 2008.

16 Notice of Scope Rulings, 78 FR 59653, September 27, 2013. 17 Unless otherwise noted, this information is based on the following publication: Non‐Malleable Cast

Iron Pipe Fittings From China Investigation No. 73 ‐TA‐990 (Review), USITC Publication 4023, July 2008,

pp. I‐6 – I‐8.
I‐5   

On January 7, 1980, Commerce advised the Commission that a countervailing duty

investigation had resulted in a preliminary determination that the Government of Japan was

providing benefits that might constitute bounties or grants on the manufacture, production, or

exportation of certain malleable cast iron pipe fittings. Accordingly, the Commission instituted

investigation No. 701‐TA‐9 (Final) under section 703(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine

whether an industry in the United States was materially injured or threated with material injury

by reason of the importation of these pipe fittings into the United States. On March 20, 1980,

the Commission terminated the investigation upon written request by petitioners, the APFA.

On September 18, 1984, the Cast Iron Pipe Fittings Committee (“CIPFC”) filed a petition

with the Commission and Commerce alleging that an industry in the United States was

materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from Brazil and India

of certain cast iron pipe fittings, other than cast iron soil pipe, which were allegedly subsidized

by the Governments of Brazil and India. On October 9, 1984, following receipt of a letter from

counsel for the petitioners withdrawing the petition relating to imports of the subject

merchandise from India, the Commission terminated the investigation concerning India. In the

remaining investigation concerning Brazil, the Commission made final determinations that

there were two domestic like products, malleable cast iron pipe fittings and NMPF, other than

cast iron soil pipe, and that there was no material injury or threat thereof to domestic

industries by reason of imports of malleable or non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings which were

subsidized by the Government of Brazil.18

Effective July 31, 1985, the Commission instituted investigation Nos. 731‐TA‐278‐281

following receipt of an antidumping petition from the CIPFC alleging that malleable cast iron

pipe fittings from Brazil, Korea, and Taiwan were being sold in the United States at LTFV and

that non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings, other than for cast iron soil pipe, from Taiwan were

being sold in the United States at LTFV.19 On January 14, 1986, Commerce published notice of

its preliminary determinations that malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Brazil, Korea, and

Taiwan were being, or were likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV and that  non‐

malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Taiwan were not being, or likely to be, sold in the United

States at LTFV.20 Accordingly, effective January 13, 1986, the Commission instituted

investigation Nos. 731‐TA‐278‐280 (Final) concerning malleable pipe fittings from Brazil, Korea,

and Taiwan. In its final investigations, the Commission found that an industry in the United

States was materially injured by reason of LTFV imports from Brazil, Korea, and Taiwan of

malleable cast iron pipe fittings, excluding “groove‐lock” pipe fittings, whether or not advanced

in condition by operations or processes (such as threading) subsequent to the casting process.

No information was presented nor arguments made during the investigations which indicated

that the Commission should adopt definitions of the domestic like products different from

those made in the previous subsidy investigation concerning Brazil.  

                                                       18 Subsequently, the petition with respect to non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings was withdrawn and

the investigation terminated (51 FR 10648, March 28, 1986). 19 On August 7, 1985, the Commission received a letter from counsel for the petitioner amending the petition

to exclude “groove‐lock pipe” fittings.   20 Subsequently, the petition with respect to non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings was withdrawn and the

investigation terminated (51 FR 10648, March 28, 1986).  
I‐6   

On August 29, 1986, an antidumping petition was filed on behalf of the CIPFC alleging

that malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Japan and Thailand were being sold at LTFV. In June

1987, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured

by reason of LTFV imports of malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Japan, and in August 1987,

the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by

reason of LTFV imports of malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Thailand.21  

On January 4, 1999, the Commission instituted reviews to determine whether

revocation of the antidumping duty orders on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Brazil,

Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of

material injury to a domestic industry. After conducting full reviews pursuant to section

751(c)(5) of the Act, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty

orders covering malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Brazil, Taiwan, and Thailand 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, 22 and that revocation of the antidumping duty orders

concerning malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Japan and Korea would be likely to lead to

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

reasonably foreseeable time.23 In each of the original investigations, the Commission had

defined the domestic like product as all malleable cast iron pipe fittings other than grooved. In

the reviews, no party argued for a different like product definition. The Commission found no

need to revisit its original determinations concerning domestic like product and adopted the

same definition as was used in the original determinations.24  

On October 30, 2002, Anvil and Ward filed a petition alleging that an industry in the

United States was being materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV

imports from China of malleable cast iron pipe fittings. In December 2003, the Commission

determined that an industry in the United States was threatened with material injury by reason

of imports from China of malleable cast iron pipe fittings that were found by Commerce to be

sold in the United States at LTFV. The Commission defined the domestic like product as all

malleable cast iron pipe fittings other than grooved. In its determination, it noted that “because

of differences in physical characteristics, uses and production processes, the lack of

                                                       21 The Commission rejected arguments presented in the Japan/Thailand investigations that the

domestic like product should be defined to include grooved and/or non‐malleable pipe fittings, as well

as malleable cast iron pipe fittings.   22 Commerce published notice of the revocation of the orders on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Brazil,

Taiwan, and Thailand, effective January 1, 2000. 65 FR 10470, February 28, 2000. 23 The Commission instituted its second five‐year reviews concerning the antidumping duty orders on malleable

cast iron pipe fittings from Japan and Korea on January 3, 2005. Commerce subsequently published notice that it

was revoking the orders because of the lack of participation in the second five‐year reviews by the domestic

interested parties. 70 FR 18368, April 11, 2005. Accordingly, the Commission terminated its five‐year reviews

effective February 28, 2005. 70 FR 20595, April 20, 2005.   24 Malleable Cast‐Iron Pipe Fittings From Brazil, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, Investigation

Nos. 731‐TA‐278‐280 and 731‐TA‐347‐348 (Review), USITC Publication 3274, February 2000, p. 5.
I‐7   

interchangeability, and the perceptions of those in the trade, malleable fittings were distinct

from non‐malleable fittings and grooved fittings.”25

On November 3, 2008, the Commission gave notice that it instituted a review to

determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on imports of malleable cast iron

pipe fittings from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury.26 On February 9, 2009, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping

duty order on malleable iron pipe fittings from China would be likely to lead to continuation or

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

foreseeable time.27

THE PRODUCT

Commerce’s scope

In the most recent Federal Register notice in which the scope of the order concerning

NMPF from China was published, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as follows:

The products covered by the order are finished and unfinished non‐malleable cast iron

pipe fittings with an inside diameter ranging from 1/4 inch to 6 inches, whether

threaded or unthreaded, regardless of industry or proprietary specifications. The subject

fittings include elbows, ells, tees, crosses, and reducers as well as flanged fittings. These

pipe fittings are also known as “cast iron pipe fittings” or “gray iron pipe fittings.” These

cast iron pipe fittings are normally produced to ASTM A‐126 and AMSE B.16.4

specifications and are threaded to ASME B1.20.1 specifications. Most building codes

require that these products are Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified. The scope does

not include cast iron soil pipe fittings or grooved fittings or grooved couplings. Fittings

that are made out of ductile iron that have the same physical characteristics as the gray

or cast iron fittings subject to the scope above or which have the same physical

characteristics and are produced to ASME B.16.3, ASME B.16.4, or ASTM A‐395

specifications, threaded to ASME B1.20.1 specifications and UL certified, regardless of

metallurgical differences between gray and ductile iron, are also included in the scope

of the order. These ductile fittings do not include grooved fittings or grooved couplings.

Ductile cast iron fittings with mechanical joint ends (MJ), or push on ends (PO), or

flanged ends and produced to the American Water Works Association (AWWA)

specifications AWWA C110 or AWWA C153 are not included. Additionally, certain brake

fluid tube connectors are excluded from the scope of this order.28 29

                                                       25 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China, Investigation No. 731‐TA‐1021 (Final), USITC Publication

3649. December 2003, pp. 1 and 5‐6.

26 Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China, 73 FR 65401, November 3, 2008.

27 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China, 74 FR 16233, April 9, 2009.

28 To be excluded from the scope, the connector must meet the following description: The connector

is a “joint block” for brake fluid tubes and is made of nonmalleable cast iron to Society of Automotive

Engineers (SAE) automotive standard J431. The tubes have an inside diameter of 3.44 millimeters
I‐8   

U.S. tariff treatment

NMPF, provided for under subheading 7307.11.00 (tube or pipe fittings (for example,

couplings, elbows, sleeves), of iron or steel, cast fittings, of non‐malleable cast iron), have a

normal trade relations tariff rate of 4.8 percent ad valorem applicable to imports from China.

When provided for under subheading 7307.19.30 (tube or pipe fittings (for example, couplings,

elbows, sleeves), of iron or steel, cast fittings, other, ductile fittings), they have a normal trade

relations tariff rate of 5.6 percent ad valorem applicable to imports from China.

Domestic like product and domestic industry

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. 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.  

The Commission found in its original investigation concerning NMPF from China that

there was a single domestic like product consisting of non‐malleable and ductile case iron pipe

fittings corresponding to Commerce’s scope and that the domestic industry consisted of all

domestic producers of non‐malleable and ductile cast iron pipe fittings corresponding to

Commerce’s scope.30  

The Commission found a single domestic like product consisting of non‐malleable and

ductile cast iron pipe fittings corresponding to the scope in the first five‐year review.31 The

domestic interested parties indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution

in this second five‐year review that they agree with the definition of the domestic like product

set out in the Commission’s notice of institution, and believe that Anvil should be considered a

part of the domestic industry.32  

                                                                                                                                                                              

(0.1355 inches) and the inside diameters of the fluid flow channels of the connector are 3.2 millimeters

(0.1260 inches) and 3.8 millimeters (0.1496 inches). The end of the tube is forced by pressure over the

end of a flared opening in the connector also known as “flared joint.” The flared joint, once made fast,

permits brake fluid to flow through channels that never exceed 3.8 millimeters (0.1496 inches) in

diameter.

29 Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation of Order, in Part, 77 FR 31577, May

29, 2012.

30 Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China Investigation No. 731‐TA‐990 (Final), USITC

Publication 3586, March 2003, p. 8.   31 Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China: Investigation No. 731‐TA‐990 (Review), USITC

Publication 4023, July 2008, p. 5.

32 Response of domestic interested parties, July 31, 2013, p. 24.
I‐9   

Physical characteristics and uses33

Pipe fittings are generally used for connecting the bores of two or more pipes or tubes,

connecting a pipe to some other apparatus, changing the direction of fluid flow, or closing the

pipe. The material from which the subject fittings are made, cast iron, is a general term for

alloys which are primarily composed of iron, carbon (more than two percent), and silicon. Made

to ASTM/ASME specifications, iron castings exhibit mechanical properties which are

determined by the cooling rate during and after solidification by chemical composition, by heat

treatment, by design, and by the nature of the molding technique. During the cooling and

solidification processes, carbon is segregated within the crystalline structure of the iron in the

form of iron carbide or graphite, resulting in different types of cast irons with different physical

properties. In practice, iron castings are best identified by their micro‐structures rather than by

their chemical compositions.34   

There are three basic metallurgical types of cast iron pipe fittings, namely non‐malleable

(or gray) fittings, ductile fittings, and malleable fittings. These types of fittings and the cast iron

from which they are made are discussed below.

Non‐malleable iron (also referred to as gray iron) is defined by the ASTM as cast iron

that has fine graphite flakes which are formed during cooling. Gray iron has excellent

machinability, wear resistance, and high hardness value. Gray irons exhibit no elastic behavior

and is comparatively weak, with a tensile strength ranging from 20,000 to 58,000 psi. Fittings

produced from gray iron are used primarily in fire protection/sprinkler systems, but are also

used in the steam conveyance systems installed in buildings in older inner cities. The fire

protection/ sprinkler system market is by far the dominant use for these fittings in the United

States, accounting for approximately 90 to 95 percent of shipments. The steam conveyance

market represents another 5 percent of shipments, with other uses constituting less than 5

percent of shipments. These non‐malleable cast iron pipe fittings are primarily produced to

ASTM A‐126 and ASME B.16.4 specifications.  

Ductile iron is a cast iron that has a very small but definite amount of magnesium added

in the liquid state so as to induce the formation of graphite as spheroids or nodules. Ductile iron

fittings have exceptional tensile strength, good machinability, high impact resistance, and

corrosion resistance. Ductile iron has the ductility of malleable iron and the corrosion resistance

of alloy cast iron. It compares in strength and elastic properties with cast steel and can be

stronger than malleable iron, with a tensile strength ranging from 60,000 to 100,000 psi. Ductile

iron fittings are superior to gray iron fittings in elastic properties, impact resistance, yield

strength/ weight, and wear resistance; ductile fittings are inferior to gray fittings in ease of

machining, vibration damping, and cost of manufacture. The subject ductile cast iron pipe

fittings marketed in the United States are used in the same primary applications as gray cast

iron pipe fittings, i.e., fire protection/sprinkler systems, and are typically produced to ASME

                                                       33 The discussion in this section is based on information from Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings

From China: Investigation No. 731‐TA‐990 (Review), USITC Publication 4023, July 2008, pp. I‐10 – I‐11.

34 In normal iron casting, the ASTM/ASME standard specifications and the desirable mechanical

properties of the castings, but not their chemical analyses, are specified to the manufacturer (or

foundry) because the chemical compositions of these cast irons overlap.  
I‐10   

B.16.3 specifications. Other nonsubject ductile cast iron pipe fittings are used in the United

States for soil pipe and waterworks applications, such as fittings for underground water mains

and main water supply fittings for buildings.35  

Malleable iron is characterized by the existence of graphite as irregularly shaped

nodules in its microscopic structure. The overall production and heat treatment process

performed on malleable cast iron pipe fittings distinguishes the product from NMPF in chemical

composition, microstructure, material strength, size, and weight. Malleable cast iron pipe

fittings are lighter, thinner, stronger, and less brittle than NMPF and are used when shock and

vibration resistance is required and where fittings are subject to quick temperature changes.

The principal uses of malleable cast iron pipe fittings are in gas lines, piping systems of oil

refineries, and building gas and water systems. In some applications, malleable cast iron pipe

fittings may be substituted for NMPF, but due to the higher cost of the product, such

substitution is uneconomical. Malleable fittings are not included in the imported products

subject to this review.   

Products specifically excluded from the scope include soil pipe and grooved fittings and

couplings. Also excluded from the scope are flanged ductile cast iron fittings and ductile fittings

produced to AWWA C110 or AWWA C153 specifications.36 Cast iron soil pipe and fittings, which

are typically produced from gray iron, are used primarily in building construction for sanitary

and storm drain, waste, and vent piping applications. The product is installed in residential

construction, hospitals, schools, and commercial and industrial structures. Cast iron soil pipe

and fittings are typically produced in accordance with ASTM A‐888, ASTM A‐74, or Cast Iron Soil

Pipe Institute (CISPI) 301 specifications and are available in sizes ranging from 2 to 15 inches.

Grooved fittings and couplings, which are produced from ductile or malleable cast iron, are

different forms of fittings in which a split coupling attaches to a circumferential groove near the

end of each piece to be joined. A gasket inside the coupling serves as a seal for the pipe and the

coupling. Flanged fittings are different from threaded fittings in that the flanged fittings are cast

with an integral rim, or flange, at the end of the fitting. The flanged connection is made by

inserting a gasket between the flanged ends of two separate pieces and securing the ends with

several bolts.  

Manufacturing process37

Cast iron pipe fittings are manufactured using a technologically mature process. It

begins with the making of molten iron in a foundry with fuel provided by foundry coke or an

electric furnace. The raw materials are scrap steel, iron scrap, and other materials such as

silicon carbide and carbon. The molten iron for cast iron fittings contains approximately 3.5

percent carbon, 2.5 percent silicon, and 0.5 percent manganese by weight, but may vary.

                                                       35 Fittings for use with soil pipe and ductile fittings for use in waterworks applications meeting

AWWA C110 and AWWA C153 specifications are excluded from the scope of this investigation.

36 Also excluded are ductile fittings with mechanical joint ends and push‐on ends. These fittings are

produced for waterworks applications and must meet AWWA C110 and AWWA C153 specifications.   37 The discussion in this section is based on information from Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings

From China: Investigation No. 731‐TA‐990 (Review), USITC Publication 4023, July 2008, pp. I‐11 – I‐12.
I‐11   

The casting process begins with the making of a pattern, which has the same external

form and shape as the designed fittings. Sand casting is the predominant method used in the

making of cast iron fittings. Molding sand, after being mixed with a binder, is spread around the

pattern in a mold, and then rammed by a machine to compact the sand. The pattern is then

withdrawn, leaving a mold cavity in the sand. Solid molded sand cores are inserted to form the

internal shape of the fitting. Two mold halves are put together with the core in the center. A

system of gates, risers, and vents is provided in the casting cavity to ensure a smooth flow of

the molten iron into the mold cavity under gravity.  

To form the shape of the fittings, molten iron is poured into the mold cavity. After the

iron solidifies, the red‐hot fittings are shaken out of the sand on a shaker table or belt and

allowed to cool for four to five hours.  

The specific chemical compositions and manufacturing processes of malleable, non‐

malleable, and ductile iron fittings differ somewhat, although all are comprised mainly of iron.

Many malleable, non‐malleable, and ductile cast iron pipe fittings are available in similar

configurations and all are produced using sand casting; however, the specific molds for the

individual castings are reportedly not interchangeable. After casting, the production of non‐

malleable and ductile cast iron pipe fittings is essentially complete, except for cooling, cleaning,

and, if necessary, machining, threading, or finishing. In contrast, malleable fittings are subjected

to an additional process of annealing and controlled cooling after casting.  

A ductile cast iron fitting, because of its superior physical yield strength, is lighter and

has thinner walls than a non‐malleable cast iron fitting of the same inside diameter. Therefore,

on the basis of weight, ductile iron is more expensive to produce than non‐malleable iron

because of the inoculation of magnesium during the production process, more tightly

controlled production conditions requiring a longer production process, and the relative

difficulties in finishing compared with non‐malleable iron. Malleable iron castings are more

expensive to produce per pound than both the ductile iron and non‐malleable iron castings

because of the additional heat treatment process required. On the basis of pieces, however,

the stronger ductile fittings have been described as a cost effective alternative to malleable

fittings in that the ductile fittings cost less than the malleable fittings to manufacture, but are

sold at prices similar to those of non‐malleable fittings.  

Manufacturing processes and technologies for iron castings are well‐established and are

similar throughout the world, although it was argued in the original investigation that the

production process used in China to produce the subject merchandise is not as technologically

advanced as that used in the United States.38  

                                                       38 U.S. producers operate highly automated, state‐of‐the‐art, high‐volume plants, whereas the

Chinese producers apparently have used  a variety of production methods, some of which are reportedly

not as technologically advanced nor as environmentally friendly as those used in the United States (e.g.,

“floor molding”) and which were abandoned by U.S. producers decades ago. In addition, the U.S.

foundry industry is heavily regulated and continued investment in pollution abatement is required of

domestic producers as a condition of operations as new, more stringent standards are issued by the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Chinese producers, on the other hand, have not been

required to comply with these strict environmental regulations.  
I‐12   

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions

The Commission determined in the final phase of the original investigation that

although there were perceived differences between non‐malleable fittings and ductile fittings

relating to physical properties and individual users’ preferences, these two types of fittings

were generally interchangeable in their dominant application (i.e., fire protection sprinkler

systems). In addition,*** indicated that the U.S. and Chinese fittings were used interchangeably

in the same applications.  

Channels of distribution39

Industry participants in the original investigation reported that NMPF are sold on a

nationwide basis by the domestic manufacturers and importers to distributors which, in turn,

sell to contractors of fire protection/sprinkler and steam heat conveyance systems. They also

indicated that some ductile and non‐malleable pipe fittings are distributed through the same

channels with some distributors carrying both ductile and non‐malleable pipe fittings and some

dealing with only one type of fitting.  

Pricing and related information

The record in the original investigation indicated that the domestic like product and

subject imports were largely substitutable and that price was an important factor in purchasing

decisions. In the final phase of the original investigation the Commission collected pricing data

for four non‐malleable and four ductile cast iron pipe fitting products. The price comparison

data indicated underselling by the subject non‐malleable/ductile product in every comparison

in each of the 15 quarters of the period from January 1999 to September 2002 for sales to

distributors and end users. Margins of underselling ranged from 1.6 percent to 44.4 percent,

with a marked increase in underselling toward the end of the 15‐quarter period. The

Commission noted, however, that although underselling by the subject imports reached

significant levels late in the period examined in the final phase of the original investigation, the

pricing data and other record information did not show depression or suppression of prices for

the domestic like product. Instead, the Commission noted that the pricing data showed that

prices for the domestic products increased over the period examined, notwithstanding

declining apparent U.S. consumption. The Commission added that, given the prevailing weak

market conditions, the domestic industry would not have been able to raise prices further,

regardless of the effects of subject imports from China, and did not find the price effects of the

subject imports to be significant.40

In the first expedited review, the Commission found that Chinese producers would likely

increase exports to the United States significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future if the

antidumping duty order were to be revoked and that subject imports would likely undersell the

                                                       39 The discussion in this section is based on information from Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings

From China: Investigation No. 731‐TA‐990 (Review), USITC Publication 4023, July 2008, p. I‐13.

40 Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China: Investigation No. 731‐TA‐990 (Review), USITC

Publication 4023, July 2008, p. I‐13.
I‐13   

domestic like product in order to gain market share. The Commission determined that this

volume of low‐priced subject imports would likely erode any preference for the domestic like

product which would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on prices for the

domestic like product. 41  

In their response to the notice of institution for this review, the domestic interested

parties indicated that demand for NMPF is largely derived from nonresidential construction

spending and that the best indicator of demand for NMPF is sprinkler head consumption; given

that 90 to 95 percent of NMPF shipments are used in fire/sprinkler systems.42 In the original

investigation, the Commission noted that NMPF is relatively price inelastic, and sales are highly

price sensitive. The domestic responding parties assert that they do not believe that anything

has changed that would affect the price elasticity or sensitivity of the product.43  

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. producers

In the original investigation, there were four reported U.S. producers of NMPF.44 In the

first five‐year review, there were three reported U.S. producers of NMPF.45 In this second five‐

year review, the domestic interested parties believe that there are only two U.S. producers of

NMPF.46 The domestic interested party reported *** of NMPF production in 2012, compared to

*** of NMPF production in 2007.47 Table I‐2 presents data on U.S. producers’ locations and

company shares of total domestic production for 2001, 2007, and 2012.  

 

                                                       41 Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China: Investigation No. 731‐TA‐990 (Review), USITC

Publication 4023, July 2008, p. I‐11.

42 Response of domestic interested parties, July 31, 2013, p. 5.

43 Response of domestic interested parties, July 31, 2013, p. 7. 44 The four producers were Anvil, Buck, Frazier, and Ward. Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From

China Investigation No. 731‐TA‐990 (Review), USITC Publication 4023, July 2008, table I‐3.   45 The three producers were Anvil, Frazier, and Ward. Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From

China Investigation No. 731‐TA‐990 (Review), USITC Publication 4023, July 2008, table I‐3.   46 Response of domestic interested parties, July 31, 2013, exh. 7. 47 See table I‐3.
I‐14   

Table I-2 

Non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings: U.S. producers’ locations and company shares of total 

domestic production, 2001, 2007, and 2012 

Firm Location 

Share of domestic production (percent) 

2001 2007 2012 

Anvil Exeter, NH *** *** ***

Buck Quarryville, PA (1) (2) (2)

Frazier Coolidge, TX *** *** (2)

Ward Blossburg, PA *** *** ***

1

Buck’s production of the subject fittings for Ward during 2001 accounted for *** percent of total reported domestic 

production in that year. 

2 The domestic interested parties did not identify this firm as a current domestic producer. 

Source: Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China Investigation No. 731-TA-990 (Review), USITC 

Publication 4023, July 2008, table I-3; Response of domestic interested parties, July 31, 2013, exh. 7. 

U.S. producers’ trade and financial data

Table I‐3 presents data on U.S. producers’ select trade and financial data in 1999‐2001,

2007, and 2012. Table I‐4 presents data on the domestic interested parties’ NMPF operations in

2012.

Table I-3 

Non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings: U.S. producers’ trade and financial data, 1999-2001, 2007, 

and 2012 

* * * * * * *

Table I-4 

Non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings: domestic interested parties NMPF operations for 2012 

* * * * * * *

The domestic interested parties contend that the domestic industry is vulnerable, with

an operating income margin of *** percent in 2012,48 and capacity utilization of *** percent in

2012.49  The domestic interested parties indicated that the industry remains vulnerable given

that nonresidential construction has declined since the end of the first review period and

nonresidential spending has been flat.50

Related party issues

In both the original investigation and first five‐year review, the Commission defined the

domestic industry as consisting of all producers of non‐malleable and ductile cast iron pipe

                                                       48 Response of domestic interested parties, July 31, 2013, p. 20.

49 Ibid., p. 20.

50 Ibid., p. 20.
I‐15   

fittings corresponding to the scope. *** the first five‐year review, the Commission determined

that Anvil was a related party, but declined to exclude Anvil from the domestic industry.51  

Anvil purchased Star Pipe Products (“Star Pipe”) in January 2004. Star Pipe was a major

importer of subject NMPF from China located in Houston, TX. The acquisition formed AnvilStar

Fire Products Division. Anvil indicated that its purchase of Star Pipe was done in order to

“remain competitive in the U.S. market.”52  

In 2012, the quantity of Anvil’s subject imports from China was *** short tons with a

value of ***.  Anvil’s imports of the subject merchandise exceeded its domestic production

during 2012 ***. Anvil’s imports accounted for *** percent of total U.S. imports of subject

merchandise during 2012 as reported in Commerce’s official import statistics (HTS

7307.11.0030 and 7307.11.0060).53 Data on Anvil’s subject imports are presented in table I‐5.

Table I-5 

Non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings: Anvil’s subject imports, 2007 and 2012 

* * * * * * *

In their response to the notice of institution, the domestic interested parties argued that

Anvil should not be excluded from the domestic industry. The domestic interested parties

stated that, “Anvil imports some NMPF simply because some customers insist on the lower

prices available for imported NMPF.”54  ***.55

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT CONSUMPTION

U.S. importers

In the original investigation, there were 11 confirmed importers of NMPF.56 In the first

five‐year review, the domestic interested parties listed four companies believed to be U.S.

importers of subject merchandise: Matco‐Norca, Smith‐Cooper International, Star Pipe, and

JDH Pacific.57

                                                       51 Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China Investigation No. 731‐TA‐990 (Review), USITC

Publication 4023, July 2008, pp. 5‐6.

52 Staff Report to the Commission on Investigation No. 731‐TA‐990 (Review), June 26, 2008 (INV‐FF‐

073), p. I‐27.

53 In their response to the notice of institution, the domestic interested parties indicated that they

believe the Commission should include HTS 7307.19.3060 as well ***.

54 Response of domestic interested parties, July 31, 2013, p. 28. 55 Ibid. p. 28.

56 Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China, Staff Report to the Commission on Investigation

No. 731‐TA‐990, February 27, 2003, pp. IV‐1 – IV – 2. 57 Staff Report to the Commission on Investigation No. 731‐TA‐990 (Review), June 26, 2008 (INV‐FF‐

073), p. I‐29
I‐16   

In their response to the Commission’s notice of institution for this second five‐year

review, the domestic interested parties listed five companies as U.S. importers of NMPF from

China: Anvil, Matco‐Norca, Smith Cooper International, Star Products Co., and JDH Pacific Inc.58

Data on Anvil’s subject imports are presented in table I‐5.  

U.S. imports

According to Commerce’s scope description, imports of covered merchandise are

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) under item numbers

7307.11.0030, 7307.11.0060, 7307.19.3060, and 7307.19.3085.59 ***

Figure I‐1 presents the quantity of U.S. imports of NMPF, by source, from 1999to 2012.   

Figure I-1 

Non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings: U.S. imports, by source, 1999-2012 

Source: Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China Investigation No. 731-TA-990 (Review), USITC 

Publication 4023, July 2008; and Compiled from official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting numbers 

7307.11.0030 and 7307.11.0060. 

Data for U.S. imports by subject and nonsubject60 sources from 2008‐12 are presented

in table I‐6. Although the quantity of NMPF imports from China has decreased since 2008, the

share of total U.S. imports of NMPF accounted for by NMPF imports from China has increased

from 58.8 percent in 2008 to 72.4 percent in 2012. The unit value of these imports has steadily

increased from $1,675 per short ton in 2008 to $2,270 per short ton in 2012, an increase of 35

percent.  

 

                                                       58 Response of domestic interested parties, July 31, 2013, exh. 8.

59 68 FR 16765, April 7, 2003; 72 FR 38563, July 13, 2007; and 77 FR 31578, May 29, 2013.

60 The leading nonsubject sources of U.S. imports are India, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Austria, and

Germany.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. imports, by source, 1999-2012

China Nonsubject countries Total

investigation review second review
I‐17   

Table I-6 

Non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings: U.S. imports by subject and nonsubject sources, 2008-121

Source 

Calendar years 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

 Quantity (short tons) 

China 7,430 5,052 5,685 5,903 6,838

Nonsubject imports 5,202 3,206 2,067 2,760 2,606

 Total 12,632 8,258 7,751 8,663 9,444

 Value (1,000 dollars) 

China 12,443 8,467 9,956 11,508 15,521

Nonsubject imports 16,741 10,180 8,189 10,962 11,306

 Total 29,183 18,647 18,146 22,470 26,827

 Average unit value (dollars per short ton) 

China 1,675 1,676 1,751 1,949 2,270

Nonsubject imports 3,218 3,175 3,963 3,972 4,338

 Average 2,310 2,258 2,341 2,594 2,841

 Share of quantity (percent) 

China 58.8 61.2 73.3 68.1 72.4

Nonsubject imports 41.2 38.8 26.7 31.9 27.6

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Share of value (percent) 

China 42.6 45.4 54.9 51.2 57.9

Nonsubject imports 57.4 54.6 45.1 48.8 42.1

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 The quantity of U.S. imports from China under HTS reporting number 7307.19.3060 are as follows: 

China 2,671 2,026 2,996 4,996 4,561

Note. -- The largest nonsubject sources and their respective shares of the total quantity of non-malleable cast iron 

pipe fittings imported during 2012 include the following: India (12.0 percent), Canada (3.3 percent), Japan (2.7 

percent), Mexico (2.6 percent), Austria (2.0 percent), and Germany (1.9 percent). 

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting numbers 7307.11.0030 and 

7307.11.0060. 

Ratio of imports to U.S. production

Table I‐7 presents the ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production of NMPF. The ratio of U.S.

imports from China to U.S. production increased from *** percent in 2001 to *** in 2007 ***.

The ratio of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries to U.S. production also increased from ***

percent in 2001 to *** in 2007, then decreased to *** in 2012. The ratio of total imports to U.S.

production increased from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2007. ***.

Table I-7 

Non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings: ratio of imports to U.S. production (percent), 1999- 2001, 

2007, and 2012 

* * * * * * *
I‐18   

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares

In their response to the Commission’s notice of institution for this review, the domestic

interested parties indicated that competitive conditions in the domestic industry have not

changed significantly since either the original investigation or the first review.61 Data on U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, and apparent U.S. consumption are

presented in table I‐8.  

Table I-8 

Non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, 

and apparent U.S. consumption, 1999-2001, 2007, and 2012 

Item 1999 2000 2001 2007 2012 

 Quantity (short tons) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from: 

 China 5,469 6,221 6,432 12,8321 6,8381 

 Other sources *** *** *** 5,3401 2,6061

 Total import shipments *** *** *** 18,1711 9,4441

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** ***

 Value (1,000 dollars) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from: 

 China 6,828 7,630 7,575 15,5381 15,5211 

 Other sources *** *** *** 14,5321 11,3061

 Total import shipments *** *** *** 30,0701 26,8271

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** ***

 Share of consumption based on quantity (percent) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from: 

 China *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources *** *** *** *** ***

 Total import shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Share of consumption based on value (percent) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from: 

 China *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources *** *** *** *** ***

 Total import shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 Data for U.S. imports are presented for 2007 and 2012 because data for U.S. shipments of imports are not 

available for those years. 

 2 Apparent U.S. consumption presented for 2007 and 2012 may be understated by the amount of U.S. imports of 

NMPF entering the United States under HTS statistical reporting numbers other than 7307.11.0030 and 

7307.11.0060. 

Source: Staff Report to the Commission on Investigation No. 731-TA-990 (Review), June 26, 2008 (INV-FF-073), 

tables I-10 for 1999-2001 and 2007; Response of domestic interested parties, July 31, 2013, exh. 7 for 2012 U.S. 

producers’ U.S. shipments; and 2012 import data compiled from official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting 

numbers 7307.11.0030 and 7307.11.0060.

                                                       61 Response of domestic interested parties, July 31, 2013, p. 4.
I‐19   

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Background

In the original investigation, five producers of NMPF in China provided data on their

operations.62 The exports of these five firms were estimated to account for *** percent of

reported U.S. imports of the subject Chinese merchandise during 2001.63 During the first five‐

year review, the domestic interested parties identified five producers of NMPF in China.64 In

response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this second five‐year review, the domestic

industry identified 13 known producers of NMPF in China.65 According to Global Trade Atlas

data, China exported 245,485 short tons of NMPF during 2007 and 269,552 short tons of NMPF

during 2012, almost half of which were destined for the United States.66  

                                                       62 The Chinese producers responded to the preliminary phase questionnaires and not the final phase

questionnaires.

63 These five firms were Beijing JDH Metal Products, Ltd. (“LDH”); GMS Pipe Fittings Industries, Inc.

(“GMS”); JMC; Linyi Luozhuang Tongli Casting Steel Foundry; and Shanghai Padong Malleable Iron Plant.

Only one Chinese producer/exporter (JDH) provided a response to the Commission’s questionnaire in

the final phase of the investigation. Therefore, data received in the preliminary phase of the

investigation were presented in the Commission’s final phase staff report. Staff Report on Non‐

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China, Investigation No. 731‐TA‐990 (Final), February 27, 2003

(INV‐AA‐022), p. VII‐1   64 The five producers were Eathu Casting & Forging Co., Ltd.; GMS; Shen Tang Metalcast Co., Ltd.;

JMC; and Shanghair Foreign Trade Enterprises Co., Ltd. Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China

Investigation No. 73 ‐TA‐990 (Review), USITC Publication 4023, July 2008, p. I‐39.

65 The Chinese producers listed by the domestic interested parties are: Chongzhou Minjiang Plastic

Co., Ltd.; Eathu Casting & Forging Co., Ltd.; GMS Pipe Fittings Industries, Inc.; Jinan Meide Casting Co.,

Ltd.; Jincheng City Jianniu Mettallurgy & Casting Co., Ltd.; Jingmen Zhengyuan Guanghua Pipe Co., Ltd.;

Nanjing Fengshengshuiqi Water Pipeline Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Foreign Trade Enterprises Co., Ltd.; Shanghai

Pudong Malleable Iron Plan; Shen Yang Metalcast Co., Ltd.; Suns Pipeline Co., Ltd.; Tianshengyuan

Casting Factory; and Qian Xiang Machinery Co., Ltd.; Response of domestic interested parties, July 31,

2013, exh. 9.

66 Global Trade Atlas data also include nonsubject merchandise, such as cast iron soil pipe fittings.

According to official import statistics for HTS statistical reporting numbers 7307.11.0030 and

7307.11.0060 combined, U.S. imports of pipe fittings from China during 2012 amounted to 6,838 short

tons. If HTS item 7307.19.3060 is also included, the total U.S. imports from China during 2012 would

amount to 11,399 short tons. The domestic interested parties indicated in their response to the

Commission’s notice of institution for the first review that all U.S. imports entering under HTS items

7307.11.0030 and 7307.11.0060 are subject merchandise, “most” U.S. imports entering the United

States under HTS item 7307.19.3060 are subject merchandise, and “a portion” of U.S. imports entering

under HTS item 7307.19.3085 are subject imports. In their response to the Commission’s notice of

institution for this review, the domestic interested parties indicated that ***.
I‐20   

Chinese exports

Global Trade Atlas statistics concerining exports of NMPF (HTS subheading 7307.11)

from China for 2008‐12 are presented in table I‐9.67  These data show that the quantity of

China’s total NMPF exports increased by 34 percent between 2008 and 2012; and the value of

these exports increased by 60 percent. The largest export market for Chinese NMPF during

2008‐12 was the United States.  

Antidumping actions outside the United States

   

There are no trade remedy orders on NMPF from China in a third country market. The

European Union imposed an antidumping duty order on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast

fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in China and Thailand in May of 2013.68 The domestic

interested parties argued that this order “will provide even more incentive for Chinese

producers to move away from producing malleable fittings and instead produce non‐malleable

fittings for exports to the United States if the order is not continued.”69

 

                                                       67 Global Trade Atlas data also include nonsubject merchandise, such as cast iron soil pipe fittings.

68 COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 430/2013, Official Journal of the European Union

Publication, May 2013, pp. L129/1 ‐ L129/11.

69 Response of domestic interested parties, July 31, 2013, p. 18.
I‐21   

Table I-9 

Non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings: China’s export shipments, by export market, 2008-12

Export market 

Calendar years 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Quantity (short tons)

United States 87,929 66,529 88,356 93,589 113,314

Japan 7,633 6,285 8,807 9,768 11,391

Germany 5,328 4,640 5,671 7,345 9,370

Hong Kong 6,689 5,678 7,841 8,788 9,337

Canada 6,402 5,900 8,375 7,459 8,962

Taiwan 4,823 6,700 8,825 7,065 7,951

United Kingdom 6,692 5,736 7,465 7,905 7,716

Saudi Arabia 2,398 3,194 4,280 7,681 6,960

Spain 12,648 7,997 7,028 6,457 6,720

Singapore 6,054 3,685 6,351 6,622 6,284

All others 54,465 48,454 65,219 78,183 81,545

 World 201,061 164,797 218,218 240,861 269,552

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

United States 123,625 95,953 127,746 152,076 191,979

Japan 12,182 10,484 15,134 19,307 26,067

Germany 9,949 7,198 9,253 13,656 17,312

Hong Kong 9,067 7,492 11,405 12,738 14,548

Canada 9,262 9,134 13,146 13,801 16,202

Taiwan 5,969 6,923 9,256 8,153 9,725

United Kingdom 11,228 8,761 12,526 14,087 14,354

Saudi Arabia 3,853 4,803 6,448 13,620 12,611

Spain 16,304 10,417 8,706 9,071 10,141

Singapore 7,779 5,752 8,207 9,690 10,414

All others 89,165 76,870 106,006 135,091 155,500

 World 298,383 243,788 327,835 401,289 478,855

Continued on the following page. 

 
I‐22   

Table I-9 –Continued

Non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings: China’s export shipments, by export market, 2008-12

Export market 

Calendar years 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Average unit value (dollars per short ton)

United States 1,406 1,442 1,446 1,625 1,694

Japan 1,596 1,668 1,718 1,977 2,288

Germany 1,867 1,551 1,632 1,859 1,848

Hong Kong 1,355 1,319 1,455 1,450 1,558

Canada 1,447 1,548 1,570 1,850 1,808

Taiwan 1,237 1,033 1,049 1,154 1,223

United Kingdom 1,678 1,528 1,678 1,782 1,860

Saudi Arabia 1,607 1,504 1,507 1,773 1,812

Spain 1,289 1,303 1,239 1,405 1,509

Singapore 1,285 1,561 1,292 1,463 1,657

All other 1,637 1,586 1,625 1,728 1,907

 Average 1,484 1,479 1,502 1,666 1,776

Share of quantity (percent)

United States 43.7 40.4 40.5 38.9 42.0

Japan 3.8 3.8 4.0 4.1 4.2

Germany 2.7 2.8 2.6 3.0 3.5

Hong Kong 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.5

Canada 3.2 3.6 3.8 3.1 3.3

Taiwan 2.4 4.1 4.0 2.9 2.9

United Kingdom 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.3 2.9

Saudi Arabia 1.2 1.9 2.0 3.2 2.6

Spain 6.3 4.9 3.2 2.7 2.5

Singapore 3.0 2.2 2.9 2.7 2.3

All others 27.1 29.4 29.9 32.5 30.3

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Continued on the following page. 

 
I‐23   

Table I-9 –Continued

Non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings: China’s export shipments, by export market, 2008-12

Export market 

Calendar years 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Share of value (percent)

United States 41.4 39.4 39.0 37.9 40.1

Japan 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.8 5.4

Germany 3.3 3.0 2.8 3.4 3.6

Hong Kong 3.0 3.1 3.5 3.2 3.0

Canada 3.1 3.7 4.0 3.4 3.4

Taiwan 2.0 2.8 2.8 2.0 2.0

United Kingdom 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.5 3.0

Saudi Arabia 1.3 2.0 2.0 3.4 2.6

Spain 5.5 4.3 2.7 2.3 2.1

Singapore 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.2

All others 29.9 31.5 32.3 33.7 32.5

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Landed, duty paid. 

Source: Compiled from data obtained from the Global Trade Information Service, “Global Trade Atlas” for HTS 

subheading 7307.11 which includes not only the subject merchandise but also nonsubject merchandise such as cast 

iron soil pipe fittings. 

THE WORLD MARKET

The Commission reported in the original investigation that the United States is the

primary market for NMPF.70 Table I‐10 presents data on the top global exporters of NMPF

based on quantity, and table I‐11 presents data on the top global exporters of NMPF based on

value.  

 

                                                       70 Non‐Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China Investigation No. 731‐TA‐990 (Review), USITC

Publication 4023, July 2008, p. I‐25.
I‐24   

Table I-10 

Non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings: Top 10 exporting countries based on quantity, 2008-12

Exporter 

Calendar years 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Quantity (short tons)

China 201,061 164,797 218,218 240,861 269,552 

India 25,923 19,745 17,696 24,361 23,251 

Germany 19,963 14,627 13,723 18,283 17,526 

Italy 16,284 12,325 12,740 10,737 11,060 

Taiwan 105 60 203 4,866 8,671 

United States 14,018 12,552 14,643 10,814 8,501 

United Kingdom 10,273 7,751 8,569 7,691 6,496 

Mexico 4,537 3,403 3,672 4,558 6,065 

Brazil 11,623 6,224 7,644 7,305 5,605 

France 8,006 3,687 6,441 4,439 4,595 

Source: Compiled from data obtained from the Global Trade Information Service, “Global Trade Atlas” for HTS 

subheading 7307.11 which includes not only the subject merchandise but also nonsubject merchandise such as cast 

iron soil pipe fittings. 

Table I-11 

Non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings: Top 10 exporting countries based on value, 2008-12

Exporter 

Calendar years 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Value (1,000 dollars)

China 298,383 243,788 327,835 401,289 478,855 

Italy 166,478 122,357 149,847 138,842 128,399 

United Kingdom 90,621 57,358 54,244 66,444 69,746 

Germany 76,244 62,067 57,600 72,698 69,671 

United States 73,296 72,861 76,329 67,377 51,823 

India 35,243 22,114 23,392 34,904 39,961 

Netherlands 68,025 49,151 53,985 40,020 33,209 

Taiwan 729 292 585 12,959 27,427 

Austria 25,749 13,833 23,409 28,999 25,536 

France 30,024 15,878 20,500 19,012 23,550 

Source: Compiled from data obtained from the Global Trade Information Service, “Global Trade Atlas” for HTS 

subheading 7307.11 which includes not only the subject merchandise but also nonsubject merchandise such as cast 

iron soil pipe fittings.