U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4478 July 2014

Washington, DC 20436

WELDED STAINLESS STEEL PRESSURE 

PIPE FROM CHINA

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-454 and 731-TA-1144 (Expedited Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Meredith M. Broadbent, Chairman 

Dean A. Pinkert, Vice Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson 

David S. Johanson 

F. Scott Kieff 

Rhonda K. Schmidtlein

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Director of Operations

Vincent Honnold, Investigator 

Karen Taylor, Industry Analyst 

Nataline Viray-Fung, Attorney 

Fred Ruggles, Supervisory Investigator 
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4478 July 2014

WELDED STAINLESS STEEL PRESSURE 

PIPE FROM CHINA

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-454 and 731-TA-1144 (Expedited Review)

CONTENTS

Page

i

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

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

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

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

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

The original investigations..................................................................................................... I‐2

Commerce’s final results of five‐year reviews...................................................................... I‐3

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

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

The product............................................................................................................................... I‐5

Commerce’s scope ................................................................................................................ I‐5

U.S. tariff treatment .............................................................................................................. I‐6

Domestic like product and domestic industry ...................................................................... I‐6

Description and uses ............................................................................................................. I‐6

Production process................................................................................................................ I‐7

U.S. supply and U.S. demand ................................................................................................ I‐8

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions............................................... I‐8

Channels of distribution ........................................................................................................ I‐9

Prices and related information.............................................................................................. I‐9

The industry in the United States ............................................................................................. I‐9

U.S. producers....................................................................................................................... I‐9

U.S. producers’ trade and financial data............................................................................. I‐11

U.S. imports and apparent consumption................................................................................ I‐12

U.S. imports......................................................................................................................... I‐12

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares................................................................. I‐12

The industry in China............................................................................................................... I‐14

Antidumping actions outside the United States..................................................................... I‐15
CONTENTS

Page

ii

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notice .....................................................................................................   A‐1

B. Adequacy statement.........................................................................................................   B‐1

C. Summary data...................................................................................................................   C‐1

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

published and therefore have been deleted.  Such deletions are indicated by astericks.
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐454 and 731‐TA‐1144 (Review)

WELDED STAINLESS STEEL PRESSURE PIPE FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1 developed in the subject five‐year reviews, the United

States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. ' 1675(c)), that revocation of the countervailing duty order and

antidumping duty order on welded stainless steel pressure pipe from China would likely lead to

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

reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these reviews on February 3, 2014 (79 F.R. 6222, February 3,

2014) and determined on May 29, 2014 that it would conduct expedited reviews (79 F.R.

30877, May 29, 2014).

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 these five‐year reviews, we determine under section 751(c) of

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

countervailing duty orders on welded stainless steel pressure pipe (“WSS pressure pipe”) 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

The original investigations of WSS pressure pipe from China were instituted in response

to a petition filed by four domestic producers of WSS pressure pipe and a labor union on

January 30, 2008.1  In March 2009, the Commission determined that an industry in the United

States was materially injured by reason of imports of WSS pressure pipe from China that

Commerce found had been subsidized and sold at less than fair value.2  Commerce issued

antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on subject imports on March 17, 2009, and

March 19, 2009, respectively.3     

The Commission instituted these reviews on February 3, 2014.4

  The Commission

received one substantive joint response to the notice of institution from domestic producers

Bristol Metals, Felker Brothers Corp., and Outokumpu Stainless Pipe, Inc. (collectively “domestic

producers”).5  It did not receive a response from any respondent interested party.  On May 9,

2014, the Commission found the domestic producers’ response to the notice of institution

individually adequate, the domestic interested party group response adequate, and the

respondent interested party group response inadequate.6

  The Commission did not find any

circumstances that would warrant conducting full reviews and determined that it would

conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act.7

                                                       

1 Confidential Report (“CR”) at I‐2 (listing petitioners), Public Report (“PR”) at I‐2. 2 Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐454 and 731‐TA‐1144 (Final),

USITC Pub. 4064 at 3 (March 2009) (“Original Determination”).    3 Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China, 74 Fed.

Reg. 11351 (Mar. 17, 2009) (notice of antidumping duty order); Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless

Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China, 74 Fed. Reg. 11712 (Mar. 19, 2009) (notice of

countervailing duty order). 4 Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from China, 79 Fed. Reg. 6222 (Feb. 3, 2014) (institution of

five‐year reviews).

5 Substantive Response to the Commission’s Notice of Institution, March 5, 2013 (“Response”).    6 Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy, EDIS Doc. 533869 (May 9, 2014). 7 See Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy, EDIS Doc. 533869.
4

II. Domestic Like Product and Industry

A. 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

investigation 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 orders under

review as follows:

[C]ircular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in outside

diameter.  This merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) A‐312 or ASTM A‐778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign

specifications.  ASTM A‐358 products are only included when they are produced to meet ASTM

A‐312 or ASTM A‐778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.  

Excluded from the scope are: (1) welded stainless mechanical tubing, meeting ASTM A‐554 or

comparable domestic or foreign specifications; (2) boiler, heat exchangers, superheater,

refining furnace, feedwater heater, and condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A‐249, ASTM A‐688

or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; and (3) specialized tubing, meeting ASTM A‐

269, ASTM A‐270 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.11

                                                       

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 (July 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Turkey, Inv. No. 731‐

TA‐745 (Review), USITC Pub. 3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003). 11 Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China, 79 Fed.

Reg. 32913 (June 9, 2014) (final results of the expedited first sunset review of the antidumping duty

order) (“Commerce Final AD Determination”).  The scope of the countervailing duty review is the same

as the scope of the antidumping duty review.  See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe

from the People’s Republic of China, 79 Fed. Reg. 32911 (June 9, 2014) (final results of the expedited first

sunset review of the countervailing duty order) (“Commerce Final CVD Determination”).
5

WSS pressure pipe is produced in relatively few standard sizes and is used to convey

fluids at high temperatures, high pressures, or both.12  It is produced by forming coils of

stainless steel into tubular shapes, which are typically welded lengthwise while they are being

formed.13  Industries in which it is used include petrochemicals, oil and gas, chemicals, and

water purification.14

The scope definition set out above is unchanged from Commerce’s scope definition in

the original investigations.  In its original determinations, the Commission defined a single

domestic like product consisting of WSS pressure pipe, coextensive with the scope of the

investigations.15   There is no new information obtained during these reviews that would

suggest any reason to revisit the Commission’s domestic like product definition in the original

determinations, and the domestic producers agree with that definition.16  Therefore, we define

the domestic like product as WSS pressure pipe, coextensive with Commerce’s scope definition.  

B. 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.”17  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.  

In its original investigations, the Commission defined a domestic industry as consisting

of the domestic producers of WSS pressure pipe.18  There are no related party issues in these

reviews.  Accordingly, we define the domestic industry as all domestic producers of WSS

pressure pipe.

                                                      

12 CR at I‐8, PR at I‐6‐7.

13 CR at I‐10‐11, PR at I‐7‐8. 14 CR at I‐9‐10, PR at I‐7.

15 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 10.

16 See generally CR at I‐7‐11, PR at I‐6‐9; Response at 13. 17 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).  The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable 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.

18 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 11.   
6

III. Revocation of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders Would

Likely Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a

Reasonably Foreseeable Time  

A. Legal Standards

In a five‐year review 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.”19  

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.”20  Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in

nature.21  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.22  

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

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

                                                       

19 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

20 Uruguay Round Agreements Act Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. 103‐316, vol. I

at 883‐84 (1994) (“SAA”).  The SAA states that “***he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of

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

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

were never completed.”  Id. at 883. 21 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 *** 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. 22 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’”).
7

time.”23  According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case‐to‐case, but

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

original investigations.”24

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

original 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.”25  It directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury

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

the suspension agreement under review, whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if

the orders are revoked or a suspension agreement is terminated, and any findings by

Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).26  The statute further

provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the Commission is required to consider

shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination.27

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the order under

review is 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.28  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.29

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the order under review is

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

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

                                                      

23 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

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

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

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

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

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

facilities.”  Id. 25 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

26 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).    27 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).  Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is

necessarily dispositive.  SAA at 886.

28 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

29 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A‐D).
8

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.30

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

review is revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are

likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not

limited to 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.31  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 order under review and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury

upon revocation.32

No respondent interested party participated in these expedited reviews.  The record,

therefore, contains limited information with respect to the WSS pressure pipe industry in China.  

Accordingly, for our determinations, we rely on the facts available from the original

investigations and the new information on the record in these five‐year reviews, including data

submitted in the response to the notice of institution.  

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.”33  The following conditions of competition inform our determinations.

Demand Conditions.  In the original investigations, the Commission found that demand

for WSS pressure pipe derives from demand in the downstream industries which use WSS

pressure pipe, such as the chemical, petrochemical, food and beverage, pharmaceutical, water

                                                      

30 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3).  The SAA states that “***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.

31 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

32 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the

order is revoked, the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be

contributing to overall injury.  While these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the

domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an industry is facing difficulties from a variety of

sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”  SAA at 885.

33 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).
9

purification, ethanol, and oil and gas industries.34  The Commission also found that demand had

strongly increased between 2005 and 2007 before falling in late 2007.35  Apparent U.S.

consumption increased from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2006, and then to ***

short tons in 2007.36

In these reviews, the information available indicates that the conditions of competition

pertaining to demand have not changed significantly since the original investigations.  Demand

for WSS pressure pipe continues to be driven by demand in the downstream industries in which

it is used.  Apparent U.S. consumption in 2013, based on data from responding domestic

producers and official import statistics, was *** short tons.37

Supply Conditions.  In the original investigations, the Commission found that prior to

and during the period of investigation (“POI”), some U.S. production capacity closed or

consolidated.38  Domestic producers’ share of the U.S. market declined over the POI from ***

percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006, and then to *** percent in 2007.39  At the same time,

subject imports’ share of the market increased from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in

2007.40  Nonsubject imports were principally from Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand.  Their

share of the U.S. market fell from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006, and then

increased to *** percent in 2007.41

The limited data in these reviews indicate that in 2013, responding U.S. producers

shipped *** short tons of WSS pressure pipe, subject imports totaled 1,544 short tons, and

nonsubject imports were 39,796 short tons.42  The responding U.S. producers observed that the

volume of subject imports decreased significantly following the imposition of the orders, but

nonsubject imports, particularly those from Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, have increased.43  

Responding U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption in 2013, subject imports accounted for *** percent, and nonsubject imports

accounted for *** percent.44

Substitutability and Other Conditions.  In the original investigations, the Commission

found that WSS pressure pipe was a commodity product and that subject imports were highly

                                                      

34 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 15.

35 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 15‐16.

36 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 16; Confidential version, EDIS Doc. 321447 at 21.    37 CR/PR at Table I‐4.

38 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 17.

39 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 21; Confidential version at 28.

40 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 21; Confidential version at 28. 41 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 21; Confidential version at 28.

42 CR/PR at Table I‐4.

43 Response at 5. 44 CR/PR at Table I‐5.  Because U.S. shipment data for 2013 are for three U.S. producers

accounting for approximately *** percent of domestic production of WSS pressure pipe that year,

import market share data are overstated and domestic industry market share data are understated for

that year.
10

substitutable with the domestic like product.45  Both subject imports and the domestic like

product were made to identical ASTM specifications, were sold in the same channels of

distribution, and were purchased based on specification and price.46   

The Commission also found that raw material costs, particularly for flat‐rolled stainless

steel, accounted for the majority of the cost of production of WSS pressure pipe.47  Between

mid‐2003 and mid‐2007, prices of alloys and energy rose rapidly and substantially, and U.S. flat‐

rolled stainless steel producers imposed and frequently raised surcharges for their products.  In

2008, monthly surcharges fell dramatically as the prices of chromium, nickel, molybdenum, and

energy fell.   Petitioners contended that, in contrast, most Chinese flat‐rolled stainless steel

producers did not use surcharges until late in the period of investigation.  Thus, domestic WSS

pressure pipe producers also imposed surcharges, subject producers reportedly did not.   

The information available in these reviews contains nothing to indicate that the

substitutability between subject and domestic WSS pressure pipe has changed since the original

investigations.  Accordingly, we again find that there is a high degree of substitutability

between domestic and subject WSS pressure pipe, and that price continues to be an important

factor in purchasing decisions.  There is no new information on the record regarding raw

material prices during the period of review or the use of surcharges by WSS pressure pipe

producers.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

Original Investigations.  In the original investigations, the Commission found that the

absolute volume of subject imports increased over the POI at a rate that greatly outpaced

demand growth.48   The volume of subject imports more than doubled, increasing from 14,394

short tons in 2005 to 30,371 short tons in 2007.49  Subject imports also increased their share of

the U.S. market, increasing from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006, and then to ***

percent in 2007.50  In 2007, the volume of subject imports was greater than both domestic

production and the volume of nonsubject imports.51  The Commission found that because

nonsubject imports held a relatively stable share of the U.S. market throughout the POI, subject

imports gained market share almost entirely at the expense of the domestic industry.52  The

Commission found that the volume of subject imports was significant, both on an absolute basis

and relative to consumption and production in the United States.53

                                                      

45 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 20.

46 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 20. 47 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 17.

48 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 20.

49 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 20.

50 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 21; Confidential version at 28.

51 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 20‐21.

52 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 21.

53 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 22.
11

Current Reviews.  In these reviews, the information available indicates that the orders

have had a disciplining effect on the volume of subject imports, which declined significantly

since the original investigations.54 In 2013, total subject imports were 1,544 short tons,

compared with 30,371 short tons in 2007.55  The record contains no current data regarding WSS

pressure pipe capacity or production in China because subject producers in China declined to

participate or furnish information in these reviews.  There is no indication in the record that

subject producers’ capacity and production have declined appreciably since the original

investigations.   

We find that, in light of its historically large production and demonstrated ability to

increase export volume rapidly, the WSS pressure pipe industry in China has the ability to

increase exports of subject merchandise to the United States upon revocation, as it did during

the original investigations.  Moreover, we find that it has the incentive to increase exports to

the United States significantly upon revocation in light of its prior interest in supplying the U.S.

market and its continued exports to the United States during the review period, albeit at lower

volumes.  Available data indicate that China is a substantial exporter of stainless steel tubular

goods.56  Additionally, the domestic producers responding to the notice of institution stated

that worldwide demand for WSS pressure pipe had not increased substantially since the orders

were imposed, and thus Chinese production that was displaced by the U.S. orders was not likely

absorbed in other markets.57

The record also indicates that there are barriers to the importation of the subject

merchandise into countries other than the United States.  Since the original POI, Brazil and

Turkey have imposed antidumping duty orders on imports of welded stainless steel tubes and

pipes from China.58  Although the scopes of these orders differ somewhat from the scope of the

orders currently under review, there is sufficient overlap for us to find that there are barriers to

the importation of WSS pressure pipe from China into countries other than the United States.59

These barriers create further incentives for the subject producers to direct exports to the U.S.

market should the orders under review be revoked.

In light of these factors, we find that the subject producers are likely, absent the

restraining effects of the orders, to direct significant volumes of WSS pressure pipe to the U.S.

market, as they did during the original investigations.  We find that the likely volume of subject

imports, both in absolute terms and relative to consumption in the United States, would be

significant if the orders were revoked.

                                                      

54 See, e.g. CR/PR at Table I‐4. 55 CR/PR at Table I‐4.    56 Information from the Global Trade Atlas on global exports of circular welded tubes, pipes, and

profiles of stainless steel – a product category substantially broader than the subject merchandise here

– indicates that China was the third largest world exporter of such products, and that its export

quantities increased each year from 2010 to 2012.  INV‐13‐055, EDIS Doc. 511942, Table VII‐8  (June 25,

2013). 57 CR at I‐20, PR at I‐15.     58 CR at I‐21, PR at I‐15.     59 CR at I‐21, PR at I‐15.     
12

D. Likely Price Effects  

Original Investigations.  In the original investigations, the Commission found the subject

imports consistently undersold the domestic like product throughout the POI, with underselling

occurring in 73 percent of comparisons, often at large margins.60  The Commission found that

instances of overselling were limited, generally occurred after the petitions were filed, and

involved smaller quantities of WSS pressure pipe.61  In addition, instances of overselling were

consistent with evidence on the record indicating that subject import prices were determined

at the time of order rather than the time of sale, and therefore did not reflect substantial

decreases in raw material prices that were reflected in domestic prices.62  The Commission

observed that the domestic industry’s average unit sales value and average unit cost of goods

sold (“COGS”) both increased over the POI.63  Additionally, the domestic industry’s COGS to net

sales ratio declined from 95.4 percent in 2005 to 89.4 percent in 2006, and then to 87.9 percent

in 2007; in light of this, the Commission did not find that the subject imports had significant

price‐suppressing effects.64  Because domestic prices increased over the POI, the Commission

did not find that subject imports significantly depressed domestic prices.65  Rather, the

Commission found that subject imports had adverse price effects on the domestic industry

based on evidence of lost sales.66

Current Reviews.   There is no new product‐specific pricing information on the record of

these expedited reviews.  Given the substitutable nature of WSS pressure pipe, we find that

price continues to be an important factor in purchasing decisions.  In light of the underselling

that occurred during the original POI, we find that if the antidumping and countervailing duty

orders were revoked, subject imports from China would likely undersell the domestic like

product at high margins as they did during the original investigations.  This in turn would likely

cause the domestic producers to cut prices or restrain price increases, or to lose sales.   

Accordingly, given the likely significant volume of subject imports, we find that the

subject imports would likely engage in significant underselling of the domestic like product to

gain market share, or would likely have significant depressing or suppressing effects on the

price of the domestic like product if the antidumping and countervailing duty orders were

revoked.

E. Likely Impact

Original Investigations.  In the original investigations, the Commission found that  

performance indicia for the domestic industry generally declined over the POI.67  Domestic

                                                      

60 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 23.

61 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 23.

62 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 23‐24.

63 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 24.

64 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 24.

65 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 24.

66 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 25.

67 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 26.
13

production of WSS pressure pipe increased in 2006, but then declined in 2007 to levels lower

than in 2005.68  Inventories increased over the POI.69  The domestic industry was generally able

to increase its production and capacity between 2005 and 2006, but still lost market share to

subject imports, and lost additional market share between 2006 and 2007 despite increases in

demand.70

The domestic industry’s average number of production and related workers, hours

worked, total wages, and productivity increased marginally between 2005 to 2006 before

declining between 2006 and 2007.71  Net sales by quantity followed a similar trend, increasing

between 2005 and 2006, and then decreasing in 2007.72  Net sales by value, however, increased

over the POI, which the Commission found reflected higher prices for domestically produced

WSS pressure pipe.73  The Commission also found that the domestic industry’s financial

performance improved during the POI, shifting from a $3.6 million operating loss in 2005 to

$7.0 million in operating profits in 2006, and then to $14.2 million in operating profits in 2007.74  

Capital expenditures declined from $2.7 million in 2005 to $1.5 million in 2006 before

increasing to $3.8 million in 2007.75

The Commission found that, given the decrease in shipments and capacity utilization

levels, and the industry’s lost sales, which occurred when volumes of low‐priced subject

imports were increasing, the improvement in the domestic industry’s operating income did not

merit as much weight as the other factors that it considered in its analysis.76  The Commission

concluded that subject imports from China had a significant adverse impact on the domestic

industry.77  The Commission examined the price and volume trends of nonsubject imports and

concluded that the material injury it found by reason of subject imports from China could not

be attributed to nonsubject imports.78

Current Reviews.  The information available concerning the domestic industry’s

condition in these reviews consists of the data that the domestic producers provided in

response to the notice of institution.  Because these are expedited reviews, we have only

limited information with respect to the domestic industry’s financial performance, consisting of

data that the domestic producers provided in response to the notice of institution.  Many of the

domestic industry’s performance indicators showed deterioration in 2013, as compared with

2007.  The limited record is insufficient for us to make a finding on whether the domestic

                                                      

68 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 26.

69 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 26.

70 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 27. 71 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 27.

72 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 27.

73 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 28. 74 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 29. 75 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 29.

76 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 29. 77 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 29.

78 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 4064 at 30‐31.
14

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

revocation of the order.79

The information on the record indicates that the capacity of reporting U.S. WSS pressure

pipe producers was *** short tons in 2013.80  Reported production was *** short tons in 2013;

accordingly, capacity utilization was *** percent.  U.S. shipments were *** short tons in 2013.81  

Domestic producers reported an operating *** of $*** from sales of $***, resulting in an

operating margin of *** percent in 2013.82  Responding producers’ share of apparent U.S.

consumption was *** percent in 2013.83   

Based on the limited record of these reviews, we find that, should the orders 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 and employment, as well as its ability to raise capital, and to

make and maintain capital investments.

We also have considered the role of factors other than subject imports, including the

presence of nonsubject imports, so as not to attribute injury from other factors to the subject

imports.  During the original investigations, nonsubject imports increased from 21,810 short

tons in 2005 to 24,099 short tons in 2006, and then to 29,078 short tons in 2007.84  In 2013,

nonsubject imports were 39,796 short tons.85  As mentioned earlier, nonsubject imports are

principally from Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand.  Imports from Korea and Taiwan86 have

been subject to an antidumping duty order since 1991.87  There is evidence on the record that

nonsubject imports from Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam have increased since imposition of

the orders.88   At the time the record closed in these reviews, the Commission was conducting

antidumping duty investigations concerning imports of WSS pressure pipe from Malaysia,

Thailand, and Vietnam, with the vote occurring on the same day as the vote in these reviews.89  

                                                      

79 Based on the limited record of this review, Commissioners Williamson and Pinkert find that

the domestic industry appears to be vulnerable.  They reach this conclusion primarily due to the

industry's *** percent operating margin and COGS/net sales ratio of *** percent in 2013.  CR/PR at

Table I‐3.   

80 CR/PR at Table I‐3.

81 CR/PR at Table I‐3.    82 CR/PR at Table I‐3.

83 CR/PR at Table I‐5.

84 CR/PR at Table I‐4.

85 CR/PR at Table I‐4.

86 Chang Tieh (later Chang Mien) was excluded from the original order and the order for Ta Chen

was revoked effective June 26, 2000.  CR/PR at Table I‐1.

87 CR/PR at Table I‐1.

88 See Response at 5.

89 See Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 731‐

TA‐1210‐1214 (Final).  The petition for those investigations was filed on May 16, 2013.  78 Fed. Reg.

31574 (May 24, 2013).
15

Regardless of the outcome of those investigations, we find that, given the likely significant

volume and underselling of subject imports from China, the effects of nonsubject imports

would be distinct from those of subject imports from China upon revocation of the orders

under review here.

Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping and countervailing duty orders were

revoked, subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

IV. Conclusion

For the above reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders on WSS pressure pipe from China would likely lead to continuation

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

foreseeable time.

I‐1

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEWS

INTRODUCTION

Background

On February 3, 2014, 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 reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders on welded stainless steel pressure pipe (“WSSPP”) from China would

be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry.2 On

May 9, 2014, the Commission determined that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to

section 751(c)(3) of the Act.3 The following tabulation presents information relating to the

background and schedule of this proceeding:

1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c). 2 Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from China; Institution of Five‐Year Reviews, 79 FR 6222,

February 3, 2014. All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the

information requested by the Commission. The Commission’s notice of institution is presented in app. A.

3 Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe From China:  Scheduling of Expedited Five‐Year Reviews

Concerning the Antidumping Duty Order and the Countervailing Duty Order on Welded Stainless Steel

Pressure Pipe From China, 79 FR 30877, May 29, 2014. The Commission received one submission in

response to its notice of institution in the subject reviews. It was filed on behalf of Bristol Metals, Felker

Brothers, and Outokumpu Stainless Pipe, U.S. producers of the domestic like product. These three

producers indicated in their response that they accounted for approximately *** percent of domestic

production of WSSPP in 2013. The Commission did not receive any responses from producers in China or

importers of the subject merchandise from China. The Commission determined that the domestic

interested party group response to its notice of institution was adequate and that the respondent

interested party group response was inadequate. In the absence of respondent interested party

responses and any other circumstances that would warrant the conduct of full reviews, the Commission

determined to conduct expedited reviews. The Commission’s statement on adequacy is presented in

app. B.
I‐2

Effective date Action 

March 17, 2009 

Commerce’s antidumping duty order on circular welded austenitic stainless pressure 

pipe from China (74 FR 11351, March 17, 2009) 

March 19, 2009 

Commerce’s countervailing duty order on circular welded austenitic stainless pressure 

pipe from China (74 FR 11712, March 19, 2009) 

February 3, 2014 Commission’s institution of first five-year reviews (79 FR 6222, February 3, 2014) 

February 1, 2014 Commerce’s initiation of first five-year reviews (79 FR 6163, February 3, 2014) 

May 9, 2014 

Commission’s determination to conduct expedited five-year reviews and scheduling of 

such reviews (79 FR 30877, May 29, 2014) 

June 9, 2014 

Commerce’s final results of expedited five-year reviews of the countervailing duty 

order and the antidumping duty order (79 FR 32911 and 32913, June 9, 2014) 

June 24, 2014 Commission’s vote 

July 7, 2014 Commission’s determination to Commerce 

The Original Investigations

The original investigations resulted from a petition filed on January 30, 2008, by four

U.S. producers4 of WSSPP and a labor union5 alleging that an industry in the United States was

materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized and less‐than‐

fair‐value (“LTFV”) imports of WSSPP from China. On January 28, 2009, Commerce determined

that imports of WSSPP from China were being subsidized and sold at LTFV.6 On March 17, 2009,

the Commission issued its determination that an industry in the United States was materially

injured by reason of subsidized and LTFV imports of WSSPP from China.7 Commerce issued an

antidumping duty order on WSSPP from China on March 17, 2009 and a countervailing duty

order on March 19, 2009.8

   

                                                      

4 The four petitioner producers were:  Bristol Metals, Felker Brothers Corp., Marcegaglia USA, Inc.,

and OutoKumpu Stainless Pipe, Inc. 5 The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing Energy, Allied Industrial and Service

Workers International Union.

6 Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China:  Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination , 74 FR 4936, January 28, 2009. Circular Welded

Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China:  Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 4913, January 28, 2009. 7 Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from China: Determination, 74 FR 11378, March 17, 2009.

8 Notice of Antidumping Duty Order:  Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the

People’s Republic of China, 74 FR 11351, March 17, 2009. Notice of Countervailing Duty Order:  Circular

Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China, 74 FR 11712, March 19,

2009.
I‐3

Commerce’s Final Results of Five‐Year Reviews

Commerce’s final results of its expedited sunset reviews of the subject countervailing

duty order and antidumping duty order were published in the Federal Register on June 9,

2014.9 Commerce determined that revocation of the subject countervailing duty order would

be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rates listed

below:

Exporter/manufacturer Net subsidy rate 

Winner Stainless Steel Tube Co. Ltd. 

(Winner)/Winner Steel Products (Guangzhou) Co., 

Ltd. (WSP)/Winner Machinery Enterprises 

Company Limited (Winner HK) (Collectively the 

Winner Companies). 1.10 percent ad valorem

Froch Enterprise Co. Ltd. (Froch) (also known as 

Zhangyuan Metal Industry Co. Ltd.) 299.16 percent ad valorem

All Others 1.10 percent ad valorem

Source: Cited Federal Register notice. 

Commerce determined that revocation of the subject antidumping duty order would be likely

to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and magnitude of the margins of dumping

likely to prevail are at the following rates:

Exporter and producer Weighted-average margin (percent) 

Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co., Ltd. Produced 

by: Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co., Ltd. 10.53 

PRC-Wide Entity—All Other Exporters and 

Producers 55.21 

Source: Cited Federal Register notice. 

Previous and Related Title VII Investigations

The Commission has conducted several previous import relief investigations (and

subsequent reviews) on welded stainless steel pipe and tube, including ASTM A‐312 pipe, a

product that is both broader and narrower than WSSPP.10  Table I‐1 presents data on previous

and related Title VII investigations.

                                                      

9 Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China:  Final Results

of Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 79 FR 32911, June 9, 2014. Circular Welded

Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China:  Final Results of the Expedited First

Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 79 FR 32913, June 9, 2014.

10 The product scope of the orders on A‐312 pipe from Korea and Taiwan is narrower than that of

WSS pressure pipe because it does not include A‐778 pipe. It is broader in that it includes pipe greater

(continued...)
I‐4

Table I‐1

WSSPP: Previous and related Title VII investigations 

Product Inv. No.

Year of

petition Country Original determination Current status

Welded stainless steel

pipe and tube AA1921‐180 1978 Japan Negative (

1

)

Welded stainless steel

pipe and tube excluding

grade 409 pipe

701‐TA‐281 1986 Sweden Negative (

1

)

731‐TA‐354 1986 Sweden Negative (

1

)

ASTM A‐312 pipe 731‐TA‐5402 1991 Korea Affirmative Order in place

731‐TA‐5412 1991 Taiwan Affirmative Order in place3

Welded stainless steel

pressure pipe

731‐TA‐

1210‐1212

(Preliminary) 2013

Malaysia

Thailand

Vietnam Affirmative

Final Phase

Investigations

Ongoing

     1 Not applicable.      2 On July 1, 1999, the Commission instituted the first five‐year review of the antidumping duty orders, and on

September 22, 2000, the Commission made an affirmative determination. On September 1, 2005, the

Commission instituted the second five‐year review of the antidumping duty orders, and on August 16, 2006, the

Commission made an affirmative determination.  On July 1, 2011, the Commission instituted the third five‐year

review of the antidumping duty orders, and on November 17, 2011, made an affirmative determination.      3 Chang Tieh (later Chang Mien) was excluded from the original order, and the order for Ta Chen was revoked

effective June 26, 2000, on merchandise entered on or after December 1, 1998.

Source:  Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 731‐TA‐1210‐1212

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4413, July 2013.  

Previous and Related Safeguard Investigations

Following receipt of a request from the Office of the United States Trade Representative

(“USTR”) on June 22, 2001, the Commission instituted investigation No. TA‐201‐73, Steel, under

section 202 of the Trade Act of 197411 to determine whether certain steel products, including

stainless steel welded tubular products,12  were being imported into the United States in such

increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the

domestic industries producing articles like or directly competitive with the imported article.13

                                                      

(...continued)

than 14 inches O.D.   Although the A‐312 specification includes seamless pipe, the product scope of the

orders on A‐312 pipe from Korea and Taiwan does not include seamless pipe 11 19 U.S.C. § 2252. 12 Stainless steel welded tubular products were found to be a single ‘like or directly competitive’

product. Steel, Inv. No. TA‐201‐73, Volume I: Determinations and Views of Commissioners, USITC

Publication 3479, December 2001, p. 16.

13 Institution and Scheduling of an Investigation under Section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.

2252) (the Act), 66 FR 35267, July 3, 2001.
I‐5

On July 26, 2001, the Commission received a resolution adopted by the Committee on Finance

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

Commission investigate certain steel imports under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974.14

Consistent with the Senate Finance Committee’s resolution, the Commission consolidated the

investigation requested by the Committee with the Commission’s previously instituted

investigation No. TA‐201‐73.15 On December 20, 2001, the Commission issued its

determinations and remedy recommendations. The Commission made a unanimous negative

determination with respect to stainless steel welded tubular products.16

THE PRODUCT

Commerce’s Scope

In its final results of the expedited sunset reviews of the antidumping duty order and the

countervailing duty order, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as:

circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14

inches in outside diameter. This merchandise includes, but is not limited

to, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A‐312 or ASTM

A‐778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.

ASTM A‐358 products are only included when they are produced to meet

ASTM A‐312 or ASTM A‐778 specifications, or comparable domestic or

foreign specifications. Excluded from the scope are:  (1) welded stainless

mechanical tubing, meeting ASTM A‐554 or comparable domestic or

foreign specifications; (2) boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, refining

furnace, feedwater heater, and condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A‐249,

ASTM A‐688 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; and (3)

specialized tubing, meeting ASTM A‐269, ASTM A‐270 or comparable

domestic or foreign specifications.17  

                                                      

14 19 U.S.C. § 2251.

15 Consolidation of Senate Finance Committee Resolution Requesting a Section 201 Investigation with

the Investigation Requested by the United States Trade Representative on June 22, 2001, 66 FR 44158,

August 22, 2001.

16 Steel; Import Investigations, 66 FR 67304, December 28, 2001. 17Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China:  Final Results

of the Expedited First Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 79 FR 32913, June 9, 2014.  
I‐6

U.S. Tariff Treatment

The products that are the subject of these reviews are currently imported under the

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings:

7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085.18 They also may

be imported under HTSUS statistical reporting numbers 7306.40.1010, 7306.40.1015,

7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 7306.40.5080, and 7306.40.5090.19 The column 1‐general (normal

trade relations) rate of duty for these products is “free”.

Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry

In the final phase of the original investigations, the Commission defined a single

domestic like product, coextensive with the scope of the investigations.20 The Commission also

defined the domestic industry as consisting of domestic producers of WSSPP.21 The three U.S.

producers responding to the Commission’s notice of institution in these reviews agree with the

domestic like product and domestic industry defined by the Commission in its original

determination.22  

Description and Uses23

WSSPP refers to welded pipe of austenitic stainless steel not greater than 14 inches in

outside diameter (“O.D.”).24 It is produced in relatively few standard sizes, designated by

nominal diameter and wall thickness, and is designed for use with standard pipe fittings.

Pressure pipe is used to convey fluids at high temperatures, high pressures, or both, and is

suitable for high‐temperature applications. WSSPP is produced to exact outside diameters and

decimal wall thicknesses and to specifications A‐312 and A‐778 by the American Society for

Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) or to similar specifications, either foreign or domestic.  

Stainless steel is a general class of steels that contains at least 10.5 percent of chromium

by weight. Chromium gives stainless steel its excellent resistance to corrosion and good

                                                      

18 These statistical reporting numbers are believed to include primarily subject products but also

include modest quantities of nonsubject products.   19 Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China:  Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 4913, January 28, 2009.

20 Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐454 and 731‐TA‐1144 (Final),

USITC Publication 4064, March 2009, p. 10. 21 Ibid, p. 11.   22 Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, p. 13.

23 Unless otherwise noted this information is based on the following publication:  Welded Stainless

Steel Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐454 and 731‐TA‐1144 (Final), USITC Publication 4064,

March 2009.

24 Austenitic stainless steels contain a maximum of 0.15 percent carbon, and a minimum of 16

percent chromium, together with varying amounts of nickel and manganese.
I‐7

strength at high temperatures and pressure. For these reasons, it is used in corrosive

environments, under high temperature and pressure conditions, or when cleanliness and ease

of maintenance are strictly required. Although there are various types of stainless steels,

WSSPP is made from the austenitic class of stainless steels which has excellent corrosion

resistance, unusually good formability, and increases in strength as a result of cold work

(changes to the shape or structure of steel, for example by rolling, without the application of

heat). WSSPP is generally made from austenitic grades 304 and 316. Grade 304, the most

widely used austenitic grade, contains 18‐20 percent chromium, 8‐10.5 percent nickel, is

resistant to food processing environments (except possibly for high‐temperature conditions

involving high acid and chloride contents), organic chemicals, and a wide variety of inorganic

chemicals. Grade 316 contains 16‐18 percent chromium, 10‐14 percent nickel, and 2‐3 percent

molybdenum. In comparison to grade 304, grade 316 has more nickel and molybdenum which

gives grade 316 better corrosion resistance than grade 304.  

As mentioned earlier, WSSPP is generally made to ASTM specifications A‐312 or A‐778.

The A‐312 specification covers seamless and straight‐seam welded and heavily cold worked

welded austenitic stainless steel pipe intended for high‐temperature and general corrosive

service; specification A‐778 is a standard specification for welded, unannealed austenitic

stainless steel tubular products. Welded A‐312 pipe is designed for high‐temperature and

general corrosive‐resistance service, and must be annealed (heat treated) after welding. A‐778

pipe is similar to A‐312, but differs in the welding process and in that A‐778 post‐weld

annealing of the pipe is not required. This specification is designed for low and moderate

temperatures and corrosive service where heat treatment is not necessary for corrosion

resistance.  

WSSPP is used by a variety of industries requiring corrosion‐resistant pipe to convey

fluids at high temperatures, high pressures, or both; end users include the chemicals,

petrochemicals, food and beverage, pharmaceutical, water purification, ethanol, and oil and

gas industries.  

Production Process25

Production of WSSPP is a two‐stage process of forming the tubular shape followed by

welding the product in a continuous mill process. The continuous‐mill process, which is the

principal method of producing WSSPP, begins with coils of stainless‐steel sheet, strip, or plate.

Coiled steel, of a width essentially corresponding with the outside diameter of the pipe to be

produced, is mounted in an uncoiler and fed into a series of paired forming rolls. As the

stainless steel progresses through the rolls, its cross‐sectional profile is formed into a tubular

shape with the butted edges along its length ready for (longitudinal) welding as described

below. Domestic producers’ facilities include several continuous weld mills, with each

                                                      

25 Unless otherwise noted this information is based on the following publication:  Welded Stainless

Steel Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐454 and 731‐TA‐1144 (Final), USITC Publication 4064,

March 2009.
I‐8

dedicated to a limited range of pipe diameters based on the individual mill configuration and

tooling.

In the welding stage, the butt edges are welded together by an automatic welding

machine using either the tungsten‐inert‐gas (“TIG”) welding process, the plasma welding

process, or the laser welding process. These methods allow welding without filler material,

complete fusion of butted edges, and shielding of the weld area with inert gas to prevent

oxidation. In the TIG welding process, welding heat is provided by an electric arc between a

tungsten electrode and the pipe edges. The plasma welding process is similar to the TIG process

in that the (gaseous) plasma is heated as it passes through an arc torch, which is created by an

electrode within a nozzle. In the laser welding process, a laser beam is directed to the weld butt

joint, forming a deep‐penetration fusion weld. The laser process is capable of a higher speed of

operation than is the TIG process. The pipe continues after welding through an in‐line annealing

furnace in a non‐oxidizing atmosphere, then through straightening equipment and, finally,

cutting to length.

U.S. Supply and U.S. Demand

Domestic supply responsiveness for WSSPP depends upon such factors as the level of

industry capacity utilization, the level of inventories, the availability of export markets, and the

flexibility of shifting production equipment to other products. U.S. demand for WSSPP depends

on the health of the overall U.S. economy and on the level of demand for downstream products

using WSSPP. WSSPP is used primarily as a conduit for liquids or gasses, heat exchange, and

other purposes in the chemical and petrochemical industry, food and beverage processing

industry, power generation industry, and pulp and paper industry.26   

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

In its original investigations, the Commission noted that WSSPP “vary depending on

their ASTM specifications (generally A‐312 or A‐778), AISI steel type (i.e., 304/304L or

316/316L), gauge (or thickness) range, and outside diameter.”27 The Commission indicated that

“The majority of questionnaire respondents reported that WSSPP produced in China is ‘always’

or ‘frequently’ interchangeable with U.S.‐produced products.”28 The Commission also found

“that WSSPP is a commodity product and that WSSPP from China is highly substitutable for

U.S.‐produced WSSPP because both are made to identical ASTM specifications, are sold in the

same channels of distribution, and are purchased based on specification and price.”29    

                                                      

26 Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐454 and 731‐TA‐1144 (Final),

USITC Publication 4064, March 2009, pp. II‐2‐II‐3.

27 Ibid. p. 19.

28 Ibid, p. 19.

29 Ibid, p. 20.
I‐9

Channels of Distribution

U.S. producers of WSSPP and U.S. importers of WSSPP ship principally to distributors

rather than end users. During the period of investigation, shipments of WSSPP to distributors

consistently accounted for the large majority of U.S. shipments of domestically‐produced and

imported WSSPP. In 2007, U.S.‐produced and imported WSSPP from China was sold in all areas

of the continental United States.30  

Prices and Related Information

In the original investigations, the Commission noted that five U.S. producers of WSSPP

and 10 importers of WSSPP from China provided quarterly net U.S. f.o.b. weighted‐average

pricing data for six WSSPP products. The Commission stated that “The pricing data collected for

all six products show pervasive underselling (73 percent of comparisons) at large margins by

subject imports from China during much of the period of investigation. Moreover, when

underselling is calculated based on weight rather than on the number of quarterly comparisons,

subject imports from China undersold the domestic like product in transactions accounting for

about 79 percent of the covered volume.”31 Given these data, the Commission found significant

underselling of the domestic product by subject imports from China.32  

The three U.S. producers responding to the Commission’s notice of institution in these

reviews noted that they were unaware of any source of national or regional information on

prices for WSSPP.33

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

In the original investigations, eight firms reported at least limited production of WSSPP.  

Of these eight, five firms provided complete responses to the Commission’s producer

questionnaire, and three firms provided partial responses.34 The three U.S. producers

responding to the Commission’s notice of institution in these reviews noted that there are

                                                      

30 Ibid, p.II‐1.

31 Ibid, p. 23.

32 Ibid, p. 24.

33 Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, p. 11.

34Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐454 and 731‐TA‐1144 (Final),

USITC Publication 4064, March 2009, p. III‐1.  
I‐10

currently four other U.S. producers of WSSPP.35 These seven producers are the same producers

as reported in the original investigations.36  

Table I‐2 lists the eight U.S. producers, their locations, and their share of U.S. production

of WSSPP. Two of the three U.S. producers responding to the Commission’s notice of institution

in these reviews, Bristol Metals and Felker Brothers, stated that they are not related to any

importers or exporters of WSSPP or to any firms, either foreign or domestic, that are engaged

in the production of WSSPP. The third U.S. producer, Outokumpu Stainless Pipe, stated that it is

not related to any importers or exporters of WSSPP, but that it is related to OSTP Holding Oy,

Espoo, Finland, which is engaged in the production of WSSPP and which is 49 percent owned by

Outokumpu Oyj, a Finnish company.37   

Table I‐2

WSSPP: U.S. producers and shares of U.S. production, 2007 and 2013 

Firm Location 

Share of U.S. production (percent) 

2007 20131

Alaskan Copper & 

Brass Co. Kent, WA *** (

2

) 

Bristol Metals Bristol, TN *** ***

Felker Brothers Marshfield, WI *** ***

Marcegaglia USA Inc. Munhall, PA *** (

2

) 

Outokumpu Stainless 

Pipe Schaumberg, IL *** ***

Rath Gibson Janesville, WI *** (

2

) 

Swepco Clifton, NJ *** (3

) 

Webco Sand Springs, OK *** (

2

) 

 1 Data for 2013 are estimated. 

 2 Data not available. 

 3 Swepco, was not identified as a current U.S. producer of WSSPP by the three U.S. producers responding to the Commission’s 

notice of institution in these reviews. 

Source: Data for 2007 are from the Staff Report, February 5, 2009 (INV-GG-009), table III-1, p. III-2; data for 2013 are from 

Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, pp. 8-9 and exhibit 1. 

                                                      

35 Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, pp. 8‐9.

36 The eighth producer from the original investigations, Swepco, was not identified as a current U.S.

producer of WSSPP by the three U.S. producers responding to the Commission’s notice of institution in

these reviews. Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, pp. 8‐9.   37 Response of domestic interested parties to Commission’s Letter of March 19, 2014, March 26,

2014, p. 2.
I‐11

U.S. Producers’ Trade and Financial Data

The Commission requested domestic interested parties to provide trade and financial

data in their response to the notice of institution of the five‐year reviews of the subject orders.

Table I‐3 presents the data reported by responding U.S. producers from both the original

investigations (2005‐07) and the response to the notice of institution (2013).38

Table I-3 

WSSPP: U.S. producers’ trade and financial data, 2005-07 and 2013 

Item 2005 2006 2007 20131

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

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

Capacity utilization (percent) *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 

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

 Value (1,000 dollars) *** *** *** ***

 Unit value (dollars per short ton) *** *** *** *** 

Net sales value (1,000 dollars) 134,353 167,817 194,820 ***

Cost of goods sold (COGS) ($1,000) 128,183 150,065 171,200 ***

Gross profit or (loss) ($1,000) 6,170 17,752 23,620 ***

SG&A ($1,000) 9,731 10,752 9,416 ***

Operating income or (loss) ($1,000) (3,561) 7,000 14,204 ***

COGS/sales (percent) 95.4 89.4 87.9 ***

Operating income or (loss)/sales (percent) (2.7) 4.2 7.3 ***

 1 Data for 2013 are for three U.S. producers accounting for approximately *** percent of domestic production of WSSPP in 2013. 

Source: Data for 2005-07 are from the Staff Report, February 5, 2009 (INV-GG-009), appendix C; data for 2013 are from 

Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, pp. 11-12.

The three U.S. producers responding to the Commission’s notice of institution in these

reviews stated that the domestic WSSPP industry’s financial condition remains precarious and

that a revocation of the orders, allowing large volumes of imports of WSSPP from China to

return to the U.S. market at low prices, would have a severe negative impact on the U.S. WSSPP

industry. The three U.S. producers stated that the domestic industry would experience declines

in sales and capacity utilization and increases in financial losses.39  

                                                      

38 Appendix C, table C‐1, presents additional data from the original investigations.

39 Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, p. 7.
I‐12

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT CONSUMPTION

U.S. Imports

Between 2005 and 2007, the period examined in the Commission’s original

investigations, China was the largest foreign supplier of WSSPP to the United States, accounting

for 51.1 percent of the quantity of total U.S. imports in 2007, and 49.4 percent of the value.

Between 2005 and 2007, the quantity and value of imports of WSSPP from China increased by

111.0 percent and 225.2 percent, respectively. Other large suppliers of WSSPP to the United

States during the period were Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand.40  

The three U.S. producers responding to the Commission’s notice of institution in these

reviews stated that the filing of the petitions in 2008 and the successful conclusion of the

investigations in 2009 had the effect of substantially reducing the volume of WSSPP imports

from China. The three U.S. producers noted, however, that the relief provided by the orders on

imports of WSSPP from China was shortened by the appearance of increased imports of WSSPP

from other countries, particularly Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. The domestic producers

consequently filed antidumping petitions regarding imports of WSSPP from Malaysia, Thailand,

and Vietnam in 2013.41   

Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Table I‐4 shows U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S.

consumption in 2005‐07 and 2013. Table I‐5 shows U.S. market shares and import market

shares during 2005‐07 and 2013. Apparent U.S. consumption of WSSPP increased by ***

percent between 2005 and 2007. In 2013, apparent U.S. consumption of WSSPP was *** short

tons, although this figure is understated because U.S. shipment data for 2013 are for three U.S.

producers accounting for approximately *** percent of domestic production of WSSPP in 2013.

U.S. producers’ market share for WSSPP on a quantity basis declined by *** percentage points

between 2005 and 2007. In 2013, U.S. producers’ market share on a quantity basis was ***

percent. The market share of subject imports from China increased from *** percent in 2005 to

*** percent in 2007. The market share of subject imports from China in 2013 was ***.

                                                      

40 Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐454 and 731‐TA‐1144 (Final),

USITC Publication 4064, March 2009, p. IV‐1. 41 Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, pp. 4‐5.
I‐13

Table I-4 

WSSPP: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 2005-

07 and 2013 

Item 2005 2006 2007 20131

Quantity (short tons) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports2 from- 

 China 14,394 23,712 30,371 1,544

 Nonsubject 21,810 24,099 29,078 39,796 

 Total imports 36,204 47,811 59,448 41,340

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from-- 

 China 47,607 79,360 154,833 5,652

 Nonsubject 76,573 99,681 158,535 141,803

 Total imports 124,180 179,041 313,368 147,455

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** ***

 1 U.S. shipment data for 2013 are for three U.S. producers accounting for approximately *** percent of domestic production of 

WSSPP in 2013. 

 2 Import data include imports covered by HTS statistical reporting numbers 7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 

7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085, which may include pipe with a diameter greater than 14 inches. The import data for 2005-07 were

modified to include WSSPP entering under broader HTS categories (based on questionnaire responses) and to exclude pressure 

pipe greater than 14 inches in diameter (based on questionnaire responses) and mechanical tubing from Canada. See the Staff 

Report, February 5, 2009 (INV-GG-009), pp. IV-1 and IV-3.

Source: Data for 2005-07 are from the Staff Report, February 5, 2009 (INV-GG-009), Table IV-4, p. IV-8; U.S. shipment data for 

2013 are from Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, pp. 11-12. 
I‐14

Table I-5 

WSSPP: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, 2005-07 and 2013 

Item 2005 2006 2007 20131

 Quantity (short tons) 

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** ***

 Value (1,000 dollars) 

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** ***

 Share of quantity (percent) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from-- 

 China *** *** *** ***

 Nonsubject *** *** *** ***

 Total imports *** *** *** ***

 Share of value (percent) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from-- 

 China *** *** *** ***

 Nonsubject *** *** *** ***

 Total imports *** *** *** ***

 1 U.S. shipment data for 2013 are for three U.S. producers accounting for approximately *** percent of domestic production of 

WSSPP in 2013. Import penetration for 2013 is thus overstated. 

Source: Data for 2005-07 are from the Staff Report, February 5, 2009 (INV-GG-009), Table IV-5, p. IV-9; data for 2013 are 

calculated from Table I-4. 

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

During the original investigations, the petition identified nine producers and/or

exporters of WSSPP in China, and petitioners listed 23 possible producers and/or exporters in

their prehearing brief. The Commission sent foreign producer questionnaires to 20 firms,

received no completed questionnaires, and received one response indicating that the firm does

not produce the subject product.42 In the preliminary phase of these investigations, however,

Winner Stainless Steel Tube Co., Ltd. returned a completed questionnaire. The company

estimated that it accounts for *** percent of total exports of WSSPP from China to the United

States.43

The Commission did not receive a response from any foreign producer or exporter of

WSSPP in China to its notice of institution of the five‐year reviews of the subject orders. The

three U.S. producers responding to the Commission’s notice of institution in these reviews

                                                      

42 Staff Report, February 5, 2009 (INV‐GG‐009), p. VII‐4.

43 Ibid.
I‐15

stated their belief that Zhejiang Jiuli Hi‐Tech Metals, Co., Ltd. is a Chinese producer of WSSPP

that currently exports to the United States.44  

In 2006, during the period of the original investigations, China surpassed Japan to

become the world’s largest producer of stainless steel. During this time, China also continued to

expand its capacity to produce stainless tubular products.45 The three U.S. producers

responding to the Commission’s notice of institution in these reviews stated that worldwide

demand for WSSPP has not increased substantially since the orders were issued. The three

producers also noted that they do not have any information on the extent to which Chinese

capacity to produce WSSPP has increased in recent years.46

ANTIDUMPING ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

During the original investigations, import relief investigations against WSSPP from China

were identified in Argentina and South Africa.47 Since the original investigations, Brazil and

Turkey have initiated antidumping investigations on imports of WSSPP from China.

On July 3, 2012, Brazil initiated an antidumping investigation on imports from China of

welded tubes of austenitic stainless steel of circular cross section, with outside diameter of

6mm (1/4 inch) or more but less than 2032 mm (80 inches), with pipe wall thickness of 0.40 mm

(0.016 inches) or more and less than or equal to 12.70 mm (5 inches) and imposed antidumping

duty orders on these imports on July 27, 2013. 48 The product scope of the Brazilian

antidumping investigation is broader than the WSSPP product scope because Brazil’s scope

includes pipe with outside diameter of greater than 14 inches. Pipe with outside diameter

greater than 14 inches is excluded from the WSSPP product scope.  

Turkey initiated antidumping investigations against China and Taiwan on April 19, 2012

on imports of welded stainless steel tubes, pipes, and profiles and imposed antidumping duty

orders on both countries on March 15, 2013. 49 The product scope covered by these orders is

broader than that of WSSPP as the Turkish orders include welded stainless steel pipe of circular,

square, and rectangular cross section. Tubes and profiles of square and rectangular cross

section are outside of the WSSPP product scope.

                                                      

44 Response of domestic interested parties, March 26, 2014, pp. 2‐3.

45 Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐454 and 731‐TA‐1144 (Final),

USITC Publication 4064, March 2009, p. VII‐3.

46 Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, p. 7. 47 Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701‐TA‐454 and 731‐TA‐1144 (Final),

USITC Publication 4064, March 2009, p. VII‐5.

48 WTO, Committee on Antidumping Practices, Semi‐Annual Report under Article 16.4 of the

Agreement:  Brazil, document symbol G/ADP/N/237/BRA, p. 3, April 16, 2013 and G/ADP/N/252/BRA, p.

3, March 28, 2014.

49 Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Economy, “List of Definitive Anti‐Dumping Measures,”

http://www.ekonomi.gov.tr/upload/6EAC7EC0‐D8D3‐8566‐452029A4778AB3DA/onlemler.xls , retrieved

on June 18, 2013 and WTO, Committee on Antidumping Practices, Semi‐Annual Report under Article

16.4 of the Agreement:  Turkey, document symbol G/ADP/N/237/TUR, p. 2, March 28, 2013.

A-1 

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES  

6222 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 14–5–307, 

expiration date June 30, 2014. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–454 and 731– 

TA–1144 (Review)] 

Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe 

From China; Institution of Five-Year 

Reviews 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders on welded stainless steel 

pressure pipe from China would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury. Pursuant 

to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested 

parties are requested to respond to this 

notice by submitting the information 

specified below to the Commission; 1 to 

be assured of consideration, the 

deadline for responses is March 5, 2014. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

April 18, 2014. For further information 

concerning the conduct of these reviews 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective February 3, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On March 17, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

welded stainless steel pressure pipe 

from China (74 FR 11351). On March 19, 

2009, the Department of Commerce 

issued a countervailing duty order on 

imports of welded stainless steel 

pressure pipe from China (74 FR 11712). 

The Commission is conducting reviews 

to determine whether revocation of the 

orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to the domestic industry within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. It will 

assess the adequacy of interested party 

responses to this notice of institution to 

determine whether to conduct full or 

expedited reviews. The Commission’s 

determinations in any expedited 

reviews will be based on the facts 

available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by the Department of 

Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in these 

reviews is China. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determinations, the Commission 

defined one Domestic Like Product 

consisting of small-diameter welded 

pressure pipe with an outside diameter 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Notices 6223 

not greater than 14 inches, as 

coextensive with Commerce’s scope. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determinations, 

the Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as all producers of smalldiameter welded pressure pipe with an 

outside diameter not greater than 14 

inches. 

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders under review became effective. 

The Order Date concerning the 

antidumping duty order is March 17, 

2009, and the Order Date concerning the 

countervailing duty order is March 19, 

2009. 

(6) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official has advised that a five-year 

review is not considered the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the corresponding 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees, and Commission rule 

201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are not 

required to seek Commission approval 

to appear in a review under Commission 

rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification.—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is March 5, 2014. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct expedited 

or full reviews. The deadline for filing 

such comments is April 18, 2014. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of sections 201.8 and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules and any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. Please be aware 

that the Commission’s rules with 

respect to electronic filing have been 

amended. The amendments took effect 

on November 7, 2011. See 76 FR 61937 

(Oct. 6, 2011) and the newly revised 

Commission’s Handbook on E-Filing, 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. Also, in 

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information.—Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677e(b)) in making its determinations 

in the reviews. 

Information To Be Provided in 

Response To This Notice of Institution: 

As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes 

any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address) and name, telephone number, 

fax number, and Email address of the 

certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping and 

countervailing duty orders on the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

6224 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Notices 

Domestic Industry in general and/or 

your firm/entity specifically. In your 

response, please discuss the various 

factors specified in section 752(a) of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the 

likely volume of subject imports, likely 

price effects of subject imports, and 

likely impact of imports of Subject 

Merchandise on the Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in the Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Date. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and Email address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2013, except as noted 

(report quantity data in short tons and 

value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). 

If you are a union/worker group or 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms in which your workers are 

employed/which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); 

(d) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s); and 

(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2013 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping or countervailing duties) 

of U.S. imports and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total U.S. 

imports of Subject Merchandise from 

the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. 

commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. internal 

consumption/company transfers of 

Subject Merchandise imported from the 

Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2013 

(report quantity data in short tons and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping or 

countervailing duties). If you are a 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) 

to produce the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country since the Order 

Date, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in the Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

AUTHORITY: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of Title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Notices 6225 

Issued: January 27, 2014. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–01891 Filed 1–31–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

B‐1

APPENDIX B

ADEQUACY STATEMENT

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY 

in 

Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from China, 

Inv. Nos. 701-TA-454 and 731-TA-1144 (Review) 

On May 9, 2014, the Commission unanimously determined to conduct expedited 

reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) ofthe Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. §1675(c)(3)(B). 

The Commission unanimously determined that the domestic interested party group 

response to the notice of institution was adequate. The Commission received adequate 

responses filed jointly by three U.S. producers of welded stainless steel pressure pipe: Bristol 

Metals, Felker Brothers, and Outokumpu Stainless Pipe. Because the Commission received an 

adequate response from interested parties accounting for a substantial share of U.S. production of 

welded stainless steel pressure pipe, the Commission determined that the domestic interested 

party group response was adequate. 

The Commission also unanimously determined that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate, as no respondent interested party filed a response to the 

notice of institution. 

The Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting full 

reviews. The Commission, therefore, decided to conduct expedited reviews ofthe orders. 

A record ofthe Commissioners' votes is available from the Office ofthe Secretary and 

at the Commission's website (www.usitc.gov). 

C‐1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C‐3

Table C-1 

WSS pressure pipe (<=14"): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2005-07, JanuarySeptember 2007, and January-September 2008 

* * * * * * * 

Table C-2

WSS pressure pipe (all diameters): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2005-07, JanuarySeptember 2007, and January-September 2008 

* * * * * * * 

Table C-3

WSS pressure pipe and pressure tubing: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2005-07, 

January-September 2007, and January-September 2008 

* * * * * * * 

Table C-4

WSS pressure pipe: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (including pipe > 14” diameter and 

pressure tubing), 2005-07, January-September 2007, and January-September 2008 

* * * * * * *