Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube

From China and Mexico

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1174-1175 (Preliminary)

Publication 4116 November 2009

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman

Deanna Tanner Okun

Charlotte R. Lane

Irving A. Williamson

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Staff assigned

Elizabeth Haines, Investigator

Karl Tsuji, Industry Analyst

James Fetzer, Economist

Mary Klir, Accountant

Charles St. Charles, Attorney

Steven Hudgens, Senior Statistician

Lita David-Harris, Statistician

James McClure, Supervisor Investigator

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

www.usitc.gov

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube

From Mexico and China

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1174-1175 (Preliminary)

Publication 4116 November 2009
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

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

Separate and dissenting views of Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman Daniel R.

 Pearson, and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Part I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

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

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

U.S. market summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Summary data and data sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

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

Nature and extent of alleged sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Alleged sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

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

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market ................................ II-1

U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-1

Supply ................................................................... II-1

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-8

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-8

Comparison of the U.S.-produced and imported SRC pipe and tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-9

Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment ...................... III-1

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization ................................... III-3

U.S. producers’ shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-6

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-7

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent consumption, and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent consumption, and market shares–Continued

Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Simultaneous presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

Negligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-14

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-15

Part V: Pricing and related information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

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

Raw material costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

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

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Lead times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

Part VI: Financial experience of the U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Operations on SRC pipe and tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Variance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-5

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-5

Actual negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-5

Anticipated negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-5

Part VII: Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries ............... VII-1

The industry in China .......................................................... VII-2

The industry in Mexico ......................................................... VII-5

U.S. importers’ inventories of SRC pipe and tube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-6

U.S. importer’s current orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-7

Antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in third-country markets .............. VII-7

Information on producers in nonsubject countries .................................... VII-7

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Conference witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Appendixes–Continued

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

D. Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Nonsubject country price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

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

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

asterisks.

iii

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1174-1175 (Preliminary)

SEAMLESS REFINED COPPER PIPE AND TUBE FROM CHINA AND MEXICO

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. § 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is

materially injured2

 or threatened with material injury,3 by reason of imports from China and Mexico of

seamless refined copper pipe and tube, provided for in subheadings 7411.10.10, and 8415.90.80 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less

than fair value (LTFV).

COMMENCEMENT OF FINAL PHASE INVESTIGATION

Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission’s rules, the Commission also gives notice of the

commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of

scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in section 207.21 of the

Commission’s rules, upon notice from the Department of Commerce (Commerce) of affirmative

preliminary determinations in the investigations under section 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary

determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in the investigations under

section 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the

investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigations. Industrial

users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer

organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty

investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all

persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

BACKGROUND

On September 30, 2009, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by Cerro Flow

Products, Inc., St. Louis, MO; Kobe Wieland Copper Products, LLC, Pine Hall, NC; Mueller Copper

Tube Products, Inc. and Mueller Copper Tube Company, Inc., Memphis, TN, alleging that an industry in

the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV

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

 2

 Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane, Commissioner Irving A. Williamson, and Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert

determine that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of

imports of seamless refined copper pipe and tube from China and Mexico.

 3

 Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun

determine that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury

by reason of imports of seamless refined copper pipe and tube from China and Mexico. 
imports of seamless refined copper pipe and tube from China and Mexico. Accordingly, effective

September 30, 2009, the Commission instituted antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731-TA-1174-1175

(Preliminary).

Notice of the institution of the Commission’s investigations and of a public conference to be

held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary,

U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal

Register of October 6, 2009 (74 FR 51318). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on October

21, 2009, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by

counsel.
VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that there is a

reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material

injury by reason of imports of seamless refined copper pipe and tube from China and Mexico that are

allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value.1

 

I. THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS

The legal standard for preliminary antidumping determinations requires the Commission to

determine, based upon the information available at the time of the preliminary determination, whether

there is a reasonable indication that a domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material

injury, or that the establishment of an industry is materially retarded, by reason of the allegedly unfairly

traded imports.2

 In applying this standard, the Commission weighs the evidence before it and determines

whether “(1) the record as a whole contains clear and convincing evidence that there is no material injury

or threat of such injury; and (2) no likelihood exists that contrary evidence will arise in a final

investigation.”3

II. BACKGROUND

The antidumping duty petition in these investigations was filed on September 30, 2009, by

domestic producers Cerro Flow Products, Inc. (“Cerro”), St. Louis, Missouri; Kobe Wieland Copper

Products, LLC (“Kobe Wieland”), Pine Hall, North Carolina; Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc. and

Mueller Copper Tube Company, Inc. (“Mueller”), Memphis, Tennessee. Petitioners appeared at the staff

conference and filed a joint postconference brief. 

Respondents that participated in the staff conference and filed postconference briefs include

Shanghai Hailiang Copper Co. Ltd. (“Hailiang”), a Chinese producer of the subject merchandise; Golden

Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group Inc., GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V., and GD Copper (U.S.A.) Inc.,

a Chinese producer, a Mexican producer, and a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, respectively

(collectively, “Golden Dragon”); IUSA, S.A. de C.V. (“IUSA”) and Nacional de Cobre, S.A. de C.V.

(“Nacobre”), Mexican producers of subject merchandise (collectively, “Mexican Respondents”); and

Dayco Industries, LLC (“Dayco”), Homewerks Worldwide, LLC (“Homewerks”), JMF Company

(“JMF”), and Marubeni American Corp. (“Marubeni”), importers of subject merchandise (collectively,

“Importer Respondents”). 

A joint postconference statement was filed by Luvata Alltop (Zhongshan), Ltd., Luvata Tube

(Zhongshan) Ltd., foreign producers of subject merchandise in China, Luvata Monterrey S. de R.L. de

C.V., described as a future foreign producer of subject merchandise in Mexico, and Luvata Franklin, Inc.

and Luvata Grenada LLC, importers of subject merchandise (collectively, “Luvata”). A postconference

statement was also filed by Johnson Controls, Inc., a purchaser of subject imports. 

 1 Commissioners Lane, Pinkert, and Williamson determine that there is a reasonable indication that the domestic

industry is materially injured, and Chairman Aranoff, Vice Chairman Pearson, and Commissioner Okun determine

that there is a reasonable indication that the domestic industry is threatened with material injury, by reason of the

subject imports from China and Mexico. All Commissioners join in parts I-VI.B of these Views. 

 2

 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a) (2000); see also American Lamb Co. v. United States, 785 F.2d 994, 1001-04 (Fed. Cir.

1986); Aristech Chem. Corp. v. United States, 20 CIT 353, 354-55 (1996). No party argued that the establishment of

an industry is materially retarded by reason of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.

 3

 American Lamb Co., 785 F.2d at 1001; see also Texas Crushed Stone Co. v. United States, 35 F.3d 1535, 1543

(Fed. Cir. 1994).

3
The Commission received questionnaire responses from 12 domestic producers, estimated to

account for 95 percent of U.S. production of seamless refined copper pipe and tube (hereinafter, “SRC

pipe and tube”).4

 The Commission received questionnaire responses from 42 importers, believed to

account for 91 percent of total imports from China, 100 percent of total imports from Mexico, and 44

percent of total imports from all other sources.5

 The Commission sent foreign producer questionnaires to

14 Chinese firms and six Mexican firms believed to be producing SRC pipe and tube. The Commission

received questionnaire responses from 10 Chinese firms, believed to account for 97.9 percent of Chinese

export shipments to the United States in 2008, and from four Mexican firms, believed to account for ***

percent of Mexican export shipments in 2008.6

 

III. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

A. In General

In determining whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with

material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”7

 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a whole of a domestic like

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

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”8

 In turn, 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 ... .”9

The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product(s) in an investigation is a factual

determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.10 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.11 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.12

 4 CR/PR at III-1. The responding producers other than the petitioning firms are Cambridge Lee, FreeportMcMoRan, H & H, Howell Metal, National Copper, Packless, Precision Tube, S.T. Products, and Wolverine. 

CR/PR at Table III-1.

 5

 CR/PR at IV-1, CR/PR at Table IV-1 (list of reporting importers). 

 6

 CR at VII-3, VII-7; PR at VII-3, VII-5.

 7

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 8

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 9

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

 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); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed.

Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts

of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of factors including the following: (1) physical

characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions

of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where

appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1996).

 11 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979).

 12 Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49; see also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979)

(Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion as to

permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article are

not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent

(continued...)

4
Although the Commission must accept the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) determination

as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is subsidized or sold at less than fair value,13 the

Commission determines what domestic product is like the imported articles Commerce has identified.14

The Commission must base its domestic like product determination on the record in these investigations. 

The Commission is not bound by prior determinations, even those pertaining to the same imported

products, but may draw upon previous determinations in addressing pertinent domestic like product

issues.15

B. Product Description and Analysis

In its notice of initiation, Commerce defined the imported merchandise within the scope of these

investigations as follows:

Seamless circular refined copper pipes and tubes, including redraw hollows, greater than

or equal to 6 inches (152.4 mm) in length and measuring less than 12.130 inches

(308.102 mm) (actual) in outside diameter (“OD”), regardless of wall thickness, bore

(e.g., smooth, enhanced with inner-grooves or ridges), manufacturing process (e.g., hot

finished, cold-drawn, annealed), outer surface (e.g., plain or enhanced with grooves,

ridges, fins, or gills), end finish (e.g., plain end, swaged end, flared end, expanded end,

crimped end, threaded), coating (e.g., plastic, paint), insulation, attachments (e.g., plain,

capped, plugged, with compression or other fitting), or physical configuration (e.g.,

straight, coiled bent, wound on spools). The scope covers, but is not limited to, seamless

refined copper pipe and tube produced or comparable to the American Society for

Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) ASTM-B42, ASTM-B68, ASTM-B75, ASTM-B88,

ASTM-B88M, ASTM-B188, ASTM-B251, ASTM-B251M, ASTM-B280, ASTM-B302,

ASTM-B306, ASTM-B359, ASTM-B743, ASTM-B819, and ASTM-B903 specifications

and meeting the physical parameters described therein. Also included within the scope of

these investigations are all sets of covered products, including “line sets” of seamless

refined copper tubes (with or without fittings or insulation) suitable for connecting an

outdoor air conditioner or heat pump to an indoor evaporator unit. The phrase “all sets of

covered products” denotes any combination of items put up for sale that is comprised of

merchandise subject to the scope. “Refined copper” is defined as: (1) metal containing

at least 99.85 percent by weight of copper; or (2) metal containing at least 97.5 percent

by weight of copper, provided that the content by weight of any other element does not

exceed the following limits 

 12 (...continued)

consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”).

 13 See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 34 Fed. Appx. 725, 730 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The ITC may not modify the

class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 688 F.

Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919 (1989).

 14 Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the Commission may find a

single like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298

n.1 (“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s {like product} determination.”); Torrington,

747 F. Supp. at 748-52 (affirming the Commission’s determination defining six like products in investigations where

Commerce found five classes or kinds).

 15 See, e.g., Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1304-05 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000);

Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 693 F. Supp. 1165,

1169 n.5 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988); Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 1075, 1087-88 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1988).

5
ELEMENT LIMITING CONTENT PERCENT BY WEIGHT

Ag - Silver 0.25

As - Arsenic 0.5

Cd - Cadmium 1.3

Cr - Chromium 1.4

Mg - Magnesium 0.8

Pb - Lead 1.5

S - Sulfur 0.7

Sn - Tin 0.8

Te - Tellurium 0.8

Zn - Zinc 1.0

Zr - Zirconium 0.3

Other elements (each) 0.3

Excluded from the scope of these investigations are all seamless circular hollows of refined

copper less than 12 inches in length whose OD (actual) exceeds its length.16

SRC pipe and tube is fabricated of high-purity copper and has a circular cross section. 

Depending upon the requirements of industry standards or customer specifications, additional

characteristics can include the following: outer surface coatings for corrosion protection or insulation;

marking with paint or plastic color coding for product identification; cleaning, pressurizing with nitrogen

gas, and capping of each end to assure interior cleanliness; end finishes; and attachments.17 

 SRC pipe and tube applications generally involve fluids under pressure, either for conveyance or

closed-loop thermal transfer, in which copper’s properties (e.g., strength, malleability, thermal

conductivity, and corrosion resistance) are important. Conveyance applications include residential,

commercial, industrial, and municipal water systems, as well as distribution systems for other liquids and

gases. Thermal transfer applications in which SRC pipe and tube are used include heating systems,

commercial refrigeration systems, and air-conditioning systems.18

“Plumbing” or “standard” SRC pipe and tube (hereafter “plumbing tube”) is commonly produced

to various standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”), which specify

chemical composition, outside diameter, wall thickness, and other characteristics of the SRC pipe or tube

based on end-use applications. Commercial or industrial SRC pipe and tube (hereafter “commercial

tube”) is produced to either ASTM specifications or nonstandard specifications of customers, e.g.,

original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”), which can include inner or outer features to enhance

thermal transfer capabilities. Common applications for commercial SRC pipe and tube include

refrigeration, freezer, heating, and air conditioner systems and units.19

 16 Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the People’s Republic of China and Mexico: Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 74 Fed. Reg. 55194 (Oct 27, 2009). Commerce explained that the products

subject to these investigations are currently classifiable under subheadings 7411.10.1030, 7411.10.1090 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), and may also enter under HTSUS subheadings

7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. Id.

 17 CR at I-7, PR at I-5

 18 CR at I-7-8, PR at I-5-6. 

 19 CR at I-8, PR at I-6.

6
SRC pipe and tube production involves three stages: (1) prefabricating, which includes melting,

casting, and either extrusion or rolling of rough tubing; (2) intermediate fabrication, consisting of cold

drawing of unfinished tubing; and (3) finishing of the SRC pipe and tube.20

C. Parties’ Arguments

Petitioners request that the Commission define a single domestic like product consisting of all

SRC pipe and tube, coterminous with the scope of these investigations.21 While Mexican Respondents do

not contest Petitioners’ proposed definition of the domestic like product at the preliminary phase of these

investigations, they contend that the record would support defining plumbing tube and SRC commercial

tube as separate domestic like products.22 Luvata urges the Commission to note the distinction between

plumbing and commercial tube as a relevant condition of competition in the SRC pipe and tube market,

and relies in that regard upon the factors the Commission traditionally considers in defining the domestic

like product.23 

Petitioners assert that all SRC pipe and tube share the same basic physical characteristics and uses

in that all SRC pipes and tubes are seamless products, they have circular cross sections, they consist

entirely or virtually entirely of refined copper, and they are used to transport fluids, either in conveyance

applications or in closed loops for thermal transfer. Petitioners contend that there is some degree of

interchangeability between plumbing and commercial tube. All plumbing tube must conform to ASTM

specifications and some commercial tube is also produced to ASTM specifications, and the specifications

of purchasers of commercial tube can mirror ASTM specifications or can be stated in terms of ASTM

specifications with adjustments or additions.24 They maintain that, although plumbing tube is generally

sold to distributors and retailers and commercial tube is generally sold to OEMs, there is some overlap in

channels of distribution between plumbing and commercial tube.25 Petitioners argue that, overall,

customers perceive SRC pipe and tube as a single product, with a broad mix of variations across a

continuum. They also claim that the prefabrication stage of production for plumbing and commercial

tube is generally the same, that some U.S. producers manufacture both plumbing and commercial tube,

and that at least one producer does so in the same facilities, using common production equipment and

employees.26 Petitioners acknowledge that the methods for setting prices for plumbing and commercial

tube differ. Plumbing tube is sold at a discount off published price lists whereas commercial tube is sold

at the price of the copper at the time of the sale plus a fabrication charge negotiated annually between the

SRC pipe and tube mill and the OEM purchaser. Petitioners claim that, notwithstanding these pricing

structure differences, prices for SRC pipe and tube products generally fall within a continuum of prices

that are ultimately determined primarily by the market price for copper as well as variations in finishing

costs and relative demand for different SRC pipe and tube products.27

Mexican Respondents note, regarding physical characteristic and uses, that plumbing tube is used

in residential and commercial construction for water distribution, while commercial tube is

 20 CR at I-11, I-9.

 21 Petition at 35-36, Petitioners Postconference Brief at 9-15.

 22 Mexican Respondents Postconference Brief at 5-7.

 23 Luvata Postconference Brief at 7-15.

 24 Petitioners Postconference Brief at 9-11.

 25 Petitioners Postconference Brief at 12.

 26 Petitioners Postconference Brief at 13. Petitioners assert that Kobe Wieland and Cerro produce both plumbing

and commercial tube, but they do not suggest that Cerro does so in the same facilities with the same workers. 

Instead, Petitioners refer to Kobe Wieland as the only domestic producer that produces both plumbing and

commercial tube on the same production line at its Pine Hall, North Carolina facility.

 27 Petitioners Postconference Brief at 14.

7
predominantly used for containing refrigerants. They assert that plumbing tube is sold in both straight

lengths and coils and is smooth internally and externally, whereas, they contend, commercial tube is

predominantly sold in coils and is often internally “rifled,” i.e., striated or textured.28 Luvata similarly

argues that plumbing and commercial tubing differ in several key respects, including shape, length,

temper, diameter, thermal conductivity, and smoothness of interior surfaces, which determine the uses for

which the plumbing and commercial tubing are ideally suited.29 Luvata also asserts, based on these

differences, that plumbing and commercial tube are not interchangeable.30 Mexican Respondents and

Luvata contend that channels of distribution also differ, with plumbing tube sold ready for installation

through distributors and retailers, and commercial tube sold for further manufacture to OEMs, primarily

manufacturers of air conditioning units.31 Mexican Respondents argue that plumbing and commercial

tube are generally produced in different facilities with different workers, with each U.S. producer ***.32

Luvata claims that plumbing and commercial tube are most efficiently manufactured using different

processes and that switching production between plumbing and commercial tubes requires fundamental

changes and substantial investments.33 Luvata claims that customers and producers perceive differences

between plumbing and commercial tube. It contends that plumbing tube is essentially a commodity

product while commercial tube is subject to more exacting specifications of individual commercial tube

purchasers.34 Mexican Respondents and Luvata also cite the distinction between the approaches for

setting prices in the sale of plumbing and commercial tube.35

D. Analysis

Physical Characteristics and Uses. All SRC pipe and tube share certain basic physical

characteristics, including being seamless, made of refined copper, and having a circular cross section. All

SRC pipe and tube are used to transport or circulate fluids.36 The record indicates, however, that

specifications for SRC pipe and tube used in plumbing applications and SRC pipe and tube used in

commercial applications generally differ, with plumbing tube conforming to ASTM standards and

commercial tube conforming to individual OEMs’ specifications or ASTM standards. For instance, it

appears that tube meeting certain ASTM standards (e.g., ASTM designations B-280, B-903, Type K,

Type L, Type M, DWV, and ARC/RST) is designated for use in commercial applications (i.e., in

conjunction with heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration systems), but some may also be

used in plumbing applicatons.37 Accordingly, there is some degree of similarity in the physical

characteristics and uses of plumbing and commercial tube, although the current record does not shed

much light on the extent of that similarity.

Interchangeability. The limited record in these preliminary phase investigations also indicates

that there is at least some interchangeability between plumbing tube and commercial tube. Requirements

for commercial tube can include the same ASTM standards applicable to plumbing tube, or can mirror

ASTM standards, or reflect ASTM standards plus other elements. According to Petitioners, distributors

 28 Mexican Respondents Postconference Brief at 5-6.

 29 Luvata Postconference Brief at 8-9.

 30 Luvata Postconference Brief at 9-10.

 31 Mexican Respondents Postconference Brief at 6, Luvata Postconference Brief at 10-11.

 32 Mexican Respondents Postconference Brief at 5-7.

 33 Luvata Postconference Brief at 12-13.

 34 Luvata Postconference Brief at 11-12.

 35 Mexican Respondents Postconference Brief at 7, Luvata Postconference Brief at 13-14.

 36 See CR/PR at Tables I-1, I-2.

 37 See CR/PR at Tables I-1, I-2; Petitioners Postonference Exhibit 1. 

8
and converters can purchase commercial tube and repackage it for resale as plumbing tube, or may

purchase plumbing tube and convert it for resale as commercial tube product.38

Channels of distribution. All parties agree that domestic producers generally sell SRC pipe and

tube for plumbing applications to distributors and retailers and that they generally sell commercial tube to

OEMs. It appears, however, that both distributors and SRC pipe and tube mills sell tube conforming to

ASTM designations (e.g., Type K, Type L, Type M, DWV, and ARC/RST) to OEMs.39 Accordingly,

there appears to be overlap between the channels through which plumbing and commercial tube are sold. 

Common Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes, and Production Employees. The

initial stages of production are the same for plumbing and commercial tube and, therefore, they can be

produced in the same facilities with the same processes, and production employees. Although some

producers confine their production to either plumbing tube or commercial tube, certain producers produce

both plumbing and commercial tube, and at least one producer manufactures both in the same facility

with the same employees. Thus, the limited information in this record suggests that there is some degree

of shared facilities, processes, and employees in the production of plumbing and commercial tube. 

Producer and Customer Perceptions. Although producers and customers may view SRC pipe

and tube to some extent as falling on a continuum of a single product, the record indicates that market

participants also perceive a distinction between plumbing and commercial tube. 

Price. It is uncontested that plumbing and commercial tube are sold under different price

structures. Plumbing tube is sold on the spot market at a discount off price lists published by certain

domestic producers, whereas commercial tube is sold at the contemporaneous COMEX price of copper

plus a negotiated per-pound fabrication charge that is fixed for a 12-month period.40 Notwithstanding the

different pricing structures, domestic producers maintain that prices for SRC pipe and tube overall may

fall generally on a continuum of prices determined primarily by the prevailing market price for copper,

variations in finishing costs, and relative demand for different SRC pipe and tube products.41

Conclusion. The record indicates that plumbing and commercial tube possess both similarities

and differences with respect to physical characteristics and uses. There appears, moreover, to be at least a

minimal degree of interchangeability between plumbing and commercial tube, as well as some similarities

in terms of the channels through which they are traded, and some commonality of manufacturing facilities

and employees. Although plumbing and commercial tube are sold under different price structures, the

current record is not clear as to whether or to what extent those structural differences result in actual price

differences between plumbing and commercial tube. Therefore, we conclude, on the basis of the current

record, that there is not a clear dividing line between plumbing and commercial tube. We note, moreover,

that most respondent parties do not disagree with Petitioners’ view that all SRC pipe and tube constitute a

single domestic like product. We also note that the Mexican Respondents and Luvata have not framed

their arguments as requests to define plumbing and commercial tube as separate domestic like products

for purposes of these preliminary phase investigations.42 Accordingly, we find one domestic like product,

coterminous with the scope, consisting of all SRC pipe and tube. We intend in any final phase of these

investigations to solicit additional information on the distinctions between plumbing and commercial

tube. 

 38 Petitioners Postconference Brief at 9-11.

 39 Petitioners Postconference Brief at 12.

 40 Mexican Respondents Postconference Brief at 7, Luvata Postconference Brief at 13-14.

 41 Petitioners Postconference Brief at 14.

 42 Luvata notes that the welded copper tube produced by Luvata Franklin, Inc. is not within the domestic like

product. Luvata does not request expansion of the domestic like product to include welded copper tube. Rather,

Luvata asserts simply that welded copper tube, although more costly than SRC pipe and tube, can be substituted for

SRC pipe and tube under certain circumstances. Luvata Postconference Brief at at 3-4. 

9
IV. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The domestic industry is defined 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.”43 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. 

Based on our definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry as all domestic

producers of SRC pipe and tube. 

We must determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from

the domestic industry pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). Subsection 1677(4)(B) allows the

Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are

related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers.44 Exclusion

of such producers is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each

investigation. In these investigations, several domestic producers may be related parties based on their

relationship to exporters of the subject merchandise, importations of subject imports, or purchases of

subject imports.45 No party, however, has argued for exclusion of any producer as a related party. 

Wolverine ***.46 Although Wolverine is a related party, we find that appropriate circumstances

do not exist to exclude it from the domestic industry.47 The ***.48 We note that Wolverine ***.49

Wolverine is a substantial domestic producer; it accounted for *** percent of domestic production in

2008, and it was the *** largest producer in that year.50 Wolverine ***.51

 43 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 44 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 45 The Commission has concluded that a domestic producer that does not itself import subject merchandise, or

does not share a corporate affiliation with an importer, may nonetheless be deemed a related party if it controls large

volumes of imports. The Commission has found such control to exist where the domestic producers were

responsible for a predominant proportion of an importer's purchases and the importer’s purchases were substantial.

See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from the Czech Republic, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea,

and Macedonia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-387-392 and 731-TA-815-822 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3181 at 12 (April

1999); Certain Brake Drums and Rotors from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-744 (Final), USITC Pub. 3035 at 10 n.50

(April 1997).

 46 Wolverine’s ***. CR/PR at Table III-7. Wolverine would be a related party based on its *** percent interest

in the Chinese producer and exporter Wolverine Tube (Shanghai), if it were in a position to exercise direct or

indirect control over Wolverine Tube (Shanghai). CR/PR at Table III-1. 

 47 Chairman Aranoff and Commissioner Okun find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude Wolverine

from the domestic industry. The record in these preliminary phase investigations indicates that Wolverine’s primary

interest lies in importation. During the period of investigation, Wolverine reduced its domestic capacity and

production while it increased its importation of subject pipe and tube. The ratio of Wolverine’s total subject imports

to production went from *** percent in 2006, to *** percent in 2008, and was *** percent in the first half of 2009. 

Moreover, in 2005 Wolverine became the exclusive North American distributor for Golden Dragon, a subject

producer in China. Golden Dragon’s Postconference Brief, Exhibit 8. According to conference testimony, “[t]his

arrangement in fact meshed very well with Wolverine’s decision to take capacity offline because Golden Dragon

produced a line of tubing for the industrial market that was similar to the tubes Wolverine produced.” Conference

Transcript at 101 (Weil). Wolverine *** the petition. We will consider this issue further in any final phase

investigation. 

 48 CR/PR at Table III-7. 

 49 CR/PR at Table III-7. 

 50 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 51 CR/PR Table III-7.

10
The Petitioners argue that *** and that excluding Wolverine would skew the Commission’s

analysis of the condition of the domestic industry by disregarding these closures.52 The record, however,

is not clear as to whether subject imports may have played a role in the closure of any U.S. operations. 

Wolverine reports that it closed its Decatur, Alabama manufacturing operation facilities in December

2007 “due to the competitive nature of the majority of products produced in Decatur,” but does not state

whether, or to what extent, subject imports may have been part of this competition.53 The Commission

will continue to explore the nature of this competition in any final phase investigations. 

For purposes of these preliminary phase investigations, we do not find that appropriate

circumstances exist to exclude Wolverine as a related party. The record does not reflect that Wolverine is

in a position to exercise direct or indirect control over Wolverine Tube (Shanghai). Wolverine has been a

substantial domestic producer throughout the period of investigation. Its interests appear to have been

focused on domestic production and importation at different times during the period of investigation, and

it is unclear why its interests appear to have changed. Moreover, Wolverine *** in view of its ***

operating performance. Its operating income as a ratio of net sales was *** the industry average ***.54 55

56 Therefore, we do not find appropriate circumstances to exclude Wolverine from the domestic industry,

although we intend to examine this issue in any final phase investigations.

Cambridge Lee is wholly owned by IUSA, a Mexican producer and exporter of SRC pipe and

tube and, therefore, Cambridge Lee is a related party.57 ***.58 We find, however, that appropriate

circumstances do not exist to exclude Cambridge Lee from the domestic industry. ***.59 ***. 

Nonetheless, Cambridge Lee accounted for *** percent of domestic production in 2008 and is, thus, the

*** domestic producer. Moreover, Cambridge Lee *** in view of its *** operating performance for most

of the period. Its operating income as a ratio of net sales was *** the industry average from 2006 to

2008, and *** the average *** in interim 2009.60 61 Accordingly, we find, on balance, that circumstances

are not appropriate to exclude Cambridge Lee from the domestic industry, although we also intend to

review this issue in any final phase investigations.

 52 Petitioner’s Postconference Brief at 16.

 53 ***. CR/PR at Table III-3. ***. 

 54 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 55 In these investigations, Vice Chairman Aranoff does not rely on individual company operating income margins

in assessing whether particular related parties benefit from importation of subject merchandise. Rather, she has based

her determination regarding whether to exclude related parties principally on their ratios of subject imports to

domestic shipments and on whether their primary interests lie in domestic production or importation. As discussed

above, appropriate circumstances exist to exclude Wolverine. 

 56 For purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, Commissioner Pinkert does not rely upon

financial performance as a factor in determining whether there are appropriate circumstances to exclude related

parties from the domestic industry. The present record is not sufficient to infer from the companies’ profitability on

their U.S. operations whether they have derived a specific benefit from importing. See Allied Mineral Products v.

United States, 28 C.I.T. 1861, 1865-67 (2004). 

 57 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 58 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 59 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 60 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 61 Chairman Aranoff does not rely on individual company operating income margins in assessing whether

particular related parties benefit from importation of subject merchandise. Rather, she bases her determination

regarding whether to exclude related parties principally on their ratios of subject imports to domestic shipments and

on whether their primary interests lie in domestic production or importation. 

Despite a relatively high subject imports to domestic shipment ratio, she does not find that Cambridge Lee

showed a decline in its domestic production proportional to its increase in imports. Therefore, she does not find that

appropriate circumstances exist to exclude Cambridge Lee from the domestic industry.

11
Seven other domestic producers are or may be related parties. ***. ***.62 ***.63 ***.64 Kobe

Wieland is *** percent owned by Wieland-Werke, a German firm, which, in turn, owns an interest in the

Chinese exporter Wolverine Tube (Shanghai).65 Kobe Wieland ***.66 Mueller is *** in the joint venture

Jiangsu Mueller-Xingrong Copper, a Chinese exporter.67 Precision Tube is a sister company of Mueller,

which, as noted above, has an ownership interest in the Chinese exporter Jiangsu Mueller-Xingrong

Copper. 

It is clear that *** are related parties by virtue of their importation of subject merchandise. The

other four producers also may be related parties by virtue of corporate relationships to, or purchases of,

subject merchandise. We need not resolve, however, the question of whether all of these seven producers

are related parties because we would not find appropriate circumstances exist to exclude any of them from

the domestic industry.

*** each accounted for a very small percentage of domestic production.68 Thus, neither inclusion

nor exclusion of their individual data would skew the industry data. Moreover, to the extent they

imported or purchased subject imports, their imports or purchases were small relative to their

production.69 Accordingly, their interests appear to be those of domestic producers. Moreover, they do

not appear to have derived a significant benefit from their potential related party status. *** operating

income as a ratio of net sales was below the industry average throughout the period of investigation, and

the ratios for *** were below the industry average for a majority of the period of investigation.70 

*** Mueller nor Kobe Wieland ***.71 Moreover, Kobe Wieland ***. Additionally, these

producers ***. Kobe Wieland’s operating income as a ratio of net sales was ***. Although the financial

performance of Mueller ***,72 there is no indication that this relatively ***. Mueller and Kobe Wieland

are also Petitioners, further indicating that their interests are those of domestic producers notwithstanding

their potential related party status. Finally, *** accounted for only *** percent of subject imports from

China in 2008.73 *** purchases were equivalent to only *** percent of its production in *** and ***

percent in ***.74 Moreover, *** supports the petition.75

For the reasons stated above, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude any

domestic producer from the domestic industry. We therefore define the domestic industry to include all

domestic producers of SRC pipe and tube. We intend in any final phase of these investigations to revisit

the question of whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude any related party, particularly

Wolverine and Cambridge Lee, from the domestic industry. 

 62 CR/PR at Table III-7. 

 63 CR/PR at Table III-7. 

 64 CR/PR at Table III-7, IV-1. Howell is an importer because it is a division of CMC, an importer, rather than a

separate legal entity. 

 65 CR/PR at Table III-1, III-3.

 66 CR/PR at Table III-7. 

 67 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 68 Precision Tube accounted for *** percent of domestic production, *** for *** percent, Packless for ***

percent, and *** for *** percent, and Precision Tube for *** percent. CR/PR at Table III-1. 

 69 CR/PR at Table III-7. ***. Id.

 70 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 71 CR/PR at Table III-7. Mueller accounted for *** percent of total domestic production in 2008, and Kobe

Wieland accounted for *** percent. CR/PR at Table III-1. Id.

 72 CR/PR at Table VI-7.

 73 CR/PR at Table III-7. *** accounted for *** percent of domestic production in 2008.

 74 CR/PR at Table IV-1. 

 75 CR/PR at Table III-1.

12
V. CUMULATION

For purposes of evaluating the volume and price effects for a determination of material injury by

reason of the subject imports, section 771(7)(G)(i) of the Act requires the Commission to assess

cumulatively the volume and effect of imports of the subject merchandise from all countries as to which

petitions were filed and/or investigations self-initiated by Commerce on the same day, if such imports

compete with each other and with the domestic like products in the U.S. market.76 In assessing whether

subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product,77 the Commission has

generally considered the following four factors:

(1) the degree of fungibility between the subject imports from different countries and

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

customer requirements and other quality related questions;

(2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets of subject

imports from different countries and the domestic like product;

(3) the existence of common or similar channels of distribution for subject imports

from different countries and the domestic like product; and

(4) whether the subject imports are simultaneously present in the market.78

Although no single factor is necessarily determinative, and the list of factors is not exclusive,

these factors are intended to provide the Commission with a framework for determining whether the

subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.79 Only a “reasonable

overlap” of competition is required.80

A. Parties’ Arguments

Petitioners and the Chinese producer Hailiang contend that the Commission should cumulate

subject imports from China and Mexico as there is a reasonable overlap of competition. They assert that

the domestic like product and subject imports from China and Mexico are fungible and that there is

considerable overlap between them, notwithstanding the greater focus of the imports from Mexico on

plumbing tube and the greater focus of imports from China on commercial tube. They contend that the

geographic overlap and simultaneous presence requirement are also satisfied. They also argue that the

domestic like product and subject imports from China and Mexico are sold through the same channels of

distribution.81

Mexican Respondents contend that these investigations are concerned solely with threat of

material injury and, therefore, they limit their cumulation arguments to the Commission’s threat analysis. 

They argue, in the context of cumulation for purposes of threat of material injury, that the subject imports

are not substantially fungible because the SRC pipe and tube from China are concentrated in commercial

 76 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i).

 77 The SAA expressly states that “the new section will not affect current Commission practice under which the

statutory requirement is satisfied if there is a reasonable overlap of competition.” SAA, H.R. Rep. 103-316, vol. I at

848 (1994), citing Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898, 902 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 859

F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 78 See Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-278-280

(Final), USITC Pub. 1845 (May 1986) at 8 n.29, aff’d sub nom. Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp.

898 (Ct. Int’l Trade), aff’d, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 79 See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989).

 80 See Goss Graphic System, Inc. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1087 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998) (“cumulation

does not require two products to be highly fungible”); Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 916 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1996); Wieland Werke, 718 F. Supp. at 52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”).

 81 Petitioners Postconference Brief at 25-29, Hailiang Postconference Brief at 2-7.

13
tube and the SRC pipe and tube from Mexico is concentrated in plumbing tube. They also contend that

plumbing and commercial tube are generally sold through different channels of distribution and are priced

differently.82 These arguments are also relevant to the Commission’s present material injury cumulation

analysis. 

B. Analysis

In these investigations, the threshold criterion is satisfied because the Petitioners filed the

antidumping duty petitions with respect to China and Mexico on the same day. None of the cumulation

exceptions applies. Subject imports from China and Mexico are therefore eligible for cumulation. We

consequently examine whether there is a reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from

China and Mexico, as well as among subject imports and the domestic like product.

Fungibility.

83 There appears to be a reasonable degree of fungibility with respect to the subject

imports from China and Mexico as well as with respect to the subject imports from each source and the

domestic like product. The questionnaire responses indicate that market participants perceive domestic

SRC pipe and tube and subject imports to be interchangeable. A majority of responding domestic

producers and importers reported that the domestic product is always or frequently interchangeable with

the subject imports from each subject source and that the Chinese and Mexican SRC pipe and tube are

interchangeable with each other.84

The available data suggest that, notwithstanding the greater focus of the imports from Mexico on

plumbing tube and the greater focus of imports from China on commercial tube, the subject imports from

both China and Mexico include both plumbing and commercial tube to some degree. We note, moreover,

that Petitioners assert that there is at least some degree of fungibility among products used for plumbing

and commercial and industrial purposes.85 We intend to further examine this issue in any final phase

investigations. 

Geographic Overlap. All responding domestic producers reported that they serve a nationwide

market.86 Official Commerce statistics show that the largest ports of entry for both the Chinese and the

Mexican imports were in Texas, with more than one-half the subject imports from China entering at

Houston-Galveston and Dallas-Fort Worth and a large majority of the subject imports from Mexico

entering the port at Laredo.87 Moreover, 12 of 34 importers reported that they serve a nationwide

market.88 Additionally, it appears, as Petitioners allege, that although some importers sell subject imports

from China or Mexico only to a limited number of geographic regions, in the aggregate importers sell

subject imports to all geographic regions within the continental United States.89 Accordingly, the record

indicates that there was significant geographic overlap between the subject imports from China and

Mexico and between subject imports and the domestic like product. 

 82 Mexican Respondents Postconference Brief at 35-41. 

 83 Commissioner Lane notes that, with respect to fungibility, her analysis does not require such similarity of

products that a perfectly symmetrical fungibility is required, and she notes that this factor would be better described

as an analysis of whether subject imports from each country and the domestic like product could be substituted for

each other. See Separate Views of Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane, Certain Lightweight Thermal Paper from

China, Germany, and Korea, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-451 and 731-TA-1126 to 1128 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3964 (Nov.

2007).

 84 CR/PR at Table II-2.

 85 See Petitioners Postconference Brief at 10.

 86 CR/PR at II-1.

 87 CR/PR at Tables IV-4, IV-5.

 88 CR/PR at II-1.

 89 Petitioners Postconference Brief at 27-28.

14
Channels of Distribution. Closely related to the fungibility issue, U.S. producers’ shipments and

shipments of subject imports from China and Mexico all included shipments to both distributors and end

users. A very rough indication of the relative shares of the subject imports and the domestic like product

accounted for by plumbing and commercial tube is provided by the fact that sales to distributors may be

concentrated in plumbing tube, whereas sales to OEMs may generally reflect sales of commercial tube. 

Over the period of investigation, shipments of the domestic like product ranged between 60 and 64

percent to distributors and between 36 and 40 percent to OEMs. Subject imports from China ranged

between 7 and 14 percent to distributors and between 86 and 93 percent to OEMs. Subject imports from

Mexico, on the other hand, ranged between *** percent and *** percent to distributors and between ***

and *** percent to OEMs.90 Accordingly, imports from each subject source appear to overlap in channels

of distribution more with the domestic like product than with each other but, nevertheless, there is

sufficient overlap between the subject imports from China and Mexico to support cumulation. 

Simultaneous Presence. Official import statistics show that subject imports from China and

those from Mexico have each been present in the U.S. market in each month of the period of

investigation.91

Conclusion. Although it appears that there may be some limits on fungibility as between

plumbing and commercial tube, channel of distribution data indicate that both plumbing and commercial

tube were included among the shipments of domestic tube, subject imports from China, and subject

imports from Mexico. We find that the tube-type and channel of distribution overlaps between the

subject imports from China and Mexico are sufficient to support cumulation, particularly given the

absence, on this limited preliminary phase record, of more direct and specific information on fungibility

and actual plumbing to commercial tube ratios. Accordingly, on these bases, and because there is

geographic overlap and simultaneous presence, we find that there is a reasonable overlap of competition

between subject imports from China and Mexico and between subject imports and the domestic like

product. Therefore, we cumulatively assess the volume and effects of subject imports from China and

Mexico for purposes of determining whether there is reasonable indication that the domestic industry is

materially injured by reason of the subject imports. In any final phase of these investigations, we will

solicit further information on the extent to which subject imports from China and Mexico are fungible

with each other and the extent to which they are sold in the same channels of distribution. 

 

VI. REASONABLE INDICATION OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT

IMPORTS92

A. Legal Standard

In the preliminary phase of antidumping or countervailing duty investigations, the Commission

determines whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially

injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the imports under investigation.93 In making this

determination, the Commission must consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices for the

domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in

 90 CR/PR at Table II-1. 

 91 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 92 Negligibility under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24) is not an issue in these investigations. Subject imports from each

subject country far exceeded the negligibility threshold during the period September 2008 to August 2009, the most

recent 12-month period preceding the filing of the petition for which data are available. Specifically, by quantity,

subject imports from China accounted for 44.7 percent, and subject imports from Mexico for 29.3 percent, of total

imports of SRC pipe and tube in that period. CR/PR at IV-12. 

 93 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

15
the context of U.S. production operations.94 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not

inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”95 In assessing whether there is a reasonable indication that

the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports, we consider all relevant

economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.96 No single factor is

dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”97

Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether there is a reasonable

indication that the domestic industry is “materially injured by reason of” unfairly traded imports,98 it does

not define the phrase “by reason of,” indicating that this aspect of the injury analysis is left to the

Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion.99 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject

imports and material injury to the domestic industry, the Commission examines the facts of record that

relate to the significance of the volume and price effects of the subject imports and any impact of those

imports on the condition of the domestic industry. This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard

must ensure that subject imports are more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a

sufficient causal, not merely a temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.100

In many investigations, there are other economic factors at work, some or all of which may also

be having adverse effects on the domestic industry. Such economic factors might include nonsubject

imports; changes in technology, demand, or consumer tastes; competition among domestic producers; or

management decisions by domestic producers. The legislative history explains that the Commission must

examine factors other than subject imports to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other factors to

the subject imports, thereby inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the

statutory material injury threshold.101 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

 94 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination” but shall “identify each {such} factor ... {a}nd explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

 95 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 96 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 97 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 98 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

 99 Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484-85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he statute does not

‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’g 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1996).

 100 The Federal Circuit, in addressing the causation standard of the statute, observed that “{a}s long as its effects

are not merely incidental, tangential, or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than fair value meets the causation

requirement.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This was further ratified in

Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the Federal Circuit, quoting

Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997), stated that “this court requires evidence in

the record ‘to show that the harm occurred “by reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a minimal or

tangential contribution to material harm caused by LTFV goods.’” See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458

F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir.

2001).

 101 Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) on Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. 103-

316, Vol. I at 851-52 (1994) (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing

injury from other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (1979) (the Commission “will consider

information which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than less-than-fair-value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96-

317 at 47 (1979) (“in examining the overall injury being experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take into

account evidence presented to it which demonstrates that the harm attributed by the petitioner to the subsidized or

dumped imports is attributable to such other factors;” those factors include “the volume and prices of nonsubsidized

imports or imports sold at fair value, contraction in demand or changes in patterns of consumption, trade restrictive

practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the

(continued...)

16
isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.102 Nor does the

“by reason of” standard require that unfairly traded imports be the “principal” cause of injury or

contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors, such as nonsubject

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.103 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.104

Assessment of whether material injury to the domestic industry is “by reason of” subject imports

“does not require the Commission to address the causation issue in any particular way” as long as “the

injury to the domestic industry can reasonably be attributed to the subject imports” and the Commission

“ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”105 106 Indeed, the

 101 (...continued)

export performance and productivity of the domestic industry”); accord Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877.

 102 SAA at 851-52 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by

unfair imports.”); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“{T}he

Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports ... . Rather, the

Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject

imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha de Chile AG v. United States, 180

F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“{t}he Commission is not required to isolate the effects of subject

imports from other factors contributing to injury” or make “bright-line distinctions” between the effects of subject

imports and other causes.); see also Softwood Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928

(Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 100-01 (Dec. 2003) (Commission recognized that “{i}f an alleged other factor is

found not to have or threaten to have injurious effects to the domestic industry, i.e., it is not an ‘other causal factor,’

then there is nothing to further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States,

132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the statute “does not suggest that an importer of LTFV goods can escape

countervailing duties by finding some tangential or minor cause unrelated to the LTFV goods that contributed to the

harmful effects on domestic market prices.”). 

 103 S. Rep. 96-249 at 74-75; H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47.

 104 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1381 (“an affirmative material-injury determination under the statute

requires no more than a substantial-factor showing. That is, the ‘dumping’ need not be the sole or principal cause of

injury.”).

 105 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877-78; see also id. at 873 (“While the Commission may not enter an affirmative

determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of’ subject imports, the

Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that determination ... . {and has} broad

discretion with respect to its choice of methodology.”) citing United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d

1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and S. Rep. 96-249 at 75.

 106 Commissioner Pinkert does not join this paragraph or the following four paragraphs. He points out that the

Federal Circuit, in Bratsk, 444 F.3d 1369, and Mittal, held that the Commission is required, in certain circumstances

when considering present material injury, to undertake a particular kind of analysis of nonsubject imports. Mittal

explains as follows:

What Bratsk held is that “where commodity products are at issue and fairly traded, price-competitive,

nonsubject imports are in the market,” the Commission would not fulfill its obligation to consider an

important aspect of the problem if it failed to consider whether nonsubject or non-LTFV imports would

have replaced LTFV subject imports during the period of investigation without a continuing benefit to the

domestic industry. 444 F.3d at 1369. Under those circumstances, Bratsk requires the Commission to

consider whether replacement of the LTFV subject imports might have occurred during the period of

investigation, and it requires the Commission to provide an explanation of its conclusion with respect to

that factor.

542 F.3d at 878.

17
Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid

adherence to a specific formula.”107

The Federal Circuit’s decisions in Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel all involved cases

where the relevant “other factor” was the presence in the market of significant volumes of pricecompetitive nonsubject imports. The Commission interpreted the Federal Circuit’s guidance in Bratsk as

requiring it to apply a particular additional methodology following its finding of material injury in cases

involving commodity products and a significant market presence of price-competitive nonsubject

imports.108 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether nonsubject imports might have

replaced subject imports without any benefit to the U.S. industry. The Commission applied that specific

additional test in subsequent cases, including the Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad

and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

Mittal Steel clarifies that the Commission’s interpretation of Bratsk was too rigid and makes clear

that the Federal Circuit does not require the Commission to apply an additional test nor any one specific

methodology; instead, the court requires the Commission to have “evidence in the record ‘to show that

the harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,’” and requires that the Commission not attribute

injury from nonsubject imports or other factors to subject imports.109 Accordingly, we do not consider

ourselves required to apply the replacement/benefit test that was included in Commission opinions

subsequent to Bratsk.

The progression of Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel clarifies that, in cases involving

commodity products where price-competitive nonsubject imports are a significant factor in the U.S.

market, the Court will require the Commission to give full consideration, with adequate explanation, to

non-attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.110 111

The question of whether the material injury threshold for subject imports is satisfied

notwithstanding any injury from other factors is factual, subject to review under the substantial evidence

standard. Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s

institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.112

 107 Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at

879 (“Bratsk did not read into the antidumping statute a Procrustean formula for determining whether a domestic

injury was ‘by reason’ of subject imports.”).

 108 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875-79.

 109 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 875-79 & n.2 (recognizing the

Commission’s alternative interpretation of Bratsk as a reminder to conduct a non-attribution analysis).

 110 Commissioner Lane also refers to her dissenting views in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip

from Brazil, China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1131-1134 (Final), USITC Pub.

4040 (Oct. 2008), for further discussion of Mittal Steel.

 111 To that end, after the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Bratsk, the Commission began to present published

information or send out information requests in final phase investigations to producers in nonsubject countries that

accounted for substantial shares of U.S. imports of subject merchandise (if, in fact, there were large nonsubject

import suppliers). In order to provide a more complete record for the Commission’s causation analysis, these

requests typically seek information on capacity, production, and shipments of the product under investigation in the

major source countries that export to the United States. The Commission plans to continue utilizing published or

requested information in final phase investigations in which there are substantial levels of nonsubject imports.

 112 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873; Nippon Steel Corp., 458 F.3d at 1350, citing U.S. Steel Group, 96 F.3d at 1357;

S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (“The determination of the ITC with respect to causation is ... complex and difficult, and is a

matter for the judgment of the ITC.”).

18
B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is a reasonable

indication of material injury by reason of subject imports.

1. Demand Conditions

SRC pipe and tube is principally used in plumbing, refrigeration, and air conditioning systems. 

Demand for SRC pipe and tube, therefore, is largly derived from residential construction, commercial

construction, and the market for air conditioning and refrigeration units. The parties agree that demand

for SRC pipe and tube declined over the period examined owing to the recession, the reduction in

residential and commercial construction, and the credit crisis. They also note that demand declined with

increased substitution of plastic (known as PVC and PEX) and aluminium pipe and tube in the place of

SRC pipe and tube.113 Petitioners argue that substitution of plastic tube for copper tube in residential

plumbing increased through 2006, but leveled off thereafter.114

When measured by apparent domestic consumption, U.S. demand declined over the period of

investigation, as Petitioners and respondents agree, from 1.13 billion pounds in 2006 to 867.8 million

pounds in 2008, a 23.5 percent decline, and was 23.7 percent lower in interim 2009, at 370.2 million

pounds, than in interim 2008, at 485.4 million pounds.115 

2. Supply Conditions

The domestic industry is the largest source of supply in the U.S. market. Domestic producers’

market share was 77.0 percent in 2006, 76.0 percent in 2007, and 71.5 percent in 2008. The domestic

industry’s market share was 72.0 percent in interim 2009 compared with 71.8 percent in interim 2008.116

U.S. producers’ production capacity exceeds domestic demand.117 Twelve domestic producers accounted

for 95 percent of U.S. SRC pipe and tube production in 2008.118 The record indicates that some domestic

producers manufacture only plumbing tube, some manufacture only commercial tube, and some

manufacture both plumbing and commercial tube.119 Mueller, Cerro, and Kobe Wieland are the largest

domestic producers, accounting for, respectively, *** percent, *** percent, and *** percent of reported

domestic production.120 

 113 Petitioners Postconference Brief at 23.

 114 Petitioners Postconference Brief at 23, IUSA/Nacobre Postconference Brief at 12-19, Hailiang Postconference

Brief at 7-12, Golden Dragon Postconference Brief at 9-18, Importer Respondents Postconference Brief at 4-13. 

Petitioners also explain that, in 2006, the air conditioning industry migrated to a higher Seasonal Energy Efficiency

Ratio (“SEER”) standard, from SEER 10 to SEER 13, which increased demand for SRC pipe and tubes with higher

thermal conductivity per pound; i.e., tubes with inner grooves and thinner walled smooth-bore tubes. Petitioners

state that this migration resulted in an increase in total feet of SRC pipe and tube sold, although they estimate that

total pounds sold was probably unchanged because of decreases in the wall thicknesses of that pipe and tube. 

Petitioners Postconference Brief at 23.

 115 CR/PR at Tables IV-8, C-1.

 116 CR/PR at Tables IV-8, C-1. 

 117 CR/PR at III-2. Domestic producers’ capacity was 1.2 billion pounds in 2006, 1.2 billion pounds in 2007 and

1.1 billion pounds in 2008 and 545.6 million pounds in interim 2008 and 526.9 million pounds in interim 2009. 

CR/PR at Table III-2. 

 118 CR/PR at Table III-1, id. at n.1 . 

 119 E.g., Petitioners Postconference Brief at 13, Mexican Respondents Postconference Brief at 5-7.

 120 CR/PR at Table III-1. 

19
The market share of subject imports increased from 15.1 percent in 2006 to 21.0 percent in 2008

and was 21.8 percent in interim 2009 compared with 21.5 percent in interim 2008.121 The record indicates

that the majority of subject imports from China are commercial tube and the majority of subject imports

from Mexico are plumbing tube.122 *** and *** were the largest reporting U.S. importers of subject SRC

pipe and tube, accounting for, respectively, *** percent and *** percent of reported subject imports.123 

The market share of nonsubject imports was relatively constant over the period of investigation,

at 7.9 percent in 2006, 7.4 percent in 2007, 7.4 percent in 2008, and 6.2 percent in interim 2009 compared

with 6.7 percent in interim 2008.124

3. Interchangeability

There is a high degree of substitutability between the domestic like product and subject imports

when they are produced to the same specifications. As noted above, market participants perceive

domestic SRC pipe and tube and subject imports to be interchangeable. A majority of reporting domestic

producers and importers reported that the domestic product is always or frequently interchangeable with

the subject imports from each subject source and that the Chinese and Mexican SRC pipe and tube are

interchangeable with each other.125 We note, however, as discussed above, that the interchangeability

between plumbing and commercial tube appears to be somewhat limited with respect to finished product

characteristics, channels of distribution, and the manner in which they are priced. Regarding price, as

explained above, plumbing tube is sold at a discount off published price lists while commercial tube is

sold at the prevailing COMEX price of copper plus a fabrication charge.126 

 C. Volume of Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume

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

production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”127

Notwithstanding the decline in apparent U.S. consumption over the period of investigation,

cumulated subject imports increased irregularly from 2006 to 2008. They decreased from 170.9 million

pounds in 2006 to 165.8 million pounds in 2007 before increasing to 182.5 million pounds in 2008, for a

6.7 percent overall absolute increase from 2006 to 2008. The cumulated subject imports were 80.7

million pounds in interim 2009, or 22.8 percent lower than in interim 2008, when they were 104.5 million

pounds.128 Subject imports as a share of domestic consumption increased from 15.1 percent in 2006 to

16.6 percent in 2007 and 21.0 percent in 2008; they were 21.5 percent in interim 2008 and 21.8 percent in

interim 2009.129

 121 CR/PR at Tables IV-5, C-1.

 122 Petitioners Postconference Brief at 25-29, Hailiang Postconference Brief at 2-7; Mexican Respondent’s

Postconference Brief at 38.

 123 CR/PR at Table IV-1. ***. Id.

 124 CR/PR at Tables IV-5, C-1.

 125 CR/PR at Table II-2.

 126 Mexican Respondents Postconference Brief at 7, Luvata Postconference Brief at 13-14.

 127 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 128 CR/PR at Tables IV-2, C-1. 

 129 CR/PR at Table IV-8. The ratio of cumulated subject imports to U.S. production followed a similar trend,

increasing from 19.3 percent in 2006 to 21.1 percent in 2007 and 28.3 percent in 2008, and it was 29.8 percent in

interim 2009 compared with 29.0 percent in interim 2008. CR/PR at Table IV-9.

20
For purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that volume of subject

imports is significant, both in absolute terms and relative to consumption in the United States. 

D. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

Section 771(C)(ii) of the Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of subject imports, 

the Commission shall consider whether – (I) there has been significant price underselling

by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the

United States, and (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses

prices to a significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.130

As addressed above, the record indicates that there is a high degree of substitutability between

subject imports and the domestic like product when they are produced to the same specifications, and that

price is an important consideration in SRC pipe and tube purchasing decisions.131 

The Commission collected quarterly pricing data for four SRC pipe and tube products.132 Usable

pricing data were provided by eight domestic producers, accounting for 9 percent of domestic producers’

shipments during the period examined, and 19 importers, accounting for 82 percent of shipments of

subject imports from China and 7 percent of shipments of subject imports from Mexico during the period

examined.133 Subject imports undersold the domestic product in 56 of 80 comparisons, at margins

ranging from 0.3 to 46.0 percent.134 Accordingly, we find that underselling was significant during the

period examined. 

Prices for both the domestically produced product and the subject imports fluctuated during the

period examined. Weighted-average sales prices for U.S.-produced products 1, 2, and 4 declined by 1.8

to 15.2 percent, while prices of product 3 increased by 13.9 percent. Weighted average sales prices of

products 1, 3, and 4 imported from China decreased by 0.8 to 44.7 percent and prices of product 2

increased by 23.2 percent. Weighted average sales prices of products 1 and 2 imported from Mexico

decreased by 6.0 and 15.3 percent respectively and prices of product 3 and 4 increased by 10.5 and 15.1

percent.135 

We find some evidence that subject import competition suppressed domestic like product prices

during the period examined. Although domestic producers were able to increase prices to some extent in

the 2006 to 2008 period, they were not able to increase them sufficiently to cover increased COGS, and

the COGS/sales ratio increased in this period.136 The domestic industry’s unit COGS increased by $0.60 

from 2006 to 2008, while domestic producers’ unit net sales value increased by only $0.55 which was

insufficient to offset the increase in COGS. Thus, the COGS to net sales ratio steadily increased from

89.0 percent in 2006, to 90.7 percent in 2007, and 91.5 percent in 2008. Unit COGS was $2.50 in interim

2009, 38.8 percent lower than in interim 2008, but net sales value was 53.1 percent lower in interim 2009

 130 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 131 CR/PR at Tables II-2, II-3. 

 132 CR at V-4.

 133 CR at V-4.

 134 CR at V-13. Subject imports from China undersold the domestic product in 25 of 41 comparisons, at margins

ranging from 1.5 to 35.2 percent, and subject imports from Mexico undersold the domestic like product in 31 of 39

comparisons, at margins ranging from 0.3 to 46.0 percent. Id.

 135 CR at V-4.

 136 CR/PR at Table VI-1, C-1. 

21
than in interim 2008, which resulted in a continued deterioration of the COGS/sales ratio. The ratio was

92.7 percent in interim 2008 and 93.2 percent in interim 2009.137

We note, moreover, the record indicates that the domestic industry lost sales and revenues to

subject imports. Twelve of 18 responding purchasers named in lost sales and lost revenue allegations

indicated that they had switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC

pipe and tube from China and Mexico during the period of investigation. Five of those 12 purchasers

indicated that the lower price of the subject imports was the reason for their shift. Of the seven

purchasers that indicated that price was not the reason for the shift, three purchasers indicated that

domestic producers were not able to supply enough product, one purchaser indicated that both availability

and pricing were reasons for the switch, and one purchaser indicated that their “switch was caused by a

better incentive from our buying group.” Four of 12 responding purchasers named in lost sales and lost

revenue allegations indicated that U.S. producers reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to

compete with prices of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico since January 2006.138

As significant volumes of subject imports entered the U.S. market and consistently undersold the

domestic like product, the domestic industry experienced downward pricing pressure, evidenced by a

steadily deteriorating COGS/sales ratio, and lost sales. We find that the significant volume of subject

imports during the period examined had significant adverse price effects on domestic producers’ prices.

E. Impact of the Subject Imports139

Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Act provides that the Commission, in examining the impact of the

subject imports on the domestic industry, “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a

bearing on the state of the industry.”140 These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity

utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, profits, cash flow, return on investment,

ability to raise capital, research and development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor

is dispositive and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”141

Based on the record of these preliminary phase investigations, we find that, according to most

measures, the domestic industry’s performance declined over the period examined as subject import

volume rose. Domestic industry production declined 27.2 percent between 2006 and 2008, from 884.9

 137 CR/PR at Tables VI-1, C-1. Unit COGS was $3.31 in 2006, $3.69 in 2007, $3.91 in 2008, and $2.50 in

interim 2009 compared with $4.09 in interim 2008. Id. Unit net sales value was $3.72 in 2006, $4.07 in 2007, $4.27

in 2008, and $4.41 in interim 2008 and $2.69 in interim 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1. The difference between unit

COGS in interim 2008 and interim 2009 was partly attributable to an increase in factory overhead as well as raw

material costs. CR/PR at Table VI-1. Raw material costs accounted for approximately 85 percent of the total cost of

goods sold for U.S. producers during 2006 to 2008. Copper is the main raw material used to produce SRC pipe and

tube. The COMEX price of copper has fluctuated since 2006 ranging from $1.39 per pound to $3.94 per pound. CR

at V-1.

 138 CR at V-14, V-18.

 139 Commerce initiated antidumping duty investigations based on estimated dumping margins of 60.5 percent ad

valorem for SRC pipe and tube from China and dumping margins ranging from 76.5 to 85.7 ad valorem for SRC

pipe and tube from Mexico. Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the People’s Republic of China and

Mexico: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 Fed. Reg. 55194, 55198 (Oct. 27, 2009).

 140 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, 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 also may demonstrate that an industry is facing

difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”)

 141 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-

TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3155 at 25 n.148 (Feb. 1999).

22
million pounds in 2006 to 644.0 million pounds in 2008, and was 24.8 percent lower in interim 2009, at

271.2 million pounds, than in interim 2008, at 360.5 million pounds.142 Domestic capacity decreased 10.6

percent between 2006 and 2008, from 1.22 billion pounds to 1.09 billion pounds in 2008. Capacity was

545.6 million pounds in interim 2008 and 526.9 million pounds in interim 2009.143 The domestic

industry’s rate of capacity utilization decreased from 72.5 percent in 2006 to 59.0 percent in 2008, a

decline of 13.5 percentage points, and was 14.6 percentage points lower in interim 2009, at 51.5 percent,

than in interim 2008, at 66.1 percent.144 

The domestic industry’s net sales decreased from 902.1 million pounds in 2006 to 652.1 million

pounds in 2008, a decline of 27.7 percent, and were 23.0 percent lower in interim 2009, at 278.6 million

pounds, than in interim 2008, at 361.9 million pounds.145 The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments of SRC

pipe and tube followed a similar trend, decreasing from 873.5 million pounds in 2006 to 620.9 million

pounds in 2008, a decrease of 28.9 percent, and were 23.5 percent lower in interim 2009, at 266.5 million

pounds, than in interim 2008, at 348.4 million pounds.146 The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S.

consumption decreased from 77.0 percent in 2006 to 71.5 percent in 2008, and was slightly higher in

interim 2009, at 72.0 percent, than in interim 2008, at 71.8 percent.147

Domestic industry employment declined 19.1 percent, from 3,913 workers in 2006 to 3,166

workers in 2008. Employment was 16.8 percent lower in interim 2009, at 2,730 workers, than in interim

2008, at 3,280 workers.148 

Domestic producers’ net sales value declined from $3.35 billion in 2006 to $2.79 billion in 2008,

a 16.9 percent decline. Net sales value was 53.1 percent lower in interim 2009, at $748.7 million, than in

interim 2008, at $1.60 billion.149 As previously discussed, as unit COGS increased from 2006 to 2008,

average sales values increased less rapidly due to price competition by the subject imports. As a result,

operating income exhibited a slow steady decline while the ratio of COGS to net sales rose. The domestic

industry’s operating income declined from $290.2 million, or 8.7 percent of sales, in 2006 to $171.4

million, or 6.1 percent of sales, in 2008. The disparity between changes in unit COGS and average sales

value continued in the interim period. Although unit COGS was $1.59 lower in interim 2009 than in

interim 2008, average sales value was $1.72 lower. The domestic industry’s operating

 142 CR/PR at Tables III-2, C-1.

 143 CR/PR at Tables III-2, C-1. We note that some domestic plants producing SRC pipe and tube closed during

the period examined. ***. CR/PR at Table III-3. Luvata Grenda, ***, shut down its SRC pipe and tube operations

that year. CR at III-4. National Copper closed its SRC pipe and tube plant in Dowagiac, Michigan, with a capacity

of *** pounds, in November 2008. Id. (Linderme Tube Co. closed a plant in September 2008, but its assets and

customers were acquired by S.T. Products). We intend in any final phase investigations to look further into any

plant closures during the period examined to determine the reason for those closures and to assure that we are not

attributing to subject imports capacity reductions that are attributable to other causes. 

 144 CR/PR at Table III-2, C-1.

 145 CR/PR at Tables VI-1, C-1.

 146 CR/PR at Tables III-5, C-1. Producers’ inventories declined on an absolute basis, but rose on a relative basis,

from 2006 to 2008. Inventories were lower on an absolute basis but higher on a relative basis in interim 2009 than in

interim 2008. CR/PR at Table III-6. 

 147 CR/PR at Tables IV-4-5, C-1.

 148 CR/PR at Table III-8. Hours worked declined from 8.0 million in 2006 to 6.6 million in 2008, and were 3.5

million in interim 2008 and 2.7 million in interim 2009. Id. Labor productivity in terms of pounds per hour declined

from 108.4 pounds in 2006 to 96.2 pounds in 2008, a decline of 11.3 percent. CR/PR at Tables III-8, C-1. 

Productivity was 3.4 percent lower in interim 2009, at 98.5 pounds, than in interim 2008, at 102.0 pounds. Id.

 149 CR/PR at Tables VI-1, C-1.

23
income was lower in interim 2009, at $22.0 million, or 2.9 percent of sales, than in interim 2008, at $84.1

million, or 5.3 percent of sales.150

The domestic industry’s capital expenditures increased from $30.7 million in 2006 to $***

million in 2008, a level *** percent higher than that in 2006. Its capital expenditures, however, were ***

percent lower in interim 2009, at $*** million, than in interim 2008, at $*** million.151 Its return on

investment declined from 22.0 percent in 2006 to 17.3 percent in 2008.152

For purposes of these preliminary phase investigations, we find that there is a causal nexus

between the subject imports and the deteriorating condition of the domestic industry. Subject imports

increased their market share in 2007 and 2008 at the expense of domestic producers. Subject imports

undersold the domestic like product and contributed to the price suppression experienced by domestic

producers over the period examined. Thus, we conclude that, for purposes of the preliminary phase of

these investigations, the subject imports have had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.

We have considered whether there are other factors that may have had an adverse impact on the

domestic industry during the period examined. We recognize that the significant decline in apparent U.S.

consumption over the period examined may have had a role in the domestic industry’s deteriorating

performance during the period examined.153 In any final phase of these investigations, we intend to

explore further the role that any changes in demand played in the performance of the domestic industry in

order to ensure that we do not attribute to subject imports the effects of any adverse demand conditions.154

We have also concluded that nonsubject imports do not break the causal link between subject

imports and the material injury suffered by the domestic industry. Unlike the subject imports, nonsubject

imports maintained a fairly constant market share over the period examined, at 7.9 percent in 2006, 7.4

percent in 2007, and 7.4 percent in 2008. The market share of nonsubject imports was 6.7 percent in

interim 2008 and 6.2 percent in interim 2009.155 Moreover, the limited information on the record

regarding prices for nonsubject imports indicate that nonsubject imports were priced higher than the

domestic like product in the majority of comparisons and therefore did not undersell the domestic like

product to the same extent as did subject imports, which undersold the domestic product in the majority

of comparisions.156 Thus, any material injury we have found from subject imports cannot be attributed to

nonsubject imports. 

Consequently, we conclude for purposes of these preliminary phase investigations that there is a

causal nexus between the subject imports and the adverse condition of the domestic industry, which

 150 CR/PR at Tables VI-1, C-1. 

 151 CR/PR at Tables VI-4, C-1. Research and development expenses increased from $735,000 in 2006 to $2.1

million in 2008, and were higher in interim 2009, at $1.1 million, than in interim 2008, at $924,000. CR/PR at Table

VI-4. 

 152 CR/PR at Tables VI-5, C-1.

 153 We note that, contrary to respondents’ claim, the volume of subject imports did not simply follow demand

trends. This is evidenced most notably by increased shipments of subject imports in 2007 and 2008 when apparent

U.S. consumption declined and by the increase in subject imports’ market share at the expense of the domestic

industry. See CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 154 Commissioner Pinkert finds it unlikely that SRC pipe and tube is a commodity product for Bratsk purposes. 

He points out in this regard that there are significant limitations on the interchangeability of plumbing and

commercial subject product. On the other hand, he finds it likely that nonsubject imports were a significant factor in

the U.S. market during the period – they held a market share of 7.9 percent in 2006 (which declined to 6.2 percent in

interim 2009). Because, based on the preliminary phase record, he finds that one of the triggering factors under

Bratsk is unlikely to have been satisfied, he does not consider whether nonsubject imports would have replaced the

subject imports without benefit to the domestic industry had the subject imports exited the market during the period.

 155 CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 156 CR/PR at Appendix E.

24
demonstrates a reasonable indication that the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of the

subject imports. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record in the preliminary phase of these

investigations, we find that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is

materially injured by reason of subject imports of SRC pipe and tube from China and Mexico that are

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

25

SEPARATE VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN SHARA L. ARANOFF, 

VICE CHAIRMAN DANIEL R. PEARSON, AND 

COMMISSIONER DEANNA TANNER OKUN 

Based on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find a reasonable

indication that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of

seamless refined copper (SRC) pipe and tube from China and Mexico that are allegedly sold in the United

States at less than fair value.1

I. SUMMARY

There is a reasonable indication that the domestic SRC pipe and tube industry is threatened with

material injury by reason of subject imports. The volume of subject imports increased both absolutely

and relatively during a period of declining demand. Since 2006, subject imports have captured a growing

share of the U.S. market at prices that consistently undersold domestic prices. Subject imports are likely

to continue to increase substantially relative to domestic consumption and production. 

Responding producers in China and Mexico have ample excess capacity and the Mexican

industry is adding considerable capacity. These producers are export oriented and, as their home market

shipments have declined, they have become increasingly reliant on export markets. Given that price is an

important factor in purchasing decisions and that SRC pipe and tube from China and Mexico is

substitutable with the domestic product, it is likely that future purchases in this somewhat depressed

market will be of subject copper pipe and tube. These factors indicate the likelihood of substantially

increased imports from China and Mexico unless orders are issued. 

II. CUMULATION

For purposes of determining if a threat of material injury exists, cumulation is discretionary. 

Under section 771(7)(H) of the Tariff Act, the Commission may “to the extent practicable” cumulatively

assess the volume and price effects of subject imports from all countries as to which petitions were filed

on the same day if the requirements for cumulation are satisfied.2

 In addition to considering the four

cumulation factors described above, the Commission has considered other factors such as the similarity of

the volume trends and pricing data of subject imports from countries under investigation.3

In reaching our decisions in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we adopt and concur

with the majority’s discussion of reasonable overlap of competition, although we will further investigate

differences in product mix and distribution channels, and reconsider the weight of any such differences in

any final phase of these investigations. 

Respondents IUSA and Nacional Cobre argue that subject imports from Mexico must be assessed

independently of those from China in a threat analysis. They argue that a reasonable overlap of

competition is lacking because of product mix differences and also note differences in volume trends. 

The volume of subject imports from Mexico declined between 2006 and 2008, while the volume of

 1 We join in and adopt as our own sections I.-VI.B. of the majority opinion. 

 2

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(H).

 3

 See Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F.Supp. at 1172 (affirming Commission’s determination not to

cumulate for purposes of threat analysis when pricing and volume trends among subject countries were not uniform

and import penetration was extremely low for most of the subject countries); Metallverken Nederland B.V. v. United

States, 728 F.Supp. 730, 741-42 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989); Associacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v.

United States, 704 F.Supp. 1068, 1072 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988). 

27
imports from China rose. The disparities, respondents argue, are even more pronounced if market share is

considered, as the market share of imports from Mexico remained stable over the POI while the market

share of subject imports from China rose.4

 

Having found a reasonable overlap of competition, we consider other factors. The volume of

subject imports from Mexico declined between 2006 and 2008, by 10.6 percent, while the volume of

subject imports from China increased by 22.0 percent. In market share terms, subject imports from

Mexico were not stable, as argued by respondents, but increased somewhat from 7.0 percent in 2006 to

8.2 percent in 2008. Market share of subject imports from China also increased, though more

significantly, from 8.0 percent in 2006 to 12.8 percent in 2008. Even though the total volume of subject

imports from Mexico declined between 2006 and 2008, the decline in volume was less significant than

the overall decline in apparent U.S. consumption, and market share rose as a result. Available

information on the interim period suggests greater convergence in the response of subject imports. The

volume of subject imports from Mexico in interim 2009 was 21.9 percent lower than the volume reported

in interim 2008. For subject imports from China, import volume for interim 2009 was 23.4 percent lower

than the volume entering in interim 2008. 5

Turning to pricing data, we note that imports from Mexico undersold the domestic like product

somewhat more frequently than did subject imports from China. Subject imports from Mexico undersold

the domestic like product in 31 of 39 quarterly comparisons, or 79.5 percent, while subject imports from

China undersold in 27 of 41 instances, or 65.9 percent.6

 

The industry in Mexico is significantly smaller than the industry in China, but the industry in

Mexico is expected to undergo significant expansion in the very near future, while respondents in China

report that capacity will contract. Both industries rely on export markets to absorb a significant share of

shipments. The industry in Mexico is closely intertwined with both the U.S. industry and that in China. 

All of the reported capacity expansions will be undertaken by producers with related parties in the U.S.

(Luvata, IUSA, Wolverine) or in China (Golden Dragon).7

Based on the record gathered in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find sufficient

evidence to justify considering the impact of subject imports cumulatively in our threat analysis. 

However, as with our finding that the record indicates a reasonable overlap of competition, we will

investigate and reconsider these matters in any final phase.

III. REASONABLE INDICATION OF THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF

SUBJECT IMPORTS

Section 771(7)(F) of the Tariff Act directs the Commission to determine whether the U.S.

industry is threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing whether “further

dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would

occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted.”8

 The Commission may not make

 4 IUSA postconference brief at 37-43. 

 5

 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 6

 Price data tables V-1 to V-4 excluding domestic shipments for Wolverine provided by staff on November 12,

2009.

 7

 Vice Chairman Pearson does not exclude Wolverine from the domestic industry. He has reached his

conclusions by relying on volume data as represented in Table C-1 of the staff report and pricing data as shown in

Tables V-1-V-5. CR/PR at Tables V-1-V-5 and C-1. Including Wolverine in the domestic industry does not affect

subject import market share or volume trends but somewhat affects the incidence of underselling. Trends and their

magnitude are very similar regardless of whether Wolverine is included or excluded and Vice Chairman Pearson

joins in the conclusions drawn here.

 8

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

28
such a determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition,” and considers the threat factors “as

a whole” in making its determination whether dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether

material injury by reason of subject imports would occur unless an order is issued.9

 In making our

determination, we consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to these investigations.10

A. Likely Volume of the Subject Imports

We consider the likely future volume of subject imports both in absolute terms and relative to

domestic consumption and production. For the reasons stated below, we find that, although the absolute

volume of subject imports may not increase over current levels, subject imports are likely to continue to

increase substantially relative to domestic consumption and production.

Our analysis begins with the trends observed over the period of investigation. In absolute terms,

the volume of subject imports increased from 170.930 million pounds in 2006 to 182.453 million pounds

in 2008, an increase of 6.7 percent. In interim 2009, subject import volume was 80.728 million pounds,

22.8 percent below interim 2008, when cumulated subject import volume was 104.549 million pounds.11

The increase in absolute import volume between 2006 and 2008 occurred at a time when apparent

U.S. consumption was dropping significantly. As we have noted, demand for SRC is closely tied to new

construction and to spending on the repair or replacement of plumbing, heating/ventilation/air

conditioning or refrigeration equipment. The period of investigation was marked by significant

 9 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 10 These factors are as follows:

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be presented to it by the administering

authority as to the nature of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a subsidy

described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement) and whether imports of the subject merchandise

are likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the

exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional

exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise

indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) 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,

* * *

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability that there is likely to be material

injury by reason of imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually

being imported at the time).

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i). To organize our analysis, we discuss the applicable statutory threat factors using the

same volume/price/impact framework that applies to our material injury analysis. Statutory threat factors (II), (III),

(V), and (VI) are discussed in the analysis of subject import volume. Statutory threat factor (IV) is discussed in the

price effects analysis, and statutory threat factor (IX) is discussed in the impact analysis. Statutory threat factor

(VII) is inapplicable, as no imports of agricultural products are involved in these investigations. No party has argued

that the domestic industry is currently engaging or will imminently engage in any efforts to develop a derivative or

more advanced version of the domestic like product, which would implicate statutory threat factor (VIII).

 11 CR/PR at Table C-2.

29
contractions in demand for new construction, and the ensuing general recession has further weakened

demand for the product. Apparent U.S. consumption in 2008 was 23.5 percent below the 2006 level. 

Apparent U.S. consumption in the interim 2009 period was 370.226 million pounds, 23.7 percent lower

than the interim 2008 level.12 

The combination of rising absolute import volumes and declining total apparent U.S.

consumption translated into market share gains for the cumulated subject imports. In 2006, subject

imports accounted for 15.1 percent of apparent U.S. consumption. By 2008, subject imports accounted

for 21.0 percent of apparent U.S. consumption.13 14

The increased volume of subject imports contributed to a sharp increase in inventories held by

importers. The volume of end-of-period inventories of subject imports rose from *** million pounds in

2006, equivalent to *** percent of U.S. shipments of imports, to *** million pounds, or *** percent of

shipments. By the end of interim 2009, importer inventories of subject imports were *** million pounds,

or *** percent of shipments. Inventories at the end of the POI were *** percent higher than at the end of

2006, despite persistent and significant declines in apparent U.S. consumption.15 Furthermore, importers

report over *** of subject imports planned for delivery to the U.S. market after June 30, 2009.16

Respondents have argued that this increase in volume was not significant because the decline in

shipments mirrored the decline in apparent U.S. consumption,17 because subject imports just replaced

nonsubject imports,18 and because subject imports supply different markets.19 The decline in subject

imports did not mirror the decline in overall demand for most of the period of investigation, as the

absolute volume of subject imports rose from 2006 to 2008 as apparent U.S. consumption declined by

more than 20 percent. The absolute decline in nonsubject import volume somewhat exceeded the increase

in absolute subject import volume, but nonsubject imports’ market share was little changed over the

period of investigation.20 

Based on the preliminary record, and without purchaser questionnaire responses, it is difficult to

evaluate respondents’ arguments regarding differences in product mix, channels of distribution, and

quality. The record suggests that subject imports are concentrated in somewhat different portions of the

market.21 But the record also suggests that the domestic industry participates actively in both segments of

the market, shipping significant volumes into all channels of distribution.22 Imports from China include

some plumbing products and imports from Mexico include commercial products.23 A production

 12 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 13 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 14 Vice Chairman Pearson does not exclude Wolverine from the domestic industry. He has reached his

conclusions by relying on volume data as represented in Table C-1 of the staff report. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

Including Wolverine in the domestic industry increases the domestic industry’s market share but does not affect the

market share or volume of subject imports. With Wolverine included in the domestic industry, the domestic

industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption declined from 77.0 percent in 2006 to 71.5 percent in 2008, as the

share of consumption held by subject imports rose from 15.1 percent to 21.0 percent. Id. Vice Chairman Pearson

otherwise joins in the conclusions drawn here.

 15 CR/PR at Table VII-5.

 16 CR at VII-11, PR at VII-7.

 17 Dayco postconference brief at 15-18.

 18 Dayco postconference brief at 18-19, Shanghai Hailiang postconference brief at 15-16.

 19 Shanghai Hailiang postconference brief at 11-12.

 20 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 21 We note that the record indicates that one of the planned new mills in Mexico will produce commercial SRC

pipe and tube, suggesting that product mix concentrations may be more similar in the imminent future. CR at VII-8,

PR at VII-5.

 22 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 23 CR/PR at Table II-1.

30
line currently under construction in Mexico will increase the capacity for producing commercial products;

the closure of another facility in Mexico is projected to increase production in the United States.24 The

record also suggests that market participants find subject imports and the domestic like product to be good

substitutes. We intend to pursue all of these issues in any final phase of these investigations. However,

the record in this preliminary phase suggests that the increased market presence of subject imports was

significant.

In addition to examining the past trends, we have analyzed the likely future volume of subject

imports in the context of demand for SRC pipe and tube in the U.S. market in the imminent future. As

noted, apparent U.S. consumption declined throughout the POI. The decline appeared to continue, and

perhaps sharpen, in the latter part of the period. Nothing on the record indicates that demand will recover

in the imminent future, and the record also indicates that the SRC pipe and tube market, regardless of

demand level, will continue to face pressure from increasingly attractive substitute products.

We have considered the likely volume of cumulated subject imports. The SRC pipe and tube

industries in China and Mexico have a large combined capacity of over one billion pounds.25 The

industry in Mexico is expanding, with new plants and additions to capacity at existing facilities. Two of

these projects are being carried out by companies that currently produce SRC pipe and tube in China,

Golden Dragon and Luvata Tube (Zhongshan) Ltd.26 Because of their relatively low rates of capacity

utilization, subject producers have ample excess capacity.27 Producers in China and Mexico are highly

export-oriented and, as their home market shipments have declined, their exports to the U.S. market have

become an increasingly important segment of their shipments. In addition, responding producers’

inventories are significant relative to total shipments to the United States.28

The Commission received questionnaire responses from 10 SRC pipe and tube producers in

China, estimated to account for virtually all exports to the United States in 2008 but only about 40 percent

of the estimated 1.7 billion pounds of production.29 Responding producers increased capacity moderately

between 2006 and 2008 but report declining capacity for 2009 and 2010. Responding producers saw

production decline over the POI, but capacity utilization declined even faster, falling from 78.0 percent in

2006 to 66.9 percent in 2008 and was only 56.2 percent in interim 2009. Responding producers project

significant improvements in capacity utilization in 2009 and 2010, but the improvements will be achieved

primarily through reducing capacity.30 

Respondents have argued that volume from China is unlikely to be significant in the imminent

future because ***31 and that the industry in China is focused mainly on the domestic market.32 As we

have noted, the absolute volume of imports to the United States from China increased from 2006 to 2008,

and market share rose or held steady throughout the period of investigation. The record indicates that,

although the market for SRC pipe and tube in China might be growing, shipments by responding

producers to the home market did not rise, either absolutely or relatively. Shipments to the Chinese home

market by responding producers fell from 456.964 million pounds, or 61.1 percent of shipments, in

 24 CR at VII-8, PR at VII-5. 

 25 CR/PR at Tables VII-1 and VII-3.

 26 CR at VII-3-VII-4 and VII-8, PR at VII-2-3 and VII-5.

 27 Responding producers in China and Mexico reported capacity utilization rates of 66.9 and *** percent in 2008

and of 56.2 and *** percent, respectively, in the first half of 2006. CR/PR at Tables VII-1 and VII-3.

 28 In 2008, cumulated end-of-period inventories were *** percent of reported exports to the United States. By

January-June 2009, cumulated end-of-period inventories were *** percent of reported exports to the United States. 

CR/PR at Tables VII-1 and VII-3.

 29 CR/PR at VII-3 and Table VII-1. 

 30 CR/PR at Table VII-1.

 31 Golden Dragon postconference brief at 36-38.

 32 Shanghai Hailiang postconference brief at 25-28.

31
2006, to 369.469 million, or 52.1 percent, in 2008. In interim 2009, shipments to the domestic market

were just 45.4 percent of shipments. Exports, on the other hand, rose from 37.0 percent of shipments in

2006 to 45.9 percent in 2008. Exports to all markets, including the U.S. market, accounted for 51.5

percent of all Chinese shipments in interim 2009. As exports became more important to the Chinese

producers, the U.S. market became more important as well. Shipments to the U.S. market rose from 11.1

percent of all shipments in 2006 to 15.3 percent in 2008; shipments to the U.S. market were 17.3 percent

of all shipments in interim 2009. The record does not suggest that these persistent trends of increased

export reliance by Chinese producers, in particular reliance on exports to the U.S. market, and declining

home-market shipments would change in the imminent future.

Responding Chinese producers report planned reductions in capacity.33 These reported

reductions are difficult to understand if the domestic market in China is as strong and growing as reported

by respondents. However, even with these reported reductions in capacity, the industry will have

upwards of 200 million pounds of unused capacity in the immediate future, and the increased reliance on

exports suggest that a significant portion of any additional production would be directed to export

markets in general and to the U.S. market in particular.34

The Commission received questionnaire responses from four producers in Mexico, estimated to

account for *** percent of exports to the U.S. market over the period of investigation. Responding

Mexican producers reported a negligible increase in capacity between 2006 and 2008, but significant

capacity increases are planned for the imminent future. Production capacity in 2010 is forecast at ***, a

*** percent increase over 2008 capacity. Production in 2010 is projected at ***, a significant increase

over 2008 and projected 2009 levels, but even this increase will leave significant unused capacity. 

Capacity utilization for 2010 is estimated at *** percent, down from *** percent in 2006 and *** percent

in 2008. Based on these projections, the industry in Mexico will have *** of unused capacity in 2009 and

*** of unused capacity in 2010.35

Capacity in Mexico is slated to increase significantly, but questionnaire data do not suggest these

increases are being spurred by rising home market demand.36 Shipments to the Mexican home market

declined both absolutely and relatively between 2006 and 2008, falling from *** and *** percent of

shipments in 2006 to *** and *** percent in 2008. At the same time the importance of the export market

rose. Total exports were *** percent of shipments in 2006 and *** percent of shipments in 2008. The

U.S. market was easily the most important export market for Mexican producers, accounting for ***

percent of all shipments and *** percent of all exports in 2006, rising to *** percent of all shipments and

*** percent of all exports in 2008. The U.S. market remained the leading export market for Mexican

SRC pipe and tube late in the POI, and respondents’ own projections forecast 2010 shipments to the U.S.

market as exceeding shipment volume in any other year of the POI.37

Respondents have argued that subject imports from Mexico are not likely to be significant in the

imminent future because import volume declined between 2006 and 2008; because IUSA’s production

has been shifted to the U.S. market; and although three new mills are slated to open in 2010, none of these

new mills will compete for “major” U.S. contracts. Luvata’s new mill is intended to replace its

 33 We note that *** producers in China report capacity expansions for 2010. ***. CR at VII-5, PR at VII-3.

 34 CR/PR at Table VII-1.

 35 CR/PR at Table VII-3.

 36 The industry in Mexico is dominated by producers related to producers in other major markets. GD Affiliates

is related to Golden Dragon, a producer in China; IUSA is related to Cambridge-Lee, a U.S. producer; and Luvata

Monterrey is related to an SRC pipe and tube producer in China as well as a U.S. producer of non-subject welded

copper pipe.

 37 CR/PR at Table VII-3.

32
U.S. production of welded pipe and Golden Dragon’s new facility is intended to reduce the volume of its

exports from China to the U.S.38

Exports to the U.S. market declined between 2006 and 2008, but the decline in apparent U.S.

consumption was steeper, and the share of the U.S. market held by subject imports from Mexico rose,

rather than remaining stable, over the POI. Golden Dragon’s shifting of production to Mexico to replace

its China exports does not suggest that the volume of exports from Mexico would decline in the imminent

future, just as Luvata’s shifting from U.S. non-subject production to Mexican production of subject

material also does not suggest a decline in exports. 

We will explore these issues, including the reported shift of IUSA production to a U.S. facility,

the potential for exports shifting from China to Mexico, and the importance of any product mix

differences, in any final phase of these investigations. Available record data, however suggest that the

U.S. market is an extremely important market for producers in Mexico, that it will continue to be so, and

that producers in Mexico will have significant additional production capacity to fill in the near future. 

For the foregoing reasons, we find, for purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations,

that the volume of cumulated subject imports is likely to be significant within the imminent future,

particularly when considered relative to consumption and production in the United States.

B. Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports

In assessing the likely price effects of subject imports, we consider pricing developments during

the period examined and likely developments in the imminent future in light of key conditions of

competition in the U.S. market. The record indicates that there is at least a fair degree of substitutability

between domestically produced SRC pipe and tube and subject imports. In particular, plumbing SRC

pipe and tube is produced to industry-wide standards. A majority of both domestic producers and

importers reported the domestic like product as being always or frequently interchangeable with subject

imports from both China and Mexico, and a majority of responding domestic producers and importers

also reported subject imports from China and Mexico as being always or frequently interchangeable,

despite alleged product mix differences.39

The Commission collected quarterly pricing data for four SRC pipe and tube products. These

products covered a relatively modest share of the domestic like product and imports from Mexico but a

substantial majority of imports from China.40 Prices for all four products remained fairly stable or rose

earlier in the POI, despite falling demand, but dropped off in 2008 and beyond. Prices for sales of

domestically produced product 1 peaked in the third quarter of 2006, but were still close to that peak in

2007 and 2008; in 2009, however, prices for the domestic like product had fallen below early 2006 levels. 

A similar pattern was seen in product 2 sales. Prices peaked in 2008 for products 3 and 4 but then fell off

sharply.41

 38 IUSA postconference brief at 3, 49-50.

 39 CR/PR at Table II-2.

 40 CR at V-4, PR at V-3 and price data tables V-1 to V-4 excluding domestic shipments for Wolverine provided

by staff on November 12, 2009.

 41 Price data tables V-1 to V-4 excluding domestic shipments for Wolverine provided by staff on November 12,

2009.

33
Underselling by subject imports was consistent. Subject imports undersold the domestic like

product in 58 of 80 quarterly comparisons.42 43

The domestic industry provided lost sales allegations involving $155 million and 44 million

pounds, along with lost revenue allegations totaling $1 million and 17 million pounds of pipe.44

Purchaser responses to these allegations were mixed. At least ***. Purchasers were mixed in their

recollection as to whether domestic producers lowered prices in response to import prices, as well as

regarding complaints about domestic industry quality, availability, and product mix.45

We are mindful of product differences in the market, that the two types of SRC pipe and tube are

sold to different customers under different pricing methods, and that raw material prices do not play

precisely the same role in these pricing schemes. We are also mindful that the SRC pipe and tube market

will face pressure both from declining demand and increasingly competitive substitute products. We

intend to seek additional information on all these factors in any final phase of these investigations. 

Nonetheless, based on the record as whole, we find that subject imports are entering at prices

likely to have significant adverse effects on U.S. prices and at prices likely to increase demand for subject

imports relative to domestic consumption and production. All respondents agree that SRC pipe and tube

from all three sources are at least frequently interchangeable for each other. Underselling by subject

imports was common throughout the POI, and subject import volume increased both absolutely and

relatively during a period of declining demand. The domestic industry was relatively successful in

maintaining prices during the POI despite declining demand and high, volatile copper prices. It was only

later in the period, as subject imports continued to gain market share in a declining market, that prices

began to weaken. Apparent U.S. consumption is likely to continue to decline, or at best to remain at

current depressed levels. With fewer sales available in the market in the imminent future, the significant

volume of subject imports at low prices is likely to place downward pressure on domestic prices. 

Accordingly, we find adverse price effects to be likely in the imminent future, given the likely significant

volume of subject imports. 

C. Likely Impact of the Subject Imports

Apparent U.S. consumption of SRC pipe and tube declined throughout the period of

investigation. Apparent U.S. consumption was 1.000 billion pounds in 2007, down 11.8 percent from

2006. In 2008, apparent consumption declined another 13.3 percent, to 867.776 million pounds. The

declines seen from 2006 to 2008 continued and apparently accelerated late in the POI. Apparent U.S.

consumption in interim 2009 was 370.226 million pounds, compared to 485.415 million pounds in

interim 2008.46 Given that SRC pipe and tube demand is closely tied to construction and to repair or

upgrading of existing structures, the weakness seen in the POI is not surprising. Nor is the market likely

to rebound in the imminent future.

 42 Price data tables V-1 to V-4 excluding domestic shipments for Wolverine provided by staff on November 12,

2009.

 43 Vice Chairman Pearson does not exclude Wolverine from the domestic industry. He has reached his

conclusions by relying on pricing data as shown in Tables V-1-V-6. CR/PR at Tables V-1-V-6. Including

Wolverine in the domestic industry somewhat affects the incidence of underselling. Trends and their magnitude are

very similar regardless of whether Wolverine is included or excluded and Vice Chairman Pearson joins in the

conclusions drawn here.

 44 CR at V-14, PR at V-7.

 45 CR at V-14-V-26 and Tables V-7 and V-8; PR at V-7-V-11 and Tables V-7 and V-8.

 46 CR/PR at Table C-2.

34
Shipments of SRC pipe and tube by the domestic industry declined throughout the POI as well. 

Domestic shipments in 2007 were 641.821 million pounds, down 12.5 percent from 2006. Shipments in

2008 were 567.414 million pounds, down 11.6 percent from the preceding year.47 

In light of these persistent declines in domestic shipments, it is not surprising to see similar

declines in many of the industry’s indicators. Capacity was unchanged between 2006 and 2008. 

Production declined by 20.5 percent, and capacity utilization slipped from 72.9 percent in 2006 to 57.9

percent in 2008. Inventories declined absolutely, but rose from 6.9 percent of shipments in 2006 to 7.9

percent in 2008. The number of production workers declined by 12.9 percent between 2006 and 2008

and the number of hours worked declined by 10.7 percent. Net sales value declined by 10.0 percent

between 2006 and 2008, and operating income declined by 38.9 percent.48 Several production or

production-related facilities closed, and two producers, National and Linderme, closed.49

The industry had to cope with rising costs as well. Between 2006 and 2008, the unit cost of

goods sold increased by 18.2 percent.50 Cost increases were driven almost entirely by increases in the

cost of copper. The COMEX price of copper rose from just over $2.00 in early 2006 to a peak of nearly

$4.00 in 2008, and the industry’s per-unit raw material cost rose by *** percent between 2006 and 2008.51

A combination of declining demand and rising raw material costs would suggest poor financial

performance, but the SRC pipe and tube industry’s performance was relatively strong between 2006 and

2008. Operating income as a percentage of sales was 9.9 percent in 2006, 7.9 in 2007, and 6.7 percent in

2008. This represents a fairly steady erosion, but modest compared to the significant decline in apparent

U.S. consumption or domestic shipments. The industry was also able to undertake significant capital

expenditures. Indeed, capital expenditures in 2008 were 42.3 percent higher than in 2006.52 ***.53 The

industry’s return on investment declined between 2006 and 2008 but remained high throughout.54 Taken

as a whole, the industry’s financial performance during 2006-2008 suggests that it is reasonably wellpositioned to absorb significant fluctuations in both demand and raw materials costs.55 

However, the record also indicates that subject import volume continued to increase relative to

declining consumption and production throughout the period of investigation, and while the domestic

industry retained a majority of the market, it lost market share to subject imports after 2007. Prices for

SRC pipe and tube weakened in the latter portion of the POI as subject imports increased both absolutely

and relatively. By the end of the POI, the domestic industry was still earning an operating profit, but it

was significantly lower than it had been as recently as 2008.56 The deterioration in the industry’s

performance late in the period of investigation suggests that the adverse effects of increases in subject

import volume and adverse effects from import pricing had begun to affect the domestic industry.

 47 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 48 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 49 CR at III-4 and Table III-3, PR at III-3 and Table III-3.

 50 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 51 CR/PR at V-1 and Table VI-1A. 

 52 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 53 CR at VI-3, PR at VI-1.

 54 Email from Elizabeth Haines, 11/20/2009.

 55 Vice Chairman Pearson does not exclude Wolverine from the domestic industry. He has reached his

conclusions by relying on industry performance data as represented in Tables VI-1-VI-5 and C-1 of the staff report. 

CR/PR at Tables VI-1-VI-5 and C-1. Including Wolverine in the domestic industry shows the industry as

experiencing ***. Trends and their magnitude are very similar regardless of whether Wolverine is included or

excluded and Vice Chairman Pearson joins in the conclusions drawn here.

 56 CR/PR at Table C-2.

35
Nothing in the record suggests that these conditions will improve in the imminent future. As

noted above, producers in China and Mexico have significant unused capacity, declining shipments to

home markets, and increasing reliance on exports, particularly to the U.S. market. Capacity in Mexico is

expected to rise, and unused capacity in China is significant relative to the declining U.S. market. Subject

imports undersold the domestic like product throughout the period of investigation, and the record does

not indicate changes in pricing or underselling in the imminent future. 

We have considered whether there are other factors, including declining demand and nonsubject

imports, that will likely have an imminent impact on the domestic industry. As discussed above, the

record during the period of investigation suggests that the domestic industry has positioned itself to

absorb significant fluctuations in demand. In addition, nonsubject imports have held a relatively constant

market share. In any final phase of these investigations, we intend to explore further the role that

nonsubject imports and any changes in demand play in the performance of the domestic industry in order

to ensure that we do not attribute to subject imports the effects of any other adverse factors.

Therefore, we conclude, for purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, that there

is a likely causal nexus between the subject imports and an imminent adverse impact on the domestic

industry, which demonstrates a reasonable indication that the domestic industry is threatened with

material injury by reason of subject imports.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, and based on the record in the preliminary phase of these

investigations, we find that there is a reasonable indication that the domestic industry producing SRC pipe

and tube is threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from China and Mexico that are

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

36
PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from a petition filed on September 30, 2009, with the U.S. Department

of Commerce (“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”)

by Cerro Flow Products, Inc. (“Cerro”) St. Louis, MO; Kobe Wieland Copper Products, LLC (“Kobe

Wieland”), Pine Hall, NC; Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc. and Mueller Copper Tube Company, Inc.

(“Mueller”), Memphis, TN. The petition alleges that an industry in the United States is materially injured

and threatened with material injury by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of seamless

refined copper pipe and tube (“SRC pipe and tube”)1

 from China and Mexico. Information relating to the

background of the investigations is provided below.2

Effective date Action

September 30, 2009 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission

investigations (74 FR 51318, October 6, 2009)

October 21, 2009 Commission’s conference1

October 27, 2009 Commerce’s notice of initiation of antidumping duty investigations (74 FR 55194) 

November 13, 2009 Commission’s vote

November 16, 2009 Commission determinations transmitted to Commerce

November 23, 2009 Commission views transmitted to Commerce

 1 A list of witnesses appearing at the conference is presented in app. B.

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in

making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission--

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II)

the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States

for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only

in the context of production operations within the United States; and. . .

may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of

imports.

 1 See the section entitled “The Subject Merchandise” in Part I of this report for a complete description of the

merchandise subject to these investigations.

 2 Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation are presented in appendix A.

I-1
Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that--

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission

shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any

increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production

or consumption in the United States is significant.

. . .

In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the

Commission shall consider whether . . . (I) there has been significant

price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the

price of domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of

imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph

(B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to

. . . 

(I) actual and potential declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (II)

factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative

effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to

raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects

on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping

investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping.

Organization of the Report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, alleged dumping margins,

and domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of competition and

other relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the U.S. industry,

including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Part IV presents the

volume of imports of the subject merchandise. Part V presents the pricing of U.S.-produced and

imported subject products. Part VI presents information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. 

Part VII presents the statutory requirements and information obtained for use in the Commission’s

consideration of the question of threat of material injury, as well as information regarding nonsubject

countries.

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

SRC pipe and tube generally involve fluids under pressure, either for conveyance or closed-loop

thermal transfer applications. The leading U.S. producers of SRC pipe and tube are Mueller and Cerro,

while leading producers of SRC pipe and tube outside the United States include Golden Dragon Precise

Copper Tube (“Golden Dragon”) and Shanghai Hailiang Copper (“Hailiang”) of China and IUSA and

I-2
Nacional de Cobre of Mexico. The leading U.S. importer of SRC pipe and tube from China is Wolverine

Tube Inc. (“Wolverine”), while the leading importer of SRC pipe and tube from Mexico is CambridgeLee Industries (“Cambridge-Lee”). Leading importers of SRC pipe and tube from nonsubject countries

include CMC and Nordyne. 

Apparent U.S. consumption of SRC pipe and tube totaled approximately 868 million pounds

($3.6 billion) in 2008. Currently, 12 firms are known to produce SRC pipe and tube in the United States. 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of SRC pipe and tube totaled 621 million pounds ($2.6 billion) in 2008,

and accounted for 71.5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 72.5 percent by value. U.S. 

imports from subject sources totaled 182 million pounds ($728 million) in 2008 and accounted for

21.0 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 20.1 percent by value. U.S. imports from

nonsubject sources totaled 64 million pounds ($268 million) in 2008 and accounted for 7.4 percent of

apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 7.4 percent by value.

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in the investigations is presented in appendix C, table C-1. Except

as noted, U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of 12 firms that accounted for 95

percent of U.S. production of SRC pipe and tube during 2008. U.S. imports from China and Mexico are

based on official import statistics of Commerce. Data regarding the Chinese industry are based on ten

foreign producer questionnaire responses, data regarding the Mexican industry are based on four foreign

producer questionnaire responses, while information with respect to other foreign industries is drawn

from questionnaire responses and public sources.

PREVIOUS AND RELATED TITLE VII INVESTIGATIONS

SRC pipe and tube has not been the subject of any prior countervailing or antidumping duty

investigations in the United States.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF ALLEGED SALES AT LTFV

Alleged Sales at LTFV

On October 27, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its

antidumping duty investigations on SRC pipe and tube from China3

 and Mexico.4 Commerce has

initiated antidumping duty investigations based on estimated dumping margins of 60.5 percent for SRC

pipe and tube from China and 76.5 percent to 85.7 percent for SRC pipe and tube from Mexico.

 3 Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the People’s Republic of China and Mexico: Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 74 FR 55194, October 27, 2009.

 4

 Ibid.

I-3
THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the imported merchandise subject to these investigations as:

Seamless circular refined copper pipes and tubes, including redraw hollows, greater than or equal

to 6 inches (152.4 mm) in length and measuring less than 12.130 inches (308.102 mm) (actual) in

outside diameter (“OD”), regardless of wall thickness, bore (e.g., smooth, enhanced with innergrooves or ridges), manufacturing process (e.g., hot finished, cold-drawn, annealed), outer surface

(e.g., plain or enhanced with grooves, ridges, fins, or gills), end finish (e.g., plain end, swaged

end, flared end, expanded end, crimped end, threaded), coating (e.g., plastic, paint), insulation,

attachments (e.g., plain, capped, plugged, with compression or other fitting), or physical

configuration (e.g., straight, coiled bent, wound on spools). The scope covers, but is not limited

to, seamless refined copper pipe and tube produced or comparable to the American Society for

Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) ASTM-B42, ASTM-B68, ASTM-B75, ASTM-B88, ASTMB88M, ASTM-B188, ASTM-B251, ASTM-B251M, ASTM-B280, ASTM-B302, ASTM-B306,

ASTM-B359, ASTM-B743, ASTM-B819, and ASTM-B903 specifications and meeting the

physical parameters described therein. Also included within the scope of these investigations are

all sets of covered products, including “line sets” of seamless refined copper tubes (with or

without fittings or insulation) suitable for connecting an outdoor air conditioner or heat pump to

an indoor evaporator unit. The phrase “all sets of covered products” denotes any combination of

items put up for sale that is comprised of merchandise subject to the scope. “Refined copper” is

defined as: (1) metal containing at least 99.85 percent by weight of copper; or (2) metal

containing at least 97.5 percent by weight of copper, provided that the content by weight of any

other element does not exceed the following limits 

ELEMENT LIMITING CONTENT PERCENT BY WEIGHT

Ag - Silver 0.25

As - Arsenic 0.5

Cd - Cadmium 1.3

Cr - Chromium 1.4

Mg - Magnesium 0.8

Pb - Lead 1.5

S - Sulfur 0.7

Sn - Tin 0.8

Te - Tellurium 0.8

Zn - Zinc 1.0

Zr - Zirconium 0.3

Other elements (each) 0.3

Excluded from the scope of these investigations are all seamless circular hollows of refined

copper less than 12 inches in length whose OD (actual) exceeds its length. The products subject

to these investigations are currently classifiable under subheadings 7411.10.1030 and

7411.10.1090, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). Products subject

I-4
to these investigations may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050,

8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085.5

 

Tariff Treatment

SRC pipe and tube is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS) under statistical reporting numbers 7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090. SRC pipe and tube may

also enter under HTS statistical reporting numbers 7407.10.1500 (refined copper hollow profiles),

7419.99.5050 (which also contains various other products of refined copper and copper alloys),

8415.90.8065 (which also contains parts other than SRC pipe and tube, for heat pumps), and

8415.90.8085 (which also contains parts other than SRC pipe and tube, including those of other air

conditioning machinery). Current tariff rates for SRC pipe and tube are presented in appendix D. 

Imports of SRC pipe and tube from countries that qualify for normal trade relations (including China)

enter the United States at general duty rates of 1.5 percent under HTS subheading 7411.10.10, 3.0 percent

under HTS subheading 7407.10.15, or 1.4 percent under HTS subheading 8415.90.80; whereas such

imports under HTS subheading 7419.99.50 enter the United States free of duty. Imports of SRC pipe and

tube from Mexico are eligible to enter the United States under these HTS subheadings at the “free”

special-duty rate, as Mexico is a signatory of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

THE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

SRC pipe and tube are fabricated products6

 of high-purity copper,7 distinguished by a circular

cross section of varying nominal sizes (typically 0.04"–12")8

 and wall thicknesses.9 The inner and outer

tubing surfaces are either smooth or enhanced (e.g., with grooves, ridges, fins, or grills).10 Depending

upon the requirements of industry standards or customers' specifications, additional characteristics can

include: outer surface coatings (e.g., paint, plastics, other materials) for corrosion protection or

insulation; marking with paint or plastic color coding for product identification; cleaning, pressurizing

with nitrogen gas, and capping of each end to assure interior cleanliness; end finishes (e.g., plain, swaged,

flared, expanded, crimped, or threaded); and attachments (e.g., plain, capped, or plugged).11 SRC pipe

and tube is available in straight lengths, bent to shape, coiled without spools (“pancake coils”),

 5 Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the People’s Republic of China and Mexico: Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 74 FR 55194, October 27, 2009.

 6

 SRC pipe and tube producers distinguish between “tubes” with smooth ends and joined together by soldering or

brazing, versus “pipes” that are threaded. Almost all products considered in these investigations are tubes rather

than pipes. Conference transcript, p. 63 (Hansen).

 7

 “Refined copper” contains either (1) at least 99.85 percent by weight of copper or (2) at least 97.5 percent by

weight of copper with the content of other elements not exceeding specific percentage weight limits listed in Note

1(a) to Chapter 74 Copper and Related Articles, HTS (2009 Rev. 1), XV 74-1. Amendments to petition (October 13,

2009), exhibit D.

 8

 Capillary tube is available with actual outside diameters (“ODs”) less than 0.04". The nominal size of 12" is

equivalent to an OD of 12.130" (the upper with limit in the petition scope), or more specifically an actual OD of

12.125" with a tolerance of ± 0.005". Counsel for petitioners, e-mail correspondence with Commission staff,

November 3, 2009; and amendments to petition (October 16, 2009), exhibit 51.

 9

 Petition, p. 12.

 10 Petition, p. 10.

 11 Petition, pp. 10, and 12-13.

I-5
or coiled onto spools.12 “Line sets” consist of two different sizes of SRC pipe and tube, a smallerdiameter liquid line (commonly with end finishes) and a larger-diameter suction line (commonly

insulated), usually to connect outdoor air conditioners and heat pumps with indoor evaporator units.13

End-use applications for SRC pipe and tube take advantage of copper’s strength, malleability and

ductility (i.e., readily bent or formed), thermal conductivity, resistance to corrosion and fouling, and

chemical (e.g., lead-free) purity.14 SRC pipe and tube applications generally involve fluids under

pressure, either for conveyance or closed-loop thermal transfer. Conveyance applications include

residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, and municipal water systems, as well as distribution

systems for other liquids and gasses. Thermal transfer applications include residential, commercial,

institutional, and industrial heating systems; commercial refrigeration systems (e.g., refrigerated display

cases for frozen food in grocery stores); and combined or split-unit air-conditioning systems.15

“Plumbing” (or “standard”) tubing is commonly produced to various standards of the American

Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”). The ASTM designations specify the chemical composition,

outside diameter, wall thickness, strength, hardness, cleanliness, roundness, marking, and other

requirements for SRC pipe and tube, based on end-use applications.16

“Commercial” (or “industrial”) tubing is produced to either industry standard (e.g., ASTM)

specifications or customer (including original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”)) nonstandard

specifications, including any surface enhancements (e.g., grooves, ridges, fins, or grills) designed to

enhance thermal transfer capabilities. Common applications for commercial SRC pipe and tube include

refrigeration and heating units; split-system central, room and window, central, and vehicle air

conditioners; and chillers and freezers.17

Applicable ASTM designations for SRC pipe and tube and specific end-use applications are listed

in table I-1. Common pipe and tube designations, relevant ASTM standards, and end-use applications are

presented in table I-2.

 12 Petition, pp. 10 and 12.

 13 Petition, p. 10; and amendments to petition (October 13, 2009), p. 4.

 14 Amendments to petition (October 13, 2009), p. 5.

 15 Petition, p. 11.

 16 Petition, pp. 11-12.

 17 Petition, p. 12.

I-6
Table I-1

SRC pipe and tube: American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard designations,

titles, and specified end-use applications

ASTM

designation Title Specified end-use applications

B-42 Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Pipe,

Standard Sizes

Plumbing and boiler feed lines

B-68 Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Tube,

Bright Annealed

Refrigeration, oil lines, gasoline lines, and

other applications requiring interior

surfaces free of scale and dirt

B-75 Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Tube General engineering applications

B-88 Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Water Tube Water and fire-sprinkler systems

B-88M Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Water Tube

(Metric)

Water and fire-sprinkler systems

B-188 Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Bus Pipe

and Tube

Electrical conductors

B-251 Standard Specification for Wrought Seamless Copper

and Copper-Alloy Tube

Applications listed in ASTM B-68 and

ASTM B-75

B-251M Standard Specification for General Requirements for

Wrought Seamless Copper and Copper-Alloy Tube

(Metric)

Applications listed in ASTM B-68 and

ASTM B-75

B-280 Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Tube for Air

Conditioning and Refrigeration Field Service

Air conditioning and refrigeration units

B-302 Standard Specification for Threadless Copper Pipe Assembled piping systems

B-306 Standard Specification for Copper Drainage Tube (DWV) Sanitary drainage, waste, and vent piping

B-359 Standard Specification for Copper and Copper-Alloy

Seamless Condenser and Heat Exchanger Tubes With

Integral Fins

Surface condensers, evaporators, and

heat exchangers

B-743 Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Tube in

Coils

Refrigeration, air conditioning, and oil

lines

B-819 Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Tube for

Medical Gas Systems

Medical gas systems requiring specially

cleaned interior surfaces

B-903 Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Tube for

Heat Exchanger Tubes with Internal Enhancement

Refrigeration, air conditioning, and other

heat exchangers

Source: Petition, p. 10 and exhibits 8-18; amendments to petition (October 13, 2009), p. 3 and exhibits B-C; and amendments to

petition (October 16, 2009), exhibits 51-53.

I-7
Table I-2

SRC pipe and tube: Designations, color codes, standards, applications, sizes, tempers, and

lengths

Designation

Color

Code ASTM Applications

Commercially available lengths

Size Drawn Annealed

Type K

(thicker

walled1

)

Green B-88 Water service and distribution

Fire protection

Solar energy

Fuel and fuel oil

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning

Snow melting

Compressed air

Natural gas

Liquified petroleum gas

Vacuums

Straight lengths:

1⁄4”–8" 20' 20'

10" 18' 18'

12" 12' 12'

Coils:

1⁄4”–1"

— 60'

— 100'

11⁄4”–11⁄2” — 60'

2"

— 40'

— 45'

Type L

(intermediate

walled1

)

Blue B-88 Water service and distribution

Fire protection

Solar energy

Fuel and fuel oil

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning Snow

melting

Compressed air

Natural gas

Liquified petroleum gas

Vacuums

Straight lengths:

1⁄4"–10" 20' 20'

12" 18' 18'

Coils:

1⁄4"–1"

— 60'

— 100'

11⁄4"–11⁄2" — 60'

2"

— 40'

— 45'

Type M

(thinner

walled1

)

Red B-88 Water service and distribution

Fire protection

Solar energy

Fuel and fuel oil

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning Snow

melting

Vacuums

Straight lengths:

1⁄4"–12" 20' —

DWV Yellow B-306 Drain, waste, vent

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning

Solar energy

Straight lengths:

11⁄4"–8" 20' —

ACR/RST Blue B-280 Air conditioning

Refrigeration

Natural gas

Liquified petroleum gas

Compressed air

Straight lengths:

d”–4c” 20' (2

)

Coils:

c“–1e“ — 50'

OXY/MED (K) Green

(L) Blue

B-819 Medical gasses

Compressed air

Vacuums

Straight lengths:

1⁄4"–8" 20' —

 1 Wall thicknesses differ for Types K, L, and M plumbing pipes having a common nominal outside diameter, being greater for

Type K than for Type L, and lesser for Type M than for Type L.

 2

 Available by special order.

Source: Petition, p. 12; and Copper Development Association (CDA), “Table 1, Copper Tube: Types, Standards, Applications,

Tempers, Lengths,” The Copper Tube Handbook, 2006, p. 20.

I-8
Manufacturing Processes18

Production steps for SRC pipe and tube can be segmented into three processing stages: (1)

prefabricating, which includes melting, casting, and either extrusion or rolling of rough tubing; (2)

intermediate fabrication, consisting of cold drawing of unfinished tubing; and (3) finishing of the SRC

pipe and tube.19 The starting material is metallic copper in the form of refined cathodes (“primary

copper”), scrap (“secondary copper”), or ingots. The exact input mix depends on both the cost and

availability of the various forms of copper and on the technical capabilities of the melting furnace. 

Primary copper is purchased from copper producers that electrolytically refine blister copper from

smelting furnaces into plate-shaped copper cathodes of at least 99.95 percent purity. Secondary copper is

a mix of recycled (“old”) scrap bales consisting of copper wire and tubing recovered from demolished or

renovated structures and “home” or “runaround” (“new”) scrap returned from downstream production

steps within the SRC pipe and tube mill. Brick-shaped copper ingots, cast from melted-down cathodes

and scrap, are more commonly consumed by SRC pipe and tube mills with smaller-scale melting furnaces

with doors that cannot accommodate cathodes and baled scrap.

Prefabricating

The production process begins with melting and refining of copper in a furnace to produce molten

copper. A shaft furnace is adequate to melt high-purity cathodes, new scrap, and ingots into molten

copper that does not need further refining. Alternatively, inclusion of less-pure old scrap in the initial

furnace charge requires a reverberatory or other hearth-type furnace that allows for further refining of the

molten copper. The copper charge is melted at temperatures between 2,300"

 to 2,400" F (above the

melting point of copper at 1,981" F) and fire-refined by exposure to oxygen. Most impurities are

converted into oxides that are trapped in the surface slag, whereas less-readily oxidized impurities

(especially tin and nickel) must be removed by reaction with a special slag compound. The molten

copper is stirred with greenwood poles (“poling”), which burn and vaporize to create a stirring action that

drives the conversions to completion. The molten copper is sampled periodically to monitor the progress

of refining. After the surface slag is skimmed off, the fire-refined melt exceeds 99.9 percent pure copper,

similar to fire-refined primary copper smelted from ore. Phosphorous is added to deoxidize the molten

copper to produce “phosphorous-deoxidized, high residual phosphorus copper” (“DHP,” with standard

designation UNS C12200).20

In the casting step, the molten copper is transferred from the melting/refining furnace to either a

holding furnace or tundish (reservoir dam) that is heated to maintain the molten copper at constant

temperature for casting. The surface of the molten copper is protected from oxidation by a layer of

pulverized graphite. The SRC pipe and tube industry relies on three different technologies to cast molten

copper into unfabricated forms. “Continuous casting” and “semi-continuous casting” are both well-

 18 This section is compiled from the petition, pp. 13-19; conference, petitioners’ exhibits 5-7; staff field trip notes,

October 14, 2009; Rainer Hergemoeller, “Modern Production Methods for High Volume Copper Tube

Manufacturing,” TubeNet; and e-mail correspondence of Commission staff with counsel for petitioners, November 2

and 3, 2009.

 19 Conference, petitioners’ exhibits 5-7.

 20 The Unified Numbering System (UNS) for Metals and Alloys is the standard designation and identification

system in North America. The “C” indicates “copper” and the following five digits identify the specific pure or

alloyed copper. UNS C12200 is the standard designation for DHP that contains a minimum of 99.9 percent copper

(including silver) and 0.015–0.040 phosphorous. Copper Development Association (CDA), “CDA UNS Standard

Designations for Wrought and Cast Copper and Copper Alloys: Introduction,” 2009.

I-9
established technologies for producing large-diameter solid “logs” or thick-walled hollow “tube rounds.” 

In the continuous casting process, molten metal flows into vertical graphite-lined cylindrical steel molds,

that are water-cooled to quickly solidify the copper, which is gripped and withdrawn from the bottom as

more molten copper is poured into the tops of the molds. Some mills utilize casting molds fitted with

water-cooled central cores to produce tube rounds. A moving saw cuts the withdrawn log or tube round

into billets, approximately two- to four-feet long, to fit the downstream extrusion or rolling equipment. In

the semi-continuous casting process, a water-cooled floor of the mold cavity seals the vertical mold until

the molten copper solidifies. More molten copper is poured into the top of the mold at the same rate as

the floor is lowered. When the log or tube round reaches the depth of the pit beneath the mold, the mold

is (and central core are) raised to allow the log or tube round to be removed from the pit for sawing into

shorter billets.

A billet is preheated (to approximately 1,535" F) before being placed in an horizontal extrusion

press. The press includes a ram fitted with a dummy block (that is smaller in diameter than the billet),

and a rod slightly smaller in diameter than that of the die opening, if the billet was either cast hollow or

already pierced (or alternatively a piercing mandrel, if the billet is still solid).21 The ram forces the heated

copper over the rod (or mandrel) and through the die to form a long rough tube. The material (referred to

as a “shell”) that accumulates over the dummy block is removed for remelting. The extruded rough tube

is carried along a run-out table to maintain its straightness until it is cool enough to be cleaned and

descaled. The ends are removed, and the length is subsequently coiled in preparation for drawing.

A more recent innovation is the “continuous horizontal cast and roll” (“cast and roll”) process22

that combines horizontal casting and milling, followed by planetary rolling,23 and is capable of producing

rough tubing directly from molten copper.24 Molten copper flows into a graphite-lined mold fitted with a

graphite-coated mandrel inside and emerges as a hollow shell. The hollow shell is cut by a saw into 30-

to 60-feet long “shells.” The shell does not need to be reheated, but is fitted with a mandrel, before being

fed into a high-reduction rolling mill with a series of rolling heads to reduce both the outside diameter and

wall thickness of the shell to the final dimensions.

Petitioners’ witnesses claim that there are no differences in the resulting product from either the

extrusion or the cast and roll processes,25 although producing larger diameters still requires the extrusion

method.26 27 By contrast, a domestic purchaser (through counsel) characterized foreign-origin cast-androlled inner groove SRC pipe and tube as “...produced directly from copper’s molten state, thereby

 21 If the reheated billet is solid, it is pierced lengthwise with a mandrel (pointed rod) to form a hole through its

center, that will eventually become the inner wall of the resulting tubing. Solid billets can be pierced either prior to

or concurrent with extrusion. However, according to counsel for petitioners, billet piercing is no longer prevalent

among major global producers. Counsel for petitioners, e-mail correspondence with Commission staff, November 2,

2009.

 22 Page-Fura PC, on behalf of Johnson Controls, Inc., written submission to the Commission, October 26, 2009,

p. 3.

 23 Conference, petitioners’ exhibit 5.

 24 Page-Fura PC, on behalf of Johnson Controls, Inc., written submission to the Commission, October 26, 2009,

p. 3.

 25 Conference transcript, p. 52 (Arndt, Hansen, and Sigloch).

 26 Conference transcript, p. 52 (Sigloch).

 27 Wolverine was the first U.S. producer to adopt the cast and roll technology, but its Roxboro, NC, mill was

closed prior to the current period of investigation. Cerro established a cast and roll production line in its Cedar City,

UT, mill, around 2002, which currently has a production capacity of *** pounds per annum. KobeWieland was the

most recent to install cast and roll lines (commissioned after June 2009) in its Pine Hill, NC, mill. Counsel for

petitioners, e-mail correspondence with Commission staff, November 2, 2009.

I-10
resulting in a seamless product unlikely to fail in its chosen applications.”28 According to counsel for this

purchaser, this technology was first introduced in China, and cast-and-rolled SRC pipe and tube

historically has been available from China and more recently from Mexico, but not from U.S. producers. 

The purchaser also reported being unable to obtain pricing and other information from a domestic

producer about its cast-and-rolled inner-groove SRC pipe and tube.29

Intermediate fabrication

The rough tube or shell resulting from the prefabrication stage is successively cold drawn through

a series of steel dies to reduce diameter and wall thickness (by approximately 35 percent per draw) to

final dimensions. Before the tube is drawn, a tapered plug mandrel is inserted into one end and that end is

crimped to fit through the die and is gripped by the jaws of the drawing machine. As the tube is drawn,

the die and mandrel reduce the outer diameter and wall thickness, respectively. The mandrel also imparts

either a smooth or enhanced (grooved) surface to the inside of the tube.30 After drawing, tubing to be

finished as straight lengths is passed through a series of straightening rolls that bend the tubing less at

each successive roll station so that the tubing emerges straight and can be subsequently cut to length. 

Tubing to be finished as coils is passed through rolls that impart a bend of the coil radius as the tubing

emerges from the coiler.

Finishing

Finishing steps depend on the specific type of SRC pipe and tube being produced: (1) Straightlength tubing may be either cut to final lengths or re-coiled (e.g., into pancake coils). (2) Likewise, coiled

tubing may be either re-coiled (e.g., into pancake coils), level wound, or straightened and cut to final

length. (3) Tubing for thermal transfer applications is prepared by annealing (heat softening) before

being passed through a series of rollers and over a mandrel to impart enhancements (i.e., fins, ridges,

grooves, gills, etc.) to the inner surface. Similar enhancements can also be imparted to the outer surface

by additional operations. For some types of SRC pipe and tube, the ends also can be finished by swaging,

flaring, expanding, crimping, or threading. The tubing is tested for conformity with industry standards or

customer specifications prior to annealing, marking and color coding, and cleaning.

SRC pipe and tube is sold either as-drawn (“hard”) or annealed (“soft”) after cutting to length, recoiling, . SRC pipe and tube (either in straight lengths or coils) to be annealed is passed through either a

continuous (long, heated box) furnace or an in-line induction (short, electric-powered) furnace, at 1,300o

F in a non-reactive gas atmosphere to prevent oxidation of the copper. Some mills utilize bell furnaces

for batch annealing in which coils are stacked beneath the bell and heated in a non-reactive atmosphere. 

Soft (annealed) SRC pipe and tube can be distinguished from hard (as-drawn) by the matte surface finish

and lesser stiffness of annealed tubing. Otherwise, annealed and non-annealed SRC pipe and tube are of

the same product quality and exhibit the same performance characteristics when in contact with fluids.

 28 ***, purchases cast-and-rolled inner-groove SRC pipe and tube from ***. Specific product quality

characteristics reported by the purchaser were the tubing's even and compact structure, precise dimensions, few

residuals present on inner surfaces, unique groove shape, increased inner surface area, and greater heat transfer

capability. Page-Fura PC, on behalf of ***, written submission to the Commission, October 26, 2009, p. 2.

 29 According to counsel for ***. Ibid., p. 3.

 30 Inner and outer enhancements can be imparted to the tube during the finishing stage.

I-11
Tubing surfaces are cleaned to remove any remaining drawing lubricants or other debris, which is

particularly critical for SRC pipe and tube designed to carry medical gases and cooling refrigerants. 

Outer surfaces can be coated for corrosion protection or insulation, marked or color coded for product

identification, and attachments added to the ends, depending upon the requirements of industry standards

or customer specifications.

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

No domestic like product issues have been raised in these investigations, although certain other

types of metallic and nonmetallic tubing can substitute for SRC pipe and tube.31 Petitioners propose a

single domestic like product – all forms of SRC pipe and tube – coextensive with the scope.32 According

to petitioners, SRC pipe and tube producers consider all SRC pipe and tube as a continuum of products,

but OEMs often require nonstandard specifications to meet their particular end-use applications.33

Respondents claim two distinctly different types of34 and market segments for35 SRC pipe and tube –

plumbing versus industrial – but did not contest petitioners’ proposal for the preliminary phase of these

investigations.36

 31 See the section entitled “Substitutability Issues” in Part II of this report.

 32 Conference transcript, pp. 16 and 187-188 (Levy); and petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 9.

 33 Amendments to petition (October 13, 2009), p. 5.

 34 Respondents’ postconference brief (IUSA and Nacobre), pp. 5-7.

 35 Conference transcript, p. 126 (O’Brien); and respondents’ postconference briefs, (Golden Dragon) pp. 5-8l; and

(Hailian) pp. 3 and 8.

 36 Conference transcript, p. 126 (O’Brien); and respondents’ postconference brief (IUSA and Nacobre), p. 7. 

Other respondents did not state their position regarding domestic like product issues in their postconference briefs.

I-12
 1

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 20, Conference transcript, p. 25 (J. Hansen), p. 97 (Weil).

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

All 11 responding U.S. producers and 12 of 34 responding importers reported selling SRC pipe

and tube nationally. Twelve of the remaining responding importers reported selling to the southeast, 10

reported selling to the southwest, nine reported selling to the Pacific coast, eight reported selling to the

northeast and/or Midwest, and three importers reported selling to the mountain region. 

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

Plumbing tube is sold to wholesalers, retailers, and distributors who in turn sell it to different end

users while industrial tube is generally sold to OEMs such as Carrier, Trane, and York.1

A majority of U.S.-produced and Mexican imports of SRC pipe and tube are sold to distributors

while a majority of imports from all sources except for Mexico are sold directly to end users. As shown

in table II-1, in each full-year period, 59.9 to 62.7 percent of shipments of U.S.-produced SRC pipe and

tube were to distributors, with the rest of the shipments to end users. The share of reported U.S.

shipments of U.S. imports from Mexico made to end users decreased from *** percent in 2006 to *** in

2008. The share of reported U.S. shipments of U.S. imports from China made to end users decreased

from 95.0 percent in 2006 to 88.1 percent in 2008, while the share of reported U.S. shipments of U.S.

imports from countries other than China and Mexico made to end users decreased from 90.4 percent in

2006 to 83.7 percent in 2008. 

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

U.S. Supply

Based on available information, U.S. SRC pipe and tube producers have the ability to respond to

changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced SRC pipe and tube

to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are the

availability of unused capacity and the ability to produce alternate products; supply responsiveness is

constrained somewhat by a limited ability to ship to alternate markets and the somewhat limited ability to

use inventories to increase shipments. 

Industry capacity

U.S. producers’ capacity utilization decreased from 72.5 percent in 2006 to 59.0 percent in 2008.

This level of capacity utilization indicates that U.S. producers have unused capacity with which they

could increase production of SRC pipe and tube in the event of a price change. 

Alternative markets

Exports by the U.S. producers, as a share of total shipments, increased from 3.6 percent in 2006

to 4.5 percent in 2008. These data indicate that U.S. producers have somewhat limited ability to divert

shipments to or from alternative markets in response to changes in the price of SRC pipe and tube.
II-2

Table II-1

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments of SRC pipe and tube, by

sources and channels of distribution, 2006-08, and January-June 2009

Item

Period

2006 2007 2008

Jan.-June

2009

 Share of reported shipments (percent)

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of SRC pipe and tube to:

 Distributors 62.7 61.8 59.9 63.9

 End users 37.3 38.2 40.1 36.1

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of SRC pipe and tube from China:

 Distributors 8.2 7.1 11.9 14.1

 End users 91.8 92.9 88.1 85.9

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of SRC pipe and tube from Mexico:

 Distributors *** *** *** ***

 End users *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of SRC pipe and tube from all other countries to: 

 Distributors 9.6 13.3 16.3 38.4

 End users 90.4 86.7 83.7 61.6

Note.–Data for domestic producers include only U.S. commercial shipments.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Inventory levels

The ratio of end-of-period inventories to total shipments for the U.S. producers increased from

6.1 percent in 2006 to 7.4 percent in 2008. These data indicate that U.S. producers are somewhat limited

in their ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of SRC pipe and tube to the U.S.

market.

Production alternatives

Five of twelve responding U.S. producers indicated that they produce products other than SRC

pipe and tube on the equipment and machinery that is used to produce SRC pipe and tube. Producers

indicated that they can produce products such as ***.

Supply constraints

Three of 11 responding U.S. producers indicated that they had refused, declined, or been unable

to supply SRC pipe and tube since January 2006. *** indicated that in the spring of 2006 and spring of

2008 it had declined new customers because of unusual demand as a result of the spike in commodity
 2

 Nine Chinese producers responded to the foreign producers’ questionnaire. Their exports to the United States

represented 98 percent of total reported U.S. imports from China.

II-3

prices. *** indicated that it had declined opportunities due to capacity restraints brought about by ***.

*** indicated that in January 2006, there was a change in HVAC standards designed to improve energy

efficiency that caused a short-term spike in demand for products meeting these specifications, which

caused extended delivery times in the industry. It also indicated that during periods of high seasonal

demand, delivery times may be extended. 

Subject Imports from China

Based on available information, Chinese producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of SRC pipe and tube to the U.S. market.2

 The

main contributing factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused

capacity, the existence of alternate markets, and some ability to produce alternate products; supply

responsiveness is constrained by the somewhat limited ability to use inventories. 

Industry capacity

Chinese producers’ capacity utilization decreased from 78.0 percent in 2006 to 66.9 percent in

2008. This level of capacity utilization indicates that Chinese producers have unused capacity with which

they could increase production of SRC pipe and tube in the event of a price change. 

Alternative markets

Shipments of SRC pipe and tube from China to markets other than the United States (both exports

to alternative markets and shipments to the home market) decreased from approximately 88.9 percent of

total shipments in 2006 to 84.7 percent in 2008. Thus, available data indicate that subject producers in

China have the ability to divert shipments to or from their home market and alternative markets in

response to changes in the price of SRC pipe and tube. 

Inventory levels

The ratio of end-of-period inventories to total shipments for the Chinese producers decreased

from 7.1 percent in 2006 to 2.9 percent in 2008. These data indicate that Chinese producers have a

somewhat limited ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of SRC pipe and tube to

the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

Two of nine responding Chinese producers indicated that they produce products other than SRC

pipe and tube on the equipment and machinery that is used to produce SRC pipe and tube. ***. ***.

Supply constraints

Importer *** indicated that it has refused, declined, or been unable to supply SRC pipe and tube

because it can not compete with pricing by domestic mills. 
 3

 Four Mexican producers responded to the foreign producers’ questionnaire. Their exports to the United States

represented *** percent of total reported U.S. imports from Mexico.

II-4

Subject Imports from Mexico

Based on available information, Mexican producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of SRC pipe and tube to the U.S. market.3

 The

main contributing factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused

capacity, the existence of alternate markets, and some ability to produce alternate products; supply

responsiveness is constrained by the somewhat limited ability to use inventories. 

Industry capacity

Mexican producers’ capacity utilization decreased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in

2008. This level of capacity utilization indicates that Mexican producers have unused capacity with

which it could increase production of SRC pipe and tube in the event of a price change. 

Alternative markets

Shipments of SRC pipe and tube from Mexico to markets other than the United States (both

exports to alternative markets and shipments to the home market) decreased from approximately ***

percent of total shipments in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. Thus, available data indicate that Mexican

producers have the ability to divert shipments to or from its home market and alternative markets in

response to changes in the price of SRC pipe and tube. 

Inventory levels

The ratio of end-of-period inventories to total shipments for Mexican producers decreased from

*** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. These data indicate that Mexican producers have a limited

ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of SRC pipe and tube to the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

One of four Mexican producers indicated that they produce products other than SRC pipe and

tube on the equipment and machinery that is used to produce SRC pipe and tube. ***. 

Supply constraints

Importer *** indicated that it has refused, declined, or been unable to supply SRC pipe and tube

because it can not compete with pricing by domestic mills. Importer *** indicated that it refused many

orders due to its inability to compete with pricing by U.S. producers and due to a lack of supply available

in their Mexican inventories. 

Demand

Based on available information, it is likely that any change in the price level of SRC pipe and

tube will result in a moderate change in the quantity of SRC pipe and tube demanded. The main

contributing factors are substitute products and the small cost share of SRC pipe and tube in its end-use

products.
 4

 Petition, p. 11.

 5

 Ibid.

 6

 Petition, pp. 11-12.

 7

 Petition, p. 38. PEX is a cross-linked polyethylene tubing that is sold in straight lengths or coils. Conference

transcript, p. 141 (M. Hansen).

 8

 Conference transcript, pp. 52-53 (J. Hansen).

 9

 Conference transcript, pp. 53-54 (Sigloch).

 10 Conference transcript, pp. 146-147 (Kerins).

 11 Conference transcript, p. 147 (M. Hansen).

 12 Conference transcript, pp. 147-149 (Weil).

 13 Respondent Hailiang’s postconference brief, p. 8.

II-5

Demand Characteristics

As described in more detail in Part I, SRC pipe and tube is generally used for fluids under

pressure, either for conveyance or in a closed loop for thermal transfer.4

 Conveyance applications include

water applications, as well as distribution systems for other liquids and gases while thermal transfer

applications include heating systems, commercial refrigeration systems (such as grocery store refrigerated

cases), and combined or split-unit air conditioning systems of all sizes.5

 

SRC pipe and tube is typically sold either as plumbing tube or commercial tube. “Plumbing

tube” is typically manufactured according to ASTM standards with specifications for chemistry, outside

diameter, wall thickness, strength, hardness, cleanliness, and roundness. Applications include domestic

water service and distribution; fire protection; solar; fuel/fuel oil; HVAC; snow melting; compressed air;

natural gas; liquified petroleum gas; and vacuum. “Commercial tube” may be similarly produced to

industry standard specifications or may be produced to OEM specifications, including tubes with grooves,

ridges, fins, or gills designed to enhance the efficiency of thermal transfer. Common applications for

commercial tube include refrigeration units (mobile refrigeration), heating units, split-system central air

conditioners, room and window air conditioners, central air conditioners, vehicle air conditioners, chillers,

and freezers.6

 

U.S. demand for SRC pipe and tube depends on demand for construction, air conditioning and

refrigeration, and industrial manufacturing and the price of substitute goods such as PEX tubing.7

 U.S.

producer Mueller indicates that new home construction plays an important role in demand for both

plumbing and commercial SRC pipe and tube and that much of the demand for plumbing tube is derived

from nonresidential construction rather than residential construction.8

 KobeWeiland also notes that the

warmer the weather is early in the year, the better the air conditioning season will be; thus increasing

demand in the replacement market, which they estimate makes up about 35 to 65 percent of the market.9

U.S. producer and importer Cambridge-Lee indicated that it is difficult to estimate demand for SRC pipe

and tube from housing starts because of the substitution of plastic in the residential construction, but

nonresidential construction is a more reliable indicator of changes in demand because SRC pipe and tube

is typically used.10 Importer JMF indicated that the relatively cool summers over the last two or three

years has decreased demand for SRC pipe and tube.11 Importer Golden Dragon estimated that

replacement units make up 60 to 70 percent of the market for air conditioning units, which use SRC pipe

and tube and no plastic tubing.12

Respondent Hailiang indicated that demand for both the plumbing and commercial pipe segments

rely on commercial and residential construction.13 Respondents Dayco, Homewerks, JMF, and Marubeni

indicated that the retail segments of the plumbing market have been impacted by the recession less than
 14 Respondents Dayco, Homewerks, JMF, and Marubeni’s postconference brief, p. 5.

 15 Ibid, p. 6.

 16 Conference transcript, pp. 54-55 (M. Hansen).

II-6

the wholesale segment because many homeowners chose to remodel instead of purchasing new homes.14

They also stated that sales of SRC pipe and tube for HVAC in the industrial market for nonresidential

buildings has fared better than sales of copper tubing for HVAC for residential buildings.15

The real value of total construction decreased by 26 percent between January 2006 and

September 2009 (see figure II-1). The real value of residential construction decreased by 63 percent

between January 2006 and August 2009 while the real value of nonresidential construction increased by

22 percent between January 2006 and August 2009. Also, seasonally adjusted housing starts decreased

by 74 percent between January 2006 and September 2009.

All 11 responding U.S. producers and 23 of 30 responding importers indicated that demand for

SRC pipe and tube in the United States has decreased since 2006. Six importers indicated that demand

had fluctuated and the remaining responding importer indicated that demand had not changed during that

period. 

Three of five responding producers and four of 12 responding importers indicated that demand

for SRC pipe and tube decreased outside the U.S. since 2006. Two importers reported the demand

outside the U.S. increased and two importers reported that demand increased for commercial tube, but

decreased for plumbing tube. One producer and two importers indicated that demand outside of the

United States fluctuated and the remaining one producer and two importers indicated that there was no

change in demand. Several responding firms attributed decreases in demand to the global economic

downturn and several firms attributed increases in demand to increased demand in China and developing

countries. Importer *** indicated that the primary market for copper plumbing tube outside the U.S. is

Europe, where the market has exhibited increased use of PVC tube and a decline in construction and that

the primary market for commercial tube outside the U.S. is China and other developing nations.

Business Cycles

Nine of 11 responding producers and 18 of 29 responding importers indicated that the SRC pipe

and tube market is subject to distinctive business cycles or conditions of competition. Several producers

and importers indicated that the SRC pipe and tube market is subject to both seasonal and business cycles

and that the business cycle is influenced by the construction market. Importer *** indicated that

construction tends to taper off in fall and pick back up in spring, with the summer being the busiest time.

U.S. producer Muller indicated that residential construction typically peaks in the spring and early

summer months, and, to a lesser extent, so does commercial construction because of the winter weather

discourages construction starts in the northern tier of states.16

Seven of nine responding producers and 15 of 16 responding importers indicated that these

distinctive business cycles or conditions of competition for SRC pipe and tube have changed since

January 2006. Importers *** indicated that the increase in government energy efficiency standards

increased demand above the typical business cycle in 2006 and 2007 and altered the anticipated

seasonality.
 17 Platt's Metal Week and USGS.

 18 Conference transcript, pp. 97-98 (Weil).

 19 Conference transcript, p. 99 (Weil).

 20 Conference transcript, pp. 99-100 (Weil).

II-7

Figure II-1

Construction spending and housing starts: Total, residential, and nonresidential construction

spending in the United States, seasonally adjusted annual rate, deflated by the producer price

index and seasonally adjusted housing starts monthly, January 2006-September 2009

Note: Expenditures on private residential improvements to rental, vacant, and seasonal properties are not included in the

construction spending data. Expenditures are deflated by the producer price index for intermediate goods (seasonally adjusted).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing, Mining and Construction Statistics, Construction Spending. 

http://www.census.gov/const/www/c30index.html#. and Bureau of Labor Statistics (retrieved November 9, 2009).

Substitute Products

Both petitioners and respondents indicate that demand for SRC pipe and tube has decreased

because of substitution of other types of tubing. Generally this has been attributed to the increase in the

price of copper relative to other materials such as plastic and aluminum. The COMEX price of copper

fluctuated since 2006, increasing by 80 percent between January 2006 and April 2008.17

Importer Golden Dragon believes that the main reason that substitutes for tube have developed is

that the price of copper has increased dramatically in recent years.18 It indicated that although the switch

to aluminum requires certain tradeoffs for air conditioning manufacturers, such as heat transfer efficiency,

OEMs have been willing to substitute aluminum tubing given the high price of copper.19 It also noted that

plastic tube has been used in indoor plumbing applications because there is no concern of heat transfer

complications and because PEX tube installation is less expensive since it does not require the same

technical skill as copper tube installation.20 Purchaser Johnson Controls indicated that, given the
 21 Johnson Controls, written submission to the Commission, October 26, 2009 , p. 5. 

 22 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exhibit 14, response to question 9.

 23 Respondents Dayco, Homewerks, JMF, and Marubeni’s postconference brief, p. 5.

 24 Conference transcript, p. 56 (J. Hansen).

 25 Petitioner’s postconference brief, exhibit 14, response to question 8 and conference transcript, p. 56 (Hansen)

and p. 55 (Sigloch).

 26 Petitioner’s postconference brief, exhibit 14, response to question 8. 

 27 Conference transcript, p. 135 (Weil).

II-8

application of inner grove tube in its “Building Efficiency” products, it is not able to substitute other

materials such as plastic or steel.21

Petitioners indicate that because investment in nonresidential structures and custom built

residential structures has held up better than for corporate-built single-family residential structures (such

as by Ryan Homes) and because the substitution of plastic tube for SRC pipe and tube in corporate-built

single-family residential structures had largely occurred by the end of 2006, increased substitution of

plastic tube was not an issue during the POI.22 Respondents Dayco, Homewerks, JMF, and Marubeni

indicate that the share of new housing starts using copper tube for their water distribution system fell from

*** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008 for single-family detached homes and from *** percent in

2006 to *** percent in 2008 for multifamily homes, while the share of housing starts using PEX tube

increased for both single-family and multifamily homes.23 

Seven of nine responding producers and 17 of 24 responding importers indicated that there are

substitutes for SRC pipe and tube. The most frequently cited substitutes were plastic tube (such as PEX

or PVC), aluminum tube, and stainless steel tube.

Cost Share

SRC pipe and tube generally makes up a very small share of the final cost of construction that it

is used in, although it may be a larger share of the plumbing system that it is used in.24 Petitioners

indicated that copper plumbing represents a few hundred dollars out of the total cost of a $100,000 house

and that there was considerable variation in the amount of copper tube in a large chiller unit as compared

to a small air conditioner.25 Petitioners estimated the cost share of SRC pipe and tube to be in a range of

HVAC applications ranges from *** to *** percent.26 Importer Golden Dragon indicated that in a

residential air conditioner, the cost share of SRC pipe and tube will be on the low side and be larger for

large chillers.27

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported SRC pipe and tube depends upon such

factors as relative prices, quality (e.g., grade standards, reliability of supply, defect rates, etc.), and

conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and delivery dates, payment

terms, product services, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there is a high degree of

substitutability between domestically produced SRC pipe and tube and SRC pipe and tube imported from

China and Mexico.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Petitioners indicated that SRC pipe and tube producers compete primarily on the basis of price

because SRC pipe and tube produced to a given specification is highly interchangeable whether it is
 28 Conference transcript, pp. 9, 16 (Levy).

 29 Conference transcript, pp. 80-81 (Altman).

 30 Conference transcript, pp. 168-169 (Hansen).

 31 Johnson Controls, written submission to the Commission, October 26, 2009, p. 2.

 32 Ibid, p. 2.

 33 Conference transcript, p. 52 (Arndt, J. Hansen, Sigloch). KobeWieland indicated that some sizes cannot be

produced with cast and roll methods, but that for all sizes that can be produced with both methods, there is no

difference. Ibid. (Sigloch).

 34 Conference transcript, pp. 114-115 (Kelly).

 35 Conference transcript, pp. 161 (Kelly).

II-9

manufactured in the United States, Mexico, or China.28 Importer Homewerks indicates that it competes

on the basis of a superior product range and services and not necessarily lower price, offering over 80

different copper tube items to retail customer, smaller case pack sizes than domestic manufacturers use,

and being the first to offer security tagging and consumer friendly labeling and packaging.29 Importer

JMF indicated that it cannot compete on the basis of price with domestic producers, so it attempts to

out-service the copper tube mills by usually shipping its SRC pipe and tube in one day and within two

days 98 percent of the time.30 Purchaser Johnson Controls indicated it does not base its decisions on price

but, rather on the performance parameters and capability of the materials and products that it purchases.31 

It purchases product that is made from a cast and roll process and has not found SRC pipe and tube

produced using other methods to be of the same quality and reliability.32 Petitioners indicated that there is

no difference between SRC pipe and tube produced from the cast and roll and extrusion processes.33

Comparison of U.S.-Produced and Imported SRC Pipe and Tube

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced SRC pipe and tube can generally be used in the

same applications as imports from China and Mexico, U.S. producers and U.S. importers were asked

whether the products can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably. As

shown from table II-2, at least 70 percent of responding producers and between 31 and 33 percent of

responding importers indicated that SRC pipe and tube produced in the United States and imported from

China and Mexico are “always” used interchangeably and all or all but one responding producer and

between 63 and 67 percent of responding importers reported that they are at least “frequently” used

interchangeably. 

Importer *** indicated plumbing tube produced in Mexico is interchangeable with U.S.-produced

plumbing tube, but that Mexico does not currently export a significant amount of interchangeable

commercial tube products to the U.S. importer *** indicates that, generally, imported copper tube product

is better quality (higher copper content) and has more consistent wall thicknesses. Importer Copper and

Brass indicated that the products that it produces in Mexico and supplies to the U.S. market include

military specification tube for ship building, heat exchanges for petrochemical applications, sugar tubes

for producing sugar, wave guide tubes for cellular communications, and heavy wall copper tubes often

used in heat exchange applications and electronic applications.34 They indicate that these products are

probably a fraction of the one to two percent of the scope that Copper and Brass imports into the U.S.

market.35 Importer *** indicated that its SRC pipe and tube is generally perceived as being of higher

quality than that of U.S. producers.

 Importer *** indicates that commercial and industrial buyers prefer cast and roll-produced

product because of higher copper content (cathode only) and tighter specifications. Purchaser Johnson 
 36 Johnson Controls, written submission to the Commission, October 26, 2009, p. 3. Johnson Controls indicates

that only one of the petitioners (KobeWeiland) has recently introduced cast and roll products to the market and that it

has been unable to obtain any pricing or related information to confirm the domestic product will be as reliable,

efficient and competitive as existing sources.

II-10

Table II-2

SRC pipe and tube: Perceived interchangeability between SRC pipe and tube produced in the

United States and in other countries, by country pairs

Country pair

Number of U.S. producers

reporting

Number of U.S. importers

reporting

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. subject countries: 

 U.S. vs. China 7 2 1 0 9 9 9 0

 U.S. vs. Mexico 6 2 0 0 5 5 6 0

U.S. vs. nonsubject countries:

 U.S. vs. Canada 50206260

 U.S. vs. Malaysia 4 0 0 0 5 3 4 0

 U.S. vs. other nonsubject 10105310

Subject countries comparisons:

 China vs. Mexico 6 0 0 0 4 5 2 0

Nonsubject countries comparisons:

 China vs. Canada 50005230

 China vs. Malaysia 4 0 0 0 5 3 3 0

 China vs. other nonsubject 10004200

 Mexico vs. Canada 50005230

 Mexico vs. Malaysia 4 0 0 0 5 2 2 0

 Mexico vs. other nonsubject 10005200

 Canada vs. Malaysia 40004220

 Canada vs. other nonsubject 00004200

 Malaysia vs. other nonsubject 10004200

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Controls indicated that inner groove tube produced from a continuous horizontal cast and roll process has

historically only been available from Chinese sources and more recently Mexican sources.36

 At least one-half of responding producers and 40 percent of responding importers reported that

SRC pipe and tube produced in the United States and imported from nonsubject countries are “always”

used interchangeably. All responding producers and at least 36 percent of importers reported that SRC

pipe and tube imports from Canada, China, Malaysia, and Mexico compared to imports from each other

and other countries are “always” used interchangeably.

As indicated in table II-3, all responding U.S. producers and 48 percent of responding importers

indicated that differences other than price between SRC pipe and tube produced in the United States and

imported from China and Mexico were at most “sometimes” a significant factor in their sales. All

responding U.S. producers and at least one-half of responding importers indicated that differences other 
II-11

Table II-3

SRC pipe and tube: Perceived differences other than price between SRC pipe and tube produced

in the United States and in other countries, by country pairs

Country pair

Number of U.S. producers

reporting

Number of U.S. importers

reporting

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. subject countries: 

 U.S. vs. China 0 0 6 4 7 6 7 5

 U.S. vs. Mexico 0 0 3 4 2 4 4 4

U.S. vs. nonsubject countries:

 U.S. vs. Canada 00521135

 U.S. vs. Malaysia 0 0 3 0 3 2 3 2

 U.S. vs. other nonsubject 00200243

Subject countries comparisons:

 China vs. Mexico 0 0 0 4 1 1 3 2

Nonsubject countries comparisons:

 China vs. Canada 00210223

 China vs. Malaysia 0 0 2 0 1 1 4 1

 China vs. other nonsubject 00000122

 Mexico vs. Canada 00310123

 Mexico vs. Malaysia 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 1

 Mexico vs. other nonsubject 00000123

 Canada vs. Malaysia 00201021

 Canada vs. other nonsubject 00000022

 Malaysia vs. other nonsubject 00000022

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

than price between SRC pipe and tube produced in the United States and imported from nonsubject

countries were at most “sometimes” a significant factor in their sales. All responding U.S. producers and

at least 60 percent of responding importers indicated that differences other than price between SRC pipe

and tube produced in the United States and imported from nonsubject countries were at most “sometimes”

a significant factor in their sales. 

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§

1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the alleged margins of dumping was presented earlier in this

report and information on the volume of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Part IV. 

Information on the pricing of U.S. and imported subject products is presented in Part V. Information on

the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or Part VI and (except as noted) is based on the

questionnaire responses of 12 firms that accounted for 95 percent of U.S. production of SRC pipe and

tube during 2008.

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to 35 firms identified as U.S. producers of SRC

pipe and tube by the petitioners.1

 Twelve firms submitted questionnaire responses.2 Presented in table

III-1 is a list of current domestic producers of SRC pipe and tube and each company’s position on the

petition, production location(s), related and/or affiliated firms, and share of reported domestic production

of SRC pipe and tube in 2008. Two firms, *** and ***, accounted for *** percent of reported 2008

domestic production of SRC pipe and tube. 

Five U.S. producers are related to foreign producers of the subject merchandise and one is related

to U.S. importers of the subject merchandise. In addition, as discussed later in this section, five U.S.

producers directly import ***.

 1 Converters (redraw mills and independent line set fabricators) comprise approximately *** percent of total U.S.

production. Petitioners’ postconference brief, Exh. 14.

 2

 ***.

III-1
Table III-1

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, related

and/or affiliated firms, and shares of 2008 reported U.S. production

Firm

Position

on

petition

U.S. production

location(s) Related and/or affiliated firms

Share of

production

(percent)

CambridgeLee*** Reading, PA United Copper Industries (U.S.)

Cambridge-Lee Holdings (U.S.)

Tanjore Corp. (U.S.)

Tubo dl Pastege (U.S.)

IUSA (Mexico)

***

Cerro Petitioner St. Louis, MO Marmon Holdings ***

FreeportMcMoRan*** Elizabeth, NJ Freeport-McMoRan Copper (U.S.)

H & H *** Vanderbilt, MI Sunspring Metal Corp. (Taiwan) ***

Howell Metal *** New Market, VA Commercial Metals (CMC)(U.S.)

Cometals

Commonwealth

***

Kobe

Wieland

Petitioner Pine Hall, NC

Wheeling, IL

Wieland Holdings (U.S.)

Kobe Copper (U.S.)

Wieland-Werke (Germany)

Wolverine Tube Shanghai (China)

Kobelco & Materials Copper (Japan)

Kobelco & Materials Copper (Malaysia)

Kobelco & Materials Copper (Thailand)

***

Mueller Petitioner Fulton, MS

Wynne, AR

Mueller Industries

Jiangsu Mueller-Xingrong Copper

Mueller Europe

Precision Tube (U.S.)

***

National

Copper 

*** Dowagiac, MI

Huntsville, AL

None ***

Packless *** Waco, TX None ***

Precision

Tube

*** North Wales, PA Mueller Streamline Co.

Jiangsu Mueller-Xingrong Copper

Mueller Europe

Mueller

***

S.T. Products *** Duncansville, PA S.T. Products Holdings (U.S.) ***

Wolverine *** Ardmore, TN

Huntsville, AL

Shawnee, OK

Wolverine Tube Shanghai (China)

Wolverine Tubagem (Portugal)

WLVN de LatinoAmerica (Mexico)

***

Note.–Because of rounding, shares may not total to 100.0 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

III-2
U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for SRC pipe and tube are

presented in table III-2. These data show capacity to produce SRC pipe and tube decreased by 10.6

percent from 2006 to 2008 and decreased by 3.4 percent between the interim periods. Production of SRC

pipe and tube decreased by 27.2 percent from 2006 to 2008 and decreased by 24.8 percent between the

interim periods. Capacity utilization decreased by 13.5 percentage points from 2006 to 2008, and

decreased by 14.6 percentage points between the interim periods.

Table III-2

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-08, January-June

2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January-June--

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Capacity (1,000 pounds) 1,221,065 1,209,136 1,091,428 545,627 526,855

Production (1,000 pounds) 884,942 786,635 644,032 360,486 271,249

Capacity utilization (percent) 72.5 65.1 59.0 66.1 51.5

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. producers were asked if they had experienced any plant openings, relocations, expansions,

acquisitions, consolidations, closures, or prolonged shutdowns because of strikes or equipment failure;

curtailment of production because of shortages of materials; or any other change in the character of their

operations or organization relating to the production of SRC pipe and tube since January 1, 2006. Eight

U.S. producers provided responses which are presented in table III-3.

The domestic industry closed several SRC pipe and tube plants during the period examined:

Luvata Grenda shut down production in 2006;3

 Wolverine closed its Jackson, MS, plant in September

2006 (capacity *** pounds) and it’s Decatur, AL, plant in December 2007 (capacity *** pounds);4

Linderme Tube Co. closed in September 2008 (capacity *** pounds);5 and National Copper closed its

Dowagiac, MI, plant in November 2008 (capacity *** pounds).6

 3 ***.

 4

 Wolverine U.S. producer questionnaire, p. 4. Wolverine subsequently reported that the Jackson plant produced

welded copper pipe and tube. Golden Dragon postconference brief, p. 34 and exh. 8.

 5

 Linderme’s assets and customer base were purchased by S.T. Products. Found at

http://www.lindermetube.com/, on October 26, 2009.

 6

 ***.

III-3
Table III-3

SRC pipe and tube: Changes in U.S. producers’ production operations

* * * * * * *

Five U.S. producers reported the production of other products on the same equipment and

machinery and using the same production and related workers employed in the production of SRC pipe

and tube, as presented in table III-4.

Table III-4

SRC pipe and tube: Production of other products on the same equipment and machinery 

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Data on domestic producers’ shipments of SRC pipe and tube are presented in table III-5. U.S.

shipments accounted for 95.5 percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments of SRC pipe and tube in 2008,

and 95.6 percent in interim 2009. U.S. producers reported no internal consumption. Transfers to related

firms accounted for *** percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments of SRC pipe and tube in 2008 and ***

percent interim 2009.7

 U.S. shipments decreased by 28.9 percent from 2006 to 2008, and decreased by

23.5 percent between the interim periods. The unit value of U.S. shipments increased by 11.5 percent

from 2006 to 2008, and decreased by 39.1 percent in the interim periods. Exports of SRC pipe and tube

were reported by nine firms.8

 These exports decreased by 9.6 percent from 2006 to 2008, and decreased

by 27.1 percent between the interim periods. Exports accounted for 4.5 percent of U.S. producers’ total

shipments during 2008, and 4.4 percent in interim 2009. The export markets listed included ***. 

 7 ***.

 8

 ***.

III-4
Table III-5

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January-June--

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 873,514 760,389 620,882 348,389 266,537

Export shipments 32,331 31,064 29,239 16,746 12,212

Total shipments 905,845 791,453 650,121 365,135 278,749

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 3,320,204 3,113,613 2,632,047 1,539,732 717,598

Export shipments 121,983 126,476 125,222 74,030 32,906

Total shipments 3,442,187 3,240,089 2,757,269 1,613,762 750,504

Unit value (per pound)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 3.80 4.09 4.24 4.42 2.69

Export shipments 3.77 4.07 4.28 4.42 2.69

Total shipments 3.80 4.09 4.24 4.42 2.69

Share of quantity (percent)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 96.4 96.1 95.5 95.4 95.6

Export shipments 3.6 3.9 4.5 4.6 4.4

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

III-5
U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Data collected in these investigations on domestic producers’ end-of-period inventories of SRC

pipe and tube are presented in table III-6. Domestic producers’ inventories decreased by 13.6 percent

from 2006 to 2008, and decreased by 16.0 percent in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008. U.S.

producers’ inventories were equivalent to between 6.1 and 7.4 percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments

during 2006 to June 2009. Producers generally do not maintain significant inventories of SRC pipe and

tube because of the volatility of copper prices.9

Table III-6

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January-June--

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 55,351 52,864 47,828 48,841 41,008

Ratio to production (percent) 6.3 6.7 7.4 6.8 7.6

Ratio to U.S. shipments (percent) 6.3 7.0 7.7 7.0 7.7

Ratio to total shipments (percent) 6.1 6.7 7.4 6.7 7.4

Note.–Partial-year ratios are based on annualized production and shipments.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

Three of the U.S. producers reported that they directly imported SRC pipe and tube from ***,10

three imported from ***,11 and two imported from ***12 during the period examined. Eight of the U.S.

producers reported that they purchased SRC pipe and tube from other U.S. producers,13 two purchased

imports from ***,14 two purchased imports from ***,15 and four purchased imports from nonsubject

sources.16 U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of SRC pipe and tube from China and Mexico are

presented in table III-7. 

Table III-7

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. producers’ imports and purchases, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

 9 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 32.

 10 ***. 

 11 ***.

 12 ***. 

 13 ***. 

 14 ***.

 15 ***.

 16 ***.

III-6
U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for SRC pipe and tube are presented in table III-8.17

In the aggregate, U.S. SRC pipe and tube producers reported a 19.1 percent decrease in the number of

production and related workers employed in the manufacture of SRC pipe and tube from 2006 to 2008,

and a 16.8 percent decrease in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008. *** accounted for the major

share of the decrease in number of employees from 2006 to 2008, and *** accounted for the majority of

the decrease in interim 2009. Productivity decreased 11.3 percent from 2006 to 2008, and by 3.4 percent

in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008. 

Table III-8

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January-June--

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Production and related workers (PRWs) 3,913 3,628 3,166 3,280 2,730

Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 8,034 7,565 6,571 3,473 2,718

Wages paid to PRWs (1,000 dollars) 148,451 148,136 129,242 69,495 54,963

Hourly wages $18.48 $19.58 $19.67 $20.01 $20.22

Productivity 

 (pounds produced per 1,000 hours) 108.4 102.2 96.2 102.0 98.5

Unit labor costs (per 1,000 pounds) $0.17 $0.19 $0.20 $0.20 $0.21

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 17 ***.

III-7

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

Importer questionnaires were sent to 78 firms believed to be importers of subject SRC pipe and

tube, as well as to all U.S. producers of SRC pipe and tube.1

 Usable questionnaire responses were

received from 42 companies,2

 representing 91 percent of total imports from China, 100 percent of total

imports from Mexico, and 44 percent of total imports from all other sources. Table IV-1 lists all

responding U.S. importers of SRC pipe and tube from China, Mexico, and other sources, their locations,

and their shares of U.S. imports in 2008. In 2008, the largest importer of SRC pipe and tube from China

was ***, the largest importer of SRC pipe and tube from Mexico was ***, and the largest importer of

SRC pipe and tube from other sources was ***.

 1 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition, along with firms that, based on a

review of data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), may have imported greater than one

percent of total imports under HTS subheadings 7411.10.1030 or 7411.10.1090 in any one year since 2006.

 2

 The Commission received questionnaire responses from 11 firms that reported that they did not import SRC

pipe and tube during the period examined. Those firms are: ***. 

IV-1
Table IV-1

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. importers, source(s) of imports, U.S. headquarters, and shares of imports

in 2008

Firm Headquarters

Share of 2008 imports (percent)

China Mexico

Subject

sources Other Total

Abco Chatham, MA

Memphis, TN

*** *** *** *** ***

Ask Products Aurora, IL *** *** *** *** ***

Automotive Technical Dacula, GA *** *** *** *** ***

Browning Metal Purchase, NY *** *** *** *** ***

Cambridge-Lee Reading, PA *** *** *** *** ***

CMC Fort Lee, NJ *** *** *** *** ***

Copper & Brass Houston, TX *** *** *** *** ***

CPW America Houston, TX *** *** *** *** ***

David Bleich Calabasas, CA *** *** *** *** ***

Dayco Mira Loma, CA *** *** *** *** ***

Dial Phoenix, AZ *** *** *** *** ***

Engineered Controls Elon, NC *** *** *** *** ***

GD Copper Ponte Vedra Beach,

FL

*** *** *** *** ***

Gemaire Deerfield Beach, FL *** *** *** *** ***

Hitachi San Jose, CA *** *** *** *** ***

Homewerks Wheeling, IL *** *** *** *** ***

H&H Vanderbilt, MI *** *** *** *** ***

JMF Bettendorf, IA *** *** *** *** ***

Jones Stephens Moody, AL *** *** *** *** ***

Kobe Wieland Pine Hall, NC *** *** *** *** ***

Linesets Phoenix, AZ *** *** *** *** ***

Lloyds Pacific Hacienda Heights, CA *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.

IV-2
Table IV-1--Continued

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. importers, source(s) of imports, U.S. headquarters, and shares of imports in 2008

Firm Headquarters

Share of 2008 imports (percent)

China Mexico

Subject

sources Other Total

Luvata Franklin Franklin, KY *** *** *** *** ***

Luvata Grenada Grenada, MS *** *** *** *** ***

Marubeni New York, NY *** *** *** *** ***

MGM Las Vegas, NV *** *** *** *** ***

Modine Racine, WI *** *** *** *** ***

NWI Oceanside, CA *** *** *** *** ***

National Bronze &

Metals

Houston, TX *** *** *** *** ***

National Coil Longview, TX *** *** *** *** ***

New Pacific Wilmington, CA *** *** *** *** ***

Nordyne O’Fallon, MO *** *** *** *** ***

Packless Waco, TX *** *** *** *** ***

Panduit Tinley Park, IL *** *** *** *** ***

Pepco Irving, TX *** *** *** *** ***

Refricenter Miami, FL *** *** *** *** ***

S.T. Products Duncansville, PA *** *** *** *** ***

Toyota Georgetown, KY *** *** *** *** ***

Wells Plumbing Chicago, IL *** *** *** *** ***

Wieland Metal Wheeling, IL *** *** *** *** ***

Wolverine Huntsville, AL

Ardmore, TN

Shawnee, OK

Carrollton, TX

*** *** *** *** ***

Zhajiang Hailiang Zhejiang, China *** *** *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

IV-3
U.S. IMPORTS

U.S. imports are based on official import statistics of Commerce.3

 Table IV-2 presents data for

U.S. imports of SRC pipe and tube from China, Mexico, and all other sources. China is the largest

foreign supplier of SRC pipe and tube to the United States, accounting for 45.0 percent of the quantity of

total imports in 2008, and 44.8 percent of the value. Mexico is the second-largest foreign supplier of SRC

pipe and tube to the United States, accounting for 28.9 percent of the quantity of total imports in 2008 and

28.3 percent of the value.

From 2006 to 2008, the quantity and value of imports of SRC pipe and tube from China increased

by 22.0 percent and 44.0 percent, respectively, then decreased by 23.4 percent and 57.2 percent,

respectively, in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008. The unit value of imports of SRC pipe and

tube from China increased by 18.1 percent from 2006 to 2008, and decreased by 44.2 percent in interim

2009 compared with interim 2008. From 2006 to 2008, the quantity of imports of SRC pipe and tube

from Mexico decreased by 10.6 percent and the value increased by 0.9 percent; they decreased by 21.9

percent and 51.1 percent, respectively, in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008. The unit value of

imports of SRC pipe and tube from Mexico increased by 12.9 percent from 2006 to 2008, and decreased

by 37.4 percent in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008. The quantity and value of imports from

nonsubject countries decreased by 28.5 percent and by 14.7 percent, respectively, from 2006 to 2008, and

by 29.3 percent and 57.9 percent, respectively, in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008. The unit

value of imports of SRC pipe and tube from nonsubject sources increased by 19.3 percent from 2006 to

2008, and decreased by 40.4 percent in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008.

Nonsubject imports of SRC pipe and tube are presented in table IV-3. Canada and Malaysia are

the largest nonsubject foreign suppliers of SRC pipe and tube to the United States.4

 3 SRC pipe and tube is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) under

subheadings 7411.10.1030 or 7411.10.1090. 

 4

 Other major nonsubject suppliers include Korea, Japan, Germany, and Chile. 

IV-4
Table IV-2

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Source

Calendar year January-June

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China 91,113 90,624 111,126 64,439 49,388

Mexico 79,817 75,199 71,327 40,110 31,340

 Subtotal 170,930 165,823 182,453 104,549 80,728

Nonsubject 90,088 74,226 64,441 32,477 22,961

Total 261,018 240,049 246,894 137,026 103,689

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

China 309,873 348,772 446,282 259,591 110,981

Mexico 279,361 284,287 281,957 162,388 79,376

 Subtotal 589,234 633,059 728,239 421,979 190,357

Nonsubject 314,358 292,345 268,218 136,025 57,314

Total 903,592 925,404 996,457 558,004 247,671

Unit value (per pound)

1

China $3.40 $3.85 $4.02 $4.03 $2.25

Mexico 3.50 3.78 3.95 4.05 2.53

 Subtotal 3.45 3.82 3.99 4.04 2.36

Nonsubject 3.49 3.94 4.16 4.19 2.50

Average 3.46 3.86 4.04 4.07 2.39

Share of quantity (percent)

China 34.9 37.8 45.0 47.0 47.6

Mexico 30.6 31.3 28.9 29.3 30.2

 Subtotal 65.5 69.1 73.9 76.3 77.9

Nonsubject 34.5 30.9 26.1 23.7 22.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China 34.3 37.7 44.8 46.5 44.8

Mexico 30.9 30.7 28.3 29.1 32.0

 Subtotal 65.2 68.4 73.1 75.6 76.9

Nonsubject 34.8 31.6 26.9 24.4 23.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 Landed, U.S. port of entry, duty-paid. 

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

IV-5
Table IV-3

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. imports from nonsubject countries, by sources, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

Source

Calendar year January-June

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Canada 25,375 17,557 20,016 9,957 8,638

Malaysia 20,853 23,039 15,633 4,998 6,565

Korea 8,871 8,550 8,816 6,265 3,119

Japan 14,148 10,864 4,726 3,297 195

Germany 4,134 3,936 3,930 2,279 1,810

Chile 4,000 2,458 3,688 1,976 666

United Kingdom 3,995 3,651 2,805 1,627 981

Greece 7,138 2,603 2,486 952 543

All other 1,575 1,569 2,341 1,125 443

 Total 90,088 74,226 64,441 32,477 22,961

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

Canada 86,739 65,556 80,748 42,678 20,721

Malaysia 77,483 89,966 64,082 19,039 15,386

Korea 29,218 32,981 36,266 25,821 7,416

Japan 49,027 42,197 20,908 14,292 627

Germany 15,344 19,134 20,151 11,438 6,006

Chile 13,652 9,433 14,509 7,782 1,603

United Kingdom 12,441 15,080 11,922 7,151 2,491

Greece 24,148 9,958 10,282 3,881 1,736

All other 6,307 8,040 9,349 3,944 1,328

 Total 314,358 292,345 268,218 136,025 57,314

Unit value (per pound)

1

Canada $3.42 $3.73 $4.03 $4.29 $2.40

Malaysia 3.72 3.90 4.10 3.81 2.34

Korea 3.29 3.86 4.11 4.12 2.38

Japan 3.47 3.88 4.42 4.34 3.21

Germany 3.71 4.86 5.13 5.02 3.32

Chile 3.41 3.84 3.93 3.94 2.41

United Kingdom 3.11 4.13 4.25 4.39 2.54

Greece 3.38 3.83 4.14 4.08 3.20

All other 4.00 5.12 3.99 3.50 3.00

 Total 3.49 3.94 4.16 4.19 2.50

1

 Landed, U.S. port of entry, duty-paid. 

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

IV-6
CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing whether subject imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic 

like product with respect to cumulation, the Commission generally has considered the following four

factors: (1) the degree of fungibility, including specific customer requirements and other quality-related

questions; (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets; (3) common channels of

distribution; and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. Channels of distribution and fungibility

(interchangeability) are discussed in Part II of this report.

Geographic Markets

Table IV-4 presents imports from China by Customs districts from 2006 to 2008, while table 

IV-5 presents imports from Mexico by Customs districts for the same period. Houston-Galveston, TX,

was the largest district of entry for imports from China, accounting for 48.7 percent of total subject

imports during 2008. New Orleans, LA, was the second largest port, with 11.1 percent of imports from

China. Laredo, TX, was the largest district of entry for imports from Mexico, accounting for 89.0 percent

of total subject imports during 2008. El Paso, TX, was the second largest port, with 9.0 percent of subject

imports.

IV-7
Table IV-4

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. imports from China, by Customs district, 2006-08

Customs district

Calendar year Share of 2008

2006 2007 2008 (percent)

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Baltimore, MD 237 430 0 0.0

Boston, MA 597 1,062 1,241 1.1

Buffalo, NY 260 603 562 0.5

Charleston, SC 2 0 90 0.1

Charlotte, NC 387 244 237 0.2

Chicago, IL 2,426 2,025 5,875 5.3

Cleveland, OH 240 35 486 0.4

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 9,435 7,886 6,871 6.2

Detroit, MI 646 753 459 0.4

Great Falls, MT 0 2 139 0.1

Honolulu, HI 0 0 7 0.0

Houston-Galveston, TX 50,999 47,814 54,124 48.7

Laredo, TX 2 43 17 0.0

Los Angeles, CA 5,701 8,337 5,743 5.2

Miami, FL 5,049 2,724 2,169 2.0

Minneapolis, MN 389 193 1,054 0.9

Mobile, AL 917 623 3,563 3.2

New Orleans, LA 2,599 8,913 12,371 11.1

New York, NY 581 1,051 728 0.7

Nogales, AZ 102 146 2 0.0

Norfolk, VA 245 434 331 0.3

Ogdensburg, NY 46 30 17 0.0

Philadelphia, PA 29 0 13 0.0

San Francisco, CA 225 95 51 0.0

San Juan, PR 90 139 176 0.2

Savannah, GA 6,825 5,736 11,845 10.7

Seattle, WA 276 127 132 0.1

St. Albans, VT 35 5 0 0.0

St. Louis, MO 4 353 2,509 2.3

Tampa, FL 2,768 819 312 0.3

Washington, DC 1 0 0 0.0

Total 91,113 90,624 111,126 100.0

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

IV-8
Table IV-5

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. imports from Mexico, by Customs district, 2006-08

Customs district

Calendar year Share of 2008

2006 2007 2008 (percent)

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Chicago, IL 0 0 1 0.0

Cleveland, OH 3 0 0 0.0

El Paso, TX 11,855 6,038 6,446 9.0

Laredo, TX 66,411 68,623 63,480 89.0

Miami, FL 432 184 580 0.8

San Diego, CA 13 1 1 0.0

San Juan, PR 1,102 353 820 1.1

Total 79,817 75,199 71,327 100.0

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

Simultaneous Presence in the Market

SRC pipe and tube produced in China and Mexico was present throughout the period for which

data were collected. Table IV-6 presents monthly import entries into the United States by sources. 

IV-9
IV-10

Table IV-6SRC: U.S. imports, monthly entries into the United States, by sources, 2006-08, and January-August 2009

Source Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. 

2006:China 6,026 5,474 7,197 8,298 7,615 9,417 9,253 8,678 9,054 8,857 6,0Mexico 6,660 6,093 8,670 6,651 9,046 11,676 8,070 6,944 3,515 3,348 4,0 Subtotal 12,686 11,567 15,866 14,949 16,661 21,094 17,323 15,622 12,569 12,205 10,1All other 8,200 8,011 7,547 7,277 8,084 8,389 8,346 8,919 6,444 6,579 6,1 Total 20,886 19,579 23,413 22,226 24,745 29,482 25,669 24,541 19,012 18,784 16,22007:China 6,095 5,879 8,884 6,882 8,146 11,180 11,256 8,448 6,275 7,715 5,6Mexico 6,623 5,171 8,243 6,858 9,594 6,082 5,811 7,160 5,722 4,651 4,6 Subtotal 12,718 11,049 17,127 13,740 17,741 17,262 17,067 15,608 11,998 12,365 10,3All other 5,964 5,964 6,518 5,966 6,077 6,433 7,521 5,698 5,609 5,960 6,5 Total 18,681 17,013 23,645 19,707 23,817 23,695 24,588 21,307 17,606 18,325 16,82008:China 8,957 7,570 11,533 13,683 13,328 9,368 13,332 12,307 6,553 6,473 4,9Mexico 5,942 6,583 8,855 7,484 5,675 5,570 6,761 6,489 6,129 5,306 2,8 Subtotal 14,900 14,152 20,389 21,168 19,003 14,938 20,093 18,795 12,682 11,779 7,7All other 5,009 5,557 6,258 5,794 4,728 5,131 7,460 5,193 5,715 4,275 5,2 Total 19,908 19,710 26,646 26,962 23,731 20,069 27,553 23,989 18,396 16,054 13,02009China 6,012 6,834 9,989 7,611 8,836 10,107 8,661 8,387 (1) (1) 

Mexico 5,679 4,864 5,575 5,735 5,771 3,717 4,843 3,234 (1) (1)  Subtotal 11,690 11,698 15,564 13,346 14,607 13,823 13,504 11,622 (1) (1) All other 3,981 3,481 3,913 3,179 4,075 4,331 4,015 4,365 (1) (1)  Total 15,672 15,179 19,477 16,525 18,681 18,155 17,519 15,987 (1) (1) 

1 Not available.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of Commerce. 
NEGLIGIBILITY

The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports

of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.5

 Negligible imports are generally defined in the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as imports from a country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic

like product where such imports account for less than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise

imported into the United States in the most recent 12-month period for which data are available that

precedes the filing of the petition or the initiation of the investigation. However, if there are imports of

such merchandise from a number of countries subject to investigations initiated on the same day that

individually account for less than 3 percent of the total volume of the subject merchandise, and if the

imports from those countries collectively account for more than 7 percent of the volume of all such

merchandise imported into the United States during the applicable 12-month period, then imports from

such countries are deemed not to be negligible.6

 Imports from China accounted for 44.7 percent of total

imports of SRC pipe and tube by quantity during September 2008 - August 2009. Imports from Mexico

accounted for 29.3 percent of total imports of SRC pipe and tube by quantity during September 2008 -

August 2009.

 5 Sections 703(a)(1), 705(b)(1), 733(a)(1), and 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1), 1671d(b)(1),

1673b(a)(1), and 1673d(b)(1)).

 6

 Section 771(24) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)).

IV-11
APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of SRC pipe and tube during the period shown in

table IV-7 and figure IV-1 are based on questionnaire responses for U.S. shipments and official

Commerce statistics import data. The quantity of apparent U.S. consumption decreased by 23.5 percent

from 2006 to 2008, and then decreased by 23.7 percent in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008. 

U.S. demand for SRC pipe and tube is primarily from new residential construction, new commercial

construction, and the replacement market for air conditioning and refrigeration units.7

 

Table IV-7

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. shipments of imports, and apparent

U.S. consumption, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January-June

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 873,514 760,389 620,882 348,389 266,537

U.S. shipments of imports from–

 China 91,113 90,624 111,126 64,439 49,388

 Mexico 79,817 75,199 71,327 40,110 31,340

 Subtotal 170,930 165,823 182,453 104,549 80,728

 Nonsubject countries 90,088 74,226 64,441 32,477 22,961

 Total U.S. import shipments 261,018 240,049 246,894 137,026 103,689

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,134,532 1,000,438 867,776 485,415 370,226

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 3,320,204 3,113,613 2,632,047 1,539,732 717,598

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 China 309,873 348,772 446,282 259,591 110,981

 Mexico 279,361 284,287 281,957 162,388 79,376

 Subtotal 589,233 633,059 728,238 421,979 190,357

 Nonsubject countries 314,358 292,345 268,218 136,025 57,314

 Total U.S. import shipments 903,592 925,404 996,456 558,004 247,671

Apparent U.S. consumption 4,223,796 4,039,017 3,628,503 2,097,736 965,269

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

 7 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 23.

IV-12
Figure IV-1

SRC pipe and tube: Apparent U.S. consumption, by sources, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

Source: Table IV-7.

IV-13
U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share data are presented in table IV-8. The quantity of the U.S. producers’ market

share decreased by 5.4 percentage points from 2006 to 2008 and was 0.2 percentage points higher in

interim 2009 compared with interim 2008. In contrast, the share of subject imports from China increased

by 4.8 percentage points from 2006 to 2008, on the basis of quantity, and increased by 0.1 percentage

points in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008. The share of subject imports from Mexico increased 

by 1.2 percentage points from 2006 to 2008, then increased by 0.2 percentage points in interim 2009

compared to interim 2008. Nonsubject imports’ market share decreased by 0.5 percentage points from

2006 to 2008, and again in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008.

Table IV-8

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January-June

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,134,532 1,000,438 867,776 485,415 370,226

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption $4,223,796 $4,039,017 $3,628,503 $2,097,736 $965,269

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 77.0 76.0 71.5 71.8 72.0

U.S. imports from--

 China 8.0 9.1 12.8 13.3 13.3

 Mexico 7.0 7.5 8.2 8.3 8.5

 Subtotal 15.1 16.6 21.0 21.5 21.8

 Nonsubject countries 7.9 7.4 7.4 6.7 6.2

 All countries 23.0 24.0 28.5 28.2 28.0

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 78.6 77.1 72.5 73.4 74.3

U.S. imports from--

 China 7.3 8.6 12.3 12.4 11.5

 Mexico 6.6 7.0 7.8 7.7 8.2

 Subtotal 14.0 15.7 20.1 20.1 19.7

 Nonsubject countries 7.4 7.2 7.4 6.5 5.9

 All countries 21.4 22.9 27.5 26.6 25.7

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

IV-14
RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of imports to U.S. production of SRC pipe and tube is presented

in table IV-9. Imports from China were equivalent to 10.3 percent of U.S. production during 2006,

increased to 17.3 percent during 2008, and were 18.2 percent in interim 2009. Imports from Mexico were

equivalent to 9.0 percent of U.S. production during 2006, increased to 11.1 percent during 2008, and

were 11.6 percent in interim 2009 .

Table IV-9

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S. production, 2006-

08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January-June

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. production 884,942 786,635 644,032 360,486 271,249

Imports from:

 China 91,113 90,624 111,126 64,439 49,388

 Mexico 79,817 75,199 71,327 40,110 31,340

 Subtotal 170,930 165,823 182,453 104,549 80,728

 Nonsubject countries 90,088 74,226 64,441 32,477 22,961

 Total imports 261,018 240,049 246,894 137,026 103,689

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

Imports from:

 China 10.3 11.5 17.3 17.9 18.2

 Mexico 9.0 9.6 11.1 11.1 11.6

 Subtotal 19.3 21.1 28.3 29.0 29.8

 Nonsubject countries 10.2 9.4 10.0 9.0 8.5

 Total imports 29.5 30.5 38.3 38.0 38.2

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

IV-15

 1

 Petition, p. 38.

 2

 Petition, p. 39.

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

Raw material costs accounted for approximately 85 percent of the total cost of goods sold for

U.S. producers during 2006 to 2008. Per-unit raw material costs increased by 17 percent between 2006

and 2008 from $2.85 per pound in 2006 to $3.33 per pound in 2008. Copper is the main raw material

used to produce SRC pipe and tube. The COMEX price of copper has fluctuated since 2006 ranging from

$1.39 per pound to $3.94 per pound (see figure V-1).

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Transportation costs for U.S. inland shipments of SRC pipe and tube generally account for a

small-to-moderate share of the delivered price of these products. U.S. producers reported that the costs

ranged up to 3 percent of the delivered price for SRC pipe and tube, while most U.S. importers reported

that the costs ranged from 1 to 3.5 percent of the delivered price for SRC pipe and tube.

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Pricing methods for sales of SRC pipe and tube to the plumbing and industrial markets differ. 

Petitioners indicate that plumbing tube products are typically sold on a spot basis using a price list and a

multiplier that applies equally to all list prices on a given price sheet. They note that a supplier may bid

for a total volume without knowing which products from its price list the customer will decide to take.1

Petitioners indicated that SRC pipe and tube sold to industrial end-users is typically sold using annual

contracts with prices quoted on the basis of the COMEX copper price, plus a per-pound fabrication

charge. They note that under these annual contracts SRC pipe and tube producers generally compete

based on the quoted fabrication charge with the understanding that the COMEX price will adjust

depending upon the date(s) of shipment.2

All producers reported using transaction-by-transaction negotiations for some of their sales of

SRC pipe and tube, with five of eleven producers also reporting using a price list and four producers also

reporting using contracts. Twenty-four of 34 responding importers reported that the prices they charge

for at least some of their sales are determined using transaction-by-transaction negotiations. Thirteen

importers reported using contracts and eight importers reported using price lists for at least some of their

sales. Five of 11 responding producers and 17 of 28 responding importers reported making their sales on

a delivered basis only. Five producers and eight importers reported making their sales on an f.o.b. basis

only and the remaining responding producers and importers reported making their sales on both f.o.b. and

delivered bases. Six of 12 responding producers and 16 of 30 importers reported that at least 90 percent

of their sales of SRC pipe and tube are made to order. Three of 12 responding producers and 11 of 30

importers reported that at least 90 percent of their sales are from inventory.

Seven of 11 responding producers and 12 of 25 responding importers reported making at least 99

percent of their sales on a spot basis and two producers and three importers reported making at least 65

percent of their sales on a spot basis. Five importers reported making at least 90 percent of their sales on 
V-2

Figure V-1

SRC pipe and tube: Monthly average COMEX high-grade copper, first position prices, by month,

January 2006-September 2009

Source: Platt’s Metal Week and USGS.

a short term contract basis, which typically run from 4 months to a year. Two importers (*** reported

making at least 60 percent of their sales on a long-term contact basis, although *** defined long-term

contacts as “one year and longer” in length. One producer, (***) reported making 45 percent of its sales

on a short-term contract basis, 35 percent of its sales on a spot basis, and 20 percent of its sales on a longterm (two to three years) contract basis. *** reported making 60 percent of its sales on a short-term

contract basis and 35 percent of its sales on a long-term (two years) contract basis.

Lead Times

U.S. producers reported lead times from inventory of up to two weeks and lead times for sales of

product-to-order of two to six weeks. Lead times for delivery for all but two responding U.S. importers

ranged up to two weeks on sales from inventory and most importers reported lead times on sales of

product produced-to-order ranging from 2 to 16 weeks. Seven of 10 responding producers and 25 of 32

responding importers reported that they generally arrange for the transportation to their customers’

locations. Eight of 11 responding U.S. producers and seven of 29 responding importers reported making

at least 60 percent of their sales within 101 to 1,000 miles of their storage or production facilities. Seven

responding importers reported making at least 79 percent of their sales over 1,000 miles from their

storage or production facilities and 10 responding importers reported making at least 60 percent of their

sales within 1,000 miles of their storage or production facilities. 

Sales Terms and Discounts

Eight producers and 11 importers reported the use of quantity discounts, five producers and three

importers reported using annual volume discounts, and two producers and 16 importers reported having

no discount policy.
V-3

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of SRC pipe and tube to provide

quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of SRC pipe and tube that was shipped to unrelated

customers in the U.S. market during January 2006-June 2009. The products for which pricing data were

requested are as follows:

Product 1.– Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 1⁄2" Type L, hard temper, 20' lengths

Product 2.– Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 3/8" OD, ACR/RST coil, 50'-100' lengths

Product 3.– Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 3/8" OD, inner-grooved LWC, 0.0115"-

0.0180" bottom wall thickness

Product 4.– Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 3/8" OD, smooth bore LWC, 0.0115"-

0.0180" bottom wall thickness

Eight U.S. producers, 15 importers of SRC pipe and tube from China, and four importers of SRC

pipe and tube from Mexico provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, although not

all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. Pricing data reported by these firms accounted

for approximately 9 percent of U.S. producers’ shipments of SRC pipe and tube, 82 percent of U.S.

shipments of subject imports from China, and 7 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from

Mexico in 2008. 

Price Trends

Price data are shown in tables V-1 to V-4 and figure V-2. Nonsubject price data are presented in

appendix E. Price trend summary data are presented in table V-5. Weighted-average sales prices for

U.S.-produced products 1, 2, and 4 declined by 1.8 to 15.2 percent, while prices of product 3 increased

13.9 percent. Weighted average sales prices of products 1, 3, and 4 imported from China decreased by 

0.8 to 44.7 percent and prices of product 2 increased by 23.2 percent. Weighted average sales prices of

products 1 and 2 imported from Mexico decreased by 6.0 and 15.3 percent respectively and prices of

product 3 and 4 increased by 10.5 and 15.1 percent. 
V-4

Table V-1

SRC pipe and tube: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 11 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-June 2009

Period

United States China Mexico

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. $2.74 7,394,358 $*** *** *** $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June 4.13 8,226,689 -- 0 -- *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 4.83 3,277,929 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.77 3,914,621 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 3.31 5,860,450 -- 0 -- *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 4.26 6,360,921 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 4.36 3,476,189 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 4.05 4,402,591 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 4.29 5,635,891 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 4.44 3,947,024 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 4.10 4,066,436 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.87 3,422,527 -- 0 -- *** *** ***

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.21 3,761,046 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.53 3,899,545 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Product 1: Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 1⁄2" Type L, hard temper, 20' lengths.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-5

Table V-2

SRC pipe and tube: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

products 21

 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-June 2009

Period

United States China Mexico

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. $3.23 3,495,395 $*** *** *** $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June 5.03 3,849,574 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 5.56 2,380,202 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 4.41 1,773,052 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 3.52 2,704,227 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 4.61 3,603,277 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 4.60 2,399,608 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 4.38 2,146,543 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 4.32 2,377,640 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 4.79 2,523,517 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 4.25 2,272,923 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.41 1,511,707 *** *** *** *** *** ***

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.48 1,735,800 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.74 1,720,584 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Product 2: Seamless refined copper pipe and tube, 3/8" OD, ACR/RST coil, 50'-100' lengths.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table V-3

SRC pipe and tube: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

products 31

 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-4

SRC pipe and tube: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

products 41

 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *
V-6

Figure V-2

SRC pipe and tube: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product, by quarters, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-5

SRC pipe and tube: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-4 from the United

States, China, and Mexico

Item Number of quarters

Low price 

(per ton)

High price

(per ton)

Change in price1

(percent)

Product 1 

United States 14 $2.21 $4.83 -7.8%

China 11 *** *** -44.7%

Mexico 14 *** *** -6.0%

Product 2 

United States 14 2.48 5.56 -15.2%

China 14 *** *** 23.2%

Mexico 14 *** *** -15.3%

Product 3 

United States 14 *** *** 13.9%

China 14 *** *** -13.3%

Mexico 5 *** *** 10.5%

Product 4 

United States 14 *** *** -1.8%

China 2 *** *** -0.8%

Mexico 6 *** *** 15.1%

 1 Percentage change from the first quarter in which price data were available to the last quarter in which price data

were available, based on unrounded data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 3

 ***.

Petitioners indicated that ***. 

V-7

Price Comparisons

Margins of underselling and overselling for the period are presented in table V-6. As can be

seen from the table, prices for SRC pipe and tube imported from China were below those for U.S.-

produced SRC pipe and tube in 25 of 41 instances; margins of underselling ranged from 1.5 to 35.2 

percent. In the remaining 16 instances, prices for SRC pipe and tube imported from China were above

those for U.S.-produced SRC pipe and tube; margins of overselling ranged from 1.2 to 38.1 percent.

Prices for SRC pipe and tube imported from Mexico were below those for U.S.-produced SRC pipe and

tube in 31 of 39 instances; margins of underselling ranged from 0.3 to 46.0 percent. In the remaining

eight instances, prices for SRC pipe and tube imported from Mexico were above those for U.S.-produced

SRC pipe and tube; margins of overselling ranged from 1.2 to 42.2 percent. 3

 

Table V-6

SRC pipe and tube: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins,

January 2006-June 2009

Source

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

China 25 1.5 to 35.2 11.4 16 1.2 to 38.1 13.1

Mexico 31 0.3 to 46.0 8.7 8 1.2 to 42.2 14.7

 Total 56 0.3 to 46.0 9.9 24 1.2 to 42.2 13.6

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

The Commission requested U.S. producers of SRC pipe and tube to report any instances of lost

sales or revenues they experienced due to competition from imports of SRC pipe and tube from China

and/or Mexico since January 2006. Petitioners provided both allegations of lost sales and revenues in the

petition. Of the seven responding non-petitioning U.S. producers, two reported that they had to either

reduce prices or roll back announced price increases and two producers indicated that they had lost sales

of SRC pipe and tube to imports from China and Mexico. One of these producers provided additional lost

sales allegations. The 38 lost sales allegations made by producers totaled $155 million and involved 44

million pounds of SRC pipe and tube and the 15 lost revenues allegations totaled $1 million and involved

17 million pounds of SRC pipe and tube. Staff contacted 38 purchasers, and a summary of the

information obtained follows (tables V-7 and V-8).

Twelve of 18 responding purchasers named in lost sales and lost revenue allegations indicated

that they switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube

from China and Mexico since January 2006. Five of these 12 purchasers indicated that price was the

reason for the shift. Of the seven purchasers that indicated that price was not the reason for the shift,

three purchasers (***) indicated that domestic producers were not able to supply enough product, one

purchaser (***) indicated that both 
V-8

Table V-7

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

Table V-8

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations

* * * * * * *

availability and pricing were reasons for the switch, one purchaser (***) indicated that their “switch was

caused by a better incentive from our buying group,” one purchaser (***) noted a quality, service, and

lead-time reduction, and one purchaser (***) noted product quality and performance. Four of 12

responding purchasers (***) named in lost sales and lost revenue allegations indicated that U.S. producers

reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to compete with prices of SRC pipe and tube from

China or Mexico since January 2006. Three purchasers indicated that they were not certain if U.S.

producers lowered their prices during this time period to compete with price of SRC pipe and tube from

China or Mexico.

*** disagreed with the *** lost sales allegations made against his company. *** indicated that

the accepted quote for the imported product was not lower than the rejected quote for U.S. product. He

indicated that the metal price was not a factor and that fabrication costs and duties above base metal costs

were higher than the costs of U.S. product. *** also indicated that the U.S. supplier which had been his

company’s ***. Prior to ***, he indicated that his company was satisfied with its U.S. vendor. ***

indicated that while his firm had switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to

suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico since January 2006, price was not the reason for

the shift. He indicated that his U.S. supplier was not able to supply material and forced it to find a second

supplier, and that now his company is committed to maintain at least two suppliers. He also noted that to

the best of his recollection, U.S. producers did not reduce their prices of SRC pipe and tube to compete

with prices of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico.

*** of *** agreed with the lost sales allegation made by ***. He indicated that the accepted

quote for imported product was $***/lb (same as the domestic quoted price) for the metal and $*** for

fabrication and freight for a total value of $***. *** indicated that *** uses both domestic and imported

copper tube. He noted that ***’s SRC pipe and tube is highly engineered to *** and to date only

domestic producer *** and a Chinese supplier have qualified to provide the raw copper tube that meet

their quality specifications and tolerances. *** indicated that qualified SRC pipe and tube must meet

specifications regarding ***. He notes that *** attempted to qualify one additional source from the U.S.,

but the supplier was unable to provide a qualifying product. *** claimed that while his firm had switched

purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China and

Mexico since January 2006 and that price was a reason, it was not the only reason for the shift. He

indicated that the industry has been particularly hard hit in the economic downturn because of the strong

correlation between plumbing product demand and the strength or weakness of the housing market. ***

indicated that sales of ***’s product are down for 2009 and that it accepted the U.S. producer’s quote, but

ordered less volume than the *** lbs. offered. He also noted that historically ***’s purchases of SRC

pipe and tube shifts between qualified suppliers based both on price and quality offered. *** also

indicated that while U.S. producers reduced their prices in order to compete with prices of SRC pipe and

tube from China or Mexico, that there have only been limited reductions since 2006 and no reductions in

2008 or 2009.

*** disagreed with the lost sales allegation made by ***. *** indicated that his company was

planning on purchasing this order from *** and then selling to a customer, but the purchase was not made

since the customer decided not to purchase the product, although his firm did however secure an order for
 4

 Staff telephone interview with ***, October 16, 2009.

V-9

this job (with different quantities) at a later date.4

 He indicates that the customer said he was going to

wait on the market and buy as needed in hope for better pricing. *** indicated that he had no idea what

his competition’s price was to customer and that his firm purchased the majority of its copper pipe from

***.

*** of *** disagreed with the lost sales allegation made by ***. *** indicated that the material

purchased from their supplier was the same whether *** firm used domestic or foreign copper. While

*** indicated that *** firm switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of

SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico, *** noted that, in January 2008 her firm switched to material

from China because the U.S. supplier did not have adequate capacity to cover their needs. *** also

indicated that since January 2006, U.S. producers did not reduce their prices in order to compete with

prices of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico.

*** of *** disagreed with the lost sales allegation made by ***. He indicated that the supplier

*** told him they could not keep up with their demand. *** noted that he pays $***/lb. plus duties for

imported copper tube and that the U.S. supplier *** indicated that they would not be able to supply his

firm’s needs. In regard to all of his purchases since January 2006, he indicated that while his firm

switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from

China or Mexico, price was not the reason for the switch; rather the U.S. supplier *** could not supply

his firm’s requirements. *** also indicated that since January 2006 U.S. producers had raised their prices

of SRC pipe and tube.

*** of *** agreed with the lost revenue allegation by ***. He indicated that since January 2006

his firm has not switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe

and tube from China or Mexico, but that U.S. producers have reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube

in order to compete with prices of SRC pipe and tube imported from China or Mexico and that “it is still

going on.” 

*** of *** agreed with the lost sales allegation made by ***. He indicated that the allegation

included product provided under two jobs. *** indicated that the *** went to Mexico and the *** went

to China. He indicated that since January 2006, his firm switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from

U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico and that price was the reason for

the switch. *** also reported that U.S. producers reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to

compete with prices of SRC pipe and tube imported from China or Mexico. *** indicated that in several

cases, the cost of the imported “finished product” was less than the raw material cost based on the

COMEX price at the time of the closing bid.

 *** of *** disagreed with the lost sales allegation made by ***. He indicated that he is familiar

with the quote from *** and indicates that his firm sent out the inquiry in line with the contract they had

in place. *** noted that the number of short tons in the quote would represent about *** percent of ***

total requirements so “capacity constraints are obvious.” While agreeing with the rejected quote numbers,

he indicated that his firm did not pay the amount provided and that the amount noted in the “accepted

quote” was not possible given the market price of metal at that time. *** indicated that *** was their sole

supplier for several years prior to being replaced by U.S. producer *** due to major quality problems and

that his firm incurred major production disruptions in 2004 due to lack of capacity in the U.S. market. 

*** indicated that his company went on the open market and purchased some material in 2004 from ***

as well as from other U.S. and foreign suppliers due to capacity constraints in the United States). He

claimed that the material his firm purchased from *** exhibited many of the same quality problems as

when they were the primary supplier to ***. He noted that his firm moved away from ***. *** claims

that ***, as well as all but one U.S. manufacturer of copper tube, does not have the ability to produce

***. He also indicated that since January 2006 his firm has not switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube

from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico. *** also noted that he

cannot speak as to whether U.S. producers reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to compete
 5

 Email from ***, November 6, 2009.

 6

 Email from ***, October 13, 2009.

V-10

with prices of SRC pipe and tube imported from China or Mexico since he has been under contract since

2005.

*** of *** disagreed with the lost revenue allegation made by ***. He indicated that ***

rejected the U.S. producer’s quote for all 112 items in the proposal due to their attempt to change the

historical method of calculating the copper cathode premium charge. Mr. Burlew indicated that when the

quote was revised to use the ***, only the price of the first item (which was for ***) was adjusted

downward and that *** accepted this quotation with no other reductions. He also noted that the first item

was awarded *** due to continued quality problems and tube weight issues and that *** material which

they did not have with the material from the Chinese supplier. While *** indicated that since January

2006 his firm switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and

tube from China or Mexico, he indicated that his firm switched to imported material because of quality,

service, and reduced lead times since the Chinese suppliers have U.S. representatives who warehouse

finished goods for his firm. He also noted that he is not certain why *** lowered their price on the one

item mentioned, but believes it was related to improvements in efficiencies as a result of production ***.

*** of *** agrees with the lost sales allegation made by ***. He indicated that since January

2006 his firm switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and

tube from China or Mexico and that price was the reason for the switch. *** also indicated that U.S.

producers reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to compete with prices of SRC pipe and tube

imported from China or Mexico. 

*** of *** in indicated that in 2007 (the allegation was in March 2007) *** company only

obtained the product described in the allegation from domestic sources of supply. *** indicated that since

January 2006 *** firm had switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of

SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico, but that any sourcing decisions were driven by product quality

and performance and not pricing. *** reported that U.S. producers have not reduced their prices of SRC

pipe and tube in order to compete with prices of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico and that any

changes in U.S. producer pricing that may have occurred were of no influence to ***’s sourcing

decisions. *** indicated that during August 2007, *** switched from purchasing from U.S. producer ***

to Chinese producer ***. *** indicated that until 2009, ***.5

*** of *** agreed with the lost revenue allegations made by ***. *** indicated that ***. He

noted that the manufacturer had to lower its price to his firm because its wholesale customers would have

purchased imported product if it could not meet competitive conditions.6

 He indicated that since January

2006 his firm has not switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC

pipe and tube from China or Mexico, but that U.S. producers reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in

order to compete with prices of SRC pipe and tube imported from China or Mexico. 

In response to the lost revenue allegation made by ***, *** of *** indicated that his company

does not purchase or have sources to purchase imported copper tube from. He stated that his purchases

for *** were from domestic producers. *** indicated that he paid 5 percent more than the *** multiplier

net stated as the rejected quote for the U.S. product and that the U.S. producer did not lower its price. He

responded that since January 2006, his firm has not switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S.

producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico. *** added that although it is

possible, he is not certain whether U.S. producers reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to

compete with prices of SRC pipe and tube imported from China or Mexico.

*** of *** disagreed with the lost sale allegation made by ***. He indicated that this supplier

was the highest bidder of all, including two other U.S. sources who would have gotten an order before

this supplier with the pricing referenced here. *** noted that the two items in the allegation had been

purchased from *** for over 10 years and when that source ***, the Mexican source agreed to continue

the supply at the same price. He indicated that the U.S. source referenced above was quoted in September
V-11

2009, and it was told that it was not competitive although there are other U.S. suppliers with pricing that

is competitive with Mexico and China. While *** indicated that since January 2006, his firm did switch

purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China or

Mexico, he indicated that this switch was due to the availability of certain alloys in addition to pricing. 

*** also indicated that since January 2006, U.S. producers have not raised their prices of SRC pipe and

tube.

*** of *** agreed with the lost sales allegation made by ***. He indicated that his firm did

switch purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from

China or Mexico and that price was the reason for the switch. *** also indicated that U.S. producers

reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to compete with prices of SRC pipe and tube imported

from China or Mexico. 

*** of *** disagreed with the two lost sales allegations and one lost revenue allegation made by

*** but agreed with one lost sales allegation made by ***. *** indicated that the *** pound allegation

made by *** was awarded to a domestic supplier. He noted that the *** pound allegation was an

unsolicited quote and that business for this product was already contractually committed for 2009. ***

indicated that the lost revenue allegation was a quote from a U.S. producer for a price increase, and due to

a sharp decrease in sales, *** was not accepting price increases. With regard to the lost sales allegation

that he agreed with, he noted that *** awarded this requirement to a Chinese producer, as well as a

domestic producer, both of which quoted a lower price than this quote. He indicated that his firm

switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from

China or Mexico and that price was the reason for the switch. *** noted that *** still purchases

significant quantities from U.S. producers but that it is important to have multiple supply sources. He

also indicated that the HVAC industry has suffered a sharp decrease in sales, and that a reduction in

prices could be the result of lower demand generally, and increased competition from domestic and

foreign producers.

The representative for *** did not respond to the specific lost sales allegation. However, he did

indicate that since January 2006, the firm switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers

to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico and that price was the reason for the switch. He

also reported that U.S. producers did not reduce their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to compete

with prices of SRC pipe and tube imported from China or Mexico. 

*** of *** agreed with the lost sales allegation made by ***. He indicated that the fabrication

cost of the imported quote was $***/lb., plus a $***/lb. premium. *** also indicated that sales were lost

to imports from both China and Mexico (only Mexico was named in the allegation). He indicated that

since January 2006, his firm switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers

of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico and that price was the reason for the switch. However, ***

stated that U.S. producers had not reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to compete with

prices of SRC pipe and tube imported from China or Mexico. 

*** of *** did not specifically agree or disagree with the lost revenue allegation made by ***. 

*** indicated that his company places a premium on the use of domestic material and doesn’t actively

solicit information on imported copper. He responded that since January 2006, his firm has not switched

purchases of SRC pipe and tube from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China or

Mexico and that U.S. producers had not reduced their prices of SRC pipe and tube in order to compete

with prices of SRC pipe and tube imported from China or Mexico. 

*** of *** disagreed with the lost sales allegation made by ***. He indicated that he did not

recall the quote. *** reported that since January 2006, his firm switched purchases of SRC pipe and tube

from U.S. producers to suppliers of SRC pipe and tube from China or Mexico, but that price was not the

reason for the switch, rather that ***. He also indicated that U.S. producers had not reduced their prices

of SRC pipe and tube in order to compete with prices of SRC pipe and tube imported from China or

Mexico. 

 1

 The U.S. producers are ***. 

 2

 Full year financial data for all U.S. producers cover fiscal years 2006 to 2008.

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCERS

Introduction

Eleven U.S. firms provided usable financial data on their operations on SRC pipe and tube.1

These data are believed to account for the large majority of U.S. operations on SRC pipe and tube. No

firms reported internal consumption, and *** reported transfers to related firms. Transfers accounted for

only *** percent of total net sales value in 2008. Accordingly, data for such operations are not presented

separately in this section of the report. All firms reported a fiscal year end on or near December 31 ***.2

Operations on SRC Pipe and Tube

Income-and-loss data for U.S. firms on their operations on SRC pipe and tube are presented in

table VI-1, while selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table VI-2. The domestic industry

experienced a continuous decline in net sales (quantity and value) and operating income from 2006 to

2008, as well as between the comparable interim periods. The per-pound net sales value increased from

2006 to 2008, then declined in January-June 2009 as compared to January-June 2008. From 2006 to

2008, the per-pound cost of goods sold (“COGS”) and selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”)

expenses, combined, increased more than revenue, thus leading to a decline in profits. Between the

comparable interim periods, per-pound revenue decreased more than operating costs and expenses, which

led to a continued decline in profitability in January-June 2009 as compared to January-June 2008. 

Similarly, COGS as a ratio to net sales modestly increased throughout the period for which data were

collected, which indicates that such costs were increasing at a somewhat greater rate (2006 to 2008) or

decreasing at a somewhat lower rate (January-June 2008 to January-June 2009) as compared to revenue. 

Raw material costs are the primary component of total COGS, accounting for 85 percent of total

COGS during the period for which data were collected. While all components of COGS generally

increased on a per-pound basis from 2006 to 2008, the most significant increase occurred in raw material

costs (copper cathode, ingot, and/or scrap), which increased by $0.48, or 17 percent, from 2006 to 2008. 

Between the comparable interim periods, per-pound raw material costs declined by $1.66, or 46 percent,

while direct labor and other factory costs moderately increased. Thus, the overall decline in per-pound

COGS between the comparable interim periods is the result of the decline in raw material costs. 
VI-2

Table VI-1

SRC pipe and tube: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June

2009

Item

Fiscal year January-June

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Total net sales 902,149 778,614 652,123 361,851 278,630

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales 3,352,765 3,172,202 2,787,044 1,596,519 748,672

COGS 2,984,580 2,876,789 2,549,697 1,480,169 697,925

Gross profit 368,185 295,413 237,347 116,350 50,747

SG&A expenses 77,987 71,597 65,984 32,260 28,727

Operating income 290,198 223,816 171,363 84,090 22,020

Interest expense 14,196 12,966 11,920 5,721 2,843

Other income/(expense) (5,975) (786) (827) (2,696) (437)

Net income 270,027 210,064 158,616 75,673 18,740

Depreciation 38,760 37,400 35,885 17,323 18,567

Cash flow 308,787 247,464 194,501 92,996 37,307

Ratio to net sales (percent)

 COGS:

 Raw materials 76.6 77.8 78.0 80.9 71.1

 Direct labor 3.2 3.1 3.3 3.0 5.1

 Other factory costs 9.2 9.8 10.2 8.9 17.0

 Total COGS 89.0 90.7 91.5 92.7 93.2

Gross profit 11.0 9.3 8.5 7.3 6.8

SG&A expenses 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.0 3.8

Operating income 8.7 7.1 6.1 5.3 2.9

Net income 8.1 6.6 5.7 4.7 2.5

Unit value (per pound)

Total net sales $3.72 $4.07 $4.27 $4.41 $2.69

 COGS:

 Raw materials 2.85 3.17 3.33 3.57 1.91

 Direct labor 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.14

 Other factory costs 0.34 0.40 0.44 0.39 0.46

 Total COGS 3.31 3.69 3.91 4.09 2.50

Gross profit 0.41 0.38 0.36 0.32 0.18

SG&A expenses 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.10

Operating income 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.23 0.08

Net income 0.30 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.07

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses 1 1 3 1 4

Data 10 10 11 11 11

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 3

 The other U.S. producers to report an operating loss during interim 2009 were ***, which reported much

smaller levels of sales as compared to ***, and reported operating losses ***. In addition, three firms (***) reported

small operating losses in 2008.

 4

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 14.

 5

 SG&A expenses represent only 2.6 percent of total operating costs during the period for which data were

collected, and are not a major factor behind the industry’s reported financial performance.

 6

 At the conference, the petitioners were asked to discuss the level of profitability each firm believes they would

have achieved absent the effects of subject imports from China and Mexico, and when they last achieved such

profitability. In response to this question, the petitioners stated in their postconference brief that, “...***. Since

Cerro, KobeWieland and Mueller have each embarked on significant expansion and modernization projects in the

last ten years, each companies’ payback targets were expected to be met at the time of the approvals.” Petitioners’

postconference brief, exh. 14. 

 7

 A variance analysis is calculated in three parts; sales variance, cost of sales variance, and SG&A expense

variance. Each part consists of a price variance (in the case of the sales variance) or a cost variance (in the case of

the cost of sales and SG&A expense variance) and a volume variance. The sales or cost variance is calculated as the

change in unit price times the new volume, while the volume variance is calculated as the change in volume times

the old unit price. Summarized at the bottom of the table, the price variance is from sales; the cost/expense variance

is the sum of those items from COGS and SG&A variances, respectively; and the volume variance is the sum of the

lines under price and cost/expense variance. The net volume component is generally the smallest component.

VI-3

Table VI-2

SRC pipe and tube: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

While the overall industry, as well as ***, reported a decline in profitability during the period for

which data were requested, *** in January-June 2009.3 According to petitioners, ***. Further,

petitioners’ stated that per-pound selling expenses are lower for sales to OEMs as compared to sales of

standard products to distributors and retailers.4 5 6

Variance Analysis

A variance analysis is presented in table VI-3. The information for the variance analysis is

derived from table VI-1. The analysis shows that the decline in operating income from 2006 to 2008 is

primarily attributable to an unfavorable net cost/expense variance that more than offset a favorable price

variance (that is, costs and expenses rose more than prices). Between the comparable interim periods, the

decline in operating income is primarily attributable to an unfavorable price variance that more than offset

a favorable net cost/expense variance (that is, prices declined more than costs/expenses).7
 8

 Petitioners’ post-conference brief, exh. 14.

VI-4

Table VI-3

SRC pipe and tube: Variance analysis on operations of U.S. producers, 2006-08, and January-June 2008-09

Item

Between fiscal years Jan.-June

2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Value ($1,000)

 Total net sales:

 Price variance 363,481 278,545 130,187 (480,668)

 Volume variance (929,202) (459,108) (515,345) (367,179)

 Total net sales variance (565,721) (180,563) (385,158) (847,847)

Cost of sales:

 Cost variance (392,278) (300,900) (140,261) 441,824

 Volume variance 827,161 408,691 467,353 340,420

 Total cost variance 434,883 107,791 327,092 782,244

Gross profit variance (130,838) (72,772) (58,066) (65,603)

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance (9,611) (4,289) (6,018) (3,886)

 Volume variance 21,614 10,679 11,631 7,419

 Total SG&A variance 12,003 6,390 5,613 3,533

Operating income variance (118,835) (66,382) (52,453) (62,070)

Summarized as:

 Price variance 363,481 278,545 130,187 (480,668)

 Net cost/expense variance (401,889) (305,189) (146,280) 437,938

 Net volume variance (80,427) (39,738) (36,360) (19,340)

Note.-- Unfavorable variances are shown in parentheses; all others are favorable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

The responding firms’ aggregate data on capital expenditures and research and development

(“R&D”) expenses are shown in table VI-4. Nine firms provided capital expenditure data, and four firms

provided data on R&D expenses. Capital expenditures increased from 2006 to 2008, but declined

between the comparable interim periods. *** reported the majority of total capital expenditures. Cerro’s

capital expenditures primarily reflect the completion of an expansion and modernization program at the

firm’s Cedar City, UT, facility, while KobeWieland’s capital expenditures primarily reflect ongoing

expenditures for expansion and modernization of the firm’s Pine Hall, NC, facility.8
VI-5

Table VI-4

SRC pipe and tube: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. producers, 2006-

08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Fiscal year January-June

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Value ($1,000)

Capital expenditures:

 Total 30,744 40,816 *** *** ***

R&D expenses:

 Total 735 1,865 2,137 924 1,115

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Assets and Return on Investment

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,

and sale of SRC pipe and tube to compute return on investment (“ROI”). Data on the U.S. producers’

total assets and their ROI are presented in table VI-5. From 2006 to 2008, the total assets for SRC pipe

and tube decreased from $1.3 billion in 2006 to $992 million in 2008, and the ROI declined from 22.0

percent in 2006 to 17.3 percent in 2008. 

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers of SRC pipe and tube to describe any actual or

potential negative effects of imports of SRC pipe and tube from China and Mexico on their firms’ growth,

investment, ability to raise capital, development and production efforts, or the scale of capital

investments. Their responses are next.

Actual Negative Effects

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Negative Effects

* * * * * * *
VI-6

Table VI-5

SRC pipe and tube: Asset values and return on investment of U.S. producers, 2006-08

Item

Fiscal year

2006 2007 2008

Value of assets: Value ($1,000)

Current assets:

 Cash and equivalents 78,214 130,337 99,479

 Accounts receivable, net 327,419 312,999 221,858

 Inventories 435,236 347,095 210,618

 Other 58,767 83,148 71,478

 Total current assets 899,636 873,579 603,433

Property, plant and equipment:

Original cost 831,874 771,065 834,629

Less: accumulated depreciation 492,067 479,740 526,405

Equals: book value 339,807 291,325 308,224

Other non-current assets 80,244 79,649 80,326

 Total assets 1,319,687 1,244,553 991,983

Operating income or (loss) 290,198 223,816 171,363

Share (percent)

Return on investment 22.0 18.0 17.3

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON

NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

Section 771(7)(F)(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)) provides that--

In determining whether an industry in the United States is threatened

with material injury by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of the

subject merchandise, the Commission shall consider, among other

relevant economic factors1

--

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be

presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the

subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a

subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement), and

whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial

increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the

likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export

markets to absorb any additional exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of

imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of

substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices

that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on

domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) 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,

(VII) in any investigation under this title which involves imports of both

a raw agricultural product (within the meaning of paragraph (4)(E)(iv))

and any product processed from such raw agricultural product, the

likelihood that there will be increased imports, by reason of product

shifting, if there is an affirmative determination by the Commission

 1 Section 771(7)(F)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii)) provides that “The Commission shall consider *** .

. . as a whole in making a determination of whether further dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether

material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted

under this title. The presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider . . . shall not

necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the determination. Such a determination may not be made on the

basis of mere conjecture or supposition.”

VII-1
under section 705(b)(1) or 735(b)(1) with respect to either the raw

agricultural product or the processed agricultural product (but not both),

(VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing

development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including

efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic

like product, and

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability

that there is likely to be material injury by reason of imports (or sale for

importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually

being imported at the time).2

Information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts

IV and V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’

existing development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the

subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any

other threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in third-country markets, follows. Also presented

in this section of the report is information obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject

countries and the global market.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The Chinese SRC pipe and tube industry has experienced significant recent expansion in response

to the country’s rapid growth in demand by downstream industry sectors driven by China’s rapid overall

economic development. However, according to the 2009 U.S. Geological Survey, although Chinese

smelter and refinery capacity has expanded in recent years, its mine and refinery production are 

insufficient to meet growing domestic consumption needs for refined copper,3

 so China is a leading global

importer of copper in the forms of refined metal and scrap.4

The Commission requested data from the 14 firms that were listed in the petition as producing

SRC pipe and tube in China during the period of the investigation. The Commission received a response

from 10 firms,5

 and data regarding the Chinese industry are based on the 10 foreign producer

questionnaires received. These responses are believed to account for approximately 97.9 percent of

Chinese export shipments to the United States in 2008. In addition to the responding Chinese producers

of SRC pipe and tube, U.S. importers identified the following producers/exporters as other Chinese

sources for their imports of SRC pipe and tube: ***. Chinese respondents estimate the total production of

 2 Section 771(7)(F)(iii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(iii)) further provides that, in antidumping

investigations, “. . . the Commission shall consider whether dumping in the markets of foreign countries (as

evidenced by dumping findings or antidumping remedies in other WTO member markets against the same class or

kind of merchandise manufactured or exported by the same party as under investigation) suggests a threat of material

injury to the domestic industry.”

 3

 Pui Kwan Tse, “The Mineral Industry of China,” 2007 Mineral Yearbook (advanced release), U.S. Geological

Survey, February 2009, pp. 9.5 – 9.6.

 4

 Ibid., pp. 9.3 and 9.23.

 5

 Producers in China that submitted foreign producer questionnaires were: ***. ***.

VII-2
SRC pipe and tube in China at 1.7 billion in 2008 and the Chinese industry’s capacity utilization is 80

percent.6 7

 Table VII-1 presents information on the Chinese industry’s SRC pipe and tube operations. 

Chinese capacity increased 9.8 percent from 2006 to 2008, and decreased 4.1 percent between the interim

periods, and were projected to increase in 2009 and 2010. Chinese production increased in 2007, then

decreased in 2008 for an overall decline of 5.7 percent from 2006 to 2008. Chinese production also

decreased by 27.8 percent in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008. Chinese capacity utilization

decreased steadily from 2006 to 2008, then decreased in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008. 

Chinese producers projected an increase in capacity utilization in 2009 and 2010. The share of Chinese

shipments sold to its home market decreased from 61.1 percent to 52.1 percent during 2006 to 2008. The

majority of Chinese producer export shipments was to countries other than the United States.8

 Chinese

total exports as a share of its total shipments increased from 37.0 percent to 45.9 percent during 2006 to

2008. ***.

Table VII-2 presents the Chinese producers’ share of their total sales represented by sales of SRC

pipe and tube, and the other products produced on the same equipment and machinery used to produce

SRC pipe and tube.

 6 Hailiang’s postconference brief, p. 26. The China Nonferrous Metals Industry Association reported that in

2007, China’s copper tube production capacity (including nonsubject products) was *** pounds and its production

was *** pounds. Hailiang submission, November 2, 2009, exh. 2.

 7

 Petitioners reported that in 2009, there were reportedly 18 major SRC pipe and tube producers in China with a

combined capacity of approximately 2 billion pounds (operating at 35 percent capacity). Petitioners’ postconference

brief, p. 4.

 8

 These other export markets include: ***.

VII-3
Table VII-1

SRC pipe and tube: Chinese production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2006-08, JanuaryJune 2008, January-June 2009, and projected 2009-10

Item

Actual experience Projections

2006 2007 2008

January-June

2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Capacity 936,341 990,960 1,028,166 549,838 527,194 838,124 846,722

Production 730,175 740,864 688,328 410,268 296,343 613,548 632,782

End of period inventories 52,710 39,067 20,845 25,693 16,183 15,424 16,480

Shipments

 Internal consumption/

 transfers 13,890 13,709 14,062 7,524 10,368 19,569 23,978

 Home market 456,964 439,876 369,469 214,456 135,426 316,224 343,513

 Exports to--

The United States 82,655 78,710 108,801 70,550 51,558 90,335 65,426

All other markets 193,838 224,491 217,128 131,388 100,954 195,425 205,159

 Total exports 276,493 303,201 325,929 201,938 152,512 285,760 270,585

Total shipments 747,347 756,786 709,461 423,919 298,306 621,553 638,076

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 78.0 74.8 66.9 74.6 56.2 73.2 74.7

Inventories to production 7.2 5.3 3.0 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.6

Inventories to total

 shipments 7.1 5.2 2.9 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.6

Share of total quantity of

 shipments:

 Internal consumption/

 transfers 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.8 3.5 3.1 3.8

 Home market 61.1 58.1 52.1 50.6 45.4 50.9 53.8

 Exports to--

The United States 11.1 10.4 15.3 16.6 17.3 14.5 10.3

All other markets 25.9 29.7 30.6 31.0 33.8 31.4 32.2

All export markets 37.0 40.1 45.9 47.6 51.1 46.0 42.4

Note – Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

VII-4
Table VII-2

SRC pipe and tube: Share of Chinese producers’ total sales, other products produced on the

same equipment and machinery

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN MEXICO

The Commission requested data from six firms that were listed in the petition as possible

producers of SRC pipe and tube in Mexico during the period of the investigation. The Commission

received responses from four firms, which accounted for *** percent of Mexican exports during the

period of investigation.9

Table VII-3 presents information on the Mexican industry’s operations in Mexico.10 Mexican

producers’ capacity decreased from 2006 to 2007, then increased in 2008, and during January-June 2009

and is projected to increase in 2010. Mexican production of SRC pipe and tube decreased by *** percent

from 2006 to 2008 and decreased by *** percent between the interim periods. Mexican capacity

utilization *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. Capacity utilization in 2009 is projected to be ***

percent.

The volume of Mexican producers’ shipments to its home market ranged from *** percent in

2008 to *** percent in 2006. The *** of Mexican producers’ exports was exported to the United States,

and ranged from *** percent to *** percent of total shipments.11 Table VII-4 presents the Mexican

producers’ share of their total sales represented by sales of SRC pipe and tube, and the other products

produced on the same equipment and machinery used to produce SRC pipe and tube.

One Mexican producer, Luvata Monterrey, began production in 2009, ***.12 Another Mexican

producer, GD Affiliates is adding new capacity (*** pounds) to begin production in 2010. IUSA

reported that ***.13 IUSA has commissioned a new plant, Pasteje, to produce commercial SRC pipe and

tube.14 Wolverine has a SRC pipe and tube plant in Mexico where copper pipe and tube produced at

Wolverine’s Shawnee, OK plant is further fabricated.15 

Table VII-3

SRC pipe and tube: Mexican production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2006-08, JanuaryJune 2008, January-June 2009, and projected 2009-10

* * * * * * *

Table VII-4

SRC pipe and tube: Share of Mexican producers’ total sales, other products produced on the

same equipment and machinery

* * * * * * *

 9 Producers in Mexico that submitted foreign producer questionnaires were: ***.

 10 The Mexican SRC pipe and tube industry relies upon both domestic and foreign sources of copper imports. 

 11 The other export markets are ***.

 12 Luvata Monterrey foreign producer questionnaire, p. 5.

 13 IUSA foreign producer questionnaire, p. 5.

 14 IUSA and Nacional de Cobre’s postconference brief, p. 49.

 15 ***.

VII-5
U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES OF SRC PIPE AND TUBE

Thirteen U.S. importers reported inventories of imports of SRC pipe and tube from China during

the period for which data were collected, three firms reported inventories from Mexico, and eleven firms

reported inventories from nonsubject countries. Data collected in these investigations on U.S. importers’

end-of-period inventories of SRC pipe and tube are presented in table VII-5. Inventories from China and

Mexico increased from 2006 to 2008 then decreased in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008.

Table VII-5

SRC pipe and tube: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, 2006-08, January-June

2008, and January-June 2009

Source

Calendar year January-June

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Imports from China:

 Inventories (1,000 pounds) 3,124 3,152 6,369 10,351 8,735

Ratio to imports (percent) 4.5 4.1 6.3 8.8 8.9

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

 (percent) 4.7 4.4 7.1 10.7 10.3

Imports from Mexico:

 Inventories (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

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

Imports from subject sources:

 Inventories (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

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

Imports from all other sources:

 Inventories (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

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

Imports from all sources:

 Inventories (1,000 pounds) 16,525 16,339 14,983 21,464 16,889

Ratio to imports (percent) 8.5 8.6 7.4 9.1 9.2

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports

 (percent) 8.8 8.8 7.9 10.4 10.0

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Partial-year ratios are based on annualized

import and shipment data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

VII-6
U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

Twenty-three U.S. importers reported imports or the arrangement of imports of SRC pipe and

tube of *** pounds from China, and twelve importers reported imports of *** pounds from Mexico after

June 30, 2009.16

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY INVESTIGATIONS

IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

SRC pipe and tube have not been subject to any import injury investigations in third country

markets.

INFORMATION ON PRODUCERS IN NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury

“by reason of subject imports,” the legislative history states “that the Commission must examine all

relevant evidence, including any known factors, other than the dumped or subsidized imports, that may be

injuring the domestic industry, and that the Commission must examine those other factors (including

nonsubject imports) ‘to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.’”17

Canada and Malaysia are leading nonsubject sources for U.S. imports of SRC pipe and tube (see table IV3).

Canada

Wolverine Tube (Canada) Inc. (Wolverine Canada) is a major producer of SRC pipe and tube in

Canada.18 As part of its plans to exit the North American residential plumbing tube market, parentcompany Wolverine announced, in July 2008, the sell-off of Wolverine Canada’s residential plumbing

tube operations, to focus on heat-transfer tubing, fabricated assemblies, and metal-joining products.19

Subsequently, Wolverine Canada’s product line was expanded beyond uncoated SRC pipe and tube

through acquisition of Kamco Products (Kamco) in November 2008, a leading Canadian and North

American producer of coated SRC pipe and tube.20 Kamco’s plastic-coated SRC pipe and tube is encased

in polyethylene for corrosion resistance in conveyance of fuel oil, natural gas and liquified petroleum gas,

and potable water in industrial and municipal service sectors.21 Further information was not readily

available about Wolverine Canada’s annual production capacity.

 16 Those firms are ***. 

 17 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. V. United States, Slip Op. 2007-1552 at 17 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2008), quoting

from Statement of Administrative Action on Uruguay round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 851-52;

see also Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 32006).

 18 Petition, p. 25.

 19 Wolverine, “Wolverine Tube Sells Canadian Plumbing Tube Unit for $42 Million,” press release, July 8, 2008.

 20 Wolverine-Canada, Kamco Div., “Wolverine Tube (Canada) Inc. Acquires the Assets of Kamco Products, a

Division of Granby Steel Tanks,” November 1, 2008.

 21 Kamco, “Profile;” and “Products.”

VII-7
Malaysia

MetTube Sdn Bhd (MetTube) is the first integrated mill in Malaysia that produces SRC pipe and

tube from melting, casting, extruding, and drawing of refined copper.22 Both smooth and inner-groove

SRC pipe and tube are produced by MetTube for the air conditioning and refrigeration industries. 

MetTube’s tubing is available either unannealed or with varying degrees of annealing, and in spooled

coils, pancake coils, and straight lengths.23 MetTube’s tubing is produced to several different foreignmarket specifications, including ASTM B-75, the U.S. specification for seamless copper tube for general

engineering applications.24 Total annual production capacity at MetTube’s facility in Selangor state is

nearly 26,500 short tons per annum.25 MetTube claims to be shipping to customers and partners in 31

countries worldwide.26

Outokumpu Copper Products (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. (Outokumpu-Malaysia) is a producer of SRC

pipe and tube for air conditioning and refrigeration (ACR), along with copper profiles and sections,27 as a

member of Luvata (formerly Outokumpu Copper Products before May 2006) since 1998.28 ***29***30. 

Further information was not readily available about these Malaysian producers' annual production

capacities or product lines.

 22 MetTube was established in 1991 as a joint venture between Metdist Ltd. (United Kingdom) and Mitsubishi

Materials Corp. (Japan). MetTube, “MetTube & You– Chairman Statement;” and MetTube, “Virtual Tour–

MetTube Today.”

 23 MetTube, “MetTube & You– Product Range.”

 24 MetTube, “MetTube & You– Product Specifications.”

 25 Total annual production capacity originally reported as 24,000 metric tons. MetTube, “MetTube & You–

MetTube Today.”

 26 Ibid.; and MetTube, “Tube & You– Global Market.”

 27 E-Directory.com.my, Malaysia Manufacturers Directory, “Outokumpu Copper Products (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

(417125-K).

 28 Luvata, “About Luvata, Our History,” 2009.

 29 ***.

 30 ***. 

VII-8
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

51318 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 / Notices 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information; (c) enhance the quality, 

usefulness, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

minimize the burden on the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Agencies must also estimate the nonhour paperwork cost burdens to 

respondents or recordkeepers resulting 

from the collection of information. 

Therefore, if you have costs to generate, 

maintain, and disclose this information, 

you should comment and provide your 

total capital and startup cost 

components or annual operation, 

maintenance, and purchase of service 

components. You should describe the 

methods you use to estimate major cost 

factors, including system and 

technology acquisition, expected useful 

life of capital equipment, discount 

rate(s), and the period over which you 

incur costs. Capital and startup costs 

include, among other items, computers 

and software you purchase to prepare 

for collecting information, monitoring, 

and record storage facilities. You should 

not include estimates for equipment or 

services purchased: (i) Before October 1, 

1995; (ii) to comply with requirements 

not associated with the information 

collection; (iii) for reasons other than to 

provide information or keep records for 

the Government; or (iv) as part of 

customary and usual business or private 

practices. 

We will summarize written responses 

to this notice and address them in our 

submission for OMB approval. As a 

result of your comments, we will make 

any necessary adjustments to the burden 

in our submission to OMB. 

Public Comment Procedures: Before 

including your address, phone number, 

e-mail address, or other personal 

identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment–including your 

personal identifying information–may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

MMS Information Collection 

Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202) 

208–7744. 

Dated: September 25, 2009. 

E.P. Danenberger, 

Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–24094 Filed 10–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1174–1175 

(Preliminary)] 

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube From China and Mexico 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of antidumping 

investigations and scheduling of 

preliminary phase investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the institution of investigations 

and commencement of preliminary 

phase antidumping investigation Nos. 

731–TA–1174–1175 (Preliminary) under 

section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act) to 

determine whether there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured or 

threatened with material injury, or the 

establishment of an industry in the 

United States is materially retarded, by 

reason of imports from China and 

Mexico of seamless refined copper pipe 

and tube, provided for in subheadings 

7411.10.10, and 8415.90.80 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States, that are alleged to be sold 

in the United States at less than fair 

value. Unless the Department of 

Commerce extends the time for 

initiation pursuant to section 

732(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must 

reach a preliminary determination in 

antidumping investigations in 45 days, 

or in this case by November 16, 2009. 

The Commission’s views are due at 

Commerce within five business days 

thereafter, or by November 23, 2009. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of these investigations 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 and B (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: September 30, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Haines (202–205–3200), 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 investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. These investigations are 

being instituted in response to a petition 

filed on September 30, 2009, by Cerro 

Flow Products, Inc., St. Louis, MO; 

Kobe Wieland Copper Products, LLC, 

Pine Hall, NC; Mueller Copper Tube 

Products, Inc., and Mueller Copper 

Tube Company, Inc., Memphis, TN. 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list. Persons (other than 

petitioners) wishing to participate in the 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the 

Commission’s rules, not later than seven 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Industrial users 

and (if the merchandise under 

investigation is sold at the retail level) 

representative consumer organizations 

have the right to appear as parties in 

Commission antidumping 

investigations. The Secretary will 

prepare a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to these investigations upon the 

expiration of the period for filing entries 

of appearance. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list. Pursuant to section 

207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the 

Secretary will make BPI gathered in 

these investigations available to 

authorized applicants representing 

interested parties (as defined in 19 

U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the 

investigations under the APO issued in 

the investigations, provided that the 

application is made not later than seven 

days after the publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Conference. The Commission’s 

Director of Investigations has scheduled 

a conference in connection with these 

investigations for 9:30 a.m. on October 

21, 2009, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building, 500 E Street, 

SW., Washington, DC. Parties wishing to 

participate in the conference should 

contact Elizabeth Haines (202–205– 

3200) not later than October 16, 2009, to 

arrange for their appearance. Parties in 

support of the imposition of 

antidumping duties in these 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 / Notices 51319 

investigations and parties in opposition 

to the imposition of such duties will 

each be collectively allocated one hour 

within which to make an oral 

presentation at the conference. A 

nonparty who has testimony that may 

aid the Commission’s deliberations may 

request permission to present a short 

statement at the conference. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the 

Commission’s rules, any person may 

submit to the Commission on or before 

October 26, 2009, a written brief 

containing information and arguments 

pertinent to the subject matter of the 

investigations. Parties may file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the conference no later 

than three days before the conference. If 

briefs or written testimony contain BPI, 

they must conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, 

and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. 

The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the investigations 

must be served on all other parties to 

the investigations (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.12 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: September 30, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–23988 Filed 10–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–678] 

In the Matter of Certain Energy Drink 

Products; Notice of Commission 

Decision Not To Review an Initial 

Determination Granting Motion To 

Amend the Complaint and the Notice 

of Investigation To Add Six Additional 

Respondents 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 7) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the 

above-captioned investigation granting a 

motion filed by complainants Red Bull 

GmbH and Red Bull North America, Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Red Bull’’) to amend the 

complaint and notice of investigation to 

add six new respondents. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

M. Bartkowski, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–5432. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on June 17, 2009, based on a complaint 

filed by Red Bull GmbH and Red Bull 

North America, Inc. (‘‘Red Bull’’). 74 FR 

28725 (June 17, 2009). The complaint as 

amended alleged violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1337) in the importation into the United 

States, the sale for importation, and the 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain energy drink 

products by reason of infringement of 

U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 

3,092,197; 2,946,045; 2,994,429; and 

3,479,607 and U.S. Copyright 

Registration No. VA0001410959. The 

complaint initially named six 

respondents: Chicago Import, Inc.; 

Lamont Dist., Inc. a/k/a Lamont 

Distributors Inc.; India Imports, Inc., 

a/k/a International Wholesale Club; 

Washington Food and Supply of DC, 

Inc., a/k/a Washington Cash & Carry; 

Vending Plus, Inc.; and Baltimore 

Beverage Co. 

On September 8, 2009, the ALJ issued 

the subject ID, granting Red Bull’s 

motion to amend the complaint and 

notice of investigation to add six new 

respondents: Posh Nosh Imports; 

Greenwich, Inc.; Advantage Food 

Distributors, Ltd.; Wheeler Trading, Inc.; 

Avalon International General Trading, 

LLC; and Central Supply, Inc. No 

petitions for review were filed. The 

Commission has determined not to 

review the subject ID. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

sections 210.42 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42). 

Issued: September 30, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–23989 Filed 10–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 701–TA–461 (Final)] 

Ni-Resist Piston Inserts From Korea 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Termination of investigation. 

SUMMARY: On September 21, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce published 

notice in the Federal Register of a 

negative final determination of 

subsidies in connection with the subject 

investigation (Ni-Resist Piston Inserts 

from the Republic of Korea: Final 

Negative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, 74 FR 48059, September 

21, 2009). Accordingly, pursuant to 

section 207.40(a) of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

207.40(a)), the countervailing duty 

investigation concerning Ni-resist piston 

inserts from Korea (investigation No. 

701–TA–461 (Final)) is terminated. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 21, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Angela M. W. Newell (202–708–5409), 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
55194 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 27, 2009 / Notices 

1Final amendments regarding the Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties: Seamless 

Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the People’s 

Republic of China, and the Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties: Seamless 

Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from Mexico, were 

filed on October 19, 2009 (collectively, ‘‘Third 

Supplement to the Petitions, dated October 19, 

2009’’). 

Dated: October 21, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–25857 Filed 10–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–570–964, A–201–838) 

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube from the People’s Republic of 

China and Mexico: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maisha Cryor at (202) 482–5831 or 

Zhulieta Willbrand at (202) 482–3147 

(the People’s Republic of China (the 

‘‘PRC’’)), AD/CVD Operations, Office 4; 

George McMahon at (202) 482–1167 or 

James Terpstra at (202) 482–3965 

(Mexico), AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions 

On September 30, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) received petitions 

concerning imports of seamless refined 

copper pipe and tube (‘‘copper pipe and 

tube’’) from the PRC and Mexico filed in 

proper form by Cerro Flow Products, 

Inc., KobeWieland Copper Products, 

LLC, Mueller Copper Tube Products, 

Inc., and Mueller Copper Tube 

Company, Inc. (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’). See Petitions for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube 

from the People’s Republic of China and 

Mexico, dated September 30, 2009 (the 

‘‘Petitions’’). On October 5, 2009, 

October 8, 2009, October 14, 2009, and 

October 16, 2009, the Department issued 

a request for additional information and 

clarification of certain areas of the 

Petitions. On October 14, 2009, the 

Department contacted Petitioners by 

telephone seeking additional 

information and clarification regarding 

the PRC portion of the Petition. See 

Memo to the File from Maisha Cryor, 

‘‘Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube from the People’s Republic of 

China and Mexico: Margin Calculation,’’ 

dated October 15, 2009. On October 16, 

2009, the Department contacted 

Petitioners by telephone seeking 

additional information and clarification 

regarding the scope of the Petition. See 

Memo to the File from Dana M. Griffies, 

Import Policy Analyst, ‘‘ Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties 

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube 

from the People’s Republic of China and 

Mexico: Suggested Scope Changes,’’ 

dated October 16, 2009. 

On October 19, 2009, the Department 

contacted Petitioners by telephone 

seeking additional information and 

clarification regarding industry support. 

See Memo to the File from Dana M. 

Griffies, Import Policy Analyst, ‘‘ 

Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties Seamless Refined 

Copper Pipe and Tube from the People’s 

Republic of China and Mexico: Industry 

Support,’’ dated October 19, 2009. 

Based on the Department’s requests, 

Petitioners filed additional information 

on October 13, 2009 (hereinafter, 

‘‘Supplement to the Petitions, dated 

October 13, 2009’’), October 15, 2009 

(hereinafter, ‘‘Supplement to the PRC 

Petition, dated October 15, 2009’’), 

October 16, 2009 (hereinafter, ‘‘Second 

Supplement to the Petitions, dated 

October 16, 2009’’), October 19, 2009 

(hereinafter, ‘‘Third Supplement to the 

Petitions1,’’), and October 20, 2009 

(hereinafter, ‘‘Fourth Supplement to the 

Petitions’’). The period of investigation 

(‘‘POI’’) for the PRC is January 1, 2009, 

through June 30, 2009. The POI for 

Mexico is July 1, 2008, through June 30, 

2009. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

‘‘Act’’), Petitioners allege that imports of 

copper pipe and tube from the PRC and 

Mexico are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value, within the meaning of section 

731 of the Act, and that such imports 

are materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petitions on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioners 

are interested parties as defined in 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act and have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

duty investigations that Petitioners are 

requesting that the Department initiate 

(see ‘‘Determination of Industry Support 

for the Petitions’’ section below). 

Scope of Investigations 

The products covered by these 

investigations are copper pipe and tube 

from the PRC and Mexico. For a full 

description of the scope of the 

investigations, please see the ‘‘Scope of 

the Investigations,’’ in Appendix I of 

this notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigations 

During our review of the Petitions, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioners to 

ensure that it is an accurate reflection of 

the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 

discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations (Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage. The Department encourages 

all interested parties to submit such 

comments by November 9, 2009, twenty 

calendar days from the signature date of 

this notice. Comments should be 

addressed to Import Administration’s 

APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. The period of 

scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determinations. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires 

We are requesting comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

copper pipe and tube to be reported in 

response to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaires. This 

information will be used to identify the 

key physical characteristics of the 

subject merchandise in order to more 

accurately report the relevant factors 

and costs of production, as well as to 

develop appropriate product 

comparison criteria. 

Interested parties may provide any 

information or comments that they feel 

are relevant to the development of an 

accurate listing of physical 

characteristics. Specifically, they may 

provide comments as to which 

characteristics are appropriate to use as 

1) general product characteristics and 2) 

the product comparison criteria. We 

note that it is not always appropriate to 

use all product characteristics as 

product comparison criteria. We base 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 27, 2009 / Notices 55195 

product comparison criteria on 

meaningful commercial differences 

among products. In other words, while 

there may be some physical product 

characteristics utilized by 

manufacturers to describe copper pipe 

and tube, it may be that only a select 

few product characteristics take into 

account commercially meaningful 

physical characteristics. In addition, 

interested parties may comment on the 

order in which the physical 

characteristics should be used in 

product matching. Generally, the 

Department attempts to list the most 

important physical characteristics first 

and the least important characteristics 

last. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing and 

issuing the antidumping duty 

questionnaires, we must receive 

comments at the above–referenced 

address by November 9, 2009. 

Additionally, rebuttal comments must 

be received by November 16, 2009. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) at least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is 

responsible for determining whether 

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product (see section 

771(10) of the Act), they do so for 

different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (Ct. 

Int’l Trade 2001), citing Algoma Steel 

Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 

Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), 

aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. 

denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioners do not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigations. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that copper 

pipe and tube constitutes a single 

domestic like product and we have 

analyzed industry support in terms of 

that domestic like product. For a 

discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Antidumping 

Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Copper Pipe and Tube from the PRC 

(‘‘PRC Initiation Checklist’’) at 

Attachment II, and Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Copper Pipe and Tube from Mexico 

(‘‘Mexico Initiation Checklist’’) at 

Attachment II, dated concurrently with 

this notice and on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117 of 

the main Department of Commerce 

building. 

In determining whether Petitioners 

have standing under section 

732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered 

the industry support data contained in 

the Petitions with reference to the 

domestic like product as defined in the 

‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. To establish 

industry support, Petitioners provided 

their own 2008 shipments of the 

domestic like product, and compared 

this to the estimated total shipments of 

the domestic like product for the entire 

domestic industry. See Petitions, at 2– 

9, and Exhibits 1–7, Supplement to the 

Petitions, dated October 13, 2009, at 8– 

10, and Exhibit G, Second Supplement 

to the Petitions, dated October 16, 2009, 

at 2–3, and Exhibit 54, and Fourth 

Supplement to the Petitions, dated 

October 20, 2009, at 7–8 and Exhibit 59. 

Petitioners argue that shipments are a 

reasonable proxy for production because 

most domestic production is sold on the 

merchant market. See Petitions, at 8 and 

Exhibits 4–7. Petitioners estimated total 

2008 shipments of the domestic like 

product based on two industry–specific 

reports that publish shipment and 

production information, as well as two 

individuals who are knowledgeable of 

the U.S. industry. See Petitions, at 8 and 

Exhibits 2–3, Supplement to the 

Petitions, dated October 13, 2009, at 8– 

10 and Exhibit G, and Second 

Supplement to the Petitions, dated 

October 16, 2009, at 2–3 and Exhibit 54, 

and Fourth Supplement to the Petitions, 

dated October 20, 2009, at 7–8 and 

Exhibit 59; see also PRC Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II, and Mexico 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petitions, supplemental submissions, 

and other information readily available 

to the Department indicates that 

Petitioners have established industry 

support. First, the Petitions established 

support from domestic producers (or 

workers) accounting for more than 50 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product and, as such, the 

Department is not required to take 

further action in order to evaluate 

industry support (e.g., polling). See 

section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also 

PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment 

II, and Mexico Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petitions 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product. See PRC Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II, and Mexico Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. Finally, the 

domestic producers (or workers) have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act because the domestic producers 

(or workers) who support the Petitions 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petitions. Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the 

Petitions were filed on behalf of the 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
55196 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 27, 2009 / Notices 

domestic industry within the meaning 

of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. See id. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petitions on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and they have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

duty investigations that they are 

requesting the Department initiate. See 

id. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than normal 

value (‘‘NV’’). In addition, Petitioners 

allege that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 

Petitioners contend that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, lost sales and 

revenues, reduced production, reduced 

capacity utilization rate, underselling 

and price depression and suppression, 

reduced workforce, decline in financial 

performance, and an increase in import 

penetration. We have assessed the 

allegations and supporting evidence 

regarding material injury, threat of 

material injury, and causation, and we 

have determined that these allegations 

are properly supported by adequate 

evidence and meet the statutory 

requirements for initiation. See PRC 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment III 

and Mexico Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment III. 

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value 

The following is a description of the 

allegations of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department based its 

decision to initiate these investigations 

of imports of copper pipe and tube from 

the PRC and Mexico. The sources of 

data for the deductions and adjustments 

relating to the U.S. price, the factors of 

production (for the PRC) and cost of 

production (‘‘COP’’) (for Mexico) are 

also discussed in the country–specific 

initiation checklists. See PRC Initiation 

Checklist at 6–10 and Mexico Initiation 

Checklist at 6–10. 

Export Price 

The PRC 

For the PRC, Petitioners calculated 

export price (‘‘EP’’) based on a price 

quote made during the POI for a copper 

pipe and tube product by a Chinese 

producer, sale term delivered. See PRC 

Initiation Checklist at 6; see also 

Petitions, at 28–29, and Exhibit 20, and 

Supplement to the Petitions, dated 

October 13, 2009, at 12, and Exhibit G. 

Petitioners substantiated the U.S. price 

quote with an affidavit. See Petitions, at 

Exhibit 20. Petitioners made 

adjustments to EP for ocean freight, 

foreign inland freight, and a distributor 

commission. See PRC Initiation 

Checklist at 6–7; see also Petitions, at 

Exhibits 21 and 23, and Supplement to 

the Petitions, dated October 13, 2009, at 

18–20, and Exhibit L. Petitioners made 

no other adjustments. See PRC Initiation 

Checklist for additional details. 

Mexico 

For Mexico, Petitioners based U.S. 

price on the invoice from an actual sale 

of Type K and Type L copper pipe and 

tube, produced by a Mexican 

manufacturer and sold to a U.S. 

customer in January 2009. See Mexico 

Initiation Checklist; see also Petitions, at 

31 and Exhibit 20, and Supplement to 

the Petitions, dated October 13, 2009, at 

21 and Exhibit N. Petitioners 

substantiated the U.S. prices used with 

an affidavit and a declaration from 

persons who obtained the information. 

See Supplement to the Petitions, at 21 

and Exhibit N. Petitioners 

conservatively assumed the selling 

expenses to be zero in their calculation 

of the net U.S. price. Petitioners 

deducted ocean freight and foreign 

inland freight expenses but made no 

other adjustments. See Mexico Initiation 

Checklist at 7; see also Petition, at 32 

and Exhibit 35, and Supplement to the 

Petitions, dated October 13, 2009, at 22, 

and Exhibit P. See the Mexico Initiation 

Checklist for additional details. 

Normal Value 

The PRC 

Petitioners state that the PRC is a 

non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) country 

and no determination to the contrary 

has been made by the Department. See 

Petitions, at 29; see also Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 

People’s Republic of China: Amended 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 46971 

(September 14, 2009); see also Certain 

Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and 

Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China: Antidumping Duty 

Order, 74 FR 38395 (August 3, 2009). 

In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the 

presumption of NME status remains in 

effect until revoked by the Department. 

The presumption of NME status for the 

PRC has not been revoked by the 

Department and, therefore, remains in 

effect for purposes of the initiation of 

the PRC investigation. Accordingly, the 

NV of the product for the PRC 

investigation is appropriately based on 

factors of production valued in a 

surrogate market–economy country in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act. In the course of the PRC 

investigation, all parties, including the 

public, will have the opportunity to 

provide relevant information related to 

the issue of the PRC’s NME status and 

the granting of separate rates to 

individual exporters. 

Citing section 773(c)(4) of the Act, 

Petitioners contend that India is the 

appropriate surrogate country for the 

PRC because: 1) it is at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC; and 2) it is a significant 

producer of copper pipe and tube. See 

Petitions, at 29–30, and Exhibits 26 and 

27. Based on the information provided 

by Petitioners, we believe that it is 

appropriate to use India as a surrogate 

country for initiation purposes. After 

initiation of the investigation, interested 

parties will have the opportunity to 

submit comments regarding surrogate– 

country selection and, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided 

an opportunity to submit publicly 

available information to value factors of 

production within 40 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

Petitioners calculated the NV and 

dumping margins for the U.S. price, 

discussed above, using the Department’s 

NME methodology as required by 19 

CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 

351.408. Petitioners calculated NV 

based on their own consumption rates 

for producing copper pipe and tube in 

2009. See Petitions at 30, and Exhibits 

28 and 34. In calculating NV, Petitioners 

based the quantity of each of the inputs 

used to manufacture and pack copper 

pipe and tube in the PRC based on their 

own production experience during the 

POI because they stated that the actual 

usage rates of the foreign manufacturers 

of copper pipe and tube were not 

reasonably available. See Petitions, at 

30. However, Petitioners also stated that 

their production process and cost 

structure is representative of the PRC 

copper pipe and tube producers because 

the act of converting copper raw 

material into copper pipe and tube is 

‘‘fundamentally the same for all 

producers.’’ See Supplement to the 

Petitions, dated October 13, 2009, at 18. 

Petitioners note that several methods to 

perform such a conversion exist in the 

marketplace indicating that no one 

method is superior to another for the 

production of copper pipe and tube. Id. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 27, 2009 / Notices 55197 

2Petitioners excluded from these import statistics 

imports from countries previously determined by 

the Department to be NME countries, imports from 

Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand as 

the Department has previously excluded prices 

from these countries because they maintain broadly 

available, non-industry-specific export subsidies, 

and imports labeled as being from ‘‘unspecified 

countries.’’ 

Given these facts, Petitioners assert that 

their experience ‘‘should be 

representative of other Chinese 

producers when allowance is made for 

different wage rates and energy costs.’’ 

Id. 

Petitioners valued the factors of 

production based on reasonably 

available, public surrogate–country 

data, including Indian import statistics 

from the World Trade Atlas. See 

Petitions, at 30, and Exhibit 29. 

Petitioners excluded from these import 

statistics imports from countries 

previously determined by the 

Department to be NME countries, 

imports from Indonesia, the Republic of 

Korea, and Thailand as the Department 

has previously excluded prices from 

these countries because they maintain 

broadly available, non–industry-specific 

export subsidies, and imports labeled as 

being from ‘‘unspecified countries.’’ See 

Petitions, at Exhibit 29. In addition, 

Petitioners made currency conversions, 

where necessary, based on the POI– 

average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate, 

as reported on the Department’s 

website. See Petitions, at 31, and Exhibit 

25. Petitioners determined labor costs 

using the labor consumption, in hours, 

derived from their own experience. See 

Petitions, at Exhibits 28 and 34. 

Petitioners valued labor costs using the 

Department’s NME Wage Rate for the 

PRC at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/ 

05wages/05wages–051608.html. See 

Petitions, at Exhibits 28 and 30. For 

purposes of initiation, the Department 

determines that the surrogate values 

used by Petitioners are reasonably 

available and, thus, acceptable for 

purposes of initiation. 

Petitioners determined electricity 

costs using the electricity consumption, 

in kilowatt hours, derived from their 

own experience. See Petitions, at 

Exhibits 28 and 34. Petitioners valued 

electricity using the Indian electricity 

rate reported by the Central Electric 

Authority of the Government of India. 

See Petitions, at Exhibit 24 and, 

Supplement to the Petitions, dated 

October 13, 2009, at 17, and Exhibits I 

and J. 

Petitioners determined natural gas 

costs using the natural gas consumption 

derived from their own experience. See 

Petitions, at Exhibits 28 and 34, and 

Supplement to the Petitions, dated 

October 13, 2009, at 17. Petitioners 

valued natural gas using the Indian rate 

reported by the Gas Authority of India, 

Ltd. See Petitions, at Exhibit 31. 

Petitioners determined water costs 

using the water consumption derived 

from their own experience. See 

Petitions, at Exhibits 28 and 34. 

Petitioners valued water based on 

information from the Maharastra 

Industrial Development Corporation, 

which is contemporaneous with the 

POI. See Petitions, at Exhibit 24. 

Petitioners based factory overhead, 

selling, general and administrative 

(‘‘SG&A’’), and profit on data from 

Multimetals Limited (‘‘Multimetals’’), a 

copper pipe and tube producer, for the 

fiscal year April 2008 through March 

2009. See Petitions, at 31, and Exhibits 

32 and 33, and Supplement to the 

Petitions, dated October 13, 2009, at 17, 

and Exhibit K. Petitioners state that 

Multimetals was an Indian producer of 

copper pipe and tube products during 

the fiscal year 2008–2009. See Petitions, 

at 31, and Exhibits 32 and 33, and 

Supplement to the Petition, dated 

October 13, 2009, at 17 and Exhibit K. 

Therefore, for purposes of the initiation, 

the Department finds Petitioners’ use of 

Multimetals’ financial ratios 

appropriate. 

Mexico 

Petitioners calculated NV for copper 

pipe and tube based on a price quote for 

a Type L copper tube offer from March 

2009. See Petitions, at 32, and 

Supplement to the Petitions, dated 

October 13, 2009, at 24; see also Mexico 

Initiation Checklist. Petitioners 

substantiated the home market price 

quote with an affidavit and a declaration 

from persons who obtained the 

information. See Petitions, at 32, and 

Exhibit 20, and Supplement to the 

Petitions, dated October 13, 2009, at 

Exhibit N; see also Mexico Initiation 

Checklist. 

Sales–Below-Cost Allegation 

Petitioners have provided information 

demonstrating reasonable grounds to 

believe or suspect that sales of copper 

pipe and tube in the Mexican market 

were made at prices below the fully 

absorbed COP, within the meaning of 

section 773(b) of the Act, and requested 

that the Department conduct a country– 

wide sales–below-cost investigation. 

The Statement of Administrative Action 

(‘‘SAA’’), submitted to Congress in 

connection with the interpretation and 

application of the URAA, states that an 

allegation of sales below COP need not 

be specific to individual exporters or 

producers. See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103– 

316 at 833 (1994). The SAA, at 833, 

states that ‘‘Commerce will consider 

allegations of below–cost sales in the 

aggregate for a foreign country, just as 

Commerce currently considers 

allegations of sales at less than fair value 

on a country–wide basis for purposes of 

initiating an antidumping 

investigation.’’ 

Further, the SAA provides that 

section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act retains 

the requirement that the Department 

have ‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or 

suspect’’ that below–cost sales have 

occurred before initiating such an 

investigation. Reasonable grounds exist 

when an interested party provides 

specific factual information on costs and 

prices, observed or constructed, 

indicating that sales in the foreign 

market in question are at below–cost 

prices. Id. 

Cost of Production 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the 

Act, COP consists of the cost of 

manufacturing (‘‘COM’’); SG&A 

expenses; financial expenses; and 

packing expenses. Petitioners calculated 

the quantity of each of the material 

inputs into COM based on the 

production experience of a U.S. 

producer of copper pipe and tube 

during the POI, multiplied by the value 

of inputs used to manufacture copper 

pipe and tube in Mexico using publicly 

available data. See Mexico Initiation 

Checklist at 8–9; see also Second 

Supplement to the Petitions, dated 

October 16, 2009, at 3–4 and Exhibits 55 

and 56.2 Petitioners calculated labor, 

energy, overhead and packing costs 

based on their own experience adjusted 

for known differences between costs in 

the United States and costs in Mexico. 

Id. To calculate the SG&A and financial 

expense rates, Petitioners relied on the 

fiscal year 2008 financial statements of 

a Mexican producer of welded steel 

pipe, products in the same general 

category of merchandise as copper pipe 

and tube. Id. at 8. Petitioners indicated 

that they calculated surrogate financial 

ratios using the financial statements of 

the most comparable company in 

Mexico during the most recent period 

for which data were available. See 

Petitions at 33, footnote 35. Specifically, 

Petitioners stated that the data sourced 

from this Mexican producer’s financial 

statements was the best available 

surrogate for estimating the SG&A and 

financial expense rates because, in 

addition to producing and selling 

circular welded non–alloy pipe, this 

Mexican producer was also involved in 

the sale and distribution of seamless 

refined copper tube in the Mexican 

market. See Petitions at 33, footnote 35; 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
55198 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 27, 2009 / Notices 

see also Supplement to the Petitions, 

dated October 13, 2009, at 29. 

Based upon a comparison of the 

prices of the foreign like product in the 

home market to the calculated COP of 

the product, we find reasonable grounds 

to believe or suspect that sales of the 

foreign like product were made below 

the COP, within the meaning of section 

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, 

the Department is initiating a country– 

wide cost investigation. 

Normal Value Based on Constructed 

Value 

Because it alleged sales below cost, 

pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) 

and 773(e) of the Act, Petitioners 

calculated NV based on constructed 

value (‘‘CV’’). Petitioners calculated CV 

using the same COM, SG&A, financial 

expense and packing figures used to 

compute the COP. Petitioners then 

added a profit rate based on the fiscal 

year 2008 financial statements of a 

Mexican producer of welded steel pipe. 

Id. 

Fair–Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioners, there is reason to believe 

that imports of copper pipe and tube 

from the PRC and Mexico are being, or 

are likely to be, sold in the United States 

at less than fair value. Based on a 

comparison of EPs and NV calculated in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act, the estimated dumping margin for 

copper pipe and tube from the PRC is 

60.5 percent. See PRC Initiation 

Checklist at 10; see also Supplement to 

the PRC Petition, dated October 15, 

2009, at Exhibit W. Based on a 

comparison of EPs and CV calculated in 

accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the 

Act, the estimated dumping margins for 

copper pipe and tube from Mexico range 

from 76.5 percent to 85.7 percent. See 

Mexico Initiation Checklist at 10, 

Supplement to the Petitions, dated 

October 13, 2009, at 31 and Supplement 

to the Petitions, dated October 16, 2009 

at 3–4, and Exhibits 55 and 56. 

Initiation of Antidumping 

Investigations 

Based upon the examination of the 

Petitions on copper pipe and tube from 

the PRC and Mexico, the Department 

finds that the Petitions meet the 

requirements of section 732 of the Act. 

Therefore, we are initiating 

antidumping duty investigations to 

determine whether imports of copper 

pipe and tube from the PRC and Mexico 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value. In 

accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), 

unless postponed, we will make our 

preliminary determinations no later 

than 140 days after the date of these 

initiations. 

Targeted–Dumping Allegations 

On December 10, 2008, the 

Department issued an interim final rule 

for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 

351.414(f) and (g), the regulatory 

provisions governing the targeteddumping analysis in antidumping duty 

investigations, and the corresponding 

regulation governing the deadline for 

targeted–dumping allegations, 19 CFR 

351.301(d)(5). See Withdrawal of the 

Regulatory Provisions Governing 

Targeted Dumping in Antidumping 

Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930 

(December 10, 2008). The Department 

stated that ‘‘{w}ithdrawal will allow the 

Department to exercise the discretion 

intended by the statute and, thereby, 

develop a practice that will allow 

interested parties to pursue all statutory 

avenues of relief in this area.’’ See id. at 

74931. 

In order to accomplish this objective, 

if any interested party wishes to make 

a targeted- dumping allegation in either 

of these investigations pursuant to 

section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such 

allegations are due no later than 45 days 

before the scheduled date of the 

country–specific preliminary 

determination. 

Respondent Selection 

The PRC 

For this investigation, the Department 

will request quantity and value 

information from all known exporters 

and producers identified with complete 

contact information in the Petitions, and 

Supplement to the Petitions, dated 

October 13, 2009, at 13–15. The quantity 

and value data received from NME 

exporters/producers will be used as the 

basis to select the mandatory 

respondents. 

The Department requires that the 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate–rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate–rate status. 

See Circular Welded Austenitic 

Stainless Pressure Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas 

From the People’s Republic of China, 70 

FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). The 

Department will post the quantity and 

value questionnaire along with the filing 

instructions on the Import 

Administration website at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia–highlights-and– 

news.html and a response to the 

quantity and value questionnaire is due 

no later than November 10, 2009. 

Mexico 

For this investigation, the Department 

intends to select respondents based on 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) data for U.S. imports under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) numbers 

7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090, the two 

HTSUS categories most specific to the 

subject merchandise, during the POI. 

We intend to release the CBP data under 

Administrative Protective Order 

(‘‘APO’’) to all parties with access to 

information protected by APO within 

five days of publication of this Federal 

Register notice and make our decision 

regarding respondent selection within 

20 days of publication of this notice. 

The Department invites comments 

regarding the CBP data and respondent 

selection within ten days of publication 

of this Federal Register notice. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Instructions for filing such applications 

may be found on the Department’s 

website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo. 

Separate Rates 

In order to obtain separate–rate status 

in NME investigations, exporters and 

producers must submit a separate–rate 

status application. See Policy Bulletin 

05.1: Separate–Rates Practice and 

Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving 

Non–Market Economy Countries (April 

5, 2005) (‘‘Separate Rates and 

Combination Rates Bulletin’’), available 

on the Department’s website at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05–1.pdf. 

Based on our experience in processing 

the separate–rate applications in 

previous antidumping duty 

investigations, we have modified the 

application for this investigation to 

make it more administrable and easier 

for applicants to complete. See, e.g., 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain New Pneumatic 

Off–the-Road Tires From the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 43591, 43594– 

95 (August 6, 2007). The specific 

requirements for submitting the 

separate–rate application in this 

investigation are outlined in detail in 

the application itself, which will be 

available on the Department’s website at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia–highlights-and– 

news.html on the date of publication of 

this initiation notice in the Federal 

Register. The separate–rate application 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 27, 2009 / Notices 55199 

will be due 60 days after publication of 

this initiation notice. For exporters and 

producers who submit a separate–rate 

status application and subsequently are 

selected as mandatory respondents, 

these exporters and producers will no 

longer be eligible for consideration for 

separate rate status unless they respond 

to all parts of the questionnaire as 

mandatory respondents. As noted in the 

‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section above, 

the Department requires that 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate–rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate–rate status. 

The quantity and value questionnaire 

will be available on the Department’s 

website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia– 

highlights-and–news.html on the date of 

the publication of this initiation notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Use of Combination Rates in an NME 

Investigation 

The Department will calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. The 

Separate Rates and Combination Rates 

Bulletin states: 

{w}hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to 

exporters, all separate rates that the 

Department will now assign in its NME 

investigations will be specific to those 

producers that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation. Note, 

however, that one rate is calculated for 

the exporter and all of the producers 

which supplied subject merchandise to 

it during the period of investigation. 

This practice applies both to mandatory 

respondents receiving an individually 

calculated separate rate as well as the 

pool of non–investigated firms receiving 

the weighted–average of the 

individually calculated rates. This 

practice is referred to as the application 

of ‘‘combination rates’’ because such 

rates apply to specific combinations of 

exporters and one or more producers. 

The cash–deposit rate assigned to an 

exporter will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in question 

and produced by a firm that supplied 

the exporter during the period of 

investigation. See Separate Rates and 

Combination Rates Bulletin, at 6 

(emphasis added). 

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), copies of the public versions 

of the Petitions have been provided to 

the representatives of the Governments 

of the PRC and Mexico. Because of the 

large number of producers/exporters 

identified in the Petitions, the 

Department considers the service of the 

public version of the Petitions to the 

foreign producers/exporters satisfied by 

the delivery of the public versions of the 

Petitions to the Governments of the PRC 

and Mexico, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiations, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

no later than November 16, 2009, 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that imports of copper pipe and tube 

from the PRC and Mexico are materially 

injuring, or threatening material injury 

to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC 

determination with respect to any 

country will result in the investigation 

being terminated for that country; 

otherwise, these investigations will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: October 20, 2009. 

Ronad K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigations 

For the purpose of these 

investigations, the products covered are 

all seamless circular refined copper 

pipes and tubes, including redraw 

hollows, greater than or equal to 6 

inches (152.4 mm) in length and 

measuring less than 12.130 inches 

(308.102 mm) (actual) in outside 

diameter (‘‘OD’’), regardless of wall 

thickness, bore (e.g., smooth, enhanced 

with inner grooves or ridges), 

manufacturing process (e.g., hot 

finished, cold–drawn, annealed), outer 

surface (e.g., plain or enhanced with 

grooves, ridges, fins, or gills), end finish 

(e.g., plain end, swaged end, flared end, 

expanded end, crimped end, threaded), 

coating (e.g., plastic, paint), insulation, 

attachments (e.g., plain, capped, 

plugged, with compression or other 

fitting), or physical configuration (e.g., 

straight, coiled, bent, wound on spools). 

The scope of these investigations 

covers, but is not limited to, seamless 

refined copper pipe and tube produced 

or comparable to the American Society 

for Testing and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) 

ASTM–B42, ASTM–B68, ASTM–B75, 

ASTM–B88, ASTM–B88M, ASTM– 

B188, ASTM–B251, ASTM–B251M, 

ASTM–B280, ASTM–B302, ASTM– 

B306, ASTM–359, ASTM–B743, ASTM– 

B819, and ASTM–B903 specifications 

and meeting the physical parameters 

described therein. Also included within 

the scope of these investigations are all 

sets of covered products, including 

‘‘line sets’’ of seamless refined copper 

tubes (with or without fittings or 

insulation) suitable for connecting an 

outdoor air conditioner or heat pump to 

an indoor evaporator unit. The phrase 

‘‘all sets of covered products’’ denotes 

any combination of items put up for sale 

that is comprised of merchandise 

subject to the scope. 

‘‘Refined copper’’ is defined as: (1) 

metal containing at least 99.85 percent 

by weight of copper; or (2) metal 

containing at least 97.5 percent by 

weight of copper, provided that the 

content by weight of any other element 

does not exceed the following limits: 

ELEMENT 

LIMITING CONTENT PERCENT 

BY WEIGHT 

Ag - Silver ..................... 0.25 

As - Arsenic .................. 0.5 

Cd - Cadmium .............. 1.3 

Cr - Chromium .............. 1.4 

Mg - Magnesium ........... 0.8 

Pb - Lead ...................... 1.5 

S - Sulfur ...................... 0.7 

Sn - Tin ......................... 0.8 

Te - Tellurium ............... 0.8 

Zn - Zinc ....................... 1.0 

Zr - Zirconium ............... 0.3 

Other elements (each) .. 0.3 

Excluded from the scope of these 

investigations are all seamless circular 

hollows of refined copper less than 12 

inches in length whose OD (actual) 

exceeds its length. 

The products subject to these 

investigations are currently classifiable 

under subheadings 7411.10.1030 and 

7411.10.1090 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Products subject to these 

investigations may also enter under 

HTSUS subheadings 7407.10.1500, 

7419.99.5050, 8415.90.8065, and 

8415.90.8085. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of these 

investigations is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. E9–25855 Filed 10–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
B-1

APPENDIX B

CONFERENCE WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF THE PUBLIC CONFERENCE

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

conference held in connection with the following investigations:

 Subject: Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from China and Mexico

 Investigation Nos.: 731-TA-1174-1175 (Preliminary)

 Date and Time: October 21, 2009 - 9:30 am

The conference was held in Room 101 (Main Hearing Room) of the United States International

Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC.

In Support of the Imposition of Antidumping Duties:

DLA Piper LLC

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

KobeWieland Copper Products, LLC

Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc.

Mueller Copper Tube Company, Inc.

Steffen Sigloch, CEO, KobeWieland Copper Products, LLC

John Hansen, President-Manufacturing Operations, Mueller Industries, Inc.

Bart Arndt, Vice President/Industrial Business Unit Manager, Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Dr. Richard Boyce, President, Econometrica International, Inc.

Jack Levy - OF COUNSEL
B-4

In Opposition to the Imposition of Antidumping Duties:

Hunton & Williams LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Homewerks Worldwide, LLC

JMF Company

Dayco Industries, LLC

Marubeni America Corp.

Randy Altmann, Senior Vice President, Sourcing and Marketing, Homewerks

Worldwide

Vince Linden, Supply Chain Consultant, Homewerks Worldwide

Max Hansen, President and CEO, JMF Company

Jean-Philippe Krahmer, Sales Manager, Marubeni America Corp.

William Silverman

Douglas J. Heffner - OF COUNSEL

Richard Ferrin

Baker & McKenzie, LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group Inc. 

GD Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V.

GD Copper U.S.A.

Keith Weil, Executive Vice President, GD North America

Jianqing Yin, Vice President, GD Affilliates S. de R.L. de C.V.

Kevin O’Brien

Daniel O’Connor - OF COUNSEL

Diane MacDonald

Mayer Brown LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Shanghai Hailiang Copper Company

Duane W. Layton - OF COUNSEL

Jeffery C. Lowe
B-5

In Opposition to the Imposition of Antidumping Duties:–Continued

Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

IUSA, S.A, de C.V.

Nacional de Cobre, S.A. de C.V.

Edward Kerins, Jr., Executive Vice President, Cambridge-Lee Industries LLC

Steven Kelly, President, Copper & Brass International Corp.

John Ryan

Joseph M. Johnson - OF COUNSEL

Matthew Simpson

C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Contains Business Proprietary Information

Table C-1

Copper pipe & tube: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,134,532 1,000,438 867,776 485,415 370,226 -23.5 -11.8 -13.3 -23.7

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 77.0 76.0 71.5 71.8 72.0 -5.4 -1.0 -4.5 0.2

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 9.1 12.8 13.3 13.3 4.8 1.0 3.7 0.1

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 7.5 8.2 8.3 8.5 1.2 0.5 0.7 0.2

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.1 16.6 21.0 21.5 21.8 6.0 1.5 4.5 0.3

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9 7.4 7.4 6.7 6.2 -0.5 -0.5 0.0 -0.5

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.0 24.0 28.5 28.2 28.0 5.4 1.0 4.5 -0.2

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,223,796 4,039,017 3,628,503 2,097,736 965,269 -14.1 -4.4 -10.2 -54.0

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 78.6 77.1 72.5 73.4 74.3 -6.1 -1.5 -4.6 0.9

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 8.6 12.3 12.4 11.5 5.0 1.3 3.7 -0.9

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 7.0 7.8 7.7 8.2 1.2 0.4 0.7 0.5

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 15.7 20.1 20.1 19.7 6.1 1.7 4.4 -0.4

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 7.2 7.4 6.5 5.9 -0.1 -0.2 0.2 -0.5

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4 22.9 27.5 26.6 25.7 6.1 1.5 4.6 -0.9

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91,113 90,624 111,126 64,439 49,388 22.0 -0.5 22.6 -23.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309,873 348,772 446,282 259,591 110,981 44.0 12.6 28.0 -57.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.40 $3.85 $4.02 $4.03 $2.25 18.1 13.2 4.4 -44.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 3,124 3,152 6,369 10,351 8,735 103.9 0.9 102.1 -15.6

 Mexico:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79,817 75,199 71,327 40,110 31,340 -10.6 -5.8 -5.1 -21.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279,361 284,287 281,957 162,388 79,376 0.9 1.8 -0.8 -51.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.50 $3.78 $3.95 $4.05 $2.53 12.9 8.0 4.6 -37.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 6,245 6,542 6,830 8,099 6,923 9.4 4.8 4.4 -14.5

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170,930 165,823 182,453 104,549 80,728 6.7 -3.0 10.0 -22.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589,233 633,059 728,238 421,979 190,357 23.6 7.4 15.0 -54.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.45 $3.82 $3.99 $4.04 $2.36 15.8 10.7 4.5 -41.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 9,368 9,694 13,199 18,450 15,658 40.9 3.5 36.2 -15.1

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90,088 74,226 64,441 32,477 22,961 -28.5 -17.6 -13.2 -29.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314,358 292,345 268,218 136,025 57,314 -14.7 -7.0 -8.3 -57.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.49 $3.94 $4.16 $4.19 $2.50 19.3 12.9 5.7 -40.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 7,157 6,645 1,784 3,014 1,231 -75.1 -7.2 -73.2 -59.2

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261,018 240,049 246,894 137,026 103,689 -5.4 -8.0 2.9 -24.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903,592 925,404 996,456 558,004 247,671 10.3 2.4 7.7 -55.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.46 $3.86 $4.04 $4.07 $2.39 16.6 11.4 4.7 -41.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 16,525 16,339 14,983 21,464 16,889 -9.3 -1.1 -8.3 -21.3

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . 1,221,065 1,209,136 1,091,428 545,627 526,855 -10.6 -1.0 -9.7 -3.4

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . 884,942 786,635 644,032 360,486 271,249 -27.2 -11.1 -18.1 -24.8

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . 72.5 65.1 59.0 66.1 51.5 -13.5 -7.4 -6.0 -14.6

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873,514 760,389 620,882 348,389 266,537 -28.9 -13.0 -18.3 -23.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,320,204 3,113,613 2,632,047 1,539,732 717,598 -20.7 -6.2 -15.5 -53.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.80 $4.09 $4.24 $4.42 $2.69 11.5 7.7 3.5 -39.1

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,331 31,064 29,239 16,746 12,212 -9.6 -3.9 -5.9 -27.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121,983 126,476 125,222 74,030 32,906 2.7 3.7 -1.0 -55.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.77 $4.07 $4.28 $4.42 $2.69 13.5 7.9 5.2 -39.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 55,351 52,864 47,828 48,841 41,008 -13.6 -4.5 -9.5 -16.0

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . 6.1 6.7 7.4 6.7 7.4 1.2 0.6 0.7 0.7

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . 3,913 3,628 3,166 3,280 2,730 -19.1 -7.3 -12.7 -16.8

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . 8,034 7,565 6,571 3,473 2,718 -18.2 -5.8 -13.1 -21.7

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . 148,451 148,136 129,242 69,495 54,963 -12.9 -0.2 -12.8 -20.9

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $18.48 $19.58 $19.67 $20.01 $20.22 6.4 6.0 0.4 1.1

 Productivity (pounds per hour) . 108.4 102.2 96.2 102.0 98.5 -11.3 -5.7 -6.0 -3.4

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.17 $0.19 $0.20 $0.20 $0.21 20.0 12.4 6.8 4.6

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902,149 778,614 652,123 361,851 278,630 -27.7 -13.7 -16.2 -23.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,352,765 3,172,202 2,787,044 1,596,519 748,672 -16.9 -5.4 -12.1 -53.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.72 $4.07 $4.27 $4.41 $2.69 15.0 9.6 4.9 -39.1

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . 2,984,580 2,876,789 2,549,697 1,480,169 697,925 -14.6 -3.6 -11.4 -52.8

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . 368,185 295,413 237,347 116,350 50,747 -35.5 -19.8 -19.7 -56.4

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . 77,987 71,597 65,984 32,260 28,727 -15.4 -8.2 -7.8 -11.0

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . 290,198 223,816 171,363 84,090 22,020 -40.9 -22.9 -23.4 -73.8

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . 30,744 40,816 43,361 20,500 17,099 41.0 32.8 6.2 -16.6

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.31 $3.69 $3.91 $4.09 $2.50 18.2 11.7 5.8 -38.8

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . $0.09 $0.09 $0.10 $0.09 $0.10 17.0 6.4 10.0 15.6

 Unit operating income or (loss) . $0.32 $0.29 $0.26 $0.23 $0.08 -18.3 -10.6 -8.6 -66.0

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.0 90.7 91.5 92.7 93.2 2.5 1.7 0.8 0.5

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 7.1 6.1 5.3 2.9 -2.5 -1.6 -0.9 -2.3

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-3
Table C-2

Copper pipe and tube: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding Wolverine

from domestic industry), 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

C-4
D-1

APPENDIX D

TARIFF TREATMENT

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2009) (Rev. 1)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

 XV

74-5

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

7404.00 Copper waste and scrap:

7404.00.30 Spent anodes; waste and scrap with a copper content 

of less than 94 percent by weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 6%

 20 Of refined copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Of copper alloys:

 Of copper-zinc base alloys (brass):

 45 Containing more than 0.3 percent of lead . . . kg

 55 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 65 Of copper-tin base alloys (bronze) . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7404.00.60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 6%

 20 Of refined copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Of copper alloys:

 Of copper-zinc base alloys (brass):

 45 Containing more than 0.3 percent of lead . . . kg

 55 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 65 Of copper-tin base alloys (bronze) . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7405.00 Master alloys of copper:

7405.00.10 00 Containing by weight 5 percent or more but not more 

than 15 percent of phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 12%

7405.00.60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 28%

 30 Beryllium copper master alloy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7406 Copper powders and flakes:

7406.10.00 00 Powders of non-lamellar structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 49%

7406.20.00 00 Powders of lamellar structure; flakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 12%

7407 Copper bars, rods and profiles:

7407.10 Of refined copper:

Profiles:

7407.10.15 00 Hollow profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 48%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7407.10.30 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 48%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7407.10.50 Bars and rods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 7%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

 10 Having a rectangular cross section . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Of copper alloys:

7407.21 Of copper-zinc base alloys (brass):

Profiles:

7407.21.15 00 Hollow profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 2.2% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 17%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7407.21.30 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 2.2% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 17%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

Bars and rods:

7407.21.50 00 Low fuming brazing rods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 2.2% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 9%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

Other:

7407.21.70 00 Having a rectangular cross section . . . . kg . . . . . . 1.9% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 9%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7407.21.90 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 2.2% Free (A*,AU,BH, 9%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,

 P,PE,SG)
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2009) (Rev. 1)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

XV

74-10

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

7410 Copper foil (whether or not printed or backed with paper, 

paperboard, plastics or similar backing materials) of a 

thickness (excluding any backing) not exceeding 0.15 mm:

Not backed:

7410.11.00 00 Of refined copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 1% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 6.5%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7410.12.00 Of copper alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 6.5%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

 30 Of copper-zinc base alloys (brass) . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

Backed:

7410.21 Of refined copper:

7410.21.30 Copper clad laminates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 80%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

Having a base wholly of plastics

impregnated glass:

 20 Having copper on one side only .......m2

kg

 40 Having copper on both sides .........m2

kg

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

kg

7410.21.60 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 1.5% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 6%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7410.22.00 00 Of copper alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 1.5% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 6%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7411 Copper tubes and pipes:

7411.10 Of refined copper:

7411.10.10 Seamless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 13%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

 30 Having an outside diameter of 6 mm or more 

but not exceeding 16 mm, in coils on spools . . . kg

 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7411.10.50 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 47%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

Of copper alloys:

7411.21 Of copper-zinc base alloys (brass):

7411.21.10 00 Seamless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 1.4% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 10%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7411.21.50 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A*,AU,BH, 49%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,

 P,PE,SG)

7411.22.00 00 Of copper-nickel base alloys (cupro-nickel) or 

copper-nickel-zinc base alloys (nickel-silver) . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 47%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7411.29 Other:

7411.29.10 00 Seamless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 1.4% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 10%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7411.29.50 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 49%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2009) (Rev. 1)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

XV

74-14

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

7419 Other articles of copper:

7419.10.00 00 Chain and parts thereof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,B,AU,BH, 45%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,

 P,PE,SG)

Other:

7419.91.00 Cast, molded, stamped or forged, but not further 

worked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 46%

 10 Brass plumbing goods, not elsewhere specified

or included . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

7419.99 Other:

Cloth (including endless bands), grill and

netting, of copper wire; expanded metal of

copper:

Cloth:

7419.99.03 00 Fourdrinier wires, seamed or not

seamed, suitable for use in papermaking machines, with 94 or more

wires to the lineal centimeter .........m2 . . . . . . Free 75%

kg

7419.99.06 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 43%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

 60 Fourdrinier wires, seamed or not

seamed, suitable for use in papermaking machines, with fewer than

94 or more wires to the lineal

centimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

kg

 80 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

kg

7419.99.09 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 43%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,

 P,PE,SG)

7419.99.15 00 Containers of a kind normally carried on the 

person, in the pocket or in the handbag . . . . . . . doz. . . . . 3% Free (AU,BH,CA,D, 110%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7419.99.16 00 Copper springs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 45%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,

 P,PE,SG)

Other:

7419.99.30 00 Coated or plated with precious metal . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 65%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

7419.99.50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 46%

 10 Brass plumbing goods not elsewhere 

specified or included . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg

 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2009) (Rev. 1)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

XVI

84-20

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

8414 Air or vacuum pumps, air or other gas compressors and

(con.) fans; ventilating or recycling hoods incorporating a fan, 

whether or not fitted with filters; parts thereof (con.):

8414.90 Parts:

8414.90.10 Of fans (including blowers) and ventilating or 

recycling hoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 35%

 C,CA,CL,E,IL,J,

 JO,MA,MX,OM,P,

 PE,SG)

 40 Of fans of subheading 8414.51.00 ...........X

 80 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

Of compressors:

8414.90.30 00 Stators and rotors of goods of subheading 

8414.30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . Free 35%

8414.90.41 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 35%

Of refrigerating and air conditioning 

compressors:

 20 Compressor housings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

 40 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

Other:

Of compressors of subheading 

8414.40:

 45 Compressor housings . . . . . . . . . . . No.

 55 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

Other:

 65 Compressor housings . . . . . . . . . . . No.

 75 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

8414.90.90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 35%

 40 Of vacuum pumps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

 80 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

8415 Air conditioning machines, comprising a motor-driven fan 

and elements for changing the temperature and humidity, 

including those machines in which the humidity cannot be 

separately regulated; parts thereof:

8415.10 Window or wall types, self-contained or “split-system”:

8415.10.30 Self-contained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 35%

 40 Less than 2.93 kW per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

 60 2.93 kW per hour or greater but less 

than 4.98 kW per hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

 80 4.98 kW per hour or greater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

Other:

8415.10.60 00 Incorporating a refrigerating unit and a 

valve for reversal of the cooling/heat 

cycle (reversible heat pumps) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . 1% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 35%

 C,CA,CL,E,IL,J,

 JO,MA,MX,OM,P,

 PE,SG)

8415.10.90 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . 2.2% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 35%

 C,CA,CL,E,IL,J,

 JO,MA,MX,OM,P,

 PE,SG)

8415.20.00 00 Of a kind used for persons, in motor vehicles . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . 1.4% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 35%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2009) (Rev. 1)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

 XVI

84-21

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

8415 Air conditioning machines, comprising a motor-driven fan 

(con.) and elements for changing the temperature and humidity, 

including those machines in which the humidity cannot be 

separately regulated; parts thereof (con.):

Other, except parts:

8415.81.01 Incorporating a refrigerating unit and a 

valve for reversal of the cooling/heat 

cycle (reversible heat pumps) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 35%

 C,CA,CL,E,IL,J,

 JO,MA,MX,OM,P,

 PE,SG)

Self-contained:

 10 Not exceeding 17.58 kW per hour . . . . . . . . No.

 20 Exceeding 17.58 kW per hour . . . . . . . . . . . No.

 30 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

8415.82.01 Other, incorporating a refrigerating unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 35%

 C,CA,CL,E,IL,J,

 JO,MA,MX,OM,P,

 PE,SG)

Self-contained machines and remote

condenser type air conditioners other than 

year-round units:

 05 Not exceeding 17.58 kW per hour . . . . . . . . No.

 10 Exceeding 17.58 kW per hour . . . . . . . . . . . No.

Year-round units (heating and cooling):

 15 Not exceeding 17.58 kW per hour . . . . . . . . No.

 20 Exceeding 17.58 kW per hour . . . . . . . . . . . No.

Room or central station air conditioning units 

for use with water chillers:

 30 Room fan coil units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

 35 Central station air handlers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

 40 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

Dehumidifiers:

 55 With a rated water removal capacity of 

less than 35 liters over a 24 hour period . . . . No.

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

 70 Other air conditioning machines incorporating 

a refrigerating unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

8415.83.00 Not incorporating a refrigerating unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 35%

 C,CA,CL,E,IL,J,

 JO,MA,MX,OM,P,

 PE,SG)

Heat exchangers including condensing units:

Condensing units:

 50 Not exceeding 17.58 kW per hour . . . . . No.

 60 Exceeding 17.58 kW per hour . . . . . . . . No.

 70 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

 90 Other air conditioning machines not 

incorporating a refrigerating unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2009) (Rev. 1)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

XVI

84-22

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

8415 Air conditioning machines, comprising a motor-driven fan 

(con.) and elements for changing the temperature and humidity, 

including those machines in which the humidity cannot be 

separately regulated; parts thereof (con.):

8415.90 Parts:

8415.90.40 00 Chassis, chassis bases and outer cabinets . . . . . . . No. . . . . . 1.4% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 35%

 C,CA,CL,E,IL,J,

 JO,MA,MX,OM,P,

 PE,SG)

8415.90.80 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4% Free (A,AU,B,BH, 35%

 C,CA,CL,E,IL,J,

 JO,MA,MX,OM,P,

 PE,SG)

 25 Air conditioning evaporator coils . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

Other:

 45 Of automotive air conditioners ...........X

 65 Of heat pumps .......................X

 85 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

8416 Furnace burners for liquid fuel, for pulverized solid fuel or 

for gas; mechanical stokers, including their mechanical 

grates, mechanical ash dischargers and similar 

appliances; parts thereof:

8416.10.00 00 Furnace burners for liquid fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . Free 27.5%

8416.20.00 Other furnace burners, including combination burners . . . . . . . . . . . Free 27.5%

 40 Gas burners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

 80 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

8416.30.00 00 Mechanical stokers, including their mechanical grates, 

mechanical ash dischargers and similar appliances . . . . X . . . . . . . Free 27.5%

8416.90.00 00 Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . Free 27.5%

8417 Industrial or laboratory furnaces and ovens, including 

incinerators, nonelectric, and parts thereof:

8417.10.00 00 Furnaces and ovens for the roasting, melting or other 

heat treatment of ores, pyrites or of metals . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . 2.9% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 45%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

8417.20.00 00 Bakery ovens, including biscuit ovens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . 3.5% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 45%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

8417.80.00 00 Other, except parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . 3.9% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 45%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

8417.90.00 00 Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . 3.9% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 45%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)
E-1

APPENDIX E

NONSUBJECT COUNTRY PRICE DATA

E-3

One importer (***) reported price data for nonsubject country Malaysia for product 3; no other

price data for nonsubject countries was reported. In comparing nonsubject country pricing data with U.S.

producer pricing data, prices for product imported from nonsubject countries were lower than prices for

U.S. produced product in five instances and higher in seven instances. In comparing nonsubject country

pricing data with subject country pricing data, prices for product imported from nonsubject countries were

lower than prices for product imported from subject countries in six instances and higher in 10 instances. 

Specifically, prices for product imported from nonsubject countries were lower than prices for product

imported from China in five instances and higher in seven instances; and nonsubject prices were lower

than prices for product imported from Mexico in one instance and higher in three instances. Price and

quantity data for Malaysia as well as U.S. and subject sources are shown in figure E-1.

Figure D-1

SRC pipe and tube: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product, by quarters, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *