U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4262 September 2011

Washington, DC 20436

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, 

and Pressure Pipe from Japan 

and Romania

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-847 and 849 (Second Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson, Vice Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Keysha Martinez, Investigator 

 Amy Sherman, Investigator 

 Norman VanToai, Industry Analyst 

 Mary Jane Alves, Attorney 

 Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

Steven Hudgens, Acting Chief, Statistical Services Division
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4262 September 2011

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, 

and Pressure Pipe from Japan 

and Romania

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-847 and 849 (Second Review)

CONTENTS

Page

Determinations ................................................................. 1

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

Dissenting views of Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson . 31

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

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

The original investigations and subsequent five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s final result of expedited five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Commerce’s administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Related Commission investigations and reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

U.S. tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

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

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Related party issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Cumulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

Antidumping actions outside the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

The subject industry in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

The subject industry in Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

The global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

Appendix

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

B. Commission’s statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Historical data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

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

published and therefore has been identified by the use of ***.

i

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-847 and 849 (Second Review) 

CARBON AND ALLOY SEAMLESS STANDARD, LINE, AND PRESSURE PIPE 

FROM JAPAN AND ROMANIA 

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

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

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

1930 (19 U.S.C. ' 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on carbon and alloy seamless 

standard, line, and pressure pipe from Japan and Romania would be likely to lead to continuation or 

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

BACKGROUND 

The Commission instituted these reviews on April 1, 2011 (76 F.R. 18251) and determined on 

July 5, 2011 that it would conduct expedited reviews (76 F.R. 44608, July 26, 2011). 

 

 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

 Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson dissent with respect to the determination 

regarding small-diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe from Romania. 

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

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

Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on small-diameter

carbon and alloy seamless, standard, line, and pressure pipe (“CASSLP pipe”) from Japan and Romania

and the antidumping duty order on large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan would be likely to lead to

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

foreseeable time.1

I. BACKGROUND

Although initiated on the same date, the original investigations proceeded on different schedules.

In June 2000, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by

reason of less-than-fair value (“LTFV”) imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe imports from Japan and

South Africa and that a domestic industry was materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of largediameter CASSLP pipe from Japan.2

 Subsequently, in August 2000, the Commission made affirmative

material injury determinations regarding imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech

Republic and Romania and regarding imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico.3

 No party

appealed the Commission’s original determinations.

In full five-year reviews of those orders instituted on May 2, 2005, the Commission made

affirmative determinations with respect to small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania and

with respect to large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan.4

 The Commission made negative five-year

review determinations with respect to small-diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic and South

Africa and with respect to large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico.5

 Consequently, Commerce

continued the orders on small- and large-diameter CASSLP pipe imports from Japan and the order on

 1 Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson dissent with respect to small-diameter

CASSLP pipe from Romania. See Dissenting Views of Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner

Daniel R. Pearson. They join sections I to V of this opinion, except as otherwise noted herein.

 2

 See, e.g., Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South

Africa, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC Pub. 3311 (June 2000). The U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) issued corresponding antidumping duty orders on those imports on June 26, 2000. 65 Fed. Reg.

39,360.

 3

 See, e.g., Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic,

Mexico, and Romania, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-846, 848, 849 (Final), USITC Pub. 3325 (Aug. 2000). Commerce issued

antidumping duty orders on small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania on August 10, 2000, on small-diameter

CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic on August 14, 2000, and on large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico on

August 11, 2000. 65 Fed. Reg. 48,963; 65 Fed. Reg. 49,539; 65 Fed. Reg. 49,227.

 4

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

Mexico, Romania, and South Africa, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-846 to 850 (Review), USITC Pub. 3850 (Apr. 2006). 

Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane, Commissioner Shara L. Aranoff, and Commissioner Koplan voted in the

affirmative with respect to subject imports from Japan and Romania, whereas Commissioners Okun, Pearson, and

Hillman voted in the negative with respect to small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania. See, e.g., USITC Pub.

3850 at 3.

 5

 The negative five-year review determinations regarding small-diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic

and South Africa and regarding large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico reflected the opinion of Commissioners

Okun, Pearson, Aranoff, and Hillman. Commissioners Lane and Koplan dissented. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3850; 71

Fed. Reg. 24,860 (Apr. 27, 2006).

3
small-diameter CASSLP pipe imports from Romania,6

 but it revoked the orders on small-diameter

CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic and South Africa and on large-diameter CASSLP pipe from

Mexico.7

 Mittal Steel Roman and SC Silcotub appealed the Commission’s affirmative five-year review

determination concerning subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania. The U.S.

Court of International Trade (“CIT”) affirmed the Commission’s determination.8

 No other aspect of the

Commission’s first-review determinations was litigated.

On April 1, 2011, the Commission instituted these second five-year reviews to determine whether

revocation of the antidumping duty orders on small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania and

the order on large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.9

 On July 5,

2011, the Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to the notice of institution

was adequate, but in the absence of any respondent interested party responses or any other circumstances

that warranted the conduct of full reviews, the Commission decided to conduct expedited reviews

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3). Domestic interested parties U.S. Steel, a domestic producer of smalland large-diameter CASSLP pipe, and V&M, a domestic producer of large-diameter CASSLP pipe,

submitted a joint response to the notice of institution *** and filed comments in these reviews.

Unlike in the first five-year reviews, no respondent interested party provided information or

argument to the Commission in these expedited second reviews.10 As a result, the record contains only

limited new information with respect to the small-diameter CASSLP pipe industries in Japan and

Romania and with respect to the large-diameter CASSLP pipe industry in Japan. It also contains only

limited new information on the U.S. small- and large-diameter CASSLP pipe markets since 2005. 

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

investigations and first reviews and the limited new information on the record in these reviews.11 12

 6 See, e.g., 71 Fed. Reg. 26,746 (May 8, 2006).

 7

 See, e.g., 71 Fed. Reg. 27,463 (May 11, 2006); 71 Fed. Reg. 27,461 (May 11, 2006).

 8 See, e.g., Mittal Steel Roman v. United States, Court No. 06-00173 (Slip Op. 08-03) (Jan. 11, 2008).

 9

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c); 76 Fed. Reg. 18,251 (Apr. 1, 2011).

 10 See, e.g., Confidential Report, Memorandum INV-JJ-082 at I-3 n.4 (Aug. 22, 2011) (“CR”); Public Report

(“PR”), Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and Romania, Invs. Nos. 731-TA847 and 849 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 4262 at I-3 n.4 (Sept. 2011).

 11 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

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

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

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

782(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). The verification requirements in section 782(i) apply only to Commerce. 

19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i); see Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001)

(“{T}he ITC correctly responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures

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

investigation.”).

 12 Chairman Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

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

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

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

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

level of participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors

and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes

(continued...)

4
II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

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

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”13 The Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product

which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to

an investigation under this subtitle.”14 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to examine the

like product definition from the original determination and any completed reviews and consider whether

the record indicates any reason to revisit the prior findings.15

In simplified terms, the scope of subject merchandise subject to these reviews includes the

following: (1) large-diameter (greater than 4.5 inches {114 mm} and not over 16 inches {406 mm} in

outside diameter (“OD”)) seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and

pressure pipes (“large-diameter CASSLP pipes”) from Japan; and (2) small-diameter (not over 4.5 inches

{114 mm} in OD) seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes

and redraw hollows (“small-diameter CASSLP pipes”) from Japan and Romania, regardless of wall

thickness, manufacturing process (hot-finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain-end, beveled-end, upsetend, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish.16 

Seamless standard, line, and pressure pipes generally convey liquids and are typically tested and

rated for their ability to withstand hydrostatic pressure,17 with seamless standard pipe typically produced

to American Society for Testing and Materials specification (“ASTM”) A-53, seamless line pipe typically

 12 (...continued)

determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 13 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 14 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v.

Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19

CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v.

United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also S.

Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979).

 15 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review),

USITC Pub. 3831 at 8-9 (Dec. 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub.

3614 at 4 (Jul. 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub.

3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).

 16 See CR at I-8; PR at I-7. Several products are excluded from the scope of the large-diameter CASSLP pipe

order on imports from Japan, including the following: (1) certain boiler tubing and mechanical tubing; (2) certain

finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”); (3) certain products produced to the A-335

specification; and (4) certain line riser pipe for deepwater application. Two products are also excluded from the

scope of the small-diameter CASSLP pipe order on imports from Japan and Romania: (1) certain boiler tubing and

mechanical tubing, and (2) certain finished and unfinished OCTG. The full scope language and more precise

identification of excluded products appear in Commerce’s notice of final results, found in CR/PR at Appendix A.

 17 Seamless standard pipe’s uses include low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other

liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air-conditioning units, automatic sprinklers, and other related

uses. Seamless line pipe’s uses include conveyance of oil and natural gas and other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless

pressure pipe’s uses include conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas, and

other liquids and gases in industrial piping systems. See, e.g., CR at I-10; PR at I-9.

5
produced to American Petroleum Institute specification 5L, and seamless pressure pipe commonly

produced to ASTM A-106.18

In the original investigations and first reviews of these antidumping duty orders, the Commission

found two domestic like products, small- and large-diameter CASSLP pipe.19 In these second reviews,

domestic interested parties agree with the Commission’s domestic like product findings in the original

investigations and first reviews and ask the Commission to make the same like product findings here.20

No party argued otherwise in any of the proceedings related to the orders under review. Based on the

record evidence in these expedited reviews, including information from prior periods under examination,

we define two like products, small- and large-diameter CASSLP pipe.21 22 23

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

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

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

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”24 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. Section 771(4)(B) of the Act 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.25

 18 See, e.g., CR at I-10; PR at I-9.

 19 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 7-11; USITC Pub. 3850 at 5-7.

 20 See, e.g., Domestic Interested Parties’ Response to Notice of Institution at 1-3, 42; Domestic Interested Parties’

Comments on Adequacy at 3 n.6; Domestic Interested Parties’ Comments at 6-8.

 21 For the reasons stated in the first reviews of these orders and in the original investigations, and in light of the

fact that there is no contradictory information on this record, Chairman Okun and Commissioner Pearson have

defined two domestic like products. They note, however, that in recent investigations in which the Commission had

the benefit of a fully developed record, which included questionnaire data from purchasers and other market

participants, the Commission defined a single domestic like product. See e.g., Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from China, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-469 and 731-TA-1168 (Final), USITC Pub.

4190 at 5-10 & n.37 (Nov. 2010).

 22 Because no interested party has challenged the domestic like product determination from the original

investigations and first reviews of these orders, Vice Chairman Irving A. Williamson and Commissioner Aranoff

find two like products in these expedited reviews. Where the Commission conducted full investigations and had

additional and more recent evidence, including questionnaire data from purchasers and other market participants, the

Commission found a single domestic like product. Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and

Pressure Pipe from China, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-469 and 731-TA-1168 (Final), USITC Pub. 4190 at 5-10 & n.37 (Nov.

2010).

 23 Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert would emphasize the fact that, in the original investigations that led to the

orders at issue here, Commerce found two classes/kinds of subject merchandise. Although not dispositive in itself,

this is an important factor helping to distinguish the instant proceeding from Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from China, which was concluded by the Commission in November 2010.

 24 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 apply to the entire subtitle containing the

antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677.

 25 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B).

6
In the original investigations, consistent with its definition of two domestic like products, the

Commission found two domestic industries.26 These industries comprised all domestic producers of

small-diameter CASSLP pipe and all domestic producers of large-diameter CASSLP pipe.27 In the first

reviews, no party argued for a different definition of the domestic industries, and the record did not

contain any information warranting reconsideration of the issue.28 Consequently, the Commission defined

the domestic industries as all existing U.S. producers of the respective domestic like products.29

In these reviews, the only participating parties agree with the Commission’s definition of the two

domestic industries from the original investigations and the first reviews.30 Based on the record evidence

in these reviews that consists largely of information from the original investigations and first reviews,31

we define the domestic industries as all known U.S. producers of the respective domestic like products.

IV. LEGAL STANDARDS AND LIKELY CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION

A. Legal Standards

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

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

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

and/or countervailing duty order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury

within a reasonably foreseeable time.”32 The Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) states that

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

the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the status quo – the

revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and

prices of imports.”33 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in nature.34 The CIT has found that

 26 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 12; USITC Pub. 3325 at 4.

 27 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 12; USITC Pub. 3325 at 4.

 28 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3850 at 7-8. The Commission noted that V&M was a joint venture between V&M

Tubes, S.A., a producer of CASSLP pipe in France and Sumitomo Corp. of Houston, Texas, a wholly owned

subsidiary of Sumitomo Corp., a producer of subject merchandise in Japan. Given Sumitomo’s small ownership

share in V&M (*** percent), and absent any evidence or argument that Sumitomo exercised direct or indirect control

over V&M, the Commission did not find that V&M was a related party. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3850 at 8 n.36;

Confidential Version of First-Review Opinion at 10.

 29 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3850 at 7-8.

 30 See, e.g., Domestic Interested Parties’ Response to the Notice of Institution at 42.

 31 In terms of related party issues, in the current reviews, domestic interested parties reported being aware of only

one firm that might be considered a related party, TMK IPSCO, which is wholly owned by OAO TMK, an entity

whose subsidiary, TMK ARTROM, produces seamless pipes in Romania. See, e.g., Domestic Interested Parties’

Response to the Notice of Institution at 38. Nonetheless, they do not ask the Commission to exclude any producer

from either domestic industry. ***. TMK IPSCO may be a related party under the statute to the extent that it is

owned by a third party that may exercise direct or indirect control over it and a producer/exporter of subject

merchandise. Because the record does not contain information indicating that appropriate circumstances exist to

exclude TMK IPSCO from the domestic industry producing small-diameter CASSLP pipe, and absent contrary party

argument, we decline to do so here. Moreover, ***.

 32 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 33 SAA at 883-84. The SAA states that “{t}he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of the nature of the

Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of an

(continued...)

7
“likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Tariff Act, means “probable,” and the

Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.35 36 37

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

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”38 According to

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

‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”39

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

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

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

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”40 It

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

the state of the industry is related to the order under review, whether the industry is vulnerable to material

injury if the order were revoked, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19

U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).41 The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the

 33 (...continued)

industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never completed.” Id. at 883.

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

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

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

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

SAA at 884.

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

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v.

United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s

opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals

(Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a

likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002)

(“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

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

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

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

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

 37 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, Inv.

No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (Jun. 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in these reviews and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses this issue.

 38 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

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

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

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

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

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

 40 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 41 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). 

8
Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the

Commission’s determination.42

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping and/or

countervailing duty orders are revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume

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

United States.43 In doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including

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

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

in inventories; (3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries

other than the United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the

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

produce other products.44

When examining the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders under review were to be

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

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

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

on the price of the domestic like product.45

In analyzing the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review were

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

a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to the following: 

(1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and

utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth,

ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and

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

the domestic like product.46 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the

business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry. As instructed by the

statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is

related to the orders at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders were

revoked.47

 42 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 43 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 44 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 45 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “{c}onsistent with its practice in investigations, in

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

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

SAA at 886.

 46 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

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

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

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

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

885.

9
B. Conditions of Competition

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

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

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”48

1. Findings in Original Investigations and First Reviews

Large-Diameter CASSLP Pipe: Although large-diameter CASSLP pipe is also used in some

industrial applications, the Commission found in the original investigations that demand for largediameter CASSLP pipe was more closely linked to oil and gas activity levels than was the case for smalldiameter CASSLP pipe.49 The Commission found that subject imports were substitutable for the domestic

like product to a moderately high degree, and they became more substitutable for one another over the

period examined in the original investigations.50

In the first reviews, the Commissioners wrote in separate groups concerning the conditions of

competition largely as a consequence of their differing analyses of cumulation. In terms of common

findings, they noted that during the original investigations, demand as measured by apparent U.S.

consumption declined from 375,084 short tons in 1997 to 293,151 tons in 1999. During the first review

period, apparent U.S. consumption was *** short tons in 2001, *** short tons in 2002, *** short tons in

2003, and *** short tons in 2004. They recognized that the U.S. market was supplied by subject imports,

non-subject imports, and the domestic industry, with the domestic industry’s market share rising overall

during the review period from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. They also acknowledged that

the domestic industry consolidated operations during the review period.51

Small-Diameter CASSLP Pipe: In the original investigations, the Commission found that demand

for small-diameter CASSLP pipe depended on activities in the oil and gas sectors, industrial

construction/reconstruction, and facility repair and maintenance (especially at petrochemical and refinery

installations).52 It found a moderately high degree of substitutability among products from the various

subject countries and the domestic like product, although it recognized that differences in lead times,

product quality, and presence on approved manufacturers’ lists (“AMLs”) could limit substitutability.53

Purchasers rated quality as the most important factor in choosing suppliers but also ranked price as

important.54 The Commission also found that most common grades of small-diameter CASSLP pipe were

multi-stenciled to industry standards, which lessened the significance of quality differences.55

In the first reviews, just as with large-diameter CASSLP pipe, the Commissioners wrote in

separate groups concerning the conditions of competition. In terms of common findings, they noted that

during the original investigations, demand as measured by apparent U.S. consumption declined from

267,927 short tons in 1997 to 152,502 tons in 1999. During the first review period, apparent U.S.

 48 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 49 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 24.

 50 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 24.

 51 See, e.g., Confidential First-Review Views at 65-68; Separate Views of Commissioners Lane and Koplan at 32-

36.

 52 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 16.

 53 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 16. A significant number of purchasers did not rely on AMLs. Id. at 17.

 54 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 16-17.

 55 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 17.

10
consumption was *** short tons in 2001, *** short tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003, and *** short

tons in 2004. They recognized that the U.S. market was supplied by subject imports, non-subject imports,

and the domestic industry, with the domestic industry’s market share declining overall during the review

period from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. They also acknowledged that the domestic

industry consolidated operations during the review period.56

2. Findings in Current Reviews

In these reviews, we find the following conditions of competition relevant to our analysis.

Demand Conditions. Demand for large- and small-diameter CASSLP pipe is derived from

demand for the various applications in which it is used, including construction, industrial, and oil/gas

applications.57 Available information on demand suggests declines in these sectors in recent years,

although there is some evidence suggesting more recent improvement in specific sectors.58 U.S. demand

for large-diameter CASSLP pipe, as measured by apparent U.S. consumption, has declined substantially

since the first reviews; it was 293,151 short tons in 1999 at the end of the original investigations, ***

short tons in 2004 at the end of the first reviews, and *** short tons in 2010, in large part because of the

severe economic downturn in recent years.59 U.S. demand for small-diameter CASSLP pipe, as measured

by apparent U.S. consumption, followed similar trends; it was 152,502 short tons in 1999, *** short tons

in 2004, and *** short tons in 2010.60

Supply Conditions: Between 2005 and 2010, the U.S. market for large-diameter CASSLP pipe

was supplied by domestic producers, subject imports from Japan, and non-subject imports.61 At the time

of the original investigations, North Star Steel (“North Star”), The Timken Co. (“Timken”), and U.S.

Steel produced large-diameter CASSLP pipe in the United States.62 In 2002, V&M acquired North Star’s

tubular division, then a wholly owned subsidiary of Cargill, Inc., and renamed the division V&M

STAR.63 At the time of the Commission’s first five-year reviews, V&M, Timken, and U.S. Steel

produced large-diameter CASSLP pipe in the United States.64 At present, domestic interested parties

report four firms producing large-diameter CASSLP pipe in the United States: Timken, U.S. Steel,

V&M, and Wyman-Gordon.65 Purchasers responding to the Commission’s surveys in these current

 56 See, e.g., Confidential First-Review Views at 31-35; Separate Views of Commissioners Lane and Koplan 

at 16-20.

 57 See, e.g., CR at I-10 to I-11, I-27; PR at I-9 to I-10, I-21.

 58 See, e.g., CR at I-27 & nn.62, 64; PR at I-21 & nn.62, 64 (suggesting a decline in non-residential construction

between 2009 and 2010; after a steep decline in 2009, the beginning of a recovery but some leveling off in

consumption of seamless pipe for petroleum, natural gas, and refinery operations in 2010; but higher monthly oil and

natural gas drilling rig activity in December 2010 than in December 2009).

 59 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-7.

 60 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-6.

 61 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-7.

 62 See, e.g., CR at I-15; PR at I-12.

 63 See, e.g., CR at I-15; PR at I-12 to I-13.

 64 See, e.g., CR at I-16; PR at I-13.

 65 See, e.g., CR at I-16; PR at I-13.

11
reviews reported that several domestic seamless mills are building new facilities or expanding current

facilities to increase CASSLP pipe production.66

Subject imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan were present in the U.S. market

throughout the five-year period between 2005 and 2010, as were imports from non-subject countries.67 In

2010, imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe from non-subject countries had a larger share of the U.S.

market than either the domestic industry or imports from Japan.68

The U.S. market for small-diameter CASSLP pipe was supplied by domestic producers, subject

imports from Japan and Romania, and non-subject imports between 2005 and 2010.69 The domestic

industry has undergone significant consolidation since the original investigations. At the time of the

original investigations, in addition to petitioners Gulf States, Koppel, Sharon, and U.S. Steel, three other

firms produced small-diameter CASSLP pipe in the United States: Michigan Specialty, Sawhill Tubular,

Inc., and Timken.70 In 2000, Vision Metals, Inc., Gulf States’ parent company, filed for bankruptcy and

closed its Rosenburg, Texas production facility.71 In 2002, Michigan Seamless Tube, Inc. was created to

purchase the Michigan Specialty Tube Division of the defunct Vision Metals, Inc., and became part of

Atlas Holdings, LLC, a private equity firm.72 In 2002, Wheatland Tube purchased the Sawhill Tubular

Division from AK Steel, Inc., which included the Sharon Tube Co. facilities in Sharon, Pennsylvania, as

well as facilities in Wheatland, Pennsylvania and Warren, Ohio.73 Accordingly, at the time of the first

reviews, four firms reported production of small-diameter CASSLP pipe in the United States: Koppel,

Wheatland/ Sharon, Timken, and U.S. Steel.74

During the current review period, IPSCO, Inc. purchased NS Group in 2006, and TMK purchased

IPSCO’s U.S. tubular plants, forming TMK IPSCO, in 2008.75 Domestic interested parties report that six

firms produced small-diameter CASSLP pipe in the United States between 2005 and 2010: Michigan

Seamless Tube, LLC; Plymouth Tube Co.; Timken; TMK IPSCO; U.S. Steel; and Wheatland Tube Co.76

Subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania were present in the

U.S. market throughout this time, as were imports from non-subject countries.77 In 2010, imports of

 66 See, e.g., CR at I-16; PR at I-13.

 67 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-5, I-7.

 68 The main sources of non-subject imports were Argentina (16.9 percent of total imports in 2010), Russia (16.7

percent), Czech Republic (9.3 percent), Italy (7.9 percent), Germany (7.0 percent), and Croatia (5.2 percent). U.S.

imports from China were subject to antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 2009/2010 and became

subject to both antidumping and countervailing duty orders in November 2010. U.S. imports of large-diameter

CASSLP pipe from China declined from 169,066 short tons in 2008 to 5,652 short tons in 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at

Tables I-5, I-7.

 69 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-6.

 70 See, e.g., CR at I-15; PR at I-12 to I-13.

 71 See, e.g., CR at I-15; PR at I-12.

 72 See, e.g., CR at I-15; PR at I-12.

 73 See, e.g., CR at I-15; PR at I-13.

 74 See, e.g., CR at I-16; PR at I-13.

 75 See, e.g., CR at I-15; PR at I-13.

 76 See, e.g., CR at I-16; PR at I-13.

 77 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-4, I-6.

12
small-diameter CASSLP pipe from non-subject countries had a larger share of the U.S. market than the

domestic industry and imports from Japan and Romania.78

Substitutability: The available information is consistent with our finding in the original

investigations and first reviews that subject imports of large- and small-diameter CASSLP pipe are each

substitutable for the corresponding domestic like product to a moderately high degree.79

Based on the record of these reviews, we find that current conditions of competition in the largeand small-diameter CASSLP pipe market are not likely to change significantly in the reasonably

foreseeable future. Accordingly, in these reviews, we find that current conditions of competition provide

us with a reasonable basis on which to assess the likely effects of revocation of the orders in the

reasonably foreseeable future.

V. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL 

INJURY IF THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER ON LARGE-DIAMETER 

CASSLP PIPE FROM JAPAN WERE TO BE REVOKED

A. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

We conclude, based on the facts available,80 that the volume of large-diameter CASSLP pipe

imports from Japan would likely be significant if the order were revoked. In making this finding, we

recognize that the volume of subject imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan is currently

small, both in absolute terms and relative to apparent U.S. consumption.81 In a five-year review, however,

our focus is on whether subject import volume is likely to be significant within a reasonably foreseeable

time if the antidumping duty order is revoked.

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the quantity of cumulated subject

imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico and Japan rose from *** short tons in 1997 to ***

short tons in 1998, then fell to *** short tons in 1999, for an overall increase of *** percent between 1997

and 1999.82 Whereas apparent U.S. consumption decreased by *** percent during this period, cumulated

subject imports increased their share of the U.S. market from *** percent in 1997 to *** percent in 1998,

while the domestic industry’s share declined from *** percent to *** percent.83 Although cumulated

subject import market share declined *** to *** percent in 1999, the Commission found this level was

still higher than its share in 1997.84

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission majority found the likely volume of imports of

large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan into the United States, which it did not cumulate with subject

imports from Mexico, would likely be significant in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping

 78 The main sources of non-subject imports were Russia (15.5 percent of total imports in 2010), South Africa

(11.0 percent), Ukraine (10.7 percent), Spain (9.4 percent), India and Argentina (7.2 percent each), Czech Republic

(6.4 percent), and Austria (5.1 percent). U.S. imports from China were subject to antidumping and countervailing

duty investigations in 2009/2010 and became subject to both antidumping and countervailing duty orders in

November 2010. U.S. imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from China declined from 197,022 short tons in

2008 to 7,562 short tons in 2010. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-4, I-6.

 79 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3850 at 14, 37-38; USITC Pub. 3311 at 15, 25.

 80 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a).

 81 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-7.

 82 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 25.

 83 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 25.

 84 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 25.

13
duty order were revoked.85 It based this conclusion on the information available in those reviews,

primarily information from the original investigations indicating that the industry in Japan at the time of

the original investigations was large, export-oriented, and had significant excess capacity and declining

shipments to its home market, and that subject imports from Japan into the U.S. market had increased

rapidly.86 Taking into consideration information reported by NKK in those reviews, the Commission

majority found that nothing in that record indicated that Japanese producers would likely behave

differently if the order were lifted than they did during the original investigations.87

At the time of the original investigations, the quantity of U.S. shipments of large-diameter

CASSLP pipe from Japan alone was 28,725 short tons in 1997, 42,897 short tons in 1998, and 49,727

short tons in 1999; their market share was 7.7 percent in 1997, 11.8 percent in 1998, and 17.0 percent in

1999.88 Between 2000 and 2005, the period examined in the first reviews, subject imports of largediameter CASSLP pipe from Japan remained in the U.S. market at considerably lower levels of *** short

tons in 2000, *** short tons in 2001, *** short tons in 2002, *** short tons in 2003, and *** short tons in

2004, accounting for ***.89 Between 2005 and 2010, the volume of large-diameter CASSLP pipe imports

from Japan was much larger: 37,091 short tons in 2005, 27,821 short tons in 2006, 27,360 short tons in

2007, and 6,292 short tons in 2008, 17,311 short tons in 2009, and 5,860 short tons in 2010.90 Thus, even

under the discipline of the antidumping duty order and despite the smaller size of the U.S. market by

2010, subject imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan maintained a presence in the U.S.

market, accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2010 compared to 17.0 percent in

1999, at the end of the period covered by the original investigations.91

In these second reviews, no Japanese interested parties responded to the notice of institution. The

record indicates the existence of four producers of subject merchandise in Japan (Haneda Pipe Works;

Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. (which acquired the facilities closed and formerly owned by Nippon

Steel Corporation in 2001); JFE Steel Corp.; and Tenaris NKK Tubes (the trade name used by NKK

Tubes, a Tenaris company in which JFE is part owner)), each of which also reportedly produces other

products, including small-diameter CASSLP pipe.92 Because of the absence of any respondent interested

party participation, the record of these reviews contains no evidence on existing or likely increases in

inventories of the subject foreign producers in Japan or on their current capacity and production of largediameter CASSLP pipe relative to other products. *** reported that annual production in Japan of

ordinary seamless tubular products (a category that includes but is not limited to large-diameter CASSLP

 85 See, e.g., Confidential First-Review Views at 68-70. As noted earlier, the Commission majority’s opinion on

this issue reflected the views of Chairman Okun and Commissioners Pearson, Aranoff, and Hillman. Commissioners

Lane and Koplan based their findings on the likely volume of large-diameter CASSLP pipe imports from Japan on a

cumulated analysis of these imports with imports from Mexico.

 86 See, e.g., Confidential First-Review Views at 68-70.

 87 See, e.g., Confidential First-Review Views at 70.

 88 See, e.g., CR/PR at Appendix C.

 89 See, e.g., CR/PR at Appendix C.

 90 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-5.

 91 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-7. We recognize that the available data on imports from official Commerce

statistics include ASTM A-335 pipe and line pipe for deepwater applications, which are outside of the scope of these

reviews, meaning that the volume of subject imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan may be somewhat

overstated. See, e.g., CR/PR at note to Table I-5.

 92 See, e.g., CR at I-29; PR at I-22; Domestic Interested Parties’ Response to Notice of Institution at Exhibit 14.

14
pipe) was *** in 2010, up from *** in 2009, but down from *** in 2008.93 Consequently, there is no

evidence of any significant changes in the structure of this industry since the original investigations. As

the Commission stated in the first reviews, the Japanese industry at the time of the original investigations

was large and increased its capacity despite significant excess capacity, it produced both small- and largediameter CASSLP pipe products, was export-oriented, and had declining shipments to its home market

and rapidly increasing imports into the U.S. market.94

Based on our findings in the original investigations and first reviews, the evidence concerning the

volume of subject imports into the United States of large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan during and

since the original investigations, the continued presence of subject imports from Japan in the U.S. market

even under the discipline of the orders indicating continued interest in the U.S. market despite its

currently smaller size, and the evidence regarding the production, capacity, and ability to product shift of

subject producers in Japan, we find that the volume of subject large-diameter CASSLP pipe imports from

Japan, both in absolute terms and relative to production and consumption in the United States, would

likely be significant absent the restraining effect of the antidumping duty order.

B. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports of

Large-Diameter CASSLP Pipe from Japan

In the original investigations, in which the Commission cumulated large-diameter CASSLP pipe

from Japan with large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico, the Commission found that domestic prices

declined dramatically when demand was at its weakest in late 1998 and 1999 and there was significant

underselling by subject imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe.95 It found that the decline in oil and gas

industry activities, and thus demand for large-diameter CASSLP pipe, contributed to but did not fully

explain the decline in large-diameter CASSLP pipe prices.96 Instead, it found that, with demand weak,

and cumulated subject imports entering the market in significant volumes at low and declining prices,

domestic producers were forced to cut prices to regain market share they had lost to subject imports.97

The Commission also found that cumulated subject imports depressed domestic prices to a significant

degree.98

In the first reviews, the Commission majority found the likely price effects of large-diameter

CASSLP pipe from Japan into the United States, which it did not cumulate with subject imports from

Mexico, would likely be significant in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty order

were revoked.99 It relied on pricing data from the original investigations in the absence of reported data

 93 See, e.g., CR at I-29; PR at I-22.

 94 The current record does not indicate that large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan is subject to third-country

trade barriers. See, e.g., CR at I-28; PR at I-21.

 95 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 26. During the original investigations, according to data reported by domestic

producers and importers, subject imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan undersold the domestic like

product in 4 of 13 observations at margins that ranged from 0.6 to 30.4 percent. Based on purchaser pricing data,

subject imports from Japan undersold the domestic like product in 5 of the 6 observations, at margins that ranged

from 5.2 to 20.2 percent. Memorandum INV-X-114 at Tables V-7 to V-9 (May 25, 2000).

 96 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 26.

 97 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 26.

 98 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 26-27.

 99 See, e.g., Confidential First-Review Views at 70-71. As noted earlier, the Commission majority’s opinion on

this issue reflected the views of Chairman Okun and Commissioners Pearson, Aranoff, and Hillman. Commissioners

(continued...)

15
on Japanese products for the first review period.100 These data showed increased underselling by subject

imports from Japan. The Commission also relied on its likely volume findings as well as its finding that

nothing in the record of the first reviews indicated that subject imports from Japan would behave

differently than they had during the original investigations if the order were to be revoked.101

There is no new product-specific pricing information on the record of these reviews, and we find

that average-unit values are of limited utility in an industry such as this involving a product manufactured

in a variety of grades, sizes, and finishes.102 Available information on average U.S. transaction prices (for

domestic and import shipments combined) indicate increased prices in 2010, but more mixed trends in

2011; during this period, prices for U.S. number one heavy melting scrap (a key input for the billets used

to produce seamless pipe) increased by approximately $100 per short ton and continued to increase into

2011.103 Based on this information and the moderately high degree of substitutability between the

domestic like product and subject imports from Japan, we find that the U.S. market for large-diameter

CASSLP pipe is price-competitive. We find it likely that subject foreign producers, in order to increase

their market share, would resume their pattern of underselling from the original investigations if the

orders were revoked. In response, domestic producers would either have to reduce their prices or

relinquish market share. Accordingly, we find that, if the orders were revoked, the likely significant

increase in subject import volume at prices that would likely undersell the domestic like product would

likely have significant adverse price effects on the domestic industry.

C. Likely Impact of Subject Imports of 

Large-Diameter CASSLP Pipe from Japan104

In the original investigations, the Commission found that all of the industry’s major economic

and financial indicators declined significantly.105 Operating income declined, as did production,

shipments, net sales, cash flow, capacity utilization, productivity, number of production workers, hours

 99 (...continued)

Lane and Koplan based their findings on the likely volume of large-diameter CASSLP pipe imports from Japan on a

cumulated analysis of these imports with imports from Mexico.

 100 No pricing data for subject imports from Japan were available at the time of the Commission’s first reviews. 

See Memorandum INV-DD-036 (Mar. 28, 2006); Confidential First-Review Views at p. 70.

 101 See, e.g., Confidential First-Review Views at 70-71.

 102 See, e.g., CR at I-13 to I-14; PR at I-11 to I-12.

 103 See, e.g., CR at I-14 & n.37; PR at I-12 & n.37.

 104 Under the statute, “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping” in making its

determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of

dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the dumping margin or margins determined by the

administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv); see also SAA at 887. 

In the final results of its expedited second five-year review of the antidumping duty order, Commerce determined

that revocation of the order on large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan would likely result in the continuation or

recurrence of dumping at a weighted-average margin of 107.80 percent for Nippon Steel Corp., Kawasaki Steel

Corp., and Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. and a margin of 68.88 percent for all others. See, e.g., CR/PR at

Table I-1. Commerce has not made any duty absorption determinations with respect to this antidumping duty order. 

See, e.g., CR at I-7; PR at I-6.

 105 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 27-28.

16
worked, wages paid, and productivity.106 Additionally, the domestic industry’s unit labor costs and unit

COGS increased.107 While the declines were partly attributable to a decline in demand for large-diameter

CASSLP pipe, the Commission found that cumulated subject imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe

from Japan and Mexico exacerbated the effects of the decline in demand on the increasingly unprofitable

and poorly performing industry.108

In the first reviews, the Commission majority concluded that the domestic industry was not

vulnerable, based on improvements in its condition during the review period. In particular, the

Commission cited the increased profitability of the industry toward the end of the review period.109

Although demand was projected to remain strong, the Commission found that the likely substantial

volume and price effects of subject imports from Japan likely would be sufficient to have a significant

negative impact on the production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues of the domestic industry. 

This reduction in the industry’s production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues, it found, likely

would adversely affect the industry’s profitability and ability to raise capital and maintain necessary

capital investments. Based on the facts available in those reviews, the Commission concluded that if the

order were revoked, these circumstances likely would recur and there would be a likely significant

adverse impact on the domestic industry.110

In these expedited reviews, the record information on the domestic industry’s condition is limited. 

Based on the current record, in 2010, the domestic industry’s capacity was *** short tons, its output was

*** short tons, and its capacity-utilization rate was *** percent.111 The domestic industry’s U.S.

shipments were *** short tons, accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption. Its net sales

value was $***, and its operating income was $***, equivalent to *** percent of net sales.112 The limited

evidence in these expedited reviews is insufficient for us to make a finding on whether the domestic

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

order.113

Based on the record in these reviews, we find that the likely volume and likely price effects of

subject imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe would likely have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry’s production, sales, and revenue levels, and would likely have a direct adverse impact

on the industry’s profitability and employment levels as well as its ability to raise capital and make and

maintain necessary capital investments. We recognize that, given the substitutability of the products

generally, subject imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan would also likely displace to some

degree non-subject imports in the U.S. market in the event of revocation. Nevertheless, we find that a

significant portion of the expected increase in subject imports from Japan would be at the expense of the

domestic industry, particularly given the likelihood of subject import underselling and adverse price

effects as well as the current size of the U.S. market. Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping

 106 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 27.

 107 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 27.

 108 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 27-28.

 109 See, e.g., Confidential First-Review Views at 71-72.

 110 See, e.g., Confidential First-Review Views at 71-75.

 111 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-3.

 112 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-3, I-7.

 113 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert – focusing in particular on operating margins, operating income, and value of

shipments – find that the available evidence suggests that the domestic industry producing large-diameter CASSLP

pipe is not vulnerable. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-3. They note, however, that the domestic industry has lost

significant market share to non-subject imports since the original investigations and that its production and capacity

utilization were lower in 2010 than in either 2004 or 1999. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-3 and I-7.

17
duty order on large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan were revoked, subject imports would be likely to

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

D. Conclusion

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

large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

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

VI. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS ON SMALL-DIAMETER CASSLP PIPE FROM

JAPAN AND ROMANIA WERE TO BE REVOKED114

A. Cumulation

1. Legal Standards

With respect to five-year reviews, section 752(a) of the Tariff Act provides as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.115

Cumulation therefore is discretionary in five-year reviews, unlike original investigations, which are

governed by section 771(7)(G)(i) of the Act.116 The Commission may exercise its discretion to cumulate,

however, only if the reviews are initiated the same day, the Commission determines that subject imports

are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S. market, and imports from

each such subject country are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in

the event of revocation. Our focus in five-year reviews is not only on present conditions of competition,

but also on likely conditions of competition in the reasonably foreseeable future.

 114 Chairman Okun and Commissioner Pearson do not join the remainder of this opinion.

 115 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 116 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i); see also, e.g., Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1370,

1378 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission has in selecting the types of factors it

considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews);

Nucor v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1337-38 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008); U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 572

F. Supp.2d 1334 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008).

18
2. Findings in Original Investigations and First Reviews117

In the original investigations, the Commission cumulated subject imports from the Czech

Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa for purposes of its analysis of the small-diameter CASSLP

pipe industry.118 In the first five-year reviews of these antidumping duty orders, four Commissioners119

decided not to exercise their discretion to cumulate subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from

Japan with any other subject imports, including small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania,120 whereas

two Commissioners exercised their discretion to cumulate subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP

pipe from Japan not only with small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania but also with small-diameter

CASSLP pipe from all other countries then subject to review.121

3. Analysis

The threshold criterion for cumulation in these reviews is satisfied because both reviews

involving small-diameter CASSLP pipe were instituted on the same day, April 1, 2011.122 In these

reviews, we consider three issues in deciding whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject

imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania: (1) whether imports from either of the

subject countries are precluded from cumulation because they are likely to have no discernible adverse

impact on the domestic industry; (2) whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition

among small-diameter CASSLP pipe produced in the United States, Japan, and Romania; and (3) whether

 117 In light of our conclusions above regarding the definition of the domestic like products and industries,

cumulation questions in these reviews pertain only to subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan

and Romania and not to subject imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe where only one order is at issue. In the

original investigations, the Commission cumulated subject imports from Japan and Mexico for purposes of its

analysis of the large-diameter CASSLP pipe industry. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 24; USITC Pub. 3325 at 3-4

(reflecting the opinions of Chairman Okun and Commissioners Bragg, Miller, and Koplan). In the first five-year

reviews of the orders, Chairman Okun and Commissioners Pearson, Aranoff, and Hillman declined to exercise their

discretion to cumulate subject imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan with subject imports of largediameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3850 at 34-40. Commissioners Lane and Koplan

exercised their discretion to cumulate imports from Japan and Mexico. See, e.g., id. at 85-86.

 118 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at cover, 1-3, 16; USITC Pub. 3325 at 3-4 (reflecting the views of Chairman Okun

and Commissioners Bragg, Miller, and Koplan).

 119 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3850 at 18, 97-102. Chairman Okun and Commissioners Pearson and Hillman did not

exercise their discretion to cumulate small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania with any other imports;

they made affirmative five-year review determinations concerning small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan but

negative five-year review determinations concerning small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania. Commissioner

Aranoff made affirmative five-year review determinations concerning small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan,

which she did not cumulate with small-diameter CASSLP pipe from any other subject country. She joined the

cumulation analysis of Chairman Okun and Commissioners Pearson and Hillman and wrote separate views

providing additional reasons why subject imports from Romania were not likely to compete in the U.S. market under

the same conditions of competition as subject imports from the Czech Republic and South Africa.

 120 Chairman Okun and Commissioners Pearson, Aranoff, and Hillman exercised their discretion to cumulate

subject imports from the Czech Republic and South Africa and made negative five-year review determinations

concerning these orders. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3850 at 18.

 121 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3850 at 55-58. Commissioners Lane and Koplan wrote separately to explain why they

exercised their discretion to cumulate subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic,

Japan, Romania, and South Africa. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3850 at 71-77.

 122 76 Fed. Reg. 18,251 (Apr. 1, 2011).

19
there are similarities and differences in the likely conditions of competition under which subject imports

of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania are likely to compete in the U.S. market.123 In

so doing, we take into account the arguments raised by the parties in these reviews.

We first consider whether subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from either Japan or

Romania are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry were the antidumping

duty orders to be revoked.124 In the first five-year reviews, none of the Commissioners found that subject

imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan or Romania would likely have no discernible adverse

impact on the domestic industry if the antidumping duty orders were revoked.125 In these reviews,

domestic interested parties argue that there is also no evidence that imports of small-diameter CASSLP

pipe from either Japan or Romania would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry.126 No other party participated in these reviews.

In these reviews, available information on this issue consists primarily of data from the original

investigations and first reviews. During the period examined in the original investigations, subject

imports from Japan and Romania each were significant and accounted for a significant share of the U.S.

market.127 Subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania maintained a

presence in the U.S. market during the period examined in the first reviews as well as in these second

reviews.128 No specific data are available on the current capacity and production of subject foreign

producers because no respondent interested party has participated in these reviews. Because the subject

industry in Japan had a large production capacity, had considerable unused capacity, and was exportoriented at the time of the original investigations and the only responding Japanese producer in the first

reviews had increasing and excess capacity at that time, and because the subject industry in Romania had

large and increasing production capacity, available unused capacity, and was export-oriented at the time

 123 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert explain their analysis of other considerations as follows. Where, in a fiveyear review, they do not find that imports of the subject merchandise would be likely to have no discernible adverse

impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation, and find that such imports would be likely to compete

with each other and with the domestic like product in the U.S. market, they cumulate them unless there is a condition

or propensity – not merely a trend – that is likely to persist for a reasonably foreseeable time and that significantly

limits competition such that cumulation is not warranted. They note the limited record information about the smalldiameter CASSLP pipe industries in the subject countries and thus find that there is no condition or propensity

warranting non-cumulation with respect to small-diameter CASSLP pipe from either of the subject countries. 

Consequently, they have cumulated all imports of subject small-diameter CASSLP pipe in these reviews.

 124 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7). Neither the statute nor the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”)

Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) provides specific guidance on what factors the Commission is to

consider in determining that imports “are likely to have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry. 

SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I at 887 (1994). With respect to this provision, the Commission generally

considers the likely volume of subject imports and the likely impact of those imports on the domestic industry within

a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders are revoked. Our analysis for each of the subject countries takes into

account the nature of the product and the behavior of subject imports in the original investigations and during the

current reviews.

 125 Additionally, none of them found that subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech

Republic or South Africa would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if those orders

were removed. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3850 at 10-13, 55, 71.

 126 See, e.g., Domestic Interested Parties’ Comments at 11-12.

 127 See, e.g., CR/PR at Appendix C (indicating market shares as high as *** percent for Japan and *** percent for

Romania during the original investigations).

 128 See, e.g., CR/PR at Appendix C.

20
of the original investigations and first reviews,129 we find that revoking either of the antidumping duty

orders on small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania is not likely to have no discernible

adverse impact on the domestic industry.

We next considered whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition among

the domestic like product and subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and

Romania.130 In the original investigations, the Commission found a reasonable overlap of competition

among subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and

South Africa. Based on the traditional four factors, in the first reviews, all Commissioners reaching the

issue found a reasonable overlap of competition between and among small-diameter CASSLP pipe from

the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, South Africa, and the United States.131

There is no new information to suggest that small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan, Romania,

and the United States are likely to be less fungible today than we found them to be in the original

investigations and first reviews.132 Information available from the original investigations and first reviews

suggests a likely overlap in terms of channels of distribution.133 Record evidence also suggests a

likelihood that the domestic like product and subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan

and Romania will be simultaneously present in overlapping geographic markets in the United States.134

 129 See, e.g., Confidential First-Review Views at 13-15.

 130 The Commission generally has considered four factors intended to provide a framework for determining

whether subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product. The four factors generally

considered by the Commission in assessing whether imports compete with each other and with the domestic like

product are as follows: (1) the degree of fungibility between subject imports from different countries and between

subject imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific customer requirements and other

quality-related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographical markets of 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 subject imports are

simultaneously present in the market with one another and the domestic like product. See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG

v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989). Only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is required. 

See 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.”); United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673,

685 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether

there likely would be competition even if none currently exists because the subject imports are absent from the U.S.

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

 131 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3850 at 13-14. Commissioners Lane and Koplan reached this conclusion but presented

their analysis in their separate views.

 132 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3850 at 13-14; CR at I-19 to I-20; PR at I-14 to I-15; Domestic Interested Parties’

Comments at 11.

 133 In the original investigations, the vast majority of small-diameter CASSLP pipes were sold through

distributors regardless of where they were manufactured. See, e.g., CR at I-20 to I-21; PR at I-15. In the first

reviews, domestic producers reported selling mostly to distributors but also to end users, and importers of smalldiameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania reported selling *** through distributors. See, e.g., USITC Pub.

3850 at 14; Confidential First-Review Views at 20.

 134 In the original investigations, domestic shipments and subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from

Japan were present in the U.S. market in each month of the period examined, compared to 30 of the 36 months for

subject imports from Romania. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3850 at 14. In the first reviews, subject imports from Japan

and Romania and the domestic like product were present in the U.S. market throughout the period of review,

although subject imports were more sporadic and in smaller quantities in some years. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3850 at

14. In these second reviews, small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan entered the U.S. market in 70 of 72 months

(continued...)

21
No party has argued in these current reviews that the Commission should not find that there

would be a likely reasonable overlap of competition were the orders to be revoked. Based on our

determinations in the original investigations and in the first reviews, and the available information in

these reviews, we find that if the orders were revoked there would likely be a reasonable overlap of

competition between and among the domestic like product and subject imports of small-diameter

CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania. For these reasons, and because there is no indication of other

significant differences in the likely conditions of competition in the market such that the likely volume

and effect of subject imports would be substantially different, we conclude that it is appropriate to

exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and

Romania in these reviews.135

B. Likely Volume of Cumulated Subject Imports of 

Small-Diameter CASSLP Pipe from Japan and Romania

In the original investigations, the Commission cumulated subject imports of small-diameter

CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa; it found that these imports

collectively rose from 59,017 short tons in 1997 to 83,228 short tons in 1998.136 It found that these

cumulated subject imports increased their market share from 21.8 percent in 1997 to 35.8 percent in 1998

largely at the expense of the domestic industry, whose market share declined from 67.8 percent to 54.9

percent in the same period.137 In 1999, the quantity of these cumulated subject imports fell to 35,683

short tons, and the Commission found that the domestic industry increased its market share that year to

69.3 percent, largely by significantly decreasing its prices to meet the low-priced competition from these

subject imports.138 The Commission also found that these cumulated subject imports declined in 1999 in

part as a result of the June 30, 1999, petition filings, as shown in a significant decline in the cumulated

volume of imports from these subject countries in the fourth quarter of 1999.139 Even after this decline

from 1998 levels, subject imports’ 23.8 percent market share in 1999 was higher than their share in 1997. 

 134 (...continued)

between 2005 and 2010, compared to 50 months for subject imports from Romania. See, e.g., CR at I-21; PR at I15. In the original investigations and first reviews, the Commission found that there was geographic overlap among

the domestic like product and imports from each of the subject countries at least for sales to the Gulf Region. See,

e.g., USITC Pub. 3850 at 14. Since 2005, U.S. imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania

entered through the following primary Customs districts: Cleveland; New Orleans; Seattle (Japan); and Houston

(Romania). See, e.g., CR at I-21; PR at I-16.

 135 In the first reviews, Commissioner Aranoff determined not to cumulate subject imports from Japan and

Romania based on arguments advanced by respondents and supported by facts on the record. In the current reviews,

no respondent has participated and all participating parties argue in favor of cumulation. Additionally, the record

lacks updated information bearing on several of the findings that Commissioner Aranoff made in the first reviews. 

Because the Commission’s inability to gather updated information flows from respondents’ collective decision not to

participate in the current reviews, Commissioner Aranoff finds that subject imports from Japan and Romania are not

likely to compete under substantially different conditions of competition in the U.S. market and, accordingly, she

evaluates subject imports on a cumulated basis.

 136 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 17.

 137 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 17.

 138 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 17.

 139 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 17-18.

22
Thus, the Commission found that these cumulated subject imports still held a significant share of the U.S.

market in 1999.140

In the first reviews, the Commission majority separately analyzed the likely volume of smalldiameter pipes from Japan and Romania. With respect to Japan, the Commission majority relied on the

information available, primarily information from the original investigations, because only limited data

was provided by Japanese respondent interested parties in the first reviews. The Commission majority

found that the volume of subject imports from Japan to the United States was likely to increase

significantly and rapidly if the order were revoked. The majority based this finding on Japanese

producers’ large production capacity, excess production capacity, and volume trends during the original

investigations.141 In reaching their affirmative five-year review determinations concerning Romania,142

Commissioner Aranoff based her conclusions on an analysis of the likely volume of subject imports from

Romania analyzed in isolation,143 whereas Commissioners Lane and Koplan based their likely volume

analysis on subject small-diameter CASSLP pipe imports from Romania as well as Japan, the Czech

Republic, and South Africa.144

During the original investigations, the cumulated quantity of U.S. shipments of imports of smalldiameter CASSLP pipe imports from Japan and Romania increased from *** short tons in 1997 to ***

short tons in 1998 and then decreased to *** short tons in 1999, and the corresponding share of apparent

U.S. consumption increased from *** percent in 1997 to *** percent in 1998 and declined to *** percent

in 1999.145 In the first review period, the cumulated volume of subject imports from these two countries

fluctuated; it was 5,350 short tons in 2000, 17,482 short tons in 2001, 9,590 short tons in 2002, 12,427

short tons in 2003, and 18,797 short tons in 2004, corresponding to market shares of *** percent in 2000,

*** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, and *** percent in 2004.146 The

cumulated volume of small-diameter CASSLP pipe imports from Japan and Romania continued to

fluctuate between 2005 and 2010. Cumulated volumes were 2,501 short tons in 2005, 630 short tons in

2006, 5,471 short tons in 2007, 7,776 short tons in 2008, 5,030 short tons in 2009, and 5,439 short tons in

 140 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 18.

 141 See, e.g., Confidential First-Review Views at 35-38 (reflecting the views of Chairman Okun and

Commissioners Pearson, Aranoff, and Hillman).

 142 As noted earlier, Chairman Okun and Commissioners Pearson and Hillman reached negative determinations

regarding subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania in the first reviews.

 143 In the first reviews, Commissioner Aranoff found a likely significant increase in the volume of small-diameter

imports from Romania for several reasons: (1) the fact that Romania was the largest or second-largest source among

all countries of small-diameter CASSLP to the U.S. market during the original investigations; (2) the industry in

Romania had significant excess capacity during the review period; (3) the industry in Romania was highly exportoriented; (4) exports from Romania showed no clear pattern, being sold to multiple regions and countries, indicating

no established, long-term customer relationships; (5) her finding that recent ownership changes did not eliminate the

incentive of the two producers in Romania in question to serve the U.S. market. See Commissioner Aranoff’s

Separate Views on Romania.

 144 In the first reviews, Commissioners Lane and Koplan found a likely significant increase in the volume of

small-diameter imports from the four cumulated subject countries for several reasons: (1) the subject industries had

substantial production capacity; (2) they were export-oriented; (3) they had substantial excess capacity; (4) they had

the ability to shift a substantial volume of exports from other markets to the United States; (5) the U.S. market

continued to be an attractive outlet for their production. See Commissioner Lane and Commissioner Koplan’s

Separate Views.

 145 (Derived from CR/PR at Appendix C).

 146 (Derived from CR/PR at Appendix C).

23
2010.147 Thus, even under the discipline of the antidumping duty orders and despite the smaller size of

the U.S. market by 2010, cumulated subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and

Romania maintained a presence in the U.S. market, accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption in 2010 compared to *** percent in 1999 at the end of the period covered by the original

investigations.148

In these second reviews, although no Japanese or Romanian interested parties responded to the

notice of institution, domestic interested parties identified four producers of subject merchandise in

Japan149 and four producers of small-diameter CASSLP pipe in Romania.150 Because of the absence of

any respondent interested party participation, the record of these reviews contains no evidence on existing

or likely increases in inventories of the subject foreign producers in Japan and Romania or on their

current capacity and production of small-diameter CASSLP pipe relative to other products. *** reported

that annual production in Japan of ordinary seamless tubular products (a category that includes but is not

limited to small-diameter CASSLP pipe) was *** in 2010, up from *** in 2009, but down from *** in

2008.151 *** reported that annual production in Romania of ordinary seamless tubular products was ***

in 2010, up from *** in 2009, but down from *** in 2008.152 Consequently, there is no evidence of any

significant changes in the structure of these industries since the original investigations. As the

Commission found in the first reviews, at the time of the original investigations and/or first reviews,153

both industries were large and adding capacity despite significant excess capacity, and both were exportoriented.

Third-country trade barriers also would likely encourage subject foreign producers in Japan and

Romania to significantly increase exports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe to the United States after

revocation. Available information indicates that Brazil imposed an antidumping duty order on imports of

small-diameter seamless pipe from Romania in 2000, Venezuela imposed an order on small-diameter

seamless line pipe from Japan in 2000, and Mexico imposed antidumping duty orders on small-diameter

seamless line pipe from Japan in 2000 and on imports from Romania in 2004.154

Based on our findings in the original investigations and first reviews, evidence concerning the

cumulated volume of subject imports into the United States of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan

and Romania during and since the original investigations, their continued presence in the U.S. market

even under the discipline of the orders indicating continued interest in the U.S. market, information

regarding third-country trade barriers, as well as available information regarding the production, capacity,

and ability to product shift of subject producers in Japan and Romania, we find that the cumulated volume

 147 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-4.

 148 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-6.

 149 These include the following: Haneda Pipe Works; Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. (which acquired the

facilities closed and formerly owned by Nippon Steel Corporation in 2001); JFE Steel Corp.; and Tenaris NKK

Tubes (the trade name used by NKK Tubes, a Tenaris company in which JFE is part owner). See, e.g., CR at I-29;

PR at I-23; Domestic Interested Parties’ Response to Notice of Institution at Exhibit 14.

 150 These include the following: (1) ArcelorMittal Hunedoara; (2) ArcelorMittal Roman; (3) Tenaris Silcotub;

and (4) TMK-Artrom. See, e.g., CR at I-30; PR at I-22; Domestic Interested Parties’ Response to Notice of

Institution at Exhibit 14.

 151 See, e.g., CR at I-29; PR at I-22.

 152 See, e.g., CR at I-30; PR at I-23.

 153 As indicated in the Commission’s first-review determinations, available information on the industry in Japan

was largely based on information from the original investigations as only one foreign producer in Japan submitted

questionnaire data in those reviews.

 154 See, e.g., CR at I-28; PR at I-21.

24
of subject small-diameter CASSLP pipe imports from Japan and Romania, both in absolute terms and

relative to production and consumption in the United States, would likely be significant and increase

significantly absent the restraining effect of the antidumping duty orders.

C. Likely Price Effects of Cumulated Subject Imports of

Small-Diameter CASSLP Pipe from Japan and Romania

In the original investigations, in which the Commission cumulated small-diameter CASSLP pipe

imports from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa, the Commission found that the

domestic industry’s prices were stable in 1997 and 1998 but then declined *** in 1999, consistent with

generally declining subject import prices in 1999.155 In addition, the Commission found significant

underselling of the domestic like product by cumulated subject imports.156 Although the Commission

exercised caution due to product-mix differences, it noted that average unit values confirmed the pattern

shown by the product-specific pricing data.157 The Commission found that the decline in demand during

the original investigations did have an effect on prices, but did not fully explain the price declines

evidenced in the record.158 Given the dramatic decline in price levels, along with pervasive and

significant underselling and the substitutability of subject imports, the Commission found that the

cumulated subject imports depressed domestic prices to a significant degree.159

In the first reviews, the Commission majority found a likelihood of significant adverse price

effects in the event the order on small-diameter CASSLP Pipe from Japan were revoked.160 It based this

conclusion on information available, primarily from the original investigations, including the fact that

underselling by subject imports from Japan increased during the original investigations and there were

more instances of underselling than overselling for almost every pricing product at that time.161 It also

noted that Japanese producers were the only subject source listed on purchasers’ AMLs, giving them

faster access to the U.S. market if the order were revoked.162 In reaching their affirmative five-year

 155 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 18.

 156 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 18. During the original investigations, according to data reported by domestic

producers and importers, subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan undersold the domestic like

product in 22 of 34 observations at margins that ranged from 0.8 to 37.4 percent. Based on purchaser pricing data,

subject imports from Japan undersold the domestic like product in 29 of the 31 observations, at margins that ranged

as high as 26.9 percent. See, e.g., Memorandum INV-X-114 at Tables V-1 to V-6 (May 25, 2000).

During the original investigations, according to data reported by domestic producers and importers, subject

imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania undersold the domestic like product in 30 of 31 observations

at margins that ranged from 4.5 to 39.7 percent. Based on purchaser pricing data, subject imports from Romania

undersold the domestic like product in all 17 observations at margins that ranged from 3.8 to 46.7 percent. See, e.g.,

Memorandum INV-X-114 at Tables V-1 to V-6.

 157 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 18.

 158 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 19.

 159 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 19.

 160 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3850 at 25-26.

 161 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3850 at 25-26. No pricing data for subject imports from Japan were available at the

time of the Commission’s first reviews. See Memorandum INV-DD-036 (Mar. 28, 2006); Confidential First-Review

Views at n.80.

 162 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3850 at 25-26.

25
review determinations concerning Romania,163 Commissioner Aranoff based her conclusions on an

analysis of the likely price effects of subject imports from Romania analyzed in isolation,164 whereas

Commissioners Lane and Koplan based their likely price effects analysis on subject small-diameter

CASSLP pipe imports from Romania as well as Japan, the Czech Republic, and South Africa.165

There is no new product-specific pricing information on the record of these reviews, and we find

that average unit values are of limited utility in an industry such as this involving a product manufactured

in a variety of grades, sizes, and finishes.166 Available information on average U.S. transaction prices (for

domestic and import shipments combined) indicate increased prices in 2010, but more mixed trends in

2011; during this period, prices for U.S. number one heavy melting scrap (a key input for the billets used

to produce seamless pipe) increased by approximately $100 per short ton and continued to increase into

2011.167 Based on this pricing evidence and the moderately high degree of substitutability among the

domestic like product and subject imports from Japan and Romania, we find that the U.S. market for

small-diameter CASSLP pipe is price-competitive. We find it likely that subject foreign producers would

resume their pattern of underselling from the original investigations if the orders were revoked, in order to

increase their market share, particularly given the smaller size of the U.S. market by 2010. In response,

domestic producers would have to either reduce their prices or relinquish market share. Accordingly, we

find that, if the orders were revoked, the likely significant increase in subject import volume at prices that

would likely undersell the domestic like product would likely have significant adverse price effects on the

domestic industry.

 163 As noted earlier, Chairman Okun and Commissioners Pearson and Hillman reached negative determinations

regarding subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania in the first reviews.

 164 In the first reviews, Commissioner Aranoff found that, notwithstanding the discipline imposed by the

antidumping duty order, subject imports continued to undersell the domestic like product by significant margins. 

Given their pricing behavior and her findings regarding the likely volume of subject imports from Romania, she

found that subject imports from Romania would be likely to have significant depressing or suppressing effects on

domestic prices if the order were revoked. See Commissioner Aranoff’s Separate Views on Romania. According to

data collected in the first reviews, subject imports from Romania undersold the domestic like product in each of the

34 observations, at margins that ranged as high as 37.7 percent. See, e.g., Memorandum INV-DD-036 (Mar. 28,

2006).

 165 In the first reviews, Commissioners Lane and Koplan found that, given the fairly price competitive nature of

the U.S. market and the general substitutability of subject imports for the domestic like product, subject producers

would aggressively price their products to regain market share if the orders were revoked, causing significant price

depression or suppression like in the original investigations. See Commissioner Lane and Commissioner Koplan’s

Separate Views.

 166 See, e.g., CR at I-13 to I-14; PR at I-11 to I-12.

 167 See, e.g., CR at I-14 & n.37; PR at I-12 & n.37.

26
D. Likely Impact of the Cumulated Subject Imports of

Small-Diameter CASSLP Pipe from Japan and Romania168

In the original investigations, the Commission found that all of the domestic industry’s major

economic and financial indicators declined significantly between 1997 and 1999.169 Operating income

fell and five of the seven firms sustained operating losses in 1999, compared with none of the seven firms

in 1997.170 Moreover, during the period examined in the original investigations, the domestic industry

experienced significant declines in production, shipments, net sales, capacity utilization, cash flow,

productivity, number of production workers, hours worked, wages paid, and hourly wages.171

Additionally, its end-of-period inventories, unit labor costs and unit COGS all increased.172 Although

capital expenditures increased during the period, the Commission found this reflected decisions made

before 1998 and before the decline in demand and the surge in subject imports sold at LTFV.173 While

the declines in industry performance indicators were partly attributable to the decline in demand, the

Commission found that cumulated subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech

Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa exacerbated the effects of the decline in demand on the

increasingly unprofitable and poorly performing industry.174

In the first reviews, the Commission majority concluded that the domestic small-diameter

CASSLP pipe industry was not vulnerable based on improvements in its condition, including its

profitability, throughout the review period.175 Although demand was projected to remain strong, the

Commission majority found that the likely substantial volume and price effects of subject imports from

Japan likely would be sufficient to have a significant negative impact on the production, shipments, sales,

market share, and revenues of the domestic industry, despite its lack of vulnerability. This reduction in

the industry’s production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues, it found, likely would adversely

impact the industry’s profitability and ability to raise capital and maintain necessary capital investments. 

 168 Under the statute, “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping” in making its

determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of

dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the dumping margin or margins determined by the

administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv); see also SAA at 887. 

In the final results of its expedited five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders, Commerce determined that

revocation of the order on small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan would likely result in the continuation or

recurrence of dumping at a weighted-average margin of 106.07 percent for Nippon Steel Corp., Kawasaki Steel

Corp., and Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. and at a margin of 70.43 percent for all others. See, e.g., CR/PR at

Table I-1. Commerce determined that revocation of the order on small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania would

likely result in the continuation or recurrence of dumping at a weighted-average margin of 11.08 percent for Metal

Business International S.R.L. and S.C. Petrotub S.A., a margin of 15.15 percent for Sota Communication Company

and S.C. Silcotub, and a margin of 13.06 percent for all others. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1. Section 751(a)(4) of

the Act requires Commerce, if requested by a party in an administrative review, to determine whether a foreign

producer or importer of subject merchandise has absorbed antidumping duties. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Commerce

has not made any duty absorption determinations with respect to either antidumping duty order. See, e.g., CR at I-7;

PR at I-6.

 169 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 19-20.

 170 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 19.

 171 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 19-20.

 172 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 20.

 173 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 20.

 174 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3311 at 20.

 175 See, e.g., Confidential First Review Views at 38-39.

27
Based on the facts available in those reviews, the Commission concluded that if the order were revoked,

there would be a likely significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.176

As for the findings in the first reviews concerning subject imports of small-diameter pipe from

Romania, although writing separate views, Commissioner Aranoff and Commissioners Lane and Koplan

all found that the likely substantial volume and price effects of subject imports (from Romania for

Commissioner Aranoff, and for cumulated imports from all four subject countries for Commissioners

Lane and Koplan) would be sufficient to have a significant negative impact on the production, shipments,

sales, market share, employment, and revenues of the domestic industry, despite their findings that it was

not then vulnerable and that demand was projected to remain strong.177

In these expedited reviews, the record information on the domestic industry’s condition is limited. 

Based on the current record, in 2010, the domestic industry’s capacity was *** short tons, its output was

*** short tons, and its capacity-utilization rate was *** percent.178 The domestic industry’s U.S.

shipments were *** short tons, accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption. Its net sales

value was $***, and its operating income was $***, equivalent to *** percent of net sales.179 The limited

evidence in these expedited reviews is insufficient for us to make a finding on whether the domestic

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

orders.180

Based on the record in these reviews, we find that the likely volume and likely price effects of

cumulated subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania would likely have a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry’s production, sales, and revenue levels, and would

likely have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and employment levels as well as its

ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital investments. We recognize that, given the

substitutability of the products generally, cumulated subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe

from Japan and Romania would also likely displace non-subject imports in the U.S. market to some

degree in the event of revocation. We nevertheless find that a significant portion of the expected increase

in cumulated subject imports from Japan and Romania would be at the expense of the domestic industry,

particularly given the likelihood of subject import underselling and adverse price effects as well as the

smaller size of the U.S. market by 2010. Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty orders

on small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania were revoked, cumulated subject imports

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

foreseeable time.

 176 See, e.g., Confidential First Review Views at 39-43.

 177 See, e.g., Separate Views of Commissioner Aranoff and Separate Views of Commissioners Lane and Koplan.

 178 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-2.

 179 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-2, I-6.

 180 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert – focusing in particular on operating margins, operating income, and value of

shipments – find that the available evidence suggests that the domestic industry producing small-diameter CASSLP

pipe is not vulnerable. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-2. They note, however, that the domestic industry has lost

significant market share to non-subject imports since the original investigations, its production was lower in 2010

than in either 2004 or 1999, and its capacity utilization in 2010 was hardly robust. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables I-2

and I-6.

28
CONCLUSION

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

large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. We further determine that

revocation of the antidumping duty orders on subject small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and

Romania would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.181

 181 Chairman Okun and Commissioner Pearson dissent with respect to small-diameter CASSLP pipe from

Romania. See Dissenting Views of Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson.

29
 
DISSENTING VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN DEANNA TANNER OKUN AND 

COMMISSIONER DANIEL R. PEARSON

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

Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”),1

 that revocation of the antidumping duty order on small-diameter

carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (“CASSLP pipe”) from Japan would be likely

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

reasonably foreseeable time. We further determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania would not be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence

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

We join the Commission’s Views with respect to background, the domestic like product, the

domestic industry, legal standards and likely conditions of competition, and the likelihood of continuation

or recurrence of injury if the order on large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan were revoked.2

 We write

separately, however, with respect to cumulation and our determinations that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan would be likely to lead to

the continuation or recurrence of material injury and that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

such imports from Romania would not be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States.

I. SUMMARY

In these reviews, we do not exercise our discretion to cumulate imports of small-diameter

CASSLP pipe from Japan with those from Romania because we find that if the orders were revoked,

subject imports from Japan would likely face different conditions of competition in the U.S. market than

the subject imports from Romania. Differences in volume trends between the subject sources, their

varying presence in the U.S. market, along with differences in their capacity, production, export

orientation, trade barriers and product interchangeability all support a finding that subject producers in

Romania are likely to compete differently in the U.S. market than their counterparts in Japan. 

We find that revocation of the antidumping duty order on small-diameter CASSLP pipe from

Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United

States within a reasonably foreseeable time. The record of these expedited reviews contains limited new

information with respect to the small-diameter CASSLP pipe industry in Japan and largely consists of the

evidence in the original investigation and the first review. Our determination is based on the

demonstrated ability of Japanese producers to increase rapidly imports into the U.S. market, their current

presence in the market, the existence of excess capacity at the close of the original period examined, and

the existence of current trade barriers in third-country markets. In the first five-year reviews the

Commission concluded that revocation of the antidumping duty order on imports from Japan would lead

to significant increases in the volume of subject imports that would undersell the domestic like product

and significantly depress or suppress U.S. prices. In turn, the Commission determined that the likely

substantial volume and price effects of the subject imports from Japan would be sufficient to have a

significant negative impact on the domestic industry. There is no new information on the record of the

current reviews that would call into question our previous conclusions concerning the likely volume,

 1 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c).

 2

 Specifically, we join sections I (Background), II (Domestic Like Product), III (Domestic Industry), IV (Legal

Standards and Likely Conditions of Competition), and V (Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Material

Injury if the Antidumping Duty Order on Large-Diameter CASSLP Pipe from Japan Were to be Revoked).

31
pricing and impact of subject small-diameter CASSLP imports from Japan in the event of revocation of

the order 

We find that revocation of the antidumping duty order on small-diameter CASSLP pipe from

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

the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Our determination is largely based on significant

changes during the first review period in the corporate ownership, operations and export strategies of

Silcotub, the source of nearly all subject exports to the United States in the original and first review

investigations. On the basis of those changes, combined with declines in the Romanian industry’s

capacity and production and the fact that Romanian producers have not been on major U.S. purchasers’

“approved manufacturer lists” (AMLs), we find that the likely volume of subject imports of smalldiameter CASSLP pipe from Romania would not be significant if the antidumping duty order were

revoked and that such limited volumes of imports would not likely result in significant adverse price

effects. In the first five-year reviews, we found that the likely volume of subject imports of smalldiameter CASSLP pipe from Romania would not be significant if the antidumping duty order were

revoked. There is no new information on the record of the current reviews that undermines our previous

conclusions concerning the likely volume, pricing and impact of subject small-diameter CASSLP imports

from Romania.

II. CUMULATION

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.3

Thus, cumulation is discretionary in five-year reviews. However, the Commission may exercise its

discretion to cumulate only if the reviews are initiated on the same day and the Commission determines

that the subject imports are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S.

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

likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.4

 We note that neither the statute

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

provides specific guidance on what factors the Commission is to consider in determining that subject

imports “are likely to have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry.5

In the original investigations, the Commission determined to cumulate imports of small-diameter

CASSLP pipe from all four subject countries, on the basis that there was a reasonable overlap of

competition of such imports with each other and with the domestic like products in the U.S. market.6

 In

the first five-year reviews, the Commission determined that subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP

 3 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 4

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 5

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

 6

 19 U.S.C. § 1677 (7)(G)(I). 

32
pipe from Romania would likely face different conditions of competition in the U.S. market than subject

imports from Japan, the Czech Republic and South Africa. Thus, the Commission declined to exercise its

discretion to cumulate subject imports from Romania with those from Japan, the Czech Republic and

South Africa.

In these reviews, the statutory requirement that all reviews be initiated on the same day is

satisfied as the Commission initiated all the reviews on April 1, 2011.7

 We do not exercise our discretion

to cumulate imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan with those from Romania because we

again find that subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan would likely face different

conditions of competition in the U.S. market than the subject imports from Romania if the orders were

revoked. The subject producers in Romania are likely to operate differently in the U.S. market than their

counterparts in Japan based on differences in volume trends between the subject sources, their presence in

the U.S. market, their capacity, production, and export orientation, trade barriers and product

interchangeability.

During the original investigations, subject imports from Romania and Japan generally moved in

opposite directions. While the volume of subject imports from Romania was quite large at the beginning

of the original period examined, it grew steadily smaller; indeed, the volume of subject imports from

Romania declined in each year.8

 At the same time, subject imports from Japan grew larger, albeit

irregularly.9

 Thus, in 1999, subject imports from Romania had a market share of *** percent compared to

*** percent in 1997, while subject imports from Japan had a market share of 12.3 percent, compared to

5.6 percent in 1997.10

Unlike subject imports from Japan, subject imports from Romania maintained a substantial

presence in the U.S. market throughout the first period of review, regardless of the presence or absence of

dumping margins on those imports.11 In contrast, subject imports from Japan were present in much

smaller volumes.12 As a result, imports from Romania held *** percentage points or more of market

share in four of the five years examined while imports from Japan held *** percentage points or less of

market share in every year of the first review period (2000-04). 

In the first reviews, we observed that the market share held by subject imports from Romania was

only *** percent in interim 2005.13 We concluded that this low level was explained by significant

changes in the corporate ownership and operations of Silcotub, the *** Romanian producer and the

 7 63 FR 18251 (April 1, 2011). 

 8

 Shipments of subject imports from Romania totaled *** short tons in 1997, *** short tons in 1998, and ***

short tons in 1999. Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan,

Mexico, Romania, and South Africa, USITC Pub. 3850 (Apr. 2006) at table I-1; Confidential First Review Staff

Report (Memorandum INV-DD-036) at I-6, table I-1.

 9

 Shipments of subject imports from Japan totaled 14,999 short tons in 1997, 34,059 short tons in 1998, and

18,709 short tons in 1999. Id. 

 10 Id.

 11 Subject imports from Romania totaled 3,436 short tons in 2000, 16,573 short tons in 2001, 9,182 short tons in

2002, 11,562 short tons in 2003, and 18,718 short tons in 2004. USITC Pub. 3850 at table I-1. 

 12 Subject imports from Japan totaled 1,914 short tons in 2000, 909 short tons in 2001, 408 short tons in 2002,

865 short tons in 2003, and 79 short tons in 2004. USITC Pub. 3850 at table I-1. 

 13 USITC Pub. 3850 at table I-11. 

33
source of ***.14 The data on the record reflected these changes in operations.15 In the interim 2004

period compared with the interim 2005 period, the Romanian industry’s capacity was *** short tons

smaller.16 As a share of total shipments, Romanian subject exports to the United States was *** percent

in interim 2005 compared with *** percent in interim 2004, and Romanian exports to the European

Union (EU) in interim 2005 were over *** times higher, at *** percent, than they were in interim 2004

(*** percent).17

The data on the record of the current review period demonstrate that the Romanian industry has

continued to focus on non-U.S. export markets. Subject imports from Romania declined by 87.8 percent

from 2004 to 2005 and remained small in each of the next five years. Overall, subject imports from

Romania declined from 2,274 short tons in 2005 to 1,761 short tons in 2010, or by 22.6 percent during the

current review period (2005-10).18 Subject imports from Japan exhibited a divergent trend and were small

initially but increased from 227 short tons in 2005 to 3,678 short tons in 2010.19 In total, subject imports

from Japan from 2005 to 2010 were more than three times larger in volume than subject imports from

Romania.20

The subject producers in Romania are also likely to operate differently in the U.S. market than

their counterparts in Japan based on differences in their capacity, production and export orientation.

During the original investigations, the capacity of the industry in Japan increased from *** short tons in

1997 to *** short tons in 1999.21 There is no indication in the record of these reviews that the industry in

Japan is now any smaller than during the original investigations.22 In contrast, the Romanian industry

shrank, from a capacity of *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1999.23 In the first reviews, Mittal

Steel Roman, a large producer in Romania, reported that *** and stated that ***.24 In addition, producer

Republica went out of business after 2004, further reducing the Romanian industry’s capacity to produce

small-diameter CASSLP pipe. There is no indication in the record of these reviews that the industry in

 14 USITC Pub. 3850 at 98; Confidential First-Review Determinations, Dissenting Views of Commissioners

Hillman, Okun and Pearson (“First Review Dissenting Views”) at 2. 

 15 Silcotub’s reported capacity to produce small-diameter CASSLP pipe was *** short tons in interim 2004

compared with *** short tons in interim 2005, its production was *** short tons in interim 2004 compared with ***

short tons in interim 2005, and its subject exports to the United States were *** short tons in interim 2004 compared

with *** short tons in interim 2005. First Review Dissenting Views at 3 (citing Silcotub Foreign Producer

Questionnaire). 

 16 USITC Pub. 3850 at table IV-3.

 17 USITC Pub. 3850 at table IV-9. 

 18 Subject imports from Romania were 2,274 short tons in 2005, 231 short tons in 2006, 31 short tons in 2007,

395 short tons in 2008, 1,296 short tons in 2009, and 1,761 short tons in 2010. CR/PR at table I-4. 

 19 Subject imports from Japan were 227 short tons in 2005, 400 short tons in 2006, 5,440 short tons in 2007, 7,381

short tons in 2008, 3,734 short tons in 2009, and 3,678 short tons in 2010. CR/PR at table I-4. 

 20 Subject imports from Japan from 2005 to 2010 totaled 20,860 short tons while subject imports from Romania

totaled 5,988 short tons. CR/PR at table I-4. 

 21 OINV Memorandum INV-X-114 (May 25, 2000)(“Original Staff Report”) at table VII-2. 

 22 In fact, the domestic interested parties have identified two producers that were not identified in the original

investigations: Haneda Pipe Works and Tenaris NKK Tubes. The other producers, identified in the original

investigations, were again identified as current producers in these reviews: JFE (formed by the merger of Kawasaki

Steel Corp. and NKK Corp. in 2003) and Sumitomo Metal Industries (“Sumitomo”) (Nippon was closed and

acquired by Sumitomo in 2001). CR at I-28-29, PR at I-22. 

 23 Original Staff Report at table VII-1. 

 24 Specifically, the company reported ***. USITC Pub. 3850 at 98 - 99; First Review Dissenting Views at 3-4. 

34
Romania is now any larger than at the end of the original investigations and during the first reviews. The

universe of domestic producers in Romania appears to be identical to that existing in the last reviews, in

which the Commission had complete coverage of the Romanian industry.25

Information on annual production of all seamless tubular products in Japan and Romania

published by *** indicates that *** in ***. Annual production of ordinary seamless tubular products in

Japan was *** in 2010, up from *** in 2009, but down from *** in 2008.26 *** reported that annual

production of all seamless tubular products in Romania was *** in 2010, up from *** in 2009, but down

from *** in 2008.27 According to these figures, the Japanese industry produced *** more than the

Romanian industry in 2010, *** more in 2009, and *** short tons more in 2008.28 Published data from

the WorldSteel Association on “seamless tubes,” which include tubular products across a broad range of

sizes and applications not subject to these reviews, lists Japan’s 2009 production as 1.3 million metric

tons (1.4 million short tons) compared to Romania’s 2009 production as 318,000 metric tons (350,535

short tons).29 

In addition to its larger production volumes, Japan exports larger volumes of pipe than Romania. 

Published data from the Global Trade Atlas on seamless pipe other than OCTG, a category that includes

products not subject to these reviews, list Japan as the fourth-largest exporter of seamless pipe, and

Romania as the tenth-largest exporter, in 2009.30 In 2009, Japan exported 458,057 short tons of seamless

pipe (excluding OCTG) and Romania exported 209,029 short tons.31

There are additional indications that subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan

would likely face different conditions of competition in the U.S. market than subject imports from

Romania. Subject imports from Japan consist of small and large-diameter CASSLP pipe, whereas the

scope of the order with respect to Romania is limited to small-diameter CASSLP pipe.32 As a result of the

Commission’s affirmative determinations on large-diameter pipe from Japan in these reviews, Japan

continues to be subject to an antidumping duty order in the United States on large-diameter CASSLP

pipe, whereas Romania is not. Thus, Japanese producers have an incentive to shift production of largediameter CASSLP pipe to small-diameter CASSLP pipe that Romanian producers do not. Finally, we

note that exports from Romania are no longer subject to an antidumping duty order on CASSLP pipe in

the European Union. Exports from both countries face third country trade barriers in Mexico but exports

from Japan face an additional barrier in Venezuela while exports from Romania face a trade barrier in

Brazil.

33

In the first five-year reviews, information was collected showing that purchasers viewed subject

Japanese CASSLP pipe to be more interchangeable in terms of quality with the domestic like product than

 25 CR at I-29, PR at I-22-23. The three firms that accounted for all small-diameter CASSLP pipe produced in

Romania at the time of the Commission’s first five-year reviews were Mittal Steel (formerly Petrotub S.A. Roman),

Silcotub S.A., and Artrom S.A.

 26 CR at I-29, PR at I-22. 

 27 CR at I-30, PR at I-23. 

 28 CR at I-29-30, PR at I-22-23. 

 29 CR at I-30, PR at I-23.

 30 CR at I-30, PR at I-23.

 31 CR at I-30 n.77, PR at I-23 n.77.

 32 CR at I-6, PR at I-5. 

 33 CR at I-28, PR at I-21. 

35
subject merchandise from Romania.34 We noted that there was evidence on the record that indicated that

the Romanian products were somewhat inferior in quality to other subject imports and the domestic like

product.35 In contrast to other subject countries, producers in Japan were on the approved manufacturer

lists (“AMLs”) maintained by key purchasers of small-diameter CASSLP pipe36 and respondent interested

parties participating in the last reviews reported that the importance of AMLs had grown.37 We have no

information on the record of these reviews regarding the interchangeability of subject imports with the

domestic like product or the use of AMLs. Consequently, we rely on our prior finding that there may be

less than full interchangeability between subject imports from Japan and Romania. 

Based on the information in the record, we find significant differences in the likely conditions of

competition that subject imports from Japan and subject imports from Romania would face in the U.S.

market. Therefore, we do not exercise our discretion to cumulate the likely volume effects of subject

imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania. 

III. REVOCATION OF THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER ON SMALL-DIAMETER

CASSLP PIPE FROM JAPAN IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO CONTINUATION OR

RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY WITHIN A REASONABLY FORESEEABLE

TIME

A. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

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

Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be significant either in

absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.38 In doing so, the

Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated factors: (1) any

likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the exporting country; (2)

existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories; (3) the existence of

barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the United States; and (4)

the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to

produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.39

As noted above, in the original investigations, the Commission cumulated imports of smalldiameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania, whereas in the first five-year reviews, a majority of the

Commissioners declined to exercise their discretion to do so. In these reviews, we do not exercise our

discretion, under 19 U.S.C. §1675a(a)(7), to cumulate imports from Romania with imports from Japan,

based on significant differences in the likely conditions of competition with respect to the subject imports

from both countries. As a result, in analyzing the likely volume of imports from Japan based on

information from the original investigations, we have taken into account the Commission’s previous

volume findings, recognizing the difference represented by imports from Romania.

In the original investigations, the Commission found that the volume and market share of subject

imports from Japan, Romania, the Czech Republic, and South Africa increased significantly over the first

 34 USITC Pub. 3850 at II-16, II-18 - II-19, Confidential First-Review Staff Report at II-23 - II-27, table II-5. 

 35 USITC Pub. 3850 at II-18, n. 37, table II-5, Confidential First-Review Staff Report at II-24 and II-25 n. 37,

table II-5.

 36 USITC Pub. 3311 at 15. 

 37 USITC Pub. 3850 at II-13, Confidential First-Review Staff Report at II-19. 

 38 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 39 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

36
two years of the period examined (1997 and 1998).40 The Commission did not comment specifically on

the trend in volume for Japan. In the first five-year reviews, however, based on limited data supplied by

one Japanese producer and public data from the International Iron and Steel Institute, the Commission

found that capacity to produce small-diameter CASSLP pipe in Japan increased by more than *** percent

during the period of review, capacity utilization was ***, and total seamless tube production in Japan

increased by 4.4 percent from 2000 to 2004.41

In these second five-year reviews, because the Commission did not receive a response from any

Japanese producer, we have very little record information regarding the factors we must examine under

19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)(2) in determining whether increases in the volume of subject imports are likely in the

event of revocation of the order. In particular, there is no information on the record concerning current

Japanese capacity to produce small-diameter CASSLP pipe, capacity utilization of facilities producing the

subject product, or inventories. Hence, based on our authority under 19 U.S.C. 1677e(a), we rely

primarily on information from the record of the original investigations and first five-year reviews,

supplemented by information provided in these reviews by domestic interested parties. The record

indicates that, during the original investigations, the Japanese small-diameter CASSLP pipe industry was

large, and increased both its capacity and production from 1997 to 1999.42 Subject imports from Japan

increased rapidly, and there was significant excess capacity in the Japanese small-diameter CASSLP pipe

industry during that period, with capacity utilization rates of only *** percent in both 1997 and 

1999.43 44 In the first five-year reviews, although confidential record information on the Japanese industry

was sparse, the Commission cited information provided by Japanese producer NKK showing *** during

the review period, along with public data demonstrating that total seamless tube production in Japan

increased during the review period.45

In these reviews, domestic interested parties point to *** data showing that production of

“ordinary seamless” pipe in Japan declined by over *** short tons between 2008 and 2010, and therefore,

assuming no capacity declines over the same period, there exists excess capacity in Japan equal to at least

the amount of the production decline.46 They also reference the Commission’s finding, in the 2010

investigations involving imports of seamless pipe from China, that the U.S. market has relatively high

prices, making it an attractive market for foreign exporters. Further, they note that (1) the Japanese smalldiameter CASSLP pipe industry faces antidumping orders in Mexico and Venezuela, and (2) there is

considerable scope for product-shifting, as other seamless products can be made on the same equipment

as small-diameter CASSLP pipe. Finally, they point to the continued activity of Japanese firms in the

 40 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa,

USITC Pub. 3311, June 2000, at 17 (Views of the Commission).

 41 USITC Pub. 3850 at 24 (Views of the Commission).

 42 The capacity of the Japanese small-diameter CASSLP pipe industry increased from *** short tons in 1997 to

*** short tons in 1999, and production increased from *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1999. Original

Staff Report at table VII-2. 

 43 Japan’s shipments of subject small-diameter CASSLP pipe imports more than doubled, from 14,999 short tons

in 1997 to 34,059 short tons in 1998, before declining to 18,709 short tons in 1999, a decline which, according to the

Commission, resulted in part from the filing of the petitions in mid-1999. USITC Pub. 3850 at 23 and table I-1.

 44 Original Staff Report at table VII-2.

 45 USITC Pub. 3850 at 24.

 46 Comments of Domestic Interested Parties at 20-23.

37
U.S. market during the current period of review as evidencing their ability to increase quickly their

exports to the United States in the event of revocation of the order.47

In sum, based on the demonstrated ability of Japanese producers to increase rapidly imports into

the U.S. market, their current presence in the market, the existence of excess capacity at the close of the

original period examined, and the existence of current trade barriers in third-country markets to exports of

small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan, we conclude that the likely volume of subject imports from

Japan would be significant if the order on small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan is revoked.

B. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping duty order is revoked,

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

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

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

price of domestic like product.48

In the original investigations, the Commission found that cumulated subject imports undersold

the domestic like product and domestic prices fell markedly during the period examined. Given the fact

that the subject imports were highly substitutable with the domestic like product, the Commission

concluded that the cumulated subject imports significantly depressed domestic prices. With regard

specifically to Japan, the Commission found that the pattern of underselling and overselling was

somewhat mixed, but underselling increased toward the end of the period examined and for every product

there were more instances of underselling than overselling.49

In these reviews, we can draw very few conclusions from the pricing data, as the Commission

received no information from Japanese producers of small-diameter CASSLP pipe. Domestic interested

parties assert that in the original investigations, the Commission found that there was significant

underselling by subject imports, there was a moderately high level of substitutability between subject

imports and the domestic like product, and subject imports significantly depressed domestic prices.50

They also point out that in the first five-year reviews, 12 of 15 responding purchasers said that price was

very important in their decisions concerning purchases of small-diameter CASSLP pipe. There is no

information on the record of the current reviews that would call into question the Commission’s previous

conclusions concerning likely price effects. 

Given the likely significant volume of imports as discussed above, the importance of price in the

U.S. small-diameter CASSLP pipe market during the original investigations, the general substitutability

of subject imports and the domestic like product, and the predominant underselling of subject imports

from Japan in the original investigations, we find a likelihood of significant negative price effects from

the subject imports. Consequently, we conclude that, if the order on small-diameter CASSLP pipe from

Japan were revoked, likely significant volumes of subject imports from Japan would likely significantly

undersell the domestic product and gain market share, and would be likely to enter the United States at

 47 U.S. imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan were 227 short tons in 2005, 400 short tons in 2006,

5,440 short tons in 2007, 7,381 short tons in 2008, 3,734 short tons in 2009, and 3,678 short tons in 2010. CR/PR at

table I-4.

 48 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering the

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

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

at 886.

 49 Original Staff Report at tables V-1-V-6.

 50 Comments of domestic interested parties at 25.

38
prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of the

domestic like product. 

C. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

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

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

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

following: (1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments,

and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages,

growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing

development and production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more

advanced version of the domestic like product.51 All relevant economic factors are to be considered

within the context of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

industry.52 As instructed by the statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the

state of the domestic industry is related to the order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to

material injury if the order were revoked.

In the original investigations, the Commission found that all of the industry’s major economic

and financial indicators declined significantly during the period examined, and although the declines in

industry performance were in part due to declines in demand for small-diameter CASSLP pipe, they were

also attributable to competition with subject imports.53

In these reviews, the Commission has limited information on the condition of the U.S. industry. 

Domestic interested parties claim that the industry is currently vulnerable, due primarily to the fact that it

lost market share due to the recent surge in nonsubject imports from China, and due to the effect of the

recent recession on demand for small-diameter CASSLP pipe.54 Domestic interested parties provided data

on their current capacity, production, shipments, and selected financial indicators. Production and

shipment levels in 2010 were lower than in 2004, although part of the difference is accounted for by

missing data from three firms.55 On the other hand, unit values, operating income, and operating income

margins were significantly higher in 2010 than at the time of the original investigations, and slightly

higher than their 2004 values. In particular, the domestic industry’s operating income to sales ratio was

initially *** percent in 1999, but improved to *** percent in 2004 and to *** in 2010.56 

Accordingly, what little information there is on the condition of the domestic industry indicates

that, despite some loss in market share, the industry’s fortunes may have improved overall since the

original investigations and even since the first five-year reviews. Nonetheless, as discussed above,

revocation of the antidumping duty order on imports from Japan would be likely to lead to a significant

increase in the volume of subject imports that would undersell the domestic like product and significantly

suppress or depress U.S. prices. Although the record does not permit us to determine conclusively

whether the domestic industry is currently vulnerable, we find that these likely volume and price effects

of the subject imports from Japan would necessarily have a significant adverse impact on the production,

shipments, sales, market share, and revenues of the domestic industry. Accordingly, we conclude that, if

 51 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 52 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 53 USITC Pub. 3311 at 19-20. 

 54 Comments of domestic interested parties at 33-37.

 55 CR/PR at table I-2.

 56 Id. 

39
the order on imports from Japan were revoked, subject imports would be likely to have a significant

adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

D. Conclusion

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

on small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

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

IV. REVOCATION OF THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER ON SMALL-DIAMETER

CASSLP PIPE FROM ROMANIA IS NOT LIKELY TO LEAD TO CONTINUATION OR

RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY WITHIN A REASONABLY FORESEEABLE

TIME

A. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In the original investigations, the volume of subject imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe

from Romania declined in each year of the period examined.57 Their market share initially rose *** from

*** percent in 1997 to *** percent in 1998 (as apparent U.S. consumption declined), but then fell ***, to

*** percent in 1999, even as apparent U.S. consumption *** fell sharply.58

Subject imports from Romania remained in the U.S. market in appreciable volumes after the

order was put in place. While their market share by quantity fell to *** percent in 2000, it then ranged

between *** and *** percent in the remaining full years of the first period of review.59 The market share

declined in interim 2005, however, to *** percent.60 This drop is explained by significant changes in the

corporate ownership and operations of Silcotub, the *** Romanian producer and the source of ***.61

Until 2004, Silcotub was affiliated with U.S. importer ***, which accounted for *** subject imports from

Silcotub.62 In July 2004, however, Silcotub became an affiliate of the Tenaris Group, and it ended its

affiliation with ***. At the time of the first reviews, Silcotub reported that ***.63 Moreover, Silcotub

indicated that it was focusing on producing higher value-added non-subject merchandise for the home and

regional markets.64 Thus, we found that the *** Romanian producer and the only one that had a

substantial interest in the U.S. market during the first period of review was no longer affiliated with its

importer in the United States. 

 57 U.S. shipments of subject imports from Romania fell from *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1998, and

then declined to *** short tons in 1999. USITC Pub. 3850 at table I-1. 

 58 USITC Pub. 3850 at table I-1. 

 59 USITC Pub. 3850 at table I-11. 

 60 USITC Pub. 3850 at table I-11. 

 61 In the full years from 2000 to 2004, Silcotub’s share of total production of subject product in Romania ranged

from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2004. It accounted for *** Romanian subject exports to the United

States except in 2002, when it accounted for *** percent of such exports. First Review Dissenting Views at 3. 

 62 USITC Pub. 3850 at IV-7 n. 18, Confidential First Review Staff Report at IV-17 n. 18. 

 63 USITC Pub. 3850 at IV-7 n. 18. 

 64 First Review Dissenting Views at 3. 

40
As discussed above, the data on the record of the first reviews reflected these changes in

operations.65 In the interim 2004 period compared with the interim 2005 period, the Romanian industry’s

capacity was *** short tons smaller.66 As a share of total shipments, Romanian subject exports to the

United States was *** percent in interim 2005 compared with *** percent in interim 2004, and Romanian

exports to the European Union (EU) in interim 2005 were over *** times higher, at *** percent, than they

were in interim 2004 (*** percent).67 Available data in the current reviews demonstrate that the

Romanian industry has continued to decline. Subject imports from Romania declined by 87.8 percent

from 2004 to 2005 and remained small in each of the next five years.68 Overall, subject imports from

Romania declined by 22.6 percent during the full review period (2005-10).69 70 

The Romanian industry decreased in size as early as the original investigations. Its capacity

diminished from *** short tons in 1997 to *** short tons in 1999.71 In the first reviews, Mittal Steel

Roman, a large producer in Romania, reported that ***.72 In addition, Romanian producer Republica

went out of business after 2004, further reducing the Romanian industry’s capacity to produce smalldiameter CASSLP pipe. The universe of producers in Romania appears to be identical to that existing in

the last reviews.73

Therefore, on the basis of declines in the Romanian industry’s capacity and production during the

original period examined and first review period, the change in Silcotub’s corporate affiliation, trends in

the industry’s export strategies, and in light of the lack of evidence that any of these trends and events

have changed during the current review period, we find that the likely volume of subject imports of smalldiameter CASSLP pipe from Romania would not be significant if the antidumping duty order were

revoked. 

 65 Between interim 2004 and interim 2005, Silcotub’s reported capacity for subject product fell from *** short

tons to *** short tons, its production of subject product fell from *** short tons to *** short tons, and its subject

exports to the United States fell from *** short tons to *** short tons. First Review Dissenting Views at 3.

 66 USITC Pub. 3850 at table IV-3.

 67 USITC Pub. 3850 at table IV-9. 

 68 CR/PR at appendix C, table I-1.

 69 Subject imports from Romania were 2,274 short tons in 2005, 231 short tons in 2006, 31 short tons in 2007,

395 short tons in 2008, 1,296 short tons in 2009, and 1,761 short tons in 2010. CR/PR at table I-4. 

 70 We note that exports from Romania are no longer subject to an antidumping duty order on CASSLP pipe in the

EU. Exports from Romania continue to be subject to third country trade barriers in Mexico and Brazil. CR at I-28,

PR at I-21. The information on the record of the first reviews, however, indicated that the Romanian industry’s

major export markets were Asia and the EU. USITC Pub. 3850 (Dissenting Views) at 99 n.30. We have also

considered whether Romanian producers will likely re-direct production towards subject merchandise if the order is

revoked. We found in the first reviews that Romanian producers’ facilities are capable of producing other products

besides the subject CASSLP pipe. USITC Pub. 3850 (Dissenting Views) at 99 n.35. In those reviews, however, we

found that the evidence did not support a conclusion that product-shifting by Romanian producers would be likely

and there is nothing in the record of these current reviews that would lead us to question that conclusion. USITC

Pub. 3850 (Dissenting Views) at 99. 

 71 Original Staff Report at table VII-1. 

 72 USITC Pub. 3850 at 98-99, First Review Dissenting Views at 3-4. 

 73 The three firms that accounted for all small-diameter CASSLP pipe produced in Romania at the time of the

Commission’s first five-year reviews were Mittal Steel (formerly Petrotub S.A. Roman), Silcotub S.A., and Artrom

S.A. CR at I-29-I-30, PR at I-22-23. 

41
B. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In performing our analysis, we have taken into account our previous findings. Subject imports of

small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania significantly undersold domestic merchandise in the original

investigations.74 In the first reviews, subject imports from Romania undersold the domestic product in

every available price comparison.75 Notwithstanding this consistent underselling by subject imports from

Romania, U.S. prices increased during the first review period.76 We also found that underselling by

subject imports from Romania had not had, and likely would not have, any price suppressing effects if the

order were revoked.77 In addition, while price was an important factor in purchasing decisions, other

factors were more important, especially quality.78 We noted that there was evidence on the record that

indicated that the Romanian products were somewhat inferior in quality to other subject imports and the

domestic like product.79 We concluded that any limited increase in volume of subject imports from

Romania upon revocation was not likely to result in significant adverse price effects. 

The Commission did not collect specific pricing data in these expedited reviews, nor did the

parties provide such data. Because current pricing data are unavailable on the record of these reviews, we

have no new information that would enable us to evaluate whether there is likely to be significant price

underselling by subject imports from Romania in the event of revocation of the order. Our conclusions,

however, regarding the likely price effects if the antidumping duty order is revoked are drawn largely

from our conclusions on the likely volume of subject imports. As discussed above, subject imports are

not likely to increase significantly if the antidumping duty order is revoked, because, among other factors, 

the affiliation of the *** with a major U.S. importer that led to significant volumes of subject imports

during the original and first review investigations no longer exists. Consequently, we find that any

limited increase in likely volume of subject imports from Romania upon revocation is not likely to result

in significant adverse price effects.

 74 Original Staff Report at tables V-1-V-6. 

 75 USITC Pub. 3850 at tables V-2-V-4. 

 76 U.S. prices for products 1, 2 and 3 (products for which subject imports from Romania consistently undersold

the U.S. product) increased by *** percent, *** percent, and *** percent, respectively. USITC Pub. 3850 at table

V-7. 

 77 Although the domestic industry’s unit value of cost of goods sold (“COGS”) increased from *** per short ton

in 2000 to *** per short ton in 2004, the ratio of COGS to sales declined from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in

2004 as average unit values increased more rapidly than unit costs. The COGS/sales ratio declined further in the

interim periods from *** percent. USITC Pub. 3850 at Table III-6. 

 78 USITC Pub. 3850 at II-12, tables II-3, II-4. 

 79 USITC Pub. 3850 at II-18 n. 37, table II-5. 

42
C. Likely Impact of Subject Imports80

Because the Commission elected not to conduct full reviews, we have limited information on the

current condition of the domestic industry.81 Furthermore, data for 1999 and 2004 are not directly

comparable to data for 2010 because the most recent data lack information for producers accounting for

approximately *** percent of reported U.S. production in 1999 and approximately *** percent in 2004.82 

Based on the available information, capacity and production in 2010 were both lower than during

the original investigations while capacity utilization was slightly higher.83 Shipment unit values were

substantially higher, by nearly *** per short ton, the ratio of the cost of goods sold to net sales was lower,

and profitability levels were greatly improved. The domestic industry’s operating income to sales ratio

was initially *** percent in 1999, but improved to *** percent in 2004 and to *** in 2010.84 Moreover,

purchasers responding to the Commission’s surveys in these reviews reported that several domestic

seamless mills are building new facilities or expanding current facilities to increase CASSLP pipe

production.85 Even though in 2010 the small-diameter CASSLP pipe industry experienced *** improved

financial performance, increased prices, and an improved ratio of the costs of goods sold to sales when

compared to earlier periods, as noted above the sparseness of the current record does not permit us to

determine conclusively whether the industry is currently vulnerable.86

In line with our findings regarding the likely volume and price effects of subject imports from

Romania, we find that subject imports would not be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry’s output, sales, market share, profits or return on investment, if the order were revoked. 

The small volume of subject imports that would be likely upon revocation would not be likely to have a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.

 80 Under the statute, “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping” in making its

determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). In the final results of its expedited five-year reviews

of the antidumping duty orders, Commerce determined that revocation of the order on small-diameter CASSLP pipe

from Romania would likely result in the continuation or recurrence of dumping at a weighted-average margin of

11.08 percent for Metal Business International S.R.L. and S.C. Petrotub S.A., a margin of 15.15 percent for Sota

Communication Company and S.C. Silcotub, and a margin of 13.06 percent for all others. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table

I-1. 

 81 Domestic interested parties only provided 2010 data on capacity, production, volume and value of U.S.

shipments, net sales, cost of goods sold, SG&A expenses, operating income, and the ratio of operating income to net

sales. CR/PR at table I-3. 

 82 CR/PR at table I-2. 

 83 The capacity of the small-diameter CASSLP pipe industry was *** short tons in 1999, *** short tons in 2004,

and *** short tons in 2010. Capacity utilization in 1999 was *** percent, compared with *** percent in 2004 and

*** percent in 2010. The volume of U.S. shipments was *** short tons in 1999, *** short tons in 2004, and ***

short tons in 2010. The unit value of U.S. shipments was $*** per short ton in 1999, $*** per short ton in 2004, and

$*** per short ton in 2010. As a percent of net sales, the domestic industry’s operating income *** was *** percent

in 1999, in contrast to an operating income *** of *** percent in 2004 and *** percent in 2010. CR/PR at table I-2. 

 84 CR/PR at table I-2. 

 85 CR at I-16; PR at I-13. 

 86 CR/PR at table I-2. 

43
D. Conclusion

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

on small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence

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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on smalldiameter CASSLP pipe from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to the U.S. small-diameter CASSLP pipe industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. We also

determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Romania

would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the U.S. small-diameter

CASSLP pipe industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

44
INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEWS

I-1

INTRODUCTION

On April 1, 2011, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the

Act”),1

 the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave notice that it had

instituted reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on carbon and alloy

seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (“CASSLP pipe”) from Japan and Romania would be likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.2 3

 On July 5,

2011, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of

institution was adequate4

 and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate.5 In the

absence of respondent interested party responses and any other circumstances that would warrant the

conduct of full reviews, the Commission determined to conduct expedited reviews of the antidumping

duty orders pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)).6

 The following tabulation

presents selected information relating to the schedule of these five-year reviews.7

 1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2 Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and Romania, 76 FR 18251, April 1,

2011. All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information requested by the

Commission. The Commission’s notice of institution is presented in app. A.

 3

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

notice of initiation of five-year reviews of the subject antidumping duty orders concurrently with the Commission’s

notice of institution. Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 76 FR 18163, April 1, 2011.

 4

 The Commission received one submission in response to its notice of institution in the subject reviews. It was

filed on behalf of United States Steel Corp. (“U.S. Steel”), a U.S. producer of small-diameter and large-diameter

CASSLP pipe, and V&M STAR (“V&M”), a U.S. producer of large-diameter CASSLP pipe (collectively referred to

herein as “domestic interested parties”). The domestic interested parties reported that responding U.S. producers

accounted for *** percent of total U.S. production of small-diameter CASSLP pipe in 2010, and *** percent of

large-diameter CASSLP pipe in 2010. Staff notes that the domestic interested parties ***. Response of domestic

interested parties, May 2, 2011, exh. 20.

 5

 The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties to its notice of institution.

 6 Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From Japan and Romania; Scheduling of

Expedited Five-Year Reviews Concerning the Antidumping Duty Orders on Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard,

Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and Romania, 76 FR 44608, July 26, 2011. The Commission’s notice of an

expedited review appears in app. A. The Commission’s statement on adequacy is presented in app. B.

 7

 Cited Federal Register notices are presented in app. A.

I-3
Effective date Action

Federal Register

citation

April 1, 2011 Commission’s institution of five-year reviews

76 FR 18251

April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011 Commerce’s initiation of five-year reviews

76 FR 18163

April 1, 2011

July 5, 2011 Commission’s determination to conduct expedited five-year reviews

76 FR 44608

July 26, 2011

August 5, 2011 Commerce’s final determinations in its expedited five-year reviews

76 FR 47555

August 5, 2011

September 9, 2011 Commission’s vote Not applicable

September 22, 2011 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce Not applicable

The Original Investigations and Subsequent Five-Year Reviews

These investigations resulted from a petition filed on June 30, 1999 by Koppel Steel Corp.

(“Koppel”); Sharon Tube Co. (“Sharon”); U.S. Steel Group (“U.S. Steel”); and Vision Metals’ Gulf

States Tube Division (“Gulf States”), alleging that an industry in the United States was materially injured

by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech

Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa, and by LTFV imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe from

Japan and Mexico. Following affirmative determinations by Commerce, in June 2000, the Commission

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

small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and South Africa and by LTFV imports of large-diameter

CASSLP pipe from Japan.8

 Subsequently, in August 2000, the Commission determined that an industry

in the United States was materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe

from the Czech Republic and Romania and large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico.9

On May 2, 2005, the Commission instituted its first five-year reviews to determine whether

revocation of the antidumping duty orders on CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico,

Romania, and South Africa would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury.10 On

August 5, 2005, the Commission determined that it would conduct full reviews of all orders.11 On

September 7, 2005, Commerce published its determination that revocation of the antidumping duty orders

on small-diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa would

likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping,12 and also that revocation of the antidumping duty

 8 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa: 

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC Publication 3311, June 2000, p. 1.

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

and Romania: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-846, 848 and 849 (Final), USITC Publication 3325, August 2000, p. 1.

 10 Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania,

and South Africa, 70 FR 22688, May 2, 2005.

 11 Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania,

and South Africa, 70 FR 49680, August 24, 2005.

 12 Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe (Under 4 1⁄2 inches) from the Czech Republic,

Japan, Romania, and South Africa; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders,

(continued...)

I-4
orders on large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Mexico would likely lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping.13 On April 27, 2006, the Commission published its determinations that

revocation of the antidumping duty orders on small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania and

large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission also determined that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders on small-diameter CASSLP pipe from the Czech Republic and South Africa, and

large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Mexico, would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.14 On May 8, 2006, Commerce issued a continuation

of the antidumping duty orders on large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and on small-diameter

CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania.15

Commerce’s Final Results of Expedited Five-Year Reviews

On August 5, 2011, Commerce published its determinations that termination of the antidumping

duty order on large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and

Romania would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.16 The weighted-average

dumping margins (in percent ad valorem), as reported by Commerce, that would occur if the antidumping

duty order were to be revoked, are presented in table I-1.

 12 (...continued)

70 FR 53151, September 7, 2005.

 13 Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Japan and

Mexico; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 70 FR 53159,

September 7, 2005.

 14 Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico,

Romania, and South Africa, 71 FR 24860, April 27, 2006.

 15 Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and

Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and Romania:

Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders, 71 FR 26746, May 8, 2006.

 16 Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Japan; Certain

Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Japan and Romania: Final

Results of the Expedited Second Five-Year Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 76 FR 47555, August 5,

2011.

I-5
Table I-1

CASSLP pipe: Commerce’s weighted-average dumping margins

Firm Margin (percent)

Large-Diameter CASSLP Pipe from Japan

Nippon Steel Corporation 107.80

Kawasaki Steel Corporation 107.80

Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. 107.80

All Others 68.88

Small-Diameter CASSLP Pipe from Japan

Nippon Steel Corporation 106.07

Kawasaki Steel Corporation 106.07

Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. 106.07

All Others 70.43

Small-Diameter CASSLP Pipe from Romania

Metal Business International S.R.L. 11.08

S.C. Petrotub S.A. 11.08

Sota Communication Company 15.15

S.C. Silcotub 15.15

All Others 13.06

Source: Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Japan; Certain Small

Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Japan and Romania: Final Results of the

Expedited Second Five-Year Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 76 FR 47555, August 5, 2011.

Commerce’s Administrative Reviews

Since 2006, when the antidumping duty orders were last continued, Commerce has not conducted

any administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan or

of the antidumping duty orders on small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania.17 There have

been no duty absorption rulings. 

 17 Commerce did initiate four administrative reviews with respect to large-diameter CASSLP from Japan, but later

rescinded all four reviews. Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe

from Japan: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 76976, December 22, 2006; 

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe (over 4 1⁄2 Inches) from Japan: Notice of Rescission

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 11393, March 3, 2008; Certain Large Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 74 FR 31249, June 30, 2009; and Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and

Pressure Pipe From Japan: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 38781, July 6, 2010.

I-6
Related Commission Investigations and Reviews

Small-diameter and large-diameter CASSLP pipe have been the subject of several Commission

investigations. A listing of these investigations is presented in the following tabulation.

Year Number Country Current status

1980 731-TA-15 Japan Negative

1982 731-TA-87 Japan ITA revoked effective 10/29/85

1994 701-TA-362 Italy1 ITA revoked effective 8/8/00

1994 731-TA-707 Argentina1 ITA revoked effective 7/16/06

1994 731-TA-708 Brazil1 ITA revoked effective 7/16/06

1994 731-TA-709 Germany1 Continuation order effective 5/18/07

1994 731-TA-710 Italy1 ITA revoked effective 8/3/00

2000 731-TA-846 The Czech Republic1 ITA revoked effective 8/14/05

2000 731-TA-848 Mexico2 ITA revoked effective 8/14/05

2000 731-TA-850 South Africa1 ITA revoked effective 8/14/05

2001 TA-201-73 Global ITC negative determination 12/20/01

2009

701-TA-469 and

731-TA-1168 China

Antidumping duty and countervailing duty

orders effective 11/10/10

 1 Small-diameter CASSLP pipe only.

 2

 Large-diameter CASSLP pipe only.

Source: Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from China: Inv. Nos. 701-TA-469 and

731-TA-1168 (Final), Publication 4190, November 2010, pp. I-4-6.

THE PRODUCT

Scope

The imported products subject to these reviews are (1) large-diameter (greater than 4.5 inches

{114 mm} and not over 16 inches {406 mm} in outside diameter (“OD”)) seamless carbon and alloy

(other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes from Japan, and (2) small-diameter (not over

4.5 inches {114 mm} in OD) seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and

pressure pipes and redraw hollows, from Japan and Romania, the foregoing regardless of wall thickness,

manufacturing process (hot-finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end,

threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish. The full scope language and identification of

excluded products appear in Commerce’s notice of final results, presented in app. A.

I-7
U.S. Tariff Treatment

The imported seamless standard, line, and pressure pipes subject to these reviews are classified in

the 2011 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) in subheadings 7304.19, 7304.31,

7304.39, 7304.51, and 7304.59.18 19 HTS subheadings and statistical reporting numbers are provided for

convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the subject merchandise in

Commerce’s scope is dispositive. The column-1 general (normal trade relations) rates of duty for the

subject product under all covered subheadings are free.

Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry

The domestic like product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in

the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the subject merchandise. The domestic

industry is the collection of U.S. producers, as a whole, of the domestic like product, or those producers

whose collective output of the domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic

production of the product. In its original determinations and its full first five-year review determinations,

the Commission found the following two domestic like products and domestic industries corresponding to

Commerce’s scope of the investigations: (1) small-diameter carbon and alloy20 seamless standard, line,

and pressure pipe and (2) large-diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe.21

U.S. Steel and V&M indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in these second

five-year reviews that they agree with the Commission’s definitions of the two domestic like products and

domestic industries.22 23

 18 The merchandise covered by these reviews is currently imported under following HTS statistical reporting

numbers: 7304.19.1020, 7304.19.1030, 7304.19.1045, 7304.19.1060, 7304.19.5020, 7304.19.5050, 7304.31.3000,

7304.31.6050, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024, 7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 7304.39.0036,

7304.39.0040, 7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0052, 7304.39.0056, 7304.39.0062, 7304.39.0068,

7304.39.0072, 7304.51.5005, 7304.51.5060, 7304.59.6000, 7304.59.8010, 7304.59.8015, 7304.59.8020,

7304.59.8025, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 7304.59.8050, 7304.59.8055,

7304.59.8060, 7304.59.8065, 7304.59.8070. As of February 3, 2007, statistical reporting numbers 7304.19.1020,

7304.19.1030, 7304.19.1045, 7304.19.1060, 7304.19.5020, 7304.19.5050 replaced statistical reporting numbers

7304.10.1020, 7304.10.1030, 7304.10.1045, 7304.10.1060, 7304.10.5020, and 7304.10.5050.

 19 HTS statistical reporting numbers specific to small-diameter and large-diameter CASSLP pipe appear in tables

I-4 and I-5.

 20 ASTM specifications that include alloy steel are ASTM A-333 and A-334 (covering carbon and alloy seamless

pipe and tube for low temperature service) and ASTM A-335 (covering alloy steel pipe for high temperature

service). Commerce’s scope for large-diameter, but not small-diameter, CASSLP pipe excludes ASTM A-335 pipe.

 21 In the original investigations, the Commission majority concluded that seamless carbon pipe and seamless alloy

pipe did not constitute separate domestic like products; however, Commissioners Hillman and Askey dissented from

the majority, determining that carbon and alloy seamless CASSLP pipe constituted separate domestic like products. 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa, 

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC Publication 3311, June 2000, pp. 30 and 42.

 22 Response of domestic interested parties, May 2, 2011, p. 42.

 23 In its 2010 investigations of certain seamless pipe from China, the Commission found a single domestic like

product consisting of all seamless standard, line, and pressure (“SLP”) pipe less than or equal to 16 inches in outside

diameter that was co-extensive with Commerce's scope in that proceeding (which did not distinguish between

“small” and “large” diameter pipe). Based on the record in those investigations, the Commission observed that: 

(1) Small-diameter seamless SLP pipe and large-diameter seamless SLP pipe share nearly all physical characteristics

(continued...)

I-8
Physical Characteristics and Uses24

Standard, line, and pressure pipe is generally intended to convey liquids and is typically tested

and rated for its ability to withstand hydrostatic pressure. Seamless standard pipe is most commonly

produced to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-53 specification, and is generally

intended for the low pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gases in

plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinklers, and other related uses.25

Seamless line pipe is produced to the American Petroleum Institute (API) 5L specification, and is

intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas and other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless pressure pipe

is commonly produced to ASTM A-106 specification, and is intended for the conveyance of water, steam,

petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas, and other liquids and gases in industrial piping

systems.26

Most steel products, including those subject to these reviews, are produced from carbon steel,

which contains controlled amounts of carbon and manganese. Alloy steels, which provide physical

properties not achievable to the same degree with carbon steels, contain controlled amounts of alloying

elements–usually, nickel, chromium and molybdenum. The distinguishing characteristics of alloy steel

pipe are its physical properties, which make the alloy steel pipe suitable for application in high

 23 (...continued)

and are made to common specifications from identical grades of carbon and alloy steel; (2) Differences in outside

diameter size represent the only physical distinction between small-diameter and large-diameter seamless SLP pipe,

but that factor is also present within the small-diameter and large-diameter groups; (3) Both small-diameter pipe and

large-diameter pipe are generally used for the transmission of fluids or gas under pressure; (4) Domestic producers

accounting for a substantial portion of seamless SLP pipe production manufactured both small-diameter and largediameter pipe, with two producers manufacturing both size ranges in a single mill on the same types of equipment;

(5) Because purchasers generally seek seamless SLP pipe that meets a particular ASTM/API or proprietary

specification, different sizes of seamless SLP pipe generally will not be substitutable for each other in particular end

uses; (6) All seamless SLP pipe is sold through the same channels of distribution, principally through distributors,

with the remainder to end users; (7) Prices for seamless SLP pipe vary based on a number of factors, although the

data on that record were mixed regarding the existence of any relationship between price and diameter; (8) Although

customers and producers submitting questionnaire responses in those investigations perceived small-diameter pipe

and large-diameter pipe as different insofar as they are not generally interchangeable, they did not perceive them to

be two distinct product groups with a clear dividing line at 4.5 inches in outside diameter. Certain Seamless Carbon

and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-469 and 731-TA-1168 (Final),

USITC Publication 4190, November 2010, pp. 9-11, I-17-I-19, and appendix D. The Commission also declined to

broaden the domestic like product to include seamless pipe produced to the ASTM A-335 specification, a product

excluded from Commerce’s scope in the 2010 proceeding. Ibid., pp.10 n.65, I-20-I-22, and appendix D.

 24 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South

Africa, Inv. No. 731-TA-846-850 (Review), USITC Publication 3850, April 2006, pp. I-20-22.

 25 Depending on the type and grade, however, standard pipe may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must

not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low temperature end uses or conditions are

anticipated, seamless standard pipe may be produced to meet ASTM A-333 and A-334 specifications (covering

carbon and alloy seamless pipe and tube for low temperature service). Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-469 and 731-TA-1168 (Final), USITC Publication

4190, November 2010, p. I-11.

 26 Seamless alloy pipes made to the ASTM A-335 specification (covering alloy steel pipe for high temperature

service) must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A-106. Certain Seamless

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-469 and 731-TA-1168

(Final), USITC Publication 4190, November 2010, p. I-11 n. 21.

I-9
temperature or low temperature service. Uses can differ from those of carbon steel pipe, based upon the

service requirements and temperature and pressure requirements of the American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Code.

Pipe size differentiates subject small-diameter and large-diameter pipe. Small-diameter subject

pipe is less than or equal to 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) in outside diameter (OD), whereas large-diameter pipe

is greater than 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) up to and including 16 inches (406.4 mm) in OD. Small-diameter

pipe is most frequently used in petrochemical and other nonpipeline applications. Small-diameter pipe

ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 inches OD may be used for high pressure construction applications–for example,

in refineries or chemical plants. Small-diameter pipe in sizes ranging from 2 to 3 inches in outside

diameter is typically pressure pipe used for high-pressure industrial applications.27 Pipe with larger

outside diameters (especially pipe with an OD greater than 4.5 inches (corresponding to a nominal pipe

size of 4)) is typically line pipe used in gas transmission, as well as in pipeline construction. 

In its purchaser survey response, *** indicated that there have been changes in the end uses and

applications of CASSLP pipe in the U.S. market since 2006. The company stated that ERW (electricresistance welded) pipe is increasingly being used in applications that were primarily seamless in 2006,

and it expects the market for seamless to grow in the next three to five years as the energy industry

continues to focus on drilling in harsher environments.

Manufacturing Process28

CASSLP pipe is manufactured by either of two high-temperature processes to form a central

cavity in a solid steel billet. In the rotary-piercing process, a heated billet is gripped by angled rolls,

which cause the billet to rotate and advance over a piercer point, forming a hole through its length. In the

extrusion process, the billet is hot punch-pierced and then extruded axially through a die and over a

mandrel, forming a hollow shell. The hollow shell produced by either process is then rolled with either a

fixed plug or a continuous mandrel inside the shell to reduce the wall thickness and increase the length.

The shell is then rolled in a sizing mill or a stretch reduction mill where it is formed in a true round and

sized to the required diameter.

Typically, CASSLP pipe is furnished hot-finished. However, small-diameter pipe of less than

two inches in outside diameter is often cold drawn because hot-rolling of small-diameter pipe is often not

possible. Pipe also may be cold drawn in order to provide a surface finish smoother than that which can

be produced by hot finishing. Finishing operations on subject CASSLP pipe include straightening,

cutting to length, inspection, testing, end finishing (e.g., beveling or threading), and coating. Pipes may

be furnished galvanized (hot-dip zinc coated) and may be threaded and coupled.29

 27 However, seamless pipe in this size range is also used in line pipe applications, in particular for gathering lines

connecting oil and natural gas wells to transmission lines. Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line,

and Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-469 and 731-TA-1168 (Final), USITC Publication 4190, November

2010, p. I-12 and nn. 26 and 27.

 28 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South

Africa, Inv. No. 731-TA-846-850 (Review), USITC Publication 3850, April 2006, pp. I-23-25.

 29 In its purchaser survey response, *** indicated that while U.S. mills have improved equipment to produce a

better quality finished product, production methodologies for CASSLP pipe have remained the same since 2006.

I-10
Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

As discussed above, small- and large-diameter CASSLP pipes are manufactured in a range of

pipe diameters. There is limited interchangeability between pipes of different sizes, although pipes of

different diameters may be used in some of the same applications. Whereas small-diameter CASSLP pipe

frequently is used in petrochemical and other standard applications such as the conveyance of water,

steam, chemicals, natural gases, and other liquids and gases in industrial piping systems, in addition to oil

and gas pipelines, large-diameter CASSLP pipe is used primarily in pipeline construction for oil, gas, or

water, or utility distribution systems.30

In these reviews, U.S. Steel, a domestic manufacturer of small- and large-diameter CASSLP pipe,

and V&M STAR, a domestic manufacturer of large-diameter CASSLP pipe, reported in their response to

the Commission’s notice of institution in these second five-year reviews that they agree with the

Commission’s definitions of two domestic like products in the original investigations and prior reviews.31

Channels of Distribution

As reported during the final phase of the original investigations, domestic producers sold nearly

all of their shipments of small- and large-diameter CASSLP pipe to distributors. In the first reviews, U.S.

producers also reported that the large majority of their shipments of both small-diameter and largediameter CASSLP pipe were to distributors. In the current reviews, the domestic interested parties

reference the Commission’s previous findings regarding the channels of distribution.32

Pricing

Prices for small- and large-diameter pipe vary by grade, size, and finishing.33 In the original

investigations, the Commission found that the productivity rate (in tons per hour) for manufacturing

small-diameter pipe was much lower than it was for large-diameter pipe, and accordingly it found

variable costs and selling prices were higher for small-diameter pipe.34 It found this was reflected in

higher average unit values for shipments for the domestic industry producing small-diameter pipe.35 In

the current reviews, 2010 average unit values for responding U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments were $***

and $*** for small-diameter and large-diameter CASSLP pipe, respectively.36

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

Romania, and South Africa, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-846-850 (Review), USITC Publication 3850, April 2006, p. I-26.

 31 Response of domestic interested parties, May 2, 2001, p. 42.

 32 Response of domestic interested parties, May 2, 2011, p. 4.

 33 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa, Invs.

Nos. 731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC Publication 3311, June 2000, p. I-19.

 34 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa, Invs.

Nos. 731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC Publication 3311, June 2000, p.8.

 35 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa, Invs.

Nos. 731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC Publication 3311, June 2000, p.8.

 36 Staff notes that the responding U.S. producers produce their own billets and manufacture tube bodies using the

hot operations described above. However, the 2010 small-diameter CASSLP pipe data do not include U.S.

shipments by producers that undertake the additional cold operations to manufacture pipe in the smallest diameters

from hollows.

I-11
In terms of general price levels in the U.S. market, published data suggest that average transaction

prices (for domestic and import shipments combined) have increased over the course of 2010, with mixed

trends in 2011. Small-diameter seamless standard pipe increased from $*** per short ton in January 2010

to $*** per short ton in December 2010, and to $*** per short ton in April 2011. Small-diameter

seamless line pipe increased from $*** per short ton in January 2010 to $*** per short ton in December

2010, but was $*** per short ton in April 2011. Large-diameter seamless standard pipe increased from

$*** per short ton in January 2010 to $*** per short ton in December 2010, and to $*** per short ton in

April 2011. Large-diameter seamless line pipe increased from $*** per short ton in January 2010 to $***

per short ton in December 2010, but was $*** per short ton in April 2011.37 38

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

The original antidumping duty investigations resulted from petitions filed on June 30, 1999, by

Koppel, Sharon, U.S. Steel, and Gulf States.39 During the Commission’s original investigations, there

were eight U.S. producers of small-diameter and/or large-diameter CASSLP pipe. These companies

included: (1) Gulf States; (2) Koppel; (3) Michigan Specialty; (4) North Star Steel (“North Star”); (5)

Sawhill Tubular, Inc.; (6) Sharon; (7) The Timken Co. (“Timken”); and (8) U.S. Steel. Of these U.S.

producers, all produced small-diameter CASSLP pipe with the exception of North Star. North Star,

Timken, and U.S. Steel also produced large-diameter CASSLP pipe during the original investigations.

After the original investigations, the U.S. industry experienced consolidation and the exit of a

number of U.S. producers of CASSLP pipe. In 2000, the parent company of Gulf States, Vision

Metals, Inc., filed for bankruptcy and closed its Rosenburg, TX, CASSLP pipe production facility. In

2002, Michigan Seamless Tube, Inc. was created to purchase the Michigan Specialty Tube Division of the

defunct Vision Metals, Inc., and became part of Atlas Holdings, LLC, a private equity firm. In 2002,

 37 Preston Pipe and Tube Report, January 2011 and June 2011 editions. The data cover a broad range of

products, specifically: (1) standard pipe up to 4-1/2 inches in outside diameter, black, seamless, plain end; (2) line

pipe up to 4-1/2 inches in outside diameter, carbon, seamless; (3) standard pipe 5-16 inches in outside diameter,

black, seamless, plain end; and (4) line pipe 5 - 16 inches in outside diameter, carbon, seamless. Over the course of

2010, prices for U.S. number one heavy melting scrap (a key input for the billets used to produce seamless pipe)

increased by approximately $100 per short ton, and continued to increase into 2011. See Metal Bulletin, showing

SteelBenchmarker per-ton prices of $*** on December 28, 2009; $*** on December 27, 2010; and $*** on June 13,

2011 (weekly editions of January 4, 2010; January 10, 2011; and June 27, 2011). 

 38 In the original investigations, the Commission collected price data for three variants of small-diameter

CASSLP, ranging in size from 1.315 to 4.5 inches in outside diameter and generally multiple-stenciled to standard,

line, and pressure pipe specifications. Based on data reported by U.S. producers and importers, prices for Japanese

and Romanian CASSLP pipe were lower than those for U.S.-produced CASSLP pipe in 22 of 34 and 30 of 31

observations, respectively. With respect to large-diameter CASSLP pipe, prices for Japanese CASSLP pipe were

lower than those for U.S.-produced CASSLP pipe in 4 of 13 observations covering two variants of pipe (one

multiple-stenciled and the other single-stenciled to a line pipe specification). In the first reviews, no price data were

available for imports from Japan; however, U.S. imports of three variants of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from

Romania were priced lower than comparable U.S.-produced pipe in all 34 observations. 

In their response to the Commission’s notice of institution, the domestic interested parties contend that the

likely price effects of subject imports of small-diameter and large-diameter CASSLP would be significant. Response

of domestic interested parties, May 2, 2011, p. 4.

 39 Koppel, Sharon Tube Co., and Gulf States were not petitioners in the investigations regarding large-diameter

CASSLP pipe.

I-12
V&M acquired North Star’s tubular division, then a wholly owned subsidiary of Cargill, Inc., and

renamed the division V&M STAR. Also in 2002, Wheatland Tube purchased the Sawhill Tubular

Division from AK Steel, Inc., which included the Sharon Tube Co. facilities in Sharon, PA, as well as

facilities in Wheatland, PA, and Warren, OH.40 Then, in 2006, NS Group (owner of Koppel) was

purchased by IPSCO, Inc. and, in 2008, the U.S. tubular plants of IPSCO were purchased by TMK,

forming TMK IPSCO.41

During the Commission’s full first five-year reviews, five firms provided the Commission with

responses to questionnaires: (1) Koppel; (2) Wheatland/Sharon; (3) Timken; (4) U.S. Steel; and (5)

V&M. These five firms were believed to have accounted for virtually all of known U.S. production of

CASSLP pipe during the period examined during the Commission’s first five-year reviews. Of these U.S.

producers, all produced small-diameter CASSLP pipe with the exception of V&M. Along with V&M,

Timken and U.S. Steel also produced large-diameter CASSLP pipe.

The domestic interested parties participating in these current second five-year reviews indicated

in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution that there are currently six domestic producers

of small-diameter CASSLP pipe: (1) Michigan Seamless Tube, LLC; (2) Plymouth Tube Co.;

(3) Timken; (4) TMK IPSCO; (5) U.S. Steel; and (6) Wheatland Tube Co. The domestic interested

parties also listed four known domestic producers of large-diameter CASSLP pipe in their response: 

(1) Timken; (2) United States Steel Corp.; (3) V&M; and (4) Wyman-Gordon. In response to

Commission purchaser surveys, both responding purchasers, ***, indicated that in the U.S. market,

several seamless mills are building new facilities or expanding current facilities to increase CASSLP pipe

production.

U.S. Producers’ Trade, Employment, and Financial Data

The Commission requested domestic interested parties to present certain data in their response to

the notice of institution.42 Tables I-2 and I-3 present U.S. producers’ 2010 data on their operations for

small-diameter and large-diameter CASSLP pipe as well as historical data from 1999 and 2004, the last

years for which data were collected in the original investigations and first reviews. Data from the original

investigations (1997-99) and first five-year reviews (2000-04) are presented in appendix C.

Table I-2

Small-diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. producers’ trade and financial data, 1999, 2004, and 2010

* * * * * * *

Table I-3

Large-diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. producers’ trade and financial data, 1999, 2004, and 2010

* * * * * * *

 40 Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico,

Romania, and South Africa, Inv. No. 731-TA-846-850 (Review), USITC Publication 3850, April 2006, p. I-31.

 41 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-469

and 731-TA-1168 (Final), USITC Publication 4190, November 2010, p. III-3.

 42 Total U.S. industry data for 2010, the only year for which data were collected, are compiled from U.S. Steel’s

and V&M Star’s responses to the Commission’s notice of institution, and include data provided by ***.

I-13
Related Party Issues

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

institution in these second five-year reviews that they are aware of one U.S. producer that might be

considered a related party. They explained that U.S. producer TMK IPSCO is wholly owned by OAO

TMK, and this same entity also has a subsidiary known as TMK-ARTROM, which makes seamless pipe

in Romania.43

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Cumulation

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. Available information concerning these factors

is presented below.

Fungibility

In the original investigations, all responding U.S. producers indicated that U.S. and Japanese

small-diameter and large-diameter CASSLP pipe could “always” or “frequently” be used interchangeably. 

U.S. importers reported “frequent” interchangeability for commodity pipe but not certain alloy steel and

high-strength pipe, while U.S. purchasers indicated that U.S. and Japanese small-diameter and largediameter CASSLP pipe were used in the same applications (with exceptions noted for deepwater (line

pipe) applications).44 U.S. producers also indicated that U.S. and Romanian small-diameter CASSLP pipe

could “always” be used interchangeably. Similarly, U.S. purchasers reported that U.S. and Romanian

small-diameter CASSLP pipe could be used in the same applications, although the U.S. importer of smalldiameter CASSLP pipe from Romania indicated that interchangeability was rare, citing ***.45

In the full first five-year reviews, responding domestic producers indicated that U.S.-produced

small-diameter CASSLP pipe could “always” be used interchangeably with such pipe from Japan and

Romania, as well as all other identified sources of supply. Based on a single observation apiece, U.S.

importers reported that U.S., Japanese, and Romanian small-diameter CASSLP pipe were “sometimes”

interchangeable. A majority of U.S. purchasers, however, reported that U.S. small-diameter CASSLP

pipe was “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with such pipe from Japan and from Romania, and

that Japanese and Romanian small-diameter CASSLP pipe were similarly “always” or “frequently”

interchangeable.46 47

 43 Response of domestic interested parties, May 2, 2011, p. 38.

 44 Original Staff Report, p. II-20.

 45 Original Staff Report, p. II-24.

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

Romania, and South Africa, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-846-850 (Review), USITC Publication 3850, April 2006, table II-5.

 47 U.S. producers also reported that U.S.-produced large-diameter CASSLP pipe could “always” be used

interchangeably with such pipe from Japan as well as all other identified sources of supply. U.S. importers reported

(continued...)

I-14
In the current reviews, the domestic interested parties observe that Japanese and Romanian smalldiameter CASSLP pipe are “generally substitutable” with U.S.-produced pipe.48 49

Channels of Distribution

As reported during the final phase of the original investigations, both domestic producers and

importers sold nearly all of their shipments of small-diameter CASSLP pipe to distributors.50 In the first

reviews, U.S. producers also reported that the large majority of their shipments of both small-diameter

and large-diameter CASSLP pipe were to distributors. Similarly, shipments of small-diameter CASSLP

pipe from Romania and nonsubject sources typically were sold to distributors.51 In the current reviews,

the domestic interested parties reference the Commission’s previous findings regarding the channels of

distribution.52 53

Geographic Markets

With respect to geographical markets, U.S. imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan

and Romania entered the United States through the following primary Customs districts: Cleveland, New

Orleans, and Seattle (Japan); and Houston (Romania).54

 47 (...continued)

that U.S. and Japanese large-diameter CASSLP pipe could “sometimes” or “frequently” be used interchangeably,

while a majority of U.S. purchasers reported that U.S. large-diameter CASSLP pipe was “always” or “frequently”

interchangeable with such pipe from Japan as well as all other identified sources of supply. Carbon and Alloy

Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa,

Invs. Nos. 731-TA-846-850 (Review), USITC Publication 3850, April 2006, table II-13.

 48 Response of domestic interested parties, May 2, 2011, pp. 24 and 37. In addition, the domestic interested

parties observe that the substitutability of Japanese large-diameter CASSLP pipe with the U.S.-produced pipe is

“moderately high.” Ibid.

 49 Information obtained by the Commission in its own most recent investigation of certain seamless pipe from

China indicated that large majorities of U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers viewed U.S.-produced CASSLP

pipe, both small-diameter and large-diameter, as “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with imports of such pipe. 

Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-469 and

731-TA-1168, USITC Publication 4190, November 2010, tables II-7 and II-8.

 50 Original Staff Report, table I-4. While this was also true for U.S.-produced large-diameter CASSLP, a smaller

share of imported product from Japan (77.2 percent) was sold to distributors. Ibid.

 51 First Review Report, pp. II-1 and II-30. Shipments of nonsubject imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe were

sold primarily (*** percent) to distributors and secondarily (*** percent) to end users. Ibid.

 52 Response of domestic interested parties, May 2, 2011, p. 4.

 53 Information obtained by the Commission in its own most recent investigation of certain seamless pipe from

China indicated that the majority of shipments of CASSLP pipe by U.S. producers and importers of Chinese and

non-Chinese pipe were to distributors, although a larger share of large-diameter CASSLP imported from nonChinese sources was shipped to end users. Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure

Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-469 and 731-TA-1168, USITC Publication 4190, November 2010, p. II-2.

 54 U.S. imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan entered the United States through the following

primary Customs districts: Houston and New Orleans.

I-15
Presence in the Market

With respect to simultaneous presence in the market, imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe

from Japan entered the United States in 70 of 72 months between 2005 and 2010, while imports of smalldiameter CASSLP pipe from Romania entered the United States in 50 months.55

U.S. Imports

During the original investigations, the subject U.S. import data on small-diameter CASSLP pipe

presented in the Commission’s report were based on the questionnaire responses of 12 importers from

Japan and 2 importers from Romania. U.S. import data on large-diameter CASSLP pipe presented in the

Commission’s report in the original investigations were based on the questionnaire responses of eight

importers from Japan. In the Commission’s full first five-year reviews, the Commission sent importer

questionnaires to 38 firms believed to be importers of CASSLP pipe from subject and nonsubject

countries, as well as to all U.S. producers. Questionnaire responses containing data were received from

four companies. Fourteen companies reported that they did not import CASSLP pipe during the review

period. Many companies that reported U.S. imports from the subject countries in the original

investigations reported that they no longer imported CASSLP pipe during the first five-year reviews. 

In these current second five-year reviews, the domestic interested parties identified 31 U.S.

importers of CASSLP pipe. Data on U.S. imports of small-diameter and large-diameter CASSLP pipe

during 2005-10, are presented in tables I-4 and I-5.

In their response to the Commission’s notice of institution, the domestic interested parties

emphasized the vulnerability of the U.S. industry due to dumped and subsidized imports of CASSLP pipe

from China between 2007 and 2009 and the severe economic recession.56 Purchaser *** reported that the

lack of substantial volumes of CASSLP pipe imports from China after the imposition of the orders has led

to decreased competition in the U.S. market, while the U.S. market has concurrently shrunk as it struggles

to recover from the economic recession.57 The domestic interested parties also noted the growing role of

nonsubject imports in the U.S. market, and indicate that ***.58 This is consistent with the purchaser

survey response of ***, which reported that Chinese import duties in the United States and Europe have

stimulated other manufacturers to enter the market, particularly manufacturers in India and the Eastern

Bloc countries.59

 55 Imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan entered the United States in 71 of 72 months between 2005

and 2010. Because of the scope exclusions for large-diameter pipe, the number of observations may be overstated.

 56 Response of domestic interested parties, May 2, 2011, p. 16.

 57 Purchaser survey response of ***.

 58 Response of domestic interested parties, May 2, 2011, p. 18.

 59 Purchaser survey response of ***. The company also credits the decline in U.S. imports of CASSLP pipe to

high foreign currency exchange rates. Ibid.

I-16
Table I-4

Small-diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. imports, by source, 2005-10

Item 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (short tons)

Japan 227 400 5,440 7,381 3,734 3,678

Romania 2,274 231 31 395 1,296 1,761

Subtotal, subject 2,501 630 5,471 7,776 5,030 5,439

All other1 124,297 200,431 177,884 294,797 95,622 112,472

Total imports 126,798 201,061 183,354 302,573 100,653 117,912

Value ($1,000)

2

Japan 565 966 9,380 14,967 10,034 9,396

Romania 2,958 371 82 694 1,500 2,335

Subtotal, subject 3,523 1,336 9,462 15,660 11,534 11,731

All other1 131,684 198,132 181,338 377,356 140,262 152,001

Total imports 135,207 199,469 190,800 393,016 151,796 163,732

Unit value ($/short ton)

Japan 2,487 2,417 1,724 2,028 2,687 2,555

Romania 1,301 1,608 2,654 1,757 1,158 1,326

Average, subject 1,408 2,121 1,730 2,014 2,293 2,157

All other1 1,059 989 1,019 1,280 1,467 1,351

Average, total 1,066 992 1,041 1,299 1,508 1,389

 1 The main sources of nonsubject imports are Russia, representing 15.5 percent of total imports during 2010;

South Africa, 11.0 percent; Ukraine, 10.7 percent; Spain, 9.4 percent; India and Argentina, 7.2 percent each; Czech

Republic, 6.4 percent; and Austria, 5.1 percent. U.S. imports from China were subject to countervailing and

antidumping duty investigations in 2009-10, and since November 2010 have been subject to countervailing and

antidumping duty orders. U.S. imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from China decreased from 197,022 short

tons in 2008 to 7,562 short tons in 2010.

 2

 Landed, duty-paid.

Source: Official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.10.1020, 7304.10.5020,

7304.19.1020, 7304.19.5020, 7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024, 7304.59.8010, and 7304.59.8015.

I-17
Table I-5

Large-diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. imports, by source, 2005-10

Item 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (short tons)

Japan 37,091 27,821 23,360 6,292 17,311 5,860

All other1 158,920 222,065 194,915 405,642 156,962 146,344

Total imports 196,011 249,885 218,275 411,934 174,273 152,204

Value ($1,000)

2

Japan 47,286 52,084 46,985 11,862 36,972 10,007

All other1 166,925 259,454 257,206 604,400 295,081 205,500

Total imports 214,210 311,538 304,191 616,262 332,053 215,508

Unit value ($/short ton)

Japan 1,275 1,872 2,011 1,885 2,136 1,708

All other1 1,050 1,168 1,320 1,490 1,880 1,404

Average 1,093 1,247 1,394 1,496 1,905 1,416

 1 The main sources of nonsubject imports are Argentina, representing 16.9 percent of total imports during 2010;

Russia, 16.7 percent; Czech Republic, 9.3 percent; Italy, 7.9 percent; Germany, 7.0 percent; and Croatia, 5.2

percent. U.S. imports from China were subject to countervailing duty and antidumping duty investigations in

2009-10, and since November 2010 have been subject to countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders. U.S.

imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe from China decreased from 169,066 short tons in 2008 to 5,652 short tons

in 2010.

 2

 Landed, duty-paid.

Note.–Import data include ASTM A-335 pipe and line pipe for deepwater applications, which are outside of

Commerce’s scope. Because of the scope exclusions for large-diameter pipe, Staff believes the volume of subject

imports included in this presentation to be overstated.

Source: Official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting numbers 7304.10.1030, 7304.10.1045,

7304.10.1060, 7304.10.5050, 7304.19.1030, 7304.19.1045, 7304.19.1060, 7304.19.5050, 7304.39.0036,

7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0062, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8045, and 7304.59.8060.

Ratio of Imports to U.S. Production

Imports of small-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan and Romania were equivalent to *** percent

and *** percent of reported U.S. production in 2010, respectively. The ratio of imports of small-diameter

CASSLP pipe from nonsubject countries to domestic production was *** percent in 2010. Imports of

large-diameter CASSLP pipe from Japan were equivalent to *** percent of reported U.S. production in

2010. The ratio of imports of large-diameter CASSLP pipe from nonsubject countries to domestic

production was *** percent in 2010.

I-18
Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares of CASSLP pipe for 2010 are shown in

tables I-6 and I-7.

Table I-6

Small-diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 1999, 2004, and 2010

Item 1999 2004 2010

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 105,646 *** ***

U.S. imports from1

–

 Japan 18,709 79 3,678

 Romania *** 18,718 1,761

 Subtotal, subject *** 18,797 5,439

 Other sources *** 124,608 112,472

 Total imports 46,856 143,405 117,912

Apparent U.S. consumption 152,502 *** ***

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 76,392 *** ***

U.S. imports from1

--

 Japan 12,935 513 9,396

 Romania *** 12,996 2,335

 Subtotal, subject *** 13,509 11,731

 Other sources *** 93,358 152,001

 Total imports 31,965 106,866 163,732

Apparent U.S. consumption 108,357 *** ***

Share of consumption based on quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 69.3 *** ***

U.S. imports from1

--

 Japan 12.3 *** ***

 Romania *** *** ***

 Subtotal, subject *** *** ***

 Other sources *** *** ***

 Total imports 30.7 *** ***

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Data for 1999 are shipments of imports.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data presented in the original staff report and the first five-year reviews (1999 and 2004);

and official Commerce statistics and Response of domestic interested parties, May 2, 2011, exh. 18 (2010). 

I-19
Table I-7

Large-diameter CASSLP pipe: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 1999, 2004, and 2010

Item 1999 2004 2010

Quantity (short tons)

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

U.S. imports from1

–

 Japan 49,727 *** 5,860

 Other sources *** *** 146,344

 Total imports *** *** 152,204

Apparent U.S. consumption 293,151 *** ***

Value ($1,000)

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

U.S. imports from1

–

 Japan 29,156 *** 10,007

 Other sources *** *** 205,500

 Total imports *** *** 215,508

Apparent U.S. consumption 167,556 *** ***

Share of consumption based on quantity (percent)

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

U.S. imports from1

--

 Japan 17.0 *** ***

 Other sources *** *** ***

 Total imports *** *** ***

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Data for 1999 are shipments of imports.

Note.–Import data include ASTM A-335 pipe and line pipe for deepwater applications, which are outside of

Commerce's scope. Because of the scope exclusions for large-diameter pipe, Staff believes the volume of subject

imports included in this presentation to be overstated.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data presented in the original staff report and the first five-year reviews (1999 and 2004);

and official Commerce statistics and Response of domestic interested parties, May 2, 2011, exh. 19 (2010). 

The data presented in tables I-6 and I-7 indicate that apparent U.S. consumption of both smalldiameter CASSLP pipe and large-diameter CASSLP pipe was approximately 30 percent lower in 2010

than in 2004. Differences in the number of companies reporting U.S. shipments are believed to account

for only a relatively small share of this reduction.

I-20
As discussed previously, CASSLP pipe is used in a variety of applications, including in the

construction, industrial, and oil/gas sectors. Nonresidential construction in 2010 was valued at

$555 billion, a decrease of 14.5 percent from 2009.60 Seamless pipe consumption in petroleum, natural

gas, and refinery operations began to recover in 2010 from a steep decline in 2009, but leveled off in midyear 2010 below 2007 and 2008 peaks.61 

Somewhat in contrast, the Baker Hughes monthly U.S. rig count for December 2010 stood at

1,687 drilling rigs actively exploring for or developing oil or natural gas in the United States, up from

1,136 rigs in December 2009.62 However, CASSLP pipe is used in gathering and related line pipe

applications rather than in drilling and extraction applications. Thus, the linkage between drilling activity

and line pipe consumption is less direct than for other energy tubulars such as oil country tubular goods. 

Moreover, the relationship between CASSLP pipe requirements and drilling activity may be subject to

additional considerations such as the nature of the drilling operations.63 U.S. average wellhead prices for

oil were 12.3 percent lower in 2010 than in 2009, while Henry Hub spot prices for natural gas were 12.2

percent higher in 2010 than in 2009 - but both were noticeably lower than in 2008.64

ANTIDUMPING ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

An antidumping duty order on imports of small-diameter seamless pipe from Romania have been

in effect in Brazil since 2000. An antidumping duty order on small-diameter seamless line pipe from

Japan has been in effect in Venezuela since 2000. Mexico has maintained antidumping duty orders on

small-diameter seamless line pipe from Japan, effective 2000, and from Romania, effective 2004.65 66

 60 U.S. Census Bureau News, CB11-118, table 4, released July 1, 2011. The seasonally adjusted annual rate of

nonresidential construction for May 2011 was 7.2 percent lower than for May 2010. Ibid., table 1.

 61 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-469

and 731-TA-1168 (Final), USITC Publication 4190, November 2010, figure II-1.

 62 The monthly U.S. rig count stood at 1,804 rigs in May 2011. See Baker Hughes press releases dated February

5, 2010; January 10, 2011; and June 7, 2011.

 63 For example, Preston Publishing points out the prevalence of drilling multiple wells on one pad in the shale

developments. Preston Pipe & Tube Report, January 2011, p. 32.

 64 U.S. average wellhead prices fell from $96.13 (constant 2009 dollars) per barrel in 2008 to $89.64 in 2009 and

to $78.62 in 2010; prices are projected to increase to $84.00 in 2011 and to $86.23 in 2012. Henry Hub spot prices

fell from $8.94 per million Btu (constant 2009 dollars) in 2008 to $3.95 in 2009; prices increased to $4.43 in 2010

and are projected to increase to $4.48 in 2011 and to $4.50 in 2012. Annual Energy Outlook 2011, Energy

Information Administration, Oil and Gas Supply / Reference Case, released April 26, 2011.

 65 Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico,

Romania, and South Africa, Inv. No. 731-TA-846-850 (Review), USITC Publication 3850, April 2006, pp. IV-19;

and Response of domestic interested parties, May 2, 2011, p. 21.

 66 At the time of the original investigations and first reviews, Romania was subject to an antidumping duty order

on CASSLP pipe from the European Union.

I-21
THE SUBJECT INDUSTRY IN JAPAN

The petitioners identified the following four producers of small-diameter and large-diameter pipe

in Japan during the original investigations: NKK Corp. (“NKK”); Kawasaki Steel Corp. (“Kawasaki”);

Nippon Steel Corp. (“Nippon”); and Sumitomo Metal Industries (“Sumitomo”).67 Since the original

investigations, several changes in the structure of the Japanese industry have occurred. Most notably, in

2001, Nippon closed its seamless pipe mill, which Sumitomo acquired later that same year. In addition,

JFE Steel Corp. (“JFE”) was formed as a result of the merger between Kawasaki and NKK on April 1,

2003. As a result of those changes, there were two producers of small-diameter and large-diameter pipe

in Japan at the time of the first five-year review of the orders: JFE and Sumitomo.68 During the full first

five-year reviews, the Commission received data from one firm in Japan, JFE/NKK, which accounted for

approximately *** percent of small-diameter CASSLP pipe produced in Japan in 2004 and approximately

*** percent of large-diameter CASSLP pipe produced in Japan in 2004.69

In its response to the notice of institution in these second five-year reviews, domestic interested

parties identified the following five producers of small-diameter and large-diameter CASSLP pipe in

Japan: (1) Haneda Pipe Works; (2) Sumitomo; (3) Nippon (closed and acquired by Sumitomo in 2001);

(4) JFE; and (5) Tenaris NKK Tubes (trade name used by NKK Tubes, a Tenaris company in which JFE

is part owner).70 *** reported that annual production of ordinary seamless tubular products in Japan was

*** in 2010, up from *** in 2009, but down from *** in 2008.71

THE SUBJECT INDUSTRY IN ROMANIA

The Commission in its original investigations named the following three producers of smalldiameter pipe in Romania: Silcotub SA (“Silcotub”), SC Republica (“Republica”), and Societ Petrotub

SA Roman (“Petrotub”).72 Since the original investigations, there have been several changes to the

structure of the Romanian industry. In November 2003, steel producer Mittal Steel Co. concluded an

agreement with the Romanian Government to acquire Petrotub, and executed the acquisition the

following month. Although operational during 2004, Republica went out of business shortly thereafter.73

During the Commission’s full first five-year reviews, the following three producers in Romania provided

a response to the Commission’s questionnaire: (1) Mittal Steel Roman, S.A. (formerly Petrotub);

 67 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa: 

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC Publication 3311, June 2000, p. VII-2.

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

five-year reviews that Haneda Pipe Works Co., Ltd. may have also been a producer of subject small-diameter and

large-diameter pipe in Japan.

 69 Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico,

Romania, and South Africa, Inv. No. 731-TA-846-850 (Review), USITC Publication 3850, April 2006, pp. IV-5-6

and IV-16.

 70 Response of domestic interested parties, May 2, 2011, exhibits 14 and 15.

 71 ***.

 72 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa: 

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC Publication 3311, June 2000, p. VII-3.

 73 Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico,

Romania, and South Africa, Inv. No. 731-TA-846-850 (Review), USITC Publication 3850, April 2006, pp. II-5 and

IV-7.

I-22
(2) Silcotub; and (3) Artrom S.A. (“Artrom”). These three firms accounted for all small-diameter

CASSLP pipe produced in Romania at the time of the Commission’s first five-year reviews.74

In its response to the notice of institution in these second five-year reviews, domestic interested

parties identified the following four producers of small-diameter CASSLP pipe in Romania: 

(1) ArcelorMittal Hunedoara; (2) ArcelorMittal Roman; (3) Tenaris Silcotub; and (4) TMK-Artrom. ***

reported that annual production of all seamless tubular products in Romania was *** in 2010, up from

*** in 2009, but down from *** in 2008.75

THE GLOBAL MARKET

Data for small-diameter and large-diameter CASSLP pipe markets outside the United States are

limited, and not generally broken down by the size ranges relevant to these reviews. The WorldSteel

Association collects and publishes data on “seamless tubes” which include tubular products across a

broad range of sizes and applications. Reporting for this category is limited and dominated by China,

with 21.8 million metric tons of production in 2009, followed by Japan (1.3 million metric tons) and the

United States (1.0 million metric tons). Romania’s reported production in 2009 was 318,000 metric

tons.76

Similarly, for seamless pipe other than OCTG (a category that includes a range of sizes and

certain nonsubject applications, such as boiler tubes), China has been the leading export source,

accounting for more than one-quarter of total exports in 2009. Japan and Romania were the fourth-largest

and tenth-largest exporters in 2009.77

 74 Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico,

Romania, and South Africa, Inv. No. 731-TA-846-850 (Review), USITC Publication 3850, April 2006, p. IV-7.

 75 ***.

 76 WorldSteel Association, Steel Statistical Yearbook 2010, table 25. The number of countries with publishable

data has been decreasing over time, making trend analysis difficult and even calling into question size comparisons

(for example, data for large producers such as Germany and Russia are unavailable).

 77 Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-469

and 731-TA-1168 (Final), USITC Publication 4190, November 2010, table VII-11 (Global Trade Atlas data for HTS

subheadings 7304.19; 7304.39; and 7304.59). Of the nearly 5.8 million short tons of seamless pipe (excluding

OCTG) exported in 2009, China accounted for almost 1.5 million short tons, while Japan accounted for 458,057

short tons and Romania accounted for 209,029 short tons.

I-23
 
Contains Business Proprietary Information

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Notices 18251 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 11–5–242, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

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

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country after 2004, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country(ies), and such merchandise 

from other countries. 

(13) (Optional) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: March 22, 2011. 

By order of the Commission. 

James R. Holbein, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7275 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–847 and 849 

(Second Review)] 

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, 

Line, and Pressure Pipe From Japan 

Andromania 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on carbon and alloy seamless standard, 

line, and pressure pipe from Japan and 

Romania. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

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

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on carbon and 

alloy seamless standard, line, and 

pressure pipe from Japan and Romania 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury. 

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

interested parties are requested to 

respond to this notice by submitting the 

information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is May 2, 2011. Comments on 

the adequacy of responses may be filed 

with the Commission by June 13, 2011. 

For further information concerning the 

conduct of these reviews and rules of 

general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

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

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

207), as most recently amended at 74 FR 

2847 (January 16, 2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: April 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On June 26, 2000, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) 

issued an antidumping duty order on 

the imports of small and large diameter 

carbon and alloy seamless standard, 

line, and pressure pipe from Japan (65 

FR 39360). On August 10, 2000, 

Commerce issued an antidumping duty 

order on the imports of large diameter 

carbon and alloy seamless standard, 

line, and pressure pipe from Romania 

(65 FR 48963). Following five-year 

reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective May 8, 2006, 

Commerce issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty orders on imports of 

certain carbon and alloy seamless 

standard, line, and pressure pipe from 

Japan and Romania (71 FR 26746). The 

Commission is now conducting second 

reviews to determine whether 

revocation of the orders would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to the domestic industry 

within a reasonably foreseeable time. It 

will assess the adequacy of interested 

party responses to this notice of 

institution to determine whether to 

conduct full reviews or expedited 

reviews. The Commission’s 

determinations in any expedited 

reviews will be based on the facts 

available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions. The following definitions 

apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are Japan and Romania. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determinations and its full first five-year 

review determinations, the Commission 

found two Domestic Like Products 

corresponding to the two scopes of the 

investigations: Small diameter carbon 

and alloy seamless standard, line, and 

pressure pipe and large diameter carbon 

and alloy seamless standard, line, and 

pressure pipe. Certain Commissioners 

defined the Domestic Like Product 

differently in the original 

determinations. 

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

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determinations 

and its full first five-year review 

determinations, the Commission found 

two Domestic Industries: A small 

diameter carbon and alloy seamless 

standard, line, and pressure pipe 

industry and a large diameter carbon 

and alloy seamless standard, line, and 

pressure pipe industry, encompassing 

all domestic producers of those 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

18252 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Notices 

products, respectively. Certain 

Commissioners defined the Domestic 

Industry differently in the original 

determinations. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list. Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

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

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official has advised that a five-year 

review is not considered the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the corresponding 

underlying original investigation for 

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

employment statute for Federal 

employees, and Commission rule 

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

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are not 

required to seek Commission approval 

to appear in a review under Commission 

rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list. Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

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

who are parties to the reviews. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification. Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

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

Written submissions. Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is May 2, 2011. Pursuant 

to section 207.62(b) of the Commission’s 

rules, eligible parties (as specified in 

Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also 

file comments concerning the adequacy 

of responses to the notice of institution 

and whether the Commission should 

conduct expedited or full reviews. The 

deadline for filing such comments is 

June 13, 2011. All written submissions 

must conform with the provisions of 

sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the 

Commission’s rules and any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. 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). Also, in 

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information. Pursuant to section 

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

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 

Information To Be Provided in 

Response to this Notice of Institution: 

Please provide the requested 

information separately for each 

Domestic Like Product, as defined by 

the Commission in its original 

determinations and its first five-year 

review determinations, and for each of 

the products identified by Commerce as 

Subject Merchandise. If you are a 

domestic producer, union/worker 

group, or trade/business association; 

import/export Subject Merchandise 

from more than one Subject Country; or 

produce Subject Merchandise in more 

than one Subject Country, you may file 

a single response. If you do so, please 

ensure that your response to each 

question includes the information 

requested for each pertinent Subject 

Country. As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ 

includes any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address) and name, telephone number, 

fax number, and E-mail address of the 

certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

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

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

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

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Notices 18253 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

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

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in the Subject 

Countries that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

2004. 

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

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and E-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

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

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2010, except as noted 

(report quantity data in short tons and 

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

If you are a union/worker group or 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms in which your workers are 

employed/which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

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

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

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

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

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

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

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

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

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

income of the Domestic Like Product 

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

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

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

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2010 (report 

quantity data in short tons and value 

data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from each Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

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

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

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

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from each Subject Country. 

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

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2010 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars, landed and duty-paid at the 

U.S. port but not including antidumping 

duties). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in 

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

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) the quantity and value of your 

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

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

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

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country after 2004, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country(ies), and such merchandise 

from other countries. 

(13) (Optional) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: March 22, 2011. 

By order of the Commission. 

James R. Holbein, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7276 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES


Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Notices 18163 

Period to be 

reviewed 

ZAFCO TRDG.

1 In the 2007–2008 administrative review, the Department found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Ananda Aqua Exports

(P) Ltd., Ananda Foods, and Ananda Aqua Applications. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Preliminary Results and Preliminary 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 9991, 9994 (Mar. 9, 2009) (2007–2008 Indian Shrimp Preliminary Results) 

unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 

74 FR 33409 (July 13, 2009) (2007–2008 Indian Shrimp Final Results). Absent information to the contrary, we intend to treat these companies 

as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review. 2The interested parties’ requests for review included certain companies with similar names and/or addresses. For purposes of initiation, we 

have treated these companies as the same entity based on information obtained in prior administrative reviews. See the March 28, 2011, memorandum from David Crespo to the File entitled, ‘‘Placing Public Information from Prior Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews on the Record of 

the 2010–2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India.’’ 3 In the 2004–2006 administrative review, the Department found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Devi Marine Food Exports Private Limited, Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, Kader Exports Private Limited, Liberty Frozen Foods Private Limited, Liberty Oil Mills Limited, Premier Marine Products, and Universal Cold Storage Private Limited. See 2004–2006 Indian Shrimp Final Results, 

72 FR at 52058. Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review. 4 In the 2006–2007 administrative review, the Department found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Diamond Seafoods Exports, Edhayam Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Kadalkanny Frozen Foods, and Theva & Company. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: 

Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 12103, 12106 (Mar. 6, 2008), unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 

FR 40492 (July 15, 2008). Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of 

this administrative review. 5 In the 2007–2008 administrative review, the Department found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Falcon Marine Exports 

Limited and K.R. Enterprises. See 2007–2008 Indian Shrimp Preliminary Results, 74 FR at 9994, unchanged in 2007–2008 Indian Shrimp Final 

Results, 74 FR at 33409. Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of 

this administrative review. 6On December 1, 2010, the Department found that A Foods 1991 Co., Limited is the successor-in-interest to May Ao Company Limited. See 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 75 FR 74684 

(Dec. 1, 2010). Because the effective date of this determination is within the period of review (POR), we have included both A Foods 1991 Co., 

Limited and May Ao Company Limited for purposes of initiation. 7The requests for review from the interested parties included certain companies with similar names and/or addresses. We have contacted 

these companies for clarification regarding their correct names and/or addresses. Pending receipt of this information, we have treated these companies as separate entities for purposes of initiation. 8The requests for review from the interested parties included certain companies with similar names and/or addresses. For purposes of initiation, we have treated these companies as the same entity based on information obtained prior to initiation of this administrative review. 9 In the 2007–2008 administrative review, the Department found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Pakfood Public Company Limited, Asia Pacific (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Chaophraya Cold Storage Co. Ltd., Okeanos Co. Ltd., Okeanos Food Co. Ltd., and Takzin Samut 

Co. Ltd. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 

74 FR 47551 (Sept. 16, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision memorandum at Comment 6. Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review. 10 In the 2006–2007 administrative review, the Department found that the following companies comprised a single entity: Thai Union Frozen 

Products Public Co., Ltd. and Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 12088 (Mar. 6, 2008), unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 50933 (Aug. 29, 2008). Absent information to the contrary, we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review. 11 In the less-than-fair-value investigation, the Department found that the following companies comprised a single entity: The Union Frozen 

Products Co., Ltd. and Bright Sea Co., Ltd. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final 

Determination, and Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 69 FR 47100 

(Aug. 4, 2004), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (Dec. 23, 2004). Absent information to the contrary, 

we intend to continue to treat these companies as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under 

administrative protective orders in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On 

January 22, 2008, the Department 

published Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Documents Submission Procedures; 

APO Procedures (73 FR 3634). Those 

procedures apply to administrative 

reviews included in this notice of 

initiation. Parties wishing to participate 

in any of these administrative reviews 

should ensure that they meet the 

requirements of these procedures (e.g., 

the filing of separate letters of 

appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 

351.103(d)). 

Any party submitting factual 

information in an AD/CVD proceeding 

must certify to the accuracy and 

completeness of that information. See 

section 782(b) of the Act. Parties are 

hereby reminded that revised 

certification requirements are in effect 

for company/government officials as 

well as their representatives in all 

segments of any AD/CVD proceedings 

initiated on or after March 14, 2011. See 

Certification of Factual Information to 

Import Administration During 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 

7491 (February 10, 2011) (Interim Final 

Rule) amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) & 

(2). The formats for the revised 

certifications are provided at the end of 

the Interim Final Rule. The Department 

intends to reject factual submissions in 

any proceeding segments initiated on or 

after March 14, 2011, if the submitting 

party does not comply with the revised 

certification requirements. 

This initiation and notice are in 

accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). 

Dated: March 28, 2011. 

Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7763 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

18164 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Notices 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders listed below. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) 

is publishing concurrently with this 

notice its notice of Institution of FiveYear Review which covers the same 

orders. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

For information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 

13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 

62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on 

methodological or analytical issues 

relevant to the Department’s conduct of 

Sunset Reviews is set forth in the 

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98.3— 

Policies Regarding the Conduct of FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders: 

DOC Case 

No. 

ITC Case 

No. Country Product Department contact 

A–588–850 .. 731–TA–847 Japan .......... Carbon & Alloy Seamless, Standard Line & Pressure 

Pipe (Over 41⁄2 Inches) (2nd Review).

David Goldberger, (202) 482–4136. 

A–588–851 .. 731–TA–847 Japan .......... Carbon & Alloy Seamless, Standard, Line & Pressure Pipe (Under 41⁄2 Inches) (2nd Review).David Goldberger, (202) 482–4136. 

A–485–805 .. 731–TA–849 Romania ...... Carbon & Alloy Seamless, Standard, Line & Pressure Pipe (Under 41⁄2 Inches) (2nd Review).David Goldberger, (202) 482–4136. 

A–533–806 .. 731–TA–561 India ............ Sulfanilic Acid (3rd Review) ........................................ Julia Hancock, (202) 482–1394. 

A–570–815 .. 731–TA–538 PRC ............. Sulfanilic Acid (3rd Review) ........................................ Julia Hancock, (202) 482–1394. 

C–533–807 .. 701–TA–318 India ............ Sulfanilic Acid (3rd Review) ........................................ David Goldberger, (202) 482–4136. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset Review 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statue and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s Internet 

Web site at the following address: 

‘‘http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’ All 

submissions in these Sunset Reviews 

must be filed in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

format, translation, and service of 

documents. These rules can be found at 

19 CFR 351.303. 

This notice serves as a reminder that 

any party submitting factual information 

in an antidumping duty/countervailing 

duty (‘‘AD/CVD’’) proceeding must 

certify to the accuracy and completeness 

of that information. See section 782(b) 

of the Act. Parties are hereby reminded 

that revised certification requirements 

are in effect for company/government 

officials as well as their representatives 

in all AD/CVD investigations or 

proceedings initiated on or after March 

14, 2011. See Certification of Factual 

Information to Import Administration 

During Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 7491 

(February 10, 2011) (Interim Final Rule), 

amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) and (2). 

The formats for the revised certifications 

are provided at the end of the Interim 

Final Rule. The Department intends to 

reject factual submissions in 

investigations/proceedings initiated on 

or after March 14, 2011 if the submitting 

party does not comply with the revised 

certification requirements. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The required contents of the notice of 

intent to participate are set forth at 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance 

with the Department’s regulations, if we 

do not receive a notice of intent to 

participate from at least one domestic 

interested party by the 15-day deadline, 

the Department will automatically 

revoke the order without further review. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Notices 18165 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning AD and CVD proceedings at 

the Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 

(c). 

Dated: March 25, 2011. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7761 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Request for Public Comments 

Concerning Regulatory Cooperation 

Activities That Would Help Eliminate or 

Reduce Unnecessary Regulatory 

Divergences in North America That 

Disrupt U.S. Exports 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces an 

extension of the request for public 

comment to the Federal Register notice 

on regulatory cooperation activities in 

North America. The comment period is 

extended to April 18, 2011. 

DATES: The comment period for notice 

published on March 3, 2011 (76 FR 

11760), is extended to April 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submissions should be 

made via the internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov under docket ITA– 

2011–0003. Please direct written 

submissions to Diana Hynek, 

Departmental Paperwork Clearance 

Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 

6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20230. The public 

is strongly encouraged to file 

submissions electronically rather than 

by mail. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Questions regarding this notice should 

be directed to regcoop@trade.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 

Department of Commerce (DOC) 

published a document in the Federal 

Register on March 3, 2011, inviting 

public comment on the following 

possible types of cooperative regulatory 

activities between or among the United 

States, Mexico, and Canada: 

Information-sharing agreements; 

technical assistance; memoranda of 

understanding, mutual recognition 

agreements; collaboration between 

regulators before initiating rulemaking 

proceedings; agreements to align 

particular regulatory measures; 

equivalency arrangements; and 

accreditation of testing laboratories or 

other conformity assessment bodies. 

These comments will serve as a basis for 

bilateral and trilateral discussion with 

Canada and Mexico on regulatory 

cooperation activities to undertake 

which will support the President’s 

National Export Initiative and serve as 

a basis for discussion with the U.S.- 

Mexico High-Level Regulatory 

Cooperation Council and the U.S.- 

Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council. 

The notice published on March 3, 

2011 (76 FR 11760) informed interested 

parties that DOC would accept written 

comments no later than April 4, 2011. 

Associations and organizations with an 

interest in these activities have 

expressed concerns with the 30-day 

deadline and have requested an 

extension. Based on these requests, DOC 

is extending the comment period until 

April 18, 2011, to provide interested 

parties additional time to prepare and 

submit comments. DOC will accept 

comments received no later than April 

18, 2011 and will not consider any 

further extensions to the comment 

period. 

Requirements for Submissions: In 

order to ensure the timely receipt and 

consideration of comments, the 

Department of Commerce’s International 

Trade Administration (ITA) strongly 

encourages commenters to make on-line 

submissions, using the 

www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Comments should be submitted under 

docket number ITA–2011–0003. To find 

this docket, enter the docket number in 

the ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID’’ window at 

the www.regulations.gov home page and 

click ‘‘Search.’’ The site will provide a 

search-results page listing all documents 

associated with that docket number. 

Find a reference to this notice by 

selecting ‘‘Notice’’ under ‘‘Document 

Type’’ on the search-results page, and 

click on the link entitled ‘‘Submit a 

Comment.’’ The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site provides 

the option of making submissions by 

filling in a comments field, or by 

attaching a document. ITA prefers 

submissions to be provided in an 

attached document. (For further 

information on using the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site, please 

consult the resources provided on the 

Web site by clicking on the ‘‘Help’’ tab.) 

All comments and recommendations 

submitted in response to this notice will 

be made available to the public. For any 

comments submitted electronically 

containing business confidential 

information, the file name of the 

business confidential version should 

begin with the characters ‘‘BC’’. The top 

of any page containing business 

confidential information must be clearly 

marked ‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’. 

Any person filing comments that 

contain business confidential 

information must also file in a separate 

submission a public version of the 

comments. The file name of the public 

version of the comments should begin 

with the character ‘‘P’’. The ‘‘BC’’ and ‘‘P’’ 

should be followed by the name of the 

person or entity submitting the 

comments. If a comment contains no 

business confidential information, the 

file name should begin with the 

character ‘‘P’’, followed by the name of 

the person or entity submitting the 

comments. 

Please do not attach separate cover 

letters to electronic submissions; rather, 

include any information that might 

appear in a cover letter in the comments 

themselves. Similarly, to the extent 

possible, please include any exhibits, 

annexes, or other attachments in the 

same file as the submission itself, not as 

separate files. 

Dated: March 29, 2011. 

John Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

Commerce for Market Access and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7849 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DA–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Advisory Committee on Earthquake 

Hazards Reduction Meeting 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES


44608 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by U.S. Steel Corp. and V&M STAR to 

be individually adequate. Comments from other 

interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 

207.62(d)(2)). 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–847 and 849; 

Second Review] 

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, 

Line, and Pressure Pipe From Japan 

and Romania; Scheduling of Expedited 

Five-Year Reviews Concerning the 

Antidumping Duty Orders on Carbon 

and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, 

and Pressure Pipe from Japan and 

Romania 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of expedited 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders on carbon and alloy 

seamless standard, line, and pressure 

pipe from Japan and Romania would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: July 5, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Sherman (202–205–3289), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On July 5, 2011, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (76 

FR 18251, April 1, 2011) of the subject 

five-year reviews was adequate and that 

the respondent interested party group 

response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct expedited reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the reviews will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on 

August 22, 2011, and made available to 

persons on the Administrative 

Protective Order service list for this 

review. A public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the reviews and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

reviews may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the 

reviews. Comments are due on or before 

August 25, 2011 and may not contain 

new factual information. Any person 

that is neither a party to the five-year 

reviews nor an interested party may 

submit a brief written statement (which 

shall not contain any new factual 

information) pertinent to the reviews by 

August 25, 2011. However, should the 

Department of Commerce extend the 

time limit for its completion of the final 

results of its reviews, the deadline for 

comments (which may not contain new 

factual information) on Commerce’s 

final results is three business days after 

the issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (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 reviews must be 

served on all other parties to the reviews 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determination.—The Commission has 

determined to exercise its authority to 

extend the review period by up to 90 

days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: July 20, 2011. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–18795 Filed 7–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request; Current 

Population Survey Volunteer 

Supplement 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(DOL) is submitting the revised Bureau 

of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored 

information collection request (ICR) 

titled, ‘‘Current Population Survey 

Volunteer Supplement,’’ to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval for use in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

August 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of this ICR with 

applicable supporting documentation; 

including a description of the likely 

respondents, proposed frequency of 

response, and estimated total burden 

may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov 

Web site, http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain, on the day 

following publication of this notice or 

by contacting Michel Smyth by 

telephone at 202–693–4129 (this is not 

a toll-free number) or sending an e-mail 

to DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov. 

Submit comments about this request 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk 

Officer for the Department of Labor, 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Office


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Notices 47555 

Dated: August 1, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Discussion of the Issues 

Comment 1: Whether the Application of Fact 

Available (FA)/Adverse Facts Available 

(AFA) Is Lawful. 

Comment 2: Whether the Department’s 

Circumvention Analysis Properly 

Addressed the Statutory Criteria. 

Comment 3: Whether the Department’s Use 

of FA/AFA Is Uncorroborated, 

Unreasonable and Punitive. 

Comment 4: Whether the Remedy Imposed Is 

Lawful. 

Comment 5: Whether the Assignment of the 

PRC-Wide Rate as AFA Is Appropriate. 

[FR Doc. 2011–19921 Filed 8–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–588–850, A–588–851, A–485–805] 

Certain Large Diameter Carbon and 

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and 

Pressure Pipe From Japan; Certain 

Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy 

Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure 

Pipe From Japan and Romania: Final 

Results of the Expedited Second FiveYear Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 5, 2011. 

SUMMARY: On April 1, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) initiated the second 

sunset reviews of the antidumping duty 

orders on certain large diameter carbon 

and alloy seamless standard, line and 

pressure pipe (‘‘large diameter pipe’’) 

from Japan and certain small diameter 

carbon and alloy seamless standard, line 

and pressure pipe (‘‘small diameter 

pipe’’) from Japan and Romania. The 

Department has conducted expedited 

sunset reviews of these orders. As a 

result of these reviews, the Department 

finds that revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders would likely lead to a 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the margins identified in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Kolberg, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 1, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 

482–1785. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 1, 2011, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

second sunset reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on large 

diameter pipe from Japan and small 

diameter pipe from Japan and Romania 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review, 76 FR 18163 (April 1, 2011). 

The Department received a notice of 

intent to participate in each of these 

reviews from United States Steel 

Corporation (‘‘Petitioner’’), within the 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). Petitioner claimed 

interested party status for each of these 

reviews under section 771(9)(C) of the 

Act, as a manufacturer of the domesticlike product in the United States. 

On May 2, 2011, the Department 

received a complete substantive 

response from Petitioner for each of the 

reviews within the deadline specified in 

19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no 

substantive responses from any 

respondent interested parties. As a 

result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department 

conducted expedited sunset reviews of 

these antidumping duty orders. 

Scope of the Orders 

Large Diameter Pipe From Japan 

The products covered by this order 

are large diameter seamless carbon and 

alloy (other than stainless) steel 

standard, line, and pressure pipes 

produced, or equivalent, to the 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) A–53, ASTM A– 

106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, 

ASTM A–589, ASTM A–795, and the 

American Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) 

5L specifications and meeting the 

physical parameters described below, 

regardless of application. The scope of 

this order also includes all other 

products used in standard, line, or 

pressure pipe applications and meeting 

the physical parameters described 

below, regardless of specification, with 

the exception of the exclusions 

discussed below. Specifically included 

within the scope of this order are 

seamless pipes greater than 4.5 inches 

(114.3 mm) up to and including 16 

inches (406.4 mm) in outside diameter, 

regardless of wall-thickness, 

manufacturing process (hot finished or 

cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, 

beveled end, upset end, threaded, or 

threaded and coupled), or surface finish. 

The seamless pipes subject to this 

order are currently classifiable under 

the subheadings 7304.10.10.30, 

7304.10.10.45, 7304.10.10.60, 

7304.10.50.50, 7304.19.10.30, 

7304.19.10.45, 7304.19.10.60, 

7304.19.50.50, 7304.31.60.10, 

7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.04, 

7304.39.00.06, 7304.39.00.08, 

7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 

7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 

7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 

7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 

7304.39.00.72, 7304.51.50.15, 

7304.51.50.45, 7304.51.50.60, 

7304.59.20.30, 7304.59.20.55, 

7304.59.20.60, 7304.59.20.70, 

7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.30, 

7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 

7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 

7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 

7304.59.80.65, and 7304.59.80.70 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). 

Specifications, Characteristics, and 

Uses: Large diameter seamless pipe is 

used primarily for line applications 

such as oil, gas, or water pipeline, or 

utility distribution systems. Seamless 

pressure pipes are intended for the 

conveyance of water, steam, 

petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, 

natural gas and other liquids and gasses 

in industrial piping systems. They may 

carry these substances at elevated 

pressures and temperatures and may be 

subject to the application of external 

heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure 

pipe meeting the ASTM A–106 standard 

may be used in temperatures of up to 

1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (‘‘ASME’’) code stress levels. 

Alloy pipes made to ASTM A–335 

standard must be used if temperatures 

and stress levels exceed those allowed 

for ASTM A–106. Seamless pressure 

pipes sold in the United States are 

commonly produced to the ASTM A– 

106 standard. Seamless standard pipes 

are most commonly produced to the 

ASTM A–53 specification and generally 

are not intended for high temperature 

service. 

They are intended for the low 

temperature and pressure conveyance of 

water, steam, natural gas, air and other 

liquids and gasses in plumbing and 

heating systems, air conditioning units, 

automatic sprinkler systems, and other 

related uses. Standard pipes (depending 

on type and code) may carry liquids at 

elevated temperatures but must not 

exceed relevant ASME code 

requirements. If exceptionally low 

temperature uses or conditions are 

anticipated, standard pipe may be 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
47556 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Notices 

manufactured to ASTM A–333 or ASTM 

A–334 specifications. 

Seamless line pipes are intended for 

the conveyance of oil and natural gas or 

other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line 

pipes are produced to the API 5L 

specification. Seamless water well pipe 

(ASTM A–589) and seamless galvanized 

pipe for fire protection uses (ASTM A– 

795) are used for the conveyance of 

water. 

Seamless pipes are commonly 

produced and certified to meet ASTM 

A–106, ASTM A–53, API 5L–B, and API 

5L–X42 specifications. To avoid 

maintaining separate production runs 

and separate inventories, manufacturers 

typically triple or quadruple certify the 

pipes by meeting the metallurgical 

requirements and performing the 

required tests pursuant to the respective 

specifications. Since distributors sell the 

vast majority of this product, they can 

thereby maintain a single inventory to 

service all customers. 

The primary application of ASTM A– 

106 pressure pipes and triple or 

quadruple certified pipes in large 

diameters is for use as oil and gas 

distribution lines for commercial 

applications. A more minor application 

for large diameter seamless pipes is for 

use in pressure piping systems by 

refineries, petrochemical plants, and 

chemical plants, as well as in power 

generation plants and in some oil field 

uses (on shore and off shore) such as for 

separator lines, gathering lines and 

metering runs. These applications 

constitute the majority of the market for 

the subject seamless pipes. However, 

ASTM A–106 pipes may be used in 

some boiler applications. 

The scope of this order includes all 

seamless pipe meeting the physical 

parameters described above and 

produced to one of the specifications 

listed above, regardless of application, 

with the exception of the exclusions 

discussed below, whether or not also 

certified to a non-covered specification. 

Standard, line, and pressure 

applications and the above-listed 

specifications are defining 

characteristics of the scope of this 

review. Therefore, seamless pipes 

meeting the physical description above, 

but not produced to the ASTM A–53, 

ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A– 

334, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–795, and 

API 5L specifications shall be covered if 

used in a standard, line, or pressure 

application, with the exception of the 

specific exclusions discussed below. 

For example, there are certain other 

ASTM specifications of pipe which, 

because of overlapping characteristics, 

could potentially be used in ASTM A– 

106 applications. These specifications 

generally include ASTM A–161, ASTM 

A–192, ASTM A–210, ASTM A–252, 

ASTM A–501, ASTM A–523, ASTM A– 

524, and ASTM A–618. When such 

pipes are used in a standard, line, or 

pressure pipe application, such 

products are covered by the scope of 

this order. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

of this order are: A. Boiler tubing and 

mechanical tubing, if such products are 

not produced to ASTM A–53, ASTM A– 

106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, 

ASTM A–589, ASTM A–795, and API 

5L specifications and are not used in 

standard, line, or pressure pipe 

applications. B. Finished and 

unfinished oil country tubular goods 

(‘‘OCTG’’), if covered by the scope of 

another antidumping duty order from 

the same country. If not covered by such 

an OCTG order, finished and unfinished 

OCTG are included in this scope when 

used in standard, line or pressure 

applications. C. Products produced to 

the A–335 specification unless they are 

used in an application that would 

normally utilize ASTM A–53, ASTM A– 

106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, 

ASTM A–589, ASTM A–795, and API 

5L specifications. D. Line and riser pipe 

for deepwater application, i.e., line and 

riser pipe that is (1) Used in a deepwater 

application, which means for use in 

water depths of 1,500 feet or more; (2) 

intended for use in and is actually used 

for a specific deepwater project; (3) 

rated for a specified minimum yield 

strength of not less than 60,000 psi; and 

(4) not identified or certified through 

the use of a monogram, stencil, or 

otherwise marked with an API 

specification (e.g., API 5L). 

With regard to the excluded products 

listed above, the Department will not 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to require end-use 

certification until such time as 

Petitioner or other interested parties 

provide to the Department a reasonable 

basis to believe or suspect that the 

products are being utilized in a covered 

application. If such information is 

provided, we will require end-use 

certification only for the product(s) (or 

specification(s)) for which evidence is 

provided that such products are being 

used in a covered application as 

described above. For example, if, based 

on evidence provided by Petitioner, the 

Department finds a reasonable basis to 

believe or suspect that seamless pipe 

produced to the A–335 specification is 

being used in an A–106 application, we 

will require end-use certifications for 

imports of that specification. Normally 

we will require only the importer of 

record to certify to the end use of the 

imported merchandise. If it later proves 

necessary for adequate implementation, 

we may also require producers who 

export such products to the United 

States to provide such certification on 

invoices accompanying shipments to 

the United States. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

merchandise subject to this scope is 

dispositive. 

Small Diameter Pipe From Japan and 

Romania 

The products covered by these orders 

include small diameter seamless carbon 

and alloy (other than stainless) steel 

standard, line, and pressure pipes and 

redraw hollows produced, or 

equivalent, to the ASTM A–53, ASTM 

A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, 

ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A– 

795, and the API 5L specifications and 

meeting the physical parameters 

described below, regardless of 

application. The scope of these orders 

also includes all products used in 

standard, line, or pressure pipe 

applications and meeting the physical 

parameters described below, regardless 

of specification. Specifically included 

within the scope of these orders are 

seamless pipes and redraw hollows, less 

than or equal to 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) 

in outside diameter, regardless of wallthickness, manufacturing process (hot 

finished or cold-drawn), end finish 

(plain end, beveled end, upset end, 

threaded, or threaded and coupled), or 

surface finish. 

The seamless pipes subject to these 

orders are currently classifiable under 

the subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 

7304.10.50.20, 7304.19.10.20, 

7304.19.50.20, 7304.31.30.00, 

7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 

7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 

7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 

7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 

7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 

7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 

7304.59.80.25 of the HTSUS. 

Specifications, Characteristics, and 

Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are 

intended for the conveyance of water, 

steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil 

products, natural gas and other liquids 

and gasses in industrial piping systems. 

They may carry these substances at 

elevated pressures and temperatures 

and may be subject to the application of 

external heat. Seamless carbon steel 

pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A–106 

standard may be used in temperatures of 

up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at 

various ASME code stress levels. Alloy 

pipes made to ASTM A–335 standard 

must be used if temperatures and stress 

levels exceed those allowed for ASTM 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Notices 47557 

A–106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in 

the United States are commonly 

produced to the ASTM A–106 standard. 

Seamless standard pipes are most 

commonly produced to the ASTM A–53 

specification and generally are not 

intended for high temperature service. 

They are intended for the low 

temperature and pressure conveyance of 

water, steam, natural gas, air and other 

liquids and gasses in plumbing and 

heating systems, air conditioning units, 

automatic sprinkler systems, and other 

related uses. Standard pipes (depending 

on type and code) may carry liquids at 

elevated temperatures but must not 

exceed relevant ASME code 

requirements. If exceptionally low 

temperature uses or conditions are 

anticipated, standard pipe may be 

manufactured to ASTM A–333 or ASTM 

A–334 specifications. 

Seamless line pipes are intended for 

the conveyance of oil and natural gas or 

other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line 

pipes are produced to the API 5L 

specification. 

Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A– 

589) and seamless galvanized pipe for 

fire protection uses (ASTM A–795) are 

used for the conveyance of water. 

Seamless pipes are commonly 

produced and certified to meet ASTM 

A–106, ASTM A–53, API 5L–B, and API 

5L–X42 specifications. To avoid 

maintaining separate production runs 

and separate inventories, manufacturers 

typically triple or quadruple certify the 

pipes by meeting the metallurgical 

requirements and performing the 

required tests pursuant to the respective 

specifications. Since distributors sell the 

vast majority of this product, they can 

thereby maintain a single inventory to 

service all customers. 

The primary application of ASTM A– 

106 pressure pipes and triple or 

quadruple certified pipes is in pressure 

piping systems by refineries, 

petrochemical plants, and chemical 

plants. Other applications are in power 

generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel 

or nuclear), and in some oil field uses 

(on shore and off shore) such as for 

separator lines, gathering lines and 

metering runs. A minor application of 

this product is for use as oil and gas 

distribution lines for commercial 

applications. These applications 

constitute the majority of the market for 

the subject seamless pipes. However, 

ASTM A–106 pipes may be used in 

some boiler applications. 

Redraw hollows are any unfinished 

pipe or ‘‘hollow profiles’’ of carbon or 

alloy steel transformed by hot rolling or 

cold drawing/hydrostatic testing or 

other methods to enable the material to 

be sold under ASTM A–53, ASTM A– 

106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, 

ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A– 

795, and API 5L specifications. 

The scope of these orders includes all 

seamless pipe meeting the physical 

parameters described above and 

produced to one of the specifications 

listed above, regardless of application, 

with the exception of the specific 

exclusions discussed below, and 

whether or not also certified to a noncovered specification. Standard, line, 

and pressure applications and the 

above-listed specifications are defining 

characteristics of the scope of the 

orders. Therefore, seamless pipes 

meeting the physical description above, 

but not produced to the ASTM A–53, 

ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A– 

334, ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, 

ASTM A–795, and API 5L specifications 

shall be covered if used in a standard, 

line, or pressure application, with the 

exception of the specific exclusions 

discussed below. 

For example, there are certain other 

ASTM specifications of pipe which, 

because of overlapping characteristics, 

could potentially be used in ASTM A– 

106 applications. These specifications 

generally include ASTM A–161, ASTM 

A–192, ASTM A–210, ASTM A–252, 

ASTM A–501, ASTM A–523, ASTM A– 

524, and ASTM A–618. When such 

pipes are used in a standard, line, or 

pressure pipe application, such 

products are covered by the scope of 

these orders. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

of these orders are boiler tubing and 

mechanical tubing, if such products are 

not produced to ASTM A–53, ASTM A– 

106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, 

ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A– 

795, and API 5L specifications and are 

not used in standard, line, or pressure 

pipe applications. In addition, finished 

and unfinished OCTG are excluded 

from the scope of these orders, if 

covered by the scope of another 

antidumping duty order from the same 

country. If not covered by such an 

OCTG order, finished and unfinished 

OCTG are included in these scopes 

when used in standard, line or pressure 

applications. 

With regard to the excluded products 

listed above, the Department will not 

instruct CBP to require end-use 

certification until such time as 

Petitioner or other interested parties 

provide to the Department a reasonable 

basis to believe or suspect that the 

products are being used in a covered 

application. If such information is 

provided, we will require end-use 

certification only for the product(s) (or 

specification(s)) for which evidence is 

provided that such products are being 

used in covered applications as 

described above. For example, if, based 

on evidence provided by Petitioner, the 

Department finds a reasonable basis to 

believe or suspect that seamless pipe 

produced to the A–161 specification is 

being used in a standard, line or 

pressure application, we will require 

end-use certifications for imports of that 

specification. Normally we will require 

only the importer of record to certify to 

the end use of the imported 

merchandise. If it later proves necessary 

for adequate implementation, we may 

also require producers who export such 

products to the United States to provide 

such certification on invoices 

accompanying shipments to the United 

States. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

merchandise under these orders is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated concurrently 

with this notice, which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. The issues 

discussed in the Decision Memorandum 

include the likelihood of continuation 

or recurrence of dumping and the 

magnitude of the margins likely to 

prevail if the orders were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in these reviews and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum, which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit in room 

7046 of the main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Internet at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3) 

of the Act, we determine that revocation 

of the antidumping duty order on large 

diameter pipe from Japan and the 

antidumping orders on small diameter 

pipe from Japan and Romania would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the following 

weighted-average percentage margins: 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
47558 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Notices 

Manufacturers/producers/ 

exporters 

Margin 

(percent) 

Large Diameter Pipe from 

Japan: 

Nippon Steel Corporation ........... 107.80 

Kawasaki Steel Corporation ....... 107.80 

Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd .. 107.80 

All Others .................................... 68.88 

Small Diameter Pipe from 

Japan: 

Nippon Steel Corporation ........... 106.07 

Kawasaki Steel Corporation ....... 106.07 

Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd .. 106.07 

All Others .................................... 70.43 

Small Diameter Pipe from Romania: 

Metal Business International 

S.R.L ....................................... 11.08 

S.C. Petrotub S.A ....................... 11.08 

Sota Communication Company .. 15.15 

S.C. Silcotub ............................... 15.15 

All Others .................................... 13.06 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective orders 

is hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

final results and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: July 29, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–19933 Filed 8–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–825] 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip From India: 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review under the 

countervailing duty (CVD) order on 

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet 

and strip (PET Film) from India. This 

review covers one respondent, Ester 

Industries Ltd. (Ester), a producer and 

exporter of PET Film from India. 

We preliminarily determine that Ester 

has benefitted from countervailable 

subsidies provided on the production 

and export of PET Film from India. See 

the ‘‘Preliminary Results of 

Administrative Review’’ section, below. 

If the final results remain the same as 

the preliminary results of this review, 

we intend to instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

countervailing duties. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on the 

preliminary results of this 

administrative review. See the 

‘‘Disclosure and Public Hearing’’ section 

of this notice, below. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 5, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni 

Page or Elfi Blum, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–1398 or (202) 482–0197, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 1, 2002, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

CVD order on PET Film from India. See 

Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip (PET Film) from India, 67 FR 

44179 (July 1, 2002). On July 1, 2010, 

the Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the countervailing duty order 

on PET Film from India covering the 

period January 1, 2009, through 

December 31, 2009 (POR). See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 38074 

(July 1, 2010). The Department received 

a request for review from the petitioners 

(Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi 

Polyester Film, Inc., SKC, Inc., and 

Toray Plastics (America), Inc.) and two 

companies, Ester and SRF Limited. On 

August 31, 2010, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of 

administrative review with respect to 

Ester and SRF Limited. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Deferral of 

Initiation of Administrative Review, 75 

FR 53274 (August 31, 2010). On October 

1, 2010, SRF Limited withdrew its 

request for an administrative review. On 

July 7, 2011, the Department published 

a rescission, in part, with respect to SRF 

Limited. See Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip 

From India: Rescission, in Part, of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 76 FR 39855 (July 7, 2011). 

The Department issued the initial 

questionnaires to the Government of 

India (GOI), Ester, and SRF Limited on 

September 15, 2010. Ester submitted its 

questionnaire response on October 20, 

2010, while the GOI submitted its 

questionnaire response on October 21, 

2010. The Department issued its first 

supplemental questionnaires to the GOI 

and Ester on February 16, 2011. On 

March 11, 2011, Ester submitted its first 

supplemental questionnaire response. 

The GOI filed its first supplemental 

questionnaire response after the 

deadline established by the Department. 

Because the GOI missed the filing 

deadline and did not request a timely 

extension of the filing deadline, the 

Department rejected the GOI’s late filing 

and no further supplemental 

questionnaires have been sent to the 

GOI. The Department issued a second 

supplemental questionnaire to Ester on 

June 16, 2011 and received the 

company’s second supplemental 

questionnaire response on July 5, 2011. 

On March 28, 2011, the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results of the countervailing 

duty administrative review from April 

2, 2011 to August 1, 2011. See 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, 

and Strip From India: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 76 FR 18156 (April 1, 2011). 

On July 20, 2011, petitioners filed prepreliminary comments regarding Ester’s 

data. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the 

countervailing duty order are all gauges 

of raw, pretreated, or primed 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet 

and Strip, whether extruded or 

coextruded. Excluded are metallized 

films and other finished films that have 

had at least one of their surfaces 

modified by the application of a 

performance-enhancing resinous or 

inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 

inches thick. Imports of PET Film are 

currently classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) under item number 

3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes. The written description of the 

scope of the countervailing duty order is 

dispositive. 

Period of Review 

This countervailing duty 

administrative review covers the period


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Contains Business Proprietary Information

APPENDIX B

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

B-1

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and Romania

Inv. Nos. 731-TA-847-849 (Second Review)

On July 5, 2011, the Commission determined to conduct expedited reviews in the subject

five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,

19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(b).

The Commission received a joint response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties United

States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”) and V & M STAR (“V&M”). U.S. Steel is a producer of

small-diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (“CASSLP pipe”), whereas

both U.S. Steel and V&M produce large-diameter CASSLP Pipe. The Commission found this joint

response to the Commission’s notice of institution to be individually adequate for each of the responding

firms. The Commission further determined that the domestic interested party group response was

adequate for each of the orders under review.

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested party in these reviews

and, therefore, determined that the respondent interested party group responses were inadequate for each

of the reviews.

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

any order. The Commission, therefore, determined to conduct expedited reviews of the orders.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and the

Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov).

APPENDIX C

HISTORICAL DATA

Excerpted from:

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

Romania, and South Africa, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-846-850 (Review), USITC Publication 3850

C-1

I-6

Table I-1Small diameter CASSLP pipe: Summary data from the original investigations and current reviews, 1997-2004

Item 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

(Quantity=short tons; value=$1,000; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per short ton)

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount 267,927 226,841 152,502 *** *** *** *** ***Producers’ share1 67.8 54.9 69.3 *** *** *** *** ***

Importer’s share:1

 Czech Republic *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Japan 5.6 15.0 12.3 *** *** *** *** ***Romania *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***South Africa *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal 21.8 35.8 23.8 *** *** *** *** ***

All other countries 10.4 9.4 6.9 *** *** *** *** ***

Total imports 32.2 45.1 30.7 *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. import quantity from–2

Czech Republic *** *** *** 310 11 367 355 1Japan 14,999 34,059 18,709 1,914 909 408 865 79Romania *** *** *** 3,436 16,573 9,182 11,562 18,718South Africa *** *** *** 442 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 58,497 81,121 36,270 6,102 17,492 9,957 12,782 18,798

 Other sources 27,903 21,272 10,586 89,194 85,959 77,021 88,235 124,607

All sources 86,400 102,393 46,856 95,296 103,451 86,977 101,017 143,405

Table continued on next page.
I-7

Table I-1--ContinuedSmall diameter CASSLP pipe: Summary data from the original investigations and current reviews, 1997-2004

Item 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

(Quantity=short tons; value=$1,000; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per short ton)

U.S. producers’--

Capacity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***Production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***Capacity utilization1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments

 Quantity 181,527 124,448 105,646 *** *** *** *** *** Value 136,424 98,243 76,392 *** *** *** *** *** Unit value $752 $789 $723 *** *** *** *** ***

Production and related 

 workers 354 288 303 *** *** *** *** ***

Hours worked (1,000) 711 537 587 *** *** *** *** ***

Net sales $137,275 $100,616 $76,835 $*** $*** $*** $*** $***Operating income $14,601 $6,872 ($10,792) $*** $*** $*** $*** $***Operating income to net 

 sales1 10.6 6.8 (14.0) *** *** *** *** ***

1 In percent.2 In the original investigations, U.S. import data were based on U.S. importer questionnaire responses which staff believed understated U.S. imports from nonsubject

countries. Confidential staff report, May 25, 2000, INV-X-114, p. IV-1, fn. 1. Data for 1997-99 presented in this table represent U.S. shipments of imports, which were used to

calculate market shares in the original investigations.Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.Source: Data for 1997 through 1999 are compiled from information collected in the Commission’s original antidumping duty investigations. See Confidential staff report, May 25,

2000, INV-X-114; see also Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC

Publication 3311, June 2000 and Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Mexico, and Romania, Invs. Nos. 731-TA846, 848, and 849 (Final), USITC Publication 3325, August 2000. Data for 1999-2004 are compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires in the

present reviews and from adjusted official Commerce statistics.
I-8

Table I-2Large diameter CASSLP pipe: Summary data from the original investigations and current reviews, 1997-2004

Item 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

(Quantity=short tons; value=$1,000; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per short ton)

U.S. consumption quantity:

Amount 375,084 365,028 293,151 *** *** *** *** ***

Producers’ share1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Importer’s share:1

Japan 7.7 11.8 17.0 *** *** *** *** ***Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All other countries *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

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

U.S. import quantity from–3

Japan 28,725 42,897 49,727 *** *** *** *** ***Mexico *** *** *** 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All sources *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
I-9

Table I-2--ContinuedLarge diameter CASSLP pipe: Summary data from the original investigations and current reviews, 1997-2004 

Item 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

(Quantity=short tons; value=$1,000; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per short ton)

U.S. producers’--

Capacity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***Production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***Capacity utilization1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments

 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production and related 

 workers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Hours worked (1,000) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Net sales *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***Operating income *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***Operating income to net 

 sales1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

1 In percent.2 Less than 0.05 percent.3 In the original investigations, U.S. import data were based on U.S. importer questionnaire responses which staff believed understated U.S. imports from nonsubject

countries. Confidential staff report, May 25, 2000, INV-X-114, p. IV-1, fn. 1. Data for 1997-99 presented in this table represent U.S. shipments of imports, which were used to

calculate market shares in the original investigations.Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.Source: Data for 1997 through 1999 are compiled from information collected in the Commission’s original antidumping duty investigations. See Confidential staff report, May 25,

2000, INV-X-114; see also Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and South Africa, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-847 and 850 (Final), USITC

Publication 3311, June 2000 and Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Mexico, and Romania, Invs. Nos. 731-TA846, 848, and 849 (Final), USITC Publication 3325, August 2000. Data for 1999-2004 are compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires in the

present reviews and from adjusted official Commerce statistics.