ITC Correctly Calculated Negligibility in Pipe Injury Investigation, Commission and Intervenors Say

Imports of seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe from Russia were not negligible, argued the ITC and defendant-intevenors U.S. Steel and Vallourec Star in two separate responses to a proposed remand order by Russian importer TMK (PAO TMK v. United States, CIT # 21-00532).

TMK is seeking review of the ITC's final affirmative determination that a domestic industry is materially injured by imports of seamless standard, line and pressure pipe from Russia allegedly sold at less than fair value and subsidized by the Russian government (Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Czech Republic, ITC Inv. No. 731-TA-1529). TMK argued the ITC mistakenly found the volume of subject imports from Russia exceeded the negligibility threshold and didn't end the investigation with respect to Russia (see 2207250047).

TMK submitted a proposed remand order Jan. 12 requesting the court order the ITC to reconsider its calculation on imports of domestic like products and its calculation of in-scope imports from Germany and Mexico, and conduct its own analysis of whether proprietary or foreign specifications were out-of-scope merchandise.

In their Feb. 9 response, U.S. Steel and Vallourec argued the ITC was constrained by the data available to it at the time. Congress "explicitly permitted the Commission to rely on reasonable estimates on the basis of available statistics for its negligibility determinations," U.S. Steel and Vallourec said. ITC argued similarly in its own Feb. 9 response, adding that "a remand requiring uniform use of unadjusted official import statistics ... would be futile" as using those statistics would show that "imports from Russia would continue to exceed the negligibility threshold."

Both the ITC and the defendant-intervenors said the commission relied on the best available statistics for each country to reach reasonable estimates, and TMK pays "lip service" to the substantial evidence standard while "essentially ordering the Commission to reweigh the evidence." The ITC is not required to have a "uniform methodology" as argued by TMK, "because of different facts concerning each importer." The defendant-intervenors also argued the commission did analyze whether certain proprietary and foreign specifications were outside the scope and chose not to accept importers' claims because of various discrepancies.