he United States International Trade Commission (USITC) today determined that a U.S. industry is materially injured by reason of imports of carbon and alloy steel threaded rod from Thailand that the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) has determined are sold in the United States at less than fair value.

Chairman David S. Johanson and Commissioners Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Jason E. Kearns, Randolph J. Stayin, and Amy A. Karpel voted in the affirmative.

As a result of the USITC’s affirmative determination, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order on imports of this product from Thailand. 

The Commission also made a negative finding concerning critical circumstances with regard to imports of this product from Thailand.  As a result, imports of carbon and alloy steel threaded rod from Thailand will not be subject to retroactive antidumping duties.

The Commission’s public report Carbon and Alloy Steel Threaded Rod from Thailand (Inv. No. 731-TA-1440 (Final), USITC Publication 4998, December 2019) will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the investigation.

The report will be available by December 26, 2019; when available, it may be accessed on the USITC website at: http://pubapps.usitc.gov/applications/publogs/qry_publication_loglist.asp.

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20436

FACTUAL HIGHLIGHTS

Carbon and Alloy Steel Threaded Rod from Thailand

Investigation No. 731-TA-1444 (Final)

Product Description:  Threaded rod is generally threaded along its entire length and is produced from low carbon, medium carbon, or alloy steel wire rod or bar. It is used primarily in commercial (non-residential) construction to suspend electrical conduits; pipes for plumbing; heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) ductwork; and sprinkler systems for fire protection, among other applications. Threaded rod can also be used as a headless screw in general fastener applications or for bolting together pipe joints.

Status of Proceedings:

1. Type of investigation:  Final phase antidumping duty investigation.
2.  Petitioner:  Vulcan Threaded Products, Inc., Pelham, Alabama.
3. USITC Institution Date:  Thursday, February 21, 2019.
4. USITC Hearing Date:  Tuesday, October 15, 2019.
5. USITC Vote Date:  Friday, November 15, 2019.
6. USITC Notification to Commerce Date:  Thursday, December 5, 2019.

U.S. Industry in 2018:

1. Number of U.S. producers:  10.
2. Location of producers’ plants:  Alabama, California, Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
3. Production and related workers:  330.
4. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments:  $122.6 million.
5. Apparent U.S. consumption:  $443.9 million.
6. Ratio of subject imports to apparent U.S. consumption:  48.8 percent.

U.S. Imports in 2018:

1. Subject imports:  $216.5 million.
2. Nonsubject imports:  $104.7 million.
3. Leading import sources:  China, India, Taiwan, and Thailand.

The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) today determined that a U.S. industry is materially injured by reason of imports of acetone from Singapore and Spain that the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) has determined are sold in the United States at less than fair value.

Chairman David S. Johanson and Commissioners Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Jason E. Kearns, Randolph J. Stayin, and Amy A. Karpel voted in the affirmative.

As a result of the USITC’s affirmative determinations, Commerce will issue antidumping duty orders on imports of this product from Singapore and Spain. 

The Commission’s public report Acetone from Singapore and Spain (Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1438 and 1440 (Final), USITC Publication 4997, November 2019) will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the investigations.

The report will be available by December 20, 2019; when available, it may be accessed on the USITC website at: http://pubapps.usitc.gov/applications/publogs/qry_publication_loglist.asp.

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20436

FACTUAL HIGHLIGHTS

Acetone from Singapore and Spain

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1438 and 1440 (Final)

Product Description:  Acetone, also known as dimethyl ketone, propan-2-one, or 2-propanone, among other names, is an organic chemical with the formula (CH₃)₂CO.  The Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number for acetone is 67–64–1. Commercial production of acetone uses traditional chemical synthesis. Available in various grades, acetone is used both as a chemical intermediate in the production of other chemicals (e.g., plastics and pharmaceuticals) and as a solvent. Acetone is a clear colorless liquid with a sweet odor.

Status of Proceedings:

1. Type of investigations:  Final phase antidumping duty.
2. Petitioners:  AdvanSix Inc., Parsippany, New Jersey; Altivia Petrochemicals, LLC, Haverhill, Ohio; and Olin Corporation, Clayton, Missouri.
3. USITC Institution Date:  Tuesday, February 19, 2019.
4. USITC Hearing Date:  Monday, October 21, 2019.
5. USITC Vote Date: Thursday, November 14, 2019.
6. USITC Notification to Commerce Date:  November 29, 2019.

U.S. Industry in 2018:

1. Number of U.S. producers:  8.
2. Location of producers’ plants:  Alabama, Indiana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia.
3. Production and related workers: 608.  
4. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments: $1.0 billion.
5. Apparent U.S. consumption: $1.2 billion.
6. Ratio of subject imports to apparent consumption from Singapore and Spain (percent):  2.3.

U.S. Imports in 2018:

1. U.S. imports from Belgium, Korea, and South Africa: $148.7 million.
2. U.S. imports from Singapore and Spain: $28.2 million.
3. U.S. imports from all other sources: $11.1 million.
4. Leading import sources: Belgium, Korea, Singapore, South Africa, and Spain.

The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) today determined that there is a reasonable indication that a U.S. industry is materially injured by reason of imports of forged steel fittings from China, Italy, and Taiwan that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the government of China.  

Chairman Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Vice Chairman David S. Johanson, and Commissioners Irving A. Williamson and Meredith M. Broadbent voted in the affirmative. 

As a result of the Commission’s affirmative determinations, the U.S. Department of Commerce will continue with its antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, with its preliminary countervailing duty determination due on or about December 29, 2017, and its antidumping duty determinations due on or about March 14, 2018.

The Commission’s public report Forged Steel Fittings from China, Italy, and Taiwan (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-589 and 731-TA-1394-1396 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4743, November 2017) will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the investigations.

The report will be available after December 19, 2017; when available, it may be accessed on the USITC website at:  http://pubapps.usitc.gov/applications/publogs/qry_publication_loglist.asp.

U.S. exports to and investment in India would be significantly higher if not for Indian policy barriers, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) in its report Trade, Investment, and Industrial Policies in India: Effects on the U.S. Economy.

The USITC, an independent, nonpartisan, factfinding federal agency, prepared the report at the request  of the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance.

As requested, the report provides information on the effects of a wide range of Indian policies that limit U.S. exports to and investment in India.  These policy measures include tariffs and customs procedures, foreign direct investment restrictions, local-content requirements, treatment of intellectual property, taxes and financial regulations, regulatory uncertainty, and other nontariff measures, such as unclear legal liability, price controls, and sanitary and phytosanitary standards.

The report features the results of a USITC survey of U.S. firms in selected industries that are currently doing business in India, a quantitative analysis (using economic modeling) of the effects of Indian policy measures on U.S. workers and the U.S. economy, and qualitative research into these effects.  It also includes case studies and examples illustrating ways that the policies affect particular companies or industries.  Highlights follow.

• The share of U.S. companies substantially adversely affected by restrictive Indian policies rose from 18.8 percent to 26.1 percent between 2007 and 2013.  Shares for individual sectors in 2013 ranged from 7.7 percent to 44.1 percent.  [Read More]
• Over 60 percent of the affected companies have made strategic changes in response to these barriers, most often directing fewer resources to the Indian market.  [Read More]
• Policies in two areas – tariffs and customs procedures, and taxes and financial regulations – have the heaviest effects on U.S. companies.  Other issues, including investment and intellectual property policies, have large negative effects on specific industries.  [Read More]
• If tariff and investment restrictions were fully eliminated and standards of IP protection were made comparable to U.S. and Western European levels, Commission model results indicate that U.S. exports to India would rise by two-thirds, and U.S. investment in India would roughly double.  [ReadMore]
• Seven case studies highlight the effects of particular policies on selected U.S. companies or industries.  They describe:

• the effects of certain duties on the wine and spirits industry;
• the effects of recent patent decisions on the pharmaceutical industry;
• the need to find new strategies to combat piracy in the content and media sector;
• barriers to expanding local manufacturing in information and communication technology,  which increase the costs for U.S. companies to access the Indian government procurement market;
• changes in business practices in response to restrictions on e-commerce;
• recent policies that have constrained U.S. exports of certain medical devices; and
• deterioration in the policy environment governing clinical research trials, which  has led to a decline in clinical research activity in India.