United States of America: Antidumping and countervailing duty investigations against drill pipe imported from China
Description
On December 31, 2009 a coalition of U.S. firms and a labor union filed simultaneous antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) petitions against imports of drill pipe from China. The specific petitioners are VAM Drilling USA, Inc., TMK IPSCO, Texas Conversion Services, Inc., Rotary Drill Tools, and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC. The product in question is related to, but distinct from, the oil country tubular goods that are the focus of a separate trade-remedy investigation (see the Global Trade Alert description of this measure). The United States imported $174.8 million worth of this product from China in 2008, accounting for 41.4% of U.S. imports of the item.
The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) reached a tied (3 to 3) vote in the preliminary injury phase of the investigation on February 12, 2010; under U.S. trade-remedy law, ties are resolved in favor of the affirmative.
On June 8, 2010 the Department of Commerce preliminarily determined that Chinese exporters of drill pipe have received countervailable subsidies of 15.72 percent.August 6, 2010 the Department of Commerce preliminarily determined that Chinese producers/exporters of drill pipe have sold drill pipe in the United States at margins ranging between 0.00 and 429.29 percent.
The last step is the USITC's final injury determination, with a vote scheduled on January 4, 2011. That finding having been affirmative, the Department of Commerce issued an AD order and a CVD order, both of them published on March 3, 2011.
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
| Question | Result |
|---|---|
| Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations? | No |
| Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered? | No |
| Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government? | No |
| Was such evidence identified? | No |
| Is such evidence publicly available? | No |
| Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives? | No |
| Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken? | No |
| Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory? | No |
| Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation? | No |
Date Discovered:
Implemented: Yes
Date of inception: 3 Mar 2011
GTA Evaluation: Red
Source:
The description above is based on information in the public version of the AD/CVD petition. See also the information posted by the USITC at http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/731_ad_701_cvd/investigations/2009/dri....
Government Response:
- 662 reads
