The US International Trade Commission has voted to expedite its five year review concerning the antidumping duty order on certain seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe from Germany (Inv. No. 731-TA-709 (Third Review)).

As a result of this vote, US ITC will conduct an expedited review to determine whether revocation of this order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires the Department of Commerce to revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, or terminate a suspension agreement, after five years unless the Department of Commerce and the US ITC determine that revoking the order or terminating the suspension agreement would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidies (Commerce) and of material injury (US ITC) within a reasonably foreseeable time.

The Commission's notice of institution in five year reviews requests that interested parties file with the Commission responses that discuss the likely effects of revoking the order under review and provide other pertinent information. Generally within 95 days from institution, the Commission will determine whether the responses it has received reflect an adequate or inadequate level of interest in a full review. If responses to the US ITC's notice of institution are adequate, or if other circumstances warrant a full review, the Commission conducts a full review, which includes a public hearing and issuance of questionnaires.

The Commission generally does not hold a hearing or conduct further investigative activities in expedited reviews. Commissioners base their injury determinations in expedited reviews on the facts available, including the Commission's prior injury and review determinations, responses received to its notice of institution, data collected by staff in connection with the reviews, and information provided by the Department of Commerce.

All six Commissioners concluded that the domestic group response for this review was adequate and the respondent group response was inadequate and voted for an expedited review.