[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24833-24838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11530]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-412-811]
Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From
the United Kingdom; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain hot-
rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products from the United Kingdom.
We have preliminarily determined the net subsidy to be 20.33 percent ad
valorem for Allied Steel and Wire Limited (ASW Limited) and 7.03
percent ad valorem for all other companies for the period September 17,
1992 through December 31, 1992. We have preliminarily determined the
net subsidy to be 20.33 percent ad valorem for ASW Limited, 2.68
percent ad valorem for United Engineering Steels (UES), and 9.76
percent ad valorem for all other companies for the periods January 1,
1993 through January 14, 1993, and March 22, 1993 through December 31,
1993. If the final results remain the same as these preliminary results
of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess
countervailing duties as indicated above.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Mermelstein, Melanie Brown or
Christopher Cassel, Office of Countervailing Compliance, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20230; telephone: (202) 482-2786.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 22, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register
(58 FR 15327) the countervailing duty order on certain hot-rolled lead
and bismuth carbon steel products from the United Kingdom. On March 4,
1994, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an
Administrative Review'' (59 FR 10368) of this countervailing duty
order. We received a timely request for review from UES, a respondent
company.
We initiated the review, covering the period September 17, 1992
through December 31, 1993, on April 15, 1994 (59 FR 18099). The review
covers two manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise and
fifteen programs.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
The Department is conducting this administrative review in
accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act). Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and
to the Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as
they existed on December 31, 1994. However, references to the
Department's Countervailing Duties; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Request for Public Comments, (54 FR 23366; May 31, 1989) (Proposed
Regulations), are provided solely for further explanation of the
Department's countervailing duty practice. Although the Department has
withdrawn the particular rulemaking proceeding pursuant to which the
Proposed Regulations were issued, the subject matter of these
regulations is being considered in connection with an ongoing
rulemaking proceeding which, [[Page 24834]] among other things, is
intended to conform the Department's regulations to the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act. See 60 FR 80; Jan. 3, 1995.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are hot-rolled bars and rods of non-
alloy or other alloy steel, whether or not descaled, containing by
weight 0.03 percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent or more of bismuth,
in coils or cut lengths, and in numerous shapes and sizes. Excluded
from the scope of this review are other alloy steels (as defined by the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72,
note 1 (f)), except steels classified as other alloy steels by reason
of containing by weight 0.4 percent or more of lead or 0.1 percent or
more of bismuth, tellurium, or selenium. Also excluded are semi-
finished steels and flat-rolled products. Most of the products covered
in this review are provided for under subheadings 7213.20.00.00 and
7214.30.00.00 of the HTSUS. Small quantities of these products may also
enter the United States under the following HTSUS subheadings:
7213.31.30.00, 60.00; 7213.39.00.30, 00.60, 00.90; 7214.40.00.10,
00.30, 00.50; 7214.50.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; 7214.60.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;
and 7228.30.80. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and for Customs purposes, our written description of the
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Best Information Available for ASW Limited
During the investigation, ASW Limited, an exporter of the subject
merchandise, withdrew from participation, and consequently received a
rate based entirely on best information available (BIA). Section 776(c)
of the Act requires the Department to use BIA ``whenever a party or any
other person refuses or is unable to produce information requested in a
timely manner and in the form required, or otherwise significantly
impedes an investigation * * *''.
In this review, ASW Limited did not respond to the Department's two
requests for information; therefore, we are assigning ASW Limited a
rate based on BIA. The rate we are applying is 20.33 percent ad
valorem. This rate reflects the rate ASW received in the investigation
(see Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-
Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from the United Kingdom
(58 FR 6237, 6243; January 27, 1993)) (Lead Bar). To this rate we added
the rate calculated for UES in this review for the Inner Urban Areas
Act program, since this program was not examined by the Department
during the investigation.
Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes
For each year, 1992 and 1993, we calculated the net subsidy on a
country-wide basis by first calculating the subsidy rate for each
company subject to the administrative review. We then weight-averaged
the rate received by each company using as the weight the company's
share of total UK exports to the United States of subject merchandise.
To determine the value of ASW's exports based on BIA (see Best
Information Available for ASW Limited, above), we subtracted the value
of UES' exports of subject merchandise to the United States from the
total value of U.S. imports of subject merchandise as reported in the
U.S. IM-146 import statistics.
We then summed the individual companies' weight-averaged rates to
determine the subsidy from all programs benefitting UK exports of
subject merchandise to the United States. Since the country-wide rate
calculated using this methodology was above de minimis, as defined by
19 CFR 355.7, for both 1992 and 1993, we proceeded to the next step and
examined the net subsidy rate calculated for each company to determine
whether individual company rates differed significantly from the
weighted-average country-wide rate, pursuant to 19 CFR 355.22(d)(3).
For 1992, we found that ASW Limited had a significantly different
net subsidy rate; therefore, this company is treated separately for
assessment and cash deposit purposes for the 1992 period. All other
companies are assigned the country-wide rate for this period. For 1993,
we found that both ASW Limited and UES had significantly different net
subsidy rates; therefore these companies are treated separately for
assessment and cash deposit purposes for the 1993 period. All other
companies are assigned the country-wide rate for this period.
Analysis of Programs
I. Programs Preliminarily Determined to Confer Subsidies
A. Allocation of Subsidies From BSC to UES
UES is a joint venture company formed in 1986 by British Steel
Corporation (BSC) and Guest, Keen & Nettlefolds (GKN). In return for
shares in UES, BSC contributed a major portion of its Special Steels
Business and GKN contributed its Brymbo Steel Works and its forging
business. BSC was wholly owned by the Government of the United Kingdom
at the time the joint venture was formed; BSC was privatized in 1988
and now bears the name British Steel plc (BS plc).
In Lead Bar, the Department found that BSC had received a number of
subsidies prior to the 1986 sale of its Special Steels Business to UES.
Further, the Department determined that the sale did not alter the
effect of these previously bestowed subsidies, and thus the portion of
BSC's pre-1986 subsidies which was attributable to the Special Steels
Business productive unit transferred to UES (see Lead Bar at 6240).
However, the Department modified this allocation methodology in the
subsequent Remand Determination for Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth
Carbon Steel Products from the United Kingdom which was based on the
privatization methodology set out in the General Issues Appendix
appended to the Final Countervailing Duty Determination; Certain Steel
Products from Austria (58 FR 37217, 37225; July 9, 1993) (Certain
Steel). In Certain Steel, the Department stated that it can no longer
be assumed that the entire amount of subsidies allocated to a certain
productive unit follows it when it is sold; rather, a portion of the
sales price of the productive unit represents the repayment of prior
subsidies.
To calculate a rate for the subsidies that were allocated from BSC
to UES, we first determined the subsidies attributable to BSC's Special
Steels Business (each of these subsidies to BSC is described in detail
in Sections A(1) through A(4) below). To calculate the subsidies
attributable to BSC's Special Steels Business, we divided the asset
value of BSC's Special Steels Business by the value of BSC's total
assets. We then applied this ratio to the net present value, in the
year of the spin-off, of the future benefit streams from all of BSC's
prior subsidies. The future benefit streams at the time of UES'
creation reflect the Department's allocation over time of prior
subsidies to BSC in accordance with the declining balance methodology
(see section 355.49 of the Department's Proposed Regulations), as well
as the effect of prior spin-offs of BSC productive units.
We next estimated the portion of the purchase price which
represents repayment of prior subsidies by determining the portion of
BSC's net worth that was accounted for by subsidies. To do that, we
divided the face value of the allocable subsidies received by BSC in
each year from fiscal [[Page 24835]] year 1977/78 through fiscal year
1984/85 (the year prior to the creation of UES) by BSC's net worth in
the same year. We calculated a simple average of these ratios, which
was then multiplied by the purchase price of the productive unit. Thus,
we determined the amount of the purchase price which represents
repayment of prior subsidies. This amount was subtracted from the
subsidies attributed to BSC's Special Steels Business at the time of
sale to arrive at the amount of subsidies allocated to UES in 1986.
Having determined the amount of BSC's previously bestowed subsidies
allocable to UES with the Special Steels Business in 1986, we then
determined the benefit provided to UES by these subsidies in 1992 and
in 1993. To do this, we divided the subsidies allocated to UES by the
net present value (in the year of the spin-off) of the future benefit
streams from subsidies received by BSC prior to the spin-off. The
resulting percentage for each year, which represents the portion of
BSC's future benefit streams to be apportioned to UES, was then
multiplied by the total benefit amount from BSC's previously bestowed
subsidies that would have been allocated to BSC in 1992 and 1993 absent
any spin-offs or privatization. This provides the benefits to UES in
1992 and 1993, respectively. We divided these benefit amounts by the
company's total sales in 1992 and 1993, respectively, and preliminarily
determine the net subsidy to be 3.76 percent ad valorem for 1992 and
2.68 percent ad valorem for 1993.
In determining the subsidies previously bestowed to BSC that were
allocated to UES, we examined the following programs: equity infusions,
Regional Development Grants, a National Loan Fund loan cancellation,
and loans and interest rebates under ECSC Article 54.
(1) Equity Infusions
In every year from 1978/79 through 1985/86, BSC received equity
capital from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to
section 18(1) of the Iron and Steel Acts 1975, 1981, and 1982.
According to section 18(1), the Secretary of State for the Department
of Trade and Industry may ``pay to the Corporation (BSC) such funds as
he sees fit.'' The Government of the United Kingdom's equity
investments in BSC were made pursuant to an agreed external financing
limit which was based upon medium-term financial projections. BSC's
performance was monitored by the Government of the United Kingdom on an
ongoing basis and requests for capital were examined on a case-by-case
basis. The UK government did not receive any additional ownership, such
as stock or additional rights, in return for the capital provided to
BSC under section 18(1) since it already owned 100 percent of the
company.
In Lead Bar (58 FR at 6241), the Department found BSC to be
unequityworthy from 1978/79 through 1985/86, and thus determined that
the Government of the United Kingdom's equity infusions were
inconsistent with commercial considerations. Although, prior to the
formation of UES, BSC's section 18(1) equity capital was written off in
two stages (3,000 million in 1981 and 1,000
million in 1982) as part of a capital reconstruction of BSC, the
Department determined that BSC benefitted from these equity infusions,
notwithstanding the subsequent write-off of equity capital. Therefore,
the Department countervailed the equity investments as grants given in
the years the equity capital was received. No new information or
evidence of changed circumstances was presented in this review to
warrant a reconsideration of that finding.
Because the Department determined in Lead Bar that the infusions
are non-recurring benefits, we have allocated the benefits over the
average useful life of renewable physical assets in the steel industry
(15 years) in accordance with our non-recurring grant methodology (see
section 355.49 of the Proposed Regulations; see also Certain Steel at
37230).
While uncreditworthiness was not specifically alleged or
investigated during the investigation on lead bar, in the Final
Countervailing Duty Determination; Certain Steel Products from the
United Kingdom (58 FR 37393; July 9, 1993) (UK Certain Steel), the
Department found that BSC was uncreditworthy from 1977/78 through 1985/
86. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances was
presented in this review to warrant a reconsideration of that finding.
Therefore, to calculate the benefit from these grants, we have used a
discount rate which includes a risk premium (see section
355.44(b)(6)(iv) of the Proposed Regulations).
After calculating the 1992 and 1993 allocation of subsidies from
BSC to UES, as described above (Allocation of Subsidies From BSC to
UES), we divided the subsidies allocated to UES for each year by the
company's total sales of all products domestically-produced during the
respective year. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net
subsidy for this program to be 3.35 percent ad valorem in 1992 and 2.38
percent ad valorem in 1993.
(2) Regional Development Grant Program
Regional development grants were paid to BSC under the Industry Act
of 1972 and the Industrial Development Act of 1982. In order to qualify
for assistance under these two Acts, an applicant had to be engaged in
manufacturing and located in an assisted area. Assisted areas are
older, industrial regions identified as having deep-seated, long-term
problems such as high levels of unemployment, migration, slow economic
growth, derelict land, and obsolete factory buildings.
Regional development grants were given for the purchase of specific
assets. According to the Government of the United Kingdom, the program
involved one-time grants, disbursed sometimes over several years.
BSC received regional development grants during the period between
fiscal years 1978/79 and 1985/86. The Department found this program
countervailable in Lead Bar (58 FR 6242), because it is limited to
specific regions. No new information or evidence of changed
circumstances was presented in this review to warrant a reconsideration
of that finding.
In Lead Bar, we also determined that since each grant requires a
separate application, these grants are non-recurring. Accordingly, we
have calculated the benefits from this program by allocating the
benefits over the average useful life of renewable physical assets in
the steel industry (15 years) in accordance with our non-recurring
grant methodology (see Certain Steel at 37227; see also section 355.49
of the Proposed Regulations). Since BSC was uncreditworthy from 1978/79
through 1985/86 (as discussed under Equity Infusions), we have used a
discount rate which includes a risk premium (see section
355.44(b)(6)(iv) of the Proposed Regulations) to calculate the benefits
from these grants. After calculating the 1992 and 1993 allocation of
subsidies from BSC to UES, described above (Allocation of Subsidies
From BSC to UES), we divided the subsidies allocated to UES for each
year by the company's total sales in the respective year and calculated
the ad valorem benefit for each year. On this basis, we preliminarily
determine the net subsidies for this program to be 0.12 percent ad
valorem for 1992 and 0.08 percent ad valorem for 1993. [[Page 24836]]
(3) National Loan Funds Loan Cancellation
In conjunction with the 1981/1982 capital reconstruction of BSC,
section 3(1) of the Iron and Steel Act of 1981 extinguished certain
National Loans Fund (NLF) loans, as well as the accrued interest
thereon, at the end of BSC's 1980/81 fiscal year. Because this loan
cancellation was provided specifically to BSC, the Department
determined in Lead Bar (58 FR 6242) that it provided a countervailable
benefit. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances was
presented in this review to warrant a reconsideration of that finding.
We calculated the benefit for this review using our standard
methodology for non-recurring grants. We allocated the benefits from
this loan cancellation over the average useful life of renewable
physical assets in the steel industry (15 years) (see section 355.49 of
the Proposed Regulations; see also Certain Steel at 37230); because BSC
was found to be uncreditworthy in 1981/82 (as discussed under Equity
Infusions), we have used a discount rate which includes a risk premium
(see section 355.44(b)(6)(iv) of the Proposed Regulations). After
calculating the 1992 and 1993 allocation of subsidies from BSC to UES,
described above (Allocation of Subsidies From BSC to UES), we divided
the subsidies allocated to UES for each year by the company's total
sales in the respective year and calculated the ad valorem benefit for
each year. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidies
for this program to be 0.29 percent ad valorem for 1992 and 0.22
percent ad valorem for 1993.
(4) European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) Article 54 Loans/Interest
Rebates
The European Coal and Steel Community's (ECSC) Article 54
Industrial Investment loans are direct, long-term loans from the
Commission of the European Communities to be used by the iron and steel
industry for purchasing new equipment or financing modernization. The
purpose of the program is to facilitate the borrowing process for
companies in the ECSC, some of which may not otherwise be able to
obtain loans. In UK Certain Steel, the Department determined that this
program is limited to the iron and steel industry, and thus is
countervailable to the extent that it provides loans on terms
inconsistent with commercial considerations. No new information or
evidence of changed circumstances was presented in this review to
warrant a reconsideration of that finding.
In addition, interest rebates on Article 54 loans were granted to
steel companies during the restructuring and modernization of the
industry in the early 1980s. To qualify for the rebates, companies had
to meet certain criteria, such as being in the process of reducing
their steel production capacity or of implementing improvements in
processing that would yield energy savings and improved efficiency.
The interest rebates, which were limited to a maximum of 3 percent
of the total investment over a period of five years, were funded from
the ECSC operational budget. While levies imposed on ECSC steel
companies have provided the revenues for the operational budget since
1985, contributions by Member States supplemented the budget before
that time. For this reason, the Department determined in UK Certain
Steel that a portion of those interest rebates was countervailable.
Following the same methodology in this review to determine the
countervailable portion, we calculated the ratio of the contributions
by Member States to the ECSC's total available funds for each year in
which the rebates were given, and then multiplied this ratio by the
rebate amount.
BSC received one Article 54 loan in fiscal year 76/77 and two
Article 54 loans in fiscal year 77/78, all of which were provided in
U.S. dollars and are still outstanding. BSC also received interest
rebates during the first five years of the 76/77 loan. Because BSC
qualified for the interest rebate at the time the loan was granted, we
considered the rebate to constitute a reduction in the interest rate
charged rather than a grant.
We considered the loan made to BSC during its creditworthy period
(i.e., in BSC's 76/77 fiscal year) separately from the two loans made
during its uncreditworthy period (i.e., in BSC's 77/78 fiscal year).
For the Article 54 loan provided when BSC was creditworthy, we used as
our benchmark the average U.S. long-term commercial rate for 1977. We
used this rate because we did not have information on U.S. dollar loans
borrowed in the UK in 1977. To calculate the benefit from this loan we
employed our long-term loan methodology (see section 355.49(c)(1) of
the Proposed Regulations). We then compared the amount of interest that
would have been paid on the benchmark loan to the interest paid by BSC
(factoring in the interest rebate as discussed above) and found that
BSC's interest payments were higher than those it would have made on
the benchmark loan. Therefore, we find that this particular loan was
provided on terms consistent with commercial considerations.
For the loans provided when BSC was uncreditworthy, we used as our
benchmark the highest U.S. lending rate available for long-term fixed
rate loans at the time the loan was granted, plus a risk premium equal
to 12 percent of the U.S. prime rate for 1977. See, Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination: New Steel Rail, Except Light Rail,
from Canada (54 FR 31991; August 3, 1989); see also, section
355.44(b)(6)(iv) of the Proposed Regulations. Again, we used a U.S.
interest rate because we did not have information on U.S. dollar loans
borrowed in the UK in 1977. We then compared the cost of the benchmark
financing to the cost of the financing that BSC received under this
program and found that the two Article 54 loans to BSC during its
uncreditworthy period were provided on terms inconsistent with
commercial considerations.
To calculate the benefit from these loans we used our long-term
loan methodology (see section 355.49(c)(1) of the Proposed
Regulations). Using this methodology and a benchmark discount rate
which includes a risk premium (see section 355.44(b)(6)(iv) of the
Proposed Regulations), we calculated the grant equivalent and allocated
it over the life of the loans. Then we calculated the 1992 and 1993
allocation of subsidies from BSC to UES, as described above (Allocation
of Subsidies From BSC to UES). We then divided the subsidies allocated
to UES for each year by the company's total sales in the respective
year to calculate the ad valorem benefit for each year. On this basis,
we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for this program to be
0.0005 percent ad valorem for 1992 and 0.0004 percent ad valorem for
1993.
B. Subsidies Provided to UES
Assistance Under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978
UES received two grants under the Inner Urban Areas Act, one in
1988 and one in 1992. Under this program, the Secretary of State for
the Environment provides grants to 57 local authorities in the United
Kingdom for the improvement of downtrodden urban areas. The Department
of the Environment (DOE) selects these areas based upon census data.
The local authorities submit program plans to the DOE for evaluation.
Assistance is awarded on a discretionary basis depending on the quality
of the proposed scheme and the benefit to the community, by either
creating jobs or [[Page 24837]] improving the environment. Under
Section 5 of the Act, a private company can apply for a grant to be
used for environmental improvement (i.e., beautification of industrial
areas). Approximately 10 percent of the money is given to private
companies.
Because assistance under the Inner Urban Areas Act is awarded only
to local authorities and companies located in selected regions of the
United Kingdom, we conclude that payments under this program are
countervailable (see the Memorandum for Paul L. Joffe from Joseph A.
Spetrini, dated May 3, 1995, Administrative Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Hot-rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon
Steel Products which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099
of the Department of Commerce) (Memorandum). Further, because receipt
of these grants is based on separate applications which have to meet
the required criteria, and consistent with our determinations in
Certain Steel (see 58 FR at 37726-7), we determine these grants to be
non-recurring. Therefore, we have calculated the benefit for the POR
using our standard methodology for non-recurring grants. Both of the
grants received by UES under this program were less than 0.5 percent of
UES Ltd.'s total sales, and thus were allocated to the year of receipt.
On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidies for this
program to be 0.0012 percent ad valorem for 1992 and zero for 1993.
II. Program Preliminarily Determined Not to Confer Subsidies
Article 55 Assistance
UES received Article 55 assistance between 1989 and 1992 for a
project involving multi-oxygen lances. Under Article 55 of the ECSC
Treaty, assistance is made available to ``promote technical and
economic research relating to the production and increased use of coal
and steel and to occupational safety in the coal and steel
industries.'' Since the end of 1986, this program has been funded
solely through levies on steel producing companies.
Because the results of the research conducted under Article 55 are
made publicly available, we find this program to be not countervailable
(see Memorandum). Moreover, we note that to the extent that Article 55
assistance is funded solely by levies on steel companies, we would find
no benefit.
III. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Used
We also examined the following programs and preliminarily determine
that exporters of certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel
products from the United Kingdom did not use them during the review
period (see Memorandum; see also Memorandum For the File, ECSC Article
56(2)(b) from the Team, dated March 3, 1995, which is on file in the
Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce):
(A) New Community Instrument Loans
(B) ECSC Article 54 Loan Guarantees
(C) NLF Loans
(D) ECSC Conversion Loans
(E) European Regional Development Fund Aid
(F) Article 56 Rebates
(G) Regional Selective Assistance
(H) ECSC Article 56(b)(2) Redeployment Aid
(I) BRITE/EuRAM II
Preliminary Results of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR 355.22(b)(1), an administrative review
``normally will cover entries or exports of merchandise during the most
recently completed reporting year of the government of the affected
country.'' However, because this is the first administrative review of
this countervailing duty order, in accordance with 19 CFR
Sec. 355.22(b)(2), it covers the period, and the corresponding entries,
``from the date of suspension of liquidation * * * to the end of the
most recently completed reporting year of the government of the
affected country.'' This period is September 17, 1992 through December
31, 1993. Because the reporting year of the Government of the United
Kingdom is the calendar year, we calculated a separate net subsidy for
each year, 1992 and 1993.
Furthermore, during the 1993 calendar year, certain entries were
not subject to suspension of liquidation. The Department issued its
preliminary affirmative countervailing duty determination in the
investigation on September 17, 1992 (57 FR 42974). On October 16, 1992,
in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), we aligned the final determination with the final
determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation of the
same merchandise (57 FR 48020; October 21, 1992). On November 6, 1992,
at the request of respondents, we postponed both final determinations
until January 11, 1993 (57 FR 53691; November 12, 1992), and on January
11, 1993, we postponed for a second time both determinations until
January 19, 1993 (58 FR 4981; January 19, 1993).
Pursuant to section 705 of the Act and Article 5.3 of the GATT
Subsidies Code, we cannot require suspension of liquidation for more
than 120 days without the issuance of a countervailing duty order.
Therefore, the Department instructed Customs to terminate the
suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 15, 1993.
The Department reinstated suspension of liquidation and required cash
deposits of estimated countervailing duties of entries made on or after
March 22, 1993, the date of the publication of the countervailing duty
order. Merchandise entered on or after January 15, 1993 and before
March 22, 1993 is to be liquidated without regard to countervailing
duties.
For the period September 17, 1992 through December 31, 1992, we
preliminarily determine the net subsidy to be 20.33 percent ad valorem
for ASW Limited and 7.03 percent ad valorem for all other companies.
For the periods January 1, 1993 through January 14, 1993, and March 22,
1993 through December 31, 1993, we preliminarily determine the net
subsidy to be 20.33 percent ad valorem for ASW Limited, 2.68 percent ad
valorem for United Engineering Steels (UES), and 9.76 percent ad
valorem for all other companies.
If the final results of this review remain the same as these
preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct the Customs
Service to assess the following countervailing duties:
[[Page 24838]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate
Period Company (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 17, 1992- ASW Limited...................... 20.33
December 31, 1992.
All other companies.............. 7.03
January 1, 1993-January ASW Limited...................... 20.33
14, 1993.
UES.............................. 2.68
All other companies.............. 9.76
March 22, 1993-December ASW Limited...................... 20.33
31, 1993.
UES.............................. 2.68
All other companies.............. 9.76
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also intends to instruct the Customs Service to
collect a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties of 20.33
percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject
merchandise from ASW Limited, 2.68 percent of the f.o.b. invoice price
on all shipments of the subject merchandise from UES, and 9.76 percent
of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise
from all other companies, except Glynwed (which was excluded from the
order during the original investigation), entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the
final results of this review.
Interested parties may request disclosure of the calculation
methodology and may request a hearing within 10 days of the date of
publication. Case briefs or other written comments from interested
parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal comments,
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later
than 37 days after the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested,
will be held seven days after the scheduled date for submission of
rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be
served on interested parties in accordance with section 355.38(e) of
the Commerce regulations.
Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure
of proprietary information under administrative protective order no
later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer
becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date
the case briefs, under section 355.38(c), are due.
The Department will publish the final results of this
administrative review including the results of its analysis of issues
raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 355.22.
Dated: May 3, 1995.
Paul L. Joffe,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-11530 Filed 5-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P