[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12518]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-351-818; C-201-810; C-412-815]


Notice of Court Decision: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate From Brazil, Mexico, and the United Kingdom

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Court Decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On April 2, 1996, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) affirmed the remand determinations made by the Department 
of Commerce (the Department) that the privatizations of Usinas 
Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais (USIMINAS), Altos Hornos de Mexico 
(AHMSA), and British Steel plc (BS plc), respectively, were sales of 
shares, and that the privatized entities continued to be, for all 
intents and purposes, the same entities that had received the subsidies 
prior to privatization. British Steel Plc. et al. v. United States, 
Slip Op. 96-6011 (British Steel II). In so doing, the Court implicitly 
rejected the Department's ``repayment'' methodology set forth in the 
privatization portion of its General Issues Appendix, which is appended 
to the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain 
Steel Products from Austria, 58 FR 37217, 37259 (July 9, 1993).

EFFECTIVE DATE:May 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy A. Malmrose, Office of 
Countervailing Investigations, or Brian Albright, 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-
5414 and (202) 482-2786 respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In its Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determinations: Certain Steel Products from Brazil, 58 FR 37295 (July 
9, 1993), Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain 
Steel Products From Mexico 58 FR 37352 (July 9, 1993), and Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Certain Steel Products 
From the United Kingdom, 58 FR 37393 (July 9, 1993), the Department 
determined that subsidies provided to certain steel producers remained 
countervailable after those firms were privatized. The rationale for 
the Department's determinations was that the countervailing duty law 
does not require, as a prerequisite for countervailability, that a 
subsidy bestowed on a producer confer a demonstrable ``competitive 
benefit'' on that producer. However, the Department also determined 
that a portion of the sales prices for USIMINAS, AHMSA, and BS plc, 
respectively, represented partial repayment of prior subsidies. The 
Department's privatization methodology was fully set forth in the 
General Issues Appendix.
    On February 9, 1995, the CIT held that the Department's 
privatization methodology was unlawful, and remanded the determinations 
in question. British Steel plc et al. v. United States, 879 F. Supp. 
1254. In accordance with the CIT's instructions, the Department 
reexamined the privatization transactions in question. The Department 
found that USIMINAS, AHMSA, and BS plc were privatized through sales of 
shares, and that the privatized entities continued to be, for all 
intents and purposes, the same entities that had received the subsidies 
prior to privatization. On this basis, and in accordance with the CIT's 
instructions, the Department determined that the pre-privatization 
subsidies remained countervailable in full. The Department did not 
attribute any portion of the sales price for any of the producers to a 
partial repayment of prior subsidies.
    On April 2, 1996, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand 
determination. British Steel II. In so doing, the Court implicitly 
rejected the ``repayment'' aspect of the Department's privatization 
methodology, as set forth in the General Issues Appendix.
    In its decision in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. 
Cir. 1990), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
held that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. section 1516a(e), the Department must 
publish a notice of a court decision which is not ``in harmony'' with a 
Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries 
pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's decision in British 
Steel II on April 2, 1996, constitutes a decision not in harmony with 
the Departments final affirmative determinations. Publication of this 
notice fulfills the Timken requirement.
    Accordingly, the Department will continue to suspend liquidation 
pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or, if appealed, until 
a ``conclusive'' court decision.

    Dated: May 9, 1996.
Paul L. Joffe,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-12518 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P