[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 154 (Thursday, August 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41380-41381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-20253]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
C-489-502


Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey; 
Partial Termination of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of partial termination of countervailing duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: On April 25, 1996, in response to requests from the Government 
of Turkey (GOT), Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari A.S. (BBBF), and 
Borusan Ihracat Ithalat ve Dagitim A.S. (Dagitim), the Department of 
Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the 
countervailing duty order on certain carbon steel pipe and tube 
products from Turkey for BBBF and Dagitim, covering the period January 
1, 1995 through December 31, 1995 (61 FR 18378). We are now terminating 
the review for BBBF and Dagitim because the GOT, BBBF, and Dagitim have 
timely withdrawn their requests for a review of these companies.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Albright or Kelly Parkhill, 
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 29, 1996, the Department received a request from the GOT 
for an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on 
certain carbon steel pipe and tube products (including both standard 
pipe and tube and line pipe) from Turkey for the following four 
companies: BBBF, Dagitim, Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii Ve Ticaret A.S. 
(Erbosan), and Mannesman-Sumerbank Boru Endustrisi T.A.S. (Mannesman). 
Also on March 29, 1996, BBBF and Dagitim submitted requests for 
administrative reviews of themselves, respectively. On April 25, 1995, 
the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of 
``Initiation of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,'' initiating 
the reviews of BBBF,

[[Page 41381]]

Dagitim, Erbosan, and Mannesman for the period January 1, 1995 through 
December 31, 1995.
    On June 13, 1996, the GOT, BBBF, and Dagitim collectively withdrew 
their requests for review for BBBF and Dagitim. On July 2, 1996, 
Wheatland Tube Company (Wheatland), a domestic interested party, 
objected to the withdrawal of review requests made by the GOT, BBBF, 
and Dagitim. On July 11, 1996, the GOT, BBBF, and Dagitim submitted 
comments in rebuttal to Wheatland's objection.
    The GOT did not withdraw its request for review for Erbosan and 
Mannesman. Therefore, the Department is continuing its review of those 
companies.
    Analysis: Wheatland argues that the Department should not terminate 
its review of BBBF and Dagitim for a number of reasons. First, 
Wheatland argues that the statute requires investigation of BBBF and 
Dagitim. In support, Wheatland points to 19 U.S.C. 1677f-1(e)(1), which 
states that the Department ``shall determine an individual 
countervailing subsidy rate for each known exporter or producer of the 
subject merchandise.'' Second, Wheatland contends that the Department's 
regulations do not permit partial withdrawal of a review request and 
that the Department should not exercise its discretion to permit 
withdrawal of the requests for review of BBBF and Dagitim. Finally, 
Wheatland points out that it has a strong interest in the conduct of a 
review for BBBF and Dagitim, due to the fact that the two companies 
likely account for a significant portion of subject imports and likely 
benefit from countervailable subsidies. According to Wheatland, the 
Department therefore should not permit the review process to be 
manipulated to exclude these exporters.
    The GOT, BBBF, and Dagitim counter that, pursuant to the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act (URAA), the Department has the authority to limit 
reviews to those exporters and/or producers specified in a request for 
review. The withdrawing parties point to section 355.22(a) of the 
Department's Interim Regulations for support, which reflects the fact 
that there is no longer a preference for calculating a single country-
wide subsidy rate in countervailing duty proceedings, but rather a 
company-specific approach similar to antidumping reviews. Similarly, 
according to the withdrawing parties, section 355.22(a)(5) contemplates 
a withdrawal of request for review that does not include every company 
initially included in the request. The Department reaffirmed this view 
by terminating a review for a portion of the companies for which the 
review was initially requested in Leather Wearing Apparel from Mexico, 
60 FR 53585 (October 16, 1995). Finally, the GOT, BBBF, and Dagitim 
state that Wheatland's assertion that it has a strong interest in this 
review covering all exporters is belied by the fact that Wheatland did 
not request a review.
    The Statement of Administrative Action reads that the presumption 
in favor of a single country-wide CVD rate has been eliminated in favor 
of individual rates for those companies individually investigated. 
Statement of Administrative Action at 271. The Department's Interim 
Regulations have been adapted to reflect this change. Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties, Interim Regulations, 60 FR 25130 (May 11, 1995). 
Indeed, Sec. 355.22(a) makes clear that parties requesting a review 
must specify the producers or exporters to be reviewed. The 
Department's regulations further stipulate that the Secretary may 
permit a party that requests a review to withdraw the request not later 
than 90 days after the date of publication of the notice of initiation 
of the requested review. 19 CFR 355.22(a)(5)(1995).
    In this case, the GOT, BBBF, and Dagitim submitted their withdrawal 
of request for review within the 90-day deadline. Furthermore, with 
respect to the GOT's withdrawal, there is no statutory or regulatory 
suggestion that a request for review of multiple companies can only be 
withdrawn on an all-or-none basis. In fact, Sec. 355.22(a)(5) provides 
for partial termination. Moreover, as pointed out by the withdrawing 
parties, in Leather Wearing Apparel from Mexico the Department accepted 
the Government of Mexico's withdrawal of review for a portion of the 
companies for which a review was originally requested.
    Neither Wheatland nor any other company requested a review for BBBF 
and Dagitim. In addition, no significant work has been completed on 
these reviews and the Department has not been unduly burdened by its 
review of these companies. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we 
are terminating our review for BBBF and Dagitim.
    This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 355.22(a)(5).

    Dated: July 30, 1996.
Jeffrey P. Bialos,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-20253 Filed 8-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P