[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24637-24639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11757]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-791-001]


Final Results of the 1992 Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review; Ferrochrome From South Africa

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of countervailing duty Administrative 
Review.

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

SUMMARY: On December 13, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published in the Federal Register its preliminary results 
of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on 
ferrochrome from South Africa for the period January 1, 1992 through 
December 31, 1992 (see 61 FR 65546) (Preliminary Results). We have 
completed this review and determine the net subsidy to be zero percent 
ad valorem for all companies. The Department will instruct the Customs 
Service to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, all 
shipments of the subject merchandise from South Africa exported on or 
after January 1, 1992, and on or before December 31, 1992.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Thirumalai, Office 1, Group I, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4087.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 13, 1996, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the Preliminary Results. The Department has now completed this 
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the Act).
    We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary 
Results. Respondents Consolidated Metallurgical Industries, Ltd. (CMI), 
Ferralloys Limited (Ferralloys) and Samancor Ltd. (Samancor), producers 
of the subject merchandise which exported ferrochrome to the United 
States during the review period, submitted a case brief on January 22, 
1997. No case brief was submitted by the Macalloy Corporation 
(petitioner).
    This review covers three producers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise

[[Page 24638]]

(CMI, Ferralloys, and Samancor), which account for all exports of the 
subject merchandise to the United States from South Africa, and eight 
programs. One company, Chromecorp Technology (PTY) Ltd. (Chromecorp), 
reported having no exports to the United States during the review 
period; therefore, we did not include Chromecorp in this review (see 
the Preliminary Results).

Applicable Statute

    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 references to the provisions as 
they existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of Review

    The imported product covered by this review is ferrochrome from 
South Africa which is currently classifiable under items 7202.41.00, 
7202.49.10 and 7202.49.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS item numbers are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
of this proceeding remains dispositive.

Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes

    Respondents received countervailable benefits only with respect to 
one program. We weight-averaged the rate received by each company for 
this program, including companies with de minimis and zero rates, by 
that company's share of total exports of ferrochrome to the United 
States (see Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 853 F. Supp. 
431 (CIT 1994)). We then summed the individual companies' weighted-
averaged rates to determine the total subsidy rate benefitting exports 
of subject merchandise to the United States. The benefits received 
under this program were so small (0.003 percent) as to render a zero ad 
valorem subsidy rate, when rounded. Therefore, the total country-wide 
rate is zero percent ad valorem. Since the country-wide rate was zero, 
no further calculations were necessary.

Analysis of Programs

    Based upon our analysis of respondents' questionnaire responses and 
written comments from the interested parties, we determine the 
following:

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Regional Industrial Development Incentives: Subsidy on Housing for 
Key Personnel
    In the Preliminary Results we found that this program conferred 
benefits on the subject merchandise of 0.003 percent which, when 
rounded, gives an ad valorem subsidy rate of zero percent. We received 
no comments by the interested parties. Therefore, we have not changed 
our findings from the Preliminary Results.

II. Programs Found Not To Be Used

    Our analysis of the comments submitted by the interested parties, 
summarized below, has led us to change the status of the following 
program from a program conferring subsidies to a program not used with 
respect to exports of subject merchandise to the United States:
    A. Category A of the EIP (see comment, below).
    In addition, in the Preliminary Results we found that the producers 
and/or exporters of the subject merchandise did not apply for or 
receive benefits under the following programs:
    B. Industrial Development Corporation Loans;
    C. Export Incentive Program, Categories B, C and D;
    D. Regional Industrial Development Incentives;
    (1) Labor Incentive;
    (2) Interest Concession;
    E. Preferential Rail Rates;
    F. Government Loan Guarantees;
    G. Beneficiation Allowances--Electric Power Cost Aid Scheme;
    H. General Export Incentive Scheme;
    I. Rail Transport Rebate on Outgoing Goods (subprogram of the 
Regional Industrial Development Incentives).
    We received no comments regarding these programs from the 
interested parties. Therefore, we have not changed our findings in the 
Preliminary Results.

Analysis of Comments

Comment

    Respondents argue that the Department does not have to rely on GOSA 
oversight in order to achieve the requisite assurance that Category A 
benefits were limited to non-U.S. exports, as required by the GOSA. 
Instead, respondents point out that the Department has other means at 
its disposal with which to assure itself, including the option to 
conduct verification. Respondents also state that the decision to 
require GOSA oversight is contrary to the Department's policy of 
preferring to rely upon primary evidence from respondents above 
secondary evidence from the foreign governments. In addition, according 
to respondents, the decision ignored the evidence already on the record 
which clearly indicated that Category A benefits were tied to non-U.S. 
exports. Nevertheless, should the Department continue to require 
government oversight, the information submitted by respondents should 
demonstrate that there was sufficient GOSA oversight of Category A 
claims to ensure that the allocated benefits were tied solely to 
exports to countries other than the United States.

DOC Response

    We agree with respondents that government oversight of claims under 
a program whose benefits are allocated to exports in general is not 
necessarily required for a determination that the benefits are tied to 
specific markets. However, it is essential that any such tying of 
benefits be done by the government at time of bestowal (see General 
Issues Appendix, Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: 
Certain Steel Products From Austria (58 FR 37217 at 37232 (July 9, 
1993)).
    The record in this case shows that the producers of the subject 
merchandise were required by the GOSA to refrain from claiming Category 
A benefits on exports to the United States. In addition, other 
information on the record, including evidence of GOSA oversight of 
Category A claims, demonstrates sufficiently that the producers did not 
claim or receive benefits on exports to the United States pursuant to 
the GOSA's requirement. Therefore, we determine that the benefits 
received were tied to markets other than the United States at the time 
of bestowal and, accordingly, that Category A was not used with respect 
to exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

Final Results of Review

    For the period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992, we 
determine the net subsidy to be zero percent ad valorem for all 
companies. The Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to 
liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, all shipments of 
subject merchandise exported on or after January 1, 1992 and entered on 
or before December 31, 1992. Because the countervailing duty order was 
revoked effective January 1, 1995 (see Revocation of Countervailing 
Duty Orders (60 FR 40568, August 9, 1995)) pursuant to section 753 of 
the Act, as amended by the Uruguay Round

[[Page 24639]]

Agreements Act, no other instructions will be sent to the U.S. Customs 
Service.
    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 355.34(d). Timely written notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    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: April 29, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-11757 Filed 5-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P