[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43984-43993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21828]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-489-502]


Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes and Welded Carbon 
Steel Line Pipe From Turkey; Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative 
reviews.

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

SUMMARY: On April 8, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register its preliminary results of 
administrative reviews of the countervailing duty orders on certain 
welded carbon steel pipes and tubes and welded carbon steel line pipe 
from Turkey for the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995. 
The Department has now completed these administrative reviews in 
accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. 
For information on the net subsidy for each reviewed company, and for 
all non-reviewed companies, please see the Final Results of Reviews 
section of this notice. We will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to 
assess countervailing duties as detailed in the Final Results of 
Reviews section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 18, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Kelly Parkhill, 
Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-3692 or (202) 482-2786.

[[Page 43985]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Sec. 355.22(a), the review on pipe and tube 
covers Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S. (Erbosan), a pipe and tube 
producer and exporter, who specifically requested the review. The 
review on line pipe covers Mannesmann-Sumerbank Boru Endustrisi T.A.S. 
(Mannesmann), a line pipe producer and exporter, who specifically 
requested the review. These reviews also cover 28 programs.
    Since the publication of the preliminary results on April 8, 1997 
(62 FR 16782), the following events have occurred. We invited 
interested parties to comment on the preliminary results. On May 8, 
1997, a case brief was submitted by the Government of Turkey (GRT), 
Mannesmann, which exported line pipe, and Erbosan, which exported pipe 
and tube to the United States during the review period (respondents). 
On May 15, 1997, rebuttal briefs were submitted by Mannesmann and by 
Wheatland Tube Company (petitioner).

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) effective January 1, 1995 (the 
Act). Citations to the Department's regulations are in reference to 
those regulations codified at 19 CFR part 355, as they existed on April 
1, 1996. The Department is conducting these administrative reviews in 
accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.

Scope of the Reviews

    Imports covered by these reviews are shipments from Turkey of two 
classes or kinds of merchandise. The first class or kind is certain 
welded carbon steel pipe and tube, having an outside diameter of 0.375 
inch or more, but not over 16 inches, of any wall thickness. These 
products, commonly referred to in the industry as standard pipe and 
tube or structural tubing, are produced to various American Society for 
Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications, most notably A-53, A-120, 
A-135, A-500, or A-501. The second class or kind is certain welded 
carbon steel line pipe with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more, 
but not over 16 inches, and with a wall thickness of not less than .065 
inch. These products are produced to various American Petroleum 
Institute (API) specifications for line pipe, most notably API-L or 
API-LX. These products are classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7306.30.10 and 
7306.30.50. The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

Verification

    We verified information provided by the GRT, Erbosan and 
Mannesmann, as provided in section 782(i) of the Act. We followed 
standard verification procedures, including meeting with government and 
company officials, and examining relevant accounting and other original 
source documents. Our verification results are outlined in the public 
versions of the verification reports, which are on file in the Central 
Records Unit (Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building).

Analysis of Programs

    Based upon the responses to our questionnaire, the results of 
verification, and written comments from the interested parties we 
determine the following:

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Program Previously Determined To Confer Subsidies

Pre-Shipment Export Credit
    In the preliminary results, we found that this program conferred a 
countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise. Our review of the 
record and our analysis of the comments submitted by the interested 
parties, summarized below, has not led us to change our findings from 
the preliminary results. Accordingly, the net subsidies for this 
program remain unchanged from the preliminary results and are as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Assessment
           Manufacturer/exporter of pipe and tube                rate   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erbosan....................................................        1.77%
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Assessment
             Manufacturer/exporter of line pipe                  rate   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mannesmann.................................................        0.73%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. New Programs Determined to Confer Subsidies

1. Investment Allowance
    In the preliminary results, we found that this program conferred a 
countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise. Our analysis of the 
comments submitted by the interested parties, summarized below, has not 
led us to change our findings from the preliminary results. 
Accordingly, the net subsidies for this program remain unchanged from 
the preliminary results and are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Assessment
           Manufacturer/exporter of pipe and tube                rate   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erbosan....................................................        0.02%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Freight Program
    In the preliminary results, we found that this program conferred a 
countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise. Our analysis of the 
comments submitted by the interested parties, summarized below, has not 
led us to change our findings from the preliminary results. 
Accordingly, the net subsidies for this program remain unchanged from 
the preliminary results and are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Assessment
           Manufacturer/exporter of pipe and tube                rate   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erbosan....................................................        1.02%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Resource Utilization Support Premium
    In the preliminary results, we found that this program conferred a 
countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise. Our analysis of the 
comments submitted by the interested parties, summarized below, has not 
led us to change our findings from the preliminary results. 
Accordingly, the net subsidies for this program remain unchanged from 
the preliminary results and are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Assessment
           Manufacturer/exporter of pipe and tube                rate   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erbosan....................................................        0.05%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Export Incentive Certificate Customs Duty and Other Tax Exemptions
    In the preliminary results, we found that this program conferred a 
countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise. We did not receive 
any comments on this program from the interested parties. Accordingly, 
the net subsidies for this program remain unchanged from the 
preliminary results and are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Assessment
           Manufacturer/exporter of pipe and tube                rate   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erbosan....................................................        0.06%
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Assessment
             Manufacturer/exporter of line pipe                  rate   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mannesmann.................................................        0.02%
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 43986]]

5. Foreign Exchange Loan Assistance
    In the preliminary results, we found that this program conferred a 
countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise. Our analysis of the 
comments submitted by the interested parties, summarized below, has led 
us to modify our findings from the preliminary results for this 
program. Accordingly, the net subsidies for this program have changed 
and are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Assessment
           Manufacturer/exporter of pipe and tube                rate   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erbosan....................................................        1.10%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Programs Found To Be Not Used

    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:

A. Resource Utilization Support Fund
B. State Aid for Exports
C. Advance Refunds of Tax Savings
D. Export Credit Through the Foreign Trade Corporate Companies 
Rediscount Credit Facility (Eximbank)
E. Past Performance Related Foreign Currency Export Loans (Eximbank)
F. Export Credit Insurance (Eximbank)
G. Subsidized Turkish Lira Credit Facilities
H. Subsidized Credit for Proportion of Fixed Expenditures
I. Fund Based Credit
J. Regional Subsidies
    1. Additional Refunds of VAT (VAT +10%)
    2. Postponement of VAT on Imported Goods
    3. Incentive Premium on domestically Obtained Goods (Rebate of VAT 
on Domestically-Sourced Machinery and Equipment)
    4. Land Allocation (GIP)
    5. Taxes, Fees (Duties), Charge Exemption (GIP)

    Our analysis of the comments submitted by the interested parties, 
summarized below, has not led us to change our findings from the 
preliminary results for the programs noted above.

III. Programs Found To Be Terminated

    In the preliminary results, we found that the following programs 
either never existed or were terminated and that no residual benefits 
were being provided:

A. Export Performance Credits
B. Deduction from Taxable Income for Export Revenues
C. Preferential Export Financing Under Decree 84/8861
D. Interest Spread Return Program (GIP)
E. Export Credits Under Communique No. 1
F. Corporate Tax Deferral
G. Payment of Certain Obligations of Firms Undertaking Large 
Investments
H. Subsidized Credit in Foreign Currency

    We did not receive any comments on these programs from the 
interested parties. Accordingly, the final results remain unchanged 
from the preliminary results.

Analysis of Comments

    Comment 1: Erbosan argues that the Department incorrectly found 
that the pre-shipment loan program is an untied export loan program. In 
Erbosan's view, the Department's decision was based on a finding that 
the loans are not specifically tied to a particular destination at the 
time the loans are approved. However, Erbosan maintains that the loans 
can be tied to particular destinations because proof of export must be 
provided in order to close out the loan. Once an export is used to 
close a loan it cannot be used to satisfy any other loan commitments.
    According to Erbosan, it is the Department's long-standing policy 
to countervail pre-shipment loans obtained in connection with shipments 
to the United States if the loan can be tied to specific shipments. For 
example, in Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: 
Certain Pasta from Turkey, 61 FR 30366 (June 14, 1996) (Turkish Pasta), 
the Department found that these same pre-shipment loans could be linked 
to particular destinations. Erbosan also alleges that the Department 
took the same course regarding BANCOMEXT loans in Preliminary Results 
of Administrative Review: Certain Textile Mill Products from Mexico, 60 
FR 5166 (January 26, 1995) and Final Results of Administrative Review: 
Certain Textile Mill Products from Mexico, 60 FR 20965 (April 28, 1995) 
(Textile Mill Products from Mexico). In this case, however, Erbosan 
argues that the Department departed from past practice and modified its 
test in this review by looking to see whether the destination is known 
at the time the loan is approved. Erbosan asserts that it makes no 
sense to link the benefit to the approval date since the benefit does 
not accrue from this program until the merchandise is shipped and the 
loan, with interest, is repaid. Erbosan continues that parties must be 
able to rely on the Department's past practice for purposes of being 
able to plan for the future. The Department's departure in this case, 
therefore, is not only unjustified, it is unreasonable.
    Mannesmann does not agree with Erbosan's position and supports the 
Department's determination that the loans under the pre-shipment 
program are ``untied.'' Mannesmann points out that Erbosan does not 
take issue with the factual basis of the Department's determination. 
Namely, that the export destinations actually used to close the loans 
may be different than the export destinations listed on the loan 
application. Accordingly, Mannesmann maintains that the destinations 
listed on the loan application are nothing more than ``place-holders'' 
since the actual destinations used to fulfill the export requirement 
may differ. For this reason, the Department appropriately found the 
pre-shipment loans ``untied.'' Mannesmann states that Erbosan is 
correct to say that, when loans are tied to specific destinations, the 
Department countervails only loans that are tied to U.S. shipments. 
However, in this case, the Department specifically found that the loans 
were not tied to specific destinations because they were not tied at 
the time of application. Although the Department found these loans tied 
in Turkish Pasta, Mannesmann asserts that nowhere in that case does the 
Department discuss the fact that loans were not tied to destinations at 
the time of application, presumably because the Department was unaware 
of that fact.
    Mannesmann also argues that the Department has not departed from 
past practice; the Department's practice was and is to tie U.S. loans 
to U.S. shipments where possible. In this case, the Department found 
that it was not possible to make that link because the destination that 
would ultimately be used to fulfill the export requirement was not 
known at the time of the loan application. According to Mannesmann, the 
Department has ``modified its test'' only to the extent that it 
addressed a fact pattern that it had not encountered before (or not 
been aware of before).
    Finally, Mannesmann states that Erbosan is incorrect to assert that 
the benefits of pre-shipment export loans do not accrue until the 
merchandise is shipped and the loan repaid. These loans are designed to 
assist companies during the manufacturing stage, prior to shipment--
hence the name, ``pre-shipment'' loans. Mannesmann asserts that during 
the period that the manufacturer benefits from the loans, the 
manufacturer does not need to specify the export destination and, thus, 
the Department's determination that these loans are untied is logical 
and reasonable and should be sustained in the final results.
    The petitioner argues that the Department should reaffirm its 
position

[[Page 43987]]

that pre-shipment export loans are untied. According to the petitioner, 
the pre-shipment loans purportedly received in connection with exports 
to the U.S. cannot validly be segregated by export destination. The 
petitioner claims that Erbosan's own records demonstrate that pre-
shipment export loans are granted to cover exports to all countries, 
and numerous exports to different destinations may be required to equal 
the export loan commitment. Thus, by Erbosan's own admission, the loans 
were not received in connection with exports to the United States as 
opposed to other export destinations. Since Erbosan can use any exports 
it chooses to close out a pre-shipment export loan, any identification 
of loans by Erbosan as specifically tied to U.S. sales would be an 
artificial construct subject to manipulation.
    Department's Position: We disagree with Erbosan, and continue to 
believe that the pre-shipment loan program is an untied export loan 
program countervailable under section 771(5)(E)(ii). Erbosan asserts 
that the Department has unfairly modified its ``test'' for tying 
benefits to particular shipments by looking to see whether the 
destination is known at the time the loan is approved, but as 
Mannesmann correctly points out, the Department's practice is to 
attribute benefits to specific merchandise or particular destinations 
when the benefit is tied at the point of bestowal to that merchandise 
or destination. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review: Roses and Other Cut Flowers from Colombia, 
52 FR 48847, 48848 (December 28, 1987) (Roses). In this case, we 
examined the export destinations listed on the application in order to 
determine whether the loans were tied to particular shipments from 
their inception through their closure. In this case, we examined the 
export destinations listed on the application in order to determine 
whether the loans were tied to particular shipments from their 
inception through their closure. Based on the facts present in this 
case, we found pre-shipment export loans to be untied because the 
actual export destinations used to close out the loans were not always 
the same as the export destinations listed on the loan applications and 
exports to two or more different destinations were also used to close 
out a single loan. A loan cannot be said to be tied to a particular 
shipment when the recipient can pick and choose which export 
destinations to use to close out each loan.
    While Erbosan is correct to note that the Department has found 
loans tied to specific shipments in Textile Mill Products from Mexico, 
and that we found pre-shipment export loans to be tied to particular 
shipments in Turkish Pasta, in those determinations, the Department did 
not make a finding that the loans were not tied to destinations at the 
time of application. Therefore, it is incorrect to point to these cases 
as evidence for the proposition that benefits need not be tied at the 
time of approval of the pre-shipment loans and, thus, that the 
Department is departing from its past practice in Turkish Pasta and 
Textile Mill Products from Mexico. Rather, we are consistent with our 
past practice of tying benefits to particular shipments by ascertaining 
whether the export destination was specified at the time that the pre-
shipment loan was approved. Roses at 48848. We are not linking per se, 
as Erbosan alleges, the benefits from these loans to the application 
date. On the contrary, we are merely utilizing the more extensive 
information regarding this program in the instant review. We have 
determined that pre-shipment export loans could not be tied to 
particular shipments, but were available for exports in general.
    Comment 2: The respondents argue that the Department improperly 
deducted an amount referred to as the ``exchange difference'' from the 
verified sales values used as the denominator to calculate the benefit 
rates. According to the respondents, the amount improperly deducted 
represents a portion of the proceeds recorded in a Turkish company's 
books from a sale that is invoiced in a foreign currency. Because of 
hyperinflation in Turkey, the respondents can calculate the precise 
Turkish Lira (TL) value of foreign currency sales only after payment is 
received and when the foreign currency is converted to TL. The 
respondents first record in their books an estimated TL value for the 
sale using the exchange rate in effect on the invoice date. When the 
companies receive final payment, the foreign currency value when 
converted to TL is higher than the amount that was recorded in the 
books at the time of invoicing. This difference is recorded in a 
separate exchange rate difference account--the kur farki account. 
According to the respondents, consistent with Turkish GAAP, these two 
accounts are added together to equal the total sales value reflected on 
the companies' audited financial statements.
    The respondents continue that the value in the kur farki account 
reflects actual revenue earned from export sales. The values are not a 
result of an exchange rate scheme or a hedging mechanism to generate 
exchange rate gains. The respondents point out that the questionnaire 
specifically asked for the ``total value'' of total sales, and defined 
the term ``value'' as the ``actual value booked and recorded in your 
accounting records.'' Accordingly, the respondents reported the total 
sales value as recorded in their accounting records, i.e., the sum of 
the values in the sales revenue accounts plus the sum of the values in 
the kur farki account.
    The petitioner argues that the Department correctly excluded the 
portion of the respondents' sales values that resulted from changes in 
the U.S. dollar/Turkish lira exchange rates. The petitioner states that 
the sales price is recorded using the exchange rate on the date of 
invoice and that subsequent changes in the exchange rate are not 
related to the sales price. If the sales price were dependent on the 
date of payment by the U.S. customer, the price would vary based on 
when payment was actually received. It is true that the effect of 
Turkey's hyperinflation is to create exchange rate gains on all sales 
where payment occurs after the invoice date. However, according to the 
petitioner, the gains are tied completely to the rate of change in the 
exchange rate and, as such, the gains are part of non-operating 
expenses and income, and are not properly recognized as sales revenue. 
As a result, the petitioner states that it is appropriate for the 
Department to correct the respondents' sales information for 
inappropriate changes in the sales value that were based on exchange 
rate gains.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the respondents. Despite 
Turkey's hyperinflation, Turkish companies do not index any of the 
figures, other than fixed assets, in their financial statements to 
account for inflation. (See Mannesmann verification report at page 2). 
See also Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain 
Steel Products from Brazil, 58 FR 37295, 37298 (July 9, 1993). 
Accordingly, we did not index any of the program benefits received nor 
the company-specific denominators (sales) in our calculations of the 
subsidy benefits for Mannesmann and Erbosan in the Preliminary Results. 
However, if we accepted the respondents' position and included exchange 
differences in their sales figures, it would be tantamount to indexing 
only half of the equation--the denominator for export subsidy programs. 
For example, a domestic sale will generate the same amount of TL 
between the date of sale and the date of payment. On the other hand, an 
export sale will generate more TL on the date of payment due to the 
effects of hyperinflation on the

[[Page 43988]]

exchange rate between that date and the date of sale. The result of 
including kur farki in the sales figures would be equivalent to 
indexing export sales for inflation and, thus, would inflate the 
denominator while the program benefits (the numerator) would remain 
unindexed. Such a result would unfairly distort the Department's 
calculation. We also disagree with the respondents' argument that, 
alternatively, the Department should adjust the calculations to 
determine the subsidy benefit to reflect the exchange rate in effect on 
the date of export and not the date of payment to ensure that the 
benefit is not overstated, as it is similarly designed to take 
advantage of the impact of hyperinflation on the TL/U.S. dollar 
exchange rate. Because, as described, both of the methods articulated 
by the respondents would inaccurately decrease the subsidy rate for 
export programs, we are maintaining our position in the Preliminary 
Results of not including exchange rate differences in the respondents' 
sales figures.
    Comment 3: The respondents argue for the first time in their case 
brief that the Investment Allowance program should be deemed non-
countervailable under section 771(5B)(C) of the Act, because the 
benefits are permissible ``green light'' subsidies provided only to 
companies located in disadvantaged regions. According to the 
respondents, the Investment Allowance program, to the extent that it 
provided greater benefits to disadvantaged regions than to developed 
regions, was specifically designed to promote development in 
disadvantaged regions. As a result, the Department should consider it a 
permissible ``green light'' benefit and find it not countervailable in 
the final results of this review.
    Department's Position: A green light claim submitted for the first 
time in a case brief cannot be considered by the Department at this 
late stage in the proceeding. See 19 CFR 355.31. The respondents had 
ample opportunity to submit a green light claim and to provide 
supporting documentation regarding the Investment Allowance program 
within the time requirements of 19 CFR 355.31 for submitting factual 
information. This would have provided the Department with time to 
request and verify data, and provide the petitioner with an adequate 
opportunity to comment on the green light claim. Indeed, the GRT 
claimed green light status for the Resource Utilization Support Premium 
program (RUSP) in its November 25, 1996, supplemental questionnaire 
response. Subsequently, the Department issued three additional 
supplemental questionnaires regarding this green light claim in order 
to collect the information necessary for our analysis. We then examined 
this information with respect to RUSP during our verification in 
February 1997. However, the Department does not have the necessary 
information regarding the Investment Allowance program, such as a 
breakdown of Investment Allowance benefits by industry and region, to 
conduct an analysis of the green light claim for this program. As a 
result, we have not considered the claim of green light status for the 
Investment Allowance program in this proceeding.
    Comment 4: The respondents disagree with the Department's decision 
in the Preliminary Results that the Resource Utilization Support 
Premium program (RUSP) does not meet the green light criteria set forth 
in Section 771(5B)(C) of the Act. They claim that the RUSP was 
specifically designed to promote the development of disadvantaged 
regions. Section 771(5B)(C) of the Act provides that, if certain 
conditions are met, the Department shall treat a subsidy to 
disadvantaged regions as non-countervailable if the subsidy is provided 
``pursuant to a general framework of regional development, to a person 
located in a disadvantaged region and if it is not specific within 
eligible regions * * * '' In addition, the statute enumerates four 
conditions for making such a determination: (1) The disadvantaged 
region must be a clearly designated contiguous geographical area with a 
defined economic and administrative identity; (2) the designation of 
the region must be based on neutral and objective criteria indicating 
that the region is disadvantaged because of more than temporary 
circumstances; (3) the criteria must include a measure of economic 
development; and (4) the subsidy program to disadvantaged regions must 
include ceilings on the amount of benefits provided.
    The respondents argue that the GRT's regional development plan met 
the first, third and fourth criteria, and that the Department wrongly 
rejected the GRT's ``green light'' claim based on the third criterion. 
Regarding the second criterion, the respondents argue that the GRT's 
regional development program was based on neutral and objective 
criteria as defined by the statute. Turkey's regional designations were 
based on various neutral and objective economic data that was analyzed 
using a statistical model of development known as Principal Component 
Analysis (PCA). The respondents claim that the Department seems to have 
accepted that the designations based on the PCA are neutral and 
objective, but that the few changes made by the Council of Ministers 
tainted the GRT's overall regional development plan. The respondents 
argue that the Council uses its judgment to modify a regional 
designation made by the PCA only in those cases that are necessary to 
eliminate certain regional disparities. The respondents conclude that 
the fact that the Council of Ministers may have some input into the 
regional designation process does not negate the neutral and objective 
criteria that are used to establish regional designations, but, 
according to the respondents, only reinforces their conclusion that the 
designations modified by the Council of Ministers are still based on 
neutral and objective criteria.
    The petitioner replies that the Department correctly found that the 
respondents did not establish that the regional designations made by 
the GRT were based on neutral and objective criteria. The petitioner 
points out that the supporting documentation for the PCA during the 
period reviewed for green light status, 1989-1991, was no longer 
available. Thus, the validity of the green light claim was not subject 
to verification. Also, the petitioner states that the designation of 
provinces into development regions did not track closely the PCA 
rankings. Rather, the changes in rankings resulted from decisions made 
by the Council, which were based on factors not enumerated in the PCA. 
As a result, because the neutral and objective criterion has not been 
met, a green light finding is not appropriate.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the respondents. The 
statute requires the Department to make a finding that all four 
specifically enumerated conditions of section 771(5B)(C)(i) have been 
met before a green light finding is made. Moreover, the SAA states that 
the green light provision governing assistance for disadvantaged 
regions must be strictly construed, and that the Department must 
determine that all of these statutory criteria have been satisfied. 
(See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, 
reprinted in H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 934 (1994)) (SAA). 
In the Preliminary Results, the Department did not state or imply that 
the GRT's regional development plan met all green light criteria except 
for the criterion requiring regions to be designated based on ``neutral 
and objective'' criteria. Rather, the Department indicated that because 
regions were not designated based solely on neutral and objective 
criteria, the Department did not need to reach

[[Page 43989]]

the three other listed criteria to determine whether GRT's regional 
development plan was a green light subsidy. The Department stated that 
``[s]ince the SAA states that all of the green light criteria must be 
met, we do not intend to analyze the GRT's compliance with the 
remaining criteria [beyond that concerning ``neutral and 
objective''].'' See Preliminary Results at 16787.
    In any case, we cannot conclude that the GRT's regional development 
plan, ``strictly construed,'' is based on neutral and objective 
criteria. First, the supporting documentation for the PCA covering the 
1989-1991 period, the relevant period of our inquiry, was not available 
for verification. Second, as we stated in the Preliminary Results, the 
information on the record indicates that the designations of 
disadvantaged regions do not correspond to the purportedly neutral and 
objective criteria of the PCA. The provinces were rank ordered from 
first, most developed, to 67th, least developed. The record clearly 
shows that the designation of provinces into development regions did 
not track closely to the PCA rankings. For example, some provinces 
which received PCA rankings of 52 and 58 (out of a possible 67) were 
listed as normal development regions, while other provinces with higher 
PCA rankings were designated priority development regions. The GRT 
accounted for these discrepancies by explaining that the PCA is not the 
only basis for determining a province's regional designation. The PCA 
is only one step (albeit a primary one) toward determining the regional 
designations. The final determination is made by the Council of 
Ministers, taking into account factors that cannot be accounted for by 
the PCA, including the promotion of other development policies and 
goals, the impacts upon, and relationships with, other regional and 
non-regional development policies and programs, and the Ministers 
experience in development issues and programs. (For a further 
discussion, see the Preliminary Results at page 16787 and the GRT 
verification report at page 11).
    The statute requires the neutral and objective criteria to be 
clearly stated in a relevant statute, regulation, or other official 
document so as to be capable of verification. As we learned at 
verification, the final regional development plan designations 
purportedly arrived at using the econometric model of the PCA, were 
subject to change by the Council of Ministers. However, the GRT 
provided no evidence regarding (1) the specific criteria used by the 
Ministers; (2) whether the criteria are neutral and objective; and (3) 
whether these criteria were clearly stated in the statute, regulation, 
or another official document. In addition, the documentation regarding 
additional factors that the Council considered when making these 
decisions was not available for verification (GRT verification report 
at page 12). Therefore, we determine that the RUSP assistance is not 
entitled to green light treatment.
    Comment 5: The respondents argue that because the vast majority of 
provincial designations were not changed from the designations 
suggested by the PCA, the Department must find that RUSP subsidies are 
non-countervailable. Erbosan is located in the Kayseri province which, 
the respondents argue, clearly falls within the ``normal'' region 
grouping in the PCA. The respondents also argue that the Council of 
Ministers played no role in Kayseri's designation, and that Kayseri 
meets all the tests established in the statute for classification as 
``disadvantaged,'' including the economic tests of per capita income 
and unemployment outlined in Section 771(5B)(C)(ii) of the Act.
    According to the respondents, because Kayseri's regional 
designation was based on the ``objective and neutral'' criteria of the 
PCA, any designations made to provinces outside of the region in 
question is irrelevant to the Department's inquiry. The Department must 
therefore look only at the region where the recipient of the benefit is 
located. The respondents state that if the Department continues to 
follow its practice of analyzing every single regional designation made 
under a country's regional development plan, the Department would never 
find that the statutory requirements are met.
    The petitioner replies that the statute does not contemplate 
looking beyond an entire designation process in order to make an 
independent determination of whether an individual region could have 
been properly designated. According to the petitioner, the 
disqualification of the overall designation process for green light 
purposes renders every individual provincial designation unqualified 
for green light treatment. As a result, the Department should maintain 
its position of denying green light treatment to the RUSP program.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the respondents. In order 
to conclude that a subsidy to a disadvantaged region is entitled to 
green light status and thus not countervailable, the subsidy must be 
provided pursuant to a general framework of regional development. 
Section 771(5B)(C)(iii) defines the term ``general framework of 
regional development'' to mean that regional subsidy programs are part 
of an internally consistent and generally applicable regional 
development policy, and that regional development subsidies are not 
granted in isolated geographical points having no, or virtually no, 
influence on the development of a region. Moreover, the statute directs 
the Department to apply the four main criteria, listed in Comment 4 
above, to ``each region'' in the country when conducting a green light 
examination. See section 771(5B)(C)(i). Additionally, the SAA states 
that ``to be non-countervailable, the government assistance must be 
directed both by law and in practice toward the development of the 
region as a whole.'' SAA at 934. Accordingly, the Department evaluated 
the GRT's green light claim for the RUSP program in light of the 
statute, as is appropriate when making a determination on the 
countervailability of a nationally available subsidy program. As a 
result, as fully explained in the Preliminary Results, our green light 
analysis was conducted in compliance with the statute, which precludes 
us conducting a separate green light analysis solely with respect to 
the Kayseri province.
    Comment 6: The respondents argue that the Department failed to 
request the f.o.b. sales information, except for the sales to the 
United States, and, in order to compensate for this shortcoming, the 
Department incorrectly increased the subsidy for each program by 
multiplying the benefit by the ratio of the company's U.S. c&f and U.S. 
f.o.b. sales of the subject merchandise. The respondents argue that 
this methodology is inaccurate for two reasons: (1) The freight 
component of a particular sale will vary, sometimes significantly, 
depending on the destination, and (2) it overstates the benefit when 
the denominator is total sales, because domestic sales are made on an 
f.o.b. basis. Thus, they argue that using the ratio of U.S. c&f and 
U.S. f.o.b. sales to determine the f.o.b. value for total export sales 
inaccurately overstates the actual benefit.
    The respondents also argue that they should not be penalized for 
the Department's failure to request information. They argue that, 
because they complied with the Department's requests for information, 
the Department should not use adverse information. The Department may 
use adverse information only when there has been noncompliance with a 
request

[[Page 43990]]

for information. According to the respondents, the Court of 
International Trade has stated that when the Department neglects to 
request information that it later finds necessary to its determination, 
the appropriate remedy is to request supplemental information from the 
parties. However, the respondents argue that because of time 
constraints, the Department should simply use the total sales and total 
export sales provided in the questionnaire responses that were verified 
by the Department, without making any adjustments to compensate for 
freight.
    The petitioner counters that the Department should not change its 
methodology for approximating f.o.b. sales values. The petitioner 
contends that since the respondents state that they were able to 
provide the f.o.b. values they should have proffered them earlier. The 
petitioner also counters that because the respondents did not provide 
the f.o.b. values, which surely their experienced trade counsel knew 
were necessary to the Department calculations, the Department should 
not reward the respondents for withholding information by changing its 
calculation methodology.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the respondents. It has 
been the Department's practice to request companies to provide sales 
information as actually recorded in their accounting records along with 
an explanation as to whether the sales were recorded on c.i.f., f.o.b. 
or some other basis. See Questionnaire dated April 15, 1996. In cases 
where the company's sales are not recorded on an f.o.b. basis, the 
Department adjusts the sales value to conform with the Department's 
longstanding practice to calculate an f.o.b.-based ad valorem subsidy 
rate, which is consistent with the assessment of the countervailing 
duties. (The Department instructs the Customs Service to collect cash 
deposits and assess countervailing duties on an f.o.b. invoice price 
basis.) See, Denominator Section of the General Issues Appendix in 
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel 
Products from Austria, 58 FR 37217, 37236 (July 9, 1993) (General 
Issues Appendix).
    We also disagree with the respondents that the Department is making 
an adverse inference by adjusting the c&f values to compensate for 
freight. Erbosan's questionnaire response states that export invoices 
are recorded on actual invoice value converted to TL whether it is an 
f.o.b. or c&f sale, and that domestic sales are recorded on gross 
value. (See questionnaire response dated June 13, 1996 at page 4). 
Mannesmann's questionnaire response did not state the basis for the 
sales information, except for the export sales of the subject 
merchandise to the United States, which were provided on a c&f and 
f.o.b. basis. (See questionnaire response dated June 13, 1996 at 
appendix 10). Because one respondent recorded and reported its sales on 
a combined f.o.b. and c&f basis and the other respondent recorded on a 
c&f basis, it is necessary to adjust the calculated subsidy rate, 
according to the methodology outlined in the General Issues Appendix, 
to ensure that the Customs Service collects the correct amount of 
subsidy based on the f.o.b. invoice price of the imported merchandise. 
The adjustment made by the Department is not adverse. It merely 
converts the respondents' information to a basis that allows the 
Department to correctly calculate an f.o.b. based ad valorem subsidy 
rate. Therefore, based on the information in the record, the Department 
has calculated a reasonable estimate of the f.o.b. value.
    Comment 7: The respondents argue that the Department erroneously 
determined that exporters did not know the amount of benefits under the 
Freight Program on the date of export, and therefore incorrectly 
countervailed the benefits on the date the cash was received or, in the 
case of bonds, on the date of maturity. The respondents state that it 
is the Department's long-standing practice to measure countervailable 
benefits on the date of export in those cases in which the export 
benefit is earned on a shipment-by-shipment basis, and the exporter 
knows the amount of the benefit at the time of export. Therefore, they 
argue that because Turkish companies knew at the time of export that 
they were entitled to receive a rebate in the amount of $50 per ton for 
merchandise exported on Turkish vessels, and $30 per ton for 
merchandise exported on non-Turkish vessels on a shipment-by-shipment 
basis upon exportation, they knew the benefit at the time of export, 
and such benefits should be measured on an ``earned'' basis.
    The respondents further argue that, because the shipments are 
invoiced in U.S. dollars and the benefit is expressed in U.S. dollars 
on the date of shipment, it is irrelevant that companies did not know 
the precise amount of TL that they would eventually receive. If the 
benefit had been denominated in TL, the value of the ultimate benefit 
received, as measured in constant TL, would not have been known at the 
time of export due to the high inflation in Turkey at the time. 
However, by contrast, U.S. dollars hold their value over time because 
the rates of TL inflation and TL devaluation against the dollar are 
about the same. Therefore, they argue that the long-term value of a 
benefit denominated in dollars was certain at the time of export.
    The respondents also argue that policy considerations dictate that 
the benefits under the Freight Program should be countervailable on the 
date the benefit was earned. They state that the countervailing duty 
law is intended to offset export subsidies, and that the benefit should 
be countervailed when they will have the greatest effect on a country's 
exports to the United States, which they claim is why the Department 
established its ``earned versus receipt'' test. Therefore, the 
respondents argue that since the Freight Program terminated at the end 
of 1994, and there is no longer any incentive to motivate companies to 
export under this program, as a matter of policy, the Department should 
countervail benefits received during the period that the subsidies were 
actually used to encourage shipments to the United States.
    The petitioner counters that, even if the respondents' argument 
that U.S. dollars hold their value better than TL given the 
hyperinflation in Turkey is valid, it does not lead to the conclusion 
that ``the long-term value of a benefit denominated in dollars was 
certain at the time of export.'' Further, although the value may be 
``far more certain'' when denominated in dollars, it is not true that 
the respondents knew the precise value of the benefit at the time of 
export.
    The petitioner also counters that while the freight payments may be 
denominated in dollars, the benefit was paid in TL, and given the high 
inflation rate in Turkey there was no way for the exporter to predict 
at the time of export what the TL payment amount would be. Finally, the 
petitioner counters that the respondents argument that the benefit 
conferred should not be countervailed because the program has been 
terminated would inappropriately permit countervailable benefits to be 
ignored and should be rejected.
    Department's Position: We agree with the respondents that it has 
been the Department's practice to countervail an export subsidy on the 
date of export on an ``earned basis'' rather than the date it is 
received where it is provided as a percentage of the value of the 
exported merchandise on a shipment-by-shipment basis, and the exact 
amount of the countervailable export subsidy is known at the time of 
export. See e.g., Certain Iron-Metal Castings from India; Final Results 
of Countervailing Duty

[[Page 43991]]

Administrative Review, 60 FR 44843 (August 29, 1995). For example, in 
these Final Results, we have found the benefits under the Export 
Performance Credits Program were bestowed on the date of export because 
the exporters received the TL equivalent of a fixed percentage of the 
value of their U.S. dollar exports. Although at the time of receipt, 
the exporters received more TL than at the time of export, the value of 
the TL amount remained the same in U.S. dollar terms.
    In the Preliminary Results, we stated that although the benefit 
under the Freight Program is calculated based on tonnage and not on the 
percentage of exports, we noted that a benefit determined by the amount 
of the tonnage may also be known and therefore ``earned'' at the time 
of export. However, even though the benefit was based on tonnage per 
shipment, it does not automatically follow that respondents knew the 
amount of the export subsidy at the time of shipment. In this case the 
facts indicate that respondents could not have known at the time of 
shipment the actual amount of TL that they would ultimately receive 
because the GRT arbitrarily chose an exchange rate based on a later 
date in time. Here, when the respondents ultimately received payment 
under this program, whether or not they would receive the U.S. dollar 
equivalent of TL was dependent upon the exchange rate chosen by the 
GRT, and was not determined by the amount of tonnage per shipment. (See 
GRT's verification report at page 17). Therefore, we cannot conclude 
that countervailable benefits bestowed on respondents under the Freight 
Program were ``earned'' on the date of export.
    We also disagree with respondents' argument that the long-term 
value of a benefit denominated in dollars was certain at the time of 
export because the U.S. dollar holds its value over time since the rate 
of TL inflation and the TL devaluation against the dollar are about the 
same. Again, because the GRT arbitrarily chose the exchange rate to 
convert the benefit to TL, there was no way of knowing at the time of 
export, whether, at the time respondents received the TL equivalent, it 
would equal $50/$30 per ton. Therefore, as stated in the Preliminary 
Results, we have determined that the benefits under the Freight Program 
are bestowed when the cash is received, with respect to the cash 
payments, and not at the time of export. With regard to the portion of 
the rebate provided in bonds, we have determined that the benefits from 
the bonds are bestowed on the date of maturity. This is due to the fact 
that, even though there were no restrictions on the sale or transfer of 
the bonds, because of the rate of inflation, there was no secondary 
market to allow exporters to convert their bonds to cash prior to 
maturity. See, e.g., Turkish Pasta at 30368.
    Finally, we disagree with the respondents' argument that the 
Department should countervail the benefit from this program on an 
earned basis because it makes no sense for the Department to 
countervail a benefit once a program has been terminated and therefore 
are no more subsidies to provide an incentive for companies to export. 
It is the Department's long-standing practice to countervail residual 
benefits from a terminated program. See, e.g., Live Swine from Canada; 
Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews; Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances 
Review and Intent to Revoke Order in Part, 61 FR 26879, 26889 (May 29, 
1996) and Live Swine from Canada; Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 52408 (October 7, 1996). (Live Swine from 
Canada).
    Comment 8: Erbosan argues that the Department's use of the average 
monthly exchange rates published by the Central Bank, rather than the 
actual exchange rates recorded in Erbosan's documentation of foreign 
exchange loans to calculate the benefit distorts the subsidy because 
the TL was devaluing rapidly against the U.S. dollar. Erbosan argues 
that the Department should use the actual daily exchange rate recorded 
in its loan documents reviewed by the Department at verification 
because these rates were used to convert the TL amount into U.S. 
dollars on the date the interest was repaid on the company's foreign 
currency loans and more accurately reflects the effect of 
hyperinflation on TL.
    The petitioner counters that the loan fees were established when 
the loan was granted and not when the interest on the loan was paid. 
Therefore, the benefit from the exemption of the fees should be 
calculated from the date the fees would have otherwise applied, i.e., 
the date the loan was granted. The petitioner further counters that the 
Department's use of the monthly exchange rates understates rather than 
overstates the benefit provided.
    Department's Position: We agree with the respondents that the 
actual exchange rates on the foreign exchange loan documentation are 
the appropriate rates to use in converting the benefit to U.S. dollars. 
The actual exchange rates represent the conversion rates that would 
have been applicable to the exempt fees had they been paid. Therefore, 
for these final results we have recalculated the benefit from the 
exemption of the foreign currency loan fees using the actual exchange 
rates on Erbosan's loan documentation in exhibit E-13. On this basis, 
we determine the countervailable subsidy to be 1.10 percent ad valorem 
for Erbosan for pipe and tube.
    Comment 9: The respondents argue that in order for the Department 
and the GRT to avoid spending valuable resources reviewing terminated 
or non-existent programs in future countervailing duty investigations 
or reviews, the Department should announce in its final results that 
the following programs have either been terminated or do not exist: (1) 
State Aid for Exports, (2) Resource Utilization Support Fund (RUSF), 
(3) Advance Refunds of Tax Savings, (4) Support and Price Stability 
Fund, and (5) Land Allocation (General Incentives Program).
    The respondents state that the State Aid for Exports program, which 
was established in 1995 to provide certain benefits to producers of 
certain agriculture products, was terminated on December 31, 1995, as 
noted in the Department's verification report. Therefore, they argue 
that since this program was limited to the agriculture sector, and no 
other sector could receive any residual benefits from this terminated 
program, the Department should find that this program has been 
terminated for companies not in the agricultural sector.
    The respondents also state that the RUSF is a fund that was 
established by the GRT to pay for certain government-sponsored programs 
and not a program in itself. However, they argue that because of 
problems arising from translation of Turkish to English there has been 
a great deal of confusion in this and previous reviews concerning the 
RUSF. The respondents further state that, as noted in the government's 
verification report at page 20, the RUSF program found countervailable 
in Turkish Pasta at 30369 was the same as the Incentive Premium on 
Domestically Obtained Goods Program. They argue that because the GRT 
has demonstrated that the RUSF program terminated effective January 1, 
1987, the Department should list the ``RUSF program'' as terminated.
    The respondents further argue that the Department should state in 
the final results that the Advance Refund of Tax Savings program does 
not exist because there has never been such a program. They state that 
the reference to a program known as the Advance Refund

[[Page 43992]]

of Tax Savings in Turkish Pasta is apparently a misinterpretation or 
mistranslation of certain provisions contained in Turkey's budget laws. 
They also state that Article 44 of the 1987 Budget Law is the legal 
authority that permits the GRT to obtain reimbursement from individuals 
or companies that have received an overpayment of public funds, for 
example, tax refunds.
    The respondents argue that because the Support and Price Stability 
Fund is a government fund used to finance programs such as freight 
rebate and export credit programs that may provide benefits to 
companies and is not a separate program in and of itself, the 
Department should announce in the final results that the program does 
not exist. They argue that such a statement will clarify this issue and 
eliminate any confusion on this subject in future investigations or 
reviews involving Turkish cases.
    Finally, the respondents argue that the Land Allocation program was 
never implemented, therefore, as they informed Department verifiers, no 
company in Turkey has been or could ever be eligible to receive any 
benefits under this program. Therefore, they argue that the Department 
should find this program to be terminated in its final results.
    The petitioner counters that any findings that a program has been 
terminated or does not exist is limited to the review at hand, because 
in future reviews the Department should investigate whether a 
terminated program has been reinstated or a program found not to exist 
has been created. Further, the petitioner counters that merely because 
a finding is made in this review does not exempt the programs involved 
from inquiry in the future.
    Department's Position: The Department's practice is to continue to 
countervail programs previously found countervailable, and to examine 
programs for which we have not made a final determination regarding 
whether the program is non-countervailable or whether terminated 
programs have residual benefits. See e.g., Live Swine from Canada at 
52420 citing to Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results 
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 28841 (June 6, 
1996).
    Regarding the State Aid for Exports program, at verification we 
examined a Communique that listed eligible products, and we did not 
find any steel products listed. Therefore, none of the steel companies 
under review could have received any benefits from this program. 
However, it is uncertain whether the eligible products are subject to 
change. Therefore, we are unable to conclude that steel products will 
never be covered under this program.
    In Turkish Pasta at 30369, the Department found a countervailable 
benefit for RUSF and for the Incentive Premium on Domestically Obtained 
Goods programs. Therefore, although at the verification of these 
reviews, the government official said that based on the description of 
the RUSF program in Turkish Pasta, the so-called ``RUSF program'' is 
really a misnomer for the Incentive Premium on Domestically Obtained 
Goods, we were unable to substantiate that claim. However, in the 
instant proceeding, we found that none of the companies subject to 
review received benefits under either RUSF or Incentive Premium on 
Domestically Obtained Goods programs during the period.
    Regarding the Advance Refunds of Tax Savings, as noted in the GRT's 
verification report at page 20, the government official said that 
Article 44 of the 1987 Budget Law pertains to general reimbursement to 
the GRT of public money. However, the Department's interpreter examined 
Article 44, and said that the Article did not appear to have any 
connection to tax savings, but was somewhat vague. (See GRT 
verification report at page 20). In addition, the GRT officials were 
unable to fully explain why they thought the Department was incorrect 
in finding this to be a program in Turkish Pasta. Further, we verified 
that none of the companies under review applied for, or used the 
Advance Refunds of Tax Savings during the period of review.
    The Department did not include the Support and Price Stability Fund 
as a program in the Preliminary Results. We verified that this is a 
fund that is used to finance programs, and not a program in itself (GRT 
verification report at page 19). Because we have not included it in 
these final results, there is no need to list it as a terminated or 
non-existent program.
    We agree with the respondents that, at verification, the officials 
said that the Land Allocation program was never implemented. However, 
we listed this program as not used because it was not terminated, and 
it is uncertain whether the program might be implemented and used in 
the future.

Final Results of Review

    In accordance with 19 C.F.R. Sec. 355.22(c)(4)(ii), we calculated 
an individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to these 
administrative reviews. For the period January 1, 1995 through December 
31, 1995, we determine the net subsidy to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Net    
           Manufacturer/exporter of pipe and tube              subsidy  
                                                                 rate   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erbosan....................................................        4.02%
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Net    
        Manufacturer/exporter of line pipe and tube            subsidy  
                                                                 rate   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mannesmann.................................................        0.75%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will instruct the U.S. Customs Service (``Customs'') to assess 
countervailing duties as indicated above. The Department will also 
instruct Customs to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing 
duties in the percentages detailed below of the f.o.b. invoice price on 
all shipments of each class or kind of merchandise from reviewed 
companies, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the date of publication of the final results of these reviews.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Cash   
           Manufacturer/exporter of pipe and tube              deposit  
                                                                 rate   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erbosan....................................................        3.97%
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Cash   
             Manufacturer/exporter of line pipe                deposit  
                                                                 rate   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mannesmann.................................................        0.75%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-
wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for 
investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing 
countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, 
are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as 
provided for in Sec. 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review 
will normally cover only those companies specifically named. See 19 CFR 
Sec. 355.22(a). Pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 355.22(g), for all companies 
for which a review was not requested, duties must be assessed at the 
cash deposit rate, and cash deposits must continue to be collected at 
the rate previously ordered. As such, the countervailing duty cash 
deposit rate applicable to a company can no longer change, except 
pursuant to a request for a review of that company. See Federal-Mogul 
Corporation and The Torrington Company v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 
782 (CIT 1993) and Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 
766 (CIT

[[Page 43993]]

1993) (interpreting 19 CFR Sec. 353.22(e), the antidumping regulation 
on automatic assessment, which is identical to 19 CFR Sec. 355.22(g)). 
Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all companies except those 
covered by this review will be unchanged by the results of this review.
    We will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for 
non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-
wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit 
rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this 
order are those established in the most recently completed 
administrative proceeding, conducted pursuant to the statutory 
provisions that were in effect prior to the URAA amendments. See, 
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey; Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 53 FR 9791. These 
rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a 
company assigned these rates is requested. In addition, for the period 
January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995, the assessment rates 
applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered by this order are the 
cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry.
    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 Sec. 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)).

    Dated: August 6, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-21828 Filed 8-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P