[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52974-52975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27032]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-357-005]


Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat-Rolled Products From Argentina; 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

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

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

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

SUMMARY: On July 17, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of its 1991 
administrative review of the countervailing duty order on cold-rolled 
carbon steel flat-rolled products (cold-rolled steel) from Argentina. 
We have now completed this review and determine the total net subsidy 
to be 0.00 percent ad valorem for Propulsora and 1.84 percent ad 
valorem for all other companies. For further information on assessment 
of countervailing duties, see the Final Results of Review section of 
this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Herring, 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) 
482-4149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 17, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(62 FR 38257) the preliminary results of its 1991 administrative review 
of the countervailing duty order on cold-rolled steel from Argentina 
(49 FR 18006; April 26, 1984). The Department has now completed this 
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the Act).
    This review involves two producer/exporters, Sociedad Mixta 
Siderurgica (SOMISA) and Propulsora Siderurgica S.A.I.C. (Propulsora), 
which accounted for all exports of the subject merchandise from 
Argentina during the review period, and 20 programs. We invited 
interested parties to comment on the preliminary results; however, no 
comments were filed by any interested party.
    On August 1, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the final results of changed circumstances countervailing duty reviews 
covering the orders on leather, wool, oil country tubular goods, and 
cold-rolled steel from Argentina (see Leather From Argentina, Wool From 
Argentina, Oil Country Tubular Goods From Argentina, and Carbon Steel 
Cold-Rolled Flat Products From Argentina; Final Results of Changed 
Circumstances Countervailing Duty Reviews (62 FR 41361)). In these 
changed circumstances reviews, the Department determined that, based 
upon the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 
Ceramica Regiomontana v. United States, 64 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 
1995), it does not have the authority to assess countervailing duties 
on entries of merchandise covered by this order occurring on or after 
September 20, 1991. As a result, the effective date of the revocation 
of this CVD order on cold-rolled flat products from Argentina is now 
September 20, 1991. (This order had already been revoked, effective 
January 1, 1995, pursuant to Section 753 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (see Revocation of 
Countervailing Duty Orders 60 FR 40568, August 9, 1995)). Therefore, 
the results of this administrative review will only apply to entries of 
the subject merchandise made between January 1, 1991 and September 19, 
1991. (See Final Results of Review section of this notice).

Applicable Statute

    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751(a) of 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.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review include shipments of Argentine cold-
rolled carbon steel flat products, whether or not corrugated or 
crimped; whether or not painted or varnished and whether or not 
pickled; not cut, not pressed, and not stamped to non-rectangular 
shape; not coated or plated with metal; over 12 inches in width and 
under 0.1875 inches in thickness whether or not in coils; as currently 
provided for under the following item numbers of the HTS: 7209.11.00, 
7209.12.00, 7209.13.00, 7209.14.00, 7209.21.00, 7209.22.00, 7209.23.00, 
7209.24.00, 7209.31.00, 7209.32.00, 7209.33.00, 7209.34.00, 7209.41.00, 
7209.42.00, 7209.43.00, 7209.44.00, 7209.90.00, 7210.70.00, 7211.30.50, 
7211.41.70, 7211.49.50, 7211.90.00, 7212.40.50. The HTS item numbers 
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written 
description of the scope remains dispositive.

Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes

    Pursuant to Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 853 F. 
Supp. 431 (CIT 1994), Commerce is required to calculate a country-wide 
CVD rate, i.e., the all-other rate, by ``weight-averaging

[[Page 52975]]

the benefits received by all companies by their proportion of exports 
to the United States, inclusive of zero rate firms and de minimis 
firms.'' Therefore, we first calculated a subsidy rate for each company 
subject to the administrative review. We then weight-averaged the rate 
received by each company using as the weight its share of total 
Argentine exports to the United States of subject merchandise. We then 
summed the individual companies' weight-averaged rates to determine the 
subsidy rate from all programs benefitting 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 Sec. 355.7 (1994), 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 Sec. 355.22(d)(3). Propulsora had a significantly different net 
subsidy rate during the review period pursuant to 19 CFR 
Sec. 355.22(d)(3). Therefore this company is treated separately for 
assessment purposes. All other companies are assigned the country-wide 
rate.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Programs Previously Determined To Confer Subsidies
1. Government Equity Infusions
    In the preliminary results, we found that this program conferred 
countervailable benefits on the subject merchandise. We did not receive 
any comments on this program from the interested parties, and our 
review of the record has not led us to change our findings from the 
preliminary results. On this basis, the net subsidies for this program 
are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Rate  
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propulsora...................................................       0.00
All Other Companies..........................................       1.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Rebate of Indirect Taxes (Reembolso/Reintegro)
    In the preliminary results, we found that there was no benefit from 
this program during the review period. We did not receive any comments 
on this program from the interested parties, and our review of the 
record has not led us to change our findings from the preliminary 
results.
B. New Program Found To Confer Subsidies
Regional Tariff Zones for Natural Gas
    In the preliminary results, we found that this program conferred 
countervailable benefits on the subject merchandise. We did not receive 
any comments on this program from the interested parties, and our 
review of the record has not led us to change our findings from the 
preliminary results. On this basis, the net subsidies for this program 
are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Rate  
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propulsora...................................................       0.00
All Other Companies..........................................       0.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Program Found Not To Confer Subsidies

Preferential Natural Gas Tariffs Under Resolution 192/91
    In the preliminary results, we found that this program did not 
confer a subsidy on the subject merchandise. We did not receive any 
comments on this program from the interested parties, and our review of 
the record has not led us to change our findings from the preliminary 
results.

III. 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:

1. Preferential Electricity Tariff Rates
2. Privatization Assistance Under Law 23697 and Decree 1144/92
3. Medium- and Long-Term Loans
4. Capital Grants
5. Income and Capital Tax Exemptions
6. Government Trade Promotion Programs
7. Exemption from Stamp Taxes Under Decree 186/74
8. Incentives for Trade (Stamp Tax Exemption Under Decree 716)
9. Incentive for Export
10. Export Financing Under OPRAC 1, Circular RF-21
11. Pre-Financing of Exports Under Circular RF-153
12. Loan Guarantees
13. Post-Export Financing Under OPRAC 1-9
14. Debt Forgiveness
15. Tax Deduction Under Decree 173/85

    We did not receive any comments on these programs from the 
interested parties, and our review of the record has not led us to 
change our findings from the preliminary results.

IV. Program Found Not to Exist

Tax Concessions for the Steel Industry
    We did not receive any comments on this program from the interested 
parties, and our review of the record has not led us to change our 
findings from the preliminary results.

Final Results of the Review

    As discussed above in the Background section, the Department has 
determined that the effective date of the revocation of the 
countervailing duty order on cold-rolled steel is September 20, 1991. 
Therefore, the results of this administrative review will only apply to 
entries of the subject merchandise made between January 1, 1991 and 
September 19, 1991.
    For the period of review, we determine the net subsidy to be 0.00 
percent ad valorem for Propulsora and 1.84 percent ad valorem for all 
other companies. In accordance with 19 CFR 355.7, any rate less than 
0.5 percent ad valorem is de minimus. The Department will instruct the 
U.S. Customs Service to liquidate, without regard to countervailing 
duties, all entries of subject merchandise from Propulsora made between 
January 1, 1991 and September 19, 1991. The Department will also 
instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess a countervailing duty of 
1.84 percent ad valorem for entries of subject merchandise from all 
other companies made between January 1, 1991 and September 19, 1991. 
Separate instructions regarding entries made on or after September 20, 
1991 have already been sent to Customs. Because this countervailing 
duty order has been revoked, no further instructions will be sent to 
Customs regarding cash deposits.
    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)).

    Dated: October 3, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-27032 Filed 10-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P