[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 207 (Monday, October 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55589-55591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28309]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-357-403]
Oil Country Tubular Goods 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 June 13, 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 oil country
tubular goods (OCTG) from Argentina. We have now completed this review
and determine the total net subsidy to be 0.49 percent ad valorem,
which is de minimis. For further information, see the Final Results of
Review section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 27, 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 June 13, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register
(62 FR 32307) the preliminary results of its 1991 administrative review
of the countervailing duty order on OCTG from Argentina (49 FR 46564;
November 27, 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 one producer/
exporter, Siderca, which accounts for all exports of the subject
merchandise during the review period and 19 programs.
We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary
results. On July 14, 1997, a case brief was submitted by Siderca.
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
[[Page 55590]]
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
countervailing duty order on OCTG was revoked effective 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. (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 are shipments of Argentine oil
country tubular goods. These products include finished and unfinished
oil country tubular goods, which are hollow steel products of circular
cross section intended for use in the drilling of oil or gas, and oil
well casing, tubing and drill pipe of carbon or alloy steel, whether
welded or seamless, manufactured to either American Petroleum Institute
(API) or proprietary specifications. During the review period this
merchandise was classifiable under item numbers 7304.20.20, 7304.20.40,
7304.20.50, 7304.20.60, 7304.20.70, 7304.20.80, 7304.39.00, 7304.51.50,
7304.59.60, 7304.59.80, 7304.90.70, 7305.20.40, 7305.20.60, 7305.20.80,
7305.31.40, 7305.31.60, 7305.39.10, 7305.39.50, 7305.90.10, 7305.90.50,
7306.20.20, 7306.20.30, 7306.20.40, 7306.20.60, 7306.20.80, 7306.30.50,
7306.50.50, 7306.60.70, and 7306.90.10 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule (HTS). The HTS numbers are provided for convenience and
Customs purposes. The written description of the scope remains
dispositive.
Calculation Methodology for Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes
Because Siderca accounted for virtually all exports of OCTG from
Argentina during the period of review, the subsidy calculated for
Siderca constitutes the country-wide rate.
Analysis of Programs
I. Programs Conferring Subsidies
A. Programs Previously Determined To Confer Subsidies
1. Government Counterguarantees. 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. Accordingly,
the net subsidy for this program is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate
Manufacturer/exporter percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Rate.................................................. 0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Pre-shipment Export Financing. 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. Accordingly,
the net subsidy for this program is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate
Manufacturer/exporter percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Rate.................................................. 0.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Rebate of Indirect Taxes (Reembolso/Reintegro). In the
preliminary results, we found that there was no benefit from this
program during the review period. Our analysis of the comments
submitted by the interested parties, summarized below, has not led us
to change our findings from the preliminary results.
B. New Program Found To Confer Subsidies Preferential Electricity
Tariff Rates
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. Accordingly, the net subsidy for this program is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate
Manufacturer/exporter percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program rate.................................................. 0.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Program Found Not To Confer Subsidies
In the preliminary results, we found the following program to be
non-countervailable:
Preferential Natural Gas Tariffs
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. Medium-And Long-Term Loans
2. Capital Grants
3. Income and Capital Tax Exemptions
4. Government Trade Promotion Programs
5. Exemption from Stamp Taxes Under Decree 186/74
6. Incentives for Trade (Stamp Tax Exemption Under Decree 716)
7. Incentive for Export
8. Export Financing Under OPRAC 1, Circular RF-21
9. Pre-Financing of Exports Under Circular RF-153
10. Loan Guarantees
11. Post-Export Financing Under OPRAC 1-9
12. Debt Forgiveness
13. 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
In the preliminary results, we found the following program 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.
Analysis of Comments Received
Comment
The respondent argues that, in calculating the allowable tax rebate
under the Reembolso/Reintegro program, the Department failed to exclude
the taxes on gas used in the direct reduction process. It claims that,
[[Page 55591]]
while the Department correctly recognized in its preliminary
determination and supporting documents that Siderca consumes gas at its
production plant for general use in the plant and for use in the direct
reduction of iron ore, the Commerce Department incorrectly excluded the
taxes on the portion of the gas used for the direct reduction process.
This, according to the respondent, is contrary to the Department's
finding in the previous administrative reviews.
Department's Position
We determined that this program did not provide a countervailable
benefit during this review period. Thus, the issue of whether the
Department should exclude taxes on the portion of gas that Siderca used
for the direct reduction process would have no impact on the
Department's determination. As such, the issue is moot.
Final Results of Review
As discussed above in the Background section , the Department has
revoked this countervailing duty order on OCTG effective 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. Since the net subsidy of 0.49 percent ad
valorem for this review is de minimis (see 19 CFR 355.7), the
Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to liquidate, without
regard to countervailing duties, all entries of subject merchandise
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)) and 19 CFR 355.22.
Dated: October 16, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-28309 Filed 10-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P