[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