[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6534-6536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3199]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-401-056]


Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber From Sweden; Preliminary Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Commerce.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the countervailing duty order on viscose rayon staple fiber 
from Sweden for the period January 1, 1996, through December 31, 1996. 
For information on the net subsidy for Svenska Rayon AB, as well as for 
all non-reviewed companies, please see the Preliminary Results of 
Review section of this notice. If the final results remain the same as 
the preliminary results of this administrative review, we will instruct 
the U.S. Customs Service to assess countervailing duties as detailed in 
the Preliminary Results of Review section of this notice. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. See Public 
Comment section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 9, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Eric Greynolds, 
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) 482-6071.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 15, 1979, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(44 FR 28319) the countervailing duty order on viscose rayon staple 
fiber from Sweden. On May 2, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review'' (62 FR 24081) of this countervailing duty 
order. We received timely requests for review from Courtaulds Fibers 
Inc. and Lenzing Fibers Corporation (petitioners) and from Svenska 
Rayon AB (Svenska). We initiated the review covering the period January 
1, 1996, through December 31, 1996, on June 19, 1997 (62 FR 33395).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 355.22(a), this review covers only those 
producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review 
was specifically requested. Accordingly, this review covers Svenska. 
This review also covers six programs.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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). The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to 19 CFR 355 (1997).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments from Sweden of regular 
viscose rayon staple fiber and high-wet modulus (modal) viscose rayon 
staple fiber. Such merchandise is classifiable under item number 
5504.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The HTS item is 
provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description 
of the scope of the proceeding remains dispositive.

Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act requires the Department to use facts 
available if ``an interested party or any other person * * * withholds 
information that has been requested by the administering authority * * 
* under this title.'' The facts on the record show that the Government 
of Sweden (GOS) did not comply with the Department's requests for 
information required to conduct a specificity analysis. In the original 
questionnaire, the Department requested information regarding 
eligibility for and actual use of the benefits provided under the 
Recruitment Subsidy Program, such as: (1) The enabling legislation, (2) 
a translated blank copy of the application form submitted to receive 
benefits under the program or a description of the procedures by which 
an application is analyzed and eventually approved or disapproved, (3) 
a list indicating the number of companies, and number and type of the 
industries, which have received benefits under the program in the year 
the provision of benefits was approved and each of the preceding three 
years, (4) the number of companies that applied for benefits under the 
program in the year the benefit was approved and each of the preceding 
three years, and (5) the number of applicants that have been approved 
or rejected in the year the benefit was approved and each of the 
preceding three years. The GOS responded that the detailed and relevant 
description of the program was provided in the 1995 review, and that 
the information was still relevant because no amendments were made 
regarding the rules and conditions of the program. The GOS also 
provided an amount for the Recruitment Subsidy payment made to Svenska 
but, the GOS did not provide to the Department any information 
pertaining to the recipients of benefits under the program during the 
POR or the two preceding years.
    The Department's supplemental questionnaire again requested 
specificity information from the GOS. The GOS responded that it is 
still not possible for them to obtain data on the distribution of the 
Recruitment Subsidy Program by industry.
    The Department placed the enabling legislation on the record of the 
current review, relying on the statement by the GOS that no amendments 
were made in 1996. However, with respect to de facto specificity, the 
record does not contain any information at all on the recipients of 
benefits under this program during the period of review and in the 
prior two years. While we understand that data on distribution of 
benefits by industry may not be readily available, in this review, the 
GOS did not provide any available documentation, such as a translated 
copy of the application form that may have helped explain to the 
Department why the information being requested could not be provided 
and might have indicated the availability of some information that 
could be useful in assessing specificity. In addition, the GOS elected 
not to attempt to collect whatever data was available.
    Section 776(b) of the Act permits the administrative authority to 
use an inference that is adverse to the interests of an interested 
party if that party has ``failed to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of its ability to comply with a request for information.'' Such an 
adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from (1) 
the petition, (2) a final determination in the investigation under this 
title, (3) any previous review under section 751 or determination under 
section 753 regarding the country under consideration, or (4) any other 
information placed on the record.

[[Page 6535]]

Because respondents were aware of the requested information but did not 
comply with the Department's request for such information, we find that 
respondents failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their 
ability to comply with the Department's request. Therefore, we are 
using adverse inferences in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act. 
The adverse inference is a finding that the Recruitment Subsidy program 
is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act, and that the 
amount of the benefit received by Svenska constitutes a financial 
contribution which benefits the recipient. As such, this aid is 
countervailable.

Analysis of Programs

I. Program Preliminarily Determined to Confer Subsidies

Recruitment Subsidy Program
    The purpose of the Recruitment Subsidy Program, which commenced in 
1984, is to increase employment among long-term unemployed persons. Aid 
is provided by the GOS to employers for a period of six months through 
grants covering a maximum of 50 percent of monthly wage costs for the 
person hired up to a maximum of 7,000 Swedish Kroner per month. Under 
certain conditions, the time period for a company to receive aid under 
this program can be extended to 12 months.
    The legislation states that this program is available to all 
employers, except to state employers. Applications for aid are 
submitted to the local GOS employment office which decides whether aid 
should be granted. Hence, depending on circumstances in each case, the 
local employment offices can approve aid at a level up to 50 percent of 
wage costs and for a period up to 12 months.
    We examined the specificity of the Recruitment Subsidy Program in 
accordance with section 771(5A)(D) of the Act. Because the enabling 
legislation does not expressly limit access to the subsidy to an 
enterprise or industry, or group thereof, we examined whether the 
program is de facto specific within the meaning of section 
771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act.
    According to 771(5A)(D)(iii), ``a subsidy is de facto specific if 
one of the following factors exist: (1) The actual recipients of the 
subsidy, whether considered on an enterprise or industry basis, are 
limited in number; (2) An enterprise or industry is a predominant user 
of the subsidy; (3) An enterprise or industry receives a 
disproportionately large amount of the subsidy; or (4) The manner in 
which the authority providing the subsidy has exercised discretion in 
the decision to grant the subsidy indicates that an enterprise or 
industry is favored over others.''
    During the period of review, Svenska received grants under the 
Recruitment Subsidy Program. The GOS provided no information on actual 
usage of the program by enterprise or industry nor did it identify any 
other information through which the Department could analyze whether 
the program is de facto specific. Accordingly, based on the facts 
available, we preliminarily determine that this program is de facto 
specific and, therefore, countervailable within the meaning of section 
771(5A)(D)(iii). To calculate the subsidy to this company, we divided 
the amount of the grants the company received during the period of 
review by its total sales. On this basis, we preliminarily determine 
the subsidy to be 0.06 percent ad valorem.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used

    We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that 
the producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise did not apply 
for or receive benefits under these programs during the period of 
review:

A. Grants for Temporary Employment for Public Works
B. Regional Development Grants
C. Transportation Grants
D. Location-of-Industry Loans

III. Program Preliminarily Determined To Be Terminated

Manpower Reduction Grants
    We examined the Manpower Reduction Grants program and preliminarily 
determine it to be terminated because the GOS provided documentation 
that no government funds have been allocated to this program since 
1982.
Preliminary Results of Review
    In accordance with 19 CFR 355.22(c)(4)(ii), we calculated an 
individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to this 
administrative review. For the period January 1, 1996, through December 
31, 1996, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for Svenska to be 
0.06 percent ad valorem.
    As provided for in the Act, any rate less than 0.5 percent ad 
valorem in an administrative review is de minimis. Accordingly, if the 
final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary 
results, the Department intends to instruct Customs to liquidate, 
without regard to countervailing duties, shipments of the subject 
merchandise from Svenska exported on or after January 1, 1996, and on 
or before December 31, 1996. Also, the cash deposits required for this 
company will be zero.
    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 section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review 
will normally cover only those companies specifically named. See 19 CFR 
355.22(a). Pursuant to 19 CFR 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 1993) 
(interpreting 19 CFR 353.22(e), the antidumping regulation on automatic 
assessment, which is identical to 19 CFR 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 
Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber from Sweden; Final Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 66940 (August 18, 1997). 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, 1996, through December 31, 1996, 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.

[[Page 6536]]

Public Comment
    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of the calculation 
methodology and interested parties may request a hearing not later than 
10 days after the date of publication of this notice. Interested 
parties may submit written arguments in case briefs on these 
preliminary results within 30 days of the date of publication. Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, may be submitted 
seven days after the time limit for filing the case brief. Parties who 
submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the 
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument. Any hearing, if requested, will be held seven days after the 
scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs 
and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance 
with 19 CFR 355.38.
    Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure 
of proprietary information under administrative protective order no 
later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer 
becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date 
the case briefs, under 19 CFR 355.38, are due. The Department will 
publish the final results of this administrative review, including the 
results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief 
or at a hearing.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)).

    Dated: February 2, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-3199 Filed 2-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P