[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37539-37543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18603]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-427-815, C-475-825, and C-580-835]
Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations:
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France, Italy, and the
Republic of Korea
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marian Wells (France), at (202) 482-
6309; Vince Kane (Italy), at (202) 482-2815; and Robert Copyak (Korea),
at (202) 482-2209, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20230.
Initiation of Investigations
The Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are references
to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 351, 62 FR 27296, May 19,
1997.
The Petition
On June 10, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
received petitions filed in proper form by or on behalf of Allegheny
Ludlum Corporation, Armco Inc., J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., Washington
Steel Division of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, United Steel Workers of
America, AFL-CIO/CLC, Butler Armco Independent Union, and Zanesville
Armco Independent Organization, Inc. (the petitioners). J&L Specialty
Steel, Inc. is not a petitioner for the countervailing duty
investigation involving France. Supplements to the petitions were filed
on June 19, 22, 24, and 26, 1998.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, petitioners allege
that manufacturers, producers, or exporters of the subject merchandise
in France, Italy, and Korea receive countervailable subsidies within
the meaning of section 701 of the Act.
The petitioners state that they have standing to file the petition
because they are interested parties, as defined under sections
771(9)(c) and (d) of the Act.
Scope of the Investigations
For purposes of these investigations, the products covered are
certain
[[Page 37540]]
stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy
steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5
percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The
subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is
greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and
that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise
descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed
(e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that
it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such
processing.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at
subheadings: 7219.13.00.30, 7219.13.00.50, 7219.13.00.70,
7219.13.00.80, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90,
7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35,
7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44,
7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35,
7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44,
7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30,
7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30,
7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25,
7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00,
7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80,
7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60,
7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15,
7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30,
7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and
7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the
merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
Excluded from the scope of this petition are the following: (1)
Sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and
pickled or otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to
length, (3) plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a
thickness of 4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire, and (5) razor blade
steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel,
not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a
width of 9.5 to 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing
by weight 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of
entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of
the HTSUS, ``Additional U.S. and Note'' 1(d).
During our review of the petitions, we discussed scope with the
petitioners to insure that the scope in the petitions accurately
reflect the product for which they are seeking relief. Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the new regulations (62 FR 27323), we are
setting aside a period for parties to raise issues regarding product
coverage. The Department encourages all parties to submit such comments
by July 20, 1998. Comments should be addressed to Import
Administration's Central Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the
Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and consult
with parties prior to the issuance of our preliminary determinations.
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department
invited representatives of the relevant foreign governments for
consultations with respect to the petitions filed. On June 23, 1998,
the Department held consultations with representatives of the
Government of France (GOF). On June 26, 1998, consultations were held
with representatives of the Government of Italy (GOI) and the European
Commission (EC). On June 25, 1998, the GOF, and on June 29, 1998, the
GOI and the EC filed submissions regarding the issues raised during the
consultations. See the June 23, 1998 and June 30, 1998, memoranda to
the file regarding the consultations with the GOF and the GOI,
respectively (public documents on file in the Central Records Unit of
the Department of Commerce, Room B-099).
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) At least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or
opposition to, the petition.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the
petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the
Department to look to producers and workers who account for production
of the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC),
which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry''
has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition of domestic like
product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes
and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, the
Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the
like product, such differences do not render the decision of either
agency contrary to the law. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp.
639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel Displays
and Display Glass Therefor from Japan: Final Determination;
Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR
32376, 32380-81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 771(10) of the Act defines domestic like product as ``a
product that is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
petition.
The domestic like product referred to in the petitions is the
single domestic like product defined in the ``Scope of Investigation''
section, above. The Department has no basis on the record to find the
petitions' definition of the domestic like product to be inaccurate.
The Department therefore, has adopted the domestic like product
definition set forth in the petitions. In this case the Department has
determined that the petitions and supplemental information contained
adequate evidence of sufficient industry support, and, therefore,
polling is unnecessary (see Memorandum to the File, regarding Industry
Support, dated June 30, 1998). For France, Italy, and Korea,
petitioners established industry support representing over 50 percent
of total production of the domestic like product.
[[Page 37541]]
Additionally, no person who would qualify as an interested party
pursuant to section 771(A)(C)(D)(E) or (F) has expressed opposition on
the record to the petition. Therefore, to the best of the Department's
knowledge, the producers who support this petition account for 100
percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by the
portion of the industry expressing an opinion regarding the petitions.
Accordingly, the Department determines that these petitions are filed
on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section
702(b)(1) of the Act.
Injury Test
Because France, Italy, and Korea are ``Subsidies Agreement
Countries'' within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section
701(a)(2) applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the U.S.
International Trade Commission (ITC) must determine whether imports of
the subject merchandise from these countries materially injure, or
threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
The petitions allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic
like product is being materially injured, and is threatened with
material injury, by reason of the subsidized individual and cumulated
imports of the subject merchandise from France, Italy, and Korea.
Petitioners explained that the industry's injured condition is evident
in the declining trends in net operating profits, net sales volumes,
profit to sales ratios, and capacity utilization. The allegations of
injury and causation are supported by relevant evidence including U.S.
Customs import data, lost sales, and pricing information. The
Department assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding
material injury and causation, and determined that these allegations
are sufficiently supported by accurate and adequate evidence and meet
the statutory requirements for initiation (see Attachment 1 to
Initiation Checklists dated June 30, 1998, entitled Analysis of
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation).
Allegations of Subsidies
Section 702(b) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a
countervailing duty proceeding whenever an interested party files a
petition, on behalf of an industry, that (1) alleges the elements
necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a), and (2) is
accompanied by information reasonably available to petitioners
supporting the allegations.
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations
The Department has examined the petitions on stainless steel sheet
and strip in coils (sheet and strip) from France, Italy, and Korea and
found that they comply with the requirements of section 702(b) of the
Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b) of the Act, we are
initiating countervailing duty investigations to determine whether
manufacturers, producers, or exporters of sheet and strip from these
countries receive subsidies. See the June 30, 1998, memoranda to the
file regarding the initiation of these investigations (public documents
on file in the Central Records Unit of the Department of Commerce, Room
B-099).
A. France
We are including in our investigation the following programs
alleged in the petition to have provided subsidies to producers and
exporters of the subject merchandise in France:
Government of France Programs
1. Purchase of Power Plant
2. Forgiveness of Shareholders' Loans in 1994 and 1995
3. Provision of Export Financing Under Natexis Banque Programs
4. Related Party Grants Received from 1992-95
5. Related Party Loans
6. DATAR Programs
a. Regional Development Grants (PATs)
b. Work/Training Contracts and Internships
c. DATAR 50 Percent Taxing Scheme
d. Tax Exemption for Industrial Expansion
e. Tax Credit for Companies Located in Special Investment Zone
f. Tax Credits for Research
7. GOF Guarantees
8. Long-Term Loans from CFDI
9. Steel Intervention Fund (FIS)
10. Loans with Special Characteristics (PACS): Equity Infusion
11. Shareholders' Advances
12. Investment/Operating Subsidies
13. Ugine 1991 Grant
European Commission Programs
1. Myosotis
2. Electric Arc Furnaces
3. Resider II Program
4. Youthstart
5. ECSC Article 54 Loans
6. ECSC Article 56(2)(b) Redeployment Aid
7. European Social Fund Grants (ESF)
8. European Regional Development Fund Grants (ERDF)
We are not including in our investigation the following programs
alleged to be benefitting producers and exporters of the subject
merchandise in France:
1. Upstream Subsidies From Sollac
Petitioners allege that the production of stainless steel sheet and
strip in coils received upstream subsidies within the meaning of
section 771A of the Act through the provision of subsidies to a related
company, Sollac, which supplied hot-rolling services for Ugine during
the period 1983-1997. Sollac is 95 percent owned by Usinor. Referring
to section 355.45 of the Countervailing Duties; Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 54 FR 23368 (May 31, 1989) (``1989 Proposed Regulations''),
petitioners state that an investigation of an upstream subsidy
allegation is warranted because there is a reasonable basis to believe
or suspect that: (1) Domestic subsidies have been provided with respect
to the input product; (2) a competitive benefit has been bestowed; and
(3) the subsidies have a significant effect on the cost of producing
the subject merchandise. In particular, in support of its allegation
that domestic subsidies have been provided with respect to the input
product, petitioners assert that all untied, countervailable subsidies
bestowed on Usinor in 1983 or later that were found countervailable in
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain Steel
Products from France, 58 FR 37304 ((July 9, 1993)) (Certain Steel from
France (1993)), along with the additional untied post-1991 subsidies
alleged in this case, continue to benefit Sollac during the POI.
The Department's methodology with respect to calculating the
subsidy rate for untied, domestic subsidies is to divide the total
amount of the benefit by the total sales of the recipient company
(i.e., Usinor). Therefore, the resulting rate captures the full level
of subsidization on the subject merchandise, including any
countervailable subsidies bestowed upon any inputs or processes
supplied by Usinor companies to the production of the subject
merchandise. To consider the same benefit as both an upstream subsidy
and as a subsidy to the manufacturer of the finished product would
result in double-counting the benefit. On this basis, we find that the
initiation of an upstream subsidy investigation is not warranted in
this case.
[[Page 37542]]
2. Long-Term Loans From FDES
The Law of July 13, 1978 created participative loans that were
issued by Fonds de Developpement Economique et Social (FDES). In 1990,
FDES loans obtained by Usinor and Sacilor were consolidated into
multiple long-term loans which the Department treated as new loans in
Certain Steel from France (1993) and Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination: Certain Hot Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel
Products from France, 58 FR 6221 (January 27, 1993) ((Lead and
Bismuth)). Using the private bond interest rate reported in the OECD
Financial Statistics as the benchmark in Lead and Bismuth, the
Department found these loans to be countervailable to the extent that
the interest rates were more favorable than the benchmark. In Certain
Steel from France (1993), however, a different benchmark was used, and
the same loans were found not countervailable because there was no
benefit. Despite the determination of Certain Steel from France (1993),
petitioners allege that the contradictory stance taken by the
Department in Lead and Bismuth gives reason to investigate the loans to
determine the extent to which these loans continued to bestow
countervailable benefits on the production of the subject merchandise
during the POI of this case.
Given that Certain Steel from France (1993) is the Department's
most recent determination with respect to the long-term loans provided
by the FDES, we find that there is no reason to revisit our decision
that the FDES loans are not countervailable. Petitioners have provided
no new evidence to indicate that Usinor has obtained any new loans or
to prompt a reexamination of the loans and the benchmark used in our
previous investigation. Accordingly, we are not including this program
in our investigation.
3. Placement of Usinor Shares With ``Stable Shareholders''
As part of its privatization plan in 1995, the GOF placed 14.79
percent of Usinor's capital with ``Stable Shareholders.'' The ``Stable
Shareholders,'' who consisted of both government-owned entities and
private companies, purchased their shares at a premium and were
required to adhere to the Protocole. The Protocole imposed restrictions
on the resale of shares held by the ``Stable Shareholders'' thereby
preventing a takeover of the privatized company. Petitioners allege
that by placing these illiquid shares with the ``Stable Shareholders''
the GOF created a built-in defense against takeovers and other
instability, thereby providing a secure investment environment for
private investors purchasing the remaining shares. Petitioners assert
that without the implicit guarantee represented by these ``Stable
Shareholders,'' no private investment would have taken place.
Therefore, petitioners allege that the GOF's placement of shares with
``Stable Shareholders'' provided a benefit in the form of a ``potential
direct transfer of funds'' to Usinor which should be measured by the
total amount of the private investment.
We are not including this alleged subsidy in our investigation
because we do not accept petitioners' argument that the placement of
Usinor's shares with ``Stable Shareholders'' amounts to an implicit
guarantee. Instead, the placement of the shares was simply part of the
GOF's privatization plan for Usinor. As petitioners point out, the
placement of shares with ``Stable Shareholders'' was designed to
prevent a takeover of the company. Thus, the GOF was seeking to prevent
certain purchases of Usinor's shares, not to ensure the sale of those
shares.
4. Credit Lyonnais 1991 Investment
In 1991, Credit Lyonnais purchased a 20 percent share of Usinor
Sacilor. In Certain Steel from France (1993) and Lead and Bismuth from
France, the Department determined that Usinor Sacilor was equityworthy
in 1991 and found the investment not countervailable. Petitioners
allege that they have uncovered new evidence which establishes that the
GOF's equity investment bestowed a countervailable benefit and
constitutes additional factual evidence sufficient to prompt a
reexamination of the investment.
Petitioners assert that the new evidence, presented in the 1995
French Audit Office Report (``Audit Report''), indicates that the
shares purchased by the bank were immobile and non-remunerative. As
such, petitioners allege that the Credit Lyonnais investment lacked the
defining characteristics of an equity investment (i.e., a claim on the
company's earnings and based on an expectation of a reasonable return)
and, thus, constituted a grant rather than equity. See General Issues
Appendix, appended to Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination; Certain Steel Products from Austria, 58 FR 37217, 37239
(July 9, 1993). Other evidence that petitioners present include the
1994 French Parliamentary investigation and report (``French
Parliamentary Report'') which state that Credit Lyonnais ``took the
place of the government'' to recapitalize and support Usinor. The Audit
Report also criticizes the investment as inappropriate and ultimately
very costly to Credit Lyonnais.
A close examination of the Audit Report reveals otherwise. First,
we find that the Audit Report's conclusion that the investment in
companies such as Usinor were not ``mobilizable'' was drawn from the
policy implications, rather than actual restrictions on the shares
themselves. The Audit Report states: ``Securities of national
enterprises were involved. To sell them * * * would have led to
denationalization.'' In other words, Credit Lyonnais could not sell the
shares without the GOF's explicit policy decision to privatize the
company. The mere existence of a government policy to retain the
control of a state-owned company, however, does not transform the
investment into a grant.
With respect to the alleged ``unremunerative'' nature of the
shares, we note that the Audit Report merely states that the stocks did
not ``quickly produce any dividend.'' (Emphasis supplied). There is no
indication that there were actual restrictions on the shares or that
there were no returns on the investment.
Finally, given that both the Audit Report and the French
Parliamentary Report were issued ex post facto, we do not consider the
statements regarding the ultimate cost of the investment to be
relevant. As we stated in the General Issues Appendix, ``neither the
benefit nor the equityworthiness determination should be reexamined
post hoc since such information could not have been known to the
investor at the time of the investment.'' 58 FR at 37239.
Accordingly, we find that the evidence presented by petitioners is
not sufficient for us to reinvestigate the 1991 investment by Credit
Lyonnais. On this basis, we are not including this program in our
investigation.
B. Italy
In the course of preparing its CVD questionnaire response in the
concurrent investigation of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Italy,
the GOI has ascertained that AST has not applied for or received
assistance under the following programs: Law 706/85 Grants for Capacity
Reduction, Law 46/82 Assistance for Capacity Reduction, Law 193/84
Early Retirement Assistance and Interest Grants, Law 394/81 Export
Marketing Grants and Loans, Law 341/95 and Circolare 50175/95, European
Regional Development Fund, Resider II Program (and Successor Programs),
and Law 181 Worker Adjustment/Redevelopment Assistance. We are
[[Page 37543]]
including these programs in this investigation pending verification of
the GOI's claim of non-use.
We are including in our investigation the following programs
alleged in the petition to have provided subsidies to producers and
exporters of the subject merchandise in Italy:
Government of Italy Programs
1. Law 796/76: Exchange Rate Guarantee Program
1. Benefits Associated with the 1988-1990 Restructuring
2. Pre-Privatization Employment Benefits
3. Law 120/89 Recovery Plan for the Steel Industry
4. Law 181/89 Worker Adjustment/Redevelopment Assistance
5. Law 706/85 Grants for Capacity Reduction
6. Law 488/92 Aid to Depressed Areas
7. Law 46/82 Assistance for Capacity Reduction
8. Working Capital Grants to ILVA, S.p.A. (ILVA)
9. ILVA Restructuring and Liquidation Grant
10. 1994 Debt Payment Assistance by the Instituto per la Riscostruzione
Industriale (IRI)
11. Loan to KAI for purchase of Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. (AST)
12. Debt Forgiveness: 1981 Restructuring Plan
13. Debt Forgiveness: Finsider-to-ILVA Restructuring
14. Debt Forgiveness: ILVA-to-AST Restructuring
15. Law 675/77
a. Mortgage Loans
b. Interest Contributions on IRI Loans
c. Personnel Retraining Aid
d. VAT Reductions
e. Grants to Pay Interest on Bank Loans
17. Law 193/84
a. Interest Payments
b. Closure Assistance
c. Early Retirement Benefits
18. Law 394/81 Export Marketing Grants and Loans
19. Equity Infusions from 1983 through 1992
20. Uncreditworthiness for 1983 through 1997
Petitioners have additionally alleged that AST was uncreditworthy
in the years when it allegedly received non-recurring subsidies. This
allegation was supported by financial ratios for AST and its
predecessor companies. Thus, for those years we will investigate the
creditworthiness of AST and its predecessor companies.
21. Law 341/95 and Circolare 50175/95
22. Export Financing Under Law 227/77 and Remission of Taxes
European Commission Programs
1. EU Subsidy to AST to Construct a Mill
2. ECSC Article 54 Loans & Interest Rebates
3. ECSC Article 56 Conversion Loans, Interest Rebates & Redeployment
Aid
4. European Social Fund
5. European Regional Development Fund
6. Resider II Program (and successor programs)
7. 1993 EU Funds
C. Korea
We are including in our investigation the following programs
alleged in the petition to have provided subsidies to producers and
exporters of the subject merchandise in Korea:
Government of Korea Programs
1. Pre-1992 Government of Korea Direction of Credit
2. Post-1991 Government of Korea Direction of Credit
3. 1992 ``Emergency Loans'' to Sammi Steel Company
4. Financial Assistance in Conjunction with the 1997 Sammi Steel
Company Bankruptcy
5. Tax Incentives for Highly-Advanced Technology Businesses
6. ``National Subsidy'' to Inchon
7. POSCO Purchase of Sammi Specialty Steel Division for More Than
Adequate Remuneration
8. Provision of Electricity for Less Than Adequate Remuneration
9. Reserve for Investment
10. Kwangyang Bay Project
11. Export Facility Loans
12. Reserve for Export Loss Under the Tax Exemption and Reduction
Control Act (TERCL)
13. Reserve for Overseas Market Development Under the Tax Exemption and
Reduction Control Act (TERCL)
14. Unlimited Deduction of Overseas Entertainment Expenses
15. Short-Term Export Financing
16. Korean Export-Import Bank (EXIMBANK) Loans
17. Special Depreciation of Assets on Foreign Exchange Earnings
18. Export Insurance Rates Provided by the Korean Export Insurance
Corporation
19. Excessive Duty Drawback
20. Uncreditworthiness for 1990 through 1997
Petitioners have alleged that two Korean producers of the subject
merchandise, Sammi Steel Company (Sammi) and Inchon Iron & Steel
Company (Inchon), were uncreditworthy during the period 1990 through
1997 and 1991 through 1997, respectively. For those respective years,
petitioners have provided financial ratios for the two companies which
indicate that the companies may be uncreditworthy for those respective
periods. Thus, for those respective years, we will investigate whether
the companies were uncreditworthy during the years in which petitioners
have alleged non-recurring countervailable subsidies.
Petitioners have also alleged that Sammi and Inchon were
uncreditworthy from 1983 through 1997. We are not investigating
creditworthiness in the years 1983 through 1989 for Sammi and for the
years 1983 through 1990 for Inchon. Petitioners did not provide any
information to indicate that the companies were uncreditworthy for
those respective years.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, copies of
the public version of the petition have been provided to the
representatives of France, Italy, and Korea. We will attempt to provide
copies of the public version of the petition to all the exporters named
in the petition, as provided for under section 351.203(c)(2) of the
Department's regulations.
ITC Notification
Pursuant to section 702(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of
these initiations.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will determine by July 27, 1998, whether there is a
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is
materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of
imports of stainless steel sheet and strip from France, Italy, and
Korea. A negative ITC determination will, for any country, result in
the investigation being terminated with respect to that country;
otherwise, the investigations will proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
This notice is published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
Dated June 30, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-18603 Filed 7-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P