[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 13, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18001-18003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-9194]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-423-806]


Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Belgium; Amended Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest or Eva Temkin, Group II, 
Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2786.


[[Page 18002]]


SUMMARY: On March 16, 1999, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register its final results of administrative 
review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel 
plate from Belgium for the period January 1, 1996 through December 31, 
1996 (64 FR 12982) (Final Results). Subsequent to the publication of 
the Final Results, we received comments from the petitioners alleging 
various ministerial errors. After analyzing the comments submitted, we 
are amending our final results to correct certain ministerial errors. 
Based on the correction of these ministerial errors, we have changed 
the net subsidy for Fabriqure de Fer de Charleroi, S.A. (Fafer). We 
will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess countervailing duties 
as detailed in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 1999.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

    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). In addition, all citations to the Department's regulations 
reference 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).

Background

    On March 16, 1999, the Department published the final results of 
its administrative review of the countervailing duty order on cut-to-
length carbon steel plate from Belgium for the period January 1, 1996 
through December 31, 1996 (64 FR 12982). After publication of our Final 
Results, we received timely allegations from petitioners that we had 
made ministerial errors in calculating the final results. We also 
received timely rebuttal comments from the respondent.
    A summary of the allegation and rebuttal comments along with the 
Department's response is included below. We corrected our calculations, 
where we agree that we made ministerial errors, in accordance with 
section 751(h) of the Act.

Clerical Error Allegation

    Allegation: Petitioners allege that we inadvertently allocated the 
two grants received by Fafer's affiliate, Parachevement et Finitions de 
Metaux (PFM), over the average useful life (AUL) of Fafer's assets 
rather than properly expensing them in the year of receipt. Petitioners 
cite the General Issues Appendix appended to Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel Products From Austria 
(GIA), 58 FR 37217, 37226 (July 9, 1993) (proposed 19 C.F.R. section 
355.49(a)(3)(i)(A)) and state that under the Department's standard 
grant methodology, the sum of grants provided under a particular 
domestic subsidy program in a given year are expensed in the year in 
which the grant was provided when this sum is less than 0.50 percent of 
the firm's total sales. Petitioners further cite the Department's 
comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public 
Comments (1989 Proposed Regulations), 54 FR 37217, which state that the 
``purpose of this rule is to avoid any anomalies caused by the 
interaction of the Department's allocation formula and the de minimis 
rule'' * * * See 54 FR 23376 (May 31, 1989).
    Petitioners assert that PFM received two grants under the 1970 Law 
in 1996 and that these benefits are 0.425 percent of Fafer's domestic 
sales in 1996. Therefore, petitioners contend that these grants should 
be expensed in the year of receipt.
    In rebuttal, the respondent, Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi (Fafer), 
argues that the issues raised by petitioners in its allegation are not 
a ministerial matter, but rather a methodological approach to 
calculations by the Department. The respondent cites the Department's 
regulations at 19 C.F.R. 351.224, which define a ministerial error as, 
``an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, 
clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the 
like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the 
Secretary considers ministerial.'' The respondent asserts that the 
Department used its discretion in the final results and correctly 
calculated the benefit by expensing a portion of the benefits in this 
case rather than expensing the entire benefit during the period of 
review. Fafer contends that the Department chose this calculation 
methodology to avoid significant substantive anomalies that would 
result from expensing the entire benefit during the 1996 review period, 
a distortively high countervailing duty rate.
    The respondent cites Final Rule; Countervailing Duties, 63 FR 65358 
(November 25, 1998) (Final Rule) which states that the Department will 
normally expense grant amounts for a program in the year that they were 
given, if those amounts are less than 0.5 percent of the total value of 
sales for that year. The respondent maintains that the 0.5 test is an 
exception to the general rule of allocating non-recurring grants which 
is applied to reduce the administrative burden in cases where the 
impact is minuscule. The respondent asserts that the Department has the 
discretion to apply the 0.5 test on a case by case basis and in this 
case has chosen to use its general practice of allocating non-recurring 
grants over the AUL instead. The respondent argues that there is no 
administrative burden in this case because the calculations have been 
completed. Moreover, to change the allocation methodology would have a 
significant impact on Fafer's countervailing duty rate which would no 
longer be de minimis and would result in a duty being assessed for the 
POR.
    In response to petitioners' assertion that the purpose of using the 
0.5 percent test is to avoid anomalies between the allocation formula 
and the de minimis rule, the respondent argues that the only anomaly 
created would be from expensing these grants in a given year which 
would result in an affirmative countervailing duty rate rather than a 
de minimis one. The respondent argues that this is not the correct 
application of the 0.5 percent test exception for the allocation of 
grants. The respondent contends that the Department chose the 
calculation methodology which had no distortive effects.
    Furthermore, the respondent argues that PFM's benefits should not 
be expensed in total during the review period, because, notwithstanding 
petitioners' claim that PFM's grants benefitted the subject 
merchandise, PFM did not in any way affect merchandise attributed to 
Fafer that was imported into the United States. Therefore, if PFM's 
benefits are attributed to Fafer, respondent argues that they should be 
calculated on the same basis as the calculations applied to Fafer.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that the 
Department made a ministerial error and should have expensed PFM's 
grants in the 1996 review period. We have changed the net subsidy rate 
accordingly. In the Final Results, the Department stated that it 
``employed the standard grant allocation methodology'' as explained in 
the GIA, with respect to the grants received by S.A. Charleroi 
Deroulage (CD) and PFM. See 64 FR at 12984, citing GIA. However, 
inconsistent with the GIA and our application of the standard grant 
methodology throughout this proceeding, we inadvertently failed to 
apply the 0.50 percent test to the CD and PFM grants, and, 
consequently, allocated these grants over Fafer's AUL. Therefore, to 
correct this ministerial error, we applied this test and found

[[Page 18003]]

that the 1993 and 1996 grants were less than 0.50 percent of total 
domestic sales in the year that they were given. As a result, we have 
expensed the sum of PFM's grants provided in 1996 and included the 
total benefit of 0.42 percent ad valorem in the net subsidy rate for 
the 1996 review period. Moreover, we have determined that the grant 
provided in 1993 to Fafer's other affiliate, CD, would have been 
expensed in the 1993 review period and have not included CD's 1993 
benefit in the net subsidy rate for the 1996 POR.

Amended Final Results of Review

    As a result of the amended net subsidy calculations, we determine 
the net subsidy for Fafer to be 0.69 percent ad valorem for the period 
January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996.
    We will instruct the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to assess 
countervailing duties of 0.69 percent ad valorem on shipments of the 
subject merchandise from Fafer exported on or after January 1, 1996, 
and on or before December 31, 1996. The Department will also instruct 
Customs to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties of 
0.69 percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the 
subject merchandise from Fafer as amended by this determination. The 
amended deposit requirements are effective for all shipments of the 
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice and 
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the 
next administrative review.
    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 
351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR section 351.212(c), 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). Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all companies 
except those covered by this review will be unchanged by the results of 
this amended final results of administrative 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 will be the rate for that company established in the most 
recently completed administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA. 
If such a review has not been conducted, the rate established in the 
most recently completed administrative proceeding pursuant to the 
statutory provisions that were in effect prior to the URAA amendments 
is applicable. See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: 
Certain Steel Products From Belgium 58 FR 37273. 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.
    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 section 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.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 
19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)(7)).

    Dated: April 6, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-9194 Filed 4-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P