[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 108 (Monday, June 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30316-30320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-14340]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-533-063]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Iron Metal Castings 
From India

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Iron Metal 
Castings from India.

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

SUMMARY: On November 2, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty 
order on iron metal castings from India (63 FR 58709) pursuant to 
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On 
the basis of a notice of intent to participate and substantive comments 
filed on behalf of the domestic parties, as well as inadequate response 
(in this case, no response) from respondent interested parties, the 
Department determined to conduct an expedited (120 day) review. As a 
result of this review, the Department finds that termination of the 
countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. The net countervailable 
subsidy and the nature of the subsidy are identified in the ``Final 
Results of Review'' section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason M. Appelbaum or Melissa G. 
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th & Constitution, 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5050 or (202) 482-1560, 
respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

    This review was conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of 
the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews 
are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-Year (``Sunset'') 
Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 
(March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations'') and in 19 CFR Part 351 (1998) 
in general. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to 
the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the 
Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3--Policies Regarding the Conduct of 
Five-Year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset Policy 
Bulletin'').

Scope

    The merchandise subject to this countervailing duty order are 
shipments of manhole covers and frames, clean-out covers and frames, 
and catch basin grates and frames from India. These articles are 
commonly called municipal or public works castings and are used for 
access or drainage for public utility, water, and sanitary systems. 
These articles must be of cast iron, not alloyed, and not malleable. 
This merchandise is currently classifiable under item numbers 
7325.10.0010 and 7325.10.0050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS''). The HTSUS item numbers are provided for 
convenience and U.S. Customs purposes. We note that, in their 
substantive response, the domestic parties limit their description of 
the subject merchandise to HTSUS item number 7325.10.0010, which refers 
specifically to so-called ``heavy'' castings. The written description 
remains dispositive.

History of the Order

    On August 20, 1980, the Department issued a final affirmative 
countervailing duty determination with respect to imports of certain 
iron construction castings from India.1 In the final 
determination the Department found an ``all others'' estimated net 
subsidy of 13.33 percent ad valorem during the review period based on 
four programs: 12.5 percent under the Cash Compensatory System program, 
0.4 percent under the preferential export financing program, 0.4 
percent under the tax deductions under the export marketing allowance 
program, and 0.3 percent under the market development assistance 
program. Receipt of benefits under each of these programs was 
contingent upon exports. The Department also found the following net 
countervailable subsidy rates for the following five companies: Uma 
Iron & Steel--16.8 percent, RB Agarwalla--14.9 percent, Basant Udyog--
13.8 percent, Kejriwal Iron & Steel Works--13.1 percent, and Kajaria 
Exports--12.9 percent. Additionally, the Department determined an ``all 
others'' rate of 13.3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Countervailing Duties--Certain Iron Metal Castings From 
India; Final Countervailing Duty Determination, 45 FR 55502 (August 
20, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 16, 1980, the Department issued a countervailing duty 
order which confirmed the subsidy rates found in the original 
investigation.2 The cash deposit rate was subsequently 
revised by the Department to take into account program-wide changes in 
the Cash Compensatory Support program, which reduced the program-
specific subsidy from 12.5 percent to 5.0 percent.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Countervailing 
Duty Order, 45 FR 68650 (October 16, 1980).
    \3\ See Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Adjustment of 
Countervailing Duty Deposit Rate, 46 FR 38398 (July 27, 1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the issuance of the order, the Department has conducted 14 
administrative reviews covering the four countervailable programs from 
the original investigation and 10 other

[[Page 30317]]

programs which were found to be countervailable.4 Over the 
course of these 14 administrative reviews, the Department has also 
reviewed 22 additional companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Countervailing Duty Order, 48 FR 56092 
(December 19, 1983); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final 
Results of Administrative Review of Countervailing Duty Order, 49 FR 
40943 (October 18, 1984); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 51 FR 
45788 (December 22, 1986); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; 
Amendment to Final Results of Countervailing Administrative Review 
in Accordance With Decision Upon Remand, 53 FR 37014 (September 23, 
1988); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 50747 (December 10, 
1990); Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 
Certain Iron Metal Castings From India, 56 FR 1976 (January 18, 
1991); Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 
Certain Iron Metal Castings From India, 56 FR 41658 (August 22, 
1991); Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 
Certain Iron Metal Castings From India, 56 FR 52515 (October 21, 
1991); Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 
Certain Iron Metal Casting From India, 56 FR 52521 (October 21, 
1991); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 44849 (August 29, 
1995); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 44843 (August 29, 
1995); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 64687 (December 6, 
1996); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Amended Final Results 
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 590 (January 3, 
1997); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 64676 (December 6, 
1996); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 32297 (June 13, 
1997); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Amended Final Results 
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review in Accordance With 
Decision Upon Remand, 63 FR 67858 (December 9, 1998); and Certain 
Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results and Partial Rescission 
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 64050 (November 
18, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the third administrative review, covering the period January 1, 
1984 to December 31, 1984, the Department found that two new 
countervailable programs existed and were conferring 
benefits.5 The first program, the International Price 
Reimbursement Scheme (``IPRS'') was determined to be a direct export 
subsidy conferring benefits of 6.54 percent. The second new 
countervailable program, tax deduction for exporters under section 
80HHC, was determined to confer benefits of 0.02 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Preliminary 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 51 FR 35676 
(October 7, 1986); Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 51 FR 45788 
(December 22, 1986); and Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; 
Amendment to Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review in Accordance With Decision Upon Remand, 53 FR 37014 
(September 23, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the next administrative review, the Department found another 
countervailable export subsidy under a post-shipment export financing 
program operated by the Reserve Bank of India. The Department 
determined, in the final results of this administrative review, that 
countervailable benefits of 0.98 percent were being given under this 
program.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Preliminary 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 12702 
(April 5, 1990); Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 50747 
(December 10, 1990); and Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; 
Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review 
in Accordance With Decision Upon Remand, 63 FR 67858 (December 9, 
1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the administrative review covering the period January 1, 1987 to 
December 31, 1987, the Department found the sale of replenishment 
licenses to provide a countervailable subsidy because exporters receive 
the licenses based on their status as exporters. This program, benefits 
through the sale of import licenses, was determined to provide a 
countervailable subsidy of 0.01 percent.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review; Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India, 56 FR 
41654 (August 22, 1991) and Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review; Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India, 56 FR 
52515 (October 21, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the next administrative review, covering the period January 1, 
1988 to December 31, 1988, the Department found that producers of 
castings were receiving benefits through the sale of additional 
licenses and that these benefits were 0.35 percent.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review; Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India, 56 FR 
41650 (August 22, 1991) and Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review; Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India, 56 FR 
52521 (October 21, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the administrative review covering the period January 1, 1993 to 
December 31, 1993, the Department determined that three new 
countervailable programs existed. Benefits were being provided under 
post-shipment export financing denominated in foreign currency at a 
rate of 1.25 percent, under an exemption of export credit for interest 
taxes at a rate of 0.06 percent, and under an advanced license through 
the Liberalized Exchange Rate Management System (``LERMS'') at a rate 
of 0.33 percent.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Preliminary 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 25623 
(May 22, 1996) and Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 64676 
(December 6, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Department, in the administrative review for the period 
January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994, found two new countervailable 
programs: pre-shipment credit in foreign currency and payment of 
premium against advance license. Because receipt of benefits under both 
of these programs were contingent upon export performance, the 
Department found both programs were export subsidies. However, the 
Department determined that the benefits under both programs were zero 
percent.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Preliminary 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 64669 
(December 6, 1996) and Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 32297 
(June 13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the Department's findings of new countervailable 
programs over the life of the order, the Department has also found that 
five programs have been terminated since the issuance of the order. Of 
the programs from the original investigation, two programs, the Cash 
Compensatory Support program and the income tax deductions under the 
export market development allowance, were both found to be terminated. 
The Cash Compensatory Support program was determined to have been 
terminated by the GOI on July 3, 1991.11 The Department 
stated in the final results of the reviews covering 1990 and 1991, that 
India's Ministry of Commerce terminated the Cash Compensatory Support 
program as of July 3, 1991. In our position in responses to Comment 2 
in final determination notice related to 1991, we explained that we 
disagreed with the petitioners assertion that the program was merely 
suspended. Rather, we noted that the India Ministry of Commerce 
announcement concluded that the program was terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final Results 
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 44843 (August 
29, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final results of the 1982 administrative review, the 
Department stated that the Income Tax Deduction Under the Export 
Markets Development Allowance program was terminated.12 
Specifically, the Department noted that on May 13, 1983, the Indian 
government published in the Gazette of India the Finance Act of 1983, 
which included an amendment to Article 35B. Effective April 1, 1983, no 
income tax benefits

[[Page 30318]]

were available for expenditures incurred after March 1, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Preliminary 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 49 FR 32279 
(August 16, 1984) and Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 49 FR 40943 
(October 18, 1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three other programs that were instituted after the completion of 
the original investigation were also found to subsequently be 
terminated. The IPRS program was found to have been terminated as of 
June 30, 1987.13 The Department verified this termination by 
examining a circular from the Indian Ministry of Commerce which stated 
that claims were not to be made on exports of castings to the United 
States and, as such, the Department determined that this constituted 
termination of the program. Additionally, the Department determined 
that benefits under the LERMS program were terminated as of February 
28, 1993 and that benefits under the program of post-shipment export 
financing denominated in foreign currency were terminated effective 
February 8, 1996 by the GOI.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review; Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India, 56 FR 41658 (August 
22, 1991).
    \14\ See Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final Results 
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 64676 (December 
6, 1996) and Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India; Final Results 
and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 
63 FR 64050 (November 18, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This review covers all producers and exporters of iron metal 
castings from India.

Background

    On November 2, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of 
the countervailing duty order on iron metal castings from India (63 FR 
58709), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received 
a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of the Municipal Castings 
Fair Trade Council (``MCFTC'') and its individual members 15 
(collectively ``the domestic parties''), on November 17, 1998, within 
the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset 
Regulations. We received a complete substantive response on behalf of 
the domestic parties on December 2, 1998, within the 30-day deadline 
specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). The 
individual members of the MCFTC claimed interested party status as 
manufacturers of domestic like products and MCFTC claimed interested 
party status as a trade association representing the domestic parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The MCFTC is comprised of Allegheny Foundry Company, 
Bingham & Taylor, Deeter Foundry Inc., East Jordan Iron Works, Inc., 
LeBaron Foundry, Inc., Municipal Castings, Inc., Neenah Foundry 
Company, Tyler Pipe, and U.S. Foundry & Manufacturing Co. The 
domestic parties stated that only so-called ``heavy'' castings are 
subject to the order. Since Bingham & Taylor and Tyler Pipe are 
manufacturers of so-called ``light'' castings only, they would not 
be interested parties in this review. However, since the order does 
cover both heavy and light castings, these two companies would be 
interested parties in this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also received a statement of waiver from the 
Engineering Export Promotion Council (``EEPC'') of India on December 1, 
1998. We did not receive a response from the Government of India 
(``GOI''). Therefore, since the Department did not receive a 
substantive response from any respondent interested party and pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department determined to conduct an 
expedited, 120-day, review of this order.
    The Department determined that the sunset review of the 
countervailing duty order on iron metal castings from India is 
extraordinarily complicated. In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) 
of the Act, the Department may treat a review as extraordinarily 
complicated if it is a review of a transition order (i.e., an order in 
effect on January 1, 1995). (See section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act.) 
Therefore, on March 2, 1999, the Department extended the time limit for 
completion of the final results of this review until not later than 
June 1, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the 
Act.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Iron Metal Castings From India: Extension of Time Limit 
for Final Results of Five-Year Review, 64 FR 10992 (March 8, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted this review to determine whether termination of the 
countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. Section 752(b) of the Act 
provides that, in making this determination, the Department shall 
consider the net countervailable subsidy determined in the 
investigation and subsequent reviews, and whether any change in the 
program which gave rise to the net countervailable subsidy has occurred 
that is likely to affect that net countervailable subsidy. Pursuant to 
section 752(b)(3) of the Act, the Department shall provide to the 
International Trade Commission (``the Commission'') the net 
countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order is revoked. In 
addition, consistent with section 752(a)(6), the Department shall 
provide to the Commission information concerning the nature of the 
subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 
Article 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement.
    The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy, the net countervailable 
subsidy likely to prevail if the order is revoked, and nature of the 
subsidy are discussed below. In addition, the domestic parties' 
comments with respect to each of these issues are addressed within the 
respective sections.

Continuation or Recurrence of a Countervailable Subsidy

    Drawing on the guidance provided in the legislative history 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), specifically 
the Statement of Administrative Action (``the SAA''), H.R. Doc. No. 
103-316, vol. 1 (1994), the House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103-826, pt.1 
(1994), and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 103-412 (1994), the 
Department issued its Sunset Policy Bulletin providing guidance on 
methodological and analytical issues, including the basis for 
likelihood determinations. The Department clarified that determinations 
of likelihood will be made on an order-wide basis (see section III.A.2 
of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Additionally, the Department normally 
will determine that revocation of a countervailing duty order is likely 
to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 
where (a) a subsidy program continues, (b) a subsidy program has been 
only temporarily suspended, or (c) a subsidy program has been only 
partially terminated (see section III.A.3.a of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin). Exceptions to this policy are provided where a company has a 
long record of not using a program (see section III.A.3.b of the Sunset 
Policy Bulletin).
    In addition to considering guidance on likelihood provided in the 
Sunset Policy Bulletin and legislative history, section 751(c)(4)(B) of 
the Act provides that the Department shall determine that revocation of 
an order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a 
countervailable subsidy where a respondent interested party waives its 
participation in the sunset review. According to the Sunset Regulations 
and the SAA at 881, in a review of a countervailing duty order where 
the foreign government has waived participation, the Department shall 
conclude that respondent interested parties have provided inadequate 
response to the notice of initiation and will normally determine that 
revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy.17 In the instant 
review, the Department did not receive a substantive response from the 
GOI.

[[Page 30319]]

Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset Regulations, this 
constitutes a waiver of participation. Further, the EEPC submitted a 
statement of waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their substantive response, the domestic parties argue that it 
is likely that a countervailable subsidy would continue to be provided 
to manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise if the 
countervailing duty order were revoked. (See December 2, 1998 
Substantive Response of the domestic parties at 42.) The domestic 
parties state that the record demonstrates that, since the imposition 
of the countervailing duty order, the GOI has continued to provide 
subsidies to producers/exporters of castings. Further, the domestic 
parties argue that the manner in which the GOI ended certain key 
subsidies could result in easy reinstatement. Finally, the domestic 
parties state that when some subsidy programs are found to be 
countervailable, other subsidy programs are introduced in their place.
    The domestic parties discuss two specific subsidy programs of the 
Government of India: the International Price Reimbursement Scheme 
(IPRS) and the Cash Compensatory Support Program (CCS). According to 
the domestic parties, the GOI's handling of these two programs is 
indicative of the way in which the GOI responds to a determination by 
the Department that a program is countervailable. First, in regards to 
the IPRS program, the domestic parties argue that, after the Department 
determined that the program provided a countervailable subsidy the EEPC 
(a quasi-governmental entity or trade association representing 
exporters of the subject castings) implemented a plan whereby 
producers/exporters of heavy castings were asked not to make further 
claims against exports of heavy castings to the United States as of 
July 1, 1987. (See December 2, 1998 Substantive Response of the 
domestic parties at 45-46.) The domestic parties argue that this 
cessation of claims against the IPRS program was only for heavy 
castings and, since it was not brought about by government legislation, 
regulation, or decree, the program can be resumed at any time.
    Additionally, the domestic parties argue that the CCS program may 
also be easily reinstated should the order be revoked. According to the 
domestic parties, the CCS program was not terminated by an official 
act. Therefore, it can be restarted rather easily in the event that 
this order were revoked. Finally, the domestic parties argue that the 
Department, in its most recent administrative review, found 12 programs 
that were currently not in use, but that have not been terminated, thus 
leaving open the possibility that these programs may be resumed should 
the order be revoked.
    In conclusion, the domestic parties argue that the Department 
should find that there is a likelihood that a countervailable subsidy 
would continue if the order were revoked.
    The Sunset Policy Bulletin, at section III.A.3.a, states that, 
consistent with the SAA at 888, continuation of a program will be 
highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of 
countervailable subsidies. Temporary suspension or partial termination 
of a subsidy program also will be probative of continuation or 
recurrence of countervailable subsidies, absent significant evidence to 
the contrary. Additionally, the Sunset Policy Bulletin provides that, 
where a program has been officially terminated by the foreign 
government, this will be probative of the fact that the program will 
not continue or recur if the order is revoked. (See Sunset Policy 
Bulletin at section III.A.5.)
    We agree with the domestic parties that Indian producers/exporters 
continue to benefit from several countervailable subsidy programs. The 
Department, in its most recent administrative review, determined that 
there are six countervailable programs currently in use and also listed 
13 programs that were found not to be used.18 As stated 
above, the continued use of a program is highly probative of the 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies 
if the order were revoked. Additionally, the presence of programs that 
have not been used, but have also not been terminated, is also 
probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a 
countervailable subsidy. Therefore, because there are countervailable 
programs that are currently being used and others that remain in 
existence, the foreign government and other respondent interested 
parties waived their right to participate in this review before the 
Department, and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the 
Department determines that it is likely that a countervailable subsidy 
will continue if the order were revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results 
and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 
63 FR 64050 (November 18, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net Countervailable Subsidy

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that, 
consistent with the SAA and House Report, the Department normally will 
select a rate from the investigation, because that is the only 
calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters and foreign 
governments without the discipline of an order or suspension agreement 
in place. The Department went on to clarify that this rate may not be 
the most appropriate if, for example, the rate was derived from subsidy 
programs which were found in subsequent reviews to be terminated, there 
has been a program-wide change, or the rate ignores a program found to 
be countervailable in a subsequent review. Additionally, where the 
Department determined company-specific countervailing duty rates in the 
original investigation, the Department normally will report to the 
Commission company-specific rates from the original investigation or 
where no company-specific rate was determined for a company, the 
Department normally will provide to the Commission the country-wide or 
``all others'' rate. (See Sunset Policy Bulletin at section III.B.2.)
    The domestic parties, citing the Sunset Policy Bulletin, state that 
the Department should select, as the net countervailable subsidy likely 
to prevail, the company-specific and ``all others'' rates from the 
original investigation.
    The Department disagrees with the domestic parties' argument 
concerning the net countervailable subsidy rate that is likely to 
prevail. As stated above, the Sunset Policy Bulletin does state that 
the Department will normally choose the rate from the investigation, 
since this is the only rate that reflects how a foreign government and 
exporters will act without the discipline of an order in place. 
However, the Sunset Policy Bulletin also provides that adjustments may 
be made to the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail where 
programs have either been terminated or where new programs have been 
added. As the domestic parties noted in their substantive response, new 
programs have been added and some programs have been terminated over 
the life of the order. Specifically, the Department, through the 
process of administrative reviews, has determined that four programs 
have been terminated. These programs--`` the Cash Compensatory Support 
program (CCS), the International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS), the 
Income Tax Deductions Under the Export Market Development Allowance 
program, the Imports Made Under an Advance License Through the 
Liberalized Exchange Rate Management System (LERMS) program, and the 
Post Shipment Export Financing Denominated in Foreign Currency

[[Page 30320]]

(PSCFC) program--`` have all been found to be terminated, with no 
residual benefits.19 Therefore, pursuant to the Sunset 
Policy Bulletin the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail has 
been adjusted to reflect the termination of these programs. The net 
countervailable subsidy has also been adjusted to account for new 
programs identified during administrative reviews.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For information concerning program terminations Certain 
Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 60 FR 44843 (August 29, 1995); Final Results 
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Certain Iron Metal 
Castings From India, 56 FR 41658 (August 22, 1991); Certain Iron 
Metal Castings From India; Preliminary Results of Administrative 
Review of Countervailing Duty Order, 49 FR 32779 (August 16, 1984); 
Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Countervailing Duty Order, 49 FR 40943 
(October 18, 1984); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 64676 
(December 6, 1996); and Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 64050 (November 18, 1998) respectively. 
For the case of the income tax deductions (the preliminary and final 
results published in 1984) the comment by the Department regarding 
the termination of this program is found in the preliminary results 
and is reaffirmed in the final results.
    \20\ For new programs Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 51 FR 
45788 (December 22, 1986); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; 
Amendment to Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review in Accordance With Decision Upon Remand, 53 FR 37014 
(September 23, 1988); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; 
Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 51 
FR 35676 (October 7, 1986); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 51 FR 
45788 (December 22, 1986); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; 
Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 55 
FR 12702 (April 5, 1990); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 
50747 (December 10, 1990); Preliminary Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review; Certain Iron Metal Castings From India, 
56 FR 29626 (June 28, 1991); Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review; Certain Iron Metal Castings From India, 56 FR 
41658 (August 22, 1991); Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review; Certain Iron Metal Castings From India, 56 FR 
41654 (August 22, 1991); Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review; Certain Iron Metal Castings From India, 56 FR 
52515 (October 21, 1991); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 
64676 (December 6, 1996); Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; 
Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 
FR 64669 (December 6, 1996); and Certain Iron Metal Castings From 
India; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 
62 FR 32297 (June 13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of changes in programs since the imposition of the 
countervailing duty order, the Department has determined that using the 
net countervailable subsidy rates, as determined in the original 
investigation, is no longer appropriate. Rather, we have adjusted the 
company-specific and ``all others'' countervailing duty rates from the 
original investigation by adding in the rates from the first time a new 
program was used and subtracting out the subsidy rates from programs 
that have been terminated. (See Memorandum to File regarding 
calculation of the net countervailable subsidy.) As a result, the 
Department will report to the Commission the rates as contained in the 
Final Results of Review section of this notice.

Nature of the Subsidy

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that, 
consistent with section 752(a)(6) of the Act, the Department will 
provide information to the Commission concerning the nature of the 
subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 
Article 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement. The domestic parties did not 
specifically address this issue.
    Because receipt of benefits provided by the GOI's countervailable 
programs are contingent upon exports, these programs fall within the 
definition of export subsidies under Article 3.1(A) of the Subsidies 
Agreement.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of 
the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation 
or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporters                     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uma Iron & Steel...........................................         1.76
R.B. Agarwalla & Co........................................         0.84
Basant Udyog...............................................         1.82
Kejriwal Iron & Steel Works................................         1.82
Kajaria Exports............................................         0.84
All others.................................................         1.82
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice serves as the only 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 351.305 of the Department's regulations. 
Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
    Dated: June 1, 1999.

Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-14340 Filed 6-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P