[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 132 (Monday, July 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37509-37511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17643]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-533-063]


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

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

ACTION: Notice of amended final results of expedited sunset review: 
iron metal castings from India.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott E. Smith 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) 482-6397 or (202) 482-1560, 
respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 1999.

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. The written description remains 
dispositive.

[[Page 37510]]

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 
June 1, 1999, the Department issued its final results of the sunset 
review of the countervailing duty order on iron metal castings from 
India (64 FR 30316), in which we determined that there was a likelihood 
of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy if the order 
were to be revoked. In this determination, the Department also 
determined the net subsidy rate likely to prevail if the order were to 
be revoked.
    On June 23, 1999, the Department received allegations, timely filed 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2), from the Municipal Castings Fair 
Trade Council and its individual members (collectively, ``domestic 
industry'') that the Department made a ministerial error in its final 
results. The domestic industry alleged that the Department failed to 
include the subsidy rate for the International Price Reimbursement 
Scheme (``IPRS'') program in its final results of the sunset review for 
this case. The domestic industry, citing the Sunset Policy Bulletin, 
stated that the Department normally ``will not make adjustments to the 
net countervailable subsidy rate for programs that still exist, but 
were modified subsequent to the order, * * * to eliminate exports to 
the United States (or subject merchandise) from eligibility.'' The 
domestic industry argued that Indian foundries that exported heavy 
castings (subject merchandise) to the United States were simply told 
not to make claims for IPRS benefits on those castings. Further, the 
domestic industry argued that there has never been any termination of 
the IPRS program overall, and the program continues today.
    The Department received, on June 30, 1999, a submission on behalf 
of the Engineering Export Promotion Council of India (``EEPC'') in 
rebuttal to the ministerial error alleged by the domestic industry. The 
EEPC argued that the domestic industry was incorrect in stating that 
the IPRS program continues to exist. The EEPC asserted that the 
Department has information on the record of the 1994 administrative 
review segment of this proceeding stating that the Indian Ministry of 
Commerce withdrew the IPRS, effective April 1, 1994. Further, the EEPC 
states that this withdrawal applied to all exporters and all products.
    On July 2, 1999, the Department received a response from the 
domestic industry arguing that the EEPC has waived its right to 
participate in this sunset review before the Department, pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.218, and the Department should, therefore, reject the EEPC's 
June 30, 1999, submission. Furthermore, the domestic industry states 
that it knows of no finding that the IPRS has been terminated, with 
respect to all exporters and all products.
    After analyzing the domestic industry's June 23, 1999 submission, 
we have determined, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224, that a 
ministerial error was made in the final determination concerning the 
IPRS program. The Department notes that the definition of a ministerial 
error provides not only for the correction of errors in arithmetic but 
also for ``any other similar type of unintentional error which the 
Secretary considers ministerial'' (see 19 CFR 351.224(f)). In the 
Department's final results of the sunset review for this case, we 
excluded the IPRS program from our net subsidy calculation based on the 
fact that the Department ``had verified this termination [of the IPRS 
program] 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'' (see Final Results of 
Expedited Sunset Review: Iron Metal Castings from India, 64 FR 30316 
(June 7, 1999)). The Department's reliance on this statement for its 
final determination in the sunset review was in error. As noted above, 
the Department's Sunset Policy Bulletin state that where a program 
continues to exist, but was modified to eliminate exports to the United 
States (or subject merchandise) from eligibility, the Department will 
normally not make adjustments to the net countervailable subsidy rate. 
The Department's decision to consider the IPRS program terminated based 
upon the fact that the program had been modified to exclude exports of 
heavy castings to the United States was, therefore, in error because 
reliance on modification as a basis for finding a program completely 
terminated is inconsistent with our Sunset Policy Bulletin.
    However, based on the domestic industry's ministerial allegation 
and the EEPC's reply, the Department has reexamined all relevant 
information pertaining to the termination of the IPRS program. The 
Department located a submission from the Indian Ministry of Commerce, 
dated April 4, 1994, which demonstrates that the Government of India 
has fully and completely eliminated the IPRS program (see November 19, 
1996 Verification Report for Certain Iron Metal Castings from India, 
Exhibit EEPC 4, placed on the record of this sunset review on July 2, 
1999).1 Specifically, the Indian Ministry of Commerce states 
that ``it has been decided to withdraw the International Price 
Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS) with effect from 01.4.1994, i.e. benefits 
under the scheme would be available for eligible engineering goods 
exports shipped up to [sic] 31.3.1994 only.'' (Id.) Consistent with our 
Sunset Policy Bulletin (see section III.B.3.a), this evidence of the 
complete and total withdrawal of the IPRS program is the appropriate 
basis for the Department's finding that the IPRS program is terminated. 
The Department's correction of its ministerial error, i.e., the 
appropriate basis for its termination finding, does not change the net 
subsidy rate reported in the original final determination of this 
sunset review.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In addition, the Department has placed on the record of this 
sunset review all relevant information concerning the termination of 
the IPRS program. This information can be found in the public sunset 
file of this review in Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main 
Commerce building.
    \2\ Furthermore, the Department can confirm that no residual 
benefits exist from this program to Indian producers/exporters of 
the subject merchandise to the United States (see the 1996 and the 
1997 Verification Report of Iron Metal Castings from India, placed 
on the record of this sunset review on July 2, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the domestic industry's argument that, pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.218, the Department should reject the June 30, 1999, 
submission of the EEPC, the Department disagrees. Section 
351.218(d)(2)(i) of the Department's regulations provides that if a 
respondent interested party waives participation in the sunset review 
before the Department (as the EEPC did), the Department will not accept 
or consider any unsolicited submissions from that party during the 
course of the review. The EEPC's submission, however, was not made 
during the course of the sunset review. Rather, the EEPC filed a reply 
to ministerial error comments made by the domestic industry after the 
Department had issued its final determination in the sunset review.
    Section 351.224 of the Act outlines the procedures for the 
correction of ministerial errors. Specifically, section 351.224(c)(3) 
of the Act, states that ``replies to comments filed under (c)(1) of 
this section must be filed within five days after the date on which 
comments were filed with the Secretary.'' This regulation does not 
limit who may file

[[Page 37511]]

replies to ministerial error allegations.3 Because the 
submission from the EEPC is timely filed, pursuant to section 
351.224(c)(3) of the Act, we have accepted it. Finally, contrary to 
arguments raised by the domestic industry, acceptance of the EEPC's 
submission does not result in an inference adverse to the domestic 
industry; rather the EEPC's submission relates important factual 
information that is already on the record of this proceeding, i.e., in 
the 1994 administrative review segment. For these reasons, therefore, 
the Department finds no reason to reject the EEPC's June 30, 1999, 
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ While there are no limitations on who may file replies to 
ministerial error allegations, the regulations do provide that only 
a ``party to the proceeding'' may file ministerial error 
allegations. See 19 CFR 351.224(c)(1) and 19 CFR 351.102 (defining 
``party to the proceeding'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results of Review

    For the reasons stated above, the Department continues to find that 
revocation of the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rates 
listed in the Department's final determination of the sunset review of 
this case (see Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Iron Metal 
Castings from India, 64 FR 30316 (June 7, 1999)).
    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 6, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-17643 Filed 7-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P