[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