[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 142 (Monday, July 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40445-40457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18857]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-580-837]


Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final 
Antidumping Duty Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality 
Steel Plate From the Republic of Korea

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 26, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Tipten Troidl, CVD/
AD Enforcement, Office 6, Group II, Import Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-2786.

PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION: The Department of Commerce (the Department) 
preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being 
provided to certain producers and exporters of certain cut-to-length 
carbon-quality steel plate from the Republic of Korea. For information 
on the estimated countervailing duty rates, see the ``Suspension of 
Liquidation'' section of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petitioners

    The petition in this investigation was filed by Bethlehem Steel 
Corporation, U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation, Gulf States 
Steel, Inc., IPSCO Steel Inc., Tuscaloosa Steel Corporation, and the 
United Steelworkers of America (the petitioners).

Case History

    Since the publication of the notice of initiation in the Federal 
Register (see Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty 
Investigations: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from 
France, India, Indonesia, Italy, and the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 12996 
(March 16, 1999) (Initiation Notice)), the following events have 
occurred. On March 18, 1999, we issued countervailing duty 
questionnaires to the Government of Korea (GOK), and the producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise. On April 29, 1999, we postponed 
the preliminary determination of this investigation until no later than 
July 16, 1999. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 
from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, and the Republic of Korea: 
Postponement of Time Limit for Countervailing Duty Investigations, 64 
FR 23057 (April 29, 1999).
    We received responses to our initial questionnaires from the GOK 
and Pohang Iron & Steel Company, Ltd. (POSCO), and Dongkuk Steel Mill 
Co., Ltd. (DSM), producers of the subject merchandise, on May 10, 1999. 
In addition, on July 1, 1998 we received responses from four trading 
companies which are involved in exporting the subject merchandise to 
the United States: POSCO Steel Service & Sales Company, Ltd. (POSTEEL), 
Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd. (DKI), Hyosung Corporation (Hyosung), and 
Sunkyong Ltd. (Sunkyong). On June 9, 1999, we issued supplemental 
questionnaires to all of the responding parties and received their 
responses on June 28, 1999, and July 1, 1999.
    The Department is currently seeking additional information 
regarding certain R&D programs used by either POSCO, DSM or their 
affiliates, which may have benefitted the producers/exporters of the 
subject merchandise.

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is certain 
hot-rolled carbon-quality steel: (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-
rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a 
width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or 
actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in 
coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality 
steel; and (2) flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual 
thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and 
measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not 
in coils).
    Steel products to be included in this scope are of rectangular, 
square, circular or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular 
cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved 
subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been 
``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been 
beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted 
physical characteristics that are painted, varnished or coated with 
plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within this 
scope. Also, specifically included in this scope are high strength, low 
alloy (HSLA) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-
alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, 
titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.
    Steel products to be included in this scope, regardless of 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, 
are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of 
the other contained elements, (2) the carbon content is two percent or 
less, by weight, and (3) none of the elements listed below is equal to 
or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

1.80 percent of manganese, or
1.50 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.41 percent of titanium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent zirconium.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in 
which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the 
levels listed above, are within the scope of these

[[Page 40446]]

investigations unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following 
products are specifically excluded from these investigations: (1) 
Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, 
varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances; (2) 
SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above; (3) 
products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents; 
(4) abrasion-resistant steels (i.e., USS AR 400, USS AR 500); (5) 
products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their 
proprietary equivalents; (6) ball bearing steels; (7) tool steels; and 
(8) silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the 
HTSUS under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 
7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 
7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 
7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 
7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 
7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under 
investigation is dispositive.

Scope Comments

    As stated in our notice of initiation, we set aside a period for 
parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. In particular, we 
sought comments on the specific levels of alloying elements set out in 
the description below, the clarity of grades and specifications 
excluded from the scope, and the physical and chemical description of 
the product coverage.
    On March 29, 1999, Usinor, a respondent in the French antidumping 
and countervailing duty investigations and DSM and POSCO, respondents 
in the Korean antidumping and countervailing duty investigations 
(collectively the Korean respondents), filed comments regarding the 
scope of the investigations. On April 14, 1999, the petitioners 
responded to Usinor's and the Korean respondents' comments. In 
addition, on May 17, 1999, ILVA S.p.A. (ILVA), a respondent in the 
Italian antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, requested 
guidance on whether certain products are within the scope of these 
investigations.
    Usinor requested that the Department modify the scope to exclude: 
(1) Plate that is cut to non-rectangular shapes or that has a total 
final weight of less than 200 kilograms; and (2) steel that is 4'' or 
thicker and which is certified for use in high-pressure, nuclear or 
other technical applications; and (3) floor plate (i.e., plate with 
``patterns in relief'') made from hot-rolled coil. Further, Usinor 
requested that the Department provide clarification of scope coverage 
with respect to what it argues are over-inclusive HTSUS subheadings 
included in the scope language.
    The Department has not modified the scope of these investigations 
because the current language reflects the product coverage requested by 
the petitioners, and Usinor's products meet the product description. 
With respect to Usinor's clarification request, we do not agree that 
the scope language requires further elucidation with respect to product 
coverage under the HTSUS. As indicated in the scope section of every 
Department antidumping and countervailing duty proceeding, the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only; the 
written description of the merchandise under investigation or review is 
dispositive.
    The Korean respondents requested confirmation whether the maximum 
alloy percentages listed in the scope language are definitive with 
respect to covered HSLA steels.
    At this time, no party has presented any evidence to suggest that 
these maximum alloy percentages are inappropriate. Therefore, we have 
not adjusted the scope language. As in all proceedings, questions as to 
whether or not a specific product is covered by the scope should be 
timely raised with Department officials.
    ILVA requested guidance on whether certain merchandise produced 
from billets is within the scope of the current CTL plate 
investigations. According to ILVA, the billets are converted into wide 
flats and bar products (a type of long product). ILVA notes that one of 
the long products, when rolled, has a thickness range that falls within 
the scope of these investigations. However, according to ILVA, the 
greatest possible width of these long products would only slightly 
overlap the narrowest category of width covered by the scope of the 
investigations. Finally, ILVA states that these products have different 
production processes and than merchandise covered by the scope of the 
investigations and therefore are not covered by the scope of the 
investigations.
    As ILVA itself acknowledges, the particular products in question 
appear to fall within the parameters of the scope and, therefore, we 
are treating them as covered merchandise for purposes of these 
investigations.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the 
Department's regulations are to the current regulations as codified at 
19 CFR part 351 (1998) and to the substantive countervailing duty 
regulations published in the Federal Register on November 25, 1998 (63 
FR 65348) (CVD Regulations).

Injury Test

    Because the Republic of Korea (Korea) is a ``Subsidies Agreement 
Country'' within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) is required to determine whether 
imports of the subject merchandise from Korea materially injure, or 
threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. On April 8, 1999, the ITC 
published its preliminary determination finding that there is a 
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is being 
materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of 
imports from Korea of the subject merchandise (See Certain Cut-To-
Length Steel Plate From Czech Republic, France, India, Indonesia, 
Italy, Japan, Korea, and Macedonia, 64 FR 17198 (April 8, 1999).

Alignment With Final Antidumping Duty Determination

    On July 2, 1999, the petitioners submitted a letter requesting 
alignment of the final determination in this investigation with the 
final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation. 
See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Cut-To-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Czech Republic, France, 
India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, and the Former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 64 FR 12959 (March 16, 1999). 
Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, we are 
aligning the final determination in this investigation with the final 
determinations in the antidumping investigations of certain cut-to-
length plate.

Period of Investigation

    The period for which we are measuring subsidies (the POI) is 
calendar year 1998.

[[Page 40447]]

Subsidies Valuation Information

Allocation Period

    Section 351.524(d)(2) of the CVD Regulations states that we will 
presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the 
average useful life (AUL) of renewable physical assets for the industry 
concerned, as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) 1977 Class 
Life Asset Depreciation Range System and updated by the Department of 
Treasury. The presumption will apply unless a party claims and 
establishes that these tables do not reasonably reflect the AUL of the 
renewable physical assets for the company or industry under 
investigation, and the party can establish that the difference between 
the company-specific or country-wide AUL for the industry under 
investigation is significant.
    In this investigation, no party to the proceeding has claimed that 
the AUL listed in the IRS tables does not reasonably reflect the AUL of 
the renewable physical assets for the firm or industry under 
investigation. Therefore, according to Sec. 351.524(d)(2) of the CVD 
Regulations, we have allocated POSCO and DSM's non-recurring subsidies 
over 15 years, the AUL listed in the IRS tables for the steel industry.

Benchmarks for Long-Term Loans and Discount Rates

    During the POI, POSCO and DSM had a number of won-denominated and 
foreign currency-denominated long-term loans outstanding which the 
company received from government-owned banks, Korean commercial banks, 
overseas banks, and foreign banks with branches in Korea. A number of 
these loans were received prior to 1992. In the 1993 investigation of 
Steel Products from Korea, the Department determined that the GOK 
influenced the practices of lending institutions in Korea and 
controlled access to overseas foreign currency loans through 1991. See 
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations and Final Negative 
Critical Circumstances Determinations: Certain Steel Products from 
Korea, 58 FR 37328, 37338 (July 9, 1993) (Steel Products from Korea), 
and the ``Direction of Credit'' section below. In that investigation, 
we determined that the best indicator of a market rate for long-term 
loans in Korea was the three-year corporate bond rate on the secondary 
market. Also, see Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination: 
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 15530, 
15532 (March 31, 1999) (Plate in Coils), and Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 30636, 39641 (June 8, 1999) 
(Sheet and Strip). Therefore, in the preliminary determination of the 
current investigation, to calculate the benefit which POSCO and DSM 
received from direct foreign currency loans and domestic foreign 
currency loans obtained prior to 1991 and still outstanding during the 
POI, we used as our benchmark the three-year corporate bond rate on the 
secondary market. We are also using the three-year corporate bond rate 
on the secondary market as the discount rate to determine the benefit 
from non-recurring subsidies received prior to 1992.
    In Plate in Coils and Sheet and Strip, the Department determined 
that the GOK continued to control directly or indirectly the lending 
practices of most sources of credit in Korea between 1992 and 1997. In 
the current investigation, we preliminarily determine that the GOK 
still exercised substantial control over lending institutions in Korea 
during the POI. Based on our findings on this issue in prior 
investigations, as well as in the current investigation on CTL Plate, 
discussed below in the ``Direction of Credit'' section of this notice, 
we are using the following benchmarks to calculate POSCO's and DSM's 
benefit from long-term loans obtained in the years 1992 through 1998: 
(1) For countervailable, foreign-currency denominated loans, we are 
using the company-specific, weighted-average U.S. dollar-denominated 
interest rates on the companies' loans from foreign bank branches in 
Korea; (2) for countervailable won-denominated loans, where available, 
we are using the company-specific three-year corporate bond rate on the 
companies' public bonds. Where unavailable, we continue to use a 
national average three-year corporate bond rate. In Plate in Coils and 
in Sheet and Strip, we found that the Korean domestic bond market was 
not controlled by the GOK after 1991, and that domestic bonds serve as 
an appropriate benchmark interest rate.
    We are also using the three-year company-specific corporate bond 
rate as the discount rate to determine the benefit from non-recurring 
subsidies received between 1992 and 1998.

Benchmarks for Short-Term Financing

    For those programs which require the application of a short-term 
interest rate benchmark, we used as our benchmark a company-specific 
weighted-average interest rate for commercial won-denominated loans for 
the POI. Each respondent provided to the Department its respective 
company-specific, short-term commercial interest rate.

Treatment of Subsidies Received by Trading Companies

    During the POI, POSCO exported the subject merchandise to the 
United States through three trading companies, POSTEEL, Hyosung, and 
Sunkyong. DSM exported through one trading company, DKI. POSTEEL is 
affiliated with POSCO, and DKI is affiliated with DSM within the 
meaning of section 771(33)(E) of the Act because as of December 31, 
1998, POSCO owned 95.8 percent of POSTEEL's shares, and DSM owned 51.3 
percent of DKI shares. The other trading companies are not affiliated 
with either POSCO or DSM. We required that the trading companies 
provide responses to the Department with respect to the export 
subsidies under investigation. Responses were required from the trading 
companies because the subject merchandise may be subsidized by means of 
subsidies provided to both the producer and the exporter. All subsidies 
conferred on the production and exportation of subject merchandise 
benefit the subject merchandise even if it is exported to the United 
States by an unaffiliated trading company rather than by the producer 
itself. Therefore, the Department calculates countervailable subsidy 
rates on the subject merchandise by cumulating subsidies provided to 
the producer, with those provided to the exporter. See 19 CFR 351.525.
    Under Sec. 351.107 of the Department's Regulations, when the 
subject merchandise is exported to the United States by a company that 
is not the producer of the merchandise, the Department may establish a 
``combination'' rate for each combination of an exporter and supplying 
producer. However, as noted in the ``Explanation of the Final Rules'' 
(the Preamble), there may be situations in which it is not appropriate 
or practicable to establish combination rates when the subject 
merchandise is exported by a trading company. In such situations, the 
Department will make exceptions to its combination rate approach on a 
case-by-case basis. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; 
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296; 27303 (May 19, 1997).
    In this investigation, we preliminarily determine that it is not 
appropriate to establish combination rates. This determination is based 
on two main facts: First, the majority of the subsidies conferred upon 
the subject merchandise were received by the producers. Second, the 
difference in the levels of subsidies conferred upon the subject 
merchandise

[[Page 40448]]

among the individual trading companies is insignificant. Therefore, 
combination rates would serve no practical purpose because the 
calculated subsidy rate for POSCO/POSTEEL or POSCO/Sunkyong or POSCO 
and any of the other trading companies would effectively be the same 
rate. For these reasons we are not calculating combination rates in 
this investigation. Instead, we have only calculated one rate for each 
producer of the subject merchandise, all of which is produced by either 
POSCO or DSM.
    To include the subsidies received by the trading companies, which 
are conferred upon the export of the subject merchandise, in the 
calculated ad valorem subsidy rate, we used the following methodology. 
For each of the four trading companies, we calculated the benefit 
attributable to the subject merchandise and factored that amount into 
the calculated subsidy rate for the producer. In each case, we 
determined the benefit received by the trading companies for each 
export subsidy and weight-averaged the benefit amounts by the relative 
share of each trading company's value of exports of the subject 
merchandise to the United States. This calculated ad valorem subsidy 
was then added to the subsidy calculated for either POSCO or DSM. Thus, 
for each of the programs below, the listed ad valorem subsidy rate 
includes the countervailable subsidies received by both the trading 
companies and either POSCO or DSM.

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable

A. Direction of Credit
    In the 1993 investigation of Steel Products from Korea, the 
Department determined (1) that the GOK influenced the practices of 
lending institutions in Korea; (2) the GOK-regulated long-term loans 
were provided to the steel industry on a selective basis; and (3) the 
selective provision of these regulated loans resulted in a 
countervailable benefit. Accordingly, all long-term loans received by 
the producers/exporters of the subject merchandise were treated as 
countervailable. The determination in that investigation covered all 
long-term loans bestowed through 1991. See Steel Products from Korea, 
58 FR at 37339.
    In the Plate in Coils and Sheet and Strip investigations, the 
Department examined whether the GOK continued to influence the 
practices of lending institutions in Korea between 1992 and 1997. In 
this investigation, petitioners allege that the GOK continued to 
control the practices of lending institutions in Korea through the POI, 
and that the steel sector received a disproportionate share of low-
cost, long-term credit, resulting in countervailable benefits being 
conferred on the producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. 
Petitioners assert, therefore, that the Department should countervail 
all long-term loans received by the producers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise that were still outstanding during the POI.
1. The GOK's Credit Policies Through 1991
    As noted above, we previously found significant GOK control over 
the practices of lending institutions in Korea through 1991, the period 
investigated in Steel Products From Korea. This finding of control was 
determined to be sufficient to constitute a government program and 
government action. See Steel Products from Korea, 58 FR at 37342. We 
also determined that (1) the Korean steel sector, as a result of the 
GOK's credit policies and control over the Korean financial sector, 
received a disproportionate share of regulated long-term loans, so that 
the program was, in fact, specific, and (2) that the interest rates on 
those loans were inconsistent with commercial considerations. Id. at 
37343. Thus, we countervailed all long-term loans received by the steel 
sector from all lending sources.
    In this investigation, we provided the GOK with the opportunity to 
present new factual information concerning the government's credit 
policies prior to 1992, which we would consider along with our finding 
in the prior investigation. The GOK has not provided new factual 
information that would lead us to change our determination in Steel 
Products from Korea. Therefore, we continue to determine that the 
provision of long-term loans in Korea through 1991 results in a 
financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of 
the Act. This finding is in conformance with the Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA), which states that ``section 771(5)(B)(iii) 
encompasses indirect subsidy practices like those which Commerce has 
countervailed in the past, and that these types of indirect subsidies 
will continue to be countervailable.'' SAA, accompanying H.R. 5110 
(H.R. Doc. No. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess.) (1994), at 926. In 
accordance with section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, a benefit has been 
conferred to the recipient to the extent that the regulated loans are 
provided at interest rates less than the benchmark rates described 
under the ``Subsidies Valuation Information'' section, above.
    We also continue to determine that all regulated long-term loans 
provided to the producers/exporters of the subject merchandise through 
1991 were provided to a specific enterprise or industry, or group 
thereof, within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(III) of the Act. 
This finding is in conformance with our determination in Steel Products 
from Korea, 58 FR at 37342, Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15532 and Sheet 
and Strip, 64 FR at 30642.
    POSCO and DSM were the only producers of the subject merchandise, 
and both companies received long-term loans prior to 1992 that were 
still outstanding during the POI. To determine the benefit from the 
regulated loans with fixed interest rates, we applied the long-term 
loan methodology provided for in Sec. 351.505(c)(3) of the CVD 
Regulations and calculated the grant equivalent for the loans. To 
determine the benefit from regulated loans with variable interest 
rates, we applied the methodology provided for in section 351.505(c)(4) 
of the CVD Regulations, and compared the amount of interest paid during 
1998 on the regulated loans to the amount of interest that would have 
been paid based upon the interest rate on the comparison benchmark 
loan. We then summed the benefit amounts from the loans attributable to 
the POI and divided the total benefit by each company's respective 
total sales. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net 
countervailable subsidy to be 0.10 percent ad valorem for POSCO, and 
0.06 percent ad valorem for DSM.
2. The GOK's Credit Policies From 1992 Through 1998
    In Plate in Coils and Sheet and Strip, the Department examined the 
GOK's credit policies during the period 1992 through 1997. In those 
investigations, the Department determined that the GOK continued to 
control directly and indirectly the lending practices of most sources 
of credit in Korea through 1997. The Department also determined that 
the GOK regulated credit from domestic commercial banks and government-
controlled banks such as the Korea Development Bank (KDB), was specific 
to the steel industry. This credit conferred a benefit on the 
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the extent that the 
interest rates on the countervailable loans were less than the interest 
rates on comparable commercial loans. See section 771(5)(ii) of the 
Act. Also see Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15533, and Sheet and Strip, 64 
FR at 30642.
    In this investigation, we provided the GOK with the opportunity to 
present new factual information concerning the

[[Page 40449]]

government's credit policies during the 1992 through 1997 period, which 
we would consider along with our finding in the prior investigations. 
The GOK has not provided new factual information that would lead us to 
change our determination in Plate in Coils and Sheet and Strip. 
Therefore, we continue to find lending from domestic banks and from 
government-owned banks such as the KDB to be countervailable.
    In the current investigation, we examined whether the GOK continued 
to control or influence directly or indirectly, the lending practices 
of sources of credit in Korea in 1998. Because of the Department's 
determination that the GOK controlled and directed credit provided by 
domestic banks and government-owned banks during the period 1992 
through 1997, the burden of demonstrating that the GOK has changed its 
practice of interfering in the financial market is placed, in large 
part, upon the respondents. Similarly, when we have determined a 
program or a government practice to be not countervailable, petitioners 
must come forth with new information or evidence of change 
circumstances before the Department will reexamine the 
countervailability of that program.
    In its questionnaire responses, the GOK asserted that it does not 
provide direction or guidance to Korean financial institutions in the 
allocation of loans to selected industries. The GOK stated that the 
lending decisions and loan distributions of financial institutions in 
Korea reflect commercial considerations. The GOK also stated that its 
role in the financial sector is limited to monetary and credit policies 
as well as bank supervision and examination.
    According to the GOK, measures were taken in 1998 to liberalize the 
Korean financial sector. For example, in January 1998 the GOK announced 
closure of some banks, and in April 1998, launched the Financial 
Supervisory Commission (FSC) to monitor the competitiveness of 
financial institutions. In June 1998, the Regulation on Foreign 
Exchange Controls was amended to further liberalize foreign currency 
transactions, and in July, the GOK abolished the limit on purchasing 
foreign currency. According to the GOK, it also liberalized access to 
foreign loans. For direct foreign loans to Korean companies, the 
approval process under Article 19 of the Foreign Investment and Foreign 
Capital Inducement Act (FIFCIA) and Article 21 of its enforcement 
decree were eliminated and replaced with the Foreign Investment 
Promotion Act (FIPA), effective in November 1998. However, during most 
of the POI, access to direct foreign loans still required the approval 
of the Ministry of Finance and Economy.
    Regarding the GOK regulated credit from government-controlled banks 
such as the Korea Development Bank (KDB), the GOK reported that the KDB 
Act was amended in January 1998, in response to the financial crisis in 
1997. According to the GOK, the KDB ended the allocation of funds for 
various functional categories, such as R&D, environment, and 
technology. All functional loan categories were eliminated and such 
loans were consolidated into a single category for facility (equipment) 
loans. The GOK also stated that the KDB strengthened its credit 
evaluation procedures by developing an objective and systematic credit 
evaluation standard to prevent arbitrary decisions on loans and 
interest rates. The KDB changed its Credit Evaluation Committee to the 
Credit Deliberation Committee (CDC), and gave the CDC the authority to 
make lending decisions. As a result, the KDB governor no longer makes 
lending decisions without the approval of the CDC. The GOK also stated 
that in 1997, the KDB used a system of the prime rate plus a spread for 
determining interest rates. Effective January 1, 1998, the KDB 
increased the range of the credit spread to provide more flexibility in 
determining interest rates based on creditworthiness and allowed the 
KDB to increase its profits. However, with respect to the KDB reforms, 
no evidence was provided by respondents to demonstrate that the KDB no 
longer selectively makes loans to specific firms or activities to 
support GOK policies.
    In Plate in Coils, the Department noted conflicting information 
regarding the GOK's direct or indirect influence over the lending 
decisions of financial institutions. For example, the GOK policies 
appeared to be aimed, in part, at promoting certain sectors of the 
economy, such as high technology and small and medium-sized industries 
(SMEs).
    While the GOK has started to plan and implement reforms in the 
financial system during the POI as a result of the 1997 financial 
crisis, the record evidence indicates that the GOK has previously 
attempted reforms of the financial system in order to remove or reduce 
its control and influence over lending in the country. In the past ten 
years, the GOK has twice attempted to reform its financial system. In 
1988, the GOK attempted to deregulate interest rates. However, the 1988 
liberalization was deemed a failure by the government. When the 
interest rates began to rise, the GOK canceled the reforms by 
indirectly pressuring the banks to keep interest rates low. In the 
early 1990s, the GOK attempted reforms again with a four-stage interest 
rate deregulation plan. Again, this attempt to reform the financial 
system was deemed a failure by the GOK. During 1998 and 1999, the GOK 
has threatened to cut off credit to Korean companies unless the 
companies follow GOK policies. In addition, during the POI, five large 
commercial banks were taken over by the GOK due to the financial 
crisis.
    Based upon the information on the record and our determinations in 
Plate in Coils and Sheet and Strip, we preliminarily determine that the 
GOK continued to control directly and indirectly, the lending practices 
of domestic banks and government-owned banks through the POI. During 
verification, we will closely examine the financial reforms undertaken 
by the GOK in 1998. We plan to meet with various individuals 
knowledgeable about the financial sector in Korea in order to gather 
information on the impact of the GOK's financial liberalization on the 
lending practices of Korean banks after 1997. We also plan to gather 
information to assist us in determining whether we have appropriately 
measured the benefit conferred to the respondent companies by the GOK's 
influence over domestic bank and government bank lending.
    With respect to foreign sources of credit, in Plate in Coils and 
Sheet and Strip, we determined that access to government regulated 
foreign sources of credit in Korea did not confer a benefit to the 
recipient as defined by 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, and, as such, credit 
received by respondents from these sources were found not 
countervailable. This determination was based upon the fact that credit 
from Korean branches of foreign banks was not subject to the 
government's control and direction. Thus, respondents' loans from these 
banks served as an appropriate benchmark to establish whether access to 
regulated foreign sources of credit conferred a benefit on respondents. 
On the basis of this comparison, we found that there was no benefit. 
Petitioners have provided no new information or evidence of changed 
circumstances to cause us to revisit this determination. Therefore, we 
continue to determine that credit from Korean branches of foreign banks 
were not subject to the government's control and direction. As such, 
lending from this source continues to be not countervailable, and loans 
from Korean branches of foreign banks continue to

[[Page 40450]]

serve as an appropriate benchmark to establish whether access to 
regulated foreign sources of funds confer a benefit to respondents.
    During the POI, both POSCO and DSM received long-term loans from 
domestic banks and from government-owned banks during the 1992 to 1998 
period that were still outstanding during the POI. These included loans 
with both fixed and variable interest rates. To determine the benefit 
from the regulated loans with fixed interest rates, we applied the 
methodology provided for in Sec. 351.505(c)(2) of the CVD Regulations, 
and to determine the benefit from regulated loans with variable 
interest rates, we applied the methodology provided for in 
Sec. 351.505(c)(4) of the CVD Regulations. Therefore, for both fixed 
and variable rate loans, we calculated the difference in interest 
payments for the POI based upon the difference in the amount of actual 
interest paid during 1998 on the regulated loan and the amount of 
interest that would have been paid on a comparable commercial loan. We 
then summed the benefit amounts from the loans attributable to the POI 
and divided the total benefit by each company's respective total sales. 
On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable 
subsidy to be less than 0.005 percent ad valorem for POSCO, and 0.12 
percent ad valorem for DSM.
(a) Loans From the Energy Savings Fund
    Established in accordance with Article 51 of the ``Rationalization 
of Energy Utilization Act'' (Energy Use Act), the Energy Saving Fund 
provides financing at below-market interest rates for investments by 
businesses in facilities that rationally and efficiently use energy. 
Overall responsibility for the program lies with the Ministry of 
Industry and Energy (MIE), but the operation and management of the 
program is entrusted to the Korea Energy Management Corporation (KEMC). 
While the Energy Use Act was repealed in 1995, the MIE, under the new 
``Energy Use Rationalization Act,'' provides financing for this program 
from special government accounts.
    Korean companies obtain financing under this program by submitting 
an application to the KEMC. If the KEMC is satisfied that the 
applicant's business plans are intended for the rationalization of 
energy use, it will then issue a recommendation, and forward the 
company's application to a bank. The KEMC will transfer funds to the 
bank, which will in turn provide the funds to the applicant. POSCO paid 
interest on two Energy Saving Fund loans during the POI. DSM did not 
have any of these loans outstanding during the POI.
    In Plate in Coils and Sheet and Strip, the Department determined 
that the loans provided under the Energy Savings Fund are 
countervailable as GOK directed credit. See Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 
15533, and Sheet and Strip, 64 FR at 30642. This program provides a 
financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of 
the Act and, in accordance with section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, 
provides a benefit to the recipient based on the difference between the 
interest rate on the program loan and the benchmark rate described in 
the ``Subsidies Valuation'' section, above.
    To calculate the benefit from the Energy Savings Loans, we employed 
the Department's long-term fixed-rate loan methodology specified in 
Sec. 351.505(c)(2) of the CVD Regulations, using as our benchmark the 
rate described in the ``Subsidies Valuation Information'' section, 
above. We divided the benefit attributable to the POI by POSCO's total 
sales during 1998. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net 
countervailable subsidy to be less than 0.005 percent ad valorem for 
POSCO. As stated above, DSM did not use this program.
(b) Korean Export-Import Bank Loans (KExim)
    KExim provides import and export credits, overseas investment 
credits, and guarantees to companies in Korea. The petitioners allege 
that through its financing mechanisms, KExim provides low-interest 
loans to the steel industry.
    The Department previously determined in Steel Products from Korea, 
Plate in Coils and Sheet and Strip that all regulated long-term loans 
provided to exporters through 1997 are specific and countervailable. 
POSCO received a fixed-rate regulated KExim long-term loan prior to 
1997, which was outstanding during the POI. DSM did not have any 
outstanding KExim loans during the POI. We preliminarily determine that 
this program is specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) 
because only exporters are eligible to use this program.
    To calculate the benefit, we applied the Department's standard loan 
methodology for long-term fixed-rate loans as provided for in 
Sec. 351.504(c)(2) of the CVD Regulations, using as our benchmark the 
rate described in the ``Subsidies Valuation Information'' section of 
the notice, above. We divided the benefit attributable to the POI by 
POSCO's total export sales during 1998. On this basis, we preliminarily 
determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 0.03 percent ad valorem 
for POSCO. As noted earlier, DSM did not use this program.
B. Infrastructure at Kwangyang Bay
    Petitioners requested that the Department investigate whether the 
GOK's infrastructure development at Kwangyang Bay continues to provide 
a countervailable subsidy to POSCO's steel production. The Department 
previously determined that the Korean government's infrastructure 
development at Kwangyang Bay constituted a specific countervailable 
subsidy to POSCO, because POSCO was found to be the predominant user of 
the infrastructure. See Steel Products from Korea, 58 FR at 37346-47. 
Because POSCO still produces steel products at Kwangyang Bay, we 
requested information on this program to determine whether the GOK has 
made additional investments since 1991, at Kwangyang Bay.
    In Steel Products from Korea, the Department investigated the GOK's 
infrastructure investments at Kwangyang Bay over the period 1984-1991. 
During this period of time, the GOK's investments at Kwangyang Bay 
included: construction of an industrial waterway, construction of a 
railroad station, construction of a road to Kwangyang Bay, dredging of 
the harbor, and construction of three finished goods berths. We 
determined that the GOK's provision of infrastructure to POSCO at 
Kwangyang Bay was countervailable because we found POSCO to be the 
predominant user of the GOK's investments. The Department has 
consistently held that a countervailable subsidy exists when benefits 
under a program are provided, or are required to be provided, in law or 
in fact, to a specific enterprise or industry or group of enterprises 
or industries. See Steel Products from Korea, 58 FR at 37346. No new 
factual information or evidence of changed circumstances has been 
provided to the Department with respect to the GOK's infrastructure 
investments at Kwangyang Bay over the period 1984-1991.
    In Plate in Coils and Sheet and Strip, we also examined whether GOK 
infrastructure investments made at Kwangyang Bay after 1991 provided 
countervailable benefits to POSCO. In those investigations, we 
determined that additional infrastructure investments made by the GOK 
at Kwangyang Bay after 1991 did not provide countervailable benefits to 
POSCO. See Sheet and Strip at 30648-49. Thus, post-1991 investments are 
not countervailable. Petitioners have not

[[Page 40451]]

provided new factual information or evidence of changed circumstances 
to cause the Department to reexamine our determination that post-1991 
investments are not countervailable.
    To determine the benefit from the GOK's investments made from the 
1984 through 1991 period to POSCO that are attributable to the POI, we 
relied on the calculations performed in the 1993 investigation of Steel 
Products from Korea, which were placed on the record of this 
investigation by POSCO. In measuring the benefit from this program in 
the 1993 investigation, the Department treated the GOK's costs of 
constructing the infrastructure at Kwangyang Bay as untied, non-
recurring grants in each year in which the costs were incurred.
    To determine the benefit conferred to POSCO during the POI, we 
applied the Department's standard grant methodology and allocated the 
GOK's infrastructure investments over a 15-year period. See the 
allocation period discussion under the ``Subsidies Valuation 
Information'' section, above. We used as our discount rate the three-
year corporate bond rate on the secondary market used in Steel Products 
from Korea. We then summed the benefits received by POSCO during 1998, 
from each of the GOK's yearly investments over the period 1984-1991. We 
then divided the total benefit attributable to the POI by POSCO's total 
sales for 1998. On this basis, we preliminary determine a net 
countervailable subsidy of 0.22 percent ad valorem for POSCO. DSM did 
not receive a benefit from this program.
C. Asset Revaluation Pursuant to TERCL Article 56(2)
    This provision under Article 56(2) of the Tax Exemption and 
Reduction Control Act (TERCL) allowed companies making an initial 
public offering between January 1, 1987, and December 31, 1990, to 
revalue their assets without meeting the requirement in the Asset 
Revaluation Act of a 25 percent change in the wholesale price index 
since the company's last revaluation. In Steel Products from Korea, 
after verification, petitioners submitted additional information, which 
according to them, indicated that POSCO's revaluation may have been 
significantly greater than that of the other companies that revalued. 
Because the information submitted by petitioners was untimely, it was 
rejected; however, we requested additional information on the subject. 
The additional information submitted by petitioners contained data on 
the amount of assets revalued of only 45 of the 207 companies that 
revalued pursuant to Article 56(2). It was unclear from petitioners' 
data which companies revalued pursuant to Article 56(2) and which 
revalued in accordance with the general provisions of the Asset 
Revaluation Act. Because of these shortcomings, and because the 
information was submitted too late for verification, we were unable to 
draw conclusions with respect to the relative benefit derived by POSCO 
from this program. Since there was no evidence of de jure or de facto 
selectivity concerning the timing of POSCO's revaluation or the method 
of POSCO's revaluation under the Asset Revaluation Act, the Department 
determined this program to be not countervailable. See Steel Products 
from Korea, 58 FR at 37351.
    In the petition, petitioners provided information to substantiate 
their allegation that POSCO and DSM received a benefit under this 
program because their massive asset revaluations permitted the 
companies to substantially increase their depreciation and, thereby, 
reduce their income taxes payable. In support of their allegation, 
petitioners provided a chart listing 197 companies that were eligible 
for revaluation of their assets pursuant to this program. The chart 
illustrates that POSCO's revaluation accounted for 54 percent of the 
total amount of asset revaluation by companies that were eligible to 
revalue under Article 56(2). Furthermore, according to petitioners' 
data, the 14 companies in the basic metals industry that used this 
program accounted for 67 percent of the total amount of asset 
revaluations under Article 56(2). Based on this new information, the 
Department initiated a reexamination of the countervailability of this 
program and solicited information regarding the usage of this program.
    Because the enabling legislation does not expressly limit access to 
the subsidy to an enterprise or industry, or group thereof, the program 
is not de jure specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of 
the Act. Although the regulation itself does not expressly limit the 
access to this law to a specified group or industry, it does place 
restrictions on the time period and eligibility criteria which may have 
caused de facto limitations on the actual usage of this tax program. 
For example, Article 56(2) was enacted on November 28, 1987, and 
applied only to companies making an initial public offering from 
January 1, 1987 until the provision was abolished effective December 
31, 1990. Pursuant to Article 56(2), companies listed on the Korea 
Stock Exchange between January 1, 1987 and December 31, 1988 (as was 
the case with POSCO) had until December 31, 1989 to revalue their 
assets. A company that listed its stock after December 31, 1988 had to 
revalue its assets prior to being listed on the stock exchange. 
Therefore, based upon the eligibility criteria of the program, Article 
56(2) effectively limited usage of this program to only the 316 
companies that were newly listed on the Korean Stock Exchange during 
the three years the program was in place rather than the 15 to 24 
thousand manufacturers in operation in Korea during that period.
    According to section 771(5A)(D)(iii), a subsidy is de facto 
specific if one of the following factors exist: (1) The actual 
recipients of the subsidy, whether considered on an enterprise or 
industry basis, are limited in number; (2) An enterprise or industry is 
a predominant user of the subsidy; (3) An enterprise or industry 
receives a disproportionately large amount of the subsidy; or (4) The 
manner in which the authority providing the subsidy has exercised 
discretion in the decision to grant the subsidy indicates that an 
enterprise or industry is favored over others.
    Information on the record of the current investigation shows that 
during the period 1987-1990, there were between 14,988 and 24,073 
manufacturing companies operating in Korea. A requirement for 
participation in this program was that companies had to make an initial 
public offering between January 1, 1987 and December 31, 1990. DSM 
listed its initial public offering in May 1988 and revalued its assets 
under Article 56(2) in July 1988. POSCO listed its initial public 
offering in June 1988 and revalued its assets under Article 56(2) in 
January 1989. According to the GOK's July 1, 1999 questionnaire 
response, 77 companies revalued their assets in 1989. The basic metal 
sector accounted for 83 percent of the total revaluation surplus amount 
(book value less revalued amount). POSCO's revaluation surplus 
accounted for 91 percent of the basic metal sector revaluation surplus, 
and 75 percent of the total revaluation surplus. While we recognize 
that many factors can affect the relative size of tax benefits claimed 
under programs (e.g., company size, value of assets, timing of 
investments, management decisions, capital intensiveness, labor 
intensiveness), the record evidence indicates that the basic metal 
industry was a dominant user of this program in 1988/89. See, e.g., 
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from South Africa, 64 FR 15553 (March 
1999). Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this program is 
specific, within the meaning of 771(5A)(D)(iii). As a result

[[Page 40452]]

of the increase in the value of depreciable assets resulting from the 
asset revaluation, the companies were able to lower their tax 
liability. Therefore, we also preliminarily determine that the program 
provides a financial contribution within the meaning of section 
771(5)(D)(ii), because by allowing companies to reduce their income tax 
liability, the GOK has foregone revenue that is otherwise due.
    The benefit from this program is not the amount of the revaluation 
surplus, but rather the impact of the difference that the revaluation 
of depreciable assets has on a company's tax liability each year. 
However, respondents did not provide this information, and stated that 
the depreciation expense resulting from the asset revaluation would 
involve a detailed, item-by-item comparison of thousands of items, and 
that it would be difficult for them to distinguish between the 
remaining benefit from revaluation under Article 56(2), and revaluation 
pursuant to normal procedures of the Asset Revaluation Act. Therefore, 
we have calculated the benefit from this program by determining the 
surplus amount of the revaluation of assets authorized under the 
program for each company and divided the total revaluation surplus by 
15, the AUL we are using in this investigation. We then multiplied the 
amount of the revaluation surplus attributable to the POI by the tax 
rate applicable to the tax return filed in the POI, and divided the 
benefit for each company by their respective total sales during the 
POI. On this basis, we preliminarily determine a net countervailable 
subsidy of 0.50 percent ad valorem for POSCO and 0.23 percent ad 
valorem for DSM.
D. Short-term Export Financing
    The Department determined that the GOK's short-term export 
financing program was countervailable in Steel Products from Korea, 58 
FR at 37350. Petitioners allege that this program may also benefit the 
producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise. In this 
investigation, the GOK reports that the BOK, under the ``Detailed Rules 
of Trade Financing Related to the Aggregate Ceiling Loans'' (Detailed 
Rules), provides discounts on foreign trade bills to commercial banks, 
which, in turn, extend short-term loans to exporters. Under the 
aggregate credit ceiling system established in 1994, the BOK allocates 
a credit ceiling every month to each commercial bank, including 
branches of Korean and foreign banks. This ceiling is based on each 
bank's loan performance i.e., each bank's discounting of commercial 
loans, foreign trade financing, and loans for the production of parts 
and material. These banks then provide loans to exporters using the 
funds received from the BOK and funds generated from their own sources 
to discount trade bills.
    There are two types of trade financing: Production financing and 
raw material financing. A bank provides production financing when a 
company needs funds for the production of export merchandise or the 
production of raw materials used in the production of exported 
merchandise. A bank extends raw material financing to exporters which 
require financing for the importation or local purchase of raw 
materials used in the production of exported merchandise.
    During the POI, POSCO was the only producer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise that received short-term export financing. DSM did not have 
any short-term export financing under this program during the POI. 
POSCO reports that the company entered into a credit ceiling loan 
agreement with a commercial bank in accordance with Articles 12 and 13 
of the Detailed Rules to receive financing. The loan agreement outlines 
the maximum amount of credit which POSCO is eligible to receive, the 
period covered by the loan agreement, the applicable interest rate, and 
the penalty interest rate. POSCO states that when the company purchases 
raw materials from a supplier on a letter of credit basis, the supplier 
presents the letter of credit to POSCO's bank for payment. The bank, in 
turn, pays the purchase price to the supplier and debits the trade loan 
against POSCO's line of credit. POSCO pays the full amount of each 
trade loan after about 90 days, which is the average period from 
production to sales. Interest is paid by POSCO against each trade loan 
at the time the loans are received. POSCO reported that the company 
paid all of its export financing during the POI in a timely manner and 
incurred no overdue interest penalties. In accordance with section 
771(5A)(B) of the Act, we preliminary determine that this program 
constitutes an export subsidy because receipt of the financing is 
contingent upon export performance. In order to determine whether this 
export financing program confers a countervailable benefit to POSCO, we 
compared the interest rate POSCO paid on the export financing received 
under this program during the POI with the interest rate POSCO would 
have paid on a comparable short-term commercial loan. See discussion 
above in the ``Subsidies Valuation Information'' section with respect 
to short-term loan benchmark interest rates.
    Because loans under this program are discounted (i.e., interest is 
paid up-front at the time the loans are received), the effective rate 
paid by POSCO on its export financing is a discounted rate. Therefore, 
it was necessary to derive from POSCO's company-specific weighted-
average interest rate for short-term won-denominated commercial loans, 
a discounted benchmark interest rate. We compared this discounted 
benchmark interest rate to the interest rates charged on the export 
financing and found that the program interest rates were lower than the 
benchmark rates. Therefore, in accordance with section 771(5)(E)(ii) of 
the Act, we preliminarily determine that this program provides a 
countervailable benefit because the interest rates charged on the loans 
were less than what POSCO would have had to pay on a comparable short-
term commercial loan. See Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15533, and Sheet and 
Strip, 64 FR at 30644. We also preliminarily determine that a financial 
contribution is provided to POSCO under this program within the meaning 
of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act.
    To calculate the benefit conferred by this program, we compared the 
actual interest paid on the loans with the amount of interest that 
would have been paid at the benchmark interest rate. When the interest 
that would have been paid at the benchmark rate exceeded the interest 
that was paid at the program interest rate, the difference between 
those amounts is the benefit. We then divided the benefit derived from 
all of the loans on which interest was paid during the POI by total 
exports. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that POSCO received 
from this program during the POI a net countervailable subsidy of less 
than 0.005 percent ad valorem.
    We also requested information on whether POSCO or DSM received 
short-term export financing under two additional programs: (1) A 1998 
emergency support package unveiled by the GOK which included $4 billion 
in trade financing, and (2) a 1998 short-term export financing program 
operated by the Korean Export-Import Bank. According to both the 
responses of POSCO and DSM, these programs were not used.
E. Reserve for Export Loss--Article 16 of the TERCL
    Under Article 16 of the TERCL, a domestic person engaged in a 
foreign-currency earning business can establish a reserve amounting to 
the lesser of one

[[Page 40453]]

percent of foreign exchange earnings or 50 percent of net income for 
the respective tax year. Losses accruing from the cancellation of an 
export contract, or from the execution of a disadvantageous export 
contract, may be offset by returning an equivalent amount from the 
reserve fund to the income account. Any amount that is not used to 
offset a loss must be returned to the income account and taxed over a 
three-year period, after a one-year grace period. All of the money in 
the reserve is eventually reported as income and subject to corporate 
tax either when it is used to offset export losses or when the grace 
period expires and the funds are returned to taxable income. The 
deferral of taxes owed amounts to an interest-free loan in the amount 
of the company's tax savings. This program is only available to 
exporters. During the POI, DKI, a trading company, was the only 
exporter of the subject merchandise which claimed benefits under this 
program.
    We preliminarily determine that the Reserve for Export Loss program 
constitutes an export subsidy under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act, 
because the use of the program is contingent upon export performance. 
We also preliminarily determine that this program provides a financial 
contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act in 
the form of a loan. See Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15534, and Sheet and 
Strip, 64 FR at 30645.
    To determine the benefit conferred by this program, we calculated 
the tax savings by multiplying the balance amount of the reserve as of 
December 31, 1997, by the corporate tax rate for 1997. We treated the 
tax savings on these funds as a short-term interest-free loan. See 19 
CFR 351.509. Accordingly, to determine the benefit, the amount of tax 
savings was multiplied by the company's weighted-average interest rate 
for short-term won-denominated commercial loans for the POI, described 
in the ``Subsidies Valuation Information'' section, above. Using the 
methodology for calculating subsidies received by trading companies, 
which also is detailed in the ``Subsidies Valuation Information'' 
section, above, we preliminarily determine a net countervailable 
subsidy of 0.02 percent ad valorem for DSM. POSCO did not benefit from 
this program because it did not export the subject merchandise through 
DKI during the POI.
F. Reserve for Overseas Market Development--Article 17 of the TERCL
    Article 17 of the TERCL allows a domestic person engaged in a 
foreign trade business to establish a reserve fund equal to one percent 
of its foreign exchange earnings from its export business for the 
respective tax year. Expenses incurred in developing overseas markets 
may be offset by returning, from the reserve to the income account, an 
amount equivalent to the expense. Any part of the fund that is not 
placed in the income account for the purpose of offsetting overseas 
market development expenses must be returned to the income account over 
a three-year period, after a one-year grace period. As is the case with 
the Reserve for Export Loss, the balance of this reserve fund is not 
subject to corporate income tax during the grace period. However, all 
of the money in the reserve is eventually reported as income and 
subject to corporate tax either when it offsets export losses or when 
the grace period expires. The deferral of taxes owed amounts to an 
interest-free loan equal to the company's tax savings. This program is 
only available to exporters. The following exporters of the subject 
merchandise were entitled to claimed benefits under this program during 
the POI: Hyosung, POSTEEL, Sunkyong, and DKI.
    We determine that the Reserve for Overseas Market Development 
program constitutes an export subsidy under section 771(5A)(B) of the 
Act because the use of the program is contingent upon export 
performance. We also determine that this program provides a financial 
contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act in 
the form of a loan. See 19 CFR 351.509.
    To determine the benefits conferred by this program during the POI, 
we employed the same methodology used for determining the benefit from 
the Reserve for Export Loss program. Using the methodology for 
calculating subsidies received by trading companies, which also is 
detailed in the ``Subsidies Valuation Information'' section, above, we 
preliminarily calculate a net countervailable subsidy of 0.01 percent 
ad valorem for POSCO, and 0.01 percent ad valorem for DSM.
G. Investment Tax Credits
    Under the TERCL, companies in Korea are allowed to claim investment 
tax credits for various kinds of investments. If the tax credits cannot 
all be used at the time they are claimed, the company is authorized to 
carry them forward for use in later tax years. During the POI, POSCO, 
and DSM used various investment tax credits received under the TERCL to 
reduce their net tax liability. In Steel Products from Korea, we found 
that investment tax credits were not countervailable (see 58 FR at 
37351); however, there were changes in the statute effective in 1995, 
which caused us to revisit the countervailability of the investment tax 
credits. See Plate in Coils, 64 FR at 15534, and Sheet and Strip, 64 FR 
at 30645.
    POSCO claimed or used the following tax credits in its fiscal year 
1997 income tax return which was filed during the POI: (1) Tax credits 
for investments in equipment to develop technology and manpower under 
Article 10; (2) tax credits for investment in productivity improvement 
facilities under Article 25; and (3) tax credits for investment in 
specific facilities under Article 26. DSM only claimed or used tax 
credits for technology and manpower development expenses under Article 
9 and tax credits under Article 25 in its fiscal year 1997 income tax 
return which was filed during the POI. For certain of these tax 
credits, a company normally calculates its authorized tax credit based 
upon 3 or 5 percent of its investment, i.e., the company receives 
either a 3 or 5 percent tax credit. However, if a company makes the 
investment in domestically-produced facilities under these Articles, it 
receives a 10 percent tax credit. The investment tax credit was amended 
to eliminate the rate differential between domestic and foreign-made 
facilities for investments that are made after December 31, 1997. 
However, the differential rate remains in effect for investments made 
prior to that date, and tax credits on these investments can be carried 
forward beyond the POI.
    Under section 771(5A)(C) of the Act, a program that is contingent 
upon the use of domestic goods over imported goods is specific, within 
the meaning of the Act. In Sheet and Strip, we examined the use of 
investment tax credits under Articles 9, 10, 18, 25, 26, 27, and 71. In 
that case, we determined that investment tax credits received under 
Articles 10, 18, 25, 26, 27, and 71 constituted import substitution 
subsidies under section 771(5A)(C) of the Act, because Korean companies 
received a higher tax credit for investments made in domestically-
produced facilities under these Articles. In addition, because the GOK 
foregoes collecting tax revenue otherwise due under this program, we 
also determined that a financial contribution is provided under section 
771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. We did not countervail the use of Article 9 
because a higher tax credit was not allowed for investments made in 
domestically-produced facilities. See Sheet and Strip at 30645-46.
    In this investigation, POSCO claimed investment tax credits under 
Articles

[[Page 40454]]

10, 25, and 26. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that these tax 
credits provided POSCO with a countervailable benefit. Petitioners have 
also alleged that POSCO used investment tax credits under Article 88 
and that this tax credit also constitutes an import substitution 
subsidy because a higher credit is received if more domestically-
produced goods are used. However, we have insufficient information on 
the record at this time to make this determination, but we will further 
examine Article 88 at verification.
    DSM was entitled to claim investment tax credits under Articles 9 
and 25 during the POI. However, DSM did not use the tax credits to 
reduce its tax liability during the POI. Instead, the company carried 
forward the tax credits which can be used in the future. Because DSM 
did not claim the investment tax credits on its tax return which was 
filed during the POI, we preliminarily determine that DSM did not use 
this program during the POI.
    To calculate the benefit to POSCO from this tax credit program, we 
determined the value of the tax credits POSCO deducted from its taxes 
payable for the 1997 fiscal year. In POSCO's 1997 income tax return 
filed during the POI, it deducted from its taxes payable, credits 
earned in the years 1995 and 1996, which were carried forward and used 
in the POI. We first determined those tax credits which were claimed 
based upon the investment in domestically-produced facilities. We then 
calculated the additional amount of tax credits received by the company 
because it earned tax credits of 10 percent on investments in 
domestically-produced facilities rather the regular 3 or 5 percent tax 
credit. Next, we calculated the amount of the tax savings received 
through the use of these tax credits during the POI, and divided that 
amount by POSCO's total sales for the POI. On this basis, we 
preliminarily determine a net countervailable subsidy of 0.30 percent 
ad valorem for POSCO.
H. Electricity Discounts Under the Requested Load Adjustment Program
    Petitioners alleged that POSCO is being charged utility rates at 
less than adequate remuneration and, hence, the production of the 
subject merchandise is receiving countervailable benefits from this 
subsidy. Petitioners alleged that POSCO is receiving these 
countervailable benefits in the form of utility rate discounts.
    The GOK reports that during the POI the government-owned Korea 
Electric Power Company (KEPCO) provided POSCO and DSM with four types 
of discounts under its tariff schedule. These four discounts were based 
on the following rate adjustment programs in KEPCO's tariff schedule: 
(1) Power Factor Adjustment; (2) Summer Vacation and Repair Adjustment; 
(3) Requested Load Adjustment; and (4) Voluntary Curtailment 
Adjustment. (See the discussion below in ``Programs Preliminarily 
Determined To Be Not Countervailable'' with respect to the Power Factor 
Adjustment, Summer Vacation and Repair Adjustment, and the Voluntary 
Curtailment Porgram discount programs.)
    With respect to the Requested Load Adjustment (RLA) program, the 
GOK introduced this discount in 1990, to address emergencies in KEPCO's 
ability to supply electricity. Under this program, customers with a 
contract demand of 5,000 kw or more, who can curtail their maximum 
demand by 20 percent or suppress their maximum demand by 3,000 kw or 
more, are eligible to enter into a RLA contract with KEPCO. Customers 
who choose to participate in this program must reduce their load upon 
KEPCO's request, or pay a surcharge to KEPCO.
    Customers can apply for this program between May 1 and May 15 of 
each year. If KEPCO finds the application in order, KEPCO and the 
customer enter into a contract with respect to the RLA discount. The 
RLA discount is provided based upon a contract for two months, normally 
July and August. Under this program, a basic discount of 440 won per kW 
is granted between July 1 and August 31, regardless of whether KEPCO 
makes a request for a customer to reduce its load. During the POI, 
KEPCO granted 33 companies RLA discounts even though KEPCO did not need 
to request these companies to reduce their respective loads. The GOK 
reports that because KEPCO increased its capacity to supply electricity 
in 1997, it reduced the number of companies with which it maintained 
RLA contracts in 1997 and 1998. In 1996, KEPCO entered into RLA 
contracts with 232 companies, which was reduced to 44 companies in 1997 
and 33 in 1998.
    In Sheet and Strip, we found the RLA program countervailable 
because the discounts provided under this program were distributed to a 
limited number of users. See Sheet and Strip at 30646. No new 
information or evidence of changed circumstances have been provided to 
the Department to warrant a reconsideration of that determination. 
Therefore, we continue to find the RLA program countervailable.
    Because the electricity discounts are not ``exceptional'' benefits 
and are received automatically on a regular and predictable basis 
without further government approval, we preliminarily determine that 
these discounts provide a recurring benefit to POSCO and DSM. See 19 
CFR 351.524(a). Therefore, we have expensed the benefit from this 
program in the year of receipt. See Sheet and Strip at 30646. To 
measure the benefit from these programs, we summed the electricity 
discounts which POSCO and DSM received from KEPCO under the RLA program 
during the POI. We then divided the total RLA discount amount each 
company received by their total sales for 1998. On this basis, we 
preliminarily determine a net countervailable subsidy of less than 
0.005 percent ad valorem for POSCO and less than 0.005 percent ad 
valorem for DSM from the RLA discount program.
I. POSCO's Two-Tiered Pricing Structure to Domestic Customers
    POSCO maintains three different pricing systems which serve 
different markets: domestic prices in Korean won for products that will 
be consumed in Korea, direct export prices in U.S. dollars or Japanese 
yen, and local export prices in U.S. dollars. According to POSCO's 
response, local export prices are provided to those domestic customers 
who purchase steel for further processing into products that are 
exported. POSCO is the only Korean producer of slabs, which is the main 
input into the subject merchandise. During the POI, POSCO sold slab to 
DSM for products that will be consumed in Korea, as well as slab to 
produce exports of the subject merchandise.
    During the POI, POSCO was a government-controlled company. See 
Sheet and Strip at 30642-43. POSCO sets different prices for the 
identical product for domestic purchasers based upon that purchaser's 
anticipated export performance. Domestic purchasers which use the raw 
material to produce a product for export are charged a lower price than 
those domestic purchasers which do not export. See Sheet and Strip, 64 
FR at 30647. In Sheet and Strip, we found this pricing scheme to be an 
export subsidy under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act, which provides a 
financial contribution under this program under section 771(5)(D) of 
the Act.
    The benefit from this type of export subsidy is based upon the 
difference in the price charged to exporters and the price charged for 
domestic consumption. The only exception is for pricing programs which 
fall under Item (d) of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies, which 
is provided for in

[[Page 40455]]

Annex I of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures.1 Item (d) allows governments to maintain a program 
which provides different prices based upon export or domestic 
consumption if certain strict criteria are met by the government. See 
19 CFR 351.516. Based on the information in the record, it does not 
appear that POSCO's dual pricing policy is being set directly or 
indirectly through the application of a consistent method for 
calculating the difference between the higher domestic and lower 
international price of slab available to Korean exporters. See Final 
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to the Court Remand Creswell 
Trading Co. v. U.S., Slip.-Op. 94-65, which is publicly available in 
Central Records Unit (CRU) (Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building) 
(Case No. 533-063), (in which the Department found in Certain Iron-
Metal Casting from India that the Indian government, under the IPRS 
program maintained ``a clearly defined and consistently applied 
methodology for calculating the difference between the higher domestic 
and lower international price of pig iron available to Indian 
exporters'') at 3. We will further investigate POSCO's pricing policies 
at verification. We preliminarily determine that the benefit from this 
program is based upon the difference between the prices charged by 
POSCO for export and the prices charged by POSCO for domestic 
consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A subsidy arises under Item (d) from the provision by 
governments or their agencies either directly or indirectly through 
government-mandated schemes, of imported or domestic products or 
services for use in the production of export goods, on terms or 
conditions more favourable than for provision of like or directly 
competitive products or services for use in the production of goods 
for domestic consumption, if (in the case of products) such terms or 
conditions are more favorable than those commercially available on 
world markets to their exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners argued in a July 12, 1999 submission that POSCO's dual-
pricing system is a provision of a good for less than adequate 
remuneration, and the Department should therefore analyze such pricing 
in accordance with Sec. 351.511 of the CVD Regulations. In Sheet and 
Strip, we did not analyze POSCO's dual-pricing under the adequate 
remuneration standard. While we have not modified our analysis in this 
preliminary determination from our recent final determination in Sheet 
and Strip, we intend to review the applicability of Sec. 351.511 of the 
CVD Regulations for purposes of the final determination in this 
investigation and, therefore, we are requesting comments on the 
appropriate standard to apply to this dual-pricing scheme.
    To determine the value of the benefit under this program, we 
compared the monthly weighted-average price charged by POSCO to DSM for 
domestic production to the monthly weighted-average price charged by 
POSCO to DSM for export production. Where monthly comparison prices 
were not available, we used quarterly weighted-average prices. We then 
divided the amount of the price savings by the value of exports of the 
subject merchandise during the POI. On this basis, we determine that 
DSM received a net countervailable subsidy of 0.09 percent ad valorem 
from this program during the POI.
J. Special Cases of Tax for Balanced Development Among Areas (TERCL 
Article 43)
    TERCL Article 43 allows a company to claim a tax reduction or 
exemption for income gained from the disposition of factory facilities 
when relocating from a large city to a local area (e.g., Seoul 
Metropolitan area to a place outside the Seoul Metropolitan area). On 
December 29, 1995, DSM sold land from its Pusan factory and within 
three years from the sales date began production at its Pohang plant. 
In accordance with Article 16, paragraph 7 of the Addenda to the TERCL, 
DSM was entitled to receive an exemption on its income tax for the 
resulting capital gain.
    Payment for the Pusan facilities is on a long-term installment 
basis, therefore, the income tax on the capital gain is payable when 
DSM actually receives payment or transfers the title of ownership. The 
capital gain in the tax year can not exceed DSM's total taxable income. 
The maximum tax savings permitted is 100 percent of the taxable income; 
however, this program is also subject to the minimum tax. This program 
does not allow carrying forward of unused benefits in future years.
    We preliminarily determine that the TERCL Article 43, for Special 
Cases of Tax for Balanced Development Among Areas is specific within 
the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act, because the program 
is limited to an enterprise or industry located within a designated 
geographical region. See also Iron-Metal Castings from Mexico, 48 FR 
8834 (1983) (Fonei Loan program was regionally specific where available 
to all companies outside of Mexico City), and Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 
Italy, 64 FR 15508, 15516 (funds were regionally specific because they 
were limited to certain areas within Italy). We also preliminarily 
determine that Article 43 provides a financial contribution within the 
meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii), because the GOK foregoes revenue that 
is otherwise due by granting this tax credit.
    To calculate the benefit from this tax credit program, we examined 
the amount of the tax credit DSM deducted from its taxes payable for 
the 1997 fiscal year. In DSM's 1997 income tax return filed during the 
POI, it deducted from its taxes payable, credits earned in 1997. Next, 
we calculated the amount of the tax savings and divided that amount by 
DSM's total sales during POI. Using this methodology, we preliminarily 
determine a net countervailable subsidy of 0.59 percent ad valorem for 
DSM. POSCO did not use this program.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Countervailable

A. Electricity Discounts Under Power Factor Adjustment, Summer Vacation 
and Repair Adjustment, and Voluntary Curtailment Adjustment Programs
    In Sheet and Strip, we determined that the Power Factor Adjustment, 
and the Summer Vacation and Repair Adjustment programs are not 
countervailable because the discounts under these programs are 
distributed to a large number of firms in a wide variety of industries. 
See Sheet and Strip at 30647-48.
    Regarding the Voluntary Curtailment Adjustment (VCA) program, KEPCO 
introduced this discount in 1995, to provide a stable supply of 
electricity and to improve energy efficiency by reducing demand during 
periods of peak consumption that occur during the summer. Under this 
program, customers who use general, educational or industrial services 
with a contract demand of 1,000 kw or more, and who arrange with KEPCO 
a curtailment period of five or more days (or times) during the July 
15-August 31 period, are eligible to enter into a VCA contract with 
KEPCO. Customers who choose to participate in this program must curtail 
demand by 20 percent or more on the basis of the average daily demand 
during 10 a.m.-12 p.m., or by 3,000 kw.
    Customers can apply for this program until June 15 of each year. If 
KEPCO finds the application in order, KEPCO approves the application. 
After approval, KEPCO and the customer enter into a contract with 
respect to the VCA discount. Under this program, a basic discount of 
110 won per kw is granted between July 15 and August 31.
    We analyzed whether the VCA discount program is specific in law (de 
jure specificity), or in fact (de facto specificity), within the 
meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) and (iii) of the Act.

[[Page 40456]]

First, we examined the eligibility criteria contained in the law. The 
Regulation on Electricity Supply and KEPCO's Rate Regulations for 
Electric Service identified companies within a broad range of 
industries as being eligible to participate in the electricity discount 
programs. The VCA discount program is available to numerous companies 
across all industries, provided that they have the required contract 
demand and can reduce their maximum demand by a certain percentage. 
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the VCA electricity programs 
is not de jure specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act because 
the regulation does not explicitly limit eligibility of the program.
    We next examined data on the distribution of assistance under the 
VCA program to determine whether the electricity discount program meets 
the criteria for de facto specificity under section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of 
the Act. We found that discounts provided under the VCA program were 
distributed to a large number of customers, across a wide range of 
industries. Given the data with respect to the large number of 
companies and industries which received VCA electricity discounts, and 
the fact that POSCO and DSM were not dominant or disproportionate users 
of this program, we preliminarily determine that the VCA program is not 
de facto specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, 
we preliminarily determine that the VCA program is not countervailable.
B. Port Facility Fees
    In Sheet and Strip, we determined that this program is not 
countervailable because a diverse and large group of private sector 
companies representing a wide cross-section of the economy have made a 
large number of investments in infrastructure facilities at various 
ports in Korea, including numerous investments at Kwangyang Bay. See 
Sheet and Strip at 30649.
C. GOK Infrastructure Investments at Kwangyang Bay Post-1991
    In Plate in Coils, we determined that this program is not 
countervailable because the GOK's investments at Kwangyang Bay since 
1991, in the Jooam Dam, the container terminal, and the public highway 
were not specific to POSCO. Id. at 15536. The respondents state that 
there have been no additional infrastructure investments at Kwangyang 
Bay during the POI.

III. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used

    Based on the information provided in the questionnaire response, we 
preliminarily determine that the companies under investigation either 
did not apply for, or receive, benefits under the following programs 
during the POI:

A. Special Cases of Tax for Balanced Development Among Areas (TERCL 
Articles 41, 42, 44 and 45)
B. Private Capital Inducement Act (PCIA)
C. Social Indirect Capital Investment Reserve Funds (Art. 28)
D. Energy-Savings Facilities Investment Reserve Funds (Art. 29)
E. Industry Promotion and Research and Development Subsidies
    1. Highly Advanced National Project Fund
    2. Steel Campaign for the 21st Century
F. Overseas Resource Development Programs
G. Export Insurance Rates Provided By The Korean Export Insurance 
Corporation
H. Export Industry Facility Loans (EIFL) and Specialty Facility Loans
I. Scrap Reserve Fund
J. Excessive Duty Drawback

IV. Program Preliminarily Determined Not To Exist

Free Trade Zones (FTZ) at Pusan and Kwangyang
    The GOK states that at this time, there are only two FTZs in Korea. 
One is located in Masan and the other is in Iksan. Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that this program does not exist.

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we will verify the 
information submitted by respondents prior to making our final 
determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 
calculated an individual subsidy rate for POSCO, and DSM, manufacturers 
of the subject merchandise. We preliminarily determine that the total 
estimated net countervailable subsidy rate is 1.16 percent ad valorem 
for POSCO and 1.12 percent ad valorem for DSM. The All Others rate is 
1.14 ad valorem percent, which is the weighted-average of the rates for 
both companies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Company                         Net subsidy rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSCO...............................  1.16% Ad Valorem.
DSM.................................  1.12% Ad Valorem.
All Others..........................  1.14% Ad Valorem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain 
cut-to-length carbon-quality steel from Korea, which are entered or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a 
cash deposit or bond for such entries of the merchandise in the amounts 
listed above. This suspension will remain in effect until further 
notice.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the 
ITC all nonprivileged and nonproprietary information relating to this 
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and 
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC 
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or 
under an administrative protective order, without the written consent 
of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its 
final determination within 75 days after the Department makes its final 
determination.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310, we will hold a public hearing, 
if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
this preliminary determination. The hearing is tentatively scheduled to 
be held 57 days from the date of publication of the preliminary 
determination at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to 
request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 
Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the 
hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, 
address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and, (3) 
to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be 
raised at the hearing. In

[[Page 40457]]

addition, six copies of the business proprietary version and six copies 
of the nonproprietary version of the case briefs must be submitted to 
the Assistant Secretary no later than 50 days from the date of 
publication of the preliminary determination. As part of the case 
brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not 
to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases 
cited. Six copies of the business proprietary version and six copies of 
the non-proprietary version of the rebuttal briefs must be submitted to 
the Assistant Secretary no later than 5 days from the date of filing of 
the case briefs. An interested party may make an affirmative 
presentation only on arguments included in that party's case or 
rebuttal briefs. Written arguments should be submitted in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.309 and will be considered if received within the time 
limits specified above.
    This determination is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: July 16, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-18857 Filed 7-23-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P