[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20425-20434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-9977]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-423-809]


Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Preliminary Results 
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

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

[[Page 20426]]


ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the countervailing duty order on stainless steel plate in 
coils from Belgium for the period September 4, 1998, through December 
31, 1999. We have preliminarily determined that the only producer/
exporter covered by this review, ALZ N.V., received net subsidies 
during the period of review. If the final results remain the same as 
these preliminary results, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to 
assess countervailing duties as detailed in the Preliminary Results of 
Review section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results (see the Public Comment section of 
this notice).

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 23, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jarrod Goldfeder, Melani Miller, or 
Anthony Grasso, AD/CVD Enforcement, Group I, Office 1, Import 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
0189, (202) 482-0116, or (202) 482-3853, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions of section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA'') 
effective January 1, 1995 (``the Act''). Similarly, all citations to 
the Department of Commerce's (``the Department'') regulations are to 
the current regulations as codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2000), 
including the new substantive countervailing duty regulations published 
in the Federal Register on November 25, 1998 (63 FR 65348), unless 
otherwise indicated.

Background

    On May 11, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(64 FR 25288) the countervailing duty order on stainless steel plate in 
coils from Belgium. On May 16, 2000, the Department published a notice 
of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of this 
countervailing duty order (65 FR 31141). On May 31, 2000, we received a 
timely request for review of ALZ N.V. (``ALZ'') from Allegheny Ludlum 
Corp., Armco, Inc., Lukens Inc., and United Steelworkers of America, 
AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively, ``the petitioners'').
    We initiated the review, covering calendar year 1999, on July 7, 
2000 (65 FR 41942). As noted below in the Period of Review section, the 
appropriate period of review (``POR'') in this proceeding is September 
4, 1998 through December 31, 1999, not calendar year 1999. Corrections 
to the initiation notice to revise the POR were published in the 
Federal Register on October 2, 2000 (65 FR 58733) and October 30, 2000 
(65 FR 64662).
    On July 26, 2000, we received a timely allegation from the 
petitioners concerning several additional subsidies. The petitioners 
also requested that the Department re-investigate several equity 
programs that had been examined in the investigation. See Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Stainless Steel Plate in 
Coils from Belgium, 64 FR 15567 (March 31, 1999) (``Plate in Coils from 
Belgium''). ALZ submitted information rebutting these allegations and 
requests on August 7, 2000. We decided to include two of the newly-
alleged subsidy programs in this review; we also decided to re-examine 
two previously-investigated equity investments from Plate in Coils from 
Belgium. We determined not to investigate two of the newly-alleged 
subsidy programs. See October 19, 2000 memorandum to Richard W. 
Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Enforcement, entitled 
``New Subsidy Allegations'' (``New Allegations Memo''), which is on 
file in the Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of 
the main Department of Commerce building (``CRU'').
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review of the order 
covers ALZ, the only company for which a review was specifically 
requested. This review covers 27 programs, including the four programs 
for which we initiated an investigation or re-investigation, noted 
above.
    On August 9, October 4, October 19, and December 5, 2000, we issued 
countervailing duty questionnaires and supplemental questionnaires to 
the Government of Belgium (``GOB''), the Government of Flanders 
(``GOF''), the Commission of the European Union (``EC''), and ALZ. We 
received timely responses from these parties in October and November 
2000 and January 2001.
    On January 2, 2001, the Department published a notice in the 
Federal Register extending the time limit for issuing these preliminary 
results until no later than April 16, 2001 (66 FR 95).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain stainless 
steel plate in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by 
weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of 
chromium, with or without other elements. The subject plate products 
are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more 
in thickness, in coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and 
pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject plate may also be further 
processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it 
maintains the specified dimensions of plate following such processing. 
Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) Plate not 
in coils, (2) plate that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and 
pickled or otherwise descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat bars. 
In addition, certain cold-rolled stainless steel plate in coils is also 
excluded from the scope of this order. The excluded cold-rolled 
stainless steel plate in coils is defined as that merchandise which 
meets the physical characteristics described above that has undergone a 
cold-reduction process that reduced the thickness of the steel by 25 
percent or more, and has been annealed and pickled after this cold 
reduction process.
    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.05, 
7219.12.00.20, 7219.12.00.25, 7219.12.00.50, 7219.12.00.55, 
7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.70, 7219.12.00.80, 7219.31.00.10, 
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 
7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 
7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 
7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10, 
7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and for Customs Service 
(``Customs'') purposes, the written description of the scope of the 
order is dispositive.

Period of Review

    According to section 351.213(e)(2)(ii) of the Department's 
regulations, in the case of the first administrative review of a 
countervailing duty order, the POR should extend from the initial date 
of suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise to the end of 
the most recently completed fiscal year. In this case, suspension of 
liquidation began on September 4, 1998, the date of publication of the 
preliminary results in Plate in Coils from Belgium. See

[[Page 20427]]

Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final 
Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty 
Determination: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, 63 FR 47239 
(September 4, 1998). Therefore, the POR for which we are measuring 
countervailable subsidies is from September 4, 1998 through December 
31, 1999.
    Because it is the Department's practice to calculate subsidy rates 
on an annual basis, we calculated a 1998 rate and a 1999 rate for ALZ. 
The rate calculated for 1998 will be applicable only to entries, or 
withdrawals from warehouse, for consumption made on and after September 
4, 1998 through the end of 1998.

Subsidies Valuation Information

Responding Producers

    In Plate in Coils from Belgium, we found that ALZ had two 
subsidiaries which were involved in the production of the subject 
merchandise, ALBUFIN N.V. (``Albufin'') and AL-FIN N.V. (``Alfin''). 
ALZ has reported in the instant review that, as of the end of 1998, 
Albufin was merged into ALZ and no longer exists as a separate entity. 
We have included subsidies to these companies in the subsidy rate for 
ALZ for the POR. Furthermore, SIDMAR (``Sidmar'') owns either directly 
or indirectly 100 percent of ALZ's voting shares and is the overall 
majority shareholder of ALZ. Therefore, in accordance with section 
351.525(a)(6)(iii) of the Department's regulations, because ALZ is a 
fully consolidated subsidiary of Sidmar, any untied subsidies provided 
to Sidmar are attributable to ALZ.

Benchmarks for Long-term Loans and Discount Rates

    Both ALZ and Sidmar obtained long-term commercial loans 
contemporaneously with the receipt of certain government loans or 
grants that are under review. Therefore, where ALZ or Sidmar obtained 
long-term commercial loans, we used the company-specific interest rates 
as the long-term loan benchmark interest rate or discount rate. See 
section 351.505(a)(2)(ii) of the Department's regulations. For all 
other years, we used national average rates for long-term, fixed-rate 
debt as the long-term loan benchmark interest rate or discount rate. 
See section 351.505(a)(3)(ii) of the Department's regulations.

Equity Methodology

    Section 771(5)(E)(i) of the Act and section 351.507 of the 
Department's regulations state that, in the case of government-provided 
equity infusion, a benefit is conferred if an equity investment 
decision is inconsistent with the usual investment practice of private 
investors.
    Consistent with the methodology discussed in section 351.507 of the 
Department's regulations, the first question in analyzing a benefit 
with respect to an equity infusion is whether, at the time of the 
infusion, there was a market price for similar newly-issued equity. If 
so, the Department will consider an equity infusion to be inconsistent 
with the usual investment practice of private investors if the price 
paid by the government for newly-issued shares is greater than the 
price paid by private investors for the same, or similar, newly-issued 
shares.
    If actual private investor prices are not available, then the 
Department will determine whether the firm funded by the government-
provided infusion was equityworthy or unequityworthy at the time of the 
equity infusion. (See section 351.507(a)(3)(i) of the Department's 
regulations.) Section 351.507(a)(4)(ii) of the Department's current 
regulations further stipulates that the Department will ``normally 
require from the respondents the information and analysis completed 
prior to the infusion, upon which the government based its decision to 
provide the equity infusion.'' Absent an analysis containing 
information typically examined by potential private investors 
considering an equity investment, the Department will normally 
determine that the equity infusion provides a countervailable benefit. 
This is because, before making a significant equity infusion, it is the 
usual investment practice of private investors to evaluate the 
potential risk versus the expected return, using the most objective 
criteria and information available to the investor.
    In this review, as noted above, the Department is examining three 
government equity infusions. See 1984 Purchase of Sidmar's Common and 
Preference Shares, 1985 ALZ Share Subscriptions, and Sidmar's Debt to 
Equity (OCPC-to-PB) conversion in 1985 in the individual program 
descriptions, below, for an individual analysis relating to each of the 
three GOB equity infusions.

Allocation Period

    In Plate in Coils from Belgium, in accordance with a Court of 
International Trade (``CIT'') decision, we calculated company-specific 
allocation periods for non-recurring subsidies using company-specific 
average useful life (``AUL'') data. (See British Steel plc v. United 
States, 929 F. Supp. 426, 439 (CIT 1996)). We determined that the AUL 
for ALZ was 15 years, and that the AUL for Sidmar was 19 years.
    Since Plate in Coils from Belgium, new countervailing duty 
regulations have come into force and are applicable to this review. 
Pursuant to section 351.524(d)(2) of these regulations, the Department 
will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be 
the AUL of renewable physical assets as listed in the IRS tables unless 
a party claims and establishes that the IRS tables do not reasonably 
reflect the company-specific AUL or the country-wide AUL for the 
industry. In this case, the AUL in the IRS tables is 15 years.
    With respect to non-recurring subsidies received prior to the POR 
which have already been countervailed and allocated based on an 
allocation period established in Plate in Coils from Belgium, it is 
neither reasonable nor practicable to reallocate those subsidies over a 
different time period. Therefore, we have preliminarily decided to 
allocate non-recurring subsidies countervailed in Plate in Coils from 
Belgium over 15 years for ALZ and over 19 years for Sidmar. This 
methodology is consistent with our approach in Certain Carbon Steel 
Products from Sweden; Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 16549 (April 7, 1997) and Certain Pasta 
from Italy: Final Results of Third Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review, 66 FR 11269 (February 23, 2001).
    With respect to new non-recurring subsidies which have not been 
previously allocated, ALZ (also responding on behalf of Sidmar) does 
not contest the use of the 15-year allocation period in the IRS tables 
for both ALZ and Sidmar. The petitioners, however, have argued that, 
because a 19-year company-specific AUL for Sidmar was verified in Plate 
in Coils from Belgium, and because that AUL differs from the IRS table 
AUL by more than one year, the presumption that the IRS AUL is the most 
appropriate for Sidmar has been rebutted. (The petitioners do not 
contest the use of the AUL from the IRS tables for ALZ.) Moreover, the 
petitioners note that, in Plate in Coils from Belgium, ALZ itself 
argued that the Department should use the 19-year AUL for Sidmar. The 
petitioners point out that ALZ, in its case brief in Plate in Coils 
from Belgium, noted that, even if that investigation had been conducted 
under the new regulations, Sidmar would qualify for a company-specific 
AUL.

[[Page 20428]]

    ALZ disagrees with the petitioners, and argues that the 15-year AUL 
included in the IRS tables is the most appropriate AUL to use for 
Sidmar. ALZ argues that any entity wishing to rebut the presumption of 
the use of the IRS tables must actually demonstrate that the IRS table 
AUL is inappropriate. ALZ contends that the petitioners did not meet 
the burden of proof set forth in section 351.524(d)(2)(iii) of the 
Department's regulations, and, hence, have not rebutted the presumption 
of a 15-year AUL for Sidmar.
    In further support of its arguments, ALZ notes that the 19-year AUL 
derived in the investigation was based on information derived from 
Sidmar NV, not on information from the entire Sidmar Group (of which 
Sidmar NV is one part). Given that the subsidies in question were 
received by the Sidmar Group, Sidmar NV's experience should not be 
sufficient to rebut the presumption as it applies to the Sidmar Group.
    Given that we relied on Sidmar NV's data to calculate Sidmar's AUL 
in Plate in Coils from Belgium and, thus, we have a relative recently 
calculated AUL that has been applied to Sidmar, we have continued to 
use a 19-year AUL for these preliminary results. However, we invite 
further comment on this issue for the final results. While we 
acknowledge that we used Sidmar NV's data in Plate in Coils from 
Belgium, we did so because it was the best company-specific information 
we had at that time. However, given the preference in the new 
regulations for IRS data, we believe that it is appropriate to 
reconsider whether IRS data should not be preferred to company-specific 
data which is flawed because it is based only on a portion of the 
subsidy recipient's data.
    As for ALZ, because no party has demonstrated that another period 
was more appropriate than the AUL period required by the Department's 
current regulations, any new, not previously allocated non-recurring 
subsidies received by ALZ during the current POR are being allocated 
over 15 years as specified in the IRS tables.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined to Confer Subsidies

A. 1985 ALZ Share Subscriptions (identified as 1985 ALZ Share 
Subscriptions and Subsequent Transactions in Plate In Coils from 
Belgium)

    In 1985, the GOB made three share subscriptions (one subscription 
for ordinary shares and two for preference shares) in ALZ. These 
purchases followed Royal Decree No. 245 of December 31, 1983, which 
allowed the GOB to make preference share subscriptions in the steel 
industry as long as the subscriptions did not exceed one-half of the 
social capital of the company. ALZ, the GOB, and the Nationale 
Maatschappig voor de Herstructurering van de Nationale Sectoren 
(``NMNS''), the government agency purchasing the shares, signed an 
agreement with respect to these purchases on July 10, 1985. ALZ's 
shareholders approved of these share acquisitions on September 26, 
1985.
    In Plate in Coils from Belgium, we analyzed whether the GOB's 1985 
share purchases conferred a benefit on ALZ according to the equity 
methodology that was in place prior to the issuance of the Department's 
current subsidy regulations. We found in our investigation that ALZ was 
equityworthy and that the GOB's 1985 share subscriptions in ALZ did not 
constitute a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 
771(5) of the Act. However, in the instant review, as explained in our 
New Allegations Memo, we have re-initiated an investigation of these 
1985 share subscriptions based on the change in our equity methodology 
from the time of the original investigation of this program.
    ALZ has reported that there was no market price for similar newly-
issued equity at the time the GOB purchased ALZ's equity, as neither 
ALZ's common nor preference shares were publicly traded. Therefore, we 
must determine whether ALZ was equityworthy or unequityworthy at the 
time of the 1985 equity infusion.
    As explained in the Equity Methodology section, above, we first 
examined any analysis relied upon by the GOB in making its decision to 
invest in ALZ. Based on our review of this information, we have 
preliminarily determined that no objective studies of ALZ had been 
prepared prior to the GOB's investment decision on which the GOB could 
have based its investment decision. See the Department's April 16, 
2001, memorandum to Richard W. Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
AD/CVD Enforcement entitled ``Government of Belgium Equity Infusions: 
1984 Infusion in Sidmar, 1985 Infusion in ALZ, and the Conversion of 
Sidmar's Debt to Equity (OCPC-to-PB) in 1985'' (``Equity Infusions 
Memorandum'') (on file in the CRU).
    Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the GOB's purchases of 
ALZ's ordinary and preferred shares in 1985 constitute a 
countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the 
Act. These investments provide a financial contribution, as described 
in section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Also, in Plate in Coils from 
Belgium, we determined that benefits under Royal Decree No. 245 are 
available only to the steel sector. On this basis, we preliminarily 
determine that this program is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of 
the Act. Finally, because no analysis was performed containing 
information typically examined by potential private investors 
considering an equity investment prior to the GOB's decision to invest 
in ALZ, the investment decision was inconsistent with the usual 
investment practice of private investors. Therefore, a benefit exists 
according to section 771(5)(E)(i) of the Act in the amount of the 
equity infusion.
    To calculate the benefit applicable to the POR, we applied the 
Department's standard grant methodology. Because we could not determine 
according to section 351.524(b)(2) of the Department's regulations 
whether we should allocate this non-recurring expense to the year in 
which it was approved because we did not have relevant sales 
information for that year, we preliminarily allocated the benefit over 
the AUL for ALZ. We will seek information from ALZ with respect to the 
appropriate sales information for the final results. We divided the 
total benefit attributable to 1998 and 1999 by ALZ's total sales during 
1998 and 1999, respectively. On this basis, we preliminarily determine 
the countervailable subsidy for 1998 to be 0.69 percent ad valorem, and 
the countervailable subsidy for 1999 to be 0.62 percent ad valorem.

B. 1987 ALZ Common Share Transaction Between the GOB and Sidmar (also 
identified as 1985 ALZ Share Subscriptions and Subsequent Transactions 
in Plate In Coils from Belgium)

    As discussed above, in 1985, the GOB made three share subscriptions 
in ALZ involving both common shares and preference shares. In 1987, the 
GOB sold the common shares it had purchased to Kempense 
Investeringsvennootschap, a company controlled by Sidmar.
    In Plate in Coils from Belgium, we concluded that the GOB did not 
behave as a private investor when selling its shares in 1987 because it 
accepted a lower price than it otherwise could have obtained for the 
shares. Therefore, we determined that the GOB's 1987 sale of ALZ's 
common shares to Sidmar constituted a countervailable subsidy

[[Page 20429]]

within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. The sale provided a 
financial contribution, as described in section 771(5)(D)(i) of the 
Act. Moreover, we found that benefits under Royal Decree No. 245 were 
available only to the steel sector. On this basis, we determined that 
the program was specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. In 
this review, no new information has been placed on the record which 
would warrant reconsideration of this determination.
    To calculate the benefit conferred during the POR, we took the 
difference between market value for ALZ's common stock and the price 
paid by Sidmar for the stock, and treated the difference as a grant. We 
then applied the Department's standard grant methodology and divided 
the benefit in 1998 and 1999 by Sidmar's total consolidated sales 
during 1998 and 1999, respectively. On this basis, we preliminarily 
determine the countervailable subsidy for 1998 to be 0.07 percent ad 
valorem, and the countervailable subsidy for 1999 to be 0.07 percent ad 
valorem.

C. Industrial Reconversion Zones

Alfin
    Alfin was established as a ``proper'' reconversion company in 1985 
under the reconversion program ``Herstelwet 1984.'' Alfin was financed 
by a government agency, Nationale Investeringsmaatschappij (``NIM''), 
and ALZ. In exchange for its investment, NIM received non-voting 
preferred shares and a two percent annual return on its investment. ALZ 
was obligated to repurchase all of the shares purchased by NIM at the 
issued price over a ten-year period.
    Using the hierarchical criteria discussed in the ``Classification 
of Hybrid Financial Instruments Issue'' section of the General Issues 
Appendix to the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: 
Certain Steel Products from Austria, 58 FR 37217, 37239 (July 9, 1993), 
we found in Plate In Coils from Belgium that these shares constituted 
debt instruments because they have a fixed repayment period. These debt 
instruments remained outstanding during part of the POR.
    In Plate In Coils from Belgium, we found that this program 
conferred a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 
771(5) of the Act. This program provided a financial contribution as 
described in section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Moreover, because 
benefits under the ``Herstelwet 1984'' law were limited to firms in 
certain regions of the country, the program was specific under section 
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. In this review, no new information has been 
placed on the record which would warrant reconsideration of this 
determination.
    To measure the benefit conferred by this loan during the POR, we 
used our long-term fixed-rate loan methodology. We divided the subsidy 
allocated to 1998 by ALZ's total sales for 1998. On this basis, we 
preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy for 1998 to be 0.17 
percent ad valorem.
    ALZ reported that it completed its repurchase of the shares held by 
NIM in 1998. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this program 
did not confer a countervailable subsidy in 1999.
Albufin
    Albufin was established as an ``improper'' reconversion company in 
1989, also under the reconversion program ``Herstelwet 1984.'' Albufin 
received its initial capital from the government (NIM), the Sidmar 
Group (FININDUS), a private company (Klockner Stahl), and ALZ. In Plate 
In Coils from Belgium, we determined that, because Klockner Stahl was a 
private company at the time of Albufin's establishment, and it invested 
on the same terms as the government, there was no countervailable 
benefit resulting from the establishment of the company. However, we 
found that, as an ``improper'' reconversion company, Albufin benefitted 
from a tax exemption on dividend payments and was exempt from the 
capital registration tax.
    In Plate In Coils from Belgium, we determined that these tax 
benefits received by Albufin were countervailable subsidies within the 
meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. The tax benefits were a financial 
contribution as described in section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act which 
provided a benefit to the recipient in the amount of the tax savings. 
Because benefits under the ``Herstelwet 1984'' law were limited to 
firms in certain regions of the country, we determined that this 
program was specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. In this 
review, no new information has been placed on the record which would 
warrant reconsideration of this determination.
    During the POR, Albufin (which merged into ALZ on November 1, 
1998), did not receive tax savings under the capital registration tax; 
Albufin did, however, benefit during the POR from the exemption on 
dividend payments. To measure the benefit from this tax exemption, we 
treated the 1998 and 1999 tax savings as a recurring benefit and 
divided them by ALZ's total sales during 1998 and 1999, respectively. 
On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy 
for 1998 to be 0.05 percent ad valorem, and the countervailable subsidy 
for 1999 to be 0.03 percent ad valorem.

D. Regional Subsidies under the Economic Expansion Law of 1970

    The 1970 Law offers various incentives to enterprises located 
within designated disadvantaged regions. Although the GOB originally 
oversaw the implementation of the 1970 Law, pursuant to the overall 
devolution of power from the GOB to the regional governments since the 
early 1980s, the authority to administer the 1970 Law has been 
transferred to the regional governments. With respect to Flanders, many 
of the 1970 Law subsidy programs have been implemented and administered 
by the GOF since the late 1980s and the ``execution modalities'' have 
been amended by several Flemish decrees. Currently, the GOB funds the 
programs under the 1970 Law as part of a lump sum provided to finance 
the overall operations of the GOF.
    The Department found in Plate in Coils from Belgium that ALZ 
received several types of assistance under the 1970 Law subsidy: 1993 
Expansion Grant, Investment and Interest Subsidies, Accelerated 
Depreciation, and Real Estate Tax Exemption. Most of this assistance 
was provided after the GOF assumed control of the subsidy programs. 
Therefore, pursuant to Plate in Coils from Belgium, we are treating the 
GOF as the authority providing these subsidies. However, ALZ received 
one grant in 1983 (Investment and Interest Subsidies). The Department 
considers this grant bestowed by the GOB because it was received prior 
to the GOF takeover of 1970 Law authority.
    The GOF's framework for economic expansion consists of the 1970 Law 
(for medium and large-sized businesses located in a disadvantaged 
region), the Act of August 4, 1978 (``1978 Act,'' for small businesses 
and one-man companies), and the 1993 Economic Expansion Decree (``1993 
Decree,'' for medium and large-sized businesses not eligible for 
assistance under the 1970 Law). These laws provide various subsidies 
designed to promote expansion, employment, investment, research and 
development, and conformance with environmental standards.
    In Plate in Coils from Belgium, the Department determined that, in 
certain instances, subsidies provided under the current economic 
expansion laws--the 1978 Act, the 1993 Decree, and the 1970 Law--should 
be considered as one

[[Page 20430]]

program for specificity purposes. Specifically, the Department found 
that the environmental grants and environmental real estate tax 
exemptions provided pursuant to those laws are integrally linked. 
Moreover, we determined that environmental grants and environmental 
real estate tax exemptions are not specific and, therefore, not 
countervailable. However, with respect to the other subsidies received 
by Albufin under the 1970 Law (i.e., the 1993 Expansion Grant, the Real 
Estate Tax Exemption for Albufin's expansion investment, and 
Accelerated Depreciation), these subsidies were either not available to 
large companies under the 1993 Decree or the 1978 Act, or, in the case 
of the 1993 Expansion Grant, the 1993 Decree was not in effect at the 
time the subsidy was approved. Therefore, we determined that these 
subsidies provided under the 1970 Law cannot be integrally linked with 
the 1993 Decree or the 1978 Act.
    Following is a discussion relating to the Expansion Real Estate Tax 
Exemption and Accelerated Depreciation programs. The 1993 Expansion 
Grant and Investment and Interest Subsidies programs can be found below 
in the Programs Preliminarily Determined to Be Not Used section.
Expansion Real Estate Tax Exemption
    Pursuant to Article 16 of the 1970 Law, assets acquired using 
benefits received under the 1970 Law may be exempted from real estate 
taxes for up to five years, depending on the extent to which objectives 
of the 1970 Law are achieved. Albufin utilized this tax exemption for 
an expansion project.
    In Plate in Coils from Belgium, we found that this expansion real 
estate tax exemption was countervailable within the meaning of section 
771(5) of the Act. We determined it to be a financial contribution as 
described in section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act that provides a benefit 
to the recipient in the amount of the tax savings. As noted above, only 
the 1970 Law provides tax exemptions for expansion investments to large 
enterprises and since the 1970 Law only provides subsidies to companies 
located in certain regions, we determined that this expansion real 
estate tax exemption was specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the 
Act. In this review, no new information has been placed on the record 
that would warrant reconsideration of this determination.
    In 1998, Albufin received tax savings under this plan. To measure 
the benefit from this tax exemption, we treated the 1998 tax savings as 
a recurring benefit and divided it by ALZ's total sales during 1998. On 
this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy for 
1998 to be 0.10 percent ad valorem. This tax benefit expired for 
Albufin in 1998. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this 
program did not confer a countervailable subsidy in 1999 upon Albufin.
Accelerated Depreciation
    Article 15 of the 1970 Law allows certain companies to declare 
twice the standard depreciation for assets acquired using grants 
bestowed under the law.
    In Plate in Coils from Belgium, we found that this tax benefit 
received by Albufin, an ALZ subsidiary, was countervailable within the 
meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. The Department determined this 
tax benefit to be a financial contribution as described in section 
771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act that provides a benefit to the recipient in 
the amount of the tax savings. The Department also determined this 
program to be specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because 
only enterprises that were situated in certain development zones were 
eligible to apply for accelerated depreciation. In this administrative 
review, no new information has been placed on the record that would 
warrant reconsideration of this determination.
    In the instant review, ALZ claimed accelerated depreciation related 
to environmental investment projects during fiscal years 1997 (tax form 
filed in 1998) and 1998 (tax form filed in 1999). In Plate in Coils 
from Belgium, we found environmental grants and environmental real 
estate tax exemptions provided pursuant to the 1970 Law, the 1978 Act, 
and the 1993 Decree to be integrally linked, because in this respect, 
each of these laws complements and cross references the others in its 
``area of application.'' The 1970 Law provides environmental grants and 
real estate tax exemptions for investments by medium- and large-sized 
enterprises located in development zones, the 1993 Decree provides them 
for investments by medium- and large-sized firms ``not eligible for 
assistance under the 1970 Law,'' and the 1978 Act provides the same 
subsidies for investments by small-sized companies.
    In Plate in Coils from Belgium, we did not make a similar 
determination with respect to accelerated depreciation as ALZ was in a 
tax loss position during the period of investigation and, thus, did not 
benefit from this program. However, because only the 1970 Law allows 
accelerated depreciation claims on environmental investment projects 
(grants), we preliminarily find the 1970 Law not to be integrally 
linked with the 1978 Act and the 1993 Decree in this regard.
    In calculating ALZ's benefit from accelerated depreciation, we 
treated the tax savings as a recurring benefit and divided it by ALZ's 
total sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine 
ALZ's countervailable subsidy for 1998 to be 0.06 percent ad valorem.
    As in Plate in Coils from Belgium, we did not find ALZ's use of 
accelerated depreciation to confer a countervailable benefit in 1999 as 
ALZ was in a tax loss position for the return filed in that year.

E. Belgian Industrial Finance Company (``Belfin'') Loans

    Belfin was established by Royal Decree on June 29, 1981, as a mixed 
corporation with 50 percent GOB participation and 50 percent private 
industry participation. In the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determinations: Certain Steel Products from Belgium, 58 FR 37273 (July 
9, 1993) (``Certain Steel''), we determined that Belfin's objective is 
to finance investments needed for the restructuring and development of 
various sectors of industry, commerce, and state services. Belfin 
borrows money in Belgium and on international markets, with the benefit 
of government guarantees, in order to obtain the funds needed to make 
loans to Belgian companies. The government's guarantee makes it 
possible for Belfin to borrow at favorable interest rates and to pass 
the savings along when it lends the funds to Belgian companies. Belfin 
loans to Belgian companies are not guaranteed by the GOB. Moreover, 
these loans carry a one percent commission which is used to maintain a 
guarantee fund to support the GOB's guarantee of Belfin's borrowing. 
ALZ had Belfin loans outstanding during the POR.
    In Plate in Coils from Belgium, we determined that this program 
constituted a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 
771(5) of the Act. These loans provided a financial contribution, as 
described in section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, with the benefit equal to 
the difference between the benchmark rate and the rate ALZ pays on 
these loans. Although the objective of Belfin loans is to assist the 
restructuring and development of various sectors, we found that steel 
companies were the predominant recipients of Belfin loans. Therefore, 
we determined that the Belfin loans to the steel industry were specific 
under section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. In this review, no new 
information has been

[[Page 20431]]

placed on the record that would warrant reconsideration of this 
determination.
    To measure the benefit of these loans, we used our long-term fixed-
rate loan methodology. For the outstanding Belfin loan to ALZ, we 
divided the subsidy amount received in 1998 by ALZ's total sales during 
1998. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable 
subsidy for 1998 to be 0.00 percent ad valorem. The Belfin loan to ALZ 
was repaid in 1998. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this 
loan did not confer a countervailable subsidy on ALZ in 1999.
    There was also an outstanding Belfin loan to Alfin. We 
preliminarily determine that no benefit was conferred in either 1998 or 
1999; therefore, this loan did not confer a countervailable subsidy 
within the POR.

F. Societe Nationale de Credite a l'Industrie (``SNCI'') Loans

    SNCI was a public credit institution, which, through medium-term 
and long-term financing, encouraged the development and growth of 
industrial and commercial enterprises in Belgium. SNCI was organized as 
a limited liability company and, until 1997, was 50 percent owned by 
the Belgian government. ALZ received investment loans from SNCI which 
were outstanding during the POR.
    In Plate in Coils from Belgium, we determined that loans made 
through SNCI conferred countervailable subsidies within the meaning of 
section 771(5) of the Act. These loans provided a financial 
contribution as described in section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. As for 
the specificity of these loans, we determined that SNCI loans for the 
years 1987 through 1990 were not specific and, thus, not 
countervailable. For SNCI loans made since 1991, because we found that 
the GOB did not participate to the best of its ability with respect to 
providing information relating to these loans, we used adverse facts 
available to determine that SNCI loans provided after 1991 were 
specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. (See Plate in Coils 
from Belgium, 64 FR at 15570.) In this review, no new information has 
been placed on the record that would warrant reconsideration of this 
determination.
    To calculate the benefit applicable to the POR, we used both the 
former and the current regulations' long-term fixed-interest rate loan 
methodologies. We did this because, for certain of ALZ's SNCI loans, 
the fixed interest rates were revised for the POR. Therefore, in 
allocating the benefit, if the fixed interest rate changed since Plate 
in Coils from Belgium, we utilized the methodology from the new 
regulations; if the interest rate did not change, we continued to 
follow the methodology used in Plate in Coils from Belgium.
    To measure the benefit of these loans, we divided the benefit 
attributable to 1998 and 1999 by ALZ's total sales in 1998 and 1999, 
respectively. On this basis, we preliminarily determined the 
countervailable subsidy for 1998 to be 0.04 percent ad valorem, and the 
countervailable subsidy for 1999 to be 0.01 percent ad valorem.

G. Subsidies Provided to Sidmar that are Attributable to ALZ

    As discussed in the Responding Producers section above, Sidmar owns 
either directly or indirectly 100 percent of ALZ's voting shares. 
Because ALZ is a fully consolidated subsidiary of Sidmar, any untied 
subsidies provided to Sidmar are attributable to ALZ (see, e.g., 
Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From the 
United Kingdom; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review, 63 FR 18367 (April 15, 1998)). In Plate in Coils from Belgium, 
Certain Steel, and the Department's redetermination on remand of 
Certain Steel, we found that Sidmar received countervailable benefits 
that were attributable to the entire Sidmar Group. Thus, we determine 
that the following three programs provide countervailable benefits to 
ALZ via its parent company, Sidmar:
1984 Purchase of Sidmar's Common and Preference Shares
    In 1984, the GOB made two share subscriptions (one for preference 
shares and the other for common shares) in Sidmar. The purchase of 
preference shares was authorized by Royal Decree 245 of December 31, 
1983. This Royal Decree allowed the GOB to make preference share 
subscriptions in the steel industry as long as the subscriptions did 
not exceed one-half of the social capital of the company.
    On January 13, 1984, a Memorandum of Understanding (``MOU'') was 
signed with respect to the ordinary and preference share subscriptions 
in Sidmar. On April 27, 1984, NMNS (the GOB agency purchasing the 
shares), Sidmar, and the GOB signed an agreement committing to these 
share subscriptions. On May 2, 1984, Sidmar's shareholders approved 
both the ordinary share and the preference share increases. However, as 
a result of EC objections, the preference share transaction previously 
approved by the shareholders was nullified on September 25, 1984. 
Sidmar shareholders approved a modified preference share subscription 
on October 16, 1984. The original April 27, 1984 agreement between 
NMNS, Sidmar, and the GOB was modified in December 1984 to reflect the 
preference share subscription changes noted above.
    In Certain Steel and its attendant litigation, the Department 
examined the early redemption of the preference shares purchased by the 
GOB as part of this 1984 transaction, but not the original purchase of 
the shares, as we found that the petition did not contain enough 
evidence to support the allegation that Sidmar was unequityworthy in 
1984.
    As there was no market price for a similar newly-issued equity at 
the time of the 1984 GOB equity infusions into Sidmar, we examined 
whether Sidmar was equityworthy or unequityworthy at the time of the 
1984 subscriptions. As explained in the Equity Infusions Memorandum, we 
have preliminarily determined that the January 13, 1984 MOU was the 
point at which the GOB determined that it would make the equity 
infusions into Sidmar in exchange for ordinary and preference shares. 
Furthermore, we have preliminarily determined that the April 14, 1983 
study, the only study performed prior to the GOB's decision to invest 
in Sidmar, was not sufficient to allow the GOB to evaluate the 
potential risk versus the expected return in its investment in Sidmar. 
Thus, the analyses did not contain information typically examined by 
potential private investors considering an equity investment.
    Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the GOB's purchases of 
Sidmar's ordinary and preferred shares in 1984 constitute a 
countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the 
Act. This investment provides a financial contribution, as described in 
section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Also, in Plate in Coils from Belgium 
we determined that benefits under Royal Decree No. 245 are available 
only to the steel sector. On this basis, we preliminarily determine 
that this program is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. 
Finally, because the analysis performed prior to the 1984 infusion in 
Sidmar did not contain information typically examined by potential 
private investors considering an equity investment, the investment 
decision was inconsistent with the usual investment practice of private 
investors. Therefore, a benefit exists according to section 
771(5)(E)(i) of the Act in the amount of the equity infusion.

[[Page 20432]]

    To calculate the benefit applicable to the POR, we applied the 
Department's standard grant methodology and divided the benefit 
attributable to 1998 and 1999 by Sidmar's total sales during 1998 and 
1999, respectively. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
countervailable subsidy for 1998 to be 1.14 percent ad valorem, and the 
countervailable subsidy for 1999 to be 1.10 percent ad valorem.
Conversion of Sidmar's Debt to Equity (OCPC-to-PB) in 1985
    Between 1979 and 1983, the GOB assumed the interest costs 
associated with medium- and long-term loans for certain steel 
producers, including Sidmar. In exchange for the GOB's assumption of 
financing costs, Sidmar agreed to the conditional issuance of 
convertible profit sharing bonds (``OCPCs'') to the GOB. In 1985, 
Sidmar and the GOB agreed to substitute parts beneficiaires (``PBs'') 
for the OCPCs.
    In Plate in Coils from Belgium, we analyzed this program according 
to the equity methodology that was in place prior to the issuance of 
the Department's current subsidy regulations. We found in our 
investigation that: (1) The GOB's initial assumption of interest costs 
were specific under section 771(5A) of the Act; (2) the OCPCs were 
properly classifiable as debt and that the conversion of OCPCs to PBs 
constituted a debt-to-equity conversion; and (3) based on a comparison 
of the price paid for the PBs to an adjusted market value of Sidmar's 
common stock, the debt-to-equity conversion provided a benefit to 
Sidmar as the share transactions were on terms inconsistent with the 
usual practice of a private investor.
    On this basis, we determined that this program constituted a 
countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the 
Act. The debt-to-equity conversion provided a financial contribution, 
as described in section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Moreover, because 
benefits under this program were available only to certain steel 
producers, we determined that the program was specific under section 
771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
    In the instant review, we are re-examining this debt-to-equity 
conversion based on the change in our equity methodology effected by 
our new regulations, noted above. See New Allegations Memo.
    Information on the record indicates that no private investors 
purchased the PBs or similar shares at the time of the GOB's debt-to-
equity conversion. Therefore, we examined whether Sidmar was 
equityworthy or unequityworthy at the time of the 1985 debt-to-equity 
conversion.
    As explained in the Equity Methodology section, above, we examined 
any analysis relied upon by the GOB in making its decision to purchase 
the PBs as part of the debt-to-equity conversion. Based on our review 
of this information, we have preliminarily determined that no objective 
studies of Sidmar, containing information typically examined by 
potential private investors considering an equity investment, had been 
prepared prior to the GOB's investment decision on which the GOB could 
have based its decision to participate in the debt-for-equity 
conversion. See the Equity Infusions Memorandum.
    Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the GOB's 1985 debt-to-
equity conversion constitutes a countervailable subsidy within the 
meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. This debt-to-equity conversion 
provides a financial contribution, as described in section 771(5)(D)(i) 
of the Act. Also, in Plate in Coils from Belgium, we determined that 
because benefits under this program were available only to certain 
steel producers, the program was specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) 
of the Act. Finally, because the analyses performed prior to the debt-
to-equity conversion did not contain information typically examined by 
potential private investors considering an equity investment, the 
investment decision was inconsistent with the usual investment practice 
of private investors. Therefore, a benefit exists according to section 
771(5)(E)(i) of the Act in the amount of the equity infusion.
    In Plate in Coils from Belgium, to measure the benefit from the 
debt-to-equity conversion, we calculated the premium paid by the 
government as the difference between the price paid by the government 
for the PBs and the adjusted market price of the common shares. For 
purposes of these preliminary results, we have treated the entire price 
paid by the government as the amount of the benefit. For the portion of 
the benefit that was previously countervailed, we have continued to 
rely on an AUL of 19 years as we did in Plate in Coils from Belgium; 
for the portion not previously allocated, we allocated the remaining 
amount over Sidmar's current AUL for this review, also 19 years. We 
applied the Department's standard grant methodology and divided the 
total benefit in 1998 and 1999 by Sidmar's total sales during 1998 and 
1999, respectively. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
countervailable subsidy for 1998 to be 0.68 percent ad valorem, and the 
countervailable subsidy for 1999 to be 0.67 percent ad valorem.
SidInvest
    The right to establish ``Invests'' was limited to the five national 
industries, including the steel industry. SidInvest was incorporated on 
August 31, 1982, as a holding company jointly owned by Sidmar and the 
Societe Nationale d'Investissement, S.A. (``SNI'') (a government 
financing agency). SidInvest was given drawing rights on SNI to finance 
specific projects. The drawing rights took the form of conditional 
refundable advances (``CRAs''), which were interest-free, but repayable 
to SNI based on a company's profitability.
    SidInvest made periodic repayments of the CRAs it had drawn from 
SNI. However, in 1987, the GOB moved to accelerate the repayment of the 
CRAs. The government agency NMNS and SidInvest discussed two options 
including (i) paying back the CRAs at a rate of three percent per year 
and (ii) repaying immediately the discounted value calculated as if the 
full amount were due 32 years later. In early 1988, under the first 
option, SidInvest agreed to pay back the outstanding balance on the 
CRAs at a rate of 3 percent per year.
    Later, in July 1988, an agreement was reached for NMNS to become a 
shareholder in SidInvest by contributing the CRAs owed to the 
government by SidInvest in exchange for SidInvest stock. In a second 
agreement, through a series of transactions, the Sidmar Group then 
repurchased the SidInvest shares obtained by NMNS.
    Consistent with Plate In Coils from Belgium and Certain Steel, we 
determine that the CRAs were interest-free loans with no fixed 
repayment period. However, the various agreements that took place on 
July 29, 1988, changed the CRAs. First, it was agreed that repayment 
would be achieved over 32 years. Second, the GOB swapped that repayment 
obligation for shares in SidInvest and sold those shares back to 
various members of the Sidmar group. The benefit to Sidmar in these 
transactions was that it was able to purchase the GOB's shares at too 
low a price. This occurred because: (i) The GOB agreed to accept in 
payment the net present value of the amount due in 32 years and (ii) it 
calculated the net present value using a non-commercial interest rate. 
The combination of these two elements of the July 29, 1988 agreements 
meant that the GOB forgave a considerable portion of the amount it had 
loaned through the CRAs.
    In Plate In Coils from Belgium, we found that this program 
conferred a

[[Page 20433]]

countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the 
Act. This program provided a financial contribution as described in 
section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Moreover, because the right to 
establish ``Invests'' (and, consequently, any forgiveness of loans 
given to the Invests) was limited to the five national sectors, the 
program was specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. In this 
review, no new information has been placed on the record which would 
warrant reconsideration of this determination.
    To measure the benefit arising from the events of July 29, 1988, we 
have deducted from SidInvest's outstanding indebtedness the cash 
received by the GOB. We have treated the remainder as a grant and 
allocated the benefit over Sidmar's AUL. We divided the total benefit 
attributable to 1998 and 1999 by Sidmar's total sales during 1998 and 
1999, respectively. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the 
countervailable subsidy for 1998 to be 0.40 percent ad valorem, and the 
countervailable subsidy for 1999 to be 0.40 percent ad valorem.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined to Be Not Used

    We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that 
ALZ did not apply for or receive benefits under these programs during 
the POR:

A. Government of Belgium Programs

1. Subsidies Provided to Sidmar that are Potentially Attributable to 
ALZ Water Purification Grants
2. Societe Nationale pour la Reconstruction des Secteurs Nationaux
3. Regional subsidies under the 1970 Law Investment and Interest 
Subsidies
4. Reduced Social Security Contributions Pursuant to the Maribel Scheme 
(Article 35 of the Law of June 29, 1981)
    Under Article 35 of the Law of June 29, 1981 (called the ``Maribel 
scheme''), companies in Belgium that employed manual workers were 
granted a reduction in social security contributions for each manual 
worker. This law was amended several times to allow even smaller 
contributions for companies employing manual laborers in certain 
industries. A 1993 Royal Decree introduced the ``Maribel Bis'' scheme, 
which reduced contributions for companies employing manual workers in 
processing industries most exposed to internal competition. The 1994 
Royal Decrees, which introduced the ``Maribel Ter'' scheme, reduced 
contributions for companies employing manual workers in sectors most 
exposed to international competition, as well as the international 
transportation, horticulture, forestry, and the exploitation of 
forestry sectors.
    ALZ and the GOB both claimed in their responses that neither ALZ 
nor Sidmar received benefits under the Maribel Bis or Maribel Ter 
systems. Both parties stated that the Maribel Bis and Maribel Ter 
systems were terminated effective July 1, 1997, although neither ALZ 
nor the GOB was able to produce any decree or other document clearly 
stating that the program was terminated as of that date (or any other 
date). Pursuant to a Royal Decree of December 24, 1999, the GOB 
required the companies that had received reductions under Maribel Bis 
and Ter to repay to the GOB the monies they received under Maribel Bis 
and Ter. Since the GOB terminated Maribel Bis and Maribel Ter, and 
neither ALZ, Albufin, nor Sidmar have received reductions in their 
social security contributions as a result of these systems since the 
second quarter of 1997, the respondents claimed that no benefit could 
have possibly accrued to ALZ, Albufin, or Sidmar during the POR.
    Despite the claims by the GOB and ALZ that the companies under 
review did not benefit from these programs, the petitioners argue that 
the Department has not made a determination that these programs were 
recurring or non-recurring and allege that record evidence suggests 
that the respondents continue to receive benefits under the Maribel 
Schemes. In particular, the petitioners point out that (1) the 1998 and 
1999 financial statements of ALZ and Sidmar confirm that benefits were 
provided by the GOB to these companies; (2) the GOB admits that no 
specific document terminating this program exists; and (3) ALZ and the 
GOB failed to provide any documentation showing that payments received 
were returned to the GOB by ALZ, Albufin or Sidmar.
    For purposes of these preliminary review results, we are not 
calculating a subsidy for this program. We agree with ALZ that the 
Department normally treats reduced social security contributions as 
recurring benefits under section 351.524(c) of our regulations. 
Consequently, if the Maribel Bis and Ter schemes were terminated in 
1997, there would be no benefit to ALZ during the POR. ALZ has 
explained that the references to Maribel in its 1998 and 1999 financial 
statements are to the general Maribel scheme and not to Maribel Bis and 
Ter (the only parts of the Maribel program being reviewed).
    Prior to our final results, we intend to seek further information 
from the GOB and ALZ regarding the termination of the Maribel Bis and 
Ter schemes, or repayment of any benefits received by ALZ under these 
programs.

B. Government of Flanders Programs

1. Regional subsidies under the 1970 Law
    a. Corporate Income Tax Exemption
    b. Capital Registration Tax Exemption
    c. Government Loan Guarantees
    d. 1993 Expansion Grant
2. Special Depreciation Allowance
3. Preferential Short-Term Export Credit
4. Interest Rate Rebates

C. Programs of the European Commission

1. ECSC Article 54 Loans and Interest Rebates
2. ECSC Article 56 Conversion Loans, Interest Rebates and Redeployment 
Aid
3. European Social Fund Grants
4. European Regional Development Fund Grants
5. Resider II Program

Preliminary Results of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an 
individual subsidy rate for ALZ, the only producer/exporter subject to 
this administrative review. For the period September 4, 1998 through 
December 31, 1998, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate for 
ALZ to be 3.40 percent; for January 1, 1999 and for the period May 11, 
1999 through December 31, 1999, we preliminarily determine the net 
subsidy rate for ALZ to be 2.90 percent. (In accordance with section 
703(d) of the Act, countervailing duties will not be assessed on 
entries made during the period January 2, 1999 through May 10, 1999.) 
If the final results of this review remain the same as these 
preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct Customs to 
assess countervailing duties at these net subsidy rates.
    The Department also intends to instruct Customs to collect cash 
deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the 1999 rate on the 
f.o.b. value of all shipments of the subject merchandise from ALZ 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date of publication of the final results of this administrative review.
    Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-
wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for 
investigated and

[[Page 20434]]

reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing countervailing duty 
rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, are now essentially 
the same as those in antidumping cases, except as provided for in 
section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review will normally 
cover only those companies specifically named. See 19 CFR 351.213(b). 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(c), for all companies for which a review was 
not requested, duties must be assessed at the cash deposit rate, and 
cash deposits must continue to be collected, at the rate previously 
ordered. As such, the countervailing duty cash deposit rate applicable 
to a company can no longer change, except pursuant to a request for a 
review of that company. See Federal-Mogul Corporation v. United States, 
822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993), and Floral Trade Council v. United States, 
822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993). Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all 
companies, except those covered by this review, will be unchanged by 
the results of this review.
    We will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for 
non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-
wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit 
rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this 
order are those established in the most recently completed 
administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA. If such a review 
has not been conducted, the rate established in the most recently 
completed administrative proceeding pursuant to the statutory 
provisions that were in effect prior to the URAA amendments is 
applicable. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico: 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 
13368, 13369 (March 13, 2000). These rates shall apply to all non-
reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is 
requested. In addition, for the periods September 4, 1998 through 
January 1, 1999 and May 11, 2000 through December 31, 1999, the 
assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered by 
this order are the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry.

Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to 
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with 
these preliminary results within five days of the date of the public 
announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested 
parties may submit written arguments in case briefs within 30 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to 
issues raised in case briefs, may be filed not later than five days 
after the date of filing the case briefs. Parties who submit briefs in 
this proceeding should provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed 
five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 
Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested 
parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).
    Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days after the 
date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be 
held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal 
briefs.
    The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this 
administrative review within 120 days from the publication of these 
preliminary results.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Effective January 20, 
2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration.

    Dated: April 16, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-9977 Filed 4-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P