[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53389-53398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-26547]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-825]


Notice of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Determination With 
Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 
Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) From India

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary affirmative countervailing duty 
determination.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Amdur at (202) 482-5346 or 
Mark Manning (202) 482-3936, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement IV, Group II, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

Preliminary Determination: The Department of Commerce (the Department) 
preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being 
provided to certain producers and exporters of Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET film) from India. For 
information on the estimated countervailing duty rates, please see the 
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

[[Page 53390]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

    This investigation was initiated on June 6. 2001.\1\ See Notice of 
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation: Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET film) from India, 66 FR 31892 
(June 13, 2001). Since the initiation of this investigation, the 
following events have occurred: on June 22, 2001, the Department 
selected Ester Industries Ltd. (Ester), Garware Polyester Ltd. 
(Garware), and Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex) (collectively, the 
respondents) as mandatory respondents in this investigation. See 
Memorandum from Nithya Nagarajan to Bernard Carreau on Selection of 
Respondents dated June 22, 2001. On June 25, 2001, the petitioners 
requested that the Department investigate three infrastructure 
assistance schemes administered by the State of Gujarat. On June 27, 
2001, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires to the Government of 
India (GOI).\2\ On July 16, 2001, the Department initiated an 
investigation of the Gujarat infrastructure assistance schemes. On July 
19, 2001, the Department postponed the preliminary determination until 
no later than October 15, 2001. See Notice of Postponement of 
Preliminary Determination of Countervailing Duty Investigation: 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET film) From 
India, 66 FR 39013 (July 26, 2001). On August 17, 2001, we received 
questionnaire responses from Ester, Garware, and Polyplex, and on 
September 7, 2001, we received a questionnaire response from the GOI. 
On August 23, 27, and 31, 2001, September 12, 17, 24, 25, and 28, 2001, 
and October 1, 2, 5, and 9, 2001, the Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires to Ester, Garware, Garware's affiliated input provider, 
Garware Chemicals Limited (Garware Chemicals), Polyplex, and the GOI. 
On September 7, 13, 14, 19, 26, and 27, 2001, and October 1, 3, 4, 5, 
9, and 10, 2001, the Department received supplemental questionnaire 
responses from Ester, Garware, Garware Chemicals, Polyplex, and the 
GOI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this investigation are DuPont Teijin 
films, Mitsubishi Polyester film, and Toray Plastics (America) Inc. 
(collectively, the petitioners).
    \2\ Upon the issuance of the questionnaire, we informed the GOI 
that it was the government's responsibility to forward the 
questionnaires to Ester, Garware, and Polyplex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are all 
gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or 
coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that 
have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of 
a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 
0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film are classifiable in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item 
number 3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Injury Test

    Because India is a ``Subsidy 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 India materially injure or threaten material injury to a U.S. 
industry. On July 11, 2001, the ITC published its preliminary 
determination finding that there is a reasonable indication that an 
industry in the United States is being materially injured by reason of 
imports from India of subject merchandise. See Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India and Taiwan, 66 FR 36292 
(July 11, 2001).

Alignment With Final Antidumping Duty Determination

    On September 28, 2001, the petitioners submitted a letter 
requesting alignment of the final determination in this investigation 
with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty 
investigation. Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the 
Act, we are aligning the final determination in this investigation with 
the final determination in the antidumping duty investigation of PET 
film from India.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) for which we are measuring 
subsidies is April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001, which corresponds 
to the period for the respondents' most recently completed fiscal year.

Subsidies Valuation Information

Allocation Period

    Under section 351.524(d)(2)(i) of the Department's regulations, 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, as updated by the 
Department of the 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, pursuant to section 351.524(d)(2)(ii) of 
the Department's regulations. For assets used to manufacture plastic 
film, such as PET film, the IRS tables prescribe an AUL of 9.5 years.
    In their questionnaire responses, Ester, Garware, Garware 
Chemicals, and Polyplex have calculated company-specific AULs by 
dividing the aggregate of their respective annual average gross book 
values of their depreciable productive fixed assets by their aggregated 
annual charge to accumulated depreciation for a ten-year period in the 
manner specified by section 351.524(d)(2)(iii) of the Department's 
regulations. Using this method, Ester and Polyplex calculated an AUL of 
18 years, and Garware and Garware Chemical calculated an AUL of 19 
years. Based on information submitted by the respondents, we have 
preliminarily determined to use company-specific AUL data when 
calculating the AUL for Ester, Garware, and Polyplex. For Garware 
Chemical, we did not use any AUL in our calculations because Garware 
Chemical did not report the use of any non-recurring subsidies.

Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate

    In accordance with section 351.505(a)(3)(i) of the Department's 
regulations, for those programs requiring the application of a short-
term benchmark interest rate, we used company-specific, short-term 
interest rates on commercial loans as reported by the respondents. With 
respect to the

[[Page 53391]]

rupee-denominated, short-term benchmark used in calculating the benefit 
for pre-shipment export financing, we used the weighted average of the 
companies' cash credit loans. Cash credit loans are the most comparable 
type of short-term loan to use as a benchmark because, like the pre-
shipment export financing, cash credit loans are denominated in rupees 
and take the form of a line of credit which can be drawn down by the 
recipient. See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from India, 64 FR 
73131, 73137 (December 29, 1999) (Plate from India). With respect to 
the rupee-denominated, short-term benchmark used in calculating the 
benefit for post-shipment export financing, we used, where available, 
the weighted-average of the companies' ``inland'' or ``local'' bill 
discounting loans. These loans, like the post-shipment export financing 
loans, are rupee-denominated working capital loans used to finance 
receivables. Where a company did not have any ``inland'' or ``local'' 
bill discounting loans, we used the weighted-average of the companies' 
cash credit loans, which are the next most comparable type of short-
term loans.
    For those programs requiring a rupee-denominated discount rate or 
the application of a rupee-denominated, long-term benchmark interest 
rate, we used, where available, company-specific, weighted-average 
interest rates on comparable commercial long-term, rupee-denominated 
loans. We did not use those long-term loans that had unpaid interest or 
principal payments because we do not consider such loans to be 
comparable loans under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act and section 
351.505(a)(2)(i) of the Department's regulations. We note that some 
respondents did not have rupee-denominated, comparable long-term loans 
from commercial banks for all required years. Therefore, for those 
years, we had to rely on a rupee-denominated, long-term benchmark 
interest rate that is not company-specific, but still provides a 
reasonable representation of industry practice, in order to determine 
whether a benefit was provided to the companies from rupee-denominated, 
long-term loans received from the GOI. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.505(a)(3)(ii), we used national average interest rates for those 
years in which the respondents did not report company-specific interest 
rates on comparable commercial loans. We based these national average 
interest rates on information on long-term, rupee-denominated financing 
from private creditors in the International Monetary Fund's publication 
International Financial Statistics. 

Cross-Ownership and Attribution of Subsidies

    Because Garware owns 80 percent of Garware Chemicals, an affiliated 
supplier of an input to Garware that is primarily dedicated to the 
production of the subject merchandise, we have examined whether cross-
ownership exists between the two companies within the meaning of 
section 351.525(b)(6) of our regulations. Section 351.525(b)(6)(vi) of 
the regulations defines cross-ownership as existing ``where one 
corporation can use or direct the individual assets of the other 
corporation(s) in essentially the same ways it can use its own assets. 
Normally, this standard will be met where there is a majority voting 
ownership interest between two corporations or through common ownership 
of two (or more) corporations.''
    Given Garware's 80 percent ownership in Garware Chemicals, and the 
fact that Garware Chemicals supplies an input to Garware that is 
primarily dedicated to the production of the subject merchandise, we 
preliminarily determine that cross-ownership exists and that subsidies 
received by Garware Chemicals are attributable to the products sold by 
both corporations in accordance with section 351.525(b)(6)(iv) of the 
Department's regulations. Thus, for purposes of this preliminary 
determination, for all applicable programs except for the electricity 
duty exemption scheme, we have calculated a subsidy rate for Garware 
Chemicals for each program by dividing Garware Chemicals' 
countervailable subsidies during the POI under each program by the sum 
of the two companies' total sales (excluding the sales between Garware 
and Garware Chemicals) (for domestic subsidies), or appropriate export 
sales (for export subsidies) during the POI. We then added these 
subsidy rates to Garware's calculated subsidy rates for each applicable 
program to calculate Garware's total subsidy rate.
    For the electricity duty exemption scheme, due to the manner in 
which Garware and Garware Chemicals pay for their electricity charges, 
and the manner in which they receive the benefit through this program 
(see section of this notice on the electricity duty exemption scheme), 
we calculated Garware's total subsidy rate for this program by dividing 
the amount of countervailable subsidy received by both companies under 
this program by the sum of the two companies' total sales (excluding 
the sales between Garware and Garware Chemicals).
    Furthermore, since Garware owns 80 percent of Garware Chemicals, 
guarantees almost all of Garware Chemicals' loans, and is in a position 
to control Garware Chemicals' finances, we calculated company-specific 
long-term benchmark interest rates for both Garware and Garware 
Chemicals based on both companies' reported long-term loans. We did not 
calculate company-specific short-term benchmark interest rates based on 
both companies' short-term loans because Garware Chemicals did not 
report its short-term loans. However, we intend to issue a supplemental 
questionnaire to Garware Chemicals requesting that it report such 
loans, and use these loans to calculate company-specific short-term 
benchmark interest rates based on both Garware's and Garware Chemicals' 
short-term loans in the final determination.

Programs Preliminarily Determined To Confer Subsidies

GOI Programs

1. Pre-Shipment and Post-shipment Export Financing
    The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), through commercial banks, provides 
short-term pre-shipment financing, or ``packing credits,'' to 
exporters. Upon presentation of a confirmed export order or letter of 
credit to a bank, companies may receive pre-shipment loans for working 
capital purposes, i.e., for the purchase of raw materials, warehousing, 
packing, and transporting of export merchandise. Exporters may also 
establish pre-shipment credit lines upon which they may draw as needed. 
Credit line limits are established by commercial banks, based upon a 
company's creditworthiness and past export performance, and may be 
denominated either in Indian rupees or in foreign currency. Companies 
that have pre-shipment credit lines typically pay interest on a 
quarterly basis on the outstanding balance of the account at the end of 
each period. Commercial banks extending export credit to Indian 
companies must, by law, charge interest on this credit at rates 
determined by the RBI. During the POI, the rate of interest charged on 
pre-shipment, rupee-denominated export loans up to 180 days was 10.0 
percent. For those loans over 180 days and up to 270 days, banks 
charged interest at 13.0 percent.
    Post-shipment export financing consists of loans in the form of 
discounted trade bills or advances by commercial banks. Exporters 
qualify for

[[Page 53392]]

this program by presenting their export documents to their lending 
bank. The credit covers the period from the date of shipment of the 
goods to the date of realization of export proceeds from the overseas 
customer. Under the Foreign Exchange Management Act of 1999, exporters 
are required to realize export proceeds within 180 days from the date 
of shipment, which is monitored by the RBI. Post-shipment financing is, 
therefore, a working capital program used to finance export 
receivables.
    In general, post-shipment loans are granted for a period of no more 
than 180 days. For loans not repaid within the due date, exporters lose 
the concessional interest rate on this financing.
    We find that the provision of the pre- and post-shipment export 
financing constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to section 
771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. To determine whether a benefit was conferred 
under the pre- and post-shipment export financing programs for rupee-
denominated loans,\3\ we compared the interest rate charged on these 
loans to rupee-denominated, short-term benchmark interest rates, as 
described in the ``Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate'' section 
above. This comparison shows that the interest rates charged on these 
loans were lower than the rates on comparable commercial loans that the 
recipient could actually obtain on the market. Therefore, in accordance 
with section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, we preliminarily determine that 
the provision of the pre- and post-shipment export financing conferred 
benefits on the respondents during the POI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ None of the respondents reported using foreign currency-
denominated loans through the pre- or post-shipment export financing 
programs during the POI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has previously found both pre-shipment and post-
shipment export financing to be contingent upon export performance and, 
therefore, to constitute export subsidies. See, e.g., Hot-Rolled from 
India, Decision Memo, Analysis of Programs Section at Paragraph 1.A. No 
new information has been submitted in this investigation to warrant 
reconsideration of this specificity determination. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 771(5A) of the Act, we continue to find that 
provision of the pre- and post-shipment export financing constitutes a 
countervailable export subsidy.
    To calculate the subsidy rates for the pre-shipment export 
financing, we divided the total amount of benefit to each respondent by 
each respondent's total exports. Accordingly, we preliminarily 
determine the net countervailable subsidy under the pre-shipment export 
financing program to be 1.43 percent ad valorem for Ester, 2.24 percent 
ad valorem for Garware, and 0.50 percent ad valorem for Polyplex.
    With regard to rupee-denominated post-shipment loans, the 
respondents have indicated that post-shipment financing can be tied to 
specific export contracts. Therefore, when calculating the net subsidy 
rate for rupee-denominated post-shipment loans, we divided the benefits 
received by each respondent under this program by their respective 
sales of subject merchandise made to the United States during the POI. 
On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable 
subsidy under the post-shipment export financing program to be 1.59 
percent ad valorem for Ester, 2.28 percent ad valorem for Garware, and 
0.47 percent ad valorem for Polyplex.
2. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS)
    The DEPS enables exporting companies to earn import duty exemptions 
in the form of passbook credits rather than cash. Prior to the POI, 
exporting companies could obtain DEPS credits on a pre-export or on a 
post-export basis. The GOI reported that the pre-export DEPS program 
was abolished effective April 1, 2000.
    All exporters are eligible to earn DEPS credits on a post-export 
basis, provided that the exported product is listed in the GOI's 
standard input-output norms (SION). Post-export DEPS credits can be 
used for any subsequent imports, regardless of whether they are 
consumed in the production of an export product. Post-export DEPS 
credits are valid for 12 months and are transferable. With respect to 
subject merchandise, exporters were eligible to earn credits equal to 
15 percent of the f.o.b. value of their export shipments during the 
fiscal year ending March 31, 2001. During the POI, Ester, Garware, and 
Polyplex all earned post-export DEPS credits.
    The criteria regarding the remission, exemption or drawback of 
import duties is set forth in 19 CFR 351.519. Pursuant to this 
provision, the entire amount of an import duty exemption is 
countervailable if the government does not have in place and apply a 
system or procedure to confirm which imports are consumed in the 
production of the exported product and in what amounts. In Hot-Rolled 
from India, we determined that the DEPS rate of credit appears not to 
be reflective of imports of the producer which it is intended to 
represent. See Hot-Rolled from India, Decision Memo, Analysis of 
Comments Section at Comment 6. We also found that, since the DEPS rates 
are based on the value of imports and not the quantity of imports, 
there is no reliable method for the GOI to monitor whether the value of 
credits given is commensurate with the value of credits claimed. Id. 
Therefore, we concluded in Hot-Rolled from India that the GOI does not 
have in place and does not apply a system to confirm which inputs are 
consumed in the production of the exported products and in what amounts 
that is reasonable and effective for the purposes intended. Id.
    Consequently, in Hot-Rolled from India we determined that under 
section 351.519(a)(4) of the Department's regulations, the entire 
amount of import duty exemption earned by the respondents during the 
POI constitutes a benefit. Id. In addition, we further found that a 
financial contribution, as defined under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the 
Act, is provided under the program because the GOI provides the 
respondents with credits for the future payment of import duties. See 
Notice of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Alignment of Final Countervailing Determination With Final Antidumping 
Duty Determinations: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
India, 66 FR 20240, 20245 (Hot-Rolled from India Prelim) (unchanged by 
the final determination). We further found that this program can only 
be used by exporters and, therefore, is specific under section 
771(5A)(B) of the Act. Id. In the instant proceeding, no new 
information has been submitted to demonstrate that a different decision 
is warranted at this time. Therefore, for purposes of this preliminary 
determination, we find that the DEPS conferred countervailable export 
subsidies upon the respondents during the POI.
    Under 19 CFR 351.519(b)(2), if a program permits exemption of 
import duties upon export, the Department normally will consider the 
benefit as having been received upon exportation. The Department 
calculates the benefit on an ``earned'' basis (that is, upon export) 
where it is provided, as in the DEPS program, as a percentage of the 
value of the exported merchandise on a shipment-by-shipment basis, and 
the exact amount of the exemption is known. See Plate from India, 64 FR 
at 73140. In the instant case, we have determined, pursuant to section 
771(5)(E) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.519(b)(2), that benefits from the 
DEPS are conferred as of the date of

[[Page 53393]]

exportation of the shipment for which the pertinent DEPS credits are 
earned rather than the date DEPS credits are used. At the date of 
exportation, the amount of the benefit is known by the exporter. The 
benefit to the respondents under this program is the total value of 
DEPS import duty exemptions that the respondents earned on their export 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. 
We note that this approach is consistent with the methodology employed 
in Hot-Rolled from India. See e.g., Hot-Rolled from India, Decision 
Memo, Analysis of Comments Section at Comment 16.
    Under 19 CFR 351.524(c), this program provides a recurring benefit 
because DEPS credits provide exemption from import duties. To derive 
the DEPS program rate, we first calculated the value of the post-export 
credits that the respondents earned for their export shipments of 
subject merchandise to the United States during the POI by multiplying 
the f.o.b. value of each export shipment by the percentage of DEPS 
credit allowed under the program for exports of subject merchandise. We 
then subtracted as an allowable offset the actual amount of application 
fees paid for each license in accordance with section 771(6) of the 
Act. Finally, we took this sum (the total value of the licenses net of 
application fees paid) and divided it by each respondent's total 
respective exports of subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POI.
    On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable 
subsidy from this program to be 15.63 percent ad valorem for Ester, 
14.66 percent ad valorem for Garware, and 14.33 percent ad valorem for 
Polyplex.
3. Special Import Licenses (SILs)
    During the POI, Ester and Garware sold two types of import 
licenses--SILs for Quality and SILs for Trading Houses. SILs for 
Quality are licenses granted to exporters which meet internationally-
accepted quality standards for their products, such as the 
International Standards Organization (ISO) standards. SILs for Trading 
Houses are licenses granted to exporters that meet certain export 
targets. Both types of SILs permit the holder to import products listed 
on a ``Restricted List of Imports'' in amounts up to the face value of 
the SIL. Under the program, the SILs do not exempt or reduce the amount 
of import duties paid by the importer.
    In addition, Garware reported in its September 27, 2001 response 
that it surrendered certain SILs to the GOI during the POI because it 
had not met its export obligation for materials that it had imported in 
previous years under the ``Advance Licence under Duty Exemption 
Entitlement Certificate Scheme, wherein the company had undertaken to 
export with a minimum value addition of 33%'' (i.e., apparently, the 
pre-export DEPS program).
    The Department has previously determined that the sale of SILs 
constitutes an export subsidy because companies receive these licenses 
based on their status as exporters. See, e.g., Hot-Rolled from India, 
Decision Memo, Analysis of Programs Section at paragraph I.D. No new 
information has been submitted in this investigation to warrant 
reconsideration of this determination. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 771(5A)(B) of the Act, we continue to find that the receipt of 
benefits under this program is contingent upon export performance. 
Pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, the financial contribution 
in the sale of SILs consists of the revenue received on the sale of 
licenses, the amount of which constitutes the benefit from the sale of 
SILs under section 771(5)(E) of the Act.
    Furthermore, by using other SILs granted by the GOI to fulfill its 
export obligation under the pre-export DEPS program, Garware avoided 
the expense of having to purchase SILs on the open market to fulfill 
this obligation. Since Garware received these SILs (like its SILs sold 
during the POI) because of its status as an exporter, we preliminarily 
find that the use of SILs constitutes a countervailable export subsidy 
in accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 
771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, the financial contribution in the use of SILs 
consists of the expense that Garware avoided by not having to buy SILs 
on the open market, the amount of which constitutes the benefit from 
the use of SILs under section 771(5)(E) of the Act. At verification, we 
intend to obtain information on whether Garware received other benefits 
from the use of SILs, such as avoiding the payment of penalties for not 
meeting its export obligation under the pre-export DEPS program.
    The respondents also reported the application fees that they paid 
to obtain those SILs that they sold during the POI. We preliminarily 
determine that the application fees paid by the respondent companies 
for the SILs qualify as an ``* * * application fee, deposit, or similar 
payment paid in order to qualify for, or to receive, the benefit of the 
countervailable subsidy.'' See section 771(6)(A) of the Act.
    We calculated the net subsidy rate for the sale and (for Garware) 
the use of SILs in the following manner. We first calculated the total 
amount of proceeds each respondent received from its sales of these 
licenses (net of application fees). For Garware, we added to the 
proceeds the expense that Garware avoided by not having to buy SILs on 
the open market, which we calculated based on the prices that Garware 
received for the sale of its SILs during the POI. Because the receipt 
of SILs cannot be segregated by type or destination of export, we then 
divided the resulting amounts for each respondent by its respective 
total export sales for the POI. On this basis, we preliminarily 
determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 0.00 percent ad valorem 
for Ester and 0.01 percent ad valorem for Garware.
    The GOI indicated that the SIL scheme was abolished on March 31, 
2001. However, the GOI has not yet submitted a copy of any legislation 
to substantiate the termination of this program. During verification, 
we will seek to confirm whether this program has been terminated and 
whether its termination qualifies as a ``program-wide change'' under 19 
CFR 351.526. If we can substantiate during verification that there has 
been a program-wide change, we will adjust the cash deposit rates to 
reflect the termination of this program in our final determination.
4. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)
    The EPCGS provides for a reduction or exemption of customs duties 
and an exemption from excise taxes on imports of capital goods. Under 
this program, producers may import capital equipment at reduced rates 
of duty by undertaking to earn convertible foreign exchange equal to 
four to five times the value of the capital goods within a period of 
eight years. Failing to meet the export obligation, a company is 
subject to payment of all or part of the duty reduction, depending on 
the extent of the export shortfall, plus penalty interest.
    The respondents reported that they imported machinery under the 
EPCGS in the years prior to the POI and during the POI. For some of 
their imported machinery, the respondents met their export 
requirements. As a result, the GOI completely waived the amount of 
import duties. However, the respondents have not completed their export 
requirements for other imports of capital machinery. Therefore, 
although the respondents received a reduction in import duties when the 
capital machinery was imported, the final waiver on the potential 
obligation to repay the duties has not yet been made by the GOI.

[[Page 53394]]

    In Hot-Rolled from India, we determined that the import duty 
reduction provided under the EPCGS was a countervailable export 
subsidy. See Hot-Rolled from India, Decision Memo, Analysis of Programs 
Section at paragraph I.E. No new information or evidence of changed 
circumstances has been provided to warrant a reconsideration of this 
determination. Therefore, in accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of the 
Act, we continue to find that the receipt of benefits under this 
program is contingent upon export performance.
    We determine that the GOI provided a financial contribution under 
section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, and the respondents benefitted under 
section 771(5)(E) of the Act, in two ways by participating in this 
program. The first financial contribution and benefit to the 
respondents is the waiver of import duty on imports of capital 
equipment. Because the GOI has formally waived the unpaid duties on 
those imports, we have treated the full amount of the waived duty 
exemptions as a grant received in the year in which the GOI officially 
granted the waiver.
    The criteria to be used by the Department in determining whether to 
allocate the benefits from a countervailable subsidy program is 
specified under 19 CFR 351.524. Specifically, recurring benefits are 
not to be allocated but are to be expensed to the year of receipt, 
while non-recurring benefits are to be allocated over time. For the 
preliminary determination of this investigation, non-recurring benefits 
will be allocated over 18 years for Ester and Polyplex, and 19 years 
for Garware, the company-specific AUL of assets as reported by the 
respondents.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Garware Chemicals did not have any non-recurring benefits to 
be allocated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Normally, tax benefits are considered to be recurring benefits and 
are expensed in the year of receipt. Since import duties are a type of 
tax, the benefit provided under this program is a tax benefit, and, 
thus, normally would be considered a recurring benefit. However, the 
Department's regulations recognize that, under certain circumstances, 
it is more appropriate to allocate over time the benefits of a program 
normally considered a recurring subsidy, rather than to expense the 
benefits in the year of receipt. Section 351.524(c)(2) of the 
Department's regulations provides that a party can claim that a subsidy 
normally treated as a recurring subsidy should be treated as a non-
recurring subsidy and enumerates the criteria to be used by the 
Department in evaluating such a claim. In the Preamble to our 
regulations, the Department provides an example of when it may be more 
appropriate to consider the benefits of a tax program to be non-
recurring benefits, and, thus, allocate those benefits over time. 
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 63 FR 65348, 65393 (November 25, 
1998). We also stated in the Preamble to our regulations that, if a 
government provides an import duty exemption tied to major capital 
equipment purchases, it may be reasonable to conclude that, because 
these duty exemptions are tied to capital assets, the benefits from 
such duty exemptions should be considered non-recurring, even though 
import duty exemptions are on the list of recurring subsidies. Id. 
Because the benefit received from the waiver of import duties under the 
EPCGS is tied to the capital assets of the respondent companies, and, 
therefore, is just such a benefit, we determine that it is appropriate 
to treat the waiver of duties as a non-recurring benefit. We note that 
our approach on this issue is consistent with that taken in Hot-Rolled 
from India. See Hot-Rolled from India Prelim, 66 FR 20247 (unchanged by 
the final determination).
    In their questionnaire responses, the respondents reported all of 
the capital equipment imports they made using EPCGS licenses and the 
application fees they paid to obtain their EPCGS licenses. We 
preliminarily determine that the application fees paid by the 
respondent companies qualify as an ``* * * application fee, deposit, or 
similar payment paid in order to qualify for, or to receive, the 
benefit of the countervailable subsidy.'' See section 771(6)(A) of the 
Act.
    In order to calculate the benefit received from the waiver of the 
respondent companies' import duties on their capital equipment imports, 
we determined the total amount of duties waived in each year (net of 
application fees). Consistent with our approach in Hot-Rolled from 
India, we determine the year of receipt to be the year in which the GOI 
formally waived the respondent companies' remaining outstanding import 
duties. Id. Next, we performed the ``0.5 percent test,'' as prescribed 
under 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2) for each year in which the GOI granted the 
respondent companies an import duty waiver.\5\ Those waivers whose face 
values exceeded 0.5 percent of each of the respondent companies' total 
export sales in the year in which the waivers were granted were 
allocated over the company-specific AULs, the AUL used in this 
investigation, using the Department's standard allocation methodology 
for non-recurring subsidies under section 19 CFR 351.524(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under this section, non-recurring subsidies will be expensed 
in the year of receipt rather than allocated over time if the 
benefit from the non-recurring subsidy is less than 0.5 percent of 
the company's sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A second type of financial contribution and benefit conferred under 
this program involves the import duty reductions that the respondents 
received on the imports of capital equipment for which the respondents 
have not yet met their export requirements. For those capital equipment 
imports, the respondents have unpaid duties that will have to be paid 
to the GOI if the export requirements are not met. Therefore, we 
determine that the companies had outstanding contingent liabilities 
during the POI. When a company has an outstanding liability and the 
repayment of that liability is contingent upon subsequent events, our 
practice is to treat any balance on that unpaid liability as an 
interest-free loan. See 19 CFR 351.505(d)(1).
    We determine that the amount of contingent liability to be treated 
as an interest-free loan is the amount of the import duty reduction or 
exemption for which the respondents applied but, as of the end of the 
POI, had not been finally waived by the GOI. Accordingly, we determine 
the benefit to be the interest that the respondents would have paid 
during the POI had they borrowed the full amount of the duty reduction 
at the time of import. We note that this approach is consistent with 
the methodology employed in Hot-Rolled from India. Id. Pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.505(d)(1), the benchmark for measuring the benefit is a long-
term interest rate because the event upon which repayment of the duties 
depends (i.e., the date of expiration of the time period for the 
respondents to fulfill their export commitments) occurs at a point in 
time more than one year after the date the capital goods were imported.
    To calculate the program rate, we combined, where applicable, the 
sum of the allocated benefits received on waived duties and the 
benefits conferred on the respondents in the form of contingent 
liability loans. We then divided each respondent's total benefit under 
the program by its respective total export sales during the POI. For 
Garware Chemicals, we used the total export sales of Garware and 
Garware Chemicals as the denominator in this calculation. We added the 
resulting percentages for Garware and Garware Chemicals to calculate 
Garware's total rate. On this basis, we

[[Page 53395]]

preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy from this 
program to be 2.85 percent ad valorem for Ester, 6.66 percent ad 
valorem for Garware, and 4.55 percent ad valorem for Polyplex.

State of Maharashtra Programs

1. Sales Tax Incentives
    The State of Maharashtra (SOM) grants a package scheme of 
incentives for privately-owned (i.e., not 100 percent owned by the GOI) 
manufacturers to invest in certain areas of Maharashtra. One of these 
incentives consists of either an exemption or deferral of state sales 
taxes. Through this incentive, companies are exempted from paying state 
sales taxes on purchases, and collecting sales taxes on sales; or, as 
an alternative, are allowed to defer submitting sales taxes collected 
on sales to the SOM for ten to twelve years. After the deferral period 
expires, the companies are required to submit the deferred sales taxes 
to the SOM in equal installments over five to six years. The total 
amount of the sales tax incentive either exempted or deferred is based 
on the size of the capital investment, and the area in which the 
capital is invested.
    Garware and Garware Chemicals reported that they participate in the 
sales tax incentive program. Prior to 1997, Garware received a deferral 
through this program for submitting the state sales tax to the SOM that 
it collected on its sales, and during the POI, still owed the SOM for 
part of the pre-1997 deferred taxes. After 1997, Garware received an 
exemption through this program from the payment and collection of state 
sales tax. Garware Chemicals also received an exemption through this 
program from the payment and collection of state sales tax.
    We preliminarily find that this program is specific within the 
meaning of sections 771(5A)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Act because the 
benefits of this program are limited to privately-owned (i.e., not 100 
percent owned by the GOI) industries located within designated 
geographical regions within the SOM. We also preliminarily find that 
the SOM provided a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(i) of 
the Act, and that the respondents benefitted under section 771(5)(E) of 
the Act, in two ways through this program.
    First, for the sales taxes exempted, a benefit exists to the extent 
that the taxes paid by Garware and its affiliate as a result of this 
program are less than the taxes these companies would have paid in the 
absence of the program. See 19 CFR 351.510(a)(1). As applied to the 
program at issue, Garware and its affiliate paid less taxes through the 
exemption of sales taxes on purchases. Furthermore, Garware and its 
affiliate did not collect any sales taxes on their sales. However, this 
did not have the effect of Garware and its affiliate paying any less 
taxes from their own funds. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that 
the only benefit and financial contribution were conferred in the 
amount of sales taxes exempted on purchases.
    Second, for the sales taxes deferred, the Department treats such 
deferred indirect taxes as a government-provided loan in the amount of 
the taxes deferred. A benefit thus exists to the extent that the 
appropriate interest charges are not collected. See 19 CFR 
351.510(a)(2). We therefore preliminarily determine that a benefit was 
conferred in the amount of the interest that Garware would have paid 
during the POI had it borrowed, at the time the collected sales taxes 
were deferred, the amount of the deferred sales taxes still unpaid at 
the end of the POI. Pursuant to19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iii), to determine 
the amount of the benefit conferred, we used a long-term benchmark 
interest rate based on long-term loans which were established during 
the years in which the terms of the sales tax deferrals were 
established.
    To calculate the program rate, we first summed Garware's benefits 
received on exempted sales taxes on purchases during the POI and the 
benefits conferred in the form of unpaid interest on the deferred sales 
taxes. We then divided Garware's total benefit under the program by its 
total sales during the POI. For Garware Chemicals, we divided the 
amount of benefits received on exempted sales taxes on purchases during 
the POI by the sum of Garware's and Garware Chemicals' total sales 
(excluding sales between Garware and Garware Chemicals). We added the 
resulting percentages for Garware and Garware Chemicals to calculate 
Garware's total subsidy rate. On this basis, we preliminarily determine 
the net countervailable subsidy from this program to be 1.92 percent ad 
valorem for Garware.
2. Electricity Duty Exemption Scheme
    Another incentive that the SOM provides as part of the package 
scheme of incentives is an exemption from the payment of tax on 
electricity charges. This exemption is available to manufacturers 
located in certain regions of Maharashtra. Garware and Garware 
Chemicals reported that they received an exemption from the payment of 
tax on electricity charges through this program.
    Because the SOM has forgone or not collected revenue otherwise due, 
we preliminarily find that the tax exemption provided through this 
program constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of 
section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. We also preliminarily find that this 
program is specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the 
Act because the benefits of this program are limited to industries 
located within designated geographical regions within the SOM. In 
regard to the benefit to Garware and its affiliate under this program 
pursuant to section 771(5)(E) of the Act, we preliminarily find that 
the benefit consists of the amount of tax exempted on electricity 
charges through this program during the POI.
    In our calculation of the subsidy rate for this program, we treated 
the benefit under this program as a recurring benefit, and took into 
account the manner in which Garware and Garware Chemicals pay for their 
electricity charges, and the manner in which they receive the benefit 
from this program. Garware reported that it pays the electricity 
charges (net of the exempted electricity tax) for both Garware and 
Garware Chemicals, and Garware Chemicals subsequently compensates 
Garware for the amount of the electricity that it actually consumed. 
Since Garware pays for the electricity charges for both companies, 
Garware and Garware Chemicals do not separately benefit from the 
exemption of the tax on electricity charges, but rather jointly benefit 
through Garware's joint payment of electricity charges, and joint 
exemption of electricity taxes. Since these two companies do not 
separately benefit from this program, we preliminarily determine that 
it is appropriate to directly calculate a joint subsidy rate for this 
program, rather than to calculate two separate subsidy rates, and then 
combine the rates to calculate Garware's overall rate. We therefore 
calculated the subsidy rate for this program by dividing the total 
amount of electricity tax exempted during the POI for both companies 
under this program by the sum of the two companies total sales 
(excluding the sales between Garware and Garware Chemicals). On this 
basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy from 
this program to be 0.37% percent ad valorem for Garware.

[[Page 53396]]

State of Uttar Pradesh \6\ Programs

Sales Tax Incentives
    The State of Uttar Pradesh (SUP), like the SOM, provides sales tax 
incentives for manufacturers that make capital investments. This 
incentive, established by section 4-A of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax 
Act, consists of either an exemption or deferral of state sales taxes. 
Through this incentive, companies are exempted from paying state sales 
taxes on purchases, and collecting sales taxes on sales; or, as an 
alternative, are allowed to defer submitting sales taxes collected on 
sales. The amount of the sales tax incentive is based on the size of 
the capital investment, and the area in which the capital is 
invested.\7\ Eligibility for this program is also based on companies 
meeting certain employment percentages for specific castes, tribes, 
``backward classes,'' and minorities, while thirteen specified 
industries are not eligible for any benefits under this program. Ester 
and Polyplex reported that they participate in the sales tax incentive 
program, and received an exemption through this program from the 
payment and collection of state sales tax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The GOI, in its October 1, 2001 supplemental response, 
explained that in November 2000 (during the POI), the State of Uttar 
Pradesh (SUP) was re-organized into two states: the SUP and the 
State of Uttaranchal (SOU). The GOI further explained that, as a 
result of this reorganization, the facilities of the two 
respondents, Ester and Polyplex, that previously were located in the 
SUP were now located in the SOU. The GOI noted that the SOU 
continues to apply the same legislation and regulations underlying 
the programs at issue in this investigation that originated in the 
SUP. For the purposes of this notice, we will refer to both the SUP 
and SOU as the SUP, since the programs at issue originated in the 
SUP.
    \7\ Companies that invest in all areas of the SUP can receive 
benefits through this program, but the level of benefits granted 
depends in part on the area where the capital is invested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We preliminarily find that this program is specific within the 
meaning of sections 771(5A)(D) (i) and (iv) of the Act because the 
benefits of this program are limited to the industries not otherwise 
excluded, and the benefits are based, in part, on the area in which 
companies invest capital. We also preliminarily find that the SUP, in 
the same manner as the SOM (see section of this notice on SOM Sales Tax 
Incentive program), provided a financial contribution under section 
771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, and Ester and Polyplex benefitted under 
section 771(5)(E) of the Act, in the amount of sales taxes exempted on 
purchases.
    We calculated the net subsidy rate for this program for each 
company by dividing each company's total amount of sales tax not paid 
on purchases through this program during the POI by each company's 
total sales for the POI.\8\ On this basis, we preliminarily determine 
the net countervailable subsidy from this program to be 0.00% percent 
ad valorem for Ester and 0.00% percent ad valorem for Polyplex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For purposes of the final determination, we may reconsider 
whether each company's total sales is the appropriate denominator to 
calculate the subsidy rate for this program, based on our final 
determination concerning the sales tax incentive for exports under 
Section 4-B of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Programs Preliminarily Determined Not to Confer Subsidies

GOI Programs

Advance License Scheme
    In order for the Department to consider a drawback program, such as 
the Advance License Scheme, to be not countervailable, the government 
must have in place and apply a reasonable system or procedure to 
confirm which inputs are consumed in the production of the exported 
products and in what amounts. In Hot-Rolled from India, we determined 
that, under the Advance License Scheme, the GOI has in place and 
applies a system to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production 
of the exported products and in what amounts, and that this system is 
reasonable and effective for the purposes intended. See Hot-Rolled from 
India, Decision Memo at Comment 5. We made this determination based on 
the following findings:
     This program has a built-in monitoring system by virtue of 
the application process and the manner in which the amount of duty 
exemption to be granted is limited by the quantity stipulated in the 
license.
     the GOI grants an advance license only for items listed on 
the SION for that industry.
     the GOI will grant the license for the items and 
quantities requested by a company only if the items and amounts 
requested are listed on the SION for the product.
     the items specified in the advance licenses as items to be 
imported are items that are used in the production of the relevant 
exported merchandise.
     the GOI is able to base the duties to be exempted (when 
those imports are made using the license) on the amounts of imported 
inputs necessary for producing the product. Id.
    We also determined in Hot-Rolled from India that the portion of the 
advance licenses attributable to items not consumed in the production 
process constitute an over-rebate of duties because the amount drawn-
back exceeds the amount of import charges on imported inputs that are 
consumed in the production of the exported product. We therefore found 
this over-rebate to be a countervailable subsidy. Id.
    We further determined in Hot-Rolled from India that the sale of 
advance licenses is not countervailable. Id. We based this 
determination on the finding that ``because the amount of exemption 
granted is determined at the time of import and is based on the type 
and quantity of a specific good used in the production of exported 
product, the amount of duty exemption ultimately granted need not be 
claimed by the original licensee.'' Id.
    In the present case, the record evidence indicates that the Advance 
License Program during the POI contained those same features that we 
found in Hot-Rolled from India. One respondent, Polyplex, reported 
that, through the GOI, it transferred part of an Advance License to 
another Indian company during the POI, and domestically purchased an 
input from that company. The input that Polyplex purchased from the 
other Indian company was consumed in the production of the exported 
product. Since the facts of this case indicate that Polyplex did not 
use an Advanced License during the POI to import or otherwise purchase 
an input that was not consumed in the production of the exported 
product, we preliminarily determine that Polyplex did not benefit from 
the use of the Advance License under section 771(5)(E) of the Act, and 
that Polyplex's use of an Advance License is not countervailable. We 
also note that we intend to scrutinize the details of Polyplex's 
transaction involving an Advanced License during verification.

State of Maharashtra Programs

Octroi Refund Scheme
    Under this program, which is part of the SOM's package of 
incentives, industrial establishments that make capital investments in 
specific regions of Maharashtra are entitled to the refund of octroi 
duty, a tax levied by local authorities on goods that enter a town or 
district. Garware reported that it participates in this program, and 
that it has filed claims for the refund of octroi duty, but that it has 
not received any refund so far under this program. Since the SOM has 
not refunded any octroi duty to Garware, the SOM has not provided a 
financial contribution to Garware within the meaning of section 
771(5)(D) of the Act. Moreover, since Garware has not received any 
refund

[[Page 53397]]

from this program, Garware has not received any benefit from this 
program under section 771(5)(E) of the Act. We therefore preliminarily 
determine that Garware's participation in this program during the POI 
is not countervailable.

Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Not Used

GOI Programs

1. Exemption of Export Credit from Interest Taxes
2. Income Tax Exemption Scheme (Sections 10A, 10B and 80 HHC)
3. Loan Guarantees from the GOI
4. Benefits for Export Processing Zones / Export Oriented Units

State of Maharashtra Programs

    Capital Incentive Scheme

State of Uttar Pradesh Programs

    Capital Incentive Scheme

State of Gujarat Programs

    Infrastructure Assistance Schemes

Program For Which Additional Information Is Needed

State of Uttar Pradesh Programs

Sales Tax Incentives for Exports Under Section 4-B of the Uttar 
Pradesh Trade Tax Act

    In their questionnaire responses, the GOI, Ester, and Polyplex 
referenced a sales tax incentive for exports under Section 4-B of the 
Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act. The Department has not previously 
investigated this program. However, it appears that this incentive may 
be a countervailable subsidy, pursuant to section 775 of the Act. 
Therefore, the Department is including this program in this 
investigation.
    Under this program, the SUP exempts from the state sales tax 
purchases of inputs required for the manufacture of goods that will 
ultimately be exported. According to the GOI, the sales tax authorities 
make an annual assessment of whether the exporter has claimed excess 
rebates by comparing the (tax-free) raw materials purchased to the 
exports actually made. Ester and Polyplex reported that they purchased 
such tax-free inputs during the POI.
    Ester claims that this program does not provide a benefit under 19 
CFR 351.517 because the amount of the indirect tax remission is not 
greater than the amount that would have been paid if the goods had been 
sold domestically. The GOI also states that this program is permissible 
under paragraph 1 of Annex II of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures because the program remits ``prior-stage 
cumulative indirect taxes on goods that are used in the production of 
exported products.''
    Section 351.517(a) of the Department's regulations states that in 
the case of an exemption upon export of indirect taxes, a benefit 
exists only to the extent that the Department determines that the 
amount exempted ``exceeds the amount levied with respect to the 
production and distribution of like products when sold for domestic 
consumption.'' However, the information on the record is not sufficient 
to evaluate how the sales tax authorities assess whether exporters have 
claimed excess sales tax exemptions through this program, and, 
accordingly, whether the sales tax exemptions in this program exceed 
the amount of sales tax levied on inputs used in production of 
domestically-sold merchandise. Therefore, the information on the record 
is not sufficient to evaluate whether the sales tax exemptions at issue 
confer a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act. At verification, 
we intend to seek additional information about how this program 
operates, and closely examine how the sales tax authorities assess 
whether exporters have claimed excess sales tax exemptions through this 
program.

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i) 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 have 
calculated individual rates for the companies under investigation 
(Ester, Garware, and Polyplex). To calculate the ``all others'' rate, 
we weight-averaged the individual rates of these companies by each 
company's respective sales of subject merchandise made to the United 
States during the POI. These rates are summarized in the table below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Producer/exporter                     Net subsidy rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ester Industries Ltd.....................  21.51% ad valorem.
Garware Polyester Ltd....................  28.14% ad valorem.
Polyplex Corporation Ltd.................  19.85% ad valorem.
All Others...............................  22.85% ad valorem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) of the Act, we are 
directing the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of the subject merchandise from India, 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 
indicated 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 non-privileged 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.
    In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination 
within 45 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. Any requested hearing will be 
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 addition, six copies of the business 
proprietary version and six copies of the non-proprietary 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

[[Page 53398]]

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. Further, we would appreciate if 
parties submitting written comments would provide the Department with 
an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on a 
diskette.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
703(f) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: October 15, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-26547 Filed 10-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P