[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9058-9060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-4651]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-829]


Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation: 
Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From India

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

ACTION: Initiation of countervailing duty investigation.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak, Alicia Kinsey, or Jim 
Neel, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office VI, Group II, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; (202) 482-
2209, (202) 482-4793, or (202) 482-4161, respectively.

Initiation of Investigation

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 of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are references to the provisions codified at 
19 CFR part 351 (2002).

The Petition

    On January 31, 2003, the Department received a petition filed in 
proper form by the following parties: American Spring Wire Corp., 
Insteel Wire Products Company, and Sumiden Wire Products Corp. 
(collectively, the petitioners). The Department received from the 
petitioners information supplementing the petition on February 12, 
2003.
    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the petitioners 
allege that manufacturers, producers, or exporters of prestressed 
concrete steel wire strand (``PC strand'') in India receive 
countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Act.
    The Department finds that the petitioners filed this petition on 
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as 
defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (d) of the Act. The petitioners have 
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the 
countervailing duty investigation that they are requesting the 
Department to initiate (see the Determination of Industry Support for 
the Petition section below).

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, prestressed concrete steel wire 
(PC strand) is steel strand produced from wire of non-stainless, non-
galvanized steel, which is suitable for use in prestressed concrete 
(both pretensioned and post-tensioned) applications. The product 
definition encompasses covered and uncovered strand and all types, 
grades, and diameters of PC strand.
    The merchandise under this investigation is currently classifiable 
under subheadings 7312.10.3010 and 7312.10.3012 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise under investigation is 
dispositive.

[[Page 9059]]

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations 
(Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all 
parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of publication 
of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's 
Central Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period 
of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample 
opportunity to consider all comments and consult with parties prior to 
the issuance of the preliminary determination.

Consultations

    In accordance with Article 13.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures and section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, on 
February 13, 2003, we invited the Government of India (``GOI'') to hold 
consultations with us regarding this petition. Representatives of the 
GOI accepted our offer for consultations, but ultimately were unable to 
meet prior to this initiation. See the February 20, 2003, memorandum to 
the file titled ``Invitation for Consultations with the Government of 
India Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition on Prestressed 
Concrete Steel Wire Strand from India.'' We continue to extend the 
opportunity to meet for consultations to the GOI.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that the Department's industry support determination, which is 
to be made before the initiation of the investigation, be based on 
whether a minimum percentage of the relevant industry supports the 
petition. A petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers 
or workers who support the petition account for: (1) at least 25 
percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (2) 
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act 
provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic 
producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total 
production of the domestic like product, the Department shall either 
poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if 
there is support for the petition.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the 
petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the 
Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic 
like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is 
responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has been 
injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product 
in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC 
must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like 
product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes 
and pursuant to separate and distinct authorities. In addition, the 
Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the 
like product, such differences do not render the decision of either 
agency contrary to the law.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 
639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Panel Displays and 
Display Glass from Japan: Final Determination; Recission of 
Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380-
81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition.
    The petition covers PC strand as defined in the Scope of 
Investigation section, above, a single class or kind of merchandise. 
The Department has no basis on the record to find the petitioners' 
definition of the domestic like product to be inaccurate. The 
Department, therefore, has adopted the domestic like product definition 
set forth in the petition.
    We determined, based on information provided in the petition, that 
the petitioners have demonstrated industry support representing over 50 
percent of total production of the domestic like product. Therefore, 
the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for 
at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like 
product, and the requirements of section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act are 
met. Furthermore, because the Department received no opposition to the 
petition, the domestic producers or workers who support the petition 
account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for 
or opposition to the petition. Thus, the requirements of section 
702(c)(4)(A)(ii) are also met. Because the Department has determined 
that, pursuant to section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, the petition 
contains adequate evidence of industry support, polling is unnecessary. 
702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see Import Administration Countervailing Duty 
Investigation Initiation Checklist (``Initiation Checklist''), Industry 
Support Section, February 20, 2003, on file in the Central Records Unit 
(CRU) of the main Department of Commerce building. Accordingly, we 
determine that this petition is filed on behalf of the domestic 
industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. See the 
Injury Allegation section in the Initiation Checklist.

Injury Test

    Because India is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) applies to this 
investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of 
the subject merchandise from India materially injure, or threaten 
material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the 
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened 
with material injury, by reason of subsidized imports of the subject 
merchandise.
    The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
evident in the declining trends in net operating profits, net sales 
volumes, domestic prices, revenue, profit-to-sales ratios, production 
employment, capacity utilization, and domestic market share. The 
allegations of injury and causation are supported by relevant evidence 
including U.S. Customs import data, lost sales, and pricing 
information. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence 
regarding material injury and causation, and we have determined that 
these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet 
the statutory requirements for initiation. See the Injury Allegation 
section of the Initiation Checklist.

[[Page 9060]]

Period of Investigation (POI)

    The petitioners contend that the POI is April 1, 2001 through March 
31, 2002, which is the last completed fiscal year for each of the 
alleged producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. If these 
companies do not have the same fiscal year then the POI would be 
calendar year 2001.

Allegations of Subsidies

    Section 702(b) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a 
countervailing duty proceeding whenever an interested party files a 
petition, on behalf of an industry, that (1) alleges the elements 
necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a), and (2) is 
accompanied by information reasonably available to petitioners 
supporting the allegations.
    We are initiating an investigation of the following programs 
alleged in the petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to 
manufacturers, producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in 
India (a full description of each program is provided in the Initiation 
Checklist):

A. Government of India Programs

1. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS)
2. Pre-Shipment and Post-Shipment Export Financing
3. Export Promotion of Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)
4. Loans from the Steel Development Fund (SDF)
5. Exemption of Export Credit from Interest Taxes
6. Advance Licenses
7. Income Tax Exemption Scheme (ITES) (Sections 10A, 10B and 80 HHC)
8. Government of India Loan Guarantees

B. Programs in the State of Maharashtra

1. Sales Tax Incentives
2. Capital Incentive Scheme
3. Octroi Refund Scheme
4. Electricity Duty Exemption Scheme
5. Exemption of Sales and Purchase Taxes for Certain Investments 
Related to Automobiles or Automobile Components

C. Program in the State of Bihar

1. Sales Tax Incentives

D. Programs in the State of Jharkhand

1. Sales Tax Incentives
2. Captive Electricity Generative Plant Subsidy
3. Interest Subsidy
4. Stamp Duty and Registration
5. Pollution Control Equipment Subsidy
6. Mega Units
7. Captive Electricity Tax Exemptions

E. Program in the State of Gujarat

1. Sales Tax Incentives

    We are not initiating an investigation of the following programs 
alleged in the petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to 
manufacturers, producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in 
India (a full description of each program is provided in the Initiation 
Checklist):

D. Government of India Program

1. Special Import Licenses (SILs)

E. Program in the State of Bihar

1. Power Incentives

C. Programs in the State of Gujarat

1. Incentives to Premier and Prestigious Units
2. Incentives for Private Sector Investments in Infrastructure Projects
3. Government Infrastructure Assistance to Medium and Large Industries
4. Promotion of Specific Industrial Sectors

Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation

    The Department has examined the countervailing duty petition on PC 
strand from India, and found that it complies with the requirements of 
section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b) 
of the Act, we are initiating a countervailing duty investigation to 
determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of PC strand 
from India receive countervailable subsidies.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of 
the public version of the petition has been provided to the 
representatives of the GOI. We will attempt to provide a copy of the 
public version of the petition to each exporter named in the petition, 
as provided for under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

International Trade Commission Notification

    Pursuant to section 702(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of 
our initiation.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will determine by March 17, 2003, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of PC strand from India are causing 
material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. 
industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation 
being terminated; otherwise, this investigation will proceed according 
to statutory and regulatory time limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: February 20, 2003.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-4651 Filed 2-26-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P