[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 68 (Monday, April 11, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18374-18375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-1658]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(C-423-809)


Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Notice of Amended 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: The United States Court of International Trade has affirmed 
the Department of Commerce's redetermination pursuant to remand 
regarding the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on 
stainless steel plate in coils from Belgium covering the period 
September 4, 1998, through December 31, 1999. See ALZ N.V. v. United 
States, Slip Op. 04-38, Court No. 01-00834 (CIT April 22, 2004). 
Although the Department of Commerce appealed the United States Court of 
International Trade's decision to the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit, the Department of Commerce did not further 
pursue this appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit dismissed the case. As there is now a final and 
conclusive court decision in this case, we are amending the final 
results of review and we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to liquidate entries subject to this review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 11, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melani Miller Harig or Marc Rivitz, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Room 3099, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0116 and (202) 482-1382, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order 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 review 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.\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We note that, although the scope of the original order was 
revised (see Notice of Amended Countervailing Duty Orders; Certain 
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, Italy, and South 
Africa, 68 FR 11524 (March 11, 2003)), the revised scope did not 
take effect until March 11, 2003. Thus, the revised scope is not 
applicable to the instant proceeding because this proceeding covered 
a time period (September 4, 1998 through December 31, 1999) prior to 
that date. On March 11, 2003, the Department revised the HTSUS 
numbers from the original scope description to take into account 
changes to the HTSUS numbers themselves since that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The merchandise covered by 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, 7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.21, 
7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.66, 
7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.81, 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 headings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the scope is dispositive.

Background

    On August 27, 2001, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published its final results of administrative review of the 
countervailing duty order on stainless steel plate in coils from 
Belgium covering the period September 4, 1998 through December 31, 
1999. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 45007 (August 27, 
2001) (``First Review Final Results''). This review covered one 
producer/exporter, ALZ N.V. In the First Review Final Results, the 
Department found three equity purchases to confer countervailable 
subsidies: 1) the Government of Belgium's (``GOB'') purchases of the 
SIDMAR Group's (``Sidmar'') common and preference shares in 1984; 2) 
the GOB's purchases of ALZ N.V.'s (``ALZ'') common and preference 
shares in 1985; and 3) the GOB's 1985 debt-to-equity conversion for 
Sidmar.
    On July 11, 2003, the Court of International Trade (``CIT'') 
remanded to the Department its determination in the First Review Final 
Results. See ALZ N.V. v. United States, 283 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (CIT 
2003). In its remand order, the CIT directed the Department 1) to apply 
the equityworthiness methodology in existence at the time of the 
original petition to the 1984 and 1985 equity investments into Sidmar, 
and the 1985 equity investment into ALZ; and 2) (a) to scrutinize more 
closely the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the 
purchase of Sidmar's common and preference shares to determine whether 
such document indicates a binding decision to invest; (b) to re-examine 
the record for any additional evidence regarding the date upon which 
the GOB decided to invest in Sidmar's common shares; and (c) to explain 
the Department's reasoning for choosing the date it finds to be the 
date the GOB decided to invest.
    Although we disagreed with the CIT's instructions to apply the 
equityworthiness methodology in existence at the time the original 
petition in the investigation was filed (instead of the methodology 
that was in place at the time the request for administrative review in 
the proceeding in question was made, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.702(a)(2)) to the 1984 and 1985 equity investments into Sidmar and 
the 1985 equity investment into ALZ, the Department complied with the 
CIT's remand instructions and issued the final results of 
redetermination on December 10, 2003. See Final Results of 
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand: ALZ N.V. v. United States, 
Slip Op. 03-81, Court No. 01-00834 (CIT July 11, 2003) (``Final Results 
of Redetermination''). As explained in the Final Results of 
Redetermination, we made changes to the Department's findings in the 
First Review Final Results relating to the GOB's 1984 and 1985 equity 
infusions in Sidmar and ALZ. Specifically, after applying the 
equityworthiness methodology in existence at the time the petition was 
filed and based upon our reconsideration, we determined that 1)

[[Page 18375]]

ALZ was equityworthy at the time of the 1985 investment, and the GOB's 
purchase of ALZ's common and preference shares in 1985 was not a 
countervailable subsidy; 2) Sidmar was equityworthy at the time of the 
1984 investment, and the GOB's purchase of Sidmar's common and 
preference shares in 1984 was not a countervailable subsidy; and 3) 
Sidmar was equityworthy in 1985, but the conversion of Sidmar's debt to 
equity (convertible profit-sharing bonds to parts beneficiaires) was a 
countervailable subsidy because the price paid by the GOB exceeded the 
adjusted market value of Sidmar's common stock. As a result of the 
Final Results of Redetermination, we recalculated the margin for ALZ.
    On April 22, 2004, the CIT issued an order without an opinion 
affirming the Department's Final Results of Redetermination. See ALZ 
N.V. v. United States, Slip Op. 04-38, Court No. 01-00834 (CIT April 
22, 2004) (``ALZ v. United States''). On May 11, 2004, consistent with 
the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit (``Federal Circuit'') in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F. 2d 
337 (Federal Circuit 1990), the Department notified the public that the 
CIT's decision in ALZ v.United States was ``not in harmony'' with the 
First Review Final Results. See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 
Belgium: Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade, 69 FR 
26075 (May 11, 2004).
    On June 24, 2004, the Department appealed the CIT's decision to the 
Federal Circuit. The Department did not further pursue this appeal, and 
the Federal Circuit dismissed the case on October 28, 2004. As there is 
now a final and conclusive court decision in this action, we are 
amending our final results of review and we will instruct the U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to liquidate entries subject to 
this review.

Amended Final Results

    Pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act effective January 1, 1995 (``the 
Act''), we are now amending the final results of 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.
    In the First Review Final Results, we calculated individual subsidy 
rates for ALZ, the only producer/exporter subject to this 
administrative review. As noted in the First Review Final Results, 
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 or after September 
4, 1998 and on or before December 31, 1998.
    The amended individual subsidy rates for ALZ for the First Review 
Final Results are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Net Subsidy
           Producer/Exporter (Applicable Year)                 Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALZ N.V. (1998).........................................    1.36 percent
ALZ N.V. (1999).........................................    0.97 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the 
CBP. The Department will instruct the CBP to assess appropriate 
countervailing duties on the relevant entries of the subject 
merchandise covered by this review. 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.
    We will also instruct the CBP 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 
this notice. The cash deposit rates for all other companies not covered 
by this review are not changed by the amended final results of this 
review.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
751(a)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 4, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-1658 Filed 4-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-S