[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20923-20926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10496]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(C-533-821)


Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 30, 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published in the Federal Register its preliminary results 
of the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on 
certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (hot-rolled carbon steel) 
from India for the period of review (POR) January 1, 2007, through 
December 31, 2007. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from India: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 73 FR 79791 (December 30, 
2008) (Preliminary Results). We preliminarily found that Essar Steel 
Ltd. (Essar) received countervailable subsidies during the POR. We 
received comments on our Preliminary Rresults from the Government of 
India (GOI), petitioners, and the respondent company, Essar.\1\ The 
final results are listed in the section ``Final Results of Review'' 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitioners are the United States Steel Corporation and 
Nucor Corporation (collectively, petitioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also preliminarily rescinded the administrative review regarding 
Ispat Industries Limited (Ispat), JSW Steel Limited (JSW), and Tata 
Steel Limited (Tata) due to the fact that they had no shipments during 
the POR. We received no comments on the partial rescission of 
administrative review for Ispat, JSW, and Tata and, therefore, we 
hereby rescind the administrative review with regard to these firms.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest at (202) 482-3338, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 3, 2001, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the CVD order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 
from India. See Notice of Amended Final Determination and Notice of 
Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from India, 66 FR 60198 (December 3, 2001). On December 30, 
2009, the Department published in the Federal Register its Preliminary 
Results of the administrative review of this order for the period 
January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. See Preliminary Results, 73 
FR 79791. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this administrative 
review covers Essar, a producer and exporter of subject merchandise.
    On January 21, 2009, we issued supplemental questionnaires to Essar 
and the GOI. We received responses from Essar and the GOI on January 
28, 2009.
    In the Preliminary Results, we invited interested parties to submit 
briefs or request a hearing. On January 29, 2009, we received comments 
from the GOI. In addition, on February 6, 2009, we received comments 
from Essar as well as petitioners. On February 18, 2009, we received 
rebuttal comments from Essar and petitioners. We received a request for 
a hearing from Essar and the GOI on February 9, 2009. On March 27, 
2009, we held a public hearing in room 7870 of the Commerce Building. 
Parties can

[[Page 20924]]

find a transcript of the hearing on file in the central records unit 
(CRU), room 1117 of the main Department building.

Scope of Order

    The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled carbon-
quality steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch 
or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or 
not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic 
substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed 
layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a 
thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 
times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled products 
rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, or a width exceeding 150 
mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4 
mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not 
less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order.
    Specifically included in the scope of this order are vacuum 
degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free 
(IF) steels, high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate 
for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low-carbon 
steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or 
niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to 
stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as 
steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, 
niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination 
steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and 
aluminum.
    Steel products included in the scope of this order, regardless of 
definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTS), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight, over 
each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2 
percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements listed below 
exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
    1.80 percent of manganese, or
    2.25 percent of silicon, or
    1.00 percent of copper, or
    0.50 percent of aluminum, or
    1.25 percent of chromium, or
    0.30 percent of cobalt, or
    0.40 percent of lead, or
    1.25 percent of nickel, or
    0.30 percent of tungsten, or
    0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
    0.10 percent of niobium, or
    0.15 percent of vanadium, or
    0.15 percent of zirconium.
    All products that meet the physical and chemical description 
provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise 
excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or 
specifically excluded from the scope of this order.
 Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the 
chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., ASTM 
specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).
 SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher.
 Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS.
 Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.
 Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon electrical 
steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
 ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
 USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
 All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM 
specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
 Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of 
having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the 
character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the 
HTS.
    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in 
the HTS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 
7208.40.60.30, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 
7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 
7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 
7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel 
covered by this order, including: vacuum-degassed fully stabilized; 
high-strength low-alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel 
may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 
7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 
7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 
7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 
7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter 
under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 
7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written 
description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR for which we are measuring subsidies is from January 1, 
2007, through December 31, 2007.

Analysis of Comments

    On January 29, 2009 the GOI filed comments. On February 6, 2009, 
Essar and petitioners filed comments. On February 18, 2009, Essar and 
petitioners filed rebuttal comments. All issues in the respondents' and 
petitioners' case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from India (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this 
notice. A listing of the issues that parties raised and to which we 
have responded is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can 
find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this review and the 
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on 
file in the CRU of the main commerce building. In addition, a complete 
version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the 
World Wide Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.
    The paper copy and the electronic version of the Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.

Final Results of Review

    After reviewing comments from all parties, we have made adjustments 
to our calculations as explained in our Decision Memorandum. Consistent 
with the Preliminary Results, we find that Essar received 
countervailable subsidies during the POR.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Total Net
                       Company                          Countervailable
                                                         Subsidy Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essar Steel Ltd.....................................    76.88 percent ad
                                                                 valorem
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates/Cash Deposits

    The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of 
publication of these final results of review to liquidate shipments of 
subject merchandise by Essar entered, or withdrawn form warehouse, for 
consumption on or after January 1, 2007, through December 31,

[[Page 20925]]

2007, at the ad valorem rate listed above. We will also instruct CBP to 
collect cash deposits for the respondent at the countervailing duty 
rate indicated above on all shipments of the subject merchandise 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date of publication of these final results of review.
    For all non-reviewed companies, the Department will instruct CBP to 
assess countervailing duties at the cash deposit rates in effect at the 
time of entry, for entries between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 
2007. The cash deposit rates for all companies not covered by this 
review are not changed by the results of this review.

Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

    Dated: April 29, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I Issues in Decision Memorandum

I. Partial Rescission of Review
II. Adverse Facts Available (AFA)
A. The GOI
B. Essar
    1. SGOC's Industrial Policy
    2. EPCGS
III. Subsidies Valuation Information
A. Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rates
B. Use of Uncreditworthy Benchmarks for Essar
C. Allocation Period
IV. Analysis of Programs

A. Programs Administered by the Government of India

    1. Pre- and Post-Shipment Export Financing
    2. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)
    3. Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for LTAR
    4. SEZ Act
     a. Duty free import/domestic procurement of goods and services for 
development, operation, and maintenance of SEZ units program
     b. Exemption from excise duties on goods machinery and capital 
goods brought from the Domestic Tariff Area for use by an enterprise in 
the SEZ
     c. Exemption from the Central Sales Tax (CST)
     d. Exemption from the National Service Tax

B. Programs Administered by the State Government of Gujarat

    1. SGOG Special Economic Zone Act (SEZ Act)
     a. Stamp duty and registration fees for land transfers, loan 
agreements, credit deeds, and mortgages
     b. Sales tax, purchase tax, and other taxes payable on sales and 
transactions
     c. Sales and other state taxes on purchases of inputs (both goods 
and services) for the SEZ or a Unit within the SEZ
    2. Wharfage Fees Paid Under the SGOG's Captive Port Facilities 
Program

C. Programs Administered by the SGOC

SGOC Industrial Policy 2004-2009
     a. A direct subsidy of 35 percent to total capital cost for the 
project, up to a maximum amount equivalent to the amount of commercial 
tax/central sales tax paid in a seven year period
     b. A direct subsidy of 40 percent toward total interest paid for a 
period of 5 years (up to Rs. lakh per year) on loans and working 
capital for upgrades in technology
     c. Reimbursement of 50 percent of expenses (up to Rs. 75,000) 
incurred for quality certification
     d. Reimbursement of 50 percent of expenses (up to 5 lakh) for 
obtaining patents
     e. Total exemption from electricity duties for a period of 15 
years from the date of commencement of commercial production
     f. Exemption from stamp duty on deeds executed for purchase or 
lease of land and buildings and deeds relating to loans and advances to 
be taken by the company for a period of three years from the date of 
registration
     g. Exemption from payment of ``entry tax'' for 7 years (excluding 
minerals obtained from mining in the state)
     h. 50 percent reduction of the service charges for acquisition of 
private land by Chhattisgarh Industrial Development Corporation for use 
by the company
     i. Allotment of land in industrial areas at a discount up to 100 
percent

D. Programs Found Not To Confer a Countervailable Benefit During the 
POR

    1.Own Your Own Wagon Scheme
    2. Duty Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC) Scheme
E. Programs Determined Not To Be Used
    1. GOI Programs
     a. Advance License Program (ALP)
     b. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS)
     c. Export Processing Zones (EPZ) and Export Oriented Unit (EOU)
     d. Target Plus Scheme (TPS)
     e. Income Tax Exemption Scheme (Sections 10A, 10B, and 80 HHC)
     f. Market Development Assistance (MDA)
     g. Status Certificate Program
     h. Market Access Initiative
     i. Loan Guarantees from the GOI
     j. Steel Development Fund (SDF) Loans
     k. Exemption of Export Credit from Interest Taxes
     l. Captive Mining of Iron Ore
     m. Captive Mining of Coal
     n. Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme (DFIA)
     o. Wagon Investment Scheme (WIS)
     p. Drawback on goods brought or services provided from the 
Domestic Tariff area into a SEZ, or services provided in a SEZ by 
service providers located outside India
     q. 100 percent exemption from income taxes on export income from 
the first 5 years of operation, 50 percent for the next 5 years, and a 
further 50 percent exemption on export income reinvested in India for 
an additional 5 years
    2. State Government of Andhra Pradesh Programs Grants Under the 
Industrial Investment Promotion Policy of 2005-2010
     a. 25 percent reimbursement of cost of land in industrial estates 
and industrial development areas
     b. Reimbursement of power at the rate of Rs. 0.75 ``per unit'' for 
the period beginning April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006 and for the 
four years thereafter to be determined by the Government of Andhra 
Pradesh (GOAP)
     c. 50 percent subsidy for expenses incurred for quality 
certification up to RS. 100 lakhs
     d. 25 percent subsidy on ``cleaner production measures'' up to Rs. 
5 lakhs
     e. 50 percent subsidy on expenses incurred in patent registration, 
up

[[Page 20926]]

to Rs. 5 lakhs
     f. 100 percent reimbursement of stamp duty and transfer duty paid 
for the purchase of land and buildings and the obtaining of financial 
deeds and mortgages
     g. A grant of 25 percent of the tax paid to GAAP, which is applied 
as a credit against the tax owed the following year, for a period of 
five years from the date of commencement of production
     h. Exemption from the GAAP Non-agricultural Land Assessment (NALA)
     i. Provision of ``infrastructure'' for industries located more 
than 10 kilometers from existing industrial estates or industrial 
development areas
     j. Guaranteed ``stable prices of municipal water for 3 years for 
industrial use'' and reservation of 10% of water for industrial use for 
existing and future projects
    3. State Government of Gujarat Programs
     a. State Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Provided Tax Incentives
     (1). Sales Tax Exemptions of Purchases of Goods During the POR
     (2). Sales Tax Deferrals on Purchases of Good from Prior Years (As 
Well as Deferrals Granted During the POR) which Were Outstanding During 
the POR)
     (3). Accounting Treatment of Purchases
     (4). Value Added Tax (VAT) Program Established on April 1, 2006
     b. Captive Port Facilities
    Credit for the cost of the capital (including interest) to 
construct the port facilities, which is then applied as an offset to 
the wharfage charges due Gujarat on cargo shipped through the captive 
jetty
    4. State Government of Jharkhand Programs
     a. Grants and Tax Exemptions under the State Industrial Policy of 
2001
     b. Subsidies for Mega Projects under the JSIP of 2001
    5. State Government of Maharashtra Programs
     a. Refunds of Octroi Under the PSI of 1993, Maharashtra Industrial 
Policy of 2001, and Maharashtra Industrial Policy of 2006
     b. Infrastructure Assistance for Mega Projects
     c. Land for Less than Adequate Remuneration
     d. Loan Guarantees Based on Octroi Refunds by the SGM.
     e. Investment Subsidy

V. Analysis of Comments

Comment 1: Whether the Failure of the Government of India (GOI) and the 
Indian State Governments (ISGs) to Respond to the Department's 
Questions Warrants Application of Adverse Inferences with Respect to 
Subsidy Programs Essar Claims It Did Not Use
Comment 2: Whether Essar Received Benefits Under the Industrial Policy 
of the State Government of Chhattisgarh (SGOC)
Comment 3: Whether Essar Received Benefits Under the Industrial Policy 
of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh (SGOAP)
Comment 4: Whether Essar Received Benefits Under the Captive Port 
Facilities Program of the State Government of Gujarat (SGOG)
Comment 5: Whether Essar Received Benefits Under the GOI's Special 
Economic Zone (Act of 2005 (SEZ Act)
Comment 6: Whether the Department Inadvertently Failed to Include 
Certain Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) Licenses in the 
Benefit Calculation for the Preliminary Results
Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Adjust the EPCGS License 
Application Fees Reported by Essar
Comment 8: Whether It Was Appropriate to Apply Adverse Inferences With 
Regard to Certain of Essar's EPCGS Licenses
Comment 9: Whether the Department Erred In Calculating Benefits 
Conferred Under the Pre-Shipment Export Financing Program
Comment 10: Whether the National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC) 
is a Government Authority Capable of Providing a Financial Contribution
Comment 11: Whether There is a Viable In-Country Benchmark Price For 
Use in the Benefit Calculation of the Provision of High-Grade Iron Ore 
DR-CLO Lumps (lumps) and Iron Ore Fines (Fines) for Less Than Adequate 
Remuneration (LTAR) Calculation, and If So, How It Should Be Calculated
Comment 12: Whether the Department Used Comparable Benchmark Prices For 
Use in the Benefit Calculations of the Provision of Lumps and Fines for 
LTAR Program
Comment 13: Whether the Department's Inclusion of Freight Costs in the 
Fines and Lumps Benchmarks Produced a Distorted Result
Comment 14: Whether the Department Should Make Certain Adjustments to 
the Benchmark Used in the Benefit Calculation of the Provision of lumps 
and fines and for LTAR Program
VI. Total Net Subsidy Rate
VII. Recommendation
[FR Doc. E9-10496 Filed 5-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S