[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1496-1524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-129]



[[Page 1495]]

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

Part III





Department of Commerce





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



International Trade Administration



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



Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / 
Notices  

[[Page 1496]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-821]


Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: 
Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain 
hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India for the period of 
review (POR) January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. These 
preliminary results cover one company Tata Steel Limited (Tata). For 
the information on the net subsidy rate for the reviewed company, see 
the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section.

DATES: Effective Date: January 11, 2010.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On December 1, 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 Orders: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products From India and Indonesia, 66 FR 60198 (December 3, 2001). On 
December 1, 2008, the Department published a notice of opportunity to 
request an administrative review of this CVD order. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 72764 (December 1, 
2008). On December 31, 2008, U.S. Steel Corporation (Petitioner) 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Essar 
Steel Limited (Essar), Ispat Industries Limited (Ispat), JSW Steel 
Limited (JSW), and Tata.
    On February 2, 2009, the Department initiated an administrative 
review of the CVD order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat 
products from India, covering the period January 1, 2008, through 
December 31, 2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 
5821 (February 2, 2009).
    On February 6, 2009, the Department issued a questionnaire to the 
Government of India (GOI), Essar, Ispat, JSW, and Tata. On February 6, 
2009, Essar and JSW notified the Department that they had no shipments 
during the POR. On February 9, 2009, Ispat notified the Department that 
it had no shipments during the POR. On February 25, 2009, Tata notified 
the Department that it had no sales of commercial quantities of subject 
merchandise during the POR. However, Tata did acknowledge that it made 
certain sales during the POR. On March 11, 2009, counsel for Tata met 
with Department officials concerning an alleged sale by Tata to the 
United States that is currently on the record of the antidumping 
proceeding. See Memorandum to the File regarding ``Meeting with Counsel 
for Tata Steel Limited,'' dated March 11, 2009, which is on file in the 
Central Records Unit (CRU) of the main Commerce Building. On March 19, 
2009, Tata submitted information pertaining to an additional sale of 
subject merchandise from India in question during the POR. On March 23, 
2009, Tata submitted additional data, as requested by the Department, 
which pertains to certain sales during the POR. On March 27, 2009, the 
Department made a finding that Tata had sales of subject merchandise 
during the POR and extended the due date for Tata's questionnaire 
response because of the confusion as to whether Tata did or did not 
have any sales during the POR. See Memorandum to the File regarding 
``Sales by Tata during the POR,'' dated March 27, 2009, which is on 
file in the CRU of the main Commerce Building.
    On April 23, 2009, we received a questionnaire response from the 
GOI. As discussed below, the GOI's submission did not contain responses 
concerning certain programs administered by the state governments. We 
issued supplemental questionnaires to the GOI regarding programs 
addressed in the initial CVD questionnaire, including programs 
administered by the state governments. On August 10, 2009 and September 
24, 2009, the GOI submitted responses to the supplemental 
questionnaires; however, it failed to respond to certain programs 
administered by the state governments.
    On April 25, 2009, Department officials spoke with counsel for Tata 
regarding the company's failure to submit a questionnaire response. 
Tata's counsel informed the Department that the company was no longer 
participating in the administrative review and would not be responding 
to the questionnaire. See Memorandum to the File regarding ``Phone 
Conversation with Counsel for Tata Steel Limited,'' dated April 23, 
2009, which is on file in the CRU of the main Commerce Building.
    On May 4, 2009, Petitioner withdrew its request for review with 
respect to Essar, Ispat, and JSW. As a result, the Department rescinded 
this review, in part, on June 4, 2009, with respect to Essar, Ispat, 
and JSW. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from India: 
Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 
26847 (June 4, 2009). On August 12, 2009, Petitioner submitted comments 
with respect to the failure by Tata to cooperate in the administrative 
review and argued that the Department should resort to adverse facts 
available (AFA) when determining the net subsidy to apply to Tata. On 
October 14, 2009, Tata submitted a letter in which it responded to 
Petitioner's comments concerning the AFA rate to be applied to Tata in 
the instant review.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those 
producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. 
The company subject to this review is Tata. This review covers 93 
programs.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the 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 the order.
    Specifically included in the scope of the 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

[[Page 1497]]

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 the 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 two 
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 the order unless otherwise 
excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or 
specifically excluded from the scope of the 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 the 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 the 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 the order is dispositive.

Adverse Facts Available

I. The GOI

    As discussed above, on February 6, 2009, the Department issued the 
initial questionnaire to Tata and the GOI, including state governments. 
The GOI filed a response to the Department's initial questionnaire on 
April 23, 2009 (April QR). However, the GOI failed to provide responses 
with regard to certain programs administered by the state governments 
of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Karnataka. On 
July 30, 2009, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to 
the GOI and again requested responses with regard to the state 
government programs. The GOI submitted a response on August 10, 2009, 
but again failed to provide responses with regard to the programs 
administered by the state governments. On August 21, 2009, the 
Department issued another supplemental questionnaire to the GOI 
requesting additional information from the state governments mentioned 
above, as well as additional and clarifying information from the state 
government of Jharkhand concerning its responses in the April QR. In 
its response, the GOI again failed to submit responses with regard to 
the programs administered by the state governments. On September 10, 
2009, the Department issued to the GOI a final supplemental 
questionnaire in which we requested a second time the same information 
from the August 21, 2009, supplemental questionnaire on the State 
programs administered by the government of Jharkhand. In its response, 
the GOI submitted incomplete information on the programs administered 
by the state government of Jharkhand. Specifically, in the September 
24, 2009, questionnaire response, the government of Jharkhand submitted 
a brief letter from the Department of Industries restating that Tata 
had not received any benefits during the POR. No other information or 
documentation requested by the Department to demonstrate this claim was 
provided.
    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), provide that the Department shall use the ``facts otherwise 
available'' if, inter alia, necessary information is not on the record 
or an interested party or any other person: (A) Withholds information 
that has been requested; (B) fails to provide information within the 
deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the 
Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the 
Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding; or (D) provides 
information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of 
the Act.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent possible, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, the Department 
may, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the 
original and subsequent responses. Section 782(e) of the Act provides 
that the Department ``shall not decline to consider information that is 
submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination 
but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the 
administering authority'' if the information is timely, can be 
verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the 
interested party has demonstrated that it has acted to the best of its 
ability in providing the

[[Page 1498]]

information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute 
requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without 
undue difficulties.
    Because the GOI failed to provide the requested information by the 
established deadlines, the Department does not have the necessary 
information on the record to determine whether the subsidies received 
by Tata under the state-administered programs constitute financial 
contributions and are specific within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act, respectively. Therefore, the Department must 
base its determination on the facts otherwise available in accordance 
with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an 
adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a 
party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability 
to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act 
also authorizes the Department to use as AFA information derived from 
the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative 
review, or other information placed on the record. In a countervailing 
duty proceeding, the Department requires information from both the 
government of the country whose merchandise is under the order and the 
foreign domestic producers and exporters. When the government fails to 
provide requested information concerning alleged subsidy programs, the 
Department, as AFA, typically finds that a financial contribution 
exists under the alleged program and that the program is specific. See 
e.g., Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 
from the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 11397, 11399 (March 7, 2006) 
(unchanged in the Notice of Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 
from the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 38861 (July 10, 2006) (in which the 
Department relied on adverse inferences in determining that the 
Government of Korea directed credit to the steel industry in a manner 
that constituted a financial contribution and was specific to the steel 
industry within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D) and 771(5A)(D)(iii) 
of the Act, respectively). However, the Department will normally rely 
on the foreign producer's or exporter's records to determine the 
existence and amount of the benefit. Consistent with its past practice, 
because the GOI failed to provide information concerning certain 
alleged subsidies, the Department, as AFA, has determined that those 
programs confer a financial contribution and are specific pursuant to 
sections 771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act, respectively. The analysis 
of the extent of the benefit, if any, is discussed under the sections 
below entitled ``Programs Administered by the Government of India'', 
``Programs Administered by the State Government of Gujarat,'' 
``Programs Administered by the State Government of Maharashtra,'' 
``Programs Administered by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh'', 
``Programs Administered by the State Government of Jharkhand,'' 
``Programs Administered by the State Government of Chhattisgarh,'' and 
``Programs Administered by the State Government of Karantaka.''
    In the instant review, Tata did not provide the Department with any 
information during the POR, as discussed below under the ``Tata'' 
section. Accordingly, in such instances, the Department must base its 
determination on the facts otherwise available in accordance with 
section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act with respect to the programs in the 
initial questionnaire administered by the GOI and state governments.

II. Tata

    With respect to Tata, although the company maintains that it had no 
sales of commercial quantities during the POR, it provided data 
concerning sales of subject merchandise during the POR on March 19 and 
March 23, 2009. After considering the information on the record, the 
Department decided that Tata did have sales during the POR and 
requested on March 27, 2009, that Tata submit a questionnaire response. 
See Memorandum to the File regarding ``Sales by Tata during the POR,'' 
dated March 27, 2009, which is on file in the CRU of the main Commerce 
Building.
    The Department extended Tata's deadline to respond to the initial 
questionnaire. Specifically, on March 27, 2009, the Department extended 
the March 15, 2009, original deadline until April 17, 2009. Id. 
However, Tata failed to provide a response to the initial 
questionnaire. On April 23, 2009, Department officials contacted Tata 
regarding its failure to respond to the Department's February 6, 2009 
questionnaire, which was due on April 17, 2009. See Memorandum to the 
File regarding ``Phone Conversation with Counsel for Tata Steel 
Limited,'' dated April 23, 2009, which is on file in the CRU of the 
main Commerce Building. Tata indicated that it would not participate in 
this administrative review. Id. No further response has been filed by 
Tata in this segment of the proceeding.
    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other 
person: (A) Withholds information that has been requested; (B) fails to 
provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form 
and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 
and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a 
proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as 
provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
    Because Tata failed to provide the requested information by the 
established deadlines, the Department does not have the necessary 
information to determine the net subsidies received by Tata under the 
GOI administered programs as well as those programs administered by the 
state governments. Therefore, the Department must base its 
determination on the facts otherwise available in accordance with 
section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act with respect to the GOI and state 
government programs covered in this review.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an 
adverse inference in applying the fact otherwise available when a party 
has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to 
comply with a request for information. Because Tata did not provide the 
requested information on any of the programs covered by this review, we 
find that Tata did not act to the best of its ability and, therefore, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we are employing adverse 
inferences in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. 
Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as AFA 
information derived from the petition, the original determination, a 
previous administrative review, or other information placed on the 
record.
    As explained above, due to the GOI's failure to submit a timely 
response, we find that all programs administered by the GOI and the 
state governments continued to operate during the POR, and that these 
programs provided financial contributions and were specific within the 
meanings of sections 771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act, respectively.
    Moreover, because Tata failed to provide the requested information 
with respect to the GOI and state government programs by the 
established deadlines, despite the extensions of time granted by the 
Department, we do not have the necessary information to determine the

[[Page 1499]]

net subsidies Tata received from these programs. Therefore, as AFA, we 
find that Tata received a benefit from all these programs.
    In assigning net subsidy rates for each of the programs for which 
specific information was required from Tata, we were guided by the 
Department's approach in the prior reviews as well as recent CVD 
investigations involving the People's Republic of China (PRC). See 
e.g., Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 20923 (May 6, 2009) (Final Results of Fifth HRS Review) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Results of Fifth 
HRS Decision Memorandum) at ``SGOC Industrial Policy 2004-2009'' 
section; see also, Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing 
Duty Determination, 74 FR 4936 (January 28, 2009) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Application of Facts Available and 
Use of Adverse Inferences'' section. In these preliminary results, as 
AFA, we have first sought to apply, where available, the highest, above 
de minimis subsidy rate calculated for an identical program from any 
segment of this proceeding. Absent such a rate, we have applied, where 
available, the highest, above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for a 
similar program from any segment of this proceeding. Under our AFA 
approach, absent a subsidy rate calculated for the same or similar 
program, the Department applies the highest above de minimis, 
calculated subsidy rate for any program from any CVD proceeding 
involving the country in which the subject merchandise is produced, so 
long as the producer of the subject merchandise or the industry to 
which it belongs could have used the program for which the rates were 
calculated. In the instant review, it was not necessary to rely on this 
third prong in the hierarchy of our AFA methodology because above de 
minimis subsidy rates for identical and/or similar programs were 
available within the proceeding. In accordance with this methodology, 
we have applied AFA rates and have assigned these rates to Tata for all 
the subsidy programs as discussed further below.

Analysis of Programs

A. Programs Administered by the Government of India

1. Pre- and Post-Shipment Export Financing
    The Department of Banking Operations & Development, Directives 
Division of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) provides short-term pre-
shipment export financing, or ``packing credits,'' to exporters through 
commercial banks. Upon presentation of a confirmed export order or 
letter of credit to a bank, companies receive 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. Commercial banks extending export credit to Indian 
companies must, by law, charge interest on this credit at rates capped 
by the RBI. For post-shipment export financing, exporters are eligible 
to receive post-shipment short-term credit in the form of discounted 
trade bills or advances by commercial banks at preferential interest 
rates to finance the transit period between the date of shipment of 
exported merchandise and payment from export customers.
    The Department has previously determined that these export 
financing programs are countervailable to the extent that the interest 
rates are capped by the GOI and are lower than the rates exporters 
would have paid on comparable commercial loans. See e.g., Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 6530 (February 12, 
2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Results of 
3rd PET Film Review Decision Memorandum) at ``Pre-Shipment and Post-
Shipment Export Financing'' section. Specifically, the Department 
determined that the GOI's issuance of financing at preferential rates 
constituted a financial contribution pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(i) 
of the Act and that the interest savings under this program conferred a 
benefit pursuant to section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act. The Department 
also found this program to be contingent upon exports and, therefore, 
specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. No new 
information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented in 
this review to warrant a reconsideration of the Department's finding.
    In its questionnaire response, the GOI reported that RBI does not 
maintain company-specific accounting records. See April QR at 52. 
Therefore, the GOI is unable to provide information as to whether Tata 
applied for, accrued, or received benefits under the program during the 
POR. Id. As discussed more fully under the ``Adverse Facts Available'' 
section above, Tata did not submit a response to any of the 
Department's questionnaires and, therefore, as AFA pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted 
from pre-and post-export financing during the POR within the meaning of 
section 771(5)(E) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we have assigned a net subsidy rate of 1.32 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
the same program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Investigation: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products From India, 66 FR 49635 (September 28, 2001) 
(HRS Investigation Final) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum (HRS Investigation Decision Memorandum) at ``Pre- and Post-
Export Financing'' section.
2. Export Promotion of Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)
    The EPCGS provides for a reduction or exemption of customs duties 
and an exemption for excise taxes on imports of capital goods. Under 
this program, producers may import capital equipment at a reduced 
customs duty, subject to an export obligation equal to eight times the 
duty saved to be fulfilled over a period of eight years (12 years where 
the CIF value is Rs. 100 crore \1\) from the date the license was 
issued. For failure 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A crore is equal to 10,000,000 rupees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has previously determined that the import duty 
reductions provided under the EPCGS constitute a countervailable export 
subsidy. See e.g., Final Results of 3rd PET Film Review Decision 
Memorandum at ``Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme'' section. 
Specifically, the Department has found that under the EPCGS program, 
the GOI provides a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D) of 
the Act. The Department also found this program to be specific under 
section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because it is contingent upon export 
performance. No new

[[Page 1500]]

information or evidence of changed circumstances has been provided with 
respect to this program. Therefore, we continue to find that import 
duty reductions provided under the EPCGS are countervailable export 
subsidies.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 16.63 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
the same program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Final and accompanying HRS Investigation Decision 
Memorandum at ``Export Promotion for Capital Goods (EPCGS) Scheme'' 
section.
3. Advance License Program (ALP)
    Under the ALP exporters may import, duty free, specified quantities 
of materials required to manufacture products that are subsequently 
exported. The exporting companies, however, remain contingently liable 
for the unpaid duties until they have fulfilled their export 
requirement. The quantities of imported materials and exported finished 
products are linked through standard input/output norms (SIONs) 
established by the GOI.
    The Department has previously found this program to be 
countervailable. See e.g., Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review; Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 
Strip from India, 71 FR 7534 (February 13, 2006) (Final Results of 2nd 
PET Film Review), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
(Final Results of 2nd PET Film Review Decision Memorandum) at ``Advance 
License Program'' section and ``Comment 1.'' See also, Notice of Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative 
Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from 
India, 71 FR 45034 (August 8, 2006) (Final Determination of Lined Paper 
Investigation), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final 
Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum) at 
``Advance License Program'' section. In the Final Results of 2nd PET 
Film Review, the Department found that the ALP provides a financial 
contribution, as defined under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, the 
GOI does not have in place, and does not apply, a system that is 
reasonable and effective, within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.519(a)(4), 
to confirm which inputs and in what amounts are consumed in the 
production of the exported products. Therefore, the entire amount of 
the import duty deferral or exemption earned by the respondent 
constitutes a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act. See Final 
Results of 2nd PET Film Review Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 and 
Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 10. See also, Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 1578 (January 9, 2008) (Preliminary 
Results of Fourth HRS Review) and Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products From India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 40295 (July 14, 2008) (Final Results of 
Fourth HRS Review) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
(Final Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum) at ``Advance 
License Program (ALP)'' section.\2\ No new information has been 
submitted on the record in this review to warrant a reconsideration of 
the Department's findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In this review, as in the past review, the GOI has argued 
that, pursuant to changes in its Foreign Trade and Policy Handbook 
of Procedures, advance licenses are issued with actual user 
conditions and are not transferable even after completion of the 
export obligation. The Department analyzed these changes in the past 
review and determined that the systemic issues continued to exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, we are assigning a 
net subsidy rate of 0.50 percent ad valorem, which corresponds to the 
highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for the same program 
in another segment of this proceeding. See Final Results of Fourth HRS 
Review Decision Memorandum at ``Advance License Program (ALP)'' 
section.
4. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS)
    India's DEPS was enacted on April 1, 1997, as a successor program 
to the Passbook Scheme (PBS). As with PBS, the DEPS enables exporting 
companies to earn import duty exemptions in the form of passbook 
credits rather than cash. All exporters are eligible to earn DEPS 
credits on a post-export basis, provided that the GOI has established a 
SION for the exported product. DEPS credits can be used for any 
subsequent imports, regardless of whether they are consumed in the 
production of an export product. DEPS credits are valid for 12 months 
and are transferable after the foreign exchange is realized from the 
export sales on which the DEPS credits are earned. With respect to 
subject merchandise, the GOI has established a SION for the steel 
industry.
    The Department has previously determined that DEPS is a 
countervailable program, which provides a financial contribution and is 
specific as an export contingent subsidy within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively. See e.g., Final 
Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum at 
``Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme'' section. The Department further 
found that the benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act is the entire 
amount of import duty exempted, because the GOI does not have in place, 
and does not apply, a system that is within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.519(a)(4), reasonable and effective for determining what imports 
are consumed in the production of the exported product and in what 
amounts. Id. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances 
has been presented in this review to warrant reconsideration of the 
Department's finding.
    We have previously determined that this program provides a 
recurring benefit under 19 CFR 351.519(c). See e.g., Preliminary 
Determination of Lined Paper Investigation, 71 FR at 7920 (unchanged in 
Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation). In accordance with 
past practice and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.519(b)(2), we preliminarily 
find that benefits from the DEPS program are conferred as of the date 
of exportation to the shipment for which the DEPS credits are earned. 
See e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from India, 64 FR 73131 
(December 29, 1999) at Comment 4 (explaining that for programs such as 
the DEPS, ``we calculate the benefit on an ``earned'' basis (that is 
upon export) where it is provided 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.'')
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 13.98 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
the same program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme 
(DEPS)'' section.
5. Status Certificate Program
    India's Status Certificate Program is detailed under paragraph 3.5 
of its Foreign Trade Policy Handbook. This program details the 
following privileges to exporters, depending on their export 
performance for the current year, plus the preceding three years:

[[Page 1501]]

    (i). Authorizations and Customs clearances for both imports and 
exports on self-declaration basis;
    (ii). Fixation of Input-Output norms on priority within 60 days;
    (iii). Exemption from compulsory negotiation of documents through 
banks. The remittance, however, would continue to be received through 
banking channels;
    (iv). 100 percent retention of foreign exchange in EEEC account:
    (v). Enhancement in normal repatriation period from 180 days to 360 
days;
    (vi). (Deleted);
    (vii). Exemption from furnishing of Bank Guarantee in Schemes under 
this Policy. See GOI's April QR at 60.
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department examined this program in 
which certain respondents participated during that POR. See Preliminary 
Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1597. In particular, we inquired 
about the extent to which the respondents used the provision related to 
foreign currency retention under the Status Certificate Program during 
the POR. Id. However, the Department found that the program was not 
used during the POR. See Final Results of Fourth HRS Review, and Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Programs 
Determined to Be Not Used'' section. As explained above, as AFA 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 
used and benefitted from this program during the POR. Furthermore, 
based on AFA, we preliminarily determine that this program constitutes 
a financial contribution in the form of a foreign currency loan, and a 
benefit within the meaning of 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, 
respectively.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 1.32 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Pre- and Post Export 
Financing''.
6. Loan Guarantees From the GOI
    In the underlying investigation, the Department found that the GOI, 
through the State Bank of India (SBI) provides loan guarantees on a 
case-by-case basis to particular industrial sectors. See Notice of 
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment 
of Final Countervailing Determination With Final Antidumping Duty 
Determinations: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from India, 66 
FR 20240, 20249 (April 20, 2001) (Preliminary Determination of HRS 
Investigation), unchanged in Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
India, 66 FR 49635 (September 28, 2001) (Final Determination of HRS 
Investigation) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. We 
determined these SBI loan guarantees confer countervailable subsidies 
because they provide a financial contribution in the form of a 
potential direct transfer of funds or liabilities and are specific to a 
limited number of companies within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) 
and 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, respectively. Id. In accordance with 
section 771(5)(E)(iii) of the Act, the loan guarantees provide a 
benefit to the recipient in the amount of the difference between the 
amount the recipient pays on the guaranteed loan and the amount the 
recipient would pay for a comparable commercial loan if there were no 
government guarantee. No new information or evidence of changed 
circumstances has been presented to warrant reconsideration of this 
finding. Therefore, in the instant review, we preliminarily continue to 
find, as AFA, that the GOI's loan guarantees under this program provide 
a financial contribution in the form of a potential direct transfer of 
funds or liabilities and are specific to a limited number of industries 
within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of 
the Act, respectively. Moreover, we preliminarily find, as AFA, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and benefitted from 
this program, within the meaning of 771(5)(E)(iii) of the Act, in the 
form of the difference in the amount the firm paid on the guaranteed 
loan and the amount the firm would pay for a comparable loan if there 
were no government guarantee.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning, a net subsidy rate of 1.32 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Pre- and Post Export Financing'' 
section.
7. Steel Development Fund (SDF) Loans
    The Steel Development Fund (SDF) was established in 1978, to which 
India's integrated steel producers, including Tata, contributed the 
proceeds from GOI-mandated price increases (i.e., levies). In turn, 
these producers were eligible to take out long-term loans from the SDF 
at advantageous rates. See Final Determination of HRC Investigation 
Decision Memorandum at ``Loans from the Steel Development Fund'' 
section.
    In the underlying investigation, the Department determined that the 
GOI exercises control over the way in which funding is disbursed under 
this program. See Preliminary Determination of HRS Investigation 
(unchanged in Final Determination of HRS Investigation).
    Therefore, the Department determined that loans under the SDF 
constitute a financial contribution within the meaning of section 
771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. We also determined that loans under the SDF 
are specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act 
because eligibility for loans from the SDF is limited to steel 
companies. We further found that loans under the SDF program confer a 
benefit under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act to the extent that the 
interest paid under the program during the POR was less than what would 
have been charged on a comparable commercial loan. Id. No new 
information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in 
this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of this determination. 
Therefore, in the instant review, we preliminarily continue to find, as 
AFA, that the GOI's provision of SDF loans under this program provide a 
financial contribution in the form of a potential direct transfer of 
funds and are specific to a limited number of industries within the 
meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, 
respectively. Furthermore, we preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and benefitted from this program, 
within the meaning of 771(5)(E) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 0.99 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
the same program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Loan from the Steel Development 
Fund (SDF) Fund'' section.
8. Captive Mining of Iron Ore
    Under the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act of 
1957, as amended, (MMDR) and the Mineral Concession Rules of 1960, as 
amended, the GOI grants captive mining rights for minerals, including 
iron ore, to eligible applicants. The MMDR includes a schedule that 
lists minerals for which mining rights are controlled

[[Page 1502]]

by the GOI. Iron ore is included on this schedule.
    In Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, the Department 
determined that the MMDR captive mining program was countervailable. 
See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1591 (unchanged 
in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). Specifically, the Department 
determined that the program provided a financial contribution in the 
form of the provision of a good within the meaning of 771(D)(iii) of 
the Act and conferred a benefit within the meaning of section 
771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act by enabling the participating firms to 
purchase iron ore from the GOI for less than adequate remuneration 
(LTAR). We further determined that the program is specific within the 
meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, because it is limited 
to certain enterprises, such as steel producers. Id. In the instant 
review, we preliminarily continue to find that the GOI's provision of 
iron ore for LTAR under this program provide a financial contribution 
in the form of a provision of a good and is specific to a limited 
number of industries within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 
771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, respectively. Furthermore, we 
preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, Tata 
used and benefitted from this program, within the meaning of 
771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
the same program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Decision Memorandum at ``Captive Mining of Iron 
Ore'' section.
9. Captive Mining Rights of Coal
    In 1973, the GOI nationalized coal mining under the Coal Mines 
Nationalization Act. The legislation initially reserved coal mining for 
public companies. However, pursuant to the Coal Mines Nationalization 
Amendment Act of 1976, the law was revised to allow iron and steel 
companies to mine for coal for captive use (i.e., the right of selected 
companies to extract coal from government-owned land for use in their 
production processes). In 1993 through 1996, the GOI amended the Act to 
also allow power companies and the cement industry to mine coal for 
captive use.
    In Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, the Department 
determined that this program was countervailable. See Preliminary 
Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1592 (unchanged in Final Results 
of Fourth HRS Review). Specifically, the Department determined that the 
provision of coal constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a 
provision of a good within the meaning of 771(D)(iii) of the Act. We 
also determined that the program conferred a benefit within the meaning 
of section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act by enabling the participating firms 
to purchase coal from the GOI for LTAR. We further determined that the 
program is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, 
because preference is given in the allocation of coal mining rights or 
``blocks'' to steel producers whose annual production capacity exceeds 
one million tons. Id. In the instant review, we preliminarily continue 
to find that the GOI's provision of coal under this program provide a 
financial contribution in the form of a provision of a good and is 
specific to a limited number of industries within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, 
respectively. Furthermore, we preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and benefitted from this program, 
within the meaning of 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
the same program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Captive Mining 
Rights of Coal'' section.
10. Export Oriented Units (EOU) Program: Duty-Free Import of Capital 
Goods and Raw Materials
    Under this program EOUs are entitled to import capital goods and 
raw materials duty-free. In the Preliminary Determination of PET Resin, 
we determined that this program was countervailable. We found that the 
assistance provided under this program was specific as an export 
subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. See Notice 
of Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Alignment With Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Bottle-Grade 
Polyethylene Terephthalate (``PET'') Resin From India (Preliminary 
Determination of PET Resin), 69 FR 52866, 52870 (August 30, 2004) 
(unchanged in the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: 
Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate (``PET'') Resin From India, 70 
FR 13460 (March 21, 2005) (Final Determination of PET Resin), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (PET Resin Investigation 
Decision Memorandum).) We found that this program provides a financial 
contribution in the form of forgone revenue within the meaning of 
section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and confers a benefit in the amount of 
exemptions and reimbursements of customs duties and certain sales taxes 
on capital equipment in accordance with section 771(5)(E) of the Act 
and section 351.519(4)(i) of the Department's regulations. See PET 
Resin Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Export-Oriented Unit (EOU) 
Program: Duty-Free Import of Capital Goods and Raw Materials'' section. 
In the instant review, we preliminarily continue to find the GOI's 
provision of assistance under this program provides a financial 
contribution in the form of revenue forgone and is specific as an 
export subsidy within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 
771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively. Furthermore, we preliminarily 
find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and 
benefitted from this program, within the meaning of 771(5)(E) of the 
Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 13.98 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme 
(DEPS)'' section.
11. EOU Program: Reimbursement of Central Sales Tax (CST) Paid on 
Materials Procured Domestically
    In the Preliminary Determination of PET Resin, we found that under 
this program, EOUs are entitled to reimbursements of the CST paid on 
materials procured domestically, applicable to purchases of both raw 
materials and capital goods. See Preliminary Determination of PET 
Resin, 69 FR at 52870 (unchanged in Final Determination of PET Resin).
    In the Preliminary Determination of PET Resin, the Department 
determined that this program was countervailable. Specifically, we 
found that the program is specific as an export subsidy within the 
meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. This program provides a 
financial contribution in the form of revenue foregone within the 
section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and confers a benefit in the amount of 
reimbursements of CST in accordance with section 771(5)(E) of the Act. 
Id. In the instant review, we preliminarily continue to find the GOI's 
provision of assistance under this program provides a financial

[[Page 1503]]

contribution in the form of revenue forgone and is specific as an 
export subsidy within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 
771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively. Furthermore, we preliminarily 
find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and 
benefitted from this program, within the meaning of 771(5)(E) of the 
Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat Tax Incentives'' section.
12. Income Tax Exemption Scheme Under Section (80 HHC)
    Under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, the GOI allows exporters 
to deduct profits derived from the export of merchandise from taxable 
income. In prior CVD proceedings, the Department has found this program 
to be an export subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the 
Act, and thus countervailable,. See e.g., Certain Iron-Metal Castings 
from India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 
65 FR 31515 (May 18, 2000), and the accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at ``Income Tax Deductions Under Section 80 HHC'' section. 
This program provides a financial contribution in the form of revenue 
foregone and confers a benefit in the form of tax savings to the 
company within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of 
the Act, respectively. No new information or evidence of changed 
circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to warrant 
reconsideration of this finding. Therefore, in the instant review, we 
preliminarily continue to find the tax savings to the company under 
this program provides a financial contribution in the form of revenue 
forgone and is specific as an export subsidy within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively. 
Furthermore, we preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) 
of the Act, Tata used and benefitted from this program, within the 
meaning of 771(5)(E) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in any segment of this proceeding. See Final Results 
of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government of 
Gujarat Tax Incentives'' section.
13. Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate Remuneration
    The Department has previously determined that the GOI provides 
high-grade iron ore to steel producers for LTAR through the government-
owned National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC). See Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 71 FR 28665 (May 17, 
2006), and accompanying Final Results of Second HRS Review Decision 
Memorandum at ``Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate 
Remuneration'' section. The NMDC is governed by the Ministry of Steel 
and the GOI holds the vast majority of its shares. In past reviews, we 
have found the NMDC to be a government authority. See e.g., Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Review, and accompanying Final Results of Fourth 
HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for 
Less Than Adequate Remuneration section.''
    In the Final Results of Fourth HRS Review, the Department found 
that, through NMDC, the GOI provides a direct financial contribution in 
the form of a provision of a good as defined under section 
771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act, which is specific within the meaning of 
section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act because the actual recipients are 
limited to industries that use iron ore, including the steel industry. 
See Final Results of Fourth HRS Review and accompanying Final Results 
of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Sale of High-Grade Iron 
ore for Less Than Adequate Remuneration'' section. The Department also 
found pursuant to section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act that a benefit is 
conferred, because the government provides the good or service for 
LTAR. See Final Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at 
``Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate Remuneration'' 
section.
    In its questionnaire responses, the GOI provided a list of 
companies that purchased high-grade iron ore from NMDC during the POR 
and Tata does not appear on this list. See GOI's April QR at 43 and 
August 10, 2009 QR. However, without Tata's cooperation, we find that 
this list does not constitute complete and verifiable evidence, within 
the meaning of sections 782(c)(3) and (2) of the Act, respectively, 
that Tata or any of its affiliates did not purchase iron ore from NMDC 
during the POR. The Department has in the past stated that it cannot 
rely solely upon the government's statements to make a determination of 
non-use. See Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final 
Affirmative Determination, in Part, of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 
35639 (June 24, 2008) (LWS from China), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 4 (LWS from China Investigation Decision 
Memorandum). Therefore, we preliminarily find that Tata benefitted from 
this program within the meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 16.14 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
the same program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Fifth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Sale of High-Grade 
Iron Ore for LTAR'' section.
14. Market Development Assistance (MDA)
    In Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review: Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India, the Department found 
that the Federation of Indian Export Organization administers grants 
under the MDA program, subject to approval by the Ministry of Commerce. 
See Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: 
Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India, 55 FR 46699, 46702 (November 6, 
1990) (Preliminary Results of Sixth Castings Review) (unchanged in 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain 
Iron-Metal Castings From India, 56 FR1956 (January 18, 1991)). The 
purpose of the programs is to provide grants-in-aid to approved 
organizations (i.e., export houses) to promote the development of 
markets for Indian goods abroad. Such development projects may include 
market research, export publicity, and participation in trade fairs and 
exhibitions. Id.
    The Department found that the MDA grants were countervailable. See 
Preliminary Results of Sixth Castings Review (unchanged in Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Iron-
Metal Castings From India). The program provides a direct financial 
contribution and confers a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, and is specific as an export 
subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. Id.
    In its April QR, the GOI stated that Tata had not ``availed any 
benefits under

[[Page 1504]]

this program,'' and in its September 4, 2009, questionnaire response 
(September QR) submitted a certificate from the administering authority 
attesting to the same. See April QR at 59 and September 4 QR at 11. 
However, absent the cooperation of Tata, we do not find that these 
submissions constitute complete and verifiable evidence, within the 
meaning of sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, respectively, 
demonstrating that Tata or any of its affiliates did not benefit from 
this program. The Department has in the past stated that it cannot rely 
solely upon the government's statements to make a determination of non-
use. See LWS from China and accompanying LWS from China Investigation 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. Therefore, as AFA, we preliminarily 
find that Tata benefitted from this program within the meaning of 
section 771(5)(E) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``The GOI's Forgiveness of SDF 
Loans Issued to SAIL'' section.
15. Market Access Initiative (MAI)
    According to section 3.2 of the GOI's Foreign Trade Policy 2004-
2009:
    ``The Market Access Initiative (MAI) scheme is intended to provide 
financial assistance for medium term export promotion efforts with a 
sharp focus on a country/product, and is administered by the Department 
of Commerce (DoC). Financial assistance is available for Export 
Promotion Councils, Industry and Trade Associations, Agencies of State 
Governments, Indian Commercial Missions abroad and other eligible 
entities as may be notified. A whole range of activities can be funded 
under the MAI scheme. These include, amongst others, (i) market 
studies, * * * (iii) sales promotion campaigns, * * * (v) publicity 
campaigns * * *'' See GOI's April QR at Annex 7 page 28.
    In past proceedings, the Department has investigated this program 
to the extent that it provides financial assistance from the GOI to 
approved organizations which promote exports by offsetting the expense 
of foreign market analysis and promotional publications. See 
Preliminary Determination of Lined Paper Investigation, 71 FR at 7922 
(unchanged in Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation, and 
Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation Decision Memorandum at 
the ``Programs Determined to be Not Used'' section).
    The GOI stated in its April QR that the respondent company had not 
``availed any benefits under this program,'' and in its September 4 QR 
submitted a certificate from the administering authority attesting to 
the same. See April QR at 67 and September 4 QR at 12. However, absent 
the cooperation of Tata, we do not find that these submissions 
constitute complete and verifiable evidence, within the meaning of 
sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, respectively, demonstrating that 
Tata or any of its affiliates did not benefit from this program during 
the POR. The Department has in the past stated that it cannot rely 
solely upon the government's statements to make a determination of non-
use. See LWS from China. Therefore, we preliminarily find that Tata 
benefitted from this program within the meaning of section 771(5)(E) of 
the Act. Furthermore, as AFA, we find that Tata's use of the MAI 
program provides a financial contribution in the form of a grant and 
confers a benefit as a grant within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. The Department 
also finds, as AFA, that the program is specific as an export subsidy 
within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``The GOI's Forgiveness of SDF 
Loans Issued to SAIL''.
16. Special Economic Zone Act of 2005 (SEZ Act): Duty Free Import/
Domestic Procurement of Goods and Services for Development, Operation, 
and Maintenance of SEZ Units Program
    In the Fifth HRS Review, we found that, under this program, 
companies with SEZ units may import from overseas or procure 
domestically duty-free goods and services. 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, 79797 (December 30, 2008) (Fifth HRS Preliminary Results) 
(unchanged in Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 20923 (May 6, 2009) (Fifth HRS Final 
Results) and Final Results of Fifth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at 
``SEZ Act.'') The Department found, based on AFA, the company's use of 
the programs under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a financial 
contribution that is specific within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively. Id. No new information or 
evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding 
to warrant reconsideration of this finding.
    The GOI stated in its April QR that Tata was not covered by this 
program. See April QR at 68. However, absent cooperation by Tata, we do 
not find that this statement constitutes complete and verifiable 
evidence, within the meaning of sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 
demonstrating that Tata or any of its affiliates did not benefit from 
this program. The Department has in the past stated that it cannot rely 
solely upon the government's statements to make a determination of non-
use. See LWS from China. Therefore, we preliminarily find, as AFA, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, that Tata used and benefitted 
from this program within the meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act. 
Moreover, we preliminarily find, as AFA, the company's use of this 
program under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a financial contribution in 
the form of revenue forgone and is specific as an export subsidy within 
the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, 
respectively.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 1.66 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a the same program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Fifth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``SEZ Act'' section.
17. SEZ Act: Exemption From Excise Duties on Goods Machinery and 
Capital Goods Brought From the Domestic Tariff Area for Use by an 
Enterprise in the SEZ
    In the Fifth HRS Review, we found that, under this program, 
companies with SEZ units may be eligible for exemption from excise 
duties on goods machinery and capital goods brought from the Domestic 
Tariff Area for use by an enterprise in the SEZ. See Fifth HRS 
Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 79797 (unchanged in Fifth HRS Final 
Results). The Department found, based on AFA, the company's use of the 
programs under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a financial contribution 
that is specific within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D) and 
771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively. Id.
    The GOI stated in its April QR that Tata was not covered by this 
program. See April QR at 68. However, absent

[[Page 1505]]

cooperation by Tata, we do not find that this statement constitutes 
complete and verifiable evidence, within the meaning of sections 
782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, demonstrating that Tata or any of its 
affiliates did not benefit from this program during the POR. The 
Department has in the past stated that it cannot rely solely upon the 
government's statements to make a determination of non-use. See LWS 
from China. Therefore, we preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act, that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program within the meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act. Moreover, 
we preliminarily find, as AFA, the company's use of this program under 
the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a financial contribution in the form of 
revenue forgone and is specific as an export subsidy within the meaning 
of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 2.57 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
this program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final Results 
of Fifth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``SEZ Act'' section.
18. SEZ Act: 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
    In the Fifth HRS Review, we found that under this program companies 
that are suppliers are eligible to claim drawback or Duty Entitlement 
Pass Book (DEPB) on goods or services provided from the Domestic Tariff 
area or from outside India into a SEZ. However, we found the program 
was not used. See Fifth HRS Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 79801 
(unchanged in Fifth HRS Final Results).
    The GOI stated in its April QR that Tata was not covered by this 
program. See April QR at 68. However, absent cooperation by Tata, we do 
not find that this statement constitutes complete and verifiable 
evidence, within the meaning of sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 
demonstrating that Tata or any of its affiliates did not benefit from 
this program during the POR. The Department has in the past stated that 
it cannot rely solely upon the government's statements to make a 
determination of non-use. See LWS from China. Therefore, we 
preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, that 
Tata used and benefitted from this program within the meaning of 
section 771(5)(E) of the Act. Furthermore, as AFA, we preliminarily 
find that Tata's use of the programs under the SEZ Act constitutes a 
financial contribution in the form of duty exemption that is specific 
within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 13.98 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRC 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme 
(DEPS)'' section.
19. SEZ Act: 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
    In the Fifth HRS Review, we found that under this program benefits 
are provided on sales made from the SEZ. However, the program was not 
used. See Fifth HRS Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 79801 (unchanged in 
Fifth HRS Final Results).
    The GOI stated in its April QR that the Tata was not covered by 
this program. See April QR at 68. However, absent cooperation by Tata, 
we do not find that this statement constitutes complete and verifiable 
evidence, within the meaning of sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 
demonstrating that Tata or any of its affiliates did not benefit from 
this program during the POR. The Department has in the past stated that 
it cannot rely solely upon the government's statements to make a 
determination of non-use. See LWS from China. Therefore, we 
preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, that 
Tata used and benefitted from this program within the meaning of 
section 771(5)(E) of the Act. Furthermore, as AFA, we preliminarily 
find that Tata's use of the programs under the SEZ Act constitutes a 
financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone that is specific 
within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives section.''
20. SEZ Act: Exemption From the Central Sales Tax (CST)
    In the Fifth HRS Review, we found that under this program companies 
may be eligible for exemption from the 2 percent CST on inter-state 
purchases made by the SEZ unit. See Fifth HRS Preliminary Results, 73 
FR at 79798 (unchanged in Fifth HRS Final Results). The Department 
found, based on AFA, the company's use of the programs under the 2005 
SEZ Act constitutes a financial contribution that is specific within 
the meaning of sections 771(5)(D) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, 
respectively. Id.
    The GOI stated in its April QR that Tata was not covered by this 
program. See April QR at 68. However, absent cooperation by Tata, we do 
not find that this statement constitutes complete and verifiable 
evidence, within the meaning of sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 
demonstrating that Tata or any of its affiliates did not benefit from 
this program during the POR. The Department has in the past stated that 
it cannot rely solely upon the government's statements to make a 
determination of non-use. See LWS from China. Therefore, we 
preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, that 
Tata used and benefitted from this program within the meaning of 
section 771(5)(E) of the Act. Moreover, we preliminarily find, as AFA, 
the company's use of this program under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a 
financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone and is specific 
as an export subsidy within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 
771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in any segment of this proceeding. See Final Results 
of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government of 
Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
21. SEZ Act: Exemption From National Service Tax
    In the Fifth HRS Review, we found that under this program SEZ units 
are exempt from paying the national service tax of 12.36 percent. 
Therefore, a service provider to an SEZ unit is not required to pay the 
12.36 percent service tax on invoices issued to SEZ units. See Fifth 
HRS Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 79798 (unchanged in Fifth HRS Final

[[Page 1506]]

Results). The Department found, based on AFA, the company's use of the 
programs under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a financial contribution 
that is specific within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D) and 
771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively. Id.
    The GOI stated in its April QR that Tata was not covered by this 
program. See April QR at 68. However, absent cooperation by Tata, we do 
not find that this statement constitutes complete and verifiable 
evidence, within the meaning of sections 782(e)(3) and (2) of the Act, 
demonstrating that Tata or any of its affiliates did not benefit from 
this program during the POR. The Department has in the past stated that 
it cannot rely solely upon the government's statements to make a 
determination of non-use. See LWS from China. Therefore, we 
preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, that 
Tata used and benefitted from this program within the meaning of 
section 771(5)(E) of the Act. Moreover, we preliminarily find, as AFA, 
the company's use of this program under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a 
financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone and is specific 
as an export subsidy within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 
771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, this program, we 
are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in any segment of this proceeding. See Final Results 
of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government of 
Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
22. Duty Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC) Scheme
    The DFRC scheme was introduced by the GOI in 2001 and was 
administered by the Directorate General for Foreign Trade. The DFRC was 
a duty replenishment scheme that was available to exporters for the 
subsequent import of inputs used in the manufacture of goods without 
payment of basic customs duty. In order to receive a license, which 
entitled the recipient subsequently to import duty free certain inputs 
used in the production of the exported product, as identified in a 
SION, within the following 24 months, a company had to: (1) Export 
manufactured products listed in the GOI's export policy book and 
against which there is a SION for inputs required in the manufacture of 
the export product based on quantity; and (2) have realized the payment 
of export proceeds in the form of convertible foreign currency. The 
application was to be filed within six months of the realization of the 
profits. DFRC licenses were transferrable, yet the transferee was 
limited to importing only those products and in the quantities 
specified on the license.
    In the past, the Department has found that in order to receive a 
DFRC license, firms must demonstrate that they made an export sale by 
submitting proof of payment to the GOI in the form of a bank 
realization certificate. As such, we found that duty exemptions 
provided under the DFRC program were earned on a shipment-by-shipment 
basis and, therefore, were tied to particular products and markets 
within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.525(b)(4) and (5). Moreover, we 
determined that the sale of DFRC licenses and the sales proceeds 
conferred a benefit within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 
771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also determined that because the 
receipt of DFRC licenses are contingent upon exports, the DFRC program 
was specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. See 
Preliminary Determination of Lined Paper Investigation, unchanged in 
Final Determination of Lined Paper Investigation, and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Duty Free Replenishment Certificate 
(DFRC) Scheme.''
    The GOI claimed that the DFRC program was terminated as of May 1, 
2006, in accordance with paragraph 4.2.8 of Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 
for the year 2006-07. Moreover, the GOI claimed that no benefits 
accrued under this program during the POR. See GOI's April QR at 18 and 
Exhibit 7. With respect to residual benefits from this program, in the 
September 4, 2009 questionnaire response (September 4 QR) the GOI, 
citing to paragraph 4.2.8 of the FTP for the period September 1, 2004-
March 31, 2009, stated that any export made after April 30, 2006, is 
not eligible for benefits under the DFRC. See GOI's September 4, 2009 
QR at 4. However, because we have previously determined that DFRC 
licenses can be used 24 months after they were issued, firms that had 
qualifying exports on April 30, 2006, would have been eligible to use 
benefits under this program through at least April 30, 2008, which is 
covered by the POR. See Preliminary Determination of Lined Paper 
Investigation, unchanged in Final Determination of Lined Paper 
Investigation, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
``Duty Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC) Scheme.'' Without Tata's 
cooperation, we preliminarily find that the documentation provided by 
the GOI does not constitute complete and verifiable evidence, within 
the meaning of sections 782(c)(3)(2) of the Act, respectively, that 
Tata or any of its affiliates did not use DFRC licenses to import duty 
free inputs under this program during the period covered by this 
administrative review. Therefore, we preliminarily continue to find 
that the duty exemptions provided under the DFRC licenses provided 
countervailable subsidies during the POR.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 13.98 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis rate calculated for a 
similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme 
(DEPS)'' section.
23. Target Plus Scheme (TPS)
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department found that import duty 
exemptions under the TPS were countervailable. Specifically, the 
Department determined that a financial contribution, in the form of 
revenue forgone, as defined under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, was 
provided under program because the GOI provides credits for the future 
payment of import duties. In addition, we found that the TPS program 
provides a benefit because the GOI did not have in place and did not 
apply a system that was reasonable and effective for the purposes 
intended to confirm which inputs, and in what amounts, were consumed in 
the production of the exported products. Therefore, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.519(a)(4) and section 771(5)(E) of the Act, we determined 
that the entire amount of import duty exemption earned during the POR 
constitutes a benefit. Moreover, we determined that the program was 
specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because the program could 
only be used by exporters. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 
Review, 73 FR at 1590, found not used in the Final Results of Fourth 
HRS Review, and accompanying Final Results of Fourth HRS Review 
Decision Memorandum at ``Target Plus Scheme'' section and Comment 30.
    The GOI claimed that the TPS was terminated as of April 1, 2006, 
and reported that no benefits accrued under this program during the 
POR. See GOI's April QR at 59. In the GOI's September 4 QR, the GOI 
provided Notification No. 57 dated March 31, 2009, from the Directorate 
General for Foreign Trade

[[Page 1507]]

and, citing to this document, claimed that this document shows that the 
Target Plus Scheme has been abolished effective April 1, 2006. The GOI 
further claimed that this notice clearly states that the TPS has been 
abolished for exports from April 1, 2006, forward and that any export 
made after this date is not entitled to the benefits under this 
program. See GOI's September 4, 2009 QR at 5. However, we have 
insufficient information concerning the time period for which benefits 
may carry forward under this program. Furthermore, without Tata's 
cooperation, we preliminarily find that the documentation provided by 
the GOI does not constitute complete and verifiable evidence, within 
the meaning of sections 782(c)(3)(2) of the Act, respectively, that 
Tata or any of its affiliates did not use TPS credits to pay customs 
duty on imports of any inputs under this program during the POR.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 13.98 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis rate calculated for a 
similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme 
(DEPS)'' section.

B. Programs Administered by the State Government of Gujarat (SGOG)

1. State Government of Gujarat Tax Incentives: Sales Tax Exemptions of 
Purchases of Goods During the POR
    Pursuant to a 1995 Industrial Policy of Gujarat and an Incentive 
Policy of 1995-2000 (1995 IP), the SGOG offered incentives, such as 
sales tax exemptions and deferrals, to companies that locate or invest 
in certain disadvantaged or rural areas in the State of Gujarat. A 
company could be eligible to claim exemptions or deferrals valued up to 
90 percent of the total eligible capital investment. These policies 
exempt companies from paying sales tax on the purchases of raw 
materials, consumable stores, packing materials, and processing 
materials. Other available benefits include exemption from or deferment 
of sales tax and turnover tax on the sale of intermediate products, by-
products, and scrap. The Pioneer and Prestigious programs are the two 
programs that are available under this policy. To be eligible for the 
incentives, companies must have made a fixed capital investment of over 
five crores (Pioneer Scheme) or 300 crores (Prestigious Scheme) in a 
qualified under-developed area in the State of Gujarat. See Notice of 
Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 71 FR 1512, 
1514 (January 10, 2006) (Preliminary Results of Second HRC Review); see 
also the Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 71 FR 28665 
(May 17, 2006) and Final Results of Second HRS Review Decision 
Memorandum at ``State Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' 
section.
    The amount of the eligible capital investment is linked to the 
amount of the incentives received over a period of 8 to 14 years, 
depending on the category of participation. For the Pioneer Scheme, 
which initially began in 1986, companies making a capital investment 
during 1986 and 1991 were allowed to utilize this program. For the 
Prestigious Scheme, tax incentives were offered only for investment 
units which started production between 1990 and 1995. See Preliminary 
Results of Second HRC Review, 71 FRat 1514 and Final Results of Second 
HRC Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government of Gujarat (SGOG) 
Tax Incentives'' section.
    In the Final Determination of PET Resin Investigation, the 
Department determined that the sales tax exemptions under the 
Prestigious Scheme resulted in companies not paying the state sales tax 
otherwise due, and thus constituted a countervailable subsidy. See 
Final Determination of PET Resin, and the Final Results of the Fourth 
HRS Review, and Final Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum 
at the ``State of Gujarat (SOG) Sales Tax Incentive Scheme'' section. 
Consistent with our findings in the Final Determination of PET Resin, 
we determined in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review that this program 
was countervailable because it is limited to only those companies that 
make an investment in a specified disadvantaged area and is therefore 
specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. See Final Results of 
Fourth HRS Review. We also found in the Preliminary Results of Fourth 
HRS Review that the SGOG provides a financial contribution under 
section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act by foregoing the collection of sales 
tax revenue and that a company receives a benefit under section 
771(5)(E) of the Act in the amount of sales tax that it does not pay. 
See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1593 (unchanged 
in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). In the instant review, as AFA, 
we preliminarily continue to find the tax savings to the company under 
this program provides a financial contribution in the form of revenue 
forgone and is specific because it is limited to eligible companies 
investing in specified disadvantaged area within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act, respectively. 
Furthermore, we preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) 
of the Act, Tata used and benefitted from this program, within the 
meaning of 771(5)(E) of the Act. Pursuant to the AFA methodology 
described above, for this program, we are assigning a net subsidy rate 
of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which corresponds to the highest above de 
minimis subsidy rate calculated for this program in another segment of 
this proceeding. See Final Results of Second HRS Review Decision 
Memorandum at ``State Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' 
section.
2. State Government of Gujarat Tax Incentives: Deferrals on Purchases 
of Goods From Prior Years (as Well as Deferrals Granted During the POR
    As noted above, under the 1995 IP, the SGOG offered incentives, 
such as sales tax deferrals, to companies that locate or invest in 
certain disadvantaged or rural areas in the State of Gujarat.
    As explained above, the Department found this program 
countervailable under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because it was 
regionally specific. The Department also found that the SGOG provides a 
financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act by 
foregoing the collection of sales tax revenue and that a company 
receives a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act in the amount of 
sales tax that it does not pay. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 
Review, 73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS 
Review). In the instant review, as AFA, we preliminarily continue to 
find the tax savings to the company under this program provides a 
financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone and is specific 
because it is limited to eligible companies investing in specified 
disadvantaged area within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act, respectively. Furthermore, we preliminarily 
find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and 
benefitted from this program, within the meaning of 771(5)(E) of the 
Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
this program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final Results 
of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State

[[Page 1508]]

Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
3. State Government of Gujarat Tax Incentives: Value Added Tax (VAT) 
Program Established on April 1, 2006
    In the Fourth HRS Review, we found that the SGOG had established a 
VAT remission system on April 1, 2006 that remits VAT to eligible firms 
using the balance of tax incentives under the Prestigious Scheme 
another tax incentive program. This system remits VAT to eligible firms 
using the balance of tax incentives under the Prestigious Scheme that 
remained unutilized after the end of the 8- to 14-year time window 
allowed under the Prestigious Scheme. See Preliminary Results of Fourth 
HRS Review, 73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in the Final Results of Fourth HRS 
Review).
    The VAT remission system operates differently with respect to 
purchases and sales. For purchases within the State of Gujarat, 
eligible firms (i.e., firms with existing balances under the 
Prestigious Scheme) must pay full tax to the vendor. However, the tax 
paid is credited to the company in the form of an input tax credit to 
be refunded by the State Government. The SGOG then debits the refund 
received by the firm against the firm's remaining balance of tax 
credits leftover from the Prestigious System. Id.
    With respect to sales, a company is required to charge sales tax 
from its customers (both local VAT and central sales tax). However, the 
tax collected by the seller does not have to be paid to the SGOG, but 
instead can be retained through a remission order provided by the 
state's sales tax authorities. In such instances, the amount of sales 
tax retained by the firm is credited against the firm's remaining 
balance of tax credits leftover from the Prestigious Scheme. Id.
    In the Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, we determined that 
this VAT remission system was linked to the Prestigious Scheme, a 
countervailable program. Id. Moreover, because the source of the tax 
remissions received under the system comes from participating firms' 
unused tax credits under the Prestigious Scheme, we determined that 
these indirect tax remissions constituted a financial contribution, in 
the form of revenue forgone, under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and 
are regionally specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. We 
further determined that these indirect tax remissions conferred a 
benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.510(a)(1) 
because they enabled participating firms to pay less indirect taxes 
than they would have to pay absent the system. Id. In the instant 
review, as AFA, we preliminarily continue to find the tax savings to 
the company under this program provides a financial contribution in the 
form of revenue forgone and is specific because it is limited to 
eligible companies investing in specified disadvantaged area within the 
meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act, 
respectively. Furthermore, we preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and benefitted from this program, 
within the meaning of 771(5)(E) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning to the VAT remission scheme program, a net subsidy 
rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which corresponds to the highest above 
de minimis subsidy rate calculated for the same program in another 
segment of this proceeding. See Final Results of Second HRS Review 
Decision Memorandum at ``State Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax 
Incentives'' section.
4. Gujarat Special Economic Zone Act (SGOG SEZ Act): Stamp Duty and 
Registration Fees for Land Transfers, Loan Agreements, Credit Deeds, 
and Mortgages
    In the Fifth HRS Preliminary Results, the Department found that 
under the SGOG SEZ act, the respondent firm was not required to pay the 
registration charge on leased land from the SEZ Developer nor the stamp 
duty on the lease rental. See Fifth HRS Preliminary Results (unchanged 
in Fifth HRS Final Results. The Department found, based on AFA, the 
company's use of the programs under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a 
financial contribution that is specific within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively. Furthermore, we 
found that the exemption on registration charges and stamp duties 
confer a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act. Id. In the instant 
review, we preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, that Tata used and benefitted from this program within the 
meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act. Moreover, we preliminarily 
find, as AFA, the company's use of this program under the 2005 SEZ Act 
constitutes a financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone and 
is specific as an export subsidy within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
5. Gujarat Special Economic Zone Act (SGOG SEZ Act): Sales Tax, 
Purchase Tax, and Other Taxes Payable on Sales and Transactions
    In the Preliminary Results of Fifth HRS Review, the Department 
found that under the SGOG SEZ Act, inputs purchased by SEZ units from 
within the State of Gujarat are exempted from payment of sales tax. See 
Fifth HRS Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 79799 (unchanged in of Fifth 
HRS Final Results). The Department found, based on AFA, the company's 
use of the programs under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a financial 
contribution that is specific within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively. Furthermore, we found that 
sales tax exemptions received by the company confer a benefit under 
section 771(5)(E) of the Act. Id. In the instant review, we 
preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, that 
Tata used and benefitted from this program within the meaning of 
section 771(5)(E) of the Act. Moreover, we preliminarily find, as AFA, 
the company's use of this program under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a 
financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone and is specific 
as an export subsidy within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 
771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in any segment of this proceeding. See Final Results 
of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government of 
Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
6. Gujarat Special Economic Zone Act (SGOG SEZ Act): Sales and Other 
State Taxes on Purchases of Inputs (Both Goods and Services) for the 
SEZ or a Unit Within the SEZ
    In the Fifth HRS Preliminary Results, the Department found that 
under the SGOG SEZ act, the two percent CST charged on goods and 
services procured by SEZ units from states other than Gujarat is 
exempted when those goods and services are supplied to SEZ units. See 
Fifth HRS Preliminary Results, 73

[[Page 1509]]

FR at 79799 (unchanged in Fifth HRS Final Results). The Department 
found, based on AFA, the company's use of the programs under the 2005 
SEZ Act constitutes a financial contribution that is specific within 
the meaning of sections 771(5)(D) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act, 
respectively. Furthermore, we found that the company's receipt of sales 
tax exemptions on inter-state purchases confer a benefit under section 
771(5)(E) of the Act. Id. In the instant review, we preliminarily find, 
as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, that Tata used and 
benefitted from this program within the meaning of section 771(5)(E) of 
the Act. Moreover, we preliminarily find, as AFA, the company's use of 
this program under the 2005 SEZ Act constitutes a financial 
contribution in the form of revenue forgone and is specific as an 
export subsidy within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 
771(5A)(B) of the Act, respectively.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.

C. Programs Administered by the State Government of Maharashtra (SGOM)

1. Sales Tax Program
    In the Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, the Department 
found that sales tax exemptions, deferrals, and sales tax loans, in the 
form of interest-free loans, were provided under the SGOM's sales tax 
program. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1595 
(unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). The Department found 
that the benefits provided under the program are specific under section 
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because they are limited to only those 
companies that make an investment in a specified developing area. We 
further found that the program constitutes a financial contribution 
under section 771(D)(ii) of the Act by foregoing the collection of 
sales taxes and, in the case of sales tax deferrals, in the form of 
uncollected interest on the deferred sales taxes. We also found that 
the sales tax program confers a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the 
Act: (1) In the amount of sales tax that it does not pay; (2) in the 
case of sales tax deferrals, in the amount of interest otherwise due; 
and (3) in the case of sales tax loans, in the form of interest-free 
loans. Id. In the instant review, as AFA, we preliminarily continue to 
find the tax savings to the company under this program provides a 
financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone and is specific 
because it is limited to only those companies investing in a specified 
developing area within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act, respectively. Furthermore, we preliminarily 
find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and 
benefitted from this program, within the meaning of 771(5)(E) of the 
Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 0.59 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
the same program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Maharashtra (SGOM) Programs Sales Tax Program'' section.
2. VAT Tax Refunds Under the SGOM Package Scheme of Incentives and the 
Maharashtra New Package Scheme of Incentives
    In the Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, the Department 
found that under the Maharashtra Package Scheme of Incentives and the 
Maharashtra New Package Scheme of Incentives, the SGOM offered tax 
incentives including VAT tax refunds to companies that located or 
invested in certain developing areas in the State of Maharashtra. See 
Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1595 (unchanged in 
Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). The Department found that the 
benefits provided under the program are specific under section 
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because they are limited to only those 
companies that make an investment in a specified developing area. We 
further found that the program constitutes a financial contribution 
under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act by forgoing the collection of 
sales taxes. Id. In the Final Results of Fourth HRS Review, the 
Department found that the amount of refunds claimed by the company were 
not excessive during the POR and did not constitute a benefit. However, 
the Department stated that it would continue to examine this program in 
future reviews. See Final Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision 
Memorandum at ``State Government of Maharashtra Program'' section. In 
the instant review, as AFA, we preliminarily continue to find the tax 
savings to the company under this program provide a financial 
contribution in the form of revenue forgone and are specific because 
they are limited to only those companies investing in a specified 
developing area within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act, respectively. Furthermore, as explained 
above, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily 
find that Tata used and benefitted from this program during the POR.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
3. Electricity Duty Exemption Under the Package Scheme of Incentives 
for 1993
    In the Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, the Department 
determined that electricity duty exemptions received under the Package 
Scheme of Incentives of 1993 are countervailable. Specifically, we 
determined that the exemptions are regionally specific under section 
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because they are limited to companies that 
make investments in a specified development area. See Preliminary 
Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1596 (unchanged in Final Results 
of Fourth HRS Review). We further determined that the exemptions 
constitute a financial contribution, in the form of revenue forgone, 
and a benefit equal to the amount of unpaid duties within the meaning 
of sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. Id. 
No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been 
submitted in this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of this 
finding. Therefore, in the instant review, we preliminarily continue to 
find the electricity duty exemptions to the company under this program 
provide a financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone and are 
regionally specific within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act, respectively. Furthermore, as explained 
above, we preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act, Tata used and benefitted from this program, within the meaning of 
771(5)(E) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09

[[Page 1510]]

percent ad valorem, which corresponds to the highest above de minimis 
subsidy rate calculated for a similar program in another segment of 
this proceeding. See Final Results of Second HRS Review Decision 
Memorandum at ``State Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' 
section.
4. Refunds of Octroi Under the PSI of 1993, Maharashtra Industrial 
Policy (MIP of 2001), and Maharashtra Industrial Policy (MIP of 2006)
    In the 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, the Department found that the Octroi 
Refund Scheme is a program under the SGOM's package of incentives, in 
which 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. See 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, 66 FR 53390, 53396 (October 22, 2001). 
In the Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) from 
India, the Department found that the Octroi Refund Scheme is specific 
within the meaning of 771(5A)(D)(i) because it is limited to certain 
privately-owned industries located within designated geographical 
regions. See Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET 
Film) from India, 67 FR 34905 (May 16, 2002) (Final Determination PET 
Film) and PET Film Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Octroi Refund 
Scheme'' section. We also found that a financial contribution was 
provided under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Id. In the instant 
review, we preliminarily continue to find the indirect tax savings to 
the company under this program provide a financial contribution in the 
form of revenue forgone and are regionally specific within the meaning 
of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act, respectively. 
Furthermore, we preliminarily find, as AFA, pursuant to section 776(b) 
of the Act, Tata used and benefitted from this program, within the 
meaning of 771(5)(E) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
5. Loan Guarantees Based on Octroi Refunds by SGOM
    In the Final Determination PET Film, the Department found that 
certain long-term loans had been secured on the future payment of the 
Octroi refund due to the respondent company. We found that the loan 
guarantee was specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) and 
(iv) of the Act because the company was only to receive the loan 
guarantee because of its eligibility for the Octroi Refund Scheme, 
which is limited to certain privately-owned industries located within 
designated geographical regions. We also found that the SGOM and the 
administering authority the State Industrial and Investment Corporation 
of Maharashtra Limited (SICOM) provided a financial contribution under 
section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act through the potential direct transfer 
of the Octroi refund to pay the company's loans. See Final 
Determination PET Film, and PET Film Investigation Decision Memorandum 
at ``Octroi Refund Scheme'' section. No new information or evidence of 
changed circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to warrant 
reconsideration of this finding. In the instant review, as AFA, we 
preliminarily continue to find, that the SGOM's loan guarantees under 
this program provide a financial contribution within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(i) through a potential direct transfer of the Octroi 
refund to pay off loans. We also preliminarily find, as AFA, these loan 
guarantees are specific within the meaning of 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the 
Act because only companies eligible for the Octroi scheme can receive 
these loan guarantees. Moreover, we preliminarily find, as AFA, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, Tata used and benefitted from 
this program, within the meaning of 771(5)(E)(iii) of the Act, in the 
form of the difference in the amount the firm paid on the guaranteed 
loan and the amount the firm would pay for a comparable loan if there 
were no government guarantee.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 1.32 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Pre- and Post-Shipment Export 
Financing'' section.
6. Infrastructure Assistance for Mega Projects
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the Maharashtra Industrial Policy (MIP) of 2006, 
firms investing in what the SGOM deems are Mega Projects are eligible 
to receive infrastructure subsidies. The Department also investigated 
whether the SGOM has been providing infrastructure subsidies in the 
form of tax programs and grants to firms investing in Mega Projects in 
years prior to the enactment of the MIP of 2006. However, the 
Department found that the program was not used during the POR. See 
Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 
Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As explained above, as AFA, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 
used and benefitted from this program during the POR. Furthermore, 
based on AFA, we preliminarily determine that Tata's use of this 
program constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a direct 
transfer of funds and a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act. We also preliminarily find based 
on AFA that the program is limited to firms investing in Mega-Projects 
and, therefore, is specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) 
of the Act. See Memorandum regarding New Subsidy Allegations for Ispat 
Industries Limited (Ispat) dated September 14, 2007 (Ispat's New 
Subsidy Allegations Memo) at ``Infrastructure Subsidies to Mega 
Projects'' section on file in the Central Records Unit.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning net subsidy rates of 3.09 and 6.06 percent ad valorem, 
which correspond to the highest above de minimis subsidy rates 
calculated for similar programs in another segment of this proceeding. 
See Final Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State 
Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section and HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``The GOI's Forgiveness of SDF 
Loans to SAIL'' section.

[[Page 1511]]

7. Land for Less Than Adequate Remuneration
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether the SGOM encourages development outside of the Bombay and 
Pune metropolitan areas by offering low-cost land. However, the 
Department found that the program was not used during the POR. See 
Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 
Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As explained above, as AFA, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 
used and benefitted from this program during the POR. Furthermore, 
based on AFA, we preliminarily determine that Tata's use of this 
program constitutes a financial contribution in the form of land sold 
for LTAR and confers a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5)(E)(iv). We also preliminarily find, based on 
AFA, that the program is limited to enterprises purchasing land outside 
of the Bombay and Pune area, and therefore, is specific within the 
meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. See Ispat's New Subsidy 
Allegations Memo at ``Land for Less than Adequate Remuneration'' 
section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Captive Mining 
Rights of Iron Ore'' section.
8. Investment Subsidy
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether the SGOM provided investment subsidies to firms in the 
state of Maharashtra. However, the Department found that the program 
was not used during the POR. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS 
Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS 
Review). As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that Tata's use of this program constitutes a financial 
contribution in the form of a direct transfer of funds and a benefit 
within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, 
respectively. We also preliminarily find, based on AFA, that the 
program is limited to firms operating outside of the Bombay and Pune 
metropolitan areas and thus, is specific within the meaning of section 
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. See Ispat's New Subsidy Allegations Memo at 
``Investment Subsidy'' section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL'' section.

D. Programs Administered by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh 
(SGAP)

1. Grant Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy of 2005-2010 
(Andhra Pradesh IP): 25 Percent Reimbursement of Cost of Land in 
Industrial Estates and Industrial Development Areas
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the Andhra Pradesh IP, companies from eligible 
industries which construct new facilities or substantially expand 
existing facilities and begin commercial production on or after April 
1, 2005, may receive certain subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 
Department found that the program was not used during the POR. See 
Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 
Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As explained above, as AFA 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 
used and benefitted from this program during the POR. Furthermore, 
based on AFA, we preliminarily determine that this program constitutes 
a financial contribution in the form of a direct transfer of funds, and 
a benefit within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of 
the Act, respectively. We also preliminarily find, based on AFA, that 
the SGAP limits the grants under its Industrial Policy program to a 
limited number of industries operating mega projects and therefore, is 
specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. See 
Memorandum regarding New Subsidy Allegations for Essar Steel Limited 
dated October 4, 2007 (Essar's New Subsidy Allegation Memo) at ``GAP 
Grants, Tax Programs and other Subsidies Under the Industrial 
Investment Promotion Policy 2005-2010 (GOAP Industrial Policy)'' 
section on file in the CRU.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL'' section.
2. Grant Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy of 2005-2010 
(Andhra Pradesh IP): 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 SGAP
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the Andhra Pradesh IP, companies from eligible 
industries which construct new facilities or substantially expand 
existing facilities and begin commercial production on or after April 
1, 2005, may receive certain subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 
Department found that the program was not used during the POR. See 
Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 
Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As explained above, as AFA 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 
used and benefitted from this program during the POR. Furthermore, 
based on AFA, we preliminarily determine that this program constitutes 
a financial contribution in the form of a direct transfer of funds, and 
a benefit within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of 
the Act, respectively. We also preliminarily find, based on AFA, that 
the SGAP limits the grants under its Industrial Policy program to a 
limited number of industries operating mega projects and therefore, is 
specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. See 
Essar's New Subsidy Allegation Memo at ``GAP Grants, Tax Programs and 
other Subsidies Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 2005-
2010 (GOAP Industrial Policy)'' section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL'' section.

[[Page 1512]]

3. Grant Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy of 2005-2010 
(Andhra Pradesh IP): 50 Percent Subsidy for Expenses Incurred for 
Quality Certification up to Rs. 100 Lakhs
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the Andhra Pradesh IP, companies from eligible 
industries which construct new facilities or substantially expand 
existing facilities and begin commercial production on or after April 
1, 2005, may receive certain subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 
Department found that the program was not used during the POR. See 
Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 
Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As explained above, as AFA 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 
used and benefitted from this program during the POR. Furthermore, 
based on AFA, we preliminarily determine that this program constitutes 
a financial contribution in the form of a direct transfer of funds, and 
a benefit within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of 
the Act, respectively. We also preliminarily find, based on AFA, that 
the SGAP limits the grants under its Industrial Policy program to a 
limited number of industries operating mega projects and therefore, is 
specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. See 
Essar's New Subsidy Allegation Memo at ``GAP Grants, Tax Programs and 
other Subsidies Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 2005-
2010 (GOAP Industrial Policy)'' section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL'' section.
4. Grant Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy of 2005-2010 
(Andhra Pradesh IP): A 25 Percent Subsidy on Cleaner Production 
Measures up to Rs. 5 Lakhs
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the Andhra Pradesh IP, companies from eligible 
industries which construct new facilities or substantially expand 
existing facilities and begin commercial production on or after April 
1, 2005, may receive certain subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 
Department found that the program was not used during the POR. See 
Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 
Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As explained above, as AFA 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 
used and benefitted from this program during the POR. Furthermore, 
based on AFA, we preliminarily determine that this program constitutes 
a financial contribution in the form of a direct transfer of funds, and 
a benefit within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of 
the Act, respectively. We also preliminarily find, based on AFA, that 
the SGAP limits the grants under its Industrial Policy program to a 
limited number of industries operating mega projects and therefore, is 
specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. See 
Essar's New Subsidy Allegation Memo at ``GAP Grants, Tax Programs and 
other Subsidies Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 2005-
2010 (GOAP Industrial Policy)'' section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL'' section.
5. Grant Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy of 2005-2010 
(Andhra Pradesh IP): A 50 Percent Subsidy on Expenses Incurred in 
Patent Registration, up to Rs. 5 Lakhs
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the Andhra Pradesh IP, companies from eligible 
industries which construct new facilities or substantially expand 
existing facilities and begin commercial production on or after April 
1, 2005, may receive certain subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 
Department found that the program was not used during the POR. See 
Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 
Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As explained above, as AFA 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 
used and benefitted from this program during the POR. Furthermore, 
based on AFA, we preliminarily determine that this program constitutes 
a financial contribution in the form of a direct transfer of funds, and 
a benefit within the meaning of 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, 
respectively. We also preliminarily find, based on AFA, that the SGAP 
limits the grants under its Industrial Policy program to a limited 
number of industries operating mega projects and therefore, is specific 
within the meaning of 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. See Essar's New Subsidy 
Allegation Memo at ``GAP Grants, Tax Programs and other Subsidies Under 
the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 2005-2010 (GOAP Industrial 
Policy)'' section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL'' section.
6. Tax Incentives Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy of 
2005-2010 (Andhra Pradesh IP): 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
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the Andhra Pradesh IP, companies from eligible 
industries which construct new facilities or substantially expand 
existing facilities and begin commercial production on or after April 
1, 2005, may receive certain subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 
Department found that the program was not used during the POR. See 
Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 
Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As explained above, as AFA 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 
used and benefitted from this program during the POR. Furthermore, 
based on AFA, we preliminarily determine that this program constitutes 
a financial contribution in the form of a revenue forgone, and a 
benefit within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of 
the Act, respectively. We also preliminarily find, based on AFA, that 
the SGAP limits the indirect tax benefits under its Industrial Policy 
program to a limited number of industries operating mega projects and 
therefore, is specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of 
the Act. See Essar's New Subsidy Allegation Memo at ``GAP Grants, Tax 
Programs and other Subsidies Under the Industrial Investment Promotion 
Policy 2005-2010 (GOAP Industrial Policy)'' section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we

[[Page 1513]]

are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
this program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final Results 
of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government of 
Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
7. Tax Incentives Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy of 
2005-2010 (Andhra Pradesh IP): A Grant of 25 Percent of the Tax Paid to 
SGAP, 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
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the Andhra Pradesh IP, companies from eligible 
industries which construct new facilities or substantially expand 
existing facilities and begin commercial production on or after April 
1, 2005, may receive certain subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 
Department found that the program was not used during the POR. See 
Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 
Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As explained above, as AFA 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 
used and benefitted from this program during the POR. Furthermore, 
based on AFA, we preliminarily determine that this program constitutes 
a financial contribution in the form of a revenue forgone, and a 
benefit within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of 
the Act, respectively. We also preliminarily find, based on AFA, that 
the SGAP limits the indirect tax benefits under its Industrial Policy 
program to a limited number of industries operating mega projects and 
therefore, is specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of 
the Act. See Essar's New Subsidy Allegation Memo at ``GAP Grants, Tax 
Programs and other Subsidies Under the Industrial Investment Promotion 
Policy 2005-2010 (GOAP Industrial Policy)'' section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
8. Tax Incentives Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy of 
2005-2010 (Andhra Pradesh IP): Exemption From the SGAP Non-Agricultural 
Land Assessment (NALA)
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the Andhra Pradesh IP, companies from eligible 
industries which construct new facilities or substantially expand 
existing facilities and begin commercial production on or after April 
1, 2005, may receive certain subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 
Department found that the program was not used during the POR. See 
Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at1598 (unchanged in 
Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As explained above, as AFA 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 
used and benefitted from this program during the POR. Furthermore, 
based on AFA, we preliminarily determine that this program constitutes 
a financial contribution in the form of a revenue forgone, and a 
benefit within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of 
the Act, respectively. We also preliminarily find, based on AFA, that 
the SGAP limits the indirect tax benefits under its Industrial Policy 
program to a limited number of industries operating mega projects and 
therefore, is specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of 
the Act. See Essar's New Subsidy Allegation Memo at ``GAP Grants, Tax 
Programs and other Subsidies Under the Industrial Investment Promotion 
Policy 2005-2010 (GOAP Industrial Policy)'' section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
this program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final Results 
of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government of 
Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
9. Provision of Goods/Services for Less Than Adequate Remuneration 
Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy of 2005-2010 (Andhra 
Pradesh IP): Provision of Infrastructure for Industries Located More 
Than 10 Kilometers From Existing Industrial Estates or Industrial 
Development Areas
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the Andhra Pradesh IP, companies from eligible 
industries which construct new facilities or substantially expand 
existing facilities and begin commercial production on or after April 
1, 2005, may receive certain subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 
Department found that the program was not used during the POR. See 
Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at1598 (unchanged in 
Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As explained above, as AFA 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 
used and benefitted from this program during the POR. Furthermore, 
based on AFA, we preliminarily determine that this program constitutes 
a financial contribution in the form of a provision of a good, and a 
benefit within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5)(E) of 
the Act, respectively. We also preliminarily find, based on AFA, that 
the SGAP limits the provision of infrastructure under this program to a 
limited number of industries operating mega projects, and therefore, is 
specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. See 
Essar's New Subsidy Allegation Memo at ``GAP Grants, Tax Programs and 
other Subsidies Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 2005-
2010 (GOAP Industrial Policy)'' section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
this program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final Results 
of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Captive Mining of Iron 
Ore'' section.
10. Provision of Goods/Services for Less Than Adequate Remuneration 
Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy of 2005-2010 (Andhra 
Pradesh IP): 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
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the Andhra Pradesh IP, companies from eligible 
industries which construct new facilities or substantially expand 
existing facilities and begin commercial production on or after April 
1, 2005, may receive certain subsidies from the SGAP. However, the 
Department found that the program was not used during the POR. See 
Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in 
Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As explained above, as AFA 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata 
used and benefitted from this program during the

[[Page 1514]]

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily determine that this 
program constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a provision 
of a good, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(iii) 
and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also preliminarily find, 
based on AFA, that the SGAP limits the provision of municipal water at 
guaranteed stable prices under its Industrial Policy program to a 
limited number of industries operating mega projects and therefore, is 
specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. See 
Essar's New Subsidy Allegation Memo at ``GAP Grants, Tax Programs and 
other Subsidies Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 2005-
2010 (GOAP Industrial Policy)'' section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Captive Mining of 
Iron Ore'' section.

E. Programs Administered by the State Government of Chhattisgarh (SGOC)

1. Grant Under the Industrial Policy 2004-2009 (Chhattisgarh Industrial 
Policy): A Direct Subsidy of 35 Percent of 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
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the Chhattisgarh Industrial Policy (CIP), companies 
from eligible industries which construct new facilities or 
substantially expand existing facilities in most backward scheduled 
tribe dominated areas and begin commercial production between November 
1, 2004 and October 31, 2009, may receive certain subsidies from the 
SGOC. However, the Department found that the program was not used 
during the POR. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 
1598 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). As explained 
above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily 
find that Tata used and benefitted from this program during the POR. 
Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily determine that this program 
constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a direct transfer 
of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 
771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also preliminarily find, based 
on AFA, that the SGOC limits eligibility under its Industrial Policy 
program to certain industries located in certain areas of Chhattisgarh, 
and therefore, is specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) 
and (iv) of the Act. See Essar's New Subsidy Allegation Memo at ``State 
Government of Chhattusgarh (GOC) Benefits Under the Industrial 
Investment Promotion Policy 2004-2009 (GOC Industrial Policy)'' 
section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL'' section.
2. Grant Under the Industrial Policy 2004-2009 (Chhattisgarh Industrial 
Policy): 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
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the CIP, companies from eligible industries which 
construct new facilities or substantially expand existing facilities in 
most backward scheduled tribe dominated areas and begin commercial 
production between November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2009, may receive 
certain subsidies from the SGOC. However, the Department found that the 
program was not used during the POR. See Preliminary Results of Fourth 
HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS 
Review). As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, that the SGOC limits eligibility 
under its Industrial Policy program to certain industries located in 
certain areas of Chhattisgarh, and therefore, is specific within the 
meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Act. See Essar's New 
Subsidy Allegation Memo at ``State Government of Chhattusgarh (GOC) 
Benefits Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 2004-2009 
(GOC Industrial Policy)'' section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL'' section.
3. Grant Under the Industrial Policy 2004-2009 (Chhattisgarh Industrial 
Policy): Reimbursement of 50 Percent of Expenses (up to Rs. 75,000) 
Incurred for Quality Certification
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the CIP, companies from eligible industries which 
construct new facilities or substantially expand existing facilities in 
most backward scheduled tribe dominated areas and begin commercial 
production between November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2009, may receive 
certain subsidies from the SGOC. However, the Department found that the 
program was not used during the POR. See Preliminary Results of Fourth 
HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS 
Review). As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, that the SGOC limits eligibility 
under its Industrial Policy program to certain industries located in 
certain areas of Chhattisgarh, and therefore, is specific within the 
meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Act. See Essar's New 
Subsidy Allegation Memo at ``State Government of Chhattusgarh (GOC) 
Benefits Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 2004-2009 
(GOC Industrial Policy)'' section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL'' section.

[[Page 1515]]

4. Grant Under the Industrial Policy 2004-2009 (Chhattisgarh Industrial 
Policy): Reimbursement of 50 Percent of Expenses (up to Rs. 5 Lakh) for 
Obtaining Patents
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the CIP, companies from eligible industries which 
construct new facilities or substantially expand existing facilities in 
most backward scheduled tribe dominated areas and begin commercial 
production between November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2009, may receive 
certain subsidies from the SGOC. However, the Department found that the 
program was not used during the POR. See Preliminary Results of Fourth 
HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS 
Review). As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, that the SGOC limits eligibility 
under its Industrial Policy program to certain industries located in 
certain areas of Chhattisgarh, and therefore, is specific within the 
meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Act. See Essar's New 
Subsidy Allegation Memo at ``State Government of Chhattusgarh (GOC) 
Benefits Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 2004-2009 
(GOC Industrial Policy)'' section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL'' section.
5. Tax Incentives Under the Industrial Policy 2004-2009 (Chhattisgarh 
Industrial Policy): Total Exemption From Electricity Duties for a 
Period of 15 Years From the Date of Commencement of Commercial 
Production
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the CIP, companies from eligible industries which 
construct new facilities or substantially expand existing facilities in 
most backward scheduled tribe dominated areas and begin commercial 
production between November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2009, may receive 
certain subsidies from the SGOC. However, the Department found that the 
program was not used during the POR. See Preliminary Results of Fourth 
HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS 
Review). As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a revenue forgone, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, that the SGOC limits eligibility 
under its Industrial Policy program to certain industries located in 
certain areas of Chhattisgarh, and therefore, is specific within the 
meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Act. See Essar's New 
Subsidy Allegation Memo at ``State Government of Chhattusgarh (GOC) 
Benefits Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 2004-2009 
(GOC Industrial Policy)'' section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
6. Tax Incentives Under the Industrial Policy 2004-2009 (Chhattisgarh 
Industrial Policy): 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
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the CIP, companies from eligible industries which 
construct new facilities or substantially expand existing facilities in 
most backward scheduled tribe dominated areas and begin commercial 
production between November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2009, may receive 
certain subsidies from the SGOC. However, the Department found that the 
program was not used during the POR. See Preliminary Results of Fourth 
HRS Review, 73 FR at1598 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS 
Review). As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a revenue forgone, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, that the SGOC limits eligibility 
under its Industrial Policy program to certain industries located in 
certain areas of Chhattisgarh, and therefore, is specific within the 
meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Act. See Essar's New 
Subsidy Allegation Memo at ``State Government of Chhattusgarh (GOC) 
Benefits Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 2004-2009 
(GOC Industrial Policy)'' section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
7. Tax Incentives Under the Industrial Policy 2004-2009 (Chhattisgarh 
Industrial Policy): Exemption From Payment of Entry Tax for 7 Years 
(Excluding Minerals Obtained From Mining in the State)
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the CIP, companies from eligible industries which 
construct new facilities or substantially expand existing facilities in 
most backward scheduled tribe dominated areas and begin commercial 
production between November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2009, may receive 
certain subsidies from the SGOC. However, the Department found that the 
program was not used during the POR. See Preliminary Results of Fourth 
HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS 
Review). As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a revenue forgone, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, that the SGOC limits eligibility 
under its Industrial Policy program to certain industries located in 
certain areas of

[[Page 1516]]

Chhattisgarh, and therefore, is specific within the meaning of section 
771(5A)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Act. See Essar's New Subsidy Allegation 
Memo at ``State Government of Chhattusgarh (GOC) Benefits Under the 
Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 2004-2009 (GOC Industrial 
Policy)'' section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
8. Tax Incentives Under the Industrial Policy 2004-2009 (Chhattisgarh 
Industrial Policy): A 50 Percent Reduction of the Service Charges for 
Acquisition of Private Land by Chhattisgarh Industrial Development 
Corporation for Use by the Company
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the CIP, companies from eligible industries which 
construct new facilities or substantially expand existing facilities in 
most backward scheduled tribe dominated areas and begin commercial 
production between November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2009, may receive 
certain subsidies from the SGOC. However, the Department found that the 
program was not used during the POR. See Preliminary Results of Fourth 
HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS 
Review). As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a revenue forgone, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, that the SGOC limits eligibility 
under its Industrial Policy program to certain industries located in 
certain areas of Chhattisgarh, and therefore, is specific within the 
meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Act. See Essar's New 
Subsidy Allegation Memo at ``State Government of Chhattusgarh (GOC) 
Benefits Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 2004-2009 
(GOC Industrial Policy)'' section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
9. Land for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR) Under the Industrial 
Policy 2004-2009 (Chhattisgarh Industrial Policy)
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the CIP, companies from eligible industries which 
construct new facilities or substantially expand existing facilities in 
most backward scheduled tribe dominated areas and begin commercial 
production between November 1, 2004 and October 31, 2009, may receive 
certain subsidies from the SGOC. However, the Department found that the 
program was not used during the POR. See Preliminary Results of Fourth 
HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS 
Review). As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a provision of a good, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, that the SGOC limits eligibility 
under its Industrial Policy program to certain industries located in 
certain areas of Chhattisgarh, and therefore, is specific within the 
meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) and (iv) of the Act. See Essar's New 
Subsidy Allegation Memo at ``State Government of Chhattusgarh (GOC) 
Benefits Under the Industrial Investment Promotion Policy 2004-2009 
(GOC Industrial Policy)'' section.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
this program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final Results 
of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Captive Mining of Iron 
Ore'' section.

F. Programs Administered by the State Government of Jharkhand (SGOJ)

1. Tax Incentives Under the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 
2001: Exemption of Electricity Duty
    Under clause 15.2.2 of the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy (JSIP) 
of 2001, the SGOJ encourages the private sector in setting up of 
Captive Power Generation Plants. This program allows large industrial 
unit, consortium of industrial enterprises in growth centers, or 
industrial areas to set up power generating units as well as take over 
distribution of power in such industrial complexes. This captive power 
generation and purchase is exempted from electricity duty for a period 
of ten years from the date of commercial production. See GOI's April 
QR, Annex 30 at 15.
    As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 
we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this program 
during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily determine 
that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a 
revenue forgone, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, that the program is limited to 
certain industries and, therefore, is specific within the meaning of 
section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
2. Tax Incentives Under the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 
2001: Offset of Jharkhand Sales Tax (JST)
    Under clause 28 of the JSIP of 2001, new industrial units, as well 
as existing units which are not using any facility of tax-deferment, 
tax-free purchases or tax-free sales under any earlier notification, 
are allowed to opt for an offset of Jharkhand Sales Tax (JST) paid on 
the purchases of raw materials, within the State of Jharkhand only 
against transfer or consignment sale outside the state, of finished 
products made out from such raw materials subject to a limitation of 
six months or the same financial year from the date of purchase of such 
raw materials. See April QR at 87 and Annex 30 at 27.
    As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 
we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this program 
during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily determine 
that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the form of 
revenue

[[Page 1517]]

forgone, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 
771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also preliminarily find, based 
on AFA, that the program is limited to certain industries and, 
therefore, is specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of 
the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
3. Grants Under the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 2001: 
Capital Investment Incentive
    Under clause 29.3 of the JSIP of 2001, a capital investment 
incentive may be provided only to small and medium scale industries. 
According to Annexure 1, Entry No. 19 and 11 of the JSIP states that 
small and medium industries would be defined by the GOI. Pursuant to 
the terms of S.O. 1642(E) dated September 29, 2006, issued by the GOI, 
a small industry is one where the investment in plant and machinery is 
more than Rs. 2.5 million but does not exceed Rs. 50 million; a medium 
industry is one where the investment in plant and machinery is more 
than Rs. 50 million but does not exceed Rs. 100 million. See GOI's 
April QR at 87-88 and Annex 30 at 28.
    As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 
we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this program 
during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily determine 
that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a 
direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, that the program is limited to 
certain industries and, therefore, is specific within the meaning of 
section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL'' section.
4. Grants Under the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 2001: 
Capital Power Generating Subsidy
    Under clause 29.4 of the JSIP of 2001, a capital power generating 
subsidy may be provided to new industries. According to Annexure 1, 
Entry No. 4 of the JSIP, a new industrial unit is a unit that has come 
into commercial production after November 15, 2000. See GOI's April QR 
at 88 and Annex 30 at 28.
    As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 
we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this program 
during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily determine 
that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a 
direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, that the program is limited to 
certain industries and, therefore, is specific within the meaning of 
section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL'' section.
5. Grants Under the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 2001: 
Interest Subsidy
    Under clause 29.5 of the JSIP of 2001, an interest subsidy may be 
provided to new industries. According to Annexure 1, Entry No. 4 of the 
JSIP, a new industrial unit is a unit that has come into commercial 
production after November 15, 2000. See GOI's April QR at 88 and Annex 
30 at 28.
    As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 
we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this program 
during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily determine 
that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a 
direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, that the program is limited to 
certain industries and, therefore, is specific within the meaning of 
section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL'' section.
6. Tax Incentives Under the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 
2001: Stamp Duty and Registration
    Under clause 29.6 of the JSIP program of 2001, exemption from 
payment of 50 percent of stamp duty and registration fees upon 
registration of documents within the State of Jharkhand relating to the 
purchase or acquisition of land and buildings are provided for setting 
up a new unit. See GOI's April QR at 88 and Annex 30 at 29.
    As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 
we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this program 
during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily determine 
that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a 
revenue forgone, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, that the program is limited to 
certain industries and, therefore, is specific within the meaning of 
section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
7. Grants Under the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 2001: 
Feasibility Study and Project Report Cost Reimbursement
    Under clause 29.8 of the JSIP of 2001, 50 percent of the 
feasibility study and project report cost incurred by industrial units 
will be reimbursed subject to a maximum of Rs. 50,000 provided the 
report is prepared by a recognized consultant drawn from duly approved 
panel by the Industries Department. This reimbursement will be 
admissible after the commencement of commercial production. See GOI's 
April QR at 88 and Annex 30 at 29.
    As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 
we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this program 
during the

[[Page 1518]]

POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily determine that this 
program constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a direct 
transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, that the program is limited to 
certain industries and, therefore, is specific within the meaning of 
section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL'' section.
8. Grants Under the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 2001: 
Pollution Control Equipment Subsidy
    Under clause 29.9 of the JSIP of 2001, new and existing industrial 
units are entitled to a subsidy of 20 percent of the cost of pollution 
control and monitoring equipment subject to a maximum of Rs. 2 million 
upon installation of pollution control and monitoring equipment allowed 
on the certificate of the State Pollution Control Board about the 
necessity for such installation. See GOI's April QR at 88 and Annex 30 
at 29.
    As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 
we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this program 
during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily determine 
that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a 
direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, that the program is limited to 
certain industries and, therefore, is specific within the meaning of 
section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL'' section.
9. Grants Under the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy (JSIP) of 2001: 
Incentive for Quality Certification
    Under clause 29.10 of the JSIP of 2001, small scale/ancillary 
industries would be encouraged to seek ISI/ISO certification. In 
accordance with 29.10, the state government shall facilitate for 
reimbursement of charges for acquiring ISO-900 (or its equivalent) 
certification to the extent of 75 percent of the cost subject to a 
maximum of Rs. 75,000 million from the central government. See GOI's 
April QR at 88-89 and Annex 30 at 30.
    As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 
we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this program 
during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily determine 
that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a 
direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, that the program is limited to 
certain industries and, therefore, is specific within the meaning of 
section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL'' section.
10. Infrastructure Subsidies to Mega Projects: Tax Incentives
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the JSIP of 2001, the firms investing in what the 
SGOJ deems are Mega Projects are eligible to receive infrastructure 
subsidies. The Department further investigated whether the SGOJ has a 
policy to provide qualifying companies additional subsidies when making 
capital investment totaling more than Rs. 50 crore as a Mega Project. 
See September 27, 2007 Tata New Subsidies Memorandum at ``Subsidies for 
Mega Projects under the JSIP of 2001'' section. However, the Department 
found that the program was not used during the POR. See Preliminary 
Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in Final Results 
of Fourth HRS Review). As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted 
from this program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we 
preliminarily determine that this program constitutes a financial 
contribution in the form of revenue for gone, and a benefit within the 
meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, 
respectively. We also preliminarily find, based on AFA, the SGOJ limits 
eligibility under this program to firms involved in ``Mega Projects'' 
on a case-by-case basis and therefore, is specific within the meaning 
of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. See Memorandum regarding New 
Subsidy Allegations at ``Subsidies for Mega Projects under the JSIP of 
2001'' section dated September 27, 2007 (Tata's New Subsidy Allegations 
Memo) on file in the CRU.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
11. Infrastructure Subsidies to Mega Projects: Grants
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the JSIP of 2001, the firms investing in what the 
SGOJ deems are Mega Projects are eligible to receive infrastructure 
subsidies. The Department further investigated whether the SGOJ has a 
policy to provide qualifying companies additional subsidies when making 
capital investment totaling more than Rs. 50 crore as a Mega Project. 
See Tata's New Subsidies Memorandum at ``Subsidies for Mega Projects 
under the JSIP of 2001'' section. However, the Department found that 
the program was not used during the POR. See Preliminary Results of 
Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at1598 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 
HRS Review). As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, the SGOJ limits eligibility under 
this program to firms involved in ``Mega Projects'' on a case-by-case 
basis and therefore, is specific within the meaning

[[Page 1519]]

of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. See Tata's New Subsidy Allegations 
Memo at ``Subsidies for Mega Projects under the JSIP of 2001'' section 
dated September 27, 2007.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL''
12. Infrastructure Subsidies to Mega Projects: Loans
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department initiated an investigation 
into whether under the JSIP of 2001, the firms investing in what the 
SGOJ deems are Mega Projects are eligible to receive infrastructure 
subsidies. The Department further investigated whether the SGOJ has a 
policy to provide qualifying companies additional subsidies when making 
capital investment totaling more than Rs. 50 crore as a Mega Project. 
See Tata's New Subsidies Memorandum at ``Subsidies for Mega Projects 
under the JSIP of 2001'' section. However, the Department found that 
the program was not used during the POR. See Preliminary Results of 
Fourth HRS Review 73 FR at 1598 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 
HRS Review). As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, the SGOJ limits eligibility under 
this program to firms involved in ``Mega Projects'' on a case-by-case 
basis and therefore, is specific within the meaning of section 
771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. See Tata's New Subsidy Allegations Memo at 
``Subsidies for Mega Projects under the JSIP of 2001'' section dated 
September 27, 2007.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 1.32 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Pre- and Post-Shipment Export 
Financing''.
13. Employment Incentives Under the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy 
(JSIP) of 2001
    Under clause 29.7 of the JSIP of 2001, the employment generation 
based incentives provided are available to a limited number of 
industries. See GOI's April QR at 88 and Annex 30 at 29. Specifically, 
the SGOJ pays, for each worker in qualifying industries, 50 percent of 
the premium paid by the employer under the Contributory Group Insurance 
Scheme (CGIS). As explained above, as AFA pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily find, based on AFA, the SGOJ limits eligibility under 
this program to firms in certain industries and therefore, is specific 
within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL''

G. Programs Administered by the State Government of Karnataka (SGOK)

1. SGOK's New Industrial Policy and Package of Incentives and 
Concessions of 1993 (1993 KIP): Tax Incentives
    In the Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, 
and in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the assistance provided under the New 
Industrial Policy and Package of Incentives and Concessions for the 
period 1993-1998 (1993 KIP), were used and constitute a financial 
contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 
771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR 
at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``Adverse Facts 
Available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
2. 1993 KIP: Land at Less Than Adequate Remuneration
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the 1993 KIP, were used and constitute a 
financial contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 
73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRC Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of provision of a good, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Captive Mining of 
Iron Ore'' section.
3. 1993 KIP: Iron Ore, Limestone, and Dolomite at Less Than Adequate 
Remuneration
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with

[[Page 1520]]

section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged subsidy programs, 
including the 1993 KIP, were used and constitute a financial 
contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) and 
771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR 
at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``Adverse Facts 
Available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Captive Mining of 
Iron Ore'' section.
4. 1993 KIP: Power/Electricity at Less Than Adequate Remuneration
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the 1993 KIP, were used and constitute a 
financial contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 
73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a provision of a good, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Captive Mining of 
Iron Ore'' section.
5. 1993 KIP: Water at Less Than Adequate Remuneration
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the 1993 KIP, were used and constitute a 
financial contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 
73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a provision of a good, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Captive Mining of 
Iron Ore'' section.
6. 1993 KIP: Roads and Other Infrastructure at Less Than Adequate 
Remuneration
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the 1993 KIP, were used and constitute a 
financial contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 
73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a provision of a good, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Captive Mining of 
Iron Ore'' section.
7. 1993 KIP: Port Facilities at Less Than Adequate Remuneration
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the 1993 KIP, were used and constitute a 
financial contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 
73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a provision of a good, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Captive Mining of 
Iron Ore'' section.

[[Page 1521]]

8. 1993 KIP: Grants
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the 1993 KIP, were used and constitute a 
financial contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 
73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRC Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we find that Tata used and benefitted from this program during 
the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we determine that this program 
constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a direct transfer 
of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 
771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also preliminarily determine, as 
AFA, that this program is specific pursuant to section 771(5A) of the 
Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
as AFA we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, 
which corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate 
calculated for a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. 
See HRS Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans 
to SAIL''.
9. 1993 KIP: Loans
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the 1993 KIP, were used and constitute a 
financial contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 
73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 1.32 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Pre- and Post-Shipment Export 
Financing'' section.
10. 1993 KIP: Tax Incentives
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the 1993 KIP, were used and constitute a 
financial contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 
73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of revenue forgone, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.11. SGOK's New Industrial 
Policy and Package of Incentives and Concessions of 1996 (1996 KIP): 
Tax Incentives. As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' 
section, in the Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on 
AFA, and in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly 
alleged subsidy programs, including the SGOK's New Industrial Policy 
and Package of Incentives and Concessions of 1996 (1996 KIP), were used 
and constitute a financial contribution and are specific pursuant to 
sections 771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of 
Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 
HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of revenue forgone, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program 
as AFA we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, 
which corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate 
calculated for a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. 
See Final Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State 
Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
12. 1996 KIP: Loans
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the 1996 KIP, were used and constitute a 
financial contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 
73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 1.32 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision

[[Page 1522]]

Memorandum at ``Pre- and Post-Shipment Export Financing.''
13. 1996 KIP: Grants
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the 1996 KIP, were used and constitute a 
financial contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 
73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL'' section.
14. 1996 KIP: Provision of Goods and Services at Less Than Adequate 
Remuneration (LTAR)
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the 1996 KIP, were used and constitute a 
financial contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 
73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review). In the 
instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts available'' 
section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we 
preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this program 
during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily determine 
that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a 
provision of a good or service, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in any segment of this proceeding. See Final Results 
of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Captive Mining of Iron 
Ore'' section.
15. SGOK's New Industrial Policy and Package of Incentives and 
Concessions of 2001 (2001 KIP): Tax Incentives
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the SGOK's New Industrial Policy and 
Package of Incentives and Concessions of 2001 (2001 KIP), were used and 
constitute a financial contribution and are specific pursuant to 
sections 771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of 
Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 
HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of revenue forgone, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
16. 2001 KIP: Loans
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the 2001 KIP, were used and constitute a 
financial contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 
73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 1.32 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Pre- and Post-Shipment Export 
Financing''.
17. 2001 KIP: Grants
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the 2001 KIP, were used and constitute a 
financial contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 
73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06

[[Page 1523]]

percent ad valorem, which corresponds to the highest above de minimis 
subsidy rate calculated for a similar program in another segment of 
this proceeding. See HRS Investigation Decision Memorandum at 
``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to SAIL''.
18. 2001 KIP: Provision of Goods and Services at Less Than Adequate 
Remuneration (LTAR)
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the 2001 KIP, were used and constitute a 
financial contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 
73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a provision of a good or service, and a benefit within the 
meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, 
respectively. We also preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this 
program is specific pursuant to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 percent ad valorem which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Captive Mining of 
Iron Ore'' section.
19. SGOK's New Industrial Policy and Package of Incentives and 
Concession of 2006 (2006 KIP): Loans
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the SGOK's New Industrial Policy and 
Package of Incentives and Concessions of 2006 (2006 KIP), were used and 
constitute a financial contribution and are specific pursuant to 
sections 771(5)(D) and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of 
Fourth HRS Review, 73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth 
HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a direct transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of 
sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 1.32 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Pre- and Post-Shipment Export 
Financing'' section.
20. 2006 KIP: Tax Incentives
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the 2006 KIP, were used and constitute a 
financial contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 
73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of revenue forgone, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 3.09 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Second HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``State Government 
of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives'' section.
21. 2006 KIP: Provision of Goods and Services for Less Than Adequate 
Remuneration (LTAR)
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP: Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the 2006 KIP, were used and constitute a 
financial contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 
73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution in the 
form of a provision of a good or service, and a benefit within the 
meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(iii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, 
respectively. We also preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this 
program is specific pursuant to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 18.08 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See Final 
Results of Fourth HRS Review Decision Memorandum at ``Captive Mining of 
Iron Ore'' section.
22. 2006 KIP: Grants
    As noted above in the ``1993 KIP'' Tax Incentives'' section, in the 
Fourth HRS Review, the Department determined, based on AFA, and in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act that all newly alleged 
subsidy programs, including the 2006 KIP, were used and constitute a 
financial contribution and are specific pursuant to sections 771(5)(D) 
and 771(5A) of the Act. See Preliminary Results of Fourth HRS Review, 
73 FR at 1593 (unchanged in Final Results of Fourth HRS Review).
    In the instant review, as discussed above in the ``adverse facts 
available'' section, based on AFA, and pursuant to section 776(b) of 
the Act, we preliminarily find that Tata used and benefitted from this 
program during the POR. Furthermore, based on AFA, we preliminarily 
determine that this

[[Page 1524]]

program constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a direct 
transfer of funds, and a benefit within the meaning of sections 
771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. We also 
preliminarily determine, as AFA, that this program is specific pursuant 
to section 771(5A) of the Act.
    Pursuant to the AFA methodology described above, for this program, 
we are assigning a net subsidy rate of 6.06 percent ad valorem, which 
corresponds to the highest above de minimis subsidy rate calculated for 
a similar program in another segment of this proceeding. See HRS 
Investigation Decision Memorandum at ``Forgiveness of SDF Loans to 
SAIL.''

Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Terminated

1. Exemption of Export Credit From Interest Taxes

    Indian commercial banks were required to pay a tax on all interest 
accrued from borrowers. The banks passed along this interest tax to 
borrowers in its entirety. As of April 1, 1993, the GOI exempted from 
the interest tax all interest accruing to a commercial bank on export-
related loans. The Department has previously found this tax exemption 
to be an export subsidy, and thus countervailable, because only 
interest accruing on loans and advanced made to exporters in this form 
of export curedti was exempt from interest tax. See e.g., Final Results 
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Iron-Metal 
Castings From India, 61 FR 64676, 64686 (December 6, 1996).
    In the instant review, the GOI reported in its April QR that 
pursuant to the Finance Act of 2000, the GOI has abolished the Interest 
Tax. See April QR at 68. The GOI provided a copy of circular 
DBOD.No.BP.BC.187/21/02/007/2000 dated June 29, 2000, which gives 
notice to commercial banks that the interest tax has been discontinued 
regarding chargeable interest accruing after March 31, 2000. See April 
QR at Annex 25. In the Carbazole Violet Pigment Countervailing Duty 
Investigation, the Department found that this program has been 
terminated in accordance with section 351.526(d). See Notice of 
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment 
with Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 
from India, 69 FR 22763, 22768 (April 27, 2004) and Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from 
India, 69 FR 67321 (November 17, 2004) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at ``Program Determined To Be Terminated'' 
(Carbazole Violet Pigment Countervailing Duty Investigation). Because 
we have already found that this program has been terminated effective 
March 31, 2000, there were no benefits during the POR.

Preliminary Results of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an 
individual subsidy rate for the reviewed company for the period January 
1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. We preliminarily determine the net 
subsidy rate for Tata to be 586.43 percent ad valorem.
    If the final results remain the same as these preliminary results, 
the Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of publication of 
the final results of this review. We will instruct CBP to collect cash 
deposits for the respondent at the countervailing duty rate indicated 
above of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the date of publication of the final results of this review. We 
will also instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-
reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide 
rate applicable to the company.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until further notice.

Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to 
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with 
these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public 
announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(b)(1), 
interested parties may submit written arguments in response to these 
preliminary results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case 
briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication 
of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in 
case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time 
limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Parties who 
submit written arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit 
with the written argument: (1) A statement of the issue, and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal 
briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public 
version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested 
parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, 
interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be 
raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies 
otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the 
date for submission of rebuttal briefs.
    Representative of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure 
of proprietary information under administrative protective order no 
later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer 
becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date 
the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), are due. The 
Department will publish the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of arguments made in any 
case or rebuttal briefs.
    These preliminary results of review are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: December 31, 2009.
Susan H. Kuhbach,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-129 Filed 1-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P