NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations; Certain Stainless
Steel Products From Brazil
Friday, May 13, 1983
*21610
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21610)
AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations.
SUMMARY: We have determined that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of the
countervailing duty law are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Brazil of hot-rolled
stainless steel bar, cold-formed stainless steel bar, and stainless steel wire rod (certain stainless steel products). The
estimated net subsidy is 15.44 percent ad
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21610)
valorem. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) will determine within 45 days of the publication of this notice
whether these imports are materially injuring, or are threatening to materially injure, a U.S. industry.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) and the government of Brazil have entered into a suspension
agreement. We continued the investigations at the request of the petitioners in accordance with section 704(g) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). If the final determinations by the ITC are negative, the suspension agreement
shall have no force or effect. If the final determinations by the ITC are affirmative, the suspension agreement shall
remain in force.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 13, 1983.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francis R. Crowe, Office of Investigations, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202) 377-0171.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21610)
Final Determinations
Based upon our investigations, we have determined that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of
section 701 of the Act, are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Brazil of certain stainless steel
products. For purposes of thse investigations, the following programs are found to confer subsidies:
IPI export credit premium.
Preferential working capital financing for exports.
Income tax exemption for export earnings.
Long-term loans.
IPI rebates for capital investment.
*21611
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21611)
Industrial Development Council (CDI) program.
Accelerated depreciation for capital goods manufactured in Brazil.
We have determined the estimated net subsidy on certain stainless steel products from Brazil to be 15.44 percent ad
valorem.
The Department and the government of Brazil have entered into a suspension agreement. If the final ITC
determinations are affirmative, the agreement will remain in force, and we will not issue a countervailing duty
order as long as the requirements of section 704(f)(3)(B) of the Act are met.
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21611)
Case History
On June 16, 1982, the Department received a petition from A1 Tech Specialty Steel Corporation, Carpenter Technology
Corporation, Colt Industries, Inc., Crucible Specialty Metals Division, Cyclops Corporation, Guterl Special Steel
Corporation, Joslyn Stainless Steels and Republic Steel Corporation, filed on behalf of the U.S. industry producing certain
stainless steel products. The petition alleged that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of section
701 of the Act are being provided, directly or indirectly, to the manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Brazil of
certain stainless steel products.
We found the petition to be sufficient and on July 6, 1982, we initiated countervailing duty investigations (47 FR
30274). We stated that we expected to issue preliminary determinations by September 9, 1982. We subsequently
determined that the investigations are "extraordinarily complicated," as defined in section 703(c) of the Act, and
postponed our preliminary determinations for 65 days until November 15, 1982 (47 FR 40202).
Since Brazil is a "country under the Agreement" within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, injury
determinations are required for these investigations. Therefore, we notified the U.S. International Trade Commission
(ITC) of our initiations. On August 2, 1982, the ITC determined
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21611)
that there is a reasonable indication that these imports are materially injuring, or are threatening to materially injure, a
U.S. industry (47 FR 36038).
We presented a questionnaire concerning the allegations to the government of Brazil in Washington, D.C. on July 21,
1982. On November 1, 1982, we received the response to that questionnaire.
On November 15, 1982, we preliminarily determined that the government of Brazil was providing subsidies to
manufacturers, producers, or exporters of certain stainless steel products under six programs. The programs preliminarily
found to confer subsidies were:
Industrialized Products Tax (IPI) export credit premium.
Preferential working capital financing for exports.
Income tax exemption for export earnings.
Long-term loans.
IPI rebates for capital investment.
Industrial Development Council (CDI) program.
Notice of the preliminary affirmative countervailing duty determinations was published on November 19,
1982 (47 FR 52207). We directed the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of the certain stainless steel
products entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 19, 1982, and to require the
posting of a cash deposit, or bond, or
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21611)
other security in the amount of 12.5 percent of the f.o.b. value of the merchandise.
On December 28, 1982, the Department and the government of Brazil initialed a proposed agreement to suspend the
countervailing duty investigations involving certain stainless steel products from Brazil. The basis for the
proposed agreement was that the goverenment of Brazil would offset by an export tax the entire amount of benefits we
found to confer subsidies on exports of certain stainless steel products to the United States.
On the same date, in compliance with the procedural reguirements of section 704(e) of the Act, we consulted with the
petitioners and provided them a copy of the proposed agreement. We received comments on the proposed agreement and
addressed them in the notice announcing the suspension of the investigations.
On January 27, 1983, the Department and the government of Brazil signed a suspension agreement, as provided for
under section 704 of the Act. The agreement became effective with its publication in the Federal Register on February 2,
1983 (48 FR 4703). Under the agreement, the government of Brazil is required to offset completely by an export tax
the amount of the net subsidy determined by the Department to exist on Brazilian exports of certain stainless steel
products to the United States.
By letter of February 22, 1983, counsel for the petitioners requested that the investigations be continued under section
704(g) of the Act.
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21611)
Therefore, we are required to complete the investigations and issue final determinations.
Scope of Investigations
The products covered by these investigations are hot-rolled stainless steel bar, cold-formed stainless steel bar, and
stainless steel wire rod. For a further description of these products, see Appendix A to this notice.
There are five known producers and exporters in Brazil of certain stainless steel products to the United States. We have
received information from the government of Brazil regarding three of these companies, Companhia Acos Especiais
Itabira (ACESITA), Acos Finos Piratini S/A (PIRATINI), and Acos Villares S/A (VILLARES), which represented
approximately 99 percent of Brazilian exports of certain stainless steel products to the United States in calendar year 1981.
The period for which we are measuring subsidization is that fiscal year for each company which most closely corresponds
to calendar year 1981. That period is calendar year 1981 for ACESITA and PIRATINI, and February 1, 1981 to January 31,
1982 for VILLARES. We have referred to these periods as fiscal year 1981 in this notice.
In its response, the government of Brazil provided data for the applicable
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21611)
periods.
Changes Since the Preliminary Determinations
We preliminarily determined that the program "accelerated depreciation for capital goods manufactured in Brazil" was
not used by manufacturers, producers or exporters in Brazil of certain stainless steel products. However, after analysis
of the information received during verification which took place during December 13-17, 1982, we have determined that
one company, VILLARES, benefitted from that program. We also found additional benefits under the long-term loan
program. These major changes as well as others which have resulted from alterations in calculations necessitate
modification of the export tax established pursuant to the suspension agreement. Such subsequent determinations
are provided for under the terms of the agreement. By letter of March 29, 1983, we notified the government of Brazil
that such changes may occur as the result of these determinations. We will officially notify the government of
Brazil of these determinations so that they may adjust the export tax accordingly.
Analysis of Programs
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21611)
I. Programs Determined to Confer Subsidies. We have determined that subsidies are being provided to *21612
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21612)
manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Brazil of certain stainless steel products under the programs described
below.
A. Industrialized Products Tax (IPI) Export Credit Premium. Under this program the bank involved in the export
transaction reimburses in cash to the exporter a percentage of the "adjusted" f.o.b. invoice price of the exported
merchandise. After having suspended this program in December 1979, the government of Brazil reinstated it on April
1, 1981. Since the IPI export credit premium program is designed to promote exports and is tied to export performance,
we have determined that the program is an export subsidy and therefore is countervailable. The program has also been
found to be countervailable in previous countervailing duty investigations involving Brazilian products.
Exporters of certain stainless steel products are eligible for the maximum IPI export credit premium, which, up until
March 30, 1982, was 15 percent of the "adjusted" f.o.b. invoice price of the exported merchandise.
Subsequently, the government of Brazil reduced the benefit to 14 percent on March 31, 1982, 12.5 percent on June 30,
1982, and 11 percent on September 30, 1982.
In calculating the amount the exporter is to receive, several deductions may be made to the invoice price to obtain the
"adjusted" f.o.b. value. These
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21612)
adjustments include: any agent commissions, rebates or refunds resulting from quality deficiencies or damage during
transit, contractual penalties, and the value of imported inputs. In order to receive the maximum export credit premium,
the exported product must consist of a minimum of 75 percent value added in Brazil. If this minimum limit is not met,
there is a specific calculation to reduce the f.o.b. invoice price when calculating the base upon which the IPI export credit
premium is paid.
To determine the amount of benefit, we calculated the value of the IPI credits as of the date of shipment rather than the
date of receipt and did not take into account the devaluation of the cruzeiro, in accordance with section 771(6)(B) of the
Act. We then divided the value of the IPI credits by the value of exports and calculated a subsidy of 14.53 percent.
This rate is premised on an IPI export credit premium of 15 percent during the period for which we were measuring
subsidization.
The government of Brazil has made three reductions in the level of the IPI credit during 1982, the most recent on
September 30, 1982 to 11 percent. When there is a fundamental change in the benefit from a program after the period of
investigation, which is applicable to all recipients, we take cognizance of that change if we have been able to confirm that
the change has occurred and if there is no reason to believe that there has been a shift of these benefits to other programs.
We then announce the adjustment in the rate for the deposit of
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21612)
estimated countervailing duties in the next notice published in the normal course of the proceeding. Using 1981
information on the amount of benefit received, we have made a proportional reduction in the amount of estimated net
subsidy from this program. On this basis, we calculated a current subsidy of 10.65 percent ad valorem.
B. Preferential Working Capital Financing For Exports: Resolution 674. Under this program companies are declared eligible
to receive working capital loans by the Department of Foreign Commerce of the Banco Central do Brasil (CACEX). These
loans may have a duration of up to one year. Firms in the steel industry can obtain this financing at preferential rates for up
to 20 percent of the net f.o.b. value of the previous year's exports. The maximum dollar eligibility under this program is
established by CACEX and is stated on the "Certificado de Habilitacao" issued to recipients. Since this program is designed
to promote exports and is tied to export performance, we have determined that such financing is an export subsidy and
therefore is countervailable. This program has also been found to be countervailable in previous investigations involving
Brazilian products.
The net export value is calculated by taking numerous deductions from the export value of the merchandise, including
agent commissions, contractual penalties or refunds, exports denominated in cruzeiros, imported inputs over 20 percent
of the export value, and a deduction for the company's trade deficit as
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21612)
a percentage of the value of its exports. In addition, any growth in the cruzeiro value of exports over the previous year will
reduce the value of the benefit as a percentage of the current year's exports.
To determine the value of loans in existence under this program during 1981, we prorated any loans that straddled other
years. For loans taken out in fiscal year 1980, only that portion extending into fiscal year 1981 was included in our
calculation. Any fiscal year 1981 loans extending into fiscal year 1982 were similarly adjusted.
As in previous Brazilian countervailing duty cases, we are using the rate established by the Banco do Brasil for
discounting sales of accounts receivable as the commercial rate for the acquisition of short-term working capital. We have
used this comparison because information provided by the government of Brazil indicates that, within the Brazilian
financial system, working capital is normally raised through the sale of accounts receivable. In the review period the rate
for discounting sales of accounts receivable was 59.6 percent plus a 6.9 percent tax on financial transactions (IOF). The
subsidy is the difference between the interest rate available under Resolution 674 and the commercial rate.
The interest rate on loans under Resolution 674 is 40 percent, with interest payable semiannually and the principal fully
payable on the due date of the loan. The effective rate of interest for these loans is 44 percent. These
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21612)
loans are also exempt from the IOF. Therefore, the differential between these two types of financing is 22.5 percent. When
multiplying this differential by the amount of preferential financing received and dividing the result by the value of
exports, we calculated a subsidy of 1.85 percent ad valorem.
On February 11, 1983, the government of Brazil notified the Department that the Banco do Brasil rate for discounting
accounts receivable had increased from 59.6 percent to 72 percent effective January 3, 1983. In addition, effective
January 11, 1983, the tax on financial transactions was reduced from 6.9 percent to 4.6 percent. These changes result in a
subsidy rate differential of 32.6 percent rather than 22.5 percent as stated above. Consequently, since the rate established
for purposes of the suspension agreement is prospective, we will use 32.6 percent as the applicable differential in
determining the subsidy rate from this program for determination of the net subsidy rate which must be offset by an
export tax under the terms of the agreement.
C. Income Tax Exemption For Export Earnings. Exporters of certain stainless steel products are eligible to participate in
this program, under which the percentage of their profit attributable to export revenue is exempt from income tax. To
arrive at this percentage, export revenue is divided by total revenue. The amount of profit exempt from the income tax is
then multiplied by the 35 percent corporate income tax rate to determine the amount of the benefit. Since the program is
designed to promote exports and is tied to
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21612)
export performance, we have determined that it is an export subsidy and therefore is countervailable. This program has
also *21613
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21613)
been found to be countervailable in previous investigations involving Brazilian products.
In a program of this kind, benefits cannot be determined with finality until the books are closed sometime in the following
year. Therefore, we must look at fiscal year 1980 income tax returns to determine if any benefit was received in fiscal year
1981. VILLARES received benefits under this program in 1981. By dividing the benefit received by the value of exports of
the companies under investigation, we calculated a subsidy of 0.55 percent ad valorem.
D. Long-term loans. Long-term financing in cruzeiros is available in Brazil only through government-controlled
financial institutions, such as the National Bank for Economic Development (BNDE) and FINAME, a program of BNDE for
the purchase of capital equipment manufactured in Brazil. Generally, these loans are fully indexed to the inflation rate
in Brazil and are made at fixed real interest rates. The index used for these loans is the ratio established for the
Readjusted Bonds of the National Treasury (ORTN). FINAME loans are granted through commercial banks rather than
directly from BNDE and carry higher real interest rates than BNDE loans.
VILLARES received direct BNDE loans. As in previous steel countervailing duty investigations, we have determined
that BNDE loans, when fully indexed, are not
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21613)
made at preferential rates. We compared the BNDE loan rates to a constructed benchmark based on the real interest rates
of the only private long-term loans commercially available in Brazil--foreign currency loans. Such loans are granted at
the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) plus a certain percentage or spread over LIBOR. Since LIBOR loans are
continually readjusted at the prevailing interest rates, we constructed the benchmark by calculating the average real
interest component of LIBOR-plus-spread on long-term loans to Brazil for the period 1977-81 during which these
BNDE loans were made. We then compared that average real interest rate to the rates at which the long-term BNDE loans
were made. Our comparison showed that all the fully-indexed BNDE loans were made at rates above the benchmark.
Therefore, we have determined that such BNDE loans are not countervailable.
However, some long-term cruzeiro loans have been granted that are not fully indexed. Under a program instituted in 1975
and no longer in operation, BNDE granted loans that were adjusted at only 20 percent of the variation in ORTN. These loans
were granted only to certain sectors of the economy, including the iron and steel industry, for implementing "priority
projects." Because they were granted to a group of enterprises or industries we have determined that the program is
countervailable. We have also found this program countervailable in previous cases involving Brazilian products.
VILLARES has been granted such a loan and still has an outstanding balance on
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21613)
this loan. We calculated the interest portion of the benefit to VILLARES for this loan as the difference between the amount
actually paid in fiscal year 1981 and the amount which would have been paid had the loan been fully adjusted. Even though
principal repayments have yet begun for this VILLARES loan, the principal balance is recalculated yearly subject to the 20
percent limit on monetary correction. Therefore, VILLARES benefited from an abatement in principal as well as a
reduction in interest. We divided the sum of VILLARES' interest and principal benefits by total sales of all companies under
investigation and calculated subsidy of 1.38 percent ad valorem.
FINAME loans have been received by ACESITA, PIRATINI, and VILLARES and are available to a wide variety of sectors in
Brazil. The steel industry has received such loans in proportions similar to other large capital-intensive industries in
Brazil. This appears to be warranted by the capital requirements of such industries. In addition, numerous other
sectors also received loans from FINAME during this period. Based on the general availability of these fully-indexed loans,
we have determined that they do not confer a subsidy.
E. IPI rebates for capital investment. Decree Law 1547 (April 1977) provides funding for the expansion of the Brazilian
steel industry through a rebate of the IPI, the Brazilian federal excise tax. Under this tax system, a company determines its
liability for the tax at the end of each month. The net tax owed is calculated as the difference between the total IPI the
company paid on
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21613)
purchases and the total IPI collected on domestic sales. Normally, within five months after the end of each month, a
company must pay the amount of the net tax owed directly to the Brazilian government. This net IPI tax is the basis for
calculating the rebate for investment. A Brazilian steel company may deposit 95 percent of the net IPI tax in a special
account with the Banco do Brasil. The amounts deposited are to be applied to steel expansion projects, and when rebated
to the firms constitute tax-free capital reserves which must eventually be converted into subscribed capital. Benefits under
this program are received only by the steel sector. Because they are received by a specific industry, we have determined
that the benfits are countervailable. We have also found this program countervailable in previous cases involving Brazilian
products.
PIRATINI received benefits under this program from 1977 to 1981, while ACESITA and VILLARES continue to receive
them. With the enactment of Decree Law 1843 (December 1980), PIRATINI must now pay the IPI tax to the government
which in turn rebates 95 percent to SIDERBRAS, the government holding company to which PIRATINI belongs, to increase
its capital.
In these investigations, we considered the amount rebated each year as an united grant received in that year. As such, we
have allocated the grants over 15 years. Under our grant methodology, we determine the present value of grants in order
to calculate the current value of the benefit to the grant
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21613)
recipient. The calculation of the present value of funds received is a mechanism for allocating money received in one year
to other years and is calculated using a discount rate. For these determinations, we determine that the most
appropriate discount rate is the "risk-free" rate as indicated by the secondary market rate for long-term government debt in
the country under investigation. The foundation of a country's interest rate structure is usually its government's debt
interest rate (the risk-free rate). In this methodology, we have allocated a grant over the useful life of equipment purchased
with it when the value of that grant was large (greater than $50 million) and specifically tied to pieces of capital equipment.
Where the grant was small (generally less than one percent of the company's gross revenues and tied to items generally
expensed in the year purchased, such as wages or purchases of materials), we have allocated the subsidy solely to the year
of the grant receipt. We construe that a grant is "tied" when the intended use is known to the subsidy giver and so
acknowledged prior to or concurrent with the bestowal of the subsidy. All other grants, such as in this case, are allocated
over 15 years, a period of time reflecting the average life of capital assets in integrated steel mills. The 15-year figure is
based on Internal Revenue Service studies of actual experience in integrated mills in the U.S.
To calculate the benefit, we have taken the amount rebated in each month, converted the cruzeiro value to an ORTN value
by using the ORTN index
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21613)
rate in that month, added the monthly ORTN amounts to determine the amount of the grant in each year and *21614
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21614)
used as the discount rate for each year the interest rate of 4 percent on ORTN-indexed long-term government debt. The
total benefit in ORTN for fiscal year 1981 was converted into cruzeiros using the average ORTN index rate for the year and
then divided by the total value of sales for the 1981 fiscal year. The benefit of this subsidy is 0.80 percent ad valorem.
F. Industrial Development Council (CDI) program. This program allowed an exemption of 80 percent of the customs duties
and 80 percent of the IPI tax on certain imported machinery for certain industrial projects approved by the CDI. Because
benefits under the program are limited to "approved" development projects we have determined that they were granted to
a group of enterprises or industries and are countervailable. We have also found the CDI program countervailable in
previous countervailing duty investigations involving Brazilian products.
Decree Law 1726 repealed this program in 1979 and no new projects are eligible for these benefits. However, companies
with projects approved prior to repeal may still receive these benefits pending the completion of the project. ACESITA
received such benefits during 1981. By dividing the benefit received by the total value of sales of the companies under
investigation, we calculated a subsidy of 0.18 percent ad valorem.
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21614)
G. Accelerated depreciation for capital goods manfactured in Brazil. This program allows companies that purchase
Brazilian-made capital equipment as part of an approved CDI expansion project to depreciate this equipment at twice the
rate normally permitted under tax laws. This program is authorized by the same legislation as the previous CDI program, is
likewise countervailable and has been found to be countervailable in previous countervailing duty investigations
involving Brazilian products.
During verification we found that VILLARES used the accelerated depreciation provisions of this program. The benefit of
such a program is reduced taxable income and a subsequent reduction in tax liabilities. In a program of this kind, benefits
connot be determined with finality until the books are closed sometime in the following year. Therefore, we must look at
fiscal year 1980 income tax returns to determine if any benefit was received in fiscal year 1981. VILLARES claimed that
they could have depreciated at a higher "normal" rate than that actually used to compute its tax liability for the 1980 fiscal
year thus offsetting any subsidy that they might receive under this program. However, we used the actual amount of
accelerated depreciation claimed by VILLARES in excess of the normal depreciation that was used by VILLARES in that
year. To calculate the benefit to VILLARES, we determined the amount by which depreciation under this program
exceeded normal depreciation, multiplied that amount by 35 percent, the corporate tax rate in Brazil, and then
divided the
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21614)
result by the total value of sales for the 1981 fiscal year of the companies under investigation. The ad valorem benefit of
this subsidy is 0.03 percent.
II. Program Determined not to Confer Subsidies. We have determined subsidies are not being provided to manufacturers,
producers, or exporters in Brazil of certain stainless steel products under the following program.
Transportation subsidies from preferential port rates. The government of Brazil, in its response to our questionnaire,
states that none of the exporters of certain stainless steel products receive preferential port rates. At verification we
examined shipping documents for Brazilian and non-Brazilian carriers, compared the freight rates and port charges to
published schedules and found that the rates paid by steel exporters were not preferential and therefore not
countervailable.
III. Programs Determined not to be Used. We have determined that the following programs were not used by the
manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Brazil of certain stainless steel products.
A. The Commission for the Granting of Fiscal Benefits for Special Export Programs (BEFIEX). BEFIEX grants several types of
benefits to companies that are part of certain targeted industries and that sign contracts that include specific export
commitments. These benefits include the following: a reduction of between 70 percent and 90. percent of the import duties
and the IPI tax on the import of machinery, equipment, apparatus, instruments,
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21614)
accessories and tools necessary to meet the approved export commitment; an extension of the period for carrying tax
losses forward from four to six years, provided no dividends are paid during that time; and amortization of pre-
operational expenses of BEFIEX projects at the discretion of the company rather than the normal straight-line
amortization over ten years. As a general rule, companies that sign BEFIEX contracts guaranteeing these and any other
benefits must make an export commitment that over the life of the project it will generate export earnings of at least three
times the value of imports for the project. The government of Brazil states that since manufacturers of certain stainless
steel products export only a small portion of their production, they are not in a position to make the required export
commitments. We found that non of the companies under investigation received benefits from this program with respect to
certain stainless steel products.
B. Export financing under Resolution 68. This program provides financing for the export of Brazilian goods for a minimum
period of 181 days. Such financing is granted on a transaction-by-transaction basis and may cover up to 85 percent of the
f.o.b. invoice price for the merchandise (plus freight and insurance). To be eligible, the exporter must show that the foreign
purchaser has prepaid 15 percent of the invoice price. We found that none of the exporters of certain stainless steel
products used Resolution 68 to finance exports.
C. Transportation subsidies from preferential rail rates. We found that
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21614)
exporters of certain stainless steel products almost exclusively utilize trucks to ship their products to the ports of
exportation because of the low tonnages of these shipments.
Verification
In accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, we verified data used in making our final determinations. During this
verification, we followed normal procedures, including inspection of documents, discussions with company and
government officials and inspection of manufacturers' records.
Administrative Procedures
The Department has afforded interested parties an opportunity to present oral views in accordance with its regulations (19
CFR 355.35). There was no request for a public hearing and no written views were received. We received comments on the
suspension agreement and addressed those comments in the notice announcing the suspension of the investigations (48 FR
4703).
Suspension of Liquidation
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21614)
The suspension of liquidation of entries of certain stainless steel products pursuant to the preliminary affirmative
determinations was terminated upon publication of the notice of suspension of the investigations.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determinations. In addition, we are
making available to the ITC all non- *21615
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21615)
privileged and non-confidential information relating to these investigations. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged
and confidential information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either
publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration. The ITC will determine within 45 days of the publication of this notice whether imports of certain
stainless steel products from Brazil are materially injuring, or threatening to materially injure, a U.S. industry. If the
ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, the suspension agreement will have no
force or effect and these investigations will be terminated. If, however, the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the
suspension agreement shall remain in force, and we will not issue a countervailing duty order as long as the
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21615)
requirements of section 704(f)(3)(B) of the Act are met.
These determinations are published in accordance with section 705(d) of the Act.
Lawrence J. Brady,
Assistant Secretary for Trade Administration.
May 9, 1983.
Appendix A--Certain Stainless Steel Products From Brazil
For purpose of these investigations:
1. The term "stainless steel wire rod" covers a coiled, semi-finished, hot- rolled stainless steel product of solid cross
section, approximately round in cross section, not under 0.020 inch nor over 0.74 inch in diameter, not tempered, not
treated, and not partly manufactured as currently provided for in item 607.26 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States
(TSUS) or if tempered, treated, or partly manufactured as provided for in item 607.43 of the TSUS.
2. The term "hot-rolled stainless steel bars" covers hot-rolled stainless steel products of solid section having
cross sections in the shape of circles,
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21615)
segments of circles, ovals, triangles, rectangles, hexagons or octagons, not coated or plated with metal as currently
provided for in item 606.9005 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated (TSUSA).
3. The term "cold-formed stainless steel bars" covers cold-formed stainless steel products of solid section having cross
sections in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, triangles, rectangles, hexagons or octagons, not coated or plated
with metal as currently provided for in item 606.9010 of the TSUSA. Stainless steel is an alloy steel which contains by
weight less than 1 percent of carbon and over 11.5 percent of chromium. Iron must predominate by weight and the alloy is
malleable as first cast. Allow steel is defined as a steel which contains one or more of the following elements in the quantity,
by weight, respectively indicated:
over 1.65 percent of manganese, or
over 0.25 percent of phosphorus, or
over 0.35 percent of sulphur, or
over 0.60 percent of silicon, or
over 0.60 percent of copper, or
over 0.30 percent of aluminum, or
over 0.20 percent of chromium, or
over 0.30 percent of cobalt, or
over 0.35 percent of lead, or
(Cite as: 48 FR 21610, *21615)
over 0.50 percent of nickel, or
over 0.30 percent of tungsten, or
over 0.10 percent of any other metallic element
[FR Doc. 83-12931 Filed 5-12-83; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-25-M
END OF DOCUMENT