(C-433-804)

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Certain Steel Products from Austria

Monday, December 7, 1992

---page 57781---

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 1992.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Larry Sullivan, Office of Countervailing Investigations, U.S. Department of Commerce, room 3099, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0114.

Preliminary Determination and Alignment

The Department preliminary determines that benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Austria of certain steel products.

For information on the estimated net subsidy, please see the Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice.

On November 24, 1992, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) (19 U.S.C. 1671d(a)(1)), petitioners in the above-referenced investigation requested that we align the due date for the final countervailing duty determination with that of the final antidumping duty determination for certain steel products. Accordingly, we are aligning these final determinations. Therefore, the final countervailing duty determination is now due not later than April 12, 1993.

Case History

Since the publication of the notice of initiation and postponement of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register (57 FR 32970, July 24, 1992), the following events have occurred.

On August 10, 1992, we issued a questionnaire to the Government of Austria (GOA). On August 20, 1992, we received a partial response from the GOA indicating the proper responding companies in this investigation.

On September 29, 1992, we received responses from the GOA, Voest-Alpine Stahl Linz Ges.m.b.H. (VA Linz), the producer of the subject merchandise, and Voest- Alpine Stahl AG (VAS), the holding company for VA Linz. See the Respondents section, below, for a list of respondent companies for the single class or kind of merchandise subject to this investigation. On October 23, 1992, we issued a supplemental/deficiency questionnaire on November 6, 1992. We received additional submissions from respondents on November 17, 18, and 20, 1992, which were received too late to be considered for this preliminary determination.

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by this investigation, certain steel products, constitute the following single "class or kind" of merchandise, as found in Appendix 1 to this notice: certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products.

Injury Test

Because Austria is a "country under the Agreement" within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is required to determine whether imports of the certain steel products from Austria materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. On August 21, 1992, the ITC preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is being materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from Austria of the subject merchandise (57 FR 38064, August 21, 1992).

Respondents

The GOA is a respondent for the class or kind of merchandise subject to this investigation. The following is a list of the selected respondent companies for the single class or kind of merchandise subject to this investigation:

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

Voest-Alpine Stahl Linz Ges.m.b.H.

Corporate History

Prior to 1987, the subject merchandise was produced in the Steel Division of Voest-Alpine AG (VAAG), a large conglomerate which also contained Engineering and Finished Products Divisions. Vereinigte Edelstahlwerke (VEW), a producer of specialty steel products, was an incorporated subsidiary of VAAG. In 1987, VAAG underwent a major restructuring and three new companies were incorporated to handle the three major divisions of VAAG. The Steel Division became Voest- Alpine Stahl Ges.m.b.H. Linz (VA Linz). VAAG became merely a holding company for these new companies and for VEW. In 1988, the production assets of VEW were distributed to its two incorporated subsidiaries, Bohler and Schoeller- Bleckmann, leaving only a "bare shell" which was used to create a new holding company for steel-related activities called Voest-Alpine Stahl AG (VAS). VA Linz and Bo>=4hler became incorporated subsidiaries of VAS. In 1989, VAS and all other subholdings of VAAG, were transferred to Industrie und Beteiligungsverwaltung Ges.m.b.H. (IBVG). In 1990, IBVG, in turn, was transformed into a state-owned stock corporation and renamed Austrian Industries AG (Austrian Industries). VAAG remained, separate from IBVG and Austrian Industries, only in order to settle residual liabilities and non-steel assets. Because it appears that most of the assets of VAAG are now under the control of Austrian Industries, we find Austrian Industries to be the corporate successor to VAAG.

Analysis of Programs

For purposes of this preliminary determination, the period for which we are measuring subsidies (the period of investigation (POI)) is calendar year 1991, which corresponds to the fiscal year of VA Linz.

In determining the benefits received under the various programs described below, we used the following calculation methodology. We first calculated a country-wide rate for each program. This rate comprised the ad valorem benefit received by each firm weighted by each firm's share of exports, separately for each class or kind of merchandise, to the United States. The rates for all programs were then summed to arrive at a countrywide rate for each class or kind of merchandise.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 355.20(d), for each class or kind of merchandise, we compared the total ad valorem subsidy received by each firm to the country-wide rate for all programs. Since we have only one producer of the subject

---page 57782---

merchandise in this investigation, we have no companies which received significantly different aggregate benefits.

Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our questionnaires, we preliminarily determine the following:

Equityworthiness

Petitioners have alleged that VAAG was unequityworthy during 1978-84 and 1986, and, therefore, that equity infusions received during those years were inconsistent with commercial considerations. The Department previously determined VAAG to be unequityworthy in the period 1978-84 in Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination of Certain Carbon Steel Products from Austria (Carbon Steel), 50 FR 33369 (August 19, 1985). Respondents have not contested this finding; therefore, we preliminarily determine that VAAG was unequityworthy during the period 1978-84.

Regarding 1986, we examined the financial condition of VAAG for the three years prior to 1986 as well as information submitted by respondents concerning the restructuring of VAAG which was planned for 1987. The analysis of prior years' results strongly indicate that VAAG was unequityworthy in 1986. Considering that GOA equity infusions made in prior years (e.g., 1983 and 1984) did not improve the condition of VAAG, a reasonable private investor would most likely be skeptical of the likelihood of success of the proposed restructuring plans when contrasted with the reality of extremely poor historical results in the immediate past. With respect to the restructuring, respondents' summary of the restructuring plans was cursory and did not provide projections concerning the future performance of the company as a result of the restructuring. Lacking this type of information, we were unable to conclude that a private investor, in 1986, would foresee an improvement in the company's performance. Therefore, based on the financial history of the company and the history of government equity infusions, combined with limited information provided by respondents on the future prospects of the company, we preliminarily determine that VAAG was unequityworthy for the year 1986.

Petitioners have also alleged that VA Linz was unequityworthy during 1987 and 1989-90 and, therefore, that equity infusions received during those years were inconsistent with commercial considerations.

For 1987, we analyzed the past performance of VAAG in an effort to gauge the equityworthiness of VA Linz. By this measure, VA Linz would clearly be considered unequityworthy. Respondents stated that a viability analysis performed by a private consultant on the production facilities which currently belong to VA Linz showed that those facilities were profitable under VAAG and would be viable as an incorporated entity. However, the information respondents provided showed the profit/loss picture of these facilities but did not include any supporting or explanatory documentation. Therefore, we preliminarily determine VA Linz to be unequityworthy in 1987 due to the lack of information provided by respondents concerning the viability analysis of VA Linz and the past performance of VAAG.

For 1989, we examined the period 1986-88. Since VA Linz was not yet incorporated in 1986, we examined the financial indicators of VAAG from that year as an indicator of the equityworthiness of VA Linz. These figures show that VAAG performed poorly in 1986. However, as noted above, VAAG was undergoing a major restructuring which resulted in the incorporation of VA Linz. By 1989, a private investor could see that the restructuring was being implemented by the GOA. This would indicate that VAAG's performance in 1986 may not prove to be a reliable indicator for VA Linz's future performance. Respondents did not provide the financial reports for VA Linz for 1987. The lack of financial statements for VA Linz for 1987 compels us to conclude that VA Linz experienced a loss of 3 billion Austrian schillings in 1987, as stated in the 1991 VA Linz annual reports. Financial ratios calculated by respondents for 1988 seem to indicate a positve trend when compared with 1987. Overall, a private investor examining VA Linz would most likely conclude that the company was shedding the unprofitable past of VAAG and its 1987 results and was staging a turnaround in accordance with the restructuring objectives. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that VA Linz was equityworthy in 1989.

Regarding 1990, we examined the years 1987-89. As stated above, in 1987 VA Linz incurred a large loss and in 1988 it showed marked improvement. When examining the financial indicators and ratios provided by respondents for 1989, the results showed, even further improvement over 1988. Thus, the trend from 1987-89 is strongly positive. Based on this analysis, we preliminarily determine that VA Linz was equityworthy in 1990.

For a more detailed analysis regarding equityworthiness, see the Concurrence Memorandum found on the public file for this investigation.

With respect to VA Linz, petitioners argued that VAAG may have assumed costs, debts or liabilities on behalf of VA Linz, thereby creating a deceptive appearance of profitability. However, we have examined the annual reports of VAAG and VAS and found no evidence to suggest that this is so. We will seek further information regarding this issue prior to verification.

Specificity

When receipt of benefits under a program is not contingent upon exportation, the Department must determine whether the program is specific to an enterprise or industry, or group of enterprises or industries. Under the specificity analysis, the Department examines both whether a government program is limited by law to a specific enterprise or industry, or group thereof (i.e., de jure specificity) and whether the government program is in fact limited to a specific enterprise or industry, or group thereof (i.e., de facto specificity). See 19 U.S.C. 1677(5)(B). In s 355.43(b)(2) of the Department's proposed regulations (Countervailing Duties; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments 54 FR 23366 (May 31, 1989) (Proposed Rules)), the Department has set forth the factors that may be considered in determining whether there is specificity:

(i) The extent to which a government acts to limit the availability of a program;

(ii) The number of enterprises, industries, or groups thereof that actually use a program;

(iii) Whether there are dominant users of a program, or whether certain enterprises, industries, or groups thereof receive disproportionately large benefits under a program; and

(iv) The extent to which a government exercises discretion in conferring benefits under a program.

See also Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, 57 FR 22570 (May 28, 1992).

Equity Methodology

According to s 355.49(e) of the Proposed Rules, the Department measures the benefit of equity investments in "unequityworthy" firms by comparing the national average rate of return on equity with the company's rate of return on equity during each year of the allocation period. The difference in these amounts, the so-called rate of return shortfall (RORS), is then multiplied by the amount of the equity investment to determine the

---page 57783---

countervailable benefit in the given year.

The Department has preliminarily concluded that the RORS methodology does not provide an accurate measure of the benefits arising from government equity investments in unequityworthy companies. When the Department finds that a company is unequityworthy and, hence, that the government's equity investment is inconsistent with commercial considerations, we are effectively finding that the company could not attract share capital from a reasonable investor. When a company is in such poor financial condition that it cannot attract capital, any capital it receives benefits the company as if it were a grant and no earnings of the company in subsequent years should be used to offset the benefit.

Moreover, in calculating the company's rate of return, no adjustment is made to eliminate the effect of past or current subsidies. Therefore, those subsidies that increase the company's rate of return serve to reduce the amount of the subsidy arising from government equity investments in subsequent years. In addition, this method does not compensate for the effect of prior year results on equity in subsequent years, thus measuring the rate of return against an equity other than that invested in the transaction in question.

For these reasons, we have preliminarily determined that equity investments in unequityworthy companies will be treated as grants given in the year of the equity investment. Accordingly, we will value the benefits using the grants methodology described below.

Where a market-determined benchmark price for equity exists, we will continue to use that benchmark to determine whether the government's purchase of equity confers a subsidy and to measure the amount of the subsidy.

Grant Methodology

Our policy with respect to grants is (1) to expense recurring grants in the year of receipt, and (2) to allocate non-recurring grants over the average useful life of assets in the industry, unless the sum of grants provided under a particular program is less than 0.5 percent of a firm's total or export sales (depending on whether the program is a domestic or export subsidy) in the year in which the grant was received. See, e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway, (Salmon from Norway), 56 FR 7678 (February 25, 1991). We have considered the grants provided under the programs descried below to be non- recurring, unless otherwise noted, because the recipient cannot expect to receive benefits on an ongoing basis from review period to review period. See, Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Certain Fresh Atlantic Groundfish from Canada, 51 FR 10041 (March 24, 1986). (In this regard, we are reexamining the approach to distinguishing recurring from non-recurring benefits set forth in the three-part test found in the preamble of the Proposed Rules). Therefore, we have allocated the benefits over 15 years, which the Department considers to be reflective of the average useful life of assets in the steel industry (see, s 355.49(b)(3) of the Proposed Rules).

The benefit from each of the grant programs discussed below was calculated using the declining balance methodology described in the Department's Proposed Rules (see, s 355.49(b)(3)) and used in prior investigations (see, e.g., Salmon from Norway). For the discount rate used in these calculations, we used, whenever possible, each company's actual cost for long-term, fixed-rate debt. If a company did not report this cost, or when a company had no long-term borrowing in the year in which the grant was approved, we used the national average long-term interest rate. If a company was uncreditworthy in the year in which the grant was approved, we added a risk premium to the benchmark interest rate in accordance with s 355.44(b)(6)(iv) of the Proposed Rules.

A. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable

We preliminarily determine that subsidies are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Austria of certain steel products under the following programs:

1. Equity Infusions to Voest-Alpine AG (VAAG): 1978-84, 1986

a. 1978-1984
The GOA provided equity infusions through O>=4sterreichische Industrieholding- Aktiengesellschaft (O>=4IAG) to VAAG while VAAG owned the facilities which became VA Linz, the producer of the subject merchandise. The responses indicated that VAAG received equity infusions in 1978, 1983, and 1984. The 1978 infusion was given by O>=4IAG as part of its normal business activities. We preliminarily determine this equity infusion to be specific since O>=4IAG provided these funds to a specific enterprise. The 1983 and 1984 infusions were given by O>=4IAG pursuant to Law 589/1983. Law 589/1983 provides authority for disbursement of funds to companies of O>=4IAG, of which VAAG is one. Therefore, we determine the infusions given under this law to be specific.

As discussed above, the Department previously determined that equity investments in VAAG between 1978-84 were inconsistent with commercial considerations. Respondents did not provide any information disputing these findings. Hence, we preliminarily determine that these infusions were provided to VAAG in a manner inconsistent with commercial considerations.

Respondents have not challenged the countervailability of these equity infusions other than by alleging that the funds provided by these equity infusions were not disbursed to the facilities which produced the subject merchandise. We reject this position because, as the Department stated in Carbon Steel, these funds were available to VAAG to do with as it wished and, thus, benefitted VAAG as a whole. Since VA Linz' facilities were a part of VAAG when these equity infusion were received, we preliminarily determine that the subsidies provided by these equity infusions benefitted the merchandise produced by VAAG's Steel Division and continue to benefit the production companies under Austrian Industries, the successor to VAAG.

To calculate the benefit from this program, we used the methodology described in the Equity Methodology section, above. We then divided the benefit by total sales of domestically-produced Austrian Industries products during the POI. On this basis, we determine the net subsidies for this program to be 0.12 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Austria of certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products.

b. 1986
Petitioners alleged that an equity infusion was given by O>=4IAG to VAAG in 1985 while VAAG owned the facilities which became VA Linz, the producer of the subject merchandise. However, the responses indicate that, in fact, these funds were disbursed by O>=4IAG in 1986. The 1986 equity infusion was given as an advance payment for funds to be provided under Law 298/1987 (the O>=4IAG Financing Act). These funds were eligible for disbursement to the same companies of O>=4IAG as were eligible under Law 589/1983. Therefore, we find this infusion to be specific.

We analyzed whether VAAG was equityworthy in 1986 (see Equityworthiness section, above). Based

---page 57784---

on our analysis, we preliminarily determine that VAAG was unequityworthy in 1986 and, therefore, the equity infusions were made on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations. Thus, we preliminarily determine that this equity infusion is countervailable.

To calculate the benefit from this program, we used the methodology described in the Equity Methodology section, above. We then divided the benefit by total sales of domestically-produced Austrian Industries products during the POI. On this basis, we determine the net subsidies for this program to be 0.38 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Austria of certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products.

2. Equity Infusion to VA Linz: 1987
A direct equity infusion from O>=4IAG to VA Linz was made on December 28, 1987, pursuant to Law 298/1987. As noted above, these funds were eligible for disbursement to the same companies of O>=4IAG as were eligible under Law 589/1983. Therefore, we find this infusion to be specific.

In addition, we preliminarily determine that VA Linz was unequityworthy in 1987 (see Equityworthiness section, above) and, therefore, that these infusions were made on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations. Thus, we preliminarily determine this infusion to be countervailable.

To calculate the benefit from this program, we used the methodology described in the Equity Methodology, section, above. Since the equity investment was made directly in VA Linz and VA Linz was separately incorporated as of that year, we divided the benefit by total sales of VA Linz during the POI to determine the ad valorem benefit. On this basis, we determine the net subsidies for this program to be 0.10 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Austria of certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products.

3. Grants Provided to VAAG: 1978-86
The GOA provided grants to VAAG through O>=4IAG pursuant to Law 602/1981, Law 589/1983, and Law 298/1987. In Carbon Steel, the Department found grants disbursed under Law 601/1981 and Law 589/1983 to be countervailable. In addition, as stated above, we preliminarily determine that benefits provided under Law 298/1987 are specific and, hence, grants under this law are countervailable.

As with the equity infusions to VAAG discussed above, respondents have not challenged the countervailability of these grants but have argued that the funds provided by these grants were not disbursed to facilities which produced the subject merchandise and, therefore, did not benefit the subject merchandise. We have already rejected this argument (see Equity Infusions to VAAG: 1978-84, 1986 section, above).

To calculate the benefit from this program, we used the methodology described in the Grant Methodology section, above. In addition, we have determined that the grant given in 1983 did not account for greater than 0.5 percent of VAAG's sales during that year. Accordingly, we have considered that grant as expensed in the year of receipt. The benefits allocated to the POI were divided by the value of domestically-produced Austrian Industries total sales to calculate the ad valorem benefit. On this basis, we determine the net subsidies for this program to be 1.13 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Austria of certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products.

4.Income Tax Deferral on Export Receivables
Under this program, the GOA, pursuant to section 6(2)(c) of the Austrian Income Tax Law (EStG), permits Austrian companies to deduct from their taxable income and place in a reserve 15 percent of receivables originating from exports. This income remains tax exempt until payment on the receivables is made. Petitioners allege that this confers a countervailable benefit because by deferring payment of taxes on export receivables, an interest-free loan is being provided to the exporter for the deferral period. Respondents argue that this program is not a subsidy but, rather, exists for administrative convenience in recognition of the risks associated with receivables. Respondents also state that a loss created by the use of the reserve may be carried forward for seven years. VA Linz argues that, due to the fact that the conglomerate incurred losses during the POI, it paid no taxes and, therefore, did not benefit from the program.

However, respondents neither provided all the information requested in the questionnaires nor clarified exactly how this program operates. In addition, we note that VA Linz contributed to this reserve in 1990. We are examining the 1990 contribution to the reserve because VA Linz would file its tax returns and, hence, benefit from the reduction of taxes caused by this contribution, in 1991--the POI. Therefore, as best information available (BIA), we find this to be a countervailable export program and we are treating the taxes that should have been paid on the 1990 contribution of VA Linz to the reserve as a one- year, interest-free loan.

To calculate the benefit from this program, we applied to the tax rate to the amount contributed to the reserve. Respondents did not provide the corporate tax rate for Austria. However, according to the IL&T Report (September 1991), the corporate tax rate was 30 percent. We then calculated the amount of interest which would have been paid on this loan at the benchmark interest rate. Since respondents broadly referred to the 1991 Austrian National Bank Annual report for benchmark short-term interest rates but did not reference a particular table, we used the 1991 average interest rate for short-term open market deals by the Central Bank (the COMEX rate) as our benchmark.

Since this is an export program, we divided the benefit by total export sales of VA Linz for 1991 to calculate an ad valorem benefit. On this basis, we determine the net subsidies for this program to be 0.03 percent ad valorem for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters in Austria of certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products.

B. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Countervailable

We preliminarily determine that the following programs do not provide subsidies to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Austria of certain steel products under the following programs:

1. Equity Infusions to VA Linz: 1989-90
The GOA provided equity infusions to VA Linz through VAAG also pursuant to Law 298/1987. Although VAAG was no longer the holding company for VA Linz, VAAG disbursed a portion of the funds allocated to it to VA Linz. These funds were eligible for disbursement to the same companies of O>=4IAG as were eligible under Law 589/1983. Thus, these equity infusions were specific. However, we preliminarily determine that VA Linz was equityworthy in 1989-90 (see Equityworthiness section, above) and, therefore, that these infusions were not made on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations.

C. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Used

We preliminarily determine that the following programs were not used by manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Austria of certain steel products:

1. Equity Infusions to VAAG: 1987, 1989-90

2. Grants Provided to VAAG: 1987-88

3. Grants to VEW: 1987-89

---page 57785---

4. Loan Guarantee Program Under Law 569/1978

5. Osterreichische Kontrollbank Aktiengesellschaft (OKB) Export Financing

6. Foreign Investment Credits

7. OKB Export Insurance

Verification

In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify the information used in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain steel products from Austria, which are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit or bond for such entries of the merchandise in the amounts indicated below. This suspension will remain on effect until further notice.

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

Country-Wide Ad Valorem Rate--1.76

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination and alignment. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and nonproprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary 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 Investigations, Import Administration.

If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

Public Comment

Interested parties who wish to request or participate in a hearing must submit a written request within ten days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, room B-099, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3) the reason for attending; and (4) a list of the issues to be discussed. Since investigations involving the same class or kind of merchandise subject to this investigation from various other countries are currently being conducted, we will publish a briefing and hearing schedule in the Federal Register after receipt of all requests for hearings in these investigations.

This determination and alignment is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 705(d) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(f)).

Dated: November 27, 1992.

Alan M. Dunn,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix 1

Scope of the Investigation

The products covered by this investigation, certain steel products, constitute a single "class or kind" of merchandise, as outlined below.

Although the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written descriptions of the scope of these proceedings are dispositive.

We have received comments from petitioners regarding the types of coil included in the scope of this certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products investigation. We are considering these comments and will address this issue at the final determination.

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

These products include cold-rolled (cold-reduced) carbon steel flat products, of solid rectangular (other than square) cross section, of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, in coils, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the HTS under item numbers 7209.11.0000, 7209.12.0030, 7209.12.0090, 7209.13.0030, 7209.13.0090, 7209.14.0030, 7209.14.0090, 7209.21.0000, 7209.22.0000, 7209.23.0000, 7209.24.1000, 7209.24.5000, 7209.31.0000, 7209.32.0000, 7209.33.0000, 7209.34.0000, 7209.41.0000, 7209.42.0000, 7209.43.0000, 7209.44.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.30.1030, 7211.30.1090, 7211.30.3000, 7211.30.5000, 7211.41.1000, 7211.41.3030, 7211.41.3090, 7211.41.5000, 7211.41.7030, 7211.41.7060, 7211.41.7090, 7211.49.1030, 7211.49.1090, 7211.49.3000, 7211.49.5030, 7211.49.5060, 7211.49.5090, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000.