57 FR 39391 NOTICES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (C-508-605) Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review Monday, August 31, 1992 *39391 AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative review. SUMMARY: On May 26, 1992, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the countervailing duty order on industrial phosphoric acid from Israel (57 FR 21958). We have now completed the review and determine the net subsidy to be 12.11 percent ad valorem for all firms during the period January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1990. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 31, 1992. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Cameron Cardozo or Maria MacKay, Office of Countervailing Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 377-2786. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 26, 1992, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register (57 FR 21958) the preliminary results of its administrative review of the countervailing duty order on industrial phosphoric acid from Israel (52 FR 31057; August 19, 1987) covering the period January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1990. The Department has now completed this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of Review Imports covered by this review are shipments of Israeli industrial phosphoric acid. During the review period, this merchandise was classifiable under item number 2809.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The HTS item number is provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. The review covers the period January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1990 and nine programs. Negev Phosphates, Ltd. (NPL) is the only known producer exporting the subject merchandise from Israel to the United States during the 1990 review period. Analysis of Comments Received We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. We received written comments from the respondent, NPL, and written rebuttal comments from the petitioners, the Monsanto Company and FMC Corporation. Because the petitioners' comments were solely in support of the Department's preliminary results, we have only discussed respondent's comments. Comment 1: NPL argues that the Department's methodology for calculating the subsidy from ECIL grants to the Arad and Zin plants overstates the benefit actually conferred on industrial phosphoric acid (IPA). The problem arises primarily because the Department calculates the per-ton benefit on IPA based on ECIL grants received by the Arad and Zin plants and then multiplies this per- ton benefit by the total quantity of IPA sold to all markets. This total subsidy is then divided by the value of NPL's total sales of IPA to all markets to arrive at the ad valorem subsidy rate from these ECIL *39392 grants. Respondent contends that the Department's methodology fails to take into account that some of the IPA sold is produced from leftover rock phosphate from the closed mine at Machtesh. NPL proposes to correct this distortion by determining the ratio of rock phosphate from Arad and Zin actually used in IPA production during a particular year over rock phosphate extracted from Arad and Zin in that same year. Department's Position: Although the respondent provided quantity figures for the production of rock phosphate at Arad and Zin, respondent did not provide the Department with a specific figure for the quantity of rock used from Machtesh. Therefore, based on the information available to the Department, we consider it more appropriate to continue to apply our previous methodology, as in the past three administrative reviews, to calculate the benefits obtained by NPL from ECIL grants. In addition, the methodology proposed by the respondent relies on the amount of phosphate rock processed and not on actual sales of IPA to determine the amount of the subsidy during the review period. We consider our methodology, based on actual sales, to be a more accurate measure of the benefits received on the subject merchandise during the review period. Comment 2: NPL maintains that the Department did not properly sum the benefits under the four programs to arrive at a net subsidy. The Department arrived at the net subsidy by rounding each of the four benefits individually and then adding them. NPL believes that the Department should add the four benefits and then round the total. Also, the benefit accruing from the Long-term Industrial Development Loans should be rounded down to zero percent, not up to 0.01 percent. Department's Position: We disagree. It is the Department's standard methodology, as followed in the past three administrative reviews, to calculate the benefits from each individual subsidy program. These individual subsidy findings are then summed to arrive at a total net subsidy. Respondent has provided no reason for the Department to change its methodology. The respondent also suggests that the Department incorrectly rounded the benefit derived from the Long-term Industrial Development Loans. However, the figure provided in NPL's case brief does not correspond to the one appearing in the calculation memo provided to respondent following publication of the preliminary results of this review. Therefore, the Department correctly rounded the benefit up to 0.01 percent. Final Results of Review After reviewing all of the comments received, we determine the net subsidy to be 12.11 percent ad valorem for all companies during the period January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1990. Therefore, the Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess countervailing duties of 12.11 percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of this merchandise exported on or after January 1, 1990 and on or before December 31, 1990. Further, the Department will instruct the Customs Service to collect a cash deposit of 12.11 percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of this merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice. This cash deposit shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This administrative review and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 355.22. Dated: August 24, 1992. Francis J. Sailer, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. (FR Doc. 92-20829 Filed 8-28-92; 8:45 am) BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M