66 FR 2885, January 12, 2001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-475-812]
Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Italy; Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 7, 2000, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register its preliminary results of the
administrative review of the countervailing duty order on grain-
oriented electrical steel for the period January 1, 1998 through
December 31, 1998.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, and the decision of
the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Delverde S.r.L. v.
United States, 202 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Delverde III), the
Department has reexamined its change in ownership analysis and
methodology. As a result, we have made changes to the net subsidy rate.
Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The
final net subsidy rate for the reviewed company is listed below in the
section entitled ``Final Results of Review.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 2001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Darla Brown, Office
of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Group II, Import Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Telephone numbers (202) 482-3692 or (202)
482-2849, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), as
amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) effective January 1,
1995. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the
Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part
351 (1999).
Background
On July 7, 2000, the Department published the preliminary results
of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on grain-
oriented electrical steel. See Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from
Italy; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
and Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 65 FR 41950 (July 7, 2000). This review covers
one manufacturer/exporter, Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. (AST). The
review covers the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998, and
28 programs.
In the preliminary results, the Department invited interested
parties to comment in their case briefs on the implications for this
proceeding, if any, of the Delverde III decision. Both petitioners and
AST provided comments in their case and rebuttal briefs. On September
28, 2000, we sent a questionnaire soliciting information from AST, the
Government of Italy (GOI) and the European Commission (EC) regarding
the change in ownership issue. On October 20, 2000, AST submitted its
response. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to the
respondents on October 27, 2000, and received responses on November 14,
2000.
On November 21, 2000, the Department issued its interpretation of
Delverde III and its revised change in ownership approach in the Draft
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Acciai Speciali
Terni S.p.A. v. United States (Draft Redetermination), which pertains
to the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless
Steel Plate in Coils from Italy, 64 FR 15508 (March 31, 1999). On
November 22, 2000, we placed the public version of this Draft
Redetermination on the record of this administrative review and
provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on the change in
ownership approach set forth in the Draft Redetermination. On December
6, 2000, petitioners and AST submitted comments. A public hearing was
held on December 15, 2000, in which both parties participated. On
December 19, 2000, the Department issued the Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A.
v. United States (Final Redetermination), which was placed on this
record as well.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of grain-oriented
electrical steel from Italy, which is a flat-rolled alloy steel product
containing by weight at least 0.6 percent of silicon, not more than
0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no
other element in an amount that would give the steel the
characteristics of another alloy steel, of a thickness of no more than
0.56 millimeters, in coils of any width, or in straight lengths which
are of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. The products
covered by this review are provided for under the following item
numbers of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS):
7225.10.0030, 7226.10.1030, 7226.10.5015, and 7226.10.5065. Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is
dispositive.
Analysis of Comment Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by
parties to this administrative review are addressed in the ``Issues and
Decision Memorandum'' (Decision Memorandum) from Holly A. Kuga, Acting
DAS, Group II, Import Administration, to Troy H. Cribb, Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, dated concurrent with this notice,
which is hereby adopted into this notice. A list of issues which
parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in
the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I.
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this
review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum
which is on file in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building. In
addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the internet at http://ita.doc.gov/import_admin/records/frn,
under the heading ``Italy.'' The paper copy and electronic version
of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
[[Page 2886]]
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments received, and the Department's
revised change in ownership approach based on the Court's ruling in
Delverde III, we have made certain changes to the net subsidy rate.
These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision
Memorandum.
Final Results of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we calculated an individual
subsidy rate for the producer/exporter subject to this review. We will
instruct the U.S. Customs (Customs) to assess countervailing duties as
indicated below on all appropriate entries. For the period January 1,
1998, through December 31, 1998, we determine the net subsidy rate for
the reviewed company to be as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Exporter Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AST........................................................ 14.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will instruct Customs to assess countervailing duties as
indicated above. The Department will also instruct Customs to collect
cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the percentages
detailed above of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the
subject merchandise from reviewed companies, entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the
final results of this review.
Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-
wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for
investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing
countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies,
are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as
provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review
will normally cover only those companies specifically named. See 19 CFR
351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(c), for all companies for which
a review was not requested, duties must be assessed at the cash deposit
rate, and cash deposits must continue to be collected at the rate
previously ordered. As such, the countervailing duty cash deposit rate
applicable to a company can no longer change, except pursuant to a
request for a review of that company. See Federal-Mogul Corporation and
The Torrington Company v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993);
Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993).
Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all companies except those
covered by this review will be unchanged by the results of this review.
We will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for
non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-
wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit
rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this
order will be the rate for that company established in the most
recently completed administrative proceeding conducted under the Act,
as amended by the URAA. If such a review has not been conducted, the
rate established in the most recently completed administrative
proceeding pursuant to the statutory provisions that were in effect
prior to the URAA amendments is applicable. See Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination: Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from
Italy, 59 FR 18357 (April 18, 1994). These rates shall apply to all
non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates
is requested. In addition, for the period January 1, 1998, through
December 31, 1998, the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed
companies covered by this order are the cash deposit rates in effect at
the time of entry.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review is issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)
and 19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)(1)).
Dated: January 3, 2002.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I--Issues Discussed in Decision Memorandum
Methodology and Background Information
I. Change in Ownership
A. Background and Calculation Methodology
II. Subsidies Valuation Information
A. Allocation Period
B. Equityworthiness
C. Creditworthiness
D. Benchmark / Discount Rate
III. Facts Available
A. Adverse Facts Available
Analysis of Programs
I. Programs Conferring Subsidies
A. Equity Infusions
B. Debt Forgiveness: 1988-1990 Restructuring Plan
C. Debt Forgiveness: 1993-1994 Restructuring Plan
D. Interest Contributions on IRI Loans/Bond Issues under Law 675/77
E. Pre-Privatization Retirement Benefits under Law 451/94
F. Exchange Rate guarantees under Law 796/76
European Commission Programs
A. ECSC Loans under Article 54
B. European Social Fund (ESF)
II. Programs Not Used
A. Rotation Fund
B. Grants Under Law 10/81--Energy Conservation
C. Brite-EuRam Project Grants
D. Loan from IRI to KAI for the Purchase of AST
E. Lending from the Ministry of Industry under Law 675/77
F. Mortgage Loans from the Ministry of Industry Under Law 675/77
G. Personnel Retraining Grants under Law 675/77
H. Capital Grants under Law 675/77
I. Reductions of the VAT under Law 675/77
J. Worker Training under Law 181/89 (Early Retirement Provision)
K. Reindustrialization under Law 181/89
L. Law 488/92 Investment Grants
M. Subsidized Export Financing Under Law 227/77
N. Finsider Loans
O. Interest Subsidies under Law 617/81
P. Financing under Law 464/7
Q. Interest Contributions under the Sabatini Law (Law 1329/65)
R. Social Security Exemptions
S. ILOR and IRPEG Exemptions
T. Law 345/92: Benefits for Early Retirement Program Name
III. Analysis of Comments
Comment 1: Change In Ownership (Privatization)--Interpretation
of Delverde III
Comment 2: The Department's New Change In Ownership Approach
Comment 3: Successor-in-Interest Test
Comment 4: WTO Implications on Change in Ownership
Comment 5: Application of the Department's New Approach to
Change In Ownership
Comment 6: Facts Otherwise Available
Comment 7: Spin-Off Transactions
Comment 8: 1993 Debt Forgiveness Apportionment
Comment 9: 1993 Gross Debt vs. Net Debt
Comment 10: 1993 Creditworthiness
Comment 11: Countervailability of European Social Fund
[[Page 2887]]
Comment 12: Countervailability of European Coal and Steel
Community Article 54 Loans
Comment 13: Countervailability of Pre-Privatization Retirement
Benefits under Law 451/94
Comment 14: 1988 Equity Infusion
[FR Doc. 01-975 Filed 1-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P