70 FR 15840, March 29, 2005
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-475-821]
Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy: Notice of Court Decision
and Suspension of Liquidation
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 9, 2005, in AL Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Carpenter
Technology Corp., Republic Engineered Steels, Talley Metals Technology,
Inc. and United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC v. United States
and Acciaierie Valbruna S.r.l. and Acciaierie Di Bolzano S.p.A. v.
United States, Slip Op. 05-30 (AL Tech II), the Court of International
Trade (CIT) affirmed the Department of Commerce's Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Remand (Remand Results), dated October 27,
2004. Consistent with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), the Department will continue to order the
suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise, where
appropriate, until there is a ``conclusive'' decision in this case. If
the case is not appealed, or if it is affirmed on appeal, the
Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
liquidate all relevant entries from Acciaierie Valbruna S.r.l.
(Valbruna) and Acciaierie Di Bolzano S.p.A. (Bolzano) and revise the
cash deposit rates as appropriate.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 29, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darla Brown, 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) 482-2786.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Following publication of the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, 63 FR 40474
(July 29, 1998) (Final Determination) and Notice of Countervailing Duty
Order: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, 63 FR 49334 (September 15,
1998), AL Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Carpenter Technology Corp.,
Republic Engineered Steels, Talley Metals Technology, Inc. and United
Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively, AL Tech), the
petitioners in this case, and the
[[Page 15841]]
respondents, Valbruna and Bolzano (collectively, Valbruna/Bolzano),
challenged the Department's Final Determination before the CIT.
In AL Tech Specialty Steel Corp., et al. v. United States, Slip.
Op. 04-114 (CIT, September 8, 2004), the CIT Court affirmed (1) the
Department's finding that the Province of Bolzano's purchase of a
particular industrial site did not confer a subsidy; (2) the
Department's use of a nationwide, rather than a region-specific
benchmark for measuring the adequacy of remuneration of Valbruna's
lease of an industrial site from the Province of Bolzano; and (3) the
Department's determination that its ``tying'' practice was inapplicable
to plant closure assistance provided under Law 193/84.
However, the Court remanded the following issues to the Department
for further consideration: (1) the Department's determination that a
two-year rent abatement granted to Valbruna on its lease of an
industrial site from the Province of Bolzano conferred a subsidy; (2)
the Department's determination not to adjust the benchmark used to
determine adequacy of remuneration under Valbruna's lease of the
Bolzano site to account for Valbruna's assumption of future
extraordinary maintenance expenses; (3) the Department's determination
not to adjust the lease benchmark to account for depreciation of
buildings on the Bolzano industrial site; (4) the Department's
determination that aid under Law 25/81 continued to confer a subsidy
despite evidence that the subsidy had been repaid; (5) the Department's
determination to treat Articles 2 and 4 of Law 193/84 as a single
program for purposes of the small grants test; thus, allocating the aid
over time rather than expensing it in the year of receipt; (6) the
Department's finding that EU/European Social Fund (``ESF'') Objective 4
funding was regionally specific to Italy, and (7) the Department's
finding that Italian ESF Objective 4 funding was regionally specific to
Bolzano.
The Draft Final Results Pursuant to Remand (Draft Results) were
released to parties on October 18, 2004. On October 22, 2004, the
Department received comments from respondents on the Draft Results.
Petitioners did not submit comments on the Draft Results. There were no
substantive changes made to the Remand Results as a result of comments
received on the Draft Results. On October 27, 2004, the Department
responded to the CIT's Order of Remand by filing the Remand Results. In
its Remand Results, the Department determined on remand that the two-
year lease abatement was a bargained-for exchange and, therefore, did
not constitute a countervailable subsidy and that no countervailable
benefit under Law 25/81 existed for Valbruna after January 1, 1986. As
a result of the remand redetermination, the net subsidy rate for
Valbruna/Bolzano was revised from 1.28 to 0.65 percent ad valorem,
which is de minimis.
On December 1, 2004, the CIT received comments from petitioners and
respondents. On December 21, 2004, the Department responded to these
comments.
On March 9, 2005, the CIT affirmed the Department's findings in the
Remand Results. Specifically, the CIT upheld the Department's finding
on remand that the rent abatement did not constitute a countervailable
subsidy and the Department's treatment of Law 25/81. AL Tech II, Slip
Op. 05-30 (CIT March 9, 2005).
Suspension of Liquidation
The CAFC, in Timken, held that the Department must publish notice
of a decision of the CIT or the CAFC which is not ``in harmony'' with
the Department's final determination or results. Publication of this
notice fulfills that obligation. The CAFC also held that the Department
must suspend liquidation of the subject merchandise until there is a
``conclusive'' decision in the case. Therefore, pursuant to Timken, the
Department must continue to suspend liquidation pending the expiration
of the period to appeal the CIT's March 9, 2005, decision or, if that
decision is appealed, pending a final decision by the CAFC. The
Department will instruct CBP to revise cash deposit rates, as
appropriate, and to liquidate relevant entries covering the subject
merchandise effective March 29, 2005, in the event that the CIT's
ruling is not appealed, or if appealed and upheld by the CAFC.
Dated: March 21, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-1386 Filed 3-28-05; 8:45 am]